# The New Eastern Front



## andy2012 (Feb 17, 2012)

I've been thinking about this for awhile. During WWII Reichsfuher Himmler tried to get the Western Allies to side with Germany and fight the U.S.S.R. Do you think that in 1944 the combined powers of the U.S. Britain, and Germany could defeat the Soviet Military.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

In Normandy Crucible: The Decisive Battle that Shaped World War II in Europe, the author claims that the D-Day was in fact decisive, claiming that it resulted in deployment of the East of at least four SS panzer divisions and at least 4 other panzer divisions, while in Operation Bagration, there were only two German panzer divisions defending against the Russians. Many crack troops were employed, and alsoy: most of the Luftwaffe.

Had the Western Allies allied with Germany before D-day, with the bombing stoping and a immense flow of materials to help the German industry, the situation would change a lot. The Germans would be delighted by the high octane fuel, and the German jets and aircraft in general would have acess to much better high quality materials to be produced. They would only need to hold the Russians until the atomic bomb was ready, and I think this "NATO" would be capable of achive this. 

I just think the friendly fire incidents would be very relevant (e.g "sir, I forgot the 109 is not enemy anymore"), and the Nazi propaganda would probably state for the people that they managed to convince the Americans and British to get ride of their Jewish influence to fight against the Jewish Bolshevism. =D


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 17, 2012)

".... Do you think that in 1944 the combined powers of the U.S. Britain, and Germany could defeat the Soviet Air-force?"

Why are you limiting this question to just the Soviet "Air-force"?

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Do you think that in 1944 the combined powers of the U.S. Britain, and Germany could defeat the Soviet Air-force?"
> 
> Why are you limiting this question to just the Soviet "Air-force"?
> 
> MM



Perhaps because the joint German and Allied air power would immobilize the Red Army. I just can imagine the Allied bombers striking the Soviet oil fields and hudreds of "NATO" fighter-bombers attacking the Russian troops and supply lines. The B-29s would certainly be avaliable to reach industrial targets as well.


----------



## davebender (Feb 17, 2012)

> 1944 the combined powers of the U.S. Britain, and Germany could defeat the Soviet Military?


1944 Germany could defeat the Soviet Union all by itself provided the USA ends Lend-Lease support to keep the Soviet economy going.


Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Routes Overview
Soviet food imports alone amounted to 1.7 million tons during mid 1943 to mid 1944. Without food the Russian people would probably revolt just as they did during 1917.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

Together with the famine, I keep thinking how many millions more of civilians the Germans would slaughter have they remained more time in the Soviet territory...


----------



## davebender (Feb 17, 2012)

Probably fewer then what Stalin killed historically. That's why places like the Ukraine and Caucasus welcomed Germany with open arms.

The bigger question is whether new nations such as Poland, Ukraine and the Don Republic would fight each other after the Russo-German war ends as happened during 1919. If Germany doesn't maintain strong occupation forces the former Soviet Union could errupt into a bloodbath of multiple border conflicts.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1944 Germany could defeat the Soviet Union all by itself provided the USA ends Lend-Lease support to keep the Soviet economy going.



I just don't see this Dave.

1943 had already proved Russia could take on defeat German arms on the ground in the air decisively, despite occasional - and rare - German tactical successes 
(and it has to be said, going by what I have read, a feeling at least amongst some of those in the LW writing after the war that they never quite actually lost in Russia......something which I find hard to believe given the scale of what had happened in the east but nevertheless whether it is pride or what it is an attitude I've read.)

Russian industrial output is simply vastly greater than Germany's by 1944 I can see no way the western powers (in this twilight vision) could ever supply Germany fast enough to make much difference to the coming Russian steam-roller which is fast gathering pace.

Looking at what happened during 1944 the level of complete collapse (not to mention the almost total distruction of some German armies) when is the German side ever going to be capable of halting the Russians (at a time of their choosing) and making this stand to gain time?
The Luftwaffe has long ago become a tactical fire-brigade, appearing in small regions of the front doing its best to try to delay and if possible stop the worst tactical defeats.
Every part of German arms on the EF is simply being bled white has too little left to make that much difference to the coming (and obvious to all) outcome.

As for any potential famine potential revolt?
First of all I think Stalin already proved more than willing able to face down those possibilities should they arise, something I find doubtful in the extreme.....especially in the context of what anyone with eyes ears could see really was a 'war of extermination'.
But secondly I can't help but think (maybe it's a western thing) that people discount the huge commitment of the Russian people to the defeat of the Hitler/Nazi nightmare.

All a halt to (or absense of) western aid to Russia does - in the possibility of say the 'Winter War' resulting in the west not actually allying with Russia in 1941 - in my opinion is drag everything out, resulting in further losses to all concerned.
But a German western alliance in 1944 is too late.


----------



## andy2012 (Feb 17, 2012)

I can't really see this new war ending good for either side. I would think the Japaneses would side with "NATO" looking at past experiences with Russia, what do you think?


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Probably fewer then what Stalin killed historically. That's why places like the Ukraine and Caucasus welcomed Germany with open arms.



Well in truth the whole story is some did, to start with.
Then they found out the reality of the German occupation.

The Germans even managed to lose the most committed anti-Russians (excepting those that had already nailed the flag to the German side) once it became clear that Hitler had no intention of allowing any kind of independence. 



davebender said:


> The bigger question is whether new nations such as Poland, Ukraine and the Don Republic would fight each other after the Russo-German war ends as happened during 1919.



With what? I don't think they'd stand a chance against Russian arms, Russian arms organised trained, unlike them. 



davebender said:


> If Germany doesn't maintain strong occupation forces the former Soviet Union could errupt into a bloodbath of multiple border conflicts.



I imagine much more likely is that there might be small and weak attempts to rid themselves of Stalin.....and the post-war history is there for everyone to see just how they ended - and that was at a time when people had had a chance to recover a peace-time in which to plan, organise arm themselves.



andy2012 said:


> I can't really see this new war ending good for either side.



Absolutely.
Even the allied atomic bomb against Russia is no guarantee of prevailing in these circumstance - history shows that the Russian spy network in the US is proving very successful in funnelling atomic info back to the Russians.
Given the size of Russia (and the lack of A-bomb in numbers available for quite some time) it is quite plausible to imagine (to coin Churchill's phrase) Russia being able to take it.

Even the use of an A-bomb tactically might not have the greatest effect, they'd surely have to warn the Germans of it coming the Russian spy network in Germany is also very effective at this time.
They'd be warned too....and with the Russian favouring British spies at the time it is far from certain how Russia does not counter the effects of such an attack.

(just to be clear, I've often said the A-bomb is the only serious game-changer I can see for Germany.....but that is providing they have more than a couple the means to deliver them deeply enough to strike the high value targets.....and that Russia don't know everything about them.

.......God help the German nation if it doesn't work tho, the 'war of extermination' would likely rebound with such cruel genocidal effect - to them.) 



andy2012 said:


> I would think the Japaneses would side with "NATO" looking at past experiences with Russia, what do you think?



They'd probably try to.....but whether the Ameericans would have he slightest inclination (given their experience of Japanese warfare to 1944) I can't imagine it happening.


----------



## davebender (Feb 17, 2012)

That's not exactly true. There were huge holes in Soviet production which were filled by Lend-Lease imports. For instance about half of Soviet steel was made in the USA. The same goes for chemicals used to produce explosives and artillery propellent.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. In this scenerio the USA has decided to help Germany. So Germany now gets Lend-Lease economic assistance.
Petroleum products.
Tungsten
Copper
Chromium.
Nickel.

The Panther tank was relatively inexpensive to mass produce and now Germany has raw materials to make as many as they want. A German version of Tankograd sprouts next to a major port such as Hamburg. Many of the machine tools for this massive factory complex are from the USA along with half the raw materials necessary for production. After a year or so the German Tankograd is producing 1,000 Panther tanks per month along with half tracks and SP artillery. Wheeled vehicles are imported straight from Detroit by the 100s of thousands.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> That's not exactly true. There were huge holes in Soviet production which were filled by Lend-Lease imports. For instance about half of Soviet steel was made in the USA. The same goes for chemicals used to produce explosives and artillery propellent.



Yes indeed, there is truth in this.....but one mustn't fall into the trap of assuming that just because the western allies supplied some things (and so is an example of a need easily met) that that necessarily must mean Russia alone could not always meet that need sufficiently.
It may not cover absolutely everything but my bet is that a lot of those holes can be filled, enough, even if with more difficulty and/or expense - particularly given Russia's vast natural resources 
(which have become easier to get at over time as Russia mechanises her rail network has grown).



davebender said:


> Let's put the shoe on the other foot. In this scenerio the USA has decided to help Germany. So Germany now gets Lend-Lease economic assistance.
> Petroleum products.
> Tungsten
> Copper
> ...



It's the timeline I have a lot of trouble with.
In 1944 I see it as far too late and is Germany in no condition to create operate the necessary infrastructure to handle this new flow of resources 
(and this would all be in quantities from a direction that Germany is not used to dealing with them from).



davebender said:


> The Panther tank was relatively inexpensive to mass produce



I think the truth here is more accurate full if we say 'eventually'.
The Panther was not only unreliable to start with but was not that cheap to make (being more costly than the Panzer 4H) although thanks to the efforts made to reduce costs they did fall.
Wiki (I know I know) quotes Guderian as saying they were getting better but still reporting a significant level of problems in march 1944 
(and at their peak they only fielded 520 or some of them in Sept 1944).



davebender said:


> and now Germany has raw materials to make as many as they want. A German version of Tankograd sprouts next to a major port such as Hamburg.



Just like that, hmmm Dave?

This tread says the rapprochement happens in 1944.
I just don't see that even starting Jan 1 1944 you can get a German Tankograd up running to any great degree as to make a difference before the Russian tide sweeps all before it. 



davebender said:


> Many of the machine tools for this massive factory complex are from the USA



.....and this completely ignores the issues the American did have when they tried making complex military parts with machinery they had the blue-prints for staff giving technical advice from the original producers.
Shipping raw resources is one thing but complex components is very different not done easily.



davebender said:


> along with half the raw materials necessary for production. After a year or so the German Tankograd is producing 1,000 Panther tanks per month along with half tracks and SP artillery. Wheeled vehicles are imported straight from Detroit by the 100s of thousands.



Well, I'm sorry Dave but I think this is a total flight of fancy.
I think experience does not support this view.

Jan 1st 1944 is far far too late.


----------



## muscogeemike (Feb 17, 2012)

I tend to side with Gixxerman (for what little my opinion is worth). 

I have read that in 1940, when the USSR invaded Finland, GB and France came close to declaring war on the USSR. 

I have wondered at that scenario. Germany and Russia had an alliance - would Hitler have continued that? I don’t know since he already meant to destroy Stalin I doubt it. 

How would GB and France have dealt the problem of being at war with Germany and fighting Russia at the same time. Would they have allied with Hitler? They did with Stalin. This was prior to Hitler invading Norway, the Low Countries and France. 

Would the US have still come into the European War? 

The mind boggles at the thought of GB, France and Germany against the USSR!


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> 1943 had already proved Russia could take on defeat German arms on the ground in the air decisively, despite occasional - and rare - German tactical successes
> (Russian industrial output is simply vastly greater than Germany's by 1944 I can see no way the western powers (in this twilight vision) could ever supply Germany fast enough to make much difference to the coming Russian steam-roller which is fast gathering pace.



The Germans manufactured the same quantity of planes and armored vehicles than the Soviets in 1944. Nothing bad for a country that was under a naval blockade, was being bombed, with it's military production slipted in several areas (U-boats, AA guns for the Allied bombers) against a state that wasn't being bombed and was being supported with massive foreign aid. One can think how the German production would outperform the Soviet if not for such factors, not to mention the quality. Even more if Germany was receiving massive foreign aid and direct military support from the Western Allies. They could have focused in what they did best, like the Germans in jets and the Western Allies in piston planes. The Russians certainly would suffer. And after the atomic bomb arrived, the Russians would have to colaborate or Moscow would be nuked.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> .....and this completely ignores the issues the American did have when they tried making complex military parts with machinery they had the blue-prints for staff giving technical advice from the original producers.
> Shipping raw resources is one thing but complex components is very different not done easily.
> 
> 
> ...


That is anposition that has cost the UK more then you know , I know of contracts lost by the UK because the attitude "that no one is as capable as the UK to make precision tools or equipment and we can't expect you to understand"


----------



## davebender (Feb 17, 2012)

Then 1944 Germany would produce an interim armored vehicle. Something they had a wealth of experience with.

1944 Germany was producing 7.5cm KwK40 tank cannon and the related 7.5cm Pak40 AT gun like hot rolls. Over 20,000 were produced during 1944, roughly half of which were the towed AT gun version.

Germany could build 500 additional 7.5cm KwK40 tank cannon per month ILO half the AT gun production. These weapons and German fire control equipment would be used to arm Sherman tanks which arrive complete except for the main gun. 

M7 Priest 105mm SP guns could be used as is, complete with American made M2 Howitzer.

American made 2 1/2 ton trucks could be used as is just as the Red Army did historically.

American made aviation gasoline should work just fine in Me-109s and Fw-190s.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> The Panther was not only unreliable to start with but was not that cheap to make (being more costly than the Panzer 4H) although thanks to the efforts made to reduce costs they did fall.
> .



Panther (Panzer V) was designed to be cheaper than Panzer IV. Like most second generation designs it was designed for mass production and automation. Panther did of course require more steel. The key improvement to the Panther would have been Herringbone cut gears instead of straight cut gears to make the drive train reliable. This requires sufficient machine tools (gear cutting and hobbing machines) which have lead times running into the years.

I doubt that the USSR could have defeated Germany without US help. The Soviet Army relied almost entirely on US trucks for instance.


----------



## imalko (Feb 17, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The Germans manufactured the same quantity of planes and armored vehicles than the Soviets in 1944. Nothing bad for a country that was under a naval blockade, was being bombed, with it's military production slipted in several areas (U-boats, AA guns for the Allied bombers) against a state that wasn't being bombed and was being supported with massive foreign aid....



Germans outproducing Soviets? In 1944? Mate you better check your references. In fact I would like you to give list of sources to support your claim.

As for massive foreign aid... The percentual share of Land-Lease in overall amount of arms and equipment used by the Soviets in 1941-1945:
- firearms: 0,8 %
- artillery and mine-throwers: 1,8 %
- tanks and self propelled guns: around 12, 1%
- aircraft: around 15 %
- motor vehicles (all categories): 32% 

Source: ''Great Patriotic War Book of Loses - Secrets Revealed'' by group of Russian authors

Regarding the Land-Lease I want to be perfectly clear (as I was before in similar discussions on the forum). This was valuable aid to the Soviet war effort, but by no means decisive.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

imalko said:


> Germans outproducing Soviets? In 1944? Mate you better check your references. In fact I would like you to give list of sources to support your claim.



I think you should read my post better. 

As for a source from my statement: Why the Allies Won, Richard Overy, pages 331-32.



> Regarding the Land-Lease I want to be perfectly clear (as I was before in similar discussions on the forum). This was valuable aid to the Soviet war effort, but by no means decisive.



There's not sufficient evidence for claim this, there are still closed archives. In recent years the Russian historian Boris Sokolov has presented new evidence that the Lend-Lease was in fact more important than was belived. Personally, think this only boost the credit of some irrelelant people who also think it could have been decisive, some guys called Joseph Stalin and Georgy Zhukov. ; )


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> One can think how the German production would outperform the Soviet if not for such factors, not to mention the quality.



Well, lets think about this a little.
As it is by the start of 1944 vast amounts of German production are thanks to various forms of forced slave labour.

I take it that is still going on in this rather silly fantasy.......if not then by whom how is that to be made up?




pbfoot said:


> That is anposition that has cost the UK more then you know , I know of contracts lost by the UK because the attitude "that no one is as capable as the UK to make precision tools or equipment and we can't expect you to understand"



No my friend, you mistake what I am getting at.
I am not condescending to anyone.

It is a fact that even with blue-prints and staff to help them countries can have severe problems producing other people's complex military kit 
(and in the case the case of the American MG42 you might say not so complex).


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Well, lets think about this a little.
> As it is by the start of 1944 vast amounts of German production are thanks to various forms of forced slave labour.
> 
> I take it that is still going on in this rather silly fantasy.......if not then by whom how is that to be made up?



Yes, it was slave labour, but it worked very well, like it worked in my country for centuries and in many others. Speer provided better conditions for the "workers", and they would have better conditions if there was not a blockade and the Germans could feed them better. In fact, without the blockade, Fustanga Europe would produce much more, because the blockade prevented many critical raw materials needed for the industrial production (this don't even includes a Lend-Lease, because if yes, it would be even better). Even Italy would have appreciable industrial gains in this scenario. Again, I'm not even touching in the US and British participation, because they would bring something like a revival of the German armed forces as far as the joint effort is concerned, particularly the Luftwaffe in order to kick the Commies back to their lands.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Well, lets think about this a little.
> As it is by the start of 1944 vast amounts of German production are thanks to various forms of forced slave labour.
> 
> I take it that is still going on in this rather silly fantasy.......if not then by whom how is that to be made up?
> ...


and then think of the Merlin made faster and better by packhard


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> and then think of the Merlin made faster and better by packhard



A shame they couldn't use it in the twin-Mustang. =/


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 17, 2012)

".... Yes, it was slave labour, but it worked very well, like it worked in my country for centuries ..."

Give your head a shake, Jenisch. We're not talking harvesting f**king sugar cane.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Yes, it was slave labour, but it worked very well, like it worked in my country for centuries ..."
> 
> Give your head a shake, Jenisch. We're not talking harvesting f**king sugar cane.
> 
> MM



The " f**king sugar cane" Brazilian slave labour and was not much different in terms of the physical effort from the one that allowed Germany to match the Soviets in plane and armored production in 1944, that was my point.

Let's see something more about it:

_Buckley argues the German war economy did indeed expand significantly following Albert Speer’s appointment as Reichsminister of Armaments, "but it is spurious to argue that because production increased then bombing had no real impact". But the bombing offensive did do serious damage to German production levels. German tank and aircraft production, though reached new records in production levels in 1944, was in particular one-third lower than planned.[17] In fact, German aircraft production for 1945 was planned at 80,000, "which gives an idea of direction Erhard Milch and the German planners were pushing", "unhindered by Allied bombing German production would have risen far higher"._

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those slaves were certainly damn capabe, and they would be even more if the Nazis could receive material and military help from the Allies. And don't forget guys; atomic bomb: the Commies are f*cked. ; )

I don't even need to talk about the atomic bomb. Just the bombing effort the USAAF and the Bomber Command would be able to muster against the Russians would cause a severe dispersion of their fighter forces (they would suffer the same problem as the Germans, less attack planes for more interceptors). They would be able to turn Baku in an inferno with a few attacks.


----------



## andy2012 (Feb 17, 2012)

I'd have to agree with you the Germans could have also could have greatly helped the U.S. effort, no matter what the Soviets had could they really stopped the bomb? Eyewitness - Germans Tested A-Bomb In October, 1944 'I Saw Nazis Test A-bomb' - Author Rewrites History my source


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2012)

How much sugar cane have YOU cut Jenisch ? How many aircraft, tanks, rockets, have you manufactored ? Was anybody with a gun or a whip standing by, making sure you did it right ? How can you possibly make a comparision ?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2012)

andy2012 said:


> I'd have to agree with you the Germans could have also could have greatly helped the U.S. effort, no matter what the Soviets had could they really stopped the bomb? Eyewitness - Germans Tested A-Bomb In October, 1944 'I Saw Nazis Test A-bomb' - Author Rewrites History my source


The Rugen island that this witness claims to be the site of the German a-bomb test is not some remote island. It has been one of the most popular vacation resorts location in Germany, and has been for well over a century. Had a Strength thru Joy resort there during the Nazi era. Not a very believable site for weapon testing. Like setting off a a-bomb in Yellowstone National Park.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2012)

Some of us seem to be forgeting the American a-bomb project had several Soviet spies right in the middle of it. You really think they'd stand by and let that weapon be successfully deployed against Russia ?


----------



## andy2012 (Feb 17, 2012)

Well you never know, I've heard that that Old Faithful has a green tinge!!!!8)


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 17, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> How much sugar cane have YOU cut Jenisch ? How many aircraft, tanks, rockets, have you manufactored ? Was anybody with a gun or a whip standing by, making sure you did it right ? How can you possibly make a comparision ?


 
Mate, it's simple: they did it with slave labour. Yes, the slave labour had it's problems, but they managed to match the Soviet industrial production supported by the Lend-Lease in 1944; in middle of the naval blockade, need for naval production and the bombing. You need to take your hat off for the Germans, and accept the fact they would outperform the Soviets quantitatively and qualitatively had they were alone against them. With the US and British providing material and direct military support like the creator of the topic proposes, only someone who is blind cannot see that the Russians would be in big trouble.

If the Allies and the Germans make such treaty to fight the Communists before the Germans started to move the crack SS divisions and the Luftwaffe for Normandy, that means before D-Day, the success of Bragation would certainly be much unsure. The Western Allies certainly would launch a massive bombing campaign against the Baku oil fields, while the Allied fighters would be ready to support the Luftwaffe and the German Army. While such operations were being conducted, the Allied forces would be already in Europe preparing defenses against the Soviet invasion. With the German plus Allied soldiers in strong defensive lines in Europe, plus airfields with thousands of planes just waiting the Russians and air attacks being conducted against their homeland and Army, it would be possible to contain them.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2012)

Jenisch you seem intent on changing a aviation history forum into a alternate history forum. 
Ever thread you've started on this forum has been some alternate history variation that somehow ending up with the defeat of Soviet Russia, and this is your latest.

When you suggest that anyone should take their hats off to a regime that enslaved hundreds of thousands of people, and murdered them by the thousands, all to prolong a evil system . And then to suggest that it's our fault that they didn't feed them better, is more than I can stomach.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> in order to kick the Commies back to their lands.



....er, exsqueeze me?
I think you'll find it was Germany that invaded Russia.
Russian doesn't actually go beyond the pre June 1941 'peace-line' until surprisingly late in 1944.



pbfoot said:


> and then think of the Merlin made faster and better by packhard



....and even in the most co-operative environment with every resource possible and with the Agreement signed in Sept 1940 it still takes almost a year (Aug 1941) to make the first 2 and fuill production doesn't happen until 1942.

It's a fair point to mention the Merlin in the US and I conceed that is a fine example of things working out 
(note though that it is a whole unit and not just parts) 
but even when it works out I think it is fair to point out that as I originally mentioned time is still a relevant issue 1944 is completely unrealistic in the scenario for doing much good for the Hitler gang.



Jenisch said:


> You need to take your hat off for the Germans, and accept the fact they would outperform the Soviets quantitatively and qualitatively had they were alone against them.



Well, ignoring you provocative quip, they did in fact have a period of fighting against them 
(I'd call their huge initial successes a fair offset to the later German production numbers).
The net result is still the same.
Germany has decisively lost before 1944.....the defeat at Moscow in 1941 shows this Stalingrad copper-plates it.
The jaunt into the southern Russian area is nothing but tactical and a diversion delaying the inevitable.

The German command (as it had done with the British airforce) grossly over-estimated German abilities disastrously under-estimated Russian capabilities.
They went into the war calculating that the Russians had an active strength of 175 divisions that with reserves it could come to 250.

Halder put the reality well once the attack had begun "Until now we have identified 348 divisions", these are the words of a man who has started to understand the scale of the overwhelming swamp Germany had been crazy enough to decide to try to wade through.

Russia has the manpower Germany can never hope for and is producing tanks, anti-tank guns artilliary pieces which will remain the equal (on every practical level) of anything Germany can field and in numbers that Germany can never hope to match.
It is Germany playing catch-up with Russia's tanks not the other way around.
520 Panthers at peak says it all.
Russia made a vast 35,500 T 34's between 1940 - 1944 to Germany's total of 6,000 Panthers.

Bringing in the allies in 1944 does nothing to change the German defeat in my view, it's far too late.
Material assistance in the form of raw materials is the best you could possibly hope for by then Germany's losses of experienced personnel are far too great to just gloss over as if it doesn't really matter and the Russian forces are just too strong (and it is they that have the growing pool of experienced personnel by this stage).

....and in fact this is what happened in the air.
At the end of the war Germany was littered with thousands of their most up to date but unused brand new planes, numbers of planes was not the issue because although they didn't have the fuel to fly them they also had far too few trained crew left.

Besides in 1944 you'd never see the British switch to fighting along side Hitler's army too much death misery has been too widely dished out to the British nation and even the most anti-communist of Americans in 1944 is going to prefer to see the USA batter all 7 shades out of Japan before they'd step in to help the nazi regime 

(and the final guarantee of all of this is that you can bet that if ever such a thing as this were plausible then the western public would have the truth about what was happening to the Jewish people of Europe the east put centre stage before them.
There's not a hope in hell of it ever coming to pass). 

We'll have to agree to disagree. 



tyrodtom said:


> Jenisch you seem intent on changing a aviation history forum into a alternate history forum.
> Ever thread you've started on this forum has been some alternate history variation that somehow ending up with the defeat of Soviet Russia, and this is your latest.



What ifs.... can be fun but I do wonder sometimes at the intent or thinking of some who can be relied upon to always post up scenarios which invariably and inevitably end up with Hitler's regime surviving or winning.

I'm all for free speech a variety of POV but sometimes I can't help wondering where some are coming from with these imaginings.



tyrodtom said:


> When you suggest that anyone should take their hats off to a regime that enslaved hundreds of thousands of people, and murdered them by the thousands, all to prolong a evil system . And then to suggest that it's our fault that they didn't feed them better, is more than I can stomach.



Yes indeed, there have been a few real eye-poppers lately.

I've no doubt Stalin was a wicked monster too but the nazi evil was the worse one, you could simply be born worthy of nothing but death, no matter what you ever actually did or said, under the nazi ideology.
That was their unique evil which Stalin did not match in anything like the same way.

Oh dont get me wrong he (Stalin) his regime killed multi-millions too, but in large part due to the consequences of a policy (like collectivisation of farming) rather than actually setting up an industral murder machine as Hitler's gang did.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2012)

Let's not forget Stalin was in power from 1924-1953, 29 years, and most of the murders under communism occured under his rule.
Hitler was in power from 1933-1945, 12 years, but the vast majority of the murders occured in the last 6 years. Give Hitler and his cronies another 17 years to do their evil, and they would have made the communist look soft.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Jenisch you seem intent on changing a aviation history forum into a alternate history forum.



Not at all. I like to discuss alternative scenarios, and as far as I know this is allowed here.



> Ever thread you've started on this forum has been some alternate history variation that somehow ending up with the defeat of Soviet Russia, and this is your latest.



I created this topic?! 

About my threads and posts, well, some people like to paint a view that the Soviets single handled defeat Nazi Germany or would defeat it regardless of the Western Allies. I try to debunk those views, mainly based in the Chaos Theory. And in fact, I talk more about the Germans stoping a Soviet conquest of the Reich than vice versa. 

And I don't discuss just alternative history, here's a topic I created yerterday: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/warbirds-firing-guns-31861.html



> When you suggest that anyone should take their hats off to a regime that enslaved hundreds of thousands of people, and murdered them by the thousands, all to prolong a evil system . And then to suggest that it's our fault that they didn't feed them better, is more than I can stomach.


 
I don't discuss with moral interestes. And I'm not sugesting it was fault from nobody, just stated a fact about the conditions of food avaliable in Festunga Europa. My "take your hat off" expression perhaps wasn't the best I could use, but I just wanted to say that you should accept that Nazi Germany would be considerably more stronger industrially and qualitatively than the Soviet Union without the war against the West.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> ....er, exsqueeze me?
> I think you'll find it was Germany that invaded Russia.
> Russian doesn't actually go beyond the pre June 1941 'peace-line' until surprisingly late in 1944.



Yes, that's why I said the initial date is vitally important for this thread.



Gixxerman said:


> ....er, exsqueeze me?
> I think you'll find it was Germany that invaded Russia.
> Russian doesn't actually go beyond the pre June 1941 'peace-line' until surprisingly late in 1944.



Yes, that's why I said the initial date is vitally important for this thread.



> Russia has the manpower Germany can never hope for and is producing tanks, anti-tank guns artilliary pieces which will remain the equal (on every practical level) of anything Germany can field and in numbers that Germany can never hope to match.



Ah, so can you explain me why Germany produced almost the same quantity of armored vehicles and planes than the Soviet Union in 1944? And this was with full Lend-Lease support, and the multi front war for the Germans. Germany wanted to built 80,000 planes in 1945. Now, you want to tell me that without all the factors from the multi front war it would be the same?

And please, don't tell me the Russians had tecnological parity with the Germans, because this is simply not truth. By 1944, the Germans had the the 109s all with MW50 injection, which with the proper tactics were superior to any Russian plane, and superior to a considerable margin against the basic Yak-9 most fielded by them. Germany also had an indisputable advantage in aeronautical technology, like in jet planes, which the Russians tried to mount rockets in the back of their La-7s and Yak-3s to try cope. Had the war happened only in the East, Germany would be able to produce only for that front, like the Soviets did, with introduction of new aircraft and improvements of existing models being certainly much faster than historically, not to mention the quatity. 

About the ground war, I will talk about the main factor that were the armored forces: The T-34 cannot be said as being comparable with the Tiger and Panther, because the Germans machines were superior to a considerable degree. The Panther was able to wipe out many crude produced T-34s, that didn't have proper sights and rangfinder, the Russians needing to shoot the machine gun to draw the balistic line to shoot at close distance, long range hits being rarity. In the Russian steppes, the German tankers simply destroyed dozens, sometimes hundreds of those tanks with crews frequentely poorly trained and with inferior tactics and inadequate radio communication. That's why most "more numerous" T-34s produced during the war we lost. The T-34 was a superb machine, much superior to to oposition when arrived, but this didn't last long, and soon even the Panzer IV with the long barrel gun was able to more than compete with it. The T-34 was a simple machine, and just because this simplicit it wasn't in pair with the mid-war German tanks. If the Germans didn't have a war in the West, they would produce more and better thanks. It would be not by any means likely, and even less certain that Russia would defeat Germany alone under such circumstances, specially with the Germans being able to muster a similar strenght in the skies. The Russians could have simply not hold the attriction from the wartime economy and the casualities. End of the story.

I recommend you to read Normandy Crucible: The Decisive Battle that Shaped World War II in Europe. The author makes some very good points about the D-Day and the success of the Russian offensives in '44.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 18, 2012)

Jenisch

You might choose your words more carefully, you said "kick the commies back to their lands"
It was in fact the invaders, Hitler's German forces who were in the process of being firmly booted back to their country.

But I am fascinated to work out where does Germany get the crews to do any of this miraculous incredibly speedy resurrection you describe from?

Even if I was to accept your claim that German industry was able to match (and sustain) Russian levels of war material output (which I don't, my info is that Speer's big drive to produce was a rise fall, in effect a one-time hollowing out Germany's stocks of materials and it could not be sustained) you still have no way of (in 1944 and on) making up the vast losses in experienced crew.

You can malign Russian equipment if you like, yes it was crude in places and yes in some aspects German kit looks much more advanced but that was why I said in any practical sense.
The Panther does compare well with the early T 34, on a one-to-one basis but like all the big German tanks they very rarely fought on terms circumstances favourable to them.
By 1944 the T 34/85 to all intents and purposes matches the Panther et al neutralises their abilities - particularly as the Russians are fielding them in vastly greater numbers.
Not forgetting the Su 85/100/122's which are very effective tank killers - and yes that is against the best German tanks - or things like the weak transmissions, or even things like poorly made leaky fuel lines the resultant unreliability which plagued all of the heavy German tanks to the very end.

I'll give the book a read if I can find it - you do know it has had some very mixed reviews regarding the authors selective accounting of the tale. don't you?
(apparantly the British Montgomery are the real villans of the piece, not the Germans and the quality of opposition Monty the Brits faced is entirely ignored as he castigates them, apparantly, it doesn't bode well for the rest of it if you don't mind me saying).
But even so I am still firmly of the view that regardless of whatever qualitative lead Germany held in equipment 
(and even that needs qualifying.....what use your kit if it doesn't work properly in the winter of the land you chose to invade - or your slave workforce is producing poor quality individual components?) 
they were so vastly outnumbered quantitively.

.....and in sheer manpower terms Germany is calling up old men children in 1944 
(in fact they had started using the children in 1943 things were so bad by then).

The history is that Germany simply didn't have the reserves to call to arms for all the new kit they did produce (which is my point about Germany being littered with lots of their brand new best aircraft at the war's end, it wasn't just that they had no fuel to fly them with).
So where do the men come from to fight if Germany produces even more? 

The notion that either the USA or the UK would actually fight on Hitler's side is preposterous so devoid of any connection to any plausible scenario of reality as to be not worth even considering in this.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

".... And please, don't tell me the Russians had tecnological parity with the Germans, because this is simply not truth."

In the cold freeze up of December, 1941, with the spires of Moscow in sight -- technical superiority did SFA for the Nazis. Guns froze, vehicles had to run constantly, airpower was ineffective, steel became brittle, and the list goes on and on ....

Hitler thought he could win because he was a gambler -- and he overestimated the Germanic 'geist' and underestimated his enemies - racially and politically.


You go ahead and sing the praises of slave labour all you want -- but I pity the poor soldier or pilot that had to use the stuff. (I wouldn't even want to use equipment made in _France_ after the Occupation ).

*Question for you Jenisch*: would you buy a Brazilian-made Volkswagen that unpaid, whipped, slave labour had put together ...? It's not quite the same as sugar.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

"... About my threads and posts, well, some people like to paint a view that the Soviets single handled defeat Nazi Germany or would defeat it regardless of the Western Allies. I try to debunk those views"

"Some people"? No one on this Forum holding that view comes to mind. And the members of this Forum are your playmates ... not some other audience of exUSSR revisionists.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Jenisch
> 
> You might choose your words more carefully, you said "kick the commies back to their lands"
> It was in fact the invaders, Hitler's German forces who were in the process of being firmly booted back to their country.



And after the war the Commies did what with Eastern Europe? I used the term more to describe the objective in an informal way. But make no mistake that the Communists were damn invaders just ike the Nazis. Just because the Communism is an historical criminal political organization (by Western values) and not an outlawed in most of the world, I will not let of say this.



> But I am fascinated to work out where does Germany get the crews to do any of this miraculous incredibly speedy resurrection you describe from?



No naval blockade, no historical production levels of submarines, no Lend-Lease for the Soviets, no bombing, no multi-front war.



> Even if I was to accept your claim that German industry was able to match (and sustain) Russian levels of war material output (which I don't, my info is that Speer's big drive to produce was a rise fall, in effect a one-time hollowing out Germany's stocks of materials and it could not be sustained) you still have no way of (in 1944 and on) making up the vast losses in experienced crew.



The German industry matched the Soviet in tank and armored vehicle production in 1944. Only if you want to be blind you won't see it, check in any source. Without all the factors from the war in the West, again only someone who wants to be blind will not see it. The German industry was more than capable of outclass the Soviet both in quantity and qualitity had it was alone against it. Speer's rise&fall achivements were a result from the multi front war (those factors being tanks, and later U-boats and other fighter aircraft, the two factors from the Western Allies). The Soviets had an opposite scenario, where their Allies give them specific itens such as trucks, in order for them to focus on certain itens like tanks. Cut all this and cut the German disadvantages and you will notice how the situation would be critical for the Russians. And since you are talking about the Soviet Union alone, don't compare historical wartime years. With the Germans focused in the East since the starting, their losses would be certainly different; you have more planes, more tanks, more trucks = you have less casualities. I present you the Chaos Theory if you don't know it. In the scenario the creator of this topic proposes, not will even comment about the capabilities of the German and Allied forces being able to stop the Soviets, particulary before D-Day.




> The Panther does compare well with the early T 34, on a one-to-one basis but like all the big German tanks they very rarely fought on terms circumstances favourable to them.



Because they couldn't be produced in adequate numbers due to the multi-front war.



> By 1944 the T 34/85 to all intents and purposes matches the Panther et al neutralises their abilities - particularly as the Russians are fielding them in vastly greater numbers.



Don't think so. The Panther's specifications were simple: a simple but modern design to ouperform the T-34. The lateral armor of the Panther was more vulnerable, but this was more than compensated with it's frontal armor and superior gun and optics. Panthers produced in numbers were more than capable of outperform any T-34, and they were complemented by Tigers. The Germans would be able to put an adequate number of those machines in case the war was only in the East, They would be also capable of providing air support for them and destroy thousands more of the Russian tanks.



> Not forgetting the Su 85/100/122's which are very effective tank killers - and yes that is against the best German tanks - or things like the weak transmissions, or even things like poorly made leaky fuel lines the resultant unreliability which plagued all of the heavy German tanks to the very end.



Again, you don't considerate Chaos Theory factor. 

About the maintence problems:

_Most of the shortcomings were considered acceptable once design flaws were rectified._

Panther tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Germans would be able to overcome such problems with a single front war. While this was not obtained, the Panzer IV would be there to complement the more heavy tanks with the traditional good performance it offered.



> you do know it has had some very mixed reviews regarding the authors selective accounting of the tale. don't you?



Unfornately, if doesn't fit to your taste, I must be careful with it isn't?


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... And please, don't tell me the Russians had tecnological parity with the Germans, because this is simply not truth."
> 
> In the cold freeze up of December, 1941, with the spires of Moscow in sight -- technical superiority did SFA for the Nazis. Guns froze, vehicles had to run constantly, airpower was ineffective, steel became brittle, and the list goes on and on ....
> 
> Hitler thought he could win because he was a gambler -- and he overestimated the Germanic 'geist' and underestimated his enemies - racially and politically.



This was historically, and I'm considerating a stalemate possibility in this scenario as well.



> You go ahead and sing the praises of slave labour all you want -- but I pity the poor soldier or pilot that had to use the stuff. (I wouldn't even want to use equipment made in France after the Occupation ).



I wouldn't. With a single front war, the German production would be much better, because there would be no bombing. Also, it would be more easy to monitorate the slave production. The Soviet production was by no means an example of quality (together with the inferior equipment), and the sabotages were the main problem. This monitoring capability the Germans would have, together with the more powerful German industry I also already mentioned, change the things significantly. Without the blockade, it's better even not go further,


----------



## Milosh (Feb 18, 2012)

> The German industry matched the Soviet in tank and armored vehicle production in 1944.



Soviet:
Light tanks - 7,155
Medium tanks - 16,242
Heavy tanks - 4,762

Total - 28,159

German:
Tanks - 18,956

Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes a difference of almost 10,000 vehicles is a match, be sure.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

Man - I couldn't understand why you are so stuck on 'slavery' Jenisch, until I googled _*slavery in Brazil*_. I guess I can understand why it's just an everyday occurrence in your mind:

" ... In 1995, 288 farmworkers were freed from what was officially described as slavery, a total which rose to 583 in 2000. In 2001, however, the Brazilian government freed more than 1,400 slave laborers. Some believe that most cases probably go undetected. A national survey conducted in 2000 by the Pastoral Land Commission, a Roman Catholic church group, estimated that there were more than 25,000 forced workers and slaves in Brazil. In 2004, the Brazilian government acknowledged to the United Nations that 25,000-40,000 Brazilians work under work conditions "analogous to slavery." The top anti-slavery official in Brasília, nation's capital, estimates the number of modern slaves at 50,000. More than 1,000 slave laborers were freed from a sugar cane plantation in 2007 by the Brazilian government, in the largest anti-slavery raid in modern times in Brazil. In 2008, the Brazilian government freed 4,634 slaves in 133 separate criminal cases at 255 different locations. Freed slaves received a total compensation of £2.4 million (equal to $4.8 million)." [Source Wikipedia]

V-1 and V-2 rockets, Panther tanks, artillery shells and MG ammunition isn't "sugar cane" -- no matter how many 'inspectors' you care to add to the line - and regardless of whether or not there's 'bombing'.

If you want to make a case for slave labour .... your self-proclaimed political nemesis, the USSR, arguably did slavery better than the Nazis.

I repeat my suggestion, Jenisch .... "give your head a shake" ... it's 2012.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Soviet:
> Light tanks - 7,155
> Medium tanks - 16,242
> Heavy tanks - 4,762
> ...



Richard Overy states 6,000 of difference. Anyway, you cannot refute my arguments in overall. The margin is still too much fat for Germany not outproduce the Soviet. Again, not to mention quality.

I like the Soviet equipment, it was excellent for the HISTORICAL conditions and probably saved them. The problem is there's a big difference between historical conditions and a reality were Germany is alone against the Soviets with all the consequences this implies.


----------



## imalko (Feb 18, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The German industry matched the Soviet in tank and armored vehicle production in 1944. Only if you want to be blind you won't see it, check in any source. Without all the factors from the war in the West, again only someone who wants to be blind will not see it.


 
I'm afraid you are the one who is blinded here my friend.



Jenisch said:


> With the Germans focused in the East since the starting, their losses would be certainly different...



They were focused on the East since the start in 1941.



Jenisch said:


> Again, you don't considerate Chaos Theory factor.



Please enlighten us. I'm curious.



Jenisch said:


> Unfornately, if doesn't fit to your taste, I must be careful with it isn't?



And because it's up to _your_ taste we should consider it the word of God?


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> I repeat my suggestion, Jenisch .... "give your head a shake" ... it's 2012.
> 
> MM



Give you a head shake. You don't want to understand me, fine, just don't discuss with me anymore.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

imalko said:


> And because it's up to _your_ taste we should consider it the word of God?



No, we have different views here, I respect the views from others. But you and nobody here is able to refute my arguments saying that the Russians would CERTAINLY or likely previal in this scenario.

I want to see someone refute my formula:

Naval blockade of Germany + submarine production + Lend-Lease for the Soviets + bombing (and most Luftwaffe fighter forced deployed in the West, together with other Axis troops used elsewhere).

ONLY the Lend-Lease is already subject to heated debates. 

Let's take a respectable historian, Hubert van Tuyll, pioneer in the Lend-Lease publications with Feeding the Bear, what he has to say:

_“In the first 1.5 years the Soviet Union was fighting for survival and would have won without lend lease, but further victories and movement to Europe would be questionable,” he reported._ 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385548/posts

I'm having this discussion more in the informal way, not with much attention to critical details. But anyone here can see that I have presented just a SINGLE factor to think how complex the things were, and how hard is to imagine how they were. The consequences of the Lend-Lease involved food for workers, Soviet capability of focus in specific itens, which in turn meant better logistics, more weapons, more supression fire, victories, etc. Now, cut the naval blockade of Germany, cut the need for produce submarines like historically, cut the Lend-Lease, cut the bombing and put all the German armed forces in the East, and tell me with a clear conscience that it would make no difference at all.

Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. As I already posted; one thing is the historical Soviet equipment and it's performance, together with it's industry and number of soldiers serving in the armed forces, and other is the Soviet Union defeating Germany alone. The point is made, this is extremely complex and nobody with common sense will say that that just by looking a few historical industrial numbers from armaments we can arive in a verdict.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2012)

Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both.
A lot of Germans late in the war had the hope that the Allies would turn against the Russians, but these were Germans with little knowledge of the true extremes of the Holocaust. The ones with that full knowledge knew there would be no break in the alliance, because Germany had went too far.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

".... Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. "

".... Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both."

MM


----------



## imalko (Feb 18, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> ... cut the naval blockade of Germany, cut the need for produce submarines like historically, cut the Lend-Lease, cut the bombing and put all the German armed forces in the East, and tell me with a clear conscience that it would make no difference at all.



Of course it would make a difference. No one is denying that. What we are unable to agree upon is your conclusion about final outcome. In this scenario more lives would be lost and more time it would take to finish the war, but once Barbarossa failed Germans in the long term had no chance in defeating the Soviets. Especially not by 1944. As for eventual Western help to the Nazis in that time, Tyrodtom's comment few posts back is spot on.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. "
> 
> ".... Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both."
> 
> MM


 
Tell this to the creator of the topic.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 18, 2012)

imalko said:


> Of course it would make a difference. No one is denying that. What we are unable to agree upon is your conclusion about final outcome. In this scenario more lives would be lost and more time it would take to finish the war, but once Barbarossa failed Germans in the long term had no chance in defeating the Soviets. Especially not by 1944. As for eventual Western help to the Nazis in that time, Tyrodtom's comment few posts back is spot on.



They could have not defeated, but they also could have not been defeated. This is good for those who think the Soviet Union was an invencible war machine.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 18, 2012)

I don't think you are an idiot Jensch and I'm not trying to make you look like one either.
We're supposed to play nice here aren't we?
I do think you have some odd ideas, but that's ok, maybe you feel the same about me. 

I just find some of your underlying claims totally conflict with what I have read.

You talk about the superiority of German designs.
OK, in theory yes, that is true of some.
But I have only ever read stories of poor quality German equipment as the war neared its close (which brings us back to the 1944 date originally suggested).
From pieces deliberately sabotaged to the German war-time quest to substitute materials, the stories are not all about how German arms were precision manufactured examples of engineering at it's very best.
Some may have started out that way and some may have been so vital that they never got anything but the best manufacturing processes Germany could give them but that is absolutely not the whole story - as anyone not blinded by their musings could easily see, hmmm? 

The thing is that the only way this scenario might work at all - might - is if the western powers and Hitlers Germany are allied before the attack on Russia.
But that was not what was originally posed.
The original idea was that the western allies Germany ally in 1944.
So Germany has already been bleeding white for 3 years in Russia and is already losing decisively and has already lost vast amounts of men material treasure.

But the idea of the western allies actually manning the German war in Russia - after what had gone on before from 1939 - 1944 - is so ludicrous that I don't think it's worth pursuing.

So you still end up stuck with a Germany in dreadful shape, with at best the block on her gathering resources where she could lifted.....oh and by the way, what is Germany going to be using for money to pay for these huge new shipments?
Germany is broke (and was broke in 1939, one of the gamblers reasons for going to war then and not 1942 - 1944 as originally tentatively planned).

As for the book, I said if I can track down a copy at a decent price I'll give it a look.
But it didn't take much looking on-line to see that the author has his (severe) critics.
Is that not reasonable to mention?
I gave examples of what the critics were saying too, it wasn't just baseless general.
At the end of the day he is one in a minority, I'm not discounting everything he says, of course not that would be silly, but equally his view has to be weighed against that of the others researchers historians and I think you'll find the overwhelming consensus is that Germany lost the war comprehensively and first and foremost in the east.

My own view is that Germany could not defeat Russia whether Moscow falls or not (it didn't do Napoleon the slightest bit of good).
The territory is just too vast to hold control they have got themselves into a position where the local populace is implacably opposed to them (and for very obvious reasons).
Not only that but they are being constantly harried in the rear areas which are not really 'conquered' in the sense of being under full control.
Huge numbers of uncaptured red army personnel various others in partisan groups are making life a dangerous misery for the ordinary German so very very far from home. 

But that's just my opinion......but a German recovery in 1944?
Sorry I just can't see it, not a chance in hell.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2012)

The V1 and V2 both used slave labor in their production. Look at both these weapon's systems failure rates, how many were declared unfit for launch, how many launch failures and early flight failures. Is it just a coincident that they had high failure rates after being produced using slave labor ?
Sabotage could be so simple and hard to detect on a complicated weapon, you end up having to use so many guards and inspectors to prevent it, you end up using more skilled people than the slave labor is saving.


----------



## andy2012 (Feb 18, 2012)

I started this thread because I thought it was an interesting topic, I had NOT even considered slaves, or the such. I was more wondering what some of the aviation aspect would be. I think we could all agree it would've never happened, and if it did we would have wasted many, American, British, German, and Russian lives.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

".... Embraer quality! =D

I hope the USN and the USAF buy our Super Tucano as well, together with our KC-390. I'm also in hope our air force buy the F/A-18E for your FX program." [Jenish post]

Does Embraer use slave labour, Jenisch? 

MM


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 18, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The V1 and V2 both used slave labor in their production. Look at both these weapon's systems failure rates, how many were declared unfit for launch, how many launch failures and early flight failures. Is it just a coincident that they had high failure rates after being produced using slave labor ?
> Sabotage could be so simple and hard to detect on a complicated weapon, you end up having to use so many guards and inspectors to prevent it, you end up using more skilled people than the slave labor is saving.



The V2 weapons system was only in use for a matter of months yet it approached 100% reliabillity towards the end of its use similary for the V1 which matured to a reliable system able to achieve sea level speeds of 515mph in the final months of the war. von Braun and Dornberger and his team were proud of the statistical failure analysis they did which identified the source of the faults. Only a fraction of German aviation industry used impressed labour; much of it was indentured (the workers often having little othe choice to earn an income. Robert Lusser (designer of the Bf 109, Fi 104 (ie V1) and He 219) moved to NASA and wrote the book in failure analysis in aviation.

As far as Sabotage goes I'm sure the Germans avoided putting the most likely suspects in front of assembly of a weapons sytem in which they could easily sabotage something and disguise it. I also doubt the would be sabateurs really would chance it. This is surely pure Hollwood hype. Impressed labour was quite productive; the Germans were quite a sucess at making use of it. I also doubt the brutality was all that widespread, such methods simply take too much energy.

I suspect shortages, subsitute materials and components, lack of time for training and development, damage to or lack of jigs and tools were really the cause of reliabillity problems. Ukranian females are a hardy lot and kick ass as workers. I also suspect a certain "Bridge on the Rover Kwai" syndrom ie pride.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 18, 2012)

"... I also doubt the brutality was all that widespread".

Auschwitz was - first and foremost - and INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. "Work will set you free". When you were too weak, sick or disabled to work anymore, you were exterminated. Brutal? Productive? Perhaps you should try this philosophy of labour management and incentives in your home country, Australia, Siegfried ......

MM

In contrast, the British use of "forced" labour during WW2: [h/t fastmongrel]

"... My mother remembers after VE day her Uncle who was a farmer had 2 german POWs working on his farm the Germans used to bring there POW food rations to the farm in exchange for great Aunty cooking them sunday dinner. The Germans also swapped butter for beer in the pub, my mother didn't eat butter from 1939 till 1945. Not saying the POWs shouldn't have had butter but just saying when even POWs who got army rations got better food than British civilians.."


----------



## Milosh (Feb 18, 2012)

> the V1 which matured to a reliable system able to achieve sea level speeds of 515mph in the final months of the war.



How was this ~25% increase in speed obtained?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The V2 weapons system was only in use for a matter of months yet it approached 100% reliabillity towards the end of its use similary for the V1 which matured to a reliable system able to achieve sea level speeds of 515mph in the final months of the war. von Braun and Dornberger and his team were proud of the statistical failure analysis they did which identified the source of the faults. Only a fraction of German aviation industry used impressed labour; much of it was indentured (the workers often having little othe choice to earn an income. Robert Lusser (designer of the Bf 109, Fi 104 (ie V1) and He 219) moved to NASA and wrote the book in failure analysis in aviation.
> 
> As far as Sabotage goes I'm sure the Germans avoided putting the most likely suspects in front of assembly of a weapons sytem in which they could easily sabotage something and disguise it. I also doubt the would be sabateurs really would chance it. This is surely pure Hollwood hype. Impressed labour was quite productive; the Germans were quite a sucess at making use of it. I also doubt the brutality was all that widespread, such methods simply take too much energy.
> 
> I suspect shortages, subsitute materials and components, lack of time for training and development, damage to or lack of jigs and tools were really the cause of reliabillity problems. Ukranian females are a hardy lot and kick ass as workers. I also suspect a certain "Bridge on the Rover Kwai" syndrom ie pride.


You talk about Hollywood hype, and then have the nerve to mention the movie " The Bridge over the River Kwai" Which anyone with the most minimum knowledge of history knows had no historical accuracy.

The concentration camp Mittelbau-Dora was used as the labor pool for the V2, the workers were handled by the usual concentration camp standards, Worked very long hours, on not enough food, literally worked to death, until useless, then killed and replaced.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2012)

Concentration camp Mittelbau-Dora, 60,000 inmates passed thru it, 20,000 died, 9,000 died due to exhaustion and collapse. 350 hanged, 200 for sabotage.
Is that enough "Hollywood hype" for you Siegfrei ??

I later realized i'd left out something important, Mittelbrau-Dora was only one of the camps suppling the V-2 program with laborers, and only in operation about a year.


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 18, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> I just don't see this Dave.
> 
> 1943 had already proved Russia could take on defeat German arms on the ground in the air decisively, despite occasional - and rare - German tactical successes


Care to name those "decisive" defeats? For the ground warfare, only the surrender of the Stalingrad pocket could be classified as decisive, but that's actually more a 1942 than 1943 thing. What about the air?




> Russian industrial output is simply vastly greater than Germany's by 1944 I can see no way the western powers (in this twilight vision) could ever supply Germany fast enough to make much difference to the coming Russian steam-roller which is fast gathering pace.


Wrong, not only was not "vastly greater", but actually smaller. Only in 1945 the Soviet GDP would become greater, for obvious reasons.



> (and at their peak they only fielded 520 or some of them in Sept 1944).



That's ridiculous, as they have more than that (655) by 10 June 1944, _and only on the Western Front_.



> 520 Panthers at peak says it all.



Don't think it says all, but says a lot...


----------



## pinsog (Feb 18, 2012)

Without Nazi's to shoot at, the Americans would have had about 50,000 Shermans tanks to hand over to the Germans, but I don't know if the Germans had enough people left to drive them. If the Germans replaced the American 75mm cannon with one of their own, the Sherman would have made a dandy little tank to shoot at T34's with...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2012)

imalko said:


> Germans outproducing Soviets? In 1944? Mate you better check your references. In fact I would like you to give list of sources to support your claim.
> 
> As for massive foreign aid... The percentual share of Land-Lease in overall amount of arms and equipment used by the Soviets in 1941-1945:
> - firearms: 0,8 %
> ...



Imalko - I don't know the answer in advance but the percentage of food, wheeled/tracked vehicles and aircraft from 1942 through 1943 is the crucial question regarding Lend Lease value. Do you (or anyone) have references for this?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2012)

The figures from the soviet side (sources) have changed considerably in the last 10 years or so. And while the Soviets didn't make much use of western small arms or artillery the same might not be said of the powder and explosives sued the ammunition for those small arms and artillery.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2012)

Simple answer - yes. 

Multiple reasons come to mind if we suppose that the agreements are concluded, US/GB/Commonwealth fully committed, and detailed plans ready for execution by January 1, 1944.

1. Germany per se is no longer fuel/chemical deprived. Additionally, fuel from the US is available basically unhindered from Turkey to Kiel. German refineries spared, Ploesti rebuilt.
2. The RAF/USAAF strategic bombing capability is deployed to eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia and Austria - basically placing all Russian Industry and Oil Production in a radius beyond Moscow under immediate threat.
3. USSR vulnerable to invasion from the East and South (Pakistan, India) and have to move even more Divisions to protect Siberia and eastern mineral/manufacturing centers. Ditto threat of western Allied airpower forces deployment of fighter reserves from the West. Deployment of the B-29s into Pakistan and China, which happened anyway, opens up Siberia POL as well as any major strategic targets in the Urals southeast of Moscow
4. All naval traffic/commerce via sea are shut down by combined US/Commonwealth sea power. No more resources or food imports from anywhere.
5. Rail and Road traffic, bridges power facilities vulnerable and increasingly throttled preventing smooth flow of supplies, material and troops.
6. VVS airpower not equipped to defeat US/RAF heavy bombers and long range escorts now coming off assembly lines in the thousands. Their fighters were not anymore capable of deflecting high altitude strikes than the LW, in fact much less capable.
7. US mobile artilliary, trucks and tracked vehicles, arguably better than both Soviet and German, along with US and Commonwealth troops, then triple effective German mobile infantry firepower, multiply conventional 105 and 155mm artilliary by 10x and medium armor by 10x -over German capabilities- to provide major force multipliers on the East front.
8. All food supplies curtailed, combined with attacks on Russian Rail, marshalling yards, and river traffic put Russia in a position of major food rationing beyond what they experienced in 1943.
9. With MAJOR increases in pilot quality/quantity, combined with Western Alled Strategic and Tactical Air Forces, the VVS should be effectively crippled by end of 1944 and complete air superiority established over Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, etc. Much heavier pressure put on soviet armor and logistics from P-47/Typhoon tactical forces added to German tactical. Finland remains in war along with critical natural resources. 
10. German weapons restricted by lack of Nickel (Finland), etc no longer an issue. Chromium (Balkans/Turkey) most important of all also no longer an issue
11. Last but not least - all the world's suplply of Nerve Agents and nuclear weapons potentially arrayed against USSR, with Torun available in quantities to exterminate Soviet front line forces opposing Germany in the west.

Somewhere in there is a winning formula for a.) eliminating critcal Soviet Fuel reserves and taking fuel/gas and electicity production below war sustainable levels, b.) augmenting offensives capable of re-taking the Ukraine and western Russia to cripple food and fuel production, c.) creating unsustainable hardship on the Soviet people and Army to point of either rebellion or surrender. 

I would pose a notion that major ground offensives if not successful initially because of the Soviet ground capability, would be succesful by virtue of forcing Soviets to account for invasion from the east beyond that allocated for Japan - and in fact would be vulnerable to invasion from the east by the western Allies. I would further pose that once the combined western allies gained control of the air that Soviet mobility would be greatly hampered to point of being vulnerable to major attacks on the ground from the west.

All the above is strictly my opinion and you are free to take shots at any of the assumptions. Of course the biggest assumption of all is whether US and Commonwealth troops would fight alonside Germany with Nazi party in place.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2012)

If we take Germany as a ally, what about the rest of the Axis ? Like Japan?

How is any of this going to be sold to the VOTING public, in the USA and Commonwealth, and the troops from that voting pulic.

I think we've all heard of " The shot heard around the world" from the American revolution . 

I think the Allied alliance with Germany would result in a WTF, heard around the world, the Allies would have their own rebellion to worry about. At least votes of no confidence in several parliments, and votes for impeachment in the USA.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2012)

Tyrod - I don't think the post made any reference to political issues. It simply posed that the powerful Soviet Union could either be defeated or prevail against combined Germany, Commonwealth and US armies. Politically speaking Hitler and Nazi Party would be gone as minimum conditions.

As to question regarding what about Japan? It probably would have suffered defeat even faster if the combined Allies also deployed many heretofore unallocated reserves from Continental US to eastern Pacific/Korea and Aleutians, along with more resources to CBI.

While the Commonwealth was pretty much maxed out re: Production and potential reserves - the US was just getting into high gear in 1944 and actually throttled way back in late 1944.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 19, 2012)

Hoju2k said:


> Care to name those "decisive" defeats? For the ground warfare, only the surrender of the Stalingrad pocket could be classified as decisive, but that's actually more a 1942 than 1943 thing. What about the air?



Well Kursk has to stand out as the single greatest disaster that saw Germany permanently on the defensive losing the initiative in the east, no?



Hoju2k said:


> Wrong, not only was not "vastly greater", but actually smaller.



The feel free to show me the factory pouring out tanks at the same rate as the T 34 alone (nevermind the rest).
If you want to talk about aircraft production then the Il 2 tops any best numbers the Germans make.

Double the number of tanks three times the number of aircraft approx 4 times tyhe number of artilliary pieces I think are the stats.



Hoju2k said:


> That's ridiculous, as they have more than that (655) by 10 June 1944, _and only on the Western Front_.



Actually is it not.
I should have been clearer, 520 was the peak number servicable available at any one time _on the eastern front_ 
(this is all supposed to relate to the EF, right?)
Yes I know the number is from Wiki but it is referenced.




Hoju2k said:


> Don't think it says all, but says a lot...



Well it's thankfully a free country, here in the UK Europe. 

......in large part thanks to those T-34's which had a weekly production level in 1943 which was around 60% of that number in 1943.
I think that illustrates the vast gulf in war output going on.


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 19, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Well Kursk has to stand out as the single greatest disaster that saw Germany permanently on the defensive losing the initiative in the east, no


No, not by a long shot.





> The feel free to show me the factory pouring out tanks at the same rate as the T 34 alone (nevermind the rest).
> If you want to talk about aircraft production then the Il 2 tops any best numbers the Germans make.


That's great. Of course, I could compare the soviet production of submarines against Germany's, and conclude that the "industrial output" of the SU was "vastly inferior", but that would be equally ridiculous. Fact is, partly to LL, the soviets were able to focus more in "military" products, but it is impossible to separate civilian of military production during a war, as most of the latter is essential to achieve the former.
Still, you were wrong on that.






> Actually is it not.
> I should have been clearer, 520 was the peak number servicable available at any one time _on the eastern front_
> (this is all supposed to relate to the EF, right?)
> Yes I know the number is from Wiki but it is referenced.


That number (actually 522) I guess comes from Jentz (great source), but I suspect that the figures for the June or July should be higher, as there was not much action then. But he didn't gave the figures for the months of June, July and August, so I can't be sure.
Anyway, what do you think it would happen with all those Panthers on other fronts, if the Germans are only fighting the USSR?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Tyrod - I don't think the post made any reference to political issues. It simply posed that the powerful Soviet Union could either be defeated or prevail against combined Germany, Commonwealth and US armies. Politically speaking Hitler and Nazi Party would be gone as minimum conditions..


 Clausewitz said war is a expression of politics by other means. You really can't separate war and politics, particuliarly in a democracy.

If you can get the people to swallow having Germany as a ally, why not Japan too. Japan wasn't exactly best buddies with Russia, i'm sure they'd be delighted to help.
After taking on Germany as a ally after their excesses in western Europe, why would there be any difference in just accepting Japan too?


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 19, 2012)

Hoju2k said:


> No, not by a long shot.



Well we'll agree to disagree on that.
In my view Kursk illustrated the EF writ large.
Russia could easily absorb afford the losses Germany couldn't.
The 'only win with the help of General winter' war specialists had become masters of the summer war.

Like I said Germany could still enjoy occasional relief through periodic small scale tactical 'wins' but never anything significant and strategic after that point.
The initiative was lost never to return.
In 1943 (and it is debateable whether in fact the looming catastrophic loss was blindingly obvious from winter 1941).



Hoju2k said:


> That's great. Of course, I could compare the soviet production of submarines against Germany's, and conclude that the "industrial output" of the SU was "vastly inferior", but that would be equally ridiculous.



So, are you saying the specifics of tank production, artilliary combat aircraft do not make fair comparison?
Surely they especially are about as utterly relevant as it gets to the EF (whereas U-boat production is not).



Hoju2k said:


> what do you think it would happen with all those Panthers on other fronts, if the Germans are only fighting the USSR?



In 1944/45?
They be swept away by the tide of Russian armour.
A total of 6,000 Panthers verses 50 000+ T 34's alone......nevermind the J/IS2s, the Su's etc etc?



Hoju2k said:


>



Seriously?

Come on, you surely know better that that.
It's just a discussion, a silly one to some extent I grant you 
(afterall in the cold war years all the western powers were lined up against Russia and there was a dangerous opponent out in the east for them too......and nobody could have been certain of the result - with exception of the end of civilisation as we know it - had it come to a general conflict) 
and the notion of the western allies joining in with Hitler's Germany is rather farcical 
(with an underlying element of offense well truly in there....fight along side the engineers of WW2 the holocaust those responsible for the deaths of several members of so many of our familes, I don't think so) 
but still, there's no need to start getting bummed pi$$y about it.


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 19, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Well we'll agree to disagree on that.
> In my view Kursk illustrated the EF writ large.
> Russia could easily absorb afford the losses Germany couldn't.
> The 'only win with the help of General winter' war specialists had become masters of the summer war.
> ...


Kursk was no disaster for the Germans (unless one think that a successful conclusion of the offensive would have serious consequences for the war in the East-I don't). The losses were not that great for them, and the ratio against the Soviet's was in line with have been so far (much bigger for the the Red Army), so it didn't have any consequences on the overall balance of forces. The front also did not change. So it can't be considered as "decisive", unless only by what could have been the result of a German victory. But this is mere speculation.

That the German Army stayed (most of the time) on the defensive from then on, was the result of the force ratio, that was as heavily against them before Zitadelle as it was after it. The only reason that the Germans could mount the offensive was that the Soviets decided to stay on the defensive.




> So, are you saying the specifics of tank production, artilliary combat aircraft do not make fair comparison?
> Surely they especially are about as utterly relevant as it gets to the EF (whereas U-boat production is not).


Fair? depends on what one wants to prove with that. Countries adapts their production on their needs. Germany needed a lot of submarines, Soviets don't. But if you want to play in this silly scenario, you can't argue that, with the changed conditions, the aims of the production of Germany would be the same.
By the way, Germany produced a lot more of trucks than the USSR during the war, and this category is pretty relevant for the EF. Without LL, I the Soviets would need to make a lot more trucks than they historically did, and that should have an effect on the other (tanks f.e.) products.





> In 1944/45?
> They be swept away by the tide of Russian armour.
> A total of 6,000 Panthers verses 50 000+ T 34's alone......nevermind the J/IS2s, the Su's etc etc?



Quoting you "Seriously?": At no point of the war there were 50000 T-34's vs 6000 Panthers, and of course, if you add all the Soviets AFV produced against only one (and not even the most numerous) German model, the picture looks pretty unbalanced. The real ratio, IIRC, between Soviet/German AFV production, was less than two to one.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2012)

Good argument, Bill...pretty much along the lines that I was thinking.



drgondog said:


> ...I would pose a notion that major ground offensives if not successful initially because of the Soviet ground capability, would be succesful by virtue of forcing Soviets to account for invasion from the east beyond that allocated for Japan - and in fact would be vulnerable to invasion from the east by the western Allies. *I would further pose that once the combined western allies gained control of the air that Soviet mobility would be greatly hampered* to point of being vulnerable to major attacks on the ground from the west...


I think the Red army would be in for a serious round of hurt courtesy of the Allied GA effort, which had great success in tearing the Germans apart.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 20, 2012)

> The real ratio, IIRC, between Soviet/German AFV production, was less than two to one.



Links in Post 42 give a ration better than 2:1 (106025:46846) or 2.26:1

According to Zaloga.

AFV (T&SPG) Strength
Germany (total) / Germany(EF) / USSR)total)

6/41: 5639 / 3671 / 28800
3/4: 5087 / 1503 / 6690
5/42: 5847 / 3981 / 8190
11/42: 7798 / 3133 /6940
3/43: 5625 / 2374 / 9200
8/43: 7703 / 2555 / 8200
6/44: 9148 / 4740 / 13600
9/44: 10563 / 4186 / 13400
10/44: 11005 / 4917 / 13900
11/44: 12236 / 5202 / 16000
12/44: 13175 / 4785 / 17000
1/45: 13362 / 4881 / 16200


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 20, 2012)

And so we've discussed Germany's renewed and strengthened effort against the Red Army but where do the Allied ground forces stand in this scenario?

Where's Patton's 3rd army and will it move to bolster the Wehrmacht's Panzer forces, what about the Rumanian Bulgarians? Will the British and Commonwealth troops commit or will they move to the Pacific theater to strengthen the war effort there?

Have the Germans agreed to move out of Norway and Denmark as well as other occupied western territories?

There's alot of questions here...lol


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Clausewitz said war is a expression of politics by other means. You really can't separate war and politics, particuliarly in a democracy.
> 
> If you can get the people to swallow having Germany as a ally, why not Japan too. Japan wasn't exactly best buddies with Russia, i'm sure they'd be delighted to help.
> After taking on Germany as a ally after their excesses in western Europe, why would there be any difference in just accepting Japan too?



One of us has badly mangled the concept of this thread.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 20, 2012)

The concept of this thread is totally unrealistic. The origional concept sprang from Himmlers mind, what else needs to be said.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2012)

I would say that a thread like this needs a sense of humor...?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 20, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The concept of this thread is totally unrealistic. The origional concept sprang from Himmlers mind, what else needs to be said.


Technically, any speculation/discussion/hypothetical scenarios that deviate from what actually happened can be considered totally unrealistic.

But humans by nature are curious, and so there must always be asked: "What If..."


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 20, 2012)

It's been posted in this thread that the concentration camp workers who worked on the V2 were treated a little more gently than the usual inmate, when just a brief look at the number of deaths says different.
Nobody said much of anything counter to that.


Now I get raked over the coals for introducing politics into the equation?
I can see the humor in that.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> It's been posted in this thread that the concentration camp workers who worked on the V2 were treated a little more gently than the usual inmate, when just a brief look at the number of deaths says different.
> Nobody said much of anything counter to that.
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't raked you over the coals, nor have I gotten upset or happy about any discussions regarding slave laborers treatment in this thread. If you accept Dave's or my comments as raking you over the coals you have led a sensitive and gentle life - and I apologise for hurting your feelings.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 20, 2012)

No hurt feelings here.
But my sense of humor doesn't extend to revisionist propagada on slave labor and concentration camps.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 20, 2012)

There wasn't any "raking of the coals" intended (nor implied) in my comment, nor have I seen any "revisionist propeganda" so far.

But for the sake of continuity of the thread, let's say that a condition imposed on the Germans for aid would be to immediately close all concentration camps, release all forced labor and remove (and arrest) all leaders responsible for such. 

In essence, deal with a German government much along the lines of what existed under Admiral Doenitz.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 20, 2012)

"... I would say that a thread like this needs a sense of humor...?"

I TRY .... I REALLY TRY:

".... Some people here want to paint me as the idiot who thinks against the majority and it's wrong, but I'm certainly not this type. "

".... Anyone who thinks the allies would would turn a blind eye to the known crimes of the Nazi regime, and then fight beside them, is a idiot, or Himmler, or both."



MM


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 21, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Links in Post 42 give a ration better than 2:1 (106025:46846) or 2.26:1
> 
> According to Zaloga.
> 
> ...



OK, I was going from memory. Still, slightly above 2:1 is a long way from 50000:6000 (or worse, as was suggested).
Interesting thing about those strength numbers, the moment when the Soviets had the better ratio (almost 8:1, and that moment also coincides with their better strength ratio for the Air Forces), things were not going much well for them. AFV, Aircraft strength ratios don't tell the whole story.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 21, 2012)

Production 1941-45

T-34 - 36,119
T-34/85 - 29,430

Total production - 65,549

Panzer V Panther - 6,557



> 50000:6000 (or worse, as was suggested)



This is production numbers NOT what was on the battlefield.


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 21, 2012)

Milosh said:


> This is production numbers NOT what was on the battlefield.



Yes, I am aware of that. You have to pay more attention.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 21, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... I would say that a thread like this needs a sense of humor...?"
> 
> I TRY .... I REALLY TRY:
> 
> ...



Get out of my lap Michael, it's heavy already.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 21, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Production 1941-45
> 
> T-34 - 36,119
> T-34/85 - 29,430
> ...



Yes indeed.

But the point I was making by referring to these production totals (for just those 2 types alone) is that they illustrate the point very well.
In terms of the weapons used on the EF (and as far as I can see this applies in every single catagory) Russian arms vastly outnumber German.
Not forgetting the vast manpower differential.
Or the fact that by 1944 Russia is on a growing tide with huge momentum in these things for Germany the reverse in every practical sense applies.
It is the Russians that in 1944 are developing a growing pool of experienced combat units whilst German units are continually being worn out (sometimes in the most literal sense) decimated and reborn 
(with all that entailed at this stage of the war = units often with less men than than normal standard reducing levels of training experience).

Germany has lost on the EF by 1944.
It really is as simple as that.

One can cheat in this 'what if......' with the ludicrous notion of fresh, well trained well equipped American British Commonwealth troops coming along to plug the widening developing holes in the German forces but that is such an absurd position to take.
Even the Germans couldn't pull it off at the time (as those tragic brave July 1944 bomb-plotters found out as they tried to get any sort of encouragement from the allies with not one whiff of any interest). 

But in the terms of the original posting it is supposed to be 'what if the western allies stopped allied with Germany, and all now against Russia, in 1944?'.
So all the damage loss up until 31st Dec 1943 in the west at sea etc etc has already happened......as well as all the lend lease supplying the Russians.

I just don't see how anyone could reasonably state, even in those circumstances that the Americans British would ever fight alongside the German forces - far too many war-crimes against their men nevermind the rest have been committed.
Or that any other outcome except the German total defeat would occur.
Russia was by then just far too strong no amount of interesting prototypes (even with better raw materials in their production) can squeeze the 3, 4 or 5yrs brand new types often need to come on stream properly (including the whole support infrastructures training the development of proper tactics for their use).


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 21, 2012)

Milosh said:


> How was this ~25% increase in speed obtained?



V1 ones grew in speed to about 485mph in late january to 493 Feb/March with some examples reaching 515mph. See The V2 and the German, Russian and American Rocket Program By C. Reuter, sometimes available on google books. The increase was achieved via a series of increases in fuel injection pressure and timming precision. The Germans basically didn't have time to get these units into mass production or to launch them at near enough targets.

The two of the three required Ewald II midcourse guidance stations had also just about been completed: the V1 was on the verge of becomming a 515mph guided cruise missile


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 21, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Yes indeed.
> Germany has lost on the EF by 1944.
> It really is as simple as that.




I don't think so. As I already presented in a few posts before, the author of Normandy Crucible puts a good thesis that the D-Day (and German preparations for it) was the determinant engagement in the Allied victory in Europe.

In my opinion, despite you having specified Eastern Front, you are doing the mistake of try see the Eastern Front as an isolated conflict of *World * War II, when in fact, not only the war being fought by the Germans against the Western Allies, but also the wars in Africa, Mediterranean and in the Pacific affected what was going on in Eastern Europe. You need the Chaos Theory to analyze alternative scenarios like this one. And in fact, there are intangibles to be considerated (i.e intelligence services), and so a definitive answer never will be possible.

Personally, letting intables and politics apart, if Himmler's proposal was aproved before D-Day, I think this premature "NATO" would have a favourable chance of keep the Soviets inside their borders, or at least out of Germany. The massive material support for Germany, together with ground and specially Anglo-American air power would make the human and economic costs very high for the Soviets, costs they could not have been willing to pay.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 21, 2012)

Ah, and the Manhattan Project should definately not be desconsiderated in such a scenario.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 21, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Concentration camp Mittelbau-Dora, 60,000 inmates passed thru it, 20,000 died, 9,000 died due to exhaustion and collapse. 350 hanged, 200 for sabotage.
> Is that enough "Hollywood hype" for you Siegfrei ??
> 
> 
> I later realized i'd left out something important, Mittelbrau-Dora was only one of the camps suppling the V-2 program with laborers, and only in operation about a year.



It's obviously not enough hype for you. Your rhetoric doesn't detract from my point. If everyone had of lived or died at Mittlebau-Dora it wouldn't make much difference to the impressed or indentured labour system simply because it was not representative of the overall impressed labour situation. I use the word impressed rather than slave labour as this was not chattel slavery and there was an intention to release indentured or impressed labour when it became possible to do so for what was surely most instances. There was planty of hope for these workers. Many had liberties such as movement in the town during certain hours of the day. In a big factory conditions could be poor in a small one of 20 people its could be quite good. These were the people working in production. Dora was an late war SS run underground superfactory designed to produce a range of weapons and aircraft, not just V2.

So the overall system was far more banal, survivable and productive than you are prepared to admit. It had little to do with death camps. If you want to know how you ended up in a forced worker in a factory or as a forced farm hand; ask youself what might happened to a Serb who handed out anti German pamphlets at a railway station. I know a person who ended up in the system that way. 

Deaths at Dora were a late war event and seem to have been concentrated around the excavations of the bomb proof structure rather than production workers, this excavation work was at best indifferent and it seem likely deliberatly muderous. Also included at least 1500 deaths from Allied bombing in from only one series of raids. Had these have been impressed German workers (who also had no choice but to partake in war production) they would be counted as victims of allied bombardment rather than Nazism. Also included must be many who perished in forced evacuation marches as the allies advanced. As it was many were skilled French POW's, something clearly against the Geneva convention which allows forced labour only in non munitions related industry. 

But I get back to my main point, which you wish to sequay into a holicaust story. The impressed and indentrued labour forces productivity and quality was not at all bad considering the limited materials, training and skill they had. Nor were they subject to starvation or daily beatings etc etc which would never have allowed them to assemble the devices required of them though I have no doubt any sabotage would likely be dealt with by summary execution.

AFAIKT the labour (Ukranian women) was at least 90% as effective as "free" German wokers.

I should also add many factories used little or no forced labour at all. Junkers itself for instance.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 21, 2012)

*CHAOS THEORY* ....is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps......

.... Chaotic behavior has been observed in the laboratory in a variety of systems, including electrical circuits,[14] lasers, oscillating chemical reactions, fluid dynamics, and mechanical and magneto-mechanical devices, as well as computer models of chaotic processes. Observations of chaotic behavior in nature include changes in weather, the dynamics of satellites in the solar system, the time evolution of the magnetic field of celestial bodies, population growth in ecology, the dynamics of the action potentials in neurons, and molecular vibrations. There is some controversy over the existence of chaotic dynamics in plate tectonics and in economics.[15][16][17]
Chaos theory is currently being applied to medical studies of epilepsy, specifically to the prediction of seemingly random seizures by observing initial conditions.[Wikipedia - FWIW - ]

Professional soldiers _already_ understand Chaos Theory, Jenisch, it rules the way they operate in during wartime and maneuvers. 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 21, 2012)

"... If you want to know how you ended up in a forced worker in a factory or as a forced farm hand; ask youself what might happened to a Serb who handed out anti German pamphlets at a railway station ..."

Or the sad misfortune to be a Russian POW. Oh well, the Soviets did it right back at them in Siberia ... 

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 21, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> *CHAOS THEORY* ....Professional soldiers _already_ understand Chaos Theory, Jenisch, it rules the way they operate in during wartime and maneuvers. MM


 
Logic. The problem is some people here don't seems to understand it for the proposed scenario.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 21, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Ah, and the Manhattan Project should definately not be desconsiderated in such a scenario.



Again you're forgetting the Manhatten Project was infiltrated by Soviet spies.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 21, 2012)

"..... Logic. The problem is some people here don't seems to understand it for the proposed scenario."

You mean _your_ scenario ...



MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 21, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> It's obviously not enough hype for you. Your rhetoric doesn't detract from my point. If everyone had of lived or died at Mittlebau-Dora it wouldn't make much difference to the impressed or indentured labour system simply because it was not representative of the overall impressed labour situation. I use the word impressed rather than slave labour as this was not chattel slavery and there was an intention to release indentured or impressed labour when it became possible to do so for what was surely most instances. There was planty of hope for these workers. Many had liberties such as movement in the town during certain hours of the day. In a big factory conditions could be poor in a small one of 20 people its could be quite good. These were the people working in production. Dora was an late war SS run underground superfactory designed to produce a range of weapons and aircraft, not just V2.
> 
> So the overall system was far more banal, survivable and productive than you are prepared to admit. It had little to do with death camps. If you want to know how you ended up in a forced worker in a factory or as a forced farm hand; ask youself what might happened to a Serb who handed out anti German pamphlets at a railway station. I know a person who ended up in the system that way.
> 
> ...



You seem to have a fixation on Ukranian women.

I don't know where to begin.

20% of the Germans work force was slave labor, forced labor, 25 % in 1944. Different classes of workers had different privileges.

A for instance Polish workers made up at peak 2.8 million of the work force, they of course had to wear a P on the outer clothing at all times, they had a curfew, could not use public transportation, or facilities, could not attend German churches, could own no personel property ( bicycle, money, cigerette lighters, tools, etc.) earned a fraction of what a German worker earned, had a 7 day week, could not marry without permission, and if they entered the German gene pool, they were dead.

The eastern workers ( Russian, Ukranian, etc) had to wear a E? at all times and were in a different catagory. They comprised up to 5.5 million of the workforce at it's peak. They were kept in camps, only out under guard. So they didn't get to participate in the utopia that the Poles did.

I'm tired of typing.

I've seen a similiar spin put on the slave/forced labor situation before, I used to work with a guy who was a member of the KKK and a Nazi apologist in his spare time.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 21, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Again you're forgetting the Manhatten Project was infiltrated by Soviet spies.


 
This didn't prevented the US from having the capability of nuke the Soviets.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 21, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> This didn't prevented the US from having the capability of nuke the Soviets.



You've never heard of sabotage ?


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Again you're forgetting the Manhatten Project was infiltrated by Soviet spies.



One might say that the the Manhatten project was run by Soviet spies so deeply infiltrated was it it by sympathisers.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 22, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> the V1 was on the verge of becomming a 515mph guided cruise missile



Perhaps so.....but once deployed in numbers the proximity fuze had blunted the capability of the V1 to the point where its impact was enormously degraded (which I would say was a fair description of the Antwerp attack using V1 and the second half of the London assault).
The success rate against the V1 late in the war was quite incredible (almost 80% success being quoted). 

It is worth noting that the Soviet spy ring in the USA had in the mid 1940's not just supplied information to the Russians about the prox fuze but had also given them a complete working example.

Given the number of Soviet sympathisers with access to the highest tech secrets in the USA UK at that time I think it extremely likely the Russians would have gotten sound information on, if not actual working examples of, practically all the goodies the western allies had coming (as indeed the post war record shows was pretty much the case - and it ought to be remembered that this was often in conjunction with their own work in these fields, in places they may not have been as far along as the US, UK or Germany but these subjects were by no means unknown to them - examples would be that Russia had her own jet radar research during the war wholly independent of any one else's).
It should also be rememered Germany was also thoroughly penetrated by Russian spies too (the shelling of German troops as they waited to go from their start points at Kursk ought to have been proof enough of that in 1943). 

But regardless of that, between the info gleened in the west (and the material Soviet spys undoubtedly uncovered in Germany) there's every reason to presume that Russia would not be too long in having her own prox fuses between the Russian 'forests' of 'ordinary' AAA and any emerging VT fuzed AAA it's likely they too would also have been able to neutralise the V1 (although given its short range the distances involved to strike Russia in 1944 I wonder how useful it would have been as a tactical missile).

(interesting question, is there any record of the V1 V2 being used on the EF tactically? I've never seen such a thing myself so far)


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> You've never heard of sabotage ?


 
Perhaps. But for every action there would be a response. I also don't think the Soviets would have the power to destroy the project, probably only delayed it. Also, without the war with Germany, the counter-intelligence services of the US, Britain and the Abwehr would make the life of the NKVD more harder, while being more capable of extract data from the Soviets.

Anyway, there's still the conventional bombing campaign, and this one would be hard for the Russians respond. They would need many efforts to counter it hiting vital oil fields and other targets, while at the same time trying to maintein their tactical aviation (not something much different from what the Luftwaffe suffered historically). Counter the USAAF, RAF and Luftwaffe would be obviously not something easy for them. Just the German jets with high quality alloys and well trained crews would be something the Russians would simply have no effective answer.

Another consideration is the Japanese. Since in this scenario the Soviets would be considerated the major treat, I think it's fair to say that Japan would have the possibility of make peace and join in this alliance as well. If the Soviets were so strong like some here want to say and would try turn Europe in a Communist state, the Japanese would be willing to help counter them. It would be better have Japan as an ally than enemy in such a case. The Japanese also would enjoy much more cooperate with Germany and the West than with the Communists, since they would enter in an Alliance between Hitler and the West.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 22, 2012)

".... I think it's fair to say that Japan would have the possibility of make peace and join in this alliance as well."

After Pearl Harbor ...... hardly.

MM


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2012)

Then of course after the allies accepting Germany and Japan as partners, and giving them knowledge and access to some of our deepest secrets, we all know what Germany and Japan would do after defeating Russia. 

Which is exactly what anyone at the time would suspect.

Even Harry Turtledove couldn't make a novel he could sell out of this scenario.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2012)

I think the question was "could USSR be defeated if US and Commonwealth joined with Germany".

You have to suspend disbelief that such a circumstance is possible...


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... I think it's fair to say that Japan would have the possibility of make peace and join in this alliance as well."
> 
> After Pearl Harbor ...... hardly.
> 
> MM


 
I think it depends. If what was in game was the security of Europe against red domination, the alliance with Japan would be much better than risk Stalin take the continet. Just a peace treaty with Japan would be already safisfactory. This is on the basis that Stalin's armed forces were the unstopable suggernaut that some here belive, which I don't.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Then of course after the allies accepting Germany and Japan as partners, and giving them knowledge and access to some of our deepest secrets, we all know what Germany and Japan would do after defeating Russia.



I can only see this alliance existing without imperialist intentions. Germany would have to cooperate not to defeat, but to keep Stalin inside his frontiers. And for this Hitler would need to be assassined or die, with a new German government willing to cooperate taking over. I think those would be the most viable ways. Cooperation with Hitler would only be the case if enthusiasm for keep Stalin out was really high, like if Stalin wanted to conquer the whole Europe. Even so, Hitler probably would have to accept some limitations.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2012)

If I suspend commonsense and accept this then there still are some questions.
This has to be carried out by people, not unthinking machines.

Somone suggested if we accepted the Germans as allies, we would remove the Nazi party from the leadership. How long would that transition take? How efficient would the the German forces be durring the transition and after this. If they were left in place, how effective would they be with western allies looking over their shoulders, and knowing there would be a accounting later.

And i'm sure the Russians would patiently stand by, and do nothing, while this transition, in whatever form, takes place.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

> =tyrodtom;871591]Somone suggested if we accepted the Germans as allies, we would remove the Nazi party from the leadership. How long would that transition take? How efficient would the the German forces be durring the transition and after this. If they were left in place, how effective would they be with western allies looking over their shoulders, and knowing there would be a accounting later.



That's just one possibility. The core of this question is simple: a necessity to prevent Stalin from conquering Europe. In order to achive this, there would be no time to loss. Both the Nazis and Western Allies would be willing to mutually cooperate.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Both the Nazis and Western Allies would be willing to mutually cooperate.



I was in the USAF and US Army for a combined 8 years, and during that time i'd been on co-operative assignments with every NATO, andv SEATO ally America had, and the mutual co-operation was far from perfect then, even in the 60s-70s. 

That instant mutual co-operation is the most unrealistic part of this scenario.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I was in the USAF and US Army for a combined 8 years, and during that time i'd been on co-operative assignments with every NATO, andv SEATO ally America had, and the mutual co-operation was far from perfect then, even in the 60s-70s.
> 
> That instant mutual co-operation is the most unrealistic part of this scenario.


 
I understand.

While the cooperation could have brought it's problems, material help for Germany and the massive use of Anglo-Amerian air power and ground forces for a defensive line in Europe would still be unrealistic in your view?

In my understanding, being signed before Bragation, the peace would allow Germany to immediately start to receive material help from the Allies, and start to move all it's military and industrial potential against the Soviets. While this was happening, the Western Allies are already in European soil preparing air fields and everything for a defensive line. They were also already attacking the Baku oil fields and preparing their air power to be deployed against the Red Army and it's air arm. Even with the Germans defeated, the Russians would be already hurt, and then would find a new defensive line with fresh American and British forces waiting for them. Such a front would be extended until the English Channel. The Allies would have flexibility to fight the Soviets, even in counter-offensives, since their lines would be much extended.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Feb 22, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The core of this question is simple: a necessity to prevent Stalin from conquering Europe.



Wouldn't the combined military power that both the US and British/Commonwealth armed forces had achieved by 1945, as well as other minor allies be a deterrent enough to keep the USSR at bay in Europe without the necessity of involving the Nazi state?
This interesting but rather fruitless fantasy IMHO has limitless options like a chess game, a good chess game.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2012)

In the real world the Germans never got along well with the partners they had, it seems they only had them so they had someone to blame their failures on.

I can see this forced alliance breaking up real quick, maybe ending up in more of a disaster for Europe than what happened in real history.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> In the real world the Germans never got along well with the partners they had, it seems they only had them so they had someone to blame their failures on.
> 
> I can see this forced alliance breaking up real quick, maybe ending up in more of a disaster for Europe than what happened in real history.



I see. So, the problem seems to have been more in organization than military potential, which the latter was obviously pro-Allied in my view.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2012)

The potential is there, but it's about as realistic as a alliance with the klingon empire.

And the Germans themselves commited the excesses that made it impossible. At that point in history, there were probably not many allied soldiers that would have obeyed orders for such a alliance to have a chance. Too much risk of a widespread mutiny.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The potential is there, but it's about as realistic as a alliance with the klingon empire.
> 
> And the Germans themselves commited the excesses that made it impossible. At that point in history, there were probably not many allied soldiers that would have obeyed orders for such a alliance to have a chance. Too much risk of a widespread mutiny.



Yeah. 

I think the author of the topic wants to know the potential of the Soviet armed forces vs the other countries in '44. That being the case, I would suggest him to end this topic and create a specific one about this subject in the WWII board. 

Personally, I'm not much in discussions like this anymore, because you have little or none historical lessons from them.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 22, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Perhaps so.....but once deployed in numbers the proximity fuze had blunted the capability of the V1 to the point where its impact was enormously degraded (which I would say was a fair description of the Antwerp attack using V1 and the second half of the London assault).



The interception problem for the V1 was simple, the allied invasion had reduced its launching points to only a few which meant that it was possible to concentrate AA defenses and Barage balloons to a narrow stretch of coast between the launch sites and the possible targets.

I rather suspect the success of the Proximity fuse/SCR-584 combo is as exaggerated as any other shoot down claim. The engineers and corporations that built these things had reason spout triumphalism. The expenditure of resources to counter the V1 wqas enormous.

A 515mph V2 (that's about 240 m/s about 1/3rd the velocity of the shell fired at it) is a rather more difficult target than a 380-400mph V2 (that's 160-180m/s). It is exposed to 33% less possible fire for instance and any aiming error error is magnified by a factor of 33% which leads to an exponential decrease in burst effectivness. Morover no known to me allied aircraft, jet or piston could've intercepted it.

Many V1's also received a dog leg course guidance system, which avoided some of the AAA and prevented back tracking.

On a good day the ammunition fired to bring down a V1 was probably worth more in material and dollars than the V1 itself if you count the lower end of the claims (about 100 rounds per V1 destroyed) It's said that if a V1 hit a farmers field and destroyed his vegatable crop it had earned its value. The allies lost several hundred aircraft in seeking to shoot them down or destroy their launch sites. It is regarded as a very cost effective weapon.

The introduction of a guidance system would have puts its accuracy ahead of Bomber Command at night at all ranges short of a direct Oboe attack (ie not maker bombing of Oboe marled targets) and on a par with US high altitude raids except on days of very good visibillity. The potential was immense.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 22, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The interception problem for the V1 was simple, the allied invasion had reduced its launching points to only a few which meant that it was possible to concentrate AA defenses and Barage balloons to a narrow stretch of coast between the launch sites and the possible targets.



That's not entirely the whole story though.
The LW did air-launch over 1000 of them.
But again between radar directed VT fused AAA and the allied nightfighters that can hardly be labelled a great success either.

I'm not denying the V1 was a very inexpensive system (I've seen a price of £125 a throw for them) and undoubtedly to be on the receiving end of one that gets through is to have the mother of all bad days but I just find it hard to see it as having much effect to the strategic situation (given the actual history of it.....and coupled with the spy networks doing everything they could to spoof the Germans in aiming targetting).

I think 'revenge weapon' was just about as accurate (if unwittingly) a description as it gets.
A dose of revenge, a lashing out as best as they could........ but doing absolutely nothing to avert the dreadful looming utter catastrophe that the nazi leadership had unleashed brought down on the heads of the German people.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2012)

American physicist Freeman Dyson had this to say about the V2 program.
" Those of us who were seriously engaged in the war were very grateful to Wernher Von Braun. We knew that each V2 cost as much to produce as a high performance fighter aircraft. We knew that German forces on the fighting fronts were in desperate need of aircraft, and the V2 were doing us no military damage. From our point of view the V2 program was almost as good as if Hitler had adopted a program of unilateral disarmament"

The V1 and V2 programs combined cost more that the Manhatten project. Each V2 launch took more than 30 tons of potatoes to make the alcohol for the fuel, this is while Germans were short of food. More people were killed in the V2 construction, than by it's warhead.

All the V1 and V2 accomplished was giving the American and Russian space, and missile programs a leg up AFTER the war was over.



All the V1 and V2 programs did was add many nails to the 3rd Reichs coffin. Now that IS something to bragg about.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2012)

For those interested in this topic, I suggest reading the books "Fox on the Rhine" and "Fox at the Front'. Of course they are not realistic, but they pretty much go about this topic.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 22, 2012)

> The Germans basically didn't have time to get these units into mass production or to launch them at near enough targets.



So how many of these uber Fieseler Fi 103 were actually launched at targets?



> Morover no known to me allied aircraft, jet or piston could've intercepted it.



The Meteor F.3 was available from late 1944/early 1945. The short nacelles of the F.1 limited top speed to 500mph IAS, so there is no reason not to believe the F.3 could not achieve 515mph to intercept the Fieseler Fi 103.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 22, 2012)

Found this link, Allied Missiles - soc.history.war.world-war-ii | Google Groups , when looking for info on the Ewald II midcourse guidance stations.

eunometic = Siegfried?


----------



## cimmex (Feb 23, 2012)

If the V1 was so useless, why did the Brits fear it so much and spent so much effort for intercepting, shoot it down or attacking the launch sites? I think they spent a lot of money to do this
cimmex


----------



## bada (Feb 23, 2012)

Milosh said:


> The Meteor F.3 was available from late 1944/early 1945. The short nacelles of the F.1 limited top speed to 500mph IAS, so there is no reason not to believe the F.3 could not achieve 515mph to intercept the Fieseler Fi 103.



Hello milosh just as info:
Actually, no it couldn't.
The F3 was still limited to 500mph and it's level flight max speed was 465. (report page 7 point54-page12 point90-page18 table)

See the RAF evaluation report from 04/1946 on Mike william's site. it gives a very good view about the early meteors and especially the difficulties the first gen jet 's producers had to overcome before the german aero tunnel data was used for production.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 23, 2012)

cimmex said:


> If the V1 was so useless, why did the Brits fear it so much and spent so much effort for intercepting, shoot it down or attacking the launch sites? I think they spent a lot of money to do this
> cimmex



Yes they did indeed invest a lot of AAA aircraft tackling the V1 threat.
But the point is that this was at a time in the war when (a) the allies could easily afford to do so and (b) the effect of the V1 was negligible on the overall strategic situation.
It was a problem of course, but more a nuisance for the nations (and a tragedy of course for those individuals suffering its effects when one got through).
It did absolutely nothing to change the course of the war.

The problem it had (like all the early missiles) was it's guidance system ensured it could not be used on point targets, so a big city was its usual destination.
Unfortunately it arrived at a time when the allies' AAA had just taken a huge leap forward with the cheap reliable VT proximity fuse being available in growing huge numbers, couple that with radar systems that were growing in maturity (both in terms of airbourne AAA fire control) and you start to see why by the end of the war the V1 was nothing like the threat the German military had hoped it would be or that it once was at the start of its campaign.

It's not that they are useless but that they do have limitations due to the tech being so immature.
Had the V1 been capable of greater accuracy (and some of this is also thanks to the false info XX spys were sending back to Germany) and being launched from a host of different directions (which relates to its accuracy range limitations) then it could have been much more of a problem.
The ability to alter course would have been useful - had the Germans used it on a large number of targets, but when you're simply sending them to London or Antwerp the vast majority of the time it does make your defences' job a lot easier.

If they had had them in numbers just 2 weeks earlier been able cover the southern ports of England then D-day would have been in serious trouble.
But this is largely to do with the almost total failure of the LW's reconnaissance.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 23, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> American physicist Freeman Dyson had this to say about the V2 program.
> 
> *1* " Those of us who were seriously engaged in the war were very grateful to Wernher Von Braun. We knew that each V2 cost as much to produce as a high performance fighter aircraft. We knew that German forces on the fighting fronts were in desperate need of aircraft, and the V2 were doing us no military damage. From our point of view the V2 program was almost as good as if Hitler had adopted a program of unilateral disarmament"
> 
> ...



Everyone of these statements is a miss-statement or has rational explanation.

Dyson sounds like one of those people who makes authorative pronoucements without studying that matter in depth.

I've numbered your quote in bold so I may answer it one by one.

*1* 

The V2 program did not reach the maturity it required to be a cost effective weapon, though that was only a few months away. Timming is everything and also the most diffcult of things to get right. The Nazis were only months away from turning the V2 into a very cost effective weapon. Reuter quotes the cost of a complete V2 production at 3750 hours after the 10,000th example. This is actually about 1/2 the cost of a high performance fighter when the costs of the fighter is considered inclusive of engine, guns, avionics (radio, radio navigation). One key change was the use of the mischduse (mixing plate) combustion chamber which replaced the 18 subchamber design with its labyrinth of plumbing, this design became neccessary after EMW chief rocket engine designe, Dr Walter Thiel, died along with his family after a RAF bomb hit his home. The subsitution of stainless steel by passivate aluminium and aluminium itself by pressed steel added further cost reductions. The fuel tank was to be made out of fibre reinforced plastic (tested in the stretched winged A4b) The V2's electronic analog computer, the first in the world, was ingeniously accurate and cheap: it provided a cheap way of obtaining precision.

Now it needs to be noted that the V2 required no expensive pilot to be trained, nor his rehabilation in hospital when he was injured or on an invalid pension when he was maimed nor the ongoing support of his grieving widow and children. I required no airfield to be maintained or defended, no air-sea rescue, no escort fighters, jamming aircraft. It hardly needed a clearing in the woods and the kind of support provided by a maintenance crew to an aircraft. No V2 launch site was ever discovered let alone destroyed.

The other thing that needs to be noted is in regards to accuracy. The LEV-3 guidance system consisted of two gyroscopes with potentiometer pickoffs and one PIGA acceleromter to measure missile speed and control missile cutoff at the required velocity. Excluding the effects of missile malfunction and the double cross espionge system it provided an CEP of 4.5km; and in practice the system got close to this. Sounds miserable but it is considerably better than Bomber Command managed under H2S or the USAAF under H2X on a cloudy day. LEV-3 was primitive but was an interim system only. It incidenly proved its value in putting America's first man in space and also its first satelite into orbit, a function of its simplicity. The LEV-3 was to be replaced by SG-66 or the SG-70 whch had which 3 gyros were on a stable 3 axis gimbal that allowed the inclusion of a lateral acceleromter to null out cross winds. The method is more accurate 'in terms of the gyroscope conditions and also included refinements such as a dithers applied to the gyros to improve accuracy by breaking stiction. F.K.Mueller, the inventor of accelerometer also had gaseous bearing gyros in the lab one of which went to see in a u-boats inertial guidance system. It's probably fair to assume a rentry accuracy of about 1km with dome degradation upon re-entry due to high altitude winds.

About 20% of V2 launches were with the Viktoria beam reiding system, this was a simple 2 dimensional azimuth only system and neglected the elevation trajectory of the missile. It cut lateral dispersion in half, while a doppler system cut range dispersion by 10%. One could say the CEP was now and elipse of lenth 4km and width 2k radious.

The long worked upon ultimate system was "vollzirkel" (full circle) which used a colimated 3D beam riding system backed up by combined doppler speed and transponder range cutoff. It was dimensioned to control the re-entry point to within only 300m. Again winds would have caused dispersal.

Hence the V2 Swith the SG66 inertial guidance type system should have an accuracy of just over 1km while the 'vollzirkel' system just over 300m (perhaps 1/2km of dispersion on a windy day). SG-66 was test flown while voll zirkel was, after 2 years of tests, being produced in its hoped for final form. There was a lot of trouble avoiding ground plane interference.

*2*

The claim that the V2 cost as much as the Manhatten project is also wrong. The claim is that it was as much a proportion of German GDP as the Manhatten project was of US GDP was the original claim. Even this is doubtfull.

If one factors in 'weapons systems' such as the B-29 or B-17, includes rather massive R+D costs, NACA wind tunnels, dead pilots, unit production costs and new factories (that haven't been amortised) then they also look extremely rediclously expensive.

One only nees to consider that had the RAF raid no succeded in delaying the V2 (it targeted the workers housing like many bomber command raids) and had some decisions been made differently the V2 might have been in serice considerably earlier. Had the storms that pevented any supplies raching shore for several days dueing the normandy landings come earlier and lasted longer the landing might have failed and the V2 come into its own.

The production targets, originally seen as 1000 units a month were pushed to 4000-5000 month by Hitler, which is why the Dora forced labour factory came into the picture.

The A4b, the 'winged V2 of which two were launched (one succesfully) had a range designed to reach Britain from Germany. Interesting was its accuracy which was to be 180m. It used a midcourse update system which used a Wassemann radar layed on its side with a modified IFF transponder for range, a dithering and frequency changing system was used for anti-jamming provision.

So, the V2, in its refined form was an cost effective and accurate system that could have economically delivered destruction to specified areas.

It was possibly the most sensibe use of funds. Admitedly it was too late, but only by about 6 months.

The Germans could have fairly comfortably thrown 2000 missiles a month out. At 4000 hours/missile then 25 people could produce 1 missile/month and 25,000 over 1000. It was an affordable concept. Throw 2000 of these at the Spitfire factory around Castle Bromwich and they are bound to have an effect.

It's also wrong to compare the cost effectiveness of a Lancaster against a V2, the German had little chance of opperating a bomber force big enough, they could however build thousands of V2 at less cost than opperating bomber command and those missiles would get through.

The opportunity cost, ie no developing a fielded SAM may have been the only cost.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 23, 2012)

".... If they had had them in numbers just 2 weeks earlier been able cover the southern ports of England then D-day would have been in serious trouble.
But this is largely to do with the almost total failure of the LW's reconnaissance."

Sobering thought. Failure of intelligence .... or masterful concealment .. 

MM


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 23, 2012)

Both I think Michael.

It is beyond question that the LW's reconnaisance had failed miserably in the lead-up to D-day and it took the arrival of the Arado 234 jet, actually a pre-production prototype - still using the trolley skid landing gear, to appear to correct his.....and interestingly once again it was just a matter of a week or two late.
If the Germans had been able to photograph large parts of Southern England - even accepting the widespread use of decoys - then at least some - a lot? - of the D-day mystery would have been revealed.

It is also undeniable that the allied side's intel work in WW2 was absolutely something masterful.
From the XX turned agent netword still supplying misinformation to the German command into spring 1945 (which had the V1 V2's aiming altered so they landed well away from anything vital).
To the genius that was Ultra.
It's actually true that Germany was one of the early digital computer pioneers - Konrad Zuse being their famous pioneer with his 'Z' computers....but I sure as hell know whose computers I'd rather have had which proved to be the more useful to the war effort.
Take a bow Bletchley Park personnel Alan Turing particularly.
They really were streets ahead and by most reckoning saved the world at least 2yrs additional agony in reaching the inevitable.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 23, 2012)

Siegfried only 6048 V2 were made, 3750 man hours at 10,000 is just a bs projection.

Nowhere did I say the V2 project cost more than the Manhatten project, I said the combined cost of the V1 AND V2 projects were more than the Manhatten Project. If you add in B-29 developement cost ( the 2nd most expensive allied project) It does almost equal. But you're comparing to successful allied programs, with 2 German failures.

Lets just compare the V1 and V2s targetting Antwerp, 4000 V1s, 1700 V2s, produced in Antwerp provence ( have to consider the whole provence, since only about 10% hit Antwerp itself) 3700 killed, 6000 injured. That by anyone's standards is a dismal failure.

It seems all your Nazi superweapons were just a few months or weeks from perfection, strange isn't it.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 23, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Siegfried
> 
> It seems all your Nazi superweapons were just a few months or weeks from perfection, strange isn't it.



The fun is just on this. One or other mistake from Hitler prevented the wonder weapons from defeat the Allies. =D

ironic mode/off


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 23, 2012)

well...


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 23, 2012)

I always thought the V2 program in particular was just a scam.

It was a ego trip for Von Brauhn, he just wanted his theories proven, his real interest was space. He saw a sucker to fund his research, and just looked the other way when confronted with more unpleasant aspects of his program.

For the SS it was all about money, they were getting rich. Everbody in the hierarchy knew the war was lost, they needed big money for afterward. How better to make a fortune but to have very cheap labor, and still be able to sell that labor cheaper than anyone else.

Where did all that money go? In secret Swiss bank accounts of course. That's probably where a lot of ODESSA's funds came from after the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 24, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> It was a ego trip for Von Brauhn, he just wanted his theories proven, his real interest was space. He saw a sucker to fund his research, and just looked the other way when confronted with more unpleasant aspects of his program.



I would not necessarily call it an ego trip, but I agree with you. The only thing he cared about was his research and the getting into space. He did not care however, what he had to do to accomplish it, and the lives of those that had to be spent.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 24, 2012)

... and Albert Speer who ran armaments after Fritz Todt preferred the psychology of V Weapons over the more mundane stuff (Adam Tooze, "Wages of Destruction").


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Gixxerman, I forgot to remind you that you was comparing the T-34-85 with the original Panther, when the correct would be compare it with the Panther II.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 24, 2012)

Speer might have also been looking toward the future.

For a while he entertained the thought that the allies would need him for postwar reconstruction in Germany. He was a little surprized when he was charged with war crimes.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 24, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Gixxerman, I forgot to remind you that you was comparing the T-34-85 with the original Panther, when the correct would be compare it with the Panther II.



Really?
How many Panther 2's made it to the front.
Zero, if I recall correctly.
Whereas several thousand T34/85's did.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

None. But this certainly would not be the case if the war with the West didn't existed and the Barbarossa started like historically. 

Also, about the thousands of Soviet armored vehicles and other things, let's quote Zhukov:

_"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963: 
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."_

The LL importance is not clear yet because there are archives still closed, but recent information only proves more and more importance. No one less than Stalin also said the same behind closed doors. 

Another point I would like to make for the critics of the LL importance is that if the Soviet Union had the abundance of material like Zhukov says, why they did accepted the help? Since the Soviet Union that saved the world, in my perception it should have reject it in order to let the West handle better the "mediocre" German military contingent it faced. Not to mention the pressure for the opening of new fronts.


----------



## Tante Ju (Feb 24, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Gixxerman, I forgot to remind you that you was comparing the T-34-85 with the original Panther, when the correct would be compare it with the Panther II.



T-34/85 was not in same leage with Panther.. more like between the Panther and Pz IVH-J.. and a lot closer to Pz IV.. but it was good enough, so was Pz IV till war end...


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

I also would like to point out that I don't see much sense in comparisons such as the decisiveness of the Lend-Lease or the D-Day. Why? Because everything was part of the efforts from the Western Allies. Let's imagine that the Lend-lease was not decisive, it was 10-15% more effort from the Soviet industry needed for it to be critical. Great, so the Lend-Lease specifically was not critical! yeah! But now let's take off the naval blockade and the bombing. Then again we have critical efforts from the Western Allies. 

Another thing is the number of casualities in the German Army in the war with the West. Less overall casualities don't necessarily meant that the Soviets would defeat them alone. For example, sometimes it is just 10,000 soldiers that can define victory or a massive defeat. The Soviets for example, thanks to Roosevelt's hard line against the Japanese, they never had the oportunity to attack the Soviet Union, something the IJA was itching to do. The domino effect from relatively few man can be critical. 

For those who understand the war as a the global conflict it was, there's hardly a surprise in what I wrote. Unfornately for those who want to resume the war to the Eastern Front, it must have been a surprise.

While many point out that if wasn't for the Soviet resistance the democracies would not won, I just point out if not for the resistance of Britain, or Roosevelt's hard line against Japan, would the Soviets resist? It's the same damn thing isn't?

Those Marxist teachers that are unfornately doing a lot of damage to our education system, and now they are loving put in the minds of students the partial view of the Soviet Union as the country that alone saved mankind from Nazism. Sad...


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> T-34/85 was not in same leage with Panther.. more like between the Panther and Pz IVH-J.. and a lot closer to Pz IV.. but it was good enough, so was Pz IV till war end...



Really technically it wasn't, but practically as a medium tank, yes. The Russians HISTORICALLY wanted mass production, not so much quality and the main reason for the T-34-85 enter in production was to not spent any time with new tanks that would affect the mass production (reasons: massive casualities, crude construction with short life span, constant need of replacements). While in such scenario the Russians would be able to put more advanced design in production, the Germans would open even more their advantage in numbers and quality. 

Ah, and let me present the biggest argumentative victory in the study of history I ever had, my arguments used here presented for David Glantz, here's his answer:

_Dear Mr. Jenisch:

I will conceed your point that if the Soviet Union had to fight utterly alone, it would have been a far more difficult task to defeat Germany decisively. Hitler's rashness, however, would have likly placed German forces in awkward situations like December 1941 and November 1942. And who is to say how long Stalin's ruthless discipline would have held up in the face of such masive Red Army casualties. But since it is history, no-one will ever know.

All the best,

David_

As I aready posted many times here, I only say that it cannot be claimed that Germany would defeat the Soviets alone or vice versa, or a draw, it's something impossible to claim.

So, Zhukov is with me, Stalin is with me, Hitler is with me, and David Glantz with vast experience as a Colonel and in the Soviet and German archives is with me. LALALA!


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 24, 2012)

A couple of things occur to me in this debate.

Firstly it appears that few want to stick to the terms originally offered, an allied Germany alliance of some description in 1944.
That means Russia already has had years of LL.
It means that they already have a few tens of thousand trucks and the rest.
It also means Germany has already suffered huge losses damage she can never just simply replace as if it was nothing.

The comments about the Russian tanks are if you don't mind me saying so typical.
All this talk of German quality superiority when in fact in many instances the German design was wholly unsuited to the environment in which it was operating.
Things like that overlapping wheel suspension system which (on the testing grounds in Germany) looked state of the art (in the absence of a genuine stabilisation system) were in fact at times in Russia nothing less than a liability.
I would suggest that the true quality in fact lay with the Russian system which actually worked most of the time was optimised for more of the conditions in which it was expected to operate.

Similarly the crudity of the Russia fuel systems.
They actually worked in the appalling cold were properly lagged, unlike the German systems.

There's really not much use in building a relative handful of tanks to Roll Royce (or should I now say BMW - or is it VW, or are they Bentley?) standards - but which have their foibles and do not always work properly in the severe cold - when the opposition can build a couple thousands of Fords which are more than up to the job most of the time.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 24, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Those Marxist teachers that are unfornately doing a lot of damage to our education system, and now they are loving put the partial view of the Soviet Union as the country who saved mankind from Nazism. Sad...



Where is this happening?

To be perfectly frank Jenisch I find that sort of one-sided view as silly as the opposing one which says that it was the west that won WW2.
Of course it was both acting together.
However only a ridiculously rabid anti Russian (communism has gone, it's ok, there's no need to be afraid of admitting when they did things that benefitted the rest of us) would look at the sacrifices and suffering that went on in Russia and conclude that the bulk of WW2 was not fought to the death for decided there.

Not all of it but certainly the greater part.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> A couple of things occur to me in this debate.
> 
> The comments about the Russian tanks are if you don't mind me saying so typical.


 
But this is truth. The T-34 scared only when it was introduced, because despite all their limitations the Germans destroyed most of them, and could have destroyed them at an unacceptable level if they were alone against the Soviets.

Germany had the superior technology popularly claimed, the difference is that Germany was unable to employ it's techonological advantage in the two-front war it faced historically. With a single front war, without blockade, need to built submarines, LL to the Soviets, bombing, German forces in others fronts, etc, the quantity and quality of the German equipment would very probably do damage in a much larger scale than historically, and again I really have my doubts if the Soviets would be able to hold. I'm with the authour John Mosier in a lot of his arguments about this.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Where is this happening?
> 
> To be perfectly frank Jenisch I find that sort of one-sided view as silly as the opposing one which says that it was the west that won WW2.
> Of course it was both acting together.



Don't think I ever said the opposite. I just said this because it's happening. The Marxist teachers are willing to tell how the Communists saved the West. We are largely having the Cold War propaganda version of the Eastern block, when we can finally have a neutral history and let the people do their own interpretations.



> However only a ridiculously rabid anti Russian (communism has gone, it's ok, there's no need to be afraid of admitting when they did things that benefitted the rest of us) would look at the sacrifices and suffering that went on in Russia and conclude that the bulk of WW2 was not fought to the death for decided there.
> 
> Not all of it but certainly the greater part.



Depends. As I already told earlier, some historians like John Prados belive that the D-Day (and preprations for it) that was the battle that decided the war in Europe. The war in Russia was in a vast country, with a vast population and with vast armies and vast casualities. Personally, I think it's hard to compare it with the one in the West. Stalin has a large percentage of the blame for what happened in the USSR, purging the Soviet armed forces and ignoring warnings for the invasion. Also, the Soviet civilian casualities were in good part due to partisan activities, in which the Germans repressed with brutality and warned the population to not conduct partisan activities (and they didn't know the Nazis planned to exterminate them later). Here we can have a better perception of this by veterans of the Heer: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdDnbXXn20_

And lastly, Hitler and Stalin fought a war of extermination, without consideration for human life. 

With all those factors, it's easy to understand what happened in the way it was. Brutal, the largest invasion of history, but not something that I'm very impressed by it's scale of brutality. It was certainly a very important front, but not the key for the victory in the war. More correctly, one of the keys for the door of victory. And to understand this better, I also can call the BoB the key event, since if Britain was defeated or signed peace, Stalin would feel the full force of Hitler, Italy and perhaps Japan. Precisely the same type of logic many historians use, just with the USSR defeated and the democracies being hopeless to win against the new German empire. Do you think it's fair made a comparison were only the West suffer without it's Communist ally and not vice versa? It wasn't a global conflict for nothing...


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 24, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> But this is truth. The T-34 scared only when it was introduced, because despite all their limitations the Germans destroyed most of them, and could have destroyed them at an unacceptable level if they were alone against the Soviets.
> 
> Germany had the superior technology popularly claimed, the difference is that Germany was unable to employ it's techonological advantage in the two-front war it faced historically. With a single front war, without blockade, need to built submarines, LL to the Soviets, bombing, German forces in others fronts, etc, the quantity and quality of the German equipment would very probably do damage in a much larger scale than historically, and again I really have my doubts if the Soviets would be able to hold. I'm with the authour John Mosier in a lot of his arguments about this.



The early 37mm and short barreled 50mm Panzer III and low velicity 75mm Panzer IV scored against the 'superior' T-34 for several reasons; one was a good radio which meant that the Panerwaffe could often advance with the confused T-34 by shooting from behined. The other is the fact that German tanks had 5 crew members. The commander wasn't trying to be commander and gun aimer at the same time. Better optics and better precision tended to help as well. The other was that the Germans were fighting for survival of their race, the Soviet side was confused. No one dies for a crap ideology like communism except the most gullible. Stalin figured this out and the propaganda changed.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 24, 2012)

".... Stalin figured this out and the propaganda Stalin figured this out and the propaganda changed.."

How did it change. Did the Soviet force stop using Commissars ...? Did they start stressing the rape of Mother Russia ..?

"... the Germans were fighting for survival of their race..."

Certainly some Germans thought that .... but (sadly, or, not sadly) to many it was a fight for the survival of Western Christian values .... against godless communism. I have remarked in this forum before that it ironic how key warriors were the sons of Protestant preachers (Hans Rudel, Michael Whitman, Galland's heritage was French Huguenot). I am NOT seeking to make a case here or advance a thesis ....  ... I just think it is noteworthy.

All Germany did not have a common reaction against Communism ..... 

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The early 37mm and short barreled 50mm Panzer III and low velicity 75mm Panzer IV sored against the 'superior' T-34 for several reasons; one was a good radio which meant that the Panerwaffe could often advance with the confused T-34 shooting from behined. The other is the fact that German tanks had 5 crew members. The commander wasn't trying to be commander and gun aimer at the same time. Better optics and better precision tended to help as well.


 
I understand the reasons. I also know the first T-34's produced did in fact have excellent quality. But the question here is in the capability of the Soviets to resist all the German power, while at the same time needing to produce less to compensate the lack of the Lend-Lease and certainly delay their military actions, or even be unable to continue the war. This happening, how could the outcome would be, predictable? I don't think so. Even Glantz told me the same.

And if we really want to do a realistic comparison for a global conflict, I'm not even considerating the possible participation of Italy and Japan in such scenario.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 24, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Really?
> How many Panther 2's made it to the front.
> Zero, if I recall correctly.
> Whereas several thousand T34/85's did.



The final Panther would have been Ausf F (Ausfuhrung F or issue F). There was time to prepare Panther II but Ausf incorporated several advances from Panther II.

1 More armour on the chasis.
2 Epicylic gearbox to over come the final drive issue
3 The much more heavily armoured but smaller 'schalturm' turrert. This used a coaxial recuperator to save significant space thus allowing a much smaller but more heavily armoured Tigger II like turret with nevertheless more room.
4 stabsised optics with circuits to fire when the gun aligned with the target.
5 gyro-stablised gun to chase the optics.
6 provision for mounting of a coincidence range finder in the turret.

Ausf F would have been capable of carrying the Tiger II's 88mm L71. however because of limitations in elevation when firing Panther probably would have gotten a 75mm L100 gun which would have been as if not more powerfull with initial variants taking the old 75mm L70 gun.

Note 4 and 5 are more sophisticated than simple systems in which gyros stabalised the optics and gun as one unit. Such systems can effectively not fire on the move., 

Ausf F was ready, literally. The turret only needed to be mounted on the chasis, it was only days away.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Thanks for the informations Siegfried.

Other thing the Germans tanks were already starting to have by 1945 was nigh-vision equipment. Maybe they would have it earlier if there was a war in a single front and much more resources.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 24, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Siegfried only 6048 V2 were made, 3750 man hours at 10,000 is just a bs projection.
> 
> Nowhere did I say the V2 project cost more than the Manhatten project, I said the combined cost of the V1 AND V2 projects were more than the Manhatten Project. If you add in B-29 developement cost ( the 2nd most expensive allied project) It does almost equal. But you're comparing to successful allied programs, with 2 German failures.
> 
> ...



Your misrepresentations of my points and rhetoric is transparentl. I cited specific wespons and time lines; eg that the V1 Ewald-II guidence stations were nearing completion, they were only stopped by beng over run.

The point I made is that the V1 and V2 were on the verge of becomming highly cost effective weapons. The decision to design and produce them was entirely correct and rational. These weapons were put in production ahead of the maturation of their guidence sytems in anticipation of those systems.

Criticisms of these weapons are motivated simply by a desire to discredit the Nazi regime rather than any objective assesment.

All that was required to make them a success was a little time for amortisation of the R+D and mass production setup costs combined with the introduction of guidence systems of greater accuracy. The Ewald-II Saurkirche system for the V1 was a few days away while the V2's vollzirkel system was close as well.

Granted, these weapons were a few months too late along with their advanced guidence stems but that doesn't discredit the concept or the design which has now become the norm.

The Nazi regime might have thrown its resources behined another jet aircraft design and it also would have made no signifant difference.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 24, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> Thanks for the informations Siegfried.
> 
> Other thing the Germans tanks were already starting to have by 1945 was nigh-vision equipment. Maybe they would have it earlier if there was a war in a single front and much more resources.



Infrared equipment was bound to pay of in the long run. These Anti-Tank active infrared system required illumination and would have been easy to counter with equal equipement in the other side as it disclosed position via the required lamps. The German Navy used a number of passive infrared location and ranging systems, with some success. They tended to be outranged via radar however. GEMA, the makers of Freya radars attempted to make Froschauge (Frogs Eye) a passive infrared system for tank use into a viable weapon. It used a infrared sensitive cell mounted on springs whose postion was modulated via a pair electromagentic coils so as to 'raster' the image.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

Not for nothing that WWII was the first modern war: jet planes, modern submarines (Elektroboat), TV guied weapons, night-vision, infrared guidance, radar, computers and others. Really impressive.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 24, 2012)

I've seen the pics of the Uhu infrared searchlight on a half-track chassis (and I have read of infrared sights on afv's) but as Siegfried says, these are hardly discreet a whacking great IR searchlight (and what it implies for sighting targetting) is not going to stay secret for long.
The MP44 with Vampir sight was also interesting....but pretty bulky cumbersome and also liable to be captured at some point in tact.

In the air I have read that the 'spanner' infrared sight turned out to be very poor, to the point of useless.
But everything everybody has to start somewhere I guess.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 24, 2012)

The Germans never seemed to realize that to win a war you have to get dependable, usable, weapons to the troops to win wars.

The last few years was just a comedy of errors, too exotic weapons, rushed into production before they were ready was not enough. You don't have to impress your enemy, you just have to kill him. If they had concentrated on a few weapons, and not wasted too much resources on too many exotic research projects that didn't have a chance of reaching maturity in time, it might have made a difference.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 24, 2012)

I don't know if that was really like this tyrodtom. The tanks for example, one can say they should have produced more simple designs, but this is not always easy to choose. The T-34 was a profund chock to the Germans, and the T-34-85 was equal or perhaps a little superior to the Panzer IV. Also, the Germans didn't know if the Russians and their allies would appear with new tank designs and improvements, which in fact the Russians did with the already mentioned T-34-85 and the IS, and the Americans and British with the Sherman Firefly and the M26. On the other hand, Guderian preffered simple tanks, and even wanted to copy the T-34, which proved impractical. 

If I was Hitler, I think I would do the same he did. The Panther was a simple and very effective tank despite it's initial problems, while the Tiger was a complementary machine (like IS). So, in the tank area I think the Germans cannot be blamed much. Also, when war was declared to the US (something inevitable) the subsequent U-boat demanding reduced 10-15% of the tank production in 1942, which certainly had it's impact in the capabilities of the Panzer Divisions.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The Germans never seemed to realize that to win a war you have to get dependable, usable, weapons to the troops to win wars.
> 
> The last few years was just a comedy of errors, too exotic weapons, rushed into production before they were ready was not enough. You don't have to impress your enemy, you just have to kill him. If they had concentrated on a few weapons, and not wasted too much resources on too many exotic research projects that didn't have a chance of reaching maturity in time, it might have made a difference.



The research projects (whether you include V-2, Ta 152, etc, in that category) did nothing to really detract from FW 190 or Me 109 mod changes and production. Yet, the 190s and 109s were getting whacked with aircraft equal or better in quality and overwhelmed in skilled resources.

What did you have in mind?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 24, 2012)

I think they should have concentrated more on the Me262, Ta152, Panther, maybe the V1 , forget the Me163, He162, V2,and Tiger.
They needed to start making a difference in late 43 or early 44. If they could have delayed D-Day, or turned it back. How long would it be before the Allies could try it again.
They were running out of fuel and men to man whatever weapons they developed, their only chance was a cease fire with the allies, before the shortages paralized them. Which might be possibly IF they vacated all invaded territory.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 25, 2012)

drgondog said:


> The research projects (whether you include V-2, Ta 152, etc, in that category) did nothing to really detract from FW 190 or Me 109 mod changes and production. Yet, the 190s and 109s were getting whacked with aircraft equal or better in quality and overwhelmed in skilled resources.
> 
> What did you have in mind?



The Germans were faced with the same kind of problems the USAAF was in deciding to introduce the P-38K or the RAF with trying to introduce a Sptifire VIII (with its better tankage and retractable tail wheel and taller fin) over the IX or improved versions with better radiators. For instance the Me 109K1 was ready for production just after the second half of 1943. It incorporated smoothed over and reconfigured cowling guns, a restoration of the retractable tail yoke that reduced drag and by virtue of its greater extension finally solved the ground looping problem, a taller tail that introduced a balance tab to replace the horn balance and raised Mach limit from 'around' 0.75 to about 0.80. So a Mach limit increase of about 0.05 and a level speed increase of about 12mph would have been possible by late 1943 in reasonable numbers. In fact the smooth cowling and retractable tail yoke should never have been lost since they were features of the Me 109F. Achievable improvements in construction quality would have achieved 6 mph more. Some of the test reports are on the Kurfurst site.

What actually happened was that these features came into production into service in *October 1944 *instead of *October 1943* in the Me 109K4. These features certainly would have been usefull to those Luftwaffe pilots facing the stunning new P-51B at the end of 1943. When the more powerfull water injected engines and engines with enlarged superchargers became available in March/April 44 they could have been incorporated into the Me 109K1 airframes and produced an aircraft in the 430mph class. As it was the new engines went into what were essentially Me 109G6 airframes. I can't see more than 2 weeks disruption to production lines chosen for the upgrade plus a complication in spare parts.

The Panther by the time of the Normandy invasion (Ausf A came after Ausf D) was fairly reliable. The notorious final drive problem was caused by the use of straight cut gears as opposed to herringbone gears which engage several teeth at once and are considerably stronger for the same size. This was to reduce production time on gear cutting machines whose supply and whose supply of cutting steels were restricted. Anyone one that has tried to order a gear cutting machines and hobbing machines will know it takes years to get one delivered. I think the final solution was to be a planetary gearbox.

The war was won by the allies through the machine tool industry around Cincinatti and Milwauke as much as anything. Consider the problem Napiers had in punching out sleave valves in Victorian era presses as opposed to machines tools which eventually had to be imported from the USA to do cut out the ports.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 25, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The war was won by the allies through the machine tool industry around Cincinatti and Milwauke as much as anything. Consider the problem Napiers had in punching out sleave valves in Victorian era presses as opposed to machines tools which eventually had to be imported from the USA to do cut out the ports.



Certainly this was one of the factors. But the Germans were blamed for not considerate this. You enter in a war to won, not the opposite.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 25, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The Germans were faced with the same kind of problems the USAAF was in deciding to introduce the P-38K or the RAF with trying to introduce a Sptifire VIII (with its better tankage and retractable tail wheel and taller fin) over the IX or improved versions with better radiators. For instance the Me 109K1 was ready for production just after the second half of 1943. It incorporated smoothed over and reconfigured cowling guns, a restoration of the retractable tail yoke that reduced drag and by virtue of its greater extension finally solved the ground looping problem, a taller tail that introduced a balance tab to replace the horn balance and raised Mach limit from 'around' 0.75 to about 0.80. So a Mach limit increase of about 0.05 and a level speed increase of about 12mph would have been possible by late 1943 in reasonable numbers. In fact the smooth cowling and retractable tail yoke should never have been lost since they were features of the Me 109F. Achievable improvements in construction quality would have achieved 6 mph more. Some of the test reports are on the Kurfurst site.
> 
> What actually happened was that these features came into production into service in *October 1944 *instead of *October 1943* in the Me 109K4. These features certainly would have been usefull to those Luftwaffe pilots facing the stunning new P-51B at the end of 1943. When the more powerfull water injected engines and engines with enlarged superchargers became available in March/April 44 they could have been incorporated into the Me 109K1 airframes and produced an aircraft in the 430mph class. As it was the new engines went into what were essentially Me 109G6 airframes. I can't see more than 2 weeks disruption to production lines chosen for the upgrade plus a complication in spare parts.
> 
> ...


The only thing that could have saved Germany after mid 44 was the A bomb , all these other`toys`were merely a hindrance , kinda like a fly buzzing around the house . The Germans were toast sfter mid 44 but they were to dumb to know it.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 25, 2012)

I think a lot of the Germans in the industry knew the war was lost, though they had to keep their thoughts to themselves.

But that didn't keep them from profiteering on exotic programs they knew would never make a difference, or even see production. They needed money now, to get thru the lean times they knew would follow the war.


----------



## Jenisch (Feb 25, 2012)

I think that most of the stuff Germany was implementing in '44 was correct. Panther, Tiger, new prop planes, jets, assault rifle, etc. The Allies were already starting to implement such things. If Germany didn't, it would be soon be even more outclassed and ouproduced. 

In my view the war in two-fronts was too much to Germany, since it didn't allowed sufficient flexibility. A stalemate in Russia was as good as a Phyric Victory fighting the Western Allies, and the Western Allies proved willing to support Russia in all it needed.


----------

