"Son of Barbarossa" or "S.o.B." - a What-If where Barbarossa is made to work.

But they aren't when it starts and that is a critical period. It looks to me like by starting on May 15 you might possibly gain a couple of weeks of good ground conditions. The price would be the speed of advance for the first couple of weeks and that could well hurt the overall effort.

 

We do? Where did you get this info? It certainly doesn't square with what I've seen.

 

And what exactly have you seen?

 

Maybe I missed something, butchance what advantage is gained from Germay starting her invasion in May?

 

British Empire, You claim that attacking earlier would have been better, That the ground would hardern within a few weeks and all would be good and they would be better off so how about you give me some statistics to back up your claim, Answer these questions for me.

1. How far would the Russian forces be pushed back?

2. What casualties would the Axis and the Soviets sustain?

3. What material losses (tanks, aircraft etc) Would the Soviets and Axis lose?

They are 3 very important questions, If the soviets are not pushed back far enough, Do not lose enough men and material (which is likely as the poor weather buys them time from a true blitzkrieg) and the Germans just lose men in this process then statistically they could very well be worse off then they where historically. So please provide some estimates backed up with credible sources and I'll listen to this as an actual debate and drop my opinion of you starting to rant.

 

Nothing at all

 

In the OTL,the Germans failed in the summer,they also would fail in the ATL

 

Longer good weather campaign time.
An extra 4-6 weeks good weather campaign time.
More time to advance towards Moscow and take and hold Rostov.

 

Some interesting questions at last.

1. How far would the Russian forces be pushed back?

With the extra campaign time the Germans should be able to launch Operation Typhoon 4-6 weeks earlier.
Which would be late August rather than early October.
Much of October and the start of November was hampered by heavy rain and very bad ground conditions, so much so the Germans halted the offensive for several weeks.
An earlier Axis attack would preempt this so we could see Moscow surrounded by mid October we the assault on the city began soon after.
Army Group South which shall have more armour from the beginning which wasnt warn down in the Balkans as well as the early invasion time should be able to take and hold Rostov much sooner and push to the Donets bend.
This isn't a huge extra advance by any means but in strategic terms it will be enough to either take or atleast wreck the transport hub of Moscow and hold the Rostov jumping off point for the Caucasus offensive in 1942.

 

The big change would be in the losses incurred in street fighting in Moscow which may well be large.
However they will have been less losses than that occurred in November and December 1941 grinding advances and climactic losses to offer some balance.
The Germans would be suffering infantry shortages from August 1941.
This could be helped with extra Axis satellite troops which in otl would be in the Balkans.
Italy instead of having 3 Divisions in Russia in 1941 go send between 10-20.
Hungary would also have additional troops available with no Balkan occupation.

Both sides will suffer very heavy losses but as opposed to OTL the losses of German infantry may well be greater depending on resistance in Moscow.

 

They failed in the summer of 1941?

 

It is nothing like that.
Its is a very similar comparison of two temperate european regions.

Irrelevant to ground conditions.

Was it not wet in Yugoslavia? and as for a certain amount of the country being mountainous then the advance should be even harder.

 

Of course:the plan was to be in Moscow before the autumn,and they were stopped in august .
That's basic knowledge .

 

They both go hand in hand, Would the Axis have done so much better if they where attacking on one side with out aerial superiority? I dealt it.

It is wet in many locations, As to the extent is another matter. The extent to which it was wet in Yugoslavia was so minimal it has failed to have been mentioned in anything I have read to have hampered the Axis forces where as in the case of Operation Barbarossa there is always a mention of it. As to the mountainous terrain, Yes on a purely geographical view it can be harder but this is not a purely geographical topic.

In Yugoslavia the Germans where up against a region that could be very well defended IF the defending forces made it into position. However due to the larger aerial forces employed by the Axis (Over 1,600 aircraft compared to Yugoslavia's 400 of which half where obsolete) they where prevented from moving into position, The German armour was thus able to move along with the troops in good order without being bogged down (The rains there where no where near bad enough to wash out roads as they did in Russia) while the Axis air forces pounded away at the spread out ill equipped Yugoslavian forces.

While on the Russian front when you come up against the Rains your are bogged down, With heavy equipment and supplies slowly your advance to literately at times to a crawl. In this situation the Germans while having superior tactics do not have superior numbers or concentration of force.

So to be blunt, Ground conditions and forces employed Matter a hell of a lot, Refusal to understand that fact at best shows you to be of a low intellectual calibre and at worst in a RL situation to be the type of officer that get's good men killed.

 

BritishEmpire, Your replies to my questions appear to be very confusing and poorly laid out (no offence) so would you care to go into some more details. Best I can tell is you are only allowing for the Battle of Moscow and Leningrad yet have skipped the entire campaign involved in actually getting to those two cities.

Specifically you ignore the early rains they suffered they would have affected the advance nor have you allowed for any Russian responses or given any casualty estimates of the campaign. Assuming that the losses suffered along the way to Moscow would be the same as the losses suffered in this scenario is a very poor mistake.

 

Best do some reading then.

Just like the total air superiority than had during the start of Barbarossa then.

While on the Russian front when you come up against the Rains your are bogged down, With heavy equipment and supplies slowly your advance to literately at times to a crawl. In this situation the Germans while having superior tactics do not have superior numbers or concentration of force.

So to be blunt, Ground conditions and forces employed Matter a hell of a lot, Refusal to understand that fact at best shows you to be of a low intellectual calibre and at worst in a RL situation to be the type of officer that get's good men killed.[/QUOTE]

So they didnt get bogged down in Yugoslavia in wet conditions but they will in May in Russia?
Will the tanks by heavier or will this be by magic?
My IQ is 133 by the way.

 

So you think the Germans did not advance after August?