USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 10




View Poll Results :USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?
USSR 12 46.15%
Western Allies 14 53.85%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
December 9th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

had the wehrmacht been able to use the bulk of its garrisoned troops it kept in the west and n africa, and without adolph's incompetetance, than the reich more than likely would have destroyed the u.s.s.r.

of course, getting a late start in june 1941 hurt too. it would have been nice to have started in late april - mid may rather than late june. damm that italian fool.
To reply to your points.

The troops used to maintain security in France and the Low Countries and those assigned to Deutsch Afrikakorps would have made very little difference to the outcome of the Eastern Front. Most of the troops in the West until mid 1943 were training divisions, divisions being refitted or divisions not suitable for front line service. There were only ever a ever small number of divisions (4 tops) assigned to Deutsch Afrikakorps.

Yes the Italian fool had a lot to answer for and I agree with you here. Had Barbarossa started earlier (although April was too early) and had Adolf not meddled as he did then Germany very likely would have defeated the USSR.
December 10th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Another thing is remember the Russians where starving at the end of WW2 in the east since Germany held alot of the city's for a while. Thier population may not have the will to fight another war. The Brits and French may not have either. However the Americans only suffered one hit to the homeland so the American people where more willing to fight since they had not saw major voilance or pictures from the war since TV wasn't used much back then.
December 10th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

For the USSR, this wouldn't have been a long campaign lasting years...but rather months. That time would be determined by the amount of food remaining in these bombed out centers of population.

I believe that after the armored forces had been decimated and during the time that fleeing infantry retreated to the bombed out cities for cover and to prepare whatever defenses possible, there would likely be harassing attacks by allied ground forces.

No need to force the enemy to stand and fight, as starvation works quite nicely and victory can be had on the cheap if one has the patience and good sense to wait.

Out of necessity, the bulk of captured German POWs , would have to be pressed back into service again as the manpower to secure and isolate these cities would be enormous.

This would curtail the manpower buildup for the Pacific, although the draft could be pressed back into maximum effort again.

Once the Soviet government discovered that the bulk of their Red Army is trapped west of the Oder, they will out of necessity..attempt to rush whatever reserves they have westward to relieve these enclaves.

At this moment...air power will strike at anything that moves, not only destroying these reserves..but further installing panic in the Kremlin.

I believe that Stalin would probably be deposed, and his successor(s ?) would attempt a "negotiated" settlement.

The only sane decision by the Allies at this junction, would be to press onward with the task of liquidating Soviet forces within their grasp.

This "shock" to the Soviet Union, would be so catastrophic, that any Soviet forces remaining would not be able to retain its grip on many "republics", especially the Baltics and the Ukraine.

Thus , the goal is actually to turn this military rout of a nation's armed forces into a form of "national death" through massive dismemberment.

Just to make it interesting... but depending on when this were to occur..say Sept 1945, then Japanese forces still capable in and near the Soviet far east could be used as means to harass and concern Soviet commanders.

This would have the effect of further reducing Soviet reserves desperately needed in the ETO.

But in the end, it is still a moot point; for Allied airpower will eliminate anything on the ground. So anything sent will likely be destroyed before it can be of any assistance.
--
December 10th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Dopp, I can follow your point on aircraft production, but I don't know of a TRULY successful and potent air superiority figher on the Russian side. They focussed heavily on anti-ground. The UK and USA had a long list of superb air superiority fighters.
True and this is possibly the one card that the Western Allies can play to bludgeon the Soviet assault, shy of actually using nukes. The problem I see is that the Western Allied ground forces are not numerically strong enough for my liking and a quick breakthrough by Soviet tank spearheads is a real possibility. The northern German plains are great tank country and there's little in the way of natural defensive features to exploit (this was the same dilemma faced by NATO during the cold war - how to stop the 3rd Shock Army from pouring across the Fulda Gap). For example, there isn't nearly enough Sherman Fireflies or M26s in the field and those are the sorts of tanks they need to go up against the Red Army T34-85s and IS-2s.
This is how I see it as well. USSR has a substantial advantage on the ground with the Western Allies controlling the Air. The Russians would have certainly been able to push the West back at first, but after establishing control of the skies, the Western Powers can pumell the crap out of the Soviets ground units from above. At that point, the Soviet push forward would be EXTREMELY COSTLY. I think that the Soviets would never have crossed the Rhine nor the Beligian/Netherlands/Luxembourg borders. Rapid Soviet progress early on would be ground to a halt before getting that far, probably sooner.

Russia would certainly NOT be a no-show in the air. They'd continue to produce aircraft and I think they would have eventually made some decent air superiority fighters, but that would have a lot less impact in the short term -- which is when the Soviet's hopes of victory are centered upon.

Remembering the points made about food. How does the USSR resolve that issue in an acceptable manner? I can't think of anything, but I'm open to ideas.
December 10th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
the russians had huge quanties of AA guns though, and many are captured and feared flak88s and flak105s... maybe some rare 128mmdual flak

anyways, didnt the russians have ak-47s after the year 1946??? that would own americans so badly because it is a very powerful weapon
December 10th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

i doubt ak47s would have much of an impact.

as for Soviet industrial output, once the situation is under control, B-29's would range over the Soviet landmass looking for places of "interest".

so much for Soviet industrial capability.

In short, it would be whole new ball game than the one they were used to.
December 10th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

i doubt ak47s would have much of an impact.

as for Soviet industrial output, once the situation is under control, B-29's would range over the Soviet landmass looking for places of "interest".

so much for Soviet industrial capability.

In short, it would be whole new ball game than the one they were used to.
Hello. I think you're just a little too dismissive of the Soviet Union's ability to adapt. Whole new ball game? After what the Soviets went through between 1941 and 1945 I think only the introduction of nukes would have that kind of effect. Put it this way. Had situations been reversed I do not believe the Allied Armies would have prevailed against the Wehrmacht as the Red Army did, albeit with lots of help.

The impact of strategic bombing has been overstated time and time again. More and more historians are coming round to the fact the the Allied bombing campaign on occupied Europe did little to achieve victory. Many conclude that strategic bombing is only really effective on an enemy who is already military defeated as the Germans were in 1944 onwards.

http://www.onwar.com/articles/f9809.htm
December 10th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

your missing the point by the proverbial country mile.

while strategic bombing forces would be used, initially, they would be used to liquidate massed soviet armoured formations.

make no mistake about it. T-34's are hardly a match against the might of the RAF and USAAF.

A short time later B29 raids on Soviet cities and industrial structures, which did not happen on a scope like this during the invasion will destroy any chance the Red Army has for any supplies. Thus, any Soviet forces still surviving would find little to nothing coming to them in resupply. But then, any supply effort at all would likely fail due to the devastation of land transport.

Perhaps the USSR would try to supply its trapped forces by sea using the Baltic. However, the Royal Navy is nearby and this effort too, will fail.

This little scenario would quickly become a war of extermination, and once that is accomplished, focus would fall on the economic "vitality" of this entity.

As for the "mighty" economy of the Soviet Union, it hardly compares with the powerhouse economic force known far and wide as the USA.

With the great Soviet ability to "adapt" , they would try to remove themselves from this onslaught by retreating first into the Soviet land mass, but failing this, seek shelter in cities.

The war now becomes a "multi" front war.
First... conduct seige warfare against Soviet survivors holed up in these shells of population centers. And, secondly , deny the Soviet forces the ability to resupply by destroying land transport, and later, by destroying the industrial capacity of the USSR by using B-29's in conventional HE and incendiary raids on its cities..

Later, atomic options become available and this will ensure that there will be no further threats from the corpse of the USSR.

Atomic weapons, probably by 1946, will not be used in a tactical sense as they wouldn't be necessary. The real use for these is the destruction of Soviet infrastructure, which is necessary to make this a viable country.

Remember, the goal is not to simply stop the Soviets, but to annihilate their forces, and then to dismember their country by removing the ability to function as a viable political and economic entity.
December 10th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

your missing the point by the proverbial country mile.

while strategic bombing forces would be used, initially, they would be used to liquidate massed soviet armoured formations.

make no mistake about it. T-34's are hardly a match against the might of the RAF and USAAF.

A short time later B29 raids on Soviet cities and industrial structures, which did not happen on a scope like this during the invasion will destroy any chance the Red Army has for any supplies. Thus, any Soviet forces still surviving would find little to nothing coming to them in resupply. But then, any supply effort at all would likely fail due to the devastation of land transport.

Perhaps the USSR would try to supply its trapped forces by sea using the Baltic. However, the Royal Navy is nearby and this effort too, will fail.

This little scenario would quickly become a war of extermination, and once that is accomplished, focus would fall on the economic "vitality" of this entity.

As for the "mighty" economy of the Soviet Union, it hardly compares with the powerhouse economic force known far and wide as the USA.

With the great Soviet ability to "adapt" , they would try to remove themselves from this onslaught by retreating first into the Soviet land mass, but failing this, seek shelter in cities.

The war now becomes a "multi" front war.
First... conduct seige warfare against Soviet survivors holed up in these shells of population centers. And, secondly , deny the Soviet forces the ability to resupply by destroying land transport, and later, by destroying the industrial capacity of the USSR by using B-29's in conventional HE and incendiary raids on its cities..

Later, atomic options become available and this will ensure that there will be no further threats from the corpse of the USSR.

Atomic weapons, probably by 1946, will not be used in a tactical sense as they wouldn't be necessary. The real use for these is the destruction of Soviet infrastructure, which is necessary to make this a viable country.

Remember, the goal is not to simply stop the Soviets, but to annihilate their forces, and then to dismember their country by removing the ability to function as a viable political and economic entity.
Hello. I don't believe I am missing the point. If you're talking about bombing to reduce Soviet formations in the field that comes under the heading of tactical bombing not strategic bombing. That is different and uses different aircraft. I'm sure you know this.

Perhaps the Soviet industrial capacity doesn't match that of the US but it's close enough and would be easier for the Soviets to bring theirs to bear than the US. Lack of suitable air carrying capacity at the time means that the US is going to have ship everything in and that takes time.

This war will be decided quite quickly as it's the best chance of success for the Soviets. Either the Red Army smashes its way to the Atlantic or it gets bogged down and stalls. They would be operating with the element of surprise and IMO that could be the key. It must reach and deny access to the Allies at least some of the major North Sea ports to cut off their resupply. If this doesn't happen then it can be argued that the Red Army has failed militarily as it failed to complete one of its major objectives. Strategic bombing will have *no* effect on what outcome comes to pass. It had no effect on the outcome of WW2 after all.

The rest of what you postulated doesn't really matter as the war is to all intents and purposes over. Just like it was in 1944 for Germany.

The key for the Western Allies is using their much better fighters to quickly establish air superiority and maybe even air supremacy. If they don't do that they lose, it's that simple. It's a BIG IF though.

Why is destruction of the Soviet infrastructure "necessary to make this a viable country"?. The war will be longer over by this time. Would you care to explain this comment as it sounds rather jingoistic amongst other things.
December 10th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

I never said anything about strategic bombing of mother Russia to destroy the Red Army, but rather using strategic forces to liquidate the Soviet armour and deny any organized forces the ability to flee back into the Soviet landmass.

Strategic bomber forces would be used in a tactical manner to eliminate Soviet armoured forces.

Once this is accomplished, however, strategic bombing would occur only after the Red Army is contained and on its way to elimination. Thats where the seige warfare comes into play. Starvation is a wonderful ally.

As far as the Soviet economy being "close enough"...lol

Thats a foolish statement. Clearly, for this socialist, command economy to engage is a war of attrition with the greatest military and industrial power this world has ever known would be folly of a unprecedented scale.

If at this junction of time, Washington decided that they were going to crusade against the most vile form of government ever to rear its head...the Soviet Union wouldn't have had long to live.

As for your concerns about transportation...we had the largest navy and merchant marine the world has ever seen to work our will. The Soviets could do nothing to stop us. But we, on the other hand, could make resupply of the Red Armies impossible due to absolute control of the air.

It would not have been a fair fight.

Remember, this would be a very compressed campaign timewise. It would have a stage 1 which involved nullifing Soviet forces in the west , with annihilation its primary goal.

Stage 2, would be the strategic destruction of Soviet infrastructure. By this time, Europe has already been saved. What is at stake now is weather the west will permit the Soviet Union to continue to exist.

Once Soviet forces in Europe are eliminated, the next goal will be to deny refitting and resupply through strategic bombing of the industrial population centers.

This final goal..destruction of the USSR, would include the liberal use of nuclear weapons. The B-29 and new B-36s would be quite capable of reaching into every area of the USSR with the end result that they would know destruction that would make Japan's own experience to pale in comparison.

This matters not just from the current conflict, but it helps to begin the process by which the USSR is no longer a viable, workable country.

Since the USSR was a slave empire of many captive peoples, once you break the means by which the central authority maintains control ( the army, terror apparatus, etc) , then the process of dismemberment must begin. It is inevitable.

With the loss of her industrial capacity, transportation networks, and even agricultural production, the empire would fall violently inward.

However, make no mistake on this. If the Soviets thought they had a chance..they would have kept on going all the way to the channel.
The two things that stopped them was massive airpower..and the amazing American industrial machine, neither of which could they hope to prevail.

Unlike the Nazis, the Communists were never going to gamble on their own national survival.