Germany winning on the Eastern Front

[detaf]

The russian t34, and kv1 tanks were too good for the germans in 1941 and 1942, they needed artillery, flak 88 or tactical airsupport to overcome them. It was a nasty surprise and slowed them down a lot.

[ML59]

Very, very rarely a single wonder weapon has an impact on the battleflied big enough to change the strategic balance. While the T34 was a very good machine (the KV was a much more problematic vehicle) far more important on the battlefield was the very low level of preparedness and training of the RKKA, its poor deployment, the abysmal quality of its NCOs and field officers, the very poor command, control and communications capability of the General Staff, the almost total lack of air support, the very low mobility of its forces and so on.

Also the German introduced several wonder weapons that set the trend of warfare for decades to follow, but none of them could reverse the overall strategic balance.

[ML59]

Well we all know russian airplanes were nothing but crap,

Soviet airplanes crap? In 1941, yes, mostly, from 1942 onwards, not at all. And by 1944 the balance was very much in soviet favour.

[Dave-the-Rave66]

from what I understand, hitlers Wehrmacht could have been capable of taking down the soviets if he had allowed them to, but the fact that it was designed for swift blitzkrieg attacks, which was what helped them devour countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, which was one of the physical properties of the heer which hindered them- this along with hitlers idiotic decisions of course.
Does no one else wonder what would have happened if hitler had prostponed Barbarossa for years and instead, supported Mussolini fully in his drive through Africa? it would have knocked the British out from Asia and probably the war, secured numerous reserves of raw materials and oil for the axis at a minimal cost of manpower (countries across the Middle East were showing signs of axis support, such as in Egypt and Iraq). eventually, the capture of Iran would have been amazing for the Germans- they would have had time to capatilize on all of there previous conquests, secured there oil reserves, and put themselves in a perfect position to attack the Caucasus from the south, meaning more effort on the Moscow front.
and who knows- perhaps the Wehrmacht would have seen a new breed of aircraft in this time using the new materials and time that was bought?:) sorry if it's a mouthful, am new here:)

[ljadw]

- this along with hitlers idiotic decisions of course.



Does no one else wonder what would have happened if hitler had prostponed Barbarossa for years and instead, supported Mussolini fully in his drive through Africa? it would have knocked the British out from Asia and probably the war, secured numerous reserves of raw materials and oil for the axis at a minimal cost of manpower (countries across the Middle East were showing signs of axis support, such as in Egypt and Iraq). eventually, the capture of Iran would have been amazing for the Germans- they would have had time to capatilize on all of there previous conquests, secured there oil reserves, and put themselves in a perfect position to attack the Caucasus from the south, meaning more effort on the Moscow front.
and who knows- perhaps the Wehrmacht would have seen a new breed of aircraft in this time using the new materials and time that was bought?:) sorry if it's a mouthful, am new here:)

1) What idiotic decisions from Hitler ?

2) What Italian drive through Africa?

3)Why would a successful Italian drive through Africa knock the British out of ASIA ?

4)What raw materials and oil ?

[Dave-the-Rave66]

I read a book about how hitler could have won the war, basically, taking over the Mediterranean would cut Britain off from the Suez Canal, forcing her to use the Atlantic Ocean for supply routes to India (which meant more risk of U-boat attacks). Remember the protests in Cairo against British rule and the desireamongst protestors for a German invasion. The conquest of the Middle East and North Africa would have cut Britain off from her empire, meaning they were nearly completely reliant on their own resources to survive- so in effect would tighten the rope around Britain so much they would not be able to support a war effort.
what Italian drive through Africa? the invasion of Egypt, as well as Kenya and other British territories. also, the axis conquest of the Middle East would gather hitler both time to capitalise and exploit from his previous conquests, and oil and resources from the Middle East. so not only has he cut Britain off from her Asian colonies (now vulnerable to Japanese aggression) but put Germany in an excellent position to seize the Caucasus from the south (Iran) as well as the initial Barbarossa drive from previous European conquests.all without depleting resources too much (Rommels tactics would have been so much more effective with full supplies and support)

[ljadw]

I hope that you didn't pay a penny for this book,because it was not worth more: from june 1940 to may 1943,the Mediterranean was NOT used as supply route to India .

[Dave-the-Rave66]

look, all it said was that an axis control over the Mediterranean sea would tighten the rope around Britain and make her surrender more likely - either way, German control over the Middle East oil supplies would have been incredibly useful for Barbarossa

[ljadw]

What it said was wrong :German control over the ME oil supplies would have been of no help for Barbarossa : a German commitment in the ME would have delayed Barbarossa for more than one year,and meanwhile the SU would have been that strong that after a few months of fighting the Germans would not have been at the gates of Moscow,but the Soviets at the gates of Berlin .

[Dave-the-Rave66]

ah so Stalin would have mobilised anyways? so if Barbarossa had to happen in 1941 for hitler to stand a chance, was there any chance at all?

[j keenan]

Non what so ever

[steverodgers801]

This has been discussed before, but there was no way for Germany to reach the British oil fields and no means of getting oil back to Germany. By the way that book is stupid, because the Germans did cut the Med supply route, traffic did have to go around Africa. There are few roads and almost no rail lines between Turkey and Russia, so I don't know how Germany could have sent enough troops through Turkey and supplied them while they tried to cross a very difficult mountain range

[Paul D]

Dave,

Firstly Germany achieving its operational objectives (kiev, leningrad, moscow then stalingrad, caucasus) doesn't mean that russia would of surrended.
By 1942 the forces on the eastern front were exhausted. for fall blau panzer divisions were taken from the whole front leaving them dangerously weakened, but germany was incapable of launching its summer campaign without doing this.
Personally i think 1942 should of been a year of tactical offensives aimed at keeping russia of guard whilst it allows germany to replace the loses of 1941 and to equip and train its allies to a better level.
These tactical offensives could of been the reduction of the oranienbaum pocket, a tighter perimeter of leningrad leading to its capture, a limited version of fall blau is still an option.
Whether any of this would make any difference i doubt, but as happened by the end of 1942 it was just a matter of time before germany lost the war.

[Dave-the-Rave66]

I've heard that Moscow was the centre of a rail network, so if the Germans did capture it, then the Russians would have at least caused some problems in supply lines- sorry, I didn't realise how much more complex the situation of oil and the Caucasus was! perhaps, Germany shouldn't have attacked at all and instead consolidated their hold over Western Europe- then if Stalin had attacked instead, perhaps a defensive position for the Wehrmacht would have been better. plus, the job would have been easier because the army and Air Force weren't depleted and knackered at this point!

[j keenan]

to equip and train its allies to a better level.

In what way ?