Not a consideration. There are more pressing problems.
Certainly, but I think an inevitable shift would have taken place and the allies would have targeted primarily Soviet logistical centers, oil refineries, and rail marshaling yards…
Covered that in one of my sweeping postings regarding supply depots.I could have listed labels but assumd people understood my meaning.
It’s almost impossible to say as the scenarios are boundless…
Of course it is, that’s why I asked.
But I think the month time frame you gave to be a tad unrealistic, I think any open hostilities would have taken longer, probably at least three to six months. I think that what might have happened would most likely have been a gradual disintegration of cooperation punctuated by skirmishes. This might lead to larger scale “reconosense in force” operations (by the Soviets here) in order to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the Allies…
Totally disagree. The Soviets could never have continued to support massive armies beyond a month and if they hadn’t achieved their goals by then, they never would.
Such an operation would have undoubtedly been preceded with the infiltration of espionage, saboteurs, and special operations agents in an attempt to cause some havoc.
Not so easy as you make it sound. Easier for the Allies to use Stay-behind forces to disrupt Soviet lines of communication.
Off hand, without knowing the exact geography of the final “halt positions” of the Allies with the exception of the “Elbe river,” the most sensible thing for the Soviets to do would be to attempt to “split” the UK and US forces by driving an armored spearhead wedge between them. This would maximize confusion and reduce Allied coordination. But to affect this, would the Soviets have to perform a hostile river crossing?
It has always been envisaged that a Soviet assault would strike accross the norht German plain. This ground best suits their armoured divisions and their M.O.
Their only chance of real success would be to mass artillery and tactical aircraft to saturate the area as a “fire sack.” But this would be challenging if not impossible due to the probably Allied advantage in local tactical air assets…
Soviet tactics were to send forward armoured recce units to probe for weaknesses in the Allied defenses. Once discovered, a massive artillery bombardment would be used to weaken them further before sending their armoured division in.
Even without significant obstacles the Soviets may have had a hard time sustaining any initial successes. The Soviets would have to mass artillery and insure that it kept up with the tanks and infantry, if it didn’t, more than likely, I see Allied troops gradually attriting them down and inflicting losses that would be unsustainable and leading to a probably Allied counterattack, even where there are no rivers. I just don’t think the Red Air Force tactical aviation could sustain a Westward thrust with concerns of fuel and the tactical quality of the USAAF and RAF fighters. They heavily outnumbered the Luftwaffe which was fighting a two-front pincer battle of attrition. This might again come as a shock to Soviet air crews…
Well, quite frankly, there are obstacles. Along the Wesser (obviously, I have some familiarity with the area) for example, their are ridge lines which could be defended effectively and upset the Soviet timetable. In the area of Minden, there is a gap (known as the Minden-Gap) which the Wesser flows through. This would be a great strategic prize for any Soviet force advancing westward. However, it’s going to be defended, and I mean DEFENDED!
I think the question of Soviet morale might also be visited, since the average soldier, just like a GI or Tommy, might begin to seriously question the advancing on a former ally, especially when you are using much of his equipment he sent you…
This I find interesting. By 1946 the Tommies wnated nothing more than to go home. Remember, Britain had been at war for six years, longer than any other nation. Having said that, war veterans called-up for service in Korea just got on with it and did a mighty fine job. I wouldn’t like to say, at the time, who had the betteer morale. The Soviets might also want to go home, and the Great Patriotic War was fought to rid themselves of the Nazis, not to expand their borders. Even though they did so in Eastern Europe.
And of their ability to provide artillery and air support to their troops…
Not easy when they’re being bombed to pieces. If resupply was coming in from a disbursed industrial base in the east, how effective were the Soviet lines of communication from those areas? I hink we’re back to bombing there rail yards etc.
Little question. I think the only real Red Army trump card here is the quality of their tanks vs. the Sherman and the waste of time and resources know as the American “tank destroyers.” Still, even an M-10 or M-36 was essentially designed for defensive work, and both the US and the British were just starting to get better and better tank designs into the theater at the end. So, in a sustained conflict where the front was stabilized, I doubt even this would have been much of an advantage…
By this time, both britain and the U.S. had better tanks than the Sherman coming on line e.g. Cromwell and Centurion. Besides, by this time the Allies had learnt how to defend a hard place with the equipment They had. The Brits had learnt from the Germans, particularly in the Western Desert, by driving their tanks onto the German 88’s - not a good idea!
I still go for the airpower option. Strategic and tactical bombing had won through in every theatre either by the Axis forces, in the beginning, or by Allies later. When we speak of forces confronting each other, it’s not just about the quality of the tanks, it’s about logisitics, communications, command and control and coordinaton of combined operations.
