While I'm decently sure that Finland would've lost the winter war without support, what do you reckon would've occured if the French-British plan to aid the Finns succeded? Just curious.
60,632Pages
ALL POSTS
Which? Germany v Russia, or Germany + Russia v Britain +US?
(edited by GunsnadGlory)
Germany v Russia.
(edited by Spartian300)
Depends. If Hitler and Stalin remain in power throughout, Germany loses around 3-4 years in. If Hitler's idiocy is enough to enflame the Wehrmacht, you get something like a successful July 20th maybe two years in, and then the Wehrmacht, who actually know what they're doing, proceed to kill enough Russians to force a ceasefire in Mid-Poland, 6 or so years in.
(edited by GunsnadGlory)
Amount Of dead?
(edited by Spartian300)
Millions. Absolute Bloodbath, we're talking something like 20 million, mostly Russian.
(edited by GunsnadGlory)
Damn.
(edited by Spartian300)
GunsnadGlory wrote:
No, Impo. The Tanks that the Germans COULD mass produce were outclassed by the Sovs. But the Tigers and the Panthers were AMAZING tanks. They outclassed even the T-34 monsters that the Soviets threw forward. But the Germans had too few of them.
No, Impo. The Tanks that the Germans COULD mass produce were outclassed by the Sovs. But the Tigers and the Panthers were AMAZING tanks. They outclassed even the T-34 monsters that the Soviets threw forward. But the Germans had too few of them.
Plus, the German training was WAYYYYY better.
As a wise man once said, it's not the size that counts- it's whether you know how to use it.
Guns, you have absolutely no idea of the tanks the Russians did have. Ever heard of the IS-2 or IS-3? The 88mm Tiger II gun was completely outclassed by the IS-2's 122mm. The Soviets had a effective heavy tank first, and in numbers which would have left the Tigers and Panthers lying on the field as burning wreckage. Their T-34/85s were enough, however, so that they didn't really need to deviate much to produce better tanks.
Admittedly, the Tigers had better armour, but IS guns could penetrate their armour. The Panther was good, but not mass produced or as good as it needed to be to stem the tide.
(edited by Imperium Guy)
Imperium Guy wrote:
Guns, you have absolutely no idea of the tanks the Russians did have. Ever heard of the IS-2 or IS-3? The 88mm Tiger II gun was completely outclassed by the IS-2's 122mm. The Soviets had a effective heavy tank first, and in numbers which would have left the Tigers and Panthers lying on the field as burning wreckage. Their T-34/85s were enough, however, so that they didn't really need to deviate much to produce better tanks.
Admittedly, the Tigers had better armour, but IS guns could penetrate their armour. The Panther was good, but not mass produced or as good as it needed to be to stem the tide.
Doesn't matter, cause a Tiger could penetrate IS armor as well. 1v1, depends which was commanded better- and the Germans were trained WAAYYYY better.
Soooo... exactly what I said, then? Panthers were the best, but there weren't even CLOSE to enough.
(edited by GunsnadGlory)
Only one way a Nazi-Soviet alliance can end up - fighting itself.
Guns is right about the tanks, overall.
As for the original question, even a few brigades of troops from the Allies, or being better supplied, and the Finns could have held the Soviets off far better. Betting on my part, unless the Allies expand the conflict beyond Finland, that both sides "pretend" it did not happen, ala~ Poland. Does mean that after the war, however, the two sides will not be near so friendly, and increases odds of war.
(edited by Lordganon)
What? Goddamit.
Exactly. The Finns did pretty well against such negative odds. I see.
(edited by Imperium Guy)