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

[Darcia]

Aircraft can shoot down at tanks, Tanks cannot shoot up at aircraft

 

[Damien435]

Aircraft can shoot down at tanks, Tanks cannot shoot up at aircraft

They can if they have a machine gun mounted on top of the turret, which many tanks did.

 

[Darcia]

For the most part however aircraft would have an uperhand on tanks.

 

[Trevor]

There's not a whole lot that a 50 cal mounted on a tank could do to an aircraft, let alone hit it. When you have a P-47 Thunderbolt or an Avenger, coming in to strafe you on a low run, you're worried about getting the hell out of there more than anything.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Remember some points guys:

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

Not immediately, which means that the Western Powers would have to hold them back as best as they could for awhile.

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.

The Soviets had a big advantage in Tanks and Artillery. That means they definitely would be the ones on the attack -- the USA and UK couldn't have matched them in Quality, Quantity and Experience. However, the accumulated Western forces were immense, so we're not looking at any easy job driving them back. It would have been a very slow and costly retreat by the West. Gradually, Pershings, Fireflies, other more useful tanks, and more artillery show up in larger quantities and the balance begins to even out.

The Western Forces were probably better lead and their leaders were less likely to sacrifice their soldiers where they could help it.

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.

Most of which were destroyed, because Germany was a lot more scared of the USSR than the West and focussed on them. I think that one of the very first things that happens in this hypothetical conflict is a vye for air superiority. The USA and UK had much better designed aircraft for air superiority missions. I think that the West would have taken control of the air within the first few months of conflict. During that time, Soviet tanks and artillery could do a lot of damage. Still, both sides were immense military machines, so I doubt that the USSR pushed the Western forces back very far all that quickly.

You could project things settling into something of a Stalemate after the West initially loses ground. After securing air superiority, the West would have started reversing the Soviet momentum -- again, very very slowly.

 

[MadeInChina]

ONe question, how big is russia????

even if the americans manage to destory russia, conqueroro it, which is unlikely becuase russian forces are not to be underestimated. The land of russia is very big, nazi germany fielded 5 millon + 5000 tanks and couldnt cover very muche ven belurus and ukraine, imagine all of soviet union

Us forcfes would be so spread out that a russian field army will roam freely to kill

supplies, sure, its very important, but dont forget that russians could sack american supply lines to steal and take.

 

[airmanpatroler]

well at 1945 the americans enjoyed one thing the russians didnt. The atom bomb. We would have leveled everything they had in the Pacific and by the time they had time to react and send in troops on the western front the russian army would be bombed into surrender.

 

[Darcia]

Russia may try to stay and not surrender no matter how bad they get wounded, they did it in WW2 and it worked so they may have tried to do that. However The Russians could not have survived combined efforts of America,Britian,and France would do pretty good, However France didn't realy have a Navy since most of it had been destroyed.

 

[godofthunder9010]

ONe question, how big is russia????

even if the americans manage to destory russia, conqueroro it, which is unlikely becuase russian forces are not to be underestimated. The land of russia is very big, nazi germany fielded 5 millon + 5000 tanks and couldnt cover very muche ven belurus and ukraine, imagine all of soviet union

Us forcfes would be so spread out that a russian field army will roam freely to kill

supplies, sure, its very important, but dont forget that russians could sack american supply lines to steal and take.

Naturally, the USSR was enormous. Nobody is claiming that its an easy win for either side. But lets consider a few things:
1.) Unlike Germany, the West would be engaging Russia with relatively equal numbers. That's something that Germany never had. Not even close to it.
2.) Russia had lost an immense number of its military aged young men against Germany. They were bled dry, much moreso than the Western Allies. They still had more to give, but less depth in that category.
3.) Remember how the Ukraine welcomed the Germans as liberators? Well this time, the USA, UK and France would play their cards right ... it would be hard to play them wrong afterall. Any portion of the USSR that is taken would seize the opportunity to assist any movement that frees them of Stalin's tyrany.

The moment that the Atom Bomb is brought into the equation, it ends very quickly.

 

[Darcia]

and Russia was about 7 years away from getting the Bomb, plus during a war thier is no way they would have been able to undergo such a major thing without American Supplies. So they would have to choose what to spend money on.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Soviet spys in the USA were instrumental in obtaining American nuclear tech for the USSR. In the case of a war scenario, those spies would have had a harder time delivering the data because it would have been much more closely guarded.

 

[Darcia]

Thats true, Also it would become complicated to be a Russian and not be taken to a Prison such as was done with the japs in WW2, even the Germans were taken a few times to Prisons

 

[airmanpatroler]

The aoviet air force was strong but obselete and would not stand a chance against the massive bombing power of the US

 

[Doppleganger]

ONe question, how big is russia????

even if the americans manage to destory russia, conqueroro it, which is unlikely becuase russian forces are not to be underestimated. The land of russia is very big, nazi germany fielded 5 millon + 5000 tanks and couldnt cover very muche ven belurus and ukraine, imagine all of soviet union

Us forcfes would be so spread out that a russian field army will roam freely to kill

supplies, sure, its very important, but dont forget that russians could sack american supply lines to steal and take.

Naturally, the USSR was enormous. Nobody is claiming that its an easy win for either side. But lets consider a few things:
1.) Unlike Germany, the West would be engaging Russia with relatively equal numbers. That's something that Germany never had. Not even close to it.
2.) Russia had lost an immense number of its military aged young men against Germany. They were bled dry, much moreso than the Western Allies. They still had more to give, but less depth in that category.
3.) Remember how the Ukraine welcomed the Germans as liberators? Well this time, the USA, UK and France would play their cards right ... it would be hard to play them wrong afterall. Any portion of the USSR that is taken would seize the opportunity to assist any movement that frees them of Stalin's tyrany.

The moment that the Atom Bomb is brought into the equation, it ends very quickly.

Just to counter some of your points:

1. What were the US/UK army sizes in the field in May 1945 compared to the Red Army? I doubt that the numbers would be anywhere near equal. You are talking about potential not actual unless I'm mistaken.

2. True but they still had enough men to take on the Western Allies.

3. True also but I don't think they would get as far as the Ukraine myself.

Another point to remember that although the Allies had 2 decent tanks in the Sherman Firefly and the M26 Pershing, they were not deployed in nearly the same numbers as the T34 and IS-2 and IS-3 Soviet tanks were. The IS-2 and IS-3 were formidable tanks that could take on and beat King Tigers and the Soviets had lots of them.

You hit the nail on the head with air power being decisive. It would have to be if the Western Allies had any chance to win.

 

[Darcia]

They couldn't produce or upkeep the tanks without enough supplies. Supplies wich came from America.


"America Gives Money,Britian Gives Time, Only Russia Gives Blood"

 

[Kirill K]

USA wouldnt dare drop the A-bomb on the USSR if they did im sure USSR would have came through the Alaska and moved on from their to surprise US with a sneak attack, If USSR could fight off the German's, USSR could beat the USA.

 

[Darcia]

America would drop an A-bomb, maybe hundrends of them. They would have done anything to win the war. i once heard someone talking about America had thought of using one on berlin of the Soviets failed.

 

[Damien435]

USA wouldnt dare drop the A-bomb on the USSR if they did im sure USSR would have came through the Alaska and moved on from their to surprise US with a sneak attack, If USSR could fight off the German's, USSR could beat the USA.

Yes, we would have used the bomb on the USSR, when you are in a war agaisnt an opponent who is your equal you use whatever resources you have available.

The USSR would not have made it through Alaska, if you will recall Japan invaded the Aleutian Islands during WWII, we built an interstate system and had plans in place to rush reinforcements into Alaska or Canada should they be invaded, and the Soviets did not have much along the lines of an Army in Eastern Russia, not compared to what the US had in the Pacific after our Island hopping campaign and what we had amassed in preperations for an invasion of Mainland Japan, oh, and good luck crossing the Bering Straight, your Pacific Fleet Navy had been destroyed by the Japanese Navy, and that was after it spent what? 11 months at sea going from the Baltic Ocean to the Sea of Oshkosh.

Oh, and you forget, we defeated the German's also, and we had to do it from over 3,000 miles away, that costs alot to ship and then supply lines stretching overland about 800 miles. Plus we were fighting a two front war, we also had to take care of Japan in the Pacific, supply lines over 7,000 miles long.

The USSR defeated Germany on land.

The USA defeated Germany on land, sea and air, and we also defeated Japan on land, sea and air.

 

[Dele]

USSR probably in my opinion, their army was just way too massive and just outnumbered the western allies by far.

 

[Doppleganger]

The USA defeated Germany on land, sea and air, and we also defeated Japan on land, sea and air.

This isn't exactly true. Germany never would have been defeated without ALL the allies working together. That's a fact.

Just to say something about supplies, in particular Lend-Lease. The only vital things the Soviets received (and they were absolutely vital) were railroad tracks, locomoties, radios and trucks. All other items, including AFVs and airplanes, the Soviets could have done without.