USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 3




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

 
--
 
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
The America of the 1940's is not equal to the America today, America stronlgy supported WW2, also remember if it wasn't for Hitler deciding to strech his empire past Poland we would be fighting them anyways cause they would have been considered part of the Axis.
November 26th, 2004  
Aguy201
 
[/quote]
What? If America had the will to fight Germany why wouldn't they have the will to fight a weaker enemy. Not to mention US troops were way better trained than the Russians. I dont consider being patriotic as having a gun pointed at the back of your head telling you if you take one step backwards you will be shot.[/quote]

Well lets see did the training realy matter? yes they did have better but, I remember hearing alot of complaining about the training from back then, unless your talk about weapons training yes, weaker army? if your talking reacources (fuel food amunition...) then i agree with you, yes we had them beat in air force, and we definately had them in quality, but they had sheer man power, and wee had the Atom bombs, But they beat us tank to tank even with our... well the pershing was kicken ass, but the russians had the IS-2 im not sure one the ratings between the 2, and will to fight yes I remember the old charge or die (and die anyway), but do you remmber the germans, YAY were going to invade russia and Win and Get oil and Vodka and...it sucks here, Hitler this suck plz take us out im tired of killing masses of russian soldiers its cold and ugly and theres no women and vodka and i wanna go home..., and our troops would probably fell the same, after fighting a war right after anouther and killing thousands of enemies and well hell id wanna come home.
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
....Okay ....



Like I said


Thier is no reason America would not use Nuclear Weapons, Back then they realy didn't have any clues what it would do and it wasn't a crime agianst humanity then. So we would use that often probably.
--
November 26th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dameon
....Okay ....



Like I said


Thier is no reason America would not use Nuclear Weapons, Back then they realy didn't have any clues what it would do and it wasn't a crime agianst humanity then. So we would use that often probably.
True but they couldn't use nukes on the battlefield if things were going against them for fear of hitting their own troops.

If you take nukes out of the equation I think the USSR would win, with the US/UK forced to retreat back to England and France becoming part of the Soviet sphere of influence. I'll explain why I think this when I get a bit more time.
November 26th, 2004  
Darcia
 
But ig they used the Nuclear weapons before they sent thier troops in then it wouldn't be bad for them.


Take out Moscow and maybe another 2 or 3 major citeas and that would throw Russia into confusion.
November 27th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dameon
....Okay ....



Like I said


Thier is no reason America would not use Nuclear Weapons, Back then they realy didn't have any clues what it would do and it wasn't a crime agianst humanity then. So we would use that often probably.
True but they couldn't use nukes on the battlefield if things were going against them for fear of hitting their own troops.

If you take nukes out of the equation I think the USSR would win, with the US/UK forced to retreat back to England and France becoming part of the Soviet sphere of influence. I'll explain why I think this when I get a bit more time.
After Atomic Bombs wipe out Leningrad, does the USSR continue to fight? Moscow? Stalingrad? Kiev? Smolensk? Minsk? The USA could have kept going from there.

The problem with the equation leaving Atomic Bomb options open is that it can rapidly turn into one-sided attrition. Same reason Japan quit instead of fighting till every Japanese was killed in battle (like they intended to do). USA can just keep dropping them till the USSR calls it quits.

Its a lot more interesting scenario if you disallow the Atom Bomb.
November 27th, 2004  
Aguy201
 
wait America didnt even have but like 3 atom bombs in 1945 right?
November 27th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguy201
wait America didnt even have but like 3 atom bombs in 1945 right?
It is not like we would have had to use them on a daily basis, we likely would have used them at most once a month.
November 27th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
damien, look at an atlas, u'll see citites like novesbrisk, kzzushik, and others that have population mroe than a millon,. wonder why???

during world war II most russian factories are located in siberia, a key point in this war between us and soviet union, in which us bombers cant reach it and soviet production will still continue..

the russians learned the value of flak during world war II

for example, in 1945, the city of moscow had 300 batteries of AA cannons, thats aroudn the same in the berlin area, and we all remember how them bombers were desotryed...

anyways, look at both side of the war, please dont consider bias
November 27th, 2004  
Darcia
 
So did the two japenese city's what America did however was send in like 20 Bombers and like 50 Escorts and came in so that thier would be so many thier was a strong chance they wouldn't hit the one that had the Big Boy in it.


Also I will take Atomic Bombs out of the equasion if you tanmk the Tanks, thtas basicly what you are saying, a course a nation is going to use it's strongest weapon in a war.