Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[a1s]

I'm not sure if they'd have been able to beat them, but I think they'd have been successful in at least defending Russia.

That's a win for the USSR. The simple truth is that they had more men for the grinder, Soviets (who had 200'000'000 people, most of them young, half of them men) could (and would too, Stalin was heartless and his generals preferred to keep their skins rather than their troops') lose 2 men to 1 from Germany (who had 80'000'000 people older on average, but for some reason more young men than women, though only by about 2-5%) and still win the war of attrition. Germany's one chance was a metaphorical groin kick- scare Soviets into an early peace, securing oil and grain as well as making sure Soviets don't backstab them until they're ready.

It's all about tanks, guys.
Tanks are nice and warm.
I would like to have a tank.
A nice, warm tank.
Tanks.

You know who did have tanks? The Soviets. It's true. 20'000 armored vehicles, most of them outdated, but at least 4000 "modern" tanks, including first shipments of the semi-legendary T-34s (err... hard to say, but 1600 of KV-1 and T-34 combined according to Wikipedia). This is compared to 3.2k of Total German tanks (only about a thousands of which had any chance of breaking a KV's armor even at close range.) However it turns out all the wiseguys who knew how to command tank divisions were in Gulag after a recent purge, so... yeah.

[Erkki]

But, the majority of USSR's production and population was well West of the Urals. I don't know how much the Axis managed to capture, but I'd guess that with historical areas(including the ones secured in 1942) + Moscow and Leningrad, that would have a significant percentage. Its impossible to just move factories and people a long distance and not lose in productivity for a long time, even if it had been logistically possible to withdraw everything. Soviets could have withdrawn all the way to Siberia, but would have been done for. I dont think there would have been reason for Germany to capture Siberia either, at least not other than for land connection with the Japanese, but I believe Adolf had fantasies about conquering the middle east and advancing into India.

[mainiac]

1) Soviet Union couldn't just keep feeding men into the grinder.  They already took enough men from the fields to produce a famine in '46.  Take enough men and the country collapses due to famine and can't keep up the war effort.  As it is they would have been in big trouble without imports letting them displace entire war industries like aluminum and locomotives.
Germany wasn't great in terms of agricultural efficiency, they had lagged on mechanization, unsurprisingly since they didn't have the vast oil wealth of the soviet union.  But they had room to offset by getting women to tend the farms and using crimes against humanity to sustain industrial production.  While the population of Western Europe was going to suffer from Germany appropriating anything that wasn't nailed down, the Soviet population would have starved long before Germany started to feel hunger.

2) The Germans had a bigger population then 80 million to draw on.  Romania alone supplied enough troops to more then offset a years losess on the eastern front.  Italian losses outside of Italy were more then a years losses on the eastern front.
And the Soviets didn't have 200 million men they could actually draw from.  Defending Russia from 500 miles in friendly territory meant that almost half the population of the country was in occupied territory.  The Soviets evacuated young men to an extent but couldn't get everyone.  The Soviets desperately needed the offensives of '43 and '44 because that gave them access to new populations to recruit.  But those offensives couldn't have been launched if the Soviets didn't have the upper hand first.

You know who did have tanks? The Soviets. It's true. 20'000 armored vehicles, most of them outdated, but at least 4000 "modern" tanks,

Outdated doesn't begin to describe it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26 <- not even their oldest common tank but the most common one they had
A typical German fighting recon vehicle had better armor and bigger guns then more then half the Soviet tank arsenal.  It's just a semantics thing, you arbitrarily decide this thing is a "tank" while this this is a "fighting recon vehicle"

The BT series would be of some use but by WWII the abundance of regimental direct and indirect fire artillery meant that they were far less useful then when they were built.  In term of medium/heavy tanks that could actually make it to the front, the Germans had the advantage.

[a1s]

1) Soviet Union couldn't just keep feeding men into the grinder.  They already took enough men from the fields to produce a famine in '46.  Take enough men and the country collapses due to famine and can't keep up the war effort.  As it is they would have been in big trouble without imports letting them displace entire war industries like aluminum and locomotives.

Less men= less farmers required, it's positive feedback. And while neither country had trouble with the old, young and disabled, unlike the Germans, Soviets also had no trouble throwing women into the same grinder. In general, if you have to ask "would Stalin stop at this?" the answer is always "no".

2) The Germans had a bigger population then 80 million to draw on.  Romania alone supplied enough troops to more then offset a years losess on the eastern front. 

Romania had about 14 million people to draw on. Assuming the losses are 2:1, that's still a drop in the bucket.

And the Soviets didn't have 200 million men they could actually draw from.  Defending Russia from 500 miles in friendly territory meant that almost half the population of the country was in occupied territory.  The Soviets evacuated young men to an extent but couldn't get everyone.

Not everyone, but neither was it half. let's meet in the middle and say 150 million warm bodies.

The Soviets desperately needed the offensives of '43 and '44 because that gave them access to new populations to recruit.  But those offensives couldn't have been launched if the Soviets didn't have the upper hand first.

Yes. And getting the upper hand against Germany meant playing the waiting game. Germany might have siezed stores of food, but it was operating in the red on everything. It's supply of fuel were decreasing, it's supply of metals and rare earths was decreasing, it's supply of goodwill with the occupied people was decreasing (by 1945 many areas would be pissed enough to be in open revolt. Deliberately hastening the advent of Soviet occupation. Can you guess how pissed off you have to be to welcome that?), it's supply of food was decreasing. And it's supply if meat for the grinder was decreasing too.

Outdated doesn't begin to describe it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26 <- not even their oldest common tank but the most common one they had.

You confuse 2 concepts. Soviets didn't have less good tanks, they had overwhelmingly many tanks of varying quality. And yes, most of them were garbage, but event a single T-26 will cause problems to an infantry squad. And soviets had 20'000 of them. compared to about 3.5 thousand armored fighting vehicles that Germans had. Entirely aside from their vast array of old tanks, they had about 1:1 parity in medium tanks (depending on definitions) and a superiority in heavy ones. Let's be honest, NO German tank was heavy in 1941. Not one. It would be another year before Tigers would start arriving, and almost 2 years for Panthers. The best Germany could do was captured KV tanks, the same ones you so easily discount.

[mainiac]

Less men= less farmers required, it's positive feedback

This is a pre-mechanized sustenance agriculture society.  80% provided basics like food while 20% were shifted to the cities.  Killing off the young men meant killing off the people who do the very, very difficult work in the field.

Not everyone, but neither was it half. let's meet in the middle and say 150 million warm bodies.

No, it was half.  History doesn't work where you split the difference between what actually happened and nothing.  What actually happened was the occupied territory held half the population.  You are talking about the entire Ukraine, the populated areas of western Russia, the Baltics.  It was only through large movements of population that half the population stayed outside German control.

Romania had about 14 million people to draw on. Assuming the losses are 2:1, that's still a drop in the bucket.

14% is a drop in the bucket?

You confuse 2 concepts. Soviets didn't have less good tanks, they had overwhelmingly many tanks of varying quality.

I'm just pointing out that people hear the word "tank" and draw the wrong conclusion.

[a1s]

Not everyone, but neither was it half. let's meet in the middle and say 150 million warm bodies.

No, it was half.  History doesn't work where you split the difference between what actually happened and nothing.  What actually happened was the occupied territory held half the population.  You are talking about the entire Ukraine, the populated areas of western Russia, the Baltics.  It was only through large movements of population that half the population stayed outside German control.

Alright, let'strack down some data. It's oddly difficult to get concrete figures, but here. According to Zarubinsky, there were 61.3 million people on the occupied territory "in 1942", 32 of them in Ukarine. Thus 140 million left, closer to my estimate of 150 than yours of 100. (he said smugly.) The point is, there were a lot of them. About as many as the European Axis Nations combined. Which I guess undermines my 2:1 claim.

[mainiac]

And what month in 1942 was that?  To what extent are you counting the civilian deaths in occupied territory?