Soviet vs. American Armies 1945

**Bill** · 23 May 06,, 23:48

Originally Posted by troung

I had been waiting on M-21 explaining the carrier battle groups.

It's not just the carriers. It's the whole USMC and USAAF/USMC/USN land based Pacific airforces as well.

ALL particualry relevent types of planes too, because the Pacific and Russia both require vast numbers of long range warplanes. Hell, compared to the war in the Pacific Russia would be an operation of SMALLER overall Geographic scope!

The USSR had no counter for the USN Carrier fleets or US Amphibious forces at all, and the planned Japanese invasion force could just as easily have been landed in Manchuria BEHIND the Soviet forces that invaded Manchuria in late 1945, totally cutting off the Russians one large reserve force in another country.

Assuming the Soviets never invade manchuria(depending on how things play out), then that US Naval force can still fix the 50 Soviet divisions in place even if we never commit them to battle.

Or, the moment the Soviets moved those 50 divisions west we can land behind them in Manchuria and attack into the heart of the Asian Soviet Union from there.

PS: The M6 75mm gun of the M-24 Chaffee light tank was based on the high velocity 3" heavy air defense gun, not the 75mm low velocity gun of the earlier Shermans. The M-6 75mm gun was not as powerful as the larger 76.2mm of the "Long barrel shermans", but it was definitely a step up from the M2 75mm gun of the early Shermans.

**gunnut** · 23 May 06,, 23:59

Originally Posted by troung

I had been waiting on M-21 explaining the carrier battle groups.

The 3rd fleet alone could launch a 1000 plane raid without breaking much of a sweat. The entire coast line from Manchuria to Vladivostok would be under USN control. The landing force at Okinawa, which landed 2 armies, could have easily loaded them up and landed them on Soviet east coast.

Then there's the 20th Air Force in the Pacific with B-29s, and the 14th Air Force in China armed with various fighers and bombers.

The US fought a true 2 front war in WW2. Each front had a larger military than the Axis powers in the region combined.

**Parihaka** · 24 May 06,, 00:25

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

It's not just the carriers. It's the whole USMC and USAAF/USMC/USN land based Pacific airforces as well.

ALL particualry relevent types of planes too, because the Pacific and Russia both require vast numbers of long range warplanes. Hell, compared to the war in the Pacific Russia would be an operation of SMALLER overall Geographic scope!

The USSR had no counter for the USN Carrier fleets or US Amphibious forces at all, and the planned Japanese invasion force could just as easily have been landed in Manchuria BEHIND the Soviet forces that invaded Manchuria in late 1945, totally cutting off the Russians one large reserve force in another country.

Assuming the Soviets never invade manchuria(depending on how things play out), then that US Naval force can still fix the 50 Soviet divisions in place even if we never commit them to battle.

Or, the moment the Soviets moved those 50 divisions west we can land behind them in Manchuria and attack into the heart of the Asian Soviet Union from there.

Exactly.

**Bill** · 24 May 06,, 00:43

The forces for Operation Downfall consisted of 36 Seperate Allied combat divisions, most of which were US Army, many of which were armored and heavy mechanized forces such as US 1st Cavalry and ALL THREE USMC divisions- each of which was about twice the size of a US Army division in manpower and equipment.
And that force was supported by the entire US 3d and Fifth fleets, a total force of WELL in excess of 3,000 warships including sixty six US Aircraft carriers in three seperate carrier task forces.

PLUS about 20,000 USAAF combat aircraft of various types at various bases in range of the home islands by the time of the planned Allied Invasion.

Is this sinking in to everyone?

SIXTY SIX AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND OVER 3000 WARSHIPS IN SUPPORT OF 36 ALLIED GROUND COMBAT DIVISIONS.

All arrayed against Russia's Eastern flank.

PLUS the million plus men in training still back in the US.

Plus all the millions of men and tens of thousands of aircraft and thousands of Allied warships still left over in the ETO/Atlantic.

And nukes. 1 more in 1945. Three more in 1946, and then by the end of 1947, HUNDREDS of improved Mk3 devices, and B-36s and B-47s to deliver them.

**Hindle** · 24 May 06,, 20:11

Ignore me?Becouse of your OPINION?Fine there are plenty of other intelligent members here

**dalem** · 24 May 06,, 20:53

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I disagree.

By 1945 the US was finally just getting into full war stride wrt production numbers and men in uniform(30 million in 1945). We entered a full 3 years after the Soviets, and we'd suffered fully 25+ million LESS casualties.

In fact, considering the other major belligerents, our casualty figures were pretty low.

The US military machine was anything but tired in 1945. It was in it's very prime.

On paper I agree with you 1000% - I would rate the 1945 U.S. Armed Forces as the most efficient, most powerful and relatively most deadly killing machine the planet has ever seen. And we had all the momentum on our side. But I think that a large part of that had to do with the intangibles of politics, national will, morale, and that momentum.

Now, in my somewhat-informed opinion, and it's merely that, I think that trying to horse that momentum over to a (in 1945 terms) diametrically opposed goal of fighting to clear the Russians out of Europe would have led to serious morale and momentum problems within that powerful killing machine.

In a defensive mode, i.e. the Reds coming West? A different story as I think I've made clear.

-dale

**dalem** · 24 May 06,, 20:56

Originally Posted by Hindle

Ignore me?Becouse of your OPINION?Fine there are plenty of other intelligent members here

Not because of your opinion, rather because of your poor posting style. If English isn't your first language then try and separate your sentences by new lines at least - that will help.

-dale

**TopHatter** · 24 May 06,, 20:58

Originally Posted by dalem

But I think that a large part of that had to do with the intangibles of politics, national will, morale, and that momentum.

Now, in my somewhat-informed opinion, and it's merely that, I think that trying to horse that momentum over to a (in 1945 terms) diametrically opposed goal of fighting to clear the Russians out of Europe would have led to serious morale and momentum problems within that powerful killing machine.

Agree with both statements.

The hardware is beyond question. Any further discussion there is mere inventory polishing, however much fun it is.

National will and troop morale for an offensive against the Soviets, those are large question marks.

**SRB** · 24 May 06,, 22:08

We said no nukes and year is only 1945 not 1946 or 1947, 1948. So war is in 1945. Of course that US would win later. Also we don’t count efficient jet fighters what Meteor wasn’t but Vampire is but there where to couple of Vampires in 1945.

Tanks?
J read many posts saying US and UK had comets, pershings, jumbo shermans, Fireflies etc.
No one said any numbers. There where maybe 100 Preshings in WW2, J doubt even that number. Jumbo Shermans only 254 were product. Firefly maybe 500, there were so many Comets that no one see tank battle, read one regiment.
Production of Sheramans with 76mm HV gun start in summer of 1944, but US factories still product Shermans with 75 mm short gun, because of ammunitions. We could say majority of Shermans had 75 mm short barrel gun. Also many Shermans use gasoline (KABOOM) US tank crew call them Ronson (famous US cigarette lighter, for Non-US people).

Yes US army had good tank destroyers(no means excellent because TD isn’t excellent weapon look at Jagpanther or Jagtiger big and brutal but expencive and vulnerable form infatry) but J read memoirs of US tank man who said that M36 couldn’t break Panthers front armour on medium distances, and what is interesting is that M36 had very good gun.
You all forget that US TD looks like toys in contrast to Ferdinand or SU-152(which was mobile artillery but after Kursk battle it get nick name beast killer, one of SU-152 kill 10 Tigers and 3 Ferdinand in range 2km)

Also there are TD SU-76, Su-85, SU-100, SU-122 (T-34 chassis) and best TD serie IS-100 and IS-122 (IS-2 tank chassis).
All Soviet major TD had top armor which isn’t a case with US TD, and top armor provide you with great defence against air attacks or artillery (light and heavy).

After Kursk battle Stavka give order to Soviet factories to only product new T-34/85 because they found out that T-34/76 now is not best main tank it is German Panther even with many breakdown of Panther during Kursk battle.
T-34/85 was easier to product than T-34/76, each tank had radio and serious gun. So for late summer 1943 all new Soviet tanks are T-34/85 and IS series. Also first time they order serious number of new TD especially SU-85 and SU-100.
SU-100 was arm with 100 mm HV gun which was best AT gun in WW2, and is still in production.
This means that USSR tank core where T-34/85 total number of T-34 is over 50000, so don’t talk about T-60 or T-70 they are special tanks for city fighting, dimensions same as Pz-2 but armor and punch as Pz-4(God bless slope armor) small number of this tanks where product.

Search more about tank gun sights in US and UK WW2 tanks especially in main tanks. It was very stupid sight. Same as USSR fighter sights before lend-lease when Soviet saw how fighter gun sight really looks and
Copy US gun sights for fighters.

Air power?
B-29 could reach Ural industry for London, but without fighter cover. Someone said that B-29 couldn’t be intercept by Soviet fighters, J don’t think so.
Facts:
La-7 and La-5 could reach B-29, infact B-29 will be 700m higher, Jak-9 with VK-107 engine would be higher than B-29 for 450 m, and MIG-3 would be higher for 1800 m, MIG-3 was product 2000 fighters and all were in city defence, it was truly high altitude interceptor and it was only good for this missions.

Also J still can’t figure out why USAF didn’t bomb with heavy bombers forests in Ardennes to knock out German tanks, as gunnut said that you could kill tank formations by B-17 for altitudes over 6km. If you go lower 4X20mm would tear them. And as J remember Ardennes front was small in contrast with front between USSR and US in Germany. No USAF use P-47 to attack German armor, and Germans concentrate huge number of tanks for that offensive (because they didn’t have enough fuel for them). It was impossible to destroy by heavy bombers formations of tanks in movment (30km/h) in 1945.
Yes US could land marines in Pacific part of USSR, but what you would succeed by this operation.US couldn’t go trough Siberia and get to Ural fast, it would need maybe one year of preparations, then wait for summer, then start building railroad (because Soviets would destroy trans-Siberian rail) and we get in 1949 when US had ability to burn USSR by nukes but it is not 1945.
Marines couldn’t land any where else in USSR because Turkey wouldn’t allow US to past trough Bofors, and if they allow there are very bad beaches to land marines. US could try attack over North pole but it would be funny.
P.S. landing in Pacific part of USSR could drive China in war.

USSR build more planes than Germany even it had more than UK. But US with UK would have good air advantge, but there no valuable targets to attack in range of escort fighters.

USSR had advantage only in attack planes which is logical because they are real war machine build to fight on battlefield, J expect later to read posts about fighter-bombers but J don’t for me they are waste fighters because air defence could destroy them easy, and they were efficient because USAF and RAF could use them in huge numbers against no opposition (Me 109 were protecting industry, or fighting IL-2 same for German air defence).
IL-2 later version could survive direct hit 20 mm bullet in windshield.

This wouldn’t be Soviet problem because their industry is far behind in foothill of Ural out of P-51 range, and with present Soviet forces facing US troops in Europe they would need more tanks, planes and trucks to get to West France.

Soviets would wait for US and UK to build large number of good tanks, jet fighters and bring more troops, this is war which would start in September of 1945, as J understand US send same troops home or to pacific when Germany capitulate.

**SRB** · 24 May 06,, 22:14

Sorry because big post, but J don't have to much internet time

, so J sending eventhing in this one post.
P.S. there we one or two nukes in 1945 but we said no nukes.

In longer war(if Stalin wait and they go in conquer of Europe) US wins without problem, because of nukes and UK jet fighters.
But if Stalin don't wait, or in September of 1945, then USSR had one more advantage better spy ring, and US and UK codes, and his enemy don't have his codes, as J read US break USSR codes first time in 1951.

**SRB** · 24 May 06,, 22:22

GUNNUT

Trucks use diesel in whole world so J think MACK use diesel and J am sure that Sidebucker form lend-lease go on diesel,because diesel enigne is better for bigger machines,it have greater power for smaller speeds and is more reable and it is cheap, very important because big machines are big drinkers.It is much better for jeeps and SUVs,but J don't expect many of USA cars use diesel, if they use it oil would be cheaper in hole world

**Wraith601** · 24 May 06,, 22:26

We said no nukes and year is only 1945 not 1946 or 1947, 1948. So war is in 1945.

Then you scenario is unrealistic and thus irrelevant. The US of 1945 would have NO qualms at all about nuking the Soviets out of existence.

Tanks?
J read many posts saying US and UK had comets, pershings, jumbo shermans, Fireflies etc.
No one said any numbers. There where maybe 100 Preshings in WW2, J doubt even that number. Jumbo Shermans only 254 were product. Firefly maybe 500, there were so many Comets that no one see tank battle, read one regiment.
Production of Sheramans with 76mm HV gun start in summer of 1944, but US factories still product Shermans with 75 mm short gun, because of ammunitions. We could say majority of Shermans had 75 mm short barrel gun. Also many Shermans use gasoline (KABOOM) US tank crew call them Ronson (famous US cigarette lighter, for Non-US people).

The US had 200 Pershings in Europe and more on the way in 1945. The 75mm Sherman was no longer in production, the 76mm Sherman was available in large numbers, most newer US armored divisions were almost completely outitted with 76mm guns, I don't have the exact percentages though. Also the Shermans propensity to burn was due to faulty ammo storae, not because they used gas, pretty much everyone used gasoline.

Yes US army had good tank destroyers(no means excellent because TD isn’t excellent weapon look at Jagpanther or Jagtiger big and brutal but expencive and vulnerable form infatry) but J read memoirs of US tank man who said that M36 couldn’t break Panthers front armour on medium distances, and what is interesting is that M36 had very good gun.

The 90mm gun might not penetrate a Panther, but the T-34 had much poorer armor. Also, US TDs had removable roof armor and roof armor won't stop 37mm cannon rounds anyway.

**SRB** · 24 May 06,, 23:15

Well J see that many people here thinks that T-34/85 was inferior to Panther, that is not true.
When Germans design Panther they copy T-34 armor design, look Pz-4 and Tiger they have vertical front armor and Panther have slope armor, so what happened between these to tanks?
It was T-34 which had slope armor,before that BT-4 and BT-6.

Panther had 100 mm front armor, T-34 had 70mm(later versions maybe 80mm) but T-34 use better steel than Panther, don’t ask me why because it is long story and it have relation with Soviet institute for low temperature materials and German shortage of rare metals.

So T-34 armor was maybe 90mm(for later version 100mm) by German standard, yes it was weaker (or equal) than Panthers but on combat range they where same. Panther have better gun, it is only advantage, but even long range gun can’t show it’s worth in Europe war theater because combat range is small (many forests, hills, houses…)
Well later versions of Shermans use diesel, and majority of today’s tanks drink diesel and USSR tanks in WW2 were first to drink diesel.
We said no nukes, but how many nukes had USA in 1945 after A-bombs over Japan?
One or two, and it need to deliver bomb from London to Moscow which is over 4500 km, without air cover with 2000 MIG-3 high altitude interceptors flying higher than B-29.
There were one or two nukes hard to reach important targets deep in USSR this is reason why we said no nukes.

About Shermans with 76 mm HV gun, no one said what is number of this tanks in end of WW2.
J said that there where over 10.000 T-34/85 many more in that moment.
Soviet and German TD were hard nut for attack planes, they had 100mm top armor can’t rotate barrel.
US M36 don’t have roof armor it is open J think all US TD had open roof crew could be kill even by infantry mortars.

**SRB** · 24 May 06,, 23:20

Read memoirs of German tank crews and Soviet tank crews about Kursk battle and you would hear that Germans couldn't belive that T-34 close to Panther in combat range.
And when T-34 get hit it didn't easly go on fire because of diesel,but petrol in German tanks and same US and UK will light easly.

**TopHatter** · 24 May 06,, 23:25

SRB,
A small hint. For whatever reason, you seem to be using the letter "J" when referring to yourself. It's much easier to read your posts if you use the correct letter: "I"

Originally Posted by SRB

Well J see that many people here thinks that T-34/85 was inferior to Panther, that is not true

Instead say "Well I see that many people..."

Thread: Soviet vs. American Armies 1945

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Ignore?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

This is what exactly happened on 9/11

Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death

How to Win in Iraq—and How to Lose

has america lost its luck?

Guerilla Warfare

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions