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.
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 08 Jun 2019 13:21

I think I'm done engaging with you in detail, Hanny. You're obviously an emotional poster, you can't spell, and you can't even do arithmetic:
Hanny wrote:1000 a month is 12000 per annum, a 4 fold increase over OTL,and an average price of 10K e pop, whata bonus for AH, so many for so little cost.
1.2bn RM / 12,000 = 100,000RM - about the average unit cost of a mix of StuG's and Pz III/IV's.
ljadw wrote:The Führerbefehl from September 28 1940 mentionned a production of 1490 tanks in the period September 1940-April 1941 which meant a monthly production of 213 tanks, NOT 500.
Yeah but this is the alternate history sub, remember? Even producing 1,000 tanks per month requires only ~1% of German war-time GDP.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9790
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 08 Jun 2019 15:10

Wartime GDP and wartime military production are two unrelated things .
1 If it was possible to produce 1000 tanks a month, the Germans would MAYBE have done it .
2 This production would also not be helpful to Germany,as the 17 existing PzD had sufficient tanks : each on the average some 200.
What would the Germans do with an additional number of 7000 tanks ( production of 7 months )? To give each of the 17 PzD in the East 400 more tanks would be suicidal : PzD could have too many tanks : the Soviet tank divisions had too many tanks .
3 Where would the Germans get the additional crew for these 7000 tanks, and the additional infantry and artillery to protect these tanks ?
3 Where would the Germans get the tens of thousands of trucks,drivers, road space these tanks would need ?

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 » 08 Jun 2019 16:48

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
08 Jun 2019 13:21
I think I'm done engaging with you in detail, Hanny. You're obviously an emotional poster, you can't spell, and you can't even do arithmetic:

Jeeze your right, what a howler i made. :oops: lets see i missed the decimal point by one place. You do know you have many math fuck ups in this thread as well right?
Hanny wrote:1000 a month is 12000 per annum, a 4 fold increase over OTL,and an average price of 10K e pop, whata bonus for AH, so many for so little cost.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
08 Jun 2019 13:21
1.2bn RM / 12,000 = 100,000RM - about the average unit cost of a mix of StuG's and Pz III/IV's.Even producing 1,000 tanks per month requires only ~1% of German war-time GDP.

German wartime GDP

1938 351 billion RM, ( Harrison acounting for war) of which 17% is the defense budjet of services,( https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/n ... penditure/) 60 billion.

In 1938 Germany you say can now build 1000 AFV (StuG's and Pz III/IV's) a month at 100k a pop, 1.2 billion, is 2% of all GDP spent on the military 3 services, before that it produced of the same, 400 in 37.

OTL Total defence budget in 37 for 400 AFV is 40000000, which as a % of defence budget is 0.07%.
ALT Total defence budget in 38 for 12000 AFV is 1,200,000,000, which as a % of defence budget is 2%.

IF Heer gets 50% of all defence budget in 38, you just spent 4% of it on StuG's and Pz III/IV's.


You are exactly a type of uniformed opinionated bore that makes certain internet fora unpleasant.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 08 Jun 2019 23:00

ljadw wrote:What would the Germans do with an additional number of 7000 tanks
First, 1,000/mo doesn't mean all the tanks are additional. Unless Germany was producing zero tanks OTL.
Second, it is not essential to my ATL that Germany actually produce 1,000/mo; I'm just pointing out that doing so would have been fairly easy given appropriate planning. Peace-time plans to produce 1,000/mo need not have materialized to get the extra 10 panzer divisions. The post says:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:Note: I haven't decided yet whether - or to what extent - this ATL incorporates qualitatively superior mechanized divisions in addition to quantitative. IMO it's feasible that Germany launches Barbarossa with ~3,000 additional Panzers/StuG's
For now I'll proceed as if Germany "merely" has the 10 additional panzer divisions so ~1,500 more medium tanks. Spread over '40-'41 that means only ~100 more tanks/mo.

Again, it's easy to ratchet that number up significantly but my ATL doesn't require it.
ljadw wrote:1 If it was possible to produce 1000 tanks a month, the Germans would MAYBE have done it .
In real and nominal terms they did. Bombing interference aside, Germany produced monthly ~500 Pz IV, ~400 Pz V, 100 Pz VI, ~500 StuG, ~400 Hetzer plus SP gun chasis's in 1944. Converted to PzIV/StuG equivalents, that's ~2,500/mo.
ljadw wrote:3 Where would the Germans get the tens of thousands of trucks,drivers, road space these tanks would need ?
ATL specifies 350k additional soldiers. Additional mobile divisions form pincer arms at places from which Ostheer did not launch mobile attacks, so no issue of sharing roads.
Hanny wrote:In 1938 Germany you say can now build 1000 AFV
No. Learn to read:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:Planning envisioned production of 500 medium tanks per month by 1941, plus another 500 assault and self-propelled guns
Hanny wrote:German wartime GDP

1938 351 billion RM
WW2 started in September 1939 and continued in Europe until May 1945. German GDP in 1941 was over 100bil RM.
Hanny wrote:You are exactly a type of uniformed opinionated bore that makes certain internet fora unpleasant.
Cool copying bro.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

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

Post by pugsville » 08 Jun 2019 23:56

Logsitics,

How would MORE troops more motorized and panzer divisions be supplied, When your logistical system breaks down the solution just add more troops does not work.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2516
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 » 09 Jun 2019 06:07

pugsville wrote:
08 Jun 2019 23:56
Logsitics,

How would MORE troops more motorized and panzer divisions be supplied, When your logistical system breaks down the solution just add more troops does not work.
I suspect you're going to be bro'd (or is it "bru'd", I can never keep up with millennial speak) for misspelling logistics, but I suppose that is just the pedant in me remarking on that? Of course, I would definitely rather be a pedant than a poseur. :lol:
"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: 9790
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 09 Jun 2019 08:34

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
08 Jun 2019 23:00
ljadw wrote:What would the Germans do with an additional number of 7000 tanks
First, 1,000/mo doesn't mean all the tanks are additional. Unless Germany was producing zero tanks OTL.
Second, it is not essential to my ATL that Germany actually produce 1,000/mo; I'm just pointing out that doing so would have been fairly easy given appropriate planning. Peace-time plans to produce 1,000/mo need not have materialized to get the extra 10 panzer divisions. The post says:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:Note: I haven't decided yet whether - or to what extent - this ATL incorporates qualitatively superior mechanized divisions in addition to quantitative. IMO it's feasible that Germany launches Barbarossa with ~3,000 additional Panzers/StuG's
For now I'll proceed as if Germany "merely" has the 10 additional panzer divisions so ~1,500 more medium tanks. Spread over '40-'41 that means only ~100 more tanks/mo.

Again, it's easy to ratchet that number up significantly but my ATL doesn't require it.
ljadw wrote:1 If it was possible to produce 1000 tanks a month, the Germans would MAYBE have done it .
In real and nominal terms they did. Bombing interference aside, Germany produced monthly ~500 Pz IV, ~400 Pz V, 100 Pz VI, ~500 StuG, ~400 Hetzer plus SP gun chasis's in 1944. Converted to PzIV/StuG equivalents, that's ~2,500/mo.
ljadw wrote:3 Where would the Germans get the tens of thousands of trucks,drivers, road space these tanks would need ?
ATL specifies 350k additional soldiers. Additional mobile divisions form pincer arms at places from which Ostheer did not launch mobile attacks, so no issue of sharing roads.
Hanny wrote:In 1938 Germany you say can now build 1000 AFV
No. Learn to read:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:Planning envisioned production of 500 medium tanks per month by 1941, plus another 500 assault and self-propelled guns
Hanny wrote:German wartime GDP

1938 351 billion RM
WW2 started in September 1939 and continued in Europe until May 1945. German GDP in 1941 was over 100bil RM.
Hanny wrote:You are exactly a type of uniformed opinionated bore that makes certain internet fora unpleasant.
Cool copying bro.
You have given no proofs that a bigger tank production would be possible
You have given no proof that more tanks would be needed
You have given no proofs that more tanks would be a benefit
Your figure of 325k is much too low : 15 aditional PzD would be useless unless they would be accompanied by the needed mot divisions , thus 15/30 mot divisions .30 additional divisions mean 500000 + men, 45 additional divisions mean 800000 more men .
Besides, there was no need for these divisions, as it was planned to win the war with the existing 150 divisions in a few weeks east of the DD line . After these few weeks, the role of the existing 30 mobile divions would be over . There was never an intention to go with 150 divisions to the Wolga,because the bigger the army, the slower the advance .

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 » 09 Jun 2019 11:01

TheMarcksPlan wrote: No. Learn to read:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:Planning envisioned production of 500 medium tanks per month by 1941, plus another 500 assault and self-propelled guns
I have read your twaddle, clearly you have not read or understood your own post, you saved money in 38 to double AFV production
TheMarcksPlan wrote: These cuts saved billions of RM during 1938-39, all of which went to a doubling of production and investment for motorized vehicles. German spending on motorized vehicles increased from less than 5% of military spending to about 10%, with investments made to increase that figure in the future. Planning envisioned production of 500 medium tanks per month by 1941, plus another 500 assault and self-propelled guns snip German production rates are in line with OTL levels except for ~15% higher wheeled vehicle production, a doubling of tank production
Now in 38 every ID was planned to have 18 AG Bttn, and every AD 330 AFV, and you wanted 20 more AD by 41 to invade with. OTL Germany had produced 400 of the III/IV and stugs in 38, 1300 in 39 and 1600 in 40, so roughly 3300. You now have to pay for and build from 1938/9/40 budgets, 180 ID*18 Stugs=2700, 50 AD*330=16500, to equip your 41 field force, in addition to everything else a Pzr/Mot Div required, so fucking learn to understand what you yourself have written.

OTL 3300 in 36 months produced, ATL 19200, thats not a doubling of tank production, its fantasy.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: WW2 started in September 1939 and continued in Europe until May 1945. German GDP in 1941 was over 100bil RM.
You wanted to start building those 20 extra AD with III/IV Stugs in 38, that means paying for it in 38 from the 38 Budjet, learn to understand how economics works. GDP of 41 is spent on what you produce in 41, and has little to do with what you have in the field to use, that gets there from prior years investment in production.

Building what you wanted, when you wanted to do it started in 38 at 5500 a year ( which btw means your also building mostly three quarter ton trucks for the Army as the heavier ones have now not been chose to be the primary work horse for the Army)

You are exactly a type of uniformed opinionated bore that makes certain internet fora unpleasant. Try reading and understanding your own words you twerp.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2516
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 » 09 Jun 2019 16:57

Hanny wrote:
09 Jun 2019 11:01
Now in 38 every ID was planned to have 18 AG Bttn, and every AD 330 AFV, and you wanted 20 more AD by 41 to invade with. OTL Germany had produced 400 of the III/IV and stugs in 38, 1300 in 39 and 1600 in 40, so roughly 3300. You now have to pay for and build from 1938/9/40 budgets, 180 ID*18 Stugs=2700, 50 AD*330=16500, to equip your 41 field force, in addition to everything else a Pzr/Mot Div required, so fucking learn to understand what you yourself have written.
See, I'm not quite sure where even these figures are derived from? As of 1 January 1939, Germany had completed 66 Panzer III and 109 Panzer IV, so 175 total, with earliest production in 1936. In 1939, Germany produced 206 Panzer III, an average of 17.2 per month, and 147 Panzer IV, and average of 12.3 per month.

Nor is switching "GDP" from one service to another going to magically increase production. Principal investment in increasing tank production 1939-1941 was the Nibelungewerk with the concomitant expansion of the Oberdonau steel works, both, coincidentally I'm sure, owned by Hermann Göring. With 65-million RM invested Nibelungenwerk was intended to be the primary producer of the Panzer IV, freeing Krupp for other work. The plant opened in four stages, beginning in September 1940 doing rebuilds of Panzer III, followed in spring of 1941 by production of suspension systems of the Panzer IV for Krupp-Gruson, then in the fall of 1941 by production of the "Porsche Tigers" (VK 30.01 (P) and VK 45.01 (P)), and finally production of the complete Panzer IV. With a planned capacity of 320 Panzer IV per month, the first was completed in November 1941, with production that month being, well, one. Peak production was achieved June-August 1944, when 300 per month were completed.

Problematically, by late fall of 1941 only 4,500 were employed at the plant, mostly Austrians and Germans. As they were drafted into the military, they were replaced by French, Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, and Russians, but full "employment", 8,500, wasn't achieved until early 1944...via "employment" from Mauthausen.

I know, pedantic, but there it is.
"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: 2516
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 » 09 Jun 2019 17:00

Hanny wrote:
09 Jun 2019 11:01
You are exactly a type of uniformed opinionated bore that makes certain internet fora unpleasant. Try reading and understanding your own words you twerp.
I think the words you meant to type was "uninformed" and "boor"...English is devious when it comes to spellchecking, but I doubt that the opinionated boor realizes that a possible majority of those posting here are doing so in English as a second language. :milwink:
"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

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 » 09 Jun 2019 19:19

Richard Anderson wrote:
09 Jun 2019 17:00
Hanny wrote:
09 Jun 2019 11:01
You are exactly a type of uniformed opinionated bore that makes certain internet fora unpleasant. Try reading and understanding your own words you twerp.
I think the words you meant to type was "uninformed" and "boor"...English is devious when it comes to spellchecking, but I doubt that the opinionated boor realizes that a possible majority of those posting here are doing so in English as a second language. :milwink:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
08 Jun 2019 23:00
you can't spell, and you can't even do arithmetic:

Cool copying bro.
Its just my sense of humour i fear, copy pasting from his own posts, complete with spelling errors, back at him, went right over his head. 8O


Richard Anderson wrote:
09 Jun 2019 16:57
Hanny wrote:
09 Jun 2019 11:01
Now in 38 every ID was planned to have 18 AG Bttn, and every AD 330 AFV, and you wanted 20 more AD by 41 to invade with. OTL Germany had produced 400 of the III/IV and stugs in 38, 1300 in 39 and 1600 in 40, so roughly 3300. You now have to pay for and build from 1938/9/40 budgets, 180 ID*18 Stugs=2700, 50 AD*330=16500, to equip your 41 field force, in addition to everything else a Pzr/Mot Div required, so fucking learn to understand what you yourself have written.
See, I'm not quite sure where even these figures are derived from?
From what he said he wanted to do.

He wanted to equip the 1938 PZR Div with III/IV, and upgun them to 75mm, TOE in PZR Div 38 is around 330, he wanted 50 such by 41. Manstein obtained 18 Stugs per ID from Beck but very few were produced pre war to fullfill this, ID of around 180, which he gave, requires that number. I went from memory on the kind of yearly progression of all main AFVs produced, to show that what he wanted was not a yearly doubling of production but a fantastical increase, payed for from the 41 budjet, what a cool deal. No doubt you can provide a better series of numbers, :) but hey ho, its close enough to show scale.

You do know he is getting this all from playing HOI, a computer game that allows you to appoint different leaders with industrial bonuses to factory output, labour pools,like Fritz Sauckel, and allows you to produce anything ahead of time to equip the TOE for your military, which you design with ID with Stug Bttns, by inventing the technology and producing it and changing the template for the division receiving the new equipment, giving it better combat stats, German ID with long 75 stugs in game is required when invading Russia or the ID gets a pasting from Russian armour. game does havea flaw, anything produced runs on fuel for free, so building 50 AD and 30 MOT Divs as Germany is ok as they dont need fuel to move them, and will be enough to defeat Russia before USA gets to Europe.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2516
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 » 09 Jun 2019 20:20

Oh, sure i figured he was a war gamer...we all were at one time, but some of us grew up and realized they were fictional and replicate the game designers notions of reality rather than reality.
"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

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 10 Jun 2019 01:30

pugsville wrote:
08 Jun 2019 23:56
Logsitics,

How would MORE troops more motorized and panzer divisions be supplied, When your logistical system breaks down the solution just add more troops does not work.
The ATL specifies better German logistics planning prior to Barbarossa. This was imminently doable had Halder etc. acted competently to plan for better rail connections. The investments in rolling stock and track required would have been a small portion of total expenditure.

This isn't to say that the Ostheer will have "good" logistics. But it doesn't need good logistics, it just needs sufficient lift to supply ~10% greater forces on about 10% greater penetration into the SU.

I haven't gone into great detail yet on the logistics; it's something I plan to address in later posts.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 10 Jun 2019 01:36

Richard Anderson wrote:uninformed" and "boor"
No you're a bore; you may also be a boor.
I.e. you're boring. "Pedantic" should have provided enough context for you to infer the meaning; then again a pedant doesn't infer dullness from his behavior so maybe not.
Richard Anderson wrote:I know, pedantic, but there it is.
Yep. You have once again listed facts bearing no particular relevance to the question of "what if" Germany prioritized Heer production, with a focus on its mobile divisions, during '38-'41.

For that reason the rest of your post doesn't deserve more detailed engagement.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 10 Jun 2019 01:39

ljadw wrote:Besides, there was no need for these divisions, as it was planned to win the war with the existing 150 divisions in a few weeks east of the DD line . After these few weeks, the role of the existing 30 mobile divions would be over . There was never an intention to go with 150 divisions to the Wolga,because the bigger the army, the slower the advance .
Like the other posters here, you have entirely failed to understand the ATL.
The whole point is to change the strategic conception Barbarossa from a quick, easy campaign to a long one of at least two years.

This is like responding to a "What if Hitler had the A-bomb" thread with "Hitler didn't have the A-bomb."
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 10 Jun 2019 01:47, edited 1 time in total.
The "ignore user" function is essential to AHF/internet sanity and I use it liberally. Feel free to raise another poster's point if I've ignored them.

Return to “What if”