1945 Soviets vs. the 1945 Allies. Who would have won??

[The Spin Meister]

The big question no one asked is what was the weather in the 45-46 winter? It was Russian winters that defeated Napoleon and the Germans as much as it was the Russian military.

The Allies, mainly the US, would have taken eastern Europe by Fall. We had air power and supplies/logistics, the peoples there hate the Russians even to this day, and Russian supply lines were incredibly long.

But taking Moscow would be completely different. The homers would have fought harder, winter is always bad, supply lines much shorter.

My guess is we free all of Europe then sue for peace and leave Russia alone. Would it been worth it to not have a dominate USSR and a long and costly cold war? Way above my pay grade.

 

[Obliviax]

The big question no one asked is what was the weather in the 45-46 winter? It was Russian winters that defeated Napoleon and the Germans as much as it was the Russian military.

The Allies, mainly the US, would have taken eastern Europe by Fall. We had air power and supplies/logistics, the peoples there hate the Russians even to this day, and Russian supply lines were incredibly long.

But taking Moscow would be completely different. The homers would have fought harder, winter is always bad, supply lines much shorter.

My guess is we free all of Europe then sue for peace and leave Russia alone. Would it been worth it to not have a dominate USSR and a long and costly cold war? Way above my pay grade.

well, the linked estimation, by the original poster, has just the opposite. They have western europe being over run by the massive Soviet military while the US tries to untangle in Japan. Then the allies exerting their air superiority to take back europe. I think they are correct, but don't see how the allies recover after losing all of europe.

 

[PSUPride1]

Well, the US deserves credit for North Africa and Italy. The Soviets and Germans fought to a stalemate. Kursk, when the Germans were routed by the Soviets, was in 1943. In 1943, the Brits and US were fighting in North Africa, then Italy.

I think the invasion of Normandy is "romantically" considered to be the beginning of the end of WW2. Reality is that the Germans were toast and the invasion just further depleted Germany's resources. Reality is that once the Germans were kicked out of northern France, and fended off Operation Market Garden, they fought little so that they could just defend one front on the west. Their last western effort was the Bulge.

In the end, IMHO:

1. The "Eastern Front" was where the European war was won and lost.
2. North Africa and Italy were the secondary fronts that eroded the Germans ability to fight on the eastern front.
3. The US was also efforting massively in the South Pacific, so we were stretched thin.
4. Normandy was an effort to shorten the war, not win it. It was already won by June 1944.

I think a second excellent conversation would be "what would have happened had Hitler not attacked the Soviet Union"? He could easily have crossed the English Channel and overwhelmed the British. But he really wouldn't have gained much there (not a ton of oil). I think he felt he could contain the Brits but under estimated their resolve. As I understand it, he wasn't happy when the Japs bombed Pearly but had to declare war on the US after we declared war on the Japs. Hitler thought he could have Moscow by the end of the summer and the rest of the country would never be able to recover (Russia IS Moscow because that is the way the Communists wanted it). Had he gotten Moscow, the rest of the country would have been his for the taking of the next year and a half (as he digested it). Hitler probably would have owned everything from Spain to the breadbasket of the Soviet Union by 1945. Scary to think if the Russians had not defended Moscow in late '41 and early '42.

You are absolutely wrong stating Hitler could easily have crossed the channel. If he could have he would have but Britains navy was too strong as was their air power. German troop losses as well as materials would have been massive in a channel crossing and that's why Germany tried to take the UK out via air bombing in what was called the Battle of Britain.
Germany was making headway but they diverted from bombing the aerodromes and diverted to more terror bombings aimed at civilian.
My source is Churchill as I'm reading his books called the Second World War. Churchill knew the war was over as soon as Japan bombed Pear Harbor. However, Japan really wreaked havoc in the Far East for most of 1942.

 

[massimoManca II]

The US had one huge advantage the Germans failed to develop. Long range bombers. The US would have been able to bomb the industrial plants in western Russia. The Russian Air Force was largely a joke during WWII. US would have carpet bombed the crap outta Stalin.

Why would the Soviets allocate precious resources developing a long-range bomber? They ended up just copying the best one out there. #hogwild

Amazon product ASIN 1618633848

 

[danvillenit]

Well, the US deserves credit for North Africa and Italy. The Soviets and Germans fought to a stalemate. Kursk, when the Germans were routed by the Soviets, was in 1943. In 1943, the Brits and US were fighting in North Africa, then Italy.

I think the invasion of Normandy is "romantically" considered to be the beginning of the end of WW2. Reality is that the Germans were toast and the invasion just further depleted Germany's resources. Reality is that once the Germans were kicked out of northern France, and fended off Operation Market Garden, they fought little so that they could just defend one front on the west. Their last western effort was the Bulge.

In the end, IMHO:

1. The "Eastern Front" was where the European war was won and lost.
2. North Africa and Italy were the secondary fronts that eroded the Germans ability to fight on the eastern front.
3. The US was also efforting massively in the South Pacific, so we were stretched thin.
4. Normandy was an effort to shorten the war, not win it. It was already won by June 1944.

I think a second excellent conversation would be "what would have happened had Hitler not attacked the Soviet Union"? He could easily have crossed the English Channel and overwhelmed the British. But he really wouldn't have gained much there (not a ton of oil). I think he felt he could contain the Brits but under estimated their resolve. As I understand it, he wasn't happy when the Japs bombed Pearly but had to declare war on the US after we declared war on the Japs. Hitler thought he could have Moscow by the end of the summer and the rest of the country would never be able to recover (Russia IS Moscow because that is the way the Communists wanted it). Had he gotten Moscow, the rest of the country would have been his for the taking of the next year and a half (as he digested it). Hitler probably would have owned everything from Spain to the breadbasket of the Soviet Union by 1945. Scary to think if the Russians had not defended Moscow in late '41 and early '42.

Its hard to imagine how Germany could have been defeated if they hadn't invaded Russia. They lost millions of men and thousands of tanks and planes which could have been deployed in Europe. In addition, their military would have gotten stronger in 1941-1945 instead of getting ground down in Russia.

 

[PSUPride1]

Its hard to imagine how Germany could have been defeated if they hadn't invaded Russia. They lost millions of men and thousands of tanks and planes which could have been deployed in Europe. In addition, their military would have gotten stronger in 1941-1945 instead of getting ground down in Russia.

The German generals tried to convince Hitler but he always wanted to expand East. He never wanted to go to war with England. He thought the English were his natural allies.
The US was the wildcard. WE were an industrial mega power and our production facilities were completely protected.

 

[danvillenit]

The German generals tried to convince Hitler but he always wanted to expand East. He never wanted to go to war with England. He thought the English were his natural allies.
The US was the wildcard. WE were an industrial mega power and our production facilities were completely protected.

Agree. Russia was his goal from the start. Without invading Russia I think he would have eventually defeated Britian and the US would have no way to get a foothold on the continent.

 

[PSUPride1]

Agree. Russia was his goal from the start. Without invading Russia I think he would have eventually defeated Britian and the US would have no way to get a foothold on the continent.

The big issue was how to get at Britain with land forces. His Admirals tried to tell him the navy needed a few more years. The Germans had a powerful Uboat force but overall the German Navy was nothing compared to Britian. The British came up with the convoy system of protecting merchant vessels and by the end of the war the uboat threat was effectively negated.

 

[massimoManca II]

Very interesting thread. IIRC, General George Patton and others wanted to take on the Soviets, but Ike wanted no part of it. We needed to focus on Japan after Germany surrendered, and an invasion of Japan would have cost us at least a million casualties (my father was in a Sea Bee battalion and they were told they'd take 40% losses.) No one knew that the A bomb would finish Japan.

Few know that the A-bomb really didn't finish Japan

Everyone is taught that our super-great awesome YouEssA-bomb finished Japan as it makes for a nice USA rah-rah narrative and a "The End"/slap-the-book-shut conclusion to the saga... but it was only after the Soviets declared war on Japan (8 August 1945) and simultaneously invaded Japanese-held territories (inner Manchuria and Korean peninsula among others) that the Japs agreed to surrender... and if you believe it was an unconditional surrender, that narrative gotcha again!!

 

[tboyer]

I think a second excellent conversation would be "what would have happened had Hitler not attacked the Soviet Union"? He could easily have crossed the English Channel and overwhelmed the British. But he really wouldn't have gained much there (not a ton of oil). I think he felt he could contain the Brits but under estimated their resolve.

Another good question. But crossing the English Channel would have been anything but easy and could have been a fiasco -- which was one of the reasons Hitler turned east.

It obviously had been Hitler's plan to invade Britain, but the Battle of Britain really cost him 1900 planes and 2600 pilots. Their plan was to knock out air defenses and terrorize the population but by the end, the British population was mobilized instead of demoralized, and the British air defenses were actually significantly stronger. The British really figured out how to use radar from the Battle of Britain. Their fighters were operating out of bases that the Germans couldn't reach. So toward the end the German bomber convoys were just a big turkey shoot for the British. It was a catastrophe for the Luftwaffe which really never recovered.

Plus the British navy was intact and superior to the German navy.

So.... it's not at all clear that the Germans would have had the ability to land with sufficient force. Without air support it could have been another Spanish Armada for them.

 

[Obliviax]

Few know that it didn't finish Japan

Everyone is taught that our super-great awesome YouEssA-bomb finished Japan as it makes for a nice USA rah-rah narrative and a "The End"/slap the book-shut conclusion to the saga... but it was only after the Soviets declared war on Japan (8 August 1945) and simultaneously invaded Japanese-held territories (inner Manchuria and Korean peninsula among others) that the Japs agreed to surrender... and if you believe it was an unconditional surrender, that narrative gotcha again!!

I don't agree with that either. Japan had lost every serious battle in the last 1.5 years and had really exhausted their supply of pilots and ships. They didn't know how many A-bombs we had so were afraid we were about to annihilate their culture in a matter of months. The Soviets got involved to improve their negotiating position. Easy peasy when Japan didn't have their a team anymore.

 

[lein]

Respectfully disagree. Soviets had the best tank (the "go to weapon of WW2) and a very good fighter plane. They also had massive numbers advantages in the region and oil.

But that is what makes these discussions fun. We can agree to disagree.

They had a better tank than the US, but not better than the Germans. The US might have been handicapped somewhat in that it wasn't practical to build a large combat tank, bear the cost of shipping it overseas. The terrain of Northern Europe, having bridges that can handle heavy tanks, etc. Take out the bridges and the Soviets never get past Germany, not without control of the skies.

Against the Soviets, the USAF/RAF would own the skies. They types of aircraft being produced by 1945 far outclassed what the Soviets were using.

 

[Frabjous]

Real smart men, there. Surprising they didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. Shocking, too, we don't have statues of them in DC.

Only a moron would want kill millions and millions more. Let me guess, you admire him.

View embedded media

Nope, you guess wrong for reasons I won't bore you with but if it makes you feel better, I will stipulate to being a moron. Just read Bloodlands and get back to us about who killed millions and millions.

 

[DandyDonII]

Germany had to go East first. It could not risk having Russia with many more bodies threatening them from the East potentially. Attacking west first would have given Russia time to ramp up militarization (assuming Stalin could see the potential threat of a bigger Germany) without being hounded in the battlefield. The only way to win was to knock Russia out fast, and once that failed, Germany was toast.

 

[Cletus11]

So two interesting separate conversations.

1. What if the Germans are content with taking continental Europe, Middle East/North Africa and essentially never go after Russia. They would have had the oil and resources then to control that territory and force the Allies to fight them. The Eastern front and Russia and massive loss of German troops and equipment is what allowed the USA/UK to fight up through North Africa and Italy and invade France when they did. If Hitler stops at Russian border and just sets up a defense, who knows what happens. For sure the war last a whole lot longer than it did.

2. What is taking Russia. If it was just beating the Russians back to their border and 'freeing' Eastern Europe and stopping there, I think the Allies could have done that without huge issue and been able to hold it. If you are talking about invading Russia and overthrowing Stalin and setting up a new government, that would have been tough. If overthrowing Stalin and taking Russia was the goal, then the Allies still stop at the Eastern Europe border and use traditional bombing and the A-Bomb to destroy major Russian cities (and hopefully kill Stalin in the reckage) and then see what happens.

 

[Obliviax]

Interesting points:

1. What if the Germans are content with taking continental Europe, Middle East/North Africa and essentially never go after Russia. They would have had the oil and resources then to control that territory and force the Allies to fight them. The Eastern front and Russia and massive loss of German troops and equipment is what allowed the USA/UK to fight up through North Africa and Italy and invade France when they did. If Hitler stops at Russian border and just sets up a defense, who knows what happens. For sure the war last a whole lot longer than it did. The germans would have been better off concentrating on shoring up North Africa. This would have given them oil as well. Once done, go attack Russia with African Oil.

2. What is taking Russia. If it was just beating the Russians back to their border and 'freeing' Eastern Europe and stopping there, I think the Allies could have done that without huge issue and been able to hold it. If you are talking about invading Russia and overthrowing Stalin and setting up a new government, that would have been tough. If overthrowing Stalin and taking Russia was the goal, then the Allies still stop at the Eastern Europe border and use traditional bombing and the A-Bomb to destroy major Russian cities (and hopefully kill Stalin in the reckage) and then see what happens.

 

[massimoManca II]

I don't agree with that either. Japan had lost every serious battle in the last 1.5 years and had really exhausted their supply of pilots and ships. They didn't know how many A-bombs we had so were afraid we were about to annihilate their culture in a matter of months. The Soviets got involved to improve their negotiating position. Easy peasy when Japan didn't have their a team anymore.

I defer to the scholars and the experts, namely Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

From the Boston Globe:

Hasegawa - fluent in English, Japanese, and Russian - rejects both the traditional and revisionist positions. According to his close examination of the evidence, Japan was not poised to surrender before Hiroshima, as the revisionists argued, nor was it ready to give in immediately after the atomic bomb, as traditionalists have always seen it. Instead, it took the Soviet declaration of war on Japan, several days after Hiroshima, to bring the capitulation

Americans, then and today, have tended to assume that Japan’s leaders were simply blinded by their own fanaticism, forcing a catastrophic showdown for no reason other than their refusal to acknowledge defeat. This was, after all, a nation that trained its young men to fly their planes, freighted with explosives, into the side of American naval vessels. But Hasegawa and other historians have shown that Japan’s leaders were in fact quite savvy, well aware of their difficult position, and holding out for strategic reasons. Their concern was not so much whether to end the conflict, but how to end it while holding onto territory, avoiding war crimes trials, and preserving the imperial system. The Japanese could still inflict heavy casualties on any invader, and they hoped to convince the Soviet Union, still neutral in the Asian theater, to mediate a settlement with the Americans. Stalin, they calculated, might negotiate more favorable terms in exchange for territory in Asia. It was a long shot, but it made strategic sense.​

That all went out the window on 9 August 1945.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=3

 

[Frabjous]

WW2 story, and my wife's uncle Basil swears it's true:
My wife is English on her Dad's side, and her uncle Basil was in the RAF. Basil and his unit built wooden planes at airfields all over England, so that when the Germans did reconnaissance they'd think the English had more planes than they did. One night they heard a plane swoop low and heard a thud on the runway. They all ran out to look. The Germans had dropped a wooden bomb.

 

[91Joe95]

Thanks for that. I used to believe Patton but after watching the documentary on Amazon regarding the Eastern Front, I changed my mind.

The Germans, when they attacked the Soviets, were by far and away the most powerful army on the planet. Their plan was to take Moscow but had to divert to the Caucasus to get oil to keep their massive tanks rolling. That set up the turning point of the entire war (Stalingrad) and then the route, by the Soviets, at Kirkuk. (hastened by a drugged out Hitler refusing to retreat ended up with hundreds of thousands of germans taken prisoner by the Soviets "pincher" tactics and tank superiority). The western war was all over after Kirkuk, it was just a matter of time.

Had the US attacked the Soviets, we'd had suffered the same fate (assuming we didn't have a dozen or more nukes).

I have a hard time classifying the Germans as far and away the best military at the start of the war. They still used a lot of horse and buggy for logistics and their tank design was greatly influenced by the losses they suffered against superior French tanks. What they did have was superior tactics and a willingness to use the radio during battle. They never were able to break through the Maginot line, they invaded Belgium and went around it because it was too powerful to overcome.

As far as tanks, the P47 opened them up like sardine cans. I love the T34, it incorporated a ton of great designs from Christie, but it was no match for aerial attack. In addition, the allies were already developing much, much better tanks based on their experiences against German armor, a few of which were actually starting to see service at the end of the war.

 

[Obliviax]

They had a better tank than the US, but not better than the Germans. The US might have been handicapped somewhat in that it wasn't practical to build a large combat tank, bear the cost of shipping it overseas. The terrain of Northern Europe, having bridges that can handle heavy tanks, etc. Take out the bridges and the Soviets never get past Germany, not without control of the skies.

Against the Soviets, the USAF/RAF would own the skies. They types of aircraft being produced by 1945 far outclassed what the Soviets were using.

I disagree that the Germans had a better tank. I've spoke to a couple Germans who told me that they were scared to death of the Russian Tanks one-on-one. They felt the US and British tanks were toys (called them "tommy cookers") if not for the shear numbers the west had and the relative efficiency of the engines in using fuel.

i also disagree on the effectiveness of high range bombing the the West. Most accounts I've read have said that the bombing by B17's was mostly, ineffective. The real problem Germany had was lack of raw materials, not manufacturing (until the very end when they had to defend a much smaller area in homeland germany).

I feel like the Allies would have had air superiority, but the geographics of having to control air from Paris to Novosibursk would have been quite a challenge. And as far as the navy is concerned, the fight would have been land based. Soviets would have been limited in stopping shipping from the USA, but the limitations of a vast Atlantic Ocean would be a far greater challenge than a train running from Novosibirsk to Berlin.

 

[Obliviax]

I have a hard time classifying the Germans as far and away the best military at the start of the war. They still used a lot of horse and buggy for logistics and their tank design was greatly influenced by the losses they suffered against superior French tanks. What they did have was superior tactics and a willingness to use the radio during battle. They never were able to break through the Maginot line, they invaded Belgium and went around it because it was too powerful to overcome.

As far as tanks, the P47 opened them up like sardine cans. I love the T34, it incorporated a ton of great designs from Christie, but it was no match for aerial attack. In addition, the allies were already developing much, much better tanks based on their experiences against German armor, a few of which were actually starting to see service at the end of the war.

I disagree with your first paragraph in that you reference seems to be more about WW1 than 2. The germans smashed through the Maginot line in WW2 like it wasn't even there. The blitzkrieg was revolutionary in using tanks to smash and infantry to clean up and control in lightning quick strikes. As you say, radios were a big part of that but so was logistics (in terms of keeping the front lines supplied).

Agree have to agree on the new anti-tank weapons and tactics in late WW2. But the Soviets developed a lot as well. And, again, the Soviets had our blueprints so it wasn't like they were far behind. We gave them it all in lend-lease. We also tend to forget Russian technology after 1944. It didn't stop, but we just didn't see it.

 

[91Joe95]

I disagree that the Germans had a better tank. I've spoke to a couple Germans who told me that they were scared to death of the Russian Tanks one-on-one. They felt the US and British tanks were toys (called them "tommy cookers") if not for the shear numbers the west had and the relative efficiency of the engines in using fuel.

i also disagree on the effectiveness of high range bombing the the West. Most accounts I've read have said that the bombing by B17's was mostly, ineffective. The real problem Germany had was lack of raw materials, not manufacturing (until the very end when they had to defend a much smaller area in homeland germany).

I feel like the Allies would have had air superiority, but the geographics of having to control air from Paris to Novosibursk would have been quite a challenge. And as far as the navy is concerned, the fight would have been land based. Soviets would have been limited in stopping shipping from the USA, but the limitations of a vast Atlantic Ocean would be a far greater challenge than a train running from Novosibirsk to Berlin.

A train running from Novosibirsk to Berlin is an easy target to destroy. A simple P47 could even do the job. Fast, quickly deployed, large numbers, and no heavy bombing or escort needed.

 

[Leo Ridens]

The Soviets got involved to improve their negotiating position. Easy peasy when Japan didn't have their a team anymore.

I read that at Yalta it was agreed that the USSR would attack Japan 90 days after V-E Day. That is exactly what happened. At Yalta we were not sure that the atomic bomb would be of any use or even work. In retrospect, it allowed the USSR to grab land in Manchuria.

 

[liex26]

Not sure what your source is on that graphic, but you clearly underestimate the vastness of the US

Here is an accurate map.

 

[Mack_Daddy]

Nope, you guess wrong for reasons I won't bore you with but if it makes you feel better, I will stipulate to being a moron. Just read Bloodlands and get back to us about who killed millions and millions.

Oh brother. No wonder planet Earth doesn't know world peace.

Let me guess, FOR was lauded for letting his Generals run the war. But, at Yalta he became a pussy like Prime Minister Chamberlain and declared PEACE IN OUR DAY. All the while, General bonobo's KNEW we should go in and topple Stalin. I guess Churchill was too pussy to stand up to FOR.

Meanwhile, Truman has the balls to drop TWO atomic bombs on Japan. But, topple Stalin? Nope. Too much a pussy.

Your plan (and I use that term lightly) is to go in and topple Stalin. Then what, Professor Bonobo?

Build schools? Hospitals? Roads? Feed the millions?

If I say we need to do that here, in God Bless America, it's people like you who call me a snowflake, a libturd, and a....(drum roll please) LIBERAL.

Funny. It's OK for USA to kill our young toppling foreign dictators, build their infrastructure, educate and feed THEIR young at AMERICAN taxpayer expense. Suggest we spend that money at home, you're labeled a LIBERAL.

So, Professor Bonobo, humor me. What happens AFTER we topple Stalin? If you can't answer that, now you understand why Patton was a fvcking idiot.

 

[tboyer]

They had a better tank than the US, but not better than the Germans.

Really the best tank is the one that's "good enough" that you can manufacture 50,000 of on an assembly line. That tank was the Sherman. Just good enough to win the war.

 

[kgilbert78]

I think you way under estimate the Soviets. By the end of the war, the Soviets had a fighter plane that was the equal of the Messerschmitt 109, which was slightly inferior to the US P-51 Mustangs. But we assume the Soviets didn't have anything on the drawing boards. Don't forget, we gave them a ton of equipment and they are masters at stealing intellectual property. They had the blueprints so that superiority wouldn't have lasted long.

The Soviet Union had a very powerful army and would fight women and children without thinking about it. The USA, to project power, would have not had those resources. Nor would the Soviets have any problem with oil (I disagree with the video from the OP on this front, certainly they'd have more than the Allies).

The US would certainly have air superiority, both in fighters and bombers, but they'd have far too much geography to cover.

The OP's movie also has a big assumption that the Japanese negotiate a settlement and we move all of our weaponry to Europe. Without the bomb, I doubt that.

They reverse-engineered the B-29s they got via planes emergency landing on the east coast of Russia to create the Tu-4 bomber by early 1947--which could have reached LA or Chicago (one way, of course).

I've been reading a good book about the end of the war in Europe which noted the major supply problems the Allies had in supplying the troops as well as getting enough troops on the battlefield.

 

[lein]

Really the best tank is the one that's "good enough" that you can manufacture 50,000 of on an assembly line. That tank was the Sherman. Just good enough to win the war.

yeah, much easier to build, maintain, and transport. It was best when matched with the British 17 pounder. Too often the Sherman is discredited as compared to the Tiger but that is a medium vs heavy tank comparison. Would be like comparing a cruiser to a battleship.

The US did toy with the idea of a heavy tank, but it never went anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank

 

[kgilbert78]

The big question no one asked is what was the weather in the 45-46 winter? It was Russian winters that defeated Napoleon and the Germans as much as it was the Russian military.

The Allies, mainly the US, would have taken eastern Europe by Fall. We had air power and supplies/logistics, the peoples there hate the Russians even to this day, and Russian supply lines were incredibly long.

But taking Moscow would be completely different. The homers would have fought harder, winter is always bad, supply lines much shorter.

My guess is we free all of Europe then sue for peace and leave Russia alone. Would it been worth it to not have a dominate USSR and a long and costly cold war? Way above my pay grade.

That winter was very bad according to all accounts. The next one was even worse.

 

[Gitzit]

It's a good thing we didn't go to war and beat Russia, because Hillary might be president now

 

[Obliviax]

yeah, much easier to build, maintain, and transport. It was best when matched with the British 17 pounder. Too often the Sherman is discredited as compared to the Tiger but that is a medium vs heavy tank comparison. Would be like comparing a cruiser to a battleship.

The US did toy with the idea of a heavy tank, but it never went anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank

Agreement. The only issue I have is that the Sherman was built in the US (detroit), railed to the ports and then shipped over the atlantic to the european theater. You can imagine lots of reasons why the US didn't deploy a monster tank to match the Tigers. The Russians, on the other hand, had no such restrictions nor were they worried about fuel consumption. The Germans thought the war would be over so were also not worried about fuel consumption, until they had to abandon the Moscow campaign and head toward the Caucasus.

 

[Obliviax]

A train running from Novosibirsk to Berlin is an easy target to destroy. A simple P47 could even do the job. Fast, quickly deployed, large numbers, and no heavy bombing or escort needed.

hmmm....disagree. There are many routes one can take from Novosibirsk to Moscow. Blow up one, you take an alternate round. And you blow the tracks, it only takes several hours to fix. Most bridges were fixed in a week. If they had google maps, it could be done in real time!

 

[tboyer]

yeah, much easier to build, maintain, and transport. It was best when matched with the British 17 pounder. Too often the Sherman is discredited as compared to the Tiger but that is a medium vs heavy tank comparison. Would be like comparing a cruiser to a battleship.

The US did toy with the idea of a heavy tank, but it never went anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank

Yeah, the Tigers and Super-Tigers had incredible guns but they were slow in the field. Shermans were lighter and quicker, so the Allies could outflank the Tigers if they had cover or fog. Tiger was not well armored on the sides and rear

And, as others have pointed out on this thread, by the time the Shermans arrived in France in large numbers, Germany was running short of materiel and fuel so they weren't really using the Tigers the way they were designed to be used.

 

[Hotshoe]

Who would have won? Ha ha. Last I checked, the Soviets didn't have a Philadelphia. The Soviets stood zero chance.

 

[Cosmos]

With the proviso that we didn't have enough nuke raw material to make more nukes, I'd bet on the Russians. Why?

• First and foremost, they have way too much territory to cover. Part of the Nazi's problem was that they couldn't hold land taken because the Russians were just an ongoing unstoppable hoard of people hurling their bodies into the front. Nazi's had way superior logistics, equipment and training. Soviets just won on sheer numbers.
• Russians had the best tanks in the war. The T34. It was better than the Panzer, equal to the Tiger...but with substantially more oil, the T-34 wiped the slate of Tigers and it was all over but the shouting in early 1942.
• I just don't see how the US could have handled the entire country. The Soviet Union is twice the physical size of the US and much better rail coverage.
• without a fatal blow early (talking nukes here), the Soviets would have simply outlasted the western allies. France and England were spent. It would have come down to the US vs USSR. Way too much logistics to overcome.
• My guess is that we would have had to negotiate a settlement. I don't think the Soviets could have projected power into the USA so the war would have been fought in eastern Europe. We may have contained their agression in what used to be called the "Soviet Bloc", but we wouldn't have conquered the USSR and we would have lost hundreds of thousands of men.

There you go again.
One-on-one the T34 was no match for the Panzer or Tiger. It was a glorified tractor. Much of its success was due to hardened sloped frontal armor. Other than that it is crude by western standards. For example, do you know how the commander directed the driver to steer. He kicked him! Right kick to turn right, left kick to turn left. That's a fact, Jack.

I believe the discussion here is about turning back the Soviets from Eastern Europe and not a Napoleon-like invasion of Mother Russia. In that battle we win. Why. Because Poles, Slovaks, Czechs, Croats, Hungarians and a host of other partisans would've joined our side out of dislike for the Russian. Same reason why German soldiers flocked to us to surrender. Besides, if the Finns can lick the Ruskies then we certainly can. Shut off their supplies, to include those Studebaker trucks we gave them to tote their rocket launchers, and we'd kick their asses. Who needs the 'war weary' French!


I thank you.

 

[Mudge1026]

JMO, but I believe its a timing thing, who would win. If Truman/Eisenhower thought that war with the Soviets was going to happen, and kept the entire european theather's armed forces in tact I think we would win. But how do you define it? Liberating all of Eastern Europe or pushing all the way to Moscow or pushing even farther east since the Russians demonstrated they could move their govt and factories farther east?

The one poster said Japan surrendered not because of the A-bomb, but only when The Soviets declared war against them. If this is the case, we would have been forced to keep our forces in the Far East with having to plan an invasion of Japan. A war with the Soviets in Europe and a continued war with Japan would have been untenable.

But what if Japan did surrender because of the A-bomb, and America could concentrate on the Soviets? I think we win and win handilly. I have a book I read years ago and I'm to lazy to go find it, but General Rommel thought we'd win. He had discussions with his son about this very topic. He said the American's expertise in logistics moving men and material anywhere in the world with the world's most powerful navy would be the difference. Now I'm going by memory, but I remember him stating the Allies would come up thru the Caucasus and combine with the European forces from the west to form a giant "pincer" movement. Rommel stated American industrial might would eventually force the Soviets to succumb.

I also read that some of Hitler's generals who had been fighting on the Eastern front didnt think much of the Western front. They were used to tank to tank, hand to hand combat, but the Allies were fighting an entirely different war, American air power along with the British was a whole different matter. It culminated with the collapse of the German Army in France, the "Falaise Pocket" as it was known. No German Army had ever experienced anything like it, the combination of airpower, heavy artillery and infantry combined with superior tactics. It was reported many German soldiers had gone mad from around the clock "carpet" bombing. German prisoners who were shipped to the back of the line marveled at American artillery that seeming went on endlessly. The German "blitzkrieg" was in some cases supplied by horse and buggy, the American version was the true blitzkrieg. A fighting force the world had never seen before.

I belive the Soviet Army would have been smashed the same way as the Germans. American logistical expertise and power would have been able to power an army further east if we had to fight the Soviets.

 

[Obliviax]

There you go again.
One-on-one the T34 was no match for the Panzer or Tiger. It was a glorified tractor. Much of its success was due to hardened sloped frontal armor. Other than that it is crude by western standards. For example, do you know how the commander directed the driver to steer. He kicked him! Right kick to turn right, left kick to turn left. That's a fact, Jack.

I believe the discussion here is about turning back the Soviets from Eastern Europe and not a Napoleon-like invasion of Mother Russia. In that battle we win. Why. Because Poles, Slovaks, Czechs, Croats, Hungarians and a host of other partisans would've joined our side out of dislike for the Russian. Same reason why German soldiers flocked to us to surrender. Besides, if the Finns can lick the Ruskies then we certainly can. Shut off their supplies, to include those Studebaker trucks we gave them to tote their rocket launchers, and we'd kick their asses. Who needs the 'war weary' French!


I thank you.

OK, fair enough. But the T34 just worked and worked and worked. And in a frontal assault, there was no finer. The Germans were very, very frustrated because in a range war with 20 on 20, they couldn't flank them (that is what I meant by 1 on 1, not two tanks meeting in a field because that rarely happened).

I don't think you could "turn away" the soviets from the eastern bloc without all out war. FIrst, the Soviets had far more boots, artillery and tanks than we had in the region (as the OP's link states). Our only hope was to get the heck out of Japan, and by then it probably would have been too late because the Soviets "hardened" the bloc. If Patton, or anyone else provoked a war, the soviets would have over run us on sheer numbers. By the time we get out of Japan and to Europe, the Soviets would have been in France.

Just my opinion.

 

[Obliviax]

JMO, but I believe its a timing thing, who would win. If Truman/Eisenhower thought that war with the Soviets was going to happen, and kept the entire european theather's armed forces in tact I think we would win. But how do you define it? Liberating all of Eastern Europe or pushing all the way to Moscow or pushing even farther east since the Russians demonstrated they could move their govt and factories farther east?

The one poster said Japan surrendered not because of the A-bomb, but only when The Soviets declared war against them. If this is the case, we would have been forced to keep our forces in the Far East with having to plan an invasion of Japan. A war with the Soviets in Europe and a continued war with Japan would have been untenable.

But what if Japan did surrender because of the A-bomb, and America could concentrate on the Soviets? I think we win and win handilly. I have a book I read years ago and I'm to lazy to go find it, but General Rommel thought we'd win. He had discussions with his son about this very topic. He said the American's expertise in logistics moving men and material anywhere in the world with the world's most powerful navy would be the difference. Now I'm going by memory, but I remember him stating the Allies would come up thru the Caucasus and combine with the European forces from the west to form a giant "pincer" movement. Rommel stated American industrial might would eventually force the Soviets to succumb.

I also read that some of Hitler's generals who had been fighting on the Eastern front didnt think much of the Western front. They were used to tank to tank, hand to hand combat, but the Allies were fighting an entirely different war, American air power along with the British was a whole different matter. It culminated with the collapse of the German Army in France, the "Falaise Pocket" as it was known. No German Army had ever experienced anything like it, the combination of airpower, heavy artillery and infantry combined with superior tactics. It was reported many German soldiers had gone mad from around the clock "carpet" bombing. German prisoners who were shipped to the back of the line marveled at American artillery that seeming went on endlessly. The German "blitzkrieg" was in some cases supplied by horse and buggy, the American version was the true blitzkrieg. A fighting force the world had never seen before.

I believe the Soviet Army would have been smashed the same way as the Germans. American logistical expertise and power would have been able to power an army further east if we had to fight the Soviets.

Well, Rommel did fight in North Africa and Italy. he didn't have much experience in the East. Plus, he was killed in October of 1944, probably far before he could give much thought to a US-Soviet war. Could you have been thinking of someone else?.

 

[Manxome_Lion]

Sorry, for being obtuse. I must have missed something, this is a joke, right?

Not sure what your source is on that graphic, but you clearly underestimate the vastness of the US

Here is an accurate map.

 

[Mudge1026]

Well, Rommel did fight in North Africa and Italy. he didn't have much experience in the East. Plus, he was killed in October of 1944, probably far before he could give much thought to a US-Soviet war. Could you have been thinking of someone else?.

No, these are discussions between Rommel and his son that are documented. Its a book of letters to his son and wife plus documented discussions between him and his son. Perhaps his son documented them after the war.