AHC: optimize Soviet performance in WW2

[ObssesedNuker]

Well, that was true IOTL.
But would it still be true in this ATL ? For starters, Britain will get much more desperate, facing both Germany and Soviet Union together, and really need as much troops as possible, and ready to make unprecedented concessions to get it. Of course, London wouldn't want to do that. But if the other option is to simply accept that the Germans and Soviets take over the entire Europe + Middle and Near East ?

Hmm... perhaps. It'd be a very tough pill for Churchill -with his very romanticized view of the Empire and White Man's Burden attitudes - to swallow, but yeah if the alternative is utter defeat he might be pressured into agreeing to start transitioning over to immediate Dominion status with an eventual independence referendum or something like that. Even if those political obstacles are overcome though, I do think you're underestimating how long it'd take to fully mobilize, equip, train, and organize. Assuming negotiations begin shortly after the Fall of France (which would really be when Britain has the impetus to start) and conclude within a few months, which then allows the process of raising the new Indian armies to get started, than I could see that those armies might be ready by 1942, but not in time to save Iran or Iraq. Maybe in time to save the Suez though.

Unless the Turks do collapse. British logistical studies in late-1940/early-1941 projected that, once the infrastructure along the Anatolian-Palestinian coastline and whatever counter-action the British themselves could mount is factored in, the Germans (and presumably the Soviets) could support four armored and six infantry divisions through Turkey, across Palestine and into Egypt. So if the Turks collapse, the British military position in the MidEast and Egypt is hosed. Assuming Churchill's government survives that political disaster, they'll have to fight the Russians in North Africa then, taking up Italy's OTL geographic position ironically enough.

On the other side, Indian nationalists might have had (for many of them) sympathies for Soviet Union, or the Soviet model. But they would be quite unhappy, or outright worried, with the Soviets conquering Iran (because it would make them look like just another set of colonial conquerors, and more importantly because it would put them right next to India itself).

Eh... given the pattern in Eastern Europe later in the war, the Soviets would be setting up collaborationist government's in Iran that would probably be a coalition one of communist and left-leaning nationalists and making all the noises of leaving a supposedly "free and friendly" Iran once the war is over. The only actual territory they'd officially take would be the Azerbaijani regions around Tabriz, like they tried during the '46 Iran crisis. For the nationalists, this would not at all be giving off the appearance of "just another set of colonial conquerors" vibes and being next to India is a bonus in terms of being able to get support from them. The concessions above could take the wind out of their sails though.

Also, you're right that historical Britain (by itself) wouldn't have the material resources to equip (and expand, with mass colonial recruitment) an army big enough to match Germans and Soviets, let alone equip other armies (such as Italians, Free French, Turks or Iranians).
But in the event of a German-Soviet offensive alliance to take over Eurasia, the USA would likely start the lend-lease (with mass production) much sooner. Because, quite frankly, the threat to US interests would be far bigger and more pressing.

Maybe? The US would still have to overcome it's internal isolationist bloc, but I can indeed see how a genuine Berlin-Moscow Axis might move things up.

 

[Raferty]

Interesting. When would you say the Red Army peaked during the war then, in terms of its performance/competence and quality of equipment? What about the Red Air Force?

The best operation by far was the invasion of Manchuria against the Japanese. Penetration and second order strategic depth seizure happened exactly as planned, and the Japanese had stripped their formations down to the bone to provide reinforcements for the Pacific War, along with most of their logistical train for mobile operations.

But for the war against Germany? I think the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive in late 1943. The Red Army made very large advances against veteran German forces and inflicted formation level destruction across the path of advance, and did so without suffering outrageous casualties measured against the scale of advances made

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Also, note that I'm NOT saying the British would actually win in the Middle East / India fronts against the Soviets. Or against Germans wherever they fight (possibly Italy).

What I'm saying is that (if they manage to get Indian cooperation and US material support early enough, which is possible but far from guaranteed), they would manage to bog down the Axis, and make the war very costly for their enemies. Even if they eventually lose (eg. pushed to Suez and the Raj border).

Enpugh that Soviets and Germans don't just feel comfortable enough to just backstab each other (at least not in the two or three first years of the war).

 

[Belisarius II]

1. Don't invade Poland, make the Germans fight for every village and then blackmail them for your share over oil after they are finished.
2. Don't invade Finland.
3. Invade Romania instead, during the Battle of France and with full force, and turn it into a puppet state. Cut commerce with Germany after that.
4. Make a deal with the Bulgarians and the Hungarians for a piece of Romania in return for a non-aggression pact and a joint invasion.

You kill possibly three rabbits with one stone. Finland is out of the war, Romania is destroyed and you can even entertain the possibility that Hungary will sit out and rethinking its bets better.

Finally, Germany will be without oil and wouldn't be capable to strike deep into the USSR even if they want.

A full-scale invasion of Romania in May 1940 might trigger both an Axis and Allied declaration of war. France & Britain had a defense pact with Romania and the Axis needed the oil. You're putting everyone up against the wall by doing that. Hungary would be pushed into the Axis camp really quick. You would abort the Battle of Britain as the Luftwaffe would turn east immediately after the fall of France.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The best operation by far was the invasion of Manchuria against the Japanese. Penetration and second order strategic depth seizure happened exactly as planned, and the Japanese had stripped their formations down to the bone to provide reinforcements for the Pacific War, along with most of their logistical train for mobile operations.

But for the war against Germany? I think the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive in late 1943. The Red Army made very large advances against veteran German forces and inflicted formation level destruction across the path of advance, and did so without suffering outrageous casualties measured against the scale of advances made

You wouldn't say the 2nd Jassy-Kishinev? Not only did it secure a similar proportion of territory as D'niepr-Carpathian (if not more), but it is one of the only operations of the war where overall casualty ratios were more than 2:1 in favor of the Soviets and irrecoverable casualty ratios something on the order of ~12:1 in their favor. Even if the Romanian defection facilitated the overall Soviet advance across the Carpathians and all the way into Hungary, the encirclement (and thus eventual destruction) of the German 6th Army and it's flanking Romanian armies had already been achieved by the time of King Michael's coup and with Romania in the bag, Bulgaria and southern Yugoslavia were certain to follow shortly regardless.

 

[RedSword12]

You wouldn't say the 2nd Jassy-Kishinev? Not only did it secure a similar proportion of territory as D'niepr-Carpathian (if not more), but it is one of the only operations of the war where overall casualty ratios were more than 2:1 in favor of the Soviets and irrecoverable casualty ratios something on the order of ~12:1 in their favor. Even if the Romanian defection facilitated the overall Soviet advance across the Carpathians and all the way into Hungary, the encirclement (and thus eventual destruction) of the German 6th Army and it's flanking Romanian armies had already been achieved by the time of King Michael's coup and with Romania in the bag, Bulgaria and southern Yugoslavia were certain to follow shortly regardless.

Rather ironic too, considering that the First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive was an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Honestly, it's probably OTL.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Invade Germany right after Germany invades the Low Countries.

Stalin would never do that however.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Invade Germany right after Germany invades the Low Countries.

Stalin would never do that however.

But invading Romania might just work. It's still a big gamble, but isn't a direct attack on Germany and it screws up their oil supply catastrophically.
If they struck hard and with enough force to hold Romania for 6 months to a year, or at least to stop or seriously disrupt oil production, Germany may well be more or less paralysed.
Hey we took Poland, Norway and France, but can't use vehicles or aircraft. Yay.
I doubt Romanian terrain would allow such a Soviet success, but it's a fun thought to have Germany unable to use its best forces in 1940.

 

[Raferty]

You wouldn't say the 2nd Jassy-Kishinev? Not only did it secure a similar proportion of territory as D'niepr-Carpathian (if not more), but it is one of the only operations of the war where overall casualty ratios were more than 2:1 in favor of the Soviets and irrecoverable casualty ratios something on the order of ~12:1 in their favor. Even if the Romanian defection facilitated the overall Soviet advance across the Carpathians and all the way into Hungary, the encirclement (and thus eventual destruction) of the German 6th Army and it's flanking Romanian armies had already been achieved by the time of King Michael's coup and with Romania in the bag, Bulgaria and southern Yugoslavia were certain to follow shortly regardless.

On balance of casualties, there is a strong case to be made for it, especially with the speed of the initial breakthrough and effectiveness of the artillery preparation. I think however in terms of the capacity of the Germans as a factor, their own performance in summer 1944 was probably their nadir of the war, across the front. But if we're only discussing the Soviet performance, than I would agree.

The Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive dealt with some rather sustained attempts at armored counterattacks and for the most part dealt with them very well using strategic reserves, and that's what puts it on top for me.

 

[edgeworthy]

Interesting. When would you say the Red Army peaked during the war then, in terms of its performance/competence and quality of equipment? What about the Red Air Force?

The general historical consensus is Operation Bagration, aka the Destruction of Army Group Centre.

 

[RedSword12]

But invading Romania might just work. It's still a big gamble, but isn't a direct attack on Germany and it screws up their oil supply catastrophically.
If they struck hard and with enough force to hold Romania for 6 months to a year, or at least to stop or seriously disrupt oil production, Germany may well be more or less paralysed.
Hey we took Poland, Norway and France, but can't use vehicles or aircraft. Yay.
I doubt Romanian terrain would allow such a Soviet success, but it's a fun thought to have Germany unable to use its best forces in 1940.

Invading Romania is too risky, and we know well how cautious Stalin was.

Plus, this hardly means cutting off the Axis oil supply, since he's still got trade agreements with Germany and wants them to be a challenge for the Western Allies to deal with. He'd happily give Hitler oil if it means wearing them out more.