what if allies keep moving EAST??

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Angelo
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 04:11
Location: Italy

Post by Angelo » 27 Dec 2002 23:21

:lol: They would have made it back to start in 50 years or so :P

Angelo

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 28 Dec 2002 03:45

Mark V wrote:
Leo might be around here somewhere - and he doesn't understand such humor. :D
And I am around :) , and you see, I do understand when it's humor, not silliness.
If some kid wanted to experiment with 'humor', why should I interrupt? Actually, I have seen all of his 5 'points' in these forums, so maybe he just tried to sum up?
But no, such stupidity won't start a discussion, not with me. I'll just enjoy watching you supporting his 'claims'.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 28 Dec 2002 07:42

Whoah! What a thread. Hmm... I think the entire discussion is misshapen. However, I do have some views on this:

1) In no way could the USSR have won strategically in 1945 against the Western Allies. Tactically, and for a short period of time; yes. Strategically and in the long-run; no. I have many reasons for this opinion. The US and Britain had a far more advanced air-force, strategic weapon and logistics programmes. Soviet tank heavy tactics would have been of little use in a geo-strategic war of industry and economics; in which the US would have excelled. The Soviet Union was physically exhausted, after a war that destroyed many large cities and infrastructural centres, industrial locations AND took a major chunk out of the Army-fit population. The United States was untouched by the rigours of warfare.

2) I think a far more suitable scenario is a 1960-65 show-down in Europe between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. I think we can all agree that the only way in hell that NATO could stop a tank breakthrough in Europe by the Soviets would have been to employ tactical nuclear armament, thereby instigating a catastrophic nuclear war. To put it succinctly, the Red Army got better, while the United States blunted its instrument of warfare.

Regards,
Sokol

User avatar
Nagelfar
Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 06:31
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by Nagelfar » 28 Dec 2002 08:28

wotan wrote:2. USSR tanks are made of light paper
weren't the JSIII's nearly impervious to the penetration power of anything germany had near the end? america's tanks at the time made germany's look amazing

P.S. nice name, blasphemer! :P

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 22:13
Location: Norway

Post by wotan » 28 Dec 2002 18:29

Well.. the name is from a fantasy book series from earlier years..
Supposed to be the name of a special SS bataljon.. just bullshit offcourse


JSIII was a good tank.. but it came too late to prove its value. Against the 12.8 cm gun of the jagdtiger it would probably not survive..

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 29 Dec 2002 02:10

Strictly speaking, the frontal turret armour of the JS-III was 250mm thick. The Jagdtiger would have had to aim for other locations. Of course, a tank destroyer against a tank is perhaps not the best measure of performance. Besides, JS-III's were only 46 tons, very easy to build and very easy to replace. Jagdtigers (heck, ANY Tiger) was not. The King Tiger, for example, was almost half as heavy again as the JS-III. And it took much longer proportionally to build. Yet, the kill ratio would have been roughly similar, if not in favour of the JS-III.

User avatar
Nagelfar
Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 06:31
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by Nagelfar » 29 Dec 2002 03:00

wotan wrote:Well.. the name is from a fantasy book series from earlier years..
Supposed to be the name of a special SS bataljon.. just bullshit offcourse
well, okay. a name like "battalion wotan", or "wotan regiment" wouldnt have gotten my hackles up so much... only doing what any christian would do to someone coming in here named "jesus" :P :P

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 29 Dec 2002 14:31

Sokol wrote: 1) In no way could the USSR have won strategically in 1945 against the Western Allies. Tactically, and for a short period of time; yes.

No one argues that USSR could outproduce USA. I personally go for scenario where US attacks first as the thread topic suggests, meets heavy resistance and eventually gets kicked off the continent. With a million of casualties, would US public want to continue with this war? Would UK join in? Perhaps, but do remember it's been in the war for longer than USSR and they were tired of it. They were emotionally and to some extent physically exhausted too. Without UK, there is no US presence in Europe any more.
Strategically and in the long-run; no.
Acually, in a long run Soviets would benefit (assuming US strategic bombing campaigh would be as successful as against Germany). They were prepared for a total war, hell, they had just won one, they did majority of dirty work for the allies.
I have many reasons for this opinion. The US and Britain had a far more advanced ...logistics programmes.
Which would fare no better than German logistics in Russian weather and road conditions.
Soviet tank heavy tactics would have been of little use in a geo-strategic war of industry and economics;
Of little use? :? If half of your front is blown apart like say results of Bagration, industry and economics would be of little help, you simply wouldn't have enough time to close those hundred miles gaps. Economics are good, but if you lose hundred of thousands of men in a matter of weeks, industry won't help.
...AND took a major chunk out of the Army-fit population. The United States was untouched by the rigours of warfare.
Yes, but have you ever thought that Soviet army in 45 consisted of battle experienced veterans, which would perform better than any yound recruits. Also, as I said, would a regular US bloke want to fight against yesterday's ally, a powerful one, for unknown cause, in a war acros the ocean? I don't think so. Soviets on the other hand would't have such probs.

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 29 Dec 2002 16:30

Umm... I have to disagree Leo. World War II was about production and economic supremacy moreso than even experience of soldiery and quality of equipment. The Western Allies had that. They also had superior manpower. Look at the population of the US alone. But take heart in the fact that in the 60's, the Soviet Union would have crushed the Allies in Europe. Albeit at the price of a nuclear holocaust. Bleh.

Lord Styphon
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 16 May 2002 04:09
Location: Houston, Texas, USA

Post by Lord Styphon » 30 Dec 2002 04:12

See what you've done, wotan? Why couldn't you have just let sleeping threads lie?

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 30 Dec 2002 04:24

Sokol wrote:Umm... I have to disagree Leo. World War II was about production and economic supremacy moreso than even experience of soldiery and quality of equipment.
Every war is about country's economical potential, no doubts. But there is more to it than just a number of factories, mines, etc. People fight wars, humans man those tanks and planes. Morale, will to fight is also a crutial factor, don't you think?
They also had superior manpower. Look at the population of the US alone.
Will that population fight? Manpower alone also is not a factor. If it was, Chinese should rule the world, or India.
Look at Vietnam for example. With all that mimlitary might, planes and carriers, US withdrew. And it wasn't a military defeat. Same with Afganistan. And Russo-Japanese war in 1904-05.

wotan
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 22:13
Location: Norway

Post by wotan » 30 Dec 2002 11:54

Sorry Styphon.. I can now clearly see the results of my errors ;)

LoeAU,

You keep refering to the western countries like they dont have the will to fight and take casualties... Remember that in the last 200 years nobody have fought more and blooded more of the population than the western nations. Countries like france, britain and germany have all risen to the occation and marched to the wardrumms. And when it comes to the USA its a fearsome warmachine. Just because the west found smarter a smarter way with less caualties than the russians ever did doesnt make them less prepared to take losses.

For me two things would decide this in the favore of USA
1. Artillery, Russian soldiers was extreamly wary to this when attacking and the US and GBR had by far the best artillery. Its not that USSR didnt have plenty but they never knew how to use it to be moste effective.

2. Air power.. USA alone had 72 000 planes in the end of WW2. pluss the british and you have game over for USSR AF. IL-2 might be the most overrated plane ever thanks to Sovjet propaganda trying to make this little buzz bee into a indestructable plane. Battlefiels littered with il-2's clearly show that it was far from this.

No army have in modern time ever won without having control of the skies

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002 21:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by Sam H. » 30 Dec 2002 16:12

I think the atomic bomb alone would decide the war for the allies. Once America began mass-producing these weapons, Russia would be a nuclear waste land. With B-29's to carry them, they could strike the key logistic and stagging areas of the red army and destroy the factories.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 31 Dec 2002 11:13

wotan wrote: You keep refering to the western countries like they dont have the will to fight and take casualties...
Yes, I believe they didn't have the will to fight that war. They had a chance to relatively pain free destroy bolshevicks back in the 20's. No will. Well, in 38 they didn't destroy Hitler, they just let him go on with his plans. No will there. Where will it come in 45 from??
And regarding casualties. Yes, any war assumes casualties, but not every one of them assumes casualties of the level USSR and Germany suffered. USSR was ready for the total war, it won, Germany wasn't. Was US ready for a such war? I believe no. Strange enough, no one tried to prove the opposite. I was shown examples of heavy fighting - Iwo Jima etc, but who is saying they can't fight when they have to? IF they have to.
Remember that in the last 200 years nobody have fought more and blooded more of the population than the western nations.
I believe again it would be Russia. Who destroyed Napoleon? First World War, Russo-Japanese war etc.
Just because the west found smarter a smarter way with less caualties than the russians ever did doesnt make them less prepared to take losses.
The west found a 'better way'? :) Or US you mean? Come on, there was no better way, every war was fought by infantry, everything else is there just to support it.
Which smarter way are you talking about for for eg France? UK? Even US. They still had to land in continental Europe and physically capture land. Strategic bombing failed back then.
What smarter way would be there if from the first day of the war land forces would have to fight with Soviet land forces. No 3 years of strategic bombing, full on 24/7 from the first day. That was new for them - fight an equal opponent.
For me two things would decide this in the favore of USA
1. Artillery, Russian soldiers was extreamly wary to this when attacking and the US and GBR had by far the best artillery.
Actually Soviets were known for their artillery. Quality wise they weren't in any way inferior, quantity - have to check.
Its not that USSR didnt have plenty but they never knew how to use it to be moste effective.
:) I am sorry, this can't be taken seriously, I won't bother replying. How about you prove this somehow?
2. Air power.. USA alone had 72 000 planes in the end of WW2. pluss the british and you have game over for USSR AF. IL-2 might be the most overrated plane ever ...
You know (do you?) IL-2 wasn't the only type in the Soviet Air force.
:) I would say flying fortresses were the most overrated planes. I would have no probs with them if they weren't called 'fortresses'. :)
...thanks to Sovjet propaganda trying to make this little buzz bee into a indestructable plane. Battlefiels littered with il-2's clearly show that it was far from this.
Soviets didn't claim it was undestructable. A well protected, yes. Germans found that it was rather hard to shoot it down. As for the number of them lost - there is more reasons than just quality of the plane.
No army have in modern time ever won without having control of the skies
But armies did lose, having it. Vietnam, Afganistan.

User avatar
LeoAU
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 23:04
Location: Down Under, Melbourne

Post by LeoAU » 31 Dec 2002 11:20

Sam H. wrote:I think the atomic bomb alone would decide the war for the allies. Once America began mass-producing these weapons, Russia would be a nuclear waste land. With B-29's to carry them, they could strike the key logistic and stagging areas of the red army and destroy the factories.
How many nukes would US need for USSR to become a 'waste land'? And how many decades would it take to build them? And the first one was operational when? August.
And what would be the objective of that war? Capture USSR? Change regime? Or what?

Return to “What if”