What if - Spain joined the Axis in 1939.

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

Hold on one second. If you give it the go on both Ops MARS and URANUS, then it follows that Stalin was still happy going West and no desperation to go East. After that point, Germany was at best able to defend the original borders.

The only time period that Stalin would have been pushed to the Urals and desperate enough to turn East would have been before Stalingrad. And that means the armies that Zukhov used for both MARS and URANUS would now be staring East.

Your point about the Red Army taking on both the KMT and the IJA is a curious observation. CKS always viewed the Communists as the greater threat than Japan. If Stalin had marched south, there is a small chance that CKS would have turned to Japan against the Communist threat ... but then again, that means turning against the Americans and the odds are against that.

I think CKS would have done the exact same thing. Stay out of the fight between Japan and the Allies as much as possible to conserve his strength against the Chinese communists. That is until Stalin starts shipping Chinese peasants West to fight in his war against Hitler. But by then, it would have been too late.

[zraver]

Your point about the Red Army taking on both the KMT and the IJA is a curious observation. CKS always viewed the Communists as the greater threat than Japan. If Stalin had marched south, there is a small chance that CKS would have turned to Japan against the Communist threat ... but then again, that means turning against the Americans and the odds are against that.

If the US was not in the war agaisnt Germany, a US/KMT quasi alliance against an invading Soviet army might actually prompt a Japanese-Soviet alliance not vice versa. Which will really mess things up back in Europe.

1937- Start of the second Sino-Japanese war. China is supported by the USSR and Germany.
1939- The USSR invades Finland and the UK/Fr condem the move, Germany and the USSR invade Poland and the UK/Fr declare war.
1940- France falls, the tripartite pact (axis is announced, German support for China dries up., US passes LL...

1941- Soviet-Japanese non-agression pact, Soviet support for China dries up. Japan attacks the US and UK but Hitler doesn't declare war on the US. US and UK ally with China. German invades the USSR and Churchhill declares common cause with Stalin.

1942- for what ever reason Stalin invades China, the KMT with AVG P-40 Warhawk air cover and US weapons effectively opposes them, and the death of US servicemen paints the Soviets as a Japanese ally or combines the terms fasism and communism as comufascist in the American Lexicon. This creates common cause between the Soviets and Japanese to divide up China like Poland in 1939.

Churchill's head explodes........ In the West Stalin is his ally against Germany, in the East, Stalin is his enemy against Japan. He can't win in either area without the US' supply of credit and material, but also can't beat a Germany that isn't bleeding to death on the steppes which means eventually German superiority in production will subdue the British Isles in practice if not in deed.

But Hitler would love to partner up with Churhill to go after Stalin, all it would cost Churchill is some minor concessions of French, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian.... you ge tthe picture. If Churchill refuses and the US doesn't jump in he loses the war. However if he does jump at the chance to create an effective US,UK, Germany, Italy, China alliance against Japan ol uncle Jo is suddenly in deep kimchee in the East and suarkraut in the West.

[1979]

it is wery late here ( nearly 1 am ) , i'll anwer tommorow.

In June 1941 the Red Army had 112,800 guns and mortars and in the next five months
made 58,400. However, in that same period the Russians lost 101,100, leaving only 70,100 guns
and mortars (including 21,500 50mm mortars) in December 1941. The number of guns and
mortars over 50mm decreased from 76,500 to 48,600.

Harrison, p. 264; Krivosheev, pp. 353-55. 37. Krivosheev, p. 349.

Total losses in guns and mortars exceeded 100,000 in both 1941 and
1942, but most of the pieces lost were mortars (60.500 in 1941, 82,200 in 1942), 45mm antitank
guns, and 76mm field guns.

W.S.Dunn p.130

Now for tube production.
in 1942 -6.800 AAA, 20.500 atg, 30.100 field arty, 230.300 mortars.
same source.

70,100 tubes + 287.700prod.-100.000 loses= 257.800 tubes at the start of 1943
(a 2.2 increase over the start of the war. )

I can look up the exact losses for 1942 but still there is no 6times increase in the number of tubes.

[Gun Boat]

Could the entry of Spain into the Axis help the Germans out with their Tungsten needs? I believe Spain was a war time producer and also Portugal. With the Spanish in the Axis Portugal might not feel so inclined to sell there ore to the allies and the Spanish ore would be secure by default.

With a better supply of Tungsten would that allow the Germans to produce more of the APCR(?) rounds plus, for example, not have to modify the the drive gears of the tiger tanks?

On the tiger tank gears I remember reading that the original design of the drive gears was a lot more reliable but they were more complex and consumed more machine tools in their production. So the design was changed (going from or to Helical gears?) to the production version which is what caused most of the tiger break downs.

I think the APCR rounds were 'recalled' towards the end of the war so as to put the tungsten to use as machine tools.

[zraver]

In June 1941 the Red Army had 112,800 guns and mortars and in the next five months
made 58,400. However, in that same period the Russians lost 101,100, leaving only 70,100 guns
and mortars (including 21,500 50mm mortars) in December 1941. The number of guns and
mortars over 50mm decreased from 76,500 to 48,600.

Harrison, p. 264; Krivosheev, pp. 353-55. 37. Krivosheev, p. 349.

Total losses in guns and mortars exceeded 100,000 in both 1941 and
1942, but most of the pieces lost were mortars (60.500 in 1941, 82,200 in 1942), 45mm antitank
guns, and 76mm field guns.

W.S.Dunn p.130

Now for tube production.
in 1942 -6.800 AAA, 20.500 atg, 30.100 field arty, 230.300 mortars.
same source.

70,100 tubes + 287.700prod.-100.000 loses= 257.800 tubes at the start of 1943
(a 2.2 increase over the start of the war. )

I can look up the exact losses for 1942 but still there is no 6times increase in the number of tubes.

it was a six time increase in tube production which greatly outpaced ammuntion production. Primarily becuase the Donbass region had not been evacuated in time and production facilties for some 100 million per anum were lost.

"The Soviets were in the process of expanding their ammunition production facilities when the Germans attacked. The numerous incidents with neighboring states before the German invasion had revealed that ammunition production was grossly insufficient. Had the invasion been delayed until 1942 the new and expanded facilities would have been on line, alleviating the shortages that plagued the Soviets in the first year of the war as pre-war stockpiles were either overrun or consumed.

Unlike the artillery factories, Soviet ammunition plants were concentrated in the Donbass Basin and in the Ukraine which were overrun by the Germans during the fall. Some 303 factories were lost with a capacity of over 100 million artillery shells, 32 million mortar shells and 24 million aerial bombs. This produced a huge disparity between artillery gun production, which was less affected, and ammunition production. The table below shows the increases in production between the second quarter of 1941 and the third quarter of 1942. Note how gun production increased by a factor of six, but ammunition only by a factor of three. "

Jason Long via sturmvogel.

[Tarek Morgen]

1941- Soviet-Japanese non-agression pact, Soviet support for China dries up. Japan attacks the US and UK but Hitler doesn't declare war on the US.

Germany and Italy both declared war on the US on the 11th of december 41. If I remember right, it was in fact the only offical declaration of war from Nazi Germany.

[zraver]

Germany and Italy both declared war on the US on the 11th of december 41. If I remember right, it was in fact the only offical declaration of war from Nazi Germany.

Was talking alternate history...

[Tarek Morgen]

maybe i should not jumo into threads after having been away for a few days.

[1979]

it was a six time increase in tube production which greatly outpaced ammuntion production. Primarily becuase the Donbass region had not been evacuated in time and production facilties for some 100 million per anum were lost.

"The Soviets were in the process of expanding their ammunition production facilities when the Germans attacked. The numerous incidents with neighboring states before the German invasion had revealed that ammunition production was grossly insufficient. Had the invasion been delayed until 1942 the new and expanded facilities would have been on line, alleviating the shortages that plagued the Soviets in the first year of the war as pre-war stockpiles were either overrun or consumed.

Unlike the artillery factories, Soviet ammunition plants were concentrated in the Donbass Basin and in the Ukraine which were overrun by the Germans during the fall. Some 303 factories were lost with a capacity of over 100 million artillery shells, 32 million mortar shells and 24 million aerial bombs. This produced a huge disparity between artillery gun production, which was less affected, and ammunition production. The table below shows the increases in production between the second quarter of 1941 and the third quarter of 1942. Note how gun production increased by a factor of six, but ammunition only by a factor of three. "

Jason Long via sturmvogel.

The obvious argument is that
you cannot fire ammo with production tubes that are in enemy hands or destroyed , the number of tubes available to the red army in 1943 was twice maybe three time as much (depending on the month ) as in june 1941 but ammo production also increased by that factor too.

How much ammo the factories would be able to produce without being overrun is hypothetical, so I'll stick to the facts.

[zraver]

The obvious argument is that
you cannot fire ammo with production tubes that are in enemy hands or destroyed , the number of tubes available to the red army in 1943 was twice maybe three time as much (depending on the month ) as in june 1941 but ammo production also increased by that factor too.

How much ammo the factories would be able to produce without being overrun is hypothetical, so I'll stick to the facts.

Ok sticking to the facts your 287,000 tubes were only getting 131,300,000 rounds or 510 rounds per tube. I haven't been able to find accurate stats for shell usage early in the war by the Soviets but for Operation Goodwood the British had 750 pieces of tube artillery each with 700 rounds for a single operation. Also don't forget that Soviet ammo production is listed as 20mm and greater. So light AA weapons, fighter armament, recon tanks armament and tank armament take away from the theoretical 510 rounds per year max. Soviet ammunition production just isn't up to sustained operations. Again I'll say this is reflected in Soviet artillery doctrine- mass the tubes and available ammo for a big opening blow and then use artillery sparing to reduce strong points with direct fire or for local attacks. Even the Russian assault guns reflect this idea or strong point reduction, as does the decision to use the 76mm and then 85mm guns as tank armament over better pure AT weapons like the 57mm. Its also reflected in the retirement of infantry guns, and Soviet cancellation of anything bigger than 152mm until 1945 when the 203mm was put back into production.

[1979]

So how do you mass 230.000 mortars when they're issued at battalion and regiment level ?

82-PM-41 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M1938 mortar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PM-38 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[1979]

forgot to add something :
1942 is a exceptional situation , the regime was fighting for survival , the SU churned out large quantities of really easy to build weapons ( ie mortars ), but as war progressed they traded quantity for quality.
The Soviet economy and the Red Army ... - Google Books

[zraver]

forgot to add something :
1942 is a exceptional situation , the regime was fighting for survival , the SU churned out large quantities of really easy to build weapons ( ie mortars ), but as war progressed they traded quantity for quality.
The Soviet economy and the Red Army ... - Google Books

Actually the only decrease in mortar production was in the company level 50mm. It was found to be ineffective with to light a bursting charge and too short a range for the weight. It was progressively replaced by 82mm weapons. The Soviet 120mm was a very effective weapon and it replaced the 76mm inf guns once issued as regimental support weapons. It was so effective the German's copied it and used it to replaced 75mm and 150mm sig infantry guns.

With the exception of a few weapons for aircraft and light vehicles Soviet production tended to focus on just a few calibers- 76mm, 85mm, 120mm, 122mm, 152mm. They rapidly narrowed each caliber to a few key systems usable for as many applications as possible and then concentrated on cost reduction measures. Streamlining often mean inferior not superior products in a purely technical sense. T-34 armor that was too brittle, guns that wore out much faster than western versions, transmissions that would only last 500 miles, skipping rubber on track pads etc. All reduced cost, eased production and the fact that they would not survive long technically didn't matter because they were not going to survive long physically either.

So how do you mass 230.000 mortars when they're issued at battalion and regiment level ?

82-PM-41 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M1938 mortar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PM-38 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Easy you discount the 50mm, and that leaves far fewer 82 and 120mm weapons which have a range of 3 and 6km respectively. When you have whole Soviet armies trying to push through gaps only a few hundred meters wide in some cases that is more than enough range. You can also task allot company and up mortar (or any other critical asset) assets into ad-hoc units which was common in every army.

[Officer of Engineers]

If the US was not in the war agaisnt Germany, a US/KMT quasi alliance against an invading Soviet army might actually prompt a Japanese-Soviet alliance not vice versa. Which will really mess things up back in Europe.

1937- Start of the second Sino-Japanese war. China is supported by the USSR and Germany.
1939- The USSR invades Finland and the UK/Fr condem the move, Germany and the USSR invade Poland and the UK/Fr declare war.
1940- France falls, the tripartite pact (axis is announced, German support for China dries up., US passes LL...

1941- Soviet-Japanese non-agression pact, Soviet support for China dries up. Japan attacks the US and UK but Hitler doesn't declare war on the US. US and UK ally with China. German invades the USSR and Churchhill declares common cause with Stalin.

1942- for what ever reason Stalin invades China, the KMT with AVG P-40 Warhawk air cover and US weapons effectively opposes them, and the death of US servicemen paints the Soviets as a Japanese ally or combines the terms fasism and communism as comufascist in the American Lexicon. This creates common cause between the Soviets and Japanese to divide up China like Poland in 1939.

Churchill's head explodes........ In the West Stalin is his ally against Germany, in the East, Stalin is his enemy against Japan. He can't win in either area without the US' supply of credit and material, but also can't beat a Germany that isn't bleeding to death on the steppes which means eventually German superiority in production will subdue the British Isles in practice if not in deed.

But Hitler would love to partner up with Churhill to go after Stalin, all it would cost Churchill is some minor concessions of French, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian.... you ge tthe picture. If Churchill refuses and the US doesn't jump in he loses the war. However if he does jump at the chance to create an effective US,UK, Germany, Italy, China alliance against Japan ol uncle Jo is suddenly in deep kimchee in the East and suarkraut in the West.

That is one hell of a what-if (and Japan still is on the losing end - is there a plausible scenario that they can actually end up winning).

I can see where you're going but my head is exploding thinking about the permutations.

[zraver]

That is one hell of a what-if (and Japan still is on the losing end - is there a plausible scenario that they can actually end up winning).

For Japan to be a victor in WWII they need to leave the US alone and concentrate on the Dutch East Indies and Sino-British possesions in and around Asia. No pearl Harbor means a delayed American entry into the war which is bad for the Uk and USSR and very very good for the Axis.

I can see where you're going but my head is exploding thinking about the permutations.

Well following the defeat of Japan and the USSR, Germany is in trouble. Unless Germany can execute a major offensive laterally against its previous allies and roll up the anglo armies Hiter's Reich starts WWIII already occupied in part.

However, with Brits to the North and Yanks to the South so to speak, there is going to be a lot more Yiddish, Russian and Polish laughter around the local bar at night. Imagine Hitler on a train to visit Moscow, on his way he has to pass through the city of Kiev and Babi Yar, past snyogouges and nascent Ukrainian political party headquarters, past black American truck drivers, while riding in an American supplied rail car, on American supplied rails and guarded by American produced Luftwaffe P-51D's fueled by American supplied Av-gas...... as part of a stop to pick up the guy who wrote and will conduct the allied victory song as the troops parade through Moscow- Irving Berlin. Hitler forever denied- no suicidal grand exit, just junior to Churchill partner status in the middle of all dem joos.... JUSTICE