"If it can be done in HOI4, it can be done in real life as well" - Napoleon

@EmperorBun

Жыл бұрын

I think that was Sun Tzu, actually

@alfonsneumann1878

Жыл бұрын

"Don't believe any advice given in the internet." - Julius Caesar

@robinx961

9 күн бұрын

​@@alfonsneumann1878 "Stop falsely quoting historic people on the Internet ffs" - George Washington

The Germans did attempt to reinforce the Black Sea by moving U-boats by canal and overland. Six U-boats reached the Black Sea and formed the 30th U-boat flotilla. There may have been other light vessels like Italian torpedo boats, but even bringing in these small vessels overland was a huge task. Drachinifel has a video on the subject for anyone interested.

@calumdeighton

Жыл бұрын

I need to watch more of Drachinifel's stuff. Don't think there's another dude that does the stuff he does.

@oligultonn

Жыл бұрын

Well God damn, pardon my foul mouth but that is quite impressive. Did they use the Danube or go down the Daugava and somehow into the Dnieper?

@robert48044

Жыл бұрын

@@calumdeighton I only stated watching his channel because I play World of Warships, I stayed because its a damn good channel.

@joemcardle7728

Жыл бұрын

Yes, the Italian Navy did have a few torpedo boats in the Black sea-trying to locate a source

@seanhall8686

Жыл бұрын

@@oligultonn From what I recall, the subs were partially disassembled and floated down the Kiel canal, then taken overland on road transporters to the Danube for the final leg.

In order to land 2 armies in Sicily, an armygroup sized force, the Allies assembled up to 3000 ships. Most small ships, landing craft, transports, but also cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Not even the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and its Axis fleet counterparts together could match that. I think that explains pretty much why no amphibious operation of Armygroup size was possible. The biggest amphibious operation that the Reich ever did was Norway, which involved transporting 7 divisions by air and sea, and it took the entire Kriegsmarine surface fleet, luftwaffe air transport units and some seat on the pants improvisation. And that had the advantage of being fairly close to their logistical bases, having to cross only a short distance from Germany. And even then the Kriegsmarine suffered critical losses. Hey TIK, currently in the last volume of Glantz's Stalingrad quadrology. I thought you were almost there now that you're covering Operation Uranus, but having read what happens after, to quote from Quantum Leap, oh boy.

@stevewatson6839

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, sure; Narvik is a short distance from Germany. It is BECAUSE it is a long distance they got away with it. We misread signals as Larvik further south and thought The Twins were going on an Atlantic raid.

@benholroyd5221

Жыл бұрын

But from Crimea the distance is short. bridgeable even. even if it was only part of an attack seems like it would have been a somewhat sensible move.

@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623

Жыл бұрын

@@stevewatson6839 Narvik was indeed the furthest distance from Germany. And also why it proved the toughest for them to secure. The Germans were really at the edge of what they could do there. Unlike Southern Norway, which fell into their hands like a ripe plumb. And once they had that part of the country, with its ports, time was on their side. But that was not my point. The point was that even with Norway closeby Germany and with all their naval assets they could only deploy a small army sized force of 7 divisions. Not a whole army group deploying all the way across the Black Sea on the other side of the continent.

@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623

Жыл бұрын

@@benholroyd5221 The distance from Calais to Dover is also short. Bridgeable even. It proved uncrossable for Germany and the reverse required an armada of thousands of ships. The distance from the Kuban to Crimea was crossed, twice, by the Red Army, but then again the USSR had more ships in that theater then the Axis did.

@theily1724

Жыл бұрын

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Wait a minute… you’re that robot guy from the Stalingrad breakout video!

Love when TIK takes occasional jabs at HOI4. I would really like to see a gameplay video where he tries the different theories and ideas given to him.

@sidetracknick3984

Жыл бұрын

I've played many hours of HoI 4. Their new logistics system (from BoB patch, I think) really helps simulate the problems - especially if you play with mods like Expert AI, where even when you grind down your opponent, breakthroughs are difficult due to worn out troops and bad roads/railroads. I actually use air transports now! The game keeps getting better and the modders really add a lot to it!

@akivaabraham7739

Жыл бұрын

It would be nice to have a TIK mod, where it places the germans in a very precarious situation from the beginning, making it really an incredible feat for them to win. Though I ahve noticed that since recent mods have come out, the germans and japanese almost always lose if you let the ai's duke it out. Japan fails to take china due to logistics and the germans just are grinded down like no other.

@sidetracknick3984

Жыл бұрын

@@akivaabraham7739 I'd play a TIK mod. Whatever mod he'd want to put the effort into creating. But the guy's gotta pay bills! Maybe he could make the mod and patreon it? He has a lot of followers that might cough up some coffee, er, tea money for him.

@akivaabraham7739

Жыл бұрын

@@sidetracknick3984 I would imagine that the focus tree that Hitler would have would just be constant economic debuffs as the economy socialized.

@sidetracknick3984

Жыл бұрын

@@akivaabraham7739 That would be funny. People would get the mod, thinking, alright! Someone who finally understands the Eastern Front! Then they are playing and all the troops are running out of food by the end of 41. lol

When he said "possible works in hearts of iron 4" I died xDDD, kinda amazing how people get ideas from the game and actually wonder if it would work in real life

@sorsocksfake

Жыл бұрын

War games can be quite instructive (mainly on what doesn't work). Hoi4 mainly proved that Germany should just have paradropped Paris, then send all their submarines into the Channel for an hour and sealioned Britain :). Worth noting that at least some while ago, the USSR was awfully realistic. You actually had to drive them all the way past the Urals before the bastards would give up, and you couldn't even supply an electric cow that far away lol.

@simplegeneral5688

Жыл бұрын

@@sorsocksfake Germany should have actived instant building cheat and made more synthetic oil plants xD

@bigd4366

Жыл бұрын

The problem is, HoI4 is a game. For entertainment purposes. So, each of the major powers has to have a chance of victory. If they used historically-accurate numbers and mechanics, each game would revolve heavily around who could get the US to sell or give them enough materiel that they could maintain high-intensity operations. That said, I would love to see a game (or even just a mod) that took things completely seriously; more like CMO for ground combat than HoI. Something intended from the outset for running counterfactuals, rather than having fun (and certainly not for balanced multiplayer games). I'm not holding my breath for one, though. There just isn't enough demand for it.

@sorsocksfake

Жыл бұрын

@@bigd4366 There is that. However that impact is more modest than usual here. Historically the factions did have a chance of winning, and HoI4 was not made to be balanced. You can play as Luxembourg as the nazis invade.

@simplegeneral5688

Жыл бұрын

@@sorsocksfake Yeah, the chinese and japanese were afraid of the mighty Thunder Dragon Empire

The 3rd Minesweeping Flotilla of the Kriegsmarine had an interesting story, they were taken to Magedeburgh, transported by road to the Danube and sailed down the Danube to the Black Sea. They were given orders to stop the Soviets supplies across the Kerch Straits, This they did with remarkable success with assistance from E Boats also send down the Danube. The called it nautical street fighting at often metres apart, some times operating so close that they were below the elevation of the Russian guns. They adapted what they could including using mine fields to control access and borrowed some multiple rocket launchers “Stalin Organs”. The achieved control of the Kerch Straits. In 1944 as the German army retreated the minesweepers were used to evacuate the army, taking up to 450 men at a time. They then retreated to Bulgaria and scuttle their ships. The return of the men through Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to Austria should be made into a film. They returned to Germany and were reformed. Source : Swastika at Sea After WW2 Bekker an ex Kriegsmarine wrote the book with the assistance Chief of Operations Executive at the German Naval HQ.

@mwieser123

Жыл бұрын

2nd SS Panzer Corps was only in the build up phase and ready to combat in winter42/43. That is too late for Blau.

To add, you should note that when Tik draws the map you see a long line of Soviet Territory even when Germany has Maikop. Why not just crush that flank? What the map doesn't show is the coastline is mostly blocked off by a large mountain range. There simply is no shortcut by sea. You'd have to land in areas which the army was going to already pass through anyways. A lot of extra effort that simply wouldn't have tilted the operation.

@aleksazunjic9672

Жыл бұрын

Germans actually attempted to cut off Soviet coastal forces, but mountains are mountains ... Fighting was fierce, they even captured Elbrus but could not go further.

@charlottewolery558

Жыл бұрын

@Aleksa Žunjić That's why you use airborne and amphibious systems to take and raze the Caucasian ports. Even an eventual loss of these men is a success if the BSF loses its remaining ports and dies by lack of supplies. It doesn't get the oil directly. It does however turn the black Sea into a German lake and solves most of the logistical issues in the south. With no BSF the black Sea becomes a partisan free conduit that Germans can use to transfer men and material at will until they lose air supremacy. And they only lost it historically by choice in the east by diverting the air power to Germany itself. Here you can supply any position in the south for the rest of the war as the Red Airforce buy itself cannot shut it down and rebuilding the wiped fleet will take years even if you take the shipbuilding facilities intact.

@aleksazunjic9672

Жыл бұрын

@@charlottewolery558 LOL There were not amphibious forces, and sending airborne troops into teeth of air defense and local coastal infantry is just ludicrous. Besides, destroying port is not and easy task (lots of explosives and expertise needed) , and none of this ports was actually strategic for Soviet war effort.

@robertdickson9319

Жыл бұрын

Correct. The Germans used their Black Sea "fleet" of transports & R-boats to cross the Kerch Strait and land on the Kuban peninsula - this provided logistical & flank support for their advance Rostov to Maikop. Axis troops occupied most of the port city of Novorossiysk but were unable to take complete control of the town or port before being driven back in 1943. Any further advances southeast along the coast line would have helped eliminate the BSF but would have required significant troops, airpower & supplies that would have been more decisive at Grozny (if they had been available). Moving supplies across the mountains from anything south of Tuapse would not have made logistical sense or assisted in any meaningful way to the capture of the oil fields of Grozny or Baku.

@charlottewolery558

Жыл бұрын

@@aleksazunjic9672 oh no! Casualties! Anyway.... Forces exist for purposes like this. One the troop concentration ain't that bad there. Secondly this has been done. In Crete. And Greece It doesn't matter if it's judicious. The goal isn't the ports. It's attritioning the BSF to death. Also in 1942 the axis have total air supremacy wherever they direct the resources and that cannot be underestimated. If the Germans play judicious in 1942 they lose. They know this, thus Fall Blau. But it was the wrong choice. Caucasus oil is useless of you cannot get it in and out. You need to consolidate the supply lines at any cost. And the prize is much surer here given the assets available. Airborne seizes, amphibious reinforces and you move mountain and light troops thorough the Tarimen peninsula which isn't that mountainous for a good chunk of the journey. If you plan the routes correctly hugging the coast is a lot like Greece. You just have to take the right passes. This is a limited offensive and any port that can be taken automatically becomes a new supply center given the the cargo ships they are using aren't the big ocean going vessels the allies used in Overlord. This is all possible. AND Stalin still thinks that main target is Moscow and doesn't believe the BSF is statically critical. And in and of itself, he's right. But the issue is the Germans refused to believe they were in a long war. They needed to understand there would be no knockout. You can't knockout the first generation of a murderous fanatical ideologically obsessed cult. You have to burn them out of their castles one by one. The way the Mongols did with the Assassins in the mountains of Persia. The political will is ironclad. This was not done because the Germans wanted to sprint instead of marathon jog. It doesn't play to their strength but their strengths are lent towards knockout blows and no knockout blow can so much as cripple a county as vast as Russia. A pivot to consolidation from strength is their only workable option.

This seems like the type of thing that looks good in a video game, but in reality, was not viable. Amphibious landings are a nightmare in ideal situations. When the Axis were never particularly well set up for black sea operations in the first place, I can’t imagine them being able to land enough forces for a sustained campaign and supply them for said campaign.

@charlottewolery558

Жыл бұрын

It's why you use airborne forces in conjunction. And you don't have to hold very long you just have to starve the BSF into nothing. Killing the BSF should be priority one. You solve most of the logistics of the south and can ramp up as fast as barges can be built once the BSF is no longer even fleet in being. If that wasn't German priorities, that's their problem. Shoreing up logistics needs to be top priority after November 1941 and the failure of Typhoon. They have a long war on their hands. They must play appropriately.

@colinhunt4057

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, the hulkster. Same reasoning applies to the utter futility of Operation Sealion. Germany was utterly incapable of coming up with the naval assets to transport an army across the English Channel even if they had absolute air superiority over southern England. The massive Allied preparation and equipment in 1943 and 1944 showed the degree of effort which was actually required. The Sealion invasion barges were only found by temporarily confiscating all the Rhine River barges from their commercial activity of transporting most of Germany's coal. The few months they were tied up uselessly waiting for Operation Sealion would have crippled Germany's economy.

@nastypiglosi1788

Жыл бұрын

Same reason they didn't invade England

@charlesmaeger6162

Жыл бұрын

Great comment.The Germans were not very capable of coordinating the branches of their military with amphibious landings. Example - preparations for Operation Sea Lion against Britain.

As you have well established, the primary problem the Germans faced in Fall Blau was logistics. Once they began moving past the Don they didn't have the rail support to move supplies to their forward units. That is why their supply officers suggested rebuilding the bridges over the Kalach and building a double track rail line to Stalinegrad.

@charlesmaeger6162

Жыл бұрын

Great comment

Thank you for answering my question. It always blew my mind how obvious the answer to the Caucuses question was right there, but yes Turkish demilitarizing their straights makes sense and a "hand off" approach could really of been a big game changer.

@TheFirebird123456

Жыл бұрын

Ironically, this still applies to the current war. the reason why the rest of russia's fleet (that is not either the black sea fleet or the caspian fleet) cannot help in ukraine is because of Turkey.

@aleksazunjic9672

Жыл бұрын

Germans at that point did not have a fleet to sail into Black Sea, even if Turkey allowed them. Italians could, but they were afraid to sail because of Royal Navy. Overall, moot proposition from the start.

I saw a WWII video in the past that showed that the Italian navy had several lighter ships (like the German Schnell boats) in the Black Sea , & will try to locate the source. Think they had been transported by rail, if my memory serves me correctly.

I'm from Romania, we had just 3 submarines of which only the first, the Italian build NMS Delfinul (HMS Dolphin), was heavily engaged during the first 2 years of the war, afterwards was in docks for repairs. The other two, NMS Rechinul (HMS Shark) and NMS Marsuinul (HMS Porpoise) were available only in 1944. The other 5 were ex Italian navy CB class midget submarines, employed in Romanian Royal Navy service after the Italian armistice. So basically we had only one submarine during the period of Barbarossa and Fall Blau.

@arkadiy9321

Жыл бұрын

An interesting tidbit from a Russian historian’s lecture on Black Sea engagements: this lone submarine could only operate for two weeks (due to a low fuel capacity), so while the displacement was comparable to Soviet “Pike” boats, the capabilities weren’t quite similar

Someone suggested using the Danube to get oil up to Germany. This seems doable using the smaller, lower barge like ships used there. You would have to pass through eleven locks to get up to the German border. I would continue up the Danube to Deggendorf where the railroad becomes available. Which, of course, would be in range of allied bombers.

@gagamba9198

Жыл бұрын

During the War Romania transported oil via the Danube to Germany. There were issues with the large amount of traffic on the river and it freezing over in the winter.

It's interesting to think about some alternate histories where they try a plan like this, realize they can't bring in ships through the dardenelles, and resort to building new ships in the black sea. Sort of like the "Battle of the Carpenters" in the War of 1812 where the Americans and British/Canadians were both racing to build up a new fleet in the Great Lakes, which couldn't be accessed from the ocean at the time.

Love your videos!

Thanks for the coherent analysis. Informative video.

I did often wonder this, and this brilliantly answered my suspicions. Thanks TIK, keep up the great work

Great work.

Your library gives my goosebumps! What a great reading list!

Yeah i knew this episode would be quick. Great video once again.

Very interesting topic!

works in hoi4

Hi TIK, I would say a more minimalist plan would have worked. Two changes compared to historical: (1) A somewhat reinforced Armygroup B + (2) A different mission for Armygroup A. Instead of protecting the flank at Stalingrad Armygroup A would only take the railhubs of Rostov and Salsk. Forming a defensive line on the Donets-Manych rivers. That would have cut off all rail traffic between Caucasus and Russia proper. The rest of the flank of Armygroup B would hardly have needed any cover since logistics are non-existent in the interior (Elista). My theory is that this would not have depleted 6th Army and 4th PzArmy as they historically were depleted fighting their way to Stalingrad and into Stalingrad. Allowing them to beef up the Axis Minor armies as well as being able to send some extra troops to help armygroup B. And maybe even more important... by taking up defensive positions early they would have freed up a huge amount of logistical assets, engineers ,rail repair crews and supplies to flow to armygroup B instead of armygroup A. Not to speak of the kerosine and Ju52's (historically used at Stalingrad) and their escorts that could have been used to airsupply armygroup B as well as later bombing the Caspian logistical systems and ports. Gives 2 extra months that would have allowed the Germans to get all the way to the Caspian coast and take up blocking positions along the Caucasus mountains. Interdicting any naval transports on the Caspian. Given an extra year the Germans could then have completed their conquest. Focusing their 1943 efforts on completing their 1942 efforts (instead of Kursk) while also fortifying and holding the line in center+north. I do not believe the supply route through Persia to be viable for the Soviets to either maintain their armies in the Caucasus or transport the oil from Baku back to Russia. Just please take a look at the rail networks in the area. Russian rail map: i.redd.it/nvb79ealufh71.png Iran rail map: rogerfarnworth.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/q.jpg For this what-if history... in the end... it really all depends on the question if the Luftwaffe would have been able to stop Soviet shipping on the Caspian... best wishes, Vic

@SuperVic010

Жыл бұрын

“A strong hope was expressed at the time of the invasion that Iran might provide another “Burma Road” by which supplies could be shipped to Russia to compensate for the heavy Soviet losses incurred in the retreat from the Ukraine. Actually, there are three routes which might possibly be used for this purpose. One is the road leading north from Zahidan, through eastern Iran, near the Afghanistan border, to Meshed, and thence into Russian Turkestan. Zahidan … is the terminus of the Baluchistan railway running north and west via Quetta from Karachi, a first-class port on the Indian Ocean. The second route is the Trans-Iranian Railway, from Bandar Shahpur, on the Persian Gulf, to Bandar Shah, on the Caspian Sea. The third route is the narrow-gauge railway from Basra, on the Persian Gulf, to Baghdad, [now in Iraq] and the standard-gauge line thence to Khanikin, Kirkuk and Erbil. From near the latter place a road leads over the Rowanduz Pass into western Iran, and thence northward to strike the Russian wide-gauge railway at Tabriz. Each of these three routes has great limitations and presents enormous difficulties for through transport.” [18: p367] (source: rogerfarnworth.com/2020/03/24/railways-in-iran-part-2-the-1910-to-1945/)

@duniagowes

5 ай бұрын

Very sound strategy. If only Hitler could think this way. He wanted too much in a short time with very limited resources. Going step by step is more logical. But, again strategic defense was never in his mind (attack & stand fast were the the only strategy). And this lead me to think (again) about the useless of Stalingrad campaign.

Thank you, TIKhistory.

Amazing introducing & Excellent entroducing

I love some of these TIK What if (or Why Not?) vids, pls pls pls... keep em comin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cool stuff

Great video

Good job!

I haven't watched it yet but I am very excited that you are visiting this topic!

The Romanian Navy was smaller than you say there, there was only one operational submarine and other 2 were built during the war but never got the time to see action. No frigate, just 4 destroyers, 2 of them modern(1930) and the other 2 obsolete(1918). Some torpedo boats, a couple of minelayers and other small coastal vessels. Actually the Soviets were the first to strike from the sea with a bombing raid launched from Sevastopol near Constanta in the end of June 1941 (and according to Suvorov they had an invasion plan and a full army corps was training in Crimeea in June for a naval landing in Romania and quickly advancing for Ploiesti oil fields). This was tried after an unsuccessful air bombing raid on the port in which the Soviets encountered massive losses. In the issuing naval battle (June 26) between the Romanian ships and shore batteries and the Soviet Navy - the latter got badly mauled, the destroyer Harkov was damaged and the destroyer Moskva was sunk (not the luckiest name for a Black Sea Fleet ship indeed :) ). This Soviet defeat demonstrates that a landing on the shores of the Black Sea was not an easy task. Actually later on, during the Odessa siege, the Romanian Navy refused to go on the same path and bomb Odessa from the sea, fearing the same outcome.

Another good one Lewis. I like these short form, theoretical videos

Okay TIK. The penultimate question that everyone of us is burning with passion to hear the answer to: How many hours do you have in hoi4? xD

@themaavpage8169

Жыл бұрын

It's probably less than 50 hours. I don't think he even knows there's logistics now in HOI4 (which they added in Nov 2021, almost 1 YEAR AGO)

@RinaRavyn

Жыл бұрын

i know when they added it because NSB ruined my sanity xD But i suspect youre correct in that its going to be less than any of us thinks. I think genuinely, for all his intrest in tactics and orders of battle, his passion lies more with the pursuit of new knowledge through books and sources than the execution of plans in an interactive manner.

Hey Tik I love all the stuff you have done on Fall Blau, it has always been a great interest of mine and you always do a fantastic job giving a balanced view of the whole thing.

Love these short-form theory vids! Keep up the great content!

Thank you

The knowledge in that bookshelf is mouthwatering.

Very interesting as usual Tik. Have KZread sensors made "Mr H's" name completely verboten?

This is the best channel about ww2 there is ..and I appreciate all that you do ...great work ...

Another classic!

I play a game called Call of War in which human players re-enact very alternative histories of WWII. Turkey is often featured as either a country taken over or sometimes even as a formidable aggressor. However as some game scenarios incorporate different levels of historical set up, it would be interesting to play one in which Turkey is a seriously dedicated neutral.

Mister H. just could not think out of the box. They should have requisitioned thousands of fishing sailboats from Bulgaria and Romania to transfer the supplies.

What if instead of going through with the Barbarossa strategy with an Army Group North, South and Center, they focus entirely on the south and secure the oil?

1:46 I'm never going to stop having a slight chuckle every time i hear about operation Uranus

People really don't grasp how difficult the transition from land to sea to land is.......

Very interesting, I had not thought about the Black Sea and the possibilities of supply, as it turns out, very difficult anyway.

This whole series is epic

Ive thought about this many times for fall blau. If they stuck with their original plan by first securing the northern flank instead of moving simultaniously. What i mean by this is: 4th pz army moving to voronezh ( as they did ) and then following it south of the don river to kalach. 1pz.army moving on rostov ( which the sovjets left already ) after taking rostov 1pz army would instead follow the path which 4th pz army took in real life. Moving south of the don towards stalingrad. With both 4th pz and 1st pz racing for stalingrad before they could reinforce it. 6th army would.move in between and taking up the don bend. 17th army would close in behind 1pz army to protect the southern front. 2nd army would take perimeter around voronesh as they did in real life. With stalingrad taken while it wasnt reinforced as much as they did 6th army with their allies would guard the northerm flank. 6th army could be spread out more to relieve some pressure on their alles. Now the.northern flank in place both 1pz and 4 pz could race south to capture the oil with 17th army following up. Last note: would hold 11th army in the don area as a reserve instead of moving it to the north. Yes all of this is in hindsight and perhaps impossibe logistically but hey, a man can wonder.

To Answer your Question TIK if I were the Axis player. My general answer would be improve my existing logistic & not screw up my Economy before the War. I'd also avoid antagonising the West as much as possible and make it clear, "Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone." Otherwise. I need to do a lot of thinking for a more thorough answer. One thing I would do was what Halder did in Barbarossa. Stalin new Hitler needed the oil, and Halder thinking he new better, put more of the German strength in the Centre than the South because taking the Capital is an automatic win isn't it. Humour aside. The move did take the Soviets off guard and allow the Germans to out flank the Soviets a bit and win much in the opening moves. I'd do this myself to gain a quick advantage then shift the forces South with the Centre & Northern Forces as the flank guards as I'd push for the Soviet Oil fields. But all this doesn't take into account the number of troops that could be fielded in the South at the time. Available or the logistics & effort to shift forces from the Centre axis to the South. And even then it might not work. But. I hope you find this interesting. And I'm looking forward to your next video. Take care TIK.

@Irys1997

Жыл бұрын

I just don't see any route after Pearl Harbor. There was no way that Germany could take on the two largest nations/economies in the world, and the US at the time was the world's largest oil producer. Especially since Germany had no long range heavy bombers that could affect or even threaten to affect the production capacity of either of those nations.

The Black Sea is somewhat of an odd ball. From a German view, it's a bit on the side with no hope to get a substantial fleet there. And anything they get over the water has to be moved by rail at some point anyway. Because the shortest large enough waterway from the Black Sea to Germany for seriously large ships is called the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel.

Good companion piece to the other video.

The Kreigsmarine did not have enough tonnage and oil reserves to mount an effective attack through the Caucasus region of the U.S.S.R in 1942.

Because they lack the warship and transport vessels. When they attacked Norway on sea, they use almost their all fleet to do that and took heavy casualties. They had not that much vessels in black sea and it was far away the mainland.

Is KZread that bad where you must say “mr. H”?

@Irys1997

Жыл бұрын

Yes, and if you really are a glutton for punishment, just try to mention the Unknown Virus of Unspecified Origin

@RambleOn07

Жыл бұрын

Yes

@Irys1997

Жыл бұрын

The WW2 Channel is struggling very badly with KZread censorship, many of their videos, especially those around the Holocaust, get age restricted. Age restriction not only prevents the people you want to see the videos from seeing them (children who want to learn the topic) but a whole host of other nonsense like ad blocking and other misc KZread crap

That's an interesting question.

I think Germany lost the war in 1940, as they had loads of divisions, that were not used in Russia in '41, that could of been sent into North Africa. Taking Suez to the east and Gibraltar to the west. Plus the forces in the east, would of been relatively close to Baku from the south.

@petervote7914

Жыл бұрын

That was the winning move, invading entire middle East during battle.of Britain. But due to lack of imagination and pro Anglo Saxon attitudes of the fuhrer, this move was not taken.

@chadsupporter4093

Жыл бұрын

@@petervote7914 Exactly

In 1941 the Germans had already reached Rostov. If the had allocated more resources there, they might not have to retreat in winter far back and in 1942 could have reduced the distance to cover by "Fall Blau". Maybe the could have invested also in improving in the railltracks before attacking in summer of 1942.

The best source on naval power is "Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships." You would want the volume 1922-1946, but it's hard to find now and VERY expensive, so good luck. "Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII" is a more affordable/available alternative, but not any where close to the value of the Conway's guides.

TIK what about von Manstein´s 11th Armee? Beafore he was ordered to go to Leningrad with the 11th, "Manstein recommended that the 11th Army either cross the straits of Kerch and push into the Kuban area to aid in the capture of Rostov"...

Interesting how logistics/supplies affected ALL the armies. Germans needed oil. Japan/Great Britain needed resources for their empire. The supply affected Pattons/Rommels army. Battle of the Bulge goal was to seize Antwerp and cut off the port/divide armies in two. Grew up thinking the tank, airplane and heroism was all that was needed to win. How many soldiers did not get food, ammo, sleep, support and were expected to do their job regardless?

@Gridlocked

Жыл бұрын

As General Omar Bradley once said: _”Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.”_

Something that I did once in Hearts of Iron 2 was bum rush Ukraine and the Caucasus in the first 6 months of the war. I took Baku for about 3 days before the British in Persia took it back from me and held it. That war didn't go well.

Probably for similar reasons that they never got around to invading Britain by sea. Simply put, they didn't have the military capability to sustain a large-scale amphibious operation like that. Especially when their enemy had a formidable navy of its own. The Kriegsmarine had no chance of going toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy over the long haul. Even though Britain was right on Germany's doorstep. It would've been even harder to sustain an amphibious operation thousands of miles away against the Soviet Navy.

This is one of the best ww2 history channels on KZread.

Haven't watched the video yet so I'm going to make my guess and see how accurate I am. I will use the term "you" to refer to the hypothetical officer planning the naval landing. 1. This would require a significant fleet in the black sea to secure naval superiority in order to make a landing. I can't remember if the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was still present in the area, but even if it wasn't, you are limited by whatever ships you already had in the black sea and whatever you can build in Romanian ports. The allies had enough of a presence in the Mediterranean Sea or complete dominance (depending on the time you're choosing). 2. Assuming you have the forces to commit to a naval landing, that is still not an easy organizational task. What the whole operation is gambling on is that you can land a force in the Caucasus region and advance rapidly enough to secure the region without getting bogged down and encircled. 3. Assuming you succeed in securing the oil fields and gotten them online, you have to get it back to Germany somehow. This leaves you with two options. In option one, your naval landing has upset the Soviet line enough that Army Group South can actually push to, take, and hold Astrakhan. In this scenario, you can use the railway network to get the shipments of oil back to Germany. Of course, this increases the traffic on the rail network which could make your difficult logistics situation worse. In option two, you haven't secured the rail networks, and you have to ship the oil on the black sea to Romania, and from there send it by rail to Germany. In this scenario, not only do you have to have transfers at both ports, but you run the risk of being intercepted by allied bombing raids on the Black Sea. In either scenario, you're going to run into issues actually exploiting the Caucasus oil. 4. Now let's assume that you have the forces to make a landing. Given the sheer luck the Allies had with disguising their landing sites during operation overlord, I imagine Soviet or Allied intelligence would be able to determine a naval invasion is coming. 5. Distance. I can only identify one good landing site, Batumi. It seems to be the only place you could land with a railway hub to sustain an invasion once you've landed. Similarly, there are only two good departure points for the main naval invasion force, Constanta or Odessa. Either way, the distance is over 600 nautical miles, which is at least 8 times more distance to cover than Operation Overlord (I think it is over 10 times depending on the Overlord departure site). That is a lot of distance to cover and a lot of time to be discovered even after you launch. In summary, a naval invasion of the Caucasus region makes very little sense even on paper. Now, time to watch the video to see how close I got. Edit: Well, I wasn't that far off. I spent a lot more time thinking about the hurdles after you landed when practical reality stops you at step one, but it was a fun exercise anyway.

@stevewatson6839

Жыл бұрын

We are talking Fall Blau. Sevastopol has been captured; the Luftwaffe has air supremacy. More of an obstacle: there is a mountain range between the coast and Maikop/Grozny. In Italy with similar control, the Allies operated two army groups either side of the Appenines. They could probably capture a port; it would be much more difficult to break out from it.

T.Y.TIK 🙏🙏

Hi Tik. Hope you are doing better. I enjoyed your last video, and it was interesting. I'm not gonna lie, you had me at the first half. I'm almost caught up with your Stalingrad series, and am glad to see you are going back to North Africa. Out of curiosity, during you studies on the Eastern Front, did you find any monographs that focus on Ukraine in WWII? In particular, the social, economic, and political history? The current war is been on my mind since February. I have Stephen Fritz's "Ostkreig," Some of Pritt Buttar's work with David Stahel's "Kiev, 1941." In addition, I have a copy of "Anatomy of a Genocide," by Omer Bartov. Would like to hear your input. Cheers from across the pond!

@lornamorgan3575

Жыл бұрын

With the current situation in mind Turkey again affects outcomes in The Black Sea. It refuses to allow any warships through the Bosphorus if they don't have a home port there. Russia was unable to replace the Moskva.

@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623

Жыл бұрын

@@lornamorgan3575 I reckon that hurts the Ukraine more though as NATO is now unable to parade some ships off the Crimea to draw away Russian attention.

@Gridlocked

Жыл бұрын

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Turkey is in NATO.

@boblee5556

Жыл бұрын

@@Gridlocked they wouldn't be selling drones to rus forces if they were 100% with us, Turkey is playing both sides for opportunity, just like in the other two 'big ones', we are gonna win, so like I agree its a matter of time until Turkey joins us, but saying Turkey = NATO is simplistic and untrue

@gwtpictgwtpict4214

Жыл бұрын

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Currently NATO (full disclosure, I'm British) is playing a very low key game. Russia has been complaining that it's fighting NATO, it isn't. NATO is a defensive organisation, and up to and until a NATO member is attacked by another state, Article 5, the bit that states that an attack against a member state in Europe or North America shall be considered as an attack on all NATO states, doesn't apply. Currently we have a delicate balancing act going on. Turkey, though a NATO member, is acting here under the terms of the Montreux convention of 1936. That basically lets them close the Dardanelles, ie access to the Black Sea, from the Mediterranean to any warship that is not based in the Black Sea at the time of a conflict occurring. So, as things stand, what Russia has in the Black Sea is all it's got to play with unless it tries to force a passage of the Dardanelles, which a) didn't go well for the RN in WWI, and b) would trigger Article 5 so oops! It's all gone horribly wrong. As things stand, and this is the important point, politically and legally anyway, NATO is not supporting Ukraine. Various nations that are part of NATO, and many others that are not, have chosen to support Ukraine as it defends itself against an illegal and unjustified invasion by its neighbour Russia. There is nothing involved in signing up to NATO that stops a nation doing this, you, as a nation, are free to act in what you consider to be your own interests. Other NATO nations may frown at what you're doing, but that's fine under the NATO rules. Basically Mr Putin thought he could get away with invading an essentially peaceful neighbour. If he'd managed it in a few days, all good. Unfortunately for him Ukraine has learnt from 2014 and has thoroughly kicked his arse. He can keep feeding his unwilling conscripts into the meat grinder that is the Ukraine or he can step things up and pick a fight with NATO, lob a few missiles into Poland or the Baltics for example. That will not go well. I'll be sixty this year, I grew up under the threat of thermonuclear war. I thought that was long gone, but now we have this dickhead Putin shouting threats again. Simplest solution would be for someone in Russia to apply their time honoured solution of a pistol to the back of the head.

Hi TIK, I've been following your work for a few years and I've always had a lot of admiration. My question is, can I translate one or more of your videos? I would, of course, give you all the credit. I'm not very skilled with either video or audio, but I have friends with more experience who can help me and I'm keen to try to make it work. My mother tongue is Portuguese, I'm Brazilian, watching videos between 1 or 5 hours just by subtitles is very difficult for most people, the idea would be to "re-record" your videos by translating them. Tell me what you think of the idea. Thanks in advance

@JRSimoes

Жыл бұрын

Hey funny to see your comment. I just heard another good channel asking for help regarding a project to do this for a South American Naval History video. Check out and contact if interested... kzread.info I only bring this up because he literally was talking about it in the video I watch right before Tik's.

Just the little matter of the Caucasus mountain range in the way. The oil fields are east of the mountains.

In Egypt both rommel and monty thought the other had poisoned the water wells by putting oil in the wells, in actual fact it turned out to be a huge oil well under the water. There was probably enough oil to solve a lot of problems.

What a question! Frankly the answer remains a mystery to me. My closest guests would have been to prepare for a longterm war from the onset and plan a part I (1941) and a part II (1942) operation barbarossa with a clear goal of attacking the Soviet economy rather than its political centers from the onset of the invasion. Even then that does guarantee success or solve the immediately shortage of petroleum needed for sustained operations. A drive through the Middle East also brings with it enormous resource and logistical problems.

They didn’t have Higgins boats and amtracs I meant to write. Land perhaps sea ? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

Germany just wasn't a naval-orientated nation and their army rarely thought in those terms. A similar situation arose at Dunkirk where the British and French immediately enacted an evacuation and the Germans envisaged a siege and were somewhat surprised to enter the town and find everyone had buggered off.

Paratroop landing near Tuapse, say 5000 troops combined with 2000-3000 troops by available amphibious craft landing (including the elite Brandenburgers) to break the Western Soviet front in the caucasus and link up with the German land invasion. Combine this with another paratroop landing behind Ordzonikidze and there could have been a breakthrough there too. If the coastal operation had worked out, a lot of troops would have become available for redeployment behind the Stalingrad front, thus possibly frustrating the Soviet offensive there.

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet withdrew to Novorossiiisk, at the northwest end of the Caucasus range. There was fierce fighting just north of the port for some months. The German problem was that with a fleet there as a threat, significant unescorted shipping operations were out of the question (same as German heavy ships in Norway tied down British battleships as distant escort to convoys). Also, Soviet aircraft operated effectively against German ships. Heywood argued in one paper that, even if the Germans had reached the oil, they could not transport enough to make a major difference - the rail lines were overloaded and Danube shipping at capacity.

We love you man keep doing this, real history is being attacked and you are defending it. Thank you!!!

Was gonna comment "As a profesional HOI4 player..." but TIK shot that down ASAP XD

They got pounded in Operation Uranus. It was really painful.

@jussim.konttinen4981

Жыл бұрын

Funny because Friedrich Paulus was a commie.

@Irys1997

Жыл бұрын

See, they really did need oil after all

At the start of Barbarossa instead of splitting the army into 3 and attacking in 3 directions what if they did a mega thrust south straight for the caucas oil field ?? Maybe like 2 army groups spare head the charge with the third holding a rare guard action??

This goes quite a long way to answer my question of "Why didn't the axis conquer the North Sea?". Once again it seems like a solution that cuts off allied supply (convoys to Murmansk), blocks intervention of the Russian fleet against ore shipments from Finland/Norway, and allows cargo ship transport of supplies. A lack of vessels that could be used for such a transit along with that part of Russia being rather unpleasant seems to be the consensus.

You said you can’t find a source for the composition of the Romanian Navy at outbreak of WW2. I recommend Jane’s Fighting Ships of WW2. That will have you covered.

"Thickipedia" That made my day. Subscribed...

I have wondered a very similar question about why Germany didn't use marine logistics in the Baltic Sea campaign against Leningrad. The particulars of the Black Sea vs the Baltic Sea are a bit different, but I mostly concluded that Germany barely prepared for the challenges of logistics on the Eastern Front, so exotic or unconventional solutions were never seen as necessary. If you don't think a Plan B is valuable during preparations, you probably won't do a good job coming up with a Plan C and Plan D at the last minute. Germany had prepared to use the Danube and Black Sea, in preparation they could have built barges for supplies, but they would have required significant air cover or the disabling of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet.

Tik needs to do a video on why Germany didn't just deploy a few armour divisions in Egypt and invade from there to occupy Iraq and Iran and seize the oil in 1942 instead of this Baku thing.

I think the heart of TIK's question at the end of the video is "How could Fall Blau have been more successful?". Hard to say, but it might have worked with a greater commitment of troops and supplies. In terms of supplies, perhaps a greater commitment of manpower to converting Soviet rail lines to European gage, and expanding their capacity would have helped. And in terms of fighting manpower, perhaps dig in more in the north and center, sending extra troops to the south. Give allies such as the Romanians and Italians better equipment. The 2nd SS Panzer Corps was very effective under Manstein at the 3rd Battle of Kharkov in early 1943 (also fairly effective at Kursk), what if they'd been available for Fall Blau rather than waiting in France for an Allied attack that surely wasn't going to come? If the above conditions of greater manpower, improved supply, and increased equipment were followed, the invading force might have been strong enough to accomplish the goal of capturing the oil fields and holding off a Soviet counter-attack. Furthermore, perhaps moving more quickly on Stalingrad (which was not in the original Fall Blau plans), would have been effective. In hindsight, racing to Stalingrad might have solved a lot of problems for the Nazis, though this wasn't obvious in the original Fall Blau planning. Furthermore, it still might not have worked if the Nazis couldn't hold off a counter-attack to retake Stalingrad, in the similar manner that they couldn't hold off a Soviet counter-attack to re-take Rostov late in 1941 after first racing to capture it during Barbarossa

What do you mean you couldn't find anything on the Romanian Navy or merchant fleet? You have "Third Axis Fourth Ally: The Romanian Armed Forces in the European War" on the shelf behind you. Chapter 10 will tell you everything you need to know about both!

@stevewatson6839

Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣 Go back and read it more closely: 9 times out of 10 if a historian doesn't use or reference what I know is a major source, re-reading that source makes a mess of that historian's argument in some way. I'm not saying that is what has happened here, but this is the most cursory post I think Lewis has ever put up.

@markaxworthy2508

Жыл бұрын

@@stevewatson6839 Yup. I got the impression that he was pushed for time and so put up straw man propositions he could easily (and this time somewhat lazily) knock down in short order, thereby satisfying his presentation-a-week schedule but rather inadequately..

That was a great question! Interesting circumstances. As an American... thinking like an American... would it have been possible to create or appropriate ship yards where they had access to the Black Sea? To build the naval units and oil tankers they'd need in a couple years time to do it that way. Since oil really was their main limit. I understand America's ability to produce massive amounts of anything with alarming speed is the exception, not the rule.

People just don't understand military logistics. Or the sheer size of the USSR. Great video. Great analysis.

Thank you for destroying one of my stupider fantasies.

in 1971 I took the train from Istanbul to Munich, the RR station floor in Istanbul was covered in swastikas I believe the germans built the RR station before WW2

I wish you’d make a video breaking down what Hitlers plans for the east (Genralplan ost?) actually would entail Or how Stalin managed to move the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union behind the Urals. Much love to Tik for his service.

@Wallyworld30

Жыл бұрын

If you seriously want TIK to make a video on one of your recommendations you need to sign up for his Patreon where they vote on suggestions for video topics.

@edjohnson8017

Жыл бұрын

@@Wallyworld30 thanks, I’m kinda new and not sure how the process works but I’ll look that up!

@Irys1997

Жыл бұрын

@@Wallyworld30 good advice. I actually am a patreon supporter of Tik but I don't know how to use any extra features

I think that even if they had the supplies to land in the Caucasus the British would have sent fighters and maybe bombers to help the Soviets which would be a even bigger problem then having enough oil to stage landings their

"Mr. H." is more often called "the Austrian painter", it's a much more recognizable euphemism. And the answer to the Caucasus oil fields question - perhaps Germans could have rely less on tanks and more on multi-purpose cavalry + field artillery? Relieving german war industry of overproduction of medium (and later heavy) tanks, which couldn't be a useful mobile force anyway, would free the resources for mass production of anti-tank and siege artillery (and maybe for an increase prod. of warplanes...), which maybe could repell the Soviet counter-offensives?

@pd4165

Жыл бұрын

While everybody seems to have a hard-on for tanks - it was the Soviet artillery that did the 'heavy lifting''. Even saying that - they were churning medium tanks out too - how does this horse artillery cope with soviet tank and towed artillery? Back to the 19thC anyone?

@_Dovar_

Жыл бұрын

@@pd4165 Lack of armor and tactical mobility, if by anything, could only be compensated by hiding and camouflage. Doable in thick forests and jungles, not on eastern european open plains.

The one with similar characteristics that initially occured to me was the option for a paratrooper operation like in the Benelux to seize the Krasnodar refinery intact - holding for a day or two while the Russians had nothing to send against them unless they peeled it off the front would not have been an unreasonable task, and having the refinery and possibly its reserves in usable order would've been a radically different result. I think the issue, though, was in the German goals - Eidelweiss aimed at Azeri oil, not Circassian, and actual events on the ground show that the German forces put much less value on the Maikop oil fields than they have been attributed by history.

One reason they didn't use landing craft, was that Andrew Higgins, creator of the "Higgins Boat", a.k.a. LCVP landing craft, was an American.

some ppl in 21 century - Soviet Black Fleet was defeated in WW2 meanwhile, soviet BF in WW2 - let's do some landings, tiny size like few divisions. and repeat them. TIK, the problem of BF was lack of naval bases (not the german air force). when siege of Sevastopol began - BF simply lost ability to repair the damaged ships.

1 word: Stalingrad. Urban combat is always a nightmare (see Grozny). Encirclement and bypass are always preferable. Avoiding the Stalingrad disaster would have possibly allowed maintaining control of the oilfields.

In Führer Directive 21 the Kriegsmarine was ordered to 'focus its attention on Great Britian while the campaign against Russia takes place'. Expecting a quick victory, there was no attempt to make any detailed plans for naval operations in the Black Sea. The Soviet Navy apart from its warships was estimated to have 40-50 submarines, and to counter this the Germans had a few fishing boats, some ferry barges and a handful of midget submarines. The Rumanian navy had 4 destroyers and a few gunboats, and these were only used defensively in convoy escort missions. Operation Blue started late June, but Sevastopol was not conquered before the beginning of July 42. The intention after Sevastopol fell was to transfer 11th Army across the Kerch straits, but this came under 11th Army planning, rather than Kriegsmarine. As a result, the whole enterprise was a mess, and seeing how well Blue was going, Hitler decided to cancel the amphibious landing on 19th July. As for logistical support for the army, Rumanian destroyers were not permitted to go further east than the Crimea, and similarly the larger merchant ships were also banned from going to Taman for fear of submarine or surface ship attack, so smaller boats had to be used to transoprt goods from the Crimea to Rostov. In December 42 half of the German landing craft in use in the Black Sea were transferred to the Mediterranean.

I’ve thought for a while that the only way the axis could’ve got to the caucasus is in 1941, during typhoon they should have feinted an attack towards moscow with 4th panzer army then concentrated two panzer armies with one in reserve towards caucasus. this is with the benefit of hindsight but after the moscow feint infantry armies could have prepared for the inevitable counter attack with a strong defence along a line from rzhev to orel to utilize the rivers near both cities. the soviets could have been stopped and bled dry west of moscow, and a fall blau type campaign in the caucasus launched. even reaching maykop and the don river during 1941 could have have helped since oil could be extracted from there by summer 1942 for an offensive to baku or moscow.

Noobs think strategy, pros think logistics. Current wars make that all too clear again

There's also the greater strategic situation in the Mediterranean and Atlantic tying up German and Italian naval assets against the Royal Navy, coupled with their lack of oil to devote enough ships to control and supply through the Black Sea.