USSR v Western Allies circa 1945 - who would win and why?
Doppleganger
Active member
lght1 said:
It actually boils down to the fact that they have a lot more of just one very important thing, namely air superiority fighters. That's the one thing that wins the West this hypothetical war. It's also not just about the US for the West, although they are the biggest and the most important.
Hi.
It boils down to one thing.
The soviets are going to role to the Rhine river and trap most of the allied forces on the wrong side of it due to superior Quantity and Quality on that front.
They are then going to role over France and ensure victory in Europe.
Britain and the US then rub their hands of the issue, since the chances of a second D-day succeeding are too slim to attempt.
A reliance on air power to win ground battles was not something that happened in ww2. Try the gulf war.
It boils down to one thing.
The soviets are going to role to the Rhine river and trap most of the allied forces on the wrong side of it due to superior Quantity and Quality on that front.
They are then going to role over France and ensure victory in Europe.
Britain and the US then rub their hands of the issue, since the chances of a second D-day succeeding are too slim to attempt.
A reliance on air power to win ground battles was not something that happened in ww2. Try the gulf war.
victortsoi
Active member
im sick of this nationalistic bent where american forumers (im a red blooded american myself, mind you) post along the lines of "teh p51 won teh war 1137" and. having NO knowledge whatsoever of the air war in the east, discount the power and skill of the VVS.
Air superiority woudnt be such a sure thing, guys (oh btw, im idealogically for the US to win this scenario but im arguing pure facts). The soviets had a very skilled group of pilots by the end of the war, battlehardened, and in excellent low altitude fighters that would (has anyone actually seen a yak-3 doing acm?) maul us fighters on soviet terms. strategic bombing wouldnt do much vs a soviet offensive in euroupe, and even in the ussr youd be going up against flak much like the ones in germany, except more plentiful and integrated. In addition, the soviets had a few high altitude fighters armed with obscene amounts of unguided rockets that could be used against bomber boxes-much more than german attempts at this.
american figher planes would be obliged to fight the soviets on their own terms (low altitude) because soviet ground attack aircraft like the il-2 would attack allied troops from very low altitudes. american fighters would either let the grunts die or attempt to go low (where their performance was not the best) and be attacked by soviet escorts.
and people really, really, dont give soviet pilots enough credit.
for example, the usaf may very well have racked up a 13:1 air to air kill ratio for sabres vs migs in korea, however, in total the soviet pilots in taht war managed to rack up about at 2.2:1 ratio vs america during korea.
Air superiority woudnt be such a sure thing, guys (oh btw, im idealogically for the US to win this scenario but im arguing pure facts). The soviets had a very skilled group of pilots by the end of the war, battlehardened, and in excellent low altitude fighters that would (has anyone actually seen a yak-3 doing acm?) maul us fighters on soviet terms. strategic bombing wouldnt do much vs a soviet offensive in euroupe, and even in the ussr youd be going up against flak much like the ones in germany, except more plentiful and integrated. In addition, the soviets had a few high altitude fighters armed with obscene amounts of unguided rockets that could be used against bomber boxes-much more than german attempts at this.
american figher planes would be obliged to fight the soviets on their own terms (low altitude) because soviet ground attack aircraft like the il-2 would attack allied troops from very low altitudes. american fighters would either let the grunts die or attempt to go low (where their performance was not the best) and be attacked by soviet escorts.
and people really, really, dont give soviet pilots enough credit.
for example, the usaf may very well have racked up a 13:1 air to air kill ratio for sabres vs migs in korea, however, in total the soviet pilots in taht war managed to rack up about at 2.2:1 ratio vs america during korea.
MadeInChina
Active member
exactly said, soviet weaponery is not bad, it is actually better in terms of survivability since most are very reliable: such as the ak, when fighting in russia, the us fragiae weapons would be screwed.
some ppl are always forgetting the huge amount of sovie tartillery, it is more effective than aerial bombing, since the russian artilelry has alot of dual AA guns
some ppl are always forgetting the huge amount of sovie tartillery, it is more effective than aerial bombing, since the russian artilelry has alot of dual AA guns
Doppleganger
Active member
victortsoi said:
Good to see an American who has a sensible and objective viewpoint. Whilst I do think that the USAAF and RAF did have a big superiority in fighters both in design and in numbers the VVS cannot be discounted and shrugged off. The VVS pilots still around in 1945 are for the most part excellent, veteran airmen and although the VVS had a lot of ground attack and close support aircraft they fought and won air superiority over the Luftwaffe in the East which was no mean feat. The Luftwaffe was probably the most skilled airforce in the world and the bulk of their air power was on the Ostfront so it's not as if it was a foregone conclusion that the VVS would gain the upper hand.
People don't give the Soviets in WW2 enough credit full-stop. The average Red Army soldier was as tough as they come. The Wehrmacht found that to their cost. Like I said before, had the Allied Armies been in the Soviet Union's position in WW2 they would have been destroyed IMO. We in the West owe the Soviet Union a great burden of debt for breaking the back of the vaunted German Army. They did receive plenty of help from us it's true, but for 2 long years they were in a life or death struggle that only their own efforts, coupled with German blunders, ultimately saw them win through. The Soviet Union, or Russia if you like, was never closer to extinction than it was in that winter of 1941.
hi
Unfortunately, wishes and wants will not make it so.
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
The only thing that separated the nazis from the communists, is the former was willing to gamble on their own survival while the latter was not.
As for air power in the Gulf War, YES, lets use that as an example. :lol:
Remember the "highway of death"? US politicians had to stop the carnage as the wholesale destruction of fleeing enemy troops was beginning to look "bad" in the press. I guess it was too one sided.. :lol:
Again, for the Soviet apologists, remember this :
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
Unfortunately, wishes and wants will not make it so.
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
The only thing that separated the nazis from the communists, is the former was willing to gamble on their own survival while the latter was not.
As for air power in the Gulf War, YES, lets use that as an example. :lol:
Remember the "highway of death"? US politicians had to stop the carnage as the wholesale destruction of fleeing enemy troops was beginning to look "bad" in the press. I guess it was too one sided.. :lol:
Again, for the Soviet apologists, remember this :
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
HI
Unfortunately, wishes and wants will not make it so.
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
The only thing that separated the nazis from the communists, is the former was willing to gamble on their own survival while the latter was not.
As for air power in the Gulf War, YES, lets use that as an example. Laughing
Remember the "highway of death"? US politicians had to stop the carnage as the wholesale destruction of fleeing enemy troops was beginning to look "bad" in the press. I guess it was too one sided.. Laughing
Again, for the Soviet apologists, remember this :
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
As for the west "owing" them something, they survived due to the generosity of the American people through Lend-Lease. This "mighty" USSR you people speak so lovingly of couldn't even produce its own trucks as most were Studebakers. Laughing
I can't seem to remember a single thing we had that was made in this "people's paradise" .
AS for guerilla forces, NO Allied forces would be needed as the USSR would have caved from inside as it later did in 1991. The only "invasion" would have been from the air, and that would have been massive strikes to de-industrialize that slave state.
Either way, that most evil of all toltalitarian governments was itself liquidated into the "dust bin of history" just as President Reagan had predicted a few years earlier. Laughing
Unfortunately, wishes and wants will not make it so.
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
The only thing that separated the nazis from the communists, is the former was willing to gamble on their own survival while the latter was not.
As for air power in the Gulf War, YES, lets use that as an example. Laughing
Remember the "highway of death"? US politicians had to stop the carnage as the wholesale destruction of fleeing enemy troops was beginning to look "bad" in the press. I guess it was too one sided.. Laughing
Again, for the Soviet apologists, remember this :
If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have. To describe communists as peace loving and non violent is to deny reality.
As for the west "owing" them something, they survived due to the generosity of the American people through Lend-Lease. This "mighty" USSR you people speak so lovingly of couldn't even produce its own trucks as most were Studebakers. Laughing
I can't seem to remember a single thing we had that was made in this "people's paradise" .
AS for guerilla forces, NO Allied forces would be needed as the USSR would have caved from inside as it later did in 1991. The only "invasion" would have been from the air, and that would have been massive strikes to de-industrialize that slave state.
Either way, that most evil of all toltalitarian governments was itself liquidated into the "dust bin of history" just as President Reagan had predicted a few years earlier. Laughing
Why do you apply morals to simple geopolitical occurences? Wars are fought by nations because they either feel their interests are threatened, or they need to expand their interests to survive, or they can easilly expand their interests at little cost. The Soviets had just been through a major war and were certainly badly hurt. They needed time to recover. They also needed to establish order in many of the eastern european countries they had enveloped. However none of this was so critical to effect the units that would fight in what would largely be a SHORT WAR.
The US opposed communism more than anyone after 1945. Why did they not attack the USSR if it was clearly such easy prey to long range bombing?
It was not until the gulf war that air power could dictate ground battles. The gulf war was a situation where the US had total air superiority. The US also had both quality and quantity on their side. In this example, they would not. Precision bombing did not exist.
As for them surviving on the generosity on the American people. Why why why do Americans constantly point to this as if its some star struck blessed act? Is it to hide the fact you stayed out of the war for 3 years against a murderous meglomaniac who was intent on ruling europe? Britain subsidised almost every war that ever happened on the continent against france and yet its never treated as generosity, simply a geopolitical nessesity. Oh the US wasn't at war with germany and was under no obligation to provide help? Well Nazi Germany defeats the Soviets, crushes Britain and then strangles the US by the fact she rules the entire of Europe and most of Asia will fall under her dominion or that of her allies. Well done, the world is now screwed. So basically its a case of "we could of screwed you and doomed ourselves, but chose sensibly not too.. praise us".
Its somewhat like argueing that Britain could have surrendered at any time and recieved favourable terms from Hitler. We know that this is a false assertation. If they had surrendered British culture would almost certainly have been destroyed and the world a significantly worse place in which to live. It wasn't a case of something you can choose to do, its something that must happen if you desire your nation to remain a free. (well.. figuratively for the USSR I suppose) Calling it generosity is just.. wrong.
As for what seperated the Nazi's and the Soviets. Well, I cannot be bothered to properly describe it, but claiming the only difference was that the Nazi's were willing to risk their existance and the Soviets were not is a foolish statement. The Nazi organisation was largely centred on revenge for ww1 and hitlers ideas. That taking of revenge almost assured that war had to break out sooner or later. The Soviet system was about creating a new (and significantly worse) way of life that alledgedly favoured the proletariat. In reality it turned out differently, but they both had different desires, stating they are the same is incorrect. Its similar to saying the only difference between Britain in the 19th centuary and the US today was that Britain maintained control of its conquests wheras the US creates economicly dependant vassals. There are similarities, but there are severe differences.
Your assertion that the USSR would have collapsed on its own simply from these improbable 6000 kilometre round flights of bombers is laughable in both its vagueness, its problems and its simple lack of realism. Try and find out why the USSR really collapsed, and you will see that military force rather than hastening this process, would halt it by forcing people to rally around the existing leadership (Just as what happened in ww2 coincidently. In 1945 Stalin never had more popularity since he was seen as the person who had saved Russia)
Basically, your judging US prowess based on modern conflict and ignoring both technological and doctrinal differences from ww2 combat.
Secondly you seem to believe that anyone who believes the Soviets had a chance is trying to apologise for and support the USSR because your supporting the US simply out of patriotic pride and thus think other people do so.
Third, You have no real facts to back up your sole arguement that air power would have been enough. Why did it take the allies a year to travel from Normandy to Berlin when they had vastly superior quantity and later by manpower losses almost certainly quality over the third reich? They had total and utter air superiority and dominance. If it took them a year to get that far, how would they cope with the USSR who probably had between 5-10 times the resources that nazi germany used against the allies?
That and how feasable do you think an attack from the Caucasus into the middle east would be? Im fairly confident that such an attack by ww1 standards would be impossible, but with ww2 mechanisation of logistics and troops it might be possible. On the other hand those mountains might have been a problem...
That and the Allies still had to conclude their war with Japan although this would likely have been just as swift as it was in our timeline despite the USSR (probably) not declaring war on Japan. (Although they might have declared war on China... possibly encouraging the Japanese to continue the fight on the mainland..
Still.. difficult to say how the war would have progressed beyond the lands of germany.
The US opposed communism more than anyone after 1945. Why did they not attack the USSR if it was clearly such easy prey to long range bombing?
It was not until the gulf war that air power could dictate ground battles. The gulf war was a situation where the US had total air superiority. The US also had both quality and quantity on their side. In this example, they would not. Precision bombing did not exist.
As for them surviving on the generosity on the American people. Why why why do Americans constantly point to this as if its some star struck blessed act? Is it to hide the fact you stayed out of the war for 3 years against a murderous meglomaniac who was intent on ruling europe? Britain subsidised almost every war that ever happened on the continent against france and yet its never treated as generosity, simply a geopolitical nessesity. Oh the US wasn't at war with germany and was under no obligation to provide help? Well Nazi Germany defeats the Soviets, crushes Britain and then strangles the US by the fact she rules the entire of Europe and most of Asia will fall under her dominion or that of her allies. Well done, the world is now screwed. So basically its a case of "we could of screwed you and doomed ourselves, but chose sensibly not too.. praise us".
Its somewhat like argueing that Britain could have surrendered at any time and recieved favourable terms from Hitler. We know that this is a false assertation. If they had surrendered British culture would almost certainly have been destroyed and the world a significantly worse place in which to live. It wasn't a case of something you can choose to do, its something that must happen if you desire your nation to remain a free. (well.. figuratively for the USSR I suppose) Calling it generosity is just.. wrong.
As for what seperated the Nazi's and the Soviets. Well, I cannot be bothered to properly describe it, but claiming the only difference was that the Nazi's were willing to risk their existance and the Soviets were not is a foolish statement. The Nazi organisation was largely centred on revenge for ww1 and hitlers ideas. That taking of revenge almost assured that war had to break out sooner or later. The Soviet system was about creating a new (and significantly worse) way of life that alledgedly favoured the proletariat. In reality it turned out differently, but they both had different desires, stating they are the same is incorrect. Its similar to saying the only difference between Britain in the 19th centuary and the US today was that Britain maintained control of its conquests wheras the US creates economicly dependant vassals. There are similarities, but there are severe differences.
Your assertion that the USSR would have collapsed on its own simply from these improbable 6000 kilometre round flights of bombers is laughable in both its vagueness, its problems and its simple lack of realism. Try and find out why the USSR really collapsed, and you will see that military force rather than hastening this process, would halt it by forcing people to rally around the existing leadership (Just as what happened in ww2 coincidently. In 1945 Stalin never had more popularity since he was seen as the person who had saved Russia)
Basically, your judging US prowess based on modern conflict and ignoring both technological and doctrinal differences from ww2 combat.
Secondly you seem to believe that anyone who believes the Soviets had a chance is trying to apologise for and support the USSR because your supporting the US simply out of patriotic pride and thus think other people do so.
Third, You have no real facts to back up your sole arguement that air power would have been enough. Why did it take the allies a year to travel from Normandy to Berlin when they had vastly superior quantity and later by manpower losses almost certainly quality over the third reich? They had total and utter air superiority and dominance. If it took them a year to get that far, how would they cope with the USSR who probably had between 5-10 times the resources that nazi germany used against the allies?
That and how feasable do you think an attack from the Caucasus into the middle east would be? Im fairly confident that such an attack by ww1 standards would be impossible, but with ww2 mechanisation of logistics and troops it might be possible. On the other hand those mountains might have been a problem...
That and the Allies still had to conclude their war with Japan although this would likely have been just as swift as it was in our timeline despite the USSR (probably) not declaring war on Japan. (Although they might have declared war on China... possibly encouraging the Japanese to continue the fight on the mainland..
Still.. difficult to say how the war would have progressed beyond the lands of germany.
hi
One mazing difference between Britain and the USA during this time frame.
Great Britain would have had zero chance against Nazi Germany had the USSR been liquidated, while the USA certainly could have. It had the population, the largest and most dynamic economy which alone, could have drowned the Soviet command style system in a flood of production.
As for the short war, not really. While it would have been totally unnecessary to re-invade the USSR, the destruction of the Red Army would have only take n months, and that is mostly dealing with remnant forces that have holed up in the bombed out cities.
As for air power not being decisive? Can you imagine the massive "pin pricks" done to Soviet armoured forces caught out in the open by yet another "thousand plane raid"? Something by 1945, the Allies were more than capable of doing.
You dodge the statement of " If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have." , by simply saying that they were too tired to conduct another massive campaign.
By doing so, you have forfeited any credibility to the notion of the Soviets having any chance at all wining against Allied forces existing in this era.
The B-36s and B-29s were more than capable of reaching into the Urals, and when full production of the A-Bombs went into effect, I dont much like that slave empires chances, do you?
So, with a destroyed industrial base, effective transportation network, and probable agricultural collapse combined with defeat of her only means of control of its captive peoples, just how do you expect this criminal dictatorship to prosper?
Remember, earliy in the Barbarossa campaign , the Wehrmacht was often greeted with open arms and flowers. No "rallying around the government" here. It was only went the SS and its "Einsatz Squads" began work that the oppressed peoples of the USSR was forced to confront the Nazis.
I have no doubts at all that in a contest between the USSR and the Allies ( USA and the British Empire) , that the USSR would be as badly defeated by 1948 at the latest, as Nazi Germany was in 1945. It may have taken a different path to defeat, but its destination was assured the moment it chose such an act.
One mazing difference between Britain and the USA during this time frame.
Great Britain would have had zero chance against Nazi Germany had the USSR been liquidated, while the USA certainly could have. It had the population, the largest and most dynamic economy which alone, could have drowned the Soviet command style system in a flood of production.
As for the short war, not really. While it would have been totally unnecessary to re-invade the USSR, the destruction of the Red Army would have only take n months, and that is mostly dealing with remnant forces that have holed up in the bombed out cities.
As for air power not being decisive? Can you imagine the massive "pin pricks" done to Soviet armoured forces caught out in the open by yet another "thousand plane raid"? Something by 1945, the Allies were more than capable of doing.
You dodge the statement of " If the Soviets thought they could have done so, they would have." , by simply saying that they were too tired to conduct another massive campaign.
By doing so, you have forfeited any credibility to the notion of the Soviets having any chance at all wining against Allied forces existing in this era.
The B-36s and B-29s were more than capable of reaching into the Urals, and when full production of the A-Bombs went into effect, I dont much like that slave empires chances, do you?
So, with a destroyed industrial base, effective transportation network, and probable agricultural collapse combined with defeat of her only means of control of its captive peoples, just how do you expect this criminal dictatorship to prosper?
Remember, earliy in the Barbarossa campaign , the Wehrmacht was often greeted with open arms and flowers. No "rallying around the government" here. It was only went the SS and its "Einsatz Squads" began work that the oppressed peoples of the USSR was forced to confront the Nazis.
I have no doubts at all that in a contest between the USSR and the Allies ( USA and the British Empire) , that the USSR would be as badly defeated by 1948 at the latest, as Nazi Germany was in 1945. It may have taken a different path to defeat, but its destination was assured the moment it chose such an act.
Doppleganger
Active member
Hi. i wanted to comment on your reply to Earling.
True regarding Great Britain but I think any war between Nazi Germany and the USA would have been another Cold War myself, with neither side being able to dominate the other. In fact, the US would have been at a disadvantage as German Occupied Europe plus German Occupied USSR would more than match any industrial resources and might the US had. Moreover, Germany was the leading chemical and scientific nation in the world and would have had a distinct advantage in jet engine propulsion and rocket technology amongst other things. Both sides would have nuclear weapons.
Air power in itself is not decisive without other forces to consolidate. 2 Gulf Wars prove that.
Stalin had achieved (or had set in motion the plans to achieve) all the medium term objectives for the USSR by 1945. Why would he want to conduct another massive campaign? The topic of this thread is a hypothetical question.
Remember that it was mainly in the Ukraine that the Wehrmacht were greeted as liberators, as that country has long seen itself as independent from Russia. It was Nazi policy to treat all Soviets as 'untermensch' (subhuman) and so regular Heer units were sometimes just as brutal as their SS cousins. You should also make the distinction between the Security SS and the Waffen SS as they were quite different. Most of the 'oppressed peoples' fought incredibly hard against the Germans.
Once the Soviet Union puts it's hands on nukes it's a whole different ball game. BTW, Lght1 you should really put aside the rhetoric about the USSR and just concentrate on the military matters. I'm sure you're not so naive to believe that the USA is a shining beacon of goodness that can do no wrong. Every country is capable of committing evil in the name of foreign policy and what is perceived to be just.
lght1 said:
True regarding Great Britain but I think any war between Nazi Germany and the USA would have been another Cold War myself, with neither side being able to dominate the other. In fact, the US would have been at a disadvantage as German Occupied Europe plus German Occupied USSR would more than match any industrial resources and might the US had. Moreover, Germany was the leading chemical and scientific nation in the world and would have had a distinct advantage in jet engine propulsion and rocket technology amongst other things. Both sides would have nuclear weapons.
lght1 said:
Air power in itself is not decisive without other forces to consolidate. 2 Gulf Wars prove that.
lght1 said:
Stalin had achieved (or had set in motion the plans to achieve) all the medium term objectives for the USSR by 1945. Why would he want to conduct another massive campaign? The topic of this thread is a hypothetical question.
lght1 said:
Remember that it was mainly in the Ukraine that the Wehrmacht were greeted as liberators, as that country has long seen itself as independent from Russia. It was Nazi policy to treat all Soviets as 'untermensch' (subhuman) and so regular Heer units were sometimes just as brutal as their SS cousins. You should also make the distinction between the Security SS and the Waffen SS as they were quite different. Most of the 'oppressed peoples' fought incredibly hard against the Germans.
lght1 said:
Once the Soviet Union puts it's hands on nukes it's a whole different ball game. BTW, Lght1 you should really put aside the rhetoric about the USSR and just concentrate on the military matters. I'm sure you're not so naive to believe that the USA is a shining beacon of goodness that can do no wrong. Every country is capable of committing evil in the name of foreign policy and what is perceived to be just.
Hi
Neither of your examples concerning air power are relevant to the discussion as neither conflicts were of the same nature as this one.
Armed conflict between the USSR and the Allies would have been total war. For the Allies and the USSR, the inevitable conclusions would be as meaningful.
Once the Red Army was trapped, and later consumed in Europe, it would not have been politically possible for the US to simply negotiate an end to conflict just as it was politically undesirable to negotiate with the Axis during WW2.
So, massive air attacks, designed to de-industrialize the empire would have ensued. Again, dent keep mentioning occupation, land invasions, etc, as this war would be very different.
Since the USSR was a slave state and needed all her industrial and military capabilities to not only threaten other states, but to maintain its grip at home, any removal of either one, not to mention both would prompt restive peoples to revolt.
This isn't hard to imagine, as the USSR always relied on force of might to stay in power. Once that was removed either by armed conflict or loss of will as actually did happen in the early '90s , then collapse was inevitable.
Such often is the nature of empires forged against the will of the diverse peoples it wishes to enslave
Neither of your examples concerning air power are relevant to the discussion as neither conflicts were of the same nature as this one.
Armed conflict between the USSR and the Allies would have been total war. For the Allies and the USSR, the inevitable conclusions would be as meaningful.
Once the Red Army was trapped, and later consumed in Europe, it would not have been politically possible for the US to simply negotiate an end to conflict just as it was politically undesirable to negotiate with the Axis during WW2.
So, massive air attacks, designed to de-industrialize the empire would have ensued. Again, dent keep mentioning occupation, land invasions, etc, as this war would be very different.
Since the USSR was a slave state and needed all her industrial and military capabilities to not only threaten other states, but to maintain its grip at home, any removal of either one, not to mention both would prompt restive peoples to revolt.
This isn't hard to imagine, as the USSR always relied on force of might to stay in power. Once that was removed either by armed conflict or loss of will as actually did happen in the early '90s , then collapse was inevitable.
Such often is the nature of empires forged against the will of the diverse peoples it wishes to enslave
godofthunder9010
Active member
Simply put, it would divert US forces away from Europe to defend their home turf. It might have served to open things up on the European side.lght1 said:
I got a question -- At this point, I'm assuming that we're ruling out use of the Atomic Bomb entirely, is that correct?
HI
Only at first, as I really don't believe it would be necessary as long as the conflict is contained in Europe. But once Soviet forces are routed, the war now turns to the USSR itself.
B-29 and B-36 bomber formations would hit Soviet cities, transportation hubs, industrial centers of production, and even agricultural assets such as grain mills and other food processing assets.
A the short time after all this has transpired, increased production of atomic bombs should generate an inventory sufficient to mean 2-5 nuclear sorties a week. All areas of production, including oil and weapons would be hit.
In short, nothing would be spared. Depending on how intense the desire to destroy the USSR was, even population areas such as Leningrad, Moscow, and perhaps Kiev would be target by mushroom clouds.
AS for Alaska, it is so remote from the main US landmass, that one need not be too concerned. It would be treated much like the useless Japanese incursion of 1942 was. Deal with it at your leisure.
Only at first, as I really don't believe it would be necessary as long as the conflict is contained in Europe. But once Soviet forces are routed, the war now turns to the USSR itself.
B-29 and B-36 bomber formations would hit Soviet cities, transportation hubs, industrial centers of production, and even agricultural assets such as grain mills and other food processing assets.
A the short time after all this has transpired, increased production of atomic bombs should generate an inventory sufficient to mean 2-5 nuclear sorties a week. All areas of production, including oil and weapons would be hit.
In short, nothing would be spared. Depending on how intense the desire to destroy the USSR was, even population areas such as Leningrad, Moscow, and perhaps Kiev would be target by mushroom clouds.
AS for Alaska, it is so remote from the main US landmass, that one need not be too concerned. It would be treated much like the useless Japanese incursion of 1942 was. Deal with it at your leisure.
godofthunder9010
Active member
With Atomic Bombs, its a moot point. The USSR would not be able to offset such and advantage.
Without them we have a somewhat even fight. I think that in the short term, the USSR definitely has the upper hand, but not by a gigantic margin. The longer the conflict continues, the more it favors the Western Allies.
The Atomic Bomb ruins an othewise semi-balanced equation.
Without them we have a somewhat even fight. I think that in the short term, the USSR definitely has the upper hand, but not by a gigantic margin. The longer the conflict continues, the more it favors the Western Allies.
The Atomic Bomb ruins an othewise semi-balanced equation.
Hi
As long as modern wars are actually contests of economies, then this wouldn't be a fair fight.
Sometime back someone asked how the allied forces took almost a year from June 6th until late spring 1945 to beat the Nazis, and yet I predicted the rout and annihilation of the Red Army in Europe in a much shorter time frame.
The difference is that the Nazis were on defense. The Red Army, since it is the aggressor force, would need to be on the move, and thus , vulnerable to death from the air. Then, there is the very long supply lines, which are even more vulnerable.
Not a fair fight at all.
As long as modern wars are actually contests of economies, then this wouldn't be a fair fight.
Sometime back someone asked how the allied forces took almost a year from June 6th until late spring 1945 to beat the Nazis, and yet I predicted the rout and annihilation of the Red Army in Europe in a much shorter time frame.
The difference is that the Nazis were on defense. The Red Army, since it is the aggressor force, would need to be on the move, and thus , vulnerable to death from the air. Then, there is the very long supply lines, which are even more vulnerable.
Not a fair fight at all.