USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 18




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

 
--
 
March 28th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Perhaps you don't appreciate the fact that Russia had no less than 4 times the number of divisions available for combat in 1945 than the western allies did. Also, the Russian army of 1945 was leaps and bounds better than the one of even 1943. And your numbers are wrong about number of eastern front casualties. Fully 80% of the german soldiers killed in the war died fighting in the east.

It makes no difference how much lend lease helped the Russians in their fight against Germany. In this hypothetical scenario they could have easily pushed to the Rhine within 2 months of attacking the Western Allies. Cutting off the lend lease would hardly matter at that point. Once the west was in a position to counter attack, the Russians would have been dug in and have logistics hubs running all the way back to their motherland. It would have been a blood bath and I'm sure there would have been a negotiated peace(without nukes) once either Russians were pushed back far enough for face to be saved on all sides or when the Western allies realized the number of men that would have to die would simply be unacceptable for the public back home to digest.
March 28th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Remember that Kursk was not as 1 sided as some make it to be. Manstein was only stopped by last ditch efforts using up all there reserves (which Zhukov didn’t plan on using for the Kursk conflict.) and with terrible losses of both man and equipment. As you can tell I believe it took a combined effort of both the USSR and the Western Allies to crush Germany.
The losses at Kursk were far more crippling to the Germans than the Soviets especially since Germany was not left in control of the battlefield afterwards therefore none of the vehicles lost could be recovered.
I would also point out that almost immediately after Germany had called off Kursk the Soviets were launching their own offensives so Russian losses at Kursk while high did not deter, delay or hinder operations.


Quote:
parting note given 6 more months and Germany would have atomic bombs (a little know secret was that they exploded a tiny nuclear device during the closing months of the war). Well I’m getting writers cramp farewell. This in itself likely wouldn’t have turned the tide being that it would have been used as a terror weapon. But without Allies they would have gotten it sooner and used it on the USSR.
I have seen no proof that the Germans were within a decade of having an atomic bomb, the interrogation and secret recordings of Heisenberg after the war indicated that they were no where near construction of a functioning bomb.

I thoroughly recommend reading:
Hitler's Uranium Club: The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall by Jeremy Bernstein.
March 28th, 2014  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
[FONT="Verdana"]Why was tanks mentioned The USA provided nil to the USSR as far as tanks goes? We feed half of them

NO : you didn't.
--
March 28th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
The soviet solder had to be tough they were fighting for their lives. The alternative was extinction at the hands of the racist Nazis who viewed them as sub-humans worthy of slave labor or death. The USSR lost (14 to 20) million civilians, of these perhaps 12 million were murdered outright in one way or another. Would they have had that same fighting spirit against the benevolent American led allies?
March 28th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
You ever here of Spam?
March 28th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
My point for Kurst is Hitler reassigned important Panzer troops to Sicily from the Kurst Battlefield. Even at Kurst Germany was already divided between east and west. Yes the majority were fighting the USSR. However Stalin never had to worry about bouncing troops around to different theaters of war. Again by late 1943 most of the Luftwaffe was fighting the allied air armadas.
March 28th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
My point for Kurst is Hitler reassigned important Panzer troops to Sicily from the Kurst Battlefield. Even at Kurst Germany was already divided between east and west. Yes the majority were fighting the USSR. However Stalin never had to worry about bouncing troops around to different theaters of war. Again by late 1943 most of the Luftwaffe was fighting the allied air armadas.
So what? You're speaking of operations in 1943. By the end of Operation Bagration (44-45) the number of Russian forces available for operations on that front was simply mind boggling. Also, do not underestimate the quality and size of the Russian air force by the end of the war. The west simply didn't have the forces available IN Germany once the armistice was declared to repel the Russian Army. If Russia kept moving West, I think the biggest question is whether or not the Western air forces could gain air superiority and could enough logistics and and fighting forces be fueled into France/Belgium in time BEFORE the Russian ground forces made it to and past the Rhine.

Also, look how much trouble the Western Allies had fighting against the depleted German Army they faced at maybe...MAYBE 1/4 the forces the Germans used to fight the Russians. Yes the Western Allies helped win. But never forget it was the Russians who actually won the war on the ground fighting against Germany. I certainly don't think ANY Western Army or nation would have been prepared or even willing to sacrifice 15-30% of their population to win against Germany...In other words, if you want to be grateful for having living grandparents that weren't killed in WWII fighting against Germany so you could be born...thank one of the 25 plus million Russians who died prosecuting a war we likely would not have been able to stomach but would have been forced to stomach in order to bring the war to the same conclusion of unconditional surrender...
March 28th, 2014  
Doppleganger
 
 
This old thread resurrected?

Anyway, this scenario would be eerily similar to a WW3 European war in the 1980s, except that in the 1980s the Western Allies would have been able to get their reserves into theatre rather quicker than they could have done in the 1940s. Simply, Western airpower must gain air superiority very quickly to allow their tactical air power to stop a Soviet advance. Then Allied ground forces need to hold the Red Army long enough to allow Allied reserves and resupplies to reach theatre.

I just can't see that happening. As Hudson in Aliens said, "game over man!" It would be Dunkirk Revisited but maybe without the happy ending,
March 29th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: number of troops


Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Perhaps you don't appreciate the fact that Russia had no less than 4 times the number of divisions available for combat in 1945 than the western allies did. Also, the Russian army of 1945 was leaps and bounds better than the one of even 1943. And your numbers are wrong about number of eastern front casualties. Fully 80% of the german soldiers killed in the war died fighting in the east.

It makes no difference how much lend lease helped the Russians in their fight against Germany. In this hypothetical scenario they could have easily pushed to the Rhine within 2 months of attacking the Western Allies. Cutting off the lend lease would hardly matter at that point. Once the west was in a position to counter attack, the Russians would have been dug in and have logistics hubs running all the way back to their motherland. It would have been a blood bath and I'm sure there would have been a negotiated peace(without nukes) once either Russians were pushed back far enough for face to be saved on all sides or when the Western allies realized the number of men that would have to die would simply be unacceptable for the public back home to digest.
I don't know about divisions. The US alone had over 3 million troops on the western front in 1945, the Russians about 6 million. The US troops were the best supplied troops in the world. Most Shermanís had by then was updated with 76 mm guns and in 1945 the M26 Pershing started to show up in numbers thus reducing the quantity and quality disparency of tanks between east and west. As for airpower the USSR could not match the incredible quantities and quality of the P-47 and P-51 aircraft. I also wonder (my speculation) if the Russians would have been so spirited fighting the USA. It was the German atrocities that galvanized the troops of the USSR.
March 29th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
So what? You're speaking of operations in 1943. By the end of Operation Bagration (44-45) the number of Russian forces available for operations on that front was simply mind boggling. Also, do not underestimate the quality and size of the Russian air force by the end of the war. The west simply didn't have the forces available IN Germany once the armistice was declared to repel the Russian Army. If Russia kept moving West, I think the biggest question is whether or not the Western air forces could gain air superiority and could enough logistics and and fighting forces be fueled into France/Belgium in time BEFORE the Russian ground forces made it to and past the Rhine.

Also, look how much trouble the Western Allies had fighting against the depleted German Army they faced at maybe...MAYBE 1/4 the forces the Germans used to fight the Russians. Yes the Western Allies helped win. But never forget it was the Russians who actually won the war on the ground fighting against Germany. I certainly don't think ANY Western Army or nation would have been prepared or even willing to sacrifice 15-30% of their population to win against Germany...In other words, if you want to be grateful for having living grandparents that weren't killed in WWII fighting against Germany so you could be born...thank one of the 25 plus million Russians who died prosecuting a war we likely would not have been able to stomach but would have been forced to stomach in order to bring the war to the same conclusion of unconditional surrender...
There is no doubt that the USSR lost ~ 27 or more million people in WW2, if the Nazi didn't include the Slavs in their Genocidal madness they likely wouldn't have been so galvanized (the Nazis gave them no choice). They fought for murdered family and colleague, not Stalin). The ratio of troops at the end of the war was ~ 35% west to ~ 65% east. At its maximum the Red army contained 6 million men. This is not to take away from the great sacrifice of the USSRís army and people. Despite Stalinís blocking troops I donít thinks they would have the same fighting spirit against the west. Despite Stalinís efforts to hide the fact that we supported the Red army with food, radios, trucks, jeeps, his army knew the US was on their side with these much needed and valued commodities.