Was Barbarossa the only way .

[Deleted]

The Axis had the Balkans , they had N.Africa , using the Balkans to pin the Flank of the Empire the Germans could put their main effort into driving to the Suez the Empire would be hard put to stop the Germans and there was a lot of pro German sentiments with the Arabs , the Germans gain control of the Suez continue East reach up into Turkey then Russia , a might have been . No doubt supplies etc would have been a problem but oil and Pietro would have been readily available .

[Swampy]

Hitler's ideology was always to invade Russia, so he would have had to do it sooner or later. Besides, he couldn't trust Stalin in any event, because, if he did go for Africa, the Russians may come in when he was weak.

[boxcar]

The greater enemy of the Fascists was the Communists. The Balkans and North Africa were just diversions to assist their Italian ally. I think you’ll find all this laid out in Mien Kempt. ((sp?) that Hitler wrote while incarcerated at Landsberg.


While the oil of the Mideast was tempting, they had the oil of Romania to satisfy their needs and Romania was vastly closer than oil wells in the Mideast.

To invade Russia through Turkey would have extended their logistics problems tremendously.

[Deleted]

No doubt there was much distrust between between the powers all the powers , by opening the Eastern Fornt Hitlers supply routes was more secure , the Germans attacked with three million men the logistics must have been a nightmare , stll the Eygptian route must have been a consideration .

[Swampy]

I've always been fascinated by the Russian front, and I've wondered what would have happened if the Germans had just gone straight onto Moscow, without diversions.

[boxcar]

Another interesting point about invading Russia is that the farther you get into it, the bigger it becomes. It is like entering at the angle of a triangle.

Had Hitler not dallied in the Balkans, he would have had a much better chance at Russia. The Russian winter killed his efforts as it did for the
French under Bonaparte.

[boxcar]

>the Germans attacked with three million men the logistics must have been a nightmare , <

I have read somewhere that a tank takes about three gallons per mile. ....not miles per gallon.

[mcnoch]

Mar 26, 2013 21:46:45 GMT -5 Swampy said:

what would have happened if the Germans had just gone straight onto Moscow

Moscow had no military value, only propagandistic value. Only when they had managed to occupied Russia up to deep into Sibiria there would have been a chance to win the war in the East.

[Swampy]

Moscow was a major rail transportation node, but, other historians have noted, there were alternatives.

But, in the end, the purpose was to defeat the Red Army and occupy as much territory as possible; the Germans couldn't have gotten all the way to Vladivostok, but they could have gone at least to Moscow, if they had been patient.

[boxcar]

As the Germans approached Moscow, the Russians moved their production factories to the far Eastern side of the Urals. It always amazed me that there seemed to be no let up in production. It must have been due to the simplicity of design of their tanks.

[Sir John]

As mentioned before, Moscow is only half way to the Urals, and the Urals are less than half way to eastern Siberia.

Even a single thrust to capture Moscow would serve no purpose whatsoever. Stalin would simply have retreated east and set up a attack on Hitlers flanks that would have been a couple of 1000 Kms long. Even a 3 pronged attack that surrounded and then by-passed the 3 cities would not have helped.

The day he invaded, he was doomed yet again. First in Sept 1939, then June 1941, and lastly Dec 1941.

All just nails in the coffin, he had NIL hope of ever succeeding.


SJ

[Sir John]

PS, Mr Wikipedia says the Panzer 5 used 3.5 litres (1 US gallon) per km.

[Deleted]

T-34's and Sherman's , were out gunned by Panzers but there were ever so many more , lose 5 - to every Panzer still come out ahead , of course crew lost was just so much collateral damage .

[boxcar]

SJ>Mr Wikipedia says the Panzer 5 used 3.5 litres per km<

OK, lets take that figure and run with it.
Since there are 1.609 km per mile, that would be 5.6 liters/mi
Since there are 0.264 gallons per liter that would be 1.48 gal/mi

That is about half of the figure I quoted. Glad you are there to do some fact checking.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2013 15:31:25 GMT -5 Sir John said:

PS, Mr Wikipedia says the Panzer 5 used 3.5 litres (1 US gallon) per km.

Not much worse than my motorhome!