What Comes After A Third World War in 1948?

Sverdlovsk was the 10th largest city in the Soviet Union by 1959. That would count as a major target. By dispersing industry, I meant hiding it in the forests like the Nazis did.

Its really, really hard to hide nuclear infrastructure. Reactors need power and cooling water. Uranium separation, you aren't doing that in basements, either.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
50? Make that 100, at least. At the end of ww2, the US controlled something like 2/3 of the world's industrial capacity. If Stalin went full stupid in 1947, expect that figure to hit 80%+ by the time the A-bombs stop falling.

The U.S. didn't have that many weapons in 1947-48. 1948 (EoY) stockpile was 50 weapons, end of 1949 that rose to 170. There was also only a single bomb group, the 509th Composite, that was nuclear capable and just a total of 46 B-29 Silverplates (the version specially modified to carry the Bomb) were ever built. There was not until after the B-50 reached squadron service that a second bomb group was trained in the special delivery profile required to deliver the 1st Generation weapons. Flying from bases in the UK the Silverplate has enough range to reach Moscow, barely. It did NOT have the range to reach the relocated Soviet industrial plants moved further into the Soviet interior. That would require the B-36, and that aircraft was not yet in service, it was 1950 before the B-36 had successfully integrated its very complex defensive armament and allowed the guns to be more than very expensive ballast.

Moscow is also beyond the range of escort fighters (even launching from West Germany, which in a shooting war with the Soviets is contraindicated), much less flying close to the Urals to hit industrial targets. We are all well aware of just how vulnerable heavy bombers were to enemy fighters and the Silverplate only carried tail guns. Add in the fact that the performance envelope of the B-29 makes it virtually impossible to "hide" a Silverplate in a formation of conventional B-29, the breakaway maneuver would, if everyone was lucky, wipe out half the formation.

The Soviets, by mid-1948 also had the MiG-9 jet fighter in squadron service with its 600mph top speed, 42,000' ceiling and one 37mm and two 23mm cannon along with the slightly less capable (and even uglier) YaK-23 jet fighter and the piston engine, but still quite capable La-11. Sending unescorted bombers against them would be late 1943 all over again.
If China grows as fast as Taiwan did iotl, it would be less than 40.

China won't grow that fast. The Soviets will not be able to prop up the CCP against the KTM in this scenario. At best the Chinese Civil War continues well into the early 50s, at worst once the U.S. has sufficient weapons (around 1950) it uses nukes to wipe out what it sees a Soviet client state.

to the OP:

It is probable, not certain, but probable that the West would prevail. While it would be close to impossible to wage a strategic campaign against the Soviet Union, a similar campaign against Soviet bases in Eastern Europe is much more possible, especially with the ability to provide F-80C escort all the way to & from the target along with late model P-51 and P-47N. "Tactical" use of nuclear weapons against Soviet troop concentrations would also be possible, with all the consequences that would entail. The Red Army would have around 4-6 weeks to reach the Channel before the U.S. could transfer sufficient tactical and strategic airpower into the UK to stop them cold.

It is also very questionable if the Soviets wanted to have any part of a war with the West in 1948. The country was still largely in a state of ruins and it is an open question if Moscow could have provided the logistical support necessary for any sort of extended campaign. What Stalin clearly hoped for was the West to simply pick up its ball and go home. When they didn't he backed off.
 

kernals12

Banned
Its really, really hard to hide nuclear infrastructure. Reactors need power and cooling water. Uranium separation, you aren't doing that in basements, either.
It's easier in a world without satellites. The west was shocked when the Soviets managed to go nuclear in 1949. They thought it would take until 1953.
 

kernals12

Banned
China won't grow that fast. The Soviets will not be able to prop up the CCP against the KTM in this scenario. At best the Chinese Civil War continues well into the early 50s, at worst once the U.S. has sufficient weapons (around 1950) it uses nukes to wipe out what it sees a Soviet client state.
I'm assuming that China will turn into one of the theaters of this Third World War. In fact, with Korea, Indochina, and Malaya, the Pacific front might involve more effort than the European front.
 
How long were the Soviets even last if we did start the war. Assuming we use nukes in tactical strikes and wiped out large formations of Soviets to buy the reinforcement time to arrive. And maybe organizing and rearming ex German soldiers to beef up our numbers.

I were also think Soviet soldiers might revolt or resist orders to advance after they learning thousands of their comrades had been wiped out by nukes.
 

kernals12

Banned
How long were the Soviets even last if we did start the war. Assuming we use nukes in tactical strikes and wiped out large formations of Soviets to buy the reinforcement time to arrive. And maybe organizing and rearming ex German soldiers to beef up our numbers.

I were also think Soviet soldiers might revolt or resist orders to advance after they learning thousands of their comrades had been wiped out by nukes.
Tactical strikes are too risky. And I think the French would have serious reservations about rearming the Germans.
 

kernals12

Banned
One big convenience in this war is Italy is now a giant aircraft carrier for the allies. This will allow them to rain down fire and fury on Eastern Europe.
 

kernals12

Banned
How would the Balkans go?
Would Stalin up his efforts to off Tito (who presumably would be neutral)? Would the Soviets try to invade Greece?
 
How would the Balkans go?
Would Stalin up his efforts to off Tito (who presumably would be neutral)? Would the Soviets try to invade Greece?
Tito would side with the Allies if Stalin goes after him, as for Greece, one could see the civil war going on there.
 
One unknown: the Middle East. World War III would be starting right in the middle of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Would the Arabs and Zionists be willing to fight a common enemy like China's Nationalists and Communists were? And with Allied weapons production running at full tilt, the Israelis would find it much harder to get foreign arms.
this is assuming the allies and the soviets do not come to blows here as well
 
Europe would be a hell, as would East Asia, so much destruction and death, there will be places that never recover
 

kernals12

Banned
Tito would side with the Allies if Stalin goes after him, as for Greece, one could see the civil war going on there.
The Greek Civil War won't just be allowed to happen with everything else going on around the world. It'll become another front.
this is assuming the allies and the soviets do not come to blows here as well
I don't see why they would. That part of the Middle East has virtually no natural resources.
Europe would be a hell, as would East Asia, so much destruction and death, there will be places that never recover
Humanity has endured far worse. The Soviet Union arguably endured worse in Barbarossa.
 
The result is simple....WORLD FEDERATION!!

But seriously there might be an attempt by some folks like the World Federalist movement to have the victirous Allied forces to literallly unite into one country for the sake of keeping everyone peaceful. I say this since the second half of the 1940's was a golden age for the World Fed movement and WWIII breaking out in that time would give them the ammo. Problem is that there will be many factors that will prevent that namely in the form of nationalists, isolationists, and of course anyone that isn't onboard with their brand of globalism. Though frankly that would be interesting to see in a TL where world federalists (or whatever term they like to use) get their way after WWIII ends. Outside of that, the most "united" the allied countries would get is a super-NATO that streches from North America to Australia, westward.
 
That would require the B-36, and that aircraft was not yet in service, it was 1950 before the B-36 had successfully integrated its very complex defensive armament and allowed the guns to be more than very expensive ballast.
They ended up stripping all the defensive armament off not four years later in the Featherweight program, so I suspect that they would have just gone ahead and used it in a shooting war, problems or no. The same is probably true of the B-47, which had serious teething problems and was just barely at the point where they could plausibly have started really putting it together at the end of 1948. I suspect that they'll ramp up orders and slam it into service--it's obviously way better than the B-29--while they figure out how to use it properly. It's not like that didn't happen in World War II...
 

kernals12

Banned
The result is simple....WORLD FEDERATION!!

But seriously there might be an attempt by some folks like the World Federalist movement to have the victirous Allied forces to literallly unite into one country for the sake of keeping everyone peaceful. I say this since the second half of the 1940's was a golden age for the World Fed movement and WWIII breaking out in that time would give them the ammo. Problem is that there will be many factors that will prevent that namely in the form of nationalists, isolationists, and of course anyone that isn't onboard with their brand of globalism. Though frankly that would be interesting to see in a TL where world federalists (or whatever term they like to use) get their way after WWIII ends. Outside of that, the most "united" the allied countries would get is a super-NATO that streches from North America to Australia, westward.
The World Federalist movement had support from some very high places in the late 40s. Harry Truman said this in a speech in Nebraska:
We must make the United Nations continue to work, and to be a going concern, to see that difficulties between nations may be settled just as we settle difficulties between States here in the United States. When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way.

There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court.
You are incorrect about the aim being to unite the world into one country. It would probably have looked like the EU.
And since the fear of communism is what derailed the World Fed movement IOTL, I think it would be successful ITTL.
 
The Greek Civil War won't just be allowed to happen with everything else going on around the world. It'll become another front.

I don't see why they would. That part of the Middle East has virtually no natural resources.

Humanity has endured far worse. The Soviet Union arguably endured worse in Barbarossa.
I agree with the civil war in Greece, at that time the USSR was still in northern Iran.
 

kernals12

Banned
I agree with the civil war in Greece, at that time the USSR was still in northern Iran.
Iran probably will be a major front. Although, given the superiority of the British and American Navies, the Soviets will have little hope in taking the Persian Gulf.
 
If the USSR is fighting in Europe trying to reach the Channel, and dealing with restive populations in Eastern Europe, as well as having to guard the Soviet Far East against raids by USN and USAF forces in the Pacific/Japan, their ability to do much in Persia/Iran is limited. The locals are not going to be happy seeing communist Russians in their country, and the northern part of the country is well set up for defense. The part of the country that really matters, the major oil fields, is further south and along the coast where western naval and air power can be used very effectively to protect this. The USSR does not have the forces or logistic infrastructure in 1948 to get to the oil fields here and do the other tasks at hand. Getting to Iraqi oil fields let alone Saudi ones and/or closing the Gulf to tanker traffic is really beyond what they can do.

If desired the USA could most likely hit Petropavlosk and Vladivostok with atomic weapons. Given their location/geography a night attack using radar is going to find them, and the bombers can be escorted by fighters out of Japan (Vladivostok) or naval fighters from carriers for Petro. This is s spanking for the USSR, pretty much wipes out Soviet power prjection in to the Pacific and also makes support of North Korea difficult.
 

kernals12

Banned
If the USSR is fighting in Europe trying to reach the Channel, and dealing with restive populations in Eastern Europe, as well as having to guard the Soviet Far East against raids by USN and USAF forces in the Pacific/Japan, their ability to do much in Persia/Iran is limited. The locals are not going to be happy seeing communist Russians in their country, and the northern part of the country is well set up for defense. The part of the country that really matters, the major oil fields, is further south and along the coast where western naval and air power can be used very effectively to protect this. The USSR does not have the forces or logistic infrastructure in 1948 to get to the oil fields here and do the other tasks at hand. Getting to Iraqi oil fields let alone Saudi ones and/or closing the Gulf to tanker traffic is really beyond what they can do.

If desired the USA could most likely hit Petropavlosk and Vladivostok with atomic weapons. Given their location/geography a night attack using radar is going to find them, and the bombers can be escorted by fighters out of Japan (Vladivostok) or naval fighters from carriers for Petro. This is s spanking for the USSR, pretty much wipes out Soviet power prjection in to the Pacific and also makes support of North Korea difficult.
Can you say: Russo-Japanese War all over again?

But in China, they'd be a force to be reckoned with.
 
It's easier in a world without satellites. The west was shocked when the Soviets managed to go nuclear in 1949. They thought it would take until 1953.
They were.
That's why the USN and USAF started putting more effort reconnaissance after 1949, and long range, very high altitude aircraft in 1953 after the Soviets continued to shoot at USN aircraft on the edges of their airspace.

With a War on, Atomic Bombs at first were not seen as any different than what had been done to Japan and Germany, destroy war making potential in destroying factories and 'dehousing'.
Just now with one bomb, than thousands as in 1945

With WWIII in 1948, bomb production would have been ramped up over OTL, and would have been used similar to this map, with 1100 warheads in mid 1952
file-572a92ac1c9e9.jpg

Things didn't look to good for what would become the Warsaw Pact.
Or China

Since it's 1948, it would be roughly 1/10th of that map, and none of the deep targets
 
Top