Peter89 wrote:By 1944, the very minimum even in your scenario is the following:
- the Wallies have control of the seas
- the Wallies have an enormous edge in intelligence
- the Wallies produce more and better aircraft
- the Wallies produce more AFVs
- the Wallies produce more guns and mortars
- the Wallies produce more trucks and vehicles
- the Wallies produce more POL
- the Wallies have more men
+ they do KNOW, that the A-bomb project is producing results
+ the Axis has no means to defeat them, so the Wallies have no reason to stop fighting and give them a break (and maybe allow them to compete on equal terms)
Back to the training, fuel was one problem, the lack of instructors and personnel was another, but we could continue the list. You might argue that if the emergency solutions of 1941/1942/1943 didn't happen, then there would be no shortage of instructors and mechanics. First of all, I seriously doubt that the Germans could double their aircrew output, second, I seriously doubt that they could do it during a super-successful, all-out attack on the SU.
Because I get frustrated when people gloss over my points, I went back to check if I missed any of yours.
Control of the seas
I already touched on - what that does this matter if Germany has everything she needs? How does a navy force Germany to surrender? What does Germany lack that makes inability to ship from Colombia relevant?
In addition, you're assuming too much IMO. The OKM had specific plans for carrier conversions, for example. Lutzow and Speer would have taken a year to convert and 400 workers. Seydlitz was to converted and may actually have started conversion (anyone know?). Eugen, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gniesenau... Italy had several hulls that could have been converted, completed plans for Roma's conversion, and nearly completed an aircraft carrier in 43. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_a ... ier_Aquila
Germany had several ocean liner hulls that it considered converting and Russia left substantial hulls intended for its Kronstadt and Sovetskii Soyuz ships that could have been used.
Japan still had carriers and some of its older BB's could have been fully converted if traded to Germany (via Suez) for, say, a few thousand Me-109's, chromite from China, laborers from China, and/or thousands of tons of rubber (Trans-Siberian railroad).
If the Axis has greatly-enhanced economic resources, it probably goes ahead with all these conversions. If the Axis can put together a dozen or so carriers that can strike from the Med into Atlantic or Indian Oceans then the W.Allies need at least a dozen or so carriers in each spot to ensure that all underway shipping isn't wiped out if/when the Axis sorties into the shipping lane. Can the W.Allies maintain ~15 carriers in Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans at all times? Probably not, which probably means they don't try to defend the Indian Ocean.
Now look - I understand this scenario has a lot of suppositions behind it. Like I said re my sketch, more work would need to be done regarding the W.Allied defenses in Arabia and around India. But it's at AT LEAST not certain - not susceptible to uncritical assumption - that W.Allies can control all three oceans simultaneously even if they maintain overall naval superiority (which I concede they would).
The biggest assumption of long-term W.Allied sea security is the Type XXI U-boat. I've said a lot about it in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=250425
IMO this from that thread is representative:
The exercises in 1948–49 with Madden’s 6DF had confirmed that anti-submarine
ships had, as anticipated, a limited capability against a fast submarine.
In '48-'49 the RN was still unable to cope with a T21-style fast submarine.
So even if we assume
that W.Allied publics have political appetite for an interminable war against the Axis in which they've conquered nearly all Eurasia and are sending V1's ad infinitum* against Britain, we can't assume that W.Allied communications are secure against T21.
*V1 was an efficient weapon; V2 was a waste. Hitler opposed the V2 as wasteful until he got desperate later in the war. The Brits were able to shoot down ~half of the ~9,000 V1's launched at her. As a V1 cost 5,000 RM, 10% of Germany's OTL GDP of ~100bn RM gives you 2mil V1's. If we double that cost for launchers etc. that's 1mil V1's. Shooting down 100x more V1's coming from many more launching sites is a far different ballgame from the OTL V1 defense program. You'd need tens of thousands of Flak guns and fighters devoted to the task, which obviously must be produced, manned, and deployed at the cost of something else. It would have been a very efficient campaign. One American Air Force general concluded that the V-1 was more efficient than heavy bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flyin ... Assessment
Better Wallied intelligence
Point conceded. How does this lead to W.allied victory? How do they march into Berlin with better intelligence?
Wallies produced more X,Y,Z in OTL
Again that's OTL not ATL and German production is much higher in ATL. For more details on why, here's copy/paste of previous points I've made:
Synth fuel plants consumed 13% of Germany's electricity. They'll be shut down by mid-'43, when the Russian oil is flowing. That alone gives you sufficient electricity to double aluminum production.
...and then there's increased coal mining. Might the millions of soldiers demobilized and/or not casualties contribute some coal production delta?
...and then there's increased food supply due to greater German conquests (taking and holding SU's entire Chernozem region) and higher agricultural productivity vs. OTL (replenishment of European agriculture's oil and fertilizer). Food supply was a binding constraint on coal production, as coal mining burns a lot of calories. More coal means more electricity, especially considering that Europe had much idle generating capacity OTL due to coal shortages. And if Germany needs to build more generating capacity, they can easily do so. See, e.g., Germany's reconstruction of the Zaporizhe generating station, an investment that the Red Army nullified OTL but that would be part of Ukraine's economic revival in this ATL.
That's not a full discussion but again you can't assume
that W.allied battlefield production would sufficiently exceed Axis in this ATL.
What do I mean by "sufficiently exceed"? Well an attacker generally needs a huge material advantage; that's at least as true in modern warfare. A B-29 cost 20x as much as an Me-109, for example (B-17/24 ~10x). W.Allied fighter planes like Mustang and P-38, which unlike Me-109 had built-in capacity for offensive range, cost at least twice as much as Me-109. That math doesn't work if the Allied economic edge is 50% instead of 300% as in OTL.
Why did I say "battlefield production" instead of just "production?" Because the W.Allies offensive posture and geography required massive non-battlefield investments not required of the Axis. This is mostly a story of shipping and its protection. Wallies spent >10x as much on BoA as Germany. https://web.archive.org/web/20080409052 ... aigns.html
~15% of American production went to merchant shipping and escorts; for Germany this was negligible. Again, that math is fine when the Allies have a 3:1 production advantage but not if it's only 50%.
DISTANCE is a strategic factor in WW2 that can't be ignored. I could list other factors as well, such as the USN's enormous investment in floating drydocks because its fleet operated far ahead of home bases.
Finally, there's some big pieces of the puzzle missing from your comparative weapons production list. The single biggest army expenses item was ammunition. Guess who produced the most ammunition in every year besides 1945? Germany.
Armies also require non-weapons items like field kitchens, uniforms, boots, etc. For the U.S. Army, Engineering and Quartermaster procurement was ~1/3 of the total. (depending on how you slice Eng. and Quarter between ground and air forces). See Global Logistics and Strategy, 1940-43 appendex B. https://history.army.mil/html/books/001
... ub_1-5.pdf As Germany's army was ~90% the size of America's, their production of these basic items was probably roughly similar.
Armies also use fortifications unless they're always the attackers. Germany spent 3.7bn RM on the French portion of the Atlantic Wall alone, or about 8% of its annual weapons budget
. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... population
. In this ATL there's no need for a French Atlantic Wall.
Taking all these factors together presents, IMO, a substantial revision to the picture shown by the more popular weapons numbers. Germany's war production was disproportionately in things that popular accounts don't highlight, production of which would become unnecessary after defeat of the SU. The W.Allied production edge would be significantly diminished in absolute terms; in battlefield terms it's at least doubtful whether distance factors would ensure material superiority on the battlefield. Given higher German army combat effectiveness (20-30% versus USA and ~50% vs. Britain), substantial material superiority is a precondition of W.Allied victory but not German.
LW training programs
Here you're right: I assume the LW won't disastrously mis-manage its training programs given adequate fuel
resources. There's no evidence to suggest the LW would be so incompetent, IMO. LW training programs were sidelined by emergency conditions (e.g. Stalingard airlift) that don't occur ATL. Goering was a distracted, gluttonous buffoon but the real brains of the LW were men like Eberhard Milch and Adolf Galland. Hard to see those two not matching training to production, given the breathing room to do so.
Peter89 wrote:I'm out of arguments.
Please just share your thoughts
As I said I'm in the process of organizing all these thoughts into a coherent alternate WW2 timeline so these posts were helpful. Thanks.
To summarize (for me if not for you):
- First ~six months after SU's Fall:
- 1. Post-SU, Germany's next moves are through/with Turkey, through/with Spain, and through Iran. If through Turkey, two rail lines seem more than sufficient to support a 20-division Heer in Thrace and western Anatolia. If more forces are needed, trucks are relatively plentiful absent an Eastern Front and rail investments can be made. The move is likely with Turkey rather than through.
- 2. Germany demobilizes most of the Ostheer, returning thousands of skilled workers to industry. Germany stops producing so much ammunition and from '43 restored Russian oil is flowing. Germany switches her enormous chemical industries from powder/synthgas to fertilizer. More oil also supports greater food production than OTL. More food allows more coal production and recruitment of foreign workers. More workers, coal, and electricity mean more aluminium for more planes. More planes mean less bomb damage, meaning even more planes. Germany's overall war production in '44 is conceivably twice OTL's and more concentrated on planes and subs.
- 3. From Turkey and the Caucasus, Germany advances on three axes: Suez, Basra/Abadan, and Tehran. The W.Allies do not have sufficient shipping capability to oppose these advances with more than 20 or so divisions until well into 1943 and Germany takes all three objectives.
- 4. Meanwhile Germany has most likely enticed/threatened Spain into the Axis, less likely is forced to invade her. Either way the fall of Suez and Gibraltar close off the Med to the W.Allies.
- 5. Japan redeploys Kwantung Army to conquer China in 1943, likely with German hardware and adviser assistance sent via the Vichy'd SU.
Next stage of Post-SU WW2:
- 6. After 3 & 4, depending on W.Allied choices, Germany advances on two axes: (1) around the Red Sea to open sea links with Japan and (2) towars India. W.Allies likely have to choose one axis to defend.
- 7. Depending on Wallied choice in (6), Japan may send/trade naval assets to the Mediterranean in exchange for further German aid. In conjunction with German/Italian naval assets, the Axis has a Fleet in Being that can strike into Atlantic or Indian Oceans, probably compelling Allied consolidation in Atlantic and Pacific and leaving Axis in control of the Indian Ocean, which implies the loss of India.
- 8. If W.Allies focus defenses on Red Sea axis of advance instead of India/Persian Gulf axes, then Germany/Japan may conquer India. Further discussion/research necessary.
- 9. Regardless of what happens on the Red Sea and India axes, the W.Allies are playing defense in the West.
The Great Wallied Strategic Conundrums: Air-sea production or armies, Germany or Japan?
10. Regardless of what happens in the Indian Ocean theater, the W.Allies must decide whether to invade Europe. It is conceivable that the W.Allies could mount an army sufficient to defeat Germany and its Allies in Europe. As American planners recognized, however, building an army sufficient to engage the European Axis would significantly reduce war production (see Victory Program of 1941). The manpower commitment and need to produce many more tanks, guns, shells, and quartermaster supplies would likely preclude building enough planes and ships to defeat both Germany and Japan. They probably have to choose one at most. The American public will overwhelmingly favor a focus on Japan, as will Australia and New Zealand. That choosing Japan instead of Germany saves millions of war dead would seal the decision. Britain had no appetite for massive land battles in WW2 anyway; Churchill was still trying to avoid Overlord well into 1944. The likely outcome is Wallies-German peace - idk the terms. Britain's primary security interest is maintained by coming under a US/UK-NATOish security umbrella, with their combined navies sufficient to keep the barbarians at bay. If India is still in W.Allied hands, Germany can guarantee the British Empire to buy peace and its acknowledged domination of Europe. Hitler feels a pang of conscience as he betrays his Japanese ally to secure his empire (just kidding).
11. Nightmare world for much of the Eastern Hemisphere. Don't want to think about that part of the story. Glad it didn't happen. We're lucky Hitler didn't take the SU seriously. But we JUST got lucky. We really should have lost the war.