The New Eastern Front

[Jenisch]

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]

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

You've never heard of sabotage ?

 

[Siegfried]

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]

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]

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]

".... 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]

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]

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]

".... 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]

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]

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]

=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.