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.
Post Reply
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#346

Post by ljadw » 18 Jul 2019, 12:40

Stocks are the difference between production and consumption .
If you want to increase the consumptiom, you have 2 possibilities
a Increase production
b take from the stocks .
As there is no proof that a was possible in 1941,the result will be a 30% decrease of the stocks .
Generally ,this ATL ,as most ATLs,which have as aim to make a German victory possible, is based on very shaky foundations .
Things as
it was possible to raise more additional mobile divisions .
it was possible to move them to the east and to supply them .
it was possible to defeat the SU with these additional divisions.
meanwhile, the SU and the allies would do as in the OTL,something which proves the conviction of the author that an ATL can only benefit to Germany .
after the defeat of the SU , the allies would not be able to defeat Germany, as they could not make nuclear weapons .
Remains the big question : if this all was possible, why did Hitler and the OKh not do it ? Were they that stupid ?And, why had we to wait 78 years to know that Germany could win, but that it lost because its generals were too stupid to to do what TheMarcksplan proposes ?

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008, 21:40

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

#347

Post by Hanny » 18 Jul 2019, 14:48

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 10:37
Stocks come from production and are set - not just replaced - according to strategic decisions. Change the strategic decisions and you can change the stocks.
Wrong. Another magic bullet argument. AH wanted more oil, esp for the campaign of 41, he prepared for Barbarossa by imports from Roumania at 15% over the barrel price, but it was still less volume than were imported pre war and was 4 times the cost, but Roumania could not maintain that level of output in 41, there was none to obtain domestically or from foreign sources, due to RN blockade, so he now had to run Europe and Italy from what fuel oils he had, so your magic bullet i can have as much fuel as i want by changing strategic decisions as opposed to historical reality falls flat, again. You cant have what is not there.

In 38 the strategic choice of expanding the industrial base to allow for wars of volume was taken, Von Thoma on the planning side wanted to expand steel production, synth oil production and so on, AH said nope, we cant win such a contest, thats how we lost the last war, what we can and will do is win a series of wars with limits, ie wars fought that dont turn of the influence of long term logistical effort, for Germany cannot win with a strategy of exhaustion.

In your ATL AH is not Htler any more, nor is German industry.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 10:37
So now it's 7% of the Wehrmacht's annual fuel budget to win the war? Hmmmmmmm when it was 3% of total national budget it was an easy choice; now that it's 7% of Wehrmatch budget I have to think about it..
Fact free. The 6 Pzr Groups in 41 according to you, will have have consumed 72% of all military fuel, leaving the rest of the armed forces to use, 28%.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 10:37
all those terrible consequences such as [.....] victory.
Except they all point to defeat, pay attention to the facts, not your magic bullet.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 10:37
Great argument.
Facts are not arguments on their own, their require explanation. For French campaign, German consumption of fuel exceeded supplies by 1,440,000 tons, for Russia OKW planners worked on the assumption the war would last 3 to 6 months, they knew that supplies could not meet demand, the economy was not geared in that manner, operations were undertaken to be completed from existing stocks, not production. They ended up running a deficit of 1,272,000 tons in 6 months.

Halder before barbarrossa, “we shall be able to sustain a large-scale offensive on existing stocks for a period of 2 to 2½ months"

OKW study from 5 May 1941 noted that existing Axis monthly consumption including the occupied territories was 1,150,000 tons per month against a total production (including including imports from all nations other than the Soviet Union) of only 850,000 tons.

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
18 Jul 2019, 10:37

Fact remains you responded to a point about production with statistics about stocks.
Because you don't understand - maybe can't understand - the ability of strategy to alter flows into and out of stocks.
This is one of your core intellectual failings thoughout the thread: you assume that OTL end states (stocks) are a given that can't be changed based on up-stream strategic decisions about flows, whether of oil or other resources like labor, investment, and raw materials.
This intellectual failing causes/enables you to assert that it's impossible for Germany to shift 0.1% of GDP to building 34,000 trucks because... stocks and TOE's or something. Brilliant.
You have no idea how inane your argument is. No strategy can command something that does not exist into existence, Germany planned and failed from 34 onward to provide self sufficiency in fuel oil, no matter how much they wanted it, it was not there.

Fact is you countered a factual point with another magic bullet. Utterly ignorant that Germany fought ww2 from stock prepared from 1934 onwards because they knew a blockade would make imports difficult.As of March 1939, the Reich could cover only the following shares of its wartime petroleum needs:
Type of Product Share
Motor Fuel 42%
Aviation Fuel 30.8%
Diesel Fuel 19.2%
Fuel Oil 20.5%
These figures worked out to between three to six months of wartime consumption. Shortfall relied on imports , priciply Romanian, a small stock was built up by SU imports pre war with Russia, when that stopped it was back to deficits.

Nope the counter to your magic bullet argument, was to point out A) your ignorant of historical reality of how much fuel was required by a Pzr group, ( unable to comprehend what is books you cite or post you read) ignorant of the effects of having decided to have 2 more without increasing all the necessary requirements to maintain/operate those formations in operation. B) ignorant of both the levels of fuel held in stocks and coming through the production supply chain, ignorant how fuel supplies were produced stored and consumed and time from production to becoming aviable to the end user, C) ignorant of supply chains, because you equate consumption of motor fuel on the eastern front, with national production/importation of oil as if they are the same thing, when they are not and totally unaware that fuel income was always less than demand except for when SU was exporting it to Germany.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.


Russ3Z
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 20:49
Location: North Carolina, USA

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

#348

Post by Russ3Z » 18 Jul 2019, 19:46

Much of the main focus on the feasibility of this scenario seems to (quite reasonably) center around the general "fuel" issue, whether that be stocks, imports, consumption, refining, transportation, etc. It has also been pointed out that the German motor pool was already under-equipped to the tune of some 170,000 or so trucks/vehicles.

If we accept these two shortfalls as initial obstacles to overcome before attempting any increase in the number of mobile combat formations (be they panzer, motorized, or semi-motorized), and if further some plausible method is devised to allow those obstacles to be removed or at least reduced (trickle-down effects from increased Reichsbahn funding, efficiency investments in iron/coal mining, etc allowing for greater investments in synthetic fuel plants and/or Romanian/domestic production/refining, better pre-Barbarossa fuel shipment negotiations with the SU, or whatever else one can think of that is likely more realistic than my short list), is there still perhaps a third shortfall that needs to be addressed?

To that end, was the rubber supply a further constraint at this time, and if so were Buna/etc production increases possible in a reasonable timeline? I saw the rubber issue very briefly mentioned earlier in this topic, but very little discussion seemed to result.

If the overall answer to these questions is "yes", it would likely be instructive to first consider the effects of a more moderate "provide what is needed for the production and use of ~170,000 extra transport vehicles" scenario. The "use" term in that case would seek to encompass things such as the greater rail capacity needed by these additional vehicles (and what they carry/supply) alone, on the one hand, and the potential for increased military capability resulting from better supply/mobility of the existing mobile units, on the other, along with any number of additional considerations that I am doubtless overlooking.

This would essentially be a very paired-down vision of this ATL, which one might then attempt to "build-up" to larger production/formation increases until a practical limit (a broad term to define, I know) is reached.

This question may well have been posed elsewhere, so forgive me if I am repeating the remarks of others.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#349

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 01:04

Hanny wrote:For French campaign, German consumption of fuel exceeded supplies by 1,440,000 tons, for Russia OKW planners worked on the assumption the war would last 3 to 6 months, they knew that supplies could not meet demand, the economy was not geared in that manner, operations were undertaken to be completed from existing stocks, not production. They ended up running a deficit of 1,272,000 tons in 6 months.
Hanny continues with his course on how NOT to do alternate history.
Once again he can't conceptually distinguish OTL fuel deficits from the deltas to fuel deficits arising from the ATL delta to existing forces.
The OTL fuel deficits Hanny describes did not cause German collapse nor prevent Ostheer's advance over millions of square miles.

In order for his argument to succeed, he'd have to show that the extra divisions would exacerbate fuel shortages to such an extent that something like German collapse would ensue (i.e. Ostheer running completely out fuel).
In order to make that argument, he'd have to explain why it's impossible for Hitler/OKW to have shifted something like an additional 1% of Germany's fuel budget towards Barbarossa.
He'd be able to make that showing if, for example, total collapse of LW/KM operations or the economy would result from the ~1% shift. But nobody can possibly believe that.

Even extremely costly implications for LW/KM would be worth the operational scenario I describe under my 20-division ATL. Of course if we switch to a lower-delta ATL, then the operational benefits decline but so do the costs.

In either case, I don't see fuel being the strategic constraint on how many forces are deployed in Barbarossa.
Hanny wrote:The 6 Pzr Groups in 41 according to you, will have have consumed 72% of all military fuel, leaving the rest of the armed forces to use, 28%.
Again the intellectual structure of the dispute escapes you. Your cognitive limitations are showing; anybody with >90 IQ can stuff their head with trivia.
I wrote that "even IF you're right that 2PzGr need 300,000t fuel, it's still worth it."
Now you're triumphantly proclaiming that your own figure was too high!

On this point I'll gladly concede that you're right: The 20-division ATL wouldn't require even 3% of Germany's annual budget (but of course even if it did, it would still be worth it).

For other readers capable of grasping conditional logic, note why I do conditional framing of the issues (i.e. what's the upper limit of fuel that 20 extra mobile divisions would burn?) Analytically, I first want to test conditions of success at their outer bounds before diving deeper (time is limited resource...). One of these conditions of success is whether extra fuel burn would prohibitive, or whether "spending" some of the fuel budget to achieve Barbarossa's primary strategic goal can be done with feasible trades against other demands on fuel. In the case of a 20-division ATL, it should be obvious to any sentient human that even 3% of Germany's annual fuel would be worth the extra divisions' operational/strategic impact (though it wouldn't be 3%).

Hanny- here's where you could help:
What in your opinion would be incremental fuel burn of 20 extra mobile divisions participating in Barbarossa?

IMO you would make a great research assistant for a professor/author writing a book.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 19 Jul 2019, 02:00, edited 1 time in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#350

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 01:26

ljadw wrote:And, why had we to wait 78 years to know that Germany could win, but that it lost because its generals were too stupid to to do what TheMarcksplan proposes ?
In either this thread or another, I asked the community whether they had seen an ATL similar to my mine. I.e. one based on slight increase to German forces at Barbarossa's outset. I haven't seen it online or in a book, but I haven't been around the alternate history crowd for very long.

My sense so far is that my ATL is fairly unique. Most commentators opine either that Germany could never have beaten the SU during WW2 due to insuperable economic/demographic factors, or else argue about strategic/operational choices such as Moscow versus focusing on the South.

I saw a missing aspect of the broader conversation, one that combined the economic/demographic picture with the fact that Germany was destroying the SU economically and demographically early in the war. Viewing attrition broadly as the process of wearing down both economic and demographic resources, it wasn't obvious to me that Germany was incapable of winning an attritional war against the SU based on its 1941 successes. Interested to read further and form some initial judgement about the question, I read Tooze, Stahel, much of Glanz, and others like Zetterling. That brought me to about where I was when I started this thread a few months ago.

Having now interacted with the community, I haven't so far seen any convincing arguments that Germany was incapable of mounting a Barbarossa slightly stronger in men/material that would have been dramatically more successful in destroying SU's demographic and economic base - and that such destruction would have secured German domination of Europe. I'm of course still open to counterarguments but, having taken the measure of the primary participants in this thread, I don't anticipate much changing.

There's of course more work to do; I look forward to further discussion here. If, btw, my proposal actually is unique then warning: don't steal my idea and pitch it for a book or something without contacting me or else I will publicly shame you. ;)
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#351

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 01:48

Russ3Z wrote:To that end, was the rubber supply a further constraint at this time, and if so were Buna/etc production increases possible in a reasonable timeline? I saw the rubber issue very briefly mentioned earlier in this topic, but very little discussion seemed to result.
Well done, you've spotted the issue that I said way back on page 3 of this thread would be the biggest constraint on more mobile forces.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
01 Jun 2019, 01:27
Paul Lakowski wrote:How do you enlarge the mobile forces?
The biggest bottleneck is rubber; there they would have had to make more investment than OTL for early-war production needs.
***Aside: Even at the outset of this research project, fuel seemed like a manageable constraint. The comments of Hanny and others have established that the upper bound of the maximal ATL's fuel burn delta is manageable.

This would be at/near the top of the list of issues to address for full articulation of a "slightly better Barbarossa" ATL.
My background top-level thought is that any delta to truck production would have to involve a commensurate delta to rubber production, with investments both outputs' capacities being made in tandem.
For that reason we should conceive of rubber production as multiplying the ATL's delta to spending on non-tracked motorized vehicles (MTV's).
As MTV cost delta for 34,000 trucks requires ~0.1% of German GDP, my baseline assumption is that this problem is also manageable: unless the rubber-production-chain represents >90% of the cost to German industrial resources of building a truck, then the total ATL delta for truck production doesn't reach 1% of GDP. If addressing the rubber bottleneck doubles the cost of truck production, then the ATL truck delta costs 0.2% of GDP.
Either way it seems manageable for a strategy focused on dominating Europe before the seas and air.
Russ3Z wrote:German motor pool was already under-equipped to the tune of some 170,000 or so trucks/vehicles.
I cannot overemphasize how great a conceptual error it is to consider TOE shortfalls as relevant to an ATL positing more divisions.

Consider an example: German units on the Eastern Front were almost always short of the TOE strength in men and equipement (as was RKKA).
If I proposed an ATL saying that the Germans would win at Kursk with 10 more armored divisions (not my argument, btw), it would be irrelevant to respond that 10 more divisions were impossible because some of the OTL armored divisions were below their TOE. [it would also be stupid]
Germany at several points increased its formations despite deficiencies in the existing ones.
It would be fine to propose a revision to my Kursk ATL in which the equipment/men of the additional 10 divisions were distributed to OTL formations, but you'd have to make an argument for why it would be better and then account for the impact of the extra men/divisions during the Kursk battle. Such a proposal would be in the spirit of "you'd use your ATL additional resources more wisely by filling out existing formations rather than building new ones." As such, the the TOE-based counter is a potential improvement to a "more divisions" ALT, not a counterargument (incidentally I reject the potential improvement argument but that's a different issue).

This is so obvious to me it literally hurts my head to explain it (that's not a dig at you - it's hard to see clearly what people are saying when entering a thread pages along). If my point isn't clear, let me know.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

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

#352

Post by MarkN » 19 Jul 2019, 02:09

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019, 01:48
This is so obvious to me it literally hurts my head to explain it (that's not a dig at you - it's hard to see clearly what people are saying when entering a thread pages along). If my point isn't clear, let me know.
Your point, whatever it is, is not clear.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#353

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 02:15

Hanny wrote:No strategy can command something that does not exist into existence
I missed this remark earlier but it's perfectly illustrative of everything you've written in this thread.

Suppose Hitler decided to defeat the UK with origami cranes. AFAIK OTL Germany produced no origami of any type.
Had Hitler adopted this strategy however, he easily could have produced millions of origami cranes. Import origami instructors for domestic crane-production from his ally Japan, for example, in exchange for mass shipments of wienershnitzel on U-boats.
Pursuant to his strategic vision, Hitler could have had the Luftwaffe blanket Britain in well-made origami from Brighton to Aberdeen.

Previously there had been no Luftwaffe origami bombs, after just one strategic decision the British are awash in paper delights.

Strategy is simply beyond your capacities, Hanny.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 19 Jul 2019, 02:21, edited 3 times in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#354

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 02:17

MarkN wrote:
19 Jul 2019, 02:09

Your point, whatever it is, is not clear.
Hi Mark. Bring some decent research like Hanny or some incisive analysis and I'll be willing to expend effort explaining to you.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

#355

Post by Takao » 19 Jul 2019, 02:57

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019, 02:15
Hanny wrote:No strategy can command something that does not exist into existence
I missed this remark earlier but it's perfectly illustrative of everything you've written in this thread.

Suppose Hitler decided to defeat the UK with origami cranes. AFAIK OTL Germany produced no origami of any type.
Had Hitler adopted this strategy however, he easily could have produced millions of origami cranes. Import origami instructors for domestic crane-production from his ally Japan, for example, in exchange for mass shipments of wienershnitzel on U-boats.
Pursuant to his strategic vision, Hitler could have had the Luftwaffe blanket Britain in well-made origami from Brighton to Aberdeen.

Previously there had been no Luftwaffe origami bombs, after just one strategic decision the British are awash in paper delights.

Strategy is simply beyond your capacities, Hanny.
That's rather puerile...

Considering in the OTL, Hitler's adopted strategy was to pound Britain into submission, and then invade with tanks, troops, and artillery. Needless to say, he failed quite miserably on both counts.

Just because one has "strategic vision", does not necessarily translate into strategic reality.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#356

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 03:33

Takao wrote: Hitler's adopted strategy was to pound Britain into submission, and then invade with tanks, troops, and artillery.
Not sure that's even true. HIstorical evidence of Hitler's pre-war strategy/intent regarding UK is messy, not least due to self-serving memoirs. Best evidence suggests Hitler didn't place high priority on actually conquering Britain and wanted its empire to survive a war.

If, OTOH, Hitler wanted to invade UK, then obviously something's missing from your recitation of his strategy: where's the Royal Navy while all those tanks and artillery cross the Channel? Any strategy based on invading Britain that didn't explain how to cross the channel is too poor for even the History Channel; any strategy that involved beating the Royal Navy at sea while - or immediately after - fighting for control of Europe is a very bad strategy. It should be obvious that Germany can't dominate the land and sea. Gotta pick one or the other; the wise choice is clear.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

#357

Post by Richard Anderson » 19 Jul 2019, 05:02

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019, 01:04
What in your opinion would be incremental fuel burn of 20 extra mobile divisions participating in Barbarossa?
I don't have an opinion on the matter...and I'm not sure what an "incremental fuel burn" is, but I do know the Germans assumed a Panzer Division would use about 200-210 cubic meters of fuel (c. 55,000 gallons) to move a Panzer division over 50-100 kilometers of ground, depending on the terrain and degree of opposition. A Panzergenadier/Infanterie-Division (mot) would consume 170 cubic meters (c. 45,000 gallons). A late-war style Volksgrenadier division, with about one-eighth the number of motor vehicles as an early war division, would consume about 27 cubic meters (c. 7,075 gallons), so call it 100 cubic meters for a BARBAROSSA Infanterie-Division.

Of course, your mileage may vary.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#358

Post by ljadw » 19 Jul 2019, 06:22

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019, 01:26
ljadw wrote:And, why had we to wait 78 years to know that Germany could win, but that it lost because its generals were too stupid to to do what TheMarcksplan proposes ?
In either this thread or another, I asked the community whether they had seen an ATL similar to my mine. I.e. one based on slight increase to German forces at Barbarossa's outset. I haven't seen it online or in a book, but I haven't been around the alternate history crowd for very long.

My sense so far is that my ATL is fairly unique. Most commentators opine either that Germany could never have beaten the SU during WW2 due to insuperable economic/demographic factors, or else argue about strategic/operational choices such as Moscow versus focusing on the South.

I saw a missing aspect of the broader conversation, one that combined the economic/demographic picture with the fact that Germany was destroying the SU economically and demographically early in the war. Viewing attrition broadly as the process of wearing down both economic and demographic resources, it wasn't obvious to me that Germany was incapable of winning an attritional war against the SU based on its 1941 successes. Interested to read further and form some initial judgement about the question, I read Tooze, Stahel, much of Glanz, and others like Zetterling. That brought me to about where I was when I started this thread a few months ago.

Having now interacted with the community, I haven't so far seen any convincing arguments that Germany was incapable of mounting a Barbarossa slightly stronger in men/material that would have been dramatically more successful in destroying SU's demographic and economic base - and that such destruction would have secured German domination of Europe. I'm of course still open to counterarguments but, having taken the measure of the primary participants in this thread, I don't anticipate much changing.

There's of course more work to do; I look forward to further discussion here. If, btw, my proposal actually is unique then warning: don't steal my idea and pitch it for a book or something without contacting me or else I will publicly shame you. ;)
The usual arguments of ATL creators : they have not to prove that their ATL is possible, but the others have to prove that they are wrong .
YOU have given no indication at all that your ATL is possible :
no indication that in 1940/1941 Germany would have the ressources to raise an additional 20 mobile divisions AND the additional required ID .
no indication that it would be possible to move and supply these divisions : have you any idea of the number of trains that would be required to supply these divisions ?And additional trains means more coal .German coal,imported by additional trains. Of course not .In the winter of 41/42 the 30 mobile and 120 ID of the Ostheer consumed daily some 4500 tons of fuel, and you propose to increase the number of mobile divisions by 20,without knowing how much more fuel would be required.The same for ammunition , etc...During the 41/42 winter, with less fighting, the Ostheer consumed every day some 2600 ton of ammunition . Where will you get the additional ammunition, how will you transport them ?
Already before the encirclment,it was impossible to supply 6th Army with the needed fuel : Berlin promised to deliver every day 850 tons, only 456 tons arrived .
no indication that these 20 mobile divisions would be sufficient to defeat the SU
no indication that if the SU was defeated, US and Britain would be unable to defeat Germany .
I observe that you have wisely hidden the possibility of US nuclear attacks on Germany .
And especially : you have no idea of the why for Barbarossa : you still think that the Barbarossa decision happened in a vacuum, while the reason was to finish the war with Britain before a US intervention .And as a US intervention was expected before 1942, victory in the East in 1943 would not help Germany : Spaatz and Harris would still destroy Germany's cities .

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#359

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 06:35

RichardAnderson wrote:a Panzer Division would use about 200-210 cubic meters of fuel (c. 55,000 gallons) to move a Panzer division over 50-100 kilometers of ground, depending on the terrain and degree of opposition. A Panzergenadier/Infanterie-Division (mot) would consume 170 cubic meters (c. 45,000 gallons).
Thanks.
So by the mid-range estimate in your figures 20 divs (10 mot, 10pz) would burn 1.000,000 gallons per 75km, 13,333gals/km, 40.7t/km.
Moscow is ~1,000km from Bialystok, call the overall advance 1,500km to be safe.
At 40.7t/km that's 61,000t fuel consumed: 0.7% of Germany's 1941 fuel budget.

Even if we use multiples of that figure for diversions from the east-west line of advance, you have to stretch quite a bit to reach even the 3% figure that, as I argue above, Germany would have been more than happy to trade for victory in the East.

Can we put to rest the idea that fueling 20 additional mobile divisions would cause Germany to run out of fuel?
RichardAnderson wrote:I'm not sure what an "incremental fuel burn" is
Fuel burn attributable to having 20 additional - incremental - divisions as specified in my maximal "Stronger Barbarossa" ATL.
I'm going to start pervasively using terms like "incremental" and "delta" to conceptually separate issues attributable to having more ATL forces from issues endemic to the OTL Heer. Some posters have trouble differentiating generalized OTL issues from those caused by additional forces. Maybe consistent labeling will help relieve some of the mental load of following the ATL.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 19 Jul 2019, 06:51, edited 3 times in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

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

#360

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 19 Jul 2019, 06:36

ljadw wrote:YOU have given no indication at all that your ATL is possible
lol. What's the response to a post like this except to copy/paste the entire thread?
You and MarkN should have a separate forum entitled, "Can you repeat that?"
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Post Reply

Return to “What if”