WI: Stalin Strikes Germany First in WWII

Depending on whether the US and Britain are still in the war. If not that changes the war dynamic dramatically,

Not really. The Soviets would still be industrially superior and don't have as far to go in quality terms. The Germans, for their part, would be unable to achieve a successful breakthrough against the huge mass of heavily-equipped Soviet forces in their entrenched positions and can not afford to take even a third of the losses the Soviets can.
 
Last edited:
Not really. The Soviets would still be industrially superior and don't have as far to go in quality terms. The Germans, for their part, would be unable to achieve a successful breakthrough against the huge mass of heavily-equipped Soviet forces in their entrenched positions and can not afford to take even a third of the losses the Soviets can.

Stalin should just avoid the purge of the officers corps to maintain his army's competent leadership.
 
Stalin should just avoid the purge of the officers corps to maintain his army's competent leadership.

That would have certainly helped, although not as much as is sometimes suggested. But then the army would have been something of a potential internal threat to Stalin's power and in Stalin's mind a potential internal threat is pretty much an actual internal threat.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not really. The Soviets would still be industrially superior and don't have as far to go in quality terms. The Germans, for their part, would be unable to achieve a successful breakthrough against the huge mass of heavily-equipped Soviet forces in their entrenched positions and can not afford to take even a third of the losses the Soviets can.
Without a blockade or strategic bombing of German industry after say 1940-41, they would complete their industrial expansion plans by 1942-43 and see the Soviets as their only significant threat and plan accordingly. The Soviets would have their own expansion through 1941-43 and would be far better off than IOTL, with a significantly larger military than the combined Axis forces, depending on what both sides manage to mobilize prior to the start of fighting. The issue is that the LW will be on its pre-war prepared bases, there would be a strong defensive plan set up, not to mention on the Vistula-Carpathians with millions of troops to defend it, plus the Germans are not the aggressor and won't have to make any propaganda claims. No LL for the Soviets or allies in their offensive war, plus the downsides propaganda and morale wise for their own forces. There wouldn't be enough T-34Ms for their MC, not enough trucks on ration strength of Soviet MC, and a rail gauge change.

The Germans would have their VK3001 and Tiger Is ready by 1943 (though not fully equipping all units), on the defensive, and have a massive qualitative/doctrinal superiority from their modern combat experience in the West. They have radar more advanced than the Soviets by far, plus far better communications, supply lines, terrain on their side, terrain features, etc.

Still that doesn't change the Soviet industrial/manpower advantages, especially compared to OTL, but without the Battle of the Atlantic, Mediterranean, air war, etc. that offsets a lot of the Soviet gains plus having the ability to import and time to complete their industrial plans the Axis will not be a pushover. It will come down to attrition, which in terms of exchange ratios will favor the Axis, though Romania is going to be in some trouble, even with German/Italian help. However without a blockade the damage/loss of Romanian oil isn't fatal, but its hurts. At that point it comes down to who can kill more and make the other side break first. Its very tricky to say who that would be or if that would even a worth it for the Soviets to try. They might win in the end, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory given the cost it would entail and the diplomatic consequences. If there is a conservative government in charge in Britain, even perhaps Labour, they aren't going to intervene until late if at all out of fear of Soviet domination of the continent. Plus any Fascist regime in the world is going to be willing to send men to fight the Soviets out of massive fear of Soviet domination of Europe; even Vichy might be willing to contribute significant forces in this scenario.
 

Deleted member 1487

Stalin should just avoid the purge of the officers corps to maintain his army's competent leadership.

That would have certainly helped, although not as much as is sometimes suggested. But then the army would have been something of a potential internal threat to Stalin's power and in Stalin's mind a potential internal threat is pretty much an actual internal threat.
Agreed. There would be purges when the offensive bogged down and without Stalin learning from his own mistakes in 1941-43 to let his generals run the show we're likely to see more interference by Stalin in the war which would likely cause a lot of issues, especially when the generals fail to achieve success and bog the Soviet forces down into a long war. Zhukov, whose plan it was, might end up purged ITTL, especially if he doesn't have successes to show like the Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad.
 
Without a blockade or strategic bombing of German industry after say 1940-41, they would complete their industrial expansion plans by 1942-43 and see the Soviets as their only significant threat and plan accordingly.

Which happened IOTL. It did not help them.

The issue is that the LW will be on its pre-war prepared bases,
And the Soviet VVS will have modern aircraft, trained pilots, and well-established bases. They will be able to deny air superiority to the Luftwaffe in the short-term and attrit them in the longer run.

No LL for the Soviets or allies in their offensive war,
Without the losses in their industry and resources, they don't need it although it would be a good bonus.

There wouldn't be enough T-34Ms for their MC,
By 1943, the Soviets would likely have in excess of 10,000 T-34Ms, given that would be the main production model from late-'41 onwards. The exercises of early '42 would likely result in some downsizing of the corps to something more manageable. Whether they would have enough to fully stock them all is a legitimate question, but they would certainly have enough for a massive conflict with Germany. Furthermore, the mass mobilization of industry means they will crank more out at a rate the Germans can't hope to match.

not enough trucks on ration strength of Soviet MC,
Actually, by 1943 there certainly would be, given Soviet annual truck production and the planned mobilization of vehicles from the civilian industry on top of what they already possess in 1941. They would actually have more trucks then they did IOTL 1943-1944.

and a rail gauge change.
Would have already occurred years before hand.

The Germans would have their VK3001 and Tiger Is ready by 1943 (though not fully equipping all units),
The Germans had Panthers and Tiger Is in 1943 IOTL as well. Didn't stop the Soviets from thrashing them.

on the defensive, and have a massive qualitative/doctrinal superiority from their modern combat experience in the West.
Insufficient to ensure victory in the long-run. And the German advantage in doctrine would have shrunk from "massive" to "modest". What advantage is left would then rapidly be made good in the first year of the conflict.

that offsets a lot of the Soviet gains
Hardly. The German economy lacks the funds to import from overseas and the occupied territories would be looted dry by this point. And strategic bombing didn't have a truly severe impact on German war production until the latter-half of 1944... at which point the war was already won anyways.

It will come down to attrition, which in terms of exchange ratios will favor the Axis,
Which is inadequate to ensure German victory. IOTL, the exchange ratios in the East favored the Axis all the way until 1945. It did not stop the hammer and sickle flag from flying over Berlin in the end. ITTL, without the army-shattering losses of the first IOTL 18 months of war to skew things, the exchange ratios will be even less favorable for the Germans.

They might win in the end, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory given the cost it would entail and the diplomatic consequences.
The Soviets will have taken far fewer losses in manpower (particularly in the civilian arena), no economic losses compared to IOTL, and ended up in a identical diplomatic scene (dominance over a minimum of half of Europe and a Cold War with the west).

If that is a pyrrhic victory, then what was their victory IOTL?

If there is a conservative government in charge in Britain, even perhaps Labour, they aren't going to intervene until late if at all out of fear of Soviet domination of the continent
The British will intervene on the Soviet side. Because if they don't intervene (or intervene on the German side) there are only two possible outcomes:

(1)A European continent completely dominated by the Soviet Union.
(2)A European continent completely dominated by Germany.

Both are far more severe threats to the British homeland then the end result if they intervene on the Soviet side: a continent only half-dominated by the Soviet Union.

There would be purges when the offensive bogged down
Not likely. Stalin was extremely disinclined to purge people IOTL while the war was on, with the notable exception of Dimitri Pavlov (who oversaw a total disaster). It's quite notable how no one was purged over the Smolensk, Kiev, or Second Kharkov fiascos. Now once the war is over...

especially when the generals fail to achieve success and bog the Soviet forces down into a long war.
Stalin would not be overbothered having getting stuck with fighting a long-war with Germany, so long as the fighting remains no further east then the Soviet frontier region.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Which happened IOTL. It did not help them.
Not really, they had to slow and abandon a number of expansion projects due to bombing and demands of weapons and material; here without an active war between say mid-1941 to mid-1943 they can complete all sorts of projects more quickly and completely than IOTL thanks to no material demands to replace lost equipment, spent munitions, upgrade production sometimes bi-monthly as the military demanded the latest changes immediately, etc.

ITTL they would be able to have significantly higher production, especially with the ability to import/export. The ability to utilize occupied economies to supplement their own when no under blockade would be a massive difference.

And the Soviet VVS will have modern aircraft, trained pilots, and well-established bases. They will be able to deny air superiority to the Luftwaffe in the short-term and attrit them in the longer run.
At the end of their logistic lines where they can only mass part of their forces and push them into enemy territory with poor infrastructure and different rail gauges (East Poland had terrible roads for instance). In the short term they may be able to prevent total air superiority, but they will not be able to prevent local air superiority nor win the attrition war thanks to German radar, FLAK, and ability to bomb Soviet rail hubs at night unimpeded. Their pilots will remain behind the Germans in terms of training and experience (they didn't really correct faulty doctrine until 1943 IOTL after a lot of combat experience) and will not be able to compete on equal footing. It will be like the RAF's attempts to 'lean in' to France in 1941-42 IOTL, but on a far more massive scale. Attrition will effectively gut the VVS before they could achieve any major success on the ground, which then leaves the LW capable of intervening more regularly. Not only that though the LW keeping the VVS from doing its job and removing a critical component of the Soviet ability to conduct ground offensives (airpower was vital to the success of Deep Battle), means they can't win unless they have air superiority like IOTL 1943-45, which they can't without Western intervention.

Without the losses in their industry and resources, they don't need it although it would be a good bonus.
Define need; they would seriously miss the hundreds of thousands of trucks, machine tools, tanks, aircraft, more advanced communications and radar equipment, RR equipped, high octane avgas, raw materials, etc. They could fight without it, but it would all be sorely missed, especially when Soviet industry needs to make it themselves.

By 1943, the Soviets would likely have in excess of 10,000 T-34Ms, given that would be the main production model from late-'41 onwards. The exercises of early '42 would likely result in some downsizing of the corps to something more manageable. Whether they would have enough to fully stock them all is a legitimate question, but they would certainly have enough for a massive conflict with Germany. Furthermore, the mass mobilization of industry means they will crank more out at a rate the Germans can't hope to match.
No. The T-34M was a significantly upgraded model and they only expected to make a few hundred in 1941; that would give them 18 months to mass produce it in peacetime, i.e. not with war time production numbers; at best you're looking at 7k total delivered by June 1943 and that wouldn't include any losses in training or manufacturing recalls.

As to the doctrinal improvements I doubt they would change enough to fix all or even most of the issues. Wartime production numbers would start when the war starts, but so to do the German ones, who have a much more complete industry than IOTL and can better keep up like they did in 1944 in terms of numbers, but will be able to inflict far more disproportionate losses on the Soviets. Meanwhile the LW prevents the Soviets from developing their critical air support that was vital to their ground success.

Actually, by 1943 there certainly would be, given Soviet annual truck production and the planned mobilization of vehicles from the civilian industry on top of what they already possess in 1941. They would actually have more trucks then they did IOTL 1943-1944.
Sure, but they had to make them themselves, instead of getting them for free, what don't they make that they had IOTL instead?
Also without strategic bombing and time to finish their industrialization the Germans would also be able to make many more than IOTL.

Would have already occurred years before hand.
On the Soviet held side, not the German side they would be attacking.

The Germans had Panthers and Tiger Is in 1943 IOTL as well. Didn't stop the Soviets from thrashing them.
On the much more restricted frontage and no other enemies to use them against they would have a major impact as they did IOTL against the T-34s, especially the 76mm equipped ones.

Insufficient to ensure victory in the long-run. And the German advantage in doctrine would have shrunk from "massive" to "modest". What advantage is left would then rapidly be made good in the first year of the conflict.
That alone, sure, but their advantage would be significantly more than just modest.

Hardly. The German economy lacks the funds to import from overseas and the occupied territories would be looted dry by this point. And strategic bombing didn't have a truly severe impact on German war production until the latter-half of 1944... at which point the war was already won anyways.
You act like they couldn't export from 1941-43 before the war and raise money; plus they'd have access to the colonial empires of occupied Europe, so could get most of what they needed that way. The severe impact of strategic bombing started in early 1943 with the bombing of the Ruhr in terms of steel production and the blunting of the armaments miracle, as per Tooze, but also via the vast diversion starting in 1942 of AAA and fighter assets. All of that would appear in the East ITTL instead of being diverted, while being supplemented by Axis allied armies like the Italians who were strategically bombed too from early 1943.

Which is inadequate to ensure German victory. IOTL, the exchange ratios in the East favored the Axis all the way until 1945. It did not stop the hammer and sickle flag from flying over Berlin in the end. ITTL, without the army-shattering losses of the first IOTL 18 months of war to skew things, the exchange ratios will be even less favorable for the Germans.
The level of exchange would be higher given how close the Axis forces are to their supply hubs, their full undiminished strength being available based on pre-war defensive plans and excellent defensive terrain, and no encumberment from other fronts and demands on production/forces. You are heavily overestimating Soviet ability without combat experience, especially offensive mobile warfare.

The Soviets will have taken far fewer losses in manpower (particularly in the civilian arena), no economic losses compared to IOTL, and ended up in a identical diplomatic scene (dominance over a minimum of half of Europe and a Cold War with the west).
If that is a pyrrhic victory, then what was their victory IOTL?
Only if they keep the fighting on the Axis side of the border; the loss in manpower and internal morale with having to suffer millions of casualties for an offensive war will damage domestic opinion (people aren't nearly as willing to die for a war of choice, rather than one of survival). Plus that assuming the Soviets are able to actually invade Germany and end the ware in total victory.

The British will intervene on the Soviet side.
Based on your hopes and dreams.

Because if they don't intervene (or intervene on the German side) there are only two possible outcomes:

(1)A European continent completely dominated by the Soviet Union.
(2)A European continent completely dominated by Germany.

Both are far more severe threats to the British homeland then the end result if they intervene on the Soviet side: a continent only half-dominated by the Soviet Union.
Germany will be too mangled to dominate Europe if they win, the Soviets will not be. Without the US helping the British don't have the strength to stop the Soviet on the Rhein and are certainly not willing to stomach the Soviets dominating even half of Germany without the US backstop support. Liberating and propping up France is a project of years for Britain and would consume their finances and efforts, leaving nowhere near enough to stop Stalin; the cost to Britain without US support of the Soviets winning is far more than the Germans getting a peace deal after a bloody war.

Not likely. Stalin was extremely disinclined to purge people IOTL while the war was on, with the notable exception of Dimitri Pavlov (who oversaw a total disaster). It's quite notable how no one was purged over the Smolensk, Kiev, or Second Kharkov fiascos. Now once the war is over...
He stopped in 1942; the conditions of this war are vastly different, so he may behave quite a bit differently.

Stalin would not be overbothered having getting stuck with fighting a long-war with Germany, so long as the fighting remains no further east then the Soviet frontier region.
You sure about that? OTL was about national survival, ITTL is about an acceptable cost for the gains; is he going to seriously be willing to sacrifice 15 million lives to win a war of choice? More importantly, will the Soviet people and military?
 
Well, ANY situation different from the actual one is better for Soviets.

Most of their planes were destroyed on the ground, most tanks didn't have ammo or gas, many men were on leave, artillery was not deployed and so on.

A typical example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Brest_Fortress

The garrison was close to 9000 men. Among them less than 2000 fought and 80% of the hardware was captured after the first day (the artillery for example was packed in a depot). Just allow them to deploy and Germans will have a problem.

I fully agree that Soviets lack experienced officers, ammo, training and so on but the simple fact that they attack or deploy mean huge losses for Germans. The main difference is that the total number of soviet casualties is probably not going to change lot but most will die fighting and not as POW... thus its means huge losses
 
I think there's 2 main factors being slightly overlooked:

A) The start of barbarossa saw a vastly larger Axis force compared to the Soviet troops. The Soviets can certainly beef up compared to OTL 1941, but a numerical advantage doesn't seem like a given.
B) The different diplomatic and propaganda-situation is likely to be the real issue. France in 1940 was beaten and only a handful of French troops fought on. The Soviet Union in 1941 was beaten yet fought on (apart, of course, from several nationalist groups), because there was seemingly no other option. If the Soviets invade, who knows what happens? Will someone manage to topple Stalin, will the Soviet people continue to fight to the death?
I don't know, but I imagine it matters much more then a few percent more of this tank and less of that tank.
 
Not really, they had to slow and abandon a number of expansion projects due to bombing and demands of weapons and material;

And in the end those expansion projects came online IOTL in the 1942-1943 period. Basically you are saying nothing changes.

pgrade production sometimes bi-monthly as the military demanded the latest changes immediately,
Now you are just wanking. Not even the United States was able to do this, what hope does Germany have?

ITTL they would be able to have significantly higher production, especially with the ability to import/export. The ability to utilize occupied economies to supplement their own when no under blockade would be a massive difference.
The German exports pre-war were completely incapable of sustaining their armament program, now suddenly their exports are going to sustain an even larger armament program? And how are the occupied territories going to supplement the German economy when they have been looted clean by the Germans? What are they going to export when their industrial base has largely been stripped down and shipped back to Germany as reparations? What are the Germans going to export when they need everything they produce to fight the Soviets?

You seem to be under some delusion that the German economy was remotely as efficient, either in war time or in peace time, as that of the British, American, or even Soviet ones. The historical record quite conclusively indicates it was not.

At the end of their logistic lines
The Soviets logistic lines begin at their rail-heads. Which in this case are right on the frontier.

where they can only mass part of their forces and push them into enemy territory with poor infrastructure and different rail gauges (East Poland had terrible roads for instance).
Except IOTL both the Soviets and Germans were able to do just that. And then they were able to convert the rail infrastructure either slowly (in the German case) or rapidly (in the Soviets case) too their own use in time for the build-up to the Berlin offensive.

In fact, the Soviets ITTL 1943 have a distinct advantage over the Germans IOTL 1941 in that they have more trucks which are also more mechanically reliable.

In the short term they may be able to prevent total air superiority, but they will not be able to prevent local air superiority
Temporarily winning local air superiority is completely inadequate if the Germans hope to penetrate a Soviet defense-in-depth or massed assaults.

nor win the attrition war thanks to German radar, FLAK,
Inadequate to compensate for a large numerical inferiority with only a modest tactical superiority.

ability to bomb Soviet rail hubs at night unimpeded.
Something which comprehensively failed to harm Soviet logistics IOTL.

Their pilots will remain behind the Germans in terms of training and experience (they didn't really correct faulty doctrine until 1943 IOTL after a lot of combat experience) and will not be able to compete on equal footing.
Attrition will effectively gut the VVS before they could achieve any major success on the ground, which then leaves the LW capable of intervening more regularly.
The Luftwaffe never managed this IOTL even when they were at their peak compared to the VVS. Now they are going to manage it when the VVS is much more comparable to them?

means they can't win unless they have air superiority like IOTL 1943-45, which they can't without Western intervention.
Hogwash. The VVS were able to drag the Germans into repeated attritional battle in 1943 and win, ultimately contributing just almost as much to the decline in German air power as Western operations. German industry proved incapable of replacing their losses even solely against the VVS at any point in the war.

Define need; they would seriously miss the hundreds of thousands of trucks, machine tools, tanks, aircraft, more advanced communications and radar equipment, RR equipped, high octane avgas, raw materials, etc.
And they will be able to make hundreds of thousands of trucks, machine tools, tanks, aircraft, advanced communications, radar equipment, railroad equipment, high octane avgas, and raw materials without the massive German advance into their country and the resulting devastation inflicted upon their industry and economy.

They could fight without it, but it would all be sorely missed, especially when Soviet industry needs to make it themselves.
And Soviet industry will be able to do just that with little difficulty.

No. The T-34M was a significantly upgraded model and they only expected to make a few hundred in 1941; that would give them 18 months to mass produce it in peacetime, i.e. not with war time production numbers; at best you're looking at 7k total delivered by June 1943 and that wouldn't include any losses in training or manufacturing recalls.
Production of the T-34M was to begin in August 1941 and have replaced T-34 Model 1941 completely by October 1941. In light of that, 7K does sound reasonable. Although production would radically accelerate in the months before the Soviet declaration of war as industry moves to a war footing.

As to the doctrinal improvements I doubt they would change enough to fix all or even most of the issues.
They would not fix all of the issues. They would certainly have fixed most of them.

Wartime production numbers would start when the war starts, but so to do the German ones, who have a much more complete industry than IOTL
And the Soviets have a much more complete industry than IOTL. Also Soviet wartime production numbers would actually start before the war starts, as the Soviets would switch over wartime production a few months before they start to invade.

Furthermore, the Germans would have to demobilize in order to begin the export/import strategy you describe. So production number in 1941, 1942, and the first half of 1943 will be radically below IOTL.

and can better keep up like they did in 1944 in terms of numbers, but will be able to inflict far more disproportionate losses on the Soviets.
You have not demonstrated this.

Meanwhile the LW prevents the Soviets from developing their critical air support that was vital to their ground success.
By magic, apparently.

Sure, but they had to make them themselves, instead of getting them for free, what don't they make that they had IOTL instead?
Nothing they were planning on building in 1941-1943 before the war began anyways. The decline of Soviet truck production was caused by the mass destruction and dislocation of Soviet vehicle industry. The Soviets lost around 400 vehicle plants to the German invasion and as a result truck production crashed from 140,000 in 1938 through 1940 too something like 60-70,000 in 1942.

Now weapons production will increase over the latter-half of 1941 and in 1942 as the rearmament program progresses, but at a relatively slower pace. Once the decision to go to war and begin

Also without strategic bombing and time to finish their industrialization the Germans would also be able to make many more than IOTL.
German truck production was consistently below Soviet truck production pre-war.

On the Soviet held side, not the German side they would be attacking.
Given how large their truck pool will be, the Soviets will be able to advance just as far from their railheads as the Germans did IOTL.

On the much more restricted frontage and no other enemies to use them against they would have a major impact as they did IOTL against the T-34s, especially the 76mm equipped ones.
Which is inadequate. To quote George M. Nipe: "The lesson of Summer 1943 is that tactical superiority, weapon quality, and high levels of training do not constitute strategy. These factors are not necessarily enough to win a conflict against a determined enemy when the elements of time, numerically superior forces, and the effects of attrition come into play."

That alone, sure, but their advantage would be significantly more than just modest.
You have not demonstrated this. The Germans have no more room for doctrinal improvement in 1941 so they won't be any better there in 1943. The Soviets have massive room for doctrinal improvement in 1941 and were actively working to improve so they will be there in 1943.

You act like they couldn't export from 1941-43 before the war and raise money;
They were unable to export enough in 1933-1939 to cover the cost of their rearmament, why would they in 1941-1943?

plus they'd have access to the colonial empires of occupied Europe, so could get most of what they needed that way.
Why would they have access too it? If the British have a cease-fire

The severe impact of strategic bombing started in early 1943 with the bombing of the Ruhr in terms of steel production and the blunting of the armaments miracle, as per Tooze
As per Tooze, there was no armaments miracle in the Reich, merely .

And also as per Tooze, German production consistently rose from 1941 all the way into the latter-half of 1944 despite the strenuous efforts of both Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force.

All of that would appear in the East ITTL instead of being diverted,
So the Germans have another 100,000 men and a few more tens of thousands of static artillery pieces. The Soviets, for their part, have millions of more men, tens of thousands of more artillery, hundreds of thousands of more trucks, thousands more tanks, thousands more aircraft, and all of a better quality.

while being supplemented by Axis allied armies like the Italians who were strategically bombed too from early 1943.
And who proved incapable of standing up to the Soviets.

The level of exchange would be higher given how close the Axis forces are to their supply hubs, their full undiminished strength being available based on pre-war defensive plans and excellent defensive terrain, and no encumberment from other fronts and demands on production/forces.
And the Soviets are vastly more competent after having finished their reform program, have their full-undiminished strength being available based on pre-war offensive planning, a massively larger industrial base that they have not lost to a huge German invasion, and a massively larger force that they have not lost to encirclements.

You are heavily overestimating Soviet ability without combat experience, especially offensive mobile warfare.
And you are heavily underestimating the extent and thoroughness of the Soviet reform and rearmament program.

(people aren't nearly as willing to die for a war of choice, rather than one of survival).
Funny how the Soviets managed to do just that (Winter War!).

Plus that assuming the Soviets are able to actually invade Germany and end the ware in total victory.
They were IOTL when

Based on your hopes and dreams.
Ad-hominem noted.

Germany will be too mangled to dominate Europe if they win, the Soviets will not be.
Why not? If the Soviets defeating the Germans is going to be as OH SO IMPOSSIBLY DIFFICULT as you have claimed it will be, why would the Soviets not be horribly mangled? And why would the Germans, in fact, be so mangled in dominating all of Europe as to not be a threat to Britain in defeating the Soviets when, under such circumstances, their industrial heartland would be largely untouched?

He stopped in 1942;
Actually he stopped in 1941. And was stopping well before that. One can see the decline in arrests and executions starting in 1939. In 1940, the rehabilitation of dismissed and/or arrested officers began. The war merely accelerated the end of purges, it did not prompt it.

You sure about that? OTL was about national survival, ITTL is about an acceptable cost for the gains;
Well, given that the Nazis are guaranteed to turn it into a war for national survival regardless of who starts it...

Mind you, I don't in the slightest bit think that Stalin would be willing to attack the Germans if there was peace in the west. His whole plan was predicated on there being a war in the west going on. Your the one who brought up the prospect of him attacking without such.

The start of barbarossa saw a vastly larger Axis force compared to the Soviet troops. The Soviets can certainly beef up compared to OTL 1941, but a numerical advantage doesn't seem like a given.
It's a given. Unless the Germans are able to encircle and destroy literally millions of Soviet men in the first couple of months like they did IOTL, the forces facing them will balloon in size, all the way up to potentially 9-10 million men. The Germans are simply in no position to win a war of attrition with the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
No. The T-34M was a significantly upgraded model and they only expected to make a few hundred in 1941; that would give them 18 months to mass produce it in peacetime, i.e. not with war time production numbers; at best you're looking at 7k total delivered by June 1943 and that wouldn't include any losses in training or manufacturing recalls.
800 were going to be built in 1941 alone. However the T-34M was going to replaced by the T-44 sometime in 1942/3 so it's kinda a moot point.

On the much more restricted frontage and no other enemies to use them against they would have a major impact as they did IOTL against the T-34s, especially the 76mm equipped ones.
Yeah but they are going to their shit kicked in by the KV-3 and KV-4/5.
 
However the T-34M was going to replaced by the T-44 sometime in 1942/3 so it's kinda a moot point.

Wait, what? This is the first I'm hearing of this. My impression was that the T-34M was going to be the main model of tank for the Soviet Union for the 1940s much like the T-26 was the main model for the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

And are we talking about the IOTL T-44 or an ITTL T-44 that was under design pre-Barbarossa?
 

Deleted member 1487

800 were going to be built in 1941 alone. However the T-34M was going to replaced by the T-44 sometime in 1942/3 so it's kinda a moot point.
That document means nothing to me, I can't read Russian.

The KV-13 was to replace both the KVs and T-34; the T-44 was a project started after the German invasion to replace the T-34. Without the invasion there can be no T-44, as the trigger experiences aren't there. So the KV-13 is more likely to be the replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV-13

Yeah but they are going to their shit kicked in by the KV-3 and KV-4/5.
Considering how many mechanical issues the KV-1 and 2 had the heavier 3 and 4/5 weren't going to make it very far on the offensive without breaking down. Plus the KV 4/5 were as ridiculous as the Maus, another 100 ton monster. Also its not like the T-35 was a great idea either, nor the Char 2C.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait, what? This is the first I'm hearing of this. My impression was that the T-34M was going to be the main model of tank for the Soviet Union for the 1940s much like the T-26 was the main model for the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

And are we talking about the IOTL T-44 or an ITTL T-44 that was under design pre-Barbarossa?
AA Morozov being AA Morozov was able to convince the Red Army that his brand new heavy-medium tank hybrid was need to replaced the T-34M.
AmbbYcm.png



That document means nothing to me, I can't read Russian.
It says that T-34 production was going to halt by August 1941 and that it was going to be replaced by the T-34M
The KV-13 was to replace both the KVs and T-34; the T-44 was a project started after the German invasion to replace the T-34. Without the invasion there can be no T-44, as the trigger experiences aren't there. So the KV-13 is more likely to be the replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV-13
The KV-13 is a post Barbarossa thing too, but it doesn't matter since I'm not talking about that T-44.
Considering how many mechanical issues the KV-1 and 2 had the heavier 3 and 4/5 weren't going to make it very far on the offensive without breaking down. Plus the KV 4/5 were as ridiculous as the Maus, another 100 ton monster. Also its not like the T-35 was a great idea either, nor the Char 2C.
Most of the mechanical issues of the KV-1/2 were due to poor crews and the KV-3 testbed did quite well in trials. The Red Army was convinced that the Germans had their own monstrosity and wanted to counter it.
 

Deleted member 1487

The KV-13 is a post Barbarossa thing too, but it doesn't matter since I'm not talking about that T-44.
But you did mention the T-44 as the 34M replacement.

Most of the mechanical issues of the KV-1/2 were due to poor crews and the KV-3 testbed did quite well in trials. The Red Army was convinced that the Germans had their own monstrosity and wanted to counter it.
Got anything to back that up? The Red Army phased out the KV series for a reason.
 
But you did mention the T-44 as the 34M replacement.
There are two different T-44's other than the name and having the same designer they have nothing in common. I'm talking about the design from 1941 not the one from 1944.

Got anything to back that up? The Red Army phased out the KV series for a reason.
By 1943 the KVs were one of the most reliable tanks in the Red Army. And no they didn't there is a direct line of descent from the KV-13 to the IS-1/2.
 

Deleted member 1487

There are two different T-44's other than the name and having the same designer they have nothing in common. I'm talking about the design from 1941 not the one from 1944.
Any info about that one?

By 1943 the KVs were one of the most reliable tanks in the Red Army. And no they didn't there is a direct line of descent from the KV-13 to the IS-1/2.
Even the comments mention how that's not what that table says:
These figures actually say nothing about reliability if you don't have the total number of tanks of each type employed in these actions. The percentage figures are simply the division between losses on the march and in battle. They say nothing about how intensely each type was used in battle.

So for example, if a tank was used in low intensity operations at the front, and suffered few battlefield losses, it will appear by these figures to have had a high breakdown rate on marches.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family
The KV-85 was created by mounting an Object 237 turret on a modified KV-1S hull. This necessitated increasing the diameter of the turret ring by adding fillets to the sides of the hull. The radio operator was removed and in his place was inserted an ammo rack for the larger 85 mm ammunition. The hull MG was then moved to the opposite side of the driver and fixed in place to be operated by the driver himself. Soviet industry was therefore able to produce a heavy tank as equally well armed as the Tiger I before the end of 1943.[8] There was a short production run of 148 KV-85 tanks, which were sent to the front beginning in September 1943 with production ending by December 1943.[9] The complete Objekt 237 prototype, itself an evolution of the cancelled KV-13, was accepted for production as the IS-85 heavy tank.[10]
 
Top