Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

USSR Declares war on allies after berlin?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#1 Repulse

Repulse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:36 PM

i was thinking maybe stalin decided he cant trust the allies what if he launched an assault on the allies in europe would of the soviets conquered all of europe or europe and america?
Posted Image


#2 Mussolini

Mussolini

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts

User's Awards

3   

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:45 PM

Please review the What If... rules and revise your thread. This does not meet the standards set by the What If... rules.

HOI 3: Black ICE USA AAR

http://www.ww2f.com/...cracy-a-usaaar/


#3 Joe

Joe

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,948 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 08:47 PM

EDIT: It seems Mussolini has jumped in before me. ;)
Posted Image

#4 JCFalkenbergIII

JCFalkenbergIII

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,479 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 09:25 PM

This seems to be along the line of the US attacking Russia threads I seem to recall seeing awhile back. :rolleyes:.

http://www.ww2f.com/...ssr-vs-usa.html

http://www.ww2f.com/...us-vs-ussr.html

Posted Image
The Power of the king tiger!

Edited by JCFalkenbergIII, 08 February 2009 - 07:04 PM.

  • Joe likes this
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

#5 von Rundstedt

von Rundstedt

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 678 posts

Posted 13 February 2009 - 02:30 AM

i was thinking maybe stalin decided he cant trust the allies what if he launched an assault on the allies in europe would of the soviets conquered all of europe or europe and america?


A good question but this has been done a few time but i'll answer it anyway.

The trouble for the Allies is that the US was pulling out vasts amounts of personel and equipment and tranferring them to the pacific for the proposed invasion of Japan in late 1945 and 1946. The result is that the allies would have a difficult time of it. Also there is the poissibility of having to re-arm those german prisoners to fight for the allies.

Might end up a bloody stalemate.

v.R

#6 Gromit801

Gromit801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 08:51 PM

Then Moscow, Kiev, Lenningrad, etc are added to the target list of the new weapon after Nagasaki.
  • marc780 likes this
"I love deadlines. I love the 'Whooshing' noise they make when they go by." - Doug Adams

#7 phmohanad

phmohanad

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 88 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 10:15 PM

Well USSR With Its T-34s (85mm) ,IS-2s & IS-3s Could Defeat Any Allied Tanks in That Time Even The British New Tank = Centurion MK1&2!! (17 Pounder) and Also US M-26 Pershing!! And With His Outnumbering Soldiers!! ,But I don't know If USSR Air Force was Strong Enough 4 Fighting Both RAF&USAF!! (He Had Great Bombers=IL-2 But no Superior Fighters) Maybe The US Could Handel With Him Like Japan = Nuke Bomb!!
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

#8 macker33

macker33

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 15 August 2009 - 01:42 AM

No chance,things were fine and dandy as long as they were on their own soil and driving towards berlin and anything after that and they would have been extended in hostile country.

Best guess is the allies would have level bombed them to bits.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#9 Chesehead121

Chesehead121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 15 August 2009 - 02:24 AM

they "did". The cold war was a "war" and started something like after WW2.....
To the German Commander-- Nuts.

-- The American Commander

#10 MastahCheef117

MastahCheef117

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 15 August 2009 - 04:58 AM

T-34s (85mm)


Since when was the T-34 ever equipped with an 85mm cannon?

#11 Gromit801

Gromit801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:20 AM

Posted Image

T-34/85, developed in 1943

However, I don't think the JS series would have been too serious of a threat. Like the Tiger, they were pretty slow, and might not have fared too well against the much faster TD's.
"I love deadlines. I love the 'Whooshing' noise they make when they go by." - Doug Adams

#12 Triple C

Triple C

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts

Posted 15 August 2009 - 07:41 AM

People, people. Go read the older threads.

#13 mglmgbn

mglmgbn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 05:28 PM

If the USSR did decided to attack the Allies, I'm sure that bombing Russia to tiny bits would be the first thing they decided. I heard somewhere that Top U.S army brass sort of considered the Bomb as something of a support weapon like artillery, but that was kind of when the bomb usage was in its infancy and they hadn't quiet grasped its moral implications.

Remembering that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was only to save time because the American Public was starting to grow wearing of war and lives because it was estimated that the losses would be in the hundreds of thousands i mean just look at how many purple hearts they made in anticipation for the losses. If they thought that a war with the ussr would be a long and bloody conflict (and im sure it would be) I think they're initial reaction would be to reduce Moscow into a smoldering heap.

#14 kkd

kkd

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 06:37 PM

I don't think Stalin would have remotely considered messing with the Allies until he had a bomb of his own.
It would have been idiotic on his part.

#15 phmohanad

phmohanad

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 88 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 07:17 PM

Since 1944!!! Go Check!! "WWW.battletanks.com/t-34_85.htm" 1944 - Soviet T34/85 Medium Tank. Armament: 1 - 85mm gun model 1944 caliber 53 1 - turret mounted 7.62 DT MG 1 - hull mounted 7.62 DT MG:D
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

#16 phmohanad

phmohanad

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 88 posts

Posted 16 August 2009 - 07:19 PM

Right ,Eventhough Stalin Was a Maniac But He Wouldn't do That!!
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

#17 Wolverine

Wolverine

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 08:28 PM

If the Russians continued to push across the continent, I have no doubt we would of stopped them. They may of been "Victors" but they had catastrophic losses in men and material. They had already purged their own General Corp, they were low on competent commanders. A majority of materials and supplies they were using against the Germans were supplied by the Allies. If we wanted we could of pushed them back across the Russian steppes. Its a shame that they never allowed Patton to continue. It would of stopped the Cold War, Korea, Berlin Wall, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba etc,etc.....
CLIMB MT. NIITAKA!

#18 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,494 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:45 PM

they were low on competent commanders.


Competent enough to win the war.

A majority of materials and supplies they were using against the Germans were supplied by the Allies.


This is simply incorrect.

If we wanted we could of pushed them back across the Russian steppes. Its a shame that they never allowed Patton to continue.


Are you crazy?!

It would of stopped the Cold War, Korea, Berlin Wall, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba etc,etc.....


Yea because the Cold War was all Russia's doing... How old are you?
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler


#19 Totenkopf

Totenkopf

    אוּרִיאֵל

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 10:16 PM

If the Russians continued to push across the continent, I have no doubt we would of stopped them. They may of been "Victors" but they had catastrophic losses in men and material. They had already purged their own General Corp, they were low on competent commanders. A majority of materials and supplies they were using against the Germans were supplied by the Allies. If we wanted we could of pushed them back across the Russian steppes. Its a shame that they never allowed Patton to continue. It would of stopped the Cold War, Korea, Berlin Wall, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba etc,etc.....



Yes the Soviets had many many losses, but by the end of the war they had the largest army on Earth and the late war read army wasnt having near as many losses as they used. Dont forget the millions of liberated Soviet prisoners that could have easily been redrafted into service.

Each unit having more then enough having experianced officers and NCOs.

Not to mension that fighting the most Brutal font in history might allow your generals some know-how of war dont you think?....:rolleyes:

Near the end of the war, Russia's eastern industrial cities were chuning out tanks and ammunition at insane rates. They also had tens of thousands of tanks of their own throughout the whole conflict. The Shermans and Stuarts were just (im not descrediting their impact) more meat in the attritional warfare that Russia excelled at.

Ah yes, it slipped my mind that Patton was some sort of wonder general that could have defeated 6 million combat veterans and the most hostile terrain in the world with finger-flicking ease. Do you think that the Allies wouldnt have trouble in Belorussian swamps, Russian winter and the wet season?

Aside from all this I can see no winner; rather some sort of negotiated peace. But im damm glad that it didnt happen.
  • Sloniksp likes this

Heh.. they are scratching your paint job, Helmut!


#20 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:31 AM

As has been stated earlier we've covered most if not all of this several times over on earlier threads but ...

Yes the Soviets had many many losses, but by the end of the war they had the largest army on Earth and the late war read army wasnt having near as many losses as they used.

Not at all sure that's true. By the end of the war most Soviet divisions were down to ~60% manning and their reserves were pretty much gone.

Each unit having more then enough having experianced officers and NCOs.

Experienced yes but not necessarily as officers and NCOs and of course there was the shortage of men.

Not to mension that fighting the most Brutal font in history might allow your generals some know-how of war dont you think?....:rolleyes:

They were very experienced at fighting Germans they would have found western forces a considerably different foe. Western artillery and no longer having air superiority would be a real shock. The vulnerability of their supply depots and log network to allied strategic bombing would also be a problem.

Near the end of the war, Russia's eastern industrial cities were chuning out tanks and ammunition at insane rates. They also had tens of thousands of tanks of their own throughout the whole conflict. The Shermans and Stuarts were just (im not descrediting their impact) more meat in the attritional warfare that Russia excelled at.

But could they have kept up the production. Ammunition especially would have started being a problem. Then there's food situation. And they have to switch over a whole bunch of production to make up for things they weren't making.

.... Do you think that the Allies wouldnt have trouble in Belorussian swamps, Russian winter and the wet season?

Of course they would have but so would the Soviets. The western allies were also much better at developing log networks than either the Soviets or the Germans. And then there's the moral impact when it becomes clear that this invasion is anti Soviet and not anti Slav.

Aside from all this I can see no winner; rather some sort of negotiated peace. But im damm glad that it didnt happen.


Pretty much all of Europe looses but the Soviets even more so. Britain, US, and the Commonwealth end up on top.
  • Rommel2009 likes this

#21 CptMugsley

CptMugsley

    recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:40 AM

Good try but no cigar! In reality, once Stalin's Army stumbled into Eastern Europe it was short 13 million soldiers. Sea, economic, and air power would've belonged to the Allies. The mass of russian divisions, 2-6000 strong, would have smashed into a solid wall of allied artillery and ground support aircraft. While the russians were advancing in the motherland, they could replace their losses by gang pressing all males. With allied Lend Lease, they could keep up production. With the germans having zero strategic bombing forces, what would 1200 B29s do to the now defenseless russian railroad and industrial base? Yep. Also remember, the US only had a third bomb after beating Japan. The next bomb wasn't ready until 1946. Like the movie Patton, we'd have to had rearmed the germans and marched back into Poland. Like today, though, our military wouldn't have finished the job. They'd have stopped and negotiated. Stalin didn't have the economy to absorb more than he had and repair the 50% of russia that was laying in ruins. Stalin was also more paranoid about Zhukov and others challenging him politically with their successful military experiences. He was just as paranoid as Hitler and killed a lot more people than Hitler did. The strongest rumor is that in 1957, during a weak moment, Stalin was strangled to death because he intended to start another 20 million dead progrom to assure his job. Remember or not, Stalin was a train robber, bandit, and college student (along the same lines sometime!). And like Hitler, he wanted control of Europe and Asia and got it after WW2. The Russian army has always impressed me as a gypsy army...when they need something to accomplish a military thing,they take it. Or try to do it without it. Their tactics, line the guns up hub-to-hub, charge in compact groups across the open fields (with their soldiers blowing up the mines so the tanks and "real"soldiers could get through), and launch cavalry/tank raids. The russians didn't get so much better by 1945 as the now conscript poorly trained german army got slower and slower. And were overrun.

#22 Triple C

Triple C

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:58 AM

Stalin was not crazy. He had neither the popular support nor strategic reserves to fight another great war. Truman and Eisenhower were not crazy or evil. The Americans want peace; invading Russia without provocation would make it an unjust war.

The two sides were tactically well matched. In case of a shooting war, there would be bloodshed on an unimaginable scale which was why it never broke out.
  • lwd likes this

#23 John Dudek

John Dudek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:38 AM

Well USSR With Its T-34s (85mm) ,IS-2s & IS-3s Could Defeat Any Allied Tanks in That Time Even The British New Tank = Centurion MK1&2!! (17 Pounder) and Also US M-26 Pershing!! And With His Outnumbering Soldiers!! ,But I don't know If USSR Air Force was Strong Enough 4 Fighting Both RAF&USAF!! (He Had Great Bombers=IL-2 But no Superior Fighters) Maybe The US Could Handel With Him Like Japan = Nuke Bomb!!


Those were the same T-34/85's that American and British Tanks shot to pieces in Korea a few years later, using the same Shermans, Pershings and British tanks left over from WWII. The new HVAP ammunition that was then coming on line became the great equalizer between the Anglo-Americans and the Soviets.

#24 phmohanad

phmohanad

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 88 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 05:57 AM

No Dude ,The Shermans Suffered Severe Losses in Korea ,but The British Centurion MK3 (20 Pounder) had Saved The Situation!!
in Korea They were facing a newer Soviet Tanks like IS-3 & T-54!!
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

#25 Triple C

Triple C

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 01:29 PM

No Dude ,The Shermans Suffered Severe Losses in Korea ,but The British Centurion MK3 (20 Pounder) had Saved The Situation!!
in Korea They were facing a newer Soviet Tanks like IS-3 & T-54!!


You are wrong on every count. The M4A3E8s slaughtered North Korean tanks. There were no IS-3 or T-54 in Korea at that time.

Edited by Triple C, 18 August 2009 - 01:36 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users