US/UK vs USSR in the aftermath of WWII
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
thetourist
- E5
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:08 am
- Location: Jacksonville
Could those factors that you mention though have had enough bite in time to stop the Huge Red Army from conquering the rest of Europe? I suspect that it would come down rather quickly to air superiority. If the Western allies establish it early then the Soviets grind to a halt before they can get too far. If the Soviets can contest it long enough, may they get to Paris. I'm not convinced that the ground forces the US/UK had in place could have held the Soviets off without air superiority.
-
piersyf
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
No, I agree. From the end of war in Europe until the end of Lend Lease (although military aid had almost stopped by May, food continued until September) Stalin could have stockpiled and hoped for a quick (Hitlerish) victory. You're right, air power would have been the decisive factor in that situation, and on balance the West had a slim lead (higher quality overall both in aircraft and training, plus highly developed command and control plus radar compared to a deficit in numbers). Also you need to keep in mind the West did not supply proximity fuses to Russia, so Western AA would have been way more effective than the Russians had faced from the Germans, and Western artillery far deadlier and better controlled than the Germans (average response time 2 minutes for the UK, 3 minutes for US and 10 minutes for the Germans). The US navy did accidentally supply radar units, and some were no doubt captured from the Germans, but night time air action against airfields, supply points and other classic interdiction targets would have played hell with Soviet planning methods.
As to a ground war, it would really depend on who started it, why, and how you went about it. I don't think it's as cut and dried as some seem to think. Anyone who thinks the Russians could have steam-rollered the West in 6 weeks is fooling themselves, because if Stalin thought he could have, you'd have to ask yourself why he didn't. Nukes alone don't really answer that. Still, we are just spit-balling scenario plots, so imagination is allowed *grins*
P
As to a ground war, it would really depend on who started it, why, and how you went about it. I don't think it's as cut and dried as some seem to think. Anyone who thinks the Russians could have steam-rollered the West in 6 weeks is fooling themselves, because if Stalin thought he could have, you'd have to ask yourself why he didn't. Nukes alone don't really answer that. Still, we are just spit-balling scenario plots, so imagination is allowed *grins*
P
-
suisse6
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 3:21 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Having read the entire thread, I think the thing that sticks out to me is that there is one camp that believes that the numerical superiority of the Soviets would have won out, and another camp that believes that the West would have slowly and eventually won due to experience, material superiority, and industrial capacity (read US). Perhaps an oversimplification but both are probably right. THat is the beauty of a "what if" scenario. The truth is numbers don't tell the story, in purely mathematical figures, Germany should have beat England, Israel should have lost to the Arabs (numerous times) and the Chinese should have beat us in Korea. On the other hand, mere technological superiority or industrial capacity is not sufficient to guarantee victory either.
It is interesting that the Soviets outnumbered the Germans in many important areas prior to Barbarossa (tanks, men under arms, etc) and even had superior tanks (original T-34) AND Stalin had a pretty good idea it was coming but didnt' think it would be that soon. That matter of 6-12 months that Stalin thought he had made a huge difference in the stunning successes of the fall campaign.
My point is, depending upon the parameters you provide, victory in some degree can be assured. If you assume that the Western Allies kept Russia in the dark about their plans and minimized, but did not cut off the Lend Lease (more food makes it through on convoys and less war material) and they take their time with the Germans (or cut a deal with them like Admiral Canaris was hoping they would do) and then preempt their offensive with a widespread surprise attack on Soviet airfields, I am fairly certain that they would have only been stopped when they got tired of chasing the russians accross the steppes. However, that involves a level of treachery and deviousness that most would find it hard to apply to the Western Allies no matter their distaste for Stalin (not to mention the difficulty in keeping it secret) and perhaps even a marriage of convenience with a former foe which had been vilified for five years, hardly politically acceptable. On the other hand, a similar move by Stalin, slowing his offensive in eastern Germany and allowing Germany to bleed the allies, while preparing for a final offensive in Europe to free the proletariat, again preceded by a sneak attack air strike against allied air forces, would probably have only stopped at the Channel. But then what? He has no Navy, so the US and UK can do what they did to Hitler and just pick at him until he dies of his own success or they gain enough strength to push into the contentinent, while the unhappy nationals join the ranks of the underground again. The truth is neither side truly had an appetite for further combat. Again the political is probalby more important than the miilitary as if Stalin had thought it useful to conquer Europe and if he thought he could do so, he certainly would have. But so what, that is no fun for gaming.
It is interesting that the Soviets outnumbered the Germans in many important areas prior to Barbarossa (tanks, men under arms, etc) and even had superior tanks (original T-34) AND Stalin had a pretty good idea it was coming but didnt' think it would be that soon. That matter of 6-12 months that Stalin thought he had made a huge difference in the stunning successes of the fall campaign.
My point is, depending upon the parameters you provide, victory in some degree can be assured. If you assume that the Western Allies kept Russia in the dark about their plans and minimized, but did not cut off the Lend Lease (more food makes it through on convoys and less war material) and they take their time with the Germans (or cut a deal with them like Admiral Canaris was hoping they would do) and then preempt their offensive with a widespread surprise attack on Soviet airfields, I am fairly certain that they would have only been stopped when they got tired of chasing the russians accross the steppes. However, that involves a level of treachery and deviousness that most would find it hard to apply to the Western Allies no matter their distaste for Stalin (not to mention the difficulty in keeping it secret) and perhaps even a marriage of convenience with a former foe which had been vilified for five years, hardly politically acceptable. On the other hand, a similar move by Stalin, slowing his offensive in eastern Germany and allowing Germany to bleed the allies, while preparing for a final offensive in Europe to free the proletariat, again preceded by a sneak attack air strike against allied air forces, would probably have only stopped at the Channel. But then what? He has no Navy, so the US and UK can do what they did to Hitler and just pick at him until he dies of his own success or they gain enough strength to push into the contentinent, while the unhappy nationals join the ranks of the underground again. The truth is neither side truly had an appetite for further combat. Again the political is probalby more important than the miilitary as if Stalin had thought it useful to conquer Europe and if he thought he could do so, he certainly would have. But so what, that is no fun for gaming.