How Would You Win The War For Germany?

Discussion in 'The Eastern Front' started by Ryuujin, Apr 3, 2005.

  1. Ryuujin

    Ryuujin Member

    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.
     
  2. sappernz

    sappernz Member

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

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    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.
    [post=32862]Quoted post[/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.
     
  4. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    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.
     
  5. Michal_Dembinski

    Michal_Dembinski Junior Member

    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
     
  6. Ryuujin

    Ryuujin Member

    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.
     
  7. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    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.
    [post=32879]Quoted post[/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!!!!
     
  8. nolanbuc

    nolanbuc Senior Member

    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?
     
  9. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    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?
    [post=32905]Quoted post[/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.
     
  10. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    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.
     
  11. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    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.
    [post=32913]Quoted post[/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
     
  12. Ryuujin

    Ryuujin Member

    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.
     
  13. laufer

    laufer Senior Member

    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
    [post=32876]Quoted post[/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.
     
  14. DirtyDick

    DirtyDick Senior Member

    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
     
  15. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by Gotthard Heinrici+Apr 5 2005, 11:49 AM-->(Gotthard Heinrici @ Apr 5 2005, 11:49 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-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.
    [post=32913]Quoted post[/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
    [post=32915]Quoted post[/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.
     
  16. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    laufer is obviously not jewish
     
  17. Juanra

    Juanra Junior Member

    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!
     
  18. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    [
     
  19. Blackblue

    Blackblue Senior Member

    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
    [post=32942]Quoted post[/post]

    C'mon Dick. And the Aussies!!!

    Rgds

    Tim D
     
  20. Juanra

    Juanra Junior Member

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

Share This Page