How long would it have taken the British Empire and the Soviets to defeat the Nazis alone?

German sources claim 8100 Soviet afv's destroyed during July/August of 1943 - Soviet sources claim 6100 for the same time period. That's between 25 and 33% of the entire 1943 afv's production in just 16.5% of the entire year. I call that pretty severe losses.

I wonder if that 6,100 are permanent losses, or rendered inoperable & repaired? Either way its significant, but the effects are different between one and the other. ie: the US & Brits were really efficient about returning destroyed AFV to operating status, but that required yet another unit in their large support tail. I recall someone claiming the German air force counted aircraft written off as destroyed, then rebuilt at savage depots as new construction. If correct this can make the comparison of aircraft production even trickier.
 
... the war ends in 1945 or early 1946 with a compromise for all sides. ...

I don't think anyone has pointed out that without Roosevelts influence the Unconditional Surrender policy wont exist as we know it. Both the Brits and the Politburo will be looking at all the options for ending the war in their favor.
 
Huh, so why didn't Hitler offer peace to the Westerners in December 1944?
Because they would have never accepted it? The whole logic behind the Ardennes offensive IOTL was to force a peace in the west from a position of strength, not to reconquer france. So, IATL, if Germany is spent and they can achieve terms which are good enough, they'd probably take it as they would have not much else of a choice. Germans are not a bunch of morons who are going to fight until there are no men left unless they feel there is some sort of existential threat against their existence. They believed the USA, Britain, and USSR were coming to depopulate their land and destroy all of their industry. So, they fought to the very end because of that. I honestly wonder if we did not terror bomb the Germans whether the war would have ended more similar to WW1.
 
... the war ends in 1945 or early 1946 with a compromise for all sides. The war will not drag on until 1947.

I don't think anyone has pointed out that without Roosevelts influence the Unconditional Surrender policy wont exist as we know it. Both the Brits and the Politburo will be looking at all the options for ending the war in their favor.

not to open a whole other topic but the US would have communicated to the Vichy regime that they were not (likely) entering the war? (as well as to the UK one can assume?)

so more or less likely a treaty reached with Nazi regime?
 
Honestly probably never. Even with L-L the US military was still necessary to actually put the kibosh on Nazi Germany+allies.

Germany was cooked by the end of 1942 and by that stage of the war lend lease had provided very little to Russia.

With no US involvement the North African camgain still goes the same way, meaning Italy will be looking for a way out like OTL. With no hostile Japan that leaves Germany alone.

It will take longer but is inevitable.
 
... the US would have communicated to the Vichy regime that they were not (likely) entering the war? (as well as to the UK one can assume?)

so more or less likely a treaty reached with Nazi regime?

That ball was in the nazi hands. Petain had sought a cease fire & signed a armistice on the assumption there would negotiations and a peace treaty by the summer or spring of 1941. He & his cabinet, and many other Frenchmen were nonplussed and confused or disappointed when the Germans let it be know there would be no separate peace treaty with France. OTL the nazis saw the Armistice and occupation as more useful for their wars than any peace treaty.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germany was cooked by the end of 1942 and by that stage of the war lend lease had provided very little to Russia.
Oh you mean 1 year after the US entered the war and the 8th air force was already strategically bombing Europe and Operation Torch had happened?
And L-L by the end of 1942 amounted to millions of tons of aid from both Britain and the US. It was less than 1943 and 1944, but was still pretty critical given the state of the Soviet economy as of late 1942. Plus the conduct of the 1942 campaign was heavily influenced by the need to seize oil resources before US forces could get to Europe in any more force than they were already at in Spring 1942, so without them in the war the context of war planning for 1942 is quite different especially with Japan out of the war.

With no US involvement the North African camgain still goes the same way, meaning Italy will be looking for a way out like OTL. With no hostile Japan that leaves Germany alone.
Not really, as the impetus for the entire 1942 campaign in North Africa is altered without the pressure of knowing the US is coming. Not really if the US isn't in the war. You really are not understanding just how much influence the US had on Axis war planning in 1942.
With no hostile Japan that still leaves Italy (they didn't exit the war until after the mainland was invaded and then the country split in half and the north fought for Germany for years) and all the other European allies like Romania, Hungary, Finland, to some degree Bulgaria, etc.

It will take longer but is inevitable.
Not without out the US; US forces and a mobilized economy made it inevitable, Soviet+UK forces alone did not.
 

Deleted member 1487

I wonder if that 6,100 are permanent losses, or rendered inoperable & repaired? Either way its significant, but the effects are different between one and the other. ie: the US & Brits were really efficient about returning destroyed AFV to operating status, but that required yet another unit in their large support tail. I recall someone claiming the German air force counted aircraft written off as destroyed, then rebuilt at savage depots as new construction. If correct this can make the comparison of aircraft production even trickier.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJctO-9Sl...hI/4Cimxyx0QNk/s1600/Soviet+tank+losses+1.jpg
Krivosheev lists 22,000 AFV write offs for 1943, so given the size and scope of the 3 major Kursk area operations it seems extremely likely that the 6100 are just the total write offs, because I'm not sure where else they would have lost so many AFVs to write offs during 1943.
 
There are several big ifs here:
1. Why does the USA not get involved in the war. Does FDR lose in 1940 and the isolationists control policy? This may mean no neutrality zone/patrol or a much smaller one, and concentration on building US military strength for Western Hemisphere defense so less willingness to sell military equipment to the UK and USSR, even for cash (this was a policy pushed by isolationists). There may be no LL at all.
2. If there is LL, what level does it have - and who gets it? Is Britain the primary beneficiary, does the USSR get any at all or are they cash and carry? Does the US enforce that the receiving nation needs to use their ships or chartered non-US ships to move the goods?
3. Does Hitler have a brain wave and realize that the treaty with Japan is a defensive one and that after PH Germany does not have to DoW the USA. If the USA is fighting a real war against Japan, and the Japanese are also attacking SEA as OTL, the USA is going to be putting almost all assets in to the Pacific, with just hemispheric defense against Germany. The UK is an ally against Japan, so they and the Commonwealth get LL tailored to that need at a minimum. The Soviets are going to get very little IMHO and probably need to pay cash.

If the USA provides LL/logistic and financial support to the level of OTL then the probability of an German defeat with occupation is high although the war takes longer. Where the lines end up is hard to say, IMHO absent the Manhattan Project Tube Alloys is unlikely to result in a weapon before the war ends. As the US indirect, that is no fighting forces, support is less than OTL, the probability of a full defeat for Germany goes down, and some sort of negotiated peace goes up - this outcome will only be negotiated for the UK and probably/possibly the USSR, for the occupied countries (at least those occupied at the wars cessation), it will be imposed/Diktat. Worst case scenario I don't see the UK occupied or the USSR beyond the Urals or A-A line. Odds are the UK kicks Italy out of North Africa, Tunisia and Algeria could stay with Vichy if no TORCH. In a way, scenario (3) is the worst for the UK as they now have two wars to fight but reduced US aid for Europe and no forces from the US there. If the US goes with the Manhattan Project in (3) it may not produce before Japan is defeated, at which point it slows down, and some sort of peace/armistice might happen in Europe before the bomb is ready.

Absent the massive LL the USSR can stand on the defensive trading land and lives for time, but realistically they cannot go on the strategic offensive like they did. If you feed soldiers and starve civilians, production falls. If you don't have AVGAS your air force becomes increasingly ineffective due to lack of ability to sortie and also train new pilots (ask the Japanese). If your ability to produce vacuum tubes (or valves for the Brits) is minimal, there goes your ability to make radios for communications. Since your roads are crap, you need to maintain/repair damaged RRs and replace damaged/destroyed locomotives and rolling stock to move troops and supplies. This means Hero Factory #14 is producing locomotives not T34s, and steel destined for artillery tubes is used to make rails. Unless the Nazis have nukes, and everyone else does not, and probably also the Japanese decide to take the Soviet Pacific Coast while almost all resources are in the west, the total occupation and destruction of the USSR won't happen. Absent LL as well as the USA being in the war and forcing the Germans to use resources against them, the USSR can't "win", although survival as a rump state is likely.
 
Last edited:

Medved

Banned
Not without out the US; US forces and a mobilized economy made it inevitable, Soviet+UK forces alone did not.
While I am opposed to the regular Allies wanking on this site (Britain will win the war through 10 gazillion Indians; the USSR is invincible no matter what), the combined forces of the USSR, the British Empire AND infinite US Lend-Lease, will eventually defeat Germany. Even if it takes until 1946/47; even if the US delivers just half of what it delivered historically.

As noted before - if the US stops LL in 1945, the British and Soviets will have no other choice but to compromise, and the USSR+British Empire WITHOUT LL mean an automatic German victory in one form or another.
 
...
Krivosheev lists 22,000 AFV write offs for 1943, so given the size and scope of the 3 major Kursk area operations it seems extremely likely that the 6100 are just the total write offs, because I'm not sure where else they would have lost so many AFVs to write offs during 1943.

My first thought is the bulk of the write-off were from maintenance issues. If the local unit could not deal with major technical issues, then any vehicle sent to depot level repair may have been 'written off. Replaced by another vehicle from the factory or repaired and repainted. The terminology we use here and now may not be accurately conveying how the folks at the time were thinking of the problem.
 
Last edited:

Medved

Banned
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJctO-9Sl...hI/4Cimxyx0QNk/s1600/Soviet+tank+losses+1.jpg
Krivosheev lists 22,000 AFV write offs for 1943, so given the size and scope of the 3 major Kursk area operations it seems extremely likely that the 6100 are just the total write offs, because I'm not sure where else they would have lost so many AFVs to write offs during 1943.

Actually Krivosheev states that 23 500 AFV´s were irrecoverable losses in 1943, of which 6100 irrecoverable losses occured during July/August of 1943. Since (unfortunately) Krivoshees numbers have to be taken with a truckload of salt, I think that the German estimates for Soviet AFV losses in July/August are more correct.

A Book I have citing Soviet documents claims 6000 destroyed AFV´s from January to June 1943. If the Soviets lost "only" 6000 in July/August, it would mean another 12 000 lost in September-December which I find hard to believe. Some 6000 - 7000 in the first 6 months of 1943, with another 7000 - 8000 lost in July/August would leave 8000 - 10 000 AFV´s lost in the September-December period which is more believable then the 12 000 version.
 

Deleted member 1487

My first thought is the bulk of the write-off were from maintenance issues. If the local unit could not deal with major technical issues, then any vehicle sent to depot level repair may have been 'written off. Replaced by another vehicle from the factory or repaired and repainted. The terminology we use here and now may not be accurately conveying how the folks at the time were thinking of the problem.
AFAIK in Soviet terminology write off meant unrepairable and salvaged for parts.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=221990
 

Deleted member 1487

While I am opposed to the regular Allies wanking on this site (Britain will win the war through 10 gazillion Indians; the USSR is invincible no matter what), the combined forces of the USSR, the British Empire AND infinite US Lend-Lease, will eventually defeat Germany. Even if it takes until 1946/47; even if the US delivers just half of what it delivered historically.

As noted before - if the US stops LL in 1945, the British and Soviets will have no other choice but to compromise, and the USSR+British Empire WITHOUT LL mean an automatic German victory in one form or another.
Infinite L-L isn't likely, even OTL levels with the US not economically mobilized and with their own rearmament plans ongoing aren't likely. I don't know how they could defeat the Nazi especially with half of OTL levels of LL; even with full OTL L-L the Soviets have a finite number of men, the Brits as well. Especially without Japan in the war threatening India it is extremely doubtful they'd get the OTL 2 million volunteers from India or be able to deploy them abroad far from their home given levels of anti-British sentiment at home.

Plus given how much of a role the USAAF played in defeating Nazi Germany, both in terms of damage inflicted to the economy, diversion of AAA assets, and destruction of the Luftwaffe, it seems incredibly unlikely that the UK+USSR have the strength to achieve the same thing. If the war takes into 1946-47 the USSR is going to really be screwed in terms of manpower, especially if they haven't been able to inflict OTL losses from 1942-43 and on on the Axis forces. The UK is in a better place without having to fight Japan, but that doesn't mean they'd be able to replicate the OTL performance the Wallies achieved in the Mediterranean by themselves let along invade Italy or Europe on their own. Their 1941-42 air offensives over Europe were abysmal and by the time they started achieving success in 1943 it is hard to divorce them from US entry and participation in the air war and things like the Tunisian campaign badly gutting the Axis main air forces (a performance unachievable without USAAF, USN, and US army help). That's not even factoring in issues of butterflies and their impact on 1942 campaigns.

Check out this book:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/how-the-war-was-won/27234F5DB912D8963530CD6786004A2A

It really drives home the point about the role the Wallies, really the US, played in the defeat of the Axis powers. Also a good supplement is John Ellis' "Brute Force", which really details how it wasn't simply firepower, but also the manpower that was brought to bear from 1942 on that ground down the Axis. The Brits couldn't sustain that level of attrition and the USSR couldn't either especially without the impact of US forces removing so much firepower from the Eastern Front through their efforts.
Just an example of one raid by the USSAF and it's impact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweinfurt–Regensburg_mission#Results_and_losses
but Luftwaffe records showed only 25-27 were lost.[1][2][3]

In Regensburg all six main workshops of the Messerschmitt factory were destroyed or severely damaged, as were many supporting structures including the final assembly shop. In Schweinfurt the destruction was less severe but still extensive. The two largest factories, Kugelfischer & Company and Vereinigte Kugellager Fabrik I, suffered 80 direct hits.[23] 35,000 m² (380,000 square feet) of buildings in the five factories were destroyed, and more than 100,000 m² (1,000,000 square feet) suffered fire damage.[24] All the factories except Kugelfischer had extensive fire damage to machinery when incendiaries ignited the machine oil used in the manufacturing process.[25]

Albert Speer reported an immediate 34 percent loss of production,[26] but both the production shortfall and the actual loss of bearings were made up for by extensive surpluses found throughout Germany in the aftermath of the raid. The industry's infrastructure, while vulnerable to a sustained campaign, was not vulnerable to destruction by a single raid. Speer indicated that the two major flaws made by the USAAF in the August strike were first in dividing their force instead of all striking the ball-bearing plants, and second, failing to follow up the first strike with repeated attacks.[27][28][29]

203 civilians were also killed in the strike.[30]

Plus 400 German fighters had to be used to confront the raid rather than fighting say on the Eastern Front.

Plus without HALPRO, does the Axis spend 5% of all their air defense resources on Ploesti? Operation Tidal Wave isn't happening ITTL either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave#Axis_air_defenses
In June 1942, 13 B-24 Liberators of the "Halverson project" (HALPRO) attacked Ploiești. Though damage was small, Germany and Romania responded by putting strong anti-aircraft defenses around Ploiești. Luftwaffe General Alfred Gerstenberg built one of the heaviest and best-integrated air defense networks in Europe. The defenses included several hundred large-caliber 88mm guns and 10.5 cm FlaK 38 anti-aircraft guns, and many more small-caliber guns. The latter were concealed in haystacks, railroad cars, and mock buildings. German and Romanian AA artillery at Ploiești consisted in 52 heavy (88 mm) 9 medium (37 mm) and 17 light (20 mm) anti-aircraft batteries. These were divided between the German 5th Flak Division (30 heavy, 5 medium and 7 light) and the Romanian 4th AA Brigade (22 heavy, 2 medium and 10 light). Half of the manpower of the German 5th Flak Division was Romanian.[13][14] The Axis had 52 fighters within flight range of Ploiești (Bf 109 fighters and Bf 110 night fighters, plus assorted types of Romanian IAR 80 fighters).[4] For the defense of Ploiești, the Royal Romanian Air Force had aircraft from 5 Escadrile(Squadrons): 61 (IAR 80B), 62 (IAR 80B), 45 (IAR 80C), 53 (Bf 109G) and 68 (Bf 110).[15] These defenses made Ploiești the 3rd or 4th most heavily defended target in Axis Europe, after Berlin and Vienna or the Ruhr, and thus the most heavily defended Axis target outside the Third Reich.[16]

What could those resources have been spent on instead?
 
to what extent did DOW against the US affect 1942 Case Blue? seems conceivable it affected the insane drive into the Caucasus? (to grab the oil prior to US forces arriving in Europe?)

just a marginally more cautious 1942 they try to consolidate hold on Donets and finish Leningrad?
 

Medved

Banned
@wiking

I think we pretty much agree on the LL stops in 1945 - war ends in 1945 - and no LL at all = German victory part.

However, a British Empire + USSR backed by 50 - 60% of historical LL minus all the US troops - would most likely still result in a German defeat. While it is true that the Americans destroyed some 30 000 German aircraft and 10 000 German AFV´s and their bombing reduced production by a further 10 000 or so AFV´s + aircraft, the numbers would still be stacked against the Germans. Ofc the Soviets and British would have advanced MUCH slower than OTL with MUCH higher losses than OTL, but had they been willing to remain in the war until the bitter end, American deliveries would have most likely assured their victory by 1946/47.
 

Deleted member 1487

@wiking
However, a British Empire + USSR backed by 50 - 60% of historical LL minus all the US troops - would most likely still result in a German defeat. While it is true that the Americans destroyed some 30 000 German aircraft and 10 000 German AFV´s and their bombing reduced production by a further 10 000 or so AFV´s + aircraft, the numbers would still be stacked against the Germans. Ofc the Soviets and British would have advanced MUCH slower than OTL with MUCH higher losses than OTL, but had they been willing to remain in the war until the bitter end, American deliveries would have most likely assured their victory by 1946/47.
And look at the loss rates the Soviets and British took to their AFVs and aircraft vs Luftwaffe losses sans US.
Then imagine how quickly the Eastern Front could advance without the VVS having air superiority and the Germans not running out of tanks due to a backlog of repair work on AFVs because of increased production thanks to limited to no bombing of the factories, and no 1943 blunting of the planned armaments expansion caused by strategic bombing that year. The Soviets recruited over 4 million men from the liberated territories recovered in Summer 1943-44, which if they aren't going to advance quickly means they run out of men while being unable to put those liberated territories back into production, while the Axis gets to exploit them longer (the loss of manganese from Ukraine had some pretty serious impact on German production).
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=198614
 

Medved

Banned
And look at the loss rates the Soviets and British took to their AFVs and aircraft vs Luftwaffe losses sans US.
Then imagine how quickly the Eastern Front could advance without the VVS having air superiority and the Germans not running out of tanks due to a backlog of repair work on AFVs because of increased production thanks to limited to no bombing of the factories, and no 1943 blunting of the planned armaments expansion caused by strategic bombing that year. The Soviets recruited over 4 million men from the liberated territories recovered in Summer 1943-44, which if they aren't going to advance quickly means they run out of men while being unable to put those liberated territories back into production, while the Axis gets to exploit them longer (the loss of manganese from Ukraine had some pretty serious impact on German production).

Thats why I said they will advance much slower with higher casualties. It is possible that these casualties would be severe enough to force the Soviets and Brits to throw in the towel by 1944/45 though. That is a possibility, allthough how probable I can not tell.
 
I'd like to discuss a subject that seemingly wasn't tackled much here: People point out that no Pacific War saves manpower and military resources to send to the MTO or ETO.

But what about the economic, resource and possibly industrial mapower benefits? After all East Asian colonies were seemingly a much more profitable area for the UK than African ones.
In particular Malaya was a major producer of food (rice IIRC) and other colonies produced the majority of world rubber.

I don't know if the UK would directly get a net increase in available money to pay for LL and other assets, which could possibly circumvent the problem of funding that was discussed earlier in this thread, but I could see the benefits of having more available and cheaper resources (rubber being very important for some war equipment, and synthesized during the war, or DEI oil).

Moreover the loss of major food producers was quite a significant factor in the famine that hit India during the war, so avoiding it could result in a more stable subcontinent that would require even less security forces for peacekeeping, as well as possibly even more industrial or military manpower from all those Indians that died or were ill because of the famine.
 

hammo1j

Donor
I would say victory is not a given, but Germany's odds 12/1. No US materiel 4/1.

Big question can Britain alone do D-Day in 44? How much German effort can it divert in Africa?

My guess D-Day May '45 with the end in late 45/early 46

Having listened to the thread the, I would say the one thing that cant be denied is the collosal contribution of the US in both manpower and materiel, particularly high tech. I would say the full entry of US doubled the capabilities of the allies.

With what I know now I would revise the chance of a German victory = European SU as Lebensraum upwards of my original estimate as of Dec 1941

OTL with US in war 0.1%
With OTL LL 10%
With No LL 30%

Even with no LL Germany is going to have to play a blinder and ride its luck.
 
Top