Who would have won in a UK-US alliance vs a Germany-USSR alliance during WW2?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
In the Long Term the US/UK powerbock will win. The US/UK can reach Germany from the UK by air, By the mids 40s (B-29) they can reach the European parts of the Soviet Union from the UK (and the Soviet Far East from Alaska). but neither the USSR nor Germany can reach the US by air. Neither has any chance at sea. Th US industrial might can still ramp up to over 50% of world production within 3 years. In an industrial war, the greater amount of mobilized industry wins. And that's the USA.
This would likely end in a stalemate, with neither bloc being able to gain the upper hand over the other.
Still, this scenario completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the day. Like Nazi Germany's long term objectives against the USSR; that the USSR has zero to gain in an alliance with Germany against the UK and US, and that other world powers at the time like Japan, could have some influence in this war.
Still, this scenario completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the day. Like Nazi Germany's long term objectives against the USSR; that the USSR has zero to gain in an alliance with Germany against the UK and US, and that other world powers at the time like Japan, could have some influence in this war.
Riain
Banned
I'm not so sure, IIUC the US and Britain raised about 170 divisions in WW2 whereas Germany raised ~260 and the Soviets raised hundreds more. Of course the US and Britain can reorient their force structure, but that's a huge difference to make up.
In this scenario the USSR doesn't have lend-lease. Which helped them a lot.
In OTL Germany plundered the USSR to provide food for their army.
Both not happening will cause problems for the USSR and Germany, meaning they probably won't be able to field as many divisions as in OTL.
Meanwhile the US had a lot of slack in OTL. Everything that went to the USSR won't go there. In OTL in 1944 military orders were cancelled, that (probably) won't happen here.
The US and UK will control the sea. Germany and the USSR control Eurasia. It is going to be hard to attack them there, but in an industrial war, the US and UK outproduce Germany and the USSR by far. US and UK have about 2/3 of the worlds production capacity. Also in 1945 they will get nukes. Not in an instant warwinner, but by that time they can strike far into Europe and the USSR, while Germany and the USSR can't touch the US.
Most likely it will turn into something like @CalBear's AANW.
Riain
Banned
I don't do WW2 these days, but IIRC the Soviets equipped most of their combat units from their own resources but their support and logistics came from LL. Even if the Soviets and Germans reduced the number of divisions by 1/4-1/3 that's still about 500 divisions combined.
Given their head how many divisions could the US/Commonwealth field while still pursuing a 'total' air and naval strategy? 250? 300?
What's going on in the Far East, kinda the same as OLT?
UK/USA can make life a bit of a pickle for the southern USSR, air raids on Georgia, Armenia and the 'Stans'. Plus raids, both air and land from the Black Sea
UK/USA can make life a bit of a pickle for the southern USSR, air raids on Georgia, Armenia and the 'Stans'. Plus raids, both air and land from the Black Sea
Riain
Banned
2 nukes aren't going to cut it against this bohemouth, nor is delivering them against a fleet of Me262s with sufficient metallurgy for reasonable engines going to be easy.
IOTL, Italy and Japan distanced themselves from Germany after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (which would serve as the foundation for any official Nazi-Soviet Alliance.) Should an official alliance be concluded, Italy and Japan withdraw from the Anti-Comintern Pact. It's more likely Italy and Japan end up allying with the Anglo-American Alliance (Japan after getting pushed out of China and Manchuria by the USSR.) A Japanese-Soviet Alliance isn't plausible, because Japanese militarists were ideologically incompatible and the USSR itched for revenge from the Russo-Japanese War. Italy more likely than not re-opens its feud over Anschluss, depending on whether France falls or not.
Last edited:
Stalemate until UK/US gets nuclear bomb in 1945. Bomb Berlin, kill Hitler, then bomb Moscow & Leningrad. Whether this ends the war depends on why and how the alliances were formed. It will probably take more than three atomic bombs but how many more depends on political situation and leadership. What's significant about the atomic bomb is not the actual damage so much as the political effect of the potential damage that cannot be prevented or effectively responded to.
Taking 1941 as the starting point (as suggested),
1. if the USSR actively enters the war but the US and Japan don't then Britain is driven out of the Middle East (and probably India if the war goes on long enough). The UK continues to be sustained by supplies from the Western Hemisphere until it acquires an atomic bomb (probably in cooperation with US).
2. As above but FE war breaks out and US enters the war, basically the same picture, except war ends more quickly as atomic bomb is developed sooner. Potential for operation Torch, but this is now likely to lead to a lengthy campaign as Germans can devote more resources to it.
3. US enters the war but USSR does not: Germans are unlikely to be able to get beyond Suez at best due to logistic constraints. Torch goes ahead, leading to lengthy campaign in North Africa, Sicily and the Italy. Progress is slow and sucks in more allied resources preventing successful Normandy invasion in 1944. Nuclear weapons in 1945 end the war.
The main uncertainty here is about the peace terms and the post war situation, unconditional surrender is unlikely and it is possible the nazi regime remains in power in Germany. Whether or not the Nazi regime survives, Germany is likely to develop atomic weapons and the world would see a cold war stand off.
This is incredibly unlikely though. Even if the Germans don't attack the USSR in 1941 there is still a decent chance of a Pearl Harbour attack and US entering the war. This leads to Torch in 1942 and probably the USSR attacking Germany around 1943.
The most obvious way to get the USSR to enter the war on the side of Germany is an Anglo-French attack on the USSR in support of Finland in 1940. I think it was AJP Taylor who suggested the most charitable interpretation of allied strategy here was that they'd temporarily taken leave of their senses.
Taking 1941 as the starting point (as suggested),
1. if the USSR actively enters the war but the US and Japan don't then Britain is driven out of the Middle East (and probably India if the war goes on long enough). The UK continues to be sustained by supplies from the Western Hemisphere until it acquires an atomic bomb (probably in cooperation with US).
2. As above but FE war breaks out and US enters the war, basically the same picture, except war ends more quickly as atomic bomb is developed sooner. Potential for operation Torch, but this is now likely to lead to a lengthy campaign as Germans can devote more resources to it.
3. US enters the war but USSR does not: Germans are unlikely to be able to get beyond Suez at best due to logistic constraints. Torch goes ahead, leading to lengthy campaign in North Africa, Sicily and the Italy. Progress is slow and sucks in more allied resources preventing successful Normandy invasion in 1944. Nuclear weapons in 1945 end the war.
The main uncertainty here is about the peace terms and the post war situation, unconditional surrender is unlikely and it is possible the nazi regime remains in power in Germany. Whether or not the Nazi regime survives, Germany is likely to develop atomic weapons and the world would see a cold war stand off.
This is incredibly unlikely though. Even if the Germans don't attack the USSR in 1941 there is still a decent chance of a Pearl Harbour attack and US entering the war. This leads to Torch in 1942 and probably the USSR attacking Germany around 1943.
The most obvious way to get the USSR to enter the war on the side of Germany is an Anglo-French attack on the USSR in support of Finland in 1940. I think it was AJP Taylor who suggested the most charitable interpretation of allied strategy here was that they'd temporarily taken leave of their senses.
The US produced 90 named divisions, and enough independent formations to quantify as another 90 divisions, for a total of 180, and had no manpower shortages. -- theres enough 18-25 year olds in the Us to form plenty more divisions if needed (The US had **Double** Germany's Population. If germany could do 260 scraping the bottom of the barrel, the Us could manage 400-420 easily without breaking the industrial side.) If necessary, Britain has colonies she can tap for manpower in Africa and Asia (India alone more than matches the Soviet Union's manpower levels). The possibility of a US/UK alliance raising 500+ divisions is NOT unthinkable.
Britain would be bombed to rubble if the combined strength of Nazi Germany and the USSR was fighting at the Battle of Britain.
They may be forced to sue for peace. I doubt Britain can take as much damage as the USSR took during Operation Barbarossa. Britain was much more sensible to casualties than Nazi Germany, the USSR or China.
They may be forced to sue for peace. I doubt Britain can take as much damage as the USSR took during Operation Barbarossa. Britain was much more sensible to casualties than Nazi Germany, the USSR or China.
Last edited:
Sorry, but yes it is (unless you sharply reduce the size of a division).
- The US and USSR both mobilized similar numbers of people, US divisions were much more manpower intensive. This made them more mobile but doesn't given them proportionately more fighting power in a stand up fight.
- I'm interested to see where you get 90 extra divisions from independent formations from, yes there were the marines and the tank battalions, but not exactly 90 extra divisions.
- There was a manpower shortage in the US army in late 1944/early 1945 when for the first time the army was mostly fully deployed and suffering heavy casualties. This happened in every army and is entirely natural: a large army is built up but then where do the replacements from combat losses etc come from? The advantage the US had was that it was the last major combatant to engage in large scale (relative to the size of its army) ground combat, and so the last nation to experience the manpower crisis. Consequently it did so to a lesser extent and shorter period than others.
- You're right that the US could mobilize more divisions by producing less but firstly, what is being given up and secondly this is mostly a one time boost to the number of divisions, it's going to be hard to keep them in the field once they start taking casualties, where do the replacements come from?
- Germany deployed a very large number of divisions at the end of the war, but there were a few keys to this: its economy increasingly relied on foreign (slave) labour, it was increasingly operating close to home and so needed many fewer logistic units, it was clearly involved in a last ditch stand which made manpower available that would be otherwise (think of the British Home Guard, available for home defence in an emergency but not for overseas operations, even defensive ones).
- Finally the idea of India and the colonies as an endless source of manpower is just not true. These were voluntary armies and needed careful handling and training. Rapid expansion lead to the disasters of 1942-3 and the sensible decision to limit the size of the army in order to improve its quality. A sensible policy in 1941-2 would have been a slower and more gradual expansion of the Indian army, not a quicker and larger one.
Of course, none of this means that the UK and US alliance would need 500 divisions to win a war, just that they can't raise that many, which you suggest they can.
It's all about the atom bomb
Last edited:
How exactly would you get a nuke to those places without the bomber being shot down? Both the Luftwaffe and VVS would still be pretty strong and they have as much fuel as they could ever want, and will have thousands of miles and hours of time during which they can shoot down the plane. Remember, nuclear missiles didn't exist yet and wouldn't for over a decade. If they do shoot down a plane carrying a nuke and the nuke isn't completely destroyed, the Soviet+Nazi nuclear programs get a huge boost. If they are able to repair it, it's going to be much easier for them to deliver it to London from Calais than it would be for the Allies to deliver it to Moscow over thousands of miles of hostile territory.