That "Submit Reply" button giving you fits, fjrosetti?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

It was entirely possible that if the Russians were nuked and Stalin incinerated, that people in that country could have overthrown the remnants of the regime and sued for peace.

I think it's a deja view moment

__________________
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

LQQK Slava,

Page 11 finally showed up!

We were missing it earlier, after Slava broke it.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

I wouldn't just use numbers of troops but if that's what you mean by "show of force" ok. Not very relevant to the topic at hand but ok. However it was not by any means the most powerful military that man has ever seen. Powerful has got to contain a number of other items.
No I'm comparing the supply lines the Western allies actually had in WW2 to what they would have needed in the continuation war. Given the extra production and absence of any naval interdiction capability they would probably have been in better shape than they were in 44 and early 45. The Soviets on the other hand would be in worse shape.
They were part of the Western Allies. That's the topic of the thread. Why would the US want to go to war with the Soviets or the Soviets with the US. No case has been made for either of those either. As for India and South Africa the former was a British possesion and the latter part of the British Commonwealth so also fit in the definition of Western Alles and I've been including them in Commonwealth numbers.
And I answered it although I've not been including their numbers.
That's one interpretation I rather think otherwise. Turkey was more likely than Finland and they probably wouldn't join in until they were sure the Soviets were loosing. On the other hand the Soviets couldn't ignore the possibility of either of these joining so it would absorb troops just watching them.

On the Soviet Navy:

Whatever the accomplishments of the Red Army might have been, the Soviet Navy lost their war. This branch of the Soviet military was distingusihed by its pathetic record of poor combat operations, high losses, and generally inept performance. The officers and petty officers of the Soviet Navy during this period were generally only adequitely competent at best, this branch not generally receiving the best and brightest the Soviet Union had to offer. The sailors themselves were generally better infantry than sailors as this is how most spent their war.
As to the Pacific Fleet of the Soviet Navy in 1945 it consisted of:

2 Kirov class cruisers (see the cruiser thread here for more info on these)
1 Destroyer leader (Tbilisi)
10 Destroyers various classes typically with 6 to 8 TT and 4 5" guns.
2 older destroyers
77 Submarines mostly the coastal series V, X and XV boats with a few S (Stalinetz) boats thrown in. The later are about equal to a pre-war German Type VII in performance but with much poorer sound equipment.
There were also over 200 various types of PT boat in the Pacific Fleet. The majority were the Soviet built G series with about half dating to prior to the war in age.

A few notes on Soviet naval effectiveness:

Submarines: Best estimates are that the Soviets sank 254,525 tons of shipping including about 108 merchant ships and 28 minor warships or auxiliary vessels. For this they lost at least 108 submarines. None of the ships sunk were in the Pacific and, a number sunk in the Black Sea were neutral Turkish vessels.

In MTB operations the Soviets bested their pathetic submarine performance in spades. While the Soviets fielded over 400 various classes of their own MTBs along with well over 200 lend-lease US Higgins boats, they managed to sink just a handful of minor merchant and military vessels throughout the war, most during or after 1944. Some of the more "significant" sinkings included: The Finnish minelayer Rilahti, 4 German M class minesweepers, and the German torpedo boat T 31. They did get two Japanese auxiliary trawlers in 1945 in the Pacific.
For this miniscule amount of shipping the Soviets lost 174 boats on operations, 57 in combat.
The major surface combat units of the Pacific Fleet pretty much sat the war out in port unused. Thus, in the years just after WW 2, the Soviet Navy in the Pacific (and in general) could pretty much be summed up as a minor and ineffectual force of no military significance and little value.

One other thing I will add here is that in such a conflict the Soviets would have also been looking at problems in their forward rear areas as well....very serious problems.....

It is quite obvious that at a minimum Poland, Hungary and, Czechslovika would have openly revolted against the Soviets as even in 1945 - 46 they weren't thrilled with the puppet governments installed and the degree of repression they were already getting. Yugoslavia could have stayed neutral and Romania simply laid down and not fought. Certainly, the Germans would also likely have caused problems too.
With a serious, and real, military threat in their rear to suppress they would have had some real problems just as the Germans did in Russia with both open fighting and partisan activity on a mass scale.
It is highly unlikely that the Western Allies would have had any significant rear area problems beyond simple criminal activity to contend with. I doubt that even the Germans would have had cause to go out and start derailing trains and blowing up bridges in the US rear while I am certain the Poles in particular would have had lots of experiance and be doing exactly that in the Soviet rear.

Sorry everyone, me and my computer had some issues. We're getting along now. Think I broke page 11 also.

__________________
"Who will save your soul, if you won't save your own." - Jewel

I also had trouble posting last night, the server must have been working overtime to cope with the flux of new members Otto had promised

__________________

Indeed, and looking at the state of morale is just as reasonable as looking at military resources.

Which is what this debate is, a very unspecific 'could a take on b,' now however much data you may pull up on military potential there are other factors which would probably prove pivotal. Unless you can assess these the argument is likely bunk.

The eternal problem with counterfactuals eh?

Nope, world domination is not a tennant of communism, the spreading of an ideal is but world domination is not.

But without it any statement on military potential is meaningless, just as to talk about the physical state of two boxers is pretty irrelevant without consideration of whether they actually want to win a fight.

The same place the Germans did, as well as through the (even today untamed) expances of Eastern Russia.

Slon covered most of this, however the assumption of an easy romp through China is flawed and the idea of using naval firepower in an area the size of which we are considering is difficult at best.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

But moral without context is meaningless. Military potential such as size, resources, etc doesn't need the political context to be meaningful.
Could prove important yes, likely to no. Neither side is likely to start a war in a way that will destroy their moral. As it is the West has so many advantages in so many areas that it is unlikely to effect who wins although it would likely effect how fast.
A rose by another name. If Communism is spread world wide then it is dominating the world.
No it's not meaningless. In particular if one is significantly better then you can say that the weaker fighter is going to have to be a lot more motivated to win. That is in essence my position and I don't see anything outside a colossal blunder on the part of the West that would produce the moral/motivational difference that would allow a Soviet victory.
Who said easy? Note that the Soviets don't have anything like an ideal logistics/mobility net in this area either.
At no point did I mean to imply that naval gunfire was to used throughout the entire area. It is very useful on in coastal areas however.

Military potential without the will to use it is also meaningless.

In which case neither side is likely to start a war.

True but what you said was that the Soviet Union wanted to dominate the world, this is simply not the case. As we just said, the form of communism that survived in the USSR as not internationalist and so did not demand world domination or even the spreading of ideology, simply securing the USSR as it was, not takingthe ideal beyond it's boarders.

A colossaul blunder like siding ith the Nazis?

An advantage that could easily be negated.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Gentlemen, it seems that we are now traveling in circles and as a result this is becoming a tad boring. Not only are we countering opinions with opinions ( which is understandable this is afterall a "what-if" thread) however some scenerio's are simply becoming so outrageous that it is becoming difficult to counter them without crossing over the same path.

So without further a do, I say farewell and retire from this thread


All the best....

__________________
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

That's it Za. Beat on it some more!

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

No problem. Here goes.

__________________

Can I borrow one of those sticks please?

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

How about your current defense bill of somwhere in the figure of at least two trillion dollars, you have just concluded a contract with Israel 30 billion, Egypt 20 billion, Suadi Arabia 40 billion and Jordan (Figure not quoted). Oh and before i forget the computer company IBM made millions when it sold data technology to the Nazis to track Jews.

They relished the role, even sacrificed the Pearl Harbour Fleet to get into WWII, it was the only way of circumventing the "Isolationist Neutrality Act" and has meddled in world politics since.