Originally Posted by Dean

Ahh, but Damien, you're just so much fun to talk with.... and I really mean that!!!

I know, I can entertain myself for hours with nothing more than myself to talk to, a rubber band, pencil and a paperclip.

They never had heavy bombers.

Bombers like the B-29 could probably have reached the Soviet factories in Siberia, something the Germans couldn't do.

The Soviet supply lines would have been so short that they would have been virtually impossible to interdict. By the same token, defending them would have been as easy for the Soviets.

Don't the Russians use a different guage of railroad than pretty much the rest of the world? Meaning that they would have to transfer all their supplies from one train to another once they got outside of Russia.

Actually, you have me there.

No in way!

The only statistics that I remember offhand was that the US had the biggest navy, both in men and number of ships. The Soviets had the biggest army by quite a margin. The funniest thing to me about the end of war statistics was the figures that I saw for the allied navies. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to which country had the second biggest navy in number of ships at the end of WW II?

Hmm, I think the Soviets had a large fleet of submarines that Stalin did not want to use because Hitler had so effectively mined the ports these were stationed at. My second guess will be France because Britain is too obvious of an option, third is Canada (Merchant Marine count?) and lastly I will say Britain, even though I think it is too obvious of an answer. Or maybe it is Australia? (Doubt that one.)

They did indeed, But the Russians had already managed to completely overcome one deficit in forces, and they were still building up their forces right up to the bitter end. Do you really believe that the Allied juggernaut would have been as difficult for the Soviets to counter, now that they were ready for a war, had ample experience, mountains of supplies, were quite rested, and had some of the best commanders of the Second World War? remember what they did to the Japanese after the German surrender. They went over under around and right through the Japanese Kwantung Army like it was made of cheesecake, and the Kwantung army was the largest one the Japanese had left. The Soviets defeated them in less than a week.

I think saying the largest the Japanese had left is a very relative statement, Japan was so starved for resources that even their best would have been well behind what Britain, America or the Soviet Union had.

Sometimes I do have that prejudice. But remember that airpower today and airpower in 1945 were very different. In spite of all the bombing raids that the Allied and Axis forces launched, nobody ever managed to stop the other side from producing war materiel during the entire war. The Germans tried to do it to the Russians and British. Failed both times. The Allies tried to do it to the Germans. They failed as well. I remember seeing an air photo of a German factory that had been bombed to smithereens during a night raid. In spite of the fact that there were hundreds of bomb craters in the image, and the fact that manyof the buildings had been destroyed, the factory was still in production. Airpower never succeeded in stopping the North Vietnamese from resupplying along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and that was in the 70's. It is only since the invention of smart weapons that airpower has become definitive in a battle, but it still cannot win one. Only boots on the ground can do that. Airpower can help ground troops win a battle, but it cannot win the battle for them. (Airpower can now be used to deny the other side the use of an area or region, or part of a battlefield, but that will only give you a stalemate. To win, you have to occupy that area.) (Oh-oh... I think I'm starting to monologue. Bad sign)

I didn't say air power alone would win, but I just think that would be the deciding factor where the numbers for the Allies and the Soviet Union were in all honesty so close, your example of the Ho Chi Minh trail is an excellent example. If not the deciding factor air power for the Allies would have been at the very least an equalizer, tanks in the open could be chewed up by Allied fighters and if the Soviets went on the offensive they wouldn't have the luxury of hiding in destroyed buildings that the Wermacht had in France.

The US did not have enough bombs to do that until much later. If push had come to shove, Patton could have popped a few nukes in the hopes that the Soviets would have blinked. But they did not blink when they faced either the Japanese or the Germans, so somehow, I do not think that Americans would have bothered them greatly.

Let's not forget that the reason the Soviet forces stopped in Manchuria was because the detonation of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki scared the out of Stalin. America had this weapon, he didn't, he wanted it because America could destroy the Soviet Union city by city and there was nothing the Red Army could do to stop it.

My artistic skills go right up to the ability to draw a semi-competent stick-man. Stick women are beyond me.

Stick women are easy, just draw a couple of circles right below the arms with dots in the center. Try that quick. Did it work? Yes?

As for a propaganda poster... yagottabekidding!!!

Hey, loose lips sink ships, powerful message there.

[quote]I always liked your sig. In fact, I was kinda pissed that I never thought of it.[/quiote]

I like it too, but here's the problem, I actually started too, don't tell anyone this, do a little research on some topics before typing which means I might have to change it to 95%. Curse the internet for the ease of finding relevant information!

Have a good one...

Same to you, cheers mate!

Originally Posted by Damien435

I

Hmm, I think the Soviets had a large fleet of submarines that Stalin did not want to use because Hitler had so effectively mined the ports these were stationed at. My second guess will be France because Britain is too obvious of an option, third is Canada (Merchant Marine count?) and lastly I will say Britain, even though I think it is too obvious of an answer. Or maybe it is Australia? (Doubt that one.)

Just because an answer is obvious doesn't mean its wrong
The USN was the largest navy in the world at the end of WW2.
The RN was a strong second.
The Soviet Navy was third
Canada was fourth.

Originally Posted by Damien435

Let's not forget that the reason the Soviet forces stopped in Manchuria was because the detonation of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki scared the out of Stalin. America had this weapon, he didn't, he wanted it because America could destroy the Soviet Union city by city and there was nothing the Red Army could do to stop it.

Yes, lets forget it, because its not true !
The Soviet forces stopped because they had completely captured Manchuria, nothing else. In fact after the surrender they took over a couple of small Japanese islands (the Kurile islands ). They still hold them, and the Japanese and Russians are still arguing about them today.

Originally Posted by redcoat

Yes, lets forget it, because its not true !
The Soviet forces stopped because they had completely captured Manchuria, nothing else. In fact after the surrender they took over a couple of small Japanese islands (the Kurile islands ). They still hold them, and the Japanese and Russians are still arguing about them today.

They have captured ALL of the Kurile islands! It's a huge chain going for a thousand miles from the southern tip of Kamchatka to the Northern tip of Hokkaido.
However, the Japanese do not consider the 4 southernmost islands as a part of this chain and want them back.

The Soviet blitzkrieg in the Far East in 1945 was an amazing example of the maneuvre warfare. However, it has been done when the Japanese have stopped fighting as an organized force. Only 1(one) Japanese plane has been shut down by the Soviets during the hostilities.

Originally Posted by Damien435

Bombers like the B-29 could probably have reached the Soviet factories in Siberia, something the Germans couldn't do.

I have mentioned before - the Germans were increasing their war production up to the Spring of '45 - the bombings have not stop them

Originally Posted by Damien435

Don't the Russians use a different guage of railroad than pretty much the rest of the world? Meaning that they would have to transfer all their supplies from one train to another once they got outside of Russia.

Yes, they do. However, it is not a big hurdle. They have learned to do it very efficiently. Their gauge is wider, so they either put the wider tracks into Europe using the same right of way or the European gauge back into their territory(inside their tracks) thus increasing the number of stations they can perform the switch. It takes a couple of hours per train of 20 cars to switch(in peace time)

Originally Posted by Damien435

I didn't say air power alone would win, but I just think that would be the deciding factor where the numbers for the Allies and the Soviet Union were in all honesty so close, your example of the Ho Chi Minh trail is an excellent example. If not the deciding factor air power for the Allies would have been at the very least an equalizer, tanks in the open could be chewed up by Allied fighters and if the Soviets went on the offensive they wouldn't have the luxury of hiding in destroyed buildings that the Wermacht had in France.

The Soviets had the air superiority over the Germans in '45 the same way as the Americans and the British had. So, I wouldn' assume out of the bat the Americans' air superiority on the hypothetic battlefield. The boasting goes on on both sides . Some Russian sources even mention the several kills made by the Soviet pilots over the Americans when both forces have nearly collided in Germany. They mistook the Americans for the Germans and vise versa.

The numeric superiority on Land will clearly go to USSR due to:
1. They forces were concentrated in Central Europe not spread out thin all over the World
2. The Soviets had much higher ratio of the front line troops vs. support troops

Another issue that seems of being overlooked is the Communist underground in Europe. It was very strong in France and Italy and other countries. Could you imagine what would happened in the Allied rear if they treacherously start fighting their Soviet ally?

Originally Posted by redcoat

Just because an answer is obvious doesn't mean its wrong
The USN was the largest navy in the world at the end of WW2.
The RN was a strong second.
The Soviet Navy was third
Canada was fourth.

Are you sure the US Navy was the largest in the world at the end of WW2? Dont have the stats to hand, but would be interested to know.

Originally Posted by Reiben

Are you sure the US Navy was the largest in the world at the end of WW2? Dont have the stats to hand, but would be interested to know.

According the source below, the USN had 4849 warships which saw service in WW2.
The RN had 3316.
The Soviet Navy 397*.
The Royal Canadian Navy 351*.
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/


* The Royal Canadian Navy had more ships than the Soviets Navy at the end of the war, but the largest class of ship in the Canadian Navy was a Frigate, so I've placed the Soviet navy in front of them on tonnage.

Originally Posted by redcoat

According the source below, the USN had 4849 warships which saw service in WW2.
The RN had 3316.
The Soviet Navy 397*.
The Royal Canadian Navy 351*.
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/


* The Royal Canadian Navy had more ships than the Soviets Navy at the end of the war, but the largest class of ship in the Canadian Navy was a Frigate, so I've placed the Soviet navy in front of them on tonnage.

Does this number include the Italian Navy ships given to the Soviets after Italy had switched sides?

Jeez, it looks like I managed to lead everyone completley off topic. In number of ships, it was the US, followed by Canada, then Britain. Note however, that this does includes ships that were not fighting ships, such as oilers, supply ships, local unarmed minesweepers, gate vessels, etc. (and probably an icebreaker or five. In terms of fighting vessels, it was US, followed by Britain, and (so I heard) Canada. I have not checked this in years, so don't take this as gospel.

Dean.

Originally Posted by Dean

Jeez, it looks like I managed to lead everyone completley off topic. In number of ships, it was the US, followed by Canada, then Britain. Note however, that this does includes ships that were not fighting ships, such as oilers, supply ships, local unarmed minesweepers, gate vessels, etc. (and probably an icebreaker or five.

Are trying to say that a navy just over a tenth the size of the Royal Navy in terms of warships, had far more auxiliary ships than the Royal Navy had ???????
Sorry, but you'll need facts and figures to back up that outlandish claim