Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Hitler could have won


  • Please log in to reply
383 replies to this topic

#1 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 23 July 2006 - 11:18 PM

Often labelled 'the southern strategy' Here's an exerpt from Armchair general mag, Sept 2006.

Raeder said; Germany could win a commanding position against the Soviet union without directly attacking the communist giant.He said Germany must occupy French north africa, but the main target had to be suez. After capturing suez, he told hitler German panzers could quickly advance through Palestine and Syria to the Turkish frontier. If we reach that point, Turkey will be in our power. Raeder emphasized, 'The Russian problem will then appear in a different light.

It is doubtful an advance against Russia ffrom the north, ( that is from Poland, Baltics & Romania ), will be neccesary.

In other words, Raeder had laid out the precise strategy Hitler could have used to win the war. With german forces threatening Soviet oil fields, Russia would be in Germany's power. Britain, forced to use all its strength to hold the home islands while also defending its crown colonial jewel, India, would be rendered impotent.

#2 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 24 July 2006 - 11:17 AM

Posted Image Ah, another dreaded German Victory What If ™...

I fail to see how the Germans could conquer Egypt (I think this first easy step historically failed but as we are in the Twilight Zone the sun will rise West :rolleyes: ), then up he coast through Palestine - Lebanon (damned rough ground), then up Syria, then all Turkey itself (more damned horrible rough ground), afterwards over the Caucasus chain into the Promised Land, oops, the Soviet Oil Country.

First of all I consider this a military impossibility. Then a logistical impossibility. Also, as as soon as Turkey was invaded, the Germans would have to set up logistical lines through the Dardanelles ro to the northern Turkish ports (or do you prefer going from Italian ports through to Tobruk or Tripoli, then by rail through to Alexandria, then up Palestine, etc?). These would be in serious jeopardy as I'm sure Stalin would sense the menace and not fail to appreciate that sending the Red Army through Romania (completing the Bessarabia conquest, nothing more), Bulgaria, etc, would put a very large spanner through a fragile works.

All this assuming that the Royal Navy is all frozen in the Antartic so powerless to intervene, etc etc.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#3 Richard

Richard

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,847 posts

Posted 24 July 2006 - 11:56 AM

I would like to ask why so many people think Nazi Germany could have won the war if they carried out X, Y and Z reasons. Nazi Germany was an evil aggressive police state and that carried out mass murder and plunged Europe into another war, how many of these supporters of the X, Y and Z reasons would be still here today if they had won. I know for a fact I would have been sent to the gas chambers for my childhood illness, I am glad in the real world the Nazis were crushed by the Allies.

PS. I agree with Za.

#4 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 24 July 2006 - 12:04 PM

It is another question whether Turkey as an ally can give any help - I suppose they´d have requests though for Germany like Franco/Mussolini did!

And I don´t think Stalin would have let the Germans have the oil fields for nothing, right? Just threatening is not enough to get them.And as long as the Germans don´t have the oil fields they are running out of oil instead and not Stalin. So to make the nice tour of Mediterranean with tanks Germans need oil in the first place to get to make the threats.

The idea of attack from both sides to get to the oil fields at Baku is a great one. From one side only- ?. Germans were pretty close to Baku in 1942 from one side but could not make it.So...?
Posted Image

#5 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 24 July 2006 - 09:35 PM

The point I believe Raeder was making was attaining Baku through the southern route was easier than the northern route.

& on the other point about whether Germany could have won is a strategic discussion of interest, not a political one. I certainly have no desire to see Germany win being american & don't believe many other people who participate in such discussions have any wish that Germany had won either, just strategy.

#6 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 25 July 2006 - 09:14 AM

Originally posted by chromeboomerang:
The point I believe Raeder was making was attaining Baku through the southern route was easier than the northern route.

As far as Grossadmiral Raeder was concerned, the sea is flat, the Near and Middle east aren't. One could say he was out of his depth making such statements.

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#7 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 25 July 2006 - 09:35 AM

Does not look like Blitzkrieg country to me, must say...

Posted Image
Posted Image

#8 Jaeger

Jaeger

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 10:34 AM

This ploy is a pipe dream made by no-fighting officers, just like the Giant two plan to drop the 82nd airborne on Rome.

As Kai-Petris picture show, the approch is blocked by mountains. How on earth are you supposed to feed and re-arm the soldiers fighting in the north?

If the evil empire was to have any chance at the oil, it would have come from the north. But due to the effort of the people of the USSR (look at the variation of people who dig trenches) the Germans were stopped and driven back.
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

#9 Hawkerace

Hawkerace

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 25 July 2006 - 06:28 PM

why not do like a d-day and land on the coast instead through terrian? They'd have to train for it but im sure if the americans,british and canadians can do it, why not germans.. or they could parachute and capture key locations... but we all know what happened to crete with parachuting -_-
[sigpic][/sigpic]

#10 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 06:36 PM

Tunisia had rough terrain & presented no probs for Germans. Lebanon & Syria no rougher. & Turkey would not be invaded, they would be swayed into German influence. & Mtns have passes, just like the ones in Romania do. Germans used these to good effect same as they would in Baku.

As for para drops, Germans were gunshy about this after Crete, they did make successful drops in Norway & low countries,therefore it is a possibility.

#11 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 25 July 2006 - 09:13 PM

If nothing else I have to praise you for your combativeness. Never say die. :rolleyes:

When we are talking of "rough terrain" we are speaking of one of the tallest and longest mountain ranges in Europe but what is that to a Übermensch? Unless I'm wrong Jaeger here knows a thing or two about rough ground and mountains, but...

How come "Tunisia had rough terrain & presented no probs for Germans."? The Germans were simply occupying a Vichy French colony with the consent of their government, why would they have to have problems? Are you sure of your background?

Perhaps you would like to resurrect that interesting but failed concept of yours of Me323 transporting Panzers. :rolleyes:

Ahhhh, prime tank country, at the end of the world...
http://www.nhpfund.r...caucasus_02.jpg
http://www.geographi...Heli_ski552.JPG Heli skying? Why? Just take the Tiflis Rollbahn!
http://www.stanford....020caucasus.gif

Something that crossed my mind, aren't the Russians of today taking a bit of trouble with a tribe or two in the Caucasus?

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...


#12 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 11:56 PM

Whomever was writing in Armchair General obviously ignored the logistics of such an operation completely. The only reliable method of moving masses of supplies and equipment throughout North Africa was by sea.
There is no continious rail system. Roads are generally marginal or non-existant. Therefore for a successful "Southern strategy" Germany requires sea power; something they totally lack in the Mediterrainian.
So, the first issue here is coming up with the means to supply the necessary forces to both conqueror and then garrison this region. After all, unlike Alexander, the Germans will have to cover their rear very thoroughly to prevent the British from landing forces in very inconvienent places.

#13 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 05:50 AM

With Egypt & Gibralter under control, Germans have no prob in transporting supplies through med. One good ship can carry 100 panzers. Greece to Syria would also have good aircover. Remember, No Barbarossa means Luftwaffe available for convoy protection duties. No rail system in Libya either, didn't stop Germans.

& Me 323?? what has that got to do with anything? Za. It did carry MK 2 panzers & large lorries. I believe we covered that.

& here's nice map of Tunisia. Even shows mountain passes that Germans gave Americans a pasting in 43. Perhaps you forgot there were more than Vichy French involved with that part of the world during WW2 Za.

http://www.maplandia.com/tunisia/

Nice ski maps, but panzers not used in that capacity. Interesting that you think Baku not an attainable objective based on terrain, yet Germany's top military planners did. You consider you know better despite their combined experience, training, skill & experience.

[ 26. July 2006, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: chromeboomerang ]

#14 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:21 AM

& here's the Turkish rail system, goes all the way to Armenia. Was upgraded between the WW1 & WW2.

http://www.turkeytra...cdd_harita.html

http://www.trainsoft...m/hist_over.htm

TCDD had a mandate for extensive line building to the point that it became the main expenditure of the government. This second wave of expansion occurred mostly in the 1930's and 1940's with the opening of important lines to places like Malatya, Ezurum, Samsun or Zonguldak

During 1900 Russia showed renewed interest in Turkish Armenia by securing the right to construct all railways in it,

& last but not least, did not the US supply loads of stuff to the Russians by road through northern Iran?? I suppose Germans were not capable of road transportation like Americans were eh Za?

http://www.army.mil/...n/chapter01.htm

the task of supplying Russia through the Persian Corridor increased in intensity. The change in .the American role in late 1942, from auxiliary to full partner of the British in the supply effort, raised the Corridor's tonnage to second place among the five routes to the USSR, and brought to the Persian Gulf ports nearly one fourth of the total lend-lease tonnage shipped to the Soviet Union from the Western Hemisphere.2


Well, so much for the impassability of the terrain argument.Even the Brits disagree.

in Syria and Iraq the British Tenth
Army stood guard against a German drive southward through the Caucasus
to the oilfields of Iraq and Iran whence the very lifeblood of the
Commonwealth war effort flowed.

[ 26. July 2006, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: chromeboomerang ]

#15 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 26 July 2006 - 08:33 AM

Considering the possibility of not getting any oil at all even through huge troop movements I cannot see this really happen.

I must guess Raeder tried to get Hitler out of his plan to start Barbarossa because he like many other highly ranked officers believed this to be madness, like Rundstedt, Guderian.

So why do I think so:

1. Even by using the "direct" method the Germans did not get to Baku

2. Even when the Germans got many oil fields in the Caucasus area 1942 they never got any oil because the Russians exploded the fields to kingdom come. It would take years to get oil and Germany did not have time to wait.

3. Stalin could get oil from Siberia/leand lease.

So Stalin could fight forever just fine by othr means but Germans would have troops stuck in the Caucasus area with no oil. That does not sound very good to me if you mean to win the war.
Posted Image

#16 john1761

john1761

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 09:39 AM

The loss of the use of the cacauss oil fields would have hit the russain war production numbers. Lend lease and Siberia could not replace this loss. Hitler didn't have to take the fields , just get close enough to make oil production impossible. In OTL all the germans had to do was to take Sartov to cut off the cacauss from the rest of russia to impact its arms production.

#17 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,307 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 26 July 2006 - 10:37 AM

John,

Germany got Russian oil to run the western offensive 1940. If nobody got the Caucasus oil would the Rumanian Ploesti be enough for Germans to start new offensives? Or would it stop both sides if Caucasus was out of biz? At least in 1942 Stalin had fuel for 6-12 months in Siberia in reserve tanks so that they were not facing problems for a while when Germans got hold of the Maikop.
Posted Image

#18 Jaeger

Jaeger

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:31 PM

Re succesfull para drops in Norway. My grandfather and 112men from the 11th regiment captured the vaunted paras in a farmhouse outside Dombås. The were on the loose for less than two days and did sod all other than shooting Elling Øye through the chest, as he was transporting supplies from Åndalsnes to various locations south of Dombås.

As for the British Tenth army presense in Iran, was down to Comerade Stalin failure to comunicate to the brits what was going on. If the Germans captured the Baku area they wold have a FIRM BASE to operate from.

If operating through Turkey the Allies would have a firm base to operate from in the middle east. That means that the Germans would have had to fight the allies in their southern flank, and push against the Soviets.

If operating from Persia the Germans would have had to fight the Allies in North Africa first, then a gruelling battle up through Palestine.

Comparing German battles in Kasserine to Turkey/Caucasus is wrong. The US corps had bulled ahead and was un-balanced, and streched to the limit. The Germans attacked concentrated with combined arms.

Compare the Caucasus campaign to the campaign in Yugoslavia. The one that never ended remember? If the Wehrmacht was to fight it out in the Caucasus they would fight Soviet troops, soviet civillians, the terrain and mother nature. With the allies biting at their flanks.

As Za so politely pointed out I am familiar with montainious terrain. It is a dream to defend in and a ruddy nightmare to attack through. In addition the mountains in Caucasus are big. Just look at the map.

Now look at the strategic picture. Jolly old Uk is having a lovley little time since most German tonnage is bogged in the med. Now we can train an build our army. Our factories and airfields are not getting a solid pasting since the luftwaffe are buisy bombing the reeinforcement route of the USSR.

In Eastern Poland, along Slovakia Hungary and Romania. There is a picketline of Axis forces shielding central europe. On the other side Uncle Joe has got millions of men under arms.

In Caucasus Soviet soldiers supported by massive artillery and aircover. (no barbarossa means that the fatal losses have been avoided remember)
IN addition the years of training the German soldiers to Maneouvre warfare, aufdrags taktik, and the rest have been reduced to nought. Valleys from a quarter of a mile to five miles wide have to be forced. A small blocking force in the valleys, with ample support (they are fighting USSR remember) It is Bocage country times a thousand.

With the cream of the wehrmacht fighting for a foothold, and the breakoutforce of panzers waiting in line, Uncle Joe merly has to press the button and the red landslide is on their way to Berlin.

When opening an axis of combat it is vital that you don't use forces needed to protect your own turf. An attack on USSR in the North placed the bulk of the Wehrmacht between the threat of the nation and the nation itself. The Southern strategy suggests a massive split in forces, reducing the protection against USSR. This is what Monty reffered to as 'frigging around or fighting' In the opening of Barbarossa the Wehrmacht had taken away the USSR's immediate capability to strike at german soil. Attacking in the South would have not done that. To have a fighting chance at this the Germans needed a lot more equipment and men. To first knock back USSR's forces in the North, and then to shift logistics airpower and men to the south. Not practical nor possible.
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

#19 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:14 PM

Za didn't politely point anything out, he posted snarky unpolite ski pictures. & The rail system in Armenia has also been overlooked.


& if you look at Kai's map, Baku jutts out into the sea there & is somewhat flat in the surrounding area, therefore the higher mtns present no barrier whatsoever.

[ 26. July 2006, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: chromeboomerang ]

#20 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 09:15 PM

& if Germans did take southern route, yes Russians would put up a fight, which means their attacking central europe through Poland/Romania much less likely as they would have their hands full defending Baku.


& getting oil to Libya a much tougher proposition than getting it through southern route. With Turkeys rail system at hand, much easier. & with germans concentrating on one front instead of 2, yet again making it easier.

A tough slog perhaps, but German's fought in north Finland, & rough desert terrain, I can't imagine the terrain around Baku any tougher.

#21 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 10:27 PM

Forget the terrain...

...what about the logistics?

They couldnt supply North Africa!

There is a 'What If' on this subject in the book "More What Ifs"... Lets just say the historian who wrote it wasnt that impressed by the idea.
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#22 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 11:00 PM

Originally posted by chromeboomerang:
With Egypt & Gibralter under control, Germans have no prob in transporting supplies through med. One good ship can carry 100 panzers. Greece to Syria would also have good aircover. Remember, No Barbarossa means Luftwaffe available for convoy protection duties. No rail system in Libya either, didn't stop Germans.

& Me 323?? what has that got to do with anything? Za. It did carry MK 2 panzers & large lorries. I believe we covered that.

On shipping: One ship may be able to 'carry 100 panzers" but, you have to add in the trucks, half tracks, men, tools, arms, artillery and what not necessary to support them. A full division will require 12 to 20+ ships to transport depending on their size. The Germans simply do not have them in the Mediterrainian. They are almost totally reliant on the graces of the less than fully cooperative Italians in this respect.
As for escorts, they are totally dependent on the Italians.

As for supplying troops well forward of a port: At the Alamein position the Germans were using between 4 and 5 gallons of gasoline to deliver one to the front using trucks. They had an overall shortage of both so this is a very uneconomical means of operation. So, in effect, the lack of a rail system in Lybia DID stop the Germans in North Africa!
The Germans proved unable to effectively clear ports and put in place improvements in transportation systems as well. This is a major reason why Tobruk remained largely unused by the Germans; too many wrecks blocking the harbor.
In engineering the Germans were not even in the same league as the US was in terms of construction ability. They (the Germans) could not have built roads like the Ledo, Burma, Alaskan or, Persian ones. Their construction troops were virtually unmechanzied. They would have had few, if any, bulldozers, road graders, rollers, dump trucks, trenchers, earth movers, excavators or, any of a plethora of other heavy construction machinery commonly found in US construction units. Thus, they have a mere tiny fraction of the construction ability to repair or build roads and railways.
This alone means that logistics will be a huge, insoluable problem for them in this theater.

The Luftwaffe is not going to fix the problem either. The large transport gruppen can only operate when pilots and aircrews are stripped from training centers in Germany. Thus, they denude the Germans of a capacity to train new pilots while in use.
As for their transport capacity, it amounts to about 100 tons per day long term. This is sufficent to supply a single mechanized division on the defense. So, all the Ju 52s, Me 323s, Ju 90s and what-not are not going to make up the difference.

#23 chromeboomerang

chromeboomerang

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 27 July 2006 - 09:15 AM

Put em on the rail system.

#24 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 27 July 2006 - 09:58 AM

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

Where is all the rolling stock coming from? How are you gonna get the rolling stock there?

How are you going to protect the rolling stock from attack?


Dont you think that maybe the reason the Germans DIDNT try this strategy is because it wouldnt have worked?


Still... I prefer the idea of filling Gigants with Panzer IVs and dropping them on the Russians...
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#25 Za Rodinu

Za Rodinu

    Aquila non capit muscas

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,809 posts
  • LocationPortugal

Posted 27 July 2006 - 11:32 AM

Originally posted by TheRedBaron:
Still... I prefer the idea of filling Gigants with Panzer IVs and dropping them on the Russians...

Capability for this depends on whether you're using European of African Me323s...

[img]http://images.google.ie/images?q=tbn:Fmz4a3PrOwyl4M:http://james.istop.com/montypython/07-knights.jpg[/img]

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users