WW II History Discussion

[BigJKU316]

Pulled out a pretty old history book I was reading through at lunch and was reading about the planning of the German assault on Russia in 1941. It prompted a question as I know there are a few military history people kicking around this forum I figured I would toss it out and see what happened. I am also bored today so figured why not.

There were two schools of thought in the German pre-invasion planning. One proposed by OKH and one proposed by OKW (basically two different general staff groups). Fundamentally they were similar in that both called for massive envelopment battles along the opening day front. They diverged in what to do from there.

The OKH plan called for an emphasis on seizing Moscow, citing as a primary reason that the centralized economy of the Soviet Union largely converged there, particularly the rail system.

The OKW plan called for a diversion of forces from what became known as the central front to assist in futher envelopment battles both North and South of the central axis of advance. This was the plan that was eventually adopted for the most part.

So my two questions would be this.

1. Were Hitler and many people in German high command overly influenced by the failure of Napoleon in 1812 and were those worries still valid in 1941?

2. Would the seizure of Moscow rather than the evelopments for which Army Group Centers Panzers were diverted for lead to a substantially different result?

My short opinion is generally that they were overly influenced by the 1812 disaster when Napoelon seized a town of almost no importance. By 1941 Moscow was very important, particularly because it sits astride or very near the major North-South railways located west of the Urals. I think taking it would have been a better solution than the envelopment battles they elected to engage in as it would effectively accomplish the same goal of splitting the Northern and Southern portions of the Soviet front, allowing you to digest them piecemeal in 1942.

[Tyyr]

Largely I agree. Russia in 1812 vs. Russia in 1941 were two vastly different places. The Germans never really had a prayer of wrapping up the Russian army and destroying it in its entirety. Russia simply has too much space and too many men to ever accomplish that. They can just do what they ultimately did, just keep throwing bodies at you until you run out of bullets making killing the Red Army not unlike a tarbaby that the Wermacht got stuck in. The only way to beat Russia would have been to crush that central authority. Even besides taking away their manufacturing capacity I think breaking that central control would have been key. Capturing or killing Stalin or at the least driving him off to some hidey hole would have caused the Russians no end of problems, not the least of which is a factious country that once they smelled the central control slipping might have crumbled. Without the central authority to focus all those disparate elements and bring Russia's massive resources to bear I don't see the Russians winning. In fact I suspect the Germans would have spent a lot of time mopping up the Russians piecemeal, turning them against one another, and by and large traveling through a civilian populace who without the Communists lash behind them really wouldn't have given a shit about the German presence.

[McAvoy]

I agree too. The moment Germany invaded Russia is was the end of Germany. Even without the US and the industry the US had, the Soviets would have just crushed the Germans through sheer numbers. The war may have ended much later though. Probably 1947ish, but that is just a guess.

Problem with the Germans invading the Soviets was the materiel. They were going to fight them in pretty much warm(er) weather clothing. Vehicles were breaking down because they did not sifficiently insulate their machinery against the Russian cold. Soldiers had much lighter clothing than they should have. Historically almost identical to what happened in 1812.

Even they did, the Russian country is still too large for the Germans to properly occupy.

[Captain Seafort]

Problem with the Germans invading the Soviets was the materiel. They were going to fight them in pretty much warm(er) weather clothing. Vehicles were breaking down because they did not sifficiently insulate their machinery against the Russian cold. Soldiers had much lighter clothing than they should have. Historically almost identical to what happened in 1812.

Even they did, the Russian country is still too large for the Germans to properly occupy.

Material was certainly the key issue, but quantity was a bigger problem than quality - once the Russians had their heavy industry back behind the Urals the war was won, even if Moscow had been taken and the Battle of the Atlantic lost, the Russians would eventually have been able to drive the Germans back. Whether or not they'd have got to Berlin before the USAAF turned it into a smoking crater is another matter.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I have always wondered... and I know the nigh-impossibility of it-but what if neither Germany nor Russia attacked each other?

[Captain Seafort]

I have always wondered... and I know the nigh-impossibility of it-but what if neither Germany nor Russia attacked each other?

Not just "nigh-impossible", the question is akin to asking "what if the Nazis weren't Nazis?".

[Tyyr]

Hitler jumped the gun. The War was never supposed to start until 1944. The man just had no patience and kicked Germany into a war it wasn't quite ready to fight.

[Captain Seafort]

Hitler jumped the gun. The War was never supposed to start until 1944. The man just had no patience and kicked Germany into a war it wasn't quite ready to fight.

If he'd waited he would have been in even worse shape - the Royal Navy would have been massively reinforced (KGVs, Lions, armoured carriers, etc), the RAF would have been re-equipped with the 4-engine heavy bombers and the Red Army would have absorbed the lessons of the Winter War, entirely recovered from the purges, and re-equipped almost entirely with T-34s and KVs. On top of which the US would have had their B-36s and probably an advanced Manhatten Project.

[McAvoy]

This is true. I have read it was supposed to be 1946 when Plan Z was finished. In reality no amount of battleships or battlecruisers were going to take on GB. Aviation is the way to go. Though the Germans would definitely have an edge in jet planes.

[Captain Seafort]

Aviation is the way to go.

At sea? A couple of Graf Zeppelins, with 40 aircraft and no armour, against half a dozen armoured Illustrious' 50+ aircraft?

Though the Germans would definitely have an edge in jet planes.

Wouldn't have helped - the B-36 had a far higher service ceiling than any of the German jets.

[McAvoy]

I meant in general. Battleships and Battlecruisers are nice to look at but by the time 1944-1946 rolls around, they're fairly easy targets for the planes in the air. Devote the resources to build those ships into planes.

Yeah Graf Zeeplin is horrible design. They still mounted casemate guns which is something the navies mostly got rid of in their ships by the 1940's.

Perhaps the Germans wouldn't have gone any further than historically, but since we are talking about a what if, there is a possibility they could develop something better.

Also, the US may not develop the A-Bomb nearly as quickly, though they could be still at war with the Japanese without being at war with the Germans. After all it was germany who declared war on the US first. The US was just waiting on it.

[Captain Seafort]

I meant in general. Battleships and Battlecruisers are nice to look at but by the time 1944-1946 rolls around, they're fairly easy targets for the planes in the air. Devote the resources to build those ships into planes.

They weren't as vulnerable as is commonly supposed - with a modicum of air cover a modern fast battleship was an exceptionally tough proposition for aircraft to take on, as Santa Cruz and the Philippine Sea demonstrated. The problem was even worse in European waters, where even the Royal Navy's armoured carriers were lucky to survive. While submarines and aircraft were far more effective convoy-killers, the age of the battleship was only ended by the nature of the Pacific War.

Perhaps the Germans wouldn't have gone any further than historically, but since we are talking about a what if, there is a possibility they could develop something better.

They would have been lucky to have achieved even the most modest of their plans - they simply didn't have the industrial capacity to do more.

Also, the US may not develop the A-Bomb nearly as quickly, though they could be still at war with the Japanese without being at war with the Germans. After all it was germany who declared war on the US first. The US was just waiting on it.

Possibly, but the US was never even remotely at risk from serious attack (the second Happy Time brought on by King's incompetence notwithstanding). They had all the time in the world to develop a weaponised atomic device and the B-36 to carry it.

[McAvoy]

I meant in general. Battleships and Battlecruisers are nice to look at but by the time 1944-1946 rolls around, they're fairly easy targets for the planes in the air. Devote the resources to build those ships into planes.

They weren't as vulnerable as is commonly supposed - with a modicum of air cover a modern fast battleship was an exceptionally tough proposition for aircraft to take on, as Santa Cruz and the Philippine Sea demonstrated. The problem was even worse in European waters, where even the Royal Navy's armoured carriers were lucky to survive. While submarines and aircraft were far more effective convoy-killers, the age of the battleship was only ended by the nature of the Pacific War.

Perhaps the Germans wouldn't have gone any further than historically, but since we are talking about a what if, there is a possibility they could develop something better.

They would have been lucky to have achieved even the most modest of their plans - they simply didn't have the industrial capacity to do more.

Also, the US may not develop the A-Bomb nearly as quickly, though they could be still at war with the Japanese without being at war with the Germans. After all it was germany who declared war on the US first. The US was just waiting on it.

Possibly, but the US was never even remotely at risk from serious attack (the second Happy Time brought on by King's incompetence notwithstanding). They had all the time in the world to develop a weaponised atomic device and the B-36 to carry it.

Of course. Battleships are by their very nature the least vulnerable ships to any type of attack. The problem that will be a problem is the AA defense of these ships. The US when they designed these ships had a very modest AA outfit until later on they fitted more and better weapons. Replacing the .50 cal machine gun with the Oerlikons 20mm and 1.1 inch for the 40mm Bofors guns. These weapons were already being replaced by Pearl Harbor anyway. But the problem they found out is that 20mm guns are not quite effective against planes. 40mm seemed to be the bare minimum. In fact the USN planned on replacing the 40mm with a new 3"/50 cal. weapon.

The Japanese presumably would develop a better version of their planes but not by that much.

The USN also by 1946 since they would have the time to build up their fleet, would be siginificantly better off too.

2 27 knot North Carolina class ships with their vibration under control.
4 27 knot South Dakota class ships
6 32.5 knot Iowa class ships with the last two built with a slightly better underwater protection
5 27 knot Montana class ships that are easily equals or better than the Japanese Yamatos

The Essex class program won't be nearly as big, but could be as big as let's say 12 to 13 ships. The Midway class might be designed and built, but this class was based off of Royal Navy experience as well as the USNs. There would be no Independence class CVLs, but would be sheer mass of cruisers. The Des Moines 'super' cruisers would be around. The USN's General Board has always wanted a rapid fire 8" gun.

Great Britain would have their KGVs, Lion class and possibly a Vangaurd or two. The British board has said they could build multiple Vangaurds if they dearm the old R class and use their guns.

[Captain Seafort]

But the problem they found out is that 20mm guns are not quite effective against planes. 40mm seemed to be the bare minimum. In fact the USN planned on replacing the 40mm with a new 3"/50 cal. weapon.

Define effective. Something that would be perfectly adequate for merely shooting down an aircraft is going to have problems when the requirement suddenly jumps to disintegrating some bugger who's trying to crash into you. That, AFAIK, was why the 3"/50 was developed and deployed.

Great Britain would have their KGVs, Lion class and possibly a Vangaurd or two. The British board has said they could build multiple Vangaurds if they dearm the old R class and use their guns.

I doubt we'd have any Vanguards - she was specifically designed and built as a wartime expedient to get a new battleship ASAP when it became clear that the Lions would take too long to build. The more likely outcome would be to add another couple of Lions, possibly of an improved design, analogous to the Implacables.

[Captain Seafort]

This is better suited here I think.