PDA

View Full Version : What If?.....



XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:21 AM
When the Americans met the Soviets in germany that the allies allied with german againsed to soviets, much as the germans wanted. What do you think the outcome would be? Just think in overall perspective. The Giant Industry of america vs the large industry cramming out il2s like cardboard boxes of the soviet union. What do you think would happen?

Im thinking that the allies would use much of the german technology...Me-262, and re-arm the american army with the King Tiger tank over the light shermans. The b-29 would be sent to europe on super high altitude...mostly uncontested as soviet planes didnt go to high. American Me-262s would strafe soveit tank colums and engage low flying planes.

All is great untill the soviets bring out to Uber Hurricane with 4 20mm cannons and destroy the entire world/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif (thats a joke, but honestly put up what you think would happen)

-I shot down my first bomber today, A big ol' B-17, I didn't check my 6 though, now im dying in my burning 109.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:21 AM
When the Americans met the Soviets in germany that the allies allied with german againsed to soviets, much as the germans wanted. What do you think the outcome would be? Just think in overall perspective. The Giant Industry of america vs the large industry cramming out il2s like cardboard boxes of the soviet union. What do you think would happen?

Im thinking that the allies would use much of the german technology...Me-262, and re-arm the american army with the King Tiger tank over the light shermans. The b-29 would be sent to europe on super high altitude...mostly uncontested as soviet planes didnt go to high. American Me-262s would strafe soveit tank colums and engage low flying planes.

All is great untill the soviets bring out to Uber Hurricane with 4 20mm cannons and destroy the entire world/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif (thats a joke, but honestly put up what you think would happen)

-I shot down my first bomber today, A big ol' B-17, I didn't check my 6 though, now im dying in my burning 109.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:24 AM
Why would they attack? The Soviet Union didn't attack the Allies (at that point they were ok friends).Throughout the whole cold war the Allies had no reason to attack the Soviet Union, and vice versa (thank god).

Edit: plus the Soviet Union at that time was a tough force to stop; the only thing that the Allies had over the Russkies was the atomic bomb.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>


Message Edited on 07/05/0309:29PM by Quake897

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:27 AM
Its a hypothetical situation. Towards the end of the war the germans wanted to ally with the allies againse the soviets...so i was just thinking about what would happen.

-I shot down my first bomber today, A big ol' B-17, I didn't check my 6 though, now im dying in my burning 109.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:33 AM
Then I don't think that the Allies would ally with the jerries (at that pointed they didn't like them very much), and if they would move against USSR then it would be US alone. And if that happened... that would never happen unless you give me a good reason.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 06:33 AM
Would have been ugly. It probebly would have resulted in a stale mate and a cease fire would be enacted after a few years.

----------------------------------------
<center>I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/1a9751fc/bc/Files/__hr_sig4.jpg?bcz35B_A40Sy6C4D
Ain't she purdy/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:01 AM
That's a tough one to decide. Honestly, neither had any desire to fight the other. Well, I think General Patton wanted to push Soviets out of Europe, but we rapidly liquidated him in that "car accident."

** just kidding, fellas!

Two Basic Rules of Life::

Russia outside its borders is easily defeated.
Russia inside its borders is undefeatable.

Its a tough call if by 1945 we could consider "Russia" borders as including Eastern Europe, as Russia is what we think when we say "Soviet Union." But then even Georgian Stalin with Caucausus accent used Russian nationalism to fan support for the WAR. Also, severe food shortage in the East in 1945. Ukraine had severe drought in 1946. Worse, USA would not treat the local population like the Germans did (and it was not just the Nazi SS), thus we would have a much easier time with the locals of Eastern Europe, who all FEARED the Russians anyway, and for good reason.

USA Sherman tank couldn't do it, but that new 90mm gunned tank (forgot name) would be available. But they had the new Stalin 3 tanks in 1945. Anyway, I can see USA tanks bogged down in the eastern mud with their narrow treads, like those abandoned German tanks sunk into the Uman mud of 1944 as T~34s gayly floated past. German Tigers and Panthers were worthless war machines, and obsolete by 1945 anyway. And no, we would not have bothered to use Me262. But we may have seen the P~38K, and Yak~3U enter desperate production . /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-- The b-29 would be sent to europe on super high altitude
-- mostly uncontested as soviet planes didnt go to high.

Yes! Finally, a reason for I~224 interceptor. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.modely.comp.cz/photos/PS_migi224_small.jpg
http://www.modely.comp.cz/cz/reportaze/Openscale2000/



Message Edited on 07/06/0306:03AM by LEXX_Luthor

The_Blue_Devil
07-06-2003, 07:03 AM
Patton and some other generals thought that the U.S. army should have continued East on into the Soviet Union. What if they had beaten the Russian army..Now that is a huge What if...

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 07/06/0306:04AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:05 AM
The Allies would have been fighting with the two best tanks in the world at the time, the Pershing and the Centurion...they would have dealt with the IS series just fine.

Had the Allies adapted captured German technology, they might have been able to equal the Russians in the tactical airspace, though the Il-10 and the late Yaks and La's would have presented a considerable challenge.

The Allies would have absolutely dominated high altitude fights, however...the B-29 would have been next to impervious to interception.





---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:06 AM
Patton vs Zhukov.

Bets?

** what about the guys who just wanna go home?

EDIT:: Also, we must remember that Soviet industry beyond in the Ural mountains may not have been such a lucrative target for B~29s.



Message Edited on 07/06/0306:08AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:17 AM
The USSR had a tank force so big that it wouldn't matter that the Allies had the Pershing and Centurion. Plus if Allies would invade the USSR would boost development/production of the T44. Also as it turns out Soviets captured most of the German aviation technology. Andmay I remind you that the Russians at that time were devloping the Tu-4 which was an exact replica of the B-29.

I have to admit that US had 2 HUGE things going for it: atom bomb, and the US Navy.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>


Message Edited on 07/05/0310:18PM by Quake897

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:22 AM
Yes, the Romans proved twice, against Carthage, that to Rule the waves means to Rule the World.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:27 AM
That's a tough one. What would the objectives of either side be? I believe that the Allies could have pushed the Russians back into Russia (at great cost). But I don't believe they would have been any more successful in invading the Soviet Union than the Germans had.

The Pershing and the Centurion would not have been immediately available in large numbers, but the Soviets had vast numbers of first rate tanks ready for use. IMHO, the IS-III was the best tank in the world at the time, and the IS-II and the T-34/85 both outclassed anything the Allies had in their arsenal (excepting Pershing and Centurion).

The air war would have been tough, too. There wasn't really an industrial center in range to be devasted that wasn't already completely destroyed. Air combat would have been centered on tactical air power, where the Russians had a marked advantage.

The Soviets were getting near the bottom of the barrel on manpower, while the US could still call on large reserves.

The Soviets were also more skilled in mass mobile warfare.

But...Russia didn't have nukes, and the Allies did.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:31 AM
Actually, after Nagasaki, USA didn't have nukes either.

They were still experimental devices at the end of 1945. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:35 AM
Yea, but they could build it in a faster time then USSR.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:35 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Actually, after Nagasaki, USA didn't have nukes
- either.
-
- They were still experimental devices at the end of
- 1945.

Yeah. But I can guarantee that if the US had been at war with the Soviets in late '45, the Soviets would have gotten the nuclear treatment instead of Japan.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:37 AM
I think they would want to finish up with Japan first.

Panzzzz wrote:
-
- LEXX_Luthor wrote:
-- Actually, after Nagasaki, USA didn't have nukes
-- either.
--
-- They were still experimental devices at the end of
-- 1945.
-
- Yeah. But I can guarantee that if the US had been
- at war with the Soviets in late '45, the Soviets
- would have gotten the nuclear treatment instead of
- Japan.
-
-



AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:38 AM
There were other options for dealing with Japan. Russia would have been the greater threat.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:40 AM
I doubt that US would want to open a second front when they haven't finished up with Japan (that's what Hitler did, and look what he got). IF it would happen then I'm pretty sure USSR would ally with Japan and send forces into the Pacific.
Panzzzz wrote:
- There were other options for dealing with Japan.
- Russia would have been the greater threat.
-
-



AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:41 AM
hmmm. I hadn't thought about this:: Are we talking before Japan surrenders or after? If before, then yes USA could have used it as a surprise attack on Moscow. But unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, USA does not have a Moscow map with Moscow on it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Which makes me wonder (just thought of it)....

Recall that during Cold War USSR always published maps with distortions? Maybe they forced Oleg to make the Moscow map not include Moscow.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:44 AM
Quake897 wrote:
- I doubt that US would want to open a second front
- when they haven't finished up with Japan (that's
- what Hitler did, and look what he got).

Explain why we attacked Germany after the Japs hit us at Pearl Harbor.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:45 AM
Also neither side would start war with each other, unless they really had to. Both countries were exhausted (the men), and I'm pretty sure the leaders knew that if they started a war with each other then the loss of life would be very significant. Like, I said there was NO Reason to start, so why would they?

Edit: Ok during the beginning of the war US had a lot of spirit and will to fight, heck they had to, but once again there was NO reason to start fighting USSR. Also Germany did declare war on US due to the Axis pact.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>


Message Edited on 07/05/0310:47PM by Quake897

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:50 AM
Quake897 wrote:
- Also neither side would start war with each other,
- unless they really had to. Both countries were
- exhausted (the men), and I'm pretty sure the leaders
- knew that if they started a war with each other then
- the loss of life would be very significant. Like, I
- said there was NO Reason to start, so why would
- they?
-
- Edit: Ok during the beginning of the war US had a
- lot of spirit and will to fight, heck they had to,
- but once again there was NO reason to start fighting
- USSR. Also Germany did declare war on US due to the
- Axis pact.


You have real problems with this whole "what if" concept, don't you?

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:51 AM
Yes, because it's so unrealistic. If you give me a good reason, then we can go from there.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:07 AM
Quake897::
-- Yes, because it's so unrealistic.
-- If you give me a good reason, then we can go from there.

Several good reasons:: Hitler, Munich, Western Democracy, and the American Birth Control League (renamed Planned Parenthood in a public relations panic..*..as Hitler's activities were becoming widely known).

Quake897, some here are ~very~ familiar with Western Governments covering up of Hitler's repressions before the WAR and covering up Stalin's repressions before, during, and after the WAR. We shall both agree that Stalin and the western Governments truly were very close allies. Still, its an abstract Debate.

Now, where were we?



Message Edited on 07/06/0307:10AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:14 AM
Ok, are those reasons good enough to waste more lives? Most of our leaders didn't think so.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 09:35 AM
To continue...don't feel bad, UBI's LOCKON (full stop--now off topic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) assumes armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as USA mixed in somehow.

I won't mention The Other flight sim, but the Crimea and Black Sea would be an interesting conflict point, not long after Yalta Conference. The US Navy could play a direct role. But does this happen before or after Japan surrenders to both USA/USSR?






Message Edited on 07/06/0308:39AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 08:07 PM
Quake897 wrote:
Andmay I remind you that the
- Russians at that time were devloping the Tu-4 which
- was an exact replica of the B-29.


Umm, wasnt that later in the 40s? I think it was, and if war was starting that Tu-4 would of never existed. As the Bombers would of been based from Japan and Probably Norway, bombing from such high altitudes the Mig-3u would be the only place capable of flying high would be put into production.



-I shot down my first bomber today, A big ol' B-17, I didn't check my 6 though, now im dying in my burning 109.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 09:21 PM
Yes, Tu~4 first flown 1947. Three B~29s captured 1944.

I think they would have rushed into production the later MiGs beyond 3U, notably the I~225, which was not confined to high altitude interception. Also, 3U was in fact turned down rejected in 1943 because of typicaly early MiG~esque "problems" that its competitors La and Yak did not have.

Anyway, they could have dusted off the BI~1 rocket. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Another thing:: With the (probable /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ) end of Lend Lease, and as the Soviets did depend upon USA trucks for their mastery of mobile warfare, this could have been a problem too. Although without the freebies, they may have put USA trucks into production themselves. I would have guessed they did anyway. I dunno.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 09:59 PM
cowace2 wrote:
- The Allies would have absolutely dominated high
- altitude fights, however...the B-29 would have been
- next to impervious to interception.
-
-

I'm not so sure they would have done so (they would probably had but not so easily) : in 1945, after the end of the fighting, at least two, perhaps more, B-29s were intercepted by the soviets in their far-eastern borders and quickly forced down by soviet fighters (I understand the soviets : they had reason to be nervous after the nuke attacks on Japan).

In the possibility of a USSR/USA conflict in 1945, one should remember that such war would have cost far more US lives than WWII (whatever its outcome), and that, given the sensitivity of the US public opinion about unneeded casualties, an US decision to attack the USSR could be taken only into Patton's dreams, and that in case of war, the US would most probably have had to fight former resistance fighters in the countries that had been occupied by Germany because these were, for a large (and sometimes the largest) part (even in Western countries like Belgium, France, or Greece) socialist or communist militants who had started the armed fight after the german attack on the USSR (even if they had previously demonstrated their hostility to the germans before by disobeyance or passive resistance).

On the other hand, the soviets (particularly in the army) considered they had suffered enough and didn't want anymore to be at war since they didn't have to defend themselves anymore (the attack on Japan in August 1945, while a huge military success, was very unpopular in the army and the population), and Stalin wouldn't have taken the risk to lose its positive image of WWII winner (even if he really didn't help his troops to win (just the opposite)) and to provoke an open political conflict with a Red Army which was far more powerful and popular than before WWII and would have enjoyed popular support in such a situation (because of their popularity, some of the best commanders of this Red Army, like Zhukov or Rokossovsky, were dismissed or posted far away from Moscow after the war).

In the unlikely possibility where this would have happened, I don't think the US could have won, nor the USSR could have claimed an victory, it would have most likely finished with a negociated peace leading to an unchanged situation.

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 10:08 PM
what if you dont post this thread?

The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light
<CENTER>http://images.flagspot.net/i/id%5eaforo.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 10:18 PM
According to everything I've read stalin was planning to attack the west and only his death stopped it.True not in 1945 but close enough.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 12:00 AM
Really? I never heard about that one. But I do agree with what was said earlier how no country wanted to loose more men.

-I shot down my first bomber today, A big ol' B-17, I didn't check my 6 though, now im dying in my burning 109.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

]http://www.c-22.net/files/sig/strm.jpg (http://www.c-22.net/files/sig/strm.jpg[/img)

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 12:42 AM
What if somebody had bought one of Hitler's paintings while he was slumming it around Vienna?
What if Stalin had kept up with his theological studies?
What if Churchill's grand scheme for a rapid advance through the Dardenelles had proved successful?
What if Roosevelt had been on top form at Yalta?
What if Julie Smith had said yes to me all those years ago?

I guess we'll never know will we?

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/FaintWhirly.jpg?0.014428488517455151 </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:16 AM
Yeah Lexx, I'm not exactly sure what exactly you know what you're talking about in terms of the tank front. To start, fair odds between T-34's and a panther would be about 10-1. So 10 T-34's vs. a single panther is a fair fight. Regardless of being bogged down, the tanks are still going to do a hell of a lot of damage. More German tanks were knocked out by air support then tanks or guns. If you read a few pages of any Tiger Ace's action records they're knocking out 20-30 guns & tanks per day. of the spread of a week, they're doing a massive amount of damage. Of course, the russians were pumping it out like there was no tomorrow - but with the industrial might of the USA producing German tanks? That is some severe tooling. For example, in the Battle of the Bulge, in the Ardennes in '44-'45, a single JagdTiger knocked out an entire allied tank regiment. The JagdTiger's didn't have the most reliable engines and were prone to breaking down, but I'm sure given a little more time the german engineers would have been able to produce something capable of running the monsterous tank destroyer without as many problems.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:26 AM
^ It's more of a 4 T-34/85s vs a Panther, but how many Panthers did the jerries have, and how many t34s did the russkies have?

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 01:55 AM
Well, the scenario is the USA fighting crazy Ivan - and my point was that if the US started pumping out German tanks....

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:05 AM
4 T-34-85's vs 1 Pather = 1 quickly killed Panther. The Panther was a better tank, but not that much better. And it was no match for any IS series tank.

And the Americans would not have been using German tanks. The M-26 Pershing was far superior to anything the Germans produced.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:19 AM
Thanks for joining us Quake.

Actually, very few German tanks were lost to western aircraft. Loss of soft targets and transports were the only way tactical airpower could cripple German Army, and cripple it they did.

Granted, Germany industry, what little was left, could have been enlisted in support of one side or the other, most likely USA, and the obsolete Tigers and Panthers could be used in semi~mobile defenses if the need arose, or to finish off heavy any Stalin tanks that may be bagged.

Otherwise the German heavy tanks and "JadgTiger" dinosaur would be easily bagged on Eastern Front. Bagging German dinosaurs was a late war Zhukov/Konev trademark. USA tanks with their mechanical reliability would have a significant advantage in Eastern Front warfare over Soviet armour, with the possible exception of the thin threads...I mean treads.

Less glamorous yet more important is the potential loss of trucks to the Soviets.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:32 AM
Well, the way I see it works out, is 4 T34's vs 1 panther = 4 burning T34's and a Panther that wants more ammunition. The M26 Pershing only had 76mm of armor on it's front hull, and only up to ~100mm on the superstructure & turret. It only had a 90mm gun which can fire shells at a velocity of 854m/sec. Not bad, it gets the armor penetration, but it's not exactly the most well armored tank either. The JagdTiger on the other hand, had 250mm of armor on it's front superstructure (which the M26 could not penetrate even at a distance of 100m) And was toting a 128mm gun which fires shells at a velocity of 920m/sec, easily capable of punching through 200mm of armor at even a range of 2 kilometers. So, that's one smoking heap of American Engineering. Ford? get out of the way, Jerry's coming.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:19 AM
The possibility of an alliance between Germany and the USA isn't quite as deluded as it might sound - certainly from the Germans perspective it's something that would've been considered. The support of anticommunism and the love of corporatism/fascism among Americas powerful people of the time bear consideration. If you went looking you'd probably find quite a few photographs of powerful westerners smiling for the camera with Mussolini - another hugely popular figure in the USA at the time. If it hadn't been for Germanys declaration of war against the USA, it's not entirely certain that the USA would've fought against them in the first place, at least by any other means than proxy warfare. But Hitler being a mad dog really sealed his fate - noone likes a crazy man on the world stage. Indeed what Hitler was doing was pretty well admired until it was made clear that he wouldn't honour his agreements. So much of world politics comes down to protocol and 'credibility' [Chomsky prefers it if you say that in a chicago gangster accent], and Hitler had none.

As for whether either side wanted any more dead people - it's not clear cut whether dropping a couple of atom bombs on the Russians would've saved more lives in the long run. Certainly less people would've been killed in a couple of atom bomb blasts than their own governments managed to murder as the years went on. But that wasn't known at the time, I guess. Then there's the matter of how many bombs would be needed to get them to stop, given that the number of casualties the Germans inflicted on them was pretty mind boggling and that just made the Russians mad.

The problem is less to do with T34 vs Sherman or Yak9 vs P51 than it is to do with - what the hell would the USA actually do with the land mass if it managed to conquer it? Given the number of people required to occupy Japan / Germany at the wars end, there simply wouldn't have been enough eligable males in the USA to police or control the fallen Russian state.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:36 AM
First of all T-34/85s are pretty damn good tanks, even when compared to a Panther, so in a 4on1 battle the Panther would be destroyed pretty quickly. Second of all, the US wouldn't be able to use German weaponry due to the lack of it late in the war, and the inability to produce it (factories were decimated, etc.). Oh and LEXX, sorry about the silence, I went to go see T3, and 28 days later (damn good movies).

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:37 AM
I found this on a web site a few years back...
not much to do with topic but interesting never the less..


Ford's contribution to Nazi war efforts.
The following is excerpted from a report printed by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1974:

The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II...are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximized corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged. Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war.
During the 1920's and 1930's, the Big Three automakers undertook an extensive program of multinational expansion...By the mid-1930's, these three American companies owned automotive subsidiaries throughout Europe and the Far East; many of their largest facilities were located in the politically sensitive nations of Germany, Poland, Rumania, Austria, Hungary, Latvia, and Japan...Due to their concentrated economic power over motor vehicle production in both Allied and Axis territories, the Big Three inevitably became major factors in the preparations and progress of the war. In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....
Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....
The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks....On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3- ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."....
After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing...Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...
Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to reemerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved.
Extracted from Bradford C. Snell, American Ground Transport: A Proposal for Restructuring the Automobile, Truck, Bus and Rail Industries. Report presented to the Committee of the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, United States Senate, February 26, 1974, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1974, pp. 16-24.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:42 AM
^ Yea, it's all part of militarization, after all they were located in Germany. Oh and Germans used Opel Blitz trucks, and Opel is a part of GM.

AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:48 AM
http://www.gm-indonesia.com/eng/opel/opel.html

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:09 AM
Moroscoe wrote:
- Well, the way I see it works out, is 4 T34's vs 1
- panther = 4 burning T34's and a Panther that wants
- more ammunition. The M26 Pershing only had 76mm of
- armor on it's front hull, and only up to ~100mm on
- the superstructure & turret. It only had a 90mm gun
- which can fire shells at a velocity of 854m/sec.
- Not bad, it gets the armor penetration, but it's not
- exactly the most well armored tank either. The
- JagdTiger on the other hand, had 250mm of armor on
- it's front superstructure (which the M26 could not
- penetrate even at a distance of 100m) And was
- toting a 128mm gun which fires shells at a velocity
- of 920m/sec, easily capable of punching through
- 200mm of armor at even a range of 2 kilometers. So,
- that's one smoking heap of American Engineering.
- Ford? get out of the way, Jerry's coming.
-
-

The T-34-85 could hole a Panther's frontal armor from 1000m. 4 of them would shoot a Panther to pieces, literally. The M26 could kill a Panther from a range greater than the Panther was capable of killing the M26. And the HVAP ammo was 3,350 ft/sec, and could penetrate 154mm at 30 degrees - at a range of 2km. Good enough.

As for the Jagdtiger, it's hardly an offensive weapon and not worth mentioning here. Excellent tank killer, yes. Can't perform the role of a tank, though.

And remember how it all ended. Jerrie couldn't get out of the way because Ford closed in on both sides.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 09:03 AM
Unkraut,

Were Ford and GM paid by the Nazis after the US declared war on Germany? Or were the plants nationalized upon commencement of hostilities?

As for this post:

The Soviets were bled dry after the capture of Berlin, and even if they could have made a zillion more tanks and planes it is doubtful they could find the conscripts to man them.

Even if that didn't happen, how would (politically) Truman turn to the US citizens after fighting the Axis alongside the Soviets and declare that we must attack them? Most US soldiers had seen enough war, and the country was in no mindset to send off even more young men to war unless absolutely necessary. If that wasn't the case, then why did the US massively demobilize after the war to the point that the Korean War initially overwhelmed our ability to respond?

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 09:26 AM
Quake897 wrote:
- Why would they attack? The Soviet Union didn't
- attack the Allies (at that point they were ok

The mere existence of Soviet Union defied anything that was holy in the civilized world. Communism is evil in purified form.


http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

From Finland with love

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 11:19 AM
Anyone here familiar with TOAW/ACOW? It's an operational level hex-board computer game with a powerful scenario editor. I played it quite a lot some years ago and made a handful og researched scenarios.

One of them I never finished: It was a monster scenario covering all of Europe. It was set immediately after the German surrender and was supposed to be a "what if": Patton launched an attack against the Soviets in Czechoslovakia, followed by an immediate Soviet declaration of war on the US, UK and France. Just for the heck of it I even put in 10 German divisions on the Allied side.

I never finished the scenario because it was extremely lopsided. With access to complete OOB's (Orders of Battle) and TO&E's (Table of Organization and Equipment) for every Allied unit from batallion and upwards, and every Soviet (and Soviet-allied) unit from brigade and upwards, including their geographical location in late spring 1945, I was able to more or less recreate the actual situation.

Let me put it this way: Even allowing for extremely depleted Soviet rifle divisions, they simply dwarfed the Western allies. Especially when it came to tanks. And they had such large strategic reserves in the Baltic coast, Leningrad and Balkan areas, that they easily could risk the destruction of all their armies in Germany and still pack an incredible punch.

Since the A-bomb at that time was a small-scale strategic weapon in extremely short supply, it would have been a conventional tank-war. And in my mind there's absolutely no doubt, that the Soviets would have won. And won big.

I'm just glad it never came to that.

regards/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 02:36 PM
How is it evil? I'm not saying it's a great idea (especially if you got a leader like Stalin), but it is not fascism or nazism.
Werre_ wrote:
-
- Quake897 wrote:
-- Why would they attack? The Soviet Union didn't
-- attack the Allies (at that point they were ok
-
- The mere existence of Soviet Union defied anything
- that was holy in the civilized world. Communism is
- evil in purified form.
-
-
-
<img
- src="http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.
- jpg">
-
- From Finland with love



AMD Athlon XP 1700+ T-Bred B
Epox 8K9AI
PC2100 512MB DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4600 128MB
Game Theater XP w/ Sony MHC-BX6AV
<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif </CENTER> <center><FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 03:05 PM
Panzzzz wrote:
- Quake897 wrote:
-- I doubt that US would want to open a second front
-- when they haven't finished up with Japan (that's
-- what Hitler did, and look what he got).
-
- Explain why we attacked Germany after the Japs hit
- us at Pearl Harbor.
-
Germany and Japan (With Italy) were locked in a "Tripartite pact". This meant that if one was attacked the other two would assist and declare war on the aggressor. Although Japan wasn't attacked Hitler felt it was his duty to assist his ally, so he declared war on the USA. At one of the Allies conferences (Casablanca I think), the allies agreed at churchill's insistence that the strategy should be "Germany First", as they posed the greatest threat, and Stalin would have been real P*ssed off otherwise. Japan did not feel the same sense of Loyalty to Germany, hence they did not delcare war on the Soviet Union. Anyway, the USA took the offensive against Japan after the battle of Midaway before they got involved in their first operation in the west (operation Torch in N Africa, which they were shown to be far inferior to British troops, as is still the case today), so they did not attack the Germans before Japan, they were involvd in a two front war though.
Hope this has elightened you...

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 05:53 PM
-
- Since the A-bomb at that time was a small-scale
- strategic weapon in extremely short supply, it would
- have been a conventional tank-war. And in my mind
- there's absolutely no doubt, that the Soviets would
- have won. And won big.
-
- I'm just glad it never came to that.
-

I think it's more complicated than simple in-field assets, but yeah, certainly the tank rush in the first 5 minutes of the game would give the west an ulcer :>

In terms of the whole theatre, if the allies could avoid getting pushed off the map altogether in the first 2-3 months, then the soviets would've been cooked. If you define 'the whole map' as the western edge of France then it's not hard for the soviets to 'win'. Bear in mind though that the soviets were no more able to assault the UK in 1945 than the Germans were in 1940.

If you take into account the allies basing P-47 and B-29 strikes out of Italy/North Africa, Finland or Japan it gets a bit more tricky for the soviets to hold onto much of europe. Hiding industrial production to the east of the Urals only works if they come at you from the west. Throw in the USAs' carrier aviation, total unquestionable dominance of the worlds seas and logistics lines able to supply forces from every corner of the world and it starts to look like the russians would have a difficult time holding onto their own country, let alone western europe.

The people saying that the Russians would've worked out how to build an A-bomb or deliver large bombloads at strategic assets - maybe they would have. But I doubt they could've done so fast enough for it to matter. If the germans had had the a-bomb and strategic bombing capability when they rolled through, there wouldn't be a great deal amount of literature about the seige of Stalingrad. Maybe there would be a tasteful brass plaque marking the radioactive hole where it used to be.

This of course assumes that it's a full scale, all or nothing war. This sort of thing was tried 10 years later in Korea and even with both sides fighting with one hand behind their backs it was quite drawn out and bloody. Thankfully Macarthur never got his way with that one and we've been spared another nuke fired in anger, so far at least.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:01 PM
Quake897 wrote:
- Then I don't think that the Allies would ally with
- the jerries (at that pointed they didn't like them
- very much), and if they would move against USSR then
- it would be US alone. And if that happened... that
- would never happen unless you give me a good reason.

Churchill had a plan to do this drawn up, the attack
to take place in July 1945. The cabinet papers relating
to this were released under the 50 year rule in 1995.

It did not happen because (a) there was no interest
in doing it from most generals, and not from the USA,
and (b) Churchill lost the election.

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:07 PM
cowace2 wrote:
- The Allies would have been fighting with the two
- best tanks in the world at the time, the Pershing
- and the Centurion...

Both were new, and had some reliability issues.

The Centurion had a 17 pdr gun, which was good, but
wouldn't have been very effective against the JS
tanks.

The Pershing was better armed with a 90mm gun, but
still would have been outgunned by the JS.

However the bulk of the soviet force would have been
T34/85, which would have been vulnerable to the allied
tanks, with a gun not as good as the better Allied
weapons, but better than the bulk of the Sherman force.

In 1945 the bulk of the allied force would
have comprised the Sherman, along with the Comet, perhaps,
and precious few Centurions and Pershings, so the real
battle would have been Sherman versus T34.

- Had the Allies adapted captured German technology,
- they might have been able to equal the Russians in
- the tactical airspace,

You're talking 3 years to do that, which puts it
into the cold snap of the 'real' cold war, as opposed
to the 'phoney' cold war of 1945-47

- The Allies would have absolutely dominated high
- altitude fights, however...the B-29 would have been
- next to impervious to interception.

Very true.

Also the USSR would not have had nuclear weapons, which
would have made things rather one-sided!

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:11 PM
turenne wrote:
- According to everything I've read stalin was
- planning to attack the west

According to nothing I have read was this the case.

There was a perception that the USSR was powerful,
but my the mid 1950s it was militarily spent, with
its Bear bomber force being little more than a dozen
aircraft, compared to something like 300 B52s.

An attack by the USSR was madness, and even though
Stalin was mad, I don't think he was THAT foolish.
You never can tell, though.

However, brinksmanship was the style of the day, e.g.
witness Kruschev threatening the USA when the USSR
had about 20 ICBMs in 1962, of which as little as 2
warheads may have been in Cuba (there is good evidence
for a fair quantity of tactical nuclear launchers, though).

It's been pointed out that many of the missiles shown
on May Day parades were wooden mockups!

XyZspineZyX
07-07-2003, 06:39 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
German Tigers and Panthers were
- worthless war machines, and obsolete by 1945 anyway.
-

LOL! Your credibility just flew out the window. Do some reading about WWII armor and then come back and say the Panther and Tiger were "worthless war machines".

We few, we happy few, we band of Würgerwhiners...
http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 11:53 PM
Hi everyone...
I think you might do well to check this book out.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0330487248/qid=1057704519/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3_3/026-1448471-7270800

It looks like it might be worth a read. As an alternative, if you want to know what DID happen then read "The Second World War" by John Keegan. Excellent book, it focuses more on the politics and motives behind each campaign. so it is helpful if you already know about the military side of things. Check it out...

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2003, 11:56 PM
RCAF_Rattler wrote:
-
- American Me-262s would strafe
- soveit tank colums and engage low flying planes.
-
-
American 262's?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif nah... they are too proud for that, they would make their own plane. And if they used the 262, they wouldn't go TANK hunting with it...

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif