U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by SFJEFF, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the end of WWII Patton correctly surmised that our new antagonist would be the Soviet Union. By then of course, FDR and Churchill had already decided the fate of Eastern Europe and plans for a complete withdrawal had already been made. At this point in the war air superiority was completely in the hand of the Western Allies. Soviet jet engines of the Korean war were direct copies of the Rolls Royce advanced engine the British had been making which was better than the German ones, had a conflict started at the end of Germany's capitulation all the Soviet armor would be for naught without control of the skies, their fighters were substandard and their only good plane was the Stormivic (sp). The Soviets did hold a commanding advantage in manpower but their Generals were over-rated and took their orders from Stalin. I doubt seriously that any conflict the Americans joined in would look to attack mother Russia but only liberate Eastern Europe. Any attack toward the Russian homeland would be bound to failure.
     
  2. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most Generals were overrated. That's why they made sure to control the flow of information about themselves and to write books glorifying themselves after the war.
     
  3. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are right there, I read Patton's book and understood his logic. I think he was lucky not to meet von Manstein in battle, he would have been the perfect victim. Stalin killed his best and intimidated the remainder using his troops as cannon fodder. Still it amazes me how at a tactical level the Soviet soldier was probably the best in the war, death is a great teacher. Only an idiot would attack Russia.
     
  4. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But they didn't. The human wave attacks were an act of desperation to defend Moscow and Stalingrad from being overrun, not a doctrinal practice.
     
  5. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Don't underrate the Russians too much. Their Deep Battle plans were extremely effective at the end of the war as well as their defense in depth.
     
  6. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry, they did it through the entire war. Moscow and Leningrad were fortified cities and better defended for sure, but during the German retreat wave after wave of Russian armor and men were wasted on frontal attacks against von Manstein, the worst being the attacks outside Berlin when flanking attacks would have made the German entrenchment untenable. Zukov was trying to beat his rival to Berlin and gain favor with Stalin instead of taking care of his soldiers, he was a butcher.
     
  7. kowalskil

    kowalskil New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not Jukov only; all commanders of battles, in all countries, can be said to be butchers. That is why wars are disliked by most people.
    .
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How about some accuracy here, and not throwing in your own biased opinion.

    I think you would find the word you should have used is not most, but some. And To be absolutely honest, it should be a few.

    Thank you for your opinion though, but why not keep it your opinion, and not try to thrust it to include everybody.
     
  9. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No. The Soviets could build an army...but they could not feed, clothe, or TRANSPORT it! Without Lend-Lease aid, they would have collapsed. No less than General Zhukov and General Seceretary Stalin said this. By 1945, more than 2/3 of the Red Army's trucks were American (which were head and shoulders superior to anything the Russians built), as were more than 80% of their locomotives and about half their railcars. (The USSR produced less than 100 locomotives 1941-45.) It was very common for a Soviet soldier to be wearing American uniforms, marching in American boots, eating American field rations, and riding in an American truck while supporting a Soviet tank army!
     
  10. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Forget dropping HE on factories. Drop HE on railyards, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure. Drop white phosphorous and napalm on factories.
     
  11. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    They had one limitation many fail to take into account: the tanks had to meet strict size and weight limitations for cross-Atlantic transport. I recall a Sherman Firefly DIDN'T. A T-34 or KV85 didn't.

    However...I recall the late M4A3E2 with the high-velocity 76mm could match a T-34/85.
     
  12. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Another point: I recall the Soviets got most of their oil from the Caucusus. Flying from Iran, I suspect that B-17's, B-24's, and B-29's could make short work of that.
     
  13. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why the hell would the US turn around make the same mistake the Germans made only four years earlier?

    Invading Russia has always been a idiotic endeavor.
     
  14. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America learned a lot from the Civil War. While the Eastern Front faced 2/3's of Hitler's war machine, the Soviets took 10x the casualties. Keep in mind we fought in the Pacific and our front was much larger than the USSR's, the Japanese dispatched most of the Russian navy years before and they never recovered. The American armed forces were much better led than any other of the time because our politicians had to explain themselves to a voting public, and or military is under political control. No, the Russian generals were really bad, but some of the individual Russian units were the best. Go figure.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem here is partially that you are confusing "Russian" with "Soviet".

    The Soviet generals were only average in reality. And it is correct in when you say that some of the Russian units were among the best in the world.

    However, not all Soviet citizens were Russian. You could tell where the units came from often times in the Soviet Union, by looking at their equipment, training and officers.

    The best officers were invariably Russian. And the same goes for the best equiped units. But the units from other regions were not trained or equiped as well, and they were normally led by poorer quality officers.

    And since this was the "People's State", the people really did not matter. Losses that would have seen a US General sacked were acceptable to the Soviets. Especially if those soldiers came from say the Ukraine or Sibera.
     
  16. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't buy the first part. That was not part of any discussion I saw regarding the development of the M-48. The ships could take the larger tanks, perhaps there would have had to have been modifications to the handling facilities. I haven't dug in deeply as to why we didn't develope a heavy tank to challenge the German directly, as we did with our aircraft.

    I don't recall that any Shermans with with high velocity 76mm were available until later- they were used in the Korean War- and the 76 mm actually had better penatrating ability than the T34/85- but the T34 was still faster and better armored. But with the 76 they could kill each other.
     
  17. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I haven't researched this- but I would agree with the basic concept. But by the time we are talking about- the Russians had all of the American equipment needed to do the job.
     
  18. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not after a few weeks of airstrikes against asnything that moves!
     
  19. Nosferax

    Nosferax Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The M4 serie was created because it was easy to mass produced. Most of its hull was poured and not assembled/welded like the german tank were. They were also easy to maintain, especially the engine which could be replaced relatively quickly.

    The USA and allies could have easilly push production way past what the russian could have, having the ressources and being out of reach of any attack on its industry. Same goes for planes, guns and ship.

    Another fact is that the russian were over extended at the end of WW2 and had nearly emptied the eastern regions of their empire in their counter attack against the german in stalingrad. They had to transport troop back from germany to mount an attack against the japanese in manchuria. In case of a continued war, those rail convoy would have been bombed.

    Another thing is that the allied had control of the pacific. They could have taken the planed japanese invasion fleet and instead land them in vladivostok or further north and attack the russian industry that was moved eastward to protect them from the germans.

    Another factor to consider also is the chinese. Chang Kai Chek would probably jumped at the chance to get full western support for his battle against Mao. This would have put the russian in a position to help Mao and thus fight on what would be 3 fronts now, all the while splitting his forces and dwindling production.

    The allied Navy would also have made the russian position on the Black Sea really difficult, reducing the oil output of the region.

    And this is without using nuke...
     
  20. kowalskil

    kowalskil New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes indeed; the "can be said" implied "in my opinion." I wander what they teach about sacrificing soldiers in military academies for top commanders.
    .
     
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That it must be done. However, the sacrafice must be to either complete the mission, or to help save more lives.

    Leadership 101.
     

Share This Page