Western Allies vs. Red Army (WWII)

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-06-15 08:25pm

Shep, don't you think the Comet was a bit of a latecomer for this scenario?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-06-15 08:30pm

The war won't be over for a while, and seeing the T-34 will force the British to innovate, and with no US lend lease to save their ass; the Comet's development will be pushed ahead a year or so at least.

thejester · Post by **thejester** » 2006-06-15 08:53pm

Was there a signifigant delay of the Comet in OTL? They had to push the Cromwell through first to get to that stage afteralll...

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-06-15 09:47pm

thejester wrote:Was there a signifigant delay of the Comet in OTL? They had to push the Cromwell through first to get to that stage afteralll...

This is one thing I absolutely despise about historical "What If" scenarios; a RW line of development cannot be assumed to follow a similar, or even vaguely similar path without the exact same situations acting on the exact same people involved, at the exact same times.

For instance, let's take the Tiger tank:
Sure, it was being developed within the timescale for the events of this thread, but without ensuring that events follow actual history in an exacting way, for instance that the Henschel and Porsche prototypes make their demonstration on Hitler's birthday 1942 exactly as happened, what basis is there to assume the Tiger as we know it would ever be produced?

On April 20th, 1942, fantasy scenario world, maybe Kurt Arnolt won't press for a manouverability demonstration for some reason (maybe he has gas that day?), or maybe the Henschel prototype will be run for an extra couple minutes and it's engine will catch fire (as so very nearly happened in factual RW events), and ensure that the Porsche entry will recieve the production contract?
If one of those two, two of inumerable variations happens, the Tiger we know could so easily be an intriguing "What If" and the German Army would have gotten a sluggish gasoline-electric powered piece of shit for it's first heavy tank.

Alternative history drives me fucking batty.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-06-15 10:11pm

Trogdor wrote:Speaking of tech, it's possible that in this situation the Nazis may be the first makers of the atomic bomb, since Hitler was very interested in it and might've gotten it first if not for the continual sabotage from the allies. IIRC, most of that sabotage was done by the US and the British, and I doubt that Stalin could've been as effective.

Unless Hitler fires his bomb maker and puts someone else in charge, the Germans will never get the bomb first. The people in charge were going in the wrong direction.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-16 12:35am

The Dark

One difference: the Germans didn't have strategic bombers.

They had enough far-range craft to assault the factories within their bombing range. They just fucked it up and didn't do it for MONTHS while the USSR evacuated the bulk of it's factories to Sibera and the Urals. So what prevents them from the fuck up again? Nothing.

About 15-20% of "Soviet" fighters were Lend-Lease

16%, actually. If being precise. However, that's largely irrelevant for the dates of the debate - in 1941-1942 the lend-lease fighter shipment was minimal. By the end of 1941, the lend-lease fighter shipments were a total of 25 fighters. By November 1942, the fighter numbers went up to 211, which is still not much (around 10% of the deployed fighter force and even less that of fighter production). Producing an extra 10-16% fighters would not be a problem; neither can a lack of 10-16% fighters radically alter the situation on the front. The Soviet AF didn't gain superiority until very late into the war, which did not hinder the Soviet offensives in a major way.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-06-16 04:06am

I don't remember the precise figure, but didn't Sovs get a significant amount of high-octane avgas from the US because at the time they lacked the tech to refine it in such quantities?
How would this affect the Red Air Force versus the Luftwaffe/RAF/French Air Force contest, along with the RAF's soon to come heavy bombers and 'Bomber Harris' running things in the RAF's Bomber Command?

Also when considering this ATL you have to think that Hitler would have moderated his most objectionable (yeah, I know it's unlikely at best) policies in the interests of smashing Bolshevism once and for all.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2006-06-16 04:39am

The Dark wrote: Their fighters in 1942 would be the LaGG-3, MiG-1 and MiG-3, Yak-1, and a handful of La-5. They were the basis for very good fighters, but only the MiG-3 and La-5 are fully developed fighters.

We don't know what kind of fighters they will get in this scenario. The I-185 could be ready without a war in 1941. The allies will be less experienced and might be missing some aircraft they had in 1942.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-16 08:55am

I don't remember the precise figure, but didn't Sovs get a significant amount of high-octane avgas from the US because at the time they lacked the tech to refine it in such quantities?

Yeah, true. Although the general percentage of lend-lease benzin in the Soviet production was something like 18%, it was very high-octane (much of the shipment had octane number over 99. The Soviet Union used this benzin to mix it with own lower-octane benzin to get better fuels.

How would this affect the Red Air Force versus the Luftwaffe/RAF/French Air Force contest, along with the RAF's soon to come heavy bombers and 'Bomber Harris' running things in the RAF's Bomber Command?

Um... as I said earlier, the Soviet Military Air Force would be utterly smashed just as it was; and would not gain superiority or parity until later in the war. That would happen, nevermind the strategic bombings. Also, the strategic bombings were not carried out by the Germans, despite having the range to destroy the industy. This mistake was fatal, as evacuation to Siberia means no more possibilities for bombing.

Also when considering this ATL you have to think that Hitler would have moderated his most objectionable (yeah, I know it's unlikely at best) policies in the interests of smashing Bolshevism once and for all.

No, he would not. Actually, his interest was in smashing "Jew-Bolshevism" once and for all, and then also a lot of other things. But don't think that it was just the fool Hitler - actually, Hitler was a genocidal conqueror, but the real annihilation plans were carried out deep inside the Ostministerium, which also got power from such figures as Himmler and Borman - so there were more fucktards involved in the genocide than just mister H., and it would be hard to make the whole bunch of Nazi elite suddenly abandon their genocidal mission. In fact, that would be impossible.

Camel · Post by **Camel** » 2006-06-16 09:42am

Air power is the deciding force in WWII and wars since. Tanks are worthless when there are enemy planes over head. The t-34 would not be immune to dominating air strikes. The russians relied almost completely on their unlimited manpower, t-34, and snipers. With the british/german air power, german tanks, and german/british snipers; I think that the russians would have lost Moscow. Op barbarosa would have been a clear victory. With only T-34's to challenge the "allies" the overwhelming air power would have curb stomped the last of the russian army in a year. I will ignore the annoying insurgents; that would have no doubt continued, despite their already apparent defeat.

That was just using current tech that was mass produced in 41-43. If the germans had thoroughly researched and produced the jet and rocket planes they had already been developing? The british were also doing the same. Their development combined could have advanced jet/rocket propulsion a decade ahead in a few years. Tanks, are, and have been obsolete since WWII.
Let me clarify quickly. Armor isn't obsolete. Just look at iraq. Tanks are just way too heavy, massively over armored, and the gun is unnecessary in light of availability of air power.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-06-16 09:49am

Camel wrote:Air power is the deciding force in WWII and wars since. Tanks are worthless when there are enemy planes over head. The t-34 would not be immune to dominating air strikes. The russians relied almost completely on their unlimited manpower, t-34, and snipers. With the british/german air power, german tanks, and german/british snipers; I think that the russians would have lost Moscow. Op barbarosa would have been a clear victory. With only T-34's to challenge the "allies" the overwhelming air power would have curb stomped the last of the russian army in a year. I will ignore the annoying insurgents; that would have no doubt continued, despite their already apparent defeat.

That was just using current tech that was mass produced in 41-43. If the germans had thoroughly researched and produced the jet and rocket planes they had already been developing? The british were also doing the same. Their development combined could have advanced jet/rocket propulsion a decade ahead in a few years. Tanks, are, and have been obsolete since WWII.
Let me clarify quickly. Armor isn't obsolete. Just look at iraq. Tanks are just way too heavy, massively over armored, and the gun is unnecessary in light of availability of air power.

You realize that airpower is merely an extension of firepower? It cannot occupy. It's really as simple as that: airpower is not the be all end all, moron.

Camel · Post by **Camel** » 2006-06-16 09:55am

PFC Brungardt wrote:You realize that airpower is merely an extension of firepower? It cannot occupy. It's really as simple as that: airpower is not the be all end all, moron.

I realize that air power is totally offensive. You know, there is the german panzer divisions, entire german army, entire british army, the shitty french army to occupy the captured territories.
You are missing the point. If you have air superiority you will win. Infinite tanks and infinite manpower will not help you if you are being bombed into oblivion.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-06-16 09:56am

Camel wrote:Air power is the deciding force in WWII and wars since. Tanks are worthless when there are enemy planes over head.

As of this moment, I am not taking anything you say seriously. Damnit where is that Iraqi Colonels quote about his T-72 numbers against the awesome firepower of Desert Storms airforce vs the Abrams that came later...

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-16 09:57am

Air power is the deciding force in WWII and wars since

Um... did you just miss the bit about the total decimation of the airforce and nonetheless, massive offensive operations in face of a superior enemy?

Tanks are worthless when there are enemy planes over head.

Tell that to Soviet tankists.

The t-34 would not be immune to dominating air strikes

Of course it wouldn't be immune to air strikes - it's like, just a tank, and you could kill it with many ways. But what the hell are "dominating air strikes" - there isn't even such a term.

The russians relied almost completely on their unlimited manpower, t-34, and snipers.

Wow. That's such bullshit my eyes just hurt. "Unlimited" manpower? Snipers? Completely relied? What were you smoking exactly, dude? "Unlimited" manpower is not enough to win wars since the invention of machine gun

With the british/german air power, german tanks, and german/british snipers; I think that the russians would have lost Moscow

Of course, you fail to mention a single true military reason for that, because you just spawned some random bullshit (T-34's, snipers, unlimited manpower!!! teh phear!!!).

Op barbarosa would have been a clear victory.

Do you even know the goals of Barbarossa and why it was a complete disaster? No, you don't. Just random bullshit.

With only T-34's to challenge the "allies" the overwhelming air power would have curb stomped the last of the russian army in a year.

My eyes hurt again. "Tanks" don't "challenge" air power, you idiot. Tanks and air forces take part in defensive and offensive operations against an enemy force, where tactics and methods are the key.

I will ignore the annoying insurgents

I guess you will have a lot of fun with your 3000 km-long supply lines

Or not. The partisans will have a lot of fun with your 3000 km-long supply lines.

That was just using current tech that was mass produced in 41-43.

You didn't even name any of the tech "produced" in 41-43 aside from T-34. That alone shows your level of knowledge about war.

If the germans had thoroughly researched and produced the jet and rocket planes they had already been developing?

They would have rocked planes? And if the Russians had thoroughly researched and produced the rocket planes they had already been developing? And if you burn your brain out with a candle, you'd have no brain, right? This is not a game of silly what-ifs, it's a fucking war

Their development combined could have advanced jet/rocket propulsion a decade ahead in a few years.

You apparently missed the part which says the parties start with the equipment they had, not the one they COULD get. I could suck out of my shining ass new, super-duper BI's too - so what?

Tanks, are, and have been obsolete since WWII.

Really? Or maybe you know jack shit about tanks, and jack shit about military organisation in general?

Armor isn't obsolete. Just look at iraq. Tanks are just way too heavy, massively over armored, and the gun is unnecessary in light of availability of air power.

Oh really? Or perhaps the Iraqi army as a battle force is a piece of shit, and also has not maintained and upgraded it's obsolete tanks, no?

You're fun.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-06-16 10:04am

Camel and others going on about possible new weapons based on the shared research part of my OP. PLease note that I was very clear. They start out with the weapons that each army had as of Summer 1942. It keeps things simple and gives us all a nice foundation from where to draw comparisons instead of a fantasy land of "maybe" weapons.

I won't go into the rest of the mess concerning overwhelming airpower pwns all nonsense. Both the Germans and the Russians on their respective fronts were facing a foe who dominated the skies and they handled themselves pretty damned well. American/British airpower did not win the war on the Western Front despite their overwhelming air superiority much the same as on the Eastern front.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-16 10:09am

Stravo
Essentially, airpower can "win" a war only if you introduce wholesale genocide of the entire enemy population by total bombings, including those with an A-bomb. I have no doubt Germany could take that road, as it did in reality, and even moreso if it had the massive bombing forces to do a complete sterilization of territory. But I doubt either USA, France or Britain would see much fun in slaughtering entirely all eastern nations like the Ostministerium proposed.

Camel · Post by **Camel** » 2006-06-16 10:15am

Bush,
I am not going to spend way to much time responding to all 13 of your points. If you actually wanted to draw me into a debate; you should have focused on two or three of the most interesting ones. I just watch the history channel too much. I don't care nearly as much about this shit as you do.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-06-16 10:19am

Camel wrote:Bush,
I am not going to spend way to much time responding to all 13 of your points. If you actually wanted to draw me into a debate; you should have focused on two or three of the most interesting ones. I just watch the history channel too much. I don't care nearly as much about this shit as you do.

If you don't care then why did you clomp in here with both feet and firmly announce your ignorance asstard? You are trolling my thread and I won't put up with you polluting this one as you've done with the others you've cared enough to participate in. Your witty little comment about watching the History Channel clearly shows your intent to be an ass. Telling another poster how to debate you is also a no no. If you made 13 fucking points then someone is more than welcome to challenge you on your 13 points.

Consider this a warning.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-06-16 10:20am

I am not going to spend way to much time responding to all 13 of your points. If you actually wanted to draw me into a debate; you should have focused on two or three of the most interesting ones. I just watch the history channel too much. I don't care nearly as much about this shit as you do.

Your post was total bullshit from beginning to the end, that's why I dismantled it. You have no "points", except ignorance and random bullshit. If you watch the H. Channel, that's your problem, not mine. If you post in a history thread, be ready to be called on your bullshit. And if you don't care, then don't post. Frankly, I don't even want to debate history with someone as illusioned as you, and even less since you have clearly stated you have no interest in history.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-06-16 10:21am

Camel wrote:Bush,
I am not going to spend way to much time responding to all 13 of your points. If you actually wanted to draw me into a debate; you should have focused on two or three of the most interesting ones. I just watch the history channel too much. I don't care nearly as much about this shit as you do.

So don't talk about this stuff if your only education is the History Channel. It's not the best of sources, and many of the people posting here, like Stas Bush, are serious history lovers.

Camel · Post by **Camel** » 2006-06-16 10:25am

Stravo wrote: If you don't care then why did you clomp in here with both feet and firmly announce your ignorance asstard? Consider this a warning.

I love WWII shit! I watch every episode that comes on the History Channel. WWII is by far my favorite subject most of the time. I am not a scholar. I don't know all these little details. I love WWII shit. All I can offer to this discussion is my general opinion.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-06-16 10:27am

Camel wrote:
Stravo wrote: If you don't care then why did you clomp in here with both feet and firmly announce your ignorance asstard? Consider this a warning.
I love WWII shit! I watch every episode that comes on the History Channel. WWII is by far my favorite subject most of the time. I am not a scholar. I don't know all these little details. I love WWII shit. All I can offer to this discussion is my general opinion.

As I said, the History channel is generally not the best of sources, and most of the people here contributing know far more then what is displayed on the history channel.

Go read some books and understand why you just said something idiotic.

Camel · Post by **Camel** » 2006-06-16 10:31am

Alright, I'm done. I,obviously, cannot contribute to this discussion.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2006-06-16 11:10am

Camel wrote: You are missing the point. If you have air superiority you will win. Infinite tanks and infinite manpower will not help you if you are being bombed into oblivion.

Planes are overrated as tankkillers. They got the least amout of kills compared to other types of tank killers. The british pilots use outdated tactics in 41-42. No wonder that pilots like Hans-Joachim Marseille got so many kills in a short amount of time. Logistics will be the main problem for the allies. More troops need more supplies add some communist sabotuers in allied countries and the allies will suffer napoleons fate.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-06-16 11:14am

Um... as I said earlier, the Soviet Military Air Force would be utterly smashed just as it was; and would not gain superiority or parity until later in the war. That would happen, nevermind the strategic bombings. Also, the strategic bombings were not carried out by the Germans, despite having the range to destroy the industy. This mistake was fatal, as evacuation to Siberia means no more possibilities for bombing.

In Bomber Harris, you had an enthusiastic supporter of strategic bombing, and with the heavy bombers of the RAF coming online about this time, he shortly would have had the means to strike at a lot of the relocated Soviet industry.
Though I have no doubt that PVO-Strany(?), would have schooled him in the fact that unescorted heavy bombers are easy meat during daylight, just like the luftwaffe did in real life.

I guess the real question would be whether or not the Brit heavy bomber advocates would be able to convince their German allies of the value of mass heavy bomber strikes, and if so, what effect would raids on Soviet targets like the thousand bomber raid on Hamburg have on USSR production and morale.

No, he would not. Actually, his interest was in smashing "Jew-Bolshevism" once and for all, and then also a lot of other things. But don't think that it was just the fool Hitler - actually, Hitler was a genocidal conqueror, but the real annihilation plans were carried out deep inside the Ostministerium, which also got power from such figures as Himmler and Borman - so there were more fucktards involved in the genocide than just mister H., and it would be hard to make the whole bunch of Nazi elite suddenly abandon their genocidal mission. In fact, that would be impossible.

Like I said, it's pretty unlikely he'd do so given his insistence at carrying out the Final Solution even at the expense of German military effectiveness when Germany was being badly beaten.

Still, the whole scenario requires a lot of people to have 180 degree changes WRT what they really did, so Hitler proposing a 'tactical postponement' of the Final Solution might not be that far of a reach.

ADDED:
I don't think the Soviets would ever regain air equivalency, much less air superiority over the allied forces in this scenario simply because they'd be without the crutch of Lend/Lease for a lot of the high octane avgas necessary for high performance aircraft at the time, and that the Brits would be able to convince their German counterparts that strategic bombing is 'the way to go' in crushing Soviet industrial power Also, lack of Lend/Lease would force Stalin to divert resources into making up the shortfall and to air defence over the cities instead of the battlefield.

But as others have noted, air superiority doesn't guarantee victory by any means.