Germany Attacks Russia in 1942 not 1941

[Glider]

Germany as we know turned its attention to Russia after the fall of France and the BOB.
The scenario I am suggesting is that instead of turning to Russia after the BOB, Germany concentrated on the Middle East and captured the area with its vital oil resources.
As a result Germany can attack Russia in 1942 with secure oil supplies at a time of its choosing weather wise. Germanys main tanks PzIV and PzIII will have been equiped with the 75L43 and 50L60 respectively and the PzII converted to Marder SP AT tanks. In addition the German airforce would have been able to plan for the more strategic role that would be of assistance in Russia, plus the German airforce would have had time to increase its size and change its balance thinking of additional transport aircraft.
Granted Russia would have more T34 and KV1 tanks but the PzIV would be able to handle them but the Russian airforce would still be heavily outclassed in quality.

The question is, would Russia survive?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think Russia would have been more prepared.

A better question is if Stalin would have waited for Germany to invade him.

[Civettone]

One of my favourite what-ifs

How is the situation with Britain and the US? I can imagine the British trying to counterattack in the Middle East? Did Germany declare war on the US?

I also don't think it's realistic to have those Marders in 1942 nor those tanks with better guns.

From AchtungPanzer.com:
Germany's Waffenamt started development of the Marder series of self-propelled anti-tank guns in late 1941 to increase the mobility of Pak (anti-tank) weapons by mounting them on a variety of available chassis. The Germans saw a need for this vehicle type in the summer of 1941 with the appearance of new Soviet armored fighting vehicles, especially the T-34/76 series of medium tanks and the heavy KV series tanks. It was another "interim solution" implemented to fill the gaps until more effective and perfected designs could be developed.

Also the Pz IIIJ with the L/48 gun was produced until July 1942, together with the Pz IIIJ with the L/60 gun. The Pz IV with the L/43 entered service around around May.

It's your scenario but I don't think it's realistic that these tanks were produced sooner as they actually were without the threat that caused them to be produced.

You also talk about the AF but what I would really like to know is, what about logistics? Does Germany have more trucks and halftracks now that it has the fuel for them?
Kris

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think Russia would have been more prepared.

A better question is if Stalin would have waited for Germany to invade him.

Very true.

[Negative Creep]

Did Russia have the resources to invade in 1941 though? Certainly Stalin wanted to invade at some point, but the army still hadn't recovered from the purges, and much of the equipment was still well out of date. Stalin was caught off guard when Hitler invaded, despite being warned to the contrary numerous times. There weren't nearly enough men and equipement in the border regions for a full scale invasion, and building them up would have taken time.

If Germany had invaded in 1942, only earlier in the year, they would have had more time to capture Moscow or Leningrad before winter set in. If either or both of those had fallen, would there have been any way back for Stalin? From a German perspective the whole campaign seems to be a case of missed oppertunities and mis-management by Hitler, as the country was there for the taking

[Civettone]

There's a book called "Icebreaker" by Suvorov who says that Hitler invaded Russia as a pre-emptive strike. There are two parts in this which can be seen seperately: Did Russia want to invade Germany? and Did Germany invade Russia because of that?
I don't believe in the second part but I have to say that the author has several good arguments which indicate that Stalin was very close to attacking Germany. And that part of the success of the German forces was because Stalin had ordered the defensive positions and installations to be given up and to prepare for the attack. That's why the Germans found hardly any resistance when they crossed the borders.
Well, there's much much more, and a shortened version could found on the internet.

Kris

[royal744]

Originally Posted by Civettone

One of my favourite what-ifs

You also talk about the AF but what I would really like to know is, what about logistics? Does Germany have more trucks and halftracks now that it has the fuel for them?
Kris

Excellent question. It continues to strike me that in general the German Army was not very mechanized despite its fearsome reputation. Highly mechanized forces followed by mile upon mile of horse-drawn carts showed either a failure of imagination, or possibly a lack of fuel and trucks and perhaps both. Even at the time of Dunkirk, the British Army was considerably more motorized than the German army.

The brutal math of war is that if you decide to manufacture a lot of a new thing - such as trucks - you are at the same time deciding to NOT manufacture a lot of something else. The Russians would have laughed if the Americans had offered to send them thousands of Sherman tanks since theirs were so much better. But the Russians weren't laughing when the US sent them thousands upon thousands of Studebaker trucks which gave the Russians a whole new lease on life supply-wise.

I have always thought that the Germans in time of war were entirely too finicky about perceived "quality" of appearance and am reminded that when Hitler was shown some Russian tanks he sniffed that they were obviously of low quality. They were rough all right, but they were finely machined - it was pointed out - only where they needed to be.

Oh well!

[royal744]

There's a book called "Icebreaker" by Suvorov who says that Hitler invaded Russia as a pre-emptive strike. There are two parts in this which can be seen seperately: Did Russia want to invade Germany? and Did Germany invade Russia because of that?

I don't doubt that Stalin loathed and feared Hitler and that the Grofasz returned the sentiment in spite of their cynical treaty. We who have no crystal balls will just have to guess, but a bigger mistake could not have been made by Hitler if he had set up a National Council of Stupid Errors. Of course hubris played a very large part in this decision - the certainty in his bones that, in the words of Goebbels, Russia was "so rotten that you only had to kick in the door and the whole thing would collapse" (I paraphrase).

That and the fact that he did win the Battle of Britain which in his terms was the same thing as losing it. Turning to Russia he may have sought easier meat to swallow, but did he look at a map first? A simple geography lesson would have told him "Germany is this big; Russia is THIS big. The deeper you go into Russia, the bigger (wider) it gets. Oh, and if the Russians move their armaments production facilities beyond the Urals, we will not have an air force with the right kind of planes to attack them."

Well, history is full of second guessers and I am one of them, but a few simple questions should have been asked first.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Civettone

One of my favourite what-ifs

How is the situation with Britain and the US? I can imagine the British trying to counterattack in the Middle East? Did Germany declare war on the US?

I also don't think it's realistic to have those Marders in 1942 nor those tanks with better guns.

From AchtungPanzer.com:
Germany's Waffenamt started development of the Marder series of self-propelled anti-tank guns in late 1941 to increase the mobility of Pak (anti-tank) weapons by mounting them on a variety of available chassis. The Germans saw a need for this vehicle type in the summer of 1941 with the appearance of new Soviet armored fighting vehicles, especially the T-34/76 series of medium tanks and the heavy KV series tanks. It was another "interim solution" implemented to fill the gaps until more effective and perfected designs could be developed.

Also the Pz IIIJ with the L/48 gun was produced until July 1942, together with the Pz IIIJ with the L/60 gun. The Pz IV with the L/43 entered service around around May.

It's your scenario but I don't think it's realistic that these tanks were produced sooner as they actually were without the threat that caused them to be produced.

You also talk about the AF but what I would really like to know is, what about logistics? Does Germany have more trucks and halftracks now that it has the fuel for them?
Kris

Kris
Taking it one step at a time. If Germany had won in the Med then I don't see the British being able to counterattack as Germany will be in a strong position to force Spain to at least allow German forces to capture Gibralter.

The comment on the PzIV are fair but the PzIII I believe could easily have been produced with the 50 L60 it was in production during 1941 and the gun is based on the standard AT gun of the time. I also believe that the Marder would have been a logical thing for the Germans to produce. PzII was close to useless and the Germans would want more flexibility for their guns given the distances involved.
Stug III's equiped with the 75L43 are also a feasible option for the same reasons.

Logistics were without doubt the make or break factor in Russia. Giving the Germans 12 months to prepare and secure fuel supplies an increase in the logistics is not unreasionable.

The airforces are a key point. The early Russian monoplanes had all sorts of problems and were pushed into production due to the invasion. As a result I wold expect the airforoce to be largly equipped with biplanes and I16's. Against 109F/G and Fw190 this would be easy pickings.
Any Russian Army would face serious difficulties from air attack.

It should also be remembered that Germanys attack on Russia was compromised by a diversion due to the need for oil. This wouldn't be the case in 1942 where all resourses could be used to go for Moscow.

David

[Njaco]

from Civettone - There's a book called "Icebreaker" by Suvorov who says that Hitler invaded Russia as a pre-emptive strike. There are two parts in this which can be seen seperately: Did Russia want to invade Germany? and Did Germany invade Russia because of that?

I think Stalin would have been content to sit back and watch what Hitler was doing and then pick up the pieces. The two nations did have an non-aggression pact and waiting until 1942 I don't think would have changed much for the Russians.

Hitler on the other hand couldn't wait. It was the core of his being and quite possibly the reason for the whole war for him to attack Russia. The Russians were to be wiped off the face of the earth according to his doctrine. In hindsight 1941 was a poor time to launch an invasion but look at what had happened since 1939.

After his generals had suggested 1942 or later for the start of the war, Hitler rolls through Poland, Norway, France and the Low Countries. BOB was a failure but he really didn't want to attack Britain as he saw them as a part of brothers in arms and was pushing for them to come to some type of peaceful terms. Norway was harder but he prevailed. His ego was stoked and nothing could stop him. Start the invasion later? Nonsense!! He knew better and his real enemy would soon fall. Hence June 22, 1941.

This is just a condensed version, its much more complicated than this. If it started in 1942, I don't think Russia would be that much further along. They would have been complacent. And the advances in the Panzers wouldn't have happened. It took the T-34 to realize that. The Luftwaffe might have been a different story, maybe better planes and tactics based on the failures of BOB but still utilized in support of the Army. Still no long-range bomber. But would Moelders still be around or Galland?

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Glider

Kris
Taking it one step at a time. If Germany had won in the Med then I don't see the British being able to counterattack as Germany will be in a strong position to force Spain to at least allow German forces to capture Gibralter.

The comment on the PzIV are fair but the PzIII I believe could easily have been produced with the 50 L60 it was in production during 1941 and the gun is based on the standard AT gun of the time. I also believe that the Marder would have been a logical thing for the Germans to produce. PzII was close to useless and the Germans would want more flexibility for their guns given the distances involved.
Stug III's equiped with the 75L43 are also a feasible option for the same reasons.

Logistics were without doubt the make or break factor in Russia. Giving the Germans 12 months to prepare and secure fuel supplies an increase in the logistics is not unreasionable.

The airforces are a key point. The early Russian monoplanes had all sorts of problems and were pushed into production due to the invasion. As a result I wold expect the airforoce to be largly equipped with biplanes and I16's. Against 109F/G and Fw190 this would be easy pickings.
Any Russian Army would face serious difficulties from air attack.

It should also be remembered that Germanys attack on Russia was compromised by a diversion due to the need for oil. This wouldn't be the case in 1942 where all resourses could be used to go for Moscow.

David

Hi David
You say the oil supply is secured so I guess they have possession of Iraq. Do they also have control over Iran and southern Arabia? This is possible though very difficult given the enormous distances to be covered against British defences. But in any case - and you call the shots of course - that would still mean that the British were in Africa and Central Asia. So they could still counterattack from (for instance) Sudan and Pakistan.
So then my question is, how many German forces and weapons have to be kept aside for protecting these large areas and occupied Europe?

I also don't understand why you agree with me on the Pz IVG but disagree on the StuG IIIF and Marder as their guns were available at the same time, and it's widely known that the Russian tanks forced the Germans to produce these new vehicles. This is especially true for the Marder as they were an emergency stop measure. Pz II production continued after the adoption of the Marder as they were quite useful as reconaissance tanks (Pz IIF).

You're also mistaking about the Russian fighters. They were not pushed into production because of the invasion: it happened just before the invasion.

It should also be remembered that Germanys attack on Russia was compromised by a diversion due to the need for oil.

No,this happened in 1942.

Kris

[plan_D]

Germany should have gone for the Middle-East first, they should have forced Turkey into submission as well. Thus when driving against the Soviet Union they had a massive two-pronged assault, one across the border to Poland and one over the Caucasus to sweep up the oil fields there.

There's plenty of problems, but going on sheer force on either side, the Germans have a solid case for victory.

"You say the oil supply is secured so I guess they have possession of Iraq. Do they also have control over Iran and southern Arabia? This is possible though very difficult given the enormous distances to be covered against British defences. But in any case - and you call the shots of course - that would still mean that the British were in Africa and Central Asia. So they could still counterattack from (for instance) Sudan and Pakistan.
So then my question is, how many German forces and weapons have to be kept aside for protecting these large areas and occupied Europe?"

The Middle-East would be held by a mix of German and Italian forces, all of the Mid-East; except maybe Persia, would be held by garrison troops. The British had no viable way of counter-attacking.

The British forces in India were already in a pressured position from Burma in 1942, the Japanese were marching toward Imphal at an alarming rate. Britain was concentrating on the Japanese in Asia, there would not be the force on hand to turn about and attack Germans in Iraq. Britain would have to attempt to land more forces in Asia by going around the Horn of Africa, but since the Germans have opened the Med - the Italian Navy can now roam in open sea which creates more problems.

Remember, Kris, the Allies were fighting the Axis, not just Germany. In Africa there were holding forces of Vichy France and Italy alongside the numercially inferior Germans. Any attack from Eastern Africa (where Britain secured victory in 1941 against Italy) would be held up by German forces or could be cut off from supply by the, now, roaming Italian navy.

Imagine the danger of Italian BBs and German U-boats to the convoys around Africa trying to supply East Africa and Asia? The German, Italian and Japanese naval forces could even link up in the Indian Ocean as Alexandria or Aden would provide fueling stations for all Axis forces.

The realistic option for Britain here would be to push America into Operation Torch to force Germany to pull forces from the Mid-East, easing the pressure on British forces in Asia ... which can then concentrate (as they did) on the Japanese in Burma.

Russia at this time would be in a more dire situation as the Germans would open up the Caucasus earlier, cutting Russian oil supply while increasing their own. The Russians would have no way of forming one solid defence line as they would have the Finnish in the north, Germans in the west and south.

[Civettone]

There are two things I disagree with: the massive two-pronged attack and the British not counterattacking.

I can imagine German forces crossing the Caucasus and attacking the Russians in their belly but due to logistics this can never be a full scale Blitzkrieg invasion and would be limited to mountain warfare and drawing Russian forces to the region. Just look at the supply line which would have to go through Europe, the Mediterranean and Turkey. In the meantime the Russians would have no problem moving forces from one side to another. Imagine that they defeat the Germans in the Caucasus? That could jeopardize the entire invasion as more troops would have to be sent in to secure the Middle East. Although it sounds wonderful I think it's better to use all forces in a big Barbarossa style attack. I advice moving on to the Volga thereby cutting off that part of Russia and the Caucasus as the Russians would be surrounded by water and axis.

Also your comment on the British were already being hard pressed in Burma is not really relevant as the forces that were fighting against Rommel would be different from those fighting against the Japanese. The 8th army (if it's still called that) would have been pushed back to Persia or even Pakistan but could attack the overstretched axis forces at will.
Plus, the British would have less problems with their supplies as their forces fighting the Japs would be close to those fighting the Germans/Italians.

And perhaps a third thing I disagree with (though that was only a sidenote from you) is the Italian navy freely roaming around, even linking up with the Japs in the Indian Ocean. This is impossible because of the limited range of the Italian warships which were optimized for duties in the Mediterranean not the wide oceans.

Kris

[plan_D]

With holdings in Turkey, the German supply head would be smaller. The German forces were well adapted to moutain warfare - and even in a case where the Germans could not go over the Caucasus; the Russians would be spread and held there... while those on the frontier could thrust to the Volga river cutting off those forces in the Caucasus on two sides.

That's with your assumption that 8th Army is pushed back and still has the strength to counter-attack. I have to question; how is the British supply any better ... the med has gone to the Axis ... and Britsh shipping is open to attack from all three Axis navies.

With bases further out and in Axis hands, the Italians have a larger operating circle ... with refueling stations in Aden - or Persian Gulf ...the Italians could easily reach the Indian Ocean.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by plan_D

With holdings in Turkey, the German supply head would be smaller. The German forces were well adapted to moutain warfare - and even in a case where the Germans could not go over the Caucasus; the Russians would be spread and held there... while those on the frontier could thrust to the Volga river cutting off those forces in the Caucasus on two sides.

Yes, that's what I was suggesting. But it's clear that the main assault would have to come from Europe and that the push in the Caucasus would be a diversion to cut off some divivisions once the Germans reach the Volga.

That's with your assumption that 8th Army is pushed back and still has the strength to counter-attack. I have to question; how is the British supply any better ... the med has gone to the Axis ... and Britsh shipping is open to attack from all three Axis navies.

There's no real difference from before. Italian and Japanese navies were incapable or unwilling to stop allied convoys.
It's clear that the supply system would be easier if the 8th army and the forces in Burma would be closer to each other. Also no need to keep the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean. The Italian and German navy were uncapable of keeping a permanent presence on the oceans.

Kris

With bases further out and in Axis hands, the Italians have a larger operating circle ... with refueling stations in Aden - or Persian Gulf ...the Italians could easily reach the Indian Ocean.[/quote]