How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8234
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 May 2020 20:52

Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 20:46


If someone produces a Theory/Claim - he/she has to back it up with evidence/a resonable hypothesis when asked to do so.
You made the initial claim and I challenged it.
As you know:

If someone produces a Theory/Claim - he/she has to back it up with evidence

Where are the numbers you used that prove your claim?

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 06 May 2020 20:58

Michael Kenny wrote:
06 May 2020 20:52
Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 20:46


If someone produces a Theory/Claim - he/she has to back it up with evidence/a resonable hypothesis when asked to do so.
You made the initial claim and I challenged it.
As you know:

If someone produces a Theory/Claim - he/she has to back it up with evidence

Where are the numbers you used that prove your claim?
My initial claim is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Its like saying that the Anglos destroyed 65%+ of the LW or 90%+ of the German Navy. Anyone with any knowledge of WW2 knows this. So Kenny - Show me your evidence/hypothesis that this Common Knowledge fact of WW2 is wrong.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8234
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 May 2020 21:14

Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 20:58


My initial claim is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Its like saying that the Anglos destroyed 65%+ of the LW or 90%+ of the German Navy. Anyone with any knowledge of WW2 knows this. So Kenny - Show me your evidence/hypothesis that this Common Knowledge fact of WW2 is wrong.
Where are the numbers that prove your initial claim?

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 06 May 2020 21:21

Michael Kenny wrote:
06 May 2020 21:14
Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 20:58


My initial claim is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Its like saying that the Anglos destroyed 65%+ of the LW or 90%+ of the German Navy. Anyone with any knowledge of WW2 knows this. So Kenny - Show me your evidence/hypothesis that this Common Knowledge fact of WW2 is wrong.
Where are the numbers that prove your initial claim?
Common knowledge does not have to be proven. Anyone with the faintest idea about WW2 knows that the Germans used around 80% of their Manpower on the Eastern Front. To disput this common knowledge fact and demanding proof, while not beeing to deliver any proof for this dispute/not beeing able able to admit that one was wrong, makes a further discussion pointless. Good night.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8234
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 May 2020 21:35

Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 21:21
not beeing able able to admit that one was wrong, makes a further discussion pointless. Good night.
You should not make things up and you would not have to admit error.

Total Ground Army numbers in May 1944 (random date but you can pick your own)was 7.8 million and if '80% was in 'the east' that would mean 6.3 million soldiers. Total 'Manpower' can be counted a number of ways so which sub-set has the 80/20 split?

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Takao » 06 May 2020 21:38

Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 15:14
Takao wrote:
06 May 2020 14:26
It's called research, you might want to try it sometime.
How about posting sources for your claims? You might want to try it sometime. While air burst produce less radiation than ground bursts, it is very hard to find exact numbers on how long an area remains dangerous. From a 15-20 kiloton bomb one can say that there is no danger after a week or so. However if the area is safe just an hour or two after the explosion is doubtful.
Start with US Naval Technical Mission To Japan. X-28-1. Miscellaneous Targets. atomic bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki Article 1 Medical Effects.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3519
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 May 2020 00:06

Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 21:21
Common knowledge does not have to be proven. Anyone with the faintest idea about WW2 knows that the Germans used around 80% of their Manpower on the Eastern Front. To disput this common knowledge fact and demanding proof, while not beeing to deliver any proof for this dispute/not beeing able able to admit that one was wrong, makes a further discussion pointless. Good night.
80% hum? Well, we know that about half-a-million German troops ended up in Norway. More ended up in Italy, Greece, and the Balkans. There were about 300,000 in Yugoslavia for example. That leaves maybe 10% or less in France...

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6226
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Richard Anderson » 07 May 2020 01:36

glenn239 wrote:
06 May 2020 18:58
Your right in that the MIG-15's were at more of a disadvantage, because the B-29's in Korea at least had decent jet fighter escorts. But, if you are insinuating that the Me-262 wasn't broadly comparable to the Mig-15 in attacking B-29's, I would disagree.
Yeah, you are f@#king around and not bothering to do any research.

The nine Namsi mission B-29 close escort was 55 F-84, which were completely outclassed by the Mig-15. High escort was 32 F-86, which could match it. The problem was the Soviets (not Chinese) deployed three regiments of Mig-15 against the mission. Forty Mig-15 engaged and tied up the F-86, which could not then intervene against the 20 that were easily able to evade the F-84 and shoot down three B-29 and damage three, two of the latter also suffered flak damage.
I'd estimated about 100 rockets to shoot down a single bomber (1 bomber per 4 attacks each with 24 rockets) and you estimate 144 to shoot down a bomber. So, even with your figures, if 30 Me-262's fire their R4M's, that would be 5 kills made even before they engage with cannons. Their lethality per sortie is maybe doubled with a cheap weapon.
The 30 Me 262 shot down, at most, five aircraft. They fired R4m at them. They fired 3cm at them. We don't know how many of the 40-odd other aircraft engaged or what they fired. Somehow now that becomes the R4M "would be 5 kills made even before they engage with cannons".

Either you're f@#king around or you're not thinking very clearly.
Did you bother to read what you sourced? "From October 1944 onwards, most operational Me.262s were deployed against American daylight heavy bomber raids. Swarms of USAAF escorts ensured that the jets would have little chance to engage the Fortresses and Liberators. Mustangs and Thunderbolts engaged the Me.262s from the highest altitudes right down to their landing patterns. It was estimated that one German jet was lost for every American aircraft the German jets shot down."

Over 700 American fighters swarming 70 German fighters, of which only 30 were superior, is not the same as 60 Soviet fighters engaging 87 American fighters, only 32 of which were a near match.
31 March 1945, 454 Lancasters attacked Blohm&Voss Hamburg and lost 11 aircraft. So a 7:11 ratio. Better, but still not good enough when the British could send over 600 aircraft on a mission, the Americans 1,200 the same day, and they could escort with over 1,100 fighters, while hundreds of other fighters and light and medium bombers hit the airfields the Germans were trying to fly off of.
Is a second engagement where something between 12-20 Me-262's also equipped with R4's engaged RAF Lancs and Halifaxes, with 8 bombers shot down. This account suggests maybe something more like 1 bomber shot down for every 60 or 80 missiles fired. So we're in the ballpark - 1 bomber shot down by rockets per every three to six ME-262's. This is all on top of losses to cannon fire, so, is "free money" in terms of bang per buck, kills per sortie.
What "second engagement"? It was seven versus 454. Supposedly seven lost to R4M, so four to 3cm.

Anyway, by that metric all you need to stop 2,400-odd allied bombers and 1,400-odd allied fighters and fighter bombers is a few thousand Me 262.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 07 May 2020 07:49

Takao wrote:
06 May 2020 21:38
Politician01 wrote:
06 May 2020 15:14
Takao wrote:
06 May 2020 14:26
It's called research, you might want to try it sometime.
How about posting sources for your claims? You might want to try it sometime. While air burst produce less radiation than ground bursts, it is very hard to find exact numbers on how long an area remains dangerous. From a 15-20 kiloton bomb one can say that there is no danger after a week or so. However if the area is safe just an hour or two after the explosion is doubtful.
Start with US Naval Technical Mission To Japan. X-28-1. Miscellaneous Targets. atomic bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki Article 1 Medical Effects.
And? This is a spotty report that admits on Page 5:

We did not see our first Patient suffering from the effects of the bomb until 20 September 1945, and could not make physicial studies untill several days later….. We are entirely dependent on Japanese figures….. since many of of these figures have seemed innacuarate,...

The Team of the Japanese Imperial University that studied the site AND their data was completely destroyed on September 25th 1945.

The report claims that one may conclude that there is no radiation after the explosion in Hisroshima/Nagasaki but, they also claim that there was dangerous radiation in Nishiyama up to 2 months after the explosion. Page 46

Considered that the Japanese needed more than a day - 30 Hours to be exact - to send anyone to Hiroshima to help/study the effects - there are no measurements from the first 24 hours after the attack - Page 48

So yeah - There is probably no dangerous radiation in an airburst area after a week. However there most likely is enough dangerous radiation in the airburst area at least for the first few hours or possibly the first few days. So if you let Anglo soldiers storm an air burst area, just hours or minutes after the explosion they are going to die/going to be sick in very large numbers.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 07 May 2020 08:06

T. A. Gardner wrote:
07 May 2020 00:06
80% hum? Well, we know that about half-a-million German troops ended up in Norway. More ended up in Italy, Greece, and the Balkans. There were about 300,000 in Yugoslavia for example. That leaves maybe 10% or less in France...
Michael Kenny wrote:
06 May 2020 21:35
Total Ground Army numbers in May 1944 (random date but you can pick your own)was 7.8 million and if '80% was in 'the east' that would mean 6.3 million soldiers. Total 'Manpower' can be counted a number of ways so which sub-set has the 80/20 split?
Quibbleism

22 June 1941
3,050,000 Germans, 67,000 (northern Norway); 500,000 Finns, 150,000 Romanians
Total: 3,767,000 in the east (80% of the German Army)

7 June 1942
2,600,000 Germans, 90,000 (northern Norway); 600,000 Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians
Total: 3,720,000 in the east (80% of the German Army)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_F ... ld_War_II)

German casualties took a sudden jump with the defeat of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad in January 1943, when 180,310 soldiers were killed in one month. Among the 5.3 million Wehrmacht casualties during the Second World War, more than 80 per cent died during the last two years of the war. Approximately three-quarters of these losses occurred on the Eastern front (2.7 million) and during the final stages of the war between January and May 1945 (1.2 million).[108]

Jeffrey Herf wrote that:
Whereas German deaths between 1941 and 1943 on the western front had not exceeded three per cent of the total from all fronts, in 1944 the figure jumped to about 14 per cent. Yet even in the months following D-day, about 68.5 per cent of all German battlefield deaths occurred on the eastern front, as a Soviet blitzkrieg in response devastated the retreating Wehrmacht.[109]

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

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 07 May 2020 10:17

Politician01 wrote:
07 May 2020 08:06

7 June 1942
2,600,000 Germans, 90,000 (northern Norway); 600,000 Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians
Total: 3,720,000 in the east (80% of the German Army)
You need to check your maths?

2,600,000 + 600,000 + 90,000 = 3,290,000.

I take it you don't want to include the number of aircraft or naval assets on the respective fronts in this discussion?

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6263
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Terry Duncan » 07 May 2020 10:49

For all of the reports, acrymony, and lack of anything useful likely come from this thread, it is now locked.

Terry Duncan

Return to “What if”