The ideal Axis strategy

[JAG13]

A couple panzer divisions would have sufficed to kick them out, the Brits really didnt have much left, and that would have been une failure too many for Churchill.

No Barbarossa means no Pearl Harbor, the Japanese cant attack south with the Soviets unengaged to the north...

It'ss not as simple what the actual plan.,

(1) How wil they be supplied.
(2) What date are they deployed,
(3) Where are they deployed
(4) what is their objective?

There is plenty the British can do and more forces they can deploy. They have unused forces the means to supply and deploy them. The british have a range of counter moves available.

Not really, after Crete UK forces were depleted and in a sorry state which is why Rommel brushed aside easily with a handful of troops, they had very little forces in and around Iraq, a single panzer division would have been FAR too much for them.

After Crete the British were attacking with opertaion Battleaxe, Rommel's advance had been stopped and the British had regrouped to Attack. They were invading Vichy Syria with significant forces (enough to stop a couple of panzer divisions) They were also attacked in Italain East Africa and would be winding up operations, freeing up those troops to redeploy in the middle east. More Indian army troops could have been deployed, and there were troops in England (Muddle East command had turned down troops at the start of 1941)

There are troops and counter moves available,

(1) How wil they be supplied.
(2) What date are they deployed,
(3) Where are they deployed
(4) what is their objective?

IF you ddn;t want to dicsuss any detail about how this could work. Then it;s just a day dream without substance.

In Iraq they could muster pitiful forces, those could have been easily swept aside, then is up to the UK to try to set up enough forces to try and take it back, if they are still in the war that is...

Battleaxe was a failure in spite of the DAK being a secondary theater for Germany, with increased logistical and military support it would have been a different matter.

[pugsville]

[

In Iraq they could muster pitiful forces, those could have been easily swept aside, then is up to the UK to try to set up enough forces to try and take it back, if they are still in the war that is...

Battleaxe was a failure in spite of the DAK being a secondary theater for Germany, with increased logistical and military support it would have been a different matter.

Aside from hyperbolic statements can actually say how these panzer divisions could have achieved something>? I asked soem perfectly reasonable questions. Why not answer them?

In Iraq they could muster a greater force than 2 panzer diversions. Especially those operating again at the end of long thin supply line,

North Africa was a secondary that-err but it was limited by logistical constraints. teh Axis were unable to supply the troops they had there historically. They were incapable of supplying significantly more,

Battle Axe was a failure. The Point is just after Crete the British were conducting three simultaneous offensives in middle east command, Battle Axe, Syria and East Africa. They did not have to, They could have pulled together a force if faced with another threat.

[JAG13]

[

In Iraq they could muster pitiful forces, those could have been easily swept aside, then is up to the UK to try to set up enough forces to try and take it back, if they are still in the war that is...

Battleaxe was a failure in spite of the DAK being a secondary theater for Germany, with increased logistical and military support it would have been a different matter.

Aside from hyperbolic statements can actually say how these panzer divisions could have achieved something>? I asked soem perfectly reasonable questions. Why not answer them?

You mean hyperbolic comments like the British could do plenty and had lots of forces available when in fact the troops they used in Iraq where small units scrapped together from wherever they could?

Good questions, why not apply the same and begin by detailing what could the British do that they didnt do when surprised in Iraq? Or what those forces you mention were...

In Iraq they could muster a greater force than 2 panzer diversions. Especially those operating again at the end of long thin supply line,

Really? Please do detail those forces that could stop TWO panzer divisions...

North Africa was a secondary that-err but it was limited by logistical constraints. teh Axis were unable to supply the troops they had there historically. They were incapable of supplying significantly more,

They were able to supply when they bothered to deploy air assets to suppress Malta and support operations, without Barbarossa that wouldnt be an issue and von Thoma expected 4 Panzer divisions could be fully supported.

Battle Axe was a failure. The Point is just after Crete the British were conducting three simultaneous offensives in middle east command, Battle Axe, Syria and East Africa. They did not have to, They could have pulled together a force if faced with another threat.

TWO offensives, the other was a panicked reaction by a hodge-podge of small units.

With the Germans reinforced in Africa and attacking in Iraq, doubtful...

[pugsville]

[

In Iraq they could muster pitiful forces, those could have been easily swept aside, then is up to the UK to try to set up enough forces to try and take it back, if they are still in the war that is...

Battleaxe was a failure in spite of the DAK being a secondary theater for Germany, with increased logistical and military support it would have been a different matter.

Aside from hyperbolic statements can actually say how these panzer divisions could have achieved something>? I asked soem perfectly reasonable questions. Why not answer them?

You mean hyperbolic comments like the British could do plenty and had lots of forces available when in fact the troops they used in Iraq where small units scrapped together from wherever they could?

Good questions, why not apply the same and begin by detailing what could the British do that they didnt do when surprised in Iraq? Or what those forces you mention were...

In Iraq they could muster a greater force than 2 panzer diversions. Especially those operating again at the end of long thin supply line,

Really? Please do detail those forces that could stop TWO panzer divisions...

North Africa was a secondary that-err but it was limited by logistical constraints. teh Axis were unable to supply the troops they had there historically. They were incapable of supplying significantly more,

They were able to supply when they bothered to deploy air assets to suppress Malta and support operations, without Barbarossa that wouldnt be an issue and von Thoma expected 4 Panzer divisions could be fully supported.

Battle Axe was a failure. The Point is just after Crete the British were conducting three simultaneous offensives in middle east command, Battle Axe, Syria and East Africa. They did not have to, They could have pulled together a force if faced with another threat.

TWO offensives, the other was a panicked reaction by a hodge-podge of small units.

With the Germans reinforced in Africa and attacking in Iraq, doubtful...

Why would the British be surprised by German deployed to Iraq? It was highly likely to be detected. Certainly anything the Luftwaffe did was just broadcast to the allies. In a country not a war, it;s hard to see how it could be kept s4ecret. Passing though Istanbul no one's going to notice the large amount of German tanks, The British knew about Rommel's deployment in advance. German tanks driving to the Border with Iraq would be needed a complete overhaul.

The Troops for the Syrian campaign could have been sent to Iraq instead, redeployed a division from East Africa and shipped in another from India. And dispatched another from England for the medium term. While the Troops evacuated from Crete are reamed. Thetas easily enough to stop two panzer divisions. Teh Battle Axe offensive could have been canacelled. teh SYrian cmapaign deployed or reinforced.

divisions arriving in the Middle east june - july 1941 Enough to stop 2 panzer divisions.

The 1st SA division arrived in Egypt may 1941
The 2nd SA division arrived in Egypt early june 1941.
The $th Indian Division arrived in Egypt may 1941
The 4th Armored bridge formed in Egypt may 1941.
7th Australian Division (less the brigade sent to Toburk) used in Syria.
6th Australian Division was rebuilding in Palestine (after Crete) sum units used in Syria
6th Indian division arrived in Iraq sept 1941.
8th Indian Division arrived in Iraq july 1941 (some elements present form early june 1941)
10th Indian Divsion peice meal dispatch starting from around April 1941)

The supply to North Africa never had sum excess that could supply another two panzer divisions. IT was beyond the capability of Axis logistics. Malta or Not. And With Rommel of the Egyptian border his supply line is pretty stretched.



The Germans Never

[JAG13]

Why would the British be surprised by German deployed to Iraq? It was highly likely to be detected. Certainly anything the Luftwaffe did was just broadcast to the allies. In a country not a war, it;s hard to see how it could be kept s4ecret. Passing though Istanbul no one's going to notice the large amount of German tanks, The British knew about Rommel's deployment in advance. German tanks driving to the Border with Iraq would be needed a complete overhaul.

By the time the Germans get to Istanbul it would be too late to reinforce Iraq...

Why would they drive? There are trains for that, all the way to Baghdad even.

The Troops for the Syrian campaign could have been sent to Iraq instead, redeployed a division from East Africa and shipped in another from India. And dispatched another from England for the medium term. While the Troops evacuated from Crete are reamed. Thetas easily enough to stop two panzer divisions. Teh Battle Axe offensive could have been canacelled. teh SYrian cmapaign deployed or reinforced.

That takes time and no, it is not enough, specially since the LW os likely to significantly outnumber the RAF...

divisions arriving in the Middle east june - july 1941 Enough to stop 2 panzer divisions.

The 1st SA division arrived in Egypt may 1941
The 2nd SA division arrived in Egypt early june 1941.
The $th Indian Division arrived in Egypt may 1941
The 4th Armored bridge formed in Egypt may 1941.
7th Australian Division (less the brigade sent to Toburk) used in Syria.
6th Australian Division was rebuilding in Palestine (after Crete) sum units used in Syria
6th Indian division arrived in Iraq sept 1941.
8th Indian Division arrived in Iraq july 1941 (some elements present form early june 1941)
10th Indian Divsion peice meal dispatch starting from around April 1941)

Rebuilding units are rebuilding and the units rushed were... rushed... so, tell me, how about artillery and AT weapons, we know the BEF lacked enough AT BEFORE LOSING ALL OF THEM at Dunkirk, so it would interesting to see how well equipped and trained all those green COMMONWEALTH, not even UK units, were in order to stop veteran armored units...

The supply to North Africa never had sum excess that could supply another two panzer divisions. IT was beyond the capability of Axis logistics. Malta or Not. And With Rommel of the Egyptian border his supply line is pretty stretched.

The Germans Never

In the context of a lack of Barbarossa you can use all the Ju52s available for an air bridge for Rommel, it would be expensive, but it would give him a logistical boost in addition to air superiority.

[pugsville]

By the time the Germans get to Istanbul it would be too late to reinforce Iraq...

Why would they drive? There are trains for that, all the way to Baghdad even.

So the Turks are turning over their entire railway capacity to the Germans? Really hos actually running and loading the railways. The Turks and do they really care how fast anything is done for Germans who forced their way into their country.The Build up would take time in any case.

trains are not magic.

That takes time and no, it is not enough, specially since the LW os likely to significantly outnumber the RAF...

Oh the LW involved than the British know everything. So more than just 2 panzer divsions.

Rebuilding units are rebuilding and the units rushed were... rushed... so, tell me, how about artillery and AT weapons, we know the BEF lacked enough AT BEFORE LOSING ALL OF THEM at Dunkirk, so it would interesting to see how well equipped and trained all those green COMMONWEALTH, not even UK units, were in order to stop veteran armored units...

Dunkirk a long time ago. Some are rebuilding some are recently formed, some had been in combat in East afrcia. Some did not have the full complement of artillery. A few days comabatt in france.

In the context of a lack of Barbarossa you can use all the Ju52s available for an air bridge for Rommel, it would be expensive, but it would give him a logistical boost in addition to air superiority.

Well A lot Ju52s had been trashed in Crete. And while a small very small boost was possible by air. Supplying combat panzerdivisions is well beyond the capability of such an air lift,

[JAG13]

By the time the Germans get to Istanbul it would be too late to reinforce Iraq...

Why would they drive? There are trains for that, all the way to Baghdad even.

So the Turks are turning over their entire railway capacity to the Germans? Really hos actually running and loading the railways. The Turks and do they really care how fast anything is done for Germans who forced their way into their country.The Build up would take time in any case.

trains are not magic.

Since they would be part of the Axis, yes.

Build up? Not really, plenty of divisions were available and 3rd Panzer was tropicalized in 1940 well in advance and in anticipation of African operations, eventually part of it would make it to the DAK which is why they arrived so quickly, if more troops are thought to be needed, more would be prepared in advance to actual operations.

That takes time and no, it is not enough, specially since the LW os likely to significantly outnumber the RAF...

Oh the LW involved than the British know everything. So more than just 2 panzer divsions.

Eventually? Certainly. Wont matter a bit for the UK troops under LW attack.

Rebuilding units are rebuilding and the units rushed were... rushed... so, tell me, how about artillery and AT weapons, we know the BEF lacked enough AT BEFORE LOSING ALL OF THEM at Dunkirk, so it would interesting to see how well equipped and trained all those green COMMONWEALTH, not even UK units, were in order to stop veteran armored units...

Dunkirk a long time ago. Some are rebuilding some are recently formed, some had been in combat in East afrcia. Some did not have the full complement of artillery. A few days comabatt in france.

Long time? A year at most and those Indian and SA troops are green, or fought Italians at best...

In the context of a lack of Barbarossa you can use all the Ju52s available for an air bridge for Rommel, it would be expensive, but it would give him a logistical boost in addition to air superiority.

Well A lot Ju52s had been trashed in Crete. And while a small very small boost was possible by air. Supplying combat panzerdivisions is well beyond the capability of such an air lift,

The LW did PLENTY of air supply during Barbarossa, 355 Ju52s were fully occupied in that task from the first day, and it wasnt a little, and that was prior to recovering planes and crews from Crete. The LW had around 600 transport aircraft available at the time.

[TheMarcksPlan]

The ideal Axis strategy was exactly the one they pursued until mid-1941 or so, minus the assumption that the SU would be a cakewalk.
Your strategy has Germany dispersing its forces across economically unproductive spaces that would consume resources.
Meanwhile a giant storm would be gathering in the East; you're gambling everything on the idea that Stalin could be trusted. Bad bet IMO.

Hindsight prevents most commentators from seeing something that was obvious to all contemporaries: that Germany should have won the Eastern war. See, for example, the U.S. Victory Plan:

How many months will Germany require to defeat
Russia, to reconstitute her forces subsequent lo Russia's defeat and
to exploitlO any perceptible degree the vast resources of Russia? It is
believed that Germany will occupy Russian territory west of the
general fine; White Sea, Moscow, Volga River; (all inclusive) by July
I, 1942, and that militarily, Russia will be substantially impotent
subsequent that date. Thereafter, Germany will "Coventry" all
industrial areas, lines of communications and sources of raw materials east of the line indicated, unless a drastic Nazi treaty is accepted
by Russia

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/vict ... -93-10.pdf (pg. 127)

This was the correct opinion then and now. It is obscured only by decades of hindsight and the experience of the SU as one of the world's great superpowers.

Here's the headline facts:
1. Germany in its 1918 borders had about the same size economy as the SU.
2. The Greater Reich (+Austria, Czech Republic, Alsace-Loraine, Western Poland) had an economy substantially larger than SU's.
3. Although SU had a greater population, its lower productivity meant each sides maximum manpower mobilization was similar (~11mil for each side). And that's before considering Axis allies.
4. German combat power per soldier was multiples of Soviet.
5. Barbarossa removed 1/3 of Soviet population, half its industrial base, and much of its productive land.

By 1942 Germany's economy was on the order of 3x the SU's. Axis steel production was ~4x the SU's.
Problem for Nazis was that Germany had cut its land-weapons programs dramatically from July 1941, and then torpedoed its economy during winter 1942 by failing to have any plans for railroad capacity behind a winter battle (i.e. trains sent to Ostheer - unexpectedly but foreseeably - ruined the German economy during those months).

Germany should have beat the SU and, having done so, it probably should have won WW2 as a whole, perhaps even conquering England by August 1945. More on that in forthcoming threads.

[HistoryGeek2019]

The ideal Axis strategy was exactly the one they pursued until mid-1941 or so, minus the assumption that the SU would be a cakewalk.
Your strategy has Germany dispersing its forces across economically unproductive spaces that would consume resources.
Meanwhile a giant storm would be gathering in the East; you're gambling everything on the idea that Stalin could be trusted. Bad bet IMO.

Hindsight prevents most commentators from seeing something that was obvious to all contemporaries: that Germany should have won the Eastern war. See, for example, the U.S. Victory Plan:

How many months will Germany require to defeat
Russia, to reconstitute her forces subsequent lo Russia's defeat and
to exploitlO any perceptible degree the vast resources of Russia? It is
believed that Germany will occupy Russian territory west of the
general fine; White Sea, Moscow, Volga River; (all inclusive) by July
I, 1942, and that militarily, Russia will be substantially impotent
subsequent that date. Thereafter, Germany will "Coventry" all
industrial areas, lines of communications and sources of raw materials east of the line indicated, unless a drastic Nazi treaty is accepted
by Russia

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/vict ... -93-10.pdf (pg. 127)

This was the correct opinion then and now. It is obscured only by decades of hindsight and the experience of the SU as one of the world's great superpowers.

Here's the headline facts:
1. Germany in its 1918 borders had about the same size economy as the SU.
2. The Greater Reich (+Austria, Czech Republic, Alsace-Loraine, Western Poland) had an economy substantially larger than SU's.
3. Although SU had a greater population, its lower productivity meant each sides maximum manpower mobilization was similar (~11mil for each side). And that's before considering Axis allies.
4. German combat power per soldier was multiples of Soviet.
5. Barbarossa removed 1/3 of Soviet population, half its industrial base, and much of its productive land.

By 1942 Germany's economy was on the order of 3x the SU's. Axis steel production was ~4x the SU's.
Problem for Nazis was that Germany had cut its land-weapons programs dramatically from July 1941, and then torpedoed its economy during winter 1942 by failing to have any plans for railroad capacity behind a winter battle (i.e. trains sent to Ostheer - unexpectedly but foreseeably - ruined the German economy during those months).

Germany should have beat the SU and, having done so, it probably should have won WW2 as a whole, perhaps even conquering England by August 1945. More on that in forthcoming threads.

The ideal geopolitical strategy for any country in any time and place is that of the British Empire: rule the waves, and divide and conquer on land. Land wars are inherently bloody affairs that sap the strength of your young manpower. You can brainstorm as many ATLs as you like, but the fact is that any invasion of the Soviet Union is going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives and millions more to occupy and hold a territory that has little infrastructure and a stubborn, violent population.

Germany was at a disadvantage compared to Britain in that it was stuck on land with potential enemies on all sides. But if it could generate an alliance of countries with a common interest in preventing the United States from replacing the British Empire, and which together could form a secure naval route that would ensure their ability to trade the resources of Europe, Asia and at least part of Africa, while cutting off their continental enemies from the United States, that is far and away the best strategy. It might not work, but pretty much any other strategy is doomed to getting stomped by an Anglo-Soviet-American alliance.

[TheMarcksPlan]

The ideal geopolitical strategy for any country in any time and place is that of the British Empire: rule the waves, and divide and conquer on land.

Strategy flows from aims.
Given my aims, I'd call your "ideal" British strategy terrible. I'd recommend they drink their warm beer and leave the rest of the world the F*%& alone.
Given Hitler's aims, his strategy was nearly ideal but for not taking the SU seriously.

Plus the title of your thread is "Ideal Axis Strategy." Unless there's some strategy in which Germany and England switch geographies I don't see the relevance of your post.

millions more to occupy and hold a territory that has little infrastructure and a stubborn, violent population.

Germany assigned ~250k to occupy ~1/3 of that stubborn, violent population during an active war. That stubborn, violent population supplied nearly all the Ostheer's food, ~million auxiliary laborers, and a huge chunk of its manganese (at Nikopol). Their resistance was relatively light until the Ostheer's fortunes turned. Just as in the rest of Europe.

It might not work, but pretty much any other strategy is doomed to getting stomped by an Anglo-Soviet-American alliance.

You're just stating that your strategy is ideal. Reasonable view but that's skipping ahead a bit.

[HistoryGeek2019]

No, I gave reasons, and you've refuted none of them.

Hitler's aims were:

1. To create a powerful Germany,
2. That was the sole and ruling military power on the European continent, and
3. That could challenge the United States for global military and economic hegemony.

Conquering the Soviet Union accomplishes 1 and 2, but it leaves Germany landlocked on the continent and surrounded, blockaded and bombed by the Anglo-American alliance, who will also conquer Japan, gain control of Vladivostok and funnel enormous military and economic aid to the continuing resistance in the Soviet Union.

My strategy, if successful, would eliminate any air bases within fighter range of Germany, establish a secure naval route through which the Axis could trade with and support each other, allow them to use their combined naval strength against one remaining naval enemy, and be in a position to isolate and blockade any country in Europe or Asia that stood up to them. That's as ideal as it gets in geopolitics.

[TheMarcksPlan]

My strategy, if successful, would eliminate any air bases within fighter range of Germany, establish a secure naval route through which the Axis could trade with and support each other, allow them to use their combined naval strength against one remaining naval enemy, and be in a position to isolate and blockade any country in Europe or Asia that stood up to them.

...mostly true...
Assuming the SU just sits and waits to be encircled.

Our basic point of difference is that you appear to believe that the SU wouldn't fight or could be deterred by Germany at acceptable cost (in terms of maintenance of standing armies, land-weapons production, etc.).

[HistoryGeek2019]

My strategy, if successful, would eliminate any air bases within fighter range of Germany, establish a secure naval route through which the Axis could trade with and support each other, allow them to use their combined naval strength against one remaining naval enemy, and be in a position to isolate and blockade any country in Europe or Asia that stood up to them.

...mostly true...
Assuming the SU just sits and waits to be encircled.

Our basic point of difference is that you appear to believe that the SU wouldn't fight or could be deterred by Germany at acceptable cost (in terms of maintenance of standing armies, land-weapons production, etc.).

Agreed. Germany would have to have plans in advance to invade Great Britain the same year that France falls. If it waits too long after the Fall of France, Britain will be able to build an effective defense and the Soviet Union will be prepared to attack Germany as soon as the invasion is launched.

The biggest flaw I see in my strategy is that it requires Germany to build a Channel crossing force without the British knowing and building a counter-force. Where would Germany build and hide all these troop transports and escorts? Secrecy would be everything, since Britain was a superior naval power and could counter any naval force they were aware of.

[TheMarcksPlan]

2. Conquer Great Britain: Germany started planning for this far too late in the OTL. But with enough time and the proper planning, Germany could have focused on building a navy and air force that could secure the crossing of the English Channel.

I read through this post too quickly - apologies.
I was under the impression it was "Med first, British Isles second."
Granting a successful Sealion in 1940 or even 41, there's no way Germany loses to anybody - maybe ever. Everything else is just denouement.

Forgive me for not reading through the entire thread...
Can you point me to your posts explaining how and when Germany conquers the British Isles?

[TheMarcksPlan]

requires Germany to build a Channel crossing force without the British knowing and building a counter-force.

Preview of upcoming thread:

What about a causeway instead of a navy?