How Hitler could have won

Ploesti "did" supply the operation in autumn 42, made it all the way to Stalingrad & even Mt Elbrus. What on earth are you talking about?! & southern route would require much less than a full scale Barbarossa would have.


Empty handed? with Austrian fields & their own domestic production as well Ploesti in tow?

70 barrels was the beginning, how good it would have looked a few months later is unknown. & germans would have gotten Baku under way in 6 months or so, not the grossly innacurate 2 yrs you have speculated.

& Za might've been right about the Germans skiing...

German troops of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga just north of Stalingrad on August 23. Two days before, the
swastika had been hoisted on Mount Elbrus, the highest peak (18,481 feet) in the Caucasus Mountains.

That should put the final nail in the 'impassable terrain' concept.

Here's modern map of area, shows roads & distance is calculable with index. Not very far from Armenia to Baku. With Armenian rail system in tow, transport looks not too tough.

http://www.geo.ya.com/travelimages/az-road-map.gif

 

Ploesti did supply something:

Progress was slow because fuel was rationed and Army Group A were given priority. At the end of July 1942, a lack of fuel brought Paulus to a halt at Kalach. It was not until 7th August that he had received the supplies needed to continue with his advance.

On 18th August, Paulus, now only thirty-five miles from Stalingrad, ran out of fuel again.

When fresh supplies reached him, Paulus decided to preserve fuel by move forward with only his XIV Panzer corps.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERpaulus.htm

 

The highest volume of oil produced in the Baku area in the twentieth century was achieved in 1941, 23.4 million tonnes produced and delivered to the front line free of charge.

The number of working wells declined sharply in the autumn of 1942. Eighty-one complete drilling rigs with their personnel were moved to Turkmenistan. Total capital investment in the oil industry was reduced fivefold by 1942 and more than ninefold a year later. Special preparations were also made to destroy oil installations and reserves.

On the other hand, a rapid increase in Soviet aircraft and armoured personnel carriers required growing fuel supplies which had to be secured at any cost.

This meant oil producers in Baku were squeezed between a sharp reduction in industrial facilities and rising demand. To deal with the problem, Baku’s engineering and equipment manufacturing plants were obliged to renew and diversify their production.

Old machinery was rebuilt and put back into operation. With no new wells being drilled, the working ones were squeezed to the last drop.

Although total oil output in 1942 was much smaller than a year before, 15.8 million of the 21.9 million tonnes produced in the USSR came from Baku. Comparable volumes in 1943 were 12.7 and 17.9 million tonnes.

Another problem was oil transport, which mostly went by sea. (?)

http://www.statoil.com/STATOILCOM/svg00990.nsf?opendatabase&lang=en&artid=3749A178CF368249C1256FBF002A4235

 

Far be it from me to challenge an 'academic' such as yourself, Mr Chromebone, but what about this...

You mention Turkey and Armenia?

Well the two would not co-operate and would more than likely enter into open war with each other in such a situation due to the massacres committed by the Turks in WW1 against the Armenia population and thus they would resist any invasion especially a German one with Turkish allies very ferociously.

And one other thing... If we are going 'academic'...


What use is a modern map?

Surely you want a 1930's map of the Armenian road system to prove anything...

 

So why do these forums have a 'what if' section when any 'what if' question or suggestion gets the same dismissive/agressive response every time??
Just a thought.....

Cheers,
Adam.

 

I think what if here looks at more possible situations unlike pure, well I shall leave it at that.

 

Armenia stiff resistance?? Um that's not too real. Doubt the Armenian army, if there even was one around that time was much to worry about.

Chromebone eh? um clever not. Sticks & stones. & never claimed to be an academic, just a history buff like anyone else who prefers chat to immature personal attacks etc.

& British bombing of Baku from north Iraq is something to consider. But I can't imagine they would get too many bombers into north Iraq, & Germans no doubt would set up fighter bases to counter these attacks & flak batteries galore. JU 88's could head out & hit the bases & attack the bombers. & last but not least, panzers may be sent down to overun these bases.


& as for map, I explained it was more to show distance between Armenia & Baku. That was the point of it.

 

& so 41/42 were big production yrs for Baku. If Germans overan it in 41, then all that, ( or most of it ), would have not occurred. Which would cripple Soviet war industry.

 

Well Chromey you must be...

My comments are a copy of historian David Kahn (author of 'The Codebreakers' and 'Seizing the Enigma') from his essay 'Enigma Uncracked'... I have alot of counter-factual history around the place.

Resisting an invasion does not have to be by the military. Take a look at the mess that is Iraq to see how an insurgent force could damage the German war effort in that theatre... Blown rail lines, attacks on convoys, Soviet airborne units to assist in guerilla operations, SOE operatives dropped to train insurgents along with supplies...

My comment on using a modern map to illustrate your point was not of the distance but that it does not accurately portray the road/rail network in the region during the specific period and is therefore misleading. I suspect the road/rail system in the region differed somewhat in the 1930s compared to now...

 

I'm well aware that a modern map is not indicative of the roads that were extant in 1941. I & any & everyone else 'already know' this, therefore not misleading.

Yep, behind the lines activity always takes place, but in the case of Iraq & France in ww2, or Armenia has very little to do with resisting an invasion. It is usually more to do harassing the enemy while he is there.

Rails can be blown yes, thankyou for sharing that. Again pretty much any & everyone already knows this.

Germans would no doubt garrison the bridges & most vulnerable rail sections as they did in other areas during the war.

 

Youre not very conducive to discussion are you?

Garrisoning rail lines in very difficult... Look at Soviet partisan activity in the run up to Bagration...

Actually I dunno why Im bothering...

 

Discussion? you call chromebone discussion? & you can't even admit when a point you've made has been debunked,like the rolling stock. The Python image emerges.

or this...
I cant read a load of balls.....

or this...

Still... I prefer the idea of filling Gigants with Panzer IVs and dropping them on the Russians...

As Mcenroe would say ; YOU CAN"T BE SERIOUS!

 

There are several components to railroads necessary for their operation. Remove any and the system stops working.

First, there are the rails themselves. The German's opponets would likely pull up portions of these, burn the ties, trash the road bed etc. Bridges would likely be blown up as well.

The next part is ancillary infrastructure. Coaling stations, water towers, switch yards, switch and signal sites etc. All of these would also likely suffer heavily.

Then there is the rolling stock and locomotives. The former is useless without the later. In Russia for example, in the opening campaign of 41 the Germans captured alot of rolling stock but few locomotives. The rolling stock proved largely worthless as a result.
Now, the other problem that could arise is locomotive design. Most of this period were coal fired. Coal would have to be shipped to these areas to supply the locomotives. Also, the size of the water box determines the range between water stations.
Russian locomotives for example had larger water boxes than German ones. Therefore, the distance between water stations was too great to use German locomotives even after resizing the gage of the track. Additional sidings and water towers had to be constructed.

So, we come back to the same problems of logistics. The Germans have limited ability to supply their forces by sea. Rail systems will not be available immediately following the advance. So, it comes back down to trucks and horse drawn wagons supplying the army initially. The problem here is that this has a sustainable range of about 400 to 500 miles at most. Beyond that combat power begins to degrade significantly as the supply system cannot keep up.
It happened to the Germans in Russia and North Africa. It happened to Montgomery in his pursuit of Rommel. It happened to the Japanese and the Americas too.

The Southern route is simply too big a theater for the Germans to rapidly and suddenly conqueror. Instead, they will find themselves drawn into a wide ranging war of attrition on multiple fronts and a huge empty rear needing garrisoning. It is a real tar baby for the Germans.

 

Nicely put T.A...

I just couldnt be bothered with it anymore.

What interests me is the psyhcolgy behind those who seem to profess that German could have won and how they could have done it.

Seems a bit perverse to me but then Im English...

I stopped taking it seriously after the whole 'How many tanks can you fit in a Gigant' thread ages ago. Never listened to reason on that thread either...

 

I cant believe you guys are bashing this guy because the thread is about a what if regarding a german victory in WW2

what else are we going to talk about in a WHAT IF section

 

As Otto rightly says, if you're going to participate in the 'What If' section you'll need to be able to agree to disagree...

( Which is why I choose never to get involved in the 'what ifs' ! Me262s in the Battle of Britain or nuke-equipped V2s don't interest me : I'm only really into what did happen.... )

 

Never said how many tanks fit in a 323 Za. Yet another innacurate insult. I mentioned an airlift that a book covered. I even mentioned the book. Why you keep rambling about such unrelated irrelevance is quite weird.

As for the conquest of Egypt point,

A German panzer expert, General Wilhelm von Thoma, went to Libya in October 1940 and reported to Hitler that Suez could be captured with only four panzer divisions. At the time, Germany had 20 panzer divisions, and none were involved in active combat operations.

& again, Germany would have little opposition in the Baku front after Russians beaten. Brits would likely be run out of north Iraq as part of a southern pincer, which would end up at southern shore of Caspian sea to capture ports as a block to any allied supply attempts. Then head north to Baku.

& with Brits run out of north Iraq & Egypt, they would be hard pressed to cause damage to Turkish rail system.

 

Hitler should have sent a logistics expert. The answer would have been far different. At the Alamein position the Germans were barely able to maintain 2 panzer and 2 motorized divisions on the defensive.

 

The difference being without Barbarossa, all the fuel would go to Africa, making the maintenance of 4 Panzer divisions much easier.

& as for locomotives, they could be ferried across the straights of bosporus. & Regarding Germans in Baku being too far strung out for supplies etc, the opposite would be true, Brits would have the long, ( No rail ), supply situation coming up from Iranian ports through mtns of north Iran.

Germans had rail system from Turkey to Armenia & Russian commando raids would be unlikely for Turkish rail system, ( Armenian perhaps ), because they would have to air dropped from across the Black sea. Would they swim back? Same situation for Brits( long walk back to south Iraq ). Only exception would be small plane fly in, fly out type missions.

After 6 months, Germans would have oil running & would be able to deal with any attack north or south because they would have no fuel problems like Brits coming from south would have, or oiless Russians from north. & other supplies would come by rail.

Now, it is also possible rail system ran all the way from Armenia to Baku, after all Russians built Armenian rail system just after 1900. & Brits were in Baku during the 20's. they weren't riding camels. Rather they would have had some good roads built. the biggest oil find in the world would no doubt have good roads built around it, perhaps railheads too. The distance from Armenia & Baku is what 250 kilometers? much shorter than distances traversed in africa & Russians steppes. Supply would have been much easier for Germans, obviously in Baku than in Libya or the vast expanses of mother Russia.

Let us not forget the vast amount of supplies that US ran through Iran corridor was done with trucks, not rail. I suppose the Germans had not the same truck driving skill as Americans did?