USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 15




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 17th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
Hi

As long as modern wars are actually contests of economies, then this wouldn't be a fair fight.


Sometime back someone asked how the allied forces took almost a year from June 6th until late spring 1945 to beat the Nazis, and yet I predicted the rout and annihilation of the Red Army in Europe in a much shorter time frame.

The difference is that the Nazis were on defense. The Red Army, since it is the aggressor force, would need to be on the move, and thus , vulnerable to death from the air. Then, there is the very long supply lines, which are even more vulnerable.

Not a fair fight at all.
Sun Tzu once said; "Know your enemy and know yourself and you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles." Truth is, you just don't know your enemy well enough in this scenario. You are extraordinarily dismissive of the armed forces that bled the Wehrmacht white and overly confident of the armed forces that only faced about 20% of said force. Although I agree with much of what you say, it's sometimes couched in ridiculous rhetoric that John Rambo would be proud of. :P
December 17th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I think we agree that economics would rule the day and that it ultimately leads to victory for the Wester Powers. The problem with comparing it to Nazi Germany is:
1.) The USSR had a much more productive economy than Nazi Germany
2.) The USSR had much larger forces, and a LOT more tanks and artillery and combat aircraft than Germany ever did.

Much would depend on how helpful Germany could be to the West. I don't think it makes sense to say that the West would have it easy in such a conflict. That's a pretty severe underestimation of how strong the Soviets were in 1945.
December 17th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi


I am very dismissive of a socialistic command economy, that by its very nature, cannot hope to compete against that economic dynamo, known as the USA.

All the admirers of this long dead entity known as the USSR should remember that it faced a lone enemy in Nazi Germany, and that enemy couldnt touch its means of production.

The USA on the other hand, could and most certainly would have.

In all reality, your champion would have died four decades earlier than it actually did had it tried such a venture then.

I wonder how Nazi Germany would have fared against the so called mighty USSR, if the following conditions were met:

1. Germany only had to face the USSR. There would be no other
theatres of operations for her. There would be no need to
maintain garrison troops in the west, nor provide manpower
for any adventures in the Balkans, or Africa. Also, no need
for a large navy.

2. The Luftwaffe had aircraft equal to the P-51, P-47, Spitfire,
Typhoon, B-29 and B-36. These planes would be available
in ample numbers.

3. Germany's atomic program was on the same level of
development as the USA's

4. Hitler let the General Staff manage the campaign, thus it
would be a professionally managed affair.


With all these present, do you still like Moscows chances?

A war with the Allies, would have cost the USSR its last 40 years of life.

Perhaps thats the real reason they never attempted it.
--
December 17th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
hi


I am very dismissive of a socialistic command economy, that by its very nature, cannot hope to compete against that economic dynamo, known as the USA.

All the admirers of this long dead entity known as the USSR should remember that it faced a lone enemy in Nazi Germany, and that enemy couldnt touch its means of production.

The USA on the other hand, could and most certainly would have.

In all reality, your champion would have died four decades earlier than it actually did had it tried such a venture then.

I wonder how Nazi Germany would have fared against the so called mighty USSR, if the following conditions were met:

1. Germany only had to face the USSR. There would be no other
theatres of operations for her. There would be no need to
maintain garrison troops in the west, nor provide manpower
for any adventures in the Balkans, or Africa. Also, no need
for a large navy.

2. The Luftwaffe had aircraft equal to the P-51, P-47, Spitfire,
Typhoon, B-29 and B-36. These planes would be available
in ample numbers.

3. Germany's atomic program was on the same level of
development as the USA's

4. Hitler let the General Staff manage the campaign, thus it
would be a professionally managed affair.


With all these present, do you still like Moscows chances?

A war with the Allies, would have cost the USSR its last 40 years of life.

Perhaps thats the real reason they never attempted it.
I wouldn't fancy any nation in the world's chances against that Nazi Germany, including the USA. In fact, only Option 4 of your choices had to be present for Germany to defeat the USSR. With the correct choices made by Hitler and OKH, the USSR would have toppled in 1941/42. One thing to bear in mind though is that the Red Army of 1941 was vastly different from that of 1945.

Let me put it this way. Off topic but what do you think would have been the outcome for D-Day had the Western Allies faced the entire German Wehrmacht instead of about 25% of it?

Anyway, it's not the political apparatus I have any kind of admiration for. What I do know is that the Red Army bludgeoned and clubbed back to Berlin an albeit quite weakened Wehrmacht and that they deserve big kudos for coming back from the brink of destruction. You're right that the USSR would have been dismantled in 1945 if they had attacked the Western Allies but this would have been achieved primarily through the application of nukes.
December 17th, 2004  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: oh no


Ok now after reading all that i have a headache!!!!

USSR are a big territory and back then was a little smaller.........theyhad more urban warfare under their belt than USA.weapons wise? don't know enough to comment but USSR were as cruel as the nazi's so i wouldn't rule out that USSR couldn't of beaten USA. Maybe they might of weakened as during ww2 USA were the country with the money.
Cutting off USSR fuel supplies wouldn't do any good i'd say put em out for a few days, but they must of had a back up plan incase that happened?

Well thats my thought anyways, but who am i to say...........woman and all lol maybe i'll get maggie thatchers opinion lol
December 17th, 2004  
lght1
 
Hi

The USSR, compared to the massive strategic and tactical forces arrayed against her, would find a very different situation than that of the war just concluded.

For the USSR, this would be a war of vastly unequal proportions. The ability to strike with virtual impunity, deny her the ability resupply, and later, even the means of production, transport and to even feed herself would mean that ultimately, the world of the 1950s would be denied the pleasure of socialism.

Remember, that just as acutually happened in 1991, no land invasion need occur for the slave state known as the USSR to collapse.
December 18th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Just a reminder Europe was in peices so they would have been a weight no matter what they decided to do or who to fight with. They couldn't defend themselves agianst Hitler much less of the Almighty,Americn,British,andRussian forces started carvingout strongholds.
December 18th, 2004  
lght1
 
Hi

Perhaps, but remember that the Allies had hundreds of thousands of captured Germans which would be a source of trained professional manpower which could be tapped to help contain and then starve out the very flower of Soviet manhood.

Also, since the US population was/is greater than what the USSR had, further conscription would also swell the ranks of the US Army as time went on.

By 1944, the US was actually slowing the rate of new inductees as it felt it had enough men, so there was plenty of room to grow.
December 18th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lght1
Hi

Perhaps, but remember that the Allies had hundreds of thousands of captured Germans which would be a source of trained professional manpower which could be tapped to help contain and then starve out the very flower of Soviet manhood.

Also, since the US population was/is greater than what the USSR had, further conscription would also swell the ranks of the US Army as time went on.

By 1944, the US was actually slowing the rate of new inductees as it felt it had enough men, so there was plenty of room to grow.
Most of the German PoWs captured by the Western Allies were not as highly trained as the men who had served either on the Ostfront or earlier on in the war. The quality of the German Wehrmacht that faced the Western Allies was someway down on the quality in 1941 or 1942, and even then, most of the best units were assigned to the East. Even units like SS Panzer and elite Panzer divisions like Panzer Lehr were in many cases elite in name only. Much of their manpower only had 3 months training at best compared to the 12 months training for the average GI. Some of the units only had 1 weeks training. Much of the German Army that faced the Western Allies was made up of underage and overage recruits and ex Kriegsmarine, Police and Luftwaffe men. The best German troops perished in the East or were captured by the Red Army.

So, the USSR were more likely to have in captivity the best and most able German troops than the Western Allies were. You might want to read this link to get an understanding of this. It's very long but well worth reading.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...s/default.aspx
December 18th, 2004  
lght1
 
Hi

I disagree.

With some 250,000 ex-Afrika Korps soldiers and concluding with Model's pocket in '45, there was ample quantity and quantity to supplement Allied manpower.

While the USSR captured hordes of German troops, mistreatment would have more than offset any quatative advantage the ost army may have had.