Why didn't Germany just attack the Caucasus by Sea to get the oil? 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Thank you, TIKhistory.

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

If H. could have convinced Churchill to attack the USSR in 1940, the German invasion might have gone differently. It's not as crazy as it sounds. At the time, Germany and the Soviets were allied, and the British were strong supporters of the Finns during the Winter War. There was serious consideration of military intervention in Finland against the USSR. The UK also drew up military plans for a British bombing campaign against Baku from Iran in order to destroy the Soviet oil fields. Not saying Britain would continue a military campaign in conjunction with the Germans (if there's one thing the Brits will never tolerate, it's a hegemon on the Continent), but it would have made for an interesting scenario

The only way this works out for the Germans is if they made the Caucasus the focal point of operation Barbarossa and by that i mean using army groups South and Center for that phase and what was army group North would move on Moscow as primarily a feint to just keep the Russians from being able to send everything they had south.

Also, the Germans likely thought they didn’t have the trained resources to pull off beach landings or similar operations at that point in the war. Without super weapons, Germany was doomed anyway.

If I were the Axis, how would I have won the war? Simple. In the late spring of 1942, instead of going east, Japan goes west. Just like in the western Pacific, there are a series of island chains in the western Indian Ocean. If Japan had gone for them instead of Port Moresby by sea, which led to the Battle of the Coral Sea, which led to the battle of Midway, which forced the United States to risk its precious carrier fleet in a desperate defensive battle, which if you break it down numerically, wasn't actually as desperate as it seems... You get the idea. Throw in the small carrier fleet and invasion forces Japan sent to the Aleutian Islands at the same time as a diversion for Midway and you have quite an assemblage of power for Japan to use in the Indian Ocean, which it had begun to do in March and April. The British had to withdraw their own Indian Ocean battle fleet following the Japanese strikes on it and Columbo (on Ceylon), which left the Japanese potentially masters of the entire Indian Ocean. The Japanese Army refused to free up the necessary divisions for an invasion of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), but the much smaller atolls of the western Indian Ocean would have been easily taken, especially the Vichy French controlled islands, which presumably could have been negotiated without resistance the way Indochina had been. This would have given Japan control of the Allied supply shipping lanes to Egypt (which Rommel was about to invade), and more importantly, through Basra to the Soviet Union (where Operation Fall Blau was about to be launched), as well as to the whole of British India, Persia and Iraq. Ever since I read about this period in the war in Churchill's The Hinge of Fate (especially Book 1, the Onslaught of Japan), it has seemed to me impossible for the Allies to have prevented such a move by Japan if Japan had had the wisdom to understand the strategic significance of the western Indian Ocean in the spring of 1942. This simple switch to a drive west instead of a drive east by Japan in May of 1942 would likely have neutered Allied forces from Egypt to India and rendered the infamously dangerous Arctic Convoy Route the only lifeline remaining for the Soviet Union on the eve of the Stalingrad Campaign. The fall off in caloric intake alone would likely have weakened the Red Army by the autumn of 1942 to the point where there would have been no possibility of mounting a counter-offensive such as Operation Uranus. Egypt and the Suez would likely have fallen, and India might have risen in revolt knowing their colonial overlords could no longer supply themselves with bombs or bullets. Persia and Iraq almost certainly would have. Of course, it would still have been possible for the Allies to win, but this Axis strategy would have prolonged the war dramatically. It is likely that the use of nuclear weapons would have looked very different in this scenario, as Germany and Italy would probably have still been in the war by the second half of 1945. It is hard to imagine the western Allies invading mainland Europe in 1943 and 1944 if the Soviet Union had been starved into a state of collapse beforehand. Perhaps half the German Army would have been freed up from the Russian Front...

Well... physically, nothing was outright preventing Germany from trading for oil. I suppose, technologically, they could have doubled down on coal power and found ways of making that work for them - but that is hardly the boundless future marketed for Germany. Though that is both uncertain and doesn't really solve the wider spread economic problems. I have pointed out that, geologically, there can only ever be two superpowers. Maybe a third. The U.S., Russia, and maybe Brazil. No other geologic regions possess the wealth of resources and strategically defensible locations that make for a virtually unassailable industrial power that can freely project its power. A German hegemony is not a geostrategic reality and Europe will eventually come under the primary influence of Russia.

Maybe if the Germans had a Kriegsmarine force with carriers, akin to the USN's "Taffy 3" in the Pacific, along with a couple of Marine divisions, they might have had a chance. But they had no naval forces, and certainly not marines, anywhere near that. Furthermore, they had trouble keeping supplied that which they had. Also, the Soviet Baltic Fleet had by no means gone away. Amateurs discuss strategy and tactics. The "Pros" discuss LOGISTICS.

My thoughts on the only plan that would maybe work would be to send 2 Panzer Groups south in 1941 have the other armies not advance to far using major rivers as flank guards and try to make it as far into the caucasus as you can

source for Bulgaria and Roumania nave see Janes fighting ships of WW2

might work in Hearts of Iron 4. That got a laugh out of me.

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.

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.

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.

Is RU-vid that bad where you must say “mr. H”?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wrong. Axis merchant ships could and did pass through Turkey. Most notable were the Italian tankers that supplied oil for the Italian Navy. Only warships couldn't, by treaty, pass through the Dardanelles.

My best advise to the past nazis is that they should not have been nazis. Just as the Finns, Baltic nations, Belorussians, Ukrainians the folks in the Caucasus kind of hated the Russians. So, Hitler should have organized revolts( support it via air), created friendly governments and rely on them. But that doesn't really work when you want to exterminate them.

works in hoi4

Germans were not very good at , or equipped for amphibious landings . Why China has not attempted Taiwan today . No land bridge helps keep you safe .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

An easier lift would have been: Why didn't Germany work harder pre WW2 at getting Turkey (strategic position) and Persia (crude oil fields), out from under overwhelming British influence ? Then there was India, growing riper for more anti-British insurrection with every passing year. Some gold, some arms and a bit of technical help, the sky was the limit.

What could the Germans have done differently to get the oil of the Caucasus? It's not a popular answer currently, but really the only way was to take Moscow and hope for a collapse of the Stalin regime in order to gain a favorable armistice a la Brest-Litovsk 1918.

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!

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?

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

Because the proposal is an absolute nonstarter for 100 reasons-- sort of like Japan invading Hawaii or Australia.

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.

PaulCraigRobertsGermany Did Not Start World War II

It's slightly ridiculous that you have to refer to Adolf Hitler as " Mr H". Why the cover?

The truth is, the Germans were not going to win the war in the east unless they took Moscow and forced Stalin to surrender. When they failed to do that, they were screwed. They were in no shape to fight a long war of attrition and the high command were aware of that before the invasion. "Like" if you agree

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.

better hitler plan. go to maikop, but do not send 6th army to stalingrad. let paulas protect manstein in the steppe

Also how would Germany have gotten ships from its North Sea ports, past Britain either through the North Atlantic or English Channel, then through the Strait of Gibraltar, then across the Mediterranean to Turkey? It lost Bismarck trying to get to the Atlantic. And the Kriegsmarine was the weakest navy of the major Axis powers.

Perhaps the best hope for Germany in 1942 was not to get the oil… but to deprive the soviet from the oil. Who knows what would happen if axis force had hold long enough on the volga and parried uranus. In that sense splitting army group south and sending half into the caucasus was perhaps a mistaken. Paulus 6 army should have stayed on don making an active defense as was the original plan

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

OK. In my opinion this means, that the caucasus oil was worthless. There is no possibility to bring it back to Germany with the logistic problems.

Das Boot😂 Mr H is it now. Censorship again?

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

This is why nato were so eager to get turkey to join them.

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.

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.

I would respond to that with 2 words: with what?

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

It seems like Germany and Japan have fought two separate wars under one larger war. Germany fought in Europe, which prioritised more on land, whereas Japan fought in Asia, which was in the sea. Hell funding for German Navy was just as much as for the Japanese Army.

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

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?

HI TIK I would like to know who you could would have won Soviet Union vs Nazi Germany alone?

"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?

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.

TIK gameplay of Hoi4 👍

Any Axis inner sea strategy, be it Black Sea to Caucasus or Med to Middle East, requires an Italian Navy far more competent and effective than what existed in real life.

But how, Carl? Why do you think Putin holds on to Sevastopol so hard? It's easy, very easy. There are practically no big ports on the whole Black Sea coast of Russia. Actually, there are only three ports: Novorossiysk (by the way, Germans tried capturing it on the land and technically they captured it), Tuapse and Sochi (where there were winter Olympics). That's all. Of these three ports only Novorossiysk is more or less significant port capable to be a naval base and for really big shipments. Tuapse is a rather small port, and what's even more significant: it's impossible to fan out of there by large mechanized formations. There are mountains around and a very narrow gorge between them. Trust me, I live here :-). The same is true for Sochi. Actually, there are no cargo traffic there, only passenger ships and yachts. Russia has only one serious port on the Black Sea capable to be a real naval base on the long run: it's Sevastopol in the Crimea. So for the Wehrmacht there was the only real way to capture the Caucasus: taking Tuapse. There were two ways: the first one was through that narrow gorge from Maikop (where List's Panzers nearly captured). The Germans were near that goal but they were stopped. The second one was moving along the coast from Novorossiysk. But the Germans couldn't go beyond Novorossiysk, either. Landing from the sea in Tuapse was pure fantasy.

Germany's biggest mistake was not building a Black Sea fleet. Along with their other biggest mistake not of making 4 engine bombers so they could bomb the Soviet factories past the Ural mountains, after which they should have used magic to conjure up the fuel to fly those bombers.

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

You're a handsome young man.

Whether it's Barbarossa, or General plan Ost, the German army would not be able to overcome the logistical limitations put upon their forces, due to the scarcity of their oil reserves. The ONLY way Germany wins against the soviet union in 1941-1942 is with the help of the allies (France, Britain, and America), which means they cannot attack Poland in 1939 (or ever). I also asked this question in another video . . . Why didn't the Germans just sign a defensive pact with Poland, knowing that the soviet union would attack ? Imo this would be the most viable way Germany ends up on the same side as the allies, against the soviet union in ww2.

TIK I hope you read this Question of questions: WHY OH WHY GERMANS DIDNT GO THROUGH NORTH AFRICA TO BRITISH OIL PLANTS IN MIDDLE EAST??

What if Nicholas II dies in a riding accident in 1914? Carl Gustaf Mannerheim becomes the regent of Russia. He maintains good relations with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Aleksei Nikolajevitš Romanov is crowned as Alexander IV in 1922.

1/keep the molotov-ribbentrop pact 2/push Staline to invade turkey 3/support turkey launch barbarossa 4/??? 5/profit

If oil was what Germany was really after, they could have deployed a few more armored divisions to Rommel in early 1942, invade Egypt, cross the Suez canal, drive across Palestine and into oil rich Iraq and Iran and sit at the British Indian Raj - Iranian border. Churchill government would likely have collapsed at that point with such a defeat. And Germany could had easily invaded Baku from northern Iran and grabbed more oil. This plan would have been more realistic than Plan Blau. Germany could have issued an ultimatum to the new UK government at this point: make peace or Germany will invade India. Historically, India revolted in 1942. If Germany really invaded in 1942, British Raj would have collapsed. japan would have invaded India from Burma as well. With the crown Jewel of the British empire gone, would UK still kept on fighting? Germany could have said:"You make peace, we give you back India." With UK out, Germany could have concentrated on Russia. The war could have been won. This was the winning move.

Tactic Media channel just started series of lectures about WWII in the Black Sea from Russian naval historian Miroslav Morozov for those that understand Russian language: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--SHwNvF6esg.html Rumania had 2 pre-WWI destroyers and 2 post-WWI destroyers (of WWI design), none of which was fully combat ready because of lack of maintenance. And those were all the large ships Axis had in the Black Sea. Besides that Rumania had one submarine, 3 old Austro-Hungarian build minesweepers one modern minesweeper, 3 French gun boats and 3 torpedo boats. Plus 2 auxiliary cruisers (re-armed transport ships). Germans had Danube flotilla consisting of small ships (mostly monitors and minesweepers). Plus they and Italians rail transported few small submarines to the Blacks Sea. Soviets had one battleship, 5 cruisers, 15 destroyers, two patrol ship (of roughly destroyer size), 44 submarines and about 150 torpedo boats and other smaller ships. As you can see, even with help of Luftwaffe Axis could not conduct major naval landings in the Black Sea. On the other hand Soviets did conduct several.

Well, The Glorious Wikipedia only somewhat screwed up on Romanian fleet - they had 8 submarines after they switched sides and added german subs to 2 of their own and 2 italian-supplied midget subs. In 1941-42 they had exactly 1 submarine - Delfinul. However, Rohwer outdid Wikipedia on this one. The entire thing about increased soviet naval activity after the victory at Stalingrad and too large of a distance to the Black Sea west coast is made up: 1. The last operations of soviet surface warships in the western Black Sea took place in December 1942. 2. The furthest sorties of soviet surface warships in 1943 were only to the southern coast of Crimea (between Yalta and Feodosia) 3. The sinking of three destroyers took place on October 6, 1943 (a bit late to link it to Stalingrad, isn't it?) basically halfway between Yalta and Novorossisk (44° 15’ n, 36° 00’ e) As for the main question of the video: although the soviet navy's performance at sea was not stellar by any stretch, it was still the dominant naval power in the Black Sea. Even at the lowest point for the soviets, the germans were extremely limited in their ability to use the sea. Large ships didn't go further east than Sevastopol (there were exceptions but i'm not sure that I'll need fingers on both my hands to count such instances). All the shipping to the east of Sevastopol was carried out by convoys of small craft, making short runs from one port to the next, close to shore, behind minefields and mostly at night (with the exception of a supply line Kerch-Anapa - they simply couldn't make it during the nighttime). When you operate at sea in such a fashion - large scale amphibious offensives are not exactly on the table =) Also, even if Turkey agreed to let Axis naval forces through the Straits - it wouldn't change much. If italians moved a large portion of their navy to the Black Sea - the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean would be very, very happy and murderous. PS Interestingly, the soviets considered Turkey a "pro-german neutral" (and not entirely without reasons). So up to 1943 literally all planning for the Black Sea Fleet took into consideration "what if the Regia Marina will be allowed through the Straits tomorrow" and "what if Turkey attacks us". And some naval intelligence reports were outright hilarious (about amphibious invasion fleets being concentrated in turkish ports, for example). Although, soviet naval intelligence service of WW2 is a great candidate for the "the most hilariously inept military organization ever" award.

Imo the only way Axis could have survived maybe until 1950 was to have made Turkey and Iran compliant allies and attacked the Russian caucasus from the south (while forgetting about Moscow & Leningrad). Then Germany needed to use newly built trains, and pipelines, to transport oil to the west. At same time they would have needed to greatly increase their navy, plus..... keep the USA out of WW2. That required no U Boat action against US vessels in the Atlantic and probably no Pearl Harbour either :)

If I were mister H. I would have accepted Stalin's peace overtures in late '42 / early '43. By accounts, Stalin was prepared to offer a second Brest-Litovsk: Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine. I would've additionally demanded a resumption of commodity and raw material supply from Russia to Germany, which already happened before the war. Winning a war is not done just by completely conquering all your opponent - as it is in Hearts of Iron IV ;). I think the above outcome would have ensured German Eurasian hegemony well enough.

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 would I have done? Force Turkey into the Axis a la Bulgaria. That opens up a lot of strategic options. Plan and prepare for Barbarossa to last multiple campaign seasons. Be willing to settle for a negotiated peace-- something resembling Brest-Litovsk, ownership of Maikop and maybe a 35-65 condominium of Baku's oil. Keep the US out at all costs.

8:47 Something that works in HoI4 wouldn't work in real-life? D: gasp Aside from that though, assuming the Axis would have been able to seize the Black Sea coast line aside from Turkey's part, couldn't they have starved the Black Sea Fleet? After that, they could have sent convoys reducing some of their logistics issues

Instead of asking what the Axis could have done to win the war, maybe you could ask what the Soviets could do to blunder the war. You have said previously that the SU was possibly on the edge of economic collapse in (approx) winter 42-43. Maybe blundering Moscow folds the house of cards?

If oil was the strategic key, I'm wondering why Germans didn't put 10 divisions in North Africa in Spring 1941 and punch thru the British forces there to get to Suez and then coast into Iraq and Southwest Persia (Iran). The fighting would have been done by September. Taking Egypt would have essentially have turned the Mediterranean Sea into a Fascist lake. The Germans could have then declared themselves no longer belligerent against Britain, even if Britain refused to entertain peace, their war for all effective purposes would have been done 3 months before Pearl Harbor. 3 months later, if the Japanese still bombed Pearl Harbor, the US would not have had any reason to declare war on Germany which would have been virtually at peace, nor vice-versa. If Hitler still wanted "lebensraum" he could have shipped East Europeans inside his empire off to North West Africa, then under populated. A few years later and he still wants to invade Russia, he can - but he wouldn't need to just for the oil. Anyway, I'm glad he didn't do these reasonable things or he could have still been around 30 or 40 years later.

I think a serious Axis amphibious effort by launching a sizeable force across the black sea into the Causasus directed at the oil fields would have been met with equally serious - if not worse - logisical/supply issues as the 'land route' they ended up taking. Same goes for a proper full scale invasion of Turkey by Germany with the aim of reaching the Caucasus oils field for reasons TIK already pointed out in another video. Either by land, or sea, I'm not conviced it could have been done in a conventional way (i.e. sending 250k soldiers and hundreds of tanks and planes) basically starting from central Europe. I think Germany's best bett would have been (from early on) a diplomatic effort aimed at properly bringing Turkey within their sphere of infuence. I think Turkey at the time had plenty of axes to grind with France, GB, the USSR and Greece to at least offer Germany an opportunity along those lines. It would have involved curbing Italy's MTO ambitions to appease Turkey (well within the realm of possibilities from a German/Italian relations point of view imho) and get Turkey to tap into the ethnic ties with other Turkic peoples from the Caucasus region (Azeri's in particular) to maybe try and help 'pave the way' to the oil fields. Military involvement would have been something along the lines of the German Caucasus expedition/Dunsterforce/Battle of Baku 1918 (i.e. a small force or 'regulars' working with (or fighting against) local groups. German efforts along those lines probably would still have alerted the USSR well in advance, and promted them to strenghten their defenses in the region though. Would prolly also have set the scene up for another genocidal episode (Turkic peoples vs Armenians) and even if a Turkish/German cooperation of sorts had somehow gotten through to the oil, that's not the same as letting it flow back to central/eastern Europe in quantity.

From July 23rd 1942. Send Army group B on its historical path. Send Army Group A south from rostov only as far as to take the vital rail junction of Salsk, then EAST to catch up with the remains of 4th PzA. With 1st and 4th PzA covering his southern flank Paulus would have had a better chance at Stalingrad. 1st and 4th PzA wait until the rail has been repaired behind them building up fuel and supplies - then they attack the soviets to the east of the 3 small lakes and attempt to reach the main Volga river south of Stalingrad. Then repair all bridges and rail behind Paulus and let him build up supplies. Take Stalingrad using plentiful artillery ammo to prevent any soviet resupply of 62nd A. Luftflotte IV and fleigercorps VIII to remain at Kalach and support all 3 Pz S's in all the previous phases from this central position. If and when Stalingrad falls, let Army group A push to Astrakhan, then halt and build an entirely new railway from Stalingrad to Astrakhan. Build the two single railways that parallel the southern Don up to double track. Repulse the Soviet winter counterattacks. 1943- Invade the Caucasus along the flat coastal route with the Caspian sea on the left, bypassing the caucasus mountains completely and taking advantage of any anti soviet rebellions that occur and head to Baku.

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.

Alright TIK, after those snarky comments about HOI4, I have just one question: HOI4 stream when?

Logistics just like anything in war. Germany couldn't have supplied a force large enough to engage the Soviets across the Black sea. The British and Americans were masters of logistics and even for them supplying forces that far away from their main ports were a challenge. The Caucasus region is about 100 miles wide of high mountains and rough terrain. Supplying a large force across 100 miles worth of mountains across the seas would have been impossible even if the entire German Navy had been in the Black Sea which it wasn't. Then is the matter of getting the fuel back to Germany in quantities to make a different. No land connection would have meant fuel tankers which Germany didn't have a lot of let alone located in the Black Seas. So overland makes the best sense. Where Germany could have been smarter in my opinion is in 1941 after the Battle of Kiev instead of aiming for Moscow like his Generals wanted Hitler could have ordered the Army to hold where they were in Army Group Center and focused on pushing as far as they could in the South. Would have still not made it to the Caucasus oil fields but would have allowed Germany to hold land further east than the did when they launched Case Blue in 1942 and could have worked on moving the logistics to better support the drive in the spring. Then in 1942 focus on getting to the oil fields and make a defensive line on the northern flank. Down side to doing this is that it does lengthen the front line by quite a bit. But if the other fronts play it defensively until the oil fields are secured than the German Army would be in a better shape later on. At least those are my thoughts and I'm just an arm chair general.

I contend the best bet the Axis for winning was to buy time by letting the USSR join the Axis forces focus on North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia/Iran with Japan and the USSR to knock out the British and it’s dominions. Then actually working in coordination with Japan (like providing updated tank designs), stab Stalin in the back with attacks in Europe, Far East Asia, and south into the Caucuses and Central Asia through Iran. Then and only after that was done try to tackle the USA (though keeping the USSR in the Axis and going after the USA before the USSR would give a greater chance of winning.)

First of all, Germany didn't have much of a surface navy. 2- British navy would have blown any German supply and support ships out of the water. 3- German supply chain was stretched as it was at the time. 4- Germany wasn't experienced enough in amphibious landings.

If I were Hitler I would not have tried to invade until I had an alternative supply of oil on hand. IE during 1940 Germany should have, right after taking France, diverted a large amount of troops to the North African campaign and focus on breaking through to Egypt that winter. Egypt had a small amount of oil, and from there they could probably have taken Palestine and Jordan, linking up with a friendly fascist Iraq. A supply line could have been established, giving the Germans much more leeway in their conquest of the USSR. The Germans could've been more measured in the pace of their advance and not been so desperate to get to Baku.

The way for the Axis to solve its fuel problem was simple: methanol, or methyl alcohol. Most cheaply and easily made from methane (the main component of natural gas), it can also be made from any biomass (such as wet waste, sewage, weeds, etc.), and also from coal in a process that is simpler and cheaper than the process of making synthetic gasoline from coal. This is why TIK's video of "Could Synthetic Fuels Have Solved the Axis Oil Crisis" is incomplete, because it only examines making gasoline from coal, and not making methanol from coal. To be sure, methanol has some disadvantages. First, it has significantly lower energy content per unit of volume (and thus range) than gasoline. Basically, you'll go about half as far on a tank of methanol as you would gasoline. Second, methanol is highly toxic. Drinking even a small quantity, even absorbing it through the skin, can cause blindness and even death. Third, methanol is corrosive to materials commonly used in old-technology vehicles, especially for fuel lines, seals, gaskets etc. Fourth, methanol has a tendency to gel in cold weather and can create startup problems. I'll deal with each of them in turn. First, WHO CARES if it takes you only half as far! That's better than the nowhere you'll go with no gasoline. Furthermore, methanol could be produced in plenty from abundant natural gas that Romania was just flaring off at its oil fields, considering the natgas to be useless waste. Methanol is particularly well suited for, say, short range interceptor fighters defending cities and factories from bombers. Which then frees up the oil for other uses. For truly long-range needs like the mid-Atlantic U-boats and Condors, fine, continue to have them run on conventional diesel, or gasoline, respectively. Second, gasoline is toxic too. You wouldn't want to drink or bathe in that. If conscript yokels could be taught in an era of ubiquitous smoking how to be safe and careful when handling gasoline, they can be taught the same with methanol such as using gloves if necessary. Also, methanol poisoning has an easily-available antidote: ethanol. Yes, that's right, the active ingredient in every alcoholic drink binds to receptor molecules in the human body more readily than methanol does, so the sooner a methanol poisoning victim is given copious amounts of ethanol the better, and the higher the proof of the booze the better. Third, it's trivially cheap to replace alcohol-intolerant materials with alcohol-compatible ones. In one article in _National Review_ the author says it cost him 41 cents. Fourth, there are various techniques to overcome the cold-start problem, such as direct injection (which works as low as 36 below zero F without needing any pre-heating). And methanol has some advantages. First, again, the abundant and varied source materials. Thanks to Romania, the Axis had lots of natural gas. (Axis occupied Netherlands has even more but it was not discovered until the 1950s, and Norway's abundant natgas wasn't discovered until the 60s and of course is across the North Sea.) And then enormous quantities of coal which can be more cheaply and easily made into methanol than the coal-to-gasoline process. And then if you really want to push it, you can make methanol out of literally any biomass or any organic matter at all. Second, methanol is safer. It's harder to ignite (thus catches fire less often in crashes). When it does burn, it burns with no smoke or soot at all, leaving no telltale smoke trails from aircraft and no haze of exhaust from ground vehicles (nor plume of smoke from wrecked one). And you can put out an alcohol fire with WATER, whereas trying to put out a grease, oil, or gasoline fire with water is a disaster that just spreads the fire. Third, methanol dissolves away readily into water. So if there's a spill, the fuel won't pool on top of the water or in gutters etc, waiting to catch fire but instead just dissolves away. Fourth, methanol can be cheaply and easily processed into di-methyl ether, which is an excellent diesel fuel. Although it requires a light degree of pressurization (and thus a rounded or reinforced fuel tank) DME requires much less pressure (and thus a lighter fuel tank) than compressed natural gas, let alone hydrogen. DME in turn can be processed into polypropylene and polyethylene, the two most-common and most-important plastics. Fifth, a methanol-compatible vehicle can also rather easily be compatible with other alcohol fuels, including ethanol (although in WW2 Europe this would have exacerbated the food crisis in a way that ethanol cannot do today due today's ultra efficient agricultural techniques), propanol, and butanol. It's also possible to make flexible fuel or flex-fuel vehicles than can run on any mix of gasoline and any alcohol fuel, thus maximizing flexibility. The original Model T was ethanol compatible, for instance, although the driver had to make manual adjustments for the fuel mix in a way that modern flex fuel vehicles do automatically. Sixth, methanol is ultra high octane (around 114, way higher than the era's highest octane American avgas). While methanol might not take you as far, it'll be much more responsive and give you much better acceleration as you go. The Axis and the Soviets both had serious problems with their low-octane aviation gasoline. The Soviets eventually just relied on high-octane American avgas, while the Germans ended up sometimes using methanol as a booster for short term emergency power needs in combat. Learn more from the following books: "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free from Oil" by Dr. Robert Zubrin, nuclear and NASA scientist. "The Methanol Economy" by Dr. George Olah, Winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Makes sense. Main thing to do differently? Probably lower-level decisions in the Stalingrad area. More aggression to try and take Stalingrad on the march. Supply efficiency. Extract more 'useless mouths' from the region, more effort spent on destroying the volga ferries, improving the railways, and so forth. Main question is whether that would've been decisive. If the USSR was denied its own oil fields (idk how viable caspian sea travel would remain, or sending supplies through Persia). And whether the US could just ship soviet needs into Murmansk... presumably that must have been limited since Germany didn't seem too desperate to cut that railway. We can say all day long "just decide that the Ukrainians, Polish and Belarussians are cool yo and we just liberate them" - but that's asking for the nazis not to be nazis. Likewise "have enough oil stored for several years of intensive campaigns".

If Hearts of Iron 4 taught me anything, it's that Mr. H could have won the war if only he had beelined to Synthetic Oils and then spammed CAS. If you don't get this, then get gud, scrub. /s Jokes aside, thanks TIK for another good video.

We want TIKHistory HoI 4 Letsplays! :P Military History Visualized sometimes streams Steel Division 2.

Well I dont know. Gibraltar. Bosporus. Oh the Bismarck. Oh that sunk? Too bad....

Something else to keep in mind is that Caucasus oil is to the east, not near the Black Sea. Even had the Axis the sea power and spare air power to land on the Georgia coast, they would have been nowhere near (900 km from) Baku and nowhere near oil anywhere else. In roughly the last two months of World War 1, Germany was able to occupy Georgia while Turkey was able to capture Baku (and though allied, Germans and Turks skirmished with each other) but these occupations were both virtually unopposed due to Russian collapse and with full local support in both cases (Georgia for Germany, and Azerbaijan for Turkey, with Armenians being of course brutal genocide victims at the time).