USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 12




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 12th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
well, maybe each of us ar etalking about the word winning in diffrent terms>?>??

waht should be the set mode of winnning for this war??/
December 12th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flak88
well, maybe each of us ar etalking about the word winning in diffrent terms>?>??

waht should be the set mode of winnning for this war??/
Using all weapons at their disposal and fighting until one side or the other gives up or is completely conquered -- well, I assume that's what we mean. One big dilema is that the big 2 nations involved -- the USA and USSR -- can't directly attack one another very easily. At least not right away.
December 12th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

actually, the USA could and would be able to strike deep into the Soviet landmass using B-29s and later B-36's.

This would likely occur barring only Soviet capitulation upon the destruction of her forces in the west.

I really couldn't imagine this happening given the nature of that dictatorship. So, for the USSR, the war would grind on.

I don't see another land invasion of the country beyond pushing them back to pre-1939 borders.

Once the Red Army is effectively destroyed in the west, Soviet ambitions tend to dwell on national survival and maintaining control over its "republics", while US objectives would now mean conducting operations inside the USSR itself with the stated goal of the destruction of the Soviet system.

For this objective, as soon as it was possible, atomic bombs would be used to this end.

What is most interesting as a consequence of the Soviet attempt at controlling all of Europe is that it would likely mean a very fast restoration of her eternal enemy Germany.

Even with absolute control of the situation, for the seige of trapped Soviet forces to succeed demands manpower beyond what the Western Allies had in Europe at that time.

So, German POWs, the only viable pool of trained soldiers available, would be conscripted to fight and help expel the enemy from their homeland.

Think of how ironic it would be, that after pushing the Wehrmacht out of the USSR and standing victorious in the citadel of the "beast", its own army is destroyed by an alliance of its own allies and its mortal enemy forged entirely by its own mis judgement.

For Germany, it would truly be a miraculous reversal of fortune.
--
December 12th, 2004  
Darcia
 
I think most likly if anything America would have used the atom bombs at the begging to try to make the Russians give up at first then start doing massive bombing runs then when they think the moral is gone use some more atomic bombs.
December 12th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

several things wrong with that.

1. supply. during this time frame, their were few of the weapons available and depending on when in 1945 this occurred, they may have already been expended against Japan.

2. B-29's necessary to carry these were being assigned to the PTO and none would immediately be available in Europe.

3. With the close proximity to allied troops, unsure if that would be a wise choice given the technology of that era.

4. Conventional carpet bombing using massed formations of strategic forces ( B-17s, B-24's and Lancasters) were more than capable of pulverizing Soviet armour caught in the open.
December 12th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

actually, the USA could and would be able to strike deep into the Soviet landmass using B-29s and later B-36's.

This would likely occur barring only Soviet capitulation upon the destruction of her forces in the west.

I really couldn't imagine this happening given the nature of that dictatorship. So, for the USSR, the war would grind on.

I don't see another land invasion of the country beyond pushing them back to pre-1939 borders.

Once the Red Army is effectively destroyed in the west, Soviet ambitions tend to dwell on national survival and maintaining control over its "republics", while US objectives would now mean conducting operations inside the USSR itself with the stated goal of the destruction of the Soviet system.

For this objective, as soon as it was possible, atomic bombs would be used to this end.

What is most interesting as a consequence of the Soviet attempt at controlling all of Europe is that it would likely mean a very fast restoration of her eternal enemy Germany.

Even with absolute control of the situation, for the seige of trapped Soviet forces to succeed demands manpower beyond what the Western Allies had in Europe at that time.

So, German POWs, the only viable pool of trained soldiers available, would be conscripted to fight and help expel the enemy from their homeland.

Think of how ironic it would be, that after pushing the Wehrmacht out of the USSR and standing victorious in the citadel of the "beast", its own army is destroyed by an alliance of its own allies and its mortal enemy forged entirely by its own mis judgement.

For Germany, it would truly be a miraculous reversal of fortune.
All this is made on the assumption that Western Allied armies can repel a big Soviet thrust with the probable element of surprise behind it. You seem very confident that the Western Allies can and very dismissive of Soviet military abilities. If you recall the Germans made the same mistake and paid dearly for it. Most of what you postulate is possible given the Allied Armies repelling the initial Soviet offence. Whilst I think that it's very possible that they can (if they quickly establish and maintain air superiority) you seem to think it's a given.
December 12th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi


With "boots on the ground" , and massive air power already in theatre, i don't much like the Soviet's chances.

Couple that with after the Soviet armies are dismantled, then the whole Soviet existence is now on the table for debate.

you equate Allied capabilities with Nazi Germany's against the Soviets. Never were the Soviets faced with a situation like this, where the enemy can remove every Soviet advantage such as armour, and completely deny him the ability to resupply AND retreat.

Plus, the Luftwaffe never was a real threat to Soviet industrial capabilities, but with massive B-29s and later, B-36s ranging over Soviet airspace at will, no Soviet city or factory would be safe from utter destruction.

Yes, I am very dismissive of Soviet chances to exist beyond 2-3 years once this begins, not to mention being victorious in Europe.

If the west has the will to force this conflict to its inevitable conclusion even after the threat to Europe is resolved, then the USSR will die.

Another interesting point to this, is that once Germany has supplied manpower to eliminate the trapped Soviet forces, and the enemy is dealt with to its climax, the west may use Germany as a "vassal" state where its forces occupy many eastern European countries as a counterweight to Russia. A make shift buffer zone if you will.

If this came to pass, and from a military view point, it makes perfect sense, then Germany would be rehabilitated by de- Nazification, but not demilitarized. A little bit of Prussian militarization perhaps.
December 13th, 2004  
Darcia
 
The Russians about lost to NG though, it it wasn't forthe dealey's, Hitler changing his mind and operation D-Day happening thier is a good chance that Soviet Russia would become part of the 1,000 year riech.
December 13th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
we all've seen how russia survived nourmous wars, they have experience in total desruction to their land, thereby they have higher survibality capabilites.
December 13th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

yes, the survival skills of the Soviet system are quite remarkable.

Just look how well the Soviet Union handled new millennium.