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.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 9814
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 17 Jun 2019 08:07

Takao wrote:
16 Jun 2019 22:38


No mention that I have ever seen places these prototypes in combat against the Japanese...What is your source for this information?
David Thomas : Foreign Armies East and German Military Intelligence in Russia 1941-1945, in : Journal of Contemporary History ,Intelligence Services during theSecond World War 22 (1987 ) 2, PP 261-301
Cited by Magnus Pahl in Fremde Heere Ost Hitlers Militärische Feindaufklärung PP 69-70 Notes 57 and 58 .
And for the Winterwar : Moldenhauer : Die Reorganisation der Roten Armee P 151, also cited in Fremde Heere Ost on P 70 ,note 59.
Note 59 : '' Allerdings sollen nach sowjetischen Quellen vereinzelt auch T-34 und schwere Panzer vom Typ KW im Winterkrieg eingesetzt worden sein ."
Translation : Soviet sources say that T-34 and heavy tanks from KW type were in a few isolated cases committed in the Winterwar .

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1116
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

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

Post by Yuri » 17 Jun 2019 09:12

KV-1 appeared in 1937, when the Soviet leadership came to the conclusion that the Red Army needs a new heavy tank designed to perform the tasks of breaking the front. At the end of competition there were three models: SMK, T-100 and KV-1. The SMK and T-100 were two-turret heavy tanks, the much lighter KV-1 had only one turret.
All of these has been tested in the battles of the Winter War, but in the end KV coped with the tasks better than larger models. However, during these battles, no model could not cope with the tasks at the highest level, because the test tests tanks did not go to front.

But when they were at the forefront, the results were unsatisfactory. 55-ton's SMK, having blown up on a mine, remained to wait for the end of war on "nobody's earth". KV-1, once on the battlefield, coped well with both anti-tank mines and anti-tank weapons.

From SMK and T-100 were refused, and KV-1 was launched into serial production. The standard model was equipped with a 76-mm gun. They also developed a heavier version of the KV-2 tank, on the massive tower of which a 152-mm howitzer was installed.
Read more: https://lt.sputniknews.ru/analytics/201 ... -vojny.htm

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 » 17 Jun 2019 09:42

ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
I have given as source 2 historians ,
one who said that prototypyes of what later was called the T 34 were used against Japan .
Yes you did, but he wrote no such thing, you made it up. Which is why you get to return to ignore, because you do this all the time.
ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
an other who said that such prototypes were also used in the war against Finland .
Yes you did,buts its again made up.What he wrote was the T34m in its trials in March 1940 fired on Finnish bunkers see http://russian-tanks.com/tank-t-341.php but was not involved in any combat as the war was already over.

ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
Trying to move the discussion to something different = the number of T34 built in 1940,proves one has no valid arguments .
In history, there are things called facts, facts are used to understand history. Its a fact that the first two T34 prototypes were produced after both the winter war and Russia/Japan wars had been fought. Its a historical fact that they cannot have been present in either.


ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
A third source is the Soviet Tank encyclopedia which states that the first prototypes of the A 32 tank ( which was the T 34 tank with another name ) were already built at the end of 1938 . .
Actually it says no such thing, you have made that up as well.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/s ... T34-76.php

A20 ( comment they only built 1, spending the duration of the conflict with Japan in trials, and no its not a t34 with another name as it has 20mm( not 45mm armour and 45 mm main gun, not a 76mm,400 mm not 550mm, wide tracks etc and is a A tank, which means its an experimental/evaluation model)

The first and only prototype was built in May of 1939. It spent most of 1939 in trials and comparisons with its rival, the A-32 (read below). The A-20 did not have impressive armor or armament, but it did have excellent mobility. The senior officials, not able to pick one over the other, approved both new prototypes for serial production. As the Kharkov plant was already being prepared to produce the A-34 it could not accommodate the A-20 production at the same time, and eventually A-20 was dropped.

A32 ( comment they built 2, no mention of combat role)

The first A-32 prototype, with the L-10 76 mm gun (the second prototype had a 45 mm cannon).

Two prototypes were built in the spring and summer of 1939. The tank weighed 19 tonnes, but performed well after being loaded with ballast up to 24 tonnes. After many trials and comparisons with the A-20, this tank needed a few more improvements before being accepted for mass production. The order from the Defense Committee approving the tank for production referred to it as the T-32 – this is the only mention of this designation. Technically, it was not the A-32 being approved for mass production, but the improved A-34 (read below). It is not known what happened to the two prototypes or whether they participated in combat.

A-34: Beginning of a legend ( comment i used the kharkov factoryT34m designation for the 2 built, its september before any T34 are produced for the military to use.

After A-32 showed promise, the design was improved further. One of the features which would prove important later on was its thick armor – now using 45 mm armor plates. The new L-11 76 mm gun was also superior to the L-10. Tracks were widened from 400 mm to 550 mm – another crucial detail which would give the T-34 an edge over the narrow-tracked German vehicles.

Two prototypes were built in January and February of 1940. A-34 prototype #2 had an unusual “driver’s cupola” protruding forward – essentially a way to improve driver’s visibility (which was reported to be awful on prototype #1). This version was not accepted for mass production and A-34 prototype #1 was used instead. These tanks are sometimes referred to as the “pre-series T-34”. (Snip,) The two tanks and support vehicles left Kharkov in March on 1940, avoiding large towns due to the project’s secrecy (snip) But by this time, on March 31st 1940 during a meeting of several senior officials (including the lead designer Koshkin) it was decided to go ahead with the production of T-34.

ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
The Soviet Tank Encyclopedia said that the first prototype of the T34 was an improved A 32 .
From the same source :the blue print of the T 34 was set up long before the war .

Links in the evolution of the T-34, left to right: BT-7M, A-20, T-34 mod. 1940 (L-11), T-34 mod. 1941 (F-34).
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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 » 17 Jun 2019 10:05

ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:23
Hanny wrote:
16 Jun 2019 10:54
ljadw wrote:
15 Jun 2019 17:03
You still have not proved
a that there were only two prototypes
Its in every book on the T34 try T34/76 try Zaloga or any book on Russian armour, or any website on Russian armour. We ( apart from you) know when and where they are built, by Feb of 40, where they are in Jan Feb in factory at Kharkov, on trails during March of 40, and thus not be present in Finland.

ljadw wrote:
15 Jun 2019 17:03
b that, if there were only two,these were not committed/tested in the Winterwar .
Your the one trying to re write history its up to you to show every authors work on when they are built by Feb 40, March/April spent in trials and field testing, is wrong and you know more than they.
There were prototypes BEFORE 1940 .
Failure to even attempt to answer the question.

Show me a book or webiste on Russian armour used in Winter war and with japan that contains a reference to T34 being employed. Ill help you out, they dont exist.

Before the Soviet-Japanese affair koshklin worked on the A20 to replace the T26. After Soviet-Japanese conflict had ended, Koshklin was asked to improve the BT line as its riveted armour had been easily penetrated by Japans 95 tanks 37 mm main gun, and started work on the A32 using all welded armour plate, after that conflict war ended. By sept 1940 the T26 T28 and all the BT lines were replaced by the T34, none of the former were prototypes, they were models accepted for use and in mass production, they were all replaced by a single model.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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 » 17 Jun 2019 10:13

David Thompson wrote:
15 Jun 2019 18:22
A post from Hanny containing personal insults was removed pursuant to forum rules. Prior examples of the same offense on previous occasions can be seen at:

viewtopic.php?p=2188537#p2188537
viewtopic.php?p=2188730#p2188730
viewtopic.php?p=2207700#p2207700
I call a lair a liar and show where they lie, you otoh allow them to lie without comment. Lies are insults to all interested in history and you are not fit for purpose.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 17 Jun 2019 12:14

ljadw wrote:
17 Jun 2019 08:07
Takao wrote:
16 Jun 2019 22:38


No mention that I have ever seen places these prototypes in combat against the Japanese...What is your source for this information?
David Thomas : Foreign Armies East and German Military Intelligence in Russia 1941-1945, in : Journal of Contemporary History ,Intelligence Services during theSecond World War 22 (1987 ) 2, PP 261-301
Cited by Magnus Pahl in Fremde Heere Ost Hitlers Militärische Feindaufklärung PP 69-70 Notes 57 and 58 .
And for the Winterwar : Moldenhauer : Die Reorganisation der Roten Armee P 151, also cited in Fremde Heere Ost on P 70 ,note 59.
Note 59 : '' Allerdings sollen nach sowjetischen Quellen vereinzelt auch T-34 und schwere Panzer vom Typ KW im Winterkrieg eingesetzt worden sein ."
Translation : Soviet sources say that T-34 and heavy tanks from KW type were in a few isolated cases committed in the Winterwar .
What were the Soviet sources they used, and what are the relevant passages.

The use of the SMK, T-100, AND KV prototypes are well documented. But, the use of the A-20, A-30, A-32, and A-34, against Japan or the Finns has only ever been rumor and innuendo.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9814
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 17 Jun 2019 13:24

Hanny wrote:
17 Jun 2019 09:42
ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
I have given as source 2 historians ,
one who said that prototypyes of what later was called the T 34 were used against Japan .
Yes you did, but he wrote no such thing, you made it up. Which is why you get to return to ignore, because you do this all the time.
ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
an other who said that such prototypes were also used in the war against Finland .
Yes you did,buts its again made up.What he wrote was the T34m in its trials in March 1940 fired on Finnish bunkers see http://russian-tanks.com/tank-t-341.php but was not involved in any combat as the war was already over.

ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
Trying to move the discussion to something different = the number of T34 built in 1940,proves one has no valid arguments .
In history, there are things called facts, facts are used to understand history. Its a fact that the first two T34 prototypes were produced after both the winter war and Russia/Japan wars had been fought. Its a historical fact that they cannot have been present in either.


ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
A third source is the Soviet Tank encyclopedia which states that the first prototypes of the A 32 tank ( which was the T 34 tank with another name ) were already built at the end of 1938 . .
Actually it says no such thing, you have made that up as well.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/s ... T34-76.php

A20 ( comment they only built 1, spending the duration of the conflict with Japan in trials, and no its not a t34 with another name as it has 20mm( not 45mm armour and 45 mm main gun, not a 76mm,400 mm not 550mm, wide tracks etc and is a A tank, which means its an experimental/evaluation model)

The first and only prototype was built in May of 1939. It spent most of 1939 in trials and comparisons with its rival, the A-32 (read below). The A-20 did not have impressive armor or armament, but it did have excellent mobility. The senior officials, not able to pick one over the other, approved both new prototypes for serial production. As the Kharkov plant was already being prepared to produce the A-34 it could not accommodate the A-20 production at the same time, and eventually A-20 was dropped.

A32 ( comment they built 2, no mention of combat role)

The first A-32 prototype, with the L-10 76 mm gun (the second prototype had a 45 mm cannon).

Two prototypes were built in the spring and summer of 1939. The tank weighed 19 tonnes, but performed well after being loaded with ballast up to 24 tonnes. After many trials and comparisons with the A-20, this tank needed a few more improvements before being accepted for mass production. The order from the Defense Committee approving the tank for production referred to it as the T-32 – this is the only mention of this designation. Technically, it was not the A-32 being approved for mass production, but the improved A-34 (read below). It is not known what happened to the two prototypes or whether they participated in combat.

A-34: Beginning of a legend ( comment i used the kharkov factoryT34m designation for the 2 built, its september before any T34 are produced for the military to use.

After A-32 showed promise, the design was improved further. One of the features which would prove important later on was its thick armor – now using 45 mm armor plates. The new L-11 76 mm gun was also superior to the L-10. Tracks were widened from 400 mm to 550 mm – another crucial detail which would give the T-34 an edge over the narrow-tracked German vehicles.

Two prototypes were built in January and February of 1940. A-34 prototype #2 had an unusual “driver’s cupola” protruding forward – essentially a way to improve driver’s visibility (which was reported to be awful on prototype #1). This version was not accepted for mass production and A-34 prototype #1 was used instead. These tanks are sometimes referred to as the “pre-series T-34”. (Snip,) The two tanks and support vehicles left Kharkov in March on 1940, avoiding large towns due to the project’s secrecy (snip) But by this time, on March 31st 1940 during a meeting of several senior officials (including the lead designer Koshkin) it was decided to go ahead with the production of T-34.

ljadw wrote:
16 Jun 2019 19:22
The Soviet Tank Encyclopedia said that the first prototype of the T34 was an improved A 32 .
From the same source :the blue print of the T 34 was set up long before the war .

Links in the evolution of the T-34, left to right: BT-7M, A-20, T-34 mod. 1940 (L-11), T-34 mod. 1941 (F-34).
If you disagree with Moldenhauer, email him .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 17 Jun 2019 15:18

ljadw wrote:
17 Jun 2019 13:24
If you disagree with Moldenhauer, email him .
It's your source, so we're taking it up with you.

Back up your souce, or admit it's in error.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9814
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 17 Jun 2019 16:25

No : if you disagree with Moldenhauer, it is on you to prove that he is in error .I have not to back up my source .

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 » 17 Jun 2019 20:48

Not sure if this is a repeat or not;if so I apologize. Having somewhat stronger forces is always a blessing .Notwithstanding that , the problem at the core was,after it was obvious that" intelligence"(charitably described)had grossly underestimated Soviet strength and a quick collapse was not in sight, the germans HAD to choose their strategic objective:1 continue to attempt the to destroy the Red Army militarily in "decisive battle(s)'( the rationale for Moscow primarily), or 2 to seize and control, and to sever access to the Soviets to irreplaceable natural resources, both to strengthen Germany and debilitate the base of soviet power.Jodl, when presented with this(seemingly obvious) question said BOTH.Hitler (in my judgement correctly) seemed actually to favor 2, whereas his generals 1.Hitler hesitated to make a clear cut final decision between them.To do both was not possible in the allotted time frame(because of fear of growing allied strength) with significant air, land, and sea resources devoted to the west, and more needed in the future. Joseph Stalin himself provided the answer;in his order 227 on July 27, 1942 he publicly said a limit at been reached on retreat, because any further, longer term loss of oil, food, coal, iron, manganese .nickel etc (especially the food) would lead to defeat.So, as a" HIGHLY PLACED official" it seems clear option 2 was the way to go all along.Slightly stronger forces would not have made a difference if the strategy itself was flawed

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 » 19 Jun 2019 07:26

ljadw wrote:
17 Jun 2019 13:24

If you disagree with Moldenhauer, email him .
Your using a single book that makes several claims, claims that are all incorrect, it says T34 were used in Russia/japans conflict and should not have been a surprise in 41, its cite is another book which says this is correct because Halders diary makes reference to it. It does not and anyone who has read Halders diary, which includes yourself, knows there is no such reference by Halder to T34 pre war. If further claims they were using in Finland, but again checking the sources it uses, we find its referring to test firing by T34 prototypes on captured Finnish bunkers after the war was over. You then referred to a soviet website and changed the years to make it fit your argument.

I disagree with you because your fundamentally dishonest, here and in many other instances.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 20 Jun 2019 20:25

gracie4241 wrote:
17 Jun 2019 20:48
Not sure if this is a repeat or not;if so I apologize. Having somewhat stronger forces is always a blessing .Notwithstanding that , the problem at the core was,after it was obvious that" intelligence"(charitably described)had grossly underestimated Soviet strength and a quick collapse was not in sight, the germans HAD to choose their strategic objective:1 continue to attempt the to destroy the Red Army militarily in "decisive battle(s)'( the rationale for Moscow primarily), or 2 to seize and control, and to sever access to the Soviets to irreplaceable natural resources, both to strengthen Germany and debilitate the base of soviet power.Jodl, when presented with this(seemingly obvious) question said BOTH.Hitler (in my judgement correctly) seemed actually to favor 2, whereas his generals 1.Hitler hesitated to make a clear cut final decision between them.To do both was not possible in the allotted time frame(because of fear of growing allied strength) with significant air, land, and sea resources devoted to the west, and more needed in the future. Joseph Stalin himself provided the answer;in his order 227 on July 27, 1942 he publicly said a limit at been reached on retreat, because any further, longer term loss of oil, food, coal, iron, manganese .nickel etc (especially the food) would lead to defeat.So, as a" HIGHLY PLACED official" it seems clear option 2 was the way to go all along.Slightly stronger forces would not have made a difference if the strategy itself was flawed
I think you're right that the core problem was that Germany had to choose between striking towards Moscow or Ukraine early in the campaign. In my opinion there's no right answer: the Germans lose the war either way.

But I don't understand your point that "slightly stronger forces would not have made a difference if the strategy itself was flawed." I'm saying that slightly stronger forces could have made the "Both [Moscow and Ukraine]" answer feasible. Setting aside momentarily the question of whether the forces I describe were feasible, I have trouble seeing the anti-argument. If Germany takes Moscow and Ukraine in '41, with attendant greater hauls of prisoners, I don't see how Russia recovers. They were, as you point out, very close to collapse during '41-'42; slightly greater losses of field forces and industrial/population/agricultural base mean Russia can't build the critical mass necessary to push Germany back in '42.
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: 9814
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 21 Jun 2019 07:12

1 What are the proofs that the SU was very close to collapse in 1941/1942 ?
2 The Ukraine was taken in 1941
3 The fall of Moscow does not mean greater hauls of prisoners : the SU had always the possibility not to fight for Moscow .
4 There is no proof that slightly stronger German forces would result in slightly greater Soviet losses .
In the OTL the Germans committed in 1941 150 divisions and the Soviets lost 3.376 million POWs . There is no proof that,if in the ATL the Germans had committe 200 divisions , the Soviets would have lost more POWs ,as the number of Soviet POWs resulted mainly from the Soviet offensive strategy .
It is always very hazardous to make projections in wartime .

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1398
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 » 27 Jun 2019 18:44

Harrison does a good job showing how the SU economy reach cross road by mid 1942. Only thing that saved them was the value added component of Lend lease.


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 02 Jul 2019 03:42

ljadw wrote:1 What are the proofs that the SU was very close to collapse in 1941/1942 ?
The SU experienced widespread famine and malnutrition throughout 42-43; only Lend Lease aid prevented a total collapse.
The point isn't that the state would have totally collapsed - my ATL doesn't require that to happen. Rather, the point is that the SU could not devote more effort - as a proportion of its economic/population base - than it did during '42. My ATL has the SU losing everything up to at least the A-A line by the end of '42, such that its economic/population base would be about half in ATL '43 as it was in OTL '43.
This means the SU can field only about half the army of OTL '43, if it wants them to have weapons and wants to avoid total social breakdown through famine.
Lend Lease aid would also be constricted by loss of the White Sea ports and by the drive through the Caucasus, through which most of the Iranian corridor aid passed.

This is the easiest version of "collapse" to spell out: an SU that can field only ~3mil men against the Ostheer for the '43 campaign season.

I could go further and point out that Red Army soldiers were surrendering at alarmingly high rates during October-November 1941, indicating that something approaching a morale breakdown was happening. The encirclement battles in Taifun were shorter than earlier battles. During the post-Taifun, pre-counteroffensive phase of the battle thousands of soldiers surrendered despite no large-scale encirclements. Surrender rates were higher, it seems, than during the retreat phase of Operation Blue the following summer. A fall of Moscow and Leningrad would almost certainly have accelerated/continued this trend.

So I think it's likely the SU suffers something like a military collapse in my ATL - one in which resistance to German advances is far less stubborn in both a qualitative and quantitative sense.
But I don't need that in the ATL for the German "victory" envisioned. The quantitatively diminished Red Army of my ATL '43 is sufficient to ensure that Germany can take the Urals and detach Turkestan during 1943 with something like its OTL '43 forces or take the defensive in the East while categorically foreclosing any Allied incursions into Europe. In fact, it probably could have done both.
ljadw wrote:2 The Ukraine was taken in 1941
Most but not all, and only at the expense of not taking Moscow.
ljadw wrote:3 The fall of Moscow does not mean greater hauls of prisoners : the SU had always the possibility not to fight for Moscow .
Please show the barest evidence that Stalin/Stavka would have considered this option.
ljadw wrote:4 There is no proof that slightly stronger German forces would result in slightly greater Soviet losses .
You're making a claim, not an argument. I've made the argument that double-panzer-pincers for all three army groups would have caused encirclements because it happened EVERY TIME the Germans used double-panzer-pincers during 1941. If you have an argument for why it wouldn't have worked, please make that argument.
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”