The Berlin Blockade leads to World War III. Who wins?

There *were* millions of men in the civilian workforce with combat experience and training and still of age for service, and you could draft many back into the ranks - but obviously, that can't be done overnight.

Not to mention combat and discipline skills are highly perishable without routine exercise, which is why reservists are required to come in on weekends to train, something I doubt the millions of men who returned to a purely civilian life had been receiving over the past three years. Many of these men will need remedial training. It'll be faster then starting with scratch recruits, since these guys will be relearning skills they once knew, but it'll still take more time then if they had been regularly put through their paces each weekend like Soviet reservists prior to 1967 were.
 
Even your figure of 50,000 pales in comparison to the 7-800,000+ men the Soviets will have storming westward before we factor in mobilization, never mind what they'll have two weeks into the conflict.

The US airlifting 50,000 poorly trained, poorly disciplined, unorganized light infantry into France at the two week mark is basically just tossing the Soviets 50,000 POWs.

For context Western European occupation and home based armies (excluding US) total c 800,000; to which can be added US occupation forces (126,000) and any reinforcements flown in.

Total Soviet armed forces (all branches) are reported as 2.874m in 1948.
 
In 1947, the US has nukes, the Russians don't. Simple as that.

It's not actually so simple. The US had few weapons, few bombers, little intelligence on targets in the USSR, little knowledge on Soviet defense capabilities, few trained crews, and the Soviets also had a massive conventional military superiority.
 

kernals12

Banned
It's not actually so simple. The US had few weapons, few bombers, little intelligence on targets in the USSR, little knowledge on Soviet defense capabilities, few trained crews, and the Soviets also had a massive conventional military superiority.
It wouldn't take long to convert our factories back to war production. And most of the Soviets' industry, transportation, and communication lines are still in tatters from the war. I'm not suggesting that US troops would be marching through the radioactive ruins of Moscow after a day, but probably after a year or two.
 
the Soviets also had a massive conventional military superiority.

Not as much as many claim.

Generally accepted that they had 175 divisions, but only 60 were maintained at full strength, and the rest at partial or cadre only level. Of these only 30 were in Eastern Europe, and in 1948 these were partly there for occupation duty as the local populace were not completely aligned with Moscow.

Russian divisions were also much smaller with a division slice of c 15,000; a Western division slice was generally c 40,000.
 
For context Western European occupation and home based armies (excluding US) total c 800,000; to which can be added US occupation forces (126,000) and any reinforcements flown in.

If one ignores that many of those forces are gendarmies with no combat value. In reality, Soviet superiority is probably on the order of 5+:1 once all quantitative and qualitative factors are factored in.

Of these only 30 were in Eastern Europe, and in 1948 these were partly there for occupation duty as the local populace were not completely aligned with Moscow.

No Soviet armed forces formations was engaged in occupation duty by 1948. That job was left to some 400,000 MGB paramilitary troops. On the other hand, ALL western forces in west Germany are pure garrison forces, with a absence of any of the armor or artillery needed to take on a Soviet assault.

Total Soviet armed forces (all branches) are reported as 2.874m in 1948.

Well, end of 1947/beginning of 1948. Given the expansion of Soviet formations, with a number of armies moved from cadre to full-readiness formations, during the winter-spring of 1948 described by the articles I've posted that figure was probably larger in June. A full mobilization would also rapidly see the number expand to around six million by the end of the first month. The West in 1948 has only 3-4 unready divisions to defend Germany vs up to 31 fully ready Soviet divisions and that imbalance will only worsen as the Soviets mobilize.

Russian divisions were also much smaller with a division slice of c 15,000; a Western division slice was generally c 40,000.

Eh... divisional slices aren't actually indicative of anything here given that it relies on ignoring that a portion of rear-area jobs that in western forces were handled by military ones were instead handled by civilian or paramilitary personnel in the Eastern bloc ones, rendering a large portion of a Soviet divisional strength as invisible. Railroads are a good example of this: in the 40's, the US Army's railroad needs were handled. In the Soviet Union, it was the job of first the People's Commissariat, and later the Ministry, of Railways which was a civilian organization.

As the article I posted several pages back the Soviets are starting the war with massive conventional superiority and no amount of accounting games that includes such chicanery as including glorified bean counters and policemen as soldiers can change that.

It wouldn't take long to convert our factories back to war production. And most of the Soviets' industry, transportation, and communication lines are still in tatters from the war.

Per Mark Harrison's article on the subject, most Soviet industrial indexes by 1948 were back to pre-war levels.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
It'd be a pretty incredible world after the Soviets are defeated. In the span of a decade, the free world will have wiped out Fascism, Nazism, and Communism and therefore all clear and present threats to the liberal democratic order. We will have come as close as humanly possible to Francis Fukuyama's End of History.
 
What would Yugoslavia do in the war? Presumably the war would occur after Yugoslavia was expelled from the Cominform. Would Tito make a face heel turn and mend his relationship with Stalin?
 
What would Yugoslavia do in the war? Presumably the war would occur after Yugoslavia was expelled from the Cominform. Would Tito make a face heel turn and mend his relationship with Stalin?
Why would he? What benefit to tying yourself to a cart that would eventually have atom bombs raining down on it?

Stalin won't have enough forces to divert to try and occupy that, and the rest of Europe
 
If Stalin wins, especially if he wins big, then Tito will have to trim his sails. Until then, cautious neutrality is the rule.
 
Taking early 1949 as the starting point (blockade still in force) SAC would be operating Boeing B-50 series bombers, initially from northern US bases, over the pole, south across the USSR to landings in the middle east and the Asian subcontinent. Delhi is 7400 miles from Minot North Dakota, well within range with 10,200# payload carried 2/3 of the way. Within a few weeks, I'd expect aircraft shuttling back to ConUS on photorecon/damage assesment flights, for rearming and return missions if necessary.

Assuming the need for nuclear strikes continues, refueling fields would be established in northern Canada (for interceptors also, if needed against suicide missions- probably bio)

Don't confuse the B-50 with the B-29 or Tu 4, The '50, while aerodynamically similar was lighter, stronger and considerably more powerful, with engines that kept on running. The '50 had a significantly greater takeoff weight and fuel tank volume. Speed over target was at least 70 MPH higher than the '29. The B-36 wasn't ready for operations in early '49, but if things dragged on, I believe limited mission scheduling would have been reasonable late in the year.

The Soviet were well aware of USAF capabilities, and their own deficiencies. Their doctrines called for the "correlation of forces" to be in their favor before any adventures. Fortunately that time never arrived.

Dynasoar
 
It'd be a pretty incredible world after the Soviets are defeated. In the span of a decade, the free world will have wiped out Fascism, Nazism, and Communism and therefore all clear and present threats to the liberal democratic order. We will have come as close as humanly possible to Francis Fukuyama's End of History.

I wouldn't call the resulting world "incredible" given that it would be poorer and more destitute then OTL. The sheer destructive force used would also create quite the problems in making the "liberal democratic order" acceptable to the emerging non-aligned countries. It would be a needless butchery.

Taking early 1949 as the starting point (blockade still in force) SAC would be operating Boeing B-50 series bombers, initially from northern US bases, over the pole, south across the USSR to landings in the middle east and the Asian subcontinent. Delhi is 7400 miles from Minot North Dakota, well within range with 10,200# payload carried 2/3 of the way. Within a few weeks, I'd expect aircraft shuttling back to ConUS on photorecon/damage assesment flights, for rearming and return missions if necessary.

Assuming the need for nuclear strikes continues, refueling fields would be established in northern Canada (for interceptors also, if needed against suicide missions- probably bio)

Don't confuse the B-50 with the B-29 or Tu 4, The '50, while aerodynamically similar was lighter, stronger and considerably more powerful, with engines that kept on running. The '50 had a significantly greater takeoff weight and fuel tank volume. Speed over target was at least 70 MPH higher than the '29. The B-36 wasn't ready for operations in early '49, but if things dragged on, I believe limited mission scheduling would have been reasonable late in the year.

The Soviet were well aware of USAF capabilities, and their own deficiencies. Their doctrines called for the "correlation of forces" to be in their favor before any adventures. Fortunately that time never arrived.

Unescorted B-29s going up against MiG-15s over Korea suffered losses on the order of 75+% and given the poor state of SAC training and maintenance in 1949, I don't see the B-50 faring any better.
 
Unescorted B-29s going up against MiG-15s over Korea suffered losses on the order of 75+% and given the poor state of SAC training and maintenance in 1949, I don't see the B-50 faring any better.

From the wiki, since it was quick and I'm away from my other notes

At least 16 B-29s were shot down over North Korea, and as many as 48 were lost in crash landings or written off because of heavy damage after returning to base. When the Korean War ended on 27 July 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 Communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sortie

And for 75%, that was from here

http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/b29s/b29_black_tuesday/p_b29_black_tuesday.htm
where 6 of 9 B-29s were shot down by MiG-15 fighters
 
Last edited:
From the wiki, since it was quick and I'm away from my other notes

At least 16 B-29s were shot down over North Korea, and as many as 48 were lost in crash landings or written off because of heavy damage after returning to base. When the Korean War ended on 27 July 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 Communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sortie

Does not contradict my claim, although after double-checking the incident I remembered do have to issue a correction: the loss rate could be as high as 2/3rds. On October 23, 1951, 9 B-29s flew on a raid against a airfield at Nandi. 6 of the bombers were shot down, which is a 66.6 repeating loss rate. After that, the USAF cancelled B-29 flights into MiG alley which, given that the MiGs didn’t operate much outside of the alley, kept losses down.
 
If Stalin wins, especially if he wins big, then Tito will have to trim his sails. Until then, cautious neutrality is the rule.

As I think even ObsessedNuker concedes, this isn't really a war Stalin can *win* in the long-term, if the Anglo-Americans have the will to see it through (which I think they would).

But given that he *could* reach the Pyrenees in the short-term, I tend to expect that he would be using the opportunity to "take care of" Tito while he's at it, one way or another.
 
I wouldn't call the resulting world "incredible" given that it would be poorer and more destitute then OTL. The sheer destructive force used would also create quite the problems in making the "liberal democratic order" acceptable to the emerging non-aligned countries. It would be a needless butchery.

I'd really, really hate to think of what Europe would be like after experiencing its third total war in just two generations.
 
Unescorted B-29s going up against MiG-15s over Korea suffered losses on the order of 75+% and given the poor state of SAC training and maintenance in 1949, I don't see the B-50 faring any better.

There's no question that a MiG-15 versus a propeller-driven heavy bomber is not a good match for the latter. The MiG-15 had superior ceiling and speed over even the Peacemaker.

My cavil here is that there were relatively few MiG-15's in operation in 1948-49. In a World War III scenario in this time frame, those few MiG-15's will be in heavy demand to sustain combat operations in Europe and possibly the Middle East. There simply will not be enough of them to provide adequate air defense of the Soviet Union, to say nothing of detection and coordination difficulties,. The Soviets will ramp up production, of course, but it will take time to bring them online, qualify pilots for them, etc., especially since they will also have to replace what are sure to be substantial operational losses, especially once F-86's start seeing combat over Western Europe.

Maintaining air supremacy over a highly confined space like the Yalu or Rhine River Valleys is one thing; trying to defend a sparsely based 11 time zone empire is something else.

Anyway, my sense is that Lemay would push back against any premature strategic bomber offensive. SAC was (as we all agree, I hope) in no condition to fight any kind of strategic war in 1948. Lemay was all about his "Sunday Punch;" I can see him having some success against Truman (Dewey?) in limiting any such effort by SAC until wartime crash programs allowed a buildup of bomber forces and warheads....well, no earlier than summer/fall 1949*. That would still be too soon to get B-47's into any real operational status (even with Boeing working overdrive it is hard to see them reaching bomber wings before 1950), but it could give him a very hefty force of B-36's and B-50's to swarm Soviet air defenses by the second half of 1949, possibly. Even if the Soviets could knock down 20% of Lemay's bombers (which would be 4 times the loss rate 8th Air Force considered sustainable over Germany in 1943-45), that would still mean hundreds of nuked Soviet cities and bases.
 
Maintaining air supremacy over a highly confined space like the Yalu or Rhine River Valleys is one thing; trying to defend a sparsely based 11 time zone empire is something else.

The best way to visualize the Russian problem is a MAP.

Russian+air+defense+network.jpg


Those people have lane exploits (today) that their radars and fighters cannot cover. The USAF knew how to map and use those lanes as a result of their WW II combat experience in 1948. Maybe half the bombers never survive to unload, but with atomic weapons 50% get through is dead Russia, or at least enough to ensure it loses the war in OTL in 1948 assuming about 100 weapons allocated to the strike profile.

Going the other way? Not enough Russian bombers to matter.
 
Unescorted B-29s going up against MiG-15s over Korea suffered losses on the order of 75+% and given the poor state of SAC training and maintenance in 1949, I don't see the B-50 faring any better.

The USAF in their own air defence tests concluded fighters with night all / weather radars (and better performance than their P61 night fighters) were needed to deal with B29 attacks at night or in bad weather. The Canadians spent considerable sums building their own fleet of Jet Powered night / all weather fighters to handle attacks by B29 clones. So presumably the Canadians also concluded that their fleet of F86 day fighters was not (or would not be) up to the job of dealing with B29 clones at night or in bad weather.

I suspect the Soviets will come to a similar conclusion when they try to intercept B29's at night on nuclear strike missions using Mig15 day fighters. Reportedly the first "all weather" variant of the Mig 15 didn't make its first flight until 1951 (and the photo I have seen shows a very small radome so I doubt it has a radar with comparable performance to say the Canadian CF100.)
 
Last edited:
Top