How to prepare Luftwaffe for Barbarossa if accurate intel on Soviet forces?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

There was in retrospect a very serious error made by Germany in preparing for Barbarossa, which was that they was assumed that victory was certain. Thus only sufficient arms were ordered for Barbarossa as were expected to be needed (Rüstungsprogramm B) and the building of factories and synthetic oil plants for a war with the Anglo-American powers in 1944 were given priority. There might seem to be some lack of logic in that as the conquest of the USSR would have given Germany access to significant oil production. However, the synthetic oil program was required for high octane aviation fuel.

If we are allowed massive hindsight, we could suggest stopping the construction of oil plants that would not be in production before 1943 and aiming for a small for qualitatively superior Luftwaffe by giving priority to jet aircraft, which only required kerosene which would be available from ex-Soviet oil fields.

That would free up a large quantity of steel and labour for a larger weapons programme over 1940-1 and possibly allow Germany's allies to receive better weapons. The Luftwaffe would obviously benefit from more bombers but perhaps transports were even more urgently required. Unfortunately there was a shortage of good transport designs ready for production in 1940 except for the old Ju-52. Perhaps, the Ju-90 which had flown with a loading ramp in 1939 might have been ordered into immediate production as one Ju-90 could reportedly carry as much as 7 Ju-52s and much further.

The issue of labour shortages, concentration camps and the terrible fate of the prisoners taken during Barbarossa may have been linked to Hitler's fear of food shortages such as those that damaged German morale in WW1. Certainly, every effort was made to ensure that Germany remained well fed during the early years of WW2. A more civilized Germany might have risked running down its stocks of food to gain and feed more workers.

A similar issue, not obviously relevant to aviation, is that decollectivizing Soviet agriculture might have made Germany some friends. However, the collective farms were a Soviet device for taking food from farmers to the cities and dissolving them might have made it harder for the Wehrmacht to obtain food.
 
Fine by me
I was discussing aviation and manpower. Germany had a greater population than UK. After Anschluss with Austria and occupation of Czechoslovakia it was almost double the UK population. In 1940 after the fall of Poland, France Netherlands, Belgium Norway Denmark and forming an alliance with Italy the population of the whole lot combined was greater than the USA, after taking control of the Balkans it was about the same as the USA + UK combined, you cannot possibly talk about labour shortages. At the time of Barbarossa Germany and its axis invaded Russia with almost 4 million men, this after over 100,000 had already surrendered in North Africa. List of countries by population in 1939 - Wikipedia
 
slave labour for that matter were more a post-Barbarossa thing.
Companies like Junkers used no slave labour.

Neither of these things are true. The German forced labour camps were in swing by 1936, most of the big infrastructure programmes embarked by the Nazis prior to the war were built using forced labour. The big terminal at Tempelhof for example was constructed using prisoners of the SS at Columbiahaus and from a KL (Konzentrationslager - concentration camp) built on site to provide labour. Subsequently, the Weserflugzeugbau, a subsidiary of Junkers at Tempelhof almost exclusively used forced labour at Tempelhof from the same KLs to build Ju 87s during the war.

Just correcting an inaccuracy, and since we shouldn't continue with that discussion, on with the show...
 
A few things off the top of my head, yes the He 177 needs to be improved, but these improvements need to be made on the drawing board before the design is finalised and production is begun if the aircraft is to get into service in sufficient numbers to be of use. Germany really needs a big four engined strategic bomber, and lots of them to be of any real use, and the foresight to run such a campaign within the personnel running its air force, which was not there before the war. After 1940 when the Luftwaffe numbers were whittled down as a result of attacking the UK, it has lost a whole heap of good pilots and aircraft and it took a couple of years to redress the balance. By 1941/1942 the He 111 is obsolescent and to all intents and purposes the Do 217 was the only realistic heavy bomber it had in service.

Part of the problem was that German production could not keep up with losses, not only that, building big aircraft was difficult and Germany didn't have the infrastructure to do so in large productive numbers, choosing to concentrate on smaller types with a less strategic role, being used to support the army either directly or indirectly. The Ju 90 derivatives suffer the same problem as Britain's first generation four engined heavies, during daylight hours they are too slow and poorly defended and would have suffered heavy losses, not only that, there simply were not enough of them - the decision made to convert them to offensive warplanes was too little too late to be of use.

The problem is, as identified by others here is that Germany is committed to too many fronts by 1941/42 and although it had many successes, time simply ran out because they couldn't sustain all of them in a realistic fashion over time. Not least because of the dysfunctional management of the war by the topmost rung of the Nazi personnel structure...
 
The problem is, as identified by others here is that Germany is committed to too many fronts by 1941/42 and although it had many successes, time simply ran out because they couldn't sustain all of them in a realistic fashion over time. Not least because of the dysfunctional management of the war by the topmost rung of the Nazi personnel structure...
Preparation for Barbarossa, whether for Luftwaffe operations or ground forces campaigns, starts off with shooting Hitler.
 
Preparation for Barbarossa, whether for Luftwaffe operations or ground forces campaigns, starts off with shooting Hitler.
Go for it. Dec. 1940, Luftwaffe head, Goering shoots Hitler.

Hitler or no, Germany must invade Russia asap. The country will run out of food, materials and money otherwise before long. What does the Luftwaffe do now?
 
Last edited:
Go for it. Dec. 1940, Luftwaffe head, Goering shoots Hitler. Hitler or no, Germany must either invade Russia asap. What does the Luftwaffe do now?
25 Dec 1940 headline HITLER DEAD.
Albert Bormann,
Walther von Brauchitsch,
Walter Buch,
Karl Dönitz,
Joseph Goebbels,
Hermann Göring,
Rudolf Hess,
Heinrich Himmler,
Alfred Jodl,
Wilhelm Keitel,
Erich Raeder,
Joachim von Ribbentrop,
(did I miss anybody essential?) now have a problem: What direction should the Third Riech take?
My take: (I'm not "in" the NAZI philosophy anywhere) Surrender. Blame Hitler. Offer to pull out of France and Poland (keeping an elevated road/railway East-West from Germany to Prussia, allowing Polish land-traffic North-South); Quisling invited us in to join nations and races so we keep Norway, likewise Austria. RESULT: Stalin remains the oppressor of Poland, we (Germany France & UK) should keep our eyes peeled on the Red Slav Menace. Help the Poles defend their half-nation against potential absorption; likewise Finland/Hungary/Roumania/Bulgaria.

As for the Luftwaffe (the theme of the thread) Goering is the Sacrificial Lamb to the German People for the death of Hitler; so we need a new air ministry, somebody Willy & Kurt et amici can work with.
 
Stalin remains the oppressor of Poland, we (Germany France & UK) should keep our eyes peeled on the Red Slav Menace.
That seems like the only path forward. No way the Germans surrender Poland though, in their mind that's ethnic/historic German territory. Instead of Barbarossa in summer 1941, the western powers (NATO, without the USA) will be facing Operation Bagration, or essentially Clancy's Red Storm Rising by 1942.

631px-BagrationMap2.jpg


The Luftwaffe, RAF and Armée de l'Air will have their hands full. And what of the Italians fighting Britain in North Africa? The Nov 1940 British attack on Taranto will still be fresh, of course the French won't like anyone after being attacked by the trio of Germany, Italy and Britain (Mers-el-Kébir, et al). And what of the Japanese and Americans? The former has already invaded FIC in preparation for SEA-wide offensives.
 
Freeing Poland (except for the elevated road-rail to Prussia) is not a change in history/ethnic belief, but a strategic realization that without freeing Poland, the war continues on multiple fronts to Germany's disadvantage. Freeing Poland (temporarily?) means UK/France/Germany are not at war with one another. Italy is a problem, but not a large one against the 3 European Powers (Italy being a Mediterranian Power).
Stalin is in no shape to start rationing bags, bagration required 3 years build-up and 2 years lend-lease. It also required Hitler uniting the Soviet peoples, when (without Hitler) said people were unfriendly and untrusting of Comrad Joe.
 
I was discussing aviation and manpower. Germany had a greater population than UK. After Anschluss with Austria and occupation of Czechoslovakia it was almost double the UK population. In 1940 after the fall of Poland, France Netherlands, Belgium Norway Denmark and forming an alliance with Italy the population of the whole lot combined was greater than the USA, after taking control of the Balkans it was about the same as the USA + UK combined, you cannot possibly talk about labour shortages. At the time of Barbarossa Germany and its axis invaded Russia with almost 4 million men, this after over 100,000 had already surrendered in North Africa. List of countries by population in 1939 - Wikipedia

Funnily enough your own Wikipedia population list starts of with Britain and its empire at 550 million people. These micro factoids about the German controlled European population being bigger than the UK US are contradicted.

Germany had full employment before the war, when war started there were no large reserves of unexploited labour to increase labour supply significantly.

Multiple historians have pointed that out or something near to it Adam Tooze is but one. You can argue "Black Knight" like with them if you like. You seem to want to say the British were organisationally superior, the Germans disorganised and corrupt. There is no evidence of that.

Full employment had been a key policy of the NSDAP which was a workers party, their grip on power depended on it being seen so.

The nonsense that Germany was not on a war time economy probably originated with a haughty rhetorician like Kershaw. The guy never really made much sense when you saw over his endless pompous acid rhetoric. Clearly after the BoB there would be a reorganisation but that is not the same as peace time footing.

Britain consisted not only of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but of the Commonwealth including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia (north and South) the various Caribbean countries (which had oil) and also India/Ceylon. All of these countries immediately (within 1 day) went to war with Britain against Germany. They all supplied not only man power but resources money and military personnel. Combined these are vastly larger than Austria-Germany. (Austria has a tiny population)

England was so great full to Jamaicans and West Indians they welcomed many into London and now over half the population of London is from Asian and Caribbean populations whose contributions ensured Britain won the war.

As far as Occupied Europe goes it is not easy to exploit.
1 These occupied countries are with rare exception, lacking in vital mineral resources such as oil, copper, tin, rubber, superphosphate, chromium and nickel. Even Iron had to come from Sweden. The German coal to oil industry had to supply all of Europe apart from moderate supplies from Romania. Britain had access to all of these and more.
2 The occupied territories do not supply a great amount of military recruit apart from some Waffen SS volunteers, admittedly usually outstandingly and motivated.
3 The occupied territories are difficult to exploit for manufacturing since much of their population is not motivated to fight although many did sympathise
4 Many of these countries are not heavily industrialised or lack coal or oil. Neither Italy or France have oil or coal. Britain had coal and it had the USA.

Then we have US assistance:
1940 September 2nd: Destroyers-for-bases deal.: US gives 50 free destroyers to Britain. More than the entire German navy ever hard. This is while the BoB is still on.
1941 March 11 Lend Lease Agreement: Eventually funded 45% of Britain's munitions.
1941 May/June. Neutrality Patrols. 6 months before war US destroyers begin escorting British convoys over half way across the Atlantic before handing over to the Royal Navy. This is 6 months before Pearl Harbour and subsequent German declaration of war.

In early 1940 we also had the US offering ship repair facilities and in June 1940 the Tizard mission swapped radar and other secrets with the US.

Lend lease if supplied to Germany instead of Britain would have within months doubled German aircraft and tank forces at Barbarossa (June 22 1941)
 
Funnily enough your own Wikipedia population list starts of with Britain and its empire at 550 million people. These micro factoids about the German controlled European population being bigger than the UK US are contradicted.

Germany had full employment before the war, when war started there were no large reserves of unexploited labour to increase labour supply significantly.

Multiple historians have pointed that out or something near to it Adam Tooze is but one. You can argue "Black Knight" like with them if you like. You seem to want to say the British were organisationally superior, the Germans disorganised and corrupt. There is no evidence of that.

Full employment had been a key policy of the NSDAP which was a workers party, their grip on power depended on it being seen so.

The nonsense that Germany was not on a war time economy probably originated with a haughty rhetorician like Kershaw. The guy never really made much sense when you saw over his endless pompous acid rhetoric. Clearly after the BoB there would be a reorganisation but that is not the same as peace time footing.

Britain consisted not only of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but of the Commonwealth including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia (north and South) the various Caribbean countries (which had oil) and also India/Ceylon. All of these countries immediately (within 1 day) went to war with Britain against Germany. They all supplied not only man power but resources money and military personnel. Combined these are vastly larger than Austria-Germany. (Austria has a tiny population)

England was so great full to Jamaicans and West Indians they welcomed many into London and now over half the population of London is from Asian and Caribbean populations whose contributions ensured Britain won the war.

As far as Occupied Europe goes it is not easy to exploit.
1 These occupied countries are with rare exception, lacking in vital mineral resources such as oil, copper, tin, rubber, superphosphate, chromium and nickel. Even Iron had to come from Sweden. The German coal to oil industry had to supply all of Europe apart from moderate supplies from Romania. Britain had access to all of these and more.
2 The occupied territories do not supply a great amount of military recruit apart from some Waffen SS volunteers, admittedly usually outstandingly and motivated.
3 The occupied territories are difficult to exploit for manufacturing since much of their population is not motivated to fight although many did sympathise
4 Many of these countries are not heavily industrialised or lack coal or oil. Neither Italy or France have oil or coal. Britain had coal and it had the USA.

Then we have US assistance:
1940 September 2nd: Destroyers-for-bases deal.: US gives 50 free destroyers to Britain. More than the entire German navy ever hard. This is while the BoB is still on.
1941 March 11 Lend Lease Agreement: Eventually funded 45% of Britain's munitions.
1941 May/June. Neutrality Patrols. 6 months before war US destroyers begin escorting British convoys over half way across the Atlantic before handing over to the Royal Navy. This is 6 months before Pearl Harbour and subsequent German declaration of war.

In early 1940 we also had the US offering ship repair facilities and in June 1940 the Tizard mission swapped radar and other secrets with the US.

Lend lease if supplied to Germany instead of Britain would have within months doubled German aircraft and tank forces at Barbarossa (June 22 1941)
I was talking about people in Europe, I missed out the populations of the colonies of Netherlands and Belgium too. You missed the bit where Germany declared war on USA too.
 


That should be Martin Bormann. A number of these guys, such as Bormann, Ribbentrop, Himmler, Hess and Brauchitsch would not have reached the heights and influence they did over time without Hitler and whatever leader took over might not have relied on their counsel, particularly if they presented a threat to him in any form. Under Hitler, they all were able to build their own little empires and with these threatened, their influence would have been lessened. Goering was power mad and would have used his position to gain influence, if not be given the leadership, although depending on when in 1940 Hitler dies depends on his influence with the Fuhrer - after the failure of the Luftwaffe in subjugating Britain, Goering's sheen faded a bit in the Fuhrer's eyes, which means he might not have automatically been chosen as a successor. It's a crazy what-if to try and predict.
 
I was talking about people in Europe, I missed out the populations of the colonies of Netherlands and Belgium too. You missed the bit where Germany declared war on USA too.
I didn't miss it:
"1941 May/June. Neutrality Patrols. 6 months before war US destroyers begin escorting British convoys over half way across the Atlantic before handing over to the Royal Navy. This is 6 months before Pearl Harbour and subsequent German declaration of war. "

The US was committing several acts of war on Germany before formal hostilities. The Roosevelt organised US Navy Neutrality Patrols attacked German U-boats 5.5 months before the formal German declaration of war on the US. Hitler ordered the U-boat commanders not to attack US escorts unless they were in danger.

Lend Lease itself is sufficient reason for war.

So with neutrality patrols, lend lease, boycotting of German trade, non payment of money for German exports etc USN reconnaissance in favour of the British (all before the war) Hitler had exhibited 9-12 months of patience. He perhaps should have exhibited more and allowed the Japanese to to draw away American focus for a few months into the pacific while increasing propaganda and keeping the u-boat war moderate for another month before intensifying the U-boat war secretly.
 
Last edited:
I didn't miss it:
"1941 May/June. Neutrality Patrols. 6 months before war US destroyers begin escorting British convoys over half way across the Atlantic before handing over to the Royal Navy. This is 6 months before Pearl Harbour and subsequent German declaration of war. "

The US was committing several acts of war on Germany before formal hostilities. The Roosevelt organised US Navy Neutrality Patrols attacked German U-boats 5.5 months before the formal German declaration of war on the US. Hater ordered the U-boat commanders not to attack US escorts unless they were in danger.

Lend Lease itself is sufficient reason for war.

So with neutrality patrols, lend lease, boycotting of German trade, non payment of money for German exports etc USN reconnaissance in favour of the British (all before the war) Hitler had exhibited 9-12 months of patience. He perhaps should have exhibited more and allowed the Japanese to to draw away American focus for a few months into the pacific while increasing propaganda and keeping the u-boat war moderate for another month before intensifying the U-boat war secretly.
Lets start with the invasion of Poland and move on to sinking of US vessels? I know it is common now for everyone to be a victim but portraying Adolf and Herman as a victim of anything is a real lark.
 
, although depending on when in 1940 Hitler dies depends on his influence with the Fuhrer - after the failure of the Luftwaffe in subjugating Britain, Goering's sheen faded a bit in the Fuhrer's eyes, which means he might not have automatically been chosen as a successor. It's a crazy what-if to try and predict.
Trick is, with all these Nazis dead, who takes over? Trading on his convenient name and PR mix-ups, Wilhelm Kaiser makes his move!

Kaiser, Wilhelm (Stuka Geschwader 2 'Immelmann') - TracesOfWar.com
 
Well, getting back to preparing for Barbarossa,

Building 1000 or so long range bombers for attacking targets in the Soviet Union would have been an absolute gift to the Soviets.
Thousands fewer tactical aircraft.
Much less fuel for the tactical aircraft.
Bomb supply?
Ground crew?

Timing gets strained. To have 1000 bombers available in June of 1941 means production (not prototypes) had to have started in the summer or even spring of 1940, using engines and weapons available in 1940, Doesn't matter what the Germans made in 1942 unless you have time machines.
Changes have to be minor or production is interrupted/slowed down.

How do the Germans navigate over the Soviet Union? Assuming they still believe the beams will work over the SU they are not going to have the range needed for the more distant targets.
Once the Front moves forward then new bases can be established moving the base infrastructure for squadrons of 4 engine bombers will be harder than for the same number of squadrons of twin engine aircraft. Keeping the long range bombers supplied hundreds of miles into previous Soviet Union territory would cut into the logistics capacity of the tactical units and/or ground units.
Germans have no long range escorts and even drop tanks on 109s is not going to cut it.
 
Well, getting back to preparing for Barbarossa,

Building 1000 or so long range bombers for attacking targets in the Soviet Union would have been an absolute gift to the Soviets.
Thousands fewer tactical aircraft.
Much less fuel for the tactical aircraft.
Bomb supply?
Ground crew?

Timing gets strained. To have 1000 bombers available in June of 1941 means production (not prototypes) had to have started in the summer or even spring of 1940, using engines and weapons available in 1940, Doesn't matter what the Germans made in 1942 unless you have time machines.
Changes have to be minor or production is interrupted/slowed down.

I'd say again: He 177 needs to be cancelled.
"Long range bomber" is not just another name for "4-engined bomber".

How do the Germans navigate over the Soviet Union? Assuming they still believe the beams will work over the SU they are not going to have the range needed for the more distant targets.

Germans need to do daylight bombing.

Once the Front moves forward then new bases can be established moving the base infrastructure for squadrons of 4 engine bombers will be harder than for the same number of squadrons of twin engine aircraft. Keeping the long range bombers supplied hundreds of miles into previous Soviet Union territory would cut into the logistics capacity of the tactical units and/or ground units.
Germans have no long range escorts and even drop tanks on 109s is not going to cut it.

This is why I've suggested the DB-601/605 powered Fw 190: it has more internal fuel than Bf 109, and it can be easily upgraded to carry even more fuel. The BMW 801s were fuel hogs vs. the German (and other people's) V12s. BMW 801 was also less reliable than V12s the Germans had in 1941-mid 1942.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back