Soviet vs western allies
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
Sebastian Pye
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 5:32 am
- Location: Sweden, Västerås
- Contact:
Soviet vs western allies
K I know we´ve talked about this before, but what would happen if soviet and western allies declared war on each other in may 1945(without the abomb). The reason Im asking is because theres a guy on another forum that is absolutely certain that the soviets were totally worn out and would have been massacred and I thing that sounds absolutely ludicrous so maybe people with more knowledge could give us a hint of what could have happened. For starters, how many divisions did each side have battleready at the time?
It would have been close, but I think the western Allies would have prevailed:
-The immediate cessation of the sending of American oil and supplies to the Soviet Union would have been a major blow, even this late in the war.
-The US and Commonwealth had a combined bomber fleet of ridiculous proportions...they could pound the Russians into submission.
-Battle-hardened formations of the Heer and Waffen-SS could be brought to bear against the Soviets.
Although, one would wonder whether a Soviet-Japanese pact would have emerged in such circumstances?
-The immediate cessation of the sending of American oil and supplies to the Soviet Union would have been a major blow, even this late in the war.
-The US and Commonwealth had a combined bomber fleet of ridiculous proportions...they could pound the Russians into submission.
-Battle-hardened formations of the Heer and Waffen-SS could be brought to bear against the Soviets.
Although, one would wonder whether a Soviet-Japanese pact would have emerged in such circumstances?
Assuming this war happens after the fall of Japan.
I've seen the arguments that Russia could have driven to the sea (English Channel) and just don't bye into that notion.
The western allies had undisputed control of the sea. They had a strategic bomber force second to none and had one hell of a large tactical airforce to boot.
The Russians had more troops and better tanks, but, in my view, both sides are battle weary and at the end of their logistical lines.
This has to play to the allied advantage. With the end of Lend-Lease supplies, the possibility of a limited allied landing on thier flanks either in the Pacific or on the Northern Shores. Allied bombing of key rail links, etc. Its hard to imagind the Russians advancing far before the allied air power grinds them down.
When was the last time an armor attack susceeded with the other side haveing air supremacy?
I've seen the arguments that Russia could have driven to the sea (English Channel) and just don't bye into that notion.
The western allies had undisputed control of the sea. They had a strategic bomber force second to none and had one hell of a large tactical airforce to boot.
The Russians had more troops and better tanks, but, in my view, both sides are battle weary and at the end of their logistical lines.
This has to play to the allied advantage. With the end of Lend-Lease supplies, the possibility of a limited allied landing on thier flanks either in the Pacific or on the Northern Shores. Allied bombing of key rail links, etc. Its hard to imagind the Russians advancing far before the allied air power grinds them down.
When was the last time an armor attack susceeded with the other side haveing air supremacy?
-
Sebastian Pye
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 5:32 am
- Location: Sweden, Västerås
- Contact:
war weary
I believe that the entire world was tired of the blood second world war. I doubt both Russia and the Allied had any will to continue the bloodshed.Sam H. wrote:Yeah, but I believe that the allies were more effective in the use of their tactical aircraft. And the Russians had nothing to match the US 8th Airforce and Bomber Command.
Some settlement would have been achieved.
My 2 cents.
Guillermo
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
I think Guillermo is essentially right. In fact, history tells us he was right. However, the nature of what-ifs is to ignore certain factors in history to speculate on different possible results.
My feeling is that unless the Russians were able to drive straight to the Atlantic Coast they would inevitably lose. Their country was already devastated behind them. Anglo-American strategic air power could reach and destroy those areas left untouched by the Germans with the same impunity with which they had ranged over Germany in early 1945. The Soviet armed forces depended largely on American trucks for mobility. Their prime manpower was already dead. They would even have been outnumbered overall and thereby lost the one consistent advantage they had always held over the Germans.....etc.,......etc.,.....
Cheers,
Sid.
My feeling is that unless the Russians were able to drive straight to the Atlantic Coast they would inevitably lose. Their country was already devastated behind them. Anglo-American strategic air power could reach and destroy those areas left untouched by the Germans with the same impunity with which they had ranged over Germany in early 1945. The Soviet armed forces depended largely on American trucks for mobility. Their prime manpower was already dead. They would even have been outnumbered overall and thereby lost the one consistent advantage they had always held over the Germans.....etc.,......etc.,.....
Cheers,
Sid.
-
LiL_Puma
- New Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:50 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, West Coast USA
I'm just gonna refute all of your points.
"The immediate cessation of the sending of American oil and supplies to the Soviet Union would have been a major blow, even this late in the war."
- Lend-Lease Aid from the United States to the Soviet Union accounted for only 10-12% of the Soviet war effort. With the complete liberation of Russia, with the addition of Eastern Europe, the Soviets would've had all the resources they needed to conduct another war. Here are some statistics just to show how strong the Soviet war economy was.
- Allied War Production of M4 Sherman : 40,000 up to 1945
- German War Production of PzKpfw IV : 8,000 up to 1945
- Soviet War Production of T-34 : 54,000 up to 1945
(While most of the time, Germany held control of most of Russia.)
(Not to mention the fact that in OTL, they were still a world power in 1946 after sustaining 13 million military and 7 million civilian casualties in ww2)
"The US and Commonwealth had a combined bomber fleet of ridiculous proportions...they could pound the Russians into submission."
"Yeah, but I believe that the allies were more effective in the use of their tactical aircraft. And the Russians had nothing to match the US 8th Airforce and Bomber Command."
- Then why couldn't they pound the Germans into submission in OTL. In order to see how an Allied bombing campaign would be against the Russians, we have to see how it affected Germany. It was largely impossible to break civilian morale by bombing, as the Germans found out during the Battle of Britain. German war production, since Speer had taken the helm of the German economy, peaked late in the bombing campaign around 1944.
- Many consider 1945 the year the bombing campaign was the most effective. However they fail to realize the fact the half of Germany was already then occupied by the Russians and war production was low because the factories were overrun.
- Also, take into the factor the range of Allied bombers. Britain and Germany were practically neighbors throwing rocks across a little stream called the English Channel. Soviet war production since 1940 was centered in regions past the Ural Mountains in Central Asia and Siberia, out of the range of German bombers. From bases in Britain or France, Allied bombers would certainly be unable to strike that far.
- The Soviet Air Force was also a force to be reckoned with. If you think they had inferior air capabilities, compare a Tupolev TU-4 and a Boeing
B-29 Stratofortress, looks like the Soviets had many tricks up their sleeve.
"I believe that the entire world was tired of the blood second world war. I doubt both Russia and the Allied had any will to continue the bloodshed."
- Alas, in OTL hostilities between the Western Allies and Soviet Union continued as the Cold War until the 1980s. Apparantly both sides didn't show any signs of wanting to make peace.
"The western allies had undisputed control of the sea."
- That would've had mattered. It mattered for Germany because it tried to defeat Britain which was an island-nation, but for Russia taking all of continental Europe would've been very easy.
"The Russians had more troops and better tanks, but, in my view, both sides are battle weary and at the end of their logistical lines."
- It took the Allies half a year to cross the Rhine, and Russia fought from the gates of Moscow, across naerly an entire continent, and all the way past Berlin. Both sides had supply problems, but it seemed the Soviets were better at handling them. If you look at a map, the distance between Berlin and Moscow is quite substantial.
So, any questions?
"The immediate cessation of the sending of American oil and supplies to the Soviet Union would have been a major blow, even this late in the war."
- Lend-Lease Aid from the United States to the Soviet Union accounted for only 10-12% of the Soviet war effort. With the complete liberation of Russia, with the addition of Eastern Europe, the Soviets would've had all the resources they needed to conduct another war. Here are some statistics just to show how strong the Soviet war economy was.
- Allied War Production of M4 Sherman : 40,000 up to 1945
- German War Production of PzKpfw IV : 8,000 up to 1945
- Soviet War Production of T-34 : 54,000 up to 1945
(While most of the time, Germany held control of most of Russia.)
(Not to mention the fact that in OTL, they were still a world power in 1946 after sustaining 13 million military and 7 million civilian casualties in ww2)
"The US and Commonwealth had a combined bomber fleet of ridiculous proportions...they could pound the Russians into submission."
"Yeah, but I believe that the allies were more effective in the use of their tactical aircraft. And the Russians had nothing to match the US 8th Airforce and Bomber Command."
- Then why couldn't they pound the Germans into submission in OTL. In order to see how an Allied bombing campaign would be against the Russians, we have to see how it affected Germany. It was largely impossible to break civilian morale by bombing, as the Germans found out during the Battle of Britain. German war production, since Speer had taken the helm of the German economy, peaked late in the bombing campaign around 1944.
- Many consider 1945 the year the bombing campaign was the most effective. However they fail to realize the fact the half of Germany was already then occupied by the Russians and war production was low because the factories were overrun.
- Also, take into the factor the range of Allied bombers. Britain and Germany were practically neighbors throwing rocks across a little stream called the English Channel. Soviet war production since 1940 was centered in regions past the Ural Mountains in Central Asia and Siberia, out of the range of German bombers. From bases in Britain or France, Allied bombers would certainly be unable to strike that far.
- The Soviet Air Force was also a force to be reckoned with. If you think they had inferior air capabilities, compare a Tupolev TU-4 and a Boeing
B-29 Stratofortress, looks like the Soviets had many tricks up their sleeve.
"I believe that the entire world was tired of the blood second world war. I doubt both Russia and the Allied had any will to continue the bloodshed."
- Alas, in OTL hostilities between the Western Allies and Soviet Union continued as the Cold War until the 1980s. Apparantly both sides didn't show any signs of wanting to make peace.
"The western allies had undisputed control of the sea."
- That would've had mattered. It mattered for Germany because it tried to defeat Britain which was an island-nation, but for Russia taking all of continental Europe would've been very easy.
"The Russians had more troops and better tanks, but, in my view, both sides are battle weary and at the end of their logistical lines."
- It took the Allies half a year to cross the Rhine, and Russia fought from the gates of Moscow, across naerly an entire continent, and all the way past Berlin. Both sides had supply problems, but it seemed the Soviets were better at handling them. If you look at a map, the distance between Berlin and Moscow is quite substantial.
So, any questions?
-
Sebastian Pye
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 5:32 am
- Location: Sweden, Västerås
- Contact:
-
Commissar D, the Evil
- Moderator
- Posts: 4823
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
- Location: New Jersey
Hi Sebastion, yes, given time I could dig out the figures for the Soviet Union. But one must remember that the Soviet Union had a population on the order of 170,000,000 people. On July 1, 1945, there were 11,360,000
men and women in the Soviet Union's armed forces. I don't think this represents the last scrappings of a very big barrel. Bets Regards, David
men and women in the Soviet Union's armed forces. I don't think this represents the last scrappings of a very big barrel. Bets Regards, David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....
Russia continued
Allow me to make some observations.
Any attempted Russian air force attempt to support their ground offensive would have been met by the Allied air force with much better equipment eg jets and radar.
So it would be Russian tanks vs Allied airfoce.
Now would the Russians have fought so bravely against the Americans as they did against the Germans.
Then for the Russians to attack successfully Europe the Russian would have had to transport their oil across Europe. Not easy to do after the devastation of the war particularly if your enemies is capable of air bombing. So the Russian tanks would probably ground to a halt. Then the Allies would have slowly started to overwelm the Russian airforce.
By which stage, they would face the American atomic bomb.
Any attempted Russian air force attempt to support their ground offensive would have been met by the Allied air force with much better equipment eg jets and radar.
So it would be Russian tanks vs Allied airfoce.
Now would the Russians have fought so bravely against the Americans as they did against the Germans.
Then for the Russians to attack successfully Europe the Russian would have had to transport their oil across Europe. Not easy to do after the devastation of the war particularly if your enemies is capable of air bombing. So the Russian tanks would probably ground to a halt. Then the Allies would have slowly started to overwelm the Russian airforce.
By which stage, they would face the American atomic bomb.
But the Soviets beat the Germans due to the Russian infantryman's sacrifice for his homeland. Once you take out the survival factor, the Red Army was not so great. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. Red aggression, or even holding onto foreign ground, would be morally debilatating to the troops.
The Germans, on the other hand, were now the ones fighting for their lives. Fanatical resistance was offered, and even the American and Commonwealth troops seemed enthusiastic at Patton's stab for the east. The combination of German engineering and American production would have flattened Russia...US industry didn't even break a sweat in WW2.
The naval and air superiority of the Allies would continue to be important...the distance from London to Dresden is no further than from Helsinki to Moscow. The west would also have the Partisan advantage. In terms of leadership, both the Germans and Allies had more Pattons and Mansteins than Russia had Zhukovs and Timoshenkos.
I do concede Soviet numerary and armour superiority. However, that is an advantage that I believe aircraft makes up for.
So the way I see it, neither side has a distinct advantage; as always, the victor would be the one who most effectively uses his resources. Assuming that the Germans would be immediately re-armed to fight alongside Americans, Commonwealth, Frenchmen, and others, I think that the West would have prevailed. But because of no clear winner, neither side attacked. They were tired of war. The continuation of the West vs. East struggle was an inevitability...it was war fatigue that made it into a Cold War rather than a war of blood.
The Germans, on the other hand, were now the ones fighting for their lives. Fanatical resistance was offered, and even the American and Commonwealth troops seemed enthusiastic at Patton's stab for the east. The combination of German engineering and American production would have flattened Russia...US industry didn't even break a sweat in WW2.
The naval and air superiority of the Allies would continue to be important...the distance from London to Dresden is no further than from Helsinki to Moscow. The west would also have the Partisan advantage. In terms of leadership, both the Germans and Allies had more Pattons and Mansteins than Russia had Zhukovs and Timoshenkos.
I do concede Soviet numerary and armour superiority. However, that is an advantage that I believe aircraft makes up for.
So the way I see it, neither side has a distinct advantage; as always, the victor would be the one who most effectively uses his resources. Assuming that the Germans would be immediately re-armed to fight alongside Americans, Commonwealth, Frenchmen, and others, I think that the West would have prevailed. But because of no clear winner, neither side attacked. They were tired of war. The continuation of the West vs. East struggle was an inevitability...it was war fatigue that made it into a Cold War rather than a war of blood.
-
LiL_Puma
- New Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 5:50 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, West Coast USA
"So it would be Russian tanks vs Allied airfoce."
- It's not that simple. You can't have a fighter over every bit if Europe of every time. Remember how the Battle of Bulgue played, the Germans launched their offensive in the midst of a winter storm and used that as cover from Allied air supeority. Remember that air superiority isn't omnipresent.
"much better equipment eg jets and radar."
- Remember though that much of this was created with the help of German technology and captured scientists. The Soviets in OTL held half of Germany, they could've easily taken the rest, and taken in dozens of intact V2s, Me-262s... etc... for their enginneers to look at.
"the distance from London to Dresden is no further than from Helsinki to Moscow."
- Why would you bring up Helsinki? It's in Finland and never would've largely supported any Allied operations. If it did it was less than a hundred miles from Leningrad and would've been easily crushed under Stalin's thumb.
- Soviet war economy was largely centered in Central Asia, Siberia, and areas west of the Ural Mountains. That's roughly 2,000 miles from London and 1,700 miles from Berlin.
Other than this you do bring up some legitimate, interesting points.
- It's not that simple. You can't have a fighter over every bit if Europe of every time. Remember how the Battle of Bulgue played, the Germans launched their offensive in the midst of a winter storm and used that as cover from Allied air supeority. Remember that air superiority isn't omnipresent.
"much better equipment eg jets and radar."
- Remember though that much of this was created with the help of German technology and captured scientists. The Soviets in OTL held half of Germany, they could've easily taken the rest, and taken in dozens of intact V2s, Me-262s... etc... for their enginneers to look at.
"the distance from London to Dresden is no further than from Helsinki to Moscow."
- Why would you bring up Helsinki? It's in Finland and never would've largely supported any Allied operations. If it did it was less than a hundred miles from Leningrad and would've been easily crushed under Stalin's thumb.
- Soviet war economy was largely centered in Central Asia, Siberia, and areas west of the Ural Mountains. That's roughly 2,000 miles from London and 1,700 miles from Berlin.
Other than this you do bring up some legitimate, interesting points.
Imediately following the end of WWII Russia was at the end of a large and overstretched supply line (Berlin). Yes, Lend Lease supplied a relatively small portion of Russian front line fighting equipment (tanks and planes), but close to half the Russian trucks were US built.
Add to that, the strategic airforce does not have to attack Russian factories. Bombing key rail links and supply distribution points will paralyze Russian troops.
Unless I am completely mistaken, the Tu-4 did not come out until well after WWII (and was an exact copy of the B-29). There was no true strategic bomber force for the Soviets.
I still believe the allies will hold in Germany and eventaully drive the Russians back. Too much manufacturing capacity in the West.
Add to that, the strategic airforce does not have to attack Russian factories. Bombing key rail links and supply distribution points will paralyze Russian troops.
Unless I am completely mistaken, the Tu-4 did not come out until well after WWII (and was an exact copy of the B-29). There was no true strategic bomber force for the Soviets.
I still believe the allies will hold in Germany and eventaully drive the Russians back. Too much manufacturing capacity in the West.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Lil Puma,
I think you underestimate the impact of Allied bombing on Germany. Although civilian morale did not collapse, it was progressively eroded by the bombing. Absenteeism in the factories reached ever new heights as the war progressed and up to a third of German production was lost due to this and disruption of raw material supplies in 1944-45. The efficacy of strategic bombing is measured not simply in what was directly destroyed but in what was never produced in the first place.
The USSR didn't have to be bombed from Europe. It could be bombed from British air fields in India or US air fields in China. Furthermore, by comparison with Germany, the USSR's air defences were rudimentary.
Wasn't the Tu-4 a direct copy of a Stratofortress that had landed in Mongolia after raiding Japan in 1945? If so, didn't it take the USSR another three years for the type to enter service?
Death rates and damage in the Cold War in no way compare with with WWII, particularly for the major participants.
Far from being masters of their own means of supply, in 1945 the Red Army was largely dependent on half a million US army trucks for its supplies and wider mobility. In addition it had received thousands of US railway locomotives during the war.
Cheers,
Sid.
I think you underestimate the impact of Allied bombing on Germany. Although civilian morale did not collapse, it was progressively eroded by the bombing. Absenteeism in the factories reached ever new heights as the war progressed and up to a third of German production was lost due to this and disruption of raw material supplies in 1944-45. The efficacy of strategic bombing is measured not simply in what was directly destroyed but in what was never produced in the first place.
The USSR didn't have to be bombed from Europe. It could be bombed from British air fields in India or US air fields in China. Furthermore, by comparison with Germany, the USSR's air defences were rudimentary.
Wasn't the Tu-4 a direct copy of a Stratofortress that had landed in Mongolia after raiding Japan in 1945? If so, didn't it take the USSR another three years for the type to enter service?
Death rates and damage in the Cold War in no way compare with with WWII, particularly for the major participants.
Far from being masters of their own means of supply, in 1945 the Red Army was largely dependent on half a million US army trucks for its supplies and wider mobility. In addition it had received thousands of US railway locomotives during the war.
Cheers,
Sid.