The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 631
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: Laniakea

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by historygeek2021 » 24 Apr 2022 13:12

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2022 21:15
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
What if the Ostheer followed the OKH plan for Barbarossa that was submitted to Hitler on December 1, 1940?
What plan was give on hitler on 1.dezembar 1940.year?
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
The plan called for a rapid advance to the Dvina and Dnieper rivers in 18 days, followed by a 21 day rest period to build up a new supply base. On the 40th day of the invasion, a concentrated advance would be made on Moscow.
Was that be plan on document or was that be discusses on paulus map manouver?
See GSSW Vol 4, page 277.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 631
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: Laniakea

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by historygeek2021 » 24 Apr 2022 22:03

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
13 Apr 2022 08:00

79 ID didn't fight in the Balkans, was held in reserve in Poland until August when it joined AGS at Kiev.

132 ID was in OKH reserve on June 22nd per Askey.

5 Mtn fought in Crete and suffered losses en route, was definitely nixed by Balkans involvement.

6 Mtn didn't invade Crete, refreshed in Germany then moved to Finland in August.

183 ID ended its Balkans fighting by April 17.

125 ID was also in OKH reserve on June 22 and apparently fought at Uman (per Askey and Wikipedia). You may have a typo there - you say 125 invaded Greece and Yugoslavia (unless you're counting a brief hook through Yugoslavia into Greece).

72 ID was transferred to Romania after Greece and was fighting for AGS no later than July per Lexikon. Askey has it in AGS's June 22 OoB.

73 ID remained an occupation force until June 21, then joined AGS and saw action that summer.
This is consistent with GSSW Vol III, Tables III.II.I. and 2. 79th Inf Div was deployed for the Yugoslav campaign but didn't arrive until the fighting had ceased.

There was a 125 Inf. Div that fought in Yugoslavia and a 125 Inf. Regiment that fought in Greece.

Hitler nixed the OKH's planned pincer out of northern Romania on March 17. 11th Army wasn't ready to attack until July 2.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 Apr 2022 05:07

historygeek2021 wrote:There was a 125 Inf. Div that fought in Yugoslavia and a 125 Inf. Regiment that fought in Greece.
Ah...
historygeek2021 wrote:11th Army wasn't ready to attack until July 2.
Are we sure it was 11th Army that wasn't ready? IIRC Antonescu got late notice of the attack and wanted extra time before any push from Romania (though he declared war immediately).
historygeek2021 wrote:Hitler nixed the OKH's planned pincer out of northern Romania on March 17.
This is an interesting aspect of the planning, one for which I'd like to grab the primary documents/notes at some point. Hitler seems to have thought much more seriously than Halder about the threat to AGS's left flank from the Pripyat, which of course was entirely prescient of the campaign's actual course. FHO's intel showed SWF being much weaker than reality; perhaps OKH's weak pincer from Romania reflected this impression. I'm not certain that a PG1 weakened as OKH envisioned gets as far as it did, given SWF's strength. I'm not certain it doesn't, however, as Kleist held much of his force in reserve and an entire panzer corps didn't cross the border until days into the campaign.

Again none of this is to deny categorically that there may, with further research etc., be a very good argument that SWF's destruction in the Border Battles was possible had OKH committed all the reserve/Balkans divisions in Romania on June 22 (and had someone ensured Antonescu was ready to go 10 days earlier, which doesn't seem insuperable).

And/or had it committed more of the manpower sitting in the West on June 22 (some good manpower - later creamed off that winter - was stuck in static occupation divisions there. But most of these divisions were created after France so OKH could have done earlier what it did later and formed substantial combat power out of the occupation forces). This point is going beyond your "do the OTL OKH plan", however.

I suspect that a sufficiently informed and clever person could create many credible plans to defeat the SU absent my precondition of another panzer group and rational logistics planning, which is IMO an easy case to make (thus my ability to make it absent knowledge and cleverness). This is in the right direction but needs some loose ends tied up.

Looking ahead, one big problem would be to keep OKH/W's logistics plan. This is most critical in AGS's sector, where logistics played the most clear role. To really make Barbarossa a decisive campaign that tips the SU into a '42 defeat, AGS should be able to push to the Don. Does greater force destruction alone that make possible? There's an argument that even a poorly-supplied AGS could have pushed to the Don in Fall '41 had RKKA been severely weakened as we're discussing. Any logistical problem can be overcome by a "weak enemy" solution. Not sure that's the case here though.

If we need better Barbarossa logistics to weaken SU by more than Moscow, and if just losing Moscow in '41 doesn't guarantee Soviet defeat in '42 (arguable but plausibly true), then we'd need a more substantial re-imagining of the campaign.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 27 Apr 2022 13:36

historygeek2021 wrote:
24 Apr 2022 13:12
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2022 21:15
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
What if the Ostheer followed the OKH plan for Barbarossa that was submitted to Hitler on December 1, 1940?
What plan was give on hitler on 1.dezembar 1940.year?
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
The plan called for a rapid advance to the Dvina and Dnieper rivers in 18 days, followed by a 21 day rest period to build up a new supply base. On the 40th day of the invasion, a concentrated advance would be made on Moscow.
Was that be plan on document or was that be discusses on paulus map manouver?
See GSSW Vol 4, page 277.
OKH was not give plan on Barbarossa on 1.dezembar 1940.year.

1. You was make error on words and understands.
2. Book you was read was make error on print.

On 5.dezembar 1940.year Halder was give presentation (Vortrag) on east operation. Was not be document. Was be talk. Was not be 1.dezembar 1940.year. When you can to read germany edition on book you can to see was be mistake on english edition on book.

Presentation (Vortrag) was not give numbers on days and was not say must to have rest period.

Presentation was mostest basic explains on geography problems and ideas on what can to be numbers on divisions and what can to be places on objectives.

OKH was not have plan and was not submit plan on 1.dezembar 1940.year and not on 5.dezembar 1940.year. Halder was give basic presentation on ideas on 5.dezembar 1940.year.

Also ideas was not have name Barbarossa on 5.dezembar 1940.year. Name was be Otto.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 631
Joined: 17 Dec 2020 06:23
Location: Laniakea

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by historygeek2021 » 28 Apr 2022 00:58

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
27 Apr 2022 13:36
historygeek2021 wrote:
24 Apr 2022 13:12
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2022 21:15
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
What if the Ostheer followed the OKH plan for Barbarossa that was submitted to Hitler on December 1, 1940?
What plan was give on hitler on 1.dezembar 1940.year?
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
The plan called for a rapid advance to the Dvina and Dnieper rivers in 18 days, followed by a 21 day rest period to build up a new supply base. On the 40th day of the invasion, a concentrated advance would be made on Moscow.
Was that be plan on document or was that be discusses on paulus map manouver?
See GSSW Vol 4, page 277.
OKH was not give plan on Barbarossa on 1.dezembar 1940.year.

1. You was make error on words and understands.
2. Book you was read was make error on print.

On 5.dezembar 1940.year Halder was give presentation (Vortrag) on east operation. Was not be document. Was be talk. Was not be 1.dezembar 1940.year. When you can to read germany edition on book you can to see was be mistake on english edition on book.

Presentation (Vortrag) was not give numbers on days and was not say must to have rest period.

Presentation was mostest basic explains on geography problems and ideas on what can to be numbers on divisions and what can to be places on objectives.

OKH was not have plan and was not submit plan on 1.dezembar 1940.year and not on 5.dezembar 1940.year. Halder was give basic presentation on ideas on 5.dezembar 1940.year.

Also ideas was not have name Barbarossa on 5.dezembar 1940.year. Name was be Otto.
Thanks for pointing that out. Every other book I've read says December 5 is the date OKH reported their invasion plans to Hitler, but I copied the date in GSWW because it's supposed to be the most authoritative source. It's a shame a book like that contains an error, even if it's a pretty minor one.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 28 Apr 2022 11:03

historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Apr 2022 00:58
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
27 Apr 2022 13:36
historygeek2021 wrote:
24 Apr 2022 13:12
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
15 Apr 2022 21:15
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
What if the Ostheer followed the OKH plan for Barbarossa that was submitted to Hitler on December 1, 1940?
What plan was give on hitler on 1.dezembar 1940.year?
historygeek2021 wrote:
28 Mar 2022 07:27
The plan called for a rapid advance to the Dvina and Dnieper rivers in 18 days, followed by a 21 day rest period to build up a new supply base. On the 40th day of the invasion, a concentrated advance would be made on Moscow.
Was that be plan on document or was that be discusses on paulus map manouver?
See GSSW Vol 4, page 277.
OKH was not give plan on Barbarossa on 1.dezembar 1940.year.

1. You was make error on words and understands.
2. Book you was read was make error on print.

On 5.dezembar 1940.year Halder was give presentation (Vortrag) on east operation. Was not be document. Was be talk. Was not be 1.dezembar 1940.year. When you can to read germany edition on book you can to see was be mistake on english edition on book.

Presentation (Vortrag) was not give numbers on days and was not say must to have rest period.

Presentation was mostest basic explains on geography problems and ideas on what can to be numbers on divisions and what can to be places on objectives.

OKH was not have plan and was not submit plan on 1.dezembar 1940.year and not on 5.dezembar 1940.year. Halder was give basic presentation on ideas on 5.dezembar 1940.year.

Also ideas was not have name Barbarossa on 5.dezembar 1940.year. Name was be Otto.
Thanks for pointing that out. Every other book I've read says December 5 is the date OKH reported their invasion plans to Hitler, but I copied the date in GSWW because it's supposed to be the most authoritative source. It's a shame a book like that contains an error, even if it's a pretty minor one.
Wrong date was be only small problem.

Big problem was be you was make imagination story on complete tosh on what was happen on date.

Halder was not report on invasion plan. There was not be invasion plan. On book you was read you can for to read on 278.page
report on the state of the planning activities
Halder was not present plan. Halder was not present informations on dates and times and pauses.
Halder was present report on state of planning activities.
Everything what you was write on start of discuss was be imagination story.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 23 May 2022 10:41

In another thread I do some map analysis of PG1's drive and its perplexing characterisitics. AGS - or Reichenau, who had operational control over PG1 in the first days - held most of PG1 back until June 25 or later. PG1 advanced with only 4 fast divisions and faced counterattacks on both flanks. These interfered with the main highways over which it was operating.

I'm now wondering whether a better plan - protect PG1's flanks with 2-3 divs, reinforce the spearheads with 2-3 divs - would have got PG1 significantly farther east than OTL. Absent help from ATL forces, this might have posed a problem because Stavka had a lot of reserves it could have moved up against those spearheads (5, 19 MC's which went from ~Kiev to fight around Smolensk OTL). But in this ATL, perhaps there's enough ATL help from Romania to prevent concentration on the spearheads and enable a Kessel in Galicia.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

History Learner
Member
Posts: 407
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

Re: The OKH Plan for Barbarossa

Post by History Learner » 13 Jun 2022 05:41

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 May 2022 10:41
In another thread I do some map analysis of PG1's drive and its perplexing characterisitics. AGS - or Reichenau, who had operational control over PG1 in the first days - held most of PG1 back until June 25 or later. PG1 advanced with only 4 fast divisions and faced counterattacks on both flanks. These interfered with the main highways over which it was operating.

I'm now wondering whether a better plan - protect PG1's flanks with 2-3 divs, reinforce the spearheads with 2-3 divs - would have got PG1 significantly farther east than OTL. Absent help from ATL forces, this might have posed a problem because Stavka had a lot of reserves it could have moved up against those spearheads (5, 19 MC's which went from ~Kiev to fight around Smolensk OTL). But in this ATL, perhaps there's enough ATL help from Romania to prevent concentration on the spearheads and enable a Kessel in Galicia.
Please elaborate more? This sounds interesting; hope all is well, you've not been every active lately. Always insightful to come here, lurk, and read your content.

Return to “What if”