How Would You Win The War For Germany?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Apr 5 2005, 03:21 PM
One point about the Balkan campaign -- the losses on Crete took the German parachute arm out of the war as a parachute arm. That cut down their flexibility. Instead they had something like nine or 11 parachute divisions in fancy helmets and jackets, very few of which were jump-trained.

Quoted post

Quite right Kiwiwriter but although they weretn jump trained the majority were excellent fighting troops (we won't mention the 9th Parachute on the Seelow Heights!!!) :P

[Ryuujin]

Actually remember it is the raison d'etre of the OKW to plan for every concievable possibility. Also, Hitler ordered the stop not becuase the Panzers had to refuel/rearm but because he felt England would fight like a bull dog if he pressed on. Had he continued on England would've been defenceless.

[laufer]

Originally posted by Michal_Dembinski@Apr 4 2005, 09:08 PM
1) Not persecute the Poles. Work to get them alongside an anti-Bolshevik alliance.
2) Not persecute the Byelorussians. Instead of treating them as sub-humans, arm them to defeat the evil Stalin and his brutal, stupid system.
3) Not persecute the Ukrainians. They welcomed Germans with bread and salt. And were machine-gunned, hanged, buried alive. That's winning hearts and minds for you.
4) Not persecuting Jews, including some of the best minds in Europe. The A-Bomb might have come in handy for destroying Stalin's fastness in Zhiguli.
5) Not persecuting the Baltic nations - becoming their liberators, not their murderers.

Simple really. But Hitler was too stupid and blinded by inhuman hatred to get the message.

And so Eastern Europe suffered a further 45 years of oppression after VE-Day.

Michal

Quoted post

I agree. Germans should have abandoned theirs mad racist ideology and focused on political goals. That could worked. I’m just not sure if Central and East Europe under German hegemony would be better place to live that Soviet one.

[DirtyDick]

One could argue that losing the Battle of Britain would not have seen the UK conquered.

For example, even though stretched to the limit the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered their German adversaries. Without air cover they could have destroyed the German landing forces, albeit with very heavy - yet sustainable - losses, at any stage either before or after the initial landing wave.

The Germans at that time would have been incapable of mounting an airborne assault in the numbers necessary to overwhelm the UK garrison, and given the above, just seizing a beach head would have held little purpose. As already stated, the losses endured on Crete against 20,000 odd rag tag force of lightly armed British and New Zealanders show how vulnerable they were.

Whether this would have left the RN poorly placed to protect her convoys in the short term, and whether the RN presence in the Mediterranean - inferior to the Italians following the collapse of France - would have been sufficient to mount the air attacks on the Italian Fleet during the latter part of 1940, is uncertain.

Richard

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by Gotthard Heinrici+Apr 5 2005, 11:49 AM-->

Quite right Kiwiwriter but although they weretn jump trained the majority were excellent fighting troops (we won't mention the 9th Parachute on the Seelow Heights!!!) :P

Quoted post

[/b]

The German parachute divisions were fine fighters, but losing that vertical envelopment capability hurt the Germans big-time. Crete contributed to Hitler's reluctance to invade Malta.

[sappernz]

laufer is obviously not jewish

[Juanra]

In Russia, not attack stalingrad and go right for moscow when i have the chance(he stopped.) In BOB, kill airfields. In NA, give rommel more supplies and men. Not use all my resources against undesirables and non aryans. STOP MUSSOLINI FROM ATTACKING! NOW!

[Friedrich H]

[[quote]]What I'm thinking is that once the Russians had begun their offencive and Army group center and south were in the process of halting the Russians at Orel and Kharkov, reserve divisions should've been brought up immediatly, about 8 infantry divisions and maybe 4 panzer divisions, more if any other reservers were availiable behind the lines.[/[quote]]

Where would these units come from? Do infantry divisions and tanks grow in trees?

[[quote]]Now, in my mind some 3000 aircraft should be gathered for this counter offencive to provide air suporiority and to strafe the russian rail system to hinder reinforcements going into Moscow.[/[quote]]

Ah! But planes are indeed harvested from plane-crops!

Besides, how is the Luftwaffe going to cut the Soviet's rail communications? Never in the war, even with absolute air supremacy and plenty of artillery support, could the Germans cut any railway going into the battlefield: Stalingrad and Lieningrad being the main examples.

[[quote]]If in my mind Moscow could be taken then I know it would knock Russia out per say but would dislocate the command structure of the USSR until he government could make the transition to Kuibeshev of where ever they would move to, and would demoralize the Red Army.[/[quote]]

Moscow couldn't have been taken… ever. And even if it was taken, even after the severe moral and political blow to the USSR, the country's fighting capabilities are not mortally affected. Industry is still untouched, armies are still in the field… the Soviet Union's survival is still at stake…

[[quote]]Now the question is what would you people do differenly. And not just for Kursk but for any particular battle in Russia.[/[quote]]

You were talking about Kursk?! Even less! After the failure of 'Barbarossa', the German armed forces never reached their same strenght ever again, which, by the way, wasn't enough to defeat the USSR.

[[quote]]Your original question, how would you win the war for Germany, is easy to answer. Win the Battle of Britain.[/[quote]]

This is true to a certain extent, but how did having Great Britain in the war directly affected the outcome of 'Barbarossa'? The Luftwaffe being severely bled? Well, yes. But more planes couldn't turn the tide of the whole campaign. How many divisions were deployed in the West in 1941 (including the ones occupying Greece, France, the Low Countries and Norway and the DAK)? Not even 20. Again, not enough to change the outcome. Or could the Bismarck and the U-Boats do something?

[[quote]]I would agree with that, Britain out the war and a free hand to smash the USSR with all avaliable forces and then work out something with Japan about how to get rid of the US by them taking the West Coast and the Germans moving up through Mexico.[/[quote]]

Of course! Since the Royal Navy would have simply surrendered to the Germans and the US Navy would have only and idly stared at them whilst they crossed the Atlantic…

[[quote]]After that, See Lowe, as speculated about.[/[quote]]

OK. We all know that D-day recquired 4 years of planning, 4 years of amphibious operations to gain enough experience, 2 million men, 16.000 planes, 6.000 ships… to succeed, and still depended on the Channel…

Not in a million years would the Germans could have launched 'Seelöwe' and succeed…

[[quote]]1) Not persecute the Poles. Work to get them alongside an anti-Bolshevik alliance.
2) Not persecute the Byelorussians. Instead of treating them as sub-humans, arm them to defeat the evil Stalin and his brutal, stupid system.
3) Not persecute the Ukrainians. They welcomed Germans with bread and salt. And were machine-gunned, hanged, buried alive. That's winning hearts and minds for you.
5) Not persecuting the Baltic nations - becoming their liberators, not their murderers.
[/[quote]]

This was completely impossible to do. Unless we get rid of Hitler and his thugs… which leads us to NO war at all… Or how in the world was Nazi Germany going to be merciful with those 'sub-human' Slavs?

[[quote]]4) Not persecuting Jews, including some of the best minds in Europe. The A-Bomb might have come in handy for destroying Stalin's fastness in Zhiguli.[/[quote]]

Even with great scientists, Germany didn't have enough industrial or economic power to develop an atomic weapon…

[[quote]]Do you think it would have made a significant difference in the Germany's fortunes if they hadn't had to commit troops to the Balkans & North Africa to bail the Italians out of their messes, all while the Germans were trying to prepare for Barbarrosa?[/[quote]]

No. The troops under Rommel were created specifically for the north African campaign and, therefore, had no rôle in 'Barbarossa'. And they were also too few in numbers to change the result.

As for the invasion of the Balcans. They didn't delay the launching of 'Barbarossa' as oftenly believed. Defrost came very late that year, and the German Army took too long to be motorised properly. This made the invasion impossible prior to the second week of June 1941, not May 15th, as originally planned.

Also, List's XII Army, which performed the invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece, didn't have any specific rôle in 'Barbarossa'. It was a reserve. And its units started reinforcing the 'Barbarossa' armies in August.

[[quote]]One point about the Balkan campaign -- the losses on Crete took the German parachute arm out of the war as a parachute arm. That cut down their flexibility. Instead they had something like nine or 11 parachute divisions in fancy helmets and jackets, very few of which were jump-trained.[/[quote]]

Still, they wouldn't have been very useful in the eastern front. The battlefields are too extense, the formations involved are too large and the battles too long. Paratroopers need to attack by surprise and disarm their confused oponents. This didn't quite match with the way the Iváns fought.

[[quote]]Actually remember it is the raison d'etre of the OKW to plan for every concievable possibility. Also, Hitler ordered the stop not becuase the Panzers had to refuel/rearm but because he felt England would fight like a bull dog if he pressed on. Had he continued on England would've been defenceless.[/[quote]]

Absolutely false. Hitler listened to the advise of his best and most respected general, field marshal Gerd von Rundstedt. The terrain was believed was not suitable for armoured units, those armoured units needed re-fitting and couldn't be wasted, since they were needed for the Somme offensive and to destroy the whole bulk of the French armies. Also, the Luftwaffe could do the job. But Hitler's weather soon vanished and the amount of sorties by the Luftwaffe dropped substantially, as did the RAF's and RN's casualties.

[[quote]]Crete contributed to Hitler's reluctance to invade Malta.[/[quote]]

The other key factor that contributed to this reluctance was Rommel's idiotycal claim: 'I can take Egypt on my own, just gimme the planes!'.

And:

NO Malta = DEFEAT in the Mediterranean

As simple as that…

[[quote]]In Russia, not attack stalingrad and go right for moscow when i have the chance(he stopped.)[/[quote]]

It's more simple than that: don't invade the USSR at all.

USSR: 200.000 inhabitants, 17 million square km of territory and the 2nd largest brute industry on Earth.

Germany: 80.000 inhabitants, 450.000 square km, one third the USSR's industry.

Germany had no chances AT ALL…

[[quote]]In BOB, kill airfields.[/[quote]]

No matter how many airfields you 'kill'. You can't cross the bloody Channel. Again, Germany had no chances at all…

[[quote]]In NA, give rommel more supplies and men.[/[quote]]

Not with the USSR and MALTA in the game… and, of course, not under that mediocre strategist…

[[quote]]Not use all my resources against undesirables and non aryans. STOP MUSSOLINI FROM ATTACKING! NOW![/[quote]]

Agreed…

[Blackblue]

Originally posted by DirtyDick@Apr 7 2005, 02:04 AM
One could argue that losing the Battle of Britain would not have seen the UK conquered.

For example, even though stretched to the limit the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered their German adversaries. Without air cover they could have destroyed the German landing forces, albeit with very heavy - yet sustainable - losses, at any stage either before or after the initial landing wave.

The Germans at that time would have been incapable of mounting an airborne assault in the numbers necessary to overwhelm the UK garrison, and given the above, just seizing a beach head would have held little purpose. As already stated, the losses endured on Crete against 20,000 odd rag tag force of lightly armed British and New Zealanders show how vulnerable they were.

Whether this would have left the RN poorly placed to protect her convoys in the short term, and whether the RN presence in the Mediterranean - inferior to the Italians following the collapse of France - would have been sufficient to mount the air attacks on the Italian Fleet during the latter part of 1940, is uncertain.

Richard

Quoted post

C'mon Dick. And the Aussies!!!

Rgds

Tim D

[Juanra]

Rommel isn't mediocre. He was outnumbered. And the Brits had Shermans!