Do you think the USSR would've defeated Germany w/o allies?

[Hosenfield]

If germany fought the war with only one front-

With no lend-lease to the russians-

No allied bombers attacking german factories-

No air wars/u-boat fighting to drain german resources for the kreigmarine and luftwaffe.

I think the germans would've taken russia.

[Commando Jordovski]

Well it depends Hosenfield...depends on if you mean could the Russians defeat Germany without any help after 1942 or 1944...which year mate?

[Hosenfield]

from the start

[Commando Jordovski]

from the start

That is quite a topic to debate on Hosenfield, quite something to think about.
I would say the Russians would most likely be defeated if it was just the Germans vs Soviet Union, even though their was tens of millions of Russians and the Germans had about half the troops the russians did,
but mind you there was 130 russian divisions when war broke out 1941 when there was 140 german divisions.
The Germans were much more prepared for War and well trained unlike the russian conscripts.

Well when the Germans did attack russia 0300 hours on June 22, 1941, they had alread been at war for 3 years and quite weakened.
They attacked the soviet union on that day with 140 German Divisions, they were split into three army groups...
1.to capture Leningrad
2.Kiev
3.Moscow

If the Russians and Germans had gone to war singularly with eachother then i reckon with the German factories, techonology and knowledge they would of beaten the Russians but only just with mighty losses from the
German side.

[Hanz Lutz]

I think NO germans and all axis will then fight in Russia ,soviets then for sure lose. :wink:

[Commando Jordovski]

Well it depends as i said before...if only germany is versing russia that , would germany be still having help from its axis allies or on it's owne....e.g Italians,french..ect, because if it was JUST the germans against the russians then the germany army population would decrease heaps.

[Siberian Rifleman]

My history teacher told me that Russia could've defeated NAZI Germany without ANY allies. While I had my doubts, recently I read that Hitler used around 80% of his total military forces on the Eastern Front (Russia), the rest he kept in Western Europe. So if Russia had beaten Hitler's 80% armed forces on her own, I doubt the other 20% would've helped ? Just my opinion, please correct me if I'm wrong ! :)

[Commando Jordovski]

True, but most likely that a large percentage of them soldiers were from Nazi occupied countries such as Italy, France, Poland...ect
Other Axis countries.
So if the Russians are not having any help from their allies then the Germans shouldn't have any help from their Axis Bumchums, you know what i mean?

[Siberian Rifleman]

True, but most likely that a large percentage of them soldiers were from Nazi occupied countries such as Italy, France, Poland...ect
Other Axis countries.
So if the Russians are not having any help from their allies then the Germans shouldn't have any help from their Axis Bumchums, you know what i mean?

True Comrade Jordovski... So are you with me or against me ? :) I didn't quite get your point haha...

[Hosenfield]

My history teacher told me that Russia could've defeated NAZI Germany without ANY allies. While I had my doubts, recently I read that Hitler used around 80% of his total military forces on the Eastern Front (Russia), the rest he kept in Western Europe. So if Russia had beaten Hitler's 80% armed forces on her own, I doubt the other 20% would've helped ? Just my opinion, please correct me if I'm wrong ! :)


No offense, but many people on this site probably know more about ww2 then your high school history teacher. While its true that russia consumed around 4/5s of germany's land forces, it was much less taxing on the german airforce and kreigsmarine. Russia lacked the ability to successfully combat the german navy and airforce in the first three and half years of the war.

And it took about three years for the western allies to pound at the german airforce and navy until the west was vulnerable to an invasion and german's factories were being bombed.

the naval battles in teh western front forced germany to produce around 940 U-boats, which consumed a lot of germany's industrial strength. not to mention thousands of aircraft. the resources that this war material consumed could've been sent to the eastern front in the form of tanks and more aircraft, more motorization.

In 1942, germany was dangerously close at overcoming the soviet union. they completely had the change. and they blew it by wasting 300,000 men in pointless close combat at stalingrad and loseing a lot of equipment.
but even if this stuipid attack was taken out, imagine if germany's afrika korp under rommel was here? I'm sure that operation uranus would've failed. the germans had already taken more then 3/4s of the city by then.

After a proposed victory at stalingrad, the route to the caucauses would be open, and russia's fuel wells would be taken. about 85% of russia's fuel was supplied from this region, so if taken and succeffully defended, russia would "bleed to death".

furhtermore, historically speaking, by 1945, russia was at the end of their manpower pool 12 million russian soldiers had died along with 17 million civilians. They started suffering the same manpower shortages the germans were suffering in early 1944/late 1943.

[Hosenfield]

Siberian, your picture seems to be fiction. the russian aT rifle never had a magazine. and that guy seems to be wearing a flak vest.?

[Commando Jordovski]

Oh come on Hosenfield buddy :wink: , the guys new lets give him a break :wink: :wink: :D


You got a cool illustrated avatar mate, rather fictitious character, The weapon he is holding looks more like a RPD degtarev. 8) 8)

[Hosenfield]

Oh come on Hosenfield buddy :wink: , the guys new lets give him a break :wink: :wink: :D


You got a cool illustrated avatar mate, rather fictitious character, The weapon he is holding looks more like a RPD degtarev. 8) 8)

hmm, just curious on where he got that picture.

[Commando Jordovski]

Probably googled for it, theres heaps of pictures like that on google or other related image search engines.

[Man of Stoat]

Siberian, your picture seems to be fiction. the russian aT rifle never had a magazine. and that guy seems to be wearing a flak vest.?

There were 2 russian anti-tank rifles - one a bolt-action (PTRD) and one a semi-auto (PTRS with a 5-shot magazine).

A good article on Russian anti-tank rifles: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/antitank.pdf

[Hosenfield]

thats right. hmm, the father of the barrett i presume?

[Siberian Rifleman]

Siberian, your picture seems to be fiction. the russian aT rifle never had a magazine. and that guy seems to be wearing a flak vest.?

Hello there Hosenfield, that is a PTRS the guy is holding, not a PTRD :)

[Siberian Rifleman]

I think you're right on the flak vest though :)

[Siberian Rifleman]

My history teacher told me that Russia could've defeated NAZI Germany without ANY allies. While I had my doubts, recently I read that Hitler used around 80% of his total military forces on the Eastern Front (Russia), the rest he kept in Western Europe. So if Russia had beaten Hitler's 80% armed forces on her own, I doubt the other 20% would've helped ? Just my opinion, please correct me if I'm wrong ! :)


No offense, but many people on this site probably know more about ww2 then your high school history teacher. While its true that russia consumed around 4/5s of germany's land forces, it was much less taxing on the german airforce and kreigsmarine. Russia lacked the ability to successfully combat the german navy and airforce in the first three and half years of the war.

And it took about three years for the western allies to pound at the german airforce and navy until the west was vulnerable to an invasion and german's factories were being bombed.

the naval battles in teh western front forced germany to produce around 940 U-boats, which consumed a lot of germany's industrial strength. not to mention thousands of aircraft. the resources that this war material consumed could've been sent to the eastern front in the form of tanks and more aircraft, more motorization.

In 1942, germany was dangerously close at overcoming the soviet union. they completely had the change. and they blew it by wasting 300,000 men in pointless close combat at stalingrad and loseing a lot of equipment.
but even if this stuipid attack was taken out, imagine if germany's afrika korp under rommel was here? I'm sure that operation uranus would've failed. the germans had already taken more then 3/4s of the city by then.

After a proposed victory at stalingrad, the route to the caucauses would be open, and russia's fuel wells would be taken. about 85% of russia's fuel was supplied from this region, so if taken and succeffully defended, russia would "bleed to death".

furhtermore, historically speaking, by 1945, russia was at the end of their manpower pool 12 million russian soldiers had died along with 17 million civilians. They started suffering the same manpower shortages the germans were suffering in early 1944/late 1943.

Thank you Hosenfield, this is the kind of reply I'm hoping for :) Really educational, thank you very much !

[Hosenfield]

that guy seems to be carrying an ammo box (about 15 pounds), the ptrs(45 pounds) a flak vest (30 pounds) something on his back( about 10-20 pounds). how the heck does he walk? lol.

[Siberian Rifleman]

that guy seems to be carrying an ammo box (about 15 pounds), the ptrs(45 pounds) a flak vest (30 pounds) something on his back( about 10-20 pounds). how the heck does he walk? lol.

LoL... I think he held all these equipment/ammo/weapon to pose for the pic. When that's done I'm pretty sure he dispose of most of the stuff haha ~

[arhob1]

My completely ignorant response is:

My Head says the Germans would have won.

My Heart says the Russians would have won through horrendous attrition on both sides. Stalin, in my view, would have done whatever was necessary in terms of expending lives to win. In the occupied Soviet territories many men were forced in to the partisan movement through the threat of reprisals if they did not join the Partisan movement when the lands were regained. Coupled with German brutality in these regions I suspect that the Germans would have had to sink ever greater resources in to just maintaining control over the occupied territories in terms of partisan groups, sabotage on LOC, etc. The Russians also had some world beating tanks and aircraift (T34 and the ??? aircraft (sorry forget what it was called now)).

Whilst Stalin and his "grip of terror" were around and the Germans were ruling with a grip of iron I coud see Germany winning the battles but not the war - a bit like the USSR in Afghanistan??? I don't think Hitler could have ruled Russia for more than a few years at most - no one else seems to have! They woudl have lost thousands of troops killed a month just trying to rule the place.

I vaguely recollect that Hitler's objectives were not to take over all of Russia but to take over all of the induatrialised and oil producing Western part with a defensive line somewhere down the middle of teh current country we know as Russia. I remember reading this somewhere but don't know where. Perhaps he thought the Japs could have the Eastern part???

PS - where is the pic of the ammo leaden bloke that people are commenting about with Siberian Rifleman? I can't see thsi - where should I be able to see it?

Sorry if thsi is all c**p - I am semi-drunk at mo.

[StalingradK]

Every time the Germans would make an offensive, they would be pushed back by the winter :lol: .

[HnH]

No doubt they would. It would took a lot more time, then only 5 years, but Russians surely would have defeated fashists.

[Canaris]

Another what if. If we assume than that Britain and France did not declare war on Germany in 1939 and let them take Poland so that from Oct 39 Germany was free to deal with Russia.

With the possible exception of Operations in the Balklans in April 41 delaying Operation Barbarossa by a couple of months allied activity did not realy hamper German activity in Russia before late 1942.

The Battle of the Atlantic was caertainly a big effort to Germany and the U-boat crews were possibly the best of her manpower. German activity in Africa prior to Operation Torch was limited to a Panzer Corps and a few aircraft and the Allied Bombing campaign had not really got started before early to mid 1943 though it is worth noting the 10,000 88mm FLAK guns that would have been really useful against Russian tanks.

In short because Germany was so concentrated against Russia until D-day I don't think the lack of a second frond would have made so much difference till 1944.

But I can't see the Russians breaking through the German lines in 1944 without a second front. I think the war would have dragged on well into 1946 though its worth noting that the USSR had a greater appetite for an attritional struggle than the Germans so I think the advantage would still lie with them.

[Twitch1]

If Germany was fighting them with no outside aid and without any other enemy or any other front the answer is yes, absolutely.

[alephh]

No chance russians alone to beat german forces - me thinks :-)

Almost all soviet production was converted to military production, meaning, they produced zero locomotives, only handful of trucks, etc. They lost most of their food fields etc. Still they had lot of locomotives, trucks, food etc etc. Where did they came from? From UK, US.

After third war-year russians were running out of men, and pretty much forced everyone in the re-captured area to join in the armies etc. This of course never stopped the myth of endless soviet resources...

And Hitler kept most of the production to civil products until the last couple of years - only minor percentage of german production was military related. And still german forces cruised to capture 50% of several resources in Soviet Union.

So, the question is: could Stalin have won without food, trucks, locomotives............. No.

[StalingradK]

Ha ha ha ha... No.
Yeah the US and UK sent a lot of supplies to Russia, but Russia could produce the amount given to them themselves in the course of a couple of months, the Red Army was very powerful at the end of the war. Sure, a lot of crop fields were burnt in Western Russia, But what about the East eh? Have you seen the rest of the Russia that's not in Europe? It's pretty big if you ask me, but that's just my opinion. No offence, but you rub off on me like someone who thinks Sherman tanks were the best... And they were not sir......

-Sincerely StalingradK

[Man of Stoat]

Much of the east of Russia was largely undevelopped - one of the aims of the slave labour programme of the GULAG was to develop these areas, but they never properly succeeded. The SU was, IIRC, a net importer of food right up to its downfall (for example Kruschev was shocked to learn in 1956 that the USSR was producing less grain then than Russia in 1913 due to disasterous agricultural policies).

The US and UK sent not only food and vehicles but huge quantities of things the Russians were lacking such as cloth and aluminium (aluminium being what you build aircraft out of). You really cannot underestimate the quantities involved, and the impact they had. Even things like rubber boots were sent!

How on earth could the Russians produce the huge quantities given to them "in a couple of months" if they didn't have the infrastructure to do so?

[alephh]

Yeah the US and UK sent a lot of supplies to Russia, but Russia could produce the amount given to them themselves in the course of a couple of months.

But WHY soviets could produce decent amount of tanks?

BECAUSE there wasn't need for soviets to produce several key components: trucks, locomotives, engines, food etc etc etc etc.

Some figures: "After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons."

... And since you cannot make tanks out of snow...

Sure, a lot of crop fields were burnt in Western Russia, But what about the East eh?

What about the East? There was nothing there, take a look at where the soviet naturel sources were located, where population was, where factories were... West West West. Take a look at the calculations made how many percentages germans managed to capture of natural sources.

More figures: "Areas occupied by the Germans until Nov 1941 accounted for 63% of the coal, 68% of pig iron, 58% of the steel, 60% of the aluminum, 38% of grains and 84% of the sugar produced in the entire Soviet Union before the war."

Ok, soviets had decent amount of ice, snow and cold in the east, but I fail to see how that helped soviets to build tanks etc.

[StalingradK]

Sorry, this is my fault, should have been more specific, when I mean Eastern Russia, (WW2 Wise) I usually talk about anything east of Moscow, usually up until Siberia.

[Panzer Ace]

Yes....I strongly believe the Germans could of beaten Russia..... Read this article that I found.... one thing that sticks out.... in FY 1942.... Germany produced 30 million tonnes of steel.... but only 8.5 million tonnes of that was for military use...!!!!
I just dont know what they were thinking.....

Here's the link.... http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

[Crab_to_be]

Don't forget that strategic bombing by the Western Allies tied up considerable manpower and weaponary for the air defence of Germany that would have been sorely needed on the Eastern Front. This is in addition to the damage actually done by bombing, especially oil related infrastructure.

By the Russians' own admission, the Germans got close enough to Moscow for the artillery battle to be heard in the Kremlin. Moscow was a vital transportation node for the Soviet Union and its capture may well have disrupted their ability to manoeuvre and support large formations sufficiently to prevent a substantial counter attack. This would allow the Germans to consolidate their hold of the Western USSR over the winter. Critically, if the Russians could not press the Germans as hard, the German logisitics train would be better able to provide the necessary support to survive the Russian winter. The psychological effects of capturing Moscow would have been considerable. Note that there weren't been sufficient Soviet formations lying in reserve to trap and destroy the German formations in Moscow.

The Germans came very close to defeating the Soviet Union despite the help of the Western Allies. Without this help, Moscow would have been taken with devastating effect on the Russians' ability to resist the Germans. Capturing the entire Soviet Union is another matter and may well have been regarded as disproportionate effort for the possible gains. When considering the raw numbers, it is important to bear in mind that the difference between catastrophic defeat and glorious victory can be very small indeed and the numbers associated with the Western Allies' support of the USSR may well have been those that tipped the balance from defeat to victory, despite being small relative to the total Soviet effort.

[Panzer Ace]

Don't forget that strategic bombing by the Western Allies tied up considerable manpower and weaponary for the air defence of Germany that would have been sorely needed on the Eastern Front. This is in addition to the damage actually done by bombing, especially oil related infrastructure.

By the Russians' own admission, the Germans got close enough to Moscow for the artillery battle to be heard in the Kremlin. Moscow was a vital transportation node for the Soviet Union and its capture may well have disrupted their ability to manoeuvre and support large formations sufficiently to prevent a substantial counter attack. This would allow the Germans to consolidate their hold of the Western USSR over the winter. Critically, if the Russians could not press the Germans as hard, the German logisitics train would be better able to provide the necessary support to survive the Russian winter. The psychological effects of capturing Moscow would have been considerable. Note that there weren't been sufficient Soviet formations lying in reserve to trap and destroy the German formations in Moscow.

The Germans came very close to defeating the Soviet Union despite the help of the Western Allies. Without this help, Moscow would have been taken with devastating effect on the Russians' ability to resist the Germans. Capturing the entire Soviet Union is another matter and may well have been regarded as disproportionate effort for the possible gains. When considering the raw numbers, it is important to bear in mind that the difference between catastrophic defeat and glorious victory can be very small indeed and the numbers associated with the Western Allies' support of the USSR may well have been those that tipped the balance from defeat to victory, despite being small relative to the total Soviet effort.

Good points.... without the continuous bombing of Germany.... think of how many extra 88's could of been used in the Soviet Union. The Germans would never be able to match the tank for tank production... but they could make up for it with tank and anti tank guns working together.

[Lemuel]

Don't forget that strategic bombing by the Western Allies tied up considerable manpower and weaponary for the air defence of Germany that would have been sorely needed on the Eastern Front. This is in addition to the damage actually done by bombing, especially oil related infrastructure.

By the Russians' own admission, the Germans got close enough to Moscow for the artillery battle to be heard in the Kremlin. Moscow was a vital transportation node for the Soviet Union and its capture may well have disrupted their ability to manoeuvre and support large formations sufficiently to prevent a substantial counter attack. This would allow the Germans to consolidate their hold of the Western USSR over the winter. Critically, if the Russians could not press the Germans as hard, the German logisitics train would be better able to provide the necessary support to survive the Russian winter. The psychological effects of capturing Moscow would have been considerable. Note that there weren't been sufficient Soviet formations lying in reserve to trap and destroy the German formations in Moscow.

The Germans came very close to defeating the Soviet Union despite the help of the Western Allies. Without this help, Moscow would have been taken with devastating effect on the Russians' ability to resist the Germans. Capturing the entire Soviet Union is another matter and may well have been regarded as disproportionate effort for the possible gains. When considering the raw numbers, it is important to bear in mind that the difference between catastrophic defeat and glorious victory can be very small indeed and the numbers associated with the Western Allies' support of the USSR may well have been those that tipped the balance from defeat to victory, despite being small relative to the total Soviet effort.

Good points.... without the continuous bombing of Germany.... think of how many extra 88's could of been used in the Soviet Union. The Germans would never be able to match the tank for tank production... but they could make up for it with tank and anti tank guns working together.

good points but also don't forget about the Luftwaffe! Squadrons in France and Germany which were trying to defend German cities from RAF bombs wouldve been freed up for use on the Eastern Front.

also depending how far back you take this "What if scenario" if Britain hadn't been in the war then the Luftwaffe wouldn'tve suffered such devastating losses during the Battle of Britain and couldve focused on Russia instead.

by mid November 1940 the Luftwaffe had dropped 13 000 tonnes of high explosives and over a million incendiary bombs on London, if those bombs had been falling on Moscow instead of London then surely it wouldve had at least some effect on Russia's ability to build tanks etc?

[Chevan]

Wow.....what's nice points, gentlemens. :(
I think it's not correct questions -could USSR alone won the Germany
because Germans satellite was practically all the Europe in 1941. The Fashists United Europe include hi-industrial Chehoslovakia (which was "presented" for Hitler by Britan and France in 1938), France (which was "unexpected captured" in 1940), Italy (which was voluntarily joined ) and ets. Those all countries had a powerfull industry and farming which began work for the Germany. The England was practically isolated after the "victory" in battle for britan and didn't considered by Hitler as serious enemy.
Therefore the question is -could USSR won the fashists Europe?
It's opened question.
The most critically period in Eastern front was end 1941 during battle for Moscow, when germans blizkrig plan "barbarossa" went down and germans troops were tied near Leninggrad
Only after then allies began war supplieses for gold and lend lise.
Total allies aid (including civil and martial production since 1942) was amount about 4 % of Soviet war output. Certainly it's a essential ,particularly in murderous battles like Slalingrad or Kursk. But i don't think that it was decisive part.
And don't forget that rendering aid for Red Army allies saved their ass.
If about 2000 germans fighters which were losed in Eastern front in 1941-44 encountered allied bombers do you seriosly think that without air superiority bombing would "effective"?
As wrote Housefield, the 4/5 of germans war machine was absorbed by Eastern front.Let's imagine it enourmous forces meet allied landing of troops in Normandia. I think the resoult would be catastrophic for allies. Who ,in this case ,could saved private Rayn?
:?

[Chevan]

........................by mid November 1940 the Luftwaffe had dropped 13 000 tonnes of high explosives and over a million incendiary bombs on London, if those bombs had been falling on Moscow instead of London then surely it wouldve had at least some effect on Russia's ability to build tanks etc?
:lol:
If about 1 500 000 tonnes germans bombs ,which were droppet to the soviet cities in 1941-42, would falled to London, could anybody to find british capital on map?

[alephh]

by mid November 1940 the Luftwaffe had dropped 13 000 tonnes of high explosives and over a million incendiary bombs on London, if those bombs had been falling on Moscow instead of London then surely it wouldve had at least some effect on Russia's ability to build tanks etc?

Considering that soviets had a lot of factories producing tanks/parts around the Soviet Empire what difference would have destruction of couple of factories in Moscow caused?

And especially since basically everything that wasn't nailed down was evacuated away from Moscow.

And one should remember that Luftwaffe bombed Stalingrad in ruins, and yet factories produced and repaired tanks inside ruined city in collapsed buildings.

[Jim]

Germany would win lol. The Soviets won by leading tech from the Americans such as the Bazooka. its air force would have failed against the luftwuffe.What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?

[Chevan]

Germany would win lol. The Soviets won by leading tech from the Americans such as the Bazooka. its air force would have failed against the luftwuffe.What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?

Befor the writing something, will try to think a little ;)
What was role of Bazooka in Slalingrad battle, battle for Moscow and Kursk - the most inportain strategic battles in the Eastern front?
Certainly Amercan Lend-lise (famouse P-39 Aircobra, Studdebeker, jeeps and material and product supplies) played importaint role in Soviet strategical offensives in 1944-45 yy. But to talk that "Germany would won the USSR"- this is slobbery fairy tales.
Actually, Germany would won the USSR if Japanes was not so stupid and attacked not the Perl-Harbor but the Syberia. But the thanks for the god ( and maybe soviet diplomacy) they imagined itself by the "powerful sea state" and involved USA into the war.

What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?

Absolutly nothing. V-1/V-2 was mostly psychological weapon not realy war ( What was military effect of application it on London? )
And the distance from german position to the evacuated soviet plants in 1941-42 (Ural region) was more then 1000 km this is out of range V-1/V-2.

Cheers.

[Digger]

G'day,

The problem with 'what if' scenarios is they invariably breed further 'what if' scenarios, as this thread has. So I'll answer on two levels.

The Soviet Union would have won, if German strength and makeup of forces remained the same as history tells us.

On the other hand if the Luftwaffe was expanded to the level it should have been at the beginning of Barbarossa, then the Germans would have won.And we're talking of a force three times the size of the actual forces deployed during Barbarossa.

Sorry for the each way bet guys.

Regards to all
Digger.

[Lancer44]

Germany would win lol. The Soviets won by leading tech from the Americans such as the Bazooka. its air force would have failed against the luftwuffe.What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?

Hi Jim,

Believe me it is not easy for me to agree with Chevan. I don't like bolsheviks... what can I do? I'm just bastard like that!

But in this case, I support Chevan word by word and letter by letter!
Nothing to add to his post! If Japs would attack in Far East and Stavka would not be able to move some siberian divisions... well, the scale could be tilted.
Still, I think only COULD. Nothing sure.

I agree with Digger that 3 times stronger Luftwaffe could make difference.
But problem is, that essentially destruction of obsolete I-15, I-16 and SB-2 planes forced utmost importance of re-starting evacuated behind the Ural aircraft industry.

What the figures are?

In first month of the war Luftwaffe held an overhelming attritional advantage of about 10 to 1 over red Aviation.

But looking at it from statistical point of view .... hey, hey!... Much worse picture is emerging!
In first month of the war, soviets lost nearly 7500 aircrafts - 70% of their strength, mostly bombed on the ground. (AND NO MATCH FOR LUFTWAFFE)
Germans lost 774 aircrafts this month - 60% of their total strength committed to Eastern front. AND MOST MODERN!

Soviet loses were mainly obsolete planes. After initial shock, new models were flowing in, at a rate that Germany could not even dream of.
Perhaps they were not excellent, pilots disliked them, but soviet industry churned in 1942 - 3332 MiG-3's and 6528 LaGG-3's.

Someone may say that they were not too good... Yes, soviet pilots called
LaGG-3 = Lakirovannyy Garantirovanny Grob...
Varnished Guaranteed Coffin...

But in what numbers???? The same story repeated again - Panther was better then T-34 and Sherman, so what? How many Panthers Germans could produce?

And new LaGG-7 were created on their experience to match German FW-190.


Looking at this anyone would know that Germany lost the war around 22-nd of July 1941. The rest was just a matter of time.
Perhaps without Lend Lease and vital sheeted aluminium supplies, soviets would have to fight until 1947, but they would end up in Berlin... no doubt about it.

P.S.

Jim, I know that you are interested in history. Great, I would like to help you to understand a lot of real history.
And I will do it if you ask. Any question welcomed!

But avoid voicing opinions like that:

"Germany would win lol. The Soviets won by leading tech from the Americans such as the Bazooka. its air force would have failed against the luftwuffe.What if the V-1 \V-2 Rockets hit the factories and major cities out of range for the airforce?"

Mate, if we talking about computer games... well, you may be close.
But in REAL, Yanks could drop 10,000 bazookas without any effect.
I would say that 10,000 empty wine bottles would be more helpfull than unknown weapon in hands of untrained troops.

Cheers,

Lancer44

[Digger]

G'day,

I always have a problem with claimed Soviet production figures and wonder if much of it was propaganda. During 1942 the Soviets were throwing every plane they produced into combat, virtually as they came off the production line.

At the time of operation Uranus they scraped together just on 1,400 aircraft under the direction of Marshall Alexander Novikov, including four Air Corps from Stavka reserve. The rest of the front was threadbare.

At the same time Soviet production of aero engines had just reached five hundred units for the first time since the enforced dislocation of the industry eastwards. So I cannot see how the claimed fighter production figures add up.

This is not a pot shot at you Lancer 44, as some Soviet figures have been very rubbery in the past and I've learnt to not entirely trust them.

Having said that, the massive increase in aircraft production did come in 1943 and they were able to directly challenge the Luftwaffe before the Battle of Kursk.

Regards to all
Digger

[Jasa]

Soviet production figures, much to the chagrin of Hitler, have been confirmed as accurate. Although I don't understand what is meant when they say could the USSR have defeated the Fascists without Allies- do they mean entirely alone? I don't think that would have been possible. It might not have been possible had the Germans not invaded Yugoslavia as well. All that matters is what finally did happen.

[Digger]

G'day,

Hitler was highly irritated that Soviet industry had recovered throughout 1942, but whether he knew the full extent is open to conjecture as subordinates were reluctant to pass on bad news. Hitler's tantrums in the lead up to Stalingrad were explosive.

German sources for Soviet production figures were very accurate, as they were in Washington. The problem as I said earlier is claimed production of aircraft does not match up with aero engine production figures. The only way I think this gap may have been 'fiddled' is if there were stockpiled aircraft waiting for placement of engines.

There was considerable conservation of aircraft strength in the winter months of 42/43.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[Man of Stoat]

Do not underestimate the sheer quantity and variety of what was sent to Russia under lend lease -- aside from aircraft, tanks, vehicles and weapons, tens of thousands of tonnes of aluminium, armour plate, food, cloth, and countless other sundries, including strategic raw materials that Russia was short of.

[Chevan]

Believe me it is not easy for me to agree with Chevan. I don't like bolsheviks... what can I do? I'm just bastard like that!


Mate , you are the "bolshevik" even more than i thought. :) ;)

[elyse_42]

I think Germany probably could've taken russia if they did everything that hosenfield had mentioned. I believe this because look at how the Germans bumbled them stalingrad. Germany would've taken over the whole world they would've kept spreading and today we would either not be in existance or be speaking german right now. I think it is a great thing they didn't though because so many people would be injured.

[VonWeyer]

USSR + winter = YES

USSR - winter = NO

[Gen. Sandworm]

USSR + winter = YES

USSR - winter = NO

Russia's best commander's Generals Winter, Snow and Mud. ;)

[Chevan]

USSR + winter = YES

USSR - winter = NO
Good humor VonWeyler :D
Simular logic is:
Great Britain + La Mansh = winner of ww2
Great Britain - La Mansh = loser of ww2
Becouse what did save the GB from the german invasion in 1940-41 if not English Channel??
or:
USA + Pacific osean = winner
USA - Pacific osean = loser

Cheers.

[Chevan]

Russia's best commander's Generals Winter, Snow and Mud. ;)
It was the soviet intelligence who had convinced Hitler that Stalingrad in Jenuary this is Miami in summer. :) :D
And they promised to Hitler asphalt highway directly to the Moscow. ;)

Now i understand why in russia the roads are so bad - this is the secret plan against any western invaders.

Cheers.

[VonWeyer]

Good point Chevan.

[Kovalski]

Now i understand why in russia the roads are so bad - this is the secret plan against any western invaders.
Cheers.

I knew it!!! ;)

[Tiger-I]

I did not go back and read all the posts here on this question, so forgive me, as I'm pressed for time. But, I thought I'd take the time to make an "un-influenced by other posts" post on the subject at hand.
It is a hard question in many aspects.
The Russians have always had their terrain, and no-one, including Napolean, has ever defeated it.
I must say-this was Hitlers greatest mistake.
Over-confidence. As many have said before was the case, including his own officers.
Given all of the facts, I will give my opinion to this point;
I think, if Hitler had focused his sights on Russia, not having a second front, he could have driven through to Moscow at the outbreak with Blitzkrieg.
The time that was given to Russia to gather itself, was the downfall.
If Russia had been ready at an outbreak, I think a stalemate would have ensued.
All this, with the assumption there is not a second allied front.
Hitler bit off too much from a sandwich that was too big for him.

[Egorka]

Hello!

The strength of any country is not unlimited. USSR was not an exception.
Germany was much-much more industrialised. The same goes for Czechoslovakia at that time. I remember reading somewhere that Skoda factory alone produced more tanks and trucks during the war then UK. So you put USSR alone and isolated, with no aid from outside against Germany controlled Europe and Germany could pull all of their forces from all the places in the world to eastern front, then there is very high chance they would reach Ural. Of course then they would have to keep this territories and it is far from easy.

But in real world there are many players. UK did not want to give too much power neither Hitler nor Stalin. UK’s policy in essence was to protect its own interests (like controlling Mediterranean passage to Suez). So in reality USSR had to fight alone until D-Day. This is of course not 100% true, but nonetheless correct to say. US and mostly Churchill were using USSR to do the job by sending some supplies (as valuable they were they did not affect the course of the war on global scale).

But do not worry. If Stalin was in the same position as Churchill, he would do exactly the same – let other to exhaust each other.


Best regards
Igor Korenev

[nosta3824382]

Sorry for my English defeated Germany u mean just German .Not all they Axis Finland Romania Italy .And Soviet save from Japan.When German save from U.S.A. and Britain.No land lease .
In just my opinion Soviet should win
1st German ally (Romania Finland Italy) march 1.5 millian mens to Soviet at beginning of the war and even German have to protect their west Soviet have to protect their east from Japan.

2nd land lease send weapon to Soviet about 10% of their productivity in gun and air force .And it can send in number when after they win U-boat in 1943 . Operation Uranus which the turning point of the war finish in 1942 .And make them serrender in Stalingrad in Feb 1943

Soviet win in factory if war were long Soviet have more advantage .And German will have fuel crisis some day.

But Soviet should respect Ally help .With out Ally help Axis should destroy them. Not only U.S. and Britain but include China and Asia freedom figther who hold Japan.And Ally should respect Soviet who help them win German.

[Chevan]

But Soviet should respect Ally help .With out Ally help Axis should destroy them. Not only U.S. and Britain but include China and Asia freedom figther who hold Japan.And Ally should respect Soviet who help them win German.
This is holy thue nosta..;)
But i think you could agree the allies should also respect the USSR contribution to the war. In the Eastern from were crushed the 70-80% Germans&axis infantry and tanks and at least 50% of german aviation -the power that could easy destroy the allies coalition forces in the Africa-Italy-Normandia.

[Sgt.Malarky]

hell no the germans would have won.

[Cojimar 1945]

The weather cannot be used as an excuse for the German failure although there are other excuses that seem more reasonable.

One thing that seems a bit odd is that the Soviets were able to mobilize such a huge number of soldiers given the reported population of the USSR and the fact that a considerable part of the population was in areas controlled by the Germans for part of the conflict. Where did all the soldiers come from? The population of the USSR does not seem all that huge based on the stats I have seen yet they reportedly mobilized over 34,000,000 in their armed forces from 1941-1945.

Additionally, quite a few people in the USSR sided with the Germans and they would not have been available to the Soviet war effort.

[Cojimar 1945]

The USSR did destroy more of the German army than the other allies did but I believe that its contribution to destroying the German airforce was well under 50 % since most of the luftwaffe seems to have been withdrawn from the USSR by 1942/1943.

[bwing55543]

To sum it up, no. On the Eastern front, each side had give or take 400 divisions, whereas each side had give or take 50 on the Western Front. If Germany had all 450 on the Eastern front, they may have won.

[Chevan]

And what if Germans had 450 divicions in the Western front- Is the game over for the allies in Africa and Normandy?;)

[overlord644]

well even if the germans had 450 divisions on the western front wouldn't the allies have still had air superiority and the superior industrial power which after all was the main reason for the allied victory

[Chevan]

well even if the germans had 450 divisions on the western front wouldn't the allies have still had air superiority and the superior industrial power which after all was the main reason for the allied victory
Well after the capturing of Aftrica , sea blocade of Britain, occupation of oil fields of Kavkaz (and inavitably Iran )- would the allies had a such industrial superioriry as you tell?
Coz the lack of resources WAS only the reason why the German industry losed the competition with allies.
BTW if the whole German air forces were presented in the Western front - i/m seriously doubt the allies would have the air superiority.


Cheers.

[Crosshairs]

you gotta look at it this way. Hitler thought his Eurpoean mainland was completely safe and inpenetrable. Which ultimately led him to continuing the campagin against USSR.

I think that had Hitler not attacked USSR, the German fighting force could have eaisly prevented an invasion such as Normandy. Because the disadvantage of attacking countries far apart from another, is you SPREAD OUT AND THIN LINE YOUR DEFENSES.

(many say that this is a result of the Roman and Greek Empires -- as well as problems within.-- these two empires had so much landmass to cover, that the line of soldiers grew thinner and thinner)


So Ultimately, if the war were just Russia and Germany. Germany would have won (considering if they had the North Afrika Corps, and the French Invaders with them)

[Chevan]

you gotta look at it this way. Hitler thought his Eurpoean mainland was completely safe and inpenetrable. Which ultimately led him to continuing the campagin against USSR.

I think that had Hitler not attacked USSR, the German fighting force could have eaisly prevented an invasion such as Normandy. Because the disadvantage of attacking countries far apart from another, is you SPREAD OUT AND THIN LINE YOUR DEFENSES.

(many say that this is a result of the Roman and Greek Empires -- as well as problems within.-- these two empires had so much landmass to cover, that the line of soldiers grew thinner and thinner)


So Ultimately, if the war were just Russia and Germany. Germany would have won (considering if they had the North Afrika Corps, and the French Invaders with them)
Well i'm agre with point that the the too Great landmass is the problem for Impire.
And you right Hitler feels free to began the new Great East Company in 1941 he absolutly did not fear the Britain coz he controlled the situation;)
And Nazy Germany ( i.e the whole continental Nazy Europe) could won the USSR alone.
But this is ONLY in the case that the USA &Britain should be neitral or friendly for the Nazy. In other case the Hitler could not withdrw the troops from the France.
BTW if the USSR were sure about Japane in 1941 he could used the Far East troops ( even during the most bloody battes in the Stalingrad in the Far East there were reserved about 1 million of soldiers agains Japane).
This force could neitralised the additional 50 Western front divisions.
Sure this is ONLY supposion;)Like and the USK friendly for the Nazy in 1941

[Crosshairs]

Well i'm agre with point that the the too Great landmass is the problem for Impire.
And you right Hitler feels free to began the new Great East Company in 1941 he absolutly did not fear the Britain coz he controlled the situation;)
And Nazy Germany ( i.e the whole continental Nazy Europe) could won the USSR alone.
But this is ONLY in the case that the USA &Britain should be neitral or friendly for the Nazy. In other case the Hitler could not withdrw the troops from the France.
BTW if the USSR were sure about Japane in 1941 he could used the Far East troops ( even during the most bloody battes in the Stalingrad in the Far East there were reserved about 1 million of soldiers agains Japane).
This force could neitralised the additional 50 Western front divisions.
Sure this is ONLY supposion;)Like and the USK friendly for the Nazy in 1941


True. Very True. And I agree--- I had totally forgotten that the USSR had a Reserve group of the Far East.

So really there are ways that Hitler might have beaten USSR alone, and there are those insignificant russian specks--that always muster up plans to ruin hitler's scemes.

So what it all boils down to, is that there are ways Hitler could have won, or Stalin could have won. And the only way to resolve it, is for Hitler and Stalin to be locked in a forever-enduring duel in hell :D lol

[Cojimar 1945]

India was on the allied side so I would think that the vast population of that country could help to win the war. Does anyone know why more of them were not utilized for the war effort?

[1000ydstare]

Indians Volunteered, they weren't conscripted. Nearly 3 million volunteers, one of the (if not the) largest all volunteer armies ever.

There were also a few troublemakers like Ghandi cutting about.

The Indians also had a government recognised by the Nazis as a government, the Provincial government of free india or similar which also had it's own troops although I don't think they entered battle directly.

At the time, the Indians were trying to pull away from the Empire and gain freedom. It was seen as slightly hypocritical that the British were asking htem to fight for freedom, when the Indias weren't free from the British.

The King of Nepal also put forward (unasked) many volunteer troops (Gurkhas) and both Indians and Nepali monarchs and princlings made gifts of Machine Guns etc to the British.

[bwing55543]

well even if the germans had 450 divisions on the western front wouldn't the allies have still had air superiority and the superior industrial power which after all was the main reason for the allied victory

If you've read The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan, you'd know the reason that the Allies had air superiority was because Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to go East. There were exactly 2 German planes present at Normandy on June 6, 1944.

[1000ydstare]

Hmmm,

My recollection is that there were more than two planes around Normandy. And whilst Hitler ordered a fair few air units to Russia there were many left in the West.

One reason why the Luftwaffe wasn't present in any great numbers was that the RAF/USAF had carpet bombed Naval bases and other important key targets such as railyards, the resistance had also aided them by attacking logistics and command and control functions.

The Luftwaffe sustained such losses that the commanders were unwilling to put them in the air, for anything other than a successful mission where they would have a good chance of coming back.

[Chevan]

If you've read The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan, you'd know the reason that the Allies had air superiority was because Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to go East. There were exactly 2 German planes present at Normandy on June 6, 1944.
Way some of fresh ideas mst bwing.
I/m doubt that it was 2 planes but you definitely have the point. The participation of Lutwaffe in the East were very intensive and certainly they had no abilities to send it to the Normandy.

[Chevan]

Hmmm,

My recollection is that there were more than two planes around Normandy. And whilst Hitler ordered a fair few air units to Russia there were many left in the West.

One reason why the Luftwaffe wasn't present in any great numbers was that the RAF/USAF had carpet bombed Naval bases and other important key targets such as railyards, the resistance had also aided them by attacking logistics and command and control functions.
.
In the East there were a much more critical key objects for the GErmans.
For instance the oil fields in Ploeshty ( Romania) and Silesia industrial complex ( second large after Rur). The soviets in the end of 1944 were close to that.
. Losing those areas means for the Germansy inevitable lead for the losing of war . Therefore Hitler HAD NO ANY REASON to prefer the Western front to send the Luftwaffe.( i do not mean the new aircrafts that you right were sended moslty to the western front since mid 1944 but the all the Luftwaffe regiments).
In this prospect the German Naval bases that were needed for the sea war with Britain ( the sea war were already losed) were not so critical objects like the Germans industrial areas in the Eastern lands.
I've somwhere read that evan in the 1945 the most of Germans avialible wearpon ( tanks and aircrafts) were directed agains Red Army.

[227]

USSR would have won but even more lives would have spent. Remember the fact that USSR even after the victory over Hitler redeployed troops to the Far East and defeated the mighty Japapnese army in China? And what did the American do? They dropped atom bombs on the Japanese to make them surrender? So who really won? ;)

[Nickdfresh]

If you've read The Longest Day by Cornelius Ryan, you'd know the reason that the Allies had air superiority was because Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to go East. There were exactly 2 German planes present at Normandy on June 6, 1944.

I think it was more along the lines of a few hundred, maybe two hundred or so. But this pales in comparison to the thousands of what both the US and Britain had flying. They simply hid and waited for better times...

[Cojimar 1945]

With regards to air superiority, the United States alone produced far more aircraft than Germany did in the years following America's entry into the war. Even the British produced more aircraft than Germany did through 1943. German output of planes was not impressive.

[bwing55543]

I think it was more along the lines of a few hundred, maybe two hundred or so. But this pales in comparison to the thousands of what both the US and Britain had flying. They simply hid and waited for better times...

No, on D-Day, there were 2: Josef Priller and his wingman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II#The_e nd_in_the_West_1944_-_45

[Carl Schwamberger]

The Wikki artical identifies only the two who overflew the beaches. There were apporoximatly 200 combat ready aircraft in range of Normandy (out of some 300 of all types and condition). Luftwaffe records show a little over 300 sorties were launched. These were mostly bomber attacks on the edges of the fleet on the Channel, and some on the inland advance of the Allies during the afternoon. Reconissance flights were also launched to find the size of the attack. Many of these sorties were aborted by allied fighter attacks. Its claimed the Allies launched over 14,000 sorties on 6 June. Even half that would have completely overwhelmed the Luftwaffe. Subsequently the Luftwaffe flew mostly night attacks to avoid Allied fighters.

[diverdoc]

another "what if". what if russia had not attacked finland in 1939? many think fo russia as teh kings of winterwar, but the battle of suomassalmi, one of the biggest "david vs goliath" battles of all time, was an embarressment to russia, but also taught them valuable lessons about fighting in winter. 2 years, almost to the day, they used what they learned to start the counterattack in front of moscow.

suomassalmi resulted in the soviets sacking many generals who were sub-par at best, as well as taught them to train ski troops, to use different lubricants(many of their weapons froze in the minus 60 degree weather at suomassalmi, while the finns had no such troubles). it also taught them to speed up production of their new tanks, as they quickly learned that the old tanks they had were of very poor quality.

also, if no allies, what if Japan had joined by invading russia in 1942? i think it would have been a fairly quick(considering the size of russia) victory.

another possibility? what if the germans had used gas? they feared that the allies had tabun and sarin also, when in actuallity, not only did the allies have no clue, they had no defense against nerve gases. use of nerve gas could have been comparable to the atom bomb on japan, ending the war in days, even with the allies on russia's side!

[Nickdfresh]

No, on D-Day, there were 2: Josef Priller and his wingman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Luftwaffe_during_World_War_II#The_e nd_in_the_West_1944_-_45

There were only two aircraft that flew against the beaches, but there were still several hundred Luftwaffe aircraft 'dispersed' in France and the low countries...

The link you provided shows that they continued air operations including significant strikes during Market Garden and The Battle of the Bulge, and late as the end of 1944. But they could not sustain the losses and a few hundred fighters and bombers flying against the beachheads would have been the end of the Luftwaffe in the second battle for France...

And most German aircraft were positioned against the Pas de Calais area because that is where the Germans expected the "real" invasion to take place...

And Hitler didn't just "order the Luftwaffe to go east," he ordered them to oppose USAAF and RAF bombers over Germany...

[alephh]

No, on D-Day, there were 2: Josef Priller and his wingman.

It's impossible to visualize the difference in airpower at that crucial moment - 2 german aircrafts vs 11000-12000 allied aircrafts.



_

[Chevan]

And Hitler didn't just "order the Luftwaffe to go east," he ordered them to oppose USAAF and RAF bombers over Germany...
Although the defence of territory of Germany was the primary obligation of Luftwaffe - Hitler could not take the fighters from the Eastern front.
Just look for the interesting statistic that i found:
http://www.duel.ru/publish/duel_sb/pril_2.html
Table 15:The distribution of the Luftwaffe on the fronts in 1943-1944
June of the 1944.
Soviet-german front- 3 267
Western front - 1 450
Over GErmany ( AA defence) - 1 572
Over Norway - 203

Thus the total strength of the Luftwaffe against Soviets was the SAME that against WHOLE Allies Armade in the West.( except the Italy and Balkans)
This is not strange - in the Summer of 1944 in the Eastern front had a critical battles for Ukraine and Romania.

[Nickdfresh]

Although the defence of territory of Germany was the primary obligation of Luftwaffe - Hitler could not take the fighters from the Eastern front.
Just look for the interesting statistic that i found:
http://www.duel.ru/publish/duel_sb/pril_2.html

Thus the total strength of the Luftwaffe against Soviets was the SAME that against WHOLE Allies Armade in the West.( except the Italy and Balkans)
This is not strange - in the Summer of 1944 in the Eastern front had a critical battles for Ukraine and Romania.

Interesting charts and statistics. But I think if we break those down, we might find that the Luftwaffe maintained a much larger transport capability in the east.

Also, the end of the Luftwaffe in an effective tactical role began to fade in the West really after Sicily and the Italian campaign where losses became unsustainable and offensive operations no longer viable....


It also should be noted that after a certain point in the West, the Luftwaffe all but stopped flying tactical air operations. They achieved some successes in Sicily, especially in the use of guided ordinance against Allied shipping, which could prove hazardous in the course of amphibious operations and caused the Allies a good deal of consternation. Their defeat and marginalization was three fold in that they had to maintain a defense against strategic bombers, they were quickly swamped and lost any air battles of attrition against the Allies even if they destroyed more (or as in the case of The Battle of the Bulge) or the equivalent number aircraft as they couldn't make good on the losses unlike the US and UK. Especially when it came to pilots. Also, the US and Royal Navies developed effective countermeasures to radio guided bombs, making the losses of aircraft incurred against ferocious fighter and AAA defenses simply too high...

[Baseline]

Greetings I discovered this board and thread while searching for something else so forgive my intrusion. With that said I humbly submit my opinion on this discussion.

I am afraid I would have to disagree with the OP’s opinion, the scale of the war on the Eastern front is often misunderstood. Stalin had 35,000,000 men available for military service, that’s a 35 followed by 6 zeros, Germany at her peak on the Eastern front had only 3,200,000 men.

Standard military doctrine dictates that an attacking army must be three times the strength of the defender. Stalingrad and every major city would have to be laid siege in order to secure the rail heads.

The German army that invaded the Soviet Union was just 15 divisions (they were sent to the Balkans) smaller than the one used to invade France and the area to be controlled more than twice as large (about a million square miles already) having only pushed as far as Stalingrad.

The German supply lines were already over 1,000 kilometers long nearly all their trains boilers had burst and partisans were attacking their supply lines relentlessly.

Throughout the entire war the Eastern front consumed 7/8th of the entire German war effort that means North Africa, Italy and the Western front comprised only 1/8th of the entire war effort.

To consider these points further...

First, have you looked at the map? It is farther from Stalingrad (the farthest German penetration into the Soviet Union) to Chelyabinsk (Tankograd) than it is from the Soviet border to Stalingrad (about 800 miles) and twice as far from Moscow to Chelyabinsk (about 1,200 miles) than from the Polish border to Moscow (about 600 miles).

When Barbarossa kicked off Germany invaded with about 150 divisions and they were facing more than 360 divisions even with Germany taking more than 3,500,000 prisoners Stalin still had more than 20,000,000 more men that served in reserve.

Hitler made some major errors long before Barbarossa even started, first he failed to put Germany on a proper war footing, even as late as 1944 German industry was still producing such things as 13 tons of wallpaper.

Second, Germany failed to develop an adequate 4 engine strategic bomber capable of hitting the factories that in the first 5 months from July to November 1,523 industrial enterprises, including 1,360 large armament plants, were packed up brick by brick and relocated by rail and moved east. 667 of them to the Urals, 322 to Siberia, and to Kazakhstan and Central Asia 308 were moved. All these factories were back into production within 6 weeks of being moved.

Third, the Germans made a fatal miscalculation concerning the Pripet Marshes as well which left a more than 300 mile wide hole, roughly the size of Bavaria, in their lines along the nearly 2,000 mile front which the Soviets used to attack the German flanks because Hitler and his Generals believed them to be inaccessible by AFV’s. Ironically the German leaders had heard lectures about the Pripet Marshes in connection with their studies of the Russo-Polish war of 1920 and used similar misconceptions by exploiting the Ardennes with the invasion of France duplicating the Schleiffen plan of WWI.

Fourth, because the Germans believed they could win in as little as six weeks the Heer units were not supplied with any winter clothing or materials required to winterize their equipment for the harsh winter they would face. In a good year you would be lucky to get 6 weeks of suitable weather for AFV operations when the ground isn’t turned into a quagmire or frozen solid.

Not to mention how do you propose to supply the advancing troops? All of the rail roads went through cities like Stalingrad which were in Russian hands. How will you get supplies to your advancing columns considering that Soviet rail gauge was incompatible with German rail and required the off loading of materials and supplies from German rail to Soviet rail which was largely destroyed as the Soviets retreated giving up space to buy time. There were no passable road systems within the Soviet interior and besides Germany lacked adequate numbers of trucks even if the roads existed.

The Soviets did not need the Caucasian oil fields to continue to supply their units as they had more than adequate oil reserves located 600 miles east of Moscow and still yet fields much further east well outside the reach of Germany.

By the time the Germans had got within 26 miles of Moscow all of the central government had already been evacuated and re-established well out of reach.

Finally and most importantly in the area of production and manpower Germany stood no chance of ever competing with the Soviets as the following production reports and troop reports paint a very grim picture for Germany. Wars are won on the factory floors not the battlefields despite what many people believe.

Aircraft Production 1939-1944
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Germany 8,295 10,826 11,424 15,288 25,094 39,275
Soviet Union 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,845 40,246


The tank production figures are even bleaker and we need really only just look at 1942 to get a grasp on the reality for Germany.

Germany produced 5,056 tanks (a figure that includes self-propelled artillery) compared to the Soviets who produced 24,500 of which 5,000 of these were T-34’s.

The further east the Germans would advance the broader the front would become, the harder the terrain and conditions as well. All of the top German Generals believed that the war in the east was suicidal and could not be won. What the Germans did by attacking the Soviets was very much akin to what Japan did attacking the US, awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible rage. The outcome was determined the moment the first shots were fired. Germany stood no chance of ever defeating the Soviets.

[Egorka]

Hi Baseline! Welcome!

Thanks for the interesting post.

I have not read it whole yet :) , but just a quick comment.

Stalin had 35,000,000 men available for military service, that’s a 35 followed by 6 zeros, Germany at her peak on the Eastern front had only 3,200,000 men.
As I understand you compare uncompareable: for USSR the total mobilisation resource and for Germany the instantanious value for a given point in time.

Standard military doctrine dictates that an attacking army must be three times the strength of the defender.
To my knowledge it is a myth. Kind of. The thing is that the rule (1:3) applies only for the area of the main breakthrugh, not to the total army size (I am not sure I am using the right english teerms though). It means by acheiving 3 to 1 superiority on a narrow front and acheiving breakthrough you can defeat a larger force. That is what the Germans more or less did in the beginning so well - mobile warfare.

[Chevan]

I am afraid I would have to disagree with the OP’s opinion, the scale of the war on the Eastern front is often misunderstood. Stalin had 35,000,000 men available for military service, that’s a 35 followed by 6 zeros, Germany at her peak on the Eastern front had only 3,200,000 men.

Hi Baseline.
Welcome to the our hot forums company;)
You point really interesting and as any outstanding point is a bit ..... fantastic.
Just thisnk about 35 mln of soldiers:)
The whole population of the USSR was about 190 mln in the 1939. so the half is male , 35-45% the male from age 18-40 who could be called up in army.
So the 35 mln is the whole adult male population THAT NEVER WERE in Army.Coz no one state could maintain the such great figure of troops ( 35% of population).
Even the greatest economy of USA was unadble to complect , arm and supplied the army over 6-8 mln of mens. ( no more 3-4% of population).
Indeed the peak of Red Army was just about 5 mln in the mid of the 1943 and continiously decresed till the end of the war.

Standard military doctrine dictates that an attacking army must be three times the strength of the defender. Stalingrad and every major city would have to be laid siege in order to secure the rail heads.

But again the GErmans used the Blizkriege doctrine that was rather revolutionary in that time.
Accordind the standard doctrine they would be neve capable to capture the France so quickly - but they completely did it for 6 weeks!!!:)



First, have you looked at the map? It is farther from Stalingrad (the farthest German penetration into the Soviet Union) to Chelyabinsk (Tankograd) than it is from the Soviet border to Stalingrad (about 800 miles) and twice as far from Moscow to Chelyabinsk (about 1,200 miles) than from the Polish border to Moscow (about 600 miles).


But what deals had the Germans to the Chelyabinsk ( Ural region) if they could win reach thier aims ( i mean the Barbarossa) by capturing the Moscow

When Barbarossa kicked off Germany invaded with about 150 divisions and they were facing more than 360 divisions even with Germany taking more than 3,500,000 prisoners Stalin still had more than 20,000,000 more men that served in reserve.

.
No he could not armed and support the army no more the 5 mln - he simply could not took more from industry without the serious further damage for the strategic economical production.
And the Soviets HAD NAVER 360 divisions against Germans.
The most much figure that i ever read was about 200-210 divisions ( some of then was just partly complected and ready for the combats).
You forgotten about the Soviet Far East - even the during MOST CRITICAL battle for Stalingrad the Soviets was forced to hold about 1 mln troops agains the Kvantung Army in Manchguria.
So you seriously overstimate the figures of Red Army in the Western front ( a mean Soviet western front)

Hitler made some major errors long before Barbarossa even started, first he failed to put Germany on a proper war footing, even as late as 1944 German industry was still producing such things as 13 tons of wallpaper.

But did the British or American industry not produced anything except the Wearpon and amunition?

Second, Germany failed to develop an adequate 4 engine strategic bomber capable of hitting the factories that in the first 5 months from July to November 1,523 industrial enterprises, including 1,360 large armament plants, were packed up brick by brick and relocated by rail and moved east. 667 of them to the Urals, 322 to Siberia, and to Kazakhstan and Central Asia 308 were moved. All these factories were back into production within 6 weeks of being moved.

The Germans was forced to refuse the super-expensive Strategic bombers fleet as well as the Soviets.
This ws absolutly right solution in condition of lack of materials and resources that both the Soviets and Germans had.
May be you do not know - but the ONE strategic B-29 need as much materials as the 12-15 full-metal fighters.
So if the Germans suddenly has decided to produce the Strategic bombers they according you figures of GErmans aircraft production, could produse no more than 1000 of strategic bombers instead the 15 000 ALL OTHER aircrafts in 1942.
So is theis a really much , keeping in mind thay if they would forced decrease or stoped at all the production of fighers.
They simply lost the air superiority in all of fronts and those 1000 of bombers could be FINISHED for the couple of month by the Soviets and Allies figher aviation.
So indeed just the super-rich americans who could produce the 100 000 aircrafts per year could let themself so super-expensive hobby like a Strategic fleet.
The Germans was forced to developed the other forms of wearpons - for instance the unique V-2 project that thay could seriously improved till the end of war .

Third, the Germans made a fatal miscalculation concerning the Pripet Marshes as well which left a more than 300 mile wide hole, roughly the size of Bavaria, in their lines along the nearly 2,000 mile front which the Soviets used to attack the German flanks because Hitler and his Generals believed them to be inaccessible by AFV’s. Ironically the German leaders had heard lectures about the Pripet Marshes in connection with their studies of the Russo-Polish war of 1920 and used similar misconceptions by exploiting the Ardennes with the invasion of France duplicating the Schleiffen plan of WWI.

Actually the Pripet Marches was a trouble zone for the GErmans- but you are forgotten - they finally destructed the sovet 5-army that hided in Pripet MArches in the 1941 and practically cleaned the Marhces fr4om any regulary forces except the few partisans units.
True this action slowed down the temp of Barbarossa, but i think this had a very few influence at the general comapny.
The resault of Lose of Barbarossa i think was the mistaken desicion to send the Group Army Norht at the Leningrad where it was succesfully blocked by the Soviets for a few years.And as the resault the Group armies Center had not enough power to capture te Moscow in 1941.

Fourth, because the Germans believed they could win in as little as six weeks the Heer units were not supplied with any winter clothing or materials required to winterize their equipment for the harsh winter they would face. In a good year you would be lucky to get 6 weeks of suitable weather for AFV operations when the ground isn’t turned into a quagmire or frozen solid.

Not to mention how do you propose to supply the advancing troops? All of the rail roads went through cities like Stalingrad which were in Russian hands. How will you get supplies to your advancing columns considering that Soviet rail gauge was incompatible with German rail and required the off loading of materials and supplies from German rail to Soviet rail which was largely destroyed as the Soviets retreated giving up space to buy time. There were no passable road systems within the Soviet interior and besides Germany lacked adequate numbers of trucks even if the roads existed.

It was very easy indeed:)
You are forgetting that except the few partisans units in the forest of Ukraine and Belorussia in 1941-42 - there were a lot of voluntaries who ws ready to work for the GErmans.In fact the GErmans has formed and organised the Whole Labor army in the occuped territories to support their troops , building and supply of foods for the Germany.If their policy and relation in the occuped territories was a bit more HUMAN - the native polultion support was guaranted for them.
However as we know they were far from idea of liberation the peoples of USSR ( as it spreaded official Nazy propoganda) - indeed they come for a new slavs.
So this was qute logical resaul of henocide - the partisans action that in the begining was very unessential - since end of the 1942 were quikly rised in times.So already in the mid of the 1943 the entire Partisan war occured in Belorusia and Ukraine.That sure made a seriouse troubles for the GErmans supplies lines.

The Soviets did not need the Caucasian oil fields to continue to supply their units as they had more than adequate oil reserves located 600 miles east of Moscow and still yet fields much further east well outside the reach of Germany.

I have no idea what do you mean about "oil reserves east of Moscow", but there is no any doubts that the Caucasian oil had a critical meaning for the whole soviet indusrty- therefore they were ready to firght for Stalingrad as cruel as they could while was alive.

[Chevan]

By the time the Germans had got within 26 miles of Moscow all of the central government had already been evacuated and re-established well out of reach.

Finally and most importantly in the area of production and manpower Germany stood no chance of ever competing with the Soviets as the following production reports and troop reports paint a very grim picture for Germany. Wars are won on the factory floors not the battlefields despite what many people believe.

Aircraft Production 1939-1944
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Germany 8,295 10,826 11,424 15,288 25,094 39,275
Soviet Union 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,845 40,246

No, the Germans could competing with the Soviets in aircraft industry:)
And your figures clearly demonstrate it.
Beside they have an serious technological advantage over the Soviets - in fact the BF109A-2/4 ( the basical fighter at that time) even in the 1941 had a absolute superiority over the most of Soviet fighters except the Mig-3 that was wery limited produced in that time.(And used only in AAA-defence of Moscow).
But if to look at the Allies aircraft production - this is a great ahivenment of Germans - they could neitralize or at least compensate for the two-three ears the absolute figure superiority of Allies in the western front.At least until the end of 1944 when they had lost a giant part of industry in France and Eastern Europe.

The tank production figures are even bleaker and we need really only just look at 1942 to get a grasp on the reality for Germany.

Germany produced 5,056 tanks (a figure that includes self-propelled artillery) compared to the Soviets who produced 24,500 of which 5,000 of these were T-34’s.

And what again?
Does it mean that the Soviets in 1942 had a 24x5 absolute superiority in the Eastern front?:)
No, vise verse- if you look at the histroy the 1942 was enough succesfull for the GErmans in the East ( the Manstain captured whole Crimea and was near the Caucaus oil).
Untill the most of end of year ( when the operation Saturn started in november near the STalingrad)- the Germans army was more professionaly leading and therefore they could succesfully won operating by the less number of troops and wearpon.
So it was not a GErmans industry lack - but the profesionalism of GErmans military staff that made unbelieveble having the limited strength.

The further east the Germans would advance the broader the front would become, the harder the terrain and conditions as well. All of the top German Generals believed that the war in the east was suicidal and could not be won. What the Germans did by attacking the Soviets was very much akin to what Japan did attacking the US, awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible rage. The outcome was determined the moment the first shots were fired. Germany stood no chance of ever defeating the Soviets.
Oh i can't agree again.
Germans had a greates shances to beat the Red Army in the 1941 and in the 1942.
They were in a bit from a victory. Sure they had a lack of everything- but soviets laso was demoralized in that time.

[Baseline]

Hi Baseline! Welcome!

Thanks for the interesting post.

I have not read it whole yet :) , but just a quick comment.


As I understand you compare uncompareable: for USSR the total mobilisation resource and for Germany the instantanious value for a given point in time.


To my knowledge it is a myth. Kind of. The thing is that the rule (1:3) applies only for the area of the main breakthrugh, not to the total army size (I am not sure I am using the right english teerms though). It means by acheiving 3 to 1 superiority on a narrow front and acheiving breakthrough you can defeat a larger force. That is what the Germans more or less did in the beginning so well - mobile warfare.

Greetings,

The 35 million figure is what Stalin had available for military service not the number in uniform at any one time. The point of the number is to demonstrate the vast human resources that were at Stalins disposal. Where Germany had a total population of about 80 million in 1939 and throughout the war around 18 million served in the Whermacht in contrast the population of the Soviet Union was around 164 million in 1937.

The 3 to 1 rule still applies and in fact gets larger when considering an occupation force. By the time the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow the momentum of the last Blitzkrieg campaign had already been lost as the german forces were slowed by exhaustion and tenuous supply lines that were becoming more difficult to secure. The further east the Germans pushed the more forces that were required to secure those logistic lines and then the Soviets were beginning to setup defense in depth as well. The Soviets knew they could afford to trade territory for time, territory was the greatest resource that Stalin had.

[Baseline]

Hi Baseline.
Welcome to the our hot forums company;)
You point really interesting and as any outstanding point is a bit ..... fantastic.
Just thisnk about 35 mln of soldiers:)
The whole population of the USSR was about 190 mln in the 1939. so the half is male , 35-45% the male from age 18-40 who could be called up in army.
So the 35 mln is the whole adult male population THAT NEVER WERE in Army.Coz no one state could maintain the such great figure of troops ( 35% of population).
Even the greatest economy of USA was unadble to complect , arm and supplied the army over 6-8 mln of mens. ( no more 3-4% of population).
Indeed the peak of Red Army was just about 5 mln in the mid of the 1943 and continiously decresed till the end of the war. .

Already addressed in the above post.

But again the GErmans used the Blizkriege doctrine that was rather revolutionary in that time.
Accordind the standard doctrine they would be neve capable to capture the France so quickly - but they completely did it for 6 weeks!!!:)

Well two points here, first again look at the map France is tiny compared to the Soviet Union and again consider that France was fighting using a doctrine from WWI. The Soviets did not co-operate by doing the same unfortunately for Hitler.

But what deals had the Germans to the Chelyabinsk ( Ural region) if they could win reach thier aims ( i mean the Barbarossa) by capturing the Moscow

Capturing Moscow would not have ended the war, Stalin was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child if need be. I think we can all agree he had very little respect for the lives of even his own people. He had already believed that the Germans would capture Moscow and made preparations to carry on with the war in that event.

.
No he could not armed and support the army no more the 5 mln - he simply could not took more from industry without the serious further damage for the strategic economical production.
And the Soviets HAD NAVER 360 divisions against Germans.
The most much figure that i ever read was about 200-210 divisions ( some of then was just partly complected and ready for the combats).
You forgotten about the Soviet Far East - even the during MOST CRITICAL battle for Stalingrad the Soviets was forced to hold about 1 mln troops agains the Kvantung Army in Manchguria.
So you seriously overstimate the figures of Red Army in the Western front ( a mean Soviet western front)

The far east was not real threat to Soviet armor as Zukov demonstrated at Khalkin-Gol. Taking place in 1939 this is even before the legendary T-34 would give the Soviets an even greater advangtage.

But did the British or American industry not produced anything except the Wearpon and amunition?

The difference being that Germany had already been at war for three years before America entered the war and were engulfed in a two front fight for survival. America never tasted the horror of strategic bombing of it’s cities and factories.

The Germans was forced to refuse the super-expensive Strategic bombers fleet as well as the Soviets.
This ws absolutly right solution in condition of lack of materials and resources that both the Soviets and Germans had.
May be you do not know - but the ONE strategic B-29 need as much materials as the 12-15 full-metal fighters.
So if the Germans suddenly has decided to produce the Strategic bombers they according you figures of GErmans aircraft production, could produse no more than 1000 of strategic bombers instead the 15 000 ALL OTHER aircrafts in 1942.
So is theis a really much , keeping in mind thay if they would forced decrease or stoped at all the production of fighers.
They simply lost the air superiority in all of fronts and those 1000 of bombers could be FINISHED for the couple of month by the Soviets and Allies figher aviation.
So indeed just the super-rich americans who could produce the 100 000 aircrafts per year could let themself so super-expensive hobby like a Strategic fleet.
The Germans was forced to developed the other forms of wearpons - for instance the unique V-2 project that thay could seriously improved till the end of war .

The V-1 and V-2 projects like many German projects for example the Maus and other super heavy tanks were complete wastes of resources and would have been better served in the area of a 4 engined strategic bomber. The V projects were terror weapons unable due to guidance limitations to be of any significant strategic or tactical value.

Actually the Pripet Marches was a trouble zone for the GErmans- but you are forgotten - they finally destructed the sovet 5-army that hided in Pripet MArches in the 1941 and practically cleaned the Marhces fr4om any regulary forces except the few partisans units.
True this action slowed down the temp of Barbarossa, but i think this had a very few influence at the general comapny.
The resault of Lose of Barbarossa i think was the mistaken desicion to send the Group Army Norht at the Leningrad where it was succesfully blocked by the Soviets for a few years.And as the resault the Group armies Center had not enough power to capture te Moscow in 1941.

It was very easy indeed:)

True the Germans had a notable success in ‘41 but the effort and manpower required to do so demonstrates the problem for Germany. The front was nearly 2,000miles long and the territory that must be pacified and then controlled would just keep getting bigger.

You are forgetting that except the few partisans units in the forest of Ukraine and Belorussia in 1941-42 - there were a lot of voluntaries who ws ready to work for the GErmans.In fact the GErmans has formed and organised the Whole Labor army in the occuped territories to support their troops , building and supply of foods for the Germany.If their policy and relation in the occuped territories was a bit more HUMAN - the native polultion support was guaranted for them.
However as we know they were far from idea of liberation the peoples of USSR ( as it spreaded official Nazy propoganda) - indeed they come for a new slavs.
So this was qute logical resaul of henocide - the partisans action that in the begining was very unessential - since end of the 1942 were quikly rised in times.So already in the mid of the 1943 the entire Partisan war occured in Belorusia and Ukraine.That sure made a seriouse troubles for the GErmans supplies lines.

Considering that Hitler had ordered that the war in the east would be a war of annihilation I don’t think the local populations would remain friendly to German occupation forces for long. Many people may have hated Stalin but Hitler was just another dictator in a different uniform and while they may have wished for a change in political leadership they would still be fighting for their homes, lands and their very survival.


I have no idea what do you mean about "oil reserves east of Moscow", but there is no any doubts that the Caucasian oil had a critical meaning for the whole soviet indusrty- therefore they were ready to firght for Stalingrad as cruel as they could while was alive.

Stalingrad was more about political will than about strategic importance. It was the ultimate clash of two enormous egos.

[Chevan]

Greetings,

The 35 million figure is what Stalin had available for military service not the number in uniform at any one time. The point of the number is to demonstrate the vast human resources that were at Stalins disposal. Where Germany had a total population of about 80 million in 1939 and throughout the war around 18 million served in the Whermacht in contrast the population of the Soviet Union was around 164 million in 1937.

Well the official datas of census of 1939 give us the 170 mln the population of the USSR. But this was without the Western Ukraine, Belorussia and Baltic states that add roughly 15 mln peoples after the 1940.
So this woudl be enough right to consider the figure of USSR during the GErmans invasioun about 190 mln.
However let's look for the Germany - 80 mln was JUST the GErmans OWN population.
But what abot fact that in the 1941 the GErmany controlled the whole the continental Europe wit the total population over 150 mln?
What about France , ScNDINAVIA and Chehoslovakia?Italy?Balcans?
Besides if the Russia controlled the relatively rural areas with primitive industry.
But the GErmanstook the most European highly-industrialized states.
Do you ever know that for instance the total war production of Britain in the 1941 was equal of war production of Chehoslovakia?
So indeed the GErmans had enough forces to finaly beat the Red Army in 1941 or 42.
And they succesfully did it in warm time until the 1943:)
This is very true to say that inthe 1941 the USSR have faced not the GErmany - but whole the Fascist Union Europe alliance managed by the Hitler.
Coz even the Hungarians , italians, finns , slovakians and romanians took part in Barbarossa.
BTW the figures of the forces in the most beginning of Barbarossa:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1% D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0
The Fascists:
Groupe armies centre- 50 divisions, South-57 divisions, North -29 divisions.
i.e. total -136 dividions. However later in Jule there were moved the additionally 15 Divisions form the Balcans.
Soviets forces were:
Nothern-western front 34 divisions, Western front- 45 divisions, Southern-western front- 45 divisions,Southern front - 26 divisions i.e total - 150 divisions.
So indeed the Soviets had no any superiority over the Germans.
Besides the GErmans army fought already 2 years and had the great positive combat experience- the Soviets had no wide combat experience coz no more then 250 000 took part in the Winter war and just about 50 000 in far east ( halkin-gol).
So the soviets had no real adventage over Germans.
Hitler clearly did realise what he do:)
He could crush the Soviets already till the september 1941, but he could not coz there were made the several serious lacks and mistakes in management of troops.

[Egorka]

Greetings,

The 35 million figure is what Stalin had available for military service not the number in uniform at any one time. The point of the number is to demonstrate the vast human resources that were at Stalins disposal. Where Germany had a total population of about 80 million in 1939 and throughout the war around 18 million served in the Whermacht in contrast the population of the Soviet Union was around 164 million in 1937.

The 3 to 1 rule still applies and in fact gets larger when considering an occupation force. By the time the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow the momentum of the last Blitzkrieg campaign had already been lost as the german forces were slowed by exhaustion and tenuous supply lines that were becoming more difficult to secure. The further east the Germans pushed the more forces that were required to secure those logistic lines and then the Soviets were beginning to setup defense in depth as well. The Soviets knew they could afford to trade territory for time, territory was the greatest resource that Stalin had.

Baseline,

I can perfectly see what you want to say. That the Soviet mobilisation resource was larger than German one. That sounds to be true to me in general.
But you again fail to back your staement up. You see, for USSR and Germany you mentioned numbers of the different nature. Again.

IMO you should have state it like this:
Total mobilisation resource USSR: ???
Total mobilisation resource Germany: ???

Served in Wermacht: ???
Served in RKKA: ???
If we have these numbers we could objectively (hopefully) assess the situation.

To my knowledge USSR mobilised 29,574,900 men during the war with Germany (until 1st July 1945).
Germany mobilised app. 18,000,000 men during WW2, just as you mentioned. Plus all the German Allies - ???.



And about the "3:1" rule... again it only applies to the area of the front line where the enemy's defence has to be broken. If it applied to the WHOLE force commited to the war, then no one whould ever attack anyone. Becausee it is almost impossible to assemble 3 times as many soldiers than the enemy. I mean in Europe at least.

[imi]

Of course Germany win the war in europe,when the germans concentrate only east

[boxerrick41]

thats a good one, not as cut and dry as youd think, it definately would have been harder for the russians and took a lot longer, but by the end of the war, those t-34's were making their presence felt, and the sheer numbers of men, but theres too many factors to come up with a better answer without doing a little more research, ill do my homework and see what scenarios i can envision

[Drake]

If russia stands alone they can't win, when winning means getting into germany. Even back then the motto was: It's the economy, stupid. True, they manufactured massive amounts of t-34 etc. but a war is not only fought with weaponry. They couldn't have clothed, fed or transported their troops on the scale necessary, nor provide the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations. And no allies means at the same time a LOT of free ressources that germany otherwise has to spend on air defence and subs (Just imagine 10000 flak 88 arti tubes used for PAKs instead of FlaKs and the results on the soviet tank divisions). And the german economy was almost twice as large as the russian, even before the initial attack diminished some of the russian capacity.
Russia had a lot of manpower that's true, but they lost them at an unsustainable rate. Germany can't defeat russia either though, because it has to few men to control the vast territories.

[Chevan]

And the german economy was almost twice as large as the russian, even before the initial attack diminished some of the russian capacity.

Hmmn, thats interesting thought.
Can you share it with details?
Some of diehards here still think that USSR had a great Economic and military superioruty over Germany in 1941.

[Cojimar 1945]

Figures I have seen comparing German output with Soviet output suggest that Germany had considerably higher production of steel and aluminum than the USSR but produced fewer weapons in most categories despite this. One wonders what they were using their resources for.

[flamethrowerguy]

One wonders what they were using their resources for.

Maybe for this:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7042&highlight=haunebu&page=5

[Drake]

Hmmn, thats interesting thought.
Can you share it with details?
Some of diehards here still think that USSR had a great Economic and military superioruty over Germany in 1941.

I take the scenario britain signs a peace deal after the fall of france.
The combined gdp (in 1990 dollars) of germany, austria and france, belgium, low countries and norway (then under german control) was ~ 650 billion, the SU had 360. Though I think GDP isn't such a good measurement for my argument, since it includes raw materials etc., we need production capabilities. We'd have to check if and how russia could produce all the secondary stuff they received from lend lease like electronics, transport vehicles etc. and how it would affect weapons production and thus fighting capability if they had to produce it alone.
For the gdp info there are various sources, just google it.

[Kato]

If russia stands alone they can't win, when winning means getting into germany.

The USSR would have had good chances to defeat Germans in 1940-41 if the Soviet leadership had been a bit more adequate as the Soviets possessed the military superiority over Germans in the Soviet Western frontier regions without any mobilization even on June 22nd 1941.



Even back then the motto was: It's the economy, stupid. True, they manufactured massive amounts of t-34 etc. but a war is not only fought with weaponry. They couldn't have clothed, fed or transported their troops on the scale necessary, nor provide the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations.

Nonsence. The USSR had clothed and fed its huge Red Army before German invasion for two decades without foreign assistance. What's more Bolsheviks clothed and fed it even during the civil war. The bulk of Soviet transportation of cargo and troops were carried out by railroads during WWII.
The USSR had the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations.


And no allies means at the same time a LOT of free ressources that germany otherwise has to spend on air defence and subs (Just imagine 10000 flak 88 arti tubes used for PAKs instead of FlaKs and the results on the soviet tank divisions). And the german economy was almost twice as large as the russian, even before the initial attack diminished some of the russian capacity.
Russia had a lot of manpower that's true, but they lost them at an unsustainable rate.

The fact is that the USSR excelled Germany in every kind of resources needed for war. The military-related sector of the economy of the USSR wasn't surpassed by the one controlled by Germans in Europe even at the beginning of Soviet-Axis war.


Germany can't defeat russia either though, because it has to few men to control the vast territories

Germany failed to defeat the USSR because the Soviets had larger military build-up and because the short-sighted Reich's policy violated the interests of all the nations living within the USSR. It missed the excellent opportunity of turning WWII in the USSR into the full-scale interior civil and interethnic war leading to the collapse of the Red Army and the Soviet system.

[Kato]

Of course Germany win the war in europe,when the germans concentrate only east

Germany almost completley concentrated its efforts in the Eastern front during 1941-1944 and it was losing the war.

[Drake]

Nonsence. The USSR had clothed and fed its huge Red Army before German invasion for two decades without foreign assistance. What's more Bolsheviks clothed and fed it even during the civil war. The bulk of Soviet transportation of cargo and troops were carried out by railroads during WWII.
The USSR had the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations.

Yeah, 100 million tons of cotton and 15 million army boots tell a different story, so does 4.5 million tons of food. Railways? Hmm, you should one day read who provided the locomotives and waggons. And this only works for strategic movement, not for actual offensives. You need trucks for that, and guess who build them, I'll tell you, it wasn't the russians. The USSR had electronic equipment, hrhr, that's why they needed ~60000 field telephones. And how exactly did the USSR produce tyres?



The fact is that the USSR excelled Germany in every kind of resources needed for war.

This statement is simply wrong.


It missed the excellent opportunity of turning WWII in the USSR into the full-scale interior civil and interethnic war leading to the collapse of the Red Army and the Soviet system.

Maybe, but that's not the point.

[pdf27]

Yeah, 100 million tons of cotton and 15 million army boots tell a different story, so does 4.5 million tons of food.
Not exactly. What Lend-Lease did for the Soviets - and did very well - was let them plug the least productive gaps in their economy with imported goods rather than having to make them themselves. The Soviets could either produce everything they imported or make an acceptable substitute, but removing the need to do so enabled them to fight the war much more effectively and freed up significant levels of manpower (the estimates I've seen are for over a million additional soldiers that were available due to lend-lease).
A good example of this is Gold Braid - the Soviets imported significant amounts from the British later in the war to add to dress uniforms, etc. as they found doing so significantly improved the morale and fighting efficiency of their troops. They could have made it themselves, but doing so would have taken away potential factory workers or fighting men, so they effectively bought it from someone else who was already making it. All in all a perfect example of free trade in action: the western allies contributed what they did well - mass production of technically advanced items - and so did the Russians - killing lots of Germans.

[Drake]

Not exactly. What Lend-Lease did for the Soviets - and did very well - was let them plug the least productive gaps in their economy with imported goods rather than having to make them themselves.


But that's the whole point of my argument. Closing those gaps would have been costly to the Soviet war effort, imho so much, that they wouldn't have had the capacity to build up enough strength to push into germany. And there was quite a lot of stuff within the lend lease shipments that russia had no hope of producing themselves at all or in the required amounts, particularly heavy machinery, tyres, industrial chemicals, explosives and electronics.

[Chevan]

Germany failed to defeat the USSR because the Soviets had larger military build-up and because the short-sighted Reich's policy violated the interests of all the nations living within the USSR. It missed the excellent opportunity of turning WWII in the USSR into the full-scale interior civil and interethnic war leading to the collapse of the Red Army and the Soviet system.
Poor Kato is suffering the Axis have losed the war:mrgreen:
If they win - all the nation that lived "within the USSR" lead by Ukraine - should reach a prosperity and happiness, without jews and others low-races:)
But damn, those "short-sighted Reich's politics" did not wish to present the independence for all the nations thay has "liberated" in East.

[Chevan]

A good example of this is Gold Braid - the Soviets imported significant amounts from the British later in the war to add to dress uniforms, etc. as they found doing so significantly improved the morale and fighting efficiency of their troops. They could have made it themselves, but doing so would have taken away potential factory workers or fighting men, so they effectively bought it from someone else who was already making it.

very well pdf.
good point.
Why have you not demonstrated it early?

All in all a perfect example of free trade in action: the western allies contributed what they did well - mass production of technically advanced items - and so did the Russians - killing lots of Germans.
From what we can conclude that western alles fought not so well as soviets, killing less of germans.:)
But they have won the war in home front, organized the mass productions of everything.
I heard the ONLY USA was prodising about 100 000 of aircrafts per years.Fantastic figures.
Germans have no any chances to win home front.

[Chevan]

But that's the whole point of my argument. Closing those gaps would have been costly to the Soviet war effort, imho so much, that they wouldn't have had the capacity to build up enough strength to push into germany. And there was quite a lot of stuff within the lend lease shipments that russia had no hope of producing themselves at all or in the required amounts, particularly heavy machinery, tyres, industrial chemicals, explosives and electronics.
Right point IMO.
Actualy the industrial possibilities of USSR were much less than Nacis Europe ones.
The half-industrial soviet economy can't compete with Germans hight thech industry at that time.
The Technological gap of Germany and USSR was still such great that the soviets wasn't able to produce some sort of DEPPLY Specialized equipment- was forced to buy it from Germany in 1939-1941.
In fact GErmany was also a single Soviet trade partner that provided the Soviet economy with extremaly rare and needed equipment.
The Germany that had one of the BEst world High-tech lewel (even absolute superior in some fields like Rocketly and jet aviation ) was able to creat a new kind of wearponry ( honestly speaking many of that "super Wearpon-Vengeance" was absolutly useless in military sense at that time).
Actualy the USSR wasn't able to win the Economicaly and technologicaly superior Europe inspite of it's resoure.
So honestly speaking , this is great our military luck , that we at least have stopped such strong enemy in the 1942.

[pdf27]

very well pdf. good point. Why have you not demonstrated it early?
I try (as a mod) to keep an eye on all the threads, but this one didn't interest me enough to post in until very recently.

From what we can conclude that western alles fought not so well as soviets, killing less of germans.:)
To put it in purely economic terms, the Soviets had a competitve advantage - a very large land frontage with the Germans. The western Allies had an enormous technical challenge - a successful amphibious invasion on a massive scale - to solve before they could engage in a significant land-based action. It took from 1940 to 1944 to win the necessary preparatory battle (the Battle of the Atlantic) and to build the specialised shipping required/train the specialist units for this to work. The Soviets could merely fight a relatively conventional land battle, which could be done succesfully with what they already had.

But they have won the war in home front, organized the mass productions of everything.
I heard the ONLY USA was prodising about 100 000 of aircrafts per years.Fantastic figures.
Germans have no any chances to win home front.
It goes deeper than that. While the Germans had some brilliant technical ideas, by and large their "advanced" weapons were halfway bodged together prototypes put into mass production and never really suited to mass service. For a rather good explanation on exactly how badly the Germans screwed up in this area, I suggest you read this essay (http://historypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862.yuku.com/topic/3192/t/German-Development-Production-Tech-Failures-in-WW2.html).

[flamethrowerguy]

In my opinion it would have been crucial that Japan attacked the USSR from the east and keep these siberian elite-divisions away from the russian wetern front.
After all, I think, the country's just too huge to be conquered by "old-fashioned" warfare and no countrys' army is/was big enough to do so and secure the occupied areas.
The Red Army respectively Staslin learned from the faults in the early OP Barbarossa stage. Their "elastic" warfare was an important step to victory sinde they "sucked" the german armies deeper and deeper into Russia, over-stretching the supply lines.

[B5N2KATE]

German high tech industry?

BALDERDASH.....

More Great Patriotic War/ Roman Triumph propaganda in action....

German industry was significantly UNDERAUTOMATED......AND suffered from a lack of raw material. Albert Speer complained about this very issue, a problem he tried and failed to fix, a problem that was onlv rectified with post-war rebuilding.

Just to look at Tiger production alone, only 1,555 Tiger I's produced and just over 500 Tiger II's....


The USSR did not have a chance in HELL of marching into Germany without Western Aid.....MONEY as much as material. Soviet Factories were quite good at producing AFV's, for instance, but not much chop at the plethora of other vehicles needed for mechanized warfare...

The Red Army, through guts and determination, managed to bring Barbarossa to a standstill, but that was ALL it was capable of achieving without significant Western aid.

Don't let these modern Russians pull the wool over your eyes....

BTW....I see Russian foreign policy has not changed much....still the same ol' Imperialism in Georgia.....Josef is rolling in his grave....Man of Rust that he was.