WWII's Top Mistakes - U.S.A.

[Rabs]

1. beyond the scope of the question (USA has not obtained the nukes until after VD-E(5/8/1945) and those few bombs had another destination. Did you forget that at that time Japan has not surrendered yet and the US needed the Soviet help(to fight in Manchjuria and, possibly, in Japan?)
2. What about the outright treachery - to nuke an ally(even as evil as it was) as soon as the common goal is achieved? And that nation just lost more than 20 million people fighting the common enemy...
3. USA didn't have enough bombs to bring the USSR to it's knees in 1945.
In the same time, Red Army, would wipe the Americans from Continental Europe within a month - so vast the superiority was in their troop strenth, tanks, artillery and front line aviation.

P-51 was better than anything the Russians had, and our bombers could of destroyed the reds within a month.

Then we ignore the stranded japs that have no navy, and invade Russia from the pacific to.

Yes yes i know there are logistics about equipping our troops for Russian fighting but it shouldnt have taken that long.

 

[boris116]

P-51 was better than anything the Russians had, and our bombers could of destroyed the reds within a month. .

First of all, I am glad, that it has never happened!
P-51 is great, but it couldn't guarantee the Victory against a very tough and very angry adversary. The German tanks were much better than the "Shermans", however, they lost.


I am not sure, what is your knowledge is about the Soviet forces in Europe in '45.
70% of the German Forces in 1941-45 were facing East, not West, so I wouldn't underestimate the Red Army! It was able to survive the losses of the first 2 years of war, recover thousands of miles of lost territories and come to Berlin before the Americans.
Here is a quick quote from wikipedia:
"The three Soviet fronts had altogether 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyushas rockets, (nicknamed "Stalin Organs"); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many manufactured in the USA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(WWII)#End_of_War:_April.E2.80.93May_1945

Those were forces that have taken Berlin only.

In the same time, the total strength of the Western Allies in Europe has been 3,021,483 people(including UK). how many of them could actually fight?
I couldn't find the number of planes, tanks, etc.

Then we ignore the stranded japs that have no navy, and invade Russia from the pacific to. .

And then what? Moscow is 11 time zones away with just one railroad and no highways in between... You are kidding me!

Yes yes i know there are logistics about equipping our troops for Russian fighting but it shouldnt have taken that long.

Don't worry about that! The climate in the UK is not that bad. It would be the only place where the Americans could hold out:horsie:

If I am not mistaken, the NATO Cold War era planners have accepted the thought of inevitability of the Soviet breakthrough to the English Channel if the NATO forces would be fighting with the conventional weapons only. In '45, USA couldn't fight the nuclear war yet, just demonstrate it with a couple of blasts. It has been enough for Hirohito, but Uncle Joe and his regime wouldn't be as easy to subdue...

 

[Damien435]

Attacking Russia would only accomplish one thing: Prevent the 50 year long cold war by replacing it with another decade of fighting. Who would have won? My blind patriotism forces me to say that Russia would have been defeated, obviously I could even cite specific reasons. The US and UK, IMO had a clear advantage on the seas and in the air. The only heavy bombers the USSR had were stolen from the US (B-29's, reverse engineered and renamed the..... TU-4?) and forgive me if I am wrong, but their mediium range bombers were also aquired from the US VIA Lend-Lease. The T-34 is the best tank in the world, at this time, and would have meant that the Russians in Europe would have the advantage, but the US and UK could have launched an attack at many locations while the Russians would have been forced to react, for example the US and UK could launch an assault through Finland (who would IMO be more than happy to help screw Russia) and cut off the Soviet Advance armies from their supplies, some might even run out of fuel before getting back to Russia to fight the American and British forces there.

All this is a mute point though, Patton did not get his wish, thankfully, we are all here today, in one form or another, so IMO it all worked out for the best.

 

[LeEnfield]

Blixs....You mentioned Market Garden being a bad campaign, and yes it was a failure, but had been two weeks earlier it would have been a great success. The reason it failed was that the Germans moved a SS Armoured Division around Arnhem for rest and re-equipping only a short time before the drop. This was just the fickle finger of fate showing how the best plans of mice and men. Now I am not a great supporter of Monty, but like ever one they have their ups and downs.

 

[LeEnfield]

Also the people that seem to think we should have turned on Russia at the end of WW2 while we the Atom bomb must have a screw lose. Do you expect that we should kill all Russians because that is what you would have to do. Did you not learn any thing from the way they fought for their country during this period. What do you think the world would have thought of America for turning on an ally like that and do you think any one would ever trust America again after that. Also do you think the American troops would have done this and would have have wanted to carry on fighting for even more years, I don't think so.

 

[Rabs]

Sorry guys, I just have an utter hatred for Russia. (red and current)

 

[Blixs]

Patton could be daring, but his ego could make him extremely reckless. For example his entire 3rd Army ran out of gas at Meuse because he wouldnt wait for his supply lines to catch up. Had the Germans counterattacked he would have been a sitting duck. He was generally a abhorrant person distrusted by by the enlisted personnel and the senior staff.

Ike was right to put him in a broom closet, personnaly I prefer Omar Bradley.

And Bradley took many of his strategies and plans from Patton,often Bradley conversed with him about the war and what should be done,Patton gave him a couple of good ideas and he made them his own.

 

[Ted]

Sorry guys, I just have an utter hatred for Russia. (red and current)

What for Rabs? If it is for their political system, why worry? They tried something new and found out it didn't work. The MIC in the US did quite well because of it.... better yet; the whole econmy thrived well on this fact. So why the hatred? (Some say hatred is fed by fear.....)

Second: I think the US would never win when invading the USSR. The Russian fighting machine would have flattened the US in the end, exactly like they did with the Germans. Oh...and think of the bad pr this would do to the US.

 

[Reiben]

здравствулте! Rabs!
Вы не можете быть серьезны. Посмотрите случилось к другим попытались!
The Germans had major problems invading Russia from the west, especially considering the very poor roads in the winter. The Russian winter is an extra weapon. So invading from the east across the largest country in the world would have been madness.
The early weather in the Ardennes provide that in winter the mighty western allies airforce not to be a factor. Dont foget the Russians had an effective airforce.
The Russians had some great heavy tanks to compliment the medium T34. The Shermans wouldnt have stood a chance. Only the Centurion and Pershing would have been able to tackle them, but they were not ready in enough numbers in '45.
I dont mind the Russians. Just wish they wouldnt spend their money on football.:wink: :-(
По-русски

 

[Rabs]

Some say hatred is fed by fear.....)

Dam right it is, a nation ran by crazies with lots of nukes.

 

[Reiben]

Dam right it is, a nation ran by crazies with lots of nukes.

mmmmm....which country are you talking about?

 

[Dean]

Attacking Russia would only accomplish one thing: Prevent the 50 year long cold war by replacing it with another decade of fighting. Who would have won? My blind patriotism forces me to say that Russia would have been defeated, obviously I could even cite specific reasons. The US and UK, IMO had a clear advantage on the seas and in the air.

At the beginning of Barbarossa, the Germans had a very clear advantage on the seas and in the air. In fact after the initial attacks, the Soviets did not have an air force left. In the end, that did nothing to help the Germans.

The only heavy bombers the USSR had were stolen from the US (B-29's, reverse engineered and renamed the..... TU-4?) and forgive me if I am wrong, but their mediium range bombers were also aquired from the US VIA Lend-Lease.

So what?? During the Soviet attack into Germany, never in the history of modern human conflict has an army made such a large attack against an enemy with so little air support. Now, I must admit that the Luftwaffe at the time was destroyed, but nonetheless, Soviet planners were astoundingly succesful at virtually ignoring air support. Had the US attacked, the Soviets would have retreated a bit, again trading land for time while making enough anti-aircraft guns and planes to properly fight a war. (And remember, the Soviets were the tops in terms of artillery and tank production) Now, don't try to say that it could not be done, they had already done it twice! Against the Germans, the Soviets Air Forces were virtually annihilated, then came back from the grave to annihilate the Luftwaffe. That was no mean trick. The Army did not suffer as much, but it became the most powerful army in the world by the end of WW II. Now, it is accepted that the US Air Force was technologically miles ahead of the Soviets, but the Germans had been there too. Now really, do you think the Soviets would have just given up and surrendered?

The T-34 is the best tank in the world, at this time, and would have meant that the Russians in Europe would have the advantage, but the US and UK could have launched an attack at many locations while the Russians would have been forced to react, for example the US and UK could launch an assault through Finland (who would IMO be more than happy to help screw Russia) and cut off the Soviet Advance armies from their supplies, some might even run out of fuel before getting back to Russia to fight the American and British forces there.

Yes it was the best tank, but the US simply did not have the forces necessary to mount the attack that you are dreaming about. They could not have attacked from two directions, as they would have had to have taken months, if not years to build forces in Europe, Manchuria, and Turkey. The forces in Manchuria could not have manuvered farther than the few cities that were there, and then they would have bogged down at the end of a 15,000 mile, easily cuttable supply line. At the time, there were no roads and only one railway running from Siberia to European Russia, and the invading forces would have been trapped in theatre. Chances are the Russians would not have even fought for some of the cities, then stopped the invaders with small groups of forces along the railway. And remember, the Russians would have had no supply problems at all. (We are talking about 2 three thousand mile fronts here) Winter would have then stopped them dead. Attacking from the Finland would also have been a disaster. While the Allies would have had air superiority, they would have had a marked weakness in terms of armour and forces. They would have lost. It reminds me of that old Warsaw Pact joke. Two Soviet generals meet in Paris two weeks after the end of WW III. One turns to the other and asks, "By the way, who won the air war?" Boots on the ground have always, and will always decide the argument.

All this is a moot point though, Patton did not get his wish, thankfully, we are all here today, in one form or another, so IMO it all worked out for the best.

It was not a wish, it was an idiotic pipe dream. Patton was a brilliant tactician, but I believe that he understood nothing about the fighting that went on in the USSR, nor the abilities of the Soviet soldier. Had he known, methinks he would never have even thought about such an attack. If the attack had gone ahead, this thread would have another entry, how the US lost the war, and it would have been the greatest mistake made by any army during the war. Eisenhower has often been belittled fro many things, but here is a place where he shone. He was not a commander in the common sense of the word. He was a manager and a diplomat, and he knew exactly what the Soviets had accomplished as a result of his numerous visits there. I am sure that he had no little role in quashing this idea.

Dean.

 

[Rabs]

mmmmm....which country are you talking about?

That would be the russian federation.

 

[Damien435]

Oh dear, here we go again.

At the beginning of Barbarossa, the Germans had a very clear advantage on the seas and in the air. In fact after the initial attacks, the Soviets did not have an air force left. In the end, that did nothing to help the Germans.

But how many heavy bombers did the Luftwaffe have? To my knowledge none. Well, the Amerika Bomber but I don't think anything ever came of that. And the allies not only had a huge technological advantage over the Soviets at this time but we also had a numerical advantage, the Germans did not have near the numbers of the combined British/American Air Forces.

So what?? During the Soviet attack into Germany, never in the history of modern human conflict has an army made such a large attack against an enemy with so little air support. Now, I must admit that the Luftwaffe at the time was destroyed, but nonetheless, Soviet planners were astoundingly succesful at virtually ignoring air support.

But how much good would all that ignoring do if the allies were bombing their supply lines and troop concentrations? They can ignore their own lack of air support easily enough when the enemy has even less, but when the enemy has overwhelming air superiority it becomes much harder.

Had the US attacked, the Soviets would have retreated a bit, again trading land for time while making enough anti-aircraft guns and planes to properly fight a war. (And remember, the Soviets were the tops in terms of artillery and tank production) Now, don't try to say that it could not be done, they had already done it twice! Against the Germans, the Soviets Air Forces were virtually annihilated, then came back from the grave to annihilate the Luftwaffe. That was no mean trick. The Army did not suffer as much, but it became the most powerful army in the world by the end of WW II.

At the end of WWII weren't there like 1.5 million more men in the United States Armed forces? For some reason I keep getting this picture in my head saying that the US had 17.5 million troops at the end of the war and the Soviets had 16 million. Can someone who might be more familar with this subject enlighten me?

Now, it is accepted that the US Air Force was technologically miles ahead of the Soviets, but the Germans had been there too.

But once again, the Allies had the numbers to back up that superiority. But let's not forget that the Mig-15 came out only a few years after the war so clearly the Soviet's were already designing some more advanced aircraft at the end of the war.

Now really, do you think the Soviets would have just given up and surrendered?

No, did I say they would? If I did it was a slip up.

Yes it was the best tank, but the US simply did not have the forces necessary to mount the attack that you are dreaming about. They could not have attacked from two directions, as they would have had to have taken months, if not years to build forces in Europe, Manchuria, and Turkey. The forces in Manchuria could not have manuvered farther than the few cities that were there, and then they would have bogged down at the end of a 15,000 mile, easily cuttable supply line. At the time, there were no roads and only one railway running from Siberia to European Russia, and the invading forces would have been trapped in theatre. Chances are the Russians would not have even fought for some of the cities, then stopped the invaders with small groups of forces along the railway. And remember, the Russians would have had no supply problems at all. (We are talking about 2 three thousand mile fronts here) Winter would have then stopped them dead. Attacking from the Finland would also have been a disaster. While the Allies would have had air superiority, they would have had a marked weakness in terms of armour and forces. They would have lost. It reminds me of that old Warsaw Pact joke. Two Soviet generals meet in Paris two weeks after the end of WW III. One turns to the other and asks, "By the way, who won the air war?" Boots on the ground have always, and will always decide the argument.

Personally, I think you are grealy underestimating the effect of airpower in on warfare in the 20th century, the RAF saved Britain from invasion, not the Army, it was the Army Air Corps, not the 3rd Army, that saved the troops surrounded at Bastogne, and the Allied Bomber Command put a greater dent on the German war machine than anything else at the time, would have been more effective if we would have bombed Germany's ally/pupet Switzerland.

It was not a wish, it was an idiotic pipe dream. Patton was a brilliant tactician, but I believe that he understood nothing about the fighting that went on in the USSR, nor the abilities of the Soviet soldier. Had he known, methinks he would never have even thought about such an attack. If the attack had gone ahead, this thread would have another entry, how the US lost the war, and it would have been the greatest mistake made by any army during the war. Eisenhower has often been belittled fro many things, but here is a place where he shone. He was not a commander in the common sense of the word. He was a manager and a diplomat, and he knew exactly what the Soviets had accomplished as a result of his numerous visits there. I am sure that he had no little role in quashing this idea.

Dean.

But Patton also remembered that before the war the Soviet Union was thought of as being the greatest evil in the world, he foresaw the Cold War, and he knew we had the bomb so if push came to shove we could have obliterated every major Russian city. Not something I would be very fond of but an option none the less. I do agree though that many people at that time and to this day underestimate the Soviet's, in WWII the only nation to suffer more casualties than the Soviet Union was China. (according to some estimates.)

And I already said that blind patriotism, not necessarilly facts were the basis of my argument. I am trying to use facts to justify my beliefs so your attempts to convince me otherwise will be futile. Make a nice prapaganda poster and you might persuade me.

Oh yeah, and if you haven't done so already take the time to read my signature and then laugh as it all makes sense now. (Our other arguments that is.)

 

[boris116]

it was the Army Air Corps, not the 3rd Army, that saved the troops surrounded at Bastogne,

One can say that american ass has been saved by the Soviet advance to the German proper started 2 weeks earlier per Churchill's urgent requests

and the Allied Bomber Command put a greater dent on the German war machine than anything else at the time, would have been more effective if we would have bombed Germany's ally/pupet Switzerland.

I have read that the German war materiel production has increased throughout the war, except for the last couple of months(when everything has fallen apart). Due to this, the biggest contribution of the Allied Bomber Command would be keeping of the best German pilots and 300 000 artillerymen far from the frontlines

 

[redcoat]

So what?? During the Soviet attack into Germany, never in the history of modern human conflict has an army made such a large attack against an enemy with so little air support.

I would never call an air force with 10,000 front-line aircraft, 'little'. That was the strength of the Soviet air force in 1945, most of it modern effective aircraft like the excellent fighter, the Lavochkin La-5, considered by most aviation experts to be as good as a P-51.
Also if you think pilot quality will swing the air war the Wests way, it should be pointed out that by the end of the war, the Soviet air force had 39 aces with scores of more than 40, the highest score of any US pilot.

ps, my view is that if the West had had an bout of insanity and attacked the Soviets, the casualty list would have run into the tens of millions.

Ike was right, Patton was wrong.

 

[Doppleganger]

I would never call an air force with 10,000 front-line aircraft, 'little'. That was the strength of the Soviet air force in 1945, most of it modern effective aircraft like the excellent fighter, the Lavochkin La-5, considered by most aviation experts to be as good as a P-51.
Also if you think pilot quality will swing the air war the Wests way, it should be pointed out that by the end of the war, the Soviet air force had 39 aces with scores of more than 40, the highest score of any US pilot.

ps, my view is that if the West had had an bout of insanity and attacked the Soviets, the casualty list would have run into the tens of millions.

Ike was right, Patton was wrong.

The one thing I would say is that the Red Army had suffered huge casualties against the Germans, even when things were going their way. It is difficult to believe but the Red Army actually lost more men and equipment in 1943 and 1944 than they did in 1941/1942. Thus by 1945 even the Russians were beginning to run low on manpower. This, and not the air situation, is the one concern I would have if I had been Stalin and the West was picking for a fight.

In saying that though, I do believe that the Red Army would have pushed the Western Allies back into the Atlantic for 2 reasons. The first being that they had much bigger forces in theatre and the second being that they had a great forward momentum. The Germans inflicted enormous casualties on the Red Army yet they were brushed aside. The same thing would happen to the Western Allied Armies.

 

[Reiben]

True Russia started to suffer manpower shortages, but there biggest problem was the quality of the replacements, who were not that well trained resulting in large casualties.

Man for man, in 1945 who was the more fearful soldier: a russian or american?

I think russian is the soldier you would fear most. Allied strategy was based on overwhelming fire power. The russian used huge amounts of artillery and firepower. The Russian airforce wasnt bad too, however the western allies broke the back of the german airforce.

 

[The Cooler King]

Patton? Air Corps? the Soviets?

Ask a Screaming Eagle and he'll tell you he didn't need to be rescued.

Nuts!!!!

 

[Dean]

Oh dear, here we go again.


Ahh, but Damien, you're just so much fun to talk with.... and I really mean that!!!

But how many heavy bombers did the Luftwaffe have? To my knowledge none. Well, the Amerika Bomber but I don't think anything ever came of that. And the allies not only had a huge technological advantage over the Soviets at this time but we also had a numerical advantage, the Germans did not have near the numbers of the combined British/American Air Forces.

They never had heavy bombers. But their fleet of medium bombers was second to none, and it very nearly succeeded in beating the Royal Air Force... among others. It did totally defeat the Soviet Air Force, as well as the Polish Air Force. At the beginning of the war, right up until about early 1944, the German bomber force was among the best, although it is true that they would have been more effective if they'd had some heavies.

But how much good would all that ignoring do if the allies were bombing their supply lines and troop concentrations? They can ignore their own lack of air support easily enough when the enemy has even less, but when the enemy has overwhelming air superiority it becomes much harder.

The Soviet supply lines would have been so short that they would have been virtually impossible to interdict. By the same token, defending them would have been as easy for the Soviets.

At the end of WWII weren't there like 1.5 million more men in the United States Armed forces? For some reason I keep getting this picture in my head saying that the US had 17.5 million troops at the end of the war and the Soviets had 16 million. Can someone who might be more familar with this subject enlighten me?

Actually, you have me there. The only statistics that I remember offhand was that the US had the biggest navy, both in men and number of ships. The Soviets had the biggest army by quite a margin. The funniest thing to me about the end of war statistics was the figures that I saw for the allied navies. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to which country had the second biggest navy in number of ships at the end of WW II?

But once again, the Allies had the numbers to back up that superiority. But let's not forget that the Mig-15 came out only a few years after the war so clearly the Soviet's were already designing some more advanced aircraft at the end of the war.

They did indeed, But the Russians had already managed to completely overcome one deficit in forces, and they were still building up their forces right up to the bitter end. Do you really believe that the Allied juggernaut would have been as difficult for the Soviets to counter, now that they were ready for a war, had ample experience, mountains of supplies, were quite rested, and had some of the best commanders of the Second World War? remember what they did to the Japanese after the German surrender. They went over under around and right through the Japanese Kwantung Army like it was made of cheesecake, and the Kwantung army was the largest one the Japanese had left. The Soviets defeated them in less than a week.

No, did I say they would? If I did it was a slip up.

No problem.

Personally, I think you are grealy underestimating the effect of airpower in on warfare in the 20th century, the RAF saved Britain from invasion, not the Army, it was the Army Air Corps, not the 3rd Army, that saved the troops surrounded at Bastogne, and the Allied Bomber Command put a greater dent on the German war machine than anything else at the time, would have been more effective if we would have bombed Germany's ally/pupet Switzerland.

Sometimes I do have that prejudice. But remember that airpower today and airpower in 1945 were very different. In spite of all the bombing raids that the Allied and Axis forces launched, nobody ever managed to stop the other side from producing war materiel during the entire war. The Germans tried to do it to the Russians and British. Failed both times. The Allies tried to do it to the Germans. They failed as well. I remember seeing an air photo of a German factory that had been bombed to smithereens during a night raid. In spite of the fact that there were hundreds of bomb craters in the image, and the fact that manyof the buildings had been destroyed, the factory was still in production. Airpower never succeeded in stopping the North Vietnamese from resupplying along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and that was in the 70's. It is only since the invention of smart weapons that airpower has become definitive in a battle, but it still cannot win one. Only boots on the ground can do that. Airpower can help ground troops win a battle, but it cannot win the battle for them. (Airpower can now be used to deny the other side the use of an area or region, or part of a battlefield, but that will only give you a stalemate. To win, you have to occupy that area.) (Oh-oh... I think I'm starting to monologue. Bad sign):drunkb:

But Patton also remembered that before the war the Soviet Union was thought of as being the greatest evil in the world, he foresaw the Cold War, and he knew we had the bomb so if push came to shove we could have obliterated every major Russian city. Not something I would be very fond of but an option none the less. I do agree though that many people at that time and to this day underestimate the Soviet's, in WWII the only nation to suffer more casualties than the Soviet Union was China. (according to some estimates.)

The US did not have enough bombs to do that until much later. If push had come to shove, Patton could have popped a few nukes in the hopes that the Soviets would have blinked. But they did not blink when they faced either the Japanese or the Germans, so somehow, I do not think that Americans would have bothered them greatly.

And I already said that blind patriotism, not necessarilly facts were the basis of my argument. I am trying to use facts to justify my beliefs so your attempts to convince me otherwise will be futile. Make a nice prapaganda poster and you might persuade me.

My artistic skills go right up to the ability to draw a semi-competent stick-man. Stick women are beyond me. As for a propaganda poster... yagottabekidding!!!

Oh yeah, and if you haven't done so already take the time to read my signature and then laugh as it all makes sense now. (Our other arguments that is.)

I always liked your sig. In fact, I was kinda pissed that I never thought of it.

Have a good one...

Dean.