What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

**dalem** · 07 Mar 05,, 22:51

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Was there ever any question about who the real enemy was for them?

Besides, after the war the US and Russia split the scientists, but had the war continued among erstwhile allies.... well, let me just say that many of the final battles of the war consisted of German armies trying to break out of Soviet encirclement to reach American and British lines. Fight to the finish. And those scientists would not wish to remain behind at the tender mercy of the NKVD!

Oh my tongue was very deeply inserted in my cheek with that one sir.

-dale

**Bill** · 08 Mar 05,, 01:17

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Yeah, but the real future was in the Meteors. We probably could have started turning out our own versions of the Me-262 before too long as well (with captured German scientists assisting, of course). With either of those models, we would have swept the sky clean of Soviet aircraft with minimal losses to ourselves. Then it's time for the bombers to start destroying Soviet tank divisions!

The US already had operational P-80 shooting star jet fighter sqns active in 1945.

**TopHatter** · 08 Mar 05,, 02:04

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The Bearcat made the performance of the legendary Hellcat look like that of a Piper Cub in comparison.

Yep, exactly why I mentioned it - great minds think alike

As far as Meteors being the wave of the future, nobody (but the deluded) can deny that. However, remember that back in the day, the hotrod state-of-the-art piston fighter was still a respectable foe, even for a jet. Why make such a dubious assertation?
Let's go back to the early-mid 40's, shall we?

The piston plane isn't going to run out of fuel nearly as fast as those early jet engines. It is FAR more reliable and easier to control. You need a real elite pilot to get the most out of a jet. It can fly more sorties than a jet fighter can.
I've also read somewhere that during the Korean War, a Corsair shot down a jet. A mouse killing a cat!

I've been trying to find the details, but no luck
All of this is academic since only the Western Allies had jets flying during the war (discounting the Axis of course). The Western Allies had both the hottest piston planes AND the jets.

The US already had operational P-80 shooting star jet fighter sqns active in 1945.
Don't know if I would have wanted to fly a P-80 back then though, it seems like it was something of a widow-maker, Dick Bong comes to mind

Here, a little eye-candy

**Bill** · 08 Mar 05,, 02:59

The F-8....."The last gunfighter".

One of my all time faves.

**lwarmonger** · 08 Mar 05,, 04:46

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The US already had operational P-80 shooting star jet fighter sqns active in 1945.

Yeah, from what I've heard, flying the P-80 was kind of like sitting on top of a roman candle. You're just waiting for it to explode. Takes a braver man than I!

**TopHatter** · 08 Mar 05,, 06:10

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The F-8....."The last gunfighter".

One of my all time faves.

Yeah, not a bad looking photo, for a bunch of Frogs.
On the other hand, name me ONE navy that has maintained a CTOL carrier force since the end of WWII? (No, NOT the USN

)

I fondly remember the first time I saw an F-8 in person.
It is/was being restored by the Battleship Alabama Memorial. Dear Dad remarked that he never did care for them (the appearance I would imagine) but I smiled at an old gunfighter being restored for her final duty
(Dad was more more taken with the A-4 in the aircraft hanger)

**Bill** · 09 Mar 05,, 13:25

I'm most partial to the A-7, but then, i have personal reasons for that.

The site of an A-7 still brings a smile to my face, 15 years removed from my ETS.

**TopHatter** · 09 Mar 05,, 15:30

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I'm most partial to the A-7, but then, i have personal reasons for that.

The site of an A-7 still brings a smile to my face, 15 years removed from my ETS.

OK, let's hear it! (If it's not too personal, that is

)

**Bill** · 09 Mar 05,, 19:55

TH, you've got a PM.

**TopHatter** · 09 Mar 05,, 21:04

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

TH, you've got a PM.

Roger, copy that

**WeeGiZ** · 03 May 05,, 10:44

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I think the Sherman got a bad rap. More Soviet tank crews died in T-34s than Allied crews in Shermans albeit due to Zukhov's ability to burn men and equipment to get what he wants. Then again, the same could be said about Patton.

hm, take a look at the biggest battles in the East front ant West front...Think number of Soviet/Allies divisions/infantry/armor involved not even close...

**WeeGiZ** · 03 May 05,, 10:48

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The later sherman, the M4A3E8 was about a dead equal to the T-34/85.

The early shermans sucked, but so did the early T-34. The early Nazi tanks(that the original sherman was meant to counter), equally sucked.

It was only going into Europe and facing Tigers, P IV's, etc, that made the sherman a death trap.

Against the PI/II, and most of the PIII's, the Sherman was adequate.

in early stages of WWII, Vermacht could defeat T-34/KVs just by 88mm AA gun, heavy LR artillery, bombing...almost every AT gun was obsolete against them. Quite well for a sucker...and this "suckers" 76.2mm gun was used on Marder-III series, which germans called quite succesive...

**WeeGiZ** · 03 May 05,, 11:02

Originally Posted by Anvilanthony

Well for some reason other sites have different accounts and numbers.

Sniper, if we had nuked Moscow and all the other major russian cities we wouldn't have to worry today about nations or terrorist stealing one of russias 30,000 nuclear warheads that they can't even find. They're so friggen high on vodka we got to pay em' millions of dollars just to keep sober.

Don't forget, large number of these terrorist were trained by CIA (like Bin Laden) to fight soviets in afganistan. Then they turn against you...
About vodka - who's they? Elite SOBR units in Chechnya (they are more police unit made of experienced military, dedicated policmen and etc.) almost didn't drink while being in zone of war (so I heard from the man that was with them for a month almost - he said, some of them took vodka in the winter, but no more than 100-150ml while having dinner, once a day).
And BTW, play God and nuke everyone you don't like..Soviets, then France (not in love them,right?), then gen.Frank in Spain, then Yugoslavia (they were more like socialist country), as well as half of east Europe with communist goverments by the end of 1945...Napoleon (in fact russians) burned Moscow almost to the ground - it didn't helped him though...And you would have radioactive zone (like in Chernobyl now), but difference would be, that this area would cover almost whole Europe and Russian up to Ural mountains...
You're kind weird to me... are crazy so or you simple don't understand side effects of nuclear weapon or is it just your point of view?

**WeeGiZ** · 03 May 05,, 11:15

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

People keep forgetting that the Soviets were exhausted physically, industrially, and most of all, emotionally. The Soviets lost almost two generations of young men. They were ready to kill themselves to kill the Nazis. I don't think people realize just how much they hated each other (the same with the Americans and Japanese).

The Soviets were in no mood to take on a fresh bloodletting.

As I see from other posts, it wouldn't be matter, as mainly here I'm reading "invade USSR, nuke the Moscow etc..". You wouldn't be a Good guy's anymore?
Soviets lost two generation just because France&UK did NOTHING, when nacis claimed half of the Europe ~1936-1939...And here we can see opinion like "Soviets did their job - Soviets can vanish"..
And as I heard the opinionof SOBR soldiers:
"Don't mistake by judging of russian soldiers. He needs two know only 2 things to be a fierce warrior: 1. To be sure what he is fighting for, 2. To fight for his country..."

**WeeGiZ** · 03 May 05,, 11:31

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

What of Lenin? Was he not Russian?

While I am not of the opinion that airpower (especially in WWII) is capable of winning a war against a powerful opponent on its own, it would have severely hampered the Soviet army's ability to take ground. That would have delayed the Soviet's long enough for America's vastly superior industrial base to come into play, and at that point the Soviet Union would have been finished. Remember, Russia had just had four years of total war on your own soil, whereas the United States was completely untouched. Russia also was reliant upon America for much of it's logistics (trucks were largely American), so once that support was cut off, Russia would have been in big trouble. Nuclear weapons wouldn't have been a huge edge (we didn't have that many), but they would have helped destroy the largest transportation hubs, thus further enhancing the supply difficulties of the Soviet Armies.

You got a point - in first stages of WWII soviet ground forces delayed germans enough for "vastly superior industrial base (over Germany) to come into play".
We can say that after 4 years of fighting, Soviet army was expierienced, hard-trained, industry was also on the roll...