Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet vs. American Armies 1945

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soviet vs. American Armies 1945

    I saw the link on the Us vs. Russian armies in the present.

    And I read a number of points in this thread that pointed out the era of closest parity as being the 1970s (after the US had missed a cycle of weapons development due to its involvement in Vietnam). Rather than discussing these times tangently- it would be more interesting to discuss these eras on their own. Especially since the idea of Russia fighting the US in a conventional in 2006 is not that interesting. Russia is certainly formidable and has built many impressive weapons systems...but seriously now.

    But what do y'all think of US Army vs. Soviet Army-- lets say June 1945.

    Armor: Despite persistent myths The Sherman was a match for T-34. The German tanks could club either down at will. But there were not many Pershings in Europe to combat the Stalin series tanks.

    The US had the advantage in Airpower and Artillery.

    The US Navy had a tremendous and insurmountable Naval advantage.

    Nukes---NO NUKES in this discussion- conventional forces please.

    Not sure how the Lend Lease thing would play out in that scenario. The Soviets depended HEAVILY on US trucks, uniforms and rations--but certainly had a formidable military industrial complex.

    The Soviet Army in Europe was battle hardened, fully mobilized and victorious over the Germans. But they had suffered outrageous losses- according to far from "unbiased sources" (the German General's memoirs) they were 'bled white'.

    The performance of US Forces in Korea is not completely relevant since they were materially inferior to their World War 2 equivelant. But it was a conflict where SU-76s and T-34/85s fought with Shermans.

    Let the counterfactual history battle begin.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Longstreet63
    I saw the link on the Us vs. Russian armies in the present.

    And I read a number of points in this thread that pointed out the era of closest parity as being the 1970s (after the US had missed a cycle of weapons development due to its involvement in Vietnam). Rather than discussing these times tangently- it would be more interesting to discuss these eras on their own. Especially since the idea of Russia fighting the US in a conventional in 2006 is not that interesting. Russia is certainly formidable and has built many impressive weapons systems...but seriously now.

    But what do y'all think of US Army vs. Soviet Army-- lets say June 1945.

    Armor: Despite persistent myths The Sherman was a match for T-34. The German tanks could club either down at will. But there were not many Pershings in Europe to combat the Stalin series tanks.

    The US had the advantage in Airpower and Artillery.

    The US Navy had a tremendous and insurmountable Naval advantage.

    Nukes---NO NUKES in this discussion- conventional forces please.

    Not sure how the Lend Lease thing would play out in that scenario. The Soviets depended HEAVILY on US trucks, uniforms and rations--but certainly had a formidable military industrial complex.

    The Soviet Army in Europe was battle hardened, fully mobilized and victorious over the Germans. But they had suffered outrageous losses- according to far from "unbiased sources" (the German General's memoirs) they were 'bled white'.

    The performance of US Forces in Korea is not completely relevant since they were materially inferior to their World War 2 equivelant. But it was a conflict where SU-76s and T-34/85s fought with Shermans.

    Let the counterfactual history battle begin.
    Sorry for putting some soft issue here..... but Soviet people would not fight americans then. For these formidable army to fight an enemy its soldies needed to hate enemy.

    I talked to many veterans - in 1945 they felt that americans and british are brothers who helped them to fight a dangerous predator. It is hard to turn this around 180 degrees.

    I remember talking to one old pilot who fought in Korea. Pilots were not comfortable fighting their former allies.... and they felt that that was mutual. This is quite universal human nature - it is hard to fight former friends.

    ps. Soviet Army would have needed YEARS of propoganda to brainwash soldiers and show them that Americans are enemies and must be feared.

    Comment


    • #3
      Longstreet,
      Here's the thread to read. Basically the same scenario.

      http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=105

      Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would quickly have little to no means of transport, have food supplies stretched, and lose all their high octane aviation fuel. So, I wouldn't underestimate the impact of this on Soviet logistics.

      A-bombs wouldn't have been a factor until 1946 or so, as Los Alamos, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki spent the American arsenal.

      Anyways, there's much more detail in the above thread.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #4
        Russian vs US 1945

        Good question,ive always felt the Red army would win becouse of one thing.The T-34 battle tank,It was voted best tank of ww2 in a military magazine and best tank in history on the military channel.It was tough fast and prolific.The T-34/85 version served well beyond ww2.This version was a superb machine although North Koreans did not fair as well as the Russain crews.Yes it was really the tank that defeated Nazi Germany in the east and i believe really won world war 2.The only thing that could have stopped it was America's atomic monopoly but you said no WMD.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hindle
          The only thing that could have stopped it was America's atomic monopoly but you said no WMD.
          And again, how many weapons were in the inventory after Nagasaki?

          If the scenario is immediately after V-E Day, then it's conventional weapons only for awhile, as a matter of historical fact.

          And I don't think gas was an option for either side, since not even Nazi Germany used gas on the field of battle.
          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hindle
            Good question,ive always felt the Red army would win becouse of one thing.The T-34 battle tank,It was voted best tank of ww2 in a military magazine and best tank in history on the military channel.It was tough fast and prolific.The T-34/85 version served well beyond ww2.This version was a superb machine although North Koreans did not fair as well as the Russain crews.Yes it was really the tank that defeated Nazi Germany in the east and i believe really won world war 2.The only thing that could have stopped it was America's atomic monopoly but you said no WMD.
            Without the high octane aviation fuel provided by the US and the large numbers of US fighters and bombers, how would the Soviets be able to provide air cover for their maneuvering forces?
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hindle
              Good question,ive always felt the Red army would win becouse of one thing.The T-34 battle tank,It was voted best tank of ww2 in a military magazine and best tank in history on the military channel.It was tough fast and prolific.The T-34/85 version served well beyond ww2.This version was a superb machine although North Koreans did not fair as well as the Russain crews.Yes it was really the tank that defeated Nazi Germany in the east and i believe really won world war 2.The only thing that could have stopped it was America's atomic monopoly but you said no WMD.
              You take the fight entirely in a 1v1 scenario between T34 and Sherman. In that case, wide open terrain like 2 boxers in the ring, Sherman probably would have lost.

              But a war doesn't revolve around 2 tanks. It revolve around 2 armies and their support element. American's dominance in the air and superior logistics would prevail.

              Come to think of it, when was the last time the US army fought without air cover?
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gunnut
                Come to think of it, when was the last time the US army fought without air cover?
                Probably early World War II battles and the Battle of the Bulge - at least until the weather broke.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  At least according to the movie about General George S. Patton, General Patton wanted to rally the US Army and conscript the remaining Germany Soldiers to drive the Soviets out of Eastern Germany and Yugoslavia.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TopHatter
                    Probably early World War II battles and the Battle of the Bulge - at least until the weather broke.
                    I guess... Next question: when was the last time the US Army fought under enemy air threat?
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gunnut
                      I guess... Next question: when was the last time the US Army fought under enemy air threat?
                      Never? ;)

                      Nah, I would have to say, early on in the Philippines (1941-42) and Pacific. However, that would be the Marines, not the Army.
                      Last edited by Dago; 19 May 06,, 22:22.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Garry
                        Sorry for putting some soft issue here..... but Soviet people would not fight americans then. For these formidable army to fight an enemy its soldies needed to hate enemy.

                        I talked to many veterans - in 1945 they felt that americans and british are brothers who helped them to fight a dangerous predator. It is hard to turn this around 180 degrees.

                        I remember talking to one old pilot who fought in Korea. Pilots were not comfortable fighting their former allies.... and they felt that that was mutual. This is quite universal human nature - it is hard to fight former friends.

                        ps. Soviet Army would have needed YEARS of propoganda to brainwash soldiers and show them that Americans are enemies and must be feared.
                        Trust me, it would not be difficult for the commisars and zampolits to incite the Russian people to fight against capitalism- communism's mortal enemy.
                        "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gunnut
                          I guess... Next question: when was the last time the US Army fought under enemy air threat?
                          North Africa, early 1943.

                          -dale

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            And then, there was only one fighter squadron (JG27) and various bomber units in the North African theater, and even then they were terribly understrength and short on fuel and munitions.
                            "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              well if Yanks stop Soviet steam roller in France than J think Yanks could win,or stallmate.But if Yanks are push in water than Soviets would win.

                              To destoy Soviet industry you need very big bombers,if we count B-29 it is imposible to get from British island to Ural with big bomb load.Also there where be a MIG-3 high alltitude interceptor,which was build in 1942 and never use for it's purpose.It was very deadly plane on high alltitude.

                              Forgot IS-2 tanks,KVs tanks ,ppsh-41 and ppsh-43, BM-13, La fighter planes.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X