Discussion on the invasion of mother Russia (hypothetical)

[August]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by August

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-Cl...8198885&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]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by August

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.