U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

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

  1. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not too long ago someone in another thread declared that the U.S. should have kept going all the way to Moscow after Germany surrendered.

    I gave my opinion on why that would have been a bad thing- especially politically. But to step away from another thread along the lines of the United States vs Iceland.....lets go to a confrontation that came close enough to happen.

    WW2- Germany has just surrendered. Soviets are in Berlin. Americans and Brits are controlling Western Europe. Soviets show no sign of giving up Poland or any of the other future Iron Curtain countries.

    If the United States (I do not really include Britain because while Britain was still a military power, economically it was about ready to collapse) were to get involved because of a lose cannon like Gen. Patton ended up confronting the Soviet Union- how would it go down? Or if vice versa- and the Soviet Union decided it was the right time to just roll into France and beyond. Either scenario.
     
  2. Jason Bourne

    Jason Bourne Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,372
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The US had the atomic bomb. Had they wanted to they could have brought the Soviets to their knees.
     
  3. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Soviet Union lost 24 million people during WW2 and it didn't phase them.

    They took on 2/3 of the Germany military and infliced 80% of its casualties.

    I don't think a few nukes, which would have to be flown on large, heavy bombers, would have phased them too much. It'd be the US that would have got sick of the casualties long before the USSR did.
     
  4. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What people are forgetting is that the U.S. fought on two fronts, the European theater and the Pacific.

    Yes the Soviets were in large part responsible for defeating Germany having taken on 70% of their forces...

    However Germany's infrastructure and the ability to wage war (production) was taken out by British and American bombing campaigns.

    I have no doubt...no doubt whatsoever..that the U.S. would have handily defeated the Soviets.

    1 in 10 Russians was killed in WWII...at some point they would run out of able bodied people to fight the wars...but America's war machine was at full throttle by the end of WWII...troops and assets committed to the Pacific could have been utilized against the Soviets. Battle hardened Marines among them. America had long range strategic bombers that Germany lacked, and why they couldn't defeat the Soviets....plus the atomic bomb.

    Gen. Patton was right, we should have crushed the Soviets while we had the chance...and we would have won....but America was war weary after fighting a World War on two fronts. Aside from saving West Berlin, America capitulated to the Soviet communists and allowed them to become a World power....

    .
     
    spt5 and (deleted member) like this.
  5. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's a difficult scenario to really consider. The Soviets took A LOT of casualties taking Berlin while the U.S./allied Military was in pretty good shape at the end. The U.S. did have Nuclear weapons, but was producing them rather slowly. I think it would have been a stalemate. The allies had approximately 5.5 million troops in the West while the Soviets had about 6.5 million. The allies definitely had an economic advantage, but the Soviets at that point were absolute experts on large scale armored warfare. I think both sides knew that a continuation of the war after Germany's defeat would have been an indecisive massacre for both sides.

    It's possible that by 1946 the U.S. could have pulled close to a million troops from the Pacific, with all their heavy bombers/aircraft carriers and with enough nuclear weapons pushed the Soviets out of Europe with extremely heavy casualties. There's no way they would have succeeded in "invading" all the way through Moscow though.
     
  6. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bomb their production centers, even with superior tank forces...prevent them from making them.

    Utilize the German engineers, who despised the Russians...to develop a jet powered Air Force...

    Most of Soviet technology was re-engineered...the Germans were at the forefront of jet turbine engines and long-rang rockets...

    Make Germany an ally to push the Soviets back to "Mother Russia" and this would be war won by Air Power...plus the U.S. Navy hammering the Soviets from the Baltic.

    Yes if this was reduced to a ground war, I would agree stalemate...but the Allies had the technical edge at the time...and we allowed the Soviets to re-group and catch up to it.

    We could produce, probably 4 atomic bombs per year...each with increasing kilo-tons...

    Drop them on the center of Moscow.

    Don't bother with military targets...destroy the Kremlin...and cut the head off the snake.
     
  7. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think if we could have held them off for a year and gotten our act together we could have defeated them handidly in Europe....but not gone all the way to Moscow (short of Nuking everything). The Russians were extremely competent at large indepth defense (they wrecked the premier mechanized army in the world) and had A LOT of men and tanks. The T-34 was a very good piece of equipment.

    Once you try and invade Russia you quickly come into the same problems that invaders have had for more than a thousand years.
     
  8. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Germany was defeated, by and large, by Air Power. Once defeated on the Eastern front, they couldn't ramp up their war machine and re-group because America and British bombers were hammering their production centers...with heavy losses to the Allies by the way.

    The Soviets were masters of tank warfare, but the Allies were experts at long-range strategic bombing.

    On the ground...it would have been a bloodfest...as all ground campaigns are eventually reduced to.

    America was war weary and ready to give the fighting a rest.

    Estimated casualties for a ground invasion of Japan numbered close to a million...
    I would venture to say that a ground invasion into Russia would have been similar...

    In the end the Soviet Empire imploded on it's own...so looking back history favors avoiding an all-out war with them.

    One German pilot alone...Rudel...piloting an outdated (Stuka) Ju-87G took out 500 Soviet tanks...practically an entire division...

    Imagine what a tank killer like the P-51 would do to Soviet armor?

    There would be no need for the Battle of Kursk reincarnated...defeat Soviet armor from the air.

    The Germans had no strategic bombers, and with every tank destroyed by the Luftwaffe, the Soviets simply built another...
    but with the more advanced Allied strategic bombing...they could destroy these production centers.
     
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  10. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the job was to be done with today's technology, using the ww2 lineup to take Russia off the map, but without using nuclear attacks, how would it play out?
     
  11. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I disagree both on how 'handily' we would have taken out the Soviets and also with your assessment that we should have.

    By your own assessment, it would likely have cost 1,000,000 American casualties. Compare that to the cost of the Cold War- how many American casualties did that cost us? Even if you are being generous and count both Korea and Vietnam, we still came out ahead.

    Any claim that the Americans could have easily destroyed Soviets factories is just wrong- they were beyond the reach of anything but perhaps B-29's- and the Soviets would have been able to take out unescorted B-29's.

    Soviet ground forces in the West were superior both in number and in armor- the Soviet tanks were superior in every way over American armor. Soviets had masses and masses of artilery- and their troops were just as experienced as American troops.

    Americans had the edge with air power- but air power is a fickle ally when you have to rely upon the weather- and the weather in Russia was Russia's ally.

    The atomic bomb would have been the edge, but it is not as if we could manufacture them fast or easy.

    Anyway- there was no political or popular support for such a war, so rather moot- but it is an interesting mind exercise. Both the Soviets and Americans were industrial powerhouses by 1944, both producing vast amounts of war materials. The Americans had the long term edge, simply in untapped- and better educated- manpower, but in the shorter term, if we had done what Patton wanted, Americans would have seen losses worse than against the Germans or the Japanese.
     
  12. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's a pretty outrageous statement.

    The attack on German infrastructure by allied bombers definitely impacted German production, but 10 million+ Soviet soldiers and 5 million+ Allied soldiers would balk at the notion that air power defeated Germany.

    The Russians had some very good tank busters too, namely the Il-2. I don't claim the Soviets matched up well with the allied forces, but ground attack aircraft weren't nearly as effective in WW2.
     
  13. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    B-29's could fly at an altitude of 47,000'

    Please tell me what aircraft in the Soviet inventory at the time that could pursue a bomber at that altitude?

    They were untouched over Japan, and they would be untouched over Russia.

    We had the technological edge in 1945, and if an invasion was ever going to occur the time was ripe to do it then.

    The high casualties would have been inflicted on the ground, not in the air...as the Allies would have air superiority in short order.

    As I said...drop an atomic bomb the equivlaent to Nagasaki in the center of Moscow, and see what that does to Soviet morale...take out Stalin and cut off the snake's head.

    1 in 10 Russian citizens were killed in defending against the Germans...they were reeling as it was...

    America's war machine was superior to the Soviets at VE day, and you can deny it all you want...

    "Comrade"....
     
  14. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The U.S. was slowly integrating the M26 Pershing into their armored units which was easily a match for the T-34. By the end of 1945 they had more than 2000, and could have increased that number had they decided the war would have continued. U.S. doctrine at the time also didn't rely on tank versus tank combat. U.S. strategy was to use fast lightly armored tanks to exploit breakthroughs and outmaneuver the enemy while relying on air power, infantry, and antitank guns to dispose of enemy armor. While it was dicey for the tank crews, this strategy worked quite well against the Germans.

    By saying that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were both economic powerhouses is masking the truth. In 1939 the U.S. GDP was twice that of the Soviets. In 1944 and 1945 it was FOUR TIMES bigger. From 1939 through 1945 U.S. GDP was greater than all the other allies combined.

    I don't think the U.S. could have successfully invaded the Soviet Union (nor would it have wanted to), but I think it would have definitely come out on top in a war over Europe, albeit with very heavy casualties.
     
  15. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First have to considor the battle of germany. The russians were there first with easier access (no cross atlantic transport) which the americans would need to boost their troop strength.

    If use this view and usa vs russia, the americans would be outnumbered and suffer huge losses.

    As for the 'nuclear/atomic' option. The bomb in that time was limited to one or two uses. But russia the largest land mass on earth, could recover if a single or even two were used. And as history proved they also built their own atomic weapons. Which by this theory war, they would have then used vs american cities.

    To add:

    All sides took massive losses when germany eventually fell. The troops were drained after years of war. Another huge battle of the size of usa vs russia would cripple both nations morale.

    Who would be the 'allies' the uk? as already said in this topic, they needed to recover and another huge war would not be attractive. It would proberbly be america alone as they would be the only ones mad enough to battle the soviet union.
     
  16. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it wasn't. German production was at its height at the height of the Allied bombing campaign.
     
  17. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We could have never occupied Russia, no more than they could have occupied the U.S.
    Ultimately it led to the mutually assured destruction doctrine because a realistic invasion of either side would have bankrupted the economies...

    My only contention is that, and here's where I agree with Gen. Patton; if there was ever going to be a realistic consideration to take on the Red Army...post VE day would have been the time to do it...

    Factories in America were already re-tooled to produce aircraft, ships and armor...brass and bandages.
    We had a pool of experienced and battle hardened veterans...plenty of oil...and a solid economy CONUS.

    The Cold War dragged on for decades...Patton foresaw that and encouraged taking them on now or taking them on later at even greater cost.

    The Soviets defeated the Germans on the East Front...no one is saying otherwise...however their ultimate capture of Berlin was due in large measure to Allied air superiority crushing the Luftwaffe...
     
  18. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, but Patton was a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lunatic whose only consideration, ever, was how much glory he could win for himself.
     
  19. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You do realize that during the so-called "battle of Germany" the U.S. was supplying itself, Great Britain, AND the Soviet Union with war materials via lend lease. The U.S. had a significant logistic advantage over the Russians, this is indisputable. They fought on two different fronts with Pacific being probably the most difficult war in history in terms of logistics.

    The Russians didn't test a Nuclear weapon until more than 5 years after the U.S. used one in combat. They also benefited heavily from espionage to get this weapon. In other words, Soviet nuclear weapons aren't an issue in this scenario. Also, the Russians didn't have a heavy bomber capable of reaching the U.S. mainland to bomb U.S. cities. They also didn't have a Navy that could come remotely close to challenging the USN. In summation, Soviet Russia would be subject to all sorts of air strikes and amphibious assaults while the continental U.S. and its industry would remain untouched.
     
  20. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Soviet Union supplied itself by far. It's a myth that Lend Lease was supplying them with everything, but I see it stated so often.
     
  21. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is because Germany didn't fully mobilize its industry until later on in the war. In other words, much of the heavy losses they took were compensated for by increased mobilization. If you compare German GDP numbers each year with other wartime countries (notably the U.S.), you'll see that German economic output was hit hard by the allies. Between 1939 and 1944 the U.S. economy doubled. During that same period Germany's economy only increased by about 20%. Considering that in 1939 Germany was preparing itself and fighting WW2 and the U.S. wasn't, that's a significant difference.
     
  22. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The majority of the Soviet war machine was fueled by domestic production, no doubt. But the U.S. gave them billions of dollars in equipment. The U.S. also gave the Soviets something like 90% of their trucking capabilities, which were very vital for the war, as well as a lot of food.

    An earlier poster claimed that the Soviet Union had a logistical advantage over the U.S. My counter-point was that the U.S. had 4 times the economy of the Soviet Union and was supplying Britain, the European theater, the Pacific theater AND the Soviets with billions of dollars in equipment. Clearly the U.S. wins hands down in terms of logistics.
     
  23. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Also have to take into consideration with these war military debates on this forum. The american chatters are vastly nationalistc. They give far too much credit to america involvement while ignoring allies, uk australia etc...


    So impossible to judge the true strength of the usa forces.
     
  24. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Come up with something better. You always fall back to the nationalism argument when you have nothing to offer.

    There's no question that Britain, Canada, France, and Australia would support the U.S. in such a conflict...just as the Soviet Union would receive support from its "empire."
     
  25. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now ignoranceisbliss is speaking on behalf of the entire allied forces. Why would they be loyal to a near suicide war against the soviets after several years of hell in the biggest war the world has seen.

    If you can stop flying the flag and be more realistic, this debate go better.
     

Share This Page