German vs. Russia - No England.

Sorry about that Brndirt I assumed that Brittain had accepted the peace offer presented in 1939........damn my skimming.

 

I would say that Germany would have minimally forced Russia into a negotiated peace.

Without a Western front the Germans could initially have put an additonal 2 panzer and one panzergrenadier division into their assault. They could also have put as many as a dozen additional infantry divisions into it.

The loss of the air campaign means that the Germans will not be short artillery or shells because flak continued to eat up a greater and greater portion of this material as the war progressed. By 1944 about 60% of the munitions by weight being made went into flak shells.

As there is no North African diversion this will eventually leave Germany with nearly 300,000 additional troops to send to the East (approximate total losses in North Africa). It will also make available sufficent motor vehicles to prevent the massive demotorization of East Front forces that occured.
The fuel used in North Africa likewise can be used to run the Eastern Front operations.

In aircraft it makes less difference. But there are some really critical additions. KG 100 for example. This is a heavy bombardment group and has guided bombs. Their Do 217 with Firtz X could have made a significant impact on Soviet industry and resources. They stayed in the West and operated in a combination of anti-shipping and the occasional attack on Britain (eg., the mini Blitz for example).

The ending of U-boat operations fees up nearly 100,000 more men and a massive amount of resources that went into building boats. This can now be thrown East.

Without need to construct fortifications in the West OT workers can be moved East to improve roads and rebuild the rail system. This will reduce wastage of equipment and improve the supply situation of the front greatly. The millions of yards of concrete and miles of steel that went into the Atlantic Wall can be used in the East for fortifications, railroads, roads, etc.

Basically, there are lots of little things going on in the West throughout the war that add up to big things that are not deployed to the East. It is the slack Russia needs to win. Without it they lose.

 

What is the US doing? are they neutral? disinterested?

 

I am assuming that there is a Pacific War and that has their attention from December 1941 on. Lend-Lease may still be occuring at some lower rate of issue.

 

a bystander with deminished interest allowing it be a "European problem"

 

I also don't see the US supplying LL but there's a good chance they would be willing to sell excess stuff to the Soviets. Especially once things really kick in the US has a lot more capability than they need to defeat Japan. On the other hand it looks like to "evil empires" hammering on each other so I don't see a huge amount of support for the Soviets either.

While the Germans do have more troops than historical I don't see that they are going to have much more in the way of logistics so in some ways adding more troops in 41 and 42 may even make things worse. Where those troops and in particular artillery become very useful is when the Soviets go over to the offensive and that's also where the Soviets really miss the LL equipment. Without it I see them taking longer to build up for an offensive or launching ones that aren't as well supplied.

The situation in the West may also become significant. If a treaty is concluded that the British can live with then the Germans don't have to keep much in the way of reserves in the West if it looks like Britian is just building up for another round it's a different story.

 

Negotiated peace is unlikely, Stalin was litteraly fighting for his life and the Geman behaviour in occupied USSR put the majority of the people solidly at his back.
A German military victory is unlikely, it's really hard to defeat Russia without a political collapse and the ww2 german army, with it's low enphasys on logistic planning, is not the tool for doing it.

On an operational level it will most likely change, Stalingad is one key point and while LL before Stalingrad was not that much, but if you add 10th panzer and the other forces committed to Tunisia, especially the transport planes for the air bridge, to the relief attempt it may well succeed or a least turn into a Korsun like half disaster instead of the massive disaster it was.

Also without the Sicily invasion the Germans will not stop Kursk when they did, what the result of that will be we can only guess.

IMO the German army had shot it's bolt in 1941, case Blau was a last ditch attempt achieved by stripping units on the rest of the front and it had failed even before the soviet counter offensive.
On the other side of the fence without LL it's not certain the Soviet steamroller will ever manage to start rolling, in late 1942 they were already capable of mounting two major offensives at the same time (Stalingrad and Rzhev), so it could go either way.

If we have a military stalemate with both combattants getting gradually more exhausted, Stalin possibly has the advantage here as being the "victim" of aggression he is is more likely to have strong popular support, Hitler will have to justify having a substantial part of the German male population getting slowly killed hundreds of miles from the German borders which is a more difficult "sell". At that point it's also possible somebody will step into the military void and create a second front anyway.

 

if britian had negotiated a peace after fall of France, its safe to say much German resources and many men would have been freed up for the attack on Russia.
-All the luftwaffe's aircraft losses in the Battle of Britain would have been avoided. Stronger luftwaffe to use against Russia.
-The u-boats could have been turned against Russia in the Baltic and elsewhere.
-The battles in the mediterranean and north africa would have been fewer and less costly. No north African war and all the drain on axis shipping, fewer losses suffered by the luftwaffe, and probably no need for the Afrika Korps or at worst a greatly reduced one.
-No British supplies to Russia. If the US had tried there would have been more u-boats available to intercept and sink supply ships.

In reality, Britain of course did not surrender, and even with the Germans fighting on multiple fronts, until Stalingrad the war in the east was still a close call for the Russians at many times. The major factor that saved Moscow in 1941 was Stalin's decision, based on the spy Richard Sorge, to free up the Siberian troops held in the east against an anticipated Japanese attack. Sorge assured Stalin that the Japanese considered the US as their main enemy, and had already had a taste of Russian military power at Khalkhin gol in 1939 and had no desire for a rematch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Secure in the knowlege his eastern flank was secure he released these troops to defend Moscow during the Germans Operation Typhoon in December 1941.

(Hitler's goal did not include conquering the entirety of Russia but only to a southerly line roughly from Archangel all the way south. At this geographical point he planned to establish a sort of DMZ to keep the remaining russians east of the line to survive however they could, as they were not a part of Hitlers plans for the east except possibly as slaves.)

 

With the now ready German Reich now able to put its full interest against their enemy ideology they are assured victory.

As all the others said, Germany didn't have the extra thorns in her rump to distract her. By late 1942 Germany could have had an up to 45% increase in forces.

With LL non-existent Soviet industry wouldn't have breathing time in winter and Mud-season to equip millions of conscripts. The reds only out-numbered the Germans because they didn't have to produce so many things that they could acquire otherwise. Soviet industry would be forced on an equal status with Germany's but they would also have many issues as well. For example, the transfer of industry to the interior was a good idea for the time but you would have to bring all vehicles and supplies hundreds of Kilometers to the front.

So instead of 250,000 men and 1500 tanks a month it would likely turn into 75,000 men and 800 tanks a month. Not to mention the thirst for everything else needed in war.

With the Greater requirement for men to staff industry with the soviets couldn't cough out hoards of men non-stop. The loss of manpower bases didnt help much either (Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and other major cities.

Soldier training is also a factor as the Germans could now train more soldiers in quiet areas in France, Poland, Benelux and so on which would result in a quite professional fighting force. The Russians massive losses and encirclements called for on-the-spot conscripts with little training which wouldn't do much good.

 

I believe Hitler would have settled from Arkangelsk to Baku and let the soviet Union fall apart in Siberia.

 

If we assume things up to the German 42 summer offensive go about as they did historically, we find that without a Western front or African Front to maintain AGS at the onset of this offensive would have been in far better shape than it historically was. It is reasonable to assume that the necessary 100,000 additional replacements would have been available that historically weren't to bring not just the divisions in AGS to full or near full strength but most of the divsions in the East in general.
There would be sufficent extra motor vehicles and tanks from production to provide at least AGS with full strength panzer divisions across the board. The extra trucks would have given them an extra motorized supply group and, with additional OT workers available the rail situation wouldn't have been so bad. The Stalino line could have been greatly improved to pass more traffic even if not a double line. Once the offensive started even 100 miles of extra track forward of that postion would have greatly relieved the pressure on AGS at Stalingrad. Even the inclusion of an additional Flak division or possibly even corps would have been a huge asset, particularly in stopping the Soviets. Such an additional unit could have specifically been distributed to the Italian and Romanian divisions to given them AT firepower they lacked. One extra at a minimum would certainly have been plausible as there were such units historically in Africa and the West that were now not needed.

I would estimate that the overall effect would have been to cause the Soviet counter offensive to come out a draw rather than a clear cut victory. Given another Soviet draw on the offensive and a German military that was running out of offensive steam both sides might have decided to call it a draw. But, we can't know for sure.

 

That sums up my postion pretty well also. I do wonder if adding those additional troops and equipment might have strained the German logistics system even more though.

 

Oh, but it is EXTREMELY important!

By 1940, the entire world, with the exception of the Axis members, felt very threatened by Hitler, and were arming at a frantic rate to counter that threat. The loss of Britain as a member of the Associated Powers would only be temporary. The US, led by Roosevelt would not become complacent, but would redouble it's efforts to strengthen the Alliance against the Axis, and would do everything in it's considerable power to rearm Britain and bring it back into the fight. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India would have to make a decision; join Britain or stay in the fight. I believe they would almost certainly stay in the fight. Roosevelt would continue opposing Hitler in every possible way and would continue pushing the US toward war with Germany.

The US would certainly increase Lend-Lease to the Soviets, but even so, as happened historically, it would not reach significant proportions until the latter part of 1942. The Soviet Union knew time was on their side, so Stalin would not make an accommodation with Hitler but would keep on fighting, although it's probable some sort of stalemate would occur between the Germans and the Soviets until mid-1943 or later. By that time, the latent power of the USSR would be strong enough to overcome the waning power of Germany.

Japan would still need oil to continue it's struggle against China, and would still need to attack the Southern Resources Area to get it. But with Britain temporarily out of the European war, it could afford to reinforce Singapore, Malaya, and Australia, making Japan's task even more difficult. Japan might possibly be forced to back down when push comes to shove. But certainly there would be no question of attacking the Soviet Union, and no question of trying to stop Lend-lease going through Vladivostok. The notion that the German U-boats could operate in the Pacific is absurd; they were too short-legged even for trans-Atlantic operations, so the Pacific with no bases and half-way around the world from Germany is out of the question. Nor can the U-boats operate profitably against the Soviets in the Baltic; there is simply nothing there worth deploying them against.

The short answer is "no".

More German troops just overburdens German logistical capabilities earlier and makes their failure more certain. More numerous German forces in the Soviet Union does mean it takes the Soviets longer to build up the strength necessary to launch successful counter-offensives, so there is likely to be a longer period of stalemate when the Soviet and German forces are essential in balance and neither side is able to move forward appreciably. But eventually, the greater manpower of the Soviets and the greater productive and logistical capability of the US will begin to tell and the Germans will collapse as they did historically.

I disagree. I believe the best the Germans can hope for is an extended stalemate, ending sometime in the latter half of 1943. The European war would be likely to last into the latter half of 1945. Which, of course, would be a tragedy for Germany, since the atomic bomb would be deployed against their remaining cities.

 

I agree that when GB capitulates is important as well.

Glantz wrote: That attacking Russia when Hitler did, was simply luck. He happened to attack her when she was at her most vulnerable state. Ironically that was his ultimate demise. He also says that, Had Hitler invaded sooner or later, he would have had a tougher climb.

I presume that Terry's scenario would be a bit later? Even a month or two would matter in this case.

It is also important to remember that in the first 6 months of the war, Germany sustained 800,000 casualties in the east, but was only able to replenish 200,000 of them. Russia on the other hand while loosing far more the amount was at the same time able to replenish her loses and at the same time grow. So when Germany was shrinking, the Red Army was growing and this would continue till the very end.

Sending in additional troops would not solve this problem for several reasons.

1. A bottleneck might result as Germany might not be able to quickly transport these troops to the front and back.

2. More importantly, troops from the East would regularly be rotated with the ones in the West. If sending all the troops from the West and Africa to the East, who would the troops rotate with? All you have now, are just a bunch of men stuck in hell with no way out.

Sorry to disappoint you mate but your fantasy even in this what if is not happening.

By late 1941 Germany already had 60% of her entire force in the east which would include the absolute best of the best. The West at this time already had a Skeleton force and all the rest was in Africa. Even then the numbers and the experience of these troops along with their leadership in contrast to what was already in Russia is minute.

Once again problems such as logistics, Fuel, Winter, along with a flawed approach of conducting a war in the East with the way it was fought in the West can not be solved by simply adding numbers. In fact it some ways it only complicates them. Example.... More men freezing, or stuck with no transport or simply more casualties with no reinforcements.



Marc780.

Would it be safe to assume that the Luftwaffe still suffers high casualties in turn for Britain's surrender? Surely Britain doesn't just give up, does she? Yes, this would depend on Terry's further explanation of Britain's capitulation. But either way I don't see Germany loosing any less planes then she did in reality.

As for U-boats, I would imagine that they would be needed to prevent the U.S. from coming in and keeping GB in check? After all how many would be needed in the Soviet Union when she has no navy?



Where the hell is ZA when I need him!?!? I'm out numbered and in urgent need reinforcements or some sort of Lend Lease!

 

Well here's one possibility. Not very likely but then none of them are. Say an accident takes Churchill out of the picture in early 1940. Once the conquest of France is complete Hitler offers the British a peace treaty. One of the things he offers in up is German withdrawal from Holland and Belgium and most of France and that negotiations will take place at some later date concerning Polish independence. Given this the British accept. In this situation the US does not enter the war in Europe. Japan is rather caught between a rock and a hard place do they go to war with the US, British, and Dutch? Even occupying French Indochina may be a problem. The US is unlikely to become directly involved but I suspect will be more than willing to sell things to the Soviets and may accept credit at least late in 41. In this case what happens in China might well become critical. If the Japanese with draw or are forced out one way of achieving peace in China might be for the US to basically arm the Red Chinese and help them join the Soviets vs Germany. It just puts off the problem for a while but ...

Note in this scenario the BOB simply doesn't happen. On the other hand one can probably come up with a similar scenario that involves even worse losses by the Germans prior to the armistice with Britain. Perhaps even a failed attempt at Sea Lion.

 

Yes & no. The US attention to Europe and hostility towards Facist Germany did not revolve entirely around Britians leadership. So, a nuetral Britian would change the character of US activity in Europe, but may not necessarily diminish it.

Priority on resolving the Japanese problem is a logical proposition for US policy. However global economics and connections between the US citizens and Europe would continue to force attention towards Europe.

A nuetral Britian may mean a stronger British military in Asia. That complicates Japans situation as British nuetrality in Europe does not guarantee anything in Asia or the Pacific.

 

Just curious as to where you found out about the German's logistics problems. Im reading a book by Geoffrey p. Megargee call Inside Hitler's High Command. He goes quite in-depth about the Germans logistic problems and does quite a good job analyzing it.

The real problem stems from Intellegence gathering. The Germans underestimated the might of the Soviet Union by a large amount. Halder and the OKH and OKW thought they had destroyed the bulk of the Soviet army by the end of July/mid August. (Which according to their intellegence reports they had) They also beleived that the Soviets couldnt/wouldnt shift forces from the Far East to Europe because of the threat from Japan. They were mistaken on many counts. I'll get some more information together about it tommorow.


Yours,

Bill

 

Yes Megargee seems good, tho I dont have a copy of my own. Anything else you have seen on the subject? John Ellis 'Brute Force' has a chapter on logstics the Wehrmacht in the East, but mostly my knowledge comes from remarks by German officers who were there in 1941. Erhard Raus 'Panzer Operations', Sigfried Knappe 'Soldat', Werner Admacyzk 'Furer', plus items drawn from German army documents. Majority of this is artillery realted and of course refers to shortages of artillery ammo.

What do you feel are the core points of Megaree?

 

My fantasy?
my first sentence was a modified quote of your signature.lol