How Would You Win The War For Germany?

[Ryuujin]

I'm thinking that Germany may have been able to knock Russia out of the war right then and there but if we do something different. I want anyone interested on saying what you would you differently. The rules is simply try to use resources availiable to t he german army at the time.

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.

Now this is where I have to make a choice. Do I A: Wait for the russians to concentrate the bulk of their forces in the salient and away from Moscow or as soon as the Batle of Kharkov finished, pivote the bulk of my forces in Orel and strike north within a few days after of the arrival of reinforcements towards Moscow? 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. 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.

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

[sappernz]

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

[Gnomey]

Originally posted by sappernz@Apr 4 2005, 10:06 AM
Your original question, how would you win the war for Germany, is easy to answer.
Win the Battle of Britain.

Quoted post

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. War won.

[Kiwiwriter]

Same for me...I would not throw the Ju 89 on the junkpile, and build that four-engine bomber. I'd also build landing craft that did not have to be towed across the English Channel, and maintain the attacks on the RAF airfields until I had cleared the skies over Kent and Sussex. After that, See Lowe, as speculated about.

[Michal_Dembinski]

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

[Ryuujin]

The original question:

Yes I was reading "Liddel Hearts: History of the second world war" and I must say that was indeed lack of proper planning on the OKW's part. Now to have any kind of plan for the possibility of invading England. Then there's the 2 day stop on Gudarians advance on to Dunkirk. This is what happens when you have both old foggies in charge of the war and sentimental WWI vets in charge of the country.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally posted by Ryuujin@Apr 4 2005, 07:52 PM
The original question:

Yes I was reading "Liddel Hearts: History of the second world war" and I must say that was indeed lack of proper planning on the OKW's part. Now to have any kind of plan for the possibility of invading England. Then there's the 2 day stop on Gudarians advance on to Dunkirk. This is what happens when you have both old foggies in charge of the war and sentimental WWI vets in charge of the country.

Quoted post

It is easy to say with hindsight what a huge mistake Dunkirk was and how stupid the OKW were but put yourself in their shoes: You've just rumbled half way across France and the operation is going much better than expected. True you've cut off the BEF and French Forces but dont forget that you still have to turn south to face the majority of the French Army still and you're Panzer divisions need refitting. Your Air Force was been absolutely brilliant up to this point and the Commander volunteers to finish the job. You dont need to use your precious Panzer divisions giving them time to refit before the next part of the campaign. Sure it was a mistake but there were reasons, and thank god for them!, why the panzers didnt charge the beaches!!!

Gotthard puts on his helmet, digs a trench and waits for the inevitable artillery response!!!!

[nolanbuc]

In addition to the aforementioned points, I'd like to ask this: 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?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Originally posted by nolanbuc@Apr 5 2005, 11:30 AM
In addition to the aforementioned points, I'd like to ask this: 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?

Quoted post

In the case of the Balkans I would say that it caused a delay but as to whether it was significant I don’t know. It wasn’t possible to launch an attack before April anyway as the weather would not permit a major campaign into Russia. Perhaps the 6 weeks gained would have been crucial but remember that if the Balkans were ignored, would it have been safe to leave pro-allied Governments in Yugoslavia and Greece unchecked whilst you committed all your forces to the attack against Soviet Union? Knowing Chuchill he would have landed troops in Greece and Yugoslavia confident in the knowledge that he could harass the Germans from the Balkans. Also it should be remembered that the only reason that the British didn’t defeat the Italians in North Africa in early 1941 was because at the crucial moment of victory, Wavell was forced to send troops to the Balkans to help defeat the Germans!! So by not invading the Balkans, the Italians would have lost the Med far quicker and thus the British would have had freedom to land a force in the Balkans!!

As for North Africa, I would say initially no. They sent two major formations initially to the North African front and until the Allies invaded Tunisia, Hitler considered it a sideshow. The fact that more men were captured here than at Stalingrad shows you how many troops the Germans poured in here when it was too late. If Hitler had given Rommel more troops earlier, especially after the fall of Tobruk then the outcome would have been different.

[Kiwiwriter]

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.