Patton's Dream scenario

[Jim D Burns]

Given that the map extends 100 miles west of Berlin, I gotta ask. Is there going to be a Patton's dream scenario included? Would be a nice 'what if' to add to the end of a long, hard fought PBEM game.

Jim

[Hard Sarge]

now that would be interesting, don't know about getting all of the OOB work done

[paullus99]

That would be very nice as well. I seem to remember an older board game that played out the end of the Third Reich & there was a scenario for the West to continue on & attack the Soviet Union.

Of course, the biggest problem for the Russians was their scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel in 1945 - I doubt they could have coped with a Western Allied offensive past the first few weeks (not to mention the wholesale destruction of their supply lines by the USAAF).

[Hard Sarge]

to be honest, I think it would of been the Western Allies who would of been in a for shock

in the long run, I think they could of won, but the first few weeks may of crushed them, they were not used to the size and scale of the battles on the Eastern Front, nor the losses, the English were in worse shape, manpower wise then the Russians were, and the US homefront couldn't of taken the losses from the first set of battles

and don't think the Western Airforce would of just has a milk run where ever they wanted to fly to

[paullus99]

We'll probably agree to disagree - but if the Soviets struck first, the home front would have been all for finishing what we started. Of course, Truman would have been under intense pressure to use the A-Bomb on the Russians - and I believe we would have done so with very little hesitation.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest, I think it would of been the Western Allies who would of been in a for shock

in the long run, I think they could of won, but the first few weeks may of crushed them, they were not used to the size and scale of the battles on the Eastern Front, nor the losses, the English were in worse shape, manpower wise then the Russians were, and the US homefront couldn't of taken the losses from the first set of battles

and don't think the Western Airforce would of just has a milk run where ever they wanted to fly to

The Soviet army was much better equipped in the tank department than the Western Allies. [X(]

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

We'll probably agree to disagree - but if the Soviets struck first, the home front would have been all for finishing what we started. Of course, Truman would have been under intense pressure to use the A-Bomb on the Russians - and I believe we would have done so with very little hesitation.

well, got to admit, that is a interesting idea, seeing it is still a while down the road, and the follow up war in the ETO may of been over before it was ready

plus both sides were already trying to get the other guy to shoot first, so don't think it would of came down to a sneak attack from either side, to get it started

and no, I don't think you really understand what I am saying, the homefront had a fit about 3000 losses in the rapaho river crossing, that failed, even had a Congressial hearing on it after the war, what would they of done with 20-30-40,000 or more losses, in a single battle ?

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

to be honest, I think it would of been the Western Allies who would of been in a for shock

in the long run, I think they could of won, but the first few weeks may of crushed them, they were not used to the size and scale of the battles on the Eastern Front, nor the losses, the English were in worse shape, manpower wise then the Russians were, and the US homefront couldn't of taken the losses from the first set of battles

and don't think the Western Airforce would of just has a milk run where ever they wanted to fly to

The Soviet army was much better equipped in the tank department than the Western Allies. [X(]

well, of course, but what I meant, is most people think there Airforce was 2nd hand and backward, the front line planes the Russians had were as good as any in the world

but back to the ground, I think the numbers may shock people, how many tank Div's did the Russians have, compared to the US and English, remember, we really didn't have a lot of them

[PyleDriver]

Yep your right. We had only so much money to spend, airpower, carrier fleets then the atom bomb...hum...

[paullus99]

US Artillery was second to none - mostly due to enhanced communications. Late model US & British tanks were just as good as the standard T-34/85 & all of our tanks were equipped with radios.

As far as the war in the air, there might have been parity for a little while, but our ability to go strategic, as opposed to just tactical support would have played havoc with the Soviet supply lines.

Not to say that it wouldn't have been a bar-room brawl, but ultimately, we would have come out on top. We had a fully functioning economy, while the Soviets were running on fumes. As it was, it took until the late 1960's for the Soviet economy to fully recover to pre-WWII levels of productivity.

[Mike Parker]

I don't think for a moment the Soviets would have pressed on against the Wallies, even Stalin new his people were war weary.  If the Wallies had attacked the Soviets it would have been a horrible decision.  ONLY the use of nuclear weapons would have allowed a Wallies victory imho.  The USSR was strained, but as for putting out war material it was doing fine, look at its production figures for war impliments and I think you would have to agree there was no real danger of them being unable to equip their soldiers.  Strategic bombing could not have been as effective as it had been against the Germans, as the USSR had a VERY powerful airforce, and the distance from Wallies bases to the USSR was much longer.  But the kicker is what an attack by the Wallies would have done to Russian Morale.  Read some of the stories of the common soviet soldier in WWII, give him the motivation of a backstab by the Wallies.. it would have been horrendous.  The USSR was used to taking appalling losses in war, the UK was tapped, and if the US had taken 100,000 casualties taking Berlin I doubt the home front would have been supportive.
 
Only by using the A-Bombs on the USSR instead of Japan would the Wallies of had a chance...
 
and last but not least, it would have been a thoroughly despicable act!  Not that such is not common in war

[PyleDriver]

We would have won, we had candybars...lol...

[Erik Rutins]

Of course, if you guys want to, you can try out this kind of variant right now on a global scale in Gary Grigsby's A World Divided. [8D]

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

US Artillery was second to none - mostly due to enhanced communications. Late model US & British tanks were just as good as the standard T-34/85 & all of our tanks were equipped with radios.

what dreams are you having ? English Tanks wern't as good as ours were, and most of them were ours, and as they found out later, the T-34/85 was pretty good, not counting the fact that the Russians were already using the JS models, odd, from what I remember, all the Germen tanks had radios too, and they were better tanks then we had

As far as the war in the air, there might have been parity for a little while, but our ability to go strategic, as opposed to just tactical support would have played havoc with the Soviet supply lines.

oh, we could go Strategic, and where were we going to go with them ? the Urals ?, be easier from PTO side of things, in a long drawn out war, yes, I would agree, but again, my point is would we of been able to make it a long war, you have to remember, it was the Russians who bled the Germans white, not the Western Allies

Not to say that it wouldn't have been a bar-room brawl, but ultimately, we would have come out on top. We had a fully functioning economy, while the Soviets were running on fumes. As it was, it took until the late 1960's for the Soviet economy to fully recover to pre-WWII levels of productivity.

and running fumes, they were still making what they needed for the war, I am sure others can bring in the production numbers for 44 and 45 for the Russian side

Jon ? I don't know about you, but the Steppes is one of the last places, I want to be bringing my CV's, what use are CV's in a war vs Russia when the Germans surrender ? the Baltic and the Black Seas would of been controlled by land based Airpower

I will give you we had the better candybar, and more of them (as long as we kept the Russians away from the Swiss)

[PyleDriver]

Come on Ron, how long do you think Soviet airpower would have held out. We would have spread them out on every front...Plus they lost 20 million people and another 7 before the war...Do you remember how much vital materails we sent them? If Stalin though he had a chance he would have made the move...

[Crimguy]

I think that, when reviewing air power, one has to look at where the US would be flying from. I have little doubt that the USSR would have swept through Germany at the outset, pushing back the US to at least the Ardennes. If that could be avoided, the Allies could use their resources to not only further build their armor etc., but also tool up the German war-making economy again (what wasn't irreparably destroyed, that is).

It's a fascinating scenario from an intellectual standpoint. It would be bloody . . .

[paullus99]

Lend-Lease was vital, so that 100% of the remaining Soviet industry could be dedicated to building war-fighting equipment. For all intents & purposes, the Soviet Union didn't have a civilian economy. If war broke out, no lend-lease anymore, no trucks to deliver supplies, etc.

As far as tanks, not to say Soviet tanks were overrated, but Pershings were able to handle T34/85s & JSIIs during the Korean war without any problem whatsoever. And before you blame shoddy North Korean training - most of those tank crews were Soviet-trained.

The Germans were constantly outnumbered by Soviet armor across the board - the US easily built as many tanks as the Soviet Union did during the war, if not more. Soviet supply lines would have been extremely vulnerable to not only US tactical air forces, but also strategic ones as well. There are plenty of bridges and other choke points that 8th Air Force would have had a field day hitting from day one.

I doubt the US/Western Allies would have struck first - but there is probably a much greater chance of Stalin (in a moment of less than lucid thinking) trying to make a go of it.

Regardless, the US was in a much better position to fight a global war against the Soviet Union in 1945/1946 than the Soviet Union was.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Lend-Lease was vital, so that 100% of the remaining Soviet industry could be dedicated to building war-fighting equipment. For all intents & purposes, the Soviet Union didn't have a civilian economy. If war broke out, no lend-lease anymore, no trucks to deliver supplies, etc.

As far as tanks, not to say Soviet tanks were overrated, but Pershings were able to handle T34/85s & JSIIs during the Korean war without any problem whatsoever. And before you blame shoddy North Korean training - most of those tank crews were Soviet-trained.

The Germans were constantly outnumbered by Soviet armor across the board - the US easily built as many tanks as the Soviet Union did during the war, if not more. Soviet supply lines would have been extremely vulnerable to not only US tactical air forces, but also strategic ones as well. There are plenty of bridges and other choke points that 8th Air Force would have had a field day hitting from day one.

I doubt the US/Western Allies would have struck first - but there is probably a much greater chance of Stalin (in a moment of less than lucid thinking) trying to make a go of it.

Regardless, the US was in a much better position to fight a global war against the Soviet Union in 1945/1946 than the Soviet Union was.

And don't forget, Poland, Rumania, Hungary etc. all would have had very active and well equipped partisans to throw against the Russians once they realized the allies were going to save them from a future of slavery. I doubt Russia could have possibly sustained an early offensive long enough to drive the allies all the way back to the Ardennes.

The Soviet Union was almost 100% dependant on lend lease for its trucks and the allies knew that. Locomotives were also in critically short supply, so much so that we sent them over 1,000 in 1945. All the allies needed to do was decimate the Soviet supply lines from the air and their offensives would have ground to a halt.

The air war would be sharp and intense early on, but the Russians didn't have a complex air defense network set up like Germany had, due to the fact the Germans never tried a strategic bombing campaign against them. So Russia's industry was wide open, for the first few months, deep allied 4 engine raids would have been virtually unopposed once they penetrated beyond a few hundred kilometers of the front lines.

Both the allies and Russia had cannibalized most of their AAA units, so air strikes that did manage to get through would have seen increased accuracy as well.

The one thing Russia had going for it was its immense land army. If it could manage to keep it supplied, it could probably win the ground war. But keeping it supplied would have been very difficult, especially since it would need to take a few months to recuperate and build up supplies after having depleted stocks in the huge Berlin battles. The opening months air battles would probably tell the tale.

Then there was the threat of allied amphibious landings in the Baltic that could threaten to cutoff the Russian armies in Europe.

But even if Russia was forced out of western Europe initially, the question still remains. Could they then recover enough eventually to be able to launch an offensive back out of Russia a few years later?

Without allied lend lease, Russia had no rubber industry to speak of. So they would have had to devise a supply system that was almost totally dependent on the railroads as they'd never be able to produce enough trucks on their own to feed their massive armies once the allies started targeting their trucks.

Jim

[PyleDriver]

Don't forget the French, their pop pool was really untouched, and there was alot of trained troops from 1940 that would be willing, as long as they had the weapons. It didn't take long to build a French army, many more could be built. Britian is another story, they were as the Soviets, depleated...

[PyleDriver]

Ok one last statment, in my view the Americian power was at it's peek. If Patton had his way he would have kicked their %&*# back into Russia where they belong...I trully love the guy, Manstien is a 9 in our game, Patton is a 10 in my book...Oh they, the Soviets, would have never seen the waters of the Rhine...