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

TLP Ideal User #41 Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:53 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 20854 battles
  • 113
  • [POPRS]
  • Member since:
    11-07-2013

I have to say I think the Allies could have pushed the Soviets out of Germany and Poland. The Soviets had greater manpower in the region and tanks, but lacked any strategic bombers.  Bombing would have been mostly convention, if the war with the soviets lasted long enough till after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, very limited atomic warfare would have happened. Bottom line we had them and they didn't. That would have greatly reduced their production and supply to continue a long term fight with the allies.

 

 


 

 I have no doubt the soviet people had a lot of drive and would put one hell of a fight but in the end it be a loss. I don't think the Allies would have (or had the capacity) to invade all of the USSR, but would have pushed them out of Europe to about where the boarder of Russia is today.  We'd defiantly force a cease fire or surrender no doubt.  Like one poster said,  China was still friendly towards the US.  We could have turned the Japanese into an ally, at least to some extend.  In the end both sides would have been burned out economically and mentally; loss of life would be great.


 

Most likely the Cold War would have happened to some capacity. Nuclear and space race still would have happened. Korea would have been very different, most likely wouldn't happen the Korean peninsula wouldn't have been divided as if the West won a confrontation with the Soviets. Vietnam...hm probably the same due to China's influence.  Soviet expansion probably wouldn't have happened as much as it did because  they would have known the West wouldn't hesitate to take action due to history. Most of that is up to speculation because of politicians screwing things up and what not.



Matthew J35U5 #42 Posted 30 October 2014 - 10:22 PM

    Major

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

View PostTKoddaL33, on 30 October 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

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. 

Does that change that the Soviet Union outnumbered the Western allies 2:1 in theatre? I mean, yes, the Western front is part of why Germany was outnumbered so heavily by the Soviet Union, but the result of that seems to dispel the idea that "better trained and better equipped" (which I think is an entirely arguable point, I don't know that the Soviet Union was poorly equipped in quantity or quality with respect to the western allies, and I would expect the veteran Soviet troops to be no less effective than the western troops), is enough to win a war.

View PostTLP Ideal User, on 30 October 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

I have to say I think the Allies could have pushed the Soviets out of Germany and Poland. The Soviets had greater manpower in the region and tanks, but lacked any strategic bombers.  Bombing would have been mostly convention, if the war with the soviets lasted long enough till after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, very limited atomic warfare would have happened. Bottom line we had them and they didn't. That would have greatly reduced their production and supply to continue a long term fight with the allies.

 

 


 

 I have no doubt the soviet people had a lot of drive and would put one hell of a fight but in the end it be a loss. I don't think the Allies would have (or had the capacity) to invade all of the USSR, but would have pushed them out of Europe to about where the boarder of Russia is today.  We'd defiantly force a cease fire or surrender no doubt.  Like one poster said,  China was still friendly towards the US.  We could have turned the Japanese into an ally, at least to some extend.  In the end both sides would have been burned out economically and mentally; loss of life would be great.


 

Most likely the Cold War would have happened to some capacity. Nuclear and space race still would have happened. Korea would have been very different, most likely wouldn't happen the Korean peninsula wouldn't have been divided as if the West won a confrontation with the Soviets. Vietnam...hm probably the same due to China's influence.  Soviet expansion probably wouldn't have happened as much as it did because  they would have known the West wouldn't hesitate to take action due to history. Most of that is up to speculation because of politicians screwing things up and what not.

I think that you are overrating the importance of strategic bombers, the VVS was in much better shape than the Luftwaffe had been, the degradation of rail infrastructure would not hinder the Red Army as much as it had the Heer. If the war had broken down into a stalemate, maybe strategic bombers could have made the difference, but the Red Army's numerical superiority seems like it would be decisive. +1 anyway for putting some thought into my question. :)

 

I was trying to figure this out yesterday with some friends, what was the range of the strategic bombers located in the European theatre? I'm curious as to how effectively they could have degraded the Soviet union's industry, I would have thought what with how large Russia is that their industry would mostly be safe, but I could be wrong about that.


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


MegaB0B0 #43 Posted 30 October 2014 - 11:41 PM

    Major

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

View PostDieHardELOFan86, on 31 October 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

 

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

 

M46 wasn't designed in 1946, period, nor does m-47, only machines on the pipeline as prototypes can be on track to mass production. 

The patterns historically don't show up til 1948 with experiences learn on the pershings.

so if we are talking about immediate continuation of 1945 war to 1946, it won't martialise. 


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!!!

TKoddaL33 #44 Posted 31 October 2014 - 12:01 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 October 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Does that change that the Soviet Union outnumbered the Western allies 2:1 in theatre? I mean, yes, the Western front is part of why Germany was outnumbered so heavily by the Soviet Union, but the result of that seems to dispel the idea that "better trained and better equipped" (which I think is an entirely arguable point, I don't know that the Soviet Union was poorly equipped in quantity or quality with respect to the western allies, and I would expect the veteran Soviet troops to be no less effective than the western troops), is enough to win a war.

But you're forgetting Soviet military mentality then. Mass the troops into a giant death charge to overwhelm the opposition, which is a undecisive and costly move, especially against Western Alliance. Not to mention super weapons own by the Western Alliance while Soviets have yet to know how to produce their own.


"SPEED IS THE ESSENCE OF WAR" - Sun Tzu

 

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


MegaB0B0 #45 Posted 31 October 2014 - 12:01 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 31 October 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

Does that change that the Soviet Union outnumbered the Western allies 2:1 in theatre? I mean, yes, the Western front is part of why Germany was outnumbered so heavily by the Soviet Union, but the result of that seems to dispel the idea that "better trained and better equipped" (which I think is an entirely arguable point, I don't know that the Soviet Union was poorly equipped in quantity or quality with respect to the western allies, and I would expect the veteran Soviet troops to be no less effective than the western troops), is enough to win a war.

I think that you are overrating the importance of strategic bombers, the VVS was in much better shape than the Luftwaffe had been, the degradation of rail infrastructure would not hinder the Red Army as much as it had the Heer. If the war had broken down into a stalemate, maybe strategic bombers could have made the difference, but the Red Army's numerical superiority seems like it would be decisive. +1 anyway for putting some thought into my question. :)

 

I was trying to figure this out yesterday with some friends, what was the range of the strategic bombers located in the European theatre? I'm curious as to how effectively they could have degraded the Soviet union's industry, I would have thought what with how large Russia is that their industry would mostly be safe, but I could be wrong about that.

Yes, The whole us uk bombing run only help put them on the list for war crimes against civilians, than successfully reduce enemy production strength, In the long run. Cause even with a mechanical computer bombsight on board the accuracy of high attitude bombing is so off, it basically moving bombs from factory to blow up in empty land over 90 precent of the time against strategic targets. So, to be more effective, heavy bombers were turn to bomb cities. 

They use thousands of planes to level Germany ball bearing industry, only halted productions for about a month...with heavy looses in bombers.

German airfields were disabled by medium to light bombers even fighters at the end of the war, not by heavy bombers. 

I m pretty sure recent doco on the bombing will tell how useless the whole thing was in strategic side of things. 

Germany managed to make a handful of bombing runs with the superbly designed but mechanically unreliable he-177 to the tank production factories deep in Russia in 1943, little impact was made to tank numbers come out of those factories. 

So I don't think us would make much gain doing the same. 

Japanese decentralise their aircraft production, effectively make impossible for us to target just the factories, it didn't stop them producing planes, the issue they have were no pilots and no fuel to fly those planes. 

So today's general consense was, high level strategic bombing was one of the most costly in pilots lives, expensive to operate,  lease effective tactic in targeting enemy strategic capacity to war. It does however, rather effective in levelling large cities and bring trouble to civil economy. 

 

 

 


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!!!

Crazedtiger77 #46 Posted 31 October 2014 - 08:24 AM

    Major

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

If war had broken out between the USSR and the allies, here's how I see it playing out:

 

1.Germany has a revolution against Hitler, placing a new government in charge who agrees to join the allies against the USSR in exchange for an end of hostilities.

 

2. Allied commanders move into German-held territory facing no resistance. USSR reconnaissance sees this and warns the Soviet High Command that they could have been betrayed. Stalin places all forces on high alert and puts pressure on his commanders to capture Berlin.

 

3. The Allies issue an ultimatium to Stalin, warning that if he does not withdraw from all territories beyond Russia, a state of war will exist. He refuses and war is declared in France, Britain, Germany, the Commonwealth, Italy and the USA amongst others.

 

4. The combined air forces of the new alliance are strong enough to overwhelm the unprepared Soviet pilots over Berlin who only thought they would be fighting a spent Luftwaffe. Instead, allied jets give them a huge edge over the Soviets.

 

5. V1 and V2 plants captured by the allies are kept running in order to help bombard soviet supply lines. Overstretched, Zhukov is forced to retreat to Germany's border under pressure from both these and standard air power, but allied heavy bombers take many casualties and are withdrawn.

 

6. Superior soviet numbers are put to good use in defending the area around Poland, but an increasingly hostile population forms fierce resistance movements which damage both morale and the ability of the army to fight.

 

7. Finland agrees to open a second front, supplied from Britain with equipment. In order to keep the supply line to Finland open, the allies send a huge naval force to destroy Soviet sea power. This proves successful and the Soviets divert many troops to the Finnish front.

 

8. Facing a tired, less numerous and demoralised foe, an assault is made against Soviet lines led by captured King Tigers. After tough fighting, the Soviets withdraw and retreat to the Soviet Border. Frustrated, Stalin orders all men applicable for the army to join or face death.

 

9.The main soviet airfields are bombed and the Soviet air force depleted. 

 

10. Thousands of T34-85s clash with Allied tanks (predominantly Shermans) in the largest tank battle ever. Even though both sides take devastating losses, no real progress is made either side, but civilians in the USSR feel angry at their leaders.

 

11. Strikes in the Soviet Union develop into a revolutionary movement. When Stalin retaliated with violence, even more people join the cause and unleash their anger at the state which had failed to meet its promises. Troops are brought back to Moscow to defend it from revolutionary forces.

 

12. The Allies break through on all fronts, facing a confused leadership. Thousands of Soviet troops surrender immeaditaly with their equipment and the allies link up with the revolutionary armies. Encircling Moscow, the allies face determined resistance and the finest soviet equipment such as IS-3s, but this isn't enough and  after weeks of fighting near Moscow, the Soviets surrender.  A new democratic government is formed based on French principles. The war in the East, delayed whilst the Russian campaign took place, is finished with the dropping of two nuclear bombs. China, eternally grateful, joins the new UN as a friendly communist country and world peace is assured for the time.


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 31 October 2014 - 07:38 PM.


STLxSTANG #47 Posted 31 October 2014 - 09:33 AM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 31 October 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

If war had broken out between the USSR and the allies, here's how I see it playing out:

 

1.Germany has a revolution against Hitler, placing a new government in charge who agrees to join the allies against the USSR in exchange for an end of hostilities.

 

2. Allied commanders move into German-held territory facing no resistance. USSR reconnaissance sees this and warns the Soviet High Command that they could have been betrayed. Stalin places all forces on high alert and puts pressure on his commanders to capture Berlin.

 

3. The Allies issue an ultimatium to Stalin, warning that if he does not withdraw from all territories beyond Russia, a state of war will exist. He refuses and war is declared in France, Britain, Germany, the Commonwealth, Italy and the USA amongst others.

 

4. The combined air forces of the new alliance are strong enough to overwhelm the unprepared Soviet pilots over Berlin who only thought they would be fighting a spent Luftwaffe. Instead, allied jets give them a huge edge over the Soviets.

 

5. V1 and V2 plants captured by the allies are kept running in order to help bombard soviet supply lines. Overstretched, Zhukov is forced to retreat to Germany's border under pressure from both these and standard air power, but allied heavy bombers take many casualties and are withdrawn.

 

6. Superior soviet numbers are put to good use in defending the area around Poland, but an increasingly hostile population forms fierce resistance movements which damage both morale and the ability of the army to fight.

 

7. Finland agrees to open a second front, supplied from Britain with equipment. In order to keep the supply line to Finland open, the allies send a huge naval force to destroy Soviet sea power. This proves successful and the Soviets divert many troops to the Finnish front.

 

8. Facing a tired, less numerous and demoralised foe, an assault is made against Soviet lines led by captured King Tigers. After tough fighting, the Soviets withdraw and retreat to the Soviet Border. Frustrated, Stalin orders all men applicable for the army to join or face death.

 

9.The main soviet airfields are bombed and the Soviet air force depleted. 

 

10. Thousands of T34-85s clash with Allied tanks (predominantly Shermans) in the largest tank battle ever. Even though both sides take devastating losses, no real progress is made either side, but civilians in the USSR feel angry at their leaders.

 

11. Strikes in the Soviet Union develop into a revolutionary movement. When Stalin retaliated with violence, even more people join the cause and unleash their anger at the state which had failed to meet its promises. Troops are brought back to Moscow to defend it from revolutionary forces.

 

12. The Allies break through on all fronts, facing a confused leadership. Thousands of Soviet troops surrender immeaditaly with their equipment and the allies link up with the revolutionary armies. Encircling Moscow, the allies face determined resistance and the finest soviet equipment such as IS-3s, but this isn't enough and  after weeks of fighting near Moscow, the Soviets surrender.  A new democratic government is formed based on French principles. The war in the East, delayed who lost the Russian campaign took place, is finished with the dropping of two nuclear bombs. China, eternally grateful, joins the new UN as a friendly communist country and world peace is assured for the next 50 years.

Wow! Too much to respond to but the short answer is no.


 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


Crazedtiger77 #48 Posted 31 October 2014 - 09:46 AM

    Major

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

View PostSTLxSTANG, on 31 October 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Wow! Too much to respond to but the short answer is no.

 

Why?


Matthew J35U5 #49 Posted 31 October 2014 - 02:45 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 31 October 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

1.Germany has a revolution against Hitler, placing a new government in charge who agrees to join the allies against the USSR in exchange for an end of hostilities.

 

5. V1 and V2 plants captured by the allies are kept running in order to help bombard soviet supply lines. Overstretched, Zhukov is forced to retreat to Germany's border under pressure from both these and standard air power, but allied heavy bombers take many casualties and are withdrawn.

 

8. Facing a tired, less numerous and demoralised foe, an assault is made against Soviet lines led by captured King Tigers. After tough fighting, the Soviets withdraw and retreat to the Soviet Border. Frustrated, Stalin orders all men applicable for the army to join or face death.

 

9.The main soviet airfields are bombed and the Soviet air force depleted. 

I thought your scenario was interesting, but I just wanted to comment on these individual points:
1. I think Germany did try to do this? They wanted to make a separate peace with the West so that they could continue fighting the Soviets. The West refused. 
5. I doubt the V2 or V1 would be that effective at bombarding supply lines, I was under the impression that city-sized targets was all they could reliably hit. 
8. It would be hard for King Tigers to lead an assault anywhere when they spend most of their time broken down at base. :P
9. I think the VVS is written off too easily here. 
Anyway, it was a good read. :)


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


Crazedtiger77 #50 Posted 31 October 2014 - 04:01 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 31 October 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

I thought your scenario was interesting, but I just wanted to comment on these individual points:
1. I think Germany did try to do this? They wanted to make a separate peace with the West so that they could continue fighting the Soviets. The West refused. 
5. I doubt the V2 or V1 would be that effective at bombarding supply lines, I was under the impression that city-sized targets was all they could reliably hit. 
8. It would be hard for King Tigers to lead an assault anywhere when they spend most of their time broken down at base. :P
9. I think the VVS is written off too easily here. 
Anyway, it was a good read. :)

 

Germany was hoping to fight with the west against the USSR but we wouldn't ally ourselves with a Nazi government.

The V1s especially were very accurate and Germany made a huge mistake wasting them on cities. The V1 was effectively very long range artillery so was good at bombardment.

The Tigers get a bad rep for reliability. Whilst not as reliable as a Sherman, with care they could keep in action for a long time.

The Soviet air force was not as efficient as the west and we could break their codes due to the work of Alan Turing in making a computer, giving our air forces the edge. Also, the Soviets had no jets (their first jet engines were British after WW2) but we had things like the Meteor which outmatched the Yakolevs.


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 31 October 2014 - 07:27 PM.


Matthew J35U5 #51 Posted 31 October 2014 - 04:11 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 31 October 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

 

Germany was hoping to fight with the west against the USSR but we wouldn't ally ourselves with a Nazi government.

The V2s especially were very accurate and Germany made a huge mistake wasting them on cities. As for the V1, it was effectively very long range artillery so was good at bombardment.

The Tigers get a bad rep for reliability. Whilst not as reliable as a Sherman, with care they could keep in action for a long time.

The Soviet air force was not as efficient as the west and we could break their codes due to the work of Alan Turing in making a computer, giving our air forces the edge. Also, the Soviets had no jets (their first jet engines were British after WW2) but we had things like the Meteor which outmatched the Yakolevs.

According to this, minimum predicted CEP was 4.5 km, recorded CEP was 12 km. Accounting for allied disinformation, and the CEP is ~6 km. Not really close enough to hit things that aren't cities. 

Spare parts for Tiger II's would probably be in short supply. It would be more feasible I think to not use them. 

Edit: You could be right about the VVS, but it would be more complicated than just bombing their airfields as was suggested. 


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


JASON BOURNE450 #52 Posted 31 October 2014 - 05:00 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9396 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
In the Korean war, when the US got near the Chinese border the Chinese invaded north Korea and pushed the Americans back passed the 38th. Now I'm sure that the soviets would have been better armed and better trained than the Chinese so would'nt the same happen in Europe, where the soviets had much more men(4:1) and equipment(2:1) and had a huge buffer zone behind them. Then again the allies were finishing off the atomic bomb and could have used it on any soviet cities. 

"The two most Powerful Warriors are patience and time" - Leo Tolstoy

 

Tanks Owned: JP E-100, Tiger(Otto), E-100, Jagdtiger,, PZ 38H, T110E5, Birch gun, Matilda, T-62A, KV-2, Churchill III, IS-3, ISU-152  Goal tanks: FV304 

 


Crazedtiger77 #53 Posted 31 October 2014 - 07:37 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 31 October 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

According to this, minimum predicted CEP was 4.5 km, recorded CEP was 12 km. Accounting for allied disinformation, and the CEP is ~6 km. Not really close enough to hit things that aren't cities. 

Spare parts for Tiger II's would probably be in short supply. It would be more feasible I think to not use them. 

Edit: You could be right about the VVS, but it would be more complicated than just bombing their airfields as was suggested. 

Sorry, I meant to refer to the V1 which was slightly more accurate. Anyway, as it was cheap to produce V1s if you could fire many of them at the supply lines as mentioned and hit most of them.

 

If the allies took over production of Tiger 2s then they would make the manufacturers create more spare parts than they had done under the Nazis, when whole tanks were prided more than spares. In the immediate post war era many German tanks were used to equip the allies (Panthers were extensively used by the French.)

 

Yeah, that post was getting long so I decided to simplify it a little with regards to the air forces.



Matthew J35U5 #54 Posted 31 October 2014 - 09:32 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 31 October 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Sorry, I meant to refer to the V1 which was slightly more accurate. Anyway, as it was cheap to produce V1s if you could fire many of them at the supply lines as mentioned and hit most of them.

 

If the allies took over production of Tiger 2s then they would make the manufacturers create more spare parts than they had done under the Nazis, when whole tanks were prided more than spares. In the immediate post war era many German tanks were used to equip the allies (Panthers were extensively used by the French.)

 

Yeah, that post was getting long so I decided to simplify it a little with regards to the air forces.

I read two articles today about the Tiger II, one a translation of a historian's article on the ru WoT portal, and the other a translation of a Soviet report about their captured Tiger II's. I found them to be quite interesting.


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


GingerNinjaMax #55 Posted 01 November 2014 - 02:25 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

What I find incredible about this thread is the lack of historical  facts and realism applied to many of the answers.

Most of them are pleasant little fictions like sneaking in through Uncle Jos back door. Siberia. An area so vast and bleak when in winter the endless forests are 5 ft deep in snow and the temp gets to -40 or more. why do you think that against the Germans  Stalin used large numbers of Siberian and Mongolian troops. Attacking Vladivostock is a no-no and even while all this is going on we have "oh lets get the Japanese on our side". To do what exactly.  they were finished only the home Army was left to defend the main islands or a few thousands scattered around the pacific and in China. Not worth the peace treaty that would be required to end the war on Japan. That is if Truman could get it through Congress which he wouldn't of!.

Then we could get the German people to overthrow Hitler. Wrong. Hitler was already dead in May 45. and they had from say 1942 when it started going wrong to get rid of him. 

Moving on to the Super weapons. Apart from the A-bomb what are these weapons. The Russians were already experimenting with jet aircraft and did some one say using British Jet Engines. Hell there all British. Frank Whittle invented the damn thing.

Also some one complained about the British not making a good post war tank so force them to make the caernarvon. What about the Centurian. It started to arrive in Germany in June/July  1945.And as some one else said the Pattons didn't turn up for another 3 years

The fact is the Cold War happened for a reason. The allies, including the ones in Europe (Britain) as someone forgot to say but did give the Aussies a mention,  knew they would not win a Russian war without the use of Nuclear weapons. As Matthew said what about that massive 2.5 to 1 advantage in Tanks, anti Tank guns and infantry that would fight to the death. And what's more Stalin knew it also. that is why Stalin got his way so much. That is when he is not being overthrown by revoultionary armies. PLZ

The final thought is that the world was tired of war. There was no way they were going to start a new one now.  

Sorry to be so critical but a little Knowledge can be a dangerous thing!

Good OP though!


Edited by GingerNinjaMax, 01 November 2014 - 02:29 AM.


Crazedtiger77 #56 Posted 01 November 2014 - 07:43 AM

    Major

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

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 01 November 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

What I find incredible about this thread is the lack of historical  facts and realism applied to many of the answers.

Then we could get the German people to overthrow Hitler. Wrong. Hitler was already dead in May 45. and they had from say 1942 when it started going wrong to get rid of him. 

Moving on to the Super weapons. Apart from the A-bomb what are these weapons. The Russians were already experimenting with jet aircraft and did some one say using British Jet Engines. Hell there all British. Frank Whittle invented the damn thing.

Also some one complained about the British not making a good post war tank so force them to make the caernarvon. What about the Centurian. It started to arrive in Germany in June/July  1945.And as some one else said the Pattons didn't turn up for another 3 years

The fact is the Cold War happened for a reason. The allies, including the ones in Europe (Britain) as someone forgot to say but did give the Aussies a mention,  knew they would not win a Russian war without the use of Nuclear weapons. As Matthew said what about that massive 2.5 to 1 advantage in Tanks, anti Tank guns and infantry that would fight to the death. And what's more Stalin knew it also. that is why Stalin got his way so much. That is when he is not being overthrown by revoultionary armies. PLZ

The final thought is that the world was tired of war. There was no way they were going to start a new one now.  

Sorry to be so critical but a little Knowledge can be a dangerous thing!

With regards to the overthrowing Hitler, you do realise that a group of generals tried to kill him in 1944 and it was only through really bad luck it didn't work. It was a real possibility that another government could have been in charge instead of Hitler.

 

As I said earlier the Russians did not have any useable jet engines until they bought them from the British after the war. 

 

Stalin was scared of being attacked, hence he was so nice in the immediate post war era. He tried to be friendly with the allies for he feared such a war as even with the huge USSR, he would be fighting most of Europe, North America, Africa (through colonies) and Asia (also through colonies). He couldn't have won.

 

You're probably right about the world being tired of war, the West and Russia all wanted peace at the time and achieved it until the Korean war. However, even into the Cold War the fact that neither side started a European War shows how scared of war they were.



SteampunkPagan #57 Posted 01 November 2014 - 09:41 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 95114 battles
  • 7,807
  • [HDC-R]
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostStarshoy, on 29 October 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

Could not happen, because there is no victory strategy for any side. Soviets could likely win on operational level because by that time they have very experienced and equipped in all areas and numerically superior forces. However, even if they manage to completely draw Western Allies out of continental Europe (which is questionable), they could not seriously harm  UK or USA. In turn,  Allies could not attack USSR proper in any conventional way, losses would be prohibiting - even invasion of comparatively very weak and small Japan was much feared.  There were no nukes yet,  whether they would work as a decisive factor or be used against enemy who could eventually retaliate is not certain. So nobody wanted to make another bet.

 

View PostNimoysHeadinJar, on 29 October 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Sorry, this will be long...

American forces did not push to Berlin for the specific reason that a fight would have broken out with the Russian forces. Allies were already settling in for the inevitable political war of wills but had no desire to fight.  You're looking at 10 years of war to follow at the least, barring use of atomic weapons. This means atomic weapons would have been employed by the Allies. Had open hostilities continued, Russia would have rushed atomic development to around early 1947, as opposed to 1949. They would have immediately deployed them and we would all still be glowing to this day.

 

Germany would have fought against the Russians for shear self-preservation but it's not likely this would have flown well with Allied fighting troops. Thus creating the need for separate command logistics. German forces were in shambles and would not have been effective,  other than as blocking or insurgent forces, for several years.

 

Japan would have drawn back even further to play a war of defensive attrition to take advantage of America fighting on two fronts, knowing once again the US would prioritize Europe. Russia likely would sign another treaty of convenience with Japan, much like the one initially with Germany, to avoid an eastern front. 

 

China is the big question here. The communist forces in China were fighting all through WWII. They were NOT Russian style communists. They were communist out of necessity for a sprawling, rural population across a vast land mass. It was simply the best method to rule while underdeveloped. The US backed the Nationalist forces simply because of the C-word. In fact, as late as the outbreak of the Korean War, Chinese communists desperately wanted the US as allies. They only turned to Russia because the allies refused to help with aid after WWII ended. Russia forced China into the Korean War by offering development and military aid in exchange for helping North Korea. Many, many accounts of Chinese soldiers telling American troops they considered them friends for helping against the Japanese. They were simply forced to fight by political party commissars provided by Russia. Thus China became the kind of communists we despise. We caused that problem. Our backing of Chiang Kai-shek, who was an inept despot, lost us the friendship of China.

 

Back to the European front... it would have gotten ugly if open hostilities continued. Both sides knew what was coming but did not have the stomach for continued war at that time. There would have been little organized resistance in the countries east of Germany that were swallowed into what became the USSR. Years of German occupation made it easy for Russia to continue to hold them down. 

 

Had open warfare continued, I believe our world today would resemble something close to the Mad Max movies. So I say, god bless the cold war.

Good well thought out post by both of you.:great:


“Who shot him? I asked. The grey man scratched the back of his neck and said: Somebody with a gun.” ― Dashiell Hammett, Red Harvest

"Arrête! C'est ici l'empire de la Mort"

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


MegaB0B0 #58 Posted 01 November 2014 - 10:00 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 01 November 2014 - 01:45 AM, said:

I thought your scenario was interesting, but I just wanted to comment on these individual points:
1. I think Germany did try to do this? They wanted to make a separate peace with the West so that they could continue fighting the Soviets. The West refused. 
5. I doubt the V2 or V1 would be that effective at bombarding supply lines, I was under the impression that city-sized targets was all they could reliably hit. 
8. It would be hard for King Tigers to lead an assault anywhere when they spend most of their time broken down at base. :P
9. I think the VVS is written off too easily here. 
Anyway, it was a good read. :)

Yeap, I can see you read a lot of info as well.. I am falling behind, I have stopped reading since three years ago lol

you are pretty much right. V2 v1 aren't even effective weapons in its original deployed versions. It is not possible for v1 to hit anything that ain't random, so does v2

 

the king tiger is another piece of engineer that stretched the German material resources. 

The engine is pushing it with the material as the Germans can't afford to use lighter materials to make them, so to push such a monster, it is pushing the design to an extreme, hence break down is frequent. then there is the transmission, the German tank running gear from tiger on has been unreliable therefore to pull the monster, the gearing often get ware out far quicker than it is possible. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the more Tiger 2 be spending time in the service yards than fight on the front line.

the fuel to power the thing would power two plus Sherman in covering the same distance. So I doubt the us would deploy them in large numbers. 

By 1945, the Russian Air Force has enough aces and no of planes to go head on against Germans best, little wonder why so many ace of the aces died in the last months of the war. The only draw back the red Air Force was the same as the Germany Air Force: no strategic bomber air arm.

the atom bomb can be seen as a factor that tame the Russian leadership down, since they are too far behind in the atomic research and they know they need time to even that out. 

 

 


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!!!

olemanbyers #59 Posted 01 November 2014 - 01:04 PM

    Captain

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

View PostKing oF Tatin, on 31 October 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

In the Korean war, when the US got near the Chinese border the Chinese invaded north Korea and pushed the Americans back passed the 38th. Now I'm sure that the soviets would have been better armed and better trained than the Chinese so would'nt the same happen in Europe, where the soviets had much more men(4:1) and equipment(2:1) and had a huge buffer zone behind them. Then again the allies were finishing off the atomic bomb and could have used it on any soviet cities. 

 

1. the chinese invasion was largely a surprise, like the original NK invasion.

 

2.it's not as much room to maneuver on the korean peninsula as western russia



Tiberius67 #60 Posted 01 November 2014 - 09:40 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9329 battles
  • 1,351
  • [PIGS]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

The best case scenario the Allies could hope for is to push Stalin back within it's pre-war borders....I really don't think they had the ability, much less political will, to push on to Moscow. And between what the Germans did in the East and the alacrity in which the Allies handed over the Vlasov men, freed "workers", and even fugitive "Whites" from the Civil War, to Stalin....i don't see the allies getting any help at all from the people once they push east of places like Ukraine or the Baltics, or even much from them. Worst case, the Sovs make it to the Channel then find Allied naval power too much to contend with.

 

And given that the Federal Government was riddled with Soviet Agents....FDR had at least one and possible two in his Cabinet...Stalin would have known all about it and had plenty of time to be ready or even attack preemptively.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users