What if.....

[DBII]

My employer will be glad to know that I have done something today . Sorry guys

Lets get back to assumming that for whatever reason the US and Russia went to war after VJ day but before Korea. France is tired of so many wars and does not want to play and the Brits are in the game. How many atomic bombs has the US stockpiled and do the Russians have any yet? I guess that the US would take the traditional path through the Fulda Gap from west to east. The key as always will be logistics. Will the US airpower be able to protect the supply trains long enough for the ground forces to reach the Urals and stockpile for the traditional Russian winter counter-attack? The bombers will have to strike from the east and middle east (along the lend lease routines?) to try and take out Soviet industrial base. Will the latest very heavy bombers be able to maintain the pressure during the winter?

China will be a wild card. Is this war after or before the Communist take over. If before, then there are more bases to lauch attacks from. Since the Chinese and Soviets have never played well together, will they be netrual, with the US or Soviets?

I have visions of Soviet P-40Ks fighting it out with P-51's and A-20 striking at columns of US heavy tanks. Russian B-25Js fighting their way through the CAPs of Bearcats.

 

[bigZ]

A couple of questions?

If Russia continued with its offensive straight after VE day. Could it not at least neutralise the wests ground attack capability and possibly push the the ground forces out of Northern Europe. Move some of the essential manufacturing back east from the conquered terrotries. Not saying the Russians would win but could possibly extend the conflict well beyond a year and even result in a stalemate(politically even if the allies are pushed out of Europe the whole regime collapses eventually).

Something to consider in a long term war Britain will be bankcrupt and will require propping up before 1950.

 

[DBII]

I did not consider what the German army did to the local population after occupation. I took a good thread and turned it into something dark. I better go to Get Lucky or Breaking News thread and get my head right. I am not able to make siggy at work. IMAKLO is would take any spear siggy you may have. My first choice is always the B-25H. I love the art deco look of the P-38. It has always reminded me of ahot lady a use to know, slim and fast.8)

DBII

 

[Von Frag]

As to the ground war, just how were the Soviets set for manpower after the huge losses they suffered?

 

[GrauGeist]

A couple of questions?

If Russia continued with its offensive straight after VE day. Could it not at least neutralise the wests ground attack capability and possibly push the the ground forces out of Northern Europe. Move some of the essential manufacturing back east from the conquered terrotries. Not saying the Russians would win but could possibly extend the conflict well beyond a year and even result in a stalemate(politically even if the allies are pushed out of Europe the whole regime collapses eventually).

Something to consider in a long term war Britain will be bankcrupt and will require propping up before 1950.

Well, a big push by the Soviets would be a political blunder, because the U.S., still on a war footing, would have the public behind a retaliatory position. Also, as much men and material as the Soviets had, they would still have to deal with the American forces which were still on the ground and in force. There's also a good chance that the U.S. would do in Europe as they did in post-war China, and use former enemies to assist in various logistical assignments. Not sure if many folks are aware of the fact that the U.S. used Japanese troops in thier military capacity to maintain law and order in certain regions after the Pacific War was over. In Europe, Patton was very serious when he told Eisenhower that he'd send the Germans in against the Russians, backed by his own for forces "because we'll have to fight them sooner or later, may as well be sooner".

The U.S. wouldn't be alone, since the Baltic nations weren't happy about the Soviet occupation (Hungary, Romania, Czechslovakia, etc) and would most likely toss thier hat in the ring.

It's also an interesting thing to consider, but suppose that the Soviet people, at the grim thought of going to war against the U.S., decided that they were tired of the Communist party and decided it was time to have another revolution?

 

[vikingBerserker]

It's also an interesting thing to consider, but suppose that the Soviet people, at the grim thought of going to war against the U.S., decided that they were tired of the Communist party and decided it was time to have another revolution?

I think that was an opportunity that the Axis missed out on. If they had came as liberators - esp in the Ukrain

 

[GrauGeist]

I think that was an opportunity that the Axis missed out on. If they had came as liberators - esp in the Ukrain

Absolutely...if Hitler hadn't been so anti-anything "Aryan", he could have had most of those countries without much of a struggle.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I suppose this scenario would be stretching it a bit, but what if the Russians decided earlier than they did that they wanted ALL of Europe? That would provoke a pretty serious fight. (Just wanted to state another possibility for those who wanted to see WW3 in 1945-1946.) Perhaps the closing off of Berlin would provoke the fight?

I believe that the US forces would suffer but totally destroy the Russian forces.
The Russians versus Germans was a fight of tactical air forces in close support of ground forces. Neither side had a heavy bomber or a strategic air force. I believe the Russians were able to win against the Germans because of their huge numerical advantage in forces that were essentially similarly equipped.

The Russians pretty much had no navy but neither did the Germans.
I don't believe the Russians could have done much about US Naval aviation, Heavy ships, or a well supported amphibious force.

I remember reading about the B-17 used in a tactical role: 17,000 pounds of bombs carried on a short range mission beats the heck out of a few German Stukas, Fighter Bombers or Stormoviks and little twins.

Even without considering nukes, this would be a fight between two similar sized forces but with one side having a lot more tactical possibilities.

Just my opinion.
- Ivan.

 

[diddyriddick]

I suppose this scenario would be stretching it a bit, but what if the Russians decided earlier than they did that they wanted ALL of Europe? That would provoke a pretty serious fight. (Just wanted to state another possibility for those who wanted to see WW3 in 1945-1946.) Perhaps the closing off of Berlin would provoke the fight?


- Ivan.

An excellent post, Ivan. As an alternative, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that an overzealous pilot (Allied or Russian doesn't matter) fires the 2nd shot heard round the world.

 

[Airbone Bunny]

I don't know if those points have been mentioned before, but:

1) The Soviet Union had zero/almost zero strategic bombing capacity. USA had not just the B17 and B24, they had the B29 and better bombers soon coming. My impression is that an hyphotetical B29 campaign on Russia would have been pretty similar to the one on Japan 45: acceptable losses and unrestricted destruction

2) If you add the RAF night bombers I think the situation becomes even worse. There was a night fighter component in the Soviet Union at all? What was the level of airborne, ground based radar and electronic systems among soviet fighters? My impression is that the Soviets didn't have a lot to show

3) where about AC artillery? Again my impression is that the Soviet Union didn't put a lot of effort on AC artillery and defenses for their cities, because during the last part of war, the Luftwaffe's bomber strenght was declining.

4) What about jet planes? A war in 45-46 needs to consider the impact of jet planes. I think US and the british had a huge upperhand because the gloster meteor was already entering into service and the Bell airacomet was just around the corner.

What had the soviets to show? Even with all the knowledge they got from German equipment and captured personal, their first true operational jet fighers didn't even test fly until mid 1946. My impression is that the soviets were 1-2 years behind in the technological race.


My opinion is that, even if the Soviet air force was not small change at all, at the end it had serious deficiencies and gaps for US and Britain to take advantage of

 

[Glider]

I have to agree with almost everything in the previous posting. The long range bombing capability of the RAF and USAAF simply dwarfed that available to the Luftwaffe and the Russian lines of communications were wide open to attack. The night bombers had little if anything to stop them attacking at will. The B29's were in a similar postion on daylight raids as russian fighters were low / medium altitude fighters. The Mig 3 was a decent performer at altitude but if you want to take on a B29 with 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG, I wish you luck. When you put that together with the B17's and B24's being able to operate as they did against Germany with escort but maximising their payload on more medium range missions, the USSR wouldn't have known what hit them.
The Jets are a good point in mind, the F80's would have been available in numbers as would the Meteor IV and Vampire as these were already in production and who knows the Canberra may have been available by the time the first Russian fighters would have come on stream.
We also tend to forget the command and control issues and in this area the Allies were way ahead of the game with mobile ground based radar.

In a hot war like this the Russian army is a serious problem and in many ways at least as good if not better than the West but the air forces available to the allies would I believe have choked the Russian forces.

 

[stasoid]

Very good points. Similar situation was in 1941: Luftwaffe had superior planes, excellent communication, tactics, navigation and fighting skills when Russians flying open cockpit Ratas and I-15 biplanes. At the end, Germany lost 55 thousands planes on the East and lost the war.

I'm a bit sceptical about a quick victory here. Russians could be couple of years behind, technologicaly but if you dont finish them off quickly (6 month), they learn their lessons and build a countermeasures and then it's gonna be a war that can last indefinitely long.

 

[Marcel]

Hmm, a few things to consider:
Russia is Big, not like small Germany with nice factories and houses crowded on a small piece of land with nice roads. Their oil supply was nicely grouped at a very reachable place in Romania.
What would the US bomb on Russia? Infrastructure? Factories far away, spread on a huge land? It would have needed a tremendous higher effort to "choke" Russia with strategic bombing.
In the end Germany was defeated because of lack of natural resources, mainly oil. Russia has loads of it.

Russian army was on steam in 1945, ground forces probably stronger that the Western allied force in Europe. There is a possibility that ground forces would have rolled over the Allied armies in a relatively short time. No need for strategic bombing. The Russian tactic capability in the air was at least as good as the US/UK capability.

I think on a conventional level we cannot be too sure that the US with it's allies would have won a war against Russia in 1945. With the atomic bomb it's of course another question and we cannot predict what would have happened it they had been used against the USSR at that point, (had they been in abundant supply of course)

 

[imalko]

Very good points, Marcel.
In many posts through this thread I have noticed underestimation of Soviet capabilities and belief in supreme might of Allied strategic air power. Well, Nazis underestimated Russia and look how it ended for them. In 1945 USSR was "on steam" as you put it and conventional conflict could have easily ended with Red Army overrunning the rest of Europe. US had distinctive advantage and war winning capability in this type of "what if" conflict only in their possession of atomic weapons. But how many atomic bombs would be available for nuclear warfare against USSSR in 1945 remains questionable...

 

[Colin1]

Well, Nazis underestimated Russia and look how it ended for them

Not quite
the Nazis put themselves between a rock and a hard place when they decided to take on the manufacturing might of the USA and the USSR. The Resistance movements in the various occupied territories weren't ready to lie down yet either.

 

[Colin1]

US had distinctive advantage and war-winning capability in this type of "what if" conflict only in their possession of atomic weapons

Again
not quite. The US had a distinct advantage in her strategic bombing capability, that has been constantly maintained throughout the thread, unless you know of some counter that the Soviets had to this measure.

The re-invigorated Finns would likely end up US-supplied, so watch your right flank on the way through. I doubt many former Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe etc personnel would pass up the chance to throw the Soviets back out of their country either.

While the Allies enjoy unmatched strategic bombing capability, we can also just about match you for tactical fighter-bombing and I wouldn't give you a bag of rusty washers for your Sturmovik.

 

[imalko]

I wrote earlier in the thread, only atomic warfare would end conflict quickly and decisively in US favor. In case of conventional warfare there would be years long conflict in which US advantage in strategic Air power would eventually be countered with new type of Soviet interceptors...

And what you wrote doesn't mean that Hitler didn't underestimated USSR. He made strategic blunder when, temporary stopped at Smolensk in August 1941, he decided to attack Ukraine instead of pushing on Moscow. Once they had stopped Wehrmacht at the gates of Moscow in December 1941 Soviets effectively won the war. From that point they were able to win the war on their own, although without Allied help this would be ever more costly and would take longer...

Of course Hitler's decision to declare war on US was unbelievable stupid and served only to speed up his downfall.

 

[Colin1]

And what you wrote doesn't mean that Hitler didn't underestimated USSR. Once they had stopped Wehrmacht at the gates of Moscow in December 1941 Soviets effectively won the war. From that point they were able to win the war on their own, although without Allied help this would be ever more costly and would take longer...

Hitler
was largely the architect of his own downfall in Russia. He eschewed one of the basic principles of lightning war in which the ground effort went around pockets of stiff resistance, leaving them isolated like islands, come back and deal with them later once you hold the 'keys' to the territory, if indeed they still want to fight.
He ordered the Sixth Army to wade into the mire of Stalingrad and they didn't come out the other side, in fact, they didn't come out again at all, at least, not as a fighting unit. He threw priceless, experienced battlefield soldiers into the meat-grinder of Stalingrad urban warfare, for which they were largely untrained and completely unsuited.
He was a fool to go in in the first place without affairs in the west having been properly consolidated, but another decisive issue for the Nazis in the east was being faced with the choice between pushing east or pushing for the oil fields further south, they couldn't do both.
I don't think Hitler underestimated the USSR, he almost flattened them. With proper consolidation in the west and a straight fight between the Nazis and the Soviets, the Soviets would very likely have gone under, I think he overestimated the capabilities of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe within the context of his bizarre strategising; what Hitler was asking them to do on all fronts over-extended them.

 

[imalko]

You have said it yourself... Hitler could believe that Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were capable to do what he wanted only if he had poor opinion on his opponents, therefore he underestimated them. You can't overestimate your forces without underestimating capability of your enemy.

 

[bigZ]

As Marcel says Russia is almost too large to comprehend. You can hit strategically but I don't think you can conduct a strategic campaign. Some of the ideas sound similar to what General Giulio Douhet theorised?

Can the allies take casualties in millions to hold onto Northern Europe? The Russians do have the numbers and their armour matches if not superior to the allies. Their air power is adequate to deal with the TAF.

Us Brits overestimated our forces in 'Fortress Singapore' and underestimated the 'Japanese'. Morale soon crumbled when we found out these fierce fighters wern't so short sighted after all, and who would of guessed you could use tanks in the Jungle. Underestimating the enemy normally means you end up losing.