Following on from the thread regarding who would win between the USA and USSR in 1939, I thought it would be fun to conduct one about what would happen in 1945 had the Soviets and the Western Allies met head on in the ashes of Nazi Germany.

What do you think? Reasons why to support your argument would be nice.

America could have most likly beaten the Soviets at the end of WW2, Unlike the Rest of the Members of the Axis America had only one fatel blow struck to her Homeland so she didn't have to go and repair everything, however everyone else had too. The Russians however probably could have outproduced the Americans however the Americans could have produced better items. So in the end if it was America VS Russians it would be Quality Vs Quantity.


But when yo add in The American Allies of The Uk and France then it would had been interesting to see 3 of the 4 world powers at the time go and fight each other.

Are we allowing the use of Atomic Bombs?

Originally Posted by Dameon

But when yo add in The American Allies of The Uk and France then it would had been interesting to see 3 of the 4 world powers at the time go and fight each other.

i agree..

I have contemplated this many times. Here goes.

The USSR had the largest Tank force in the world in 1945, but the US had the A-bomb, the world's most powerful Navy, and the world's largest Air Force, plus we had a 3,000 mile buffer between Europe and the East Coast so we would still for the most part be safe if Western Europe fell. Since Russia would most likely be on the defensive we can for the most part ignore Navies since a landing would really only be possible on the Baltic Coast or Black Sea Coast. Basically it comes down to this: Massive numbers of Russian men and Tanks against the almost unstoppable Air Force of the United States. (I know, it was still the Army, Navy, or Marines Air Corps. but for sake of ease we will just say Air Force to include all of the above, except Carrierborne planes.) I think the United States and Western Europe would have been victorious, but not an all out victory, probably something like the Brest-Livotsk line of 1916(17?) that ended Russia's involvement in WWI.

if you look at this fromboth sides, then u'll see that it will be a stale ment

1st of all, russia has a 6 millon men army, with more experience than the allies troops in tank battles with superior armored vehicles, around ahundredthousand artilery pieces from tenh baltic to ukraine. The russian airforce is also in the tenthousands of planes and experienced fighters.

but despite the fact that ally armies are weaker than soviet shock.guards units, they have the most improtant arsenal: nuke weapon and the contorl fo the seas.

But an improtant factor that russians could loset his war is: fuel, food, supplies: the us supplied soviets tons of supplies during world war two, if it wasnt for the supplies, soviet armored untis may never be mobolized or russian soldiers will starve to death

ITS A STALEMATE...

Sorry, assuming NO atomic weapons because of the danger of each side hitting their own troops either directly or with fallout.

Whoever wins, it would be a bloodbath

Stucture, Teritory, Air force and artillery! So the West I guess.

The USA would have cut supplies to the Russians and would have weakened them by that then mass bombing runs could take place. Since the Nazi's did a good job of destroying parts of Russia it wouldn't be hard to starve them.