Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire WWII Buffs - Allies vs. Soviet Union 1945. Who would prevail?

On paper, the Panther was. King Tiger, debatable.

Both were horribly unreliable and unnecessarily complicated. It also took thousands more man hours to build one than it did a T-34-85. It also took several times more man hours in the field to keep one running. Furhtermore, the King Tiger was too heavy to cross most of the rural bridges in France and Belgium, where it was primarily deployed.

What good is having the greatest weapon in the world if it can't be deployed?

They had more in Europe, but the US had a bigger army, more tanks, and a MASSIVE advantage in industry...That's JUST the US...What about the rest of the Allies? When you add up all the allies, the USSR is at a massive manpower disadvantage. Keep in mind, they just lost 26.5 million of them, and by '45 they were running out of men of service age (just like Germany did).

They also had to rely on imports for food...Where's that coming from? Unless its coming from China, it's not getting there by sea. And China wasn't exporting food in '45... So where they getting the food?

Other than shipping, I don't see the US Navy having a large combat role.

The Russian T34 was a fine tank produced in large numbers, but I don't know how well they could have survived fighter sweeps that forced Germans to move primarily at night.

The Russians would have had a shorter supply chain, but the Americans had better manufacturing facilities. These American facilities were out of range of bombers too. New designs were constantly added to the American arsenal. The Sherman tanks were gradually being replaced by the M26 Pershing. It was underpowered and evolved into the M46 Patton.

Without allied support, I don't see the Russians evolving as quickly technologically.

My bet is with the Americans.

They had to rely on food imports during the war because the Soviet breadbasket, Ukraine, was unable to supply them with food for three years. That was no longer the case in 1945.

The unprepared Soviet Union of 1942 was a far different place in every way militarily, logistically, industrially and agriculturally than the victorious Soviet Union of 1945. It could be argued that no country suffered more during the war, and benefitted more from it, than the Soviet Union and the way the war forced a change in it's infrastructure.

Of course, all the gains made during the war in those capacities were destroyed over the next 45 years by Communist rule and totalitarian suppression of the populace.

IIRC...

Gen. George S. Patton said, in 1945, (paraphrase) "We could kick those Russian Commie bastards' asses in two weeks... and make it look like they started it."

Unfortunately, the American Democrat National Socialists assassinated him, before he could get a chance to prove it.


Pity.




GR

If the USA stood with the allies then Patton would have taken russia and china.

Two weeks my arse...Patton was a blowhard about such stuff. Without nukes (and we wouldn't have had more than 3 or 4 in '45), it would have been years, not weeks. It would have been another long war of attrition. Would have been an immeasurably irresponsible thing to do after a 6 year world war.

Except a really long complex supply line.
The reason that an invasion of the continental US is un-sustainable.

What would constitute “winning?” Getting the other side to sue for peace? Invading and occupying the Soviet Union? Good luck with that...

Don't discount the views of the civilian populations of every country about war in 1945.

The world was sick of war. Period. After so much suffering, and so many millions of dead, civilian and military, how much stomach do you think people would have had for more of it, after victory over the Axis powers was complete? The stated goals, the reasons for getting in, staying in, and seeing it through, were accomplished.

There was a movement that was afoot that was rapidly gaining public support in the US, Great Britain, and Australia after Germany was defeated to military blockade Japan and starve them into surrender, in order to end the fighting.

If that damned Hitler had just left Old Mother England alone, we could have helped him easily defeat Russia.

Then we could have turned our attention to the Nazis.

Stalin vs Hitler. Two peas in a pod. Somebody should have stepped on both their heads when they were pups.

No doubt about it...Stalin and Hitler were cut from the same cloth. Difference was, one was a drug addicted lunatic, and the other was a very sober evil genius...with the emphasis on evil.

I would add "clinically paranoid" to Stalin's description.

But the rest is pretty much spot on for both of them.

Was it clinical? I mean, after all the people he had killed or hauled off to Siberia...there were a LOT of people who wanted him dead, and very few who wanted him alive. And remind me again, how did Stalin die?

His paranoia led to actions that became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kinda like the hypochondriac who takes massive doses of vitamins and supplements to avoid getting sick, and destroys his liver by doing so.

USA would win. We were on full war time production footing and the Soviets depended on us for materials and equipment. Plus we were the only nation with functioning nukes. Stalin didn't get them until after the war.

I agree the US would have had long complex supply lines if we were fighting in Europe/Asia. However, in 1945 the US military had the best supply logistics of any country on earth, so it could have been done.

And as you point out, there is no way the USSR could have invaded the US.

Great topic. Below is just my take.

Fuel consumption in the German tanks was a bit of an issue as well. I believe fuel would have been a deciding factor had we decided to push East in 1945. We knew in 1945 we only had to make it to Berlin. Pushing further East would have thrown numerous unknowns at the Allies from way too many angles.

It's laughable in todays context, but I don't think the US was exactly flush with cash to continue prosecuting the war in 1945. Money would have been another deciding factor. There are many, many angles to look at when this question comes up, but the first thing I always think of in the Soviets arsenal is the T-34. The commies could spit them out one after another. No shortage of human fodder either, and a madman willing to wipe out as many as it took to stay in power.

Patton and McArthur both knew that Russia and China were going to be a problem after we defeated the Japs and Germans. They were correct. We've had to put up with and deal with the spread of communism ever since. Now it's come full circle and found a comfortable home in the democrat party. Someday those that come after us are going to have to face it all. Too bad the can got kicked down the road for so long. Why should we have thought it would be any different after the War when Roosevelt was more impressed with marxism than a our own republic. In many ways he sold us out to Stalin, whom he admired. I'm sure is was deliberate too.

The ideal situation is if France and the UK had procrastinated when Germany invaded Poland. If they had just waited and debated for 2 weeks, the USSR would've invaded and they'd decide that they couldn't go to war with both of them and do nothing. Then, just wait until the inevitable clash of philosophies. Once Germany and USSR beat themselves senseless after a few years, the US and them could just go in and finish off the "winner". Problem solved.