Es Geloybte Aretz Continuation Thread

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by carlton_bach, Aug 3, 2018.

  1. Kelenas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    I think the nat20 comment was mostly in regards to weapon descriptions. From what it sounds like, a lot of developments that occurred during WW2 as a result of the evolving needs of the battlefield, basically just fell into the Russians' lap early, such as large-caliber anti-tank guns (OTL ~40mm, give or take a bit, was considered about enough for most tank and anti-tank guns), anti-tank rocket launchers, assault rifles or some kind of automatic battle rifle, etc.
    Makes it overall look like the Russians will go into the war with mid- to late-WW2 equipment, while everyone else is still faffing about with WW1 or Interwar-era equipment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
    aldonius and HanEmpire like this.
  2. Dathi THorfinnsson Daði Þorfinnsson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Location:
    Syracuse, Haudenosaunee, Vinland
    Ah. Good point. I'd call that Mary Sue, not nat20, but I see the point.
     
  3. carlton_bach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Altona, Occupied Denmark
    It is not as massive as that. The automatic rifle is more like the BAR, not the AK47, and the Raket 37 is a very basic design that comes out of a general Russian interest in rocketry (as a form of lighter, more mobile artillery). But this is all highly useful stuff. The big anti-armour uns are found on both sides of the front because the Germans are consistently building very heavily armoured G-Wagen for their Durchbruchstaktik. The Germans have the 88mm LAK/PAK in that role despite the fact that Russian armour rides somewhat lighter.
     
  4. carlton_bach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Altona, Occupied Denmark
    Grand Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich Romanov (1856-1935): Imperial Avenger

    The life of Nikolai Nikolaevich until the crisis of 1908 followed the established route of a senior Romanov prince outside the immediate line of succession: military service without important commands, senior government service without significant responsibility, influence through family connections and society pleasures. His rise to the highest position in the state was a fortuitous accident, and historians to this day disagree whether it was more blessing or curse for his country. Having been promoted to high command primarily as a dynastic placeholder, he proved himself a politically astute and capable administrator, though his military gifts were never of the calibre the situation would have called for. It was the sustained experience of failure, though overtly expected, that tinged Nikolai's view of the world and made him into the leader that emerged after Russia's defeat.

    The role Nikolai and Grad Prince Sergei Alexandrovich played in the resignation of Czar Nicholas II remains controversial to this day. Certainly both men were on record as having opposed the war and were intimately involved in convincing the Emperor to give up his crown, taking seats on the Regency Council that guided the fate of Russia during the minority of Alexei II. The early death of Sergei from the effects of wounds sustained in an assassination attempt in 1905 left Nikolai the most influential person on the council, a position he managed to sustain and expand into de-facto rulership of both the Russian government and the apparatus of the Patriotic Union by 1912. His personal authority, bolstered by a legend of personal heroism and military prowess during the war, ensured that he remained the power behind the throne even after the tragic death of Czar Alexei and the ascension of Mikhail II, a handsome, but retiring man given to crippling self-doubt.

    At a time when Russia's future seemed in doubt and the direction of her government uncertain, certainty was Nikolai's greatest asset. Though pragmatic in his approaches, he never doubted his mission in life: to turn Russia into a modern, united, militarily powerful nation and avenge the humiliation of defeat at German hands. His was the will that turned the broken pieces of the Patriotic Union into a steel corset to hold together a shattered nation, forged a military cadre from the defeated force left after the war under the very eyes of Germany's inspectors, and oversaw its expansion into a modern fighting force using the industrial infrastructure laid down in secret during the twenty years of treaty restrictions. It has been argued that, despite his total dedication to the goal of vengeance on Germany, Nikolai would not have been foolish enough to actually go to war the way Mikhail did. However, it was clear that he would not live forever, and the military he created was instilled with a single-minded dedication to victory that was almost certain to produce overconfidence. The recklessness that characterised Russia's foreign policy in the 1930s and 1940s appears not to have originated from any individual's choices as much as from a common ethos that, unchecked by the wiser counsel of men ho had seen the war of 1906, was allowed free rein. Generals and politicians competed for the greatest public show of patriotic dedication, uncompromising courage, and optimism. All these were qualities Nikolai had fostered in the functionaries he had raised to positions of power, and absent his control, they ran amuck with predictably disastrous consequences.
     
  5. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Hows sweden doing?
    Also will the tiger tanks exist?
     
  6. EWilanO Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    It might if the German army hasn't changed its tank doctrine too much from OTL. The Tiger was a logical evolution if you follow the German path towards a heavy breakthrough tank.

    Big gun, heavy armour and if used as a breakthrough tank, the lack of strategic mobility and long maintenance hours could be compensated for.
    Even the lack of sloped armour was logical, as the chief designer had decided that the extra space gained inside the tank by not sloping the armour was worth it.
     
    haider najib likes this.
  7. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Germany has the resources and will have more defensive battles so would the tiger be more effective?

    Its a shame storm troopers never developed.
     
    Joriz Castillo likes this.
  8. GOU Limiting Factor Demilitarized

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    StuG-style tank destroyers will, if anything, be even more popular ITTL; a good way to convert old cavalry tanks. Remove the turret, beef up the glacis armor (possibly with a bolt-on screen of spaced armor plate), put the biggest AT gun you can in a spinal mount. The first models could be rushed into service to stop the Russian juggernaut outside Warsaw; later models would be increasingly handed over to allies as German armored formations re-equip with new-construction medium and heavy tanks.

    Probably the first *88mm-equipped vehicle is a tank destroyer, and then once there's suitable breathing room, a dedicated heavy tank would be designed to carry it, or a Centurion-analog (continuing the British-style tank development) would mount it. It's likely that by the time such a tank is produced, Germany and her allies will be on the offensive again, and looking for speed, cross-country mobility, and range as well as reliability before sheer weight of armor and firepower.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019
    rommel12 likes this.
  9. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    What about the jagdtiger that will smash the soviet bum rush.

    I feel like the german e series should exist they can match the russians and its standardised tank designs making it easier for the germans to mass produce. Also they are awesome. But i still want the tiger and tiger 2 to exist because cool.
     
  10. avernite Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    More effective, almost surely. The OTL Tigers were marred by Germany having limited access to materials, especially the kinds needed to make special grade steels. So they improvised. With proper materials, the machinery would break down less, and the armour could be slightly less hideously heavy too.

    Truly effective? Almost surely not. They're still too big and slow to be truly practical on a vast battleground like 'all of Eastern Europe'.
     
  11. carlton_bach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Altona, Occupied Denmark
    Quite well thank you. The nationalist right is ticked off at having gained no appreciable land in the war, but the added sense of safety feels good, the reparations are welöcome, and the economy is just fine: Sweden is the only country in the coalition that managed to escape with its economy unscathed and is making serious cash from selling raw materials to countries with real currencies while meeting its industrial imports from the Mark zone. Life is good.

    In so many words, no. The Tiger was the result of years of combat experience and targetd development that started in 1939 (earlier, if you count feedback from Spain) to make heavier, bigger, but mobile and reasonably fast tanks. The Germans will simply not have that kind of timeframe. There will be improved designs, but nothing on that order.

    They did, in a way. Bruchmüller's new artillery doctrine and the strategic lessons of the Southern Arc put an emphasis on small-unit tactics. flamethrowers, mortars, SMGs and man-portable light machine guns are all established gear.

    German tanks come in two broad types: G-wagen (heavy hitters and tough, but slow and short-legged) and PanzerKfz (fast and long-legged, but relatively thin-skinned and undergunned). The theory is that G-wagen run on tracks and Panzer on wheels, but a lot of Panzer are tracked by the 20s. The difference is philosophy. PanzerKfz are made by cavalry designers, G-Wagen by artillerymen.

    the standard German field gun is a 77mm, so as soon as technology will bear it, they put one of those on a G-wagen. Then they try to make it traverse far enough and the armour be thick enough to stand up to one opposing. A lot of the arly designs have them in casemate mounts, use shortened tubes and other wheezes to make it work. turreted 77s come late. All of that costs in terms of speed, mobiolity and range, but that is the tradeoff the pülanners make because the point is to break through the front. It's the light PanzerKfz that are meant to exploit the breakthrough.

    The russians don't think they can afford this diversification, so they are trying for a design that will do both reasopnably well. It works, for a given value of.
     
  12. Kvasir We shall overcome #EU

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Location:
    Leeds, Yorkshire, EU
    The Swedes got the Åland Islands and Kvarken Archipelago if my memory is accurate which is pretty good going and about what one would expect. I'm interested in Finland's relationship with Sweden. I know that the Swedes will have significant influence in the new Finland and probably will help to develop the country. Will the Finns embrace this wholeheartedly or will they try to forge close links to Germany as a counterweight, fearing being too dependent on the Swedes? If so, how successful would this be?

    Should we be envisioning Swedish military camps in Karelia to help defend Finland from any Russian aggression, or is that a step too far on Finland's new sovereignty?

    As has being mentioned before, this Finland is OTL Finland plus the Kola Peninsula, Karelian Isthmus (including North Ingria IIRC), and Karelia proper but minus the islands that go to Sweden. It's far bigger and far more rural with far more natural resources to exploit. It's prime for a post war boom, it would be interesting to see how Swedish and German companies investing in Finland's extraction industries and modernisation contacts will hold up as the recession hits. One imagines surprisingly well.
     
    haider najib and ShortsBelfast like this.
  13. haider najib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Location:
    Has no idea
    Back in the old tl, i think in passage it was assumed Sweden would support Finland and finland would support Estonia. The fins can see petrograd so of all nations it would be them who can see a russian build up so i don't think they would mind swedish soldiers in the Isthmus as if that fall finland is over.
     
  14. carlton_bach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Altona, Occupied Denmark
    The relationship between Sweden and Finland is - interesting. The two countries are culturally close (most of the Finnish governing class speak Swedish as a first language) and have almost no competing interests, but share both a protector and a dangerous enemy. Their economies, though competing in somee extractive industries, can align profitably. Their political systems are similar to the point expertise in one is portable to the other to a large degree. Logically, they should be joined at the hip. But...

    This is the early 20th century, and a lot of the stuff mainstream, politicians in Sweden and Finland say sounds downright fascist to us. Nobody does prickly national honour like those guys. Every educated Finn knows that Swedish rule was no bed of roses, and any intimation that Sweden weould actually dominate Finland will raise hackles. With Sweden being so much richer, more populous and militarily more powerful than Finland, the impression is impossible to avoid. Young Finns go to Uppsala to study, not young Swedes to Helsingfors. Swedish battleships visit Finnish ports - Finland has nothing bigger than a coastal monitor. Finnish dinner parties ring with Swedish conversation - almost nobody in Sweden speaks a word of Finnsh or would dream of learning it. None of this goes unnoticed, and the result is that for a Finnish politician to appear too close to Sweden can be electorally perilous. It precludes a good deal of potentially useul cooperation: Finnish military equipment comes almost entirely from Germany, which means it is interchangeable with the German army's but not with the Swedish, which they are going to be fighting alongside in a future conflict. Finnish import markets are friendlier to German products - carried farther at higher cost - than to Swedish. And jobs in Sweden that would welcome Finnish migrant workers carry unnecessary stigma. None of this means the two countries are not allies - they are - but they are far more uncomfortable bedfellows than they need be.
     
  15. Jürgen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2016
    I’m thinking, Sweden was a emigration nation until the 1930ties in OTL, and they was also settling the domestic frontier in Sweden, similar to how Finland also was doing. Finland have gained a large frontier with little Finnish population and even the Karelian and Saami are in minority in this region. Could we see Swedish (and maybe also Norwegian) settlement on Finnish White Sea and Arctic coastline? Even the Fennophiles would likely prefer Swedes in the region rather than a Russian majority.
     
  16. carlton_bach Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    Altona, Occupied Denmark
    Eventually, they will take just about anyone who isn't actually Russian because Kola is not that nice a place to settle. And Swedes will be a better fit, what with speaking an official language already. But again, that does not mean they will like it. They'll accept it because there aren't enough Finno-Ugric brothers willing to scrabble a hard living from frozen soil in a perpetually endangered military frontier province. (not that many Swedes, either)
     
    ShortsBelfast and HanEmpire like this.
  17. DrakonFin Operator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Location:
    The Finnish Military-Historical Complex
    I think the question is why the Swedes would go there. I can see engineers, specialists, experienced foremen and the like to be needed at mines and lumber mills, etc, given a shortage of Finnish professionals. But what's in it for the average Swedish worker? The wages, or career prospects in general, would rarely be better than in Sweden. Sweden was generally a more affluent nation than Finland was. Finland had a lot of underdeveloped areas IOTL, ones with a lot of forest and even metals and mineral IOTL in the 20s and 30s, too. Not many Swedish guest workers travelled east. Instead, both Finland and Sweden saw a lot of people moving to North America in this timeframe.
     
  18. Jürgen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2016
    I'm not thinking of guest workers, but of settlers seeking cheap land. Yes the region not anybody's dream home, but it's better than Swedish Lappland, where Swedes too poor to afford to move to Americas did settle. As for why Swedes didn't move east earlier, well some did, the Kola Nowegians did settle on the Kola peninsula while Norway was under Sweden.
     
    ShortsBelfast likes this.
  19. DrakonFin Operator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Location:
    The Finnish Military-Historical Complex
    I don't know why exactly it would be better than Swedish Lapland. It would generally be as north, and even more remote. Most of the few people around would not speak Swedish, either. The few Finns living in those areas might also harbor something of a grudge against Swedes, what with Åland and all. Nationalism and nationalist grievances are a heady drug.

    Maybe we could see Swedish fishermen and workers moving to new fishing communities in the coastal areas in the Arctic. There would be an effort to set up Finnish Atlantic fishing, especially for herring, and canning industry, etc, on the coast (like IOTL in Petsamo). But for the Karelian interior, I just can't see a lot of Swedish emigration. Instead, many of the Finns who went to America IOTL might move east, prompted as much by nationalist ideology as looking for a better life. TTL would see a strong Finnish "Karelianist" and "Pan-Finnic" movement, which would translate to a lot of interest in the eastern areas. This might even have an effect on Finns in Sweden, like in the Tornio/Torne River valley. Ethnic Swedes would not be jumping on this bandwagon so easily, and on balance such an ideology might even work against any potential Swdish emigration to Karelia.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  20. Grinner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Location:
    Paisley
    Have there been any maps posted to show the current situation in this TL?
     
    haider najib likes this.