Operation Unthinkable, what if it happened? Did Russia's

>>1846626
>Operation Unthinkable, what if it happened?


We have this thread a lot, an enormous amount depends on 2 things:

1) The rate of initial Soviet advance

2) The willingness of the Western World, predominantly the U.S., and Britain to a lesser extent, and other European countries to a lesser extent still, to wage the kind of war and incur the sorts of losses it would take to beat down the USSR.

>Did Russia's losses even put a dent in it's man power?

Yes. By late 1944 they were starting to pull people out of war material factory jobs to get into the front line. They weren't down for the count by a long shot, but they were starting to flag. Still, they almost certainly could keep that kind of war footing for several years more, especially if they can derive primary and even secondary resources from their conquered holdings in Europe a la what the Nazis were doing.

> Would allies recognize and be able to neutralize the danger of a ground war in Russia?

It's far from clear the Allies would need to go into Russia proper. If they start freeing a lot of countries in what would later become the Warsaw Pact, that is probably good enough, although it would be a slow, bloody business to even get that far.

>Soviet tech and production vs Western tech and production?

Assuming the West goes all out, their tech and production are considerably superior. The main Soviet advantages are immediate short term ones on the ground, not long term ones.

File: Enola_Gay_(plane).jpg (399KB, 1392x594px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1392x594px

>>1846626
US would have won hands down. Sure, the Soviets outnumbered them heavily but they had nothing but infantry, US had tanks, bombers, you name it. History shows that tech always beats numbers, especially when one side has complete unquestioned air superiority.

Also, nukes. They'd have been been producing them at a rate of knots. Not to mention that they'd have been used tactically, rather than strategically.

>>1846644

> Sure, the Soviets outnumbered them heavily but they had nothing but infantry, US had tanks, bombers, you name it.

You are aware that the Soviets had a considerable armor industry, as well as fucktons of artillery, yes? And I'd need to double-check the numbers, but I'm pretty sure they had more ground attack craft than the U.S., although the Americans would have had a significant overall air advantage.

>Also, nukes. They'd have been been producing them at a rate of knots. Not to mention that they'd have been used tactically, rather than strategically.

Nuclear weapons, especially the nuclear weapons extant in 1945, aren't really that good for tactical bombing. And given that the USAAF primarily thought of itself as a strategic air arm, and looked down on being "flying artillery", it seems likely that such atomic weapons as were produced would be used strategically.

>>1846626
>Did Russia's losses even put a dent in it's man power?
People are always overestimating how big (population-wise) Russia was/is.

File: Dukla_Military_Museum_Svidnik_2010_17.jpg (203KB, 900x608px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 900x608px

>>1846660
>You are aware that the Soviets had a considerable armor industry, as well as fucktons of artillery, yes?
They had extremely outdated equipment, most of it looking like a remnant of the interwar period. Nothing like what the US had.

>And I'd need to double-check the numbers, but I'm pretty sure they had more ground attack craft than the U.S.
Doesn't matter, the industrial capacity of the US at the end of the war was more so than any other country on Earth, whilst the rest of the world was exhausted and pawning pans for iron America was fresh out of the great depression and into the most productive era they've ever had.

>Nuclear weapons, especially the nuclear weapons extant in 1945, aren't really that good for tactical bombing. And given that the USAAF primarily thought of itself as a strategic air arm, and looked down on being "flying artillery", it seems likely that such atomic weapons as were produced would be used strategically.
The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extremely small, relatively. They could have been utilised either tactically or strategically.

>>1846696
>They had extremely outdated equipment, most of it looking like a remnant of the interwar period. Nothing like what the US had.

Inferiority of Soviet forces vis a vis American ones was primarily due to doctrine, not equipment. There was nothing wrong with 122 or 152 mm guns. There was nothing wrong with the IS-2 tank. There was nothing wrong with the IL-2 bomber. These were advanced, powerful pieces of kit.

>Doesn't matter, the industrial capacity of the US at the end of the war was more so than any other country on Earth, whilst the rest of the world was exhausted and pawning pans for iron America was fresh out of the great depression and into the most productive era they've ever had.

Of course it was, which is why in a total war, assuming a total war footing is maintained, the U.S. wins. Eventually. The problem is that it is far from clear that the U.S. would maintain a total war mentality indefinitely; and it becomes a race to see which gives out first, Soviet material or U.S.will to fight. And it's far from clear that the Soviets would break first, especially if their initial push gets them over the Rhine, losing France a second time and having to do D-Day all over again is going to take a long time to build up for and be a bloody, ugly mess.

>The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extremely small, relatively. They could have been utilised either tactically or strategically.

You're not thinking. For starters, only the big, lumbering, 4 engined bombers had the capacity to carry a nuke. They fly very high, (which you'd want to do anyway, Soviet fighters are designed primarily to fight at lower altitudes than American ones) and consequently have decreased accuracy. Furthermore, as you point out, these nukes are pretty small. Fat Man, at 20 kilotons, would produce a 20 PSi airburst radius of less than a kilometer, even in optimal conditions. That would kill you, maybe, an armored division. If you timed it just right. Extremely wasteful

File: epic.jpg (3MB, 2444x1629px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2444x1629px

>>1846741
>Inferiority of Soviet forces vis a vis American ones was primarily due to doctrine, not equipment. There was nothing wrong with 122 or 152 mm guns. There was nothing wrong with the IS-2 tank. There was nothing wrong with the IL-2 bomber. These were advanced, powerful pieces of kit.
You're right, you're right. I was basing this off of stereotypes and the fact the USSR still used biplanes in WW2.

>Of course it was, which is why in a total war, assuming a total war footing is maintained, the U.S. wins. Eventually. The problem is that it is far from clear that the U.S. would maintain a total war mentality indefinitely; and it becomes a race to see which gives out first, Soviet material or U.S.will to fight.
I can't understand your logic here, why would America just give up half way through? This isn't like a new war, if Operation Unthinkable actually happened it would be considered the same war, America would continue to fight the Soviets as if they were Nazis.

>You're not thinking. For starters, only the big, lumbering, 4 engined bombers had the capacity to carry a nuke. They fly very high, (which you'd want to do anyway, Soviet fighters are designed primarily to fight at lower altitudes than American ones) and consequently have decreased accuracy. Furthermore, as you point out, these nukes are pretty small. Fat Man, at 20 kilotons, would produce a 20 PSi airburst radius of less than a kilometer, even in optimal conditions. That would kill you, maybe, an armored division. If you timed it just right. Extremely wasteful
I bow to your superior knowledge on this point. Though I still maintain the moral effects of nukes going off would have been a major blow to the USSR. For example, the range of the Boeing B-29 was 3,250 miles, Paris to Moscow is 1,757.6 miles. So theoretically the US could have nuked Moscow, Leningrad and what remained of Stalingrad, at this point I think the USSR would have either called for an armistice or suffered major domestic isuses.

>>1846958
>>1846741
good debate, refreshing to see it in /his/.

>>1846641
a reasonable & realistic first post WITH actual knowledge (e.g. soviet manpower)? on MY /his???

>>1846989
>good debate
there's nothing good about the dumb sperglord going on about 'hur dur soviets used extremely outdated equipment that looked like something interwar'

>>1846958

Problem would be that America would be the blatant aggressor whereas in WW2 the U.S had been attacked by surprise by Japan. The US economy was not in a good position to keep up the war footing for long unless even more drastic economic measures were taken, not to mention Britain and especially Germany being in no real position to join a "coalition of the willing" prequel addition.

>>1846994
it's about the civility of it, my dear hothead

>>1846644
Have you any idea how many tanks and cannons the Soviets had?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbUz2RemarI
The late war Red Army was strong. Really fucking strong. Their doctrine was also reformed by that point, and they got a considerable number of competent low-rank officers, unlike the early war Red Army. The US/Brit victory is far from certain. Logistics would also be a problem for them, as they would have to be ferried accross the Atlantic and most of Europe. My money's on the USSR in this war.

>>1846958
>I can't understand your logic here, why would America just give up half way through? This isn't like a new war, if Operation Unthinkable actually happened it would be considered the same war, America would continue to fight the Soviets as if they were Nazis.


I don't agree. First off, remember, the U.S., while the dominant partner in this western coalition, isn't the sole partner. While the U.S. is going to remain relatively untouched, places like Western Germany, Denmark, the Low Countries, France, Italy, etc. are most definitely not going to be. If the Soviets advance in the first summer (extremely likely), and then they offer some sort of deal that gives the old Yalta agreement borders, there's going to be quite a bit of pressure from the U.S. allies to proceed.

And I don't see why it would be the same war. It might have been an alliance of convenience, but the U.S. was definitely in an alliance to the Soviets, and people followed the movements as well as they could on the eastern Front. They knew they were on the same side just a year ago. You'd have to do a pretty impressive propaganda campaign to reverse course like that. Now, was everything rosy? No, Stilwell for instance, got in enormously hot water for suggesting the U.S. shift support from the KMT to the Chi-Coms, and communists weren't viewed favorably. But it wouldn't be a continuation of the Nazi war, not without some pretty deft stepping.


And in any case, any war with the USSR is likely to start with a Soviet advance; even with their handicaps they have the initial advantage. Depending on how far they push with that, you're looking at a long build up and a lot of blood and treasure to pus them back. Having to await another year or two while we build up the forces to land again is going to be a tough sell.

>>1846958
> Though I still maintain the moral effects of nukes going off would have been a major blow to the USSR. For example, the range of the Boeing B-29 was 3,250 miles, Paris to Moscow is 1,757.6 miles. So theoretically the US could have nuked Moscow, Leningrad and what remained of Stalingrad, at this point I think the USSR would have either called for an armistice or suffered major domestic isuses.

Well, that's strategic bombing, and it would have been very effective. Still, I'm less optimistic than you are about a quick knock out of the Soviet Union. Possible, but I don't think likely. Yeah, Japan went down from 2 nukes, and they were ideologically committed, but this was a Japan that had its navy almost obliterated, been driven back on all fronts for 2 and a half years, was facing an invasion of their home islands, were overrun in Manchuria, and hell, even the Chinese were starting to show teeth. To everyone who isn't insane, the war was lost and this was as good at time to throw in the towel as any.

That's very, very different than say, an august delivery of a nuke on Moscow when the Soviets are trying and perhaps succeeding to storm into northeast France. The Soviets outright lost a bunch of cities against the Germans, and didn't know if they'd ever get them back, and that didn't make them quit.

If you're going for morale effects, the optimal time to deliver nukes is when the lines have stabilized, and the Soviets are no longer advancing, then a rising cost without something consequent to offset it is likely to have maximum effect. Still, it would probably only bring them to the negotiating table, not bring about absolute surrender.


Bombing production facilities might get you there faster, but that's another set of extremely complicated calculations; my gut tells me that the first and best target might be Baku, and all the oil refining that went around there.

>>1847037

To add to my argument, do you honestly think that the USSR would surrender because we nuked a bunch of innocent people. The Germans had a similar idea, it didn't work out very well for them.

> Le PO-2 meme

Look, the US had Early Monoplanes in the scouting and fire coordination role too, and the USSR had plenty of excellent fighter aircraft that matched and in many times could beat anything the allies had (Lavochkin series, Yaks, etc.)

File: peak soviet air technology.jpg (344KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1280x782px

>>1847037
>Problem would be that America would be the blatant aggressor whereas in WW2 the U.S had been attacked by surprise by Japan.
UK could be seen as the instigator, they were still a world power at this time plus Churchill was ther only real member of the allies who supported such a war.

>The US economy was not in a good position to keep up the war footing for long unless even more drastic economic measures were taken,
The US economy was great right up until the 1973–74 stock market crash and the military-industrial complex has been going to this day.

>not to mention Britain and especially Germany being in no real position to join a "coalition of the willing" prequel addition.
Germany wouldn't be invited for obvious reasons and the UK were all for war.

>>1846994
>fucking biplanes aren't interwar
Back to lefty/pol/, kiddah.

>>1847065

The federal government was in such dire financial straits during the war that they capped salaries, all sorts of price controls, and had to do a massive bond drive prior to Okinawa just to keep fighting the war. The War economy was not stable and couldn't go on forever.

> Germany wouldn't be invited

It was part of the original plan to raise a new German army to help with the war, which was impractical for obvious economic and political reasons.

>>1846641
first post, best post

>>1847065
>>fucking biplanes aren't interwar
>Back to lefty/pol/, kiddah.


>They had extremely outdated equipment, most of it looking like a remnant of the interwar period.

are you implying that biplanes comprised "most" of soviet military equipment?

>>1847065
You are now aware that literally every combatant in WW2 employed bi-planes.

>>1847065
Most sides in ww2 used bi-planes, I know for a fact that the UK employed them as an effective carrier planes. They were also evidently not ineffective considering that the Bismarck was crippled by one.

>>1847642

The Swordfish was a funny old bird. She was useful precisely because she was useless. The things couldn't fly real high, or very fast, which made them sitting ducks if the target had any sort of air cover, but because they didn't fly very fast or high, they had very good accuracy when they shot at things.

>>1846644
You can't even keep Afghani insurgents in check, let alone an army that annihilated the bulk of the German army at it's height.

>>1847767

Because there's no difference between total conventional war and asymmetric non-total war, am I right?

Besides, I don't recall the Soviets doing so great against Afghani insurgents either.

>>1847767
Yea cause the Soviets totally kept them in check right?

>>1846626

If America had gone all-in with it, the first strike would have been nuclear attacks against Russian forces in the West and against Moscow. This wouldn't have been enough to break the USSR, and the soviet superiority in numbers would grind out a win on the mainland until the USSR got it's own nukes and quickly takes out Europe and Britain.

>>1847813

>If America had gone all-in with it, the first strike would have been nuclear attacks against Russian forces in the West and against Moscow.

The usual timetables given for Unthinkable are somewhere between April and July of 1945. They didn't have nukes at that point. Nukes would be a supplemental arm, but any hypothetical WW3 that is born out from Unthinkable is going to be almost overwhelmingly fought with conventional weapons.

And conventionally, the Western Allies do have the long term advantage. Any Soviet victory would almost have to be non-total, involved in taking continental territory and bargaining some or all of it back for peace.

>>1847779
>>1847783
They certainly have, considering that the kill/death ratio was heavily in their favor, the only thing that made them pull out were the conveniently timed Geneva Accords and that American- initiated, global diplomatic pressure.

>>1847883
Those numbers are thanks to indiscriminate attacks. If you're arguing that the Soviets were considerably more heartless, then yea you win, Ivan

>>1847883

Except of course, if you count "winning the war" by kill/death ratios (which is idiotic at the best of times) then the Americans are winning in Afghanistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014)

Again, this has little to do with the hypothetical outcome of an all out total war between nation-states, as opposed to the occupation of hostile territory. You do grasp this point, don't you?

>>1846989
Not really, only one side is providing proper arguments.

>>1847936
Maybe If we ignore the fact you got BTFO

Here
>>1847896
>>1847903

>>1847896
No, those numbers are thanks to them being the more superior combatants and you're sorely misled if you believe that you can deem the Soviets" as being more heartless" while their enemies would strap bombs on children and use mere civilians and human shields.

>>1847903
I certainly don't, I'm merely pointing out that the odds were heavily in the favor of the Soviets.

>Again, this has little to do with the hypothetical outcome of an all out total war between nation-states

It certainly does, because most of those casualties were inflicted only after the Soviets have realized that they need to subjugate Afghanistan in order to subjugate their enemy, hence the 1988 Geneva Accords.

>>1848008
>I certainly don't, I'm merely pointing out that the odds were heavily in the favor of the Soviets.


No they aren't. The Western Allies have the capability to strike at the heart of the Soviet Union should they get the upper hand in a continental struggle. The Soviet Union has no similar capability to strike at Britain nor at the U.S.

Fundamentally, the war starts or ends when the Allies wish it to.

Furthermore, the Western Allies have a considerably larger manpower pool and industrial base, and that's assuming they can't make new inroads into people neutral in WW2, a la the Iberian Peninsula or South America. A long war, assuming no failure of will occurs, inevitably favors the USSR.

About the only advantages the Soviets have is an initial force advantage on the ground but not the air in 1945, and because this is a defensive war for them that they haven't chosen, are far less likely to succumb to war weariness. But the odds are not looking great for them at all.

>It certainly does, because most of those casualties were inflicted only after the Soviets have realized that they need to subjugate Afghanistan in order to subjugate their enemy, hence the 1988 Geneva Accords.

That doesn't help your point at all. Even assuming it's true (and I doubt that) the number of casualties you sustain on going on limited patrols in hostile territory is far, far different from the sorts of casualties you'd be sustaining facing a regular military of similar and in many cases greater capability to your own.

And in any case, BOTH the Soviets and the Americans had enormously favorable k/d ratios vis a vis the Afghanis. I have no idea what you're even trying to demonstrate.

>>1847982
That might seem so to an illiterate subhuman, they're but mere counterarguments to others.

>>1848032

>No they aren't.

What is the point in interjecting an argument about the Soviet-Taliban war in a reference to the hypothetical scenario of Operation Unthinkable ?

>That doesn't help your point at all

It does, because it shows that the Soviets made admirable progress only after they've abandoned their policy of not involving civilians in the conflict.

>I have no idea what you're even trying to demonstrate

That the Soviets were turning the tide and were on the verge of winning, and of course, destroying a good portion of Afghanistan in the process.

>>1848008 (You)
As human shields*, fucking typo.

>>1848098

>What is the point in interjecting an argument about the Soviet-Taliban war in a reference to the hypothetical scenario of Operation Unthinkable ?

Because you brought up supposed American troubles dealing with "Afghani insurgents" as proof that the U.S. couldn't beat the Red Army in post >>1847767

Pointing out that they did pretty much what the Soviets did (and had a better KDR in the bargain) seems to undercut your point, as feeble as a point as it was.


>It does, because it shows that the Soviets made admirable progress only after they've abandoned their policy of not involving civilians into the conflict.


Irrelevant. How does that show soviet superiority over Americans, who managed to do the same without large scale crackdown on civilian areas? How does any of that apply to a 1945 total war?

>That the Soviets were turning the tide and were on the verge of winning, and of course, destroying a good portion of Afghanistan in the process.

Uh-huh. Pull the other one, it has bells on. 1988 Geneva conventions is why the Soviets hadn't conducted offensives in Afghanistan for almost 3 years by that date, and had openly been discussing an exit strategy since 1987.

>>1848032
>About the only advantages the Soviets have is an initial force advantage on the ground but not the air in 1945, and because this is a defensive war for them that they haven't chosen, are far less likely to succumb to war weariness. But the odds are not looking great for them at all.
The diplomatic fallout is going to be huge for the western Allies as they would be seen as perfidious backstabbers, losing a lot of their support while socialism already had high support around the world, causing a lot of the world to go socialist or communist. A long war would favour the Soviets in terms of resources as those pro-Allies would likely going to remain neutral and neutral nations may start leaning pro-Soviet and start to cause trade issues for the Western Allies.

Meanwhile, support for the war in the Western Allies would be incredibly low as they would have to justify backstabbing a major ally during the world war.

>>1848008
In favor*, another typo.

This post >>1848117


Is meant for >>1848098
>>1848102


Not quite sure what happened to the quote chain.

>>1848118

>The diplomatic fallout is going to be huge for the western Allies as they would be seen as perfidious backstabbers,

Is it? Socialism is hardly a powerful lobby in the two most important countries involved in this alliance, the U.S. and the UK. The one major allied power wehere they did have a lot of influence was France, but De Gaulle had spent most of his time between the liberation of Paris and the end of the war cleaning house, Socialist parties were hardly in any positions of power there.

>losing a lot of their support while socialism already had high support around the world, causing a lot of the world to go socialist or communist.

Extremely unlikely, as the sorts of places that did eventually go socialist or communist either

A) Had Soviet troops keeping it that way

B) were decolonization countries.

B is not likely to happen in the middle of WW3, and A is actively being contested. And the Soviets have no means of projecting power to most of them anyway. Meanwhile, the population/industry of the U.S. alone outweighs the USSR.

>A long war would favour the Soviets in terms of resources as those pro-Allies would likely going to remain neutral and neutral nations may start leaning pro-Soviet and start to cause trade issues for the Western Allies.

Or they may not, as realpolitik heavily favors the Allies to anywhere that doesn't have an imminent threat of Soviet tanks rolling in; ESPECIALLY if the Allies start gaining the upper hand and/or lob nukes at the Russian heartland.

>>1848117

>Because you brought up supposed American troubles dealing with "Afghani insurgents" as proof that the U.S. couldn't beat the Red Army in post

Because they've had all the advantage they ever needed in Afghanistan, and yet, they've under-performed.

>and had a better kill/death ratio in the bargain

The Soviets have lost 14.500 men, while killing 90.000 Taliban and on the other hand, the Americans have only killed 25.000-45.000 Taliban, while having a coalition force at it's disposal, complete terrain knowledge, technological superiority and nearly 400.000 Afghan soldiers to boot.

> How does that show soviet superiority over Americans

Because the Soviets have proven to be far better at dealing with unconventional tasks, while having less resources at their disposal.

>who managed to do the same without large scale crackdown on civilian areas

Most of the fighting was done by the Afghan National Security Forces.


>How does any of that apply to a 1945 total war

Because it would severely undermine American progress to Russia proper.At this point, Europeans have already lost too much and would rather abide to Soviet tyranny than risk another wholesome destruction of their property and massive death tolls.

>>1848135
I had to delete it because I've made a typo.

Soviet manpower is a meme from Imperial Russia times. At that time Russia did have a huge population compared to other European nations.
But in WW2 Soviets had 180 million people, and they literally lost 50-60 million by Axis occupation. Axis powers in Europe had advantage actually.
Deploying huge number of troops does not equal manpower advantage.
In any case Soviets would've steamrolled Europe in case Unthinkable happened, but that's nothing weird given their advantage in terms of troops deployed and experience.
They would have logistical problems and few nukes American had would disrupt their production somewhat, but I don't think it would matter much. In fact nukes would probably motivate their soldiers to fight harder.
But it wouldn't be manpower advantage that would play a role (America and UK and France dwarfed their population obviously).

>>1848191
>Because they've had all the advantage they ever needed in Afghanistan, and yet, they've under-performed.


Their underperformance was off the battlefield ,not on it, an inability to convert tactical success into a viable government. Given that the Soviets had the exact same problems, I'm still not sure what you're getting at.

>>1848191

>he Soviets have lost 14.500 men, while killing 90.000 Taliban and on the other hand, the Americans have only killed 25.000-45.000 Taliban, while having a coalition force at it's disposal, complete terrain knowledge, technological superiority and nearly 400.000 Afghan soldiers to boot.


And only losing 2,356 men. I notice you left that little part out. And it's not like the Soviets didn't have an Afghan quasi-useful regime around in the 80s either.

>Because it would severely undermine American progress to Russia proper.At this point, Europeans have already lost too much and would rather abide to Soviet tyranny than risk another wholesome destruction of their property and massive death tolls.

The U.S. doesn't even need to progress to Russia proper. If they liberate (actually liberate) to Poland, Romania, and Greece, and stop there, where they'd have more or less friendly regimes all the way, and stop, I think most people would call that a U.S. win, even if they don't knock over Moscow.

>>1848285
>lost 50-60 million
To clarify I mean temporarily lost, in occupied territores. They had some 25 million loses during the war, and that's a lot.
So as someone above said, they would have only short-term advantage, but I think it would be decisive.
People really overestimate Allied war prowess and underestimate Soviets.

Whoever wins, we lose. Though I'd put money on the USA & Co. if they could stay in the war long enough to wear down the USSR.

>>1847883
Dude, this is literally what Vietnam War apologists say to justify their view that the US won the war. Like, the exact same talking points, almost word for word. Are you fucking with me?

Plus there is a problem of geography. USA is most of Western Allies power but USA is across the ocean(s).
If Europe is lost, it's pretty much over, and holding onto Europe will be logistically hard.

>>1848285
>In any case Soviets would've steamrolled Europe in case Unthinkable happened, but that's nothing weird given their advantage in terms of troops deployed and experience.


How sure are you of that?

Case in point, by the close of 1944, the Soviets were on the Vistula. Warsaw would be liberated in January 17th of 1945.

It's about 572.5 km from Warsaw to Berlin; which took them roughly 4 months to take from the close of 1945, falling in very early May. That averages to about 143.125 km a month, although do be aware that's in fits and starts; the Soviets tended to build up, make a big offensive, take a lot of ground, and then consolidate for a spell while they brought up more men and material for the next big push.

The 1945 Wehrmacht was, well, utterly crushed. It was vastly, vastly inferior to what the Western Allies had on the table. It is absolute lunacy to assume that they would advance as quickly against the Western Allies as they did against the Germans, when you've got things like Allied air superiority and fresh troops and artillery rough parity. It would take them all summer just to get to the Rhine, and that's with the Allies reinforcing the entire time. Getting across the Rhine would be an order of magnitude harder, as constricting terrain makes it hard for the Soviets to employ their numerical advantages, as well as slowing the pace of combat due to river crossings gives more time for the Allied air advantage to make itself felt.

>>1848356
>Plus there is a problem of geography. USA is most of Western Allies power but USA is across the ocean(s).

The Atlantic isn't much of a barrier. It takes about a week for a liberty ship to go from New York to the west coast of France. It would take longer for the Soviets to bring up war material by rail from Omsk or elsewhere in western Siberia.

It's only really a problem if the enemy can contest the sea lanes, but especially with Japan bowing out of the war soon, and the ability to re-allocate the entire Pacific fleet if need be, I don't see the 2 obsolescent battleships of the Baltic fleet and a handful of subs posing that much of a problem.

>>1848324
The Soviets didn't have control over the country and no friendly regime to back them up.

My point is that the Americans have had far more at their disposal than the Soviets ever had, and yet the results are the same.

> I notice you left that little part out

I've left it out because most of the fighting was done by the indigenous armed forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan had all but failed to maintain any form of control over the country.

>The U.S. doesn't even need to progress to Russia proper. If they liberate (actually liberate) to Poland, Romania, and Greece, and stop there, where they'd have more or less friendly regimes all the way, and stop, I think most people would call that a U.S. win, even if they don't knock over Moscow.

True.

>>1848348
Highly unlikely, considering that the Soviet-Afghan war was actually winnable for the Soviets, but was ultimately stopped due to reasons of state.

>>1848441
>The Soviets didn't have control over the country and no friendly regime to back them up.

Wrong.

http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/commentary/lessons-soviet-withdrawal-afghanistan

>My point is that the Americans have had far more at their disposal than the Soviets ever had, and yet the results are the same.

Really? Then why did you harp so much about kill to death ratios? >>1847883

>I've left it out because most of the fighting was done by the indigenous armed forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan had all but failed to maintain any form of control over the country.

You're really bad at this, you know that? You can't present a supposed lackluster KDR of the American forces in Afghanistan and then claim that "oh wait, they weren't really doing the fighting" as a testament to the supposed poor fighting power for the Americans.

>True.

So, you agree that supposed American inability to control hostile countryside is actually irrelevant to Unthinkable and that you've spent all this time hitting a strawman.

>Highly unlikely, considering that the Soviet-Afghan war was actually winnable for the Soviets, but was ultimately stopped due to reasons of state.

You do realize this is the case for pretty much any non-total war, yes? That a greater commitment might have worked? The Americans might have won Vietnam, if they were willing to sit there and endure casualties forever and a day until Hanoi crumbled. The British might have defeated the American revolution if they were able and willing to commit to sending another 40,000 redcoats on down. The Chinese might have been able to defeat Si Ren Fa if they were willing to pay the ridiculous amount of time, energy, effort, and blood it would take to bring down an obscure Burman warlord. So what?

>>1848483
I guess I'm dismantled, at least I've had the honor of conversing with someone who is quite educated in this topic.

>>1848483
Fore the record, you came as a shock to me, I'm accustomed to conversing with overeager high school education/ community college enthusiasts and the likes that visit /pol/, not an actually educated individual.

The US would lose continental Europe through a bloody soviet assault, but in the end they would either white peace or win because of vastly superior naval and air power

The US and Britain would create a far eastern front with all the forces freed up after the surrender of Japan and the Western forces would probably stall the soviet advance at the Rhine. You have to remember that the western allies had six million troops (3.6 million US, 2.4 million British and British Raj troops) tied up in the fight against Japan. This isn't even counting the fourteen million nationalist Chinese troops that could have been committed. This topic has been flogged to death and usually always comes out as a Western strategic victory.

Man, it bothers me that /his/ can recognize Rommel is a meme general for ignoring logistics, but when topics like this come up, logistics don't come up.

1) The Soviets are not reaching France. No matter what. They were already straining their logistics system getting to Berlin. Getting across Germany and then across the Rhine, while the allied powers are always able to just ship to the nearest harbor, is going to be a disaster.

2) Likewise, pushing past Berlin is going to be a project like none other in American history. Europe broadens and spreads out in Eastern Europe, the roads turn to shit, and this is the important part, there's no good ports. As the front broadens, the Americans have to adapt to a kind of wide front giant pocket warfare the Americans have never dealt with before, and the Soviets spent 4 years mastering.

No matter who wins, no one is able to exert their power out of central Europe.

Whatever the result would be, I'm glad it didn't happen.

>>1848636
Taking that into account, wouldn't the US/British airpower (especially strategic bombers) really come into its own, assuming they can hold the Red Army at Germany?

t. genuinely curious

>>1848636

To be honest, the Red Army's drive across Eastern Germany was only minimally hampered by logistical issues; what was slowing them down really was what was left of the Germans, they were displaying the same sorts of behaviors that they were post operations like Bagration and Kishniev, much closer to their own loci of support.

Point the second is a very good one though, although I'm not so sure how much the Western Allies would really need to push (some of which is dependent on what their war aims are) and while the road network isn't great, the rail network is pretty good. On the other hand, the Americans and British are likely to blow up a lot of the rail network.

It's likely to slow down the pace of operations, but unlikely to grind either army to a halt.

>>1848713

Not him, but yes; interdiction bombing was the main reason why all 53 divisions sitting in France didn't pile into them a week after the D-Day landings.

But yes, chewing up the rail networks behind the main areas of operation would be something the Allies would do, and probably effectively, although I would note that the Soviets would have far more in the way of ability to repair things than the Germans did, which would blunt the effects somewhat.

File: Railways1941.png (3MB, 3100x2004px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3100x2004px

One thing that I think (almost) everyone here is forgetting is that throughout the entirety of the war, the Soviet Union was only ever majorly engaged on one front, the eastern front, as Germany was not in a position to launch strikes from other directions due to lack of sea power and forward bases, with the Japanese being able but unwilling, due to their perpetually ongoing war with Britain in South-East Asia and the US in the Pacific.

The Allies, post Japanese defeat, had no such restrictions.

The British Indian Army alone numbered over 2.5 million men at the end of the war, while the US had established complete control of the pacific, with the potential to land hundreds of thousands of men in Japan or East Asia, or more relevantly, Vladivostok.

The Allies would likely be facing initial retreat across western Germany in Europe, that much is probably a given, but unlike Germany, the Allies had immense global war capabilities. They could force the Soviets to fight on 3 fronts at once (Europe, Central Asia and East Asia). Add to this the fact that Soviet rail infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to long range attack (pic related - almost all rail traffic heading east must pass through Moscow, nuke or sabotage that, and the Soviets lose the ability to redeploy effectively on a large scale). Add further that the bulk of Soviet industry had been moved east of Moscow, and in order to replace losses in Europe will need to pass through the central rail links, causing further congestion with forces being redeployed east. The end result is an absolute logistical nightmare.

Yes, the Red Army would likely make initial gains in the West, but it would very quickly come at the cost of massive losses in the East to rapid US deployments, and the potential bisection of the Nation if exposed to an attack from British India in Central Asia (which, admittedly would be slow, but large), by the potential loss of Central Asia allowing the bombing of the few rail lines heading east.

>>1848636
>They were already straining their logistics system getting to Berlin.
...and they were straining it with American train engines, trucks and jeeps, which they would not be receiving any more once Lend-Lease got shut off.

Lend-Lease's biggest contribution to the Soviet war effort was providing transport for logistics.

>>1849902
>Soviet rail infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to long range attack
...and it was running on American train engines as all Soviet factories had been turned over to war material production.

I hope they built up enough parts and shit and their stockpile before Unthinkable breaks out.

>>1846644
>history shows that tech always beats numbers
That didn't seem to help the germans

>>1850396
>...and it was running on American train engines as all Soviet factories had been turned over to war material production.
Looks like you fell for the "95 PERCENT OF ENGINES WERE FROM THE US!" meme.

Yes, the vast majority of train engines introduced into the fleet during the war were indeed US-supplied. That's because only a minuscule number were built during that timeframe. That's because they had several thousand engines from before the war.

>>1846641
This, especially point 2

>>1850753
Yeah yeah yeah. Lend Lease was useless. Soviet stronk. No help needed from capitalist pigs. Blah blah blah.

Aircraft - 14,795
Tanks - 7,056
Jeeps - 51,503
Trucks - 375,883
Motorcycles - 35,170
Tractors - 8,071
Guns - 8,218
Machine guns - 131,633
Explosives - 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued - $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars - 11,155
Locomotives - 1,981
Cargo ships - 90
Submarine hunters - 105
Torpedo boats - 197
Ship engines - 7,784
Food supplies - 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment - $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals - 802,000 tons
Petroleum products - 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals - 842,000 tons
Cotton - 106,893,000 tons
Leather - 49,860 tons
Tires - 3,786,000
Army boots - 15,417,001 pairs

>>1851224
Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II
Light armoured fighting vehicles - 30.079
Medium armoured fighting vehicles - 62.424
Heavy armoured fighting vehicles - 13.979
And i dont include aircraft, jeeps, trucks and etc, its only tanks and SP guns

>>1851224
And dont forget that USSR pay for this

>>1851254
Actually they didn't. They haven't even come close to repaying for land lease

>>1851326
I mean, it's not surprising, the US-USSR relations went to shit after the war quickly.

>>1851224
It wasn't useless, but minute in comparison to native Russian industrial input.

>>1851326
USSR and Russian Federation pay 722 millions dollars, its 55% from money that USSR/Russian Federation must pay

>>1846626

The West would be in a similar position as was Russia against Nazi Germany.

Would it win in a total war? Probably. Would it be costly? Hell yes, it would probably take 10-20 million lives to force an unconditional surrender. We are talking about an apocalypse which would change the very essence of the West.

After this war the West would be more like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and less like an amusement park and land of possibilities.

>>1851253
Cool. Now try to keep these pieces of machinery fighting without:
Logistics
Petrol
Food for the crews
Shoes for the crews
Provided for by the US of A