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

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 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

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

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.

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

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

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

HunterICX

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.