Weekly what if: Germany vs Soviet

[Aries666]

In hindsight it would appear that Germany had no chance of achieving the decisive victory it sought over the Soviets. That got me to thinking what would have happened if the Germans conducted an initial blitz taking them up to Russia proper (regions with predominantly ethnic Russian population) and then dug in and fortified their position?

Could they have improved the logistical infrastructure enough to allow the regular rotation of troops and a solid supply line? Could they achieve and maintain air superiority?
In a defensive posture could they have inflicted enough casualties on the Russians to push them out of the war?
Could the communists have kept the Russian people on side when trying to retake land that wasn't even Russia proper and what would the chances been of a revolution if the communists pushed the issue?

It seems to me that such a strategy similar to the events of WW1 may have been the better option for the Germans, what do people think both gameplay wise and reality wise?

 

[Procyanide]

Im no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but as far as I can tell, the Wehrmacht simply did not have the means to properly supply an advancing German army beyond ~400km into the Soviet Union. Poor (road) infrastructure, a railway network not equipped for german trains, and difficult weather and terrain (mud/snow) were causes for this.

So assuming the 400km to be (semi) accurate, and noting that the modern Polish border is 1000km away from Moscow, I dont think the german advance would have pushed far enough into russia to do any 'real' damage. 400 km would take them deep into belarus/Ukraine, but most likely not even make it to the modern day Russian border, giving the soviets ample space and resources to hit back much harder than they did in real life.

My conclusion would be: it would prolong the war in the east, and Russian advances may have been much slower had the nazis dug in, but the sheer manpower, geographic size and US economic support would have meant that Germany would have always lost to the USSR in the long run.

 

[77Hawk77]

Sitting still and digging in = Many katyusha in your face, all day every day. I hope you like attrition with no gain.

Also, no pressure on the russian industry means they could just build up enourmous tank reserves train them to specialised units and then unload with a equipment and manpower ratio that would make anyone weep.

Consider that during bagration the germans had dug in, some places with several trench lines including decoy ones, but that doesn't stop several thousand rolling barrages from wrecking havoc.
Conclusion is: Keep the initiative, and don't let you enemy move thousands of artillery peices into range of your fixed positions because that hurts.

 

[Secret Master]

I suppose if the Soviet military leadership is composed of morons, a "take land and dig in" approach might work. But they weren't stupid enough to just fling themselves pointlessly into fortifications at bad odds unless the situation was truly desperate. As in, Stalingrad or Leningrad or Moscow levels of desperate. I don't think the situation in question is desparate enough.

The problem is that such an approach by Germany ignores the economic and production justifications for the war in the first place. With German industry hurting without key raw materials, and German food production insufficient, the goal of the war is to seize enough of the Soviet Union to correct these problems. You can't do that by just advancing 400 km in and digging in. (Note: Whether or not Germany could actually solve its resource problems by annexing the entire Soviet Union is another issue entirely, but we won't go into that discussion here.)

That being said, the real enemy is time. The longer the war drags on, and the more population and factories the Soviets control, the worse things get for Germany in terms of production and manpower. While I fault the German leaders for their failure to see the Red Army for what it really was in 1941 (they literally missed about half of it in their intelligence reports), I don't fault them for wanting a quick, decisive war. Anything else was doomed to failure in the long run.

 

[Aries666]

I was more thinking going up to modern Russian borders and then digging in not 400km (hence why I asked if they could beef up the necessary infrastructure). Taking that much land off Russia would certainly hurt. At that point if you can make Russian counter attacks so prohibitively costly by fortifying and taking control of the skies, is there a point where the Russians essentially say sod it, take your gains buying Germany additional time (in the knowledge that they will likely have to fight Russia again several years down the line)

 

[agentgb]

Germans came undone due to poor winter clothing, expecting a quick victory like that of france & poland, the poor infrastructure, the worst recorded weather in russia since the crimean war, the finns not tightening the noose around Leningrad, the mistake of besieging leningrad, hitler believing that german troops should not be exposed to urban warfare, which later changed with stalingrad, even though army group north had initally pushed the quickest, hitlers refusal to take leingrad by storm caused army group north to practically become quagmired, with some later being divereted to rebuild the bulk of army group center, and south which would later be the focus of attack.

The german tactics were alot like the finnish tactics of creating motti, but the russian motti were this time cities and intentional, and the eventual elastic defence of the russians would also prove the undoing of the germans who would attempt to pocket russians only to find a section of the flanking german force had now been pocketed and that a breakout was required.

Given all the elements, lack of manpower and inferior tanks to an extent to that of the russians, for there initial push of barbarossa, the german did pretty well, they could onyl rely on blitzkireg, i don't think the same circumstances could be repeated of that of ww1, since surrender was not an option for stalin unless he was taken out of the picture. If the germans had attempted to dig in, they would have ended up has motti.

If we look at battlegroup north, the only group to stay fairly intact throughout the course of the war could be supplied and supported by the kriegmarine, i believe leningrad was the key, supplies were easier to transport via the baltic, and a joint push on moscow from both army group north and center could have been properly recognised. Hitlers reluctance to take Leningrad at the beginning caused the ripple effect of the russians using cities to tie up german forces that would expend a bunch of division trying to surround it while the rest push on. It gave the russians the respite they needed, along with general winter.

 

[Gotomtom]

The Germans could have won(not easily btw, not easy at all), in fact they came very close, any normal nation would have collapsed. Due to poor doctrine and policies by the Nazi regimes enforced upon the army and local conquered populations they dug their own grave.

The only way German could have won the war against the soviets was if they could beat them before the soviets outproduced them. They didn't, which brings me to the rest of your scenario. No the Germans could NOT have maintained air superiority. In fact the Germans could not have maintained any superiority, by the time the German army was broken that was the end of Germany. I see but one way to could have pulled it about, that is if they got peace with England and USA before summer 1943, that was their latest moment. This would allow pretty much all western forces to go east. Even then it was probably too little too late. Only by capturing Moscow and effectively capturing the bulk of the soviet industry still on the rails would they secure victory, by 1943 most of it was already deployed though. And that said there was a commitment among all allied nations that NO ONE was to accept anything but unconditional surrender. Realistically summer 1942 was the best year for Germany to win. They short term war was the correct strategy, however they planned for far too short causing them to collapse when they couldn't make it.

This is disregarding the supply issues which pretty much puts everything even more in favor of the USSR.

conclusion:
The industrial capacity against the Axis was so massively in favor of the Allies (including the USSR) that the only way Axis members could defeat the allies was by striking them down permanently before their factories started. Germany did this with France and most of Europe, they could not with England and USSR. That is the key of my little post here.

Hope this helps you with he scenario, it is always kinda sad to be realistic with these scenarios. In the unlikely event that Germany could have pulled off a WW1 trench warfare then D-day would be the deciding factor, just as planned between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt.

 

[Secret Master]

I was more thinking going up to modern Russian borders and then digging in not 400km (hence why I asked if they could beef up the necessary infrastructure). Taking that much land off Russia would certainly hurt. At that point if you can make Russian counter attacks so prohibitively costly by fortifying and taking control of the skies, is there a point where the Russians essentially say sod it, take your gains buying Germany additional time (in the knowledge that they will likely have to fight Russia again several years down the line)

I don't think you are going to be able to hold the line in question while having adequate supply year round. I also don't think it's far enough to do enough damage to Soviet production. Better than 400 km, but not enough. It also leaves key rail lines in Soviet hands.

That being said, how much mileage do you think you could get out of repeated backhand blows? Would the Soviets fall for it more than once? Instead of a static defense, do you think faking retreats and then closing the door might work enough times to make a difference? I don't think so, but then again, I'm not the expert on Soviet leadership in such a scenario.

 

[Aries666]

I don't think you are going to be able to hold the line in question while having adequate supply year round. I also don't think it's far enough to do enough damage to Soviet production. Better than 400 km, but not enough. It also leaves key rail lines in Soviet hands.

That being said, how much mileage do you think you could get out of repeated backhand blows? Would the Soviets fall for it more than once? Instead of a static defense, do you think faking retreats and then closing the door might work enough times to make a difference? I don't think so, but then again, I'm not the expert on Soviet leadership in such a scenario.

Interesting sort of like Parthian tactics? Maybe whilst conducting this you could be improving the infrastructure in eastern Poland and with each cycle advance deeper and retreat less. I guess the big thing is that that Russians after the 1st cycle may start destroying infrastructure as they are pushed back.

I would add my thoughts for this thread are not so much to decisively defeat the Russians but put them in a position where they don't lose so much as to be forced into total war but hurt them enough that it is worth it for them to surrender with limited concessions. Of course this also assumes that the Germans are still at war with Britain having failed to break them as they should have.

 

[Loke]

Germany could have won.

Germany did win over Russia 20 years earlier while the majority of the German army was fighthing the UK, France and their allies on the Western front.

 

[Evan05]

I was more thinking going up to modern Russian borders and then digging in not 400km (hence why I asked if they could beef up the necessary infrastructure). Taking that much land off Russia would certainly hurt. At that point if you can make Russian counter attacks so prohibitively costly by fortifying and taking control of the skies, is there a point where the Russians essentially say sod it, take your gains buying Germany additional time (in the knowledge that they will likely have to fight Russia again several years down the line)

That may have solved Germany's long term food production issues, but that wouldn't in the slightest help their oil shortage.

In order for Germany to have solved their economic issues, they would have to take all of their original territorial ambitions laid out in the plan which cannot be named (They would have to take everything up to the Urals, and turn the rest of the USSR into a German puppet state similar to that of Vichy France).

 

[MGL 86]

Germany could have won.

They did win over Russia 20 years earlier while they were fighthing UK, France and their allies in the west.

There are 2 key differences between Tsarist Russia and communist Russia

1. USSR was industrialized (at least in middle of it), while tsarist Russia was predominantly agrarian.
2. Tsarist Russia was politically unstable while Stalin heavily controls everything with heavy hand. So 1917 style revolution in middle of WW2 was impossible. Also being invaded mercilessly helped to resolve the will of Russian people.

We can call Stalin any names we want, but because of his war preparation USSR was able survive initial German onslaught and ultimately win.

 

[BBBD316]

Better for Germany to accept the Soviets in the Axis and focus on the one front.

 

[adam_grif]

They can't win by advancing a short distance and digging in. I mean you can pull it off in HoI3 by focusing on air techs and bombing their manpower reserve to smithereens over time. But not in reality. The Soviets will build up a massive numerical advantage and break through static lines - the technological advances made between 1914 and 1940 have made trench warfare very unfavorable in the long term.

 

[agentgb]

three part exceptionally good documentary covering the eastern front. Really good watch, especially if wanting to try and follow the historical route & order of battle, but also see the flaws.

Links to media with swastikas removed - Secret Master

 

[Adrian Gaming]

I think we misunderstanding German strength here. In the first four weeks of the invasion of Russia, they did annihilate some 1.2 million Soviet soldiers, take about 250km of territory, and stun the world with lightning speed and frightening efficiency in movement, combined arms formations, and air-land coordination and superiority.

That being said, it's no joke that Germany does not have, at least on a sheet of paper, the manpower or population to deal with Soviet industrial capacity, natural resource acquisition, or sheer territory and jurisdiction. That being said, the German Army was the better, smaller, more well-trained and well-equipped force (at least early on). It would not have been crazy to imagine that the Germans felt, with a smaller but more disciplined force, that they could beat Russian numbers. In fact, on many occasions they did beat Russian numerical superiority.

However, the footing of the German economy was one reason Germany could not maintain its supply obligations and interference by the commander-in-chief in military decisions was another. The German high command were appalled to learn that Hitler wanted to invade Russia, and many felt this could not realistically be possible. The fought the best they could, but it was ultimately mistakes and geopolitical blunders on the part of Hitler that cost Germany from obtaining if not total strategic victory a pretty favorable position for peace. If the Germans could have held off the Russians and pushed at least all the way to the Urals, with a decent amount of supply and at least preparation from winter conditions, the Germans could have forced a peace on the Russians which they would have had no choice but to accept.

 

[Secret Master]

Be more mindful of your links to external media. Swastikas are forbidden on the forum.

 

[agentgb]

Be more mindful of your links to external media. Swastikas are forbidden on the forum.

ahh sorry, thats a pity, it's a bloody good documentary, really nips into some details.

 

[MGL 86]

ahh sorry, thats a pity, it's a bloody good documentary, really nips into some details.

What was the name of documentary? I will search it myself

 

[agentgb]

What was the name of documentary? I will search it myself

scorched earth - army group north
scorched earth - army group center
scorched earth - army group south

you may have actually seen it, if you haven't let me know what you think, personally i fount it quite informative on the theatre scale.