Operation Unthinkable...

fortunately didn't happen, but the fact that the British considered it to be a military option at the time, and by chance enacted on it would have had disastrous consequences indeed. Europe would look completely different today. But alas it didn't.

I was curious to see what EF mod's armchair generals had to say on the matter. What possible outcomes could have happened if the British/Commonwealth forces (and most likely the Americans as well if they stopped relocating forces to the Pacific) attacked the Soviet Union after Germany was defeated?

Reason I bring it up is because afew times on the forums I've spotted posts about a "Cold War Mod" and it peaked my curiosity.

This isn't a thread about which ideology was best or anything. It's from an all military and strategic perspective. Also take into account that both Winston Churchill and General Patton shared the same views regarding the occupation of Europe, and possible conflict with the Soviet Union(reason I bring that up is because this Operation was considered by powerful people).

Also please try to limit the "fan boy" mentality, and look at this with an open mind.

For those who don't know about Operation Unthinkable;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

I think that it would have started another world war so to speak, that would have lasted longer than WWII

and that eventually the soviet union would have won because at the time it was then that they actually had the advantage. strike while the iron is hot. if they engaged each other then soviet would have kept the upper hand

nato vs warsaw pact if escalated at the time you say would still have been fought in a style that favored soviets i believe

the soviet union eventually crumbled because of betrayers
the long cold war of economy and indirect confrontation obviously favored the united states, and i guess UK too

Last edited July 4, 2011 at 3:11 AM by RedGuard

RedGuard wrote:
and that eventually the soviet union would have won because at the time it was then that they actually had the advantage. strike while the iron is hot. if they engaged each other then soviet would have kept the upper hand

If launched in 1945 the allied forces would have won. I don't care how you argue it but it took Russian scientist another 4-5 years to invent nuclear missiles. By then the US would have re-armed and bombed moscow.

Their alot of things to take into account.

1) How big were each sides armies (manpower) the day after Germany surrendered?
2) How many artillery pieces, tanks, and heavy tanks did each side have?
3) The strength of each sides navies and air forces?

If both forces engaged each other, their would be an immediate realization in the differences in each sides strategic and tactical abilities. Both were facing off against the Germans, and faced different combinations of arms of the Germans during the course of the war (1941 large manpower, veterans, tanks) and as the war got on it gradually depleted. The German soldier was very professional and well trained, aggressive in attack and stubborn in defence. He was always adaptable, particularly in the later years when shortages of equipment were being felt. Adapting to that would have to be a huge and fast undertaking, if Operation Unthinkable came to realization.

Now if the Allies split, they'd both be fighting against forces that were immensely different. Would the British Commonwealth/American Forces be able to adapt in time to face the Soviet Union Red Army massive manpower and material's before it was overwhelmed?

Would the Soviets be able to counter an amphibious invasion in the north beyond Finland, or a land invasion through Norway and Sweden, and still be able to counter the bulk of British/American forces in central Europe?

Nuclear weapons of course would be a major factor as well. How many could the Americans produce and how fast? And with the prospect of war between the former allies, how fast could the Soviets catch up in their development of their nuclear bombs? Also, at CranialWizards comment, bombing Moscow would have been alot harder then bombing Tokyo I believe.

good point cranial but I dont think in those 5 years it took soviet scientists to finally make nuclear weapons that the allies would have resorted to used nuclear weapons again in that timeframe, the war in the pacific was a much different war fought for much different reasons, the allies would have been the agressor and I think another use of nukes would have gotten the soviet union much global outrage and support and villify the allies, besides soviets were much more resilient than than the japanes in manpower and production. so nuclear war would be averted because both sides would have nuclear detterent mutual destruction by then.

this is all theory of course

Last edited July 4, 2011 at 4:24 AM by RedGuard

You would also have to take into account Soviet and Allied intel and spy cells and their levels of infiltration of their objectives. The Soviets had the ability to sabotage America's bomb program, the Soviet's had infils in British MI 6, MI5, other Intelligence, etc. I'm not aware that the Allies had that ability against the Soviets.

Also don't forget that the Soviets had a much more mobile force, had a larger army with better equipped and much more experienced troops (at least more than the Americans who would by this time make up the prime force of the Allies).

Soviets did however lack in Jet technology and their first effective jet came about due to the British loaning a copy of the Nene jet engine (which was later copied into the MiG15's engine), thus had worse airforce capabilities in technology and (I don't know exact numbers so please no flaming) most likely a numerical disadvantage in the air. They did have some well proven designs but none would be fast enough to catch and destroy a British Meteor or American Shooting Star.

The result of this new war would also mean increased American support for the Nationalists of China as well as the battleground of Manchuria. Soviets had much less men and material there so the Americans would no doubt win at minimum the first few engagements with better air support and possibly more skilled and effective troops, Marines that should have been prepping for Operation Slugger, the invasion of Japan's mainland with M26 Pershings and other new surprises in tow, mainly the lovely recoilless rifles used by our in game Paras.

As for the bombing of Moscow, you would be surprised on how easy it would be if ALL PROPER CONDITIONS WERE MET. You forget that most of Lend-Lease went through Iran and Iraq, thus America which maintained a sizable contingent of forces would most likely use airbases to mount operations against the Russians flying across Soviet Azerbaijan against Stalingrad's ruins and possibly till Moscow with extra Fuel tanks fitted.

Of course as was stated this is all a probability and the fact that I'm here means it didn't so lets keep it that way, no Commies gong back in time and getting Stalin to attack the Allies

Great post neosdark! I didn't even take that into consideration when I started the thread. The Soviet infiltration in the the Western powers spy agencies was extensive. The espionage involved if the allies turned on each other would have probably been the deciding factor.

I also wanted to bring up the Asian battleground, but couldn't conclude what would happen. If say, after the German surrender, and Operation Unthinkable was initiated, would the Soviets ally themselves with Japanese? If that were the case the American's would have been in the same situation Germany was in, fighting a war on two fronts (in that particular theater). I mean the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had what, 3 million troops? Combine that with the millions of Japanese troops in China and the Japanese home islands, that would have been a very bad spot to be in. Be even more justification to drop nuclear bombs to end nations abilities to fight wars.

The world would have ended. There wasn't much known about long term radiation troubles. As soon as nukes became involved (they inevitably would) the planet would be rendered uninhabitable. If you forget about that extremely grim prospect, the Allies had vastly better aircraft in the early post-war period. Strategic bombing could be carried out pretty easily as Neosdark said. Many former German territories would rather be affiliated with the Western Allies than the Soviets and would switch sides, rather than a part of what would become the Warsaw Pact.

I dont think american air advantage would have mattered, the distances were too great at the time for a succesful strategic bombing campaign and when the jets started rolling out so did the soviet SAM missiles which alone could have defended the skies considering the allies would not have gotten a strong foothold in europe IMO

and communism was on the rise in asia at the time, the chinese and koreans basically forced a stalemate in korea which with direct soviet support would have been a decisive victory. and again with direct soviet support in vietnam I think allied powers would have been overrun in the whole of asia much easier

it would have been like a soviet fortress europe and a WWI trench meat grinder on another level. by now no one would have been a clear victor with boundaries being drawn and both sides looking for peace. soviets would have controlled asia and most of europe with allies struggling to hold far western europe and middle east. balkans and central europe would be no mans land

Last edited July 4, 2011 at 7:52 AM by RedGuard

B-29s could easily reach most of the useful parts of the USSR from Western Europe, Japan or the Middle East, including Moscow or production facilities in the Urals. SAMs weren't operational until 1953. China in 1945 was US-aligned remember. Vietnam would never have happened. Korea would be geared for war though. There's no way the Soviets could invade Japan with the US Pacific fleet there.

Many of the countries that made up the Eastern bloc would've sided with the Western Allies. Poland, Hungary etc. would've thrown as much support as they could towards NATO, and we know how much damage a partisan movement can do as well.

The Soviets in 1945 would've had superior tank technology and experience however, the following few years would see the Pershing and Centurion enter full production. I would guess that the Soviets would take over most of Asia except Japan, and take all of Germany but the arrival of newer allied tanks, combined with bombing of production facilities, would cause the Soviets to falter and fall back.

Upgunned shermans were considered slightly better than T-34/85s in the Korean war. The Allied ground force wouldn't just be swatted aside. Large beasts like IS-2/3s could be taken out the same manner as they took out German tanks - air superiority and glass cannons like fireflies.

Not to mention a nuke on Moscow would end a war pretty quickly.

As a side note, it would be depressing in this situation to think that the Nuremburg trials would probably take a back seat to the new war. Who knows what could've happened there.

Last edited July 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM by GodlikeDennis

GodlikeDennis wrote:
Not to mention a nuke on Moscow would end a war pretty quickly.

most important point. Shortly after the war british and american long range bombers equipped with nuclear weapons were deployed to GB before the Soviets had their long range missles. That would be GG for the western forces making tank armys completly useless

Well it wouldn't be an immediate game over. You are forgetting about what i mentioned in my first post, Soviet Infiltration of Allied armies, it would be possible to sabotage a large number of these bombs and create false intel.

Then the Soviets could intercept enemy bombers, those didn't have Jet engines yet, nor could Jet fighters be used to effectively protect them since the guzzled fuel and couldn't effectively stay in the air for longer than 2 or 3 hours tops. They would still rely on P-51 Mustangs for Bomber escorts. Most Soviet interceptors would easily take out a bomber. They also possessed good AA guns on the ground, with new 100 mm AA flak cannons appearing right after WW2 and a possible use of German 12.8 cm cannons that were captured, as well as domestically produced 130mm Cannons, which would get accelerated production. Plus there were a ton of good interceptors and fighters, well proven and improved designs. 

Sure there would be quite a few close air bases, but Russians were very well known for their Scorched Earth Policy, I'm sure they would implement it with little considerations (particularly in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic countries)

Apparently after they dropped the bombs, they were capable of making 3 bombs a month. After Nagasaki, one was being readied for another drop.

I'm definitely getting the impression that the British/American forces would have immediately considered dropping nuclear bombs on the Soviet's either cities, or on their armies. Considering how they dropped the bombs on Japan because they didn't want to go through with Operation Downfall, it would probably be the same case if war broke out between the formers allies. Just would have been way to many casualties very quickly on both sides.

Jet Fighters would definitely be a game changer. Does anyone know the status of the Soviet Navy right after the German surrender? I know their was a Baltic and Black Sea Fleet, but how were they compared to British and American navies?

if you ask the soviets their navy was superior if not equal to the allie fleets - but in my opinion it was inferior.

not nearly as many capital ships, the strength of the soviet navy was the submarines and even in this area they were outclassed

soviets were always a land power while the allies were a sea and air power

Indeed. The Soviets might have won if this came down to the battle in Europe, but including external factors such as Carriers (which i believe the Soviets had none of at the time), Supplies, Jets, Navies in general, and Airforces in general the Soviets would have been defeated.

I'm not too sure that they would auto-drop nukes on the armies stationed in Europe because they wouldn't want to drop them on the newly liberated peoples. You do have to consider this from the Total War perspective, what about the Civilians? They would most likely be caught in the blast and the Americans and Allies in general need to be the Liberators not the Annihilators. Otherwise the Soviets would easily draw upon the ire of the other peoples (the not yet bombed).

I think the soviets only ever built one aircraft carrier, ever
the soviets golden age of seafaring was in the 1800s not the 1900s

agreed 100% the USA would not have nuked moscow this is an ignorant proposal, think this time the americans would not have gotten the sympathy card and would have been viewed as the agressors. to nuke the peoples republic would have drawn innumerable allies to the soviet cause and basically usa would have shot themselves in the foot. not to mention the soviets could easily have withstood multiple atom bomb strikes

and in my personal opinion, the US never acquired that grit that the soviet populace did. throw a few nukes at the small island of britain or mainland usa and theyd be singing a different tune

Last edited July 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM by RedGuard

Soviets weren't around in the 1800s O0

you know what i mean :P good point though
the tsars imperial navy

Regardless, if war broke out between the two sides in 1945, central Europe would have been totaled even more then it already was. Countries and it's people would have most likely ceased to exist.

It probably wouldn't take long for it all to look like Belgium and northern France from WW1 and in a hell of alot shorter time period.

Also regarding the dropping of nuclear weapons. Forget ethics and morality, total war is about either annihilating your enemy, and your own survival.

It might not have been a tactical option back then, but many nations today have protocols to use in dire situations. If armies or cities or entire nations are about to be completely overrun and be destroyed using tactical nukes is the last resort to balance the playing field or simply as a last act of retaliation.

Look at the Korean war. When the Chinese cancelled their invasion of Taiwan and became involved in Korea, and turned the tide of the war, General MacArthur immediately wanted to start bombing the Chinese with nukes.

Yeah and the reason he got a no was cause the Soviets now had a similar capability, to bomb them with nukes.

Total War takes into account not only the Armies, but the civilians as well, there are many definitions of said words. Total War (in the way I'm using it) means the entire Front, not just the Battlefront but the Homefront. Total War is the modern war where not only do the Armies fight, but as do the civilians oft for survival. Anyway...... back to the good stuff.

My decree as an Amateur Historian stands that the Allies wouldn't have used Nuclear weaponry against the Soviets. The fact that the War would mainly be decided on Land is totally not factual, as much would also be decide in the air where, from my opinion the Allies had an advantage. The Pacific front would have been quickly won, within a matter of months at most, by the Allies with superior Morale, weaponry, and better Air and Naval support.

The European front would be a slaughterfest, as most of the Allies would go up against much more experienced and better equipped Soviet forces, however, many Soviets would have been on their way to the Pacific front (which would be why they had low morale, thinking they were going home to instead be thrust into another debacle) because of the preparations to invade Japanese held territory and help the Communists in China, Nam, etc. Thus we would have a sizable portion of their army mid-way between Eastern Europe and the Volga, basically creating another Operation Barbarossa, but this time fighting against a larger number of well armed Allied troops.

This is the point where any theories should end, because we wouldn't know what the Commands would do against these new operations. Would the Americans start Fighting the Communist Chinese, or would they press on to Siberia. Would the Soviets retreat and counter attack or just try to starve out the Allies. Would Allies deploy their new Jets (we know how afraid they were of Meteors falling into German hands) or would they continue to employ Piston powered aircraft? I don't think we can actually tell who could have won so I'm going to leave it at this.

^^I agree with a lot of what you theorized neo

but how do you think allies would have won the pacific, I think actually with the support of korea china and vietnam that the sino soviet alliance would have forced the allies back into the water easily. with allied land forces retreating theyd have to fall back on allied naval and air attacks only. and that wont win a war alone, especially in asia. as has been proven

we saw what the big 3 asian irregular armies did to the united states, china being the most developed of the militarys. so with soviet forces theyd be overrun. soviet land power plus all of communist asia would be a steamroller on the ground

Well not exactly, many of them (Chinese, Vietcong's predecessor was formed by Ho Chi Minh and an American OSS agent, and the Koreans) were in fact fighting the Japs with American support so they knew where to find there main bases and camps. They wouldn't let them know they were coming and just exterminate them. The Soviets didn't have that many troops on the ground there and there could be many more well-trained and equipped Marines there. Plus combined with the lack of ethics against the "gooks" as they were called, they would gladly bomb the crap out of them with no regard, since they weren't there as liberators only to beat the Japs.

What do you think the responses to a renewed war would be in the Middle East and Central Asia?

Should try to keep in mind, that a newly formed Israel was created, communist factions in the middle east and the independence of India and Pakistan were new to the global scene shortly after the war with Germany ended.

I know were getting ahead of ourselves trying to assume which countries that weren't entirely involved in WW2 in central Asia and the Middle East, but theorizing it is quite interesting. How would countries like Turkey, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and India or any of them align themselves if hostilities between the formers allies ensued?

Thats beyond my expertise. I'm much more knowledgable in European history I figure most of the Middle East would ally with the Americans because they helped liberate many of them from Axis control (and since  Israel wouldn't exist yet) be happy with their decision.

Oh right. Israel has been in so many wars, it's hard to remember which year their war for independence started :P

The area would definitely been contested. Oil. Under different circumstances, if Rommel and the Afrika Korps actually got supplied adequately and were able to get into those lands with all the oil the war could have turned out differently (assuming Hitler didn't make all the mistakes he made).

Well they were formed in 1946 along with a Palestinian state but in 1948 the war for Independence happened. This I know.

Anyway no "What If Hitler didn't bitch about this" discussions, wrong post for that. You wann aread some interesting Alternate History read Harry Turtledove, or Icebreaker and Day M by Victor Suvorov. The last 2 I especially recommend. Very cool and interesting read, almost could have happened too.

EDIT: Wait now that I think about it, The Arab states were mainly BRitish and French Mandates and Egypt, Syria, etc. would be on the British and French side. The American Vets of the Italian campaign would also be down there protecting the Rails and Oil. Those guys were pretty damn skilled at assault and navigating tough terrain, so the Soviets would have tons of problems down south

Last edited July 5, 2011 at 2:30 AM by neosdark

I agree. The majority of South Asia would be thoroughly controlled by the Allies IMO. Soviets' best bets would be mainland Europe and Korea/China.

I think the Allies would've nuked the Soviets if it came to it. When Truman told Stalin about the bombs, it was a veiled threat IMO.

Perhaps, but don't forget Stalin knew before even Truman came to office what such a weapon was theoretically capable of. He was probably building himself a bunker in the country side just in case.

well muslim governments are highly conservative for the most part so they clash naturally wit communism, but at the same time yes its true most of the middle east was at one time either a british french control. so I dont know how they would side thats a little further from my expertise as well. I do know that the baath party was fascist and modelled after hitler and the nazis, thats a fact look it up.

complicated politics in the middle east very unpredictable

Yeah that's true Redguard. I was thinking to far into the future when their was that small proxy war in Yemen or Oman. Wherever the SAS fought the Battle of Mirbat with the small communist rebel forces there.

It's also a well known fact that Saddam greatly admired Stalin. I agree with the middle east governments being very conservative, but adding Communism to their structure is doable ie. Afghanistan in the 1980's(not that it was successful). Then again it wasn't until after the war that they firmly realized that the entire region is sitting on a massive ocean of oil, and for some nations reaped the economic benefits of partnerships with western countries (ie. Saudi Arabia/USA).

I was going to bring up India, but the Maoist's their didn't become active until the late 60's. I just brought up the middle eastern/central Asian nations because other then providing some manpower, and small skirmishes in Palestine and Iraq(correct me if I'm wrong on that) the region was relatively untouched by the war. Also pretty much since then, the entire region has been marked by many, many wars that have almost brought the superpowers to the brink of WW3.

There is no way that the Soviet Union in 1945 is going to defeat the USA, stalemate best case scenario. The USA had about double the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union and something called a navy and an ocean dividing it from the rest of the world. It would take nearly 20 years for the Soviet Union to have a competing (no where near equal) navy in peace time, so how long is it going to take in war? So they conquer all of Europe? They aren't getting to Brittan with the US and British navy there. Also since Finland had a treaty with SU the Soviets would have a hard time getting into Scandinavia . The US spent billions helping to rebuild europe do you think if the Soviets came in they would have the ability to do the same? So what good is a destroyed Western Europe that has little to no natural resources, would be full of partisans, and be susceptible to bombings from England. It would give the SU too much ground to defend. Nuking Moscow wouldnt be an option, it would be near or out of B-29 range of returning and it would never make it to Moscow any. Nuking Leningrad would be a possibility but again I think the Allies would see the futility in that and would use the trickle of A-Bombs they would be getting on military targets. Eventually the SU would lose that battle of attrition. The Allies could hurt the SU (even be it only there military in western Europe)but the SU couldn't really hurt America. The fact that the Soviet Army could beat the Allies in Europe in 1945 has little relevance in the outcome of a war between the two sides.

WE never said the Soviets were going to win or lose. You really never know. That's why in that giant post i made on the last page, I remarked that we could not determine the outcome because we have no way of knowing what the Soviet command and Allied command would do after what I stated as the opening of a Theoretical War

Plus Victory comes in many forms. Just cause they haven't reached America doesn't mean they haven't won. The Soviet objective, i would imagine to be the Conquest of Europe. Britain would have become a giant wasteland of bomb casings and AA batteries if the SU ever conquered Europe, but nothing more than that can we surely say.

Also, if you haven't figured it out, Soviets also had an Alliance treaty with us, look how long it took them to break it :P

I never said they couldn't win a war, but alot of posts on this thread seem to act like it would be a soviet cake walk.

But would a fully conquered Europe actually be more than a prestige victory? I don't think that the population of the Soviet Union is large enough to be able to defend against the military threat of the US alliance and the internal struggles they would be facing. What resource do they gain in Western Europe they dont have? I dont think Britain would be as much of a wasteland as your predict. They wouldn't have had a huge u-boat fleet to face and cut off there supplies. Also the US industrial complex is double what the Soviet Union had at the time and they would be unhampered by attacks. What ever factories the Soviets gained in Europe they would be in poor shape after such a struggle. Plus like I said you could say they had the forces to capture western europe but how are they going to get into Scandinavia? The Arctic front in ww2 was brutal and futile. If you have the UK and US Navy they aren't going to be pulling any mass amphibious invasions for years if maybe even a decade.

Personally I don't think the Soviet Union could have captured every bit of Europe and I don't think they thought they could either that's why they never tried and even if they did it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

US "industrial complex" was not double that of the soviet union at the time, soviets had the largest military at the time than all allied nations combined and they still have the largest with the most tanks ever produced and most small arms amongst a list of others

air power in the 40's-50's wont win a war alone, as it still will not. and neither will naval power. you need boots on the ground

I will not argue your points, especially not the production complex part ( I know that Commies had more efficient and more factories in general)

Air Power, while wouldn't win the war, was proven in WW2 by all armies (particularly the Germans and Americans) to be necessary to Modern Warfare. It isn't won by it, but it is important and a decisive factor. The Soviet Tanks would have been devastated by Allied Air power.

The Navy would determine the Pacific War so that would help win the war.

While we're somewhat on the subject, what is the actual effective range of a B-29? Wiki states that it's like 5000kms which would easily put Moscow in range from West Germany (which makes sense seeing as lighter bombers made it to Germany from Britain).

Soviet production facilities, while out of range of German bombers, would be able to be hit by Allied bombers out of the Middle East I would think while Soviets wouldn't have a chance in hell of denting US production (other Allies yes). This is important to consider in the war. Airpower proved to be one of the most deciding factors in the war against Germany. I think Allied air supremacy would be too much for the Soviets.

Last edited July 6, 2011 at 3:04 AM by GodlikeDennis

Well I think that the Allies would be hard pressed to establish Aerial Superiority, Considering that the Soviets had many more AAA batteries than the Germs as well as very well tested pilots who knew how to deal with enemy Air Superiority. But this remains to me an unforeseeable circumstance of the Commanders' decisions

the US navy wouldnt determine the war in the pacific, the vietnames bogged down and won vs the the entire us army, air force, and navy with sharp wooden stick booby traps and tunnels, and Ak's/rpgs here and there

the koreans/chinese faced the US navy, air force, and army. and how did that turn out for them?

sino armies heaviest weapon in the arsenal was a mortar and they didnt get anywhere fighting these armys, how could they fight the soviets too?


@denniss airstrikes launched from west berlin hinge on the allies being able to hold that ground, do you think the allied land forces could slug it out with the soviet war machine? and win

the germans took almost half of russia and destroyed millions of men and fighting instruments, what will US air raids do to soviet? not much IMO

Last edited July 6, 2011 at 5:20 AM by RedGuard

The one thing that would happen was that the allies would lose control of their colonies which they eventually did without OPERATION UNTHINKABLE. Good for us "Third Worlders" as the Americans call us.

RedGuard did you read what I said on the last page? Most of the Communist movements (the Chinese Commies, the Pre-Vietcong Communist resistance, and the Koreans) were funded and assisted by American OSS agents. The knew where their Command centers were located and could easily attack them in the night by faking a supply drop to them or another similar trick. The Chinese Communists weren't quite as strong as they would become by the Korean War and the North Korean Zone only resulted due to the arrival of Soviet Troops, wouldn't exist if it weren't for that.

The US Navy would win against the Soviets, due a large number of Capitol Ships, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships standing by the Coast of China ready to provide any possible support necessary for the battle ready Marines, while the Soviets would have low morale, many of them were hoping to go home.

As for could the Americans win vs. the Soviets in Land Warfare?

Well in the perfect scenario in which it was just 3 or 4 tanks slugging it out vs. on perfect plains. The Medium Tanks would be even, with a slight advantage going to the more experienced crews and the fact that the T-34 had a low profile, so harder to hit from distance, but this wouldn't be too important.

In Heavy Tanks, the Pershing would be ill matched with the IS-2 not even going into the IS-3. The IS-2 was faster, had more armor, smaller profile, and a bigger gun. No challenge.

However perfect conditions seldom existed and the Allies would continue to use Airpower to knock out the Soviet Tanks.

The infantry is really an immeasurable factor, because this would depend on what morale was like, what they were equipped with, etc.

In another ideal scenario, the American Rifleman would defeat the Soviet Rifleman at long range, due to more variable weaponry (M1 Garands vs. Mosin-Nagants, every American squad had to have at least 2 BAR, the Soviets had no protocol for which squads got DP-28s, it was all chance)
At Mid range I would say that there would be a closer Match, but still an American victory due to the above reasons.
At Closer Ranges, the Americans would lose because of the whole scale armament of Soviet squads with PPSh-41s and PPS42s, while very few Rifleman would actually get a Thompson.

Again, this is naught but idealization, so no flaming please. Its just an imaginary scenario in perfect conditions, which pretty much never ever happen.

if the american riflemen wins, which he only has a chance of versus a inexperienced conscript then its no big deal because the american infantry would be outnumbered 10:1

and if its the guard squads look out! and yeah i agree the armor battle would be rather one sided

You do understand that Guards weren't universally the best troops, nor were Rifles universally the worst. In real life, a Conscript could be a great shot, all people are equally predisposed to dying on the battlefield despite their Elite status. I'm a great shot and I have never been to war. I'm pretty sure that most Americans were great shots then because many went (and as I do till this day) hunting, not as a sport but as a means to survive. The Common Soviet was not a marksman unless he gained that skill on a battlefield.

Being outnumbered means little in a war were both sides possess MGs, and other modern weaponry that could mow lines of infantry in half.

By the end of the war, most Conscripts were part of Strelky and Guard regiments because by then the tide had turned and the Soviets had the equipment and time to give them proper training (which by this point many didn't need)

neosdark wrote:
You do understand that Guards weren't universally the best troops, nor were Rifles universally the worst. In real life, a Conscript could be a great shot, all people are equally predisposed to dying on the battlefield despite their Elite status. I'm a great shot and I have never been to war. I'm pretty sure that most Americans were great shots then because many went (and as I do till this day) hunting, not as a sport but as a means to survive. The Common Soviet was not a marksman unless he gained that skill on a battlefield.

Being outnumbered means little in a war were both sides possess MGs, and other modern weaponry that could mow lines of infantry in half.

By the end of the war, most Conscripts were part of Strelky and Guard regiments because by then the tide had turned and the Soviets had the equipment and time to give them proper training (which by this point many didn't need)

I can hit a target pretty accurately about 1/4 a mile away using a Mosin-Nagant, 30/30 or SVT-40, yet I have no desire to enter or participate in the Military :P

Just supporting your point :P

neosdark wrote:
You do understand that Guards weren't universally the best troops, nor were Rifles universally the worst. In real life, a Conscript could be a great shot,

yes i understand but you become a guard by distinguishing yourself on the field of battle, a conscript is an unknown an unproven or someone who was forced to serve

so the probability works in favor of my theory, a us regular is also comparable to a soviet conscript, albeit better equipped but comparable.

Last edited July 7, 2011 at 5:01 AM by RedGuard

Maybe a US conscript could be compared to a Soviet conscript, but a regular, as in volunteer, being compared to one is kind of mind boggling. One is motivated to fight and one is forced to. In most cases, conscripts break easily when the battle turns against them and are either destroyed or surrender quickly (just using this as an example but I'm sure most people here know it; Operation Barbarossa, entire Soviet armies surrendered in the first stages). But their are plenty accounts of motivated volunteers on all sides holding their ground against impossible odds, and still having high morale.

And good point Neo, I never thought of that. If Unthinkable occurred, the Korea's might have never been split.

yes conscripts were conscripted, the americans called conscription a draft.

majority of US regulars were drafted ya know? so theoretically both soldiers could either have no will to fight or they could have a backbone you never know

they difference was the US regulars were better equipped, and in the very beginning of the war their morale was much better.
but it didnt matter how many soviets you killed there was always much much more to replace them. the americans couldnt do that.

besides the mosin could be used as a dedicated sniper rifle, the garand didnt perform as well in this department. so in the hands of a trained shooter the possibilities were endless

the soviets had no real need for a semi auto rifle when their army was equipped with the most, by alot, SMGs of any army of the time
the soviets always outgunned their opposition, be it small arms, artillery or armor

the soviets were resposible for 80% of the destruction of all axis forces - you only need half a brain to figure out who the superior soldiers were

Last edited July 7, 2011 at 8:18 AM by RedGuard

This is a job for.....

Hearts of Iron 3!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_of_Iron_III

(Btw the most realistic WW2 Game I ever played)

All we have to do is beat Germany on '44, an we will start another war with Soviets. That would be a good way to see how the Europe battle was fought and the middle east.

Haha, in HOI3 I even started World War IV playing as Soviet Union  :P

Morning guys,
Some ideas for your consideration:

Prologue: The land area known as the USSR has never been conquered outright. Overrun yes. conquered no.

Evaluation of Air Power:

1. Air War: The Soviets and the Germans Strategic bombing forces during WWII were insignificant when compared to THe Anglo American Efforts.
   


2. There is little evidence that a Soviet Air defense system would have had been any more effective than the German defenses were against the Anglo/American onslaught.  During the Berlin airlift  in 1948  the Soviet Anti-air response was in-effective; (A lot of airmen died though).

   QuoteA total of 101 fatalities were recorded as a result of the operation, including 40 Britons and 31 Americans,^[4] mostly due to crashes. Seventeen American and eight British aircraft crashed during the operation... During the early months of the airlift, the Soviets used various methods  to harass allied aircraft. These included buzzing by Soviet planes,  obstructive parachute jumps within the corridors, and shining  searchlights to dazzle pilots at night. Although the USAFE  reported 733 separate harassing events, including flak, air-to-air  fire, rocketing, bombing and explosions, this is now considered to be  exaggerated. None of these measures were effective.- Wikipedia



3. THe air defense of Japan  was so effective that LeMAy ordered the Switch of USA  Bombing to nighttime operations.
   


4. The fire bombing campaigns of JApan, 60 cities destroyed, Tokyo - 3/10/45 120,000 homes, 100,000 killed and Germany: Hamburg, 1943 45,000 dead,  Dresden 2/14/45 169,000 dead - one  night - ~ 25% of the population. (casualty reports varied widely; German figures are unreliable because flamethrowers used to clear the bodies destroyed the Evidence. NS propaganda reported casualties of 200,000 to 500,000 - I reject this). My figures were cited by Kurt Vonnegut, Who was there and survived the bombing.
   


5. "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay (Mutually Assured Destruction, SAC, Berlin Airlift, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ... Characatured in "Dr Strangelove"); were accomplished killers, well capable of destroying cities, people, and morale.
   


6. Basing for airraids Was plentiful: the middle East was a  British protectorate, (aka "Mandate"); Okinawa, Japan, China, (india is not credible); Finland! Great circle routes from USA, Canada, Iceland. Oh yeah, the US NAvy - remember the Doolittle Raid in 1942? Prognosis: not good for USSR.


7. I think the nuclear threat from 1945 to 1953 was negligible. However by the time of the Cuban missile Crisis in 1962 the 20 missiles in Cuba were estimated to have been capable of inflicting 5,000,000 deaths in USA. The USA response questimated 110,000,000 dead in USSR - about twice the total casualty rate during WWII. Propaganda? Probably, but It allowed the madman McNamara to add 80,000 nuclear missiles to the USA arsenal.

Enough for now. I have a doctor's appointment. Please feel free to critically challenge any of this. One of the few things I love better than a good debate is improving my knowledge and perspective of History. "I shall Return".

Last edited July 7, 2011 at 7:00 PM by Otto 213

Otto wrote:
Morning guys,
Some ideas for your consideration:

Prologue: The land area known as the USSR has never been conquered outright. Overrun yes. conquered no.

• There is little evidence that a Soviet Air defense system would have had been any more effective than the German defenses were against the Anglo/American onslaught.  During the Berlin airlift  in 1948  the Soviet Anti-air response was in-effective; (A lot of airmen died though). THe air defense of Japan  was so effective that LeMAy ordered the Switch of USA  Bombing to nighttime operations.
  

Let me tell you a Soviet secret, Stalin didn't want to start a WW3 over a city in the middle of his territorial zone. The reason Soviet Air Defenses were ineffective was because most if not all of them were not activated to attack. The American reports of harassment were mainly plane fly-bys and inconveniences. Now that I'm overlooking the op. report the only deaths from this operations that were related to Aircraft was on Black Friday (August 13,1948) Also as an after thought, why would you deploy the largest number of your AAA flak right at your border, do you think the Soviets learned nothing after Barbarossa? In case of war you want your Flak further back to make sure you can activate them before the enemy arrives and you can actually, you know, use them.