Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USA vs USSR after WWII?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • USA vs USSR after WWII?

    As WWII ended Patton spoke of how the USSR would become a enemy and that the US should destroy it. Patton was proven right however he was dead because of a jeep crash.

    However What if the US and USSR had gone to war in 1945 and Patton's dream became a real world event?

  • #2
    in Patton's vision, did he not expect the wehrmacht as an ally against the soviets. how much of his success would have depended on whatever strength and will of the german military at that point in the war? would the allies have followed?
    Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

    Prayers.

    BoRG

    http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, he did wanna use German POWs against the Soviets. I think Britian probably would have fallowed I don't know about the rest of the 'lesser' allies. We had whole Armies of German POWs that had already been threw some of the best military training on the planet.

      One issue we kinda need to look at is the Sherman vs the T-34. Now, There are many a WWII buff (such as myself) who will rant that a Tiger is better than the T-34. But it is clear that a T-34 could kick a Sherman's tail. Also is the Pershing vs IS-2 or IS-3. I personally don't know about who would come out on top in that case. However the US could do what I personally think should have been done after the war - just adopt the Tiger by sending the designs for the tank back to the US.

      I don't know how good the Soviet fighters were but the P-51s were the shiz and we had bombers up to yen yang. And our first jet the P-80 Shooting Star had just come out and the MiG-15 didn't come out until 1949. So I would say we would control the skies

      On ground war you would of course see a lot of Kharkov and Kursk style battles. The Soviet military machine was very powerful in offensive action and could destroy entire Army Group's when deployed far enough forward as we saw at Bagration. What we also know from that offensive is that the Soviet war machine was not like US forces it could not just keep 'going and going and going' without the supply line shapping (Look at the dash threw France!)

      Also the Wehrmacht did not employ Airborne units on the Eastern Front. So we really have no idea how it would work against them. However Paratroopers proved themselves very effective against the Wehrmacht in every battle they fought. I don't see why the Paratroopers couldn't drop behind enemy lines and wreck havoc on the flow of supplies and hold out against much larger forces. As was proved in Market Garden however... You must find away to relieve the paratroopers once they have really stepped in the ant hill. The Soviets had Paratroopers but IIRC made no jumps at all. So we have something that the Soviets did not. US troops were also better trained then his Soviet counterpart which made him man for man superior it could however be argued that the Soviet Forces had been threw 5 years of none stopped war and must have toughened up quiet a bit. However the Soviets had much more artillery and tanks which gave them a lot more firepower.

      Also in the Pacific the US had 26 divisions 19 Infantry, 6 Marine and 1 Airborne. The Soviets on the other hand had 60 Divisions that made up the 1st and 2nd Red Banner Armies. The Marines much like the Paratroopers were and still are a solid force with tough men who serve in them. They could probably do a large amount of damage to formations much larger than their own. However the plains of Manchuria and Siberia would give the Soviets the perfect place to deploy their massive amount of firepower at their deposal. Aircraft from the carriers would be flying in and out day and night none stop providing US troops with much needed air cover. And if they get driven onto the beachs and began getting forced out the gunfire from US battleships would cut the Soviets within range of their huge cannons to bits. There would be no march on Moscow seeing as how supporting such a long march would be almost impossible. If they were to win Siberia however the Soviets would lose a lot of their resources.

      More later.....

      Comment


      • #4
        my take on this is, as shown by many simulations, that a war going hot in 1945 against the Soviet Union would be very interesting and difficult for both sides.

        - all sides were tired of war and exhausted - with the USA to a much lesser extent.

        - all winning sides had had massive propaganda in fighting nazis and that the other side was a friend and brother. peoples in the west and in the USA would not have easyly accepted to kep fighting, especially against communism. most of the US population was supportive of war, because the USA was attacked by Japan and DoW by Germany and Italy and then was brainwashed by the nazi and Japan's aims to conquer the world. and the USA with britain, france, and Russia were the good guys.

        - most european nations had strong communist parties, with now a strong link ot moscow and would at best not fight for their countries and at worst do massive sabotage or outright fight against the west.

        - militarily speaking each side had advantages in 1945

        - the soviet side could count with a massive, combat ready, highly motivated, highly experienced infantry with massive artillery and tank forces, with tanks especially vastly superior to anything the western allies had.

        - the US air force was mighty and powerfull both in quality, numbers and experienced pilots. the US bomber squadrons especially, with B-29's and a nuke able to be produced every 2-3 months or so could pose a huge thread and massive devastation anywhere in Soviet Union. that was the reason Stalin did not puch too hard after Yalta. he was scared by the US atom weapons, despite boasting that " the americans can destroy a city in a few seconds, I can destroy one in a few days with my artillery".

        - german PoW would have mostly joined the fight to "liberate" their country

        - Allied would not have accepted easyly the level of losses they would have seen fighting the soviets. I mean, when did the US suffer any artillery barrage like the germans did in the late phases of ww2. US and British forces in ww2, had it relatively easy, always fighting well fed, well supplied, well supported with superior quantity and quality of support forces.. now it would be different...

        all in all, it could see a very unpopular war, with low level of support for it, lines of supply under constant harassment of communists... ground forces smashed and destroyed like never before, but with the airforce causing havoc and destruction, including nuking moscow... that would win the day, but perhaps a million US and british casualties in the first month of war in Germany?...

        1945-1991, we had it good with the USSR.
        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

        Comment


        • #5
          Tough call

          I believe the German Military would have probably joined forces with the US and Britain only because it would have been a chance to get there country back.
          I do not believe the US population would have had the heart to keep going against the Russians mostly because the Russians were Allies for a long period of conflict. this certainly could change if say the Russians had attacked the US in Germany.
          I do not think the US Auto industry would have been producing Tiger tanks either, I really think they would have stayed with the quantity over quality route and maybe adopted the design of a Mark IV which did match up with a T-34 fairly well and was certainly better than our Shermans, we would have still produced Pershings and our air and Navy would have dominated the water and air.
          Its amazing how Patton knew that the Russians were going to become an enemy, he was a great General who died way to early.

          CD
          "History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." Dwight D. Eisenhower

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Axis of Evil
            Patton was proven right however he was dead because of a jeep crash.
            However What if the US and USSR had gone to war in 1945 and Patton's dream became a real world event?
            I would say that history has proven Patton to be decisively wrong on this one.

            The dash through France also decisively proved that the Western Allied armies were just as hamstrung by supply problems as the Russian offensives.

            The bulk of any soviet tank armies would be armed with T23-85s. The bulk of the western allied armies are equiped with Sherman variants.
            The IS2m and IS 3 (deployed in independent heavy tank units) clearly outclass any allied heavy tank at this time. Armour edge is clearly with the Soviets.

            Soviet operational doctrine is also clearly better. They have just driven the Germans back 1000 km in a year and soundly thrashed the best Germany had. The Western allies only went a couple of hundred km against mostly old men and boys with an occasional good unit.

            Soviet deception is also extraordinarily good. Just look at Bagration and how much it was a surprise. The Western allies never had to fight an enemy without the advantage of ultra.

            Also late war Russians were good at defense against combined arms attacks. The Germans made some pretty big offensives (eg Lake Balaton) but the Russians stopped them so easily that they scarcely rate a mention in history books.

            However the aircraft edge is with the Western allies. The Soviets got most of their high octane aviation fuel from lend-lease. This would obviously be cut off. However the Soviets still have 10s of thousands of combat planes available with experienced aviators. What do you think a 1000 sturmoviks will do to a US division?

            It will take time for the Western allies to win control of the skies.

            If the Soviets can push the Western allies out of Germany and France before the Allied airforces degrade the supplies lines then they win. In any case expect the West to lose at least Germany and Denmark.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AdrianE
              I would say that history has proven Patton to be decisively wrong on this one.

              The dash through France also decisively proved that the Western Allied armies were just as hamstrung by supply problems as the Russian offensives.

              The bulk of any soviet tank armies would be armed with T23-85s. The bulk of the western allied armies are equiped with Sherman variants.
              The IS2m and IS 3 (deployed in independent heavy tank units) clearly outclass any allied heavy tank at this time. Armour edge is clearly with the Soviets.

              Soviet operational doctrine is also clearly better. They have just driven the Germans back 1000 km in a year and soundly thrashed the best Germany had. The Western allies only went a couple of hundred km against mostly old men and boys with an occasional good unit.

              Soviet deception is also extraordinarily good. Just look at Bagration and how much it was a surprise. The Western allies never had to fight an enemy without the advantage of ultra.

              Also late war Russians were good at defense against combined arms attacks. The Germans made some pretty big offensives (eg Lake Balaton) but the Russians stopped them so easily that they scarcely rate a mention in history books.

              However the aircraft edge is with the Western allies. The Soviets got most of their high octane aviation fuel from lend-lease. This would obviously be cut off. However the Soviets still have 10s of thousands of combat planes available with experienced aviators. What do you think a 1000 sturmoviks will do to a US division?

              It will take time for the Western allies to win control of the skies.

              If the Soviets can push the Western allies out of Germany and France before the Allied airforces degrade the supplies lines then they win. In any case expect the West to lose at least Germany and Denmark.
              Looks like people higher-up in the "pecking order" than Patton thought that the Soviets would soon become our enemy. Checkout this site.


              http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm
              "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

              Comment


              • #8
                Weren't the soviets being kept alive by lend lease for several years during the war? The soviet army wouldn't have been able to get enough food for its troops and civilian workers if the US cut off its support. The US had many combat proven troops, with many elite divisions, such as the airborne, ready to go. The US still hadn't gone into full draft mode, and still had some untapped resources. The soviets, on the other hand, were starting to putter out. And as for tanks, the M48 would have been able to take on the T34. Most of the newer divisions being sent to Europe were equipped with these, instead of M4s.

                However, Marshall estimated that the US would only be able to go to 1947 before they started to demand an end to the war. This was one of the influencing factors to Truman and the bomb.

                Comment


                • #9
                  i think that the soviets had already reached their peak, but the US had not. without the lend-lease food and gas, the soviets would have encountered starvation and inability to move their massive forces.

                  with western airpower protecting german production instead of bombing it, the german production would have resumed, bringing panthers and tigers against the T-34s.

                  in the last year off the war, the soviets drove a 1000km into germany, but they faced very little air opposition, since most of what was left of the luftwaffe was defending the reich against american and british bombing. it would have been strange watching P-51s and spitfires providing air cover for wehrmacht panzer divisions.

                  also, the last generation of germans weapons might have come into play.
                  Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                  Prayers.

                  BoRG

                  http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not sure that the political features of the time would have alowed an American intiated war. As to hoping for British support I think it woudn't be forthcoming. The British policy thurout WWII was guided by avoiding massive casualties as they had in WWI. France went very nearly communist even with the Marshal Plan. There was tremendous pressure to "bring the boys home" and it would have taken another Pearl Harbor type event I believe to stop the rapid demobilization of the US military. In fact our policy for many years was one of it being a "trip wire" that would hold the line until a massive nuclear response would wipe out the Soviet Union.

                    Given time, the production of the M-26 Perishing and its smaller sisters would have given us armored parity with the Soviets. Also, the Soviets were at the end of a huge logistic tail, but as we fought further into the East it would be us on the long end and not them. Its interesting to note the Soviets faced massive food shortages in 46/47 even feeding its own troops in Eastern Europe. They also faced internal problems in the Ukraine that weren't stamped out until the early fifties. I think the Poles could have given them a headache as well, but don't see that going beyond its own borders. And it wouldn't have happened until we fought clear of Germany.

                    If they had chosen to attack the West I think Russian would now be as dead a language as Latin is today. Much of the Soviet Union would be radioactive glass. I think the stockpiles of chemical weapons would have done much the same to Europe. It would have made the scary atomic bombing of Japan pale in comparison, and we'd be heirs of the Nazi's and Imperial Japan of causing millions of deaths.

                    We instead played a very canny game(tho imperfect at times), and even at the cost of trillions, and thousands of cold war deaths it was much preferable to what may have been the right war, would have come at the worst time possible, forcing us to slaughter millions, and leaving a stain on our nations honor that we would never be able to cleanse.
                    ----------------
                    Predicting the future is hard, especially when it hasn't happened yet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      indeed, the key, is who would start the war.

                      not the Russians. Stalin was cunning as a ferret and knew he had got so much at Yalta so easyly that he was very happy with that and had now to consolidate it's gains and quell the Ukrainians, the balts as well as making sure the rigged elections in Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. had to go well.
                      plus, his efforts in the East did take resources and attention (supply to communist china, and finishing off manchuria... so unlikely

                      not the West, exhauseted - except the US - , in awe towards the red army prestige and populations told it is over. plus a good portion of the population of western europe going red - perhaps 30% in France, Italy, etc.... so hardly a call.

                      but let's assume that the US would want to "finish the job" (ike killed in that Jeep incident and patton promoted as CiC europe - unlikely, but...) and DoW onn the USSR. the question is WHEN? May? October? the spring of 1946?
                      "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by piero1971
                        indeed, the key, is who would start the war.

                        not the Russians. Stalin was cunning as a ferret and knew he had got so much at Yalta so easyly that he was very happy with that and had now to consolidate it's gains and quell the Ukrainians, the balts as well as making sure the rigged elections in Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. had to go well.
                        plus, his efforts in the East did take resources and attention (supply to communist china, and finishing off manchuria... so unlikely

                        not the West, exhauseted - except the US - , in awe towards the red army prestige and populations told it is over. plus a good portion of the population of western europe going red - perhaps 30% in France, Italy, etc.... so hardly a call.

                        but let's assume that the US would want to "finish the job" (ike killed in that Jeep incident and patton promoted as CiC europe - unlikely, but...) and DoW onn the USSR. the question is WHEN? May? October? the spring of 1946?

                        i think the world was ready for peace i know most gi who just returned home would not have been thrilled with another major conflict.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by salinator
                          i think that the soviets had already reached their peak, but the US had not. without the lend-lease food and gas, the soviets would have encountered starvation and inability to move their massive forces.

                          with western airpower protecting german production instead of bombing it, the german production would have resumed, bringing panthers and tigers against the T-34s.

                          in the last year off the war, the soviets drove a 1000km into germany, but they faced very little air opposition, since most of what was left of the luftwaffe was defending the reich against american and british bombing. it would have been strange watching P-51s and spitfires providing air cover for wehrmacht panzer divisions.

                          also, the last generation of germans weapons might have come into play.
                          Agreed. Let us not forget too, that by 1945, the Allies posessed the largest tactical air force in the world of light and medium bombers that would make the resupply of any Soviet Army in the field a costly proposition. I haven't even touched on the capabilities of Allied Strategic bombers who flew at greater altitudes than Soviet fighter planes or even flak guns could reach.
                          "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by johnbryan
                            Agreed. Let us not forget too, that by 1945, the Allies posessed the largest tactical air force in the world of light and medium bombers that would make the resupply of any Soviet Army in the field a costly proposition. I haven't even touched on the capabilities of Allied Strategic bombers who flew at greater altitudes than Soviet fighter planes or even flak guns could reach.
                            excellent points. also don't forget that by august 1945, the soviets might have been fighting a two front war, assuming that the bomb didn't scare them enough.
                            Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                            Prayers.

                            BoRG

                            http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Another point to consider: the Americans and British might decide to rearm Germany (remember this was a major issue for the Soviets in the early 1950's). With lots of veterans, supplied by American forces, and supported by American and British airpower, the Germans would still be a formidable force, very least in the defense.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X