U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

Our maritime shipping logistics...moving troops, supplies and equipment over two oceans...was 2nd to none during WWII.

I completely agree.

The Soviets defeated the Germans over a war of attrition..a costly war.

Individual life meant nothing to the Soviets, that was their main advantage...they would fight you in their kitchen with bayonets if it came down to that...and realistically a ground invasion of Russia would have been reduced to survival. America could never have occupied Russia, but militarily the Soviets could have been defeated..perhaps at great cost but I see no other outcome.

 

If you had read the OP clearly, you'd see that the discussion at hand is what would happen in a conflict. The debate isn't over whether or not the conflict WOULD have happened, but rather HOW it would play out. In this scenario we assume for whatever reason the motivation for fighting existed.

There's no way Britain/France/Canada etc. would sit by idly while a U.S./Soviet war raged. If you remember, the cold war involved NATO and the majority of free European countries AGAINST the Soviets.

Again, stop with the flag comments. Try and bring something substantial to the debate rather than personal attacks.

 

As the Americans had nuclear weapons and their homeland was not destroyed through war I think the Americans would have possibly won a fight at the end of WW2 although their army in Europe would have been wiped out by the Soviets. Also when the Soviet military advanced into Europe would the Americans be prepared to drop Atom bombs on the populations of the various European states thus killing hundreds of thousands of friendly civilians?

 

ignorance,

No this topic is the insanity view of usa, to fight russia.

But before begin to count the allies on your side, have to ask:

Would they have the will for it, after the hell of ww2 fighting.
Would it be supported at home, morale.
How many even change sides to join the soviets in their view of usa weakness.

And the most obvious, they view the usa as suicidale and sit it out.

Remember the cold war drums didn't start to bang until years after the end of ww2. Russia(soviet union) was seen by many as part of the allies. Who took on germany. To even start this war with allied involvement, have to convinse huge numbers of people to side with the (usa fear/paranoia of russia) The propoganda would take years.

 

Soviets at the time were not even aware that while war was raging in Berlin...Stalin was busy slaughtering and starving 20 million of his countrymen, Ukrainians, Poles and anyone else who stood in his way. 7,000,000 Ukrainians alone...died of starvation due to forced famine.

Patton knew the guy was a bastard, but America was tired of fighting at that point..but in my opinion, they were the equivalent evil to the Third Reich.

 

Every source I looked at rate the B-29 as having a service ceiling of 33,600, and several Russian fighters could reach that altitude- the Yak-3, the LA-7.

Until P-51's started escorting B-29's, they did indeed worry about the remains of Japanese fighter groups- mostly fearing kamikaze attacks, which downed many B-29's. But remember- by this time Japan had almost no viable air force- Russia had a viable, modern air force, with production facilities.

The B-29's would have had to operate at the limit of the range- and still probably could not have reached the bulk of the strategic industries located past the Urals- 2,000 miles away.

We had a technological edge in air power- and the atomic bomb. Those were the only relevant technologies- our naval superiority would have been largely irrelevant. The Soviets had technological superiority in armor. And that would have bene relevant.

I believe that the Allies would have gained air superiority- whether or not it would have been short order, I don't know.

Stalin wouldn't have been anywhere we could have found him. That despicable tyrant was far too canny, and too much of a survivalist. And he would have been fine with sacrificing Moscow- this is a man who ordered the starvation of millions of his own citizens.

Look, I proposed the question- and I am glad you responded. I just disagree that it is as clear cut as you think it would have been. America would have had the air superiority, the Soviets had the superiority in armor.

In a drive to Moscow, we would have faced the same issues the Germans had, except the Soviets of 1944 were far better equipped and lead than the Soviets of 1940. We were not prepared for the winter combat- look at our experiences in the Battle of the Bulge and in Korea- but the Soviets were masters at winter combat.

I am not being partisan here- I am enjoying the mind exercise of thinking through how such a thing would play out, and recognizing the Soviet's strengths is just that- recognizing their strengths, not approving of Stalin.

 

47,000' is incorrect but I disagree about the 33,600 as the service ceiling.

Pressurized cabins, in addition to standard oxygen equipment, and use of two turbosuperchargers on each of its four engines, enable the airplane to fly at a service ceiling in excess of 40,000 feet. The four 18-cylinder Wright Model R-3350-23 engines develop 2200 horsepower each, giving the airplane a total of 8800 horsepower.

The airplane carries a 10-ton bomb load and has for defensive armament 10 caliber .50 machine guns and one 20 mm cannon.

what makes you think the B-29 would need fighter escort?

A few would be lost, but I don't see the Soviet air power at the end of WWII as anything challenging what the Allies were already fielding in combat.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2527.

"comrade"

P-51s and P-47s would take care of Soviet armor...

Google..."Rudel" and see what one German pilot did to Soviet armor in a Ju-87g...an aircraft designed in the 1930s

Over 450 tanks taken out by one man.

The P-51 and P-47 are superior aircraft to the Stuka...so Soviet armor is really of no real concern in this scenario.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRUj6RiCj4w&feature=related"]Rudel attacking Soviet tanks (Jan 1945) - YouTube[/ame]

 

The Ukrainian famine happened about a decade before the war started.

 

There was a German Landser-joke during the WWII: "The western front is the vacation from the eastern front."

The Americans would have crushed into a red army which was not only superior in numbers, but also had the more powerful weapons. One example: That Sherman tanks would have little chances against the T-34 tanks. Well, the other, real heavy soviet tanks don´t need to be included in that calculus to know, that this would have been the beginning of a soviet Europe.

But there is another thingy:
Finally, it was the Russians who repelled the Japanese from the Asian continent. With that help, Stalin bought many political concessions.

The Americans just were not in the position to claim for something or play the big boy, because it was only the Russians, who won that war. Or do you think, that one Brit or American would have entered French and Italian soil without the eastern front? Or do you think that the Wüstenfuchs would have lost the war in Africa without the eastern Front?

 

Soviet Union was big stomach and USA exploded brain.

 

The M-26 was a heavy tank- and should be compared to its Soviet equivelents. In 1944, the Soviets produced over 2,000 IS2, and by the end of 1945, had produced 3,800 IS2 and 350 IS3. Perhaps the IS2 and the M-26 were equivelents, but from what I have read, they proved to be underpowered in Korea, and there is no such report for the IS2. The M-26 was more than a match for the T-34/85- but in WW2 ,the T-34/85 was more than a match for the 75 mm gunned Sherman- only the British Fireflys carried the 76 mm gun.

The T34/85 was better armored, faster, more mobile on rough terrain and better gunned than the M4 the Americans were using.

Actually it was rather disastrous at the Battle of the Bulge. American tanks couldn't take on the Panthers and Tigers and Tiger 2's. And this strategy assumed air power, and superior American forces.

American tank destroyers- the M-11's and M-36's had big enough guns, but could only survive if they operated as ambush's.

Compare that to the Soviet tank destroyers and self propelled assault guns- the Su-100, the Su-122 and the SU 152- heavily armored, mobile and with big enough guns to take out any armor either side had.

American air power would have been the difference- but again as shown in the Battle of the Bulge- not reliable enough to count on to win every battle.

I agree with you on the economy part- in essence what won the cold war would have won a fighting war. Luckily for us, we avoided the casualties of the fighting war, and achieved the desired end result.

 

The Soviet way to fight the Germans looks simple and not very smart at the first view. But at the second view you´ll see that it was either that way or none. There was no other choice, but come to trumps by being outnumbering in every battle, which means horrendously casualties.

 

Because every example of unescorted Strategic day light bombing against an enemy with modern fighters resulted in heavy bomber losses. Even Japanese fighters- with essentially untrained pilots managed to take down unescorted B-29's. Soviet planes had the altitude to engage the B-29's, and the Soviets had a pool of experienced fighters to use against them.

I understand that is your opinion, but in my opinion you are discounting both the quantity and quality of Soviet interceptors, and the experience of their pilots.

I think American airpower by 1944 was superior- but not enough to make for an easy conflict.

First of all- the P-51's and P-47's are incredible machines- I happen to love the P-47. The only reason they were effective against armor were rockets- and they indeed were effective.

The Ju-87 carried twin 37 mm anti-tank guns, which actually made it a better anti-tank platform- even though it was obsolete against any fighter opposition.

Rudel's history is amazing- no discounting that. And I agree that if Americans were to eliminate the threat of Soviet armor it would be by tactical air power. But I disagree that this would have done so easily, or eliminated the threat of Soviet armor- after all- up to the end of the war, P47's, P51's and Typhoons and Tempests and P-38's still hadn't eliminated the threat of German armor entirely. Even the destruction they did cause took months of action- when the weather permitted.

 

It would not be an "easy" war...my only point was that the timing was at the best point of a potential conflict..while we had the technological edge...I think that militarily the Soviets could have been defeated if an occupation was avoided.

That's my opinion...

"Easy" was probably a poor word choice, and easy to say from the comfort of an armchair...I think it would have been a grueling conflict.

 

Well Britain was about to collapse economically- it essentially did immediately after WW2. Australia's main forces were in the Pacific, Canada would have supported the U.S., but .....really in a conflict like this it would be primarily a U.S. game.

Britain had some very good equipment- its Sherman varient was superior to the U.S., and its fighters and ground attack aircraft were on par with the U.S., but they just couldn't match the production numbers of the U.S. or the USSR.

 

No disagreement there.

 

Then the usa would lose this war vs soviet union if go it alone. Vastly under estimating what the rest of the allies did in ww2.

 

Good grief, you are filled with hate!!!!!!!!Attack our ally for no reason, yes that would sure be a noble thing!!!!!!!!!!

 

You don't quite grasp what this mind exercise is all about.

This conflict almost happened. I asked for thoughts of how it would play out.

 

Russia has, had and will always have... one thing in mind: RUSSIA.

Not saying the United States is all that different, but "allies" is not really a word I would ever describe in America's relationship with Russia...

A common enemy at the time in the Third Reich perhaps, but little beyond that.

About the only time I could ever envision a similar scenario would be if Aliens invaded Earth...
a more likely scenario would entail a war with China over Taiwan, and Russia would most decidedly side with China....

To be blunt, it's kill or be killed....General Patton knew that about the Soviets; it's just the nation itself had enough of war...until N. Korea of course...supported in large part by the Soviets...then N. Vietnam...again supported by the Soviets...

Now Iran...supported in large part by the former Soviets...

Perhaps we should have sent them back to the stone age when we had the opportunity.

 

Well Germany never fully mobilised its industry.

But studies after the war found that bombing factories did little to halt production as factory equipment for making most things in WW2 was multi tonne lathes made out of solid iron or steel. A 500lb bomb landing a few metres away wouldn't do anything to them.

Production time was basically only lost due to workers going to the bomb shelters.

 

But defenders don't need as much logistical capability as they don't have to move it as far.

 

Does anyone honestly see the US, after losing 400k dead in WW2 willing to perhaps lose millions more in a war against the USSR, especially since the week before the USSR were allies and apparently had done nothing to provoke the war?

 

From 2006:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,118320,00.html

Patton got it right...

Fight them now or fight them later...

and a 21 kiloton bomb dropped down the Kremlin's chimney in 1946, might have saved a lot of future trouble.

 

Also remember that the USSR casualty figures look bad over the entire war due to screw ups at the beginning. They lost something like 1/3 of their totaly military loses in just the first few months of fighting. After that they got better, a lot.