USSR VS.USA

An extremely interesting footnote of history.

I had no idea this was going on in my own backyard*

* note inserted to annoy Friedrich

 

I would definately have to agree with those that have stated that in the short term the US army would have been steam rolled by the red army in 1945.

If you look at the number of troops which both armies possessed at the time you'll see that the red army possessed an overwhelming superiority.

According to this website which outlines the number of divisions available to each coutry during the course of the war the numbers are as follows for 1945:

USA: 94 Divisions
USSR: 491 Divisions

http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/

As you can see the disparity in numbers is quite enormous, and put quite simply, 94 US divisions versus 491 soviet divisions simply dont stand a chance.
In my opinion there is no doubt that the Red army would have won in a confrontation with the US in 1945.

[ 19. July 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: The_Man ]

 

In war, numbers alone confer no advantage...Sun Tzu

In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one…Napoleon

For it is not by the numbers of the combatants but by their orderly array and their bravery that prowess in war is wont to be measured...Procopius

Just a few quotes from history that show that bean counting alone means little. So, on that basis alone, your statement "As you can see the disparity in numbers is quite enormous, and put quite simply 94 US divisions versus 491 soviet (sic) divisions dont stand a cnance." is no measure of success or likely outcome....

 

What about those 400 divisions being all battle-hardened, well-equipped, well-supplied, with good tactics and with some amazing commanders? Does that count?

 

Maybe, but "Quantity has a quality all its own" - Me

 

I'd say that would be absolutely true in the beginning - a morale crushing strike with swarms of soviet troops smashing through Allied lines up and down the front. - almost brings a tear to your eye, eh Koba? Isn't this what we saw in Korea with Chinese forces? Eventually, though, I think that soviet weaknesses would be revealed and exploited. A decisive victory would hinge on the first few weeks of the conflict - Soviets racing through the low lands? - another Allied Dunkirk?

Q: What about a winter offensive? After the rasputitsa - how better prepared were the Soviets for winter fighting in 1945 - 1946 than the Allies, in general?

 

Well, I can go over this one more time I suppose.
Let's start with historical Soviet advances of the period. None made more than about 300 miles before they ran out of steam due to, if to nothing else (as in Bagration), the failure of the logistics train to be able to keep up. This means the furthest the Soviets could advance even if virtually unopposed is roughly the Rhine. There they would have to sit for 4 to 6 months before making another lunge forward. Their logistics and engineering systems have not changed in the few months since the end of WW II so, this assumption is quite valid.
Next, of the 400 or so divisions in existance in 1945 the bulk are infantry units of which about half are available in the West for use. Of those, many were below full strength and likely to stay that way most of the time. So, it is more like about 125 division equivalents per side (the British et al included in that count). This, of course, assumes no major draw down by the Western Allies as actually happened.
Of course, in part, how much surprise the Soviets achieve will also play a role in how well they do. Little surprise, small gains. Major surprise they sit on the Rhine and await round two where they get pounded.
Other factors to consider are terrain which for most of Germany is not open steppe or flat plain but rather wooded, hill country and large urban areas many of which already have been seriously damaged by bombing etc. This will complicate and slow their advance along with raising casualities considerably.
The backlash by populations in occupied areas would also have to be considered. Would the Poles and other units among the Soviet forces fight reliably? Would there be a partisan resistance to contend with? What about other fronts? The Pacific and Siberia would have to be heavily garrisoned to prevent a US invasion from that direction as would the Black Sea region and Iranian front both potential zones for operations. After all, the Soviets effectively have no real navy. Their submarines had the worst combat record of any navy in WW II. They acutally lost more submarines than ships sunk by their submarines!
Winter? The US and Allies are not Germany. No frozen truck motors, no complete lack of winter clothing, engineers with equipment to maintain roads and bridges (even build them if necessary) and, a good amount of artic experiance (Alaska remember....). Their weapons work in cold weather so, the Soviets would find no advantage there. On the other hand, bad weather works to the advantage of the Allies in terms of air power as their airforces can effectively bomb through cloud cover, operate at night, etc. The Soviets are still almost entirely a fair weather air force.
Now, this doesn't mean it would have been some Allied cake walk either. But, the initial gains the Soviets might have made would have been ephemiral at best and in the long run would have cost them far more than they had already gained at the conclusion of WW II.

 

Generally I have to agree with Gardner's objections. If there was an offensive after the Fall of Berlin, it would take a few months for reorganization, replenishment, replacement integration, etc while the sappers would be working like crazy to recondition the very extended supply lines.

The Soviet fronts in Western Europe would be at the end of an extremely long logistical tether, while the 9th Air Force was very much adept at dealing with this sort of things.

Of course we could postulate on a quick demobilization of the Allies, but by then the Soviets also needed to bring hands back to the economy.

So we have a variety of scenarii to start from but this requires some elaboration as we have to start from a few far-fetched suppositions, but that's what What-Ifs are for. However there are some inescapable objections which have to be levelled, such as the fact that all forces were pretty much demoralised by the end, as nobody wanted to day in the last hour of the war. And after this having to start all over again against a different enemy? I guess it wouldn't really work.

[ 19. July 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

 

This may be truth, but if I remember correctly: 'Bagration' advanced 600 km and killed, wounded or captured 500.000 Germans.

I never said the Soviets would have reached the Atlantic. But maybe they didn't need to. Advancing 200 km and annihilating half million of your enemies is more than enough.

This is quite right. But I wouldn't underestimate the Soviets on the surprise issue. 'Maskirovka' was one of the most genial surprise systems ever performed in warfare.

But we all agree on something: the USSR would lose all its advantages, tactical and strategical after 6 months of combat with the western allies, even after enormous victories.

 

Who said the Soviets have to advance anywhere? The original "what-if" was if Patton got his wish...to take out Russia. That means the Allies are on the offensive fighting through those "bombed out"streets,cities etc. And as I said before,the Allies[wondering how much help the U.S. will have on this]still faced an assault on mainland Japan.I'm thinking we'd concede some territory instead of bloodshed.All of Berlin for instance.

 

Line up the 490 Soviet Divisions and gimme the US bombers... Or better still save an atomic bomb from dropping on Japan... Send in PAtton and nuke the Soviets first...


Ok maybe a little extreme...

What gonna happen to all the German POWs at this time while the US is sluggin it to the USSR???

 

Good question Red,ahhh,digging tank-traps for those Pershings???

 

Well why use Allies when you have all those battle hardended Jerries sitting around???

Just tell em to get Ivan and sit back... MAybe lend them a few tanks on hire purchase...

 

Almost forgot about our POW's....well stick them in Shermans in case "they" double-cross us....won't be too hard to take them out.

 

Well, the US could have. After all, there were just over 1000 75mm Shermans in depots in Europe on VE day awaiting issue to units (no one wanted the 75mm variety thus, they sat in depots).

 

I knew TA was going to hammer me on this.

 

Do you mean a US attack on the Soviet forces in Germany? That's an entirely different problem, I was thinking of the Soviets pushing on the offensive. Now this is a different matter entirely.

Considering the level of urbanization in Germany, how many Stalingrads are you prepared to do? I don't think Patton would have room for many Op. Cobras, but on the contrary he would be faced with quite a number of Metz!

And RB, about your atomic bomb saved from Japan, assuming there would be a city you would want to expend it on, you had only this bomb for one city. How about Dresden, again? After that, no more bombs at least for a big while. Problem solved? No. One shot, too many targets.

I suppose this US offensive would have a tremendous cost, for little justification. And after the US force was spent enough there might be time for an Op. Rumiantsev II. The original one was the big Soviet offensive after Kursk, right after the Panzer reserves had been drawn to the Mius spoofy offensive (Yes, Fried, Maskirovka at work).

Speaking of whih, I'm always amused at how good the Germans were, they even won Kursk tactically (Model was there to prove it ) but two months later the Russians were sitting on Kiev, not the Germans in Moscow. Strange victory, that.

 

On the other hand, in order to see what the Soviets could do and do well it would be a good idea to look at these sources (careful - long!):

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp

These are Col. David Glantz studies on the Soviet offensive in Manchuria, August 1945, covering the strategic, operational and tactical aspects of the offensive.

These show the Soviet war-waging competence at its maximum, and quite frankly I don't see much reason to disparage their abilities.

Right after the victory in Berlin the Soviet army began it's build-up on a new front some 10,000km away, planning an offensive with 1.5 million troops across a front 4,400km wide (that's about 2700miles!), over very varied terrain, including the Gobi desert and very fractured mountain ranges, at the very end of a single rail line, achieving advances of 500-950kms, which is more than the 300km postulated above..

I don't come out with the impression that the Soviet was a spent force, to be simply brushed out of the way.

 

Za Rodina

Interesting angle I remember reading about the Manchuria offensive somewhere and how it suprised the US how much progress the Soviets were making.

There was hinting that the US may have droped 'the Bomb' not just to save US lives from invading the home islands, but that the soviets were getting dangerously close to invading the home Islands themselves and the US wanted to avoid another Berlin situation.

Can anyone clarify this, I could be wrong!

 

I think the Americans after all did have a very good opinion of the Russians to fear they might invade Japan!

As far as I remember I never heard of such plans and beside the Soviets simply did not have the transport means available to do an invasion in any numbers. The islets on North Japan, Etorofu etc all right, but the main islands would require a million or two of troops plus material and supplies, and there simply were no ships for all this people unless the US were kind enough to oblige