Okay,
I thought I would throw this out for discussion since it was suggested in another thread.

Say September of 1945 Patton gets his wish and the Russians throw down against the balance of the Allies.

Who wins?

Shaun

Please leave inflammatory comments at the door.

Hi Shaun,

The Russians should steamroll straight through to to Iberian peninsula. The Western allies do have the nuclear card to play, but could and would they use it?

Since most of Europe was sick of war by then, I think 'Better Red than dead' would be the way things would have gone.

What effect would preparations for war against the Soviet Union had on the war against Japan? Apologies for side-tracking the discussion just as its getting started

In a conventional fight the USSR without a doubt,

By the end of the war the British armed forces were struggling for replacements, Having sustained six years of casualties Britain was emptying of young men to fight, and many of the soldiers already commited were getting weary after the long campaigns already fought. Manpower was something the Russians had no problems with.

The US was also facing this problem to a far lesser extent.

By 1945 British and US weapons were better than Russian kit, but the numbers game was always on the Russians side.

In terms of individual quality of troops the western allies were ahead, but wouldnt have stood a lot of chance against the huge numbers the USSR would have thrown against them.

This of course only counts for the period immediately after WW2, after a decade or two the situation was somewhat different.

I would have to agree with the census that the USSR would have the manpower advantage....I don't know about steamrolling over the Allies....but they would have a numerical superiority. Now whether the Allies could hold on in Europe with their technological advantages is another story. I am assuming that the war in the Pacific would have still had the outcome as it did, ending with the Japanese surrendering, this would free up much needed troops and supplies from the Pacific theater to the European theater. But could the allies hang on long enough for the reinforcements to arrive. Worst case scenereo, the Russians push the allies back to the UK....in which we would have Battle of Britian II.....to which I don't think the Russians could put up the numbers of aircraft needed to soften up UK defences, especially since they did it themselves the first time around, however this time they would have the US's help.

The downside of that is, if the US pulled troops out of the Pacific theater....would that give Russia reason to open a second front with the US forces in the Pacific......

Oooh, this is gonna get good. I am going with the combined Allied forces. B-29 (all 4,500 of them)operating out of bases in China pave the Russian industrial infrastructure The 8th AF, 15th AF and Bomber Command pave everything the B-29s cannot get to using Gloster Meteors to fly cover. The Russians quickly run out of trucks since Lend Lease is gone and can not effectively manuver.
The Russians have no navy, so I send the Marines through the Med, into the Black Sea and take the Caucuses. Carrier tasks forces from the Pacific Theater, all 4 million troops worth, are free to kill anything that moves and support what ever amphib ops. I make, from the Baltic to Kamchatka.

Take that!!

Oh, and I get a nuke in late 1945 and 8 a year after that...

Shaun

/Game nerd

Meanwhile China is going up in flames around you as Mao and the PLA make their push for power, possibly aided by the Japanese who nobody has had the time to disarm. After all the Japanese managed to assist national liberation armies in Malaya and Indochina after the war. And would the new Labour government stand for the use of Britain as an off-shore aircraft carrier against thair erstwhile allies?

As Shaun said "this is gonna get good."

I'm not at all sure but I tend to lean toward the USSR. I just can't imagine the Allies being able to put aside up to six years of war and being able to fight alongside the Germans. I don't believe the German forces would figure too much in the fight, other than maybe getting in the way. This might be "cold war" bias but I also don't see the Soviet people revolting if Stalin decided to continue the war against the Western Allies. I do see the Americans and British possibly revolting though.

As to actual military fighting ability it comes kind of comes down to a reverse of the Quntity vs Quality debate. The other Allies had better technology, Jet aircraft, a much larger strategic bomber force, better communications, radar, proximity fuse, things like that. Soviet tanks already in place might be better, and there were certainly plenty of them, but the Pershing and the new Britith tank, Challenger, Chifetan, I can't remember which, would be every bit as good, though in no where near the numbers.

I just think it's going to come down to the numbers, and the Soviets have those in spades.

David,

I can't really see the Chinese and the Japanese fighting along side each other in 1945 for anything.

Shaun

I think a good thing to remember is that Pershings and Centurians were just coming onto the fieldin dribs and drabs. How many armored divisions full of T-34/85's and JS-2, KV-2's were out there. Russian artillery was at least equal to allied and the russian airforce gets almost no credit, but imagine Allied armor having to worry about JABOS just like the germans did. The IL-2 would have made every allied Tanker in Europe cringe!!! That plus the huge manpower advantage the russians had, well......I have to go with russia.

In 1945 the Soviets had the largest standing army. However, the question is was it the BEST army. Many of the hordes that took Berlin were no more than cannon fodder to draw German fire and sap material, allowing more "elite" units to burst through.

Now since this is a fantasy -

Imaging if you will the ME-262 being produced at North American Aviation or Boeing or Douglas Facilities BY THE HUNDREDS! So much for the IL-2...and Soviet Airpower.

Soviet Tanks and Artillery - with superior Allied airpower - a lot of targets of opportunity.

Russia had no real Navy, no subs - Free flow of material to Europe combined with America industrial might combined with German "secret" weapons.

A nuke tipped V-2.

Ability to mount a three front war: From Europe in, The Pacific and the Black Sea.

Not that it would have been easy - but it could have been done.

Something to ponder... The Russians single handedly defeated the German jugernaught in WW2. The red army destroyed over 500 German divisions in the east and an additional 100 satellite divisions (Rumanian, Hungarian, Italian, Croatian, Spanish) out of a grand total of 13.6 million killed, wounded and captured,.. 10 million of them paid the price in the Eastern front. The Red Army claimed over 48000 tanks, 167000 guns, 77000 aircraft. At the end of hostilities in Europe on May 8th 1945, Russia had over 20 army units in the Berlin area alone, this against 3 Western army groups 2nd army (Br) 9th army (US) and1st army (US). This battle would of been a further bloodbath that no nation was willing to accept, and was the main reason that senior aggressive staff like Patton, where pushed aside. Canada alone was drained of it's fighting age men. A nation of just over 11 million people, had paid it's price by sending over 1.1 million of it's men and women, and suffered over 96000 casualties.

Frank

I just want to say this, the Russians did NOT "single handedly defeat the German jegnaught." I understand where you're coming from. The Russians get far too little of the credit, at least as far as people in the other western Allies are concerned. They DID defeat a hugh portion of the German military, but they didn't do it single handedly. Lend lease was VERY important to them. I don't know how well they would have done without it, but it was very important. Also the other Allies were tying up German forces elsewhere. They could have made the difference in the Great Patriotic War.

I am not taking anything away from the Russian effort to win World War II. It was though a WORLD war, and it was the ALLIES who won it.

The Germans give their ME262 jet technology to the US to produce en masse in the US, along with Tigers, Panthers, etc? Using German technology with US manufacturing....

This will be interesting.

I'm going to go with a Western Allies victory. The key to this will be air superiority and close air support. The US Army Air Force was the best in the world at the time. Even with the Strumoviks going after Allied armor, they won't last long with Thunderbolts and Typhoons taking them out a lower levels, then turning their weapons against Soviet armor. I'm not sure that B-29s were feasable flying from England. Didn't they need paved runways? But still, the 8th, 9th, 12th & 15th Air Forces would have kept the air.

Here's a question. Would the Wehrmacht and Lufwaffe take part?

-Charlie

Rodger,

I hope you realize that I was being a bit 'tongue in cheek' with that comment. The sacrifices made by the Canadians, British, Americans, Free French, Australian, New Zelanders, Indian, Polish and other nationalities where all a major part of the war effort needed to win this struggle against evil. I stated my comment based on the overwhelming belief in western circles on how even this sacrifice was. For the record, Russia's losses dwarf all of the above nations combined, a staggering 20 million killed ( and that in certain circles is seen as too conservative) 30 million wounded and a further 25 million made refugees... and it states clearly how devoted the Russian people where in the fight vs nazi Germany.

As far as the help given to the Russians, lend -lease was helpful, mainly in the mechanization of their mech units.

1680 M3 Stuarts
1400 M3 Lees
4000 M4A2
3700 Valentines
1100 Matildas
300 Churchills
1000 M17 MGMC
2500 Universal Carriers
1200 halftracks
3340 M3A1 Scout Cars

With this said, what Russia needed most was a second front, which would have to wait until the invasion of Sicily, in 1943 (Africa at it's peak only occupied 9 German divisions).

Frank

I'd go with an eventual stalemate preceded by the western Allies taking a hammering. No way British and US forces would have stood upto a full-out assault by the tooled up vodka-fuelled Red Army. Not after trudging across Europe and having don their 'bit'. The reaction of Hodges' men at the Bulge would have been repeated on a massive scale, at least for awhile.

Citizens of the USSR barely knew about the war in the west, and considered the western Allies as some sort of alien species. They wouldn't have cared if the war went on, and even if they did, Stalin and the NKVD wouldn't have given a toss.

While lend-lease and the second front was important to Stalin, he could have defeated Germany with lend-lease alone. Just a few million more casualties (and he wasn't really counting) and a year or two longer.

In 1945, if the Red Army overran Europe, nukes couldn't have been used tactically. Strategically maybe, but it might not have made a difference unless Stalin himself got nuked.

By the time the US got set up with the machinery to manufacture Me262s and Tigers, and started to transport them to Europe, everything but Britain would have been overrun. Time to slow down and talk Cold War by then.

The first losers would be the millions of civilians already displaced by almost 6 years of total war in Europe.

Winners? Well the Soviet 'Behemoth' would certainly take some stopping, however, there are some important factors in play.

1) Logistics. Could the Soviets maintain their logistal 'train' in fromt of almost certain (Western) air-superiority? Certainly the Soviets would have the oil-fields of the Caucasas secured, one thing is having it, another thing is protecting the refineries and the means of transporting it...

2) The Nuclear 'Card'. Their is no doubt the logical use of Nukes would be against Moscow (go back to point 1 and the whole Russian rail nerwork has its nexus in the Russian capital).By fall/winter 1945 the U.S. would have around 10 nuclear weapons.

3) Even with the losses that Stalin was prepared to accept, simple mathematics would suggest that there would come a point where the losses could no longer be absorbed. I agree with Spooky that Stalin would willingly have sacrificed another million (2-3 Million?) more without hesitation, but there is a point when the entire structure would implode....

4) The China 'Card'. A continuation of the war would probably hasten the arrival of communism in China. I do believe this would be relatively unimportant for several years as central authority would take a while to establish - including the creation of viable armed forces and a forced industrialization...

A facinating thread although any rational person would break into a cold sweat just thinking about this scenario...Jim

Where I live in Essex there are plenty of WW2 USAAF airfields - including one at Rivenhall, just a couple of miles from where I'm sitting. And they are/were definitely paved. It's only now that gravel quarrying is starting to remove the runways.

And even if the Chinese and Japanese didn't fight alongside each other, China would have been too unstable for the basing of B-29s without large amounts of ground troops to protect the airfields.

Certainly. I don't think there was enough energy on either side for a prolonged war of more than 6-8 months, but the Soviets might have been across the Rhine and deep into Belgium and France before the momentum petered out or nukes became a threat.

But the US dream, or rather Roosevelt's, of a United Nations, would have made sure the US government apeased Stalin and cut a deal. War was never likely, except for maybe some hothead (like Patton ) throwing a few shots either way.

Very interesting discussion. As a citizen of ex-communists country I think I know a little more about soviet mentality. In my opinion if USRR were able to win a war against allies they surely would try. Soviet losses in the war were very high and remember that almost everything had to be transported from factories located in Ural. Germans never had a real heavy bomber so they couldn't stop russian industry but allies...
I think that first battles would be won by soviets but not whole war. Also remember that western people were tired of war but Poles, Ukrainians and other nations under soviet occupation were ready to fight for freedom. It's not very nice to have strong guerilla on your back especially if your transport lines are thousands kilometers long.
So, allies would won but after long and bloody fight even without nukes.

Piotr

Re Lend Lease:

By May of 1945 40% of the trucks in Russian service were either captured (8%) or Lend lease (32%).
I just can't seem them keeping up logistically without the imported trucks.

Shaun

Oh,

And I will update my previous post about flying the Super Forts out of China. They don't need to. They could fly out of Rome and hit just about every major target in Russia. Just to give you some idea of the range, they could fly out of Rome and bomb Iceland to the north west or Cameroon to the south and make it back to base.

A reply to a few points brought up.

First of all Frank, I can be incredibly dense sometimes when it comes to spotting humor, sarcasm, or something being "tongue in cheek" when it comes to a post online. So no, I didn't realize you were being a bit tongue in cheek with your comment. I've just heard both sides of the argument, "The Americans won the war " or "The Russians won the war" too often. It truly was a Allied victory, thank goodness.

Shaun, wouldn't the 4500 B-29s operating against Japan continue to operate against Japan? I mean there was still a "minor skirmish" going on in the Pacific. The Allies fighting there would need to continue to fight until Japan was defeated before switching over to Europe in mass. Also the Soviets did have at least something to do with the defeat of Japan. The atomic bombs were devastating, and certainly gave Japan a way to "save face" but the Soviet declaration of war, and the huge numbers of men killed or captured after that happened, also led Japan to throwing in the towel.

I also think that Russia isn't given as much credit as they deserve in regards the red air force. Granted they didn't have a strategic bomber to compare with the Western Allies, but by the end of the war they were fighting, and beating, some of the best, if not the best, pilots the Germans had left. The later Migs, Laggs, etc, were not bad fighters, possibly just as good in their own way as Mustangs, Spitfires, Typhoons, etc. I feel their ground support aircraft were just as good, if not better, as anything the RAF or USAAF could put out. I'm not at all sure how the air war would turn out in this case, but I don't think the red air force would be a push over.

Rodger,

That is why I specified September for my "what iffer."
The VJ day was August 15th and the official surrender docs were signed Sept. 2nd.

Shaun

Getting into this one a bit late.. We figured in the late 70's that the Russian juggernaut was going to overwhelm us. Our goal was to slow them and delay them to keep them east of the Rhine, by then the CONUS based forces would have arrived. I imagine the same scenario would have occured in 1945-46. Would we have chucked Nuc's, I would have bet on it. We were the only ones that had them and these wern't the big H-bombs of today. As for German help, I think they were tired of war, yes we would have picked up a division or two but most would have been happy to have survived and mainly strived to get out of the way. I think the US would have faced a similar problem as to what happened in Post WW ! with our assistance of the "White" russians, the American Public would have started hollering.

My bottom line would be...a marginal victory for the SOviets in that they would have gained most of the rest of Germany, Denmark, and Austria...perhaps even the Netherlands and Belgium. A lot more dead people and they probably would still be around today.