Italy stays out of World War Two?

[James G]

Let's us say Mussolini decides that the time isn't right to enter the war before France falls. He hesitates during all of 1940 too as Britain doesn't collapse. Italy isn't now joining the war.
How do things go without Italy?
No Med campaign nor Western Desert fight. This surely changes things in the Balkans too?
Does Britain have more strength to cause the Japanese to think twice?
If Britain isn't fighting in North Africa, is it in the Balkans instead: soft underbelly of Europe?

[eurowatch]

Sept 23, 2019 11:25:19 GMT James G said:

Let's us say Mussolini decides that the time isn't right to enter the war before France falls. He hesitates during all of 1940 too as Britain doesn't collapse. Italy isn't now joining the war.
How do things go without Italy?
No Med campaign nor Western Desert fight. This surely changes things in the Balkans too?
Does Britain have more strength to cause the Japanese to think twice?
If Britain isn't fighting in North Africa, is it in the Balkans instead: soft underbelly of Europe?

I think a fight in the Balkans would og very badly for the British since it is so close to Germany. So the Germans would be able easily send in reinforcements and supplies while the British would be at the end of a long supply Chain that would be in constant danger of Italy picking a side or giving the Germans bases to launch an air campaign from.

[stevep]

Sept 23, 2019 11:25:19 GMT James G said:

Let's us say Mussolini decides that the time isn't right to enter the war before France falls. He hesitates during all of 1940 too as Britain doesn't collapse. Italy isn't now joining the war.
How do things go without Italy?
No Med campaign nor Western Desert fight. This surely changes things in the Balkans too?
Does Britain have more strength to cause the Japanese to think twice?
If Britain isn't fighting in North Africa, is it in the Balkans instead: soft underbelly of Europe?

  In the shorter term there are some advantages to Germany as it doesn't get involved in the Balkans - assuming Italy doesn't attack Greece as OTL which is likely to bring them into war with Britain - nor later in N Africa and Italy.  However the big winner here is likely to be Britain. 

  While the campaigns in the Med and N Africa taught a lot of important lessons and Britain would still have to watch Italy, plus Italy provides a potential gap in the British blockade, albeit that's only really important after Hitler attacks the Soviets the campaigns also tied down huge resources both in their actual combat and in supplying forces.  This means more for other areas, most especially ships both naval and merchant for the vital Atlantic battle.  Especially once the threat of an invasion of Britain is gone the bulk of the sub fleet will probably return to the Far East, the theatre they were designed for and can do most good.  Similarly without the N African campaign a lot more Indian and Australian as well as some British forces are going to be available to reinforce Malaya and Burma and when necessary the DEI.  Ditto with some air power and that was the most urgent deficit in the Dec 41 period.  Also without the conflict in the Med you won't have the heavy losses the RN suffered, especially in the last half of 1941.  One other factor is that without the Italian fleet as a clear combatant, Britain might be less concerned about the French fleet and hence no Oran attack.  [Or even without Italy entering the war the French government or part of might decide to fight on from Algeria].

  Of course its likely that some of those gains will be wasted.  Between Churchill and Bomber Command its likely to see more men and resources wasted on the strategic bombing campaign.  Also Churchill will want to attack somewhere and start a 2nd front ASAP, even before the Nazis strike east and assorted communist agents/supporters start urging for an utterly impossible invasion of France.  I doubt this will be in the Balkans if Italy stays neutral as there will be no conflict there and none of the small states will want to be linked with Britain at all while Germany is looking so strong.  At least not before late 43 or 44 with Germany starting to falter in the east and the US probably in the war by then.  The most probable route might be Norway as there is a logic to it and also Churchill wanted to.  Whether this could succeed or not I don't know as it would depend on the details.

  Barring major losses in late 41, such as a failed invasion of Norway and assuming that Japan strikes about the same time and also attack the US its likely there will be enough forces in the Far East or able to reinforce it then its very likely Malaya, Burma, Sumatra and probably at least part of Java is held by British and Dutch forces.  This would make a huge difference to the war against Japan as the latter will be unable to get most if any of the resources it went to war with and hence run into serious shortages even earlier.  Also with Burma held the Burma road is available so much more supplies and possibly some US forces will reach and support the KMT. 

  All those butterflies can carry things in many different directions.  The allies will still win assuming that the US is brought in at about the same time as a full combatant and probably the war in Europe ends a bit earlier, unless the allies say try a 43 invasion of France and it goes pear shaped.  Japan is also likely to be defeated earlier, possibly about a year earlier depending on the attribution of forces by the allies.  This could also mean a united Korea and possibly a different ending to the war in China.  Its also however, with no B29's or nukes and less time to starve Japan into submission, mean an invasion of Japan, probably sometime in 44 or early 45 which is likely to cost the US a lot of troops and the Japanese population a hell of a lot more.  Which again could make the post-war future of Japan greatly different.

  The Soviets are likely to be a bit weaker without allied force typing the Germans down as early and probably going to be very paranoid if China ends up staying in KMT hands.  [Ok, we're talking about Stalin here so make that even more paranoid].  Likely to see similar borders in terms of the Iron Curtain although possibly more of the Balkans will end up in the western sphere.

  Anyway initial thoughts of the nature of WWII if Italy stays neutral throughout.  Of course that would also leave Mussolini in power after the war so what attitude the western allies take to a still fascist Italy and its colonies in Africa could be an important issue.

[EwellHolmes]

Sept 23, 2019 11:25:19 GMT James G said:

Let's us say Mussolini decides that the time isn't right to enter the war before France falls. He hesitates during all of 1940 too as Britain doesn't collapse. Italy isn't now joining the war.
How do things go without Italy?
No Med campaign nor Western Desert fight. This surely changes things in the Balkans too?
Does Britain have more strength to cause the Japanese to think twice?
If Britain isn't fighting in North Africa, is it in the Balkans instead: soft underbelly of Europe?

Germany wins WWII via no Balkan diversion. Italy emerges as a strong(er) power by the 1950s, with Libya and Eritrea definitely becoming model colonies if not directly annexed into Italy.

[stevep]

Oct 22, 2019 3:34:27 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Sept 23, 2019 11:25:19 GMT James G said:

Let's us say Mussolini decides that the time isn't right to enter the war before France falls. He hesitates during all of 1940 too as Britain doesn't collapse. Italy isn't now joining the war.
How do things go without Italy?
No Med campaign nor Western Desert fight. This surely changes things in the Balkans too?
Does Britain have more strength to cause the Japanese to think twice?
If Britain isn't fighting in North Africa, is it in the Balkans instead: soft underbelly of Europe?

Germany wins WWII via no Balkan diversion. Italy emerges as a strong(er) power by the 1950s, with Libya and Eritrea definitely becoming model colonies if not directly annexed into Italy.

  Its just possible that this could happen but extremely unlikely.  WWII could well be a bit longer and more costly, especially for the Soviets and Germans or it could end up with an earlier German defeat and a stronger Soviet position in eastern/central Europe.

  Italy will avoid the destruction of WWII but crippled by fascism until the regime is overthrown.  It probably will seek to hold onto its empire but will be effectively a larger Portugal.  The East African empire is likely to fall once Egypt starts flexing its muscles - especially by closing the canal.  Libya may become a majority Italian province if they are able to drive enough Italians into it and Arabs out and oil will make it very attractive but once the neighbouring French colonies and Egypt become fully independent its going to be beleaguered.  Israel might be the comparison here, although Italy has a larger population and resource base but Libya is not crucial to its existence so that could go either way.

  Depending on how long fascism continues its going to make a big difference to both the cold war and to developments in Europe.  I can't see any TTL EEC including a fascist state so such an organisation would be markedly smaller and if this prompts Britain to stay with a EFTA equivalent then you can see options for alternative economic developments.  In the unlikely event of Italy staying fascist until the eastern bloc falls, assuming this still occurs peacefully then you could see two basic models in Europe rather than one.

[lordroel]

Sept 23, 2019 11:25:19 GMT James G said:

Let's us say Mussolini decides that the time isn't right to enter the war before France falls. He hesitates during all of 1940 too as Britain doesn't collapse. Italy isn't now joining the war.
How do things go without Italy?
No Med campaign nor Western Desert fight. This surely changes things in the Balkans too?
Does Britain have more strength to cause the Japanese to think twice?
If Britain isn't fighting in North Africa, is it in the Balkans instead: soft underbelly of Europe?

Could this be a way for Italy: What if: Mussolini stays neutral? ore What if: Italy accepts the Allied offer in 1940

[EwellHolmes]

Oct 22, 2019 9:52:08 GMT stevep said:

Oct 22, 2019 3:34:27 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Germany wins WWII via no Balkan diversion. Italy emerges as a strong(er) power by the 1950s, with Libya and Eritrea definitely becoming model colonies if not directly annexed into Italy.

  Its just possible that this could happen but extremely unlikely.  WWII could well be a bit longer and more costly, especially for the Soviets and Germans or it could end up with an earlier German defeat and a stronger Soviet position in eastern/central Europe.

  Italy will avoid the destruction of WWII but crippled by fascism until the regime is overthrown.  It probably will seek to hold onto its empire but will be effectively a larger Portugal.  The East African empire is likely to fall once Egypt starts flexing its muscles - especially by closing the canal.  Libya may become a majority Italian province if they are able to drive enough Italians into it and Arabs out and oil will make it very attractive but once the neighbouring French colonies and Egypt become fully independent its going to be beleaguered.  Israel might be the comparison here, although Italy has a larger population and resource base but Libya is not crucial to its existence so that could go either way.

  Depending on how long fascism continues its going to make a big difference to both the cold war and to developments in Europe.  I can't see any TTL EEC including a fascist state so such an organisation would be markedly smaller and if this prompts Britain to stay with a EFTA equivalent then you can see options for alternative economic developments.  In the unlikely event of Italy staying fascist until the eastern bloc falls, assuming this still occurs peacefully then you could see two basic models in Europe rather than one.

I do not foresee any possible way it could go bad for the Germans with regards to the Soviets. 

Operation Barbarossa 1941: Army Group South

Army Group South's initial plan envisioned a double envelopment during Phase 1, employing First Panzer Group in the North and 12th Army coming out of Rumania. Hitler soon decided against this course of action, and besides in April he ordered 12th army to Yugoslavia and Greece. Eleventh Army took over duties in Rumania but these combined forces would not be ready for 22 June 1941, giving Barbarossa its staggered start in the south. Therefore von Rudenstedt would fight mainly a frontal war, punctuated by occasional penetrations and except for Kiev relatively small encirclements.

Basically, AGS on it's own is able to take Kiev so you don't see AGC having to halt in August. This allows Moscow, and likely Leningrad too, to be taken in August/September. From there, the Soviet system will come undone as their logistics network and production collapse.

As for Italy, Egypt won't be a concern; Italy has far too large an industrial base and military for Cairo to ever hope to counter them and they can't undertake an insurgency against the Italians when they're the majority in both Libya and probably Eritrea too.

[stevep]

Oct 23, 2019 0:58:08 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Oct 22, 2019 9:52:08 GMT stevep said:

  Its just possible that this could happen but extremely unlikely.  WWII could well be a bit longer and more costly, especially for the Soviets and Germans or it could end up with an earlier German defeat and a stronger Soviet position in eastern/central Europe.

  Italy will avoid the destruction of WWII but crippled by fascism until the regime is overthrown.  It probably will seek to hold onto its empire but will be effectively a larger Portugal.  The East African empire is likely to fall once Egypt starts flexing its muscles - especially by closing the canal.  Libya may become a majority Italian province if they are able to drive enough Italians into it and Arabs out and oil will make it very attractive but once the neighbouring French colonies and Egypt become fully independent its going to be beleaguered.  Israel might be the comparison here, although Italy has a larger population and resource base but Libya is not crucial to its existence so that could go either way.

  Depending on how long fascism continues its going to make a big difference to both the cold war and to developments in Europe.  I can't see any TTL EEC including a fascist state so such an organisation would be markedly smaller and if this prompts Britain to stay with a EFTA equivalent then you can see options for alternative economic developments.  In the unlikely event of Italy staying fascist until the eastern bloc falls, assuming this still occurs peacefully then you could see two basic models in Europe rather than one.

I do not foresee any possible way it could go bad for the Germans with regards to the Soviets. 

Operation Barbarossa 1941: Army Group South

Army Group South's initial plan envisioned a double envelopment during Phase 1, employing First Panzer Group in the North and 12th Army coming out of Rumania. Hitler soon decided against this course of action, and besides in April he ordered 12th army to Yugoslavia and Greece. Eleventh Army took over duties in Rumania but these combined forces would not be ready for 22 June 1941, giving Barbarossa its staggered start in the south. Therefore von Rudenstedt would fight mainly a frontal war, punctuated by occasional penetrations and except for Kiev relatively small encirclements.

Basically, AGS on it's own is able to take Kiev so you don't see AGC having to halt in August. This allows Moscow, and likely Leningrad too, to be taken in August/September. From there, the Soviet system will come undone as their logistics network and production collapse.

As for Italy, Egypt won't be a concern; Italy has far too large an industrial base and military for Cairo to ever hope to counter them and they can't undertake an insurgency against the Italians when they're the majority in both Libya and probably Eritrea too.

  The Germans are still going to take heavy losses meaning their forces are dwindling considerably within a few months.  Also there is the huge logistical burden they would face of trying to operate at such distances across often very poor infrastructure.  AGC by at least some sources needed the halt in August while some of its forces helped out AGS simply to pull itself together again.  Also the September period, IIRC was when the autumn mud hit, or was it October?

  OTL the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow before the weather and declining German strength persuaded ever Hitler and his sycophants in the High Command that the attacks had to be stopped.  TTL their likely to reach it say a month earlier.  Its a very large urban area and such are great combat levelers with relatively lightly equipped forces able to hold their own against heavier units.  Especially when the attackers are running short of just about everything.  As such there could be a good chance of AGC being drawn into a Stalingrad type battle, but on a much larger level, a year earlier in Moscow.  Especially with Hitler and at least some of the generals in Berlin thinking a Soviet collapse is imminent and hence pushing for the attacks to continue.  Your likely to see a bloodbath and while Soviet losses are going to be higher their going to wear down a hell of a lot of what's left of AGC.  If as OTL Stalingrad more and more units are sucked into this what's going to be left to guard the flanks.  When the Soviet winter offensive occurs, which is still very likely, you might see the encirclement of AGC or a desperate retreat in terrible conditions that will see most of its men and virtually all of its equipment destroyed.

  Its quite possible for a minority with external support to cause a hell of a lot of problems for a majority, even when the latter is supported by a major industrial power.  Two recent historical examples would be the IRA in N Ireland and the communists in S Vietnam.  True the IRA didn't win the former case but the cost for Britain was huge.  A fascist Italy is likely to play by harder rules but once Algeria and Tunisia become independent Italian Libya is going to be virtually surrounded.  Even if the Italians deport all the Arabs from Libya to neighbouring states that's going to cause a situation similar to Israel and the Palestinians, except that Libya is a colony that Italy can ultimately give up once the cost becomes too high.  Plus if you think of the size of the forces that assorted Arab states have operated, albeit often inefficiently, in recent decades and how much of a rallying call this would be for the Arab/Islamic world at least a war or two, even if militarily unsuccessful for the Arab powers will further increase the costs on Italy. 

[EwellHolmes]

Oct 23, 2019 15:44:11 GMT stevep said:

Oct 23, 2019 0:58:08 GMT EwellHolmes said:

I do not foresee any possible way it could go bad for the Germans with regards to the Soviets. 

Operation Barbarossa 1941: Army Group South
Basically, AGS on it's own is able to take Kiev so you don't see AGC having to halt in August. This allows Moscow, and likely Leningrad too, to be taken in August/September. From there, the Soviet system will come undone as their logistics network and production collapse.

As for Italy, Egypt won't be a concern; Italy has far too large an industrial base and military for Cairo to ever hope to counter them and they can't undertake an insurgency against the Italians when they're the majority in both Libya and probably Eritrea too.

  The Germans are still going to take heavy losses meaning their forces are dwindling considerably within a few months.  Also there is the huge logistical burden they would face of trying to operate at such distances across often very poor infrastructure.  AGC by at least some sources needed the halt in August while some of its forces helped out AGS simply to pull itself together again.  Also the September period, IIRC was when the autumn mud hit, or was it October?

  OTL the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow before the weather and declining German strength persuaded ever Hitler and his sycophants in the High Command that the attacks had to be stopped.  TTL their likely to reach it say a month earlier.  Its a very large urban area and such are great combat levelers with relatively lightly equipped forces able to hold their own against heavier units.  Especially when the attackers are running short of just about everything.  As such there could be a good chance of AGC being drawn into a Stalingrad type battle, but on a much larger level, a year earlier in Moscow.  Especially with Hitler and at least some of the generals in Berlin thinking a Soviet collapse is imminent and hence pushing for the attacks to continue.  Your likely to see a bloodbath and while Soviet losses are going to be higher their going to wear down a hell of a lot of what's left of AGC.  If as OTL Stalingrad more and more units are sucked into this what's going to be left to guard the flanks.  When the Soviet winter offensive occurs, which is still very likely, you might see the encirclement of AGC or a desperate retreat in terrible conditions that will see most of its men and virtually all of its equipment destroyed.

  Its quite possible for a minority with external support to cause a hell of a lot of problems for a majority, even when the latter is supported by a major industrial power.  Two recent historical examples would be the IRA in N Ireland and the communists in S Vietnam.  True the IRA didn't win the former case but the cost for Britain was huge.  A fascist Italy is likely to play by harder rules but once Algeria and Tunisia become independent Italian Libya is going to be virtually surrounded.  Even if the Italians deport all the Arabs from Libya to neighbouring states that's going to cause a situation similar to Israel and the Palestinians, except that Libya is a colony that Italy can ultimately give up once the cost becomes too high.  Plus if you think of the size of the forces that assorted Arab states have operated, albeit often inefficiently, in recent decades and how much of a rallying call this would be for the Arab/Islamic world at least a war or two, even if militarily unsuccessful for the Arab powers will further increase the costs on Italy. 

Fortification work before Moscow did not begin until October and serious Soviet reinforcements did not begin to rotate in until November. Logistics could be an issue but is largely counter-acted by no diversion of an entire Panzer Army hundreds of miles South as well as the avoidance of the "pocket" battles in August would be avoided; those alone cost the Germans large sums of equipment and about 50k casualties. As well, I'll quote from Robert Forczyk's Moscow 1941: Hitler's First Defeat:

"By 15 October, 1st Panzer Division was approaching towards Torshok- i.e. moving away from Moscow! The forces dispatched to Kalinin were insufficient to achieve to achieve a decisive victory on their own, but the diversion seriously weakened the main push on Moscow and forced the Third Panzer Army to devote significant resources to a protracted attritional fight around Kalinin. If XLI Panzer Corps had pushed east towards Volokolamsk, the Germans might have been able to prevent Zhukov from establishing a new line east of Moscow."

Basically the logistics are there and the Soviets can't really do anything to stop it. Much the same is at Leningrad, were the onsite Soviet commander in early September ordered the destruction of fortifications and abandonment of the city before Zhukov arrived on scene via order of Stalin; that's not going to happen with the Heer closing in on Moscow. All in all, much fewer casualties for the Germans and 1942 will see a mop up of remaining RKKA resistance. Might take until 1943 to post up along the Urals, but it'll happen. 

As for Italy, if they expel the native population, then abandoning Libya is completely out of the question because it is literally an extension of Italy in that case; it'd be like the U.S. abandoning Alaska because it's surrounded by Canada and Russia. Further, if an expulsion happens, then there is literally no one to carry out attacks in the vein of the IRA or Viet Cong because they would have no support within the colony; resistance is only possible with mass support. If Algeria, Tunisia or Egypt wish to reduce the Italians, they would require conventional conflict and Italy will utterly wipe the floor with the blood of the unfortunate sods sent to do such. As it were, I don't see an expulsion happening nor do I see Italy being forced out at all. Israel, South Africa, and Britain show this with their examples. See what happened to the Senssusi in the 1920s and 1930s for a contemporary example too.

[stevep]

Oct 24, 2019 11:01:19 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Oct 23, 2019 15:44:11 GMT stevep said:

  The Germans are still going to take heavy losses meaning their forces are dwindling considerably within a few months.  Also there is the huge logistical burden they would face of trying to operate at such distances across often very poor infrastructure.  AGC by at least some sources needed the halt in August while some of its forces helped out AGS simply to pull itself together again.  Also the September period, IIRC was when the autumn mud hit, or was it October?

  OTL the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow before the weather and declining German strength persuaded ever Hitler and his sycophants in the High Command that the attacks had to be stopped.  TTL their likely to reach it say a month earlier.  Its a very large urban area and such are great combat levelers with relatively lightly equipped forces able to hold their own against heavier units.  Especially when the attackers are running short of just about everything.  As such there could be a good chance of AGC being drawn into a Stalingrad type battle, but on a much larger level, a year earlier in Moscow.  Especially with Hitler and at least some of the generals in Berlin thinking a Soviet collapse is imminent and hence pushing for the attacks to continue.  Your likely to see a bloodbath and while Soviet losses are going to be higher their going to wear down a hell of a lot of what's left of AGC.  If as OTL Stalingrad more and more units are sucked into this what's going to be left to guard the flanks.  When the Soviet winter offensive occurs, which is still very likely, you might see the encirclement of AGC or a desperate retreat in terrible conditions that will see most of its men and virtually all of its equipment destroyed.

  Its quite possible for a minority with external support to cause a hell of a lot of problems for a majority, even when the latter is supported by a major industrial power.  Two recent historical examples would be the IRA in N Ireland and the communists in S Vietnam.  True the IRA didn't win the former case but the cost for Britain was huge.  A fascist Italy is likely to play by harder rules but once Algeria and Tunisia become independent Italian Libya is going to be virtually surrounded.  Even if the Italians deport all the Arabs from Libya to neighbouring states that's going to cause a situation similar to Israel and the Palestinians, except that Libya is a colony that Italy can ultimately give up once the cost becomes too high.  Plus if you think of the size of the forces that assorted Arab states have operated, albeit often inefficiently, in recent decades and how much of a rallying call this would be for the Arab/Islamic world at least a war or two, even if militarily unsuccessful for the Arab powers will further increase the costs on Italy. 

Fortification work before Moscow did not begin until October and serious Soviet reinforcements did not begin to rotate in until November. Logistics could be an issue but is largely counter-acted by no diversion of an entire Panzer Army hundreds of miles South as well as the avoidance of the "pocket" battles in August would be avoided; those alone cost the Germans large sums of equipment and about 50k casualties. As well, I'll quote from Robert Forczyk's Moscow 1941: Hitler's First Defeat:

"By 15 October, 1st Panzer Division was approaching towards Torshok- i.e. moving away from Moscow! The forces dispatched to Kalinin were insufficient to achieve to achieve a decisive victory on their own, but the diversion seriously weakened the main push on Moscow and forced the Third Panzer Army to devote significant resources to a protracted attritional fight around Kalinin. If XLI Panzer Corps had pushed east towards Volokolamsk, the Germans might have been able to prevent Zhukov from establishing a new line east of Moscow."

Basically the logistics are there and the Soviets can't really do anything to stop it. Much the same is at Leningrad, were the onsite Soviet commander in early September ordered the destruction of fortifications and abandonment of the city before Zhukov arrived on scene via order of Stalin; that's not going to happen with the Heer closing in on Moscow. All in all, much fewer casualties for the Germans and 1942 will see a mop up of remaining RKKA resistance. Might take until 1943 to post up along the Urals, but it'll happen. 

As for Italy, if they expel the native population, then abandoning Libya is completely out of the question because it is literally an extension of Italy in that case; it'd be like the U.S. abandoning Alaska because it's surrounded by Canada and Russia. Further, if an expulsion happens, then there is literally no one to carry out attacks in the vein of the IRA or Viet Cong because they would have no support within the colony; resistance is only possible with mass support. If Algeria, Tunisia or Egypt wish to reduce the Italians, they would require conventional conflict and Italy will utterly wipe the floor with the blood of the unfortunate sods sent to do such. As it were, I don't see an expulsion happening nor do I see Italy being forced out at all. Israel, South Africa, and Britain show this with their examples. See what happened to the Senssusi in the 1920s and 1930s for a contemporary example too.

 The fortifications weren't starting until October because they weren't needed before then.  Also urban areas are pretty easy to fortify with relatively minimal effort.

  The diversion of part of AGC possibly not occurring won't remove the logistical problems because their a factor of sheer distance, the heavy losses the Germans were already suffering in terms of equipment as well as men.  It would reduce them somewhat but far from totally remove them.  Plus the assumes even faster advance would have further strained logistics.

  Leningrad may or may not fall.  If it does it frees up some German forces and logistical burden and will be another morale hit for the Red Army but there had already been quite a number of them and the Red Army kept recruiting and fighting. 

  By the pocket battles do you mean the one around Uman in the south, which would still need to occur and might not be as successful with less German forces?

  Have you seen any of the excellent Military History Visualised videos on youtube.  Have a look at a couple, namely Why Barbarossa Failed and also An early start to Barbarossa?.

  As they demonstrate the Germans would have suffered huge losses they couldn't quickly replace even with an earlier start.

  On Italy holding Libya indefinitely I think your examples are invalid.  S Africa fell and Britain - I assume your referring to the Ulster situation here was threatened only by terrorist groups.  Israel has to survive or its population will be destroyed, quite possibly literally so it has a major incentive to fight hard.  Even if Libya is somehow flooded with Italians or the Arabs are totally expelled its still a single lightly populated province that can come under continued attack, both conventional and by guerilla activities.  How long would Rome and the population of the Italian mainland be willing to pay the bill, human, material and fiscal to maintain it.  Basically the situation with Algeria for the French who had it as a part of their homeland for over a century.  Also a fascist Italy is going to be a godsend to Soviet propaganda and its going to be very willing to keep supplying the neighbours with weaponry, which a quite possibly isolated Italy may well be unable to counter. 

  Its not utterly impossible, especially say if France also went highly reactionary/semi-fascist and basically allied with Italy but its going to be very difficult for the Italians to hold Libya indefinitely.

[EwellHolmes]

Oct 24, 2019 18:58:17 GMT stevep said:

Oct 24, 2019 11:01:19 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Fortification work before Moscow did not begin until October and serious Soviet reinforcements did not begin to rotate in until November. Logistics could be an issue but is largely counter-acted by no diversion of an entire Panzer Army hundreds of miles South as well as the avoidance of the "pocket" battles in August would be avoided; those alone cost the Germans large sums of equipment and about 50k casualties. As well, I'll quote from Robert Forczyk's Moscow 1941: Hitler's First Defeat:

"By 15 October, 1st Panzer Division was approaching towards Torshok- i.e. moving away from Moscow! The forces dispatched to Kalinin were insufficient to achieve to achieve a decisive victory on their own, but the diversion seriously weakened the main push on Moscow and forced the Third Panzer Army to devote significant resources to a protracted attritional fight around Kalinin. If XLI Panzer Corps had pushed east towards Volokolamsk, the Germans might have been able to prevent Zhukov from establishing a new line east of Moscow."

Basically the logistics are there and the Soviets can't really do anything to stop it. Much the same is at Leningrad, were the onsite Soviet commander in early September ordered the destruction of fortifications and abandonment of the city before Zhukov arrived on scene via order of Stalin; that's not going to happen with the Heer closing in on Moscow. All in all, much fewer casualties for the Germans and 1942 will see a mop up of remaining RKKA resistance. Might take until 1943 to post up along the Urals, but it'll happen. 

As for Italy, if they expel the native population, then abandoning Libya is completely out of the question because it is literally an extension of Italy in that case; it'd be like the U.S. abandoning Alaska because it's surrounded by Canada and Russia. Further, if an expulsion happens, then there is literally no one to carry out attacks in the vein of the IRA or Viet Cong because they would have no support within the colony; resistance is only possible with mass support. If Algeria, Tunisia or Egypt wish to reduce the Italians, they would require conventional conflict and Italy will utterly wipe the floor with the blood of the unfortunate sods sent to do such. As it were, I don't see an expulsion happening nor do I see Italy being forced out at all. Israel, South Africa, and Britain show this with their examples. See what happened to the Senssusi in the 1920s and 1930s for a contemporary example too.

 The fortifications weren't starting until October because they weren't needed before then.  Also urban areas are pretty easy to fortify with relatively minimal effort.

  The diversion of part of AGC possibly not occurring won't remove the logistical problems because their a factor of sheer distance, the heavy losses the Germans were already suffering in terms of equipment as well as men.  It would reduce them somewhat but far from totally remove them.  Plus the assumes even faster advance would have further strained logistics.

  Leningrad may or may not fall.  If it does it frees up some German forces and logistical burden and will be another morale hit for the Red Army but there had already been quite a number of them and the Red Army kept recruiting and fighting. 

  By the pocket battles do you mean the one around Uman in the south, which would still need to occur and might not be as successful with less German forces?

  Have you seen any of the excellent Military History Visualised videos on youtube.  Have a look at a couple, namely Why Barbarossa Failed and also An early start to Barbarossa?.

  As they demonstrate the Germans would have suffered huge losses they couldn't quickly replace even with an earlier start.

  On Italy holding Libya indefinitely I think your examples are invalid.  S Africa fell and Britain - I assume your referring to the Ulster situation here was threatened only by terrorist groups.  Israel has to survive or its population will be destroyed, quite possibly literally so it has a major incentive to fight hard.  Even if Libya is somehow flooded with Italians or the Arabs are totally expelled its still a single lightly populated province that can come under continued attack, both conventional and by guerilla activities.  How long would Rome and the population of the Italian mainland be willing to pay the bill, human, material and fiscal to maintain it.  Basically the situation with Algeria for the French who had it as a part of their homeland for over a century.  Also a fascist Italy is going to be a godsend to Soviet propaganda and its going to be very willing to keep supplying the neighbours with weaponry, which a quite possibly isolated Italy may well be unable to counter. 

  Its not utterly impossible, especially say if France also went highly reactionary/semi-fascist and basically allied with Italy but its going to be very difficult for the Italians to hold Libya indefinitely.

Point is there are no fortifications and no real forces on hand to oppose a German lunge for Moscow, which is about the same distance from their starting positions as the diversion to Kiev was. Even better, it keeps AGC on their rail networks and Moscow has several all weather roads they could-and did-use IOTL. The Smolensk rail line had been connected and it had been taking trains since the end of July. Guderian had the supplies to fight the Kiev battles, while AG-Center had the strength to engage in high intensity combat with the Soviet Western Front during August-September, while 3rd Panzer Group did break up and send 1 corps to destroy the Soviet 22nd army on it's flank and the other to attack Leningrad with AG-North.

Speaking of AG-North and the whole Leningrad situation, as previously stated Soviet commanders on site were preparing to blow up the city and then retreat from it; Zhukov alone stopped this, having been sent by Stalin personally. He arrived on scene in early September, which wouldn't be possible here with the Germans marching on Moscow. If both Moscow and Leningrad fall, and I fully expect them to in this situation, it's game over for the Soviets. 75% of their production is contained within those two cities and the loss of Moscow cripples their railway network, essentially dividing the breadth of Russia West of the Urals. German losses in that context, even if an exact mirror of IOTL 1941, are completely irrelevant in that context because they are just so vastly superior to the Soviets at that stage. Afterall, even if they were unsustainable, the Wehrmacht maintained the strategic initiative in the middle of 1943 anyway, with Fall Blau in 1942 bringing them to their geographic height. 

I'm not a fan of youtube videos for history at all because they are usually badly sourced, leave out critical details and, given they are literally infotainment, buy into way too many pop culture myths. Also, there's just the simple fact that a five minute video can't convey an indepth look at a subject like books can. I'd personally recommend van Creveld's essay on Barbarossa logistics, David Glantz's works and David Stahel's.

As for Italy, if Libya becomes majority Italian, abandoning the colony is completely out the question because of the demographics contained there and the simple fact the majority will support continued Italian rule. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia can do absolutely nothing on their own against Italy and the destruction of the Senussi had already shown the Italians could, and would, defeat any Egyptian based efforts at funding an insurgency within Libya. As for my examples, they're very illustrative of this. Britain still has Ulster to this day and the cost of the Troubles was completely insignificant; 1,000 troops dead over 30 years is literally nothing to an Italian Army that has multiple divisions based within Libya. South Africa likewise is another great example, as in that case despite only being 22% of the population at their height, the Minority regime never lost control of the security situation and, even in 1994, internal and external experts all agreed that solely on a security angle, the continuation of the regime was completely possible. Simple fact of the matter is that insurgency is a very poor form of conflict and always fails when up against a well trained, equipped force with majority support in the zone of operations.

[stevep]

Oct 25, 2019 18:33:27 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Oct 24, 2019 18:58:17 GMT stevep said:

 The fortifications weren't starting until October because they weren't needed before then.  Also urban areas are pretty easy to fortify with relatively minimal effort.

  The diversion of part of AGC possibly not occurring won't remove the logistical problems because their a factor of sheer distance, the heavy losses the Germans were already suffering in terms of equipment as well as men.  It would reduce them somewhat but far from totally remove them.  Plus the assumes even faster advance would have further strained logistics.

  Leningrad may or may not fall.  If it does it frees up some German forces and logistical burden and will be another morale hit for the Red Army but there had already been quite a number of them and the Red Army kept recruiting and fighting. 

  By the pocket battles do you mean the one around Uman in the south, which would still need to occur and might not be as successful with less German forces?

  Have you seen any of the excellent Military History Visualised videos on youtube.  Have a look at a couple, namely Why Barbarossa Failed and also An early start to Barbarossa?.

  As they demonstrate the Germans would have suffered huge losses they couldn't quickly replace even with an earlier start.

  On Italy holding Libya indefinitely I think your examples are invalid.  S Africa fell and Britain - I assume your referring to the Ulster situation here was threatened only by terrorist groups.  Israel has to survive or its population will be destroyed, quite possibly literally so it has a major incentive to fight hard.  Even if Libya is somehow flooded with Italians or the Arabs are totally expelled its still a single lightly populated province that can come under continued attack, both conventional and by guerilla activities.  How long would Rome and the population of the Italian mainland be willing to pay the bill, human, material and fiscal to maintain it.  Basically the situation with Algeria for the French who had it as a part of their homeland for over a century.  Also a fascist Italy is going to be a godsend to Soviet propaganda and its going to be very willing to keep supplying the neighbours with weaponry, which a quite possibly isolated Italy may well be unable to counter. 

  Its not utterly impossible, especially say if France also went highly reactionary/semi-fascist and basically allied with Italy but its going to be very difficult for the Italians to hold Libya indefinitely.

Point is there are no fortifications and no real forces on hand to oppose a German lunge for Moscow, which is about the same distance from their starting positions as the diversion to Kiev was. Even better, it keeps AGC on their rail networks and Moscow has several all weather roads they could-and did-use IOTL. The Smolensk rail line had been connected and it had been taking trains since the end of July. Guderian had the supplies to fight the Kiev battles, while AG-Center had the strength to engage in high intensity combat with the Soviet Western Front during August-September, while 3rd Panzer Group did break up and send 1 corps to destroy the Soviet 22nd army on it's flank and the other to attack Leningrad with AG-North.

Speaking of AG-North and the whole Leningrad situation, as previously stated Soviet commanders on site were preparing to blow up the city and then retreat from it; Zhukov alone stopped this, having been sent by Stalin personally. He arrived on scene in early September, which wouldn't be possible here with the Germans marching on Moscow. If both Moscow and Leningrad fall, and I fully expect them to in this situation, it's game over for the Soviets. 75% of their production is contained within those two cities and the loss of Moscow cripples their railway network, essentially dividing the breadth of Russia West of the Urals. German losses in that context, even if an exact mirror of IOTL 1941, are completely irrelevant in that context because they are just so vastly superior to the Soviets at that stage. Afterall, even if they were unsustainable, the Wehrmacht maintained the strategic initiative in the middle of 1943 anyway, with Fall Blau in 1942 bringing them to their geographic height. 

I'm not a fan of youtube videos for history at all because they are usually badly sourced, leave out critical details and, given they are literally infotainment, buy into way too many pop culture myths. Also, there's just the simple fact that a five minute video can't convey an indepth look at a subject like books can. I'd personally recommend van Creveld's essay on Barbarossa logistics, David Glantz's works and David Stahel's.

As for Italy, if Libya becomes majority Italian, abandoning the colony is completely out the question because of the demographics contained there and the simple fact the majority will support continued Italian rule. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia can do absolutely nothing on their own against Italy and the destruction of the Senussi had already shown the Italians could, and would, defeat any Egyptian based efforts at funding an insurgency within Libya. As for my examples, they're very illustrative of this. Britain still has Ulster to this day and the cost of the Troubles was completely insignificant; 1,000 troops dead over 30 years is literally nothing to an Italian Army that has multiple divisions based within Libya. South Africa likewise is another great example, as in that case despite only being 22% of the population at their height, the Minority regime never lost control of the security situation and, even in 1994, internal and external experts all agreed that solely on a security angle, the continuation of the regime was completely possible. Simple fact of the matter is that insurgency is a very poor form of conflict and always fails when up against a well trained, equipped force with majority support in the zone of operations.

  I have the same reservations about videos but like books they vary greatly in quality.  That author is very good, so I give his arguments merits.  If you have looked at the longer one especially you would have seen that instead of large resources being wasted on fruitless counter-attacks those same Soviet units would have been fighting on the defensive so there are definitely a lot more Soviet units to oppose an earlier drive for Moscow, but now fighting on the defensive.  Also as I said before why would the Soviets have built defenses before they thought they were needed.  They can moblise the civilian population to build such positions and doing it a month or so earlier, before the autumn mud or early frosts actually make it easier to build them.

  Long time since I've read van Creveld's logistics book, although you may be referring to another of his writings.  From what I recall he greatly emphasised the vital characteristic of logistics so I find it frustrating you keep ignoring them.  Also you greatly overvalue the industrial importance of Moscow from what I've read, so although even the almost certainly failed attempt to storm it is likely to do a fair bit of damage to its productive capacity.  Read a lot over the years and know the halt to help out AGS used to be considered a serious error but that the conscientious seems now to be going the other way.

 Assuming an earlier attack on Moscow then Zhukov is likely to stay for the defence of that but I'm doubtful that any Soviet commander would destroy the Leningrad capacity without Stalin's permission, which is unlikely to come.  At least until its clear the city is lost.  There is a possibility the city might fall but it didn't OTL and with so many forces being committed to a desperate drive for Moscow the Germans are unlikely to have any additional forces to commit against Leningrad.  There's probably a greater chance of it falling during the winter but that depends on how much of AGC is left after its failure at/in Moscow.  If its pretty much totally destroyed then for all Hitler's demands the Germans have to fill in a bloody big hole else face the destruction of the other two army groups due to their flanks being utterly undefended.

  The Senussi were a relatively numerous movement in parts of Libya and Egypt but were fundamentally a tribal organisation with no really industrial support and limited largely to a number of oasis in the western desert.  That's a world of difference from the size and type of forces Egypt or Algeria can support, even without outside support, such as by the Soviets, which would seem very likely in this case.  I'm not saying that they can defeat the Italians in a total war but they can definitely make things very, very costly for what they will see as a colonial occupation.

  On your last paragraph what about Vietnam?  Popular support for the government along with external support by a number of powers, including extensive amounts by a super-power. 

[EwellHolmes]

Oct 26, 2019 12:42:13 GMT stevep said:

Oct 25, 2019 18:33:27 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Point is there are no fortifications and no real forces on hand to oppose a German lunge for Moscow, which is about the same distance from their starting positions as the diversion to Kiev was. Even better, it keeps AGC on their rail networks and Moscow has several all weather roads they could-and did-use IOTL. The Smolensk rail line had been connected and it had been taking trains since the end of July. Guderian had the supplies to fight the Kiev battles, while AG-Center had the strength to engage in high intensity combat with the Soviet Western Front during August-September, while 3rd Panzer Group did break up and send 1 corps to destroy the Soviet 22nd army on it's flank and the other to attack Leningrad with AG-North.

Speaking of AG-North and the whole Leningrad situation, as previously stated Soviet commanders on site were preparing to blow up the city and then retreat from it; Zhukov alone stopped this, having been sent by Stalin personally. He arrived on scene in early September, which wouldn't be possible here with the Germans marching on Moscow. If both Moscow and Leningrad fall, and I fully expect them to in this situation, it's game over for the Soviets. 75% of their production is contained within those two cities and the loss of Moscow cripples their railway network, essentially dividing the breadth of Russia West of the Urals. German losses in that context, even if an exact mirror of IOTL 1941, are completely irrelevant in that context because they are just so vastly superior to the Soviets at that stage. Afterall, even if they were unsustainable, the Wehrmacht maintained the strategic initiative in the middle of 1943 anyway, with Fall Blau in 1942 bringing them to their geographic height. 

I'm not a fan of youtube videos for history at all because they are usually badly sourced, leave out critical details and, given they are literally infotainment, buy into way too many pop culture myths. Also, there's just the simple fact that a five minute video can't convey an indepth look at a subject like books can. I'd personally recommend van Creveld's essay on Barbarossa logistics, David Glantz's works and David Stahel's.

As for Italy, if Libya becomes majority Italian, abandoning the colony is completely out the question because of the demographics contained there and the simple fact the majority will support continued Italian rule. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia can do absolutely nothing on their own against Italy and the destruction of the Senussi had already shown the Italians could, and would, defeat any Egyptian based efforts at funding an insurgency within Libya. As for my examples, they're very illustrative of this. Britain still has Ulster to this day and the cost of the Troubles was completely insignificant; 1,000 troops dead over 30 years is literally nothing to an Italian Army that has multiple divisions based within Libya. South Africa likewise is another great example, as in that case despite only being 22% of the population at their height, the Minority regime never lost control of the security situation and, even in 1994, internal and external experts all agreed that solely on a security angle, the continuation of the regime was completely possible. Simple fact of the matter is that insurgency is a very poor form of conflict and always fails when up against a well trained, equipped force with majority support in the zone of operations.

  I have the same reservations about videos but like books they vary greatly in quality.  That author is very good, so I give his arguments merits.  If you have looked at the longer one especially you would have seen that instead of large resources being wasted on fruitless counter-attacks those same Soviet units would have been fighting on the defensive so there are definitely a lot more Soviet units to oppose an earlier drive for Moscow, but now fighting on the defensive.  Also as I said before why would the Soviets have built defenses before they thought they were needed.  They can moblise the civilian population to build such positions and doing it a month or so earlier, before the autumn mud or early frosts actually make it easier to build them.

  Long time since I've read van Creveld's logistics book, although you may be referring to another of his writings.  From what I recall he greatly emphasised the vital characteristic of logistics so I find it frustrating you keep ignoring them.  Also you greatly overvalue the industrial importance of Moscow from what I've read, so although even the almost certainly failed attempt to storm it is likely to do a fair bit of damage to its productive capacity.  Read a lot over the years and know the halt to help out AGS used to be considered a serious error but that the conscientious seems now to be going the other way.

 Assuming an earlier attack on Moscow then Zhukov is likely to stay for the defence of that but I'm doubtful that any Soviet commander would destroy the Leningrad capacity without Stalin's permission, which is unlikely to come.  At least until its clear the city is lost.  There is a possibility the city might fall but it didn't OTL and with so many forces being committed to a desperate drive for Moscow the Germans are unlikely to have any additional forces to commit against Leningrad.  There's probably a greater chance of it falling during the winter but that depends on how much of AGC is left after its failure at/in Moscow.  If its pretty much totally destroyed then for all Hitler's demands the Germans have to fill in a bloody big hole else face the destruction of the other two army groups due to their flanks being utterly undefended.

  The Senussi were a relatively numerous movement in parts of Libya and Egypt but were fundamentally a tribal organisation with no really industrial support and limited largely to a number of oasis in the western desert.  That's a world of difference from the size and type of forces Egypt or Algeria can support, even without outside support, such as by the Soviets, which would seem very likely in this case.  I'm not saying that they can defeat the Italians in a total war but they can definitely make things very, very costly for what they will see as a colonial occupation.

  On your last paragraph what about Vietnam?  Popular support for the government along with external support by a number of powers, including extensive amounts by a super-power.  

There really is no reason to assume STAVKA would cancel any Soviet counter-attacks given that IOTL Bryansk Front launched a September offensive against 2nd Panzer Army. Even if they did that presents no burden: there's simply less Soviet forces to fight in August/September then IOTL October. According to Table 5-1 of Glantz's When Titans Clashed, September was the weakest month for Soviet reserve army generation, with only 4th Army being reformed near Leningrad. However, in October fpur armies were created with three of them defending Moscow, which enabled the construction of the defensive belts which protected the city. Before then, they simply lacked the capacity to fortify it up. I'd also add that even in October, against much better defended and numerous Soviet forces, the Germans utterly demolished them and inflicted over 1 million casualties; that's equal, or even better than, Kiev. 

As for the logistics, I'm completely in agreement with Creveld, which is why I'm using his work to base my estimations. By late August an average of 24 trains per day were arriving via the Smolensk railway and the average increased in September. That's important, as without the transfer of the 4th Panzer Division there is actually fewer German divisions utilizing AGC's railway networks in September than there would be in October; in other words, more slack there. Finally, without the diversion to Army Group South, AGC has retained a further 3000 tons of truck lift capacity. Either way you look at it, the logistical situation was better in August/September than it would be by October. An additional advantage here is the German assault won't be running into the Fall mud season almost a week in. 

Finally, on the matter of Leningrad, the commander of the front was Marshal Kliment Voroshilov who had, after the fall Shlisel'burg, ordered the destruction of all Soviet military fortifications and installations within Leningrad. His His NKVD Military & Political Commissar actually agreed, but due to the speed of the German advance they failed to wire Moscow of this development. How Stalin ultimately found out about it was via a German Communique forwarded from a Soviet Embassy, resulting in the relief of Voroshilov and the transfer of Zhukov. Basically Moscow was already out of the loop on developments and it was beyond the control of Stalin, which is why Zhukov was sent. 

With regards to Italy, both Egypt and Algeria, if using conventional forces, will get their teeth kicked by the Italian Army. Even today, Italy outstrips them in industrial output and during the 1930s/1940s the military establishment in Libya outstripped anything either country has ever assembled. Indeed, the Italian offensives of 1940 actually contained more men than modern Algeria has in its entire military. By basis of economics and capabilities, the advantage is unquestionably in favor of the Italians. This also ignores, however, that neither Algeria nor Egypt can deploy themselves fully against the Italians; Algeria didn't gain independence until 1962 and thereafter find itself embroiled in extensive border conflicts with Morocco that last to the present day and likewise has similar disagreements with Tunisia. Egypt, obviously, has Israel. Speaking of Israel, they are an economy of $350 Billion and 8.7 million people. The combined might of the Arab world failed to make it too costly for them to exist as a successful state and they, unlike ATL Italy, don't have access to 41 Billion barrels of oil. 

[stevep]

Oct 26, 2019 17:18:19 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Oct 26, 2019 12:42:13 GMT stevep said:

  I have the same reservations about videos but like books they vary greatly in quality.  That author is very good, so I give his arguments merits.  If you have looked at the longer one especially you would have seen that instead of large resources being wasted on fruitless counter-attacks those same Soviet units would have been fighting on the defensive so there are definitely a lot more Soviet units to oppose an earlier drive for Moscow, but now fighting on the defensive.  Also as I said before why would the Soviets have built defenses before they thought they were needed.  They can moblise the civilian population to build such positions and doing it a month or so earlier, before the autumn mud or early frosts actually make it easier to build them.

  Long time since I've read van Creveld's logistics book, although you may be referring to another of his writings.  From what I recall he greatly emphasised the vital characteristic of logistics so I find it frustrating you keep ignoring them.  Also you greatly overvalue the industrial importance of Moscow from what I've read, so although even the almost certainly failed attempt to storm it is likely to do a fair bit of damage to its productive capacity.  Read a lot over the years and know the halt to help out AGS used to be considered a serious error but that the conscientious seems now to be going the other way.

 Assuming an earlier attack on Moscow then Zhukov is likely to stay for the defence of that but I'm doubtful that any Soviet commander would destroy the Leningrad capacity without Stalin's permission, which is unlikely to come.  At least until its clear the city is lost.  There is a possibility the city might fall but it didn't OTL and with so many forces being committed to a desperate drive for Moscow the Germans are unlikely to have any additional forces to commit against Leningrad.  There's probably a greater chance of it falling during the winter but that depends on how much of AGC is left after its failure at/in Moscow.  If its pretty much totally destroyed then for all Hitler's demands the Germans have to fill in a bloody big hole else face the destruction of the other two army groups due to their flanks being utterly undefended.

  The Senussi were a relatively numerous movement in parts of Libya and Egypt but were fundamentally a tribal organisation with no really industrial support and limited largely to a number of oasis in the western desert.  That's a world of difference from the size and type of forces Egypt or Algeria can support, even without outside support, such as by the Soviets, which would seem very likely in this case.  I'm not saying that they can defeat the Italians in a total war but they can definitely make things very, very costly for what they will see as a colonial occupation.

  On your last paragraph what about Vietnam?  Popular support for the government along with external support by a number of powers, including extensive amounts by a super-power.  

There really is no reason to assume STAVKA would cancel any Soviet counter-attacks given that IOTL Bryansk Front launched a September offensive against 2nd Panzer Army. Even if they did that presents no burden: there's simply less Soviet forces to fight in August/September then IOTL October. According to Table 5-1 of Glantz's When Titans Clashed, September was the weakest month for Soviet reserve army generation, with only 4th Army being reformed near Leningrad. However, in October fpur armies were created with three of them defending Moscow, which enabled the construction of the defensive belts which protected the city. Before then, they simply lacked the capacity to fortify it up. I'd also add that even in October, against much better defended and numerous Soviet forces, the Germans utterly demolished them and inflicted over 1 million casualties; that's equal, or even better than, Kiev. 

  They won't get a chance to attack if AGC instead of regrouping and sending part of its forces south continues plowing straight on.  Of course one additional factor here is that more Soviet forces are escaping pockets as the German moblised forces aren't waiting for food infantry to catch up.  Unless the mobile forces are split up with some pushing on while others seek to hold the isolated Soviet forces?  Also note I was talking about the troops lost in Soviet counter attacks while AGC paused.  By definition they are existing forces not the new army raised around Leningrad.  Here those forces are going to be forced onto the defensive so are likely to do more damage to the attacking Germans.

  As far as I'm aware the defences around Moscow were largely constructed by moblising the civilian population.  The additional armies in October will make it easier to hold them but their still going to largely be constructed.  The Germans might be able to capture more of them before the defence stiffens but as I pointed out the main problem for the Germans is taking Moscow itself, even when you get through the defences in front of it.  Unless the Germans, already greatly down on numbers and logistical support can successfully encircle the urban area and then hold that encirclement against the inevitable counter attacks their going to have to rely on frontal assaults, which are going to be very costly and largely reduce their qualitative edge.

  I was thinking its was September when the mud hit but it was actually early October, with early November when the early frosts helped restore movement briefly.  As such its likely to see the mud hit and largely paralysis movement as the Germans, at the limit of their logistics close in on the actual defenses around Moscow itself.  They will still take the earlier existing defensive lines centred around Vyazma and Mozhaisk but now find themselves largely immobile and out of supply facing the main defences as their boosted by new units.  They might get moving again in November when the first frosts come but its doubtful they can storm the entire city within a couple of weeks before the extreme weather really cripples their remaining forces.

As for the logistics, I'm completely in agreement with Creveld, which is why I'm using his work to base my estimations. By late August an average of 24 trains per day were arriving via the Smolensk railway and the average increased in September. That's important, as without the transfer of the 4th Panzer Division there is actually fewer German divisions utilizing AGC's railway networks in September than there would be in October; in other words, more slack there. Finally, without the diversion to Army Group South, AGC has retained a further 3000 tons of truck lift capacity. Either way you look at it, the logistical situation was better in August/September than it would be by October. An additional advantage here is the German assault won't be running into the Fall mud season almost a week in.

  Is this using the Soviet tracks or those converted to standard gauge?  I know the German army had taken Smolensk but didn't clear the Soviet armies from the vicinity of the region until the start of August.  However does sound unlikely that they have converted the tracks all the way by then.  In which case their relying on captured Soviet locomotives and wagons.  24 trains a day isn't a massive lot when your considering an entire army group and it depends on how large the trains actually are and how well their organised and loaded.

  One advantage of pushing forward earlier is that the logistical system is in better condition having seen less wear and tear.  The down side of course is that it has to do more faster which will increase that same attrition.  Especially on the horses and trucks that are seeking to keep in touch with the forces pushing on. 

  Actually, since we're assuming that more German forces are involved in the invasion, with AGS being significantly stronger, that is a larger logistical demand.  You won't have the diversion south of 2nd Pz Group but it will still have to be supported as it drives towards Moscow.  Likely to be some savings as their going a shorter route rather than stuff being sent to Smolensk by trains, then transferred to wagons for a longer trip southwards but their still going to need to support the panzers while others will be needed to support the additional forces in the south.

Finally, on the matter of Leningrad, the commander of the front was Marshal Kliment Voroshilov who had, after the fall Shlisel'burg, ordered the destruction of all Soviet military fortifications and installations within Leningrad. His His NKVD Military & Political Commissar actually agreed, but due to the speed of the German advance they failed to wire Moscow of this development. How Stalin ultimately found out about it was via a German Communique forwarded from a Soviet Embassy, resulting in the relief of Voroshilov and the transfer of Zhukov. Basically Moscow was already out of the loop on developments and it was beyond the control of Stalin, which is why Zhukov was sent.

  As you say Stalin did find out about it.  Plus does this speed of German advance rely on the diversion of forces from AGC northerwards, which presumably wouldn't occur if AGC is dashing for Moscow?  Even if it does Leningrad might still get Zhukov, as he was OTL sent when Moscow was still under threat, or some other general with orders to hold and fight.  Leningrad possibly might fall, although more likely during the winter/early spring but that while a blow to the USSR wouldn't be as important as the near crippling and possible virtual destruction of AGC.

With regards to Italy, both Egypt and Algeria, if using conventional forces, will get their teeth kicked by the Italian Army. Even today, Italy outstrips them in industrial output and during the 1930s/1940s the military establishment in Libya outstripped anything either country has ever assembled. Indeed, the Italian offensives of 1940 actually contained more men than modern Algeria has in its entire military. By basis of economics and capabilities, the advantage is unquestionably in favor of the Italians. This also ignores, however, that neither Algeria nor Egypt can deploy themselves fully against the Italians; Algeria didn't gain independence until 1962 and thereafter find itself embroiled in extensive border conflicts with Morocco that last to the present day and likewise has similar disagreements with Tunisia. Egypt, obviously, has Israel. Speaking of Israel, they are an economy of $350 Billion and 8.7 million people. The combined might of the Arab world failed to make it too costly for them to exist as a successful state and they, unlike ATL Italy, don't have access to 41 Billion barrels of oil.

  Yes an Italian fascist state is more powerful than colonial Algeria and Egypt but what about a generation or two later?  Egypt did make peace with Israel and might do so earlier in TTL.  Similarly having a border with a colonial state, especially if its been involved in mass deportations of the local population is likely to concentrate minds in both Egypt and Algeria.  The latter has had disputes with Morocco especially but their never really been on the verge of conflict.  In TTL Algeria, looking eastwards instead might come to terms rather than support the SADR in this case.

  A lot of the oil is fairly deep in the desert.  Assuming its all still discovered at the same level, which might not be the case with Italy as a pariah fascist state attacks on both drilling fields and pipelines, either by guerilla activity or regular forces in a more substantial conflict could make extracting that oil a somewhat erratic process.  Its also an additional reason, economic as well as religious and strategic for the neighbouring Arab states to be hostile to an Italian presence.  Especially if a politically isolated Italy has other distraction.

[EwellHolmes]

Oct 27, 2019 13:25:06 GMT stevep said:

Oct 26, 2019 17:18:19 GMT EwellHolmes said:

There really is no reason to assume STAVKA would cancel any Soviet counter-attacks given that IOTL Bryansk Front launched a September offensive against 2nd Panzer Army. Even if they did that presents no burden: there's simply less Soviet forces to fight in August/September then IOTL October. According to Table 5-1 of Glantz's When Titans Clashed, September was the weakest month for Soviet reserve army generation, with only 4th Army being reformed near Leningrad. However, in October fpur armies were created with three of them defending Moscow, which enabled the construction of the defensive belts which protected the city. Before then, they simply lacked the capacity to fortify it up. I'd also add that even in October, against much better defended and numerous Soviet forces, the Germans utterly demolished them and inflicted over 1 million casualties; that's equal, or even better than, Kiev. 

  They won't get a chance to attack if AGC instead of regrouping and sending part of its forces south continues plowing straight on.  Of course one additional factor here is that more Soviet forces are escaping pockets as the German moblised forces aren't waiting for food infantry to catch up.  Unless the mobile forces are split up with some pushing on while others seek to hold the isolated Soviet forces?  Also note I was talking about the troops lost in Soviet counter attacks while AGC paused.  By definition they are existing forces not the new army raised around Leningrad.  Here those forces are going to be forced onto the defensive so are likely to do more damage to the attacking Germans.

  As far as I'm aware the defences around Moscow were largely constructed by moblising the civilian population.  The additional armies in October will make it easier to hold them but their still going to largely be constructed.  The Germans might be able to capture more of them before the defence stiffens but as I pointed out the main problem for the Germans is taking Moscow itself, even when you get through the defences in front of it.  Unless the Germans, already greatly down on numbers and logistical support can successfully encircle the urban area and then hold that encirclement against the inevitable counter attacks their going to have to rely on frontal assaults, which are going to be very costly and largely reduce their qualitative edge.

  I was thinking its was September when the mud hit but it was actually early October, with early November when the early frosts helped restore movement briefly.  As such its likely to see the mud hit and largely paralysis movement as the Germans, at the limit of their logistics close in on the actual defenses around Moscow itself.  They will still take the earlier existing defensive lines centred around Vyazma and Mozhaisk but now find themselves largely immobile and out of supply facing the main defences as their boosted by new units.  They might get moving again in November when the first frosts come but its doubtful they can storm the entire city within a couple of weeks before the extreme weather really cripples their remaining forces.

As for the logistics, I'm completely in agreement with Creveld, which is why I'm using his work to base my estimations. By late August an average of 24 trains per day were arriving via the Smolensk railway and the average increased in September. That's important, as without the transfer of the 4th Panzer Division there is actually fewer German divisions utilizing AGC's railway networks in September than there would be in October; in other words, more slack there. Finally, without the diversion to Army Group South, AGC has retained a further 3000 tons of truck lift capacity. Either way you look at it, the logistical situation was better in August/September than it would be by October. An additional advantage here is the German assault won't be running into the Fall mud season almost a week in.

  Is this using the Soviet tracks or those converted to standard gauge?  I know the German army had taken Smolensk but didn't clear the Soviet armies from the vicinity of the region until the start of August.  However does sound unlikely that they have converted the tracks all the way by then.  In which case their relying on captured Soviet locomotives and wagons.  24 trains a day isn't a massive lot when your considering an entire army group and it depends on how large the trains actually are and how well their organised and loaded.

  One advantage of pushing forward earlier is that the logistical system is in better condition having seen less wear and tear.  The down side of course is that it has to do more faster which will increase that same attrition.  Especially on the horses and trucks that are seeking to keep in touch with the forces pushing on. 

  Actually, since we're assuming that more German forces are involved in the invasion, with AGS being significantly stronger, that is a larger logistical demand.  You won't have the diversion south of 2nd Pz Group but it will still have to be supported as it drives towards Moscow.  Likely to be some savings as their going a shorter route rather than stuff being sent to Smolensk by trains, then transferred to wagons for a longer trip southwards but their still going to need to support the panzers while others will be needed to support the additional forces in the south.

Finally, on the matter of Leningrad, the commander of the front was Marshal Kliment Voroshilov who had, after the fall Shlisel'burg, ordered the destruction of all Soviet military fortifications and installations within Leningrad. His His NKVD Military & Political Commissar actually agreed, but due to the speed of the German advance they failed to wire Moscow of this development. How Stalin ultimately found out about it was via a German Communique forwarded from a Soviet Embassy, resulting in the relief of Voroshilov and the transfer of Zhukov. Basically Moscow was already out of the loop on developments and it was beyond the control of Stalin, which is why Zhukov was sent.

  As you say Stalin did find out about it.  Plus does this speed of German advance rely on the diversion of forces from AGC northerwards, which presumably wouldn't occur if AGC is dashing for Moscow?  Even if it does Leningrad might still get Zhukov, as he was OTL sent when Moscow was still under threat, or some other general with orders to hold and fight.  Leningrad possibly might fall, although more likely during the winter/early spring but that while a blow to the USSR wouldn't be as important as the near crippling and possible virtual destruction of AGC.

With regards to Italy, both Egypt and Algeria, if using conventional forces, will get their teeth kicked by the Italian Army. Even today, Italy outstrips them in industrial output and during the 1930s/1940s the military establishment in Libya outstripped anything either country has ever assembled. Indeed, the Italian offensives of 1940 actually contained more men than modern Algeria has in its entire military. By basis of economics and capabilities, the advantage is unquestionably in favor of the Italians. This also ignores, however, that neither Algeria nor Egypt can deploy themselves fully against the Italians; Algeria didn't gain independence until 1962 and thereafter find itself embroiled in extensive border conflicts with Morocco that last to the present day and likewise has similar disagreements with Tunisia. Egypt, obviously, has Israel. Speaking of Israel, they are an economy of $350 Billion and 8.7 million people. The combined might of the Arab world failed to make it too costly for them to exist as a successful state and they, unlike ATL Italy, don't have access to 41 Billion barrels of oil.

  Yes an Italian fascist state is more powerful than colonial Algeria and Egypt but what about a generation or two later?  Egypt did make peace with Israel and might do so earlier in TTL.  Similarly having a border with a colonial state, especially if its been involved in mass deportations of the local population is likely to concentrate minds in both Egypt and Algeria.  The latter has had disputes with Morocco especially but their never really been on the verge of conflict.  In TTL Algeria, looking eastwards instead might come to terms rather than support the SADR in this case.

  A lot of the oil is fairly deep in the desert.  Assuming its all still discovered at the same level, which might not be the case with Italy as a pariah fascist state attacks on both drilling fields and pipelines, either by guerilla activity or regular forces in a more substantial conflict could make extracting that oil a somewhat erratic process.  Its also an additional reason, economic as well as religious and strategic for the neighbouring Arab states to be hostile to an Italian presence.  Especially if a politically isolated Italy has other distraction.

As I said, I see absolutely no reason to assume the Soviets don't continue with their counter-attacks, which can be screened by 2nd Army allowing for the rest of AGC to proceed quickly on Moscow. The largest tank battle in history-the Battle of Brody-was initiated by the Soviets in June, for example, despite the devastating ongoing German offensive. STAVKA continued to conduct them at Leningrad, Kiev, and, as previously stated, along the Moscow approaches even during Typhoon IOTL. Even assuming they do switch to the defensive, that's just asking for the Germans to utterly crush them as they demonstrated during October IOTL where they took fewer casualties but inflicted greater losses upon the Soviets as compared to Kiev. This makes a fair amount of military sense, given the superiority of the Germans in the air and in armored combat, as going on the defensive concedes the initiative to the Germans. Speaking of the defenses, the whole "civilians made the city a fort" thing only occurred in Moscow itself, with the defensive belts around the city being done by the Red Army. As for the fortifications within Moscow itself, when Stalin nearly abandoned the city in October, the only forces on hand were NKVD internal troops and they had been ordered to demolish said fortifications along with government buildings. Basically, they present no issue at all and once the Germans overrun the RKKA outside the city, they'll take it on the march.

Logistically, the situation is good. As stated, by August the Smolensk railway was capable of 24 trains per day and this rate was increasing into September; whether or not it is was converted track is irrelevant to the capacity flowing on it successfully. For reference, the RB typically had 450-800 tons per train so taking the middle at 600 tons per 24 trains in August results in 14,400 tons. A typical German infantry division used about 400 tons a day in heavy combat, so the August total alone is enough to support 36 infantry divisions. With that increasing into September and the 3000 ton lift capacity of the integral trucks, AGC has the ability to do this. Now add in that it only took them two weeks to come within a hair of Moscow, and here they have over a month before the muds set in, and you realize they're going to be sitting in Red Square pretty easily.

With regards to Leningrad, Stalin sent Zhukov to relieve Voroshilov, and not doing so leaves Leningrad without a senior commander. Basically, Stalin can either have his best commander defending Moscow, or he can defend Leningrad. He can't do both.

Finally, with regards to Italy yes, now several generations later Italy remains far more powerful than both Egypt and Algeria combined both industrially and militarily and that's without a militaristic government in power that would be committed to defending a majority Italian-Libya. There is absolutely no reason for Italy to abandon a Libya that is rich in oil and majority Italian and to do so would be political suicide because that would be abandoning their people. 90% of the oil is in the Sirte basin, relatively close to Benghazi and thus easily defended; very people live there IOTL beyond Oil workers, whom we can expect to be overwhelmingly Italian ATL. Egypt took until the 1980s to make peace with Israel and it resulted in Sadat's murder. Algeria has literally fought multiple border conflicts with Morocco meanwhile and even to this day both sides are in a standoff conducting expensive modernization of their forces to combat the other. In that context, I really fail to see the rationale for Egypt and Algeria to combat Italy given they have actual threats to their sovereignty in other enemies, including one that most Arab nations remain officially at war with to this day. 

Seriously, why would they have any issues with Italy? Egypt didn't try to dislodge other colonialist regimes around it IOTL, nor did Algeria.