sabaton_

Operation "Unthinkable", yes it was unthinkable

199 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

 

Let us consider the military scenario, and not how plausible it actually was. How plausible it actually was is immaterial for the moment since, as you pointed out, it didn't happen and there was no real drive for it (Russian logistics and infrastructure were already in ruins as was).

 

Sorry, but there's a reason why Sun Tzu - who said that the greatest form of generalship was to win without fighting - is thousands of years old whereas all of the silly alt-history fads are just thirty years old. Politics in fact trump warfare. Most wars should not have been fought to begin with.

 

Moreover the Soviet logistical system wasn't in ruins. Quite stretched, yes. But if it was in ruins then Berlin wouldn't have fallen. Meanwhile farther East the Soviets had already begun rebuilding Ukraine in 1944 and they had captured large German chemical and other industries in Poland. You're way overstating the effect of Lend-Lease which in any case had dropped significantly in 1945 but the Soviets reached Berlin anyway (it was '43-'44 when Lend Lease was really vital); in order to support your fantasy of the vastly outnumbered Allies somehow defeating the Soviet armies despite having zero political will and you ignoring the fact that most of the Western Allies ammunition has to first cross an ocean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, szepol said:


Polish People's Army couldn't be considered as a real Soviet ally. Poland was betrayed by Western Allies, they just left us (I am a Pole) because untill it was too late they treated Stalin as "Uncle Joe", especially Roosvelt who never understood war in Europe. In fact Poland was treated worse than Germany after war. We lost big part of our land, were forced to adopt communism, never got any war reparations and moreover our land was looted by Red Army, when Germans got their Marshall Plan (look how powerful they are now). People who fought against III Reich were hunted by NKVD and executed because they were also willing to fight with new invader and they remembered about Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, it's sometimes said that we were in war until late 1950's because many polish soldiers were hiding in woods till after Stalin died. So I can't calmly read about Poland allied with USSR. Stalin was aware of it and in soviets strategy Polish Forces were designated to be cannon fodder followed by Red Army so they couldn't retreat. Stalin never trusted Poles  so he even commanded to execute polish devoted communists from Communist Party of Poland.

Summarizing "Unthinkable" was polish dream that never came true.

.

 

The Polish People's Army fought a very large number of battles and many of its members became the leaders of communist Poland. There was a great deal of white-washing of their efforts after communism fell, which was revenge of the Free Polish Forces in the West since they too were marginalized by the Polish People Army when communism reigned in Poland. Basically who the heroes are just change depending on the political climate.

 

Also, again, everything the Soviets did in Poland? It was done with the explicit approval of the British, with Churchill as a signatory. Roosevelt pressed for a democratic Poland to the very end (he died before Poland really became an issue in fact). The idea he sold you out was American right-wing fanfiction. Churchill signed an actual agreement with Stalin agreeing that Poland be communist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RohmMohc said:

side note: Stalin also kept his armies waiting unitl after the Warsaw Uprising...

 

Not really. There were actually several Soviet attempts to breakthrough prior to the Warsaw Uprising - which were all repulse bloodily by the Germans. By the time the Uprising started the Soviet armies were really in no shape to continue advancing. 

 

The idea that Stalin "allowed" the Uprising to be destroyed also conveniently forgets that even the Western allies thought that it was a very bad idea but the Poles went ahead and did it anyway. Add Cold War and anti-communist parochialism and you have the Warsaw Uprising Myth which conveniently blames the Soviets for everything even though they had very little to do with what happened.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sarin said:

 

So, the towel I take it...

 

Pity. I actually enjoy debating the "hot" topics. And we're still a bit topical, I was initially responding to claim that the Unthinkable would lead to more deaths than Cold War, a claim I see as wrong, since Cold War, in addition to the casualties caused by both sides meddling into affairs of third parties and creating proxy wars, gave wide berth to spread of communism, which has proven itself to be most genocidal ideology in history...even excluding deaths due to WWII, just two most powerful communist leaders are responsible for roughly 60-100 milion deaths, exceeding WWII's death toll.

 

Anyway, if you change your mind, I'll be here tomorrow to discuss this further. Right now I'm going off...

 

Lol, Unthinkable would have led to fewer casualties because the Western Allies would have found themselves overrun in short order even if the soldiers had decided to fight. It is fantasy to think the Western Allies could have won against 4:1 odds with a supply route going over an entire ocean.

 

A couple of nukes would have been dropped - likely on German or even French soil because the bombers cannot necessarily reach the Soviet Union due to range issues - but initial atom bomb production would not have been enough to wipe out the Soviet armies.

 

So the result would have been all of continental Europe under Soviet domination, Britain and America in chaos because their governments had attacked allies with very high popular support among their population, and with people nowadays discussing how Democracy just breeds treacherous leaders who betray allies. 

 

Really, people need to take their anti-communist fanfiction somewhere other than a history discussion. Defeating the Soviet Union was virtually off the table as far as Unthinkable was concerned. Quoting a bunch of Lend-Lease figures without realizing the bulk of it was already delivered in '43 and '44 (with much-decreased deliveries in '45) goes to show they have no idea what the real military situation was in 1945.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys what is going on? I made this thread to discuss the early cold war and the possible engagements over Europe, not to discuss politics. 

Remember the rules:

1.1.21. Any form of political or religious discussion liable to cause dissent.

 

Last warning guys, I don't wanna punish you, but if I have to, I will do it without mercy.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The b29 would be able to reach Soviet cities and the soviets had no mass produced planes that could even hope to reach it.  

 

Besides the b29 there was also the b32 that was entering service.  Both of those could hit Soviet cities

 

This is directed to @Zinegata

Edited by fufubear
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, fufubear said:

The b29 would be able to reach Soviet cities and the soviets had no mass produced planes that could even hope to reach it.  

 

Besides the b29 there was also the b32 that was entering service.  Both of those could hit Soviet cities

 

This is directed to @Zinegata

 

In theory, yes. In practice - doubtful because the plane has to go over an awful lot of land where it could be spotted before reaching a target, and for most of that route it would be without fighter cover. 

 

Also, no Soviet plane could reach it? The Mig-3 from 1940 could reach it with a service ceiling of 12,000 meters. The Soviets didn't do high-altitude battles very much in WW2 but it didn't mean their planes couldn't reach that high.

 

Heck if you wait until mid-1946 the Soviets already get a jet in the form of the Mig-9. The B32 by contrast is also another prop plane with a ceiling similar to the B29.

 

Much more likely - and much safer for the bomber - is to drop atom bombs on Germany right on the Soviet tanks. Problem is that there weren't very many of them yet in 1945.

Edited by Zinegata
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mig 3 does not have the climb and is too slow.  Japanese planes had trouble intercepting b29s and the recon versions were virtually immune so why the soviets be any different with planes that were worse at altitude?

 

Then they would have to worry about US fighter sweeps that would operate from bases they couldn't hit.  The Soviet airforce would not be able to stop and bombing campaign from the west.

 

The first mig 9 was not very good and by 1946 you can add the b36 peacemaker.

 

Forgot to mention that we are also not considering escort fighters like the p47n which was created to escort b29s deep into enemy airspace.

Edited by fufubear
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zinegata said:

The Polish People's Army fought a very large number of battles and many of its members became the leaders of communist Poland. There was a great deal of white-washing of their efforts after communism fell, which was revenge of the Free Polish Forces in the West since they too were marginalized by the Polish People Army when communism reigned in Poland. Basically who the heroes are just change depending on the political climate.


You're right but only partially, because situation with Polish People's Army is more for a book than forum. Since sabaton_ warned about politics I'll stop here.

Back to main topic Soviets could be beaten but not using tanks. Western allies had technical, economical, naval and air supremacy. Soviets had large land forces but they were mostly poorly trained. Most important, but very often forgotten fact is that USSR is not Russia alone. It consisted from about 100 ethnic groups, many (majority?) of them were willing to be independent and when played it correctly allies could make huge use of it. For example Wehrmacht was warmly welcomed on Ukraine because for them soviets were the enemy. Playing the cards correctly could guarantee the succes, but there was short window of opportunity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, fufubear said:

I've heard he figured class war would eventually happen and maybe some of that other stuff you mentioned would happen but not that it wold be carried out continously. The way I've learned it is that eventually the lower class would get tired of being on the bottom and revolt and in the end things such as private property are given up for equality across the board.  It's an idea for a perfect world not the world we live in.

 

Marx essentially didn't take greed into account. Sarin is correct. It's a theory for a perfect world where leaders are incorruptible, but not this one.

 

11 hours ago, Sarin said:

 

There you are totally wrong. Communism is, in its principles, dead wrong. Quite often literally.

 

Compared to democratic republic, because communism is as much political ideology as economical, communist principles don't account for human nature. There isn't system of checks and balances to limit corruption, nor does it value the ability of leaders to perform their role, instead the main measure of man is the percieved loyalty to the communist ideals.

 

Communism doesn't value individual lives. The essential doctrine of communism is to shape the people and entire world to its ideal, by force if seen as necessary. Whatever doesn't fit, cut it away. Planned economy, an essential aspect of communism, is its embodiment. Other flaws aside, it doesn't have the flexibility to deal with unforseen and unforeseeable, instead it tries to set the way how the leaders think it should be...and after all, in communism, people are secondary to the ideal. So what if some die, because the agricultural region is supposed to be, in minds of leaders, industrial region, and can't feed itself during the transition. It's no coincidence that most destructive famines in history were caused by communism.

 

And the communist "utopia" is nothing beautiful either, if you look at it critically. It lacks driving force. Be honest. Would you really get up in the morning and go to work, if you know that you'd get the same amount of resources even if you stay at home? Would you really spend eight, ten, twelve hours a day to invent new things, make art, try hard and harder to really achieve something great, if you knew that it won't make a difference in your life compared to spending half of that time doing common labour. It's the human nature. We're not inherently absolutely selfless beings, quite the opposite. Marx realized that, and he realized that the only way to overcome that is to remove everyone who doesn't fit the ideal. Everyone who thinks different. Everyone who is individual. To essentially braniwash people to become mindless automatons, because that's what we'd be without our hopes, dreams, aspirations, differences, everything that makes us individuals...because individualism is incompatible with communist "utopia".

 

Bottom line. Communism is flawed from beginning to end. The ideals are flawed. The execution is flawed to the point where it's wide open for corruption and incompetence, and thus inherently degrades into despotism. The end, the utopia, is actually a dystopia.

 

As in the Soviet Union, from the moment of the inception of the USSR in late 1917 it was designed to function as an autocratic state of a "dictatorship over the people." Which is why Lenin relentlessly purged all of his enemies after deciding that the "people" needed a "guiding hand". Otherwise, when you had the earliest soviets in 1917 after the feb revolution, technically that was the ideal of communism.

 

4 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

Moreover the Soviet logistical system wasn't in ruins. Quite stretched, yes. But if it was in ruins then Berlin wouldn't have fallen. Meanwhile farther East the Soviets had already begun rebuilding Ukraine in 1944 and they had captured large German chemical and other industries in Poland. You're way overstating the effect of Lend-Lease which in any case had dropped significantly in 1945 but the Soviets reached Berlin anyway (it was '43-'44 when Lend Lease was really vital); in order to support your fantasy of the vastly outnumbered Allies somehow defeating the Soviet armies despite having zero political will and you ignoring the fact that most of the Western Allies ammunition has to first cross an ocean.

 

See Sev's post earlier about lend lease. I sincerely doubt that the Soviets would have been able to push too much further, and again, they had no way of properly interdicting allied supplies. Then there's the issue that nearly half of all structures in the Soviet Union had been leveled--to the point that the Soviet Union looted East Germany's infrastructure to repair its own--and that Soviet industrial and agricultural output didn't reach pre-war levels until the 1960s.

 

They may have outnumbered the allies nearly 3:1, however I think you sorely underestimate the effect of Lend-lease upon the Soviet war-effort. Additionally, you're dodging the question by referencing Sun-Tzu. Which begs the question of why you're so invested in all this if you're deriding it as "alt-history silliness."

Edited by Nomad_Gaming
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fufubear said:

Mig 3 does not have the climb and is too slow.  Japanese planes had trouble intercepting b29s and the recon versions were virtually immune so why the soviets be any different with planes that were worse at altitude?

 

Then they would have to worry about US fighter sweeps that would operate from bases they couldn't hit.  The Soviet airforce would not be able to stop and bombing campaign from the west.

 

The first mig 9 was not very good and by 1946 you can add the b36 peacemaker.

 

Forgot to mention that we are also not considering escort fighters like the p47n which was created to escort b29s deep into enemy airspace.

 

Mig 3 doesn't have the climb? Like I said its top ceiling is 12,000 meters. By contrast the Ki-45 - which is one of the few Japanese planes to score kills on the B-29 - has a ceiling of 10,000 meters. Mig 3 has a top speed of 640 kph, which is well over the 574 kph of the B29. And note that the K-45 has a speed of only 540 kph and one of them was still able to ram a B-29 outright.

 

We can play these stat games all day, but the idea that the Soviets couldn't intercept B-29s is very wrong. They were statistically very easily able to kill the B29 and were superior to Japanese planes that did kill B-29s in the real war.

 

The issue with Japan is that they had very weak fighter cover over the Home Islands to begin with, and almost no early warning due to the fact that the B-29s were crossing over mostly open ocean. The B-29 loss rate in Japan was in fact minimal regardless if it flew high or it flew very low - because of the lack of Japanese early warning and a lack of fighters. The Japanese planes themselves - despite being inferior to the Soviet designs - were in fact capable of intercepting if they were lucky enough to find the B-29s early enough. 

 

Interception in fact has very little to do with stats and more to do with early warning and good fighter direction. That you have to fly over 1,200 km from Berlin to Moscow over ground - where there would be plenty of spotters on the ground - is what makes the mission so bad. It would be detected early and would have to fight its way to Moscow. Worse, you're ignoring the fact that the P-47 can't even reach Moscow from Berlin (which is deep within the Soviet zone already). The P-51 might be able to do it but it would be on very short legs by the time it does so. 

 

The only mission that doesn't end up being stupid is an atom bomb run on Leningrad - all you need to do is to fly over the Baltic and ignore Sweden getting angry over using its airspace to mass-murder tens of thousands of Soviet citizens who had just endured years of siege. But hey, this scenario already presumes a Western Alliance that has gone completely insane and is willing to backstab a former ally. What's the death of tens of thousands more civilians all in the name of imaginary communism fears that hadn't even stoked until ten years after the war?

Edited by Zinegata
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, szepol said:


You're right but only partially, because situation with Polish People's Army is more for a book than forum. Since sabaton_ warned about politics I'll stop here.

Back to main topic Soviets could be beaten but not using tanks. Western allies had technical, economical, naval and air supremacy. Soviets had large land forces but they were mostly poorly trained. Most important, but very often forgotten fact is that USSR is not Russia alone. It consisted from about 100 ethnic groups, many (majority?) of them were willing to be independent and when played it correctly allies could make huge use of it. For example Wehrmacht was warmly welcomed on Ukraine because for them soviets were the enemy. Playing the cards correctly could guarantee the succes, but there was short window of opportunity.

 

If we assume the Western Powers were united and ready for war, then the Soviets were certainly at a disadvantage. The problem is that they were less willing to continue any war compared to the Soviets. Churchill was literally about to be booted out of office by the time he cooked up Unthinkable, to be replaced by Atlee who was a socialist and who was sensitive to the British people who were 80% supportive of the Soviets. The Americans were even more supportive of the Soviets at the popular support level. 

 

People nowadays really prefer to think of Stalin as the villain, but in reality most of the bad press about him only came to light in the 1960s - and mostly because Kruschev denounced him. There wasn't a huge internal revolt that was simmering in the Soviet Union in 1945. The revolt did happen anyway - with scattered fighting in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe - but it was very much just a low-intensity conflict that had more to do with disarming partisans than a real and concerted effort to depose Stalin. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

 

See Sev's post earlier about lend lease. I sincerely doubt that the Soviets would have been able to push too much further, and again, they had no way of properly interdicting allied supplies. Then there's the issue that nearly half of all structures in the Soviet Union had been leveled--to the point that the Soviet Union looted East Germany's infrastructure to repair its own--and that Soviet industrial and agricultural output didn't reach pre-war levels until the 1960s.

 

They may have outnumbered the allies nearly 3:1, however I think you sorely underestimate the effect of Lend-lease upon the Soviet war-effort. Additionally, you're dodging the question by referencing Sun-Tzu. Which begs the question of why you're so invested in all this if you're deriding it as "alt-history silliness."

 

Yes, and like I said Sev is ignoring the fact most of that stuff was already delivered in 1943 and 1944. The Americans in fact scaled back deliveries in 1945 but the Soviets reached Berlin anyway. As noted in Walter Dunn's "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army", this was because the Soviets in fact began demobilizing the Red Army as early as 1944 to start rebuilding Ukraine and all of the recaptured areas. Sev's assessment basically ignores the reality that Russians already had a year to rebuild at least some of their infrastructure.

 

I am not sorely underestimating the effect of Lend Lease - indeed it's quite apparent I am more informed about the shipment details than you or Sev ever were. And the stark reality is that it does not support your narrative. Most of the food for instance had already been delivered early on - it was declared legal "non-combat" goods by the Japanese which is why it was allowed to be shipped unmolested through Vladivostok. The food, along with British tanks and planes shipped through Murmansk, were the important items in the first couple of shipments.

 

The trucks meanwhile - the important bit to getting to Berlin - were delivered primarily through the Iran route in '44. Before then the route was mainly used to ship hand-me-down tanks from 8th Army like the M3 Grant, which the Soviets hated until they got brand-new M4 Shermans which they adored.


So how exactly were the Soviets incapable of mounting offensives without Lend Lease when they did so in 1943 before most of the US trucks had arrived? Stalingrad happened in mid-1942, Kursk in mid-1943, and the liberation of most of Ukraine in late 1943. The reality is that the Soviets had plenty of organic offensive power on their own, and that Lend-Lease supplemented it rather than completely powered it. That Lend-Lease, even in the most generous Western assessments, accounted for only 1/5 of the Soviet economy should really demonstrate the silliness of Sev's assertion that it's the only thing that enabled Soviet victory. It seems he just doesn't like admitting the other 4/5 matters because he's too biased against the Soviets, which is a common thread whenever the Unthinkable scenario is brought up.

 

Meanwhile you're pretty much ignoring that the Western Allies supply line stretched over an ocean, which resulted in the US Army - despite their country producing more oil than everyone else combined - needing to halt several times in late 1944 due to gas shortages. Supplies didn't exactly appear with the wave of a wand on the Allied side either.

 

And finally, the reference to Sun Tzu isn't dodging the question. It's questioning your premise that war can be simulated without reference to the political situation. And note that I'm not debating the merits of any political system, but whether or not people at the time were willing to fight and risk their lives. Because they certainly weren't about to start war with the Soviets back in '45 just because somebody in 2016 has fantasies that the Western Allies will roll over the Soviets based on a very, very shallow understanding of what the Lend-Lease shipments consisted of.

 

Real war is not some ideological fantasy. A lot of people will die and a lot of other lives will be ruined. Moreover the "bad guys" are not necessarily bumblers who will obligingly allow themselves to be defeated just because you think they are the "evil" or "on the wrong side of history". That's just the same kind of talk attributed to Hollywood History Commissars.

 

The reality of "winning" Unthinkable is this: If you think the Western Allies could win while attacking despite not having the rule-of-thumb 3:1 numbers advantage - and instead have a 4:1 deficit against them - then you're just being ideologically overconfident to the point of self-destruction. You don't win just because you think you have the more righteous battalions. The other guy think he's righteous too; and in this case justifiably so since the scenario involves the West betraying the Soviets.

Edited by Zinegata
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎28‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 9:01 AM, Dodo_Dud said:

Not quite. West Germany had - after 4 years of occupation - free elections.

Free elections mean nothing if you corrupt them the right way.

 

On ‎28‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 9:01 AM, Dodo_Dud said:

They opted "US" by popular interest.

And because of some dependence and some well played propaganda. Also they got their hands in every important part of Germany's government. Even today many laws give the US incredible rights which show the relation between those two nations until today.

 

The best prison is invisible.

Edited by vikingrGER
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zinegata said:

So how exactly were the Soviets incapable of mounting offensives without Lend Lease when they did so in 1943 before most of the US trucks had arrived? Stalingrad happened in mid-1942, Kursk in mid-1943, and the liberation of most of Ukraine in late 1943. The reality is that the Soviets had plenty of organic offensive power on their own, and that Lend-Lease supplemented it rather than completely powered it. That Lend-Lease, even in the most generous Western assessments, accounted for only 1/5 of the Soviet economy should really demonstrate the silliness of Sev's assertion that it's the only thing that enabled Soviet victory. It seems he just doesn't like admitting the other 4/5 matters because he's too biased against the Soviets, which is a common thread whenever the Unthinkable scenario is brought up.

 

You're both twisting my words and not understanding the overall thrust of my argument. I never said they were incapable of mounting an offensive without lendlease. That's just you reading too much into things to make yourself look good.

1 hour ago, Zinegata said:

Meanwhile you're pretty much ignoring that the Western Allies supply line stretched over an ocean, which resulted in the US Army - despite their country producing more oil than everyone else combined - needing to halt several times in late 1944 due to gas shortages. Supplies didn't exactly appear with the wave of a wand on the Allied side either.

 

And finally, the reference to Sun Tzu isn't dodging the question. It's questioning your premise that war can be simulated without reference to the political situation. And note that I'm not debating the merits of any political system, but whether or not people at the time were willing to fight and risk their lives. Because they certainly weren't about to start war with the Soviets back in '45 just because somebody in 2016 has fantasies that the Western Allies will roll over the Soviets based on a very, very shallow understanding of what the Lend-Lease shipments consisted of.

 

Real war is not some ideological fantasy. A lot of people will die and a lot of other lives will be ruined. Moreover the "bad guys" are not necessarily bumblers who will obligingly allow themselves to be defeated just because you think they are the "evil" or "on the wrong side of history". That's just the same kind of talk attributed to Hollywood History Commissars.

 

And here you're actually putting words into my mouth despite the fact that I never argued much of what you just brought up there. 

 

As was, my overall point was that in the event, the USSR would not have been able to do much to prevent the allies from resupplying. 

 

You and I are talking past each other here. I argued that in the event, the allies would likely have won in the long run, assuming constant supply thanks to Russians not being able to touch industry in the United States, and since they lacked a significant navy with which to perform proper interdiction of overseas supplies.

 

You're arguing that it wouldn't have happened in the first place, which is fine. I understand your point there. However that's not what I was discussing.

 

Real war is not some ideological fantasy. A lot of people will die and a lot of other lives will be ruined. Moreover the "bad guys" are not necessarily bumblers who will obligingly allow themselves to be defeated just because you think they are the "evil" or "on the wrong side of history". That's just the same kind of talk attributed to Hollywood History Commissars.

 

You're now going into the realm of moral props, which is entirely immaterial to the discussion. 

 

a very, very shallow understanding of what the Lend-Lease shipments consisted of

 

Copper, telephone lines, trucks, food stuffs, rail supplies, aircraft, tanks, jeeps, locomotives along with other crucial war industry supplies I haven't listed there. So, what happens if the Soviet Union gets into another total war with another nation which can equal or exceed its industrial output, and is no longer to fully meet supply quotas for crucial industrial supplies like copper, or foodstuffs, etc if industry has to ramp up again? We're also not considering the ability of Allied airstrikes to disrupt Soviet rail supply, in addition to the fact that motorized transport becomes more difficult to replace. Fewer trucks means that advance becomes harder to pull off. Your rail lines constantly being bombed means that your strategic mobility suffers, and your reduction in availability of copper and other materials means that your tanks are now less effective.

 

Far from arguing that the allies would simply roll over the soviets, I'm arguing precisely the opposite: the whole thing would grind into a bloody mess, however without a Soviet ability to disrupt allied transport you're looking at an allied victory in the long run assuming that enough men and materiel can be shipped over on a consistent basis, which isn't guaranteed.

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nomad_Gaming said:

 

You're both twisting my words and not understanding the overall thrust of my argument. I never said they were incapable of mounting an offensive without lendlease. That's just you reading too much into things to make yourself look good.

 

And here you're actually putting words into my mouth despite the fact that I never argued much of what you just brought up there. 

 

As was, my overall point was that in the event, the USSR would not have been able to do much to prevent the allies from resupplying. 

 

You and I are talking past each other here. I argued that in the event, the allies would likely have won in the long run, assuming constant supply thanks to Russians not being able to touch industry in the United States, and since they lacked a significant navy with which to perform proper interdiction of overseas supplies.

 

You're arguing that it wouldn't have happened in the first place, which is fine. I understand your point there. However that's not what I was discussing.

 

 

 

 

You're now going into the realm of moral props, which is entirely immaterial to the discussion. 

 

 

 

 

Copper, telephone lines, trucks, food stuffs, rail supplies, aircraft, tanks, jeeps, locomotives along with other crucial war industry supplies I haven't listed there. So, what happens if the Soviet Union gets into another total war with another nation which can equal or exceed its industrial output, and is no longer to fully meet supply quotas for crucial industrial supplies like copper, or foodstuffs, etc if industry has to ramp up again? We're also not considering the ability of Allied airstrikes to disrupt Soviet rail supply, in addition to the fact that motorized transport becomes more difficult to replace. Fewer trucks means that advance becomes harder to pull off. Your rail lines constantly being bombed means that your strategic mobility suffers, and your reduction in availability of copper and other materials means that your tanks are now less effective.

 

Far from arguing that the allies would simply roll over the soviets, I'm arguing precisely the opposite: the whole thing would grind into a bloody mess, however without a Soviet ability to disrupt allied transport you're looking at an allied victory in the long run assuming that enough men and materiel can be shipped over on a consistent basis, which isn't guaranteed.

 

 

 

 

Considering the non existant soviet fleet i see 0 problems for the 2 biggest navys in the world. Supply would be constantly granted since soviet union would have 0 power on the Atlantic Ocean. Anyway guys here we are discussing how the war would happen, and develop, not the causes of the start.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

Mig 3 doesn't have the climb? Like I said its top ceiling is 12,000 meters. By contrast the Ki-45 - which is one of the few Japanese planes to score kills on the B-29 - has a ceiling of 10,000 meters. Mig 3 has a top speed of 640 kph, which is well over the 574 kph of the B29. And note that the K-45 has a speed of only 540 kph and one of them was still able to ram a B-29 outright.

 

We can play these stat games all day, but the idea that the Soviets couldn't intercept B-29s is very wrong. They were statistically very easily able to kill the B29 and were superior to Japanese planes that did kill B-29s in the real war.

 

The issue with Japan is that they had very weak fighter cover over the Home Islands to begin with, and almost no early warning due to the fact that the B-29s were crossing over mostly open ocean. The B-29 loss rate in Japan was in fact minimal regardless if it flew high or it flew very low - because of the lack of Japanese early warning and a lack of fighters. The Japanese planes themselves - despite being inferior to the Soviet designs - were in fact capable of intercepting if they were lucky enough to find the B-29s early enough. 

 

Interception in fact has very little to do with stats and more to do with early warning and good fighter direction. That you have to fly over 1,200 km from Berlin to Moscow over ground - where there would be plenty of spotters on the ground - is what makes the mission so bad. It would be detected early and would have to fight its way to Moscow. Worse, you're ignoring the fact that the P-47 can't even reach Moscow from Berlin (which is deep within the Soviet zone already). The P-51 might be able to do it but it would be on very short legs by the time it does so. 

 

1. Service ceiling doesn't mean much.  The mig 3 reaches its top speed around 7k while the b29 would fly a little bit higher than that.   Also being a tiny bit faster doesn't help with the b29 because it's radar guided sights would have shredded the Migs.  Japanese pilots had to go about interceptions in a different way to avoid them.

 

2.  The ki45 was poor at intercepting b29s since that's not what it was designed to do.  The ki 45 was designed in the early 40s as a fighter but would later be pressed into the bomber interception role.  Planes like the ki 84 and n1k are the planes that had a real chance at downing b29s.

 

3. Umm Japan did have early warning systems and they were used to warn units of incoming bomber formations (for example the b29 that dropped the nuke was tracked from way out at sea).  The issue is the b29 flies high and fast so downing them is hard.

 

4. But they weren't.  The purpose of the mig 15 was to kill b29s because the fastest plane the Russians had (the La 9) needed something like 10 minutes to get to altitude and then only had a 40 kph top speed advantage.  The soviets had no planes besides some projects that could get the b29 reliably.

 

5. It doesn't matter if it was detected early because escorts and fighter sweeps would make any interception attempt by the soviets costly.

 

6. The p47n had a longer range than the mustang and was faster.

 

Edited by fufubear
Extra note
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

Yes, and like I said Sev is ignoring the fact most of that stuff was already delivered in 1943 and 1944. The Americans in fact scaled back deliveries in 1945 but the Soviets reached Berlin anyway. As noted in Walter Dunn's "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army", this was because the Soviets in fact began demobilizing the Red Army as early as 1944 to start rebuilding Ukraine and all of the recaptured areas. Sev's assessment basically ignores the reality that Russians already had a year to rebuild at least some of their infrastructure.

 

In fact the Red Army did not demobilize but even had to empty its Gulags in 1944 to fill up its infantry formations, also you are ignoring that Lend Lease was delivery on demand, the US delivered what the SU wanted and according to the so called "protocolls" and this was to the end, high octane fuel, tires, locomotives, trucks, copper, aluminium, radios, rail cars, field telephones and field telephone cables. They only scaled down in the Milepost agreement on the 13th of May 1945 and even then still asking for Petroleum in huge masses. The reality was that, there was beside rebuilding the main railway lines not much rebuilding of infrastructure, the reason why the Red Army run out of steam several times.

 

 

9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

I am not sorely underestimating the effect of Lend Lease - indeed it's quite apparent I am more informed about the shipment details than you or Sev ever were. And the stark reality is that it does not support your narrative. Most of the food for instance had already been delivered early on - it was declared legal "non-combat" goods by the Japanese which is why it was allowed to be shipped unmolested through Vladivostok. The food, along with British tanks and planes shipped through Murmansk, were the important items in the first couple of shipments.

Funny....statements, since the convoys of the so called Pacific route between Seattle and Vladivostok where Soviet flagged and crewed, 128 of the ships came from the US being Liberty ships.

The food is even funnnier since the biggest food deliveries happened during the "third protocol" from 1st July 1943 to 30 June 1944 topping all food delieveries before together.

 

 

9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

The trucks meanwhile - the important bit to getting to Berlin - were delivered primarily through the Iran route in '44. Before then the route was mainly used to ship hand-me-down tanks from 8th Army like the M3 Grant, which the Soviets hated until they got brand-new M4 Shermans which they adored.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 


So how exactly were the Soviets incapable of mounting offensives without Lend Lease when they did so in 1943 before most of the US trucks had arrived? Stalingrad happened in mid-1942, Kursk in mid-1943, and the liberation of most of Ukraine in late 1943. The reality is that the Soviets had plenty of organic offensive power on their own, and that Lend-Lease supplemented it rather than completely powered it. That Lend-Lease, even in the most generous Western assessments, accounted for only 1/5 of the Soviet economy should really demonstrate the silliness of Sev's assertion that it's the only thing that enabled Soviet victory. It seems he just doesn't like admitting the other 4/5 matters because he's too biased against the Soviets, which is a common thread whenever the Unthinkable scenario is brought up.

 

Stalingrad and the Operation Uranus happened at November 1942 and not mid 1942, thats when Case Blue started, look how the offensive towards Kharkov in early 43 went......it went out of steam, because of the lack of trucks, railway gauges, locomotives, railway cars, this went so far infantry soldiers hat to carry artillery rounds and such towards the front since the supply system totaly broke down, enabeling v. Mansteins backhand strike. The rest of the first half of 43 was on both sides the build up of forces for Kursk and after Kursk the Soviets still had the problems of their offensives often running out of steam because of lacking logistics and ultimately the exhaustion of both sides. 

Its kinda expected that you still dont get that LL enabled the SU to stay in the war because they delivered what the SU could not produce, could not produce in sufficient numbers and/or in sufficient quality. But yes no one needs in an air war high octane fuel, nor alumuminium for your planes or tanks engines, railway nets with sufficient locomotives and wagons plus the trucks to haul the supplies to the front. Of course not but then you are back at infantry mass attacks and we all know how well they went...., the point is you dont even get is that you can produce as many artillery guns as you want to, it will change nothing if 53% of the explosives for your arty rounds come from LL. Its just another historical topkek that the Red Army in all its profession had to amass in 1944 300 guns per km to achieve breakthroughs after shooting a lot of LL explosives at the enemy while the Germans made such breakthroughs with 22 guns per km. 

So much to sillys assertions on my part, but as in the other thread only hot air and denial is yours.

 

9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

Meanwhile you're pretty much ignoring that the Western Allies supply line stretched over an ocean, which resulted in the US Army - despite their country producing more oil than everyone else combined - needing to halt several times in late 1944 due to gas shortages. Supplies didn't exactly appear with the wave of a wand on the Allied side either.

 

Wich is wrong, the main factor was the Habour and since the Germans destroyed the harbour of Cherbourg their ammount of supplies they could daily bring at land was restricted and it kept this way a long time, with the destruction of one of the mullberry harbours due a storm increasing the problems, hence Montgomery racing towards Antwerpen. 

 

9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

And finally, the reference to Sun Tzu isn't dodging the question. It's questioning your premise that war can be simulated without reference to the political situation. And note that I'm not debating the merits of any political system, but whether or not people at the time were willing to fight and risk their lives. Because they certainly weren't about to start war with the Soviets back in '45 just because somebody in 2016 has fantasies that the Western Allies will roll over the Soviets based on a very, very shallow understanding of what the Lend-Lease shipments consisted of.

As it seems the one with the very, very, very shallow understanging of LL is you as seen above.

9 hours ago, Zinegata said:

 

Real war is not some ideological fantasy. A lot of people will die and a lot of other lives will be ruined. Moreover the "bad guys" are not necessarily bumblers who will obligingly allow themselves to be defeated just because you think they are the "evil" or "on the wrong side of history". That's just the same kind of talk attributed to Hollywood History Commissars.

 

The reality of "winning" Unthinkable is this: If you think the Western Allies could win while attacking despite not having the rule-of-thumb 3:1 numbers advantage - and instead have a 4:1 deficit against them - then you're just being ideologically overconfident to the point of self-destruction. You don't win just because you think you have the more righteous battalions. The other guy think he's righteous too; and in this case justifiably so since the scenario involves the West betraying the Soviets.

Since when do i need a 3:1 numbers advantage to be victorious, further there is no inclination where this myth comes from but it is since ever BS. More likely it refers to having a numbers advantage in the own center of gravity, still such numbers are not needed. More important are training, doctrine, equipment and leadership. If you dont believe it explain the US Pacific campaign, the Japanese-Chino war, Operation Barbarossa, France 1940, the British desert campaign 1940 against the Italians etc. etc.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the talk about nuclear bombs being used, would had Americans used them against targets in countries that they are supposed trying to liberate?

Edited by Sodanjumala
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, _Sev_ said:

 

In fact the Red Army did not demobilize but even had to empty its Gulags in 1944 to fill up its infantry formations, also you are ignoring that Lend Lease was delivery on demand, the US delivered what the SU wanted and according to the so called "protocolls" and this was to the end, high octane fuel, tires, locomotives, trucks, copper, aluminium, radios, rail cars, field telephones and field telephone cables. They only scaled down in the Milepost agreement on the 13th of May 1945 and even then still asking for Petroleum in huge masses. The reality was that, there was beside rebuilding the main railway lines not much rebuilding of infrastructure, the reason why the Red Army run out of steam several times.

 

 

Funny....statements, since the convoys of the so called Pacific route between Seattle and Vladivostok where Soviet flagged and crewed, 128 of the ships came from the US being Liberty ships.

The food is even funnnier since the biggest food deliveries happened during the "third protocol" from 1st July 1943 to 30 June 1944 topping all food delieveries before together.

 

 

 

 

Stalingrad and the Operation Uranus happened at November 1942 and not mid 1942, thats when Case Blue started, look how the offensive towards Kharkov in early 43 went......it went out of steam, because of the lack of trucks, railway gauges, locomotives, railway cars, this went so far infantry soldiers hat to carry artillery rounds and such towards the front since the supply system totaly broke down, enabeling v. Mansteins backhand strike. The rest of the first half of 43 was on both sides the build up of forces for Kursk and after Kursk the Soviets still had the problems of their offensives often running out of steam because of lacking logistics and ultimately the exhaustion of both sides. 

Its kinda expected that you still dont get that LL enabled the SU to stay in the war because they delivered what the SU could not produce, could not produce in sufficient numbers and/or in sufficient quality. But yes no one needs in an air war high octane fuel, nor alumuminium for your planes or tanks engines, railway nets with sufficient locomotives and wagons plus the trucks to haul the supplies to the front. Of course not but then you are back at infantry mass attacks and we all know how well they went...., the point is you dont even get is that you can produce as many artillery guns as you want to, it will change nothing if 53% of the explosives for your arty rounds come from LL. Its just another historical topkek that the Red Army in all its profession had to amass in 1944 300 guns per km to achieve breakthroughs after shooting a lot of LL explosives at the enemy while the Germans made such breakthroughs with 22 guns per km. 

So much to sillys assertions on my part, but as in the other thread only hot air and denial is yours.

 

 

Wich is wrong, the main factor was the Habour and since the Germans destroyed the harbour of Cherbourg their ammount of supplies they could daily bring at land was restricted and it kept this way a long time, with the destruction of one of the mullberry harbours due a storm increasing the problems, hence Montgomery racing towards Antwerpen. 

 

As it seems the one with the very, very, very shallow understanging of LL is you as seen above.

Since when do i need a 3:1 numbers advantage to be victorious, further there is no inclination where this myth comes from but it is since ever BS. More likely it refers to having a numbers advantage in the own center of gravity, still such numbers are not needed. More important are training, doctrine, equipment and leadership. If you dont believe it explain the US Pacific campaign, the Japanese-Chino war, Operation Barbarossa, France 1940, the British desert campaign 1940 against the Italians etc. etc.

 

Image result for tyrannosaurus rekt

 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sodanjumala said:

With all the talk about nuclear bombs being used, would had Americans used them against targets in countries that they are supposed trying to liberate?

I don't think so.  This why I never mentioned anything about nukes.  The way I see it they would have went about it conventionally.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, fufubear said:

I don't think so.  This why I never mentioned anything about nukes.  The way I see it they would have went about it conventionally.

 

Maybe not. It's little over 2500 km from London to Moscow. Well within operational range of Silverplate B-29, which is over 5000 km. While I don't think that they'd actually nuke Moscow-you need to leave the enemy some government to negotiate their surrender-I'd wager that Stalingrad would get nuked, as it was a symbol for Soviets, and they'd probably avoid most of the flak (Soviets had flak that could, athough barely, reach B-29's altitude) approaching from Black Sea. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fufubear said:

I still don't see a nuke happening.

Would rather depend on how Operation Unthinkable was going for the allies, methinks. Unlikely, but not completely out of the question. Just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the political and military circumstances surrounding those events.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.