Could the Soviets had taken Europe after the unconditional surrender of Germany?

[westwall]

Imagine that..

Facing a hundred thousand or more additional deaths to prevent a 40 year Cold War that we eventually won

With well over 100,000 deaths, and trillions wasted.

 

[rightwinger]

With well over 100,000 deaths, and trillions wasted.

Do you think Korea and Vietnam would not have happened if we invaded Russia?

 

[westwall]

Do you think Korea and Vietnam would not have happened if we invaded Russia?

Correct.

 

[Mushroom]

The Zero had a horsepower per pound ratio of 0.211, the P-36 had a ratio of 0.23.

Is the P-36 a carrier based aircraft? No? Then there is no comparison.

In fact, the P-36 was not a very good aircraft, and the US withdrew it in early 1942.

Oh, and you are wrong about those ratios. The Zero was only 0.178 hp/lb. And the P-36 was only 0.186 hp/lb. less than 0.01 hp/lb is pretty insignificant.

And even though I did look, so little was thought of the P-36 that I could not even locate information about it's turn radius.

So why you are even bringing up such an insignificant aircraft, I have absolutely no idea. About the only good thing about it was it was later developed into the P-40.

As I said, you keep barking up the entirely wrong trees. The A6M even had a better power to mass ratio than the F6F, the aircraft more than any other ((right next to the F4F) with eliminating the dominance of the Zero in the Pacific. A carrier based fighter, and as typical for the US significantly heavier than the Zero. In fact, it weighed almost three times as much, and even with a much more powerful 2,200 ho engine, the ratio was still only marginally worse than the Zero at 0.16 hp/lb.

However, it was carrier based. And had a hell of a lot of armor, especially compared to the A6M which had to have special steps installed do the pilot would not put their foot through the body of the aircraft.

As has been said before, you keep going after the wrong things, over and over and over again.

And many who actually know the aircraft of the theater are just glad that the land based replacement of the A6M came too late and in few numbers. The N1K is considered by many to have been the finest land based fighter of the war. Originally built as a Navy float plane, it was not until they took off the floats that it's real abilities was realized. It was a much heavier fighter than the A6M, but had some major improvements. Like heavier guns, and an automatic switch assembly that would extend the flaps during turns, then retract them afterwards. This gave it a turn radius that was actually close to that of the A6M, but required no additional effort by the pilot.

 

[Mushroom]

You are so far out of touch with aircraft, and how they function that it isn't funny.

Anybody who makes the claim that "every allied aircraft" could make sharper turns than the A6M obviously has no idea what they are talking about.

More than anything else, that is what it was known for. And the US design philosophy was never one to even try to match it, as that meant sacrificing too much to achieve the weights needed to accomplish that. So instead they designed even heavier aircraft with decent armor, that could take more punishment than those of the Japanese.

Five or six good hits on a Hellcat or Corsair and the fighter could still return to the base or carrier most times. Five or six good hits on a Zero, and it was going down.

 

[Mushroom]

So instead of finishing it quick

It would not have been quick. It would have been long and bloody, especially as we would have had to cross half of Germany and Poland before we even reached the Soviet Union itself. Then as we pushed forward our supply lines would have stretched, as their grew shorter.

 

[westwall]

It would not have been quick. It would have been long and bloody, especially as we would have had to cross half of Germany and Poland before we even reached the Soviet Union itself. Then as we pushed forward our supply lines would have stretched, as their grew shorter.

We had air supremacy. We had hundreds of thousands of Germans who would have fought for us. We had the industrial might to out produce Soviet Russia 10 to one.

We would have taken over the German munitions plants, and because we are rich in natural resources those weapons that we deemed useful would have been cranked out by the millions.

The Soviet Union was utterly exhausted by the time they took Berlin. We were fresh, and unlike shitflingers opinion, our troops, and home front were not fed up with the war.

It would have taken us at most two years.

And that is without using the Bomb.

 

[rightwinger]

Correct.

Communist China was still out there and both Korea and Vietnam were engaged in Civil Wars

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Patton was a political moron
That is why he took so long to get promoted

Pattons opinion on the USSR was idiotic

I have read two books on Patton, and too many to count that he was a part of.
You are going to like this one... Patton was somewhat like Donald Trump.
Massive ego
Thought he was right about everything
Wanted what he wanted, and really didn't care what circumstances occurred as long as he could get it.
And his mouth was legendary. He simply did not know how to control it. And exactly like Donald Trump, his mouth is all he was judged by.
There was simply no one better than Patton than getting things done, and taking ground than Patton. As long as he was supplied and had superior numbers. And the reason for that was two things:
1) Patton could read an enemy. He was exceptionally good at predicting what the enemy forces would do. and plan his attack based on that. And he was usually right.
2) Unlike other Generals, Patton was not concerned about casualties if he believed he could win. Other Generals would hesitate - where Patton would only accelerate, other Generals considered the health and danger to his soldiers. Patton could care less.
Patton was crucial for the American side.
But he was also a massive pain in the ass to everyone above him. On two occasions he gave away Montgomery's position because he wanted to brag to the media about himself. "Here I am in (wherever) and old Montgomery is still sitting back in (location) waiting on the war to come to him. This told the enemy where Montgomery was, and what his orders were.

 

[westwall]

Communist China was still out there and both Korea and Vietnam were engaged in Civil Wars

Instigated by the Soviet Union.

 

[westwall]

I have read two books on Patton, and too many to count that he was a part of.
You are going to like this one... Patton was somewhat like Donald Trump.
Massive ego
Thought he was right about everything
Wanted what he wanted, and really didn't care what circumstances occurred as long as he could get it.
And his mouth was legendary. He simply did not know how to control it. And exactly like Donald Trump, his mouth is all he was judged by.
There was simply no one better than Patton than getting things done, and taking ground than Patton. As long as he was supplied and had superior numbers. And the reason for that was two things:
1) Patton could read an enemy. He was exceptionally good at predicting what the enemy forces would do. and plan his attack based on that. And he was usually right.
2) Unlike other Generals, Patton was not concerned about casualties if he believed he could win. Other Generals would hesitate - where Patton would only accelerate, other Generals considered the health and danger to his soldiers. Patton could care less.
Patton was crucial for the American side.
But he was also a massive pain in the ass to everyone above him. On two occasions he gave away Montgomery's position because he wanted to brag to the media about himself. "Here I am in (wherever) and old Montgomery is still sitting back in (location) waiting on the war to come to him. This told the enemy where Montgomery was, and what his orders were.

Patton suffered fewer casualties than any other successful general the US had. He had fewer forces than most of them, and did more with those forces, than the other generals.

You are repeating myths about the man that have been known to be false for decades.

 

[rightwinger]

Unlike other Generals, Patton was not concerned about casualties if he believed he could win. Other Generals would hesitate - where Patton would only accelerate, other Generals considered the health and danger to his soldiers. Patton could care less.

Which shows how ridiculous Patton was
The Soviets had already taken on the best the German Army had to offer and lost millions of men, so did the Germans
Invading the Soviet Union would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional US casualties after we had already lost 400,000.
The US was tired of war, the world was tired of war

Nobody would have tolerated Pattons folly

 

[Polishprince]

Which shows how ridiculous Patton was
The Soviets had already taken on the best the German Army had to offer and lost millions of men, so did the Germans
Invading the Soviet Union would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional US casualties after we had already lost 400,000.
The US was tired of war, the world was tired of war

Nobody would have tolerated Pattons folly

Would it really have been "folly" to free the USSR from the tyranny of Stalin and his nefarious brand of Evil he was inflicting on the people?

Some Americans would have died in the battles, but not as many as you might think. Most Russians back then were more in favor of freedom and less inclined to fight to remain under Tyranny than you assume.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Patton suffered fewer casualties than any other successful general the US had. He had fewer forces than most of them, and did more with those forces, than the other generals.

You are repeating myths about the man that have been known to be false for decades.

He consistently had superior forces than the enemy. I am not saying he had more men than other generals. Only more forces than who he was fighting. Usually, certainly not always.
Patton was critical to the American objectives. He got shit done. Period. While other generals pondered around, and talked about what they should do and plan and plan and plan. Patton would spend several hours either by himself or with one or two others and plan an attack and go with it. Just go. Do. Make it happen. And if things are unexpected, we'll deal with it - lets go!!
And that is why he was kept on the field. He flat out got shit done, faster and with fewer resources than others.
Patton would charge ahead, while other generals wanted to access the enemy... send in scouts...wait... carefully plan this attack.
Patton was already there by the time other generals got done talking. In a famous scene, that actually happened... Patton was called to a meeting with Allied leaders. They took turns talking about how they were going to take the target, who was going to do what... they got o Patton and Patton informed them he was already halfway to the target. 7 other allied leaders were sitting and planning and Patton was already half way finished. They hated him for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Would it really have been "folly" to free the USSR from the tyranny of Stalin and his nefarious brand of Evil he was inflicting on the people?

Some Americans would have died in the battles, but not as many as you might think. Most Russians back then were more in favor of freedom and less inclined to fight to remain under Tyranny than you assume.

Soviet patriotism was at its high point in 1945
They would not have treated us as liberators any more than they treated Hitler as a liberator

Our Allies would have abandoned us if we invaded the USSR

 

[rightwinger]

He consistently had superior forces than the enemy. I am not saying he had more men than other generals. Only more forces than who he was fighting. Usually, certainly not always.
Patton was critical to the American objectives. He got shit done. Period. While other generals pondered around, and talked about what they should do and plan and plan and plan. Patton would spend several hours either by himself or with one or two others and plan an attack and go with it. Just go. Do. Make it happen. And if things are unexpected, we'll deal with it - lets go!!
And that is why he was kept on the field. He flat out got shit done, faster and with fewer resources than others.
Patton would charge ahead, while other generals wanted to access the enemy... send in scouts...wait... carefully plan this attack.
Patton was already there by the time other generals got done talking. In a famous scene, that actually happened... Patton was called to a meeting with Allied leaders. They took turns talking about how they were going to take the target, who was going to do what... they got o Patton and Patton informed them he was already halfway to the target. 7 other allied leaders were sitting and planning and Patton was already half way finished. They hated him for it.

Patton won battles, Eisenhower won wars

 

[Polishprince]

Soviet patriotism was at its high point in 1945
They would not have treated us as liberators any more than they treated Hitler as a liberator

Our Allies would have abandoned us if we invaded the USSR

Needless to say, I wasn't there.

But it seems contrary to human nature that the soviet people were that enthusiastic about having tyrants tell them what to do in 1945 that they would have fought tooth and nail to stop Freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

Needless to say, I wasn't there.

But it seems contrary to human nature that the soviet people were that enthusiastic about having tyrants tell them what to do in 1945 that they would have fought tooth and nail to stop Freedom.

Russia had a chance at freedom in 1990

They chose Putin

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Patton won battles, Eisenhower won wars

Patton would have kept fighting until their was no one left to fight.
If Patton was the king of America, he would have devoted every ounce of resource we had to take over the entire world. All of it.
The whole world would have been America.
If 100,000,000 people died to make that happen - Patton would have done it anyway. And only because he wanted to fight.
If anyone read anything about Patton. they would have to agree he was a bit of a madman. He LOVED war. And was lost without it.

 

[westwall]

He consistently had superior forces than the enemy. I am not saying he had more men than other generals. Only more forces than who he was fighting. Usually, certainly not always.
Patton was critical to the American objectives. He got shit done. Period. While other generals pondered around, and talked about what they should do and plan and plan and plan. Patton would spend several hours either by himself or with one or two others and plan an attack and go with it. Just go. Do. Make it happen. And if things are unexpected, we'll deal with it - lets go!!
And that is why he was kept on the field. He flat out got shit done, faster and with fewer resources than others.
Patton would charge ahead, while other generals wanted to access the enemy... send in scouts...wait... carefully plan this attack.
Patton was already there by the time other generals got done talking. In a famous scene, that actually happened... Patton was called to a meeting with Allied leaders. They took turns talking about how they were going to take the target, who was going to do what... they got o Patton and Patton informed them he was already halfway to the target. 7 other allied leaders were sitting and planning and Patton was already half way finished. They hated him for it.

Patton rarely charged ahead, as you claim. When he came up against a tough position, he went AROUND it, and attacked from the rear. Pattons troops captured more ground, more enemy troops, and suffered fewer casualties, than any other army commander.

He did it because he is arguably the best general we have ever had. He had a extraordinary blend of strategist, and tactician that is rarely seen.

Most generals are either good at the small scale, or the large. He was good at both.

And, he is the only general, from ANY army, that the Germans respected, and feared.

They respected him so much they used German terms to describe him.