what if allies keep moving EAST??

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Ron Birch
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
Location: USA

Post by Ron Birch » 31 Dec 2002 13:02

Quote:
No army have in modern time ever won without having control of the skies
... But armies did lose, having it. Vietnam, Afganistan. ....

I would have to say Vietnam would be a bad example in the context of this thread. This was also a politicians "air war". Afghanistan I'm not sure maybe someone else can comment on that.

User avatar
Angelo
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 04:11
Location: Italy

Post by Angelo » 31 Dec 2002 18:20

Ron Birch wrote:Quote:
No army have in modern time ever won without having control of the skies
... But armies did lose, having it. Vietnam, Afganistan. ....

I would have to say Vietnam would be a bad example in the context of this thread. This was also a politicians "air war". Afghanistan I'm not sure maybe someone else can comment on that.
Hi Ron,

Though I think controlling the sky is, in modern warfare, a necessary prerequisite to victory, it musy be associated to a number of other factors
to obtain it. In fact, Vietnam was truly a highly politicized war with implications that ranged from a gross shortsight by the Administration in their policies on the spot to a remarkable difficulty to reach a fair degree
of popular consensus especially within two sections of their societies: the
"egg's heads" in Washington and the youth in general. It goes by itself that
such a situation would definitely reduce the chances of exploiting not only the undeniable potential of air control, but just the whole war effort.

As to Afghanistan, things look much different. While, from a purely tactical
standpoint, the war there has been won by the US and their Allies, what is
still pending is whether they'll have the ability to change the ruins into
foundations for a more west-favorable and oriented society, which is, in my opinion, quite another matter and not an easy one either.

Regards.

Angelo

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 31 Dec 2002 19:17

Leo please explain this contradiction in your posts:
LeoAu wrote: 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.
LeoAu wrote: But armies did lose, having it. Vietnam, Afganistan.
(emphasize are mine)

Make up your mind. Did US and USSR suffer military defeats in Vietnam/Afghanistan or not?

Wotan,
Did you not see that is pointless to restart this debate? Arguments have been repeated over and over again. Better just let it be.

Ron Birch
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
Location: USA

Post by Ron Birch » 01 Jan 2003 00:01

Hello Angello,

My main point on this (when comparing it to the question of the thread) is the war would not be fought the same. During Vietnam from my understanding much of the airwar stragety was done from the White House. You can bomb this bridge, but not touch this airfield 5 miles away where MIG's flew interception from. You can bomb this road, but not Haipong harbour where supplies were coming in. It wasn't until late in the war the airforces arms were untied and the major damage was done ( for political purposes) to bring the North back to the table at Paris.
I don't believe that in this scenario you can compare them for sure. As for the Soviets in Afghanistan I don't know if they used the full force of the air wing thats why I didn't comment on that one.

But anyways, everyone have a safe and Happy News Years :D

User avatar
Angelo
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 04:11
Location: Italy

Post by Angelo » 01 Jan 2003 00:39

That's exactly what I meant to say, Ron.
Many were the reasons which hampered the way.
Thanks a lot and Super-Buon Anno from Italy to you and everyone else.

Angelo

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

Post by LeoAU » 02 Jan 2003 01:34

Victor wrote:Leo please explain this contradiction in your posts:
LeoAu wrote: 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.
LeoAu wrote: But armies did lose, having it. Vietnam, Afganistan.
(emphasize are mine)

Make up your mind. Did US and USSR suffer military defeats in Vietnam/Afghanistan or not?
Victor, there is no contradiction, although it seems like one. :)
There was no military defeat of say Soviet troops in Afganistan. It was a political decision to withdraw. Soviet weren't surrounded, or beaten up badly etc, ie no sign of military fiasco. Soviets did enjoy total air superiority. Which though didn't help in delivering final blow to the opposition. Soviets simply didn't want to keep on losing those 2-3 soldiers a day, that's all.
In our scenario I mean that US wouldn't want to suffer those losses (on a large higher scale of course). The ones they didn't want to lose in Vietnam, having air superiority.
I am sure army didn't mind lossing the soldiers, politicians did.

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 02 Jan 2003 02:35

U.S went to Vietnam which is thousands of miles away, with one hand tied in the back, not full throttle like it did in previous wars or as for example the Gulf War. While SU was fighting a war against a country which it had land borders and it did go with a major force unlike the U.S who gradually increased its military presence in Vietnam throughout the years. In both cases, even though 99% of battles in Vietnam and Afghanistan were won by both US and SU, they lost the war, and in both cases the fight was seen as fruitless and that's why the pulled back.

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

Post by wotan » 02 Jan 2003 09:32

LoeAU, if US wasnt prepared to loose a million GI's in 45 how come that they was prepared to loose 100 million ppl in 1962 ?

And if USSR was so prepared to take losses after WW2 , how come that they withdrew from afghanistan when only loosing 2-3 a day ?

One thing LeoAU, how many soldiers did actually USSR loose in afghanistan? I have the figure 30 000 in my head, is this correct?

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 02 Jan 2003 13:15

According to Russian sources, there were 45,000 casualties in a period of 10 years from '79 until '89, in Afghanistan. While U.S had 58,000 causualties from '59 until '72 in Vietnam.

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

Post by LeoAU » 02 Jan 2003 13:27

Korbius wrote:According to Russian sources, there were 45,000 casualties in a period of 10 years from '79 until '89, in Afghanistan. While U.S had 58,000 causualties from '59 until '72 in Vietnam.
Wotan, your thirty thousand figure - out of your head is actually thirteen. Acccording to Soviet sources, 13thousand+ were KIA and MIA, something up to 14. US lost yes, 58K+ - KIA + MIA.

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

Post by LeoAU » 02 Jan 2003 13:39

wotan wrote:LoeAU, if US wasnt prepared to loose a million GI's in 45 how come that they was prepared to loose 100 million ppl in 1962 ?
Wotan, first of all, I am Leo, not 'Loe'.
Which 100mln you are talking about? Caribbean crisis you mean? Totally different cituation. Soviets were directly threatening US, unlike 45. Public wasn't needed to be explained what those losses would be for, again, unlike 45, where noone would understand why US has to attack an ally.
Also, US didn't and couldn't spare another 58K in Vietnam, did it? :wink: So, ask yourself why.
And if USSR was so prepared to take losses after WW2 , how come that they withdrew from afghanistan when only loosing 2-3 a day ?
First of all - damn perestroyka! Secondly, there was no Stalin, it was totally different country. And finally, losses for what?? For nothing, really. At least it took them faster to realise that.

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 23:53
Location: DC

Post by Korbius » 02 Jan 2003 18:08

Even if there was Stalin, there situation in Afghanistan wouldn't have changed, and it would probably be under control for a couple of years but still it wouldn't be possible to hold on to it for a permanent time. And it's kinda embarrasing that USSR being so powerful, bombed a country to stone age and then wasn't able to control it, even though its distance was 0 kms away from USSR. 8) Also the total number of casualties was 45,000 with around 14,000+ being KIA or MIA.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 02 Jan 2003 18:25

I hold to the assertions I made in this thread 4 months ago around page 8.....


That Allied Technical air superiority over Europe

Naval supremacy which allows bombers to fly from carriers in Baltic and Black Sea

A Soviet Union with twenty million war dead, and army in awe of German living standards compared to the socialist dream

A liberated and largly undamaged French manpower pool

A possible German Army of 100,000 men according to the actual Allied plan against the Soviet union

A massive Famine accross Soviet Transcaucasia

Allied Atomic research superiority

An eastern European populace disgusted with the Soviet Union and A Polish army on the allied side and Soviet side that wanted a Free poland


All this seems to mean that within then first few months although the allied would achieve a rapid suprise victory they would push the soviets back and give the massivly superior Allied industry and technological advantages deriving from better aircraft and a willing german scientific community would lead inevitably to an Allied victory.

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

Post by wotan » 03 Jan 2003 12:46

First of all - damn perestroyka! Secondly, there was no Stalin, it was totally different country
But the US and GBR is the same as back then? I belive u underestimate the will to fight. Both those nations have had no problems in fighting out "needless" wars in countries far away previous and after WW2.

And u claim that it would be difficult to explain to the GI's that u should fight against ur former allies, but it would work like a dream with the russian soldiers? Why do you belive so? Because the russians where more brainwashed? Didnt think for them self?

US goverment handed eastern europe to USSR in a way that had upset most of the european countries. War was probably much closer than we would like to think.

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

Post by Sokol » 03 Jan 2003 13:37

Folks, folks - settle down. So the Soviet Union couldn't conquer all civilization in 1945... Big deal. We all (hopefully) know how badly mauled NATO armies would have been in 1975 by a Soviet massed tank assault. The only way Soviet armies could have been stopped would have been to lob a few tactical nuclear weapons at their heads. And that would have meant nuclear holocaust. Heh, even today, former-Soviet designers are better than their Western counter-parts in armoured vehicle development. The T-90 is the best MBT on the planet (better even than the vaunted Abrams). AND it weighs twenty tons less (this scenario reminds me of the KT vs JS-III).

Regards,
Sokol

Return to “What if”