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

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The Western allies were only facting at most 1/10 of Nazi Germany's military might, the rest was on the Eastern Front.

Which is why they outnumbered the Krauts by 10 and 20 to 1 or more in AFV's And I think the accepted figure is 25% of Axis forces were in the West, particularly after D Day.

The Western allies also achieved full motorisation of their forces, something neither the Germans nor the Russians ever achieved, or even got close to. Allied airpower would have made an awful mess of the Red Army's horse and rail based transport.

The general state of the roads is another interesting point - the Western allies would have been using paved roads and other well developed and "thick" transport arteries whilst the Sovs would have been using unsealed dirt roads and narrow supply corridors, vulnerable to interdiction.

And just to cap off a bad year, there would have been famine in Russia if Western food supplies had been cut off in 1945.

[DanS]

This is a ridiculous argument. The US had mad tonnage by the end of the war. Apply until Russkii defeat.

[MrFun]

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

Originally posted by Lancer
The west has control of the sea Patton, and industrial might.

Folks, this is why commas are useful. There is no such thing as the Patton Sea . . . . .


now there most certainly was an American general by the name of Patton.

[Lancer]

I screwed up MrFun.

I'm really sorry.

[MrFun]

I will allow this horrid butchering of grammar to slip by this one time . . . . . .

[Ted Striker]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


1. How do they reach the Urals?

The B-29 had a range of 3250 miles with a full bomb load.

[Sikander]

Probably a stalemate. The Soviets have grave logistical problems getting supplies and men to central Europe in the teeth of Anglo-American interdiction efforts, and time is most certainly not on their side with their massive production deficit and already severely depleted manpower. While they have superior armor and much more combat experience than their adversaries, they would have to attack not only into the teeth of allied tactical air, but much more significantly on the tactical level into masses of world class allied artillery. Beside this, the Anglo-American allies are very stubborn defenders.

On the flip side the Allies aren't a lock in taking the attack to the enemy. For starters they aren't nearly as imaginative or effective in the attack as they are on the defensive, while the Soviets are very good on the defensive. The large deficit in quality and numbers of armored vehicles between the Soviets and the Western Allies is a much larger factor if the Allies are forced to send their tanks into the open to find the Soviet tank and anti-tank forces the hard way. There won't be any chance to use terrain or fortifications to support the generally inadequate armor of the majority of allied tanks, while local firepower superiority won't guarantee a victory as undergunned allied tanks will achieve few kills on Soviet heavy tanks dug in hull down. Assuming that the Soviets learn to move their tanks once they have been exposed (probably after smoking a sherman or two), allies indirect artillery will have a hard time making up the difference.

Logistically the war would be a nightmare for the allies, despite the fact that they would have an infinitely easier time getting supplies to central and Eastern Europe via the Baltic. The reason for this is that there would be many millions of starving civilians to care for, and more for every mile the Allies advance. As it was people starved in Europe and Japan at the end of the war. Allied strength would be also diluted as they occupied all of the territory on their way east. Sure, the relative popularity of the allied political program would make this necessity less of a burden, but the sheer mass of territory would add up.

I think the strategic air war would have a minimal impact, as I don't think the Soviets could last long enough for the allied strategic forces to do enough damage, nor do I think that the Anglo-Allies would have the political will to fight another several year war in order to achieve a significant victory.

Oh, and the Japanese would still lose, badly.

[Dinner]

The guys with the nuclear bomb win.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, I guess not. He was talking about an ultimatim to deman the USSR leave Eastern Europe though, which implies an U.S. attack.

Wasn't that in reply to the posts above it?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
Oh, and the Japanese would still lose, badly.

With thirteen divisions in Kyushu (our invasion force only had 12 divisions) and 5,000 combat aircraft, they weren't going to be a pushover.

[Whoha]

It was around 12k aircraft I think, all slated for kamakaze missions though. No, if the war had lasted into 1946 millions of Japanese would have starved. it was over.

[Odin]

The Allies would win, and Moscow would be radioactive glass.

Pwning Russia: priceless

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Led by Communists! They gonna attack their allies?

the '44 warsaw uprising was led by the Polish Home Army.

[lord of the mark]

i will go with the stalemate side. US airpower just about offsetting Soviet ground forces. War exhaustion on both sides.