Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 3031323334353637383940414243444546 LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 686

Thread: WWII what-ifs

  1. #571
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    No allies or LL for the USSR then.
    Does the M-R Pact exist here?
    Chimo

  2. #572
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Read again :D

    For the Germans to bust anything,the Soviets have to be in a position to be busted.If the Axis has to march 200km to reach the main line,it is no surprise,no encirclement,no heavy losses for the Reds ,but much bigger fighting.

    Stalin Line was dismantled historically in most areas,except some fortified areas in the South.
    It didn't work that way, Stalin had no allies in 41. He's lucky Churchill had a moment of clarity in 39 and didn't declare war on the USSR in 39. He had the worlds biggest army, air force and tank fleet, perhaps bigger than all the other combatants combined. He had nothing to fear from lack of allies.

  3. #573
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    It didn't work that way, Stalin had no allies in 41. He's lucky Churchill had a moment of clarity in 39 and didn't declare war on the USSR in 39. He had the worlds biggest army, air force and tank fleet, perhaps bigger than all the other combatants combined. He had nothing to fear from lack of allies.
    So again, where does the departure from actual history and this what-if begins? The offensives in 43 was obviously not the last of Soviet strength.

    And I'm thinking you have a poor grasp of Soviet logistics intent. The 1 T-34 out of 5 that is not made or the chemicals for munitions. All that implies is the longer period between campaigns. Nothing to do with intensity or numbers. The Soviets planned for 40 days. They got 40 days. Each and every single time. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they would accept a 30 day campaign instead of a 40 day campaign. Instead of 4 months between campaigns, it would be eight months. LL only constituted at best 30% of Soviet output. No doubt in hell that is a big difference but no way in hell does it mean that the Soviets could not produce that material with time. When they commit, they will commit with the numbers that they want, not one tank out of five less.

    That is the other thing. The Soviet economy was on a war footing. Hitler's economy was not, not until Germany was under direct threat. That would not change with this scenario. Hitler does not stop being Hitler.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Mar 16, at 03:32.
    Chimo

  4. #574
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,016
    LL only constituted at best 30% of Soviet output.
    but also 30% of some very critical areas.

    BTW, the importance of lend-lease went back to 1941, not just from 1943 (although that is when it significantly ramped up). for instance, 30-40% of USSR tank strength defending Moscow in Dec 1941 were british lend-lease tanks.

    in some cases, certainly the USSR would have had time to make up for the lack of LL-- such as offensives. but if the Germans are on the offense, that is when time is a serious factor for the Soviets. and that would be true in this scenario, because Allied LL pretty much gave the USSR the space it needed in 1942 to restart factories out east. Soviet war production went down by about 60-70% through 1941 due to the catastrophic losses from BARBAROSSA.

    and that's not talking about single-point failures, IE 75% of the USSR oil came from the Caucasus. if the USSR lost that, they were screwed.

    given all of this, without LL and no US/UK involvement from 1941, it's quite likely the Soviets would have lost Moscow in 1941, or at least be forced to evacuate while Moscow turned into another Stalingrad. correspondingly, the USSR offensives would have to be extremely delayed.

    again, this scenario posits an enormous thumb on the scale for Germany. German war strategy only really worked if they had -one- major opponent, and this scenario is precisely just that.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  5. #575
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Also, Guderian himself proved the German General Staff is inferior to the Russian one.

    "Guderian: “Why do you want to attack in the east at all this year?”" in reference to Kursk. I still can't get over this. Why wouldn't you want to attack in the east this year at all? If nothing else, to keep Stalin off balance.

    In the meantime, the Russian General Staff explained their read to Stalin and got off a much better plan than von Manstein gave Hitler. Hell, they read von Manstein's plan. Can you give me a brief that von Manstein knew what he was going up against?
    Chimo

  6. #576
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    So, erm, when and where Germany and USSR made a borderline? For ze Germans to go East towards the Russian defences they had to go trough Poland. For Stalin to be alone, the Poles have to be open for German transit.

    What am I missing?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  7. #577
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,016
    again, gunnut's scenario is that the UK drops out of the war in 1940 or 1941, leaving just the UK. Poland is toast already.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #578
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    So, we have a NEW stage. Churchill is not himself, Hitler is out, hey maybe even FDR is weak at home and doesn't impose blockade to Japan, but trades hefty with them?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  9. #579
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    So, we have a NEW stage. Churchill is not himself, Hitler is out, hey maybe even FDR is weak at home and doesn't impose blockade to Japan, but trades hefty with them?
    Minor, Change, Hitler holds his nose and sends in the paratroopers on Malta, heavy losses but they take the Island and the Churchill government falls in August 41.

  10. #580
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Also, Guderian himself proved the German General Staff is inferior to the Russian one.

    "Guderian: “Why do you want to attack in the east at all this year?”" in reference to Kursk. I still can't get over this. Why wouldn't you want to attack in the east this year at all? If nothing else, to keep Stalin off balance.

    In the meantime, the Russian General Staff explained their read to Stalin and got off a much better plan than von Manstein gave Hitler. Hell, they read von Manstein's plan. Can you give me a brief that von Manstein knew what he was going up against?
    Yeah,they knew.They had identified the Soviet preparations and build-up.They knew the Soviets knew.FM Model even wanted to cancel the attack because they had no surprise and no superiority.
    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

  11. #581
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Minor, Change, Hitler holds his nose and sends in the paratroopers on Malta, heavy losses but they take the Island and the Churchill government falls in August 41.
    Odds are equally good that the Germans are so appalled by the losses that they have no more stomach for future adventures.
    Chimo

  12. #582
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Minor, Change, Hitler holds his nose and sends in the paratroopers on Malta, heavy losses but they take the Island and the Churchill government falls in August 41.
    The problem remains (look at any map) that Malta was much, much more useful as a base for the Allied interdiction of Axis supply lines than it was as a potential base for Axis interdiction of Allied supply lines. Allied shipping routes ran east/west across the Med while Axis shipping lines ran north south from ports in France or (mostly) Italy. Given their preexisting control of Crete and Sicily as sites for airfields how much more does control of Malta actually bring to the Axis mix? Especially given the fact that, as costly as it would have been for the British an alternate route around the Cape of Good Hope exists. No such luck for the German and Italians though. Simply put denying the British access to or use of Malta was far more important to the Germans than actually using it themselves.

  13. #583
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    The problem remains (look at any map) that Malta was much, much more useful as a base for the Allied interdiction of Axis supply lines than it was as a potential base for Axis interdiction of Allied supply lines. Allied shipping routes ran east/west across the Med while Axis shipping lines ran north south from ports in France or (mostly) Italy. Given their preexisting control of Crete and Sicily as sites for airfields how much more does control of Malta actually bring to the Axis mix? Especially given the fact that, as costly as it would have been for the British an alternate route around the Cape of Good Hope exists. No such luck for the German and Italians though. Simply put denying the British access to or use of Malta was far more important to the Germans than actually using it themselves.
    The loss of Malta wuld give the Axis unimpeded access to North Africa and would likely cause a political crisis that would be the straw that broke the camels back with Churchill.

  14. #584
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Odds are equally good that the Germans are so appalled by the losses that they have no more stomach for future adventures.
    Hitler was going east come hell or high water

  15. #585
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The loss of Malta wuld give the Axis unimpeded access to North Africa and would likely cause a political crisis that would be the straw that broke the camels back with Churchill.
    Malta was written off and not high in the plans until Winston sent reinforcments. Highly unlikely its lost would cost him the post.

    It is like saying the high cost of taking it would cost Hitler the post
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How necessary were BB's in WWII?
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 14 Oct 10,, 22:54
  2. Who really won WWII?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 28 Apr 08,, 17:25
  3. WWII Germany Vs WWII Russia
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 22:33
  4. WWII Germany Vs WWII U.S.A.
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 22:29
  5. WMDs During WWII
    By Amled in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17 Jun 05,, 23:57

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
  •