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

[Lancer]

I think Serb got huffy in another thread and left Poly.

[Fake Boris]

Here is what you said.

They suffered 100,000s of casualties OF THEIR BEST TROOPS

First there is no mention of KIA... just the term "casualty", as I keep telling you, with the definition that comes with it.

Second, I do admit having read fast, and I saw "100,000 casualties", not "100,000s of. This explains my attempt to compare with the Ardennes offensive.

But this is not important anymore, because this little side meal does not affect the meat of our debate, i.e. your ridiculous assertion of 630,000 deaths. I can't be arsed to look in a book, but GePap's source is reputable and seems to give reasonable numbers, that are not so blown out of proportion as to be contestable without even looking.

As for the 1/8 KIA/other losses ration, feel free to discuss it. It's just a general feel I got out of reading books about WW2. It's not meant as an absolute, it was just a tool that I used to extrapolate and speculate (which is the object of this thread).

[Lancer]

The theory is that the final battle in Berlin cost the Sovs so dearly that they couldn't face the west. Well, I don't think they could have faced the west in any case.

The ASAF and RAF were just to strong, the Sovs would have been slaughtered from the air.

The supply situation for the Sovs is already stretched to the limit, AND they had air superiority vs the Germans.

The Sov rail, factories, and oil were within range of allied LRBs while allied factoies and oil would have been safe.

The Sovs were at the end of their manpower, the US had hardly begun to fight.

[Fake Boris]

I doubt the Soviets had the strength to drive back the Allies, but the opposite is true.

I suspect though that a swift and bold thrust to the ports could have been feasible, with the early advantage they had in men, tanks, and experience. This is the only shot the Soviets would have had.

The battle for Berlin might have costed them dearly, but they came out of it with 7 millions hardened men left and hordes of experienced tank crews.

And the argument on heavy bombers gets tireing, in fact no one yet has been able to explain why the Soviets wouldn't be able to sustain strategic bombings where they in fact resisted against the occupation and pillaging of 40% of their economy.

Any hint on what 2,000 bombers can do that 10 million German soldiers couldn't?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Lancer
The Sov rail, factories, and oil were within range of allied LRBs while allied factoies and oil would have been safe.

No major soviet factor, oilwell or other kind of prodution uint was in reach of any western LRB. Not even if they were on sucide runs (well, you have gas to get there but to return you must check the local tank stations)

[Lancer]

"Any hint on what 2,000 bombers can do that 10 million German soldiers couldn't?"

Bomb the oilfields and factories. Hit the rail deep behind Sov lines...


Also, the allied armies only had to hold the Sovs...I agree this would be tough...while the AFs bombed. Had the armies had to fall back then the Sovs would only have gotten further from their bombed out supplies.

BC, they would have been bombing from the south.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Lancer
BC, they would have been bombing from the south.

I think that you should get a map of the area - the difference between london - ural isn't that much different from cairo - ural or for that matter india - ural.

[Lancer]

Afganistan and Iran?

[Lancer]

Besides, the oil was in the south...what's the region next to the Caspian?

[JohnT]

Baku

[Lancer]

You're Belcome.

[JohnT]

Smartass.

That was the answer to your question about oil producing regions in the Caspian Sea.

Smartass.

[Lancer]

Yeah I know, thanks JohnT.

[Dr Strangelove]

Much depends upon the scenario of how the conflict would have begun:
1) Patton decides to try to take on the Soviet Army himself. Presumably this occurs shortly before or immediately after V-E day.
Most certainly Patton wouild have been removed from command and profuse apologies offered to the Soviets, but perhaps the Soviets might be unwilling to settle for apologies.
In such a case you have to take into consideration that neither side would have been prepared to commence the additional offensive. I believe that the US would have been better able to re-organize quickly, but to offset this advantage there is, as some have pointed out, the likelihood that some of the western allies would refuse to join in.
2)Stalin decides he needs ALL of Germany in order to feel secure. Presumably the Soviets would want to carefully prepare for such an offensive. By this stage of the war they had learned the usefullness of taking the time to stock up and plan before undertaking an offensive. They also would have needed to consolidate their grip on eastern europe. IMHO they would have waited several months after V-E day. Hostilities would have commenced in August at the earliest, or they might have waited until 1946 or 1947. They might even have waited until 1948 or 1949, when they had their own bomb. The likelihood of their success here largely depends upon their ability to prepare in secret. If the allies get wind of their plans they may be able to hold them back. If the SU pulls off a surprise attack in 1946 or 1947 then they'll push through Germany, but the US might use nuclear weapons against strategic targets. If war comes after the SU explodes their A-bomb then by then they're facing an alarmed west already beginning to prepare to defend itself.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Here is what you said.



First there is no mention of KIA... just the term "casualty", as I keep telling you, with the definition that comes with it.

Second, I do admit having read fast, and I saw "100,000 casualties", not "100,000s of. This explains my attempt to compare with the Ardennes offensive.

But this is not important anymore, because this little side meal does not affect the meat of our debate, i.e. your ridiculous assertion of 630,000 deaths. I can't be arsed to look in a book, but GePap's source is reputable and seems to give reasonable numbers, that are not so blown out of proportion as to be contestable without even looking.

As for the 1/8 KIA/other losses ration, feel free to discuss it. It's just a general feel I got out of reading books about WW2. It's not meant as an absolute, it was just a tool that I used to extrapolate and speculate (which is the object of this thread).

The other day, I saw somewhere that on VE day, that the Soviet had something like 45 Million men in service. We (GB, Fr, Aust, NZ, USA, etc) had something like 26 million men in service. The story did not break down into Army, Air Force, Navy, & Marine Corp.
So in manpower they had 1.73 more then we did.

However, they had no Navy to speak of. We did.

We had the P-80 (F-80), the Navy FH-1 Phantom and the British had the Meteor Mk III. The Soviet did not have a jet until 1946 with the Mig 9.

Our M4A3E8 with the 105mm gun would have done OK for a while.
The M-26 with its 90mm also would have been OK for a while. In Tanks of the World, page 434, it said a Pershing destroyed a Tiger and 2 Mk 4s in a single action.
We also had the M24 Light Tank that would be like the Bradley are now. Hit and run.