A different outcome to WW2

[long live usa]

another reason why the invasion of russia failed is because the germans never had an effective long range bomber they never had enough and relied heavily on the stuka(a very good aircraft)this was why they couls not bomb paased the urals

 

[long live usa]

you know there was another possible outcome to WW2 the soviets pushing the british and Americans right back across the english channel!!that was hitlers plan to capture the supplies at antwerp and try to convince the Americans and british that the russians were the real enemy i know churchill had planned a "operation unthinkable"to push the russians out of europe it was logistically impossible,even if after the battle of the buldge(yes nearly impossible) the the germans british and Americans wouldent have been able to stop the russians from eating western europe(those tigers and 88s would have been nice in defence positions and took alot of t-34s!)but the soviets with 13 milion troops would have steam rolled western europe

 

[eu2dude]

you know there was another possible outcome to WW2 the soviets pushing the british and Americans right back across the english channel!!that was hitlers plan to capture the supplies at antwerp and try to convince the Americans and british that the russians were the real enemy i know churchill had planned a "operation unthinkable"to push the russians out of europe it was logistically impossible,even if after the battle of the buldge(yes nearly impossible) the the germans british and Americans wouldent have been able to stop the russians from eating western europe(those tigers and 88s would have been nice in defence positions and took alot of t-34s!)but the soviets with 13 milion troops would have steam rolled western europe

This is a popular thought-exercise, and one that, if it had happened, almost certainly would have resulted in a Soviet defeat. While the Red Army in 1945 was huge, battle-hardened and experienced, it was also brittle. Keep in mind that even in the last days, the Germans were able contest it; Zhukov was stopped cold by the Germans at Seelow Heights and only Konev's falnk attack unhinged him.

The WAllies had tactical air strength, strategic air reach, and masses of extremely high quality fighters. The Soviet logistical network was not only vulnerable to air, but made in the USA; once a war starts, the supplies that keep it going are stopped.

That being said, the issue is doubt. The Soviets had awesome quantities of armor and mechansed infantry, and experienced officers leading them. So did the western Allies, and, unlike the USSR, the USA could keep gearing up.

I see an initial surge by the Red Army - maybe as far as the Rhine, followed by an insane battle of material in western Germany. Meanwhile, the USSR is pummeled by long-range US and British bombers. If the US/British hold, then the USSR has lost; once the US gears up, its over.

The other quantity is of course the Bomb. In 1945, I have no doubt that the USA would use it - early and often - against observed USSR ground concentrations. Taking out a tank division with a single shot would be unnerving - even to Soviet commanders used to massive losses.

Mike Turcotte

 

[long live usa]

This is a popular thought-exercise, and one that, if it had happened, almost certainly would have resulted in a Soviet defeat. While the Red Army in 1945 was huge, battle-hardened and experienced, it was also brittle. Keep in mind that even in the last days, the Germans were able contest it; Zhukov was stopped cold by the Germans at Seelow Heights and only Konev's falnk attack unhinged him.

The WAllies had tactical air strength, strategic air reach, and masses of extremely high quality fighters. The Soviet logistical network was not only vulnerable to air, but made in the USA; once a war starts, the supplies that keep it going are stopped.

That being said, the issue is doubt. The Soviets had awesome quantities of armor and mechansed infantry, and experienced officers leading them. So did the western Allies, and, unlike the USSR, the USA could keep gearing up.

I see an initial surge by the Red Army - maybe as far as the Rhine, followed by an insane battle of material in western Germany. Meanwhile, the USSR is pummeled by long-range US and British bombers. If the US/British hold, then the USSR has lost; once the US gears up, its over.

The other quantity is of course the Bomb. In 1945, I have no doubt that the USA would use it - early and often - against observed USSR ground concentrations. Taking out a tank division with a single shot would be unnerving - even to Soviet commanders used to massive losses.

Mike Turcotte

look at the buldge the germans nearly exhausted in strength gave the allied command a big scare,also true if the us economy was to be fully geared up the soviets were doomed the qeastion is would it take the soviets that long to take europe,look at how fast they drove the japanese out of manchuria!!,also nuclear weapons have little use on the battle field they are politicol weapons,i read useing one on an advancing army(usefully) would be somthing like one in one hundred

 

[Rich]

you know there was another possible outcome to WW2 the soviets pushing the british and Americans right back across the english channel!!that was hitlers plan to capture the supplies at antwerp and try to convince the Americans and british that the russians were the real enemy i know churchill had planned a "operation unthinkable"to push the russians out of europe it was logistically impossible,even if after the battle of the buldge(yes nearly impossible) the the germans british and Americans wouldent have been able to stop the russians from eating western europe(those tigers and 88s would have been nice in defence positions and took alot of t-34s!)but the soviets with 13 milion troops would have steam rolled western europe

This is a rumor that exists in the fantasy world only. The Russians depleted their army by impaling it on Berlin recklessly, and they then went on a drunken,raping rampage and were in no position to mount any kind of offensive in 1945 towards the Allies. Their lines of communications and supply were stretched and their soldiers would have balked at the thought of attacking the western juggernaut. The Western Navies were so powerful by that time the Russians could basically forget the use of their ports.

And a juggernaut it was. The western army was unmatched in mobility and firepower. The Yank and Brit air forces would have ruled the skies in short order and would have struck deep into Russian industry. The mobile and nimble allied forces would have opened a front from the south and threatened Soviet oil supplies and food stuffs. There's also the fact that the Russians had suffered more in the war then anyone else and the last thing they wanted was more fighting. Had they attacked the west and lost territory I'm willing to bet Democracy would have sprouted in areas formerly communist.

The Russian army was a first rate fighting force. But by April 1945 it was in no position to attack the Battle Hardened Yank, Brit, and Canuck armies. All of whom had kept their discipline following their victory. Lets face it, Stalin bled his army needlessly in that hasty attack on Berlin. Then of course, the fearless Russian soldiers found all the wine cellars and women. With Uncle Joe's blessing.

 

[long live usa]

This is a rumor that exists in the fantasy world only. The Russians depleted their army by impaling it on Berlin recklessly, and they then went on a drunken,raping rampage and were in no position to mount any kind of offensive in 1945 towards the Allies. Their lines of communications and supply were stretched and their soldiers would have balked at the thought of attacking the western juggernaut. The Western Navies were so powerful by that time the Russians could basically forget the use of their ports.

And a juggernaut it was. The western army was unmatched in mobility and firepower. The Yank and Brit air forces would have ruled the skies in short order and would have struck deep into Russian industry. The mobile and nimble allied forces would have opened a front from the south and threatened Soviet oil supplies and food stuffs. There's also the fact that the Russians had suffered more in the war then anyone else and the last thing they wanted was more fighting. Had they attacked the west and lost territory I'm willing to bet Democracy would have sprouted in areas formerly communist.

The Russian army was a first rate fighting force. But by April 1945 it was in no position to attack the Battle Hardened Yank, Brit, and Canuck armies. All of whom had kept their discipline following their victory. Lets face it, Stalin bled his army needlessly in that hasty attack on Berlin. Then of course, the fearless Russian soldiers found all the wine cellars and women. With Uncle Joe's blessing.

the russians wasted men and material in alot more places then berlin that one massive artillery barrage that landed on nothing,steelow heights,20 russian soldiers(or maybe it was 50)for every American/british soldier,but the allies sending in thier air forces into russian territory would not be as simple as bombing runs over germany,this is what churrchill was so scared of a russian atack had every one on edge

 

[Big-E]

I don't know if the Allies could have stopped a Soviet push thru Western Europe after the fall of Berlin. The Soviet army was never more effective as it was in that year. It really would have come down to air superiority and a Soviet blitzkreig. The allies would have air dominance but in WWII this was not the end of the world. The Russians would have more men and good tanks. While the US and Brits were finally starting to put good tanks on the battlefield they were still dominated by the old Shermans with a crummy upgrade package. The T-34s would have had them for lunch and the T-34s were numbered enough to defeat the superiority of Sherman numbers. The Allies would have had to stop a Soviet breakout dead in its tracks in order to reinforce from America, otherwise Western Europe would be communist.

 

[long live usa]

yes the outcome would have depended on weather or not an atack could be stoped head on and those t-34s were much better than the shermans(except maybe the firefly)air superiority would be a factor but it would not severly bog a soviet atack,the allied navys could not have done much except to try and blockade major russian ports if the russians had not steam rolled europe yet

 

[Rich]

The Russians wouldn't have just faced Shermans in 1945. We produced 2200 M26 Pershings in 1945 alone, and since the Germans didnt eat Shermans for lunch why would anyone think the Russians would. The Sherman was a better tank then a lot of people think if used correctly. Ike had over 90 full strength combat divisions available to him including 5 airborne and 25 armored. In 1944 alone Yank industry pumped out almost 40,000 fighter aircraft and 35,000 bombers.

The Russians had consistently outran their lines of supply and communications. Both of which stretched out over vast distances in a situation made worse by German scorched earth and a real possibility of partisan activity in Eastern Europe should a conflict with the western allies start up. The Yanks and Tommies on the other hand had consolidated a chain of supply that was unparalled in warfare. Our forces were far, far more mobile and our dominance of the tactical airspace would have been complete thus applying even more pressure on the Russian supply chain.

Another point. If Stalin had been foolish enough to try this he would have sacrificed a great deal in the far east in resource rich Siberia/Manchuria. He never could have allocated the divisions needed to occupy this "freebie" if entangled in a conflict with the Allies and a Yank army that alone was almost the size of his own. Conversely he would have been risking much by weakening the far Eastern front.

While its true we had forces tied up in the Asian theatre its also true that by April 1945 Japan was slowly starving to death, increasingly helpless against a naval blockade it had no defense against. Tinian and Iwo Jima were staging B-29s and Okinawa would be shortly over run so Japan would be destroyed as a modern society within months. We could easily defer any offensive operations, other then containment, in order to deal more effectively with a Russian offensive in Europe. In the previous 4 years the Soviets lost over 10% of their population in the war including 14 million military deaths. You really have to wonder about the level of enthusiasm the average soldier would have had if told they would now have to fight former allies because a dictator wanted them to. Especially with the breakdown in discipline already plaguing the Red army in the months following Germanys surrender.

And finally Yank and Brit forces were well positioned on the southern flank , The Middle East, North Africa, and had complete control of the Mediterranean. Like any modern military Russia's achilles heel was its fuel production chain, especially its Rumanian and Caspian oil facilities that were well within the range of our Southern front bombers and LR escort fighters. We had just paralyzed Germany and Japan with our fuel war and there is no question the Soviet Union would have gotten a similar strategy.

Ive seen variations of this argument in many forums and almost to the one they are expressed in one paragraph statements without supporting facts. Most cant even quote the rough balance of forces between the allies now turned antagonists. In other words if someone here thinks the reds would have "wiped us off the map" please take the time to explain exactly how, and with what.

Not that it matters. On 16 July 1945, in the New Mexico desert, events unfolded that made the question of who had the better medium tank pretty irrelevant. Had they attacked the Soviet empire would not have made it to 1946.

 

[RubiconNZ]

If only...

I think that it would of being better if they had duked it out at the time, would of saved alot of issues, Eastern Europe owuld of fared alot better and South America, Asia and Africa would of been saved the trouble of Bi-proxy fighting between the Big 2, not mention the Trillions spent on defence acquistion,got us to the moon I guess.

 

[mikehotwheelz]

It's all about timing

One aspect no-one has yet mentioned is the disastrous role the Italians played in Hitler's war plans.
At around the same time as the "Battle of Britain" was raging, Mussolini was growing increasingly envious of Hitler's military achievements. Embarking on a military expedition of his own he attacked Yugoslavia but soon got badly mauled. This prompted Hitler to intervene and aid his facist ally by sending a large number of divisions into crush the Yugoslavs. To a large extent this operation was a success (although Yugoslav partisans would tie down thousands of German troops for the rest of the war).
However the most devastating outcome of this diversion was in the delaying of "Operation Barbarossa" until too late into 1941. There was no longer the time to successfully complete the drive to Moscow before one of the coldest recorded Russian winters brought the whole operation to a grinding halt.
Once the Russians were given the time to recover from the initial shock, Hitler's plans for the East were pretty much finished.
I believe the other main reason Hitler failed in the East touched on briefly by other posters was due to the xenophobic, racist actions of the Einsatzgruppen and Gestapo; particularly in the Ukraine, where, if properly exploited the native's hatred of Stalin could have provided massive amounts of willing manpower. After Stalin's purges in which he killed over 7 million of his own people there were many in the Soviet Union who, initially, saw the Germans as liberators.

 

[long live usa]

again with the nukes at that time we only had 2 if any it took alot of time to produce just one at that time,they have little battle field use dropping one on an advancing horde of russian tanks is easier said than done,even if you got 2 direct hits on an advancing russian army there would be more were those came from,also useing the nukes on russia would have off set plans with japan remember the timeline im talking about

 

[long live usa]

One aspect no-one has yet mentioned is the disastrous role the Italians played in Hitler's war plans.
At around the same time as the "Battle of Britain" was raging, Mussolini was growing increasingly envious of Hitler's military achievements. Embarking on a military expedition of his own he attacked Yugoslavia but soon got badly mauled. This prompted Hitler to intervene and aid his facist ally by sending a large number of divisions into crush the Yugoslavs. To a large extent this operation was a success (although Yugoslav partisans would tie down thousands of German troops for the rest of the war).
However the most devastating outcome of this diversion was in the delaying of "Operation Barbarossa" until too late into 1941. There was no longer the time to successfully complete the drive to Moscow before one of the coldest recorded Russian winters brought the whole operation to a grinding halt.
Once the Russians were given the time to recover from the initial shock, Hitler's plans for the East were pretty much finished.
I believe the other main reason Hitler failed in the East touched on briefly by other posters was due to the xenophobic, racist actions of the Einsatzgruppen and Gestapo; particularly in the Ukraine, where, if properly exploited the native's hatred of Stalin could have provided massive amounts of willing manpower. After Stalin's purges in which he killed over 7 million of his own people there were many in the Soviet Union who, initially, saw the Germans as liberators.

yes the actions of the italian army were VERY PITIFUL the germans had to rescue an italian effort more than once,in north africa rommel had to save them,and if he had enough men and material to begin with he could have drove the british out of eygypt

 

[Big-E]

yes the actions of the italian army were VERY PITIFUL the germans had to rescue an italian effort more than once,in north africa rommel had to save them,and if he had enough men and material to begin with he could have drove the british out of eygypt

Italians in WWII = pathetic, when I heard the stories of Italians taking beatings from Ethiopians I almost laughed. Hitler said about Italy as an ally " It's better to have weak allies than no allies at all" and after he had to spend so much manpower defending Sicily he said "We'll, maybe I was mistaken."

 

[long live usa]

its true italy's very poor performance in WW2 was not matched until the iraqis performance in the gulf war

 

[Big-E]

The Russians wouldn't have just faced Shermans in 1945. We produced 2200 M26 Pershings in 1945 alone, and since the Germans didnt eat Shermans for lunch why would anyone think the Russians would. The Sherman was a better tank then a lot of people think if used correctly. Ike had over 90 full strength combat divisions available to him including 5 airborne and 25 armored. In 1944 alone Yank industry pumped out almost 40,000 fighter aircraft and 35,000 bombers.

The 2200 Pershings would not have been shipped by the time USSR rolled over Western Europe if they kept going.

Shermans not eaten for lunch by Germans... [Admin edit: Please becareful with what type of language you use. Being in the professionals group, you are expected to know and follow the rules and set an example for others.] My grandfather was a Sherman driver, he and 13 other Shermans faced off against 1 Tiger... Yes I said 1 Tiger That 1 German tank knocked out my GFs Sherman and 9 others, the remaining tanks picked up the survivors and hauled ass!!!. They couldn't penetrate the frontal armor and they couldn't manuever in back to hit her weak side. I've heard that story for the last twenty plus years so I believe it to be true since he would never tell such a lie.

The T-34 was much more successful agianst Tiger/Panther tanks than Shermans... this is fact.

By the end of the war the Soviets built 40,000 T-34s, considering the US total of shermans was only 50,000 (including allied production) I think Russia takes the land war b/c shermans sucked against heavy MBTs, they just weren't big enough! The T-34 was the premier heavy production tank of WWII, not the Sherman. The Soviets were the ones who did the heaviest fighting against the Nazis not the US! The breakout from Normandy only faced the pathetic remnants of the Third Reich that were not on the Eastern Front.

The Russians had consistently outran their lines of supply and communications. Both of which stretched out over vast distances in a situation made worse by German scorched earth and a real possibility of partisan activity in Eastern Europe should a conflict with the western allies start up. The Yanks and Tommies on the other hand had consolidated a chain of supply that was unparalled in warfare. Our forces were far, far more mobile and our dominance of the tactical airspace would have been complete thus applying even more pressure on the Russian supply chain.

Another point. If Stalin had been foolish enough to try this he would have sacrificed a great deal in the far east in resource rich Siberia/Manchuria. He never could have allocated the divisions needed to occupy this "freebie" if entangled in a conflict with the Allies and a Yank army that alone was almost the size of his own. Conversely he would have been risking much by weakening the far Eastern front.

Ok lets examine these statements... Russians outran their supply-line, Russians didn't need many supplies compared to Western forces, this is well known. If German scorched earth didn't stop Stalin from taking Berlin then it wouldn't stop them from going into a relatively green Western Europe. Eastern Europe at the time saw Russia as their saviors from Hitler... no revolts at that time would happen. Our forces were not more mobile, give me an example if that was the case, you can't use naval deployment b/c that took months to years to plan and execute.

Stalin didn't need to occupy Siberia and Manchuria, after 1939 at the battle of Halhin Gol Gen. Zhukov had destroyed the Manchukuo 23rd and killed 61,000 Jap soldiers and forced them into full retreat at the loss of only 7,000 of his own men. Japan signed a non-agression pact after getting their ass handed to them on a silver plater. The whole time Japan had air superiority but still lost, in 1939-44 air superiority didn't mean didly in ground combat.

While its true we had forces tied up in the Asian theatre its also true that by April 1945 Japan was slowly starving to death, increasingly helpless against a naval blockade it had no defense against. Tinian and Iwo Jima were staging B-29s and Okinawa would be shortly over run so Japan would be destroyed as a modern society within months. We could easily defer any offensive operations, other then containment, in order to deal more effectively with a Russian offensive in Europe. In the previous 4 years the Soviets lost over 10% of their population in the war including 14 million military deaths. You really have to wonder about the level of enthusiasm the average soldier would have had if told they would now have to fight former allies because a dictator wanted them to. Especially with the breakdown in discipline already plaguing the Red army in the months following Germanys surrender.

With as little food and supplies as they had I'm suprised they went went as far as they did. I guess the threat of having your wife raped your children killed and permenant exile in Siberia was enough to get them to fight forever. The Red Army would fight until no one was left, that's just the way it was.

And finally Yank and Brit forces were well positioned on the southern flank , The Middle East, North Africa, and had complete control of the Mediterranean. Like any modern military Russia's achilles heel was its fuel production chain, especially its Rumanian and Caspian oil facilities that were well within the range of our Southern front bombers and LR escort fighters. We had just paralyzed Germany and Japan with our fuel war and there is no question the Soviet Union would have gotten a similar strategy.

The Russkies didn't need the Med, they needed no sea-trade at all with Eastern Europe under their heels. Do you really think the allies had bombers that could hit Caspian oil facilities... I don't think so. The only reason those countries within bomber range joined the allies was to join the winning team at the Paris Peace treaties. If the Soviets had continued I'm sure those alliances would have been shattered with the Soviets on their borders. The Soviets had more fuel than was sitting in the Middle East, that was the least of their worries.

Ive seen variations of this argument in many forums and almost to the one they are expressed in one paragraph statements without supporting facts. Most cant even quote the rough balance of forces between the allies now turned antagonists. In other words if someone here thinks the reds would have "wiped us off the map" please take the time to explain exactly how, and with what.

Not that it matters. On 16 July 1945, in the New Mexico desert, events unfolded that made the question of who had the better medium tank pretty irrelevant. Had they attacked the Soviet empire would not have made it to 1946.

I am rather offended that you think my arguments are un-original. I have yet to argue WWII outcomes on any other forum and have yet to see this on other boards b/c I don't frequent them. I have given you several paragraphs debating every single point you made with primary and secondary sources. I am a history major and will back up my arguments with fact when possible, but you must accept that in hypotheticals as this you cannot rely on facts b/c they don't all apply to unreal scenerios.

It took a long time to make more atomic bombs, I doubt it would have stopped a suicidal Stalin before he overan Western Europe.

 

[long live usa]

it was very hard to knock out an tiger in a defene position but the sherman was not the only one vulnerable to it there are stories of tigers on the russian front knocking out over 50 t-34s!(2 tiger tanks were confirmed to have done this)and the deadly 88 caused dred on both sides(but the tiger was not as effective on the offense as the t-34),also i love America but i still think we did damn little(land combat wise)COMPARED to what the soviets did against the germans

 

[abramsteve]

Could the high numbers of T-34s lost to Tigers be attributed to poor tactics? Its stories like this that always lead me to think of the Soviet army of World War II as being a blunt instrument, which relied on weight of numbers to accomplish anything. This maybe completley unfair as I know little in detail of their battles.

With everything appearing to be in his favor, why didnt Stalin roll on into Western Europe?

 

[mikehotwheelz]

They came on in the same old way, and we shot them down in the same old way

I think your analogy of a blunt instrument is correct. From reading numerous first hand accounts of German tankers and grenadier's the Russian's seemed to rely on weight of numbers and showed little in the way of innovation below brigade level.

 

[long live usa]

the soviet tactics often were blunt simply atacking along a broad front dissregarding losses,it differed much from the german tactic of encirclement thats why i think some german commanders were the best of the war(unlike patton and macarther who only won because of more men and material not superior tactics) and i think most german soldiers werent nazis but simply fighting for there homland,also tactics efected it some but in my opinion in an offensive atack a t-34 was better than a tiger,but if that tiger is dug in and holding a position it is not going to be overun by a t-34