Could the Western Allies defeated the German's without the Soviets

[grognard]

Originally Posted by KDF33

I have no reason to think so. I wrote that the Luftwaffe lost a higher % to accidents. Regarding losses to AA fire, I guess that it was probably similar to the USAAF.

Certainly similar to to the Japanese

[Roddoss72]

Originally Posted by The Purist

Excellent article, Michele. More support for Tooze and other economic studies that show the nature of German industry under the Nazi regime faced a number of challenges. It is also more reinforcement for the argument that the upswing in production 1942-44 came, in large part, from capital investment in the mid and late 30s and that prior to this plant coming on line there was little slack to be taken up.

The bits about labour improvement based on "learn-by-doing" is also of note as is the concurrent loss of productivity due to use of concemtration camp prisoner, foreign slave labour, prisoner-of-war and change in model types. Cooking the books (or rather, the change in reporting emphasis) in production was all part of facade.

+1 if I could.

How many books did Tooze write about Alternate Timelines, care to answer?

[T. A. Gardner]

Originally Posted by Roddoss72

Compare apples with apples, the above posts, how many factories were being bombed in the USA by the Luftwaffe? None

How many factories were being bombed in Germany by the Allies? Too many to mention and yet despite that the Germans in 1944 produced 40,000 aircraft of all kinds.

How many of those aircraft were rebuilds given new Werk numbers like the Smithsonian's Fw 190F? Complicating the German production numbers in aircraft was their heavy use of rebuilding damaged and old airframes into "new" aircraft and re-serial numbering them.

I know the US was not doing that. Worn out aircraft were re-serialed something starting with WW for War Weary. I don't think the British remanufactured badly damaged or worn out airframes either.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

How many of those aircraft were rebuilds given new Werk numbers like the Smithsonian's Fw 190F? Complicating the German production numbers in aircraft was their heavy use of rebuilding damaged and old airframes into "new" aircraft and re-serial numbering them.

The actual new production was between 35,000 and 37,000, depending on whom you ask. That's going by the official German statistical data, so if Speer had a go at those, you won't see it.

What is certain is that German frontline units received much less than this figure. Some of the shortage can be explained with exports to allies and with assignment to holding, reserve establishments.
Other less savory explanations include the likelihood that some of the "aircraft built" statistics actually are "airframes built" statistics, i.e, very simply, that the airframes were left around waiting for engines; and then there is the quality deterioration and the complex Luftwaffe acceptance procedure.
For instance, some 12,000 new Fw 190 were built; the average acceptance for this model in 1944 was around 90%, meaning that 1,200 brand new fighters had to be reworked, sometimes extensively, delaying their actual availability for weeks. Albeit Speer would count them as "built", because they were, just as soon as they left the factory, that did not make them available to the Luftwaffe. And, of course, the Fw 190 was the second most produced aircraft in 1944, after the Bf 109, which also had similar high acceptance rates; these were proven designs. But acceptance rates dropped to abysmal values between 50% and 60% when it came to new, more advanced models like the Me 262 or the Ar 234, or new versions of older models like the Me 210, and even lower with the really new concepts.

[Roddoss72]

Anyway, whatever the production and availability of what the Germans could produce, in this scenario it means diddly squat, as previously pointed out according to the OP the start point has the Germans defeated in North Africa, Italy, Balkans and Southern France, this is even before an Operation Overlord can be launched.

All this without the Germans ever having invaded the Soviet Union.

[Lionhearti]

No I said that lw shot to shambles Italy knocked out by 44

[Roddoss72]

Originally Posted by Lionhearti

My answer is yes. Let's for some reason say that Barbarossa does not happen. Then what?. The Axis still have to garrison huge forces in the east to stop Stalin from getting greedy. North Africa was completely a Western Victory. Italy was too. The German's cant apply their full force and the Allies the Luftwaffe. The commerical agreement with the Soviets was hurting the Germans and by 1942 they were most likely unable to continue it. Japan is never going to truly win and by 1946 millions if not tens of millions were going to die to starvation alone from the blockade and strategic bombings that the Allies were doing .Germany never defeated the American's except at Kasserine Pass. Strategic Bombing did serious damage to the German economy and the German's would have to either expand or die. I will go further on this topic later. So guy's what do you think. Can the Allies defeat the Axis without the Soviets.Yes the Allies are going to take alot more casualties but in the end they still win (Because they did those Soviets just ran at tanks )

Just a refresher of the OP.

I will agree that the situation between the Axis and Soviets isn't rosey as their is distrust and that the Axis will need to deploy troops there to defend the situation if Stalin attacks, so i concur with this.

The only way i can see the rest from happening, is that the US is able to mobilize her forces slightly quicker than normal, a few months maybe and still sticking to the Germany First Policy, in mid 1942 the Allies test the waters at Dieppe, this now includes the US, but it still ends up in defeat but vital lessons are learned and now the Allies can use this as what not to do in the future.

The USN Fleet Carriers manages to send vital Spitfires and Mustangs to Malta, this cuts the air supply convoys of the Axis, while the USN and RN wreck the Royal Italian Navy with Carrier Based attacks, major Italian naval bases are hit and hit hard, this stops the flow to the Axis and has Rommel trapped, no matter what the Axis does the Allies prevents supplies reaching the DAK, eventually Torch is carried out and the Vichy French in NW Africa swap sides as well as Naval units withing two months of heavy battles the Axis is forced to surrender by November 1942.

March 1943, although outgunned and outmanned the Allies attempt to land on Sicily, the RAF and USAAF built up their strength in North Afrca and begin to bomb the defenders, day after day thousands of sorties are flown by bombers and escorting fighters, the Luftwaffe and Italian Airforce are taking punnisment as the USAAF and RAF are taking their toll on the defenders, enemy airstrips are being attacked and damaged, within weeks Sicily surrenders, by now Hitler knows that he is in for a fight, a month later Sardinia falls and now the Allies have a solid jump off for the Italian Mainland.

June 1943 the Allies effect multiple landing on the Italian mainland, the allies are surprised with the mass defection of Italian troops and solid support from the civillian population, with that many Italian troops are now fighting with the Allies, Allied Bomber Command begins a two front air war against the Germans, the USAAF have established the 8th USAAF in Britian, while the 12th and 15th USAAF's are buliding up their numbers and begin to bomb Roumania's oil refineries, the Allies quickly but at a cost move up the Italian Peninsula and come headlong to strong German defenses at Monte Cassino pass, the battle of Monte Cassino last for about 2 months but the Allies are victorious as the German line is punctured by the Allied landings at Anzio, where from there the Allies quickly adavance onto Rome, the Germans are forced to retreat September 1943 italy formally surrenders and declares war on Germany.

To be continued.

[KDF33]

The problem for Hitler is that if he doesn't invade the USSR, he's gonna be boxed in. As the struggle with the West draws more and more of his forces, he's going to become utterly dependent on the goodwill of Stalin.

The only way to avoid the necessity of Barbarossa, IMO, is to convince the USSR to directly enter the war against the Western powers. I see no logical way for Stalin to do something so stupid, as the day America and the CW call it quits, the USSR would find himself between a rock and hard place, i.e. the European Axis and the Japanese Empire.

Regards,

KDF

[grognard]

Originally Posted by KDF33

The problem for Hitler is that if he doesn't invade the USSR, he's gonna be boxed in. As the struggle with the West draws more and more of his forces, he's going to become utterly dependent on the goodwill of Stalin.

The only way to avoid the necessity of Barbarossa, IMO, is to convince the USSR to directly enter the war against the Western powers. I see no logical way for Stalin to do something so stupid, as the day America and the CW call it quits, the USSR would find himself between a rock and hard place, i.e. the European Axis and the Japanese Empire.

Regards,

KDF

Stalin wasn't threatening Hitler, so there was no necessity for Barbarossa. With more troops and Luftwaffe presence in the Med, the allies winning there is nor a forgone conclusion.