GHQ Models Forums

Has anyone tried a scenario based on this? I am very curious as to how the Western Allies would have fared conventionally against the Red Army. Would they have had air superiority? What would have been their chief advantages and disadvantages? Putting aside the US ability to deploy atom bombs, how would this match up have turned out?

A lot of years ago a freind used to liked this scenario and it was different then WWII games. Pershings vs Stalins, Shermans vs T-34s. The problem was the rules, did not I think, allowe the Shermans the ability very well in taking on T-34s, which they did in Korea (probably M4A3E8s?).

As I think about it I we used the data in the Panzerblitz PanzerLeader games to resolve combat. Problem was combining two sets of rules into one. Things did get interesting howeverwhen it was determined a hit from a Pershing bounced off of a SU152! Had to fire smoke on that!

He liked Stalins, KVs and the BIG SUs, thought they were ** CENSORED **.

Do other folks play battles for wars that never occured? Trouble w/WWII is like an old movie, it may be a favorite, but you know who wins.

"What if"-scenarios is way cool. To connect with recent poster, what if USSR continued their want for land and were not satisfied with half of Germany? What if they started an operation to seize the entire continent? Interesting... Hot War instead of Cold War?

Another "What If" scenario that is related - and a little more far fetched - is a German war of reunification. West Germans attack across the border, East Germans are either Pro-West, Neutral, Pro-Soviet (random secret die roll per commander). Soviets are defending or counter attacking as the situation permits. US (or other NATO partner) is caught flat-footed and must pass a "rally roll" to get engaged otherwise they remain in a defensive posture.

Played in a scenario like this as one of my first games back in '86 or '87 and it was a hoot! West Germans didin't really have enough units to achieve their objectives without help. The US dithered for the first three or four turns before getting in the game. By that time all they were able to do was blunt a Soviet counter attack on the West German flank. The real fun was the East Germans, nobody knew which side their "buddy" was on until they open fire. Sometimes it was at NATO, sometimes it was the Soviets and sometimes it was at each other.

Paul

The evidence might be anecdotal... but I would guess that at US/UK/France vs USSR in 1945 could have been possible:

And I know I won't have my quotes exactly right, since I'm working from memory -- and who knows how accurate that may be!

(1) In the movie "Patton", with the actor George C. Scott playing the role of General Patton -- near the end of the movie, after V-E Day... Patton was speaking with someone about the Russians and said something along the line of "Give me three weeks and we'll be at war with the Russians and I'll make it look like they started it!" Okay, I know you cannot take things from a movie and expect them to be 100% factual. But given what little I do know... I wouldn't be at all surprised if a conversation along those lines did happen.

(2) Recently, I saw a documentary on The Military Channel -- I missed the first part of it, so I don't know how it got to where it was, nor do I remember the title of the show -- but the documentary focused on Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. It had some video of them, some other video from the time, intermixed with still pictures, with actors doing voice-overs with reasonably good impressions of Churchill's and Roosevelt's voices. I don't recall the exact time frame portrayed, but it was sometime in late 1942 or early 1943. Appearantly, there was a "top secret, closed door" meeting of the top layers of the British government and/or miilitary... and Churchill supposedly said something along the line of "We must not beat Germany too badly, for we may need the Germans to help us fight the Soviets." The documentary went on to report that Churchill's statement was very poorly received, since (at that time) the enemy was the Axis -- not the Russians. But it appears that the thoughts were there...

My two cents worth -- thrown out here for discussion!

Regards,
Tom Stockton

I have read in a few places that the Germans did offer the western allies to keep fighting the Russians. And the US where the only ones to have the A-Bomb.

But, then, the English and Canadians where bled white at this time and had trouble finding replacement for their looses.

France colud have help much if giving more time to train her soldiers and equip them. Their army was growing at the end of the war.

But I dont feel that the public opinions of the western allies will have been very happy with the new war.

But it sure makes for interesting scenarios.

Interesting topic.

If a war had occured in the 45-46 time frame, the Allies would have had air superiority.
Why? a) allied pilots were better (Germans said so, & also we had a 3:1 Mig/Sabre kill ratio vs. Soviet ace pilots in Korea), we were far ahead in jet technology, and the Mig-9 would have been meat for the P-80. Plus we had the Nazi jet engineers. Plus, if we went to war with the USSR, the Mig-15 couldn't have been developed.

Tankwise, the JSIII had big time problems & likely wouldn't have been deployed for a few more years. The Persing also had problems, but not as severe, & the M46 fixed all that anyway. HVAP is fast becoming more plentiful, which is why Easy Eights beat up T-34's in Korea. I suspect the Pershing with HVAP could have penetrated the JS2. Plus the British now have the Centurion Mk.3 with 17, then 20 pounder firing APDS which definitely would have chewed up JS2's.

Personally, I think the Reds would have been crushed. Their manpower was near spent & they were exhausted. The allies were more fresh. The lineup would have been like 1942 again, with the Russians unable to take the initiative.

http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

The exact timing has to be a consideration. If the war broke out prior to VJ day, the main question would likely be how much ground could the Soviet Army steamroll before one of their cities was atomized. And which city? I'm not sure how far into Russia B-17s and B-24s could reach from Western Germany or France. Likely B-29s would have to be diverted from the Pacific. Even then, the Russian airforce would have been a far more formidable opponent than the Japanese airforce at this time. So there would have been no sending of a solitary B-29 to Kiev. In fact, I half wonder if we would not have used a bomb in a shorter ranged interdiction type role, perhaps blasting some large concentration of Russian troops and materiel.

After VJ day, the U.S. would have used both of its nukes, and I imagine the war in Western Europe would have been really nasty. However, the U.S. forces in the Pacific, now freed up by the surrender of Japan, and allied with China and the Koreas probably could have invaded the Russian Pacific coast with little opposition. Under these crircumstances, I imagine it is here where the conflict would have been decided.

I always looked at it as a "what if" also since it never happen....however we <being> have had some close calls over the years since the end of WW2

the easy way to start it was I believe the Berlin Airlift.....the Soviets Blocks Berlin we drop supplies the Soviets shoot down are Supply drops we move with a ground force......the Soviets counter move......war starts.

Doing this Berlin airlift there was on several occassions our forces in West Germany was on combat status not only being the cold war but this situation at hand......for the "just in case' or "what if" situation if it was to balloon up into a full scale war.

Ar

In my opinion, the French would not have fought the Soviets, they only wanted to liberate France and get even with the Germans - I don't see them having any stomach for a fight with the Soviets. The British were spent, and I believe war with the Soviets would have meant catastrophe for the British coallition government, possibly leading to nationwide strikes and demonstrations, severly hampering the British contribution. The US public opinion could have been swayed as our casualties and sacrifices were small compared to the other powers. So I believe a US led fight against the Soviets with wavering assistance from the British.

Depending on how the US packages the whole thing, would decide if we could reform and re-equip a limited German Army (no airforce or Waffen-SS) to assist with the whole endeavor - especially since the Germans would have been able to rally for pushing the Soviets out of Germany - maybe not beyond, but definitely out of Germany.

That would have been very interesting to see US and German forces fighting side-by-side against the Soviets in 45/46.

In my opinion, the French would not have fought the Soviets, they only wanted to liberate France and get even with the Germans - I don't see them having any stomach for a fight with the Soviets. The British were spent, and I believe war with the Soviets would have meant catastrophe for the British coallition government, possibly leading to nationwide strikes and demonstrations, severly hampering the British contribution. The US public opinion could have been swayed as our casualties and sacrifices were small compared to the other powers. So I believe a US led fight against the Soviets with wavering assistance from the British.

Depending on how the US packages the whole thing, would decide if we could reform and re-equip a limited German Army (no airforce or Waffen-SS) to assist with the whole endeavor - especially since the Germans would have been able to rally for pushing the Soviets out of Germany - maybe not beyond, but definitely out of Germany.

That would have been very interesting to see US and German forces fighting side-by-side against the Soviets in 45/46.

In my opinion, the French would not have fought the Soviets, they only wanted to liberate France and get even with the Germans - I don't see them having any stomach for a fight with the Soviets. The British were spent, and I believe war with the Soviets would have meant catastrophe for the British coallition government, possibly leading to nationwide strikes and demonstrations, severly hampering the British contribution. The US public opinion could have been swayed as our casualties and sacrifices were small compared to the other powers. So I believe a US led fight against the Soviets with wavering assistance from the British.

Depending on how the US packages the whole thing, would decide if we could reform and re-equip a limited German Army (no airforce or Waffen-SS) to assist with the whole endeavor - especially since the Germans would have been able to rally for pushing the Soviets out of Germany - maybe not beyond, but definitely out of Germany.

That would have been very interesting to see US and German forces fighting side-by-side against the Soviets in 45/46.

Very bad for the Western powers right after the end of WWII..

1. It's a long way to Moscow.
2. There are a lot of Russians under arms at this period, far more than there are allies (Bled white is a relative thing).
3. 1st rate Russian Generals at the top of their game. The allies don't have any that compare.
4. Air superiority is not a given. German accounts are always skewed towards the allies (in the post war period they really wanted to please us). Plus, airpower effects were exagerated in the post war period. The strategic air campaign against Germany was likely a wash when a true cost/gain ** CENSORED ** is done.
5. Stalin. A ruthless dictator in complete control of his nation and it's resources. The allies would not hold together much longer (British were bled white and tired, France more interested in rebuilding).
6. German's would not fight effectively with the allies. They were a broken army.
7. A repeat of Barbarossa was impossible. Russia had an experienced cadre, good equipment, well-suplied, and well perfected tactics and strategy. They were also confident, having just beaten the best army in the world (none of these things were true in 1941.
8. U.S. engaged in a two front war (Russia and Japan). Please see German experience while fighting on two fronts.
9. What atomic bomb? Both had been used in Japan. There were no more and the next would be a while in coming.
10. Unlikely the U.S. public, gearing up for the post-war period, would have supported a campaign against Russia and the ensuing enormous casualties.

I tend to agree with the above post. The US would be hard pressed to find a European ally willing to continue the fight unless we were talking about a soviet push to "liberate" the rest of europe under a communist banner.
To my understanding, the principal advantages the US enjoyed over the German army was 1. air superiority 2. ability to replace equipment faster 3. artillery and 4. the ability to coordinate and concentrate those assets at the right place and right time.
Against the Red Army, those advanteages rapidly diminish if not sway the other wat completely. The Red Army had many more soldiers under arms, with arguably better tanks, an air force that could have put up a serious fight for the skies, at least for a while (maybe even long enough to acheive their principal goals) and enourmous advantage in the number of artillery pieces, and capable Generals with loads of experience fighting a full strength Wermacht.
I for one think that the Western allies would have had their hands full. Maybe they would win out in a protracted conflict, but in a short (12 mos or less) campaign, I think they would be hard pressed to keep a foothold on the continent.

Take a look at this site...

http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/Atomic.html

It gives a pretty good timeline on nuke production in first few years... but you also need to take the site for what it is.

US had 9 by end of 1946 though I am sure there would have been more, and more available quickly if they were needed.

Will
ComOpsCtr