The Second Eastern Front

[Sharp163]

Hello, everyone

As we wait for the return of dev diaries, i'd like to open up a question thread: what if a second front had been opened in the Russian theater?

In my opinion, there are two plausible options.

The first, and most obvious, would be for the Japanese to invade. They were much more prepared for harsh weather than the Germans were, and had many of their soldiers equipped with cold-weather gear. Furthermore, an attack through Siberia would've still brought heavy attrition and the choking of supply lines, but it wouldn't have hit as hard as it did on the German-Russian front.

However, the main problem of the Japanese invading Russia is that they were already bogged down in China. This was further complicated after the attack on Pearl Harbor, with the US entering the war. The Japanese would have stood a poor chance fighting a war on 3 fronts at once. If they were victorious in China in the early stages of the war, before it became a stalemate, and did not attack the US, then an invasion of Russia would be more plausible.

The second option is the Germans opening another front, the best location being through Arkhangelsk.

It wouldn't be implausible for them to supply it from northern Norway, or to capture the Karelian peninsula. However, to do so, they would've had to capture Leningrad. This would permit the Germans to transport troops more easily to Finland to cover their flank. However, if the Germans had captured Leningrad and moved onwards, then doing a landing at Arkhangelsk would be rather pointless.

If, perhaps, the Nazis had done the landing in Autumn of 1941, circumventing the normal front lines, could they have captured Moscow by pushing south?

Thank you for your opinions

 

[Septawn]

There is already a huge thread for the Japanese invasion, so you should check that for answers. As for the German invasion near Arkhangelsk. How are they gonna get around the Royal Navy? What benefit would dispersing their already thin forces along the front? How would they supply that invasion force (especially if the Royal Navy is still active)? It's just not practical to do it.

 

[Sharp163]

There is already a huge thread for the Japanese invasion, so you should check that for answers. As for the German invasion near Arkhangelsk. How are they gonna get around the Royal Navy? What benefit would dispersing their already thin forces along the front? How would they supply that invasion force (especially if the Royal Navy is still active)? It's just not practical to do it.

That's true, and they would most likely have to capture Karelia to supply it. However, the point of it would be to circumvent the normal front lines, and it successful, it would cause an immensely disastrous situation for Russia.

As for the Royal Navy, they are already having problems of their own. They are spread rather thin across the globe, trying to defend their vast empire. That was the key to the German naval doctrine in World War Two- keep the British navy spread thin, and use submarine pick-and-snipe to wear them down over time.

It isn't overly impractical to supply it from northern Norway, however... It is in a German zone of control

 

[Septawn]

That's true, and they would most likely have to capture Karelia to supply it. However, the point of it would be to circumvent the normal front lines, and it successful, it would cause an immensely disastrous situation for Russia.

Except it wouldn't be disastrous unless STAVKA had a brain melt on par with the AI in World War Wednesday 3. Even if they lost Arkhangelesk they can easily counterattack. There is already a large force directly south to strike.

As for the Royal Navy, they are already having problems of their own. They are spread rather thin across the globe, trying to defend their vast empire. That was the key to the German naval doctrine in World War Two- keep the British navy spread thin, and use submarine pick-and-snipe to wear them down over time.

We already have problem. The German plan didn't work. By June 1941 the Brits were already starting to stem the tide.

It isn't overly impractical to supply it from northern Norway, however... It is in a German zone of control

That supply has to be done by ship. Germany has no way to escort those ships. The few surface ships they have are designed for commerce raiding not escort missions. They will lose a pitched battle. In May of 41' they lost their best surface ship (the Bismarck).

The whole idea is a pipe dream.

 

[PanosB3]

Ehm actually in Norway there were stationed quite a lot of surface ships until '43 I think, Tirpitz and 3-6 cruisers and 10-20 destroyers that didn't do anything in the entire war but to scare the british and not attempt an invasion on Norway. I am pretty sure they are capable to protect convoys if they attempted but Hitler didn't trust Raeder after the Bismarck fiasco at all and he didn't even allow that fleet to attack convoys (Raeder quit when Hitler dismantled the surface ships but Tirpitz in favor of submarines, after Raeder didn't follow his instructions and attacked a convoy).

 

[mursolini]

Most obvious second front would be Turkey attacking into Caucasus. With, or without German assistance.

Granted, It would require a LOT of Axis success in Mediterranean, as while Turkey didn`t mind attacking SU when it seem collapsing, but was far too afraid of another Allied intervention, as it`s south is wide open to attack from Iraq and Syria.

 

[Axe99]

That's true, and they would most likely have to capture Karelia to supply it. However, the point of it would be to circumvent the normal front lines, and it successful, it would cause an immensely disastrous situation for Russia.

As for the Royal Navy, they are already having problems of their own. They are spread rather thin across the globe, trying to defend their vast empire. That was the key to the German naval doctrine in World War Two- keep the British navy spread thin, and use submarine pick-and-snipe to wear them down over time.

It isn't overly impractical to supply it from northern Norway, however... It is in a German zone of control

Ehm actually in Norway there were stationed quite a lot of surface ships until '43 I think, Tirpitz and 3-6 cruisers and 10-20 destroyers that didn't do anything in the entire war but to scare the british and not attempt an invasion on Norway. I am pretty sure they are capable to protect convoys if they attempted but Hitler didn't trust Raeder after the Bismarck fiasco at all and he didn't even allow that fleet to attack convoys (Raeder quit when Hitler dismantled the surface ships but Tirpitz in favor of submarines, after Raeder didn't follow his instructions and attacked a convoy).

The RN had a lot of vessels in place to counter the German Navy (arguably a good deal more than they needed) and maintained a loose 'blockade' over the northern North Sea. They also had quite a few submarines. It would have been a brave convoy to sail around the North of Norway hoping to miss all of it, and then count on being able to supply it long-term. The Germans may, if they're lucky, sneak by on the first run through (although the larger the invasion force, the harder it is to do this).

This, of course, is if they had enough ships to transport enough troops to launch an invasion large enough to make the Russians worry, which they didn't - they had to load up their troops on destroyers to pull off the invasion of Norway, over far shorter distances, and lost a large number of ships in that operation.

They'd also need to get around the Soviet Union's own naval forces. While it was no RN, they had a number of destroyers, submarines and MTBs in the arctic to protect their interests.

And then there's the weather - an invasion in rough seas is pretty hard going, and the weather that far north could be rough, and the long duration of the voyage pre-invasion means you can't do a Normandy and postpone at the last minute without sitting around waiting for submarines to sink you.

Then, if they did pull this off, they need to supply them with regular convoys which the RN's subs and cruisers would likely shred.

All in all, a German invasion over the top of Norway would end pretty badly in almost any semi-plausible scenario, short of the Army Group North smashing through Leningrad and driving quickly to Archangelsk, in which case there's no need for an invasion anyways .

Getting Japan to get its ducks in a row in China (or not invade China at all) and focus instead on the USSR is probably more likely to be useful.

 

[ikalugin]

Original plan to secure Murmansk has failed. How Germans would change that and, morver, securure Arhangelsk, especially considering how easy it is to mine the entrance to the White Sea?

 

[Sharp163]

The RN had a lot of vessels in place to counter the German Navy (arguably a good deal more than they needed) and maintained a loose 'blockade' over the northern North Sea. They also had quite a few submarines. It would have been a brave convoy to sail around the North of Norway hoping to miss all of it, and then count on being able to supply it long-term. The Germans may, if they're lucky, sneak by on the first run through (although the larger the invasion force, the harder it is to do this).

This, of course, is if they had enough ships to transport enough troops to launch an invasion large enough to make the Russians worry, which they didn't - they had to load up their troops on destroyers to pull off the invasion of Norway, over far shorter distances, and lost a large number of ships in that operation.

They'd also need to get around the Soviet Union's own naval forces. While it was no RN, they had a number of destroyers, submarines and MTBs in the arctic to protect their interests.

And then there's the weather - an invasion in rough seas is pretty hard going, and the weather that far north could be rough, and the long duration of the voyage pre-invasion means you can't do a Normandy and postpone at the last minute without sitting around waiting for submarines to sink you.

Then, if they did pull this off, they need to supply them with regular convoys which the RN's subs and cruisers would likely shred.

All in all, a German invasion over the top of Norway would end pretty badly in almost any semi-plausible scenario, short of the Army Group North smashing through Leningrad and driving quickly to Archangelsk, in which case there's no need for an invasion anyways .

Getting Japan to get its ducks in a row in China (or not invade China at all) and focus instead on the USSR is probably more likely to be useful.

I agree, an invasion through Siberia (despite even sounding horrifying) would probably be more successful than an invasion through Arkhangelsk. The logistics would be way too complicated to supply it...

And a front through Turkey would only work with a lot of support. They've got 2 or 3 fronts to cover, and need more troops and modern equipment... Perhaps if the Bulgarians intervened?

Can I take a moment to rant about Bulgaria, the worst ally in existence?

Bulgaria refused to participate in the Balkan theater of World War Two, only sending a small number of troops to invade Yugoslavia. However, they received large land gains. Then, on the eastern front, they gave a grand total of 0 troops, refusing to participate again. Finally, when the Soviet Union annexed Romania, and was threatening Bulgaria, the brave Bulgars stood strong with their untouched manpower and fresh divisions... Not. They surrendered without firing a shot. Worst. Ally. Ever.

In all, Bulgaria lost 22,000 troops, which is less than the troops that Czechoslovakia lost...

 

[PanosB3]

I agree, an invasion through Siberia (despite even sounding horrifying) would probably be more successful than an invasion through Arkhangelsk. The logistics would be way too complicated to supply it...

And a front through Turkey would only work with a lot of support. They've got 2 or 3 fronts to cover, and need more troops and modern equipment... Perhaps if the Bulgarians intervened?

Can I take a moment to rant about Bulgaria, the worst ally in existence?

Bulgaria refused to participate in the Balkan theater of World War Two, only sending a small number of troops to invade Yugoslavia. However, they received large land gains. Then, on the eastern front, they gave a grand total of 0 troops, refusing to participate again. Finally, when the Soviet Union annexed Romania, and was threatening Bulgaria, the brave Bulgars stood strong with their untouched manpower and fresh divisions... Not. They surrendered without firing a shot. Worst. Ally. Ever.

In all, Bulgaria lost 22,000 troops, which is less than the troops that Czechoslovakia lost...

The only reason Hitler wanted Bulgaria was:
1) ''the name'' and its minor fame-power it had since he could say: ALL of the Balkans is with the 3rd Reich
2) Outflank Greek forces fighting in Albania.
3) Cover flanks even further.

 

[Sharp163]

The only reason Hitler wanted Bulgaria was:
1) ''the name'' and its minor fame-power it had since he could say: ALL of the Balkans is with the 3rd Reich
2) Outflank Greek forces fighting in Albania.
3) Cover flanks even further.

Well, Bulgaria had stood by Germany in World War One as well (granted, they didn't do much there either...)
And furthermore, Bulgaria declared war on Yugoslavia on the same day Germany did, only wanting a slice of the Serbian cake.

Bulgaria did basically nothing in World War Two. Hitler was rather annoyed at their lack of participation in the Balkan theatre, and even more so when they were the only member of the axis who refused to give troops for Barbarossa.

 

[GhostKiller01]

Getting Japan to get its ducks in a row in China (or not invade China at all) and focus instead on the USSR is probably more likely to be useful.

That is pretty easy, it's just the AI doesn't understand that landing a force of marines 4 divisions strong in the Southernmost port of Nationalist China and start transferring soldiers from the North to the South into China is the best way to not tangle up supply lines, as they will when you concentrate the Japanese Army in the North-East of China, and easily bypass the bulk of the Chinese armies and plunge into China, taking out their Southern IC and resources, which will render the great Chinese manpower worthless.

The AI couldn't make use of landing forces and airborne assaults (the large majority of the time) in HoI 3, but once you as the player would punch open a hole and take a port, they would just flood in with spare troops that were worthless in their previous front.
Which is why, as a HoI 3 player, you should always keep a minimum of 12 "elite" divisions under you personal control. They must have 5 brigades in them (maximum firepower land doctrine), and must be composed of at least 4 marine divisions, 4 airborne divisions, and 4 mechanized-medium armour division (3 mechs, 2 med armours). Those twelve must be trained as soon as the requirements are met and would ideally be sent to vet up in a war before being used as your personal army. Note that you will need transports under your control to ge thte marines to where they need to go, as well as ships defending them, and a strong air wing to fly in and protect your airborne troops.
Hopefully those AI problems will be resolved in HoI 4

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

Hello, everyone


The second option is the Germans opening another front, the best location being through Arkhangelsk.



Thank you for your opinions

This is military madness.

The distance from Archangel to Moscow is 1260 km. The distance from the german border in occupied Poland to Moscow was 1060 km!

Guess which region has better infra and logistics?

And if you are going to send your troops to fight in the North Pole, you might as well send them with a petition for Santa Claus!

 

[Thrawn21]

Can I take a moment to rant about Bulgaria, the worst ally in existence?

Bulgaria refused to participate in the Balkan theater of World War Two, only sending a small number of troops to invade Yugoslavia. However, they received large land gains. Then, on the eastern front, they gave a grand total of 0 troops, refusing to participate again. Finally, when the Soviet Union annexed Romania, and was threatening Bulgaria, the brave Bulgars stood strong with their untouched manpower and fresh divisions... Not. They surrendered without firing a shot. Worst. Ally. Ever.

In all, Bulgaria lost 22,000 troops, which is less than the troops that Czechoslovakia lost...

Well, the worst ally for germany is already given to Italy. Whatever they did, they failed and required german troops to intervene to prevent a total disaster, just to name the fail invasions of greece and egypt.
Beside, Italy never ended a war on the same side it started it, unless the war was long enough to switch twice

 

[PanosB3]

The biggest help Italy provided Germany, was when they switched sides and all the Italian equipment fell into German hands, ahahahahahaha.
Also provided them with multiple units to sacrifice in the front line.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

That's true, and they would most likely have to capture Karelia to supply it. However, the point of it would be to circumvent the normal front lines, and it successful, it would cause an immensely disastrous situation for Russia.

As for the Royal Navy, they are already having problems of their own. They are spread rather thin across the globe, trying to defend their vast empire. That was the key to the German naval doctrine in World War Two- keep the British navy spread thin, and use submarine pick-and-snipe to wear them down over time.

It isn't overly impractical to supply it from northern Norway, however... It is in a German zone of control

If German naval doctrine was spreading the capital ships of the RN thin then they failed spectacularly. While hard pressed in escorts and merchant shipping the UK had naval power to spare for most of the war. The Royal Navy was less spread thin then spread all over the place to accomplish something, after parking the revenge class, a few carriers and a few KGVs in the North Sea there wasn't anything further needed to completely shut down German naval activity, the other half of the Royal Navy spread itself out embarrassing the Italians and embarrassing themselves against Japan.

Nothing about the RN's presence around europe suggests 'thin'.

 

[Sharp163]

This is military madness.

The distance from Archangel to Moscow is 1260 km. The distance from the german border in occupied Poland to Moscow was 1060 km!

Guess which region has better infra and logistics?

And if you are going to send your troops to fight in the North Pole, you might as well send them with a petition for Santa Claus!

My original idea was that there would be minimal troops in and around Arkhangelsk, considering they would mostly be at the front. Worst case scenario, there would be a few reserve and garrison divisions before Russia could mobilize and react. In that time, Germany could certainly make large land gains, perhaps even capturing Moscow if they hurry and are lucky. They would have to perform this early in the eastern front, before winter hits, have all their divisions supplied for a long term offensive (possibly without reinforcements) and have enough troops to cover their flanks as they push rapidly towards Moscow. It just isn't in the cards... I see now that the logistics would be far too complicated. What would probably end up happening is that they would make a mad scramble for Moscow, leaving their trail and flanks undefended, and Russia would simply wait and then encircle them. Imagine Stalingrad, but much much worse.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Well, the worst ally for germany is already given to Italy. Whatever they did, they failed and required german troops to intervene to prevent a total disaster, just to name the fail invasions of greece and egypt.
Beside, Italy never ended a war on the same side it started it, unless the war was long enough to switch twice

To be a bit fair to the Italians at least some of Italy's problems can be laid at the feet of the Germans. Hitler, in setting the pace and timing of the war, did so to suit the needs of Germany with no regard to the needs of the Italians in their own preparations. Of course you can make the case that the Italians were never going to be ready but when in the lead up to war Mussolini was asking for resources and tools to help them get ready and getting nothing while providing Germany with a large number of Italian workers it's hard to make the case that Italian inability to wage war effectively was entirely their own fault. At the very least some better work in sharing technology and designs would have helped a fair bit, where the Sherman was used by all 3 main allied members you don't see the same degree of sharing among the Axis, even when two of them are next door neighbors.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

The only strategic reason for Japan to open a second front with Russia would be to disrupt lend lease through the pacific route. I can't imagine it having much of an impact otherwise and how big even that impact would be is probably up for much debate.

 

[Sharp163]

The only strategic reason for Japan to open a second front with Russia would be to disrupt lend lease through the pacific route. I can't imagine it having much of an impact otherwise and how big even that impact would be is probably up for much debate.

It would probably force Russia to sue for peace or allow the Germans to advance faster since Russia has to cover two fronts now