What if the Western allies invaded the Soviets

Discussion in 'Historical Events Coffee House' started by Vladimir Korchevsky, Feb 21, 2011.

?

Who would win?

Soviets 0 vote(s) 0.0%
British and Americans 7 vote(s) 36.8%
Stalemate 12 vote(s) 63.2%
Page 1 of 2

  1. Vladimir Korchevsky New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After WWII Churchill planned Operation Unthinkable, a plan to use all of the Western Allies' (US, UK, Canada, France) forces to to a massive pincer to encircle the soviets and topple the Communist regime. The soviets had more than 2 million troops and more than 20,000 tanks and artillery but an obsolete supply chain and a low level of mechanization. The western Allies had less than 1.5 million troops and 10,000 tanks and artillery and a complicated chain of command, but were completely mechanized and likely to have complete air and naval superiority.

    Who would win?
    Vladimir Korchevsky, Feb 21, 2011
    #1

  2. BlackDragon Active Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I thin that if the was a war between the Western allies and the Soviet, it would end in a Statement, or maybe the Soviet, gaining all of Germany. The problem with a war between the two this that the Soviet would be able to push out the allies out of Germany, and maybe get a foot hold in France with the Superior man power. but due to there lack of navy, the West could continually perform hit and run tactics on the Soviets, maybe even getting a foothold in Asia. The War would be long and bloody, and after World War two, the public of both sides would not support it, and the war would end.
    BlackDragon, Feb 21, 2011
    #2

  3. Kenaz Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Canada
    If such an Operation was undertaken, putting aside the issues of public opposition, I believe that all of the Allies working together would be able to take Moscow and overthrow the Soviet Union. The USSR's position was relatively weak in 1945, especially compared to the massive, mostly untapped American reserves in manpower and war economy. American Nuclear Weapons could also swing the conflict towards an allied victory.
    Kenaz, Feb 21, 2011
    #3

  4. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    I think the main thing their is 'public oposition', you must remember that in WW2 and a little after it, most westerners still saw the Soviet Union/USSR as nation/peoples who shared equal hardships and fought the same enemy, brothers in arms in a sort of way. In America Stalin was still 'Uncle Stalin'.

    Howerver, if for some magical reason this did happen, i think it would be a stalemate because, yes, the westerners were superior in mobilisation and so on, but the people of the east Europe(mainly slavs) fought a much more intense WW2 in terms of emotionaly and the hatres and resentment against the germans, and therefor the superior resistance which existed in WW2, would easily be transefered to another enemy. Thus, The west woul be oficialy wining on paper and gaining ground, but with terrible consecuences(excuse my spelling) and would eventualy not be able to keep pushing the front and hold down the resistance in occupied territories. i.e. most of their victories would be pyrrhic victories which would lead to a withdrawl or something of the sort.

    Anyway, we will never really know, we can only estimate what would happen, but as history tells us, anything can change drasticaly in a split second and happen to the complete opposite of the logical assumption/prediction.
    lukakiwi, Feb 22, 2011
    #4

  5. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    Soviets would run em over in europe (Superior quipment, man power, tactics, logistics etc.), but in long term it would be a stalemate bechose USSR has no way to atack over seas, in witch West is far supperior.

    Realisticly speaking and taking all factors together allies would "loose" probably from inside (protests etc.) Military vise neighter will win/loose nor economicly. Moraly west could loose.

    US: Strong economy & navy, safe out of harms way, good all around
    UK: Strong navy, terrible economy & infantry
    USSR: Superior ground forces (Tactics, man power, equipment, logistics) Superior air force, Terrible navy
    (France?) Good realtions with USSR (Not joining the war)

    Invasion of USSR is madness. USSR has now more gear (Tanks, planes etc.) than all sides of actual WW2 combined. They will have the morale witch allies wont. Germans in 1941 were also much stronger than allies right after WW2 and we all know what happend to them.
    D3adtrap, Feb 22, 2011
    #5

  6. SMX11FOX Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I think it is a bit harsh to say that the UK has 'terrible' infantry, I think the correct term would be lacks manpower, but would bring in the likes of the Canada, Australia/New Zealand, India etc into the fight. The allies could and would open many fronts against the USSR and I would expect them to win pretty convincingly as long as the don't commit to a full scale battle and therefore there isn't really any way for the Soviet Union to use their massive numbers to their advantage. As many have said the USSR wouldn't be able to compete on the sea and the country would be starved and crippled.
    SMX11FOX, Feb 22, 2011
    #6

  7. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    The USSR/Sovier union wont be 'starved because sea routes arent its liefeline.
    lukakiwi, Feb 22, 2011
    #7

  8. Kenaz Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Canada
    I agree with this, my prediction was based on a lack of public opposition, and like you say, we can't really know for sure. Many of the specifics of what was going on in the USSR and East Europe at that time are not known.
    Kenaz, Feb 22, 2011
    #8

  9. nickb2049 New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the war started right after WW2, I think it would most likely be a stalemate or possibly an allied victory. The Russians had more men and tanks, however the allies had better artillery, a better navy, and most importantly a superior air force. WW2 proved that air superiority was the key to a successful campaign, and US and UK planes and bombers out classed their Russian counterparts. In the end, the Allies would be able to starve the Russians out and force the war to an end.
    nickb2049, Feb 22, 2011
    #9

  10. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    However, The Soviet's relied on allied resources to fuel their war machine, so without that influx of resources it is easy to conceive they would not be able to keep up their pace of production....

    Further, the made earlier on the quality of Russian leadership and tactical advantages are pretty misguided. Zhukov was little more then a butcher, who put his own ambitions and desires to remain in Stalin's favor ahead of military and strategic interests. There were some good Russian generals for sure, but on the whole their tactics were relatively simple, and would easily be countered (as the Germans had time and time again).
    pedro3131, Feb 22, 2011
    #10

  11. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap

    Superrior air force? SUPPERIOR airforce??????? Are you fucking kidding? Soviets had more planes than all sides that fought WW2 COMBINED! Allied military victory in europe is RIDICULOUS. Please, PLEASE read my previous comment. (For fucks sake)


    WRONG. Have you forgotten Soviets campaings in 1943-45? They steam rolled over germans. Now we are not talking about infirrior army that relies on masses to win, now we are talking about army that is not only huge, but quality of gear and men is beyond our imagination. In D-Day while US and UK landed in normandy Russians launched all out offencive that would kill four times their casualties. And in 1941 germans had multiple advantages: Total suprise, most soviets there were not loyal to region, they had poor equipment and they didnt have any sort of deploytment, and US army has none of these atvantages.
    D3adtrap, Feb 23, 2011
    #11

  12. nickb2049 New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1) is the language really necessary? 2) If quantity of planes is the determining factor, then the Japaneses should have destroyed the US. And the Germans should have won the Battle of Britain.

    The Russian Yak 3 was basically the only fighter that was capable of fighting the allies. The allies also had better bombers, from fighter bombers to high level bombers. Also the quality of the Russian planes were not great. Yes the Russians were producing large numbers of planes, but they were arriving on the front with major issues, like engines that were way under powered from what they should be, as well as welds and plywood coming apart in high speed maneuvers. Also, Russian fighters were very limited in range since they could not carry a lot of fuel. This also limited how long a pilot could engage an enemy before returning to his base.
    nickb2049, Feb 23, 2011
    #12

  13. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Quantity of planes doesn't equate to air superiority... And the allies had way more bombers and a better integrated comand between the ground and air forces.

    The Soviets didn't steamroll over the Germans. Those campaigns were basically that of attrition, with a few Russian generals committing a few brilliant maneuvers.

    And what battles during that period were the soviet's inflicting four times the casualties?

    Kursk, last major German offensive - Soviet's had twice as many troops, almost twice as many tanks, lost almost four times as many troops, and almost 10 times as many tanks...

    Fall 43 - Winter 44 -
    Lower Dniepper Offensive - Soviets had twice as many men, and depending on whose casualty estimates you believe the soviets had either slightly more or four times as many casualties as the Germans.
    Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket - Manstein fought a brilliant delaying action against Zhukov who had over 5 times the manpower, four times as many tanks, and suffered over three times as many casualties...

    Summer 44 -
    Crimean offensive - no reliable data on german unit composition but it's safe to say they were heavily outnumbered... German casaulties 65k, russian 84k (by Russian sources)
    Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive - (Lead by one of the best Soviet generals) Soviets had 100k more men, many times more AFV's and guns... Soviets suffered twice as many casualties
    Belorussian Offensive - (Zhukov) Soviets had over twice as many men, 23 times as many tanks, 12 times as many guns, 8 times as many planes. Suffered over twice as many casualties.
    Battle of the Tannenburg line - Soviets had 6 times as many men 21 times as many guns, 11 times as many aircraft, suffered 18 times as many casualties
    Jassy-Kishinev offensive - Soviets had 3 times as many men, 7 times as many guns, 11 times as many tanks... Mostly Romanian troops on the German side. The Soviets actually came ahead on this one, counting pow's by a 3:1 ratio.
    Debrecen Offensive - Soviets had 3 times as many men, suffered 3 times as many casualties
    Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive - Soviets had almost 2 times as many men, 8 times as many tanks, 10 times as many guns, 6 times as many planes, over twice as many casualties

    JAN-MAR 45
    Vistula-Oder Offensive - Soviets had over 4 times the manpower, Soviets lost half the number of troops the Germans had deployed to the theater, reliable German numbers unavailable.
    East Pomeranian Offensive - Soviets had 996k deployed, German numbers unavailable. Soviets had 234k casualties while the Germans had 49k including pows.
    East Prussian Offensive - (By this time the Germans didn't have any good troops left, and most of the good German generals had been relieved by Hitler, or moved to the west) Soviets had almost three times as many troops, Suffered almost 100k more casualties
    Vienna Offensive - Soviets had four full strength armies, Germans had one understrength army. Equal casualties, forced Germans to surrender the remainder of the army (not this was right before the overall German surrender).
    Finally the battle of Berlin - Soviets had almost three times the manpower, over three times the planes, over four times the guns, over three times the casualties....

    So by my count the "beyond my imagination" superior soviet forces really only came out on top once, and even then wasn't at the 4:1 ratio you purported. For the record the Germans lost 5.178 million in the Eastern front. The soviets lost 10.651 million. The Soviets had 5.28 million troops captured, while the Germans lost 5.45 million troops captured, including the troops that surrendered at the end of the war.
    pedro3131, Feb 23, 2011
    #13

  14. Vladimir Korchevsky New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Soviets like the germans had a few good tactical support air planes and a ton of them but had an ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE strategic bomber fleet, horrible commanders, weak fighters, and poor logistics. The allies had vast experience in all categories:

    Fighters
    P-51 and P-47 the best land based fighters of the war
    Achieved a 12:1 fighter kill ratio for its pilots
    Gained total air supremacy over most of the world

    Tactical
    Completely annihilated the french infrastructure in prep for D-day
    Neutralized most of the German positions and armor before D-day
    Had thousands of armor kills in the first months after D-day

    Strategic
    8th Air Force had created the idea of strategic bombing
    Was the largest bomber force on the planet
    Had supreme aircraft and equipment
    If the war was right after WWII then would have B-29's the most advanced aircraft of the 40's
    Superior tactics and Commanders like Curtis LeMay and Hap Arnold

    Production
    On a scale from 1 to 10 the Allies aircraft quality are at a reasonable 8 or 9. The soviets are at a 4 or 5.
    Allied production is a 6 or 7. Soviets are a 7 or 8
    Multiply the quality and quantity and the Allies win at a minimum of 48 to 40. If you add tactics, commanders, and logistics then the scores are about 60 to 50 Allies.
    Vladimir Korchevsky, Feb 23, 2011
    #14

  15. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    I have to give credit to you guys, you actualy have me convinced. *Clap* *Clap*

    Soviets wont steam roll allies, but I highly doubth allies would be able to defeat soviets in europe. Now remember that soviets have deploytment done and are MUCH stronger than in summer 1941. And germans had better quality army overall and look what happend to them.
    To defeat enemy you have to eighter take their land or crush their willingness to fight. In case of USSR you wont ever take the land, ever. You would need so many troops that no army up to this date has such numbers. And Soviets have very high morale to fight; Not only west will be seen as traitorous back stabbers - as germans- but convinces people that west is enemy of all soviets. And if that doesnt convince you, there is machineguns behind your back to shoot you. If I would be soldier it would be easy decision for me.

    Take to account also that US nor UK is never faced with casualties they would be about to take. Would it be early Vietnam, in witch people demand to end the war? Probably. Remember that Soviets are seen as ally by the common people.

    Realisticly speaking USSR cant be defeated if its just US & UK, but USSR cant defeat allies.
    Military vise Allies have a chance.
    This would be just another Korea.
    D3adtrap, Feb 24, 2011
    #15

  16. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Thats what i said earlier, in a bit more detail
    lukakiwi, Feb 24, 2011
    #16

  17. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    The allues would win in the end if this happened immediately following the end of WWII. The Allies wo;uld have been able to invade from Asia, India, and Western Europe. Also, you have to take into consideration, that at this time, although the Soviets were researching nuclear weapons, America was the only country that posessed them. That would play a big part. Also, it would be relatively easy for the allies to use propaganda to turn the people against Stalin. Also, the Russian navy was non-existent, and their air force was crappy at the time, meaning the allies would own the skies and the sea, and would likely to be able to blockade anywhere they could. While the soviets had more men, the americans haad put into the development of the T-29 Perhing tank, which could at least be a match for the soviet tanks, especially with the help they would be getting from the air, and America's economy was booming, and they would easily outproduce the soviets as far as tanks artillery and aircraft go. In the end, after a few years, thhe soviets would be forced to give in and the allies would defeat the communist regime.
    slydessertfox, Feb 25, 2011
    #17

  18. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap


    Strongly dissagree.

    1. They cant atack from india -.-' There is afghanistan in between
    2. Nuclear weapons would be totaly useless considering you literaly cant use them (Would you bomb your enemies on your allys soil? And you wouldnt ever be able to get your planes anywear near important cities to bomb)
    3. Air force crappy? Soviet bombers flew 300 meteres above germans and could operate in winter - when germans couldnt, not to mention overwhelming numbers and IL- 2's
    4. T-34's will blast away any Allied tanks you put against them
    5. "In the end, after a few years, thhe soviets would be forced to give in and the allies would defeat the communist regime." Considering germans were much stronger than allies in begining of barbarossa thats unlickely. And would be totaly impossible in Allies wont hold out in europe - witch I highly doubth.
    6. Germans blocked all soviet ports during entire war, didnt change a single thing
    7. Soviets will put legendary AK-47's into production, like name says in 1947. Allied military has nothing to combat this beast

    You are just being blinded by patriotism. You cant win if you dont atack and now lets assume you magicaly can get russians pushed back to their borders, what not? Invasions of russia have ALL lead to chatastrofy and for a good reason: In Ukrainian steps its as hot as in africa. Treeles area, no rivers nothing. Then you have faumous General winter. None of your tanks would survive that, fuel and men will freaze. And between them you have mud seasons that could literaly stop all logistics on tracks. Whole artillery batteries would be sunk in mud. To win a war you have to eighter take enemy land, or crush willingness to resist. Look at USSR, you could fit USA in it over four times. Taking and holding that land would requare tens of millions and we are not including men who will be needed to fight at front lines. So only one option is left and it is very far away too. Anyone who is not fully commited to the war has now bullet in his neck and none in USSR have a single doubth that they could defeat Allies - like they defeated germans.

    Monglos, Turks, Swedes, French & Germans all have tried to invade Russia, whit horrific consequenses. Why would you be any diferent?
    D3adtrap, Feb 25, 2011
    #18

  19. Crusher949 Active Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    717
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Location:
    Bloomington, IL, U.S. of A.
    okay if i'm correct there was practically nothing from Stalingrad to their eastern border thanks to their scorched earth policy, while we could easily invade the western shores (america) and keep invading from the east. yes they didn't roll over the Germans, actually, they lost over 1 million men, if thats a steam roll then Ive been wrong for a while. and because you had superior fighter numbers, we were developing rocket aircraft, and our B-12(?) super fortresses had 12 machine guns and one could take down a few Germans and maybe then some. They would have lost, throwing one million men away is a fail steamroll and throwing countless crappy tanks and some OK fighters would doubtfully have stopped america and england.
    Crusher949, Feb 25, 2011
    #19

  20. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    I must say that this is an impresive post, bravo. But you must admit the fight would very close especialy if the Allies attacked before 1947 and the famous AK 47.
    lukakiwi, Feb 25, 2011
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

Facebook: