WI Romania fights in 1940?

I hate to go shared worlds, but I don't see how this can be true. Invading "Slovakia" (or Hungary due to the territory swaps) might be a good idea if you wanted to invade Transylvania perhaps, except ofcourse a portion of that region had been passed to Hungary by August 30 1940, but milling around in the Carpathians is hardly a good idea.

The military strategy is to simply hit Bessarabia from several all angles. A few Soviet armies fix the Romanian armies in position meanwhile the remaining forces smash through any weakened area and proceed to outflank the entire region. From there you avoid the Carpathians and just sweep into the Old Kingdom. Once the capital is in your hands you can presumerably dictate terms as you wish. Presumerably at this point Hitler and Stalin do another deal to sort out the situation.

Anyway, an admittedly crude map, but pictures tell a thousand words:


That picture whilst displaying the location of the carpathians doesn't display the topography in Bessarbia and Moldavia itself which doesn't allow for rapid mechanized advances against organized resistance (at least not by the Red Army of 1940)

here is a topographical map of moldavia


As you can see it has numerous hills and ridge lines that rise to 200 meters...assaulting a 200 meter tall ridge lines with questionably skilled air support, unskilled infantry, and prewar armored designs against an enemy with a very large artillery park is asking for a ww1 type bloodbath... there is a reason that the Germans couldn't capture this area in ww1. The roads that transit these areas can be blocked by a few heavy guns and a dug in infantry company (it would be like attacking Finland minus the trees)


Here is one of Romania itself... there are a whole lot of dead ends there. The Germans had to use highly skilled mountain infantry (most had 2 full years of combat experience and their own organic artillery and machine guns) in ww1 to capture a lot of these ares


Red army rifle divisions and the army as a whole were just not built for the sort of campaign they would be getting themselves into plus once the German divisions started arriving they would close off the hill and mountain passes with 88mm guns backed by artillery and make them basically impassible
 
I ultimately remain unimpressed by 200m hills. I mean you can find similar hills in southern poland, and perhaps make a case for them slowing the German offensive in that region, but they hardly crippled it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Poland2.jpg

I admit that trying to crack the Carpathians is a world apart from invading Bessarabia. I can agree that a successful defence of the Carpathians could quite possibly be attempted. The issue however is that, from the Soviet side, there is no reason to do so, as by avoiding the Carpathians you effectively take everything in Romania worth having and so should reasonably be able to force a peace treaty or install a puppet regime if that is your intention.

And yes, I suspect the fighting will be bloody. Yet while it may tend towards a "WW1 type blood bath" battles in WW1 could still be successful, armies could be routed and ground could be taken. If the Soviets suffer a couple hundred thousand odd killed, wounded or captured and the Romanians suffer a couple hundred thousand odd killed, wounded or captured then the Soviets are bloodied but hardly wounded wheras the Romanian army will have been crippled as an effective fighting force.

In order to get the "Winter War effect" you need Romania to inflict several hundred thousand casualties and yet get off relatively lightly herself. While the Winter War would still be notable, the effect I think would have been rather different had Finland been bled white in holding the line before eventually capitulating. Such is likely to be the situation in Romania.

The clear differences with Finland are as follows:

1. The weather is better. Obviously this is sort of dependent on the time of the invasion, the weather could have been alot better in Finland had Stalin and co decided an invasion in the depths of winter would be somewhat unwise when the target could fall far more readilly in a few months, but there seems little reason that the Soviets must wait for the depths of winter to attack here.

2. In part because of the above the logistic situation for the Soviets is far better. They shall be able to make far more use of mechanized forces (although the bulk of their forces shall still be on foot) than they did in the Winter War when such was rendered almost non-operational.

3. The big one to my mind, the front is far larger. We could debate the real effectiveness of the Mannerheim line, but it was ultimately defending a stretch which was only some 100km across. The other lines of attack were relatively easilly contained due to the climate rendering logistics almost nonexistant. Taking your own map just from the Black Sea across Moldova you have a front of some 300km, the actual figure that has to be defended (since Moldova is smaller than the entire area) is probably closer to 400km or so. True the Romanians could do something to narrow this front, by falling back to the Carpathians, but doing such effectively surrenders the area the Soviets desired anyway.

All three together shall make the key Soviet advantage, that is greater numbers, far more effective than it ever was in Finland. If a Romanian division finds itself under attack by three Soviet divisions then, while it may give a good account of itself, it is still going to be mauled.
 
I ultimately remain unimpressed by 200m hills. I mean you can find similar hills in southern poland, and perhaps make a case for them slowing the German offensive in that region, but they hardly crippled it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Poland2.jpg

I admit that trying to crack the Carpathians is a world apart from invading Bessarabia. I can agree that a successful defence of the Carpathians could quite possibly be attempted. The issue however is that, from the Soviet side, there is no reason to do so, as by avoiding the Carpathians you effectively take everything in Romania worth having and so should reasonably be able to force a peace treaty or install a puppet regime if that is your intention.

And yes, I suspect the fighting will be bloody. Yet while it may tend towards a "WW1 type blood bath" battles in WW1 could still be successful, armies could be routed and ground could be taken. If the Soviets suffer a couple hundred thousand odd killed, wounded or captured and the Romanians suffer a couple hundred thousand odd killed, wounded or captured then the Soviets are bloodied but hardly wounded wheras the Romanian army will have been crippled as an effective fighting force.

In order to get the "Winter War effect" you need Romania to inflict several hundred thousand casualties and yet get off relatively lightly herself. While the Winter War would still be notable, the effect I think would have been rather different had Finland been bled white in holding the line before eventually capitulating. Such is likely to be the situation in Romania.

The clear differences with Finland are as follows:

1. The weather is better. Obviously this is sort of dependent on the time of the invasion, the weather could have been alot better in Finland had Stalin and co decided an invasion in the depths of winter would be somewhat unwise when the target could fall far more readilly in a few months, but there seems little reason that the Soviets must wait for the depths of winter to attack here.

2. In part because of the above the logistic situation for the Soviets is far better. They shall be able to make far more use of mechanized forces (although the bulk of their forces shall still be on foot) than they did in the Winter War when such was rendered almost non-operational.

3. The big one to my mind, the front is far larger. We could debate the real effectiveness of the Mannerheim line, but it was ultimately defending a stretch which was only some 100km across. The other lines of attack were relatively easilly contained due to the climate rendering logistics almost nonexistant. Taking your own map just from the Black Sea across Moldova you have a front of some 300km, the actual figure that has to be defended (since Moldova is smaller than the entire area) is probably closer to 400km or so. True the Romanians could do something to narrow this front, by falling back to the Carpathians, but doing such effectively surrenders the area the Soviets desired anyway.

All three together shall make the key Soviet advantage, that is greater numbers, far more effective than it ever was in Finland. If a Romanian division finds itself under attack by three Soviet divisions then, while it may give a good account of itself, it is still going to be mauled.


The Romanians proved themselves adept at defending this exact area in the past. The situation with the German advance in Poland isn't comparible because the Poles had stationed too many of their forces at the border and they got routed... one of their mistakes was in putting too much emphasis on a foward defense instead of using their hills and river lines to their maximum tactical and strategic advantage. The terrain in Romania creates the extact opposite situation were they would want to conduct a ruthless defense of their border hills and river lines.

The Germans also had freedom of manuever along 1000 miles of front (if you include slovakia) so they could advance from unexpected directions and their air superiority allowed them to soften up serious opposition

The Romanians would only have 300 or so km to defend and be able to use the hills and rivers to their advantage (just like an enlarged Finland). The Soviet rifle divisions were in the process of a major reorganization after the winter war and still hadn't integrated sub machine guns or even large amounts of heavy machine guns down to the company level yet. Most Soviet infantry committed (assuming they came from the kiev military district) would have no combat experience and they would still suffer from the loads of dead wood in their officer corps

Mechanized forces need roads for strategic advances (because while the tanks can go cross country and up a 200 meter hill depending on the angle) their soft skinned wheeled supply vehicles cannot. The hills in Moldavia create natural artillery and mortar observation points where the Romanians could shell the crap out of Soviet columns advancing through the passes (the africa corps got slaughtered in this manner in the closing stages of the battle of kasserine)

These can only be countered by air power which as mentioned previously the Romanians had far more AA guns than the fins did and could likely count on serious luftwaffe and regia aeornautica squadrons being deployed to their fields within a couple of days of the opening of hostilities
 
If the Romanians got any kind of signal from Germany or Italy that they would not stand alone they would have fought. It was Hitler in OTL who pressured the Romanians to give in.
 
It was Hitler in OTL who pressured the Romanians to give in.
He made some vague threats invoking "the fate of Poland". Which was, in retrospect, a very cheap and transparent ploy, since the idea of having the Soviet frontline ~200 km from the oilfields so greatly coveted by the Germans was sheer imbecility. Unfortunately, many people actually bought the line that Hitler and Stalin intended to split Europe into their respective fiefdoms for all time.
 
You know, that website makes me think Poland is a good comparison:

poland_topographic_map.jpg
 

Thande

Donor
I think it coming after the Winter War could make a difference. In the abstract you'd think Romanian morale would be low in the face of facing down the Soviets, but with the example of Finland showing up the failings of the Red Army there might be a national rally: they can't hold the Soviets off altogether but perhaps they can at least slow them down and exhaust them enough to get a peace where they only have to give up parts of Bessarabia.

This would require Hitler not threatening Romania, and perhaps instead being quietly supportive (but not overtly).
 
You know, that website makes me think Poland is a good comparison:

poland_topographic_map.jpg

It wasn't though because the combat power of the German Army was deployed well to the north of the mountains and avoided them completely. Infantry corps out of Slovakia and peeled off from army group south went through the hills but there was a HUGE difference

the main strength of the Polish army was shatterred at the border; the troops who retired to the mountains were allready beaten and disorganized and also under constant air attack.

The Russian's would NOT have the same level of air supremecy because the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica would immeidately deploy to Romanian fields to contest the battlefield and the Romanian infantry defending their border regions would get to use the hills in the initial defense when they are fresh and have full stocks of ammunition
 
Top