Allies vs Russia - WW II

[Kilgor]

I don't understand what you mean, german war industry, as well as civil population, was living under constant allied bombing, sometimes with devastating consequences, but still Speer managed to hold the whole system potent and working, how he did it is another big issue, and even their supply routes and railway stations, everything was under fire, and still they somehow managed to get everything what their soldiers needed to the frontline, that's why german resistance even at hopeless years like 1944 and 1945 was so fierce and costed lot of allied and soviet lives.

And reading Speers book would be a start.

"At the end of January 1945, Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35% fewer tanks than planned, 31% fewer aircraft and 42% fewer lorries as a result of bombing".

Speer was a brilliant man who managed to increase production in the German industrial complex despite the bombing because it was so inefficient to begin with. That doesn't mean that bombing had no ill effect.

[F16]

Kilgor, did you know that the allied preferred to bomb german civil population rather than attack highly protected and flak-covered militrary installations. Arthur Harris once said that the german civil deaths aren't some sideeffects of their bombing missions, but their primary goal. The second reason why they didn't do all their best to destroy german war industry was quite obvious. Since late summer of 1943 it was clear that the Germany is already out of the game, and people in London were already thinking about the future. And they did not like the idea of strong Red Army in the heart of the Europe. The majority of german war industry's goods were shipped to the Eastern Front, weakening the future competitor.

[Tank34]

I don't know if the B-29 have had the option to carry on some additional fuel onboard and fuel themselve during the flight thus extending their combat range, but I think, with some upgrade it's quite an option, and don't forget, if they need to attack the Ural plants of the SU, they wouldn't do it with conventional bombs, but with one atomic ones, and this makes a lot of free space on the board, allowing them to take on more fuel. As for the airfields, they could start with the Sweden or Finland, both have had enough infrastructure to home the big bombers.

Finland was already kicked from the war by soviets. So it is very unlikely that they would risk a total occupation just to give allies some airfields.
Sweden is a neutral. They can sell you all what you want, but good luck to persuade them for airfields. (And of course it can be occupied too before you can get there enough forces)

It was great to concentrate so many tubes during the Seelow, but at the end it proved useless. The night before the barrage began, Germans somehow found out that exact time of shelling and have left their positions and pulled back, when the barrage was over and infantry began the assault germans quite quick manned again their advanced positions.

Allies was good with navy and strategic bombers. But USSR was best with tanks, infantry and artillery(at least by sheer numbers, but quality and experience of troops in 1945 was high too). And war for Europe would be land war.

Even with nuclear weapon chances would be slim, if allies start offence.

[F16]

Finland was already kicked from the war by soviets. So it is very unlikely that they would risk a total occupation just to give allies some airfields.

You know, Finland provided assault positions from german troops, aided nazis during the whole siege of Leningrad and at the end quit the war while sustaining their independence and full sovereignity. So if it was possible in 1941, it also would have happen in 1945 if the allied gave guarantee of full success.

Sweden is a neutral. They can sell you all what you want, but good luck to persuade them for airfields. (And of course it can be occupied too before you can get there enough forces)

Neutal is somebody who keeps himself out of the game, completely, Sweden wasn't just selling some minor materials, it was providing the most needed materials to germans to build tanks, aircrafts, artillery, MGs, and so on. Sweden was providing funds for germans to get started, was providing invaluable intelligence on allied movement, without any cost, and numerous other services we even don't know.

Allies was good with navy and strategic bombers. But USSR was best with tanks, infantry and artillery(at least by sheer numbers, but quality and experience of troops in 1945 was high too). And war for Europe would be land war.

Allies were very good on materials, equipment, supply of any imaginable art, but all that can't give you advantage in offensive operations. The Red Army was in war 4 long years, allied started their real war only in summer 1944, all their soldiers, all their tank crews, all their artillery units lacked a valuable thing - experience, on the opposite, Red Army's tank crews, infantry, and so on were waging a horrible war with professional enemy since 1941, that gave them advantage in experience over the allied troops.

[brokenlegdrunk]

Allies were very good on materials, equipment, supply of any imaginable art, but all that can't give you advantage in offensive operations. The Red Army was in war 4 long years, allied started their real war only in summer 1944, all their soldiers, all their tank crews, all their artillery units lacked a valuable thing - experience, on the opposite, Red Army's tank crews, infantry, and so on were waging a horrible war with professional enemy since 1941, that gave them advantage in experience over the allied troops.

So the whole war i take it the allies only fought inexperienced troops all around the globe and the allies been fighting since before 44 and im quite sure the marines navy and army and air forces of the allies would like to say the pacific was just a peace of cake and not a real war honestly people on this topic give USSR way to much credit.

[Mordoror]

Allies were very good on materials, equipment, supply of any imaginable art, but all that can't give you advantage in offensive operations. The Red Army was in war 4 long years, allied started their real war only in summer 1944, all their soldiers, all their tank crews, all their artillery units lacked a valuable thing - experience, on the opposite, Red Army's tank crews, infantry, and so on were waging a horrible war with professional enemy since 1941, that gave them advantage in experience over the allied troops.

Humm agreed with brokenlegdrunk
Allied forces were as experienced as the soviet ones
you can't bet on an experience unbalance here, both armies being vetted on air and land battle

[F16]

Allied operations in Africa against the DAK, allied war in the Pacific, all were limited operations in scale if we compare with what was going on in the european war theatres. The numbers are just incomparable. It's easy to comprehend, certainly, if you want to comprehend.

[Tank34]

So the whole war i take it the allies only fought inexperienced troops all around the globe and the allies been fighting since before 44 and im quite sure the marines navy and army and air forces of the allies would like to say the pacific was just a peace of cake and not a real war honestly people on this topic give USSR way to much credit.

East front was always main for Germans. Most of the allies fightings were very limited scale. And in 44 less than year of fightings against weakest German divisions which were formed from all what remain in German in 1944 and all what was not sent to east front. With total air supremacy. Yep, they were not so experienced as soviets(which were in total war with Germany for 4 years, almost 80% of German military casualties was on East front, so you can compare the level of experience) in that kind of war what would be between USSR and allies.

[L J]

You know, Finland provided assault positions from german troops, aided nazis during the whole siege of Leningrad and at the end quit the war while sustaining their independence and full sovereignity. So if it was possible in 1941, it also would have happen in 1945 if the allied gave guarantee of full success.



Neutal is somebody who keeps himself out of the game, completely, Sweden wasn't just selling some minor materials, it was providing the most needed materials to germans to build tanks, aircrafts, artillery, MGs, and so on. Sweden was providing funds for germans to get started, was providing invaluable intelligence on allied movement, without any cost, and numerous other services we even don't know.




Allies were very good on materials, equipment, supply of any imaginable art, but all that can't give you advantage in offensive operations. The Red Army was in war 4 long years, allied started their real war only in summer 1944, all their soldiers, all their tank crews, all their artillery units lacked a valuable thing - experience, on the opposite, Red Army's tank crews, infantry, and so on were waging a horrible war with professional enemy since 1941, that gave them advantage in experience over the allied troops.

About Sweden:it had to sell to survive ,it could not stop its exports because there was a war and before april 194O it was even exporting to the UK .You have any proof that Sweden was gicving information on allied movement ? Because that would be a breach of Sweden's neutrality . Last point :I do not want hair-splitting , but how can you say that Sweden was providing numerous other services,if you don't know ????

[brokenlegdrunk]

East front was always main for Germans. Most of the allies fightings were very limited scale. And in 44 less than year of fightings against weakest German divisions which were formed from all what remain in German in 1944 and all what was not sent to east front. With total air supremacy. Yep, they were not so experienced as soviets(which were in total war with Germany for 4 years, almost 80% of German military casualties was on East front, so you can compare the level of experience) in that kind of war what would be between USSR and allies.

How well could Russia handle a multiple front war its only experience is large numbers and high casualties head to head west was by far more versatile and experienced in many diff situations (so u cant compare the level of experience as u say to what the allies can do on many aspects) u cant judge experience buy how many died.

[eskachig]

You know, the British are great as the Navy power, but land-based warfare isn't much suited for your mentality.

That's an awfully silly thing to say, the kind of generality that conveys absolutely nothing.

[Snoshi]

East front was always main for Germans. Most of the allies fightings were very limited scale. And in 44 less than year of fightings against weakest German divisions which were formed from all what remain in German in 1944 and all what was not sent to east front. With total air supremacy. Yep, they were not so experienced as soviets(which were in total war with Germany for 4 years, almost 80% of German military casualties was on East front, so you can compare the level of experience) in that kind of war what would be between USSR and allies.

This is just wrong... Just watch what kind of divisions allies faced in Normandie.

[TheKiwi]

Gods, is this still running? Unsubscribes, closes door, shakes head sadly.

[sgt_G]

Gods, is this still running?

amzing isn't it?

[gosho4]

What about a nuclear strike on Moscow killing most of the Soviet Political Leadership?



Would an event like that cause:

a) the Soviet Forces to Freeze in place
b) mass surrender
c) have every would be leader fight for the top






With the raw materials of Asia, Europe, and mabey even Africa, would the western allies and more important, the US production capacity matter?

If the USSR pushed the allies out of the continent in to the UK what would the cost be for a D-Day 2?


and as mentioned above, What is the definition of victory? For the allies and for the soviets.