Had a War between the Allies and the Soviets erupted in 1945, who would win?

Really?:confused:


http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CF...ions/08-Worlds_Fourth_Largest_Air_Force_e.pdf

Consider also that around 10-12% of Soviet aircraft were obsolete Allied designs

I see we've switched from 12,000 fighters to "nearly 20,000" which is a figure for all front line aircraft

I was trying to remember without looking the numbers up, but assuming thats true. You still havnt posted anything against points I made about the Red Army Airforce being a far more formidable opponent than the 1994/5 Luftwaffe.

The blithe assumption that the RAF & USAF will instantly own the skies and can bomb Soviets supply lines at will is flawed at best. Also consider that bombing supply-lines wont render the Red Army ineffective, they had suffered simliar problems early in the war against the Germans. Hell even the Wehrmacht could still move more than enougth men and supplies to the front to keep their units combat effective.
 
I was trying to remember without looking the numbers up, but assuming thats true. You still havnt posted anything against points I made about the Red Army Airforce being a far more formidable opponent than the 1994/5 Luftwaffe.

The blithe assumption that the RAF & USAF will instantly own the skies and can bomb Soviets supply lines at will is flawed at best. Also consider that bombing supply-lines wont render the Red Army ineffective, they had suffered simliar problems early in the war against the Germans. Hell even the Wehrmacht could still move more than enougth men and supplies to the front to keep their units combat effective.

aside from numbers, there is nothing about the Soviet Air Force that makes it more formidible than the Luftwaffe or Western Air Forces. Beginning in 1943, most of the German fighter strength was diverted to home defense, while the Germans substantially cut back in bombing strength as well. The raids that the Germans did make, particularly at night (read about the bombing raid on Poltva here)

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/March%202011/0311Poltava.aspx

Certainly the USAAF and RAF outnumber the Soviet Air Force in overall strength and in fighter strength. The Soviets did not have the integrated air defense system that the British or German had, and indeed did not develop such until the 1950s. They had some powerful local defenses, particularly around Moscow, but lack the systems that the West had.

I have already touched on the need the Soviets had for imports to supply fuel additives to get the Soviet fighters to their best performance (87 octane vs 100 octane is a huge difference, anywhere from 10-20% improvement), as well as the dependence on US supplied aviation radios and other electronics, not to mention rubber and aluminum (both of which were imported in vast qualities).

Finally, the West has the capability of markedly reducing and then shutting down the Soviet Oil industry, which the Soviets cannot match.

That said, initially the SAF will put up a good fight, and losses will be high on both sides, but the weight of attrition will overwhelm the Soviets, driving their air units further and further east and within months the West will have air supremacy in Europe. This will gradually move east as the armies do. Soviet air attacks against Western targets will suffer far worse losses than vice versa. The Americans are the best in the world at shooting down aircraft, with the British right behind. They have the proximity fuse, outstanding antiaircraft guns, and coordinated systems that include fighter and flak in layered defenses that cover not only local targets but whole regions. The Soviets will be looking at loss rates not dissimilar to what the Japanese took in the later stages of the war... up to 90% when attacking Western targets.

No air force can long stand such losses, especially when replacement aircraft are going to dry up within months of the termination of Western imports.

A good example is Bodenplatte, where the Luftwaffe suffered staggering losses while attacking Allied airfields in spite of tactical surprise.
 
Last edited:
I was trying to remember without looking the numbers up, but assuming thats true.
In other words, instead of looking them up, you were making them up.

You still havnt posted anything against points I made about the Red Army Airforce being a far more formidable opponent than the 1994/5 Luftwaffe.
Of course it's a more formidable opponent. On the other hand, the western allies are a FAR more formidable opponent to the Soviets than the Germans ever were. And as soon as Lend-Lease high-octane fuel runs out, the Soviet aircraft, which are already somewhat inferior to the British and American ones, will suffer a massive drop in performance.

The blithe assumption that the RAF & USAF will instantly own the skies and can bomb Soviets supply lines at will is flawed at best. Also consider that bombing supply-lines wont render the Red Army ineffective, they had suffered simliar problems early in the war against the Germans.
No, they didn't suffer similar problems against the Germans. In fact, they didn't suffer anything like what the west can deal out.

Hell even the Wehrmacht could still move more than enougth men and supplies to the front to keep their units combat effective.
That doesn't mean anything. Just like with your previous example of the USSR suffering under German interdiction during Barbarossa, you are conveniently forgetting a huge difference here. They were on the defensive, and therefore operating on interior lines.
ITTL on the other hand, they are trying to conduct massive, rapid offensives against forces that are superior in training, superior in equipment (with some exceptions of course), AND operating on interior lines (while being for more mechanized than the Red Army).
 
That doesn't mean anything. Just like with your previous example of the USSR suffering under German interdiction during Barbarossa, you are conveniently forgetting a huge difference here. They were on the defensive, and therefore operating on interior lines.
ITTL on the other hand, they are trying to conduct massive, rapid offensives against forces that are superior in training, superior in equipment (with some exceptions of course), AND operating on interior lines (while being for more mechanized than the Red Army).

The Soviets have been on the offensive against the Germans for the past two years. They were fighting a force exactly as you are describing! The Germans had better equipment and training and were operating on interior lines! Not to mention they will outnumber the Allies even worse with all the partisan activity that will be going on across Europe! The Allies are at a distinct disadvantage against the Soviets.

-----

On the A-bomb i think that it is waaaay overestimated. The Japanses had no airdefense network nor did they have armies in the field. There also wasn't any possible way the radiation could harm the Allies. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Russian heartland would be extremely difficult and probably not worth the risk of perhaps losing a bomb or worse having it fall into Russian hands. Tactical use would be depremental. Most Soviets will be built up right next to the Allied lines, i dont think Allied High Command will be seriously considering dropping a bomb so close to their own men, or considering how close the Soviets will be to France, another Allied country. Real bad PR right there.
 
In other words, instead of looking them up, you were making them up.

Um no if I'd ''made it up'' I'd have said something else, I knew the rough numbers from memory as I said. If you'd read my post instead of making a poor effort at being snarky.:p


Of course it's a more formidable opponent. On the other hand, the western allies are a FAR more formidable opponent to the Soviets than the Germans ever were. And as soon as Lend-Lease high-octane fuel runs out, the Soviet aircraft, which are already somewhat inferior to the British and American ones, will suffer a massive drop in performance.

I know the Soviets couldnt win the air-war, but they wont be beaten within a few weeks as some here seem to think. And the Red Airforce dosnt need to ''win'' it just has to hold out until the Red Army wins the ground war.

That could take months. Soviet fuel stocks wont run dry overnight the ground war could be over long before that. Frankly at least the Soviets had good supplies of any fuel. The really Germans didnt.


No, they didn't suffer similar problems against the Germans. In fact, they didn't suffer anything like what the west can deal out.

In 1941 the Soviet Airforce was nearly knocked out of the war by the Germans who had total air-superiority for about a year. The air-war against the RAF & USAF will be attritional and drawn out. Assuming the Western Allies attack first, and their new goverments dont sue for peace after the old onces get chucked out of office due to a massive public backlash.

Still focusing on narrow military factors ignoring all the moral and policical, is bloody unrealistic as I've stated before.


That doesn't mean anything. Just like with your previous example of the USSR suffering under German interdiction during Barbarossa, you are conveniently forgetting a huge difference here. They were on the defensive, and therefore operating on interior lines.

The Red Army supply-lines before and during Barbaroossa were bluntly a fucking shambles. By the Red Army in 1945 is much much better organized logistically and massively mechanized. In addition to the fact they have a functioning air-force preventing the Allies bombing their supply-lines at will, whilst oparateing offensively against Anglo-US forces.


ITTL on the other hand, they are trying to conduct massive, rapid offensives against forces that are superior in training, superior in equipment (with some exceptions of course), AND operating on interior lines (while being for more mechanized than the Red Army).[

Eh? A lot of OTL Allied commanders would take issue with that training part. Equipment is hit & miss and any advantage there isnt overwhelming. You ignore the massive advantage in combat experience and command talent that the Red Army has vis-a-vis the Anglo-US armies. Also the poor quality of most Anglo-US infantry and armour divisions (face it the artillery was the outstanding branch of the US army and the British/Commenwealth Armies were mediocre), meant even depleted Wehrmacht formations could hold massively superior Allies forces. And launch counter-attacks the Red Army would have contemptuously brushed aside.

Also saying that the Allied forces in Europe was oparateing on interior supply lines is remarkable. Given the logistic snarl-ups that effected their campaigns against the Wehrmacht.
 
I was trying to remember without looking the numbers up, but assuming thats true. You still havnt posted anything against points I made about the Red Army Airforce being a far more formidable opponent than the 1994/5 Luftwaffe.

The blithe assumption that the RAF & USAF will instantly own the skies and can bomb Soviets supply lines at will is flawed at best. Also consider that bombing supply-lines wont render the Red Army ineffective, they had suffered simliar problems early in the war against the Germans. Hell even the Wehrmacht could still move more than enougth men and supplies to the front to keep their units combat effective.

Urban Fox

the red air force superiority in 1944/45 was only SOMEWHAT a function of their maturity as a force; and technical improvements in aircraft

the german pilot replacement stream sucked; AND Germany was forced to increasingly transfer its fighter regiments for home defense... during Bagration Army Group Center had less than 200 fighters servicable to fly top cover !!!!!!!!!!!

the red army was on the attack; and as such deployed their tactical aircraft at low level to support ground forces; german fighters in turn had to engage to shield their ground forces; and their long range bombing missions had utterly ceased; the red airfroce in 1944/45 had every possible advantage and still lost HUGE numbers both to flak and german aircraft


against the western allies; the red air force faces several problems

1. allied interceptor aircraft/long range escort aircraft where technically superior to red air force fighters
2. allied pilots where excellently trained; more so than the germans or the red air force
3. allied strategic bombing diverts red air force fighters away from their tactical role and onto interception duty; so they can't put all their strength flying top cover for their tanks
4. allied strategic bombing (especially b-29's) fly at high altitude where red air force aircraft flew like pigs and would be sitting ducks for P-51's
5. b-29's carried a bombload like nothing the russians had ever seen 5x what a ju-88 carried; they can't just ignore them and not pull fighters off the line to contest them... think about it a 200 plane b29 raid is like being bombed by 1000 JU-88's
6. russian aa guns didn't have the range to successfully engage b-29's so they would have to pull fighters off the line
7. the russians had no early warning system so they would have to station fighters to protect many locations and keep them there since they can't be centrally located and directed to intercept a raid
8. the russians had little night fighting capability; the germans used darkness to just shoot up rail lines by flying along them; the British would have 500 lancasters armed with ground mapping radar pounding the crap out of important targets (a lancaster carried 3x the bombload of a ju-88... so 500 lancasters is like being hit with a 1500 ju-88 raid)
9. the allies don't have to divert all their aa guns to anti tank work... they get to stay on job; aided by radar and vt proximity fuses; attacking their formations below 5000 feet is a VERY risky game
10. allied medium and tactical bombers are far tougher and 10x more lethal than their german counter parts (a b-25 could do a shitload more damaged to an armored column than a stuka or hs-129)
 
sigh

Look, you can drone on and on about the "Soviet Steam Roller" but the fact is that the primary advantage that the Soviets have is in numbers, and that has been shown to be only moderate rather than overwhelming. The western allies are pound for pound superior to the Soviets by a decent margin.

People make the assumption that the "soft" Western democracies will be at a major disadvantage compared to the draconian Soviets. Just because the Red army was able to order its troops on suicidal charges doesn't mean shit, the Japanese could do the same thing, look how good that turned out for them.

On the home front, it isn't nearly as baed as is made out, just like the Soviets aren't about to collapse into anarchy, the US/UK aren't about to suffer from civil insurrections. First off, if there is a war that breaks out in 1945, the provocation is enough to get two governments that have every reason not to fight such a war to do just that, public morale may be unhappy, but it won't suddenly result in riots in the streets. The democrats and Truman have until 1948 to worry about reelection.

As far as the situation "on the ground" let's look at how things would pan out. Let's assume that the Soviets are the aggressors and manage to pull off a surprise attack. The element of surprise and superior numbers will prove a decisive advantage in the first couple days at most. Allied forces will have to perform a fighting retreat across Western Germany. One assumes that this is a good thing, but immediately the logistical burden falls far more heavily on the Soviets.

The Soviet doctrine at the time relied heavily on a massive grinding slog while absorbing massive casualties and inflicting just as many on a numerically inferior opponent that is led by a maniacal Austrian who doesn't allow retreats. The Western allies will gladly oblige on the first part, not on the second, even Patton was smart enough to avoid getting suckered into a mass blood letting with a numerically superior enemy.

If the Russians decide to get into a long gun duel with the Western Allies, they will lose. In the air, the battle will be fierce, but the Soviets are at a considerable disadvantage. They lack decent early warning and radar systems, they have no integrated AA defenses, especially over Europe, and their aircraft are technically inferior to their allied counterparts, and they won't have the numerical advantage that the Red Army has. They also don't have a counter for, or experience fighting against massed flights of heavy multi-engine bombers with escorts.

Just to be generous(to the Russians), we'll effectively cancel out CAS by assuming that the Soviets have a really good showing in the air and manage to interdict enough Allied low flying combat aircraft to eliminate any Allied advantage in that department(at first anyway). This however does not account for Allied strategic bombers which will be carrying out round the clock sorties over every road, bridge, rail line, and supply depot in Soviet controlled eastern Germany.

An army is a hungry beast, an army on the offensive is ravenous. Even assuming that the Soviets keep a decent portion of their supply lines open even under heavy Allied bombing, we're still going to be looking at a massive shortage of fuel, supplies, and ammunition for the rampaging Red Army. The Soviets will either have to stop part of its advance in exchange for keeping up momentum in select areas, or bring the army to a complete halt until the supply situation is resolved. The second option is a nonstarter since time is not on their side and the supply situation will not be resolved quickly. The first option has the problem that it risks creating a salient which can be flanked and encircled, something which I'm sure the Allies will be looking for.

On the strategic front, Allied air forces will be launching sorties from just about every airfield within range into the Soviet Union, subjecting its already strained populace to an entirely new torment; that of strategic bombing. Expect round the clock sorties to every eil field in Soviet possession. Industrial areas previously untouchable by the Wermacht will now be getting pounded by the RAF and USAAF. Should the atomic genie be let out of the bottle, it won't be wasted on such foolish excercizes as trying to level entire cities, the US military will specifically target strategically important areas and targets. If major cities get hit, expect the militarily significant areas to be ground zero, not the city centers. So Moscow would be hit over the rail yards, and Kiev or Vladivostok over industrial areas. Even without massive structural damage to the cities themselves, the fires, radiation, and ensuing chaos from the nuclear detonations will render the targeted cities useless to the war effort for at the very least weeks if not months which should be just long enough for the US military to build more bombs and do the job all over again. I wonder how many times you have to nuke an industrial district before the Soviets will stop trying to rebuilt it?

When looking for a parallel to compare this conflict to, look to the Pacific war, not the Eastern front. Like the Japanese, the Russians will be facing an enemy which is man for man better than they are. Like the Japanese, they will have to rely on the Allies getting weary of conflict and suing for peace. Like the Japanese, the Russians do not have time on their side, they need to hit hard and fast and gain as much as possible and hope that they scared the Americans and British enough to get them to negotiate. Meanwhile, unlike the Germans, the Western allies are led by sane people, armies will be allowed to retreat. Unlike the Germans, the W Allies have better logistics. Unlike the Germans, the W Allies have rather modest goals(stop the Russians).

And please, stop with the whole "it's just 15 kilotons" or "it's only a million casualties" like those are small figures. Against an enemy bent on massacring practically every man woman and child in your country, that kind of thing can be endured, not against an enemy that is merely trying to stop you from conquering the western half of Europe.
 
Some people seem to think because the Soviets lost 23-25 million dead they could lose another several million without any problems. First, the USSR had lost 14-15% of its entire population. It's can't afford to lose a lot more. If 80% of all males born in 1923 are dead, new babies don't mysteriously travel back in time to become grown men by 1946. Second, that figure does not include all the wounded, crippled, and maimed. Official statistics were almost two million invalids after the war, and being official statistics they probably underreport the situation.

People also seem to be discounting the dire state of the Soviet economy. The victorious Soviet Union had a standard of living BELOW that of the defeated Germany. From 1940 to 1945, the production of bread (millions of tons) went from 24 to 11. Meat (thousands of tons) went from 1,417 to 624. Butter (thousands of tons) went from 228 to 117. Production of clothing (millions of items) from 183 to 50, and pairs of shoes (in millions) from 211 and 66. In 1946 IOTL, the Soviet Union faced mass famine - 1 to 1.5 million died from it IOTL from 1946-1947. Guess who's not importing food in this scenario? Guess who's grain reserve silos have been destroyed in bombing? Guess whose rail network is ruined to prevent transporation of food to the cities or the front?

In this scenario, you don't have the release of army manpower back to the workforce, or switch in military production to consumer production. And unlike WWII, you don't have American economic aid to for millions of tons of food, oil, steel, and other raw materials like aluminum. You aren't getting all the technical and highly specialized manufactured equipment like radios, telephone wire or any of the ammunition and high explosives that equaled half of Soviet production.

I think people are also underestimating the impact of morale to the Red Army soldier. Even with Hitler's obvious wish for destroying the Slavic peoples, he still had several hundreds of thousands who were willing to take up arms against Stalin or assist in some way. Now they are going to be facing an enemy who is not committed to annihilating them. (you also have an enemy who would also be willing to arm them as real soldiers, unlike Hitler). You also have the effect of ordinary soldiers realizing that Soviet propaganda about its prosperity versus that of Europe was a huge lie. At some point, they are going to ask why they are fighting, and if they are really going to be worse off if they lose?

The Soviets simply cannot replace all of the losses they will receive once the new war begins. Whatever initial successes they will have in 1945 and early 1946 cannot compensate for their long term disadvantage. And the Rhine and Alps provide a formidable barrier for Soviet penetration into Western Europe. Allied forces are sufficiently strong to hold those until the inevitable decline and then collapse happens, and then they push forward.
 
The Soviets have been on the offensive against the Germans for the past two years. They were fighting a force exactly as you are describing! The Germans had better equipment and training and were operating on interior lines! Not to mention they will outnumber the Allies even worse with all the partisan activity that will be going on across Europe! The Allies are at a distinct disadvantage against the Soviets.

except that the Soviets outnumbered the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front from 1943-45 on the order of 10:1, while against the Western Allies the Allies have a 20% superiority in numbers alone, setting aside massive superiority in certain types like transport aircraft and heavy bombers. You are comparing apples to oranges

-----
On the A-bomb i think that it is waaaay overestimated. The Japanses had no airdefense network nor did they have armies in the field. There also wasn't any possible way the radiation could harm the Allies. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Russian heartland would be extremely difficult and probably not worth the risk of perhaps losing a bomb or worse having it fall into Russian hands. Tactical use would be depremental. Most Soviets will be built up right next to the Allied lines, i dont think Allied High Command will be seriously considering dropping a bomb so close to their own men, or considering how close the Soviets will be to France, another Allied country. Real bad PR right there.

the atomic bomb is being overestimated.. in the 1945-47 period. However, you need to read up on Operation Downfall (projected invasion of Japan). One variant called for the use of 1 atomic bomb for each invasion beach. The Allies were not shy about using them. An atomic strike on a massed artillery force such as the Soviets were prone to using would utterly devastate it.
 
Though I totally agree with what most people are saying about the effectivness of UK/USA airpower, I also think that the allied armies are being underestimated by some.

Artillery was probably the best arm for both the British and Americans, and they were very good at counter battery work, much better than the Germans, so the Red Armies "God of War" is not going to have it easy.

Training wise the avarage British and American soldier were better trained, though not necessarily as experienced.

Tanks. Yes the T34/85 is better than 75mm gunned Shermans/Cromwells etc, but they are going to be facing increasing numbers of Pershings, Comets , Centurions etc. (Question how do the 76mm sherman compare to a T34/85?).

Yes Allied soldiers are more cautious dont usualy attack without proper support, and call off attacks if they suffer a certain level of losses, but in my opinion this is a good thing.

Also the allies posses better logistical and maintance setups and are fully mechanised, the Red army is not fully mechanised, yes it had good logistics, thats undeniable but Maintance? and the fact that most of thier trucks came through lend lease what are they going to do when the spare parts run out?
 
Question how do the 76mm sherman compare to a T34/85?

Short version: the first hit by either one has a high probability of a kill on the other at normal engagement ranges. At long range the Sherman has a serious disadvantage.

The Allies were beginning to deploy HVAP-type ammo in large quantities; doctrine against the Germans in 1944 had been to try regular AP first, and only switch to HVAP if you got a non-killing hit!

You can get lots of detail in a nice side-by-side comparison here, though I've spotted a few errors here and there in their database:

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/vs_vehicles.php

BTW, one often-overlooked factor in tank-on-tank engagements: the tank with the larger crew has an edge (more eyes to spot, fewer distractions, etc.). A Sherman had a five-man crew, and so did the T-34/85, but the T-34/76 only had four.

The Sherman was also had a high reliability rate (for a tank) and the US had excellent maintenance and repair units. The Soviets weren't quite as good.
 
Top