What Comes After A Third World War in 1948?

kernals12

Banned
True, but the Germans bombed us back and it was over the course of a long war. You dropping nuclear fire over tank factories and the border of Iran (?) would, to the people of 1948 knowing the Soviets cannot retaliate in kind, seem excessive. The ends do not always justify the means.

You need to think of the fallout blowing around after this display as well.

You’re depopulating most of Central Europe for what? To prove you can?
ITTL The Soviets are marauding across Western Europe pillaging everything in sight.
War is hell.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Yeah, if the Soviets are blatantly saying "Everything will be communist. Or have attitude change in choice of 7.62x54 or 7.62x 31", then I think the general consensus is going to be "fuck those guys".

I suspect on-sight execution of political officers in the temporarily occupied lands won't be out of the question.


Anyways, lots of dead Russians will be the order of business. They'll come in the form of char-broiled tank workers and peasants, drowned submarine workers and peasants, machine-gunned lemming workers and peasants, and New Sun-Baked extra crispy workers and peasants.


Of course anthrax might get used on farming workers and peasants too. Old Winnie had a legendary hate boner for communists.
 

kernals12

Banned
Yeah, if the Soviets are blatantly saying "Everything will be communist. Or have attitude change in choice of 7.62x54 or 7.62x 31", then I think the general consensus is going to be "fuck those guys".

I suspect on-sight execution of political officers in the temporarily occupied lands won't be out of the question.


Anyways, lots of dead Russians will be the order of business. They'll come in the form of char-broiled tank workers and peasants, drowned submarine workers and peasants, machine-gunned lemming workers and peasants, and New Sun-Baked extra crispy workers and peasants.


Of course anthrax might get used on farming workers and peasants too. Old Winnie had a legendary hate boner for communists.
The Geneva Convention is still a thing ITTL.
 
I've been informed that the Berlin blockade started in 1948 which moves the timeline up a year. In which case the US now has 50 bombs and the ability to produce a lot more.
Thanks for info Kernals12
My data on late 1940s US stockpile is vague.

With 50 bombs the SAC has allot Target to deal with East Bock capitals and Soviet military base, follow by Major Soviet cities.
I guess that SAC commander have some left for China to deal finally with Mao Zedong...

True, but the Germans bombed us back and it was over the course of a long war. You dropping nuclear fire over tank factories and the border of Iran (?) would, to the people of 1948 knowing the Soviets cannot retaliate in kind, seem excessive. The ends do not always justify the means.
You need to think of the fallout blowing around after this display as well.
You’re depopulating most of Central Europe for what? To prove you can?

We talk about 1948 WWIII scenario, not thermonuclear War of 1960s either 1983 scenarios
in 1948 the USA got only 10 Kilotons fission Bombs (the models used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
it would take another four years until USA test there first Hydrogen Bomb.
in same time they make there nukes more "dirtier" in matter of Fallout...

It sounds ironic even cynically, but 1948 nuclear War would be less harsh für Survivors as 1960s or 1983 scenarios.
 
Who said anything about basing in the US? I'm sure the British would be more than pleased to let us use their airfields.

Only three airfields in the world can hold the B-36A in 1948. All three are in the Continental US. What’s more, the B-46A can’t carry nukes. It won’t be until 1949 that the B-36B becomes available and can be stationed in Britain. Even then, only 18 were modified to carry bombs under the Saddletree program and it’s unlikely such a small number could make it through Soviet air defense.

I've been informed that the Berlin blockade started in 1948 which moves the timeline up a year. In which case the US now has 50 bombs and the ability to produce a lot more.

If one completely ignores all the other bottlenecks, but then you do seem to be involved in wishful thinking on this issue.

With these targeting plans (do the Americans have the nuclear weapons in ‘47/‘48 to achieve this?) I refer you back to my comment of America being a pariah nation that has massacred millions of civilians.

Given all difficulties SAC was facing, no. It’s not just a matter of bomb components, but also another number of factors. Refer to this post for more. Now after two-three years of build-up, this would be more realistic.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
That was for war crimes, unlike what FBKampfer implied which is mass arbitrary executions of Russian soldiers.

Civilians aren't bound by the Geneva convention. If you think there weren't a whole lot of murdered SS in Europe, you might want to do a bit of digging.
 
s
in 1948 the USA got only 10 Kilotons fission Bombs (the models used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
1948 had the Mk3 bomb in production. It was an improved Fatman, for both easier mass production, and higher yield.
It was in production for two years til April, 1949, 120 produced.
Last mod 2 bombs had 49kt yield, earlier had 37 and 23kt yields.
There were also around a dozen 'Little Boy' bombs, for use by the USN
 
Anyways, revenge fantasies not withstanding, over the longer term, the devastation of Europe and Asia for the second time in decade, is liable to be a severe drag on the global economy. As the US will likely have to do plenty of fighting and use plenty of tactical nukes to evict the Red Army from Western Europe, France, Italy, and West Germany are liable to be as bad off as Eastern Europe is. With all the death and destruction of it's trade partners as well as the burden thrusted upon it of dealing with the corpse of the USSR and possibly communist China is going to be an enormous drag on the American economy, not to mention all the opportunity costs the US suffers from having to mobilize for war again and suffering it's own casualties among it's male population who get sent off to fight. Even Britain might have taken a few hits from last-gasp Soviet atomic bomber raids. The US might wind-up in a more dominant political position, at least for awhile, but both it and the world in the latter part of the 20th century will be much poorer then OTL.

Eisenhower was probably being a rather hyperbolic when he observed in 1953 that "the only thing worse than losing a global war was winning one", but his observation that a third world war would be a devastating drain on the US even if it wasn't directly touched by it was probably correct.
 
Last edited:
If the war starts in 1948, depending upon how long it takes the USSR may never have a deliverable atomic weapon. Depending upon how it starts, how far the USSR gets before driven back and mushrooms sprout is quite variable. The first Soviet atomic device was 1949, and it was at least another two years before they had a deliverable device via their Tu-4 B-29 copy. The USSR was working as fast and hard as they could go to get atomic weapons, a war breaking out in 1948 is unlikely to speed things up in any meaningful way. The demands of fighting WWIII might even slow down the development of Soviet atomic weapons AND delivery platforms due to the demands of "day to day" warfighting. In any case the Soviets having even one deliverable weapon before 1950 or so is extremely unlikely.

While using atomic weapons on key transport chokepoints in WP countries or troop concentrations is likely, I can't see the US/"NATO" using atomic weapons on Warsaw or Budapest (Romanian oilfields, likely). Cities in the USSR, certainly. While the conventional fighting, and bombing, is going to mess things up in Europe, this is not the 80s or even the 60s, the "extra" devastation outside of the USSR from atomic weapons is going to be minimal. How bad things get in Western Europe depends on how far the Soviets get before things are rolled back. I don't expect there to be a lot of "strategic" bombing damage on the "NATO" side as the USSR aviation is pretty much tactically oriented. Sure there will be some (relatively) long range bombing, some raids against the UK although those won't do much damage. Theoretically you could get a Tu-4 or two making a one way flight from Petropavlosk to the Pacific Northwest on a one way trip. Absent an atomic payload...
 
Depending upon how it starts, how far the USSR gets before driven back and mushrooms sprout is quite variable.

Given the imbalance of conventional forces, unpreparedness of Western forces, and faster pace of Soviet mobilization there's pretty much no scenario I can see that doesn't see the Soviets reaching all the way to the Atlantic in a '48 war.

If the war starts in 1948, depending upon how long it takes the USSR may never have a deliverable atomic weapon.

The Soviets are only a year off from a nuke and it's gonna take longer then a year for SAC to get over it's problems enough that it can penetrate into the USSR's heartland. Particularly since the US doesn't even know where the Soviets atomic facilities are and hence can't target them.

The first Soviet atomic device was 1949, and it was at least another two years before they had a deliverable device via their Tu-4 B-29 copy.

The very first Soviet atomic device detonated in 1949 was deliverable by the Tu-4, being a Mk-3 copy and all.

EDIT: After doing some digging, apparently plane 22-01-01 (the third Tu-4 to be manufactured at the Kazan-Borisoglebskoy factory) was modified into a Tu-4A in late-'47. So the Soviets did indeed follow the US in "silverplating" their bombers before they built their first bombs.

While using atomic weapons on key transport chokepoints in WP countries or troop concentrations is likely, I can't see the US/"NATO" using atomic weapons on Warsaw or Budapest (Romanian oilfields, likely).

This is a contradiction. Warsaw and Budapest are key transport chokepoints and their inclusion is specific in US nuclear warplanning from the era dating all the way to the very first one in November 1945.

the "extra" devastation outside of the USSR from atomic weapons is going to be minimal.

This amounts to nothing more then wishful thinking. Rooting the Red Army out of Western Europe is going to require large numbers of nukes and devastation very far above "minimal levels".

Sure there will be some (relatively) long range bombing, some raids against the UK although those won't do much damage.

Given that the Soviets are going to overrun Europe and will have a large air force with nothing else to do otherwise, Britain's going to be looking at much more then "some raids". I doubt the Soviets ability to knock out Britain, but they can do damage too it.
 
Last edited:
The Soviets are only a year off from a nuke and it's gonna take longer then a year for SAC to get over it's problems enough that it can penetrate into the USSR's heartland. Particularly since the US doesn't even know where the Soviets atomic facilities are and hence can't target them.

Joe-1 and Joe-2 were Tower Shots. First in August, 1949.
More than two years passed till the second Soviet atomic tests. The crash-program to produce an atomic bomb ASAP had led to very inefficient production. Reactor problems, just as Hanford had

"Joe-2" was tested in September 1951

This was an improved bomb, incorporating some improvements that Los Alamos had developed, but not used for Fatman for higher yield, but was implemented in the Mk3 and Mk4 bombs. Beria had ordered the theories from being used in Joe-1. They knew Fatman and Gadget worked, they wanted to be certain that Joe-1 would work.
 
Joe-1 and Joe-2 were Tower Shots. First in August, 1949.
More than two years passed till the second Soviet atomic tests. The crash-program to produce an atomic bomb ASAP had led to very inefficient production. Reactor problems, just as Hanford had

"Joe-2" was tested in September 1951

This was an improved bomb, incorporating some improvements that Los Alamos had developed, but not used for Fatman for higher yield, but was implemented in the Mk3 and Mk4 bombs. Beria had ordered the theories from being used in Joe-1. They knew Fatman and Gadget worked, they wanted to be certain that Joe-1 would work.

Which does not prove that the Soviets lacked air drop capability. On the other hand, the fact that the first Tu-4A was modified in late-1947 speaks for itself. The Soviets were also able to put together the components for 5 bombs between August 1949 and March 1950 and another 20 by 1951, so the evidence indicates that they could at least make a limited-series production run and then attempt to attack a relatively nearby target with atomic weapons in the fall/winter of 1949/50 at the earliest. Whether they’d succeed is, obviously, a separate question.
 
Last edited:
A few comments on the nuclear options.

I think it is too easy to play any nuclear card, especially in 1948.

according to https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABC_Weapons/US_Nuclear_Stockpile.htm the US stockpile was some 50+ bombs with a tonnage of 1,25 Megaton. I am not saying that is insignificant, but it might not be decisive after all.

ICBMs were not there in 1948 so any bombing campaign had to be carried out by USAF. Would it be possible to imagine that a few aircraft would be shot down? Early nuclear bombs might not have the type of arming mechanisms we see in the current versions of PAL. So, could we also see an aircraft accident at take-off? That would really be a 'bad hair-day' for anyone around.

So, let us imagine a campaign involving a total of 50 bombs.

Soviet forces are massing in East Germany and Poland, ready to strike and maybe starting to roll.

US strategic airpower in the UK?
Wiki says: "All B-29 operations in England were placed under the command of USAFE's, 3rd air force established at RAF Marham. At the close of World War II, most of the air bases used by the USAAF were returned to the British government and were in various states of repair by 1948. The MoD made available Marham, RAF Scampton, RAF Waddingtonand RAF Lakenheath for B-29 operations.

I am not aware that nuclear weapons were deployed in West Germany in 1948.

The B-29s are starting to fly from bases in UK, except for one which crashes on take-off and obliterates RAF Scampton. That should indeed keep the Brits happy.

Could we imagine 1-2 being shot down over France? could indeed be if it is a real shooting war. Oh well, I never liked the Eifel Tower, but it is a pity with Mona Lisa.

Air battles over Germany? Of course the Germans would be happy to be liberated by a few bombs on West Germany and even further East, before we even get to Poland.

To stop any Soviet land offensive, I am not sure US/UK forces would be able to do that in 1948 without a nuclear option. And that is the one which will devastate Western Europe.

So which country will be turned into nuclear ash? How many bombs will even get through Soviet air defenses? How many bombs will be fizzles?

On top of, after US having fired off its total arsenal, just maybe Soviet will intensify its bomb making capacity even more. So, instead of RDS-1 in August 1949, we could perhaps see RDS-1 operational in 1948? Instead of messing about with airborne delivery stick it on a ship sailing to New York.

Nuclear options might not be the greatest answer in all cases.

Just to be a bit of 'devil's advocate' here
 

Deleted member 94680

I think this thread needs the OP to outline how they feel this WWIII pans out, before we can assess what comes after WWIII.
 
I am not aware that nuclear weapons were deployed in West Germany in 1948.
They were not, but SAC aircraft did operate from from Rhein-Main in late '46, and in '47 did 'goodwill' flights to most W. European countries.
But infrastructure for hosting nukes was in the shared bases in SE England


.The B-29s are starting to fly from bases in UK, except for one which crashes on take-off and obliterates RAF Scampton

Should note of all the dozens of incidents with nuclear weapons, none fissioned.
 
I think some of the 'lol Russia is going to glow' posts are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Someone smarter than me kind find the total number, the US nuclear arsenal is somewhere below 200, and a lot of that is going to be used on trying to stop Soviet forces on the front lines and disrupting supply lines, and basically degrading the Soviet ability to wage war. I also wonder about the B-36's ability to penetrate deep into Soviet airspace. Delivery methods are available for the US to go after cities, but the US also would have to be willing to give up a lot of planes that could be used to stop the Soviet advance through Germany.
 

kernals12

Banned
I think some of the 'lol Russia is going to glow' posts are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Someone smarter than me kind find the total number, the US nuclear arsenal is somewhere below 200, and a lot of that is going to be used on trying to stop Soviet forces on the front lines and disrupting supply lines, and basically degrading the Soviet ability to wage war. I also wonder about the B-36's ability to penetrate deep into Soviet airspace. Delivery methods are available for the US to go after cities, but the US also would have to be willing to give up a lot of planes that could be used to stop the Soviet advance through Germany.
I don't imagine the US dropping nuclear weapons in a tactical manner. When they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, they wound up being 800 feet off. In a battlefield setting, you want a lot more precision, to make sure you don't nuke your own troops.
 
Last edited:
Top