WWII what-ifs

[zraver]

Then Hitler is giving Stalin breathing room and space to rebuild his armies and he got China and Korea to recruit from.

Assuming its the US/China v Japan and Ger v USSR, China and Korea are going to be slim pickings unless he wants to war against the US and Germany.

Afghan cocaine made it all the way to Moscow. There is no way for either Germany or Russia to stop the leakage in such a big country.[/quote]

Smuggling large quantities of weapons and explosives is a titally different game. 1 ton of drugs will get a huge number of people high. 1 ton of weapons wont even fully equip a platoon.

All you are saying is that both sides would be exhausted but that isn't the question. The question is what stopping Hitler and Stalin from coming in for round 2?[/QUOTE]

[Officer of Engineers]

Assuming its the US/China v Japan and Ger v USSR, China and Korea are going to be slim pickings unless he wants to war against the US and Germany.

Fine. Manchuria and Korea.

Smuggling large quantities of weapons and explosives is a titally different game. 1 ton of drugs will get a huge number of people high. 1 ton of weapons wont even fully equip a platoon.

This is an insurgency. Not an uprising. Tito got by with less from the Allies.

But again, what's stopping either men from going for round 2?

[astralis]

damn, this thread really grew overnight.

Not so fast. Germany wouldn't be building that many AA guns or have that many men in uniform until things start going south with an impending Soviet invasion of German territory. At best, the USSR would be their Vietnam.

I meant this as in the opportunity cost. even in 1941 there were tens of thousands of AA troops defending the homeland against the RAF; hundreds of thousands of laborers building shelters, AA shells, emplacements, etc.

without that threat, you've got extra troops, laborers, and man-hours to do something else. and that's not covering bombing disruptions, fires, etc.

China and Japan. But you have not answered the question, what would make Hitler offer such a peace and what would make Stalin accept such a peace? Both can just maintain the war at a low level much akin to Vietnam.

if the Soviets collapse past the Urals in 1941 or 1942, chances are Stalin gets assassinated. losing all European Russia would be a huge blow as there goes what, 80% of Soviet industry/manpower pool, and 90% of her existing railroads. no LL makes that industrial recovery damned hard-- Khrushchev noted that the USSR wouldn't have won the war if not for American spam!

I agree it would be difficult for the Nazis to get past the Urals in one fell swoop, but I'd think Germany would be in a far better position to advance past the Urals in 1943 than Russia would in recovering lost ground. Germany has all of Europe to consolidate. an insurgency? both of us know how Germany would deal with that, the same way Genghis did.

besides, at this point attrition would favor the Germans not the Russians. even at the end of WWII, using barely-trained teenage boys led by burnt out veterans, ammo low, almost no artillery/air/tank support to speak of, they inflicted ghastly casualties on the Soviets advancing into Germany proper. here, all the advantages would be with the Germans, except for the defender's advantage.

having said all that: this scenario posits an utter British surrender in 1940 or 1941, which wasn't likely. maybe if Churchill got run over by a bus or something. either way, this is putting a massive thumb on the scale for the Germans, so it shouldn't be too surprising if the Germans win!

[Officer of Engineers]

Here's the thing. The USSR did went it alone in 41/42. LL did not have any effect until after Stalingrad. Looking at what happened during BARBAROSSA, adding in the DAK would be just wasted manpower. The Wehrmacht were meeting all their objectives and then some. So, not only does Hitler not reach the Urals, he's already been driven back.

[astralis]

Looking at what happened during BARBAROSSA, adding in the DAK would be just wasted manpower.

true, Barbarossa petered out because the Germans overextended their supply lines. they were a bit better prepared for CASE BLUE though.

and that's where this scenario really changes things, because now the Germans have a real reserve, their front-line troops are better equipped, they have more air support, and they have a -significantly- better capacity to replace tank/aircraft losses, etc. AA, the Atlantic Wall, U-boats represented enormous amounts of war material that could be funneled elsewhere here.

it wouldn't just be the DAK, it'd be tens/hundreds of thousands of extra troops freed up from AA duties, building the Atlantic Wall, etc.

[Officer of Engineers]

Stalingrad was won Feb/43. The point is that European Russia was safe. More importantly, momentum had shifted to Moscow.

[zraver]

Stalingrad was won Feb/43. The point is that European Russia was safe. More importantly, momentum had shifted to Moscow.

The offensives of 42/43 also used up the last of the pre-war Soviet stocks of tanks, equipment and ammo. IIRC, in the Spring of 43 for a brief moment the Germans actually had more tanks at the front than the Soviets. Thanks to the massive movement of industry east of the Urals the Soviets could begin to replace losses. In this scenario, 1 of every 5 T-34's made doesn't get made and the man hours and material are used for trucks instead. They can't hope to begin massive production of explosives yet, chemical plants are harder to build than founderies so artillery support is limited. In the air the VVS has 25% fewer aircraft through 1945 while the Luftwaffe begins Barbarossa nearly twice as strong. The VVS will never catch up and the Germans will own the air.

Even if the Germans are stopped at Stalingrad and before the gates of Moscow, the Soviets don't have anything left to actually push them back. What they manage to scrape together faces a larger and much better equipped and supplied German Wehrmacht.

[Officer of Engineers]

Hold on a second. You're jumping all over the place. Let's concentrate on 1943 first. The Soviets stopped the Germans without LL having a significant effect. German advance is effectively stopped and European Russia is safe. I don't want to mix scenarios up but do the Germans do Kursk or not? Basically at what point do real history and this what-if separates?

[astralis]

sorry, for my part I've jumped onto gunnut's new scenario:

Another What-If: What if Germany were at war only against Soviet Union in 1941? No Lend Lease. No Royal Navy. No North Africa. Just the Reich against the Reds. What would happen?

[zraver]

Hold on a second. You're jumping all over the place. Let's concentrate on 1943 first. The Soviets stopped the Germans without LL having a significant effect. German advance is effectively stopped and European Russia is safe. I don't want to mix scenarios up but do the Germans do Kursk or not? Basically at what point do real history and this what-if separates?

Mainstien in command, or no allies to back up the Reds, which timeline?

If no allies to send the USSR LL, then the offensives of late 42/ early 43 are their last bolt. They've got nothing left materially after that. 1942/43 saw the USSR lose 38,600 AFV's. The Germans lost 11,700. The Soviets were losing tanks over 3:1. I was slightly wrong, the Soviets always had more AFV's but the loss ratio meant they did not have enough to win without fresh production that could increase past the German number of losses vs new production. In July 43 the Soviets had 10,100 AFV's and the Germans had 4,300. If normal loss ratios held the Soviet would run out of tanks first if they didn't have their massive ability to produce new ones.

Without LL they have many fewer tanks because some tank production has to be diverted to make trucks and 10% of the Soviet tank fleet was western. They have 1/4 less aircraft, and by 1943 virtually no explosives or artillery ammunition reserves. This means the rebuild time between offensives is much greater, likely one bigger push every six months instead of two big pushes every 3. By 43 they are increasingly unwilling to use blood in place of steel and are already feeling the pinch. In 44 when they begin to liberate POW camps, anyone who can still walk is given a meal, a rifle and sent to the front. As Axis armies abandon the Germans, the Soviets throw them into the fight as well.

[Officer of Engineers]

Mainstien in command, or no allies to back up the Reds, which timeline?

You choose. Let's stick to one. I'm getting confused.

[zraver]

You choose. Let's stick to one. I'm getting confused.

No allies or LL for the USSR then.

[Mihais]

No allies first and foremost means a different strategic approach on stavka's part.During the interwar era,when they had no allies the Soviet strategy was defensive.Stalin Line and such.
So you don't have the huge battles of annihilation,because the Soviet army is well away from the border area,deployed in fortified positions .

[zraver]

No allies first and foremost means a different strategic approach on stavka's part.During the interwar era,when they had no allies the Soviet strategy was defensive.Stalin Line and such.
So you don't have the huge battles of annihilation,because the Soviet army is well away from the border area,deployed in fortified positions .

Doubtful, after the Germans bust the line in 41 the Soviets lost all faith in defensive works over vast areas. Build up defenses around a city or in a bulge sure, but the territory was too vast to allow for a fortfied line robust enough to repel attack. I doubt Stavaka would change much of all until after they fail to hold Kharkov in early 43. They almost won the war twice in Dec 41 and Jan 43.

[Mihais]

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.