"I fear we fought the wrong enemy and i fear we will regret it" --- General Patton
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,165
- 222,014
- 3,615
I didn’t say it was the only way it could go, only the only practical way it could go
History proved it right
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,165
- 222,014
- 3,615
They had one resource.......a willingness to die
That the Western Countries lacked
None were willing to suffer more carnage
Litwin
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #86
some numbers from Muscovite- Jewish leading historian M Solonin
"
18 thousand American and British warplanes are not. If we add to this the loss of two Siberian aircraft factories (see paragraph 1), then we do not have bomber aircraft of medium and long range. Pe-2 is used as a bomber, hastily cobbled together in a “sharak” of the NKVD from a high-altitude fighter with a maximum bomb load of 600 kg (the German single-engine fighter FW-190 took 500 kg of bombs, the American single-engine fighter Thunderbolt - 908 kg). And it is not clear what this Pe-2 should be made of - in the absence of Lend-Lease aluminum and chromansil (high-strength steel). The same question applies to the production of Yakovlev fighters. Lavochkin fighters are made of the so-called “delta-wood” (multilayer plywood, to put it more simply), we have our own wood, but phenolic resins for gluing veneers are imported. But even if there are some planes, then why refuel them?
In real history, the Soviet Air Force spent 3 million tons of gasoline during the war. One third is American gasoline. The second third is gasoline of its own production, brought to the right condition by mixing with American high-octane components. A third of the third million is made at four full-blown American plants brought across the ocean. And let's not forget about 6300 tons of tetraethyl lead (antiknock additive) that arithmetically completely covers the needs of Soviet-made aviation gasoline. Since there is none of this, and the planes are quietly on the ground, you can’t even forget about the absence of 12 thousand tons of Lend-Lease ethylene glycol (coolant, which could fill about 250 thousand aircraft engines).
And now - from the little things to the main thing. To what is happening on the other side of the front.
Point 6. In a real story, from the first to the last day of the war, a grand battle took place in the waters of the Atlantic, in the deep sea and sky-high heights above the ocean; grandiose not in the number of people directly involved in naval battles, but in the cost of material resources. In particular, from 39 to 45, Germany produced 1,113 submarines with a combined tonnage of 960 thousand tons. Even considering the most primitive way, by weight, these boats correspond to 40 thousand medium tanks of the Pz-III or Pz-IV type. Is this a lot? In fact, for the entire time of the war, the Germans produced “only” 28 thousand of these tanks (including self-propelled guns on their chassis). At the same time, we understand that a ton of hostility, and a submarine in terms of "filling density" with complex systems (hydroacoustics, autonomous navigation, long-distance radio communications, crew life support, optics, pneumatics, batteries, etc.) are much more expensive and more complicated than a tank.
In an alternative reality, after the Anglo-American allies left the war and curtailing the construction of submarines, the Germans were able to increase the production of tanks by 2-3 times. For those who doubt the possibility of such a conversion, I suggest google the words "Red Sormovo". And all these tanks go to a single Eastern Front. And now these tanks are diesel (in real history, Germany spent most of the diesel resource for war at sea, and the tanks conquered the whole war on fire-hazardous gasoline).
Submarines were for the Germans the main, but far from the only instrument of war at sea; aviation was actively working, and this again was a huge expenditure of material and intellectual resources: thousands of planes, hundreds of thousands of tons of gasoline, torpedoes, mines, locators, Fritz-X radio-controlled planning bombs, Hs-293 cruise missile anti-ship missiles (the last two types of weapons ahead of their time for a decade, more than 500 units were used in hostilities, but three times as many were produced). It was in naval aviation that the bulk of the “new types” bombers were transferred - the long-range twin-engine Do-217 and the giant 30-ton Ural-bomber He-177. And in an alternative reality, all this goes to the Eastern Front."
Google Translate
Litwin
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #87
Germans drove the Soviet Black Sea Fleet into the Poti-Batumi region, where the ship stood until the end of the war by the forces of aviation and a dozen torpedo boats (not a single! Surface ship of a destroyer class or higher at the kriegsmarine in the Black Sea). There is no reason to doubt that the appearance of large forces of the German surface fleet in the Black Sea would have ended with the second flooding of the Black Sea Fleet for the second quarter of a century and the unimpeded landing of German troops on the Black Sea coast of Georgia. From Batumi to Baku, 700 km in a straight line, and at the most, in a month the Germans either seize oil fields or burn them to the ground with air strikes (doubters can google the words "Lufwaffe raids on Yaroslavl, Gorky, Saratov")
For the Soviet Union, the loss of Baku oil means a catastrophe of strategic magnitude. There was no West Siberian oil at all, and the so-called "second Baku" - the fields of Tataria and Bashkiria - accounted for no more than 5-7% of the production of "first Baku". The Red Army now fights on carts, in the Ural collective farms plow on women. What, where and when would the war end under such conditions?
I think the very same thing that would end the war on the Western Front, if in another alternative reality it would be the only one. That we are without Anglo-American allies, that without us they were doomed to inevitable defeat. And in real history, Hitlerite Germany was defeated by a coalition of world powers, and so it was called: "anti-Hitler coalition." The participation of our country in this coalition - despite the horror of the war and the tragedy of the deaths of millions of people - was the most worthy, brightest event in the thousand-year history of Russia. This must be remembered, one can be proud of it.
For the Soviet Union, the loss of Baku oil means a catastrophe of strategic magnitude. There was no West Siberian oil at all, and the so-called "second Baku" - the fields of Tataria and Bashkiria - accounted for no more than 5-7% of the production of "first Baku". The Red Army now fights on carts, in the Ural collective farms plow on women. What, where and when would the war end under such conditions?
I think the very same thing that would end the war on the Western Front, if in another alternative reality it would be the only one. That we are without Anglo-American allies, that without us they were doomed to inevitable defeat. And in real history, Hitlerite Germany was defeated by a coalition of world powers, and so it was called: "anti-Hitler coalition." The participation of our country in this coalition - despite the horror of the war and the tragedy of the deaths of millions of people - was the most worthy, brightest event in the thousand-year history of Russia. This must be remembered, one can be proud of it.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,165
- 222,014
- 3,615
In that case you have to rely on our willingness to slaughter millions of innocent civilians to defeat a former ally
You are purposefully ignoring my points, to answer things I did not say.
Why are you so determined to avoid looking at this honestly? What is your investment here?
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,165
- 222,014
- 3,615
You have no credible points
Your position is absurd
Litwin
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #91
"In that case you have to rely on our willingness to slaughter millions of innocent civilians to defeat a former ally"
as i proved with the links, ussr did not have resources to fight the war with USA/UK/Germany /France . and you missed that millions of innocent civilians actually died in 1946-47 from the hunger under Stalinist Muscovite occupation . i hope you understand that for majority Belarusians, Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians , etc. Muscovite red Stalinist horde was an occupation force
"
In the post WW2 famine of 1946-47 there were approximately 400,000 - 500,000 children and teenagers that died, who made up a third of the victims. There were many recorded cases of cannibalism.
Soviet famine of 1946–47 - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Soviet_famine_of_1946–47
"
Seriously. THis is ancient history. What are you afraid of?
Here. Using perfect hindsight, as you are doing.
This is what should have happened.
Someone should have told FDR, that Germany and Japan could not defeat the US.
The Soviets should have been declared co belligerents, not allies, and we should have fought Japan, letting the Nazis and Soviets kill and weaken each other
Till 1945, when we would have nuked Berlin, and then negotiated a peace with Germany that led to US occupying all of Nazi occupied Europe.
The Cold War, would have still happened, but with the Iron Curtain running along the Eastern Border of Poland.
What part of this, if any, do you find upsetting?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
80 Student protesters take over Columbia University Library.
- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 7
-
Unreliable Al jazeera [jihad zeera] promotes fakenews / Pallywood imagery [PallyWeid]- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 2
-
Frontier agents who mocked passenger were terminated- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 4
