Western Allies liberating Europe without the USSR

[Kingfish]

And without an Eastern Front the Germans would have let these 6 million just sit idly by not making them into soliders and not sending them into industry - no matter how the war against the Wallies would have developed. :roll:

Not at all what I'm suggesting.

I have no doubt they would eventually find their way into a variety of sectors, some military, others civilian, that the Germans needed to fill. What I am doubting is they would then proceed to build up an military-industrial complex of the like Germany needed to stave off the Russian steamroller.

Something else worth considering: battlefield experience breeds technological advancement, and for the Germans the greatest test lab was the Russian front. In this WI that test lab is essentially removed after mid '42, so the 'new toys' that were derived from experiences later on might not see the light of day.

[Richard Anderson]

While the WAllies would need to mobilize enormous armies of ca. 250 divisions and given their manpower slice of 64,000 men per division,

Yet again using the methodology of simply recycling claims previously rubbished by waiting a month or so before repeating them in the hope no one might notice. As I posted the last time this ignorant claim was made by the same poster a month ago.

"Further to spouting ignorant nonsense, Mr. G uses the 66 division total in the Axis History Factbook compiled by my late friend Ron Klages and a fictitious "1,860,000 men" figure pulled from who know where, 1,873,000 as of 5 May 1944 is the closest strength report for Ob. West to 6 June. The problem with Ron's figure is it is difficult to know what he included. In fact, as of 1 June 1944, there were 12 Panzer and Panzergrenadier, 2 Fallschirmjaeger, and 46 Infanterie divisions in Ob. West - 60 divisions. Of those, one Panzer and six Infanterie were actually Reserve divisions and technically part of the Ersatzheer - it is unlikely their strength was included in the 5 May count or the 1 June count of 880,000, which was actually recorded on 7 September in OKH/Gen.St.d.H./Org.Abtl. Nr. I/18941/44 g.Kdos. v.7.9.44, NARA RG242, T78, R414.

So then, actually 53 divisions...except another one, 19. LW-Sturm-Div., although still in the Ob.West AO, was actually assigned to and in route to Ob.Suedwest. So 52 divisions. Which would yield a "divisional slice" of about 16,923...except that isn't what a divisional slice is - it's the average strength of the Heer combat divisions, brigades, and non-divisional combat battalions, plus the Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe ground troops (the two Fs.Jg. divisionen plus some troops formed for 1. Fallschirm Armee). The total of course includes divisional and unit service support troops - the Tross - but not the army service forces, which likely totaled at least 250,000 or more (especially if the service support functions of the OT, RAD, and NSKK are counted). Which would yield a divisional slice of 21,731...gee we seem to be going back to square one! Meanwhile, if we take the 50-odd divisions actually part of Ob. West on 5 May and divide that into the theater total, we get an actual "divisional slice" (using a method similar to counting all US Army personnel in the ETOUSA and dividing by the number of divisions) measure - 37,460.

Again, your claim is a perfect example of spouting ignorant nonsense."

The same can be extended to the ignorant "64,000 men" "divisional slice" argument. For example, as of 31 May 1945, the strength of the US Army Ground Forces and Army Service Forces was 5,980,900 with 89 divisions. So a divisional slice of 67,201. Except, Army Service Forces also supported the Army Air Forces. If we actually look at the strength of Army Ground Forces tactical units, i.e., Ground Forces units plus the ASF units supporting them, we get 2,502,000 and a divisional slice" of "only" 28,112.

For the Germans in May 1944, there were 291 divisions and the Heer strength was roughly 6,510,000, so a "divisional slice" of "only" 22,371, right? :roll: Except, of course, 12 of those divisions were Feld-Divisionen (Luftwaffe) and 4 were FJD, so Luftwaffe personnel. Another 22 were Waffen SS. So it is really "only" a "division slice" of 25,731, right? Oh, except we're forgetting HiWi, another 358,830 as of 22 July serving with the Feldheer alone. So it is really "only" a "divisional slice" of 27,149. Except, of course we're forgetting the foreign "volunteers" serving with the Heer, so another 350,000 and "only" a "divisional slice" of 28,730. Except, of course, much of the functions of the US Army Service Forces were subsumed in the Wehrmacht into organizations such as the OT, NSKK, RAD, and other Wehrmachtgefolge. So add somewhere around another million or so, and you have only a "divisional slice" of 32,485.

So you could of course conclude the "answer" is the German divisional slice was larger than the American.

Or, better still, you could conclude the whole business of "divisional slice" is a red herring used by the ignorant to obfuscate real issues.

[T. A. Gardner]

The US alone could have raised 300 divisions based on manpower available to them alone if they wanted to. All of those would have still been better equipped than the Wehrmacht

Yes they could - but then they would have to reduce their industrial workforce by several million which would lead to less industrial output which would lead to worse equipped divisions, which would have stood even less of a chance against the Germans than historically.

The Allies have choices in that too. The US imports more workers from elsewhere. Unlike Germany where their labor pool is a choice between Germans and people living in conquered areas (eg., slave or impressed / forced labor), the US could turn to a good portion of the planet for paid hired help. Even German POW's in the US got paid a surprisingly (to them) good wage for working on farms and such. Many stayed in the US postwar because of those opportunities.
Then the Allied could introduce on a wider scale things like NC machinery that would lower the training requirements for workers / operators while not sacrificing quality. Again, something Germany doesn't have the capacity for.
So, you present a minor non sequitur as a rebuttal. Allied labor problems were nothing compared to German ones. Not only labor shortages, but a good portion of their workforce was unwilling and required close custodial supervision. Sabotage was rampant in Germany, not so in the Allied nations.

So, overall, I'd predict that the US and Britain nuke the living $h!+ out of Germany by early 1946 using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, new generation bombers that fly at 30,000 feet + making German flak guns all but useless, and giving the Allies the means to produce a military RMA that leaves Germany a generation behind technologically causing them to lose or Hitler to be overthrown with a resulting negotiated surrender.

Please explain why and how WAllied leaders are going to keep their populations in the war for 4 years after the collapse of the USSR - 4 years in which they didnt achieve anything against Germany and if they tried would have sustained massive casualties.

Why wouldn't they? Massive casualties? Hardly. The US as it was took only about half a million total casualties historically. Even Britain's and the Commonwealth was fairly low compared to Germany's. Given that the Allies initially stick to an air war, raiding and peripheral attacks, and eliminating the U-boat threat their casualties will remain low. That leaves them all the initiative and Germany on the end of a ceaseless set of problems they have no real means to respond to effectively.

Also by early 1946 the Allies had no ballistic missiles, and no bomber that couldy fly at over 30 000+ feet. Also the German 8.8 gun could fire over 30 000 feet and the German Wasserfall rocket would have made short work with these bombers.

The Ballistic missile is only a viable concept if you have nukes. The V-2 is worthless as a conventional weapon. It's CEP was measured in miles. One V-2, assuming it hits or lands near its target, is the rough equivalent of sending an Me 110 with a 1,000 kg bomb load on a suicide mission. It is completely cost ineffective. Making the alcohol needed alone was consuming about a third of Germany's potato crop. That will lead to starvation and food shortages.
As for the Allies, as pointed out earlier the USAAF started ballistic missile development in late 1944 early 1945 but slowed development and then brought it to a crawl as the war wound down. In this scenario that wouldn't happen. So projects like MX-774 would go forward at an accelerated pace to give the US a nuclear capable ballistic missile, their leadership recognizing the cost ineffectiveness of a conventionally armed version.
The US also has other options. They could use what is now called a cruise missile. The Allies had a number in development, testing, or at a point that was deployable.
The Allies do have such bombers. The US has the B-29D (aka B-50). It flies at 35,000 feet as it's combat ceiling. The B-36 would be just entering service too. It's combat ceiling is 38,000 feet. The B-35 might have been placed in service by then too. It's combat ceiling is 39,000 feet.
The Avro Lincoln would have been in service, combat ceiling is 30,000 feet.

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 26-026.pdf

So, you are dead, flat, wrong on that issue.

As for Wasserfall, it was never going to work as a SAM. The major problem with it is it lacks all flying control surfaces so there is virtually no guiding it once it's sonic. But, given the Germans have no viable guidance system (CLOS isn't going to work... proved in Vietnam with the SA-2 missile where the Soviets added a much better CLOS system to counter US jamming) and none anywhere on the horizon, its a dead issue. The US would get Nike before Wasserfall worked. That's because the US and Britain have an enormous lead of a decade or more over Germany in computer technology. Even in AA technology the Germans have nothing like the US SCR 584 radar / fire control system and M2 90mm gun. The British copied this in the GL Mk IV and would have added power to the 3.7" gun giving them a like system.
Oh, the Russians tried for nearly a decade after the war ended to get Wasserfall to work.

http://www.astronautix.com/w/wasserfall.html
http://www.astronautix.com/r/r-101.html

Your bringing Wasserfall up shows an amateurish level of knowledge on the subject of SAMs and SAM development.

And with this I see no further point of discussion the topic further. If the Soviets fold German victory is almost certain. I have provided enough facts, numbers and evidence to support this claim while my opponents countered with intellectual counterarguments of following calibre:

Ah, the logical fallacy follows... Affirming the consequent along with a moralistic fallacy. You have provided nothing close to facts whatsoever. In fact, other than a handful of vague generalities and demands that others produce all the details, you've provided essentially nothing to "prove" the Germans could do anything to win a war against the Western Allies.

[Stiltzkin]

I'm so glad we agree then.

We don't. If you think that they were the unprepared victims that came out of this in a heroic stand and would have performed better if they actually knew about everything then you're misinformed. Nobody can predict everything and certainly not the main strike, even at Kursk it was just a vague estimate that Orel would be attacked (due to the accumulation of non Divisional Artillery in that sector). Their initial standing position did not differ from Norways, Frances or Polands. So you are saying that Poland and France were also unprepared, was Finland uprepared when facing the Red Army?

[Politician01]

I have no doubt they would eventually find their way into a variety of sectors, some military, others civilian, that the Germans needed to fill. What I am doubting is they would then proceed to build up an military-industrial complex of the like Germany needed to stave off the Russian steamroller.

We can play this game in reverse as well: I think the WAllies would invest much less people into research and production and the military because they would realise that without Russia the war is lost. Especially the US would not build up its army as massively as it did OTL because it would leave the war in Europe and concentrate exclusively on Japan.

for the Germans the greatest test lab was the Russian front. In this WI that test lab is essentially removed after mid '42, so the 'new toys' that were derived from experiences later on might not see the light of day.

The Panther and Tiger I and stg 44 were in development since 1938/40 - and the first 6 months of Barbarossa would have happened so they would still develop these weapons. As for the other stuff the Germans might invest less research and development into some things but more into naval and aircraft technologies. So they will be perhaps less advanced on the ground but much more in the air and on sea. Additionally most of their research in the East that was overrun OTL will remain undistrurbed in this TL.

[Michael Kenny]

The Panther and Tiger I and stg 44 were in development since 1938/40

The 'Panther' that emerged in 1943 was a direct reply to the T-34. The T-34 was such a shock to the Germans they toyed with the idea of a direct copy. Without the T-34 the 'panther' would have emerged looking more like a PzIV/Tiger fusion.

[Stiltzkin]

The 'Panther' that emerged in 1943 was a direct reply to the T-34. The T-34 was such a shock to the Germans they toyed with the idea of a direct copy. Without the T-34 the 'panther' would have emerged looking more like a PzIV/Tiger fusion.

No thats just another myth, it was an alibi of the Wehrmacht. This was based on v. Laucherts reports of supposedly Guderians "memoirs". It was the hysteria of Mcensk (Katukovs and Lelushenkos reports, in which the flank attack and camouflaged m1939 AT were more important). He actually stated that they had more troubles with the KV than the T-34s. It was based on spit lickers reports like v.Mellenthins and Menteuffels exaggerations (who never saw them in combat) thats just all. The "shock" people want to believe in was created by literature, claiming that only the 88s and the Luftwaffe were capable of standing against them (the 88s only destroyed 3.4%, Airpower about 7% of the T-34 during Barbarossa, more than 55% went to the Panzer IIIs).
Michulec adressed this in T-34 Mythical Weapon and in Kavalerchiks Journal of Slavic military studies article. Some of them just stated that it was a good eastern front steppe tank. They faced them pretty early and most of the T-34s still perished during Barbarossa. The Panther was a further development of the VK 30.02 and previous developments, the 01 was unsatisfactory (even with an interleaved system). Clearly you took your knowledge off Wikipedia again. I don't know why people still believe the T-34 was such a shock or that outstanding there was nothing super revolutionary about it and it lacked many features, it only had a good frontal protection and strong cannon for 41 standards, with a good low gear mobility over soft ground (PS/tonnage but british cruiser tanks had better Ps/tonnage values). In fact during the 1940 campaign the Germans faced Matildas and Chars which caused similar trouble and literature barely covered it (contrary to the "Tank terror"). A single tank won't change the outcome of the war and certainly will only impact tactical combat.

[Politician01]

Why wouldn't they? Massive casualties? Hardly. The US as it was took only about half a million total casualties historically. Even Britain's and the Commonwealth was fairly low compared to Germany's.

Historically - when Russia was occupying and destroying 80% of German ground forces.

Given that the Allies initially stick to an air war, raiding and peripheral attacks, and eliminating the U-boat threat their casualties will remain low.

And then what? Lets assume that its mid 43 and that both the BotA and the Battle for NA is won (unlikely but lets assume it) what now? The Allies cant just stick to bombing which will be much much more difficult than OTL - they will have to invade mainland Europe - and without an Eastern Front the Germans are strong enough to crush them anywhere resulting in horrendous casualties. US population will demand to end the war in Europe because its senceless, and as OTL the British will be afraid of an invasion which without an Eastern Front is impossible anyways.

That leaves them all the initiative and Germany on the end of a ceaseless set of problems they have no real means to respond to effectively.

Of course. Problems that partialy existed because of the Eastern Front and that they took WITH an Eastern Front OTL will now magically become unsurmountable.. :roll:

So projects like MX-774 would go forward at an accelerated pace to give the US a nuclear capable ballistic missile, their leadership recognizing the cost ineffectiveness of a conventionally armed version.

Of course the Allies will allways accelerate projects they neglected OTL - project that might perhaps defeat Germany in the far future - thats much more promising than ending the war especially the US population doesnt want.

They could use what is now called a cruise missile.

10 years in advance compared to OTL - Im impressed!

The United States Air Force's first operational surface-to-surface missile was the winged, mobile, nuclear-capable MGM-1 Matador, also similar in concept to the V-1. Deployment overseas began in 1954, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

The US has the B-29D (aka B-50). The B-36, B-35 might have been placed in service by then too. It's combat ceiling is 39,000 feet.
The Avro Lincoln would have been in service, combat ceiling is 30,000 feet.
So, you are dead, flat, wrong on that issue.

B-36 first flight end of 1946
B-35 first flight mid 1946

Lincoln and B-29 maximum are 30 500 and 31 000 feet - thats WITHOUT bombs - also WITHIN the range of the 8.8 gun.

So, you are dead, flat, wrong on that issue.

As for Wasserfall, it was never going to work as a SAM.
Your bringing Wasserfall up shows an amateurish level of knowledge on the subject of SAMs and SAM development.

Oh really: According to Albert Speer and Carl Krauch it could have devastated the Allied bomber fleets.[4] Speer, Nazi Germany Minister of Armaments and War Production later claimed:

To this day, I am convinced that substantial deployment of Wasserfall from the spring of 1944 onward, together with an uncompromising use of the jet fighters as air defense interceptors, would have essentially stalled the Allied strategic bombing offensive against our industry. We would have well been able to do that – after all, we managed to manufacture 900 V-2 rockets per month at a later time when resources were already much more limited.
— Albert Speer, Reichsminister für Bewaffnung und Munition (Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions), from memoir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall

Ah, the logical fallacy follows... Affirming the consequent along with a moralistic fallacy. You have provided nothing close to facts whatsoever. In fact, other than a handful of vague generalities and demands that others produce all the details, you've provided essentially nothing to "prove" the Germans could do anything to win a war against the Western Allies.

Thats because its either to far above your comprehension, or because you close your eyes from the facts.

If an unbiased observer would read through the last 10 pages of this thread he would marvel at how many arguments I have given for my claim and how little the others for their claim.

And with this I am ending the discussion because it has become pointless. No side is budging an inch and will continue to do so.So have a good night and a good weekend.

[Politician01]

The 'Panther' that emerged in 1943 was a direct reply to the T-34. The T-34 was such a shock to the Germans they toyed with the idea of a direct copy. Without the T-34 the 'panther' would have emerged looking more like a PzIV/Tiger fusion.

Kenny do you bother to check anything you write??

The Panther was born out of a project started in 1938 to replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

Also since the first 6 months of Barbarossa would have happened there would have been enought T-34 tanks to study. So the Panther is most likely developed as per OTL - the only difference that it is not rushed to the frontlines but that all mistakes would be corrected before the final production run.

Anyways the discussion is over. Good night and good weekend.

[Richard Anderson]

10 years in advance compared to OTL - Im impressed!

The United States Air Force's first operational surface-to-surface missile was the winged, mobile, nuclear-capable MGM-1 Matador, also similar in concept to the V-1. Deployment overseas began in 1954,

Maybe because he was talking about the JB-2? Thirteen test pilots completed by 8 September 1944, a further 104 pre-production and types completed by 31 January 1945, low-rate serial production beginning 1 February with 1,000 per month production planned by April. The collapse of Germany led to lower production rates, averaging 176 per month before the program was cancelled in September 1945. It was the JB-2 which led to the MGM-1.

B-36 first flight end of 1946
B-35 first flight mid 1946

Lincoln and B-29 maximum are 30 500 and 31 000 feet - thats WITHOUT bombs - also WITHIN the range of the 8.8 gun.

So, you are dead, flat, wrong on that issue.

Yep, XB-36 first flight 8 August 1946. XB-35 was 25 June 1946, both of which are irrelevant given the number of B-17, B-24, and B-29 available and the inadequacy of German flak.

Effective range of the Flak 36/37 was 25,000 feet. Effective range and maximum range are not the same. The drive for the Flak 41 was greater effective range, given the altitude of Allied bombers was steadily increasing.

The B-29A was capable of 4,000 miles range with 5,000 pounds of bombs at 25,000 feet.

Oh really: According to Albert Speer and Carl Krauch it could have devastated the Allied bomber fleets.[4] Speer, Nazi Germany Minister of Armaments and War Production later claimed:

The noted rocket scientist Albert Speer? And Carl Krauch the chemist and war criminal? :roll:

Meanwhile, the real world Wasserfall first flight on 28 February 1944 was a failure. By July, seven had been test fired with mixed success and another 17 by January 1945. Ten of the 24 with radio control failed. Development ceased on 26 February 1945.

If an unbiased observer would read through the last 10 pages of this thread he would marvel at how many arguments I have given for my claim and how little the others for their claim.

Dude, don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. I've certainly been marveling at your many arguments. :roll:

And with this I am ending the discussion because it has become pointless. No side is budging an inch and will continue to do so.So have a good night and a good weekend.

Don't let the door...

[Michael Kenny]

Kenny do you bother to check anything you write??

The Panther was born out of a project started in 1938 to replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

I know exactly what happened. What you fail to take into account is the '1938' design was altered substantially when the T34 appeared. There are always new tanks being designed and the the Panther (as it emerged) was a radical departure from the design concepts in play before the T34 appeared.
The 'panther' arose from a Nov. 1941 meeting where a counter to the T34 was demanded. The VK 30.01 concept drawing would pass as a T34 clone. The competing design VK30.02 was the one that became the Panther.
You really should get over your belief that a quick read of Wiki is all that is needed to become an expert on tank designs!

[Richard Anderson]

You really should get over your belief that a quick read of Wiki is all that is needed to become an expert on tank designs!

Or MOR.

Effective sorties by USAAF heavy bombers in the ETO during 1943 were 20,129, during 1944 were 170,117, in the four months and 8 days of 1945 it was 83,921. So an average monthly of 1677.42, 14,176.42, and 19,127.29 respectively.

Heavy bomber losses to enemy aircraft in 1943 were 700 and 228 to flak. Respectively 58.33 and 19.00 per month. So 3.48 and 1.13 percent-per-sortie respectively. In 1944, it was 1,516 and 1,587 respectively or 0.89 and 0.93 percent per sortie respectively. In 1945, it was 199 and 624 respectively or 0.24 and 0.74 percent respectively.

The real world effect of the introduction of the Me 262 and Me 163 in late 1944 and early 1945? Nil. The real world effect of German flak? Decreasing steadily due to Allied counter-flak measures.

[Michael Kenny]

Michulec adressed this in T-34 Mythical Weapon

Quite the most unbalanced history of any tank ever published.

Clearly you took your knowledge off Wikipedia again.

Taken from Jentz.

I don't know why people still believe the T-34 was such a shock or that outstanding there was nothing super revolutionary about it and it lacked many features, it only had a good frontal protection and strong cannon for 41 standards, with a good low gear mobility over soft ground (PS/tonnage but british cruiser tanks had better Ps/tonnage values). In fact during the 1940 campaign the Germans faced Matildas and Chars which caused similar trouble and literature barely covered it (contrary to the "Tank terror"). A single tank won't change the outcome of the war and certainly will only impact tactical combat.

You have been reading too much Christos cr*p

[Stiltzkin]

Decreasing steadily due to Allied counter-flak measures.

Actually they increase.

http://www.taphilo.com/JG26/AA-defense-reich-WWII.shtml

Also
http://www.ww2.dk/misc/viiifc1143.pdf
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml
Looks like the losses for the 8th Air Fleet alone are higher (43-45). Missions flown 10631, Total Losses 4145.
The numbers of Sorties differs from unit to unit, there are around 200-300 flown for most (with 40-50% losses). The average looks to be higher.

[Stiltzkin]

Quite the most unbalanced history of any tank ever published.

His information comes from Isaev, Zaloga, Kavalerchik, so go figure. If you can however find Guderians memoirs go ahead, I am all ears (and I mean the originals not some Moscow 60s publication). The funny thing is, most of these claims were made after the war and not during the war. Most of them were published in Soviet literature, what a coincidence...

Taken from Jentz.

Then you should read the book again. Jentz never mentions a shock (and he is certainly one of those who fueled the T-34 myth) though, nor does he ever state that it was a direct copy (sloped armour was new and diesel right, FCM - 36 and most American LL tanks had diesel, jap tanks had diesel..), he only mentions the 01 prototype being closer to the T-34. Perhaps you should look closer at some of the combat reports he stated, most of the engagements show pretty high losses for T-34s, even in the opening phases (they can utilize their advantage when directly charging en masse frontally, while actually seeing the enemy, which was not easy at all). Their experiences with them (and already heavier tanks in the 40s campaign), the "hysteria"? Perhaps, the "superiority shock" however is just a myth (the losses show something else). It was quiet obvious that they are going to make a steppe tank if they want to continue the war in the east. The Germans sure were desperate if they wanted to copy a tank that had no radio or cupola and used an outdated Christie suspension with no shock absorbers which the Americans discarded.