Debates
24 Oct 10
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderIts a massive offensive resulting in a stale mate and kicking the foriegn invaders out. To launch a attack on Germany and conquer w/out allied help is a pipe dream.
The Japanese certainly didn't have sufficient ground forces to capture India while the vast bulk of their army was tied up in China. Australia and New Zealand perhaps but they were well defended.
The Soviets had received a paltry half million dollars worth of aid by the time they rolled back the Germans in front of Moscow. That was ce ...[text shortened]... absent a credible threat of invasion of the Home Isles that didn't exist after Barbarossa.
From the link I posted yesterday,
"The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success than if we had not such help."
[b]Not to mention hundreds of thousands of radios.The soviets were all substandard. With out a way to move your Infantry and or proper communication between divisions a proper attack is impossible.
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonGee, what happened in front of Moscow 1941 before they got all those trucks and radios? Or wasn't that a "proper attack"?
[b]Its a massive offensive resulting in a stale mate and kicking the foriegn invaders out. To launch a attack on Germany and conquer w/out allied help is a pipe dream.
From the link I posted yesterday,
"The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mob ...[text shortened]... ve your Infantry and or proper communication between divisions a proper attack is impossible.[/b]
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't suggesting that the Japanese could conquer and control India by land. I agree with you that they could not. However, I believe their navy would have dominated the Indian as well as Pacific ocean without a US threat effectively blockading India, Australia, and NZ from the British Empire.
The Japanese certainly didn't have sufficient ground forces to capture India while the vast bulk of their army was tied up in China. Australia and New Zealand perhaps but they were well defended.
The Soviets had received a paltry half million dollars worth of aid by the time they rolled back the Germans in front of Moscow. That was ce ...[text shortened]... absent a credible threat of invasion of the Home Isles that didn't exist after Barbarossa.
True the Soviets launched a major winter counteroffensive in 1941/42. However, it was not an offensive that gained an awful lot of ground back towards Germany as their offensives later in the war did. My contention is that I think the Soviets could have halted and even turned back somewhat the Germany army (as they did in the Winter of 41/42) but would not have been able to drive them all the way back to Central Europe as they did in 43-45 without the aid of the US lend lease and 2nd fronts.
Whether or not Britain would have sued for peace is pure speculation on my part (as is this whole discussion of course). Certainly not with Churchill at the helm. But without access to the Far East, also very possibly North Africa, and no end in sight to V2 rocket bombings the pressure might have been on politically to end the war somehow. I'll also throw in the possibility that Spain would have turned over to ally with the Axis with the decline of the British Empire and without the presence of the US and with that goes Gibraltar.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderDifferent animal. You're talking a Winter counterattack against overextended and under-supplied invading forces versus major and well prepared motorized/mechanized Summer offensives that gained back huge amounts of territory. The ground gained back by the Soviets in the Winter 41/42 wasn't all that much compared to the losses they sustained which were much higher than the Germans.
Gee, what happened in front of Moscow 1941 before they got all those trucks and radios? Or wasn't that a "proper attack"?
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by UllrThis is quite simply wrong. The Moscow counteroffensive and the one south near Kharkov threw the Germans back hundreds of kilometers on a very long front. And both attacks contained large mobile forces.
Different animal. You're talking a Winter counterattack against overextended and under-supplied invading forces versus major and well prepared motorized/mechanized Summer offensives that gained back huge amounts of territory. The ground gained back by the Soviets in the Winter 41/42 wasn't all that much compared to the losses they sustained which were much higher than the Germans.
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwithout american supplies comming over the pacific, the british might not have lasted much.
Well there is still a British-French western front.
My opinion has long been that any two of the Big Three Allies could have taken the Axis. What the British Empire lacked in raw power they made up for with their vast naval and imperial experience, diplomatic skill, worldwide strategic experience, etc.
Hitler and Japan were just trying to be like the Brits...
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
26 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEstimates I've seen is that they were thrown back around 100-250 kilometers at the most. In other words they gained back a fraction of the territory lost during Operation Typhoon. Probably not comparable to the massive gaines made by the more mobile Soviet forces later in the war. The Germans were defeated in this battle as much by the climate and their own exhaustion as by the enemy forces. Reality is that Soviet losses are estimated to be potentially 3x as high as German losses during Typhoon and the Counterattack. A huge moral victory for the Soviets and no doubt a cold dose of reality to the Germans but not much else. Guderian admitted that they had underestimated the size of the enemy forces and the climate. Okay maybe I am underestimating this counteroffensive but the questions that come to mind for me are:
This is quite simply wrong. The Moscow counteroffensive and the one south near Kharkov threw the Germans back hundreds of kilometers on a very long front. And both attacks contained large mobile forces.
1. What did Soviet forces look like in 41/42 compared to 43-45 in terms of their mobility and how much of a factor were the lend lease motor vehicles as well as other raw materials such as petrol?
2. What were the offensive gains by the Soviet Army in 43-45 in comparison to the winter counteroffensive of 41/42?
3. How many additional forces could Germany deploy against the Soviets with the absence of a credible second front? Yes they would have had to garrison the territory. This is true. But garrison troops are a much different thing from Panzer divisions. How many divisions of top echelon troops could have realistically been diverted from Italy/North Africa and France from 1942 on?
One thing we have to bear in mind is that with the complete absence of the US (it doesn't exist as the OP proposed) there is no possibility of any significant lend lease at all. Germany would simply deploy it's Uboat force against that possibility instead of shipping from the US to the UK. Lend Lease and any other possible convoys to the USSR completely off the table.
Interesting discussion. I've got to dust off some old books that I haven't opened in a while and do some more reading tonight.
26 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonmaybe someone's already posted this, but you're forgetting that if the Americas don't exist, Mexico doesn't exist either.
You're forgetting about Mexico. Surely they would have stepped up to the plate and defeated the Axis Powers.
The tricky part would be sailing all their burro's overseas.
