Soviets vs Germany

Buroschaf

Would the red army have defeated the Wehrmacht without allied help?

I'm leaning towards a victory for Germany. So much of their resources were tied up on other fronts, I think without those distractions they could have conquered Russia.

uch

Who gives a shít

Conmaicne Mara

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057163420

SEPT 23 1989

The Soviet Union won the war

Augmerson

I don't think Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union, it was just too large a country. Too much territory to hold, not even men. And the Soviets could just throw men and material against the Germans, lose hundreds of thousands even millions and still be able to fight.

pablomakaveli

The Soviets would have won regardless but it probably would have taken another year or two. The Allied campaign in retrospect wasn't necessary to defeat the Germans but probably more useful in preventing more of Europe ending under the Soviet thumb after WW2.

o1s1n

uch wrote: »

Who gives a shít

Clearly you as you clicked on the thread...?

c_man

Buroschaf wrote: »

So much of their resources were tied up on other fronts, I think without those distractions they could have conquered Russia.

I wouldn't agree with that but I certainly think that the Germans wouldn't have been conquered either.

bumper234

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The Soviet Union won the war

USA, USA, USA

Muise...

Hmmm. If the Soviets beat the Third Reich single-handed, don't even think about getting in a fight with the Finns.

jimgoose

Every blithering idiot knows one George Smith Patton marched over to Berlin in 1945, kicked down the door of that Hitler fella's bunker, took his head clean off Chuck Norris-style with a roundhouse and took a great big hamburger-inspired dump down his scrawny Nazi neck. This was covered up with a load of fake-suicide bullhockey 'cos the great man was frankly embarrassed by his own enormity.

uch

o1s1n wrote: »

Clearly you as you clicked on the thread...?

You make a very strong argument there

syklops

bumper234 wrote: »

USA, USA, USA

JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

c_man

I think we need a rematch to sort this out.

twinytwo

Buroschaf wrote: »

Would the red army have defeated the Wehrmacht without allied help?

I'm leaning towards a victory for Germany. So much of their resources were tied up on other fronts, I think without those distractions they could have conquered Russia.

The question you should be asking is could the Russians be beaten by the Germans?

The answer is no, Germany suffered 80% of its losses on the eastern front.
They laid siege to Leningrad for almost 3 years and couldn't take it. The Germans were effectively beaten in Russia after the battle of kursk.

Dont get wrong Russia was a shell of a country after ww2 but there is a reason why the sweds, the French and the Germans all tried and failed to take russia.

MonkeyTennis

By the time the Americans arrived everyone was already drunk. No one could remember what happed. What a night.

Wazdakka

That reminds me...

I haven't played Red Alert 2 in ages..

pockets3d

The Soviet broke the siege of Stalingrad and had the Germans on the run in 1943, while the rest of the Allies were pussying about with a completely minuscule in scale "Battle of Britain" in comparison. Esssentially the Soviets won the war in Europe, the Allies only got involved in 1944 to ensure the Russians didn't install communism in the all of western Europe.

Franticfrank

I don't think the Soviets would have held out without allied support. The amount of lend-lease support including fighters, tanks and trucks at such a vital time was decisive. If the Germans had been intelligent enough to invade Russia a little earlier, with winter clothing (contingency) and without commitments on other fronts, they probably would have won. Don't forget the Wehrmacht reached Khikmki in the outskirts of Moscow and could practically see the Kremlin before weather and the Soviet counteroffensive pushed them back.

twinytwo

pockets3d wrote: »

The Soviet broke the siege of Stalingrad and had the Germans on the run in 1943, while the rest of the Allies were pussying about with a completely minuscule in scale "Battle of Britain" in comparison. Esssentially the Soviets won the war in Europe, the Allies only got involved in 1944 to ensure the Russians didn't install communism in the all of western Europe.

The battle of Britain while "minuscule" as you say, was a massive turning point of the war. Had the Brits lost and ceaded air superiority to the Germans, Europe would look a lot different than it does to day.

Fratton Fred

pockets3d wrote: »

The Soviet broke the siege of Stalingrad and had the Germans on the run in 1943, while the rest of the Allies were pussying about with a completely minuscule in scale "Battle of Britain" in comparison. Esssentially the Soviets won the war in Europe, the Allies only got involved in 1944 to ensure the Russians didn't install communism in the all of western Europe.

Not sure if serious.......

Ray Palmer

The biggest mistake was for Germany to attack Russia. Although Russia was likely to wade in at some point.

Russia's involvement was vital in the defeat of Germany. After the war they were demonised while it is pretty shocking the spoils of war that the US managed to get out of the whole deal. Patents, strategic postings, scientists secret designs etc...

pablomakaveli

Franticfrank wrote: »

I don't think the Soviets would have held out without allied support. The amount of lend-lease support including fighters, tanks and trucks at such a vital time was decisive. If the Germans had been intelligent enough to invade Russia a little earlier, with winter clothing (contingency) and without commitments on other fronts, they probably would have won. Don't forget the Wehrmacht reached Khikmki in the outskirts of Moscow and could practically see the Kremlin before weather and the Soviet counteroffensive pushed them back.

That wouldn't have necessarily meant victory. The Soviets had moved a lot of production facilities back closer to the Urals.The loss of Moscow wouldn't have defeated them, it would have carried on further east.

Jonny7

pockets3d wrote: »

the Allies only got involved in 1944 to ensure the Russians didn't install communism in the all of western Europe.

Yup, nothing to do with liberating occupied Europe, they were fine with that

twinytwo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The biggest mistake was for Germany to attack Russia. Although Russia was likely to wade in at some point.

Russia's involvement was vital in the defeat of Germany. After the war they were demonised while it is pretty shocking the spoils of war that the US managed to get out of the whole deal. Patents, strategic postings, scientists secret designs etc...

Hitler was right to attack Russia when he did, waiting till 43 or 44 would have meant the Russians were better prepared to fight a war.

The Germans had rightly identified that Russia's biggest weakness was its lack of ability to fight a modern war.

However what Germany got wrong was Hitlers approach to Russia.. He wanted them wiped out, exiled to Siberia etc... Russia under Stalin was bad but the German hated for the Russians which was fueled by Hitler unified the people that might otherwise have seen them as saviours. They saw it better to fight and die for the motherland and that is what they did.

Balmed Out

I think Germany would have won if in a purely 1:1 fight without outside aid. The soviets simply couldnt have fed their army without aid from the USA. In addition to food the lend lease program supplied munitions, uniforms etc. While only about 5% of russian tanks were made in the usa over 50% of trucks and trains.

russias most decorated general, Zhukov said "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

The Russians won the war, they did all the heavy lifting but it was made possible with a big Yankee lever.

tritium

That German war machine could have defeated Russia, if a number of decisions had been made differently. The two front aspect by itself wouldn't have changed things though

jimgoose

twinytwo wrote: »

Hitler was right to attack Russia when he did, waiting till 43 or 44 would have meant the Russians were better prepared to fight a war.

The Germans had rightly identified that Russia's biggest weakness was its lack of ability to fight a modern war.

However what Germany got wrong was Hitlers approach to Russia.. He wanted them wiped out, exiled to Siberia etc... Russia under Stalin was bad but the German hated for the Russians which was fueled by Hitler unified the people that might otherwise have seen them as saviours. They saw it better to fight and die for the motherland and that is what they did.

What Germany got wrong was forgetting that diesel and gun- and motor-oil freezes, and so do people.

pablomakaveli

jimgoose wrote: »

What Germany got wrong was forgetting that diesel and gun- and motor-oil freezes, and so do people.

Thats why they launched their offensive in the summer. They were kitted out for a summer campaign but when the offensive ground to a halt and dragged into winter they weren't equipped for it. Couple that with over-stretched supply lines and they were screwed.

Alf. A. Male

Beat the Russians? The Jerries couldn't even beat the russian weather.

average hero

A number of strategic and tactical errors cost the Germans the Eastern front. I'm of the opinion that the Germans could have taken on any one nation on a front and defeated them without assistance from the others. The Soviets received a huge amount of rations, uniforms and equipment from the Americans. Trucks and train components being particularly vital. Plane components too. These issues came into play around the time of the siege of Stalingrad and ensured the Russians could fight back against the Germans. Without these supplies, the Russians would have continued to send men to their death and the German war machine would have marched on.

The Luftwaffe were very weak after the Battle of Britain and the Western front skirmishes so the Russians eventually gained air superiority. Without the Battle of Britain and indeed the Western Front, plenty more highly skilled units would have been available for the Russians. German units had also been weakened through campaigns in Italy, North Africa and Greece too, so again these units were unavailable for the Eastern front.

Coupled with the fact that there were serious flaws in some tactical plans (not being prepared for the Soviet winter and Hitler fortress Fuhrer directive meaning no breakouts were allowed and to fight to the last man) meant that German forces were further hindered.

So with those points out of the way, I think that Force against Force without meddling from Hitler - the German war machine would have steamrolled all over the Soviets.

Tail Docker

average hero wrote: »

A number of strategic and tactical errors cost the Germans the Eastern front. I'm of the opinion that the Germans could have taken on any one nation on a front and defeated them without assistance from the others. The Soviets received a huge amount of rations, uniforms and equipment from the Americans. Trucks and train components being particularly vital. Plane components too. These issues came into play around the time of the siege of Stalingrad and ensured the Russians could fight back against the Germans. Without these supplies, the Russians would have continued to send men to their death and the German war machine would have marched on.

The Luftwaffe were very weak after the Battle of Britain and the Western front skirmishes so the Russians eventually gained air superiority. Without the Battle of Britain and indeed the Western Front, plenty more highly skilled units would have been available for the Russians. German units had also been weakened through campaigns in Italy, North Africa and Greece too, so again these units were unavailable for the Eastern front.

Coupled with the fact that there were serious flaws in some tactical plans (not being prepared for the Soviet winter and Hitler fortress Fuhrer directive meaning no breakouts were allowed and to fight to the last man) meant that German forces were further hindered.

So with those points out of the way, I think that Force against Force without meddling from Hitler - the German war machine would have steamrolled all over the Soviets.

My old lad fought on the Eastern Front and he reckoned that when they hit the Steppes, they all realised they were fcuked. Too damn big, too many Soviet soldiers and too damn cold to function. Three of his brothers died at Stalingrad and only one was blown up - the other two simply froze. He once said anywhere cold enough to freeze the wee inside in your bladder was no place to be expecting men and horses to fight. That and the fact they shot so many Soviet soldiers they were piled up six feet deep, and yet more came, in waves. The Germans could never have won, simple as.

Mike747

twinytwo wrote: »

The battle of Britain while "minuscule" as you say, was a massive turning point of the war. Had the Brits lost and ceaded air superiority to the Germans, Europe would look a lot different than it does to day.

Even if the Germans won air superiority they would have found it very difficult to invade. They didn't have the navy for it.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The biggest mistake was for Germany to attack Russia. Although Russia was likely to wade in at some point.

Russia's involvement was vital in the defeat of Germany. After the war they were demonised while it is pretty shocking the spoils of war that the US managed to get out of the whole deal. Patents, strategic postings, scientists secret designs etc...

Hitler's entire plans depended on conquering territory from Russia.

If Hitler had let his generals run the war the outcome might have been different. And if the Germans had been fighting on equal terms they would have won hands down.

biko

Tbh, the Soviets was the only real contender to the German forces.

matthew8

The Soviets won the war due to their greater productivity, especially towards the end of the war. They churned out vehicles and equipment at a greater rate than the Germans could hope for, but you have to wonder if they could have done that without American help, especially when they were hanging on in the first few years. That's what it boils down to for me. Perhaps it would have helped the Germans if they didn't have the North African commitment at the same time and could have employed more of their own troops as well as some Italians in Russia, but by the time the West opened up the Italian and French fronts Germany's offensive capabilities in the East were non-existent.

I don't buy the Soviet manpower being the reason for their ultimate winning. It didn't do them much help when they lost 4 million troops at the start of the war.

dirtyden

Its an interesting question. There are far too many ifs and buts to ever know for sure. When Germany initially attacked Russia was completely unprepared but its industrial strength was rallied and they were able to out produce the Germans in weaponry in know time (I think at Kursk the Russian tanks outnumbered the germans by 2 to 1). They were also willing to fight to the death and in a war of attrition they had the greater resources in manpower.

The hubris of both leaders meant that a number of crazy decisions on both sides were made that swung the tide either way at times and fatally so when the sixth army was encircled at Stalingrad.

If I had to be pushed to go either way I would say the Russians would have ground them down in the end but with an enormous loss in Russian lives (even more so than what actually occurred).

Lawrence1895

In the end, the Russian winter was the deciding factor, imo. It even prevented the Wehrmacht to back off fast enough.

jimgoose

Tail Docker wrote: »

My old lad fought on the Eastern Front and he reckoned that when they hit the Steppes, they all realised they were fcuked. Too damn big, too many Soviet soldiers and too damn cold to function. Three of his brothers died at Stalingrad and only one was blown up - the other two simply froze. He once said anywhere cold enough to freeze the wee inside in your bladder was no place to be expecting men and horses to fight. That and the fact they shot so many Soviet soldiers they were piled up six feet deep, and yet more came, in waves. The Germans could never have won, simple as.

May God bless all of those boys.

Tail Docker

jimgoose wrote: »

May God bless all of those boys.

His opinion was that Hitler was a madman, and that opinion was shared by every man jack amongst them when they realised the sheer scale of Soviet Russia- they were told it would be a six month campaign followed by glorious victory. "Utter madness" was his view. They went in with horses, youthful vigour and summer clothes and came back dead-eyed walking skeletons in rags.

jimgoose

Tail Docker wrote: »

His opinion was that Hitler was a madman, and that opinion was shared by every man jack amongst them when they realised the sheer scale of Soviet Russia- they were told it would be a six month campaign followed by glorious victory. "Utter madness" was his view. They went in with horses, youthful vigour and summer clothes and came back dead-eyed walking skeletons in rags.

I know. I furkan know.

foxtrot101

The allies invading Italy and France certainly helped the soviets cause. If Germany had only one front to contend with it would have been a lot more difficult for the Russians.

Hande hoche!

foxtrot101 wrote: »

The allies invading Italy and France certainly helped the soviets cause. If Germany had only one front to contend with it would have been a lot more difficult for the Russians.

Yep although the Soviets wanted a second front opened a lot earlier.

Jonny7

Besides the atrocious weather and Hitler's dreadful military decisions/planning - I'd say Stalin was the main factor

Under him, the Russian people burnt their own houses, crops.. moved 1,900 odd factories to the East.. officers machine-gunned their own men.. women were manning anti-aircraft guns and taking on veteran Wehrmacht units.. dogs were trained to blow up tanks.. he ensured, through force if necessary that every inch of the country was hell for the Germans

So. militarily on paper they had them beaten, but it's the fact they had to fight every other element, including the most stubborn populace coerced by one of the world's most determined and unforgiving dictators

dirtyden

foxtrot101 wrote: »

The allies invading Italy and France certainly helped the soviets cause. If Germany had only one front to contend with it would have been a lot more difficult for the Russians.

The tide of war had turned irreversibly against the germans before the allied invasion of Italy. Stalingrad in the winter of 1942 broke the back of the german army although the allied invasion did speed things along.

dj jarvis

Tail Docker wrote: »

His opinion was that Hitler was a madman, and that opinion was shared by every man jack amongst them when they realised the sheer scale of Soviet Russia- they were told it would be a six month campaign followed by glorious victory. "Utter madness" was his view. They went in with horses, youthful vigour and summer clothes and came back dead-eyed walking skeletons in rags.

get this book if you can , i have read a lot on the 2nd world war , but this is just horrific , amazing book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Soldier

SafeSurfer

Mussolini and the Japanese insured that the Germans faced defeat in Soviet Russia.
Mussolini because of his tempestuous Balkan folly, causing a critical delay in the start of operation Barbarossa.
The Japanese because of their attack on Peral harbour which freed up hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops at a critical time.

A more coordinated combined offensive by the axis powers on Soviet Russia from east and west would have led to the inevitable collapse of the Soviets.

Tuco88

jimgoose wrote: »

What Germany got wrong was forgetting that diesel and gun- and motor-oil freezes, and so do people.

German tanks were all petrol engines, if they had used diesel powered units like there soviet rivals they might have suffered less.

wazky

Tuco88 wrote: »

German tanks were all petrol engines, if they had used diesel powered units like there soviet rivals they might have suffered less.

The cost of the petrol tanks must have played a significant part in the downfall of the campaign, imagine the tax on all those petrol tanks?

If Hitler went post 2008 diesel then he would have won the war.

Tuco88

wazky wrote: »

The cost of the petrol tanks must have played a significant part in the downfall of the campaign, imagine the tax on all those petrol tanks?

If Hitler went post 2008 diesel then he would have won the war.

If only he had the red tdi engine at the time...

wazky

Tuco88 wrote: »

If only he had the red tdi engine at the time...

Could have just stuck a land anchor onto a tdi golf and pulled the Soviet Union into the sea.