USSR VS.USA

Let's not forget either,that the U.S. is still facing a homeland invasion of Japan[[No a-bomb].That will tie down quite a few divisions,eh? Some one said "remember the Alies had to cross the channel".....first off,that was with NO enemy shooting at them.Secondly, the English channel is no where near the vastness of Russia.The Allies used trucks[famous Red ball express]to get gasoline up to the lines,burning up 2 gallons for every 1 gallon they carried.Where were these "Seabee pipelines"?

 

Wot, wot, would the Soviet Union be confronted with the Western Faceless Hordes?

 

Yes but they beat the Germans that way. I know, I know, I'm being simplistic.

More Western Faceless Hordes . You need more than riflemen (ex-Seabees) to make up a fightin' infantry division, you need trained staff, artillery, signals, logistics, etc. So you can release the manpower with basic training, but you need to complement that. Granted, it's possible given time. But where are you going to bomb from?

Here you got me. The Sakhalins would be gone. As for the Orient Express line, ok, it could be bombed, but it could be repaired. Problem would be bombing the marshalling yards and rail material parks, after that you could no longer repair this extremely long and vulnerable tether.

Right, but then I can't see how sustainable would an Allied offensive from Iran would be due to lack of roads, lack of objectives, etc. Now, if you could drag Turkey in the business that would be a problem with an invasion from the Black Sea.

Your theories could be debated, but you raise some new and interesting points which deserve thought.

 

Taking strategy ...
Even if the Russians could force themselves to the Rhine - they are vulnerable to the North. By 1945 the Allies had become experts at amphibious operations thought their expereinces in Normandy and in the Pacific. The soviet navy was - putting it lightly - not on par with the Allies after WW2. Amphibious landings into Poland could potentially slice soviet forces in half. Not sure about terrain on the Polish coast - but the Germans had sucsessful amphibious operations in the Baltic in October 1917. Any thoughts on this?

 

BigBert,

Which 'Panzer Divisions' did the 101st hold off for a week?

Also have you read Micheal D. Doublers book, 'GI in Action' on US combat effectiveness? While no-one doubts the fighting effectiveness of units such as 101st, 82nd or 1st Infantry Division, certain US formations did have a poor reputation, the ratio of those actually firing at the enemy for instance. The same is true of British divisions, and indeed German.

The point is that all nations have good troops, and all nations have bad.

I highly recommended Doublers book, it gives an excellent review of US effectiveness in North-West Europe from D-Day to VE day.

I visit Normandy every year and although the beaches were 'prepared', poorly in some parts, the interior relied on the Bocage for defensive tactics. I wouldnt say that the interior was prepared for 4 years, indeed some of the beaches had very little in the way of defences in some areas, often just trenches and beach obstacles, it was not all huge concrete bunkers and thick impassable hedges.

 

I would also point out that there is very little 'true' bocage left in Normandy, I have been told by the mayor of Moncy that only one square mile of true bocage remains in an area classified as a nature reserve. The hedges that remain are still impressive yet smaller than they once were.

As an aside a colleague of mine on the Normandy module we run at uni, told me that you can tell the original thickness of bocage hedges by looking for woodland flowers along the grass verges, these will give an indication as to the original width.

 

And even so, they did not prepare their defences adequately due to severe lack of resources and a three front war.

I don't think no one ever said anything against US or British troops' quality or fighting spirit. They were in fact, much more superior to the German forces they were facing. But what I mean is that Great Britain did not have enough human resources to fight the USSR. The US did have the resources, but I do not think the public opinion back home would have liked to see weekly casualties lists of 5 damned cyphers.

This is true and I do believe that this would have happened, but in those first six months, Ike's 85 divisions would have been smashed. The initial blow would have been 30 Battles of the Bulge combined!

Indeed. But how could such a thing happen before six months of the conflict's beginning? We face again the same situation, this is something that would have given the Allies complete victory in the long term. But also we have to take into account that without an A-bomb the US would still have to invade Japan, and that recquired 5 times more planning, men and matériel than D-day… The US and British Pacific Fleets would have had to be reinforced by warships and amphibious craft, from where? The Atlantic fleets.

Exactly. Defence within Normandy was so effective because the Germans fought a well-co-ordinated, mobile defence in depth, using terrain advantage as they did in Italy and as they could never do in the east.

 

Well, certainly surrender by starvation was not within the plans of the Imperial Staff, nor most of the Japanese people. A country willing to destroy itself in the process of defeating its enemy, blockaded or not, is very dangerous. And Okinawa was a very good proof of it.

 

And that's why FDR and Churchill were kissing Stalin's ____ right through Potsdam. With Japan still in the picture - I think you're right - the Soviets would steam roll through Europe - in the short term. But that's why this is a what if. Considering the obvious short term success the Soviets would have had, what kept Stalin from rolling West? - Politics! Frankly, I think that the US and UK did a great political song and dance to keep the Allies together. There's a lot of talk about the superiority of Soviet forces here - if that's the case, anyone want to opine why Stalin didn't roll the dice and attack? Was it the a-bomb or were Soviet forces, in reality, just not up to the task?

 

Stalin didn't roll all over western Europe because he knew he couldn't afford a war with the west, not even if in the very short term the USSR would have been victorious. Stalin just wanted to use his political and diplomatical skills to gain anything he could by this means and then turn back home to annihilate his 'enemies' and re-build the USSR.

That's why also why Roosevelt and Churchill gave Stalin condession here and there. Because the USSR was too strong. How could any of them tell Stalin: "Keep your troops away from eastern Europe"? Besides, the USSR was a key-ally against Japan. Its very presence was enough to scare the Japanese enough to, along the A-boms, make them sue for peace immediately.

 

I'm sorry Koba - I'm sorry I insulted you by suggesting that you were not honorable in your treaty commitments with the Capitalist dogs. You've made me see the light ... (see as Drache is dragged from room - enter Kremlin basement - single gunshot heard behind closed doors - scene breaks to Stalin, the megalomaniacal ego hound with a hell of an ulterior motive, lighting pipe and chuckling to himself). What a great guy. What happened to Poland?

[ 30. June 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: drache ]

 

Drache, you have a career ahead of you!

[ 01. July 2004, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

 

We must not forget that Stalin was one of the greatest statesmen ever born, and maybe the second greatest of the XX Century after Churchill.

Even if Stalin is also a re-incarnation of Evil, even worse than Hitler, the western world and even the Russian people owe him a lot. Simply because even if he was a totalitarian tyran and a paranoid murder, he had the diplomatic and political skills Hitler didn't.

Maybe it says a lot of Stalin the fact that Hitler respected, even feared him a little, when he had no respect nor admiration for anyone else.

That's why he remained and Hitler didn't. That's why when Stalin died the USSR was the second most powerful country on Earth, with the largest ground army, with a growing atomic arsennel, with the second largest industrial economy. Even if when Stalin sized power Russia was a backwards nation, devastated by WWI, Civil War and famines and he facedand won the greatest, cruelest, most brutal and hugest conflict in History…

 

Oh, I absolutely agree. Stalin was particularly charismatic and I don't think he was necessarily "evil" - maybe a bit of a paranoid schizophrenic. I think he's a larger than life character. But like all great men, he had an agenda, and he certainly had his convictions that he was doing the "right" thing. But Hitler also thought he was doing the "right" thing for Germany. Apropos, Saddam is now harping that the invasion of Kuwait was "for the people." But I don't think morality is always a matter of perspective - and such a discussion is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

Thank you, you're very kind. I have to take exception with your second statement. I have to remind you that, opposite to the person you mention, I never lost an election.

 

Think some forum member has some identity problem involving his avatar…

 

He had me convinced!

 

Had to find about that Sakhalin oil buziness. I think it was not worth it to bomb it for the Japs as they were getting some oil from there as well, though not alot anymore as the 1938-39 aggression had made some damage to both sides.

http://www.oilru.com/or/15/176/


???