Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated?

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I haven't posted any comments on this issue until now.

I don't think that a Russian surrender was ever likely, but a temporary ceasefire may have been possible. All this talk about a Russian surrender is a gross westernized misunderstanding of how the Russians think. The deeper you penetrated Russia, the more intractable their psyche becomes, the Russians would never have surrendered, although they would have sort a temporary ceasefire. Moreover the ground east of Gorki rapidly descends into dense swampy forests, almost totally devoid of roads, and completely unsuited to a war of maneuver.

Admittedly the capture of Leningrad, Moscow, the Caucasus and Stalingrad would deal a heavy blow, but instead of fighting with an average of 600 Divisions, they would fight with 300. The eastern front would scale down in importance, but would never quieten down. Moreover, in 1941, the British had promised to intervene on the ground with British troops on the eastern front. The Americans would also have committed to a united effort on the eastern front, with surplus Lend lease (now that the Russians were only half as strong as they were historically, being poured into India, to raise an additional 70 or so Divisions from the subcontinent. This had been envisaged, but never implemented because of equipment shortages, and because these troops were never needed. The most obvious place where these troops would be used would be on the southern front in the Caucasus. Along with the fully implemented Marshal Mobilization plan, which envisaged a full 200 divs taking to the field by 1943 (albeit not completely trained), and assuming that a quid pro quo somewhere exists, that probably would see less shipping in the pacific (and no counteroffensive) so that more can be poured into the ETO, I think a wavering Russia spells big trouble for Germany.

As for this notion that oil would be enhanced, and that Luftwaffe training could be moved east, thats a complete pipe dream. With the front line moved approximately 1000 kms further east than it reached historically, the German logistics system would have been in total melt down. They lacked the rolling stock to keep the armies in their historical positions, what lesser chance would they have if the front was even further from home. As for the economic resources of the occupied territories, well this too was never able to be exploited, again because of the breakdown in the German supply systems. The only hope for Germany was to secure a negotiated settlement with the Russians. The distances and the terrain, along with the Russian attitudes would ensure that outright surrender was never going to happen.....

Parsifal, I completely agree with your post, and it's the most sensible one I've seen in this thread. I've composed nearly identical posts twice now, then decided not to post them. Glad to see you took the plunge!

regards
Claidemore

[Erich]

just to get back to a request on the previous page.

the LW was flying Bf 109G-6's no souped up models until 44. Fw 190A-5's and A-6's some of them with experimental short lived 2cm in underwing waffenpods which just added weight ....pretty much dogmeat in an aerial duel with 38's and 47's though they did knock the 4 engine heavies for a fact.

[kool kitty89]

Maybe this thread isn't the right place for this, but:
What if the Axis had foregone the Battle of Britain and gone straight to Russia in 1940?
Ramp up millitary production and try to delay further conflict with the west for as long as posible. Don't declare war on Brittain, and after the Pearl Harbor attack break ties with Japan. (or possibly declare war on Japan, which would certainly confuse things for the allies)

[freebird]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I haven't posted any comments on this issue until now.

I don't think that a Russian surrender was ever likely, but a temporary ceasefire may have been possible. All this talk about a Russian surrender is a gross westernized misunderstanding of how the Russians think. The deeper you penetrated Russia, the more intractable their psyche becomes, the Russians would never have surrendered, although they would have sort a temporary ceasefire. Moreover the ground east of Gorki rapidly descends into dense swampy forests, almost totally devoid of roads, and completely unsuited to a war of maneuver.

Parsifal this does not contemplate a Russian "surrender", but if the Germans are able to capture a large number of Russian divisions and more imortantly the factories & supply lines, the Soviet ability to coordinate and organize attacks breaks down. The Eastern front would more likely turn in to a low-intensity partisan struggle.

Remember that the original question was based on the assumption that the Axis sub offensive has been successful in cutting off Russia & collapsing the British position in the Middle East & Indian Ocean.

Originally Posted by parsifal

Admittedly the capture of Leningrad, Moscow, the Caucasus and Stalingrad would deal a heavy blow, but instead of fighting with an average of 600 Divisions, they would fight with 300. The eastern front would scale down in importance, but would never quieten down.

Agreed, the Germans would still need large #'s of troops in the east, but with much less need for aircraft. If the Germans are really smart they will recruit the large number of anti-Soviet populace in the Ukraine & Eastern Europe to help eliminate the partisan threat.

Originally Posted by parsifal

Moreover, in 1941, the British had promised to intervene on the ground with British troops on the eastern front. The Americans would also have committed to a united effort on the eastern front, with surplus Lend lease (now that the Russians were only half as strong as they were historically, being poured into India, to raise an additional 70 or so Divisions from the subcontinent. This had been envisaged, but never implemented because of equipment shortages, and because these troops were never needed. The most obvious place where these troops would be used would be on the southern front in the Caucasus.

Ok first, the Allies cannot pour anything into India, with all available ships used to supply the UK, Australia, Hawaii & other vital bases. Once the Axis subs cut off the "Cape" route, there is no lend lease via Persia, no supplies to Egypt, Burma or India. The whole Indian Ocean position becomes untenable. If there were equipment shortages historically, how could they possibly raise an army with NO EQUIPMENT delivered? Also with the weakening British strength in India the INA becomes a serious consideration.

In the historical model the US was fully engaged in the build up in the Pacific & for "Torch", while the available shipping allowed the UK to send only ONE division per month to the Indian Ocean, barely enough to replace losses. Now how would they do with less than half that amount of shipping?

Originally Posted by parsifal

The only hope for Germany was to secure a negotiated settlement with the Russians. The distances and the terrain, along with the Russian attitudes would ensure that outright surrender was never going to happen.....

Or by eliminating the Russian ability to wage war, the Eastern front devolves into a large Partisan struggle.


Some points to remember:

1.) The question supposes that the Axis wage a far more aggressive submarine action, and that the Japanese cut off the Soviet Pacific ports, which supplied about 30% of lend-lease.

2.) The Axis cutting off of the "Cape" route not only isolates the UK forces in Egypt, India & Malaysia, but obviously also interrupts the lend-lease via Persia.

3.) Churchill stops lend-lease to Russia via the Arctic in 1942 when heavy shipping losses make it untenable. An aggressive sub campaign right from the start would bring this halt of the "Murmansk" convoys forward to the beginning of 1942, effectivly isolating Russia.

considering the vast amount of vital supplies sent to Russia, including tanks, aircraft, trucks, rubber, food, locomotives, avgas, railcars, ammunition, this elimination of "Lend-Lease" could not fail to have a dramatic effect.

4.) It was the success of the commonwealth "Desert army" and "Torch" that caused the Axis to send some ~250,000 troops to North Africa/Sicily in the fall of 1942, if the Allies have been forced from the Middle East due to cutting of the supply line, there would be no Lightfoot/Supercharge to begin with. Without a British threat in the Med, the Axis could deploy 150,000 - 200,000 more troops in the East.

[Lucky13]

How would this affect the Eastern Front in the south, with Romanian's and Hungarian's etc. fighting...? I guess that they'd move a fair bit into the country as well, or?

[parsifal]

Parsifal this does not contemplate a Russian "surrender", but if the Germans are able to capture a large number of Russian divisions and more importantly the factories & supply lines, the Soviet ability to coordinate and organize attacks breaks down. The Eastern front would more likely turn in to a low-intensity partisan struggle.

Hi Freebird

I know this looks a bit like an about face from the discussion about the Km attacking allied shipping, but the situations are in fact fundamentally different. I firmly believe that Merchant shipping was the glue that held the allied efforts together, without it, nothing is possible, with it, many alternatives to the way the allies project their power is entirely plausible, including a massive involvement on th Eastern Front.

What you are saying is just not plausible to me. The Germans were not able to capture more than about 16% of available factory space during the 1941-42 offensives, although the total amount of factory space lost and/or damaged exceeded 30% (according to overy). Provided allied Sealift capacity is not compromised, (and thats the big "if"), the Soviets are not going to break down in the manner you describe. They would keep on fighting, in the same manner that the British and the dominions would keep fighting even of the British Isles had been invaded. This is where I disagree with your theory. you are assuming a lessening of effort on the Eastern front, but i think that were there to be significantly greater advances on the eastern front by the Germans, the Allies would have intervened, as they had pledged to do in 1941 and 1942. In 1941 Churchill had promised to commit the British army to the eastern front (even though it was not completely ready, and would have suffered acute problems of its own. In 1942 there were the Bolero plans (the cross channel invasion, in the event that a Russian collapse was imminent, however it is just as plausible, indeed more likely that Allied forces would deploy directly to the eastern Front if the collapse was as bad as you suggest. Lastly there were plans to arm the Indian army to a much greater extent than historical (which was 35 Divs anyway) to the point of creating a new army of about 70 Divs.

All this depends on the allied shipping reserves being held intact. without it, they can do none of this. with it, it doesn't matter if one of the grand alliance member falters, others can go to his aid, and protect him until he recovers. And the Russians absolutely would not lessen their ferocity, it would actually increase, just the numbers would go down. The Germans would be suffering additional problems, however. the further they ventured from their supply bases, the worse it gets.

Remember that the original question was based on the assumption that the Axis sub offensive has been successful in cutting off Russia & collapsing the British position in the Middle East & Indian Ocean.

Well then it is a no brainer.....what you are saying is that if the Germans manage to defeat the allies and the Russians, can they win????.....well...yes

From that point the discussion becomes a bit silly. What you have to assume in this kind of hypothetical is a quid pro Quo of some sort. Granted that I believe the axis could make a big hole in the available MS fleet, but if there was an emergency on the eastern front as well, then the allies and the Soviets were defeated. I dint believe this was achievable for the axis. if they did well, or better than historical in one area, there is likely to be a counterbalancing effect somewhere else. I believe that a re-ordering of priorities in the U-Boat war may have achieved a negotiated settlement for Germany, but never thought it likely that complete defeat could be achieved through them.

[Erich]

well the LW and the KM needed to organize an offensive campaign together which they never did and because of it both failed miserably on all fronts. had they been able to entrap those Soviet shipping forces and cut off the lanes altogether with Murmansk as the base then who knows what may have happened to choke off the life blood of the country from the outside

[freebird]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I firmly believe that Merchant shipping was the glue that held the allied efforts together, without it, nothing is possible, with it, many alternatives to the way the allies project their power is entirely plausible.

All this depends on the allied shipping reserves being held intact. without it, they can do none of this.

I agree 100%. Problem is, in 1942 the Allies have no "Shipping Reserve", after Pearl the situation goes from strained to critical.

Just to keep the threads on-topic Parsifal, I will reply to the "shipping & U-boat" questions on the "KM & IJN" thread, and open an new thread on Russia & China's survivability with a drastic reduction or elimination of Western aid, and also possible Allied intervention in a collapsing Soviet situation.

Originally Posted by parsifal

Well then it is a no brainer.....what you are saying is that if the Germans manage to defeat the allies and the Russians, can they win????.....well...yes

The questions I wanted to explore in this thread:

How much would the German fighter strength have to be increased in spring 1943 to achieve a balance of power with the US/UK?

If the LW had an extra 400 fighters in the West would it make a difference?

I'm trying to figure out what types & what numbers each side had in the ETO at this time, and who generally had the superior aircraft?

Were the early model P-38's equal to the FW? Were there enough of them in the ETO?

How did the P-47C or D compare to the Me109G?

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The P-47 was a very good match for the 109 or even FW 190. It could absorb a lot of rounds and shells and still keep going. It's climb wasn't as good as the 109 but it had an excellent dive. It had a powerful engine, and could sustain fast manuevers except maybe at low altitudes.

As far as I know, the P-47's were never slaughtered by the enemy the way a P-40 or P-39 might have been.

[Erich]

why was the P-38 replaced by the jug and the Stang, you have to ask yourself that question ........... range ? you are also standing up against earlier variants of the 109 and Fw were not really top notch in the fighter role until 44, so it appears as an even keel to me.

Granted without the contention of the Soviets to the east there will be several more Geschwaders training up in Reich defense so at least this will give the LW the numbers increase but still not an overwhelming air superiority

[Lucky13]

Another question fellas....if they'd have "beaten" the Russians, would they have had finished their carriers if things were going well for them on the Eastern Front? If so, how would that have affected the war on the Atlantic?

[Kruska]

IMO three main factors would out rule any “if” possibility of Russia being knocked out of the war in order for Nazi Germany to recuperate against an allied western front, be it on land, sea or in the air.

1. Nazi Germany was not ready for war at all in 1939-40 – The industrial resources were not targeted primarily towards military production, which makes an ongoing war based on attrition impossible – such as history has proven it.

2. Hitler grossly underestimated the Russian military strength and its human and material resources in regards to quantity and quality, not to mention the huge support in regards to material by the USA and its allies, or even Russia’s leading military technology or assets in certain fields such as the T-34 amongst many others.

3. Hitler’s racial abnormalities forbid him to take advantage of human resources in the “Liberated from Stalin” territories in order to refill the ranks of the Wehrmacht.

Even “if” despite all these above mentioned factors Hitler could have squeezed Stalin into an armistice, Germanys industry was never and could never have been a match towards the US and its allies. Its technological lead in regards to jets would have been short-lived and insufficient to actually prevent the allies from gaining the air superiority.

I do believe Germany itself could have had a realistic chance to win against Russia and England.
However without Hitler, Germany would have never gone to war, but history brought in Hitler and as such the whole possibility became a 12 year dream that ended in disaster.

Regards
Kruska

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

The P-47 was a very good match for the 109 or even FW 190. It could absorb a lot of rounds and shells and still keep going. It's climb wasn't as good as the 109 but it had an excellent dive. It had a powerful engine, and could sustain fast manuevers except maybe at low altitudes.

As far as I know, the P-47's were never slaughtered by the enemy the way a P-40 or P-39 might have been.

Was this the P-47 "D"?

Originally Posted by Erich

why was the P-38 replaced by the jug and the Stang, you have to ask yourself that question ........... range ? you are also standing up against earlier variants of the 109 and Fw were not really top notch in the fighter role until 44, so it appears as an even keel to me.

Granted without the contention of the Soviets to the east there will be several more Geschwaders training up in Reich defense so at least this will give the LW the numbers increase but still not an overwhelming air superiority

The German FW & Me109 could out-turn all of the Allied fighters in '43 correct?

The US fighters were heavier, more firepower & could take more punishment?

[Lucky13]

Also, with some of the aces form the eastern front fighting over the channel, France etc. with the Luftwaffe pilots having TWO years of war experience over the US pilots, shouldn't that also count for something? With the lull on the eastern front, I'm sure that they'd put some of these to train new fresh pilots...I mean, some of the BIG guns, that were killed later in the war on the eastern front would still be alive and well....
This would give them a better chance to school new fighter pilots, right?
With more well trained pilots up in the air, this must be a pain in the neck...

[mad_max]

Above 19-20k and over 250 MPH the P-47 was a real handful for the Luftwaffe planes of the time. Under 18k and under 250 MPH both the 109G and 190A had the upper hand. Esp. before water injection and high activity propeller were available on the Jug.

Disclaimer: Only things I've read and could be BS.