markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 2, 2020 1:59:26 GMT
All of the above means that the western allies will have a tougher time establishing a viable force on the continent. But Germany will have a much longer coast to guard so few extra forces would be able to be sent east. The end result would probably be all of Germany being overrun by the Red Army and the Iron Curtain ends up on the Rhine.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Feb 2, 2020 2:03:43 GMT
All of the above means that the western allies will have a tougher time establishing a viable force on the continent. But Germany will have a much longer coast to guard so few extra forces would be able to be sent east. The end result would probably be all of Germany being overrun by the Red Army and the Iron Curtain ends up on the Rhine. Mark Depends on the circumstances. If Germany is not forced to reinforce North Africa in late 1942/early 1943, Stalingrad is avoided because Manstein is able to successfully breakout the garrison with a reinforced Army Group Don. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 2, 2020 3:12:24 GMT
The threat of an allied invasion and the existence of the 8th Army in North Africa would not allow significant forces to be sent east. The only way Stalingrad could be avoided would be if either Hitler is removed from power or he suddenly finds a large dose of sanity.
Mark
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,096 
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 2, 2020 15:37:54 GMT
The threat of an allied invasion and the existence of the 8th Army in North Africa would not allow significant forces to be sent east. The only way Stalingrad could be avoided would be if either Hitler is removed from power or he suddenly finds a large dose of sanity. Mark What about a more capable Italian Army in Africa, not the one of OTL. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Feb 2, 2020 16:06:37 GMT
All of the above means that the western allies will have a tougher time establishing a viable force on the continent. But Germany will have a much longer coast to guard so few extra forces would be able to be sent east. The end result would probably be all of Germany being overrun by the Red Army and the Iron Curtain ends up on the Rhine. Mark Depends on the circumstances. If Germany is not forced to reinforce North Africa in late 1942/early 1943, Stalingrad is avoided because Manstein is able to successfully breakout the garrison with a reinforced Army Group Don.
Provided that the German leadership, including von Paulus who was unwilling to OTL until too late, are willing to disobey Hitler's orders and actually withdraw, rather than hold the Stalingrad position. In which case things could go worse than OTL for the Germans.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Feb 2, 2020 16:12:16 GMT
The threat of an allied invasion and the existence of the 8th Army in North Africa would not allow significant forces to be sent east. The only way Stalingrad could be avoided would be if either Hitler is removed from power or he suddenly finds a large dose of sanity. Mark
I would have to disagree. As long as the allies are restricted to only Egypt as an operational base its a bloody long way to Tripoli and the Germans can get by with the small forces they deployed OTL. Instead of the larger forces they sent to N Africa, and lost there, after Torch and the others, about 20+ divisions they had in Italy later, as well as having to replace the Italians in the Balkans. Not massive compared to the forces in the east but significant and also a lot of air power was lost in the Med.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Feb 2, 2020 21:59:59 GMT
Depends on the circumstances. If Germany is not forced to reinforce North Africa in late 1942/early 1943, Stalingrad is avoided because Manstein is able to successfully breakout the garrison with a reinforced Army Group Don.
Provided that the German leadership, including von Paulus who was unwilling to OTL until too late, are willing to disobey Hitler's orders and actually withdraw, rather than hold the Stalingrad position. In which case things could go worse than OTL for the Germans.
Had the forces transferred to North Africa been available to Manstein, I have no doubt the breakout would be successful; his intention was to do such for Army Group B. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Feb 3, 2020 18:02:12 GMT
Provided that the German leadership, including von Paulus who was unwilling to OTL until too late, are willing to disobey Hitler's orders and actually withdraw, rather than hold the Stalingrad position. In which case things could go worse than OTL for the Germans.
Had the forces transferred to North Africa been available to Manstein, I have no doubt the breakout would be successful; his intention was to do such for Army Group B.
You seem to have missed the point of the instructions from Hitler. Someone in the German military involved could do so but especially at this period of the war this would likely mean their dismissal, at the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Feb 4, 2020 2:49:36 GMT
Had the forces transferred to North Africa been available to Manstein, I have no doubt the breakout would be successful; his intention was to do such for Army Group B.
You seem to have missed the point of the instructions from Hitler. Someone in the German military involved could do so but especially at this period of the war this would likely mean their dismissal, at the least.
Yeah, Manstein was planning on ordering a break out despite Hitler's orders. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Feb 4, 2020 11:42:29 GMT
You seem to have missed the point of the instructions from Hitler. Someone in the German military involved could do so but especially at this period of the war this would likely mean their dismissal, at the least.
Yeah, Manstein was planning on ordering a break out despite Hitler's orders.
That could be at least some of the forces out, despite the supply situation but it would mean his dismissal and while he has inflated his own reputation in his autobiography he was one of the more capable German commanders.
Given how many were already dead or wounded and the lack of working vehicles - due to damage and lack of fuel - your going to get some people out but the bulk of the trapped forces at the start of the siege are already dead or will be lost. The manpower factor will be less than the men not lost in Tunisia OTL or those not tied down defending Italy OTL, let alone the combined strength.
|
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 6, 2020 2:48:44 GMT
Would saving a few thousand men from the Stalingrad pocket change the course of the war in the east. Probably not much. Not having a viable western front would allow Germany to hold out linger in the east. The main change would be the location of the border between east and west post war. Where would the Russians stop if there is no allied army in Europe? I doubt it would be the Elbe river.
Mark
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Feb 6, 2020 11:23:05 GMT
Would saving a few thousand men from the Stalingrad pocket change the course of the war in the east. Probably not much. Not having a viable western front would allow Germany to hold out linger in the east. The main change would be the location of the border between east and west post war. Where would the Russians stop if there is no allied army in Europe? I doubt it would be the Elbe river. Mark
Quite possible depending on the details. If the Soviets burnt themselves out, and some have argued they came close to things might not change until western nukes end the war. In which case the partition lines between western and Soviet blocs would be further east. However if the Soviets still win a decisive victory then yes it could be on the Rhine or further west, Although once the writing is on the wall there could be a lot of German commanders and forces willing to surrender to western forces, no matter how small, to avoid ending up in Soviet hands.
|
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 7, 2020 0:40:58 GMT
The limited supply of nukes would have probably stayed in the Pacific. With no Western front in Europe the Luftwaffe probably would have been able to put up a pretty good defense against the bombers. I don't think that an untested weapon in a lone aircraft would have been sent in against a credible defense, nor would it have been used as part of a mass raid given the risk of friendly casualties. Would the US have been willing to use nukes in 1946 to push the Russians back maybe? If there was a western army on the continent would the US and UK have been willing to arm this pool of POW's to fight the Russians. I don't think the US home front would be willing to support this war
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,096
Likes: 49,492
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 9:32:18 GMT
The limited supply of nukes would have probably stayed in the Pacific. With no Western front in Europe the Luftwaffe probably would have been able to put up a pretty good defense against the bombers. I don't think that an untested weapon in a lone aircraft would have been sent in against a credible defense, nor would it have been used as part of a mass raid given the risk of friendly casualties. Would the US have been willing to use nukes in 1946 to push the Russians back maybe? If there was a western army on the continent would the US and UK have been willing to arm this pool of POW's to fight the Russians. I don't think the US home front would be willing to support this war Was there a German fighter would could get to a B-29 ore even a B-36 operating from North Africa ore the United Kingdom. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Feb 7, 2020 17:59:52 GMT
The limited supply of nukes would have probably stayed in the Pacific. With no Western front in Europe the Luftwaffe probably would have been able to put up a pretty good defense against the bombers. I don't think that an untested weapon in a lone aircraft would have been sent in against a credible defense, nor would it have been used as part of a mass raid given the risk of friendly casualties. Would the US have been willing to use nukes in 1946 to push the Russians back maybe? If there was a western army on the continent would the US and UK have been willing to arm this pool of POW's to fight the Russians. I don't think the US home front would be willing to support this war
Not sure of this. If Germany still controls most of western and central Europe at that point its going to have to be the primary target. They might go for coastal targets such as Hamburg to make it easier or try and sneak a nuclear attack through among others raids, albeit quite possibly being the only a/c to be directed at that target. The allies were willing to accept heavy losses during their strategic bombing campaigns so the chance of a case of fratricide among the attackers would be tolerated as long as it wasn't too large.
In terms of the Soviets controlling more of Europe after the defeat of the Nazis it would depend on the circumstances but unless Stalin did something a lot more stupid than OTL I suspect the US wouldn't go for that and I fear it would seek to cut Britain out of nuclear capability as OTL so there could be a danger of the Soviets gaining control of most of continental Europe.
|
|
