• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

A Very Different 1942

V

Venocara

God Save the King.
Pronouns
He/him
Imagine a world where the Wehrmacht's Army Group Centre reaches Moscow by the end of 1941 only to find itself overextended, encircled and destroyed. A world in which the CPC's Hundred Regiments Offensive goes disastrously and the Japanese manage to agree a peace with the KMT by early 1941, but where the Americans are still brought into the European War by the end of the year by some other mechanism. A world in which the Italians are wiped out of North Africa with a complete Operation Compass, and the Mediterranean is a British lake. In TTL's January 1942, the Germans are in a terrible position, far worse than in OTL. But where do they go from here? Having taken the initiative, how long will it be before the Soviets are able to start pushing back towards Germany? And what do the Western Allies do?
 
varyar said:
Touch and go simultaneous landings in Normandy and the French Riviera in 1943?
Click to expand...

Would it be more likely for the Allies to attempt something like Operation Sledgehammer or Operation Roundup? If the Soviets are consistently pushing the Germans back, would the Allies feel the pressure to act in 1942 (when they might not be ready) or could they wait until 1943?
 
Venocara said:
Imagine a world where the Wehrmacht's Army Group Centre reaches Moscow by the end of 1941 only to find itself overextended, encircled and destroyed. A world in which the CPC's Hundred Regiments Offensive goes disastrously and the Japanese manage to agree a peace with the KMT by early 1941, but where the Americans are still brought into the European War by the end of the year by some other mechanism. A world in which the Italians are wiped out of North Africa with a complete Operation Compass, and the Mediterranean is a British lake. In TTL's January 1942, the Germans are in a terrible position, far worse than in OTL. But where do they go from here? Having taken the initiative, how long will it be before the Soviets are able to start pushing back towards Germany? And what do the Western Allies do?
Click to expand...
Don't assume that the Soviets are going to keep pushing. In 1942/43 OTL they had quietly opened channels of communications with the Nazis in relation to a separate peace through a Danish businessman called Bengt Berg. Couldn't agree terma but Stalin and Molotov were thinking about it. In this scenario, Lend Lease to the Soviets is likely to start later and wiping out the German advance forces on the streets of Moscow is likely to be costly of Soviet, as well as German, manpower. They mightn't be resourced to follow up as readily with equivalents of OTL BAGRATION and URANUS. And the Germans are probably slightly more reasonable in their terms in the backchannel peace talks...
 
Charles EP M. said:
If there's no North African or Pacific theatres to worry about and the Eastern Front is weaker for Germany, presumably the Western Allies attempt a European landing years early?
Click to expand...

And get absolutely murdered.

The extra years of practice for mainline divisions and limited scope disasters like Dieppe ensured that Overlord would actually work.
 
varyar said:
Even with no war in the Pacific?
Click to expand...
Honestly depends how much the US has mobilised. I'll check my copy of Friedman's Amphibious Ships and Craft, but I should point out that there were very high wastage rates of smaller mostly wooden landing craft, coupled with a relatively limited number ships suitable for conversion to Attack Transports (Only C3s were considered suitable for conversion to APAs, the USN only very reluctantly accepted the conversion of other ships to the role) and the rate of production of purpose-built ships like Lists and LSDs, meaning that the US and UK will not be able to perform large numbers of amphibious operations in quick succession, at least not in the early war.
 
ShortsBelfast said:
Don't assume that the Soviets are going to keep pushing. In 1942/43 OTL they had quietly opened channels of communications with the Nazis in relation to a separate peace through a Danish businessman called Bengt Berg. Couldn't agree terma but Stalin and Molotov were thinking about it. In this scenario, Lend Lease to the Soviets is likely to start later and wiping out the German advance forces on the streets of Moscow is likely to be costly of Soviet, as well as German, manpower. They mightn't be resourced to follow up as readily with equivalents of OTL BAGRATION and URANUS. And the Germans are probably slightly more reasonable in their terms in the backchannel peace talks...
Click to expand...
If Army Group Centre is gone then the Germans are not going to need a Bagration or Uranus though. North and South being gutted to rebuild the frontline and none of the losses from the Southern strikes OTL means lot of pressure isn't on the Soviets. They may be off to a slower start as they recover from the losses from Moscow but they took massive losses in 1942 anyway and largely without the victories to compensate. The Germans are going to be facing fairly massive attacks with less resources to move around to counter them and with the Soviets winning more battles than OTL and taking more ground it seems hardly likely that they would be more willing to make peace.
 
Death's Companion said:
If Army Group Centre is gone then the Germans are not going to need a Bagration or Uranus though. North and South being gutted to rebuild the frontline and none of the losses from the Southern strikes OTL means lot of pressure isn't on the Soviets. They may be off to a slower start as they recover from the losses from Moscow but they took massive losses in 1942 anyway and largely without the victories to compensate. The Germans are going to be facing fairly massive attacks with less resources to move around to counter them and with the Soviets winning more battles than OTL and taking more ground it seems hardly likely that they would be more willing to make peace.
Click to expand...
Well yes and no, without Pearl Harbour the Americans are going to be in at least three months later with a consequent delay in Lend Lease starting and we are talking even more massive losses TTL possibly including a couple of decent generals (most of the existing losses plus retaking Moscow) plus probably severe equipment shortages as a consequence. We are also on the other side of the hill probably talking Hitler being forced by circumstances to accede to von Manstein's more flexible defence strategies rather than his OTL never an inch approach and the Soviets getting enough bloody noses (they then wouldn't be playing to their strengths as much as with the OTL German approach) to give them pause for thought. And quite possibly heavily concentrating Kriegsmarine assets on disrupting the Murmansk run and effectively giving up on the American resources heading forthe UK? Battle of the Artic instead of Battle of the Atlantic?
 
ShortsBelfast said:
Well yes and no, without Pearl Harbour the Americans are going to be in at least three months later with a consequent delay in Lend Lease starting and we are talking even more massive losses TTL possibly including a couple of decent generals (most of the existing losses plus retaking Moscow) plus probably severe equipment shortages as a consequence. We are also on the other side of the hill probably talking Hitler being forced by circumstances to accede to von Manstein's more flexible defence strategies rather than his OTL never an inch approach and the Soviets getting enough bloody noses (they then wouldn't be playing to their strengths as much as with the OTL German approach) to give them pause for thought. And quite possibly heavily concentrating Kriegsmarine assets on disrupting the Murmansk run and effectively giving up on the American resources heading forthe UK? Battle of the Artic instead of Battle of the Atlantic?
Click to expand...

The flexible defence has its own drawbacks and required mobile forces and fuel that the Germans would be lacking. The Americans were supporting the allies before Pearl Harbor and without it they have a pretty free hand to focus on Europe. Hitler usually got more stubborn in the face of setbacks rather than less and OTL it's commonly argued that the hold at all costs order saved AGC from a rout.

The Germans shifted a lot of forces up and down the front as needed OTL, here those forces probably don't exist. Like the Soviets fought to the finish after nearly two full years of total disasters. I don't see them being more accomodating when they are winning.

OTL they expected the Germans to attack Moscow in 1942 and were caught flat footed by the drive South. Here they guessed right and fought and won the battle they intended to. I think they will be running high on their success and just like OTL be planning major hammer blows to finish the job. The Germans will probably be able to scramble and adapt and inflict heavy losses but the direction of travel would clearly be towards victory and a ceasefire only helps Germany.
 
ForceA1 said:
@Venocara what's the star of Crete in this POD? Have the Germans captured it as per OTL, or has it been successfully held by the British with troops released from the victory in North Africa?
Click to expand...

I had imagined that the British did not divert troops to Greece so that Operation Compass could be completed. If the Germans still choose to attack Greece and then Crete in TTL, I imagine that Greece would fall slightly earlier but Crete would be reinforced and held by the British.
 
Death's Companion said:
I think they will be running high on their success and just like OTL be planning major hammer blows to finish the job
Click to expand...

Do the Soviets have the capacity to attempt to destroy AGN and AGS in this timeline, seeing as the destruction of AGC would have required more Soviet losses by the end of 1941 than in OTL? Would it be easier for a 1942 peace to be reached in this timeline if the personalities of Hitler and Stalin were removed or is the military situation such that both sides think that continued war is the better option regardless? And even if the Germans and the Soviets agreed peace, would the Western Allies agree to it?
 
Venocara said:
Do the Soviets have the capacity to attempt to destroy AGN and AGS in this timeline, seeing as the destruction of AGC would have required more Soviet losses by the end of 1941 than in OTL? Would it be easier for a 1942 peace to be reached in this timeline if the personalities of Hitler and Stalin were removed or is the military situation such that both sides think that continued war is the better option regardless? And even if the Germans and the Soviets agreed peace, would the Western Allies agree to it?
Click to expand...

No idea to be completely honest. The Soviets could probably make good any realistic losses they took defending Moscow successfully and AGN and AGS would be stretched incredibly thin trying to replace losses so it would be tempting to keep slugging but if Hitler and Stalin are gone then the timeline is already completely in the air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top