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

[Sikander]

Well I too doubt that the Pershing was a match for either the Tiger or the Panther in even numbers. Late in the war when they were used the Germans were often using one or two tanks and some infantry in kampfgruppes rather than fielding companies and platoons as integrated units. But at least the Pershing gave our tankers a decent chance in action against other modern medium and heavy tanks. It had some advantages vs the T-34 / 85 which was the predominant Soviet type at the time, though it would have been at a disadvantage against the JS types as well as many of the SUs. The Pershing was good enough to keep us in the battle so that many of our other advantages could be brought to bear.

People seem to discount the capability of our air forces could have upon the battlefield which I find strange. While we would not have the sort of supremacy against the Red Air Force initially that we did against the Luftwaffe at the end of the war, we nonetheless would have gotten air superiority and would have been able to leverage that to give significant aid to our ground forces. Our strength lay largely in our great numbers of long range fighter aircraft, which are a great asset in both air superiority missions and in interdiction. They can for instance be based far enough back from the line that enemy shorter ranged fighters cannot hit them while they can still offer useful service. They can be concentrated from a much larger area which means that they can gain a numerical advantage against the enemy in any particular area of the front. They can operate a great distances behind enemy lines and force the enemy to take countermeasures against them over a much wider area, and they can also defend themselves adequately against enemy fighters when compared to the tactical bombers that the Soviets were more reliant on.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If you are counting by number of divisions, yes. However the ones the Allies were facing were pulled out of the Eastern Front on R&R and rebuilding, and some second line types.

The quality of the units facing the Western Allies in June 1944 was better than the quality of the units on the Russian front on average. Though the quantity of units was much smaller, the front was much smaller as well and the Allies had to start things off with an amphibious invasion and no supply source but the beaches. There is no doubt that the Russians continued to face the lion's share of the Wehrmacht's combat power though. I just want to point out that attacking high quality units along a narrow front from a beachhead isn't exactly a piece of cake.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Joseph
It was, just not in great numbers.

About 20 of them saw sum action and they did not lose when they did see action.

We had around 60 of them for Feb, March, April, and May 1945

It is hard to tell how well an untested tank would do in combat.
We do know that it terms of losses, it took an average of 4-5 Shermans per Panzer.
Indeed, the M26 and JS3 would make an interesting battle.

But!
What makes you think the Allies would survive a Russian
winter any better than the Germans? Did we have some
kind of thermal power from being the 'good guys?'

In short:
I reckon the Allies would be triumphant in the long run,
even without an atom bomb, but it would be a long
road into hell getting there. No easy victory.



.

[Patroklos]

What makes you think we would have to survive a Russian winter?

And an interesting statisitic, try to find what the Soviet to German tank loss ratio was during the war. Makes the allies look like armor aces.

This is just for Kursk, which was considered Russia's greatest tank victory!

Rotmistrov's 5th Guards Tank Army reported that it had lost 222 T-34, 89 T-70, 12 Churchill and 11 assault guns up to 16 July. These were total write-offs. This gives a total of 334 destroyed Soviet tanks and assault guns, which can be compared to, at most, 54 German tanks and assault guns destroyed. This means the Soviet tank losses were at least six times higher. In fact, since more German units are included in this calculation than actually took part in the Prokhorovka battle, while not all Soviet units are included, the real ratio was even higher.

link

As far as supplies, it is ridiculous to assert that the Germans had "no" problems getting supplies to their troops. From Hutgen on everything was in short supply to the troops. And if you discount the effect on air power on the supply lines, lets not forget the effect of air power on the combat units themselves!

And lets not forget the losses the Russians took during the the Vistula and Oder Offensives. The Russians were going for end game. They suffered 100,000s of casualties OF THEIR BEST TROOPS. On the other hand, the Allies had been slowely moving through their half of Germany hardly fighting, resting reequiping and resupplying.

The Russian Army was indeed larger than the Allied forces, but it had definetly reached and fallen from its pinnicle from that point on. I was not capable of replacing on its own what it would lose, most importatly in people.

And there was still one million Germans under arms at the end of the war. they were not disarmed untill weeks after the surrender. We gave no time frame for the start of hostilites, it could be the day after VE day.

[curtsibling]

What makes you think we would have to survive a Russian winter?

So being frozen to death is desirable?

Or do you think all the Allied transports were hover-powered
and could go where German transport had failed to go?

I do not share your optimism that we could get to the gates of Moscow in one month.
Just how could our logistics vehicles magically transform to use the particular
Russian gauge of rail-tracks, blown bridges and seasonal muddy roads?

I fear some people here have been raised on the
Hollywood 'Pearl Harbor' flavour of WW2 history!

Real life isn't a Ridley Scott movie.


.

[Patroklos]

What makes you think we would advance to Moscow, or even that such a thing would be nessecary?

Actaully, I can't think of any Cold War scenario, nuke or not, that requires such a reckless and unnessecary action.

If this is your opinon, that indeed someone is inundated with Hollywood BS.

All that would be nessecary is the general slaughter of the Russian Armies at the front. As has been explained, these are not replaceable. And the WORST thing the Russians could possibly do would be to disengage and head for the motherland. If you thought our airforces would wreak havoc on them before, the devestation would be unimaginable then. Remember the German retreat across France in 44?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Soviets would have required an extra long rest period to subjugate eastern germany.

How long was the Red Army's rest period at the gates of Warsaw? Three or four months?

I wonder, Stalin waited 3 years befor precipitating the Berlin crisis. Perhaps that was how long it took to rebuild his Army and his infrastructure sufficiently enough provide a decent chance of winning the conflict he hoped to goad the western allies into starting.

Stalin lacked flair. He was affraid like hell of Germany.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Patroklos
They suffered 100,000s of casualties OF THEIR BEST TROOPS.

BS, the Americans suffered similar casualties in the battle of the Bulge.

[Lancer]

Rather than get our tootsies cold heading for the 'gates of Moscow', why don't we just warm the place up with incendiaries till it's good and toasty then drop some HE to get some nice warm breezes going?

Can you say f i r e s t o r m ?

No real reason to go very far into Russia. Maybe just free the Ukraine and start bombing from there. Also bomb from the south, taking out their oil fields.

However, the Russians wouldn't let it get so far. Stalin would come to some sort of agreement. Not unconditional surrender but some sort of peace treaty.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lancer
Rather than get our tootsies cold heading for the 'gates of Moscow', why don't we just warm the place up with incendiaries till it's good and toasty then drop some HE to get some nice warm breezes going?

Can you say f i r e s t o r m ?

No real reason to go very far into Russia. Maybe just free the Ukraine and start bombing from there. Also bomb from the south, taking out their oil fields.

However, the Russians wouldn't let it get so far. Stalin would come to some sort of agreement. Not unconditional surrender but some sort of peace treaty.

I don't necessarily disagree, so long a Stalin was allowed to keep most, if not all, of former USSR territory.

But, in an age of "unconditional surrender" we may not have agreed.

[Az]

Yeah, in fact, y'all did Russia a big favour by letting it live.

[Ned]

Az, Russia and Communism are not the same. Ditto Germany and Nazism.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by curtsibling


So being frozen to death is desirable?

Or do you think all the Allied transports were hover-powered
and could go where German transport had failed to go?

I do not share your optimism that we could get to the gates of Moscow in one month.
Just how could our logistics vehicles magically transform to use the particular
Russian gauge of rail-tracks, blown bridges and seasonal muddy roads?

I fear some people here have been raised on the
Hollywood 'Pearl Harbor' flavour of WW2 history!

Real life isn't a Ridley Scott movie.


.

I think American companies built some/most of the Russian Railroads.

[Az]

Az, Russia and Communism are not the same. Ditto Germany and Nazism.

I presume by "communism" you refer to Stalin's regime:

They were the same in 45'.

If you think that this would be a piece of cake, or easy, or anything besides mind-bogglingly gargatuan effort by the allies, y'all are ****ing deluded. Especially if the war is started by the west.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Az

Az, Russia and Communism are not the same. Ditto Germany and Nazism.

I presume by "communism" you refer to Stalin's regime:

They were the same in 45'.

If you think that this would be a piece of cake, or easy, or anything besides mind-bogglingly gargatuan effort by the allies, y'all are ****ing deluded. Especially if the war is started by the west.

War started by the West? Well perhaps. We could do it the same way the Brits did -- give Stalin an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland or else. In your view, Az, who would start the war if Stalin chose not to withdraw?