If Stalin had caused a rift, an incident or just a plain old attack on the western allies after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Who would prevail? Obviously neither side would want such a war. Certainly not the soldiers on the ground or the starving and homeless peoples of Europe. But from a purely military point of view should such a war break out, what would be the result? I look forward to your opinions. Thanks Stu.
The Russians, with an edge. But what would have happened? it would be a 100 years war with millions more paying with their lives. Their equipment I rather fancy was better than ours, certainly their tanks were better than out Tommy cookers Sapperbrian.
Sapper, Thanks for your input. Sounds terrifying. But how do you see the air war going? Logistics? Eg the supply from North America/Colonies and from Russia. Would not the allies be still emboiled in the asian war? Then there's the A-bomb dimension. Anyone else care to speculate? Stu.
I cannot remember who said it .. but some American General summed up the combat worth of Soviet troops v Western Allied troops along the lines of ....'they would have beat our guys to death with their mess tins' Horrifying scenario.
This is indeed a terrifying prospect! However, I have read that Patton was bucking to take on the Soviets after he pushed through Germany. Good thing he didn't always get his way! I think it would have taken an all out attack by the Russians to goad the Western Allies into a new war with the USSR; however, how likely would that have been in the weeks & months after Hiroshima & Nagasaki?
I'm not so sure that the Russian Juggernaut would just roll right over the Western Allies. They had just lost 500,000 men taking Berlin and the Soviet Army did not have inexhaustible numbers. It would be interesting to see how the Russians would have fought facing huge airpower against them, both Tactical and Strategic. Their tanks were better and their infantry had a capacity for endurance going far beyond what the West was used to but I believe that the Western Allies had men who were better trained and although the Soviets would probably prevail their armies would have been shattered taking Germany France and the Low Countries
The Russian soldier, is neither so tough, brave, and frugal, as the Japanese, nor of such a high standard of general technical ability and education as the German. There is no doubt that a well trained British solider, making full use of the weapons at his disposal, is the superior of his Russian counterpart. The Soviet Army - Tactics and organization - 1949 W.O. Code No 8420 P1
Originally posted by Des@Apr 12 2005, 08:53 PM I cannot remember who said it .. but some American General summed up the combat worth of Soviet troops v Western Allied troops along the lines of ....'they would have beat our guys to death with their mess tins' Horrifying scenario. [post=33106]Quoted post[/post] Slightly off topic but it does remind me of a joke I once heard. How do the Allies tackle a minefield? Americans: Will use the latest, expensive, minedetecting equipment. British: Will use a couple of old fashioned mine detectors and sticks. Soviets: Get their infantry to run over it.
I don't think the A-Bomb would have been that great a threat to the USSR in 1945-46, since the USA held so few of them and they were comparitively weak weapons. With the losses and destruction already endured by the USSR they would hold no great terror (although a few years later it would have been different). Anyhow, the French were in disarray and inexperienced, save for a small FF Expeditionary Force, which might well have remained within France if the USSR promised not to attack; and the Germans and Italians and former subject states would not have been up to much with significant re-equipping and organisation. So US, UK, Canadian troops and a smattering of South Africans (no doubt pending approval from an increasingly powerful anti-war Afrikaaner minority that led from 1948) from Italy would have formed the Allied armed forces: UK bankrupt and her troops tired, even if armed impressively and possessing great experience; USA very well armed and with reserves and vast resources to spare. Moreover, there is the question over the widespread desertion - in 100s of thousands - from Soviet forces, as was predicted had war broken out in the 1980s, as they were no longer facing the Germans and used in an overtly offensive war. Richard
How strong was the soviet airforce? Could they prevent the allies from gaining air superiority? What the Soviets lacked in 1945 was a strategic bombing force (they had one in the 1930's but it never recovered from Stalin's purges). Their Petlyakov PE8 was produced in small numbers and they had nothing to compare in numbers, quality, or crew experience with the 8th AF and Bomber Command/PFF. If we were losing to Soviet forces on the ground we would no doubt have tried to obliterate Moscow and Leningrad. The trouble with that tactic is that the Russian people were used to that kind of thing; they had dispersed their industry behind the Urals, and Stalin wouldn't have given a toss if we had obliterated those cities, so long as he was personally OK. Any such bombing would be down to the B29s; I suspect Lancasters would have to be based in liberated Norway to reach Moscow. So the war would be won or lost on the ground in Germany and France. I'm not an expert on tanks but everyone else on this thread seems to agree that the T34 was better than the Shermans and Comets. So would we have enough air superiority to counteract this? I doubt it. The P51 was probably the best fighter around, and about 12000 of those were built. But the Soviets built over 20000 each of the Lavochkin LA5 & 7 and the Yak-9 , which were extremely good, probably the equal of the Spitfire XIV and the P47, and not much inferior to the P51. If we couldn't maintain air superiority, the crude but effective Shturmovik anti-tank aircraft would have been unhindered in the attack role and would have massively outnumbered our notionally superior Typhoons and Tempests, while the USAAF would have been forced to divert P51s to the antitank role. Our Naval superiority would have been irrelevant given the geography. And it wasn't long before the Soviets got hold of a B29 and copied it. Frankly, a war with the Soviets in 1945 would have been a nightmare even without the nuclear dimension, especially if we were still fighting the Japs (what if the Indianapolis had been sunk on the way to deliver the A-bomb, not afterwards?) Adrian
A "Red Star/White Star" scenario for 1945 is routinely kicked around by armchair warriors and fabricators of fast fiction. Several points: the Soviets in 1945 were at the end of a long supply chain and were worn down from four years of war, mostly on their own soil. They were dependent on US Lend-Lease for much of their logistical infrastructure (a committee term for Chevrolet deuce-and-a-halfs and telephone wire). Their technology was sipmler to maintain and comparable to Western equipment, with their T-34 tanks superior to the Allied Sherman. However, by 1945, the Allies had solved most of their logistical problems. In addition, they would be in a position to take advantage of German technology -- jets, cruise missiles, and so forth. On the other hand, many of the Allied nations of 1945 were war-weary, Britain and France in particular. A major reason why Churchill was thrown out of office. But I think the bottom line would have been atomic -- the Americans would probably simply vaporize Moscow and with it, the central Soviet government, including Stalin and his immediate flunkies. Without the "Shining Sun of Humanity" to lead them, the Soviet Union would have had a dreadful time reorganizing and regrouping in the face of Moscow's complete destruction.
I much agree with what's been said. Soviet manpower couldn't carry on for ever as in 1945 they were taking prisoners out of the Gulag system and putting them in uniform mentioned in Gulag by Anne Appelbaum and Berlin the downfall by Antony Beevor I was wondering would the allies facing such a fight on their hands have asked or recieved help from fascist Spain?
If Stalin was the aggressor, and attacked his erstwhile Allies, the British, Americans, and French, would probably have had to ask for anyone who could carry a rifle to support them. They made a few unholy deals with German rocket scientists and SS men as part of the Cold War. I'm sure that if it became hot, they would have made a few more unholy alliances. And there's no doubt that grinning German POWs (especially SS men) would have volunteered to fight. SS General Kurt Meyer offered, when he was captured, to create a division of former SS men to fight the Japanese, just to show the Americans how good his men were. They ignored the offer.
They were dependent on US Lend-Lease for much of their logistical infrastructure (a committee term for Chevrolet deuce-and-a-halfs and telephone wire). That is an important point, since all the spare resources could be moaved to Allied Forces. In addition, the Russians would have to divert resources to make up for the loss of the lend-lease equipment. However, by 1945, the Allies had solved most of their logistical problems. In addition, they would be in a position to take advantage of German technology -- jets, cruise missiles, and so forth One important point would be that Britian would not export Nene jet engines to Russia, which produced the Mig15. (1) However, Russia had captured both German technicians and equipment, their early jets were basically copies of German projects. the Chechs went as far as to just copy the ME262. As for using German Knowledge of Russian tactics, that was an established thing anyway, the Army manuals about the Russian Army were based on German sources. the most important thing and it has already been pointed out, was the various countries military and political will to continue the fight a shooting war. (1) Ironically, both the MIG15 and F86 Sabre had derivatives of the Nene engine.
Originally posted by DirtyDick@Apr 13 2005, 10:52 AM I don't think the A-Bomb would have been that great a threat to the USSR in 1945-46, since the USA held so few of them and they were comparitively weak weapons. With the losses and destruction already endured by the USSR they would hold no great terror (although a few years later it would have been different). [post=33127]Quoted post[/post] Less of a real threat, but wouldn't it have been a serious deterrent? How could the USSR know that the US used the only 2 a-bombs it had on Japan? Japan may have stayed in the fight longer themselves if they'd known the US was fresh out of nuclear weapons and wouldn't have more for some months. And yes, the Soviets were used to incredible losses, but what of the threat of a mushroom cloud over the Kremlin, with no way to retaliate in kind (the USSR didn't test their first nuke til Sept 1949)?
Originally posted by nolanbuc@Apr 18 2005, 11:33 AM How could the USSR know that the US used the only 2 a-bombs it had on Japan? Spies? The Soviets were very well informed about American Nuclear projects.
Originally posted by smc66+Apr 18 2005, 06:48 AM-->(smc66 @ Apr 18 2005, 06:48 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-nolanbuc@Apr 18 2005, 11:33 AM How could the USSR know that the US used the only 2 a-bombs it had on Japan? Spies? The Soviets were very well informed about American Nuclear projects. [post=33288]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Well informed, certainly. The soviet spy network in the US nuclear program is well documented. But how far in were they in 1945, and did they know enough to risk war? Assuming that they still would not have produced their own A-bomb until 1949, would the Russian have been foolish enough to provoke the US into 4 years of one-sided nuclear war? I may be missing somwthing, but that doesn't seem likely.
Well, as often happens in this kind of threads, it leads to much expeculation and over-rating or under-rating any of both sides, since we think that the Allies would fight as they fought the Germans and as the Soviets fought the Germans… The thing is that if the Western Allies had been too stupid to start WWIII, as Hitler, the Nazis and that megalomaniac called George S. Patton wanted, they would have lost all legitimacy and moral power. Besides, there's absolutely no doubt that the Western Allies would have prevailed in the end, but only in the long term. In the short term, they would have faced a kind of brutal fight they were not used to and which they couldn't allow to bear. In 1945 Great Britain, France and the USSR were war-weary, with crumbling economies, short of man power and eagger for peace, whilst the US was as vigorous, wealthy and mighty as it could be: the US had plenty of un-used manpower, a gigantic and constantly growing weaponry industry, the largest and most sophisticated logistical network in the globe, and that is without mentioning that they had just acquired a new super-weapon. They were still fighting Japan, though. However, at the European battle fields the Western Allies had the worst part, since Eisenhower did not have a strategic reserve, nor he would have been able to rapidly re-deploy his forces like he did during the Battle of the Bulge in the case of a war with the USSR. During the first 6 months of such campaign, whilst the material and man resources of the US were mobilised (military conscription for married men was to be introduced in late 1945, thus providing over 4 million men who would be ready for combat by summer 1946) the USSR had all the initiative. In front of Eisenhower's 3 million men, there were 6 million Soviet soldiers, all highly experienced and battle-hardened, which turns this argument useless: 'The Russian soldier, is neither so tough, brave, and frugal, as the Japanese, nor of such a high standard of general technical ability and education as the German. There is no doubt that a well trained British solider, making full use of the weapons at his disposal, is the superior of his Russian counterpart.' 6 million men leaded by a whole bunch of highly-experienced and innovative officers (Zhúkov, Vasilievski, Kóniev, Rokossovski, Chuikov, etcetera), well-equipped with 50.000 guns, mortars and rocket launchers, modern hand-guns, tachnically superior armoured vehicles, supported by an all-mighty tactical air force 11.000-planes-strong, and modern tactics. In Spring 1945 the Red Army was the most powerful war machine of the world. It had just annihilated the former most powerful war machine and the best Army in Europe, was at the very peak of its strenght and efficiency. In other words, if Patton's III Army would have had to faced Kóniev's Army Group, he would have faced a battle completely out of proportion. The US Army was simply not accostumed to get 250.000 casualties a week, like the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. Imagine an artillery barrage of 10.000 guns on Patton, with Stormoviks attacking its ground forces whilst the Yaks and MiGs fought the P-51s (we would have to remember that the USSR's top ace, Iván Kozhiedub, had shot 3 P-51s over Romania, after they attacked him, taking his Yak by a German 109), with hundreds of T-34s, IS-II and self-propelled guns, plus waves of fierce infantry attacks… Same would go for British forces… sheer butchery! Also, it would be months before Lend & Lease supplies would run out. And a strategic bombing campaign by Lancasters and B-29s beyond the Urals would be too difficult to build so soon. First, where would they fly from? Second, how would they locate its targets? (there was not any information concerning the distribution of belic industry in Siberia, was it?) Third, would the Red Air Force would just stare at them?
Originally posted by nolanbuc+Apr 18 2005, 11:33 AM-->(nolanbuc @ Apr 18 2005, 11:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DirtyDick@Apr 13 2005, 10:52 AM I don't think the A-Bomb would have been that great a threat to the USSR in 1945-46, since the USA held so few of them and they were comparitively weak weapons. With the losses and destruction already endured by the USSR they would hold no great terror (although a few years later it would have been different). [post=33127]Quoted post[/post] Less of a real threat, but wouldn't it have been a serious deterrent? How could the USSR know that the US used the only 2 a-bombs it had on Japan? Japan may have stayed in the fight longer themselves if they'd known the US was fresh out of nuclear weapons and wouldn't have more for some months. And yes, the Soviets were used to incredible losses, but what of the threat of a mushroom cloud over the Kremlin, with no way to retaliate in kind (the USSR didn't test their first nuke til Sept 1949)? [post=33284]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Agreed it would have proved a serious deterrent and the USSR would be unlikely to know precisely how many A-bombs the USA possessed. However: spies within the US atomic industry gave the information necessary to speed up the USSR's own programme; if there was a war between the two, these pro-Soviet sympathisers might have redoubled their efforts to pass on these details - or at the very least informing the Reds of the approximate numbers in existence - or, conversely, they might have had their pro-Stalin illusions shattered and clam up entirely. Moreover, as already mentioned the Allies would have had great difficulty in reaching important Russian targets, let alone getting their bombers through the Red Air Force if their only safe airfields were in conquered Japan, India, Nationalist China, France and the UK. In any case, I would think a sudden pre-emptive attack on vital targets - i.e. Stalin - would prove near-impossible: didn't he have a secret underground complex (like all James Bond baddies) far away from Moscow? Richard
