One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by ljadw » 11 Apr 2020 16:24

Weisung 21 ordered to destroy the Soviet forces west of the DD line by operations from mobile units . This failed and the mobile units blamed the infantry, implicitly admitting that they were unable to do the job without the help of the infantry .
Weisung 21 remained silent about how a farther advance east of the DD line would proceed : it did not say that this would happen by the mobile forces , admitting that this would be impossible .
Weisung 33 was even more clearly : it said explicitly that HGM would advance direction Moscow with its infantry units, thus not with its mobile units .
The reasons for this are obvious: it was impossible to go to the line Archangelsk-Astrachan and to occupy this line with the few mobile divisions .Besides, it was not needed to do it ,as there would be no longer an organized resistance east of the DD line .
The Wallies failed to cross the Rhine in September 1944 because there was still an organised German resistance and because of supply problems .
The Germans had also supply problems which made it impossible for the mobile units to go farther than Leningrad and Moscow : the truth was that east of the DD line infantry divisions would advance farther and faster than mobile divisions, because they needed less supplies .
The logistical requirements of the mobile and infantry divisions are well known .
As Der Alte Fritz said : the occupation east of the DD line would happen by light armed infantry divisions moving by train, as in 1918 (German logistics in the East P 7 )

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5787
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Apr 2020 21:40

A post containing nothing but a personal attack and opinion from Aida1 and a reply from ljadw were removed by this moderator. Personal comments about other members are not allowed, so please refrain from making them when possible otherwise offending posts will be removed without further warnings. The rules are quite clear on this matter, if in doubt they are readily available here;

app.php/rules

Terry Duncan

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1437
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Paul Lakowski » 12 Apr 2020 07:34

Seizing control of the rail lines require as rapid an advance to Moscow as possible , since this was the central hub of all Russian railway network. More importantly while the soviet supply system depended on this network for resupply and the rapid redeployment -that would un hinge the Wehrmacht through out the war....Wehrmacht could get by on wheeled supply net.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020 09:33

ljadw wrote:
09 Apr 2020 20:47
Mobile divisions have not enough manpower: the most important thing was : boots on the ground, not boots in a truck .
The more mobile divisions the slower your advance .
If the enemy was defeated and remained defeated ,the advance /the pursuit of a defeated enemy would follow automatically
If he was not defeated, mobile divisions could not advance .
It were the Soviets who made a German advance possible.
Besides : east of the DD line,there was no place for a Blitzkrieg .
The mission of the Ostheer was not to advance : to advance with as aim to advance / to occupy enemy territory is not only senseless, but also the ideal receipt for defeat .
This is 100 % untrue. Mobile divisions alledgedly slowing an advance should win a prize for originality but not for having any relation with reality. And mot Div have enough infantry. And you can do mobile warfare behind the socalled DD line. Was done.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020 10:21

And why was Guderian blaming the infantry divisions of von Kluge for his own failures ?
Answer : because without the boots on the ground,the boots in the trucks and in the tanks can not obtain decisive successes .
And that more mobile divisions are slowing advances ( NOT : mobile divisions as you are saying ) is proved in NA : after Alamein, Montgomery advanced with only a part of his mobile forces, as it was impossible to supply all of them .
Last edited by ljadw on 12 Apr 2020 10:41, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020 10:39

Paul Lakowski wrote:
12 Apr 2020 07:34
Seizing control of the rail lines require as rapid an advance to Moscow as possible , since this was the central hub of all Russian railway network. More importantly while the soviet supply system depended on this network for resupply and the rapid redeployment -that would un hinge the Wehrmacht through out the war....Wehrmacht could get by on wheeled supply net.
Wheeled vehicles need roads and in 1941 there were only few roads in the SU east of the DD line .Besides : to supply the Ostheer could be done only by train . Motorized wheeled vehicles had a subordinate role 79 years ago .
And, we have the proof that the fall of Moscow would not result in the fall of the SU : Stalin had decided to leave Moscow, but at the last moment he remained in Moscow, NOT because he was afraid that the fall of Moscow would result in the fall of the SU, but because Zhukov told him that he could defend Moscow .
Besides, the fall of Moscow would not permit the units of AGC to go to Archangelsk and to Astrachan .
The only way to go to the AA line was with small units on trains,without tanks,without heavy artillery, without much ammunition .
And to do this ,it was first needed that the Red Army was defeated and that the SU had collapsed .
The German motorised units would never make it to the Wolga . They were already stopped before Moscow .
Distance Moscow -Archangelsk = 1000 km , Moscow- Astrachan : 1400 km .
How would mobile units do 1400 km in November and how would they be supplied ?
If the Germans were not at the AA line, the war would continue and if the war would continue, the Germans would not be at the AA line .
The fall of Moscow would solve not one German problem .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020 13:46

ljadw wrote:
12 Apr 2020 10:21
And why was Guderian blaming the infantry divisions of von Kluge for his own failures ?
Answer : because without the boots on the ground,the boots in the trucks and in the tanks can not obtain decisive successes .
And that more mobile divisions are slowing advances ( NOT : mobile divisions as you are saying ) is proved in NA : after Alamein, Montgomery advanced with only a part of his mobile forces, as it was impossible to supply all of them .
You are simplifying matters again. And show the usual bias against Guderian. As you claim to have read Guderians memoirs you cannot ignore what the real disagreement with Kluge was.
Last edited by Aida1 on 12 Apr 2020 16:51, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5787
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Terry Duncan » 12 Apr 2020 15:24

Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020 13:46
ljadw wrote:
12 Apr 2020 10:21
And why was Guderian blaming the infantry divisions of von Kluge for his own failures ?
Answer : because without the boots on the ground,the boots in the trucks and in the tanks can not obtain decisive successes .
And that more mobile divisions are slowing advances ( NOT : mobile divisions as you are saying ) is proved in NA : after Alamein, Montgomery advanced with only a part of his mobile forces, as it was impossible to supply all of them .
You are simplifying matters again. And show the usual bias against Guderian.

At least ljadw is giving some explanation of why he believes what he does, you are simply posting opinion with no clarification. Please try to post at least an explanation, preferably with some evidence to support it, as otherwise it is opinion only and can be ignored/deleted.

Terry

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5787
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Terry Duncan » 12 Apr 2020 16:31

A non-content, off topic, post from Aida1 was removed by this moderator.

Terry Duncan

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020 16:44

Terry Duncan wrote:
12 Apr 2020 16:31
A non-content, off topic, post from Aida1 was removed by this moderator.

Terry Duncan
As it was meant for you personally, i Will not lose my sleep over this deletion.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5787
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Terry Duncan » 12 Apr 2020 17:39

Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020 16:44
Terry Duncan wrote:
12 Apr 2020 16:31
A non-content, off topic, post from Aida1 was removed by this moderator.

Terry Duncan
As it was meant for you personally, i Will not lose my sleep over this deletion.
Good. And as this is meant for you personally, I wont lose sleep over it either.

Either you stick to the topic and cease posting non-content, or fishing to start a flame war, you will not long be posting here. Consider this the only unofficial warning.


Terry Duncan

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020 18:07

ljadw wrote:
12 Apr 2020 10:39
Paul Lakowski wrote:
12 Apr 2020 07:34
Seizing control of the rail lines require as rapid an advance to Moscow as possible , since this was the central hub of all Russian railway network. More importantly while the soviet supply system depended on this network for resupply and the rapid redeployment -that would un hinge the Wehrmacht through out the war....Wehrmacht could get by on wheeled supply net.
Wheeled vehicles need roads and in 1941 there were only few roads in the SU east of the DD line .Besides : to supply the Ostheer could be done only by train . Motorized wheeled vehicles had a subordinate role 79 years ago .
And, we have the proof that the fall of Moscow would not result in the fall of the SU : Stalin had decided to leave Moscow, but at the last moment he remained in Moscow, NOT because he was afraid that the fall of Moscow would result in the fall of the SU, but because Zhukov told him that he could defend Moscow .
Besides, the fall of Moscow would not permit the units of AGC to go to Archangelsk and to Astrachan .
The only way to go to the AA line was with small units on trains,without tanks,without heavy artillery, without much ammunition .
And to do this ,it was first needed that the Red Army was defeated and that the SU had collapsed .
The German motorised units would never make it to the Wolga . They were already stopped before Moscow .
Distance Moscow -Archangelsk = 1000 km , Moscow- Astrachan : 1400 km .
How would mobile units do 1400 km in November and how would they be supplied ?
If the Germans were not at the AA line, the war would continue and if the war would continue, the Germans would not be at the AA line .
The fall of Moscow would solve not one German problem .
This flies in the face of reality. You can advance beyond the DD line and the Germans actually did. You clearly ignore that your logistical base can be move forward and was. The only problem was the time limitation.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10273
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020 20:12

The biggest problem was the environment/distance which made it very difficult to use mobile warfare /to supply mobile forces .
And, again, it was NOT about to advance beyond the DD line,it was about to eliminate the USSR west of the DD line .Advancing does not result in the defeat of the enemy, but the defeat of the enemy results in an advance .
If the SU collapsed west of the DD line, it was not needed and impossible to go to the Volga with tanks ,artillery and ammunition .
If the SU did not collapse west of the DD line, she would not collapse east of the DD line, and and advance with tanks,artillery,trucks,ammunition to the Volga was impossible .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020 20:16

ljadw wrote:
12 Apr 2020 20:12
The biggest problem was the environment/distance which made it very difficult to use mobile warfare /to supply mobile forces .
And, again, it was NOT about to advance beyond the DD line,it was about to eliminate the USSR west of the DD line .Advancing does not result in the defeat of the enemy, but the defeat of the enemy results in an advance .
If the SU collapsed west of the DD line, it was not needed and impossible to go to the Volga with tanks ,artillery and ammunition .
If the SU did not collapse west of the DD line, she would not collapse east of the DD line, and and advance with tanks,artillery,trucks,ammunition to the Volga was impossible .
You cannot get away with this. There was No necessity of destroying the red army before the DD line. And you can move your logistical base forward to operate further forward. Was done actually. :lol:

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1437
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: One more panzer group in Barbarossa, plans for a two-year campaign

Post by Paul Lakowski » 13 Apr 2020 02:38

ljadw wrote:
12 Apr 2020 10:39
Paul Lakowski wrote:
12 Apr 2020 07:34
Seizing control of the rail lines require as rapid an advance to Moscow as possible , since this was the central hub of all Russian railway network. More importantly while the soviet supply system depended on this network for resupply and the rapid redeployment -that would un hinge the Wehrmacht through out the war....Wehrmacht could get by on wheeled supply net.
Wheeled vehicles need roads and in 1941 there were only few roads in the SU east of the DD line .Besides : to supply the Ostheer could be done only by train . Motorized wheeled vehicles had a subordinate role 79 years ago .
And, we have the proof that the fall of Moscow would not result in the fall of the SU : Stalin had decided to leave Moscow, but at the last moment he remained in Moscow, NOT because he was afraid that the fall of Moscow would result in the fall of the SU, but because Zhukov told him that he could defend Moscow .
Besides, the fall of Moscow would not permit the units of AGC to go to Archangelsk and to Astrachan .
The only way to go to the AA line was with small units on trains,without tanks,without heavy artillery, without much ammunition .
And to do this ,it was first needed that the Red Army was defeated and that the SU had collapsed .
The German motorised units would never make it to the Wolga . They were already stopped before Moscow .
Distance Moscow -Archangelsk = 1000 km , Moscow- Astrachan : 1400 km .
How would mobile units do 1400 km in November and how would they be supplied ?
If the Germans were not at the AA line, the war would continue and if the war would continue, the Germans would not be at the AA line .
The fall of Moscow would solve not one German problem .
Echeloning the Wehrmacht allows 97 mobile divisions to march first on Moscow within 2 months on a priority basis , while the balance of the wagon/leg Korps will follow....still trying to asses gap, using ASKEYS numbers and formula.

Return to “What if”