Russia and Germany invade England

[dropbearabroad]

"It might have actually stopped all convoys to britain, with the u-boats as well."

I strongly doubt that. Soviet subs in WWII seldom ventured far from the coastline and would be far, far less effective in the Atlantic than Germany's U-boats. And that's even IF Stalin sent 300 subs in generally poor condition to be based in France, which is unlikely, and they could be effectively supplied, which is highly unlikely.

Although quantity has a certain quality of its own, as Stalin is reputed to have said, judging real military power and capability is more complex than just looking at how many toys a country has. In 1940 the USSR was first and last a land based power, and their subs had no (real) experience fighting at sea or conducting economic warfare. They'd have been slaughtered by the British and Canadians, and then the Yanks. It took the Soviet Navy until the 60s or so to develop any real capability, and even then they were clearly inferior to Western navies.

 

[The Red]

True, since Russia didn't have much of an air force at that time either,

The Soviets had the largest air force in the world at that time.

 

[sharlin]

The Soviets had the largest air force in the world at that time.

Of short ranged fighters for the most part, and whilst yes they had the most in terms of numbers, what was servicable and actually would have gotten off the ground is a different matter.

Its like today people go "Russia has 10k tanks!" Yes, they have that many in storage and in various states of disrepair.

 

[Saphroneth]

This would not be a case of "Operation Unsinkable", then?

 

[bobthechicken]

"It might have actually stopped all convoys to britain, with the u-boats as well."

I strongly doubt that. Soviet subs in WWII seldom ventured far from the coastline and would be far, far less effective in the Atlantic than Germany's U-boats. And that's even IF Stalin sent 300 subs in generally poor condition to be based in France, which is unlikely, and they could be effectively supplied, which is highly unlikely.

Although quantity has a certain quality of its own, as Stalin is reputed to have said, judging real military power and capability is more complex than just looking at how many toys a country has. In 1940 the USSR was first and last a land based power, and their subs had no (real) experience fighting at sea or conducting economic warfare. They'd have been slaughtered by the British and Canadians, and then the Yanks. It took the Soviet Navy until the 60s or so to develop any real capability, and even then they were clearly inferior to Western navies.

Completely true. I didn't research it enough to realise that.

The Soviets had the largest air force in the world at that time.

Well...

Of short ranged fighters for the most part, and whilst yes they had the most in terms of numbers, what was servicable and actually would have gotten off the ground is a different matter.

Its like today people go "Russia has 10k tanks!" Yes, they have that many in storage and in various states of disrepair.

Just what I was thinking!

 

[The Red]

Of short ranged fighters for the most part, and whilst yes they had the most in terms of numbers, what was servicable and actually would have gotten off the ground is a different matter.

Its like today people go "Russia has 10k tanks!" Yes, they have that many in storage and in various states of disrepair.

Oh I'm aware of that, they're aerial contribution would still be significant. Thing is though, I don't see this Soviet Expeditionary Force coming together in the first place. If the Germans were advancing through southern England and already had control of a number of ports then maybe but Stalin sending vast swathes of troops to take part in an ultimately risky (doomed, with foresight) German-led operation isn't going to happen.

The Soviets could still be crucial in forcing the British to negotiate, they could cause chaos in India and the Middle East, forcing Britain to fight outnumbered on several fronts, but Sea Lion remains just as impossible.

 

[bobthechicken]

Oh I'm aware of that, they're aerial contribution would still be significant. Thing is though, I don't see this Soviet Expeditionary Force coming together in the first place. If the Germans were advancing through southern England and already had control of a number of ports then maybe but Stalin sending vast swathes of troops to take part in an ultimately risky (doomed, with foresight) German-led operation isn't going to happen.

The Soviets could still be crucial in forcing the British to negotiate, they could cause chaos in India and the Middle East, forcing Britain to fight outnumbered on several fronts, but Sea Lion remains just as impossible.

This is a very good point, it would, overall, be hard for the Russians to directly help the Germans in their attack. They would serve no purpose - and that's if Stalin even sent them over.

 

[Grey Wolf]

OK, let us look at this systematically and assume that Stalin is all for it (otherwise its a pointless intellectual exercise!)

1) There is a LOT of coastal trade by shipping off the shores of the UK, plus there are the convoy arrival routes, so a load more submarines is going to have a big impact here. It doesn't matter that they can't get into the mid Atlantic

2) It doesn't really matter if the Soviet fighters are not quite up to British standards, neither are a lot of British fighters. The addition of at least one air army would give options, allowing the attackers to do two things at once or overwhelm defences in certain areas. What if, for example the Germans switch to bombing cities but the Soviets continue to bomb the airfields and associated infrastructure?

3) The Soviets have airborne brigades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops#Interwar_and_World_War_II
They can augment these, and combine these with Student's forces to launch more powerful attacks on strategically important locations.

4) The Soviet surface fleet combined with what the Germans can muster post-Norway offers a threat that means that any RN response has to have battleships and carriers and cannot rely on sending the cruisers and destroyers. This opens up the aerial targets, and can also provide an excellent diversion away from the landing.

I would imagine the Soviets also have non-compromised intelligence assets in the UK unlike the Abwehr

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[dropbearabroad]

"1) There is a LOT of coastal trade by shipping off the shores of the UK, plus there are the convoy arrival routes, so a load more submarines is going to have a big impact here. It doesn't matter that they can't get into the mid Atlantic"

Sorry but I disagree. I found this from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=117516

"The success of Soviet submarines was mediocre - USSR used 277 submarines during WWII [165 submarines were in 1939 - the largest world's submarine fleet]. They sank [by torpedos, artillery fire, mines] 191 ships during Winter war, wars with Germany and Japan in all seas - 4 submarines, 3 small destroyers, 11 patrol ships, 9 patrol boats, 2 mine-layers, 6 mine-sweepers, 9 landing barges, 6 military tankers, 6 military transports, 3 depot ships, 2 hospital ship, 1 training ship, 1 cable wessel, 6 tugs, 6 barges, 9 trawler ships, 1 small fishing ship, 86 transports, 2 tankers, 18 motor-sailing ships [172.785 brt total]. This data includes 5 ships were sank during Winter War [2 German, 1 Finnish, 1 Swedish, 1 Estonian].

Soviets achieved rate 1.89 [191 sank ships per 101 lost submarines]. British submarines achieved the ratio 9.29 [632 sank ships per 68 lost submarines], USN submarines achived fantastic ratio 24.15 as they performed in much more favourable conditions in comparison with other navies [1280 sank ships per 53 lost submarines].
Axis forces - Italian submarines had the ratio 1.1; Germans had the ratio 2.69 [2973 sank ships(!) per 1060 lost submarines including sank under capitulation]; Japanese - 1.73."

Transplanting a fleet of Soviet subs to foreign British waters and away from their familiar Russian bases won't improve their performance. In fact I imagine their kill:loss ratio would drop down to Italian levels, perhaps lower.

2. and 3. Agree with you there.

4. But I don't think the Soviet surface fleet would add much to the Kriegsmarine, their performance was even worse than that of the sub crews. Little AAA on their ships too.

"I would imagine the Soviets also have non-compromised intelligence assets in the UK unlike the Abwehr"

Agree on that, probably the biggest material contribution from the Soviets to German naval efforts.

 

[Saphroneth]

Don't forget that a USSR Air Army would need airbase space, and would need its own logistical supply of an entirely different kind of everything - setting that up would take a heck of a long time and they might not be able to fit enough fighters in place.

 

[Tuhachevskey]

USSR could support Lüftwaffe with old TB-3(800 were produced until 1939) heavy bombers and send some Ari units,completed with heavy DB-3 bombers. Airborne brigades, amphibious tanks, could be used as well. But it doesn't mean the Sealion to become successful reality - however, the chances would rise.
The main contribution to the Axis, USSR could make is a MiddleEast Front - Red Army would advance toward the Suez Channel and India, forcing UK to pay more attention to this regions. The Home army of the UK would be even weaker, than in RH-1940.

 

[Charles RB]

Would Germany want the Red Army doing that though? Unless Britain holds them off, that's going to be mean extra land and resources in Stalin's hands. He certainly won't want the Suez Canal being taken. (The US wouldn't be too happy with Suez being owned by communists either)

 

[Tuhachevskey]

Would Germany want the Red Army doing that though? Unless Britain holds them off, that's going to be mean extra land and resources in Stalin's hands. He certainly won't want the Suez Canal being taken. (The US wouldn't be too happy with Suez being owned by communists either)

Germany could provide an assistant to Italy in order to rush faster to the Suez Channel, than Uncle Joe.

 

[Charles RB]

Germany could provide an assistant to Italy in order to rush faster to the Suez Channel, than Uncle Joe.

Cairo Times
"VIVAT ROMA!
"Italian Forces Arrive To Defend Egypt Against Red Menace"
​

 

[Ramontxo]

How would this change the 1000 pounds Gorilla in the room (the USA) position?
Would this help the isolationists (as in lets keep, as far as possible, away from this Europeans)?
IMHO it would surely reinforce Roosevelt and Churchill (and the U.K.) appeal as democracy last hope on Europe (and most of the world out of the Americas...)
As this will not butterfly away Barbarrosa (just change it) the Red Army without lend-lease (even if it survives) will not visit Berlin...
A separate peace between the Nazis and Great Britain with America guarantying the U.K. safety? And a very different cold war...

 

[Zheng He]

A more basic question, if we are talking about some sort of large scale combined operation between German and Soviet forces, what language would they speak?

Little things like that matter when you are talking about foreign militaries operating together.

Beyond basic stuff like language, how much training time do they need together in order to have even a snowball's chance in hell of pulling this off? Interoperability is nil not to mention a complete lack of commonality in equipment and they would need time to correct that. You just can't throw two military forces together and say, "Here, go execute OPERATION FLAMING DUMBASS."

 

[Grey Wolf]

My views of the premise is that the USSR has to be accepted into the AXIS and thus we are not looking at a small moment in time, we are looking at a big one. This joint operation will strain both the Heer and the Soviets, and assuming an eventual victory neither will be in a great state.

If there DOES later come a clash between the empires, one should not expect it til the mid-to-late 1940s

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

A more basic question, if we are talking about some sort of large scale combined operation between German and Soviet forces, what language would they speak?

Little things like that matter when you are talking about foreign militaries operating together.

Beyond basic stuff like language, how much training time do they need together in order to have even a snowball's chance in hell of pulling this off? Interoperability is nil not to mention a complete lack of commonality in equipment and they would need time to correct that. You just can't throw two military forces together and say, "Here, go execute OPERATION FLAMING DUMBASS."

They'll speak German, as this is going to be Nazi-led strategically and the Russians have German speakers who are going to be in liaison positions.

I do think though that the co-operation will be strategic more than tactical - the air army, the subs, the paratroops etc will be liaising at senior level but operating independently in the field.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Charles RB]

How would this change the 1000 pounds Gorilla in the room (the USA) position?

Now it's Britain against commies? Probably get the US involved sooner - if not sending in troops, then sending in a lot of open aid - because commies.

 

[The Red]

American entry is effectively assured in this scenario, not necessarily due to ideological concerns as much as the fact that an Axis-Soviet alliance would be too powerful for them not to get actively involved. If you see an escalation in the Battle for the Atlantic, with Soviet submarines entering into the fray, that may well be the spark.