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

[Oldman731]

So, at least according to the movie Patton, not to mention a number of German flyers who landed on Allied airfields in April and May, 1945, the US and Britain should have just continued moving east in 1945.  Or, from another perspective, the Bolsheviks should have continued moving west.  Given the nature of the opposing armies, navies and air forces...who would most likely have won such an encounter?

From a narrow AH view point, how would the La7s have done against P51s?  (It may be we know the answer to this.)

- oldman

[MiloMorai]

The West. The Soviets were scrapping the bottom of the barrel for soldiers.

[guncrasher]

the reason Germany lost to the Russians is simple,  supplies. Germany could only resupply so far,  after that it was just a matter of time. winter and the big mud land was contributing factors to resupply.

semp

[Elfie]

We go to war with the U.S.S.R. dun dun dun...

Patton is right and convinces Allied High Command that the Soviets are a far worse threat than the Germans ever were.

Unlike the Luftwaffe, we have bombers with the range to hit Soviet factories in/behind the Urals and unfortunately for the Soviets we cut off all lend/lease shipments. With Soviet aircraft designed to fly at lower altitudes the bomber streams hit Soviet cities and factories with impunity.

Mustangs, followed by first generation jets rule the skies over the Soviet Union.

The Soviets pay for their recklessness in sending units into a meatgrinder offensive vs Germany with a seriously depleted manpower base and can't keep up the war of attrition. Without the American lend/lease trucks (and spare parts for them) the Red Army suffers logistics problems. Swarms of Allied fighter/bombers wreak havoc on Soviet ground units. Lines/pockets of resistance are quickly smashed with artillery and air attacks.

Patton, pissed off that he doesn't get to attack Moscow, races to the Volga and takes Stalingrad, a feat the Germans failed to accomplish. Still angry that Bradley was given Moscow as his objective, Patton turns his 3rd Army north against orders and starts driving to Moscow, determined to repeat his success in Sicily.

Montgomery, still leading the British forces takes Leningrad but only with heavy losses.

Bradley's army's offensive stalls and Eisenhower finally gives Patton the green light he has wanted all along and supplies are diverted to his 3rd Army. The 4th Armored and 87th Infantry spearhead the capture of Moscow and the Kremlin. Stalin and the Politburo have fled. The Soviet Union has fallen and untold millions are spared unspeakable suffering behind the Iron Curtain.

Superior Allied tactics, equipment, planning, leadership and individual initiative won freedom for millions that didn't have it before.

I apologize for the rough draft but it was the best I could come up with on such short notice. 

[guncrasher]

oops forgot to add, if we had invaded Russia we would have had the same problem Germany had resupply.

semp

[Elfie]

oops forgot to add, if we had invaded Russia we would have had the same problem Germany had resupply.

semp

Incorrectamundo ser.

Much of German's supply was still moved via horse drawn wagon while ours was moved via truck. We would've had to slow down only long enough to build more supply dumps and those could be quickly filled with C-47 cargo flights. (Berlin airlift)

[guncrasher]

Incorrectamundo ser.

Much of German's supply was still moved via horse drawn wagon while ours was moved via truck. We would've had to slow down only long enough to build more supply dumps and those could be quickly filled with C-47 cargo flights. (Berlin airlift)

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


semp

[Chris79]

Incorrectamundo ser.

Much of German's supply was still moved via horse drawn wagon while ours was moved via truck. We would've had to slow down only long enough to build more supply dumps and those could be quickly filled with C-47 cargo flights. (Berlin airlift)

A few questions.
1. How many Anglo American divisions were stationed in Europe on May 7th 45?
2. How many Red Army divisions were deployed on the eastern front at the same time?
3. What percentage of Anglo American division were either green or had little combat experience?
Answer
1. 89
2. ~300
3. 17%
The basic battlefield  calculus highly favors the Soviets.
Another factual tidbit, the U.K was both war weary and short of manpower themselves. They were forced to disband battalions in order to refill their ranks. I would doubt In This scenario they would be much of a factor.
Any Anglo American attack against the Red Army would ultimately end in utter disaster. I wouldn’t be concerned with logistics in terms of a offensive to Moscow since the Allie’s would have zero chance of reaching the Oder.
The same thing would happen to the Reds had they attacked the west. Although I think they would ultimately lose, I believe they would have a greater chance of victory though. Here is where the quality and quantity of the Allied airforces would dominate. The Soviets would have a logistical nightmare on their hands and since the Allied would be fighting defensively the numeric difference between the Reds and Allies would be less determinate.

To clarify one of the first points, American divisions were on average larger then their Soviet counterparts. The US divisions averaging roughly 15000 men where the Soviet divisions averaged I believe around 10-12k men.

[bj229r]

What would have been our goal had we gone to war with Russia? Kicking them out of the lands they occupied would have been a reasonable goal, but absent a few hundred more atom bombs I can't see overrunning the whole country

[-gg-]

We had a massive Navy, massive Air Force and we had the atomic bomb. If we would have applied that to a war against Russia I don't think that Russia would have survived.

[Chris79]

We had a massive Navy, massive Air Force and we had the atomic bomb. If we would have applied that to a war against Russia I don't think that Russia would have survived.

Naval power would be irrelevant, the Red Army was significantly larger 2.5/1, and the VVS were no slouches in 1945.

[spudman]

The naval power would be prove just as critical as it did in WW2 as it kept the supply lines flowing from the US. I believe we would have been at great disadvantage on the ground due to the lack of manpower as previously pointed out. How much of an influence our strategic bombing capabilities would have played is questionable . All in all we have to remember we would still be fighting a two front war as Japan had not yet been defeated and the US population support for such an extension of the war wouldn’t be assured. Plus would the Russians then join the Japanese to keep us engaged in the pacific? A really good book series on this topic is “The Red Gambit” by Colin Gee.
https://www.redgambitseries.com/

[Spikes]

The naval power would be prove just as critical as it did in WW2 as it kept the supply lines flowing from the US. I believe we would have been at great disadvantage on the ground due to the lack of manpower as previously pointed out. How much of an influence our strategic bombing capabilities would have played is questionable . All in all we have to remember we would still be fighting a two front war as Japan had not yet been defeated and the US population support for such an extension of the war wouldn’t be assured. Plus would the Russians then join the Japanese to keep us engaged in the pacific? A really good book series on this topic is “The Red Gambit” by Colin Gee.
https://www.redgambitseries.com/

I would have to imagine the VVS equipment which was mostly geared for low altitude stuff, would've been no match for the USAAF's strategic bombing at >30,000 ft. I'd suspect the US could've/would've bombed the Soviets into submission. We have this issue in AH in Scenarios and FSOs where the VVS stuff is ridiculously good sub 20K, but once you get above that the US and German stuff shines (since that's what both were built for).

Actually taking ground is a whole different story. It would take quite a while to mobilize the USAAF bombers to 'forward' bases (like Berlin or further east for example) to be able to have a shot at cities like Moscow. The Navy could assist in areas like Leningrad, but that's about it other than random stuff in the Barents and Kara seas.

I think a US/Russia conflict could've extended the war itself another 5-10 years.

[-gg-]

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

[DmonSlyr]

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.