Patton pushes on (what if)

Had Patton prevailed upon Eisenhower, Marshal, and Churchill to see Stalin’s Soviet Union as a dire threat to Western Society, what would have been the ramifications of such a war? Who would have prevailed? And why do you think so?


__________________________________________________________________________________


My opinion is that while it would have been anything but an easy win, had the British Commonwealth and the United States, along with other Allied nations with a vested interest, pursued that course they could eventually have prevailed.

While the Soviet empire possessed vast recourses it lacked in infrastructure. The Allied nations possessed strategic advantage in Naval Forces, Air Forces, & Logistics. The Soviets held a technical edge in armor but one which was dwindling.

At the close of WWII the American invasion of Japan was scheduled to commence on 1 Nov. 1945
The invasion force was the largest ever assembled and all tolled was made up of 39 US Divisions. It does not take a huge leap of faith to see that these could have been used to invade the Soviet mainland in the Far East.

The Chinese Civil War was on hold during WWII, to a large extent due to the lack of supplies coming from the Soviet Union. China had had the resistance on the run before the war and had a vested interest in seeing the Soviets weakened or destroyed.

By the Autumn of 1945 it should have been painfully obvious that relations with the Soviet were never going to be what was envisioned by FDR in the mid war years, and that the Western Democracies were going to have to resist in some fashion. Had they had the stomach for a longer war, I believe they would have prevailed.

I'm no expert on the era, but a few questions spring to mind.

a) Was Britain in a state - materially and in morale - to keep fighting, or had six years of war left everyone more than ready for peace?
b) Given the state Germany was in, especially its infrastructure, would running supply lines across it have been easy?
c) Would the independence movements in the British Empire - particularly India - have been willing to wait while a renewed European war was conducted?
d) Would the communist movements in Western Europe have been an effective resistance?

As I said in the TWC discussion, the Allied troops would not have been in any mood to fight against their erstwhile allies, certainly if they initiated the war. Unless the Soviets very clearly were the aggressors, and they were in no fit state to try anything against the Allies, the most likely result would be a refusal of Allied troops to fight, perhaps mutiny, and revolts or at least protests at home perhaps bringing in new governments. The RAF mutiny of 1946 showed just how fed up the British were of war, and that was just a delay in demobilisation so as to keep them around for colonial policing duties. If the troops were actually told to push on against the Soviets, the mutiny might have started earleir and been more widespread.

Pretty much what Pannonian said. Britain was in best "shape" in Europe at the time. In countries like France or Italy, there would have been even less support for the attack on the Soviets and I think it would in general strengthen communist movements around Europe. It wouldn't be any more pleasant for the Soviets if they were the aggressor.

Invasion of Japan, devoid of anything but a will to resist (and even that was dwindling), and invasion of Soviet Pacific coast are two totally different things - mounting an invasion that needs to be resupplied from thousands of km away, against a country with strong air force and army, on a coast that is frozen most of the year etc etc... is impossible, plain and simple.

During the civil war, there was no China. The civil war was about what would China become. Animosity between SU and China that would appear later certainly doesn't mean that Chinese communists become allies of the West instead of their fellow communists, especially when West is waging war on SU just because they are communists. In fact, I hardly think that West would even try to support communists in China as the only reason for starting the war would be to get rid of communists. They would naturally offer support to those fighting the communists.

When people think that it would be sure, albeit with heavy losses, win for the West, they are not thinking about situation in 1945. They're thinking about a generic NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict. The situation in 1945 was very different than in, let's say, 60's or 70's. War weariness was unbelievably high, no one had the desire to fight another war, especially aggressive war against someone who's been their ally. Not to mention that, save Britain and Spain, no country in Europe had an army and none but a few European countries had a functioning economy. The attack on SU would most probably backfire and very possibly bring communist in power in more European countries. Let's not forget that right after the war Soviets, and communism in general, didn't have such a bad rep that they would acquire later, and the notion that they have done more than fair share of fighting against Hitler was very much alive...

So, it's all nice talking about who had superior tanks or planes but it isn't important. Economic, political and social aspects are much more important to consider here...

I still think that due to so many variables it is impossible to predict what would happen, but if I had to pick, I'd say the Allied attack on the Soviets would have been disastrous for the West.

Quote:

---

At the close of WWII the American invasion of Japan was scheduled to commence on 1 Nov. 1945
The invasion force was the largest ever assembled and all tolled was made up of 39 US Divisions. It does not take a huge leap of faith to see that these could have been used to invade the Soviet mainland in the Far East.

---

Yes , if you re-equip them and retrain them then putting 39 divisions into the vast wastes of Siberia in winter is a great idea .

An attack against the SU in 1945 would have meant a communist revolution in France and Italy.

Since the Brits were not in a great shape as well, it would basically have meant a war between the US and SU (+ various communist armed forces).

Then again, I don't know what it would have taken for the US to build a few more A-Bombs and to toast Russia.

Subtracting nuclear weapons from the equation (because I just don't think they're very sporting), Patton and the 'Allies' - or what was left of them - would have been sliced, diced, and completely pushed out of Western Europe due to the reasons I mentioned in the earlier thread.

The big Allied advantages listed were:
a-Air Power, specifically strategic assets
b-Naval Power
c-Pacific Divisions

To those I would respond...

a) First of all, air power during WW2 is portrayed as far more influential than it actually was. Look at the numbers..

The Allied bombing campaigns against Germany were as 'successful' as they were because Germany simply could not field enough fighters to turn away the air fleets and German industry was fairly dense. On the other hand, Russia had a very large air force by the end of the war, with powerful and sophisticated designs, and experienced pilots. Russian industry was also spread out far more than that of Germany.

Had the American bombers made it through the far more numerically competent Russian fighter screens, fuel and payload restrictions would have made their damage far less meaningful. Also, by '45, the Germans had become very effective at moving their industrial capacity underground, a tactic which would have certainly been copied by the Soviets.

Just like paratroops, I think strategic bombing would have become cost ineffective. Russian cities were already bombed out and the industry gone...


b) Naval power is important, but not exceedingly so during a European continental war. Surely it would have kept America from being invaded, but such a scenario would have likely not happened anyway. Unlike Germany circa 1918, Russia had far more resources from which to draw upon, so a naval embargo would not have had as much of an effect. The war would be decided in Western Europe, so not much role for the Allied navies.

Of course it would afford the Allies with some invasion options, but the Red Army had enough divisions to keep those bases covered, leading to the next point...


c) The Russians also had a large Army on that side of the world. It had no problems decimating the Japanese in Manchukuo.


Finally, I just don't think the Allied soldiers were up to the task. Despite the hero worship they receive in modern culture, they just weren't that good. Brave? Sure. Skilled? Eh... They had terrible difficulties with relatively weak and under strength German (and Italian :beam:) armies, and their leadership was piss-poor. I've never been quite able to figure out why Patton is lauded the way he is, other than the fact that he was the only Allied commander of rank who had an accurate sense of modern armoured strategy and tactics, had any personality, and wasn't a complete screw up (Monty anyone?). There are literally dozens of Russian commanders who eclipsed his performance during the war.

Conversely, the Red Army fought the finest divisions of the best military around at the time and prevailed. The knowledge, skill, tenacity, and willingness to take casualties these fights instilled in the Russians are incomparable to the Allied experience. The Eastern Front was a far tougher affair, and bred far tougher soldiers.


(BTW, Korea is worth comparing to this scenario for obvious reasons... )

Quote:

---

One morning in the sombre atmosphere of the Cabinet War rooms, Churchill ordered his staff to "think the unthinkable". The result was Operation Unthinkable: a putative attack on Russia by a British and American army. Churchill's War Cabinet staff officers set to work.

---

Too long to quote all here I think. Not sure if they had correct information on the Soviet army but their conclusion was not to do it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...1/nwar101.html


CBR

Well that report pretty much ends the argument I would think. A short war with limited tactical objectives might be winnable but an sort of WW III would have been a disaster.

For me the only way the western allies would have won is by mobilising the whole world against the Russians - which would have been very hard to do in the circumstances.

Equally its hard to see how the Russians could have won a worldwide war if they had been the agressors and had so many consequently opposed to them.

My conclusion is that whoever had attacked would have lost.

It would have been a disaster for the Allies.
Imagine asking the French soldiers, Italian, all Continental Europe soldiers to forget and forgive their burned villages, raped women, deported and slaughtered population and now fight alongside the SS against the Heroes of Stalingrad…
As mentioned, if the Allies would have been the aggressors, the Communists in all country would have at minimum sabotage all war effort as they did during the Indochina war in France…
In 1945, France started the Indochina war. De-colonisation was on.
The soldiers were tired of war and wouldn’t understand why to fight former allies. We are not any more in the 16th Century when shifting alliances was possible by the King’s will.

In pure military aspect:
The JS1 & 2 would have pulverised the Patton and other Comet. The Soviet had as well their own jet fighter, as it was revelled a later one in Korea (Mig 15 every one) better than their western equivalent and absolutely independent from the Me 262 design. We know now they started their experiment in the 40’s.
In term of military might I would agree with Panzer. The Soviet fought against full SS Corps (Budapest) and won. Not against Wolkstrum and 2nd or 3rd rank divisions.
Naval superiority against USSR would have been a waste of money.
Division from the Pacific front: So at what date do you want to attack: After the Japanese capitulation? Guys, we won this war and let start this one?
If before what would happen with the soviet Forces which attacked the Japanese in China Manchuria.
I can imagine the Soviet Air Force attacking the B29 over Japon…:beam:

It would most likely have been disastrous. The only way I can see the Allies winning would be if they managed to drop nuclear bombs on many of the Soviets' population centres. The USA managed to do this to Japan because they had near-total air superiority by the time, but the Soviet air force would be likely to intercept incoming bombers.

Public opinion wouldn't approve of backstabbing an ally that way, and nor would they like the prospect of another war with additional millions of casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panzerjaeger

Just like paratroops, I think strategic bombing would have become cost ineffective. Russian cities were already bombed out and the industry gone...

---

Paratroops were considered cost-ineffective? I recall reading once that Hitler discontinued the use of paratroops after a particulary bad experience with them due to misuse (in Malta, I think) but that some speculate that they could have been of great use on the eastern front, especially in the early months.

While we're at it, maybe some of you more military inclined guys could tell me - would it be practically possible for Americans to drop nuclear bombs on Russia in 1945 (and several subsequent years)?

From what I've been able to get, atomic bombs were still very bulky, heavy, crude and demanded total air superiority to be dropped efficiently. In case of bombing Russia, bombers would have to fly from West Germany or France across several thousands km evading Russian fighters and AA guns to get to Russian population centers. It would have been probably been possible to drop it on Russian army in Germany and Poland, but that would likely turn the population of those countries against the Allies. Rocketry technology still wasn't advanced enough to mount nuclear bombs on rockets. Also, how safe were the bombs? If a bomber flies from France and is taken down over Germany, is there a chance that the bomb would explode? It seems to me that technology still wasn't advanced enough at that time to be effectively used against Russia. Am I right here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

It would have been a disaster for the Soviets.
Imagine asking the Polish soldiers, German, all Continental Europe soldiers to forget and forgive their burned villages, raped women, deported and slaughtered population and now fight alongside the SMERSH against the butchering dictator that was Stalin…

---

A bit choppy but you get the point. You are right though. It would depend on whomever was perceived as the aggressor. Nukes could have won the military battle for the New Allies but I believe we used the only two we had at the time on Japan.

Vladimir, you forget that Stalin wasn't a butchering dictator, but Uncle Joe who led the brave Russians against the evil Germans. Unlike 1984, the Allies' population wouldn't be able to stomach fighting with the brave Germans against the evil Russians, whom we've always been at war with. Not without clearcut evidence that the Russians started it, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Paratroops were considered cost-ineffective? I recall reading once that Hitler discontinued the use of paratroops after a particulary bad experience with them due to misuse (in Malta, I think) but that some speculate that they could have been of great use on the eastern front, especially in the early months.

---

Crete is where the Fallschirmjager were grounded. Some of Germany's finest troops were cut down by relatively weak defenders because in many cases they could not reach their weapons, which were dropped separately. Even though they eventually prevailed - which is a story in itself - Hitler was appalled.

Conversely, it took the Allies a bit longer to realize the diminishing effectiveness paratroopers had on the battlefield as the war became increasingly mobile. D-Day did not go well at all. Troops were scattered all over the place and their tactical effectiveness was limited. However, being the Allies elite troops and having fought extremely well vindicated their use to Allied leadership.

It took Monty's masterwork, Market Garden, to truly put an end to Allied paratroop operations. It demonstrated how incredibly vulnerable paratroops were to a mobile response. The early German successes with paratroops were won in a time when war was a much slower affair against nations that did not have mobile reserves. If forced, the Fallschirmjager could hold out for a relatively long time against an enemy with very few armoured resources.

That unmitigated disaster put an end to Allied plans to jump behind the Siegfried line and into Germany. Even today, although the US and other nations maintain paratroops, it is widely acknowledged that - aside from Special Forces ops - their tactical effectiveness is highly limited and that large scale jumps all but off the table.

Jump school is more of a way to filter out all but the most highly motivated soldiers to create elite divisions. Witness the use of the 101st and 82nd Airborne in the toughest areas of Afghanistan. This was true in the latter part of WW2 as well, with both German and Allied paratroops going on to become some of the best light infantry available to their commanders.

Quote:

---

It took Monty's masterwork, Market Garden, to truly put an end to Allied paratroop operations.

---

What was operation Varsity then ?
Wasn't Airborne divisions being sent to the far east for more Allied paratroop operations .

Quote:

---

Crete is where the Fallschirmjager were grounded.

---

That was where intelligence screwed up like at Arnhem and the paratroops landed in what they thought was a safe area only to find it was full of ground troops , and like arnhem the relief column was a pipe dream that couldn't make it in time .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Vladimir, you forget that Stalin wasn't a butchering dictator, but Uncle Joe who led the brave Russians against the evil Germans. Unlike 1984, the Allies' population wouldn't be able to stomach fighting with the brave Germans against the evil Russians, whom we've always been at war with. Not without clearcut evidence that the Russians started it, anyway.

---

Oops, you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Jump school is more of a way to filter out all but the most highly motivated soldiers to create elite divisions. Witness the use of the 101st and 82nd Airborne in the toughest areas of Afghanistan. This was true in the latter part of WW2 as well, with both German and Allied paratroops going on to become some of the best light infantry available to their commanders.

---

The 82nd had it's wings clipped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What was operation Varsity then ?
Wasn't Airborne divisions being sent to the far east for more Allied paratroop operations .

---

Yes, you are correct. Poor wording on my part. I should have said meaningful paratroop operations. :shame:

I excluded Varsity from the operations conducted prior to the Normandy invasion and Market Garden because there was no chance of failure. Conducted in what.. March '45... it was more about grandstanding than any kind of operational advantages. Although IIRC it too demonstrated how vulnerable paratroops had become with higher than anticipated casualties, despite the result never being in doubt. Market Garden scuttled some more ambitious plans to use paratroops behind the Siegfried line, which would have actually been an effective yet risky endeavor. It has been documented that Ike and his commanders had turned against airborne operations when they involved a chance of failure.

Quote:

---

The 82nd had it's wings clipped.

---

Man I am behind! Didn't they do a tiny jump in Afghanistan or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

While we're at it, maybe some of you more military inclined guys could tell me - would it be practically possible for Americans to drop nuclear bombs on Russia in 1945 (and several subsequent years)?

From what I've been able to get, atomic bombs were still very bulky, heavy, crude and demanded total air superiority to be dropped efficiently. In case of bombing Russia, bombers would have to fly from West Germany or France across several thousands km evading Russian fighters and AA guns to get to Russian population centers. It would have been probably been possible to drop it on Russian army in Germany and Poland, but that would likely turn the population of those countries against the Allies. Rocketry technology still wasn't advanced enough to mount nuclear bombs on rockets. Also, how safe were the bombs? If a bomber flies from France and is taken down over Germany, is there a chance that the bomb would explode? It seems to me that technology still wasn't advanced enough at that time to be effectively used against Russia. Am I right here?

---

The atomic bombs were "dumb" bombs using standard gravity drop for deployment. They were delivered to their target area by B-29 "superfortresses." These bombers had a combat range of more than 5,000 km (standard there-and-back sortie). They had good speed (topping 350mph unloaded)and a service ceiling in excess of 10km. Thus, the B-29 could have delivered the atomic bomb to the USSR, penetrating past Moscow from bases in occupied Germany (and possibly reaching some of the Ural factories?). Soviet fighters would have been hard-pressed to stop them, at least at first, since most of their fighters did not operate at their best at such altitudes and Soviet air doctrine emphasized the low-level and the tactical. How rapidly the Yak's could have been re-worked or new designs deployed as a counter is questionable. We would have been capable of producing roughly 1 a-bomb a month From October 1945 through the end of 1946 (and possibly more as they got better at generating fissionable material).

The early a-weapons might be triggered accidently by impact, so they were armed in flight. Prior to arming, any aircraft shot down or brought down by an accident could do no more than scatter some radioactive material over a fairly small area. Once armed however.....

“I should have said meaningful paratroop operations”: That is if you speak only about the WW2.
In Indochina, the French used paratroopers in major combat operation and brake at least two major Vietminh offensives in dropping troops in the rear of the enemy even if the last one was a drop to far: Nghia-Là, Bac-Kan, Laos, That-Khé, la R.C. 4, Phu-Doan, HoaBinh, Na-San, Lang-Son and Dien-Bien-Phu.

Now, Helicopters will do the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The atomic bombs were "dumb" bombs using standard gravity drop for deployment. They were delivered to their target area by B-29 "superfortresses." These bombers had a combat range of more than 5,000 km (standard there-and-back sortie). They had good speed (topping 350mph unloaded)and a service ceiling in excess of 10km. Thus, the B-29 could have delivered the atomic bomb to the USSR, penetrating past Moscow from bases in occupied Germany (and possibly reaching some of the Ural factories?). Soviet fighters would have been hard-pressed to stop them, at least at first, since most of their fighters did not operate at their best at such altitudes and Soviet air doctrine emphasized the low-level and the tactical. How rapidly the Yak's could have been re-worked or new designs deployed as a counter is questionable. We would have been capable of producing roughly 1 a-bomb a month From October 1945 through the end of 1946 (and possibly more as they got better at generating fissionable material).

The early a-weapons might be triggered accidently by impact, so they were armed in flight. Prior to arming, any aircraft shot down or brought down by an accident could do no more than scatter some radioactive material over a fairly small area. Once armed however.....

---

Thanks. Basically, it could have been used effectively. 5000 km range is quite enough to reach the Urals from Germany, even from France and Britain... How politically convenient it would be because of relative proximity of other current/potential allies, that's another issue.

Would the weight of the bomb (4-5 tons) have any effect on maneuvering/altitude/range of a B-29? I vaguely remember a documentary saying that getting off the ground was extremely tricky for pilots carrying the bomb dropped on Hiroshima because of the weight, but I somehow doubt that a B-29 would have troubles with 4-5 tons of weight...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Thanks. Basically, it could have been used effectively. 5000 km range is quite enough to reach the Urals from Germany, even from France and Britain... How politically convenient it would be because of relative proximity of other current/potential allies, that's another issue.

Would the weight of the bomb (4-5 tons) have any effect on maneuvering/altitude/range of a B-29? I vaguely remember a documentary saying that getting off the ground was extremely tricky for pilots carrying the bomb dropped on Hiroshima because of the weight, but I somehow doubt that a B-29 would have troubles with 4-5 tons of weight...

---

The B-29s "achilles heel" was a tendency for engine overheating. This would cause it to lose an engine (feathered and shut down to prevent fire) every so often. At altitude the sucker could fly on 2 engines. However, if loaded near its full gross (bombs fuel etc.) and it lost an engine on takeoff, there was a pretty good chance it would crash/crash land.

However, with all 4 engines healthy, it could take its normal bombload (9,000kg) up to 10,000m+ (unloaded it could be nursed to 12,000 m), cruise at 360kph and crank it to 500+ kph at need. Total operational weight is always a product of fuel needed, bombload desired, and distance to/speed to target. A 29 could haul 20,000kg of bombs on shorter trips with diminished speed and agility.

The problem with the early a-weapons was their bulk rather than their total weight. The 29 was the only plane in the inventory with a bomb-bay big enough to deploy the "Fat Man."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The B-29s "achilles heel" was a tendency for engine overheating. This would cause it to lose an engine (feathered and shut down to prevent fire) every so often. At altitude the sucker could fly on 2 engines. However, if loaded near its full gross (bombs fuel etc.) and it lost an engine on takeoff, there was a pretty good chance it would crash/crash land.

However, with all 4 engines healthy, it could take its normal bombload (9,000kg) up to 10,000m+ (unloaded it could be nursed to 12,000 m), cruise at 360kph and crank it to 500+ kph at need. Total operational weight is always a product of fuel needed, bombload desired, and distance to/speed to target. A 29 could haul 20,000kg of bombs on shorter trips with diminished speed and agility.

The problem with the early a-weapons was their bulk rather than their total weight. The 29 was the only plane in the inventory with a bomb-bay big enough to deploy the "Fat Man."

---

Weren't the engine problems largely taken care of by the end of WWII though?

To drop bomb on Japan the US had to secure Air Supremacy. Would had succeed to do so against USSR? Then would have been enough to secure a victory? I can’t see the Russian population rebelling against the Soviets because the West attacks them and nuke them? I would imagine a very hard feeling and revenge desire…

Remember that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

By 1946 it was already apparent that the cold war was begun.

In 1945 the allies already had cause to go to war with Stalin, it was more a matter of downplaying the reasons and covering up more than a few that delayed the initial confrontation which happened in Korea in 1950.

A few reasons for going to war: The pledge to Poland of an elected government. The internment of allied troops in Soviet occupied areas. Installation of Communist Governments in other occupied nations. And the disposition of the Baltic States.

It is easy to see how any and all of these could have been whipped up into a furor and lending some tactical objectives for the attack as well. It would not be the west seen as betraying an ally, the Soviets had already seen to that but were gambling that the west would do just what they did.

You will take note of the second reason. This set the stage for what was to fallow in Korea and Vietnam. Most of these men were never repatriated. Most were air crews and ground support personnel from the Shuttle Bombing missions against Germany.

The technical edge the Soviets possessed in armor would be no surprise to allied troops. Germany held a substantial edge against both the west and the Soviets but it did not insure their victory.

Soviet airpower was no where as strong as some of you have stated. If it were then how was the JU87 and the Bf 109 able to operate successfully against them until the end of the war?

Churchill's plan for Third World War against Stalin is a very pessimistic portrayal of the situation. All of Russia‘s military might at the time was in Europe. The forces that later invaded Manchuria were drawn from there.

It would not have been a walk in the park, and a quick victory was only a pipe dream. It may have proved totally ruinous to both sides but if victory could have been claimed by a combatant, it would have been in the end the Western alliance that prevailed. It may have even come to using the Nuclear option, more than just the threat of it.

The major factor in allied victory would have been Air Power, specifically Tactical Air Power. The role of Strategic Air Power is continually over stated and colored most aspects of the cold war. But the allied tactical air forces of the day were the real power on the battlefield. They disrupted supply, broke up formations and made an enemy‘s ability to resist problematic.

Soviet Logistics were also a serious weakness. Their supply and maintenance structures were extremely inefficient. To a great extent they attempted to live off the land using captured supplies. It doesn‘t work too well on the defensive with air interdiction.

The Soviets obviously doubted their abilities to take on the West, or ol‘ Joe would have never slowed down. And as we all know this turned into a 50 year stalemate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Remember that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

By 1946 it was already apparent that the cold war was begun.

In 1945 the allies already had cause to go to war with Stalin, it was more a matter of downplaying the reasons and covering up more than a few that delayed the initial confrontation which happened in Korea in 1950.

A few reasons for going to war: The pledge to Poland of an elected government. The internment of allied troops in Soviet occupied areas. Installation of Communist Governments in other occupied nations. And the disposition of the Baltic States.

It is easy to see how any and all of these could have been whipped up into a furor and lending some tactical objectives for the attack as well. It would not be the west seen as betraying an ally, the Soviets had already seen to that but were gambling that the west would do just what they did.

You will take note of the second reason. This set the stage for what was to fallow in Korea and Vietnam. Most of these men were never repatriated. Most were air crews and ground support personnel from the Shuttle Bombing missions against Germany.

---

I'd like to have seen you try to push those reasons in 1945 for going to war with the Soviet Union. Not a Cold War mind you, which is a standoff with a permanent military presence, but in all other respects is peacetime, but proper redblooded war. Would the Europeans find it an attractive prospect to go to war with the Soviets? Or would replacing their warmongering governments with a more conciliatory or pacifistic one be more attractive? And if the Europeans refused to countenance going to war with the Soviets, would the Americans be able to prosecute this alone?

Before looking at the military aspects, look at the political aspects. If the people don't want to go to war, all the military capabilities in the world matter nowt.

“If it were then how was the JU87 and the Bf 109 able to operate successfully against them until the end of the war?”
When? The air superiority was definitively in Soviet hand at the end of the war in the Eastern front. Just read the books written by Germans and their fear of the Stormovick…
Even during the battle of Stalingrad (August 1942 – February 1943), the German had lost the Air Superiority, and the Soviet were able de facto to take Air Control of the town…
The JU87 was even a easy picking in 1940… Wrong example…:beam:

“Delayed the initial confrontation which happened in Korea in 1950”: Er, that was against Chinese Communist.

“Germany held a substantial edge against both the west and the Soviets but it did not insure their victory.” Against the West, no doubt, against the Soviet, it can be debated.

“It may have even come to using the Nuclear option, more than just the threat of it.” Again, the first A-bombs had no military use.

“The major factor in allied victory would have been Air Power, specifically Tactical Air Power”. Illusion: the bunkers in Normandy were destroyed by grunts equipped with bangalore, not by bombers.
Tactical Air Power is useful, but again, it needs a air supremacy that I am not sure the Allies could have secured it.

As the logistic point of view, can you just explain how the Allies would refuel and reequipped their units by seas, when most of port installation were completely destroyed, whereas the soviets have just to either use train or roads.
And I even don’t want to speak about reorganising and reequipping the German Army (the part not in Soviet hands) and making all this former enemies fighting together against a united army, in equipment, tactic and language.

“To a great extent they attempted to live off the land using captured supplies”: I completely forgot that Germany was producing T34 and SU152, Migs, Yack and Lavochkin.

“The Soviets obviously doubted their abilities to take on the West, or ol‘ Joe would have never slowed down.” ? Supposition. And he had to digest what he took.
As mention, the Red Army was exhausted, but so the Allies Armies.

As you mentioned, material doesn’t insured victory. So, in term of military command and tactic, experience of the troops, the advantage was in the Soviet side.

It would have been a staggering disaster for either side to attempt war against the other after the defeat of Germany. I put the matter slightly in favor of the Soviets because, as others have noted, their officers in the field by the end of the war were generally superior and were supremely committed to following orders. I suspect the stalemate line would have fallen somewhere west of Berlin and held there. Scandanavia would certainly have been a lost cause to the Allies, eventually leading to a serious threat of an invasion of Britain and most probably the signing of an unfavorable long term truce.

No significant eastern ground invasion of the Soviet Union would have been attempted, whether from occupied Japan, China, or across the Pacific. It's foolhardy. Minor conflicts might have gone the Allies' way, but taking a strip of useless coastline is meaningless.

I take for granted that nuclear weapons would not be a part of such a conflict because of the political and sociological consequences. The potential further use of nukes against Japan after the first two was even a matter of debate and, obviously, subject to the personal approval of Truman. If nuclear weapons were authorized for use they would be decisive in favor of the US and allies because the Soviets, IMHO, simply could not have reliably guarded their population centers from the sheer number of angles of attack that were possible against them.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'd like to have seen you try to push those reasons in 1945 for going to war with the Soviet Union. Not a Cold War mind you, which is a standoff with a permanent military presence, but in all other respects is peacetime, but proper redblooded war. Would the Europeans find it an attractive prospect to go to war with the Soviets? Or would replacing their warmongering governments with a more conciliatory or pacifistic one be more attractive? And if the Europeans refused to countenance going to war with the Soviets, would the Americans be able to prosecute this alone?

Before looking at the military aspects, look at the political aspects. If the people don't want to go to war, all the military capabilities in the world matter nowt.

---

Yes indeed I am.

That is why they covered up or made excuses for those things I have listed.

Churchill was willing to take the British to war over the Polish issue. Americans of the time would have demanded the Government do something including going to war over the Prisoners held by the Soviets. The French were struggling with relevance and would not have withdrawn from the pact.

The prisoner issue was so hot that it was not revealed until late into the 1950s…that is well after the Korean War! Even then it was down played so as not to arouse a furor.

The one political aspect I have left out was the amount of Soviet Agents or Sympathizers that were in high positions in western governments. This could have been a major factor for the appeasement polices that were tried. McCarthy may have presided over an overblown witch hunt but we forget it's beginnings had good reason.

To add to what Brenus said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The technical edge the Soviets possessed in armor would be no surprise to allied troops. Germany held a substantial edge against both the west and the Soviets but it did not insure their victory.

---

This is only true of a few models, which were produced in very limited numbers. The standard German tank throughout the latter half of the war, the PzIV, was only slightly better than the Sherman and somewhat worse than the T-34/76.

The strength of the Panzerkorps was in the crews. Their training, experience and skill allowed them to project power far beyond their vehicle's limitations.

The Red Army had the vast majority of experience fighting this force in open - tank friendly - environments; and thus had a far greater working knowledge of armoured strategy and tactics. And, unlike the Germans, the Russians had significant numbers of superior tanks to force this advantage.

Quote:

---

Soviet airpower was no where as strong as some of you have stated. If it were then how was the JU87 and the Bf 109 able to operate successfully against them until the end of the war?

---

They were also able to operate successfully against the allies until the end of the war. 109s successfully engaged P-51s very late in the war and, IIRC, Stukas were involved in Operation Baseplate during the Battle of the Bulge.

Strictly speaking, neither the Allies nor the Russians gained complete air superiority during the war, as the Luftwaffe operated with at least some level of success on both fronts until the last days of the war. However, it is safe to say that for all intents and purposes that both dominated the sky by the end.

To compare the Allied and Russian air forces, you would need the total numbers of aircraft available to each side. In this respect, I believe the Allies only had a significant advantage in strategic assets, which would not be particularly useful over Russia.

Quote:

---

The major factor in allied victory would have been Air Power, specifically Tactical Air Power. The role of Strategic Air Power is continually over stated and colored most aspects of the cold war. But the allied tactical air forces of the day were the real power on the battlefield. They disrupted supply, broke up formations and made an enemy‘s ability to resist problematic.

---

Don't forget that the Russians also had a very powerful tactical air wing, including the famed Sturmovik squadrons. I'm still unconvinced that Allied air power was significantly stronger than that of Russia.

In any event, air power itself, not just in a strategic role, has been over stated in the historical record; and the only reason it played the role it did in the West was because the Germans were so completely outnumbered. This would hardly be the case in an Allied-Russian conflict.

IMO, the major decisive factor would have been armoured power instead of air, as it was in WW2. In this respect, the Russians had numerical parity, better machines, and more experience.

Quote:

---

The Soviets obviously doubted their abilities to take on the West, or ol‘ Joe would have never slowed down. And as we all know this turned into a 50 year stalemate.

---

Don't underestimate how much nuclear weapons changed the equation.