War between the western allies and the Sovs in '45. Who wins?

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Please explain why they wouldn't have any.

They would have had the same problem the Germans had at the battle of the bulge. They start the campaign with a full tank and may have a couple of reloads. Then they need major resupply. Where are they going to get it given that roads and railroads are going to be impassable due to American airpower.

Also, even if all US armored divisions were not equipped with the new Pershing, that would be remedied in months. Imagine George Patton with a Pershing-equipped tank army moving against masses of Soviet troops without gas?

It would soon be over.

[Fake Boris]

There must be some kind of indoctrinement in American history courses about air power. Really, that's pathetic.

The Germans simply didn't have the oil, the problem was not just about getting it to the troops. In fact they never had much trouble delivering other supplies to their spearheads, despite the so-called power of the American air force.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
There must be some kind of indoctrinement in American history courses about air power. Really, that's pathetic.

The Germans simply didn't have the oil, the problem was not just about getting it to the troops. In fact they never had much trouble delivering other supplies to their spearheads, despite the so-called power of the American air force.

Yah Vol!

But, the truth lies elsewhere, as can be expected when talking to someone educated by commies.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
There must be some kind of indoctrinement in American history courses about air power. Really, that's pathetic.

The Germans simply didn't have the oil, the problem was not just about getting it to the troops. In fact they never had much trouble delivering other supplies to their spearheads, despite the so-called power of the American air force.

They didn't have the oil because of American bombers.

[JohnT]

Boris and Kuci are right. Once Germany lost access to the oil in Romania, they had no secure access to any great fields. They did pretty good (considering) in developing synthetic fuels, but once the Allies started bombing the IG Farbin facilities, it was all over for the German oil supplies.

Also, during the battle of the bulge, a panzer unit, led by one Jochem Peiper, came within 1,000 feet of one of the allies main fuel depot in Stavelot, Belgium. Not knowing where the dump really was (he was using an old map, plus armies generally don't put supply locations on maps accessable to the enemy), he turned around. The fuel supply was about the equivalent of the German armies requirements during the first ten days of the offensive.

[Fake Boris]

Just facts, Ned. The Germans didn't have much trouble bringing what they could produce to their troops. Can you deny this?

Despite the heavy strategic bombing, the total tonnage moved by the German railway never went below 65% of its potential. That's an annoyance, but not something that can bring victory alone.

Also, have you ever thought that the Americans too faced supply problems? getting the stuff to their divisions in the mainland, with very few suitable ports, was a difficult task. It's not like they could have taken 3 million conscripts and sent them in the battle with the lift of a finger.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT
Boris and Kuci are right. Once Germany lost access to the oil in Romania, they had no secure access to any great fields. They did pretty good (considering) in developing synthetic fuels, but once the Allies started bombing the IG Farbin facilities, it was all over for the German oil supplies.

Perhaps. This is an argument I would hear. But from a map I remember seeing, there were synthetic oil factories just about everywhere, but never enough to compensate for a real supply. I doubt that all these plants were destroyed; more likely, the oil shortages were a combination of strategic bombings, railway clogging, and lack of "natural" oil.

Obviously air power was instrumental in achieving this, but the Russians had ample enough oil; certainly where the Allies couldn't completey stop the hopeless Germans producing some oil in a quantity sufficient for half-major offensives, it's beyond reasonable to claim they would have done better against a power with true oilfields and ample supply.

[Fake Boris]

Oh and BTW, Russia had 40% of its economy physically occupied (and pillaged) by the Germans, and yet it managed to keep its head above water.

If anyone think that America could have done better with a fleet of bombers, raise your hand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd argue stalemate... thought it does depend on the aims of the parties involved.

Anyway, color me not suprised that che is trotting out statements of a Communist planet resulting and how the Commies would whip the west . I wonder why people even answer his claims when it is obvious that he started with his conclusion and shaded the facts to get to where he wanted.

[JohnT]

But from a map I remember seeing, there were synthetic oil factories just about everywhere, but never enough to compensate for a real supply.

The decision to bomb the facilities was made in May, 1944. The first bombing of the facilities in Leuna was made on May 12th, causing Albert Speer to remark later "I shall never forget the date May 12. On that day the technological war was decided."

By September, the cumulative effects of the Allied bombing program dropped German synthetic fuel production from 92,000 barrels/day to 5,000/bbd by September 1944.

Source: The Prize, Daniel Yeargin, pp 348-349.

[JohnT]

Anyway, color me not suprised that che is trotting out statements of a Communist planet resulting and how the Commies would whip the west

I liked his statement of how grateful people were to the Communist resistance in France, so grateful that if the US/UK even thought of declaring war against the USSR then France would revolt.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


They would have had the same problem the Germans had at the battle of the bulge. They start the campaign with a full tank and may have a couple of reloads. Then they need major resupply. Where are they going to get it given that roads and railroads are going to be impassable due to American airpower.

Also, even if all US armored divisions were not equipped with the new Pershing, that would be remedied in months. Imagine George Patton with a Pershing-equipped tank army moving against masses of Soviet troops without gas?

It would soon be over.

I know that I just add to the others, but there is a hell of a difference between having a lot of producing sites and have almost none.

Germany had no deliverance problems, they had production problems, wich the soviets didn't have. Who cares if you loose a lot of the supplilies if they are plenty ?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned
A few of points:

1) The US and Britain had an overwhelming airpower advantage. No modern army has ever won against an oponent that had air superiority.

2) German armies would have joined the Allied side if we needed them.

3) The US was fielding modern tanks in '45, equal or better than Tigers.

4) The peoples of Eastern Europe would have supported the Allies, provided that we did not employ the Germans.

The net, Allied victory was inevitable.

The M-26 Pershing with a 90 mm gun.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Joseph
The M-26 Pershing with a 90 mm gun.

Yes, it's a nice piece, but it was not at the battlefield and therefore not relevant.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by BlackCat


One big problem - there was not very many present in Europe when it may be assumed that a war between Soviet and others would start. If they can't enter battle, it doesn't matter that they may be better.

If we the US could turn out 15,000 Sherman's a month, what do you think. We just shift production to the M-26. The Soviets had no Navy to challenge our ships carry supplies to Europe.

Also the P-80 Jet Fighter was ready, but since the war in Europe was finnish, we did not send it over to fight. The Russian did not have a jet until after the war.