Best Soviet Weapons?

We all know that actually trying to complete Plan Z would have been national suicide for Germany on many levels, militarily, economically, and psychologically.

But what about the battleships called “Stalin’s republics”?

There were plans to build 15 of them, each almost as large as as a Yamato or Montana class battleship, although with less firepower. Only four were laid down (and only one was more than 20% complete) when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. After the war, all were scrapped. A similar fate met the Kronshtadt battlecruisers before the war.

Another naval project were the Stalingrad class battlecruisers. Originally designed before the war, the project was revived as aircraft carrier escorts after it. The project only advanced with Stalin’s backing, and his death led to all the ships being cancelled.

Given that the Soviets only barely completed their Kirov class light cruisers and the struggle on the industry to build even a small part of Stalin’s republics, would it have been harder for the Soviets to build this fleet or for Germany to build Plan Z? And if the Soviets succeeded, what would the impact on the war have been?

This probably assumes Germany doesn’t invade the Soviet Union until later.

@The:

@CWO:

@ABWorsham:

Did I forget a category or person?

I don’t know how his numbers stack up against the others, but Adolf Galland shot down over a hundred Allied aircraft.

Galland ranked right up there, if not surpassed, most of the airmen in the Luftwaffe.

He could also light a cigar and smoke while wearing his oxygen mask. Great fighter pilot! Had he not been promoted to General he may have added another hundred kills to his score.

Hehe - good point Miami
No one had mentioned the Italians in this thread yet

@221B:

While they probably would never fight it out directly against each other, I think that the submarines of that era could be compared to each other in terms of how well they did (and how well they potentially could have) against merchant marine ships.

I’d have to place them in this order with regards to their potential:

Japan Germany US UK Italy

Of course, the Japanese squandered the potential of their subs by using them to attack warships, rather than merchant ships.  So in order of actual performance, I’d say this order:

US (Japan was devastated by lack of supplies) Germany UK Italy Japan.

Part of the reason for my placing Germany below the US is because the allies, particularly the British developed effective defenses which the Japanese did not (and the Germans did not need to as they were a continental power).  Not sure where to place Russia, but since (like Germany) she is a continental power, there was very little, if any, efforts regarding submarines that I am aware of.

I’d also like to point out that Germany had some very interesting submarine ideas on their drawing boards, but either chose not to (or were unable to) develop these in any meaningful fashion.

Thoughts?

Good post, and I agree with what you’ve written. I’d like to expand on what you’d written about Germany’s very interesting sub ideas. Late in the war, Germany had begun building highly advanced Type XXI U-boats. These were built in sections, to allow for a faster rate of production. These submarines had more in common with postwar nuclear subs than with their WWII contemporaries.

Most WWII-era submarines were intended to spend most of their time above water, surfacing only when threats were detected or battle expected. Type XXI U-boats were intended to spend nearly all their time underwater. The batteries of Type XXIs lasted several times longer than normal subs’ batteries before being recharged. These subs had a snorkel–a snorkel which allowed them to run their diesel engines and recharge their batteries while still submerged!

Type XXI subs had a rubber coating, making them far more difficult to detect with radar or sonar. Even if a sub was detected, it could use its battery-powered electric motor to quietly move to some other place. These subs could also move quickly! Unlike other WWII-era subs, Type XXI subs moved more quickly under the surface than they did on the surface. This was because of their hydrodynamically advanced, streamlined design. These subs also had very sophisticated electronics suites, perfectly suited to an underwater game of cat and mouse. These U-boats could fire large numbers of torpedoes in a small space of time; allowing them to strike a devastating blow and then disappear.

Most torpedoes of the era were diesel powered. Compressed air was mixed with diesel fuel and burned, thereby turning the torpedo’s propeller. The compressed air used in this left a trail of bubbles–a trail which both alerted people to the torpedo’s arrival, and provided a path back to the launching submarine. In some places, that bubble trail would glow at night due to phosphorescent microorganisms. Japan’s torpedoes used compressed oxygen with which to burn diesel. That meant a much smaller bubble trail, and significantly longer-ranged torpedoes. (The Allies’ bubble trails consisted mostly of nitrogen gas, which of course is useless for burning anything.)

Germany used electric torpedoes. These had the advantage of being much quieter and more difficult to detect than diesel-powered torpedoes. And of course they left no bubble trail. The problem with Germany’s early electric torpedoes was that the batteries weren’t that good, causing the range to be too short. But batteries improved throughout the war, thereby extending the torpedoes’ range. While Germany’s electric torpedoes never came close to the range of Japan’s Long Lance torpedoes, they nevertheless had a very respectable range by the war’s end. When that range was combined with the overall stealth and sophistication of Germany’s Type XXI U-boats, the effect was absolutely devastating.

Or would have been, had those Type XXIs seen service. In 1944, Albert Speer ordered the construction of large numbers of Type XXI U-boats. Some of those Type XXIs were in the testing/working up phase when the war ended. None saw action against the enemy. A smaller version–Type XXIII U-boats–appear to have been very effective in limited action against the enemy. However, Type XXIII U-boats could only carry two torpedoes each, and were limited to coastal duties.

@KurtGodel7:

@Octospire:

You make some ineteresting points, the strategic alliances between the French and Soviets basically doomed Germany to either fighting WW2 or being a sitting duck when the Soviets came a knockin’. Chamberlain could of been bigger than Churchill in the current popular imagination if he had of engineered a successful alliance with the Germans and then defeated the Soviet Union. You are very much correct that forging an alliance would of been very difficult considering the Pro-Soviet sentiments amongst the worlds elites, however I think with the right propaganda they could of turned the tide. In reality it wouldnt even have to be propaganda just the truth about the Soviet Union under Stalin, the labour camps and purges that were reality long before exterminating the Jews was even a thought on the Nazi parties planning table.

Germany and Britain had ties going back centuries that could of been rekindled in spite of French protests, the Soviets werent going to sit within their borders forever especially with their massive advantages in manpower and industrial capacity.

What is facinating about this whole era is how accomodating Hitler tried to be with the British at least at first, he wanted an Anglo-German alliance so badly just like the alliance between the Prussians and the British during the Napoloeonic era. Had the British been receptive to these offers or at the very least not signing their way into world war 2 by alligning themselves yet again with the French things could of been very different.

As I previously said I think the key would be proganda making the Nazi’s seem like the lesser of two evils and demonising the Soviets to the point where it would be essential for the British to side with Germany. It really shouldnt of been that hard as the atttitudes of the late 1940’s and 1950’s Western world illustrated. There was already communist uprising in China undermining the Nationalist government, how hard would of it been to demonise the communist way of life and show the world what life in the Soviet Union was really like.

Good post! :)

From a purely ethical standpoint, several differences between the Nazis and the communists occur to me.

The Soviet government had murdered tens of millions of innocent people even before WWII began. (And added considerably to that total both during and after the war.) Conversely, the Nazi government did not begin killing large numbers of people until its food situation precluded feeding everyone within its borders.

The Soviet government was bent on world revolution. Outside of communist-controlled areas, their focus was primarily on tearing down the existing social order and anything which supported it. As an example of this, David Horowitz (an ex-communist who’d been raised as a red diaper baby) noted that shortly after he got married, his wife attended a meeting of communists/radical feminists. She came home in tears: the radical feminists/communists had harshly judged her for choosing to stay home and raise kids instead of putting her career first. That was the last such meeting Horowitz’s wife attended. He went on to add that within a year, every woman who chose to continue attending those meeting had had her marriage end. Communists felt that stirring up trouble between the sexes was a good way to harm the existing social order. In contrast, the Nazis were generally pro-family, and even brought Mothers Day to German-occupied France.

Recently, a relatively well-known Canadian journalist decided to quit her career, and become an artist instead. She went back to school to obtain her art degree. She was successful in obtaining that degree, but she said it nearly killed her as an artist. The postmodernist (read:communist) opinion is that until the world’s sexes and races are equal, beauty has no place in art. Consequently, no effort should be made to make art beautiful. This journalist chose, as her subject matter, to paint the people who cleaned up the art room after the art students were finished using it. She felt such people were too often unnoticed. Her postmodernist professors harshly condemned her for this, and asked her what she, as an educated and well-off white woman, could possibly know what it was like to be a poorly paid racial minority. While the politicization and perversion of art to suit a twisted and evil political agenda may seem like a minor thing in comparison with the mass rapes and mass murders for which communists are responsible, I still see this as significant. In contrast to this, the Nazis tended to prefer traditional to modern art, and believed that it was perfectly appropriate for art to be beautiful or visually pleasing. They sometimes censored depictions of the nude human form, which they saw as decadent.

If the common people could be made to see these and other difference between the Nazis and communists, I firmly believe that most people would respond by becoming significantly more anti-communist than they were anti-Nazi. The problem was that Western elites tended to sweep communists’ crimes under the rug, while focusing excessively on (and often exaggerating) those of the Nazis. Outright lies were told, and believed. For example, Walter Duranty of the New York Times told a number of pro-Soviet lies, including the whitewashing of the Ukrainian famine. (A forced famine that the Soviets committed in the early '30s, which resulted in deliberate starvation and death of 7 million innocent people.) Against such a backdrop, it is possible to tell the truth without necessarily being believed.

While these things would have represented an obstacle to a NATO-style Anglo-German alliance, they were not necessarily an insurmountable one. But it would have been an uphill battle, even if both Hitler and Chamberlain were both fully committed to the idea, and even if the Nazis had been as good at understanding political considerations outside Germany as von Bismarck had been.

While with hindsight we can see what the Nazi’s were capable of, but we forget they were up against the wall and fighting for their very existence who knows what the British or Americans may of done in the same position. The fire bombing of Tokyo killing up to 210,000 a single night is just a preview of what the allies were capable of when faced with the massive casualties possible with an Invasion of mainland Japan.

The Germans in the early 1930’s were an intolerant towards Jews and other minorities such as gypsies but in reality they were not that much more intolerant towards Jews than the Americans in the early years of Nazi rule in Germany. Had the Nazi’s got their alliance and not surrounded on practically every side by Anti-Nazi nations it is likely they would not of comitted much of the atrocities they did in reality. As Kurt Godel quite correctly said the Soviets were already an evil regime long before the Nazi’s put the first Jew in the gas chamber. Had the Germans had alliance to maintain with the British they couldnt take the hard line with ethnic minorities and under take the actions they did in reality, I think carving up the Soviet Union would of been seen as more than worth the trade off of not so publicly persecuting ethnic minorities in the eyes of the Nazi leadership.

I agree that it would of been difficult for Chamberlain and Hitler to forge a NATO style alliance but as you say it wasnt entirely impossible and looking at the reality of World War 2 in a lot of cases the highly improbable did actually end up occuring. For instance the quick fall of France and decimation of Allied armies and also the suprisingly successful early U-boat campaign against Allied shipping in the Atlantic. I think if the Nazi’s had of been less agressive and built up their strength perhaps even getting a treaty where by their armies had free passage through Poland to the Soviet Union, that combined with a continued anti-communist propaganda campaign in Britain may very well of turned the tide of public opinion and made Hitler look like the possible saviour of the peoples of the Soviet Union. Of course had the Alliance materialised the peoples of the Ukraine and Soviet Union been treated fairly and with compassion as the invasion continued its likely that the Soviet Union would of crumbled under the weight of internal revolution and Anglo-German attack.

The best is one called “The Big Battles” B&W circa 1963 ish?

Playing that in the backround while playing is a must

Leningrad.

From a morale standpoint for both nations, it was the next biggest after Moscow. Due to its proximity and the option of flanking through Finland, it would have been the easiest to take. From there, other Lend-Lease insertion points could be cut off or captured.
Also, this would allow a unified front. If (as they did) the germans drove all the way out to Stalingrad, that army group is a major proruption from the main front line, which is easily cut off. From Leningrad, the entire army is mutually supporting and can advance together on moscow.

@marine36:

But you see, Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, to help his buddy Stalin, so it would have happened eventually.

And I do believe the Tommies whipped Rommel all by there lonesome at El Alamean, though it is doubtful such success would have lasted once he got back to Tunisia and was reinforced.

The 6th Army. Yes, it was a significant number of men. A quarter of a million Germans is nothing to sneeze at! Personally, I don’t think moral is a factor in modern warfare, at least it isnt in the Corp, but you may be right there as well. It is reasonable to assume that the German soldiers are different from U.S. Marines, and are still affected by moral.

Rampant behavior of rape and murder? I am certain SS divisions maintained their dicipline in Russia, it was not until after the fighting had ended in an area and the soldiers had moved on than Himmler would move in with his death squads. The men of the SS where fine soldiers, do not label all of them barbarians for the actions of Himmler. Perhaps you have information that proves otherwise? Well, despite Himmler’s ruthless treatment of Russians, many Russians still did side with the Germans.

the SS were bastards, the waffen-SS were just foreigners. Can understand them a bit: who doesn’t hate RUSSIAN communists?