USSR VS.USA

quote:
"1) Why didn't they just steamroller over western Europe"

A) "Because they knew better"

No because they saw no reason to get involved in another war.

quote:
"2) Why did they stand idly by during the Berlin airlift"

(see a) above.)

Wrong, they (unlike the cold war warriors here) saw no reason to turn a minor matter into WWIII

Quote:
3) Why did they agree to withdraw from Austria?

A) Because despite propaganda (which some people apparently STILL believe), they weren't in a position to take the west on in a prolonged conflict.Even Mother Russia couldn't afford another 20 million casualties.

Wrong (again) The simple answer is they had agreed in advance where the borders where and kept to their side of the bargain.


Quote:

A) Because despite propaganda (which some people apparently STILL believe), they weren't in a position to take the west on in a prolonged conflict.Even Mother Russia couldn't afford another 20 million casualties.

It seems the cold war mentality lives on. I would say you are the prisoner of propaganda. Was the West intending to starve Russian POW's and kill civilians on the same scale as the Germans did? Because a great number of this 20 million were not combat deaths. Remind me of the casualties they inflicted on Germany and it's Allies. Was the West prepared to pay that price?

 

Quote:

"One more time: If Soviet tanks and tank tactics are so superior why did they fail to win even a single major tank engagement against Western armor and tactics since the end of WW II in 1945"

Just show me when Russia was in these wars and I will reply to any valid points you raise. My History books do not contain details of any such conflicts but I could be a victim of propoganda.

quote:

"Could it be that their equipment and tactics were actually inferior? Almost 60 years of history says that's the case"

Why not go back 63 years and include the one well documented and wide scale conflict where we know the Russians outfought and defeated the major military power in Europe (almost on her own). Show me how her tanks and tactics were inferior to those of Germany. And if inferior how they managed to win that war.

 

I'm the victim of propaganda?! According to you, Russia won the war single-handed!

Wait till I tell my old man he imagined four years in uniform fighting Hitler.......

 

Quote:
"I'm the victim of propaganda?! According to you, Russia won the war single-handed"

Well to show you are not a 'the victim of propaganda' just give me the quote where I say "Russia won the war single-handed" and then I will admit I am 'the victim of propaganda'

It seems your myopia about Russia clouds your judgment. By the way do you accept that Russia did indeed leave Austria because she had agreed to and not, as you earlier said "because they weren't in a position to take the west on in a prolonged conflict".

 

Listen mate.....you're not in a position to lecture anyone on myopia.

 

I'm not lecturing. I simply asked you to show me where I said "Russia won the war single-handed". You have failed to deliver.

 

Sorry can't seem to find the words that remotely say "Russia won the war single-handed" in the above quote. Try again.

 

I stated, "Soviet style armor using Soviet style tactics" not nessarily Russians in combat. That meant, Pakistanis, North Vietnamese, North Koreans, Syrians, Egyptians or, Iraqis to name but a few. Not all of these nation's tank crews were by any standard inferior in training or competence to their Russian conscript counterparts. Yet, they all met with defeat when faced with Western armor using Western tactics. This is true regardless of the nationality of the crews themselves. Why is this?
My answer is that Soviet armor, tactics and, by extension, crews are grossly inferior to their Western counterparts who proceeded to cut them to pieces in combat.

 

As mentioned in my original post,"NO NUKES"involved!This is "what if" forum so pretend nukes were'nt invented.That means the USA would still have a majority of men,material,ships for invasion of Japan.Was waiting to see if someone brought up Russian'winters.AHHH,yes,General Winter.But all our equipment will work better than the Germans' at 30 below.Them Seabees better get that "blacktop"down quick before thaw time.Or can you pave over 2ft. of mud? A pipeline?? How many 100's/1000's troops to protect [patch] this pipeline?Do suppose the Poles and Ukrainians will be on our side,that's one for our side.Air power,our side.Trucks?Seems to me we'd have more need for trucks as Russia would be defending and we'd be advancing and in more need of trucks.Would we have to convert the rail guage so our trains would work like the Germans had to do?Is this worth bringing up;would we have re-armed the Germans to help?Did'nt have any left ,did they? FramerT.

 

Did'nt Monty get his a.. kicked by Rommel.Rommel could'nt keep supplied with gas /equipment which certainly had nothing to do with his "doctrine".

 

quote:
"1) Why didn't they just steamroller over western Europe"

A) "Because they knew better"

No because they saw no reason to get involved in another war.

For once your answer seems more suited then the Soviets fearing a Western attack, so I'll agree with you here

quote:
"2) Why did they stand idly by during the Berlin airlift"

(see a) above.)

Wrong, they (unlike the cold war warriors here) saw no reason to turn a minor matter into WWIII

WHAT! They started the damn thing by blockading the city.

Quote:
3) Why did they agree to withdraw from Austria?

A) Because despite propaganda (which some people apparently STILL believe), they weren't in a position to take the west on in a prolonged conflict.Even Mother Russia couldn't afford another 20 million casualties.

Wrong (again) The simple answer is they had agreed in advance where the borders where and kept to their side of the bargain.

They also agreed to hold free elections in "Liberated" territory, yes, that worked well, no? Russia could not sustain another major war against a major power in the post-war world for some time, their population was racked by the huge sacrifices made to destroy the Nazi regime, and their industry had likewise suffered greatly, and having been allied to the US, they realized the enormous industrial capacity of just this nation alone. Add in the relatively untouched economies of Canada, which was quite large and some of the South American ones that would have followed, and the Soviets are facing an enemy with a huge industrial area that they can't touch, while what is left of their industry is well within range of attack.


Quote:

A) Because despite propaganda (which some people apparently STILL believe), they weren't in a position to take the west on in a prolonged conflict.Even Mother Russia couldn't afford another 20 million casualties.

It seems the cold war mentality lives on. I would say you are the prisoner of propaganda. Was the West intending to starve Russian POW's and kill civilians on the same scale as the Germans did? Because a great number of this 20 million were not combat deaths. Remind me of the casualties they inflicted on Germany and it's Allies. Was the West prepared to pay that price? [/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, contrary to popular belief, the US is not that outpopulated by the Soviets, and the Soviet's civilian population had already gone through war on their doorstep, they were far more exhuasted then their Western counterparts, especially those in North America. And Germany's heavy casualties include a substantial number of civilians, it is unlikely many western Civilians will get hurt, as the war will be fought in Eastern Europe and Russia, which will certainly further devestate those populations, but it's not going to cuase the drain on western civilians compared to Soviet civilians.

 

Quote:

" North Vietnamese"

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they win. Was not the South a wholly dependent and client state of the USA.

Quote:

"North Koreans"

Again did not the United Nations get pushed out of North Korea after occupying part of its territory? That makes it a draw in my eyes.

Quote:

"Egyptians"

Did they not inflict significant tank casualties on the Israeli's early in the last war-using inferior Russian weapons and tactics that is.

Quote:

"Iraqis"

In the Iran-Iraq war was not Iran mainly using British tanks? Did I miss some huge victory by the same Western equiped Iranian Army?

 

And tell me how well India did against China whilst you are at it.

 

I believe he was talking about armor battles of those respective conflicts, in which case Western armor trounced their eastern-armed counterparts. The Iraq one is the only one that can be really disagreed with, since neither of those sides had any real armor engagements, as armor was used mostly in defensive dugouts, not in concentrated formations to force a breakthrough, which is generally agreed would have won the war for either side. And Iraqi armor during the Persian Gulf I and II cannot be compared becuase they were facing the newest western tanks using older Soviet models.

 

The engineers would simply build compressed gravel roads in areas of heavy snowfall and permafrost just as they did in Alaska. Mud isn't nearly the challenge for transport it was for the Germans. Aside from US trucks almost having universally 4 or 6 wheel drive and far more ground clearance, they are also far more capable of cross-country driving.
As for trains, the US developed early in WW II rail cars with adjustable wheels that could be set to run on a number of different tracks. The US also supplied locomotives and rail cars under lend-lease to the Soviets.
Pipelines are easily buried since US construction engineers have trenching machines in their TO&E. Aside from that, partisans are far more likely to be a Russian problem than a US one. Hershey bars and cigarettes go a long way to making the locals change sides quickly. One must keep in mind whether the partisans would prefer these before unheard of luxuries and freedom to more of Stalin. I doubt the locals would be the problem the Nazi's had as the US is not likely to be an oppressive occupier.
US equipment works in cold and very cold weather. Remember, it was also designed to work in Alaska among other places.
To give you some idea of what a Seebee construction battlion US style had:
343 tents up to 40 x 100 ft in size (3 of these for temporary warehouses)
56 quonset huts
1 10,000 gallon per day water treatment plant
2 500 gpm pumps for firefighting
8 15 kw electrical generators
1 50 ckt telephone switchboard
1 50 mile FM radio
1 3/4 ton amublance
18 jeeps
4 3/4 ton trucks
1 2 1/2 ton water truck
1 1 1/2 ton cargo trucks
4 2 1/2 ton cargo trucks
32 2 1/2 ton dump trucks
1 2 1/2 ton oilfield drilling truck
1 4 ton cargo truck
20 trailers
1 2 1/2 ton fifth wheel tractors
2 6 ton half yard bucket or dragline cranes
3 3/4 yard 13 ton cranes
1 1.5 yard 30 ton crane
1 3/4 yard excavator with backhoe attachment
8 113 ton drawbar class 1 tractors
8 class 2 and 3 tractors
4 class 4 35 ton drawbar tractors
all of the tractors have bulldozer blade attachments or angle dozer attachments
4 8 - 10 cubic yard earth scraper attachments
4 12 - 16 cubic yard earth scraper attachments
8 pneumatic jackhammers
2 road rollers (one steel one rubber tired)
1 rotary trenching machine
3 road graders (w/ 12 ft blade)
2 5 ton cargo cranes
2 7 and 2 14 cubic foot cement mixers
4 3000 gpm pumps
Materials for work in immediate stores:
1000 sacks of concrete
328,000 board feet lumber
2800 feel angle iron steel
10,850 lbs rebar for concrete work
14,000 assorted nuts and bolts
65,400 feet wire rope
120 oxygen cylinders
2,550 lbs welding rod
(of course there were welding machines and air compressors too...)
The unit had 32 officers and 1073 enlisted with a high percentage being journeyman level construction workers from civilian life.
The unit was also armed with various small arms and machineguns for defense.
Then there were specialized units for overhauling machinery and vehicles, retreading tires, making asphalt, making sand and gravel, dredging rivers and harbors, you name it.

An Organization Todt engineer division wasn't this lavishly equipped. A Soviet Army had less mechanization in its engineer units than this and, this is just a single Seebee battalion of which there were 34 formed. This doesn't begin to touch on what the US Army had in engineering assets.

 

Yes, we would need more trucks then the Soviets, the difference is we can manufacture those huge numbers, whilst they can't manufacture them in large quantities for a long time.

Gaining Air Superiority over Europe will take several months, as even though they have inferior equipment, they are experienced and quite large, however they will eventually run out of pilots to replace losses, so the Soviet Air Force will be only very effective for the opening months. This gives the Soviets their window they need to smash the Allies in Europe, all those tanks are great, but as the Germans learned, they are also great targets for aircraft, so they need to hit quick while the Allied Air Force can be engaged with the Red Air Force.

On the ground the Soviets enjoy a numerical superiority, and a slight advantage in armor, but the West enjoys an advantage in C3I, artillery, and supply. And the West will be on the defensive, an easier thing to do then break through defenses, they can afford some room to fall back on, but unless the Soviets can break through and rush through Italy and France quickly, they are doomed.

The Soviets are also suffering from much greater partisan activity then the West ever will, IIRC the Polish Free Army was in open billigerence to the Soviets, the Poles didn't want the Soviets there anymore then they wanted the Germans. The Ukrainians also don't like the Soviets, but until the Red Army is pushed back towards Ukraine, there is little factor they will make into the war, they were ravaged by starvation before and during the war. Another country I would be very interested to know about in this scenario is Finland. Historically this nation beat off the Soviets twice, including the almost same army the West is now facing, back in '44. I'm not sure how far into Finlandization they are right now, so they might not be so willing to join the Allies as they were the Germans in the Continuation War, as they almost lost their country becuase of it had it not been for some truly brilliant actions in both southern and Northern Finland. Finland would also offer some prize bases for the Western Air Forces.

India also would be of interest, as they were promised independence after the fall of the Axis, would the British let it go with war underway against the Soviets, India occupies a vital point, with the possibility for the Allies to launch an offensive into Central Russia if the western battleground stalemates or defeat is imminent. Would the US have supported a crackdown on Indian Nationalists, would the Indians have rebelled at all??

As for the Pacific, with the massive Manchurian army stationed there, the Allies will have some trouble deciding where to land, as the optimal places are exactly where that army is, but they if they can simply keep that army there, they are keeping a large force away from Western Europe, either way the Korean Peninsula would have been overrun, and unless the Allies can move really quickly to reinforce it they will simply stare at the Soviets across the Sea of Japan for some time.

 

Yep it would be very easy to defeat the Russian bear, easy just like the Germans thought it would be. Unlike our scenario they tried it in real life. They had all this quantative superiority in everything as quoted here that the West would enjoy. However reality has a nasty habit of upsetting the best laid plans and we all know what happened to Germany. Forget 'what if' and look at 'what did'. By the way it was not a question of would the Soviets invade Europe but Patton's mad plan to CONTINUE the offensive into the East. That was never remotely a viable proposition.

 

When the KGB files were opened a few years ago, it was revealed that the Russians ALWAYS had a plan to invade Western Europe post-war.
Why was it never put into action? Because as some of us have been trying to point out, they knew the consequences!

Regards,
gordon

 

And if you saw the UK news today you will see the good old USA had plans to invade Kuwait in the early 70's (in recently released Cabinet papers)but was reluctant to do so because they feared an attack from Iraq aided by The Soviet Union.
All countries have 'plans' to deal with percieved potential enemies. What should we make of the US plans to deal with The Royal Navy in the 1920's/30's when it was seen as the only realistic enemy. Or is it only to be taken seriously when it is 'them pesky Commies'?