How would a war between the western allies and the soviets go

Nukes

This
>>33094602
Soviets lose.

They also lose on the conventional side due to the US' huge advantage in industry and production at the time.

>>33094590
Soviets crubstomp the west in europe, otherwise complete status quo.
>>33094602
>>33094752
>B-b-but muh nukes
No means of delivery to any somewhat strategically relevant place, cities not made out of paper and protected by actual air force instead of crumpling remains gooks had.

>>33094811
>tfw the RAF and USAF never got to fight the Soviet Air Forces

>>33094811
>actual Air Force
Ahahaheheheheh

>>33094590
The US in 1950 had over 50% of the global GDP,The USSR had around 15%.
Only thing stopping us was the nukes the soviets had.

This is going to turn into yet another fucking vatnick vs fatnick thread, right?

>>33094988
Yes.
>>33094811
Lol B-36 is unstoppable, sorry soviets.
>service ceiling: 43,600 ft (13,300 m)

>>33094988
Probably.

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

193KB, 1152x864px

>>33095009
Top kek.

File: 300px-North_American_F86-01.jpg (10KB, 300x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x216px

>>33095042
>gets intercepted

File: mig-17.jpg (173KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1152x864px

>>33095071
>gets intercepted

>>33095042
>>33095071
F-86

Maximum speed: 687 mph (1,106 km/h) at sea level at 14,212 lb (6,447 kg) combat weight
also reported 678 mph (1,091 km/h) and 599 at 35,000 feet (11,000 m) at 15,352 pounds (6,960 kg). (597 knots (1,106 km/h) at 6446 m, 1,091 and 964 km/h at 6,960 m.)
Stall speed:200 km/h
Range:2,454 km
Service ceiling:15,100 m
Rate of climb:45.72 m/s
Wing loading:236.7 kg/m2
lift-to-drag:15.1
Thrust/weight:0.42
Guns: 6 X 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns (1,800 rounds)
MIG-15

Maximum speed: 1,059 km/h (658 mph; 572 kn) at sea level
1,033 km/h (558 kn; 642 mph) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)
992 km/h (536 kn; 616 mph) at 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
Cruising speed: 850 km/h (528 mph; 459 kn)
Range: 1,240 km (771 mi; 670 nmi)
Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,853 ft)
Rate of climb: 51.2 m/s (10,080 ft/min) at sea level
36.2 m/s (7,130 ft/min) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)
21 m/s (4,100 ft/min) at 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
Time to altitude: 5,000 m (16,000 ft) in 2 minutes
10,000 m (33,000 ft) in 5.2 minutes
Wing loading: 240.8 kg/m2
Thrust/weight: 0.54
2x NR-23 23 mm (160 rounds)
1x Nudelman N-37 (40 rounds)
You decide.

>>33095097
>introduced: 1952
>1952
>Before Korea


As an aside, I was looking to see if the KB-36 was ever a thing (it wasn't, because ???) and ?I came across this
>Projects TIP TOW and Tom-Tom involved docking F-84s to the wingtips of B-29s and B-36s.
That just SOUNDS like a bad idea. Like, even worse than FICON

>>33095131
>Thinks a wall of paper characteristics copypasted from wiki means anything
It's not even summer yet.
>>33095133
Does it make B-36 any less stopable?

File: Zveno-SPB.jpg (18KB, 569x290px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 569x290px

>>33095133
>That just SOUNDS like a bad idea
Go figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zveno_project

Initial prospects would be bleak for the western side but the longer it dragged on the worse things would get for the Soviets

by the end of the war their logistics were gone and without lend-lease they have almost no strategic mobility
Soviet forces were spent and everything from food to ammo to medical supplies were low

On the other hand American troops were well trained, fresh, huge reserves still in America itself with what was becoming the dominant industrial power of the world.

Patton would have had a field day with the commies.

>>33095206
well we know that US pilots are better than soviet ones so the fight should be determined by stats.

File: Oh shit.jpg (8KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 240x240px

>>33095376
>well we know that US pilots are better than soviet ones

File: KozhedubIN.jpg (42KB, 250x325px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 250x325px

>>33095376
>US pilots are better than soviet ones
Whatever makes you sleep at night.

File: Brewster_239_formation.png (47KB, 487x307px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 487x307px

>>33095429
>Loses to a bunch of snow mongols in obsolete fighters.

The Soviets didn't have nuclear weapons until late 1949. But I don't know how they'd manage to deliver it. When did the Bear enter service? Were there earlier Soviet aircraft which were nuclear capable?

>>33095600
Now that I think of it, I believe the Soviets built a B-29 clone prior to the Bear. That should have been capable of carrying a nuke. Wikipedia here I come.

>>33095646
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

Comet > T-34 > Sherman

>>33096475
How does it feel having shit opinions?

File: Comet.jpg (509KB, 1024x776px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1024x776px

>>33096483
Pretty good

>>33096475
Well of course a comet would destroy a tank lmao

>>33096572
>not the Centurion
>for a setting just after WW2

This scenario was basically impossible to happen. Both the Western Allies and the Soviets were completely fatigued politically by the end of the war, and both sides rapidly demilitarized. Starting a new major war was basically unthinkable.

If we ignore reality and pretend that both could keep going, the Soviets had much more fighting forces and also much more combat experience -- they would roll the West until their supply lines couldn't keep up. No one had any means to quickly produce more nukes and deliver them, so nuked would a non-issue for a good while.

>>33096578
No Pershing either

Soviets would win
Yes, the Allies (i.e. America) had nukes, they wouldn't have used them unless it was absolutely necessary.

Using that weakness the Soviets would have pushed far past East Berlin and at least into France.
America nuking France? No way

The Soviets would have won that war.

It's why Churchill was adamant about Operation Unthinkable.
He understood that they'd win

File: CentorianMkI.png (321KB, 736x402px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 736x402px

>>33096578
Mark I Centurions are pretty cool

It would have been tough, but the Allies would have pushed the Soviets back, Russian Army formations were about the size of a full US division, so manpower comparisons aren't as one sided as you might think, also the US was producing 100,000 aircraft a year by the end of the war.

>>33096636
The US was marginally attached to the war in Europe
If Germany was defeated, there'd be a strong push for "Fuck that shit"
Just like how after WW1, American First policies were strong

Didn't Churchill or Patton want to arm the germans with allied equipment?

>>33096742
Operation Unthinkable

File: the_dream.jpg (555KB, 800x457px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 800x457px

The soviets were carried by US industry in the war. Without American trucks the red army would literally have been unable to get to Berlin short of walking.

The US would have curbstomped them in the immediate postwar era simply by sheer economic might. People don't seem to understand just how hard the US carried the allies, the soviet union was ruined by war and Britain was almost bankrupt when the war ended.
Meanwhile in America: pic related.

>>33095429
One faggot whow stacked up obsolete hs129s, ju87s, and jabo 190s in a plane that was very good but had a low lifespan due to the materials and manufacturing. Imagining la7s getting bounced by p47s, p51s, griffon spits, tempest ect. makes me wana play il2 46 again. Fuck I'm sure nazi experten would be allowed a crack at em.

>>33096875
>The soviets were carried by US industry in the war. Without American trucks the red army would literally have been unable to get to Berlin short of walking.

Just trucks? You never hear of the American aircraft or tanks that were given to the USSR under Lend-Lease. That's because the USSR didn't need them

>>33098125
Trucks are extremely important. This is logistics, not maneuver forces.

>>33098125
Pokryshkin along with almost his entire squadron were politically silenced after the war for openly preferring the P-39 to the Yak