What if Barbarossa was carried out this way?

I have a few thoughts on how Operation Barbarossa could be successful. Please point out if I am wrong.

It is quite simple. Reduce the strength of AGN; combine the freed divisions with AGS. Halt AGN after the fall of the Baltic States. Halt AGS after Kiev fell (without the aid of AGC). Concentrate all the supplies to AGC.

 

Ironcross,

what is your main objective?

If you free troops from AGN to AGS and stop it at Kiev then you have done what the original Wehrmacht did in Aug-Sept 1941, and actually AGS went further after that. Or would you after Kiev send the extra troops to AGC and press trough the middle?

 

Yes, I am aware of that.
My main objective is to free up supply for AGC to advance as quick as possible to capture Moscow, and to hold it until spring. AGN and AGS can advance during spring when Moscow is captured.
AGC was assigned to take Moscow and eqquipped accordingly, so there is no need to reinforce AGC. If reinforced, it will only slow it down due to inefficient supply.

 

Ironcross,

I do think you might want to transfer the Panzer troops to AGC, as was in 1941 the AGN´s panzers for the Typhoon operation. They´d bring the necessary extra punch anyway ( I´d think )...

 

More Panzers means more oil demand.
No Panzers can defeat the Russian winter, but any Panzer can defeat a Russian army.
By the way, I doubt Panzers are going to be useful in the streets of Moscow.

 

I would contend that the capture of Leningrad and the collapse of the entire front north of that would have had far more impact than AGS capturing a larger chunk of the southern (and largely empty) plains of Ukraine and Russia.
Leningrad gives the Germans a port much closer to Moscow with a reasonably good rail net to support operations by AGC.
This leaves the Germans in a much stronger position to resume operations in 1942 and does far more to reduce the Soviet position. Murmansk is closed as a lend-lease route at the point where it was making the most difference. A major source of manufacturing and manpower is gone. The electrical system is going to be severly effected as much of the production is located between Leningrad and Moscow.
It would seem to me the obverse of what you propose is a far better choice.

 

Take Leningrad? It is an impossible mission.
You can either lay siege for 900 days, or turn it into another Stalingrad.
It is either now or never. If leave Moscow unoccupied, the Germans will be crushed by the Russian reserve. Even if Leningrad was captured, the port will be completely destroyed anyway. The Russian railway was also unreliable.

Did you even read my post? I said AGS should halt after Kiev. With the fall of Kiev, the southern flank of AGC is secured.

The only hope now is to concentrate supply to help one army achieve its goal, split the insufficient supply to three armies is fatal.

The key element to success at this stage of operation is not strength, it is speed.

 

I´m still surprised Ironcross that you´d leave about half of the panzer force unused, the panzer groups I ( AGS ) and IV ( AGN ) ( If I recall correctly ). Marching to take Moscow??

 

I refuse to believe those are all the feedbacks I get from this question.

 

After Kiev the route to Moscow was blocked with new troops. Before Kiev the door was sorta open. So personally I think the method you´re suggesting needs to be accomplished without turning to Kiev or extra troops are needed to punch through the new defensive lines. But then again the right flank would be in danger...

 

You know, these kind of 'operational what-ifs' - for lack of a better term - could be quite satisfactorily answered if you were a wargamer. I played this exact variation several times using an old game called Fire in The East .

You could try something like this, do any variations you like and get your answers yourself.

Wargamers are lucky in more than one respect. They have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, so they are very unlikely to repeat historical errors. If they loose they can start again from the last save. They won't be shot if they bungle. Wargamers have much better intelligence (that is, information, I've seen some very stupid wargamers ) than their historical counterpart. Wargames tend to be much kinder logistically than reality called for. Wargames are infinitely simpler than reality.

Taking into account the paragraphs above, I can say in my experience that at least in FITE the Germans always won in 1941.

 

Agreed Za,

especially if you get to play against a friend it´s even better than against the computer. I mean if you should win....

 

@ironcross : when exactly is starting the offensive against Moscow in your scenario ?

 

Mentioning Fire in the East and its companion Scorched Earth, I have gamed those enough to know in the opening sequence if the German player knows what he's doing (and it seems few do) Leningrad falls between turn 5 and 7 and there is litte the Soviets can do to stop it.
In the game the technique used is to punch 4 or 5 holes in the Soviet front using infantry and artillery on turn 1. You then shove the panzers with all the motorized support you can muster through the holes and drive them as deep into the Soviet rear as you can, ending their move by sitting on critical rail junctions and attacking some unit deep in the Soviet rear. The German infantry tries wherever possible to end in contact with every Soviet unit they can.
Done right the Soviets are now largely cut off from supply, are pinned to the front and cannot easily break contact, and are attempting to withdraw.
What happens is that more and more of them are ground up by the German infantry and artillery while they cannot form a solid line to their rear where the panzers are driving deep into the Soviet Union. New troops / reinforcements keep running into the panzers and getting ground up as they are too few and too spread out to have a concentration of force necessary to survive the Germans. By turn 4 you are on the doorstep of Leningrad and its over.
This is with a concerted drive to take it pulling some of AGC's historical panzer divisions north.
This, in turn, takes out the Murmansk railway and collapses the front against Finland. Moscow can wait a season if necessary. Leningrad gives a much shorter supply line for the Germans and makes restoration of the rail routes easier in the North too (as there is now a sea connection).
The typical game I've seen the German player(s) make the fatal mistake of going for the destruction of the front rather than a deep blitzkrieg against the Soviet rear. Typically, the Germans surround the Red Army with panzers and opt for defeat in detail rather than leaving these troops to the follow on infantry artillery combo.

 

Another grognard Well, I didn't want to show my age, as the real games I used to play back then were the predecessors to FITE, Drang Nach Osten / Unentschieden. I still have them!

 

I have those too (DNO et al), along with most of the other Europa titles, and mostly first editions in bags rather than boxes. All were original purchases not some e-bay thing. Also have two first ed. Afrika Korps by Avalon Hill, one unpunched!
I would estimate I have about 300 paper games and rules for at least 40 or so miniatures games.
Didn't like DNO that much. Games tended to end in large piles of counters in a few places having no resemblance to reality. FITE was a much better game.

 

Ebay? Waht ebay? I was talking about my adventures in the early 80's Yes, I still have some Europa series in bags from that era. Is that Afrika Korps the one with a loooong narrow map or is this another game? Most likely from somebody else.

I still play Squad Leader (not ASL, the older one), plus its gamettes.

 

Hello Iron cross. Posts like these are cool. Keep at em. New questions & pieces of data often arise from such discussions. The German navy was 'very' interested in the ports around Leningrad. I wonder at how they will destroy the ports? & if they might've been used to expand German shipbuilding.

"Even if Leningrad was captured, the port will be completely destroyed anyway."

A bit off topic,I know.

 

70's?!! I started in the 60's. My first Avalon Hill games came mail order from FAO Schwartz out of New York. Squad Leader? Been there done that. Not the most accurate game.
Actually, on the whole I prefer more of the "Beer and Pretzels" games on a frequent basis. Things like 1/700th ships using Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame (first published in the 1930's) or Mustangs and Messerschimtts using 1/72nd airplane models. While these are not totally accurate, they convey the 'sense' of the battle very well and also are just plain fun to play at 2 in the morning while watching the Playboy Channel. And people think wargaming is boring.....

 

Damn! In the 70s we had no Playboy Channel at all! Ok, ok, you are crustier than me, my first game was an Avalon Hill Waterloo, played in 1975.

Boring? Never! I remember on of our Drang Nach Osten sessions (these games took weeks to reach a conclusion, how I miss my college years!). We the Germans had carefully set up an iron ring around every major city left behind by the Russians, letting them starve in order to avoid risking losses by direct assault. Well, it was the birthday of one of our guys so both sides went out to celebrate in style in a seafood restaurant, including a more than adequate liquid supply.

It was already early morning when we returned to my home where we had the map set up, and we decided (well, the alcohol decided ) that we were tired of waiting for every single last Russian to starve so let the dice roll! Roll they did and all the cities fell but at enourmous cost for the assaulters! The game fizzled out soon after as the Germans had lost a disproportionate amount of troops, and the Sovs were visibly preparing a very strong offensive, but what the hell, a game is a game!