USA vs. USSR in 1945
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20946
Printed Date: 07-Jun-2024 at 05:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: USA vs. USSR in 1945
Posted By: Scheich
Subject: USA vs. USSR in 1945
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 07:36
|
My opinion :
USSR had the most powerful landforces, but the the USA had 6 nukes.
An Soviet invasion in USA would be unable, because the US-navy was stronger than the Soviet navy. USSR could shot down some bombers, but by a 1000-bomber attack(and some of them had nukes, they couldn'd knew which of them had nukes and they only could shot down some of all 1000 bombers) the USSR would be nuked. In 1948 the USA had 110 nukes and the USSR 0. USSR got his first nuke in 1949. I vote for USA. |
Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 15:51
|
No brainer. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 16:08
|
Are you talking war or civil genocide larger than the nazis? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 13:46
|
It would be horrible, but why is it not allowed to speak about this szenario?
I only say that in 1945 the USA could win a war agaist the USSR, but after about 1960 there would be no winner!
Why did someone vote for USSR?
Maybe the US-population would rebell ageinst this attack!? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 18:57
|
The USSR had a capable force, with sufficient machinery, however, in a prolonged conflict America would have won the conflict most definitely. The US navy was dominant, and controlled both the Atlantic and Pacific, in assistance with the UK navy it would have held at bay the Russian navy, while the American infantry with sufficient special forces could penetrate through the Russian lines on the Eastern front. Not to mention the nukes that America had at its disposal. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 19:51
|
United States could not nuke Soviet cities randomly. It would result in a great deal of support for communism all around the globe. ------------- |
Posted By: DesertHistorian
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 01:26
|
Don't forget that the US had air superiority, especially with long range heavy bombers that could easily do to the Russians what it did to the Germans and Japanese. Also by 1945 the US had superior fighters aircraft with the P-38 and P-51, not to mention the Navy's Corsairs and Hellcats.
The air superiority would have easily neutralized the Russian ground forces, and without outside assistance, the USSR would not have lasted very long.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 01:51
The Americans wouldn't do that, except maybe one on Moscow to throw the Soviets into disorganisation and confusion.
They would use their nukes as tactical battlefield weapons, if the Soviets get a million or so soldiers in one area then that's what the Americans would nuke.
Besides, America's allies would stay behind her even if she did nuke a Soviet city or two. No one abandoned America after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America could afford the bad reputation if she saved a few hundred thousand American lives here and there. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 03:58
Japan was disliked. Even today, many Asians think that Japanese got less than what they asked for. I am talking about people, not governments anyway. Soviets were considered liberators. They defeated Nazis after all, as their fatal casualties were fifty times more than American ones. Furthermore, the West had enough of capitalistic crisises, one of which created Nazi Germany in the first place. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 04:26
True, but it didn't take long for people in the West to start hating and fearing the USSR. People hated the USSR before WWII, people loved them (or at least openly cheered their war effort) from about the Battle of Moscow onwards, and then after WWII they went back to hating and being scared of them.
That's right, but people in the West didn't know it was that amount. And it wouldn't be hard to convince people in the West that it was actually a small amount and that Soviet claims to the contrary were just typical Bolshevik propaganda. As far as people in Western countries were (and most still are) it was their own soldiers who were the true liberators. Whether that is right or wrong I leave to you to decide, but we are concerned with how a practical hypothetical situation would have been played out in this thread.
I don't think people in the West were sick of capitalism, if they were then they would have become communist. People in the West were beaming with pride at how their governments had won the war. If anything, a war with the USSR would make people more anti-communist rather than less. Also, people in the West never saw Nazism as a product of communism, Nazism was associated with fascism. ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 07:31
|
On the ground, at the time the war ended (summer 1945) the Soviets had a MUCH stronger force than the allies.
Apart from the purely numerical/materialistic view (where the Soviets were equal to the allies) the Soviets were superior in personell quality. I know most won't accept this, but is the truth: the fact that the allied soldier (especially the commonwealth one), both the infatryman and the tanker, was much inferior in morale and determination than the soviet (and of course the German).
In Hastings's book 'Armaggedon' that desrcibes the last months of the war, the author (being a brit himself) clearly refers to the complaints that the company commaders made, that while marching whenever a shot was heard the whole company whould fall on the ground, waiting the mortars to clear the enemy.
The allies needed in some cases whole weeks to clear a forest or a city from Germans, while the Soviets could wipe whole coutries clean of Germans in just a few days.
About the air superiority, I agree that the allies would be superior, but we still have to keep in mind that the Soviets possessed huge numbers of planes, that the allies never faced in the hands of Germans.
If the USSR was to be defeated, that would happen not in a coventional way. I mean that the allies would either have to bomb the USSR with nuclear bombs, or use other methods. Mainly, i'm greatly concerned if the USSR could continue waging a war in the scale of WWII without the support in raw materials (especially food) from the allies.
So the USSR could throw the allies back to the atlantic ocean, but it would lose the war to starvation. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 09:56
Not Western people in general, but Western ruling classes.
That may be so, but people of Eastern Europe would know the truth.
If that was the case, socialist ideology would never exist. Revolutionary movements were either brutally crushed or softened by the social reforms of the ruling classes.
I never implied the contrary. Nazism emerged as an alternative capitalistic theory to 'solve' the problems of Germany which were caused by capitalism itself. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 10:49
|
Strange posts. How you suppose USA win a conflict with the USSR, another invasion akin to the operation Barbarossa?
How could they win that war? To draw back the Red army from Europe and then back to the gates of Moscow? How millions of American lifes would it take?
Yeah, Americans had several nukes, they would bomb the major Soviet cities, so what ?
USSR was not Japan. If had the biggest, most strongest, mechanized army in the world. With the 4 years of fighting experience against the excellent German Wermacht. Moreover, it was ready to sacrifice even more millions for the victory. Were Americans ready to do that?
Nuclear bombings would not stop the Soviet Army.
I don't understand why so many people claim that the Soviet Airpopwer was much inferior ?
Air combats in the Eastern front were much more intensvie than in the West. The best Allies aces of the war were RUSSIANS: Kozhedub and Pokryshkin not Americans.
The number of the produced American fighter aircrafts which was crucial for the air superiority didn't surprasse so much the numbers of the produced Soviet firghter aircrafts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
Fighter aircraft
Besides, soviet air defence artillery was more numerous and advanced than American.
Another thing the forces of USSR and USA could crush in 1945 only in Europe. There Soviets had total superiority while American forces were dispersed through out the world with the large part of airforces in Pacific.
I believe Soviet Army would win conflict in Europe. But of course the landing in the USA would be impossible for it to perform. On the other hand. I see totally unrealistic the scenario of American invasion and victory over USSR in 1945 it was simply impossible. ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 11:55
|
Soviets lacked a decent navy to invade United States, so this war could end in a stalemate at best for them.
American invasion of Soviet Union was equally unrealistic. Heavily mechanized Nazi troops with Blitzkrieg tactics rendered useless in concentrated battle zones. United States was far more richer, of course, and could win a cold war... Did I just say 'could'? 
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 15:00
Those were the people who really hated the Soviets, post 1045. I'd agree in general that West Europeans were pretty neutral about the Soviets until 1947 or so. In Britain there were a couple of Communist members of Parliament in 1945-50, but after the Yangtse incident and Korea there was no way any popular Communist movement would ever get going in Britain.
Constantine overstates the case, at least in Western Europe. People there were indeed sick of unfettered conservative governments, which is how the Conservatives were not re-elected in 1945, in spite of Churchill leading them. Similarly, De Gaulle couldn't get elected in France.
What the people wanted, and got, was the welfare state, but without socialist regimentation.
Talking about revolutionary movements being brutally crushed at that time and place is just silly. So is viewing the creation of the welfare state as the social reforms of the ruling classes. Britain and Western Europe went through a major social revolution in 1945-56 or so, thougb I would agree there has been a tendency to refreeze the social structures, under US influence, expecially in Britain in the last 20 or so years. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 15:32
I was talking about the origin of Nazism and early 1900s, not war or post - war period. ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 16:53
|
USA could destroy the biggest cities, the main industry areas and all large concentrated armed forces in 1948! USSR had no chance to land in UK, but USSR could conquer mainland europe. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 23:29
|
Make certain about what period u r talking. I thought the discussion was about 1945. USA didn't have that many nukes at that time. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 12:45
|
Yes, but US could protect UK and America with its large fleet and could bomb the USSR in 1948 down.
Or could USSR conquer US in 1945-1948?!
I can't understand why people vote for USSR, they all should say why!
US bomber could bomb every place in USSR.
And US had 6 nukes in december 1945.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 12:58
|
If you are talking about 1945. USSR had much stronger army, with more numerous modern artillery and tanks. The only area where they could be directly confronted by USA was Europe and there USSR would most likely prevail. 6 nukes would be not enough to stop the Soviet Army.
That's why it's not surprising, that people voted for the USSR.
You can't conquer a country simply by "bombing". Germany was not defeated by "bombings" but by the Soviet land army. Don't also forget that despite total air superiority USA was unable to defeat Chinese army in Korea. And Soviet Army was far, far more advanced than Chinese.
I am actually surprised, that people vote that USA could defeat USSR in 1945. It's too unrealistic. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 05:05
|
Americas people were sick of the war. The Japanese attacked America, The germans had Concentration camps. What could the Americans use as propaganda against the Soviets ? My personal opinion is that there would be a stalemate. Perhaps poland an Czechoslavakia may come under allied occupation but Russia had been playing the land war game for some time an i dont belive America right then an there could have carried on an invasion. When the Americans were fighting the Japanse, they were losing what 2000 men for 30,000 Japanese soldiers. For every Enemy soldier killed, the Americans would loose one. Also would it be possible for a Soviet invasion in the Middle East. If the Soviets attacked the Oil rich Arab countries that could cripple Allied mechanized units. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 06:53
|
The US and the West in general were not as reliant on Middle Eastern oil then as they have come to be since. Only a trickle was coming out of Iraq, and none from Saudi Arabia.
In particular the US at the time was self-sufficient in oil.
Same things they did use. The Red Scare. Godless Communism. Free love. Secret police. Gulags. Whatever. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 07:05
Mine was based totally on the assumption that the USA would use nuclear bombs maybe even on Moscow and Leningrad (in 1945). There's nothing unrealistic about it. (The argument that the US didn't have many bombs stockpiled has some strength, but a half-dozen or so would have been enough.)
You tend to forget that no-one in 1945 saw anything particularly evil in the use of nuclear bombs. There's no point in trying to assess motivations of people in 1945 by the standards of 40-50 years later.
At the time, even Bertrand Russell was urging the US to use nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union, though twenty years later he was leading the campaign for nuclear disarmament. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 14:57
Again those bombing would not win the war.
They potentially could only anger SU. In order to win the war, USA had to start a massive land campaing in Europe with much more men which had previously fought the Germans.
The destruction of Hamburg didn't end the war with Germany.
Nuclear bombing of Japan was only one of decisive factors which ended the war. In fact, napalm bombings of Tokyo were much more devastating for the Japanese than the nuclear bombings.
USA could possibly shock USSR for some brief time but later it would only create more problems for them, since the Soviet soldiers would become more motivated and fanatic.
Other than that. If we look at the real situation in the world in 1945, it would indeed be too hard to convince Americans that that kind of war was necessary. USSR was viewed very positively in 1945. The cold war was not there yet.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 16:05
|
But 110 nukes in 1948 could defeat the USSR! After such attack:
USSR could't produce supplies, arms food and USSR would lose their leadership in Moskow.
Besides the USA could bomb the USSR landforces down!
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 05:21
They would destroy the Soviet Union and lead to the surrender of most of the Red Army. I'm not sure what you mean by 'win the war' though. If you mean 'permanently conquer Russia and Russian Asia' then I agree with you.
The nuking of Berlin would have.
That's just saying that the allies would have defeated Japan without the nuclear bombs, which is true. It was the spectacular destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced the immediate surrender of the Emperor and the consequent capitulation of the armed forces.
I agree with that. In fact I think I said so. It was a few years before the Iron Curtain came down with the resultant development of the 'Red Scare' in the US and Western Europe. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 01:40
|
Even if the US had been more alert and listened to the pleading of their military
commanders and stopped the Russians from pouring into Eastern Europe
they only would have interested in pushing them back to their original
prewar boundaries.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 14:57
|
no bombings ever ended a war. Japan capitulated one week after Nagasaki, but only one day after the first Red Soldiers landed on Japanese soil...
------------- |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:05
| USA would win, in my opinion. The Soviets defeated the Germans because they had numerical superiority, however, the nuclear bomb eradicates that advantage, leaving the Soviets with no advantages, and insurmountable losses. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 06:35
|
If USA had attacked the USSR in a serious way Stalin would have sued for peace for he knew the limits of his system.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 15:26
This is totally wrong.
Soviet army had also advanced equipment and perfect commanders. Even Germans prefare some Soviet armament to their own. Some tank units of Wermacht were equiped with the Soviet T-34 which is commonly believed to be the best middle tank of the war, while infantry soldiers were lucky if the could get sovet PPSH machine gun. Moreover, it's morale and combat experience far exceeded that of Americans ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 15:31
Yeah, really, in which court ? Limits of the system.. What do you mean?
If USA would attack its land army would be smashed in a couple of weeks by the superior Soviet tank armies.
USA can't be even considered a serious opponent for the Soviets after Wermacht. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 15:59
i have to nitpick. T-34 were only used in '41 but not after Germany fielded modern tanks themselves like Tiger and Panther (remember, Germany also used Czech and French tanks, and Panzer I-IV were pre-war designs) while Soviets later used even StuG III (also a pre-war model) and every Panther they could capture. yes Germans really liked the Shpagin but mostly soldiers previously equipped with K98 took them, mostly because the Shpagin is better in Urban warfare than a repeating-rifle and ultimately because it had more bullets. on the other hand we all know that the StG-44 was the mother of the Kalashnikov. also, while there were Red Guard units, there were also units that had to be forced to assault German positions, even without weapons which had to be taken from dead comrades, some of which were forcibly recruited from previously German-occupied areas. this i have from a recent Russian documentary, haven't seen myself but a friend told me. but not to say US Army was still inferior to the Red Army, on land at least. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 16:31
|
I have seen pictures of German units equiped with T-34 in 1944. In fact, there were not so many T-34 in the Red Army in 1941. Most of the tanks were older models, and German machines were much superior than they, except T-43 which was viewed as a superior tanks by Germans in 1941.
Panther was a heavy, tank another class than T-34 which was a middle tank. Of course, Panther was stronger than T-34, but if you compare middle German tanks with the Soviet T-34, I believe T-34 was better although German tanks had some technicel advantages in some areas.
However, Sovier heavy tanks IS-2 could very effectively compete with Panthers and Tigers.
As I know Guderian even prohibited Tiger units to engage IS-2 unless the latters had numerical superiority, because IS-2 was viewed as a stronger tank.
IS-3 which were introduced in the last months of the war were even better and American simply didn't have tanks like these.
Yes, these attacks of unarmed soldiers did happened. But it was in 1941-42. I haven't heard of anything like that in 1944-45, the arms shortage problems was resolved at that time. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 16:44
|
Panther was a medium tank, it had a 75mm gun, even though it was a long-barreled high velocity gun and its frontal armour was better than the frontal armour of almost any other ww2 tank. but still, due to its speed and overall armour and gun it is a medium tank. heavy tanks like the Tiger and IS-2 were not numerous and exception on the battlefield. thats even more so true for the IS-3 who only saw action in Manchuria. those unarmed soldiers were from Belorussia, they were dressed in black cloth and not arming them was intended as punishment. sort of like liberated Red Army POWs were considdered traitors. probably Stalin expected every occupied Soviet citizen to become a partisan. thinkign about it, it is also possible they were accused of collaboration. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 16:51
|
I am not sure about Panther, since I thought that it was a heavy tank. But were there so many of them, anyway?
There were "punishments batallions" in the Soviet army. Those soldiers sent there for many reasons, were indeed sent unarmed on German positions and were supposed to "acquire arms by themselves".
The casualty rate in these punishments batallions was about 95%.
However, I have never read that former POW were massively send to "punishment battalions" and in any case these incidents were not caused by the lack of guns, it was just a form of "punishment." ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 00:22
|
The Russian invasion of the Kurill islands with their combined population of 17,000 civilians produced the Japanese surrender!? You sir are a master of comedy! The bombings of
I don't understand why so many people claim that the Soviet Airpopwer was much inferior ?
The
If the USAF had been permitted to bomb Chinese staging supply areas it would have. You cant conquer a nation by bombing but you can certainly destroy one, it was the threat of the bomb that kept the cold war cold.
Within a year of a protracted bombing campaign with nuclear weapons the
The |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 12:19
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 13:32
Huh, one of the most funniest things I read recently on the forum. The attrition rate of the Soviet pilot was bigger, simply because the combat on the eastern front was much more intense. Soviet Aces as well were send to the rear to train the pilots.
It's much easier to shoot down the bomber than the fighter aircraft.
Allied bombing were not able to put on its knees small Germany, which industry was concentrated in limited places, given also the fact the the biggest part of the German airforce was on the Eastern front.
You think they would perform better against Russia? Not so say that they would have to cross the whole European continent to the Ural mountains where the Soviet military industry was concentrated.
They would not be able the same ammount the bombing which was done on Germany, simply because of the logistic reasons, again those bombings were not able to put "Germany on its knees". More over they would face the whole might of the Soviet airforce, not just the remnants of the German fighters, most of which were on the Eastern front
If the USAF had been permitted to bomb Chinese staging supply areas it would have. You cant conquer a nation by bombing but you can certainly destroy one, it was the threat of the bomb that kept the cold war cold. U r not familiar enough with the Korean war. Americans did bombed Chinese supply lines in China. It was actually the place were they suffered the haviest casualties, since Chinese territory was protecting by the soviet pilots "volunteers". Again those bombings didn't help them to win the war.
Absolutely meaningless move. They wouldn't be able to win the war against Russia by establishing "beach heads" in the Russian Far East.
Moreover, while they are establishing the beachhead, Soviet Army would do smth. more serious in Europe.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 13:42
I agree with Temujin. The effects of the nuclear bombings are far exaggerated.
In fact, Soviet invasion to Manzhuria had perhaps even more shocking effect on the Japanese headquarters than the nuclear bombings.
Soviet Union, who was viewed as possible mediator between Janan and the allies by the Japanese, not only destroyed all the hopes for this "mediation" mission, but also destroyed the biggest Japanese land army in Manzhuria.
Under this circumstances the perspectives of conitnuing the war were hopeless for Japanese.
Next target in the Soviet plan after Kuril islands was Hokkaido.
Japanese emperor and command clearly saw, what would follow if they do not surrender in a timely fashion. If they didn't surrender then, perhaps we would have another "North Japanese republic" now, akin to the North Korea. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 16:32
|
God - the USA certainly - despite the Soviet's superiority in conventional armed forces numerically, their economy was wrecked and their country in tatters from the combined evils of war and Stalinism. The USA, however, had come out of the war much stronger, having dominance over the global markets as the exhausted European nations sunk into poverty and most importantly - they had the Nuke.
Operationation paperclip probably helped a lot as well - technically, although the Japanese were proficent early in the war with their machinery (such as the A6M "Zero"), they didn't utilize them properly and by the end of the war, America had superior flying machines. The German scientists that America nabbed in this operation gave America access to so many valuble military theories - the jet engine and the rocket were just two such advantages. Also, the American armed forces were in a better state technologically and logistically than the huge Russian ones. Despite Russian technical ability in many areas (T34, Tokarev automatic rifle, PE2 Peshka), their wrecked country would have ruined this advantage.
In my mind, it's not really the conventional Nukes that are the issue here - it's Russia's ability to deal with another war. Russia is at breaking point and couldn't recover from an atomic strike economically. Also, they couldn't mobilize and organise enough logistically to launch a conventional location (and if they did, their nation would be economically ruined very quickly). It's not really for the technical advantages - it's the economic situation of each nation after WWII. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 18:07
|
Soviet Union also captured a lot of rocket-scientists and whatnot, they even took specialised clerks with them who could assist them, unlike the Americans, who had to train their personel first. i think the Korean War shows that the air was not clearly dominated by America. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 18:37
Soviet military industry in perfect shape in 1945. In fact the only time when the totalitarian economy can be viewed as advantageous is the war time.
Wrecked country had nothing to do with it. Despite all the losses Soviet military industry only has been improving year by year since 1945.
I don't see any strong technological advantage of American forces over Russians.
Moreover, Russian army's morale far superceded American one.
You say, that the wrecked country wouldn't allow Russia to go for another war?
Why do you think America would be willing to sacrifise millions in war with Russia? I don't see sense in that. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:17
|
Yeah - my bad, I suppose not. Well, if the Russians had got planes like the mIGs in the 1950s, then aeronautically, they're in top form. ------------- |
Posted By: TheOrcRemix
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 22:40
|
USA no doubt.
The bomb itsself has enough weight to stike down russian moral.
the only two advantages i really see is moral, and a rife ammout of troops.
The United States controlled the seas. They could conduct any kind of millitary operation in a matter of minutes.
The moblization of the USSR troops would takes days, maybe weeks.
what it comes down to, is the bomb.
------------- True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice. Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 23:09
|
Wait, we are just talking about USA vs. USSR. Why are some people talking about dragging Britain in?
It's hard to say. Is Britain going to do nothing as the Russians pave their way to America? How are Russians going to have their armies transported to America? Is America coming to Soviet Union? Whoever strikes first would have considerable disadvantage. That's why Cold War began.
A lot of people voted USA for their nukes... but are Russians going to just watch US plane loaded with atomic bomb (Not nuke) to fly into Soviet land? And what about the time required for producing atomic bomb? Back in the 1945, making one atomic bomb required at least 3 years.
America had 6 atomic bomb? Really? I though one blasted in New Mexico for testing, another one in Hiroshima and another one in Nagasaki. USA had no more, though they were making more... they need 3 years at least to make one.
Yes, the production of atomic bomb became more efficient as the time went by... but we don't necessary know that.
So it's harder for us to judge than we think... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 04:52
Don't get me wrong though, I respect the Soviets - personally i think they are responsible for the fall of the third Reich.
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 12:29
|
Which means that Soviet Air forces in
But not with the same frequency as they were needed at the front
One word, According to Albert Speer the American bombing campaign was devastating as it prevented the German economy from ever approaching its potential, to put this into perspective. Over the course of the war the US GDP rose by more than 100%, the German economy, about 13%... Until the USAF went after Axis refining capacity This of course is beside the point as the bulk of Soviet industry would have been out of reach meaning that US and British bomber fleets would be most likely used to pound the Red Armys logistical capacity, that means rail, roads, bridges supply convoys etc
They didnt have to, they simply needed to push
The RAF would more than make up for any American numerical deficiency in Now lets see, a superior training structure, better support, superior numbers, miniaturized radios in USAF and British fighters in a far greater percentage of fighters in service(This results in a huge advantage with respect to coordination), and superior fighter designs(The US and British were already rolling jet powered fighters off the assembly lines). My moneys on the combined USAF and RAF pulling complete air superiority.
Well since youre such an expert on that affair please tell me, what effect did bombing the bridges across the Yalu, or for that matter the bombing of Air Bases and supply areas in BTW American pilots flying F-86 Sabres managed a superior kill ratio over Soviet pilots in there Mig-15s despite the Migs superior performance, as it turned out the more aggressive tactical doctrine used by US pilots proved more effective(Granted tactics perfected by the Luftwaffe helped a lot, as the often outnumbered Sabre pilots relied heavily upon the finger four formation. Besides youre comparing apples and oranges here, the highly mechanized Soviet Army would have been far more vulnerable to an interdiction campaign that the Armies China had sent into Im not saying that conventional bombing will win a war, but it can certainly make meaningful ground offensive by mechanized forces nigh impossible. This certainly would have been the case if US and British Commanders pulled back to the
During the early stages of the war on the Eastern front entire Soviet Armies were being slaughtered and yet the USSR still stubbornly kept a substantial force in Eastern Siberia Pray do explain why
U overestimate the Big Six, everything Ive ever read has suggested or said that it was not the success of the Soviets in |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 16:16
everything I read lately suggest that the bombs were just a PR stunt and that the Japanese were too scared to become a Communist puppet of Stalin, thats why they surrendered to the US. ------------- |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 22:30
Go back and reread what was said and then if you mind do it again, because the reference of casualties was meant to refer to the numbers of Soviet aircraft that were in service during mid 1945, since Sarmat orgininally posted raw production figures as an approximation of strength.
For the most part i'll concede this one, I thought for some odd reason that the transfer of Eastern troops didn't occur until a few months later than it did. Even still the fact that the Soviet's maintained a significant number of troops in Far East even amidst growing anxieties over Germany suggest that the Soviet's would have, in the event of war between the US and USSR, kept troops in the far East to defend against the fairly substantial US military assets in the Pacific.
Well the author's you've read must be geniuses if they could look at one of the most complicated and fateful military/political decisions in history and ascribe it to a single trivial cause, a PR boost. What masters of conjecture to reach such a conclusion in the comparative absence of documentation, to suggest that the Japanese goverment was motivated to surrender by fears of becoming a Soviet client state. Please tell me the names of these brilliant giants of politics and history. I wish to see how they dismiss Japan's official statement of surrender to the Japanese people, which made virtually no mention of Soviet Union's successes in Manchuria but did state the following
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives.
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 17:01
|
before any of this continues I'd like to apologize if I've been something of an ass, i suspect the sarcasm I've displayed has been un necessary.
As for the articles you've read I would honestly like to see them out of simple curiousity. |
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 20:08
Actually it took roughly three years to create a weaponized version, once the design was figured out actual production was more a question of enrichment, which took around several months. By August of 1945 the US was producing at a rate of about 3 bombs a month.
As impressive as the Soviet production numbers were they don't take into account the contribution Lend-lease. Though it didn't provide a great deal of weaponry to the USSR it did provide a substantial amount of supporting resources. Millions of tons of of leather and textiles, 1,500 locomotives, 250,000 trucks along with millions of tons of canned rations and no less than 15 million pairs of boots. Throughout the war the USSR was able to focus more on the production of weaponry than were other nations.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:53
|
The level of contribution of the lend-lease you wrote about was not decisive at all for the Soviet military industry.
However, I don't blame you for lacking knowledge of the Soviet point of view.
Mostly due to the cold war influence, Western publications usually exagerrate the real impact of the lend-lease. Unfortunately, USSR had to rely on its own industrial capabilities. The absence of the Western help for USSR during the war wouldn't change anything for the Soviet military industy. Perhaps it would make the life of the Soviets a little bit harder but not more.
I can give u a lot of Russian sources supporting my point, however, I'm not sure whether it will be really helpful for you since most of them are in Russian language. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 09:57
|
Well, 'Lend Lease' was pretty critical in allowing Soviet industry to concentrate on war production, and in particular weapons. Having the supply of trucks cut off would have had a huge impact on Soviet offensives from '43-'45. Foodstuffs (processed) were also critical as the loss and devastation of the Soviet food producing areas created critical shortages. Regarding the wider question, it's really pretty difficult to comment meaningfully with a more detailed scenario being constructed. Exactly when and how does the proposed conflict breakout? Is it a 'surprize' attack in Europe? Or a result of escalating tensions. Has Japan been defeated? Recall that the Soviets took a couple months after VE day to ship troops and supplies east to attack Japanese forces in Manchuria. Further note that the Soviets had an agreement with Japan prior to attacking them. Does the conflict with the US take place before or after the Soviets attack Japan and Japan is defeated? Before or after the US has dropped its only 2 nuclear weapons on Japan? Who else is involved in the conflict? What about Britain and the 'Commonwealth'? |
Posted By: what_is_history
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 12:07
|
Thank goodness that we'll never kmow! ------------- "It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 09:30
|
I made a mistake: USA had 110 nukes and the range of the US-bomber was long enough, but the range of the US escort fighter was not long enough to protect the US-bomber. And US-bomber without an escort would have no chance against the Soviet fighterplanes and air defence.
USA could nuke down Vladivostock, Murmansk, Belarus and Leningrad and the red army in eastern Europe, but never Moscow and all great cities in the middle of USSR. Furthermore, the USSR had captured German tabun and began with a mass production of soman(which is more deathly than tabun). Therefore the USSR was able to annihilate the allied troops in western Europe and the urban population of UK, France and the allied controlled German cities. And Soviet submarines could attack US west and east coast with nerve agent shells. It would be a statement with many causualities.
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 11:22
|
I have heared, that the B-36 bomber was able to attack every place in USSR and that the Mig 15 and the Mig 17 weren't able to attack it, because of the high flight of B-36. And there was no SAM. Could USSR protect its country against B-36 Bomber in the late 1940s? USSR had its first ICMB in 1953, but look at the ICMB number in 1960: USA had 12 and USSR had 2, why had USSR only 2 ICMB in 1960? Was the Soviet bomber force able o attack USA between 1945 and 1953? When could USA use H-warheads for ICBM's? |
Posted By: South
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 12:57
|
Re: "IL-2 Sturmovik most produced plane EVER";
I'm not sure if the IL-2 is the Li-2, the Soviet version of the DC-3.
However, it was the DC-3 that was the most produced aircraft ever.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 14:09
DC-3 produced: 13,000 Il-2 produced: 36,000 ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 14:24
| Il-2 and DC-3 were no bombers and would have no chance against US fighter aircraft. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 14:33
|
this topic came up for production value as such, the Il-2 is a ground attack plane close to a fighterplane. ------------- |
Posted By: South
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 02:49
|
Guten morgan Temujin,
I think that 36 K number also includes the Il-10.
I'm using the Li-2 production as part of the DC-3 production numbers.
Had heard that the Polikavpov 2 was actually the most produced aircraft in history. (Originally designated U-2 [biplane])
Most all production numbers vary greatly from the different sources.
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 07:44
Guten morgen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15
I've heared that the B-36 could fly too high and fast and that the Mig-15 wouldn't able to defend USSR against B-36 bomber. But you can see in wikipedia, that the Mig-15 could fly higher and faster than the B-36!
Had USSR in the late 1940s radar and could see the US-bomber early enough?
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 13:05
Il-10 was basically still the same aircraft as the Il-2. i think in the USSR they always gave new numbers to upgraded aircraft, look for example the Yak series of fighter aircraft, while Germany and Britain for example retained the original numbering but added a letter or latin numerals (Bf 109-K and Supermarine Spitfire Mk V). yes, i've forgotten about the U-2, it had production numbers of 40,000. ------------- |
Posted By: Crystall
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2007 at 14:49
And what is the problem with this? Can we also compare casualty rates between Soviet operations and american troops? Just because from what you present the Soviet commanders/own troops had less reguard for their lives does not mean this is strategically beneficial.
|
Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 14:59
| The IL-2 was probably the best specialized ground attack aircraft of the war, it was rugged deadly and worth its weight in gold to the Red Army. Allegedly when a factory producing these aircraft fell behind in production Stalin wrote to the factory manager that the IL-2 was as vital to the Red Army's survival as air and bread. Of course these planes were highly vulnerable to luftwaffe fighters throughout the war, and in any conflict I just think they wouldn't fair very well against deadly American and British multi-role fighters like the P-47 Thunderbolt and Hawker Typhoon. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 09:55
Where do you get the Li-2 figure from?
And you should add to the DC3 figure the number produced of the military version, the C-47.
I last flew in a DC3 in 1957 on the scheduled Southampton-Jersey route, and in a military C47 a couple of months later. At that time it was frequently asserted that half the aircraft flying in the world were DC3s (or C47s). I never saw the assertion contradicted. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 13:16
i have the Il-2 production numbers from lemaire and wikipedia, who confirms that Il-2 is second most produced aircraft in the world after the U-2. production numbers of the DC-3 incl. C-47 and Li-2 (whose production numbers are rather small) combined are still fewer than 40,000 and 36,000 for U-2 and Il-2 respectively. ------------- |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 16:01
|
Was USSR air force able to attack US-mainland between 1945-1955?
Had USSR a chance against US-bomber fleets with nukes?
Who know something about Soviet WMD production after 1945?
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 18:51
|
Does nobody know answers? When were USA and SU able to annihilate each other? |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 18:12
|
nobody could win...1.the USA had not enough forces to overrun the red army
2. the industry of USSR has become to powerful and to far away to conquer
3. the soviet had not enoughe naval forces to stop USA
the only way could be to lounch the nukes on Russia before they developed it too ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 21:17
I'll accept that, because I don't know any better. However, strictly speaking it doesn't contradict the assertion that half the aircraft flying in the world c. 1956 were DC-3s etc. since that was supposed to have arisen because of the long active life of the aircraft and their commercial utility.
Also maybe it was half the commercial aircraft in the world. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 20:18
U-2 biplanes were already obsolete and replaced at the beginning of ww2, don't know when the Il-2 series was out of service. ------------- |
Posted By: AndronicusRex
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 02:05
|
The US would have won, and the victory would have been in just a few years at most if Patton were alive to lead the charge on Moscow. ------------- Andronicus Rex, Noble of the Republic http://angryamericanaristocrat.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 12:14
|
Say why! |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 13:31
------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 15:10
|
Nuclear weapons, naturally ------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 18:36
you think thet would stop USSR?...
we'll never agree...we have different points of view...for someone USSR for other USA... ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 19:22
Year, of course
 .USSR tank armies would smash Patton with all his "might" in a few days not even months. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 20:21
|
US-escort fighter couldn't escort the US-Bomber to every place in USSR!
If there would have been a war only USA against only USSR: USA would nuke some Soviet cities in Belarus and Ukraine and USSR would overrun the US area in Austria and Germany, but not in Japan (because of USN).
US_bomber in Japan would put more and more bombs on Soviet far east and in 1957, both would have ICBMs.
|
Posted By: AndronicusRex
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 01:52
|
The Soviets didn't have anything left, no huge tank reserves that would have posed any threat to our nuclear and air power (not to mention backing of Western nations), and hell MacArthur could have turned the Japanese military (what was left) against the Russians inthe Pacific. Unlike other times, Russia would be fighting on TWO fronts, and possibly more if a front could be opened up from India and South Asia where many Western countries still had colonies. No Russian tank would have stood a chance. WWII had established air dominance as the key to victory, and the Soviets could not hope to claim that. ------------- Andronicus Rex, Noble of the Republic http://angryamericanaristocrat.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 02:07
Obviously, your understanding of WWII is very basic. Soviet Union did had its maximum air, tank and blah-blah-blah reserves in 1945.
It were the Soviet pilots who fought and defeated the major Luftwaffe air power and it were Soviet aces who were the best Allied aces of WWII.
And perhaps it will be very surprising for you, but USSR was also very popular in 1945, including communist ideas may it was a self delusion of Europeans but it's a fact. Most of the partisan units in France and Italy consisted of communists. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: AndronicusRex
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:55
|
Yeah, and a lot of people from those same countries were even willing to fight alonside the NAZIS agaist communism. And don't even pretend that Soviet "air power" could have matched the air forces that had been bombing the hell out of Germany for years. I don't doubt the Soviets did have reserves, but they would have been little use other than cannon-fodder thrown in front of US forces merely delaying the inevitable deafeat of the Soviet Union. After a few weeks, Moscow and St. Petersburg probably wouldn't exist anymore anyway, we coulda made a few more atom bombs for the occasion, a capability the Soviets lacked. ------------- Andronicus Rex, Noble of the Republic http://angryamericanaristocrat.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 06:09
|
This goes for everyone in here. Please refrain from ridiculing someone's perceived lack or actual lack of knowledge on the topic at hand. Rather, try to educate by stating what you think or know is correct, without the commentary on the other person's knowledge base. If you cannot already tell, I am not trying to make this discussion subjective (you are all encouraged to be objective), but to prevent any useless squabbles from happening.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 06:24
The fact is again that the Luftwaffe was destroyed at the Eastern front and that the best Allied aces were Russians u can't raise anything to counter this.
The war was won not by only "reserves" as you wrote, But by the industry and military skills of the Soviet commander, otherwise the China would won the first, since its human resources were far surpassing those of its enemy.
The fact is that US had only a limited war experience of fighting on a large front less then a year in Europe against an enemy who was much weaker in terms of the resources and equipment (and always had its best troops against USSR) and yet had a lot of problems to overcome it. At the same time Soviet Army had 4 years of experience of fighting perhaps the best land army ever on the largest front which existed in the history of warfare so far and that enemy was defeated largely by the Soviet military art.
You are very mistaken if you think that European people would be so happy to go for another war at this time, everybody were exhausted. And USSR did had a lot of supporters.
And dont forget that USSR had a large arsenal of chemical and biological WMD as well. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 13:05
|
India was British and USA alone couldn't defeat the USSR and USSR alone couldn't defeat the USA. The range of the escort fighter was not long enough to escort the US-Bomber to Moscow and to the important secret cities in the east of the Ural. How large was the Soviet stockpile of captured German nerve agents? All allies air forces were stronger than the Soviet air force, but was the US-air force alone in Europe stronger than the Soviet air force? Has anyone statistic about US-air force in Europe? |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 05:02
|
I first thought of this subject when I saw the movie Patton, great movie. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the question be the western allies versus the Russians? It seems odd the U.S. would fight the russians in central europe without britain and france.
Anyway, my guess would be the US would win. Now the USSR has the larger army in europe, however the US has a larger airforce and has a larger industrial capacity and has not had half its country ravaged by war. Also it has no concern about mantaining its troops in the field, there are more than enough resources available. The manpower is even once the US brings its reserves into play. The way I see this unfolding is the US opens another front in the east with its marines and pacific military personnel. They would have the advantage there in the navy and air force. (didn't the US have something like 8 million men under arms at the close of WWII?) In europe the US is going to be pushed back by sheer numbers. However, the US will cut off all supplies to the USSR which is big. The USSR has half its european part of the country in ruins. I would think the US would send over enormous reserves into europe and start driving the russians back. If they were able to maintain a solid front, if they get pushed off the continent then there would have to be enormous landings and the victory would be that much more difficult. The "new" Eastern front will take away russian forces in europe and I think the americans would have the advantage there, unlike in europe. Under the assumption the US would not use the bomb, then I forsee a war of attrition that the US is bound to win because, again, their country hasn't been occupied by the germans and they are relatively fresh and now experienced. Afterall, the US was the one shipping supplies to Russia, not the other way around. Thats my opinion.
Sorry Scheich, I don't have any statistics on the US airforce offhand. You should be able to find something if you google it. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 10:30
|
hmmm...the soviets had the best land force, with the katyusha and the best tank the T-34, with thus the americans could not compite; plus all of Europe was devastated not only the Soviet Union, the french militry power was weak, hte British Empire go into a slow decline and the USSR after they expelled the germans out had already a powerful economy
The Americans would be defated in Europe and with it's air and naval force could do nothing: from Siberia they could not attack(even if they tried they would end up frozen), the american people were tierd of war. If the Soviets suceeded in expeling the Allias from Europe there would be no chance in stopping them, but as they had almost no naval force they wouldn't surly suceeded in invading US...only if conquering Europe, the soviets would have a chance defeating US...and the american equipment was not ready for a winter war in USSR ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Scheich
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 10:56
|
After the operation August Storm, the USSR had a lot military in Far East and I don't think, that the USA had a chance to make something like D-Day in Far East!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm
First I thought that the USA would win with atomic bombs, but only to have the Bomb is not enough! The USA had no chance to carry it to important places in USSR! But USSR had no chance to send troops to the US-mainland!
|
Posted By: WolfHound
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 02:32
| It would end in USA victory, however I seriously doubt the US and the USSR wanted war in 1945. Although America would have won because of the Atomic weapons. However both armies were exhausted, and either needed new territories to conscript forces for, or a couple months to recuperate. |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 14:15
you forgot thet the atomic bomb was dropped on a small island, and they could blow all of Japan...the Soviet Union was the biggest state in the world, and they could not reach key position like Moskow or the Urals were the industry lied...and US alone could do nothing...if we are talking only USA vs USSR without British, French and other support then surly America could not win ------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 17:27
I doubt the Soviets wouldve won. Also following Patton's plan, he would've used the Germans to fight along side the Allies against the Soviets. He had many top Waffen SS commanders in preparative talks infact . ------------- 
|
Posted By: WolfHound
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 20:34
| It also comes down with side got the most nazi scientists. The war would have been won by implementing new technologies, and more powerful bombs. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 20:42
|
^^ The US had many former german scientists like Einstein that fled Nazi germany; the US was arguably far ahead of all the other allied powers, including USSR, in regards to technology. Nuclear technology especially. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 21:16
Wrong. USSR for example got most of the Nazis rocket equpment as well as many scientists in the field. Why do you think USSR was able to become the first in the exploration of space? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 21:45
|
A good point, though in rocket technology it was a close race between the US and USSR. In 45' you may have a point in that field. This is not really an area I am well educated in.
What are your thoughts on technological levels of the two opposing combatants in 45'? ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 21:56
|
I think it was pretty even. Although US was indeed ahead in nuclear studies, which in fact was a result of a huge cooperation with Britts and former Nazi scientists. But the USSR wasn't that far behind.
Perhaps one need to go and examine each specificfield of technology. Especially, warfare technology, since I think each party had some advantages in certain areas while was in disadvantage in others.
------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 22:00
I don't find that a deciding factor really, the Soviets had to reverse engineer Allied war planes( B-29 bombers)just to keep up, we couldve bombed Moscow and their Industrial zones into oblivion while launching a massive ground assault . The Soviets were also pretty badly beat up, they lost over 1 million men taking Berlin alone. -------------
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 22:34
"Taking Berlin alone.." it is one of the most difficult operation of the whole WWII, taking of the core of the IIId Reich. What would you expect?
Besides, where did you take these fantastic numbers from?
Russian casualties are estimated from 100 to 300 thousands with the German casualties within the same range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin#_note-Rus_edition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin#_note-Rus_edition
German wiki gives the number of only 100ths Soviets killed with more German casualties.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_um_Berlin - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_um_Berlin
Yes, Russians didn't have the same kind of long range bombers as Americans.
At the same time American tanks and artillery weapons were inferior to the the Soviet ones.
So, as I said it was pretty even.
And the high Russian casualties prove only that the fighting on the Eastern front was much more intense than on any other front. That's it. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union - Soviet Union 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland - Poland 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany - Germany 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sowjetunion - Sowjetunion 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polen - Polen 
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich_1933_bis_1945 - Deutsches Reich Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 22:54
|
I also want to add again. On these "mighty bombings"
It was already repeated several time in this thread that you can't win the war by bombings.
A good example is Vietnam which was hit with more bombes than were used during the whole WWII, yet American were unable to crush this tiny peice of land.
Now, look at the map and compare Vietnamese territory and the Soviet land mass. It says it all... ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|