Was there any chance he would succeed ?:roll:
The what if thread -WW2-
No. 1. The Allies signed a treaty dividing up Europe, it isn't likely we would have violated it, if the Russians had advanced west beyond the line & refused to pull back....2. in conjuction with #1, or seperatly on the original question the Russians proved they could retreat a long way & take the casulties nessesary to win in the end, so no chance w/o atom bombs.
I don't know, thats probably why this is a what if thread, not a glad it didn't happen thread LOL
But I'd say no he probably would have slapped another soldier and gotten fires anyway
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
It is a tough one to predict as the Soviets had the upper hand in manpower and armour quality but the west had the upper hand in the air which is major leveler.
Purely in terms of a ground war the West would have been destroyed however I am not really sure of the quality of the Soviet air force.
mmarsh
Active member
The VVS (Soviet Air Force) was good but not fantastic. One of their best squadrons the Normandie-Niemens was actually flown by French Pilots. By 1945 their best fighter was the YAK-9 which was slightly superior to the FW-190A-8. But not every squadron was equipped with Yak-9Ds. Soviet Doctrine dictated that new equipment should only be given to new formations upon creation, not replacing the equipment of pre-exsisting units. Therefore alot of units would have had older obsolete aircraft and vehicles...easy pickings.
The problem for the Soviets would have been the same as Japanese and Germans had. They kept sending their best pilots into combat until they were KIA/WIA/MIA or POW. Thus any expertise gained was not passed to the next generation of pilots. It was why German Aces were able to huge numbers of kills, a wolf amongst lambs.
Therefore most of the pilots were nowhere near experianced as the Allies.
Another factor was that the Allies would have had operational Jet Fighters (P-80 and Meteor) much sooner than the VVS. Also factor in that the Allies would have almost certainly allowed ex-Luftwaffe pilots into their ranks giving them a even greater advantage. Most of the greatest German Aces like Galland and Rudell survived the war.
So I am certain the Allies would have had control of the skies.
As for the ground, thats tricker. If I were Patton, I would have waited for the heavy armor to be supplied in much greater number. Because lets face it, a Sherman has no chance against a T-34. Had we allowed the Army time to re-equip (espicially tanks) the Allies might have had a fighting chance.
Another way America might have won is via logistics. If they cut off lend-lease aid to the USSR, that would have a serious impact on their supply lines, espicially on fuel and foodstuffs. The Germans did a good job destroying the Ukraine, Stalin might have had a serious problem feeding his troops with US wheat imports.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
To be honest I don't think it would have taken the Russians all that long to reach the channel ports had they actually wanted to.
The Western Allies were always struggling logistically to keep all of the armies supplied and at operational readiness (this is shown by the Market Garden operation where Patton had to be stripped of supplies to allow Montgomeries drive to go ahead), further to this Russian armour and artillery was always going to dominate its Western counterpart at the time, the only saving grace for the west was in air power.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think a second European war was inevitable given the conditions of the Versailles treaty so yes I think there would have been another war
I think it worth realising that Hitler's "election" was not the start of German rearmament, that started covertly in the late 1920s during the Wiemar Republic so it is clear that Germany was only pay lip service to the terms of the treaty.
I think it more likely however that without Hitler there would not have been a holocaust and things may have been a little more "gentlemanly" on the Eastern Front.
I think it worth realising that Hitler's "election" was not the start of German rearmament, that started covertly in the late 1920s during the Wiemar Republic so it is clear that Germany was only pay lip service to the terms of the treaty.
I think it more likely however that without Hitler there would not have been a holocaust and things may have been a little more "gentlemanly" on the Eastern Front.
mmarsh
Active member
I disagree about the Artillery. Soviet Artillery Fire was certainly plentiful but not fire accurate. The UK-Canadians were experts in Artillery. Remember the Allied had radiomen that could call in accurate air and artillery strikes on very short notice. The Russians never adopted this, they preferred to blanket areas with Artillery before advancing. More to the point Artillery is even more vulnerable to air power than tanks. The reason the Russians were able to fire such massive volleys in 44-45 was because they controlled the skies. Allied Fighter-Bombers would have had a field day.
In terms of supply, much of what you mention was due to Patton himself (meaning ego) not because of US logistics. Remember the Russian supply lines were much longer. Patton wanted to push the reds out of eastern europe he didn't really want to invade Moscow. Its easier to get supplies into Poland from the UK than it is from the Urals, and remember no more U-Boat menace to hamper them. Soviet supply system was largely but not completely motorized either, the allies was.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I will be honest and say that I am not sure accuracy mattered when you are firing that number of weapons (it is estimated that it took 6-6.5 million troops to service Russian artillery).
I disagree with this as Bradley wrote in his diaries that U.S.Artillery units were rationed on ammunition after overlord, the simple reality is that Britain produced bugger all so most of the allied materials had to come from the USA and the distance from Moscow to Paris is a hell of a lot shorter than New York to Paris..
Doppleganger
Active member
The Western Allies, never mind Patton and just one army, did not have nearly anything like the numbers of troops on the ground to even begin to contemplate offensive operations. To cut a long story short it would be a very stupid thing to do. Churchill drew up a plan that asked the same question you did; could the Western Allies defend a Soviet push into Western Europe and could they even push the Red Army back into Russia? It was called Operation Unthinkable and it would have involved the re-commission of up to 100,000 German soldiers to fight for the Allies. British military planners concluded that the plan was 'militarily unfeasible'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
The Western Allies were outnumbered 2:1 in land forces and had inadequate logistics for any prolonged offensive campaign. Any attack on the Red Army in 1945 would be the same as giving the whole of Western Europe over to Communism. The only answer (and the only way to win) would be to use nuclear weapons.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
They would have been nuked sometime around August of 1945 by bombers out of Norway most likely and given the number of German troops still in Norway the Russians would have had issues breaking in there to prevent it especially once reinforced and supplied by Allied troops.
On the whole though I suspect that by May 1945 all parties in Europe were exhausted and could not have continued large scale combat for very long.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I am assuming you mean what if the U.S.S Wards report on it its engagement had been taken seriously at the time?
I really don't know the answer to that as I do not know the ability of the US Navy to get its ships underway at the time.
Given the 6 hours advanced notice I am sure that they could have got some defences in place and and done more damage to the Japanese but unless they could have got ships out to sea and organised enough to attack the Japanese fleet I am not sure the over all result would have been any different.
The worst thing that could have happened is that the Japanese could have caught American ships in the navigation channels and sunk them there putting Pearl Harbor out of action for months.
Doppleganger
Active member
Well, the bulk of the Western Allies had only been at war for a year compared to 4 years for the Red Army. This wouldn't have made much difference though to the Red Army; they had critical forward momentum and advantages of numbers. If the Western Allies had attacked the Red Army they would have been pushed back to the Atlantic or would have nuked Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad etc before this ever happened. One of the main reasons why 'Operation Unthinkable' was drawn up was because Churchill was very concerned that this indeed would happen. As the Germans learned the only way to fight Russia is by committing yourself to a 'total war'. Would there even have been the political will in the West to commit to such an 'all or nothing' concept? I think not.
Guaporense
Active member
This was a significant advantage to the western powers, wasn't? Anyway, like Germany, the US and Britain didn't have the capability to sustain hundreds of thousands of monthly casualties for a long time.
In the air, in 1945 the Western allies had 28.000 combat aircraft, compared to 15.000 for the Soviets. However, 14.000 of these were strategic bombers, with were of limited tactical value while the soviet industrial areas were beyond their range.
But, in 1945, the technology to manufacture hundreds of atom bombs to nuke these huge cities wasn't available. Also, the soviets would have reached the Atlantic before the allies could deploy nukes.
Last edited:
Guaporense
Active member
In august/1945 the Soviet Union destroyed a army of 1.2 million Japanese soldiers losing only 40-50.000 casualties.
Simulations show that an allied invasion of Japan would suffer around 250.000 casualties, compared to the 11 million allied casualties in the 1944-1945 "invasion" of nazi europe.
Japan was a second rate power, in fact, its fighting power was about roughly the same as Italy, maybe Poland. Their victories in Asia were the result of even weaker enemies.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I have never been a fan of the Japanese army or navy during WW2 as I think they were poorly led throughout but I am not sure I would relegate them to the level of Italy, at least they did fight and die for their cause the Italians just surrendered in droves.
Guaporense
Active member
Well, in terms of potential fighting power. The Italians, sure didn't have much morale to fight for the nazis. However, with the proper incentives the Italians could have offered more resistance to the anglo-americans than the japanese. In fact, in Italy more allied soldiers died (fighting the germans) than in the entire pacific campaign.