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

[Elfie]

All fine and dandy until the death toll after the first 2 months exceeds 100k, then public opinion will turn rabid. If the Soviets were smart, they would focus and the British forces. They were both economically and politically at risk. They also lacked adequate replacement personal for the dead and wounded. I would also try stirring up the commies in both France and Italy, im not sure much would come from this, but stirring the pot i the enemies back country would create at least some havoc.
Anglo American forces mostly faced German back benchers on the west front other then a few occasions.

Patton wanted to essentially frame the Soviets and when you control the narrative you can manipulate the populace.

[Elfie]

there was no nukes left at the end of ww2. all nuclear material was used.  getting it would have taken a bit longer probably into 46.


semp

Interesting point.

Depends on how things went, we could nuke Moscow and say...Leningrad or Stalingrad and see if the Japanese fold. If they don't, then finish off the U.S.S.R. first, then finish off Japan. Nuking Moscow would likely cause the Soviet command to capitulate, what else do you do when your entire government and capital city get wiped out in one fell swoop? Maybe it takes a 2nd nuke on a secondary city but like with Japan, a 2nd bomb would likley force a surrender if the first one didn't.

In the meantime, build more centrifuges at home so you can enrich uranium faster in order to build more bombs.

[Elfie]

This is somewhat of a childish fantasy. There's a reason WW2 transitioned to a cold war despite all the militarisation and remaining conflicting ideology. A world war is such a drain on human resources that it jeopardises the global organised societies which supports the activity in the first place. Self-balancing is an observable theme in nature.

I'll just leave this here.

4- Flame baiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrespectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it.

[100Coogn]

This thread isn't locked yet?

When will we be allowed to talk about paint or grass again?
You f*ucking ankle humping bitc*es

Coogan

[bj229r]

What was our best tank at end of WW2? Would it prevail over their best T-34? Pretty sure they hade no hi-alt fighters nor bombers, matchups are king

[Elfie]

There are plenty of threads on this forum about historical outcomes, why and how they happened and the ultimate consequences of those things. I've participated in many of those threads and enjoyed every post.

What I don't get, is why there is so much angst and pigeon pooping in threads about alternate possibilities. We've talked actual history to death and I for one enjoy these types of threads just as much as actual history and are just as much fun if you let it.

[Elfie]

What was our best tank at end of WW2? Would it prevail over their best T-34? Pretty sure they hade no hi-alt fighters nor bombers, matchups are king

The Pershing would have eaten any T-34 they were making for lunch. The Easy 8 Sherman might have done the same.

However, by the end of the war the Soviets had built about 2000 T-44's although none saw combat. It likely wasn't as good a tank as it was in WoT when it was first released but still the Soviets felt it was better to increase T-34 production than to build enough T-44's to equip their armored divisions with.

[MiloMorai]

Pershing was a heavy tank and the Russians had lots of heavy tanks with the IS-2 and IS-3. They also had the ISI 122 and ISU 152.

[bj229r]

It was a MEDIUM/heavy tank

[MiloMorai]

It was a MEDIUM/heavy tank

The Pershing was briefly classified as Heavy Tank between mid-1945 to mid-1947 (Hunnicutt 1996, p.238), but was classified as a medium tank from the beginning of the development of the T20-series in Spring 1942 to its entry in service in mid-1945 and from mid-1947 to later.

[bj229r]

WHATever

[guncrasher]

Interesting point.

Depends on how things went, we could nuke Moscow and say...Leningrad or Stalingrad and see if the Japanese fold. If they don't, then finish off the U.S.S.R. first, then finish off Japan. Nuking Moscow would likely cause the Soviet command to capitulate, what else do you do when your entire government and capital city get wiped out in one fell swoop? Maybe it takes a 2nd nuke on a secondary city but like with Japan, a 2nd bomb would likley force a surrender if the first one didn't.

In the meantime, build more centrifuges at home so you can enrich uranium faster in order to build more bombs.

good point but remember we were at war against Germany if we were to drop nuclear bombs against Russia our allies would have turned against us.  so basically we wasted 2 bombs against Russia and now rest of allies are our enemies.

we could not attack Russia from our mainland and it would have been a tremendous advantage for Japan as our bases are now controlled by our previous friends.


semp

[nrshida]

I'll just leave this here.

4- Flame baiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrespectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it.

Obviously you've broken a forum rule right there by doing that ^

However, to address your accusation: I am making a positive contribution to the thread by expressing my opinion it is an unworkable and immature proposed timeline. Contribution does not mean agree with. It's true I don't respect you. Any of you. Although I thought that was implicitly reflective so that point is kind of neutralised. Anything you can do, I can do - within the confines of the rules.

I for one enjoy these types of threads just as much as actual history and are just as much fun if you let it.

I don't think that's accurate. You observably like to troll and if you can do that with a mildly-veiled "what if Britain got starved, imagine how bad their teeth would look then" stylee and when Devil points out your failure to have actually done any historical reading at all, you turn on him with outrage accusing him of spoining your 'fun' and proposing to add him to your ignore list  instead of addressing the historical points, it's clearly not about the history much at all.

Finally, yesterday you said you'd put me on an ignore list. Today you respond to my post. Again, it'd be really helpful if you didn't tell lies. That's not required by the forum rules, I know, but it'd be useful tactically. You know, so we could all have fun...


Regarding the US nuclear programme - which I will add would have been impossible without those awfully betoothed Brittard scientists - security at the Manhattan Project was notoriously slack, Richard Feynman's safe-cracking hobby notwithstanding. The first Soviet atomic bomb was essentially based on the intelligence knowledge gained from the Soviet spy rings already actively working in the U.S. Manhattan Project. So discussions of domination with tanks and C-47s over trucks is extremely ignorant and ill-informed.

Read a book!

[Elfie]

good point but remember we were at war against Germany if we were to drop nuclear bombs against Russia our allies would have turned against us.  so basically we wasted 2 bombs against Russia and now rest of allies are our enemies.

we could not attack Russia from our mainland and it would have been a tremendous advantage for Japan as our bases are now controlled by our previous friends.


semp

We could have nuked Russia instead of Japan after beating Germany. Patton just needs 10 days and then it's the Red Army that is at fault, not us. Once it's the fault of the Red Army then our Allies and civilian population aren't peeved at us.

[nrshida]

We could have nuked Russia instead of Japan after beating Germany.