Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[plan_D]

Britain hadn't lost many people at all. At most I have seen it as 1.2 million, including civilians. The economy of Britain was at it's end but the manpower was still there. On top of that, do not forget the manpower of Britain's vast empire. India alone provided over ten million combatants and "combat workers" during World War II.

The U.S lost just over half a million at most during World War II. This was nowhere near the Soviet loss of twenty-three million. The Soviet Union was at it's nearest end when it entered Berlin. They were struggling to produce fighting soldiers in 1943 and the losses just kept mounting throughout 1944-'45.

We would be talking the manpower of Canada, United States, Britain and India alone being able to deal with the Soviet Union. Then you have the other nations in the British Empire and also the other Allied nations. We must remember that France did not lose very many people during World War II - they would have plenty youthful fighting soldiers from France itself and her colonies. Then there's Poland and the Eastern European nations that would be more than willing to fight for the Western Alliance to crush the Soviet Union. All White Russians would join against the Stalinist regime as well.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

PlanD!

Where've you been? I've missed ya!

German troops would gladly join the Western Allies against the Soviet Union...

Great points there, in addition to that I believe most Soviet troops would want to defeat Stalin, though at that point any Soviets who didn't love Stalin were abroad, like the Kulaks.

The VVS had no strategic bomber

Oh, it did!

Stalin used one to go to Scotland IIRC?

Tuplovev IIRC?

Everything from boots to trucks in the Red Army were provided by the Western Allies.

US felt boots and APC's/trucks were indeed important.

absolute air supremecy held by the Western Allies would more than make up for any deficient in armour capability.

Yep, but the tanks were numerous...

Despite the fact the Western armour was certainly on par with the Red armour.

No it wasn't, but the crews were a hell of a lot better.

Western armour tactics seem to work better in reality to those of the Red Army.

No, the Soviets use of combined arms infantry/tanks/artillery/aircraft was far superior.

Not to mention the fact the Sherman 76Ws and Sherman Firefly would be on par with the T-34/85.

The Sherman MAE8(W) was on par, the Firefly was a lot better.

Comet would be fighting the IS-2 on equal ground.

With it's amazing 30mm of bolted vertical armour! You're not serious??

I can safely say, the U.S could push out more Pershings than the Soviet Union could IS-3s.

Maybe it could, but it couldn't ship them?:

And not having a navy to build would release an untold ammount of resources into other sectors of industry.

With ships built dedidated to Pershing supplies though...

Just how bad was the Soviet Navy, wouldn't they have just gone ape on Sub production? (easy for Russia)

However the concentration of the war would then be:

1. Tank factories?

2. Sub pens?

Obviously the UK could deal with the launched subs.

Everyone has an ego, by the way. It's something we ALL have.

Some don't at all, it's saddening.


syscom3:

The P47 would be very useful for this 'war' and production should be ramped up.

Unless the Skyraider was a better prospect?

All fighters/Jabos would need to drop the .50 for cannons of @ least 20mm to deal with the very, very tough Russkie planes (esp the IL-2).

The Germans had possibly one of the best anti aircraft systems set up but as was stated the lack of proximity fuses is what they lagged.

Yes, they had advanced AA missile systems though.
The Allies could maybe have put the Enzian etc online?

They had no means to cross the channel.

They would make one!

On the other hand I think its absurd to think that Western Allies could force Soviet forces to draw back, they simply hadn't enough armor for that.

Bombers and Jabo's should do it though?

However the bombers would be desperately needed elsewhere?

The Western Allies had perfectly enough armour to hold off any Soviet advance.

They also had a superior airforce which would make up for any deficients on the ground. The Red Army would be smashed by Allied ground attack aircraft.

There was a LOT of tanks though... Would there be enough Jabos?

The Red Army didn't have the manpower and resources to continue a prolonged fight against the British Empire and United States. The Soviet Union was a cripple after the Great Patriotic War.

Yes, but the sun was setting on the British Empire, the Soviet Union was just getting started.

India alone provided over ten million combatants and "combat workers" during World War II.

And they all fought for the British, not! (Well, maybe sometimes!)

This was nowhere near the Soviet loss of twenty-three million.

Stalin killed more than 21 million of those!
He was learning his lesson though?:

The Soviet Union was at it's nearest end when it entered Berlin.

That's bull, have you seen the Berlin inventories?!

losses just kept mounting throughout 1944-'45

.

Except for Monkhe and a few others, even the SS were suffering stupid attrition rates in '45 - and they were fanatical super-soldiers!

- the Soviets had their act together in '44-'45! 8)

plenty youthful fighting soldiers from France itself and her colonies.

Yes, except they were pro-Soviet surrender monkies!

I'm sure the Vietnamese etc would only be too eager!

- The Algerians IMHO would if that were the case.

The Spanish are forgotten here, fought very well in Siberia! 8)

They seemed to hate the Russians, though that may have kicked off another civil war in Spain?

Then there's Poland and the Eastern European nations that would be more than willing to fight for the Western Alliance to crush the Soviet Union. All White Russians would join against the Stalinist regime as well.

The Polish wouldn't fight with the Germans, funnily enough, neither would the Cossaks.

The Kulaks would though...

A weird point is that Russian people loved the Commonwealth for stopping their eradication, even Stalin was depressed when Churchill wasn't re-elected. So they would want peace anyway.

If we're still 'at war' though; the thing is Moscow and the Urals couldn't be nuked, then what other targets? how about the Caucasus?

 

[plan_D]

The Soviet Union had two aircraft that could be called a strategic bomber, the TB-3 and the Pe-8. Both easily intercepted by Western Allied interceptors. Which, remember, were fast becoming modern jet aircraft. The Meteor III and P-80 had already been introduced into service. The English Electric Lightning was designed in 1947 if we want to drag the war on that long.

The M26 Pershing and A41 Comet were indeed capable of fighting off the IS-2 and IS-3. The MBTs of both armies, the T-34/85 against Sherman was an equal combat.

The Allies lost less armour on a kill:ratio than the Soviets did. The Western Allies also provided greater tactical efficiency in their armour tactics. The co-ordination of arms had already been learnt in the Western Desert by the British forces in 1942. In 1944 the USAAF and RAF lined up in the air just waiting for that call. The Western Allies also had a superior infantry AT weapon, the Bazooka and PIAT.

I don't know what Comet you're researching but the A34 Comet had a maximum of 101mm armour protection and was of all welded construction. It also had the Vickers 77mm which was only slightly inferior to the OQF 17pdr in hitting power.

What exactly was going to stop the U.S from shipping it's Pershings? If Germany and Japan couldn't stop the United States Navy and Royal Navy (and her Commonwealth Navies) ...what makes you think the Russian Red Navy would have a chance? Which, by the way, was so bad and so small it's not even worth mentioning as a force in World War II unless you want to talk about target practice for the Axis.

The British Empire was still large enough to fight the Soviet Union. The British Empire began to crumble in 1916 - it is well said to be the start of the end for the British Empire. However, in 1945 the British Empire was massive in power. It's Commonwealth was geared up for war and war it could make, on a global scale.
The Soviet Union had not just started, it has existed since the Red Russians defeated the White Russians in the Russian Civil War, which was 1922. Once the Soviet Union chose to stand off against the western powers it began to crumble which ended in a complete collapse in 1990.

All those ten million mentioned fought under the Union Jack, for Britain in World War II. They fought against the Japanese in the jungles of South-East Asia. They fought against the Germans in Africa, in Italy and in North-West Europe. Eight even fought over the skies of Britain in the Battle of Britain.

No the Wehrmacht killed about 21 million of those more like.

You have no idea. The Soviet Union was on it's last legs in 1943 - a loss at Kursk would have been the last ounce of strength in the Red Army. They were drawing from the oldest and youngest capable of carrying a rifle. When they entered Berlin the people and the country were tired ...their people had been slaughtered.

The French colonies would fight with France, just like they did in Italy. I am refering more closely to those from North Africa which were remarkably brutal and effective combat troops. The French would provide men and arms if the need arose to continue the fight against the Soviet Union. Even without them ...the West would still win.

The Polish would have sold their souls to the devil to free Poland. They would have fought with Germans if it meant kicking the Soviet Union out of Poland. And making them free.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

easily intercepted by Western Allied interceptors.

Yes indeedy.

The M26 Pershing and A41 Comet were indeed capable of fighting off the IS-2 and IS-3

Agreed, the M26 less so.

The MBTs of both armies, the T-34/85 against Sherman was an equal combat.

The main Sherman was the M4(75mm) and even the T34/76 '41 outclassed this and the Cromwell.

The Allies lost less armour on a kill:ratio than the Soviets did.

Yes but the Soviets had more armour and the lions share of German armour to deal with, also Allied tanks weren't intended to engage other tanks; they were meant to run away! - leaving the flimsy "tank-destroyers' to try to get through German armour.

In 1944 the USAAF and RAF lined up in the air just waiting for that call.

Cab-ranks were also lethal to the Allies, cows etc...

The Western Allies also had a superior infantry AT weapon, the Bazooka and PIAT.

The Soviets had the Bazooka (lend-lease) and the RPG-1 (copied Panzerfaust)

Both were better than the PIAT.

They also had schurzen on their tanks.

I don't know what Comet you're researching but the A34 Comet had a maximum of 101mm armour protection and was of all welded construction.

It actually had 112mm max armour, but that didn't help it.

It was all welded though.

It also had the Vickers 77mm which was only slightly inferior to the OQF 17pdr in hitting power.

Like the KwK36 vs the '88' not only was the 77mm's barrel shorter, but it fired inferior ammo too (shorter wider cartridge).


On the Soviet Navy, it wasn't really needed 'till then, but it could have kicked off?

It's Commonwealth was geared up for war and war it could make, on a global scale.

It could retreat on a global scale, more like. Though still formidable.
The control of the oceans is important though, esp here.

The Soviet Union had not just started, it has existed since the Red Russians defeated the White Russians in the Russian Civil War, which was 1922.

I know, but for an absolute start? then I'd say 1917 .

All those ten million mentioned fought under the Union Jack, for Britain in World War II. They fought against the Japanese in the jungles of South-East Asia. They fought against the Germans in Africa, in Italy and in North-West Europe. Eight even fought over the skies of Britain in the Battle of Britain.

And for the Nazi's/Japanese/independence.

No the Wehrmacht killed about 21 million of those more like.

No Stalin killed at least 21 million of his own people in WW2 (even though he wasn't Russian), along with the great purge.

You have no idea.

Like saying that, don't you?

The Soviet Union was on it's last legs in 1943 - a loss at Kursk would have been the last ounce of strength in the Red Army.

Operation Citadel couldn't succeed.

They were drawing from the oldest and youngest capable of carrying a rifle.

They were bad for that, matched only by the Nazi's?

When they entered Berlin the people and the country were tired ...their people had been slaughtered.

Are you meaning the Germans?

After pounding it with artillery.
Plentiful supplies of tanks, guns, ammo, men, aircraft etc. I'll get the figures - the Soviet forces were simply overwhelming.

They would have fought with Germans if it meant kicking the Soviet Union out of Poland.

The upper classes, yes. The empoverished majority, no.

 

[Glider]

Have to disagree withyou both on the JS3 against the M26 and Comet. The JS3 was way ahead of the game against those two. Centurians would have struggled against them.
The Comet with its fairly thin vertical armour, smaller gun was out of its league. The M26 was probably about even with the Comet.

 

[plan_D]

The Sherman M4 was not out-classed by the T-36/76 Model 1941. The Sherman (76W) was the MBT of the U.S forces by May 1945. The various models were thrown into production in early 1944. Production totals for the 76mm armed Shermans are;

M4A1 (76W) - 3,396 by Pressed Steel between Jan. 1944 and June 1945.
M4A2 (76W) - 1,594 by Grand Blanc between June - December 1944 (That's six months! An average of 266 tanks a month.) and 21 by Pressed Steel between May - June 1945. Total: 1,615

M4A3 (76W) - 1,400 by Detroit Arsenal between Feb. - July 1944* and 525 by Grand Blanc between Sept. - Dec. 1944. Total: 1,925

M4A3 (76W) HVSS - 1,445 by Detroit Arsenal between August - December 1944.

*Ceased in July to gear up for production of the HVSS. The tooling up took just under a month.

These numbers are more than enough to make it the MBT of the U.S forces. Especially since the U.S had designated it as such and the M4 Shermans were being converted to other roles at the time. The production of Shermans far out-paced the production of T-34s. 53,582 T-34s were produced from 1941 - 1945. Starting over a year later Shermans had been produced in numbers exceeding 40,000. Imagine an extra year for Detroit Arsenal producing an average of 226 Shermans a month, Detroit alone could produce another 2712 in one year.

The Sherman was designed as a combat tank. It was designed when the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 was introduced. With which it could combat, especially since the production in the U.S could provide much more Shermans than Germany could Pz.Kpfw IVs. When they came up against the greater German designs, they were left to exploit the situation when the tank destroyers had destroyed the enemy armour. It's a reasonable tactic when tank destroyers were present. The Western Allied tank destroyers took a heavy toll on German armour. The Archer, M36 and M18 were all remarkable designs, although the Archer was merely a Valentine with a OQF 17pdr but we all know that 17pdr packed a punch. And if you're packing a good enough punch to out-range your opponent ...your armour could be paper for all it mattered.

The Western Allied air forces slaughtered German ground forces. The Typhoons and Thunderbolts roaming the skies of North-West Europe would smash anything they saw ...if not the tank itself, they would destroy the train or truck sent to supply it.

And the Soviets are going to still get the Bazooka when the U.S is at war with them?

Wait a second, you go from mocking the Comet because it had 30mm armour ...which it didn't. Then you try and say armour protection over 100mm was useless? I'm quite shocked ...why do I bother? The A34 Comet was a remarkable combat machine, reliable, fast, well-armoured and packed a decent punch. 109mm at 500 yards, 30 degrees to be precise.

The Soviet Navy could have kicked off? Are you saying they could produce a navy capable of combating the biggest navies in the world (USN, RN and RCN) in a matter of months?

...are you calling the British Commonwealth cowards? The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and East Africans just to name a few were remarkable fighting soldiers. The Commonwealth would easily out-produce the Soviet Union. I'd advise you learn a little bit about the Commonwealth contribution before you spout off like that.

The Soviet Union could not exist with the mere October revolution. They had to defeat the White Russians first.

What the hell are you going on about? Are you saying the Indians didn't aid the Allies during World War II? My word, you are amazingly disrespectful aren't you? The majority of those fighting in Burma were Indian.

What are you going on about? The Stalinist regime killed around 20 million in it's entire time of existance, not just in World War II. 13.6 million of that 23 million are combat losses against the Wehrmacht, the rest are civilian losses either by enemy action or ...Stalinist actions.

I don't like saying it ...but it seems I have to keep saying it when "discussing" with you. Since you don't provide anything in the way of evidence.

The debate of Zitadelle succeeding or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet Union was on it's last legs in terms of manpower. The Soviet Union attacked Berlin with around one million men ...you call that a lot in a total, global war?

No, all of Poland would. The majority of Poland are what got it the worst. You think that the Soviet Union was actually communist by nature? You're living in a dream world ...it was a fascist, Stalinist dictatorship of brutal proportions. The only way Stalin's leadership could have become more Tsarist is if he'd named himself Tsar Iosef Stalin ...Poland was under the iron boot ...the whole lot of it ...and all of them hated it.

 

[plan_D]

The Comet was a good opponent against the IS-2, Panther and Tiger. I wouldn't rank it along side an IS-3, no way. The IS-3 is impressive in armour protection and cannon power but it still wasn't the greatest, in my opinion. Lacking all kinds of vital aspects of a tank it was let down ...it was also let down by it's crews.

We must remember when discussing a continuation of the war that the U.S was going to gear up for the production of the M26E4 'Super Pershing' which had the T15E2 90mm cannon. 25 had been built by May 7th and an order of 1000 had been made. One 'Super Pershing' served in north-west Europe. It served in the 33rd Armored Regiment of 3rd Armored Division. It destroyed a King Tiger and Panther in Dessau, in one day.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Have to disagree withyou both on the JS3 against the M26 and Comet.

He said A41, that means Centurion, I knew what he meant, sorry Glider.

The Sherman M4 was not out-classed by the T-36/76 Model 1941

Yes it was, inferior (by far) on: armour, manouverability, ground pressure, speed, fuel consumption, range, protection, gun, the list just goes on!

The Sherman (76W) was the MBT of the U.S forces by May 1945.

I was thinking '44 for some reason!

Starting over a year later Shermans had been produced in numbers exceeding 40,000.

Yes but it cost a lot of tankies they're lives as it excluded the production of heavies to concentrate on the Sherman.

I think it was Patton that said "the war will be either won or lost by that tank"?

it was designed when the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 was introduced. With which it could combat

When they came up against the greater German designs, they were left to exploit the situation when the tank destroyers had destroyed the enemy armour.

And if you're packing a good enough punch to out-range your opponent ...your armour could be paper for all it mattered.

Right, >PzIV F2 = JgdPzIV/70 or Panther +? vs Archer, M36 and M18 = in that situation the Allied tanks would have no chance!

However a 76 Sherman could kill a Panther, though the gun was supposed to penetrate the glacis.

Also the Hornisse proved to be a deathtrap at most times (except for Vitbesk etc).

if not the tank itself, they would destroy the train or truck sent to supply it.

Good point, forgot that was the main part.

And the Soviets are going to still get the Bazooka when the U.S is at war with them?

Copy it, like the did with the 'Faust.

Wait a second, you go from mocking the Comet because it had 30mm armour ...which it didn't. Then you try and say armour protection over 100mm was useless? I'm quite shocked ...why do I bother?

Well the 102mm was on the turret IIRC, the hull's was around 60mm @ vertical (though the prototype had sloping armour no hull gun)

Though the glacis was only 30mm (but @ 17 degrees).

Even an 85mm is gonna spank that @ 1km.

109mm at 500 yards, 30 degrees to be precise.

So at half a mile and under it could kill a T34 or IS2? - very impressive!

Sorry, I shouldn't, I know how much you love that Comet (you can still buy them BTW) 8)

The A34 Comet was a remarkable combat machine, reliable, fast

Yes, very. 8)

well-armoured and packed a decent punch.

Against Soviet armour, pathetic.

The Soviet Navy could have kicked off? Are you saying they could produce a navy capable of combating the biggest navies in the world (USN, RN and RCN) in a matter of months?

Probably not, but irritating gradually?

The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and East Africans just to name a few were remarkable fighting soldiers.

I know, I had uncles in Dunkirk and I said retreat not surrender/run/collabarate. You have to admit though that the oceans saved the Allies hides for a lot of the war.

My respect for Anzac and particularly Canadians in the 2 WW's is very high. I heard about the East Africans, but not much.

What were the Boers doing at this time?

The Indians? Hah they fought for anyone!

The Gurkhas though... 8)

The majority of those fighting in Burma were Indian.

Who were they fighting for though?

I admit though a lot did fight against Nazi'ism, but a similar number fought with.

My word, you are amazingly disrespectful aren't you?

No, but unlike most Englishmen I'm just not terrified of the PC Brigade.

The Stalinist regime killed around 20 million in it's entire time of existance, not just in World War II

I understand that is accepted, though it is more like 50 million.

The Kulak figures in the UK are kept modest, for obvious reasons.

The Soviet Union attacked Berlin with around one million men ...you call that a lot in a total, global war?

Not bad for just 1 city! -Albeit Berlin.

I know Stalin was a monster, I don't deny it.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

A part of what I said is unfair; the data you give for the 77mm penetration seems to be for plain AP and APCBC would do more damage, not to mention SV/APDS!

The 77mm's AP penetration is similar to the 85mm (whose optics are very accurate BTW)

The HVAP of the 85mm is better than the 77mm's APCBC.

We can conclude though that APDS would be used in '45?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hey Schwarzpanzer the Enzian Missles that you are talking about while they were revolutionary for there time, they would have made little impact on massive B-29 raids over Russia. They were just not accurate eneogh.

 

[plan_D]

I don't think I even want to continue a discussion with someone that is so disrespectful of the Commonwealth. Go look up India's contribution to World War II schwarz ...if you read up a little bit then you'd find that the Indian forces fighting for the Axis never went into the tens of thousands ...while millions upon millions fought for the Allies. You're a disgrace ...and it's not a matter of the PC brigade at all...you're just a disgrace.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi DerAdler,

I was actually thinking the Allies would have them.

A few of the missiles carried good prox fuses, so why not the Flak shells?

IIRC there was a German missile or airborne-mine that 'listened' and when it heard the sound of a Wright or P&W engine it exploded or sought it out?

I forget the name and details, anyone else know?

You're a disgrace

Why thank you!

and it's not a matter of the PC brigade at all

It is, don't lie to me. I can smell your fear from here.

Though to be honest, I can't blame you.

 

[Medvedya]

I understand that is accepted, though it is more like 50 million.

Not quite as bad as that - the official figures put the total casualties (civilian and military) around 30 million, but the truth is - we don't really know, or ever will know.

 

[plan_D]

You haven't the slightest idea about the Indian contribution to the war against the Axis powers. I'm actually disgusted you even carry on when you have already proven you don't have a clue.

Read about Burma - get a clue, then apologise to all those people that fought in the jungles. And not just the Indians but those that relied on the Indians and were grateful of the Indians fighting alongside them one such person being my grandfather. You haven't the slightest ounce of a clue to disgrace the Indian troops and workers. You'd quickly receive a slap from all those who fought in Burma spouting that shit.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Not quite as bad as that - the official figures put the total casualties (civilian and military) around 30 million, but the truth is - we don't really know, or ever will know.

That is unfortunately so true.

PlanD:

How about commonwealth troops who had to fight them, or were stabbed in the back when they trusted them?

My gran is still upset by what happened t her uncle at the hands of those 'brave Allies'.

I can see we are at different ends of this and I do not want to hurt you with this, I see your point and respect it but you must do the same with me?

This topic can obviously make us both bitter.

Funnily a colleagues dad was also in Burma and slagged every foreigner off.

I think that was definately the worst place to be, I repect anyone who fought there, I could manage Siberia, but not there, no way.

 

[marconi]

I think that was definitely the worst place to be, I respect anyone who fought there, I could manage Siberia, but not there, no way.

I'm not sure what is better: 40 degrees Celsius below or above zero.

I think we are using wrong arguments for explaining our points of view.It doesn't really matter whether Sherman was equal to T-34 or not.More important how many troops both sides had,how were they equipped, where were they at that time.

By the way, why are you thinking that it would be Russians who would have started the war?I've heard that Americans were planning a nuclear attack against USSR (plan called "Totality").

 

[Medvedya]

Well, the Soviet Union would have much less of a logistical problem in that it could keep shipping war material to the front without there being oceans in the way. A T-34 could be still made in Chelyabinsk and simply loaded on a train all the way to Germany.

Also - I think there would be enormous public pressure from people in the west to call it off and negotiate, even if such negotiations were to the Soviets favour.

 

[plan_D]

Unlike the Germans, the Western Allies could bomb the Soviet factories though.

And schwarz, there were a small number of murders that I already knew about. And in fact those were mostly the Burmese, not Indians and it's no excuse to go tarring the Indians contribution.

 

[Medvedya]

From Germany to the Urals and back? Nyet.

 

[Glider]

We could of course just clobber the railway yards and depots.
I know the Germans tried it but to compare the power of the German bombers to the 1000 bomber raids available to the allies on a dedicated basis. Next to nothing will move.