

- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
What they lacked in engineering might, however, they made up for in numbers. At Prokhorovka (the final engagement in the Battle of Kursk), the Russians outnumbered the more heavily armored (and armed) Germans nearly 4-to-1, but would have lost if not for rather unconventional tactics: they simply drive up onto the tracks of the German tanks and abandoned them! The additional weight effectively stalled the German tanks, whose crews were forced to abandon the armor. I loved the presentation by History Television in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greates....
As for production, compare these numbers: Germany had slightly over 3,500 tanks when it attacked USSR, with many being Panzer I and II, e.g., slightly more than tinfoil on skinny tracks. USSR had more than 5,000 T-34 alone, which was brand new and far superior to anything the Gremans had, and thousands of other types as well. Their big problem was leadership and the fact that many preferred to surrender than fight for communism. That is, until they found out that nazism was even worse.
If we acknowledge the strength of this information and back up to my previously posited position that if Britain had fell, Germany would have been able to begin the invasion when originally planned, on a one front war, without diversion to Greece and North Africa, without diversion of running to the Caucasus for oil, and now with a wholly unsupported Russia in dire straits - holy moly, Hitler may have had it all.
Another factor to consider is that Stalin was also paranoid of a two front war. A little heard of front was the skirmishes the Soviets had with the Japanese culminating in a decisive Soviet victory at Nomomhan in 1939. Right before the start of WWII. Right when the Non-aggression Pact was being signed. This underscores that Stalin was also having to watch his backside so to speak right during the critical time period we are considering of summer 1941 through 1942. Japan had been long maintaining a crushing military presence in Manchuria and were testing the waters with the Soviets at the Mongolian border.
Consider the Pacific theater if Britain had fallen. Japan may have re-intensified aggression in Eastern Russia in the summer of 1941. It is interesting to speculate that Japan, also seeking to gain all the resources of the South and Southwest Pacific - would have considered a neutral United States a threat? What if they just bypassed (or not) the weak American presence in the Philippines and roared through a now stranded Singapore and Malaysia much earlier than they actually did? Australia would be on its own without Britain and possibly with a still neutral United States. And then there is India, now without Britain. Wow, the possibilities get endless for what would have ended up a completely different world. "Never has so much been owed, by so many, to so few"
Would the United States have declared war on Germany as early as late 1940 had Britain fallen? Could that have been the shocker changing North American opinion?
This is one hell of a fantastic discussion.
It made it easier to feed the population after the war
The Normandy invasion took a lot of firepower and manpower because it was against a fortified defense, both on the beach and in depth. Britain in 1940 had none of it.
The battleships that you mention would have been not much more than juicy targets - they are not designed to fight off waves of aircraft and small vessels, especially in restricted waters.
What Germany lacked was a leader willing to leave military tactics to the military. Hitler's armchair quarterbacking was what led to their fall.
The USSR's problem was production: they couldn't field the tanks and artillery to match the Panzer Grenadiere battalions on the Russian Front. That and Stalin didn't really care about the people at all. He was more than happy to sacrifice a few million foot soldiers armed with whatever rifles he could cobble together.
The deciding factor of Germany v Russia in WWII was Hitler's disastrous decision to attack Stalingrad in the dead of winter. Between supply problems, mercenary forces, and the weather, the entire German force on the Eastern Front was decimated at the conclusion of the battle - a loss Hitler couldn't afford.
And Napoleon was a hellova exception.
Jan
I think it has been a constant theme to overestimate the strength of the USSR. Socialism does not work and the USSR would have collapsed before WW2 but for the shameful help it received by western companies and governments.
Much of Western aid was food and wheeled transport (trucks, jeeps, Katyusha platforms - Studebakers) and high octane av-gas. Western tanks were sent as aid and Stalin asked for others things instead since they could not be used on the Eastern Front. Aircobras had some success, but trucks and food were of most value.
Of interest is that through the auspices of FDR and his communist-infested State Department, part of Lend-Lease shipments included some very interesting details on the A-bomb design (certainly of much greater value to the Russians than the useless information that Rosenbergs’ were executed for).
Load more comments...