Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Other discussions (Read-Only) => Eastern Front => Topic started by: tigerclawstyle on July 04, 2011, 04:11:47 AM

Title: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 04, 2011, 04:11:47 AM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable)
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 04, 2011, 05:05:25 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Cranialwizard on July 04, 2011, 05:20:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 04, 2011, 06:05:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 04, 2011, 06:23:04 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 04, 2011, 06:46:35 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 04, 2011, 06:58:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 04, 2011, 08:57:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 04, 2011, 09:49:13 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 04, 2011, 03:31:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Killar on July 04, 2011, 03:37:50 PM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 04, 2011, 05:07:26 PM
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)
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 04, 2011, 07:36:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 04, 2011, 08:19:24 PM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 04, 2011, 09:04:05 PM
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).
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 04, 2011, 09:54:03 PM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 04, 2011, 09:58:31 PM
Soviets weren't around in the 1800s O0
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 04, 2011, 10:03:16 PM
you know what i mean :P good point though
the tsars imperial navy
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 04, 2011, 11:07:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 04, 2011, 11:48:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 05, 2011, 12:13:43 AM
^^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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 05, 2011, 12:52:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 05, 2011, 01:35:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 05, 2011, 01:46:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 05, 2011, 02:55:28 AM
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).
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 05, 2011, 04:24:13 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 05, 2011, 05:18:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 05, 2011, 06:19:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 05, 2011, 06:20:05 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 05, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: vonklaus on July 05, 2011, 05:14:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 05, 2011, 10:21:22 PM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: vonklaus on July 05, 2011, 11:08:27 PM
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.

Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 05, 2011, 11:44:23 PM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 06, 2011, 02:01:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 06, 2011, 05:02:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 06, 2011, 05:10:35 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 06, 2011, 07:17:03 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on July 06, 2011, 07:19:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 06, 2011, 06:07:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 07, 2011, 03:37:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 07, 2011, 04:59:25 AM
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)
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Cranialwizard on July 07, 2011, 05:17:50 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 07, 2011, 06:59:22 AM
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.

Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 07, 2011, 09:53:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 07, 2011, 10:15:15 AM
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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Seeme on July 07, 2011, 01:47:18 PM
This is a job for.....

Hearts of Iron 3!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_of_Iron_III (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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: cephalos on July 07, 2011, 02:16:29 PM
Haha, in HOI3 I even started World War IV playing as Soviet Union  :P
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 07, 2011, 02:32:34 PM
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: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".
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: neosdark on July 07, 2011, 04:39:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 07, 2011, 09:07:24 PM
Point taken Neosdark.
During the Berlin airlift  in 1948  the Soviet Anti-air response was in-effective; (A lot of airmen died though). "A total of 101 fatalities were recorded as a result of the operation, including 40 Britons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 07, 2011, 09:11:33 PM
Just for clarification Redguard, how many conscripts and volunteers were their in the Soviet Army?

Out of the 13 million Americans that served in WW2, 11.5 million were drafted. 6.3 million however volunteered immediately after Pearl Harbor. So almost 40% of American forces were volunteers. So not all American forces were drafted and it's good assumption that alot of the volunteers ended up in units like Rangers, Para's or Marines.

Reason I bring it up it because the only information I can find regarding Soviet conscription, is that all able bodied men of 18 years old were required to serve.

Also cool post Otto. Definitely get the impression that you've seen Robert McNamara's documentary The Fog of War. Definitely one the most interesting things I've seen about war in general. If people here haven't seen it, they should.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 07, 2011, 11:45:43 PM
the soviets conscripted just short of 30 million men at the start of the war. I believe there was about 5 million or more already serving in the red army before the conscription began

thats not counting volunteers, i cant find a number on that at the moment but it will no doubt be astronomically higher than the US military, ill post it soon

the red army was the largest army of the time, it was the largest army in the world before the war, and after the war it was even larger by alot. a real steamroller
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 08, 2011, 02:00:10 AM
The question tigerclawstyle poses regarding numbers raises an interesting issue. How many casualties could the involved nations sustain? IIRC 60,000,000 died in WWII. 25,000,000 in the USSR alone. Perhaps half of these deaths were civilians. The USA estimated there would be 5-6 million American casualties resulting from the Invasion of Japan. Britain's resources were stretched to the limit by 1945. They had never recovered from the manpower/braindrain effect of WWI. USA logistical doctrine during WWII dictated 19 people in the support chain for each combat trooper on the front. Doubtless the Soviets had a lower ratio but even in Medieval times 10:1 was the rule. How many casualties can a nation sustain and still continue the fight?

Part 2
Naval Concerns: Lend Lease: For Four or more years  The Soviets had recieved the benefit of Allied support.  Did this create a hole in the Soviet arms industry that the planners for Operation unthinkable hoped to exploit? The large number of trucks sent to the USSR coupled with the change in railroad gauge at the Soviet border suggests to my mind that Soviet Operational effectiveness in "non-Russian" Europe might be impaired. Q.Does anyone know if the RRs in the Baltic States had been converted to Russian Railroad guage by the start of Barbarossa?
                                                                                             
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 08, 2011, 03:18:36 AM
They predicted that their would've been 1 million casualties in the first month if the invasion of Japan went through. That prompted the American's to drop the bombs. Your question definitely raises doubts on whether nations would even be able to fight another war directly after WW2 ended in Europe.

If all a nation's resources are being put into the war effort and every man turning 18 (or younger if desperate enough) being sent to the front, then after another few years or five years or another decade of war, would they really be fighting for anything anymore? Just be continuation of loss and destruction, and most likely nations would cease to exist. If their aren't any new generations being born because previous ones are killed off and all the resources are wasted on the war effort, then that nation would simply become a shell of what it once was. Their soldiers and civilians would wither into dust, and all that loss would be for nothing. Manpower is all well and good but once their is a massive generation gap because of the losses, then a nation wouldn't be able to bring up any more troops.

I'd hate to bring it up but it serves my point. As most of us know 6 million Jews died in the holocaust. Now assuming those 6 million people had family and distant relatives, its safe to say that maybe one person may have 100 people related to them either then or in the future that was cut short for them. If my math is wrong (which usually is) that means their are 600 million souls(or so) that didn't get to breathe one day. The same could be said for any incident where vast numbers of human beings were killed. WW1, WW2, Holocaust, Holodomor, Cultural revolution, natural disasters and the 150+ wars that have been fought since WW2. Imagine if these points in history didn't happen, and all those people didn't die. What would  our population be today?

My point being is, once those numbers start to rise whether it's soldiers or civilians, and continue to, then a responsible government or military should be able or made to say "we're done."

It also depends on the nature of the nations and war itself on what could be determined of sustainable casualties. For example, I can't remember where I read it but it is said that today the Chinese are willing to lose their entire east coast (where most of their population is located) and still be capable of fighting, if a major war broke out.

Sorry if I got off track.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 08, 2011, 05:06:48 AM
Your math is a little fuzzy. Start with 60,000,000 not 6.000.000... Your reasoning is correct. I think if the Unthinkable Operation had been pursued, regardless of the military outcome a negotiated settlement would have resulted fairly quickly. (In diplomatic time scales at least. THe fighting in Korea had stopped a year before a negotiated settlement could be reached. In Vietnam negotiations started in 1968. Over a year was wasted in determining the shape of the negotiating table).

I think the Will of the People would have been the cause. Winston Churchill, an early advocate of Unthinkable, and an ardent Hawk had been voted out of office in April 1945 IIRC. FDR utilized all manner of underhanded diplomacy with the Japanese to trick the American people into believing Pearl Harbor was an unexpected sneak attack. The American people needed to believe they had the moral high ground before they would support such a national effort.
I don't think betraying your Ally is something the People would consider right. Maybe RedGuard can shed some light on the Soviet peoples view on this. I find trying to obtain solid information about the Soviet Union somewhat of a futile endeavor.

OT: My brother-in-law's Father-in-law was a career engineer with General Electric. He was at Pearl HArbor on 12/7/1941 working on a recoiless rifle system to be mounted in the B26. The purpose of this weapon was to attack Japanese destroyers.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 08, 2011, 05:07:34 AM
my sympathies and condolences to all the persecuted peoples of WWII
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 08, 2011, 07:20:29 AM
Governments all over have lied or conducted false flag operations to stir the common people's resolve into fighting for whatever cause for ages. Still happens to this day, and it's amplified with the media. Information travels so fast now, and the masses are easily manipulated that it's basically become an art form for governments to utilize it.

I definitely agree with your statement about the people and their opinion on the matter would be determining factor whether or not something like Unthinkable could have happened. 5 years of war, bloodiest in history, more casualties then all the wars in recorded history combined (correct me if I'm wrong on that), and people, economies and civilization in general were tired of it.

Imagine being a civilian on the home front or a soldier ready to go home after VE Day or VJ day, go to bed, and wake up to find out that another war has begun with your former ally. Pretty sure any person on either side would be quite pissed.

Also about your link to Pearl Harbor. "The Art of War teaches us to not rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his attacking, but rather the fact that we have made our position unassailable."
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 09, 2011, 12:47:24 AM
Quote
Information travels so fast now,
This brings up the subject of espionage/counter espionage. THe Anglo/Americans were, are(?), the masters of code breaking. During WWII they had cracked the Japanese naval code; (Midway and Pearl Harbor- You don't really think it a coincidence that All USA Cvs were at sea on 12/7/41 do you)? German Naval and Heer  codes. Actually the Poles cracked the Enigma Naval code inf 1936(?). THe allies sent advanced notice of Barbarossa to Pappa Joe. (He ignored it just like king George II before 9/11). How would/did this effect the planning or implementation of Operation Unthinkable? At Yalta Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan 90 days after the Nazi's were Kaput. The USSR occupied Korea on August 9-10, 1945. THe JS3 was part of the occupying forces. Presumably Shock guards were too. In 1941 it took the Far East Army 4-5 months to arrive before Moscow.

The point of all this fol der rol is that Fore knowledge of Soviet movements would have been a powerful trump if warfare broke out again in Germany.

At the risk of incurring your ire, and in hopes that one day we will be able to mix and match factions in any game; I offer these trivia tid bits:
1. When Eisenhower was briefed on Operation Unthinkable he proposed withdrawing the Allied Armies to the Lowlands, while awaiting for the next generation of Heavy Armor to arrive at the front.
2. When Eisenhower became president he authorized the Interstate Highway System. (America's Military highway system). He insisted that one mile in every three of highway be straight and flat.... for use as emergency airfields and landing gliders. A little idea he copied from the Third Riech's similar use of the Autobahn during the Second World War.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on July 09, 2011, 05:58:50 AM
2. When Eisenhower became president he authorized the Interstate Highway System. (America's Military highway system). He insisted that one mile in every three of highway be straight and flat.... for use as airfields and landing gliders. A little idea he copied from the Third Riech's Autobahn.
Were the flat stretches of highway actually used in WW2?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 09, 2011, 06:20:49 AM
no, the planes back then wouldnt make it from mainland USA to europe or the pacific, so they were launched from an allied countrys airfield not the american highway system.

the highways would be a last resort and by last resort i mean LAST RESORT
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 09, 2011, 07:06:22 AM
2. When Eisenhower became president he authorized the Interstate Highway System. (America's Military highway system). He insisted that one mile in every three of highway be straight and flat.... for use as airfields and landing gliders. A little idea he copied from the Third Riech's Autobahn.
Were the flat stretches of highway actually used in WW2?
I believe I have confused the issue. German fighters used the autobahn as emergency airstrips when necessary. IIRC in Leon Uris' novel about the Berlin Airlift he mentions a C47/C54 doing likewise. Harrisburg Intl Airport's runway is only a mile long and it bases C130's. My point was that the Autobahn could have been used for advanced basing for air operations in Germany by either side during Unthinkable. To expand  upon the difficulties foreign armies would have had in a battle on German Soil: Rail lines airfields and ports were fairly easy to interdict. THe western Allies march into Germany was radically slowed by the Necessity of trucking fuel to the advancing armies from Normandy. From 1936 on all internal truck traffic inside Nazi Germany was fueled by Hydrogen. Fuel for ANglo/American and Soviet armies would have to be continually brought in once the German military fuel supplies were unavailable. The more I consider Logistical problems involved with Operation Unthinkable the more it seems like Mission Impossible. And we really haven't gotten into the land combat capabilities part of the arquement yet!?!
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 09, 2011, 08:46:16 AM
whoops i misunderstood you :-[
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on July 09, 2011, 11:54:41 AM
Sorry.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 09, 2011, 01:14:04 PM
Quote
THe fault (Dear Crassus) is not in our stars but in ourselves
My bad lads. I hope the correction I made to the post clears things up. I'm very weak on writing skills. Too many years working as a mechanical and civil engineer.

OT: What is the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer...A Mechanical Engineer builds weapon systems. A Civil Engineer builds targets.
hmmmn. same choice of words as Kalashnikov. @ RedGuard  what is the russian word for "Design"
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 09, 2011, 09:18:46 PM
Agreed, we've only discussed a little about manpower, but mostly nuclear forces, air power, and naval power.

Should look at Germany and central Europe, and try to assume where their would be bogged down fighting or fast advances. During the Cold War, NATO considered the "North German Plain" to be the key area of any Soviet invasion (ironically NATO call's cyberwarfare, the new "North German Plain").

We've brushed on it abit, but if possible, should to try to get an order of battle going and that might be able to give us an idea of what land combat would be like.

Also Otto, what do you think about the British Centurion tank in comparison to the Soviet armour?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 10, 2011, 03:52:49 PM
IMO the Centurion is the best of the "WWII vintage" tank designs. I think the IDF (Israeli Defense Force designates Centurion as S'hot-"Scourge"), would agree. It has passed the test of time:Its fair to say I'm a Centurion fanboy.

THe Soviet work with curvilinear armor as epitomized by the JS3 is not to be snubbed but the Soviets bought the equipment to manufacture heavy curvilinear armor from the Germans ~1938. As such it was a borrowed design. ("Unified design leads to superior results in AFVs" -TPCoughlin PE  :D ), Subsequent Soviet tank design/performance utilizing the Curvilinear Armor concept in the T54 through T80/T84 series has proved less then Sterling. I think this is because the Sovs development path pushed them in the direction of low silhouette, smaller crew sizes and a return to two-man turrets. Too retro AFAIC.

I look forward to the continuation of the dialog.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 10, 2011, 07:40:48 PM
Yeah definitely a very cool vehicle, and probably the first real Main Battle Tank. What's interesting is that it entered full production in 1945, and is still in use today by the IDF.

Even though the Soviet ground forces were massive, especially their tank corps, but the T-54/55 didn't enter production until 1947. Then like you brought up, it proved it's worth during Israel's conflicts with it's neighbors.

Tanks would arguably be the main focus in a operation like Unthinkable or any large scale land invasion then, or now. The question I pose to you, is did the British perhaps have a leg up on the quality of tank coming compared to the Soviet's at the time?

Also it would be safe to assume, that if Unthinkable was inevitable or during the course of it got bogged down in Central Europe or wherever, that the American's would start replacing their Sherman's with a MBT of their own design or maybe with the Centurion to enrich it's current forces. The "Patton series" of tanks didn't hit the ground floor until 1947 I believe.

Again its about tank design and quality not quantity. Which side had the better tanks after 1945?

Also I found this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_tank_production_during_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_tank_production_during_World_War_II)

I'm trying to run the numbers, but like I said previously, I have terrible math. What I'm interested in is how many tanks the German's destroyed, and what was left for the Soviet tank corps after German surrender?

Also off topic question for this thread and forum, but what do people think is the best Main Battle Tank, today?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 11, 2011, 05:52:30 AM
Leopard 2 IMO.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 11, 2011, 06:34:28 AM
the first true MBT was the t54/55 from 1950

the best MBT today is the abrams, hands down no competition
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tico_1990 on July 11, 2011, 09:41:06 AM
RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.
In my opinion, it depends on the war you need to fight. If it's purely a "get of my lawn" defensive war with a few offensive options (if you don't need to do air or navel lifts anyway), then the Merkava wins.
If you need one that is able to be airlifted and such, I'd go for the Leopard 2 because it has a way lower heat signature and because it isn't a gasguzler.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 11, 2011, 11:33:31 AM
RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.

hah, thanks for the laugh. ;D theres no MBT that can defeat the abrams in a slugfest.

the US military, is smarter than that and more experienced than you can obviously imagine. this abstract anti armor system you speak of would be long disabled/destroyed before they deployed/exposed their armored columns

theres no stopping the US military in a direct and conventional war they spend more on their military budget than the rest of the world superpowers combined

insurgency and guerilla tactics are how you defeat the americans, wound their morale and break the public support at home.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 11, 2011, 03:15:37 PM
The question was what is the best tank, not which nation has the best support options. I think the Leopard 2, Abrams and Challenger II are all practically the same vehicle with the Abrams and Leopard having bigger guns but the Challenger having the greatest maneuverability. The Merkova is pretty different in function to the others. The tank/turret is designed in a more defensive way. Because of the turret at the back of the tank it's more vulnerable to flank/rear attacks is it not? I'm not exactly an expert on today's tanks though.

Fuel consumption is a very important factor in today's world. All emissions count. IMO Leopard wins out over Abrams because of this and it looks cooler.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 11, 2011, 03:31:54 PM
it depends on the war you need to fight.
Oh so true.

insurgency and guerilla tactics are how you defeat the americans, wound their morale and break the public support at home.
I would add effective propaganda to this list. Bin Ladin's, (may he rot in Gehenna), propaganda campaign to win the heart's and minds of Muslim Fundamentalists was a masterstroke.

I think the MBT with the best deployable ECMs Countermeasures should be on the top of the list.
My favorite current design is the Merkava. I like the front engine mount which protects the most crucial part of any tank, the experienced crew. The rear hatch design  also gives a new meaning to "Tank Riders".  YES DENNIS the Merkava is susceptable to rear attack but when a squad of Israeli Paratroopers hops out the back??? That seems like pretty good micro to me. :D

Isn't the Sabra IDF's MBT?

@ Tigeclawsstyle: I don't think the Brits had an edge in AFV warfare in 45-46. The main reason is Tank Production. AFAIK Brit tank production was limited to ~1800 tanks per Year. The Amis were ramping up their production of M24s and M26s bigtime in 1945. Total tank production for 1943(?) ~39,000 units. And with the fall of Japan there would be no reason to build one CV per week, etc. The Soviets were capable of producing ~ 2000 units per month. In 1945 Their Heavy Chassis production figures were about 75% greater than the Amis.
Part IV Early Operations in unthinkable if it were implemented.
If the Anglo/Amis were going to backstab the Sov's; Operations would'nt have started until fall 1945. Papa Joe may have known about the Bomb but he could not have known it would stop the war. Most of the Sovs newest/best Troops and equipment were deployed in Manchuria in August 1945. Germany and the "Eastern Block" were Stalin's primary strategic focus but Stalin had a healthy respect for the Folly of fighting a two front war or doing things by half measures.

The first operation in unthinkable would have been... THe Air inderdiction of the Trans-Siberian Railway! Eisenhower had already stated his views: Armies should be withdrawn from Germany to the Lowlands, Another Phoney War?... To be continued.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 11, 2011, 05:45:32 PM
The question was what is the best tank

yeah the abrams is the best tank of this day and age - atleast thats what I found experts agreeing is the best  ;)
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Red_Stinger on July 11, 2011, 06:48:40 PM
Leopard 2 is too cumbersome, besides the lack of an auto-loading system and modern active protection.

Abrams and Challenger are pretty fine considering passive/active armor protection.

Best armored are the Merkava series and T-90 (the latter being difficult to detect moreover).

Leclerc tanks are quite nice too considering firepower and protection.

P.S: didnt participated to the discussion about Unthinkable, no time  :P
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tico_1990 on July 11, 2011, 07:35:26 PM
RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.

hah, thanks for the laugh. ;D theres no MBT that can defeat the abrams in a slugfest.

the US military, is smarter than that and more experienced than you can obviously imagine. this abstract anti armor system you speak of would be long disabled/destroyed before they deployed/exposed their armored columns

And you obviously didn't understand that I was not speaking about some abstract anti armour system, but rather, in a humorous fashion,  about the enormous heat signature which an abrams gives of. Also, I think that in a pure slugfest, the Merkava would be able to beat an abrams and I also think that which one would win between those two would be dependant on the crew.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 11, 2011, 10:45:04 PM
In terms of actual engagement's with other tanks, the M1 Abrams definitely has the edge. It absolutely lit up the Iraqi tank's of Soviet design in the first Gulf War, but fighting conscripts with low morale and limited experience should be taken under consideration. Still, any tank with a barrel, should always be taken seriously, because it is still dangerous.

An old friend of mine is in the the 1st Armour Division based at Ft. Bliss, and has done 4 tours in Iraq. When the insurgency really kicked up in 2006, when he came back he told me he said he witnessed M1 Abrams being shot up by RPG's, and had their turrets blowing off and flying 50-60 feet into the air (his word's, not mine). Also I've spoken to soldiers from the Lord Strathcona's Horse here in my hometown, and they constantly get asked by tank crews in America to try out their Leopard C2's (upgraded Leopard 1's) when they go down their to cross train.

What I like about the Leopard 2 is the range of variants. Alot of nations use it and most look completely different to their counterparts. The Singaporean variant looks quite bad ass.

The Merkava is quite the machine as well, Israel knows that replacing experienced tank crews is important for it's force because of the limited number of people in Israel, but also because of the nature of the wars there. It's a small nation, and under certain circumstances could be completely overran in afew days.

The T-90 is a cool machine to, but has only been used in combat against the Georgians in the South Ossetia War, against older T-72 models. Definitely interested to see how it would perform against Western tanks.

Surprised to see no one has posted anything about the Chinese, South Korean or Japanese tanks. The Chinese Type 99 was designed after the Chinese observed how easily the Americans rolled over the Soviet designed tanks of Iraq during the first Gulf War. They watched that conflict and learned quite abit about modern tank warfare. Their most elite armored divisions are equipped with it. The Korean K2 Black Panther is a game changer as well and once it enters full production, will be a formidable force. The Japanese Type 90 hasn't been tested in combat, but once its complemented by the Type 10 will make the Japanese tank forces quite scary.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 12, 2011, 05:19:01 AM
^^I dont call brave heros soldiers liars but i watched show in Iraq war that says not a single abrams was lost to enemy hostilitys
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 12, 2011, 06:50:23 AM
Between 2005 to 2009, 80 M1 Abrams were heavily damaged and totally written off. Another 500 had been damaged to a certain degree and were taking off the line or sent back to the States to be repaired.

Their were no casualties inside the tanks themselves, but when tank crew's had to abandon their vehicles some did get killed in ambushes afterwards or IED's. Many were disabled due to enemy action, and following standard protocol for any army, they set charges or called in fire support to destroy the vehicles.

Interesting note as well, is that in Vietnam the M-48 put 5000 miles on between overhauls, when procedure dictated that after 2000 miles, it should be overhauled. In Iraq War 2, some tank units had get a new set of tracks every two week.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 12, 2011, 12:32:57 PM
@tigersclawstyle: Canadian EH.  ;)
 Wiki alert! Caveat Emptor guys the Abrams article contradicts itself  several times!
Between 2005 to 2009, 80 M1 Abrams were heavily damaged and totally written off.
Of  the 80M1 Abrams KO'd in combat (up until 2005?) Only 2 were written off  AFAIK. When deemed unrecoverable the local tank crews used their own  primary armament to try to destroy the abandoned tanks. (They weren't  particularly effective as I understand; apparently demolitions and auto  destruct are not features the Amis use in their Tank program), Much,  (some?) of the data on RLA penetration of the 105/120 tank and defensive  effectiveness of Abrams various armor protection systems come from  these incidents. Most of the reported damage to tanks in THe American  Follies in Asia seems to come from close range urban assault type  operations. Amis countermeasures include providing carbines for each  tanker, Hand held AT weapons and the TUSK system (Tank Urban Survival  Kit). Apparently All Amis MBTs will be provided with TUSK. It is  interesting to note the Reactive Armor (read as skirts and Zimmerit) in  TUSK is left up to the tankers as a field applied solution) Note: in a  previous post I used the term ECMs improperly. I should have use the  term Countermeasures.  :P
 Two aspects of current Western Tank design concern me: 1. Use of  automatic Halon fire extinquisher systems; Which rapidly displace the  air and stop the fire but also rapidly displace the air and anesthetize  the crew. 2. The trend towards smaller crew sizes coupled with the  disappearance of autoloaders. I believe the Russians are going this  route too.
 
 A note or two on cost effectiveness. The Amis government seldom stints  on spending money in military matters. The various folks who have  addressed fuel economy and emissions have valid points but the cost of  maintaining 5 soldiers a year in Afghanistan is greater than the cost of a  new Abrams Tank. 1.2million US$/man/year! for any of you cut the budget  but don't tax the rich (corporations) congressmen who read these  forums. >:(
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 12, 2011, 06:59:59 PM
Yes Canadian  :P

I originally looked at wiki for the equipment losses during the Iraq War 2, but I also looked at the many Defense/Security reports that I frequently look at daily online. The Abrams damaged in combat are originally from a report from a think tank called the Lexington Institute, and its reports state that as of 2009, 80 tanks were destroyed. Their words not mine. The rest I gathered from online articles from newspapers and from a forum dedicated to tanks with men who served in Iraq. But perhaps I was abit hasty with the term "written off" and apologize for that. Finding accurate reports on these matters can be quite a hassle if they aren't directly from the military. I just wanted to establish to other readers, that the M1 Abrams or any other MBT for that matter, shouldn't be considered invincible. Millions of taxpayers dollars are being spent on overhauling these vehicles daily, and countless man hours dedicated to refitting them. For instance it takes a day and a half to remove a M1 turret and in 2007 they had to completely rebuild 1,400 turbine engines for them.

I agree with you on the follies of tank design fulls greatly on urban combat. From what I've studied, the insurgents in Iraq used tactics that were first mastered by the Afghans during the Soviet War, then the mujahedin in Chechnya, and Hezbollah in Lebanon during the many IDF incursions. Basically small teams of 3 more or less men, one rifleman, one machine gunner or sniper and an anti-tank man would operate together and simply wait for armor or whatever to pass by or be disabled by IED's. They'd coordinate their attacks with other small teams, and since urban combat is considered to be "Three Dimensional" worked quite effectively.

Also I've read numbers like that from many nations, regarding the cost of having a soldier deployed in combat zones. Any idea what the cost's of soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam?

Would you be interested in me sending you a PM with the different links of Defense/Security reports that I frequent? I'd definitely be interested in seeing what you read.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 13, 2011, 01:12:33 AM
Also I've read numbers like that from many nations, regarding the cost of having a soldier deployed in combat zones. Any idea what the cost's of soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam?
All numbers are IIRC $162,000-US/soldier/year in Vietnam; $40,000-US/soldier/Year in WWII. I'm stretching here but $1,000,000-US/ day/week(?) for US CivilWar - Federal. Somebody should try to make an honest man of me if they have better figures.

Operation  Unthinkable Early naval operations

Naval blockade would be instituted immediately. Most Soviet ports are vulnerable to blockade because of geography and climate. Early amphibious activities would probably be limited to the Far East. After Patch's landings in South of France most amphibious transport was earmarked for the Invasion of Japan. Redeployment would have been slow. In the west I would think an operation to pull Finland into the act would be ideal but I suspect the Soviets could have held their own on the North German Plain and East. Their submarine fleet should have been capable of blocking the Skaggerack (sic).
Could Sweden have been inveigled into the Allied camp?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 14, 2011, 11:13:43 PM
It would be a very serious threat for the Soviets that is for sure. Since the bulk of the Soviet forces would be concentrated in central Europe, and the other countries they occupied, their back doors would be vulnerable. I'd imagine an amphibious force of seasoned cold weather fighters (Royal Marines, Norwegians, Swedes, and Fin's) could possibly land in the Karelia or Murmansk region. The Fins already had much experience fighting in those conditions. Think Anzio or Incheon but on a much grander scale.

As for Sweden I'm not to familiar with their military during that period, although I do know it was mobilized in the event of an attack. Of course you hear about the neutrality, iron ore and the Jews escaping from the rest of Europe. They may have stayed out of the war with Germany, but if something like Unthinkable had happened, I'd imagine they would be hard pressed to join the allies. The country itself was relatively untouched (big reason why I want to travel there, no bombs dropped on old architecture), and the Swedes at one point were a major military power.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on July 15, 2011, 05:59:33 AM
I think the Swedes were a major power during the time of Empire Total War.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 16, 2011, 11:16:06 AM
the swedes? they were never a power of any sort at any time frame
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: GodlikeDennis on July 16, 2011, 12:34:13 PM
Yes they were.

The Swedes in the 16th and early 17th century were a very powerful and militarily successful nation. The Russian empire became powerful after being invaded by the Swedes and eventually driving them back under Peter the Great. They gained much of their knowledge of warfare from them. St Petersburg was founded on the Baltic coast by Peter after pushing the Swedes back that far.

The Swedes are also mentioned in Hamlet, if you've read it, as being the source of many of the Danish troubles, since they lost control of Norway to them.

King Charles XII is credited as being one of the great European military leaders I'm pretty sure.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 16, 2011, 09:44:27 PM
if the swedes dont stand out in my mind as any kind of a power at some time history they werent.

im a history fanatic
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tico_1990 on July 16, 2011, 09:50:01 PM
And I'm a history student (university level). Sweden was a powerful nation once, even though you RedGuard might not be willing to aknowledge that. If you used to provide balance suggestions the same way "if I don't think/know then it isn't true" then I'm glad you aren't a part of the balance team anymore.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 16, 2011, 09:54:20 PM
nations that were once powerful that stand out in my mind are along the lines of britain, france, germany, russia, spain, india, china, japan, greece, italy just to name a few and give you an idea

never once would sweden enter my mind. what did they do that was so great? who did they conquer? what did they invent that changed the world so drastically? nothing

if you provide stupid arguments they way you do now your head will melt down and you will make other mentally slow by looking at you. slughead ;D
im glad i cant actually see you
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tico_1990 on July 16, 2011, 10:16:39 PM
Ever heard of Mr Alfred Nobel? He was a Swede (the guy who invented dynamite and also the guy which the nobelprice is named after). Another famous Swede was Carl Linnaeus who, through his writings influenced a lot of other European studies. They were also the first nation to pass a law giving freedom of press.
Also, Italy never was a great nation, Rome was one. Greece wasn't a great nation either, several Greek citystates (most notably Sparta and Athens) were though.
Anyway, hugely off topic, let's get back to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 17, 2011, 01:57:09 AM
Search Swedish Empire. Also if your interested in military science and philosophy, check out Carl Von Clausewitz's On War. From that you'd learn that the Swedes were one of the first European powers, to put a professional Army together, and their system influenced the British Army (even today) and Napoleon . As we all know, he revolutionized warfare all together.

Swedish military history goes back to the Viking Age, and influenced much of Europe for a long time during and after that age. They've also been to war with Russia 11 times, and beat them 3 times in a row in the 15th/16th centuries. Russia beat them 3 times as well, and the rest were stalemates. Not bad for a nation you don't consider to be a power and is 1/8th it's size.

Also, in 1709 after nine years of fighting, Peter the Great destroyed arch rival's Charles XII tough Swedish Army (at the time, the Swedish King was considered to be invincible) and marked the rise of modern Russia and decline of the Swedish Empire. Read up on the Battle of Poltava if your interested.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Cranialwizard on July 17, 2011, 04:58:02 AM
[...]
Also, Italy never was a great nation, Rome was one.

Italy had a comparable army in both the world wars. They were not unified until the 1800's so you can barely compare them to any other country because it was essentially a collection of city states. I would call them history changing anyway, loads of inventions and ideas come from Italy.

Though we are infamous for being half-ass. Do you know the reason why Venice is flooding/sinking? It's because the Italians built the city on a mudpit supported by a couple of sticks. (My theory was the Architects put the sticks in the mud and said "Well our job is done here" and went off to have more wine) Also, Pisa was literally built on an uneven swamp, which is why ALL their buildings lean, not just the tower. And infact they can completely straighten the tower but they didn't because no one wants to see the Straight Tower of Pisa. :D


A little political turmoil is common though...but that can't possibly hurt anyone though...can it? ;D

And I'm a history student (university level). Sweden was a powerful nation once, even though you RedGuard might not be willing to aknowledge that. If you used to provide balance suggestions the same way "if I don't think/know then it isn't true" then I'm glad you aren't a part of the balance team anymore.

Ouch but +1

if you provide stupid arguments they way you do now your head will melt down and you will make other mentally slow by looking at you. slughead ;D
im glad i cant actually see you

Libel is a shitty way to argue, seriously.

You're wrong, Sweden was a powerful country in past times and has been stated/proven by multiple intellects here. That is almost like saying the Netherlands was never a powerful country because it isn't a very powerful country now.

We're way off topic guys. Lets stop arguing about Sweden, it's been proven that it was formerly a powerful country.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: vonklaus on July 17, 2011, 05:27:03 AM
If you consider that Vikings are from Scandinavia they had a pretty good run considering they invade all over Europe, parts of Asia, and may have made it to North America 400 years before Columbus. They gave Russia all they can handle in wars several times before finally losing Finland and there other Baltic holdings. They were an Empire till 1910's when they peacefully split from Norway.

Italy was never great Rome was????? Rome was Italy, Rome didnt start going down hill till the majority of there legions were comprised by non-italians. Ruling Europe for 700 years not good enough for you?

Greece never did anything? Well Alexander might have been Macedonia but most of his soldier were Greek. Culture Powerhouse unmatched by any in history. Is there any period of history in one region that has more great works, from Philosophy, to architecture, art, literature.

Just because these things did not happen 100 years ago like some of the other nations you mentioned does not lesser there accomplishments. Maybe in 1000 years people wont think that America, Russia, China, or Brittan ever did crap and that New Zealand and Paraguay are the greatest nations that ever were.

Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 17, 2011, 06:28:43 AM
Yes I agree, back on the topic on hand. The question Otto posed to us was whether or not the Swedes, would've gotten involved in Unthinkable. Again, like I said before, I don't know what kind of equipment they used before, during and shortly after the war ended in Europe, but I do know they had an extensive intelligence network from start to finish. Much of the intelligence gathered from Norway, Poland, and Germany itself cycled through Swedish channels to get to the allies on the British Isles.

Also many Swedes volunteered to fight for Finland against the Soviets which gave them alot of experience in fighting in cold weather warfare. I believe that the Norwegians, Swedes and Finnish with elements from Canada, UK, and USA could form a proper force to attack the Soviet Northern flank, either in the Baltic or in the Karelia region. They wouldn't make the same mistakes the Germans did (cold weather clothing) and the supply lines running through the Nordic countries could be sustained.

Again, where do you guys think an amphibious assault could occur (from Soviet/Western allies perspectives) and what kind of forces would they compose of?

Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tico_1990 on July 17, 2011, 10:40:43 AM
Tigerclaw, I'd say a feasible option would be to do a naval invasion on St. Petersburg and then either expand that territory a bit so that you can split the Soviet attention on multiple fronts. The other option, albeit risky, would be to do a naval invasion in st. Petersburg, and then march on to Moscow. The downside to this is that you'll be left with a very long corridor for your supplies which is easily attacked.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on July 17, 2011, 01:37:29 PM
Greece never did anything? Well Alexander might have been Macedonia but most of his soldier were Greek. Culture Powerhouse unmatched by any in history. Is there any period of history in one region that has more great works, from Philosophy, to architecture, art, literature.
The Poster seems to forget that the Indian and Chinese cultures are way older than said "Cultural powerhouse" and they survive to this day. On topic, the British had control of the middle east and Iran. They could have used it as a spring board to launch an invasion of the Caucasus. No Oil for the Ruskies!!!
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 18, 2011, 12:26:31 AM
Tigerclaw, I'd say a feasible option would be to do a naval invasion on St. Petersburg and then either expand that territory a bit so that you can split the Soviet attention on multiple fronts. The other option, albeit risky, would be to do a naval invasion in st. Petersburg, and then march on to Moscow. The downside to this is that you'll be left with a very long corridor for your supplies which is easily attacked.

Definitely would be an option. Looking at Google Earth, all the Soviets would have to do to close the Baltic is occupy Denmark. However, the allies could just use Norway, Sweden and Finland for its base, and move landing craft overland. It would have to be a mostly infantry force, regular infantry, paratroopers, and special forces. Artillery and air bases in the Nordic countries could provide support where battleships and naval bombardment might not be able to reach the area of operations.

The bulk of the Soviet and Western allies armor would be situated in central Europe. The idea of any amphibious incursion would be to go through the Soviet's back door, and maybe have an armor force link up with it. Air power would be key.

Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tico_1990 on July 18, 2011, 09:26:33 AM
What tankbuster proposed is a good one, if the allies were to do a double invasion (one in st. Petersburg and one in the Caucasus), while keeping the soviets in central Europe as well, they could do a giant pincer manouvre.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 19, 2011, 11:55:06 PM
I am uncertain where the ambhibious assault boats would come from for use in European operations. An amphibious strike into the Baltic would be attractive but unlikely. How long did it take the Allies to prepare for Overlord, A ~40 mile crossing where air superiority had been present for years. Operations in Yugoslavia or Greece would have helped isolate the Soviets from potential allies.

Turn the glass. What would be early Soviet Response to Anglo/American aggression?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on July 20, 2011, 07:20:01 AM
Moving through the Caucasus into Iran and then rushing to the middle east to secure additional fuel supplies while starving the allies of theirs.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 20, 2011, 07:42:09 AM
Yeah I agree making a push for the oilfields of the Middle East could be something the Soviets do. That whole region might have opened up if Unthinkable occurred.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: RedGuard on July 20, 2011, 11:11:11 AM
those oilfields are the lifeblood of any war machine. seize the oil fields and sieze victory
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: vonklaus on July 20, 2011, 04:03:54 PM
Greece never did anything? Well Alexander might have been Macedonia but most of his soldier were Greek. Culture Powerhouse unmatched by any in history. Is there any period of history in one region that has more great works, from Philosophy, to architecture, art, literature.
The Poster seems to forget that the Indian and Chinese cultures are way older than said "Cultural powerhouse" and they survive to this day.

but militarily there accomplishments are no where near the Greeks a small nation compared to these giants. Also very little of China or India affects my modern culture I live around (USA) compared to the amount of Greek or Roman.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 20, 2011, 04:46:13 PM
A Soviet push through the Caucasus' for the Persian Oil fields and access to the Persian gulf makes a great deal of sense. Southwest Asia has been an sphere of influence that  Rusviets have been interested in expanding for over 150 years. History has shown this is a very difficult area to fight in and control. We are still fighting in Kandahar, a city founded by and named after Alexander 2300 years ago.

I think the Sovs would have pushed in a slightly different direction. Turkey. Arguably Tito could have delayed or turned back an allied push in the Adriatic. The Yugoslavs did capture Trieste in 1945! Greece was just becoming involved in a civil war with its homegrown Communists; which would and did cause problems for the Brits during the period we are talking about. There is no question that the Sov Navy controlled the Black Sea. I have never subscribed to the Domino THeory  but I think acquisition of access to the Mediterranean was viewed by the Rusviets as a matter of Lebensraum. Asia Minor is a much better base of operations for operations in the Middle East than the Caucasus'

THe denial of oilfields has been touched on. Q.How would the the Soviets have obtained rubber? Lend Lease would no longer be providing the Sovs with organic transport. The Soviet rail system was designed to deny access to invaders, not move materials through areas with a different rail gauge.

OT: @VonkLaus: Your assertion about the impact of  the Indo- Chinese vis a vis Greek influences on American culture is very lopsided. I am a Helle-phile. I keep copies of Homer (and Rumi too) in my bathroom for Xristos sake. THe Chinese started the Fast Food industry during the California Gold rush. Built the Transcontinental Railroad too. Has a Greek or Chinese ever answered the phone when you were trying to get Tech help or an insurance claim adjusted? It was more likely an Indian. The Indians also invented pancakes, an American cultural phenomenon -(Gr.). (Further.OT=Did Napoleon say an army marches on it's stomach)?
America's strength lies in its multi-ethnic, cross-cultural diversity. Belittling the contributions of any group or nationality is silly) - Sorry for the rant.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 20, 2011, 05:00:13 PM
It is true that the Western World basically evolved from the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. My knowledge of ancient India is limited but I did read somewhere that the first documented war ever was recorded there around 10,000BC (correct me if I'm wrong).

China on the other hand, I do know. They have one of the most extensive military histories on the planet dating back to 8,000BC. Not once in their history, in any century, has their not been a major war. Their armies were extensive, and it most cases depending on the nature of the war, broke 500,000 to 1 Million men.

When the Greeks and Romans were developing their empires, the Chinese were already on their way to having multiple states, rather then city states (ancient China look's alot like Europe today, border wise) and were united if not briefly under Qin Shi Huang (First Emperor to unite China), who started the Great Wall. That was in 221 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif)

As for the affects the Chinese may have on your daily life and culture, if you ever fired a gun, used a compass, or written on paper then you've been affected. If you have eaten food with a fork, or eaten rice or noodles, with said fork, you have been affected. The Silk Road is a very old and well traveled one :P

For more Chinese inventions, just search and you shall find.

I'd apologize for getting off topic again, but I'm not sorry. Love this stuff.



Post Merge: July 20, 2011, 05:07:12 PM
Otto, good call on that. The Western Allies might have had the bulk of their forces in Central Europe, and with the Nordic countries recuperating, but that southern flank is exposed, other then the forces already in Italy.

Bringing up Turkey to, much like Sweden, would they been able to stay out of this one? I doubt that very much, especially with the Dardanelles Strait. Their was alot of pressure from both sides in WW2 for Turkey to get involved, and their military was mobilized during the entire war.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: vonklaus on July 20, 2011, 06:21:20 PM
But when was China a might outside of China? Cultural or Militarily? Sure we today read and study Sun Tzu but was Japan, Korea, or any of China neighbors studying him greatly near the times of his writings? On the other hand Greco-Roman culture reached beyond there borders during the times of there existence. I am not trying to say one is better than the other but its clear that Greco-Roman cultured surpassed its potential based on its relative population compared to what Chinese culture has accomplished relative to there population.

Further more even though China is the largest manufacturer in the world are they exporting there culture? No, they are mostly making goods for Western Culture.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 20, 2011, 09:19:30 PM
Rome is to Western Civilization as is China is to the Sinic Civilization, can we at least agree on that? The Romano-Chinese relations date back to the Han dynasty. Both civilizations brought each other diverse ideas and goods with the Silk Road being the link. I won't even bother to list all the things the Chinese provided cultures along the route, but they basically have a stamp on every field of study. Medicine, Mathematics, Astronomy, Philosophy, anything, their is some Chinese influence.

As for China not going around war mongering, they believed that China was "All under heaven" and any land beyond it wasn't worth anything. The land they have controlled through all their extensive dynasties hasn't changed borders much compared to modern day. But virtually every culture in Asia, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Burmese and Thai have been influenced by the Chinese. Even though Genghis Khan wasn't Chinese, many of the engineers responsible for his siege weapons and such, were, and that brought more knowledge west. That's just one example.

As for your statement regarding them not exporting there culture, I don't know where your located, but last time I checked theirs a Chinatown in every major city in North America and Europe. Over 40 million "overseas Chinese." Martial arts, acupuncture, Chinese Traditional medicine, and religion are just afew things besides the retail or food aspects of their culture that you can find if you look. Also, most of the goods they export are demanded needs by the Western market. Most of the things they produce stay inside China, because the population of their market is greater then NA, Europe and Russia combined. Western companies produce and market things specifically for the Chinese, and are only sold in China. For example, the Asian technology is some fields is a couple years ahead of Western technology. When I visited China in 2006, they had 300 cellphones for their market, whereas in North American services offered about 70. I bought a cell phone there that didn't start getting sold here for another two years.

This time I sincerely apologize on going off topic again. This will be the last time I discuss the matter.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: vonklaus on July 20, 2011, 10:02:00 PM
Nothing you says refutes anything I said. There are China towns because they are full of Chinese people, not because there are a bunch of people who want to be like Chinese. I might go eat there or get some knock off crap but Im not moving. Influencing your neighbors shows nothing because the influence goes both ways.

The point I was trying to make before we went off topic of off topic is that some mention that Roman and Greek culture is a joke compared to India and China and my point is that its not. Then somehow it became which culture is better/more influential. Id say when population is put into the equation then Chinese accomplishments seem even smaller, what if Greece had the population and size of china?
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: tigerclawstyle on July 20, 2011, 10:19:19 PM
I apologize if my posts seemed to be trying to convince you the Chinese are superior to the Greek/Roman civilizations. That is definitely not how I wanted my posts to be viewed. I merely wanted to express the fact the Ancient Chinese brought much to this world, just like the Greeks/Romans did. Both civilizations evolved along different lines, but existed at the same time.

Regardless, if you don't consider my views to refute your consensus on modern China and multicultural aspects of mass migration of people/cultures, then that's your opinion. I'm Anglo-Saxon but I value both civilizations equally, even if I really have no lineage to their cultures or histories.

Again, I apologize.

Back on topic please. One thing I'd like to mention is that the original Unthinkable plan had planned to use 100,000 Germans that were POW's. With Germany in ruins and the people recuperating, do you think the Germans would want to get involved in this? I mean if things kicked off right after the German surrender, and the gathering of POW's (separating regular army and SS men) would give a boost to the western forces or would it be a mistake? Anti-Bolshevism was rampant among most of the Germany military.

Another thing we should focus on is what may happen in East and Central Asia more closely. According to Wiki, the Soviets had 1,685,500 men, 26,137 artillery, 1,852 sup. artillery, 5,556 tanks and self-propelled artillery, and 5,368 aircraft. Also need to take into account, the Nationalist's and Communists in China. If anyone can find out a rough estimate of the Anglo-American forces that were being organized for the Invasion of Japan, we might have a clearer idea of what might have happened.

After some research into this, the question I pose is would the Western forces be able to handle both Europe/Asia, and vice versa, the Soviet's ability to fight on opposite sides of the planet?

What is the fundamental breaking point for both forces?

@Otto, off the top of my head, with Soviet production at an all time high during the 40's, my best guess is that they would do what they did eventually in many other proxy wars. Give nationalistic movements, weapons, equipment and try to indoctrinate them as much as possible.

Suez Canal, very crucial part of the Middle East. The crisis their in 1956 almost led to another major war, so it wouldn't be hard to imagine if it would be a flashpoint in Unthinkable. Soviets depend on it just as much as Europe.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on July 21, 2011, 01:24:08 AM
Gentleman, the discussion of the merits of different cultures is interesting. I would suggest that Human civilization is a culmination of all the advances of all the myriad cultural and ethnic groups. Does Attic redware or a Ming vase have anything to do with the Cold War?

After WWII ended the British Colonial Empire rapidly unraveled. Within three years the British Mandate in Palestine was gone. India and Pakistan were independent. Nationalist movements were sprouting up around the world. The Soviets strongly supported the Zionist Independence movement. The British had considerable difficulties in suppressing the Vichy, Arab, and "Aryan" and Socialist interests in the Middle East and Greece. I submit these were all nationalist movements that were concerned less with ideology then they were with getting rid of the British. Muslim Fundamentalism was not an issue. How would the Soviets have taken advantage of these Nationalist movements in the event of Unthinkable. If I were Papa Joe I would have mounted an operation to neutralize the Suez Canal and limitn Anglo/Allied communications between the East and West. Do You think they could do it.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Vast enemy on August 29, 2011, 12:38:26 AM
I would have thought in this situation that IF there was some kind of attack by the allies upon the soviets, the USA would have built up a completely different land army in alaska as well, using the short distance to siberia as a way of getting into Russia with relative ease. thus also drawing Soviet soldiers into an ever-increasingly large front, considering also that the British were also going to attacking from the middle east, the Russians would have been massively stretched to cover all of their flanks. regarding diplomatic movements, i would have thought, like everybody else, that Korea and other Communist states would have immediately sided with the Soviets. But we must remember that in the pacific, the forces there were large and extremely well trained, IE: Marines. Also we have to consider at the time of the attack, airbourne units were being transferred to the pacific for the attack on the Japanese homeland.

It's a tough call, Either side could win. The Soviets have a massive ground presence and power, but we must look at the casulties suffered by the soviets already in the war. the soviets were not innumerable, they lost between 8 million and 10 million in Military deaths alone, and around 23 million including civillians and military altogether. It wouldnt surprise me if the Soviet people rose up against stalin in protest against another world war. The americans and british would most definitely have attacked supply lines and bombed Soviet russia mercilessly, as well as nuking japan and forcing them out of the war.

Myself, i would see it ending in a peace treaty, where neither side wins nor loses. 
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Otto Halfhand on September 11, 2011, 09:32:49 PM
@ Vast enemy: Welcome to the community and the discussion.

The time frame for Operation would not likely have occurred until after the Surrender of the Japanese. I think of it in terms of 1946 to 1950 mysyself. USA and Anzac would be in occupation of Japan and parts of CHina.

The Soviets had occupied Manchuria and the Northern half of Korea, in accordance with the Yalta Agreements.To my knowledge the only Communist States in place at the time would be USSR and Yugoslavia. Mao was still attempting to gain hegemony in China. Korea and the Eastern European States were occupied by USSR but not really Communist States at this time. Possibly the Communist movements among the Western Allied States (USA, GB, Italy and France), would have increased their subversive  activities. India probably had a pro Soviet movement at the time, (I don't really know, but There were Nationalist Indian groups that supported the Japanese and Nazi's. If so they could have formed a thorn in the side of the Commonwealth.

Your ideas of Stretching the Soviets the breaking point seems to me to be the most reasonable strategy. Stalin was certainly alarmed at the prospects of a two front war and Soviet Diplomacy throughout the 30's and 40's reflected this. A three front war? Hmmm! One strategic weakness the Red Army had was in logistical support. USA had sent over 100,000 Studebaker trucks to USSR over the course of WWII. Time and time again I have read German accounts indicating the Soviet operations in the west were curtailed by "supply problems". Presumably USA air operations from CHina, Japan, Alaska and the US Navy would have interdicted the Siberian Rail System. Soviet Operations in the Caucauses would not have been made any easier by these considerations.

Several posters in this thread have mentioned the Nuclear Option. I reject this as a viable method to bring the Soviets to their knees. It is possible that I am biased in this regard having lived through the era of M.A.D. and have a revulsion to the whole concept. However allow me to interject some ideas into this area. What would be the targets of nuclear strikes? Since AAF capabilities of the period were one bomber, one warhead and the flight distance to most targets would be 500-700 miles one way; could the USA really have delivered enough payloads to make this a viable option? From 1945 to 1952 the USA only detonated about 22 nuclear devices IIRC.

There is one area where I am in disagreement with your thoughts Vast enemy. I don't think the Soviet People would have  rebelled against the Stalin regime. In spite of decades of cruel repression by Stalin, the soviet people supported him. I don't know why. Also The history of the Russian, (and Soviet), peoples has shown that they will never ever give up the Motherland without one hell of a fight.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Tankbuster on September 12, 2011, 07:55:28 PM
(I don't really know, but There were Nationalist Indian groups that supported the Japanese and Nazi's. If so they could have formed a thorn in the side of the Commonwealth.




Otto 213 what you say was actually British propaganda. Indian nationalist groups never supported the ideas or practices of the Japanese or the Nazis. They merely viewed them as a tool to facilitate an end to British dominance.
Title: Re: Operation Unthinkable...
Post by: Mad hatters in jeans on September 13, 2011, 02:08:56 PM
sure the russians had bigger armies at the end of ww2, but supplying and keeping those armies fit for service is quite another thing.
it would probably have ended in a bloody stalemate.