Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

Italy didn't need to (invade? retreat from? Vacation briefly in?) Greece. The Greek government was pursuing neutrality and was sympathetic to the axis.

I was talking about the Germans having to invade Greece after the italian screw up to prevent the allies from doing operations in the Balkans and hurting the rear of the Wehrmacht once they were driving for Russia. Had the italians not invaded Greece and the allied backed coup d'etat in Yugoslavia didn't happen, Germany wouldn't have had to invade the Balkans.

 

[Zinegata]

I was talking about the Germans having to invade Greece after the italian screw up to prevent the allies from doing operations in the Balkans and hurting the rear of the Wehrmacht once they were driving for Russia. Had the italians not invaded Greece and the allied backed coup d'etat in Yugoslavia didn't happen, Germany wouldn't have had to invade the Balkans.

The German invasion of the Balkans was never a big deal for them though. Churchill created this myth that the Greece intervention saved the Soviets because it supposedly delayed Barbarossa. In reality if the Germans invaded a month earlier we would be treated to the spectacle of 3,000 German Panzers sinking into the Soviet mud because the ground hand't dried out yet from the Spring thaw.

The fact that Churchill was directly responsible for sending British forces in Greece - which ended up getting badly trounced - probably has something to do with his attempts to pretend it was some kind of critical operation instead of yet another embarrassing blunder in a career full of similar badly conceived operations.

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

The German invasion of the Balkans was never a big deal for them though. Churchill created this myth that the Greece intervention saved the Soviets because it supposedly delayed Barbarossa. In reality if the Germans invaded a month earlier we would be treated to the spectacle of 3,000 German Panzers sinking into the Soviet mud because the ground hand't dried out yet from the Spring thaw.

The fact that Churchill was directly responsible for sending British forces in Greece - which ended up getting badly trounced - probably has something to do with his attempts to pretend it was some kind of critical operation instead of yet another embarrassing blunder in a career full of similar badly conceived operations.

I agree. It wasn't that big of a deal compared to other theatres. It was probably the fourth most important after the Eastern, Western, North Africa theatres. But if the Axis let the Allies invade the Balkans, they could use the airfields there to host the RAF and pound Axis positions deep in the USSR. It was too great of a risk to just ignore them.

With hindsight, it would have been more smarter to send minor axis nation forces like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary with a small leading german spearhead and a rearguard german mobile reserve. It would have been better for the OOB of the Wehrmacht in Russia as they would have more german soldiers and weapons to do Barbarossa later.

Still, that wouldn't have changed the strategic overall situation in the Eastern Front because the starting plan was flawed in its premises leading to an eventual and logical military failure. A more streamlined and limited plan was needed to achieve Op. Barbarossa aims.

Also, as for Churchill, he had some errors like every great person in History but he was probably what held together the British nation during the war against a seemingly unstoppable fascist juggernaut.

 

[Director]

Changing the railroad gauge from wider to narrower isn't difficult, just manpower-intensive. Lots of US and British railroads did it at one time or another - one US railroad famously changed over its entire line in one day just by putting enough labor in place. Going from narrower to wider is more difficult because the railroad ties are probably just wide enough for the narrower gauge.

And as far as what the German generals may or may not have known or thought about invading Russia - however bad they thought it would be it turned out to be worse. Their intelligence was inadequate and their appreciation of the data was faulty.

 

[Big Nev]

Allied bombing was hardly happening in 1941, and didn't really cause a major stir among the Germans until July 1943 when Hamburg burned. It wasn't really a factor in Barbarossa...

So... if Allied bombing wasn't that important in 41, why did they keep over 4,000 flak 88s in Germany & only send 200 in to Russia?

They knew it was the best AT weapon in the world since the SCW so, you know, a few more could have come in handy.

...

The real problem is that German trains sucked for long-range resupply. They were designed to operate in Western Europe which had a very dense rail network and plentiful coaling stations. The Soviets by contrast had a sparse rail network - with only a handful of lines connecting the widely separated cities; which often had no coaling stations in between. The German trains simply ran out of coal before they could travel between the great distances of the Soviet rail stations.

To resolve this, they had two options. The first was to use captured Soviet trains - which were larger and had sufficient range to make the trip - but this was done rarely because then they had to keep the track in the Soviet gauge and there weren't enough trains captured in the first place. The second, more time-intensive solution was to build additional coaling stations in between the long distance tracks so that the German trains could make the trip.

Umm...

Couldn't they have just hooked-up another (or larger) coal tender?

Maybe water was an issue too but trains can pull water as well.

It just seems a little strange that this would have been such a huge issue which, on the surface, appears to have a simple solution.

...

And to add to the macabre insanity of the situation, the German train system was apparently still under civilian control in December 1941 - and almost everyone involved in the project went on holiday for Christmas. So while your average Landser froze to death trying to reach Moscow, behind them the new coaling stations that were supposed to help supply him were left unmanned and unfinished - because all the civilian workers were toasting to the troops at home as part of the Christmas holidays.

Now this is just staggering. Everything grinding to a halt during the winter holidays.

This sort of thing doesn't happen on construction projects any more. [/sarcasm]

Whoever was in charge of this project should have been sent to the Eastern Front as punishment.

Oh wait.

On a serious note, these additional coal stations would count as infrastructure upgrades in-game. If a German player wants to properly supply a large Barbarossa, he/she should need to spend some resources in order to perform these upgrades.

From my pitiful attempts at playing Germany, I've tried this and it takes time. Too much time. So, IMHO, appears to be well modelled.

 

[Opanashc]

So... if Allied bombing wasn't that important in 41, why did they keep over 4,000 flak 88s in Germany & only send 200 in to Russia?
They knew it was the best AT weapon in the world since the SCW so, you know, a few more could have come in handy.

Don't be ridiculous. It was NOT the best thing in AT. It is too high, for starters, making it difficult to hide. It is not maneuverable, making it hard to use in an offensive.
Also, are you eager to send the police force from your town to go fight ISIS in Iraq? That's what flaks were for in Germany.

 

[Big Nev]

Don't be ridiculous. It was NOT the best thing in AT. It is too high, for starters, making it difficult to hide. It is not maneuverable, making it hard to use in an offensive.
Also, are you eager to send the police force from your town to go fight ISIS in Iraq? That's what flaks were for in Germany.

So tell me of a better one in 41.

The Pak 40s didn't make an appearance until early 42 (as a direct result of shockingly good soviet armour) and, although they had much lower profiles, they still weren't as powerful.

Pak 38s were available but they barely compare to the 6pdr & the Pak 36 by this time was a bit of a joke.

The 17pdr in 43 & the US 90mm... well the Yank's weren't even in the war yet & hadn't even adopted the 6pdr!

As for it's use on the offensive. It could be de-coupled & set-up for firing in 2½ minutes. At a push, it could be fired with its bogies still attached so... it's use on the offensive was slightly impaired yes, but to say it was hard to use? I don't think so. Certainly no more difficult than a conventional horse-drawn AT gun. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the classical German tactic for dealing with enemy tanks based upon leading them on to prepared AT (&/or AA) guns? Frequently even feinting to draw them out? Use of flash-less propellant was common from North Africa where these things (the 88s) had proven very difficult for the British to locate & dig out.

Especially at ranges close to 2km. Their typical kill range.

As for not sending the police force. That's not as bad an analogy as it may first appear. The AA guns retained in Germany did indeed have a job to do. A job which, IMHO, was very important. My argument is to counter that of @Zinegata who asserted that the Allied bombing wasn't significant. Without the protection of this AAA, the bombers would have been able to fly much lower and during daylight which would made have their attacks much more effective.

Without the Allied (British at this time) bombing, Germany would have been able to send large numbers of Flak 88s to the Eastern Front.

 

[Augustus93]

Winter, no preparations for winter, overextended supply lines, mud, overconfidence, too optimistic planning, just to name a few reasons.

And it's unlikely the Soviets would have surrendered even if the Germans had captured Moscow.

Also the Soviets used other kinds of railroad tracks than the Germans meaning that the Germans had to change all the railroads to their size so to say. Railroads were very important in the logistics as the soviet roads were quite bad and of course subject to over flooding. Trains were the only reliable way go quickly transfer larger amounts of supplies and the attacking armies moved way faster than the supply lines could be fixed for Germany and hence it was the doom of Germany. The problem in HoI3 was that this was not simulated and Germany could use the full infrastructure of the soviets as soon as they conquered the province. I hope that that this will be in the game somehow.

 

[Zinegata]

So... if Allied bombing wasn't that important in 41, why did they keep over 4,000 flak 88s in Germany & only send 200 in to Russia?

They knew it was the best AT weapon in the world since the SCW so, you know, a few more could have come in handy.

Because it wasn't their best AT weapon in 1941. The 88 had the best penetrating power but much of it is wasted when the majority of the Soviet tank park was something along the lines of the T-26. Most German Divisions in fact never bothered to parcel out 88s for anti-tank work - keeping them strictly for AA use - as it had an enormous profile that made it very easy to spot and destroy.

The most treasured anti-tank weapon in 1941 was in fact the 50mm PAK, which did in fact get distributed in one or twos per battalion. This gun could take out most Soviet armor while still being very easy to man-handle and had good enough penetration. Even in the desert, where the 88 derives most of its reputation, the 50mm was actually more widely used and inflicted more kills than the 88.

The Allied bombing was simply not that big a factor in 1941. They didn't bring the 88s because they didn't think they needed them. Heck, they initially didn't even think of rushing out a lot more of the 50mms in the first place.

Couldn't they have just hooked-up another (or larger) coal tender?

Maybe water was an issue too but trains can pull water as well.

It just seems a little strange that this would have been such a huge issue which, on the surface, appears to have a simple solution.

Because by doing that you decrease the train's economical load, particularly when you consider there likely won't be a coalfield waiting for you at the end of the line so you need to have enough fuel for a two-way trip.

Trucks and trains both have a transport range for a reason - beyond that point you start using up so much fuel that you spend more resources trucking your own fuel around rather than the cargo; which is very bad considering that you may often have only one rail track for an entire Corps.

I'm sure they did this sometimes though - especially early on before the network could be fixed - but that's also why the Germans started getting much less than the 1,000 tons per day they needed per Division in combat.

Now this is just staggering. Everything grinding to a halt during the winter holidays.

This sort of thing doesn't happen on construction projects any more. [/sarcasm]

Whoever was in charge of this project should have been sent to the Eastern Front as punishment.

Oh wait.

On a serious note, these additional coal stations would count as infrastructure upgrades in-game. If a German player wants to properly supply a large Barbarossa, he/she should need to spend some resources in order to perform these upgrades.

From my pitiful attempts at playing Germany, I've tried this and it takes time. Too much time. So, IMHO, appears to be well modelled.

Most serious war games on the subject have actually mapped out the exact line of advance that the Germans can reach before the supply attenuation becomes too great. Often these same games also have rules that allow the Germans to pause for several weeks to try and improve the supply situation - something that didn't happen historically as the Germans were busy encircling Kiev when the pause was supposed to happen.

 

[Zinegata]

Also the Soviets used other kinds of railroad tracks than the Germans meaning that the Germans had to change all the railroads to their size so to say. Railroads were very important in the logistics as the soviet roads were quite bad and of course subject to over flooding. Trains were the only reliable way go quickly transfer larger amounts of supplies and the attacking armies moved way faster than the supply lines could be fixed for Germany and hence it was the doom of Germany. The problem in HoI3 was that this was not simulated and Germany could use the full infrastructure of the soviets as soon as they conquered the province. I hope that that this will be in the game somehow.

See my previous post above regarding the gauge issue - long story short it wasn't the problem. The problem was that Russian railroads required trains to go longer distances which German trains could not achieve.

That said yes, it's not realistic to get full infrastructure use immediately upon conquering a province. Even the Americans largely failed to get the French railways running in their favor after the breakout in August 1944, despite active French collaboration, which is why they had to wait until Antwerp was opened to resume the offensive (Antwerp being very close to the frontline and within economical range of the trucks that supplied the US and British Armies)

 

[Adonnus]

Why did Barbarossa fail? So many reasons... but undoubtedly the biggest was the unexpected ability of the Soviets to raise new armies so quickly replacing lost ones.

 

[Ulsterman]

So... if Allied bombing wasn't that important in 41, why did they keep over 4,000 flak 88s in Germany & only send 200 in to Russia?

They knew it was the best AT weapon in the world since the SCW so, you know, a few more could have come in handy.

a) It wasn't the best. The PaK 38 was a good tank killer as long as there was a supply of tungsten-core AT shells. These shells could penetrate the T-34's armor well enough.The supply of tungsten only ran dry in 1943.
b) The 88 had a mass of about 5t (5000kg) and required an motorized transport to be moved. The PaKs were much lighter (the 50mm PaK 38 had a mass of about 800 kg) and could be moved by soldiers on foot. The 88 was supposed to be used in a stationary emplacement, firing while still on wheels was a stop-gap measure for emergency situations. The PaKs were supposed to be able to quickly change positions while in combat.

 

[Rhylsaldar]

as always, overconfidence.

The first rules when you born in this world :

"Do not invade Russia unless if you are a Mongo! !"

Second is : "Or you should visit Russia before Russia visit you !'

1st Hitler was not a good strategist only a good diplomatic and politicians. with all gamblng and opportunist acts (Rheinland, Anchluss, Munich, Pact of Steel, Danzig, Norway (one of the best military operation), the Fall of France ect... Until he see himselve as a Great General like Alexander, or Napoleon whitch he was not. Napoleon start as caporal but grow as general before conquering Europe, Ceasar was confirmed as a great general before leading Rome. But Hitler was not, only his followers in german military staff establishment was. And he stop listening them.

2nd No need to invade soviets after the fall of France and all the Western continental europe Under German Influence. A focus on GB with Japan should have to be wise... a huge operation on suez canal (Gernany+ Italy) and Ceylan and embargo india (for japan) would have make GB a white peace treaty.

 

[Big Nev]

a) It wasn't the best. The PaK 38 was a good tank killer as long as there was a supply of tungsten-core AT shells. These shells could penetrate the T-34's armor well enough.The supply of tungsten only ran dry in 1943.
b) The 88 had a mass of about 5t (5000kg) and required an motorized transport to be moved. The PaKs were much lighter (the 50mm PaK 38 had a mass of about 800 kg) and could be moved by soldiers on foot. The 88 was supposed to be used in a stationary emplacement, firing while still on wheels was a stop-gap measure for emergency situations. The PaKs were supposed to be able to quickly change positions while in combat.

I wonder just how far you think its crew could "move" the 800+kg 50L60. It's almost a ton.

There's a huge difference between re-positioning and re-locating. Have you ever pushed a car?

There's also a huge difference between knocking-out a T-34 at 500m+ with solid shot or a tungsten penetrator & killing it at 2km with a 3½" shell that explodes inside the tank.

 

[Ulsterman]

I wonder just how far you think its crew could "move" the 800+kg 50L60. It's almost a ton.

There's a huge difference between re-positioning and re-locating. Have you ever pushed a car?

Surprisingly enough I have. Moving a car around is easily done with three people, even over longer distances. onestly, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Considering your "statement" about the ammunition it is plainstakingly obvious that you might have not the slightest idea...

 

[D Inqu]

There's also a huge difference between knocking-out a T-34 at 500m+ with solid shot or a tungsten penetrator & killing it at 2km with a 3½" shell that explodes inside the tank.

Since kills over 1km were extremely rare, it really is time to do away with the 2km myth.

 

[Big Nev]

Surprisingly enough I have. Moving a car around is easily done with three people, even over longer distances. onestly, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Considering your "statement" about the ammunition it is plainstakingly obvious that you might have not the slightest idea...

Over rough ground?

And what exactly is your point about my "statement" about the ammunition?

 

[Kovax]

With hindsight, it would have been more smarter to send minor axis nation forces like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary with a small leading german spearhead and a rearguard german mobile reserve. It would have been better for the OOB of the Wehrmacht in Russia as they would have more german soldiers and weapons to do Barbarossa later.

Those Axis minors wouldn't have done much good, if at all. Bulgaria was a non-factor from a military perspective. They simply had no ability to project a military offensive over any distance without extensive German support; it was about all they could manage just to serve as occupational forces in the Soviet Union.

Hungary, with a very small army still in the process of rearming (there were several divisions formed which then had to wait for rifles to be built), was trying to re-establish decent relations with Yugoslavia, in hopes of an eventual plebiscite to alter the borders peacefully, or at least better conditions for its Magyar population living in Yugoslavia since the border changes following WWI. The German invasion of YUG essentially made it a moot point. Making prior plans to assist a German invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia would have been "problematical" at best.

Romania didn't throw its active military support behind Germany until Barbarossa, mainly due to the Soviets having taken Bessarabia. Participating in the invasion of Greece before that was far less likely.

In essence, Germany was able to keep its Balkan allies in its camp only by threat, or because their fear of Soviet occupation was even greater than their fear of a German one. It's nothing like how it's portrayed in the game, where the Axis minors are "all in" from the moment that they click the "join" button. Consider that Hungary actively pursued the possibility of changing sides (and was rudely rebuffed), then was subsequently occupied directly by Germany. Romania was mostly supportive of Germany (at least while Hungary served as a buffer between them and Germany), but surrendered as soon as the Soviets crossed the border. The Bosnian Serbs were heavily divided between pro-German and pro-Soviet camps while the matter was still undecided, but both would have continued underground resistance in pursuit of an independent country against whoever ultimately ended up occupying the country. Germany's only "friend" was Italy, and that was largely dependent upon Mussolini's personal direction.

 

[Director]

As I remember, Napoleon's original strategy was to crush the Russian armies close enough to the border to avoid a protracted campaign in the interior. And that worked well...

Could the Germans have likewise concentrated on destroying Soviet formations and pulled back to a defensible line for the winter? In other words - could they have usefully applied von Manstein's 'backhand blow' in 1941-42 and, by compelling the Soviets to attack, wrecked the Soviet army enough to allow a grand offensive in 1942?

Or was it a case of 'all-in, win or lose'?

 

[Opanashc]

Without the Allied (British at this time) bombing, Germany would have been able to send large numbers of Flak 88s to the Eastern Front.

And they would have changed absolutely nothing.