Operation Barbarossa - What if

[Kraxis]

I agree that the BT-7s were not bad tanks at all, they were just superceeded by the T-34, so they never managed to show their full capability. But the fact is that the German infantry AT-guns could very easily deal with them due to two things. Their horrible armour and lousy tactics. The T-34 used the same lousy tactics, but it's strong armour at the time made up for it, and its gun was also good against soft targets unlike the 45mm of the BT tanks.

Remember with a front as wide as this one, the armour of the two sides wouldn't meet very much. It would mostly be armoured assaults on infantry. And the infantry of 1940 wasn't very different from that of 41, and we all know that besides the KVs and the T-34 they could handle Russian tanks at the time.
Also, while it was readily accepted that the PzI and PzII were outdated, the PzII proved itself capable enough in Russia (to warrent the continued development of it, ending with the 'Luchs'). When they passed enemy points of resistance and got into the rear, it was hardly a difference if the tank was a PzII or PzIV, they could wreck comparable damage (technically no, but in reality they could more or less). And this was what happened even with PzIIs in 41.

Germany wouldn't win this time, but she would learn her lessons much cheaper, much eariler and much faster. The 41 offensive would likely be able to win.
Don't forget that it wasn't just in terms of armour that the SU was 'lucky' in 41. The Il-2 had just become active as well. It proved vital as you must know. And they had also taken the first steps towards modern fighters, and were even outproducing the Germans in this regard. In 1940 they wouldn't have any proper attackplanes nor any modern fighters, not even any nearing finished designs. They would need another year for that. Meanwhile Germany would lack heavier tanks and some experience.

But don't forget that the reason the Light divisions were disbanded was because they were not strong enough against well equipped enemies. I'm not so certain that they would be inadequate against the Russian armies at the time. And this would in theory give the Germans superior mobile punch compared to 41 as they would have more mobile divisions (if somewhat weaker).

[Sarmatian]

It is not that simple. If britain/france were not involved in the war, the germans would still have to go through poland. Barbarossa came as a suprise because everybody believed that germany is going to attack england. With that out of the question, as it is in this "what if" scenario, russia would have been ready for war. Do not forget that SU had much more airplanes than germany (although not as advanced) and air superiority of the germans would be in question. German army achieved air superiority because it destroyed russian airplanes on the ground. That would not have happened if SU have been prepared.
Also, german tanks (panzer IV) proved ineffective against t-34. "Panther" came later, after they realised panzer IV ineffectiveness in russian campaign. But t-34 was more than a match even for a panther, and not to mention it was 4 times cheaper. Next improvement, the tiger tank, was to bulky and slow to carry out the offensive.
Therefore I think that the result of the campaogn would have been the same.

[spmetla]

Although the Soviet airarm was large it was hugely obsolete and ineffective. The Planes the Germans had in 1940 didn't differ too much from 41. The only differences would really be that 109 might not have had the F model until later and the 190 wasn't far along yet.
If the Germans had been able to maintain air superiority longer they would probably have been able to negate the value of Soviet armor longer as well, at least until German tank production and technology improved. One of the problems the Germans faced initially with the Luftwaffe was that witht he Luftwaffe having to divert so many of it's resources so far they couldn't give all ground forces the aircover they needed and later when other fronts of the war required more airpower they weren't able to fill these gaps of air superiority which allowed the Soviet Air Force to contest the Germans in 42. Now with a single front war the Luftwaffe would have been able to cover the Russian front much better, how complete I don't know but this could have been a key factor seeing as air superiority was one of the key factors in all the Germans historical successes of 39-42.

An interesting that was brought up was the involvement of the West. If Britain and especially the USA saw facist Germany attacking the Soviet Union they might have been content to encourage these two powers to engage in perpetual war and like Truman said, "if the germans are winning support the soviets and if the soviets are winning support the germans that way they can kill as many of each other as possible" or something to that effect.
Do you think that the west might have been happy to sell oil, ammunition, and other supplies to the Germans? I don't really think they would have supported the USSR because if they were neutral then they wouldn't have to risk their own ships to sell to Germany while supporting the USSR would have still required bypassing Uboats which might not be worth the profit to loss of life.

And another though, with the West neutral I'd guess that Mussolini would lend more support of the Italian navy to the Germans which could be very decisive in the Black Sea region where Italian dominance over the Soviet navy would probably have been assured and allowed the entire Black Sea coast line to be threatened from naval invasion and draw off more troops from the German front. If done correctly the Italians could have quickened the conquest of crimea and possibly have siezed important ports along the Eastern Black Sea allowing for a possible 41 assault in the Caucaus region and therefore oil.

Just some thoughts.

[English assassin]

Do you think that the west might have been happy to sell oil, ammunition, and other supplies to the Germans? I don't really think they would have supported the USSR because if they were neutral then they wouldn't have to risk their own ships to sell to Germany while supporting the USSR would have still required bypassing Uboats which might not be worth the profit to loss of life

Whilst I doubt there would have been any tears for Stalin, I don't think either the French or the British would have been willing to allow a huge German empire to have been created by conquests in the east. (Nor, taking the longer term view, would it be in their interests to see Germany destroyed and the Russians adjacent to western europe)

The only issue might have been, if 1940 went as well as 1941, whether the speed and scale of German (apparent) success would have been so great that the UK and France would have held back from declaring war. After all, Russia had collapsed in a war with Germany once before. As the UK and France did in fact declare war over Poland, when it was obvious that Poland could not resist the German invasion, I can't imagine they would have held back from declaring war over an invasion of Russia in 1940 even if that invasion was going very well for the Germans.

[Kraxis]

spmetla, about 40% of the Lufwaffe was placed in France and Germany at the time of the original Barbarossa.
Add to that the losses suffered over France and Britain.

Now the SU didn't so much contest the control of the skies in 42, as in it managed to sneak into the massive holes in the German airspace. Tere were not enough planes to cover the entire front. Similar to 41 actually. With fewer holes the Red Airforce would not be able to do it's interdiction of advancing German forces tothe same degree as it did in 41, especially not with no modern fighters on the way.
Special operations, such as the bombing of bridges would still be possible, as you simply can't stop that entirely.

[screwtype]

It is not that simple. If britain/france were not involved in the war, the germans would still have to go through poland. Barbarossa came as a suprise because everybody believed that germany is going to attack england. With that out of the question, as it is in this "what if" scenario, russia would have been ready for war.

I don't think it would have made much difference whether the SU was "prepared" for a German invasion or not. They simply did not have the doctrine, the organizaton or the training to withstand the Blitzkreig. A more "organized" defence might simply have put more Soviet units in the front line and thus subject to encirclement.

Do not forget that SU had much more airplanes than germany (although not as advanced) and air superiority of the germans would be in question.

Yes but most of them were obsolete biplanes which would have been no match for modern German monoplane fighters. Also their airfields and their equipment would probably have been overrun quickly by the advancing Wehrmacht in any case.

Also, german tanks (panzer IV) proved ineffective against t-34. "Panther" came later, after they realised panzer IV ineffectiveness in russian campaign. But t-34 was more than a match even for a panther, and not to mention it was 4 times cheaper. Next improvement, the tiger tank, was to bulky and slow to carry out the offensive.
Therefore I think that the result of the campaogn would have been the same.

Sorry, but this is not correct. Firstly the Panzer IV was not "ineffective" against the T-34, it was a good tank and performed effectively against the opposition right to the end of the war. However the T-34 was a better tank in some respects such as mobility. The German Panther tank was an attempt to copy some of the good design features of the T-34, such as the increased mobility and sloped armour.

Secondly, the Tiger came before the Panther if I'm not mistaken. It was already in service in 1942, the Panther did not see action until Operation Citadel in July '43 and even then it turned out not to be ready.

Thirdly, the Panther was a considerably superior tank to the T-34 in critical respects, even after the upgrading of the T-34 with the 85mm gun. The Panther's long barrelled 75mm gun had a considerably greater effective range and more penetration than either the Russian 75mm or 85mm gun. Also, German tank guns had superior sights which made their fire much more accurate. These were critical advantages for the Panther.

In most other respects, the tanks were pretty much on a par, but of course the Panther also had crews with far superior training and communications which put them even further in front.

[Pannonian]

Sorry, but this is not correct. Firstly the Panzer IV was not "ineffective" against the T-34, it was a good tank and performed effectively against the opposition right to the end of the war. However the T-34 was a better tank in some respects such as mobility.

Armour, gun, production...

The German Panther tank was an attempt to copy some of the good design features of the T-34, such as the increased mobility and sloped armour.

Secondly, the Tiger came before the Panther if I'm not mistaken. It was already in service in 1942, the Panther did not see action until Operation Citadel in July '43 and even then it turned out not to be ready.

Thirdly, the Panther was a considerably superior tank to the T-34 in critical respects, even after the upgrading of the T-34 with the 85mm gun. The Panther's long barrelled 75mm gun had a considerably greater effective range and more penetration than either the Russian 75mm or 85mm gun. Also, German tank guns had superior sights which made their fire much more accurate. These were critical advantages for the Panther.

Not enough to compensate for the advantages of the T-34-76/85, which were ease of manufacture and ease of maintenance. The T-34 was even better suited for mass-production than the M4 Sherman, with around 40000 of all makes produced during the war. Interchangeability of parts was also built into the design, so that parts from a broken tank could easily be cannibalised for use in another. Getting parts from one German tank to fit another of the same make was notoriously difficult. Also, just about anyone skilled in metalwork of any kind could fix a T-34, while you needed specialists to repair Panthers. Finally, the T-34 was very reliable, second only to the Sherman among MBTs.

In most other respects, the tanks were pretty much on a par, but of course the Panther also had crews with far superior training and communications which put them even further in front.

German tanks may have been better individually, but they were far too over-engineered to produce and use in sufficient numbers to win the war in the east. Soviet tanks were at least competent in their task, and were repeatedly redesigned for greater and greater simplicity.

[screwtype]

Not enough to compensate for the advantages of the T-34-76/85, which were ease of manufacture and ease of maintenance. The T-34 was even better suited for mass-production than the M4 Sherman, with around 40000 of all makes produced during the war.

Fine, but I was responding to Sarmation's comment that Panthers were "no match" for T-34's. On a tank v tank basis, the reverse if anything is true.

And while it's true that ease of manufacture was a major advantage of the T-34, it's also true that German tank production (and industrial production in general) should have been a lot better. It was quite disorganized for most of the war, for a variety of reasons. The Germans also had to cope with strategic bombing, which led to constant shortage of parts. The Soviets didn't have that problem.

So I don't think it was so much the "over-engineering" that caused the problem as it was the disorganization of the industry, which never rose to anything like the efficiency of that of the other major powers. And I don't think a better class of equipment is something to sneer at. After all, when the rule of thumb was five T-34's/Shermans to take down one Panther, one would hardly need to achieve anything like parity in production in order to still come out on top.

[Watchman]

One little detail is that AFAIK the fiascos of the early Winter War and the German demonstration of the full viablity of Blitzkrieg techniques (which the Soviets also knew under the name "Deep Combat", but hadn't implemented due to Stalin's internal scheming) prompet some serious reforms in the Red Army. A Barbarossa in -40 instead of -41 would naturally mean much less of them would have been implemented.

A rather important factor would however be if Stalin would be in similar denial in -40 as he historically was in -41. A military force's ability to oppose an invasion is obviously greatly hampered if it's told to not fire on the invaders come what may... A Soviet senior officer reputedly commented that what saved the USSR was the poor discipline of the troops, who would return fire regardless of orders.
'Course, I can't think of any particular reason why Stalin would be making his decisions any more lucidly than he did in -41.

So I don't think it was so much the "over-engineering" that caused the problem as it was the disorganization of the industry, which never rose to anything like the efficiency of that of the other major powers.

Oh, the Germans "over-engineered" their stuff all right. Not only did they have a definite flair for "bells and whistles" designs and downright odd experimentations, they had a bad habit of not designing their tanks in particular with future upgrades in mind. They pretty much just designed a wholly new vehicle every time, which was really a bit reinventing the wheel all over again. In comparision the Soviets for example could get by with a few solid base designs which they updated throughout the war, and I know the Brits built several of their late-war series fully expecting to have to for example eventually design bigger turrets to house larger guns.

It's not that the German propensity for sophistication and "high tech" didn't have its good points, rather one gets the strong impression they enageged in way more of it than their resources actually allowed for...

[Kraxis]

Actually the Panther was built with plenty of capacity for upgrading.
The Panther II which the Allies should be happy never got into production was a most impressive vehicle. A slim turret as that of the King Tiger, with the long 88 (the 75mmL100 was abandoned as being too impractical), integrated IR sights. Simplified engine and suspension and superior armour for better speed, mobility and survivability.

But the simple fact was that Germany was hard pressed, and the Panther was good enough for the job. So why divert its production for an upgrade that was unneeded, or rather would have been problematic while production was too low for current needs.

Also the Jagdpanzer IV got upgraded to the long 75. And the StuG III (and IV) could have carried the long 75mm, but the Germans took the chance to create purposedesigned vehicles rather then upgrading vehicles that were already being too slow/weakly armoured. The reason why they never got the long guns in any case, can likely be attested to the same problem of the Panther. They were just needed that much to allow the assembly lines to change too much.