Page 29 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2021222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 493

Thread: What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

  1. #421
    Banned Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,048
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    the above has a lot of meaning .. but i would agree with you that the Japanese people were subjects .. therefore not part of the equation
    So you are conceding that relevant parts of the government could have been convinced of the power and threat of atomic weapons, now that you've agreed that the people didn't matter here?

    -dale

  2. #422
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    So you are conceding that relevant parts of the government could have been convinced of the power and threat of atomic weapons, now that you've agreed that the people didn't matter here?

    -dale
    I am conceding that relevant parts of the government have already accepteed defeat as early as April 1945, when the Suzuki cabinet came to power with the mandate the end the war from the emperor. Not that they saw the atom bomb and said that is it "we are doomed .... we giveup immediatly". It is actually somewhat humerous to think that a peacefull elder character like Suzuki intended to fighton but was convince by the might of atom bombs. And actually from the Japanese government point of view, the Allies could have incinerated city after city after city, just fine and infact more destructively using napalm on the paper-cities.

    But I somehow think that the communist invasions of the Manchukuo and Korea had a 100 times more impact on the speedy Japanese surrender then did the atomic bombs, though the atomic explosions had a 100 times more effect on the Soviet then it did on the Japanese. From my point of view the Japanese (government) were deadly afraid of the communism and had already seen Germany chopped up into four spheres with one being Soviet.

    I believe that the Japanese government greatly feared the fate of Germany and that of communism, while in the offical emperor's communique and the official reason they use the destructive power of the atomic bombs as an excuse to surrender. Basically, a way out.

    What I said above is my opinion on the events that actually happened in August 45

    About the people I agree that they were subject and therefore not part of the equation as you put it.

    But, now speaking theoritically, Truman could have if he wanted to speedup the surrender by publically telling the Japanese government on the question of the emperor. He didnt .. because he did not want to show weakness, which was important for someone who just cameout of the shadow of a great president like FDR.

  3. #423
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    Bzzzzzzzzt! Does not compute. The Emperor did not agree to surrender until the A-bombs were used. So of COURSE they had a HUGE effect - they caused the surrender.
    The emperor agreed to cessation of hostility as early as April 45, when Tokyo was burned to the ground by napalm, causing 250,000 killed - which was more dead than the two atomic bombings combined. If anything the Fall of Germany and the destructive Tokyo raid of spring 45 convince the emperor and most Japanese that fighting on was useless.


    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    Huh? I don't follow your logic at all. Can you restate?
    My point is that atomic bombs were dropped, and yet there was still a coup. Some people werent obviously convinced even after being awed into submission by the A-bombs... infact the junior officer coup would have happened regardless of the A-bombings if some fanatics heard about the surrender as early as spring 45.

    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    Don't bother, it wouldn't matter. The important part is that some of them were unwilling to surrender even after the bombs. They didn't "get it", or didn't care. So without the bombs (and ignoring the Emperor), how many would have felt the same and prolonged the war?
    -dale
    I agree with you on this as i stated before above that without the bomb there would have been a junior coup aswell. But what you are saying is your opinion of the influence that Atomic explosion might have had on the army. Therefore concluding that without A-bombs there would have been a 1,000 more coups. I DISAGREE. I dont think as you do. The army in whole wanted to fight on, with or without the atomic explosion. They did surrender because they were commanded by their emperor.

    There is a good movie called Japan's Longest Day, before you say that it is Japanese propoganda movie trying to show Americans are bad ... the movie has nothing to do with the atomic bombings but rather is about the last 24 hours prior to the surrender and shows the events of the coup. It is an old movie from the 60s I think but it is very accurate.

    Look dale, I know that to you and others here it looks that an Iranian has comehere inour midst and is trying to lower the greatness of America by his propgana and lies. But I can assure that is not the case ... it is a simple opinion which I think is quite right and that I think it is overlooked by the majority .. hence the myth of Hiroshima.

  4. #424
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Xerxes,

    I'm simply not buying into your stand that Hiroshima was a myth. Your stand is based upon two very shaky foundations.

    1) The Americans was able to offer a conditional surrender
    2) The Japanese was ready to accept a conditional surrender

    Both positions are stands for negotiation. If the Japanese knows that the Americans were offering terms, then they would have pushed for more. At the very least, offer a ceasefire. They didn't. They fought on. Even after Tokyo Firebombing, Hiroshima, and Manchuria. You're right about the Myth of Hiroshima. It was Nagasaki that finally convinced the Japanese to issue the surrender.

    And the Americans were the last ones willing to negotiate. That was a non-starter.

    Which comes back to the problem your original premis, conventional force could not replace the effects of those nukes.

  5. #425
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Xerxes,

    I'm simply not buying into your stand that Hiroshima was a myth. Your stand is based upon two very shaky foundations.

    1) The Americans was able to offer a conditional surrender
    2) The Japanese was ready to accept a conditional surrender

    Both positions are stands for negotiation. If the Japanese knows that the Americans were offering terms, then they would have pushed for more. At the very least, offer a ceasefire. They didn't. They fought on. Even after Tokyo Firebombing, Hiroshima, and Manchuria. You're right about the Myth of Hiroshima. It was Nagasaki that finally convinced the Japanese to issue the surrender.

    And the Americans were the last ones willing to negotiate. That was a non-starter.

    Which comes back to the problem your original premis, conventional force could not replace the effects of those nukes.

    I do know that my view being against the "prevailing view" is standing on very shaky grounds. But I honestly cannot push people toward my opinion, therefore I will not discuss this further, because after all it is an opinion and a view, nothing more.

    In conclusion:

    1) I agree with you that the effects of those nukes were better in referance to conventional firebombing, but only in terms of higher rate of nuclear droppings per city.

    2) I also believe that Communist invasion was a huge factor to set the wheels in motion. A factor largely underrated.

    3) I also agree/believe that Truman couldnt show any weakness and any attempt to lower his guard (publically making compromise) would have been translated as a plus for the Japanese who would have pushed for more terms.

  6. #426
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    2) I also believe that Communist invasion was a huge factor to set the wheels in motion. A factor largely underrated.
    How so? Are you talking about the perception? From the Japanese view? American? Or actual Soviet plans for Hokkaido?

  7. #427
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    ^^

    From a Japanese point of view, the fear of Soviet occupation of a part of Japan. Japan did witness the divison of the Germany after its fall.

  8. #428
    Banned Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,048
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    The emperor agreed to cessation of hostility as early as April 45, when Tokyo was burned to the ground by napalm, causing 250,000 killed - which was more dead than the two atomic bombings combined. If anything the Fall of Germany and the destructive Tokyo raid of spring 45 convince the emperor and most Japanese that fighting on was useless.
    My readings are contrary to that - the Emperor was not willing to agree to an unconditional surrender as a result of Tokyo.

    My point is that atomic bombs were dropped, and yet there was still a coup. Some people werent obviously convinced even after being awed into submission by the A-bombs... infact the junior officer coup would have happened regardless of the A-bombings if some fanatics heard about the surrender as early as spring 45.

    I agree with you on this as i stated before above that without the bomb there would have been a junior coup aswell. But what you are saying is your opinion of the influence that Atomic explosion might have had on the army. Therefore concluding that without A-bombs there would have been a 1,000 more coups.
    I don't think my line of reasoning leads there at all. I'm only using the fact of the one abortive coup as an example of how determined the military still was to fight on. It took the Emperor to stop the war, and he didn't agree to it until after the fireballs. Without those fireballs there is no reason to suppose that he would have agreed to an unconditional surrender, and indeed, the preparations were already underway to make the Home Islands into a fortress. You know this.

    I DISAGREE. I dont think as you do. The army in whole wanted to fight on, with or without the atomic explosion. They did surrender because they were commanded by their emperor.
    I still don't understand what you think you're disagreeing with, here.

    There is a good movie called Japan's Longest Day, before you say that it is Japanese propoganda movie trying to show Americans are bad ... the movie has nothing to do with the atomic bombings but rather is about the last 24 hours prior to the surrender and shows the events of the coup. It is an old movie from the 60s I think but it is very accurate.
    Don't assume I would think it's bad just because it's Japanese. I mean, other than the tentacle-rape stuff.

    Look dale, I know that to you and others here it looks that an Iranian has comehere inour midst and is trying to lower the greatness of America by his propgana and lies. But I can assure that is not the case ... it is a simple opinion which I think is quite right and that I think it is overlooked by the majority .. hence the myth of Hiroshima.
    Maybe you should spend less time presuming that you know what I think and more time honing the logic of your positions and explaining them more clearly.

    -dale

  9. #429
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    ...I believe that the Japanese government greatly feared the fate of Germany and that of communism, while in the offical emperor's communique and the official reason they use the destructive power of the atomic bombs as an excuse to surrender. Basically, a way out. ...
    But surely that is the key, the A-bombs providing the Japanese leadership with an (face saving) excuse for surrendering. The leadership was pretty much in agreement, that there was no longer anyway for Japan to win, or even 'survive' the war. The debate had become whether or not they should fight to the death rather than live with the shame of a surrender (i.e. an honourable death vs. a shameful survival). The real decision making did not belong to the emperor, until the ruling council deadlocked. So the emperor's 'opinion' only mattered in-so-far as the members of the ruling council appreciated that a deadlock would result in the emperor making the final decision and therefore knowing what the emperor's decision would be beforehand.

    In fact, knowing something of the Japanese consensus style of decision making, I wouldn't be surprized if the decision was made like this (pure speculation on my part):

    Hawks: We want to fight to the death.
    Doves: We believe the nation must survive in some form, even at the cost of living with the dishonour and shame. If we have a tie vote, the emperor will break the deadlock.
    Hawks: But the emperor will choose to end the war, we cannot live with that shame.
    Doves: What will you do then.
    Hawks: We will attempt to seize the government and continue the war.
    Doves: You will of course fail, and will have to executed.
    Hawks: It is agreed then.
    Last edited by deadkenny; 27 Jan 07, at 17:09.

  10. #430
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Account View Post
    Scenario:

    VE day. Germany is defeated. The Japanese are all but.

    Patton gets his wish and a war with the Red Army starts.

    How does it play out?

    Just did this topic at another board, it was a hell of a discussion.
    If it's the Red Army on the offensive, they smash the Allies back behind the Rhine in a couple of weeks, a Russian city gets nuked (or is threatned) and the war is negotiated to a peace.

  11. #431
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33
    Western Allies vs the Soviet Union in 1945:

    Pros for Western Allies:
    1.) Soviet Union had experienced 6 - 9 million casualties and in 1945 were beginning to run out of manpower. In fact, they were releasing prisoners from the Gulags to beef up the Red Army.
    2.) U.S. and British Strategic Bombing.
    3.) Mustang was probably a better fighter than the Yak.
    4.) U.S. had the atom bomb
    5.) U.S. production capacity
    6.) U.S. and British Navy's supremacy of the seas.
    7.) Poland, Hungary, Romania, Baltics etc would view the U.S. as liberators. Possibly Ukraine as well if we emphasized religious freedom etc.
    8.) Probably German officer support for the Western Allies, although at that time, would be considered distasteful.
    9.) General Patton, Bradley etc.
    10.) Marines would be available from Pacific theatre.


    Cons for the Western Allies:
    1.) France and DeGaulle were on the Western Allies side.
    2.) General Winter and General Mud. U.S. troops and equipment had not experienced cold and harsh winter conditions of the Soviet Union.
    3.) U.S. society would be horrified by casulaties in the millions as it would be total war.
    4.) Vastness of the Soviet Union would create long supply lines.
    5.) Partisan (Guerilla) activity.
    6.) Korea and Vietnam showed that technology does not always win a war.
    7.) Zhukov, Rossakossky, Chuikov, and Konev were excellent and ruthless generals. No fear of casualties.
    8.) Russian soldiers could endure just about anything.
    9.) T-34 probably superior to Western Allies tanks.

  12. #432
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman7 View Post
    Western Allies vs the Soviet Union in 1945:

    Pros for Western Allies:
    1.) Soviet Union had experienced 6 - 9 million casualties and in 1945 were beginning to run out of manpower. In fact, they were releasing prisoners from the Gulags to beef up the Red Army.
    2.) U.S. and British Strategic Bombing.
    3.) Mustang was probably a better fighter than the Yak.
    4.) U.S. had the atom bomb
    5.) U.S. production capacity
    6.) U.S. and British Navy's supremacy of the seas.
    7.) Poland, Hungary, Romania, Baltics etc would view the U.S. as liberators. Possibly Ukraine as well if we emphasized religious freedom etc.
    8.) Probably German officer support for the Western Allies, although at that time, would be considered distasteful.
    9.) General Patton, Bradley etc.
    10.) Marines would be available from Pacific theatre.


    Cons for the Western Allies:
    1.) France and DeGaulle were on the Western Allies side.
    2.) General Winter and General Mud. U.S. troops and equipment had not experienced cold and harsh winter conditions of the Soviet Union.
    3.) U.S. society would be horrified by casulaties in the millions as it would be total war.
    4.) Vastness of the Soviet Union would create long supply lines.
    5.) Partisan (Guerilla) activity.
    6.) Korea and Vietnam showed that technology does not always win a war.
    7.) Zhukov, Rossakossky, Chuikov, and Konev were excellent and ruthless generals. No fear of casualties.
    8.) Russian soldiers could endure just about anything.
    9.) T-34 probably superior to Western Allies tanks.



    good one

  13. #433
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by thejester View Post
    If it's the Red Army on the offensive, they smash the Allies back behind the Rhine in a couple of weeks, a Russian city gets nuked (or is threatned) and the war is negotiated to a peace.

    not quite, the Red Army tries to attack to the Rhine but tac air rips it apart while the 8th and BC wrecked the rail lines and bridges in Poland leading to histories biggest encriclement of all time.

    although the VVS was nearly as large as the Western Allied Air Forces it was totally outclasse din terms of planes and proficency. The Sturmoviks and LA's would have been dead meat to existing allied fighters let alone the super fighters coming on line like the H models and jets.

    The Red Army never had to contend with the level of violence form the air the Allies could and did impose at will (weather permitting)

  14. #434
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    not quite, the Red Army tries to attack to the Rhine but tac air rips it apart while the 8th and BC wrecked the rail lines and bridges in Poland leading to histories biggest encriclement of all time.
    Uh-huh.

    The Allied air forces interdiction campaigns 'on the fly' aren't the stuff of legends; I'm highly sceptical of their ability, within a few weeks, to smash the logistical network of the Red Army whilst winning an air superiority fight against an enemy nearly as large.

    although the VVS was nearly as large as the Western Allied Air Forces it was totally outclasse din terms of planes and proficency. The Sturmoviks and LA's would have been dead meat to existing allied fighters let alone the super fighters coming on line like the H models and jets.
    I disagree. The Allies certainly had a huge advantage in terms of pilot quality, but technically the aircraft weren't that much better, certainly not at the low levels where the VVS lurked. I don't think the Allied strategic air forces will have the time to impose their will on the battlefield; as the Bulge shows, it still took time to smash the Reichsbahn sufficiently to stop an already badly weakened logistical network.

    The Red Army never had to contend with the level of violence form the air the Allies could and did impose at will (weather permitting)
    They certainly had to contend with something close to it (the opening weeks of Barbarossa come to mind), and again I wonder whether the Allied air forces will have the time to make the difference. On top of all that, the Allies have simply never, ever experienced anything like multiple Front-level offensives before.

  15. #435
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Uh-huh.

    The Allied air forces interdiction campaigns 'on the fly' aren't the stuff of legends; I'm highly sceptical of their ability, within a few weeks, to smash the logistical network of the Red Army whilst winning an air superiority fight against an enemy nearly as large.
    Faliase Pocket, but we will adress this issue after visiting the conest between the VVS and Western Airforces.

    [quote]I disagree. The Allies certainly had a huge advantage in terms of pilot quality, but technically the aircraft weren't that much better, certainly not at the low levels where the VVS lurked.[quote]

    Lets compare the primary tactical fighters of the combsatants shall we?

    Specifications (P-47D Thunderbolt)
    General characteristics

    * Crew: One
    * Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
    * Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.44 m)
    * Height: 14 ft 7 in (4.45 m)
    * Wing area: 300 ft (27.87 m)
    * Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
    * Loaded weight: lb (kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,935 kg)
    * Powerplant: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 twin-row radial engine, 2,535 hp (1,890 kW)

    Performance

    * Maximum speed: 426 mph at 30,000 ft (685 km/h at 9,145 m)
    * Range: 800 miles combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
    * Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
    * Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)

    Armament

    * 8x 0.5 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
    * Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
    * 10x 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

    Specifications (Typhoon Mk Ib)
    General characteristics

    * Crew: One
    * Length: 31 ft 11.5 in (9.73 m)
    * Wingspan: 41 ft 7 in (12.67 m)
    * Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.66 m)
    * Wing area: 249 ft (23.13 m)
    * Empty weight: 9,800 lb (4,445 kg)
    * Loaded weight: 11,400 lb (5,170 kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 13,980 lb (6,340 kg)
    * Powerplant: 1 Napier Sabre IIC liquid-cooled H-24, 2,260 hp (1,685 kW)

    Performance

    * Maximum speed: 405 mph at 18,000 ft (650 km/h at 5,485 m)
    * Range: 610 mi (980 km)
    * Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,400 m)
    * Rate of climb: 2,630 ft/min (13.4 m/s)
    * Wing loading: 45.8 lb/ft (223.5 kg/m)
    * Power/mass: 0.20 hp/lb (0.33 kW/kg)

    Armament

    * 4x 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannons
    * 2x 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
    * 8x 3 in (75 mm) RP-3 ("60 lb) unguided rockets

    General characteristics

    * Crew: One
    * Length: 8.60 m (28 ft 2 in)
    * Wingspan: 9.80 m (32 ft 1 in)
    * Height: 2.540 m (8 ft 4 in)
    * Wing area: 17.5 m (188 ft)
    * Empty weight: 2,638 kg (5,803 lb)
    * Loaded weight: 3,265 kg (7,183 lb)
    * Max takeoff weight: 3,400 kg (7,480 lb)
    * Powerplant: 1 Shvetsov ASh-82FN radial engine, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp)

    Performance

    * Maximum speed: 680 km/h (425 mph)
    * Range: 990 km (618 miles)
    * Service ceiling: 9,500 m (31,160 ft)
    * Rate of climb: 18.3 m/s (3,608 ft/min)
    * Wing loading: 38 lb/ft (187 kg/m)
    * Power/mass: 0.42 kW/kg (0.25 hp/lb)

    Armament

    * 2x20 mm ShVAK cannon or 3x20 mm Berezin B-20 cannon
    * 200 kg (440 lb) of bombs

    While having similar performance if we only look at speed and rate of climb the much lighter VVS fighter lacked armor and firepower. Also the allies had jets in service by Aug 45 somethign the soviets had no answer for.

    I don't think the Allied strategic air forces will have the time to impose their will on the battlefield; as the Bulge shows, it still took time to smash the Reichsbahn sufficiently to stop an already badly weakened logistical network.
    its not just the strategic airforces, it is the tactical airforces hammring the armored colums of the Red Army as well. Back to Falaise now. the Allies had thousands of tactical aircraft to hit the Red Army with and thiusands more to hit the logistics net work with. Tanks in the open were nothing but targets to marauding Allied fighters armed with rockets, bombs, and what was the most terrifying weapon of the war in a ground support role... Napalm. How fast can the Red Army advance with out infantry? The Tankdesti would not have been hitching ride son the backs of T-34's with napalm armed raiders swooping over head time and time again.

    They certainly had to contend with something close to it (the opening weeks of Barbarossa come to mind),
    the Gemrans had 2000 combat aircraft in 1941. The Allies had 11,000 in 1945.

    and again I wonder whether the Allied air forces will have the time to make the difference. On top of all that, the Allies have simply never, ever experienced anything like multiple Front-level offensives before.
    The Red Army might be able launch big attacks but sustaining them was always a problem. Unlike depleted German formations the Allies wer emuch more mobile, at full or very nearly at full levles of equipment and men, had more and better radios, food, infantry weapons, artillery etc.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Israel works on Iran N-strike
    By Ray in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 27 Sep 08,, 12:20
  2. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  3. Do G4 have a case.
    By crooks in forum International Politics
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 31 Dec 06,, 11:58
  4. America's Pathetic Putin-Envy
    By VovaLee in forum International Politics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 19 Dec 06,, 22:34
  5. Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard
    By Gio in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Dec 04,, 04:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •