Should we have followed Gen. Patton to Moscow?

[Xenophon]

On topic for the thread, the answer is no.

Such a war would have been quite costly in battle deaths for the USA, as well as teh Soviets.

 

[elvis]

The arguments made in this thread against a war with Russia were made in 1940 about a war with Germany. Yet we get criticized for not rescuing the masses from the terrors of Hitler.

 

[USViking]

I will take it a paragraph at a time.

Here is Paragraph 1:

I'm going to disagree with some points mentioned earlier, and them I'm going to bring up the most important, undeniable reason that Russia would have lost to the United States, France and England if we'd chosen to go to war at the end. I'm surprised nobody has brought it up yet, and you will all be shocked you didn't think of it.

It is undeniable that the West could have outmanned
and outgunned the USSR in an all-out war between
the two blocs with no others involved.

Bear in mind that such a war would have been unthinkable
before Japan surrendered, so hostilities could not have
begun prior to 9/45, by when the USSR was firmly entrenched
and armed to the teeth in the territory it had won.

Total population was at the time probably approx.
West: 200 million USSR: 135 million (USSR 1937 census = 162million).

Western industrial potential might have been twice as great
as the USSR's.

However, military operations favor the defence, especially
a fully alert and prepared defence such as the USSR had in 9/45.

A 1945 West-USSR front would have have been 50% shorter
than the 1941 German-USSR front, and more importantly
the entire 1941 front consisted of level ground suitable for
mobile operations, whereas in 1945 the only such ground
would have been in Germany itself, where the USSR certainly
could have stationed several million men and Christ only knows
how much armor and artillery.

The relatively green 1941 Red Army, which was completely suprised
by veteran German armed forces over a 1000-mile long front,
nevertheless in five months inflicted 743,000 casualties on the
Germans, including nearly 200,000 dead (from the diary of
German General Staff Chief Franz Halder, cited in Russia at War
by Alexander Werth).

The veteran 1945 Red Army was incomprably stronger compared
to the West than the 1941 Red Army was compared to the Germans.

In a conventional war with equal generalship the issue would have
been in doubt, despite the greater resources of The West.

And even if the West had won, we would have suffered millions more
of our men shot up.

Thank God it never happened.

 

[USViking]

Here is Paragraph 2:

One of the first points brought up was that the U.S. had just 100 divisions spread across the European and Pacific theaters. Two things must be pointed out: First of all, in addition to American divisions in Europe were English, French, and British divisions. Secondly, American divisions are approximately twice the size of traditional European divisions, which are what I assume the Soviets used. Between these two points, The French, English and Americans (henceforth "The Allies") probably had close to as many men in Europe as the Russians.

100 US divisions is about right if the Marines are included.
The US fielded 81 Army Divisions and over 10 Marine divisions
during the war.

However, is there any doubt, really, that the 1945 Red Army
was the largest of all time, and that it was veteran, and it that
was fully equipped?

Do you really want to suggest that the USSR had available less
veteran fully equipped gound troops than the West in 1945?
I don't think so.

 

[Xenophon]

It would not have been like the german war in russia as the USA fought differently.

For one thing, the Americans relied heavily on artillery and airpower, far more then Germany who tended to rely on tanks and tank destroyers in combat.

The western allies would have had air superiority, the Russian air forces were low level in make up and relied on many western types for combat, they could not cope with allied heavy bombers, the two sides actually fought over Yugoslavia by mistake with the Russians getting smacked pretty badly.

On the other hand the allies would have a very hard time taking losses, britain was already short of manpower and many American formations shied away from combat, unlike the russians who had been hardened by total war and threatened with death if they refused to fight.

 

[USViking]

Paragraph 3:

Brought up in the same post is the idea that lines of communication and supply would be far shorter for the Russians than the Allies. As the allies pushed into Russian territory this could be a problem, but early on during conflict in Germany both sides supply and communication lines would be approximately the same length. The Allies, however, would have the option of resupply by sea, neutralizing a lot of supply line issues until they pushed beyond the Balkans.

Logistic capacity was about equal, even though the West
would have had to rely on trans-Atlantic supply from North America.

Bear in mind, though, that of the two sides it was the USSR
which had the more favorable interior lines, and that interior lines
had served the Russian state well against all invaders,
all defeated, going back to before the American Revolution.

Your phrase "As the allies pushed into Russian territory",
is moonbean ignorant BS , and that is all it is.

Check the goddam map again: the allies had to go through 500 miles
just to get to the Russian border!

Same goes for your "beyond the Balkans". At least the West had
a million or so available in 1945 Germany. Well, it had ZERO in the
Balkans outside a few in Greece compared to another million-plus
for the USSR, so no early advance by the West would have been
possible, and it would have been hard pressed to stop a Soviet advance.

 

[USViking]

Paragraph 4:

The author also brings up the fact that the Russians would be fighting for their homes. What he doesn't bring up is the great hatred common Russians at the time felt for their government. The Russian peasantry greeted the Nazi soldiers as liberators until the brutality of the Germans convinced them that they were no better than the Communists. The Americans, who would have really been liberators, would have been greeted in the same manner but would not have disappointed the Russian masses.

Wrong.

The population of the USSR was in 1945 more united
with the government than it ever had been, or ever
would be.

In his book The Russians, which none other than William F. Buckley
reviewed as "brilliant" New York Times reporter Hedrick Smith
in the early 1980s USSR asked an embarassing question of his
Russian interlocutors at a party.

Hedrick Smith asked them: "What was the best time of your life?"

After a lenghy embarassed silence during which no one could
apparently think of a good time, someone said "The War".

Everyone else at the table was aghast at first, but then
the person elaborated: "Because that was the only time
in my life that I ever felt close to my government",
and all the other Russians agreed that he was correct,
and that they felt the same way themselves.

Had the Americans even reached the USSR border we would
have had to do so over a million USSR dead bodies. That does
not strike me as something which would have endeared us
to the Soviet people, who were in action as though they were
one person.

I will get to your other deficient paragraphs later.

 

[USViking]

For the next few posts Russia's superior tanks were mentioned: The T-34 and the IS-1/2. These were compared to the Sherman.

The T-34 was better than the Sherman and the IS
was much better.

This is like comparing apples and oranges--

Ridiculous: Tank to tank is what we would have been faced
with in war with the USSR, and to begin with the USSR had
immense superiority in both numbers and quality.

the Sherman was an infantry support tank,

Wrong.

US tactical doctrine placed the Sherman in a role as spearhead
of mobile operations breaking through and destroying the enemy
rear echelon. Patton carried out this doctrine precisely in his great
1944 march across France.

The US had enough tanks to spare for some infantry support,
but it was tank breakout operation which made the enemy cave
in so fast. The Germans might not have had 2000 tanks facing
Patton in France in 1944. The USSR could have put 20,000 in
Germany in 1945. Also, the US and UK had uncontested control
of the air over the battlefield, but absolutely would not have
had such dominance at the start of any war against the USSR.

forced to combat German tanks simply because it's what the Americans had at the time. The T-34 or IS-1/2 could easily take on a Sherman and win, at least at the beginning of the invasion of Europe. By the end of the end of the invasion, however, nearly every Sherman had be re-equipped with the 76mm gun, capable of penetrating a Panther's frontal plate at 1000 yards, making it an effective anti-tank vehicle. With this weapon the T-34 or IS-1/2 would not be very superior to the Sherman in combat.

The Sherman "Firefly" tank, with upgraded the 76.2mm gun
was equal to the T-34 in firepower but not, critically, critically,
as a target. T-34 armor had a combination of thickness and
slope which the Sherman did not match, and the Sherman had
a higher profile. The T-34 was also faster and had a greater
cruising range.

The IS tanks were vastly superior to the Sherman in armor and
gun. And remember, it is the US who is supposed to take Moscow,
1000 miles distant, with 10,000s of these USSR tanks barring
the way.

In addition, the U.S. had the heavy M-26 (in the class of a Panther or a Tiger I) that would have been more than a match for these two Russian tanks if they'd been sent to Europe in large numbers (as they would have been in any conflict with Russia).

The Pershing was a great tank, and we had 2000 of them
at the end of the war, although only a few dozen got into
the fight, and were in Europe at the end.

I was wrong when I said earlier that the USSR outnumbered
the US 100 to one in heavy tanks, but the USSR did have an
advantage of about 5:1 in heavies, and you do not contemplate
offensive operations against those odds unless you are out
of your mind, or are desperate, and we were not desperate in
Europe in 1945.

We were desperate against Japan, which was fielding history's
most fanatical soldiers, as yet unconquered in China and the
home islands. We wanted the USSR in with us against Japan
so bad it did not matter that the Atomic Bomb might be right
around the corner.

I'm not going to take up claims about Soviet troops being well equipped and trained at the end of the war. If this claim is false, then the Russians are in a bad situation. If it is true, then at best they are simply on equal footing to Allied soldiers.

The claims made about the quality of the 1945 Red Army are not
imaginary. It had had 23 months of unbroken, continuous success
against the Germans, beginning with Kursk in 6/43 and ending at
Berlin in 5/45.

In so doing they were up against about 70% of the German army
and 50% of the German air force.

The WW2 Red Army has a solid claim to being the best that has
ever existed.

Somebody said that the U.S. would not have gained control of the air. This is simply not true. The United States had a superior air force in Europe when compared to the Russians. The Soviet Air forces were impressive on paper but in fighters inferior to American models, who were piloted by superiorly trained individuals with plenty of experience fighting the Reich above the skies of Germany. They were better led than the Russians as well.

It might interest you to know that the the top US ace
of the war had 40 kills, and that there were 27 US aces
with 20 or more kills.

The USSR had 20 pilots with 40 or more kills and 57 with
20 or more. I believe these numbers attest to a high degree
of professionalism and skill in the Red Air Force.

I grant that the West was stronger in the air. I do not grant
that gaining control of the air would have been an easy matter,
and slowing down the Red Army without control of the air would
have been a tall order.

In addition, superior models of aircraft were ready for flight (including the first American Jet fighter, the F-80) while the Russians had nothing comparable ready to go. They would not get jet technology until after the war. American air superiority would have been a reality, allowing swarms of bombers and attack aircraft to decimate the Russian tanks mentioned above.

The US P-51 Mustang was the best fighter of the war, and
several other US models were also excellent weapons. The West
also had a decisive lead on the USSR in jet aircraft, with the
F-10 and UK Meteor in production. However, The F-10 was so
plagued by bugs that it was withheld from combat, and the US
and UK were months if not years away from deploying a decisive
number of jet aircraft.

In the meantime, the USSR Yak-3 was as good as the Spitfire
and the LA-7 was even better, and the USSR produced 17,000
LA-7s by the end of the war.

It would have been a difficult, lengthy battle for air superiority
during which time there would have been no assurance at all
that Western ground forces could have prevented the Red Army
from significant advance in any sector.

I'm not going to waste time talking about nukes. We had them, they didn't. If we went to war, we would have dropped nukes and there's not much the Russians could have done about it. We could only manufacture a few per year, but a few per year is all we would need.

Yes, nuclear weapons would have guarenteed eventual victory.
No, it would not have been worth it.

The USSR had thousands of interceptors, and not every one of
our nuclear weapons would have made it through. While this was
going on we would have been losing thousands of men a day
against USSR conventional forces, and there would have been
a real chance of losing Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands,
Greece and Turkey.

In the third to last post Editec says that "The Soviets had 2.5 million combat hardened troops on German soil in 1945." I don't know the exact number, but it was quite a few. But let's go with that number. 2.5 million battle hardened, trained, well armed, and hungry troops.

That's right. Hungry. An army travels on it's stomach. So where did the Russians get all this food? They got it from the United States, who sent it over in ships to the Russians. From Germany to Moscow huge swaths of Russian territory, formerly fertile farmland, was not wasted ruin. Shipping it from the far east of the Soviet Union was expensive, difficult (due to an undeveloped rail infrastructure) and disrupted the flow of raw materials, making the Russians in the region dependent on the flow of American supplies. Russia could have had all the fancy tanks, artillery and aircraft in the world but with starving pilots they wouldn't have done a bit of good. This is why the United States would have won any confrontation with Russia, regardless of other factors.

Western aid ceased immediately with the war's end, and the
USSR was still able to feed itself and its satellites. Therefore
your starvation scenario cannot be accurate.

The USSR had retaken its Ukrainian breadbasket in the spring
of 1944, so it had had a year to repair the damage. Also,
significant food supply would have been available from the
occupied regions of Central Europe. The citizens of those
countires might have starved, but the Red Army would not.

Let's not forget another thing: The United States won WWII, with the Russians serving as meatshields. If the United States hadn't sent Russian huge quantities of arms, munitions, and equipment Hitler wouldn't have been stopped 50 miles from Moscow.He wouldn't have been stopped at Stalingrad.

Wrong.

Little Western aid got through to the USSR in 1941, and it
was not until the submarine campaign turned in our favor in
1943 after Stalingrad that deliveries took on colossal proportion.
(approx 1.7 million tons total for 1941-42, approx 4.6 million
tons for 1943)

Now, there is no denying that Western aid was critical to the
uninterrupted success of USSR arms during the last two years
of the war, and Stalin himself said the war could not have been
won without it. But the Germans could not have taken Moscow
in 12/41 under any circumstances. They were no longer capable
of offensive operations due to attrition, fatigue, and winter
weather, while the USSR had a million fresh troops recently
transferred from Siberia.

In the long term, American industrial might would have won the day. The Soviets for all their impressive military hardware and soldiers, were not an industrial power at the time. They were a third world nation. Farmers still used plows up through the sixties in the Soviet Union. It would have been no contest.

Wrong.

By 1945 the USSR military industrial production was much
greater than Germany's had ever been. Agriculture was
retarded throughout the Soviet period, but as I have already
pointed out it was sufficient for the needs of population
in the immediate post-war.

So why didn't we go "On to Moscow"? We would have won the conflict,

Our chances of ever getting anywhere near Moscow in a
conventional war were poor.

but there is another factor: because of public opinion. As someone pointed out earlier, "Uncle Joe" had been America's buddy for the past five years. It would be hard to turn him into an enemy in American's minds after portraying Russia as an ally. In addition, the American public was tired of war. The the though of invading Japan was already decimating popular support of WWII after the German Surrender, which is one of the primary reasons the atomic bomb was used. Do you think they were ready for a war with Russia? A war that would have cost as many allied lives as the potential invasion of Japan would have (for the uninformed, the low estimates were above one million lives).

Here you are pretty much on the mark, except for KIA
estimates, which were generally below one million. As I
pointed out earlier, war against the USSR would have
been out of the question as long as Japan remained undefeated.

 

[editec]

USVIKING has save me an enormous amont of writing here.

I know many of you want to believe that the Soviets were inept dunderheads incapable of production, bearly able to feed their populations and so forth but you honestly do not have a clue the amazing industrial miltiary complex that the Soviets had to arm their troops.

The Soviet Union was completely dedicated to arming its military and the output of the production crushed the NAZIs and immediately post WWII could have crushed any attempt bythe allies, too.

By the end of the war the Soviet production of war material exceeded the USAs.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It would have been possible, but it would have required ramping up the US production to even higher rates and using using some very bold moves to attack a logistical tail that ran from central Europe to the Urals.

First, we would have to attack in the area of Vladivostok and force the Russians to defend another front. Available forces would have been drawn immediately from the Pacific Theater.

Second, we would have to be ready to and actually achieve air dominance in less than two months. (Probably a shorter time than that). The US would have had P-51s and P-80s. The P-80s were jet fighters and in service into the Korean war. The USSR did not have any jets until 1946.

Third, we would have to have opened a southern area of operations either in Iran or by attacking in the Crimea. This area would support the strategic bomber force. For instance, if the US had been able to set up a bomber force flying out of Tabriz, Iran, that would have placed Moscow and the Urals well within B-29 range. P-51s and P-80s could have provided fighter support for all but the longest missions.

If we were able to achieve air dominance over the European battlefield, split the Russian forces (forcing them to rail load a significant amount of tanks for a 6,000 mile trip to Siberia. Successfully use B-29s to disrupt rail bridges and other logistics to/from the Urals, then we might have been able to pull it off. Specifically fragile would have been the supply lines to Siberia which would have been under the constant pounding of B-29s trying to isolate that battlefield.

It sure as hell wouldn't be easy and we might have lost more men in three months than we did the whole rest of the war. However, if we managed to split their forces and successfully attack on 3 fronts, obtain air superiority with P-80s and P-51s in central Europe and disrupted their logistical supply lines of fuel and material, the US would have had a better than even shot at it.

 

[USViking]

It would have been possible, but it would have required ramping up the US production to even higher rates and using using some very bold moves to attack a logistical tail that ran from central Europe to the Urals.

Bombing operations against such targets would
have involved 2-3 times the distance that had
to be covered in the pre D-Day air war against
Germany, and by 1945 the USSR AF was stronger
than Germany's had ever been.

First, we would have to attack in the area of Vladivostok and force the Russians to defend another front. Available forces would have been drawn immediately from the Pacific Theater.

I do not understand why opening another front
would benefit us more than the USSR. PC troops
would have been put to better use trying to keep
the USSR out of western Germany, Greece, Turkey,
and central and southern Iran.

Second, we would have to be ready to and actually achieve air dominance in less than two months. (Probably a shorter time than that). The US would have had P-51s and P-80s. The P-80s were jet fighters and in service into the Korean war. The USSR did not have any jets until 1946.

It has already been noted that the F-10 was never
sufficiently debugged to get it into combat. The US
and UK were not far enough along in jet capability to
turn the tide with it in any two months.

Third, we would have to have opened a southern area of operations either in Iran or by attacking in the Crimea. This area would support the strategic bomber force. For instance, if the US had been able to set up a bomber force flying out of Tabriz, Iran, that would have placed Moscow and the Urals well within B-29 range. P-51s and P-80s could have provided fighter support for all but the longest missions.

I have news for you: Northern Iran, including Tabriz,
was already under USSR occupation, and had been
since 1941. The USSR might well have been able to
overrun the entire country for a song, since the UK
and US did not have large forces anywhere near and
the USSR did, right over the border.

If we were able to achieve air dominance over the European battlefield, split the Russian forces (forcing them to rail load a significant amount of tanks for a 6,000 mile trip to Siberia. Successfully use B-29s to disrupt rail bridges and other logistics to/from the Urals, then we might have been able to pull it off. Specifically fragile would have been the supply lines to Siberia which would have been under the constant pounding of B-29s trying to isolate that battlefield.

It sure as hell wouldn't be easy and we might have lost more men in three months than we did the whole rest of the war. However, if we managed to split their forces and successfully attack on 3 fronts, obtain air superiority with P-80s and P-51s in central Europe and disrupted their logistical supply lines of fuel and material, the US would have had a better than even shot at it.

Addressed.

 

[USViking]

Third, we would have to have opened a southern area of operations...by attacking in the Crimea.

There was zero possibility of attacking the Crimea.

Within days of the start of war with the West the USSR
could have closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles with
ground forces stationed just over the Turkish border in
the Balkans.

 

[Tech_Esq]

There was zero possibility of attacking the Crimea.

Within days of the start of war with the West the USSR
could have closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles with
ground forces stationed just over the Turkish border in
the Balkans.

Bombing operations against such targets would
have involved 2-3 times the distance that had
to be covered in the pre D-Day air war against
Germany, and by 1945 the USSR AF was stronger
than Germany's had ever been.

Regardless of what the distance was in the ETO, the distances would have been similar to the distances that B-29s were flying against Japan. Since we're talking about 1945-46, we should be focused on SuperForts not B-17s.

I don't think you can just make a blanket statement that the USSR AF was stronger. They were stronger tactically. I can accept that. Like I said, there would be nothing about this that would be easy. Once fully engaged though, I think we would have had more staying power than them. They had already lost 20 million in the war not to mention the 20 million Stalin "offed" during collectivization. Morale would have suffered tremendously too.

I do not understand why opening another front
would benefit us more than the USSR. PC troops
would have been put to better use trying to keep
the USSR out of western Germany, Greece, Turkey,
and central and southern Iran.

That would have been a complete losing proposition. As you so clearly state in your other posts, the USSR had a great land army and a technologically and numerically superior tank force. If we would have tried to go force on force with them, we would have lost.

Our relative advantage was in air power and sea power. The only way would would be able to keep them out of those countries is by forcing them to go somewhere else. If we could get them to rail load their tanks, we would have the chance to either destroy them en route or isolate them by taking out strategic bridges.

Our PTO troops were in the area of Vladivostok already, so our invasion could have been effected quickly with VERY seasoned troops who had done many amphibious assaults. We would have had almost every imaginable advantage, use of sea power including very experienced sea based gunners for support. Air cover from carrier based aircraft and B-29s in place and cutting vital supply lines to the battle area.

Why you would want to move this force from one side of the world to another and what possible advantage that could have eludes me.

It has already been noted that the F-10 was never
sufficiently debugged to get it into combat. The US
and UK were not far enough along in jet capability to
turn the tide with it in any two months.

I did not mention the F-10, you must be thinking of someone else.

The jet i did mention was the P-80, later F-80, it first flew in 1944 and performed well in Korea.

I have news for you: Northern Iran, including Tabriz,
was already under USSR occupation, and had been
since 1941. The USSR might well have been able to
overrun the entire country for a song, since the UK
and US did not have large forces anywhere near and
the USSR did, right over the border.

Iran was a back water rear area during the war. Vital for supplies, but except for the moment when the Russians decided to take the northern portion there were not appreciable combat troops. The Americans were also in Iran in large numbers throughout the war assisting with building factories and infrastructure and transportation and Iran was a major conduit of lend-lease.

I think with a reasonable level of audacity of action, it would be within the capabilities of the US to capture whatever they needed to secure in Iran and defend it. Think of it as a Clausewitzian strategy. The USSR can't be strong everywhere at the same time. We can pick our areas to outnumber them and defeat them. Basing out of Iran has other advantages too. It cuts some oil flow, plus Iran built thousands and thousands of vehicles for the Russians, this action would block those supplies. Also, since it was already a logistical route and the Iranian economy had already been mobilized for the war, the Americans would now reap the advantage of those efforts.

No, it would have required some effort, but I think the juice would have been worth the squeeze. Remember, amateurs speak of tactics, professionals talk about logistics. The US would have had a far superior logistical base of operations. A homeland free from assault with factories in full production. Conversely, the longer the war lasted the more damaged the Soviet infrastructure would have been. Eventually, they would not have been able to resupply their troops. Meanwhile, we would, eventually, have produced enough superior tanks to compete toe-to-toe with the Soviets. The Soviets had no appreciable strategic bombing capabilities when compared to the US and never developed one for the duration of the USSR. This means our supply lines were relatively safe. They had no navy to compete with ours. That means we could where ever we wanted to go, when ever we wanted to go there.

Finally, don't misunderstand any of this to mean that I think it would have been easy. I just don't think the Soviets were invincible. They were able to defeat the Germans for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was allied strategic bombing of German production. In many ways though, the Russian army was a reflection of the German army that faced them. They were both hamstrung by the same weaknesses and had many of the same strengths.

Addressed.

In the event any of these fronts were to be in danger, then the following cities should be attacked by atomic bomb: Moscow, Gorki, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibrisk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhni Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yarolavl. By June, 1946 the US had 9 plutonium bombs. In a wartime circumstance, I have to think they would have found a way to increase production.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, if I would be the Soviet High command, I would have responded in the following way:
1: Mercilessly drive the allies into the atlantic. Take as many prisoners as possible, install some kind of puppet regime in France. After the first nuke, use the captured troops as hostages against further nukes.
2: Retreat from the far east for now, wait until enough troops are on the ground there
3: Once enough allied troops are in the far east, drive them into the pacific
4: If the thing happens before August Storm, ally with Japan, if it happens after August Storm, ally from a position of strength.
5: Deal with potential diversions in the Crimea (how is the US going to get the military access from Turkey anyway?) and in the Iraq/Iran.
6: Wait until the US/UK collapse from War exhaustion. As Vietnam etc. showed it does not take very long.

 

[editec]

I think it's pretty safe to say that most of us think that even if we might have been able to take the Soviets, the cost would have been enormous, right?

I suspect we'd have most more men and devoted more material to that project than the defeat of the Axis powers.

 

[USViking]

I am away from home, and cannot furnish a complete
reply in one sitting.

Regardless of what the distance was in the ETO, the distances would have been similar to the distances that B-29s were flying against Japan. Since we're talking about 1945-46, we should be focused on SuperForts not B-17s.

Our B-29s alone would have been inadequate for the mission.

And distance is not only important as a range limiting factor.
It increases the amount of time our aircraft would have been
vulnerable to attack.

I don't think you can just make a blanket statement that the USSR AF was stronger. They were stronger tactically. I can accept that. Like I said, there would be nothing about this that would be easy.

I believe the following considerations justify the blanket
statement: The USSR produced more combat aircraft than
Germany every year of the war except 1944, when they
were even at 40,000, In 1945 it was appox. 21,000-7,000
USSR. The relative numerical strength of the USSR vs. the West
would need to be doubled since Germany had to split its AF,
and the USSR did not have to.

Once fully engaged though, I think we would have had more staying power than them. They had already lost 20 million in the war not to mention the 20 million Stalin "offed" during collectivization. Morale would have suffered tremendously too.

I myself noted the relative advantage enjoyed by
the West in numbers and industrial facility.

However, do you question that crippling the USSRs
own facility through a strategic bombing campaign
would have been a years-long undertaking at best?

In the meantime our Army would have been up against
a larger army, without the tactical air dominance we had
against the Germans and Japanese. I do not see how we
could have held our ground.

USSR morale was as high as anyone's in 1945. That side
enjoying the most victories normally would have the best
morale, and in a conventional war the USSR would therefore
have had an initial advantage

That would have been a complete losing proposition. As you so clearly state in your other posts, the USSR had a great land army and a technologically and numerically superior tank force. If we would have tried to go force on force with them, we would have lost.

An ETO reinforced by the entire PT contingent might at least
have hoped to limit USSR gains to "only" local advances in
Germany, "only" the west bank of the Turkish straights, and
"only" central Iran. I do not see how Greece could have been
saved, but perhaps there are topographical choke points our
forces might have held to avert the entire country from being
overrun.

I will get to the rest later.

 

[USViking]

Our PTO troops were in the area of Vladivostok already, so our invasion could have been effected quickly with VERY seasoned troops who had done many amphibious assaults. We would have had almost every imaginable advantage, use of sea power including very experienced sea based gunners for support. Air cover from carrier based aircraft and B-29s in place and cutting vital supply lines to the battle area.

Recall that the USSR bulldozed right through a seasoned
Japanese army in Manchuria in 9/45. It could have had
more to throw at us than we faced on D-Day, and with
stockpiled supplies.

Also, do you have any idea what the USSR Far East Maritime
coast looks like? I do not, and I wonder if there are even any
beaches available on which to make a large-scale landing.

Yes, I know we did not need a beach at Inchon, but the enemy
where that landing took place was inalert and unprepared, and
USSR forces in the Far East would have been ready for us.

Also, command of the air would have been contested, whereas
we were air-dominant during all of our great WW2 amphibious
successes.

Long-term we could probably have interdicted supply and taken
the Maritimes, but so what? There is nothing there that the
USSR had to have for its war effort, and we would have had
a hell of a time supplying our own forces if we penetrated
much inland, especially in the winter when Vladivostok harbor
is ice-bound, and the weather incondusive to provision by air.

Why you would want to move this force from one side of the world to another and what possible advantage that could have eludes me.

I would want to move the PTO force to the ATO because
the ATO is the only vital sector.

Most of the USSR population and industry was concentrated
in the wastern 1/3 of the country, with probably over 75%
west of the Urals.

Floundering about in the frozen wastes of the USSR eastern
martimes and Siberia would have diverted our strength
proportionally more since it takes less to defend than to attack.

I did not mention the F-10, you must be thinking of someone else.

The jet i did mention was the P-80, later F-80, it first flew in 1944 and performed well in Korea.

Typo by me.

Jet aircraft would eventually have provided the West
with a great advantage, but not in time to slow down
a Red Army onslaught in the first several months of war.

Iran was a back water rear area during the war. Vital for supplies, but except for the moment when the Russians decided to take the northern portion there were not appreciable combat troops. The Americans were also in Iran in large numbers throughout the war assisting with building factories and infrastructure and transportation and Iran was a major conduit of lend-lease.

I think with a reasonable level of audacity of action, it would be within the capabilities of the US to capture whatever they needed to secure in Iran and defend it. Think of it as a Clausewitzian strategy. The USSR can't be strong everywhere at the same time. We can pick our areas to outnumber them and defeat them.

Iran is right over the border from the USSR, and it is a
sea voyage of several 1000 miles for us. The USSR would
have faced less opposition there than in 9/45 Manchuria.
They would have overrun the whole place before we got
a Division ashore.

Basing out of Iran has other advantages too. It cuts some oil flow, plus Iran built thousands and thousands of vehicles for the Russians, this action would block those supplies.

The USSR had an ample supply of oil.

Iran an automotive industry?! In 1945?! Where did
you get that from???

Also, since it was already a logistical route and the Iranian economy had already been mobilized for the war, the Americans would now reap the advantage of those efforts.

If the Japanese could not cope with the Red Army in 1945,
whatever Iran had would have been completely helpless.

No, it would have required some effort, but I think the juice would have been worth the squeeze. Remember, amateurs speak of tactics, professionals talk about logistics.

Then you have identified yourself as an amateur by
glossing over the issue of our theater logistics in
Iran and Soviet East Asia.

The US would have had a far superior logistical base of operations. A homeland free from assault with factories in full production. Conversely, the longer the war lasted the more damaged the Soviet infrastructure would have been. Eventually, they would not have been able to resupply their troops. Meanwhile, we would, eventually, have produced enough superior tanks to compete toe-to-toe with the Soviets. The Soviets had no appreciable strategic bombing capabilities when compared to the US and never developed one for the duration of the USSR. This means our supply lines were relatively safe. They had no navy to compete with ours.

All this is true, but it falls short of making the case
that we could ever have conquered the USSR in a
con ventional war.

That means we could where ever we wanted to go, when ever we wanted to go there.

Not exactly.

Without control of the air our fleet operations would
have been vulnerable, and landings impossible.

Finally, don't misunderstand any of this to mean that I think it would have been easy. I just don't think the Soviets were invincible. They were able to defeat the Germans for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was allied strategic bombing of German production.

Yes, and the Germany of 1941-45 was outnumbered
and out produced far worse than the 1945 USSR would
have been.

In many ways though, the Russian army was a reflection of the German army that faced them. They were both hamstrung by the same weaknesses and had many of the same strengths.

What weaknesses are these?

I do not think the Red Army had any significant
weaknesses in 1945.

In the event any of these fronts were to be in danger, then the following cities should be attacked by atomic bomb: Moscow, Gorki, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibrisk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhni Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yarolavl. By June, 1946 the US had 9 plutonium bombs. In a wartime circumstance, I have to think they would have found a way to increase production.

Nuclear weapons would have won the war for us,
as I have been saying all along. But likely not before
we lost hundreds of thousands killed and wounded,
if the USSR chose to attack all-out on day one.