That’s 4 years (of peace time in our universe). Plus, the reason they got the bomb when they did is that they stole the plans from the US. I seriously doubt that would have been the case had we gone to war with the Soviets in, say, late '45 or '46.
No, I’m not. The Russians had a fine air force. But it wasn’t geared to the kind of operations against it that the US and UK had been doing against the Germans for most of the war. There is no way they could have protected their supply and logistics from a combine US/UK strategic air offensive on the scales that they could launch one. Not to mention that the Soviets were fighting against an increasingly harried German air force using a shrinking number of veteran pilots seasoned liberally with raw recruits, who were using a mixture of modern and pretty much out dated air craft designs. On the other hand, the US had a LOT of trained and well seasoned pilots, not to mention proven and modern air craft designs like the P-51 and B-29. The Brits had even gotten jet fighters into production and deployed.
Again, it depends on what the supposed goals of this war were. If the goals were to toss the Russians out of Eastern Europe, then I’d say that the US/UK could easily ‘win’ that particular fight. If the goals were the complete destruction and occupation of Russia…well, I think that would have been problematic at best. And impossible at worst.
Yeah…but, again, thats 2-3 years of peace time development vs going to war. Plus, again, they were able to develop the Mig-15 because the Brits GAVE them jet engine technology. I seriously doubt that would be the case if there was a general war.
Sure, eventually the Soviets would have been able to develop jets, just based on captured examples from the Germans, not to mention captured German engineers. But they would have to develop them, then put them into production, training, etc. All this while fighting a vicious war against the US and UK, where their own lines of communication and industries were vulnerable, while those in the UK and US weren’t. I doubt they would have had the extra resources to put more than a token effort into it, while maximizing their production of tried and true designs.
You didn’t read what I wrote. I never said that we were going to ‘level Russia’. Go back, re-read what I actually wrote, and if you STILL have a problem then feel free to ask.
This isn’t true for the most part. Their tanks weren’t better - the bulk of both tank fleets would’ve been the Sherman (particularly in that time period the 76mm A3E8) vs the T34. There are lots of myths surrounding both tanks culminating in the belief that the T34 was massively better, but’s quite untrue. If you want proof of this - the Soviets gave their best units the lend-lease Shermans as a reward for success in battle - it was considered a substantial upgrade. The Soviets had some good late war designs (particularly the IS-2) but the Pershing would’ve matched it had there been the need to ramp up its production.
As far as “bigger guns”, if you mean artillery, that doesn’t really matter terribly. Generally having huge artillery guns isn’t all that valuable in modern warfare, which is why modern armies have more or less standardized on having only 6 inch class guns. American artillery was massively better - and actually arguably the single most effective weapon system/class in the war. It was well standardized, well supplied, and the guns were very capable. the fire control systems were well ahead of anyone else - the first computers were used to create artillery tables to compensate for different levels of wear on the gun, differing wind conditions, different atmospheric pressure, etc. It was by far the fastest response of any artillery and the most accurate. It was also the most well supplied, and supply to artillery is probably the single most critical factor to any battle during that era. The command structure was far and away better than the Soviets, who by the end of the war developed a little more flexibility in its use but were still largely based around preplanned barrages. Their ability to adapt to the changing battlefield and respond to specific requests was limited, whereas in the US it was encouraged that officers at every level could quickly call on artillery as needed, and they had the flexible command structure to do it well. It’s really no contest here - US artillery in 1945 was the most badass weapon on the planet.
As far as air forces, I’d have to look up the force numbers for the Soviets at the end of WW2. Their air forces were geared entirely towards low altitude interdiction and tactical support, so it’d be something of a mismatch, with the allied forces able to dominate everything at high altitude (including strategic bombing at will) whereas the Soviets would probably have a greater low altitude presence.
As far as more reliable small arms, that isn’t really true - the major powers involved in this war all have pretty well designed, robust weapons.
A lot of it comes down to the situation. Do the allies launch an attack right after the Soviets capture Berlin? It wouldn’t go that well for the Soviets. They were better fighters than any popular western source gives them credit for, but they were overextended in their push to Berlin. They were willing to do this just to make a final push to end the war, but they were in bad shape to continue fighting past that point. There’s no way they could’ve pushed the allies from western Europe - the concept is laughable. The allies were far less extended, had better supply, fresher troops, and probably (in the period immediately after the battle of Berlin) a more cohesive operational structure. The allies could have won quick and significant victories against the overextended forces in Germany - the further they pushed east the harder the war would’ve gone.
Another significant factor in this is lend-lease. The allies supplied so many basic manufacturing goods to the Soviets that they Soviets retooled their economy only to output heavy weapons. If suddenly the influx of machine parts, trucks, even basic stuff like boots and foots dried up then their army would suffer significantly in the period where they had to retool their economy. Meanwhile, with no credible Soviet navy, the allies and their massive shipping capability would have no problem delivering masses of supplies from the untouched US massive manufacturing base to Europe.
You don’t even need A-bombs in this equation for the allies to push the Soviets out of eastern europe. They could’ve pushed to Moscow if they had enough commitment to it - by that time the Soviets were just too worn out.
Strategic bombing would’ve played a role. The effectiveness of the strategic bombing the allies did against Germany were exaggerated in our history because we want to play up the role we played in Europe in WW2. However, Germany gradually hardened their industries against air attack - the Soviets moved theirs east. Since they were free from attack due to being out of range of German bombers, they probably did not harden their production facilities or worry about redundancy. A lot of them were makeshift - there are instances where out of sheer desperation Soviet workers would assemble parts out in the cold with basic machine tools for lack of production facilities - and hence a strategic bombing campaign with a huge fleet of B17s and then B29s could’ve been quite a shock to their (still retooling) industry.
More effective were the specific campaigns against transport and resources, like the oil and rail campaigns of 1944. I assume the US would’ve learned this lesson and since Soviet transport was so much more reliant on rail, would be extremely effective in disrupting Soviet supply.
Really, it’s just a matter of how much the allies would want it. The Soviets would undoubtedly fight with everything they had, but they were in a poor strategic position. There’s no chance the allies would’ve been pushed out of Europe - and whether or not they wanted to push the Soviets out of Germany, eastern Europe, or just wipe them out is a matter of how tolerant they would be to losses.
I don’t get the logic of that assertion. D’you figure the US *let *the Russians steal plans for the bomb because it was peacetime and everything was hunky dory ?
I’m not even convinced by the assertion that they couldn’t have figured out atomic bombs on their own. They had the science right, and a nuclear program of their own. Stealing existing plans was simply faster, more cost efficient, and an overall more sensical decision in the context.
Peacetime developpment of fighting gear is slower. Especially when the majority of funds goes towards rebuilding a semblance of civilian life, as opposed to desperately scrambling war tech.
Sold, not gave. Had there been a more pressing need, what makes you think they wouldn’t have stolen them instead and/or boosted the research on captured German jets ? Or downed *British *jets, for that matter.
Again, I really don’t get that argument at all. A vicious war going on and supply lines threatened is precisely what prompted the Brits to develop their jets in the first place. Hell, even as the Reich was crumbling everywhere, new Wunderwaffen were being produced and tested. Necessity is the mother of invention.
We were still nominally allies when the Soviets stole the plans. The people who basically stole the plans for them did so in that environment…and also with the feeling that the Soviets WERE allies.
Also, whether or not they managed to steal the plans, they wouldn’t have had the resources or luxury to develop such a weapon if they were in a fight for their life…certainly not in the same time frame that they DID develop it in a peace time environment. Think it through…the Soviets couldn’t fight yet another desperate war with their logistics lines and production stretched to the max (no more free stuff from the US) AND develop atom bombs, jet fighters, long range bombers, etc etc. This isn’t Axis and Allies here but the real world. And, come to think of it, I could never really afford to develop new technologies in Axis and Allies either…
What is your conviction based on though? Why did they steal the plans if they could just develop it on their own? I have no doubt that they could do the basic science, though they were pretty far behind even there. But the production part took the US and massive resources to do. Oh, once we put in the donkey work it was easy for others to pick up from there, no doubt…though even today there is more engineering in the things than you seem to realize. That’s why when a country produces one they really like to test them to make sure they have it right.
No, it’s not. You can focus resource on it that you can’t during war time, unless you have a LOT of extra resources laying about. Like the US did. It helped that our industrial facilities were not getting the crap pounded out of them while we were trying to develop them. But an atomic project is a massive undertaking, using a lot of resources…resources the Soviets would need to be using to support their armies in the field. Where do you think the Soviets would get the extra resources to develop all this stuff…even assuming they COULD develop them from where they would be starting all on their own?
Sold and gave. It was part of one of the treaties, and I don’t think the Brits were particularly keen to do it when it came down to it. Regardless, they wouldn’t have done so if they were at war. Sure, they might have stolen plans (though they might not have too), and they certainly would have captured German jets. But they wouldn’t have all the other tech that came with what the Brits gave them (engineers, production plans, etc)…and, again, where would they find the resources to do it while fighting a war?
Again, I’m not saying (in this case) that they couldn’t, eventually, have produced a jet…but it’s ludicrous to point to their production of the Mig-15 and say they would have been able to do the same and in the same time frame given a major war.
Both the Germans and the Brits were developing jet engines BEFORE the war, man. And look how long it took both, with that kind of head start (afaik the Soviets jet program was either non-existent or at best a small side project before or during the war), to not only develop but produce jets…and neither side ever managed to produce decisive numbers DURING the war.
And I’m of the considered opinion that most of the Soviet armor was superior to absolutely everything the US had, machine for machine, at pretty much any point in the war. The advantages of the Sherman were in crew comfort (perhaps that’s why they might be considered a reward?), radios, and possibly in ease of repair/replacing parts. The advantages of the T-34 were in gun power, armor, silhouette, weatherproofing, and perhaps ability to maneuver in marshy ground.
I’ve heard it debated, though frankly I think the T-34 was better. I believe SeniorBeef is referring to the later up-gunned version of the Sherman, which was a pretty good tank. The Israeli’s actually used it for years post war.
Of course, by the end of the war both the US and UK had better thanks that were just getting into the production line when the Germans folded. THOSE would have been the tanks that actually faced off against the Soviets. The Brit tank especially was probably one of the finest produced during the war, and the only reason it doesn’t get the cred it’s due is because it came into production only as the Germans were going down, and so didn’t see a lot of combat. We also had some very nice tank destroyers at the end of the war which were as good as anything anyone else had. Also, US tactics weren’t to meet the enemy head on a la Kursk and pound until something gave. Our tactics relied more on maneuver (probably because that was the only way a Sherman could survive against something nasty like a Panther or Tiger).
Regardless of how good or bad the relative tanks were though, it’s the logistics that would doom the Soviets in Eastern Europe and Germany. They could have Abrams and it wouldn’t matter if they couldn’t get fuel and ammo to the vehicles and food to the crews…and they wouldn’t be able to do that with the US and UK cutting up their supply lines…assuming we are talking about this theoretical war going off sometime fairly soon after the Soviets took Berlin. Given a couple of years that would change, and it would be a whole different ball game. Personally, I still think the Soviets would lose in the end (and obviously the Soviets agreed, or they would have tried something), but it would have been a hell of a lot worse if this war started in '48 or '49 than if it started in '45 or '46.
Meant to add in the first paragraph that the Israeli Sherman’s did in fact face T-34’s (the up-gunned 85 mm versions) in the '48 (and '56 IIRC) war, and also that up-gunned Sherman’s also faced up-gunned T-34 in the Korean war (IIRC…sorry, no cite, posting from my phone and hard to look stuff up).
At least in the Israeli case the Sherman’s kicked the T-34’s asses…though crew training and motivation were obviously factors.
I already stated them, and so did you right there : if someone else has already done the heavy lifting, why do it yourself ? Why incur the costs of R&D, testing, etc… if you can just copy/paste ?
The Germans were getting pounded, and still they managed to get radar, ballistic rockets, elektroboote, Panther tanks, jet planes… all based on pre-war research, I’ll grant you that, but the war sped things up mightily. It’s true that in a war, much funds and industrial capacity are diverted towards pure production of fighting material, but at the same time civilian concerns take a back seat : schools, hospitals, entertainment and longer lasting light bulbs all neatly fall under the category of “our brave boys are dying on the Eastern Front ! Shut up and get with the program !”
Same argument is valid for the Brits and Yanks : yes, they were tentatively starting to turn out jets and Pershing tanks, but in an instant hostilities scenario (“Jenkins, Reichstag, chap with the flag, five rounds rapid.”), they too would have been tied to whatever material was at hand right here, right now. So it’s either instant hostilities with WW2 gear on both sides, or a few years of peace & consolidation : Mig-15s.
And FTR, I can agree with you that in their haste to Berlin, the Russians extended too far, too fast - which means that 1) they weren’t planning on going further and 2) it would, indeed, have been feasible to push them back out of Germany, maybe even Poland in the short term. But then, the Allies would have been over extended themselves, counter attack, etc… which brings us to my aforementionned bloody, long, grinding war of attrition.
I can think of Napoleon and…well, Napoleon. The Poles invaded what was then commonly thought of as Russia in the Soviet-Polish war of the early 20’s and the Russians didn’t really lose or win big in that one.
I see no evidence that the capital of Sweden was taken after Charles IX’s attempt, and the Russians lost World War 1.
The Mongols and Vikings also managed to capture Moscow without notable problems.
So, your assertion is that the Russians would have preferred to steal the information, but if push came to shove they would have just as easily been able to create it themselves…yes? And if I want logic to back this up from you, I should simply copy and paste your assertion to satisfy what I’m looking for? Ok.
But the point is the Russians DIDN’T have a large amount of research and testing done on either the jet engine OR the atomic bomb before our theoretical war kicks off (assuming it kicks off in '45 or '46)…so, they are going to have to start from scratch (well, with jets they wouldn’t have had to start completely from scratch). The Germans were able to do most of those projects because they already had the ground work done, and the projects were started BEFORE they really started to get the shit kicked out of them.
And BTW, the Panther tank was developed from captured Russian tank examples and it took quite a lot of development time to get it prototyped, tested and put into production…and it was pretty bad when it first came off the assembly lines. And this was a TANK…something the Germans already had experience with. Unlike the Russians and jet fighters, something they didn’t have a lot of experience with. How much longer would it have taken them to get something like that developed, tested, produced and deployed? Too long IMHO. And the atomic bomb was, simply put, beyond them in this scenario. It would have taken them years or even a decade to develop it all on their own, given the resources they would have had available in a full on war between them and the US/UK.
[QUOTE]
Same argument is valid for the Brits and Yanks : yes, they were tentatively starting to turn out jets and Pershing tanks, but in an instant hostilities scenario (“Jenkins, Reichstag, chap with the flag, five rounds rapid.”), they too would have been tied to whatever material was at hand right here, right now. So it’s either instant hostilities with WW2 gear on both sides, or a few years of peace & consolidation : Mig-15s.
[QUOTE]
Huh? The Brits already had jets in the production pipeline, and the US already had the Pershing’s in the production pipeline. The Brits also had the Chieftain starting to come into production. The US was already developing their own jet by the end of the war based on our own program, but I doubt WE would have gotten them into production either assuming this war kicked off early…we would have relied on the fighters we DID have in the production pipeline, at least for the first year or so. The Mig-15 wasn’t even a gleem in the Rooskies eyes at that time of this theoretical war. They had started developing crude jets in, IIRC, '44, but they were using underpowered German examples. Their breakthrough came AFTER the war, when the Brits gave them a better power plant. That’s what enabled them to design and produce the Mig-15. In 1949. And this was in peace time, when they could allocate the resources necessary to such a project.
So, without the help of the British and during a shooting war, you assert that they could have done the same things…only faster! And you base that on your mere assertion that war time production and development is more rapid than peace time.
How do you figure the allies would have been over extended? You are making no sense here. WE hadn’t pushed our logistics for hundreds of miles in a do or die push to take the enemies capital. Look at a map, man! France was a friendly power, and we had staged up enormous amounts of supplies and logistics support through it. Behind that our ship logistics was pretty much invulnerable, as was our primary logistics supply area…the British Isles.
Contrast that to where the Russian army was when they took Berlin. They were hundreds of miles from their own territory moving through occupied Germany and former German countries in Eastern Europe. They were at the end of a long ass supply tether…a tether that could be cut by anyone with the capability to raid their logistics and supply routes. Something we’d been doing to the Germans for years, so something we had experience with.
It wouldn’t have been long, drawn out our particularly bloody (for us)…not unless we actually tried to go in after them and take Russia and occupy it. THAT would have been beyond us, IMHO. Leaving that aside though, it would have been simply a matter of cutting off the Red Army and forcing them to retreat (under fire) back to where they could better secure their lines of communication and logistics. Which means back to Russia. They would have needed to build back up for a new offensive, all the while we’d have been pounding their supply lines over Russia, attacking their troop concentrations, and generally making their lives miserable. Like what we did to the Germans. And this all leaves aside the use of atomic bombs, which I think would have pretty much ended the war right there. No way the Russians would have tried to push past their borders through all that AND selective use of atomic bombs on their main supply and logistics concentrations and rail heads. Stalin would have pulled back and sued for peace.
Anyway, I’ve said all this already, and you seem unconvinced, so I guess we should just agree to disagree. To me it’s blindingly obvious that the Russians could not have even held what they had captured had the allies opened hostilities in '45 or '46, and would have been forced to retreat back to Russia…and it would have been a brutal, painful retreat for them too, under constant harassment from US and UK bomber and fighter bomber attacks and being nipped at by US and UK ground forces. It’s equally obvious to me that, given such a war, the Soviets would have had other priorities (like survival) on their resources, and so wouldn’t have been able to develop the weapons or systems they DID develop in our universe.
What I wonder is, would the US/UK settle for pushing the Russians back into the Soviet Union, or would they try to push them back into Russia proper? That is, would freeing only the newly occupied states in Eastern Europe be the goal, or would they try to free the occupied republics (Baltic states, Ukraine, etc) as well? Would freeing the republics even be possible?
How would Manchuria and Mongolia be disposed? Both were divided between an Inner (going to China) and Outer (going to the Soviets) in our timeline. Would China try to annex them entirely? Would the US/UK intervene either way?
How about Korea? I expect the US would not tolerate Soviet occupation. Would China tolerate a Korea completely US-controlled?
Also, has anyone tried this scenario in a war game (I’m thinking the Hearts of Iron series, but there’s others)?
I think trying to push into Russia would neatly reverse the problem, and it would be the US and UK on the end of a long ass logistics line that would be highly vulnerable to attack. Also, I doubt that the US and UK could have even gotten popular support for tossing the Russians out of the Eastern European countries, let alone a long grinding war through Russia and yet another country that would need to be occupied post war.
Had we gotten the support to kick them out of Eastern Europe I don’t see the problem with unifying Korea though. China in '45-'46 really wouldn’t have had anything to say about it one way or the other, and assuming we could cow Stalin et al in their retreat from Eastern Europe I don’t see why the same wouldn’t be true there as well. No idea how a unified Korea would play out historically.
Don’t know of any war games that ‘what-if’-ed this particular question, at least not any computer games. I seem to recall there was an Avalon Hill game that played out a war early on between the the US/UK/Western Europe and the Soviets, but don’t remember exactly what time period it was now.
discussion of the use of nuclear bombs against cities misses the point. The most significant air power related innovation of WW2 was the use of conventional bombs to destroy railroad junctions. American bombing slowed down and sometimes paralyzed railroad traffic in Germany and France, significantly speeding up the German collapse.
In a war against Soviet Union the logic would have been the same. Send air carriers into North Sea and Black Sea and bomb the railroads across Ukraine, Belarus, Poland etc. Basically shut down railroad traffic in Eastern Europe. Once that happens, the mighty Soviet army ends up digging in where they are located and spending their free time foraging for food in the neighborhood. As for the mighty Soviet navy… well, there wasn’t much of a Soviet navy after the war. E.g. the Black Sea navy was mostly destroyed by the Germans. Indeed, the Soviets never expected to be able to win a naval war against America even in the best circumstances, let alone at that particular moment in time.
Not sure just how far the Soviets got but their a-bomb project started during WWII (1942). Granted it was not huge like the Manhattan Project but the Soviets were aware there was an a-bomb program likely afoot in the US. Indeed they gained valuable intelligence which helped direct their efforts and avoid dealing with issues the US had to figure out on their own.
I am guessing that once the US demonstrated the a-bomb Stalin would be falling over himself to get one of his own. Even if he was in a war with the US in eastern Europe at the time an a-bomb would likely be the only thing that would save his ass. As such I believe he’d absolutely dedicate substantial resources to getting one no matter how it impinged on other efforts.
With an a-bomb in his pocket he could stop the war outright regardless of how well the US/UK was doing (I strongly suspect Stalin would have no issues using the bomb willy-nilly as suited his purposes).
Well I wasn’t thinking of invading Russia itself, but the republics that had already been forcibly annexed by the Soviets. If we’re attacking their supply lines to force a pullback, would we be happy once they pulled back out of Poland and Romania? Or would we keep applying pressure to make them release Lithuania and Ukraine, for example?
I just remembered the Konigsberg ethnic cleansing–surely we’d have prevented that in the alternate timeline. Would that territory stay German?
I think the Ukraine would be beyond what the US/UK forces could keep forces in the field, but surely with bases in Scandinavia, we could force the Soviets to release the Baltic states? I don’t think we’d need many forces occupying any newly-freed states. The local population would not be especially hostile; we’d only need police forces to maintain order, rather than subjection.
Jumping in late, my opinion (answering the OP’s two questions in reverse order) is that the United States and its allies could have defeated the Soviet Union in 1945 but it would have taken at least an effort equivalent to WWII. Figure at least five more years of fighting and a couple million casualties. So the answer to the first question is there’s no way such a war would have happened.