Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 191

Thread: What if - Spain joined the Axis in 1939.

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And again we come back to the point that once Stalin lost Europe, he has no choice but to turn his attention East and the result would have been a defeat of Japan in 42 and the entire Allies (vs the Axis) re-orienting itself back towards Europe.
    Sir,the talk about this was lengthy?Military aspects asides,even the Soviets can collapse and even Stalin may get a revolt.Turning East means admitting defeat.Soviet authority collapsed hard in areas where defeat was a prospect such as Ukraine and Caucasus.Turkic nations in Central Asia aren't more prone to dying for Soviet cause than the Tatars or Chechens.The Russian soldier in 1941 surrendered en masse for USSR and only the NKVD kept a semblance of organization.The Russian soldier from late 1942 onwards died en masse for Mother Russia,because Stalin had enough sense to change the tone.Also fewer commissars were needed.
    Turks do not even speak Russian,they don't believe in USSR and they don't like Mother Russia.They may keep the line when and where the commissars are present.But they may also imitate some Cossack regiments that killed the bastards,teared the red flag and changed sides with their colonel at the front.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  2. #62
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    No, but trying to reduce the severity of it is in a lot of countries.
    Not trying to reduce your point but merely to put into context. Beslan entrenched Cossack hatre of the Muslims for the next 100 years even though it was less than 100 Muslims who took part in that action.

  3. #63
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Vis-a-vi the Kwantung Army? The Soviets would have taken heavier casualties (though not by much) but the outcome would not have been in doubt and the resulting benefits (4 Chinese Armies and a penal Japanese Army) as well as the entire Japanese war production centre (Korea) would have been worth the effort and casualties.
    Oh by quite a bit I think. In 43 the Soviet forces in the East are basically equipped with BT series and T-26 type tanks not T-34's and KV's. Japanese AT weaposn can defeat these and the IJA is at its peak in China as far as tank and artillery strengths go. The Soviets also do not have the practice of large sustained offensives, far fewer trucks, less petrol and far less ammuntion to sustain an operation. They would make gains, but I doubt they could go all the way.

  4. #64
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Sir,the talk about this was lengthy?Military aspects asides,even the Soviets can collapse and even Stalin may get a revolt.Turning East means admitting defeat.
    We got beat by the Tuetonics. Are we going to admit that we can't beat the Japs?

  5. #65
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Oh by quite a bit I think. In 43 the Soviet forces in the East are basically equipped with BT series and T-26 type tanks not T-34's and KV's. Japanese AT weaposn can defeat these and the IJA is at its peak in China as far as tank and artillery strengths go. The Soviets also do not have the practice of large sustained offensives, far fewer trucks, less petrol and far less ammuntion to sustain an operation. They would make gains, but I doubt they could go all the way.
    You are forgetting that the IJA was still tied down by the KMT. The best they ever did against the Soviets were two brigades. Against 45 divisions, the IJA was on the losing end and losing end fast.

  6. #66
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,133
    Z,just read my initial response WITH ATTENTION.Imagine that I'm aware of the many sensibilities of the topic,but I also cannot ignore facts.Sorry,that's just my upbringing.And usually I do my homework.

    The numbers reported in the 30's aren't bollocks,propaganda and such.There was a place for those,but these are quotes from secret reports.If you'd read it I actually mentioned the innocents suffered and I gave a reason why.
    But,if the law says so ,we'll stop here.Not worth the hassle,both for WAB as a whole and for individual members.However,just the keep the subject closed.That means if wrong reports (that give the wrong numbers,badly miss the causes of the phenomenon,ignore the differences between various actors) also get shut down.that way we follow the law.But one cannot bring legally approved arguments in a debate about history.Apples and oranges.
    Now,I'm really done with it.Really is not worth the time.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  7. #67
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You are forgetting that the IJA was still tied down by the KMT. The best they ever did against the Soviets were two brigades. Against 45 divisions, the IJA was on the losing end and losing end fast.
    Sir that was over a small area when neither side really wanted war. The IJA had 15 divisions along the Soviet frontier along with much of the best armor, armored cars, cavalry and artillery. The war in China is eatign up a further 30 or so divisions but these are far less mobile by design.

  8. #68
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Sir that was over a small area when neither side really wanted war. The IJA had 15 divisions along the Soviet frontier along with much of the best armor, armored cars, cavalry and artillery. The war in China is eatign up a further 30 or so divisions but these are far less mobile by design.
    And it was a war that Japan could ill afford far less than the Soviets. If Stalin turned East, that meant that Japan was facing China, the USSR, and the US at the same time. Given the beating the IJA took early on, the IJA KNEW they were the weak end of a Red Army-IJA fight. That meant that they were on the defensive right from the start. All good and well except that their rear was being savaged by the KMT. On top of that, their best commanders and warriors were being sent west into the Pacific. Though the Americans at the time were on the retreat, they were being forced to by the best the Japanese had, leaving their weakest on their Eastern borders.

    Yamamoto may have been the only who knew they could not beat the Americans but the entire Imperial Japanese Staff knew they can't beat the Soviets. Hence, the Greater Prosperity Sphere turned south instead of north.

    You are right. Neither side wanted war but make no mistake. Both sides knew who was going to win that one. And it was not Japan.

  9. #69
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    and far less ammuntion to sustain an operation. They would make gains, but I doubt they could go all the way.
    I do not see a droop in ammunition expenditure in 1943 compared to 1942 , zraver
    i can look up the figures if you wish.

    Attachment 26208
    Last edited by 1979; 01 Sep 11, at 09:43.
    J'ai en marre.

  10. #70
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Bottom line - IMO - Spain would have suffered greatly

    The contributions would have been significant - especially in restricting Allied access to the Mediterranean - but I can't see it turning the tide and changing the outcome. The Spanish Navy was insignificant, their air force was small, only their industrial base and population (to draw recruits from) would have helped Germany much. The long coast would be a major liability for the Axis Atlantic Wall... The Allies would have had to spread their bombing effort out more - but it was doable - and Spain would have felt even more devastation than their civil war had already inflicted...
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  11. #71
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    I do not see a droop in ammunition expenditure in 1943 compared to 1942 , zraver
    i can look up the figures if you wish.

    1. can you seperate it into campaigns Winter 42-43 then spring-summer 43?

    2. did you account for the number of tubes firing those shells? 10 men with 100 tins of butter cookies have rude plenty, but 100 men with 10 tins are rationing.


    If you go here Soviet War Production

    German v Soviet ammuntion production

    2Q 1941 Soviet production as a baseline between gun and ammo production shows that by 3Q 1943 gun production increased by 6x but shell production by 3x. So when you compare shells fired, remember the number of tubes firing those shells as well.

    1942 the Soviets made 131,300,000 rounds 20mm of larger vs the German 204,690,000 rounds. In 43 the Soviets made 165,624,000 rounds but Germany who only went to full war time production in 43 made 249,125,000 rounds. Germany is drastically out producing Soviet efforts in regards to ammuntion. This is made clear when we compare tube production

    Soviet (AT & FA) 75mm and larger 1942= 78,661 tubes 1943= 51,153 total= 129,814
    German (AT& FA) 75mm and larger 1942= 19,675 tubes 1943= 52,796 total= 72471

    The Soviets are producing more guns but less ammuntion.

    A very rough comparison since ammo is 20mm+ and guns are 75mm or larger but the Soviets produced 297 million shells to feed 129,000 guns or 2300 shells per gun. Germany made 454 million shells to feed 72000 guns or 6305 shells per gun.

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    1 sorry no such detail available.
    2. I'm generally suspicious of j. long statistics but here goes.

    Soviet production as a baseline between gun and ammo production shows that by 3Q 1943 gun production increased by 6x but shell production by 3x. So when you compare shells fired, remember the number of tubes firing those shells as well.

    Actually I do, the 6 time increase in guns production barely covered battlefield loses.
    yet ammunition expenditure increased .

    1942 the Soviets made 131,300,000 rounds 20mm of larger vs the German 204,690,000 rounds. In 43 the Soviets made 165,624,000 rounds but Germany who only went to full war time production in 43 made 249,125,000 rounds. Germany is drastically out producing Soviet efforts in regards to ammuntion. This is made clear when we compare tube production

    lets brake it down shall we:

    German Weapon and Ammunition Production
    1942
    field arty thousand rounds Germany-25.050
    antitank thousand rounds Germany-12.720

    a bit short of 204,690 is it ?
    lucky there is the 20mm flak to boost the statistics.

    Soviet (AT & FA) 75mm and larger 1942= 78,661 tubes 1943= 51,153 total= 129,814
    German (AT& FA) 75mm and larger 1942= 19,675 tubes 1943= 52,796 total= 72471


    ok now consider how many tubes the russians lost and how many the germans.

    The Soviets are producing more guns but less ammuntion.


    generally yes but the germans had a lot of flak guns that eat up a lot of ammo.

    A very rough comparison since ammo is 20mm+ and guns are 75mm or larger but the Soviets produced 297 million shells to feed 129,000 guns or 2300 shells per gun. Germany made 454 million shells to feed 72000 guns or 6305 shells per gun.

    cant feed 37 mm ammo to 75 mm atg so without a detailed breakdown , it basically apples and oranges.
    Last edited by 1979; 01 Sep 11, at 22:56.
    J'ai en marre.

  13. #73
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And it was a war that Japan could ill afford far less than the Soviets. If Stalin turned East, that meant that Japan was facing China, the USSR, and the US at the same time. Given the beating the IJA took early on, the IJA KNEW they were the weak end of a Red Army-IJA fight. That meant that they were on the defensive right from the start. All good and well except that their rear was being savaged by the KMT. On top of that, their best commanders and warriors were being sent west into the Pacific. Though the Americans at the time were on the retreat, they were being forced to by the best the Japanese had, leaving their weakest on their Eastern borders.

    Yamamoto may have been the only who knew they could not beat the Americans but the entire Imperial Japanese Staff knew they can't beat the Soviets. Hence, the Greater Prosperity Sphere turned south instead of north.

    You are right. Neither side wanted war but make no mistake. Both sides knew who was going to win that one. And it was not Japan.
    I'm not so sure, Zhukov lost 40% of his attacking force- 23,000+ losses including 9000 dead and missing.

    Foreign Military Studies Office Publications - COUNTERPOINT TO STALINGRAD, Operation Mars (November-December 1942): Marshal Zhukov's Greatest Defeat

    The Soviets with massive advantage in armor suffered roughly the same losses as the Best WWI in 1938 did opposing them....

    Soviets- 57,000 men, 500 AFV's (114 men per tank) vs Japan 38,000 men and less than 50 AFV's (760 men per tank)

    The Soviets enjoyed much greater tank density, larger and more numerous artillery, more men, and better tanks. The T-26, BT-5 and BT-7 and BA-10 series were superior to anything Japan had and yet only managed a draw as far as losses went. Well over half of Japan's armor was machine gun armed tankettes and armored cars while almost all Soviet AFV's had cannon. The rate of advance of Zhukov's master stroke is anemic given the disparity in fire. His units only were covering about 10km a day against an enemy light on AT weapons/ pinned by fire and drastically outnumbered...

    To trap the IJA 23rd Inf Div that had almost no support Zhukov used 3 infantry divisions and a tank brigade...... The flanking attacks used to fend off another Japanese light infantry division had 2 tank brigades, 2 mechanized brigades (armored cars and lorried infantry) and 2 cavalry divisions. it took him 5 days to link his wings and a further 6 days to secure the border and beat the 23rd into submission.

    His forces needed 2700 trucks for that operation. So if every Japanese division requires 3.5 Soviet divisions then the 15 IJA divisions will need a force of 50 Soviet divisions and almost 20,000 trucks. That force just isn't there to do it....

    To think the Red Army can advance enmasse into China and Manchuria taking on both the KMT and IJA before 1944 is an even bigger stretch. By 43 the Chinese are getting heavy American support and via the AVC/14th AF have real air cover for once.

    The three examples we have Khlahkin Gol, Soviet invasion of Xinjiang, and the Lake Khasan don't show a whole lot of promise for Soviet deep efforts. I think any attempt by the Soviets before 44 will fail for lack of expertise, lack of trucks and lack of fire. The distances they have to travel are greater, there are few maps, the disparity in the air until late 43 is at its widest and the logistics nets are much thinner. Transportation is centered on the rail road the Japanese armored trains and IJAAF fighters/bombers own those. I just don't see Stalin reaching Korea, or even much of Manchuria.

  14. #74
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    1 sorry no such detail available.
    2. I'm generally suspicious of j. long statistics but here goes.

    Soviet production as a baseline between gun and ammo production shows that by 3Q 1943 gun production increased by 6x but shell production by 3x. So when you compare shells fired, remember the number of tubes firing those shells as well.

    Actually I do, the 6 time increase in guns production barely covered battlefield loses.
    yet ammunition expenditure increased .
    Not quite, the Soviets started with around 310 divisions and would have a total of 447 divisions pass through the rolls through 1941 and would raise a further 550 or so divisions worth by the end of the war. The size 310 is the base and the final size is a bit over 600 or a doubling through 43 yet gun production is 6x higher not 2x or even 4x higher to account for losses. As I will show later tube production actually outpaces losses.

    This expansion holds true for Germany as well going from 98 divisions in 39 to over 200 slightly more than doubling in size on the books and a bit more in truth as devestated units are re-conned. German tube production reflects this loss, creation and re-conning of units.

    You must also remember that after Kursk the number of (non-AFV) Soviet guns lost to enemy action goes down as the Germans are no longer advancing and its the Germans turn to need tube replacement. We see a big jump in German tube production (95,000) in 44 that is reflective of this and reflective of the switch to a pure 75mm or bigger tank armament, while Soviet production flatlines (80,000) meaning for the most part units were at or near authorized strength in tube artillery. Soviet ammuntion production going into 44 also barely climbs from 165 million rounds to a 178 million rounds 20mm or larger while Germany sees a massive jump from 250 million rounds to 323 million rounds 20mm or larger.

    This is borne out in the Soviet application of fire as well. Drawn out periods of build up followed by heavy and sustained bombardments over a short period to allow penetration after which artillery is used almost exclusively in a direct fire role to reduce enemy strong points until the explotation units run out of gas- then rinse and repeat to allow domestic production supplied by LL chemicals to make enough for the next attack.

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    Romānia
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Not quite, the Soviets started with around 310 divisions and would have a total of 447 divisions pass through the rolls through 1941 and would raise a further 550 or so divisions worth by the end of the war. The size 310 is the base and the final size is a bit over 600 or a doubling through 43 yet gun production is 6x higher not 2x or even 4x higher to account for losses. As I will show later tube production actually outpaces losses.

    This expansion holds true for Germany as well going from 98 divisions in 39 to over 200 slightly more than doubling in size on the books and a bit more in truth as devestated units are re-conned. German tube production reflects this loss, creation and re-conning of units.

    You must also remember that after Kursk the number of (non-AFV) Soviet guns lost to enemy action goes down as the Germans are no longer advancing and its the Germans turn to need tube replacement. We see a big jump in German tube production (95,000) in 44 that is reflective of this and reflective of the switch to a pure 75mm or bigger tank armament, while Soviet production flatlines (80,000) meaning for the most part units were at or near authorized strength in tube artillery. Soviet ammuntion production going into 44 also barely climbs from 165 million rounds to a 178 million rounds 20mm or larger while Germany sees a massive jump from 250 million rounds to 323 million rounds 20mm or larger.

    This is borne out in the Soviet application of fire as well. Drawn out periods of build up followed by heavy and sustained bombardments over a short period to allow penetration after which artillery is used almost exclusively in a direct fire role to reduce enemy strong points until the explotation units run out of gas- then rinse and repeat to allow domestic production supplied by LL chemicals to make enough for the next attack.
    it is wery late here ( nearly 1 am ) , i'll anwer tommorow.
    J'ai en marre.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The King George V Class battleship (1939)
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 21 Mar 14,, 03:34
  2. Great Britain and France Declare War on USSR in 1939
    By Danowest in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08 Mar 08,, 19:53
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09 Oct 04,, 08:33

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •