Jump to content


May 1945: Soviet Union vs Western Allies


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

Poll: May 1945: Soviet Union vs Western Allies (135 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Who Wins?

  1. Soviet Union (40 votes [29.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.63%

  2. Western Allies (95 votes [70.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 70.37%

Vote Hide poll

FriskyFalcon44 #21 Posted 29 October 2014 - 08:56 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 8887 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013
If conflict arose over poland, the allies could send a fleet into the Baltic sea and have an amphibious invasion in through the north of poland, and in the northeast of germany (the side russia occupied) while the allied armies they have in western germany attack the russians armies stationed in eastern germany, thus attacking from the north and west in germany. And the allies can utilize their naval power in the baltic sea to pound russian defensive fortifications inland, though it wouldn't be extremely far inland, it could do as much as it could. Also american planes were superior to russian planes at the time, so air superiority would be established, thus Russian armored units would be bombed from the sky. And maybe the threat of fighting t-34's and IS-2's would prompt the u.s. to produce more M26 Pershings. in all i think allies would win,this is my take of how it could've happened, even though it may be severely flawed lol oh well

TD skreb, medium driver, with a little heavy action on the side.


LeftHandedMan36 #22 Posted 29 October 2014 - 09:28 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 1830 battles
  • 1,622
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013
I notice people aren't factoring in all the damage and destruction that the Germans inflicted on the Russians during the war. Considerable amounts of their infrastructure had been destroyed during the invasion and during the fight to push them out. It took years for the Soviet Union to repair or rebuild it all. Not to mention the fact that they had just lost over 25 million people. Compare that to the Allies who aren't located in Europe (US, Canada, Australia etc) who's factories, farms and roads hadn't even been touched by enemy forces. Half of their countries hadn't just been burned down by the Germans. These countries may not have had the "stomach" to keep fighting. But they still had the resources and all of their manufacturing base intact to do so should they have had to.
HR8v6r6.png

TKoddaL33 #23 Posted 29 October 2014 - 09:55 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 23775 battles
  • 3,526
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013
The Soviet Union and other little satellite state would be alone in the fight against the Allied Nations. China was still in good relations with the US during the time, for Mao's Era in China didn't start yet.

"SPEED IS THE ESSENCE OF WAR" - Sun Tzu

 

"Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists." - Nikola Telsa


Matthew J35U5 #24 Posted 29 October 2014 - 11:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
I confess myself surprised how few people seem to consider the fact that the Soviet Union out-numbered the western allies by a ~2:1 margin in theatre. I would have thought that alone would be sufficient to make this war an unwinnable proposition.

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


olemanbyers #25 Posted 30 October 2014 - 01:41 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8225 battles
  • 1,090
  • Member since:
    03-04-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 October 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:

I confess myself surprised how few people seem to consider the fact that the Soviet Union out-numbered the western allies by a ~2:1 margin in theatre. I would have thought that alone would be sufficient to make this war an unwinnable proposition.

 

  japan being nuked would free up a few troops...

MrWuvems #26 Posted 30 October 2014 - 02:59 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

Without their reason for their big monsters (Tiger killing), both sides would probably go back to relying on their bread-and-butter tanks, the T-34/85 (possibly the T-34/76) and Sherman until lines could produce the Pershings and T-43 could really ramp up. The deployed heavies would probably be thrown at each-other, with the Pershings (at the time a heavy) being modified into supers.  The brits would probably keep making Fireflies, and the US might invent the Super-Sherman using remaining German guns. Remaining military stock by taking the south of Germany would have been a boon for the West.

 

You may have seen both sides use captured Panthers and Tigers as pillboxes, as the German army did.

 

 

More importantly, each side would spend a lot more resources getting more effective infantry AT weapons into the field. The US didn't like the combat-effectiveness of the early Bazooka in Korea and the PTRS was already pretty outdated.

 

No idea if the Wolverine, Slugger(Jackson), and Hellcat would be seen as important enough to keep in production. With needing to move farther than before, the M12 may have stuck around having earned a place in the US army's playbook.



Matthew J35U5 #27 Posted 30 October 2014 - 03:16 AM

    Major

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

View PostTheMEagle, on 29 October 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

Without their reason for their big monsters (Tiger killing), both sides would probably go back to relying on their bread-and-butter tanks, the T-34/85 (possibly the T-34/76) and Sherman until lines could produce the Pershings and T-43 could really ramp up. The deployed heavies would probably be thrown at each-other, with the Pershings (at the time a heavy) being modified into supers.  The brits would probably keep making Fireflies, and the US might invent the Super-Sherman using remaining German guns. Remaining military stock by taking the south of Germany would have been a boon for the West.

 

You may have seen both sides use captured Panthers and Tigers as pillboxes, as the German army did.

 

 

More importantly, each side would spend a lot more resources getting more effective infantry AT weapons into the field. The US didn't like the combat-effectiveness of the early Bazooka in Korea and the PTRS was already pretty outdated.

 

No idea if the Wolverine, Slugger(Jackson), and Hellcat would be seen as important enough to keep in production. With needing to move farther than before, the M12 may have stuck around having earned a place in the US army's playbook.

 

You mean the T-44 I think, the T-43 had been abandoned in favour of the T-34-85.

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


MegaB0B0 #28 Posted 30 October 2014 - 04:00 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

We do have the whole c&c red alert Series to explore the subject :)

bring on Telsa tanks and combat bears :) and yuri :)

Seriously, soviet army can roll over Europe with the biggest land army at the time, they would defeat the still comparatively noobs American armies with ease if the war against nazis didn't already have a huge psychological impact on the Russian people as a whole. 

That was why half mad Patton was planning to arm what was left of the German army with us weapons to fight the Russians incase, cause he know full well, American ground forces are no match. 

Us high command knows this fact too, they may have the equipment but they don't have the skill and men power to really take on the red  army at that time. Just simply one German under strength army group can wrack havoc on the Americans in the whole spring awaken thing was already evidence American forces would suffer hugely in battle against Russians. 

So yeah, political and military leaders at the time are far far more wise than those paper tiger now at the helm. 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

MegaB0B0 #29 Posted 30 October 2014 - 05:01 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 October 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

I confess myself surprised how few people seem to consider the fact that the Soviet Union out-numbered the western allies by a ~2:1 margin in theatre. I would have thought that alone would be sufficient to make this war an unwinnable proposition.

 

wrote my first reply without seeing ur post.

 

yes, I don't think many factories the size of the land army of ussr. 

It roll over the better trained, highly advance and well equipped german army. 

Real historians agree that the tens of thousand of us trucks lendleased and licence built by ussr put red army infantries on wheels to catch up with the advance tanks to prevent counter attacks encirclements by panzer armies like that of 1943.

 

Us army may have the trucks and tanks but that would make just even fight with Russians and since Russians got more men, they will be able to bleed and end up winning, 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

Matthew J35U5 #30 Posted 30 October 2014 - 05:05 AM

    Major

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

View PostMegaB0B0, on 30 October 2014 - 01:01 AM, said:

 

wrote my first reply without seeing ur post.

 

yes, I don't think many factories the size of the land army of ussr. 

It roll over the better trained, highly advance and well equipped german army. 

Real historians agree that the tens of thousand of us trucks lendleased and licence built by ussr put red army infantries on wheels to catch up with the advance tanks to prevent counter attacks encirclements by panzer armies like that of 1943.

 

Us army may have the trucks and tanks but that would make just even fight with Russians and since Russians got more men, they will be able to bleed and end up winning, 

 

Yeah, I was kind of confused by how many people seemed to take the, "there may be more of them but we are better trained and better equipped!" point of view. I mean... Pretty sure the Soviet Union had already went to war with a "better trained and better equipped" foe.

Spoiler

 


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


STLxSTANG #31 Posted 30 October 2014 - 06:02 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15662 battles
  • 4,305
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014
M1 Garand

 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


Crazedtiger77 #32 Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:52 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014

View PostSTLxSTANG, on 30 October 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

M1 Garand

M1 Garand wasn't even that good. The Soviets had things that could match it so it wasn't a huge advantage.



Dish Jockey #33 Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:01 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16719 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013
Churchill and Crowell's vs is-2, we would all know the result of that battle. Pershing and is-2 would be a decent battle.

STLxSTANG #34 Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:03 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15662 battles
  • 4,305
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 30 October 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

M1 Garand wasn't even that good. The Soviets had things that could match it so it wasn't a huge advantage.

 

Continue.

 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


MegaB0B0 #35 Posted 30 October 2014 - 12:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View Postdaforzaking1998, on 30 October 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Churchill and Crowell's vs is-2, we would all know the result of that battle. Pershing and is-2 would be a decent battle.

 

haha.. IS-2 would rip both apart.. yes, Pershing would get a fair fight with IS-2. But by late 1945 early 46, the lesser mechanically reliable IS-3 be throw in to production, I doubt Pershing's gun would be any good against that. Perhaps we would indeed see likes of US T-3X series in the game pressed in to production as a stop gap respond to IS-3.

 


 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

FriskyFalcon44 #36 Posted 30 October 2014 - 03:42 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 8887 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 30 October 2014 - 03:52 AM, said:

M1 Garand wasn't even that good. The Soviets had things that could match it so it wasn't a huge advantage.

 

but it was extremely good...the svt-40 and mosin nagant were both good as well

TD skreb, medium driver, with a little heavy action on the side.


FriskyFalcon44 #37 Posted 30 October 2014 - 03:44 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 8887 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

View PostMegaB0B0, on 30 October 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

 

haha.. IS-2 would rip both apart.. yes, Pershing would get a fair fight with IS-2. But by late 1945 early 46, the lesser mechanically reliable IS-3 be throw in to production, I doubt Pershing's gun would be any good against that. Perhaps we would indeed see likes of US T-3X series in the game pressed in to production as a stop gap respond to IS-3.

 


 

 

perhaps the brits would've been presured to desig a tank that could match the IS-2, they could've designed the conqueror or conaervaron(? lol)far earlier and produced it

TD skreb, medium driver, with a little heavy action on the side.


DieHardELOFan86 #38 Posted 30 October 2014 - 05:17 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8973 battles
  • 4,061
  • Member since:
    08-13-2013

View PostMegaB0B0, on 30 October 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

 

haha.. IS-2 would rip both apart.. yes, Pershing would get a fair fight with IS-2. But by late 1945 early 46, the lesser mechanically reliable IS-3 be throw in to production, I doubt Pershing's gun would be any good against that. Perhaps we would indeed see likes of US T-3X series in the game pressed in to production as a stop gap respond to IS-3.

 


 

 

Are you forgetting some tanks... Americans would just laugh at Soviet tanks and throw in M46 and M47 Patton.

Signature by METALHELLIONx84, ELO ROCKS !!! thanks METALHELLIONx84 from DieHardELOFan86


STLxSTANG #39 Posted 30 October 2014 - 07:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15662 battles
  • 4,305
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014
Svt40=M1 :great: LOL. Much vodka, such drunk, vow.

 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


TKoddaL33 #40 Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:31 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 23775 battles
  • 3,526
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 October 2014 - 01:05 AM, said:

 

Yeah, I was kind of confused by how many people seemed to take the, "there may be more of them but we are better trained and better equipped!" point of view. I mean... Pretty sure the Soviet Union had already went to war with a "better trained and better equipped" foe.

Spoiler

 

The Western Alliance was on the West going to Germany.

 

Germany vs so many in a giant pincer movement either send some troops to the left and be weak on the right or send troops to the right and be weak on the left or risk it by sending troops to both side weakening both sides. 


"SPEED IS THE ESSENCE OF WAR" - Sun Tzu

 

"Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists." - Nikola Telsa





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users