Discussion on the invasion of mother Russia (hypothetical)

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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.

[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 SUBMAN1

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]

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.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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]

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.

[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.

[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 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.