Allies vs Russia - WW II

[TheKiwi]

Unlikely as the atomic bomb was highly classified at the time. However, the number of atomic bombs available meant that it would be unlikely to play a strategically significant role against the Soviet Union. Remember that the USAF was proposing in 1950 that they would need in the vicinity of 1000 atomic bomb strikes to ensure that the USSR was knocked out.

[Bob Sapp]

Did they figure in the A-bomb?

No clue. However, it is worth pointing out, carpet bomb like attacks with A-bombs would not have happened, there were barely any around at the time. Had war broke out, I think 1.) the Soviet program for nuclear weaponry would have advanced much faster 2.) fighting would have been relatively fast and decisive in Europe, the potential economic damage from atomic raids on Soviet cities might not have factored in fast enough.

Anwyays I am just glad nothing ever developed, however unlikely.

[zad]

Did they figure in the A-bomb?

Question is, at what rate could the allies manufacturate atomic bombs?

Given the potence of an A-bomb circa 1945 the amount of damage it could cause used as tactic weapon was limited.

Using of A-boms as strategic weapon to attack soviet cities will be dificult because of the distance between allied airfields and soviet cities, plus the massive amount of fighters the soviets had.

The atomic bomb will not be the silver bullet in a Allies-Soviet war scenario.

Key questions in my opinion are:

Could allies circa 1945 wage a war without air superiority?

Without air superiority how will manage allied land forces against soviet landforces, wich side will had an advantage in fire power, experience or training?

What impact on allied supply lines will have local communist guerrillas warfare? (France and Italy maquis were formed in great number by communists)

Will be able communists parties and trade unions to affect allied efforts trought sabotage and labour strikes?

Will De Gaulle be open to wage a war so close to France with the country still recovering of a massive destruction and with 20% of the french population being a communist sympathizer?

Will Italy risk to a civil war?

How many casualties could allied public opinion endure before throwing the towel?

[Pitchup]

Using WMD against USSR was a very bad idea for Europe and England. USSR in 1945 had a huge arsenal of chemical weapons, even so crazy guy as Hitler understood this.

[RomanS]

lol, well, neither of those were at all widely proliferated in the 1940s..

Considering Mikhail Kalashnikov began his work on his first avtomat in 1944, by 1945 he had pretty damn good idea what needed to be done to have his infamous 1947 model built into an early prototype. In event such as Patton wanting to march on to Soviet Union, Stalin would of ordered a full production of AKs. And instead of 1947, it would be done for sure in late 45, early 46. Doubt anyone would have the nerve or even thought of telling Stalin - NO

JS-3 was in production since 1943. In the parade of 1945 in June, western powers almost **** their pants when they saw a giant column of the new monsters demolish the asphalt as they drove by everyone to see.

I know one thing for sure, in a war like that which would start around June 1945, Soviets would be able to afford another million dead soldiers. Can people in the west handle those casualties on their side?

Lets be real here, Patton would be quickly taken out by his own government and the madness would stop very fast. Which will result in embarrassment of the west.

Nuking Moscow would only piss off the Soviets even more, and last thing you want is a bunch of pissed off Russians with nothing to loose armed with a weapon that can shoot everytime you pull the trigger.

[RomanS]

Hey Roman. I thought AK47 wasn't until 1949. JS-3's no laugh though, nor is millions of Soviet soldiers with PPSh-41.

You also have to remember around that time Kalashnikov had many competitors like Simonov, Fedorov, Tokarev and Degtyarev working on their assault rifles. So it took him a bit more time to be recognized amongst the big guys.

When I spoke to Kalashnikov he told me that many of those big guys didnt believe or even thought his creation would see the light.

After the war, Stalin wanted them all to take their time to present an array of well done prototypes. Stalin like Kalashnikov loved simplicity and ease of use. Thats why Kalashnikov stood out of all the competitors, and was chosen so fast. Like i said, in event such as WW2 2.0 of 1945, Stalin would of given a quick green light to produce millions of Ak-47s in what prototype stage they were at that time.

[gaijinsamurai]

The British did a feasibility study, of war with the Soviet Union after 1945, and their scenario concluded in the Red Army getting to the Atlantic coast of France.

Sounds about right.

My thoughts as well. A perpetuation of conflict would have only served to allow the Soviets to gain more territory.

[TheKiwi]

I have enough confidence in the abilities of the Red Army to think that they could indeed conquor the rest of Germany and a great deal of France before the effects of the few available atomic bombs could take effect.

As said before though, I do not think for one moment that such an attack by the Western Allies would be seriously contemplated (as opposed to staff planning like the British Operation Unthinkable). All the nations that had taken part in WW2 were exhausted, most were broke and many were also ruined. The demands for peace and rebuilding after the defeat of Germany were just too loud. There was just enough left in the tank for the defeat of Japan and that was a close run thing for many as well (I can not see the UK and Commonwealth being enthusiastic supporters of an invasion of Japan for example).

[Robert.V]

Politically this war was impossible,but militarily ? I think the west had big chances :there was a Soviet superiority in numbers

And soldiers who where also a lot more battle hardened and experienced and just showed to be damn more resilients and toughness.

The Russian logistics were very difficult :from Berlin to Moscow all was destroyed and a lot of these populations were not sure .
The Russians had more tanks,but how could they supply them ?

They did a wonderful job for August Storm.


Edit

Stalin very much was contemplating in letting the Red Army march beyond Berlin. But he didn't think that the population of SU would go along with this, that and I believe the production of US atomic bombs was overestimated.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Australia was a keen supporter of an invasion of Japan and was quiet pissed off with the yanks for not allowing us to be involved in the Phllipines and Okinawa.

Back to the question at hand.

Another total war that would last a few more years with the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union with casualties far exceeding that of WW2. Manufacturing and resource capability of the US/Commonwealth is simply to great for the Soviets to counter.

The Western Allies also had huge numbers of b-29's, Lancastors and Lincoln bombers with ranges out to 3000 miles which no doubt would be bombing Soviet Forces and Territory around the clock form all directions. And as recent wars have proven. Carpet bombing enemy ground forces is bloody dam useful.

the Western Allies also had control of the seas. They could sail right into Murmansk, Leningrad and Vladivostok harbours and there would be bugger all the Russians could do about it.

[Robert.V]

Oh please the allies didn't have the land power to take on the Red Army neither numbers wise nor had as much experienced and battle hardened men.

And in a lot of areas technology wise SU had an advantage.

Manufacturing and resource ? SU had plenty of resources, manufacturing capabilities your right about, but SU wasn't a slouch either.



That and you honestly think the allies and it's population would have had the stomach for such war ?

[Drez]

Read memoirs of german soldiers, some of them actually had opportunity to compare. For example German Heer tank commander Otto Carius in his book titled Tigers in the Mud said: "Five Russians were, after all, more dangerous than thirty Americans. We had already noticed that in the few days we had been employed in the west".

[CaptMorgan68]

[Figurant]

"I like where this thread is going"

I don't (even if I appreciate your sense of humour).

Let's put some things straight and in perspective.

The prospect of war between the SU and the Western allies is indeed not simply a moronic idea.

But to take Patton seriously is one. It might be my own opinion that Patton is one of the most over-rated generals ever, but just because he said that displaced persons are worth nothing and Jews are worth less than animals, it doesn't mean that someone would open a thread discussing these "issues" seriously.

One can discuss the military prospects calmly, though.
In 1945, the SU had the most formidable land and close air support force that the world has ever seen. Soviet combatants were battle-hardened, experienced and have had 4 years of the most intensive, bloody, and strategically and logistically challenging land campain in history.
Soviet armoured groups were not just outnumbering their western counterparts, but were also able to perform multi-front, massive mobile operations.
Its air force, which is often believed to be worth nothing compared to Western allies overwhelming strategic power projection capabilities, has inflicted in 4 years more damage on the Luftwaffe that all other allies did. Conversely, it suffered the least casualties when compared to other allies in terms of manpower, which is logical due to the fact that the Western allies were at war since 1939 and that the crew of a US strategic bomber is more numerous than the one of a Il-2. Nevertheless, it means that the Soviet Air force was less bleeded and suffered from less battle fatigue than its Western counterparts. Simultaneously, Soviet air force close support aircraft could inflict damage than no Western asset would effectively inflict on massive mobile joint forces groups and reserves, simply because close air support aircraft were not paramount in western planning prior to 1945.
I won't even mention Soviet field arty, which was the best and most numerous in the world all the way up to the division level and was highly mobile as well.
The Soviet logistic truss didn't just consist, as Patton (again!) put it, of horses and oxcarts, but was one of the most numerous and motorized logistic forces in Europe at that time.
Finally, the Soviet forces in Europe could benefit from direct supply lines while the Western allies needed to be re-supplied by sea.
And if one wants to discuss a further Patton quote, how about this one: "I have never seen in any Army, at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian Army."

Of course it would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if and when and then in Japan, you see, plus nukes...
But it misses the main point: it could have soothed the heart of Patton and the like (for a while) but it would have broken the heart of millions of fighting men and women.
There was no animosity between Soviet and Western soldiers in 1945. Maybe distrust between some, surely preconceptions and clichés (I would even dare to say that the Western combatants were more popular and liked in the Soviet army than vice-versa) . But on the level of the fighting man, they were brothers. Giving them the order to kill and maim each other would have been a ghastly and cynical crime.

Again, the Soviet fighting man didn't think of an American, British or French soldier as a potential enemy, and I'm sure most of western soldiers didn't wan't to kill the Russkies either. And this stance continued among combatants despite all the propaganda and cold war talk from both sides that followed. My granddad fought all his way up from the rank of junior lieutenant to lt.col. in 1945, and got his general star before the Cuban crisis. He was shaken when Kennedy was killed. His only wish and the reason he served was that "it would never happen again".

[Robert.V]

That was a great post Figurant.

Again, the Soviet fighting man didn't think of an American, British or French soldier as a potential enemy

Yep, like I said above.

Stalin very much was contemplating in letting the Red Army march beyond Berlin. But he didn't think that the population of SU would go along with this, that and I believe the production of US atomic bombs was overestimated.

I love this quote by Patton.

"In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."

It's a nice example of how deluded he was.