USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 11




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 11th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, the constant flow of military hardware and fresh troops was already in place and the USSR was in no position to stop the USA from continuing. Its an added step if their starting up from scratch, true. But in this case the logistics and manufacturing were alreay rolling.

I think some people are willing to underestimate the USSR of 1945. They'd have wrought havok on the West initially and I think that the military clash involved would be bigger and more catastrophic than the Eastern Front of WW2 by a substantial margin. Nobody would have been an easy winner.
December 11th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

the results of this "new" conflict would be the re-arrangement of the rubble of european cities, countless Soviet dead, and the eventual demise of the USSR.

The USA homeland would go on unscathed by anything the Soviets could do, all the while continuing to flood the European continent with vast supplies, the likes of which the average Ivan couldn't even imagine.
December 11th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The Soviets might gamble on invading Alaska, but they'd have to do that first or it'd never work. Once the war in Europe began, the US Pacific Fleet would be watching the Bering Strait like a hawk.
--
December 11th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
The main thing that's clear to me from reading your posts is that you overestimate your own nation's ability and underestimate the Soviet Union. You're coming across as a bit of a jingoistic racist. You seem unable to construct an argument or hypothesis from an objective standpoint.

The only advantage, and it is a big advantage granted, is that the Western Allies would probably establish air superiority quite quickly. They would need to. If the Red Army pushed on with the swelling momentum they had and with the element of surprise they would be extremely dangerous unless they were checked quickly. Take away airpower from the equation and the Allied Armies would not stand up to the Red Army. I'm sorry if you don't like hearing that about your beloved USA but in 1945 man for man and tank for tank they were generally inferior to the Soviets. Plus the Red Army had numerical superiority in tanks, at guns, artillery pieces and men.

I've already pointed out to you that strategic bombing will not decide this conflict. Read the link I supplied if you haven't bothered before. The War is over if the Red Army does not achieve victory in say the first 2-3 weeks. It doesn't really matter what happens after that. Moreover, what evidence do you have that suggests that Stalin would have pushed to the Atlantic if he thought he could get away with it? Historically the USSR were only interested in 2 things; 1) a buffer region around their own country (which they had in May 1945) and 2) domination over the balkans region (which they also had). Stalin had pretty much everything that he wanted.
December 11th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

Strategic bomber forces would be used in a tactical manner to eliminate Soviet armoured forces.
Once air superiority is achieved by the West, any Soviet attack force would be wide open to being pummelled from the air. This would be a serious problem, but not any more serious than the overwhelming superiority and experience of Soviet Armor, Artillery and land forces in general. At that point, things would wind up in a stalemate probably. The question is, how far will the Soviets have advanced by then. Simply "eliminating Soviet armor" is unrealistic and oversimplifying things.

If German help IS enlisted, the West greatly improves its chances of success. They knew how to deal with the Soviet military, but its still no easy victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
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.
Right, the problem is that the Red Army being cut off and starving just isn't going to happen at any point in the scenario. Significantly underfed perhaps, but ... well, they'd manage just like they had to vs the Germans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
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.
Here's where Soviet Propaganda muddled things horribly. They never were willing to admit the rather embarrassing kill ratio they saw on the Eastern Front -- worse than 10 to 1 in both combat aircraft and tanks. The Soviet tanks were suberbly made, but the Germans were just too good at tank warfare (the best of which the West never had to confront). The Soviets produced an incredible sum of tanks and aircraft -- they came close to equalling the USA in production in fact.

Because Soviet Propaganda significantly downplayed their losses on the Eastern Front, all facts and figures got screwed up. That includes production levels. Bear in mind, they call it "The Great Patriotic War" for a reason -- they were sweating and bleeding to amazing levels to save their beloved Mother Russia from destruction. It had nothing to do with Communism being any better than Capitalism, it was all Patriotism.

The reality is, the USSR outproduced the USA in tanks from 1941-1945. They weren't far behind in aircraft production either. Soviet Production levels would have likely dipped unless Stalin could contrive some reason that attacking the Western Powers was for the "Salvation of Mother Russia" -- but even then, you're not looking at any easy victory. You're right that the USA could outproduce the Soviets all by themselves, but not by a very substantial margin.

In the air, the USA had the edge in quality. On the ground, the Russians were building better quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
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.
Here, you're 100% right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
It would not have been a fair fight.
Can't agree with you there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
Stage 2, would be the strategic destruction of Soviet infrastructure.
That's one helluva lot of infastructure you realize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
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.
I'd have to say that if the West gainst the initiative after being attacked by the Soviet Union, they'd make certain that the threat was fully removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
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.
Fact of the matter is, Strategic Bomb Raid proved themselves to be an absolutely lousy means of destroying production. Against Russia? Pointless. Their industrial sites were already guarded against being hit from the air -- which Germany had done plenty of. Consider the requirements of bombers and fighers having to fly all the way to Tankograd (behind the Urals) and back and probably being shot at by anti-aircraft weapons the whole way. That's a total nightmare!

Forget about trying to eliminate the USSR from the air. Without the Atomic Bomb, it just wouldn't have worked. It would have had to have been done on the ground or it was guaranteed to fail.
December 11th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
its useless, this forum, to discuss who would win after 1945...

it is definetly soviet union, they have the largest force by the end of 1945, and that is not very importnatnt, whats importnat is that the russians had survived so much and are probaly willing to do so agian..

you guys are really underestimating russians and their capabilities, their nationlism is very high in which they would vow to die for their country if invaded... Americans however, would do anything to try to stay alive.

like i said, russian citgies in siberia is hard to bomb, the russians always start from scratch






if those points dont make sense in your heads, then consider this:

perhaps 10-100 years russia is going to back in the hands of russians, no doubt about that,
December 11th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

racist?? your way too funny.
That is a humorous statement you made.

As for the out come, it simply wouldn't be a fair fight.
You may doubt what I have said, but I ask you, if the Soviets felt as you do, why didn't they try it?

The answer is that they couldn't fight another war because if they failed in their bid, it put their regime in danger of collapse.

To argue differently, is to deny the true nature of such an evil entity as Soviet communism.

Much as you may regret it, the USA would never be in like circumstances.
December 11th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
what i meant was the will of the russian people to fight off invaders, it has nothing ot do with government.
December 12th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

in regards to this event..who will be the invaders?
December 12th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, I think the Soviets would be the most likely candidate since the USA and UK were ready and willing to scale down to peacetime military status.

Am I the only one that isn't saying that one side or the other wins almost effortlessly?