Allies vs Russia - WW II

[Gammelpreusse]

Yak-9, Yak-3 and La-5 were as capable fighters as allied ones. Jet figthers Yak-15 and Mig-9 came into production in 1946. Both Yak-15 and Mig-9 were armed with twin 23mm cannons, that will be a nightmare for any strategic bomber circa 1945, Mig-9 was equiped also with a 30mm cannon. The scenario in wich allied air forces quickly obliterated the VVS seems unlikely in my opinion. Also allied strategic bombers will have serious problems facing soviet jets equiped with cannons.

VVS order of batle 1 May 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...tle_1_May_1945

Yak-9, Yak-3 and La-5(7) were indeed all formidable planes, but all were geared for low altitude combat, seriously lacking in performance in regions the US 8th airforce conducted their strategic bombing campaigns. I really doubt they would have done too well in this role, despite the proven bravery of the soviet pilots and the engeneering ability to produce such altitude performance, it would have taken some time for Russia to replace these models, imho.

The early russian jets heavily depended on captured german tech and later british contributions to get to a comparable level as to the west. Without a capture of parts of Germany and the UK engaged in war this would not have happend.

[StukaJr]

Second, much would depend on the exact moment at which the breach occurred. If the Germans still have an army in the field, or in a position to be swiftly re-constituted, it remains a formidable force. It would become even more formidable if given access to Allied logistical support, air power and the return of their Allied-held POWs as a source of replacements. Motivation would have been no problem – the Germans would be fighting a hated enemy for their own homeland’s freedom. (I assume Hitler & his immediate cronies would have been eliminated from the scene by someone or other. The Allies would certainly not have dealt with him directly.) If the Wehrmacht were fighting on only one front and were fully supplied, the Russians would have had their hands full with them alone.

Damn - took me nearly two minutes to remove all you stupid font code out of the quotes Took me another 2 minutes to lol at your nonsense. I want 5 minutes of my life back!

Sure - a lot of Germans were half expecting US to help them fight the Red Hordes, not so much of the British though Not a lot of US GI's were expecting to jump on Gerry's bandwagon though - Patton was an exception, not a rule. The V-Day was not exactly about what Germans wanted, though - fighting alongside x-enemy of 4+ years would also produce some interesting morale and logistical issues. I imagine, it's purely hypothetical that all of German POW's were of single ilk and mind, willing to die for the new ruler and for German freedom - after all, fleeing westward to avoid surrendering in Soviet zone of influence was a sure sign of highly operational army and continued will to fight.

Third, the Russians were more dependent than they now like to admit on Lend-Lease. Allied supplies of aircraft, tanks, trucks, uniforms, rolling stock, food, raw materials, communications equipment, etc were a real contribution that the Red Army will now have to do without. Here is a revealing set of statistics: When the war began the United States had 42% of the world’s total manufacturing capacity, the USSR and Germany 14% each, Britain 12%, France 4%, Japan 3% and Italy 2%. The Russians could no more have withstood the Allies logistical deluge than the Germans could.

Soviets showed remarkable ability to copy and produce their own variants of technology, adapt and make work for the production lines/climate. I'm sure of the numbers pre-war, but they have nothing to do with 1945 - I'm pretty sure Soviets would not feel honor bound NOT to use lend-lease equipment (which seized in 1945 anyways) against the ex-Allies that delivered it. As for production during the War - Soviet tank, truck and airplane production matched that of the US (and they were not getting bombed)

Anglo-American airpower was overwhelming. It was numerically and qualitatively superior to the VVS even at the tactical level. At the strategic level, the VVS had nothing to compare with the 8th Air Force or Bomber Command. Worse, it had no integrated air defense system to deal with such attacks and lacked the training, doctrine and equipment to do it. Bombers and Jabos would have smashed their rail-based logistical system ruthlessly, bringing the Red Army to a standstill.

I'm pretty sure SU had PVO system in place - it may have been getting redundant post 1944 on. Germany had no such system in place, but managed to make the bomber force to be the deadliest career in the US Military - examination of Allied Strategic bombing campaign post-war also produced less than remarkable report cards and took years to take effect. Germany ended the war with stockyards full of tanks, planes and weaponry - with no people or fuel to run it.

Arguments that AK-47s or JS-IIIs or some other weapon would have helped the Red Army are utterly moot. The Germans had MP44s long before the Russians had AK-47s. The MG42 is still in widespread production and use, something not many of its contemporaries can say. Tigers and Panthers had no problem with any Russian tank. Overall, the Wehrmacht probably had the best weapons in WW2. Fat lot of good it did them. Numbers, airpower and logistics made superior weapons capability an inconvenience, not a decision factor.

The M43 cartridge was accepted into service in 1943 - people also forget such excellent designs as SKS carbines that were ready for production as early as 1945. The MP-44 does not compare to AK-47 in function, design nor production - the only reason why MP-44 was in production way before AK-47 or SKS is because Germans pushed every poorly tested prototype into production unlike the Soviet design bureaus actually having to pass competitions and competitive test trials.

Frontal armor of JS-2 provided adequate protection against Panthers and Tigers from 600m plus distance, with JS-3 increasing armor protection by a healthy margin while greatly lowering displacement of the vehicle and removing shot traps and other weaknesses of JS-2. Tigers and Panters would be pretty impotent against JS-3 - especially, with the deteriorating quality of crews.

The "superiority" of German designs is a topic in itself - the only superiority I can point to were the AT guns and those were excellent and second to none and caused majority of tank losses.

Don’t write off the British and American land forces. They too were experienced, battle-hardened and generally well-trained. They were lavishly equipped, including being far more completely motorized than any other power’s forces.

Pretty sure US had severe shortages of tank crews to replace their losses in late 1944 - 3rd Armored Division had to take infantry to fill in the ranks. 3 out of 4 German KIA were on the Eastern Front - last ditch counterattacks like that of Battle of the Bulge, resulted in no measurable success on the Eastern Fronts. In 1945, Allies were pretty much going through the motion with SU doing all of the hardest fighting.

Soviets would have equal to greater edge in "the God of War" - the Artillery. While not writing off the Western Allies - SU had numerical superiority, combat experience and well honed tactics of crushing defensive belts, pouring on offensive, moving up logistics, rinsing and repeating.

Some posters think that pro-Communist forces in the West would have helped the USSR. Perhaps, but what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There were lots of people between the Elbe and the Soviet frontier who had no love for Russians, Communists or the Red Army, and Western intelligence already had contacts with many of them.The consensus of the board seems to be for Soviet victory. Sorry, Russia strong crew, not a chance.

Soviet Union HAD to deal with armed insurrection and ex-Nazi collaborators that took to the forests - it also had finely tuned apparatus for dealing with thousands of saboteurs and diversants that were making daily jumps into SU. Pretty sure, everybody whom would be in line to fight the Soviets, were in fact doing so - you are not adding anything on the scale there (while French communists were not actively impeding the Western Allies)

Finally, the biggest caveat (pothole) of this debate is definition of "victory" - Soviet Union has a much shorter distance to push into France and re-create Dunkirk, while Allies couldn't call the victory until they chewed through millions strong RKKA and went onto... Moscow? Urals? Manchuria?

[TakeIt]

Allies vs Soviet Union would have ended in the Old World turning into giant manufacturing plant that would steamrolled pretty much everything in its path. From the participants only SU had the ability and experience in such task, and the only country that faced and withstood total annihilation.

[Bob Sapp]

Yak-9, Yak-3 and La-5(7) were indeed all formidable planes, but all were geared for low altitude combat, seriously lacking in performance in regions the US 8th airforce conducted their strategic bombing campaigns. I really doubt they would have done too well in this role, despite the proven bravery of the soviet pilots and the engeneering ability to produce such altitude performance, it would have taken some time for Russia to replace these models, imho.

The early russian jets heavily depended on captured german tech and later british contributions to get to a comparable level as to the west. Without a capture of parts of Germany and the UK engaged in war this would not have happend.

As early as the Mig-1 and Mig-3 the USSR had potent high altitude aircraft, of course they were not emphasized much in production because of 1.) much higher demand for mid/low level aircraft 2.) engine scarcity 3.) pilot workload, but the point is there is no reason to think the USSR could not have rapidly introduced a competative high altitude fighter.

[TakeIt]

As early as the Mig-1 and Mig-3 the USSR had potent high altitude aircraft, of course they were not emphasized much in production because of 1.) much higher demand for mid/low level aircraft 2.) engine scarcity 3.) pilot workload

MiG buro actually throughout the war tested several high-alt fighters, I-22x line. Plus various other projects, ranging from Su-1 to exotics like BI.

but the point is there is no reason to think the USSR could not have rapidly introduced a competative high altitude fighter.

Well, to be frank, some concerns are present, mainly in engine department, however considering the ability to overcome problems SU probably woud've found ways to solve them.

[Gammelpreusse]

As early as the Mig-1 and Mig-3 the USSR had potent high altitude aircraft, of course they were not emphasized much in production because of 1.) much higher demand for mid/low level aircraft 2.) engine scarcity 3.) pilot workload, but the point is there is no reason to think the USSR could not have rapidly introduced a competative high altitude fighter.

The Mig1 und 3 were great planes up high...in 1941/42, when there was no real need for such a fighter. By 45 it was hopelessly outclassed by later allied designs, namely the 51N and P47M, both in serial production.

Now I do not know how fast the SU could have advanced high altitude planes up and running for production and delivered to interceptor squadrons, but out of the blue I'd say half a year at least. I am not that knowledgeable in this regard, however.

[DRA]

It would be interesting to read Lokos's opinion on this speculation. He is the only widely recognized expert on this board with the knowledge, objectivity and maturity to make his comments worthy of reading.

[Lokos]

DRA, I appreciate the compliment, but I don't think my involvement in this discussion would be productive.

L.

[TheKiwi]

Going back to the original question, is there anyone who thinks this was even remotely possible politically? I think we can all count ourselves as lucky that this was the case.

[brokenlegdrunk]

Going back to the original question, is there anyone who thinks this was even remotely possible politically? I think we can all count ourselves as lucky that this was the case.

dont think so both sides were tired of war. people at home were happy one was over i surely doubt the soldiers and people at home want to fight another.

[Robert.V]

Going back to the original question, is there anyone who thinks this was even remotely possible politically? I think we can all count ourselves as lucky that this was the case.

No it wouldn't have flown either with the soldiers or the people.

Stalin knew the red army wouldn't have moved on the allies without a good reason. And I gather the same case was with the Allies.

Perhaps it's a damn shame uncle Joe didn't take his chance's ...he wouldn't have been around for another 8 years.

[103]

Don't forget the Bulgarian army fighting alongside the Soviets!
Sorry, allies

[Difool]

Since the western allies have supplied the SU with tons of weapons and other goods, I don't think it might have been politically possible to wage war against the SU after freeing Germany.

After the victory over France the German leadership or at least parts of it tried to convince th UK to unify against the SU. Most interesting IMHO is the question what would have happened if they'd been successfull with that.

[Brasi]

Don't forget the Bulgarian army fighting alongside the Soviets!
Sorry, allies

They didn't really have a choice, like all the other eastern bloc countries the soviets rolled over to get to Germany. I'm sure the people of Bulgaria were under Soviet control for almost 45 years after the end of WW2.

Lets all remember Soviet late war "Divisions" were were only about 8-9,000 men total, while allied divisions were twice the size.

The Soviets could forget about owning any of the water around their countries.

The Allies had tremendous forces in the Pacific, and I have no doubt would have launched a second front into the Soviet Union from that side.

The soviets had an excellent tactical air force but a poor strategic one. The allies on the other hand had both excellent tactical and strategic air forces which means the soviet armaments industry would have been in serious trouble.


On the other side the Soviets had some serious armor which alone probably would have turned the tide.

[zad]

Lets all remember Soviet late war "Divisions" were were only about 8-9,000 men total, while allied divisions were twice the size.

Each one with a massive complement of artillery.

The Soviets could forget about owning any of the water around their countries.

What will they need the seas for?

The Allies had tremendous forces in the Pacific, and I have no doubt would have launched a second front into the Soviet Union from that side.

Yeah, they just had to finish the japanese first. A japanese empire now surely being provided of raw materials and fuel by the soviets.

The soviets had an excellent tactical air force but a poor strategic one. The allies on the other hand had both excellent tactical and strategic air forces which means the soviet armaments industry would have been in serious trouble.

How will that strategic air force reach soviet factories on the Urals?