Nazi's & Western Allies Combine Forces Against Russia

On the Soviet navy: In 1945 the Soviet navy was essentially a coastal force of really little capacity or significance. Their submarine fleet could be claimed to have lost their war. The Soviet submarine force was the only one that lost more submarines than vessels they sunk. Their successes were really pathetic in this area. Most of their boats were small coastal-type submarines and the relatively few large ocean going boats they had were older, poor designs that would have been easy targets for Western ASW in 1945 - 46.
Their surface fleet was largely small craft like PT boats. The homegrown designs proved relatively incapable of successfully attacking shipping and were incapable of providing any real measure of support fire in amphibious operations as they generally had just a single 12.7mm machinegun. A few had a rack for 82mm rockets emplaced but no reloads were provided.
In larger ships only the Black Seas Fleet was in any shape to operate as a surface fleet. Even then, their ships were obsolesent pre-war construction that had little updating. In the Pacific they had a single modern cruiser and only about a dozen destroyers available.
Basically, in 1945 the Soviet Navy was not a threat and incapable of performing all but the most minor local operations. It was part of the price to build a huge land army and defeat Germany.

 

I think you just said it better than I did.

The Soviets had some subs in the Pacific and indeed had some success vs the Japanese. The problem is the US wouldn't know how many subs they started with or in many cases be sure if they sunk one. As a result they'd have to worry about them. I don't think the US would even have a good idea what the ranges of the Soviet subs would be but could be wrong about this. The US counter measures could and probably would use more resources than the subs would account for.

 

LWD, tell me two things, if you please.

1 - How many naval bases besides Vladivostok did the Soviet navy have in the Pacific?

2 - Suppose the US Navy had in the Pacific 4 years experience fighting against one of the best fleets in the world. How much experience did the Sov. Pac. Fleet have accumulated in high seas warfare above and below surface and in the air ?

 

Depends on your definition of "show of force"

Any one country but we're talking about the Western Allies (and possibly Germany) vs the Soviets. So it's not just the US Army vs the Soviet Army. It's also pretty clear that the Soviets had mobilized just about all they had to mobilize indeed they may have mobilized more than they could support long term. The Western allies however had not.

That's one of the more useless comparisons I've seen. Allied divisions in Europe to the total number of men in the Soviet army.

It was

Compare to WWII to see how it can be managed

Then start a new thread US vs the Soviets. The European part of the Soviet Union by the way was in no better and probably worse shape than Western Europe. The rest of the Commonwealth with a few exceptions such as Hong Cong and Singapore had not been battle grounds and were also in good shape as were a number of other Western allies (Mexico and Brazil for example). Furthermore the Soviets would have had to wory about Finland and Turkey (the latter an allie that I'm assuming would stay neutral at least for the first month or so).

I try to be fair.
These are actually the kind of situations that often result in some outstanding successes for comerce raiders. The day of the surface raider was probably gone but subs still remained a threat.

 

I'll admit to knowing relativly little about the WWII Soviet navy. Most of what I've learned has been from the IJN forum where typically the posts are on late war successes. As to how many bases depending on when the fighting starts there might be a number of ports that the Soviets could use although none could probably be considered a full up naval base.

Actuall vs the Soviets I'd put the USN experiance in the Atlantic as being more useful than that in the Pacific.

It does seam that based on a number of posts todate I've over rated the Soviet capability. I'm not sure I've overrated the US response to it however.

 

Just including certain countries as Western allies, Mexico and Brazil being two excellent examples, would not of enhanced the allies wartime capabilities much at all, especially as it would concern the makeup of fighting units.

Certain countries were, throughout their entire history, undisiplined, unmotiated and many of these countries were basically uninterested about WW2, from beginning to end. This attitude would certainly have carried over to any continuation war.

Can't imagine much troop or supply support coming from these so-called allies to help in any kind of conflict. Simply adding the large population numbers of these countries to the allied cause is misleading.

 

Wot, this one Bwana!

The last time I saw somebody being called that was Anthony Quinn in a BW film



Did you know that Adam was a Portagee?
Who else would stand beside a naked woman in the garden of Eden and eat an apple?

More in the Free Fire Zone

 

Well both Mexico and Brazil joined the allies several years before the end and supplied combat troops. The troops in the Mexican army have from my reading historically been well disciplined and quite brave. Even if they don't supply much in the way of troops their is resources and production. Please note by the way that as I recall I did not include them in most if any of the population estimates earlier in this thread.

 

My definition? or your definition?

Talkin numbers, the Red Army in Europe in 1945 was the largest and most powerful military that man has ever seen. Numbers wise the Allies in Europe of the same year, were MUCH smaller in size.

I am only comparing to what was on the continent of Europe in 1945.

Do I understand this correctly? Are you comparing the supply lines of Vietnam to what they would have been to SU?

Just out of curiousity, why would Mexico and Brazil ever consider going to war against the SU? Why not add India or South Africa to this group of allies against the SU as well?

I also believe that I asked this question about China

As for Turkey and Finland, the Soviets would not have to worry about them. Those two countries would never go to war with Russia again. To claim that they would, is to simply be unfamiliar with the history of these countries or be in a stage of denial

But who knows I might be wrong ( doubtful ). Maybe our friends from Finland may comment on the matter.

 

It was entirely possible that if the Russians were nuked and Stalin incinerated, that people in that country could have overthrown the remnants of the regime and sued for peace.

I think it's a deja view moment

 

I wouldn't just use numbers of troops but if that's what you mean by "show of force" ok. Not very relevant to the topic at hand but ok. However it was not by any means the most powerful military that man has ever seen. Powerful has got to contain a number of other items.

No I'm comparing the supply lines the Western allies actually had in WW2 to what they would have needed in the continuation war. Given the extra production and absence of any naval interdiction capability they would probably have been in better shape than they were in 44 and early 45. The Soviets on the other hand would be in worse shape.

They were part of the Western Allies. That's the topic of the thread. Why would the US want to go to war with the Soviets or the Soviets with the US. No case has been made for either of those either. As for India and South Africa the former was a British possesion and the latter part of the British Commonwealth so also fit in the definition of Western Alles and I've been including them in Commonwealth numbers.

And I answered it although I've not been including their numbers.

That's one interpretation I rather think otherwise. Turkey was more likely than Finland and they probably wouldn't join in until they were sure the Soviets were loosing. On the other hand the Soviets couldn't ignore the possibility of either of these joining so it would absorb troops just watching them.

 

On the Soviet Navy:

Whatever the accomplishments of the Red Army might have been, the Soviet Navy lost their war. This branch of the Soviet military was distingusihed by its pathetic record of poor combat operations, high losses, and generally inept performance. The officers and petty officers of the Soviet Navy during this period were generally only adequitely competent at best, this branch not generally receiving the best and brightest the Soviet Union had to offer. The sailors themselves were generally better infantry than sailors as this is how most spent their war.
As to the Pacific Fleet of the Soviet Navy in 1945 it consisted of:

2 Kirov class cruisers (see the cruiser thread here for more info on these)
1 Destroyer leader (Tbilisi)
10 Destroyers various classes typically with 6 to 8 TT and 4 5" guns.
2 older destroyers
77 Submarines mostly the coastal series V, X and XV boats with a few S (Stalinetz) boats thrown in. The later are about equal to a pre-war German Type VII in performance but with much poorer sound equipment.
There were also over 200 various types of PT boat in the Pacific Fleet. The majority were the Soviet built G series with about half dating to prior to the war in age.

A few notes on Soviet naval effectiveness:

Submarines: Best estimates are that the Soviets sank 254,525 tons of shipping including about 108 merchant ships and 28 minor warships or auxiliary vessels. For this they lost at least 108 submarines. None of the ships sunk were in the Pacific and, a number sunk in the Black Sea were neutral Turkish vessels.

In MTB operations the Soviets bested their pathetic submarine performance in spades. While the Soviets fielded over 400 various classes of their own MTBs along with well over 200 lend-lease US Higgins boats, they managed to sink just a handful of minor merchant and military vessels throughout the war, most during or after 1944. Some of the more "significant" sinkings included: The Finnish minelayer Rilahti, 4 German M class minesweepers, and the German torpedo boat T 31. They did get two Japanese auxiliary trawlers in 1945 in the Pacific.
For this miniscule amount of shipping the Soviets lost 174 boats on operations, 57 in combat.
The major surface combat units of the Pacific Fleet pretty much sat the war out in port unused. Thus, in the years just after WW 2, the Soviet Navy in the Pacific (and in general) could pretty much be summed up as a minor and ineffectual force of no military significance and little value.

 

One other thing I will add here is that in such a conflict the Soviets would have also been looking at problems in their forward rear areas as well....very serious problems.....

It is quite obvious that at a minimum Poland, Hungary and, Czechslovika would have openly revolted against the Soviets as even in 1945 - 46 they weren't thrilled with the puppet governments installed and the degree of repression they were already getting. Yugoslavia could have stayed neutral and Romania simply laid down and not fought. Certainly, the Germans would also likely have caused problems too.
With a serious, and real, military threat in their rear to suppress they would have had some real problems just as the Germans did in Russia with both open fighting and partisan activity on a mass scale.
It is highly unlikely that the Western Allies would have had any significant rear area problems beyond simple criminal activity to contend with. I doubt that even the Germans would have had cause to go out and start derailing trains and blowing up bridges in the US rear while I am certain the Poles in particular would have had lots of experiance and be doing exactly that in the Soviet rear.

 

Sorry everyone, me and my computer had some issues. We're getting along now. Think I broke page 11 also.

 

I also had trouble posting last night, the server must have been working overtime to cope with the flux of new members Otto had promised

 

Indeed, and looking at the state of morale is just as reasonable as looking at military resources.

Which is what this debate is, a very unspecific 'could a take on b,' now however much data you may pull up on military potential there are other factors which would probably prove pivotal. Unless you can assess these the argument is likely bunk.

The eternal problem with counterfactuals eh?

Nope, world domination is not a tennant of communism, the spreading of an ideal is but world domination is not.

But without it any statement on military potential is meaningless, just as to talk about the physical state of two boxers is pretty irrelevant without consideration of whether they actually want to win a fight.

The same place the Germans did, as well as through the (even today untamed) expances of Eastern Russia.

Slon covered most of this, however the assumption of an easy romp through China is flawed and the idea of using naval firepower in an area the size of which we are considering is difficult at best.

 

But moral without context is meaningless. Military potential such as size, resources, etc doesn't need the political context to be meaningful.

Could prove important yes, likely to no. Neither side is likely to start a war in a way that will destroy their moral. As it is the West has so many advantages in so many areas that it is unlikely to effect who wins although it would likely effect how fast.

A rose by another name. If Communism is spread world wide then it is dominating the world.

No it's not meaningless. In particular if one is significantly better then you can say that the weaker fighter is going to have to be a lot more motivated to win. That is in essence my position and I don't see anything outside a colossal blunder on the part of the West that would produce the moral/motivational difference that would allow a Soviet victory.

Who said easy? Note that the Soviets don't have anything like an ideal logistics/mobility net in this area either.
At no point did I mean to imply that naval gunfire was to used throughout the entire area. It is very useful on in coastal areas however.