The New Eastern Front

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...
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?


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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Hoju2k said:
No, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

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

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

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
 
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
 

One of us has badly mangled the concept of this thread.
 
The concept of this thread is totally unrealistic. The origional concept sprang from Himmlers mind, what else needs to be said.
 
tyrodtom said:
The concept of this thread is totally unrealistic. The origional concept sprang from Himmlers mind, what else needs to be said.
Click to expand...
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..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Hs-129 use on the Western Front/MTO?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Andrew Arthy
A
Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
11
Views
889
Jabberwocky
J
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
M
The Zero's Maneuverability
19 20 21
Replies
401
Views
23K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register