What if? East Vs West 1945

British planning to bomb the Caucasus in the war's start:

Planners identified a dependence by Nazi Germany on fossil fuels imported from the Soviet Union as a vulnerability that could be exploited. Despite initial opposition by some politicians, the French Government ordered General Maurice Gamelin to commence a "plan of possible intervention with the view of destroying Russian oil exploitation", while U.S. Ambassador Bullit informed U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt that the French considered that air attacks by the French Air Forces in Syria against Baku would be "the most efficient way to weaken the Soviet Union."[4] According to the report by General Gamelin submitted to the French Prime Minister on 22 February 1940, an oil shortage would cripple the Red Army and Soviet Air Force, as well as Soviet collective farm machinery, causing possible widespread famine and even the collapse of the Soviet Union: "Dependence on oil supplies from the Caucasus is the fundamental weakness of Russian economy. The Armed Forces were totally dependent on this source also for their motorized agriculture. More than 90% of oil extraction and 80% of refinement was located in the Caucasus (primarily Baku). Therefore, interruption of oil supplies on any large scale would have far-reaching consequences and could even result in the collapse of all the military, industrial and agricultural systems of Russia."[4] An important source of raw materials would also be denied to Nazi Germany with the destruction of the oil fields.

Click to expand...

Operation Pike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Jenisch, the plan wasn't realistic, there were not enough bomber assets available in the area to carry outan effective bomber campaign.

juha

Perhaphs it was not in 1940, but in 1945 with the 625 heavies in Italy the picture would be another.

I refered only the Oper Pike, but IMHO Baku was too distant from Foggia for effective campaign but I have no idea was there in Nile Delta or in Palestine infrastructures that would have allowed sustained heavy bomber campaign. At least B-24s had better chances to survive against contemporary Soviet fighters than Blenheims in 1940 and Blenheims were not even well suited for night ops could carry only pitifully small bomb load.

Juha

The Baku oil fields was outside of the range of any aircraft in the allied inventory from airfields in Italy . Even the B29's range at 3250, or 1625 one way would be right at the extreme limits of it's range and would barely reach the edge of the fields.

It is unreasonable to state that the soviets would simply push aside the Western allies when it took them four months to go from the border to Berlin facing one quarter the forces. According to wikipedia, the soviets had a bit over 6 million troops on the eastern front facing Germany while the Western allies had 5.5 million. In any event the western allies had multiples of forces more than Germany had and loads of materiel. Also defensive efforts are always more efficient than attacking, generally considered three to one. I think they would quickly be bogged down facing much larger forces of tanks, men, aircraft, and artillery than they had ever faced.

As for control of airspace below 20k ft., the Allies had several new aircraft capable of 400+ on the deck including the P-51H and Tempest II, not necessarily new, and at, fighter weight, the P-51D is no slouch at low level.

Jabberwocky said:

Saying that the Red Army "pushed the Wehrmacht back to Berlin using brute force in manpower...not by thier airforce" does a massive disservice to both the strength and effectiveness of the Russian airforces.

The AFHRA study on the effectiveness of Russian airpower concludes that Soviet airpower was an "essential ingredient of the Soviet victory" and "contributed a decisive share in breaking German resistance". Over 1943-1945, Soviet bombers achieved "a commendable measure of success in operations supporting the army on the ground". Fighter, ground attack and bomber cooperation "produced good results".

To quote the study (USAF historical study 175) at length:



What the study makes clear is that
1) The Soviets never had full air supremacy, only superiority, even with their massive numerical advantage
2) Soviet pilots had an inferiority complex compared to the Germans, right up to the end of the war, and the Germans were always more effective in aerial combat
3) Soviet air power only ever achieved 'semi-strategic' projections of power, and only on a moderate scale
4) Soviet night bombing was unimpresssive
5) Soviet pilot training, aggressiveness, technical equipment and morale continued to close the qualitative gap to their German opponents throughout the 1944-45 period, and fighter forces improved their effectiveness across all fields.

I get the feeling that some here think that an attack by the Western Allies against the Soviets would be like a Barbarossa re-run. I'm of a much different opinion. I feel it would be more like Kursk - more expensive for the Soviets numerically, but ultimately more costly for the attacker in the long run.

Click to expand...

And report supplements my point...

The VVS was certainly a presence on the eastern front, but the deciding factor for the Red army versus the German army was the ground war. The Soviets had a numerical and supply advantage over the Wehrmacht. The bulk of the air war in the east was conducted at lower altitudes, where you saw relentless ground attack and low level bombing along with clashes between fighters covering or intercepting the GA/bombers.

In the west, you saw a multi-layered offensive that used heavy bombing, medium and low level bombing along with GA, the latter being done by a wide range of very effective platforms.

This aggressive aerial campaign in the west is the strategy what would be the advantage in a clash between the Allies and the Soviets.

Otherwise you'd have two massive ground armies mired down in a slugfest that could drag on indefinately, which leaves me with the impression that it would devolve into a Stalingrad or WWI style stalemate...nobody really gaining much ground because both ground armies are well seasoned and well equipped.

GrauGeist said:

Otherwise you'd have two massive ground armies mired down in a slugfest that could drag on indefinately, which leaves me with the impression that it would devolve into a Stalingrad or WWI style stalemate...nobody really gaining much ground because both ground armies are well seasoned and well equipped.

Click to expand...

Except that the Soviet army becomes increasingly ill supplied the longer the war goes on. They may have adequate supplies for several weeks or even several months but unless they restrict operations they cannot sustain operations like they did for the first 4 months of 1945.
This does not mean the Allies can roll the Russians back to the Bug river or beyond after a several month stalemate though.

Well, the conclusion of the planners of Unthinkable was that the war would be a longer one.

and i think if stalin had even an inkling he could brush aside the western allies he would have kept going. the russian were already planning for their western expansions into what later became the com-bloc nations. the various communist parties had a ready infrastructure in place unlike the western partisans. russia inspected every piece of western allied machinery and tactic...and learned them i=even if there werent using them. they had people learn how to construct long range bomber bases like we did in northern russia for the frantic missions. <<< that is where i draw my notion of how fast you can put up a bomber base. the only hinderence was the stonewalling by the ussr. as for the final winner? anyone's real guess. the factors that decide a war dont come out until the war evolves. a few bad decisions can turn a tide or seal fate. as i said in my first post the hard part would be selling it to the BC and US peoples. after fighting for over 5 years to think of fighting maybe 5 more? a nation without the resolve for war is snakebit.

and i think if stalin had even an inkling he could brush aside the western allies he would have kept going. the russian were already planning for their western expansions into what later became the com-bloc nations.

Click to expand...

I suppose you have solid evidence to back this up?

I feel the notion that Stalin and the Soviet Union were going to continue rolling West without a casus belli, against allies that have supported them for five years, is fanciful in the extreme and smacks badly of the legacy of Cold War distrust. At least on the Western side we KNOW they looked seriously at continuing eastward.

The Soviet occupation of the central European states might have been legally unjustified, but it was a political and physical reality that had more to do with Stalin's obsession about protecting the Soviet Union from the West than as an act of any aggression.

You say that selling war to the US/UK would be the hard part of a hypothetical war. The Russians aren't mindless automatons either, don't you think that there would be a major morale effect if they turned on their former allies at the flick of a switch?

evidence pertaining to which part or both. the part was "i think"... as stalin was not sbashful about taking what he wanted. they invaded poland at the same time germany did. this did give him a "buffer zone"...but also access to ports and material he needed. his attack on finland was it a posturing move or were raw materials involved there as well. russia declares war on japan when it wasnt needed and fought for on for several weeks AFTER japan surrendered. why did they need this buffer zone? it was a lang grab pure and simple. the way the russians "negotiated" with the west is a matter of record and if you read it very much lopsided towards their needs and not much given back in reciprocity. when the us solders were there in russia. russian solders combed over ac...equipment...and learned every aspect of how to set up a long range bomber base ( for ac which they didnt have ). when us personnel approached a vvs aircraf, installation, etc. they were restricted from getting close and even threatened with harm if they tried. i dont buy "stalin's obsession to protect the ussr". after the us and uk looking the other way they they invaded poland...whole lend lease deal knew how we negotiated and was able to get everything he wanted....doesnt make any sense to then think the uk/us would turn aggressor.

their plans after the war...its been years since i read stuff pertaining to that. but the main goal of communism was the thrust towards expanding into other countries as allies and partners. there were communist parties in most of the ajoining countries. whose leaders had strong ties to moscow... at this point no i can not provide you concrete evidence. but if you would care to research it i think you will be enlightened.

no i do not think the russian people were mindless automatons but they were more will into sacrifice in certain respect than the western allies. the amount of deaths reflect that struggle. if Ike would have given every 5th soulder 5 rounds of ammo and told him to pick up a rifle off of a dead GI when they landed on the beach...i seriously doubt D-day would have happend. but that is what happened in stalingrad and the russian troops did it. in light of that i am more inclinded to say stalin could sell it to his people easier than churchill and fdr could theirs.

Stalin's idea of selling it was "Do it or I'll have you shot".

The Soviet Union was Germany's ally before joining the Allies...what was on Stalin's mind then? He had to know that to invade Poland would bring Britain and France to the field.

Also, how many U.S. bombers and Fighters (plus thier crews) were interred when they had to set down on Russian proper both in the east and in the west during the war?

When Tsar Boris III of Bulgaria visited Stalin later in the war, to tell him that he was leaving the Axis and wanted neutrality, he was murdered and the Red Army poured into Bulgaria.

There is no way that Uncle Joe was a friend to anyone but himself.

There is no justification, ethnically speaking, for the Soviet annexations. Above all, because the Soviets themselfs didn't lived the word of free elections in the "liberated" countries. Before the war, Stalin considerated three countries as potential agressors of the USSR: Poland, Germany and Japan. He belived that an alliance with the West instead of Hitler, would result in the French and English sat behind the Maginot line, while the USSR would be attacked. Stalin then thought: "we gonna let the capitalits fight to the exhaustion, while we gonna profit with such war". Of course, the things didn't turned out that way, and Stalin was "pilot in command" of the USSR, and therefore responsible for the massive casualities the country had, which was not caused by mere bad luck.
In my opinion, had Stalin not purged the Armed forces, and adjusted the defense budget accordintly, there would be simply no necessity of a pact with Hitler, annexations of other countries, etc.

I don't want appear to be saying the Western Allies didn't commited mistakes as well, but the fact is that the Soviet Union was a very strong country, it was capable of have Armed Forces able to repel an attack by Poland, Germany and Japan. Stalin's dictatorial rule of the country prevented that.

ShVAK said:

The Red Army was not the joke it was in '41...

Click to expand...

That's a bit of an understatement when describing the army that defeated the cream of the Wehrmacht, while the Wallies were pushing east against (for the most part) less well trained and more willing to surrender German forces in 1944-45. The Red Army, together with its huge superiority in frontal (ie low altitude close support) aviation could have easily defeated the US and British and driven them to the sea before an effective strategic bombing campaign of the USSR using B-29s could have been mounted. Only 2 things could have "saved" the Wallie position: (1) use of the few nukes available against the USSR rather than Japan, or (2) the rather unlikely possibility that Soviet troops would be less than motivated to extend their war of liberation and revenge against Germany into France. Use of nukes in Europe rather than agansit Japan, would also have created a very unpredictable situation in the Far East, especially if - at the same time as they were defending western europe - the US and it's allies went ahead with the Invasions of the Japanese home islands.

bobbysocks said:

.no i do not think the russian people were mindless automatons but they were more will into sacrifice in certain respect than the western allies. the amount of deaths reflect that struggle. if Ike would have given every 5th soulder 5 rounds of ammo and told him to pick up a rifle off of a dead GI when they landed on the beach...i seriously doubt D-day would have happend. but that is what happened in stalingrad and the russian troops did it. in light of that i am more inclinded to say stalin could sell it to his people easier than churchill and fdr could theirs.

Click to expand...

The German troops were welcomed be segments of the Soviet population before the Einsatzgruppen began their work. It's an open question as t whether the Soviet soldier would have the same motivation in France as in his homeland.

bobbysocks said:

evidence pertaining to which part or both. the part was "i think"... as stalin was not sbashful about taking what he wanted. they invaded poland at the same time germany did.

russia declares war on japan when it wasnt needed and fought for on for several weeks AFTER japan surrendered. why did they need this buffer zone? it was a lang grab pure and simple.

the way the russians "negotiated" with the west is a matter of record and if you read it very much lopsided towards their needs and not much given back in reciprocity.

Click to expand...

It just this kind of cold war distortion of history that makes any discussion of the war in the east and the USSR so hard to have and why I try to avoid these discussions, since it inevitably involves explaining Soviet and Western diplomatic relations, and this is often seen as a defence of Stalin.

The USSR didn't invade Poland at the same time as Germany. They waited for 17 days after the German invasion; basically until the Polish military and government had both collapsed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Poland2.jpg
and then occupied eastern Poland, basically up to the Curzon line (the ethnic dividing line between Poland and Russia/Ukraine). The USSR's occupation of these territories in no way hastened Poland's demise and in no way, shape or form, formed a military alliance with Nazi Germany. The Nazi-Soviet pact is quite specific in stating that the USSR would only occupy eastern Poland if the Polish state collapsed, which it did. If the western Allies and/or the Polish armed forces had been successful in stopping the German invasion, then the USSR was not obligated to invade Poland to aid Germany. The USSR was never in an alliance with Nazi Germany any more than Sweden or Switzerland was, both of which traded heavily with Nazi Germany, and the Swedes even allowed German troops to pass through Sweden.

The USSR declared War on Japan as it agreed to do at Truman's and Churchill's request, 90 days after the end of the war in Europe:

At the Tehran Conference (November 1943), Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan once Nazi Germany was defeated. At the Yalta Conference (February 1945), Stalin agreed to Allied pleas to enter World War II's Pacific Theater within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The invasion began on August 9, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8 (May 9, 0:43 Moscow time).
Soviet

Click to expand...

The USSR lost 25 million dead in the war, or about 15% of the population. I suspect that the USA would have also had a very hard balled negotiating stance if it were invaded and forced to endure the same casualties.

GrauGeist said:

Also, how many U.S. bombers and Fighters (plus thier crews) were interred when they had to set down on Russian proper both in the east and in the west during the war?

Click to expand...

Allied aircrews who were carrying out operations against Japan were interred if they landed in the USSR since the USSR was neutral in that war until August 9 1945, but they were quietly released prior to the Soviet entry into the war against Japan.

RCAFson said:

It just this kind of cold war distortion of history that makes any discussion of the war in the east and the USSR so hard to have and why I try to avoid these discussions, since it inevitably involves explaining Soviet and Western diplomatic relations, and this is often seen as a defence of Stalin.

The USSR didn't invade Poland at the same time as Germany. They waited for 17 days after the German invasion; basically until the Polish military and government had both collapsed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Poland2.jpg
and then occupied eastern Poland, basically up to the Curzon line (the ethnic dividing line between Poland and Russia/Ukraine).

Click to expand...

The Soviet pact with Hitler was hardly benign. German aircrews trained in the Soviet Union to avoid the rearmament restrictions. Stalin provided critical materials to Germany that also aided in the rearmament. And while the Nazis were rounding up the Jews, the Russians marched the Polish elite into Katy forest to be massacred.

An ironic aspect of Stalin's actions was to pull the Soviet defenses out of their established bog land positions which mad them even more venerable during Barbarossa.