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.
History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

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

Post by History Learner » 05 May 2020 04:12

T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:06
This is utter nonsense. The reason the Germans couldn't make an invasion of England work is they lacked a navy to secure the seas to the landing area. The quality and quantity of landing craft is a far second to sea control. The Allies have the ability to land a large force, at least 10 to 12 divisions on the European coast wherever they choose by 1944. They can pick the location based on known German forces disposition and have the intelligence and reconnaissance assets to know what those are while the Germans would know next to nothing about what the Allied planning was.
In the Torch landings, the US forces sailed from the US to North Africa. This means the Germans had no clue, nada, zip point..., about what the US plan in that operation was.

Getting ashore and staying ashore is not only possible for the Allies but all but a certainty by mid to late 1944. The only question is how hard will the breakout and following land campaign be.
You failed to read the post in question, and categorically so:
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 03:57
The decision to invade to the USSR was driven by the desire to acquire the resources of the European USSR, in particular Ukrainian ore and wheat as well as Caucasus Oil. The rationale behind this was that, beyond the Nazi goal of living space, the strategic resources and depth of Russia was needed to face down the expected-and it came to pass, as it were-air offensive by the Anglo-Americans. As you rightfully note, the Germans did fail to invade the UK because all the free manpower in the world doesn't magically conjur up the landing craft needed to carry out a naval invasion. By the same token, however, the Anglo-Americans now find themselves in the same boat; to defeat the Germans they have to invade Europe. Now is where that free million men can and will make the difference.
As for the relevant bits otherwise, in 1944 it took the largest armada in history to just land seven divisions. Free of the Eastern Front, Germany has at least 50 "spares". Even if we took the inflated total of 10-12, that still means that anywhere they land they're outnumbered at least 2:1 and have massive German mobilize divisions to counter-attack the beaches once the Allied landing is known.

As for TORCH, actually they did and they did make an effort to intercept it with U-Boat packs. German intelligence planners were also pretty on point in general for D-Day, coming to the same conclusion as the Anglo-Americans that the landing would have to be somewhere in France; that leaves just Palais de Calais or Normandy.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3510
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 » 05 May 2020 04:16

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:08
T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 May 2020 03:59
History Learner wrote:
04 May 2020 23:44
Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.
This is utter nonsense. An amphibious invasion, properly planned, is going to succeed. The Germans won't have sufficient troops at the point of the invasion to stop it. The only... ONLY... way the Germans can succeed in stopping an amphibious assault is to defeat the naval forces delivering it and that isn't going to happen. It won't happen in 1944 and it won't happen in 1946 or any other time. Germany cannot produce a navy capable of defeating the US and Britain's naval forces.

So, while the German army might make the Allied advance inland a real slog, they cannot stop the initial landing from being successful.
They definitely can, and we have ample historical evidence of this even IOTL. It took the largest armada in history to put just seven divisions ashore and even then, one of the five beaches nearly failed. Now imagine them landing against a prepared Atlantic Wall guarded by dozens of German divisions and with an undefeated Luftwaffe. There is no question that, until after the German economy is sufficiently defeated by Allied bombers, which would take at least until 1946 or 1947 to show sufficient effect, that an invasion could even be attempted.
Yes, we do. Not a single Allied amphibious assault intended to land forces and remain on the beach failed during WW 2. Not one. Even if Omaha failed, the other beaches succeeded. The Allies were ashore and not going anywhere any time soon.

There is no guarantee that the Luftwaffe doesn't get crushed just as it did historically here and assuming it somehow is still not only viable and competitive but in control of the air over Europe is highly questionable.

If you move things into 1946 - 47, particularly 1947, most of Germany is now a radioactive slag under hits by the resulting IRBM from project MX 774 using nuclear bombs. The Germans have no defense against it. It doesn't matter what condition the Luftwaffe is in. Germany gets slagged in a nuclear holocaust.

Of course, the Allies could always nuke the defenses of the beaches they want to invade too. Same result. They get ashore and Germany can't push them off.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8218
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 » 05 May 2020 04:21

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 03:57
. As you rightfully note, the Germans did fail to invade the UK because all the free manpower in the world doesn't magically conjur up the landing craft needed to carry out a naval invasion
'Failure' covers it. No need to start listing the individual reasons for the failure. If you freely decide to attack the premier Naval power then it might be a good idea to make sure you have a Navy of your own. Seems a very basic error.


History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 03:57
As late as 1944, the German Army had 150 Divisions and equivalents on the Eastern Front.
And if there was no Eastern front there would not be an army of 150 divisions.
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 03:57
The U.S. Army for the entirety of WWII raised ~90 Divisions.
A planned decision. However you may be correct that they should have followed the German way and settled for a bigger horse-drawn Army.
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 03:57
It doesn't take a mathematical genius to realize that peace in the East means the Germans can deter and defeat Western Allied attempts to attack Fortress Europe.
What about a geographically genius? Do the Germans know where the Allies are going to land so they can station 100 divisions within a days march?
I counter your army of Samurai Spartans with an Army of Knight of King Arthur who , with the wave of a hand, totally destroy it.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8218
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 » 05 May 2020 04:25

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:12

anywhere they land they're outnumbered at least 2:1 and have massive German mobilize divisions to counter-attack the beaches once the Allied landing is known.
So this Spartan Army just happens to be billeted near where the invasion will land? What if the Allies pull a fast one and land somewhere where there is not '50 spare divisions'. Now if every German soldier was given a jet-pack then I will grant you the Allies have a problem.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 05 May 2020 04:27, edited 1 time in total.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

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

Post by History Learner » 05 May 2020 04:27

T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:16
Yes, we do. Not a single Allied amphibious assault intended to land forces and remain on the beach failed during WW 2. Not one. Even if Omaha failed, the other beaches succeeded. The Allies were ashore and not going anywhere any time soon.
But we do, see Operation Agreement for one off the top of my head.
There is no guarantee that the Luftwaffe doesn't get crushed just as it did historically here and assuming it somehow is still not only viable and competitive but in control of the air over Europe is highly questionable.
Very good reason to assume such, given the Luftwaffe IOTL wasn't defeated until early 1944 and in this ATL from 1942 onwards Germany is devoting her resources into the air war, as was intended from the get go.
If you move things into 1946 - 47, particularly 1947, most of Germany is now a radioactive slag under hits by the resulting IRBM from project MX 774 using nuclear bombs. The Germans have no defense against it. It doesn't matter what condition the Luftwaffe is in. Germany gets slagged in a nuclear holocaust.
Absolutely no reason to assume this given effective IRBMS and ICBMs didn't emerge until the 1950s IOTL and said program never showed indications of such.
Of course, the Allies could always nuke the defenses of the beaches they want to invade too. Same result. They get ashore and Germany can't push them off.
They planned to do this IOTL during OLYMPIC in Japan. Post-War analysis showed it would've resulted in much of the invasion force dying horrifically from exposure to radiation give that it's a bad idea to have guys out in the open where you just dropped a nuclear device? :roll:

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

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

Post by History Learner » 05 May 2020 04:28

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 May 2020 04:25
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:12

anywhere they land they're outnumbered at least 2:1 and have massive German mobilize divisions to counter-attack the beaches once the Allied landing is known.
So this Spartan Army just happens to be billeted near where the invasion will land? What if the Allies pull a fast one and land somewhere where there is not '50 spare divisions'. Now if every German soldier was given a jet-pack then I will grant you the Allies have a problem.
Name where they can land. When it came down to it, the place was France and then they only had three options: Normandy, Palais de Calais, and Southern France. IOTL, the Germans already had 58 divisions deployed.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

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

Post by History Learner » 05 May 2020 04:32

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 May 2020 04:21
'Failure' covers it. No need to start listing the individual reasons for the failure. If you freely decide to attack the premier Naval power then it might be a good idea to make sure you have a Navy of your own. Seems a very basic error.
If you refuse to read up on the actual history, sure. Germany's plan was to take over the continent and secure Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, with all else being periphery; in that respect, a Navy is pointless, given your focus is, as a continental power, naturally to be on the air and ground war. With that resource base conquered, then it is possible to construct a navy to do such.
And if there was no Eastern front there would not be an army of 150 divisions.
The German Army had 300 divisions, so technically accurate.
A planned decision. However you may be correct that they should have followed the German way and settled for a bigger horse-drawn Army.
You're more than welcome to cite where I claimed that anywhere. Given I didn't, I invite you at any time to debate the points made, not your own constructed strawmen.
What about a geographically genius? Do the Germans know where the Allies are going to land so they can station 100 divisions within a days march?
I counter your army of Samurai Spartans with an Army of Knight of King Arthur who , with the wave of a hand, totally destroy it.
As I've said now repeatedly, you're welcome to debate in good faith.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8218
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 » 05 May 2020 04:47

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:28


Name where they can land. When it came down to it, the place was France and then they only had three options:
You might want to do a bit of reading as to where Hitler thought the Allies were going to land next. It was not just 'France'.
For example why were so many German troops tied up in Norway?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8218
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 » 05 May 2020 04:55

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:32


If you refuse to read up on the actual history, sure. Germany's plan was to take over the continent and secure Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, with all else being periphery; in that respect, a Navy is pointless,
If you refuse to read up on actual history then for sure you will not understand why the UK would never stand back and allow that to happen. Any attempt to 'secure Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' was going to mean a war with the UK and thus if you wanted to keep control of a newly conquered 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' you had to defeat the UK. You could not defeat the UK without a Navy and thus any nation starting a war against the UK without a Navy in order to protect her new empire was a short-sighted nation. I guess you could say Germany fell at the first hurdle.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8218
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 » 05 May 2020 04:59

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:32


The German Army had 300 divisions, so technically accurate.
How many 1940 Divisions does that translate into?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3510
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 » 05 May 2020 06:05

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:27
T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 May 2020 04:16
Yes, we do. Not a single Allied amphibious assault intended to land forces and remain on the beach failed during WW 2. Not one. Even if Omaha failed, the other beaches succeeded. The Allies were ashore and not going anywhere any time soon.
But we do, see Operation Agreement for one off the top of my head.
That was a special ops landing consisting of about 500 men. Hardly a mass invasion intended to make a permanent lodgment on an enemy coast. Even Dieppe was a "raid" and not intended to remain on the beachhead. Got any where the Allies landed a large (division +) force and intended to stay on the beachhead but were pushed back into the sea?
Very good reason to assume such, given the Luftwaffe IOTL wasn't defeated until early 1944 and in this ATL from 1942 onwards Germany is devoting her resources into the air war, as was intended from the get go.
Germany never intended to devote massive resources into an air war. There are several reasons for that, foremost among them is the lack of sufficient fuel and industry to support a really massive air force in a long-term war of attrition. The Luftwaffe was set up for short, intense impulses of activity followed by long periods of low rates of operation.
Aside from that, a purely defensive Luftwaffe is a loser in any case as it doesn't provide Germany with a way of winning, only a means of possibly staving off defeat.
Absolutely no reason to assume this given effective IRBMS and ICBMs didn't emerge until the 1950s IOTL and said program never showed indications of such.
Sure it did. The program was severely cut back in funding in 1946 because the war ended. Even so, MX 774 developed a missile that had potential to carry a nuclear warhead to about a range of 600 to 700 miles with sufficient accuracy to hit a city dead on. The Azuza guidance system developed for it was used in one form or another into the 1970's. The airframe designed by Convair's engineer Charlie Bossart is still the standard for liquid fueled ballistic missiles today. Reaction motors got gimbaled nozzles to work replacing the horribly inefficient graphite veins on the V-2. The whole program in wartime would have produced an early IRBM.
Of course, the US also was working on what amounted to cruise missiles as an alternative and one of these would have sufficed as well.
They planned to do this IOTL during OLYMPIC in Japan. Post-War analysis showed it would've resulted in much of the invasion force dying horrifically from exposure to radiation give that it's a bad idea to have guys out in the open where you just dropped a nuclear device? :roll:
Not true at all. As 1950's testing in Nevada proved--conclusively-- you could march troops across ground zero of a nuclear weapon detonation as little as 30 minutes afterwards.

Image

That's known because the US Army did just that in more than one test. Many of the above ground shots had spectators not far from the detonation

Image

I suspect your knowledge of the effects of radiation is seriously limited. If anything the troops would have more chance of dying in terms of the battle space from being shot or hit by shrapnel from a shell the enemy fired than from the resulting radioactivity from use of a nuclear weapon, and they would not have any particularly noticeable side effects from their exposure in the short term.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

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

Post by EKB » 05 May 2020 07:20

T. A. Gardner wrote:
04 May 2020 22:24
EKB wrote:
04 May 2020 21:48
glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 18:25
EKB wrote:
03 May 2020 18:34
Bikini Atoll is still considered uninhabitable.
from your Bikini reference, the Allies now have the H-bomb in 1945?

No. The point is that you dismissed the catastrophic effects of a radioactive blast.
It is a very slow killer.

Your statement is at variance with the death of Midori Naka. And the Japanese soldier in the attached photo.

Japanese soldier radiation victim Nagasaki.png

http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230008.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_Naka
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 11:24
Location: Russia

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

Post by Yuri » 05 May 2020 09:40

T. A. Gardner wrote:
05 May 2020 06:05
If anything the troops would have more chance of dying in terms of the battle space from being shot or hit by shrapnel from a shell the enemy fired than from the resulting radioactivity from use of a nuclear weapon, and they would not have any particularly noticeable side effects from their exposure in the short term.
With regard to the effect of using atomic weapons of 40s on the battlefield, my PoW is the equivalent of Yours.
The old truth is that War ends with the weapon with which it begins.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 05 May 2020 10:54

Futurist wrote:
05 May 2020 01:55
What about launching the main amphibious invasion in southern France a la Operation Dragoon in real life if the Atlantic Wall is too impenetrable on France's Atlantic coastline?
The intention had been to launch Anvil and Overlord simultaneously but they lacked the landing craft to make this possible.
In 1945 there would be no shortage and the number of W. Allied divisions would have grown to >100.

Perhaps the Allies would have sequenced the landings - South of France, less well defended and mobile reserves are pulled away from the North - Normandy - then perhaps a follow up on the Atlantic Coast?

Image

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 05 May 2020 14:14

Futurist wrote:
05 May 2020 00:36
I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?
The Western Allies would only have to conquer Georgia to get onto the Black Sea. The Caucasus are also flankable via the Caspian Sea.

Return to “What if”