USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 13




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 13th, 2004  
Darcia
 
heh.


Russia had alot of damage done by Hitler though so they would have to fight on an already war torn army while the American homeland had no major attackes whatsoever so the population would be willing to fight longer than the Russians.
December 14th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

it boils down to one thing : the USA had more of everything.
December 14th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi

it boils down to one thing : the USA had more of everything.
It actually boils down to the fact that they have a lot more of just one very important thing, namely air superiority fighters. That's the one thing that wins the West this hypothetical war. It's also not just about the US for the West, although they are the biggest and the most important.
--
December 14th, 2004  
Earling
 
Hi.

It boils down to one thing.

The soviets are going to role to the Rhine river and trap most of the allied forces on the wrong side of it due to superior Quantity and Quality on that front.
They are then going to role over France and ensure victory in Europe.

Britain and the US then rub their hands of the issue, since the chances of a second D-day succeeding are too slim to attempt.

A reliance on air power to win ground battles was not something that happened in ww2. Try the gulf war.
December 14th, 2004  
victortsoi
 
im sick of this nationalistic bent where american forumers (im a red blooded american myself, mind you) post along the lines of "teh p51 won teh war 1137" and. having NO knowledge whatsoever of the air war in the east, discount the power and skill of the VVS.
Air superiority woudnt be such a sure thing, guys (oh btw, im idealogically for the US to win this scenario but im arguing pure facts). The soviets had a very skilled group of pilots by the end of the war, battlehardened, and in excellent low altitude fighters that would (has anyone actually seen a yak-3 doing acm?) maul us fighters on soviet terms. strategic bombing wouldnt do much vs a soviet offensive in euroupe, and even in the ussr youd be going up against flak much like the ones in germany, except more plentiful and integrated. In addition, the soviets had a few high altitude fighters armed with obscene amounts of unguided rockets that could be used against bomber boxes-much more than german attempts at this.
american figher planes would be obliged to fight the soviets on their own terms (low altitude) because soviet ground attack aircraft like the il-2 would attack allied troops from very low altitudes. american fighters would either let the grunts die or attempt to go low (where their performance was not the best) and be attacked by soviet escorts.
and people really, really, dont give soviet pilots enough credit.
for example, the usaf may very well have racked up a 13:1 air to air kill ratio for sabres vs migs in korea, however, in total the soviet pilots in taht war managed to rack up about at 2.2:1 ratio vs america during korea.
December 14th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
exactly said, soviet weaponery is not bad, it is actually better in terms of survivability since most are very reliable: such as the ak, when fighting in russia, the us fragiae weapons would be screwed.

some ppl are always forgetting the huge amount of sovie tartillery, it is more effective than aerial bombing, since the russian artilelry has alot of dual AA guns
December 14th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by victortsoi
im sick of this nationalistic bent where american forumers (im a red blooded american myself, mind you) post along the lines of "teh p51 won teh war 1137" and. having NO knowledge whatsoever of the air war in the east, discount the power and skill of the VVS.
Air superiority woudnt be such a sure thing, guys (oh btw, im idealogically for the US to win this scenario but im arguing pure facts). The soviets had a very skilled group of pilots by the end of the war, battlehardened, and in excellent low altitude fighters that would (has anyone actually seen a yak-3 doing acm?) maul us fighters on soviet terms. strategic bombing wouldnt do much vs a soviet offensive in euroupe, and even in the ussr youd be going up against flak much like the ones in germany, except more plentiful and integrated. In addition, the soviets had a few high altitude fighters armed with obscene amounts of unguided rockets that could be used against bomber boxes-much more than german attempts at this.
american figher planes would be obliged to fight the soviets on their own terms (low altitude) because soviet ground attack aircraft like the il-2 would attack allied troops from very low altitudes. american fighters would either let the grunts die or attempt to go low (where their performance was not the best) and be attacked by soviet escorts.
and people really, really, dont give soviet pilots enough credit.
for example, the usaf may very well have racked up a 13:1 air to air kill ratio for sabres vs migs in korea, however, in total the soviet pilots in taht war managed to rack up about at 2.2:1 ratio vs america during korea.
Good to see an American who has a sensible and objective viewpoint. Whilst I do think that the USAAF and RAF did have a big superiority in fighters both in design and in numbers the VVS cannot be discounted and shrugged off. The VVS pilots still around in 1945 are for the most part excellent, veteran airmen and although the VVS had a lot of ground attack and close support aircraft they fought and won air superiority over the Luftwaffe in the East which was no mean feat. The Luftwaffe was probably the most skilled airforce in the world and the bulk of their air power was on the Ostfront so it's not as if it was a foregone conclusion that the VVS would gain the upper hand.

People don't give the Soviets in WW2 enough credit full-stop. The average Red Army soldier was as tough as they come. The Wehrmacht found that to their cost. Like I said before, had the Allied Armies been in the Soviet Union's position in WW2 they would have been destroyed IMO. We in the West owe the Soviet Union a great burden of debt for breaking the back of the vaunted German Army. They did receive plenty of help from us it's true, but for 2 long years they were in a life or death struggle that only their own efforts, coupled with German blunders, ultimately saw them win through. The Soviet Union, or Russia if you like, was never closer to extinction than it was in that winter of 1941.
December 14th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

Unfortunately, wishes and wants will not make it so.

If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.

The only thing that separated the nazis from the communists, is the former was willing to gamble on their own survival while the latter was not.

As for air power in the Gulf War, YES, lets use that as an example.

Remember the "highway of death"? US politicians had to stop the carnage as the wholesale destruction of fleeing enemy troops was beginning to look "bad" in the press. I guess it was too one sided..

Again, for the Soviet apologists, remember this :

If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
December 14th, 2004  
lght1
 
HI

Unfortunately, wishes and wants will not make it so.

If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.

The only thing that separated the nazis from the communists, is the former was willing to gamble on their own survival while the latter was not.

As for air power in the Gulf War, YES, lets use that as an example. Laughing

Remember the "highway of death"? US politicians had to stop the carnage as the wholesale destruction of fleeing enemy troops was beginning to look "bad" in the press. I guess it was too one sided.. Laughing

Again, for the Soviet apologists, remember this :

If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.

As for the west "owing" them something, they survived due to the generosity of the American people through Lend-Lease. This "mighty" USSR you people speak so lovingly of couldn't even produce its own trucks as most were Studebakers. Laughing

I can't seem to remember a single thing we had that was made in this "people's paradise" .

AS for guerilla forces, NO Allied forces would be needed as the USSR would have caved from inside as it later did in 1991. The only "invasion" would have been from the air, and that would have been massive strikes to de-industrialize that slave state.

Either way, that most evil of all toltalitarian governments was itself liquidated into the "dust bin of history" just as President Reagan had predicted a few years earlier. Laughing
December 15th, 2004  
Earling
 
Why do you apply morals to simple geopolitical occurences? Wars are fought by nations because they either feel their interests are threatened, or they need to expand their interests to survive, or they can easilly expand their interests at little cost. The Soviets had just been through a major war and were certainly badly hurt. They needed time to recover. They also needed to establish order in many of the eastern european countries they had enveloped. However none of this was so critical to effect the units that would fight in what would largely be a SHORT WAR.
The US opposed communism more than anyone after 1945. Why did they not attack the USSR if it was clearly such easy prey to long range bombing?

It was not until the gulf war that air power could dictate ground battles. The gulf war was a situation where the US had total air superiority. The US also had both quality and quantity on their side. In this example, they would not. Precision bombing did not exist.

As for them surviving on the generosity on the American people. Why why why do Americans constantly point to this as if its some star struck blessed act? Is it to hide the fact you stayed out of the war for 3 years against a murderous meglomaniac who was intent on ruling europe? Britain subsidised almost every war that ever happened on the continent against france and yet its never treated as generosity, simply a geopolitical nessesity. Oh the US wasn't at war with germany and was under no obligation to provide help? Well Nazi Germany defeats the Soviets, crushes Britain and then strangles the US by the fact she rules the entire of Europe and most of Asia will fall under her dominion or that of her allies. Well done, the world is now screwed. So basically its a case of "we could of screwed you and doomed ourselves, but chose sensibly not too.. praise us".

Its somewhat like argueing that Britain could have surrendered at any time and recieved favourable terms from Hitler. We know that this is a false assertation. If they had surrendered British culture would almost certainly have been destroyed and the world a significantly worse place in which to live. It wasn't a case of something you can choose to do, its something that must happen if you desire your nation to remain a free. (well.. figuratively for the USSR I suppose) Calling it generosity is just.. wrong.

As for what seperated the Nazi's and the Soviets. Well, I cannot be bothered to properly describe it, but claiming the only difference was that the Nazi's were willing to risk their existance and the Soviets were not is a foolish statement. The Nazi organisation was largely centred on revenge for ww1 and hitlers ideas. That taking of revenge almost assured that war had to break out sooner or later. The Soviet system was about creating a new (and significantly worse) way of life that alledgedly favoured the proletariat. In reality it turned out differently, but they both had different desires, stating they are the same is incorrect. Its similar to saying the only difference between Britain in the 19th centuary and the US today was that Britain maintained control of its conquests wheras the US creates economicly dependant vassals. There are similarities, but there are severe differences.

Your assertion that the USSR would have collapsed on its own simply from these improbable 6000 kilometre round flights of bombers is laughable in both its vagueness, its problems and its simple lack of realism. Try and find out why the USSR really collapsed, and you will see that military force rather than hastening this process, would halt it by forcing people to rally around the existing leadership (Just as what happened in ww2 coincidently. In 1945 Stalin never had more popularity since he was seen as the person who had saved Russia)

Basically, your judging US prowess based on modern conflict and ignoring both technological and doctrinal differences from ww2 combat.
Secondly you seem to believe that anyone who believes the Soviets had a chance is trying to apologise for and support the USSR because your supporting the US simply out of patriotic pride and thus think other people do so.
Third, You have no real facts to back up your sole arguement that air power would have been enough. Why did it take the allies a year to travel from Normandy to Berlin when they had vastly superior quantity and later by manpower losses almost certainly quality over the third reich? They had total and utter air superiority and dominance. If it took them a year to get that far, how would they cope with the USSR who probably had between 5-10 times the resources that nazi germany used against the allies?

That and how feasable do you think an attack from the Caucasus into the middle east would be? Im fairly confident that such an attack by ww1 standards would be impossible, but with ww2 mechanisation of logistics and troops it might be possible. On the other hand those mountains might have been a problem...

That and the Allies still had to conclude their war with Japan although this would likely have been just as swift as it was in our timeline despite the USSR (probably) not declaring war on Japan. (Although they might have declared war on China... possibly encouraging the Japanese to continue the fight on the mainland..
Still.. difficult to say how the war would have progressed beyond the lands of germany.