User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:13:27 PM EDT
[#1]
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:14:14 PM EDT
[#2]
They'd have shoved us into the ocean with hardly breaking a sweat. We then might have nuked them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:15:48 PM EDT
[#3]
Anything east of London and west of Hawaii would have been Red.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:15:58 PM EDT
[#4]
I don't know if they would have done so great.
The Germans held them off pretty well. If the USA and what was still left of the Germans along with the rest of the Allies went at them I think we'd have given them a run for their money no doubt. I don't see them pushing us back into the sea. We would have held them pretty well and then nuked the ever living crap out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:16:16 PM EDT
[#5]
The Soviet Army would have rolled over the UK/French/US armies. UK and French were permanently drained. Look what happened to their colonial holdings within 15 years after the end of World War 2.
Carriers wouldn't have done anything for a Euro-Soviet theater since the USSR shared so much land border with the rest of Europe. The USSR would re-supply via railroad/road/foot. Carriers power projection back then was about 150-250 miles. How well do you think a 2nd front in the frigid areas of far eastern Russia would go? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:17:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. Nah. We had major capabilities on 2 fronts. From the Pacific and the Atlantic. We could have had massively increase our manpower with POW's who wanted to fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:17:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I don't know if they would have done so great. The Germans held them off pretty well. If the USA and what was still left of the Germans along with the rest of the Allies went at them I think we'd have given them a run for their money no doubt. I don't see them pushing us back into the sea. We would have held them pretty well and then nuked the ever living crap out of them. The Germans were fighting with their backs to a wall. Everyone who didn't put down their guns piled into various government buildings KNOWING it was a fight to the death, and did so entirely because they wanted to kill a few more Russians. The Allies NEVER had that sort of resolve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:17:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. With what? The half dozen or so we could produce in the 4 years before the commies detonated their first in 1949? Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes would have had limited effect in the 1940s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:18:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: I don't know if they would have done so great. The Germans held them off pretty well. If the USA and what was still left of the Germans along with the rest of the Allies went at them I think we'd have given them a run for their money no doubt. I don't see them pushing us back into the sea. We would have held them pretty well and then nuked the ever living crap out of them. I don't either, not against well equipped, fresh American and British units. It would have been a HELL of a fight, but I don't think they'd of pushed us out into the sea. There was ALOT of land between the Atlantic and the Front at the end of the war. Plus plenty of good fortifications and other good ground for defensive positions to fight from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:19:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. Nah. We had major capabilities on 2 fronts. From the Pacific and the Atlantic. We could have had massively increase our manpower with POW's who wanted to fight. The Russians out produced us by an embarrassing margin AND had the ability to produce only miles away from various battles. They also had the momentum on the ground. The Allied (non-USSR) leaders knew it would be over, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:20:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: A 15 kiloton nuke in Stalin's back yard would have been pretty demoralizing. I'm sure we could have devised some way of delivering it. Quoted: They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. With what? The half dozen or so we could produce in the 4 years before the commies detonated their first in 1949? Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes would have had limited effect in the 1940s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:21:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Y'all think the Russians could keep up a war without receiving materials and supplies from the US.
I guess what I remember of WWII is that the US support kinda helped the Reds. Yea we'd kick their ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:22:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:23:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Let me put forth my argument... At it's peak the US Army had 61(+/-) divisions in Europe, by the end of the war in Europe many of those were being demobilized, or sent back to the states for the upcoming invasion of Japan. The Red Army had 200+ divisions, not counting NKVD divisions, Polish Communist Army, Romanians, Czech etc... roughly 2,500,000 combat capable men, or more The UK, French and commonwealth armies also totaled around 60, so we could place about +/-120 Allied divisions against +/-250 Soviet and Soviet allied. The only bases in Europe at that time that had to infrastructure to hold B-29's were in the UK, and from there they could not hit the Soviet industrial centers behind the Urals, nor even Moscow. After Fat Man and Little Boy and the third unnamed bomb, the next atomic weapon wasn't to be ready until October, and the science behind the effects of such weapons I doubt they would be even used as tactical or operational weapons, especially against a Soviet Shock Army locked in close combat with an Allied army. The US was the only country capable of facing the USSR economically, the UK and her commonwealth was wore out in both her industrial plant and in manpower reserves, they couldn't sustain a fight. Hell the whole reason of the Social Welfare state grew was out of the ashes of WWII...Particularly in the UK. And France was to a large extent still a pile of rubble. Also the US population NEVER would of supported a war with the Russians, who were still conditioned to believe they were our brothers in arms fighting a common evil, that viewpoint didn't really change till the Berlin Blockade and Korea. Ditto for W.Europe, where communist movements were trying to assert their power in their respective countries. Fighting the Russians would of been a mistake and ended up with a lot of American dead, for nothing. Except maybe total communist control of Europe A reply of mine pulled from one of my threads. Too tired to fight it out in an debate tonight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:23:15 PM EDT
[#15]
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:24:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Y'all think the Russians could keep up a war without receiving materials and supplies from the US. I guess what I remember of WWII is that the US support kinda helped the Reds. Yea we'd kick their ass. No, we wouldn't. The majority of Lend-Lease never even made it, even though it was on paper. Tons of fraud and stolen goods, most never made it to production. By 1945, the Russians could have defeated us with just what they already fielded. The Brits were non-issue as their army was more or less defunct by that point. ETA: Patton had the right idea if the goal was to defeat the Soviets. Help the Germans in early 1945 when they still had operation capacity. Let Kesselring's forces out of Italy and to the Eastern front. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:24:51 PM EDT
[#17]
By that point of the war, the American public wasn't really in a frame of mind to support an attack on a country which had been portrayed as an ally up to then
They were tired of war. If Rosie the riveter loses her drive, the industrial advantage is lost. ETA: especially if the end was thought to be in sight and then suddenly the rules were changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:25:25 PM EDT
[#18]
I think we would have done w/o assistance from any of our allies. I mean germany fighting on 2 fronts advanced within seeing distance of Moscow and would have conquered the capital if not for the frigid Russian winter and them running out of oil/gasoline. We were much better equipped than Germany we had lots more men and huge edge in production capabilities. We had better rifles than USSR the Garand vs Mosin Nagant. We had better planed both bombers and fighters. They had the old p39 Airacobras that we gave them and we had the P51 Mustang and as far as bombers USSR was almost non existent. Granted they had betters tanks than us but our fighters would have done a number on their T34s and we could have used strategic bombing to bomb the hell out of their tank factories. By the end of the war the USSR was down to using old men and boys and we were just hitting our stride. In my opinion while it may not have been easy we would have prevailed. We would have been to the gates of Moscow within 6 months.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:25:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
They'd have shoved us into the ocean with hardly breaking a sweat. We then might have nuked them. First two, even three posts have it nailed. I don't think most people are cognizant of just how large, modern, heavily armored and massively artillery supported the Russian army was in 1945. They were also salty, having hammered nearly 2 million of the best troops in the world into submission in a fighting retreat that lasted three years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:25:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. With what? The half dozen or so we could produce in the 4 years before the commies detonated their first in 1949? Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes would have had limited effect in the 1940s. A 15 kiloton nuke in Stalin's back yard would have been pretty demoralizing. I'm sure we could have devised some way of delivering it. Taking out no more than a 2 mile radius? The commies lost over 23,000,000 soldiers and citizens in WW2. People were more disposable to the commies than underwear were to the USA forces. They had 150,000,000 more to go. 60,000-80,000 in any city would barely be blinked at. Plus, how are you going to deliver a nuke to Stalin's back yard (major city)? They had a pretty big air force. Bomb Siberia? Empty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:25:49 PM EDT
[#21]
First off Russia got a huge amount of gas from the US, there navy sucked, and they were already extended by the time they reached berlin. The soviets would have took in the shorts. We could bomb there factories, supply lines, and logistical centers with ease. There armies were exhausted and stretched they had beaten hitler with our lend lease equipment, cut that off and you take off the brace that was holding up the whole rotten structure that was the soviet union.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:26:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. yep. What the Germans were scraping together to fend them off was nothing compared to our P51s P47s B17s B25s B24s etc etc ad nausum. Look at how little the Germans had and they were taking huge chunks out of the Russians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:26:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. With what? The half dozen or so we could produce in the 4 years before the commies detonated their first in 1949? Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes would have had limited effect in the 1940s. A 15 kiloton nuke in Stalin's back yard would have been pretty demoralizing. I'm sure we could have devised some way of delivering it. Taking out no more than a 2 mile radius? The commies lost over 23,000,000 soldiers and citizens in WW2. People were more disposable to the commies than underwear were to the USA forces. They had 150,000,000 more to go. 60,000-80,000 in any city would barely be blinked at. Plus, how are you going to deliver a nuke to Stalin's back yard (major city)? They had a pretty big air force. Bomb Siberia? Empty. I think we would have done it anyway to prove a point, but I agree it likely would have had little effect on the war itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:26:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
First off Russia got a huge amount of gas from the US, there navy sucked, and they were already extended by the time they reached berlin. The soviets would have took in the shorts. We could bomb there factories, supply lines, and logistical centers with ease. There armies were exhausted and stretched they had beaten hitler with our lend lease equipment, cut that off and you take off the brace that was holding up the whole rotten structure that was the soviet union. The Soviet union had everything they needed from the Caucus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:27:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Supplies and airpower. Two things the Russians only had courtesy of the US of A. Would have been a hard slog until the Russians ran out of Lend-lease stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:27:37 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:27:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Besides infrastructure, there really was no major strategic targets left in E. Europe. B-29's from England couldn't hit behind the Urals, let alone Moscow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:28:11 PM EDT
[#28]
Russia had enough divisions at the end of the European campaign to steamroll everything we had there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:28:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Right, the US and UK Air Forces were superior by 1945 than the Luftwaffe was at any point during the war. The Germans went to war with Russia was a severely mauled Luftwaffe. On the other hand, we had absolute NO LAG or weakness in the size and power of our strategic bombing capabilites. Yet, despite that, Germany was still able to inflict alot of pain on Russia with their weak Luftwaffe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:28:43 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Besides infrastructure, there really was no major strategic targets left in E. Europe. B-29's from England couldn't hit behind the Urals, let alone Moscow. Correct. Our projection would have been strategic bombing of tactical targets. While potentially effective, the Russians were cranking out planes at a breathtaking pace in 1945. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:29:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Supplies and airpower. Two things the Russians only had courtesy of the US of A. Would have been a hard slog until the Russians ran out of Lend-lease stuff. Soviets had 18,000 aircraft by the end of the war, with their highest number at 27,000. What little they got from us got reverse engineered as soon as it landed in Siberia (their own words). What supplies did (if ever) get to the front didn't matter, since by the time lend-lease goods started to arrive, the Red were on full charge from Ukraine and west. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:29:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Right, the US and UK Air Forces were superior by 1945 than the Luftwaffe was at any point during the war. The Germans went to war with Russia was a severely mauled Luftwaffe. On the other hand, we had absolute NO LAG or weakness in the size and power of our strategic bombing capabilites. Yet, despite that, Germany was still able to inflict alot of pain on Russia with their weak Luftwaffe. The UK effectively had no Air Force in 1945, especially when compared to the Russians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:29:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Correct. All of these posts have ignored our greatest advantage in 1945, the threat from the air. The Russians were gaining in that area, but a long way from matching us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:29:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Y'all think the Russians could keep up a war without receiving materials and supplies from the US. I guess what I remember of WWII is that the US support kinda helped the Reds. Yea we'd kick their ass. No, we wouldn't. The majority of Lend-Lease never even made it, even though it was on paper. Tons of fraud and stolen goods, most never made it to production. By 1945, the Russians could have defeated us with just what they already fielded. The Brits were non-issue as their army was more or less defunct by that point. ETA: Patton had the right idea if the goal was to defeat the Soviets. Help the Germans in early 1945 when they still had operation capacity. Let Kesselring's forces out of Italy and to the Eastern front. Wait what? Something like 40% of all soviet fuel was from the US, almost all supply truck were US, rail equipment almost all US, I can go on, they were heavily reliant on us. And the brits had a fantastic army. Where are you getting this from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:30:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Supplies and airpower. Two things the Russians only had courtesy of the US of A. Would have been a hard slog until the Russians ran out of Lend-lease stuff. Soviets had 18,000 aircraft by the end of the war, with their highest number at 27,000. What little they got from us got reverse engineered as soon as it landed in Siberia. What supplies did (if ever) get to the front didn't matter, since by the time lend-lease goods started to arrive, the Red were on full charge from Ukraine and west. Yep, I read a book detailing the massive amounts of waste in the Lend-Lease... broken time-tables, entire shipments of supplies disappearing. The majority ended up sitting in warehouses never seeing the light of day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:30:44 PM EDT
[#36]
That generation of Americans would have kicked the commies asses if need be, but the fact is it didn't need to be, and politically, the American people wanted peace; and they earned it.
If Stalin had believed that his army could have walked over us he would have set them to it. Those things weren't open to debate in the Soviet Union. The fact is; Stalin wouldn't chance it although had he lived for a while longer and had obtained enough of a stockpile of nuclear weapons he probably would have given it a go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:31:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. With what? The half dozen or so we could produce in the 4 years before the commies detonated their first in 1949? Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes would have had limited effect in the 1940s. A 15 kiloton nuke in Stalin's back yard would have been pretty demoralizing. I'm sure we could have devised some way of delivering it. Taking out no more than a 2 mile radius? The commies lost over 23,000,000 soldiers and citizens in WW2. People were more disposable to the commies than underwear were to the USA forces. They had 150,000,000 more to go. 60,000-80,000 in any city would barely be blinked at. Plus, how are you going to deliver a nuke to Stalin's back yard (major city)? They had a pretty big air force. Bomb Siberia? Empty. We fired bombed Japan killing 300k at a time. Those kind of attacks would have been better than nukes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:31:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Y'all think the Russians could keep up a war without receiving materials and supplies from the US. I guess what I remember of WWII is that the US support kinda helped the Reds. Yea we'd kick their ass. No, we wouldn't. The majority of Lend-Lease never even made it, even though it was on paper. Tons of fraud and stolen goods, most never made it to production. By 1945, the Russians could have defeated us with just what they already fielded. The Brits were non-issue as their army was more or less defunct by that point. ETA: Patton had the right idea if the goal was to defeat the Soviets. Help the Germans in early 1945 when they still had operation capacity. Let Kesselring's forces out of Italy and to the Eastern front. Wait what? Something like 40% of all soviet fuel was from the US, almost all supply truck were US, rail equipment almost all US, I can go on, they were heavily reliant on us. And the brits had a fantastic army. Where are you getting this from? Everything you said is wrong. The Brits had effectively no ground projection in Europe. And the Soviets by 1945 had enough refineries operational from the Caucus that they were likely outproducing America, though those numbers will likely never be released. There is a reason the Germans were trying so hard to get the Caucus. ETA: Where are people subscribing so much emphasis on 1944-1945 lend-lease? I've never read anything to support any of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:32:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. And we had ours already in theatre, lets see how the Russians fair when their factories are leveled while our continue to pump them out. I swear some of you guys give way too much credit to the Russians. At the end of the war they had nearly the same quality troops as the Germans did, only much more of them. One of Germany's biggest mistakes was not developing true heavy bombers of the war. We didn't have that problem. Our 90mm pershings would have done just fine. IL2s would have been dead meat. P47s would've decimated Russian lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:32:07 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Right, the US and UK Air Forces were superior by 1945 than the Luftwaffe was at any point during the war. The Germans went to war with Russia was a severely mauled Luftwaffe. On the other hand, we had absolute NO LAG or weakness in the size and power of our strategic bombing capabilites. Yet, despite that, Germany was still able to inflict alot of pain on Russia with their weak Luftwaffe. The Germans went to war with Russia with a Luftwaffe in it's prime. Barbarossa was the first major operation of WWII, if you don't count the Poland training mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:33:44 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Right, the US and UK Air Forces were superior by 1945 than the Luftwaffe was at any point during the war. The Germans went to war with Russia was a severely mauled Luftwaffe. On the other hand, we had absolute NO LAG or weakness in the size and power of our strategic bombing capabilites. Yet, despite that, Germany was still able to inflict alot of pain on Russia with their weak Luftwaffe. The Germans went to war with Russia with a Luftwaffe in it's prime. Barbarossa was the first major operation of WWII, if you don't count the Poland training mission. Yep. But hey, rah-rah USA is way better than history. Hell, the people in this thread know better than the actual leaders of the time. That's impressive! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:34:36 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would have steam rolled all the way to the English channel, and then we would have nuked them. With what? The half dozen or so we could produce in the 4 years before the commies detonated their first in 1949? Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukes would have had limited effect in the 1940s. A 15 kiloton nuke in Stalin's back yard would have been pretty demoralizing. I'm sure we could have devised some way of delivering it. Taking out no more than a 2 mile radius? The commies lost over 23,000,000 soldiers and citizens in WW2. People were more disposable to the commies than underwear were to the USA forces. They had 150,000,000 more to go. 60,000-80,000 in any city would barely be blinked at. Plus, how are you going to deliver a nuke to Stalin's back yard (major city)? They had a pretty big air force. Bomb Siberia? Empty. We fired bombed Japan killing 300k at a time. Those kind of attacks would have been better than nukes. B-29 combat range is 1,600 miles one way. That's assuming no evasive actions. Even with that, the USA isn't hitting the Urals & Caucasus mountains, Russia's industrial and oil locations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:34:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Correct. All of these posts have ignored our greatest advantage in 1945, the threat from the air. The Russians were gaining in that area, but a long way from matching us. We were vastly superior in strategic assets. However the Soviet Air Arm never needed to focus on that aspect. The Soviets pushed out nearly 40,000 IL-2's alone. Pure CAS aircraft. An airwar against the Soviets would be down low, forced by sheer weight of numbers where the Russians could play off their greatest strengths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:35:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Correct. All of these posts have ignored our greatest advantage in 1945, the threat from the air. The Russians were gaining in that area, but a long way from matching us. We were vastly superior in strategic assets. However the Soviet Air Arm never needed to focus on that aspect. The Soviets pushed out nearly 40,000 IL-2's alone. Pure CAS aircraft. An airwar against the Soviets would be down low, forced by sheer weight of numbers were the Russians could play off their greatest strengths. Yep, same way they would win/did win the ground war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:35:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. We'd be bombing the shit out of their factories they had moved to the East. We would have bombed their railways and roads. So even if they moved their industry underground, it would have been a big challenge for them when they can hardly move anything to the front because their supply lines and means of transportation has been crippled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:36:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Russians never had to face strategic bombing,which could have been used on a tactical level. They never had to face a thousand plane raid and had few fighters that could deal with B-29s. The biggest issue is that their supply lines would have been incredibly long and thin. The Baltic would have become an Allied Lake and they had no fleet to speak of in the Pacific. No way are they able to sweep the US,UK,Canadian and reformed German army to the Atlantic...and Moscow is getting nuked to make sure it doesn't happen. Correct. All of these posts have ignored our greatest advantage in 1945, the threat from the air. The Russians were gaining in that area, but a long way from matching us. We were vastly superior in strategic assets. However the Soviet Air Arm never needed to focus on that aspect. The Soviets pushed out nearly 40,000 IL-2's alone. Pure CAS aircraft. An airwar against the Soviets would be down low, forced by sheer weight of numbers where the Russians could play off their greatest strengths. No we would have bombed the shit out of there forward airbases and I doubt they would even have had the gas to fly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:37:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. We'd be bombing the shit out of their factories they had moved to the East. We would have bombed their railways and roads. So even if they moved their industry underground, it would have been a big challenge for them when they can hardly move anything to the front because their supply lines and means of transportation has been crippled. But their force already present on the frontlines, basically already staring us down, so far exceeded ours it would have been a bad summer, although the cool breeze from the English channel as our men desperately pulled Dunkirk II would have helped with the heat 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:38:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. We'd be bombing the shit out of their factories they had moved to the East. We would have bombed their railways and roads. So even if they moved their industry underground, it would have been a big challenge for them when they can hardly move anything to the front because their supply lines and means of transportation has been crippled. But their force already present on the frontlines, basically already staring us down, so far exceeded ours it would have been a bad summer, although the cool breeze from the English channel as our men desperately pulled Dunkirk II would have helped with the heat How are they going to move those troops with no gas or rail? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:39:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. And we had ours already in theatre, lets see how the Russians fair when their factories are leveled while our continue to pump them out. I swear some of you guys give way too much credit to the Russians. At the end of the war they had nearly the same quality troops as the Germans did, only much more of them. One of Germany's biggest mistakes was not developing true heavy bombers of the war. We didn't have that problem. Our 90mm pershings would have done just fine. IL2s would have been dead meat. P47s would've decimated Russian lines. Their factories were 1,000+ miles outside the range of B-29s flying in the most ideal circumstances. Sorry, USA never touches Russia's industrial base. P-51 escorts fall over 1,500 miles short of Russian factories. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2012 7:39:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Those who think they would've rolled over us forget that we had something the Germans lost in early 1942, air power. We would've fought to a stalemate thanks to our air power and ground forces working together. Russians were building 40,000+ combat aircraft a year in 1944 & 1945. And they didn't have to ship them across the Atlantic. We'd be bombing the shit out of their factories they had moved to the East. We would have bombed their railways and roads. So even if they moved their industry underground, it would have been a big challenge for them when they can hardly move anything to the front because their supply lines and means of transportation has been crippled. But their force already present on the frontlines, basically already staring us down, so far exceeded ours it would have been a bad summer, although the cool breeze from the English channel as our men desperately pulled Dunkirk II would have helped with the heat How are they going to move those troops with no gas or rail? The same way they got it to Berlin. Death marching armies. There was barely a railway or factory left standing and they managed to get there. I'm sure they'd manage west of Berlin. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
