Could the Soviet Union have won by itself?

[BDV]

Yes, but it's not like this bloke's goons got stuffed for a loss at the border - see Benito, M. On the contrary, nazis overran a significant fraction of USSR's manpower, industrial, and agro base. So it' only fair to ask what would happen if the axis has, say 50% more planes?

[Terry Duncan]

Why the intense resistance to the idea that, under this debate's hypothesis, the S.U. would not only NOT have "won by itself", but would lose?

Because its rubbish. It needs to ignore how reality works and attempts to provide a scenario where one side is unable to react to the changed circumstances.

I examined the hypothesis from all sides and concluded that, under its parameters, the S.U. would not stand a hope in Hell because of the great advantage that the particular hypothesis would afford to the Axis.

It would appear many here do not agree with the results of your 'examination' to say the least. It also seems to ignore the many advantages the scenario should give the USSR.

Yes, but it's not like this bloke's goons got stuffed for a loss at the border - see Benito, M. On the contrary, nazis overran a significant fraction of USSR's manpower, industrial, and agro base. So it' only fair to ask what would happen if the axis has, say 50% more planes?

The Germans may advance a bit further, but then they will stop because of the winter they forgot to prepare for, and start meeting large numbers of tanks they are ill-equipped to deal with. The Germans will still not have the ability to deal with the new production centres far to the east, or the disparity in manpower. The Germans have far from reliable allies, and of course a 'perfideous Albion' in their rear that is not at all likely to see a defeat go unavenged, and a France just as likely to defect if a chance to win is seen.

[Kilgore Trout]

For Terry: Why not tell us all of ANY "advantage" this hypothesis would offer the S.U.? I could not find ANY. Why do you persist in assuming that the Axis would not be able to prepare for winter? I made a point to not in my analysis that the Axis could move with deliberation, be able to establish a "winter line" and hold it. What "large numbers of tanks they are ill-equipped to deal with" will they meet? By this hypothesis, in my analysis, the Axis will have AS A MINMUM at least an additional 600 tanks of its own, as well as more than DOUBLE the number of aircraft. Included in this is a lot of medium bombers. These "new production centre far to the east" will be fine until the He-177's get to them. Then? Dust. Britain could jump back in at any time but, since it is NOT on the Continent, it will only be able to send supplies. The overwhelming amount of Lend-Lease came from the U.S., which would be busy with Japan. But, wear your red underwear as you wish. None so blind as who REFUSE to see.

[Terry Duncan]

For Terry: Why not tell us all of ANY "advantage" this hypothesis would offer the S.U.?

I did in the previous post and in another not too long ago, why didnt you read them?

Why do you persist in assuming that the Axis would not be able to prepare for winter?

Given you expect them to win far easier, why should they prepare for it? They didnt for the real war, and in one where they are expected to win earlier surely such a preparation is even more useless? They could prepare for it, but it seems the Soviets are locked into launching winter offensives or even bringing them forward, so once again it is a case of one side having optimal adaption and the other being denied any sensible adaptation to the changed circumstances.

I made a point to not in my analysis that the Axis could move with deliberation, be able to establish a "winter line" and hold it.

The USSR then has time to recover and adapt further. There are still rather a lot of Russians compared to Germans and Germany still has no sight of victory.

What "large numbers of tanks they are ill-equipped to deal with" will they meet?

The T-34 and KV-1 series, surely you remember them? These are what the USSR is arming with in 1941, not the obsolete and outdated vehicles that lacked spares when war began. The German 5.0cm guns struggle when engaging these tanks frontally, and the long 7.5cm took time to arrive in any numbers.

These "new production centre far to the east" will be fine until the He-177's get to them.

Is this the same He-177 that failed to make an impact and was called the Luftwaffenfeuerzeug because its engines caught fire a lot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

Lets guess, in this scenario it too is perfected early and the Soviets fail to understand air defence against unescorted bombers?

Then? Dust. Britain could jump back in at any time but, since it is NOT on the Continent, it will only be able to send supplies.

Of course, Britain has forgotten how to use heavy bombers or conduct amphibious operations.

The overwhelming amount of Lend-Lease came from the U.S., which would be busy with Japan.

Yep, the superpower than was not Imperial Japan will hold up the full weight of the US so much better than they managed against a fraction of its war effort in reality! The main question here is how much quicker will the US finish the war with Japan.

But, wear your red underwear as you wish.

Thank you for the fashion advice, I probably need it really, but I dont have any red underwear. Understanding reality does not require bias, and my political sympathies play no part in my comments.

None so blind as who REFUSE to see.

An excellent conclusion on your own offerings so far. Examining every possible aspect that Germany can change and not doing the same for the USSR is unbalanced and unrealistic.

[Michael Kenny]

in my analysis, the Axis will have AS A MINMUM at least an additional 600 tanks of its own

And a perfect example of how you let your rabid anti-Soviet bias run away with you.

By July 1941 the total of German tanks sent to NA was 339.
Pz I =25
Pz II =94
Pz III = 172
Pz IV = 48
German tank losses:
1941 = 2813
1942 = 2952.

So you see you 'extra' numbers were a mere drop in the ocean and given the rate at which the Soviets were destroying them would not survive for long.
I realise dragging facts into your dream world is cheating and I apologise for my error!

[Politician01]

in my analysis, the Axis will have AS A MINMUM at least an additional 600 tanks of its own

And a perfect example of how you let your rabid anti-Soviet bias run away with you.

By July 1941 the total of German tanks sent to NA was 339.
Pz I =25
Pz II =94
Pz III = 172
Pz IV = 48
German tank losses:
1941 = 2813
1942 = 2952.

So you see you 'extra' numbers were a mere drop in the ocean and given the rate at which the Soviets were destroying them would not survive for long.
I realise dragging facts into your dream world is cheating and I apologise for my error!

And how many were sent to NA from July to December 41??
And how many aircraft were sent to NA in 1941 - so you have numbers for this as well?

Considering that the Soviets had between 1500 and 1700 front line tanks left in Early December 1941 - 300 or 500 additional German tanks could have made a significant change.

The kill ratio in 1941 was 7:1 - 300 extra German tanks would theoretically mean an extra 2100 destroyed Soviet tanks - thus by December 1941 the USSR would have no front line tanks at all to defend Moscow.

[ljadw]

Kill ratio:
There is NO kill ratio,only a loss ratio

[ljadw]

The question reads "could the S.U have won by itself" in the given hypothesis. I have NO "oppostion" to the hypothsesis at all. I examined the hypothesis from all sides and concluded that, under its parameters, the S.U. would not stand a hope in Hell because of the great advantage that the particular hypothesis would afford to the Axis. I do not "refuse to use" any "available Soviet figures" (which are?). I merely state the truth: the "surprise" claim made by S.U. officers and authors was, is, and ever shall be a double-load of sefl-serving rubbish.

1)Saying:I examined the hypothesis from all sides" and than admitting no to know the existence of available Soviet figures,means that one has examined the hypothesis from one side only,thus one has not done his home work,and one has received a negative report.
2)Available Soviet figures :see the posts by Art on this forum and the RKKA site on Armchair general
3)Using a transfer of Rommel to the East as argument for a German victory,is proving an insufficient knowledge of military things,with as result a negative report:in plain words :Guderian failed,why would Rommel do better
4)The only chance for the Germans to win (following Adolf AND his generals=a seldom seen unanimity) was to defeat the SU in the summer of 1941,which,as we know,did not happen .It is on the protagonists of the possibility of a German victory,to PROVE that a German victory was possible in the summer of 1941,using an examination of the strength of BOTH sides .
5)The Germans committed in 1941 3.8 million men and 4.500 tanks.The SU committed almost 10 million men and 20000 tanks.There are also figures available for aircraft and artillery,but I am to lazy to search them .
6)Whatever:it is on you to prove that the Germans could win,what would be needed for this (maybe 2 million and 2500 tanks extra),and that the Germans could have "what would be needed for this".
7)And,not forgetting that,if you are giving the Germans 2 million men and 2500 tanks more,an other poster will be entitled to give the SU 4 million men and 5000 tanks more,which will result in a new stalemate.
8)Unless...you can prove that the SU could not have 4 million men and 5000 tanks more,but for this,you must look at the available Soviet figures:see point 2
9)If you can't prove that the Germans could have what was needed to win,you always can try the usual subterfuges,as :if it only was cold on the German side,if Adolf was not meddling ,giving Manstein/Rommel,Guderian,blahblah ,a free hand.
10)If you are doing this,you will prove that you have no point,and also other things .

[Michael Kenny]

[And how many were sent to NA from July to December 41??

45.
11 Pz III and 34 Pz IV.

how many aircraft were sent to NA in 1941 - so you have numbers for this as well?

Not to hand but I know I could get it.
The point is that you and the other believers do not know and this has not curbed your rhetoric.
I know I would have made sure I had the numbers first rather than asking the 'doubters' to do my work for me.

Considering that the Soviets had between 1500 and 1700 front line tanks left in Early December 1941 - 300 or 500 additional German tanks could have made a significant change.

Maybe you should look at the numbers of German tanks still in service in December 1941 and explain how you know the 300 'extra' tanks would all still be fit and ready for action by then.

The kill ratio in 1941 was 7:1 - 300 extra German tanks would theoretically mean an extra 2100 destroyed Soviet tanks - thus by December 1941 the USSR would have no front line tanks at all to defend Moscow.

The disturbing thing is I think you really believe that statement!

Can't we apply the same method of counting a kill as employed by the Uber-Panzer believers?
The excuses used to diminish German losses in 1944-45.
I.E. Any tank not penetrated from the front in a fair one-to-one fight is not a kill.

[BDV]

The OstFront "WhIf Germany did this or the other" are a necessity because that's the side that had some slack. The bolshevik side went all in: Всё для фронта! Всё для победы!- "Everything for the Front, Everything for the Victory!". Simplistically, after throwing the Far East units into the battle in November, the Soviet side had nothing left.

So they would let the front fend for itself, build a reserve every 6 months or so, then throw it in the cauldron, an offensive or counteroffensive. It is the Axis, in particular the Nazis, who were trying to fight on multiple fronts while building the Festung Norwegen AND the Atlantikwall AND fight the Atlantic Battle, AND the Baedeker Raids, AND North Africa, AND Murmansk interdiction, etc. etc. etc.

Ergo, WhIfs will be predominantly german side.

[Orwell1984]

The OstFront "WhIf Germany did this or the other" are a necessity because that's the side that had some slack. The bolshevik side went all in: Всё для фронта! Всё для победы!- "Everything for the Front, Everything for the Victory!". Simplistically, after throwing the Far East units into the battle in November, the Soviet side had nothing left.

But the evidence doesn't support the picture you're painting above.
Here's an analysis of the 'myth' of the Far Eastern units and the defence of Moscow which illustrates the resilience of the Soviet Army located in the West.
http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters3.html

[LWD]

If the war between the Soviets and the Germans starts on the historical date and follows the historical time line for the first couple of months and a Soviet victory is defined as ejecting the Germans from Soviet soil my personal opinion is that the Soviets have a some what less than even chance of winning. If it's defined as the Soviets taking Berlin I think it highly unlikely. If victory is defined for both the Soviets and the Nazis as having their respective regimes stay in power until 1950 I wouldnt be at all surprised to see neither win. However Germany getting a peace treaty with Britain or never going to war with her in the first place changes a number of things. For one it's been mentioned a number of times on this forum that Stalin had intel pointing to the German attack. He didn't believe it likely because he didn't believe the Germans would be willing to fight another two front war so soon. Without the war with Britain the major reason for him rejecting what his intel people were reporting goes away. This suggest that the Red Army would be in a significantly higher state of readiness and makes it unlikely that the initial couple of months are nearly as disasterous for the Red Army as they were historically.

One of the real problems I have with this what if by the way is I simply don't see any way that Britain can be forced out of the war and kept out absent some huge changes in the events leading up to the war.

[BDV]

LWD,

I second that.

[BDV]

Here's an analysis of the 'myth' of the Far Eastern units and the defence of Moscow which illustrates the resilience of the Soviet Army located in the West.
http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters3.html

Thanks for the correction. But then, my argument still stands. Soviets were all in, with the exception of short periods of amassing a reserve to be deployed at the next opportunity.

[Michael Kenny]

Soviets were all in, with the exception of short periods of amassing a reserve to be deployed at the next opportunity.

Sounds like the German position as well.