Operation Thinkable?

>>2197980
>7 days to the river rhine

One would think it would be really hard to sell world war three to a people who suffered 20 million casualties in the last few years.

>>2197980
Polish units in Germany? They got cucked in 1939 though?

>>2197980
Soviets would have had an early advantage but their supply chain was on the brink of the collapse, so they would probably be able to make a push towards the border of Germany. After that I see chances for a stalemate for a while until the west, mostly America of course, has pumped enough troops in western europe to go for a counterattack. Soviets would never be able to kick the west completely out of Europe because of aforementioned supply problems and their massive disadvantage in the air, which would mean constant bombing raids, even putting more pressure on the supply chain

>>2197980
At the end of the war the Allies had the following forces in Europe:

>4.5 million troops (91 Divisions)[2][3]
>~17,000 tanks[4]
>28,000 combat aircraft[5]
>~63,000 artillery pieces[6]

So similar to what the Soviets had, not counting the extra 1.3 million Allied troops and appropriate amount of tanks and artillery in Italy. Except, American and British units generally had far more ammunition to expend than Soviet ones. And it still took the Soviets over a year and millions of casualties to defeat 60% of the 1944-1945 era German army, which was consistently outnumbered 2-1 strategically and was not close to the Americans in ANYTHING at this point.

File: 2sbp 1944.jpg (166KB, 1200x876px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x876px

>>2199730
>Polish units in Germany? They got cucked in 1939 though?
those are forces of polish goverment in the exile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Armed_Forces_in_the_West

At the start, the soviets would have overwhelmed local allied units. The German military was functionally non existent and I think reaching the Rhine to be withing the realm of possibility.

Also our view of history is a bit clouded on this, but communism was on the ascendent. Italy nearly become communist, Greece had a communist revolution and France which always had a strong leftist tradition would have been in internal trouble. Not to mention the troubles in asia.

But ultimately it would have failed. The Soviets were also near the end of their supply chain and bare in mind, they too were at the limits of their own war economy while the US was at their peak.

The West could probably push well into eastern europe but public sentiment at the time and the weakness of its european allies means I doubt anything past securing all of Germany proper would have been possible.

the allies were no match for the red army
they knew that, thats why nothing happened after the reich was defeated

File: 1441040552294.png (96KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 680x680px

>>2199795

Soviets would have overrun the continent, except perhaps Spain

How many Russian Hiroshimas and Nagasakis would it take to get the Soviets to back off?

Not that fucking many, I'd wager.

>>2200213

To be honest, I doubt it. 1st gen atomic weapons are "only" about as powerful as a big (700+) bomber raid on a city. Germany absorbed literally hundreds of those without surrendering from the shock. I doubt it would do much better with the Soviets; it's one thing to be the straw that breaks the camel's back against an utterly prostrate and defeated Japan, it's another to do it against a fellow superpower which might be advancing on the ground at the moment.

>>2200213
You won't reach anything that was not already destroyed.

>>2200054

Even if that were to happen, they couldn't hold it.

File: Bomb.jpg (76KB, 438x599px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 438x599px

>>2197980
No.

>>2201183
Having a minor occupied city get bombed every other month isnt that scary

And thats assuming no nukes get shot down

>>2201199

Not him, and I think that the Soviets could absorb nuclear attacks as well, but it won't be "Minor occupied cities". The B-29s that launched the historic atomic strikes were from the island of Tinian, in the northern Marianas. They flew about 2,500 kilometers. Considering the plethora of British colonies around the globe, as well as newly liberated countries like Norway, there aren't too many places that are completely free from risk of nuclear attack: If I was in charge back then, my first instinct would be to aim a nuke at Baku, well within range of a strike from say, Islamabad.

>>2201183
The US was able to drop the bombs on Japan mostly because any the Japanese no longer had the ability to defend their airspace, letting US fighters/bombers have free reign over the skies mostly unharrassed.

The soviets however still have their air defenses in place and better than ever. Trying to deliver the bomb to Moscow/Leningrad/other industrial targets was a fools errand as it would just be shot down during the trip.

the only way to use the nuke was on the frontline, where it would have much less of an effect, as a Hiroshima sized bomb is really designed to destroy industrial/manufacturing centers rather than actual frontline combat. Or moreover, it would make the Soviets double down on their resistance against a nation who's trying to burn them to ash.

>>2201217
Well you might be right. But the fact remains nuke production was slow as balls and they still needed to be delivered by plane. Easier said than done against an enemy that still had a functional airforce

>>2201263

True that, although I would point out that Soviet air doctrine emphasized tactical bombing and defense in kind; most of their fighters were designed to operate at low altitudes, and they'd have struggled (at least at first) to throw something that could stop a high flying B-29 all along their perimeter, at least unless and until nuclear threats grew bad enough that they had to alter their game plan.

AFAIK, the only fighter they maintained at the close of the war which could even try to intercept a B-29 would be the Yak-9, and I have no idea how many were active in 45, but I suspect not enough to cover the entire USSR.

>>2201305
So a few nukes at least would likely get through, but that isnt going to dent the USSR

As the US tried to ramp up production to meanignful levels the USSR would have time to develop higher altitude counters

I suspect it would be a losing game for the US in the long run

>>2197993
Came about in the fucking 70's and wasn't cemented as Soviet Doctrine until the 80's. Not only that, it relied on the idea of limited nuclear war which the U.S. would not have gone for. The moment they started to move into the Fulda gap and the nukes started, Moscow would be leveled.

>>2197980
If it doesn't get down to nuclear war, absolutely.

Specially in the early cold war.

>>2197980
Soviets supply chain was on the brink of being fucked, also soviet war economy was inferior the the american one, the allies would win through sheer attrition

>>2201305
You're totally wrong. Soviets had a very sophisticated air defense. Technologically backwards compared to British one for example, but couldn't be ignored.
>>2202312
>inferior to American one
Debatable, given their production. And America is across the ocean.
Oh and Americans had too few nukes to do anything relevant until early 50's.
Biggest problem for Soviets would be strained logistics and manpower.

>>2202359
>You're totally wrong. Soviets had a very sophisticated air defense. Technologically backwards compared to British one for example, but couldn't be ignored.


What the hell are you talking about? They had the same stuff everyone else did; flak guns and interceptors.

But the Soviets did not emphasize high altitude flyers, which is going to make it hard to shoot down a high flying B-29, which fly well outside of flak range. They don't have a gun that can hit something flying almost 10 kilometers straight up from the ground, and again, they didn't have many planes which could keep up with a B-29 at that height, because they made planes to fly low, by and large.

>>2201253
>The soviets however still have their air defenses in place and better than ever.
Wooden airplanes held together with glue

And no radios

>>2203338
By 45 the VVS had plenty of radios.
Most of them American radios, but radios nonetheless.