I suspect that they were on the radar until Operation Barbarosa. At that point, they became a mosquito bite on Stalin's butt.
1945 Soviets vs. the 1945 Allies. Who would have won??
- Thread starter TheGLOV
- Start date
I suspect that they were on the radar until Operation Barbarosa. At that point, they became a mosquito bite on Stalin's butt.
Stalin was concerned with another border confrontation. But of course Barbarossa was a matter of life and death while Manchuria was a distant nuisance. Japan only had 55 divisions in 1941. 45 of them were either in China or Manchuria. Of course Stalin did not want to cede an inch of Soviet territory,...even in the distant Far East. But with the Japanese Army bogged down in China and a war with the United States seemingly imminent Stalin did not regard the Japanese as a major threat by late 1941.
One might think that, but just because its convenient doesn't mean it holds water... Even with conflict the Labour Party wins the 1945 election and Cripps is appointed Minister of Trade... If you know anything about Sir Stafford Cripps, you'd know he was absolutely a socialist, and one with marxist sympathies... Soviets still get their noses into the workings of the Nene turbofan ... even if for some reason they are thwarted, if the Soviets could successfully reverse-engineer a B-29 to create the Tu-4, they would eventually find a way to build the Klimov VK with a small time-penalty if else
I read a great book many years ago about a NK or Chinese pilot that defected to SK. The US took the mig someplace and dissected the plan bolt by bolt. it was fascinating as they walked through how we dumped the cathode ray tube but the Soviets took it to a place we couldn't imagine. Another was we were making jets out of very expensive material, the Russians used the expensive materials in key areas and built the rest of the plane with inexpensive resources. It also stated that their use of radar was so heavy handed that all rabbits were dead within a mile of the runways.
Reminds me of a story I heard recently that NASA spent a ton of money and time to invent a pen that could write in zero gravity. The Soviets solved that by using a pencil.
For those saying that allied carrier planes would be next to useless in a war with the Soviets are assuming that the planes would only be operated from a ship. There was nothing to prevent those thousands of planes and experienced pilots from operating from land bases.
During the war we supplied material to the Soviets that would have fully equipped 80% of the Allied divisions that were in North Africa, Italy and western Europe. Without those supplies and the food we sent them, the Soviet Army could not have been sustained.
By the end of the war in Europe, most of that equipment had been destroyed. They had few tanks left and virtually no trucks. They were essentially a light infantry force at that point. Their tactical aircraft were inferior to ours and far fewer in number.
By the end of the war in Europe, most of that equipment had been destroyed. They had few tanks left and virtually no trucks. They were essentially a light infantry force at that point. Their tactical aircraft were inferior to ours and far fewer in number.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-soviet-t-34-the-lethal-tank-won-world-war-ii-13889
They were producing far more tanks than they were losing- look up T-34 and T-34/80 production numbers. They broke the Nazi's back at Kursk, after that, they were on the offensive. By 1945, they had lots of everything, including tanks and trucks.
Last edited:
When the war ended the Soviets had over 20,000 tanks and assault guns in Europe. By that point the Red Army was not dependent on Western aid. Lend Lease was absolutely crucial to the Red Army from the spring of 1943 through the summer of 1944. But by the end of 1944 Soviet manufacturing was covering the required needs of the armed forces.
I think we can all agree "thank God" it never came to us vs. them.
A Russian pilot defected with a Mig-25 in the 70s. We were amazed that they still used vacuum tube technology, then we realized that they used tube electronics because, unlike solid state circuits, it was radiation hard and could operate even in a nuclear war environment - the pilots would get a lethal dose but the circuitry would survive.
In a bit of a tangent from the main focus of this thread, RAF pilot Ken Wilkinson died on Monday of this week. He was 99. He was a pilot during the Battle Of Britain. He flew a Spitfire. At this point, there are believed to be only 3 remaining Spitfire pilots from the Battle Of Britain, and only 12 surviving UK pilots from the Battle Of Britain.
As Winston Churchill said so aptly, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
CLICK HERE for an article about Ken Wilkinson's passing.
As Winston Churchill said so aptly, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
CLICK HERE for an article about Ken Wilkinson's passing.
not even close. US by a country mile.
Reality is that it is just too much real estate to hold. Think of Afghanistan times 100. We'd blow through the Russians pretty quickly but having to leave behind elements of the army to keep peace would be very taxing as you drove deeper into Russia. In the end, nobody would win.
Former Soviet Satellite states would do a ton of fighting for us. A lot of those 'stan' nations would also join in the beating of the bear.
Georgia would take w nice bite out of the bear and so would the Ukraine.
What's the objective?
Take and hold all of Russia?
Conflict on a neutral field?
If the latter, we kick their ass....
