PDA

View Full Version : A 1946 Scenario: Could the Western Allies' air forces...



erco415
01-08-2008, 07:54 PM
interdict the Red Army in the same fashion it did the Wehrmacht, if the former allies had come to blows. My question assumes no drawdown of forces, just what was in play in May of 45 and what was expected to come into service through 45.

erco415
01-08-2008, 07:54 PM
interdict the Red Army in the same fashion it did the Wehrmacht, if the former allies had come to blows. My question assumes no drawdown of forces, just what was in play in May of 45 and what was expected to come into service through 45.

ElAurens
01-08-2008, 08:33 PM
In a word...

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8249/bombvf0.jpg

yes.

fordfan25
01-08-2008, 08:40 PM
yep "nukes on moscow" would be the name of at least one historical mission in CFS4 lol. woulda been horrible to say the least

VW-IceFire
01-08-2008, 09:20 PM
Hard to say. In the air the two may be a fair match except that the USAAF and to a lesser extent the RAF had a absolutely massive reserve of strategic bomber forces and the Russians had precious few fighters that could seriously challenge these bombers. The Western Allies actually started drawing down slightly in 1944 for pilots as they had absolutely boatloads of pilots ready and even more planes ready. I think on some bases in 1945 they were just overflowing with new B-17s and B-24s being delivered.

If it came to blows...the initial battles would be probably the most interesting but the overall outcome would be so hard to determine. At that stage of the game...the US did not have another nuclear weapon ready (assuming the war in Japan had ended in the same way it actually did) so immediate nuclear strike on Moscow would be impossible. I'm not sure how long it would take for them to get another weapon prepared...no idea.

But if were talking strictly armies...the Soviets had massive manpower that was reasonably equipped by 1945. The real question would be if the Western allied armies could hold the Soviet advance. I doubt that they would make any headway against it.

No idea what would have happened...almost impossible to say.

jensenpark
01-08-2008, 09:36 PM
Western forces would release and re-arm Germans in captivity and ally themselves with them.

Game over I would think.

If the German forces were able to hold out so long and inflict so much damage against both sides - especially Soviet - right up to the end almost, can you imagine their strength and success with such massive logistical support - not to mention full allied armies and airforce fighting alongside?

LEXX_Luthor
01-08-2008, 11:01 PM
Lots of bombs available in a militarized 1946 scenario.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
8.1.5 Availability of Additional Bombs
:
:
:
Production estimates given to Sec. Stimson in July 1945 projected a second plutonium bomb would be ready by Aug. 24, that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December. Improvements in bomb design being prepared at the end of the war would have permitted one bomb to be produced for every 5 kg of plutonium or 12 kg of uranium in output. These improvements were apparently taken into account in this estimate. Assuming these bomb improvements were used, the October capacity would have permitted up to 6 bombs a month. Note that with the peak monthly plutonium and HEU production figures (19.4 kg and 69 kg respectively), production of close to 10 bombs a month was possible.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">When the war ended on August 15 1945</span> there was an abrupt change in priorities, so a wartime development and production schedule did not continue. Development of the levitated pit/composite core bomb ground to a halt immediately. It did not enter the US arsenal until the late forties. Plans to increase initiator production to ten times the July 1945 level were abandoned.



~ http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html#nfaq8.1.5
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
However, post-war USAF studies indicated that the Soviets might survive an atomic attack at least through the early 1950s, and a prolonged strike campaign might be needed. Nucular weapons are not guaranteed to force a surrender. Japan was planning to surrender before Hiroshima, and I think that standard bombs from very large USAAF formations did far more damage to cities in WW2 than a single atomic bomb could. Even under combined assault from 8th AAF and Bomber Command, Germany, unlike Japan, required ground occupation to force a surrender.

na85
01-09-2008, 12:17 AM
That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin?

LEBillfish
01-09-2008, 12:19 AM
Pretty colors http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
In a word...

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8249/bombvf0.jpg

yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Past that, I believe most were tired of war. One reason why Korea was out of favor with the average U.S. citizen to a degree exceeding what many Vietnam Veterens came to experience. (imagine coming home to be called a "commie" if your fought hard and were captured having to endure as a POW) and so on.

....and frankly find it hard to believe any but those not having to fight yet a lot to gain had much interest in further conflict.

waffen-79
01-09-2008, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
In a word...

IMAGE

yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, not in western europe, not in the late 40's or 50's

Kocur_
01-09-2008, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But if were talking strictly armies...the Soviets had massive manpower that was reasonably equipped by 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Soviets started to run low on manpower... I mean teens, non Russian speaking conscripts from central Asia...

And speaking of air war on tactical level, that is apart form high alt long range bombers: most of Soviet aviation fuel came from Lend Lease, so did most of aluminium and rubber... And already planes like P-51D on 150 octane fuel and Tempest Mk.V were more than a match for Soviet best fighters in their best imaginable condition at any altitude. And nothing Soviets had was even close to P-51H, being already produced since January 1945 and contracted in thousands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The real question would be if the Western allied armies could hold the Soviet advance. I doubt that they would make any headway against it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it quite sure, that Soviet attack in Bagration fashion would be succesful and RKKA would advance tens if not couple of hundrets kilometers. But then they would have to stop for very 'natural' reasons of running out of fuel, ammo and losses. Frontline would have to stop. The next thing would be Allied air power cuting off Soviet frontline forces from resources.

But thats speaking of a thing that could not happen as Soviet attack on western Allies in 1945 was simply out of question, due to Soviets runnig out of everything. No Lend Lease with Soviet industry in the areas previously occupied by Germans being still ruined meant that they would soon just run out of things like aviation fuel, trucks, explosives, shoes and food.

IF Stalin COULD attack western Europe right after defeating III Reich he surely would. That he didnt is IMHO a hard evidence, that he simply could not.

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2008, 12:42 AM
na85:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look at the pictures of Germany after conventional bombing. Atomic bombs might melt the already bombed out rubble, but that's about it.

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2008, 12:50 AM
One interesting thing -- if there were such hostilities, NAA would have certainly gotten the license to power the F-82 with Merlin. That would be something interesting to simulate: A prolonged strategic strike campaign against the Soviet Union starting, say, 1947 or so. I'm thinking it would dwarf the whole 8th AAF vs Luftwaffe thing.

Patton for President: Another scenario might be USA and maybe Britt invading Eastern Europe. As for going beyond and invading USSR/Russia on the ground, nobody ever tried that and got away with it.

Capt.LoneRanger
01-09-2008, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
na85:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look at the pictures of Germany after conventional bombing. Atomic bombs might melt the already bombed out rubble, but that's about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many cities in Germany were hit, but the pictures you see or the movies from flights above ruined cities are not what the situation was in general. Overall less than 1/3 of the larger cities was in ruins. For some cities more, for some less, of course, but even after that many bombardments less than 20% (18% IIRC from my studies) of the housing in German cities were damaged beyond repair.

Schwarz.13
01-09-2008, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is NO way the United States would have dared drop the bomb on mainland Europe, especially central Europe. Churchill would never have allowed it for a start and the fallout would have had serious repercusions for Germany's neighbours. And then there was the Morgenthau plan to consider...

Bewolf
01-09-2008, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is NO way the United States would have dared drop the bomb on mainland Europe, especially central Europe. Churchill would never have allowed it for a start and the fallout would have had serious repercusions for Germany's neighbours. And then there was the Morgenthau plan to consider... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill was seriously thinking about the usage of chemical weapons against Germany. I doubt he'd have much morale qualms about the atomic bomb, especially as back then the radiation consequences were gravely underestimated.

woofiedog
01-09-2008, 03:37 AM
I believe that at the end of WWII in Europe and later in the Pacific that mankind had seen it's share of Bloodletting and Destruction.
After the massive loses the Russia army had taken to drive the German war machine from it's borders and the rest of the smoldering wreck that was left of the Europe and Asia.
I can really say that the World as it was at 1945 needed a rest from the carnage, death and the ruins that WWII had left them at their doorsteps.
Maybe a few Politicians and Military leaders had some funny ideas about continuing the war and changing the world into their thinking. But over all most saw the need too bring this to an end and let the world come to a peace that was needed world wide and let the populations take a well earned breath of fresh air.

Just my thoughts.

http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/Allemagne-Berlin1945-6.jpg
Berlin 1945

http://japanfocus.org/images/463-1.jpg
Tokyo 1945

ViktorViktor
01-09-2008, 03:39 AM
Was fallout considered so seriously back in 1945 1946 ?

Schwarz.13
01-09-2008, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Was fallout considered so seriously back in 1945 1946 ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't honestly know - how long was it after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs that the countless terrible cases of radiation sickness were seen? Not so long after i think (but i would have to look it up)?

DuxCorvan
01-09-2008, 04:17 AM
In 1946 only one (1) power had the atom bomb readily available. It would have been very silly on Soviet side to promote warmongering till they had their own.

And yes, a completely "beheaded" Soviet Union would have collapsed, even from inside forces.

Blutarski2004
01-09-2008, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But if were talking strictly armies...the Soviets had massive manpower that was reasonably equipped by 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Soviets started to run low on manpower... I mean teens, non Russian speaking conscripts from central Asia...

And speaking of air war on tactical level, that is apart form high alt long range bombers: most of Soviet aviation fuel came from Lend Lease, so did most of aluminium and rubber... And already planes like P-51D on 150 octane fuel and Tempest Mk.V were more than a match for Soviet best fighters in their best imaginable condition at any altitude. And nothing Soviets had was even close to P-51H, being already produced since January 1945 and contracted in thousands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The real question would be if the Western allied armies could hold the Soviet advance. I doubt that they would make any headway against it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it quite sure, that Soviet attack in Bagration fashion would be succesful and RKKA would advance tens if not couple of hundrets kilometers. But then they would have to stop for very 'natural' reasons of running out of fuel, ammo and losses. Frontline would have to stop. The next thing would be Allied air power cuting off Soviet frontline forces from resources.

But thats speaking of a thing that could not happen as Soviet attack on western Allies in 1945 was simply out of question, due to Soviets runnig out of everything. No Lend Lease with Soviet industry in the areas previously occupied by Germans being still ruined meant that they would soon just run out of things like aviation fuel, trucks, explosives, shoes and food.

IF Stalin COULD attack western Europe right after defeating III Reich he surely would. That he didnt is IMHO a hard evidence, that he simply could not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Fully agree. And I'd go so far as to say that the big set-piece Bagration style offensives would have stood no chance of success. With TWO huge and now surplus heavy strategic bomber fleets (one highly trained in night bombing) plus multiple tactical air forces, any such offensive as well as its logistic underpinnings would have been plastered fom the air day and night. And the Soviets would have been confronted by an opponent with its own massive artillery resources. Those wheel-to-wheel artillery deployments would have been highly vulnerable to both air attack or VT-fused counter-battery fire. And Soviet infantry divisions were in large part still dependent upon animal transportation; I would not want to be a Soviet infantryman attempting to advance under VT-fused HE fire.

Bewolf
01-09-2008, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
But if were talking strictly armies...the Soviets had massive manpower that was reasonably equipped by 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Soviets started to run low on manpower... I mean teens, non Russian speaking conscripts from central Asia...

And speaking of air war on tactical level, that is apart form high alt long range bombers: most of Soviet aviation fuel came from Lend Lease, so did most of aluminium and rubber... And already planes like P-51D on 150 octane fuel and Tempest Mk.V were more than a match for Soviet best fighters in their best imaginable condition at any altitude. And nothing Soviets had was even close to P-51H, being already produced since January 1945 and contracted in thousands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The real question would be if the Western allied armies could hold the Soviet advance. I doubt that they would make any headway against it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it quite sure, that Soviet attack in Bagration fashion would be succesful and RKKA would advance tens if not couple of hundrets kilometers. But then they would have to stop for very 'natural' reasons of running out of fuel, ammo and losses. Frontline would have to stop. The next thing would be Allied air power cuting off Soviet frontline forces from resources.

But thats speaking of a thing that could not happen as Soviet attack on western Allies in 1945 was simply out of question, due to Soviets runnig out of everything. No Lend Lease with Soviet industry in the areas previously occupied by Germans being still ruined meant that they would soon just run out of things like aviation fuel, trucks, explosives, shoes and food.

IF Stalin COULD attack western Europe right after defeating III Reich he surely would. That he didnt is IMHO a hard evidence, that he simply could not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Fully agree. And I'd go so far as to say that the big set-piece Bagration style offensives would have stood no chance of success. With TWO huge and now surplus heavy strategic bomber fleets (one highly trained in night bombing) plus multiple tactical air forces, any such offensive as well as its logistic underpinnings would have been plastered fom the air day and night. And the Soviets would have been confronted by an opponent with its own massive artillery resources. Those wheel-to-wheel artillery deployments would have been highly vulnerable to both air attack or VT-fused counter-battery fire. And Soviet infantry divisions were in large part still dependent upon animal transportation; I would not want to be a Soviet infantryman attempting to advance under VT-fused HE fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jup, pretty much agreed. The Red Army was on the verge of collaps when the war ended. Supply lines were extremly long, as was already said manpower was extremly short. I seriously do not think the Red army would have been able to wage a long and successful war agains the allies. Only a suprise attack with massie movement forward and a quick peace would have stood a chance.

Kocur_
01-09-2008, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
And I'd go so far as to say that the big set-piece Bagration style offensives would have stood no chance of success. With TWO huge and now surplus heavy strategic bomber fleets (one highly trained in night bombing) plus multiple tactical air forces, any such offensive as well as its logistic underpinnings would have been plastered fom the air day and night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! I failed to express view, that I see Bagration-like operation success highly probable only with assumption that it was done by surprise, after a while after III Reich capitulation, as an war opening operation, ie. with no interference during preparations and with some days before Allies would be ready to launch powerful air strikes.

stathem
01-09-2008, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
And I'd go so far as to say that the big set-piece Bagration style offensives would have stood no chance of success. With TWO huge and now surplus heavy strategic bomber fleets (one highly trained in night bombing) plus multiple tactical air forces, any such offensive as well as its logistic underpinnings would have been plastered fom the air day and night. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! I failed to express view, that I see Bagration-like operation success highly probable only with assumption that it was done by surprise, after a while after III Reich capitulation, as an war opening operation, ie. with no interference during preparations and with some days before Allies would be ready to launch powerful air strikes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think absolute surprise would be very difficult to acheive considering the very effective reconnaisance assets of the western allies.

LEBillfish
01-09-2008, 06:49 AM
No, I'll tell you what is an absolute surprise is that this thread is remaining civil (not that it shouldn't yet after all we are beasts in the zoo).

general_kalle
01-09-2008, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
No, I'll tell you what is an absolute surprise is that this thread is remaining civil (not that it shouldn't yet after all we are beasts in the zoo). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol yeah.
nice one lad. nice calm and civilised disussion.

conclusion: USSR wouldn't stand a chance.

then how come USA saw them as such a threat in the cold war?

Bewolf
01-09-2008, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
No, I'll tell you what is an absolute surprise is that this thread is remaining civil (not that it shouldn't yet after all we are beasts in the zoo). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol yeah.
nice one lad. nice calm and civilised disussion.

conclusion: USSR wouldn't stand a chance.

then how come USA saw them as such a threat in the cold war? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the cold war, with its predefined borders, a red army that is not exahusted from a world war in the immidiate aftermath and by then established supply lines, bases and all what is required to wage a war from a well prepared position is a wee bit a difference.

erco415
01-09-2008, 08:19 AM
Thanks for all of the replies folks! Without looking at the strategic picture, I was wondering if the Soviets would fare any better in maintaining control of the airspace over the battlefield and over their supply lines than the Germans did. My impression was that they hadn't been up against anything like the tactical air forces of the US and British and wouldn't have fared much better - even though they were primarily a low-level air force.

I didn't know just how dependent the Soviets were on Lend-lease for fuel. A BIG problem.

Thanks again for all of the thoughts!

jarink
01-09-2008, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
then how come USA saw them as such a threat in the cold war? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USSR detonated their own nuke in 1949.


Back to the original topc, I don't think the existing USAAF and RAF heavy bomber forces in the ETO would have posed much of a threat to Soviet industry. The factories were much, much too far away for anything but possibly the B-29 to reach. About the best they would have been good for would have been interdiction of major supply routes such as rail lines and inland shipping.

Harti_5thW
01-09-2008, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Was fallout considered so seriously back in 1945 1946 ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't honestly know - how long was it after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs that the countless terrible cases of radiation sickness were seen? Not so long after i think (but i would have to look it up)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember seeing a documentary where they talked about American plans to bomb the entire Japanese coast with nukes if it came to invade the mainland. Those plans were of course scrapped but there wasn't much knowledge about the long term effects of using nuclear weapons.

JZG_Thiem
01-09-2008, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

afaik, Berlin was not the selected german city to be nuked by the allies.

anarchy52
01-09-2008, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
That begs the question, though, would Germany have capitulated if the Allies had simply nuked Berlin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or retaliate with nerve gas attacks?

Snoball7614
01-09-2008, 05:25 PM
I can't believe nobody took into account the VAST differences in naval power. The west had a HUGE surplus of ships/carriers while the Russians had a compartively small navy...

Von_Rat
01-09-2008, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woofiedog:
I believe that at the end of WWII in Europe and later in the Pacific that mankind had seen it's share of Bloodletting and Destruction.
After the massive loses the Russia army had taken to drive the German war machine from it's borders and the rest of the smoldering wreck that was left of the Europe and Asia.
I can really say that the World as it was at 1945 needed a rest from the carnage, death and the ruins that WWII had left them at their doorsteps.
Maybe a few Politicians and Military leaders had some funny ideas about continuing the war and changing the world into their thinking. But over all most saw the need too bring this to an end and let the world come to a peace that was needed world wide and let the populations take a well earned breath of fresh air.

Just my thoughts.

http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/Allemagne-Berlin1945-6.jpg
Berlin 1945

http://japanfocus.org/images/463-1.jpg
Tokyo 1945 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


agreed

many years ago after the movie patton was released i discussed with my father the subject of patton wanting a immediate war with russia.

my father who is a ww2 vet replied that everyone he knew was dam sick of war, and the only thing on the minds of the average american serviceman was going home.

from his tone and from the qoutes ive read of other american serviceman on the subject, patton would have had to fight russia alone because the average american soldier wasnt going to.

im sure russian soldiers felt the same way.

WWSensei
01-09-2008, 05:54 PM
Personally, I think the USSR would have held its own in individual battles but not been able to win an overall war.

woofiedog
01-09-2008, 10:49 PM
Von_Rat... Quote... my father who is a ww2 vet replied that everyone he knew was dam sick of war, and the only thing on the minds of the average american serviceman was going home.

There is a Very Good book on this subject called "The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw. It tells the story of the American generation that went into the WWII frontlines and of the ones that worked the factory floors suppling War materials. It talks of the fears that the men and women coming home were facing. And also the fears that the people at home had of the men and women that would be returning home soon.

And Yes... men and women from all countries and regions were very worn out from the war and for many there was not much left to come home too if home was there at all.

Link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375502025/ref=sib_dp_p...-7819256#reader-link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375502025/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8317198-7819256#reader-link)

jarink
01-10-2008, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snoball7614:
I can't believe nobody took into account the VAST differences in naval power. The west had a HUGE surplus of ships/carriers while the Russians had a compartively small navy... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviets didn't need a large navy to fight a European (or Asian) land war. The US/UK needed large navies so that the US could supply Europe with men, weapons and raw materials. It's virtually the same situation that the Western Allies faced against the Germans in WWII, which is why the USSR built such a huge submarine fleet during the Cold War.

Bremspropeller
01-10-2008, 12:43 PM
USSR would lose:

P-82 = pwnageĀ²

Von_Rat
01-10-2008, 01:13 PM
thanks woofie, sounds like a good book, i'll check it out.

Enforcer572005
01-10-2008, 10:00 PM
I've worked on my Red star/white star 1947 cmpn for 7 mos, both online and coop versions. I've done around 30 offline and a dozen coops on this, and a great deal of research. I tried to take all these considerations in mind while making this (with the help of some pretty good skinners). My dad was in the 5th AF occupation force scrambling 51s and 61s after soviet recon planes all the time from Kyushu from his EW radar site.

I found , besides some reallyl cool misns, that an air war over Japan (starting with Stalin taking Sahkalin and the Kuriles, which he considered doing) could easily expand to Vladivostok and manchuria, with some really interesting results. The Japanese home islands would surely come under heavy attack. I tried to limit it to this theater, but events in Europe would have affected it greatly, as happens in the cmpn.

I hope to have this released in a couple of mos, as I'm working 2.5 jobs and have little time to work, except on the computer at one of my jobs. I think there are many factors and possibilities that make predictions of outcomes difficult.

I hope I can finish this mammoth undertaking in a few weeks.