Discussion on the invasion of mother Russia (hypothetical)

[Kapitan]

Invasion of mother Russia

Ok here is the scene NATO have declared war on the Russian federation for some disagreement over oil in the arctic, the USA have decreed they will not enter the war unless absolutely necessary so that major power is out.

How do you think The Russians will fare against NATO in a defensive posture?

Could you plan the defensive position using land sea and air units effectively to stop NATO units advancing?

How do you think Moscow will react to the invasion threat by NATO and do you think the war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear?

Please discuss in a civilised manner possible out comes for this hypothetical war.

[Max2147]

You might as well ask what will happen if the Flying Spaghetti Monster declares war on the Federated States of Micronesia. I can't see any situation where NATO's European allies attack Russia while the US sits there on the sidelines.

[Torplexed]

You might as well ask what will happen if the Flying Spaghetti Monster declares war on the Federated States of Micronesia. I can't see any situation where NATO's European allies attack Russia while the US sits there on the sidelines.

Exactly. If they're not too keen on being in Afghanistan right now fighting lowly tribesmen I don't see much for them to love in a conflict with a former superpower still armed with nuclear weapons.

[Raptor1]

It will be quite hard to NATO to invade Russia. The only land links are Northern Norway (An easy enough position to defend) and the Baltics, a concentrated defence of those is not at all beyond Russia's ability. Naval invasions don't pose too much of a threat as much the coastline freezes in the winter, making supply almost impossible, and sufficient air cover could prevent an invasion from getting through in the first place (Especially if the US carrier fleets are out).

All this providing it is not nuclear, if it is than all this doesn't matter and the war will be over in 2 hours.

Then again, I cannot see any reason for NATO to attack Russia...

EDIT: Whoops, forgot that Russia has no border with Turkey anymore... :damn:

Need more sleep...

[ETR3(SS)]

For a Russian defense I'd go with the tried and true. Scorched Earth and a Russian winter. It stopped Napoleon, it stopped Hitler, it'll stop NATO too. If it went nuclear it would be over in less than 2 hours, I give it 30 minutes with Russia still standing.

Oh and if you take the US out of NATO you just get the EU. :03:

EDIT: Finally not that gay looking medic dude anymore!

[Max2147]

EDIT: Finally not that gay looking medic dude anymore!
A "Navy Dude" with a popped collar isn't a huge improvement ;)

[SUBMAN1]

NATO is a pretty pathetic fighting force of you remove the US of A. Half the reason most countries refuse to leave it is that the US will protect them, which in turn results in ever decreasing defense budgets since they increasingly rely on the USA. THe UK may be the only force left with an ever dwindling offensive force and they alone can't take on the bear.

I have to vote with Russia stomping the crap out of everyone. They alone are way more capable than the rest of NATO.

If it's nuclear though, it's over in an hour because the US will launch too. Half the worlds population gone in 1 hr's time.

-S

[Morts]

NATO is a pretty pathetic fighting force of you remove the US of A. Half the reason most countries refuse to leave it is that the US will protect them, which in turn results in ever decreasing defense budgets since they increasingly rely on the USA. THe UK may be the only force left with an ever dwindling offensive force and they alone can't take on the bear.

I have to vote with Russia stomping the crap out of everyone. They alone are way more capable than the rest of NATO.

If it's nuclear though, it's over in an hour because the US will launch too. Half the worlds population gone in 1 hr's time.

-S
yeah, the only fighting force worth a damn is the US army....:nope:

[PeriscopeDepth]

yeah, the only fighting force worth a damn is the US army....:nope:

NATO wouldn't do a very good job of invading Russia. They never were meant to. They would do an excellent job of holding off a Russian invasion, even without American help IMO.

PD

[Task Force]

Hmm... has anyone inverted a missile system to intercept a missile...:hmmm:

[Raptor1]

Hmm... has anyone inverted a missile system to intercept a missile...:hmmm:

No, inverting a missile would mean it would launch towards the ground and therefore create an unnecessarily large mess for some miserable people to clean up...

[Task Force]

... a system that makes the missiles navagation systems make it go into space one it gets in the air.:hmmm:

[Raptor1]

... a system that makes the missiles navagation systems make it go into space one it gets in the air.:hmmm:

No, that wouldn't work, you can (Most likely) shoot down ICBMs these days though

[OneToughHerring]

I haven't read the other replies but IMHO it would be difficult for Nato to soundly beat Russia and get a unconditional surrender out of them. Russia is the kind of country that thrives under duress and a war would unite them, pretty much like it has in the past.

If it'd be a nuke-fest then it'd be even more difficult to predict. Those Topols pack a punch.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Dmitry_Medvedev_15_May_2008-14.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

I made your text in white so I could actually read it.

Please discuss in a civilised manner possible out comes for this hypothetical war.

Alright, I'll make an honest effort.

Invasion of mother Russia

Ok here is the scene NATO have declared war on the Russian federation for some disagreement over oil in the arctic, the USA have decreed they will not enter the war unless absolutely necessary so that major power is out.

How do you think The Russians will fare against NATO in a defensive posture?
Extremely difficult to say without a comprehensive knowledge of asset disposition on the eve of the war, but I'll try.
Assuming that NATO adopts a Barbarossa-style buildup, the Russians would certainly be alerted to their presence well before the attack, so I'll rule that out in favor of a slight augmentation of exsisting troop strenghts and a troop buildup in the guise of a wargame held in southeastern Poland.
The Polish buildup offers a major advantage in that Ukraine, tank-country at its' finest, is readily accessible. Assuming that Ukraine does not join the war on the Russian side, violation of its' neutrality is still acceptable, primarily because invasion of Russia through any exsisting EU-Russian border would face major terrain hurdles and could only offer a narrow attack front.
Although the main thrust of the attack would be through Ukraine, there would have to be a secondary attack through the shared border between Estonia, Latvia, and Russia. Belarus can be ignored if it remains neutral because there is little to gain from advancing through the vast marsh there, especially if the invasion takes place in the spring or early summer. Better yet, if the Russians counterattack through Belarus, they will be throwing themselves into a marshy, forested salient betwtixt the two prongs of the attack, making them vulnerable to encirclement. They will have more to worry about than bad terrain, however. The Belorussians will almost certainly offer some resistance, further slowing them. Even if they make it to the Polish border, they still have to cross the Vistula to make a decisive thrust into EU territory and if the EU forces can hold the relatively defensible ground along Poland's Northern and southern borders, the Russians will be throwing themselves into yet another salient where they can be encircled in short order.

Russia also suffers from a lack of force-readiness and military infrastructure at the moment. Shall I assume that in this hypothetical scenario that they have remedied those shortcomings? It would make a big difference.


Could you plan the defensive position using land sea and air units effectively to stop NATO units advancing?
Assuming that Russia's military is in readiness, and that the EU pursues the initial strategy outlined above........no. There is very little the Russians could do to stop the EU from advancing rapidly into Ukraine, and most of their units lack the reliability and organization neccesary to conduct modern mobile defence. They also lack the numerical superiority required to counter schwerpunkt NATO attacks, particularly of the combined-arms and vertical envelopment variety.

However, Russia could eventually stop the NATO advance, if they play their hand right. Much as in the Second World War, Russia would have to adopt a general policy of shifting troops eastward and drawing their opponents in. Despite advances in transportation engineering and air-supply, the NATO forces would be severely hampered by their long supply lines. This is doubly true if Belarus remains neutral.

Modern armies, for all their advancements, are even more reliant upon supplies than 20th-century forces. They need more fuel, more finished products, more technical support, and most of all, more communications.
The latter is NATO's greatest strength and greatest weakness. If NATO could launch a devestating strike against Russian military communications centres and headquarters units with long-range precision-strike aircraft, they could cripple the Russian military (in the West, maybe even as far as the Caucuses) in one fell swoop for weeks, maybe even months. NATO possesses the aircraft to make this strike, even though their ability to deliver such a strike is somewhat hampered by the buffer states of Ukraine and Belarus. If Russian units were prepared for such a strike, the effectiveness of it would be minimal. HQ's were moving about or taking cover because an attack was imminent, it would be difficult to effectively pin most of them down and eliminate them. As a consequence, the Russian defence would be coordinated, and NATO would run into stiff opposition sooner or later. Stiff opposition that would ruin any chance of victory over Russia. Russia's ally is time, and NATO cannot afford to let Russia utilize that ally.

As I said, NATO's superiority in battlefield communications is also their greatest weakness. The Russians would be hard-pressed to launch effective strikes against NATO comm units and HQ's because NATO units have access to some of the most advanced communications equipment known to man, and their comm centers will be far behind the lines (if they can be called lines in modern warfare) and protected by significant, advanced, air defense artillery, orbital surveillance, aerial surveillance, quick-reaction forces, and exceptional air-superiority fighters. Russian anti-radiation artillery fire is not even a concern when you have radio, microwave, and sattelite communications that can transmit traffic to units 100 miles away in adverse circumstances and anywhere on the planet in ideal circumstances.
The weakness lies in the fact that NATO units are so reliant upon constant battlefield communication. It only takes about 5 minutes (assuming that one has access to electrically conductive wire) to set up a field-expedient jamming array whose range is limitd only by the power source you provide it with.
Sure, NATO anti-radiation artillery fire or airstrikes will destroy the array within minutes (or hours, if the range of the array is such that it requires a planned airstirke and anit-air artilery is in place), but ground forces and combined-arms support are stalled in the meantime.
Whether Russian units are trained in the form of electronic warfare, I do not know, but I do know that if they were to use it, they could cripple a NATO offensive before it gained any significant ground. Again, time is Russia's ally, and the longer they can delay a decisive NATO offensive, the more likely they are to stave it off or reverse it.


How do you think Moscow will react to the invasion threat by NATO and do you think the war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear?


If America remained neutral I'm pretty sure their first reaction would be to attempt to gain diplomatic intervention from America. There is absolutely no way that the EU could prosecute a war against Russia if America intervened on behalf of the Russians, which it probably would, especially if the cause of the war was something as trivial as an oil dispute in the arctic.
Then again, it depends upon the administration in power, and the political climate. If oil were in very short supply and the E.U. had an oil trade arrangement with the U.S. and the electorate didn't go bonkers about the whole situation, the U.S would probably intervene on behalf of the E.U.
That is pure conjecture, though.

After that, I only have more conjecture to offer in regards to whether or not the war would go nuclear. The only thing I know for certain is that a nuclear exchange would bring the U.S. in on one side or the other. Common sense might dictate that the U.S. stay as far away as possible from nuclear exchanes, but there would indubitably be a strong reactionary sentiment that would deman a nuclear strike. The fear of nuclear weapons and the assurance of U.S. superiority is too great for it to be othwerwise. I have no doubt that within the current political climate, the U.S. would nuke the hell out of whatever it considered to be the offending party, and it would do so very quickly.

I imagine that Russia and the E.U. are aware of this, and would not allow the war to escelate into a nuclear conflict. That, however, is only a cursory view of the scenario. There are many, many, factors to be considered beyond that, including whether or not troops of whichever faction the U.S. allies with are going to be markedly affected by U.S. nuclear fallout, the state of readiness for nuclear attack by the target nation(s), the degree of success or failure of U.S. diplomatic efforts (another thing I am sure would be pursued), and the level of nuclear exchange.


Even after all this, things would be very much more complex and deserve more elaboration, but I will await your response and feedback before I go further.

[HunterICX]

I think History has told us plenty of times by now that invading Russia will result in no victory for the invaders.

HunterICX

[Oberon]

The EU couldn't even invade Liechtenstein

[CaptainHaplo]

Nato without the US would lose - badly. *Edit - even conventionally - with the US - Nato would lose*

This is NOT because the other Nato countries lack effective military equipment or good soldiers.

It is however because without the US, the remaining parties would never agree on a general strategy or leadership. Each would end up bickering over the forces it dedicated, and how they were used. Alliances work when everyone is on the same page - and the US has been able - from a position of strength - to keep Nato on close to the same page. Without that agreed focus, you end up with exactly what was stated before - the "EU" trying to run a war. Given the fact that the EU can't agree on much of anything - overall leadership in a Euro/Russian conflict would be nonexistent, resulting in each country doing its own thing. In other words, chaos.

Now, lets assume for a moment that this was somehow overcome. A unified, well led EU force invading Russia. How would it go? I still have to say badly. Look at how each side has prepared for the feared "ww3" - the Russians being offensive, and Europe being defensive. To that end, the forces have trained to those tasks. EU fighter pilots train for defensive missions, over their own territory, inside their own radar coverage. The ground troops rarely practice offensive (counterattack) scenarios compared to defensives missions, and when they do - the counterattack is not run in extended ranges.

While the Russians are on the flip side of the coin, its alot easier to defend than attack. By definition, defense means the other guy has to win - where as a defender - you simply have to "not lose". I know it sounds like the same thing - but in combat - its not.

Next, look at the balance of forces. I am going to assume we are talking Russia proper and the still associated satellite states, versus a reunited greater Soviet "Republic". They may not have the largest army, but the Russians have VAST stocks of wargear wharehoused away. Remember their idea was quantity over quality. In war, the russians would conscript HUGE numbers of personell to put to use that equipment.

Attrition - compounded by the defensive posture of Russia, would greatly go against the EU forces. Add to that the ungodly supply situation (as European Nato forces STILL have not standardized a supply system), and I can see the battle being almost WW1 like, a stalemate where the only true "progress" is possible in the air war.

The air facet is the only one where the EU may hold some advantage, but it would be insufficient to break a ground stalemate. The advantage comes from not only the technology side, but also the vast frontal area the Russians would have to defend. However, within 1 month, that advantage would be gone, via redeployment of forces as well as attrition.

Two more factors must be raised in this. The political, and the economic.
Economically, Russia does need hard currency, though not as badly as it did. It gains ALOT of this currency through the sale of energy to western europe. At the flick of a switch upon commencement of hostilities, that needed energy would no longer be available. Thus, the economic ability of the EU to carry out a war would be seriously compromised.

This then impacts upon the political. How secure are those various governments going to be when their own people are in the dark, going hungry and cold? Especially since they will be the "aggressors" in many of their own citizens eyes. Those governments are going to be facing a lot of civil strife should they attempt to pursue such a policy.

As for the war going nuclear - such a thing is highly unlikely. Given the guidelines you put forth regarding this hypothetical situation, there is simply no line of thinking that can make a good arguement for a nuclear facet. Remember - only 3 NATO members have nuclear weapons in their arsenal. With America out, that leaves France and Great Britain. Neither would risk the backlash - worldwide and multifaceted (political, militarily, economically) - to conduct an offensive nuclear strike. The cost - even without a retaliatory strike by russia - would be too high. Yet the Russians WOULD strike back. No leader will sign off on such a order, because it would be signing the death warrant for his own country. Whatever survived the retaliation would be a world pariah.

With that said - there is ONE possibility of it going nuclear - but that would be in a very contained way, in which no counterstrikes would occur. This would occur if for whatever reason the russians found themselves unable to defend their motherland. Then - I would expect to see the Russian military and political leadership sacrifice their own in DEFENSIVE nuclear strikes - over their own territory - or what would have been theirs but may have been taken during the conflict by EU forces. In doing so, no EU civilian targets would have been hit - instead it would have been former russian targets - thus removing any ability of the EU to have an excuse to "retaliate". This would stop any EU advance cold as well.

Given the scenario as postulated - I have to say there really is no way for Western Europe - even on one page - to win such a conflict. Not in today's political and economic climate. A couple of decades from now, who knows. But in today's world the Bear would win.

[Max2147]

I've done some reading on a potential Cold War era conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The consensus seemed to be that NATO *might* be able to thwart a Russian conventional attack without going nuclear, but it would be a very close run thing at best.

Since the defender has the advantage in warfare, there's absolutely no way that NATO, even with the US, could have attacked Russia with any hope of success without using nuclear weapons. They wouldn't have even gotten to Berlin, much less Russia itself.

Things are different today, but the general balance of power is still the same. NATO still has the technological upper hand over Russia, but Russia has a numerical advantage in terms of soldiers and equipment. If you include Ukraine as open territory, then the border between Russia and NATO is a lot broader than it was during the Cold War, but a broader front favors the side with the numerical advantage (the Russians).

So even on a purely military basis, Russia wouldn't have much trouble beating off the Europeans. If the EU had American help, it would be closer, but still not enough to pull off a successful Western attack.

But the real reason why an attack would fail is the political/economic factors. As Haplo said, the Europeans would be crippled by their own political infighting. Being attacked tends to wipe out dissent and infighting, but being the aggressor tends to magnify it. The Europeans would never have the united political will to even start an attack on Russia.

Then there's the resources issue. An attack on Russia would cause Russia to cut off its natural gas pipelines to Europe. It would rob the Russians of a big source of income, but it would be even worse for the Europeans, who would suddenly lose most of their natural gas. If the international community sided with the Russians (likely, since the Europeans would be the aggressors), then the Europeans would also lose much of their oil supply.

So in short, it would be a complete disaster for the Europeans, which is why they'll never even think about trying it.

[nikimcbee]

I say hard to say also, as NATO is run by a bunch of whimpy pacifist nations (currently). Obama is too busy with converting us to socailism to worry about Europe. On the flip side, Russia can bearly handle the chechens.

I say both side collapse on day one.:yawn:

Wait, Russia would win. They would turn off the gas/oil spigot, europe cries uncle.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Invasion of mother Russia

Ok here is the scene NATO have declared war on the Russian federation for some disagreement over oil in the arctic, the USA have decreed they will not enter the war unless absolutely necessary so that major power is out.

What is "absolutely necessary". I can see the United States not want to get involved, seeing that their addition may well lead to nuclear war and that's not much of a win for anyone. Perhaps their hope is that Europe wins? Of course, this would likely mean NATO won't get up the spine, but let's keep to the scenario.

Please discuss in a civilised manner possible out comes for this hypothetical war.

First, this war is going to be the best thing that happened to the Russian Army since the Soviet Union. All those crummy instituniks who suggested than an army prioritize fighting "low intensity conflicts" over conventional war will be discredited, if not shot.

Second, assuming NATO actually puts together an attack, Russia is going to have NATO armies penetrating to operational depths. The problem is a sheer lack of quantity, which virtually eradicates any possibility of a real defense. Do you see FIVE combined-arms (motorized rifle or tank) brigades, even if they were brilliantly armed and equipped, guarding the whole huge Moscow Military District? The other military districts are all in similar shape (Leningrad has 3), and even piling every division and brigade onto the Western frontiers still leaves it very porous.

It is not like NATO got a huge number of divisions either, but they still got more than Russia. Just Poland got 4 divisions. Germany got another 4. The Brits got about 1 or 2. Italy got a whole bunch of brigades. The other countries can probably squeeze out a few brigades. This is a simplistic "rifle count" - but remember I'm not counting all the problems the Russians have either.

When the defense is that hollow in comparison to the ground it has to cover, the normal advantage of defense is invalidated and the offensive with its ability to pick its spots dominates. With so much potential ground to use, unless NATO decides to go only for the big roads it has a lot of space to maneuver. The end result would be a large number of meeting engagements (not even hasty defense versus hasty attack). While's NATO orientation is not offensive operational level manuever, it does have tactical level attack ability which will serve it well in those engagements.

The end result would be a farce. NATO does not have the troops to occupy even marginally such a large area of ground. Just the same, they can raid Western Russia to operational depth at will, simply due to the lack of defenses. However, they won't be able to raid to the strategic depth except by air or SF because they don't have to troops to safeguard supply lines. What will probably happen is that the Russians will eventually mobilize and make a comeback, and then the border gets "plugged". Peace comes at about this point - as Haplo said, NATO is probably starting to miss its oil by then.

The Russians will be wary of going onto the attack because then NATO will be forced to mobilize. And while it is not hard to see America missing out on a war invading Russia, if Russia starts going deep into Western Europe (perhaps because NATO expended all its regular formations in the attack on Russia and now the Russians are advancing into no man's land), the Americans might feel obliged to make some gesture.

Probably what would happen, if the going gets good for Russia, is that they'll take a chunk out of Poland and those frontier states to call it their win and buffer, then cement a peace. Nobody wins this war, unless you count the Russian military, which will likely get the funds it needs even if it means breaking their citizen's backs. That's why it won't be fought.

[OneToughHerring]

How about Europe and Russia attack the US? :)

[Letum]

If anyone felt seriously threatened it would go nuclear.
No one will have the logistic back-up for an invasion of anywhere after that
for quite some time.

Small tactical incursions mights be possible, but no one is going to try and
occupy the nuclear wasteland or the smaller cities that remain relatively
intact.

[SUBMAN1]

Airwar was mentioned above - NATO, outside the F-22 or B-2, has absolutely no penetration capability. Their fighters were built for defense. Only the B-2 and F-22 remain the only offensive types air platforms in existence.

Russia, with its new SAM's, will knock everything else out of the sky that even approaches. There is no getting away from them. You are dead by flying into enemy territory. Huge air losses would result with NATO's aircraft wiped out in the first week.

Why do you think America build the F-22 and B-2? Without it, there is no platform capable of any enemy penetration. Period.

-S

[Task Force]

How about Europe and Russia attack the US? :)

Only thing that would happen probably is that russia would get alaska... which isnt mutch, some polarbears... maby alittle oil

Youall would have to ship troops over... we have them already here...

Unless youall nuked us... then we would fire all are nukes more that likely.
thats how it would go.

president would go into his bunker... say im sorry sukas to all of us... and press the big red button...

... thats my guess.:yep:

[Task Force]

Airwar was mentioned above - NATO, outside the F-22 or B-2, has absolutely no penetration capability. Their fighters were built for defense. Only the B-2 and F-22 remain the only offensive types air platforms in existence.

Russia, with its new SAM's, will knock everything else out of the sky that even approaches. There is no getting away from them. You are dead by flying into enemy territory. Huge air losses would result with NATO's aircraft wiped out in the first week.

Why do you think America build the F-22 and B-2? Without it, there is no platform capable of any enemy penetration. Period.

-S

we dont know what the us has made over at area 51... they may have something that can outrun a SAM...
If we could destroy the SAM sites... then there out of the pictures

[Biggles]

If NATO is stupid enough to start a war against Russia, then they deserve to lose...

[Task Force]

Yea, biggles would have to learn russian... cause your right near the border...:yep:

[Biggles]

Yea, biggles would have to learn russian... cause your right near the border...:yep:

Sweden ain't in NATO mate, but I can see your point:D:shifty:

[Task Force]

Trust me... once russia gets the ball roaling... The wont stop till they own all of europe...:yep: Im sure they could have down it in ww2 if they would have declared war on the rest of europe.

[SUBMAN1]

Trust me... once russia gets the ball roaling... The wont stop till they own all of europe...:yep: Im sure they could have down it in ww2 if they would have declared war on the rest of europe.

I don't think so. Patton was convinced he could have them back over on their die of the fence in a couple months. He was not allowed to proceed however.

-S

[Raptor1]

Trust me... once russia gets the ball roaling... The wont stop till they own all of europe...:yep: Im sure they could have down it in ww2 if they would have declared war on the rest of europe.

Russia is not communist anymore, so they gain practically nothing in invading other European countries (Unless they're after annexing them, which I doubt).

In WWII, when they were still communists, they would have gladly gobbled up western Europe if given the chance.

I don't think so. Patton was convinced he could have them back over on their die of the fence in a couple months. He was not allowed to proceed however.

-S

I doubt it would have been as easy as that, the Red Army in 1945 was huge and highly experienced. They also had superior equipment in several categories, like tanks.

[SUBMAN1]

I doubt it would have been as easy as that, the Red Army in 1945 was huge and highly experienced. They also had superior equipment in several categories, like tanks.

Hilarious! :haha: Germany had that same superior equipment! I guess airpower didn't factor into the bill.

-S

[Biggles]

You can't win a war with only airpower, and what if all the airfields were taken/neutralised?

This is irrelevant to the thread btw...back to topic?:DL

[Max2147]

Hilarious! :haha: Germany had that same superior equipment! I guess airpower didn't factor into the bill.

-S
Air power? Ever heard of the Yak-9? The Il-2 Sturmovik? The Yak was at least good enough to hold its own against the P-51.

Sure, we overcame superior German equipment, but the Russians had something the Germans never had: Numbers. The Russians had more T-34's than we had Shermans, and the T-34 was vastly superior.

The Soviets never bothered building strategic bombers, but I'm not sure the US superiority there would have done much. Given the massive devastation in Eastern Europe, there wasn't much left there to bomb. The Russian factories were all behind the Urals and out of bomber range. Even the atom bomb wouldn't have made a huge difference. We could only produce a few of them, and given the strength of Russian air defenses getting them to the target would have been no guarantee.

[SUBMAN1]

...By the middle of 1944 there were more Yak-9s in service than all other Soviet fighters combined. Like other Russian fighters, it was designed for mass production and durability. It offered little in new technology and, due to chronic Soviet shortages, incorporated a minimum of scarce strategic materials, especially in the earlier models. Soviet fighters of the era, including the Yak-9, were designed to achieve numerical rather than technical superiority....An inferior product built for numbers. And even though it was built for numbers, those numbers were significantly less than allied numbers.

Need I remind you that the allies were starting to field jets at this time?

How about medium and heavy bombers?

A German Tiger tanks greatest fear was aircraft. He could take on other tanks, but had no defense against bombs.

I'm trying to figure out how exactly the Soviets would have not got their asses kicked back to Russia at this time? There was no chance they could have held their ground. They were built to take on the Germans - a very focused approach. Their army was not built to take on the allies.

-S

[Biggles]

They were built to take on the Germans - a very focused approach. Their army was not built to take on the allies.

-S

Was the allies built to be able to fight the russians? It's a sincere question, I really don't know.

[HunterICX]

I'm trying to figure out how exactly the Soviets would have not got their asses kicked back to Russia at this time? There was no chance they could have held their ground. They were built to take on the Germans - a very focused approach. Their army was not built to take on the allies.

-S

Nor was the Allied army built to take on the Red Army.

HunterICX

[Oberon]

This is something that touches on a deep problem that NATO nations are facing at the moment during the 'War on Terror' and that's a reassignment of duties.
NATO nations spent the last fifty-sixty odd years preparing (and preparing very well) for a defensive war in Western Europe. For a European role, NATO kit is very well created, for a desert role, well, we've seen some of the difficulties faced in the intial months of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Only now, are things getting put in place to offer better protection against the new environment, vehicles with better IED protection, with RPG cages and such forth.
It's not anyones fault, it's just the changing face of war. We spent years training to fight the Soviets and then one day there were no Soviets! :haha:
So, we spent the 1990s cutting military budgets like it was going out of fashion, and the 2000s regretting it as we geared up for the desert wars.

[Torplexed]

I think one of the biggest factors overlooked in the Patton's "let's take on the Russians next scenario" is simply one of troop morale. You've got all these weary Allied soldiers who by April 1945 can see the end of the war in sight and are now looking forward to going home alive or at least a break. You can't just tell them overnight to forget it and that the end of the war lies in Moscow without some serious morale and political ramifications.

[Raptor1]

Allied superiority in the air is in no way guaranteed, Soviet aircraft were quite advanced in 1945, their pilots were experienced, and they were also starting to field jets (The I-250, nominally scrapped when real jets entered service, followed by the Yak-15 and the MiG-9). Allied strategic bombers would not be able to strike at Soviet industry effectively because it is located so deep in Russia. Allied medium bombers and fighter-bombers are easily rivaled by Soviet superiority in light bombers and ground-attack aircraft (Most notably the long-serving Il-2 Sturmovik and Pe-2 Peshka, proven as highly effective. Also newer planes like the Il-10).

In manpower, I do believe the Red Army had the edge, though I don't have numbers at this point. Tank numbers would have been rather comparable, but the Soviet tanks were clearly superior to almost any tank the Allies could field (Not only the T-34, also the IS-2 and IS-3, which the Allied had almost no answer to). The Soviets also had a lot of experience in conducting blitzkrieg and urban warfare.

Another thing the Soviets had over the Allies is that Allied supply lines would have to strech across the North Sea and many times also across the Atlantic Ocean, while the Soviets could send over everything they needed by land, simplifying logistics by a great deal.

[Letum]

The simple way to answer the question of which army was the greater in
1946 is to look at the resources the German's pitted against them.

In terms of man power and machinery, I don't know, but suspect that
the Germans sent far more to the Eastern front than to the Western front
after the western invasion. Still, the Soviets advanced ~1000miles
compared to the UK/USA/Commonwealth advance of some 550miles.

If the Germans sent more resources to Russia and Russia still advanced
double the distance, there can be little doubt which army was tactically
superior, although not necessarily strategically.

Of course, there can be no competition when only one has the bomb.

[Arclight]

NATO is a defensive pact; it would never declare war, only defend against an agressor. I can understand how it comes across as a wimpy bunch, but it was never intended to project power and intimidate.

It's up to individual countries, employing their own forces, possibly together with other allies (gained through an alliance outside NATO), to fight an offensive war.



But should it ever happen, no, I doubt NATO could plan and coördinate an effective attack on Russia. Oberon pretty much nails why that is. And like mentioned already, the nations could never agree on anything anyway. Indecisiveness doesn't exactly help win battles. :nope:

[Max2147]

An inferior product built for numbers. And even though it was built for numbers, those numbers were significantly less than allied numbers.

Need I remind you that the allies were starting to field jets at this time?

How about medium and heavy bombers?

A German Tiger tanks greatest fear was aircraft. He could take on other tanks, but had no defense against bombs.

I'm trying to figure out how exactly the Soviets would have not got their asses kicked back to Russia at this time? There was no chance they could have held their ground. They were built to take on the Germans - a very focused approach. Their army was not built to take on the allies.

-S
Where does your quote say that the Yak-9 was an inferior design? Sure it was simple, but simple doesn't mean inferior. The T-34 was brutally simple, yet it was the best tank of the war. The Soviets were masters at building weapons that were simple to build, simple to use, yet still very effective. Your beloved AK-47 is a terrific example.

The Soviets also has the La-7 and the Yak-3, which were both terrific designs. They trounced the top German fighters like the Fw-190, so they would have been able to hold their own against the P-51 and the like.

As far as jets, the P-80 was just entering service, but in very limited numbers. Like most early jets, it was very short ranged and unreliable and probably wouldn't have had much of an impact for a couple years.

The Soviets had clear superiority in close air support aircraft. The Allies never really had a dedicated CAS aircraft, while the Soviets had the legendary Il-2. The Allies had a slight edge in medium bombers, but the Pe-2 was still a fine aircraft.

The only areas where the Allies had clear superiority was in strategic bombers, but that wasn't going to make a difference in an Allies vs. Soviets war. There simply wasn't anything substantial in Eastern Europe that hadn't already been utterly destroyed. The only things worth bombing were out of bomber range.

[August]

I doubt it would have been as easy as that, the Red Army in 1945 was huge and highly experienced. They also had superior equipment in several categories, like tanks.

The 1945 Red Army was indeed huge and highly experienced, but so was the US Army, AND we had the Bomb, with none of the modern inhibitions about using it.

Also while the Soviets did have good tanks we were already gearing up production of the Pershing. In addition to that our Air Force was head and shoulders above theirs so any advantage in ground forces equipment would have been countered.

Finally we had another huge and experienced military force already in the Pacific. With the Chinese nationalists still in power we would have been able to invade all along their shared border. The Russians would have had to fight a two front war which they weren't experienced at.

[Raptor1]

The 1945 Red Army was indeed huge and highly experienced, but so was the US Army, AND we had the Bomb, with none of the modern inhibitions about using it.

Also while the Soviets did have good tanks we were already gearing up production of the Pershing. In addition to that our Air Force was head and shoulders above theirs so any advantage in ground forces equipment would have been countered.

Finally we had another huge and experienced military force already in the Pacific. With the Chinese nationalists still in power we would have been able to invade all along their shared border. The Russians would have had to fight a two front war which they weren't experienced at.

True, but the Pershing, as far as heavy tanks go, didn't really compare to the IS-3, which was already into mass production. As pointed out earlier, the Allied air force might have been slightly superior in a few areas, but not by so much that the Allies could rely on it to offset the Soviet ground superiority.

China in 1945 was devastated from the war, and was gearing up for civil war again, so there was no guarantee they would have stayed with the Allies if another war broke out with the Soviets. The Soviets also still had over a million men in the area from their invasion of Manchuria.

The Atomic bomb is a good point, but it most likely wouldn't have worked the same way on the Soviets as it did on the Japanese. Japan in 1945 was doomed to lose, and it's government was severely divided on whether to surrender, the nuclear bombs are what pushed them over the edge. On the other hand, the Soviets in 1945 were still very much able to fight and win against the Allies. The Soviets have also shown that the more devastation is brought to their land, the more they are willing to fight and destroy the enemy.

Another point is that the Allies might not have sent over a nuclear bomb in the first place. Unlike Japan, a nuclear-armed bomber would have to travel many hundreds of miles to reach any target of strategic importance (Most of which, as stated before, were beyond the effective range of Allied bombers), I would assume the Allied leaders would think it over very carefully before launching the attack, because there would a very real danger of the bomber being shot down and the bomb falling into Soviet hands.

[CaptainHaplo]

A 1945/46+ war would have ended with a russian loss.

Supply lines across the Atlantic may have been slower than a land conduit - but the were secure. The russian navy was NOT a force to be feared at the time.

A multifront war would have occured - not 2 - but actually 3+. The middle east, at the time, was heavily in the hands of Allied forces, primarily British forces. Not only would have Russia had to deal with the "Eastern" front, as well as a "Western" front - it would have required forces for a Southern front as well. While it had alot of forces, their ability to stretch the entire new Russian Empire borders would have thinned them significantly. The chances of a sizable Russian force being caught in Europe - resulting in a reverse of Stalingrad, was highly likely, as Stalin had already proven to have limited tactical skill.

While one can argue the equipment issue, the fact is that Russia had no ability to counter the 1000+ heavy bomber raids that Europe under Germany faced. Sure they had good aircraft, but they did not have a sufficient network of assets to counter such raids - especially escorted as they would have been. It would NOT have been quick - but the move forward, secure and move assets that worked so well against the Germans would have done the same against the Russians. Especially since there would have been little reason at that point to focus on urban warfare, as the later stage of the war in Europe trended toward.

The biggest advantages the Russians would have had was pure space (as russian winters proved more than once historically), and the fact that the natural resources the war machine required were out or reach. However, remember we had a lot of firepower on carriers. While the Atlantic hosted numerous CVE's, the Pacific held the CV's - and that firepower, though much shorter ranged than it is today, would have provided ALOT of coverage for raids and penetrations into northern russia (under seasonal conditions), disrupting supplies. All the while 1000+ bomber raids slowly destroyed the warmaking ability of the Russians.

Within a year, more Abombs would have been available - and used - wiping out military forces as well as the major industrial and political centers of Russia. Stalin would have been forced with a choice - come to terms as dictated - or glow in the dark. He may not have been right about alot - but he was no fool.....

And no - under wartime conditions the Russians also would not have gotten the bomb nearly as soon as they did - so no chance to use it in retaliation.

[August]

True, but the Pershing, as far as heavy tanks go, didn't really compare to the IS-3, which was already into mass production. As pointed out earlier, the Allied air force might have been slightly superior in a few areas, but not by so much that the Allies could rely on it to offset the Soviet ground superiority.

China in 1945 was devastated from the war, and was gearing up for civil war again, so there was no guarantee they would have stayed with the Allies if another war broke out with the Soviets. The Soviets also still had over a million men in the area from their invasion of Manchuria.

The Atomic bomb is a good point, but it most likely wouldn't have worked the same way on the Soviets as it did on the Japanese. Japan in 1945 was doomed to lose, and it's government was severely divided on whether to surrender, the nuclear bombs are what pushed them over the edge. On the other hand, the Soviets in 1945 were still very much able to fight and win against the Allies. The Soviets have also shown that the more devastation is brought to their land, the more they are willing to fight and destroy the enemy.

Another point is that the Allies might not have sent over a nuclear bomb in the first place. Unlike Japan, a nuclear-armed bomber would have to travel many hundreds of miles to reach any target of strategic importance (Most of which, as stated before, were beyond the effective range of Allied bombers), I would assume the Allied leaders would think it over very carefully before launching the attack, because there would a very real danger of the bomber being shot down and the bomb falling into Soviet hands.

I'll grant you the Soviet tank superiority though we and the Russians just finished defeating an enemy that had technical superiority in many areas and that didn't help them. Also I think you seriously underestimate the power of our Air Forces in 1945. Remember we not only have the Mighty 8th we also have the fleets of B-29's from the Pacific at our disposal.

But I really don't get your thinking on the Atomic bomb. The main target of strategic importance would be the Red Army and they presumably would be massed on the front line in eastern Europe within easy reach of bombers flying out of England. Not that they'd really need it. By '45 thousand bomber raids were commonplace and would do far greater damage than a single A-bomb.

[Max2147]

I'll grant you the Soviet tank superiority though we and the Russians just finished defeating an enemy that had technical superiority in many areas and that didn't help them. Also I think you seriously underestimate the power of our Air Forces in 1945. Remember we not only have the Mighty 8th we also have the fleets of B-29's from the Pacific at our disposal.

But I really don't get your thinking on the Atomic bomb. The main target of strategic importance would be the Red Army and they presumably would be massed on the front line in eastern Europe within easy reach of bombers flying out of England. Not that they'd really need it. By '45 thousand bomber raids were commonplace and would do far greater damage than a single A-bomb.
But what would our B-29's have bombed? A bunch of rubble in Eastern Europe? All the Soviet heavy industry was behind the Urals, out of range of our bombers. Even if we nuked Moscow, it wouldn't have severely impaired the Soviets' ability to fight.

[Raptor1]

Precisely. Also, as I pointed out earlier, any large scale destruction brought on Soviet lands would likely have strengthened the Soviet Union's willingness to fight the Allies. The Soviet Union lost over 10 million civilians in the war with Germany and that only strengthened their troops and civilians' resolve to fight on and defeat Germany.

Usage of strategic bombers against tactical targets doesn't work, it's like the massive bombardments at the Somme and Verdun, all it does is make the enemy keep his head down. Nuclear bombs on the front are even worse, as they would hurt both sides equally with fallout and radiation (Something which was not very well undestood at the time, I believe). Nukes might have been used that way, as IIRC there were plans to use nuclear bombs as tactical weapons during Operation Olympic, but I doubt it would have worked out as planned in any case.

Overall, I think you are grossly underestimating the strength of the VVS. It was quite large and capable, not larger than the combined Allied air forces, but certainly capable of supporting it's ground troops.

[August]

But what would our B-29's have bombed? A bunch of rubble in Eastern Europe? All the Soviet heavy industry was behind the Urals, out of range of our bombers. Even if we nuked Moscow, it wouldn't have severely impaired the Soviets' ability to fight.

Just because The Soviets heavy industry was beyond the range of German two engined bombers from the west doesn't mean it would be out of B-29 range and even if it was it wouldn't be for very long with a simultaneous offensive up from China and Mongolia.

[Raptor1]

Just because The Soviets heavy industry was beyond the range of German two engined bombers from the west doesn't mean it would be out of B-29 range and even if it was it wouldn't be for very long with a simultaneous offensive up from China and Mongolia.

Why are you so sure that such an invasion would be successful or even take place?

Assuming the Chinese let the Allies launch it. The Red Army had 3 fronts in the area, with well over 1.5 million men, in Manchuria and Mongolia alone by the end of August, 1945. Also, any attack would not have been able to organize before the Siberian winter set in, meaning that any offensive would have to be delayed until Summer, 1946, at which point the Soviets could easily bring up enough men to stop it.

[Max2147]

The Soviet heavy industry was out of range of twin engined German bombers operating from occupied Russian soil just outside Moscow. Our bombers would have been operating from western Germany at best. That adds 1000 miles each way to the journey.

Also, remember that the US was already demobilizing in early 1945. If we attacked Russia right after Germany surrendered, we would have still been fighting the Japanese at the same time. If we waited until the Japanese surrendered we would have attacked in August at the earliest, so if we made any advances we would have been spanked by General Winter. If we had waited until 1946 we would have been too demobilized to do anything. The American public wouldn't have allowed us to keep our entire military mobilized for 8 months while we weren't fighting anybody.

[TLAM Strike]

Russia, with its new SAM's, will knock everything else out of the sky that even approaches. Including most of their own airforce as show by their recent operations in Georgia.


Hmmm on the subjet of WWII+ did the Soviets have a Chem-Bio warfare program at the time? I think they got most of their stuff from the Germans and Japanese after the war. While the US and UK were working on it during the war incase the Germans and Japanse decided to use it against them.

Nasty thought but the could Allies have just gassed the Red Army in eastern Europe WWI style then march on to claim the radioactive ruins of Moscow?

[TLAM Strike]

The Soviet heavy industry was out of range of twin engined German bombers operating from occupied Russian soil just outside Moscow. Our bombers would have been operating from western Germany at best. That adds 1000 miles each way to the journey.


Don't forget the possablity of operating off carrier decks in the Barents Sea. And before you say carrier aircraft have a tiny range the P-2V could be fitted with JATOs for carrier launch and delivery of nuclear bombs.

[Raptor1]

Hmmm on the subjet of WWII+ did the Soviets have a Chem-Bio warfare program at the time? I think they got most of their stuff from the Germans and Japanese after the war. While the US and UK were working on it during the war incase the Germans and Japanse decided to use it against them.

Nasty thought but the could Allies have just gassed the Red Army in eastern Europe WWI style then march on to claim the radioactive ruins of Moscow?

Highly doubt it. Chemical weapons in World War I caused very (very, very) few casualties, they mostly got their infamy by how dreaded they were by the troops on the front. I would suppose gas weapons got more advanced by the time of World War II, but I think their usage is quite far from the instant-win weapon you're suggesting (Besides the fact that the Soviets most likely had them too, inherited the ability to produce them from the Russian Empire in the Great War).

Biological weapons were developed by the Japanese, but I can't see them being used by anybody in this situation.

Don't forget the possablity of operating off carrier decks in the Barents Sea. And before you say carrier aircraft have a tiny range the P-2V could be fitted with JATOs for carrier launch and delivery of nuclear bombs.

Used, but for a very limited amount of time, and again, could be countered by Soviet air defenses. Carrier-launched aircraft have a very limited ability to hurt strategic targets too.

The P-2V could carry nuclear bombs? The completely stripped Silverplate could hardly carry those things, besides the fact the the P-2V entered service in 1947.

[August]

Why are you so sure that such an invasion would be successful or even take place?

Of course an invasion wouldn't take place unless the situation justified it, which it didn't. We're only speaking hypothetically here.

Assuming the Chinese let the Allies launch it. The Red Army had 3 fronts in the area, with well over 1.5 million men, in Manchuria and Mongolia alone by the end of August, 1945. Also, any attack would not have been able to organize before the Siberian winter set in, meaning that any offensive would have to be delayed until Summer, 1946, at which point the Soviets could easily bring up enough men to stop it.

The Soviets had that many men in the east because the nazis had already been defeated and they were gearing up to get their slice of the Pacific victory pie. If you'll remember they stripped their eastern defenses to bail out Stalingrad once it became apparent that the Japanese in Monglolia weren't going to attack.

I believe that simultaneous NATO offenses from both east and west would have the best chance of beating them. My confidence in the WW2 western allies success is primarily confidence in our troops and military leaders of the day.

[Letum]

it wouldn't be for very long with a simultaneous offensive up from China and Mongolia.

"Rule1, on page1 of the book of war is: 'Do not march on Moscow'
Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.'"

- Field Marshal Bernard Law 'Monty' Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC


Not wise to break both simultaneously.
America struggled in Korea and 'nam, let alone Russia and China.

[Raptor1]

Of course an invasion wouldn't take place unless the situation justified it, which it didn't. We're only speaking hypothetically here.


That's my point, a situation justifying or allowing such an invasion from the east is a lot more unlikely than you make it out to be, for reasons I stated earlier.


The Soviets had that many men in the east because the nazis had already been defeated and they were gearing up to get their slice of the Pacific victory pie. If you'll remember they stripped their eastern defenses to bail out Stalingrad once it became apparent that the Japanese in Monglolia weren't going to attack.

I believe that simultaneous NATO offenses from both east and west would have the best chance of beating them. My confidence in the WW2 western allies success is primarily confidence in our troops and military leaders of the day.

The Soviets moved reinforcements to Stalingrad because the Red Army was still weaker than the German army. It was already quite apparent that the Japanese wouldn't attack in 1941 because of their humiliating defeat at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, which is the reason the Soviets famously rushed Siberian troops to participate in the Battle of Moscow after losses in Operation Barbarossa rose to several million. But in 1945 the Red Army was much bigger than it was in 1941/1942, and I doubt very much the Allies could muster enough men to beat the Soviets both in the east and the west (Even after assuming that the geography and weather-related problems would simply disappear).

[August]

America struggled in Korea and 'nam, let alone Russia and China.

1. We managed to conduct far more extensive war efforts in both the ETO and PTO at the same time and in 1945 still had the armies already in place to continue doing it. Korea was post demobilization. This hypothetical Soviet/NATO was would not have been.

2. We wouldn't be fighting in China. In 1945 they were our staunch allies whose nation we had just liberated from the Japanese.

3. I don't think actually marching on Moscow would be necessary to beat the Russians. It's significance is more psychological than military.

Again, this hypothetical war between the USSR and NATO assumes there was sufficient reason for it in the first place. Motivation and commitment are a given.

Oh and I know who Monty was and I know you Brits revere him as your savior but from this side of the pond he wasn't nearly all that... Caan, the Schelde Estuary, Market-Garden. Really, other than El Alamein his track record as a General just ain't that good as to take his words as gospel. Especially about China, a theater he had no experience in.

[August]

But in 1945 the Red Army was much bigger than it was in 1941/1942

So was the US military. I don't see the point you're making here.

[Raptor1]

So was the US military. I don't see the point you're making here.

Of course, if you delete the context, you won't see the point.

The Red Army in 1941 and 1942 had suffered millions of casualties, therefore it was necessary for them to redeploy experienced troops from the east. All I was trying to say is that by 1945 the Red Army had grown enough that it could fight without the need to strip one side or the other of defences.

[Raptor1]

2. We wouldn't be fighting in China. In 1945 they were our staunch allies whose nation we had just liberated from the Japanese.


Not really, the Allies would have been fighting with the Nationalist Chinese (Then again, as I said, assuming they continued to be part of the Allies), which were severely weakened by the war. Support for the Communists grew significantly after the war and would have grown even more if the Nationalist government got itself into yet another war, and the Allies would have to contend with them too.

[Max2147]

The only thing you could trust the Nationalist Chinese to do in 1945-1949 was lose. They were a miserably corrupt and horribly incompetent regime.

In the 1930s Chiang refused to fight against the Japanese because it would distract him from his fight against his internal opponents, even though the Japanese were invading his freaking country. I highly doubt that he would have been willing to send his army to invade Russia in 1945 when the Mao's Communists were still fighting back home.

We could have made the Russians fight a multi-front war in 1945, but we would have been fighting a multi-front war too. If you're fighting the same enemy on multiple fronts, the defender actually has the advantage because of internal lines. Multiple fronts is only a problem for the defender if they're being attacked by two different countries.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Related reading for this thread:
http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248198885&sr=8-1

Read it about six months ago IIRC. The Red Army was a REALLY mean and big machine immediately Post WWII.

PD

[August]

Support for the Communists grew significantly after the war and would have grown even more if the Nationalist government got itself into yet another war, and the Allies would have to contend with them too.

You make it sound like Japans invasion was the Chinese governments fault.

[August]

I highly doubt that he would have been willing to send his army to invade Russia in 1945 when the Mao's Communists were still fighting back home.

I said "launch an offensive from China (and Mongolia)" not "have the Chinese launch an offensive".

We could have made the Russians fight a multi-front war in 1945, but we would have been fighting a multi-front war too. If you're fighting the same enemy on multiple fronts, the defender actually has the advantage because of internal lines. Multiple fronts is only a problem for the defender if they're being attacked by two different countries.

You mean "interior lines"? I'd say that Russias very size and lack of transportation infrastructure would mitigate that advantage until long after enough of the country had been overrun that the wouldn't be able to produce their own fuel and food to supply their armies.

Yes, I think you have a point in general. Allied supply lines would indeed be very lengthy, but its not like they would have had to be created from scratch either. By 1945 our military transportation system was already in place. A well oiled and practiced operation that spanned the entire globe, all leading back to that huge, never before seen "Arsenal of Democracy" which was itself running at it's peak of wartime production capability.

[TarJak]

You make it sound like Japans invasion was the Chinese governments fault.Well in part it was.:DL The perceived weakness of the Chinese Government gave Japan the will to invade a numerically superior country. Had China had a cohesive and well ordered regime in the early to mid 30's Japan would have had a much harder time reaching the decision to invade.

However IMHO their main driver was desparation to obtain raw materials due to the economic strictures placed on Japan by Western governments, so if you want to point fingers then the lack of resources and these embargoes were one of the root causes of Japan's expansionist ambitions.

[Raptor1]

I said "launch an offensive from China (and Mongolia)" not "have the Chinese launch an offensive".


That's not the point. It all goes back to the supply problem, if you have a mass of ever-growing communist partisans and army behind your lines, you are going to have problems supplying and reinforcing your lines. Trains will blown up, convoys ambushed, and it will all be a huge mess.


You mean "interior lines"? I'd say that Russias very size and lack of transportation infrastructure would mitigate that advantage until long after enough of the country had been overrun that the wouldn't be able to produce their own fuel and food to supply their armies.

Yes, I think you have a point in general. Allied supply lines would indeed be very lengthy, but its not like they would have had to be created from scratch either. By 1945 our military transportation system was already in place. A well oiled and practiced operation that spanned the entire globe, all leading back to that huge, never before seen "Arsenal of Democracy" which was itself running at it's peak of wartime production capability.

Well, the Soviets managed to launch the Manchurian offensive in slightly less than 3 months following the end of the fighting in Europe. In that time, the Soviets moved 49 divisions and numerous independent formations, over a million men and thousands of tanks, guns and vehicles, from Eastern Europe to Mongolia and Siberia using 126,000 rail cars and prepared everything for the attack (A not inconsiderable task, considering the scale). So, if there was an infrastructure problem, it certainly did not stop the Soviets from being able to redeploy masses of men and equipment from one side to another in a reasonable amount of time, certainly not in any more time than the Allies would need to move their forces across the ocean.

That's still ignoring the problems inherent with invading Siberia, such as the terrain and weather, that would have made any successful invasion impossible to achieve until mid-1946 and probably made it impossible in any case.

[August]

That's not the point. It all goes back to the supply problem, if you have a mass of ever-growing communist partisans and army behind your lines, you are going to have problems supplying and reinforcing your lines. Trains will blown up, convoys ambushed, and it will all be a huge mess.

I'd say the numbers of partisans would be directly related to the way the civilian population was treated just like what the Germans experienced in the Ukraine.



Well, the Soviets managed to launch the Manchurian offensive in slightly less than 3 months following the end of the fighting in Europe. In that time, the Soviets moved 49 divisions and numerous independent formations, over a million men and thousands of tanks, guns and vehicles, from Eastern Europe to Mongolia and Siberia using 126,000 rail cars and prepared everything for the attack (A not inconsiderable task, considering the scale). So, if there was an infrastructure problem, it certainly did not stop the Soviets from being able to redeploy masses of men and equipment from one side to another in a reasonable amount of time, certainly not in any more time than the Allies would need to move their forces across the ocean.

Impressive, but that was an unopposed movement all tied to one rail line conducted after the cessation of hostilities. We'd have the ability to bomb that line along great stretches of it. Indeed we'd have the ability to severely hamper their movement out of Europe as well.

That's still ignoring the problems inherent with invading Siberia, such as the terrain and weather, that would have made any successful invasion impossible to achieve until mid-1946 and probably made it impossible in any case.

The climate is, imo, your most valid point. Still, if one had to invade Russia, and this discussion assumes there was that need, the way to overcome "General Winter" or at least lessen it's impact would be a three pronged offensive from the east, west and up from the south. Deny the enemy the ability to keep withdrawing into the hinterland. That was napoleon and hitlers mistake.

[Raptor1]

I'd say the numbers of partisans would be directly related to the way the civilian population was treated just like what the Germans experienced in the Ukraine.


That directly relates to how the population is treated by the Nationalist government, and that wouldn't be under the control of the Allies.


Impressive, but that was an unopposed movement all tied to one rail line conducted after the cessation of hostilities. We'd have the ability to bomb that line along great stretches of it. Indeed we'd have the ability to severely hamper their movement out of Europe as well.


Good point, but railways could be repaired and expanded, especially with the massive forced labor manpower the Soviets had from gulag-dwellers. Also, this would use to hamper troops from getting there, but there was already a considerable Soviet military presence in the area.

Likewise, Allied convoys could be bombed by the VVS, of course this wouldn't be very effective until a reliable 1-engined long-range escort fighter was introduced (The La-11, historically, but in wartime the Soviets could probably work up something faster). And their supply lines in the east would quite undoubtedly harassed by partisans in China. Also, had the war lasted long enough, the Soviets could bomb Allied railways with the Tu-4, a copy of the B-29 (Though I doubt it would have lasted as long).


The climate is, imo, your most valid point. Still, if one had to invade Russia, and this discussion assumes there was that need, the way to overcome "General Winter" or at least lessen it's impact would be a three pronged offensive from the east, west and up from the south. Deny the enemy the ability to keep withdrawing into the hinterland. That was napoleon and hitlers mistake.

The withdrawl strategy is only nessecary if the Russians cannot fight the enemy head on, which is not the case. I doubt the Allies had the manpower to gain the numerical advantage needed to attack from all 3 directions, or even 2.

American troops have very little experience in winter warfare. They were struggling with the German attacks in the Ardennes and in Alsace, which aren't nearly as nasty as in Russia and Siberia. The Russians were much more experienced in the winter, so any Allied attack up to Siberia would be useless unless attempted in the summer, and that would only allow the offensive to begin in either May or June, 1946, leaving plenty of time for the Soviets to bring up reinforcements and/or win on other fronts.

[August]

Well I realize it wouldn't have been easy Raptor but I still think it could have been done. After all it wouldn't have been a single country taking on the bear while at the same time fighting other enemies. It would be two entire continents, both with huge, well trained, equipped and experienced armies, already on a war footing and already deployed darn near in a circle. You couldn't ask for a better situation imo.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ultimately - there are 3 reasons the russians would have lost.

The Bomb - more would have been made - and used - to force unacceptable infrastructure losses upon the russians.

Production Capability - the russians ultimately would have found their ability to wage war whittled away. The Allies - with its largest contributor the US - would have had no such problem. No russian attack could have been mounted against the production capability of the US - and the supply lines over the oceans were secure.

Civilian concerns - a wartime people - stretched thin via war - and suffering at home with the loss of industrial ability represent a HUGE threat to power in a communist system. It is said that the Czars never really understood the danger the people presented - and that is how communism and the bolsheviks truly found fertile soil. Those same people that lifted the bolsheviks to power had to be dealt with - and ultimately you can't send everyone to the gulag - because after a while - there is no one left. The same applies to any government of people - but in a system that purportes total equality among its governed - the danger is far greater when the disparity becomes too great, and the burden too great for the people.

[Sledgehammer427]

Interesting thread.

I was always taught that the defeat of russia in the cold war was the fact that the free world had far more spending power than the warsaw pact.
that, and if it wasn't for the walker spy ring, they wouldn't have tried so hard to catch up to our technology, and they went bankrupt (hows that for karma huh?) Anyways, I am more based on tactics than logistics, and I am not all too knowledgeable on such things.

how about the flipside, a russian invasion of NATO? :hmmm:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Interesting thread.

I was always taught that the defeat of russia in the cold war was the fact that the free world had far more spending power than the warsaw pact.
that,

This is almost certainly true.

and if it wasn't for the walker spy ring, they wouldn't have tried so hard to catch up to our technology, and they went bankrupt (hows that for karma huh?) Anyways, I am more based on tactics than logistics, and I am not all too knowledgeable on such things.

how about the flipside, a russian invasion of NATO? :hmmm:

Frankly, I don't really buy the whole Walker thing, and consider it part of a dumb Western thinking (racism is a nice term for all this) that the Russians can't think of not only new ideas, but the obvious on their own.

Sure, no doubt it had its place as one piece of information, but the idea that the Soviets took Walker just to tell them they had to quiet their subs as proposed by certain Western pundits as a certain Stuart Slade is utterly laughable. (Stuart Slade actually proposed, among other things, that the Soviets couldn't even conceive of passive track extraction existed without Walker telling them, in defiance of several page in the 1967 Soviet Watch Officer's Guide teaching the four bearings method.)

It is not like the basics of hydroacoustic propagation is a secret art, or the Soviets can't evaluate, at close range, how much noise their subs made and that it was more than American subs...

[Dan D]

Here is a nice piece of cold war history:

The original source is an article called: “Lessons from the Wehrmacht’s experience on the Soviet-German front 1943-1945” which was published in the Sept. 1987 issue of the journal of the Royal Institute for the Investigation of Defense Questions (RUSI).

Author of the article is the English Lt. Colonel R.G. Kersho Para who at that time was liaison officer at the (German) Bundeswehr Infantry School in Hammelburg.

A Russian translation of this article by the Soviet Col. I.T. Fateyev, who has also written the foreword ,was published in the Oct. 1988 issue of the Soviet Union Military History Journal under the heading “We through the eyes of others”.

My source now is the retranslation of the Russian translation into American English published in March 1989 in the
US Joint Publication Research Service and it carries the stamp “approved to public release”:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA335395&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Counter-counter intelligence so to speak.

The actual article (5 pages) starts at page 37/59 of the journal.

Adressing the tank-battle of Targul-Frumos/Romania in May 1944, when “the basic force of the attack by the XVI Tanks Corps of the Soviet Troops was taken by a German regiment (which in the present NATO organization corresponds to a Brigade) Tank Division Großdeutschland and the front being restored by a counter-stroke of the German XXIV Panzer Division by the end of the day, the operations being planned by the Wehrmacht Command assuming a balance of force of 1:5 in favour of the enemy, counting on success”, the author raises the question "whether this could be repeated with NATO, when pessimists predict that a conventional war would last only 8 days, but the Wehrmacht waged war for 2 years against such forces" and discusses it and draws some conclusions.

The foreword by the Soviet Colonel and the language used is also interesting, quote e.g.: "On military-political questions, this journal [the English one] reflects the views of the aggressive imperialist NATO circles,,,,. Like many bourgeois authors, R.G. Kersho Para ...….this is a slandering of the heroes…defending their motherland against the black death which threatened enslavement for the entire world..."

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I can certainly sympathize with the Soviet Colonel there, given that Para's article barely took five steps before it introduced a distortion that can be viewed as "anti-Soviet". Note how it says a "Corps" attacked a "regiment", took heavy losses before penetrating, then was counterattacked and defeated by a "Division".
Of course, real unit strengths deviate widely from TOE by that stage of the war. Still, one should remember that a Soviet Tank Corps is really of about divisional strength. Meanwhile, the Gross Deutschland is a crack SS division (and IIRC thus is among the best equipped of all the German divisions)...
The word "Corps", written without further explanation, to people not having specific knowledge of the Soviet wartime Corps structure, conjures up an image of several Soviet divisions clumsily blundering into a single German regiment and being completely played with before penetrating. Then was defeated by a unit a level lower, a divsion.
Such an inaccurately negative connotation brings a rise out of ME, let alone a Russian...

[Raptor1]

I can certainly sympathize with the Soviet Colonel there, given that Para's article barely took five steps before it introduced a distortion that can be viewed as "anti-Soviet". Note how it says a "Corps" attacked a "regiment", took heavy losses before penetrating, then was counterattacked and defeated by a "Division".
Of course, real unit strengths deviate widely from TOE by that stage of the war. Still, one should remember that a Soviet Tank Corps is really of about divisional strength. Meanwhile, the Gross Deutschland is a crack SS division (and IIRC thus is among the best equipped of all the German divisions)...
The word "Corps", written without further explanation, to people not having specific knowledge of the Soviet wartime Corps structure, conjures up an image of several Soviet divisions clumsily blundering into a single German regiment and being completely played with before penetrating. Then was defeated by a unit a level lower, a divsion.
Such an inaccurately negative connotation brings a rise out of ME, let alone a Russian...

I would go farther than that, a Soviet Tank corps is about the size of an average Soviet Rifle division, which is typically smaller than an infantry division in most other armies. So, when one says that the corps was attacked and defeated by a German panzer division, it was in fact under attack by a superior force.

The Battles of Târgu Frumos, and on the whole the first Balkans Offensive, was one of the last large-scale defeats of the Red Army because it could not (Or, did not) gather enough of a force to properly attack the well-defended positions in Eastern Romania. The Soviets have learned much from that, though; Just weeks later they launched the utterly devastating Operation Bagration into Belorussia, and when they returned to Romania in August they crushed the Germans in mere days.

@CaptainHaplo - Please excuse me for not repeating what I said, again.

[CastleBravo]

I don't think NATO was ever structured to be an offensive force. So it would not be in any position to launch an invasion. NATO would lose any invasion scenerio w/ Russia, with or without US involvement.

Its that non-offensive structure which proved so troublesome in Bosnia, and now in Afghanistan.

[CaptainHaplo]

Now - Nato would lose.
Then - Russia would have lost.

In any war, a defender has the advantage. Heck - in any land BATTLE the defender has the advantage. Thats because you HAVE to move him. You can do that through head to head combat, or by cutting off his ability to fight.

Simply put - Nato without the US lacks in one very critical piece to wage war on the battlefield against a "classic" (symmetric) opponent. That is that no nation in Nato - besides the US - operates a strategic bomber. The combat aircraft of European Nato forces are fighters, tactical support (ground attack) aircraft, or dual role. Thus, the infrastructure that allows an army to KEEP fighting is safe against an Nato without the US. The russians may suffer from a lack of resources, but they still have the systems that can reach out and destroy such targets. To keep that from happening - the aggressive nato forces would have to use the majority of their air assets to preserve their industrial ability, leaving the ground forces with very limited support.

Remember - Nato was designed as a defensive measure. Russia could trade space for time - as they have done throughout history, all the while threatening the ability of the EU nations to continue the war.

AN EU war against russia wouldn't just end badly - it would be a debacle of historical proportions.