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

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by JohnT
Che, any time you're destroying your capital equipment you're playing a losing game.

The logic, if there was any, was that Jap fighters were getting shot down in droves so the Japanese High Command decided that it was better to crash the planes into ships. They thought taking out a ship was a good swap for a plane or even a few planes for a capital ship like a carrier.

My Uncle was on the battleship HMAS Australia which was hit by several kamikaze in Leyte Gulf. For most of his life he had a pronounced stutter which was a side effect of the terror of the Kamikaze attacks. He survived, as did the ship. He died last year, father of 6.

The Kamikaze were not entirely voluntary. They were escorted to their target by other fighters to make sure they carried out their mission and usually flew obsolete types until specialised aircraft were developed toward the end of the war.

[Ned]

There are repeated statements that Soviet armor was better than US armor in 1945. That simply is not true. The US had the M26 Pershing at the end of the war. This tank took on the Tiger in and even up match, and was very effective against Soviet tanks in Korea.

http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/extra/tanks/m26.html

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
There are repeated statements that Soviet armor was better than US armor in 1945. That simply is not true. The US had the M26 Pershing at the end of the war. This tank took on the Tiger in and even up match, and was very effective against Soviet tanks in Korea.

http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.c...tanks/m26.html

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.

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Industrial power etc isn't the crucial point if there had been incidents starting a war between Soviet and the rest of the allies. At least not the first. The real question is if the English/Americn/French forces would be able to prevent the soviet forces thowing them into tha atlantic. If that doesn't succed, then there are no serious chance of another D-day.

I'm assuming we're taking off with the Soviets and the Allies where they were at the end of the war. There is no way the Soviets would push the Allies back into the Atlantic IMHO...

i) We're not talking about crossing Switzerland here... Driving back the Allies would take months (if possible at all) -> plenty of time to ship in reinforcements (see iii and iv below)

ii) The air superiority of the Allies

iii) The US/Britain already had supply lines fully operational. The Russians would have to stretch theirs and come increasingly under air attacks

iv) Yes, industrial capacity matters. With logistics in order, outproduce your opponent and sheer numbers will do the rest (both sides obviously had experienced soldiers and officers, giving quantity a pivotal role)

Carolus

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The Red Army was exhuasted and bleeding dry by wars end. It had been shriking steadily since spring of 1944. The USA was only partly mobilized, with much mapower left at home that had been supplying the Soviets. The svoiets would have been sweep from the air, and from the Baltic sea in short order, and would have have a very difficult time maintaining LOC to their front.

I am sure Hitler thought the same thing as he marched to his defeat in june 1941...

The main thing is that we would need a gigantic logistics line to get to Moscow.
Defeating Russia is something no one has managed in modern times.

Commies or not, the Ivans are hard to crack.

.

[Lancer]

I think the only way to resolve this with any certainty is if someone makes a Civ III scn.

[curtsibling]

Or a CIV4 one, even better!

[Ned]

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.

Well, the Soviets couldn't use theirs either because they would have had no gas.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


I'm assuming we're taking off with the Soviets and the Allies where they were at the end of the war. There is no way the Soviets would push the Allies back into the Atlantic IMHO...

i) We're not talking about crossing Switzerland here... Driving back the Allies would take months (if possible at all) -> plenty of time to ship in reinforcements (see iii) and iv)

ii) The air superiority of the Allies

iii) The US/Britain already had supply lines fully operational. The Russians would have to stretch theirs and come increasingly under air attacks

iv) Yes, industrial capacity matters. With logistics in order, outproduce your opponent and sheer numbers will do the rest (both sides obviously had experienced soldiers and officers)

Carolus

Yes, I too assume the defeat of germany borders.

i) That is certainly one of the tricky questions. I guess that both sides has their main troop/armour concentrated at a common line, so if there is a major soviet attack, the question is how well they can defend it, how many forces can be drawn back to defensive positions and how many reserves are present in the backyard.

ii) that point I think will be very important - unfortunately, the soviet airforce is stronger than the newly beaten german.

iii) I don't see much difference in the length of the supply lines - actually, the soviets would have an advantage because they wouldn't have to use ships.

Iv) industrial capacity only matters if you are able to deliver. That is why I think the outcome seriously depend upon the ability to keep a foothold in europe.

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


I'm assuming we're taking off with the Soviets and the Allies where they were at the end of the war. There is no way the Soviets would push the Allies back into the Atlantic IMHO...

i) We're not talking about crossing Switzerland here... Driving back the Allies would take months (if possible at all) -> plenty of time to ship in reinforcements (see iii) and iv)

ii) The air superiority of the Allies

iii) The US/Britain already had supply lines fully operational. The Russians would have to stretch theirs and come increasingly under air attacks

iv) Yes, industrial capacity matters. With logistics in order, outproduce your opponent and sheer numbers will do the rest (both sides obviously had experienced soldiers and officers)

Carolus

Yes, I too assume the defeat of germany borders.

i) That is certainly one of the tricky questions. I guess that both sides has their main troop/armour concentrated at a common line, so if there is a major soviet attack, the question is how well they can defend it, how many forces can be drawn back to defensive positions and how many reserves are present in the backyard.

ii) that point I think will be very important - unfortunately, the soviet airforce is stronger than the newly beaten german.

iii) I don't see much difference in the length of the supply lines - actually, the soviets would have an advantage because they wouldn't have to use ships.

Iv) industrial capacity only matters if you are able to deliver. That is why I think the outcome seriously depend upon the ability to keep a foothold in europe.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, the Soviets couldn't use theirs either because they would have had no gas.

Please explain why they wouldn't have any.

[Carolus Rex]

Ok, ok. Point taken. Point taken.

My point is that logistics (supply lines) are in order for the Allies. True, they would have to use ships, but there would be no danger at sea (the wolfpacks are long gone and the Soviets have nothing similar)...

The Russians, on the other hand, would be under constant attack from the skies... Not sure their supply lines would run as smoothly as the Allies' (even considering they have to cross the Atlantic)...

Carolus

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Lancer

I think the only way to resolve this with any certainty is if someone makes a Civ III scn.

Well, then it would boil down to who plays which side... If La Fayette played the Soviets (and the scenario is Civ 2) I would have to side with those who claim that Stalin would win...

If we stick to your original question, it's crystal clear (to me) that the Allies would win...

Carolus

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Ok, ok. Point taken. Point taken.

My point is that logistics (supply lines) are in order for the Allies. True, they would have to use ships, but there would be no danger at sea (the wolfpacks are long gone and the Soviets have nothing similar)...

The Russians, on the other hand, would be under constant attack from the skies... Not sure their supply lines would run as smoothly as the Allies' (even considering they have to cross the Atlantic)...

Carolus

Don't know why my post was doubled.

Actually, the soviet supply lines would only be under attack at the last stretch. I don't think that US/Britain could or would move thier long distance bombers closer to the front.

You still seem to forget that soviet airforces are stronger than the german so there will not be the air superiority they was used to.

[JohnT]

The Kamikaze were not entirely voluntary. They were escorted to their target by other fighters to make sure they carried out their mission and usually flew obsolete types until specialised aircraft were developed toward the end of the war.

This isn't my field so I bow to your knowledge, but I've read in a number of sources that the escorts weren't necessary as the Japanese gave the Kamikazes just enough fuel to make it to their targets.

My condolences on what happened to your uncle, AH.

[Lancer]

http://de.academyhobby.com/afvidfhtm/1373.htm

AH, here's the only Sherman I've found over 76 mm. They were used by the IDF. Hope you can read German.