How the Soviets Really Won WWII :)

[BlackCat]

Yeah? From the *SURPRISE* atomic program that he MAGICKED up from Harry Potter-verse, using technology derived from the Ark of the Covenant and the Spear of Thamos +3 that he picked up in Atlantis, oops, I mean Antarctica?

Nah, I guess that they just start up the heavy water production in Norway again and this time without interference

[David Floyd]

Do you have other sources than this - it says 10,200 m :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29_Superfortress

Did you even read that page? Not that I like using Wikipedia, but going straight from YOUR OWN SOURCE, and I quote:

In wartime, the B-29 was capable of flight up to 40,000 feet (12,000 m),

Sure, it wasn't exactly a joy to keep in the air, but given a year or two without being bombed routinely and lacking materials, I guess that the german engineers could improve such.

But the problem is, by the time they are able to field the Me-262 effectively and efficiently, all of a sudden they have to deal with the B-36, which the Me-262 can't handle even in theory, not even if they got lucky.

About your 20 carrier groups - there are one thing such don't like, and that is air attacks. Those groups aren't attacking an atoll with an airstrip and a dozen zero's but a continent wit lots of air bases and thousands of planes. Add to that a number of pretty effective submarines.

The submarine threat has already been contained, though. I addressed that in my first post. It'll come down to attrition, but eventually superior numbers, as well as tactics and technology, WILL win the submarine war for the United States.

As for 20 carriers - 20 carriers are going to have on the order of 800-1000 fighters to put in the air, with the prospect of additionally reinforcement (with the CVAs coming online soon, as well as additional light carriers, and if necessary the addition of the now mostly superfluous CVEs. The point is, by the time the Luftwaffe can put together enough air power to effectively threaten such a carrier force, they will have left themselves even more open for strategic attacks.

[David Floyd]

Dammit - I was talking about the period they would be over enemy territory.

I understand that, but the difference is, the B-29 would be over enemy territory but OUT OF RANGE, altitude-wise, while the same would not apply to any German bomber you can name. In other words, even if you get a bomber over the US, it can't climb high enough to evade US interceptors.

Nah, I guess that they just start up the heavy water production in Norway again and this time without interference

Heavy water production does not an atomic weapon make. Also, why assume no interference? What would stop the US and Soviets from running a joint commando raid, using sympathizers in Sweden, for example?

[BlackCat]

I understand that, but the difference is, the B-29 would be over enemy territory but OUT OF RANGE, altitude-wise, while the same would not apply to any German bomber you can name. In other words, even if you get a bomber over the US, it can't climb high enough to evade US interceptors.

Could you please comment on my previos quiestion about B-29 ? It seems that we disagree a bit.

Heavy water production does not an atomic weapon make. Also, why assume no interference? What would stop the US and Soviets from running a joint commando raid, using sympathizers in Sweden, for example?

No, but it's a step - or at least it was in the german effort to get a nuke.

What soviets ? A peaceful westfront, no more smashing of production, a smart leader on the east front (probably the most important), the soviet will be behind the Ural (if Japan dares yet another attempt, probably no soviets at all).

The swedes wasn't exactly collaborating with the allies, so why should they suddenlty choose to support it now ? No question, there could probably be found volouteers amongst norwegian and danish refugees, but my best guess is that they would be neutralized by the swedes - they didn't want to be invaded.

[David Floyd]

Could you please comment on my previos quiestion about B-29 ? It seems that we disagree a bit.

No, your source backs up my numbers. I did address that if you read my last couple of posts.

No, but it's a step - or at least it was in the german effort to get a nuke.

Sure, but there was at no point a concerted German effort to develop an atomic weapon. If Germany enjoyed the type of success we are envisioning here, what is their motivation to change anything?

What soviets ? A peaceful westfront, no more smashing of production, a smart leader on the east front (probably the most important), the soviet will be behind the Ural (if Japan dares yet another attempt, probably no soviets at all).

To deal with this one at a time:

1)Peaceful West Front. Yes, but a very active front in the Middle East...in fact, just scroll up to the post where I called out a few ways the US could maintain active combat operations.

2)No more smashing of production. Ummm, why not? Prove to me that the Me-262 could reliably intercept the B-29, whilst also containing masses of US carrier air groups off the coast of France and England, and I'll grant you this point.

3)Smart leader on the East Front. Ummm, what? There were TONS of smart leaders on the Eastern Front - Manstein, Guderian, Hoth, Reichenau, Model, von Paulus, etc. That wasn't the problem, the problem was that Adolf Hitler was the commander of the Wehrmacht. And if anyone was susceptible to victory disease, and if anyone listened to their own propaganda, it was Hitler.

4)Japanese intervention. Sorry, no. That's a myth. The Japanese Kwangtung Army fought several engagements against the Soviet Far Eastern forces in the late 1930s, and was SOUNDLY TROUNCED every time. The IJA had neither the necessary leadership, armor, mechanization, or logistics to fight a modern war, and even the dregs of the Red Army left in Siberia in 1941 were capable of handling the Kwangtung Army, and any other forces Japan sent in. As an example, the obsolete Soviet T-26 tank dominated the even more obsolete Japanese designs.

The swedes wasn't exactly collaborating with the allies, so why should they suddenlty choose to support it now ? No question, there could probably be found volouteers amongst norwegian and danish refugees, but my best guess is that they would be neutralized by the swedes - they didn't want to be invaded.

I understand that. It was an example, and my point was exactly what you called out - individual volunteers willing to assist US-Soviet efforts to sabotage the Reich.

[quote]

[BlackCat]

Did you even read that page? Not that I like using Wikipedia, but going straight from YOUR OWN SOURCE, and I quote:

Sorry, I missed that - though :

It's in the text that it's stated - I took my data from the Specifications part wich says :

Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)

But the problem is, by the time they are able to field the Me-262 effectively and efficiently, all of a sudden they have to deal with the B-36, which the Me-262 can't handle even in theory, not even if they got lucky.

ME-262 : Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft) (according to wiki)

Wiki, is what it it is, so if you have better sources I don't mind, but according to them, ME-262 will be hovering a little km higher than the B-29.

The submarine threat has already been contained, though. I addressed that in my first post. It'll come down to attrition, but eventually superior numbers, as well as tactics and technology, WILL win the submarine war for the United States.

As for 20 carriers - 20 carriers are going to have on the order of 800-1000 fighters to put in the air, with the prospect of additionally reinforcement (with the CVAs coming online soon, as well as additional light carriers, and if necessary the addition of the now mostly superfluous CVEs. The point is, by the time the Luftwaffe can put together enough air power to effectively threaten such a carrier force, they will have left themselves even more open for strategic attacks.

No offense, but that is pure BS. Subs no longer preying for transport ships will could easily change to defense and with german air superiority, they would be quite dangerous for naval ships.

I seriously doubt that a carrier fleet can survive an attack on a efficient and well organized landbased airforce.

You are right that 800-1000 fighters are a force to take serious, but remember that for each flight shot down and for each carrier that are sunken, the capability are reduced without any kind of replacement - that is not the case for the land based air forces.

[BlackCat]

That leaves the U-boat threat, but really, what's the point of that threat? The US isn't trying to ship supplies across the Atlantic - anything going to the Soviets at this point would be going through Vladivostok (which the Japanese never really interdicted) or the Middle East. The U-boats would sink far LESS shipping in this scenario, but the Atlantic Fleet would eventually still be able to swamp the U-boat threat once the shipyards started churning out CVEs, DDEs, and (in Canada's case) ASW corvettes en masse.

Problem is that if the uboats retreat and only operates under an air umbrella, then they will make substantial damage.

Germany had lots of u-boats, and lets say 50 attacking a carrier group, I'm pretty sure that they at leat will sink the carriers. Costly, yes, but 10-15 sunken u-boats to a carrier is a low price.

[Kitschum]

The swedes wasn't exactly collaborating with the allies, so why should they suddenlty choose to support it now ? No question, there could probably be found volouteers amongst norwegian and danish refugees, but my best guess is that they would be neutralized by the swedes - they didn't want to be invaded.

You're probably right. It's unlikely that Sweden would have allowed any "direct" action against Germany as long as there is a risk of retaliation. However, Sweden did collaborate in a way with the Allies. For instance, the German teleprinter codes were broken early on and the lines to and from occupied Norway were intercepted. Information relating to the German build up and timing of Barbarossa were among the things passed on to the British.

Also crucial ball bearings (Sweden was world leading in ball bearings and by far the biggest producer in Europe at the start of the war) were sold and delivered in secret on the open seas to British ships. Germany also got what it wanted, of course.

In any case if Germany wins in Europe I don't think Sweden could have remained neutral for very long.

[ZEE]

obvious troll is obvious

[Patroklos]

David Floyd, your assumptions in this thread are ridiculous.

1.) No occurrence in the European theatre discussed adds any benefit to the US in the Pacific theatre, but on the other hand adds great advantage to the Japanese once all real industrialized resistance from the British ends. For this reason at the very least the same amount of resources used by the US to defeat Japan will at the very lease be necessary in this alternate and in all probability substantially more.

2.) Your B-29 argument is absurd. For one, the plane wasn't introduced until the middle 1944. That means if Britain surrenders/is defeated in 1941, there was never any effective strategic bombing over Germany or Italy and the bulk of German conquests are also intact for economic exploitation for at least three years.

Furthermore, it was INTRODUCED in May 1944, it did not arrive in significant numbers until 1945 and even then only made up a small portion of the US bomber fleet. On top of that, in the actual timeline it was only used in the Pacific theatre, and it this one where it is the only bomber with the range to attack strategic targets in either theatre its numbers will have to be split. There is not enough of these bombers to make any significant strategic impact via trans Atlantic bombing raids using conventional weapons.

On top of that, your musings about why there would be no countermeasure to the B-29 are retarded. You are talking about sweeping changes in American strategy and force usage, yet for some inexplicable reason you are requiring Germany to just follow the actual timeline despite have defeated its most immediate enemies in 1941/42. A Germany without an in theater enemy after 42 is a Germany that can refocus its industry and resources in any number of pivotal ways for three years before America is in any position to bomb them let alone invade. Are you honestly going to maintain that the German air force and navy would not receive the lion’s share of that refocusing given the new threat atmosphere? Sure the Germans would be spending a lot of time and resources garrisoning their acquisitions, but that doesn’t require tanks/artillery/etc, all that industrial might is free to be turned to the tasks at hand. Germany can literally call on the combined resources of all of Europe, North Africa, The Middle East (we will get to that) for the sole purpose of defending Europe, which is a far easier thing to do than going on an offensive across the Atlantic. The idea that they would be unable to develop effective high altitude interceptors in that time is naive. Especially since they did just that in reality anyway.

3.) There isn’t going to be any effective US ground offensive in the Middle East. The idea is absurd on its face. For one, the British forces in the Mediterranean and Egypt are doomed once their sole source of industrial support is gone. While the colonies were good for recruits, certain munitions, food stuffs and raw materials, the bulk of their actual tanks/planes/artillery/everything factory made was still from Britain itself. The instant the home islands are gone the British naval presence in the Mediterranean is over giving the Axis unhindered access to the theater, and even without that factored in the British armies are easy pickings for the Axis once their industrial support is gone. Not to mention that without hundreds of combat division held down deterring a cross channel invasion or fighting the Soviet Army, the Axis are not hurting for men and material of any sort.

The simple fact is that in this scenario North Africa is an Axis victory, and any puppet state in the Middle East will instantly see what that means and either switch sides outright or at the very least declare neutrality.

This is the situation the American will inherit in the Middle East. So, without a friendly state in the region where are they going to base their offensive from? Are there any major ports in the Gulf what so ever capable of maintaining the logistics train of at least one hundred divisions required to accomplish what you are imagining? How is America going to provide industrial support? Are their convoys going to literally go around the tip of Africa from the East coast (straight through German U-boats operating from the African Atlantic coast unmolested), or from the US West coast all the way around the south of Australia then across the entire Indian Ocean?!?! No. The idea is ridiculous.

4.) Your characterization of the u-boat war is absurd. The Battle of the Atlantic was not won until at least 1943. That was accomplished through technological research, but also through the availability of secure operating bases for both ships and planes from both ends of the convoy chain. Without port facilities and air cover from the British side, the character of that war changes greatly. The allies also relied heavily on being able to require most of the U-boats to have to base operationally out of Germany for the most part, be supported industrially from Germany in whole, and be subject to constant harrying and interdiction via air bombardment at all times to reduce their effectiveness. In this scenario not only can Germany operate its submarines from Atlantic ports en masse, they can also do without any significant threat of interdiction from Allied air power. Lastly, as has been said, America will still have to counter Japan with the same if not more force than it did in the actual timeline. The US fleet is not in the Atlantic in bulk until 1945. That means Germany and Italy have free reign to consolidate their naval position in the Atlantic for at least three years.

5.) In this scenario Spain and Portugal join the Axis without a doubt.

6.) Your characterization of the Germany nuclear effort is a joke. The German effort was largely abandoned because with a two front war not going its way since 1942 and collapsing entirely since 1944, they simply had more immediate priorities. Once again, a Germany free of any real threat after 1942 has untold resources to allocate as it will, the nuclear program neglected in the real timeline being a prime option. Add to that that by the 1950s, Germany probably doesn’t need bombers to deliver its nukes. Without German rocketry know how, the US is woefully uncompetitive in the rocketry field.

7.) I am not sure where you are pulling this “carrier fighters protecting the bombers” thing from, but it is ridiculous. The amount of organization required for carriers to marry up with bombers flying from North America and then effectively escort them is mind boggling and not possible in that era. It is furthermore stupid because carrier aircraft at that time did not have the range required to accomplish what you are suggesting. The carriers were just too small then and the fighters did not carry the fuel necessary for such things as a consequence. On top of that, carriers sink, airfields don’t. Europe is not analogous to the Pacific archipelagos, the Axis air forces do not have to cut up and isolate their forces to defend far flung resource sources, communications links, and forward operating bases separated by thousands of miles of open ocean.

[RGBVideo]

Re: David Floyd: Why would US want to fight with Germany if the only war left would be between Germany and USSR?

Anti-German propaganda in US didn't really start until after Pearl Harbour, and even after that most of it's focus (and thus, effectiveness) was based on Germany being an empire looking to capture and dominate the whole world.

[Felch]

I love these arguments. Everybody just decides whatever the hell they want, and they argue based on their imaginary terms. But since nobody seems to agree on what the situation is, they all get pissy with each other over utter nonsense.

This is all counter-factual bull****.

[Heraclitus]

David Floyd, your assumptions in this thread are ridiculous.

1.) No occurrence in the European theatre discussed adds any benefit to the US in the Pacific theatre, but on the other hand adds great advantage to the Japanese once all real industrialized resistance from the British ends. For this reason at the very least the same amount of resources used by the US to defeat Japan will at the very lease be necessary in this alternate and in all probability substantially more.

2.) Your B-29 argument is absurd. For one, the plane wasn't introduced until the middle 1944. That means if Britain surrenders/is defeated in 1941, there was never any effective strategic bombing over Germany or Italy and the bulk of German conquests are also intact for economic exploitation for at least three years.

Furthermore, it was INTRODUCED in May 1944, it did not arrive in significant numbers until 1945 and even then only made up a small portion of the US bomber fleet. On top of that, in the actual timeline it was only used in the Pacific theatre, and it this one where it is the only bomber with the range to attack strategic targets in either theatre its numbers will have to be split. There is not enough of these bombers to make any significant strategic impact via trans Atlantic bombing raids using conventional weapons.

On top of that, your musings about why there would be no countermeasure to the B-29 are retarded. You are talking about sweeping changes in American strategy and force usage, yet for some inexplicable reason you are requiring Germany to just follow the actual timeline despite have defeated its most immediate enemies in 1941/42. A Germany without an in theater enemy after 42 is a Germany that can refocus its industry and resources in any number of pivotal ways for three years before America is in any position to bomb them let alone invade. Are you honestly going to maintain that the German air force and navy would not receive the lion’s share of that refocusing given the new threat atmosphere? Sure the Germans would be spending a lot of time and resources garrisoning their acquisitions, but that doesn’t require tanks/artillery/etc, all that industrial might is free to be turned to the tasks at hand. Germany can literally call on the combined resources of all of Europe, North Africa, The Middle East (we will get to that) for the sole purpose of defending Europe, which is a far easier thing to do than going on an offensive across the Atlantic. The idea that they would be unable to develop effective high altitude interceptors in that time is naive. Especially since they did just that in reality anyway.

3.) There isn’t going to be any effective US ground offensive in the Middle East. The idea is absurd on its face. For one, the British forces in the Mediterranean and Egypt are doomed once their sole source of industrial support is gone. While the colonies were good for recruits, certain munitions, food stuffs and raw materials, the bulk of their actual tanks/planes/artillery/everything factory made was still from Britain itself. The instant the home islands are gone the British naval presence in the Mediterranean is over giving the Axis unhindered access to the theater, and even without that factored in the British armies are easy pickings for the Axis once their industrial support is gone. Not to mention that without hundreds of combat division held down deterring a cross channel invasion or fighting the Soviet Army, the Axis are not hurting for men and material of any sort.

The simple fact is that in this scenario North Africa is an Axis victory, and any puppet state in the Middle East will instantly see what that means and either switch sides outright or at the very least declare neutrality.

This is the situation the American will inherit in the Middle East. So, without a friendly state in the region where are they going to base their offensive from? Are there any major ports in the Gulf what so ever capable of maintaining the logistics train of at least one hundred divisions required to accomplish what you are imagining? How is America going to provide industrial support? Are their convoys going to literally go around the tip of Africa from the East coast (straight through German U-boats operating from the African Atlantic coast unmolested), or from the US West coast all the way around the south of Australia then across the entire Indian Ocean?!?! No. The idea is ridiculous.

4.) Your characterization of the u-boat war is absurd. The Battle of the Atlantic was not won until at least 1943. That was accomplished through technological research, but also through the availability of secure operating bases for both ships and planes from both ends of the convoy chain. Without port facilities and air cover from the British side, the character of that war changes greatly. The allies also relied heavily on being able to require most of the U-boats to have to base operationally out of Germany for the most part, be supported industrially from Germany in whole, and be subject to constant harrying and interdiction via air bombardment at all times to reduce their effectiveness. In this scenario not only can Germany operate its submarines from Atlantic ports en masse, they can also do without any significant threat of interdiction from Allied air power. Lastly, as has been said, America will still have to counter Japan with the same if not more force than it did in the actual timeline. The US fleet is not in the Atlantic in bulk until 1945. That means Germany and Italy have free reign to consolidate their naval position in the Atlantic for at least three years.

5.) In this scenario Spain and Portugal join the Axis without a doubt.

6.) Your characterization of the Germany nuclear effort is a joke. The German effort was largely abandoned because with a two front war not going its way since 1942 and collapsing entirely since 1944, they simply had more immediate priorities. Once again, a Germany free of any real threat after 1942 has untold resources to allocate as it will, the nuclear program neglected in the real timeline being a prime option. Add to that that by the 1950s, Germany probably doesn’t need bombers to deliver its nukes. Without German rocketry know how, the US is woefully uncompetitive in the rocketry field.

7.) I am not sure where you are pulling this “carrier fighters protecting the bombers” thing from, but it is ridiculous. The amount of organization required for carriers to marry up with bombers flying from North America and then effectively escort them is mind boggling and not possible in that era. It is furthermore stupid because carrier aircraft at that time did not have the range required to accomplish what you are suggesting. The carriers were just too small then and the fighters did not carry the fuel necessary for such things as a consequence. On top of that, carriers sink, airfields don’t. Europe is not analogous to the Pacific archipelagos, the Axis air forces do not have to cut up and isolate their forces to defend far flung resource sources, communications links, and forward operating bases separated by thousands of miles of open ocean.

This post seems pretty reasonable, I think Floyd's position is pretty weak on this.

[BlackCat]

In any case if Germany wins in Europe I don't think Sweden could have remained neutral for very long.

Well, Sweden would certainly be riding the tiger's tail, but as long you deliver hq iron ore, ball bearings and allow troop transports, you would probably be safe.

[Flubber]

I love these arguments. Everybody just decides whatever the hell they want, and they argue based on their imaginary terms. But since nobody seems to agree on what the situation is, they all get pissy with each other over utter nonsense.

There is a fair bit of truth to this statement. You need to have some commonality as to where the stepping off point from the reality was. Otherwise, people are working from wildly different assumptions as to where and how the German's "won" in europe