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.
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 19:52

MarkN wrote:
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:
It seems that while your supposition he was a sock puppet of christianmunich was incorrect, but you are correct that his real purpose is to have others do his research for him. I suggest the best move now is to place him on ignore, unless you wish to be subject to his ongoing passive-aggressive insults-then-play-nice tactics.
Last edited by Richard Anderson on 06 Aug 2019 05:20, edited 1 time in total.
"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

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 19:55

Terry Duncan wrote:
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
Terry,

You moderators appear to be closely monitoring Hanny heated language. Are you also monitoring themarcksplans' more subtle insults, misrepresentations of data, and passive-aggressive argumentation?
"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

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6318
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Aug 2019 20:14

Richard Anderson wrote:
05 Aug 2019 19:55
. Are you also monitoring the 'marcksplans' more subtle insults, misrepresentations of data, and passive-aggressive argumentation?
I have a feeling those who start these pointless never-to-be-resolved 'What If's' (AKA 'What do we need to change so Germany can win WW2') are very welcome here because of the traffic they generate. It seems that garbage is welcome if it is much-viewed garbage. The best tactic would be not to reply and let the attention-seeker wither in the wilderness but if replies are considered necessary then just point out the factual errors and viewers soon get a feel for who is talking through the rear of his Calvin Klein's.

John T
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

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

Post by John T » 05 Aug 2019 20:32

ljadw wrote:
03 Aug 2019 14:29
4 Most important is the failure of a lot of people to understand that
a these 30 divisions were not needed,as initially,without them, the Ostheer was successful.
b that the bigger the Ostheer would be, the less chances it would have to reach the AA line ,because of the distn ces, because of the bad road/railway situation, because of the weather .
Thank you Ljawd for your response.

So if I get you right the physical limitations where
distance and infrastructure in Russia (rail and road) especially in the muddy period.

TheMarksPlan has addressed the need for a faster conversion of the Russian rail system,
so that could mitigate some of the distance.

But to get the armoured units forward on a operational scale during the autumn,
the Germans have to create units with mobility in mud and as a side effect - snow.
Lower ground pressure, Wider tracks on the tanks and track based tactical logistics seems the way to mitigate the mud.

(I did not say T-34 ;) )

Gentlemen I assume some of you will already had a minor mental break down reading this far.

But Please, try to grasp the way I look at alternative history.
I try to approach an alt hist scenario the way you should review a planning document.
Acknowledge the strengths, preferably do not just highlight the weaknesses but try to find a creative way to solve them.
And when this is done with a wide audience as this forum, you might even learn something new or at least get a further perspective on the problem.


Kind Regards
/John

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 20:50

John T wrote:Acknowledge the strengths, preferably do not just highlight the weaknesses but try to find a creative way to solve them.
And when this is done with a wide audience as this forum, you might even learn something new or at least get a further perspective on the problem.
Indeed.
I'm quite sincere in my repeated invitations to others to articulate a "minimal successful Barbarossa" strategy. I like that Lars is raising a "rail only" strategy even though I'm not quite convinced. It's an interesting idea that I'm open to exploring.
John T wrote:But to get the armoured units forward on a operational scale during the autumn,
the Germans have to create units with mobility in mud and as a side effect - snow.
Lower ground pressure, Wider tracks on the tanks and track based tactical logistics seems the way to mitigate the mud.
I need only as much tactical mobility as the Germans had OTL. To specify T-34ish ground pressure is too much hindsight, IMO.
The operationally-crippling Rasputitsa didn't start until mid-October on AGC's front. There was mud before then of course, but not the sea of mud that stopped Taifun in all but its tracks.
This ATL specifies that Moscow falls - at least is encircled - before mid-October. After that, the Ostheer is pretty much on the defensive.

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 21:35

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 20:28
ljadw wrote:The question rem ains : why did you convert m3 in tons ?
Would someone like to explain the concept of density to ljadw?

Please cease making personal attacks on other posters, the only likely outcome of such behaviour is a ban when senior moderation staff are already monitoring a thread.

T Duncan

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 22:30

Two posts from TheMarcksPlan, containing personal comments of an insulting nature about other participants in this discussion, were removed pursuant to the forum rules.

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 22:46

ljadw wrote:The question rem ains : why did you convert m3 in tons ?
volume * density = mass

Knowing the volume from DRZW and being able to estimate POL density, we can estimate the mass.

John T
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

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

Post by John T » 05 Aug 2019 23:00

Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Aug 2019 15:59
John T wrote:
03 Aug 2019 00:30
Yes, that is obvious
Well, I was going somewhere with that, but kept getting distracted by other events. Oh, wait, I think I have it. Okay, the historical expansion went from six notional battalions in October 1934, to 12 in October 1935, to 24 in October 1938, to 37 in September 1939, to 38 in October 1940, to 56 in October 1941, to 64 in October 1942, at which point Stalingrad skews the growth of the Panzerwaffe. So it took two years of growth spurred by wartime to double the effective size of the Panzerwaffe, expanding it to a size smaller than this scenario requires at the outset of the Russian Campaign. Then it was nominally 55 battalions in 21 divisions, but this scenario requires it to be now 41 divisions, nearly doubling it.
Sorry but this scenario called for a 50% expansion of the tank units at the start of Barbarossa.
21 divisions plus 50% are 30 divisions.
Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Aug 2019 15:59
Except tinkering with the priorities of 30 divisions in a prewar force of 49 divisions or an initially mobilized wartime force of 106 divisions, is a major adjustment, not a minor one.
You do not follow the outlined scenario.
This force where to be available at Juni 1941, 18 months later and with a WM of 208 divisions.

May I note that your errors happens to discredit the other poster?


Cheers
/John T

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 23:39

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Aug 2019 22:46
ljadw wrote:The question rem ains : why did you convert m3 in tons ?
volume * density = mass

Knowing the volume from DRZW and being able to estimate POL density, we can estimate the mass.
No you can't.

The DRZW does not breakdown the total volume of fuel by type and quantity so you have no idea what specific gravity calculations to make.

Please spend a bit of time understanding what you are pontificating upon.

And what is the purpose of converting it into a mass? Do you buy your fuel by the lbs or the kg? Do you calculate your fuel consumption as miles per lbs or kms per kg?

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 » 06 Aug 2019 06:02

John T wrote:
05 Aug 2019 23:00
Sorry but this scenario called for a 50% expansion of the tank units at the start of Barbarossa.
21 divisions plus 50% are 30 divisions.
Oh, yes, I mixed up the 20 extra divisions (10 Panzer and 10 motorized infantry) with 20 Panzer divisions. So 31 Panzer divisions, not 30. Assuming the same average strength per division is maintained (since there was considerable variation in divisional strength) that is 252.4 Panzer companies rather than 171. Not quite aa 50% increase in Panzer strength.
You do not follow the outlined scenario.
Okay then, except tinkering with the priorities of 20 divisions in a prewar force of 49 divisions or an initially mobilized wartime force of 106 divisions, is a major adjustment, not a minor one. The existing ten Panzer and leichte divisions were the same through October 1940 before they were split and combined with other existing formations in order to create the 20 Panzer and 1 leichte division of the spring 1941 (and 21 Panzer when 5. leichte became 21. Panzer). The motorized infantry divisions is easier in theory, from five to seven, to fifteen in 14 months...but that tripling was partly as a result of reducing the division to two regiments from three. Now it is five to 25 in 14 months...but at least there doesn't seem to be a requirement in the scenario for them to have any Panzer.
This force where to be available at Juni 1941, 18 months later and with a WM of 208 divisions.
209 divisions actually...21 Panzer divisions are now 31, 15 motorized infantry divisions are now 25, 1 cavalry division, 138 infantry divisions instead of 158, 6 mountain, and 8 security divisions. Of course, 32 of those infantry divisions were static divisions organized for occupation duties...so now there are only 106 infantry divisions maximum to support the operations in the East.
May I note that your errors happens to discredit the other poster?
Huh? It may discredit me, but I don't see how it discredits anyone else...and I don't care if my current lack of attention and interest in this scenario discredits me or not.
"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

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 » 06 Aug 2019 06:37

John T wrote:
05 Aug 2019 20:32
ljadw wrote:
03 Aug 2019 14:29
4 Most important is the failure of a lot of people to understand that
a these 30 divisions were not needed,as initially,without them, the Ostheer was successful.
b that the bigger the Ostheer would be, the less chances it would have to reach the AA line ,because of the distn ces, because of the bad road/railway situation, because of the weather .
Thank you Ljawd for your response.

So if I get you right the physical limitations where
distance and infrastructure in Russia (rail and road) especially in the muddy period.

TheMarksPlan has addressed the need for a faster conversion of the Russian rail system,
so that could mitigate some of the distance.

But to get the armoured units forward on a operational scale during the autumn,
the Germans have to create units with mobility in mud and as a side effect - snow.
Lower ground pressure, Wider tracks on the tanks and track based tactical logistics seems the way to mitigate the mud.

(I did not say T-34 ;) )

Gentlemen I assume some of you will already had a minor mental break down reading this far.

But Please, try to grasp the way I look at alternative history.
I try to approach an alt hist scenario the way you should review a planning document.
Acknowledge the strengths, preferably do not just highlight the weaknesses but try to find a creative way to solve them.
And when this is done with a wide audience as this forum, you might even learn something new or at least get a further perspective on the problem.


Kind Regards
/John
A faster conversion of the Russian railways would not solve the distance problem: this problem could be solved only if the Soviets were defeated west of the DD line .
The distance Berlin-Moscow was 1889 km, it would take a train at least 3 weeks to go to Moscow and to return . That means that more than 20 trains were needed to transport every day some 400 tons to Moscow .And in October 1941 there were some 2000 locs in the east,while 15000 km of railways were regauged . If more km were regauged, the number of locs would not increase .And if more locs, more waggons were available and more km were regauged, that does not mean that more supplies would be available .And if more supplies could be faster transported, more unloading capacity would be neeeded, more depots and more trucks to transport the supplies from the depots to the units .All this would demand time, which was something Germany did not have .
Distance = time and, as a well-known American historian said : distance decays power.
About the additional 20 mobile divisions, this is a non sequitur, as 50 mobile divisions will not advance faster than 30 mobile divisions: they will advance slower .
The aim of Barbarossa was the AA lline . As it was not possible to go to the AA line with 150 /170 divisions, the only possibility was to go to the AA line with 50/60 divisions, but this demanded that the enemy would be defeated definitively west of the DD line,and for this there was no need for more mobile divisions ,as in the OTL the Soviet forces west of the DD line were defeated without the additional 20 divisions .
Everything depended on the cooperation of the Soviets =
1 their willingness to send their army west to the DD line
2 their willingness to collaps during that period .
The SU would be defeated if the WM was able to garrison at the Wolga,but the WM could garrison at the Wolga if before this the SU was defeated .
As a German historian wrote : the success of Barbarossa depended on a Deus ex Machina = a sudden public message from someone in the Kremlin that the war was over,that the SU surrendered .
And the longer the war, the less chance for such a message .
After a few weeks, Halder jubilated and said : the war has been won, but is still not over . A few weeks later,he said : it is all the fault of Kinzel (FHO ) who has given us wrong informations .Something which is the usual reaction of an army commander who has failed : to blame a subordinate .
The only who were to blame for the failure of Barbarossa were the Soviets who refused to follow the German expectation .

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 » 06 Aug 2019 07:49

RichardAnderson wrote:current lack of attention and interest in this scenario discredits me or not.
For an uninterested person, you sure post a lot... It's an odd rhetorical strategy to say, "I don't care about X assertion but if I did..." One could almost call it passive-aggressive.
RichardAnderson wrote:Okay then, except tinkering with the priorities of 20 divisions in a prewar force of 49 divisions or an initially mobilized wartime force of 106 divisions, is a major adjustment, not a minor one.
Again misrepresenting the dilemma. Force expansion is only necessary post-France, not pre-war.
ljadw wrote:As a German historian wrote
Throughout this thread there's a tendency to advance the mainstream opinion of historians as supporting a poster's interpretation. I encourage all of us to think for ourselves when interpreting history.
ljadw wrote:in the OTL the Soviet forces west of the DD line were defeated without the additional 20 divisions
This quote exemplifies everything I want to revise about mainstream historical interpretations of Barbarossa.
The opening weeks of Barbarossa were a DISASTER for Germany, not a success. Stahel and Glantz have apparently built careers on claiming Barbarossa was lost by August; they're far too generous in those claims.
Yes, Halder believed the Ostheer had succeeded in this period but Halder is a world-historical figure of strategic incompetence. He's a perfect embodiment of what made the German army dangerous but fatally flawed (absent better and stronger strategic direction).
The fact is that the Red Army suffered destruction of its border forces on only one of its main axes, not even the most important axis (the South).
Anybody who thinks about Barbarossa as succeeding initially then failing is deluded, IMO. The Germans failed from the very start and never had any chance of winning from June 22, 1941 at the latest, more likely from summer 1940 when the invasion was conceived based on comical strategic precepts.

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 » 06 Aug 2019 09:04

That the Soviet forces west of the DD line were defeated in the Summer,does not mean that Barbarossa was a success or a defeat .
The defeat or success of Barbarossa depended on a Soviet collaps in the Summer ,and such a collaps was depending
a on the willingness of the Soviets to go west (when this happened, Halder said jubilatedly : the Soviets accept the battle )
b on the possibility to defeat these forces ( something no one in Rastenburg doubted )
and especially on
c the impossibility of the Soviet regime to mobilize its manpower and industrial resources and to continue the war east of the DD line.
There was no proof that c could happen or not . The only thing the Germans could do was to hope that c would happen .
About Halder : that he was incompetent is your opinion,better bias, as you have no proofs for your claim .
The success or failure of Barbarossa depended on something the Germans had no control about .
What happened in the South where the Red Army escaped,had no influence on the failure of Barbarossa : if the Soviets could not mobilize their manpower and industrial resources,but were depending on their pre 22 June forces, they were doomed .

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 » 06 Aug 2019 09:43

The only What If about how to change the outcome of Barbarossa,is a ''Soviet " What If, not a "German" What If, because the outcome of Barbarossa would be decided by the Kremlin, not by the Führer HQ.And what The MarcksPlan proposes would only haste the failure of Barbarossa .

Return to “What if”