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.
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 » 06 Aug 2019 12:30

Remember that the Germans had their WWI experience at the back of their heads, both in 1940 when they attacked France, and 1941 when they attacked Russia.

This was flawed obviously but it is hard to label it as idiocy.

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 » 06 Aug 2019 23:34

Lars wrote:
06 Aug 2019 12:30
Remember that the Germans had their WWI experience at the back of their heads, both in 1940 when they attacked France, and 1941 when they attacked Russia.

This was flawed obviously but it is hard to label it as idiocy.
It was hard not to defeat Russia. Hitler was able to do this. For understanding, need to familiarize yourself with the history of the Second World War ...

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 » 06 Aug 2019 23:36

ljadw wrote:
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 .
Controversial opinion. In 1942, the Germans were 80 km from Moscow and 0 km from Leningrad. The fact that these 2 cities remained Soviet is Hitler’s only reluctance to take them.

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 » 07 Aug 2019 01:34

A post from TheMarcksPlan, which added nothing of informational value to the discussion, was removed as clutter.

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 » 07 Aug 2019 05:45

Jesk, I agree that it was possible for the Germans to defeat Russia. The big question is if it can be done in 1941.

For Hitler's strategic vision to work Russia had to be defeated in 1941. If the war dragged on into 1942 the strategic calculus had gone wrong: To destroy Britain's "last hope" on the continent while at the same time make Germany blocade resistant with food, oil, etc. from Russia before USA enters the war.

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 » 07 Aug 2019 06:19

Lars wrote:For Hitler's strategic vision to work Russia had to be defeated in 1941. If the war dragged on into 1942 the strategic calculus had gone wrong: To destroy Britain's "last hope" on the continent while at the same time make Germany blocade resistant with food, oil, etc. from Russia before USA enters the war.
I disagree. If you look at allied strategic deliberations during 1941/42, even they agreed that if Germany beat Russia during 1942 then an attack on Europe was impossible. Instead, the allies would pivot to Japan. Do they pivot back to Europe in 1945 to beat the Nazis? Maybe, but that seems a stretch.

IMO Hitler wanted to fight the West and, given his low estimation of SU, allowed himself to believe he could pivot to that fight in 1942 after a brief Russian excursion.

Had Hitler a realistic evaluation of the strategic picture in 1940, one in which a two-year campaign in the East was required, I don't think his basic strategic pattern changes. He can't tolerate a rising SU in his rear; he can't make peace with the West. The only option is to subdue the SU and then turn west; if the former takes another year that's strategically acceptable.

Note that OKW had very good approximations of Allied shipping capabilities up to 1943, and therefore had good estimates of the magnitude of threat they were facing in the west. A Hitler confronted with a good evaluation of the Western and Eastern threats could still believe he'd be able to subdue the East before dealing with the West. In any event, it would take a cosmically-larger scale of threat to convince Hitler to do anything other than fight it out.

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 » 07 Aug 2019 06:35

...just one more point on "if we don't win in 1941 it's all over"...

Hitler still believed, ahead of and during the 1942 eastern campaign, that he had a last shot to win the war. Destroy/incapacitate Russia and the Heer can defend Europe with ease. That's why we got Fuehrer Directive 45, assuming that the East had been won.

An argument against my ATL, which assumes a strategically-smarter Hitler, has to grapple with the idea that a strategically-better Hitler would see his window for Eastern victory as stretching - at least - into 1942. Alternatively, one can argue that Hitler wasn't as strategically-gifted as the ATL specifies. True, but that's just historical luck.

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 » 07 Aug 2019 06:47

Hitler had no time to be distracted by strategic thinking. He was always busy. From October to December 1943, the General Staff and Mashtein proposed:
1. Leave Estonia, having transferred the 18th army to Ukraine.
2. Reduce the front in Belorussia, taking part of the forces for Ukraine.
3. Leave the Crimea, transfer the 17th army to Ukraine.
4. Leave Nikopolsky and Korsunsky ledges, freeing up forces for a counteroffensive.
5. To abandon positional defense in favor of maneuverability.

Hitler forbade all this. The text of the meeting was December 27, 1943, for example, as Hitler convinced the rest of them in their lack of understanding of the combat situation.

https://scicenter.online/mirovaya-voyna ... 44703.html

Führer: The artillery division is also here. - Manstein writes: “We should rather hope — he has an amazing manner of expression! —That the enemy will try to break through the section of Cherkasy, Kirovograd ... and thereby completely deplete his strength.” - What does it mean "Completely draining"? Why would he break right here? It can break through with the same success and on that site, as here, to the north. In general, this does not prove anything. Here, in the south, this bridge is very important, it leads to this side. It is important to keep the lower bridgehead as far as possible; as long as there is a crossing, the enemy cannot calmly attack in that area. And if we lose the last bridgehead, then ... Now he again calls General Zeitzler. “The thing is clear: he is afraid for Vinnitsa, because here is his headquarters.
Jodl: The main railway runs here. This is the last major highway.
Fuhrer: Also through Zhmerinka.
Jodl: Zhmerynka - the main site.
Fuhrer: "Operation"! “I hate pompous expressions.” This is not an operation, it’s just a bombastic phrase.
Jodl: In short, Manstein believes that the available forces cannot hold the front. He needs additional forces, and he knows where to get them. So he wants to free them by reducing the front in the south.
Fuhrer: He can withdraw three divisions to the reserve: one from here, one from here and one from the center; and one more, the 17th, he will remove from here. Total four divisions. In the last telegram he himself requested five, and he had no reason to count on that division, as well as on the 16th. That division costs more than everyone else.
Jodl: Anyway, you won’t achieve any special changes. He has already received four divisions, but the operational threat to this entire wing remains the same. Whether we remove this ledge or not, evacuate the bridgehead or not evacuate, nothing will change anyway. All the same, Manstein’s troops are so bulging forward that if the enemy breaks through here, then contact with them will be lost. Then it would have been necessary to lead the front line from Odessa to the north altogether ... But, however, this cannot serve as a basis, it is only about releasing forces. And the fact that Manstein needs more strength here than he now has can be recognized as correct.
Fuhrer: The solution of the problem with the help of the offensive is excluded here. Manstein is not able to do this, he does not have the ability to conduct active actions by such forces. This is ridiculous. This is nothing more than a phrase to hide behind her again. “Let Zeitzler then bring a map showing the lines of defense. “With these forces, Manstein still has nothing to do, he needs to have at least one or two tank divisions at his disposal.” But he himself can take one from here. He will actually receive the forces that he requested, but with only one difference: they are better than those that he could release on this front.

Fuhrer: Here is the 4th division, you can drag it here first of all; 16th put here. And then, concentrating the 16th, Life Guards SS "Adolf Hitler" and the 1st Panzer Division, he must strike in that direction. But how can it be argued that the enemy has allegedly concentrated 47 completely fresh divisions, the offensive of which cannot be restrained? You can stop them here. If you believe Manstein, then our divisions are completely bad, and the enemy’s “fresh”. The tendentiousness of this report is obvious. After all, all the same, for the sake of his truly insatiable egoism, he had already dragged everything he could here. The transfer of the 16th Motorized Infantry Division, which was supposed to remain here, led to the collapse of the whole story. If not for this, the front could still pass here now. And just those divisions that stood on this site, he now can not do anything. Trying to lead an offensive by these divisions is nonsense; he will not succeed in any operation. And the hope that he will be able to deliver an additional blow here too, as if the enemy is supposed to overtake his forces - this is, after all, empty talk. "He still writes here:" In the same way, it will not be possible to do without a new transfer of forces from the West. "

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 » 07 Aug 2019 06:55

What is front reduction for the release of forces. In the case of the USSR, training aids on the number of bullets and shells per kilometer of the front always worked. The abandonment of the Rzhevsky and Demyansk ledges liberated 32 divisions to other sectors and fully compensated losses near Stalingrad. In 1945, the abandonment of Courland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Norway was beneficial to the Germans and bad for the Russians. The Wehrmacht received reserves for a counteroffensive.

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 » 17 Aug 2019 01:27

Came across figures for 19th PzDiv's POL consumption in liters from June 16 to October 31: 4,222,680 gasoline, 1,013,110 diesel, 200,060 oil. From its war diary as cited by Stahel in Battle of Moscow, pg. 103.

Using 7.5 lbs/gal(imp) density, that's ~4,100 tons. Maybe it'd be 5,000t if we included its share of GTR fuel consumption?

I had settled at 10,000t per extra division earlier in the thread; that's perhaps excessive especially given the earlier conclusion to the fighting.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1421
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 17 Aug 2019 08:04

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Aug 2019 01:27
Came across figures for 19th PzDiv's POL consumption in liters from June 16 to October 31: 4,222,680 gasoline, 1,013,110 diesel, 200,060 oil. From its war diary as cited by Stahel in Battle of Moscow, pg. 103.

Using 7.5 lbs/gal(imp) density, that's ~4,100 tons. Maybe it'd be 5,000t if we included its share of GTR fuel consumption?

I had settled at 10,000t per extra division earlier in the thread; that's perhaps excessive especially given the earlier conclusion to the fighting.
ROBERT FORCZYK reports VS [Verbrauchssatz] was the standard unit of fuel measured. This was the volume of fuel needed to move the entire division 100km on road , which 125cbm fuel or 93 tons.

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 » 17 Aug 2019 09:27

Paul Lakowski wrote:
17 Aug 2019 08:04
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
17 Aug 2019 01:27
Came across figures for 19th PzDiv's POL consumption in liters from June 16 to October 31: 4,222,680 gasoline, 1,013,110 diesel, 200,060 oil. From its war diary as cited by Stahel in Battle of Moscow, pg. 103.

Using 7.5 lbs/gal(imp) density, that's ~4,100 tons. Maybe it'd be 5,000t if we included its share of GTR fuel consumption?

I had settled at 10,000t per extra division earlier in the thread; that's perhaps excessive especially given the earlier conclusion to the fighting.
ROBERT FORCZYK reports VS [Verbrauchssatz] was the standard unit of fuel measured. This was the volume of fuel needed to move the entire division 100km on road , which 125cbm fuel or 93 tons.
...which means .93t/km on the road.
...which would mean ~900t for the ~1,000km from Bialystok to Moscow.
...which is obviously too low.
...which obviously raises the question of tactical/operational vs. strategic fuel consumption.
...which means this answer is obviously besides the point.
...except insofar as it relates to the extra fuel consumption of moving farther into Russia, but only assuming equal or lesser tactical/op movements.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

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

Post by Aida1 » 17 Aug 2019 11:28

jesk wrote:
07 Aug 2019 06:55
What is front reduction for the release of forces. In the case of the USSR, training aids on the number of bullets and shells per kilometer of the front always worked. The abandonment of the Rzhevsky and Demyansk ledges liberated 32 divisions to other sectors and fully compensated losses near Stalingrad. In 1945, the abandonment of Courland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Norway was beneficial to the Germans and bad for the Russians. The Wehrmacht received reserves for a counteroffensive.
Exactly.It is the side that is poor in resources that gains most.Germany could only compensatie it's losses by giving up terrain.

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 » 17 Aug 2019 11:53

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
07 Aug 2019 06:35
...just one more point on "if we don't win in 1941 it's all over"...

Hitler still believed, ahead of and during the 1942 eastern campaign, that he had a last shot to win the war. Destroy/incapacitate Russia and the Heer can defend Europe with ease. That's why we got Fuehrer Directive 45, assuming that the East had been won.

The unpleasant truth is that the destruction of Russia would have as result that Germany would be nuked .
And, Directive 45 did NOT assume that the East had been won .

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 » 17 Aug 2019 19:07

Aida1 wrote:
17 Aug 2019 11:28
jesk wrote:
07 Aug 2019 06:55
What is front reduction for the release of forces. In the case of the USSR, training aids on the number of bullets and shells per kilometer of the front always worked. The abandonment of the Rzhevsky and Demyansk ledges liberated 32 divisions to other sectors and fully compensated losses near Stalingrad. In 1945, the abandonment of Courland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Norway was beneficial to the Germans and bad for the Russians. The Wehrmacht received reserves for a counteroffensive.
Exactly.It is the side that is poor in resources that gains most.Germany could only compensatie it's losses by giving up terrain.
Not only. In 1942, I already wrote, Germany could attack Moscow, Leningrad and the Caucasus at the same time. Hitler considered the army groups Center and North to have no forces. It is very controversial, his decisions ...

Return to “What if”