Patton is set loose on Russia

[HemlockGrey]

In a twist of fate, Ike cuts loose and sets Patton on the Reds right after the fall of Germany.

What happens?

[Vympel]

Patton makes no headway.

[Raptor 597]

Just his army? They'll be planty dead communists but not much headway. Him given European Theatre Command they'll be singing the Star and Stripes Forever a few later in the Kremlin.

[Sea Skimmer]

How many times must we do this thread? Patton would end up pulling back behind the Rhine with significant losses after no progress, though as the US had unmatched levels of motor transport its unlikely the Red Army will get any great encirclements. They would need some time to get there logestis ready for another attack into the rest of Germany. And that would be much harder with swarms of B-24's and B-17's bombing them.

Then we have a war of attrition. The USSR's economy is in shambles and its manpower is near exhausted. It needs food and oil imports to sustain a Rhine crossing. Russian planes where poorly suited for attacking heavy bombers and the massed formations of the Red Army would be forced to dig in.


However the US won't be in a position to counter attack. Meanwhile the US nuclear program s ramping up. Several bombs will be available for use in 1945 and a few more in 1946; by 1947 the US could produce about nine per month. These could force a Soviet collapse. However even without them, I doubt the Soviet Union could sustain more then a few more years combat, possibul less then one. Historically it took them more then a decade to recover from WW2.

But its all very stupid. Political, economic and military reasons all combined to make a war between the US and USSR impossible in 1945.

[Shinova]

How bout US now, without nukes, vs USSR then at height of military power, no nukes?

[Sea Skimmer]

How bout US now, without nukes, vs USSR then at height of military power, no nukes?

The Union of 1945 vs. the modern United States? That would be so one sided its just not funny. The US would destroy the Soviet Unions infrastructure via bomber attacks over the course of several months and grind the countries economy to a halt.

On the field, modern troops absolutely slaughter the mass armies of WW2. A US heavy corps could destroy ten thousand soviet tanks and artillery pieces in days.

[Vympel]

The Union of 1945 vs. the modern United States? That would be so one sided its just not funny. The US would destroy the Soviet Unions infrastructure via bomber attacks over the course of several months and grind the countries economy to a halt.

On the field, modern troops absolutely slaughter the mass armies of WW2. A US heavy corps could destroy ten thousand soviet tanks and artillery pieces in days.

He said the USSR at the height of it's military power- not the USSR of 45.

[Shinova]

The Union of 1945 vs. the modern United States? That would be so one sided its just not funny. The US would destroy the Soviet Unions infrastructure via bomber attacks over the course of several months and grind the countries economy to a halt.

On the field, modern troops absolutely slaughter the mass armies of WW2. A US heavy corps could destroy ten thousand soviet tanks and artillery pieces in days.

He said the USSR at the height of it's military power- not the USSR of 45.

Actually I DID mean USSR 1945, but without all the losses it took in that war. 1945 tech, full numbers.

[Coyote]

I think the USSR of the Brezhnev era was more powerful.

But riht after WW2, it would have been a hard fight. The Sherman was a piece of paper compared to the T-34, and it'd be a long time fore we got enough Pershings in there to make a difference. Ironically, we'd have to take over production of existing King Tiger and Panther facilities and crew them into battle.

Our USAAF would be able to wear down the Red Air Force but it would be difficult... although a Stormovik vs a Thunderbolt might be interesting to watch. The US Navy would utterly dominate the seas of any Soviet ships...

Basically, we could neutralize them in air and sea, but the ground forces would be unable to get anywhere due to troop strength and equipment inequalities. We'd essentially siege them into submission. An ugly way to go.

[Vympel]

I think the USSR of the Brezhnev era was more powerful.

But riht after WW2, it would have been a hard fight. The Sherman was a piece of paper compared to the T-34, and it'd be a long time fore we got enough Pershings in there to make a difference.

Actually by 1945 the difference wasn't that marked. The T-34/85 was definitely the superior fighting design, and it's main gun was better, but most Shermans at the time were armed with the long 76mm gun, which was plenty capable of holing the T-34/85 hull (though the turret was a far more uncertain proposition). Of course, the T-34/85 could hole the M4/76 anywhere it wanted to.

Given a new war, the Soviets may decide to bring the T-44 into mass service- which was pretty much the Soviet Panther. Sherman 76ers would be utterly incapable of penetrating it (it's front hull was tougher than that of the Panther's).

There's also the much more prickly issue of the thousands of JS-2 heavy tanks, which would be much harder to take out given that Anglo-American air superiority over the battlefield is by no means certain, as well as the even scarier JS-3 tanks.

Ironically, we'd have to take over production of existing King Tiger and Panther facilities and crew them into battle.

Where were the Panther and King Tiger factories? For all I know, they were in Soviet occupied Germany. Regardless- I don't think they'd help much. The same thing applies as it did throughout the war- too complicated, too expensive, too little, too late.

Our USAAF would be able to wear down the Red Air Force but it would be difficult... although a Stormovik vs a Thunderbolt might be interesting to watch.

Hmmm. I think more interesting fights would be Yak-3s and La-7s versus P-51s and Spitfires. Sturmoviks and P-47s would be too busy trying to kill enemy ground forces. I'll take an Il-10 'BEAST' over a Thud any day though.

The US Navy would utterly dominate the seas of any Soviet ships...

The Soviet Navy wouldn't even bother coming out of its ports.

Basically, we could neutralize them in air and sea, but the ground forces would be unable to get anywhere due to troop strength and equipment inequalities. We'd essentially siege them into submission. An ugly way to go.

I don't think the Soviets would submit. This whole thing is pretty much scenario impossible- but really I don't think anyone would have the resolve for such a conflict.

[Ted]

There is also the fact that a 37mm anti-tank gun could take out a Sherman.

[Vympel]

There is also the fact that a 37mm anti-tank gun could take out a Sherman.

That's an exaggeration

A German 50mm gun could take out a Sherman (with Tungsten), but the 37mm practically couldn't take out anything. Unless you're talking from the sides or rear.

[Sea Skimmer]

At ranges under 50 meters the 37mm could destroy quite a few things with a shaped charge stick bomb, but only from the flanks or rear. In such a situation a rocket launcher works far better.

That's one thing the US would rapidly field, the 3.5 inch rocket launcher. It easily destroyed T-34/85's in Korea. It was ready fro service in 1945 but with Germany defeated production plans where shelved. After the normal Bazookas proved ineffective five years later, it was quickly gotten into full scale service.

[phongn]

Our USAAF would be able to wear down the Red Air Force but it would be difficult... although a Stormovik vs a Thunderbolt might be interesting to watch.

Hmmm. I think more interesting fights would be Yak-3s and La-7s versus P-51s and Spitfires. Sturmoviks and P-47s would be too busy trying to kill enemy ground forces. I'll take an Il-10 'BEAST' over a Thud any day though.

The later Spitfires had the 2khp Griffen engine, I wonder if that could be put in the P-51...

[Vympel]

At ranges under 50 meters the 37mm could destroy quite a few things with a shaped charge stick bomb, but only from the flanks or rear. In such a situation a rocket launcher works far better.

That's one thing the US would rapidly field, the 3.5 inch rocket launcher. It easily destroyed T-34/85's in Korea. It was ready fro service in 1945 but with Germany defeated production plans where shelved. After the normal Bazookas proved ineffective five years later, it was quickly gotten into full scale service.

Still, Germany produced millions of panzerfausts capable of knocking out any Allied tank-they could just use them. The Soviets started picking up a lot of them and using it- and the concept for the next generation Panzerfausts eventaully evolved into the RPG series.

Hardly a war winner in any case tho. Using AT rockets takes balls. I'd also take a Soviet tankist over a NK crew anyday.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmmm. I think more interesting fights would be Yak-3s and La-7s versus P-51s and Spitfires. Sturmoviks and P-47s would be too busy trying to kill enemy ground forces. I'll take an Il-10 'BEAST' over a Thud any day though.

The A-26 Invader however owns the puny Pe-2's, which makes up the majority of Soviet bombing capacity. The Tu-2 was a somewhat better bomber, but its production was limited and it's ground strafing ability was inferior.

[Sea Skimmer]

The later Spitfires had the 2khp Griffen engine, I wonder if that could be put in the P-51...

Almost certainly. But there would likely be a range penalty

[Vympel]

The A-26 Invader however owns the puny Pe-2's, which makes up the majority of Soviet bombing capacity. The Tu-2 was a somewhat better bomber, but its production was limited and it's ground strafing ability was inferior.

Were the Pe-2s and Tu-2s used in such a way though? I thought they were more of a tactical bomber than a CAS aircraft.

[Sea Skimmer]

At ranges under 50 meters the 37mm could destroy quite a few things with a shaped charge stick bomb, but only from the flanks or rear. In such a situation a rocket launcher works far better.

That's one thing the US would rapidly field, the 3.5 inch rocket launcher. It easily destroyed T-34/85's in Korea. It was ready fro service in 1945 but with Germany defeated production plans where shelved. After the normal Bazookas proved ineffective five years later, it was quickly gotten into full scale service.

Still, Germany produced millions of panzerfausts capable of knocking out any Allied tank-they could just use them. The Soviets started picking up a lot of them and using it- and the concept for the next generation Panzerfausts eventaully evolved into the RPG series.

Hardly a war winner in any case tho. Using AT rockets takes balls. I'd also take a Soviet tankist over a NK crew anyday.

The 3.5 inch rocket launcher was effective at much greater ranges then the panzerfausts. Panzerfausts is what you shoot at the tank passing your alley, while the 3.5 is what you use to knock up the one several blocks down.

[Vympel]

The 3.5 inch rocket launcher was effective at much greater ranges then the panzerfausts. Panzerfausts is what you shoot at the tank passing your alley, while the 3.5 is what you use to knock up the one several blocks down.

Depends on the Panzerfaust. Panzerfaust-30, 60, 100, or the projected 150 and even 250?

Then of course there's Panzerschreck, which I forgot about- which is pretty much a 3.5 inch.

[Howedar]

The later Spitfires had the 2khp Griffen engine, I wonder if that could be put in the P-51...

I'm sure you could, but why would you want to?

[Sea Skimmer]

The A-26 Invader however owns the puny Pe-2's, which makes up the majority of Soviet bombing capacity. The Tu-2 was a somewhat better bomber, but its production was limited and it's ground strafing ability was inferior.

Were the Pe-2s and Tu-2s used in such a way though? I thought they were more of a tactical bomber than a CAS aircraft.

The Pe-2 was pretty much all level with some dive bombing. But the Tu-2 had a pair of 20mm cannon in the wing roots to use on CAS missions. If it conducted many such missions with the Il-10 around I dont know.

The larger payload of the Tu-2 does somthing to balance out the 2,600 pounds of the Pe-2. But it's 6600 pounds is the top of the Soviet Airforce. While the US has a vast swarm off 3000-4000 pound aircraft along with 8000-20000 pound heavy aircraft.

And of course it has more planes and a greater ability to produce and supply them.

[Typhonis 1]

It will be bad in the Soviet Far East.The Pacififc Fleet may be busy with Japan but it cn still hit Soviet targets there ,Vladivostock comes to mind,and Alaska can be used to support attacks into Russia

[Pablo Sanchez]

An 1945 war scenario, if you make it more "fair" and remove the nukes and set Soviet manpower at a proper level would probably be a stalemate.

On the ground, the Reds would turn Allied armies into hamburger. In the air, the allied position is much much stronger, and they'll probably establish air superiority after some length of time. American artillery CC is also vastly superior, making up for a numerical disadvantage. In effect, the American troops are incapable of making a serious foray against the superior Red Army, but the Russians are simultaneously hobbled by the superior Air and Artillery power the allies can bring to bear.

With the nukes and crippled USSR, America nukes it's way into Eastern Europe.

[Perinquus]

But riht after WW2, it would have been a hard fight. The Sherman was a piece of paper compared to the T-34, and it'd be a long time fore we got enough Pershings in there to make a difference.

Actually by 1945 the difference wasn't that marked. The T-34/85 was definitely the superior fighting design, and it's main gun was better, but most Shermans at the time were armed with the long 76mm gun, which was plenty capable of holing the T-34/85 hull (though the turret was a far more uncertain proposition). Of course, the T-34/85 could hole the M4/76 anywhere it wanted to.

Actually, there's one part of that statement I have to disagree with. By 1945, the differences between the Sherman and the T-34 were more marked than they had been during those two vehicles' earlier phase of production and service, and were more heavily tilted in the Russian tank's favor.

Consider the following:

(sure wish I could create a proper table on this board)

........................T-34/76A.....................................Sherman M4A1
Weight..............26.3 tons.....................................30.2 tons
Crew.................4..................................................5
Armament........76.2mm (+2 mg)..........................75mm (+3 mg)
Armor...............65mm max, 15mm min.................75mm max, 15mm min.
Max. Speed.......32mph........................................25.mph
Length..............21'7"...........................................19'8 1/2"
Width................9'10"...........................................8'9"
Height...............8'................................................9'9"

The initial T-34 was lighter, longer, lower, faster, and harder hitting than the Sherman, and while the figures on paper might lead you to believe the Sherman had better protection, it didn't. The T-34's armor was sloped at nearly the perfect angle, and in practice, this far better sloping made the shells much more likely to bounce off, and resulted in actually superior protection.

Now compare the figures for the final production versions:

........................T-34/85.....................................Sherman M4A3 3E8
Weight..............32 tons......................................32 tons
Crew.................5................................................5
Armament.........85mm (+2 mg)...........................76mm (+3 mg)
Armor................90mm max, 20mm min...............64mm max, 19mm min.
Max. Speed.......32mph.......................................32mph
Length..............24'9"..........................................24'8"
Width................9'10"..........................................8'9"
Height...............7'11"..........................................11'2 7/8"

Parity had only been reached in tank weight, number of crew, and maximum speed. But look at hitting power - an 85mm vs. a 76mm- and armor protection, the Russian tank with 90mm of frontal protection vs. the American tank with only 64mm (actually reduced from the earlier version, though it was better sloped, giving increased actual protection over the earlier version). As for height, which is important when tanks need to be concealed for static deployment - the T-34 had lost an inch, while the Sherman had gained almost 2 and a half feet!

The very best tank designs allow for the maximum devlopment of an initial design before having to scrap the production line and start work on a completely new model. The T-34 simply proved to have a lot more development potential, and in order to reach parity in some areas (like speed, for example) the Sherman had to make sacrifices in others, like weight of armor carried and heaviness of armament.

The real reason that the Sherman was kept in production so long was that it was easy to mass produce, and since the tanks had to be shipped across the Atlantic on transports, smaller size meant you could get more of them to the battlefield. The U.S. army got away with this because U.S. tank doctrine was to avoid large tank on tank battles like the Germans and Russians fought at Kursk, and U.S. industry could churn out Shermans about ten times as fast as the Germans could produce their tanks. But that was small consolation to British and American tankers going up against German designs like the Tiger and Panther, and just watching their shells bounce harmlessly off the armor most of the time.