One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

[Takao]

But the reality was that the German naval bases in Norway did not threaten the UK's transatlantic shipping,as this had as final destination the ports on the west coast of the UK,especially Liverpool .

First, you misunderstand, the bases were not to directly threaten transatlantic shipping but indirectly threaten them. By basing some "heavies" in Norway, forces the RN to compensates by stretching their own forces to compensate. Thus weakening the forces guarding the Atlantic, thereby creating more opportunities for german naval assets in the Atlantic or headed there to do some real damage. That was the German naval strategy.

Second, if and when the new German Z plan ships were constructed, they could directly threaten transatlantic shipping, because they were specifically designed to have fast long range cruising speeds. The Z Plan battleships, battlecruisers, panzerschiff, and cruisers all had ranges in excess of 12,000nm @ 19 knots. Which was more than plenty to allow them to directly threaten transatlantic shipping lanes and still have a high degree of mobility.

[Takao]

@ TheMarcksPlan,

The 28 battleships you mentioned earlier is quite fictitious. There were only 13 battleships, and those included the already operational Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes. The others would be the 6 H-Class battleships and 3 O-Class battlecruisers. You other 15 "battleships" were the 15 Panzerschiff - Scheer, Lutzow, Graf Spee, and the 12 P-Class.

[TheMarcksPlan]

@ TheMarcksPlan,

The 28 battleships you mentioned earlier is quite fictitious. There were only 13 battleships, and those included the already operational Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes. The others would be the 6 H-Class battleships and 3 O-Class battlecruisers. You other 15 "battleships" were the 15 Panzerschiff - Scheer, Lutzow, Graf Spee, and the 12 P-Class.

I wasn't referring to the pre-war Z-Plan but to the KM's July 30, 1941 submission, discussed on page 281, fn 72 of Overy's German War Economy. You may be right that the 25 (not 28 - my error) battleships included P-Class ships. Regardless, the request was for 25 big gun ships, 8 carriers, 50 cruisers, 150 destroyers, and 400 Uboots.

The carriers, cruisers, and destroyers alone represent a crazy misunderstanding of Germany's war position, let alone 25 battleships or panzerschiffe in addition. So my point remains: even as late as July 1941 the separate armed forces were not compelled to understand the resource constraints they operated under, given Germany's strategic situation.

[Takao]

Yeah there was a crazy misunderstanding...that was to attack the SU before bringing Britain to heel. Fight one war at a time.

However, sanity did not prevail, and Germany, despite knowing it's limitations, went ahead with Barbarossa anyway.

[Aida1]

You show a lack of understanding of mobile operations here.From an operational viewpoint,you need to keep pushung forward while your ID's deal with surrounded enemy units.That is what German mobile commanders wanted.Outstripping your logistics is inherent in deep advances.Will slow you down but is no reason to stop your advance.

Sounds like you're parroting the German generals' memoirs and haven't read much of Glantz, Stahel, Zettlering et. al., nor conducted your own analysis of the cost and benefits of the OKH line.

Empty retoric.If you want to understand the basic principles of mobile warfare you need to read what professionals wrote about it.Historians write history,nothing more,nothing less.

[TheMarcksPlan]

you need to read what professionals wrote about it

The generals have their say but guess what? Professionals who fought and murdered on behalf of modern history's most vicious, dishonest, evil regime are not completely honest in their memoirs - or ever. Surprised?

[David Thompson]

Aida1 -- Our readers, including the moderators, aren't interested in polemical posts and unsourced opinions, nor in mere repartee posts: From our rules:

If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced, secondary articles or opinions.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

and

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

and

1. Discussions

The research sections of the forum are meant for persons who are fairly well-informed on the topics being discussed, and our discussions are not directed at the lowest common denominator of readership. Rural customs of discourse, such as feigned ignorance, pettifogging, playing at peek-a-boo, fact-free repartee, redundant and uninformative posts, and/or "stonewalling" denials of facts well-known to most informed persons, are strongly disfavored here.

The object of the research sections of the forum is to exchange information, not to engage in dim wrangling as a form of diversion. Our readers are intelligent people, who have already taken the time to inform themselves on the topic under discussion and don't have a lot of time to waste playing games. Shrill and highly polemical posts are also strongly disfavored.

app.php/rules

You may consider this your warning.

[Aida1]

you need to read what professionals wrote about it

The generals have their say but guess what? Professionals who fought and murdered on behalf of modern history's most vicious, dishonest, evil regime are not completely honest in their memoirs - or ever. Surprised?

You clearly missed the Point.If you want to make statements about how military operations should be conducted and make alternate scenario's you cannot do without reading what professionals write about the subject..Includes memoirs too and even from German.officers.Writing out a what if scenario about how a campaign could be conducted differently does neecessitate a minimum understanding of the military subject and you cannot get that without reading theoretical and other works by professional soldiers.The likes of Guderian,Manstein.Hoth,etc..have important insights in the conduct of deep mobile operations.I have never noticed military professionals having an unwillingness into reading them..

[TheMarcksPlan]

You clearly missed the Point.If you want to make statements about how military operations should be conducted and make alternate scenario's you cannot do without reading what professionals write about the subject

Nothing about "the generals have their say" and "the generals had a motive to lie and often lied/misrepresented [and should have been hanged]" implies not reading the generals.
You simply don't understand the composite value of (1) reading primary sources, (2) reading analysis of primary sources by appropriately-informed secondary analysts, and (3) coming to one's own conclusions about both the primary sources and subsequent gloss by secondary analysts (a.k.a historians). That process of interpreting source materials, questioning past interpretations of source materials, and synthesizing the foregoing into one's own intellectual narrative is what an active reader of history does. If one engages in that process as a vocation rather than avocation, it's what historians do.

What you appear to do is assume that any questioning of the primary sources is tantamount to not reading those sources. That's an embarrassing position to hold.

[Aida1]

You clearly missed the Point.If you want to make statements about how military operations should be conducted and make alternate scenario's you cannot do without reading what professionals write about the subject

Nothing about "the generals have their say" and "the generals had a motive to lie and often lied/misrepresented [and should have been hanged]" implies not reading the generals.
You simply don't understand the composite value of (1) reading primary sources, (2) reading analysis of primary sources by appropriately-informed secondary analysts, and (3) coming to one's own conclusions about both the primary sources and subsequent gloss by secondary analysts (a.k.a historians). That process of interpreting source materials, questioning past interpretations of source materials, and synthesizing the foregoing into one's own intellectual narrative is what an active reader of history does. If one engages in that process as a vocation rather than avocation, it's what historians do.

What you appear to do is assume that any questioning of the primary sources is tantamount to not reading those sources. That's an embarrassing position to hold.

Not the issue.It is about taking seriously the insights of professional soldiers into the conduct of operations.When you work out an alternate scenario you are playing general and not being a historian anymore.You are not just compiling facts anymore.You are planning a military operation.If you play staff officer you Will need to do more than read pure history books.Would do you good to read Panzer operations by Hermann Hoth.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Would do you good to read Panzer operations by Hermann Hoth.

I've read it as well as Mannstein, Guderian, and the Halder diaries. Hoth is at least a better writer than Mannstein, who despite being a brilliant general is a terrible writer, a terrible person, and should have been hanged.

You and Jesk can continue to worship the German Generals; any intelligent person approaches their memoirs with skepticism of their factual assertions and knowledge that they completely lacked strategic insight.

[HistoryGeek2019]

Plus with no surface fleet at all there's no way to take Norway, which is a big problem.

Is this a big problem though? With the Fall of France in June 1940, Germany has all the iron ore it needs from Alsace-Lorraine. Norway from that point was just a drain on Germany resources.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Plus with no surface fleet at all there's no way to take Norway, which is a big problem.

Is this a big problem though? With the Fall of France in June 1940, Germany has all the iron ore it needs from Alsace-Lorraine. Norway from that point was just a drain on Germany resources.

Germany relied on Swedish ore imports until the final period of the war. Perhaps they could have exploited Alsace-Lorraine better but it would have required finding and feeding thousands more miners and/or making them as productive as mining operations were pre-war. The feeding and motivation of miners was one of the most difficult aspects of the German war economy. The relation between mining productivity and overall treatment and nutrition was stronger for mining than in any other portion of the war economy. In Sweden they had miners whose food/motives they needn't worry about. Tooze's Wages of Destruction is very good on this topic, as is Herbert's Hitler's Foreign Workers.

[Aida1]

Would do you good to read Panzer operations by Hermann Hoth.

I've read it as well as Mannstein, Guderian, and the Halder diaries. Hoth is at least a better writer than Mannstein, who despite being a brilliant general is a terrible writer, a terrible person, and should have been hanged.

You and Jesk can continue to worship the German Generals; any intelligent person approaches their memoirs with skepticism of their factual assertions and knowledge that they completely lacked strategic insight.

From reading Hoth you could have gotten the insight that he would have wanted to keep advancing and not be tied down in cordoning off pockets. which is the reason why more IDs would have been useful.

[Aida1]

Aida1 -- Our readers, including the moderators, aren't interested in polemical posts and unsourced opinions, nor in mere repartee posts: From our rules:

If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced, secondary articles or opinions.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

and

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

and

1. Discussions

The research sections of the forum are meant for persons who are fairly well-informed on the topics being discussed, and our discussions are not directed at the lowest common denominator of readership. Rural customs of discourse, such as feigned ignorance, pettifogging, playing at peek-a-boo, fact-free repartee, redundant and uninformative posts, and/or "stonewalling" denials of facts well-known to most informed persons, are strongly disfavored here.

The object of the research sections of the forum is to exchange information, not to engage in dim wrangling as a form of diversion. Our readers are intelligent people, who have already taken the time to inform themselves on the topic under discussion and don't have a lot of time to waste playing games. Shrill and highly polemical posts are also strongly disfavored.

app.php/rules

You may consider this your warning.

I have the perfect right to point out a flaw in a what if scenario which is always fiction anyway. Actually i did no more than support another users opinion about it being more important for Germany to have more ID's.and the reason why this is so.