StarDestroyer.Net BBS

WyrdNyrd wrote:Would the Germans even bother making tank-destroyers in this scenario? I was under the impression that the TD was a bit of a desperation measure, because you can build more TDs for the same amount of resources.

Without Allied bombing damaging their industry, wouldn't they just build more proper tanks and forget about TDs entirely?

It was a push by Rommel and other generals to give him more tank destroying ability at less cost. More-over the Maruader II(Panzer II chassie with a 75mm gun), one of the first tank destroyers, as well as the Stug-G had already been produced. Plans for the Jagpanzer IV were already on the drawling board.

That is an important note however considering the big German tanks were already on the drawling board in 1942 and we KNOW the Panther was due to come down the line in a few months.

How the hell is there an Africa Corps if the Allies are in secret treason?

They can still hate Italy and it was Italy invading Brit territory which sparked that theater of war.

The biggest thing agian is how many planes/infantry/tanks(And what KIND of tanks) and how fast they can get them there.

Also how much the Germans listen to the Brits and likewise. Note the Rommel/Montgommery team is the wildcard since they could easily smash through the southern Russian front but then they are in some of the worst terrain(Think huge ass mountain ranges) before they get into Russian proper.

Note the Rommel/Montgommery team is the wildcard since they could easily smash through the southern Russian front

That's what happened in reality, actually. So no need for Rommel and Montgomery; besides, commanders are not magic wands, and Rommel is a good tactician but for god's sake he's not a stratege.

That is an important note however considering the big German tanks were already on the drawling board in 1942

Surprise, in 1942 they were already OFF the board and on the tracks into battle, "Tiger" particulary.

They can still hate Italy and it was Italy invading Brit territory which sparked that theater of war.

The biggest thing agian is how many planes/infantry/tanks(And what KIND of tanks) and how fast they can get them there.

Also how much the Germans listen to the Brits and likewise. Note the Rommel/Montgommery team is the wildcard since they could easily smash through the southern Russian front but then they are in some of the worst terrain(Think huge ass mountain ranges) before they get into Russian proper.
_________________

So there is a still a Italian Theater of operations, well then it will only be sideshow anyways but it should use up some of the allied forces resources?

Some random thoughts:

If the allies are sharing tech, shouldn't the Brits and French be building their own versions of the upgunned Pkfw Mk. IV and Tiger Mk I tanks?

Finances: IRL Germany's economy was nearly at the breaking point in 1939 due to rampant deficit spending on arms (sound familiar? ), and in 1940, Lend-Lease was vitally necessary because the UK was quickly running out of foreign exchange for purchases.

Japan: If Japan attacks British and US possessions in the Far East, wouldn't the UK/US ally to a degree (and thus put a form of lend/lease into action) in order to fight the common enemy?
Conversely, if Japan leaves Singapore, Malaya, etc, alone and due to the desire not to add another enemy to their roster promises to keep doing so in the future, than the Brits can afford to send the great majority of their military power to Europe instead of diverting it to defend India and the rest of the Empire.

Espionage: IRL the Sovs had some really effective networks in Germany, the UK, and the US. What role would traitors like Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Hiss, Silvermaster, et al, play in the conflict?

Airpower: With the Luftwaffe and the RAF at each other's side instead of at each other's throats, the allies could be in the driver's seas as it seems to me that the RAF's strengths make up for German weaknesses such as in the area of heavy bombers.

Assuming that the allied air forces gear up, I think the Red Air Force would lose command of the skies over the USSR fairly quickly.

Italy: The Italians entered the war only after it appeared that the Germans had already done most of the fighting needed to win the war against Britain and France.
Since obviously in this time line Germany didn't invade France, look either for Italy to stay neutral (most probable) or join in with the western allies once it looks like they'll win.

Stas Bush wrote: Surprise, in 1942 they were already OFF the board and on the tracks into battle, "Tiger" particulary.

Yes the Tiger in March-Jun, with it first seeing action I believe in May, but don't quote me on that. I was refering to the Panther(Best all round "medium") tank and the super heavy 88 tanks, the Jagpanther, the Elefant, the Nashorn and the Royal Tiger(King Tiger) which could demolish Russian armor, and most were in response to the IS series of tanks.

Why would Germany have Panthers (I wouldn't call it a medium tank at 45 tons) in 1942, especially when they haven't yet encountered T-34s?

Mr Bean wrote:Ok, so we have the British Airforce, it's tank cruiser forces(Crusaders, Valantine's Matildia's, Churchill's) and assuming the french get off their ass we MIGHT see an upgunned Soma and Char-1B. The french infantry is just fine and I do think the Germans could use them to great effect in securing their rear from paritsans.

Char B1's a dead end, since the main gun's hull-mounted. The SOMUA S-35 could do with some upgunning, which wouldn't be too difficult. Hotchkiss H-35 would be a decent scout tank, with better armor and weaponry than the Panzer II. The AMC series tanks would also have been quite useful, with a comparable top speed to the Panzers, heavier guns than other tanks of the same time period (and potential to up-gun), and the 3-man crew that was superior to the typical French 2-man crew.

The Brits would additionally have the Centaurs if they were willing to use them - essentially the Cromwell equipped with a Liberty engine, produced when Meteor engines were insufficient in number. This would give the British a 75mm cannon in a cruiser tank.

Meanwhile the Germans are of course going in there with Tigers, Maruader's Panzer III/IV's. Some of the best tank and tank destroyers of the world.

The Germans have a tank advantage in 1942(Late) with the Tigers up aginst KV1's and T-34's(Both of which stomp the earily British/Frence tanks) but are even matches or lose to the German armor.

Very late. Tiger wasn't produced until August 1942 (and even then less than 1 per day), and transporting them to the front would mean they'd arrive around the beginning of winter. Tiger won't be on campaign until Spring 1943, by which time there will be around 150 of them (early production was roughly 25 per month). Panther wouldn't be available either, since the prototype wasn't finished until September 1942, and the tooling for production lines was problematic. The best German tank available at this point will be the PzKpfw IV with the 75mm L/43 cannon.

The biggest thing is how many divisions of it's British and Frence allies the Germans can chuch at the Russians, combined with the airpower(Make no mistake, the new "allies" will control the air since the Germans squandared most of their planes on the Eastern front bombing Britian). So basicly your looking at what the allies did to Germany in 1944 airforce wise when four nation's airforces were fighting just one countries airforce.

The Western forces would have total air domination. The Soviets wouldn't have the 11,000 fighters supplied by the US and UK. 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. The LaGG was underpowered, the MiG-1 only maneuverable at high altitude, and the Yak underpowered, prone to overheating, overweight, geared toward high altitude combat, and with some nasty quality control problems.

Other things to consider, will the Britis keep building super-heavy slow underguned tanks or start building some British Tigers, or hell Panthers like they built American shermans?

The Brits were already transitioning to the cruiser tank. Infantry tanks and TOG series were in case of a reversion to trench warfare. I'd anticipate large numbers of Cromwells.

The Western forces would have total air domination.

Newsflash: so did the Luftwaffe. The Soviet AF never gained "total superiority" over Luftwaffe, but that didn't prevent them from pushing the Nazis all over Europe back to Germany.

The Soviets wouldn't have the 11,000 fighters supplied by the US and UK.

The lend-lease fighters were a minor quantity in the overall fighter production in the USSR. They were very good, however, being good alone doesn't make up for the numbers.

Their fighters in 1942 would be the LaGG-3, MiG-1 and MiG-3, Yak-1, and a handful of La-5.

Um... where's the Yak-9, the most numerous Soviet fighter? Did you just forget about them? And frankly, Soviet fighters sucked royally, as well as most of our AF, but so what?

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Why would Germany have Panthers (I wouldn't call it a medium tank at 45 tons) in 1942, especially when they haven't yet encountered T-34s?

In 1942? The KV1's and the T34/74 both entered service in 1939. But the T34 did not see heavy action until the later part of 1941. The KV1 however had several dozen famous stands inculding "At the Crossroads" where one KV-1 destroyed half a dozen tanks, several field guns and stoped the advance of pretty much an entire division by ITSELF because it was sitting astride a crossroads between two split Axis Army's and they haulted the coloums to deal with the tank, but it easily killed the tanks they set aginst it, and the 88 rounds they hit it with mostly bounced. However soon combat engineers jammed the gun and it was helpless when they hit it with an 88.

The KV1 however had several dozen famous stands inculding "At the Crossroads" where one KV-1 destroyed half a dozen tanks

That was common with some lucky standalone T-34, KV and KV-2 tanks; if you speak about the Rassejnai incident, that was a KV-2 - it stopped the progress of two entire divisions for a few days! And it speaks more about the heavy tech and heroism of the crew, than about the real capabilities of the Soviet Army as a battle force.

Might the US decide to interfere in the Chinese Civil War after Japan gets pushed out since the Army and Air Force won't be dealing with Europe?

I wonder how popular the war would be back home especially in France with the war on Communism being waged by their governments and when it quickly becomes obvious they've been in cohoots with Hitler since the beginning.

I know there was a strong anti communist sentiment in England so they may be OK on the home front but I think the French would be in some serious trouble back home.

I envision Monty and Rommel sort of at odds throughout the entire campaign in the south with Rommel wanting to be a hard charger and Monty overly cautious.

I doubt Hitler could carry out the Final Solution during this alliance and teh SS would have to be restrained from doing what it did to the Russian civilians while English/French troops are around.

Italy would take a wait and see approach before joiining in and once they did they would most likely be used as garrison troops both in North Africa and Eastern Europe.

Mr Bean wrote: In 1942? The KV1's and the T34/74 both entered service in 1939. But the T34 did not see heavy action until the later part of 1941.

It won't see action if Germany never invades in 1941. Thus, no Panthers until they do encounter it and realize they need a counter.

Stravo wrote:I wonder how popular the war would be back home

What exactly is the motivation for the French and the English to let Hitler conquer Russia? It's hardly a victory to replace communism with nazism.

The motivations behind this TL is a bit implausible, yes. But perhaps, like in this one, events occurred to make everybody fear the Soviets more than the fascists.

It would make for an incredibly interesting postwar scenario. A Cold War descends after the Allies and the Nazis partition Russia and East Europe? The irony.

Surlethe wrote:Remember, the whole point of US strategy in WWII was Hitler] was public enemy #1, and the Japanese cabal only rated second on the list. Without lend-lease, the US has not only freed up millions of dollars worth of equipment which no longer goes to England to fight, it also has the shipyards which were busy manufacturing transports and ships for the Atlantic fleet to start working on warships and transports which will go through Panama to the Pacific fleet.

On the other hand, the US wouldn't have been mobilizing for two years to help England, so it wouldn't be as "warmed up" for war. I don't know how greater lack of preparedness will stack up against the lack of cost of sending ships to the Pacific to fight. Also, will the US open up a front against the USSR when Japan goes down and the US has occupied Manchuria and northern China and is starting to fight against Mao's rebels?

PS- I don't know that Hitler would have nuclear weapons; IIRC, the top German physicists defected to the United States.

I would have to say that if Russia vs the West happened, the US would STILL gear up for war, after all, what would stop the Russians from coming after us when they were done if we weren't prepared.

Surlethe wrote:Also, will the US open up a front against the USSR when Japan goes down and the US has occupied Manchuria and northern China and is starting to fight against Mao's rebels?

The US might invade Japanese-occupied Manchuria as an extension of the island-hopping campaign-- sever Japanese garrison troops from supplies and reinforcements to starve them while tempting the Japanese to weaken defense forces on the home islands by sending transports through submarine wolfpack-infested waters in a failed attempt to resupply and reinforce the garrison forces. At the time, their was a truce in effect between the Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces so both sides could focus on fighting the Japanese invaders-- a truce that was often violated-- so the Chinese Communists would probably be too busy fighting the Nationalists to bother US forces there.

Stas Bush wrote:

Western Allies, 1942, Germany has invaded Poland but never invades France. In fact France and Britain have formed a secret cabal with Hitler in order to topple Stalinist Russia and allowing Germany to seize that vital jumping off point is part of the plan. June 1942 they prepare. The Western allies have been sharing technology, money, intelligence and Germany helps France smuggle as many divisions as possible into prepositions in Poland. Britain will be using amphibious landings in the Baltic states and Leningrad areas to open up its own front.

Can Britain really make a landing in Leningrad?

I would imagine so, they have the ships and the surprise factor, whereas Hitler's troops slogged across Poland and the Baltics allowing them to bunker in.

A large percentage of Russian transport (locomotives, trucks, etc) was made in the US as part of Lend-Lease.

Stas Bush wrote:

The Dark wrote: The Western forces would have total air domination.

Newsflash: so did the Luftwaffe. The Soviet AF never gained "total superiority" over Luftwaffe, but that didn't prevent them from pushing the Nazis all over Europe back to Germany.

One difference: the Germans didn't have strategic bombers. Strat bombing may be inefficient, but anything slowing down Russian production would be very bad for them. Germany's bomber force was oriented towards close air support, which is very useful when you have near-parity of ground forces, but didn't help so much when they were vastly outnumbered. Strat bombing might be more useful against the USSR, when resources can be eliminated and the number of vehicles and weapons available reduced.

The Soviets wouldn't have the 11,000 fighters supplied by the US and UK.

The lend-lease fighters were a minor quantity in the overall fighter production in the USSR. They were very good, however, being good alone doesn't make up for the numbers.

About 15-20% of "Soviet" fighters were Lend-Lease, based on the numbers I can find (and depending on how many P-40 and P-51 were delivered, which I don't have numbers on at the moment). Losing even 1/6 of your fighter fleet is going to royally suck.

Their fighters in 1942 would be the LaGG-3, MiG-1 and MiG-3, Yak-1, and a handful of La-5.

Um... where's the Yak-9, the most numerous Soviet fighter? Did you just forget about them? And frankly, Soviet fighters sucked royally, as well as most of our AF, but so what?

*grumble* Damn Soviets introducing fighters out of numerical order . I recalled the Yak-3 not entering service until '43, so I didn't look at the higher numbers. Yak-9 entered service October '42 during Stalingrad, so it'd be around for the latter portion of the year.

Stravo wrote:I wonder how popular the war would be back home especially in France with the war on Communism being waged by their governments and when it quickly becomes obvious they've been in cohoots with Hitler since the beginning.

I know there was a strong anti communist sentiment in England so they may be OK on the home front but I think the French would be in some serious trouble back home.

I doubt Hitler could carry out the Final Solution during this alliance and teh SS would have to be restrained from doing what it did to the Russian civilians while English/French troops are around.

A war with Russia would have brought France to the brink of revolution. The Communist movement was already pretty strong in France by the 40's, and required CIA intervention to break it in 1947. The risks of war with Russia for any French government would have been particularly severe, and I highly, highly doubt that they would have happily partnered with Germany against Russia once the extent of German atrocities in Poland became clear to French and English troops.


As far as the Final Solution is concerned, the Germans were already conducting extensive progroms against the Jews starting from virtually the minute they stepped foot in Poland. The momentum of the German anti-semetic policies would have been hard for Hitler to curtail, and I think it's unlikely that he would have curtailed them anyways, even if it would have made sense for him to do so. It would have been very difficult for the allies to justify the war against the communists while overlooking German atrocities in Poland, I think.

CIA? Don't you mean OSS?

Battlehymn Republic wrote:CIA? Don't you mean OSS?

OSS was dissolved almost immediately at war's end. CIA was formed in '47 with the National Security Act of 1947, and using mafia guys in Marseilles against the Communists was one of their first real operations. They also did a lot of stuff in Italy between '47 and '50.

Stravo wrote:Aside from Shermans and Grants did the Brits have home grown tanks? That could prove disastrous for them in the fight if they lose their supply of tanks from the US? When the T-34's start swarming I wouldn't want to be a Tommy on the Leningrad front.

77mm Gun (aka cut down 17 pdr capable of killing Panthers Tigers and T-34s)

80mm Effective Hull Front
30mm Effective Hull Sides
30mm Effective Hull Rear
100mm Effective Turret Front
60mm Effective Turret Sides
60mm Effective Turret Rear
30mm Top Armor

Compare this to

T-34/85
90mm Effective Hull Front
60mm Effective Hull Sides
70mm Effective Hull Rear
100mm Effective Turret Front
80mm Effective Turret Sides
60mm Effective Turret Rear

WyrdNyrd wrote:Would the Germans even bother making tank-destroyers in this scenario? I was under the impression that the TD was a bit of a desperation measure, because you can build more TDs for the same amount of resources.

They built tank destroyers because they needed AT guns and so they put AT guns on anything that moved.



Built on old Czech 35(t) tank chassies; at best as a tank they were capable of carrying a 37mm gun. With the top cut off, you could drive around with a 75mm PaK 40.