Channeling Elfie: What if the US and Russia went to war in 1945?

[Spikes]

Damn, made it 13 replies without getting political. Must be close to a new record.

[MiloMorai]

Yeah, the US would have won big time IMO, and they should have just gone ahead and did it rather than go to Korea.

We had the better high alt bombers that their planes wouldn't have been able to get to. Our fighters were much better at high alt and could climb higher. The P51s and even F4u4s would have eaten them alive. We would have had bases in Poland or other allied countries. We would have had them surrounded and could bomb from any side. They should have done it. Unfortunately we allowed the soviets to dispurse into the west and bring their idiot  ideology with them, which is what McCarthy was warning about.

The Western Allies consisted of more than just the USofA.

Would the Germans have joined in the battle against the Soviets?

[spudman]

I think the Russians would have been able to push us back across the Rhine in short order pushing our ability to conduct raids east of the Urals doubtful at best. No B29’s were based in Europe in 1945 so you are limited to the B17s and 24s for long range bombing. As pointed out earlier they had a massive advantage in men and equipment. Plus we’d still be in a 2 front war with Japan. I would imagine the Russians and the Japanese would likely become allies. High altitude bombing would be woefully inaccurate near and above 30k due to the fact the jet stream played holy hell it as we found out with the B29 raids.

[spudman]

The Western Allies consisted of more than just the USofA.

Would the Germans have joined in the battle against the Soviets?

My apologies, by we I meant the allies not just the US. As far as the german question goes I really think it would be a non starter because I think the Russians would have completely overrun Germany in short order at least to the Rhine.

[Spikes]

I think the Russians would have been able to push us back across the Rhine in short order pushing our ability to conduct raids east of the Urals doubtful at best. No B29’s were based in Europe in 1945 so you are limited to the B17s and 24s for long range bombing. As pointed out earlier they had a massive advantage in men and equipment. Plus we’d still be in a 2 front war with Japan. I would imagine the Russians and the Japanese would likely become allies. High altitude bombing would be woefully inaccurate near and above 30k due to the fact the jet stream played holy hell it as we found out with the B29 raids.

I mean...

It would've only taken a week at the most to send squadrons of B-29s to Europe.

And if high altitude bombing was so bad why was that the tactic from the beginning WWII until the end?

Russia and Japan would've become allies, sure, but it's not like the US+allies were not already fighting on two fronts the entire war to begin with. It wouldn't have been something new. If anything it would have stretched Russia too thin considering Japan had next to nothing in terms of military might by that point. It was only two months later (after surrender) when Operation Downfall was set to begin. At that point you have US bases quite close to the eastern border of Russia, and assumingly not a lot of Soviet forces there.

We ran an IJAAF v. VVS event in FSO set in Manchuria 1945, was a fun event with a unique matchup as far as events go.

[-gg-]

I'm not so sure that Russia and Japan would have become allies. They were pretty much enemies and Russia was planning on attacking Japan supposedly anyway.

Plus you got to think about the atomic weapon.

[Spikes]

I'm not so sure that Russia and Japan would have become allies. They were pretty much enemies and Russia was planning on attacking Japan supposedly anyway.

Plus you got to think about the atomic weapon.

Yeah...even if they became Allies it would've been a hollow friendship. Japan was beat back to their doorstep.

Agree with atomic weapons - kinda makes everything moot. 1 flight to Moscow and everything is over. Of course, with atomic weapons comes the whole conversation of the ethics and morals of using them.

[DmonSlyr]

Yeah...even if they became Allies it would've been a hollow friendship. Japan was beat back to their doorstep.

Agree with atomic weapons - kinda makes everything moot. 1 flight to Moscow and everything is over. Of course, with atomic weapons comes the whole conversation of the ethics and morals of using them.

Ethics and morals 

Russia had Moscow. That's it really. We would have bombed them senseless and gained air superiority, then invaded with the rest of EU allies.
 
The question is, why didn't they? Stalin and the soviets was just as evil as Hitler, if not more, and just as cold.

[spudman]

In the Pacific Lemay switched from daylight high altitude bombing to low level night time bombing because high altitude bombing was ineffective. This change was at the direction of Gen Arnold. At the conclusion of the war in Germany the plan was to ship US troops from Europe to the Pacific for Operation Downfall because we didn’t have the manpower in the Pacific to invade Japan. When Japan surrendered there were still over 6 million Japanese under arms of which nearly 4 million alone in Japan. I guess my point is why would you transfer the only bomber you have to reach Japan to Europe which didn’t have the logistics necessary for the aircraft. As to the hollow alliance it would have been a good strategy by the Russians to keep us in a 2 front war thereby precluding us from concentrating our forces solely in Europe. I don’t think the nukes would have the same effect unless we had the ability to hit the factories east of the Urals. I don’t believe the Russians would remain static in face of our build up necessary to take them on. This is nothing but pure speculation on my part and I do enjoy hearing other’s thoughts on the subject.

[Oldman731]

I'm with Chuikov and Spudman, FWIW.  The Soviets had a massive, battle-hardened army in Europe.  Our strategic air forces would have been essentially useless, because Soviet industry was back in the Urals, out of range of our bombers (and note, I don't believe our runways in England were long enough for B-29s; we had to extend them during the Berlin airlift).  Hard to say how the tactical air forces would have worked out, though.

- oldman

[MiloMorai]

I'm with Chuikov and Spudman, FWIW.  The Soviets had a massive, battle-hardened army in Europe.  Our strategic air forces would have been essentially useless, because Soviet industry was back in the Urals, out of range of our bombers (and note, I don't believe our runways in England were long enough for B-29s; we had to extend them during the Berlin airlift).  Hard to say how the tactical air forces would have worked out, though.

- oldman

The Soviets were still receiving Lend/Lease but were in a manpower crunch due to the push in 1945 to capture Berlin and Vienna.
https://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/index.php

It would have been nice to be able to bomb the Urals but it wasn't that necessary. Just bomb the shipping routes the war material had to travel to get to the front. (like what was done to Germany)

[Spikes]

I'm with Chuikov and Spudman, FWIW.  The Soviets had a massive, battle-hardened army in Europe.  Our strategic air forces would have been essentially useless, because Soviet industry was back in the Urals, out of range of our bombers (and note, I don't believe our runways in England were long enough for B-29s; we had to extend them during the Berlin airlift).  Hard to say how the tactical air forces would have worked out, though.

- oldman

I think in any event it'd be a mess. But one also has to ask, at what point are we saying this conflict would start? Is it 1 day after V-E day or months after? If thinking logically, you'd assume it would start quite a while after, for example if talks of occupation zones go sideways at the Potsdam Conference. So assume this is is early August 1945, Japan is on the verge of surrender anyway (atomic bombs on 6th and 9th, surrender announced on 15th and signed Sept 2nd). So by the time this 'new' conflict kicks off the US is essentially fighting against the Soviet Union and that's it.

[Elfie]

Berlin airlift was from 2 blocks away. think Berlin airlift to Moscow.


semp

Which moves supplies further/faster, a fleet of C-47's or a fleet of trucks?

[Elfie]

Are nuclear weapons off the table? Because that combined with the bombers we had would have made the war pretty short I think.

I didn't bring up nuclear weapons in my scenario but you're correct, The Bomb would have shortened an incursion into the Soviet Union considerably.

[Toad]

After the defeat of Germany and Japan, the US war machine was fully ramped up. In 1944 the US built over 96,000 aircraft with 74,000
+ combat aircraft. In 1945 with the war winding down we built almost 46,000 with almost 36,000 combat aircraft from January to August. Similarly, almost 18,000 tanks and sp guns in '44 and about 12,000 in '45.

Had a war against the Soviets happened, the entirety of US production would have been focused on them. It also could easily have been a 2 front war, one front in Europe another in Asia using Japan as the base against the Soviet Far East.

I don't think they could have matched the US supply of war materials nor the logistics capabilities of the US.

Bloody, costly...yes. Don't think the Russians could have won it though unless the US politicians had fought it like they fought North Korea.