Barbarossa

[107zombiekiller]

So after reading that thread by @rcbricker33 coupled with a rather infuriating discussion with some friends of mine the other day i think that a great way to pass the time in the lead up to death an dishonor (being an axis focused DLC) is to discuss further to death a topic which many people have some rather interesting opinions on: Operation barbarossa!
the idea here is to discuss the plausibility of an axis victory in any manor within reasonable limits
all thoughts are welcome
i shall start:
my personal opinion is that the germans had effectively no hope of winning, especially with any war dragging on past 1941. to not knock russia out of the war in the first campaigning reason means that the germans would be overcome by their sheer numbers and ability to produce huge amounts of stuff
even if the germans had all the extra men and equipment that might posses from not being in a war with the allies would still leave a victory over the russians impossible due to the limits of the german logistical system and a limit to how fast their logistical network can physically advance through russia to attempt to keep pace with the armored divisions

 

[Khevenhuller]

Seems credible. It's interesting how the German's ambitions in terms of operations diminished each year, from destroying the country in six weeks to nipping off a salient to thinking defensively.

 

[seattle]

If it's not game related this belongs in the history forum. Plus, I don't know how often one can beat a dead horse.

 

[Daddl]

This discussion will never come to an end in a satisfying way, but well. You asked.

For what Germany had available as material and men, for what incompetent dilettants many high-ranking nazis were and for what their enemies had they've come incredibly far, not just with Barbarossa but in general. WW2 could have very well ended with a disastrous failure in the Ardennes 1940.

Russia can't be conquered, lets take that as a fact. You may destroy their government and most of their army, but a foreign power can't control everything up to Siberia. The Astrachan-Arkhangelsk goal line Germany had is about the furthest at least imaginable.

Now I do think Germany could have reached that line if you change some variables. Earlier/no Balkan war so the invasion can start in April/May, better economy mobilization to have more Pz III and IV and aircraft ready, more fuel available, Japan threatening Russia so they can't bring their Far East troops west.

Disregarding all madness the attack was if you look at number of men and material available on the soviet side, which the Nazis had absolutely no clue about, german troops were only 14 kilometres away from Moscow in December 1941. I don't think the possibility that they could have captured the city is too far fetched when some variables change in favour of Germany.

So Moscow falls, soviet government flees somewhere east, loose of their central transport hub, heavy blow to troop morale - does that mean the war is won? Possibly not. But it changes a whole lot.

 

[107zombiekiller]

If a mod wants to move the thread that works, my mistake for posting it in the wrong place if ive done so
not to say i cannot argue that understanding the reasons for german failure or possible victory is important as to game balance ideas and what not, i may be too inside my own head with the line of thought. xD

So Moscow falls, soviet government flees somewhere east, loose of their central transport hub, heavy blow to troop morale - does that mean the war is won? Possibly not. But it changes a whole lot.

I think you'd have to drive quite a ways past moscow to put the germans in a favorable position over russia due to the fact that, despite moscow being the rail hub of russia, they did have rails behind the city that could still be used to keep the economy and troop movements in working order and it seems reasonable that the russians would have been able to upgrade these lines enough to support all the was required of them, though god knows how long that would take (on another note the lack of in depth logistics in the game really make it difficult to show the full effects of taking places like moscow and makes the german position in the war much better then it should be imo though thats another debate, which is also dead but i still like to beat it every chance i get.)

@seattle i believe one can beat a dead horse as many times as one likes, now of course that doesn't mean the horse will actually move again but i digress

 

[Carlyle1]

Nobody will play past 1941 Germany anyway. They'll get june 1941, see how much they can gather for a barbarossa for the sake of testing for multiplayer. Then leave the game. Don't trust Diaries that will make good ai opponents. They won't. And if there are anybody losing to ai in singleplayer should seek out for an another gaming title.

 

[5688]

Don't trust Diaries that will make good ai opponents. They won't. And if there are anybody losing to ai in singleplayer should seek out for an another gaming title.

Two things.
1. Good or competent opponents? The ai will probably never be amazing but good enough shouldn't be impossible. Besides, it really depends on how you play the game.
2. Just because you can win easily[or so you claim] doesn't mean others will as well. Unless, of course, you're magically good in any and all games you'll ever play from the start.

 

[svennnnnnnnnnnn]

The big problem for me is that it is far too easy to set up supply lines deep into Russia. Maybe taking soviet territory would result in losing a bit of infrastructure, to simulate different railway sizes (could go both ways for balance purposes). Also winter should be much harsher on both sides, right now you can just keep attacking through the winter. A system for reserves would also be great, or a way to give your people basic military training without having them be in divisions, to be mobilized and distrbuted as the need arises. A large pool of reserves was one of the SUs biggest advantages.

 

[Dalwin]

This discussion will never come to an end in a satisfying way, but well. You asked.

For what Germany had available as material and men, for what incompetent dilettants many high-ranking nazis were and for what their enemies had they've come incredibly far, not just with Barbarossa but in general. WW2 could have very well ended with a disastrous failure in the Ardennes 1940.

Russia can't be conquered, lets take that as a fact. You may destroy their government and most of their army, but a foreign power can't control everything up to Siberia. The Astrachan-Arkhangelsk goal line Germany had is about the furthest at least imaginable.

Now I do think Germany could have reached that line if you change some variables. Earlier/no Balkan war so the invasion can start in April/May, better economy mobilization to have more Pz III and IV and aircraft ready, more fuel available, Japan threatening Russia so they can't bring their Far East troops west.

Disregarding all madness the attack was if you look at number of men and material available on the soviet side, which the Nazis had absolutely no clue about, german troops were only 14 kilometres away from Moscow in December 1941. I don't think the possibility that they could have captured the city is too far fetched when some variables change in favour of Germany.

So Moscow falls, soviet government flees somewhere east, loose of their central transport hub, heavy blow to troop morale - does that mean the war is won? Possibly not. But it changes a whole lot.

Therein lies the crux of it. Either you accept as a premise that Russia would NEVER surrender or you do not.

Personally I think it is unrealistic to think that just because the Russians did not surrender that they would not have if things had gotten worse. I think Stalin's state of mind was fragile as the Germans approached Moscow. Depression and lack of confidence (not to mention paranoia) may have claimed a victim if the city had fallen. There is really no way to know for certain.

 

[thexmassteam]

I don't know how often one can beat a dead horse.

i believe one can beat a dead horse as many times as one likes

Why so many people want to beat a poor dead animal's body? It is a very strange hobby ...

Nobody will play past 1941 Germany anyway

Spoiler: My name is nobody

For barbarossa, I think there was no way for Germany to win. SU was way to big. Without any strong support from the inside, it was a lost cause. And even with pocket linked together around the strategic resources germany need for the war machine, it should have take too much time to be done. I mean, rebuild all the infrastructure destroyed when red army retreated (well + transport), bring neutral manpower to avoid sabotage, bring them supply, transport oil to german refineries? Or rebuilding refineries and move fuel? It will take 5 or 10 years, if everything run fine. way too long.
From a HOI gameplay perspective, until we have some kind of HOI3 BICE barbarossa mechanics fully translated into HOI4, it'll be hard to had a close to reality experience with russian campaign (and even BICE team find they should have been further). But I really wish that someday the game will have a logistic layer added.

 

[Dalwin]

I have to say that the Russian campaign as either side in a slow paced MP game in and of itself makes HOI4 a worthwhile purchase for me. It never seems to go the same way twice. There is lots of room for prewar arrangements and lots of room to affect things once the fighting starts. Its easily the best part of the game IMO.

 

[thexmassteam]

I have to say that the Russian campaign as either side in a slow paced MP game in and of itself makes HOI4 a worthwhile purchase for me.

I really need to give a try to MP some days, but as I'm the kind of player who pause the game every single day to check a thing or an other, I never dare trying ...

 

[107zombiekiller]

i don't believe that in game we will ever get an accurate depiction of barbarossa until such a time that both more accurate on map logistics are modeled such a important rail lines and more provincial level inf as well as the need to produce general supplies to keep your men fighting. not to say i want to make socks but i personally would love to see needing to allocate factories to general supply and ammunition production, though i would imagine these two things going pretty hand in hand in general i personally would want to see some seperation between ammunition and other supply, which could allow specific ammo to only work with units equipped with the same nations weapons which would also lead topossibly converting, for instance, captured russian tanks so that they used a german cannon so that you wouldnt need to capture russian ammunition to use it
but i digress and that's certainly several features rolled into one big run-on sentence or two

as to @thexmassteam could one argue that rather then treating the ukrainians and other conquered people harshly under occupation perhaps the germans could have at least gotten men from them instead of neutrals if they had acted as liberators and ask that they help defeat the russians for independence or what not

 

[adam_grif]

Therein lies the crux of it. Either you accept as a premise that Russia would NEVER surrender or you do not.

Personally I think it is unrealistic to think that just because the Russians did not surrender that they would not have if things had gotten worse. I think Stalin's state of mind was fragile as the Germans approached Moscow. Depression and lack of confidence (not to mention paranoia) may have claimed a victim if the city had fallen. There is really no way to know for certain.

It's definitely a complex question to answer. Stalin can be removed from power y his "loyal" subordinates if things get bad enough. But on the other hand, it's a war of extermination so it's hard to imagine that people wouldn't try to fight on to the last.

 

[Secret Master]

Yeah, this is a historical discussion, so I will move it to the history forum.

 

[Dalwin]

It's definitely a complex question to answer. Stalin can be removed from power y his "loyal" subordinates if things get bad enough. But on the other hand, it's a war of extermination so it's hard to imagine that people wouldn't try to fight on to the last.

Another assumption there, "war of extermination." We cannot be certain that the Germans would not have offered terms to whomever succeeded Stalin in office, terms that left them controlling most of their country. By that time it would have been Spring '42 and there is always the possibility that the High Command might have gotten Hitler to see reason.

Arguments based on premises that are conclusions as in Russia would never surrender or Germany would accept nothing other than total annihilation are not arguments at all. They are one sentence theses that cannot be proven, and can barely even be discussed.

 

[adam_grif]

Another assumption there, "war of extermination." We cannot be certain that the Germans would not have offered terms to whomever succeeded Stalin in office, terms that left them controlling most of their country. By that time it would have been Spring '42 and there is always the possibility that the High Command might have gotten Hitler to see reason.

Arguments based on premises that are conclusions as in Russia would never surrender or Germany would accept nothing other than total annihilation are not arguments at all. They are one sentence theses that cannot be proven, and can barely even be discussed.

By war of extermination, I mean things were happening that can't really be discussed under the forum rules, which may have motivated the Soviets to fight on well past the point which most countries would have. The Germans did not want to annex all the way to the pacific, and the continued existence of a soviet state in some form was definitely not impossible (e.g. from the eastern side of Urals to the pacific). But it would indeed be a bitter peace. Anybody signing such a treaty would be aware that it was not going to be the kind of peace that you use to buy time and strike back when the Germans were weak - if they capitulate, they lost most of their agricultural land, most of their population, and most of their industry. Siberia won't be able to house most of the refugees that will flood east trying to escape the German annexed zones.

 

[Dalwin]

By war of extermination, I mean things were happening that can't really be discussed under the forum rules, which may have motivated the Soviets to fight on well past the point which most countries would have. The Germans did not want to annex all the way to the pacific, and the continued existence of a soviet state in some form was definitely not impossible (e.g. from the eastern side of Urals to the pacific). But it would indeed be a bitter peace. Anybody signing such a treaty would be aware that it was not going to be the kind of peace that you use to buy time and strike back when the Germans were weak - if they capitulate, they lost most of their agricultural land, most of their population, and most of their industry. Siberia won't be able to house most of the refugees that will flood east trying to escape the German annexed zones.

If the theoretical borders were drawn at the Urals I would have to agree with you. What if the were further west? Let's say Germany only asked for the Baltics and the Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The Ukraine did have a fairly high number of ethnic Germans at one point, in fact my ancestors were German farmers near Odessa. A more modest demand may have led to a more stable peace, even if it only lasted 10 or 15 years, the rest of the war would have been resolved in that time.

Now I realize the subject being discussed is Barbarossa itself, but I dwell on the point of a viable peace because without it there is virtually zero chance of any German victory in the East, at least not one that lasts for any real time and doesn't leave too many of their soldiers tied to occupation. Collapse in the East came just a few months too late in the Great War. There was not enough time to shift the units to the West and bring about a positive conclusion for Germany before American reinforcements tipped the balance. The pattern could have been very similar. I am not saying it was likely, but even if a longshot I think only acknowledging the possibility gives any hope that Germany can survive the war as anything other than an occupied state.

 

[adam_grif]

If the theoretical borders were drawn at the Urals I would have to agree with you. What if the were further west? Let's say Germany only asked for the Baltics and the Ukraine and Eastern Poland. The Ukraine did have a fairly high number of ethnic Germans at one point, in fact my ancestors were German farmers near Odessa. A more modest demand may have led to a more stable peace, even if it only lasted 10 or 15 years, the rest of the war would have been resolved in that time.

Now I realize the subject being discussed is Barbarossa itself, but I dwell on the point of a viable peace because without it there is virtually zero chance of any German victory in the East, at least not one that lasts for any real time and doesn't leave too many of their soldiers tied to occupation. Collapse in the East came just a few months too late in the Great War. There was not enough time to shift the units to the West and bring about a positive conclusion for Germany before American reinforcements tipped the balance. The pattern could have been very similar. I am not saying it was likely, but even if a longshot I think only acknowledging the possibility gives any hope that Germany can survive the war as anything other than an occupied state.

Depending on how the rest of the war is going, it might be possible for the Germans to sue for a very modest peace like the one you describe, but it's hard to imagine them launching Barbarossa if that was all they demanded. The objectives (not talking about the "unmentionable" objectives) were heavily based around:

• Securing a large, independent resource base from which Germany might become immune to blockade, and grant her a position from which to challenge the industrial potential of the United States
• Removing the British hope of fighting a two front war by knocking the Soviets out quickly and neutralizing them as a threat before the British could land with a sizeable force.
  
• Destroying the Soviet Union during it's moment of weakness. Although their forces were vast, the Winter War had shown them to be extremely defficient, a situation which would not persist forever.
• Securing a large territory for Germans to settle

The last of those is the NSDAP ideological goal, and can probably be ignored as being the least important one. But if all they get is Ukraine and the Baltics, while that's good from a food perspective, it still leaves the Soviet state in charge of a huge population, a lot of heavy industry and a very large (even if crippled) army witch which they may one day soon threaten the Germans again. A surrender at that level, to be acceptable to the Germans, would probably need to involve major reparations in the form if generous resource deliveries, beyond the level of trade afforded with the M-R agreements (otherwise, why stop before you hit Baku and other critical areas?), large demilitarized zones and the large scale downsizing of the Soviet army.

I'm not sure if the Soviets would agree to such conditions unless the situation was more dire than it was historically. Then again, if the Germans did actually seize Baku, would they ever part with it? Or would they not offer such a modest peace since that's such a large part of what they're there for in the first place?

 

[nerd]

Why so many people want to beat a poor dead animal's body? It is a very strange hobby ...

tenderizes it for BBQ