PDA

View Full Version : World War III scenario: mid-1946



Man of Stoat
01-06-2008, 08:42 AM
Okay, it's August 1946. After a couple of months of continuously worsening political situation, and for whatever reason, Stalin kicks off and moves against the Western allies in Europe in an effort to "liberate" the "proletariat" from the "imperialist occupying armies" of the "international bourgeoisie", and thereby expand his empire to the Atlantic.

You are the supreme commander of the Allied expeditionary Force in Europe, and you have troop dispositions more or less what they were at the end of the war. You have also had a couple of months of worsening political situation to make preparations. To top it all off, you also have Five "Fat Man" type nuclear weapons and the aircraft to deliver them, with more bombs in the pipeline if necessary.

Further details:

Lend lease to the Soviets has stopped.
The Soviets no longer have the manpower to sustain their preferred tactic of human wave assaults for a particularly long time so will have to attempt to overwhelm the Western allies quickly.
You may deploy captured German equipment and even personnel if you choose to do so.

Other things to think about:

Would Spain play? The Soviets would certainly not stop at the Pyrenees.
Other theatres: Iran, India and the Far East? Would they play a part? (My initial thoughts are that they would be insignificant sideshows because the Soviets would have moved most of their manpower to Europe)

What I'm after here are two responses, one conventional and one nuclear, and an educated guess on whether the former would in fact work.

Here's mine:

Conventional -- the ground forces cannot hold the line in either the American or British sectors because neither country has sufficient firepower to deal with the weight of numbers, so conduct a defence in depth to roll with the punch while bomber command and the eighth air force carpet bomb the Russian logistic chain (Russian logistics are poor at the best of times, so this is the weak point, and the Soviets cannot respond in kind because they do not have strategic bombing capability). German units are reformed from prisoners of war under Allied leadership in Allied uniforms to add numbers. Moscow is carpet bombed by B29 squadrons for good measure.

Probable outcome -- ultimate stalemate and Cold War, Soviet state remains, but the "Iron Curtain" is pushed back rather further east after the initial advance is reversed when the logistics dry up.

Nuclear -- as above, except three nukes are dropped on Moscow to decapitate the command and control, one on Murmansk for the benefit of the Arctic fleet, and the last one on Vladivostok for the benefit of the Pacific Fleet.

Probable outcome -- complete victory? Partial victory?

Your thoughts?

32Bravo
01-06-2008, 09:12 AM
I doubt that the Allied forces would have had the time to develop the type of defense strategy that Nato developed later, and, therefore, would not have been able to contain the Soviet forces (presumably, the Soviets have transferreed their forces from the far east to what will become the western front?).

Solution: Use conventional bombing to destroy the Soviet lines of communtication. If this fails Nuke Moscow.

Man of Stoat
01-06-2008, 11:20 AM
Another thing to consider: would the Allied high command/political leaders (Truman, Attlee, de Gaulle) have countenanced the use of nuclear weapons?

I'm sure that Lemay, Eisenhower, Truman, Harris, and de Gaulle would have had no qualms about it, but Attlee was, in my opinion, rather soft and fuzzy when it came to the Soviets. But frankly, amongst those great men, how much weight would the rather limp wristed (Socialist) prime minister of an emasculated United Kingdom have held? Probably (and hopefully) very little.

32Bravo
01-06-2008, 11:27 AM
You've obviously put some considerable thought into this and, therefore, one should give it due consideration.

The element of surrise is essential. A pre-emptive strike against Soviet, forward airbases followed by a conventional bombing campaign against supply depots and lines of communication (as previously mentioned) ought to do the trick. It would require some serious planning, coordination, command and control, but the allies had been doing htis for some time.

Atlee might have been soft on the Socialists, as you have mentioned, but I doubt it was to the extent that he would have left Europe in jeopardy. Particularly if the allied plan was one of defense and not to gain any permanent, strategic hold on Soviet territory. That is not to say that the Eastern European countries would not been allowed to be freed.

Besides, if the U.K. was as emasculated and ineffective as you infer, then he would have had no choice but to go along with the U.S. and its allies.

Nickdfresh
01-07-2008, 04:11 PM
Okay, it's August 1946. After a couple of months of continuously worsening political situation, and for whatever reason, Stalin kicks off and moves against the Western allies in Europe in an effort to "liberate" the "proletariat" from the "imperialist occupying armies" of the "international bourgeoisie", and thereby expand his empire to the Atlantic.

You are the supreme commander of the Allied expeditionary Force in Europe, and you have troop dispositions more or less what they were at the end of the war. You have also had a couple of months of worsening political situation to make preparations. To top it all off, you also have Five "Fat Man" type nuclear weapons and the aircraft to deliver them, with more bombs in the pipeline if necessary.

Further details:

Lend lease to the Soviets has stopped.
The Soviets no longer have the manpower to sustain their preferred tactic of human wave assaults for a particularly long time so will have to attempt to overwhelm the Western allies quickly.
You may deploy captured German equipment and even personnel if you choose to do so.

Other things to think about:

Would Spain play? The Soviets would certainly not stop at the Pyrenees.
Other theatres: Iran, India and the Far East? Would they play a part? (My initial thoughts are that they would be insignificant sideshows because the Soviets would have moved most of their manpower to Europe)

What I'm after here are two responses, one conventional and one nuclear, and an educated guess on whether the former would in fact work.

Here's mine:

Conventional -- the ground forces cannot hold the line in either the American or British sectors because neither country has sufficient firepower to deal with the weight of numbers, so conduct a defence in depth to roll with the punch while bomber command and the eighth air force carpet bomb the Russian logistic chain (Russian logistics are poor at the best of times, so this is the weak point, and the Soviets cannot respond in kind because they do not have strategic bombing capability). German units are reformed from prisoners of war under Allied leadership in Allied uniforms to add numbers. Moscow is carpet bombed by B29 squadrons for good measure.

Probable outcome -- ultimate stalemate and Cold War, Soviet state remains, but the "Iron Curtain" is pushed back rather further east after the initial advance is reversed when the logistics dry up.

Nuclear -- as above, except three nukes are dropped on Moscow to decapitate the command and control, one on Murmansk for the benefit of the Arctic fleet, and the last one on Vladivostok for the benefit of the Pacific Fleet.

Probable outcome -- complete victory? Partial victory?

Your thoughts?

I think your thoughts are pretty much my thoughts.....

But I'm wondering if this belongs in the Cold War forum? I'll await for another Mod's thoughts...

pdf27
01-07-2008, 05:40 PM
I concur.

Chevan
01-07-2008, 07:11 PM
Okay, it's August 1946. After a couple of months of continuously worsening political situation, and for whatever reason, Stalin kicks off and moves against the Western allies in Europe in an effort to "liberate" the "proletariat" from the "imperialist occupying armies" of the "international bourgeoisie", and thereby expand his empire to the Atlantic.

Your thoughts?
Why do need to develop the different pseudo-realistic versions if there was existed the whole MILITARy plan how to start the WW3.
It was "Operation Unthinkable" - the military plan of possible attack of the USSR 1 jule 1945 that was developed by order of Churchil in may 1945.
This is the recently declassified unique document
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/
If we put aside the moral side of the problem of attacking of former ally- we could observe the excellent military research of ability of the Red Army to resist for the Union Allies forces.
And i have to say that the Hight British stuff has come to the conclusion - this was practically unpossible to bring thr red army the critical damage in this stage of the war.
Coz even the allies Strategic aviation ( about 2500 bombers) in Europe was unable to crush the soviet industry.
Themost interesting i think in entire this document is the analysys of the military ability of the all kinds of soviet troops( Aviation,Infantry and Navy)
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/images/023.jpg
So as it could be find out- the allies command did not build an illusions toward the Red Army.
The decisive victory of allies was simply unpossible during the initial period.
Vise verse - there were a great probability of initial defeat of the allies forced in Europe.
Moreover - if the allies attacked the USSR in 1945 the Japane could inevitably join into alliance with USSR and - hence the final ally victory over Japane has been considered as very problematic.
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/images/007.jpg
Sure this plan was developed untill the Nuclear wearpon was even tested- however i strongly sure that even the possible nuclear strike of the 4-9 nuclear bombs could not finally destroy the Soviets and would not lead to the fatal lose of war.

Nickdfresh
01-07-2008, 07:23 PM
Operation Unthinkable was little different than any other hypothetical contingency war plan. But a contingency plan does not a blueprint for war make. I'm sure the Soviets had their own version...

Man of Stoat
01-08-2008, 07:10 AM
It seems that operation unthinkable was a hypothetical offensive scenario against the Soviets. What we are discussing here is a response to a Soviet attack, and the best way to win against this.

If you, C hevan, can dig up the equivalent Soviet plan to operation unthinkable (don't kid yourself that there wasn't one), this would be particularly interesting.

What is worth noting is that, in western thinking, a successful attack usually requires three to one superiority in numbers. With the human wave assault tactic favoured by the Soviets, three to one just won't cut it, so this evens the odds for a Soviet attack.

32Bravo
01-08-2008, 07:43 AM
By 1945 the Allies had a massive air fleet which was well practised in both strategic and tactical operations. I doubt, given your scenario, that they would have sat back and allowed the Soviets to sieze the intiative, particularly as the Soviets had such a large advantage in numbers of ground forces.The operations against massed troops in Korea serve to demonstrate how well the Allies could make use of their airpower. Other examples would include the Six Day War and the Gulf Wars.

The British doctrine of a three-to-one advantage would not necessarily have been the norm in these circumstances. The Allies main objective would be to stop the Soviets as opposed taking and holding the oppositions territory (not unlike the German defensive operations of WW1).

Nickdfresh
01-08-2008, 03:49 PM
As just an aside, I wonder if B-29s and later B-36s, would have been able to attack Soviet factories from Alaska/Canada's Northwest Territory as well as from the West?

It seems to me that this would have put additional strain on their air defenses....

32Bravo
01-08-2008, 04:55 PM
As just an aside, I wonder if B-29s and later B-36s, would have been able to attack Soviet factories from Alaska/Canada's Northwest Territory as well as from the West?

If it could be done, would it have been necessary and, if so, why not also, for example, launch them from China, India and Turkey?


It seems to me that this would have put additional strain on their air defenses....

Triple A can be attacked by long-range, low-level ground attack forces e.g. Mustangs, while, for example, B29's take out strategic targets from high altitude. The aircraft available to the Western Alliance, were far more formidable than your average Stuka or Heinkel.

How would you see this scenario progressing?

The Soviets are supposedly invading the West and, in this scenario, it cannot be sustained. If the main supply routes are taken out, even if the battle was to drag on for such a time as to require reinforcement, how do they reinforce?

Where is the main thrust of the Soviet attack?

As well as the allied air fleet, the Soviets would have defendable, river obstacles to contend with. For example. If the main impetus of the thrust was to be accross the North-German plain, which, to some extent, lends itself to an armoured thrust, then there is the River Wesser to contend with, among others. These rivers would create delay and congestion along their lines of communication, which would leave them exposed to air attack.

The speed necessary for the Soviet advance would limit their abilIty to establish any effective air defense for the forward elements.

Anyone wanting to see what allied airpower can do to ground forces, take a look at the Battle of the Falaise Gap.

Chevan
01-09-2008, 02:33 AM
It seems that operation unthinkable was a hypothetical offensive scenario against the Soviets. What we are discussing here is a response to a Soviet attack, and the best way to win against this.

If you, C hevan, can dig up the equivalent Soviet plan to operation unthinkable (don't kid yourself that there wasn't one), this would be particularly interesting.
.
Oh MoS let me kid myself a bit:)
Sadly but you did not even look at the text of plan Unthinkable.
Coz if you would look - you should know that in the 1945 the Soviets were still strongly depended form a lend lise- particulary the soviets got about 50% of aviation petrol from the USA.And about the same of alluminium.
The Soveits had captured the enourmouse resources during the offensive in Eastern Europe ( even the oil fields of Romania) and the great industry of Upper Silesia -but they could not use it immediatelly.
There were needed a serious restoration for everything.
So according to the Plan Unthinkable they could not widely use untill mid 1946.
From the pure military sence the possible Allies-Soviet war should be Total war i.e war of resources.
Thus the Soviets were unable to win this war with the Union of states that controlled over the 70% of world resources at that time( i mean time befor the Soviet economical restoration in the 1950yy).
So from the pure strategical point the Soviet attack should be pure suicide for the soviet side.
I mean the possible military victory in Eastern Europe and occupation of it by thesoviet troops - will not lead to the war defest of Brritain and USA coz soviets had no fleet.
Therefore the Soviets had nothing simular plans like Unthinkable in that period.. Simply coz they could not attack the enemy forces having the serious lack of resources.
The whole soviet strategy in Europe this period was strongly Protective.They could plann just the contr-offfensive as the strategy.As i know the soviet plann in Europe in that time was- after the first American nuclear strike the Red Army should attack the European Forces in aim to avoid the total nuclear destruction.
So the Western Europe was a hostage of the Red Army - in case if the WW3 would have been began from a nuclear strike.
In practice the Soviet strategy in that time was directed not in Europe but in Asia. While the Chinas communists succesfully beated the Gomindan - the soviet influence constantly increased.
Moreover the Stalin aslo look at the SouthernEast Asia where the Allies was aimed to restore the Colonian system after the war . Thus the many of Nalional-Liberational movenment was aimed for colloboration with the USSR.

Chevan
01-09-2008, 02:54 AM
As just an aside, I wonder if B-29s and later B-36s, would have been able to attack Soviet factories from Alaska/Canada's Northwest Territory as well as from the West?

It seems to me that this would have put additional strain on their air defenses....
Actually they could attack...but as it was noticed in Untinkable - the resualt of possible stratgic attack would be far not so effective as against Germans tight industrial areas and cities.
Coz the soviet plans were widely disributed in deistance over thoushands killometers- so the Stratgec bombers could not be effectively used agains the target in Syberia and Ural.
Besides Turkey as well as Uran should be the first targets to be occuped by the Red Army during soviet offensive.
So there is no any air fields for the strategic aviation near the soviet borders except the Far East: Japane and Alaska.But from here till the Ural and Eastern Syberia is about 3000-4000 km.
I even do not tell about China where the communists would never let the american army to land.
And Nick again Neither B-29 nor monstrouse ( in both sence: size and expensive) B-36 was not the ABSOLUTE thing that could win the war.
As it was clearly demonstrated in Korea the soviet jet aviation could easy neitralize the Strategic fleet .Beside the era of AAA-rockets has already come to in the mid -end of the 1950.

Firefly
01-09-2008, 11:15 AM
What is worth noting is that, in western thinking, a successful attack usually requires three to one superiority in numbers. With the human wave assault tactic favoured by the Soviets, three to one just won't cut it, so this evens the odds for a Soviet attack.

You seem to have a fixation with the 'Human Wave'. A tactic not really employed by the Soviet forces at all. Sure sometimes it may have been true, but a 'Human Wave' assault would have garnered the Soviets no more success than the 'Human Wave' assaults by the British. I think by 1945 the Soviets had developed a much more fluid system than just throwing hundreds of thousands of men at a line of troops. A disregard for the excessive casualties that the Soviets sufferred doesnt necissarily mean a 'Human Wave'.

Now, given the Allies penchant for wanting to suffer no casualties at all its fairly easy to surmise what they would have done when faced by a Soviet attack. No doubt the Soviets would have quickly taken Western Europe [if a hundred German Divisions couldnt stop them in 44/45 then 15 Allied ones arent going to in 46]. The Soviet Government would be warned to step back of face consequences, wether or not they would have is pure what if? But I dont see the Allies as having any other option at all.

32Bravo
01-09-2008, 12:00 PM
You seem to have a fixation with the 'Human Wave'. A tactic not really employed by the Soviet forces at all. Sure sometimes it may have been true, but a 'Human Wave' assault would have garnered the Soviets no more success than the 'Human Wave' assaults by the British. I think by 1945 the Soviets had developed a much more fluid system than just throwing hundreds of thousands of men at a line of troops. A disregard for the excessive casualties that the Soviets sufferred doesnt necissarily mean a 'Human Wave'.

Now, given the Allies penchant for wanting to suffer no casualties at all its fairly easy to surmise what they would have done when faced by a Soviet attack. No doubt the Soviets would have quickly taken Western Europe [if a hundred German Divisions couldnt stop them in 44/45 then 15 Allied ones arent going to in 46]. The Soviet Government would be warned to step back of face consequences, wether or not they would have is pure what if? But I dont see the Allies as having any other option at all.


Could always nuke them, which is, arguably, why it never happened.

Man of Stoat
01-09-2008, 02:33 PM
Personally, I find the non-nuke scenario unlikely, given that we had just demonstrated our willingness to use them on the Japanese.

I could even see them being used quasi-tactically on major troop concentrations.

Nickdfresh
01-09-2008, 03:38 PM
If it could be done, would it have been necessary and, if so, why not also, for example, launch them from China, India and Turkey?

They certainly could have. But then I see the United States getting directly embroiled in the Chinese Civil War...


Triple A can be attacked by long-range, low-level ground attack forces e.g. Mustangs, while, for example, B29's take out strategic targets from high altitude. The aircraft available to the Western Alliance, were far more formidable than your average Stuka or Heinkel.

Certainly, but I think an inevitable shift would have taken place and the allies would have targeted primarily Soviet logistical centers, oil refineries, and rail marshaling yards...


How would you see this scenario progressing?

It's almost impossible to say as the scenarios are boundless...

But I think the month time frame you gave to be a tad unrealistic, I think any open hostilities would have taken longer, probably at least three to six months. I think that what might have happened would most likely have been a gradual disintegration of cooperation punctuated by skirmishes. This might lead to larger scale "reconosense in force" operations (by the Soviets here) in order to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the Allies...

Such an operation would have undoubtedly been preceded with the infiltration of espionage, saboteurs, and special operations agents in an attempt to cause some havoc.


The Soviets are supposedly invading the West and, in this scenario, it cannot be sustained. If the main supply routes are taken out, even if the battle was to drag on for such a time as to require reinforcement, how do they reinforce?

Where is the main thrust of the Soviet attack?

Off hand, without knowing the exact geography of the final "halt positions" of the Allies with the exception of the "Elbe river," the most sensible thing for the Soviets to do would be to attempt to "split" the UK and US forces by driving an armored spearhead wedge between them. This would maximize confusion and reduce Allied coordination. But to affect this, would the Soviets have to perform a hostile river crossing?

Their only chance of real success would be to mass artillery and tactical aircraft to saturate the area as a "fire sack." But this would be challenging if not impossible due to the probably Allied advantage in local tactical air assets...


As well as the allied air fleet, the Soviets would have defendable, river obstacles to contend with. For example. If the main impetus of the thrust was to be accross the North-German plain, which, to some extent, lends itself to an armoured thrust, then there is the River Wesser to contend with, among others. These rivers would create delay and congestion along their lines of communication, which would leave them exposed to air attack.

Even without significant obstacles the Soviets may have had a hard time sustaining any initial successes. The Soviets would have to mass artillery and insure that it kept up with the tanks and infantry, if it didn't, more than likely, I see Allied troops gradually attriting them down and inflicting losses that would be unsustainable and leading to a probably Allied counterattack, even where there are no rivers. I just don't think the Red Air Force tactical aviation could sustain a Westward thrust with concerns of fuel and the tactical quality of the USAAF and RAF fighters. They heavily outnumbered the Luftwaffe which was fighting a two-front pincer battle of attrition. This might again come as a shock to Soviet air crews...

I think the question of Soviet morale might also be visited, since the average soldier, just like a GI or Tommy, might begin to seriously question the advancing on a former ally, especially when you are using much of his equipment he sent you...


The speed necessary for the Soviet advance would limit their abilIty to establish any effective air defense for the forward elements.

And of their ability to provide artillery and air support to their troops...


Anyone wanting to see what allied airpower can do to ground forces, take a look at the Battle of the Falaise Gap.

Little question. I think the only real Red Army trump card here is the quality of their tanks vs. the Sherman and the waste of time and resources know as the American "tank destroyers." Still, even an M-10 or M-36 was essentially designed for defensive work, and both the US and the British were just starting to get better and better tank designs into the theater at the end. So, in a sustained conflict where the front was stabilized, I doubt even this would have been much of an advantage...

Nickdfresh
01-09-2008, 03:47 PM
Actually they could attack...but as it was noticed in Untinkable - the resualt of possible stratgic attack would be far not so effective as against Germans tight industrial areas and cities.
Coz the soviet plans were widely disributed in deistance over thoushands killometers- so the Stratgec bombers could not be effectively used agains the target in Syberia and Ural.
Besides Turkey as well as Uran should be the first targets to be occuped by the Red Army during soviet offensive.

But this would mean a significant splitting of forces, not unlike their having to maintain large garrisons in the Far East until their nonaggression treaty with Japan freed up significant reinforcements for the West...


So there is no any air fields for the strategic aviation near the soviet borders except the Far East: Japane and Alaska.But from here till the Ural and Eastern Syberia is about 3000-4000 km.
Perhaps the range factor would have made air assets useless to put there then...


I even do not tell about China where the communists would never let the american army to land.

Well, since they didn't really control the country until 1949, they didn't have a choice. One could argue that any conflict with the Soviet Union by the West may have saved the Kuomintang regime?


And Nick again Neither B-29 nor monstrouse ( in both sence: size and expensive) B-36 was not the ABSOLUTE thing that could win the war.
As it was clearly demonstrated in Korea the soviet jet aviation could easy neitralize the Strategic fleet .Beside the era of AAA-rockets has already come to in the mid -end of the 1950.

I never said they were, however, I think post War studies showed that using strategic aircraft in essentially a tactical role could be highly successful (i.e. the pre-D-Day raids).

And by Korea, the USAF had modernized, or was in the process of doing so, its front line units with the newer B-36s and B-47s while using the leftovers from WWII (the B-29s and B-26s, which became a serious morale issue incidentally) to hit Korea. And I don't think that anyone can claim that UN/US aviation was "neutralized" in Korea as they had air superiority and a severe handicap of not attacking over the Yalu River...There may not have been so many MIG-15s in the air if their bases had been pulverized.

Nickdfresh
01-09-2008, 04:01 PM
You seem to have a fixation with the 'Human Wave'. A tactic not really employed by the Soviet forces at all. Sure sometimes it may have been true, but a 'Human Wave' assault would have garnered the Soviets no more success than the 'Human Wave' assaults by the British. I think by 1945 the Soviets had developed a much more fluid system than just throwing hundreds of thousands of men at a line of troops. A disregard for the excessive casualties that the Soviets sufferred doesnt necissarily mean a 'Human Wave'.

Now, given the Allies penchant for wanting to suffer no casualties at all its fairly easy to surmise what they would have done when faced by a Soviet attack. No doubt the Soviets would have quickly taken Western Europe [if a hundred German Divisions couldnt stop them in 44/45 then 15 Allied ones arent going to in 46]. The Soviet Government would be warned to step back of face consequences, wether or not they would have is pure what if? But I dont see the Allies as having any other option at all.

I don't know mate. Once the Red Army begins to again move forward, their logistical lines become lengthened. These supply lines were already strained to the brink by Berlin. Also, I'm not sure how long the Soviets could have kept their economy of a total war footing, and also we must consider that the US alone dwarfed Germany in the numbers of AFVs and aircraft, trucks, and just about everything else. In facing the US and British armies (and their allies of course, which could include a significant number of German troops already trained) it may not have been so easy for them.

Also, I'm not sure an out and out conflict with the Soviets (who suffered greatly and may have been at the end of their rope with the Polit Bureau had the hostilities been restarted) could have happened without a long series of events pointing towards total war...

32Bravo
01-09-2008, 04:24 PM
They certainly could have. But then I see the United States getting directly embroiled in the Chinese Civil War...

Not a consideration. There are more pressing problems.



Certainly, but I think an inevitable shift would have taken place and the allies would have targeted primarily Soviet logistical centers, oil refineries, and rail marshaling yards...

Covered that in one of my sweeping postings regarding supply depots.I could have listed labels but assumd people understood my meaning.



It's almost impossible to say as the scenarios are boundless...


Of course it is, that's why I asked.




But I think the month time frame you gave to be a tad unrealistic, I think any open hostilities would have taken longer, probably at least three to six months. I think that what might have happened would most likely have been a gradual disintegration of cooperation punctuated by skirmishes. This might lead to larger scale "reconosense in force" operations (by the Soviets here) in order to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the Allies...


Totally disagree. The Soviets could never have continued to support massive armies beyond a month and if they hadn't achieved their goals by then, they never would.



Such an operation would have undoubtedly been preceded with the infiltration of espionage, saboteurs, and special operations agents in an attempt to cause some havoc.

Not so easy as you make it sound. Easier for the Allies to use Stay-behind forces to disrupt Soviet lines of communication.



Off hand, without knowing the exact geography of the final "halt positions" of the Allies with the exception of the "Elbe river," the most sensible thing for the Soviets to do would be to attempt to "split" the UK and US forces by driving an armored spearhead wedge between them. This would maximize confusion and reduce Allied coordination. But to affect this, would the Soviets have to perform a hostile river crossing?


It has always been envisaged that a Soviet assault would strike accross the norht German plain. This ground best suits their armoured divisions and their M.O.



Their only chance of real success would be to mass artillery and tactical aircraft to saturate the area as a "fire sack." But this would be challenging if not impossible due to the probably Allied advantage in local tactical air assets...

Soviet tactics were to send forward armoured recce units to probe for weaknesses in the Allied defenses. Once discovered, a massive artillery bombardment would be used to weaken them further before sending their armoured division in.


Even without significant obstacles the Soviets may have had a hard time sustaining any initial successes. The Soviets would have to mass artillery and insure that it kept up with the tanks and infantry, if it didn't, more than likely, I see Allied troops gradually attriting them down and inflicting losses that would be unsustainable and leading to a probably Allied counterattack, even where there are no rivers. I just don't think the Red Air Force tactical aviation could sustain a Westward thrust with concerns of fuel and the tactical quality of the USAAF and RAF fighters. They heavily outnumbered the Luftwaffe which was fighting a two-front pincer battle of attrition. This might again come as a shock to Soviet air crews...


Well, quite frankly, there are obstacles. Along the Wesser (obviously, I have some familiarity with the area) for example, their are ridge lines which could be defended effectively and upset the Soviet timetable. In the area of Minden, there is a gap (known as the Minden-Gap) which the Wesser flows through. This would be a great strategic prize for any Soviet force advancing westward. However, it's going to be defended, and I mean DEFENDED!



I think the question of Soviet morale might also be visited, since the average soldier, just like a GI or Tommy, might begin to seriously question the advancing on a former ally, especially when you are using much of his equipment he sent you...


This I find interesting. By 1946 the Tommies wnated nothing more than to go home. Remember, Britain had been at war for six years, longer than any other nation. Having said that, war veterans called-up for service in Korea just got on with it and did a mighty fine job. I wouldn't like to say, at the time, who had the betteer morale. The Soviets might also want to go home, and the Great Patriotic War was fought to rid themselves of the Nazis, not to expand their borders. Even though they did so in Eastern Europe.



And of their ability to provide artillery and air support to their troops...


Not easy when they're being bombed to pieces. If resupply was coming in from a disbursed industrial base in the east, how effective were the Soviet lines of communication from those areas? I hink we're back to bombing there rail yards etc.





Little question. I think the only real Red Army trump card here is the quality of their tanks vs. the Sherman and the waste of time and resources know as the American "tank destroyers." Still, even an M-10 or M-36 was essentially designed for defensive work, and both the US and the British were just starting to get better and better tank designs into the theater at the end. So, in a sustained conflict where the front was stabilized, I doubt even this would have been much of an advantage...

By this time, both britain and the U.S. had better tanks than the Sherman coming on line e.g. Cromwell and Centurion. Besides, by this time the Allies had learnt how to defend a hard place with the equipment They had. The Brits had learnt from the Germans, particularly in the Western Desert, by driving their tanks onto the German 88's - not a good idea!

I still go for the airpower option. Strategic and tactical bombing had won through in every theatre either by the Axis forces, in the beginning, or by Allies later. When we speak of forces confronting each other, it's not just about the quality of the tanks, it's about logisitics, communications, command and control and coordinaton of combined operations.

overlord644
01-09-2008, 04:33 PM
I really don't think that the soviets had the logistics to attack the western allies, who would probably once again win air superiority, and while Stalin may have ruled with an iron grip, everyone has limits to what they can do, i don't think he would be in power for very much longer if he dragged Russia into ww3

Chevan
01-10-2008, 01:09 AM
But this would mean a significant splitting of forces, not unlike their having to maintain large garrisons in the Far East until their nonaggression treaty with Japan freed up significant reinforcements for the West...

Not as much significant splitting ..
For instance when the Brits and Soviet have occuped Iran in the summer 1941 - there were enought few divisions.
Besides the whole Soviet far East army was never more then 1.5 mln i.e about 20% of whole forces.
So the Soviets couls easy capture the Tyrkey and Iran for the short time and cut off allies from a Iran oil.
Only after than they could lead the war agains Allies more or less succesfully for a long time.


Perhaps the range factor would have made air assets useless to put there then...

That't exactly what i /m talking about.
And this fact reflected in plan Untinkable. So there is no evidence thant the Strategic abviation could critically influence at the Soviet Industry.


Well, since they didn't really control the country until 1949, they didn't have a choice. One could argue that any conflict with the Soviet Union by the West may have saved the Kuomintang regime?

There is not need to controll the sountry- enough just to support the civil war and support the chinas communists with ammunition and soviet advisers as it was in Vietnam.
The chaos of sivil war simply did not let the allies use the Chinas territory effectively in faight against USSR.


I never said they were, however, I think post War studies showed that using strategic aircraft in essentially a tactical role could be highly successful (i.e. the pre-D-Day raids).

It could be succesfull in JUST if allies would have the absolute AIR superiority - which thay had over Germany last period of war.
But if you would be so kind - and watch at the British staff report- the overal figures of Soviet fighter in the Europe was even more then Allies.
True they have no special aricraft like the nights fighter but in daylight they could meet the strategic fleet with a great enjoy:)

And by Korea, the USAF had modernized, or was in the process of doing so, its front line units with the newer B-36s and B-47s while using the leftovers from WWII (the B-29s and B-26s, which became a serious morale issue incidentally) to hit Korea.

Well firstly the piston-jet B-36 was also moral obsolet in the mid of the 1950 already.
Secondary the SOviet aviation aslo had modernized during Korean war.The Mig-17 was enough speed and high-altitude to hit the any strategic bombers.


And I don't think that anyone can claim that UN/US aviation was "neutralized" in Korea as they had air superiority and a severe handicap of not attacking over the Yalu River...There may not have been so many MIG-15s in the air if their bases had been pulverized.
Sure the total quantity of Migs in Korea was not so great - no more 300-350 at moment( against 2000 of allies aircrafts) .Therefore they could have just the limit succes.
However if the whole soviet far east aviation would enter the war- the allies would have been lost not just 100 b-29 and 150 b-26 but in several times more.At least half of Strategic fleet reserve:)
The Soviet analyse-report of battles in Korea against B-29 clearly demonstrated that even the relatively small group of Migs ( about 20-40) could effective neitralize the formation about 20-30 b-29 with escort fighters.I mean to prevent them to drop the bomb with accuracy. Besides about 5-10% of Bombers usially were shoted down.
So i would not like to hope for the strategic aviation :)
In case with the soviet great distances they inevitably would have the very limit success and a great casualties.

Egorka
01-10-2008, 06:22 AM
Personally, I find the non-nuke scenario unlikely, given that we had just demonstrated our willingness to use them on the Japanese.

I could even see them being used quasi-tactically on major troop concentrations.

Of course the non-nuke scenario was unfortunately unlikely. Especially considering the British attitude towards them (nukes).
Remember how we sopke of the Soviets having first strike doctrine and Nato not having one. It came out that Nato had a similar first nuke strike principe anyway.
And here is another interesting peice of history for you, guys. This is a "what if" pseudo documentary about a possible conflict with USSR. Enjoy!

In the mean while note who first desided to use nukes according to this british movie (time 01:49 and 14:26 in the file).


The War Game (1965) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3247573482818086914&q=the+war+game&total=27007&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


Bonus: And here is the similar pseudo documentary from 1984 - "Threads (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275628490749222181&q=documentary+war+duration%3Along&total=581&start=0&num=100&so=1&type=search&plindex=24)"
I have not seen this one yet so I can not commnet.

32Bravo
01-10-2008, 08:19 AM
Of course the non-nuke scenario was unfortunately unlikely. Especially considering the British attitude towards them (nukes).
Remember how we sopke of the Soviets having first strike doctrine and Nato not having one. It came out that Nato had a similar first nuke strike principe anyway.
And here is another interesting peice of history for you, guys. This is a "what if" pseudo documentary about a possible conflict with USSR. Enjoy!

In the mean while note who first desided to use nukes according to this british movie (time 01:49 and 14:26 in the file).


The War Game (1965) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3247573482818086914&q=the+war+game&total=27007&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


Bonus: And here is the similar pseudo documentary from 1984 - "Threads (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275628490749222181&q=documentary+war+duration%3Along&total=581&start=0&num=100&so=1&type=search&plindex=24)"
I have not seen this one yet so I can not commnet.

How do you have the time?

Egorka
01-10-2008, 08:43 AM
How do you have the time?

The movie is 48 minutes long. I ment that they reffer to first nuclear strike descision at about 01:49 and 14:26.

But I do recomend to watch the whole film. Very impressive. I almost had a tear on my eye. No sh*t.

Rising Sun*
01-10-2008, 09:09 AM
Okay, it's August 1946. After a couple of months of continuously worsening political situation, and for whatever reason, Stalin kicks off and moves against the Western allies in Europe in an effort to "liberate" the "proletariat" from the "imperialist occupying armies" of the "international bourgeoisie", and thereby expand his empire to the Atlantic.

.....

Your thoughts?

I'd suggest that the basic problems underlying this scenario are that Stalin had any interest in

a. 'liberating'
b. the 'proletariat'
c. from the the 'imperialist occupying armies'
c. of the 'international bourgeoisie',

let alone expanding his empire to the Atlantic.

He was a dictator who wanted to consolidate his power, in areas he could control.

His, and Soviet, moves were always about protecting Russia and the USSR from attack, and cementing his power. Just like everyone else's in Europe before, during and after WWII were about protecting their own interests.

Middle Europe was just a buffer, for both sides.

If Stalin wanted to cause real trouble without even firing a shot, all he had to do was remove all his forces from the Chinese front and leave America (because that's what it would have come down to) to deal with the Chinese and remnant Japanese, then transfer those forces to push into the southern areas of Iran etc, which are immune from naval attack; have some advantages against air attack compared with mainland Europe; and, given the way the Soviets flogged even the worn out Japanese in August 1945 with massive forces, would cause some problems for any land force composed of American, British and, in a wild moment, French forces. None of which had much stomach for the fight, by then.

Nickdfresh
01-10-2008, 10:09 AM
Of course the non-nuke scenario was unfortunately unlikely. Especially considering the British attitude towards them (nukes).
Remember how we sopke of the Soviets having first strike doctrine and Nato not having one. It came out that Nato had a similar first nuke strike principe anyway.
And here is another interesting peice of history for you, guys. This is a "what if" pseudo documentary about a possible conflict with USSR. Enjoy!

In the mean while note who first desided to use nukes according to this british movie (time 01:49 and 14:26 in the file).


The War Game (1965) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3247573482818086914&q=the+war+game&total=27007&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


Bonus: And here is the similar pseudo documentary from 1984 - "Threads (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275628490749222181&q=documentary+war+duration%3Along&total=581&start=0&num=100&so=1&type=search&plindex=24)"
I have not seen this one yet so I can not commnet.

Don't forget about the Able Archer (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5355) incident, which very nearly led to a Soviet first strike...

Firefly
01-10-2008, 10:43 AM
Could always nuke them, which is, arguably, why it never happened.

I thought that was what I said? In fact I agree with MOS, I dont think that the West could do anything but use the Nuclear option and as Nuclear was in its infancy [and more importantly the Soviets didnt have any to throw back] I also think they used in tactical situation against Soviet military formations.

32Bravo
01-10-2008, 12:10 PM
I thought that was what I said? In fact I agree with MOS, I dont think that the West could do anything but use the Nuclear option and as Nuclear was in its infancy [and more importantly the Soviets didnt have any to throw back] I also think they used in tactical situation against Soviet military formations.



If you've never read it, I would recommend 'Chieftain' by General Sir John Hackett (one of the better generals) - very excellent novel based on WW3 Scenario, and probably fits with your thoughts.


here's another entirely forom the Soviet viewpoint - very, very good.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Army-Ralph-Peters/dp/0671676695


From the U.S. forces viewpint, try 'Team Yankee' - "SABOT!!" is probably the most freQuently used cOmmand in this novel.

Egorka
01-11-2008, 06:12 AM
Don't forget about the Able Archer (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5355) incident, which very nearly led to a Soviet first strike...

You want to say that the USSR had the same principle as USA, i.e. in case of inevitable attack the preemption massive nuclear strike should be conducted in order to destroy the enemy's capability to fight?

That is surely true. What are we arguing about then???

32Bravo
01-11-2008, 04:14 PM
A little food for thought for all of you fatalistic defeatists that believe the West would have been overwhelmed by the Soviets in 1946.

During the Yom Kippure War of 1973 , there was a battle in a place up in the Golan Heights. It has become legend to the Israeli Defence Forces as the 'Valley of the Fires'. Basically, there were seven (as I recall) IDF Centurian tanks, dug-in, in hull-down positons, with inter-locking arcs of fire allowing mutual defense.

Said Centurions were attacked by a Syrian armoured Brigade, spearheaded by T54/55 tanks. The Centurians lit up sixty-five of the Syrian, assaulting tanks and A.P.C.'s before they were ordered to bug-out. The reason they had to pull back was that the Israelis had ordered a general withdrawal to better and more easily defended posiitons. None of the Centurians were lost.

Western equipment and tactics V Eastern equipment and tactics.

Nickdfresh
01-11-2008, 07:45 PM
A little food for thought for all of you fatalistic defeatists that believe the West would have been overwhelmed by the Soviets in 1946.

During the Yom Kippure War of 1973 , there was a battle in a place up in the Golan Heights. It has become legend to the Israeli Defence Forces as the 'Valley of the Fires'. Basically, there were seven (as I recall) IDF Centurian tanks, dug-in, in hull-down positons, with inter-locking arcs of fire allowing mutual defense.

Said Centurions were attacked by a Syrian armoured Brigade, spearheaded by T54/55 tanks. The Centurians lit up sixty-five of the Syrian, assaulting tanks and A.P.C.'s before they were ordered to bug-out. The reason they had to pull back was that the Israelis had ordered a general withdrawal to better and more easily defended posiitons. None of the Centurians were lost.

Western equipment and tactics V Eastern equipment and tactics.

I agree. But I think the West would have needed more incentive to rearm their frontline forces, such as continued series of border clashes and perhaps a culmination of a crisis...

Nickdfresh
01-11-2008, 07:47 PM
A little food for thought for all of you fatalistic defeatists that believe the West would have been overwhelmed by the Soviets in 1946.

During the Yom Kippure War of 1973 , there was a battle in a place up in the Golan Heights. It has become legend to the Israeli Defence Forces as the 'Valley of the Fires'. Basically, there were seven (as I recall) IDF Centurian tanks, dug-in, in hull-down positons, with inter-locking arcs of fire allowing mutual defense.

Said Centurions were attacked by a Syrian armoured Brigade, spearheaded by T54/55 tanks. The Centurians lit up sixty-five of the Syrian, assaulting tanks and A.P.C.'s before they were ordered to bug-out. The reason they had to pull back was that the Israelis had ordered a general withdrawal to better and more easily defended posiitons. None of the Centurians were lost.

Western equipment and tactics V Eastern equipment and tactics.

I agree. But I think the West would have needed more incentive to rearm their frontline forces, such as continued series of border clashes and perhaps a culmination of a crisis. I think they would need more tanks and men than they had in place by 1946...

32Bravo
01-12-2008, 04:54 AM
I agree. But I think the West would have needed more incentive to rearm their frontline forces, such as continued series of border clashes and perhaps a culmination of a crisis. I think they would need more tanks and men than they had in place by 1946...

According to the scenario, the West has time to build up their forces, and one ought not underestimate airpower. Also, I would opt for the pre-emptive airstrike. It would have become obvious by now (1946) that Stalin wasn't going to honour any of his Yalta pledges regarding the Eastern-European states and that he was a threat to western Europe. All the signals would have been their, with build up of forces, and that also is clear by the scenario.

We are discussing a scenario, here, it never did happen, and so the arguments ought to be within the frame-work of the scenario, and less the political reality.

Pre-emptive airstrike? Does one wait for the enemy to steal the initiative and make full use of his numerical advantage, or do you negate his ability to execrise that numerical advantage. The rightings on the wall, they're going to be coming at you and, in this situation, 'jaw-jaw' isn't going to achieve anything other than allowing you to strike first while seeming to be wanting to negotiate a peace - element of surprise.

32Bravo
01-12-2008, 05:26 AM
The Golan '73 - Syrian forces sieze the initiative (extract)

Emerging from the bunker close to 1 a.m., Hofi and Hod took a jeep down into the Hula Valley and up to Northern Command headquarters on a Galilee hilltop. Looking across the valley, Hod could see the Golan Heights covered with bonfires, as if it were Lag Ba’omer. Many of those fires were burning tanks. It was impossible to tell which were Syrian and which Israeli, but it was clear that hardly 12 hours into the war the Syrians were already on the foreslope of the Heights overlooking Israel.....

....Askarov had chosen as his gunner the finest tank sniper in the brigade, Yitzhak Hemo of Kiryat Shmona. Tank sniping is not a skill but an art that can enable its practitioners to hit twice as many targets as an ordinary gunner, even in the stress of battle.

Within five hours, Askarov would count some 35 tanks hit as well as a number of infantry-carrying Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs). It was Askarov who picked the target and turned the turret, rougly aligning the gun. But it was the gunner who did the final 10 percent of fine tuning that made the difference between hit and miss.

Askarov could not help admiring the Syrians’ courage and determination. They kept pushing to get through the Israeli line and were not deterred by the losses they were suffering.

About 7 p.m., Hemo hit a tank at 50-meter range that had come up from the main track from Kudne to the left of the ramp. Suddenly Askarov saw another tank approaching 30 meters away on the service road leading up from the UN post to the right. He swung the turret and shouted to Hemo, who fired the same instant as did the Syrian gunner.

Askarov was blown out of the turret. Retrieved by men from the bunker, he reached Safed Hospital within a few hours with wounds to his face and vocal cords that enabled him only to whisper. He was operated on and told by the doctors that he would be able to leave the hospital in two weeks. The young officer, however, would be taking leave — and returning — much sooner than that.

Rising Sun*
01-12-2008, 05:56 AM
[B]About 7 p.m., Hemo hit a tank at 50-meter range that had come up from the main track from Kudne to the left of the ramp. Suddenly Askarov saw another tank approaching 30 meters away on the service road leading up from the UN post to the right.


That is seriously close for tanks (I'm assuming the Israelis were in a tank from the references to turret and gunner).

It suggests an element of surprise by the Syrian tanks.

Do you have more details about the location and how the Syrian tanks popped up so close to them?

32Bravo
01-12-2008, 06:06 AM
That is seriously close for tanks (I'm assuming the Israelis were in a tank from the references to turret and gunner).

It suggests an element of surprise by the Syrian tanks.

Do you have more details about the location and how the Syrian tanks popped up so close to them?


The Israelis were caught with their pants down for a number of reasons, not least, being overconfident. It was Yom Kipur, and many of their frontlline troops had been given leave. It was a classic dawn attack (on this position).

Yes, the guner was in a Centurian, hull-down, and used as a sniper tank, as described. The Syrians got close because the Iraelis were withdrawing and the Syrians were attacking in massive numbers. They were able to get closer as they were afforded cover by the battlefield clutter of previously knocked-out tanks. Also, there was the terrain, obviously, this was a mountain pass and didn't offer the same long fields of fire as an open plain or desert. So, it could work for and against both opposing forces in this situation.

Schwerpunkt
01-12-2008, 11:46 AM
A conventional attack by the Soviet Union in August 1946 would have been a close thing. Allies would have been inferior in numbers of troops, tanks and artillery pieces. They would have had vastly superior quality in artillery (caliber and range) as the largest deployed numbers of their guns was 152mm while the Allies had 155, 175, 8inch and 240mm weapons. The Allied tactical air strikes would take out Russian armor by the thousands and all of their artillery. Strategically, B-29s, B17s and B24s would have strangled Russian lines of supply and communication. However, if the Soviets did cross the Rhine, the atomic weapon option would have been available and President Truman would not have hesitated because he knew Stalin for the monster he really was.

32Bravo
01-13-2008, 05:50 AM
A conventional attack by the Soviet Union in August 1946 would have been a close thing. Allies would have been inferior in numbers of troops, tanks and artillery pieces. They would have had vastly superior quality in artillery (caliber and range) as the largest deployed numbers of their guns was 152mm while the Allies had 155, 175, 8inch and 240mm weapons. The Allied tactical air strikes would take out Russian armor by the thousands and all of their artillery. Strategically, B-29s, B17s and B24s would have strangled Russian lines of supply and communication. However, if the Soviets did cross the Rhine, the atomic weapon option would have been available and President Truman would not have hesitated because he knew Stalin for the monster he really was.

So, how about a battle picture/scenario?

snebold
02-06-2008, 09:39 AM
RE: The British report: The numbers of aircraft available to the "west" is much lower than during the last stages of the war, about 1/3rd tactical. The number seems somewhat "de-mobilised", but then again, they canīt have considered to attack USSR with less than all they got. The Soviets couldnīt have gone to the Atlantic against any spirited defense, for logistical reasons, but I havenīt seen anybody here really consider the "western" situation. One thing is bringing US gear across the Atlantic, another bringing it to eastern europe through damaged infrastructure. Advancing east would eventually mean advancing into thrice scorthed earth territory, with whatever underdeveloped infrastructure available severely damaged.

The Soviets estimated it would take about 100 (one hundred) Hiroshima-sized nukes to do them the same damage as the Germans had done in 1941 (sorry, canīt remember the source).

(For the debate on casuallities of west-strategic aircraft in a 1945/46 conflict: USSR had no fighters in service able to fight on equal terms with the westīs at USAF cruise altitudes (the (195?) P-47īs lend leased being an exception. (There would have been no MIG-15īs, the first couple of years).

(Another beginning of this scenario could be Patton continuing east in May 1945 -begun as his private enterprise. Not a Patton expert in any way, but it seems he would have very much liked to :D)

32Bravo
02-07-2008, 03:45 AM
The scenario puts the numbers as being the same as at the end of hostilities in 1945.

The Soviets had not the Wolfpacks to inhibit Atlantic crossings.

Why would the west be wanting to advance into the Soviet Union?

The Berlin Airlift was a good example of logisitical supply without a ground based infrastructure.

The scenario doesn't consider the West attacking the Soviet Union in 1945. That would be a totally different scenario.

1000ydstare
02-07-2008, 04:22 AM
The build up required to get the Russians ready would be enormous, and would undoubtedly allow the Divisions in Germany on the "Front" to be reinforced.

With this greater force ready to engage, not to mention the whole of Germany still on a anti Russian footing, there would be a considerable force in front of the Russians, that would now lack the support that they had in the closing months of the war (from USA and UK).

UK and USA bombers command could go back to the 24/7 conveyor belt of bombing at selected targets. Particularly the main supply routes and possible depots and HQs.

The Russian fleet would not play too big a role in this.

The Western allies would soon control the airspace.

Whilst the initial surge would be good and possibly take Germany, the Russians would be turned back and routed. Where the rout stopped is anyones guess, but possibley Moscow when a nuke was lobbed in.

Gutkowski
02-08-2008, 11:16 PM
Nuke the whole planet most die and then mother nature takes over and washes the human race off her planet .
I thought this forum was about hard facts of WWII and not the what if and what about topics?
You younger members go to the library or buy some books if you have the money and start reading and put down the video games.Knowledge is the key to life and not some of these home grown shows and movies ,join the military and start you career early in life because time goes by way to fast to sit back and daydream about things .Before you know it you will look back and say holy mother of god I graduated high school 20 years ago and have family now where did time go so fast and you can still think back to your first date with that someone special and all the good times in between and feel like it was just yesterday in your mind .
My point is that we are not getting any younger and time goes by in a blink of a eye increase you knowledge by reading that book and dont take advantage of your youth and enjoy it and at the same time embrace it because its one thing in your life that you can not reclaim .

32Bravo
02-09-2008, 12:53 PM
Nuke the whole planet most die and then mother nature takes over and washes the human race off her planet .
I thought this forum was about hard facts of WWII and not the what if and what about topics?
You younger members go to the library or buy some books if you have the money and start reading and put down the video games.Knowledge is the key to life and not some of these home grown shows and movies ,join the military and start you career early in life because time goes by way to fast to sit back and daydream about things .Before you know it you will look back and say holy mother of god I graduated high school 20 years ago and have family now where did time go so fast and you can still think back to your first date with that someone special and all the good times in between and feel like it was just yesterday in your mind .
My point is that we are not getting any younger and time goes by in a blink of a eye increase you knowledge by reading that book and dont take advantage of your youth and enjoy it and at the same time embrace it because its one thing in your life that you can not reclaim .


Thank you for sharing those pearls of wisdom. I'm off to renew my library membership right away. After all, as you imply, knowledge is power, and I'm feeling empowered!

1000ydstare
02-10-2008, 03:48 AM
I'm feeling ALL powerful, at the moment.

http://www.jonco48.com/blog/freaky.jpg

Knowledge is POWER!!!!!!

Make your own superheros here

http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/heroMachine2/heromachine2.asp

If you like. I was going to show my offerings here, but I couldn't be bothered save, manipulate and post.

Seefu Sefirosu
02-18-2008, 09:54 PM
I have not read any of the rest of this topic, and I'll update this periodically.

First thoughts on the first post:

Conventional would work if the US would let Patton keep going East, rolling over the Soviets.

32Bravo
02-19-2008, 06:29 AM
Conventional would work if the US would let Patton keep going East, rolling over the Soviets.

HOW?...Just like that?...Don't you think the Soviets might have had something to say about it?

And why Patton - what did he ever do?

Seefu Sefirosu
02-19-2008, 07:59 PM
Patton was one of the best tank commanders the US had in WWII, and the Soviets wouldn't have had much to say: They lost twenty million or so in the war, and if we'd have waited until '46, they'dve been losing more by the day in Stalin's early purges.

32Bravo
02-20-2008, 06:30 AM
Patton was one of the best tank commanders the US had in WWII,

That doesn't tell me much - care to elaborate?


and the Soviets wouldn't have had much to say:

I doubt that very much - did Patton advise waiting until 1946?

Seefu Sefirosu
02-20-2008, 03:36 PM
That doesn't tell me much - care to elaborate?



I doubt that very much - did Patton advise waiting until 1946?


Patton had the most troops with him and was already in Berlin, GER; He could've kept rolling East. And no, he didn't advise waiting until '46. This scenario is just in '46.

32Bravo
02-20-2008, 06:02 PM
How many troops did Patton have with him?

Nickdfresh
02-20-2008, 06:17 PM
Patton had the most troops with him and was already in Berlin, GER; He could've kept rolling East. And no, he didn't advise waiting until '46. This scenario is just in '46.

I think the Soviets would have thought otherwise...

Seefu Sefirosu
02-21-2008, 05:08 PM
I think the Soviets would have thought otherwise...

Why do you say that?

Bravo: I can't find exact figures, but Patton had the entirety of the Third Army with him before he got kicked upstairs. Thus, in '46, maybe not, but certainly he had enough troops right after he arrived in Czechoslovakia.

Nickdfresh
02-21-2008, 05:50 PM
Why do you say that?

Bravo: I can't find exact figures, but Patton had the entirety of the Third Army with him before he got kicked upstairs. Thus, in '46, maybe not, but certainly he had enough troops right after he arrived in Czechoslovakia.

Because the Soviet Red Army was quite powerful at this point and would have inflicted heavy casualties....And do you think the 3rd Army would have been enough?

Seefu Sefirosu
02-21-2008, 06:19 PM
Because the Soviet Red Army was quite powerful at this point and would have inflicted heavy casualties....And do you think the 3rd Army would have been enough?


And also not operating at full efficiency. And maybe not, but the 1st Army and 9th Army were sitting on the Elbe River, and the 7th was across the Rhine.

Thus, enough troops could've been deployed as needed, I think.

32Bravo
02-22-2008, 06:41 AM
Methinks, not.

Seefu Sefirosu
02-23-2008, 09:30 PM
Methinks, not.

You just left yourself wide open to blatant sarcasm.

I'm skipping it.

But anyway, if you don't think so, explain.

32Bravo
02-24-2008, 06:39 AM
As a non-thinker, Methinks I would prefer the blatant sarcasm.

Explain? Durr...let me try to think???

The Soviet warmachine was abolutely gargantuan by the time they took Berlin. If Patton had tried to 'steamroller' them, he would have filled a lot of bodybags on both sides. However, the Soviets would have stood the losses and replaced them. The democratic USA would never have been able to sustain them, neither physically i.e. militarily, nor politically. Why do you think Patton wasn't allowed to go ahead with his madcap mission?

I would also argue that Patton always new that it was a non-starter, and only suggested attacking the Soviets to enhance his 'Blood and Guts' rep.

Quite simply, the Soviets would have been ready, as opposed to the time of Barbarossa, when they were unready. If they had been pushed back, they would have been shortening their lines of communications and supply. The US would have been extending theirs, as they were sucked into the Soviet hinterland. The Steppe was the Soviet domain and leant itself to the Soviet tactics involved in 'Deep Battle', which by then they had near perfect. I doubt the US had the ability to field the quality of leadership (Patton), manpower, equipment and supply to make up for the disparity in numbers etc.

You've made a number of sweeping statements, most of which have been,as I read it, complete and utter nonesense, so, how about you doing a little explaining?

Seefu Sefirosu
02-25-2008, 08:53 PM
As a non-thinker, Methinks I would prefer the blatant sarcasm.

Explain? Durr...let me try to think???

The Soviet warmachine was abolutely gargantuan by the time they took Berlin. If Patton had tried to 'steamroller' them, he would have filled a lot of bodybags on both sides. However, the Soviets would have stood the losses and replaced them. The democratic USA would never have been able to sustain them, neither physically i.e. militarily, nor politically. Why do you think Patton wasn't allowed to go ahead with his madcap mission?

I would also argue that Patton always new that it was a non-starter, and only suggested attacking the Soviets to enhance his 'Blood and Guts' rep.

Quite simply, the Soviets would have been ready, as opposed to the time of Barbarossa, when they were unready. If they had been pushed back, they would have been shortening their lines of communications and supply. The US would have been extending theirs, as they were sucked into the Soviet hinterland. The Steppe was the Soviet domain and leant itself to the Soviet tactics involved in 'Deep Battle', which by then they had near perfect. I doubt the US had the ability to field the quality of leadership (Patton), manpower, equipment and supply to make up for the disparity in numbers etc.

You've made a number of sweeping statements, most of which have been,as I read it, complete and utter nonesense, so, how about you doing a little explaining?

I'm gonna come back and do it, just checkin stuff right now. Be back later.

32Bravo
02-26-2008, 04:10 AM
I'm gonna come back and do it, just checkin stuff right now. Be back later.

Steady, lad, steady. We don't wish to know about your sex life.

snebold
03-26-2008, 03:57 PM
Would 32Bravo care to look at the last thing I wrote, his reply to that and to his reply of 24feb08 and come back with a more serious reply to the first mentioned.

(Why the western allies would want to go east: To end the war. The Allies did not wait on Germany to collapse by itself...)

32Bravo
03-28-2008, 02:41 PM
Would 32Bravo care to look at the last thing I wrote, his reply to that and to his reply of 24feb08 and come back with a more serious reply to the first mentioned.

(Why the western allies would want to go east: To end the war. The Allies did not wait on Germany to collapse by itself...)

Very busy at the moment, dear friend.
Would you mind posting the thread number to which you refer please, and I'll take a look next time I'm here?

regards
32B.

snebold
03-29-2008, 11:47 AM
post 41

32Bravo
03-30-2008, 06:35 AM
RE: The British report: The numbers of aircraft available to the "west" is much lower than during the last stages of the war, about 1/3rd tactical. The number seems somewhat "de-mobilised", but then again, they canīt have considered to attack USSR with less than all they got. The Soviets couldnīt have gone to the Atlantic against any spirited defense, for logistical reasons, but I havenīt seen anybody here really consider the "western" situation. One thing is bringing US gear across the Atlantic, another bringing it to eastern europe through damaged infrastructure. Advancing east would eventually mean advancing into thrice scorthed earth territory, with whatever underdeveloped infrastructure available severely damaged.

The Soviets estimated it would take about 100 (one hundred) Hiroshima-sized nukes to do them the same damage as the Germans had done in 1941 (sorry, canīt remember the source).

(For the debate on casuallities of west-strategic aircraft in a 1945/46 conflict: USSR had no fighters in service able to fight on equal terms with the westīs at USAF cruise altitudes (the (195?) P-47īs lend leased being an exception. (There would have been no MIG-15īs, the first couple of years).

(Another beginning of this scenario could be Patton continuing east in May 1945 -begun as his private enterprise. Not a Patton expert in any way, but it seems he would have very much liked to :D)

The scenario gave the allies force levels as those at the end of hostilities in1945.

Why would anyone want to repeat the mistakes of the Germans and advance on Moscow, against an even more massivley, superior force?

My own comments on a pre-emtpive strike were for tactical gains, with the intention of disabling the Soviets offensive formations.

Patton? ..I think that was bluster, but whether it was or not, it didn't come to anything for one reason or another, and wouldn't have done had he lived.

BAR_GUNNER
05-03-2008, 07:16 PM
As just an aside, I wonder if B-29s and later B-36s, would have been able to attack Soviet factories from Alaska/Canada's Northwest Territory as well as from the West?

It seems to me that this would have put additional strain on their air defenses....

They could have, in addition to Okinawa, at Kadina AF Base. One of the best bases for bomber raids. It was perfect for Korea, where they could take off, slowly gain altitude at an ideal rate that conserved fuel. Then use bases in Japan and S. Korea for escorts.

Personally believed we did not start it in the late 40's Russia would have too big a supply of A-Bombs, and the ability to deliver them. That if we did not have a nuclear war by 1950, did not believe we ever would.

However, when my Uncles tried to talk me out of enlisting at 16, in 1946. They argued we were going to have a nuclear war with Russia. I'd tell them, I do not believe there will be an Atomic War. Even if there is, I'll be safer in the army. It will be US cities with factories and ports, that would be nuked.

32Bravo
05-04-2008, 11:41 AM
It will be US cities with factories and ports, that would be nuked.


I doubt that they had the ability to reach U.S. cities. Furthermore, I believe 'Atomic' weapons would have been used by the allies in a tacticl role only when all else failed.

Given the scenario posted by MOS there was enough time to employ B29's from European bases. I would also argue that there was enough time to transfer men and materiel from the Pacific theatre to meet the Soviet threat in Europe and leave enough intsitu to pose a threat to the Soviets in the East.

Churchill
05-04-2008, 12:11 PM
If transfering men was to happen, why not just take all the men in the Pacific and invade the east coast of Russia? Take Vladivostok and ride the rail until you can't anymore, then set up defenses and all the needed facilities near Vladivostok. It has a port and a rail line. then getting men from The States would be easier: ship them over and roll them out.

But then you would have to face the guard devisions in that area that Russia sent to act as a deterant against Japan.

32Bravo
05-04-2008, 02:23 PM
If transfering men was to happen, why not just take all the men in the Pacific and invade the east coast of Russia? Take Vladivostok and ride the rail until you can't anymore, then set up defenses and all the needed facilities near Vladivostok. It has a port and a rail line. then getting men from The States would be easier: ship them over and roll them out.

But then you would have to face the guard devisions in that area that Russia sent to act as a deterant against Japan.


There are many options, but the idea is to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. So, I would suggest the East is threatened, but the real action has to be in the West.

Churchill
05-04-2008, 04:36 PM
True.

pdf27
05-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Even if the US landed significant numbers of troops in the far east, what exactly are they going to do? There's naff all worth taking until they get halfway to the Urals, and only a single railway track to support their advance towards them. By the time troops landed in the Soviet Far East got anywhere, the Soviet tanks would be parked in Lisbon with their crews drinking Sangria. Not a very good plan!