Patton's Dream scenario

[Hexagon]

Well, if red bear attack west before Japan surrender, no A bombs, sorry but west allies dont have any chance because do you see Brits and Yanks suffering all the days an Iwo Jima casualty rates??? remember that in Bulge battle german attack was weak (compared with France40) if soviets attack they smash all the front with tanks and tanks, tanks that west armor can stop because How many Pershings were??? and 76mm-17pounder are inferior to Panther 75mm and soviets has experience... and west allies dont have thes superb StugBug to ambush... and better dont talk about numbers, german has few good tanks in west but now soviets have HUGE numbers of better armor!!! air power... well, soviets dont need protect their homeland (Moscow is so far and do you see Stalin worried for civil situation???) and can send all planes to west, west allied need all they have to mantein the front, is they retire 1 plane they are dead.

paullus99, in Korea only T-34/85/76 where used, China dont use their JSII in battle, JSII is equal to Persing but with better armor and JSIII well, if M-48 with 90mm has problem to kill it with better ammunition...


EDIT: if germans with PanzerFaust and other AT weapons cant stop soviets... bazooka can do it??? i think no, west allies "defensive" AT was based in undergunned AT, TankHunters (with worst armor and more visible than german Stug, Hetzer...) and Air power but hey, soviets have and Air force and can fight with destroy allied air force as 1st mission, defende homeland is seconday.

[paullus99]

Well, the Israeli's didn't seem to have any problems taking apart front-line Soviet tanks with "inferior Western tanks." So I judge that as a non-starter in this discussion.

This "huge" land army that you speak of was at the end of a very long & very vulnerable supply line. The transportation system in Eastern Europe was completely decimated by the Soviet advance originally & what was left would be hit from the air (strategically) from day 1. There were also very few, if any, infantry replacements left - Stalin told Zhukov & Koniev not to expect any reinforcements after the beginning of the push across the Oder River.

Although I can't see a scenario where the allies & Soviets go toe-to-toe in May or June 1945, it would have been a bloodbath on both sides - especially on the ground - but in the longer run, the Soviet Union couldn't sustain a war against the Western Allies. Also, if Stalin struck first, I can bet you that there would be some second-guessing in the lower ranks as to the validity of those orders.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon
if soviets attack they smash all the front with tanks and tanks, tanks that west armor can stop because How many Pershings were??? and 76mm-17pounder are inferior to Panther 75mm and soviets has experience...

The allies would stop the Soviet tanks the same way they stopped the German ones during the last year or two of the war. Lack of fuel. Far more German tanks were abandoned on the Western front by their crews than were destroyed through use of arms.

Russia was totally dependent on the allies for trucks during the war, they had no industry to speak of that could replace their truck losses. So once the allies shredded those trucks they had on hand, Russia wouldn't be able to deliver fuel to the front lines.

JSIII's become a severe liability when you can't feed them enough fuel to fight with, let alone advance with. Most of the rail network in Europe had been torn up by the retreating Germans, so Russia was almost completely dependent on truck convoys for their fuel.

Then there is the fact Russia had lost about 2,000 of its 6,000 or so tanks in the battles around Berlin, so they weren't nearly as strong as they had been. Add to that about half a million casualties they had just lost, and they weren't in any shape to start a new conflict.

Sure they could and did recover from similarly tough fights, but that takes time. And the more time they gave the allies the worse their supply situation would become, until eventually they'd have to abandon Europe all together in order to consolidate and come up with ways to deal with all their new challenges.

But whatever the outcome would have been, there is no doubt, it's in doubt and strong arguments can be made for both sides.

I think it would make a great what if scenario to play out at the end of a game.

Jim

[Helpless]

battles around Berlin, so they weren't nearly as strong as they had been. Add to that about half a million casualties they had just lost

hmm.. [8|]

Soviet Losses in Berlin Strategical Offensive Operation 16.04.1945 - 08.05.1945:

2nd Belorussian Front permanent losses 13070
1st Belorussian Front permanent losses 37610
1st Ukrainian Front permanent losses 27580
Total : 78291 (includes 31 lost in Navy) which is 4.1% of starting capacity
Polish 1st and 2nd Armies lost 2852

Krivosheev "Grif sekretnosti sniat" http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
hmm.. [8|]

Soviet Losses in Berlin Strategical Offensive Operation 16.04.1945 - 08.05.1945:

2nd Belorussian Front permanent losses 13070
1st Belorussian Front permanent losses 37610
1st Ukrainian Front permanent losses 27580
Total : 78291 (includes 31 lost in Navy) which is 4.1% of starting capacity
Polish 1st and 2nd Armies lost 2852

Krivosheev "Grif sekretnosti sniat" http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/

I suspect those figures are just the dead. This site lists over 300,000 casualties (70,000 dead), but I've read sources that exceeded 500,000. My guess is it depends on what the source considers as part of the Berlin campaign.

Jim

[Helpless]

I suspect those figures are just the dead. This site lists over 300,000 casualties (70,000 dead), but I've read sources that exceeded 500,000. My guess is it depends on what the source considers as part of the Berlin campaign.

Jim

That's official numbers form Central Archive of Ministry of Defense (CAMO). For example, David Glantz is using them in his book.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
That's official numbers form Central Archive of Ministry of Defense (CAMO). For example, David Glantz is using them in his book.

Right but the term permanent losses means they are dead. Casualties as a general term include dead, wounded, captured and missing, which those numbers you posted don't reflect.

Many of the casualties (walking wounded, desterters, ex-prisoners) probably returned within days or weeks, but sorting them out and getting them ready to fight again took time.

Jim

[Helpless]

Right but the term permanent losses means they are dead. Casualties as a general term include dead, wounded, captured and missing, which those numbers you posted don't reflect.

Many of the casualties (walking wounded, desterters, ex-prisoners) probably returned within days or weeks, but sorting them out and getting them ready to fight again took time.

Jim

That's right. In your first statement you didn't specify what kind of casualties you mean. I gave you the link which contains all the stats without trailing zeros (can use google to translate).

I just wanted to say that permanent casualties where relatively light and nowhere near half-million. Some newspapers give millions, but it doesn't change the history.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
That's right. In your first statement you didn't specify what kind of casualties you mean. I gave you the link which contains all the stats without trailing zeros (can use google to translate).

I just wanted to say that permanent casualties where relatively light and nowhere near half-million. Some newspapers give millions, but it doesn't change the history.

But that was the case for all the battles in WWII. As an example, Iwo Jima saw over 26,000 US casualties, but only 6,000 - 7,000 of those were dead. That doesn't change the fact that the Marine divisions were shot and wouldn't be in any shape to fight again for months.

The same would apply to most of the Soviet divisions that had just gone through the Berlin meat grinder. It would be months before they were in any shape to fight again.

I also wouldn't say 78,000 dead were light losses. That's about 1 out of every 4 or 5 casualties that ended up dead. Not a great survival rate.

Jim

[Helpless]

But that was the case for all the battles in WWII. As an example, Iwo Jima saw over 26,000 US casualties, but only 6,000 - 7,000 of those were dead. That doesn't change the fact that the Marine divisions were shot and wouldn't be in any shape to fight again for months.

The same would apply to most of the Soviet divisions that had just gone through the Berlin meat grinder. It would be months before they were in any shape to fight again.

I also wouldn't say 78,000 dead were light losses. That's about 1 out of every 4 or 5 casualties that ended up dead. Not a great survival rate.

Jim

I won't comment your comparison Berlin with Iwo Jima.. [:)]

By the Eastern Front standards 78K losses for such operation should be considered light.

Don't forget, that after the fall of Berlin war was over and Germans stopped their resistance in many places, which otherwise would require additional casualties.

P.S. Sorry, seams that I hijacked your topic. Please keep discussing it. [:)]

[IKerensky_alt]

Well, Well, Well...
 
Potent argument on both side...
 
Just one tiny thing you forgot : On what side would Germany stand and when will the Allies broke up ? after Germany total conquest or before Germany by offering a surrendering in exchange on a switch side ?
 
I dont think the all mighty US Strategical Air Forces ( that doesnt manage to kill the German industry by the way, infrastructures and supply were destroyed by Tactical Air Forces ) would have done any damage to USSR industrial basis, set deeply in Ural at this time. When you look at the efficiency against Germany and relatively close to their bases with good intel on what is where and the bombing effect I dont think US could have mounted any kind of strategical airwar against USSR at this time.
 
Manpower wasn't that good on both side, USSR was more depleted but just got the joining of several small East-European nation that could have supplied some troups. UK was definitely out of the war and probably the civil government wont have been able to maintain it in the war, definitely not starting a war against USSR.
 
France wont had supported an aggresive war either.
 
I think the Air War would have been pretty balanced with the Allies having actually to suffer from attack on THEIR supply lines by VVS tactical and strategical bombers. US are still pretty dependent of major ports for supply and would be in great dire to sustain such a large scale land war for long. STAVKA had experience in paradroping extremely long range operation and I think there was communist cells in hiding in activity on a large part of the allies rear, trained to figth Axis but that could have switched to sabotaging Allies effort.
 
On the technical part, US/UK tanks were sub par to their russian counterpart, the only advanced models being in far too short a number and the russian new generation ready to be deployed : JS-III, of course , but also T-44 that was canceled due to fighting end.
 
The fighting would also had become worldwide with a lot of trouble in CW and French colonies with communist supported independance movement.
 
I wont predict who could have win, but my bet is on a bloody stalemate with no side able to achieve a decisive win before national moral collapse or nuclear launch.

[Hexagon]

Well, soviets support units (supply for example) needs west trucks and other things BUT you forget that in east armies horses are very important, you can see that germans for example uses it and can survive with a high distance to main supply sourcers with poor road system (i think that for soviets is better an autoban damage than a mood trail) and with partisan infestation, ooo and soviet units need less supplies than west equivalent, think that in the west see someboy dead for no eat were strange but in the east... and another point, soviets dont depend of strategic bombers, they use tactical, i want to see west allies attacked by a powerfull air force.

Oooo you say that West allies defeat german armor thanks to fuel... well, i think that can expend 6 Sherman to kill a Panther/Tiger helps a little, with no arty/air support west allies cant do their race to Germany and remember that german counterattacks was few and with few power (compared with other ofensives like France or Barbarrossa).

West armies has the "home opinion" handicap, soviets not, if Iwo Jima opens a discussion after 1 east size battle what do you think the people thinks??? soviets fight for not death.

Berlin... well, soviets have huge cassualties because they want take Berlin before west allies, they attack as berserkers and literally jump to enemy guns... enemy and their own guns, i think that soviet arty do more cassualties than german troops

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Well, Well, Well...

Potent argument on both side...

Just one tiny thing you forgot : On what side would Germany stand and when will the Allies broke up ? after Germany total conquest or before Germany by offering a surrendering in exchange on a switch side ?

I dont think the all mighty US Strategical Air Forces ( that doesnt manage to kill the German industry by the way, infrastructures and supply were destroyed by Tactical Air Forces ) would have done any damage to USSR industrial basis, set deeply in Ural at this time. When you look at the efficiency against Germany and relatively close to their bases with good intel on what is where and the bombing effect I dont think US could have mounted any kind of strategical airwar against USSR at this time.

I agree with ya here on this, but I would bet guys like Lemay would have tried anyways.

Manpower wasn't that good on both side, USSR was more depleted but just got the joining of several small East-European nation that could have supplied some troups. UK was definitely out of the war and probably the civil government wont have been able to maintain it in the war, definitely not starting a war against USSR.

The UK under Churchill was very anti-communist and I suspect that they would have stayed in it had a war with the Soviets started. Churchill had always been suspicious of Stalin and his post war ambitions so I would bet the UK would have played an active role as much as possible.

As for manpower, I have read where the Soviets were running into problems near the end of the war considering the vast number of losses they had suffered where as the US was still ramping up and had but a fraction of the losses that the Soviets did. Considering the anti-communist hysteria that took hold following the war, I suspect it wouldn't have taken much to get the civil population behind a war of this type.

France wont had supported an aggresive war either.

Here I disagree..France IMO would have jumped right into it to try and prevent their country from being overrun again and be under the yoke of another occupation force.

I think the Air War would have been pretty balanced with the Allies having actually to suffer from attack on THEIR supply lines by VVS tactical and strategical bombers. US are still pretty dependent of major ports for supply and would be in great dire to sustain such a large scale land war for long. STAVKA had experience in paradroping extremely long range operation and I think there was communist cells in hiding in activity on a large part of the allies rear, trained to figth Axis but that could have switched to sabotaging Allies effort.

While I agree about the port issue somewhat, there are a lot of ports in western Europe, it wouldn't be like the western allies would have been contrained as they were following d-day.

As for soviet strategical air? The soviet air force was primarily tactical..what little long range capability they had can't compare to what was in the west. As for long range paradropping..here again that ability can't compare to what the west was capable of.

As for partisans, there were French communist partisan cells, but i doubt they would have been very effective since the western allies knew pretty much who they were. When it comes to Yugoslavia and eastern Europe, that's a different story and they would have caused plenty of grief there.

On the technical part, US/UK tanks were sub par to their russian counterpart, the only advanced models being in far too short a number and the russian new generation ready to be deployed : JS-III, of course , but also T-44 that was canceled due to fighting end.

Here it is a matter of opinion on what you consider sub par. Gun size, armor thickness, speed, maneuverability, numbers, maintainability, tactical use, command and control...when you take all these factors into play, I would have to say the western use of their tanks along with their doctrine vs the soviet tanks and their doctrine would have pretty much balanced each other out.

The fighting would also had become worldwide with a lot of trouble in CW and French colonies with communist supported independance movement.

This is probably true but the main effort would have been in Europe and by the time any of the other theatres became pertinent, the issue in Europe would have probably been decided.

I wont predict who could have win, but my bet is on a bloody stalemate with no side able to achieve a decisive win before national moral collapse or nuclear launch.

Here I agree with ya again..it would have been bloody and most likely a stalemate unless the US resorted to nuks.

[Hexagon]

Well, soviets has manpower problems (T-34/85 with only 4 men) but they werent at the German level and remember that Germany has a decent army in numeric terms in the last days... soviets can move to the battle many troops from allied countries (Rumania for example fight with soviets in Budapest battles) and the soviet army producction were in a good way with postwar weapons as T-44, i want to say that the "manpower" factor isnt equal for soviets and West allies, sorry but West allies cant loss more troops, troops in West armies were citizens and if they death in their homes people dont like it... or you see in USA a militar gobern??? force soviets to fight is normal for them but not for yanks or brits.

When i refer to air power i refer to West allies needs win air superiority but not against a divided force, no, they need to have real fight, they cant do behing enemy lines runs because if they do it soviets use their tactical to break the line and here is the most important of all, when allies fight with germans germany never has the reserves to exploit a break in the line (and in the Bulge they enter in panic and need to send ALL they have to stop germans) now, with soviets they have the tanks, air support and divisions to made the break a total blow of the front and where are the west reserves??? hey, a front from Baltic sea to Adriatic sea isnt easy to mantein and 1.000 soviet tanks running to Paris or cutting the ports isnt the same as 600 german tanks in a concentrate site special when soviets has another.... 3.000-4.000.

In resume, west allies with a multiple attack where dead meat, they can have a great air force but soviets have another (if air power is so important why they arrive to Berlin first if Luftwaffe is dead???), armor in the soviet side is as powerfull as german but with more numbers and finally soviets can asume another... 1.000.000 casualties but can do it West allies??? i think that the winner is the side that have all their objetives secure, for West allies objetive is easy, dont loss Europe (France is for me the last castle) BUT dont sufear huge cassualties and for soviets is kick allies from the continent the cost isnt important and i think that is more easy the soviet objetive because i asume they have the iniciative and the power to do it, West allies arent ready for the East way of war.

Stalemate has a 50% of chance, a soviet victory... near 30% and west 20%, win in a carnage and dont have legs or arms isnt a victory [8|]

[fairplay]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


But that was the case for all the battles in WWII. As an example, Iwo Jima saw over 26,000 US casualties, but only 6,000 - 7,000 of those were dead. That doesn't change the fact that the Marine divisions were shot and wouldn't be in any shape to fight again for months.

The same would apply to most of the Soviet divisions that had just gone through the Berlin meat grinder. It would be months before they were in any shape to fight again.

I also wouldn't say 78,000 dead were light losses. That's about 1 out of every 4 or 5 casualties that ended up dead. Not a great survival rate.

Jim

The Soviet losses very heavy by Western standards, but the Soviets did have their own standards. The guesstimate is that the Red Army lost approximately 17 million KIA. Having that in mind 500.000 KIA, WIA, and MIA isn´t that much.

And it wouldn´t take them months to be in shape to fight again. I recommend "Ivan´s War Life and death in the Rea Army, 1939-1945" by Catherine Merridale. Nice book that´s giving the reader an impression how the Soviet Army did business. Somebody not feeling in fighting shape either ended up in a penal battalion or ate a NKVD bullet right away. More than 422.000 Soviet soldiers are said to have served in a penal battalion with a survival rate slightly above zero. It is estimated that 158.000 men were formally sejntenced to be executed during the war. This doesn´t include those poor souls who were shot on the spot for cowardice, retreating, etc..

[Helpless]

The guesstimate is that the Red Army lost approximately 17 million KIA

this is wrong number

[paullus99]

Between civilian & military deaths, the Soviets lost at least 20 million - probably quite a few more. While the Americans were really just warming up in 1944 & 1945 (though people were ready for the troops to come home after the war), the Soviet Union was really at the end of their tethers. If it wasn't for the massive lend-lease shipments, quite a bit of the Soviet mobility wouldn't have existed.

On a tactical level, the Red Air Force might have been game for a while, but they had no answer for the American & British Strategic capability. Remember, those factories in the Urals might have been safe for a while, but they still needed to get the equipment to the front - and bridges and railroads could have been easily cut by bombing. The Soviets lacked any true operational or strategic bombing capabilities - and they were behind in radar and all sorts of electronics that made our Air Force more effective.

Again, if Stalin started something, we'd be more than willing to finish it. We wouldn't like it, but there is no way we would have handed Western Europe to the Soviet Union.

[IKerensky_alt]

I think France wont have joined an offensive war against USSR for 2 reason :
 
1- Power consolidation: France governement wasn't strong enough yet to afford a break with the left wing parties. And socialism and communism weren't small power in French politics even after thoses times.
 
2- Army weakness: French army was in reconstructing. The vast mustering of FFL and french metropolitan citizen were badly trained and work worse than the "indigenous" troups that were disbanded in the "whitening" of the French Army after the Liberation. Trouble is thoses inexperienced troups greatly increase french losses and that they have no real incent to keep fighting after Germany surrender.
 
A Anti-Communist Crusade  could only be declared if you have a deep anti-communist feeling to sustain it. It wasn't major enough in France to do so.
 
Also an Allies Anti-Commintern pact right after may 1945 would have been tremendously bad taste...

[Hexagon]

Well, mobility for soviets arent equal to West allies, think that soviets fight from Moscov to Berlin where good comunications are a dream, the good roads are common in west side and soviets can reserve motorized transport for supply lines and motorized troops (they can use tanks as transports), see soviet infatry divisions moving on foot isnt strange and if german troops can do the road to Berlin from Normandy by foot why soviets can do the reverse rute???.

Air power... again i say the same, West air power NEVER fight against a full enemy (same for soviets but at least they see bombers), soviets dont do a pasive role, they attack, when West allies see their air bases attacked??? Bodenplatte was a success for Luftwaffe, they lost their reserves but in the paper they have a victory (limitated enemy air power for a short time), soviets can asume the casualties imagine 3 Bodenplattes, West air power be out of acction.... 1 week or 2, you think that the line can support 1 week of soviets attacks with no air support??? and West tecnological advantages are relative, they dont fight in sea and mountains and terrain complicated detection, soviet planes can appear in the West air bases in minutes. West allies do strategic attacks where fighters kill another fighters because the defender priority isnt kill them, kill bombers is the priority, if west allies do strategic attacks they can do it with full fihgter support because hey, soviets can counterattack with tactical power over the line of battle and a break in the West lines is catastrophic because soviets know where is their goal, conquest France, but West allies know their goal??? germans arrive to Moscov but soviets dont surrender... can West allies take Moscov, Leningrad and Stalingrad??? soviets have realistic objetives allies not and soviets can sacrifice their air power to break West lines because they only need a break, West troops have great mobility but needs more supply, and their motorized mobility could be a problem.

Another point is the political factor, the relations between brits and yanks have some tensions, if soviets attack for example only brits they can force then to reembark as in Dunkirk, West allies have 2 main forces with their own objetives but soviets have only 1 "mind" and soviet allies... well, some times a man do more things with a pistol in the head [;)] and soviet allies mission could be defend balkans, bad site for an allied attack if they can do it because send troops to south Europe when you have in the north the red army...

I only say that Patton dreams is defeat soviets but the problem is that soviets are more dangerous than Patton´s thinks, west general arent ready for East way of war, loss in one day the same troops as in 1 week of hard fight against german troops is si expensive [:-]  soviets combine great operational touch with smash tactic, West allies dont, is like soviets were Mike Tyson and West allies the best middle weight boxer, they can give good shoots but with only one from Mike .... K.O [:D]

EDIT: West allies fight for not be defeated, soviets fight for victory, the same as germans after Kursk but West troops dont have the sacrifice capability of german troops because USA and Britain are far and secure, at least USA.

[paullus99]

Well, as I thought, we will agree to disagree on this one. Sure, the US & Soviet Union had too completely different ways of waging war & both were able to defeat the Germans in their own way - which wouldn't necessarily translate well for an attack upon each other.

Ultimately though, if you just look at the economies of the two powers, the US would actually be able to sustain another war (or a more extended war) far better than the Soviet Union would be able to in the 1945/46 timeframe. While the US had a totally intact industrial base & was completely self-sufficient in resources, the Soviet Union had just suffered 20 - 30 million dead, a decimation of its Western USSR industrial and resource areas, and was reliant on lend-lease almost exclusively was any and all non-military & higher-tech items.

If it did come to a knock down, drag out fight, don't think that the US didn't have the will to prosecute a war to the finish - especially, again, if the Soviets attacked first. It wouldn't be pretty, but as soon as we could get a B-29 in range of Moscow, we would have put one or several A-Bombs on top of the Kremlin.