The New Eastern Front

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by andy2012, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. andy2012

    andy2012 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Attending College Majoring in Political Science
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    #1 andy2012, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: 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.
     
  2. Jenisch

    Jenisch Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #2 Jenisch, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: 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
     
  3. michaelmaltby

    michaelmaltby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    ".... 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
     
  4. Jenisch

    Jenisch Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #4 Jenisch, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
    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.
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  6. Jenisch

    Jenisch Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #6 Jenisch, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: 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...
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  8. Gixxerman

    Gixxerman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    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.
     
  9. andy2012

    andy2012 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Attending College Majoring in Political Science
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    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?
     
  10. Gixxerman

    Gixxerman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #10 Gixxerman, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
    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.

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

    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.

    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.)

    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.
     
  11. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  12. Gixxerman

    Gixxerman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #12 Gixxerman, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
    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).

    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).

    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).

    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.

    .....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.

    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.
     
  13. muscogeemike

    muscogeemike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    rural east Texas
    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!
     
  14. Jenisch

    Jenisch Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #14 Jenisch, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
    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.
     
  15. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    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"
     
  16. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  17. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    #18 imalko, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
    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.
     
  19. Jenisch

    Jenisch Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    #19 Jenisch, Feb 17, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
    I think you should read my post better.

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

    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. ; )
     
  20. Gixxerman

    Gixxerman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    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?


    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).
     
Loading...

Share This Page