Moderator: Edi
IIRC Stalin was more interested in controlling things in the Soviet Union then invading Eastern Europe. However, if you push the invasion in the scenario back to the 1950s, I think Stalin would be into extending power then.jaeger115 wrote:Suppose Hitler is murdered before he joins the Nazi Party.
I think that as a result the nazis would have remained a minor power in germany, therefore Germany doesn't rearm. Stalin invades Eastern Europe in 1941-3. France is quickly overrun. Due to the humongous size of the Russian military and population, British and American units soon fall back against waves and waves of T-34s, rocket launchers, and conscripts.
Stalin secures all of Europe and tries to take Great Britain
Stalin planned an attack on German for 1943, possibly 1942 if things looked good. Its possibul they would not happen if Germany didn't expand. But I would still expect the Union to be at least retaking Poland by 1945. Its historical attack on Finland and invasion of the Baltic States and Romania will still happen.paladin wrote:IIRC Stalin was more interested in controlling things in the Soviet Union then invading Eastern Europe. However, if you push the invasion in the scenario back to the 1950s, I think Stalin would be into extending power then.jaeger115 wrote:Suppose Hitler is murdered before he joins the Nazi Party.
I think that as a result the nazis would have remained a minor power in germany, therefore Germany doesn't rearm. Stalin invades Eastern Europe in 1941-3. France is quickly overrun. Due to the humongous size of the Russian military and population, British and American units soon fall back against waves and waves of T-34s, rocket launchers, and conscripts.
Stalin secures all of Europe and tries to take Great Britain
Using the scenario, would Stalin have T-34s for an invasion in 1941? A program I saw on the History Channel said the T-34 was built as a counter to the German Panzers. I would think that the Soviets would have T-34s but in limited numbers if Germany did not rearm.Sea Skimmer wrote:Stalin planned an attack on German for 1943, possibly 1942 if things looked good. Its possibul they would not happen if Germany didn't expand. But I would still expect the Union to be at least retaking Poland by 1945. Its historical attack on Finland and invasion of the Baltic States and Romania will still happen.paladin wrote:IIRC Stalin was more interested in controlling things in the Soviet Union then invading Eastern Europe. However, if you push the invasion in the scenario back to the 1950s, I think Stalin would be into extending power then.jaeger115 wrote:Suppose Hitler is murdered before he joins the Nazi Party.
I think that as a result the nazis would have remained a minor power in germany, therefore Germany doesn't rearm. Stalin invades Eastern Europe in 1941-3. France is quickly overrun. Due to the humongous size of the Russian military and population, British and American units soon fall back against waves and waves of T-34s, rocket launchers, and conscripts.
Stalin secures all of Europe and tries to take Great Britain
Happened in Korea and many others conflicts. M4's generally won. The 90mm rocket launcher ass raped em as well.Necro99 wrote:Can you imagine a sherman against a T-34-85? I can, and i can also see dead allies.
The History channel overly simply things and is generally full of shit. The T-34 was a logical outgrowth of Soviet tank development. It gets built regardless. By 1943 the Russians would have being passing the thousands produced and be well into the tens of thousands.paladin wrote:Using the scenario, would Stalin have T-34s for an invasion in 1941? A program I saw on the History Channel said the T-34 was built as a counter to the German Panzers. I would think that the Soviets would have T-34s but in limited numbers if Germany did not rearm.Sea Skimmer wrote:Stalin planned an attack on German for 1943, possibly 1942 if things looked good. Its possibul they would not happen if Germany didn't expand. But I would still expect the Union to be at least retaking Poland by 1945. Its historical attack on Finland and invasion of the Baltic States and Romania will still happen.paladin wrote: IIRC Stalin was more interested in controlling things in the Soviet Union then invading Eastern Europe. However, if you push the invasion in the scenario back to the 1950s, I think Stalin would be into extending power then.
However, an invasion in 1943 would have larger numbers of T-34s and one hell of a nasty surprise for everyone in Europe.
well, I'm pretty sure the party was nonexistent before he showed up. germany prolly would have rearmed, but not as genocidal as before. is japan still going it's merry way? the u.s. would still rearm, and possibly oust japan again. it was touch and go at times. great britian might be in trouble, cuz it took europe and usa to hold out the ussr - put europe on the otherside, and america may start annexing states for the good of the world.jaeger115 wrote:Suppose Hitler is murdered before he joins the Nazi Party.
I think that as a result the nazis would have remained a minor power in germany, therefore Germany doesn't rearm. Stalin invades Eastern Europe in 1941-3. France is quickly overrun. Due to the humongous size of the Russian military and population, British and American units soon fall back against waves and waves of T-34s, rocket launchers, and conscripts.
Stalin secures all of Europe and tries to take Great Britain
Alright.Sea Skimmer wrote:Happened in Korea and many others conflicts. M4's generally won. The 90mm rocket launcher ass raped em as well.Necro99 wrote:Can you imagine a sherman against a T-34-85? I can, and i can also see dead allies.
Okay...so we go from M4 vs. T-34 to M4 vs IS-3?Necro99 wrote:Alright.Sea Skimmer wrote:Happened in Korea and many others conflicts. M4's generally won. The 90mm rocket launcher ass raped em as well.Necro99 wrote:Can you imagine a sherman against a T-34-85? I can, and i can also see dead allies.
I DARE you to find a way a M4 can SCRATCH a IS-3.
http://www.skalman.nu/soviet/ww2-equipment-tank-is3.htm
I'm sure japan still would have Pearl Harbored America and get assraped because of it. But the scenario in Europe will go differently - I trust SeaSkimmer's knowledge for that - I see the USSR sweeping effortlessly through the Baltic states and Germany, then on to France before being met with serious resistance. The only resistance they will have before that is from germans and poleswell, I'm pretty sure the party was nonexistent before he showed up. germany prolly would have rearmed, but not as genocidal as before. is japan still going it's merry way? the u.s. would still rearm, and possibly oust japan again. it was touch and go at times. great britian might be in trouble, cuz it took europe and usa to hold out the ussr - put europe on the otherside, and america may start annexing states for the good of the world.
When in doubt changes the comparison en? Stop acting like a damn rabid Trekkies.Necro99 wrote:Alright.Sea Skimmer wrote:Happened in Korea and many others conflicts. M4's generally won. The 90mm rocket launcher ass raped em as well.Necro99 wrote:Can you imagine a sherman against a T-34-85? I can, and i can also see dead allies.
I DARE you to find a way a M4 can SCRATCH a IS-3.
http://www.skalman.nu/soviet/ww2-equipment-tank-is3.htm
Lemme guess... After Russia takes France and Germany the US comes in the fight late because of the long time required to transport troops over the Atlantic, destroys the Soviet fleet threatening Great Britain, then the D-day operations go ahead as in the original timeline?Of course the IS-3 was never that common while the US built more Sherman's in WW2 then Russia built T-34's and IS-3's combined along will tens of thousands more tank destroyers.
The USSR had a shitload of Mini Submarines in the Artic Ocean right after World War II. Russia has a few pre-war Cruisers and a couple of Destroyer Squadron which all go dow aganist British Torpedo Planes. The Good 'Ole Union built their Navy too counter the West after World War II. Everything they threw into production was for tanks and equipping the peasents. Oh, and expert fighter planes.jaeger115 wrote:Of course that depends on the strength of the Soviet fleet there...
Yeah, but in face2face the IS-3 would have assraped the M4 with a skyscraper. Hell, the caliber of the main gun is larger than the one on the M1a1!!!! (I know the M1a1 has a infinitely greater firepower, dont ask about it).Sea Skimmer wrote: When in doubt changes the comparison en? Stop acting like a damn rabid Trekkies.
Sherman's encountered IS-3's and T-34/85's near Bir Thamada in 1967. They defeated them easily. The Sherman could kill the IS-3 with flank and rear shot, blow of tracks and kill the crew via Spall.
Of course the IS-3 was never that common while the US built more Sherman's in WW2 then Russia built T-34's and IS-3's combined along will tens of thousands more tank destroyers.
LOL!!!!!!!In January 1945, a single round from a PzStuMrKp 1001 Sturmtiger reportedly destroyed three American M-4 Sherman tanks located in a targeted village.
Necro99 wrote:....Snip irrelevant information and second and third attempt to change the topic....
Uhh... I may not have said it but i admitted that the T-76-85 where defeated. (even tho i beleive the 34 is superior to the M4)Shut up you stupid moron. Every time I point out the flaws in your tiny simple minded semi reasoning you attempted to alter the scenario to bring victory to your devoted Union.
They cant defeat it, the tanks disperse as much as possible and take cover.Here's a scenario for you. A Guards tank army is massing on the east bank of the Rhine River in preparation for crossing. I dare YOU To prove how it will defeat a formation of 750 B-29's that are in the process of unloading 7,500 tons of bombs into it using radar bombsights. It is night with heavy cloud cover.
