USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?

USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?

  • Total voters
    9
The America of the 1940's is not equal to the America today, America stronlgy supported WW2, also remember if it wasn't for Hitler deciding to strech his empire past Poland we would be fighting them anyways cause they would have been considered part of the Axis.
 
[/quote]
What? If America had the will to fight Germany why wouldn't they have the will to fight a weaker enemy. Not to mention US troops were way better trained than the Russians. I dont consider being patriotic as having a gun pointed at the back of your head telling you if you take one step backwards you will be shot.[/quote]

Well lets see did the training realy matter? yes they did have better but, I remember hearing alot of complaining about the training from back then, unless your talk about weapons training yes, weaker army? if your talking reacources (fuel food amunition...) then i agree with you, yes we had them beat in air force, and we definately had them in quality, but they had sheer man power, and wee had the Atom bombs, But they beat us tank to tank even with our... well the pershing was kicken ass, but the russians had the IS-2 im not sure one the ratings between the 2, and will to fight yes I remember the old charge or die (and die anyway), but do you remmber the germans, YAY were going to invade russia and Win and Get oil and Vodka and...it sucks here, Hitler this suck plz take us out im tired of killing masses of russian soldiers its cold and ugly and theres no women and vodka and i wanna go home..., and our troops would probably fell the same, after fighting a war right after anouther and killing thousands of enemies and well hell id wanna come home.
 
....Okay ....



Like I said


Thier is no reason America would not use Nuclear Weapons, Back then they realy didn't have any clues what it would do and it wasn't a crime agianst humanity then. So we would use that often probably.
 
Dameon said:
....Okay ....



Like I said


Thier is no reason America would not use Nuclear Weapons, Back then they realy didn't have any clues what it would do and it wasn't a crime agianst humanity then. So we would use that often probably.
Click to expand...

True but they couldn't use nukes on the battlefield if things were going against them for fear of hitting their own troops.

If you take nukes out of the equation I think the USSR would win, with the US/UK forced to retreat back to England and France becoming part of the Soviet sphere of influence. I'll explain why I think this when I get a bit more time.
 
But ig they used the Nuclear weapons before they sent thier troops in then it wouldn't be bad for them.


Take out Moscow and maybe another 2 or 3 major citeas and that would throw Russia into confusion.
 
Doppleganger said:
Dameon said:
....Okay ....



Like I said


Thier is no reason America would not use Nuclear Weapons, Back then they realy didn't have any clues what it would do and it wasn't a crime agianst humanity then. So we would use that often probably.
Click to expand...

True but they couldn't use nukes on the battlefield if things were going against them for fear of hitting their own troops.

If you take nukes out of the equation I think the USSR would win, with the US/UK forced to retreat back to England and France becoming part of the Soviet sphere of influence. I'll explain why I think this when I get a bit more time.
Click to expand...
After Atomic Bombs wipe out Leningrad, does the USSR continue to fight? Moscow? Stalingrad? Kiev? Smolensk? Minsk? The USA could have kept going from there.

The problem with the equation leaving Atomic Bomb options open is that it can rapidly turn into one-sided attrition. Same reason Japan quit instead of fighting till every Japanese was killed in battle (like they intended to do). USA can just keep dropping them till the USSR calls it quits.

Its a lot more interesting scenario if you disallow the Atom Bomb.
 
Aguy201 said:
wait America didnt even have but like 3 atom bombs in 1945 right?
Click to expand...

It is not like we would have had to use them on a daily basis, we likely would have used them at most once a month.
 
damien, look at an atlas, u'll see citites like novesbrisk, kzzushik, and others that have population mroe than a millon,. wonder why???

during world war II most russian factories are located in siberia, a key point in this war between us and soviet union, in which us bombers cant reach it and soviet production will still continue..

the russians learned the value of flak during world war II

for example, in 1945, the city of moscow had 300 batteries of AA cannons, thats aroudn the same in the berlin area, and we all remember how them bombers were desotryed...

anyways, look at both side of the war, please dont consider bias
 
So did the two japenese city's what America did however was send in like 20 Bombers and like 50 Escorts and came in so that thier would be so many thier was a strong chance they wouldn't hit the one that had the Big Boy in it.


Also I will take Atomic Bombs out of the equasion if you tanmk the Tanks, thtas basicly what you are saying, a course a nation is going to use it's strongest weapon in a war.
 
Aguy201 said:
wait America didnt even have but like 3 atom bombs in 1945 right?
Click to expand...
Essentially true, but the USA could have rapidly produced many, many more. Look at history, that's what they did isn't it?

If the scenario allows for the use of Atomic Bombs, its no more interesting than the Pre-WW2 USA vs USSR scenario. The deck is just too stacked when only one side has the Atomic Bomb.
 
NYC88mm said:
damien, look at an atlas, u'll see citites like novesbrisk, kzzushik, and others that have population mroe than a millon,. wonder why???
Click to expand...

What was the point of that little statement?

We would not need to kill every single Russian living in Russia, for that matter millions would have recieved us as liberators, we would only have to destroy their ability to produce weapons, ammunition, and refined oil. It does not matter what their nationalistic feelings dictated, they can not fight a war without supplies.

The Western Allies had numbers, technology, and supplies on their side, the Soviets merely had their size, but that was a powerful weapon, however the Western Allies had tanks that were much better suited for the open plains of the Ukraine and Russia than the German tanks, which were much better tanks in the cities.

Why do you think Stalin was so mad at the western allies during the war? He had no idea how strong the German wolfpacks were in the Atlanitic and thought that Britian and the United States were holding back on giving Stalin Supplies.

Plus, the Pacific fleet was otherwise bogged down against Japan, once Japan was defeated they would be able to invade Russia in the east, and once they defeated the Soviet Forces their they would have a clear path to your precious Siberia and it's factories.

Dameon said:
So did the two japenese city's what America did however was send in like 20 Bombers and like 50 Escorts and came in so that thier would be so many thier was a strong chance they wouldn't hit the one that had the Big Boy in it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I thought the B-29 could fly above the Japanese Flak and only one was sent.
 
I had heard they used many bombers however I researched the topic and apperently they only used 1 each...wierd...
 
There's much to be said for initiative. If the Soviets got their forces moving quickly into key locations before the United States, France and the UK were aware that the alliance honeymoon was over, then they could have wrought significant damage. By getting a solid invasion of Alaska and West Germany, they could have done well for themselves for a short while.

The Western Allies had tanks. They definitely weren't better than German tanks on average, but they had greately improved in their designs by 1945. Russia had lots of tanks, and their tank designs were superior to the USA and UK. The biggest problem for the USSR on the battlefield? The largest combat aircraft force in human history, the USAF of 1945. Huge Tank advantage vs Huge Aircraft advantage. Could have been quite interesting.
 
The USAF at the end of WW2 was and still is the largest airforce EVER! Some estimates have put it at 17,000 Aircraft.
 
It realy depends on who your asking on the sizes of these things :lol: For all we know all of these numbers could have been blown way up. However I can't find any good info on the Different sizes on WW2 armies, just getting differnt Divisions Numbers.
 
I did a lotta digging. I remembered Guiness put it at 69,000 combat aircraft and I found a few sites that put it at 75,000 combat aircraft.

Russia had the same sort of thing, only in tanks. They had at least 30,000 but I think it was closer to 50,000.
 
Remember some points guys:

1. Would the USAAF have been able to drop any atomic weapons in May/June 1945?

2. The Red Army had a BIG advantage in tanks, artillery and troops, plus a big swelling momentum pushing West.

3. The average US/UK soldier was better trained than his Soviet counterpart but as the Germans found the individual Russian soldier was extremely tough and by 1945, battle hardened in the fires of the Ostfront.

4. The Soviet Air force known as the Voenno-Vozdushniye Sily (VVS) in 1945 was much stronger than the Luftwaffe that faced the Allies was. Most people seem to forget that the USSR produced a total of 139,748 aircraft throughout WW2. That compares well with the US total of 160,070 for example.
 
Doppleganger said:
Remember some points guys:

1. Would the USAAF have been able to drop any atomic weapons in May/June 1945?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe we had one already on hand while others were in the making.

2. The Red Army had a BIG advantage in tanks, artillery and troops, plus a big swelling momentum pushing West.
Click to expand...

I believe the allies had just as much momentum, after D-day Hitler kept taking troops, tanks, and supplies off the Eastern Front to fight the Allies in the west, his reasoning? It was 2,000 miles to the Eastern Front and only 500 Miles to the Western Front, he would survive longer by fighting harder agaisnt the Allies.

3. The average US/UK soldier was better trained than his Soviet counterpart but as the Germans found the individual Russian soldier was extremely tough and by 1945, battle hardened in the fires of the Ostfront.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Allied soldiers were also battle hardened.

4. The Soviet Air force known as the Voenno-Vozdushniye Sily (VVS) in 1945 was much stronger than the Luftwaffe that faced the Allies was. Most people seem to forget that the USSR produced a total of 139,748 aircraft throughout WW2. That compares well with the US total of 160,070 for example.
Click to expand...

But the American Planes were far superior to the Russian planes, our fighters were the fastest piston-powered aircraft in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top