How would World War 3 play out if it started in 1946?

>>34466689
You mean Operation Unthinkable?

USSR wins. No, really.

US nukes the shit out of Europe, Soviets steamroll the shit out of Europe.

The Soviets go from "almost out of men" to just "out of men" in a very short time period. The Soviets are incapable of sustaining any real industrialized economy or war effort, but the US is unable to capitalize on Soviet weakness in a meaningful way due to the sheer scale of the theater.

Continental Europe is rekt in a way that it hasn't been rekt since the Dark Ages. It might still be worth it to get rid of the dirty, filthy fucking reds.

>>34466708

With their non-existent airforce and lack of atomic weapons right? C'mon man it wouldn't have taken us THAT long to make another bomb, then it'd be bye-bye Moscow.

Nukes

>>34466729
>US can produce three bombs a month
>Soviets have upwards of ten million people under arms

The US would "win" but not before Dunkirk 2.0 and the near total destruction of western civilization.

File: 1493828068601.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>34466708

Good one.

>>34466715
>US nukes the shit out of Europe
>>34466729
With their non-existent airforce and lack of atomic weapons right?

The US nuclear weapons program in 1945-1946 was nothing like it was during the 50s. Nuclear weapons would require complete air superiority to deploy without mention of just how slow nuclear weapon production was.

Also the soviet air force was not something to be laughed at in 1946.

>>34466760
>Nuclear weapons would require complete air superiority to deploy

No.

The B-36 first flew in 1946, there would be no way of intercepting it.

US and British aerospace were miles ahead of Soviet aerospace at that time.

>>34466746
The Soviets were on their last legs in Berlin. They couldn't survive even the limited US nuclear strategic bombing of the 1940s

>>34466779
>B-36 first flew in 1946
And was introduced to full scale production in 1949.

>>34466780
Actually the USSR forces were at their strongest in 1945 after years of reform and hard lessons, without mention of how combat hardened they were.

>>34466780
Retarded.

>>34466816
You may note that defense acquisition became somewhat more pronounced after the Soviets got the bomb.

This dynamic would also occur in the event of World War Three breaking out.

You don't need full rate production here, three sorties a month is enough.

The Red Army was strong in terms of deployed men and materiel, but they were basically out of manpower reserves. You're talking a force that's much stronger than in 1941, but also much more brittle.

>>34466689
The USSR gets fucked back into the Stone Age, the US steamrolls them.
The US was virtually unscathed and had rolled up 2 enemy powers at the same time.

>>34466746
The total destruction of the Moscow railhead is inevitable in any theoretical war with the West in the 40s.

This effectively immobilizes the armed forces of the USSR, and in fact would result in their armies in Poland and Germany starting to wither on the vine.

The USSR would surrender or collapse within the year and wouldn't reach France, much less the channel. Without Moscow's railhead they could keep too few divisions operational in the west to keep Polish partisans from kicking the shit out of them, much less the allied armed forces.

Unlike all the scenarios in here which see America launching and leading the allies;

Scenario 1: England and France would make the decision to invade the east just to raise the Iron Curtain (Remember that right at the tail end of WW2, the Brits were the ones who at the times were most shaken by the looming specter of Soviet domination, not even the Yanks, who merely looked at the USSR with increasing distrust), but not before persuading the Americans to wave the nuke over the heads of Russians to try and force a largely unequal truce which sees all USSR puppet governments abolished and replaced by ones that UK and US would consider ideologically halal.

The political fallout of this would be nightmarish however, as budding commie states would be absolutely horrified by what would appear as an example of marauding capitalist westerners seeking to maintain their political dominance by all means necessary, thereby leaving a postwar world full of countries even more firmly opposed to the US&UK than what we deal with in our timeline.

Scenario 2: USSR starts the war by deciding to push west......................In short, this would be the most obscenely one sided conflict imaginable. This would have been the godsent opportunity that the UK and France were looking for to absolutely remove soviet presence from Europe, and for the Americans an excellent opportunity to contain the one other rival state in the world at it's weakest. Would have been an thrilling nukefest. Between fielding millions of men and regiment after regiment of the best tank that a retarded and drunk gulag-wary Russian worker could produce, it would see week after week of B-29s raining little boys and fat men all over helpless Russian conscripts.

>>34466940
Have you seen the number of armies and troop comparisons on the European continent in 1945? We had to nuke the Japs in part to beat the Russkies to the punch as they steamrolled through Manchuria.

>>34466689
Everyone gets SLAV'D

>>34466996
You'd see nukes hitting strategic targets more then tactical ones. The USSR simply didn't have the trucks to move the food, fuel, ammo and weapons needed to sustain operations to the front, or decent roads to move them on. Major railheads and junctions were critical choke points and the loss of them would quickly paralyze the USSR.

They really got lucky with Germany destroying most of their natural national roadblocks and taking a general stance late in the war of, fall back and defend germany. As battle ready and hardened as they were, the USSR just didnt have the internal logistics to stay in long sustained pitches far from Russia and I seriously doubt they would've been able to match the US industrial and political agenda at the time.

File: Red Gambit Opening Moves.jpg (37KB, 354x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 354x500px

Y'all need to read pic related, series goes over this scenario. I will say that the author isn't the most accurate in some respects though. Premise is that Stalin and Beria start becoming suspicious of the western allies intentions postwar, then find a copy of operation unthinkable and believe that the West is going to attack. So they pre-emptively hit first. Not going to spoil the rest.

In all seriousness though WW3 immediately after WW2 would be absolutely horrific in terms of the amount of people that would die. Even if atomic weapons weren't used it would be the Eastern front on roids as the Soviets send their combined arms juggernaut against an enemy that can match them in terms of production. The opening stages would be crucial since it would determine if the Western allies can keep a foothold in Europe long enough to route men from the Pacific theatre to Europe (The Red Gambit Series works around this by having it pop off before WW2 ends in the Pacific). The Soviets would probably not be able to take the UK, but if they manage to secure most of Europe it would probably be checkmate. Also, something to consider would be whether the allies allow the Krauts to re-arm.

>>34466760
>The US nuclear weapons program in 1945-1946 was nothing like it was during the 50s
This is mostly due to research and production being transitioned from known working models to literally fucking around and see what happens. If the US had remained on a war footing then they would've stuck with tried and true designs and been able to produce in larger numbers.

You can see the massive change in priority from research to production when the threat of Russia having a Nuke becomes a rumor and then a reality.

1946 - 9
1947 - 13
1948 - 50
1949 - 170

The same can be said for acquisition and production of the B-36, unveiled 3 months after WWII ends but without a driving need, the re-organization of the Air Force, and more worry about mass-deactivation, the plane took years to truly enter real production when an actual threat emerged.

Position wise, the Red Army held massive advantage in numbers and initial capability of battle directly after the war but soon runs into the problem of lack of basic supplies as their entire farming manpower force is consisted in the Red Army.

>>34467012
Sure kiddo.

>>34467171
>as the Soviets send their combined arms juggernaut
Which promptly gets nuked. Followed within days by the Moscow railyards getting nuked, which completely cripples Soviet forces permanently.

Then the Brits firebomb the Soviet oilfields and all Soviet forces are stranded wherever they are, which is scattered all over hell's half acre, with no fuel, no munitions, no food, no reinforcements, and completely surrounded by people who hate every fiber of their being.

>>34467407
You do know that ICBMs weren't a thing till 20 years later right? Those nuclear weapons would have to be dropped like a regular gravity bomb by planes that would be shot down going that far into USSR territory.

>>34467452

>planes that would be shot down going that far into USSR territory.

Tell me about all the high-altitude interceptors the Soviet Union fielded that were capable of intercepting a B-29 with fighter escort, let alone a B-36.

>>34467576
MiG-3 had a service ceiling of 39,400 ft
B-29 had a service ceiling of 31,850 ft
B-36 had a service ceiling of 39,500 ft

>>34467625

>service ceiling
>relevant

It is completely uncompetitive against allied fighters at those altitudes and has zero chance of downing a B-29 with its pathetic armament.

>>34467625
I don't think the MiG-3 could even keep up with the B-29

>>34467723
>sets the goalpost of high altitude interception
>USSR scores
>proceeds to shift the goalpost to armament while claiming altitude is now irreverent

The USA isn't the best at everything and that's okay to admit.

I'm not going to play this game if you keep shifting the win condition.

File: 1349025437921.jpg (68KB, 429x409px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 429x409px

>>34467625

>>34467407
Creeping bombardment. The planes will push as far as they can to drop their payloads ruining any AA on the ground in a few mile radius until they burn a nuclear trail to Moscow. A big question is whether the USSR can hold off the allies enough to make a bomb of its own?

>>34467771

>Tell me about all the high-altitude interceptors the Soviet Union fielded that were capable of intercepting a B-29 with fighter escort, let alone a B-36.

>with fighter escort
>with fighter escort
>with fighter escort

>shifting goalposts

Also

>implying you don't actually have to shoot down the plane you intercepted even if skies are magically clear of enemy fighters

>>34467764
Mig-3 max speed: 398 mph
B29 max speed: 357 mph

It could catch it, but it would be close.

File: 1361099871154.jpg (50KB, 562x702px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 562x702px

>planes all perform the same at all altitudes

>>34467625
The mig-3 at 39k feet would have been nearly worthless.

>>34467794
The mig-3 can shoot at fighters too you know.

File: mig3 armament.png (3KB, 350x82px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 350x82px

>>34467798

Congratulations, Ivan caught up to the B-29.

Now what?

>>34467771
By 1 June 1944, the Navy had transferred all its aircraft to the PVO,[20] which reported only 17 on its own strength,[22] and all of those were gone by 1 January 1945. Undoubtedly more remained in training units and the like, but none were assigned to combat units by then.[22]

Btw do you understand what happens to planes like the mig-3 at 39k feet? The lack of o2 kills it's speed and maneuverability. It will be slower
than the b-29s and take almost an entire fuel tanks worth of fuel to get there. Plus they didn't even have any mig-3s left by 45.

>>34467825
Except fighters at that point would outclass the MiG-3 in literally every way

>>34467798
max speed at 25k feet. It drops after that. At 39k feet it would probably be less than 300mph

>>34467825

>thinking a MiG-3 is anything more than a slow and sluggish target for a P-47N or P-51H at 9000m

>>34467825
There were no migg-3s in 1945.

Yak-9s and LA-5/7s yes, but none of those performed well at high altitude. Russia had shit engines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-107

>>34466689
Commies get their supply lines rekt and fall the fuck apart.

>>34467625
>MiG-3
What the fuck?

That shitty fucking garbage plane from 1941?

Do you honestly think that shit could even come close to a B-29 let alone shoot it down before it reached its target, somehow assuming that it wouldn't get absolutely ripped to shreds by postwar allied superprops?

US and UK airforces bomb the Russian supply chain relentlessly with nearly zero opposition. The US Army falls back to the rhine and waits for the Russians to starve to death or eat a bomb.

War over.

>>34466708
Not in the long run

>>34466708
With literally zero force projection fighting the only nation that has any experience waging war on such a large scale over oceans with a fleet already built up? Dude the Russians literally have no way to even invade Britian let alone cross the atlantic. How the fuck couls they possibly win.

File: IMG_4804.jpg (75KB, 233x233px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 233x233px

>>34466708

>>34467915
>>34467963
Reminder that lend-lease was at its peak in 1945.
>Why bomb the supply chain when you ARE the supply chain

>>34466746
You do realize that the us was pretty much their main supplier for food and basic materials. Soviets would collapse as soon as they were cut off

>>34466689
USSR take what they want. Everyone else either shuts up or gets stomped.

USSR control all of Europe except England, become the dominant power in the world.

Communism becomes the norm, capitalism becomes a dirty word, US becomes the global enemy.

The USSR wouldn't invade the US, but they would sanction the shit out of them if they tried anything. Both sides would build up nukes and the usual cold war stalemate would ensue, except instead of facing each other across Germany, the 2 powers are facing each other across the pacific and Atlantic oceans.

>>34468284

Anon, we're discussing alternate history here, not real history.

File: IMG_4828.png (187KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x360px

>>34468284
Are you guys not taking account of newly reunited France who is on the allied side.

>>34467947
Enough MiG-3s or La-5s could shoot down whatever they want.
Soviets had the advantage of numbers. They just throw endless aircraft at you until you're dead.

>>34468296
France didn't have shit to defend itself with compared to the USSR. USSR would make it to Paris even faster than the Germans did. They would be in Spain by the end of 1946

>>34468301
Against a tiny nation like germany they do. Not the US. The US had a massive airforce at the end of ww2 and all they had to do to out produce the soviets was just keep going. Stop eating up some history channel autism about how much the soviets could produce when the Americans could produce more shit and better shit.

File: IMG_4700.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>>34468308
>USSR would make it to Paris even faster than the Germans did. They would be in Spain by the end of 1946
With Americans, French, and British soldiers all over the western front

>>34468301

>Enough MiG-3s or La-5s could shoot down whatever they want.

That doesn't apply to air combat, the fast planes at high altitude can just say "fuck you, you aren't allowed to engage me." to the lesser and be done with it.

>>34467171
>Western allies can keep a foothold in Europe long enough to route men from the Pacific theatre to Europe
Implying we would not just go through Alaska or east Asia to divide the already limited Russian manpower.

>>34467407
We would not even need nukes. The Soviet airforce had gotten better but it was still no where up to snuff with the US and UK air forces. so we would maintain air superiority and still have the ability to conventionally bomb their strategic positions. That said, many eastern Europeans that were not from Russia disliked the soviets enough that they would likely use the same partisan tactics against the Russians that they used against the Germans.

>>34467012
Did Russia really have the capabilities to launch a major amphibious landing in the east?
The Normandy landings were a logistic marvel, I doubt the Soviets had the capability in 1945.

The Soviets would get their shit pushed in even without Nuclear weapons.

US and British airpower would blow the Soviet into oblivion. Soviet's by 1945 had not had to deal with strategic bombing in years. When hundreds of B-17s and B24s show up and start bombing their troops and transport they are going to shit themselves. When the British show up again later that night with hundreds of bombers, which they have no night-fighters to meet them with, they are going to shit themselves again. And finally, when the US starts bombing them with hundreds of B29s, which are so high up they would be lucky to catch it, let alone shoot it down given Soviet plane performance at high altitude, they will shit themselves again.

US/British strategic bombing would take a steady toll of Soviet logistics, ground troops, and air assets. The Soviet's problem will be made worse when the lack of US Lend lease, combined with the difficulty of getting supplies to the front when your rail lines and bridges and bombed weekly, leaves their planes starving for aviation fuel and their troops starving.

>>34466746
>ten million people under arms
>having any fucking meaning to the US at the time

>>34468470
Maybe a division or two at a stretch, they were able to land 10,000 men over a period of 10 days on South Sakhalin.
IIRC IJA and Kamikaze strength was quite weak in the north of Hokkaido at the time.

>>34468470

>Did Russia really have the capabilities to launch a major amphibious landing in the east?

Not without American assistance, the Soviet navy was nonexistent until post-war. They only managed to take poorly defended islands without any naval presence. Even the crippled IJN of 1945 would be enough to defend against any Soviet amphibious assault on the home islands.

File: U.S._Active_Military_Personnel_1939-1945.png (92KB, 1166x479px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1166x479px

>>34466746

>Ten million soviets under arms
>20 million dead soviets under ground

10 million men and nobody left to replace them with. Meanwhile, in the USA....

>>34468346
>the fast planes at high altitude can just say "fuck you, you aren't allowed to engage me."
we're talking about the B-52 here. MiG-3 and La-5 could easily catch up and disengage as they pleased. They were faster.

The Soviets had 3 excellent fighters by the end of the war - the MiG-3, Yak-3 and La-5. And they had all of them in numbers. Not to mention air defense if the B-29s tried anything.

>>34468251
This isn't correct. Lend-Lease did happen, but by the end of the war Russia had everything it needed. Its just while Russia was taking the full brunt of the german invasion that it needed support. But the end of the war, Russia was in full control and didn't need shit from anyone.

>>34468984
>B-52
Whoops - *B-29
B-52 wasn't around until the 50s

Red Alert but without Hitler being removed from the timeline

>>34468984
>MiG-3
>excellent fighters

File: 1496601386899.jpg (23KB, 552x468px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 552x468px

>>34468984
>MiG-3, Yak-3 and La-5 outperforming post-war P-51s at high altitude

How retarded are you?

>>34467625
Having a higher service ceiling doesn't matter when you fly like a brick. It'd be like fighting biplanes.

File: 1d7fceb55df91a3e18658244cd612e84.png (112KB, 1055x344px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1055x344px

Why do people always overestimate the USSR by such a large margin? Even before the war the US was the king and after the war even more so since the USSR had just done its all to stop Germany.

>>34468984
>But the end of the war, Russia was in full control and didn't need shit from anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union
Lend lease continued to the end of the war. After that of course they could switch back to peacetime production. But imagine a continuing full-on war, with half of their formerly guaranteed supply now in enemy hands; just the friction of reorganizing it all would be murder.

File: Otto_Carius.jpg (38KB, 492x797px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 492x797px

>>34466689

>We were used to an opponent the stature of the Russians; we were amazed at the contrast. During the war, I have never saw soldiers disperse head over heels even though virtually nothing was happening.

>Five Russians were more dangerous than Thirty Americans. We already noticed that in our few days in the western front.

>Again the pace of the war surprised me, the Russians would never have let us have so much time! The Americans took so long to close the pocket, especially given that nobody around wanted to fight anymore. A well organized German corps could have closed the pocket in a week.

>>34469203
the nazis didn't like the americans? who knew!

File: 1448377526587.jpg (27KB, 464x713px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 464x713px

soviet logistics is shit
soviet pupets are shot to hell and where fighting them just a few years ago
soviet industry is worn down
soviet manpower is on a very low eb
and the soviet have to drag all of that over the desolation of eastern europe
Sure they repaired the rail way line between A and B, but if you just have the one line it's gonna hurt when you start bombing them.

Also the discussion assumes just the west
It's not just would you re-arm the germans, would you re-arm the japs

>>34469203
>Americans are so bad at war!
>loses entire industry to American bombers
>loses western front

>>34469214
>>34469251
Stay butthurt. American ground forces ca. 1944 were inexperienced in every possible way and consequently shit, deal with it. And everyone from germans (who actually liked the americans more than the soviets) to americans themselves admitted it.

>>34469335
thats why we all speak german now

>>34469335
Man real great how those germans got their asses beat in france and belgium by inferior troops.

Really makes you think when a bunch of dudes regularly losing fights where in they held numerical superiority keep screaming about how much better they are at war.

Also regardless Russia has no fucking navy and a vastely inferior airforce. They literally can't invade American soil to win a total victory. The best they could possibly hope for is stalemate by keeping the US out of europe.

File: Russian_Subterrene.jpg (12KB, 250x139px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x139px

>>34469450
>Torpedoes you from underground

>>34466708
No, they don't. Take a upper division class at a university you stupid slavaboo. They started losing momentum even in 1945. Allies just turn remaining wehrmacht and SS back around with the rest of the allies and it's game over. No more supplies from the allies means they are double fucked.

>>34468340

And an all time-high communist party in France, yeah right. Stalin outright stopped a proletarian revolution in France just because he didn't want the Allies to start distrusting him during the final push for Berlin. Maurice Thorez' only error during the retaking of paris was letting De Gaulle put his men in the seats of powers, even symbolically, while he hoped for an uprising, Petrograd-style.

France would have fallen to civil war in mere minutes after the start of Unthinkable, or it's soviet counterpart.

>>34466708
The link was posted here >>34469192

1944 and 45, well over nine million tons of goods shipped over from the US to the Soviets. Take that out of the equation and you are looking at an army, which is all the Soviets really had, their navy was a joke and their aircraft were only good for low level engagements. It wasn't just arms, it was the food, fuel, and trucks, that were vital for keeping deep battle going that would have been lost. If that aid wasn't they would not be able to keep up any real intensity.

By the time 1945 rolled around the Soviet union was almost depleted of available manpower, and were starting to lose momentum. Now they have to face two nations that had sound logistics, ample supplies, and unlike the Germans, strategic bombing capabilities. Oh, and those pesky Germans still have an ideological ax to grind too. Only this time they have Lend-Lease working in their favor.

All of that, and the pissed off occupants of the countries that were having communism forced upon them would have had a chance to revolt.

The cards were stacked against Stalin.

>>34466689

Soviets should've steamrolled the rest of Europe and then the entire world. Communism would've solved a lot of our problems.

>Ok, we're going to fight those Japs and get them back for Pearl Harbor! It'll cost men and money, but it's righteous!
Yes! Yes! Yes!

>Ok, we're going to fight Hitler and his weirdo Nazis! They are evil and bad and he is allied to Japan!
>Alright, yes! Sure... yes!

Ok, we're going to fight the Ruskies! They were our allies against the Japs and Nazis, but erm... they have this weird ideology, so we're going to kill them all + plenty of our soldiers. Alright?

Soviets enjoy short term victories before getting fucked by reinforcements from the US and the pacific and couple of nukes on moscow, whoever is left of the russian top brass willl probably surrender, unable to fight more (The USSR has all but exausted ther manpower in the war aganist germany).
End result: No USSR, more devastation of europe, an even more powerfull USA, no cold war geopolitical fuckery (Like middle east bullshit and the like).

>>34469335
Its true, but what can you expect from a country that shows up late to all the world wars. They always lack experience, but bring in fresh meat for the grinder.

>>34469744
Destroying Russian cities doesn't cause Russia to surrender. Russians burned Moscow to the ground when Napoleon captured it in 1812. Then they just waited for winter and curbstomped his army. Same deal as the Wehrmacht: less than 10% of the men survived the invasion.

File: js310.jpg (232KB, 800x580px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 800x580px

>>34469744
>USA couldn't win against gook farmers
>Suddenly it would win against the most powerful army on that moment with cutting edge equipment, vehicles and industry.

>>34469744
>>34469792
Indeed. Swap that to a couple nukes on Soviet farmlands and factories for a better effect, literally depriving the workers' republic of its ability to work.

>>34469792

Napoleon also didn't have thousands of strategic bombers to launch daily raids with day and night. The western powers could turn Moscow and every other Russia city into a facsimile of Stalingrad without ever sending a soldier in.

The thing is, the USSR had never faced a military with the manpower, production capacity and overwhelming air-superiority that the US and Britain would have had together after the war.

And on top of that they would be fighting on two fronts.

>>34466689
Ussr rolls through Europe, allies strategically bombs ussr with impunity, finally allies wins due to bombing campaigns and nukes. Allies reconquer Europe.

>>34468984

Even the Japanese couldn't reliably engage B-29s and they had planes that were a shitload faster at altitude and much better armed than anything Russia fielded.

So how is Russia going to do it with no experience intercepting real bombers and inferior aircraft?

>>34469799
>Russia couldn't win WW1, or Sino Japanese war and had recently lost 10 million men
>Suddenly could beat the world's richest and most industrialized power

File: 1496480367878.jpg (27KB, 481x506px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 481x506px

>>34469799
>USSR couldn't win against shitskin mountain men
>Suddenly it would win against the most powerful army on that moment with cutting edge equipment, vehicles and industry.

>>34470293
>america in 1905 or 1914
>richest and most industrialized
kys fatnik

>>34470326
I'm referring to America 1945-present you dumb vodka drenched vatnik. Maybe sober up some before posting

File: Knipsel.jpg (90KB, 917x731px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 917x731px

>>34466689
If you exclude 1953, the US will have 10:1 nuclear superiority for the next 15 years.

Basically, the commies get nuked, USSR splits, Russia becomes fragmented even moreso, and the Cold War never happens.

>>34466708
>USSR wins.
No they don't. Pic fucking related.

>>34466715
>Soviets steamroll the shit out of Europe
Not without US logistical support it won't

Not under constant aerial bombardment it won't.

Not when being nuked they won't.

>>34468219
the entirety of continental western Europe and Scandinavia under the iron curtain sure feels like a loss. when they've finished there they could easily subjugate or at least contest the ME possibly leaving the rest of the world without that oil. the us would be forced to exploit other sources and probably crash before the year 1990.
the map would probably look a lot like 1984's after a sino-soviet split. neither side would be able to do anything meaningful to the other without a governmental collapse.

Why are Slavaboos not comprehending that in 1946 the USSR had nothing but an hardened, but exhausted Army with no reserves and supply lines stretched thousands of miles over a ruined Eastern Europe.

No meaningful navy to stop the US flow of supplies and men across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Airforce with no strategic bombing capability and a bunch of low altitude fighters that would have to now intercept high altitude bombers.

And, it's bat night.

>>34467781
>A big question is whether the USSR can hold off the allies enough to make a bomb of its own?
See >>34470375

In peacetime, without being strategically bombarded, the USSR took 5 years to develop a single nuke. In wartime, while being under strategic bombardment, that might be a bit quicker.

However, the US mainland is still safe, and can still develop nukes without any problems. I'd honestly say they could probably deliver a nuke a month in 1946, maybe even two if they tried. Remember, the US had major reforms to do after WW2. Also, most of the Russian nuclear program was based on spies in the US - in wartime those might have been found.

>>34468984
>But the end of the war, Russia was in full control and didn't need shit from anyone.
Except kept getting Lend Lease post war for a bit because they had this problem where its entire workforce population, primarily farmers, were in the Red Army for the past 3 years.

The Red Army was amazing and a juggernaut on paper but realistically could not be sustained for much longer without serious detriment to its own survival.

>>34466689
>Patton takes his 1 army
>wins war by fighting like an inspired maniac against a weak USSR
/thread

>>34469203
>tfw to intelligent to win

>>34466689
Under the sceanrio that the former axis forces were rearmed and would actively assist against a Russian force, I would lean for the allies to win in a bloody drawn out war.

Factors in the US/Allied side
>The US manufacturing was still untouched
Even though it was partially rebuilt, the Russian military still could not produce as much as the American economy. This means for every item lost, it hurt the Russians more than the Americans.
>Loss of US logistical support
The exact effect can be debated but the loss of even just food requires the Russians to either let their citizens starve or they have to reduce the effective number of troops (to allow farmers to farm food). Either way Russia still has the same raw supply issues that plagued them in WW1.
>Shear size of the US Navy
This is a necessity to projecting power in the first half of the 20th century. The Russian navy was a fraction of the US Navy's size.
>The war is far closer to the Russian homeland than the US
Assuming the war front starts in Germany, there is still an ocean in between both Russia and the US. England is still an island. The US has experience projecting power well beyond its borders.
>Morale
Small amounts of crap food and the commissar system do not help Russian morale. Allied morale would, in most situations, be higher. A massively underrated factor
>Technology
Not just nuclear weapons but something like radar makes a big difference. A smaller force that can always be in the right place can be as effective as a large force that can be everywhere.

Continued

>>34470522 Pretty much what I said up above before.
See >>34467235

We purposely stopped production after the war to fuck around with designs for research purposes. 1948 is where the rumor of Soviet Nukes starts and suddenly our stockpile goes up 5x. Then Soviet Nuke is confirmed in 49 and tripples again as we truly ramp up production. Same would've happened with B-35 for delivery.

>>34470448
>No meaningful navy to stop the US flow of supplies and men
The Soviet Navy was gutted to provide bodies for the Red Army. What remained pretty much got regulated to Port Defense and smaller port marine operations.

This would enable US/UK Navy to control not only the Atlantic but also the Baltic and Barents Sea's which now open up easy realms of back end Amphibious landings to force the Soviet Army to contend with and further destroying their logistics capability.

If the Allies can also swing Finland to their side it would also be another death nail in the coffin.

>>34466708
tell that to finland

>>34470388
>Not when being nuked they won't.
Happen to know when the next bomb was available after Japan?
When WW2 actually concluded it was some time before another was produced but I don't know how long it actually took. The US bluffed to some degree to ensure the Soviets didn't push west of Berlin as things solidified and tension rose.

>>34468296
They aren't taking anything but their own deluded fantasies into account

>>34470768
See >>34470375
The first bomb in peacetime was ready within 12 months. The US didn't prioritise them though (they needed to recover form the war, and wanted to reform the Air Force), which means that they could easily have been produced at a much higher rate in wartime.

>>34470726
Continued

Factors in the Russians favor
>Huge standing military
>Larger already trained army
>Willingness to draft large amounts of people
>Willingness to use women in the military
The Russian army was a juggernaut by size alone. They would willing draft whole cities (man and women) if the need was felt.
>The Russians were used to sacrifice
>The Russians were willing to fight a defensive war and let their enemy over extend their supply lines.
This strategy alone has allowed Russia to win fights against what is perceived to be a more capable fighting force.
>Communism
Not in the "its a superior economic style" overall factor, more in the, screw being in debt, the country knows right, keep building those guns kind of way. The US and other allies have to worry more about he long run.

In my opinion, the war would be long and bloody but the allied forces of US/UK/France/Germany/Japan/other would eventually win out. This would be a war of attrition. The Russians would not be able to replace material losses as fast. While Russians are more accepting of sacrifice, not having food for weeks or months on hand do kind of lead to a revolution or two. The US is more than capable of feeding not just its but its allies (while there may not be much variation, there is still food). It comes down really to economy, the US was untouched, while Russia was still rebuilding theirs.

Can any "USSR wins" people explain why they feel that way other than "Red Army Big, Red Army Stronk"?

>>34470372
Then why did you used russo jap war or ww1 as example stupid retard?
Transfats killed your shitty american brain remains.

>>34470878
Experienced troops
Numerical superiority
Equipment superiority
Resources availability
Tank superiority
Ability to defend from american air attacks

>>34470916
none of that was or will be true

>>34470742
Finland lost both wars against USSR

>>34470921
Can you explain why you feel that way other than "USA stronk USA big many carriers and aircrafts"?

File: bones has stopped caring.jpg (41KB, 650x467px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 650x467px

>>34470924
just realized this is b8
moving on

>>34470792

>Factors in the Russians favor
>>Huge standing military
America alone had more people in its armed forces by the end of the war.
Opinion completely discarded.

>>34470916
>Experienced troops
Not more than any other troops from WW2. An argument can be made that because of the size of the Russian army, the average combat experience of Russian troops was far less than other countries involved in WW2.
>Numerical superiority
Not debating this, they did have a large as hell conscript army
>Equipment superiority
It would be on par with other countries at best. The most in demand equipment that the Red Army used was actually lend lease equipment from the US (stuff like Jeeps). Not saying the Russians couldn't or wouldn't just copy it though.
>Resources availability
Can they process those resources? Serious question, I don't exactly know the state of Russian Manufacturing in 1946. I do know most of their biggest cities were in rubble because of the Germans.
>Tank superiority
True, for at least 1946
>Ability to defend from american air attacks
How did the Russian fighters of WW2 stack up to American fighters? Not just planes but pilots as well.

>>34471012
>America alone had more people in its armed forces by the end of the war.
A quick google proves this wrong
US 12.2 Mil in 1945
Russia 25+ Mil in 1945, conscripted over 30 mil during the war
>Opinion completely discarded.

>>34471111

>A quick google proves this wrong
>Russia 25+ Mil in 1945, conscripted over 30 mil during the war

Wow.
Thanks for outing yourself as a moron yet again.
I'll let Russia know their army was over twice as big as their own claims.

>>34470930
>>34470916

>Experienced troops
Yes, I agree but by 1945 both sides had armies full of experienced troops in Europe.

>Numerical superiority
Eh, not really. The USSR had about a 10.8 million men spread all across from Eastern Europe to China. But by 1945 the US had 8.2 million in their army as well, a half million in the Marines, and over 12 Million under arms total with tens of millions more to draw from if need be. The British had 2.5 Million under arms as well. And if Germany was re-mobilized that is even more experienced troops. Those 12 Million would be capable of hitting the USSR on multiple fronts, as the US had been doing the entire war.

By this point 20 million Russians are already dead, they have little manpower to really draw from to replace their losses.

>Equipment superiority
How so? In Air-power the USSR is vastly inferior. The Soviet Navy basically does not exist. Every US soldier has at least a semi-automatic rifle. The US has by 194 the most well equipped military in the word and the industrial base to produce more of whatever they need.

Cont'


>Resources availability
Do they though? The US does not really want for any resource and has access the the entire world while the USSR would be stuck to whatever the USSR can mine or grow. The USSR could barely feed itself and depended on US Lend Lease the entire war to keep their Army easing meat instead of being expected to live on bread and potatoes. Literally half of their copper came from Lend lease and good bit of their aviation fuel and aluminum as well. USSR would have been hurting without this. This problem also compounds itself when Mines, refineries, oil well, and crops are all being bombed.

>Tank superiority
The Sherman and the T-34 were about equally matched tanks, though every time they actually met in history the Sherman's seemed to triumph over T34s. The US could also reliably knock out heavier enemy tanks with air attacks, as they did to Germany. Unlike Germany, the US could replace it's losses, and would be throwing more M26 Pershings over as well.

>Ability to defend from american air attacks
The Soviet's had zero experience defending from Strategic bombing for years by 1945. What experence they did have fighting German bombers would translate little to fending off raids by literally hundreds of allied bombers and their fighter escorts. Their airforce has no radar, and in terms of aircraft was outclassed by the US and UK in every way.

>>34466708
>t. Tankie

>>34466689

Could there have been any risk of a socialist revolution in Britain if the Soviets had continued rolling West?

It's worth remembering that in 1945 Britain voted in a left-wing government and Labour supporters controlled a lot of the domestic ministries during the National war government coalition. There were a great deal of uncritical Soviet sympathisers in positions of influence.

How effective was the political control of e British Army? Could it have mutinied if asked to carry on fighting Soviet Socialists after the National Socialiaists?

>>34470312
>pot calling the kettle black
We're bogged down in that shithole for longer then the reds have for fuck's sake.

>>34471277
Probably not. France, could've likely gone through a socialist revolution/civil war if the Soviets kept pushing westwards.

>>34470792
>>Willingness to draft large amounts of people
1937 Soviet Census - 162 Million People
Last Census prior was 1926 - 147 Million
For reference the first Census after WWII was in 1959 and had 200 Million people including ALL of the Soviet territories.

So lets say 1.3 Million growth a year. So About 165 Million people realistically in 1939. (Soviet Numbers from 1940 like to include all recent'y annexed territories to inflate the number to 192 Million)

165 Million - 26.6 Million deaths by the war of all causes.
138.4 Million people + 12.3 Million Births (estimated)
150.7 Million people - 13 Million Estimated Soviet Armed Forces (dropped to 2.8 Million in 1948 after deactivation)
137.7 Million People - 1.25 Million from Soviet Famine of 1946-47 (will be even worse if Red Army is not De-activated)
136.45 Million - 57.1 Million "Younger than working age" (GKS Russia 1946 reported, 1946 Hypothesized is 72.8 Million)
79.35 Million - 55.9 Million "Working Age" Females (GKS Russia 1946 reported, 1946 Hypothesized is 59.8)
23.45 Million "Working Age" Males left as recruit able manpower that doesn't take into account old age, disability, civilian workforce positions, and a myriad of other factors.

I can't find it anymore but I remember seeing an estimate during all this research that the Soviet Union had a Unused "Effective" Manpower pool of about 7 million people. This would most likely require stripping of men from factories and more production area's and lead to even more logistical problems and greater Famine in 1946-1947.

Ignorong everything else, soviets had no useful high altitude fighters, which might be a problem.

During war with germany, air to air was concentrated on low to medium altitude fights. Krauts never developed any proper high altitude strategic bomber force, so russians concentrated on dealing with low altitude tactcial battlefield support and superiority.

At the same time, high altitude bombing of germany was aleready being done by allies, so russians had no need to develop their own strategic bomber forces (and that means no need for high altitued escort fighters).

Only high altitude "threat" (more of a an noyance really) for soviets were german recon flights. Stalin was pissed enought that he ordered high altitude interceptors to be degsined.

Only russian aircraft at the time that had any hope of being useful in that role was mig-3. Unfortunately, it was outdated shit.

Now, there were some promising projects, For example I-210 that if properly supported might have resulted in decent high alt interceptors.

>>34471417

But thats where Yakowlew came in. He was Stalin's "Aviation Tsar" - Stalin tended to have a single expert on a given subject, and he tended to give him enormous power and influence. Other example was Diegtariev, he was "Firearms Tsar".

Now, most of these "Tsars" were decent guys. Diegtariev promoted young and talented constructors, protected and helped them, and generally was a pretty cool guy.

But not Yakowlew. He aws massive dickbag, concentrated on protecting and promoting his bureau, and undermined everyone else (for example he was one of people responsible for repressions on Polikarpov and Tupolev ) .

Needles to say, when stalin requested High altitude fighter, yakowlev wanted it to be his one. THe thing is that he was building lightweight low altitude dogfighters. Turning low altitude cheap dogfighter into high performance interceptor was a retarded idea, but when Stalin considers you the expert - then you can do whatever the fuck you want.

Yakowlev strangled and delayed competing fighters, and pushed for his own degisn - Yak-9PD. Which was basically yak-9 with slightly better engine and armament and stripped off. IT was still underpowered and worthless as high altitude fighter, and to get the bare minimum of performance all its wepon were stripped off. It was armed with single cannon, and maybe two dozzen rounds of ammunition. And it still was shit.

Now imagine that pieces of crap, supported by completely outdated MiG-3s facing a B-29 raid escorted by mustangs.

Not a fun thing to see, unless you are US pilot.

File: 1497755730354.png (11KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 128x128px

>>34471330
It's almost as if conventional armies are good at fighting conventional wars, but struggle to deal a death-blow to guerrilla organisations and insurgencies.

Okay, so tell me this. Why the fuck did we not pushed the shit in out of the Soviets and avoided the Cold War, along with the great buttfucking of third world nations/colonies caused by proxy wars? What kind of political bull was responsible to prevent Britain and the US from assfucking the soviets into nonexistence?

>>34471422
They might have been able to field the La-11 against the B-29s, but as Korea showed us, it took them fucking forever to reach the B-29's cruising altitude, and was so slow up there that the B-29 could outrun them in a shallow dive. That's a design from 1947 that was still outran by what it was meant to be intercepting. The idea that the MiG-3 could do it is fucking hilarious.

File: IMG_4479.gif (1MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x200px

>>34471375

>>34469731
>implying hatred for commies wasn't high in america during world war 2
all of the information that Joe McCarthy brought forward in the 1950s trials was old information gathered from the 30s and 40s through the FBI about soviet infiltration and subversion.

File: 1489449689746.jpg (59KB, 604x404px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 604x404px

ITT

>>34471503
People like Patton and Churchill wanted too because they saw what was coming. But the USSR had just won the war with the UK and US as an ally. The UK, France, the USSR and the rest of Europe was war weary, and the US was high on victory. It is as simple as most people did not want war in 1945-46, they were done with it. Most people in the US were naive to how much of a threat the USSR was as well following the last 4 years of pro USSR shilling to the public.

>>34466689
NUKE
U
K
E

>>34470326
>whole thread is about 1945 and beyond
>"b-but you weren't t-that powerful 30 years before that!"

what the fuck are you thinking my dude

>>34470971

Kill ratios don't mean anything .

Finland sued for peace both times and ceded territory that was demanded in both instances.

>>34471503
If you are referring to why we didn't invade the USSR after the war but before they developed nukes it was because that war would be impossible to sell to the public. The largest war ever just ended and has left Europe in ruins, millions dead, utterly trashed economies, and leaves central Europe under threat of a massive famine. Now imagine just after this, and when everyone is celebrating a return to peace time after six years of hell, you decide to start a war that will likely be as devastating as the one that just ended against someone you've supplied with millions of tons of material and fought with, because in the end you never really liked them any ways.

>>34472453
I frequently wonder whether Truman could have saved the course of history for the better by giving the US Army the order to break the Berlin Blockade by force.

>>34472453
>have two "wars to end all wars"
>a 3rd is overkill because it might end wars for a while

File: 87.png (14KB, 818x102px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 818x102px

>>34472323
Why you stupid brainlet didn't even bother to read who i'm replying to? You're so fucking dumb
truly american.

>>34466689
>1946

during THIS point in time, there were only two countries that had nuclear capability: US and former Nazi Germany. I've read Japan was on the brink of having their own nuclear capability by 1945 though.

if WWIII were to occur then, the US would basically nuke whoever threatened the stability of what was left of WWII. However, the Soviets controlled East Germany and would likely take scientists and whatever nuclear weaponry or program the Germans have and use it themselves.

Unless they did that soon, the US would likely take this. But if the Soviets were to hold off in time and retaliate, the earth today would be a crater.

File: Le legion.jpg (421KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1000x1000px

US and allies beat soviets with air power, naval power and lose a few land battles simple.

>>34472577

>Nazi Germany
>nuclear capability

Are you retarded?

>>34472577
>I've read Japan was on the brink of having their own nuclear capability by 1945 though.

What the fuck are you reading?

>>34467771
Service ceiling doesn't mean shit when your plane flies like ass up there

don't forget that the soviets were still dealing with hard-core insurgencies all over eastern europe in 46; imagine how full retard the UPA and friends would have been able to go with actual western support, and how many soviet troops that would have tied down

>>34469731
>50's onward US citizen's opinion of USSR never happened and definitely couldn't have happened in the 40s

>>34466708
whats it like being a fucking retard

>>34470389
>the US has no oil
>USSR magically takes over Europe

>>34470916
>Experienced troops
ok
>Numerical Superiority
No.
>Equipment Superiority
Hahaha fucking what
>Resources availability
No.
>Tank superiority
What's next, King Tiger best tank of WW2?
>Ability to defend from american air attacks
Bait/10

>>34466689
better question, what if ford were president and we sided with the neo-reactionaries?

>>34469618
>Joining a retooled Wehrmacht to crush the Stalinists once and for all
Stop, my erection can only get so hard!

>>34469744
Prolly no Red China either

Kek at the dude saying that shitty MiG 3s could have been used as interceptors against american strategic bombers.
I swear slavic people are fuccking stupid and low key deserved to be massacred through the ages

>>34473355
the us has oil but look at the fucking energy crisis. they'd need to exploit pretty much every resource outside of asia and the ME in order to support a war machine and an economy.
the ussr had plenty of mobilized man power and equipment to push across europe in the time frame specified while the western allies lacked the ability to act as much more than a speed bump before they hit the Atlantic.
as stated they probably wouldn't have gotten any further for lack of naval capacity and fairly dismal prospects in the skies compared to what western allies had available. bear in mind this is not operation unthinkable, in the event of hostilities between the western allies and the ussr, the soviet occupation of western europe is all but a given unless the allies are able to exploit the skies, in an age before precision munitions, to the extent that soviet ground forces cannot operate or advance. it's worth noting that the soviets were used to operating without air superiority and much of their important production was out of range of attack.

>>34473574
How will they replace their losses from our strategic bombing? No more lend- lease, everyone who could hold a rifle was by 1945.

>>34473504
The communists won in China without so much as a rusted out mosin's worth of support from the Soviet Union. Their popular support was that high and the nationalists were that incompetent.

>>34473624
Fair point
If the US won, we'd be occupying their back yard and paying far more attention to remaining Commie regimes/ movements, I would hope

Soviets could make a land bridge to the UK with the corspes of the previous wars

>USSR wins land war easily, steamrolls all of mainland europe
>Britain and US bomb Soviet cities and maintain air superiority and marine domination
>stalemate
>???

>>34473716
Saddam?

File: main-qimg-414b696e81c0e9f6751111204cd939f8-c.jpg (52KB, 602x401px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 602x401px

Hi guys

File: ak47_3.jpg (16KB, 650x209px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 650x209px

>>34473758
sup dude

File: 00.png (765KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1680x1050px

>>34473813
Hey

>>34473758
M26eX says hi to
>>34473813
nice 1949 rifle you have there
>>34473852
nice 1949 jet you have there

Please explain why things that are years away matter?

>>34473872
>M26eX
What the fuck is that?
Wargaming pls go
America had nothing comparable till the M48 in 1952 , and still couldn't reliably penetrate the T-54 with typical shells.
>1949 rifle
development of war material is less important and slower in peace times, and the war would definitely lasted more than 3 years.

Meanwhile murrica still using M1s
>1949 plane
First flight in 1947, but same point as above stands. If the soviets had been really desperate, or not able to get their hands on a meteor they could also have deployed Yak-15s or reverse engineered 262s to deal with american bombers.

>>34467625
It would be like throwing a handful of rocks at one of those gas powered model airplanes

>Patton gets his nazi slave army filled with POW's and cuts off the supply routes in eastern europe.
>all russian ground forces starve
>nuke moscow

probably wouldve lost another million men though

>>34473950
Just whatever version of M26 was being made 1945-46 probably just a new engine.

Meanwhile the ussr is still using the moisin as its main rifle and might be starting to make sks rifles to supplement it.

And the P80s first flight was in 1944 3 years before the Mig15.

File: 1015419380-tumblr_maza0yfvhy1rdqdijo1_1280.jpg (136KB, 654x1000px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 654x1000px

>>34474014
pic related

>>34474016
You mean the M46?
utter shit, barely better than a 1942 tiger


The thing is, the USSR just needs a high altitude bomber interceptor, which is exactly what they have in the MiG-15, no US jet other than the sabre can be compared to it at the time.

MiG-15 shits all over US heavy bombers, and the air becomes completely irrelevant for all other aircraft afterwards.

>>34466689
Both sides would lose.

>>34474050
Sounds just like the T-44 with its 85mm gun.

So the US has 3 years of complete air superiority to nuke anything they want until they finish the mig15 thats good to know.

>>34474087
1.5 to 2 years, who knows.

Which is around what the USSR held out against germany at the start of WWII

what does the T-44 have to do with anything

>>34473950
>lasted more than 3 years
Good one.

>>34474128
>WWII lasted ~5 years against a much weaker opponent
>WWIII will be over in a flash guys

>>34474014
Patton was a retard
literally one of the worst generals in history

>>34474145

>>WWIII will be over in a flash guys
An atomic flash

>>34474155

Name one (1) thing Patton did wrong.
Protip: I'm leaving and won't read your reply.

>>34473602
lend lease is pretty irrelevant by the date in question. they captured horrendous amounts of equipment in addition to having largely adequate domestic production. while lend lease ammunition and logistical support (such as trucks) most certainly saved their asses earlier in the war they were mostly self sufficient by the end.
i believe you're thinking of tactical bombing. in any case strategic bombing didn't have as much impact on german production as a lot of people like to think. there's no reason to think it would have adversely affected Russian production when it hardly diminished germany's, it was a slowly building lack of resources
they don't have to replace the losses immediately, they just have to push to the seaboard before high altitude air inferiority defeats their ability to do so. once they're there all they really have to do is consolidate because there's nothing anyone else can do about it.

>>34474099
So wait you posted a t54?
You posted absolutely nothing that would have been there in 1945 to stop the US, GB, and the remnants of Germany.
So let me redo that list for you.

M4 76s supplemented with M26s that might have a better engine might not and might consider putting some of the heavy tanks into production if soviet ones become to much of a problem VS T34 85s supplemented with T44s and a mix of heavy IS1s-2s and maybe they will fix the IS3 soon

M1s VS moisins supplemented with SVTs and SKS

P51s P47s with some P80s VS Yaks, LAs, and they might get a jet out based on the 262 in a bit but without English jet engines it will not be great.

The only part that had equal to better are tanks.

>>34474208
>lend lease is pretty irrelevant by the date in question

Said not russian leader in 1945.

>>34474050
You mean that MiG-15 that came around in 1949?
You mean that MiG-15 that was created using British engines?
>You mean the M46?
M26 is a real tank you fuck
>Barely better than a 1942 tiger
And the USSR has what?

>>34474216
OP said 1946 you mong.

All of this is speculative as fuck anyway, does he mean early 1946 or late? Will the soviets choose to keep producing T-34s or move on to T-54s? Will they speed up jet/atomic weapons development? Will america attempt D-day 2.0? If not, how will they stand agaisnt the millions of USSR soldiers? Will the US and britain bombing of soviet cities work as well as it did agaisnt germany?

>>34474238
JS3, JS2, T44, SU100, JSU-152

>>34474208
Why do you say things when information posted earlier in the thread clearly proves you wrong?

>>34474238
First flight was in 1947. The MiG-15 still could have been developed with a captured meteor, for example. Or maybe they would have developed something completely different. Who the fuck knows.

>And the USSR has what?
Actual heavy tanks, and soon, T-54s (impenetrable vs american guns).

>>34474247
Considering VJ day is in September I'm guessing early 1946 if not late 1945.

>>34474253
IS3 hull cracks and was found not fit for service, IS2s where killed in Korea by M4 76s, the T44 is verry similar to the M26 possibly better, a tank destroyer and a self propelled gun its not like no one else has those.

>>34474253
>IS-2, SU-100, ISU-152
Oh boy those are really good
>T-44
Ok, barely better than a 1942 Tiger :^)
>IS-3
Shit

>>34474292
None of what you listed is true

>>34474208
>addition to having largely adequate domestic production
You realize Soviet Union as a hole went through a MASSIVE famine in 46'-47' right? With another mini-famine in 49. This was with a massive deactivation and putting as many people as they could into the fields to try to sustain their food sources. This was also while still receiving Lend Lease from the US.

The Grain Harvest for the Entire Soviet Union in 1946 was barely 40% of the 1940 yield. Note that the Soviet Union was drastically larger in 1946 than in 1940 so this compounds the famine even more.

If the USSR was forced to sustain their military numbers and not send farmers back to the fields then they would've faced mass starvation as a nation by late 46'.

>>34473725
Shhhh my portal worked

>>34474289
>could have been developed with a captured meteor
Have fun getting that
>could've developed something completely different
and way shittier
>Impenetrable vs american guns
You fucking what
>heavy tanks
Some shitty heavy tanks oh boy

>>34474292
>IS3 hull cracks and was found not fit for service
IS-4 says hi
>IS-2 where killed in Korea by M4 76s
literally impossible, IS-2s saw no service in korea, and they would have beaten shermans easilty in europe
>a tank destroyer and a self propelled gun its not like no one else has those.
Next best thing the US had was a 90mm gun that was barely better than a german short 88.
>>34474305
>Oh boy those are really good
Better than american counterparts
>Ok, barely better than a 1942 Tiger :^)
What is mobility and reliability

File: IMG_3324.jpg (47KB, 450x675px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x675px

>>34470388
The brits were in on the Manhattan project too. They would have accelerated nuke production years ahead of the 50s tests if there was a need or immediate total war again. Not to mention America sharing intel with them.

A worn Russia against an albeit, tired Britain and USA would be stomped into the ground. Numbers don't matter when the enemy has insanely superior firepower and air power

>>34474342
He somehow believes they will shit out a 1949 tank in 1945.

>>34474342
Which american field/tank gun could penetrate a T-54 before 1950?

Maybe the 17 pounder at close range.

>>34474347
>IS-4 says hi
M46 says hi
>Next best thing US had was a 90mm
What is a T29 or T95
>What is mobility and reliability
M26 has that over a Tiger too

>>34471111
>Russia only lost 5 million soldiers during ww2
I honestly can't tell if you're a troll or a standard vatnik

>>34474381
What is the T34 with a 155mm gun?

>>34474377
M46, T29, T95

>>34474324
You also need to take into consideration the massive amounts of food the USSR received as aid. Ettore Boiardi (invented Chef Boyardee brand) was awarded the Order of Lenin after the war for his contribution to the war effort and service to the Soviet people, though he did not acknowledge the award.

>>34474377
What red alert time machine to the russians have to send a 1950 tanks back 4 years?

>>34470726
The Russian navy was a fraction but people in this thread are consistently forgetting that , in a scenario like Unthinkable, where not all of the German and Italian navies had been scrapped/given to allies/sold yet - those that hadn't been scuttled would now be in Russian hands. On the German side that's several destroyers, one late war light cruiser (Nurnberg), 3 heavy cruisers (assuming the russians were able to secure wilhelmhaven swiftly -Prinz Euger, Lutzow, Deutschland), enough submarines and patrol craft to be dangerous. If they can take Italy in time they get the remainder of Italy's fleet - including a few battleships.
This is all assuming Unthinkable immediately happens post war, instead of in say 1946, in which case the Russians only get one Italian Battleship, some destroyers from Italy and Germany, light cruiser Nurnberg, Heavy Cruiser Lutzow, and a a few subs.
Add to that the Soviet navy might have been weak during the war as a surface fleet, but it had a large and accomplished submarine fleet - it's not a stretch that they could have shut down the Baltic and been a slight nuisance in the mediterrean

>>34474377
Oh yeah the T34 and T30 too

File: is-4.jpg (45KB, 1022x309px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1022x309px

>>34474381
>M46 says hi
lmao, what can that do to pic related?
>What is a T29 or T95
Inferior to the 100mm and 122mm soviet guns
>M26 has that over a Tiger too
M26 is slow as fuck. M46 does though, but it is still worse than a T-44

>>34474452
Bait/10

>>34474440
T-54 is from the 40s.

>>34474452
>T95
lol, even worse than a Maus

I'm wondering if China would get involved at all.

>>34474468
Still 4 years to late, why would they need to counter a tank that does not exist?
>my 1949 tank should be available in 1946 because red alert told me the russians had a time machine

>>34466689
bloody, but the pidors would most likely lose. on the plus side there'd be lots of cool footage of pidortech getting blown apart.

>>34474452
I know it's I enjoy this:

>sub 350mm of RHA

Vulnerable to 84mm HESH

>>34474499
The T-54 was essentially already conceived in 1945, as the T-44-100. The first units produced were in 1946, but they were made for testing.

If the USSR had been at war that same year, they could have started production early.

>>34470739
The USSR had over 250 Submarines at the end of WW2, and that figure doesn't account for the large amount they would capture from the Germans - probably at least 40 subs of varying classes.
It's a little daft to think the baltics wouldn't be contested heavily

>>34474519
>84mm HESH
???

>>34466708
I hope this question isn't autismus maximus, but by the end of ww2, was the Maginot line still an effective defensive measure? Like, was it mannable, and could the Soviets be halted by it if they attempted to march West from Germany. I thought Germany getting through the Ardennes during the invasion of Belgium was just a fluke desu.

>>34474554
British 20 pounder for "smarties" like you ;)

>>34474554
Yes your question is?

>>34466940
Well our biggest advantage was without a doubt airpower, BUT keep in mind airpower isn't everything and the Soviets vastly outnumbered combined American, British, and French troops by 1945.

>>34474575
>>34474577
Did the 20pdr ever get HESH rounds? Weren't the first mass produced HESH shells for the L7?

>>34474586
No, they didn't and airpower pretty much is. They get bombed to hell and can't do a thing about it

>>34474598
Yes the 20pdr had hesh it also had apds.

>>34474569
The Maginot like would have been a joke after 1942.

>>34469731
Hitler declared war on us you fucking stupid idiot.

>>34474598
It had squash head. The US (and by extension NATO) had HESH for 90mm cannons since the 40s. And squash head was used quite a bit throughout WWII

>>34474613
>>34474628

source? I know it had APDS, but I never heard about HESH.

>>34474621
Actually, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Germany just invaded the territory they held prior to WWI and moved to prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe.

Fun thought: If WWIII happened after WWII, would Spain get involved? Franco's defining feature was being disgusted with communists.

File: Spitfire_mk_24.jpg (29KB, 640x354px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x354px

hi

File: confused black man.jpg (40KB, 505x431px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 505x431px

>>34474737
>Actually, Britain and France declared war on Germany. Germany just invaded the territory they held prior to WWI and moved to prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe.

File: image.jpg (62KB, 365x799px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 365x799px

>>34474635

>>34474750
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this guy the entire thread

This thing running 25 psi boost would shit on fucking every single plane in the world with a propeller on it, save for maybe a sea fury or bearcat at low altitude

And to think some anon thought a fucking mig-3 could compete with it, let alone any russian prop

>>34474586
The Soviet's numbers are just as easily used against them as they are stationed far from home with very strained supply lines and, as another anon said before, would soon be dealing with a famine. While the VVS was much stronger by '45 than it had ever been, it was still hopelessly outnumbered by the USAAC in terms of fighters and there are no words to accurately describe their inadequacy in their ability to defend against strategic bombers that aren't better summed up with a rather rude four letter word. Sure the Soviets have the men but they are very far from the home they depend on to supply them with the food, weapons, and ammunition they need, a home which is being ravaged by a combined, round the clock bombing by both Bomber Command and the horde of bombers of the USAAC.

>>34471111
I don't think the USSR would win long run either, it would eventually collapse or be able to effectively wage war, resulting in peace treaty or conditional surrender.
They would take all of mainland europe, they would take Scandinavia, however they would get their absolute shit pushed in in the Pacific and US troops and Marines would be pushing through eastern russia at such a frightening pace that the USSR might just be screaming for peace. I'm talking Vladivostok and Birobidzhan captured within the first week of Unthinkable, Soviet armies totally encircled in Manchuria, and US forces in Novosibirsk within 2 months. We'd be crushing the Chicoms, the Mongolian Comms and the Red army with the Nationalist Chinese and a rearmed Japan.

>How did the Russian fighters of WW2 stack up to American fighters? Not just planes but pilots as well.
Later fighters (particularly Yak-9) were broadly equivalent if slightly inferior to Fw190, Spitfire, and P-51 Mustang, but generally had better armarment.
The key thing here is the west would have large scale access to jets much sooner, the Soviets would be hampered in jet development without British technology.
As for strategic bombers, well it took them until 1949 to copy and finally put the Tu-4 Bull into production, the stresses of war could push that down a few years, but it won't compare.
If Russia went balls out with it's navy in defending the Baltic's, Carriers and their bombers would just strike from the Black sea and North Sea.

Either way - Russia's asshole is wide open in the east, that little display army (August Storm) in taking back Manchuria from depleted japanese forces isn't going to hold a candle to 4 marine divisions, countless army divisions, and the pissed off follow on troops that have been forced to evacuate western europe

>>34471330

Our "defeat" in Vietnam had absolutely 0% to do with the military.

>>34471503
The war would have been lost in the west and won in the east for US and Britain, and the USSR would have been forcing whoever it could into conscription in occupied europe.
They'd never take the UK, but mainland europe would fall to the soviets, the war would be won in the east - that shit was wide open and by the time Russia get's enough troops in place to form a unified front, the US is already past Yekateringburg, as well as likely pushing from the caucasus

>>34474353


they had plans to re arm wehrmact veterans including probably a few eastern front veterans

i would also gander some restrictions on western germany would lift allowing them to pool engineers and scientists with much more ease

>>34474801
Considering the Soviets would take mainland europe they would have access to steal all of that food and starve the Westerners and Eastern Europeans while the Army and mainland USSR gets fed - not perfect mind you, either way for the USSR it's death by a thousand needles as Partisans fuck them in Europe and as their gaping asshole is rammed by US, British, Australian, Canadian, Japanese and Nationalist Chinese on the eastern front

>>34466760
>Also the soviet air force was not something to be laughed at in 1946.
They didn't have a single aircraft which could challenge a B-29, so that's a pretty fucking big problem.

>>34466689
That would be an odd time for it to start, the Jews had already been seriously weakened.

>>34474913
>Considering the Soviets would take mainland Europe

They would need their rail junctions in tact to have a hope in hell of going anywhere, and the fact that they would be unable to protect them from Allied bombing leaves little hope for this plan. Sure, best case scenario is they push the Allies back to France before their logistics are in shambles.

>>34467798

>Doesn't understand that max speed is only attainable under proper altitude and conditions.

The Mig would fly like a shit laden brick trying to meet a B29.

>US invades the USSR from the East
>Vladivostok falls almost immediately, US has total naval and air superiority over Sea of Ohkotsk
>Totally encircles Soviet Forces in Manchuria, hit from multiple fronts by Nationalist Chinese, Japanese Remainder, US troops in Korea and
>Soviet Far East Armies and Chicom eliminated
>US and Allies push westward from N. Manchuria
>Shit local infrastructure
>Front line forces are heavily supplied by air and by river (Amur, Ergun and Shilka to Onon/Ingoda rivers), while follow on troops improve infrastructure/build airbases and airfields.
>US Forces will reach Chita at a lightning speed due to rivering campaigns
>Transiberian railway will be taken out as far as west of Novosibirsk thanks to US Strategic bombers very early in the campaign and access to mainland and western China - US troops will rebuild rails behind their lines for supply.
>For the USSR, moving armies from the west to the east will be incredibly difficult, the railways would be getting pounded in the west by Allied air campaigns from Britain and North Africa, Inland Railways would be getting hit from carriers in the Black sea
>USSR loses in the east

>>34475012
They take mainland europe, lost a shitton of rail infrastructure, and navval air and strategic bombers proceed to destroy, wholesale, rail in europe, the caucasus, adjacent to the Black Sea, and in the far east as I stated >>34475065
The USSR is left with armies it can't move, subjects that are starving, and an enemy that is moving through shitty eastern Russia at an alarming pace, and that's not even forgetting the fact that Allied forces would be attacking on land fromt he Caucasus, from Iran, from eastern and western China, from invasions in the Barents, Black Sea, and far east Russia, as well as Russia's arctic past the Kara sea, because you bet your ass we're invading Siberia.

Small difference, the reason tech improved was because of the war. Technology would be only slightly better than it was in 1939

This is all dependent on whether or not preparation started at the same time as it did in real life, or a few years later to compensate for the war starting in '46

>>34474569
Completely dismantled by the germans when they first took France, obviously to avoid any scenario where it could be put to use if the western front reopened.

>>34474737
Germany declared war on America, which is obviously what people here are talking about: a war between the US and the USSR.

>and moved to prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe.
They literally handed Eastern Europe over to the soviets in exchange for oil, metal and other supplies, there was nothing preventative about the war the launched a full two years later.

File: IMG_4782.gif (2MB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 267x199px

>>34474737

File: file[1].gif (172KB, 500x389px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 500x389px

>>34474347
>literally impossible, IS-2s saw no service in korea
IS-2 in korea, manned by Chinese

>>34468511
>far less marines
lmao look at all the Army POGs

>>34469222
>Hey, you remember when you kicked the russians asses?
>Wanna do it again with the support of that bomb?
Might get some volunteers.

>>34474452
whenever I see the roof thickness on tanks like these I can't help but imagine some Michael Bay styleaction flick where some Arnold Schwarzenegger tier grunt humps a M2 up ontop of a tank and fires it down through the armor jackhammer style

>>34476381
DID SOMEONE CALL FOR CAAAHNOPENAH?!

>>34475104
>They take mainland europe

No, I mean they will literally lack the means to move their troops and equipment where it needs to go. Destruction of the Leningrad and Moscow rail head would very likely leave them unable to relay the essentials they need to mount an offensive capable of pushing all the way to the channel.

>>34467833
Crashing this plane. WITH NO SYRVIVORS

>>34474534
I'm sure they'd have a great time playing hide and sink with the Allies who spent the last six years literally writing the book on ASW.

>>34474534
The US navy and Coastal Command were the most effective ASW forces in the world fighting against the guys who wrote the book on sub warfare, if a sub fleet is you strongest naval asset you have against these guys then I wouldn't expect you to last very long.

For the people posting USSR technological achievements that are developed and issued in 1949 and beyond, I have a question:

Do you think the entirety of western Russia, including all major logistic hubs, the capital, probably most of their conscripts, farms, etc being burned in nuclear hellfire would slow them down? I'm no historian, but they already had a major famine on their hands, and with the US stopping lend-lease and also kinda sorta nuking them into a parking lot might have led not only to the crushing, unquestionable defeat of the USSR, but also might mean the AK47 or a plane developed and fielded in 1949 takes longer to produce (or doesn't exist at all, because of the whole nuclear hellfire thing).

I dunno, something to think about.

>>34470898
russian LARPer spotted

File: 1498727243613.jpg (118KB, 1242x1231px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1242x1231px

>>34477153
B-but war speeds up research and production! That means I get T-54's in 1946! BLYAT!

>>34470898
So you used a comparison of 1960s US to 1940s US?

God damn Russians are stupid.

>>34477153
People seem to overestimate the power of early nukes, most of the city destroying type H bombs were developed well past the time frame that a hypothetical war between the USSR and USA would be fought in.

>>34477887
That and the firebombing did more damage than the bombs did anyway.

>>34469450
Retard, the point isn't that the US was inferior to the Germans, who were largely a conscript force with poor training by them, but that they both were inferior to the Soviets.

>>34476293
WW2 saved the Corps, they were on the chopping block in the 30's - to be integrated into the Army

>>34474443
is this the same russian navy that didn't have a clue what they were doing at sea?

>>34466958
>ussr a rival state
>implying the US actually has a rival state

Nigga you are not very smart are you?

>>34470742
kek

>>34478021
That was pre-ww1 (Battle of Tshushima) and pre-soviet union. Pound for pound the Soviet Submarine's sank a shitload of German tonnage, as for the surface force most of the losses were due to aerial attack by the Germans

>>34478133
>Pound for pound the Soviet Submarine's sank a shitload of German tonnage
Source?

>>34466839
>but they were basically out of manpower reserves
Yeah but it's not like the Allies had huge reserves of their own. Pretty much the only major power who did was the US.

Also, for all the nuke lovers, those things cost Billions in 1940's money, with a full war going on, I doubt they'd be making them faster than they did in real life.

>>34469174
We should have tried to conquer the entire world it would have been amazing and fun. Seriously who could have stopped us?

>>34477887
>most of the city destroying type H bombs were developed well past the time frame that a hypothetical war between the USSR and USA would be fought in.
The only two time they where used in anger a city was destroyed by one bomb so the city destroyers where ready 1945.

>>34478133
And the US and UK navy made enemy submarine forces have worse casualty rates than kamikaze pilots.

>>34466689
Starts for who? Like do you mean the whole world or just for America. If Germany hadn't invaded Russia until 46 shit could be very different

File: 1416936759725.jpg (705KB, 2000x1474px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 2000x1474px

Slav's in this thread have been playing far too much Warthunder.

You just need to stop. i know its bait but it hurts bad.

as for the thread.

US throws nukes everywhere
RAF level any city left
Allies have so many aircraft that they can just blow the fuck out of every soviet troop without ever having to get close.

British land in Leningrad USA land's in Vladivostok Soviet's surrender after they're kicked out of poland seeing how allied tanks, planes and Equipment chew theirs up like no tomorrow. end of story soviets not annexed but contained to a much smaller area and they fall apart into history books.

>>34478897
Brits would be steamrolled in few days

>>34466689
Mostly skimmed the thread but the consensus seems to be that without being supplied by the US and up against nuclear weapons the USSR would have many early victories but succumb to air superiority, production base and nuclear weapons (if China stayed out of it at least), leaving the US without a counterweight which I find the most interesting.
Would the Marshall plan come to be without the threat of Soviet backed communism? Would the threat of another war down the line be as great without the red army revving their engines at the Fulda gap?

Would America once again disengage from europe or would they go down the world police route and back facist goverments Asia, Africa and south america (or even Europe) once again for stability?

>>34466689
it wouldn't, ww2 ended in 45

Remember all of those troops in the Pacific that just got done fighting the Japanese? Russia would then be fighting a two front war. Considering the fact that the allies would also have air superiority, this would massively swing land battles and strategic bombing would be able to destroy Russian supply lines. Turkey might be called into the war to expand up into Georgia. Similarly, puppet state's like Mongolia might break away from under Soviet control.

File: 1429551065308.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>34478962

Sure thing ivan. now tell me how the soviets liberated Berlin and committed no war crimes what so ever.

>>34466689

5 million British troops in Europe and the
America had mobilised 12.7 million men with 3 million army in europe. And wth all the momentum of successful invasion and good supply lines


Russia had painfully slogged through the vastness of eastern europe over 3 years, they had lost, their navy was a joke and their air force not capable of challenging the western allies


Britain's fleet dominates the seas around Europe and are backed up by American ships

American ships dominate the seas in asia and are backed up by British Ships

Their combined navies are more than capable of dominating the coastline anywhere in communist occupied territory and of knocking out what passed for the soviet navy with no ill effect.

>>34478332


Axis submariners= 75% casualty rate

Kamikaze Pilot = 97%casualty rate or somesuch, i remember that from somewhere but cant find anything


RAF Bomber command didnt fare well either, averaging 50 % casualty rate

File: Dead_Russian_soldier_in_the_Winter_War_1939.jpg (149KB, 900x1145px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x1145px

>>34469799
Hey oh

>>34469471
Nothing personal, comrade.

File: reichstag-mickey-mouse-berlin-victory-germany-soviet-union-red-flag.jpg (340KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1920x1080px

Red flag over whitehouse

>>34479004
>(if China stayed out of it at least)
At the time the Chinese Civil war was just about to resume. During the war the Kuomintang and Mao's communists put their differences aside to fight the Japanese. Which is actually kind of funny because Mao was getting his ass handed to him left and right before the start of the second Sino-Japanese War. China wouldn't have been able to do much.

File: 1420623600569.jpg (416KB, 1807x1384px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1807x1384px

>>34479300

And whats going to get them there? the soviet ... navy?

>>34466839
According to historical production notes declassified. They had the capacity for 6 nukes by the end of 1945. The US had shipped some 50 initiators to Tinian already by July 1945,
The casing, explosives, and initiators, were easy to ramp up on demand.

>>34477887

The nukes the US used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima seemed to work well enough, combined with a massive firebombing and conventional bombing campaign, I'm sure they could all get the job done.

It's not about overestimating the power of a nuke, it's about people underestimating a literal super weapon being dropped on Moscow and every other city in range of Allied bombers. The toll that would take on morale alone is beyond measure.

Pretending that RUSSIA STRONK conscripts and scientists would continue to act as if everything is fine and complete research projects at or before their real-world counterparts is pants-on-head retarded.

>>34470792
After the US gets bloodied, they would probably put in children, then women finally.
It would be a horrible, brutal, attrition war.
Agreed that Russia-Soviets would accept huge losses. Even a few nuked cities to a ten pack by the end of 46.

However, you would have to kill every single one of the Soviets of the adult age and still might not get the ideology out of their heads.
It would have to be a permanent occupation with Partisans and Terrorists.
Meanwhile, cobalt casings for nukes would poison the land there for a very long time.

>>34480729
>However, you would have to kill every single one of the Soviets of the adult age and still might not get the ideology out of their heads.
Other than Russia itself there was a lot of resentment especially in occupied territories. Hell Hungary and Czechoslovakia required full scale invasions to keep them in the Warsaw Pact. Not to mention how many displaced ethnic groups were moved to outer USSR countries such as the Tarters that were already willing to start shit even when the USSR was a powerhouse.
>It would have to be a permanent occupation with Partisans and Terrorists.
Yeah against the Soviets. It is extremely hard to fight a war when your entire Nation and occupied territories is going through the largest famine in history that would make Mao blush. If the Red Army had to sustain their army for just another year and was not allowed to get them en-mass back into the fields for food production, coupled with the loss of Lend-Lease then the USSR starves. This famine then lends even more credence to the partisans and revolts that will spill out behind the lines that will only be inflamed by amphibious landings by overwhelming US/UK Navy power.

Yes the Soviets had more men and women to pull up into the fight but at severe cost of their already crippled logistics capability and food production which then only further exasperates their drastic lack of resources.

Even if the Allied Armies simply stalemated in Germany/France (Siegfried/Maginot Lines) then the Red Army and USSR itself would collapse in on itself by 1947 due to lack of supplies and food.

>>34479662
Can you even call that a navy? That whole thing reads like someone let /k/ write an episode of The Love Boat.

>US rearms Germany, Italy, Finland and most importantly Japan and China
>endless manpower to use in the East, highly competent veterans to throw against the enemy before your own troops have to suffer casualties in the West
>meanwhile every Soviet-occupied area is exploding from insurrection and uprisings
Sounds sexy to me

>>34478247
The fact that the US is not an autocracy but a republic and if the war is not well "justified" the populace will get somewhat angry and since they actually hold some power that means problems, see: Vietnam war.

>>34474289
It didn't use Meteor engines you sperg

>>34481188
>US rearms Germany
>meanwhile every Soviet-occupied area is exploding from insurrection and uprisings

That's where you are wrong.

File: 2016-10-16-22-15-18.png (288KB, 799x479px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 799x479px

>>34474289
>T-54s (impenetrable vs american guns).

>>34481188
All this talk of seasoned veterans in the re-armed German/Japanese armies. Where were all these experienced veterans with the Allies were shitstomping everywhere?

Fucking dead because the Axis had no concept of manpower/skill preservation. They rode those horses until they fuckin died. That's how you end up with cute situations like Jagdtigers crewed by teenagers that see something that MIGHT be an enemy tank, get scared, turn their tank around (instead of just reversing), get stuck in a ditch or a crater and have to abandon their perfec.. reasonab.. BASICALLY good tank destroyer.

>>34481712
>All this talk of seasoned veterans in the re-armed German/Japanese armies. Where were all these experienced veterans with the Allies were shitstomping everywhere?
Well, to be fair there was a fair number of German and Italian POWs in Allied hands, plus the large portion of IJA still left in China and Korea.

Of course, equipping them and trusting them on the battlefield to follow orders is another matter entirely. I don't think it would remotely be a chance the Allies would take in the first crucial year or so of such a conflict. At best, they would be industrial labor.

>>34466729
Non existent airforce? They had a very large, and by 1945, competent, tactical air force. They had no strategic bombers nor long range fighters, but they had everything else in large numbers, and these were far from being shit.

Plus, dropping nukes on Japan, that is an island nation with a dying air force, is easy, but how were the B-29s supposed to fly over 1000 kilometers of enemy airspace without being engaged?

Anyways, Operation Unthinkable ends as would end any US/USSR WW3 scenario end.

USSR steamrolls continental Europe, US and UK are unscathed because of their fleets and air forces. Nuclear chaos may well ensue, but not before Continental Europe turns red.

>>34481788
>USSR airforce and navy
>somehow beating the combined Navy and airforce of Britain and america

The russian navy couldn't even beat the British navy alone in 1946 you

you delusional slavaboo

>>34468296
Oh, not to mention that in case of an Operation Unthinkable, you have to take into account the massive and powerful communist movements in Italy and France (35-40% of total population, and close to 50% of armed forces by 1946), that may perfectly fuck up allied airfields and supply lines, hampering their resistance to the Soviet onslaught.

No, seriously. Western Allies can't win Operation Unthinkable. They can not lose it - how are the Soviets supposed to land on British shores, let alone the US mainland? - but they can't be beaten, and nothing will stop them on their way to the Atlantic Ocean.

Plus, B-29s and their nukes can be threatened by... Lend Lease Spitfires and P-47s, as well as, by 1946, by the MiG-9s.

And strategic bombing of Soviet factories is pretty much fucked. What kind of plane available in 1946 can take off from the Netherlands or Southern Iran, go bomb the Urals, and fly back home?

>>34481788

It doesn't matter how many planes the USSR has.

Not a single one can intercept a B-29.

>>34481824
That's what I'm saying, numbnuts. US and UK are unscathed because of their fleets and air forces.

Let me explain it in a simpler way. Since American and British navies and air forces are stronger than the Soviet ones, they will defend the US and UK from Soviet attacks.

Wait, I'm not sure you can process that kind of information.

Murica and Brits not hurt, because big strong boats and planes. Russians no have boat and plane.

>>34481831
Not even their P-47s? The MiG-9s?

It would be a WWI style catastrophe, with Russian advances stuck in the heart of France, bombs raining down on them and across Europe day and night for years with no end to the war in sight the entire time.

Would likely end in some pitiful armistice and everyone would just go home angsty except for the Americans just like last time. America didn't have the forces to go all the way to Moscow, air power can't win wars by itself, and both France and Britain were already at the financial and political breaking points at the end of WWII.

>>34481848
>P-47's and mig-9's intercepting a B-29

haHAA

>>34481826
>Lend Lease Spitfires and P-47s
The same Lend Lease Spitfires and P-47s that aren't getting spare parts or replacements anymore because in the shock of all shocks, the Allies stopped supplying the Russians with equipment around the time they went to war with them? Those ones? They'd dry up in a few months, tops.

>>34481848

They only had about 200 P-47s and that's assuming they all survived the war. Early jets were pretty shit at high altitude and the MiG-9's armament is pretty unsuited for bomber hunting.

>>34481870
>America didn't have the forces to go all the way to Moscow,
By 1945, the USN was larger than the rest of the world's navies combined, and still shitting out capital ships at a rate of one to two every month. What happens when the re-allocate all that production completely to aircraft, ground vehicles (both logistics and combat) and transport?

The US and allies only get stronger, meanwhile the USSR is facing incredible strain from massive famine and the integration of eastern Europe, not to mention the loss of all that Allied materiel support. They might make a lot of early gains, but there is simply no way for them to achieve a long term victory at those odds.

>>34481879
Enough to hold the line until new models are brought out. Hell, nothing prevents the slavs to commandeer a couple long nosed Focke Wulfs and Do-335s and use them to defend the skies while a couple of them are sent to factories for reverse engineering.

>>34481883
The MiG-9's armament is pretty unsuited for bomber hunting? With a 37mm gun and a pair of 23mm ones? What is good for bomber hunting then?

>>34481932

Why don't you look at the ammo capacity and ballistics of those guns and take into consideration the fact that you're also trying to shoot a target with an optical analog fire control system while trying to avoid being shot yourself.

>>34481932
It took them years to reverse engineer the B-29, so they probably couldn't just run a 190 D-9 through a photocopier and start shitting them out in a few months. It's highly unlikely that the Lend Lease aircraft that they were having supply shortages for even DURING Lend Lease would last very long at all without Lend Lease, and that's assuming that every one they were given survived the war without being shot down, written off from combat damage, or cannibalised for spare parts during the war.

The 'muh lend lease spits and jugs' argument is retarded, give up.

>>34482002
Eh, shit I forgot that, you're right.

Anyways, the Western Allied forces still have to take into account the massive presence of armed and organised Communists in France and Italy before they do anything against the USSR...

>>34481826
At the end of the War Soviet units were still fighting Germans but German units were surrendering in droves to the western allies.
The eastern front kill them all, rape the survivors would work against the Soviets. It's highly unlikely they could of advanced much further than Germany, not to mention resource depletion. The pause in conflict would of helped but nothing the Soviets had could of helped but the moment the Soviets advanced west would of been the end of it. The relocated industrial facilities would of been within range of US and British aircraft. And immediately post war the Soviets still relied on shipments from North American to keep from starving in a lot of places.

Understand the Western allies had a eye on communism. If the fascists had not gotten between them the second world war might of been a completely different sort of war. The likely hood of nuke them and settle it would of been high. Assume Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad nuked.

Factories which had no threat of strategic bombing during the war attacked (possibly nuked). Italian Airbases would been completely immune to Soviet reprisal. Soviet union had no naval forces worth mentioning.

For example Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata were the targets for the US in Japan pick equivalents and assume 5-8 (possibly more effective) weapons. In 1945 Groves expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October. A war in 1946 would of been a one sided nuclear war if it looked like the Soviet Union was being successful.

>b-but my communist uprising
>b-but my lend-lease planes and materials
>b-but America can't advance! Moscow is too far to be bombed!
>b-but RUSSIA STRONK HOLD THE LINE

Still not taking into account a massive firebombing campaign, conventional bombing, superior American equipment and logistics (along with Britain), a U.S. Army, Air Force, USMC, and Navy that's full of veterans and can grow even larger, etc.

But no, partisans in Italy and France would totally be enough to delay the Allies, especially the British and Americans, from steam rolling vodka soaked slavaniggers who are going to be starving the moment the first shots are fired, at least those who aren't wisps of smoke and ash from the nuclear bombardment.

File: 1497374195029.jpg (60KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 567x565px

ITT: Asshurt, delusional tankies.

>>34482078
In Soviet Union 1946 to 1949 terrible famines. Assume no rail transport would survive US and British strategic bombing. It would be worse then. Stories of Russians being cannibals in Stalingrad comes to mind at that point. It would be grim, Poles would and Ukrainians would be revolting. China would be grabbing eastern territories in all likelihood. A 1946 war of Soviet dominance would end poorly and horribly. A few hundred average air defense fighters would not be able to stop the air onslaught. Soviet Union Western ground units could fight in defense if they decided too.

In the United States, at the end of World War II there were containing over 425,000 prisoners of war (mostly German). 35,000 in Canada. There were suggestions post war of arming German POWs and using them in conflict. I would suspect this would gain some traction if the Soviets suddenly attacked.

>The eastern front kill them all, rape the survivors would work against the Soviets.
As aside There were Soviet generals bragging publicly about raping German women when they took the war to Germany

Former POW units being used to defend German territory a definite possibility.

>>34470739
>This would enable US/UK Navy to control not only the Atlantic but also the Baltic and Barents Sea's which now open up easy realms of back end Amphibious landings to force the Soviet Army to contend with and further destroying their logistics capability.
Wouldn't have taken too long for the Allies to organize a Pacific amphibious landing in Eastern USSR, this would have forced the Soviets to either divert manpower from Western Europe or face losing a large portion of their Eastern territories. Additionally, their relocated manufacturing facilities would have been in range of U.S. strategic bombing by 1946 (at the latest, possibly earlier if airfields were set up in Manchuria).

>>34470916
>Experienced troops
To a degree, lots were poorly trained conscripts with some combat experience.
>Numerical superiority
Yes, to a degree
>Equipment superiority
No
>Resources availability
Russia has plenty of resources; however, their main bottleneck was ability to extract and refine those resources. They were heavily dependent on U.S. support through the entire war for resources and manufactured products (including food).
>Tank superiority
In numbers, yes. There is no doubt that the T34 was an excellent tank, but they need to be fueled and crewed. The weakest link by 1945 was the extended Soviet supply lines. Logistical support would have been easy for the U.S. and other allies to disrupt in 1945.
>Ability to defend from american air attacks
To a limited degree, again though, a large portion of the Soviet air power was from lend-lease sources. Cut those off and you severely diminish their ability to counter Allied air power.

File: WWII aircraft losses by front.jpg (83KB, 1023x727px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1023x727px

>>34482705
>>Ability to defend from american air attacks
>To a limited degree, again though, a large portion of the Soviet air power was from lend-lease sources. Cut those off and you severely diminish their ability to counter Allied air power.
Pic related is why Soviets/Russians think the VVS was hot shit at the end of the war. It was effective, but it was nowhere near the dominant force they imagine. The simple truth is that from 1943 onward, the Soviets were facing the dregs of the Luftwaffe both in equipment and training. Most of the German air power strength went into defense against strategic bombing.

The VVS would have been completely rolled up by the USAF and RAF.

>>34482069
Yes/No as it would've given France the same excuse the Sand Wars did with the Berber people and unite the people against a common enemy and help shake off the "shame" of Vichy France.

ITT backwards yanks forget who won the war in the first fucking place