The what if thread -WW2- - Page 5




 
--
 
November 8th, 2009  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfen
What if Patton had been allowed to push the Red Army back into the Soviet Union?

(can you say WW2 all the way to 2000? )
Was there any chance he would succeed ?
November 8th, 2009  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Was there any chance he would succeed ?
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.
November 8th, 2009  
wolfen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Was there any chance he would succeed ?
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
--
November 8th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
Was there any chance he would succeed ?
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.
November 9th, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
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.
November 9th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
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.

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.
November 10th, 2009  
wolfen
 
Heres a thought, what if Adolf Hitler had died in WW1, Would the European theater of WW2 have even happened?
November 11th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
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.
November 11th, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
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.
November 11th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
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.
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).

Quote:
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.
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..
 


Similar Topics
Comparison of WW2 tank design and operational doctrine
Thread Merge Request Thread
Was my previous "Woohoo" thread deleted?