That’s a very good point Garg. That’s exactly what is. Wasn’t quite what I was expecting

1980’s however was a strange time for both sides and NATO and USSR were losing allies left and right and neither side wanted to engage in conflict so both sides tried to downsize their military while also trying to scare the other side.

Still in the middle of listening to it (about an hour and a half in).

I’m a fan of hardcore history, but it takes me forever to get through his podcasts because they’re just so long. I’d just have them on in the background as noise while I do other things, but what he says is interesting enough to demand my full attention most of the time.

Interesting read so far, although I have not gotten through the whole thing yet (the site is huge!). Thanks for sharing.

That would be a great treat. Hope you are able to go.

@CWO:

He was definitely a lucky fellow.  There was another A-bomb test back in those days which included an exercise by US tank and mechanized infantry units to test out the concept of armoured forces exploiting a breach in a simulated enemy line created by the use of a tactical nuclear weapon.  The exercise, as I recall, is mentioned in Richard M. Ogorkiewicz’s book Technology of Tanks, and I think the armoured force in question was designated Task Force Razor.

I shudder to think of the price paid by our service personnel back then. In the same vein, another winning idea from the era was the “Davy Crockett atomic mortar” (actually a recoilless rifle):

https://armyhistory.org/the-m28m29-davy-crockett-nuclear-weapon-system/

The Davy Crockett’s chief shortcoming was its inability to hurl the nuclear projectile far enough to ensure the gun crew didn’t fall victim to their own weapon. Key takeaway from the article:

“Since the warhead also posed a threat to the crew firing it, the Army recommended that soldiers manning the Davy Crockett select firing positions in sheltered locations, such as the rear slope of a hill.  Soldiers were also encouraged to keep their heads down to protect themselves from the warhead’s detonation.”

Not mentioned in the article is a quote from a soldier who served on a Davy Crockett crew, which I heard years ago. He said the most valuable piece of equipment in that weapon system was an e-tool, used by the crew to dig foxholes in the event they had to fire the weapon.

@Gargantua:

Where’s the option for Patton redeploying SS and Wehrmacht troops and whooping soviet but all the way to Moscow?!?!

That would take some reorganization and wouldn’t take place until 1946. German units would need armed, reformed and equipped.

Would the British and French allow a German Army rebuilt?

How would the communist in Europe react to a “workers war” of liberation.?

History has shown that Japan was more favorable to the idea of bring USSR into the Axis but that was more for selfish reasons; easier trade with Germany.

I mean according to the battle of Castle Itter, there was a SS officer that helped the allies out.

An interesting comparison for sure! Thanks for sharing.

No Tiger Pilot was active US military because the Tigers were replacing the Soviet Pilots before Pearl Harbor so they didn’t want to give Japan direct evidence of an act of war.

@Caesar:

@Gargantua:

In this scenario I think a lot would depend on what happens in the east.  Not so much the west.

The Americans had the nuke, had the pacific on lockdown and had the capability to strategically bomb and invade a superpower via the pacific alone.  With Japan broken or at peace with the allies, this mean a us invasion of mainland Asia could have been conducted.

Mind you, there wasn�t much to invade in the Soviet Far East., but all the same.  Russia would be fighting a two front war with no lend lease as mentioned, against a swath of allied nations.

I doubt they’re would be a reason to land in China, US wanted to liberate China but the ROC couldn’t secure a deep water port. So if US had to land invade USSR from the east, they would have to bypass Japan and most likely would take out Japan first or go into USSR east thus forcing the USN to destroy the Red Pacific Fleet.

Depending on when the West decides to take on the Soviets, destroying the Red Pacific Fleet might have consisted of sinking ships the US had sent to Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hula (“Project Hula was a program of World War II in which the United States transferred naval vessels to the Soviet Union in anticipation of the Soviets eventually joining the war against Japan, specifically in preparation for planned Soviet invasions of southern Sakhalin and the Kuril islands. Based at Cold Bay in the Territory of Alaska, the project was active during the spring and summer of 1945. It was the largest and most ambitious transfer program of World War II.”)

-Midnight_Reaper

Thus the answer is clear, the MG34 has the advantage of “open swing” when it comes to changing the barrels.

I didn’t know that. Thank you for sharing.

Besides anyone with knowledge knows that Kam. Pilots were all volunteers and only existed out of desperation.

@AxisAndAllies1940:

@Caesar:

@AxisAndAllies1940:

Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

All sources ( I can’t site any off the top of my head ) has stated that Germany had no plans to drive into the Asian part of USSR, they only wanted the west side of it and was going to hold on it.

I did not know that. One learns something new every day, thanks for that bit of info!

Isn’t it possible that mass partisan activity could have simply made the German holdings in Russia untenable over time? I mean, the destruction of ALL towns and farms and cities (as was Hitler’s plan), would have made occupation difficult at best, as there would be zero supplies for an army of over a million men (3000000 started 0n June 22), and it would be fairly easy to cut a supply line stretching from Berlin to Moscow. Plus, the USSR’s roads were dreadful, making supplying this army trickier.

Germany was already building newer roads and rails lines in the territory they secured so given time, they might of had some kind of Wehrmacht highway.

Doubtful. The only two ways I see the war ending without the US are:

1940. Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Poland, of course, have been conquered. Britain and France (Chamberlain is the PM at this point), sue for peace. Britain and France have to pay reparations (especially heavy reparations for France), and hand over various colonies. Plus, they have to recognize Hitler’s conquests in Europe. Possibly, the French would have to hand back Alsace- Lorraine as well. Hitler would most likely consider this to be avenging the Versailles Treaty. This results in Britain and France becoming second to Germany, but still powers to be reckoned with. Chamberlain wanted peace, so he may have grudgingly accepted Nazi occupied Norway and Holland (unlikely), and the French were desperate to save their homeland. Neither would fight alone, so they’d accept peace. Hitler would then attack the USSR, possibly with Anglo-French support.

Mid-late 1940s.

Sealion has not taken place, and the Germans have attacked the USSR. They wear each other out, but the USSR has a nearly limitless supply of men and resources. It would have been much bloodier, but eventually, the Russians would’ve gotten the upper hand, and the war would play out as it did- except that since the US never got involved in D-Day, the British were too weak to open up a second front, so most of Europe would’ve been liberated by the Russians, and therefore fallen into the Soviet bloc after the war. In fact, NATO and the Western bloc may not have existed at all, since Britain’s voice would have counted for far less in the post-war world, and Stalin would control Europe, effectively.

I don’t know to what extent Germany and Italy provided such assistance to each other, but a good study of the German-Japanese angle is “Reluctant Allies: German-Japanese Naval Relations in World War II,” by Hans-Joachim Krug, Yoichi Hirama, Axel Niestle, and Berthold J. Sander-Nagashima (published 2001).  As I recall, there wasn’t much such assistance between Germany and Japan; this was partly due to the fact that they were on opposite sides of the world from each other, with enemy-controlled land and sea between them, and partly due to the fact that Germany and Japan were essentially fighting separate (though connected) conflicts, and ideologically were more like cousins than brothers.  Japan did, as I recall, transport some strategic goods to and from Germany via long-range submarines a couple of times, but that was about it.

Just saw that. The Sullivan Brother’s ship found on St Patrick’s Day. Too awesome. Thanks CWO.

Here’s another read on it:

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/uss-juneau-final-resting-place-of-the-sullivan-brothers-found-off-solomon-islands-1.517725

Good to know. Thank you. And I did mean Palermo Italy.