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.
60,630Pages
ALL POSTS
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)
Ehehehehehe.
Finns were pretty good, yeah. Surprisingly strong. My guess is it has something to do with the loss of the "winter" advantage.
(edited by GunsnadGlory)
Not really. Even during the rest of the year, that area is bad. Heavily forested and swampy. Not as ideal defensive ground, but still very good.
The problem, in the end, was twofold: To some degree, the Soviets did learn. Even more so, the war proved the truth that "Quantity has a Quality all its own."
(edited by Lordganon)
GunsnadGlory wrote:
Standstill? Nah. Russians had numbers and raw resources. Germany spent most of WWII slowly running out of oil to power their tanks with.
Standstill? Nah. Russians had numbers and raw resources. Germany spent most of WWII slowly running out of oil to power their tanks with.
The Soviets would, slowly, have pushed the Germans back. Poland's gone, ditto around a third of what we called East Germany.
Are you basing these descriptions around a Soviet-Western alliance vs Germany, or just a straight up USSR vs Germany matchup?
(edited by God Bless the United States of America)
USSR v Germany
I believe we were, in this case, assuming western Neutrality.
(edited by GunsnadGlory)
GunsnadGlory wrote:
USSR v Germany
USSR v Germany
I believe we were, in this case, assuming western Neutrality.
Then I have much trouble accepting that the USSR could achieve conquering part of Eastern Germany in this AH match up. As I have noted before, the Soviets were nearly bled white in OTL by the Germans, particularly by 1944/1945. As well, they Soviets were extremely dependent upon Western military equipment (especially American) to sustain their logistics system to enable their OTl advances.
In this matchup, not only would the USSR be deprived of those aforementioned military supplies, they would face an Axis unburdened by responsibilities in the West. Thus, to assume the Soviets could achieve a favorable peace is simply implausible.
(edited by God Bless the United States of America)
Three issues with that!
1) Russia HAD a military-industrial complex, and a large one; it was just of ridiculously poor quality. But they had all the raw resources and manpower to produce all they needed.
2) The Germans, even OTL, had vastly superior technology and weaponry. They just didn't have enough. The Soviets were thrown into battle knowing that if they retreated, they would be shot for certain, and their familiies probably chucked into the Gulag. They fought like madmen.
3) The Soviet military outnumbered the German military by a large margin. Even without the Western front, the Sovs just have too many people, too many resources- and, don't forget, they have oil- the Germans DON'T, and have no reasonable way to get it. By 1945, the Soviets were heavily battered, but they were still a match for the nuclear armed West- that's the resultant military analysis of the top Western generals at the time, BTW. The Germans, at that point, were flush outta oil.
(edited by GunsnadGlory)