If hitler began operation Barbarossa at his initial proposed date

Actually that's debatable. Operation Marita was needed but not essencial. The forces they could amass were small in comparison with the German flank.

Now, as for the Waht if, I voted the last option. Here are my reasons:

Barbarossa was flawed to begin with. First, Hitler had bad inteligence regarding the number of tanks and divisions Russia had. He thought of 150 divisions (irrc) and 10000 tanks. It was not much time latter that he realised his calculations were dead wrong (300 divisions and 20000 tanks).
Secondly, the USSR was churning out about 700 tanks and derivatives a month while Germany was not even close to that due to the Germans industrial war effort being below par (come on in 43 they ramped up the production nearly 3X that of 42 and in 44 it got even higher! How come in 41 when their industry was intact they had so little production?).
Thirdly, Hitler kept changing focus (I want Moskow, no Stalingrad, no Leningrad) wich deteriorated cohesion on the army.
Then we have the winter wich also took it's toll.
And still, Hitlers inability to allow it's generals to do to the Russians what the Russians did to them wich was to allow the Russians to attack prepared German positions in force while the Germans grinded them down and then counterattacked with a massive armor spearhead wich would break the Russian army of the day. Some of the Geerman Generals actually proposed plans of withdrawing west in the automn of 41 (when Rasputzia began to be felt) and properly reinforcing the line where the border was smaller and wait for the Russian thrust (I know I read this in a lidel hart book but They're so large I'm having trouble to find it :S).

Oh and the roads as mentioned many times before. Anything that was not tracked would have an hell of a time moving (and even some tracked veichles).
Well, and regarding to roads, it didn't help that the German Panzer divisions lost tanks. When Hitler invaded France, he had 10 (??) panzer divisions and 2800 tanks. When he invaded Russia, he had 21 Divisions panzer divisions and 3360 tanks. Meaning, he removed one tank regiment from each division so, in quagy roads, he took out the punch of the divisions.



Cheers...

 

The invention of advanced assembly line techniques increased the production time as well as the need for more tanks and equipment to hold their fatherland.

 

Really, The Germans only tought of assembly lines the Soviets had for ages so late in the war?
That seems odd...
(not disregarding your post btw!)


Cheers...

 

Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev were Germany's primary targets from the very beginning.

Stalingrad came a year later.

 

Assembly lines are in no way a new concept "The assembly line concept was not "invented" at one time by one person, and no one person is the "father" of it. It has been independently redeveloped throughout history based on logic. Its exponentially larger development at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th occurred among various people over decades, as other aspects of technology allowed"
Assembly line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, the company Henschel organised assembly lines in 1935. Assembly lines were not a new concept, just that hte Germans found new and advanced ways compared to there old ways of assembling, and since I am in the work of assembling I can tell you that if you do something one way, but then find an easier and faster way it greatly reduces time needed to produce that particular unit or product, thus speeding up production time, and in terms of Germany in ww2, more tanks.

Plus like I said, the fear of the fall of Germany made many people work harder and longer thus also producing more tanks.

 

Hmm, see T.A. Gardner's comment in this thread and think a bit.

When we say Assembly Line an actual, physical line is meant, a continuous line of items in progressive stages of construction. The problem was lack of proper large building plants so you could set up proper lines, as has already been discussed in this forum too. You can't compare Lima Tank Arsenal or Tankograd (great name, eh? says it all!) to the Henschel plant (which was building locomotives and road plat at the same time anyway).

The philosophy was lacking, the means were lacking, the most efficient tooling was lacking.

 

I think that I read here on this forum that Germans factories were in different areas. so in terms of assembly you had to build one section say in factory A and then move it all to section B in another factory in another area of the country is that right?

Because that would also make lengthy times.

 

It works more or less like that everywhere, components are manufactured in different places and assembled at one final plant (which may produce some main components as well). For instance, the Krupp Pz IV (Pz III were Daimler Benz, damn, I knew they were good ) hulls were produced at one plant, Maybach engines came from some place else, while guns came from Rheinmetall-Borsig, radios from Siemens, etc., etc., etc.

Problem was the German railway grid at some point in 44 was so shot up that that moving parts became another serious bottleneck.

 

And still, it was when their production was higher . Still, the exponential increase in production (it wasn't just the tanks) is just short of awsome. I've read that Spear introduced some reforms too in the Encyclopedia of German tanks of WWII. Anyone cares to shed some ligh over this ?
Does anyone has a good reading for industrial war?



Cheers...

 

I think he could have finished off Russia, maybe without even considering the launch date, had he not diverted his forces south of Moscow. But, Stalin probably would have pulled Zhukov to coordinate the defense of Moscow.

 

If Hitler had contacted Mussolini and told him not to invade Greece as his staff begged him to do 48 hours before the Italian invasion a lot of things would be different.
Perhaps Mussolini could have been placated by an invasion of Malta which would have helped the situation in North Africa.
Let's say May 15th was the start day rather than June 22nd.
That gives the Germans an extra 5 weeks and 4 days.
Apart from the obvious wear and tear on the Axis formations in the Balkan Campaign.
The Balkans cost Mussolini 63,000 dead plus another 150,000 casualties.
Then there was a lot of Axis troops needed for the occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece.
These Italians and the troops of the minor Axis powers could have greatly added to the infantry strength of Army group south freeing up German reserves for the other army groups.
The Panzers used and damaged perhaps would have been enough to give army group south the armour it needed.
But the main factor here is time.
The German offence ground to a halt in the second week in October because of the mud (operations were ended completely on the 31st) and could not move again until the 15th of November frosts came and hardened the ground.
In our time line the Germans were 15 miles from Moscow on the 2nd of December.

With this extra time Germans could have had Moscow surrounded by early to mid October before the worst of the Mud set in.
The late October mud would then hinder any Soviet counter moves while the Germans consolidate the siege (or less likely prepare for the attack on Moscow).
In November I think it most likely a renewed German thrust past Moscow towards the Volga would be under taken while German artillery and aircraft pound the capital.
The Soviet counter attack in December would probably push the Germans back from the Volga but the ring around Moscow should hold.

 

This would put Leningrad in a very difficult position in terms of re-supply and it may well fall in 1942.
In 1942 I would expect to see a very large Soviet counter offensive fail around Moscow.
Which would allow a much better chance of success in the Caucasus.
If the Caucasus and Leningrad do fall then stalin may sue for peace.
If not the Germans will still lose the war.

 

That is certainly a lot of if's based on a single event some three years before, how can you see what each national leader is going to decide three years later, where is the basis for these arguments?

 

It all rests on one thing.
Should Hitler have give in to pressure and contacted Mussolini and got him to cancel or at least postpone the invasion of Greece.

 

I understand the event that starts your theories, but what makes you think that just because the Balkans arn't invaded that the miitary leaders will in fact make the same decisions?

In fact you can guarantee that the Balkan campaign lead to many later decisions by any of those involved, so if the campaign didn't happen, then it is possible that the same decisions that were made historically are not made in the alternate history.

How can you foresee a victory in Moscow so many years later, how can you see when the Soviets will counter attack?

I am simply trying to understand your posts, because it clearly appears to be a post based on nothing but a single event at the beginning of the war, which no doubt may change the war but how can you say what will happen and when, what are you basing all these decisions made by the powers at the time on?

 

The US develops the Atomic Bomb, Berlin gets bombed, War over!!!

 

Because the invasion of the USSR was already being planned.
As for the Soviet winter counter attack that can only begin when they are sure the Japanese are not going to attack in the Far East.

 

So your entire posts are based on nothing but your assumptions on your take of the war on these dates?

Please provide some more sources with your posts, your opinions are fine and are accepted, but please provide some kind of source to your opinions and not because I say so.

If you wish to discuss this some more please PM as we have gone off subject enough.

 

Do you want me to post Germanys invasion plans for the USSR?

 

Refer here, now please lets stop taking over this thread with our banting.