Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4 pieces of hardware Germans would need to win Barbarossa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4 pieces of hardware Germans would need to win Barbarossa

    Strictly speaking hardware. I know many will chime in & mention strategy & timing, ( i.e. Mosow had to be proirity, & April would have been better starting time etc), But again speaking just machines, what 4 would they need in big numbers, ( much bigger than they had circa 41), to have any decent chance of success?

    Off top of my head I would pitch out..

    1.Stuka with 37 mm

    2.Stugs

    3. JU 52's

    4. 4x4 trucks


    Other thoughts, 4 engined bombers, More railstock/engines, road/bridge construction crew, fuel trucks?

  • #2
    Trucks and fashionable fur coats...
    If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

    Comment


    • #3
      1. SP Artillery

      2. your #4 better yet 6 x 6

      3. your #2

      4. your #1

      The lack of mobile Artillery and support vehicles played a big roll in Barbarossas failure. The start date question is open for debate. Earlier doesn't mean better due to the spring rains softening the roads That would offset the advantages of an early start, IMO

      HP
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Earlier doesn't mean better due to the spring rains softening the roads That would offset the advantages of an early start, IMO


        Agreed.

        Comment


        • #5
          1) More engineering equipment across the board.

          2) APC's to allow more infantry to keep pace with the armour. This would make holding and liquidating the pockets easier and more effective. It would also the armour to operate offensively for greater periods of time instead of being forced to try hold the pocket walls.

          3) Trucks

          4) German medium tanks - the panzer formations had far too many Czech and light tanks in them. The 35T was not an effective weapons platform and spares were not easily available to keep them in the field.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #6
            1.More panzer IV's as opposed to the costly unreliable and lesser built.tigers but uprated to deal with snow if possible.
            2.Winter equipment.
            3.Trucks to pull artillery and for troops to keep pace with Panzer thrusts.
            4.Heavy bombers.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
              1) More engineering equipment across the board.

              2) APC's to allow more infantry to keep pace with the armour. This would make holding and liquidating the pockets easier and more effective. It would also the armour to operate offensively for greater periods of time instead of being forced to try hold the pocket walls.

              3) Trucks

              4) German medium tanks - the panzer formations had far too many Czech and light tanks in them. The 35T was not an effective weapons platform and spares were not easily available to keep them in the field.
              Wow, this once again proves that every once in a while Full Monty and I can actually agree on something!


              However, I claim that the only hardware "required" was a bullet in Hitler's head. Without his inane military leadership it would have been over before winter.
              Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

              Comment


              • #8
                While the equipment listed so far is good, the main problem with Barbarossa was confusion at the highest level. The Germans also outran their support organization. More equipment would not have made a difference if the German Army was not following a sound plan.

                I also believe that the UK should have been neutralised before going after the Soviet Union.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                  1) More engineering equipment across the board.

                  2) APC's to allow more infantry to keep pace with the armour. This would make holding and liquidating the pockets easier and more effective. It would also the armour to operate offensively for greater periods of time instead of being forced to try hold the pocket walls.

                  3) Trucks

                  4) German medium tanks - the panzer formations had far too many Czech and light tanks in them. The 35T was not an effective weapons platform and spares were not easily available to keep them in the field.
                  And winter equipment. Mobile arty too, as well as more supply vehicles (forget the horses!).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1) winter clothing
                    2) more trucks
                    3) more artillery
                    4) more aircraft of all varities
                    Islam... it's a blast - literally.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So it seems that most all agree that more trucks would have played a big roll. IF the Germans had them.

                      Anybody here that said that Lend Leases 100 plus trucks didn't play a major roll in Russia's success or that they could have won with out them?
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Actually, I'd say the trucks would need to be backed by a better organised logistics tail or they would not have helped all that much (other than to be sitting around without gas). Overall it was logistics, a less than concise plan and the Red Army that defeated the Germans in front of Moscow.

                        More trucks for troops and supplies, more APCs for the grenadiers, more SP artillery for the support of the panzers, etc., would be of little value unless the logistic services could keep them fueled, maintained and armed. It is also worth noting that adding all these extra vehicles means the trains have to deliver even more fuel and spares than previously,...the expotential increase in demands on the trains would probably cause the entire system to collapse.
                        The Purist

                        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well P it might be something to debate, but the organization and efficients of the Reichsbahn was above average. If it wasn't then they couldn't move unit's east to west and aback again with relative ez. Then there is the build up for the Bulge, that was primarily done through the efforts of the RB.

                          Getting the supplies from Germany to the rear areas of the active front wasn't the problem.
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Half Pint
                            ...Getting the supplies from Germany to the rear areas of the active front wasn't the problem.
                            The statistics of what was delivered to the railheads versus what was required by AGC (for Barbarossa's purposes) state otherwise, HP. There were plenty of supplies in Germany and Poland but not nearly enough being dropped off at the railheads. It took three months for the railheads to move far enough eastwards to supply the six armies that made the final lunge for Moscow and even then the supply boys were doing well when they managed to deliver 65% of the required tonnage.

                            If you simply add more trucks you need to deliver more fuel, spares, etc., to just supply the trucks and then you can look at delivering more supplies to the troops,...if, that is, the extra fuel and spares did not already eat up the extra space provided by an improved capacity.

                            Nasty Catch-22.
                            The Purist

                            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                              The statistics of what was delivered to the railheads versus what was required by AGC (for Barbarossa's purposes) state otherwise, HP. There were plenty of supplies in Germany and Poland but not nearly enough being dropped off at the railheads. It took three months for the railheads to move far enough eastwards to supply the six armies that made the final lunge for Moscow and even then the supply boys were doing well when they managed to deliver 65% of the required tonnage.

                              If you simply add more trucks you need to deliver more fuel, spares, etc., to just supply the trucks and then you can look at delivering more supplies to the troops,...if, that is, the extra fuel and spares did not already eat up the extra space provided by an improved capacity.

                              Nasty Catch-22.
                              The catch 22 is good. The Wallies had much the same problem running suppies across France. I have forgotten the ratio of how may gallons of gasoline was needed to get one gallon to the combat units, . Do you by cahnce have a break down on the Wallies stats?
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X