Jump to content


US vs Russia


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

RangerCharlie75 #1 Posted 29 November 2018 - 06:06 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18017 battles
  • 556
  • [USAV]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
What if at the end of WWII the Russians decided to continue West. Could the French/English/USA forces stop them?

 


I44I Warlock #2 Posted 29 November 2018 - 06:08 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 39161 battles
  • 3,084
  • [I66I]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
I think i would've been a nuclear war since the USA had the A-bomb. 

 

                             

 

               - Execute Order 66 -
                        
 
 3 marked tanks: 70
               
                              
                        

RangerCharlie75 #3 Posted 29 November 2018 - 06:31 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18017 battles
  • 556
  • [USAV]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

What would we Nuke? Long flight to Moscow

 


 


I44I Warlock #4 Posted 29 November 2018 - 06:34 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 39161 battles
  • 3,084
  • [I66I]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Probably the russian forces who attack the west, so USA would've nuked german territory. 

 

                             

 

               - Execute Order 66 -
                        
 
 3 marked tanks: 70
               
                              
                        

RangerCharlie75 #5 Posted 29 November 2018 - 06:41 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18017 battles
  • 556
  • [USAV]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

Armor wise, hand it to the Russians.

Air Forces, the US takes that but I think tactically the Russians have better assets


 


Sadriel Fett #6 Posted 29 November 2018 - 07:46 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 28262 battles
  • 5,251
  • [DARMY]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
I'm sure that Roosevelt and Churchill knew that Stalin was only our ally because we had a common enemy.  I'm sure they knew he would be the next big threat once Germany was taken care of.  I know it sounds kind of sinister, but I always believed they held back from invading Europe long enough for Stalin to exhaust so many of his forces on the Eastern front that he wouldn't be able to sustain another long term conflict for quite a while after the war.  So, we got the "Cold War," instead.  Like I said, I know it sounds grim, but if you had two adversaries and they were also adversaries, wouldn't you let them slug it out as much as they can first, so that you don't have to expend as many of your forces to win?

 

~ "This game would be great, if it wasn't for our teammates." ~

~ There's no such thing as Arty Safe. You have to play Arty Aware. You have to play SmArty. ~


Capn Ratchet45 #7 Posted 29 November 2018 - 08:15 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22260 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    09-05-2015

View PostSadriel Fett, on 29 November 2018 - 07:46 PM, said:

I'm sure that Roosevelt and Churchill knew that Stalin was only our ally because we had a common enemy.  I'm sure they knew he would be the next big threat once Germany was taken care of.  I know it sounds kind of sinister, but I always believed they held back from invading Europe long enough for Stalin to exhaust so many of his forces on the Eastern front that he wouldn't be able to sustain another long term conflict for quite a while after the war.  So, we got the "Cold War," instead.  Like I said, I know it sounds grim, but if you had two adversaries and they were also adversaries, wouldn't you let them slug it out as much as they can first, so that you don't have to expend as many of your forces to win?

wot needs a mode with three teams! 



Otis Z Firefly #8 Posted 30 November 2018 - 12:58 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21446 battles
  • 1,242
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015

View PostRangerCharlie75, on 29 November 2018 - 06:06 PM, said:

What if at the end of WWII the Russians decided to continue West. Could the French/British/USA forces stop them?

Just a little correction.

I've a faint recollection that Churchill wanted to start a war with the Soviet Union straight after the war as they would be depleted in forces. 


Ordo ab Chao.

killer etzi0 #9 Posted 30 November 2018 - 01:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 58956 battles
  • 18,856
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014
Bah, we would have just let Patton have his way, give him a few tank Divisions and plenty of fuel...... game over. :)

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

 

Ronald Reagan
 

 


SightlessRogue0 #10 Posted 30 November 2018 - 10:41 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19927 battles
  • 2,856
  • Member since:
    05-16-2017

Since the material went mainly from Canada to Russia, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if the Russians could afford to move forward without stopping over the Nazis, it is partly because of the thousands of Allied ships that were constantly supplying all the chemicals and partially processed raw materials that the Russian lacked to feed the Stalin factory.

 

Stalin decides to continue west? The northern bridge ceases operations. Even if the Russians are less dependent on this bridge than in the midst of war, they can not do without it completely. Moreover, already at this time the technological and technical superiority of allies in almost all areas is already insurmountable for Russians except that unlike the Nazi ... Allied production capacity is optimal and higher than that of Russian, the raw material unlimited and above all, extracted and processed industrially on a large scale.

 

The Russian army is exhausted, thousands of Allied bombers drop more and more metal every day on the supply lines, shipyard and Russian factory they can not produce. And all that while hundreds of aircraft carriers and other naval buildings, thousands of tanks are built on the side allied without being worried by anything.

Stalin was no better than Hitler, if he could do it, he would have done it without hesitation.


I use Google translator for english language

Lots of juggling in french text, sometimes translator in trouble with that. If you do not understand what I write, tell me.


FuzzySlappybag #11 Posted 10 December 2018 - 11:12 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4852 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    04-18-2017

View PostRangerCharlie75, on 29 November 2018 - 06:41 PM, said:

Armor wise, hand it to the Russians.

Air Forces, the US takes that but I think tactically the Russians have better assets

 

I would disagree because the US and Britain had sizeable assets in the Pacific, including the majority of the US Navy and it's carriers. I don't think Russia was in any position to resist a war on 2 fronts. After all this was Stalins biggest fear and why he signed a peace treaty with Japan.

Any hope Stalin would have had rested on being able to overwhelm Western Allied forces in Europe quickly, but, as already stated, if this looked likely then I believe large Russian formations would have been subject to tactical nuclear strikes.



Panzer lV #12 Posted 19 December 2018 - 09:54 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 19151 battles
  • 1,121
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

It would have been a come as you are slugfest. US and Allies hold advantages, ie, Artillery Allies superior in IDF, in armor T34/85 and M4AE38 Sherman equaly matched, Sherman superior in areas ie, turret traverse speed, gun penetration, optics, mechanical reliability. In Air a toss up Soviets not used to being challenged for air superiority since Zitadelle, Soviet Yak, La match up well and superior in some aspects to Allied fighters ie, low to mid altitude performance etc. Infantry wise Soviet Rifel div's are running way below TOE at and of war, but are the most supported of any nation, with DF assets ie, in 1944 Soviet Rifle Co's attacking on a 100 meter frontage had 3-4 Tank/SU  and 2-3 76mm arty in DF mode, per rifel Co.This scenario has been wargamed for years. Historicaly Stalin kept 2 elite Guards Mechanized Corps in reserve during the Berlin operation, in case the Allies moved on Berlin. 

 

Concerning Nukes questionable use in Europe, as they were off the table vs Germany, seemed to be questions about useing them vs Europeons, vs no qualms about useing them on the Japanese ie, plans were made to use 6 nukes in the opening phase of Olympic, on the Kyashu landing sites. This would have been the first use of tactical nukes, with troops landing 2 hours after detonation. Which shows how little they knew about the after effects of radiation satureation etc, as US troops would have been exposed to radiation wastelands. Thankfully it never came to any of that.

 

Regards, John Waters


Edited by Panzer lV, 20 December 2018 - 04:10 PM.

-Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

-People who can smile when things go wrong, have found someone else to blame.

RangerCharlie75 #13 Posted 27 December 2018 - 12:22 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18017 battles
  • 556
  • [USAV]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
US Infantry reserves were getting low at the end of the war, however the shift from the Pacific to Europe would have brought new troops in. Any benefit to the US making landings on the Russian Pacific side?

 


SuperSherman44 #14 Posted 02 January 2019 - 01:10 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21800 battles
  • 925
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

View Postkiller etzi0, on 30 November 2018 - 01:54 PM, said:

Bah, we would have just let Patton have his way, give him a few tank Divisions and plenty of fuel...... game over. :)

 

Agree:great:

I Heart The Sherman (Best tank of WWII)

 

I got a new Xbox One S so I'm really excited!

 

R.I.P. Xbox 360 E ~2014-2019


deadman1921 #15 Posted 02 January 2019 - 04:48 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29349 battles
  • 1,741
  • [-STO-]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014

Thought at first this was in game then I realized it a historical what if. 

 

Sorry


Soldiers of the One/ #GlenIsOurs

 


XanthiusKrood #16 Posted 03 January 2019 - 02:42 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6407 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    12-15-2015

View PostOtis Z Firefly, on 30 November 2018 - 12:58 PM, said:

Just a little correction.

I've a faint recollection that Churchill wanted to start a war with the Soviet Union straight after the war as they would be depleted in forces. 

Indeed. I was just reading about Churchill's plans for this, earlier today. Operation Unthinkable.

https://www.historyl...on-unthinkable/

 



mockney_piers #17 Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:39 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10046 battles
  • 2,418
  • [FILTH]
  • Member since:
    01-20-2016

yeah, regardless of what happened on the battlefield in the short term, any sort of campaign was utterly unsustainable by the Soviets without western aid, barely sustainable by the Brits, and politically untenable (if not economically so) in both the US and UK.

 



x Papadox #18 Posted 07 January 2019 - 03:04 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15102 battles
  • 628
  • [R8730]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostRangerCharlie75, on 27 December 2018 - 07:22 AM, said:

US Infantry reserves were getting low at the end of the war, however the shift from the Pacific to Europe would have brought new troops in. Any benefit to the US making landings on the Russian Pacific side?

 

Other than taking Vladivostok and cutting the Chinese Communist's supply line via the Trans-Siberian Railway not really. 

 

The Allies realistically would just use their air superiority to bomb the Soviets into submission.


"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Napoleon Bonaparte


OLDxAPOSTLE #19 Posted 19 March 2019 - 04:51 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 15819 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

View PostRangerCharlie75, on 29 November 2018 - 06:41 PM, said:

Armor wise, hand it to the Russians.

Air Forces, the US takes that but I think tactically the Russians have better assets

 

I may be late to the party here but this quote is incorrect. The T 55, and even the T 72 didnt have anything for the M 60s. I've engaged them.

StuftRock1 #20 Posted 20 March 2019 - 02:14 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6470 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    07-29-2015

Soviet Union would not have stood a chance. In 1945 they were in absolutely no position to wage another war. The German invasion left the western side absolutely devastated. Not to mention their supply was low. Armor wise the allies had them beat. By the end of the war, America was in the middle of developing a lot of new very promising tanks, such as the T29, T30, and T34. They didn’t really get far because the war ended and we didn’t really need them anymore. Later in the ‘50s, America had the Patton and M103, while France was developing the AMX 13 and AMX 50, Germany was developing the Leopard 1, and the Brits had the Conqueror and Chieftain. Sweden was also developing the KRV. What did the Soviets have? T-54? T-72? I’m not saying those tanks were bad, but the allied tanks would have prevailed. America also had a VASTLY superior air force. Keep in mind, America had first gen fighter jets like the P-80 Shooting Star. Even our non jet aircraft like the P-51 and B-29 were superior. On top of all that, we had the money and resources to basically vomit those things off the lines. As far as overall firepower goes, we had nukes. They didn’t. ‘Nuff said.

 

As long as Allied leaders weren’t dumb enough to invade the Soviet Union during the winter...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users