Page 1 of 14 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 493

Thread: What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429

    What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

    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.

  2. #2
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    US would have nukes right? Assuming there is still a little time to breath in between the defeat of Germany and the new war, the Western Allies could find out where Soviet divisions are concentrated and wipe them out. I think conventionally the allies would have an advantage too because the Red army would be somewhat wornout from their huge war of attrition with the Nazis, plus, it would be possible (although I dont know if the US military would trust them this far) to rally the Germans against the Russians due to German hatred of Russia. They may not have liked America back then but compared to the Soviets they loved em. Im not sure how deep into the east the allies could push, probably not far beyond the Ukraine without using nukes. The Russians also had superior tanks back then didnt they? And what of Japan? Once defeated, could they be used as a launch pad for a push into Siberia?

  3. #3
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    There would have been only one nuclear weapon available until mid 1946. After that, the US could produce them at a rate of about 8 per year i believe. I have the skinny, i just gotta go back and check.

    The key here is the US PACFLT, B-29 force, and USMC(Again). Much like Germany, the Soviets have no real counter for any of them.

    The T-34/85 was no better than the M4A3E8/76 Sherman or UK Firefly, and the M-26 was a good match for the heavy Russian tanks(IS-2, KV-1). There is also the matter of how in the hell does Russia stop the 8th AF and Bomber command, let alone the B-29 fleet flying from bases in China.

    Wanna be real careful about invading Siberia though. The Russians had 40 divisions there in 45!

    Other invasion routes like up from Persia into Turkmenistan and down from the Barents Sea into ArkAngel/Severomorsk(less than 1000 miles from Moscow) could cause Russia immense problems though.

    And there is another amphibious invasion route via the Black sea directly into the oil rich caucuses region.

    We also need to consider the impact of the immediate loss of lend/lease, and what that would mean to the Soviets.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 18
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26
    I don't think Truman would have hesitated on nukes but, as you say, not enough firepower soon enough, evne if production had been shifted into high gear

  5. #5
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    The debate has been going on for decades.

    ToE and OrBat wise, the Soviets were at a disadvantage. Everyone forgot the Canadians and the Australians who would field another 20 combat veteran divisions.

    Naval wise, the Soviets were at a lost with no navy against the world's four biggest at the time (ABCA).

    Industrial wise, the Soviets plateaued. They were exhausted. With 7-15 million military dead, their equipment lost was equally horrendous. By the end of the war, they were producing just enough to replace their losses. This at a time when Wehrmacht combat capabcity was in decline.

    This being said, let's be honest. The world was exhausted by war. No one had the stomach for another one.

  6. #6
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    The debate has been going on for decades.

    ToE and OrBat wise, the Soviets were at a disadvantage. Everyone forgot the Canadians and the Australians who would field another 20 combat veteran divisions.

    Naval wise, the Soviets were at a lost with no navy against the world's four biggest at the time (ABCA).

    Industrial wise, the Soviets plateaued. They were exhausted. With 7-15 million military dead, their equipment lost was equally horrendous. By the end of the war, they were producing just enough to replace their losses. This at a time when Wehrmacht combat capabcity was in decline.

    This being said, let's be honest. The world was exhausted by war. No one had the stomach for another one.
    I agree with you OE! Soviet Union deadly needed a pause in the war.... nobody could take such hit of stupid Stalin decisions without paying cost of that.

    Plus I guess that Germans would have joined against Red Army. USSR would have needed to pull back and consolidate positions inside the continent somewhere in Poland and Eastern Europe. Though I think that USSR would have had good opportunities to hold such positions...... It was still quite formidable and experienced force to hold

  7. #7
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    I agree, or it might have come to pass before 49 when the Sov's detonated their first nuke.

  8. #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Aug 03
    Posts
    708
    One thing though, Patton may not have died in an auto accident. And while I think very highly of Patton I've often thought that perhaps he died at the best possible time for him. I'm not sure how well he might have made the transition into the late 40's and 50's.
    Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor 2DREZQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Aug 03
    Posts
    902
    Well, for one thing, the P-80 Shooting Star would have been the absolute ruler of the skies over Europe.

    The B-29, based in Europe would have carried things to the Russians. And the B-36 was on its way...
    USS North Dakota

  10. #10
    Staff Emeritus Lunatock's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Location
    Southeast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Stinger
    One thing though, Patton may not have died in an auto accident. And while I think very highly of Patton I've often thought that perhaps he died at the best possible time for him. I'm not sure how well he might have made the transition into the late 40's and 50's.
    The Korean War possibly being a decisive victory?

  11. #11
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    M21,

    Those Soviet Siberian divisions were the cream of the crop. Zukhov cut his teeth with them, killing the Imperial Japanese Army's incursion into Siberia before he took his art West against Paulis and Von Manstein. At the end of the war, they smashed the IJA's Kwangtung Army in Manchuria in a matter of days.

    While Patton is undoubtly one of the best Western allies' manouver generals, he was on par with Zukhov and Chuikov which meant that all three were nowhere near Kesselring, Von Manstein, and Rommel. What the Allies excel at was artillery and bombardment. Manouver was iffy. I don't think Patton could have did any better than Montgomery did. Montgomery caught the Wehrmacht by surprise in Market-Garden. The Wehrmacht was waiting for Patton.

    Kursk and the Battle of the Buldge were used by the Soviets in the 50s and 60s to devise hugging tactics. They remembered that at Kursk, the airforces from both sides refrain from making ground attacks because the battle was so intertwined. In the Battle of the Buldge, the Wehrmacht kept their distance as part of their doctrine to use firepower as the decisive force. This naturally allowed ground attack aircrafts to make life a living hell for them.

  12. #12
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Feb 05
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    M21,

    Those Soviet Siberian divisions were the cream of the crop. Zukhov cut his teeth with them, killing the Imperial Japanese Army's incursion into Siberia before he took his art West against Paulis and Von Manstein. At the end of the war, they smashed the IJA's Kwangtung Army in Manchuria in a matter of days.

    While Patton is undoubtly one of the best Western allies' manouver generals, he was on par with Zukhov and Chuikov which meant that all three were nowhere near Kesselring, Von Manstein, and Rommel. What the Allies excel at was artillery and bombardment. Manouver was iffy. I don't think Patton could have did any better than Montgomery did. Montgomery caught the Wehrmacht by surprise in Market-Garden. The Wehrmacht was waiting for Patton.

    Kursk and the Battle of the Buldge were used by the Soviets in the 50s and 60s to devise hugging tactics. They remembered that at Kursk, the airforces from both sides refrain from making ground attacks because the battle was so intertwined. In the Battle of the Buldge, the Wehrmacht kept their distance as part of their doctrine to use firepower as the decisive force. This naturally allowed ground attack aircrafts to make life a living hell for them.
    FIrst, I am suprised at the lack of appreciation you give to Heinz Guderian, the man was the father of Blitzkrieg, if Hitler did not order his Panzer Group to Kiev after Smolensk, he would be drinking his tea in Moscow. The only reason he never made Field Marshall was Hitler disliked Guderian's frank style and opinions about armored warfare. Another fact of all the units in army group central, only Guderian's men reached thier objectives in Operation Typhoon.

    Now Operation Market-Garden without question the idea was suprise, but it wasnt that suprising, the Germans blew most of the bridges the troops needed to secure and the paprdrop did not occur in one mass wave as necessary but in three waves becasue of a lack air transports. In addition, the allies knowingly sent men into a well defended area, I mean there were three SS divisions there, if they didnt get those bridges in tact and the group support was bogged down, it was a meat grinder in the making. I think Patton's worse decision is distinguishable from Market Garden.

  13. #13
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingCaddy
    FIrst, I am suprised at the lack of appreciation you give to Heinz Guderian, the man was the father of Blitzkrieg, if Hitler did not order his Panzer Group to Kiev after Smolensk, he would be drinking his tea in Moscow. The only reason he never made Field Marshall was Hitler disliked Guderian's frank style and opinions about armored warfare. Another fact of all the units in army group central, only Guderian's men reached thier objectives in Operation Typhoon.
    Well, if you followed this thread and others in this forum. It all boils back down to Hitler. Without Hitler, the Wehrmacht would have fought a very different war (maybe wouldn't start one). Guderian was the master ... but was not allowed to shine under Hitler.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingCaddy
    Now Operation Market-Garden without question the idea was suprise, but it wasnt that suprising, the Germans blew most of the bridges the troops needed to secure and the paprdrop did not occur in one mass wave as necessary but in three waves becasue of a lack air transports. In addition, the allies knowingly sent men into a well defended area, I mean there were three SS divisions there, if they didnt get those bridges in tact and the group support was bogged down, it was a meat grinder in the making. I think Patton's worse decision is distinguishable from Market Garden.
    The debate was if Patton had gotten the fuel instead of Montgomery, would he have done better. I think not. The Wehrmacht was watching Patton (and thus was preparing for Patton), not Montgomery.

  14. #14
    Banned jon_j_rambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Nov 04
    Posts
    261
    Who are you guys kidding? The Germans were overrated! Attacking sleeping farmers with tanks isn't that tough or spectacular.

  15. #15
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Have no idea what you said nor do I care.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

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
  •