Would the Soviets been able to keep their momentum amd took the

>>31603348
No. with the French military reformed and the brits and us with them. They would run out of manpower.

File: berlin liberators.jpg (749KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 1920x1200px

>>31603348
They could, but for what purpose?

>>31603348
They'd at the very least have enough momentum to secure everything east of the Rhein. After that point they'd run into trouble as the western allies brought in reinforcements to hold the line. The allies would probably be able to hold in Italy as well thanks to the Alps.

File: tulevaisuus_on_jo_taalla.jpg (484KB, 1617x1270px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1617x1270px

Who knows, would not have been easy for them after all that happened.

No help in form of resources.

Rest of axis nations would (probably) join to fight against them.

Massive bombing campaigns against their ground formations etc.

Nuclear option too, not a very good situation to have massed troops and staging areas when the other guy is still in a state of mind to use them.

>>31603348
>>31603612

It's also worth noting that the map posted exaggerates the Soviet manpower advantage, due to the differing ways Soviet and US armies divided units organizationally. The Soviets did have a manpower advantage, though, just not as extreme was what OP's picture implies.

File: BE_ADVISED.png (131KB, 304x304px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 304x304px

>>31603348
Nope.
While the Soviets did have the manpower to steamroll through Europe they would have made the same mistake the Germans did and overstretched their supply lines. Allied ground forces would play a delay game untill more significant forces could be deployed to europe, and the allied Air forces would bomb Soviet supply's lines 24/7, all year long. And might even nuke major soviet production cites.

>>31603348
Would've led to a civil war as one of the popular generals would've seized the moment.

>>31603348
No, but if they started a shooting war with the Allies that soon, it probably would have ended with a Soviet victory in yet another failed invasion.

File: rightful russian clay.gif (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>31603797
>and overstretched their supply lines
That's physically impossible, Europe is much thinner north to south in the west and weather is much less of a concern.

>>31603797
They had supply lines goodenough to throw 2.5 million people, 6500 tanks and 7500 aicraft and 41000 artillery pieces into Battle of Berlin alone. Thats half of what allies had in western europe combined.

Patton was pretty sure he'd win. He even wanted to keep going through Germany and end the commie threat for good.
his rationale for why he'd win was something about supply lines. It's been a while since i read about it

>>31603348
Simply put, no the Soviets could never have won a continued World War 2. With the Allies heavily supporting them even by the end of 1945, Soviet Russia grinds to a halt, logistically speaking. This would lead to a very ahrd ground war, which in the best of scenarios (for the USSR) would probably stabilise around the final positions taken in real-life 1945. Worst case, supply lines crumble, and the red army has to retreat.

At the same time, the Allies would make a massive shift towards bombarding the Russians to all hell. After Japan surrenders (might take up untill 1946, but it will happen eventually), that means all attention is on Russia - and it might mean a two-front war, which only one side can maintain - the Allies.

And then there's the final nail in the coffin: nukes. Pic related: the Soviets would've gotten 90 (!) times as many nukes thrown at them by 1951, if they could even hold out that long. Their production capacities would have been decimated. Their morale utterly destroyed. Several army formations would've gotten nuked. I'm not sure they could even have a viable nuclear program: by 1949, they would've been hit by at least 200 nukes". That's peacetime production too, I'm pretty sure the US could ramp up production in wartime.

Once the USA is finished with

>>31604528
Too bad a major part of those supplies where actually supplied by the Allies. Sure, Russia had supply lines, but not the factories that the USA did.

File: Knipsel.jpg (15KB, 315x187px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 315x187px

>>31604603
Forgot the picture, dammit.

>Once the USA is finished with
Japan, the amount of manpower, economic power, materiel and nukes would simply mean a soviet defeat.

>>31604617
Supplies went in according to treaties, not because they were actually needed, and they went to Mourmansk or through Iran, so it does not really matter. Their military production capabilities were pretty much restored by 1944.

>>31604603
Nuking Germany and France would have been a mistake, man,

>>31604643
>Their military production capabilities were pretty much restored by 1944.
And would've been destroyed again by 1946.

>>31604653
I'm not saying anything about nuking either of those, I'm talking about nuking Russian formations in eastern Europe, or nuking factories and cities.

>>31604603
>And then there's the final nail in the coffin: nukes. Pic related: the Soviets would've gotten 90 (!) times as many nukes thrown at them by 1951
>That's peacetime production too, I'm pretty sure the US could ramp up production in wartime.
The nukes cost billions of dollars to build, money which was available because a conventional war effort was no long being maintained. The massive amount of nukes hitting Russia theory isn't as plausible as people like to make it out to be.

>>31604603
That's just, like, your opinion, man. And nuking Russia would require to deliver nukes first.

>>31604683

It needs literally one or two.

>>31604663
>And would've been destroyed again by 1946.
>I'm not saying anything about nuking either of those, I'm talking about nuking Russian formations in eastern Europe, or nuking factories and cities.
B-29 could not reach them unless it was one way trip, though. Even nuking russians themselves would have looked really really bad at that point, nuking other countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia would have been a PR nightmare. And anyway bombing them without capability to start a land invasion would have been pretty pointless.

>>31604490
>>and overstretched their supply lines
>That's physically impossible, Europe is much thinner north to south in the west and weather is much less of a concern.

While it is true that Europe is as wide as Russia. The land in Europe isn't as flat as Russia is. And as we saw in WW1, once spring showers hit the everything will be struggling to move and the mud will be your worse enemy.


>>31604528
>They had supply lines goodenough to throw 2.5 million people, 6500 tanks and 7500 aicraft and 41000 artillery pieces into Battle of Berlin alone. Thats half of what allies had in western europe combined.

The Soviets pushed so quick to siege Berlin that their supplies had to play catch-up. If the Soviets tried to do that same shit to Paris against a enemy that CAN disrupt their supplies AND mount a proper defense it won't yield the same results.

>>31604767
>If the Soviets tried to do that same shit to Paris against a enemy that CAN disrupt their supplies AND mount a proper defense it won't yield the same results.
You are implying that Germans could not and allies could mount a proper defense at the same time, both of which is bullshit.

>>31604683
>money which was available because a conventional war effort was no long being maintained.
By that logic, Russia would also not have the means to produce a single nuke until the 1950's - which would mean certain loss.

I don't buy into your theory though. Wartime production nearly always exceeds peacetime, because people literally make money (war bonds) to fund that war.

>>31604735
I'd say a few more: Japan was on the brink of collapse, Russia wasn't.

>>31604743
>B-29 could not reach them unless it was one way trip, though.
You can always find enough idiots to drop ~200 bombs. See: Doolittle raid.

>Even nuking russians themselves would have looked really really bad at that point,
You're in active war, with a propaganda machine running, and you think bombing them with very, very big bombs is going to be bad PR? The fuck?

>And anyway bombing them without capability to start a land invasion would have been pretty pointless.
You're already on land. You just need the idiots to surrender so you don't need to waste your countrymen's lives for it.

>>31604803
>You can always find enough idiots to drop ~200 bombs. See: Doolittle raid.
Against the enemy who did pearl harbour and the one your were fighting for several years, not a guy you just reported to be great buddy and a hero.
>You're in active war, with a propaganda machine running, and you think bombing them with very, very big bombs is going to be bad PR? The fuck?
You could definitely convince americans and brits its ok, not everyone else. Pro-soviets were very strong at the end of the war in continetal eruope.
>You're already on land. You just need the idiots to surrender so you don't need to waste your countrymen's lives for it.
And what makes you think they'd surrender? Thats really really dumb.

>>31604833
>Against the enemy who did pearl harbour and the one your were fighting for several years,
Doolittle raid happened in 1942, sempai.

>>31604843
Does not matter, japs were vilified by that time, they were the enemy, not russians.

>>31604528
And they really stretched their supply lines to pull that off. Advancing another thousand miles, under continuous air interdiction? It would have been an insane gamble.

>>31604850
An incident to turn public opinion against the Soviets would be a given. Hell, there's a decent chance the the Soviets would have done it themselves with little provocation.

>>31604850
>fighting for several years

>>31604793
By 1945, Due to attrition, German units on the Eastern front were severely undermanned and under supplied. To mount a tangible defense against the Soviets with units such as these is suicidal.

On the Allies side, combat units were the most well supplied units in the war and they were quick to replace losses. So the Allies could in fact mount a better defense since they're not on their last lags.

>>31604833
It'd only take a year for the US/UK propaganda machine to vilify the Russians.

Even the entire continent could have been swayed. Sure, nobody liked the naxis, but there was some very strong anti-communist sentiment - although Russia itself was seen as a great help in the war. Still, you shouldn't underestimate good propaganda, especially back then.

They would surrender. Continuous nukes do that to you. It only took 2 ineffective ones to kick Japan out of the war. Sure, Russia is stronger, but it can only take so much, especially in the face of losing that nuclear arms race. There is no possibility for Russia to destroy the US nuclear program - there is an awful lot of chances to bomb the Russian one into oblivion.

>>31604850
>You can vilify Japs in a year!
>You can't do the same to the Russians!

>>31604889
>And they really stretched their supply lines to pull that off.
You always claim that, without a single fact. Last time i checked they did not have major supply difficulties after reaching the old border.
>under continuous air interdiction
I forgot they did not have planes, sorry.

>>31603348
Not immediately after the war, but after the massive U.S. demobilization in 1946 the only thing holding the Red Army back was the bomb.

>>31604915
>By 1945, Due to attrition, German units on the Eastern front were severely undermanned and under supplied.
How the fuck did allies managed to market garden then?
>On the Allies side, combat units were the most well supplied units in the war
Freezing people in Bastogne are against that statement.

>>31604954
>Market Garden
>Eastern Front
>1945
What? Also, easily defendable water line.

>>31604926
>You can vilify Japs in a year!
>You can't do the same to the Russians!
Yes you cant, youve been telling everyone they are heroes for quite a while.

>>31604954
>Freezing people in Bastogne are against that statement.
getting cut off will do that to you.
there was not really a way to cut off all the Americans in Germany at the end of WWII.

>>31604965
This actually sounds as an excuse. Germans fought back furiously, allies hada nice walk in the west for two reasons - russians already killed 3 out of 4 german soldiers available, and germans were more willing to surrender to allies, rather than fight to death like on eastern front.

>>31604969
>Every newspaper publishes a story about how USSR attacked Western forces in Germany and are storming across the border firebombing babbies and women
>some pieces about the great sacrifices the Brave Finns have made against the Red Menace
>suddenly the entire civilian population hates slavs and is with the war effort
>most of Europe hats USSR already in Germany and in occupied places like Poland and Czechoslovakia because it's already clear their "liberation" by Ivan isn't a temporary thing
Not that hard.

>>31605002
It's really more like the Americans brought a ridiculous amount of artillery, a ridiculous amount of shells for said artillery, and a ridiculous amount of radios to coordinate said shells onto Nazi heads.

Oh, and fighter-bombers raping German supply lines.

>>31604969
If the Russians did invade the Allied lines, it would've been similar to the invasion of Poland, or Pearl Harbor, in short-term losses, and in propaganda uses. You can quickly change the tide there.

Anyways, doesn't matter. Nukes don't care about morale.

>>31605018
Those ridiculous amounts werent quite so ridiculous when compared to what soviets had, you know.

File: Europe_topography_map_en.png (728KB, 1473x1198px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1473x1198px

>>31604767
>The land in Europe isn't as flat as Russia is
It's about as flat where it matters. A Russian rush to La Manche in 1945 would've met about as much resistance as a hot knife slicing through butter.

>>31604954
>How the fuck did allies managed to market garden then?
See >>31604965

>Freezing people in Bastogne are against that statement.

The American unit was ENCIRCLED. And the fact they lasted that long with out resupply is a testament to how well supplied they were to sustain themselves.

>>31605027
>Nukes don't care about morale.
Nukes care about delivery though.

>>31605015
Not quite as easy as you think it is. And completely not true for the last part.
>>31605059
Well, you just said Germans were shit and could not mount a defense, now we see that they encircled someone, something does not add up here.

>>31605077
>Not quite as easy as you think it is
let me guess, you think Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise to the the US Government as well

>>31604743

You don't nuke the Poles and Czech, you only nuke the Russians. You don't even nuke the SSR's, Russians only.

The people of Eastern Europe welcomed the Russians only because they are better than the Nazis. Give them a better alternative and they will turn on the Russians in an instant.

This is why the "Western Betrayal" also refers to the Americans not using their position to push for a better deal for Eastern Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_americanii!

>>31605042
Got any numbers at that? I can't seem to find good numbers on artillerry.

What I can find, for example, is that the UK and US alone outnumbered Soviet Russia three to one in terms of raw airplane output.

>>31605043
>about as much resistance as a hot knife slicing through butter.
I didn't know you could nuke butter. Or conventionally bomb it. Or use artillery on it.

>/k/ - creative butter slicing

>>31605064
Find 1000 idiots out of the 2 million man Air Force, give them B-29's, a one way ticket, and a big bomb. Grab sunglasses, and go watch the fireworks.

If all else fails, just use them tactically, on the front lines.

>>31605042
Yeah, but the US was capable of actually using their artillery properly.

The Soviets had roughly the level of competence in artillery in WW2 that the Western allies did in WW1.

Modern forward observers and fire control puts a lot more warheads on foreheads.

Nuking russians is a one way trip, and/or not something that will change the situation a lot. And nuking them is an act that could actually turn most european countries against allies by itself. And remember - you have to stop a couple of millions of russians from reking your land forces, without a foothold in Europe all of those bombardments are pretty pointless.

>>31605120
See battle of Berlin numbers, those numbers aren't even their full force, just portions of two fronts merging to fuck up Berlin.

>>31605127
Stop pulling facts out of your ass please.

File: 1458054074268.jpg (221KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 800x495px

>>31605077
You've been blessed by Kek's holy dubs so, I'll forgive your ignorance this time.

But seriously though, the examples of market garden and the battle of the bulge take place on the Western Front. A front were soldiers were not in the same conditions as those on the Eastern front.

>>31605168
Seriously, every primary source regarding the western front is going to tell you the same thing.

>be German
>see American soldier off in the distance
>die in hail of artillery

That was the trademark of US forces. Well, that and fighter bombers screwing with supply lines.

This is why the US managed positive loss ratios in men, despite attacking across well fortified Europe.

>>31605213
Well, every primary source on the eastern front will tell you the same and more. Artillry was soviet bread and butter since the beginning of the war and was (and still is) a huge part of their doctrine. Just look at soviet cold war artillery piece numbers, they are fucking ridiculous.

>>31605248
They had numbers.

What they'd use them for is huge initial bombardments before offensives, because they didn't have the fire control systems to get a fire mission on target in a short amount of time.

The US used artillery on a tactical level rather than at the operational level.

If there was a confrontation larger than two guys flipping each other the bird, it is likely that some form of tube artillery was going to be involved.

That's more generally the way things went. The US was more focused on the tactical level, the Soviets thought in terms of the operational and strategic level.

>>31605120
Nuking, bombing and shelling butter would be infinitely more easy that doing so to a fuckhuge white-hot military machine right in front of you that just finished removing an entire German army from premises.
>Grab sunglasses, and go watch the fireworks
Gee, if only there were some means to prevent a bomber from bombing you.
>Find 1000 idiots
This is just outright childish, just like basically your every other argument.

>>31605283
They did both, man. My grand grandfather was forward artillery observer, by the end of the war they were pretty much shelling everything that was considered a threat.

>>31605287
>that just finished removing an entire German army from premises.
On your dime, half supplied by you, and not on your tactical level in terms of combined arms operations.

>Gee, if only there were some means to prevent a bomber from bombing you.
Those are called planes, in which the US alone outnumbered Russia two to one. In case you want to use anti aircraft guns to shoot them down: the Russians produced 20 thousand 35mm guns, and less 85mm guns, by 1945. By comparison, the Germans built 20-something thousand 8.8cm FlaK's, and those didn't stop the Americans either.

You really do have to find a few idiots willing to give up their life to bomb the enemy, and accept that they're not coming back. It's possible, the Doolittle Raid proved that, and if those guys had been dropping nukes over Tokyo in 1942, I'm damn sure a lot more people would've signed up, even if they knew they didn't come back.

>>31605441
>and not on your tactical level in terms of combined arms operations.
Its exactly the opposite, man, they had four fucking years to learn, while western allies... not so much.

>>31605468
Yet the Allies had much better coordination between their forces. Artillery was more of a tactical thing there - the Russians still used it strategically.

>>31604633
The crazy thing is that the reason why production was so low in 45-46 is because they were doing experiments and research on bigger better bombs that were also safer and more reliable. If they had stuck with fatman/little boy designs they could've easily produced larger numbers for both years while side project continued furtherment research. Also remember los alamo lost a lot of workers after the end of the war, limiting more research.

Overall.... Allied Air Power would've been a good run against the Soviets and Allied Naval Power would've completely annihilated the Soviet Navy that had been gutted to supplement the Red Army. The big question would be if it would've been an initial defensive war against the Soviets or Offensive attack.

>>31605524
Sure, show me an operation the scale of Vistula–Oder Offensive or Berlin on the western front.

>>31603348
You're fucking asking 4chan /k/
Basically American RT 101
What do you expect? They will say: Nah the French would beat them and the they would bitch and moan about Russians wanting proof of their retarded claims

File: 149226-i_005.jpg (117KB, 1824x1288px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1824x1288px

>>31605524
>Artillery was more of a tactical thing there - the Russians still used it strategically.
No, they fucking did not. They had shitton of specialized artillery recon, they fucking had officer level training for artillery reconnaissance, in bullshit numbers, as usual. Stop pulling facts out of your ass please.

>>31605441
>On your dime, half supplied by you
Not in 1945.
>and not on your tactical level in terms of combined arms operations
Did you just non-ironically compared experience Russians gained on the Eastern Front to sunny Sunday walk the Allies got in Western Europe?
>Those are called planes, in which the US alone outnumbered Russia two to one
On the other side of the globe. Speaking of supply lines.
>Germans built 20-something thousand 8.8cm FlaK's, and those didn't stop the Americans either
Germans were a little bit busy.
>find a few idiots
You keep trying to build an argument around this idea, bit it really is just childish.

>>31605135
Why the fuck would anyone other than the Russians care that the USA just dropped a really big bomb on the Russians? Why is the entire Allied strategy consisting of a bunch of suicide attacks instead of tactical nuclear bombing? Why is the overwhelming Allied naval superiority being ignored? Why is the Allied ability to start two new fronts and a new theatre being ignored? Why is the fact that Lend-Lease is now being mainlined to Western Europe being ignored? Why are you overlooking the fact that the VVS will no longer be up against the depleted Luftwaffe but instead the well-supplied and trained Allied air forces? Why is the Soviet deficiency and Allied superiority in strategic bombing capacity not being considered?

>>31605733
>Why is the overwhelming Allied naval superiority being ignored?
Because Europe is not a bunch of gooks on tiny islands all across the Pacific. Naval superiority over Soviets didn't help Germans to win a land war, the only war that matters in Europe.

>>31605543

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

File: ivan-kozhedub_4-t.jpg (14KB, 220x170px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x170px

>>31605733
>Why are you overlooking the fact that the VVS will no longer be up against the depleted Luftwaffe but instead the well-supplied and trained Allied air forces?
Because VVS tend to rekt Allies every time they engaged each other by mistake.

>>31605733
>Why the fuck would anyone other than the Russians care that the USA just dropped a really big bomb on the Russians?
Because different people have different opinions on what is going on, burger, somethimes it differs from yours and it does not necessarily mean its wrong.
>Why is the entire Allied strategy consisting of a bunch of suicide attacks instead of tactical nuclear bombing?
Because nuking your potential allies in Europe is bad for PR.
>Why is the overwhelming Allied naval superiority being ignored?
Because its useless against Russians, all of their supply lines are on land.
>Why is the Allied ability to start two new fronts and a new theatre being ignored?
Because russians could do it too, bringing more of almost everything.
>Why are you overlooking the fact that the VVS will no longer be up against the depleted Luftwaffe but instead the well-supplied and trained Allied air forces?
Because you cant win a war with aircraft, meanwhile on the ground the situation with training and battle experience on the ground is reversed.
>Why is the Soviet deficiency and Allied superiority in strategic bombing capacity not being considered?
Because for B-29 reaching most Soviet military production is a one way trip.

>>31605617

> Germans were a little bit busy.

Not with their 88mm tubes.

80% of the 88mm guns were used on the Western front as air defense. Over 10,000 tubes were placed in the Ruhr alone in 1943, which is more than the number employed on the entire eastern front.

These guns also shot off an absurd amount of ammo, approximated 80% of German explosives went into artillery shells, 70% of that went into the sky.

>>31605786
Thats, like, half of battle of berlin, do you realize that?

>>31605817
>Not with their 88mm tubes.
They were busy producing everything else, man.

>>31605733
Why is Britain's colonies south of the USSR not causing a huge number of USSR units being shifted away from Europe to defend an attack from the south?

>>31603348
The soviets logistics were completely supplied by the americans. They would have pushed to the rhine, but by then the USA would have bombed the shit out of whatever was left of their supply chain and it would be a mass route.

>>31605874
>The soviets logistics were completely supplied by the americans.
Not in 1945.

>>31605874
>The soviets logistics were completely supplied by the americans.
Not in the end of the war.
>but by then the USA would have bombed the shit out of whatever was left of their supply chain
They did not manage to completely cut off Germans and stop their production, despite them fighting on two fronts, why do you think they'd succeed with Russians on, like, 100x scale?

>>31605883
Yes in 1945. Don't be daft. Russia didn't even produce it's own aviation fuel. The USA would just Nuke Moscow and be done with it.

>>31604559
We should have listened to based Patton. We should have ended the commie threat right then and there.

>>31605904
They USa wouldn't need to completely stop production. Just enough to push them back across the Russian border.

>>31605932
Would have cost less deaths. The USA had the airforce and a highly polished army that wasn't worn down after years of war. GB, the French, former German units, and Polish would add to the ranks.

Throw on top of that an airforce that would be uncontested in the sky as the Soviets really had no airforce at the time. Just a bunch of aging garbage.

>>31605961
Add it to the list of things that should have happened but didn't.

>>31605925
>Yes in 1945. Don't be daft. Russia didn't even produce it's own aviation fuel.
No, not in 1945.
>The USA would just Nuke Moscow and be done with it.
And somehow that would force russians to surrender. Wait, that would be just a pointless act of barbarism that would not achieve anything, except pissing them off.

>>31605941
That would require a lot of effort, as it was mentioned many times for B-29 it is a one way trip, B-17 cant reach russian production at all.

>>31605972
Russia would not be able to feed itself. There would be mass defections and surrenders as this wasn't about fighting Nazis but fighting an Army that was there to liberate them from communism.

The B-29 could return trip from Norway, don't be daft.

>>31605961
>highly polished army
It was not polished, man, allies did not have 5% of experience in land warfare russians had. Playing with a couple of hundred tanks in Africa and assaulting islands isnt the same as facing millions of russian soldiers and thousands of tanks in Europe. The outcome is indeed questionable, but believe me, that would have cost a fucking shitton of deaths, nowhere near germans and japs could hope to achieve.

>>31605972
Eastern Europe was ravaged after the nazis went through and then the soviets came back through. The Russian supply lines were stretched, they were relying on supplies and logistic support from the west.

>>31605993
>There would be mass defections and surrenders as this wasn't about fighting Nazis but fighting an Army that was there to liberate them from communism.
They did not really wanted to be liberated from communism at that point.
>The B-29 could return trip from Norway, don't be daft.
Norway was well in reach for russians as well.

>>31606008
The Nazis had great kill/death ratio with their shitty tanks and no air support. What do you think happens when all that soviet artillery is leveled by B-17s ?

>>31606020
No, it really wasn't.

I see that a lot of people here keep mentioning the nukes. apparently they believe in the american fairytale about them, when in reality US had only 3 prototypes up until 1946 (and it blew them all) and the first small scale production hasn't started up until after 1948.
On top of that they were pathetically weak, they would have been almost useless against well built targets - remember they weren't even able to demolish a promotion hall, a fucking ball house.
So no, the russians would have wrecked them, with or without any of those nonexistent nukes.

>>31606032
What do you think happens if Russia attacks the USA while they were in Germany. Rush production. and the navy is moved from preparing to invade japan to shelling the shit at out st. petersburg.

>>31606031
It really was. And it is still a one way trip, by the way.

>>31603348
Looks like Enola Gay's route just changed to Moscow

>>31605993
Oh, the irony. You do realize this was the literal motto of the Nazis on the Eastern Front? That they were there to "liberate people from communism". Using the same motto to attack Russians in 1945 would have been just asking to get your ass kicked even more fiercely.

>>31606045
>Rush production
You cant rush enrichment process, man.

>>31605112
This. The Soviets were already dealing with massive amounts of Insurgent/Partizan activity behind their lines. Going full retard and fighting the allies would turn almost all of Eastern Europe against the USSR. Combine that with East Europe already being a scorched wasteland, and the Red Army has logistics issues up the ass. And they're getting hit in the Pacific and across Asia too.
That's not even counting the non-Russian Soldiers in the Red Army just saying "fuck it" and jumping ship to the allies as well.

Really its just a question of if civilians would be willing to deal with more war, which I am inclined to say no.

>>31606045
>shelling the shit at out st. petersburg.
the most dense coastal fortifications zone in the world says hi

>>31606021
>The Nazis
>shitty tanks and no air support

>>31605816
Okay, so bombing the Russians in the middle of a war will make everyone oppose the Allies. The incredibly limited ability for the Russians to oppose water-based resupply and reinforcement or defend against amphibious assaults other than sticking troops on the beaches is irrelevant. The Russians will be able to easily redeploy forces across multiple new fronts including the massive bottleneck that is East Russia without issue and in greater numbers than the Allies. The Allied air forces will have zero effect and the Allied ground forces are both ill-equipped, untrained, and have no combat experience. And strategic bombing consists entirely of bombing factories and nothing else.

>>31606059
>The Soviets were already dealing with massive amounts of Insurgent/Partizan activity behind their lines.
No, not really.
>Going full retard and fighting the allies would turn almost all of Eastern Europe against the USSR.
It was the allies that wanted war, though. At least some of them, quite crazy people if you ask me.
>Combine that with East Europe already being a scorched wasteland, and the Red Army has logistics issues up the ass.
It was not when it comes to logistics, they had to build it back to move forward, and supply those millions, you know.
> And they're getting hit in the Pacific
Into far east? Lol, you are fucking welcome, there is nothing there.
>That's not even counting the non-Russian Soldiers in the Red Army just saying "fuck it" and jumping ship to the allies as well.
Erm, no.
>Really its just a question of if civilians would be willing to deal with more war, which I am inclined to say no.
Its exactly the opposite.

>>31605774
See that's where your wrong. Kinda hard to hold your front lines when Allied Navy control the entire Baltic, Black and Arctic Routes enabling them to land forces at Leningrad and resupply Finnish and Norwegian Forces. This control also enables ability to do a strike at Poland in a bid to help them rebel.

You competently oversimplify the ability Overwhelming Naval Superiority gives you to strike at the enemies back lines and force them to divert front line forces to deal with it.

>>31606032
They blew up 2 in July 46 (Bikini Atoll Test) and had 7 more built before the end of the year. These numbers are well documented. They slowed production because they wanted to build safer, more reliable and bigger bombs and the war was over so they had time. When Soviets started posturing they ramped production and research backup to extreme levels with goal of 150ish minimum and 400+ "preferred" in case of war with Russia. This started around 1948 and continued with massive increases in numbers produced per year.

>>31604559
Patton was an incompetent cretin that was nothing even for the germans, what made you believe that whatever he said was worth more than a dried booger?
>>31604603
Oh look, another idiot that thinks bombing had a significant effect on the german war production. As for the nukes, see above you shart-in-mart.
>>31604633
Actually that's a lie, the first preproduction bombs were made only in 1947 (based on the Fat Man design) and the only true production ones have started to be sent to the Airforce only in 1948. Funny thing here, in 1950 there were less than 25 of them deployed - they had trouble with the manufacturing process and they were just in the process of shifting to a mass producible design when the Korean war was starting. You really don't know shit about the real numbers, isn't it?

>>31606072
10/10 appeal to ridicule.

>>31606100
>land forces at Leningrad
And simply getting rekt there.
>resupply Finnish
That could not fight by that time.
>Norwegian Forces.
That could not fight in the fight in the first place.

>>31604948
Actually it was the threat of another land invasion - they were prioritizing the defence, just like they are doing now.

>>31606100
Naval routes wouldn't mean shit in such a war.
>to land forces at Leningrad
Category: things that are borderline impossible in real life. Not even Germans, not even after blockading the city, not even when the famine began, not even after shelling the shit out of the city with 800mm artillery could put a single boot on the ground in Leningrad.

>>31606161
That was a deliberate choice though.

>>31606165
Dunno, they definitely tried, a lot.

>>31605120
>the UK and US alone outnumbered Soviet Russia three to one in terms of raw airplane output.
yes, it did, on bombers and transports, on fighters the russians out produced them 2 to 1. Remember, the russians have always thought defensively.

>>31605120
Sorry mate but those B29's would have never managed to cross into Poland, let alone Bielorussia.
And tactically they would have been useless - too weak and far too few to matter.

File: 1323018148786.jpg (95KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x600px

>>31606213
>mfw the B-36 gets rushed into production because the War Department doesn't have the option of taking its time

>>31606187
>Remember, the russians have always thought defensively.
Russians were on the counterattack even in 1941.

>>31606105
Fuck this is some rich bait

>>31606105
>first preproduction bombs
47 is when MASSproduction started of MkIII's.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

>>31606139
>And simply getting rekt there.
>city spent last couple years starving and literally eating each other
>Soviets "liberate" city and decide defenders were cowards
>Introduce the City to Iowa Class and now completed Montana Class

"By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200 major combatant ships, including 27 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater."

File: german war economy.jpg (260KB, 901x985px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 901x985px

>>31605837

Like planes? which the Americans and Brits accounted for about 90% of.

Like Artillery shells? That the Germans shot into the sky at the bombers.

Like Uboats? that were all sunk by the US and UK in the Atlantic.

The Germans spent their blood against the Soviets and their steel against the Americans and British.

>>31606008
hgow the fuck could the Eastern European front be supported logistically from the west? Are you that cretin that you don't realize what imbecilities you're spewing? Besides, russians were experts at railroad management, they simply did not need trucks like americans did.

>>31606291
>hgow the fuck could the Eastern European front be supported logistically from the west?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

Ignorance does not make the facts any less real.

>>31605972
>B-29 it is a one way trip
But the B-36 could make the round trip. The first flight was in 1946, and the plane was on the drawing boards in 1941. Had the US decided that ridding the world of commie scum was a good idea, you can pretty much bet they would have had this plane available not only for nuking the red scourge, but for strategic bombing as well. Nowhere in Russia would have been immune.

>>31606275
>"By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200 major combatant ships, including 27 aircraft carriers and 8 battleships, and had over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater."
Man, you had significant losses attacking fucking islands, and you are talking about attacking a city in the heart of enemy's territory. Sure they can, like, be there. But landing in Leningrad? Dont joke plz.

>>31606290
>The Germans spent their blood against the Soviets
Yeah, german soldiers went on the eastern front naked, armed with a spoon. What the fuck.

>>31606316
I am pretty sure B-36 was in production the moment it was ready for production. Besides, Soviets could rush a lot of things too.

>>31606316
>and the plane was on the drawing boards in 1941
It was a concept in 1941. J47 first flew in 1948.

>>31606338
Clue me in, you seem to be the all knowing sage for all that was Soviet anything. What strategic bomber did the Russians posse, and what did they have on the drawing board that they could rush into service?

They had to steal a couple of our B-29's and copy them so they could pretend to be a strategic threat.

File: mig-15.jpg (193KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1152x864px

>>31606316
>First flight 8 August 1946
>Introduction 1949
Please. The further you are trying to stretch this the worse it is for your argument.

File: boggles my mind.gif (2MB, 232x232px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 232x232px

>>31606045
By god, the shart-in-mart are getting desperate, they no longer even bother to look plausible in their idiotic arguments. Listen to this, rushing nuclear production and shelling Leningrad.....
>>31606100
You might want to crosscheck those numbers against those that were actually deployed, but be prepared to have your delusions of power crushed by the cold, hard reality.
>>31606230
does that make somehow the nuke more powerful? because otherwise it only makes for a bigger, less manoeuvrable target.
>>31606275
You might want to take a closer look at your own source, it mysteriously forgets to say when those Fat Man bombs were produced.

>>31606359
>It was a concept in 1941. J47 first flew in 1948.

The aircraft was unveiled on 20 August 1945, and flew for the first time on 8 August 1946.[8]

>>31606426
>The General Electric J47 turbojet (GE company designation TG-190) was developed by General Electric from their earlier J35.[1] It first flew in May 1948

>>31606307
Wait, you actually believe that they were still depending on those from 1943 onwards? What are you, a shart-in-mart?>>31606403
Again with the same imbecility? Do i have to repeat myself? The russian never cared for a strategic bomber force, they were the defending type, and when you're defending you need fighters, not bombers.

>>31606416
First flight 1947, and I am sure the Brit's would have gladly still given over the plans for the RR engine they used, wouldn't let the little fact of being at war get in the way.

>>31606403
They did steal your B-29 and they had Tu-4's first flight in 1947.

>>31606446
https://archive.org/details/1946-08-15_Biggest_Bomber

WOW, it sure looks airborne to me, but then I am just an amateur observer and I really can"t tell the difference between flying and sitting on the ground.

>>31606469
They would have had German engines, though.

>>31606496
I dunno, maybe it had earlier engines on the test models.

>>31606420
>You might want to take a closer look at your own source, it mysteriously forgets to say when those Fat Man bombs were produced.

http://www.vff-marenostrum.org/Nuntium-Novitatum/PDF/Nrdc.org-nuclear-weapons-data-bank.pdf

Page 26, Early Years (1945-1955), First Paragraph.

File: mig-9.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

>>31606469
And introduction in 1949.

>>31606533
>They would have had German engines, though.

The German engines were determined to be too underpowered and had reliability issues, therefore the Russians asked the Brit's to sell them RR engines, which to their surprise, they did.

>>31606327

>Yeah, german soldiers went on the eastern front naked, armed with a spoon. What the fuck.

That shit is cheap to make, see the little black bar that says "weapons"? That is every single artillery barrel, rifle, grenade, machine gun, and tank gun the Germans made. The entire small arms budget of the US military is less than the price of a single F-22.

Even the Chinese could supply their million of troops with at least uniforms, a rifle, and some ammo. And they showed exactly how useful an un-mechanized force without heavy weapons was.

Germany gutted their fighter groups in the East to at least pretend to put up resistance in the west. They cut back on artillery shells sent to the front so they could shoot more into the sky. Now look at the proportion of their armaments production that is Naval Vessels, Powder and ammo, and Aircraft. Then compare that to Weapons, tanks, and motor vehicles.

File: Gloster Meteor.jpg (482KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1024x673px

>>31606599
First flight, 1943. What's your point?

>>31606621
Clement Attlee worst prime minister of UK, he couldn't openly ask for Russian dicks in his ass so he did the next best thing and sold them military technology.

>>31606599

Performance

> Maximum speed: 915 km/h (569 mph; 494 kn)
> Maximum speed: Mach 0.85
> Never exceed speed: 1,050 km/h (652 mph; 567 kn)
> Range: 800 km (497 mi; 432 nmi)
> Service ceiling: 13,500 m (44,291 ft)
> g limits: 14g
> Rate of climb: 22.0 m/s (4,330 ft/min)

This thing would have gotten absolutely buttfucked by late model meteors and P-80's.

> Powerplant: 2 × RD-20 axial-flow turbojets, 7.8 kN (1,800 lbf) thrust each

Literally using shit German engines that last for maybe 50 hours before needing an overhaul.

File: enthropy grows.gif (88KB, 365x361px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 365x361px

>>31606544
>Using Roman numerals to number pages, all of the sudden switching to Arabic numerals
Whose brilliant idea was that?

>highly centralized, totalitarian state against a country with nuclear weapons

GEE I WONDER HOW IT COULD GO

>>31603348
The allies would have had air superiority and naval superiority, they could land behind soviet lines, bomb fighting positions, and take out soviet factories.

The Russians weren't equipped to fight a strategic bomber force, or a significant trained airborne threat. Most likely the allies would just buy time for another A bomb.

File: F 86.jpg (59KB, 1280x924px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x924px

>>31606416
MiG 15 first flight was 30 December 1947

F-86 first flight 2 months prior 1 October 1947

>>31606655
The point is that bringing up post war stuff on one side will bring up post was stuff on the other side.
>>31606669
Nah.

>>31606718
>country with nuclear weapons
A country with a couple of bombs and no means to deliver them.

>>31606731
Unfortunately half this thread believes the entire Soviet Coastline was more built up than the Atlantic Wall with the Maginot Line built on top of it and reinforced with Mithril.

>>31606754
Call the Sabers, they won't unrape your Peacemaker.

>>31606416
Um, the Mig-15 would have never flown if the UK didn't sell them jet engines.

>>31606774
>Soviet Coastline
As in "ice, tundra and emptiness".

>>31606771
>B-29 has a flight ceiling of 30,000 feet
>US had a shitload of escort fighters

I'm sure the VVS will succeed where the Luftwaffe failed.

>couple of bombs

It's a good thing there's only one Moscow then, and their entire society is predicated on absolute central control.

>>31606756
But that is the point, there would have been no post war for the Soviets to "design" all these wonder weapons, what with their infrastructure and factories being bombed day and night. All while the US and her allies would be coming up with new shit without worrying about being bombed, or even attacked for that matter.

Face it Ivan, had the war continued, the Red's would have been fucked.

So /k/, scenerio time.

The year is nineteen forty six and it's time to fuck those commie bastards once and for all. You are a crewman on the first B-29 to drop on Moscow.

What do you write or draw on your nuke?

>>31606785
What would be raping the Peacemakers? The magnificent interceptors in the Soviet Air Force? Those MiG's you like to reference wouldn't be flying due to no engines from the Brit's.

Also, how did that turn out for the MiG-15's in Korea vs B-29's?

File: 1472421379568.jpg (88KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x316px

>>31606599
>running a jet without any aviation fuel

>>31606835
>Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Poland

File: BetterDeadThanRed.jpg (36KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x450px

>>31606835

File: la-5.jpg (560KB, 1742x1054px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1742x1054px

>>31606798
>30,000 feet
Lol.
>US had a shitload of escort fighters
On the other side of the globe.
>I'm sure the VVS will succeed where the Luftwaffe failed.
VVS rekt Allies air force on a number of occasions in accidental engagements.
>What the fuck are HQ? What the fuck is industry?
Kid, please. Dropping a nuke on Moscow would only make their penises harder. and one nuke won't even do much to it. It could barely demolish a gook village built out of paper.
>>31606807
>their infrastructure and factories being bombed day and night
In your dreams.

>>31606839
>What would be raping the Peacemakers?
Nothing, since there were no Peacemakers in 1945.

>>31606880
I see.

You've resorted to the time honored "I was only trolling guise"

But we know you weren't. You were dumb enough to think that a country run by the NKVD would continue to exist without the iron fist.

Really, it'd be even money that the Stavka decide to march on Moscow rather than fight a pointless war against the burgers.

>>31606756
Umm, 1943 wasn't post war I am afraid, but nice try.

>>31606901
Why do you think the iron fist would disappear if you nuke moscow? Moving a couple of thousand people just outside is not that big of a deal.

>>31606839
Soviet Air Force.
>Those MiG's you like to reference wouldn't be flying due to no engines from the Brit's.
They were not dependent on Brit engines.
>how did that turn out for the MiG-15's
Rekt the shit out of capitalists so hard the latter had to resort to outright propaganda.
>>31606846
>Posing a comment without any meaningful content

>>31606901
Cry more, clown.

>>31606893
Had the US decided it needed the B-36 in 1945, I can pretty much guess it would have had them.

>>31606916
>you can replace entire government agencies, it'll be fine
>after all, the USSR were notorious for having a flexible system of government, being widely liked, and encouraging initiative by the lower echelons

For real thing, maintaining the kind of C2 the USSR depended on during the Stalin days is going to be impossible under nuclear bombardment.

I'd honestly expect a military coup if Stalin ordered a preemptive invasion of Western Europe.

File: soviets cant wage war.jpg (111KB, 849x679px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 849x679px

>>31606798
>its a good thing theres only one moscow then

You really think a 10-20 kiloton nuclear weapon will do really significant damage Moscow, even if you manage to deliver it there? (protip: moscow is way out of range, and reaching the factories beyond the urals is just simply impossible)

10-20kt bombs are tiny shit, senpai. They're not the nukes of today. Sure they are enough to absolutely fuck up tiny wooden houses in a japanese town, but not nearly good at fucking up a city like moscow.

The fact of the matter is, the western allies did not have enough nukes, and even if they dropped all of them on the soviets, it wouldn't have made a significant difference whatsoever.
The main means of soviet production were still behind the urals, way the fuck out of reach of western strategic bombers, and bombing any major city west of moscow would have been a complete waste of time since the germans have already destroyed them almost completely.

Meanwhile in the conventional sphere of things, the soviets had complete and utter superiority on the ground in every way possible.

There were a few VERY good reasons why operation unthinkable was actually unthinkable.

>>31606923
>They were not dependent on Brit engines.
Okay Ivan. Re-writing history I see.

Tell me, what did they have at the time that would have replaced these non-existent RR engine the MiG-15 didn't have?

>>31606929
Had the USSR decided it needed the Tu-95 in 1945, I can pretty much guess it would have had them.
No, fuck, they did not have it, you cant "rush" development.

>>31606937
Stalin did not order such an invasion and, as far as i know, did not even plan it. Actually only people at the end of the war that wanted it to continue were crazy retards like Patton. Was too butthurt he was not allowed to have more war, apparently.

>>31606949
Not him, but german engines, apparently.

>>31606948
>You really think a 10-20 kiloton nuclear weapon will do really significant damage Moscow

Well, yeah.

You're still talking about every building within a significant radius becoming rubble, with the people inside them.

And then there's the radiation.

>>31606954
Read the OP, you drooling retard.

File: retard.jpg (31KB, 209x285px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 209x285px

>>31606929
>we can just decide when technology gets developed

Gee i guess uncle sam could have made F22 in 1945 if he REALLY wanted it.

>>31606970
OP does not state who is the initial aggressor, cretin.

>>31606954
>>31606976
Except for the part where the B-36 had a long development period and was put in the back burner by the end of the war.

No shit things would have gone a bit faster if the war didn't end.

>>31606986
>Would the Soviets been able to keep their momentum amd took the rest of Europe if they wanted to?
>keep their momentum

Do you even know what the word momentum means in English?

>>31606976
It DID have them, but in limited numbers due to the belief that more werent needed.

>>31606954
See, that is the difference. The B-36 was already nearly complete by the end of the war, and it flew for the first time in 1946, so I imagine that if war with the Soviet's was inevitable, the US would have ramped up production and just used the B-29 to flatten Soviet positions in Germany and all points East that were withing range. The Russian's would have probably had a few months respite before all the manufacturing in the Urals faced the same fate as the German Ruhr Valley.

>>31606992
It was not, as well as its engines and systems, you fucking retard. B-36's program was one of few that were not canceled after the war.

>>31606999
Yes, i do know. No, OP's situation does not prevent any of the sides from being initial agressor.

>>31607008
It was not "nearly complete" if its first flight was in 1946 because, you know, you kinda have to produce it first you fucking retard. And i wonder why do you think B-29s could flatten soviet positions if they did not manage to flatten germany's.

>>31606964
Nigger, even if you could have magically managed to carry a nuclear bomb all the way to Moscow, it would've barely affected one district. Not even accounting for how devastating is any architecture that is not made of paper and wood to the spread of the blast wave and fires.

>>31606964
fuck radiation, russia will have men rush in, take lethal rad doses while working, and be replaced one by one!

File: Nuke the kremlin.png (946KB, 1677x859px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1677x859px

>>31606964
>every building within a significant radius becoming rubble with people inside them

yeah, so?
Do you really think the nation that just lost 20+ million of its sons and daughters will care for an other 100 000?

lmao westerners really can't grasp what the soviets went through.

Honestly even if the bomb was dropped on moscow, -which as i mentioned before is phyiscally impossible- it wouldn't have done nearly enough damage to even be really relevant.

Also, considering the extent to which the soviets had access to the data from the manhattan project through their spy network (they literally had every bit of information on the whole project) they knew what they were up against, and could plan how to minimize damage from such strikes.

>>31607023
>momentum

As in, they keep going

As in the USSR attacks Western Europe immediately after conquering Germany, without stopping their forces.

That's what that word means.

>>31607035
a nuke is a nuke, it is still a giant fucking explosion, and like all giant fucking explosions it is gonna do damage

File: image1 (1).jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>This whole thread
Y'all really need to read the Red Gambit Series since its basically covers most of what's brought up in the thread regarding a hypothetical WW3 scenario popping up at the end of WW2, though there is a slight difference in that in the books WW3 begins before the Japanese surrender.
>Soviets acquire plans of Operation Unthinkable and other allied documents detailing hypothetical war between the Allies and the USSR
>While in reality these were dismissed, Stalin and Beria are convinced that the allies are going to attempt to attack in the near-future and so they plan for a pre-emptive strike against the Allies
Won't spoil anything too much (and to a degree I can't since the series isn't finished even after 6 books) but the author does give a lot of credit where it is due for all the sides involved and while there are quite a lot of things happening like intelligence coups, decisive victories/losses, and advances in technology the war as portrayed in the books doesn't have a lot of deus-ex saves for either side and the war quickly turns into a very brutal slugfest where the advantages of both sides are put in check. I will say that there is one thing about the series that may be a make-or-break thing, I'm not sure if the author had an editor since there's some noticeable grammatical errors in the books. The guy did his research and did it well, but this whole thing as far as writing the books appeared to be a one man operation. Regardless since there's so little literature on the subject of WW3 immediately coming after WW2, I will recommend it to everyone in this thread.

>>31607048
And that moving forward of a multi-million army is not an instant action, apparently you cant into context.

>>31607044
> they knew what they were up against, and could plan how to minimize damage from such strikes

Not really. Even the Americans didn't really know that much about nuclear weapons effects, hell they planned to nuke landing zones and then march troops through them in Operation Downfall

>>31607044
>Do you really think the nation that just lost 20+ million of its sons and daughters will care for an other 100 000?

Well, they were on the verge of running out of adult men.

But yeah, the USSR was built with an extremely rigid, static command structure.

It isn't a matter of "lol we'll just move"

Your entire civil service is there. The Stavka is there. The NKVD is there.

You can't conscript those, and have another batch ready by the time the first one is done dying.

At best, you have to move your entire state around in the middle of a war, knowing that you can't exactly hide that kind of thing, and you can't protect it from an atom bomb.

It simply isn't a transition that the Stalin era Soviet Union is capable of making.

>>31607074
That's what "momentum" means.

It means the conservation of forward motion.

As in not stopping.

>>31607050
Sure it will. Now think about how hard you are gonna get raped by Russians for nuking Moscow. "Was it worth it?" will be among your last thoughts when you will be drowning in the English Channel pushed off the cliffs with bayonets.

>>31607054
Is that series worth reading? /k/ has given me the urge to read books like this lately.

>>31607083
I am pretty sure they noticed what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>>31607086
>Well, they were on the verge of running out of adult men.
They had the largest army on the continent the next year. And another year. And then another year.
>It isn't a matter of "lol we'll just move"
Except that it is. They even had all protocols in place since 1941.

>>31607095
A war can be declared in hours. From the point of the army they wouldn't have stopped.

File: russia_bagration_1944.jpg (2MB, 2000x1613px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1613px

>>31607074
>moving a multi million army is not an instant action

Sure its not an instant action, yet the soviets have done exactly that on several occasions during the war.

>>31607044
>Do you really think the nation that just lost 20+ million of its sons and daughters will care for an other 100 000?
yeah, considering how depleted the USSR was. They were short on males for the military into the damned 90's, still feeling the effects of WWII.
That war was cataclysmic for Russia.

>>31607112
>A war can be declared in hours

Yes, if you decide to start a war of aggression.

>>31607119
No, they did not. Moving of an army is still much, much slower than a single telegram.

>>31607128
They had the largest army on the continent for the following decades.

>>31607142
Yes, where is the contradiction? Thats what Patton wanted.

>>31607086
>you can't protect it from an atom bomb
You can't even deliver one on the first place.

>>31606105
>Patton
>incompetent or a cretin
0/10, weak sauce

>>31607112
>I am pretty sure they noticed what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSMoE3A5DI

No, they really didn't have a good grasp of radiation effects of nukes during the early years. In Desert Rock, they literally had troops march through high radiation areas

>>31603348
Soviets were actually starting to run low on additional manpower by 45. Remember how many people Stalin purged and how many the Germans killed.

The 8th Air Force and RAF would have been unleashed to devastating results on Soviet units. You're talking an air force of over 2m men and 100,000 aircraft brought to bear against Soviet armored columns in the fields of central Germany.

>>31607111
I'd say its worth it. Author's a brit so he does occasionally get firearm related stuff wrong, but the tradeoff is
>descriptive writing that I'd find somewhat comparable to Tom Clancy on large scale battles with a shit ton more gore
>Espionage shit going on as MI6, the OSS, the French 2eme Bureau, and the KGB all going at it
>good chunks of time dedicated to the myriad of smaller/lesser known countries that come to be involved in WW3
>Unit/army structures that have been thoroughly researched combined with maps to give a reference to where the fighting takes place
>Mostly faithful portrayals of actual units that come to be involved in the war
>the occasional somewhat wacky engagements, like one chapter where British Gurkhas and Soviet mounted Cossacks get into hand-to-hand combat
>Or when the FFL get into it with some Soviet Paratroopers
>Or when some poor Romanian bastards are pushed into an assault against a British Royal Irish regiment
Its shit like above that makes the books rather entertaining. The non-combat parts do kind of drag, but once the shits starts flying it gets real visceral real fast.

>>31607153
>They had the largest army on the continent for the following decades.
consisting of conscripts from the SSRs and the bled-dry areas of Russia.
Once those guys are gone, then what? Deep battle tactics don't work against a better equipped enemy when you don't have the manpower to prevent the enemy's withdrawal.

>>31607176
Radiation effect are negligible when compared to initial explosion and fires.

>>31607184
And not only that, if the Soviets had started to push, I wouldn't have put it past the Western allies to rearm and support German Wehrmacht units and pardon lesser war criminals in exchange for service.

Most of them probably would've jumped at the chance.

>>31607159
The bomber will always get through brah.

To be more serious, I suspect that the US would be able to get them past the VVS with the time honored combination of

>a shitload of bombers
>a shitload of escort fighters

And get around the range limits with the simple expedient of

>implying you're coming back

>>31607023
I think you are blockheaded Ivan, I specifically stated that the plane was ready for production towards the end of the war, it was determined that it wouldn't be needed as the B-29 was adequate for the job at hand. Had the US War Dept. decided that it was a necessary asset, production would have been pushed ahead.
And no, B-29's were not used on Germany, they weren't needed as the B-17 and the Brit bombers were adequate for the time. If the war would have progressed, I can pretty much say for certain that the 5000 B-29's that were cancelled in Sept. of 1945 would have been produced, along with the 2500 built in 1945 and they would have been used in Europe, along with all the other bombers we had there to turn the commies into pink mist.

Think about it, instead of 1000 plane raids that were common towards the latter parts of the war, there would have been 4, maybe 5000 plane raids. It would have been a glorious sight.

File: our future is so bright i don't even need eyes to see it.jpg (59KB, 599x418px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 599x418px

>>31607176
>Smoking and playing cards with your mates in your 20's in a trench
>A bomber is flying by, dropping a nuke
>Yep, it's about time to die of leukemia, guys
I never asked for this feel.

>>31607198
>Radiation effect are negligible
>effect are negligible
>negligible

enjoy your cancer m8

Seriously, radiation effect is a big thing. It contaminates and denies an area, and makes use of surrounding downwind areas difficult. And your saying having a radioactive capital won't affect operations? After all it's "negligible" right?

>>31603348
Japan breathes a sigh of relief and quickly negotiates an armistice in favor of the West, freeing up more men to fight in Europe.

>>31607209
>implying you're coming back
Oh, it's you and your childish argument again.

>>31607196
When they are gone, yes. But the fact is that they were not going anywhere. No amount of air force can help ~5 million army against 11 million veterans with 100k artillery, 12k tanks, and 16k warplanes.
> I specifically stated that the plane was ready for production towards the end of the war
You forgot to pove it in any way, though.
> it was determined that it wouldn't be needed as the B-29 was adequate for the job at hand
Sure, except that it did not reach russian production.
>And no, B-29's were not used on Germany, they weren't needed as the B-17 and the Brit bombers were adequate for the time.
And they did not manage to stop germans either.
>Think about it, instead of 1000 plane raids that were common towards the latter parts of the war, there would have been 4, maybe 5000 plane raids. It would have been a glorious sight.
And you'd have to fight against a country that can afford loosing two or three fighters against one bomber and be ok.

>>31607228
Cancer does not kill instantly, in timescale of war it does not kill at all.

File: T10 Sherman_fisher body company.jpg (91KB, 924x530px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 924x530px

>>31603348

Note; Soviet "armies" were actually corps sized formations, instead of actual armies, that are made up of multiple corps.

tl;dr the map is bullshit.

>>31603348
Jesus Christ, so many uninformed and ignorant Americans ITT

If you're an American and without a degree in history or something, please fuck off you retarded cunts. I mean, I know you guys are renowned for your stupidity and obesity, but Christ, this is too much.

>>31607258
>No amount of air force can help ~5 million army against 11 million veterans with 100k artillery, 12k tanks, and 16k warplanes.
that's where you''re wrong. Russia's logistical position was tenuous at best- without lend-lease and with the enemy having air superiority you suddenly have 11 million guys with no ammo, 100k artillery pieces with no shells, 12,000 tanks with no gas, and 16k warplanes stuck on the ground.

>>31607244
In all seriousness, what's to stop the allies from doing this?

The B-29 has a ferry range of 4,900 miles.

Throw in some modifications to extend the range even more, and add "the submarines will pick you up, honest" as a fig leaf, and you're good to go.

We did it for the Doolittle raid.

>>31607274
you're trying too hard, dial it back a couple of notches

Just imagine a 20th century with no Soviet union, no stupid proxy wars, no red scare, no cultural marxism, we would be constructing bases on Mars by now.

>>31607258
>Cancer does not kill instantly, in timescale of war it does not kill at all.

Radiation poisoning is real, they will notice the effects, and when people coming from Moscow start dropping dead for no discernable reason they will connect the dots. Congratulations, your capital is now unusable.

It will take a few months though

>>31607286
They did not need lend lease in 1945.
>with the enemy having air superiority
Is that, like, some rule we introduce? Because russians still had 12k planes, you know.

Oh god no, before getting to nukes even. The Red Army was experiencing serious manpower issues when the war ended. By 1944 they were issuing orders on what to do when a rifle division of 10k men hit a third of that, because replacements were so rare. By 1945 infantry units were microscopic by Western standards. There was nobody left to draft.

They still won because the Germans were fucking delusional about their own manpower crisis, but they lacked the capacity to beat another Germany-tier opponent right after that.

>>31607269
No, they were actually army sized you dumb fuck.

Soviet armies were so large that the Soviet Union would lose more soldiers in single battles like Stalingrad than the US did in the entire war.

>>31607304
At the end of the war the British had slightly more actual trained infantry than the Soviets.

>>31606087
T.commie

>>31607302
>They did not need lend lease in 1945.
They very much did. Russia had little fuel refining capability on their own, and were relying on American trucks and trains to move their shit around. Even the oil fields at Baku sent their raw oil to Iran for refining.

>>31607304
>By 1945 infantry units were microscopic by Western standards.
They had 11 million men in the army.

>>31607324
Nope.

>>31607302
Dude stop. You're actually being historically accurate with Americans here. Let them continue thinking they were still supplying the Soviets in 1945 and that they still had nukes after Nagasaki. Let stupid people stay stupid people, they are beyond saving. Goebbels would be jealous of the effectiveness of American mass-media today.

>>31607209
The B-36 could've made the trip from CONUS to Russia, it also flew higher than anything else at the time and could even out dogfight a Sabre and MiG-15 at it's operational altitude

>>31607346
Great counter-argument bro.

You sure convinced me with those hot opinions.

>he didn't know that the next atom bomb was going to roll off the production line 10 days after Nagasaki
>he didn't know that the production was slated to be three in the month after that, and increasing continuously after that

>>31607361
Well, I'm respecting this guys assumption that the first flight of the B-36 would still have happened in 1946 and not earlier.

Also, that the US wouldn't score any Ar-234s in the interim and press those into service.

Those things were insane.

File: T10_Sherman.jpg (30KB, 640x376px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x376px

>>31607313
>No, they were actually army sized you dumb fuck.

No, they weren't.

The Soviets called corps sized units "armies" and division sized units "corps" and no matter what size unit we're talking about, they were all understrength.

>>31607258
>You forgot to pove it in any way, though.

The USAAC sent out the initial request on 11 April 1941, asking for a 450 mph (720 km/h) top speed, a 275 mph (443 km/h) cruising speed, a service ceiling of 45,000 ft (14,000 m), beyond the range of ground-based anti-aircraft fire, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles (19,000 km) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m).[6] These proved too demanding — far exceeding the technology of the day — for any short-term design,[4] so on 19 August 1941 they were reduced to a maximum range of 10,000 mi (16,000 km), an effective combat radius of 4,000 mi (6,400 km) with a 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) bombload, a cruising speed between 240 and 300 mph (390 and 480 km/h), and a service ceiling of 40,000 ft (12,000 m),[3] above the maximum effective altitude of all of Nazi Germany's anti-aircraft Flak guns, save for the rarely deployed 12.8 cm FlaK 40 heavy Flak cannon.

As the Pacific war progressed, the air force increasingly needed a bomber capable of reaching Japan from its bases in Hawaii, and the development of the B-36 resumed in earnest. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, in discussions with high-ranking officers of the USAAF, decided to waive normal army procurement procedures, and on 23 July 1943 — just over two months after the Germans' Amerika Bomber proposal's submission — the USAAF ordered 100 B-36s before the completion and testing of the two prototypes.[7] The first delivery was due in August 1945, and the last in October 1946, but Consolidated (by this time renamed Convair) delayed delivery. The aircraft was unveiled on 20 August 1945, and flew for the first time on 8 August 1946.

Are you referring to the Soviet aircraft production that over the course of the war was a little more than half the US production, and less than half the US production in 1945? That Russian production?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

>>31607329
>Russia had little fuel refining capability on their own

You're joking, right? There was nearly no lend-lease by that point and the supplies officially stopped in may. Even without American supplies, the Soviet Union still annihilated the largest and most elite Japanese army, the Kwantung, in a few weeks, and was poised to invade Japan. The Soviet Union was getting more than the supplies it needed with nearly half of Europe under it's control.

File: 1447964604044.jpg (11KB, 227x224px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 227x224px

>>31607408
>and was poised to invade Japan

File: 29c31c87609f.jpg (165KB, 871x627px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 871x627px

>>31607368
Their amount was a little bit too small. The absolute bare minimum was 123, optimum was 426. They did not have either.

File: fishing pole.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>31607304
>The Red Army was experiencing serious manpower issues when the war ended
>11 million veterans that just went through the deadliest front of the deadliest war this planet has ever faced
This is getting rather boring.

>>31607258
>And you'd have to fight against a country that can afford loosing two or three fighters against one bomber and be ok.

2 or 3 fighters that can't reach the altitude to challenge the B-29. Not to mention all the escort fighters that would be turning those Russian fighters into flying coffins.

>>31607415
Truman was actually scared of the Soviets invading Northern Japan, that's a fact. The Soviets destroyed the last remnants of the only effective Japanese fighting forces. Beyond the Kwantung army was just civilians defending Japan with their lives.

You're probably saying that because the USSR did not have the capability to launch an invasion at that time, but provided that Japan didn't surrender, it was going to happen sooner or later.

>>31607465
Stop taking the bait.

>>31607402
It still does not prove it cold be ready for production, retard.

>>31607444
>Not to mention all the escort fighters that would be turning those Russian fighters into flying coffins.
Especially considering way more than top 10 allied aces were russians.

>>31607402
>Muh production
On the other side of the globe.

>>31607465
>thinking the Soviet Pacific Fleet had the capability to land a large enough invasion force in Japan to not get slaughtered

Nigga, they were preparing for a fight in the home islands.

That was where they had pulled all of the good shit to.

>>31607477
You're right.

It's not like the US had the greatest sealift capability on the planet or anything.

>OH WAIT

>>31607497
Sealift where, pardon me? When your sealift arrives all of the allied ground forces are already in the atlantic ocean.

File: 1457316043803.jpg (150KB, 655x499px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 655x499px

>>31607477
>muh production

russians couldn't even supply their infantry with rifles on the other side of a mountain

>>31607408
>There was nearly no lend-lease by that point

What the fuck are you talking about? The U.S. was _still_ providing Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets even after the war was over.

If the Soviets had tried to start some shit in Europe, the West would have cut off all aid and the Soviet forces would have ground to halt and starved.

>>31607298
It would be comedic tbfh.
/pol/ would be in a quasi war. Half Nazi half Soviet. It would stop their cancerous leaking.

>>31607510
Except for all the stuff that was already in Europe.

Of which there was a lot.

>don't worry, we'll push them to the Atlantic before that happens

Doubt it.

>>31607408
>largest and most elite Japanese army, the Kwantung.

Yes, the Japanese kept their most elite troops in reserve to confront those pesky Russians, who didn't even declare war on Japan until August 1945, and completely disregarded the American's and her allies because they weren't the real threat.

You just outed yourself as an elaborate troll.

>>31607571
>Except for all the stuff that was already in Europe.
No, they were no american aircraft production in Europe, man.
>Doubt it.
Its at least 2:1, more like 3:1, man. Its like numerical superiority you had against germans, but the other way around.

>>31607535
>If the Soviets had tried to start some shit in Europe, the West would have cut off all aid and the Soviet forces would have ground to halt and starved.
>This is what burgers actually believe

Someone shoot me please

>>31607573
>In reserve

You do know what in reserve means? Are you actually denying the fact that the Kwantung was the most well-trained army in Japan? Could you guys get any more fucking stupid like this? You're literally a Google search away from turning your life around, please do. Fuck.

>>31607609
Well, technically, the aircraft don't need to be sealifted at all.

It goes US -> Canada -> Greenland -> Britain.

You can fly them from the factory to the theater with little issue.

But the US had like a 1-1 ratio against the Germans, and consistently beat them up.

Against the Soviets, with that massive advantage in conventional air they have, I think they'd be at a disadvantage, but they'd be able to hold on for quite some time, and a lot of things can happen in that time.

>>31607571
"Stuff that was already in Europe" is to confront the Red Army. As in "about to get crumbstomped".
>>31607573
A land army would sure as fuck be extremely useful for that little battleship game Japan had with the US in the Pacific. Imbecile.

>>31607641
>Well, technically, the aircraft don't need to be sealifted at all.
>It goes US -> Canada -> Greenland -> Britain.
Saying, exactly how old are you?

>>31607621
>Are you actually denying the fact that the Kwantung was the most well-trained army in Japan

Well, wikipedia says

>By 1945, the Kwantung Army consisted of a mere 713,000 personnel, divided into 31 infantry divisions, nine infantry brigades, two tank brigades, and one special purpose brigade. It also possessed 1,155 light tanks, 5,360 guns, and 1,800 aircraft. The quality of troops had fallen drastically, as all the best men and materiel were siphoned off for use in other theaters. These forces were replaced by militia, draft levies, reservists, and cannibalized smaller units, all equipped with woefully outdated equipment.[5]

Which makes sense, because of the Japanese preparations for Ketsu-Go.

You're underestimating how crazy the Japanese were. They fully intended to fight it out in Japan.

>>31607641
>But the US had like a 1-1 ratio against the Germans, and consistently beat them up.
2-1 and worser. In 44-45 allies had 5.5million people on western front, Germans had 2. And majority of those werent the best, considering 3/4 of almost everything Germans lost they lost on eastern front.

>>31607658
21.

Is this not common knowledge?

Planes fly.

If you're only flying them one way, and they aren't carrying cargo, they go a lot farther,

The allies owned Greenland and Iceland, and could use them as refueling stops.

Now that I think about it, there's like nothing in Greenland. Fuckers.

File: 1313195401001.png (60KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 429x410px

>>31607515
ahh nice meme straight out of a movie
Whats next, captain McBurger?

>>31607685
>anything i don't like is a meme
>implying i'm even from the western hemisphere

stay mad slavcuck

>>31607683
They didn't even use Greenland for trans-Atlantic flights. Just Iceland.

>>31607668
>a mere 713,000 troops
>mere
>713,000

Yeah, considering that the Imperial Japanese Army only had 1,700,000 men in 1941, over 700,000 is really a small and "mere" number, am I right?

If you still continued reading after that, it's your fault for being so ignorant and so easily fooled into biased information. The USSR saved you from possibly saving over 700,000 troops and you consider it a small number. Yup, I'm still not wrong about you guys.

File: the face of eastern europe.jpg (525KB, 1680x924px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 1680x924px

>>31607685
>Taking an obvious bait
Don't feed the retard.

>>31607717
Yeah, I screwed that part up. Greenland had an interesting part in the war, but it was more for weather stations.

>>31607725
The US didn't need to bother with the Kwantung Army.

If they have Japan, it's kind of a moot point what happens in Manchuria.

Certainly, it's possible the defeat of that army contributed to the decision of the Japanese to surrender rather than fight.

But it's still worth pointing out that all of Japan's prime forces were in the home islands for Ketsu-Go, and the Soviet Pacific Fleet couldn't really deliver any forces capable of winning against them.

It doesn't matter how many troops you have if they can't swim across the Pacific.

>>31607765
>thinking the soviets didn't have shortages or every material throughout the war

do you think they made shit armor because it was 'designed' that way? lol

>>31603348
That's a dishonest chart by virtue of Soviet Armies being more like Allied Corps in sizes, so one would want to divide the number of "Armies" in the picture by 2 or 3 get to the number of equivalent formations.

File: Lend-Lease_Russia_Map.jpg (113KB, 800x639px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x639px

>>31607621

Ивaн, please. If not for American aid, the Soviets would have signed a cease fire with the Germans in 1942.

Even _with_ Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets were barely able to throw out the Germans, who they outnumbered in every conceivable category and who were fighting a multiple front war while being bombed to shit by the Americans and British...

>>31607471
>It still does not prove it cold be ready for production, retard.

"The aircraft was unveiled on 20 August 1945"

This is why you are an idiot, it was in production, it had to be produced to be unveiled, just not an accelerated production. As I said in the previous post the War Dept wanted 100 of them by August 1945, but the manufacturer dragged their heels and slowed production. Had the war progressed, and if there were real plans to fight the Russians, production would have been sped up. But the B-29 was adequate to decimate all those Russian troops in Germany and Poland and Eastern Europe, until the B-36 was in theatre.

>>31603348
even if they could they never would have with Stalin at the helm.

>>31607643
>A land army would sure as fuck be extremely useful for that little battleship game Japan had with the US in the Pacific. Imbecile.

Have you ever heard of Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, New Guinea, China? I guess all those battles were fought with only battleships.

You are a fucking moron, really. I didn't think the Russians had a troll army that went online to re-write history, until today that is.

>>31607044
>even if the bomb was dropped on moscow, -which as i mentioned before is phyiscally impossible-
>distance from Tinian to Nagasaki 2538km
>distance from London to Moscow 2501 km
Really makes you think.

>11 million veterans

wow, this thread...the Allies had at least 20 million under arms by summer 1945. France alone had about 1.5 million soldiers under arms.

Reds would have gotten rolled. Leningrad and Minsk would have been gone by the end of summer 1945.

>>31603348
Ivans get Germany
Americans get China...

fair trade.

File: 1531 miles.png (67KB, 615x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 615x400px

>>31608303

ITT: Delusional Vatniks

>Distance between London and Magnitogorsk: ~3,900 km
>Distance between Oslo and Magnitogorsk: ~2,960 km
>Distance between Baghdad and Magnitogorsk: ~2,520 km
>Range of B-29: ~5,230 km

Yeah, Allied strategic bombing TOTALLY couldn't reach Soviet industry at all guise! It's also not like external fuel tanks and drop pods existed at all either!

>>31608780
Or, you know, air-to-air refueling.

>>31608802
But as we all know, air-to-air refuel was only invented in the 1950s and never existed as early as the 1920s and 1930s.

>>31609617
But of course.
And we also all know that B-29's could never be refueled from the air. Such a thing is a silly idea.

>>31603348
It would have given allied fighter pilots time and targets to rack up bubi-tier scores, which would have been worth it in itself.

>>31603348
I mean, the US could invade the East Coast of Russia at that point, like they did before. And it's not like all those troops deployed on the other side of Russia could respond to a sudden invasion of Marines.

Plus there were tons of B29's already in the pacific, the USSR couldn't have stopped them from bombing targets and destroying the trans Siberian railroad.

Meanwhile in Europe the US and allied powers would have air superiority, better logistics, naval superiority, and would only need to hold out until more nukes could be made.

>>31603797
This.

The ruskies didn't have nukes and we made it a point that we intended to use them to end WW2.

A ground war would have been interesting but considering how effective glassing Japan was I doubt we would have just over looked using them in europe, especially since the long term negative effects of nuclear radiation were hardly understood and pretty much all of europe in Russian hands was rubble anyways.