Eastern front starts in 1942, What means that for ww2?

Were there better prototypes at that time?
Did the start of the war in June 41 actually cause the end of those projects?
What does the relation with USSR has to do with the qualitative tank production?
Beware, you might already be losing your focus in unrelated "what ifs".

or maybe not; so explain what you mean, with some examples maybe...

take care

Ok, let's say that Hitler is forced into maintaining the "friendship" with USSR because he or his staff realise something we know now to have been true: either that a two-front war spells certain doom for the IIIrd Reich, either that the USSR forces are impossible to beat with the current technological advances. The Russians accept to make life difficult for the British in Persia and Afghanistan, which forces the british high command to relinquish some of its advanced key zones in those areas, just to maintain the lifeline of the Empire. Meanwhile, the two superpowers make some industrial and military trades, and I can very well imagine a young german colonel, impressed by the russian T34s and making a full detailed report about them to Guderian. Or maybe an aircraft model taken to Leningrad to be examined...

The topic and the "what if" has as a starting point war in 1942 against the USSR.
Dont go off-topic.

Has nothing to do with the topic, you're going outside the theatre we discuss here.

We are not in an imagination contest.

Also, the T-34 production started in mid-1940!!! Unless there was a full detailed report by June 1941 of the T-34s awesome power, there's no point in considering one before 1942.

Or even if we do, the campaign wouldnt have started in the autumn/winter of 1941 just because of that report. It still would have started in 1942!!!

So Alex, no offense intended, but stop philosophising too much, and stick to military history and military thinking, even in an "what if" scenario.

Remember: better preparations; different weather; longer campaign.

These are one of the only things we can reasonably analyse.

I'd be interested if someone knows why there was a lack of winter-clothing supply.

I think you really don't understand. Let me ask you this then: how many men and equipment could Germany spare for such a campaign? You must, in this case, consider other theaters of activity, other fronts, losses from the previous campaigns. But you want to picture it without the necessary requirements...Fine, do it! I'm sure it would prove quite interesting

If this is philosophy, I might have mistaken my career. No, my dear Imperialist, this is the romanian "rupere a firului in patru". Because what you do with this is not military thinking, just an exercise of imagination. I could very well say "Well, Germany would conquer Moscow because they would have obtained new winter gear" but prove nothing. Keep trying, I've seen better!

is this thread going sour as well?

Alex, please understand that this topic is about 'Eastern front starts in 1942" not "The Mother of All What Ifs on All the Fronts; Lets What If the Whole War".
If you want to engage is such a mega-what if be my guest, open a new topic.

Otherwise, please understand that we are considering AS FIXED the forces available for Barbarossa, but we only change the time...

Considering that the number of troops available for the actual Barbarossa WAS influenced by previous campaigns, and we leave that number UNCHANGED, but only change the time of the campaign, I see no point in IMAGINING other campaigns or the outcome of other campaigns, in this case study...

take care

Aha, I finally understand you. So you want to completely erase one year worth of military campaigns, technological breakthroughs or political interventions just to make a "what-if" scenario? You want Germany to attack in the same way, Russia to be as incapable as in RL, you want the same officers...

Ah, you do understand this is a futile work. I tend to agree with Denes in this one. If you don't make it reasonable, it's worthless...But do tell your thoughts about such a campaign

I think I made it as reasonable as possible, you on the other hand have done your best to scuttle this topic too... all I can see is you trying to make it unreasonable and worthless by trying to confuse the focus of this topic; start talking about Afghanistan, peace with Russia; British bases... and you call my approach unreasonable...

Aha... so I clarified whats with the number of troops and other fronts, and now you go after... the officers.

By the way... Barbarossa was a plan. That is... it described the way in which Germany was to attack. So yes, the plan stays the same, only the time of the campaign changes. So, Germany attacks in the same way.

p.s. What do you want exactly?

I want to discuss this like a real possibility. From my point of view, the same plan in 1942 would have failed and the front would have become a static attrition battlefield. This is all.

No, you haven't made it reasonable. You just said something like "Let's say in 1944 the germans attack USA with tactical nukes". I think it would be worthwhile to see how in hell would have Germany obtained those things. If that is not explainable, the original hypotesis becomes void. I participated on many "what-ifs" projects with several people, plus I've watched some really gifted scenarios (like the Shattered World project, great read if you have the time), so I have really not the interest in making limited and imaginative assumptions about such topics.

Imperialist, think about what you are trying to portray: the greatest military front in history. By ignoring everything else, as if the British would have remained in stasis form for one year. How about Pearl Harbour and the Americans?

You want the same number of troops in 1942 that existed in 1941. Witht the same equipment, same gear, same weapons, same tanks, same officers, same plan. Isn't it reasonable to say that you may end up with the same outcome?

http://www.geocities.com/cypher_zzz/shattered/shattered.htm

The link to the Shattered World Scenario....Excellent read!

I never said something like that.

Well, fine. Then get your a** off this topic and start your own mega-world-wide what if project, and enlighten us with your know-how.

You are persisting in your attitude.
Dont make me waste time and effort to explain things that are out of this case study. If you have interesting input to make, YOU come and say exactly what material impact the British had on the war in the east.
Say something worthwhile for change, some interesting info, some data... stop hi-jacking other people's threads.

And you continue to ignore that this topic is about the time factor...

OK, I'll leave you and your thread alone. One small piece of advice: you really shouldn't open threads asking for cooperation, when you are the "lone wolf" type. We already clashed some time ago when you asked why no one makes a political movement of honest people. I think the answer is obvious: maybe some people don't earn their place among honest people, being too occupied in forging insults (do you think expressions like "Then get your a** off this topic and start your own mega-world-wide what if project, and enlighten us with your know-how." are really necessary?).

By the way, it was your responsability to create the scenario, since you started the topic, not me. Bye!

Alex, I'm hard to annoy, but you really annoyed me. Review your attitude in this topic, read back the messages, and you'll see I answered all your questions up to a point when you really went off-topic... and you did not participate with info, but only came up with more and more off-topic, unrelated and diversionary questions.
And after I answered them and asked you whats up with those questions, you came with more and more...

Look back -- your tank question; your troop number question; your same way of attack question... and maybe others.
With what did you come in exchange? You continued to extend the off-topic discussion -- Pearl Harbour etc.

So sorry for being so blunt in my previous "advice", but you really push people's buttons...

Well, maybe we are not suited for alternative scenarios and should stop this.

Are you kidding? I think you miss the point of discussion, debate or controversy (be careful, our university is not the best place to learn how to behave). So you insult (or beat people, like that thief in the bus) like every mobster or lowly character out there. If you can't take it, you are free to throw down the towel (which you incidently did, when you finished the discussion like a "manele" listener).

Bad example...

Are you kidding? I think you miss the point of discussion, debate or controversy (be careful, our university is not the best place to learn how to behave). So you insult (or beat people, like that thief in the bus) like every mobster or lowly character out there. If you can't take it, you are free to throw down the towel (which you incidently did, when you finished the discussion like a "manele" listener).

Bad example...

I finished no discussion... I only said that if you admit you;re not interested in this type of limited scenario, why are you hanging around this topic?
I also said that if you have real info and real analysis, please come up with it, stop the endless trail of sometimes off-topic questions.
And please, dont give me that victim's attitude, you're not impressing me...