the war wouldnt help either country that much at that time. but if the US knew that in the coming years, they would get into a huge arms race with the Soviets, and have it potentially end in nuclear war then i think that they would have obviously invaded the soviet union. although public support for the war would be very, very small.
The US knew that an arms race was coming. The US knew that they weren’t going to get along with the Soviets omce the war was over. Communism and democracy are too different. Hell, even the germans knew that the allies
were going to hate each other. Thats one of the reasons why german armies moved west, “To team up with the allies to fight the russians with the remaining portions of the german army”. Thats’ why himmler wanted to negotiate with Eisenhower. Thats why Hitler hoped for a allied- break up
I wonder if the delusional nazis actually blieved that the Western Allies would team up with the biggest murdering gang of cutthroats in modern history just to fight the Soviets.
the funny thing, is that Himmler wanted to present himself as the new “Conservative” leader of new germany. He even applied for the position to Eisenhower.
Oh definately, the Nazis nearly managed it with scant fewer resources than the Western Allies could bring to the fight. Air power would have denied the Soviets their movement. No point having all that Arty if it gets bombed every day. The already hungry Sovs would be even hungrier as their main source of food supply stops. Their industries are no longer safe as B-29 fleets pound them. Yes they had good tanks but in 1946-46 so would the Allies with many new and excellent makes entering the fight.
Im not saying that it would have been a walkover, but from a practical standpoint I am saying it was the more likely outcome if it had happened.
i once read that hitler had secret communications with high up US officials almost through out the war. he hated the russians alot more then the americans of coure, and even offered the allies and alliance. does anyone have any more info?
my stance on this is that the soviets would be able to hold, but they would never be able to eject the allies from the continent.
firefly, why i’m sure there would be local air supremacy, but the going would get difficult for the allies during their bombing campaign. the wermarcht went into russia with superior air power, but losses mounted from soviet air defenses during air raids throughout the war so much that the luftwaffe became a shawdow of itself. Especially with the very deep, lengthy journey to even the most westward of russian factories. They will be shot at with ack acks and soviet fighters the whole way.
even when germany was insanely vulnerable in the skies in 1944, military production still doubled thanks to speer.
New tanks like the pershing and comet were still slightly inferior to JS-3s and also the soviets mbt was the T-34/85, a superior tank to the sherman.
Oh definately, the Nazis nearly managed it with scant fewer resources than the Western Allies could bring to the fight. Air power would have denied the Soviets their movement. No point having all that Arty if it gets bombed every day. The already hungry Sovs would be even hungrier as their main source of food supply stops. Their industries are no longer safe as B-29 fleets pound them. Yes they had good tanks but in 1946-46 so would the Allies with many new and excellent makes entering the fight.
Im not saying that it would have been a walkover, but from a practical standpoint I am saying it was the more likely outcome if it had happened.[/quote]
Agree with that - the Russian air defences would have had no chance at stopping thousand bomber raids of Lancasters and B-29s - they were only used to fighting the small medium forces of Germany. The Typhoons, Tempests and P-47s would have made short work of the Soviet tank forces and the Spitfires and P-51s should have been enough to fight the Soviet Air Force.
The massive concentration of forces that beat the Germans would just have given the Allied tactical bombers a better target.
While ground fighter-bombers are effective against vehicles, they aren’t that effective against tanks, especially the planes armed with rockets. 1,700 allied fighter-bombers were lost in the battle of normandy, and destroyed only around 100 german tanks.
I’m sure they destroyed more than that - it was air power that ended the Ardennes offensive and destroyed most of the tanks that were still moving. The British Typhoon with the 60punder rocket was renowned as a tank killer.
if the germans, who were fighting a two front war, were low on fuel, and have a much smaller population then russia could advance hundreds of miles into the country, and almost take its capital. then you would have to think that the americans and british combined could at least take stalingrad.
I’m sure they destroyed more than that - it was air power that ended the Ardennes offensive and destroyed most of the tanks that were still moving. The British Typhoon with the 60punder rocket was renowned as a tank killer.[/quote]
nope. its a myth. 100 tanks have been confirmed. and no, it was Not anti- tank air power that finished off the german panzers, it was fuel. 1/2 panzers lost were through lack of fuel.
The rockets mounted on fighter-bombers have enormously bad accurcacy, less then 3 % according to trials and its very,very hard to bomb a moving tank.
As a paper war, it does look like the Western Allies could have prevailed over the Soviets. This overlooks the vital human factor of morale.
The UK was in a terrible state at the end of the war. We kept fighting because it was a war we believed in. I don’t believe it would have been possible to start a new war against an enemy comparable in capability to Nazi Germany. Public opinion would have prevented the goverment from doing this, especially while the war in the Far East was raging.
The US had only recently emerged from a policy of isolationism and was still embroiled in a full-blown war in the pacific. Again, it would have been almost impossible to explain to the families at home why their son must fight on against people who were their allies the previous week.
The soldiers of the USA and the British Empire and Commonwealth had striven for a reachable objective. Not a territorial gain, but going home to see their families and continue with their lives. This was achieved by victory over Germany, bringing a finaly resolution to the conflict in Europe. To snatch this away from them, promising only seemingly endless more war, would have been absolutely devastating for their morale.
The Soviet soldier would be far less affected by the morale issue, as he would be fighting defensively to protect the motherland from more ‘fascist war-mongers’, instead of fighting an ex-ally because the politicians ordered him to.
Thus, we reach the situation where declaring war on the (ex ally!) Soviet Union would have been disastrous for both governments due to the reaction at home, and devastating to the morale of the soldiers fighting. The first situation would render it impossible to prosecute the war, as the goverment would either be forced to stop by the public or replaced by one that promised peace. The second situation would make the Western Allies far less effective against the Soviets than they had been against the Germans, regardless of their professionalism. The British XIV Army (Apologies if the number is wrong) in Burma had formations that had been in continuous contact with the enemy for four years, which was becoming apparent as approaching the limit for which a unit could fight effectively without any kind of relief.
I therefore suggest that although on paper the Western Allies could have defeated the Soviet Union, morale at home and in the Armed Forces would have made it impossible to fight such a war immediately after WW2 without substantial Soviet aggression.
137 confirmed in one engagement:
" The Typhoon IB, by now affectionately known as the “Tiffy”, distinguished itself particularly in the Battle of Normandy, where it decimated a large concentration of armor ahead of Avranches, disposing of no fewer than 137 tanks, and opening the way for the liberation of France and Belgium."
ummm, the germans had qualitative combat and tactical edge over all their opponents. especially, in 1939-1943. and, as I said before, the 1945 soviet army was revamped and more powerful then ever.
as was the americans, and the british. although crab is right in saying the public would never support the war.
about the Super-typhoon, its rubbish. Unconfirmed tank kill claims were incredibly exaggerated. volkwagen bucket cars were destroyed and registered as “panzer kills” by the pilot. The allied fighter-bombers claimed 2,000 enemy tanks destroyed early in the campaign where there weren’t even 2,000 panzers in france.
The germans only committed around 1800 panzers in the normandy battles, and your saying that this one plane destroyed almost 8% of german panzers.
Operation Goodwood by Ian Daglish
ISBN:1844150305
No, I’m saying that the Squadrons equipped with the Typhoon did.
I’ll find some more sources if you really want me to.
well, this is debatable. allied armies aren’t driven by the facists or communits. They don’t have experience fighting a large enemy.
remember the korean war fighting between the communist chinese forces and better-trained/equiped us marines and how the marines were pushed deep into south korea even though they had supremacy in all fields except for numbers.
Well, imagine the force being better-led veteran soviet forces with enormous numbers of tanks and artillery.
well, this is debatable. allied armies aren’t driven by the facists or communits. They don’t have experience fighting a large enemy.
remember the korean war fighting between the communist chinese forces and better-trained/equiped us marines and how the marines were pushed deep into south korea even though they had supremacy in all fields except for numbers.
Well, imagine the force being better-led veteran soviet forces with enormous numbers of tanks and artillery.[/quote]
But logistics would out in the end, when the russian logistical train would start to breakdown it does not matter how many men you had, if you cant supply them all is Kaput!