They did actually fling themselves against prepared defences through the later part of the 41/42 winter and in their various unsuccessful assaults against AGN & AGC prior to 1944.
Weekly what if: Germany vs Soviet
- Thread starter Aries666
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
They did actually fling themselves against prepared defences through the later part of the 41/42 winter and in their various unsuccessful assaults against AGN & AGC prior to 1944.
- 1
Under circumstances that were far more desperate than the ones under discussion.
Not in my opinion. After the initial successes of the 41/42 winter offensive Russia's position was not particularly desperate. The front had been stabilised and a fair amount of ground recovered. Once the Germans had consolidated their lines the net effect of the continuation of the winter offensive was significant Soviet losses for negligible gains. I don't think anyone can call Operation Mars in Nov/Dec 1942 a matter of desperation. It was supposed to encircle and destroy German 9th Army at the same time Operation Uranus was encircling and destroying German 6th Army at Stalingrad. Mars completely failed with large Soviet losses.
Most of the problems of a small offensive into russia have already been mentioned. I would like to add that the germans needed to penetrate almost as deep as they did in order to destroy as much of the soviet army as they did. The big mistake Germany made was trying to continue the offensive
into the bad weather. Once the mud and cold set in they should have set up a deep defence that could absorb soviet counter attacks. If the offensive was stopped a little sooner the Germans could have spent the winter in warm dugouts and strong defensive positions.
into the bad weather. Once the mud and cold set in they should have set up a deep defence that could absorb soviet counter attacks. If the offensive was stopped a little sooner the Germans could have spent the winter in warm dugouts and strong defensive positions.
- 1
There were 3 things the Germans needed to have done to probably win against Russia-
1. Increase Luftwaffe Strength, In 1939 and 1940, German Tank and Plane production was far too less, Increase in Luftwaffe Strength and possibly Tank strength was the key (how to get steel? Scrap all Surface Fleet construction).
2. Force the Allies to contribute more manpower and strength in the initial assault itself (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Italy and also Spain, Occupied France and rest of Occupied Europe needs to be used to attack), with 3 vast armies (manned by these allies) operating behind the main army groups doing 3 things- Railway construction, road maintenance and anti-partisan duties and finally mopping up the survivors. Instead of the "unmentionable/useless things done". Also force the Finns with bribes etc to attack Leningrad in the fall of 1941, send the entire Finnish army from North and with conjunction with AGN, Leningrad may have fallen in 1941. Increases logistics supply and reduced partisans and bottlenecks.
3. Go all out for Moscow in late August itself instead of the Kiev Battles using the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Panzergroupes with the 2nd, 4th and 9th infantry armies doing the "Flank protection" and mopping up. If Moscow falls it is "Game over" or at-least a good chance of "some bitter peace" type event.
For all this to happen, a version of the Count Schulenberg plan - basically liberation of Baltics, Byelorussia and Ukraine and Caucasus states should be the basic plan of attack (wishful thinking considering the murderous psychopaths like Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich will never support it).
1. Increase Luftwaffe Strength, In 1939 and 1940, German Tank and Plane production was far too less, Increase in Luftwaffe Strength and possibly Tank strength was the key (how to get steel? Scrap all Surface Fleet construction).
2. Force the Allies to contribute more manpower and strength in the initial assault itself (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Italy and also Spain, Occupied France and rest of Occupied Europe needs to be used to attack), with 3 vast armies (manned by these allies) operating behind the main army groups doing 3 things- Railway construction, road maintenance and anti-partisan duties and finally mopping up the survivors. Instead of the "unmentionable/useless things done". Also force the Finns with bribes etc to attack Leningrad in the fall of 1941, send the entire Finnish army from North and with conjunction with AGN, Leningrad may have fallen in 1941. Increases logistics supply and reduced partisans and bottlenecks.
3. Go all out for Moscow in late August itself instead of the Kiev Battles using the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Panzergroupes with the 2nd, 4th and 9th infantry armies doing the "Flank protection" and mopping up. If Moscow falls it is "Game over" or at-least a good chance of "some bitter peace" type event.
For all this to happen, a version of the Count Schulenberg plan - basically liberation of Baltics, Byelorussia and Ukraine and Caucasus states should be the basic plan of attack (wishful thinking considering the murderous psychopaths like Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich will never support it).
- 2
- 2
That's right - (with the benefit of hindsight) stop Typhoon after they've bagged the 600,000 Russians encircled in the Bryansk and Vitebsk pockets and start digging in.
- 1
It's not going to change anything. The big limiting factor for Germany was oil. Even with their "few" tanks and planes, Germany used more oil than USSR. Building more would simply meed they will be used less due to oil shortages.
Again, the limiting factor wasn't numbers (Germany already outnumbered the Soviets at the start of Barbarossa).
Vast armies themselves would need vast amounts of supply. Not to even mention that forcefully conscripting occupied territories and giving them weapons isn't the smartest thing to do.
This is completely impossible and would have been a complete disaster.
- 5
- 2
If anybody is interested, there is a very interesting lecture on this exact topic on youtube. Dr Jonathon M. House discusses why the Soviets were able to beat the wehrmacht and how some of the mainstream knowledge on the topic may be skewed. The video is called "How the Red Army defeated Germany: Three Alibis". (please note the lecture starts at the 8 minute mark)
- 1
You may also remember that while Soviet losses were large, so were the German losses. Mars locked up half of the Panzer and motorised divisions on the entire Eastern front. The Germans did in fact have to withdraw from Rzhev in early 1943 due to the 9th Army being bled white. This was far less that the Soviets had hoped for, but it it wasn't meaningless.
This is why the "dig in" ideas are fundamentally wrong. Getting locked in in attritional warfare was the worst thing Germany could do as their economy would not be able to sustain the effort. Not to mention that's it's impossible to fully fortify 3,000km of frontlines, so sooner or later, the Soviets will find somewhere to breakthrough.
- 3
- 1
In June 1941, Nazi Germany had 1.5 million tons of Oil stockpiled, by end of October 1941 they still had over 0.9 million tons left in the stockpile, things weren't so bad in 1941 and we are talking about a campaign which in 1941 conquers Leningrad and Moscow both and forces a "Bitter peace".
The numbers were marginally in German favour (circa 10-15% at most), with the allies contribution, it would increase to around 25-30% and this will mean "German troops" are not used for anti-partisan and supply duties and allied troops are used for these non-essential factors.
If the Railways had been built at a fast clip, the supply problems could have been cured esp. with regards to food Ukraine itself was a huge bread-basket and the Germans never lacked ammunition till late 1944. the problem was more of transportation than supply.
again giving arms to the Russian POW is what the Germans did in late 1944 & early 1945and they also armed Cossack, Ukrainians, Hiwis (Baltics) etc and used them in rear area duties, anti-partisan duties, anti-aircraft duties and even in front-line infantry/cavalry positions and most (almost all) of these troops fought loyally. This proposal was not at all insane.
The non-Russians were not happy with the USSR and they were ready to co-operate with the Nazis if only the Nazis had behaved properly.
- 3
- 2
I don't have my own sources for Mars so I'm relying on those on the Wiki, but that has the Russian losses for the operation at 5 to 8 times those of the Germans. At any loss rate of at least 4:1, the Germans win a war of attrition. But the point I was making was that the Russians were more than willing to make large scale attacks against prepared defences, even after the period of initial desperation had passed.
Also, the Germans didn't withdraw from the salient due to 9th Army being bled white by Mars, they withdrew some months after the operation ended and did so to build up troops for Citadel - so maybe you could say that the withdrawal happened because the German army was being bled white on the eastern front as a whole. The Germans lost many more men by over extending themselves at Stalingrad, and at an unfavourable loss ratio, than they did holding prepared positions on the northern half of the front. You can also look at Citadel for the pros and cons of attacking prepared defences. Manstein's advice was to let the Russians exhaust themselves attacking the Germans in the spring and summer of 1943 and then counter attack, but Hitler couldn't let the initiative pass to the Russians. The Russians were looking at continuing their offensive after the ground dried, but their intelligence service passed on information as to the German plans and they decided to adopt Manstein's advice and let the Germans exhaust themselves attacking their prepared positions around Kursk.
- 2
- 2
I think that one key aspect to mention about Germany winning in the eastern front is that even though they didn't achieve their objectives in operation Barbarossa, the margin of improvement is really small when compare to the one of the soviets. The performance of the soviet armies was abysmal in the early stages due to the great purge and Stalin interference. If we go to speak about how Germany could have win, it need also to be consider how could have the USSR lose. Because even though the Germans could have improved, if the USSR didn't improve during the war, it would have cost them the war. If Stalin maintained the policies held during the early months, the Germans would have win the war
- 2
Public discussion of moderator actions and complaining about swastika rule deleted - Secret Master
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3
There was enough dissent in the USSR, most notably Ukraine and the Baltic's, also Poland and even Georgia. If Germany had more forgiving to the local population the German army wouldn't have to do as much anti-partisan duties. The local populations might very well have risen up against the soviets, which would put the manpower disadvantage at levels which German discipline and training could deal with. Also not having to deal with partisans would allow for many more, far secure supply lines for Germany, while the USSR would consume itself from within leaving only Russia as a possible base for resistance against the Fascists.
I am well aware of this being unrealistic because of the racial war the Nazi regime was fighting, being tolerant to the local Slavic people would be unacceptable for the Nazi party.
Obviously revolts from within the USSR are a bit wishful thinking with how the NKVD controlled the place, but a proper thrashing of the NKVD and a bit of the red army along with actually trying to "pretend" to be "liberating" the local populations might have made it possible. Even just getting (most) of Ukraine on the axis side would mean an astronomical blow to the USSR. In any case digging in would not be the way "forward" for the Reich. Instead a far more mobile defense would be where Germany would shine. As Germany inherently did far better in mobile warfare then static.
As I always state with non historical scenario's, it is just that a non-historical scenario there are many potential reasons why this idea could or could not work and most will be valid reasons.
Last but not least, the vast Russian country side is simply too large to garrison effectively, a WW1 style digging in would have left the Russians, let alone the Germans, with HUGE gaps in their line. Not until the German border could they actually solidify their lines enough to do any sort of defensive in depth that would be meaningful. Where in the west the armies where too large for the landmass, in the east the land mass was too large for the armies. This party is not properly represented in HOI games because of the provinces setup used, in real life provinces are really only a imaginary thing created by humans, unlike in HOI, 1 division could not effectively hold the size of a province in the Russia area the way it could in the west Europe area. There simply are not enough men to station along all those kilometers.
I am well aware of this being unrealistic because of the racial war the Nazi regime was fighting, being tolerant to the local Slavic people would be unacceptable for the Nazi party.
Obviously revolts from within the USSR are a bit wishful thinking with how the NKVD controlled the place, but a proper thrashing of the NKVD and a bit of the red army along with actually trying to "pretend" to be "liberating" the local populations might have made it possible. Even just getting (most) of Ukraine on the axis side would mean an astronomical blow to the USSR. In any case digging in would not be the way "forward" for the Reich. Instead a far more mobile defense would be where Germany would shine. As Germany inherently did far better in mobile warfare then static.
As I always state with non historical scenario's, it is just that a non-historical scenario there are many potential reasons why this idea could or could not work and most will be valid reasons.
Last but not least, the vast Russian country side is simply too large to garrison effectively, a WW1 style digging in would have left the Russians, let alone the Germans, with HUGE gaps in their line. Not until the German border could they actually solidify their lines enough to do any sort of defensive in depth that would be meaningful. Where in the west the armies where too large for the landmass, in the east the land mass was too large for the armies. This party is not properly represented in HOI games because of the provinces setup used, in real life provinces are really only a imaginary thing created by humans, unlike in HOI, 1 division could not effectively hold the size of a province in the Russia area the way it could in the west Europe area. There simply are not enough men to station along all those kilometers.
- 3
Well Im going to partly agree. The germans could never win unless they fought a war of maneuver. But they were poorly equipped for a war of maneuver in the winter. They should have switched to the defensive to minimise attrition untill the weather improved. Then gone back on the offensive in the summer.
It would have been different if they had wide tracked tanks that could operate in mud and soft snow. And if their infantry was properly equiped to be exposed in the Russian winter.
- 1
- 1
Why there is a reply button in moderator post? The rule against commenting moderator posts should be implemented in forum mechanics then: no "reply" button in moderator post. The button being here but unallowed to be used is just stupid.
- 1
The issue is that of course the Soviets will not sit still during winter. Defence everywhere on a 3000km front is never going to work. Somewhere the Soviets will find a weaker point to break through.
It goes far beyond wide tracked tanks. It's the entire logistics system which needs adapting for severe winter, and that requires both resources and time, and experience.
- 2
There is no chance in which Germany has a "campaign which in 1941 conquers Leningrad and Moscow". The logistic system will still break down. If you build more tanks and planes it will simply break down faster.
Also, losing 35% of your stockpile in half a year, isn't just bad, it's a complete disaster. Unlike HOI games, IRL countries always maintained a stockpile. As stockpiles were getting lower, more and more cost cutting measures were introduced, from lowering quality of fuel on the civilian marked to cutting down on motorised training, to greater reliance on horses for transport etc. All of which contribute to military efficiency. It simply shows just how much of a gamble Barbarossa was. Such consumpton could simply not be maintained longer than a few months.
If Germany builds more tanks and planes, it hits them twice. First, by the fact, that extra toys require more supplies by themselves, stretching an already strained supply network. Secondly by depleting oil reserves and forcing cost-cutting measures to come earlier.
Ehm, even wikipedia's very conservative estimates give Germany a 50% numerical advantage at the start. Simply throwing more men there was not possible as it would have worsened the supply situation further.
No the supply problems would not have been cured. Even in areas like Leningrad, where the frontline didn't move much for 2 years, supply problems were constant. You vastly underestimate the amount of work required to generate sufficient supply lines in a massive region which did not have this infrastructure before.
And failed miserably
I'll assume it's some joke I don't get. Anyway, POWs are a topic best not touched as per forum rules, so I'll stop here.
- 2
- 1
All discussion of moderator actions is forbidden in public. If you feel a moderator has acted in error, contact an admin. It just so happens that replying to a moderator post is only one of many ways that discussing moderator actions can take place. It is certainly not the only one, as this brief conversation demonstrates.
Also, complaining about or offering commentary beyond simple compliance to the rules surrounding forbidden topics is also against forum rules in the HOI forum, regardless of whether you comment on a moderator post.
And dragging a thread off topic with spam related to moderator actions is also generally frowned up.
Since we are also getting uncomfortably close to other forbidden topics relating to POWs, I am just going to close this thread until such time as it has been cleaned up.
Thread closed
Last edited:
- Status