USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why? - Page 9




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 8th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
um, the Russian IVan vs the british Tommies, French Marcs and American Joes.... Definetly Ivan will win, since the war will be on his ground....
December 8th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flak88
um, the Russian IVan vs the british Tommies, French Marcs and American Joes.... Definetly Ivan will win, since the war will be on his ground....
No it isn't in Russia. The forces would have started in Germany. Home field advantage=Nobody. After once side or the other is pushed back, then we start playing on peoples home turf.
December 8th, 2004  
gladius
 
Don't forget the German Fritzes.

Patton was planning on using German troops to help fight the Russians.

With the experience and experties of the German troops and with good leadership, the West more than likely would have won.
--
December 9th, 2004  
Darcia
 
The Americans,Brits, and French would have done everything in thier power to win even if it ment taking out a few hundred million people to do it. They just came out of world war 2, losing soilders was something they did hourly.
December 9th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Dopp, I can follow your point on aircraft production, but I don't know of a TRULY successful and potent air superiority figher on the Russian side. They focussed heavily on anti-ground. The UK and USA had a long list of superb air superiority fighters.
True and this is possibly the one card that the Western Allies can play to bludgeon the Soviet assault, shy of actually using nukes. The problem I see is that the Western Allied ground forces are not numerically strong enough for my liking and a quick breakthrough by Soviet tank spearheads is a real possibility. The northern German plains are great tank country and there's little in the way of natural defensive features to exploit (this was the same dilemma faced by NATO during the cold war - how to stop the 3rd Shock Army from pouring across the Fulda Gap). For example, there isn't nearly enough Sherman Fireflies or M26s in the field and those are the sorts of tanks they need to go up against the Red Army T34-85s and IS-2s.
December 9th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
actually, the manbarrel of german ethenics is very low, cmon, hitler had children and old men fire guns in berlin because of the shortage of men..

the germans would not ocntirbute much except tech and strategy
December 9th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

Had the Red Army decided to try for a "swim" in the channel, the over- whelming air superiority of joint USAAF and RAF would have eliminated the Soviet Red Air Force in short order.

The combined tactical airforces would have marked Soviet fighter strength for destruction while Soviet armour formations would have fallen prey to massive waves of strategic bombers of the 8th AirForce and RAF Bomber Command.

After the Soviet air force had been effectively dealt with, the focus of the tactical airforces would be to :

1. deny Soviet forces the ability to re-supply from mother Russia


2. prevent Soviet infantry and any surviving armour from escaping
enmass back into the Soviet landmass. The objective is not to
simply defeat Soviet ambitions, but rather, to annihilate as
much of the remnats of the Red Army as can be caught.

The Soviet infantry, and any remaining armoured forces would be inclined to retreat to European cities and prepare for seige, much like Stalingrad.

However, unlike 1943, they will have no ability to resupply due to the Allies having absolute mastery of the air and thus controlling transportation of any significance.

So, the once mighty and victorious Red Army, when faced with overwhelming Allied and Wehrmacht forces now engaging in seige warfare around these same cities, would face a grim future much like Japanese island garrisons which MacArthur had simply passed them by... the "wither on the vine" approach.

It cannot be seriously argued that the soviet forces would have anything but a very brief experience against the USAAF and RAF.

Of course, the Soviets would come in large numbers, but they would surely die in equally large numbers. In such a confrontation, quantity would be pitted against quantity and quality. Their demise would be inevitable.

About all Soviet ground commanders could hope for, is for the Soviet Air Force to buy him some time....time for a strategic withdrawal which might allow for the Red Army..or at leas t a significant portion of it to survive this foolish venture.

About manpower; remember that by 1944, the USSR was about tapped out, while the USA was actually cutting back on the draft due to "excess supply". By 1945, the Soviet Union had about 12 million in uniform, with the USA approaching 16 million...and could have added still more to the equation.

Any such conflict as has been envisioned in this thread, would not likely involve another invaision of russia, but rather an arranged "separation' of mother Russia from her beloved armed forces.

This would likely mean loss of territories, especailly the recently re-conquored Baltic Republics, Poland and easter Germany and E.Prussia.
Perhaps the Ukraine could be stripped away as well...but one shouldnt be greedy

So, in a nutshell , here it is. The Allies had the numbers, the quality, the ecomomies, to eliminate the bulk of Soviet armed forces in 1945 had they chosen to engage the west.

No need to use anything from Los Alamos, as the conventional forces onhand would have been sufficient.[/b][/i]
December 9th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flak88
um, the Russian IVan vs the british Tommies, French Marcs and American Joes.... Definetly Ivan will win, since the war will be on his ground....

Hmmm....
20 Rooskies on 1 German soldier...
2 Germans on 1 US or British soldier...
Tells it's story.....
Germany lost on Eastern Front, probably because of Hitler. Allies wouldn't make that stupid mistake, did Roosvelt ever told Patton what to do?
There were many German prisoners after the war... Hitler mobilized children simply because most of his troops were captured(on West)...


So my answer is.... guess what... USA
December 9th, 2004  
lght1
 
hi

had the wehrmacht been able to use the bulk of its garrisoned troops it kept in the west and n africa, and without adolph's incompetetance, than the reich more than likely would have destroyed the u.s.s.r.

of course, getting a late start in june 1941 hurt too. it would have been nice to have started in late april - mid may rather than late june. damm that italian fool.
December 9th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flak88
um, the Russian IVan vs the british Tommies, French Marcs and American Joes.... Definetly Ivan will win, since the war will be on his ground....

Hmmm....
20 Rooskies on 1 German soldier...
2 Germans on 1 US or British soldier...
Tells it's story.....
Sorry, but this is pretty meaningless. Are you attempting to say that 20 Soviet soldiers = 1 German which = 0.5 UK/US? Or are you talking about troop numbers? Either way you are incorrect.