Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is undeniable that the West could have outmannedSchneijr said:I'm going to disagree with some points mentioned earlier, and them I'm going to bring up the most important, undeniable reason that Russia would have lost to the United States, France and England if we'd chosen to go to war at the end. I'm surprised nobody has brought it up yet, and you will all be shocked you didn't think of it.
100 US divisions is about right if the Marines are included.Schneijr said:One of the first points brought up was that the U.S. had just 100 divisions spread across the European and Pacific theaters. Two things must be pointed out: First of all, in addition to American divisions in Europe were English, French, and British divisions. Secondly, American divisions are approximately twice the size of traditional European divisions, which are what I assume the Soviets used. Between these two points, The French, English and Americans (henceforth "The Allies") probably had close to as many men in Europe as the Russians.
Schneijr said:Brought up in the same post is the idea that lines of communication and supply would be far shorter for the Russians than the Allies. As the allies pushed into Russian territory this could be a problem, but early on during conflict in Germany both sides supply and communication lines would be approximately the same length. The Allies, however, would have the option of resupply by sea, neutralizing a lot of supply line issues until they pushed beyond the Balkans.
Schneijr said:The author also brings up the fact that the Russians would be fighting for their homes. What he doesn't bring up is the great hatred common Russians at the time felt for their government. The Russian peasantry greeted the Nazi soldiers as liberators until the brutality of the Germans convinced them that they were no better than the Communists. The Americans, who would have really been liberators, would have been greeted in the same manner but would not have disappointed the Russian masses.
The T-34 was better than the Sherman and the ISSchneijr said:For the next few posts Russia's superior tanks were mentioned: The T-34 and the IS-1/2. These were compared to the Sherman.
Ridiculous: Tank to tank is what we would have been facedSchneijr said:This is like comparing apples and oranges--
Wrong.Schneijr said:the Sherman was an infantry support tank,
The Sherman "Firefly" tank, with upgraded the 76.2mm gunSchneijr said:forced to combat German tanks simply because it's what the Americans had at the time. The T-34 or IS-1/2 could easily take on a Sherman and win, at least at the beginning of the invasion of Europe. By the end of the end of the invasion, however, nearly every Sherman had be re-equipped with the 76mm gun, capable of penetrating a Panther's frontal plate at 1000 yards, making it an effective anti-tank vehicle. With this weapon the T-34 or IS-1/2 would not be very superior to the Sherman in combat.
The Pershing was a great tank, and we had 2000 of themSchneijr said:In addition, the U.S. had the heavy M-26 (in the class of a Panther or a Tiger I) that would have been more than a match for these two Russian tanks if they'd been sent to Europe in large numbers (as they would have been in any conflict with Russia).
The claims made about the quality of the 1945 Red Army are notSchneijr said:I'm not going to take up claims about Soviet troops being well equipped and trained at the end of the war. If this claim is false, then the Russians are in a bad situation. If it is true, then at best they are simply on equal footing to Allied soldiers.
It might interest you to know that the the top US aceSchneijr said:Somebody said that the U.S. would not have gained control of the air. This is simply not true. The United States had a superior air force in Europe when compared to the Russians. The Soviet Air forces were impressive on paper but in fighters inferior to American models, who were piloted by superiorly trained individuals with plenty of experience fighting the Reich above the skies of Germany. They were better led than the Russians as well.
The US P-51 Mustang was the best fighter of the war, andSchneijr said:In addition, superior models of aircraft were ready for flight (including the first American Jet fighter, the F-80) while the Russians had nothing comparable ready to go. They would not get jet technology until after the war. American air superiority would have been a reality, allowing swarms of bombers and attack aircraft to decimate the Russian tanks mentioned above.
Yes, nuclear weapons would have guarenteed eventual victory.Schneijr said:I'm not going to waste time talking about nukes. We had them, they didn't. If we went to war, we would have dropped nukes and there's not much the Russians could have done about it. We could only manufacture a few per year, but a few per year is all we would need.
Western aid ceased immediately with the war's end, and theSchneijr said:In the third to last post Editec says that "The Soviets had 2.5 million combat hardened troops on German soil in 1945." I don't know the exact number, but it was quite a few. But let's go with that number. 2.5 million battle hardened, trained, well armed, and hungry troops.
That's right. Hungry. An army travels on it's stomach. So where did the Russians get all this food? They got it from the United States, who sent it over in ships to the Russians. From Germany to Moscow huge swaths of Russian territory, formerly fertile farmland, was not wasted ruin. Shipping it from the far east of the Soviet Union was expensive, difficult (due to an undeveloped rail infrastructure) and disrupted the flow of raw materials, making the Russians in the region dependent on the flow of American supplies. Russia could have had all the fancy tanks, artillery and aircraft in the world but with starving pilots they wouldn't have done a bit of good. This is why the United States would have won any confrontation with Russia, regardless of other factors.
Wrong.Schneijr said:Let's not forget another thing: The United States won WWII, with the Russians serving as meatshields. If the United States hadn't sent Russian huge quantities of arms, munitions, and equipment Hitler wouldn't have been stopped 50 miles from Moscow.He wouldn't have been stopped at Stalingrad.
Wrong.Schneijr said:In the long term, American industrial might would have won the day. The Soviets for all their impressive military hardware and soldiers, were not an industrial power at the time. They were a third world nation. Farmers still used plows up through the sixties in the Soviet Union. It would have been no contest.
Our chances of ever getting anywhere near Moscow in aSchneijr said:So why didn't we go "On to Moscow"? We would have won the conflict,
Here you are pretty much on the mark, except for KIASchneijr said:but there is another factor: because of public opinion. As someone pointed out earlier, "Uncle Joe" had been America's buddy for the past five years. It would be hard to turn him into an enemy in American's minds after portraying Russia as an ally. In addition, the American public was tired of war. The the though of invading Japan was already decimating popular support of WWII after the German Surrender, which is one of the primary reasons the atomic bomb was used. Do you think they were ready for a war with Russia? A war that would have cost as many allied lives as the potential invasion of Japan would have (for the uninformed, the low estimates were above one million lives).
Bombing operations against such targets wouldIt would have been possible, but it would have required ramping up the US production to even higher rates and using using some very bold moves to attack a logistical tail that ran from central Europe to the Urals.
I do not understand why opening another frontFirst, we would have to attack in the area of Vladivostok and force the Russians to defend another front. Available forces would have been drawn immediately from the Pacific Theater.
It has already been noted that the F-10 was neverSecond, we would have to be ready to and actually achieve air dominance in less than two months. (Probably a shorter time than that). The US would have had P-51s and P-80s. The P-80s were jet fighters and in service into the Korean war. The USSR did not have any jets until 1946.
I have news for you: Northern Iran, including Tabriz,Third, we would have to have opened a southern area of operations either in Iran or by attacking in the Crimea. This area would support the strategic bomber force. For instance, if the US had been able to set up a bomber force flying out of Tabriz, Iran, that would have placed Moscow and the Urals well within B-29 range. P-51s and P-80s could have provided fighter support for all but the longest missions.
Addressed.If we were able to achieve air dominance over the European battlefield, split the Russian forces (forcing them to rail load a significant amount of tanks for a 6,000 mile trip to Siberia. Successfully use B-29s to disrupt rail bridges and other logistics to/from the Urals, then we might have been able to pull it off. Specifically fragile would have been the supply lines to Siberia which would have been under the constant pounding of B-29s trying to isolate that battlefield.
It sure as hell wouldn't be easy and we might have lost more men in three months than we did the whole rest of the war. However, if we managed to split their forces and successfully attack on 3 fronts, obtain air superiority with P-80s and P-51s in central Europe and disrupted their logistical supply lines of fuel and material, the US would have had a better than even shot at it.
There was zero possibility of attacking the Crimea.Third, we would have to have opened a southern area of operations...by attacking in the Crimea.
There was zero possibility of attacking the Crimea.
Within days of the start of war with the West the USSR
could have closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles with
ground forces stationed just over the Turkish border in
the Balkans.
Bombing operations against such targets would
have involved 2-3 times the distance that had
to be covered in the pre D-Day air war against
Germany, and by 1945 the USSR AF was stronger
than Germany's had ever been.
I do not understand why opening another front
would benefit us more than the USSR. PC troops
would have been put to better use trying to keep
the USSR out of western Germany, Greece, Turkey,
and central and southern Iran.
It has already been noted that the F-10 was never
sufficiently debugged to get it into combat. The US
and UK were not far enough along in jet capability to
turn the tide with it in any two months.
I have news for you: Northern Iran, including Tabriz,
was already under USSR occupation, and had been
since 1941. The USSR might well have been able to
overrun the entire country for a song, since the UK
and US did not have large forces anywhere near and
the USSR did, right over the border.
Addressed.
Our B-29s alone would have been inadequate for the mission.Regardless of what the distance was in the ETO, the distances would have been similar to the distances that B-29s were flying against Japan. Since we're talking about 1945-46, we should be focused on SuperForts not B-17s.
I believe the following considerations justify the blanketI don't think you can just make a blanket statement that the USSR AF was stronger. They were stronger tactically. I can accept that. Like I said, there would be nothing about this that would be easy.
I myself noted the relative advantage enjoyed byOnce fully engaged though, I think we would have had more staying power than them. They had already lost 20 million in the war not to mention the 20 million Stalin "offed" during collectivization. Morale would have suffered tremendously too.
An ETO reinforced by the entire PT contingent might at leastThat would have been a complete losing proposition. As you so clearly state in your other posts, the USSR had a great land army and a technologically and numerically superior tank force. If we would have tried to go force on force with them, we would have lost.
Recall that the USSR bulldozed right through a seasonedOur PTO troops were in the area of Vladivostok already, so our invasion could have been effected quickly with VERY seasoned troops who had done many amphibious assaults. We would have had almost every imaginable advantage, use of sea power including very experienced sea based gunners for support. Air cover from carrier based aircraft and B-29s in place and cutting vital supply lines to the battle area.
I would want to move the PTO force to the ATO becauseWhy you would want to move this force from one side of the world to another and what possible advantage that could have eludes me.
Typo by me.I did not mention the F-10, you must be thinking of someone else.
The jet i did mention was the P-80, later F-80, it first flew in 1944 and performed well in Korea.
Iran is right over the border from the USSR, and it is aIran was a back water rear area during the war. Vital for supplies, but except for the moment when the Russians decided to take the northern portion there were not appreciable combat troops. The Americans were also in Iran in large numbers throughout the war assisting with building factories and infrastructure and transportation and Iran was a major conduit of lend-lease.
I think with a reasonable level of audacity of action, it would be within the capabilities of the US to capture whatever they needed to secure in Iran and defend it. Think of it as a Clausewitzian strategy. The USSR can't be strong everywhere at the same time. We can pick our areas to outnumber them and defeat them.
The USSR had an ample supply of oil.Basing out of Iran has other advantages too. It cuts some oil flow, plus Iran built thousands and thousands of vehicles for the Russians, this action would block those supplies.
If the Japanese could not cope with the Red Army in 1945,Also, since it was already a logistical route and the Iranian economy had already been mobilized for the war, the Americans would now reap the advantage of those efforts.
Then you have identified yourself as an amateur byNo, it would have required some effort, but I think the juice would have been worth the squeeze. Remember, amateurs speak of tactics, professionals talk about logistics.
All this is true, but it falls short of making the caseThe US would have had a far superior logistical base of operations. A homeland free from assault with factories in full production. Conversely, the longer the war lasted the more damaged the Soviet infrastructure would have been. Eventually, they would not have been able to resupply their troops. Meanwhile, we would, eventually, have produced enough superior tanks to compete toe-to-toe with the Soviets. The Soviets had no appreciable strategic bombing capabilities when compared to the US and never developed one for the duration of the USSR. This means our supply lines were relatively safe. They had no navy to compete with ours.
Not exactly.That means we could where ever we wanted to go, when ever we wanted to go there.
Yes, and the Germany of 1941-45 was outnumberedFinally, don't misunderstand any of this to mean that I think it would have been easy. I just don't think the Soviets were invincible. They were able to defeat the Germans for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was allied strategic bombing of German production.
What weaknesses are these?In many ways though, the Russian army was a reflection of the German army that faced them. They were both hamstrung by the same weaknesses and had many of the same strengths.
Nuclear weapons would have won the war for us,In the event any of these fronts were to be in danger, then the following cities should be attacked by atomic bomb: Moscow, Gorki, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibrisk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhni Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yarolavl. By June, 1946 the US had 9 plutonium bombs. In a wartime circumstance, I have to think they would have found a way to increase production.