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
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 03 Jul 2019 16:16

RichardAnderson wrote:To start, how does Germany "ramp up" a workforce of 1.3 million Poles and 1.2 million prisoners of war...in peacetime? 0
Obviously disingenuous comment or else frighteningly obtuse. That an ATL starts prewar doesn't mean everything happens pre-war. Again you're debating the opponent you'd like to have.

Also dude, your 13yo girl's use of emojis is odd for someone who scorns use of the word dude.
RichardAnderson wrote:Polish forced industrial labor and other Ostarbeiter in industry came later as the Reich went into extremis.
Sort of a big hidden premise there. You concede that Polish industrial labor was used only later but imply that it was tied to the Reich going "into extremis." Who knows what you mean by that but the Reich planned for use of forced industrial labor very early and should have ramped this up earlier IN THE WAR (obviously no moral sense to "should" here).
No, call the total labor needed what it was, roughly 7.5 to 8 million skilled and unskilled workers or more.
No, only if you want to reach 1944 production levels do you need that level of labor. My ATL needs 1-2% higher army production as portion of GDP and the replacement of ~400k Germans. ~1mil should do.
RichardAnderson wrote:Does your abrupt - and inexplicable I must say - decision to cancel major contracts and reallocate the monies elsewhere result in hundreds of thousands of more motor vehicles and thousands of more tanks by winter 40/spring 41?
Again you rely on misreading and misrepresentation. Most of the changes are projects never undertaken, not projects cancelled (Z plan, Ju-88 rapid escalation). Otherwise it's cancelling different contracts than OTL (prioritizing and retaining army programs during 1939 financial bottleneck).
RichardAnderson wrote:the Germans prewar tried to entice foreign labor with minor results, why do you think that when Germany was at war and "winning" they could exert more "leverage to demand expatriate workers" from those countries? They were German allies, not subjugated countries.
There were policy levers not used earlier that were used later. E.g. tying German exports (steel, coal) to workers. This worked later when Germany was losing, would have worked earlier. The drawback is it pisses off your allies/neutrals. Berlin judged the price worth it in 42-44 once it appreciated its strategic crisis. Should have seen that earlier.
RichardAnderson wrote:2) 1.3 million French PW were put to work from the get go, the Service du travail obligatoire was instituted 22 June 1942 to relieve the prisoners of war from work.
At a 3-1 worker/PW exchange rate. Should have been tried earlier. Wasn't because of political calculus. Was when crisis changed political calculus. Crisis should have been seen earlier.
RichardAnderson wrote:But the "sane reading of the strategic situation" interwar was that the Luftwaffe was a war winner and the Ubootewaffe nearly brought Britain to its knees in the Great War...oh, and that commissioning major surface vessels demonstrated Germany had returned as a co-equal to France and Britain.
Even in advance of Battle of Britain the LW, including Goering, doubted it could win the war. Probably they thought it could have been a war winner with sufficient investment in strategic bombers, but that investment is an obvious war loser for Germany and never was undertaken. Pure strategic drift.

Germany underinvested in Uboats prior to the war, as I'm sure you know (in part because they doubted they remained war winners in light of ASDIC].

Most - 90%? - of KM spending went to the surface fleet; being "co-equal" with Britain and France was obvious strategic folly.
But my ATL allows Hitler that strategic folly as I don't scrap any actually-constructed capital ships.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 03 Jul 2019 16:21

MarkN wrote:Having 20 additional divisions start the invasion means 170 rather than 150 divisions burnout offensively between Smolensk and Moscow. To carry on the advance, the Germans needed 100-150 fresh divisions as a second wave, brought to the front by rail, to push through the first wave.
I don't even know where to start with this.
Barbarossa failed because of attrition, logistics, and [minor factor] weather.
It was closer than you think. No divisions "burned out" in the sense of losing combat power beyond their attrition rates. Change the attrition rates of both sides and the outcome changes.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 03 Jul 2019 16:28

Hanny wrote:3 tonn trucks being only 40% of the truck TOE, 48 10.5cm not 24, 1500 MGs to your 100 for instance.
Ok add 2% to my spreadsheet calculation for MG's and howitzers. I spotted you a 5x fudge factor.

Re the trucks I picked the 3 ton somewhat arbitrarily to have a quick calculation. Substitute smaller/larger models and we're still well within my 5x fudge factor. In fact I don't see how the additional armaments reach even 1bil RM versus the 2.5bil RM that should have been doable. Again, even 2.5bil RM is on the order of 3% of Wehrmacht budget for the 39-41.

And yes, Germany would have had to have increased investment at Opel and/or other truck plants. Would have been wise and inevitable given greater focus on its army.

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 » 03 Jul 2019 16:44

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 16:21
MarkN wrote:Having 20 additional divisions start the invasion means 170 rather than 150 divisions burnout offensively between Smolensk and Moscow. To carry on the advance, the Germans needed 100-150 fresh divisions as a second wave, brought to the front by rail, to push through the first wave.
I don't even know where to start with this.
Of course you don't. You have little to no comprehension of how warfare is played out in real life. You are not going to win the war for Germany by rewriting the historical backstory and tweaking your computer algorithms.

Your posting style is looking ever more like christianmunich but toned down to prevent, perhaps, giving the game away.

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 » 03 Jul 2019 17:04

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 16:28
Ok add 2% to my spreadsheet calculation for MG's and howitzers. I spotted you a 5x fudge factor.
I dont require a 5* fudge, because such a value has no value or meaning, a simply close enough number would have done, but that was not done. I dont see the RM cost of the Death star listed btw.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 16:28
Re the trucks I picked the 3 ton somewhat arbitrarily to have a quick calculation. Substitute smaller/larger models and we're still well within my 5x fudge factor. In fact I don't see how the additional armaments reach even 1bil RM versus the 2.5bil RM that should have been doable. Again, even 2.5bil RM is on the order of 3% of Wehrmacht budget for the 39-41.

And yes, Germany would have had to have increased investment at Opel and/or other truck plants. Would have been wise and inevitable given greater focus on its army.
It did, the 4 year ( Sept 39 to Sept 41) ,Schell 38 Motorisation plan produced 558,000 new MTV for the Reich, it doubled the military stock of MTV, and more than doubled truck numbers for a cost of 4 billion RM.

Silly Germans did they not know 4 billions worth of MTV was not enough in 4 years time, the fools, they only put in place the fuel economy to run that level of consumption, at a cost of 14Billion in infrastructure projects.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 03 Jul 2019 17:19

Hanny wrote:It did, the 4 year ( Sept 39 to Sept 41) ,Schell 38 Motorisation plan produced 558,000 new MTV for the Reich, it doubled the military stock of MTV, and more than doubled truck numbers for a cost of 4 billion RM.
And this program still left German society and military with low levels of motorization. All while Germany planned to rule the air and seas. Strategic folly.
Hanny wrote:the fools, they only put in place the fuel economy to run that level of consumption
Hard to understand your writing but the Z plan fleet would have required multiples of Germany's fuel production. Yet they prioritized that program over tanks in 1939.
MarkN wrote:You have little to no comprehension of how warfare is played out in real life.
oy
You are not going to win the war for Germany by rewriting the historical backstory and tweaking your computer algorithms.
Oh darn. Here I thought I was going to found the Third Reich, a regime in which for many reasons I wouldn't even live long enough to be gassed.

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 » 03 Jul 2019 18:20

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 17:19

And this program still left German society and military with low levels of motorization. All while Germany planned to rule the air and seas. Strategic folly.
Nope, you see this is why your post have no merit, you cannot count, when you realise you cant count you change the question from military truck numbers to domestic, German military doubled its MTV park, no one else did that in the same time frame.

1939 total MTV in Germany was 1986122, which was 25 per person per MTV, a rather low level acording to European levels. Adding 558k to that brings it up to 2544122 so a 28% increase, but hey everone was doing that in Europe right?.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 17:19

Hard to understand your writing but the Z plan fleet would have required multiples of Germany's fuel production. Yet they prioritized that program over tanks in 1939.
Not really, even AH understood trucks running on gas will need refineries ( that did not exist yet but had to be built) to make the gas for them to run on and planned accordingly, something you forgot to include in your RM fudge factor. Again because your maths is wrong you change to ship fuel and hope readers dont know AH doubled crude fuel oil production between 35 and 39, so he had the fuel now he wanted a fleet to run on it, but he never got to build it so its another red herring.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 03 Jul 2019 18:52

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 16:21
MarkN wrote:Having 20 additional divisions start the invasion means 170 rather than 150 divisions burnout offensively between Smolensk and Moscow. To carry on the advance, the Germans needed 100-150 fresh divisions as a second wave, brought to the front by rail, to push through the first wave.
I don't even know where to start with this.
Barbarossa failed because of attrition, logistics, and [minor factor] weather.
It was closer than you think. No divisions "burned out" in the sense of losing combat power beyond their attrition rates. Change the attrition rates of both sides and the outcome changes.
No : Barbarossa failed because the Soviets were too strong . All the rest are excuses .

gracie4241
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 03 Aug 2018 16:16
Location: USA

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

Post by gracie4241 » 03 Jul 2019 20:19

You dismiss without factual basis the argument that loss of the Ukraine AND access to the Caucasus would be a FATAL blow to the Soviet Union, nor do you come to grips with the fact that STALIN himself believed that. Forget Moscow and capturing more prisoners(that was the core Halder, Brauchitsch nonsense) as the Russians had plenty of prisoners to capture.They did NOT have plenty of food, iron,coal, or oil should those areas both be EITHER lost or blockaded.The 55% of soviet agriculture in the Ukraine and North Caucasus simply was not replaceable for instance;mass starvation beat destroying 200 divisions.This is so obvious it screams.The german armed forces as STRUCTURED in 1942(not optimally for the war in the East concededly)were still sufficient even as deployed. How do we know that? Because skipping a useless(fatal) overstretch into the Caucasus the combined strength of Army Groups A and B were easily capable of clearing out soviet forces west of the Volga, including Stalingrad(which was the original phase 3 of Operation Blau) and establishing a firm blocking position behind it.The putative extra 20 divisions were not needed for that, although certainly welcome.Actually the germans had in fact those 20 divisions more or less anyway but they were locked up in the Mediterranean and southern France (operation anton) and Tunisia reinforcement plus Africa Corp.But they too were not needed..Addtional forces only go so far if your strategy is deficient and improperly focused

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3177
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 » 03 Jul 2019 22:40

MarkN wrote:Your posting style is looking ever more like christianmunich but toned down to prevent, perhaps, giving the game away.
Interesting, I was just beginning to notice the Sockpuppetish nature of the postings myself. Explains a lot.
"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

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 03 Jul 2019 23:50

Hanny wrote:German military doubled its MTV park, no one else did that in the same time frame.
Hanny wrote:AH doubled crude fuel oil production between 35 and 39
Typical of your tactics throughout this discussion has been to respond to a proposed ATL escalation over OTL by saying that Germany increased production within in the OTL. That's irrelevant to the point and conceptually muddled.
Production should be measured according to strategic goals not based on "effort points" for how far you've come from the beginning.
Germany's strategic imperative was to win the European land war; anything it did that distracted from that goal invited defeat.
That Germany increased truck production 35-39 means nothing if (as is the case) it increased production less than it could have because it spent on quixotic ventures like a grand surface fleet.

In any event, this is comically wrong:
Hanny wrote:so he had the fuel now he wanted a fleet to run on it
From Tooze page 294: "Under the Z Plan the navy’s heating-oil needs were expected to rise from the 1.4 million tons per annum originally envisioned in 1936 to 6 million tons by 1947–8, and its requirements for diesel fuel to rise from 400,000 tons to 2 million tons. Even on the most optimistic assumptions, domestic production was not expected to exceed 2 million tons of oil and 1.34 million tons of diesel fuel by 1947–8. "

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 03 Jul 2019 23:51

Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Jul 2019 22:40
MarkN wrote:Your posting style is looking ever more like christianmunich but toned down to prevent, perhaps, giving the game away.
Interesting, I was just beginning to notice the Sockpuppetish nature of the postings myself. Explains a lot.
How about you be frank? I don't know who this christianmunich is. Are you implying that I have some pro-Nazi agenda?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1440
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 » 04 Jul 2019 00:00

ljadw wrote:
03 Jul 2019 07:58
Answer to post 159


1 The Pz1 and 2 were not obsolete in 1940
2 There was no need to convert them in Panzerjäger 1 and 2 for Barbarossa .
3 The argument that they could have thwarted the Russian winter offensive of 1941/1942 is hindsight
4 The Russian winter offensive failed ,without the existence of the Panzerjäger.
5 The Panzerjäger 1 and 2 were built in 1942, but they could not prevent Stalingrad ,this why could they have thwarted the Soviets in 41/42 ?
5 29,150 Soviet tanks against 5690 ''Nazi '' tanks (sic ) is wrong it was some 3500 German tanks against much less than 22000 ( not 29000 ) Soviet tanks :
2000 German tanks and thousands of Soviet tanks were not committed in Barbarossa .The tanks of the Far East remained in the Far East .
Germany had not 3000 tanks in the East in december 1941
It had lost net (replacements subtracted )
Pz1 329
Pz 2 375
Pz3 360
Pz3 (t) 613
Pz4 240
Total 1917 of the some 3500 it had started with .The 2 additional PzD are not included .
The number of German tanks outside the east and the number of Soviet tanks east of the front are irrelevant and can not be included .
Good post ....
I had to add HANNY to the "ignore list" since he is incapable of discussing with out insulting - and no one needs that.

1-2 & 3 are correct from your perspective and wrong from my perspective.
4 is accurate but unnecessary to the point.
5 no one is speaking about 1942, I thought we were focusing on Barbarossa, 1942 was another evolution of warfare.

6 [?] is the strategic list of tanks available to both sides , and has every thing to do with assessing the strategic situation at the conclusion of Barbarossa.

The last part is correct from operational perspective; Russians had 1927 tanks end of 1941 [from the below source] and this site reports .

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... front.html



FORCES= 3600+272+135=4007....... June 1941
Losses 1941 EF = 2403 Pz +85 StuG + 27 SPAT....2515 losses
Survivors = 1197 Pz +187 StuG-III + 108 SPAT.....1492 but operational list report

[JENTZ figures] 158 replacement tanks plus 362 total write-offs and 1015 reparable tanks. = 1173 tanks With only 158 operational? Looks like 272 StuG-III were in east june 1941 in 19 units , with 187 StuG-III at the end 1941; but unsure of how many operational.

; January 1942 Forczyk reports [TWEF 41/42 pp161] 300 operational tanks. plus at-least 15 StuG-III.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3177
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 » 04 Jul 2019 00:32

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
03 Jul 2019 23:51
Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Jul 2019 22:40
MarkN wrote:Your posting style is looking ever more like christianmunich but toned down to prevent, perhaps, giving the game away.
Interesting, I was just beginning to notice the Sockpuppetish nature of the postings myself. Explains a lot.
How about you be frank? I don't know who this christianmunich is. Are you implying that I have some pro-Nazi agenda?
But I'm not frank, I'm Rich, Shirley you can't be serious?
"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: 10391
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 04 Jul 2019 06:25

gracie4241 wrote:
03 Jul 2019 20:19
You dismiss without factual basis the argument that loss of the Ukraine AND access to the Caucasus would be a FATAL blow to the Soviet Union, nor do you come to grips with the fact that STALIN himself believed that. Forget Moscow and capturing more prisoners(that was the core Halder, Brauchitsch nonsense) as the Russians had plenty of prisoners to capture.They did NOT have plenty of food, iron,coal, or oil should those areas both be EITHER lost or blockaded.The 55% of soviet agriculture in the Ukraine and North Caucasus simply was not replaceable for instance;mass starvation beat destroying 200 divisions.This is so obvious it screams.The german armed forces as STRUCTURED in 1942(not optimally for the war in the East concededly)were still sufficient even as deployed. How do we know that? Because skipping a useless(fatal) overstretch into the Caucasus the combined strength of Army Groups A and B were easily capable of clearing out soviet forces west of the Volga, including Stalingrad(which was the original phase 3 of Operation Blau) and establishing a firm blocking position behind it.The putative extra 20 divisions were not needed for that, although certainly welcome.Actually the germans had in fact those 20 divisions more or less anyway but they were locked up in the Mediterranean and southern France (operation anton) and Tunisia reinforcement plus Africa Corp.But they too were not needed..Addtional forces only go so far if your strategy is deficient and improperly focused
This is not correct :
1 The Soviets LOST the Ukraine and it was not a fatal blow
2 The German oil experts warned for the illusion that the loss of the oil from the Caucasus would be a fatal blow for the SU : while it would hurt the SU , there was no proof that it would be fatal .
And reality proves that it was not : the Caucasian oil was not lost, but , due to the destructions, the Soviet oil production was going down by 40 % , but this did not prevent the SU to capture Berlin .
We know only 2 things :
1 No oil would be fatal for the Soviets
2 The loss of the Caucasus would not mean that the SU would no longer have any oil .
What we do not know is
1 What was the minimum oil the Soviets needed to win
2 Could the Soviets still produce this minimum oil if they lost the Caucasus

Return to “What if”