Ostfront What ifs

[kevinkin]

We have read that in the late winter of '42 German high command decided to take their offensive south and a collision at Stalingrad. Case Blue was preceded by the Second Battle of Kharkov, a Soviet offensive within NE Ukraine. The objective was to capture Kharkov and surrounding road and rail network. This operation - also know as the Izium bridgehead - ended badly for the Soviets. Their attack was cut off by a classic mobile envelopment mid-May '42.

At this point was a change in Case Blue warranted by the Germans or not?

1) focus on the south and Stalingrad as planned

2) change plans and strike towards Moscow

3) change plans and go on the strategic defensive for '42 and into '43.

Please don't kill me for hindsight, but I would op for 3 and try to wear the Soviets

down to a point were a peace would settle on the lines established after the winter '41-42.

Through negotiation, a new boundary would be straightened to avoid salients. I read Rommel

envisioned a North Africa defense based on extensive mines supported tactically by assault guns and operationally by Panzer Divisions so as repeat the Kharkov experience up and down the front. So would begin an arms race.

I believe Rommel also supported a German focus on one type of assault gun and one type of tank to simplify what we now call the "supply chain". Gee - what would those be?

Another thought while reading about the battle was the nature of the fighting.

Ferocious. Selecting this campaign as the first CMx2 installment would not have been too

out of line. Perhaps it is too closely associated with Stalingrad. In any event, the battle

makes for a great read and study. It combines static and mobile warfare with both sides

in pretty good condition and looking for a fight to end the war.

Kevin

Edited April 15, 2015 by kevinkin

[Glubokii Boy]

The timeline '42 to early '43 is the one i'm looking forward to more then  anything...

 

Kharkow, case blue, operation Uranus, winterstorm, operation saturn and so on and so on....Many intresting scenarios can be made here...both historical and fictional...

 

 

some ' what if ' scenarios i'm looking forward to playing-/ trying to make at other dates will be during the '41 timeframe

 

- Prepared, Well lead, well equiped russians at the start of Barbarossa...(that means...no paranoid Stalin having killed every capable officer before the war)

 

- Germans prepared and equiped  for winter warfare during the fall/winter of '41 giving the germans a better chans to succed with operation Typhooon and actually fight for Moscow... 

[hm_stanley]

Whenever I see the "what if's" about the eastern front I can only come away with the feeling that "these what if's" would have lengthened the struggle, not changed it.  I believe firmly, that even if Moscow is taken in '41, the Russians by '43 would have started to roll back the German tide.  When you couple the western front with the eastern front, you can only come away with "they lose.." I am too interested in playing in the '42-43 time period, something along the lines of Velikie Luki or Kharkov 3.. Again, the day the German army stepped into Mother Russia, the war was lost for them, and thankfully.

[kevinkin]

I tend to agree with you which is why I mentioned a temporary stalemate and east front arms race. Perhaps the war would have been longer with the West changing sides to support the Germans. But one could also argue that the German's only hope was to keep attacking to prevent Soviet strategic reformation.

Kevin

[Apocal]

I tend to agree with you which is why I mentioned a temporary stalemate and east front arms race. Perhaps the war would have been longer with the West changing sides to support the Germans. But one could also argue that the German's only hope was to keep attacking to prevent Soviet strategic reformation.

 

Why would we have done that?

[JonS]

Boredom, perhaps? Or maybe a sense of fairplay?

[GhostRider3/3]

I got done reading the book " The Moscow Option"An Alternative Second World War by David Downing.  I have to say with only a couple changes it was very interesting. 

 

AH is in the Hospital in a coma.. Plane wreck, and Keitel is dead.  It begins just about the time in 41 when they decide to either take Kiev or instead head to Moscow.  The Generals agree to attack Moscow because of its communication, industry, and Rail network, also that it would cut off Leningrad and perhaps the Finns would assist the war effort more... it succeeds and by I think mid 1943 they control everything west of the Volga.. there is much more, as Malta is taken, and Rommel succeeds in N. Africa as some divisions had been freed as well as Air Power in Russia.  The end gets a little vague and interesting but it was a decent read.

 

The Germans needed time I think.

 

Probably option 3 if were talking 1942, the Germans were so good at counter-attacking,  and the German Army was fairly strong at the time, losing 6th Army was a huge blow, and that of the DAK by the end of 42-begin 43.  Probably Defend and send some secondary units from Norway, France etc to the DAK, along with a Panzer Brigade. invade Malta at the same time defending in Russia.. Goal is to keep pressure on the UK, and take Egypt and enter Iraq and take the oil there... Then.. maybe Turkey enters the war? who knows.  but there are a lot of interesting what ifs.

[kevinkin]

Why would we have done that?

Well, there was an anti-communist movement in the West. Churchill and the flight of Hess etc.. Stalin at least as evil as Hitler and the Germans historically more aligned with the west. Not a likely switch looking at the situation now. But at the time an opportunity the German high command must have dreamed about after the fact after the Sixth Army was lost. If only Hitler were out the way they must have wondered.

Kevin

[Sublime]

There were also lots of pro communist factions in the west. What does Hess' flight have to do with the west? He.d lost his mind it wasnt planned, he never accomplished anything, he wasnt expected. Besides a post German defeat war of the victors the only way i see the west fighting Russia before 45 is a western declaration of war over Poland in 39 which morally would only have been right considering it was done in the German case. Still wouldnt have happened, the entire Allied "sitzkrieg" strategy was based on a need to strengthen and mass forces before significant engagement with the Germans. And obviously history has proven that the Germans were more than enough despite western outrage over the Russian backstab in Poland and aggression regarding Finland.

[kevinkin]

Hess's flight has been seen as a possible overture to the West. Will never know if it was personal or he was the "front man".

The nature of the post is to put yourself in the lead of German armed forces after the Soviets failed May 42. Perhaps surrender should be another option - but what fun is that to consider.

Kevin

PS:

American journalist H. R. Knickerbocker, who had met both Hitler and Hess, speculated that Hitler had sent Hess to deliver a message informing Winston Churchill of the forthcoming invasion of the Soviet Union, and offering a negotiated peace or even an anti-Bolshevik partnership.[73] Soviet leader Joseph Stalin believed that Hess's flight had been engineered by the British. Stalin persisted in this belief as late as 1944, when he mentioned the matter to Churchill, who insisted that they had no advance knowledge of the flight.[74]

[Sublime]

Stalin saw plots at every turn. I.d also be very careful about believing anything that was released as Stalins Opinion. He wasnt above making silly tirades about capitalist plots, the west is hiding Hitler etc.

I think its rather obvious Hess acted alone. Why else dress up as a Luftwaffe hauptmann, if he was really delivering a message on behalf of Hitler Im sure he wouldnt have been alone and probably wouldnt have been flying and getting lost over Scotland. I also doubt Hitler would have sent one of his closest cronies blind like that. Any overtures I imagine would have been handled in a neutral country.

[kevinkin]

But again at the time, May 42, not all of this stuff was known to the German Generals. And the notion of a pack with the west must have been making the

circuit. It's just an option to save their people after realizing the outcome of Barbarossa - that's all.

 

Kevin

[Sublime]

Then perhaps the date should be pushed forward. After all by your own logic the German generals didnt have hindsight, and I doubt many Germans felt the war was lost after Barbarossa. The general period that Germans say the war was lost in hindsight and realization is after Stalingrad or Kursk. And of course many Germans post war claims are dubious at best since they had many ulterior motives post war and realizing the war is lost post Stalingrad beggars the question of why did everyone keep up the fighting..

[kevinkin]

I am not saying that the entire German Staff thought the war lost. It's just not inconceivable that a faction would have advocated a different strategic direction after the Soviets failed in their spring 42 offensive. Sure, that faction may never ever have convinced Hitler to stop attacking. But if they did, would it have prolonged the war to a point were a very uneasy peace would settle on the East? And what would that "peace" look like.

 

Kevin  

[JonS]

It's just not inconceivable that a faction would have advocated a different strategic direction after ... 

No it's not inconceivable. There were at various times, IIRC, something like 20 active plots against Hitler, starting from the mid-1930s, and even continuing after the 20 July '44 bomb.

 

But after about 1942 what the Germans wanted was largely irrelevant. The Allies had made their minds up, and they weren't going to be all "eh, no harm no foul. Let's go kick the Russians together!"

Edited April 26, 2015 by JonS

[JasonC]

I second JonS's comment.  All the German general fantasies about easily making peace, overall or just with the west, are delusional.  The Allies were going to stomp them into the mud and were not going to break ranks with each other.  They could surrender and avoid the front line tail kicking and the air destruction of the homeland in the last year or two of the war, but only by accepting the ultimate outcome as already written in granite - which it was.  The last time when getting rid of Hitler might have meant a general peace instead is before Barbarossa.  If the generals ousted the regime then, they might have been able to secure a peace with the lone belligerent England, if and only if they gave up all conquests in the west and agreed to free Poland and similar.  They were not remotely realistic even about that - they would likely have made demands like keeping much of Poland, leaving a military government in power in Germany etc that would have been non-starters - but that was the best stretch for it.  Throughout, they tended to think if they had achieved something militarily it entitled them to something diplomatically.  The diplomatic reality was the more countries they messed with and the more people they killed, the less anyone was going to put up with any of them remaining around, ever, under any circumstances.

[kevinkin]

So if all paths after Barbarossa lead to Germany's eventual demise, wargaming battles and operations on the east front and west front afterwards is largely irrelevant I suppose. There is fun and lessons to be learned at the tactical level but that's pretty much it. And I would agree the ground war was decided with the

victories of Bagration and Overload. I generally do not game beyond those time points myself. Anyway, It seems we agree around May 42 was one key timepoint for decision in the East. As Yogi said: when you come to a fork in the road - take it. For the Germans, any path leads to destruction. With hindsight we know this is be pretty certain, but at the time it was not so certain for those responsible for planning and recommendations to Hitler.

 

Back to the start. If we put hindsight aside and "sit" at the war game table after 2nd Karkov sipping French brandy, how would the folks here proceed in the East?  It's just about the summer and a decision is required.

 

Kevin

[Sgt Joch]

I have been ploughing through Glantz latest tomes of his Stalingrad Trilogy, 2 volumes dealing with the nov. 42-jan. 43 period.

 

What is interesting from Glantz's latest research is that he shows Stalingrad was a much closer thing than generally imagined. The Russian command and control, troop strength, supply situation in Nov. 42 was not much better than during the summer when most of their offensives failed. The Romanians did not simply melt away, most of the Romanian front held and the Russians only managed to pierce the Romanian lines in a couple of places through which they pushed their mobile forces. The big problem with the Romanians was a lack of effective anti tank weapons.

 

OTOH what really hampered the Germans was a lack of mobile reserves and lack of flexibility for the Sixth Army. If the Germans had had 2-3 extra mobile divisions in reserve, they might have been able to stop the Russians cold.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sgt Joch

[Duckman]

So if all paths after Barbarossa lead to Germany's eventual demise, wargaming battles and operations on the east front and west front afterwards is largely irrelevant I suppose. 

 

It of course depends on what you mean by irrelevant, but I agree that after Barbarossa failed it was basically pick your poison for Germany. Any scenario where they win the war after December 1941 is of the banana peel variety.

 

In poker terms you could say that Germany had two possible "outs" (ways to win): a negotiated peace after the Fall of France, and a military victory (most likely requiring a Soviet political collapse) during Barbarossa. After that the element of strategic surprise is gone, and the force levels are simply not there.

 

It's interesting that the Allies had far more outs, i.e. ways to win before 1945, but they don't get discussed nearly as much as the German what-ifs. If the events surrounding the Italian surrender or the Hungarian near-defection had been more fortunate (and the German response less energetic) it might have shortened the war substantially, for example. The same can be said if the Soviets had managed to encircle Army Group A in the Caucasus in late 1942 (they came close), if the strategic bombing campaign had targeted German fuel production earlier, or (perhaps most tantalizingly) if the invasion of France had happened in 1943 as the Americans wanted. Lots of quite realistic possibilities there.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Duckman

[Childress]

The Germans needed time I think.

 

Resolved. Deep within the depths of our psyches each one of us desires that the Nazis had defeated the Russians. Not necessarily that the Germs win WW2 (god forbid!) but that they crush those clod-hopping, Marxist, two-faced alcoholic communists with their commissars and their drabby uniforms. Panzers Marsch! Admit it!

 

Debate.

[Melchior]

The most fatal decision in the war Germany could have made had already been had in 1933 when Hitler was allowed to become chancellor. From then on the German state was shifted into the thugocracy of National Socialism, which simply required the brutal exploitation of...something and someone at any given time in order to sustain the regime. To simply handwave away Operation Barbarossa or Rot, or even Weiss is to totally change the Nazis, Hitler, and their mindset in such a way as to write a novella. 

 

What started with German Jews led to the Austrians, Czechs, Poles, then the rest of Europe. Nazi Germany simply had to plunder, steal, and conquer in order to survive since the whole state produced no product except for weapons and murder. Which weren't too useful for anything other than performing all the conquering and pillaging that bought them to begin with. With these things in mind one sort of starts to realize that the Nazis were not great conquerors, they weren't even great tricksters or con men. They were just simpletons playing on tough-guy stereotypes and exploiting German's military-fetishist society for their own profit. 

 

I don't know about everyone else here, but i've seen people ask how the Nazis could've won the war well over 100 times now. Their should be no reason 1min of Googling doesn't answer some e-General's postulating on whether or not the presence of 10 more Panzer III's would've had an effect on Operation XYZ. It's nauseating to me because I don't see a bunch of people anyone *should* be trying to concoct ways to extend the survival of. Why don't more people ask how the Allies could've shortened the war or prevented it entirely? I don't know. I'm starting to worry their is some kind of ulterior motive in these "what if" premises though. What the did Nazis do that was worth preserving or extending? Any single god damn thing? 

Edited April 28, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Warts 'n' all]

Have to agree with the Capt. AH was hell bent on war from the day he entered politics. And that war could only ever have one outcome. 

[womble]

I think part of the reason people don't postulate ways the war could've been shortened by the Allies is the assumption that "we" were trying as hard as we could, not being handicapped by a zealous megalomaniac of the calibre of Hitler. An invasion of NWE was tried in '43, and while it probably wasn't supported as well as it could've been, it wasn't like Dieppe was a close thing that a bit more effort would've turned into a beachhead to trouble the 3rd Reich. Something else that wargamers are often guilty of (though guilty probably isn't the right word) is wanting to do better than history. Germany lost, and the question, "Could I have won/done better?" will continue to fascinate, when divorced from the atrocity perpetrated in theatre and against civilians (by both sides), as war games tend to. Most strategic scale games, even ones like Hearts of Iron, need to give the Axis "a chance", or they're not really worth playing as games. If all we can do is run through the rote motions of history, it's not much fun. In the example of HoI, I've both defeated the 3rd Reich as France (with no significant help from the other Allies) before the Russians got involved, and conquered Russia as the Italians. "What-if?"s do run both ways.

[BLSTK]

Womble, my good man, while I love to root for The Underdog, I feel the need to ask. Were you high?

[kevinkin]

Womble you're right that guilty might be too strong. Perhaps obsessed.

 

Given much of our readings on military history outline alternate courses for the subject events, it's natural these courses become part of wargaming. They really become interesting when the historical stakes are very high. With Combat Mission, the player can play out some key parts of critical battles But generally the tactical level is suited to understanding how to achieve a positive local result with weapons and terrain at hand. One great thing about a well trafficked forum like this is there are many interested in history in general and that makes for topics not really related to the details of playing Combat Mission. Like in this forum, the east front WWII as a whole.     

 

Kevin