USA-USSR WWIII with conventional weapons

Directly after WW2, the USSR had a bigger army than all the other armies of the involved powers combined. In 1950, they would've still held an overwhelming advantage and could have taken Western Europe with relative ease. Korea would also be Soviet territory and America would be helpless until they did make nukes.

Yes, and that massive army is going to have its combat efficiency drop dramatically when its no longer receiving a constant influx of American made trucks, grain, boots, clothes, and rations; all of which the soviets lack an immediate quantity to produce on the scale required in such a situation.

Also, the U.S. would have a decided advantage in strategic bombing through the mid 50's, with the USSR lacking sufficient high altitude interceptors to really prevent the US from raining bombs down on soviet military installations.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Directly after WW2, the USSR had a bigger army than all the other armies of the involved powers combined. In 1950, they would've still held an overwhelming advantage and could have taken Western Europe with relative ease. Korea would also be Soviet territory and America would be helpless until they did make nukes.

There are a number of threads here where we kicked this around. It isn't that cut & dried.

The Western Allied have a major advantage in airpower, and an advancing force would be especially vulnerable to air attack. Directly after WW II the U.S. had somewhere around 5,000 multi engine bombers, with the U.K. not all that far behind. The only Soviet fighter that was an equal to the Mustang was the La-7, and given the relative lack of armament of the Soviet aircraft (2 20mm isn't all that much) that may be a stretch and the Yak 9, which was by far the most numerous PVO design was even less well armed with 1 20mm and 1-2 12.7mm mg. When you throw the Meteor F.3 and P-80 into the mix the Soviet Air Force is at a significant disadvantage.

Does this mean the Western allies win easily (or at all)? No. But to project the strength of the Red Army against the Western armies without considering the rather overwhelming advantage of the USAAF and RAF in the medium and heavy bomber categories, not to mention the potential of Western fighter/bombers with the Tiny Tim rocket (1,500 meter range, with a 500 pound AP bomb as a warhead) as tank killers is ignoring a serious strategic and tactical asset.
 
Top