How do you think it would've played out if the US& the west and Soviets waged war against each other right after Germany's surrender?
A bloody, fruitless pursuit for every possible advantage by both sides, with long and drawn out battles on a ravaged and unchanging front line which would ultimately result in a truce, after the loss of a lot of money, a lot of resources, and a lot of lives.
Immediately after Germany's surrender? Western Allies would be pretty fucked, if you compare numbers at least, and it would be interesting to see if the Americans divert the atomic bombs to Europe instead of the Pacific theatre...but they weren't even ready to use in the spring of 1945. Re-arming the German forces (with the exception of the Waffen-SS, who probably couldn't be trusted) was one possibility.
Are you denying that the USSR took massive amounts of damage to its infrastructure while the US took little to none?
Or that the big bombs never existed?
>In B4 not dropped yet in 45
While they werent dropped yet the US would get them eventually.
Just making the point here that while yes, in the moments immediately following the German surrender, things might be rough, the US could outlast the USSR in an all out war.
The Western Allies would hold the line in Germany and with the immediate halt to the massive amounts of U.S. aid pouring into the U.S.S.R., the Soviets (already battered to shit) would quickly run out of steam.
All the while the Western Allies pound them from the air, which the Soviets can little to prevent, after which the Western Allies (growing stronger all the time) launch a counter-attack to roll them back.
Europe would be even more fucked up, Far East Russia would have fallen under U.S. control most likely.
No, the soviets were reliant on lendlease for the beginning of 1942, in almost all categories the soviets produced way more than they got in lendlease.
For example, they only got around 1,100 tanks in 1942, and most of those were M3 Lees compared to 12,500 T-34s they produced in 1942.
Only 2000 shermans with 75mm guns were delivered between 1943-1944, compared to 19,000 T-34s were build.
Another 2000 sherman with 76mm guns were received from late 1944 to 1945 but during the same period the russian made 22,500 T-34-85 tanks.
So for the most part the russians produced 10 times as many tanks, and usually more combat capable ones.
That's just an example of course, america delivered many other things than tanks, but it's silly to assume that they were dependant on it, they received much much much less help than the UK did, and the UK still did fuck all for the most part of the war.
It was called Operation Unthinkable, when Churchill wanted to wage war against Soviet Union and liberate Eastern Europe. But Allies decided that they had no chance and nuclear bombing was not enough to defeat Soviet Union
Truman and the democrats would be swept out of Washington if the allies were the ones to reignite the conflict.
Otherwise, it would be long, bloody, and pointless, and further damage Europe. The UK and France were exhausted and had been bled dry by the end of the war, and likely would have started shedding their colonies at a much faster rate.
Anybody know anything about the high-altitude interception capabilities of the Soviets in 1945? I know that their Air Force was very CAS-oriented, both in applying it and defending against it, but how would they fare against large raids by B-24's, B-17's and B-29's?
>It was called Operation Unthinkable, when Churchill wanted to wage war against Soviet Union and liberate Eastern Europe.
They could have used India as a base to attack Russia's soft underbelly.
>Russia's soft underbelly.
Yeah you're right, they'd just have to quickly blitzkrieg Afghanistan and then successfully occupy it, to launch an attack on their weak point, a giant fucking desert. I mean what the fuck would the soviet had done without those few million sqaure miles of fucking sand.
>how would they fare against large raids by B-24's, B-17's and B-29's?
Badly, to say the least.
The Western Allies had spent the war perfecting air power and in particular, strategic bombing, which the Soviets had no experience (and few aircraft capable of) defending against.
>The Western Allies had spent the war perfecting air power and in particular, strategic bombing, which the Soviets had no experience (and few aircraft capable of) defending against.
The Japanese could manage to shoot them down even in 1944.
Just because they produced more doesn't mean they weren't dependent on it.
Millions of foodstuffs and other things. They also recieved something like 1/4th of their total of trucks from the USA.
They produced tens of millions of foodstuffs themselves. If they hadn't got the foodstuff from USA they would just have let some more germans starve to death, I doubt they would have considered that a hard choice.
The soviet victory isn't owed to 1/4th of their trucks, less than one 10/th of their tanks.
That's like saying a Squad is dependent on one guy, and it's the guy that has the most backwards equipment.
No, war isn't that easy. The Russians themselves were starving at one point of the war. 1/4th of their trucks means they can now transport 25% more supplies. That's HUGE. And also 90% of those T-34s were destroyed anyway.
Just appears to me you simply didn't invest enough time in learning how warfare works.
But the bigger issue here is not that the SU would suddenly not recieve critical resources, but they would be completely embargoed, they would have nothing except what they have in their homelands.
>1/4th of their trucks means they can now transport 25% more supplies.
If only 90% of supplies wasn't transported by train.
And the russians litterally measured supply amounts in train cars worth.
>And also 90% of those T-34s were destroyed anyway.
Only 80% of soviet medium tanks were rendered combat ineffective, and many of those were not T-34s and many of those again were just repaired and put back into service.
>But the bigger issue here is not that the SU would suddenly not recieve critical resources, but they would be completely embargoed, they would have nothing except what they have in their homelands.
Do you realise just how much they actually had in their homelands?
>If only 90% of supplies wasn't transported by train.
This is a simple untruth. You can't transport supplies when the tracks are broken, and every army made sure to destroy them on retreat. Besides, from the trains it needs to be transported to the troops. This is a fact. And it's also a reason why both the red army as well as the wehrmacht could not operate effectively in the swamps infront of moscow.
>Only 80% of soviet medium tanks were rendered combat ineffective, and many of those were not T-34s and many of those again were just repaired and put back into service.
Lol. From this I see that you A) don't speak russian and B) have not read any reports about actual losses. We're talking about 90% of T-34s that were destroyed, beyond repair, that never turned up again. Both Krivosheew and several others attained the same results here.
>Do you realise just how much they actually had in their homelands?
At some point the Germans were outproducing the Soviets in several fields of production. Yet they were still critically undersupplied when it comes to Fuel, Rare metals, glue, paint etc. The SU had problems with literacy, let alone being a completely self-sustaining nation. Modern nations in the 21st century aren't self-sustaining, let alone 1940s SU.
>Abloo train tracks
Tracks can be rebuild, and both the soviet and germans did it. It was just much easier for the soviets since they had factories geared torwards making russian tracks.
>Lol. From this I see that you A) don't speak russian and B) have not read any reports about actual losses. We're talking about 90% of T-34s that were destroyed, beyond repair, that never turned up again. Both Krivosheew and several others attained the same results here.
Just because wikipedia quotes a russian historian doesn't mean that they read his book right. Also Krivocomrade states that 80% of medium tanks were damaged or destroyed.
Plz source me on your T-34 numbers in it's actual source.
>If one country now isn't self sustaining, no country ever has been no never could.
>Literacy problems determines natural resources.
Are you even trying now? You're litterally talking nonsense now. What you just said has litterally nothing to do with what you relied to.
Are you okay?
>Tracks can be rebuild, and both the soviet and germans did it. It was just much easier for the soviets since they had factories geared torwards making russian tracks.
And tracks can always be destroyed. Regardless, supplies were mostly transported with trucks, this is a fact and was a constant everywhere. Not even mentioning there are areas that don't have any traintracks.
>Just because wikipedia quotes a russian historian
I am quoting Krivosheev, from his actual report, IN RUSSIAN. He divides it in Tanks destroyed, Tanks damaged, Tanks withdrawn, Tanks missing.
>Are you even trying now?
SU doesn't need the world trade as they produce all they need in their homeland. This is again an untruth.
>Wouldn't really matter if 90% of soviet tanks were destroyed,
This is a thread about Operation Unthinkable. Besides, only about 70% of German tanks were destroyed
>SU doesn't need the world trade as they produce all they need in their homeland. This is again an untruth.
I didn't say that actually, you just strawman because it's easier.
>I am quoting Krivosheev, from his actual report, IN RUSSIAN. He divides it in Tanks destroyed, Tanks damaged, Tanks withdrawn, Tanks missing.
Yes please go ahead and link the source not the person who wrote the source.
>supplies were mostly transported with trucks
You can just make claims all day if you want though, i understand you really wish lend-lease to be the most important thing of the eastern front but you're extremely unconvincing.
>I didn't say that actually, you just strawman because it's easier.
Yes you did, when you said
>Do you realise just how much they actually had in their homelands?
>Yes please go ahead and link the source not the person who wrote the source.
G.F. Krivosheev , et al, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, Edited by Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev, Greenhill Books, London, 1997. p. 253, table 95
That is a horsecart, not a truck. That happens when you don't have enough trucks at hand.
>G.F. Krivosheev , et al, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, Edited by Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev, Greenhill Books, London, 1997. p. 253, table 95
That's interesting, so when you usually link sources, that totally have in physical copy in real life, hence cannot link it in actuality, you litterally link what it says on wikipedia because you didn't just read wikipedia?
I don't have time for your trolling.
I haven't opened wikipedia a single time. Wether you believe that or not is not my problem. Regardless, the Red Army handbook has similar figures. And of course just because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean it's not true.
People seem to be forgetting that the western allies are going to have big domestic problems with their own Communists if they declare war on the USSR, nevermind the non-communists who have spent the last few years being fed propaganda about the alliance with the USSR and being under the German occupation.
At best you're going to have Communists carrying out a lot of terrorist attacks; at worst you're going to have a full-blown revolution, especially in somewhere like France, where the Communist Party received the most votes in the first election after the war.
Most people aren't going to accept more war after being in one for the last six/four years, nevermind one against a country that's been your ally for the majority of it.
Also just as a final note, I do actually have that book, and I did just look it up, and completely unsuprisingly you're full of shit.
What it says is exactly what i stated, that 80% of all medium tanks of the stock of the total of tanks ever operated was destroyed.
Considering that the Red Army according to YOUR source, had 18000 T-34s at the beginning of 1945, and lost 40% of those, that means that 10800 were in service with the red army, at the end of ww2 that means 20% of all T-34s that were produced in ww2, were still in service at the end of world war 2, and thus 90% cannot have been destroyed.
But hey, that's just what the source you choose said, when you actually read it.
Then read them and weep.
I like this guys myths of world war 2, i just read the not all squads are created equally, where he compares german squads to nobody, since he just looked at german squad structure, and didn't analyse any other infantry squads in depth, but concluded that the germans were just better.
>How do you think it would've played out if the US& the west and Soviets waged war against each other right after Germany's surrender?
Soviets would advance initially, but tide would turn and sooner or later US would start to nuke their industrial centers at pace they could produce nuclear weaponry. Soviet logistics would become increasingly strained to support any advance west as everyone between their frontline and western border of Russia would loathe 'em and only cooperate at gun point.
Allied forces would march into radio active ruins of Moscow in year or two.
While Soviets built a lot of tanks, they produced barely any trucks and railway rolling stock.More than 90% new trucks during war were supplied by US or British, same shit with rolling stock. Majority of lend lease rolling stock was delivered in final months of war or after it. Soviets really needed those as their pre-war trains were literally falling apart by end of war.
Soviets were also heavily dependent of US and British explosives to keep their ammunition factories running.
One thing you need to take into account when it comes to Soviet armor losses is that they didn't separate recoverable losses from total losses. If a tank battalion couldn't repair damaged or just broken down tank by themselves and had to send it to division or corps level workshop to be fixed it was a loss.
>While they werent dropped yet the US would get them eventually.
And the USSR would closely follow, they already had the bomb by '49 because they had a cohort of spies at the Manhattan project.
This guy knows what's up, I remember reading about the explosives and rolling stock shipments in a French book about the Eastern Front. It just baffles me that people don't mention it more often
> looks like they didn't have much in the way of heavy AA either, and I assume their radar tech wasn't up to the task either.
The most common mechanized AA weapon the Soviets had was 1100 American M15 and M17 half-tracks.
> Allied fighters lacked reach to protect bombers during raids, so SU would easily defend against them
The Allied bombing campaign would be against the Soviet forces in Germany, Poland and the Balkans and well within range of Allied escort fighters.
> The Japanese could manage to shoot them down even in 1944.
I wasn’t suggesting the Soviets wouldn’t shoot down _any_ Allied aircraft but Western airpower was only getting stronger, with more planes and better planes and much better trained pilots every day.
Meanwhile, the Soviets had spent the war fighting the much smaller German air force, which had virtually no strategic capability and continually got smaller and weaker as the war progressed.
If the Soviets attacked the Western Allies at the end of WWII, they’d be in for an absolute pounding (that they could ill afford, after getting badly pouned by the Krauts).
>are you seriously suggesting the allies would employ their strategic bomber force in direct battlefield aviation duties
Yes, because that's what they did if needed;
After the one-day postponement, Cobra got underway at 09:38 on 25 July, when around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery along a 300yd (270m)-wide strip of ground located in the St. Lô area. For the next hour, 1,800 heavy bombers of the U.S. Eighth Air Force saturated a 6,000yd ×2,200yd (5,500m ×2,000m) area on the Saint-Lô–Periers road, succeeded by a third and final wave of medium bombers. Approximately 3,000 U.S. aircraft had carpet-bombed a narrow section of the front, with the Panzer-Lehr-Division taking the brunt of the attack.
Directly following the German surrender? It would be pretty bloody for a short time u til the overextended soviet supply lines collapse, with an allied advance likely losing steam somewhere in eastern europe.
Reckon it would end with a conditional surrender.
Well the soviets didn't have nukes. It would probably go bad in the ground fighting, but once it starting going terribly wrong the USSR would have likely been nuked by the US under ally pressure.
That's disingenous as fuck. Soviet "Armies" were smaller and more in line with Allied and German corps than Armies. Let's not forget how the USSR was scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower
Europe would get steamrolled again and fall to Communism.
Britain might escape but everywhere else would be commie.
After that The USSR and USA would slowly slip into the Cold War since there would be nothing either could really do to one another short of blowing up the whole world.
Churchill actually proposed the idea but everyone called him an absolute mad man.
>Spend years negotiating with the USSR during the war with Germany because their involvement could mean either winning or losing.
>Think it's a good idea to attack them right after the biggest war in history at a point where they've just extended their borders even further and your country is exhausted.
Soviets would make quick gains until their supply lines got more fucked by the Americans then they already were. I'd say there'd be a stalemate in Western Germany/France, then a few counter-offensives and then a peace along similar divisions as post-WW2 ones.
>America built us an airbase
>And a modern metallurgy complex
>All we had to do was send a couple thousand men to a war that was already won
>Most of them came back anyway
Lend-Lease was great.
>Oh good the weekly operation unthinkable thread
It's mostly just Americans going on about how Douhet Theory is totally correct and valid and Bombers are invincible superweapons.
>The Japanese could manage to shoot them down even in 1944.
Only after pic related decided to bring 'em down to increase accuracy as increase in target destruction was worth the losses.
>Allied fighters lacked reach to protect bombers during raids, so SU would easily defend against them
Allies had plenty of fighters that could have reached eastern Europe from western Europe. Huge majority of Soviet Fighters were designed for low altitude operations. Many of allied fighters would be under dogs in low altitude fighters, but generally western fighters were much better from medium altitude upwards.
Russians also had western fighters in their inventory, a lot of 'em, but those would run out of proper aviation fuel quick. Those would have had massive performance issues with Soviet low octane aviation fuel.
>are you seriously suggesting the allies would employ their strategic bomber force in direct battlefield aviation duties and not, well, for strategic bombing?
There would be plenty of strategic targets within reach of allied fighters.
>Europe would get steamrolled again and fall to Communism.
>Britain might escape but everywhere else would be commie.
Soviets would have advantage on ground for some months, after that their supply situation would start to degrade. Their economy was hugely strained and moment hostilities begins supplies from west cease to exist. Soviets relied on western food, ammunition and fuel supplies. Not to mention their railways were at breaking point. US delivered fuckload of trucks, railway cars and locomotives to Soviets. Prior to fall 1946 Soviets would heavily rely on food supplied by allies. Almost all of those in 1945 or after war.
Their logistics would run trough hostile territory.
I'll seriously doubt Soviets would be able to dislodge allies from mainland Europe, even if they did allies had plenty of experience in amphibious operations.
ITT: Burgers wave their dick
>muh lend lease
Didn't matter until 1944
Giulio Dio pls go, le ebin airpower meme never proved itself to be true and never decisively won anything in WWII
>le ebin Russian hordes
Back 2 enemy at the Gates
>gommunists in Western Europe doesn't real
Heu, the PCF alone had 20 thousand men actively under arms and support networks of ten times that
They'll sort it out
Litvinov, who didn't even like Soviet policy or want a war, openly heckled this
>muh Patton will make tjem pay
Literal maymay general
>muh manpower shortage
So that's why the Red Army demobbed 35 million soldiers at wars end?
Also remember many of the best units got pulled out immediately following the defeat of Germany to go wreck Japan in accordance with Yalta
Ok greentext funposting aside most of these points stand
The biggest point I think is a combination of war weariness making this an impossibility, and that even if the Allies thought themselves superior (which they weren't, and their best generals recognized this) they would take casualties unprecedented by the ones they took against the Germans. Quite literally, hundreds if thousands of Americans if not million would die thus severely hampering the political will of a nation which has never known the loss of, say, an entire army group.
This also isn't taking into account that the Allies despite their rivalry wanted the Soviets to knock out Japan so they wouldn't themselves have to defeat the Kwantung Army
Ah yes, steamrolling starved and undersupplied units in Manchuria and Korea while the best units and equipment were already back in the home islands sure is an accomplishment.
I want russiaboos to go.
Please, tell me more about how the strategic bombing campaign crippled Germany
That's the point. Strategic level ops are never won by airpower, you need people killing other people on the ground. And the Soviets did that in abundance.
This is of course forgetting their formidable airpower which of course Burgers will discount because
>when us Yanks beat the shit tier banzai troops it's cuz were stronk
>fugging gommies they never did nothing useful that's why we required them at Yalta to declare war on Japan 90 Days after the end of the war in Europe
I want Burgers to leave
The late war Spitfires, Typhoons, and the Tempest were all superior to the Yak 9, 3, and La 5 and 7, at or below 20,000 feet. The P-47N was one of the best high altitude fighters of the war, and even though the P-51 was a meme doesn't mean it wasn't a superb escort and high altitude fighter.
The US had a complete advantage in both tactical and strategic bombers, as well in versatility of providing high payload CAS with existing fighters.
Then, consider the objective superiority of late war British and American turbojet aircraft and the long term air war for the soviets becomes even less favorable.
>Strategic level ops are never won by airpower
What was the strategic bombing campaign over Japan?
What is Blitzkrieg and what is the significance of combined arms warfare?
What was Midway, and why are aircraft carriers significant?
What was the Battle of Britain and why was it significant?
I'm not busting on infantry, armor, supply lines and logistics or anything. But to say that airpower is somehow insignificant is flat out stupid, and you should feel bad about yourself.
>The AAF dropped 3.5 million bombs (500,000 tons) against Japan, and 8 million (1.6 million tons) against Germany. The RAF expended about the same tonnage against Germany. US Navy and Marine bombs against Japan are not included, nor are the two atomic bombs.
>One fourth of the German war economy was neutralized because of direct bomb damage, the resulting delays, shortages and roundabout solutions, and the spending on anti-aircraft, civil defense, repair, and removal of factories to safer locations. The raids were so large and often repeated that in city after city, the repair system broke down.
Yeah whatever, doubling the escort distance for long range bombers sure is irrelevant.
>What was the strategic bombing campaign over Japan?
A side show to the air mining campaign and submarine campaign.
>What is Blitzkrieg and what is the significance of combined arms warfare?
They didn't write that.
Well, I'm just going to take a guess and imagine that the Soviets overwhelm but do not completely encircle US forces in Germany, but are repulsed in the Alps. The Baltic, Black and Barent Seas are effectively surrendered to the Allies allowing for unrestricted access for invasion and harassment. The Adriatic itself would let the Allies park aircraft carriers and battleships to hammer at any offensive.
Strategically, the best the Soviets can hope to do is destroy Allied power in the continent, as the Germans did in 1941, but then they'd have to defend their territory and cede the initiative to the Allies. Soviet betrayal would galvanize American opinion and erase any hope of peace.
Sakhalin is invaded in the Pacific and with the rest of Japan becomes effective fortress from which to invade. Mao is labelled an enemy and Chiang Kai-shek never fucks himself over and joint Sino-American forces give the Soviets one huge front from the Pacific to Turkey, where the Allies invade and destroy Soviet oil production. Illinois and Kentucky are completed, along with the remaining four Alaskas.
This is not taking into account a possible rearming of the German and Japanese armies, nascent jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, or the complete Allied domination of the seas.
Soviet strategic victory is impossible; defeat inevitable. The Allies can strike anywhere at any time much faster and harder than the Soviets can react to, as they have to garrison their conquered territories.
>What is Blitzkrieg and what is the significance of combined arms warfare?
something that has never been a unified concept but merely a media buzzword, something that has very little to do with strategy as opposed to operations and tactics, and something that is not won by airpower
do you know the difference between strategic operations and, well, a single engagement?
The greater degree of mechanisation of the Western Allies means they can probably avoid any major encirclements, but realistically, the Soviets are just too many to realistically stopped.
I wonder if the nukes would be used tactically or strategically.
> Illinois and Kentucky are completed, along with the remaining four Alaskas.
To counter... the vast Soviet fleet?
The U.S. had to _give_ the Soviets ships so they could invade Sakhalin Island…
I meant Hawaii, the other three were cancelled in 1943. They had at least *some* plans for Illinois, Kentucky, and Hawaii. They weren't cancelled until the after the war. They could use the AAA against the Soviet Air Force in the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black Sea and whatever shore bombardment capabilities.
I'm not saying they were particularly useful ships (lol surface warfare), but I am saying the USN wanted them built.
>hurr durr Uncle Joe would kill Truman with his steely gaze
Most people criticize U.S. involvement in ww2 for not putting near enough boots on the ground when we had around 16% of our population at the time in the armed forces even taking into account non combat rolls that's still a massive amount of available manpower
>Say what you will, those bombers and lack of land-lease goods would FUCK UP the supplies at the front
> They could use the AAA against the Soviet Air Force in the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black Sea and whatever shore bombardment capabilities.
In any scenario where the Soviets attack the Western Allies immediately after WWII, the U.S. isn’t going to bother building additional combat ships, as the Soviet navy was a non-entity and we already had more then enough ships to keep Japan contained, destroy Vladivostok and carry out any naval operations necessary Europe.
The Soviet air forces will be quickly destroyed by the vastly superior Allied air forces and if the Soviets can’t control the skies, they can’t win the war.