Invading Russia

[MKSheppard]

I went back to my original sources and redid everything. The reason the formatting changes is because Page 2 was saved in a non standard format by Yuku, and was partially corrupted; frustrating my automatic post extractor. -Shep.

==========================================

Username: IanGibson
Nickname:
Number of Posts: 1004
Date of Post: (05/29/03 11:24:48)

Everyone knows that one of Germany's greatest blunders of WWII was invading Russia. My question to the board is was there a better plan of attack than the one Germany employed?

It seems to me that invading just the southern bits would have made more sense than the broad approach they took in reality.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

==========================================

Username: JPaulMartin
Nickname: Capitalist Pig
Number of Posts: 1481
Date of Post: (05/29/03 11:41:46)

If you invade 'just the southern bits' then the Germans have a huge long flank to the north, facing Soviet industrial and population centers. The situation would be like the one before Stalingrad, except on a larger scale.

Jeff

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."

--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)

==========================================

Username: David Newton
Nickname: Administrator
Number of Posts: 6032
Date of Post: (05/29/03 11:52:39)

It wasn't the plan the got the Germans, it was invading at all. They simply could not do it with their logistical capability. Had it just been Germany and allies against the Soviets, then things may well have been different. No aid from the UK and US would have meant less Soviet tanks, and more German forces available for the Soviet front. I am not saying that the progress in distance terms would have been any different; that was dictated by logistics. What I am saying is that once things settled into a meat grinder, there would have been more German resources to feed into the meatgrinder, raising the possibility that they could finish the Soviets. Even up until 1945, the Wehrmacht was quite capable of clobbering the Soviets on the tactical level, it was just that they had run out of resources to do anything about it on the operational, strategic and grand strategic levels.

If the Soviets simply run out of men, then even the Russian winter won't beat the Germans.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.

==========================================

Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 1947
Date of Post: (05/29/03 14:55:36)

The problem with invading Russia is you can't win by capturing territory, the nation is too large and the communication lines too poor. Not attacking simply means a Russian invasion of Germany several years later. The only other option is a limited invasion followed by a war of attrition, using a mobile a defence and the holding of the Ukraine with its oil and wheat to grind down the Union. Not much chance of that happening though, Germany doesnt have the resources.

The Nazis got them selves between a rock and a hard place and died for it.

"As your attorney, I advise you to not listen to reason" Non Sequitur

==========================================

Username: Peter David Hall
Nickname: Let Us Prey
Number of Posts: 112
Date of Post: (05/29/03 16:06:14)

Acting like homicidal maniacs probably didn't help the German cause much either. I'd imagine that it'd take quite a bit of effort to make living under Stalin the preferred lifestyle choice but the Nazi's seem to have managed it.

==========================================

Username: Mike Kozlowski
Nickname: Let Us Prey
Number of Posts: 4611
Date of Post: (05/30/03 05:43:16)

...Peter hits the nail right on the head. Had there been somebody in the Nazi regime with an ounce of sense, there's a very good chance that they would have been able to recruit enough folks from the occupied territories to make the survival of the USSR a genuinely problematical thing. The folks in the Baltics, the Ukraine, and Belarus loathed Stalin, and they welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators. Even after the Nazis showed their true faces, the number of collaborators was still unnervingly high.

Mike

"...Cry Woe, Ruin, and Decay - but the worst is Death, and Death shall have His day."
--Shakespeare, Richard III, Act II, Scene II

==========================================

Username: Supatra
Nickname: Let Us Prey
Number of Posts: 2312
Date of Post: (05/30/03 06:00:17)

This is standard staff question think perhaps for every military college in the world. Was there better way of Germany to invade Russia? Big lesson to be learned from the discussion is this. Strategy operations tactics all teach the art of the potential. Logistics teaches the art of the possible. Look on it this way. Thoughts on strategy on operational art on tactical skills all show what can be achieved if done right. But logistics tells only things that are possible. Is no point in discussing what happens if armored division is put into this area if logistics say that it cannot be supplied with fuel and ammunition.

So perhaps best place to start is look at Russia on map. Large map so can see all of country in one look. Please to see how country is shaped. Is like funnel with narrow end at Polish border widening as go further east. By time get to Moscow front is three times longer than was at startline. If no extra units are available then this mean each unit in attacking force must cover three times as much front as was at start. This is bad figure for subtle reason. Frontage for defending unit is three times greater than for attacking unit. If battalion has attacking frontage of 2 kilometer then same unit has defending frontage of 6 kilometer. So this mean that by time attacking unit reaches Moscow extension of front for coverage almost certianly mans unit commanders are thinking of defense not of attack.

Now we come to next problem. Supplies for attacking army can move by road or railway. Railway is most efficient way of moving supplies for great distances. In Second World War for most armies to move supplies was rail. Do not have enough trucks to depend on these for supply. So railways move supplies close to where needed are moved rest of way by truck. But railway has limited capacity. How much depends on many things but most is number of tracks. Single track railway has limited capacity for two trains cannot go in different directions on same track. If have single track railway only one train can be on packet of track between sidings. But if have double track railway then capacity is much much higher. Because only restriction on number of trains is safety distance between them.

So next important thing is where are railways in Russia? This is such important thing to know that Russians treat it as top secret information. Once Stu tell me all information Russians release on such things is wrong is disinformation cannot be trusted. Do not quite believe this so do check. Is right all Russian maps are much distorted. Rivers towns are in wrong places often by many hundreds of kilometers. Maps show towns that do not exist show empty country where is big town. Most important transport shown on map is for imagination only. Railways are in wrong places roads are in wrong places. Some railway links not shown others shown do not exist. Before war start recon flights over Russia to map where railways roads really are. But German recon aircraft are short range for size of Russia so Germans do not know far inside. All they know is what is close to border.

This show three railway systems running east. One is in North one in in Center one is in South. Names sound familiar na? Army Group North? Army Group Center? Army Group South? Is right size and structure of these is determined by railway capacity to support. Is a little to spare for each certainly but not so very much. So if AGN does not move AGS can be strengthened little bit but not so very much. Logistics see art of possible?

Now we have next problem. Is for certain Russians will destroy railway as they retreat. For certain as certain as sun rise in east set in west. So Germans know that they must rebuild railway as they move east. Ability to move supplies by truck is not great so distance they can do this is limited. Now we have realization. Maximum speed of advance is not set by resistance of Russians is set by ability of German engineers to rebuild railways. Rebuild two ways. One is to repair damage other is to convert railway from Russian width to German width. These are very different trains on one cannot run on other. Together these take time. Germans know this make preparations have many units of skilled engineers to rebuild railways waiting. But still work takes time. It take time to repair blown up railbed to replace burned railway sleepers to fix rails twisted and bent. To save time Germans cannibalize railway system to keep key lines running. But in doing this for many areas they reduce double track to single. As we see this reduce capacity of railway to supply most severely.

So to look at this as staff problem already logistics has told us how few things are possible. Have told us where troops can attack in what numbers. Have told us how far troops can advance in given time. All of this is nothing to do with German strategy is nothing to do with what Russians do. Is just logistics defining what is possible.

Now we have next point. Logistics again. Guess you hate that word now this is so? Remember how Russia is like funnel? How front gets longer as troops move east. But railways do not increase in number instead just get greater distance between them. Soon reach point where distance between rail net is so great troops between cannot be supplied. This mean that holes appear in front where troops cannot be supplied. Given time new rail lines will be built to fill these but time is something no army has enough. Now we have two Russian allies arrive Are good friends these two work well together. Are mud and winter. Mud in Russian is six weeks when everything halt. Thick heavy mud is everywhere. Roads vanish under this. Distance troops can be from railway and keep supply falls to very small amount. Suddenly lengths of front without troops supplied grow. Even troops that have supply run short because of difficulty of moving. And where is mud worst? In south. But worse is to come for one day mud freeze. Cold means supplies can move again almost like before the mud come. But before troops out of supply means are hungry short of ammunition. Now troops out of supply die in cold. You hear of how Germans not expect winter do not have winter clothes? Is not true. German Army have much winter clothes but is in depots of Germany. Is no transport to move it up to front. By time food fuel ammunition is delivered is not capacity for delivering clothes. So German Army starts to die in the snow.

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

==========================================

Username: Beck36
Nickname: Capitalist
Number of Posts: 134
Date of Post: (05/30/03 06:27:47)

I think a synthesis of all the above suggestions would have served Germany well. You limit the invasion in 41 to Ukraine area to grab the oil and food resources then send in the psy ops to recruit opposition forces and regenerate the old Red v White Russian revolt talk. I remeber reading Hans Von Lucks book and he talked of coming into villages in Russia where the people had no clue to who the communists were and asked why Germany was making war against the Tsar. You wait out the winter and spring thaw using the time to build up your logistics and train the new Russian army. Once the thaw is over you go the offensive in the north repeating what you did in 41..take some ground, recruit and convert then regroup.

The only variable is Japan attcking Pearl Harbor, once that happened the threat of Japanese invasion in the east goes away and the 41 Soviet Siberian divisions are released to the west and push a winter offensive in 42. IF Germany can convince Japan to invade from the east in 41 it would enable Germany to drive deeper in 42 with less resistence.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."- Edmund Burke

==========================================

Username: p620346
Nickname: Capitalist
Number of Posts: 433
Date of Post: (05/30/03 13:49:08)

Everyone knows that one of Germany's greatest blunders of WWII was invading Russia.

One might say that Germany's greatest blunder was declaring war on the US.

==========================================

Username: fltcpt
Nickname: Capitalist
Number of Posts: 2597
Date of Post: (05/30/03 15:58:42)

Excellent post Suphi. As usual the professional will always consider logistics and the lack of an effective logistics trail killed the German Army.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

==========================================

Username: IanGibson
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 1004
Date of Post: (05/30/03 16:26:15)

thanks everyone that was pretty much what i was expecting to hear.

One more question:

I heard one time but I can't remember where for the life of me that the Germans and Russians used different gauges for their railroads and that was a significant detriment to moving supplies effectively. is there any truth to that?

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

==========================================

Username: Peter David Hall
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 112
Date of Post: (05/30/03 16:37:07)

Well, according to my copy of Every Boy's Handbook (1976 edition) the USSR used a 5ft 0in (1,524mm) gauge while the rest of Europe (except Portugal and Spain) used a 4ft 8.5in (1,435mm) gauge.

==========================================

Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 1947
Date of Post: (05/30/03 20:23:22)

Just to be clear, there is no oil short of the Caucuses, but the Ukraine does have lots of coal and much of the Soviets aluminum production capability. A Japanese attack against the Russian far east would be hopeless; the IJA would get slaughtered even aginst reduced Russian forces.

"As your attorney, I advise you to not listen to reason" Non Sequitur

==========================================

Username: Zen9
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 1274
Date of Post: (05/31/03 13:49:56)

I think they could have done much better had they not allowed Nazi ideology to interfer with the whole matter.

Had they acted as liberators consistently throughtout the war with Russia then not only woudl that undermine support for Russia from others but also provided a more willing populace in favour of Germany.

==========================================

Username: Peter David Hall
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 112
Date of Post: (05/31/03 16:36:27)

If the Germans hadn't been Nazis in 1941 would they have invaded Russia though?

==========================================

Username: p620346
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 433
Date of Post: (06/01/03 13:35:59)

If the Germans had not invaded Russia in 1941, the Russian probably would have invaded Germany in 1943 or 44.

==========================================

Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 1947
Date of Post: (06/01/03 15:44:59)

That depends on what comes in place of the Nazi's. There where plenty of other groups with similar goals in terms of territory and military strength. You couldn't build an empire in Europe without doing something to take care of Russia.

"As your attorney, I advise you to not listen to reason" Non Sequitur

==========================================

Username: Supatra
Nickname: Let Us Prey
Number of Posts: 2312
Date of Post: (06/02/03 06:42:40)

OK but problem is this. Army sent into south will not be so much larger than original Army Group South. Also structure will not be so much different. So this plan expect most of Army Group Center and Army Group North to sit on butts and do nothing. Now please to look at situation when German advance halt. Is not so far from where did originally in south for this is determined by supply more than any other thing. So we have front now with great bulge in south original line in center and north. This mean front covered by Germans is much longer than original. Mean is long flank exposed to air is hanging out to dry. But is something much worse than this. All Russian troops that are in North and Center are untouched unharmed. These are large reserve of trained troops much larger than Zhukovs siberians. Now when winter comes Russians can feed newly trained reserve troops to hold line use original troops from north and center to strike south and into weak flank of Germans. If are lucky will break through cut railway net. Now we have Stalingrad in 1941/42. German Army in Ukraine dies same was as Stalingrad.

But there is basis of right idea here. Bets way to do this is attack with all three army groups along broad front. Try to destroy as much of Russian Army as possible but do not go deep into Russia. Stop along line of Smolensk so are in supply for winter. Then next spring do another advance. But there is problem this is hindsight. This says we know how large Russian Army was. But Germans do not know this they think Red Army is half of real size. So they always think one more battle one more great encirclement one mroe great victory and war is won. But always are more troops more tanks more Russian soldiers. So German Army go deeper and deeper into Russia seeking one last victory. And then they die in the snow.

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

==========================================

Username: declan64
Nickname: Root
Number of Posts: 1512
Date of Post: (06/03/03 19:34:14)

Colonel

Hindsight shows what the Germans did wrong.

Given the current order of battle of the US, is Russia no longer secure from a conventional invasion, should the Americans hypothetically decide to invade ?

Declan

Cry Havoc and let slip the Hampsters of war.

==========================================

Username: Supatra
Nickname: Let Us Prey
Number of Posts: 2312
Date of Post: (06/04/03 04:53:44)

Staff rule is not to invade Russia from west to east. Has never been done with success. Only way Russia has been invaded with is from east to west.

Still think Russia cannot be invaded. For sure US Army today is more capable than Wehrmacht ever was. But supply problems never change. Roads in Russia are better today railways are more capacity. Most important we have accurate maps now we know where these things are. But is problem still.

Look at Iraq. Allied force is 3ID 1 MEU 101AB 7AD. Total four divisions plus other detachments. These are supported 650 kilometers from base area but this strain US ability to the max. To be 650 kilometers inside Russia with four divisions is not good place. For honest think only conventional threat to Russia come from China. they are in right place have army large enough to do job. And Russians know this.

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

==========================================

Username: Hoahao
Nickname: Hopelessly Hegemonic
Number of Posts: 13916
Date of Post: (06/04/03 05:30:14)

Here's a thought.

We know the result of the Russian invasion into East Prussia during WW1.

A "what if" to explore might be that Germany does not attack, but that the Sovs attack Germany first.
Considering the effectiveness of the Soviet attack on Finland, as well as what happened in WW1, we might conclude that the bulk of the Soviet armies that started could well be destroyed in Poland. A resulting war of attrition might very well result in the same sort of scenario that played out in WW1.

"The shovel is brother to the gun." C. Sandburg

=====================================

Beck36
Posts: 134
(06/05/03 09:57:24)

I thinkn that if the Germans wait for a Soviet attack into Poland, they win. Shorter supply line, ability to dig into defensive positions, air superiority and superior troops and weapons. For the most part the Soviet army as of 1941 in the west was weak and suffered from inexperienced leadership, if they go on the attack they are wiped out in 41 and the Germans move into Russia with little resistence and take Moscow well before winter.

In an earlier post I advocated the Japanese attack in the east. I know they would be chewed up, but it would prevent Stalin from moving the Siberian divisions west to reinforce his forces and counterattack in winter of 41.

"I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."- Andy Rooney

=====================================

Hoahao
Posts: 13916
(06/05/03 10:29:14)
Hopelessly Hegemonic

I forget where, but I think Stuart has a post recently regarding Siberian troop deployment which shows there really wasn't much.

Actually, it's here, Beck.

pub82.ezboard.com... [total URL lost to history]

The beauty of waiting for an attack is that morally, Germany comes out ahead. A massive failure, even if the Germans don't try to go to Moscow, leaves Stalin very shaky politically.

"The shovel is brother to the gun." C. Sandburg

=====================================

Supatra
Posts: 2312
(06/06/03 04:51:14)
Let Us Prey

Stu makes a mistake here. Not in numbers for they are correct but in importance. See the Far Eastern Army was least affected by the purges before WW2 start. Did lose many top men for sure but not so many as other parts of army. So Zhukovs siberians were perhaps nearest thing Soviet Union has to old pre-purge army. Were best parts of army were best trained. So for quality was much more than numbers suggest.

Is another thing to think on here, Much of improvements in German army of 1942 to 1944 are caused by war in Russia. Long barrelled 50 millimeter in Panzer III long barrelled 75 in Panzer IV all are emergency response to discovery of T34 and KV tanks in Russia. Redesign of Panther and Tiger also come from this. So if Germany not hit Russia in 1941 all these will be delayed. If start of war in Russia wait until 1943 is possible none of these happen until 1944. Panther becomes just slight improvement on Panzer III perhaps with 75 L40 perhaps not. Tiger becomes infantry support tank to replace Panzer IV perhaps with 105 howitzer insrtead of 88 gun. So when allies land in 1944 Sherman looks much better tank na?

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

=====================================

Hoahao
Posts: 13916
(06/06/03 07:58:01)
Hopelessly Hegemonic

I think a late start to the eastern front and having it opened by the Sovs would find that air power is even more dominant. Especially since the germans would have access to all weather airfields The Germans might or might not update their tanks due to the lack of engagement with the Sovs, but might due to what is going on in North Africa. They would still have the 88mm flak gun available for use as an anti tank gun. German artillary might prove more decisive the the Soviet.

"The shovel is brother to the gun." C. Sandburg

=====================================

Supatra
Posts: 2312
(06/06/03 08:07:36)
Let Us Prey

Agree with this but who has airpower? Please to remember USSR will be building aircraft as fast as can. Also if attacks first most of its will not be destroyed on ground. All older aircraft will have gone some many Yak fighters many more Il-2 sturmoviks. If Russians strike at German airfields it may be Germans who lose many of aircraft on ground. Can Germans use better mobility better tactical skills if Russians control air?

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

=====================================

Hoahao
Posts: 13916
(06/06/03 08:37:26)
Hopelessly Hegemonic

Well, we know for a fact that the Soviets got caught with their pants down, but we have no idea if the Germans would suffer the same fate. I think that the odds favor the Germans having a superior airforce and more on the ball. The Germans did pretty well at Normandy with absolutely no air support all for a while. If the Germans get caught on the ground they have problems, if they don't, I think the Soviets lose bad.

"The shovel is brother to the gun." C. Sandburg

=====================================

vanvliet800
Posts: 17
(06/07/03 21:47:47)

The Caucasus would have possibly led them to victory. Not only was it the economy of Russia but there were many subject people who would have welcomed the Germans. At one point in time Hitler had the choice to attack Moscow before it was defended properly he rejected this idea to attack the Caucasus.

As great a man Napoleon was an attack at the enemies greatest time of weakness is far more effective than allowing the enemy to fix up.

One kick and the hole rotten structure will just fall over what if the structure was fixed?

=====================================

Supatra
Posts: 2312
(06/09/03 05:29:32)
Let Us Prey

The Caucasus would have possibly led them to victory.

Please remember three most important factors of determining strategy. Logistics logistics and logistics. It is of no concern how nice a move appears on a map if logistics say it cannot be done. And a 1941 attack aimed at the Caucasus oil fields fails no matter how is done. It startline is original for Army Group South then advance achieved is as far as that group can go. Well short of Caucausus. What determine depth of advance here was inability of German Army to move supplies forward. Was not strategy or Russian resistance. Force in Army Group South cannot be increased much for railways cannot carry supply. So Caucasus is out of reach from original start point. Other proposal is to use southern strategy to swing through Turkey. This means Turkey must either enter war on Axis side or be invaded and conquered. We know did not do first so must be second. If Germans invade Turkey they will be like French in Spain during Napoleonic War. Long lasting war of occupation. Is no supply line there for attack on Russia. Even if they occupy Turkey with little effort then is still very poor supply net to support invasion of Russia.

At one point in time Hitler had the choice to attack Moscow before it was defended properly he rejected this idea to attack the Caucasus.

This was 1941 swing south? Was to attack Ukraine not Caucasus. And reason was Moscow could not be attacked for was beyond reach of German Army. Supply again. Attack on Moscow could not be supplied.

Please excuse am so very sorry to be boring by always talk of supply. But please to understand this determine everything that is possible everything that is not. Is no point in saying what wonderful things can be achieved if this army go there if is no way to supply what do. To do what America did in Iraq was miracle of logistics is no other army in world can do what America did there. Great victory in Iraq was one by those who drive supply trucks on roads through Naseriyah and Didiwanyeh. Military miracle only made possible by great skill and by resources no othera rmy in world has. Now take that advance place on map of Russia. It get you exactly nowhere. Place on border of Turkey it not even get you half way to Caucasus oilfield. Now to get what German Army can do please replace American Oshkosh truck with horse and cart.

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

=====================================

Beck36
Posts: 134
(06/19/03 12:02:14)

I agree with the Col. on the military technology angle...without a Soviet winter counterattack the Germans do not advance their tank research. The Panther was the direct result of the battlefield success of the T-34. If you extend that to the Germans waiting for the Sovs to attack then the Panther is not developed till well into 1943-44. If the Sovs attack in 43 with forces built around the T-34 then the Germans are doomed unless their airpower does to the Sovs what the allied air power did to the Germans after Normandy....

I would disagree with the airware assesment. The Sovs would have been building planes at a high rate, but without encountering German planes, they would still be building and flying the inferior planes that then wouldn't have lost in a German attack in 41....or at best flying the P-39's/ P-40's they got through lend lease, which were not much of a match for an FW-190 and at best an even match for the ME-109.

"I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."- Andy Rooney

=====================================

Nick Sumner
Posts: 968
(06/20/03 06:08:08)
Old Friend

Is it fair to say...that the German inability to move supplies to the Caucasus was another upshot of their failure to develop any real seaborne invasion capability?

Forgive my ignorance but surely if the Germans control the shores of Romania and Bulgaria and if Sevastapol can be subdued or rendered useless as a base by airpower then the best way to attack the Caucasus is a seaborne invasion.

Supplies could come down the Danube or through the central European canal system to the Black Sea and there be transferred to larger ships (requisitioned or commandered) to support a beachead.

Not to jump ahead of myself but if the above is true then is it possible to speculate that the principal oversite that denied Germany victory over both the UK and Russia was a failure to develop the capacity to mount and support operations like Overlord?=20

=====================================

Supatra
Posts: 2312
(06/20/03 06:13:29)
Let Us Prey

that the German inability to move supplies to the Caucasus was another upshot of their failure to develop any real seaborne invasion capability?

Is good point had not thought of this. Problem then become to move supplies from point of landing to front line. Also cargo movement over beach. For landing in hostile area is most necessary to have port for supplies. Also what is road rail network like behind beaches for assault? Danger is could end up with situation such as Anzio. Have invasion trapped in narrow beach head cannot move forward because supplies too hard cannot move back because of sea.

Build a man a fire you warm him for a night
Set a man on fire you warm him for all his life

=====================================

David Newton
Posts: 6032
(06/20/03 06:30:44)
Administrator

Given that, one possibility might have been to to for the Crimea, since that has a decent port in Sevastapol. It also has the advantage that it can be defended very easily from the landward side (think that very small isthumus that links it to the Ukraine). That, and a strike into southern Russia as far as the frontline doesn't run out of supplies could be used to start things off. Clearing the Black Sea Fleet would then be the next task, and development of Sevastapol as a forward base. Once Sevastapol is developed, if at all possible, make an amphibious assault in the Caucasus, and strike across the Caspian Sea. Once there, hold against Russian forces to the north, and drive south to the Persian and Turkish borders.

The wrinkle in this strategy, even assuming that there is a German ability to do an amphibious assault is that Persia was historically occupied by British and Soviet troops. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Germans would come up against British troops. I somehow doubt that their logistics would enable them to drive all the way to the Persian Gulf, which would be what would be necessary to beat the British forces at the very minimum.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.

=====================================

Beck36
Posts: 134
(06/20/03 11:34:09)

I think the problem that goes along with the German inability to do seaborne landing craft is the lack of naval presence to support an invasion. The Germans may have controlled the land around the Med but the Brits owned the seas. If a German invasion fleet heads out to Svastapol they have either run or evade the Brit Med Fleet. I don't think the Germans had much more than a U-Boat/DD presence there and wouldn't pose much threat to the the Brits. Not to mention having to still deal with the Black Sea Fleet. They could have diverted ships from the Atlantic but that would have again drawn the Brits in behind them with their Atlantic and home fleets. Not much the Germans can do if they get trapped in the Med with Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisinou versus 3 Brit fleets with aircraft carriers.

"I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude"- Andy Rooney

=====================================

David Newton
Posts: 6032
(06/20/03 11:59:16)
Administrator

If the Germans control Greece, then there is no way that Cunningham can intervene. If they don't, then your scenario could come true.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.

=====================================

Theodore
Posts: 4922
(06/20/03 12:16:11)
Keeper of the Secret Handshake

You don't need to control the Mediterranean to conduct naval operations in the Black Sea. All you have to do is control one of the Black Sea coastlines, which the Germans did.

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17 (NIV)

=====================================

Beck36
Posts: 134
(06/20/03 12:26:27)

True, but to move the assts into the black sea area would entail moving through the med. If the Brit intel got wind of an invasion in the black Sea I don't think they would sit by and let the cargo, supply and military support ships go by on the way to the loading point unmolested...maybe even send in their subs and planes into the area to try to destroy the invasion ships while they are in port or en route to invasion area. Once the Brits destroyed the Italian Fleet in Taranto the Axis had no ability to move about unmolested in the region....

"I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."- Andy Rooney

=====================================

Theodore
Posts: 4922
(06/20/03 12:33:37)
Keeper of the Secret Handshake

I think you need to reread Nick's post, in particular this bit:

"Supplies could come down the Danube or through the central European canal system to the Black Sea and there be transferred to larger ships (requisitioned or commandered) to support a beachead."

They wouldn't need to send anything through the Mediterranean (by the way, the Turks are a bigger obstacle than the British) - they'd use their interior lines of communication. How do you think the Germans managed to operate U-boats in the Black Sea?

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17 (NIV)

=====================================

James1978
Posts: 1020
(06/20/03 18:35:08)
Geography Teacher

What kind of "larger ships" are we talking about? Just what kind of a merchant fleet did Romania and Bulgaria have? Did the Turks have anything worthwhile that could be chartered or bought?

James

You can't spell communist without UN.

=====================================

Beck36
Posts: 134
(06/23/03 12:55:00)

"Supplies could come down the Danube or through the central European canal system to the Black Sea and there be transferred to larger ships (requisitioned or commandered) to support a beachead."

OK, supplies could be brought down the rivers, true. But as James asked what local merchant vessels would be available to mount an invasion? Inevitably the Germans would need to bring in troop ships, merchant vessels and military support ships from outside the region and they would have to GET to the staging area where all the supplies that were brought down the river are amd that would mean traversing the Med. Managing U-boats is one thing wehn you control the shoreline and ports, quite another to plan and carry out a major invasion to take a port city....

"I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."- Andy Rooney

=====================================

Theodore
Posts: 4922
(06/23/03 18:18:07)
Keeper of the Secret Handshake

I don't know what kind of merchant ships were available in the Black Sea. I do know, however, that the Germans dismantled six small U-boats and moved them to the Black Sea by inland routes (overland and overwater), and that the US built a great many landing craft and other small warships inland. What the Germans could have done along those lines, I don't know.

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17 (NIV)

==========================================

Username: Beck36
Nickname: Old Friend
Number of Posts: 134
Date of Post: (06/24/03 06:36:54)

I think the fact that they had to dismantle U-Boats to have a presence in the Black Sea is a good indication why they didn't do any amphibious landings there....How do you mount an invasiion when you have few if no military vessels to protect the invasion force or to do shore bombardment. I doubt if they could get their hands on the size ships needed to move enough men or equipment to mount an adequate invasion to attack a major port in enemy hands.

"I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."- Andy Rooney

==========================================

Username: Nick Sumner
Nickname: Old Friend
Number of Posts: 968
Date of Post: (07/04/03 13:51:40)

Perhaps this idea is so daft that it deserves only rapid dismissal but I thought I might float it anyway; What about using airships/Zeppelins as transport aircraft?

Due to disasters such as that which overtook the Hindenberg and the R101 airships fell out of fashion with graet rapidity in the late 30's but for military operations the dangers of uilising them might constitute an acceptable risk. Lets consider the pros:

1. Large payload

2. They are quicker than many forms of land transport (especially horse and cart and probably not much slower than freight trains)

3. If used mostly at night they would suffer little interference from the Red Airforce which in the early days of Barbarrossa wasn't causing the Germans many headaches at all.

4. Unlike trains or trucks they are not tied to roads or rails.

5. The Macon (an American airship) could carry a payload of about 70 tons at about 50kts (cruising) for about 500 miles. how does that compare to trains?

Plausible? Or silly?

==========================================

Username: Robert Barrow
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 52
Date of Post: (07/04/03 18:35:11)

70 Tons per airship trip compared to trains moving supplies?

That is much like counting the grains of sand on a beach. It takes a very long time unless you have airships numbered in the tens of thousands flying 24/7.

Trains carry much more tonnage than trucks can on roads. They are also travel much faster. The "rule" of thumb in Africa was a truck burned it entire cargo while driving some 700 miles.

The German wargame before Russia 1941 showed that they could advance about 300 miles and they would have to pause to build up supplies. Just like the real invasion.

The other problem was that the Germans were not a motorized army. Most of their army moved by foot or horse.

They also filled up much of their truck equipment from captured Allied material. A big problem with replacement parts and having dozens of different types of vehicles in your inventory. Want to order a spare fuel pump for a 1939 Czech vehicle?

Regards,
Robert

==========================================

Username: Sea Skimmer
Nickname: Interstellar Warlord
Number of Posts: 1947
Date of Post: (07/05/03 16:36:27)

Its far hard to defend the Crimea then you seem to be thinking, the northern and eastern shores must be guarded heavily as well. Russia twice launched major invasions of it against the Germans using hoards of small boats. The distances are sufficiently short that you can launch a counter invasion without needing major amphibious vessels. The ports communications to the rest of Russia are also unimpressive, a single railway line as I recall.

There is also the simple matter of capturing Sevastopol, it was quite well defended with many major forts mounting heavy guns, and while the only naval gunfire the Germans could call on would be some Romanian destroyers. Historically the siege lasted so long the 800mm Dora could be brought up and assembled after all.

"As your attorney, I advise you to not listen to reason" Non Sequitur

==========================================

Username: Nick Sumner
Nickname: Old Friend
Number of Posts: 968
Date of Post: (07/10/03 10:08:47)

How about using airships as prime movers for high bulk low weight cargoes - ie winter clothing. if each soldiers winter gear weighed about 50 lbs (possibly an over - estimate but it would be in some sort of packaging) then 100,000 sets could be moved for each ton of airship capacity.

then there's the possibility of using them in 'sky crane' roles. Why not carry sections of railway track to repair damaged sections? Presumably the Russians blew up parts of track when they retreated. Most of the ballast wouldn't go far and if a section of damaged track could be cut out, chucked aside and replaced with a ready made length with rails and sleepers already constructed then repair might be much quicker.

==========================================

Username: edgeplay cgo
Nickname: Fix bayonets
Number of Posts: 9309
Date of Post: (07/10/03 14:09:30)

then there's the possibility of using them in 'sky crane' roles. Why not carry sections of railway track to repair damaged sections? Presumably the Russians blew up parts of track when they retreated. Most of the ballast wouldn't go far and if a section of damaged track could be cut out, chucked aside and replaced with a ready made length with rails and sleepers already constructed then repair might be much quicker

Getting the positional control necessary to use an airship for a crane would have been impossible then. It's barely possible, now.

The most efficient method of laying track quickly is to lay panel track off the front of a work train. It requires a crane car, flat cars of rail, and a couple of switching engines. The biggest bottleneck in this, is shuffling the flatcars of rail to the front.

I don't know how the Russians demoed their tracks. I once saw some film of the Germans demoing track with a ripper tooth pulled by a loco. They just drove forward, shearing every tie. The rails turned to spagheti all by themselves. I guess you could do this at about 5 kph.

- Dennis
--
Victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be;
for without victory there is no survival.
-Sir Winston Churchill

==========================================

Username: Robert Barrow
Nickname: Banned User
Number of Posts: 52
Date of Post: (07/12/03 12:24:58)

I quess that you missed the movies of a train pulling a giant "hook" behind it as it retreats. Rips the wooden ties in the railroad track apart. Doesn't do anything very good for the grading either. When you are in a hurry to leave, use one of these hooks and rip the wooden ties to bits.

With a couple of hours to occupy your time, I seem to recall that the Union Army in the American Civil War took rails and after heating them, bent them into circles or U-shaped pieces.

The Germans could not use the captured Russian railroad lines until they relaid the tracks. The width was 6-8 inches different from European vs Russian railroad lines. If you destroy the wooden ties and in addtion bend the metal tracks, you may give the Germans additional problems.

The German Army had something fairly close to three million men left after the 1941 losses. 3,000,000 times 50 pounds each is 75,000 tons or 1,072 airship runs. Maybe 900 or so airship runs if the combat losses were a bit higher.

100,000 sets of winter clothing times 50 pounds each equals 5,000,000 pounds. Something about 36 runs at 70 tons each by airships. Isn't some Russian pilot going to try for the record books by flaming your airship?

Assuming that your chosen "gas" for "lift" does not burn, fighters shooting machine guns and rockets could be a problem and I seem to recall bombs attached to long wires being dropped in front of bomber formations. An airship might be a very nice target for such an attack.

I should think that they would draw an unusually large amount of attention. Partisans might report their passing over and a fighter/bomber unit might want to intercept?

I cannot imagine the Russians not wanting to interfere.

Maybe the Germans will escort the airships. The did not do too well escorting bombers over England, perhaps escorting a "very large" and "very slow" target over Russia would be more challenging.

Regards,
Robert

==========================================

Username: Meeware
Nickname: Banned User
Number of Posts: 55
Date of Post: (07/16/03 03:15:25)

Leaving assside the interesting theatre logistics discussions for a moment, I'd like to make the discussion aware of the wider war context of the period we're discussing, and in particular it's very real and pertinent logistical elements:

Had the Nazis not invaded Russia in 1941, and intead concentrated upon a defensive position in poland, and a perhaps a concerted rationalisation of the occupied territories in the east (thus consolidating their potential reation forcess to any Russian agression) there are a number of theatres elswhere that could have panned out quite differently:

The domestic Russian theatre could have continued to suffer rolling purges, eventually reaching even Zukhovs forces. Its unlikely that projects like the T34 would have emerged quite so quickly, defined as they were by urgent operational needs that, sans Barbarossa, would not have been apparent.

The African theatre, and the Mediteranean would have been under a more concentrated Nazi stranglehold. One would not like to predict the fate of bastions such as Maltaa, but what is fairly certain is that Cairo and the Egyptian based British forces would have been under a greater threat.

The Battle of the Altlantic could have panned out quite differently. greater resources applied not just to U-boats, but also to U-Boat development, could have potentially matched allied developments that in the event outstripped Nazi efforts. If this gaap in technology was even slowed, the toll on allied shipping would have forced some very diffficult decisions in the UK. True, the soviets would not have ben demanding as much kit, leaving more available for the UK's own defense, but even then, a squeezed Atlantic sealift effort makes the whole of Europe far more secure for Germany.

The Northern approaches and Norweigian campaign become less critical then, and vessels such as the Tirpitz and others based up there become available for sea control and raiding, perhaps even in the Med!
In short, the postponement of Barbarossa has the capacity to change Germany from a continental power to a balanced or even maritime force, thus challenging the logistical efforts of the UK and the 'ur-allies' we had at that time.

==========================================

Username: DocMartyn
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Number of Posts: 3389
Date of Post: (07/16/03 04:38:34)

On railways and their destruction - I love this peace of knowlege.

The Dutch called the clip that help the rails to the wooden sleepers, "Sabots", or shoes.

During a railway strike the workers stopped the trains from working by removing the "Sabots".

Hence the word:-Sabotage

Two cannibals are eating a clown.
One says to the other: "Does this taste funny to you?"

==========================================

Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Number of Posts: 7088
Date of Post: (07/16/03 05:11:45)

There are a lot of very iffy assumptions there.

The domestic Russian theatre could have continued to suffer rolling purges, eventually reaching even Zukhovs forces.

Could have done but probably would not have done. Its not spmething the Germans could have betted the pot on and sitting and waiting for a Russian assault is betting the pot.

Its unlikely that projects like the T34 would have emerged quite so quickly, defined as they were by urgent operational needs that, sans Barbarossa, would not have been apparent.

The T-34 was under development long before Barbarossa. If anything, the German assault delayed its production and service, nota ccelerated it. What would get delayed are the German responses to the T-34 and KV-1. No Tigers, no Panthers.

The African theatre, and the Mediteranean would have been under a more concentrated Nazi stranglehold. One would not like to predict the fate of bastions such as Maltaa, but what is fairly certain is that Cairo and the Egyptian based British forces would have been under a greater threat.
Actually, by no means certain. The problem would be keeping a North African Army supplied. Now if Malta was eliminated that might be easier.

The Battle of the Altlantic could have panned out quite differently. greater resources applied not just to U-boats, but also to U-Boat development, could have potentially matched allied developments that in the event outstripped Nazi efforts.

I fail to see the logic here. Why should the lack of a land war in Russia change the thrust of technology development in a naval war in the Atlantic? This just doesn't make sense.

The Northern approaches and Norweigian campaign become less critical then, and vessels such as the Tirpitz and others based up there become available for sea control and raiding, perhaps even in the Med!

Oh nonsense. There is no way teh Geramsn will send a battleship to the Mediterranean and if they tried it would be blown out of the water. The days of surface raiders were over by 1943. Tirpitz et al were sent up to Norway because they weren't any good for anything else. If Germany had an organized and balanced battlefleet, then there is a case that some strategic options become available but they didn't so there weren't. The best use for Tirpitz et al was just what the Germans did with them - stick them somewhere hard to get at and play fleet-in-waiting.

In short, the postponement of Barbarossa has the capacity to change Germany from a continental power to a balanced or even maritime force

This is a coulda shoulda woulda. In otherwords a highly unlikely concatenation of events leading to a preposterous conclusion. The most likely outcome of a German defensive posture in the East is a Russian attack in 1943 or 1944 - by an army far better equipped and trained than the one that was dismantled in 1941. However its irrelevent in any case; the political orientation of Nazi Germany made the attack on Russia inevitable.

The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.

==========================================

Username: Meeware
Nickname: Banned User
Number of Posts: 55
Date of Post: (07/16/03 05:54:41)

Sorry if the wilder aspects of the speculation were way wide ofthe mark, I certainly didn't wish to lower the admirable intelectual rigour applied in the debate. Apologies on my part are perhaps bolstered by my noobiness (though I have lurked a while).

To back up a couple of my points (in all humility as I recognise the logic of their initial refutation):
the T34 was indeed in gestation for a long while, but its introduction to service is arguably a product of the sudden recognition of its utility. By 1941 the Nazis had already demonstrated ably the capabilities of their armour against the obsolete armies of eastern and western europe, but the massively complex tanks that the russians had for a while at that point relied upon were fundamentally untested, and nothing in the far eastern front would have suggested their operational weaknesses. Yes the t34 would have appeared, but potentially not in time to spearhead a Soviet invasion of Poland a year later, nor, importantly, would it necessarily have appeared in the massive and very well supported armour formations that characterised the victorious red army of the later war years. In short, the key point here is that the armoured might of the soviet army was the direct response to the armour of the Nazis rolling in.

Re the atlantic theatre, U-Boats in the atlantic in world war two were little different to their predecessors some twenty five years previously. Toward the end of the war the type XXI vessels were developed, and though they never saw action, its generally recognised that they would have represented a massive leap forwards in capabilities. It is argued that this development would have been possible earlier, and most of the technologies were in fact introduced to the fleet piecemeal from 1943 onwards. The major reaason cited for this delay is usually the concentration of limited resources upon the land forces fighting an increasingly desparate battle on the eastern front. Thats the logic, and I agree its a mass of conjecture, but thats what I (clearly erroneously) thought we were engaged in here.

Re the med, granted my argument rested upon a great many other assumptions which are open to question, but the basic premise I wish to put forward is that a North African campaign would, should Barbarossa not have happened, have been the primary land campaign of the Nazi forces for at least a year. With more focussed support it is not beyond the realms of the imagination to concieve of a well supported Africa Corps under Rommel and supported by sea, sweeping significantly further east than was in fact managed. As you say, the status of bastions such as Malta is certainly open to question, and thats just what i am doing. Lets explore this chain of though: An increased U-Boat presence in the Med, diminished convoys to Malta, Malta falls or at least no longer offers significant hinderence to Axis shipping, all supplies to Cairo go the long way around (including through the increasingly dangerous North Atlantic). Oil fields of Libya secured by the Axis. At this stage the logistical balance of that campaign has significantly swung, and the Axis has effectively removed the southern flank from predation by the Allies (at this point still only the UK with commonwealth, plus appreciable lend lease from the US).

probably the greatest single factor I have failed to take into account is indeed the nature of the grand strategic vision of the Nazi regime. They were indeed bonkers. For any of this to have panned out very much differently from the way it in fact did, not only would Barbarossa have to have not happened, but the Nazi's would have had to abstain from declaring war on the US. At this point I scratch my head and really begin to spin out Fairy Tales, and scary ones at that!

==========================================

Username: Seer Stuart
Nickname: The Prince of Darkness
Number of Posts: 7088
Date of Post: (07/16/03 06:42:01)

The T34 was indeed in gestation for a long while, but its introduction to service is arguably a product of the sudden recognition of its utility. ... snip ... Yes the t34 would have appeared, but potentially not in time to spearhead a Soviet invasion of Poland a year later, nor, importantly, would it necessarily have appeared in the massive and very well supported armour formations that characterised the victorious red army of the later war years. In short, the key point here is that the armoured might of the soviet army was the direct response to the armour of the Nazis rolling in.

The T-34 was in mass production before The Great Patriotic War started along with the KV-1. I suspect that without the attack in 1941 we may have seen more experimental/special role versions (like the infamous KV-2) but also more advanced models beingd eveloped (perhaps using those mysterious 107s) . As to organization, it really depends on too many indefinates to guess. Remember though, the Russians had had experience of doing it right (Khalkhin Ghol) and doing it wrong (Finland) before WW2.

Re the atlantic theatre, U-Boats in the atlantic in world war two were little different to their predecessors some twenty five years previously. Toward the end of the war the type XXI vessels were developed, and though they never saw action, its generally recognised that they would have represented a massive leap forwards in capabilities.

What snarled Type XXI up was that a lot of the technical problems took time to resolve. Also, the Germans got caught flat-footed; their initial submarine campaign had been very successful, giving them the idea that what they needed was large numbers of existing U-boats. If we look at the history of the Atlantic, the change in fortunes came very fast indeed (la few weeks). The Germans were left with a mass-production infrastructure producing the wrong U-boats. Converting that to an entirely new design was a serious difficulty. Hence my comments; the dynamics of the war in the Atlantic were independent of the war (or lack of it) in the east.

North African Campaign
Most supplies for North Africa went via the cape anyway, very little went across the Med (which raises the interesting question, what were we doing there). I don't see that German domination of the med would have made that much difference - the supply route would have been less interdicted but its still a serious bottleneck. Also, remeber Torch was mounted from the US so that isn't affected. I can see that a reinforced Afrika Corps would be a greater threat but decisively so?

The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.

[Poohbah]

One other thing: the Germans would have to duplicate the entire Russian coaling/watering infrastructure, because German locomotives had about 1/2 the range of their Russian counterparts.

[Lukexcom]

I think it’s worth remembering that ultimately, no matter who is in charge of Germany, if their rearmament drive even remotely targets the levels historically achieved then Germany must loot and plunder anything and everything it can get its hands on, and do so as quickly as possible. Any attempt to not do so will result in an economic collapse.

So the invasion of Russia (and all the other prior conquests) must and will occur. And it will fail in all circumstances, because the only way a German soldier would ever get to Magnitogorsk or Sverdlovsk is on an eastbound POW train.