How bad would WAllied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

[Deleted member 1487]

An interesting side effect of having no Eastern Front would probably mean fewer overall fatalities among the German armed forces considering their willingness to surrender to the Anglo-Americans vis a vis the Soviets.

Depends. If moral is higher they might fight harder and succumb to firepower as well as napalm and WP. Based on descriptions of the fighting from the German side I've read, the artillery and air power was far worse and more deadly in the west than in the East. The Soviets certainly were much more willing to mistreat/massacre PoWs (a symptom of nature of the struggle in the East for both sides from the beginning) than the Wallies, but the longer the war went on the nastier it got in the west too. Despite the lower intensity the Germans did suffer about 1 million military dead against the Wallies from 1939-45, but ITTL with greater bombing and a higher intensity ground campaign that could easily double or triple.

 

[NHBL]

Since the air defense of cities will be tough for some time, I'd expect nuclear weapons to get used on targets that are easier to hit, and closer to the front lines. With Germany still looking like a tough nut to crack, delivering the nuclear weapons becomes a challenge. Deception, misdirection, and the use of multiple bombs on the first attack all would contribute. Nuclear weapons would be a difficult-to-employ war winner.

Once Japan is effectively out of the war, the navy can't do a whole lot against Germany, with the exception of the navy's air assets. How many thousands of hot fighters and tactical bombers could be sent to Europe?

 

[naraic]

Do the WAllies still get the a-bomb? Berlin and other cities would be reduced to ashes and the Nazi hold on occupied lands, possibly even on Germany itself, would be tenous.

That's why we are having a discussion about air superiority. America would not take one chance in hell of a nuclear bomber being shot down and the nuke being recoverable. So USA would have to fight and win an air war before bringing the nuke into play.

 

[John Dusk]

snip

In the event of a Soviet collapse and subsequent occupation, the Reich would be able to extend the Atlantic Wall to cover the southern coast of France as well.

Would more favorable terrain be worth the trade-off of a longer distance to Berlin?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

In the event of a Soviet collapse and subsequent occupation, the Reich would be able to extend the Atlantic Wall to cover the southern coast of France as well.

Would more favorable terrain be worth the trade-off of a longer distance to Berlin?

They couldn't do so IOTL, nor finish the ones in Northern France, despite massive investments in coastal defenses. It would be a waste prior to Northern France being completed.

 

[John Dusk]

They couldn't do so IOTL, nor finish the ones in Northern France, despite massive investments in coastal defenses. It would be a waste prior to Northern France being completed.

Even so, how long would it take for the WAllies to move the sufficient resources and logistical base from England to North Africa?

Wouldn't Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily (plus parts of Italy) have to be taken first before a landing into Southern France is attempted to allow for proper air support like IOTL?

Operation Dragoon IOTL was on a far smaller scale against a far weaker and smaller enemy. It won't be a cakewalk ITTL if the Reich has far more and far better equipped troops/tanks available. It would be far, far bloodier and probably wouldn't be any better of an option than just landing in Northern France.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Even so, how long would it take for the WAllies to move the sufficient resources and logistical base from England to North Africa?

Wouldn't Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily (plus parts of Italy) have to be taken first before a landing into Southern France is attempted to allow for proper air support like IOTL?

Operation Dragoon IOTL was on a far smaller scale against a far weaker and smaller enemy. It won't be a cakewalk ITTL if the Reich has far more and far better equipped troops/tanks available. It would be far, far bloodier and probably wouldn't be any better of an option than just landing in Northern France.

Operation Torch IOTL. Once they started seizing the Mediterranean islands in 1943 then the Axis would also have to fortify Italy against naval landings, so too many resources for too much land to defend.

 

[mack8]

Imo, if this happens (USSR defeated in 1942), you have tens of german divisions, millions of troops and thousands of tanks and planes thrown into Africa if the americans and british still try Torch. Imo, it will be like Dieppe, but on a much larger scale.

As to an air campaign, if the effort spent in Russia in 1943 for example (again thousands of planes and flak guns) is redirected to home defence, what chances would either the day or night bombing offensive of 1943 have to last? Imo, i think they'll be cut to pieces and have to stop, at least until 1944, but that would be breathing space. I might be mistaken, but i think i read that the germans were planning to build 80,000 planes in 1944 (but because of the continuous bombings, only managed 40,000 in OTL). The americans built 95,000 and the british something like 25,000 to 30,000 i think. Not enough numbers to win the air war, not in 1944. Next year? Jet fighters, SAMs in numbers all backed by a far more intact and further expanded industry, and with access to far, far more oil and raw materials. They'd be even more of a nightmare.

As for the atomic bombs, imo it is folly to blithely assume that the germans would be perpetually stuck to the 1942 level of knowldege on the subject, with the huge resources both freed and aquired from defeating USSR, and with priority to the project i think they won't be far behind in getting the bomb compared to the americans, they were equal and sometimes ahead in most major types of weapons systems developed during the war compared to the US/UK, why would be so unlikely to have them get to same level regarding the atomic bomb? And anyway, would the americans risk using nukes anyway when they'd probably start to experience sporadic bomber and conventional ICBM(!) attacks on their mainland?

Actually, i can't decide who might "win", but this scenario would be apocaliptically bloody for everyone involved if the americans and british keep on attacking. I don't think they'll have the stomach to go on forever, the british would be the first running out of will in the face of continuously mounting casualties, german attacks and no hope of victory in sight, when casualties will go into the millions how long would there be support for continuing the war no matter what? Same goes for the americans.

 

[John Dusk]

snip

80,000 was the planned figure for 1945 though the production for aircraft in 1944 was according to Wiki one third lower than what it would have been (40k aircraft IOTL instead of 60k) due to Big Week and Allied bombing.

 

[MattII]

Really we need more information, especially stuff like what sort of condition are the oil-wells in when the Germans capture them.

 

[John Dusk]

Really we need more information, especially stuff like what sort of condition are the oil-wells in when the Germans capture them.

They're intact.

 

[Guaro]

What do you think about the morale situation? I mean, you have a Nazi Germany victorious on all the front, and you are probably going to have a big redirrection of troups in Africa, so no El Alamain or maybe a counter attack with new units, it also mean a lot more airpower doesn't this have an impact? A winning axis in the east also mean the possibility to force turkey to collaborate, maybe with concession in Iraq and/caucasus, if the brits get their ass kicked ultrahard in every theater is this gonna make any difference? Ps.: a soviet civilwar after the defeat in 1941/42, also means that japan doesn't need to heavily garrison manciuria, so how many troops can redirrect to china/burma? Are they going make any difference in the short term?

 

[MattII]

They're intact.

Okay, that's bad, lots of fuel, and plentiful nickel means plenty of jets.

 

[mack8]

80,000 was the planned figure for 1945 though the production for aircraft in 1944 was according to Wiki one third lower than what it would have been (40k aircraft IOTL instead of 60k) due to Big Week and Allied bombing.

Thank you for the correction John, didn't wanted to post misleading information.

 

[mack8]

As to Japan, imo i think they might go for USSR too, give that they have lost against the germans in this ATL and they are in a chaotic state, presumably at the cost of postponing expanding their conquests in the Pacific beyond the initial objectives (so no plans yet for FS, invasion of Hawaii and so on as all available army troops are fighting in USSR). Would be interesting to hear opinions on how would this go for the japanese.

In Europe, judging by the figures floating around, assuming substantial forces needed to "police" the USSR territories up to the Urals, of which a large portion would come from their minor allies, imo they could still easily throw 2 million or even more troops in Africa and Caucasus (advancing in the ME from that direction, for among other reasons to protect the oilfields there and seize the ME ones too) backed by armour and air power in 1943. I think these will be daunting forces for the US/UK to prevail against, not with what they had in 1943 anyway. It is THEY who will be faced with a second front now, not the germans.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

As to Japan, imo i think they might go for USSR too, give that they have lost against the germans in this ATL and they are in a chaotic state, presumably at the cost of postponing expanding their conquests in the Pacific beyond the initial objectives (so no plans yet for FS, invasion of Hawaii and so on as all available army troops are fighting in USSR). Would be interesting to hear opinions on how would this go for the japanese.

In Europe, judging by the figures floating around, assuming substantial forces needed to "police" the USSR territories up to the Urals, of which a large portion would come from their minor allies, imo they could still easily throw 2 million or even more troops in Africa and Caucasus (advancing in the ME from that direction, for among other reasons to protect the oilfields there and seize the ME ones too) backed by armour and air power in 1943. I think these will be daunting forces for the US/UK to prevail against, not with what they had in 1943 anyway. It is THEY who will be faced with a second front now, not the germans.

No they can't throw more troops into Africa. The issue is that even with the OTL sized combat elements (under half a million) the Axis simply could not supply them well, as they could not offload freighters fast enough at the limited ports they controlled

As for attacking through the Caucuses, logistics suck and the terrain is such that the defender is strongly favored, plus with the USSR out the Middle East is not essential to the WAllied war effort save the Suez canal, lots of space to trade for time and stretch out axis logistics

 

[Salem_Saberhagen]

The real question is how much more losses can the Allies stomach, that to me discards anything beyond 3x losses. The continental US was not invaded or occupied, Americans are going to be exhausted and will want to sue for a white peace after the third failed attempt to create a Western front, particularly if they want to focus on Japan instead.

In this scenario a Fatherland-style Cold War with a Nazi-dominated European bloc against a US-dominated Western Hemisphere, Japan and Britain is much more likely than the US winning the airwar and pushing deep enough into Europe to be able to nuke Berlin.

Remember, Germany had less planes but it had the technological edge, by 1944 for instance the Me 262 jet fighters were already being deployed in numbers large enough to represent a significant threat in OTL, and this is not counting all the other cutting edge designs the Luft-45 would be churning out. In addition, German nuclear research may make some significant progress since there would be more resources freed without the pressure of a two front war.

 

[NHBL]

I was thinking about the nuclear issue, as in how to use them. If the Axis are contesting Africa, then perhaps the bombs could be used on their ports in Italy or Africa. Then, if one gets shot down, and the fail safes don't detonate the bomb, it goes into the water. Also, with the Pacific wrapped up, carriers could provide air cover over the target, especially if the air groups were reconfigured to be almost all fighters with a few ASW aircraft. 10-12 Essex class carriers with 80 fighters each could secure temporary air superiority over the target, with escort carriers further back providing CAP for the fleet carriers. Some Independence class carriers could be added for more fighters. That puts an extra 800-1000 or more fighters over the target, above and beyond the Army Air Force's land based escort. That should be enough to give the Luftwaffe pilots brown pants...

There isn't a need for constant fighter cover over the target, so surging everything for the attack could work. Even without nuclear weapons, thousand plane fighter sweeps could wreak havok on the Luftwaffe.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The real question is how much more losses can the Allies stomach, that to me discards anything beyond 3x losses. The continental US was not invaded or occupied, Americans are going to be exhausted and will want to sue for a white peace after the third failed attempt to create a Western front, particularly if they want to focus on Japan instead.

In this scenario a Fatherland-style Cold War with a Nazi-dominated European bloc against a US-dominated Western Hemisphere, Japan and Britain is much more likely than the US winning the airwar and pushing deep enough into Europe to be able to nuke Berlin.

Remember, Germany had less planes but it had the technological edge, by 1944 for instance the Me 262 jet fighters were already being deployed in numbers large enough to represent a significant threat in OTL, and this is not counting all the other cutting edge designs the Luft-45 would be churning out. In addition, German nuclear research may make some significant progress since there would be more resources freed without the pressure of a two front war.

Germany actually wasn't that far ahead. The British got the Meteor in service about 3 months after the 262 entered service. US had the P-80 coming in early '45 and the British the Vampire in late '45 (vampire lasted to '66 in service, 262 '51). US and UK had Napkinwaffe as well, the difference was they were doing well enough not to curtail the R&D process

Against large scale air raids I don't think the Germans ever did better than getting 33% of bombers. Plenty for making it too expensive to continue conventional bombing. Nukes, those are a different story, mix nukes in with the conventional bombers (by December should have over a dozen available) and hey can get through

The German nuclear program was a trainwreck, and their reactor design was almost guaranteed to meltdown in short order, killing their best nuclear scientists

Given the level of popular support for the war in the US, casualties at a rate the US suffered during the ACW or greater would be acceptable

 

[NHBL]

Although Germany wasn't that far ahead in jets, the limited range of early jets is a problem if using them as bomber escorts, making them an advantage to the defense.