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.
Locked
User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

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

#46

Post by Cult Icon » 14 Mar 2017, 22:57

can mkenny write anything positive about Wehrmacht prospects over a decade?

of course not

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

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

#47

Post by T. A. Gardner » 14 Mar 2017, 23:02

magicdragon wrote:The salient points still remains 1) why totally rely on Mulberry before its proved itself (by Chastity it had but on D-Day it had not)

You rely on an over-the-beach method for the initial period of the landing... A few days to a few weeks. By then you take a port. There are lots and lots of ports on the European coast, so it isn't going to be hard to land somewhere where success is guaranteed and a port is within the landing site's grasp.

2) you still are going to go for a large port because it would dumb not too why risk the success of an operation because you had closed your mind to an alternative viable plan? Then if you accept a large port is needed you want to attempt to seize one not too far away from the initial assault beaches ipso facto one of the key criteria for finding a suitable landing site would it was near a large port.
Sure. And, the Allies would end up with one or more. There's plenty of those to be had.

There are lots of alternatives to how the Allies could reinvade Europe. The problem for the Germans is they have to defend everything. Leaving a gap in their defense line presents an opportunity for the Allies to take advantage of. So, no matter how strong the Wehrmacht is or isn't, the problem remains trying to adequately defend thousands of miles of coastline without a navy.
A navy, a real navy, actually makes it easier as you can engage the enemy's navy offshore to stop the invasion. Your navy can move to wherever that is. Thus, you only need one of adequate size to deal with your opponent. Germany doesn't have that option as a land power.


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#48

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Mar 2017, 23:11

Cult Icon wrote:can mkenny write anything positive about Wehrmacht prospects over a decade?
It seems to me that the one disparaging the Germans (in Normandy) is you. I say the were a formidable fighting force and in relation to Eastern front Units very tank heavy. The fought at a density that dwarfed anything in The East. They were formidable-they just had the bad luck to come up against an Army far more formidable that hammered them into the ground.

magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

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

#49

Post by magicdragon » 14 Mar 2017, 23:13

T. A. Gardner wrote:I probably counted wrong... It's still a fairly formidable mix to go up against 3 Allied infantry divisions. And, the point remains, the Allies simply didn't lose amphibious assaults
I think the British troops and Royal Navy sailors involved in Operation Credential, the Dodecanese campaign might beg to differ?

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

magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

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

#50

Post by magicdragon » 15 Mar 2017, 00:17

Michael Kenny wrote:
You seem unable to grasp the fact the Allies brought their 'ports' with them. They looked at the options, formed a solution and....it worked.
Dear me, ofcourse they brought their own ports I am not a Mulberry denier I accept the photographic evidence and I do not think they were built by aliens but it was still an experimental technology so why oh why would that be your only option? The plans worked so much that they still decided to capture Cherbourg and they did. Why bother? Because no plan is 100% full proof so you would want to capture a port as well - what is so difficult to understand that you would plan to do both and not rely on either?
This 'what if', like 99% of all 'what ifs' is just another way to come up with a scenario where Germany wins.
Never said Germany wins you must be confusing me with someone else you have ranted at. But I am suggesting it is a bit more complicated than building ships, tanks and aircraft and then saying its bound to be easy because an army which had secured hegemony over the whole of the European continent would just give in and run off.
Where exactly is the evidence that Germany could double the casualties it inflicts by doubling her numbers?
Never mentioned casualties so providing evidence would be a bit odd as I have recently given up defending points I have not made for Lent. The point I did make earlier was without too much effort you could double the size of the garrison on the invasion beaches and probably at least double its fighting power. This would in my opinion be a slightly more formidable defence than historically existed, it seemed a reasonable point but I am sorry that it appears to have tipped you over the edge.
I believe it would result in the German casualties rising by a factor of 4.
Why choose these figures apart from the fact you are on an evidence free rant? I will raised you and say their casualties would have risen by a factor of 47 and that the Germans would have surrendered the whole of the Wehrmacht on the day after D-Day based on the Allies ability to build pontoons, floating caissons and arrange block ships in an orderly and tidy manner. Happy now?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

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

#51

Post by T. A. Gardner » 15 Mar 2017, 01:25

magicdragon wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:I probably counted wrong... It's still a fairly formidable mix to go up against 3 Allied infantry divisions. And, the point remains, the Allies simply didn't lose amphibious assaults
I think the British troops and Royal Navy sailors involved in Operation Credential, the Dodecanese campaign might beg to differ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecanese_Campaign
It doesn't look that way to me. The British had put smallish forces on several islands that were held by the Italians after their armistice to support the Italian troops already there. The Germans then showed up to try and take the islands with some success although one might note that their limited naval forces had to play hide and seek with the RN to manage to get a landing done and when they ran into the RN the invasion force was usually sunk out-of-hand.

That pretty much, on a small scale, confirms my position: The best way to stop an amphibious assault is with a navy and that amphibious assaults almost always succeed. Even the German ones in your example did when they could get troops ashore.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#52

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Mar 2017, 01:44

magicdragon wrote:

Why choose these figures apart from the fact you are on an evidence free rant?
Its a 'what if'. My figure plucked from thin air is no different to your scenario (plucked from thin air) as to how Germany could win WW2.

magicdragon wrote: I will raised you and say their casualties would have risen by a factor of 47 and that the Germans would have surrendered the whole of the Wehrmacht on the day after D-Day based on the Allies ability to build pontoons, floating caissons and arrange block ships in an orderly and tidy manner. Happy now?
Now we see your teeth. Denied the opportunity to get a German victory you have a melt-down. Just remember those ''block ships in an orderly and tidy manner. '' led to the total and absolute destruction of the German Army in The West.

Mind you I will concede that in the field of reins and horse harnesses no other Army even remotely got close to matching Germany.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#53

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Mar 2017, 01:56

magicdragon wrote: But I am suggesting it is a bit more complicated than building ships, tanks and aircraft and then saying its bound to be easy because an army which had secured hegemony over the whole of the European continent would just give in and run off.
Leaving aside the fact this ''army which had secured hegemony over the whole of the European continent '' did in fact '' give in and run off'' in August no one thought it would be easy. The Allies knew it would be tough but they brought with them a balanced army that was able to dominate on land, sea and air. I realise this may confuse those who think WW2 was lost simply because Germany was outnumbered and if the numbers were even it would be an automatic win for Germany.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

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

#54

Post by kfbr392 » 16 Mar 2017, 12:41

T. A. Gardner wrote:Well, let's see:

Germany occupies Western Russia.
Japan still gets clobbered in a Pacific War with the US. That means by 1945 the Japanese are out of the war and the US doesn't have one going on in Asia now.
Germany isn't going to defeat Britain. They lack a navy and it will take them well over a decade to build one that even begins to come close to what they'd need to win a war at sea. With the US in the picture, they're never going to do it.
The U-boat war isn't a substitute. It's a commerce war that is nothing but a spoiler. It's an admission by Germany they can't win a war at sea.

So, if we assume the Western Allies stay in the game, they play a waiting game until Japan is finished. "Germany second" you might call it. The West engages in a air campaign to the degree they can run one with sustainable losses. They focus on crushing the U-boat campaign thoroughly. They also engage in raiding and peripheral sniping to force Germany to expend lots of resources into building the Atlantic Wall. In Russia and elsewhere they support, supply, and encourage internal revolt and resistance to German occupation meaning Germany is forced to keep massive occupation forces in place to deal with this problem.

So, by the beginning of 1945, the Allies have their game changers in place. The big one is nuclear weapons. The Germans are still a decade or more from getting one of their own. All the Allies need do now is use a few on some German cities... Hamburg comes to mind...
The B-29 and B-36 are much harder to intercept being faster and flying higher than previous bombers. This also means heavy AA guns that the Luftwaffe and Germany have come to rely on for air defense are getting nearly useless. A SAM is years away. Sure, Germany has some jet aircraft but so do Britain and the US... No advantage there.
The next big game changer is that the US has unfettered access to what remains of the Soviet Union. They move in construction engineers and improve the Trans-Siberian railway immensely. That means the USSR is back in the game.
Worse, with Japan out of the war, the USSR's military forces are now being supplemented by Chinese and other Asian troops using US and British equipment.
Result: The Germans are faced with Round 2 of a multi-front war. They are now fighting a major land war in Russia... Again. A home, there are mushroom clouds sprouting over their cities. Technologically, the Germans are clearly falling behind the West and their allies. Internal instability and continued resistance and open fighting makes for a lack of manpower to sustain their front.
At some point, the Allies will invade. If not in France, maybe Norway. Maybe Italy. It doesn't matter where, another front opens up, then another.

So long as the US and Britain want to continue the war, Germany eventually loses.
you have demonstrated that you know your stuff, know how to stay on topic, and possess self-control.
And you have answered the OP.
Thanks for your convincing and informative posts.

magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

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

#55

Post by magicdragon » 17 Mar 2017, 00:19

Michael Kenny wrote:
Now we see your teeth. Denied the opportunity to get a German victory you have a melt-down. Just remember those ''block ships in an orderly and tidy manner. '' led to the total and absolute destruction of the German Army in The West.
Luckily I still have my own teeth and hopefully the same applies to you? Believe me it was not a meltdown just taking the mickey no pun intended and responding to your needlessly aggressive attitude and inaccurate comments aimed towards me. I promise no more jokes about the arrangement of blockships either, I agree I have crossed the line about this issue and I apologise to blockship aficionados everywhere.
Mind you I will concede that in the field of reins and horse harnesses no other Army even remotely got close to matching Germany.
I can can offer no comment on either horses or leather I will leave that field open to you as you are secretly gagging to talk about them, my tastes have always been slightly more prosaic.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

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

#56

Post by Guaporense » 16 Apr 2017, 05:51

I think the most probable outcome of a successful Barbarossa would be a Cold War between Facist Europe and the Liberal Democracies. In WW1, the WAllies suffered 9 million casualties but that's because Russia also redirected German forces substantially, in WW2 an amphibious invasion of Europe using conventional forces would probably result in even heavier losses than in WW1. The other Liberal democracies would be willing to sacrifice a substantial fraction of their entire young adult populations to free France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands?

Yes, heavier than 9 million: estimated casualties using the casualty rates in the Western front in WW2 and WW1: about 1,000 soldiers lost per month engaged with 1 German division (something that happened in WW1 and WW2), multiplying that by the ca. 250 German divisions they would have to engage yields 250,000 casualties per month, over 4-5 years of conflict yields 12-15 million casualties. In WW1, it was 9 million but the Wehrmacht was smaller in WW1 than in WW2 and the Russian front also resulted in a large fraction of German casualties there, in this case the number of Allied casualties will be certainly higher than 9 million.

That is, if they managed to actually win which would be difficult considering the severe problems involved in an amphibious invasion of Europe against 250 German divisions. Historically, the WAllies never developed a large ground army because the Red Army did the job of defeating those 250 divisions and winning the war. This allowed the WAllies to focus on the airforce and the navy and play around trying to check if strategic bombing worked as the airpower theorists in the 1930's conjectured (and it didn't) and playing around with an Axis sidekick, a third world country called Japan back in Asia.

Also, without the Eastern front, the Nazis would certainly focus the massive economic resources of continental Europe plus Soviet oil supplies into a powerful air force and navy. The WAllies wouldn't easily bomb Europe as they did historically because the Nazis would certainly have a much stronger Luftwaffe, a fact which cannot be ignored.

Of course, nuclear weapons could change everything. However, if the USSR is defeated, that happens in 1941-1942, years before nuclear weapons are developed. Without the Russian-German war, the Nazis could focus their resources on developing nuclear weapons as well for a period of a few years before the US finished developing their. The thread of retaliation would keep both sides from using them in a Cold War scenario (just like it happened between the USSR and the US in the Cold War, notice the US never used nukes on the USSR even when they had the monopoly).

Also, WW2 was actually not the absolute total war people mistake it for: the Germans had chemical weapons that the Allies didn't have such as Tabun. Tabun was the most powerful weapon of mass destruction in the world before the nuclear bomb was developed, but they never used it for fear the allies might have something similar (which they didn't, but just the fear of retaliation prevented it's use in WW2, imagine a 1,000 bomber raid on Berlin with tabun bombs, that would be hundreds of times more lethal than a conventional one). So, the fact is that there was a tacit agreement about not using chemical weapons in the battlefield in WW2.

There is also the massive psychological intimidation effect of fighting the Nazis in the case they win against the Red Army: they would have defeated a dozen countries and never lost a major engagement by that point. Other countries would be extremely scared of facing them. WW2 was won by the Allies mainly because the Russian people were fighting for their own survival so they accepted the terms of fighting to the death against what looked like an irresistible force. Since there was no existential threat facing the WAllies (the Nazis never had any interest in attacking them, their goal always was to get Lebensraum in the east and destroy the Bolsheviks), the WAllies would have no incentive to fight to the death against the Germans.

Of course, if they had the incentive to fight to the death the population of the Allied countries (200 million US + UK + Canada + Australia + New Zealand) was greatly superior to the population of Greater German Reich (90 million including the part of Poland and France annexed), if the logistical costs of supplying forces from North America and Oceania in Europe were not very high, of course, they could get a 2-1 numerical superiority on the front which means they could have won at conventional terms assuming the logistical costs of supplying these troops wouldn't be prohibitive.

So I predict as the most likely outcome if Barbarossa succeeds would be a Cold War, starting in 1942. So economic mobilization would stop and they would go back to a peace time but with an iron curtain at the English channel. The Nazi regime would eventually collapse but they would certainly kill over 10 million jews and turn continental Europe into a new third world (like the USSR did to the formerly developed territories of East Germany and to Czechoslovakia). That process of Nazi collapse would take decades like the Soviet regime.
Assuming they have the political will to defeat Nazi Germany (after they defeat Japan) how many casualties would the WAllies suffer in taking back the continent from a far stronger and prepared Nazi Germany that has had a significant amount of time to build up their military, finish the Atlantic Wall and drain the resources of Eastern Europe?

What would TTL's D-Day look like in terms of losses?

IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy. Possibly more casualties as they'll have to wade through more Germans?
Well, we have a comparative data point in WW1, when the WAllies (France, UK, Canada, US, Australia) actually did the bulk of the job in defeating the Wehrmacht.

WW1 cost the Entente about 7,500,000 men in the Western front plus 2,200,000 men in Italian front, or nearly 10 million men in total over a period of 4 years. In the Western front in WW2 they lost 800,000 men while engaging not more than 60-70 German divisions at any point in time for 11 months, so that's 70,000 men to 65 divisions per month of about 1,000-1,100 casualties per division per month. While in 1918, the Entente was losing about 190,000 men per month fighting ca. 195 German divisions in the Western front, again a infliction rate of 1,000 casualties per division per month.

If they try to fight directly 250 German divisions, which would be in much better fighting condition than those they faced in 1944-45, given that German casualties in the Eastern front up to May 1942 were "only" 1.1 million instead of ca. 4.5 million at the time of D-Day, June 1944. So I expect about 250,000 Allied casualties per month if not more and that could last for several years. So total casualties would eventually go above the levels of WW1, so around 15 million men in total is my guess, if the Allies manage to win.
Last edited by Guaporense on 16 Apr 2017, 06:31, edited 2 times in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#57

Post by Michael Kenny » 16 Apr 2017, 06:24

Guaporense wrote: The Nazi regime would eventually collapse but they would certainly kill over 10 million jews and turn continental Europe into a new third world (like the USSR did to the formerly developed territories of East Germany and to Czechoslovakia).
More ignorance. Clearly you have no idea what 'Third World' actually means. You seem to think it is an economic term but it is not. Your ignorance extends even to the subject where you claim to be an expert!

If Germany assumed the role of the Soviets then countries under its control could not be 'third world'.

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

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

#58

Post by Guaporense » 16 Apr 2017, 06:28

However, the most probable thing would be several disastrous attempts at amphibious landings. Without the Eastern front the Germans could easily focus massive artillery firepower supplied by railroads while the Allies couldn't because they would be running around the beaches. Losses in an amphibious landing against the whole German army would be perhaps even heavier than WW1 battles like the battle of Somme, when the WAllies lost 650,000 men, nearly 3 times their losses in Normandy 44.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

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

#59

Post by Guaporense » 16 Apr 2017, 06:36

Cult Icon wrote:
Yodasgrandad wrote:
IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy. Possibly more casualties as they'll have to wade through more Germans?

Or would it be no different to the D-Day that happened?
It would be not a matter of dead/wounded but wholesale capture of the invasion force
Indeed the most probable outcome. I think that German strategists would perhaps take advantage of an Allied invasion to reduce their manpower and do it Cannae style: allow the WAllies do land a couple million men on France, pretend to be retreating for a couple of months, and then, quickly let the panzer divisions encircle them. Similarly to what they did in 1939-1940-1941. The psychological effects of such victory and the capture of a couple million allied troops, would be devastating.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

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

#60

Post by T. A. Gardner » 16 Apr 2017, 07:20

Guaporense wrote:
Cult Icon wrote:
Yodasgrandad wrote:
IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy. Possibly more casualties as they'll have to wade through more Germans?

Or would it be no different to the D-Day that happened?
It would be not a matter of dead/wounded but wholesale capture of the invasion force
Indeed the most probable outcome. I think that German strategists would perhaps take advantage of an Allied invasion to reduce their manpower and do it Cannae style: allow the WAllies do land a couple million men on France, pretend to be retreating for a couple of months, and then, quickly let the panzer divisions encircle them. Similarly to what they did in 1939-1940-1941. The psychological effects of such victory and the capture of a couple million allied troops, would be devastating.
And, this is against an army unlike anything the Germans have gone up against. They are fully mechanized. They have masses of artillery. Their communications gear is in abundance and they have far more than the Germans. It's more reliable and they're also jamming the living $h!+ out of the German equipment (see Jackel I, II, and III).

The Germans can't match any of that. They'll never be anywhere close to fully mechanized. They'll be short on artillery, and their fire control doctrine for it is inferior to both the British and US practice.

The Allies can choose where to attack, and when. All the Germans can do is respond to that. Germany completely lacks the initiative in this scenario.

Locked

Return to “What if”