The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 28 Nov 2019 15:28

BDV wrote:
27 Nov 2019 22:45
The original question asked was:
The burning question is: why were the Fascists concerned about war with the US in the first place?

To which the answer is plain, USofA honchos words AND actions.
No, the answer is because their (the Fascists that is) previous actions had given America cause to be a threat.

Poster ljadw has presented the arguments regarding the German invasion of the Soviet Union that...
(a) the invasion of the Soviet Union was the right strategy,
(b) because it was the only way to prevent a war with America, and
(c) the impetus for this epiphany moment is linked to a GOP convention in August 1940 (that doesn't seem to have occured!!!).

If, as poster ljadw alludes to, America was at the very top of Germany's worry list, so great a worry that they were prepared to gamble all on an attack on the Soviet Union, perhaps the "ideal strategy" would have been to refrain from trying to conquor Europe in the first place. The annexation of Austria followed by the takeover of Czechoslovakia did not go unnoticed. The invasion of Poland brings Britain and France into the war. The former being a key link in poster ljadw's theory.

The "ideal strategy" for the world was for the Fascists, in particular the Nazis in Germany, never to have come to power.

The "ideal strategy" for the Facists to avoid destroying their own countries was to not have a policy of trying to conquor other states and people in the first place.

I see nothing "ideal" in a world with Hitler et al masters of Europe and the world. Do you?

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by corbulo » 29 Nov 2019 17:40

MarkN wrote:
28 Nov 2019 15:28
BDV wrote:
27 Nov 2019 22:45
The original question asked was:
The burning question is: why were the Fascists concerned about war with the US in the first place?

To which the answer is plain, USofA honchos words AND actions.
No, the answer is because their (the Fascists that is) previous actions had given America cause to be a threat.

Poster ljadw has presented the arguments regarding the German invasion of the Soviet Union that...
(a) the invasion of the Soviet Union was the right strategy,
(b) because it was the only way to prevent a war with America, and
(c) the impetus for this epiphany moment is linked to a GOP convention in August 1940 (that doesn't seem to have occured!!!).

If, as poster ljadw alludes to, America was at the very top of Germany's worry list, so great a worry that they were prepared to gamble all on an attack on the Soviet Union, perhaps the "ideal strategy" would have been to refrain from trying to conquor Europe in the first place. The annexation of Austria followed by the takeover of Czechoslovakia did not go unnoticed. The invasion of Poland brings Britain and France into the war. The former being a key link in poster ljadw's theory.

The "ideal strategy" for the world was for the Fascists, in particular the Nazis in Germany, never to have come to power.

The "ideal strategy" for the Facists to avoid destroying their own countries was to not have a policy of trying to conquor other states and people in the first place.

I see nothing "ideal" in a world with Hitler et al masters of Europe and the world. Do you?
That's not what the original question was about. It was about the ideal strategy to win militarily in a Risk-type scenario. I would have thought that would have been obvious (?)

Entschuldigung
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 05 Dec 2016 11:02
Location: 'Sydney

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Entschuldigung » 17 Dec 2019 17:26

Many, many folk forget that Germany was already partially committed in North Africa BEFORE Barbarossa.

In fact, the desert war was the proving ground for the U.S observers as they watched on studying the clash between British and colonial forces against the DAK.

During the onslaught in early '42, the U.S observers were very pessimistic about Britains chances of defeating the Germans on land and were swaying towards reducing sending men and equipment if a collapse seemed imminent.

Now let's assume the German High Command treats North Africa as a serious front and delay attacking Russia until a result is drawn.

That means immense power is sent to the desert in early '41, no doubt as long as Malta is captured, the Germans would almost have certainly rolled up the 8th Army, pushed into the Middle East where sympathetic oil-producing nations were awaiting the arrival of Axis forces.

Now let's assume Germany commits just half of what it committed in Russia. It captures the oil fields of Iraq, Iran, Vichy Syria, and also poises forces at the border in northern Iran facing the Caucasus.

Yes, the logistics would have been hell, especially if the RN continued to fight doggedly in the Meditteranean.

Also, Turkey and other nations were adopting a wait and see policy, and a clear Axis victory in the ME might have bought more nations into the Axis fold.

A risky and difficult campaign to supply and maintain, but I still think Germany's oil problems (which was its Achilles heel) would have been eased, British ground forces defeated and contained for at least 2 years, the U.S withdraws from Europe for the time being and Germany can still choose to attack Russia in summer '42 if she so pleases.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11969
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 17 Dec 2019 21:26

You forget several points
1 It was impossible for the Italian-German forces (there was always an Italian majority ) to go to the north of Iraq to capture the oil fields
2 It was also impossible for the Axis to restore the oil fields and installations .
3 It was impossible to restart the production as the Axis had not the qualified people to do it .
4 It was impossible to transport the oil to the harbours of the Meditarranean and from there to Germany
5 A delay of Barbarossa would NOT result in a stronger German and Italian presence in NA ,as the forces operating in NA in the OTL,could not be increased in the ATL :Libya was a desert which limited the number of forces that could operate there .75 German divisions ( 1,5 million men ) in NA was out of the question .
6 The fall of Malta would change nothing as the losses caused by Malta were very small ( some 90000 GRT in 1941 and the same in 1942)
7 The arrival of supplies at Tripoli did not help the Axis,because the more supplies arrived at Tripoli,the less would arrive at the front .
8 To say that oil was Germany's Achilles' heel is a very big exaggeration and is very questionable .The more oil Germany had, the worse became its military situation .
9 Barbarossa in 1942 would even have less chances to succeed than Barbarossa in 1941, and if it succeeded, the result would be meaningless, it would even make Germany's situation even worse.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 906
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 17 Dec 2019 22:07

Entschuldigung wrote:
17 Dec 2019 17:26
Many, many folk forget that Germany was already partially committed in North Africa BEFORE Barbarossa.

In fact, the desert war was the proving ground for the U.S observers as they watched on studying the clash between British and colonial forces against the DAK.

During the onslaught in early '42, the U.S observers were very pessimistic about Britains chances of defeating the Germans on land and were swaying towards reducing sending men and equipment if a collapse seemed imminent.

Now let's assume the German High Command treats North Africa as a serious front and delay attacking Russia until a result is drawn.

That means immense power is sent to the desert in early '41, no doubt as long as Malta is captured, the Germans would almost have certainly rolled up the 8th Army, pushed into the Middle East where sympathetic oil-producing nations were awaiting the arrival of Axis forces.

Now let's assume Germany commits just half of what it committed in Russia. It captures the oil fields of Iraq, Iran, Vichy Syria, and also poises forces at the border in northern Iran facing the Caucasus.

Yes, the logistics would have been hell, especially if the RN continued to fight doggedly in the Meditteranean.

Also, Turkey and other nations were adopting a wait and see policy, and a clear Axis victory in the ME might have bought more nations into the Axis fold.

A risky and difficult campaign to supply and maintain, but I still think Germany's oil problems (which was its Achilles heel) would have been eased, British ground forces defeated and contained for at least 2 years, the U.S withdraws from Europe for the time being and Germany can still choose to attack Russia in summer '42 if she so pleases.
Logistics matter. More troops to North Africa is just beyond Axis capabilities regardless of Malta. The British could and had spare forces to deploy more forces to North Africa and they could support them. They are no friendly Oil producing Nation awaitng axis fofcere. One short lived coup that was quickly suppressed does not count.

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by corbulo » 18 Dec 2019 14:44

ljadw wrote:
17 Dec 2019 21:26
You forget several points
1 It was impossible for the Italian-German forces (there was always an Italian majority ) to go to the north of Iraq to capture the oil fields
2 It was also impossible for the Axis to restore the oil fields and installations .
3 It was impossible to restart the production as the Axis had not the qualified people to do it .
4 It was impossible to transport the oil to the harbours of the Meditarranean and from there to Germany
5 A delay of Barbarossa would NOT result in a stronger German and Italian presence in NA ,as the forces operating in NA in the OTL,could not be increased in the ATL :Libya was a desert which limited the number of forces that could operate there .75 German divisions ( 1,5 million men ) in NA was out of the question .
6 The fall of Malta would change nothing as the losses caused by Malta were very small ( some 90000 GRT in 1941 and the same in 1942)
7 The arrival of supplies at Tripoli did not help the Axis,because the more supplies arrived at Tripoli,the less would arrive at the front .
8 To say that oil was Germany's Achilles' heel is a very big exaggeration and is very questionable .The more oil Germany had, the worse became its military situation .
9 Barbarossa in 1942 would even have less chances to succeed than Barbarossa in 1941, and if it succeeded, the result would be meaningless, it would even make Germany's situation even worse.
1. Why? If Hitler had sent Rommel reinforcements and supplies after Gazala, and had captured Egypt, what exactly was there to stop an armoured force going anywhere in the Middle East...?
2 & 3. Weren't Romanians good with oil installations...?
4. Why not....?
8. Explain.
9. Explain.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11969
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 18 Dec 2019 15:17

1 What would have stopped an armoured force going anywhere in the ME ? OIL, spare parts, technicians, trucks , THE DISTANCE :Tripoli-Benghazi : more than 1000 km
2 Are you saying that Germany would have asked the Romanians to restore the oil installations of Iraq ? Do you know how much time Red Adair needed to restore the oil fields of Kuweit ? Do you know how much time the Soviets needed to restart the oil production of the Caucasus ?
4 The oil of Iraq was transported to the Mediterranean coast by pipelines.As in a realistic scenario and the pipelines and the harbour installations would be destroyed , the capture of the oil fields would not help Germany
8 Amount of oil available to Germany ( imports included )
1940 : 6,7 million ton
1941 : 8,3 million ton
1942 : 8,6 million ton
1943 : 10,3 million ton
1944 : 6,4 million ton .
The military situation was better in 1940 than in 1943, thus the deciding importance of oil for Germany ...= one of WWii's big myths .
9 The aim of Barbarossa was was NOT to defeat the SU, it was to force Britain to give up BEFORE the official intervention from the USA . After PH ,the fall of the SU would no longer save Germany from defeat .The occupation of European Russia in 1943 would require an enormous part of German ressources .
About 8 :
Production (1) ,consumption ( 2) and reserves ( 3 ) of aviation oil for Germany in thousands of tons ( reserves : at the end of the year )
1940 : 966,863,613
1941 : 910, 1274,254
1942 : 1472, 1426,324
1943 : 1917,1825,440
1944 :1105, 1403,146
The consumption of aviation oil was in 1944 at the same level of 1942 , but the German cities were destroyed in 1944 and not in 1942 .Thus, they were not destroyed because of shortage of oil.There was still sufficient oil for Bodenplatte on New Year 1945 .

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2981
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Kelvin » 18 Jan 2020 17:19

The ideal Axis strategy was became just German strategy, before June 1940, Hitler did not have any allies but he won all : Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, Denmark and above all France.
Needless to say, Italy was burden. Without her, Hitler no Need to send troop to Libya and the Balkan. Neither the Regia Marina nor Regia Aeronautica provided any Bonus to Hitler 's war effort.
Regarding Japan, this Country is located in Far East, without any link with Japan, war with USA is much more distant Event in Hitler consideration. Japanese Performance in the Pacific was disappointed.
Bulgaria did not put any troop for Combat except garrision in the Balkan, on the other Hand, once she changed sides, she had 450,000 troop for war against her former allies in 1944.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by gebhk » 18 Jan 2020 22:23

before June 1940, Hitler did not have any allies
errm, Slovakia and, oh yes, the Soviet Union?

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2981
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Kelvin » 19 Jan 2020 07:58

Berto wrote:
19 Jan 2020 00:01
Kelvin wrote:
18 Jan 2020 17:19
Needless to say, Italy was burden. Without her, Hitler no Need to send troop to Libya and the Balkan. Neither the Regia Marina nor Regia Aeronautica provided any Bonus to Hitler 's war effort.
Bullshit, as usual. Italy was the reason the North African campaign was fought: which, after the fall of France and until Japan entered the war, was the only major theatre for Commonwealth land forces. With Italy neutral and thus their Army essentially unused, you think that the Brits would have quietly waited for their turn while your super Germany defeated the Soviet Union?

Hitler sent two, later three divisions to North Africa. If he lost the war because of a few dozen thousand troops... and it is questionable that he wouldn't have been involved in the Balkans, since the decision to invade Yugoslavia was a German decision, Italy had not attacked that country.

The Regia Marina definitely provided a bonus to Hitler's war effort, as a good part of the Royal Navy was stationed in the Mediterranean for three years to fight it.
Hi, I doubt that. Although Hitler also sent two divisions initially, but it were Panzer divisions (15 and 21.Pz divisions), not Infanterie division and those panzer units was Bonus to Hitler 's Russian Campaign.

Despite the fact that Mussolini 's troop in Libya had superiority in Manpower in comparsion with British tiny garrison in Egypt, he still was routed by British Western Desert Force and just 2-3 British divisions crushed 300000 Italian force in Operation Compass. Given Italian superiority in Libya, he should win the war easily, but he failed and Hitler 's aid. it was burden and exhausted Hitler's valuable panzer divisions and supplies.

Neither Regia Marina nor Regia Aeronautia had been helpful for Hitler's war effort. Half of Italian battleship fleet were crippled at Taranto Harbour in Nov 1940 and Italian fleet was again defeated by the Royal Navy in battle of Matapan in March 1941.

From Sept 1939, Hitler got a series of victories one by one, from Poland to Greece , however Italian failure in Taranto, Cape Matapan, Greece, Egypt and East Africa affected Axis war record and at least give People some Impression that the Axis alliance was no unbeatable.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11969
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 19 Jan 2020 09:14

Hm : Italian strength in NA was not 300000 men,but 215000 of whom 27000 Libyans ( Source : The Italian soldier in NA P 7 ), and these were spread over a distance of more than 1000 km .If you count all of them ( a big part not fighting,but support units ) ,you must also count British forces in the ME .
The Italian 10th Army had 8 divisions (of which 2 Libyan ) with each a strength of less than 10000 men.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 19 Jan 2020 10:05

Berto wrote:
19 Jan 2020 00:01
Kelvin wrote:
18 Jan 2020 17:19
Needless to say, Italy was burden. Without her, Hitler no Need to send troop to Libya and the Balkan. Neither the Regia Marina nor Regia Aeronautica provided any Bonus to Hitler 's war effort.
Bullshit, as usual. Italy was the reason the North African campaign was fought: which, after the fall of France and until Japan entered the war, was the only major theatre for Commonwealth land forces. With Italy neutral and thus their Army essentially unused, you think that the Brits would have quietly waited for their turn while your super Germany defeated the Soviet Union?

Hitler sent two, later three divisions to North Africa. If he lost the war because of a few dozen thousand troops... and it is questionable that he wouldn't have been involved in the Balkans, since the decision to invade Yugoslavia was a German decision, Italy had not attacked that country.

The Regia Marina definitely provided a bonus to Hitler's war effort, as a good part of the Royal Navy was stationed in the Mediterranean for three years to fight it.
You cannot get away from the fact that Italy was only a burden. It contributed nothing to the German war effort.

Berto
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 06 Oct 2016 14:27
Location: Italy

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Berto » 19 Jan 2020 11:18

Aida1 wrote:
19 Jan 2020 10:05
Berto wrote:
19 Jan 2020 00:01
Kelvin wrote:
18 Jan 2020 17:19
Needless to say, Italy was burden. Without her, Hitler no Need to send troop to Libya and the Balkan. Neither the Regia Marina nor Regia Aeronautica provided any Bonus to Hitler 's war effort.
Bullshit, as usual. Italy was the reason the North African campaign was fought: which, after the fall of France and until Japan entered the war, was the only major theatre for Commonwealth land forces. With Italy neutral and thus their Army essentially unused, you think that the Brits would have quietly waited for their turn while your super Germany defeated the Soviet Union?

Hitler sent two, later three divisions to North Africa. If he lost the war because of a few dozen thousand troops... and it is questionable that he wouldn't have been involved in the Balkans, since the decision to invade Yugoslavia was a German decision, Italy had not attacked that country.

The Regia Marina definitely provided a bonus to Hitler's war effort, as a good part of the Royal Navy was stationed in the Mediterranean for three years to fight it.
You cannot get away from the fact that Italy was only a burden. It contributed nothing to the German war effort.
There's no such fact I can't "get away from", since said "facts" are only the fantasies of Nazis trying to blame their defeat on Italy, and of the idiots who believe them. You did not provide a single argument to counter my points, in which I have explained how Italy contributed a lot to the German war effort.

Berto
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 06 Oct 2016 14:27
Location: Italy

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Berto » 19 Jan 2020 11:27

Hi, I doubt that. Although Hitler also sent two divisions initially, but it were Panzer divisions (15 and 21.Pz divisions), not Infanterie division and those panzer units was Bonus to Hitler 's Russian Campaign.
So, two armored divisions would have changed the tide of the war on the East? That's amazing.
Despite the fact that Mussolini 's troop in Libya had superiority in Manpower in comparsion with British tiny garrison in Egypt, he still was routed by British Western Desert Force and just 2-3 British divisions crushed 300000 Italian force in Operation Compass
.

Lol, the number of Italian troops involved in Compass rises every time someone talks about it. Last time I checked, they were 150,000, and since you are so keen on pointing out the difference of armored divisions, they had no armored divisions, whereas one of the British divisions you mention was an armored one.
Given Italian superiority in Libya, he should win the war easily,
Given British superiority in Crete, they should have easily won...

Given British superiority in Malaya, they should have easily won...
it was burden and exhausted Hitler's valuable panzer divisions and supplies.
On the contrary. Since the vast majority of Axis troops in North Africa were still Italian, and were of use after learning from the mistakes of 1940-early 1941, they allowed Hitler to keep the Commonwealth engaged and force them to use up armored divisions and supplies in Africa with minimal involvement of his own.
Half of Italian battleship fleet were crippled at Taranto Harbour in Nov 1940


...and two of those three battleships were back in service after six months. You are also conveniently forgetting that two British battleships were crippled by Italians at Alexandria in December 1941...
and Italian fleet was again defeated by the Royal Navy in battle of Matapan in March 1941.
Compared to the Kriegsmarine's prestigious record of shooting up defenseless merchant ships with cruises, and then having all capital ships getting sunk at sea or in port...
From Sept 1939, Hitler got a series of victories one by one, from Poland to Greece , however Italian failure in Taranto, Cape Matapan, Greece, Egypt and East Africa affected Axis war record and at least give People some Impression that the Axis alliance was no unbeatable
.

I would have loved to see Hitler's spectacular victory in Greece if the vast majority of the Greek Army had not been fighting the Italians in Albania, allowing the Germans to attack a scarcely defended border. Oh and what about how Germany's marterplan allowed them to defeat Russia? Oh wait...

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 19 Jan 2020 12:36

Berto wrote:
19 Jan 2020 11:18
Aida1 wrote:
19 Jan 2020 10:05
Berto wrote:
19 Jan 2020 00:01
Kelvin wrote:
18 Jan 2020 17:19
Needless to say, Italy was burden. Without her, Hitler no Need to send troop to Libya and the Balkan. Neither the Regia Marina nor Regia Aeronautica provided any Bonus to Hitler 's war effort.
Bullshit, as usual. Italy was the reason the North African campaign was fought: which, after the fall of France and until Japan entered the war, was the only major theatre for Commonwealth land forces. With Italy neutral and thus their Army essentially unused, you think that the Brits would have quietly waited for their turn while your super Germany defeated the Soviet Union?

Hitler sent two, later three divisions to North Africa. If he lost the war because of a few dozen thousand troops... and it is questionable that he wouldn't have been involved in the Balkans, since the decision to invade Yugoslavia was a German decision, Italy had not attacked that country.

The Regia Marina definitely provided a bonus to Hitler's war effort, as a good part of the Royal Navy was stationed in the Mediterranean for three years to fight it.
You cannot get away from the fact that Italy was only a burden. It contributed nothing to the German war effort.
There's no such fact I can't "get away from", since said "facts" are only the fantasies of Nazis trying to blame their defeat on Italy, and of the idiots who believe them. You did not provide a single argument to counter my points, in which I have explained how Italy contributed a lot to the German war effort.
Ridiculous.Italy is not blamed for the German defeat but it contributed nothing substantial either. Italy does not involve itself in the war and Germany is not worse off. No draining away of resources to support Italy has Germany always in a better situation.
Last edited by Aida1 on 19 Jan 2020 12:47, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”