CanadianGoose
Banned
He denies Russians ability to learn. Period.You try to compare red army- spring-1942 with red army winter-1942\43
He denies Russians ability to learn. Period.You try to compare red army- spring-1942 with red army winter-1942\43
I dont see anyone complaining about Norway.
He denies Russians ability to learn. Period.
a few things:
First why is D-Day such a failure in this TL?
Ike needed more time for more forces to launch an invasion in the west he would have taken it.
Also if the western allies gave up on normandy and concentrated on Italy they would have eventually gotten the same result as they did in OTL which was Italy overthrowing Mussolini and capitulating to the Allies which would allow allied troops to pass north to push further into German controlled Europe.
Secondly no matter how well the Germans do in Kursk it does not change the reality of the air war in the west, and the Anglo American forces pretty much owned the skies by the time D-Day commenced. Winning a tank battle on the Eastern Front; no matter how large, would not affect the great disparity in aircraft production between the Germans and allies, thus meaning that the Luftwaffe still would not have been able to deploy enough fighter jets to affect the outcome of the war. Also the Me262; in spite of its mythic status, was not the wonder weapon that so many Alternate history authors made it out to be or the Luftwaffe wished it to be. In spite of its higher top speed, it had lower maneuverability than allied propeller driven aircraft, and as I recall had shorter range than prop driven aircraft.
Third and finally the Germans had no way to suddenly turn around and start launching bombing raids against the British Isles by the time Kursk happened. Their strategic bombing capability did not match in any way that of the allies(they didn't even have a 4 engine bomber), although they may have been able to launch dirty bombs or gas against the western allies through the use of the V-2, it would have just prompted a much larger response from the western allies.
And even allowing for the war to go sour for the western allies in the air if they simply waited for their nukes to come along, they didn't even need to necissarily drop them on Germany, simply demonstrating that the USAAF could wipe out a city in a heartbeat would have probably been enough of a threat to the Spanish to force them to allow allied troops to pass through their territory on the way to occupied France.
Oh and the spanish army is in no way a match for the western allies which was one reason why Franco stayed neutral even as german tanks were getting awfully close to moscow.
I almost forgot, in spite of all of these factors, one must also take into account that the Allies were also producing their own jet fighters, they just didn't reach the front lines in time to fight in the war. Along with this is the existence of the B-29 which the allies never used in Europe and the Germans were glad for. Plus there is the emergence of the Pershing tank which in the event of any bungled allied offensive against increased numbers of tigers and panthers would probably force the Allies to abandon the tactical doctrine which made such extensive use of the Sherman which means that even on the ground the allies would eventually be able to turn the tide.
The Salerno landings were within the space of a single month of the Soviet Counterattacks at Kursk.
Given the disposition of forces, Germany has gambled its future on the Eastern Front, and probably can't shift its forces into Italy to counter the Italian surrender.
So, a German Victory at Kursk doesn't stop the Italian surrender or the subsequent Allied landings in Italy.
Even if Kursk was a backhand blow, Hitler would have insisted on No Retreat Orders, in inspiration of their effectiveness outside Moscow.
Furthermore, the D-Day landings are likely to succeed even if Germany has additional forces in the Eastern Front, as they are likely to have. Given that Hitler will probably be fooled by Fortitude and that he will have to provide personal approval for shifting forces in France, D-Day is going to work and a follow up landing in Southern France, is going to work as well.
The best Germany can hope to achieve is to hold out until nuclear weapons are turned against the Wehrmacht--which means roughly 1946.
Finally, I'd like a counting of Soviet Manpower in 1943--I suspect that if Stalin was willing to smash Japan in 1945 OTL he had a good deal more to throw into a war in the Eastern Front. The Soviets aren't at Germany's level of throwing boys and old men to fight, and they won't be quickly, either.
Would the use of nuclear weaponry actually be enough to force a complete and total German surrender? If Germany becomes much more impregnable to strategic bombing due to the use of jets, shouldn't Germany be able to intercept nuclear armed bombers, which would be the only reliable method of delivering the weapons for some time?
Given that in this scenario Germany would still control most of Europe, I'm not sure I see a surrender like OTL here. Possibly one where they negotiate a peace and then give up some territory, but a complete and total surrender? I don't think that would be enough. Japan was nearly about to surrender anyway and only had their Home Islands left. Germany in this case still has its Fortress Europe.
Actually, I find Spain rather likely. Spain and Portugal supplied Germany with 90-95% of the tungsten they needed, without it, the German metal industry will hardly be able to produce at all.
However this is all based upon the assumption that Hitler will have the common sense to accept negotiations with anybody especially the russians. Most likely you will see hitler see the victory as some sort of sign from the gods that he is destined to win and try to go back on the offensive, he was stupid like that.