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) 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... )
Bookmarks