USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?
godofthunder9010
Active member
Not immediately, which means that the Western Powers would have to hold them back as best as they could for awhile.Doppleganger said:
The Soviets had a big advantage in Tanks and Artillery. That means they definitely would be the ones on the attack -- the USA and UK couldn't have matched them in Quality, Quantity and Experience. However, the accumulated Western forces were immense, so we're not looking at any easy job driving them back. It would have been a very slow and costly retreat by the West. Gradually, Pershings, Fireflies, other more useful tanks, and more artillery show up in larger quantities and the balance begins to even out.Doppleganger said:
The Western Forces were probably better lead and their leaders were less likely to sacrifice their soldiers where they could help it.
Most of which were destroyed, because Germany was a lot more scared of the USSR than the West and focussed on them. I think that one of the very first things that happens in this hypothetical conflict is a vye for air superiority. The USA and UK had much better designed aircraft for air superiority missions. I think that the West would have taken control of the air within the first few months of conflict. During that time, Soviet tanks and artillery could do a lot of damage. Still, both sides were immense military machines, so I doubt that the USSR pushed the Western forces back very far all that quickly.
You could project things settling into something of a Stalemate after the West initially loses ground. After securing air superiority, the West would have started reversing the Soviet momentum -- again, very very slowly.
MadeInChina
Active member
ONe question, how big is russia????
even if the americans manage to destory russia, conqueroro it, which is unlikely becuase russian forces are not to be underestimated. The land of russia is very big, nazi germany fielded 5 millon + 5000 tanks and couldnt cover very muche ven belurus and ukraine, imagine all of soviet union
Us forcfes would be so spread out that a russian field army will roam freely to kill
supplies, sure, its very important, but dont forget that russians could sack american supply lines to steal and take.
even if the americans manage to destory russia, conqueroro it, which is unlikely becuase russian forces are not to be underestimated. The land of russia is very big, nazi germany fielded 5 millon + 5000 tanks and couldnt cover very muche ven belurus and ukraine, imagine all of soviet union
Us forcfes would be so spread out that a russian field army will roam freely to kill
supplies, sure, its very important, but dont forget that russians could sack american supply lines to steal and take.
airmanpatroler
Active member
well at 1945 the americans enjoyed one thing the russians didnt. The atom bomb. We would have leveled everything they had in the Pacific and by the time they had time to react and send in troops on the western front the russian army would be bombed into surrender.
Russia may try to stay and not surrender no matter how bad they get wounded, they did it in WW2 and it worked so they may have tried to do that. However The Russians could not have survived combined efforts of America,Britian,and France would do pretty good, However France didn't realy have a Navy since most of it had been destroyed.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Naturally, the USSR was enormous. Nobody is claiming that its an easy win for either side. But lets consider a few things:NYC88mm said:
1.) Unlike Germany, the West would be engaging Russia with relatively equal numbers. That's something that Germany never had. Not even close to it.
2.) Russia had lost an immense number of its military aged young men against Germany. They were bled dry, much moreso than the Western Allies. They still had more to give, but less depth in that category.
3.) Remember how the Ukraine welcomed the Germans as liberators? Well this time, the USA, UK and France would play their cards right ... it would be hard to play them wrong afterall. Any portion of the USSR that is taken would seize the opportunity to assist any movement that frees them of Stalin's tyrany.
The moment that the Atom Bomb is brought into the equation, it ends very quickly.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Soviet spys in the USA were instrumental in obtaining American nuclear tech for the USSR. In the case of a war scenario, those spies would have had a harder time delivering the data because it would have been much more closely guarded.
airmanpatroler
Active member
The aoviet air force was strong but obselete and would not stand a chance against the massive bombing power of the US
Doppleganger
Active member
godofthunder9010 said:
Just to counter some of your points:
1. What were the US/UK army sizes in the field in May 1945 compared to the Red Army? I doubt that the numbers would be anywhere near equal. You are talking about potential not actual unless I'm mistaken.
2. True but they still had enough men to take on the Western Allies.
3. True also but I don't think they would get as far as the Ukraine myself.
Another point to remember that although the Allies had 2 decent tanks in the Sherman Firefly and the M26 Pershing, they were not deployed in nearly the same numbers as the T34 and IS-2 and IS-3 Soviet tanks were. The IS-2 and IS-3 were formidable tanks that could take on and beat King Tigers and the Soviets had lots of them.
You hit the nail on the head with air power being decisive. It would have to be if the Western Allies had any chance to win.
Damien435
Active member
Kirill K said:
Yes, we would have used the bomb on the USSR, when you are in a war agaisnt an opponent who is your equal you use whatever resources you have available.
The USSR would not have made it through Alaska, if you will recall Japan invaded the Aleutian Islands during WWII, we built an interstate system and had plans in place to rush reinforcements into Alaska or Canada should they be invaded, and the Soviets did not have much along the lines of an Army in Eastern Russia, not compared to what the US had in the Pacific after our Island hopping campaign and what we had amassed in preperations for an invasion of Mainland Japan, oh, and good luck crossing the Bering Straight, your Pacific Fleet Navy had been destroyed by the Japanese Navy, and that was after it spent what? 11 months at sea going from the Baltic Ocean to the Sea of Oshkosh.
Oh, and you forget, we defeated the German's also, and we had to do it from over 3,000 miles away, that costs alot to ship and then supply lines stretching overland about 800 miles. Plus we were fighting a two front war, we also had to take care of Japan in the Pacific, supply lines over 7,000 miles long.
The USSR defeated Germany on land.
The USA defeated Germany on land, sea and air, and we also defeated Japan on land, sea and air.
Doppleganger
Active member
Damien435 said:
This isn't exactly true. Germany never would have been defeated without ALL the allies working together. That's a fact.
Just to say something about supplies, in particular Lend-Lease. The only vital things the Soviets received (and they were absolutely vital) were railroad tracks, locomoties, radios and trucks. All other items, including AFVs and airplanes, the Soviets could have done without.