Operation Unthinkable...

[vonklaus]

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.

[neosdark]

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

[vonklaus]

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.

[RedGuard]

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

[neosdark]

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.

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[neosdark]

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

[RedGuard]

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

[Tankbuster]

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.

[neosdark]

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.

[RedGuard]

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

[neosdark]

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)

[Cranialwizard]

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

Just supporting your point

[RedGuard]

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.

[tigerclawstyle]

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.