The Red tide 1939

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-03-13 01:25am

In a bold move ,in Aug 1939 Russia launches an invasion of europe .How would this affect ww2?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-03-13 01:28am

I'd say they'd get pretty far, but get majorly slowed by Germany and the Maginot Line.

After everyone figures out whats going on, the USSR gets hammered.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-13 01:37am

Well, Stalin would have to be dead, because he actually trusted Hitler to keep his word and was more concerned with Japan than Germany...

But ignoring politics temporarily, it would likely not go well for Russia. The T-70 and T-28 were inadequate for use as combat units. Given that the top speed of the light tank was 45 km/h, it would be outmaneuvered by the faster, lighter Panzers. Admittedly, the Germans would not have Panzer IIIs until early October (mass production began in September), but once they appeared, the Russians would truly be in trouble. The Russian army at this time was inadequately supplied and trained, as shown by the Finland campaign in 1940. By contrast, the German army was quite possibly the most competent in the world. Additionally, the Luftwaffe was far superior at this point to the Russian Air Force, with the Polikarpovs and early MiGs, none of which could compete with the Bf 109. Stukas would have caused heavy casualties when flying against the technologically inferior Russian military, and even the Zerstorer Bf 110s could have performed light bombing. I don't think Russia would have succeeded well at all.

If we throw politics back in, it becomes more interesting. Stalin would likely have been like Hitler in refusing to allow retreats, given the tendency to order men into suicidal charges in later battles. This would have led to worse casualties than a more rational attack plan. Hitler would have had trouble thinking defensively, though. Whether he could have presented a well-planned front is questionable. It would likely come down to the capabilities of the two leaders, both of which were unstable, to be polite.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-03-13 01:39am

The Russians get their asses handed to them and utterly decimated. See Winter War for details, you can start at http://www.winterwar.com.

The Russian army suffered casualties of some one million men, at least 200,000 of which were killed, between November 30, 1939 and March 12, 1940, against a severely underequipped enemy they outnumbered ten to one, namely us Finns. The German army of that period would have chewed them up and spit them out and the war might have turned out very differently. The situation by the time Hitler started Operation Barbarossa was substantially different and the Red Army in a much better shape, in a big part due to the painful lessons they learned from us.

Edi

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-13 01:49am

The Dark wrote:
But ignoring politics temporarily, it would likely not go well for Russia. The T-70 and T-28 were inadequate for use as combat units.

The T-70 was the last light tank the Soviet's produced, and was not in service in 1939. I believe it first appeared in 1942. The T-28 however was in service, and it was indeed inadequate.

Given that the top speed of the light tank was 45 km/h, it would be outmaneuvered by the faster, lighter Panzers. Admittedly, the Germans would not have Panzer IIIs until early October (mass production began in September), but once they appeared, the Russians would truly be in trouble.

I concur. The Red Army would also still be reeling from the effect of the purges, and wouldn't have the T-34 until 1940, and would also be short on many of it's excellent wartime infantry weapons (PPSh-41, SVT-40, etc)

The Russian army at this time was inadequately supplied and trained, as shown by the Finland campaign in 1940. By contrast, the German army was quite possibly the most competent in the world. Additionally, the Luftwaffe was far superior at this point to the Russian Air Force, with the Polikarpovs and early MiGs, none of which could compete with the Bf 109. Stukas would have caused heavy casualties when flying against the technologically inferior Russian military, and even the Zerstorer Bf 110s could have performed light bombing. I don't think Russia would have succeeded well at all.

Agree.

If we throw politics back in, it becomes more interesting. Stalin would likely have been like Hitler in refusing to allow retreats, given the tendency to order men into suicidal charges in later battles. This would have led to worse casualties than a more rational attack plan. Hitler would have had trouble thinking defensively, though. Whether he could have presented a well-planned front is questionable. It would likely come down to the capabilities of the two leaders, both of which were unstable, to be polite.

All in all, this is an extremely implausible, silly scenario.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-13 01:55am

Vympel wrote:
The Dark wrote:
But ignoring politics temporarily, it would likely not go well for Russia. The T-70 and T-28 were inadequate for use as combat units.
The T-70 was the last light tank the Soviet's produced, and was not in service in 1939. I believe it first appeared in 1942. The T-28 however was in service, and it was indeed inadequate.

Oops, my mistake. Misread the entry I have on it...it apparently entered either late '41 or early '42 (conflicts between sources...small-scale deployment before mass production, perhaps?). Not only would they not have the T-70 or T-34, but even the KV-1 wasn't ready until the beginning of the Russo-Finnish War. Stalin would have to be sucidial to attempt an attack in '39 or even '40.