US/UK vs USSR in the aftermath of WWII

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:59 am

The Berlin airlift was a great cause for a ground war except for one thing...we didn't have a ground force. In 1948, only the 1st I.D. and a Tank Bn. were in Germany. Of the other 9 divs, only the 82nd was equiped & ready to go.

A more balanced scenario is a 1953 war. There's a theory that Stalin was going to attack in Europe in '53 or '54 (had he not died) because a) the west was preoccupied with Korea, b) he had the bomb, c) he had Mig15 & 17's to shoot down B-29's & 36's quite easily.

The JS-III's could have been available for such an attack. M48's would have been rolling off the assembly lines too.

pmaidhof · Post by **pmaidhof** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:12 am

For argument sake. What if it was the Soviets who wanted to continue into western Germany, believing that the British bled white and crippled by strikes, etc. would not fight, and the French could be marginalized by their desire to only liberate France and Soviet innuendo that they would be left alone. US out of a-bombs, and with strong public sentiment to finally bring the boys home is left fighting a war it does not want and only with depleted and "subject" german allies to fight alongside.

It would have been quite a battle.

chriskrum · Post by **chriskrum** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:06 am

If the Soviets had simply continued into West Germany you would have had some very serious engagements. It would not have been possible for the allies to get out of the way, even if some of the hotheads could be convinced to pull back (Patton). I can see Patton getting his army destroyed very quickly, maybe encircled or cut off.

I think the Allies would have had to retreat at least to a line along the Rhine in the West and Elbe in the North. Maybe Russian airborne oberations to establish a bridgehead there.

Certainly lots of scenario ideas.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking your games teach you anything about the reality of what could have been. They never do (despite some of them making laughable claims to being a research tool--hey, I like it, but it's a game.).

mlcolbert · Post by **mlcolbert** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:24 am

as others have said, interesting thread and I like many others have preferred to explore the what ifs in gaming etc.

I wonder though, if anyone here has read any treatments on this topic from the Soviet side. The soviet populace were possibly just as anxious for peace and rebuilding as any other group and from memoirs I have read from participants at various levels, they saw Berlin as the goal, notwithstanding the culture and system they were part of which may have led them to 'carry on' if the orders were given.

I think we need to obtain copies of Soviet views, given their knowledge of army strengths, logistical problems, armies under training etc then we could take this further.

michael

kgpanzer · Post by **kgpanzer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:31 am

DrBig wrote:The Berlin airlift was a great cause for a ground war except for one thing...we didn't have a ground force. In 1948, only the 1st I.D. and a Tank Bn. were in Germany. Of the other 9 divs, only the 82nd was equiped & ready to go.

A more balanced scenario is a 1953 war. There's a theory that Stalin was going to attack in Europe in '53 or '54 (had he not died) because a) the west was preoccupied with Korea, b) he had the bomb, c) he had Mig15 & 17's to shoot down B-29's & 36's quite easily.

The JS-III's could have been available for such an attack. M48's would have been rolling off the assembly lines too.

more of a reason for a ground war in 48..we had very little forces there

kgpanzer · Post by **kgpanzer** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:35 am

mlcolbert wrote:as others have said, interesting thread and I like many others have preferred to explore the what ifs in gaming etc.

I wonder though, if anyone here has read any treatments on this topic from the Soviet side. The soviet populace were possibly just as anxious for peace and rebuilding as any other group and from memoirs I have read from participants at various levels, they saw Berlin as the goal, notwithstanding the culture and system they were part of which may have led them to 'carry on' if the orders were given.

I think we need to obtain copies of Soviet views, given their knowledge of army strengths, logistical problems, armies under training etc then we could take this further.

michael

interesting way of looking at it...a lost of 20 million plus a nation devasted by war and everything that was in Germany control was scorced earth also...

resources was hard on everyone in europe.....

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:51 am

Using Germany as a logistical base for an offensive would have been difficult. Railroads & junctions were a mess. The Russians didn't have good logistical resources, which is why their offensives always petered out short of the mark. We would have bombed Baku immediately & they would have had an oil shortage. We were feeding them & they would have had to divert substantial resources back to food production.

Remember, the USSR casualy figures were revised post-USSR. 20 million is obsolete. the better # was more like 30-50 million iirc.

mlcolbert · Post by **mlcolbert** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:59 am

so possibly......

exhaustion of resources, personnel, materiel etc on both sides ensured that there could be no extension of the conflict, which is possibly why we would have to look at a 1950's scenario, which in my humble opinion, takes us to another 'period', where others have stated the differences in equipment used, political motivation etc would have allowed for an
'interesting' conflict.

michael

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:01 am

quick run on the numbers: USSR dead @ 22.2 million, military wounded @ 15 million (civilian unknown), POW 4million, most of whom died. That's 41.2 million casualties excluding civilian wounded.

DrBig · Post by **DrBig** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 am

[quote......

exhaustion of resources, personnel, materiel etc on both sides ensured that there could be no extension of the conflict, which is possibly why we would have to look at a 1950's scenario,

michael[/quote]

Yes, and I don't see GHQ making any Sabres, Mig 15's, T-10, M-47, or M-103's!

mlcolbert · Post by **mlcolbert** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:08 am

that sounds very close to what soviet people knew, they had as their figures 40 million as a rough estimate. According to communist party records / histories it was seen to be 20 million but this was always seen as a starting point rather than any actual figure.

michael

mlcolbert · Post by **mlcolbert** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:11 am

unless of course some of us wish to start writing rules and scenarios for eventual publication???

Don't worry! I jest! sometimes I have to curb my imagination...get behind me thou tool of Satan!!!!

michael

thetourist · Post by **thetourist** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:31 am

Putting aside the pratical political considerations and even civilian war weariness, purely from a military standpoint, what do you all think would have been the outcome? In the waning days of WWII, if the Russians had just kept on pushing, or Patton had gotten his way and started hostilities with the Russians.

Could the Western allies have held off the Red army with the technology and military strength they had on hand at the time? Could US M4's and M26's and British Fireflys' and Challengers have taken on Soviet T34/85's and JS II's? Would American p51's and p47's ruled the skies or would Soviet Sturmovics and Yak 9's decimated Brit tank columns? Would superior American NCO's have made enough of a difference against the massive amounts of battle hardened infantry the Russians could throw in?

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:51 am

I think the outcome of any of these "what if" scenarios depends as much on the "what are we fighting for" as the period of the conflict. If the reaso for the conflict or the goals of the conflict are just to win Germany then I think the Soviets are the winners - its a very limited objective to keep the US war machine (and civilian population) fully engaged.

If however there was a Pearl Harbor or holocaust event that would galvanize the American people then I don't think there's any question that the US would have won that conflict. Simply put there was no practical way (in '45-'46) for the Soviets to interrupt the US ability to make war. Another classic Continental power versus a Maritime power. The Soviets had been ravaged while America was materially untouched.

There was a question earlier in the thread about the B-29's ability to penetrate Soviet air space. With a combat radius of over 2,500nm bombers based in England could easily reach every Soviet city in the "European" side of the country. What the losses would have been is debatable for sure but they had the range. If you look at the end of the war for Japan the US was averaging 300 B-29s a day over Japanese cities and they were expected to have over 1,000 B-29s operation in 1946. Even sending half that number to the European theater would have been an impressive (truly strategic) bombing capability.

Note: This represents a conservative 2,000nm combat radius.

The Soviets had no navy able to compete or evn interfere with the US and no real way to disrupt our factories. In an all out confrontation (right up to the point where they developed the atomic bomb) the US would have prevailed, eventually.

Paul

mlcolbert · Post by **mlcolbert** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:51 am

FWIW...my vote would be with the soviets.

the reasons could take years to dissect and discuss

and at the end of that time I still wouldn't have changed my opinion....and I think that may hold true for many of us regardless of which outcome we would predict.

michael