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.
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 » 05 Aug 2019 07:13

John T wrote:
29 Jul 2019 12:20
BTW one way to keep the operational tempo up for extended periods would be to have more crews.


Not how the Heer operated in the East in 41, OKW, on Hitlers instruction, required idle tank crews to be returned to Germany to be re equipped and retrained with different/new AFVs.
John T wrote:
29 Jul 2019 12:20

But this scenario starting 1938 and posits that Germany went for a 50% larger armored force than in reality Could it not be reasonable to expect that the training capacity also extended by 50%? so ten Panzer-Ersatz-Abteilungen becomes fifteen?


Reasonable indeed, but when asked specificly on that, the OP did not include that reasonable addition, see pages 15 upto post 307, he specifly does not increase taining, he cuts fuel to the GTR, you know the main way fuel gets anywhwere, just as he has not includded any extra fuel production, he has possited the extra formations are supplied as per the historical timeline.

So lets explore your idea, you expand the Pzr forces by 50% and training by 50% capacity, so you must also be expanding fuel consumption by 50% for those assets. Germany put in place refinaries ( roughly 14 refineries) to double fuel production by 41, (1938 fuel 766,400tons rising to 1,494,400 tons per year)

It follows therfore, since German QM manuals required 3 times the expected consumption of an operation to be stocked before the plan was implemted, MTV consumption means the 500k tons stocked by 41 will be proportional greater by 50% of the Pzr fuel increase. Since fuels 65 tons a day consumption for the 20 extra, therefore by 41 required to produce and extra fuel amount of 474,500 tons of fuel, which required twice that of oil. So you want to increase the refineries by another +50% historical numbers, and increase oil imports by another million tons a year by 41 and increase the buna production, all of which will consume manpower, at the same time you wantb to add 20 Pzr/Mot to the Orbat, so ball park you want to have a million more bodies to work with, not move some from here to there.



John T wrote:
29 Jul 2019 12:20
Gives us a ball park of a manpower pool of 1 500 000 men in three years.(38-40)
Problem with that kind of moving numbers around is that in 38-40 the German military inducted 3.5 million into service, which is not the same as being in the replacement army btw, and that ball park included nearly all of the ones you want to double count as being extra, because they already are going to be inducted, and end up in the KG/LW/SS Heer etc, so they are not extra bodies.
John T wrote:
29 Jul 2019 12:20
I find it reasonable that you bring up the issue of training, but claiming it would be dependent on exactly ten units as an insurmountable limitation, that's the "did not happen, could not happen" attitude.
Except that the OP when asked on where the extra training and fuel was to come from, did not expand as you have done. Reasonable people generally only reply to the question as asked and expanded on after questioning it.
Last edited by Hanny on 05 Aug 2019 08:05, edited 2 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 » 05 Aug 2019 07:14

Hanny wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:15
trucks getting lower as in reality, 20% were gone in the first month.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Jul 2019 04:11
Here again Hanny shows his inability to differentiate ATL delta from OTL conditions.


Nope its a case of your kind of linguistic analysis and getting it wrong.

I i did a theoritical where no trucks are lost in moving fuel, as opposed to the amount that we know were lost, and you came back with im low balling the fuel value, so i explained i did not factor in known truck losses which reduce delivery quantities. Clearly in your mind, no trucks get lost in moving fuel, which says a lot about your analytical rigour than my ability to account for different conditions.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Jul 2019 04:11
In its 1941 strategic review, the U.S. army predicted the SU would be "militarily impotent" by July 1942.


Not because the SU economy was falling down but because of what the US thought the Germany army was capable of, and was actually doing in Russia.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... i4a07p.pdf

All truck losses replaced, manpower lost replaced at the rate it was lost at, 4 times the fuel present, 8 times the munitions present and expended, all these inaccurate assumptions were assumed to be the end of the SU by 42, instead the SU outproduced Germany by a wide margin and bagged 6th Army instead.
Last edited by Hanny on 05 Aug 2019 07:59, edited 1 time 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 » 05 Aug 2019 07:20

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Jul 2019 04:11
You're right that the book has some tantalizing nuggets about the exact causes of German rail troubles. My biggest complaint is I wish he had written 500 pages about Barbarossa instead of one chapter of 29 pages:

Everyone else with a copy knows its a chapter of 39 pages. Its very clear what he concludes on page 175-6, "Never enough resources avaiable, one tenth of the available MTV. No doubt that the logistical situation would not have allowed and advance on Moscow in August. Had the military economic considerations of a slow methodical advance been in place, had a much stronger motor vechicle industry existed and trucks would play a larger role. However in ww2 their was only one beligerant that could produce a motorised army, the US". Just to remind you, your the one giving Germany in 38 the Motor industry to turn out MTV as quick as USA in 41, jumpking from 15th in Europe to first in europe at producing MTV, and magicly run them on petrol from petro chemical industry 50%-75% greater than existed, running on tyres from a synthetic rubber industry 100%-125% bigger than existed.
Hanny wrote:
17 Jul 2019 13:15
Doubling the Eisenbahntruppe costs only 10,000 men.
Not even close, in 1941/2 for the Eastern front there were 6 Eisenbahntruppe Regimnets of 2 Bttns Regiments, plus a total of 65500 in 41 rising to 89151 in 42 of labouers from Todt to do the manual work.

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Jul 2019 21:12
it is apparent wartime growth slowed considerably after the initial mobilization.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Jul 2019 04:11
Wrong. The Wehrmacht inducted 2.5mil in the twelve months preceding Barbarossa, 3.1mil in the following 12 months, and 3.5mil in the next 12 months. https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-St ... nd-Numbers
Even during 1944 the Germans were putting more men into uniform than in the 12 months prior to Barbarossa.
Oh dear both reading comprehension failure and ignorance of the subject matter, again.

You dont even know what the replacement army is for, when it was folded into providing an extra one time bonus of Divs for the field army ( despite Rich actually giving that info earlier!) and practically stopped its primary function by end of 43. The replacement Army was there to produce after 4 months basic training followed by 4 months assigned to garrison duty a replacement for the field army. Also to provide the means of trained to expand the number of formations. Inducted numbers dont all end up in the replacement army, hence the LW Field divisions went into action without being trained by the replacement army.

Rich was quite correct, he referenced the following ability to maintain the manpower levels of the Heer,

1939 Field army understrength 0%
1940 8%
41 17%
42 20%
43 38%
44 46%
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
Lars
Member
Posts: 608
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 16:58
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

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

Post by Lars » 05 Aug 2019 07:23

Hanny, I didn't make the statements. You are confusing me with someone else.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 05 Aug 2019 08:05

Wow I log in to find a dozen notifications that Hanny has posted in my thread, which means he's returned from his suspension.

As this member is on my ignore list, I will not be reading in detail nor responding to his posts. I did scan for links, thank you Hanny for the article on German logistics and the (since-deleted?) army study on German tactics. You are an excellent research assistant. I hope you're not deleting links that others might find helpful simply to spite me. Then again, your participation in this thread has always been motivated by spite, which you candidly admit:
Hanny wrote:I'm here to take the piss out of your argument
You must have a very rewarding, full life to spend as much time on spiting a stranger.

One thing I will note from Hanny's series of recent posts, which I discovered while scanning for links: He accuses me of misrepresenting DRZW, volume 6, as stating the Ostheer burned ~450,000 tons from October 1941 - March 1942:
Hanny wrote:Except that the tons figure, neither of them, you used are to be found in the book, because neither are correct.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SDf ... q=supplies for army group cente smolensk&f=false

Please stop inventing numbers that have no bassis [sic] in basisy[huh?].
Here's a photo of the page from DRZW v.6 (English translation):

Image

As you can see, the book states that Ostheer consumed 667,292 m3 during mid-October 41 to mid-March 42. That's 450,000 tons give or take a few thousand based on your assumed POL density. I don't know whether Hanny thinks nobody will notice his misrepresentation of DRZW or if he just can't believe that he's wrong. Either way, another member said it best:
Hanny wrote:Please stop misrepresenting books and their contents. The board rules require you to support your claims, you have yet again, invented something thats [sic] is not in the books you say is in the book, please stop doing that.
As always, if anyone else (not also on my ignore list) wants a specific point from Hanny addressed, feel free to repeat it. Preferably with cleaned-up syntax, spelling, and mental clarity. I will not spend much time rebutting misrepresentations of my arguments and other dishonest tactics.

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 » 05 Aug 2019 08:23

Lars wrote:
05 Aug 2019 07:23
Hanny, I didn't make the statements. You are confusing me with someone else.
My mistake, you are correct. :oops:
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 » 05 Aug 2019 10:05

MarkN wrote:
03 Aug 2019 18:03
Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Aug 2019 15:59
John T wrote:
03 Aug 2019 00:30
" If Nazi Germany had been as rational as assumed in this W/I, then would it been Adolf Hitlers Nazi Germany at all ?"
Indeed that is probably the biggest objection to most of these types of "what ifs".
The originator of this thread has made zero attempt to develop an answer to his own what if.

This thread had been all about getting others to do his research in ascertaining what would be needed to achieve a successful invasion of Russia in June 1941.

So far, the answer seems to be a completely different Heer with a completely different conceptual idea of how to wage war, completely different formation commanders who blindly follow instructions from the game controller, completely different general staff planners, a completely different military strategy, a completely different political leadership making completely different grand strategy as well as completely different industrial and economic strategy. It also requires the UK/US not to come up with THE bomb and the Russians to respond in exactly the way the game controller demands.
Better yet, in his ATL, where he gets so much wrong thats it really rather funny, (worse decision making than AH! :oops: , wants to win a two front war multi year long war of attrition :lol: with next to no LW) its almost a certainty that Germany losses quicker any war its getting ready to fight, even if the economy does not implode in doing so.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23309
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

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

Post by David Thompson » 05 Aug 2019 14:25

A post from Hanny, containing insulting personal remarks about a participant in this discussion, was removed pursuant to forum rules.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2019 15:45

The photo on post 560 of DRZW does not mention tons, but m3 and thus the intervention of the Marcksplan is wrong .

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2939
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 » 05 Aug 2019 16:33

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2019 15:45
The photo on post 560 of DRZW does not mention tons, but m3 and thus the intervention of the Marcksplan is wrong .
Gasoline is about 800 kilograms per CBM, so its roughly 534,000 MT.
"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: 2549
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 » 05 Aug 2019 17:34

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:05
As this member is on my ignore list, I will not be reading in detail nor responding to his posts. I did scan for links, thank you Hanny for the article on German logistics and the (since-deleted?) army study on German tactics. You are an excellent research assistant. I hope you're not deleting links that others might find helpful simply to spite me. Then again, your participation in this thread has always been motivated by spite, which you candidly admit:
....
You must have a very rewarding, full life to spend as much time on spiting a stranger.
Oh dear, still insulting anybody who dares to highlight the nonsense of your fantasy scenario and falsehoods in your posts.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:05
One thing I will note from Hanny's series of recent posts, which I discovered while scanning for links: He accuses me of misrepresenting DRZW, volume 6, as stating the Ostheer burned ~450,000 tons from October 1941 - March 1942:
No they didn't. You are misrepresenting the DRZW.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:05
As you can see, the book states that Ostheer consumed 667,292 m3 during mid-October 41 to mid-March 42.
Correct.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:05
That's 450,000 tons give or take a few thousand based on your assumed POL density.
No it's not. You are misrepresenting the DRZW.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 08:05
I don't know whether Hanny thinks nobody will notice his misrepresentation of DRZW or if he just can't believe that he's wrong.
TheMarcksPlan, it is YOU that is wrong. It is YOU that is misrepresenting the DRZW.

It would help if you first took the time to understand what is meant by POL. Until you do that, you cannot avoid posting complete gibberish.
Last edited by MarkN on 05 Aug 2019 18:22, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 05 Aug 2019 18:15

Hanny wrote:
05 Aug 2019 14:40
And yet others posts containing personal insults remain. You not fit for purpose.
Such a post directly after having one removed is hardly sensible, and making such comments about senior moderation staff is strictly discouraged.

T Duncan

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 05 Aug 2019 19:05

Richard Anderson wrote:
05 Aug 2019 16:33
ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2019 15:45
The photo on post 560 of DRZW does not mention tons, but m3 and thus the intervention of the Marcksplan is wrong .
Gasoline is about 800 kilograms per CBM, so its roughly 534,000 MT.
I see a median density of around 750 kg/m3 here: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuel ... d_166.html.
Apparently the volume converter on the scientific calculator on my phone only has imperial gallons so I'd settle at around 500,000t POL rather than the 450,000t I quoted earlier. If we want to say 550,000t for higher-density POL components (i.e. oil) that's fine. Regardless, it's a fairly low rate of fuel consumption compared to the summer (Creveld says 333,000t consumed in July). And it's not the base of my 200,000t fuel delta (ATL over OTL). That comes from the AGC fuel consumption table posted upthread.

Recall that in my ATL the destruction wreaked by 20 additional mobile divisions means the SU can't launch strong winter offensives, which means either less fuel consumed over the winter or further SU losses if Germany launches winter operations. The logistic impediments to broad winter operations, however, appear insuperable. The slightly stronger strategic logistics I specify have to change quite a bit to prevent the weather-induced drastic cuts to Ostheer's rail deliveries.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 05 Aug 2019 19:37

Lars wrote:TheMarcksPlan, well my point is that the most cost effective way to improve Barbarossa is through railroads. The means would be those that I suggested earlier. These improvements don't require bigger German forces, more panzers, troops etc. Just more forcus on supplies.
I agree that railroad improvements are a very cost-effective way of improving Barbarossa. I just don't see the "railroads-only" path to victory on the Eastern Front. I'd be interested to hear more though.

For example, I don't think Ostheer takes Moscow with good railroad supply and I don't see them winning even if they take Moscow (without additional changes).

The biggest feasible change, IMO, from better 1941 railroads would be in the Ukraine. There, as I've emphasized, the rails stopped at the Dniepr until March and this arguably had a strategic impact on the campaign. Ostheer took some, but not all, of the Donets basin (Voroshilograd/Luhansk didn't fall until Blau).

Perhaps more importantly, Ostheer didn't capture the black earth regions between the Donets and Don until Blau. As detailed in the Soviet Home Front 1941-45, Soviet agriculture was worse off in 1943 than in 1942. This can only be due to destruction in the black earth regions captured during Blau, which the SU recovered but did not fully restore in 1943.

Better railroads could, arguably, have allowed AGS to capture vital industrial/agricultural resources during September-November 1941. During the Blau, the Ostheer planned ahead for crossing the Don and had installed a railroad bridge towards Stalingrad by October 1942, a month or so after reaching the river. https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/ ... r-19411945

From that same source:
Three Eisenbahnpioniere Regiments and a host of independent companies plus the Organisation Todt and Reichsbahn engineering trains were deployed to repair the railways, and they planned 2,000 km of track to be operated by the FED.
In Barbarossa the Ostheer didn't recruit Reichsbahn units until after the campaign began and O. Todt didn't enter until even later. Given planning for a serious campaign, that would have changed.

If Ostheer takes Moscow AND eastern Ukraine then maybe there's a chance Russia is too weak to withstand Blau in 1942, especially as Blau would be starting further east. That's about the closest I can come to a "better railways only" path to German success. Your thoughts?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2019 19:48

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 19:05
Richard Anderson wrote:
05 Aug 2019 16:33
ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2019 15:45
The photo on post 560 of DRZW does not mention tons, but m3 and thus the intervention of the Marcksplan is wrong .
Gasoline is about 800 kilograms per CBM, so its roughly 534,000 MT.
I see a median density of around 750 kg/m3 here: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuel ... d_166.html.
Apparently the volume converter on the scientific calculator on my phone only has imperial gallons so I'd settle at around 500,000t POL rather than the 450,000t I quoted earlier. If we want to say 550,000t for higher-density POL components (i.e. oil) that's fine. Regardless, it's a fairly low rate of fuel consumption compared to the summer (Creveld says 333,000t consumed in July). And it's not the base of my 200,000t fuel delta (ATL over OTL). That comes from the AGC fuel consumption table posted upthread.

Recall that in my ATL the destruction wreaked by 20 additional mobile divisions means the SU can't launch strong winter offensives, which means either less fuel consumed over the winter or further SU losses if Germany launches winter operations. The logistic impediments to broad winter operations, however, appear insuperable. The slightly stronger strategic logistics I specify have to change quite a bit to prevent the weather-induced drastic cuts to Ostheer's rail deliveries.
The question rem ains : why did you convert m3 in tons ?

Return to “What if”