How would a British and Soviet only war against Germany go

Deleted member 1487

Tripoli was already used to maximum capacity, according to Van Creveld's Supplying War. There won't be a lot of pouring going on.

Also according to him the Tunisian invasion actually improved the german situation: logistics were not such a bottleneck anymore when the harbors in Tunisia were available.
Van Creveld was wrong, given that he cites the Axis as maxed out, but then they jumped in later months to much higher levels than he claimed were possible. The reason that shipping was a bit of a problem given the British interdiction and resulting detours that convoys had to take. They were at much less capacity than they could actually support out of Tripoli, the problem was the distance to the front and getting the shipping in. Tunisia simplified things initially because it was so close to Sicily and could avoid Malta much more easily, plus could even handle a high volume of airlift, which was not possible via Libya.
 
The first days of Torch were pretty chaotic but it would seem that it was American involvement that swayed Darlan. Had it been a British only operation, the French might have continued their resistance especially remembering Oran: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_torch.html
...

That source is accurate as far as it goes. It leaves out the earlier efforts to negotiate, reaching back to previous to Admiral Leaheys departure from Vichy France in the summer of 1942, and leaves out the discussions between Darlan and Petain concerning policy were the Allies to invade. Bottom line is the US failed in negotiating flipping the colonies to the Allied side. Given Petains and Darlans disillusionment with the Axis one can make a case that a better diplomatic effort, which the Brits could do, could bring a unopposed landing. Nothing is certain in those things, but the poorly done US effort did not help. Which is tragic since the key French leaders were open to flipping the colonies.
 
I love how britain will starve into irrelevancy in a few months because they "lack shipping" and can only buy from half the world instead of all of it,yet germany which only carries on by self-cannibalizing and by extracting ressources over a ramschackle land-transport network (by workers they are activly busy killing off) will conquer the fucking planet...

If some people here were consistent in their standards,WWII would have been called off early 1940 because the armies disintegrated following the starving of London and Berlin.
 
Germany largely had lost the war when it started the war, if one assume the USA enters on time. And if one assumes the USSR enters the war on time. Remove either of these, and Germany probably has a negotiated draw at a worst case scenario.
I think LL (not USA military participation as in fighting forces) was necessary for the British Empire ( BE...note...not just the UK) to defeat Germany...but not for its survival. Germany did not have the resources to defeat the BE...even with the benefit of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Germany did not intend to become a minor and dependent partner of the USSR; Hitler always intended to sieze the resources Germany needed.
The continuation of LL to the BE would seem likely for a long time; it benefited the USA by reviving its economy and strategically by containing Germany. The eventual financial pay off would, as in OTL, be the dismantling of the Sterling area and penetration of British markets.
 
I allready wrote the numbers, if you want sources they are from several dozen books (mainly Howletts Fighting with Figures) and I wont search through my library; but feel free to demand sources from the people that claim that the Dominions are more than enough to compensate for American absence or that the Soviets win no matter what.

Its funny how (mostly) Americans stretch the great importance of US entry into the war to defeat Germany, yet when confronted with a scenario where the US doesnt do so, they suddenly turn 180 degrees and claim that it wasnt THAT important and that Germany looses regardless.
so I know but I'm not telling you...
 
OTL Torch was a poor strategic choice in that it opened a front in NW Africa, but allowed the Germans just enough time to stabilise the front and pour reinforcements in. The II US Corps and the air forces contributed to the longer Tunisian campaign, but the delay in taking Tunis allowed the Germans to send a Panzer Army.

But that helped the Allies in the longer term. In just 6 months the reinforcements were dead or prisoners. Essentially the Allies lured substantial Axis reinforcements into a trap.
 
Last edited:
But that helped the Allies in the longer term. In just 6 months were reinforcements were dead or prisoners. Essentially the Allies lured substantial Axis reinforcements into a trap.

That is certainly how it played out. I don't see any evidence the Allies originally intended it that way, tho once air superiority was guaranteed they took the opportunity. I'd argue other operations in the western Med in 1942-43 would have been more productive in terms of grand strategy, but thats a different discussion.
 

Empra

Banned
so I know but I'm not telling you...

Oh really?

Neither do I and if the Japanese do behave better in Asia then the British Empire is only at war in Europe/North Africa, that is a significant benefit. I am not convinced that with this advantage the north African campaign will not be over just as quickly as OTL. Secondly Britain is not able to be defeated by Germany, Germany simply can not at any point past the battle of Britain actually win (in the sense of a decisive blow), certainly not without unrestricted submarine warfare and with that a neutral USA is flipping impossible. The actual defeat of the USSR is also very difficult to achieve (unless Hitler gets a political victory by securing massive anti-Stalinist support in the USSR domestic population) But Hitler and the Nazis cant do that they are ideologically incapable. So the remaining allies have 2 scenarios assuming no change in the German government, a long attritional conventional war or a slightly shorter one ended by the eventual success of tube alloys. Neither is easy, but they are both still more likely than a German long term win. Whatever the economic issues facing the UK they are minor compared to the absolute disaster of the NAZI economy.

lets be clear lend lease started before the USA was in the war why would it suddenly stop just because the USA did not declare war? Secondly if there is no USA in the war then there cant be unrestricted submarine warfare, and its extremely unlikely that there is a war in Asia at all. In these circumstances its Germany that's fighting a 2 or 3 theatre war not the allies in these circumstances It does not seem to me that the supposed resource issues are as stacked in Germany's favour as some might think.

Please supply detailed sources for ALL these claims including citation, the books, articles, tonnage of LL shipments, domestic production ect otherwise im just assuming that you talk hot air and have absolutely no idea about this period.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

If the nazis took Malta, how much would the situation in North Africa improve?
Depends on the cost of taking Malta. It would certainly help the supply situation and reduce the necessary forces needed to suppress/defend against Malta.
 
Depends on the cost of taking Malta. It would certainly help the supply situation and reduce the necessary forces needed to suppress/defend against Malta.

I once read that they didn't have many parachuters left after Crete, but then again, Malta is smaller than Crete, and it'd help very much.
 
Just no. WITH LL Britain and the USSR can achieve stalemate and in a best case scenario defeat Germany by 1946. WITHOUT LL the Germans are victorious by 1944. A UK/USSR victory with no US help is ASB. Especially Britain was so weak, with no LL it probably capitulates by 1942.
Pity Empra is banned. Having done some research, I was going to ask where Germany got its resources to actually fight on to a stalemate against UK/USSR with LL. According to Ellis's Brute Force the USSR was out producing Germany on tanks even in 1941. And the attrition of capable German troops was colossal...being replaced by much older (in their 30s) or younger (in their teens) inexperienced troops. In my view, after the initial invasion, Stalin believed he would prevail and was a long term strategic thinker. He was planning how much of Europe he could control post War whilst others were still working out how to win the War.
 

Deleted member 1487

Pity Empra is banned. Having done some research, I was going to ask where Germany got its resources to actually fight on to a stalemate against UK/USSR with LL. According to Ellis's Brute Force the USSR was out producing Germany on tanks even in 1941. And the attrition of capable German troops was colossal...being replaced by much older (in their 30s) or younger (in their teens) inexperienced troops. In my view, after the initial invasion, Stalin believed he would prevail and was a long term strategic thinker. He was planning how much of Europe he could control post War whilst others were still working out how to win the War.
Yes, because the T-34 models they were turning out were garbage compared to German tanks (in terms of build quality and reliability) to try and keep up with the vast loss rate:
http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/95-evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv.html

Plus the Germans were turning out a lot of stuff the Soviets weren't like APCs, submarines/other naval vessels, many more motor vehicles, synthetic rubber and oil plants which consumed enormous resources, etc. As it was in 1941 the Germans were spending less than 4-5% of their total weapons budget on Panzers and Hitler held back replacements and spare parts to build up multiple new Panzer divisions in 1941-42.
Attrition wasn't really that bad overall in 1941, the Germans after all did keep up with most losses into 1943 before hitting terminal decline due to the vast losses around Stalingard/Tunisia/Italy leaving the war. Even through most of 1943 combat capabilities of German troops man for man was still better than their enemies and it was really only in 1944 that that fell apart, first in the air, then in Summer 1944 on the ground. It seems that though 1944 even the Wallies for their enormous manpower and firepower/equipment advantages and control over the air only at best got a 1-1 loss ratio in Italy/Western Europe before things totally fell apart in 1945 for Germany (too heavy of losses, too many enemies, production collapsing, etc.).
 
The point I was trying to make, rather badly, is that Germany would run out of resources, both manpower and actual materiel long before UK(British Empire)/USSR with LL would. Stalin would keep fighting because he knew he would win, the BE because they cannot lose and much to gain (its losses not being large in comparison as the USSR is doing the heavy lifting). Therefore, Empra's prospect of stalemate seems highly unlikely. Any thoughts?
 

Deleted member 1487

The point I was trying to make, rather badly, is that Germany would run out of resources, both manpower and actual materiel long before UK(British Empire)/USSR with LL would. Stalin would keep fighting because he knew he would win, the BE because they cannot lose and much to gain (its losses not being large in comparison as the USSR is doing the heavy lifting). Therefore, Empra's prospect of stalemate seems highly unlikely. Any thoughts?
Not necessarily given the limited manpower of both Britain and the USSR, especially given the losses of the latter and the manpower of the European Axis, who wouldn't likely be forced out of the war per OTL without the US manpower/ships enabling the invasion of Italy and Vichy North Africa. Though Soviet specialists tend not to like to admit it, the USAAF did the heaviest lifting defeating the Luftwaffe in 1943-44, which was the game changer in the East, as was the results of strategic bombing and US efforts making the invasion of fortress Europe stick. The Soviet advance in 1943-44 that netted them the vital 4 million conscripts in the occupied territories in European USSR was a function of not just LL, but US efforts which enabled the Brits to come along for the ride and remove Vichy, conquer North Africa, knock Italy out of the war, and invade France, plus of course make strategic bombing work and divert all the Luftwaffe air and AAA resources from all other fronts. Without those 4 million men and a lot more Axis resources without US efforts, the Soviets would run out of manpower long before getting where they needed to go.
 
So the Bomber Offensive, now much derided by some, was of strategic value. Of course, Speer said that it absorbed German manpower and resources, especially 88mm guns which could have been used as anti tank weapons.
 
Top