Tet Offensive
I fail to see why would the German counterattack work. They have no advantages on their side exactly like OTL. I would argue they are on a weaker position slightly. Also Kursk was an obvious and decisive Soviet victory both tactically and strategically as well as politically.
I think they are retreating in order still if I didn't miss anything. So the losses might be few. They will more likely fall prey to the Allied airstrikes. Now that I mention that, the Allies could bomb the shit out of the retreating army on the Olympus passes. they are very narrow and some bombed road ahead could create huge bottlenecks that might spell disaster. Or am I losing something here?
I won't make any comments on Allied plans. I will only note that overall neither the Germans nor the Italians have committed in the Near East more divisions than in OTL so far... well with the significant exception that several of the divisions they sent to die off in Tunisia in OTL are instead available here due to the earlier Allied victory in North Africa. Of course bo the German and Italian formations are starting to suffer a lot more attrition than in OTL.
In theory the Germans could still find the forces to launch a large scale offensive in the Balkans. Of course to do so at a minimum they would need to stay in the defensive in the Eastern Front...
The Allies by this point have air superiority, but we are not talking late 1944 levels here, the air is still heavily contested.
That I did not show it does not mean there wasn't. But I don't think it would be any more successful than OTL. The British will still be heavily opposed to Sledgehammer and while the Allied shipping situation is better in absolute terms the also need to keep Greece and the Syrian front supplied.
Not entirely certain who on the Greek side thought throwing 90% of the Greek army on the Olympus, but it was not the obvious thing to do and oddly enough nobody claimed post war it was his idea...
And air superiority , and more armour and more artillery but still if the German-Italian-Bulgarian army is not bagged in the Thessalian plan, the Olympus will be very difficult to break. Add to this we are getting into December with heavy snow in the mountain passes a given...
The battle is not over yet so no comments, over total casualties. I'll only say that by the point of the last post they are in excess of 30,000.
The logical plan for the Axis is to try to hold the passes not leave them to the Allies without a fight...
Including Greece and the Balkans ? Even if they have the same amount as OTL, they did not have to guard the Balkans against more than half a million soldiers and their complement of tanks and airplanes solidly entrenched in Greece and threatening a breakout.
Including Greece. This has meant of course that a lot of troops on occupation duty in OTL are in the frontline instead, which in turn means someone got to cover that slack. How is that accomplished? In part you need fewer troops on occupation duty in Greece, in OTL you had something in the order of 140-180,000 Italians, about 100-120,000 Germans and 40,000 Bulgarians there, by 1944 from memory the Germans were up to about 275,000. TTL they occupy only northern Greece so no garrisons for Athens, Crete, Southern Greece or any of the islands. Second by securing full Bulgarian commitment to the war. By 1944 the Bulgarian army was 455,000 men but only a small fraction of it had been committed to the occupation of either Greece or Yugoslavia. Here the Bulgarian army is fully committed, Serbia is for the most part occupied by them, there are ~240,000 Bulgarians on occupation duties taking the place of Germans and Italians and a Bulgarian army of ~210,000 in Thessaly. Of course this has come at the cost of giving Bulgaria all her territorial ambitions against Greece and Yugoslavia unlike OTL. Third an earlier expansion of NDH forces.
Hmm so Italy is being attacked now along with Greece but the Germans are spread more thin while the Greeks get bogged down in the Epirus front.
I think currently it's more than the Turks but the next few offensives will ensure the Turks get much more casualties.
Here it would count if the Turkish casualties include POW or not. I have the impression that most of the Greek casualties are fatalities or injured due to more controlled retreats while the Turks have on many occasions being chased and probably gotten captured. That though excludes the Caucasus campaign and the Smyrna siege which had a lot of Turkish casualties. Still I would want a refreshment of casualties from the author if it's on hand or an approximation to see how the two sides are related.
Turkey has been receiving new equipment (or captured Soviet and French stuff but one cannot be picky) from Germany. Not as much as it would like but more than what t1he Romanians were getting. In part that's due to the all important chrome exports, in part duets Hitler and the Nazis having just like OTL a case of severe hero worship on Kemal and his nationalists which the Turkish government is anything but shy to exploit for all it is worth. What does it mean in practical terms? The Turkish army has 786,000 men on active duty in the end of 1942 down from 820,000 in the end of 1941. Manpower wise if the arms and logistics were there they could be fielding twice as many men or more.
Not certain if again is entirely correct here. Sure the Turkish army has had its share of failed offensives. But this has been its first defeat on that scale in the war.
They lost 250,000 men in 1941. 1942 cost much less, about 36,000 men as till taking the offensive the Greek fronts were mostly quiet. They have 433,000 men on active duty with the army at year's end. Turkish casualties are nearing 530,000 by comparison, 263,000 lost in 1942.
casualties have been about evenly split between the Italians and Bulgarians.
But this also means leaving the Axis in Macedonia...
If you want a template all I did was take the world map with provinces and snip the part of interest. If you go to the maps section of the site the original template will likely be available without all the inconvenient colouring.
