The operative words here are tank battle. The US won every one in Korea tank on tank. In the Indian - Pakistani wars both sides Soviet equipment faired badly at the hands of Western equipped units. North Vietnam v. South Vietnam after the US left. There were two major tank actions on highway 1. The N. Vietnamese T55's got slaughtered by S. Vietnamese M48A4 tanks. Jordianian tankers using US M47's in the 67 war did well against the Israelis as a stand out exception to otherwise poor Arab tank performance in combat. There are plenty of other examples. Not once did Soviet trained and equipped tank units even just match Western ones let alone beat them post war. Vladivostok when it falls to the USMC and US Navy in the Pacific for one. Black Sea ports for another. Turkey under the terms of the treaties controlling the Bosphorus cannot deny US warship transit into the Black Sea except for aircraft carriers. So, the US can enter the Black Sea and then attack Russia from that direction. Baltic states ports in Estonia, Latvia and, Lithuania. The taking of Murmansk. Again, the Soviets are limited in their ability to stop such attacks from the sea. From there I would expect the US to not only restore the rail system but to vastly and quickly improve it. Use of buried pipelines for POL could be expected too. The US would also put in better roads with solid or at least drivable surfaces in any weather as well. The US would have also made use of inland rivers for supply as well. They have the landing craft and other small craft to make excellent use of these waterways unlike the Germans. You do know that the US brought in over 500 landing craft to use on the Rhine River in late 1944 mostly trucking them across France. Turkey cannot as a neutral stop the tranist of warships through the Bosphorous into or out of the Black Sea. The treaty is clear: No carriers, subs must transit on the surface. They couldn't tell the Soviets they couldn't tansit it either during the Cold War. No no no! No Allies remember? (with respect to strategic bombardment). Okay, so it is just B-29's including the D model that the Soviets can't intercept, the B-36 and other US bombers. I'd expect with a ramping up of war production that the US would soon have the B-45, B-47 and other jets while the Soviets without any copies of the RR Nene engine to be limping along on an improved Jumo 004 and the Henkel 011 jet engines that are vastly inferior. Why can't they just use existing ex-Luftwaffe bases and improve those? The improvements wouldn't take that long given the amount of mechanization the US has for construction. They built the B-29 bases in the Pacific from scratch in about six months having to import virtually all the construction materials. In Germany most of these would be availalbe locally like concrete and rebar. Because it makes the Soviets lose faster. It doesn't change that: The Soviets have nearly no coordianted system for fighter control Lack sophicated radars and communications systems for air defense The Soviets have nearly no nightfighter capacity whatsoever and what they do have is so ill-suited for defense against B-29 attack as to be worthless. The Soviet AA system likewise lacks guns bigger than 85mm almost entirely. This means most raids are not going to face any threat from AA fire as the guns cannot reach their targets or, if they can they can only do so for a very small danger space. The later here would be the initial ground war position. The US pushed back to the Rhine. But, with the fall of Sakalin Island and the destruction of oil fields in the Caspian region the Soviets are hit. Where does their fuel come from when 90% or more of it is no longer available? With the rail system in their rear being severely disrupted they would be deadlocked on the Rhine. The US need now only open new fronts elsewhere by sea and also ramp up their strategic bombing of the heartland of Russia. The scenario still ends with the Soviets having alot to lose and little to gain from such a war.