dear god the levels of boomer in this post are off the charts. How could the soviet union have been at it's strongest after twenty plus years of economic stagnation and lagging technological development compared to the west?
Enough to know that's the information given did nothing to stop the soviets conventional military superiority to slowly dissipate over the course of the 70s and 80s. The USSR could have espionage'd its way into building six nimitz rip offs and that wouldn't change the fact that their increasingly older leadership did not know how to deal with the systems structural flaws.
The Russians systems in place were deliberate one shot all or nothing offense oriented.
And here we see you keep spouting off stuff that you know nothing about. Soviet military planning all the way to the end involved extreme preparations for extended war requiring multiple, consecutive, and sequential operations with extensive and extended socio-economic mobilization. It's why their economy was so militarized and so stuffed with dual-use manufacturing capability. Soviet military theory since Frunze argued that modern armies are too large and sophisticated to be destroyed in a single blow. The idea of a "one shot all or nothing offensive" was never part of their strategic planning. That kind of obsession with a singular knock-out blow was more a German thing.
lolYou see nothing about the one shot one kill, no reloads at all, so die at sea Russian navy? Funny, that is exactly what and how it reads to me, including your Frunze quote.
You see nothing about the one shot one kill, no reloads at all, so die at sea Russian navy?
Gorshkov states that the Navy must "intelligently combine defense and offense, depending on the situation (93:224),"
Funny, that is exactly what and how it reads to me, including your Frunze quote.
What about fleshing out the POD a bit? Let's say the Soviets are more aggressive post-war, and manage to install Communist puppet states in Greece and Italy, and perhaps Austria.
As a result, the US doesn't demobilize to nearly the extent they did OTL, and in particular maintains high standards of training and readiness in strategic airpower, does not turn control of atomic weapons over to the AEC, and has a larger stockpile available.
In this scenario, which doesn't actually violate the OP, could such a preemptive strike be successfully carried out?
What if the United States dropped an atomic bomb in a preemptive attack against the Soviet Union before the Russians could get the bomb in 1949? Obviously this starts world war 3. How would the American public react? The world? Could the U.S. push the Soviets out of eastern Europe?
Pro tip? You don't need a fleet train for the kind of warfare the Soviets planned to use their Navy for. You only need a fleet train similar to the USN's when your entire Navy is focused on Power Projection and Expeditionary Warfare. You don't need a fleet train unless you're going to spend weeks/months at a time away from your own bases. That was never the MO of the Red Fleet.The OBVIOUS tell is they do not have a genuine fleet train
Maybe you should take a look at the Russian Navy ON. The OBVIOUS tell is they do not have a genuine fleet train. The same defect can be seen in the SU era army. No true logistics tail. SU air force? There you might have me. But if you don't log at sea and make no Log provisions beyond some highly vulnerable pipelines laid across Poland and East Germany.
(Where are the fuel bowsers in the numbers needed for the tank armies?),
For what it is worth, look at who they were and what they actually wrote and actually DID?
As Frunze may have wished, the Russians did not do.
Incidentally, Stalin, his successor, had Frunze murdered, so there is also that gasoline I pour on your fire, ON.
That, and the US military really doesn't, or didn't, have the freedom of action to launch pre-emptive attacks of such a scale. If such a thing were being planned, the Soviets would have caught wind of it from the very beginning.If the U.S. launched a nuclear strike on the Soviets -- likely multiple nuclear strikes on Moscow, Leningrad, etc. -- without any justifiable warning or provocation, it would without a doubt put the United States on par with Nazi Germany as the one of the greatest evils of the 20th century, and would solidify decades of communist propaganda that the Western capitalist-imperialist powers are indistinguishable from the then-recently defeated fascist.
Pro tip? You don't need a fleet train for the kind of warfare the Soviets planned to use their Navy for. You only need a fleet train similar to the USN's when your entire Navy is focused on Power Projection and Expeditionary Warfare. You don't need a fleet train unless you're going to spend weeks/months at a time away from your own bases. That was never the MO of the Red Fleet.
...while conveniently overlooked that Uncle Joe was AH and Nazism biggest booster from when they together divided Poland till Barbarossa.and the broad consensus among Europeans then (particularly the working-classes) was that it was the Soviet Union, not the United States or Great Britain, that played the decisive role in defeating Nazism.
Pro-tip. You need a fleet train if you plan to fight a sustained naval war even with a BASTION DEFENSE. Your floating ASW fence and forces need supply at sea. ESPECIALLY in the arctic.
...while conveniently overlooked that Uncle Joe was AH and Nazism biggest booster from when they together divided Poland till Barbarossa.
Till that Summer, the Useful Idiots taking cues directly from Moscow proclaiming that the French and British were Capitalist warmongers.
All while Oil and Food rolled West to feed Hitler's Warmachine.
Saying that the Glorious Motherland was mostly responsible for the defeat of the Hitlerites was also the PR from Moscow.