RE: Patton's Dream scenario

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Patton's Dream scenario

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Patton's Dream scenario

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 3:43:22 PM

Greywolf

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/15/2000
Status: offline

Well, Well, Well...

Potent argument on both side...

Just one tiny thing you forgot : On what side would Germany stand and when will the Allies broke up ? after Germany total conquest or before Germany by offering a surrendering in exchange on a switch side ?

I dont think the all mighty US Strategical Air Forces ( that doesnt manage to kill the German industry by the way, infrastructures and supply were destroyed by Tactical Air Forces ) would have done any damage to USSR industrial basis, set deeply in Ural at this time. When you look at the efficiency against Germany and relatively close to their bases with good intel on what is where and the bombing effect I dont think US could have mounted any kind of strategical airwar against USSR at this time.

Manpower wasn't that good on both side, USSR was more depleted but just got the joining of several small East-European nation that could have supplied some troups. UK was definitely out of the war and probably the civil government wont have been able to maintain it in the war, definitely not starting a war against USSR.

France wont had supported an aggresive war either.

I think the Air War would have been pretty balanced with the Allies having actually to suffer from attack on THEIR supply lines by VVS tactical and strategical bombers. US are still pretty dependent of major ports for supply and would be in great dire to sustain such a large scale land war for long. STAVKA had experience in paradroping extremely long range operation and I think there was communist cells in hiding in activity on a large part of the allies rear, trained to figth Axis but that could have switched to sabotaging Allies effort.

On the technical part, US/UK tanks were sub par to their russian counterpart, the only advanced models being in far too short a number and the russian new generation ready to be deployed : JS-III, of course , but also T-44 that was canceled due to fighting end.

The fighting would also had become worldwide with a lot of trouble in CW and French colonies with communist supported independance movement.

I wont predict who could have win, but my bet is on a bloody stalemate with no side able to achieve a decisive win before national moral collapse or nuclear launch.

_____________________________

Lt. Col. Ivan 'Greywolf' Kerensky

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 31

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 3:56:25 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, soviets support units (supply for example) needs west trucks and other things BUT you forget that in east armies horses are very important, you can see that germans for example uses it and can survive with a high distance to main supply sourcers with poor road system (i think that for soviets is better an autoban damage than a mood trail) and with partisan infestation, ooo and soviet units need less supplies than west equivalent, think that in the west see someboy dead for no eat were strange but in the east... and another point, soviets dont depend of strategic bombers, they use tactical, i want to see west allies attacked by a powerfull air force.

Oooo you say that West allies defeat german armor thanks to fuel... well, i think that can expend 6 Sherman to kill a Panther/Tiger helps a little, with no arty/air support west allies cant do their race to Germany and remember that german counterattacks was few and with few power (compared with other ofensives like France or Barbarrossa).

West armies has the "home opinion" handicap, soviets not, if Iwo Jima opens a discussion after 1 east size battle what do you think the people thinks??? soviets fight for not death.

Berlin... well, soviets have huge cassualties because they want take Berlin before west allies, they attack as berserkers and literally jump to enemy guns... enemy and their own guns, i think that soviet arty do more cassualties than german troops

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 32

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 4:22:58 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Well, Well, Well...

Potent argument on both side...

Just one tiny thing you forgot : On what side would Germany stand and when will the Allies broke up ? after Germany total conquest or before Germany by offering a surrendering in exchange on a switch side ?

I dont think the all mighty US Strategical Air Forces ( that doesnt manage to kill the German industry by the way, infrastructures and supply�were destroyed by Tactical Air Forces ) would have done any damage to USSR industrial basis, set deeply in Ural at this time. When you look at the efficiency against Germany and relatively close to their bases with good intel on what is where and the bombing effect I dont think US could have mounted any kind of strategical airwar against USSR at this time.

I agree with ya here on this, but I would bet guys like Lemay would have tried anyways.

Manpower wasn't that good on both side, USSR was more depleted but just got the joining of several small East-European nation that could have supplied some troups. UK was definitely out of the war and probably the civil government wont have been able to maintain it in the war, definitely not starting a war against USSR.

The UK under Churchill was very anti-communist and I suspect that they would have stayed in it had a war with the Soviets started. Churchill had always been suspicious of Stalin and his post war ambitions so I would bet the UK would have played an active role as much as possible.

As for manpower, I have read where the Soviets were running into problems near the end of the war considering the vast number of losses they had suffered where as the US was still ramping up and had but a fraction of the losses that the Soviets did. Considering the anti-communist hysteria that took hold following the war, I suspect it wouldn't have taken much to get the civil population behind a war of this type.

France wont had supported an aggresive war either.

Here I disagree..France IMO would have jumped right into it to try and prevent their country from being overrun again and be under the yoke of another occupation force.

I think the Air War would have been pretty balanced with the Allies having actually to suffer from attack on THEIR supply lines by VVS tactical and strategical bombers. US are still pretty dependent of major ports for supply and would be in great dire to sustain such a large scale land war for long. STAVKA had experience in paradroping extremely long range operation and I think there was communist cells in hiding in activity on a large part of the allies rear, trained to figth Axis but that could have switched to sabotaging Allies effort.

While I agree about the port issue somewhat, there are a lot of ports in western Europe, it wouldn't be like the western allies would have been contrained as they were following d-day.

As for soviet strategical air? The soviet air force was primarily tactical..what little long range capability they had can't compare to what was in the west. As for long range paradropping..here again that ability can't compare to what the west was capable of.

As for partisans, there were French communist partisan cells, but i doubt they would have been very effective since the western allies knew pretty much who they were. When it comes to Yugoslavia and eastern Europe, that's a different story and they would have caused plenty of grief there.

On the technical part, US/UK tanks were sub par to their russian counterpart, the only advanced models being in far too short a number and the russian new generation ready to be deployed : JS-III, of course , but also T-44 that was canceled due to fighting end.

Here it is a matter of opinion on what you consider sub par. Gun size, armor thickness, speed, maneuverability, numbers, maintainability, tactical use, command and control...when you take all these factors into play, I would have to say the western use of their tanks along with their doctrine vs the soviet tanks and their doctrine would have pretty much balanced each other out.

The fighting would also had become worldwide with a lot of trouble in CW and French colonies with communist supported independance movement.

This is probably true but the main effort would have been in Europe and by the time any of the other theatres became pertinent, the issue in Europe would have probably been decided.

I wont predict who could have win, but my bet is on a bloody stalemate with no side able to achieve a decisive win before national moral collapse or nuclear launch.

Here I agree with ya again..it would have been bloody and most likely a stalemate unless the US resorted to nuks.

< Message edited by Sabre21 -- 7/1/2009 4:24:58 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Greywolf)

Post #: 33

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 5:56:00 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, soviets has manpower problems (T-34/85 with only 4 men) but they werent at the German level and remember that Germany has a decent army in numeric terms in the last days... soviets can move to the battle many troops from allied countries (Rumania for example fight with soviets in Budapest battles) and the soviet army producction were in a good way with postwar weapons as T-44, i want to say that the "manpower" factor isnt equal for soviets and West allies, sorry but West allies cant loss more troops, troops in West armies were citizens and if they death in their homes people dont like it... or you see in USA a militar gobern??? force soviets to fight is normal for them but not for yanks or brits.

When i refer to air power i refer to West allies needs win air superiority but not against a divided force, no, they need to have real fight, they cant do behing enemy lines runs because if they do it soviets use their tactical to break the line and here is the most important of all, when allies fight with germans germany never has the reserves to exploit a break in the line (and in the Bulge they enter in panic and need to send ALL they have to stop germans) now, with soviets they have the tanks, air support and divisions to made the break a total blow of the front and where are the west reserves??? hey, a front from Baltic sea to Adriatic sea isnt easy to mantein and 1.000 soviet tanks running to Paris or cutting the ports isnt the same as 600 german tanks in a concentrate site special when soviets has another.... 3.000-4.000.

In resume, west allies with a multiple attack where dead meat, they can have a great air force but soviets have another (if air power is so important why they arrive to Berlin first if Luftwaffe is dead???), armor in the soviet side is as powerfull as german but with more numbers and finally soviets can asume another... 1.000.000 casualties but can do it West allies??? i think that the winner is the side that have all their objetives secure, for West allies objetive is easy, dont loss Europe (France is for me the last castle) BUT dont sufear huge cassualties and for soviets is kick allies from the continent the cost isnt important and i think that is more easy the soviet objetive because i asume they have the iniciative and the power to do it, West allies arent ready for the East way of war.

Stalemate has a 50% of chance, a soviet victory... near 30% and west 20%, win in a carnage and dont have legs or arms isnt a victory

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 34

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 7:32:39 PM

fairplay

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

But that was the case for all the battles in WWII. As an example, Iwo Jima saw over 26,000 US casualties, but only 6,000 - 7,000 of those were dead. That doesn't change the fact that the Marine divisions were shot and wouldn't be in any shape to fight again for months.

The same would apply to most of the Soviet divisions that had just gone through the Berlin meat grinder. It would be months before they were in any shape to fight again.

I also wouldn't say 78,000 dead were light losses. That's about 1 out of every 4 or 5 casualties that ended up dead. Not a great survival rate.

Jim

The Soviet losses very heavy by Western standards, but the Soviets did have their own standards. The guesstimate is that the Red Army lost approximately 17 million KIA. Having that in mind 500.000 KIA, WIA, and MIA isn�t that much.

And it wouldn�t take them months to be in shape to fight again. I recommend "Ivan�s War Life and death in the Rea Army, 1939-1945" by Catherine Merridale. Nice book that�s giving the reader an impression how the Soviet Army did business. Somebody not feeling in fighting shape either ended up in a penal battalion or ate a NKVD bullet right away. More than 422.000 Soviet soldiers are said to have served in a penal battalion with a survival rate slightly above zero. It is estimated that 158.000 men were formally sejntenced to be executed during the war. This doesn�t include those poor souls who were shot on the spot for cowardice, retreating, etc..

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 35

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 7:36:08 PM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The guesstimate is that the Red Army lost approximately 17 million KIA

this is wrong number

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to fairplay)

Post #: 36

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/1/2009 8:36:20 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Between civilian & military deaths, the Soviets lost at least 20 million - probably quite a few more. While the Americans were really just warming up in 1944 & 1945 (though people were ready for the troops to come home after the war), the Soviet Union was really at the end of their tethers. If it wasn't for the massive lend-lease shipments, quite a bit of the Soviet mobility wouldn't have existed.

On a tactical level, the Red Air Force might have been game for a while, but they had no answer for the American & British Strategic capability. Remember, those factories in the Urals might have been safe for a while, but they still needed to get the equipment to the front - and bridges and railroads could have been easily cut by bombing. The Soviets lacked any true operational or strategic bombing capabilities - and they were behind in radar and all sorts of electronics that made our Air Force more effective.

Again, if Stalin started something, we'd be more than willing to finish it. We wouldn't like it, but there is no way we would have handed Western Europe to the Soviet Union.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 37

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 10:13:58 AM

Greywolf

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/15/2000
Status: offline

I think France wont have joined an offensive war against USSR for 2 reason :

1- Power consolidation: France governement wasn't strong enough yet to afford a break with the left wing parties. And socialism and communism weren't small power in French politics even after thoses times.

2- Army weakness: French army was in reconstructing. The vast mustering of FFL and french metropolitan citizen were badly trained and work worse than the "indigenous" troups that were disbanded in the "whitening" of the French Army after the Liberation. Trouble is thoses inexperienced troups greatly increase french losses and that they have no real incent to keep fighting after Germany surrender.

A Anti-Communist Crusade could only be declared if you have a deep anti-communist feeling to sustain it. It wasn't major enough in France to do so.

Also an Allies Anti-Commintern pact right after may 1945 would have been tremendously bad taste...

_____________________________

Lt. Col. Ivan 'Greywolf' Kerensky

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 38

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 10:26:26 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, mobility for soviets arent equal to West allies, think that soviets fight from Moscov to Berlin where good comunications are a dream, the good roads are common in west side and soviets can reserve motorized transport for supply lines and motorized troops (they can use tanks as transports), see soviet infatry divisions moving on foot isnt strange and if german troops can do the road to Berlin from Normandy by foot why soviets can do the reverse rute???.

Air power... again i say the same, West air power NEVER fight against a full enemy (same for soviets but at least they see bombers), soviets dont do a pasive role, they attack, when West allies see their air bases attacked??? Bodenplatte was a success for Luftwaffe, they lost their reserves but in the paper they have a victory (limitated enemy air power for a short time), soviets can asume the casualties imagine 3 Bodenplattes, West air power be out of acction.... 1 week or 2, you think that the line can support 1 week of soviets attacks with no air support??? and West tecnological advantages are relative, they dont fight in sea and mountains and terrain complicated detection, soviet planes can appear in the West air bases in minutes. West allies do strategic attacks where fighters kill another fighters because the defender priority isnt kill them, kill bombers is the priority, if west allies do strategic attacks they can do it with full fihgter support because hey, soviets can counterattack with tactical power over the line of battle and a break in the West lines is catastrophic because soviets know where is their goal, conquest France, but West allies know their goal??? germans arrive to Moscov but soviets dont surrender... can West allies take Moscov, Leningrad and Stalingrad??? soviets have realistic objetives allies not and soviets can sacrifice their air power to break West lines because they only need a break, West troops have great mobility but needs more supply, and their motorized mobility could be a problem.

Another point is the political factor, the relations between brits and yanks have some tensions, if soviets attack for example only brits they can force then to reembark as in Dunkirk, West allies have 2 main forces with their own objetives but soviets have only 1 "mind" and soviet allies... well, some times a man do more things with a pistol in the head

and soviet allies mission could be defend balkans, bad site for an allied attack if they can do it because send troops to south Europe when you have in the north the red army...

I only say that Patton dreams is defeat soviets but the problem is that soviets are more dangerous than Patton�s thinks, west general arent ready for East way of war, loss in one day the same troops as in 1 week of hard fight against german troops is si expensive

� soviets combine great operational touch with smash tactic, West allies dont, is like soviets were Mike Tyson and West allies the best middle weight boxer, they can give good shoots but with only one from Mike .... K.O

EDIT: West allies fight for not be defeated, soviets fight for victory, the same as germans after Kursk but West troops dont have the sacrifice capability of german troops because USA and Britain are far and secure, at least USA.

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 7/2/2009 10:29:50 AM >

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 39

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 10:49:07 AM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Well, as I thought, we will agree to disagree on this one. Sure, the US & Soviet Union had too completely different ways of waging war & both were able to defeat the Germans in their own way - which wouldn't necessarily translate well for an attack upon each other.

Ultimately though, if you just look at the economies of the two powers, the US would actually be able to sustain another war (or a more extended war) far better than the Soviet Union would be able to in the 1945/46 timeframe. While the US had a totally intact industrial base & was completely self-sufficient in resources, the Soviet Union had just suffered 20 - 30 million dead, a decimation of its Western USSR industrial and resource areas, and was reliant on lend-lease almost exclusively was any and all non-military & higher-tech items.

If it did come to a knock down, drag out fight, don't think that the US didn't have the will to prosecute a war to the finish - especially, again, if the Soviets attacked first. It wouldn't be pretty, but as soon as we could get a B-29 in range of Moscow, we would have put one or several A-Bombs on top of the Kremlin.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 40

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 11:04:29 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

The problem for A boms is leave it in the objetive when enemy has fighters with fuel to defend their homeland soviets dont have radar but have hundred of eyes, in other side A bomb againt soviets can made that soviet Europe form a solid block againt West Fascism, one thing is launch A bomb against Japan the enemy of the world with no support and other is do the same against soviets who has great support and B-29 from Alaska is the only way if soviets conquest Europe.

If West allies need to use the A bomb it means that conventional fight is loss for them, and when they launch the A bomb.... what happend after??? A bombs arent like Donuts, they need rare material to build one, how many A bombs can use USA in 2 years??? 4-5... and after... what??? they where the new Reich, soviets ... well, comunist have great support in the world and find supports to destroy the A bomb criminals is easy.

What if are a great way to have a nice break

EDIT: USA never have a war to the last man, they arent ready for it, if they dont have an "easy" victory internal tensions could be a problem, if in their Civil War have problems in the last days what happend if they fight against a "zombie" enemy???.

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 7/2/2009 11:05:38 AM >

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 41

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 12:20:36 PM

Greywolf

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/15/2000
Status: offline

I think that US use of the "A" bomb will result in automatic Peace Negociation with a Cease Fire and return to previous status, not USSR surrendering or collapse.

Why ?

Because, in the event the US were the aggressor ( Patton's Wet Dream ), the use of the "A" bomb will produce an outcry in every european and American countries. The civilian would probably protest against such a thing, especially in countries where socialist party isn't outlawed.

Also I still dont see any justification for the Allies to join USA in a crusade against Communism, China being the obvious exception. Churchill position was secured by the war against Germany, as soon as peace is achieved popular support will lessen. France wont attack one of his historical ally, especially if you consider the political weight of the Socialist party at this time.

Why would they join the USA crusade ? they have to rebuild, US Liberation nearly leveled french towns and industry. France stayed in the war until the end, but it could have mustered the public support to join another one, neither commonwealth could, not before Japan surrender either BTW.

And USSR wont have attacked first... Socialism doctrine use popular revolution to spread the ideology, they would have used it to start uprising and revolution in Western Country, not try a military take over.

Also I dont think the USSR aim would have been France... Antwerp would have been a far more important target, France could be negociated to stay out of fight. I easily see De Gaule playing peace negaociator or mediation between West and East. I definitely dont depict it joining on the bandwagon with Churchill and Eisenhower ( Roosevelt should be out of the game by then).

_____________________________

Lt. Col. Ivan 'Greywolf' Kerensky

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 42

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 12:34:20 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

You're missing one important factor. The US Marshall plan hadn't rebuilt Europe yet. If any of the European powers wanted US help in rebuilding their shattered nations and their war debts forgiven, they would need to remain staunch allies of the US.

Just to give some perspective, the top tax rate in the US during the post war years when the Marshall plan went into effect was 95% or so. The US gave up a lot of treasure to bring Europe back out of the dark ages it had just hurdled itself into.

Walking out on the US in the middle of a fight as big or bigger than the one they had just saved Europe from would have spelled doom for Europe's economic future. Not to mention the fact the US would have packed up and gone home leaving Europe to fall into slavery under communism.

No way France, Italy, Germany or England could/would have backed away. They may have wanted to, but it would have been suicide for them to do so.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 7/2/2009 12:35:00 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Greywolf)

Post #: 43

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 1:12:54 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Yes, but dont forget that Marshall plan dont have the same bright in the European side, Marshall plan mission was reconstruct Europe to have a initial defensive line againts East in Europe if soviets attack they need eliminated first a hard European defense before jump the Atlantic, is my point of view, nobody do goods things for nothing. After German surrender if West allies attack Soviets sorry but in Europe many people see it as another fascism agression, in Europe Soviets have many support because yes, West allies liberate Europe but Soviets destroy German military power and dont forget that the own USA made the propaganda for it

I think when we talk about Patton�s dream we refer to a war between West-East before the end of 1945, A bombs are a factor but plans after not, in the end of war Europeans are f****d and the nation who wants to continue de war finds very few support outside their close influence portion.

PD: continue with it, is funny

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 44

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 2:12:54 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

For this conflict to have occurred, the relationship between the Allies & the Soviet Union would need to have proceeded in a slightly different way. Historically, everyone was one big happy family in May 1945 - no one was interested in starting anything new in Europe (at least until Japan was dealt with).

Now, say if Stalin was more belligerent - the Yalta talks go poorly (Roosevelt & Truman demand free elections in all liberated territories, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc), or the Westeran Allies refuse to return all Soviet collaborators or POWs after the war, or maybe Eisenhower pushes hard to get to Berlin first.

Now, if relations were that frosty at the end, it would certainly put a different spin on the immediate post-war situation. The Soviet Union isn't the good guy anymore & people might just take a different stance on things.

And as far as the US willingness to fight - don't underestimate what we would be willing to do. Of course, the whole reason to use the A-Bomb as quickly as possible would be to end the war before things got too bloody. It would be fairly easy to fly B-29's to Finland, for example & get one or two bombs to Moscow. If Stalin & the Politburo was killed in the strike, it would certainly put a different spin on things.

Also remember that the A-Bomb was brand new and didn't have the stigma attached to its use as it would today. And even though some people have said it was easier to drop the bomb on Japan, because it was an Asian country and not a Western one, the originally intent was to get the bomb before the Germans did & I'm sure that we would have struck Berlin as soon as we could, if we thought it woud end the war sooner.

Again, you need to change the political & diplomatic landscape - which means all bets are off as far as how the conflict is viewed by the minor powers. There would be plenty of Germans & Eastern Europeans that would be more than happy to throw their lot into "liberating" their countries from the Soviets. The second line Soviet troops weren't exactly gentle when they rolled through Eastern Europe and Germany - all you have to do it look at what happened Eastern Germany (mass rapes and killings of civilians) & the bad blood in Poland when the Soviets refused to assist the Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising.

Also don't forget that the Soviet rear areas weren't completely secure. They were conducting multi-divisional partisan sweeps in the Ukraine until the early 1960's - imagine what it would be in 1945 if war broke out again & the US promised support for an independent Ukraine?

Ultimately, it would have been a battle of economies - in the long run, the US had the industrial power to bury the Soviet Union - either under mass A-Bombs or in a conventional fight. There was still a huge amount of slack in manpower and industry, while the Soviets were at the end of their tether.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 45

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 5:27:05 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, mass of A bombs are impossible, after the 2 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki... how many have USA??? A bomb is an exotic but very few resource to finish a war and use it against a old allied... if USA strikes first they dont look like the good boys and kill Stalin... how exactry know allies where is Stalin if their own men dont know??? and if Stalin is dead how many options have USA to see another Stalin II or worst???.

Talking about good boys, the liberation in west Europe dont be exactly a gentleman job, as in East soldiers in war time became more similiar to criminal standar in peace time, soviets were as Atila with a bad day but ALL armies have their own mini-Atila, in a war are few Saints.

If we talk about material resources we can see what happend in Patton�s dream but the human factor... alliances is more complicated because who strikes first and how is very important.

Oooo you talk about economic power... well, if soviets go to an Armagedon fight they dont need money, comunist doctrine

but USA for example need it as Brits, think that soviets dont have an economic power (wall street version) that can break west allies have it, find people to fight for comunist dream is easy in a devasted country.

Ummm Poland was an ugly job for soviets, but is the same for west allies rear actions could be decisive but soviets have the posibility to use their "system", allies cant use expeditive metods because german ocupation is near.

Many factors for a definitive answer.... stalemate, bloody stalemate is the most posible result but after it soviet victory is for me the second.

EDIT: allies can promise support to partisans but it could be as the same promise made to Poland by french and brits in 1939, with no real support you cant see "partisan armies".

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 46

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 5:49:11 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Bombers based in the Middle East would have crippled the oil production. I don't think Soviet fighters would have faired well in high altitude dogfights. Not to mention seeing 1000 bombers with 500 fighters escorting...Without oil, I see the Soviets sue for peace and pull back to their border...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 47

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 6:54:32 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Great point PD - I had completely forgotten how easy it would have been to hit the Caucasus oil fields from the Middle East. You could also probably count on Turkey throwing in their lot with the allies at this point, given their historical grudges against Russia - which would put the entire Black Sea coast in range of Allied amphibious strikes.

Also, the overall goal wouldn't have to be taking Moscow - just push them back to their original 1939 border. You wouldn't violate Soviet territory & make it a war of democratic liberation.

As far as US production of the A-Bomb, we had the two we dropped on Japan, plus another 5 - 6 that could have been completed fairly quickly. In case of a shooting war with the Soviet Union, you can bet that Oak Ridge & Hanford would have ramped up production to produce a steady stream of weapons - and given that the Soviet Union didn't detonate their first bomb until 1948, it would give the US a pretty good edge overall.

Again, depending on whether or not this happens in May 1945 or early 1946 - you'd have a significant US presence in the Far East that could be used as well - I imagine if Stalin was thinking about Western Europe, he wouldn't have moved those 90 odd divisions to take Manchuria, so it would have been a much different fight if the US Marines landed at Vladivostok or in Korea.

Overall, it would be pretty easy to frame this fight as a Democracy vs. Communism - the entire Republican Party would have been behind the fight, plus you had not just Patton, but MacArthur in the East - there was plenty of public and political support, if push came to shove.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 48

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/2/2009 7:21:17 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Again all countries allied with "good boys" but is difficult see it, Europe isnt a 100% non comunist place, soviets can set out of war secondary armies like french.

You say 500 fighters and 1.000 tactical to the Caucasus ok, they can try to destroy oil facilities (they try to do with Ploesty and needs more that 1 attack) but in these time soviets can break the line and be in Paris taking a pastis olala thanks to captured allied supplies what can take allies if soviets dont have supplies???

You are now including the Pacific variable, well, do you think that all people see west as liberator??? remember Surabaya, brits and other west allies have colonial interest in the zone and 50 decade you can see the funny place do you remember a little country called Vietnam???, if Stalin promised comunist for all they can made Mac loss time in antiguerrilla actions because is better comunist than colonial gobern and japan if not attacked by soviets can join to the soviets they want more Yank blood hehehe.

The problem with west what if is that they only say what they can do but dont say want can do soviets, they arent the germans fighting a defensive delay, they attack as best defense

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 49

RE: Patton's Dream scenario - 7/4/2009 5:21:48 PM

schwarm

Posts: 10
Joined: 7/4/2009
Status: offline

"Overall, it would be pretty easy to frame this fight as a Democracy vs. Communism - the entire Republican Party would have been behind the fight, plus you had not just Patton, but MacArthur in the East - there was plenty of public and political support, if push came to shove. "

I thought Republicans tended to be more isolationist back then. After several years of the Russians being our allies, I think it would take a treacherous act to change people's minds so quickly. Economically we were in a better position, but being a democracy, you have to have a very good reason to sacrifice lives. I'm not sure that a war of ideological liberation against an ally would be considered a good reason.

< Message edited by schwarm -- 7/4/2009 5:51:39 PM >

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 50