Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Oldman731 on September 08, 2022, 08:57:10 PM
-
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
-
The West. The Soviets were scrapping the bottom of the barrel for soldiers.
-
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
-
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.
-
oops forgot to add, if we had invaded Russia we would have had the same problem Germany had resupply.
semp
-
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)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (https://www.redgambitseries.com/)
-
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/ (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.
-
Are nuclear weapons off the table? Because that combined with the bombers we had would have made the war pretty short I think.
-
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.
-
Damn, made it 13 replies without getting political. Must be close to a new record.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :rofl
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.
-
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.
-
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'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)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oldman, I have to thank you for starting this thread. Good times ser. :rock
-
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.
Something many folks forget all to often (obviously not you) is the manufacturing capability of the U.S. during WWII and it dwarfed most of the rest of the world combined.
https://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/us-industrial-might-in-world-war-ii-by-the-numbers/
-
Great points all Toad. Another point to consider is the civilian support for such an effort. If we had done as Patton suggested and attacked we would have been the aggressors.
-
Great points all Toad. Another point to consider is the civilian support for such an effort. If we had done as Patton suggested and attacked we would have been the aggressors.
It's pretty easy to demonize your opponents and make them look subhuman.
-
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'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.
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
-
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 suspect it involves a latent desire to imagine the U.S. as a completely unchallenged world dominator although I further suspect denial of such. :)
-
As Willy Wonka once said:
"So shines a piece of wisdom in this trollish world" :) :salute
-
Interesting topic. I think talking just pure battlefield stuff the allies would have won. Europe isn't the only theatre to consider, the allies had a huge presence in the Pacific and could have created a 2 front war coming from the east (though a long trek to get to anything worthwhile) or up from the Middle East. Strategic bombers could have launched from East Africa and the Middle East as well. There's also the possibility of amphibious landings in the Baltics. By 1945 the allies were well versed in multi front wars and amphibious landings, and had access to approach Moscow from multiple directions. The Germans did not. It would have been a long, bloody, costly war but I think the allies would have won even without using nukes. The recovery would have taken decades.
Where this all falls apart is the home front. If the allies were the aggressor it would have been a VERY unpopular war. Just as the war is coming to a close and it looks like our soldiers will be coming home, our leaders decide to attack a country that has fought side by side with us (metaphorically) for years. No way the public would have supported it. morale would have plummeted. Probably riots, possibility of desertion. Guaranteed none of the politicians that were in favour of it would be around after the next election. Had the Soviets made the first strike that would be a whole different story. An ally stabbing the rest in the back would have produced a similar reaction as Pearl Harbour, and the home front would have rallied.
-
A very well reasoned assessment in my opinion, Rocco. :)
-
Where this all falls apart is the home front. If the allies were the aggressor it would have been a VERY unpopular war. Just as the war is coming to a close and it looks like our soldiers will be coming home, our leaders decide to attack a country that has fought side by side with us (metaphorically) for years. No way the public would have supported it. morale would have plummeted. Probably riots, possibility of desertion. Guaranteed none of the politicians that were in favour of it would be around after the next election. Had the Soviets made the first strike that would be a whole different story. An ally stabbing the rest in the back would have produced a similar reaction as Pearl Harbour, and the home front would have rallied.
Patton said give me 10 days and I'll make it look like their fault.
Public opinion can be manipulated to a large degree.
-
Patton said give me 10 days and I'll make it look like their fault.
Public opinion can be manipulated to a large degree.
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 said give me 10 days and I'll make it look like their fault.
Public opinion can be manipulated to a large degree.
You're not wrong. And this was a time where patriotism was extremely high. So short term it may have been business as usual. But I do think it would have had to have been something on the scale of Pearl or the blitz to convince the public to go the distance. I'm not just talking the US but the allies as a whole.
-
Wonder if more Russians died because we did not go to war with them......
-
Stalin killed MILLIONS of them, less so after WW2 until his 1953 death. Solzhenitsyn said he killed 60 million
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This thread isn't locked yet? :furious
When will we be allowed to talk about paint or grass again?
You f*ucking ankle humping bitc*es
Coogan
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It was a MEDIUM/heavy tank
-
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.
-
WHATever
-
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
-
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!
-
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. :)
-
We could have nuked Russia instead of Japan after beating Germany.
(https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=404990.0;attach=35706)
-
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.
-
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.
To answer your question maybe because you guys have bad teeth?
and:-
5- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If you feel a post violates the forum rules, the use the "Report to Moderator" link in the post to report it.
and, to be fair:-
5- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If you feel a post violates the forum rules, the use the "Report to Moderator" link in the post to report it.
5- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If you feel a post violates the forum rules, the use the "Report to Moderator" link in the post to report it.
That bit is a little bit recursive.
Don't play chess do you?