How to do early Operation Barbarossa without invading UK

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Apr 13, 2020
853
227
Everyone has their own ways of doing Barbarossa, but I found this to be particularly effective.

1. I straight away set up Barbarossa, after fall of France. This allows me to invade in early 1940.

2. I avoided invading Norway or Denmark, like they did historically. This allows me to concentrate more forces (high-quality infantry, not just garrison) to defend English channel coast, rather than spreaded them out in Norway. A neutral Denmark also blocks the baltic sea.

3. I aim to achieve local air superiority in Eastern Poland first. I concentrate 600 fighters there with 200 CAS, 300 tactical bombers targetting air fields only. Not sure whether they help but i get green air zone (sometimes yellow) most of the time. Then under air cover, I used my tanks to surround and cut off many divisions. 16 light tank divisions and 8 motorised. I also do the same thing in baltic region with 3 medium panzer divisions (and later 10 more). I was able to get green air cover almost all the time with 300 fighters, 100 Tac, 100 Cas.

4. Romania is super helpful. They are taking crimea and now pentrating deep into Caucasus.

5. My blitzkrieg micromanagement can be broken down into following phases:
Phase 1: Breakthrough -- your goal is to punch through a portion of enemy lines with tanks, preferably on plains (if no choice forests alright)
Phase 2: Exploitation -- the goal is just overrun as much area behind enemy line as possible.

Phase 3: Liquidation -- once you create a huge bulge behind the line. You can either encircle enemy troops from behind or repeat phase 1 again to create even more havoc.

I believe the key to defeating Soviet union is encircle and encircle their field armies with tanks. Using infantry to break throuh is inefficient.
 

Attachments

  • 4DB8E125-9DBA-4D1F-9043-2EF89F0F3C6D.png
    4DB8E125-9DBA-4D1F-9043-2EF89F0F3C6D.png
    3,8 MB · Views: 0
  • A66E67FF-4A28-4B64-917C-0111D6B78161.png
    A66E67FF-4A28-4B64-917C-0111D6B78161.png
    3,4 MB · Views: 0
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well I thought it is about how can do Barbarossa even without invading west altogether (like in 39 actually)

Technically, invading in 1940 is early.

Edit: And my previous record is to cheese the invasion of UK first before I have a chance at defeating the Soviets. So this time I tried to follow the more historical path of invading the USSR while UK is still around.
 
Also, the trick to defeat or at least hold off the
@EliteWehrmacht
Not that much ,Happened to me (at least in non-historical mode). As I said I thought It's about how going directly for USSR without going to engage with western allies

That would be an interesting scenario. I can try that out next time, if I feel like it. For me it is quite hard to fight a two-front war because once US joined, I have to make sure Italy and France do not fall. In fact, half of Italy was in UK's hand and I have to rescue them. I also realised the trick to holding off the Western allies is to not give them a chance of establishing a solid beachhead (subjective, not sure whether others have done the same thing). That way, it is easy to defend while you finish off the Soviets.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
EliteWehrmacht said:
A neutral Denmark also blocks the baltic sea.

Looks like neutral Denmark isn't blocking squat. :D


I think that a 1939/40 Barbarossa only makes sense if you can blitz them. Still fighting in autumn of 1943 kind of defeats the purpose of going ahistorically early and neglecting all flanks from Denmark to the Mediterranean.
It might have been better to use 1940 to secure those regions and then focus 100% on the Soviets in 1941.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Looks like neutral Denmark isn't blocking squat. :D



I think that a 1939/40 Barbarossa only makes sense if you can blitz them. Still fighting in autumn of 1943 kind of defeats the purpose of going ahistorically early and neglecting all flanks from Denmark to the Mediterranean.
It might have been better to use 1940 to secure those regions and then focus 100% on the Soviets in 1941.

Actually, I have thought so. The Yugoslavian front was really a huge diversion (I have to send an entire panzer group from Eastern front) because my allies (Yugoslavia joined Axis) weren't doing well. I disagree on Denmark and Norway. So far in my playthroughs, Norway tended to be quite hard to hold because of its large area and away from mainland Europe. Denmark also joined late in 1943 so its neutrality allowed me to concentrate on Eastern Front. By the time they joined, the Soviets were down..

I wasn't expecting the Soviets to put up a long fight. After taking the Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad, they kept fighting on till 1943. Having said, Soviets did suffer from purges in 1940 and invading early will help you invade more lands before they recovered fully (I believe after mid June 1941).

Historically speaking, Hitler wanted to invade Soviet Union asap. The Western front and Balkan campaign were prelude to that. Invading Norway and Denmark was prelude to Western front (So no need to invade them once France is down).
 
Of course,I believe there are some pros who invaded USSR in 1938 or even earlier. But I was trying to do an exciting, massive land campaign in Russia without too much cheese or difficulty. I think 1940 is perfect for that, after a successful land campaign in France -- it makes sense to turn east.

Edit: If I were to replay, I would have secured Yugoslavia and Greece after France. Then went East. So I have another panzer army group fully committed there.
 
Actually, I have thought so. The Yugoslavian front was really a huge diversion (I have to send an entire panzer group from Eastern front) because my allies (Yugoslavia joined Axis) weren't doing well. I disagree on Denmark and Norway. So far in my playthroughs, Norway tended to be quite hard to hold because of its large area and away from mainland Europe. Denmark also joined late in 1943 so its neutrality allowed me to concentrate on Eastern Front. By the time they joined, the Soviets were down..

I wasn't expecting the Soviets to put up a long fight. After taking the Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad, they kept fighting on till 1943. Having said, Soviets did suffer from purges in 1940 and invading early will help you invade more lands before they recovered fully (I believe after mid June 1941).

Historically speaking, Hitler wanted to invade Soviet Union asap. The Western front and Balkan campaign were prelude to that. Invading Norway and Denmark was prelude to Western front (So no need to invade them once France is down).

I don't see a reason not to take out Denmark though. Norway is unnecessary, I agree. You can secure Denmark with 2-3 garrisons while you need ~12 garrisons for Norway (the Allies seem to invade the south-western shore quite heavily, so more garrisons and forts needed there).

I did 3 ironman Germany games for the purpose of testing mass light tanks. Hadn't played vanilla for a long time before that. I was surprised how tough Greece was to crack. The UK sends a gazillion troops there.

That's why I believe it is best to finish Poland, Denmark, Low Countries and France by early 1940 and spend the rest of the year securing the mediterranean.
- 600 naval bombers in the med to gain naval supremacy for Italy
- send a panzer army to North Africa and take Suez (typically Italian a.i. invades Egypt anyways)
- amphibious invasion of Gibraltar
- secure Balkans and Greece

That is perfectly doable between spring 1940 and spring 1941. In my recent games Poland took me 5 days and the Low Country/French campaign 6-7 days (light tank rush on Paris). So there is enough time to secure the western flank and the soft underbelly of Europe for a historical Barbarossa.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I disagree on Denmark and Norway. So far in my playthroughs, Norway tended to be quite hard to hold because of its large area and away from mainland Europe. Denmark also joined late in 1943 so its neutrality allowed me to concentrate on Eastern Front. By the time they joined, the Soviets were down..

Theres no reason not to just make a stop by Denmark. It makes that front a known factor for the rest of the game. Norway is a waste because the UK isn't threatening to invade Norway and Sweden like they were in real life.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I have always seen Denmark and Norway as a bloc to invade together. Maybe not necessary!
I always invade Denmark, never Norway and never do the "Weserübung" focus. I manually justify on Denmark.
  • Denmark is easy to invade, useful to have no front there later and closes the baltic sea for the Allies.
  • Norway has to be invaded per naval invasion, it takes quite a long time due to different terrain and you need a lot of divisions to defend. If you attack with tanks you lose a lot in the mountains. Not worth it in my opinion. (If you plan attacking Sweden it may be different, but I just trade with them)
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions: