WI Germany goes South in operation Barbossa

[Wildlife]

What if Germany had focused on capturing Ukraine and Baku during operation Barbossa instead of three pronged attacks as OTL ,with the aim of cutting off Soviet Union oil supply by capturing Ukraine and Baku?how much would it had affected the Soviet war effort the Lost of Ukraine and Baku?

Redirect Notice

 

[Kalvan]

Without the three-pronged approach, the Red Army has maneuvering room to flank, bottleneck, and crush the invading Axis forces somewhere around Kiev or Sevastopol, then move into Romania and Western Poland. It's also the longest, slowest invasion route for Operation Barbarossa imaginable.

 

[TDM]

Is there any chance they can get Turkey on side?

 

[Slime_blob]

Is there any chance they can get Turkey on side?

Unlikely, as it seems that turkey is playing both sides

 

[TDM]

Unlikely, as it seems that turkey is playing both sides

Then it's as Kalvan says.

It's a catch-22 for Germany, they don't have enough resources to maintain a wide three pronged attack which has the best chance of finding and engaging the red army, and a single pronged attack allows the Red army and the USSR to draw them in and respond .

Plus this prong isn't even going to Moscow on at least the assumption you can cut off the head of the snake. The sentence "with the aim of cutting off Soviet Union oil supply by capturing Ukraine and Baku" really undersells the distance between Ukraine and Baku!

 

[ranoncles]

I feel the flanking option for Russia is overstated. Up to and including WWI in the east, armies tended to operate on a single axis without too many problems. The Germans even did it during their sickle cut through the Ardennes in 1940 without problems (although it certainly scared them).

In this case Germany could easily have spared a few armies to guard their northern flank while the bulk of the troops massed against Ukraine and the Caucasus in an alternative Barbarossa. Assuming sufficient supplies, they would have done even better than OTL as they would have far more fighting strength there.

While a nice open flank looks wonderful on paper, it is not easy to actually exploit in reality. The Mortain counterattack in 1944 looked good on paper but failed miserably while Manstein’s success at Kharkov was completely unexpected because unprecedented.

Having a nice open flank means your troops have failed somewhere else and are retreating. Morale will be low. Troops might not be easily available, perhaps most are already committed to propping up the broken front? What’s to stop the enemy from encircling your own troops while to prepare your flank attack? Russian armies during WW2 were notoriously difficult to re-orientate in another direction and launch into an attack. It took weeks of preparation. In 1941, they wouldn’t even have had the American trucks to help with logistics either.

If you accept the economic theories underpinning the German invasion, putting their main effort in a push towards the oil etc. would have made the most sense. And it would have been something they likely could have pulled off. You wouldn’t have the great pockets the original 3-pronged invasion created but that didn’t win Germany the war anyway.

The problem for the Germans is that they never made a proper/realistic analysis of fighting the Russians. Their entire strategy was based on defeating them close to the border and then race inland until they surrendered, as every previous victim had done. The whole endeavour was to be over in a few weeks, bar some mopping up. Not a multi-year campaign with realistic intermediate steps.

If the Germans had behaved as civilised humans instead of animals, it would even have worked. Plenty of Russians and oppressed minorities were initially happy with German victory. But by giving everyone not a German (bar a few token allies) no other choice but resistance or death, they ensured that battlefield victories wouldn’t be enough. It became a war of attrition which Germany could never win unless they secured the necessary resources. Which is what Case Blue belatedly tried to do in 1942.

 

[TDM]

I feel the flanking option for Russia is overstated. Up to and including WWI in the east, armies tended to operate on a single axis without too many problems. The Germans even did it during their sickle cut through the Ardennes in 1940 without problems (although it certainly scared them).

In this case Germany could easily have spared a few armies to guard their northern flank while the bulk of the troops massed against Ukraine and the Caucasus in an alternative Barbarossa. Assuming sufficient supplies, they would have done even better than OTL as they would have far more fighting strength there.

While a nice open flank looks wonderful on paper, it is not easy to actually exploit in reality. The Mortain counterattack in 1944 looked good on paper but failed miserably while Manstein’s success at Kharkov was completely unexpected because unprecedented.

Having a nice open flank means your troops have failed somewhere else and are retreating. Morale will be low. Troops might not be easily available, perhaps most are already committed to propping up the broken front? What’s to stop the enemy from encircling your own troops while to prepare your flank attack? Russian armies during WW2 were notoriously difficult to re-orientate in another direction and launch into an attack. It took weeks of preparation. In 1941, they wouldn’t even have had the American trucks to help with logistics either.

If you accept the economic theories underpinning the German invasion, putting their main effort in a push towards the oil etc. would have made the most sense. And it would have been something they likely could have pulled off. You wouldn’t have the great pockets the original 3-pronged invasion created but that didn’t win Germany the war anyway.

Two things though

1). if the goal of the operation s to seize the Baku oilfields the Soviets can trash them if it looks like the German are getting close rendering the whole operation moot. Similarly there is a massive difference between seizing and bringing it home in a usable form.

2). The Russians mobilised what 4m men in the 6 months July to Dec 1941, and another 3m-ish in 1942? It's going to take more than a few armies to guard a flank that stretches from the German starting point in June all the way to Baku, against that especially if you have Moscow free to act

The problem for the Germans is that they never made a proper/realistic analysis of fighting the Russians. Their entire strategy was based on defeating them close to the border and then race inland until they surrendered, as every previous victim had done. The whole endeavour was to be over in a few weeks, bar some mopping up. Not a multi-year campaign with realistic intermediate steps.

Yep and that failing basically means pretty much any variation of broad front vs. narrow front is going to have inherent issues because each one has it own problems caused by it.

If the Germans had behaved as civilised humans instead of animals, it would even have worked. Plenty of Russians and oppressed minorities were initially happy with German victory. But by giving everyone not a German (bar a few token allies) no other choice but resistance or death, they ensured that battlefield victories wouldn’t be enough. It became a war of attrition which Germany could never win unless they secured the necessary resources. Which is what Case Blue belatedly tried to do in 1942.

Yep but here we get into Notzi territory. The goal was to depopulate and enslave as much as it was to get oil.

 

[Darzin]

If the Germans had behaved as civilised humans instead of animals, it would even have worked. Plenty of Russians and oppressed minorities were initially happy with German victory. But by giving everyone not a German (bar a few token allies) no other choice but resistance or death, they ensured that battlefield victories wouldn’t be enough. It became a war of attrition which Germany could never win unless they secured the necessary resources. Which is what Case Blue belatedly tried to do in 1942.

The Germans didn't have enough food to feed both the conquered people and their armies. They did recruit some non slavic minorities but they were limited by food and arms for how many they could pratically recruit.

Taking Baku would probably be better than taking Moscow in terms of winning the war. It's hard to get to that though. Turkey joining would be a godsend for them, but Turkey IOTL was uninterested. It would make an interesting POD if they were interested though, Ataturk dies in 1939 and Turkey had claims agianst the British if someone different takes over... the Germans could be in a lot better position with an Axis Turkey.

 

[M79]

Moscow is the major transportation hub, Leningrad is the major industrial center remaining west if the Urals and the only Soviet center able to repair electricity-generating turbines. Initiate Operation Eisenhammer from the start of the invasion and take these two sites to neutralize a great deal of Soviet production and compromising their logistics/transportation network. Once Moscow is taken, offer Turkey a choice - subjugation (not actually desirable given the necessary resources), Bulgaria-like puppet status (give them Western Thrace, Armenia, and perhaps Georgia if they join the Axis on paper and permit German bases/access along the Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara), or full Axis membership (as above but add the Levant, and perhaps Iraq with parts of Iran if they play extra-nice). Turkey is too strategically important to be left alone at that point. Beating out the Clodius Agreement by promises of territory or assistance would be one step, finding a way to 'pin' the Refah sinking on the UK would also be one step towards peacefully bringing Turkey into the Axis.

 

[Vabasion]

Two things though

1). if the goal of the operation s to seize the Baku oilfields the Soviets can trash them if it looks like the German are getting close rendering the whole operation moot. Similarly there is a massive difference between seizing and bringing it home in a usable form.

2). The Russians mobilised what 4m men in the 6 months July to Dec 1941, and another 3m-ish in 1942? It's going to take more than a few armies to guard a flank that stretches from the German starting point in June all the way to Baku, against that



Yep and that failing basically means pretty much any variation of broad front vs. narrow front is going to have inherent issues because each one has it own problems caused by it.



Yep but here we get into Notzi territory. The goal was to depopulate and enslave as much as it was to get oil.

Even trashed Baku and Caucasus oil is a boon for Germans. After all it turns Soviets into an oil importer instead of exporter. And with all the other Soviet troubles I have serious doubts they can also manage massive oil imports from abroad to fuel their war machine. Which has a knock on effect on what is produced. If 80% of oil - which is what Caucasus represented for Soviets needs to be imported they are worse off than even Germans. There won’t be tens of thousands of T-34 produced. There won’t be hundreds of thousands of Trucks. Horses and infantry will slog it for years.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Moscow is the major transportation hub, Leningrad is the major industrial center remaining west if the Urals and the only Soviet center able to repair electricity-generating turbines. Initiate Operation Eisenhammer from the start of the invasion and take these two sites to neutralize a great deal of Soviet production and compromising their logistics/transportation network.

Ordering the Luftwaffe to focus on a surprise bombing of Leningrad means bypassing the Red Air Force and allowing it to take off, which may not be an advantage. "Taking" these two sites and ensuring that the Soviets won't be able to repair their infrastructure will be, as always, easier said than done.

Once Moscow is taken, offer Turkey a choice - subjugation (not actually desirable given the necessary resources), Bulgaria-like puppet status (give them Western Thrace, Armenia, and perhaps Georgia if they join the Axis on paper and permit German bases/access along the Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara), or full Axis membership (as above but add the Levant, and perhaps Iraq with parts of Iran if they play extra-nice). Turkey is too strategically important to be left alone at that point. Beating out the Clodius Agreement by promises of territory or assistance would be one step, finding a way to 'pin' the Refah sinking on the UK would also be one step towards peacefully bringing Turkey into the Axis.

Turkey's strategic importance was precisely the reason why it was left alone, primarily given that its internal infrastructure and the state of its army could not support the maneuvers that would be necessary for the proposed offensive operations.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

The drive into the Ukraine and Caucasus should ideally be combined with the capture of Smolensk followed by a very convincing feint at Moscow. If the Soviets thought that the Wermacht had targeted Moscow, it is likely that they would put their strongest forces there - away from Kharkov, Voronezh, Rostov, Stalingrad etc. Without the breadbasket of the Ukraine, the Donets and the oilfields, the economy of the USSR might suffer a severe blow.

However, a narrow front also helps the Soviet Army.

 

[Post]

I feel the flanking option for Russia is overstated. Up to and including WWI in the east, armies tended to operate on a single axis without too many problems. The Germans even did it during their sickle cut through the Ardennes in 1940 without problems (although it certainly scared them).

Which easily could have gotten wrong.
Also from Germany to Dunkirk/Abbeville is something like 200-300 km. While from Brest-Litovsk to Baku is 2,000-3,000 km. Which increases the risks significantly.
Further the sickle cut had a goal of cutting the enemies line of communications. It split the enemuy in two, and one of the parts could be mopped up (or actually managed to escape). While a trust to Baku doesn't do that. Yes, it does take an important strategic objective, but leaves your own lines of communication at risk.

 

[user23123]

How about a compromise they still do the three pronged attacks,but they don't go for Moscow stopping around Smolensk or there about,since they realise that they don't have the logistics capabilities for a Moscow attack so army group center splits in two parts one defends and another moves south to help securing Ukraine.

 

[pjmidd]

Logistics, Logistics, Logistics. Its as simple as that , three axis in OTL to use three different logistic chains. You cannot actually attack with many more men than the Germans did in the South , no way to supply them. Hence the three axis attack to pin the Soviets and allow all the army to deploy.

 

[Post]

How about a compromise they still do the three pronged attacks,but they don't go for Moscow stopping around Smolensk or there about,since they realise that they don't have the logistics capabilities for a Moscow attack so army group center splits in two parts one defends and another moves south to help securing Ukraine.

Isn't that sorta what did they when they encircled the Russians at Kiev?

 

[TDM]

Even trashed Baku and Caucasus oil is a boon for Germans. After all it turns Soviets into an oil importer instead of exporter. And with all the other Soviet troubles I have serious doubts they can also manage massive oil imports from abroad to fuel their war machine. Which has a knock on effect on what is produced. If 80% of oil - which is what Caucasus represented for Soviets needs to be imported they are worse off than even Germans. There won’t be tens of thousands of T-34 produced. There won’t be hundreds of thousands of Trucks. Horses and infantry will slog it for years.

I take your general point, but frankly Germany will have just chucked 3m men on a 3000km death ride to Baku for nothing. It's a bad trade. (seriously Baku is so much further than Leningrad or Moscow)

I agree worst case denying the Germans the oil they may have to deny themselves the oil, but compared to OTL the Soviets will be in better shape in terms of military losses, and less territory occupied by Axis forces. And the Germans still need that oil.

However I don't even think the Germans will get to Baku! One constant problem they had even when covering shorter* distances was the panzer armies moved much faster than the footsloggers following behind. Even if they can in theory maintain supply lines to the Panzers (and OK 1 prong is easier to supply than 3, but that's a long distance) the panzers will move out of support of their following armies (and supply between them will be vulnerable). This will all get much worse when you increase the distance

I know LL isn't the answer to all problems but the wallies will LL the soviets Oil if need be (there was already some OTL). They can send via Iran if need be (and then send US to UK)


*a relative terms still talking border to Moscow here!

 

[user23123]

Isn't that sorta what did they when they encircled the Russians at Kiev?

Yes something like that.

And didn't Wagner one of the guys in charge of logistics who said that they could not go further then Smolensk.

 

[marathag]

Even taking Baku intact, they don't have the spare RR gear to ship that oil back to Germany.
The Soviets used barges and ships for most of the transport

 

[Vabasion]

I take your general point, but frankly Germany will have just chucked 3m men on a 3000km death ride to Baku for nothing. It's a bad trade. (seriously Baku is so much further than Leningrad or Moscow)

I agree worst case denying the Germans the oil they may have to deny themselves the oil, but compared to OTL the Soviets will be in better shape in terms of military losses, and less territory occupied by Axis forces. And the Germans still need that oil.

However I don't even think the Germans will get to Baku! One constant problem they had even when covering shorter* distances was the panzer armies moved much faster than the footsloggers following behind. Even if they can in theory maintain supply lines to the Panzers (and OK 1 prong is easier to supply than 3, but that's a long distance) the panzers will move out of support of their following armies (and supply between them will be vulnerable). This will all get much worse when you increase the distance

I know LL isn't the answer to all problems but the wallies will LL the soviets Oil if need be (there was already some OTL). They can send via Iran if need be (and then send US to UK)


*a relative terms still talking border to Moscow here!

Soviet logistics were a disaster, even worse than the Germans. They made up for it with sheer production and lend lease of trucks. Soviets which can’t use thousands upon thousands of trucks and are resorting to horses for transport are in terrible shape compared to OTL. Less territory is taken but less progress can be made. There is no grand mechanized offensives, sweeping moves that eliminate entire German armies. Tanks will be rare, planes even rarer, and a bad logistics system that took months to direct itself to a location is worse off. Unless the Germans can fix up the infrastructure and start producing oil they will still of course lose but there will be 10 million more dead Soviets at the least.