Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: example.png (2MB, 2794x900px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 2794x900px
How viable do you think it would have been to draw 1941 USSR forces into a giant encirclement in Poland?
It's well-agreed that the USSR army was unable to conduct effective offensive operations in the early part of the war, so it seems to make sense to bait them into an attack. A rush to Moscow is also known to be out of the question, so speed is not quite as important.
1. Position Axis forces around the defensible river/mountain areas on the flanks that jut into USSR territory. Have central Axis forces fall back into Poland to the more defensible Carpathians and rivers, drawing in USSR forces.
2. USSR forces have accumulated in an area the size of Poland, with an additional secondary pocket in southern Ukraine. Advance mobile elements into the steppes, roughly along the border of the Dnieper.
3. We have now presumably encircled a massive part of the USSR army at a much lesser cost than if they were attacked on their home soil and have mobile elements in place ready to destroy rear-echelon forces.
Not as fast as the original plan I think, but certainly seems to be more manpower/resource-efficient. No significant manpower or industry is lost by giving up land in occupied Poland either.
Thoughts?
>>
>>3363743
All you need is Spain to join the axis
>>
>>
>>3363911
Do you have an argument as to why it's untenable?
>>
>>3364062
It would take significantly longer for the Germans to approach the most populated parts of Russia where all their manpower is. Not to mention there is no reason for the Russians to think that Germany would declare war and then bait Russia into invading them, the trap is obvious. They would likely just fortify their defences and Germany would be dead in its tracks.
>>
>>3364062
Germany didn't have the manpower to cover that large of an area and they didn't have the speed to prevent a retreat even if they did.
>>
>>3364062
Large amounts of Soviet soldiers were able to escape from pockets that weren't the size of an entire country.
>>
>>3364074
Assume this is a scenario where the USSR takes the bait. I think Barbarossa has proven that a quick advance in these areas is entirely possibly.
>>3364083
I think this map demonstrates the ability of Axis forces to quickly cover a large area and maintain a line of defence.
>>
>>3364094
Yeah, 2 years after they invaded Poland and without splitting their army into thirds.
>>
>>3363743
The entire German war plan was built on blitzkrieg and rapid advance. Removing the element of surprise and allowing the Soviets to fortify and mobilize their entire army and industrial capacity seems like a terrible idea.
They'd also be able to evacuate even more industry to the Urals than what they already did IRL.
>>
>>3364104
But this is an example where they split their army into thirds, what do you mean?
>>
>>3364113
What I mean is this is a unified push, not two forces trying to flank behind a fortified position while encountering resistance.
>>
>>3364112
That would be a big potential loss to give up, yes. Maybe a better plan would be a less ambitious Barbarossa, where a distance is advanced (i.e. no attempt made to attack Moscow) in exchange for a much better manpower/resources loss ratio.
>>
>>3364123
Pushing along an entire front is the slowest method of advance. Individual elements would move more quickly if anything.
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2