USSR VS.USA

Being an avid fan of ww2 statistics i thought i might clear up a few of the statistcs which are being thrown around here.
ive used credible sources from books so they cant be unreliabible like internet sites etc.

ok, first off:

Actually alexanderr isnt that far off the mark even if those figures do sound incredibly high. -

According to ' 'Russia's war' - by Richard Overy, p236

The 3.1 Million axis soldiers in the east faced almost 6.4 million of the enemy; the 3000 German aircraft were vastly outnumbered by the 13 400 they opposed; their 2300 tanks could not match the 5800 soviet machines. During 1944 the gap continued to widen"

other books also state similar figures. for example in 'The Road to Berlin' - by John Erickson, p.429 -

"Soviet strength in the field climed to over six and a half million men, supported by more than 100 000 guns and mortars, 13 000 tanks and SP guns, over 15 000 aircraft and no less than 500 rifle divisions being prepared for the final apocalyptic battle" (this being at the end of november 1944)

i know it sounds incredible, but many incredible things were done during world war 2 and these sources support the statistics.

like mentioned in the above sources, even in november 1944 they numbered over 6 million.

to the original discussion, i think both sides have made very good points and very strong arguements but i would still have to side with the USSR defeating the USA in a confrontation in 1945.

 

I was very much impressed by lght1 and GIJOE replies !
The only question I want to ask them is "Why did it take so much time, blood, and fear of mighty USA to defeat Germany(which in 1944 was much weaker than USSR)? "

 

Dear mr. gardner ! I don't know what information sourches you use. I use official statistics of Russian Defence Ministry.

 

Took six months, but here's what I was referring to about dissidents:
Talking History Forum

Regards,
Gordon

 

I hate to be the one to say this but the Soviet Defence Ministry is hardly the most trustworthy of sources on its own. I would far rather trust Overy and Erikson (the latter being the historian who the Russians accepted knew more about the war in the east than they did) on the basis that they compile their evidence from a variety of sources.

 

Interesting post about Korea, & Russia not advancing. I have a book called,I saw Poland betrayed by the US ambassador to Poland. Basically pointing the finger at Roosevelt. Makes one wonder if a turf agrmt was made by the higher ups. I am not making the argument that this actually happened, only that in light of the above book & what it reveals, that it is possible.I don't obviously have the kind of intel to back up that sort of claim.

 

Chromeboomerang,

my own point of view is that in 1939 the western powers were first there to discuss matters with Stalin but they had not sent enough powerful people there ( only smaller chiefs ) and as well these ambassadors had NOTHING essential to offer to Stalin. Totally "amateurish" way to try to make a pact or a deal. But making a deal between Stalin and the western powers, Hitler would have been forced to think again before attacking Poland.

As well in Munich 1938 the USSR was not invited and that was a mistake if Stalin was to be considered as an important ally in the future.

 

OK, here it goes, my response, after carefully reading the whole thread. A very good thread by the way, many people has posted a very good ammount of information but I think I see too many bias here. As someone mentioned, people is in either extremes: some people are underrating Soviet military might and some others are overrating it.

First of all, it was the USSR the country which contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It we make a percentage of her contribution we might get a figure of almost 80%. No one questions the value of the contributions of Great Britain, the USA, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Canada, etc. to final victory. But to say that it was the western Allies the ones that defeated Germany is as insulting as stating that it was the Soviet Union who defeated Japan in the Pacific, even if in reality the USSR had a deep and utterly important impact in Japan's final surrender.

But in the case of a Hot War in 1945 we are talking about a difficult issue. I think the only thing we might agree about unanimously is that it would have been a very bloody war.

In the long term there is absolutely no way the USSR could have won such a conflict, simply because of uncomparable economical power. Soviet industry was huge and in some aspects comparable to that of the US, but it was a brute industry which produced as much coal, iron and oil as the US, maybe more. But the USSR had no goods consuming industry nor a sophisticated industry. In terms of agriculture, the USSR was much inferior to the USA. How did a Soviet farmer live in 1945 and how did an American farmer live in 1945? There can't be no comparisson at all. The USSR was a very powerful, but a backwards, undeveloped nation in 1945, and most importantly, devastated by war.

The USSR vs the USA might have had better posibilities of defeating it if instead of 4 years of Great Patriotic War there would have been another of Stalin's quinquenial plans. But there wasn't. The USSR was devastated by the end of WWII. However, the USSR was as well the greatest military power on the ground of the whole world by the time.

That's why I firmly believe that if this war would have happened the USSR would have been defeated in the long term, simply because she couldn't match the technological, economical, industrial and demographic advanatages of the USA.

BUT in the short term the USA would have been horribly defeated and smashed by the greatest military machine up to that moment.

First of all we must understand one thing that I am suprised some one as well-read as T. A. believes in: the Red Army was not a force that just won the war by sending millions of men in frontal attacks regardless of the losses. That is a cheap myth.

The Red Army of 1945 was not the Red Army of 'Barbarossa'. You can't compare both in the same way you can't compare the US forces in the Pacific, of Okinawa in 1945 with the forces of the Philippines of 1942...

After 4 years of terrible war the Red Army became not only a huge force, but a force incredibly well-equiped, well-supplied, incredibly experienced —despite of the inferior average basic training, most Soviet combat units had much battle experience— and impacably leaded. the war in the east was war by a level of strategical geniality and a sublime level of operational art rarely seen in History. The STAVKA and the Soviet generals did not send their men in frontal attacks en masse, but in some of the most intrepid, intelligent and most outstanding tactical and strategical operations in military history. By example, Zhúkov and Vasilievski must be put in the level of Montgomery, Eisenhower and Manstein. They were simply some of the best military minds in History. The Soviet General Staff (STAVKA) and front line generals were of outstanding capability, as well as junior staff and frontline officers. If faced in the field, I don't see how Patton was immensely superior to Kóniev, Rokosovski or Malinovski?

Soviet tactics had been developed during the big struggle against Germany and a point of almost perfection had been reached. Contrary to what people believe, the Red Air Force was not master of the skies in the whole front, only in the critical and strategically more important sectors —rail junctions, bridgeheads, bridges, hills, etc.—, artillery was concentrated in these points and then large armoured formations —of light, medium and heavy tanks supporting each other— made a breakthrough, closely followed by highly mobile infantry and artillery. Numerical supperiority in these critical points was not 10+ to 1, as T.A. states. It might have been 3 or 4 to 1. The remaining 6 Soviet soldiers were used in a way the American, British and German Armies could have never even thought of: when the initial attack force is slowing down and weakening, a very strong reserve is immediately thrown into combat, without wasting the momentum. The STAVKA actually taught Guderian what real 'Blitzkrieg' looked like.

That is exactly what happened in 'Bagration'; Soviet numerical superiority was not thrown against the Germans in a single strike, but step by step, not allowing the Germans the slightiest breath. That is a master example of operational art, isn't it? If you add to this strategical super-advantage that the field officers were highly-experienced and capable in the average tank and infantry engagement they could match without problem a German force of equal strenght in parity of conditions. Soviet artillery might not had been as accurate as the American or British one simply because of lack of adequate wireless communications. However, the Soviet artillery was the greatest assassin of the eastern front. Soviet artillery alone perhaps inflicted more German casualties than the whole US Army in Western Europe.

The Red Air Force is being completely underestimated here too. The Soviet industry produced astonishing numbers of very good and reliable designs —we just have to remember that the most produced plane in History is the Il-2, with more than 40.000 manufactured— and had a very big number of veteran battle-hardened squadrons and air flotillas.

Also, there is no question of what masses of B-29s could have done to Soviet industry, but do you guys realise the size of Russia? Of how scattered was Soviet industry? B-29s and Lancasters are no B-52s and their bombs are not Tomahawk missiles. How hard it was and how much effort it took to effectively destroy German industry, which was more concentrated into a smaller territory and much closer? I'm not deniying that Soviet industry might have been smashed, but the Bomber Commands couldn't switch their campaigns so easily from attacking German home industry and Soviet industry in the heart of Asia. Also, I don't think the Allies had any idea of the disposition and deployment of this industry, not even its actual production capabilities.

Some other thing you are leaving aside which I think is very important is that even if the USSR had severe manpower problems in 1945 a much bloodier war could have been taken better by them than by the Allies by the simple fact that the USSR was a totalitarian country and the US a democracy. Would the US people back home have been willing to have a six million conscript Army fighting the Soviets and taking five cypher casualties every month? But the US Army also had limited manpower. During the Ardennes offensive, Ike had to put unprepared divisions into the line because he had no reserves. He had 85 divisions and that was it. He not even had three or four spare divisions he could use to replace tired frontline units. The Red Army attacked in phases with some 60 divisions and when they got tired they threw another 60, and then other 60 and after that, the initial 60 were refitted, rested and ready for combat. How can you expect that in 1945 85 Allied divisions could have resisted 250 Soviet divisions fully-equipped and at full-strenght? The Soviet Army in the field was almost of 6 million, a third at the very front and thwo thirds in first and second reserves. For the Berlin offensive only three million men, 30.000 guns, 9.000 planes and 5.000 tanks were used... what about Soviet forces in the Balcans, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Eastern Prussia?

And the Red Army was not only very good in armoured warfare tactics and operational strategy. Operation 'Fortitude' was a very good diversion operation in WWII. But the Soviet 'Maskirovka' has no match in WWII. The USSR had an unequalled capability of massing men, guns, planes, tanks and supplies almost unseen and attack precisely in her enemy's weakest point with utmost strenght. The Germans were deceived one and a thousand times in the eastern front by a much superior Soviet General Staff.

Partisan warfare? I don't think the Soviets would have had much problems with Ukrainians or Polish partisans in case of war, since they could have put into the field effective and realistic anti-partisann tactics that the Germans never even thought of. Why? Because the Red Army had partisan experience itself and understood partisan warfare better.

The US Army going into Russia as did Hitler and Napoléon? Well, maybe T. A. is right about American engineers being able to build roads and infraestructure in a much better way than the Germans, but US' logistics were not perfect. They also suffered a logistical collapse in autumn 1944 in France and belgium, right? How could it be different in the vastness of the Soviet Union.

And General Winter has nothing to do with it. It didn't stop the Germans in 41, it was Soviet resistance.

As a conclusion, with or without A-bombs the US would have ultimately had overcome and defeated the USSR. But it would have take very severe setbacks and beatings during the initial fightings that the Americans and British are not used to: setbacks 10 times greater and worse as two Bataans and two Singapores.

Someone stated over here that the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the west. A great part did, but tens of thousands of planes and thousans of pilots and ground crews were also lost in the eastern front.

The very best Army in the whole world was also destroyed in 1941 and 1942. What the Allies faced in Normandy in 1944 was not even close to the German units which went into the USSR in 41 and 42.

The 352nd ID at Normandy was a regular division —inferior to a regular ID of 1943, let alone one of 1941—, and even if there was 'Das Reich', 'Panzer Lehr' and other very good German divisions, most units in Normandy and in France (40+ divisions) were 2nd and 3rd grade units, whilst the bulk of the German regular units was deployed in the eastern front.

'Bagration', the Berlin offensive and the Manchurian offensive have no paralell with any Western Allies' offensive. That is why it is unarguable that it was Uncle Joe and his country the ones that broke the backbone of the German armed forces, both in air and ground.

 

I have read that 75 % of Luftwaffe was destroyed over Russia. Don't have hard data on that, but without doubt the bloodiest fighting was done there, & the Red army of 45 was infinitely stronger in material & strategy than the 41 vintage red army.

 

During the beginning of 1944, Reichsmarschall Göring reorganised his squadrons, wings and air fleets in the east in an astonishinh example of German organisation capabilities. By this time he deployed some 2.500 planes with complete air and ground crews. By the end of 'Operation Bagration' there were less than 500 planes in the entire front.

 

Just my 2 cents to a long thred. In this scenario I think it's essential to examine some political factors involved. By 1945, the US was particularly war-weary of fighting in Europe -support for a conflict against the Soviets would be minimal. Simply, without a popular "idealist" objective, ie/ the destruction of evil aka Nazism, American support for a war and troop moral would dwindle quickly.
Also, by Potsdam - even with the development of nuclear arms - the US and British were unwilling to force Stalin and have him relinquish concessions made to the Soviets at Yalta regarding control of Eastern Europe - particularly with regard to Poland. Why? Because of the big picture - they knew they didn't have the military strength or political support for an extended conflict to dislodge the Soviets from E Europe - so they didn't bother trying. Some say it was a "sell-out" - it was just good politics. I think if the US attempted a war with the Soviets in 1945 - they would have lost.

 

*bump*

There's still much to discuss.

 

Indeed. Wonder how US forces would have fared at a "Kursk" defensive network? In depth belts of mines, AT-guns,etc.If Panthers & Tigers failed,could Shermans? Lend-lease Shermans vs. US Shermans? Or would the USSAF save their hides yet again?

 

Shermans vs T-34s.... LMAO!

Well the later shermans could have held their own against T-34s plus if the yanks are fighting the USSR in a 1945 scenario then you will have Comets and Centurions making a debut... Plus all those lovely German tanks hurriedly being repainted olive drab and decked in white stars!!!

To be honest I dont think either country was in any state to condsider a fight. The Soviets were certainly worn out. Look at the losses for Berlin alone!

If their had been then I think the Soviets would have faced partisan actions against their supply lines... Lots of cut off Germans and disaffected nationalities... And just cos they were good at partisan actions dont mean the soviets would be any good at anti-partisan warfare... Didnt help them in Afganistan!

I have read several 'What ifs' by 'serious' historians on this issue and none take into account the state of the Red Army by 1945. It was burning itself out. Luckily it was fighting a burnt out German army...

On the comments of the quality of German forces in Normandy I would have to disagree. The levels of tactical ability and combat effectiveness are similar in some units to 41 or 43. The difference is in the supply, logistics and the inconsistency of German units... But even in 41 and 43 they had some crap formations... But as for quality in NOrmandy look at LAH? Normandy drew in the EAstern Front 'Fire Brigades' and helped the soviet cause immensely... It opened up a true second front that the Germans could not equip and maintain. Without Normandy all those lovely german tanks would have headed off to fight the Russians... Look at all the TIger IIs in the Bulge that wud have been better employed in the east! (ok there is the Italian front, but you dont need much to stall that! Just some Fallschirmjager and a monestry )


Anyway, I think it would have been a stalemate in the end unless the Americans employed an 'Atomic' option... Now one of them would have caused a breach at Kursk!!!

 

As an aside, my Great-Grandmother visted the USSR in 1948. She said that in her whole time there (some 3-4 months, I think) she never saw any males between the ages of 15 - 55. She said it was 'a country full of old men and young boys'...

 

In the facts of Russian front I think I once mentioned something like the men of 1923 were in Russia 95% wiped out.

As well I served with SFOR in Bosnia in 1997 in Doboj and the local men:women was about 1:11 so that would have been my favourite area at the time to stay if the mines had been cleared...

"my Great-Grandmother visited the USSR in 1948. "

Redbaron: was she a politician as most people visiting Russia never came back?

 

No, I think she was a member of some charity delivering stuff to the USSR, She came back ok, even had photos... Will ask my Grandmother for more info, whats even funnier is that her husband, my Great-Grandfather was an ardent supporter of Hitler till 1944... Bit odd, considering he lived in Balham in South London...

 

IS-III would have also made their debut… I think that is a tank to be taken into consideration.

Casualties taken by the Red Army in the Berlin offensive —April 16th - May 9th— in a front of 360 km wide: 361.367 casualties; 1.997 tanks, 2.108 artillery pieces, and 917 planes. Wonder how Patton of Monty could have done that without the same amount of casualties since the only remaining fighting forces in Germany were concentrated around Berlin?

Which explains the conclusions. Not taken into account what the Red Army was in 1945 is like not taking into account the state of the German Army in 1941, it's simply not logical.

By whom? SS commandos? Jewish survivours? Poles?

And this German Army was burn out by who and where? Answer: the Red Army in the eastern front in an 80% proportion.

I don't think this is right. In 1941 most infantry divisions had had more than a year of training and had already been involved —lightly or not— in the fighting in Poland and France. At Normandy only 352nd infantry division had seen action in Italy. But most of its replacements hadn't seen any action nor had had any training because instead of wargaming and training, Rommel used these troops to dig and reinforce coastal defences.

LSSAH was one of 40 divisions in France in 1944. But if I'm not mistaken you're forgetting that defending Utah, Juno and Sword were 3 stationary divisions made out of Soviet POWs whose orders were to stand and die.

Many units in France were 3rd rate infantry divisions raised in late 1943 or early 1944 of men originally rejected from military service. 10 élite divisions like the Leibstandarte, das Reich or Panzerlehr cannot make any difference if their neighbour units are Luftwaffe field divisions, stationary divisions and 3rd rate units with no equipment nor training at all.

Such units cannot be compared to regular infantry divisions of 1941 and early 1942 like the 20+ which were destroyed at Stalingrad or that bleed to death at Leningrad and the Mius.

Which would have been miserably destroyed in true Blitzkrieg like the bulk of regular Panzer and infantry divisions in the eastern front.

Yes, paratroopers in Cassino. But what about two fully-strenght Panzer divisions and eight regular infantry divisions plus many aircraft at Anzio?

Italy drew 19 good regular divisions and many, many resources and auxiliary troops away from Normandy, which could very well have made the invasion fail. And they weren't destroyed as they should have because of the Allies' stupidity and incompetence —i. e. Mark Clark.

Of a nation of 180.000 million people, 6.350.000 men in military age (16-50) were killed. This is less than 5% of the entire population. Soviet military casualties are grossly exaggerated.

Maybe your grandmother visited Leningrad, a city whose male population was almost entirely wiped out. But it is certainly representative of the entire country.

 

No she visited MOscow...

IS-III aint a great tank. Its two part ammo gives a low rate of fire.

I was merely stating on the point of anti-partisan actions that just because you are gud at being a partisan it does not make you good at being anti-partisan... But yes why not polish partisans or cut off Germans and other nationalities fighting behind soviet lines??? This is a what if after all so you cant just say NO!!!

I think you missed my point on NOrmandy. I was merely saying that not all the units there were crap as implied by your earlier statement. I also said that there was crap in normandy IE 716th et al, but was merely pointing out that there was units of as good quality as 43. What makes 43 so good? Why not 41 0r 42???

Not taking into account the state of the Red Army is not logical? So taking into account the ability of an Army to fight an action post 1945 is not logical? Lost me there... sorry.

Never said the tanks in the BUlge wouldnt have been destroyed but without the Allied invasion the Soviets would have had a tougher time of it. I just get the feelin people dont give the Allies credit for their part in ending the reich. Ok so the Russians fought hard and brutally to get to Berlin, but could they have done it without the Allies???

Italy drew 19 divisions... exactly! Only 19 divisions to hold! Sounds good to me...


Your calculation of military casualties does not take into account civilian males killed by war, gulag, famine or purges, forced labour etc... you cant just base it on KIA returns, what of those died of wounds etc...

No-one Knows how many died in the USSR but it was alot...