Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

George Spiggott wrote:

*What if the US had developed the Patton tank predecessor (Pershing?) into production in mid 44?
They would have kept them on mainland Britain as they did in real life. How is this a what if?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g

technical sgt Jim Bates say whaaat?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Does the original question involve just the military fighting or the lend-lease scheme as well? The Russians were getting a heap of support from the US in terms of equipment.

Nah, the value of the lend-lease stuff was pretty exaggerated. The UK received about three times as much gear, and their war machine was a fraction of the scale of the Soviet war machine. The Soviets mostly received trucks and locomotives, which were extremely useful, but didn’t decide the war.

Without the US landings in Africa it would have continued on down there at the very least and it would be unlikely that Mussolini would have been deposed.

No, Rommel had already been beaten at el Alamein, and at the strategic level it was all over. The US landing hastened the defeat, but it didn’t define it.

Problem for the Germans ultimately was that they had too many objectives with too few resources. With the above changes they could have increased the resources, but they needed to remove the UK (invasion or peace settlemet) from the war before moving against Russia, or they should have settled in for a fight with the UK and its territories in the middle east and Africa and left Russia alone.

The problem is that the USSR was out-producing them. While the Nazi war machine was very efficient, the Soviets absorbed their losses and continued the produce more stuff than the Nazis could kill. The sideshows in Africa and Italy didn’t draw away that many troops.

BrookM wrote:1. It depends. No they weren't needed to win the war, but if they weren't used the cost in human life would've been much, much higher. US casualty projections for a proposed invasion of Japan were a million at the very least.

.

not to mention the Japanese causality would have also been much much higher. and i think people forget that the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either A-bomb

A WW2 without the USA means that instead of 22 million dead Russians there would be 30 or 40 million, along with unknown number of Germans and Commonwealth dead. But the end result wouldn´t change.
As for the nukes, I still say that they were the lesser of two evils and blockading Japan was not viable unless somehow you can magic away the 2 million plus Japanese soldiers overseas (mostly in China).

M.

Falconlance wrote:technical sgt Jim Bates say whaaat?

The video's talking about Pershings attacking Cologne in March 1945, what's your point? In mid '44 they're available but as yet undeployed.

Wars aren't won by superweapons or willpower, they are won by logistics.

The USA could build and ship four Shermans for the cost of one Pershing tank. Also, the Sherman was better than anything the Japanese had.

Falconlance wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

*What if the US had developed the Patton tank predecessor (Pershing?) into production in mid 44?
They would have kept them on mainland Britain as they did in real life. How is this a what if?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g

technical sgt Jim Bates say whaaat?

Excellent. Yea I meant in substantial numbers. its amazing how freeking big that tank is in comparison.

More importantly, what if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

Let's go with the Aliens theory again.

What if Aliens, having studied news footage in August 1939 decide that their technology is comparable with that of earth and launch invasion craft. They arrive on earth in June 1945 (just six years later)...

Wait, wasn't there a series of books about this, ending with FDR sending ships to mooon to kick alien butt?

If their technology was super slow, but they had some form of (handwavem) gate technology relic and invaded it would be aliens taste like chicken time.

Unless they landed in Italy in which case they would get a sudden and dramatic course in fashion. Armed with Gucci, Armani, and riding Ducattis they would take the fashion industry by storm. No country could withstand their awesome fashion powers.

Yes, there is a series of books with a similar theme. The important bit is the timescale (6 years). Imagine if they set off in 1239 or 2003

sebster wrote:The problem is that the USSR was out-producing them. While the Nazi war machine was very efficient, the Soviets absorbed their losses and continued the produce more stuff than the Nazis could kill. The sideshows in Africa and Italy didn’t draw away that many troops.

The Russians were struggling towards the end, 1 in 10 army personnel were female by the war's end due to losses.


I wonder why the Germans didn't do a mass landing in Palestine via Greece or Italy (using Crete as a airbase to shield them from the UK forces in the Mediterranean and Egypt).
At the very least they would have forced the British forces in Egypt to turn to 2 fronts. Drop in the parachute divisions (who were twiddling their thumbs after Crete) and an armoured division and they could work their way down to the Siani and make airbases as they went, allowing more pressure on Egypt.

I'd love to do up a series of alternative history books, done in the style of a timeline history book (not a novel).
WW 2 Germany doesn't attack Russia.
Confederates win the Civil war/ grind it to a draw.
The US keeps rolling east in Europe post WW2.

You have to remember Africa -and Greece for that matter- were both sideshows that they became involved in to save Italy's butt. Germany had no desire to be in either location. Now once there, there was thought given to moving up through modern Iran and seizing the fields there, but again that whole “lets invade Britain, and Russia, and hey lets declare war on the US too” thing became a bit much. Further, the British Navy was very good at messing up their Mediterranean supply routes.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:. Drop in the parachute divisions (who were twiddling their thumbs after Crete) and an armoured division and they could work their way down to the Siani and make airbases as they went, allowing more pressure on Egypt.

German parachute divisions were divisions no more (other than on paper) after Crete. The casualty rates were horrible almost 20% of the attackers were killed or wounded.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:. Drop in the parachute divisions (who were twiddling their thumbs after Crete) and an armoured division and they could work their way down to the Siani and make airbases as they went, allowing more pressure on Egypt.

German parachute divisions were divisions no more (other than on paper) after Crete. The casualty rates were horrible almost 20% of the attackers were killed or wounded.

M.

The Fallschirmjagers existed in reality after Crete, but Hitler vowed that he would not use them in a large scale offensive again due to the results of Crete. Speaking of FJs if the Jagers would have had a better parachute rig similar to the one used by British and Americans they would have been able to drop in with heavier weapons than what they had, making them much more effective in the Battle of Crete though I'm not sure how much that would have helped. I don't remember exactly but I don't think it was entirely the FJ's fault that Crete was lost.

Ladies and gents, I believe THIS sums it up pretty accurately...

sebster wrote:Nah, the value of the lend-lease stuff was pretty exaggerated. The UK received about three times as much gear, and their war machine was a fraction of the scale of the Soviet war machine. The Soviets mostly received trucks and locomotives, which were extremely useful, but didn’t decide the war.

Because in Soviet Russia weapons, ammunition and men magically fly to the front line.

[edit] added the 'n'.

George Spiggott wrote:Because in Soviet Russia weapons, ammunition and me magically fly to the front line.

Assuming that they were only trucks and locomotives available. Assuming that no alternate means of trucks and locomotives would have been possible. Assuming that you apply a modern view of logistics and ignore how much of the supply lines on the Eastern front relied on horse and cart.

I don't know why we'd assume any of that, though, unless we were trying to vastly overstate the importance of Lend Lease. Instead we're probably better off looking at the raw figures, where about 25% of Lend Lease was given to the Russians, and because it was such a small amount it was focussed on a specific area where the US had comparative advantage (US trucks were excellent), allowing the Russians to focus on everything else.

Military production during WW2

Military trucks
United States = 2,382,311
Canada = 815,729
United Kingdom = 480,943
Germany = 345,914
Soviet Union = 197,100
Japan = 165,945
Italy = 83,000


Tanks and self-propelled guns
Soviet Union = 105,251
United States = 88,410
Germany = 67,429
United Kingdom = 27,896
Canada = 5,678
Japan = 2,515
Italy = 2,473

These figures are not reliable, as other figures on Wikipedia contradict them, showing German production to be only about 50,000 units.

It gives an idea of the relative importance of transport vehicles compared with fighting vehicles in war.

According to this site, http://www.o5m6.de/

the Soviet Union received some 450,000 vehicles (trucks, jeeps, tractors, tanks, armoured cars etc.) from their allies (U.S.A., Great Britain, Canada) in World War 2 as well.

If this is true we might assume that the Soviet Union was allowed to concentrate on producing tanks because it received large numbers of transport vehicles from the western allies.

Lend Lease
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth.

These figures are from Wikipedia.

Russia received a gak ton Studebaker US6 trucks that were used for towing artillery and serve as the base for the Katyusha.