Jump to content


What if-The British and Americans got to Berlin before the Soviets?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
113 replies to this topic

Matthew J35U5 #41 Posted 09 August 2015 - 01:43 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
Just take a look at this map:
There are, if you'll pardon the pun, a great many red armies on this map. There are not many british/french/american/canadian armies. I doubt that "eventually" is going to be very encouraging for those green armies, if they were to fight the red ones. 

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Ace Man 7 Delta #42 Posted 09 August 2015 - 02:40 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
Yea holy s**t who in there right mind would try to stop a mobilised army of that size.. Unless it's coming to show on your doorstep..
"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

GroomingChief65 #43 Posted 09 August 2015 - 02:44 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 478
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

These aren't equal representations of full Russian divisions correct?  they aren't fully mechanized divisions like the allied representations. You're also looking at forces that have very long vulnerable supply lines, food will be cut off from lend lease immediately, they will have no spare parts for the American equipment they've been driving, they will have no cover from any nightly bombing runs, these are all things they've been relying upon heavily to help get the job done, they possess no high alt bombers whatsoever, only short range fighters. Plus they're all concentrated at the front with hostile occupied territory behind them.  Numbers do matter but they're going to need them because they're facing a fresh well equipped opponent with different dynamics... it's not just a continuation of the same.


Edited by GroomingChief65, 09 August 2015 - 03:03 AM.


Matthew J35U5 #44 Posted 09 August 2015 - 04:30 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostGroomingChief65, on 08 August 2015 - 09:44 PM, said:

These aren't equal representations of full Russian divisions correct?  they aren't fully mechanized divisions like the allied representations. You're also looking at forces that have very long vulnerable supply lines, food will be cut off from lend lease immediately, they will have no spare parts for the American equipment they've been driving, they will have no cover from any nightly bombing runs, these are all things they've been relying upon heavily to help get the job done, they possess no high alt bombers whatsoever, only short range fighters. Plus they're all concentrated at the front with hostile occupied territory behind them.  Numbers do matter but they're going to need them because they're facing a fresh well equipped opponent with different dynamics... it's not just a continuation of the same.

Well, those aren't divisions, they are armies. Each army would have a number of divisions. I believe that the "Shock armies" and "Guards tank armies" are all/significantly mechanized.

I'm sure you must be aware of this, but the forces at the front are not literally being supplied their day-to-day food supplies via lend-lease. There is also more than a zero-day supply of excess food... They also have more than a zero-day supply of spare parts. This is all to say that the Soviet military machine is not going to instantly grind to a halt when the Americans stop giving them supplies. 

Why does the Soviet Union need high altitude bombers? They have no interest in strategic bombing campaigns. They have a large air force designed to support their army by bombing enemy forces, and providing air cover for their forces, and that's all they need their air force to do. 

The Soviets were well known to suffer from partisan warfare in occupied Poland and Germany. Or maybe that was just the excuse they made for their reprisals. 

What new dynamic would the Soviets need to worry about exactly? The Wehrmacht at one point was a well-equipped, well-trained fresh force too. 

It never ceases to surprise me how much contempt is inculcated in people towards the armed forces of the Soviet Union. No-one would blink at the thought that a German force which outnumbered the western allies 3:1 would annihilate them. Yet because they're Russian, they can't fight apparently. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Ace Man 7 Delta #45 Posted 09 August 2015 - 04:53 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
In 1944/45 the soviets were a GIANT sledgehammer.  It would have taken A-bombs to stop a pissed off soviet army at that state of readiness..  I don't think allied forces could have just kept that army under check if it decided to keep moving west..
 
 

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Uranprojekt #46 Posted 09 August 2015 - 11:31 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

Well, those aren't divisions, they are armies. Each army would have a number of divisions. I believe that the "Shock armies" and "Guards tank armies" are all/significantly mechanized.

I'm sure you must be aware of this, but the forces at the front are not literally being supplied their day-to-day food supplies via lend-lease. There is also more than a zero-day supply of excess food... They also have more than a zero-day supply of spare parts. This is all to say that the Soviet military machine is not going to instantly grind to a halt when the Americans stop giving them supplies. 

Why does the Soviet Union need high altitude bombers? They have no interest in strategic bombing campaigns. They have a large air force designed to support their army by bombing enemy forces, and providing air cover for their forces, and that's all they need their air force to do. 

The Soviets were well known to suffer from partisan warfare in occupied Poland and Germany. Or maybe that was just the excuse they made for their reprisals. 

What new dynamic would the Soviets need to worry about exactly? The Wehrmacht at one point was a well-equipped, well-trained fresh force too. 

It never ceases to surprise me how much contempt is inculcated in people towards the armed forces of the Soviet Union. No-one would blink at the thought that a German force which outnumbered the western allies 3:1 would annihilate them. Yet because they're Russian, they can't fight apparently. 

 

It was rare for Guards and Shock divisions/armies to not be mechanised to some degree. They were the tip of the spear most of the time and so they were, more often than not, fully mechanised or at least mostly mechanised.

 

As for the contempt shown towards the Red Army, which seems to fairly common on these forums, I don't get it. Is it because they effectively won the war? I mean, what is the reason behind the logic that "Russians can't fight because they're Russian"?


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


lem891 #47 Posted 09 August 2015 - 12:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6288 battles
  • 162
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 09 August 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

It was rare for Guards and Shock divisions/armies to not be mechanised to some degree. They were the tip of the spear most of the time and so they were, more often than not, fully mechanised or at least mostly mechanised.

 

As for the contempt shown towards the Red Army, which seems to fairly common on these forums, I don't get it. Is it because they effectively won the war? I mean, what is the reason behind the logic that "Russians can't fight because they're Russian"?

 

You find the sentiment across a lot of forums, even dedicated history forums. I think it's because for the most part a lot of peoples primary exposure to WWII is through History Channel (etc.) documentaries and books that tend to be a bit biased. People also take the fact that the Soviets always outnumber the Wehrmacht (and usually took higher casualties)  to mean that the only reason the Soviets won was because of their higher numbers.  

RPGStylee #48 Posted 09 August 2015 - 12:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostUranprojekt, on 09 August 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

It was rare for Guards and Shock divisions/armies to not be mechanised to some degree. They were the tip of the spear most of the time and so they were, more often than not, fully mechanised or at least mostly mechanised.

 

As for the contempt shown towards the Red Army, which seems to fairly common on these forums, I don't get it. Is it because they effectively won the war? I mean, what is the reason behind the logic that "Russians can't fight because they're Russian"?

 

Propaganda and heavily biased historical texts/studies after the war. They've been taught that all commies are poor, starving peasants who must run at machineguns or be shot for cowardice. The Nazi's would be proud of western views of the reds.

Edited by RPGStylee, 09 August 2015 - 12:38 PM.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


Matthew J35U5 #49 Posted 09 August 2015 - 02:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 09 August 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

Well, those aren't divisions, they are armies. Each army would have a number of divisions. I believe that the "Shock armies" and "Guards tank armies" are all/significantly mechanized.

I'm sure you must be aware of this, but the forces at the front are not literally being supplied their day-to-day food supplies via lend-lease. There is also more than a zero-day supply of excess food... They also have more than a zero-day supply of spare parts. This is all to say that the Soviet military machine is not going to instantly grind to a halt when the Americans stop giving them supplies. 

Why does the Soviet Union need high altitude bombers? They have no interest in strategic bombing campaigns. They have a large air force designed to support their army by bombing enemy forces, and providing air cover for their forces, and that's all they need their air force to do. 

The Soviets were well known to suffer from partisan warfare in occupied Poland and Germany. Or maybe that was just the excuse they made for their reprisals. 

What new dynamic would the Soviets need to worry about exactly? The Wehrmacht at one point was a well-equipped, well-trained fresh force too. 

It never ceases to surprise me how much contempt is inculcated in people towards the armed forces of the Soviet Union. No-one would blink at the thought that a German force which outnumbered the western allies 3:1 would annihilate them. Yet because they're Russian, they can't fight apparently. 

 

It was rare for Guards and Shock divisions/armies to not be mechanised to some degree. They were the tip of the spear most of the time and so they were, more often than not, fully mechanised or at least mostly mechanised.

 

As for the contempt shown towards the Red Army, which seems to fairly common on these forums, I don't get it. Is it because they effectively won the war? I mean, what is the reason behind the logic that "Russians can't fight because they're Russian"?

Thank you. I thought they were mostly mechanized, but I could only find the OOB for individual guards and/or shock armies, so I didn't want to say they were all like that. 

I understand the logic that most people have that Germans>Westerners>Russians (though they're wrong). But the russians beat the Wehrmacht. And they never had a 3:1 numerical advantage over the entire theatre until the very end of the war. And yet when they do have a 3:1 advantage, they can't beat the Americans/British?

View PostRPGStylee, on 09 August 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

View PostUranprojekt, on 09 August 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

It was rare for Guards and Shock divisions/armies to not be mechanised to some degree. They were the tip of the spear most of the time and so they were, more often than not, fully mechanised or at least mostly mechanised.

 

As for the contempt shown towards the Red Army, which seems to fairly common on these forums, I don't get it. Is it because they effectively won the war? I mean, what is the reason behind the logic that "Russians can't fight because they're Russian"?

 

Propaganda and heavily biased historical texts/studies after the war. They've been taught that all commies are poor, starving peasants who must run at machineguns or be shot for cowardice. The Nazi's would be proud of western views of the reds.

They should be proud, they wrote the sources people use to make that assessment. (Well, Halder technically isn't a Nazi, but "Prussian military elite" is close enough for me. 



GroomingChief65 #50 Posted 09 August 2015 - 03:41 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 478
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

IMO high altitude nightly allied bombing raids would likely dispose of the short-range fighters the Russians would have sitting vulnerable less than a couple hundred miles from the front lines, the Allies would make short work of those and establish air superiority very quickly. At that point 2:1 or 3:1 numbers mean nothing, coordinated attacks from fresh allied divisions with full command of the air would be formidable. Patton's well-equipped divisions are a bit different from fighting what's left of the Germans at the end, 70 year old volksturm and 12 year old HJ, come on, no different? You're going to keep rolling when you've been lucky someone was pushing your opponent from the rear?  True there are still many Russian troops in the bean-counting sense, but there always would be correct?.. slap skis on the Mongolians and people from other far flung territories and I suspect you can keep losing a million troops indefinitely.



Matthew J35U5 #51 Posted 09 August 2015 - 06:01 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostGroomingChief65, on 09 August 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:

IMO high altitude nightly allied bombing raids would likely dispose of the short-range fighters the Russians would have sitting vulnerable less than a couple hundred miles from the front lines, the Allies would make short work of those and establish air superiority very quickly. At that point 2:1 or 3:1 numbers mean nothing, coordinated attacks from fresh allied divisions with full command of the air would be formidable. Patton's well-equipped divisions are a bit different from fighting what's left of the Germans at the end, 70 year old volksturm and 12 year old HJ, come on, no different? You're going to keep rolling when you've been lucky someone was pushing your opponent from the rear?  True there are still many Russian troops in the bean-counting sense, but there always would be correct?.. slap skis on the Mongolians and people from other far flung territories and I suspect you can keep losing a million troops indefinitely.

I've been humouring you, but you're an idiot. The Germans were down to old men and young boys because the russians had already killed/captured most of the regular German forces. And you want to talk about how much easier one's life is when you're fighting someone that is distracted, the Americans and British had never fought the Germans on anything like an even footing because 80% of the Wehrmacht was in Russia fighting the russians. You seem to think that fighting the western allies would be some kind of problem for the Russians, how are the Americans and british going to deal with fighting an enemy that actually has the resources to launch large-scale offensives? 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


GroomingChief65 #52 Posted 09 August 2015 - 06:44 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 478
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

I've been humouring you, but you're an idiot. The Germans were down to old men and young boys because the russians had already killed/captured most of the regular German forces. And you want to talk about how much easier one's life is when you're fighting someone that is distracted, the Americans and British had never fought the Germans on anything like an even footing because 80% of the Wehrmacht was in Russia fighting the russians. You seem to think that fighting the western allies would be some kind of problem for the Russians, how are the Americans and british going to deal with fighting an enemy that actually has the resources to launch large-scale offensives?

 

 

I figured it would come down to name calling and no substance sooner or later.  Get back to me when you figure out how to repel those nightly bombing runs,  The facts of the matter are Russian losses far exceeded the Germans, and drawing the conclusion they had an army at the end of the war which would push fresh Allied forces out to the sea when the bulk of their best people were also like the Germans long since killed or captured in the process then replaced by anyone they could shove into a uniform is well IMO selling the Allied forces short in a major way. I don't think any historian of note will agree with you on that.



RPGStylee #53 Posted 09 August 2015 - 06:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14782 battles
  • 13,632
  • Member since:
    05-12-2014

View PostGroomingChief65, on 09 August 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

 

I figured it would come down to name calling and no substance sooner or later.  Get back to me when you figure out how to repel those nightly bombing runs,  The facts of the matter are Russian losses far exceeded the Germans, and drawing the conclusion they had an army at the end of the war which would push fresh Allied forces out to the sea when the bulk of their best people were also like the Germans long since killed or captured in the process then replaced by anyone they could shove into a uniform is well IMO selling the Allied forces short in a major way. I don't think any historian of note will agree with you on that.

 

Actually the red army were highly experienced by the end of the war. They were the strongest land army in the world at that point.

CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!

Please do it I have slow self-esteem you don't want to hurt my feels do you?

 

Head Kanonenjagdpanzer sales expert


Sqn Ldr B #54 Posted 09 August 2015 - 06:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
Sorry I bothered to make a thread posing an intellectual historical question. You bunch of idiots obviously can't discuss historical matters without derailing a thread and bickering among yourselves about who is wrong and who is right.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #55 Posted 09 August 2015 - 07:04 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostGroomingChief65, on 09 August 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

 

 

I figured it would come down to name calling and no substance sooner or later.  Get back to me when you figure out how to repel those nightly bombing runs,  The facts of the matter are Russian losses far exceeded the Germans, and drawing the conclusion they had an army at the end of the war which would push fresh Allied forces out to the sea when the bulk of their best people were also like the Germans long since killed or captured in the process then replaced by anyone they could shove into a uniform is well IMO selling the Allied forces short in a major way. I don't think any historian of note will agree with you on that.

No, you know who agrees? The people Churchill asked to plan for war with the Soviet Union. They called the plan "Unthinkable", because they realized it was a very bad idea. But clearly Churchill should have asked you. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


GroomingChief65 #56 Posted 09 August 2015 - 07:07 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10524 battles
  • 478
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 09 August 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Sorry I bothered to make a thread posing an intellectual historical question. You bunch of idiots obviously can't discuss historical matters without derailing a thread and bickering among yourselves about who is wrong and who is right.

 

I apologize dude, it did drift. I'm out of it.

Uranprojekt #57 Posted 09 August 2015 - 09:52 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostGroomingChief65, on 09 August 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

 

I figured it would come down to name calling and no substance sooner or later.  Get back to me when you figure out how to repel those nightly bombing runs,  The facts of the matter are Russian losses far exceeded the Germans, and drawing the conclusion they had an army at the end of the war which would push fresh Allied forces out to the sea when the bulk of their best people were also like the Germans long since killed or captured in the process then replaced by anyone they could shove into a uniform is well IMO selling the Allied forces short in a major way. I don't think any historian of note will agree with you on that.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the Soviets didn't possess much in the way of AAA. The Soviets took air defence very seriously and made a separate branch of the armed forces purely for air defence, the "voyska PVO" branch. The V-PVO had a large arsenal of fighters and AAA at it's disposal, including many thousands of 37 mm and 85 mm AA guns. The voyska PVO and the VSS (Soviet Air Force) could also send up a few hundred Yak-9s if need be, particularly the Yak-9PD high altitude interceptor. In a pinch, the Il-2 Sturmovik could also be used as a bomber interceptor but only at altitudes under 5,500 m.

 

You also seem to be forgetting that not every single Soviet division saw combat during the closing stages of WWII, quite a few would have been held in reserve, so the Western Allies are not the only ones with fresh troops at their disposal. Let's not pretend here, the Soviets had a lot more battle hardened veterans in their armies than the Western Allies did because the Soviets had a lot more soldiers. Make the point that Soviets had higher casualties than the Germans all you want, the Soviets could afford those losses. You can't say the same for the Germans or the Americans and British.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


DStegCat #58 Posted 11 August 2015 - 04:21 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

This thread is mute.  Most of this was negotiated long before the end of the war.  Read about Yalta conference proposals, negotiations, and results. 

 

Commanders were given orders and for the most part they were obeyed.


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Sqn Ldr B #59 Posted 11 August 2015 - 06:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
For the last damn time, the topic is what-if the British and Americans got to Berlin before the Soviets, not was it possible the British and Americans could get to Berlin before the Soviets. There are hundreds of possibilities in WW2 that never happened, the idea of this thread was for people to discuss what it would be like IF it happened, not for people to argue about whether or not it was possible. Now its just dissolved into a couple of people arguing about whether or not the allies could beat the Soviets in an all out war. Its not really related to the original post. If you want to carry on your petty bickering, go and start your own thread and do it there.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #60 Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:19 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

 

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 11 August 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

For the last damn time, the topic is what-if the British and Americans got to Berlin before the Soviets, not was it possible the British and Americans could get to Berlin before the Soviets. There are hundreds of possibilities in WW2 that never happened, the idea of this thread was for people to discuss what it would be like IF it happened, not for people to argue about whether or not it was possible. Now its just dissolved into a couple of people arguing about whether or not the allies could beat the Soviets in an all out war. Its not really related to the original post. If you want to carry on your petty bickering, go and start your own thread and do it there.

The generals in charge would have been extremely embarrassed at having been unable to locate the Elbe. Why would the Americans and British reach Berlin before the Soviets when they didn't have any orders to advance to Berlin?

And despite what you're saying, it is perfectly relevant whether or not the Soviet Union would have triumphed over the western allies in a war since some people suggested that the end result would be war. I see no reason to be so fussy over on-topic posts. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users