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

[ObssesedNuker]

P-3 'Dumbo' 55kW Radar with 100 mile range was hardly sophisticated. it was hardly an improvement over Chain Home of 1940. P-8 'Knife Rest' wasn't till 1950, and that was about as good as mid 1940s Radar, with later example getting a PPI indicator, but only 75kW.

It would get the job done, given the defense system the Soviets have set-up and the weakness of Anglo-American air forces.

This map published by LIFE magazine August 8th 1949, fits right into this thread and shows what if a Soviet attack came in 1949, the West planned to hold at the Rhine and nuke the advancing armies as they assembled to cross the river.

It's interesting to compare this with actual US warplanning from the period, which held out no hope of holding along the Rhine in 1948.

 

[Aber]

It's interesting to compare this with actual US warplanning from the period, which held out no hope of holding along the Rhine in 1948.

Which were based on intelligence which vastly over-estimated Soviet strength.

 

[Deleted member 2186]

It would get the job done, given the defense system the Soviets have set-up and the weakness of Anglo-American air forces.



It's interesting to compare this with actual US warplanning from the period, which held out no hope of holding along the Rhine in 1948.

Doubt holding the Rhine was their goal, just slow them and get as much to the United Kingdom and fight on from there.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Which were based on intelligence which vastly over-estimated Soviet strength.

Eh, even the post-Cold War estimates show the Soviets with 5:1 advantages on the ground and 3:1 superiority in tactical air. A 5:1 advantage in manpower, armor, and artillery is the kind of advantage that shatters entire army groups.

Doubt holding the Rhine was their goal, just slow them and get as much to the United Kingdom and fight on from there.

Fair enough. The 1949 update to the plans did call for a delaying action on the Rhine, although the plan also assumed US military forces which were somewhat stronger then was the case when the war begins...

 

[Deleted member 2186]

Fair enough. The 1949 update to the plans did call for a delaying action on the Rhine, although the plan also assumed US military forces which were somewhat stronger then was the case when the war begins...

Would Operation Dropshot be part of this.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Would Operation Dropshot be part of this.

No. Dropshot was a war plan drafted in 1949 that assumed a war in 1957. The plan in place for a war in 1949 was codenamed Offtackle, although it's inadequacies meant that the Joint Chiefs only accepted it as a stopgap.

 

[Deleted member 2186]

No. Dropshot was a war plan drafted in 1949 that assumed a war in 1957. The plan in place for a war in 1949 was codenamed Offtackle, although it's inadequacies meant that the Joint Chiefs only accepted it as a stopgap.

A i already toughed 300 nukes was to much for a 1949 war plan, because if the was so, i doubt the Soviet would have reach the Rhine as depicted on the map.

 

[Aber]

Eh, even the post-Cold War estimates show the Soviets with 5:1 advantages on the ground and 3:1 superiority in tactical air. A 5:1 advantage in manpower, armor, and artillery is the kind of advantage that shatters entire army groups.

Soviet Operational Plan 52 envisaged no more than 34 divisions for the first 10 days of combat.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

A i already toughed 300 nukes was to much for a 1949 war plan, because if the was so, i doubt the Soviet would have reach the Rhine as depicted on the map.

Well, it helps that the US doesn't have 300 nukes in 1949 (much less 1948).

Soviet Operational Plan 52 envisaged no more than 34 divisions for the first 10 days of combat.

Sounds about right. Certainly fits with the manpower figures I've seen of some 500,000 men in the combat formations. Meanwhile, looking at the other side of the border, the US had 1 half-combat effective division and a quartet of constabulary regiments. Total number of American personnel in West Germany was 60,000, with 6,500 isolated in West Berlin of which some 10,000 were combat personnel. The British and French add another 40,000, although I'm not sure what proportion of that was combat, bring the total number up to around 100,000 total personnel. So again, a 5:1 advantage.

 

[Aber]

Meanwhile, looking at the other side of the border, the US had 1 half-combat effective division and a quartet of constabulary regiments. Total number of American personnel in West Germany was 60,000, with 6,500 isolated in West Berlin of which some 10,000 were combat personnel. The British and French add another 40,000, although I'm not sure what proportion of that was combat, bring the total number up to around 100,000 total personnel.

JIC Report at the end of 1948 gives occupation forces in Germany & Austria as US 126k, UK 140k, France 80k, Belgium 24k, Norway 4k, Denmark 4k = 378k; plus home armies in France, Benelux and Denmark of 450k.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

JIC Report at the end of 1948 gives occupation forces in Germany & Austria as US 126k, UK 140k, France 80k, Belgium 24k, Norway 4k, Denmark 4k = 378k; plus home armies in France, Benelux and Denmark of 450k.

Well, it's a bit alarming when a high command doesn't even know the strength of it's own forces, although perhaps some emergency forces were rushed over during the Berlin crisis. The 60,000 figure is from General Clay, who in 1948 was Commander-in-Chief of the US Army Forces in Europe. After some review of the literature, BOAR forces constituted 55,000 men but it was not organized in any coherent manner, with the first corps not being stood to until 1952. I can find no figures to substantiate French or Belgian forces in West Germany. The Home Armies were largely gendarmies, not proper military forces (something these countries knew very well: their actions during the crisis was basically falling over themselves to try and distance themselves, with the French in particular outright evacuating their forces from Berlin). Denmark's "army" had barely formed and had nothing in the way of organization or training and didn't have any personnel in Western Germany.

In terms of quality, the forces were stripped of most of their armor and artillery. Even more importantly there was a crippling loss of basic soldiering skills... we're talking rudimentary stuff like maintaining a tight perimiter at night, constructing mutually supporting positions, and digging in when halted for any length of time. The 1948 army was described as being unable to "fight it's way out of a wet-paper bag" by the Army chief of staff. The initial experience in the Korean War would confirm this: US soldiers during the first year of that conflict would perform appallingly against enemies much worse equipped then themselves... or the Soviets. For their part, the Soviets did not demobilize their core combat elements, with the number of mechanized formations remaining the same as during the war, and retained their best soldiers. They underwent constant exercises to put them through their paces and ensure their skills remained sharp. Had it been Soviet forces the American faced south of Seoul instead of North Korean in summer 1950 or Soviet instead of Chinese in the winter of 1950/51, they would have been outright annihilated instead of routed and pushed back. The poor state of American forces in western Germany would likely lead to much the same result.

 

[David Floyd]

While I have no particular expertise in the matter, it sounds very much as if both sides are being overly optimistic towards "their" side and overly pessimistic towards the other. The reality, I imagine, would have initially resembled 2 blind men in a boxing match. No doubt the Red Army could make large gains, but with "only" 500k combat troops in position initially, they can't attack everywhere instantly. And, it strikez me that tens of thousands of American and British bomber crew can be recalled quickly.

I'm very convinced Soviet defenses could repel initial bomber strikes. Nothing said here convinces me that Britain and the US couldn't very quickly re-mobilize strategic air power with atomic weapons.

I dunno. It feels like everyone agrees the Soviets lose a long war. Britain and the US would have swamped the Soviets economically and industrially just like they did Germany. I just think some people are overestimating what they do in the medium term - the Soviets conquering Sweden, Egypt and the Middle East in 1949? Come on.

 

[Marc]

We do seem to love focusing on nuclear. I assume everyone figures that anthrax and other lovelies are going to stay stockpiled? Especially after city after city in the Soviet Union is being obliterated?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

While I have no particular expertise in the matter, it sounds very much as if both sides are being overly optimistic towards "their" side and overly pessimistic towards the other. The reality, I imagine, would have initially resembled 2 blind men in a boxing match. No doubt the Red Army could make large gains, but with "only" 500k combat troops in position initially, they can't attack everywhere instantly.

Given that combat is about what one side has relative to the other... in practical terms, they can. In Europe at least. I mean, the Soviets have more armies in Germany then the WAllies have divisions and still retain their 1945 tactical-operational skill sets, whereas the WAllied forces haven’t. It takes a lot of wishful thinking to see that sort of conventional mismatch ending in something other then Soviet tanks cooling their tracks in the Atlantic within three months at most.

Nothing said here convinces me that Britain and the US couldn't very quickly re-mobilize strategic air power with atomic weapons.

Not even the assessments of the American logistical planners? Many of whom were the same ones who ran the US’s logistical system in WW2?

I dunno. It feels like everyone agrees the Soviets lose a long war. Britain and the US would have swamped the Soviets economically and industrially just like they did Germany. I just think some people are overestimating what they do in the medium term - the Soviets conquering Egypt and the Middle East in 1949? Come on.

I never said anything about reaching all the way to Egypt. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, sure. But Egypt’s probably rather too far. Of course, there’s a question of whether there would even be a Middle Eastern Theatre. If those countries declare neutrality, the Soviets may not wish to unnecessarily add to their enemies list. While it is accurate the US (Britain... not so much, not by this stage) would swamp the USSR economically, people are overestimating the speed with which it would happen. The measurement is years, not months, as was the case with Nazis Germany.

Basically, I’d expect the Soviets to run riot for the first two years everywhere their armies can reach. Then year three rolls around and the fully-mobilized US goes “Had fun? ‘Cause it’s our turn now...” and the USSR dies in a tide of fire and blood.

 

[David Floyd]

Yeah, could be. I'd wonder about Soviet logistics being able to stretch from Eastern Europe to the English Channel, especially in the face of ever stiffening Allied air power, but sure - the Red Army does enjoy an immense advantage at first.

I wonder if the reason Stalin never started this is because he knew what would happen. Atomic weapons aside, the US was still a large mismatch vis a vis the Soviet Union.

 

[Aber]

Well, it's a bit alarming when a high command doesn't even know the strength of it's own forces, although perhaps some emergency forces were rushed over during the Berlin crisis. The 60,000 figure is from General Clay, who in 1948 was Commander-in-Chief of the US Army Forces in Europe.

1947 figures for occupation forces were higher, and it seems surprising that you so blithely dismiss information from the JIC Report.

We also know now that Clay deliberately exaggerated the Soviet threat - his March 1948 cable was part of a plan to convince Congress to approve increased military funding - see The Papers of General Lucius D Clay.

 

[Aber]

Given that combat is about what one side has relative to the other... in practical terms, they can. In Europe at least. I mean, the Soviets have more armies in Germany then the WAllies have divisions and still retain their 1945 tactical-operational skill sets, whereas the WAllied forces haven’t. It takes a lot of wishful thinking to see that sort of conventional mismatch ending in something other then Soviet tanks cooling their tracks in the Atlantic within three months at most.

The Soviets have at most 2 armies in Germany, but they are infantry based and have only 2 tank divisions, and are deployed in a defensive posture - from the Soviet Operational plan quoted earlier.

I never said anything about reaching all the way to Egypt. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, sure. But Egypt’s probably rather too far. Of course, there’s a question of whether there would even be a Middle Eastern Theatre. If those countries declare neutrality, the Soviets may not wish to unnecessarily add to their enemies list.

Although those countries may remain neutral the Allies, especially Britain, have military bases in the region including RAF bases in Iraq and it is unlikely that they will be stopped from using them. Technically Egypt remained neutral in WW2 until February 1945.

 

[sloreck]

The key question is what do the Soviets have in East Germany on the day the fighting starts compared to what the US/others have. Even without any sabotage by anti-communist folks in Ukraine and Poland, it will take time for divisions in the USSR to entrain and get to the front in a semblance of organization, and then off to fight. This movement will also be hampered to at least some extent by air attacks, which cannot be completely stopped under the best of circumstances. The US/allies know that attacking transportation is a key element.

Simply counting divisions, tanks, aircraft does not tell you what one side or the other will have at the schwerpunkt, nor does it tell you about logistic sustainment. If the provocation is planned AND the USSR has semi-mobilized to attack if the west responds with a war that is one scenario, if the provocation is planned but no serious war preparations are made that is another, if it happens and things spin out of control rapidly, that is yet another.

 

[urielventis]

The Home Armies were largely gendarmies, not proper military forces (something these countries knew very well: their actions during the crisis was basically falling over themselves to try and distance themselves, with the French in particular outright evacuating their forces from Berlin). Denmark's "army" had barely formed and had nothing in the way of organization or training and didn't have any personnel in Western Germany.

The French evacuate their force from Berlin? this is new to me.
They stay and even build a new airport: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Tegel_Airport#Berlin_Airlift
General Jean Ganeval lead the french effort in Berlin.

In 1949, the french army were not only Gendarmerie, French army was able to send troop in Algeria/Indochina, it was not so well equiped (even Panther tank regiment!) but it wasn't a gendarmerie.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Soviets have at most 2 armies in Germany, but they are infantry based and have only 2 tank divisions, and are deployed in a defensive posture - from the Soviet Operational plan quoted earlier.

The GSVG in 1948 have 5 armies. You may be confused because the Soviet armies were normally echeloned so that the two you mentioned, the 3rd Shock and 8th Guards, were up front. Calling them infantry armies is a gross oversimplification: while each army may have had “only” one tank division (which represents more tank divisions then either the British or Americans have in Germany), this ignores that their rifle divisions had recieved organic tank regiments of 52 tanks and 16 self-propelled guns and had been subject to heavy motorization, with the average number of trucks rising from 100-per-rifle division in 1945 to almost 1,300-per-rifle-division in 1948 (The Development of the Soviet and Russian Armies in Context, 1946–2008, Page 223). A better description for them then would probably be “semi-mechanized” armies. As for the other armies, they constitute a tank army in the second echelon and a pair of mechanized armies in the third which between them had 4 tank divisions and 4 mechanized divisions.

South of the GSVG, the Central Group of Force's in Austria and Czechoslovakia constituted essentially another mechanized army, with 3 mechanized divisions and a rifle division. In the "shallow" strategic reserve in Poland, the Northern Group of Forces constituted two armies, with four tank divisions and a number of rifle divisions. Finally, the Group of Force's South in Hungary and Bulgaria... has technically been disbanded in theory. In practice, it's functions had merely been passed on to another mechanized army.

So altogether, Soviet Forces in Eastern Europe had 9 armies or the equivalent there-of. The defensive echeloning of these forces does preclude the Soviets going full deep operations on Day 1, but the Soviets by this point are extremely skilled at rapid maneuver and redeployment so it should only be a matter of days before the German, Central, and Southern (against Greece) go over to a full-scale offensive, which is practically no time at all. The two Northern Forces armies will be there in a week. The first waveof reinforcements, which would be multiple armies with dozens of divisions, would be arriving from the USSR by the end of the second week. These are extremely small time-scales in the strategic sense...

Although those countries may remain neutral the Allies, especially Britain, have military bases in the region including RAF bases in Iraq and it is unlikely that they will be stopped from using them. Technically Egypt remained neutral in WW2 until February 1945.

Britain had fully pulled it's military out of Iran by the end of '46 and out of the rest of the Middle East by mid-'48. Only observers remained by that point. Even if their bases had remained, it is entirely likely they would be stopped from using them: can't use a air base if a Soviet tank is parked on it's runways. Even before that, these bases had little in the way of air defense and would be vulnerable to Soviet counter-airstrikes.

The French evacuate their force from Berlin? this is new to me.
They stay and even build a new airport: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Tegel_Airport#Berlin_Airlift
General Jean Ganeval lead the french effort in Berlin.

I have the French informing the Americans they were pulling out shortly after the blockade began. Maybe they reversed their decision when the airlift started.

In 1949, the french army were not only Gendarmerie, French army was able to send troop in Algeria/Indochina, it was not so well equiped (even Panther tank regiment!) but it wasn't a gendarmerie.

I said largely Gendarmerie, not entirely so. I don't doubt that the French had combat forces, but as your own example shows they were small, poorly equipped, and a number had been sent overseas to fight in colonial conflicts. Not for nothing did the French Foreign Minister confide to the American ambassador on June 2nd "We are defenseless, you know."