What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2019 03:56

Paul Lakowski wrote:
27 Jun 2019 18:44
Harrison does a good job showing how the SU economy reach cross road by mid 1942. Only thing that saved them was the value added component of Lend lease.


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
The tables illustrate, at least, how much the SU had lost by 42:
-Population decline from 167mil to 105mil based on pre-war distribution
-GDP decline of ~40%

Note that Harrison uses "average values" for 1942 - I'm not sure what to make of that statement. If we assume the 41-42 would be roughly doubled if Germany had occupied Stalingrad, Kuban, Rostov, etc. for all of '42 then we're approaching a 50% GDP decline and a population base below 100mil.

Now consider adding everything behind the A-A line to the loss column. Pre-war Siberia (Urals and eastwards) was ~40mil population. Central Asian countries were ~20mil but of dubious loyalty. So it'd be a stretch, IMO, to say that an SU beginning from the AA line in 1943 would have been able to mount half as much resistance in 43 as OTL.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2019 04:06

Hanny wrote:Your using a single book that makes several claims, claims that are all incorrect, it says T34 were used in Russia/japans conflict and should not have been a surprise in 41, its cite is another book which says this is correct because Halders diary makes reference to it. It does not and anyone who has read Halders diary, which includes yourself, knows there is no such reference by Halder to T34 pre war
I agree with you that Hitler/OKW had no reason specifically to know of the T34 before Barbarossa; I disagree that there was no reason to up-gun before then. Halder's diary doesn't mention the T34 but it does mention Hitler's apprehension of huge Soviet tanks, almost certainly referring to the KV and other prototypes used against the Finns.

Even without specific knowledge of stronger SU armor, the Battle of France alone should have convinced Hitler to do something in case SU had something like the Char-B and Matilda II. It was obvious after that battle that German armor/firepower was not cutting edge.

I recall reading that Hitler ordered adoption of the long-barreled 75mm during 1940 but that the order was lost - and not followed up on - due to bureaucratic morass. I don't recall where I read this. Has anyone seen anything similar?
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by ljadw » 02 Jul 2019 05:33

About the fall of Moscow : I do no not have to prove that the Kremlin would have considered this option : YOU are the man who claimed that the fall of Moscow would result in greater hauls of prisoners,implying that the Soviets would fight for Moscow, would sacrfice a big army to save Moscow ,for which there is no proof .They did not fight for Kiev, thus why would they always fight for Moscow ?
In the OTL, the Soviets fought for Moscow, but there is no evidence that they would sacrifice a whole army in Moscow, as there was no need for a big army to fight in MOscow .
Your answer on point 2 ( Ukraine ) is not correct , as the capture of the Ukraine did not mean that Moscow could not be captured .The Kiew decision had no influence on the battle for Moscow .
Your answer on point 4 is also not correct : you said that stronger German forces would result in stronger Soviet losses,and there is no proof for this : it is also possible that stronger German forces would result in stronger German losses .
There is no proof at all that if the Taifun forces were 10 % stronger, the Soviet losses would be increase with 10 % or more.More Soviet losses were possible only if there would be more Soviet forces available .Besides, the double-panzer-pincers encirclments were mostly theory, but not facts .Large parts of the Soviet encircled forces succeeded to escape .
Most Soviets were not taken POW because of double-panzer-pincers encirclments and the number of POWs in November was NOT alarmingly high .
Some rough 1941 POW figures ( who were also inflated )
June 112000
July 700000
August 700000
September 1 million
October 1.050000
November 290000
December 55000
Total :3.9 million.
This figure was brought back to 3.367000
You are construction a ATL where bigger encirclments result in bigger losses,something which is not correct . Projections in wartime are very hazardous .
Other point is that an increase of the Ostheer would mean
a that Barbarossa should be postponed
b that Taifun would be postponed ,as it was not possible for a stronger Taifun force to attack on the same day that the weaker OTL Taifun force started .
Last point :
there is no proof of a famine in 1942 that was influencing the Soviet war effort and no proof that the Soviet food situation was saved by LL .

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Paul Lakowski » 02 Jul 2019 06:50

In 1941 only 11% of the T-34/KV tanks survived the fighting that year. RED ARMY had 534 med/heavy tank survivors [T-34/KV] out of the 4821 built. That’s a survival rate of 11%

BY contrast in-1941 Nazi had 1684 PzIII/IV/38t tanks survivors out of 4542 built. That’s 37% survival rate. The NAZI battle tanks were more than 3 times as survivable as the RED ARMY TANKS...and yet the T-34 "armor was vastly superior".

Clearly German tanks were fine and fire superiority & more efficient tactical/operation control -decided the out come. Word on the street had Panzers getting 3-4 shots off in the time Russian tanks took one shot.

I agree that NAZI should have taken tank threat more seriously, however I would have expected a mad scramble to convert all the 1000 Pz-I in late 1940 into Panzerjäger-I's. During this time period almost 700 Panzer 1 were sent back to depot to be rebuilt, while 200 were converted into Panzerjäger-I's.

Next upgrade the useless Panzer-II in much the same way as Panzerjäger-I's just add 75L24 plus 40 shells and 30mm armor added around front. Reportedly 245 new Panzer-II were built plus another 250 rebuilt. That could mean ~ 500 interim assault guns/Jag panzer by the end of 1941.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Hanny » 02 Jul 2019 07:17

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
02 Jul 2019 04:06


I recall reading that Hitler ordered adoption of the long-barreled 75mm during 1940 but that the order was lost - and not followed up on - due to bureaucratic morass. I don't recall where I read this. Has anyone seen anything similar?
Guderian in Panzer Leader is what i think your remembering,https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xDE ... er&f=false


see also
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZIC ... er&f=false
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2479
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by MarkN » 02 Jul 2019 14:59

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
04 May 2019 05:10
What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces
That's not going to happen.

The Wehrmacht fell short of success by a massive margin. A "slightly stronger force" isn't going to change the outcome.

But it's your what if so you get to make up whatever outcome you wish.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by ljadw » 02 Jul 2019 15:05

Paul Lakowski wrote:
02 Jul 2019 06:50
In 1941 only 11% of the T-34/KV tanks survived the fighting that year. RED ARMY had 534 med/heavy tank survivors [T-34/KV] out of the 4821 built. That’s a survival rate of 11%

BY contrast in-1941 Nazi had 1684 PzIII/IV/38t tanks survivors out of 4542 built. That’s 37% survival rate. The NAZI battle tanks were more than 3 times as survivable as the RED ARMY TANKS...and yet the T-34 "armor was vastly superior".

Clearly German tanks were fine and fire superiority & more efficient tactical/operation control -decided the out come. Word on the street had Panzers getting 3-4 shots off in the time Russian tanks took one shot.

I agree that NAZI should have taken tank threat more seriously, however I would have expected a mad scramble to convert all the 1000 Pz-I in late 1940 into Panzerjäger-I's. During this time period almost 700 Panzer 1 were sent back to depot to be rebuilt, while 200 were converted into Panzerjäger-I's.

Next upgrade the useless Panzer-II in much the same way as Panzerjäger-I's just add 75L24 plus 40 shells and 30mm armor added around front. Reportedly 245 new Panzer-II were built plus another 250 rebuilt. That could mean ~ 500 interim assault guns/Jag panzer by the end of 1941.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by ljadw » 02 Jul 2019 15:20

These figures do not prove the superiority of German tanks, German tank crews, German tank tactics,because most German tank losses were not caused by Soviet tanks, Soviet tank losses were mostly not caused by German tanks.
There is also no proof that the PzII was useless.The Ostheer started in June 1941 with 746 PzII ,lost in 1941 398 of them and received in 1941 23 PzII replacements .
The initial number of PzI is not known, but the losses were 341 and replacements were 12 .

paulrward
Banned
Posts: 308
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by paulrward » 02 Jul 2019 18:12

Hello All :

Mr. Ljadw stated :
These figures do not prove the superiority of German tanks, German tank crews, German tank tactics,because most German tank losses were not caused by Soviet tanks, Soviet tank losses were mostly not caused by German tanks.
What is not discussed in these loss figures from 1941 is that they occurred during the period of German Advance into the USSR. In effect, a Soviet tank that was knocked out and over run by German forces was ' lost ' to the Soviets, ( and occasionally, with the addition of a black cross on the turret, was ' found ' by the Germans ! ) while a German tank that was knocked out might be recovered, towed to the rear, and then either repaired or sent back to Germany for a major rebuild. Thus, tanks lost by the Soviets in 1941 were truly lost, for the German tanks, not so much.....

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by ljadw » 02 Jul 2019 18:30

Some of the Soviet tanks were recovered and sent back to the East to be repaired .And not all German tanks could be repaired . While the fact is that the Soviet tank losses in 1941 were 13405 ( underestimated German figures ) and the German losses 2518 , it is not possible to draw any conclusions about this ,as for both sides , and especially the Soviet side, most tank losses were ''non combat ''
losses,things as : shortage of spare parts, ammunition, fuel ,..
A lot of Soviet tank divisions lost most of their tanks during the advance to the west in June and July without having seen any German .In June and July the Germans lost 590 tanks ,the Soviets 8300 .

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2019 19:09

MarkN wrote:The Wehrmacht fell short of success by a massive margin. A "slightly stronger force" isn't going to change the outcome.
Like others here you come with a claim rather than an argument. And your claim coincides with what one would believe after watching 30 minutes of the History Channel.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2019 19:14

paulrward wrote:
02 Jul 2019 18:12
Hello All :

Mr. Ljadw stated :
These figures do not prove the superiority of German tanks, German tank crews, German tank tactics,because most German tank losses were not caused by Soviet tanks, Soviet tank losses were mostly not caused by German tanks.
What is not discussed in these loss figures from 1941 is that they occurred during the period of German Advance into the USSR. In effect, a Soviet tank that was knocked out and over run by German forces was ' lost ' to the Soviets, ( and occasionally, with the addition of a black cross on the turret, was ' found ' by the Germans ! ) while a German tank that was knocked out might be recovered, towed to the rear, and then either repaired or sent back to Germany for a major rebuild. Thus, tanks lost by the Soviets in 1941 were truly lost, for the German tanks, not so much.....

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
This rightly highlights one of the ways in which success/failure on the Eastern Front - like all wars really - is non-linear with force ratios.
Germany was close to - sometimes above - force parity with the Red Army throughout '41; the numbers (and to a lesser extent weather) shifted against the Ostheer once Stavka committed its massive reserve in December. At that point Germany was on the back foot, losing not only tanks but also huge quantities of guns, supplies, trucks, etc. as it retreated over the winter. Crucially, the POW figures shifted as well.

None of that happens if the Red Army doesn't reach critical mass by the end of 41; such critical mass doesn't accrue if slightly stronger German forces enable a few more encirclements during Barbarossa.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2525
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by Richard Anderson » 02 Jul 2019 19:35

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
02 Jul 2019 19:09
MarkN wrote:The Wehrmacht fell short of success by a massive margin. A "slightly stronger force" isn't going to change the outcome.
Like others here you come with a claim rather than an argument. And your claim coincides with what one would believe after watching 30 minutes of the History Channel.
Yes, but you've come with an argument unsupported by facts. I suspect Mark's claim is supported with more facts than your argument. :D
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2479
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by MarkN » 02 Jul 2019 19:43

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
02 Jul 2019 19:09
MarkN wrote:The Wehrmacht fell short of success by a massive margin. A "slightly stronger force" isn't going to change the outcome.
Like others here you come with a claim rather than an argument. And your claim coincides with what one would believe after watching 30 minutes of the History Channel.
I'd argue that your entire what if is premised upon a History Channel quality understanding of BARBAROSSA: the Germans were close to taking Moscow and winning the war. They weren't. They got nowhere close to success. Given that simple reality, the rest of your reengineering has zero relevance.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: What if: Hitler wins the war due to slightly stronger Barbarossa forces

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2019 20:05

MarkN wrote:your entire what if is premised upon a History Channel quality understanding of BARBAROSSA: the Germans were close to taking Moscow and winning the war.
Wrong. I've explicitly stated - in this thread and the other - that taking Moscow is insufficient for German victory. There is no "magic bullet" for German victory; they have to win a war of attrition and resources against SU. And they could have.
RichardAnderson wrote:Yes, but you've come with an argument unsupported by facts.
Let's narrow the grounds of the discussion a little. I appreciate that you disagree with my contention that Germany could/should have launched Barbarossa with 20 more mechanized divisions. I even admit that I have provided insufficient detail to carry my argument that the additional forces were feasible. [At the highest level I continue to believe so but will need time to address all your specific objections].

For pure curiosity's sake, what is your argument against my contention that an additional 20 mechanized divisions - if used to encircle Northwest and Southwest fronts during the Border Battles - would have won Germany the war?

IMO the case for my ATL is easy if the 20 divisions are feasible. And that's all I mean in saying that the Eastern Front - by extension WW2 - was closer run than commonly supposed.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

Return to “What if”