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.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15657
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 20 Jul 2019 14:54

Production of JU 52
1939 :430
1940 :380
1941 :490
Losses of JU 52 :
Norway 150 ( on a total of 600 that were committed )
Netherlands : 167
Crete :271 ( 502 were committed ) and 275 crew losses .
Goering said to Hitler : the LW is going to war with the training units .
Where would Germany get the needed JU 52 to transport and supply an AB division in the Baltics, a month after the staggering losses at Crete where 47 % of the FJ were lost and 54 % of the JU 52 ?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6394
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 » 20 Jul 2019 15:13

Hanny wrote:
20 Jul 2019 09:46
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Jul 2019 04:25
RichardAnderson wrote:I give up. Have fun storming the castle!
Au revoir and nice meeting you.

-Christianmunich

Oh dear, slipped up did you, its ok we all noticed it was you long ago.
:lol: Stop it. The poor dear thinks we actually mean it.
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

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 20 Jul 2019 17:36

Hanny wrote:
19 Jul 2019 12:13
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019 05:36
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.
Wrong:
1000000 petrol gallons weighs 2,967 tons, at 75 klicks each bound, is 200*2,967=593,400 tons. By the time your Pzr want to attack moscow it has a min of 5 times behind it locked in the supply chain, ( train at 300 klicks a day to pass along the RR line creating depots every 300) there is therefore 2,967,000 tons locked up in the supply chain, for your extra 20 MOT formations according to your maths.

Number of truks jouneys, to move 593,400 tons, is 197,800, when 90*56*3=15120 exist to do it.


A better answer is:

Pzr Group fuel allocation per Division, 430 ton in engines to be consumed, 4-500 ton containerised fuel load for resupply which is replaced in 24 hours from the depots. 900 tons is 292,250 gallons and a 5 day supply.

1000 klm is direct line to Moscow, planners used 2 units of fuel for every mile moved forward. 20 klicks was planned for rail conversion and this fuel resupply from it.

In theory, using daily resupply, to reach Moscow at 1000klm distance at 20 klicks forward bound a day, is a refuel total of 50 resupplies. So there are 50 depots each pushing a days supply forward. At Moscow a units is consuming a days fuel in ops, behind it are depots pushing forward that fuel to it.Total amount of fuel per day in the supply chain, at that point is therefore, 50*1800=90000 per Division. ATL had 56 of them, requiring 14,000,000 tons of re fuel a day to operate, in the supply chain or consumed in 50 days by the 6 Pzr groups. But wait, each day they only go forward 20 klicks, ( 40 klicks in ops) and have consumed not all but 40% of their fuel so dont need a full resuplly. so, 8,400,000 was in supply chain or consumed and needs replacement. But wait thats what a leg army can march and is tied to the RR, a Pzr group is more mobile and can go 50 klm easy. Sure it can but its base of supply is still back on the RR head, the more you go forward the further distance your re supply has to come. This was bridged by the Grosstruppen, which gave the Pzr Groups that extra operational reach, they consume fuel to move depots near to where the PZR are operating, so re supply can take place the instead of the RR depot. These 20k (60,000 tons forward lift) Grosstruppen ( equivalent in consumption to another 10 Pzr/Mot in daily consumption of fuel) moved it from the rail head to where it was needed, creating a daisy chain away from the rail depots.

So we have a rr depot, from which 10 (fuel consumption PzR equivalent) Grosstruppen move supplies each day out to depots from which the Pzr groups draw on in a daisy chain. Instead of being tied to the daily resupply from the RR, we can reach out to either side with depots, perhaps 100-150 miles or so, from there the front line Pzr Groups draw supplies and are operating another 50 further away in combat and daisy chain back to the RR.

Pzr in contact, draws supply from depot a day to its rear, which draws supply from a rail head to its rear. To manover for combat used half the petrol in the engines. So the Div supply sets out to draw replace that 50 tons and its own consumption from the trip, from the depot in 24 hours, when it does the depot draws 50 from the rail depot who draws it from the Reich. So that 50 tons required at the front meant 400 being in the supply chain.

Each Pzr Div had 3 supply companies of trucks (90 total of 3 ton capacity) total capacity of resupply was therfore 270 tons to the range of a truck in 24 hours.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019 05:36
Can we put to rest the idea that fuelling 20 additional mobile divisions would cause Germany to run out of fuel?
No. Germany ran out of fuel with existing force levels, increasing the principle users of fuel will just make it occur quicker. Your ATL just makes it happen a lot quicker.

September 41 total fuel received on Eastern front for the month 9620 tons.
All wrong. Crazy math. 9620 tons in September? I have other data. 182,000 tons on average consumed Wehrmacht per month in 1941. 48 000 tons Germany exported to Italy and Finland.

http://img12.nnm.ru/d/2/d/5/e/c15e47fd4 ... 799c07.png

https://aftershock.news/?q=node/376230&full
Last edited by jesk on 20 Jul 2019 17:45, edited 1 time in total.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 20 Jul 2019 18:07

Image

Fuel tank based on MAN F-5

In 1936-1939 the MAN F-4 truck was mass-produced. After its modernization in 1939-1942. the MAN F-5 model with a capacity of 9 tons and a new engine of the same power was produced. A total of 1325 cars were produced. Machine performance characteristics: engine type - 6-cylinder, diesel; engine power - 150 hp; load capacity - 6.5 tons; Transmission - 4 or 5-speed gearbox; The maximum speed is 54 - 66 km / h.

--------------

Fuel consumption 50 liters / 100 km. Distance Berlin - Moscow 1600 km. 1.6 tons of consumption for the flight back and forth. The payload is 7.4 tons. Therefore, and not only. Hanny's fuel arguments are erroneous.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 20 Jul 2019 18:30

or so

Image

Image

The Wehrmacht used fuel trucks in very small quantities. The majority of fuel tankers went to the Luftwafe, the fat goering took everything he could to his department. Wehrmacht used ordinary trucks Nachschubdienste (supply service). German Fuel Transport Vehicles marked “B”, “B u. G ”, (Betriebstoff und Gerät for Fuel and Equipment)," Feuergefährlich - Rauchen verboten ".

https://reflection-wwii.ucoz.ru/forum/105-246-1

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 » 20 Jul 2019 18:42

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Jul 2019 14:43

Hanny made an obvious mistake but is unwilling to admit it. He's going to pretend that he meant to analyze a 15,000km German advance.
There's no better sign of a bad faith interlocutor than someone who can't admit a mistake. They're obviously driven by deep-seated insecurity.
Oh dear. look again pissant, i stated you were wrong, you made a wrong calculation by 2 decimal places in your favour, i did the same in my favour to show you your mistake, i went on to sketch out a better method.

Here ill go one better.


Pzr/Mot has 900 tons on hand, consumes 200 tons a forward bound to Moscow each 75 klm at a distance of straight line 1000 klm is 21 bounds. To go 1 forward requires consuming 2 as rule of thumb.
21*200=4200 tons.x2 is 8400 tons.

Rail conversion behind the Pzr div is at 30klm a day.

How does it get its 200 tons a bound?.

First 5 bounds are ok, the Pzr Div is now 375klm in country, the RR depot is at day 5 150 klm in country, the GTR 66 trucks with 33 out of service) is moving in a days round trip of 500 klm the required 200 tons.

By bound 10 the Pzr div is 750 klm in, the RR 300klm. The 900 klm round trip requires twice the GTR, 132 with 66 out of service).

By bound 15 the Pzr div is 11250 lkm in, RR 450. The 1325 klm round trip requires GTR 165 with 99 out of service.

By bound 20 the Pzr div is 1500 KLM in, the RR 600. The 1800 round trip requires GTR 264 132 out of serice.

Truck consumes 30 litres of fuel per 100klm.
Bound 5 5* 15000 litres
Bound 10 5* 27000 litres
bound 15 5* 39750 litres
bound 20 5* 54000 litres

Trucks consume 135750 which is 29860 gallons. 950 gallons.

So, we have 8400 consumed by the Div, 950 tons consumed by the GTR getting it to the Div, locked in the supply net to push forwrd 200 each bound requiring to be replaced is another 8400 tons. Total for the Div 17750 .

20 extra such formations 355,000 tons. To resupply the needs of the 20 requires 7920 more trucks, but no one thought to build them, so the GTR as a whole has lost the use 7920 trucks, when it starts with 6600 this will be a problem.

You need to look at yourself and ask yourself if your the kind of person you want to be. ( your the first one on this forum to be outsmarted by Jesk, is that really the kind of person you want to be?, seeing others as being dishonest when they have just reciprocated you actions)

When i saw your mistake i wondered if it was simple math error or actual dishonesty, your last two posts cleared that up for me.
Last edited by Hanny on 20 Jul 2019 19:08, edited 3 times in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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 » 20 Jul 2019 18:44

Richard Anderson wrote:
20 Jul 2019 15:13

:lol: Stop it. The poor dear thinks we actually mean it.
Arf :D Blush, You use your mouth prettier than 20$ whore... :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37v-6Zs5T10
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 20 Jul 2019 19:19

Hanny wrote:
20 Jul 2019 10:53
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Jul 2019 06:24
Jesk wrote:These are the correct guidelines for the Wehrmacht offensive. Vladivostok and Kamchatka.
I have Jesk on ignore (highly suggested, btw) but was curious because he's been silent here for months.
Boy am I glad I checked his post.
Is he really saying Germany should have advanced to Vladivostok?

Jesk - my post mentions Toronto as the end of Hanny's 15,000km march. Are you lacking sufficient confidence in The German Generals to agree?
Reality check pissant. In the pre war planning, when the industry of the urals for continuing the war came up, coupled with political advice that stalin would not surrender, the question was asked of AH what happens if we take Moscow Leningrad and the Ukraine and stalin refuses to surrender. AH replied where he was prepared to go to.

You really ought to read some history books, every post you make, shows you have little grasp of the period
Hanny is either confused (as usual) about Jesk's statement and my response or thinks Hitler was prepared to go to Vladivostok.
Hanny earlier cited Ostkrieg by Stephen J. Fritz. He's probably mis-remembering the quote as applying to Vladivostok instead of the Urals.
In a meeting with Hitler on 1 February, Field
Marshal von Bock gave voice to these anxieties, agreeing that “we would defeat the
Russians if they stood and fought,” but worrying that it might not be possible to force them to
make peace. Hitler, visibly upset, replied, “If the occupation of the Ukraine, and the fall of
Leningrad and Moscow did not bring about peace, then we would just have to carry
on . . . and advance to Yekaterinburg.”
page 112 of the .pdf Hanny linked earlier.

By the way, Hanny, Yekaterinburg is in the Urals and is thousands of kilometers from Vladivostok. Hitler never mentioned marching to Vladivostok.
It's unusual of you to join in Jesk in supporting Nazi superman theories but I guess I've gotten under your skin sufficiently for you to do so.
Hanny wrote:20 extra such formations 355,000 tons.
355,000 tons is 4% of Germany's 1941 fuel budget. Hitler would have gladly spent that amount of fuel to win in the East. Any diminution of air/sea activity in the west due to fuel reprioritization is well worth winning in the East.

I'll provisionally accept Hanny's 355,000 ton figure as the maximal case for my ATL Barbarossa because it proves my point that any delta to fuel burn from the larger forces is manageable. That said, I don't trust Hanny's figures nor his ability to actually do math correctly, especially when there's a chance he can make his case look stronger. I do trust that Hanny has put all of his considerable energies into making the additional fuel burn as high as possible.

Conclusion: Burning an extra 355,000 tons is an acceptable tradeoff for a successful Barbarossa and fuel is not the operative constraint on this ATL.
Hanny wrote:To resupply the needs of the 20 requires 7920 more trucks, but no one thought to build them, so the GTR as a whole has lost the use 7920 trucks, when it starts with 6600 this will be a problem.
Ok I need 42,000 trucks instead of 34,000. That still requires only 0.1% of Germany's GDP over three years.

You are an excellent research assistant Hanny, I thank you.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 20 Jul 2019 19:33, 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

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 » 20 Jul 2019 19:27

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Jul 2019 19:19

Hanny is either confused (as usual) about Jesk's statement and my response or thinks Hitler was prepared to go to Vladivostok.
By the way, Hanny, Yekaterinburg is in the Urals and is thousands of kilometers from Vladivostok. Hitler never mentioned marching to Vladivostok.
It's unusual of you to join in Jesk in supporting Nazi superman theories but I guess I've gotten under your skin sufficiently for you to do so.
You again being reading impaired, i posted where Hitler was prepared to go to. Its 2900 klm from where he starts.

The rest is your invention.

As for you Ukraine is weak and my lack of humour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX1TrGvfxNk
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 20 Jul 2019 19:32

Hanny wrote:As for you Ukraine is weak and my lack of humour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX1TrGvfxNk
lol. that's quite good.
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

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15657
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 20 Jul 2019 19:35

jesk wrote:
20 Jul 2019 17:36
Hanny wrote:
19 Jul 2019 12:13
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019 05:36
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.
Wrong:
1000000 petrol gallons weighs 2,967 tons, at 75 klicks each bound, is 200*2,967=593,400 tons. By the time your Pzr want to attack moscow it has a min of 5 times behind it locked in the supply chain, ( train at 300 klicks a day to pass along the RR line creating depots every 300) there is therefore 2,967,000 tons locked up in the supply chain, for your extra 20 MOT formations according to your maths.

Number of truks jouneys, to move 593,400 tons, is 197,800, when 90*56*3=15120 exist to do it.


A better answer is:

Pzr Group fuel allocation per Division, 430 ton in engines to be consumed, 4-500 ton containerised fuel load for resupply which is replaced in 24 hours from the depots. 900 tons is 292,250 gallons and a 5 day supply.

1000 klm is direct line to Moscow, planners used 2 units of fuel for every mile moved forward. 20 klicks was planned for rail conversion and this fuel resupply from it.

In theory, using daily resupply, to reach Moscow at 1000klm distance at 20 klicks forward bound a day, is a refuel total of 50 resupplies. So there are 50 depots each pushing a days supply forward. At Moscow a units is consuming a days fuel in ops, behind it are depots pushing forward that fuel to it.Total amount of fuel per day in the supply chain, at that point is therefore, 50*1800=90000 per Division. ATL had 56 of them, requiring 14,000,000 tons of re fuel a day to operate, in the supply chain or consumed in 50 days by the 6 Pzr groups. But wait, each day they only go forward 20 klicks, ( 40 klicks in ops) and have consumed not all but 40% of their fuel so dont need a full resuplly. so, 8,400,000 was in supply chain or consumed and needs replacement. But wait thats what a leg army can march and is tied to the RR, a Pzr group is more mobile and can go 50 klm easy. Sure it can but its base of supply is still back on the RR head, the more you go forward the further distance your re supply has to come. This was bridged by the Grosstruppen, which gave the Pzr Groups that extra operational reach, they consume fuel to move depots near to where the PZR are operating, so re supply can take place the instead of the RR depot. These 20k (60,000 tons forward lift) Grosstruppen ( equivalent in consumption to another 10 Pzr/Mot in daily consumption of fuel) moved it from the rail head to where it was needed, creating a daisy chain away from the rail depots.

So we have a rr depot, from which 10 (fuel consumption PzR equivalent) Grosstruppen move supplies each day out to depots from which the Pzr groups draw on in a daisy chain. Instead of being tied to the daily resupply from the RR, we can reach out to either side with depots, perhaps 100-150 miles or so, from there the front line Pzr Groups draw supplies and are operating another 50 further away in combat and daisy chain back to the RR.

Pzr in contact, draws supply from depot a day to its rear, which draws supply from a rail head to its rear. To manover for combat used half the petrol in the engines. So the Div supply sets out to draw replace that 50 tons and its own consumption from the trip, from the depot in 24 hours, when it does the depot draws 50 from the rail depot who draws it from the Reich. So that 50 tons required at the front meant 400 being in the supply chain.

Each Pzr Div had 3 supply companies of trucks (90 total of 3 ton capacity) total capacity of resupply was therfore 270 tons to the range of a truck in 24 hours.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
19 Jul 2019 05:36
Can we put to rest the idea that fuelling 20 additional mobile divisions would cause Germany to run out of fuel?
No. Germany ran out of fuel with existing force levels, increasing the principle users of fuel will just make it occur quicker. Your ATL just makes it happen a lot quicker.

September 41 total fuel received on Eastern front for the month 9620 tons.
All wrong. Crazy math. 9620 tons in September? I have other data. 182,000 tons on average consumed Wehrmacht per month in 1941. 48 000 tons Germany exported to Italy and Finland.

http://img12.nnm.ru/d/2/d/5/e/c15e47fd4 ... 799c07.png

https://aftershock.news/?q=node/376230&full
Wrong answer : That the WM consumed 182000 tons of fuel per month, does not mean that the Eastern front would not receive 9620 tons only in September . The WM did NOT consume 9620 tons in September, but it received 9620 tons .

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

What If: Adolf Hitler "WINS THE WAR" Due To "SLIGHTLY STRONGER" Barbarossa Forces?

Post by Robert Rojas » 20 Jul 2019 19:37

Greetings to both citizen Jesk and the community as a whole. Howdy Jesk! Long time no talk to! Well sir, in reference to your postings of Saturday - July 20, 2019 - 8:36pm / Saturday - July 20, 2019 - 9:07am / Saturday - July 20, 2019 - 9:30am, it is heartening to observe that you are developing a serious interest with the SCIENCE OF LOGISTICS. Incidentally, thank you for your quite interesting photographic contributions - especially of the unloading of the supply train. One must wonder how much time such a laborious endeavor might take during sub zero temperatures. Now, we've had more than our fair share of differences in the past, but I would like to encourage your historical pursuit and study of
LOGISTICS. Well, that is my latest two cents, pfennigs or kopecks worth on this ongoing saga into DRANG NACH OSTEN - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of White Russia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
Last edited by Robert Rojas on 20 Jul 2019 19:44, edited 2 times in total.
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 20 Jul 2019 19:38

Hanny wrote:
20 Jul 2019 18:42

Pzr/Mot has 900 tons on hand, consumes 200 tons a forward bound to Moscow each 75 klm at a distance of straight line 1000 klm is 21 bounds. To go 1 forward requires consuming 2 as rule of thumb.
21*200=4200 tons.x2 is 8400 tons.
75 km first digit. Then 21 "bound" per 100 km. 50 km? But this does not coincide with the first digit. Mistake?
The fuel consumption of a tank is on average 10 liters per kilometer. Based on the maximum number of tanks in a tank group, 1000, a distance of 1000 km will require 10 thousand tons of fuel.
What else? The Soviet troops in July 1941 are so weak that they are not capable of delivering a counterattack on 2-3 German divisions. For example, on July 20, 2 tank divisions arrived in Moscow. What could the Russians do with them? Nothing. Then gradually other parts of the Wehrmacht approached Moscow.
Wagner calculated average consumption. It could actually be lower.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 20 Jul 2019 19:41

ljadw wrote:
20 Jul 2019 19:35

Wrong answer : That the WM consumed 182000 tons of fuel per month, does not mean that the Eastern front would not receive 9620 tons only in September . The WM did NOT consume 9620 tons in September, but it received 9620 tons .
This logic is wrong. In fact, so much fuel would not be enough for one tank group.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

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

Post by jesk » 20 Jul 2019 19:54

I only remind. Hanny’s speculations are taken from Halder’s diary, where he refers to Wagner. This is taken out of context. Speech about one base and about the situation on the day of writing. Every day the supply improved.

15 july

Image

Return to “What if”