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

GingerNinjaMax #61 Posted 02 November 2014 - 03:36 PM

    First lieutenant

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 01 November 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

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.

Sorry to be pedantic but I know about Stauffenburg and the bomb plot but the question is May 45 what if... so yes there could have been  a different government but unfortunatly there wasn't so we deal with the facts as they were.

As for the jet engine. I dont know for sure about them buying jet engines off the British but I cannot see that you hand a technology like that to an enemy but even so the technology was out in the open from 1935 so given that it wouldn't be that long before they got the engines sorted themselves.

as for the fighting around the world. The western powers had Colonies sure but none that were near to Russia so as to  mount an attack against Soviet soil and the Premise is for the west to liberate Poland so why would he fight in north Africa as USSR didnt have colonies anywhere so why attack and mount invasions far from home. Just No.

          Nor would he need to attack for resources. they had it all. Oil coal steel. the lot. No again. Stalin would have let them come to him and then just hit them with overwhelming numbers somewhere else regardless of casualties, for which he had no care.  All of this "Poor Russia the casualties they took in the war" was mainly due to inept and genocidal leadership. 

He was not really scared of invasion. He just wanted a rather large buffer between the West and Russian soil. He was nice to us so we would let him keep his new Eastern European empire.

Just one other thing to throw into the mix. The French had strong Communist groups with a lot of political and military support so asking the french people for an attack on the Russians would mean De gaulle probably saying Non to keep them all sweet. so no French Army. now what.........


Edited by GingerNinjaMax, 02 November 2014 - 03:46 PM.


Crazedtiger77 #62 Posted 02 November 2014 - 10:07 PM

    Major

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

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 02 November 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

Sorry to be pedantic but I know about Stauffenburg and the bomb plot but the question is May 45 what if... so yes there could have been  a different government but unfortunatly there wasn't so we deal with the facts as they were.

As for the jet engine. I dont know for sure about them buying jet engines off the British but I cannot see that you hand a technology like that to an enemy but even so the technology was out in the open from 1935 so given that it wouldn't be that long before they got the engines sorted themselves.

as for the fighting around the world. The western powers had Colonies sure but none that were near to Russia so as to  mount an attack against Soviet soil and the Premise is for the west to liberate Poland so why would he fight in north Africa as USSR didnt have colonies anywhere so why attack and mount invasions far from home. Just No.

          Nor would he need to attack for resources. they had it all. Oil coal steel. the lot. No again. Stalin would have let them come to him and then just hit them with overwhelming numbers somewhere else regardless of casualties, for which he had no care.  All of this "Poor Russia the casualties they took in the war" was mainly due to inept and genocidal leadership. 

He was not really scared of invasion. He just wanted a rather large buffer between the West and Russian soil. He was nice to us so we would let him keep his new Eastern European empire.

Just one other thing to throw into the mix. The French had strong Communist groups with a lot of political and military support so asking the french people for an attack on the Russians would mean De gaulle probably saying Non to keep them all sweet. so no French Army. now what.........

 

Britain was broke after WW2 and with Atlee' s Labour government in power it seemed sensible to sell the British jet technology to a 'friendly' USSR on the condition that it wouldn't be used in military aircraft. Well, you can guess how well that went. 

 

No, the colonies don't mean that the USSR will attack them but their reserves and manpower (India in particular) were great enough to even the odds with the USSR. Don't forget that these troops could be sent to Europe to fight.

 

If France had failed to stay with the Allies, then all that would have happened would have been that Britain would have got all those left over Panthers rather than France. Dr Gaulle would still have helped indirectly so it wouldn't make a huge difference.



Matthew J35U5 #63 Posted 02 November 2014 - 10:18 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 02 November 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

 

Britain was broke after WW2 and with Atlee' s Labour government in power it seemed sensible to sell the British jet technology to a 'friendly' USSR on the condition that it wouldn't be used in military aircraft. Well, you can guess how well that went. 

 

No, the colonies don't mean that the USSR will attack them but their reserves and manpower (India in particular) were great enough to even the odds with the USSR. Don't forget that these troops could be sent to Europe to fight.

 

If France had failed to stay with the Allies, then all that would have happened would have been that Britain would have got all those left over Panthers rather than France. Dr Gaulle would still have helped indirectly so it wouldn't make a huge difference.

 

Why do you keep mentioning such german technology as Panthers, King Tigers, or the V1/V2 rockets? All of those weapons were fundamentally failures. Why for instance would it matter if Britain acquired the left-over Panthers operated by France post-WWII, when not only would it be extremely difficult to maintain said Panthers with all of the factories used to produce Panthers having been heavily damaged, logistical support for those Panthers would be quite difficult considering their lack of commonality with other allied equipment, those Panthers were never all that effective even when used by German forces, and the Panther wasn't even that good of a vehicle? Continuing to use Shermans would make much more sense than re-equipping with Panthers. If one really wanted a tank with a pointlessly over-specialized anti-tank gun, the British already had the Sherman firefly to fill that role.

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


GingerNinjaMax #64 Posted 03 November 2014 - 01:08 AM

    First lieutenant

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 02 November 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

 

Britain was broke after WW2 and with Atlee' s Labour government in power it seemed sensible to sell the British jet technology to a 'friendly' USSR on the condition that it wouldn't be used in military aircraft. Well, you can guess how well that went. 

 

No, the colonies don't mean that the USSR will attack them but their reserves and manpower (India in particular) were great enough to even the odds with the USSR. Don't forget that these troops could be sent to Europe to fight.

 

If France had failed to stay with the Allies, then all that would have happened would have been that Britain would have got all those left over Panthers rather than France. Dr Gaulle would still have helped indirectly so it wouldn't make a huge difference.

 

Were there so many Panthers to make up the difference in numerical superiority that the Russians had? Who were going to to crew all these extra tanks. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of French soldiers that are now lost to the allied effort. How can the loss of an entire army not make much of a difference. Sorry but I think your arguments just don't add up.

The Indian Army was busy helping fight the Japanese in Burma. so Even if we offered a peace deal to the Japanese you wouldn't be able to get hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers to Europe for months. especially as we had very little naval assets in the Far east after the fall of Singapore. I concede that the amounts of Colonial troops Britain in theory could muster would be large but would we send them all to Europe and trust Japan not to take up arms again after a few months. No I don't think so. the whole thing would just be a logistical nightmare to get that many men to europe to start a war on Russia within a few weeks.

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 02 November 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

 

Why do you keep mentioning such german technology as Panthers, King Tigers, or the V1/V2 rockets? All of those weapons were fundamentally failures. Why for instance would it matter if Britain acquired the left-over Panthers operated by France post-WWII, when not only would it be extremely difficult to maintain said Panthers with all of the factories used to produce Panthers having been heavily damaged, logistical support for those Panthers would be quite difficult considering their lack of commonality with other allied equipment, those Panthers were never all that effective even when used by German forces, and the Panther wasn't even that good of a vehicle? Continuing to use Shermans would make much more sense than re-equipping with Panthers. If one really wanted a tank with a pointlessly over-specialized anti-tank gun, the British already had the Sherman firefly to fill that role.

Sorry mate but I think you are p!ss!ng on the Panthers grave a bit. It was a very good tank but like all German WW2 armour- over engineered for the job but none the less a very good tank. I have read the Russian test report in 1944/45 on a captured king Tiger but how many other Tanks broke down frequently. Remember the the skill level of the Russian workers producing Tanks in such large numbers so quickly. I bet a lot of them broke down a lot but who knows or cares about that now. Its just the German armour with its reputation is always the subject of some new report or document saying how bad they were. What evidence are you basing your statement on about the effectiveness of the Panther

However I agree that to continue to use existing Allied armour along with the readily available spares that you mention makes more sense, but in the Bovington Tank museum the British Army built a Panther from parts that they captured so tooling could have been available within months but then by that time the Panther probably would have been almost obsolete any way with the Centurian and Pershings coming


Edited by GingerNinjaMax, 03 November 2014 - 07:45 PM.


FolkAttorney67 #65 Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:13 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9527 battles
  • 5,526
  • Member since:
    10-12-2013
I'd say the Western Allies and most specifically the United States. The Soviets had taken a terrible pounding by the German offensives and lost a great deal of civilians and soldiers. The U.S. had suffered no infrastructural damage at home and had only lost about half a million soldiers in the whole war, thus still having a very large pool of manpower to draw more soldiers from.  If those two nations were to go to war, the USSR would have eventually given up hope for a victory and they would've settled with a conditional surrender. The terms I would bet money on would be the release of Poland, other Eastern European nations, and a guarantee that they would not interfere with their neighbors in Asia, especially Korea and China.

 

Need M103 Tips and Tricks? Go to "Folk's M103/ T110E5 Thread" in the American  Section.

Credits to Roni for Sig!


Matthew J35U5 #66 Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:14 AM

    Major

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

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 02 November 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

 

Were there so many Panthers to make up the difference in numerical superiority that the Russians had? Who were going to to crew all these extra tanks. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of French soldiers that are now lost to the allied effort. How can the loss of an entire army not make much of a difference. Sorry but I think your arguments just don't add up.

The Indian Army was busy helping fight the Japs in Burma. so Even if we offered a peace deal to the Japs you wouldn't be able to get hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers to Europe for months. especially as we had very little naval assets in the Far east after the fall of Singapore. I concede that the amounts of Colonial troops Britain in theory could muster would be large but would we send them all to Europe and trust the Japs not to take up arms again after a few months. No I don't think so. the whole thing would just be a logistical nightmare to get that many men to europe to start a war on Russia within a few weeks.

Sorry mate but I think you are p!ss!ng on the Panthers grave a bit. It was a very good tank but like all German WW2 armour- over engineered for the job but none the less a very good tank. I have read the Russian test report in 1944/45 on a captured king Tiger but how many other Tanks broke down frequently. Remember the the skill level of the Russian workers producing Tanks in such large numbers so quickly. I bet a lot of them broke down a lot but who knows or cares about that now. Its just the German armour with its reputation is always the subject of some new report or document saying how bad they were. What evidence are you basing your statement on about the effectiveness of the Panther

However I agree that to continue to use existing Allied armour along with the readily available spares that you mention makes more sense, but in the Bovington Tank museum the British Army built a Panther from parts that they captured so tooling could have been available within months but then by that time the Panther probably would have been almost obsolete any way with the Centurian and Pershings coming

 

What was so good about the Panther exactly? As large (larger actually) as an IS-2 with worse armour protection and a less powerful gun. Would not an actual tank destroyer better fit the role the Panther was trying to fill rather than trying to make the Panther fill (badly) the role of a medium tank when it is built as a TD? Why not build Jagdpanzer L/70's instead to be TD's and make a decent medium tank instead?

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


Crazedtiger77 #67 Posted 03 November 2014 - 07:38 AM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 03 November 2014 - 03:14 AM, said:

 

What was so good about the Panther exactly? As large (larger actually) as an IS-2 with worse armour protection and a less powerful gun. Would not an actual tank destroyer better fit the role the Panther was trying to fill rather than trying to make the Panther fill (badly) the role of a medium tank when it is built as a TD? Why not build Jagdpanzer L/70's instead to be TD's and make a decent medium tank instead?

 

Read the section on the panzer V Panther in this article http://www.chuckhawk..._tanks_WWII.htm , one thing in particular sticks in my mind is that because Germany lost, it's reputation was ruined and people think it was worse than it was. The Panther had great range and cost only slightly more than the Panzer IV. Jpanzer IV s with the L70 were slower, though I think that if more Stugs were made Germany could have won.

 

There was a Jagdpanther TD, it was the best TD of the war but the factories were bombed so not many were made.


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 03 November 2014 - 07:41 AM.


Matthew J35U5 #68 Posted 03 November 2014 - 11:23 AM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 03 November 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

 

Read the section on the panzer V Panther in this article http://www.chuckhawk..._tanks_WWII.htm , one thing in particular sticks in my mind is that because Germany lost, it's reputation was ruined and people think it was worse than it was. The Panther had great range and cost only slightly more than the Panzer IV. Jpanzer IV s with the L70 were slower, though I think that if more Stugs were made Germany could have won.

 

There was a Jagdpanther TD, it was the best TD of the war but the factories were bombed so not many were made.

 

Excuse me if I am unimpressed by a site which describes the Tiger as being a response to the "T-43" and writes that said Tiger can knock out any tank, including an IS-2 from 1500 m. Sure, with side-shots it can, alternately with sub-caliber rounds (which were in extreme short supply). With side-shots most tanks could knock out Tigers at some range contrary to what the author writes. (Rear armour with same thickness as side armour is weaker than side armour?) Why is the Tiger even included when the more widely produced IS-2 is not? Why does the author refer to the KV-1S as the KV-1C? For that matter, wasn't the T-34-85 turret the T-43 turret not the KV-1S/KV-85 turret? Additionally the traits listed by the author, "High velocity 75", "strong front" and "more mobile than the Tiger" are not as important as the author seems to think, the 75 mm gun was less useful than the Tiger's 88 mm (HE shell), the strong front is true but doesn't mention the pathetic side/rear armour, and "more mobile than the Tiger" is hardly a sterling recommendation. The Panther's mobility is similar to the IS-2's, which seems poor for a medium tank.

 

Jagdpanther was okay, SU-100 might be my pick for "best TD" though, alternately the SU/ISU-152 for "best general purpose SPG".


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


Crazedtiger77 #69 Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:11 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 03 November 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

 

Excuse me if I am unimpressed by a site which describes the Tiger as being a response to the "T-43" and writes that said Tiger can knock out any tank, including an IS-2 from 1500 m. Sure, with side-shots it can, alternately with sub-caliber rounds (which were in extreme short supply). With side-shots most tanks could knock out Tigers at some range contrary to what the author writes. (Rear armour with same thickness as side armour is weaker than side armour?) Why is the Tiger even included when the more widely produced IS-2 is not? Why does the author refer to the KV-1S as the KV-1C? For that matter, wasn't the T-34-85 turret the T-43 turret not the KV-1S/KV-85 turret? Additionally the traits listed by the author, "High velocity 75", "strong front" and "more mobile than the Tiger" are not as important as the author seems to think, the 75 mm gun was less useful than the Tiger's 88 mm (HE shell), the strong front is true but doesn't mention the pathetic side/rear armour, and "more mobile than the Tiger" is hardly a sterling recommendation. The Panther's mobility is similar to the IS-2's, which seems poor for a medium tank.

 

Jagdpanther was okay, SU-100 might be my pick for "best TD" though, alternately the SU/ISU-152 for "best general purpose SPG".

 

The JPanther was definitely the best td, read this: http://www.militaryf...sp?armor_id=236 whereas the SU-152 had a worse rate of fire and accuracy even if it could kill Tigers. 


Matthew J35U5 #70 Posted 03 November 2014 - 03:19 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 03 November 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

 

The JPanther was definitely the best td, read this: http://www.militaryf...sp?armor_id=236 whereas the SU-152 had a worse rate of fire and accuracy even if it could kill Tigers. 

What does that do that the SU-100 can't? And the SU-100 is easier to make more of. 

I only mentioned the SU/ISU-152 because they have much more utility than either of the TD's. Need heavy artillery but don't want to drag a 152 mm gun into place? SU-152. Need direct fire support for infantry? SU-152. Need a TD that can engage any enemy armour unit from 1.5 km? SU-152. 


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


Crazedtiger77 #71 Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:12 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 03 November 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

What does that do that the SU-100 can't? And the SU-100 is easier to make more of. 

I only mentioned the SU/ISU-152 because they have much more utility than either of the TD's. Need heavy artillery but don't want to drag a 152 mm gun into place? SU-152. Need direct fire support for infantry? SU-152. Need a TD that can engage any enemy armour unit from 1.5 km? SU-152. 

 

The JPanther had 153mm of armour penetration from 2000m, and could knock out T34s from twice that range. It also had great sloped armour and was still fairly mobile.


Matthew J35U5 #72 Posted 03 November 2014 - 06:49 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 03 November 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

 

The JPanther had 153mm of armour penetration from 2000m, and could knock out T34s from twice that range. It also had great sloped armour and was still fairly mobile.

What is the significance of this statistic? The SU-100 or SU-152 could knock out German tanks from long range as well. 


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


Red Dough Boy #73 Posted 03 November 2014 - 08:51 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 27896 battles
  • 5,707
  • [_POI_]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013
My issue with this is that no one, and I mean no one wanted another war directly following world war 2 because of the sheer amount of death during those 6+ years. America having only actually been fully involved for right around 4 years still lost too much to even think about another war. Britain and France were also war weary because they were in for the whole fight. As for the Soviets, they lost 27 million people fighting just Germany, I don't think they would want to lose even more against the West. That's just my opinion though, but it is present in historical facts.

If I only had a Baneblade....

 

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #74 Posted 03 November 2014 - 09:00 PM

    Major

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

View PostRed Dough Boy, on 03 November 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

My issue with this is that no one, and I mean no one wanted another war directly following world war 2 because of the sheer amount of death during those 6+ years. America having only actually been fully involved for right around 4 years still lost too much to even think about another war. Britain and France were also war weary because they were in for the whole fight. As for the Soviets, they lost 27 million people fighting just Germany, I don't think they would want to lose even more against the West. That's just my opinion though, but it is present in historical facts.

Yeah, I think that this is the most realistic answer to the question. Which makes sense considering that was why this never actually happened in real life. 


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


Crazedtiger77 #75 Posted 03 November 2014 - 10:10 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 03 November 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

What is the significance of this statistic? The SU-100 or SU-152 could knock out German tanks from long range as well. 

 

Most people accept that the JPanther was the best td of ww2, as seen here: http/armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74421 

The statistic shows that beyond the effective range of the Su 152, it could easily be taken out by the highly accurate JPanther.


Edited by Crazedtiger77, 03 November 2014 - 10:11 PM.


Matthew J35U5 #76 Posted 03 November 2014 - 10:43 PM

    Major

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

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 03 November 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

 

Most people accept that the JPanther was the best td of ww2, as seen here: http/armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74421 

The statistic shows that beyond the effective range of the Su 152, it could easily be taken out by the highly accurate JPanther.

Well, if this forum community thinks it is true, clearly it must be. >.>

 

Again, what do you mean, "beyond the SU-152's effective range"? The ML-20S is actually a pretty accurate weapon, and its HE shells don't really have an effective range. Why are we even comparing the SU/ISU-152, a SPG/Assault gun/TD with the Jagdpanther, which is purpose-built as a TD? The SU-100 is a much more appropriate comparison. 

 

Edit: I'm going to make a different thread for this tangent so that we don't keep derailing this one.


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


GingerNinjaMax #77 Posted 03 November 2014 - 11:07 PM

    First lieutenant

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 03 November 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

Well, if this forum community thinks it is true, clearly it must be. >.>

 

Again, what do you mean, "beyond the SU-152's effective range"? The ML-20S is actually a pretty accurate weapon, and its HE shells don't really have an effective range. Why are we even comparing the SU/ISU-152, a SPG/Assault gun/TD with the Jagdpanther, which is purpose-built as a TD? The SU-100 is a much more appropriate comparison. 

 

Edit: I'm going to make a different thread for this tangent so that we don't keep derailing this one.

Matthew  you know that any thread on the forum where some one says that someone elses fave tank is crap whether a valid opinion or not, will totally derail the OP. You two have gone from Panthers to Is2's to Su100s Su122s and Su 152s.  the answer to the thread is simple.

Like I and Red dough boy said. War fatigue and unrealistic requiremnts needed, meant it didn't happen and never would have but good thread and thanks for the little heads up. Ta mate



Uranprojekt #78 Posted 06 November 2014 - 10:06 AM

    Major

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

Soviets win. There's simply no two ways about it. The Allies severely lack something which the Soviets have in abundance; experience of actually fighting in Poland (which was the original point of this thread). It was the Soviets that liberated Poland and doing that, even with late '44/early '45 German manpower as material, is no easy task. Liberate Poland in 1945 from Soviet control? HAHA! I like you comrade, you funny guy.

 

Let us not forget that development of post war Allied tanks (Pattons, Conquerors, etc) was accelerated after the IS-3 made its first official public appearance at the Moscow Victory Parade in 1945. IS-3 and IS-4 were already in production, albeit on a slightly smaller scale in comparison to IS-2.

 

Also, jets? Please. There were more Soviet prop aircraft than there were Allied jet aircraft. Also, where are the pilots to fly these jets? Dead. Why are they dead? Shot down by Soviet pilots that know how to fly a prop aircraft better than Allied pilots know how to fly a jet. The only saving grace the Allies had was the atom bomb and there weren't many of those just laying around in 1945. A conventional war in Europe is a war the Soviets win. The Soviets win because they have the experience of fighting in Poland, more men and more equipment.


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/


Matthew J35U5 #79 Posted 06 November 2014 - 05:27 PM

    Major

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

View PostUranprojekt, on 06 November 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

 The Soviets win because they have the experience of fighting in Poland, more men and more equipment.

I would also rate the Red Army in 1945 as the finest army in the world. The officers were experienced, their doctrine was good, their soldiers were fiercely brave. (Although that last was true even in 1941.)


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


FolkAttorney67 #80 Posted 06 November 2014 - 07:44 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9527 battles
  • 5,526
  • Member since:
    10-12-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 06 November 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

 A conventional war in Europe is a war the Soviets win. The Soviets win because they have the experience of fighting in Poland, more men and more equipment.

 

I heavily disagree. The Soviets threw everything they had at the Germans and that was more than enough to smash them, however that doesn't mean that they had the resources to fight the U.S. and win (I'm intentionally ignoring the other Allied nations as they were in no way able to fight another war, much like the Soviets funny enough). The Soviet Empire had suffered terrible losses in both manpower and infrastructure that the U.S. had not, thus meaning the U.S. could have put out more troops, more warships, and air fighters. Just because the Soviets had experience fighting in Poland doesn't mean that they were uber-powerful soldiers, it just meant that they had beaten down a weakened German Army. Oh and the whole, "conventional war in Europe" is irrelevant because a war between the U.S. and the Soviets would have been fought in both Europe and Asia.


 

Need M103 Tips and Tricks? Go to "Folk's M103/ T110E5 Thread" in the American  Section.

Credits to Roni for Sig!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users