Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

Actually the battle is quite relevant the reason is it's effect On British attitudes post war since they realised how vulnerable Canada really was. The war also destroyed the power of the Indian Tribes in the old Mid-West which certainly wasn't in the British best interests.Also relevant during the war is the effect of the US privateers furthermore the British were quite reliant on US food supplies for their army in Spain. Further down the road Secreatary of State Seward during the ACW was able to flip the Trent Affair against the British somewhat bringing up policies they instituted during the War of 1812.

 

Thank you for that input on whether the Allies could win without the USSR :eh:

 

I understand you would like to have the last word and thats fine, you got it. But please no more, as I do not want to high jack this thread... If you would like to continue, feel free to start a new thread and I will contribute.

 

No problem guys,your right this thread got hijacked somehow. I take a good part of the blame . I think it got started by somebody saying the US was poor at wars and I reponded by bringing up some embarrasment suffered by other nations. Sorry about that.
Slonikip you did praise US abilities in an earlier post so there's really no dispute with you.

 

I suggest you read a bit more American history; the battle of New Orleans was far from irrelevant. It convinced Britain of the wisdom of cooperating with the United States rather than trying to oppose it. The results of the battle bore fruit, and probably prevented another war, for the United States in the later conflict with Britain over the boundaries of the Oregon territory.

 

Value of the war effort in terms of munitions:

I have studied the data on Harris article "Resource mobilization for WW2: the USA, UK, USSR and Germany,, 1938-1945". From these data I have computed the "value" of the war effort in terms of munitions equivalent (i.e: if the manpower employed in the armed forces were employed in production of weapons, how much the value of the weapons would be, plus the value of weapons).

Value of the War effort of the belligerent countries in terms of total population employed for war and total munitions production, in terms of munition equivalent, in US$1944 dollars for the year 1943 (the year that determined the outcome of the war):

Germany - $ 35.75 billions , % working population employed for the war effort: % 37.6 (quite a few!)
US - $ 70.8 billions, % * * * * : % 35.4
UK - $ 21.67 billions, % * * * * : % 45.3
USSR - $ 24.39 billions, % * * * * : % 54 ( )

With the USSR and assuming the the US employs 2/3 of their war effort on the European front, the allied have: $ 93.27 billion vs $ 35.75 billion for germany, a ratio of 2.61 to 1.

Without the USSR: $ 68.4 billion vs $ 35.75 billion, a ratio of 1.91 to 1. So? The odds are considerably more favourable. Anyway, that doesn't measure the fact the historically the USSR swallowed most of the german war effort, leaving for the western allied about 1/3 of the german war effort, or: $ 68.4 billion vs $ 11.8 billion, a ratio of 5.8 to 1, assuming that the value of the war effort remained constant in 1944 (in fact it varied less than 10% second to Goldsmith estimates).

So what I am saying is that the ratio decreases from 5.8 to 1 to 1.91 to 1, a increase in the odds of about 3.03 times for the nazis!!

Conclusion: Without the soviet effort the possibilities of allied victory in europe (i.e.: germany occupied) would become significantly smaller than historicaly. If the allies win, them victory would come at a much greater cost and would take much more time, also, the decrease in materiel superiority would imply in a increase of casualties, since the western powers would have to substitute blood for materiel. Assuming that the US or Britain doesn't develop a nuclear arsenal of great size to influence the outcome.

extra:
Total hypothetical potential for the war effort (i.e.: if the total population were employed in the war effort):

Germany - $ 95.08 billions
US - $ 200 billions (that was roughly the national income that year, my numbers fits good, doesnt it?)
UK - $ 47.84 billions
USSR - $ 45.2 billions

Note that Germany couldn't divert a proportion of the population to the war effort as large as the Soviet Union because the soviets could import food and did implement strict rationing of food, while Germany needed to produce almost all the food consumed domestically.

 

Your math is faulty here, the allies without the Soviets is 92.47, not 64.8 billions. 70.8 + 21.67= 92.47. That changes everything a tad does it not? Or are you using the "new math"?

So what I am saying is that the ratio decreases from 5.8 to 1 to 1.91 to 1, a increase in the odds of about 3.03 times for the nazis!!

This either based on false data, or mis-interpreted data from your own source. And of course removing the atomics is "pie in the sky" since both the UK and US began work on the "device" before Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor Naval base. Removing the Soviets from the equasion doesn't alter that historical reality in the least.

 

The greatest proportion of individual descent is german, so what? That doesn't mean much.

The franco-prussian war represented a war of scale and risk that the US never undertook. For comparison, the largest war that the US had ever faced in proportion to the forces directed against them was the civil war, were the 26 million people of the union faced 9 million of the south, 3 to 1 odds, nothing very difficult to win.

That made their industrial capacity.

Britain was number 3 since 1900, when Germany became number 2.

By 1913 Germany produced 18.7 million tons of steel while Britain produced only 9.5 million tons (and the US produced 31.5 million tons).

The huns? Well, they weren't nothing special, only a barbarian tribe that .

In fact, even in 1944, men per men, the Wehrmacht was still way superior. For example, in the eastern front they inflicted 6.5 million causalties on the USSR and lost 2 million. They destroyed 24.000 tanks and lost 8.500, destroyed 25.000 planes and lost 9.000.

Whyle in Italy, from 1943 to 1945, the wehrmacht lost 55.000 KIA, versus 90.000 for the british and 35.000 for other allies, trading at about 2.3 to 1.

German infantry divisions were 40% motorized, with 800 vehicles, while British and US infantry divisions had 2.000 vehicles. Overall, in June 1944 Germany had 1.3 million motor vehicles in the armed forces and 350.000 trucks, while the allied landed about 450.000 motor vehicles in france from june to september.

Gemany had 60 fully motorized divisions in 1944, and enought vehicles to turn its 350 divisions into about 200 fully motorized. While the British/American invaders had 95 divisions (fully motorized) in europe in June 1945.

The western airforces inflicted 65% of luftwaffe casualties in 1944, but in 1943, 1942 and 1941 the soviets inflicted the vast majority of the luftwaffe's casualties.

All right, my first argument was not well formulated? Why?

 

Read with patience, as I said, I assumed that the US devoted 2/3 of their war effort to the european front, not 1/1!

 

I read it with both patience and attempting to understand where you are going. It just doesn't add up the way you choose it too. I'm sorry I just disagree with your interpretation of events and economic spending, and throwing out the atomics is ludicrous. They were the second most expensive weapons system developed by the west, and America specifically.

That device was going to happen, and must be included in the numbers. Putting it and the B-29 into the total, and then removing them from the effect on the outcome of the war won't fly.

 

1- Well, at least you understand now from where the 68 billion came from?

2- I didn't include out the B-29, and in fact, it would not represent any great gain for the allies. In fact, for the allies to win, they have to land at least 400 divisions in europe, that's the real deal.

3- 1 or 2 atom bombs won't make it, you need dozens to significantly affect the outcome of the war because each atom bomb had only a few dozen kilotons of explosive power.

4- With the 250 billion RM spent on the eastern front I think that germany could have as well develop the atom bomb, don't you think? In that case a cold war is the possibility.

In fact, I think that if Germany didn't attack the USSR and didn't bomb london and destroyed its shipping, but stayed cool, them a cold war would develop, like the historical events.

 

Let us assume that is correct. They lost and were beaten so how does this higher casualty rate make them 'better'?
Oh and you left out one area where the Germans were way ahead of anyone else. The kill ratio for civilians is a very high, some 1000:1 in the German favour. They certainly were the best at that.

What planet are you on?

353 Inf. Division France 1944.
142 Motorcycles.
573 Motor Vehicles
4500 Horses.

363 Inf Div.

2 Fallschirmjager Div.

should have 300 cars and 1200 trucks. Actualy had 20 cars and 60 trucks.


3 Fallschirmjager Div.
only 40% of its allocated Vehicles.

5 Fallschirmjager Div.

only 9% of its allocated Vehicles.

265 Inf. Div
188 Motor Vehicles 2380 Horses.

271 Inf. Div

188 motor cycles
158 cars
158 trucks
38 prime movers
4500 horses.

272 Inf. Div
177 motor cycles
105 cars
136 trucks
71 prime movers
4300 horses.


277 Inf. Div
173 motor cycles
111 cars
230 trucks
36 prime movers
4600 horses.


343 Inf. Div
86 motor cycles
176 trucks
1200 horses.

Do I have to go on?

Look gain at the losses.


Luftwaffe Losses (WF/EF):

1942
1-engine fighter 536/707
2-engine fighter 61/178
nightfighter 83/0
ground attack 169/457
bombers 690/957
total 1,539/2,299

1943
1-engine fighter 2,359/1,135
2-engine fighter 182/132
nightfighter 274/23
ground attack 518/905
bombers 1,164/3,128
total 4,497/3,128

1944
1-engine fighter 6,818/972
2-engine fighter 275/185
nightfighter 1,063/94
ground attack 345/1,237
bombers 1,217/425
total 9,718/2,913

That is 15754 losses in the West and 8340 in the East. Overall 65% of the 42-44 losses were in the West.
For 42-43 it was 53% West-47% East.

 

Wow, I was away for 2 weeks and missed such a good discussion.

I think the answer lies in what Stalin is doing during this European conflict?
If Stalin supports Germany with raw material then most of Europe will bow to Germany for a very long time.
If Stalin is neutral toward Europe, where does he go? Middle East, India, China?

What if USSR was part of the Axis? In 1941 Russia made some minor diplomatic moves to inquire about that possibility.

This definitely belongs in (What If) because Russia and Germany were bound to fight it out. Without Ivan’s help, it is my opinion that the West could not have won in 10-15 years.

 

It's not necessarily true that any landing on the continent of Europe would be required. The Allies could destroy any Axis positions outside of Europe and then bomb Germany into submission. This would be especially true if the Allies develop the atomic bomb. The Wehrmacht was Germany's most effective arm, but it was also the one that could not be employed outside of the continent. The Allies would therefore seek ways to blockade and destroy German without confronting the Germany Army; just like they did to Japan.

What makes you think the US had only "one or two atomic bombs" in mid-1945?

In fact, the US was capable in August, 1945, of producing one atomic bomb every 10 days for an appreciable period of time. By 1946, there would have been a veritable atomic bomb production line capable of mass producing atomic bombs.

As for the atomic bomb being only a few kilotons of explosive, it's still possible to destroy an entire city with one in 1945. It would have been impossible, over the long term, for Germany to access any raw materials or grow or transport any food. It would literally be a choice for Germany of surrendering or starving.

Well, you think wrong. Germany had no source of fissionable material sufficient to build even one atomic bomb. Neither did the Soviet Union and that is why it took the Soviets four years to scrape together a bomb, even though they had the plans for one in 1945. And nobody was bombing the hell out of the Soviets during those four years either.

Possibly, but hot or cold, it's a war they would certainly lose eventually.

 

Does this have any value at all? Inaddition it looks to me like if you asked 12 people to calculate the above you would come up with at least a dozen different numbers some quite far from each other.

 

Depending on how you define "German" you might be correct. It doesn't mean much agreed but it means as much or more than your comments about Europeans being better at war.

The scale of the ACW dwarfed that of the Franco-Prussian war. If you think numbers tell the entire story then it shows how little you know of military history.

Except when it wasn't. In any case I think you'll find for most if not all this period the British Commonwealth surpassed Germany.

Well since they brought the Roman Empire to their knees that sort of suggest the Romans weren't that great as well doesn't it? Or that you are way off base.

That depends very much on what you consider superior. Defenders normally inflict more losses than they take unless they rout. Of coure if you include all losses then at least in the West even that "superiority" vanishes.

Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? The allies landed the equivalant of ~1/3 the total German vehicle park in 4 months yet Germany could only motorize a bit more than 2x the number of divisions. Could it be that you are taling authorized numbers for the German vehicles? and are you taking capacity into account? What about outside the divisions?

take a look at:
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

How do you figure this?

Take a look at the following and consider the implications.
Manhattan Project Costs

I can't find the quote right now but I remember seeing something to the effect that the electrical power budget for the Manhatten project was greater than the German power grid produced.

 

Lets take a closer look at the truck situation using the following reference:
Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It states:
That Germany built Germany = "345,914 military trucks". Interesting that it's somewhat less than the 350,000 you quote Germany as having. But even more interesting are the allied military truck produciton: "United States = 2,382,311, Canada = 815,729, and United Kingdom = 480,943 "
Note that Canada alone produced almost 3 times the number of trucks the Germans did. The situtation for Germany is even worse as the allies had pretty well standardized there miliatary trucks while Germany had a mis mash from various companies and "may" have reached the number you suggested by requisitioning civilian and foreign vehicles which in general would not have the parts availiabity or the desgin features desireable for a miliatary vehicle.

 

Well said, this happens to be a subject "close to my heart". And yes the deuce and a half was the main supply truck chassis of the "allies. That query also exposes another "flaw" in the Nazi war machine.

Too many different things doing the same job. Here is a partial list of the German trucks available to the Nazis from 1933 on: Adler, AEG, Afa, Audi, Bergmann, Bergmann-Metallurgique, Bleichert, BMW, Borgward, Brennabor, Breuer, Büssing-NAG, Daimler-Benz (Mercedes-Benz), Demag, Deuliewag, Deutz, DKW, Esslingen, Famo, FAUN, Ford, Framo, Freund, Fuchs, Goliath, Hagedorn, Hamor, Hanomag, Hanno (Hoffmann), Henschel, Horch, Kaelble, Klöckner-Deutz (KHD), Kramer, Kraus-Maffei, Krupp, Lanz, Magirus (Klöckner-Deutz), MAN, Manderbach, Maschinenbau Lüneburg, MIAG, Neander, Normag, NSU, O&K, Opel (GM), Ostner (OD), Phänomen, Primus, Renger, Sachsenberg, Saurer, Schlüter, Stoewer, Talbot (former Goosens), Tempo, Trippel, VW (Volkswagen, KdF), Vögele, Vomag, Wanderer, Zettelmeyer, Ziel-Abegg, and Zündapp.

Which of these companies continued to build cargo trucks in any number is unknown to myself, but I would suppose that the larger companies would have continued to build them, even if at a reduced rate. I know that Adler, Borgward, Daimler-Benz, Ford Werke AG, MAN, and Vomag built quite a few. Most of them were 4X2 or 4X4 trucks of two ton capacity and less. There were some 6X6 trucks in two ton + size, but only a few were made before the war by Benz. The Nazis also incorporated into their "auto park" trucks from occupied nations, including these Austrian trucks: Austro-FIAT, Austro-Daimler, Fross-Büssing, Gräf & Stift, ÖAF, Perl, Saurer, and Steyr-Puch. These Czechoslovakian trucks: Jawa, Praga, Skoda, Tatra, and Walter. Not sure about the Hungarian trucks, but since their numbers were few it probably would not matter.

The Nazis also absorbed and used both Belgian Ford and French truck transport into their service, but I cannot find a decent list for those trucks. I would guess that Citroen, Peugeot, and Renault were the most numerous French units. I have no idea what they did with the Polish trucks, or if they even restarted the companies to build them. One of them would have made sense (sort of) since it was a FIAT plant built for the Polish government by Italian FIAT. Speaking of Italy, their other main partner on the European continent, Italy produced these trucks of their own: Alfa-Romeo, Benelli, Bianchi, Breda, Ceirano, FIAT, Frera, Motomanuali, Gilera, Isotta-Fraschini, Lancia, Moto Guzzi, and Spa. I have no idea how many if any were used by the Nazis until after the collapse of Mussolini's government. But a quick look at the sheer number of different models exposes a MAJOR flaw in the transport of goods for the Nazis. No parts commonality.

Now, the Axis partners of Japan also made a great variety of trucks for their armed forces, but only these Japanese trucks are listed. I also do not know how many went to each branch of the armed forces, or even how many were produced of what capacity: Chiyoda, Daihatsu, Hino, Ikegay, Isuzu, Kurogane, Mazda, Minsei, Mitsubishi, Nippon Diesel, Nissan, Nissha, Rokko, TGE, Toyota, and Tsukuba. Something really weird (as an aside) concerning Japanese Army vehicles (non-truck) was the most common motorcycle used by the IJA as a courier. Rikuo was a company set up to build Harley-Davidson motorcycles under license in Japan right after the big "Tokyo quake" in the mid twenties. They kept building H-D clones right up to the "45" (750 cc) V-twin, when their license was cancelled. American GIs were astounded to find what appeared to be Harleys laying around in camps after they occupied an area!

Now as far as the "allies" go, the US actually had the best idea, and implemented it to great effect. Just before the war production really got up and running full steam, the production of all different motorized vehicles for use by the US Army and Navy was standardized. In the truck department the Army would be supplied with the GM designed(CCKW, and DUKW) cargo trucks built by others as well as GM, smaller one ton 4X4 trucks for ambulance and "command car" applications would be built by Dodge/Chrysler. International would supply the Navy/Marines with their transport units, with the products of the two smaller plants of Studebaker and REO going to our overseas allies.

This was NOT a hard and fast rule, but a generally followed one since Britain also received Dodge, GM, and International trucks to supplement their own "park" which undoubtedly included the AEC Marshall, Albion, Austin, Bedford, Bradford, Bristol, Commer, Crossley, Daimler, Dennis, ERF, Foden, Ford, Fordson, Garner, Guy, Hillman, Humber, James, Jowett, Karrier, Leyland, Maudslay, Morris-Commercial, Nuffield, Reliant, Rolls-Royce, Scammel, Standard, Thornycroft, Trojan, Vauxhall, Vulcan, and Wolseley. I would doubt that the Brits continued truck production in many if any of those plants during the war years. I suppose that the Canadian truck production of the CMP style trucks were also was incorporated into the UK's truck forces, but since some of the others were off-shoots of GM, Ford and Chrysler, I do not know where to put them.

Ford (US) built mostly "jeeps (GP-W)" to be interchangeable with the Willys production, as well as Consolidated "Liberators" at Willow Run, and tanks and their engines. If they built many trucks over the 1/2 ton jeep size (GP-W) I cannot find a reference. BTW, GP does NOT mean General Purpose. It denotes carrying capacity and wheel base in the Ford nomenclature, half ton, eighty inch wheel base, government contract. Just like DUKW of "Duck" fame was a GM nomenclature, not an Army one.

The Soviets closed down or altered the production of all but two (I believe) of their in country plants. These were the GAZ factory at Gorky built by Henry Ford himself in the twenties, and the ZiS plant built by AutoCar. The ZiS plant became the main "assembly" spot for the Studebakers shipped as "parts" rather than as complete trucks. In this way a few "assembled" Studebakers could move a whole bunch of "un-assembled" trucks to an assembly center. Frames, engines, transmissions, axles, body-work, and tires would be on separate trucks. Fewer drivers and less fuel used. The Soviets built literally millions of the GAZ-AA, but they were puny little one ton, single drive axle Ford AA "clones" designed in the twenties. While not "useless", they were pretty limited compared to the all axle drive Studebaker and REO units of 2.5 ton capacity. One of the places the little GAZ AAs shined was trying to ship goods across the frozen lake Lagada (sp?) to Leningrad. They were light enough to generally NOT fall through the ice on both ends of its "de-stabilizing" (too early, or too late) period.

With few exceptions, the "allies" relied on the GM CCKW and DUKW (both deuce and a half 6X6s) every where but the Soviet Union where the Studebaker and REO supplemented the GAZ (Ford-AA clones) there.

Here is another "cutie". With very few exceptions the Champion "J-8" spark plug of today will work in any WW2 low compression gasoline engine. From the little Briggs-Straton auxiliary engine to the deuce and a half. Most of the rotors, condensers and points can "interchange" as well. The rotor out of a "jeep" will fit and work in a GM CCKW, the plugs of a CCKW will fire up a Harley or a Dodge "command car"! I doubt the same could be claimed for ANY Axis vehicles.

 

The war of 1812 has nothing to do with the current discussion.

I suggest you read my previous posts on not high jacking this thread any longer and starting a new one for you and/or anyone else who wishes to continue this debate...