Who the really. French North Africa is really close by and I don’t think that they had a large force in a Vietnam. The French had around as many soldiers as the Germans on their side and more tanks IIRC.
Axis Best Case - WW2
- Thread starter Fulton 44
- Start date
BlackDragon98
Banned
Syria and French West Africa?
They had quite a bit of men in 'Nam.
And many of their personnel were manning the Maginot.
1) Who was going to invade Syria and French West Africa? Most of these borders were shared with friendly neutrals and Britain. I don’t know how many French soldiers they had in Vietnam. I’m pretty sure that the number was fairly small though. Do you have the numbers?
2) Yes. They were in France for the most part.
BlackDragon98
Banned
50000 in indochina during the french thai war
probably 10000 in Gabon when the Free French invaded
35000 in syria
8000 in madagascar
125000 in north africa
and the troops in the maginot are considered fortress infantry, though they were some of the best troops the french had.
however, the German just bypassed the Maginot and cut them off from the rear.
the maginot was also vulnerable to air attack.
1) That’s a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. North Africa is really close to France too. You’re not wrong. The French and the British did keep garrisons in their colonies, but the Soviet Union did the same thing. Kazakhstan’s wasn’t stripped entirely of soldiers. Every country does this.
2) Mistakes were made. I never said that they handled the war effort perfectly. My point is that defeating France was a big deal. The Soviet aunion wasn’t going to start a war with Germany after watching France fall in 6 weeks. Their country was a pariah. Part of the reason that Britain and France were neutral during the Spanish a Civil War while the Italians and the Germans flooded Spain with manpower and equipment, was that they didn’t want to be on the same side as the Soviet Union and Stalin was excluded from the Munich Conference, even though they warranted a seat at the table. Being the aggressor in the war with the Germans, isn’t a good look for him.
BlackDragon98
Banned
He was waiting for the USSR's more modern equipment to replace their old crap.
Once that was finished, the USSR would attack.
Germany was outnumbered, their tanks were worse, navy was busy.
Only in the air did the German hold supreme, and that was because they took out most Soviet planes on the ground in the opening round.
Deleted member 1487
Assuming no Barbarossa and the Soviets invaded in 1943 they would have the T-34M in production (originally planned for later in 1941):
T-34M (A-43) Medium Tank Project
Detailing the technical specifications, development, and operational history of the T-34M (A-43) Medium Tank Project including pictures.
www.militaryfactory.com
I don't think that is necessarily Stalin's likeliest course of action if Germany isn't severely weakened by fighting Britain and maybe the US though.
By then Germany would have their VK20, VK30, and VK45 tanks in production as well as longer 75mm guns, so should be able to handle the T-34M.
The Soviets were always going to invade Germany at some point. What Suvorov was wrong about was saying the invasion was planned to take place in 1941. The Soviets were waiting to build up their forces for an attack around 1943.
BlackDragon98
Banned
KV-85 are coming in 1943
KV-85 could take on the VKs.
IS tanks would take until 1944 though.
SU 152 is always an option, though.
I personally believe Stalin thought that Hitler wanted to invade the UK, which would grind down Germany, leaving it vulnerable to an invasion from the east.
But BoB failed and Hitler turned east.
They would if they had confidence they could defeat Germany, which would be around 1943.
Launching an invasion of the most evil regime in human history wouldn't be a good look? The Allies might disagree with you there.
Deleted member 1487
Oh so you mean tanks that will break down left and right?
Kliment Voroshilov tank - Wikipedia
Eliminating the Mediterranean front would be a boon to the British. They would save massive amounts of resources by using the Suez instead of having to go around Africa. Without Italian Africa, the British could fully devote their military resources towards the Germans. They also wouldn't need as many ships in the Mediterranean Fleet if the Regia Marina isn't in the war.
Invading in May before Finland and Romania were ready and before the rivers receded from the winter would be a bad idea.
That's possible but it's not like losing those cities will destroy the Soviets. Any German forces in Moscow would be isolated from the main forces and vunerable to being encircled in a Soviet counter attack.
BlackDragon98
Banned
The IS series was an evolution of the KV 85.Oh so you mean tanks that will break down left and right?
The KV-1S fixed that issues by cutting weight and armor, but then it was like a heavy, shittier T-34M. Which is why production stopped in 1943 and they built the IS series instead.Kliment Voroshilov tank - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Net gain from no Italy wouldn't be that large - you'd be exchanging 3 Italian divisions from the CSIR (about 60k men) in 1941 for something more akin to Spain's Blue Division (20k men). And the CSIR would almost certainly not be expanded into the ARMIR (235k men) in Summer 1942.
Also the British now have much more breathing room to work with, so assuming they don't do anything with their now unoccupied divisions seems silly.
No delays to Barbarossa probably doesn't mean the fall of Moscow or Leningrad - the simple reality is that the Wehrmacht was at the end of its logistical tether by the time it reached the outskirts of Moscow in OTL. I could certainly see a battle for Moscow, but given that it'd comprise mostly of hellish urban combat I doubt the Nazis would end up successfully taking the city.
Last edited:
I don’t see any evidence of that. This goes against the academic consensus.
1) And during this period, the Germans would do nothing? The Soviets aren’t the only ones that would improve their equipment over those years.
2) The Soviet Union was about as bad as the Third Reich as I’m concerned. Many Americans didn’t event want to go to war and they’ll be much less inclined to support the communists if the communists are the aggressors.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
KV-13 actually, which was a relatively new design meant to also replace the T-34 and KV-1/2:
КВ-13 — Википедия
The academic consensus is that Stalin was attempting to stall Hitler with concessions until the Soviets could match them on the battlefield. The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was an alliance of convenience for both sides and Stalin had as little respect for it as Hitler.
The longer the Germans waited the smaller their edge over the Soviets grew. If both sides have rough technical parity, the Soviets will win because of their larger manpower and more plentiful natural resources.
Then you clearly don't grasp the full horrific nature of the Third Reich. The Holocaust, Generalplan Ost, the Commissar Order, and death camps are just a few examples of their sheer deprevity. The worst deeds of the Soviets pale in comparison to the evil incarnate that was Nazi Germany.
1) it really isn’t. Link me to your source.
2) That’s very debatable. The Germans could draw on the resources and manpower of much of Europe in case of war.
3) No. I understand it very well. I’m just not going to white knight for the Soviets (the Holodomor, the Doctors plots, the Great Purges, the Gulags etc.). Let’s not forget Beria and how Stalin treated his wife and his son. Let’s also try to remember the people that were erased from history.
Last edited:
The thing is that Great Britain does not know if Italy will enter the war at a later stage so they will have to keep forces in place in North Africa and they will probably reinforce their Greek allies.
Even with Italy not being an active participant massive convoys through the Mediterranean and past Gibraltar is probably ill advised.
As for the starting point of Barbarossa in May instead of June, as the original plan called for, may give the Germans a chance to interrupt Soviet attempts to move the industry behind the Urals. In particular the production of the KV.
While the KV did not have the same potential to grow as the T-34, in 1941 it was the KV which gave the Germans difficulties and not the T-34 as popular culture likes to portray it.
Given how close to the edge the Soviet Union came that first year, that one month extra for the German offensive may delay/blunt Soviet responses. OTL the Soviet union could only bring in last minute supplies to the besieged Leningrad because the lake froze over.
Again, one more month to play with might lead to the fall of Leningrad.
It is a point of discussion, but there are sufficient scholars who believe that the delay in Barbarossa was the single most important reason why Germany did not capture Leningrad and Moscow.
Last edited: