StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Say that it summer 1945. Patton convinces the US that they need to take care of the Red Menace now while they have the troops over there. He is given command of the forces slated to drive east ward and push the Russians back to preWWII boundaries, essentially freeing the eastern bloc.

Patton cannot use nukes as the only ones they have are slated for the Pacific. McArthur not be outdone is racing to knock Japan out of the war as he will have the OK to invade Siberia only if Japan is knocked out.

The Russians aren't going to just fold. As Operation Freedom's Hammer kicks off, Uncle Joe demands that the Soviet troops under Zhukov not give in to the Imperialist treachery.

Objectives:

US - Push the Russians back to pre war borders.

USSR - Hold the Americans off for 1 year by which time public opinion forces the president to sue for peace. or in the alternative seize the rest of Germany, thus Europe's powers force the US to sue for peace.


Wildcards - If McArthur defeats Japan, two months later he will launch Operation Right Hook and land troops near Vladivostoc to roll up the far east.

Italy goes Communist and begins partisan efforts against occupying Allied troops.

Allies

The US gets England to come on board. France in typical fashion bows out of this campaign.

USSR gets Communist Chinese forces to help in the defense of the Far East should MacArthur wade ashore, in exchange MacArthur gets Nationalist Chinese forces to help him.

In the West the USSR COULD get Italy if the responder wishes it for added complications. If not just directly address US vs. USSR forces two months after VE Day.

US gets whatever tech, armor, etc that they had as of two months after VE Day. Same for the USSR.

I don't think the US could do it, to be honest.

Howedar wrote:I don't think the US could do it, to be honest.

You don't think Allied airpower could be a decisive factor here?

I remember this argument being discussed before, wasn't there roughly a zillion Soviet T-34's in Europe?

Stravo wrote: You don't think Allied airpower could be a decisive factor here?

Nope. It'd be very helpful, there's no doubt about that, but the US forces that would be in-theater would not be sufficient to take out the Red Army.

Now, if for a year or two before we'd been bringing over Pershings, then we might have a better war here.

I don't think it would happen

Actually I think the more interesting thing would be if the Soviets decided to invade the rest of Europe...

Air power would most likely stalemate. But if Patton could convince them he'd most likely see the value of the enemy and order transfers. He was to pick apart plans and prove them wrong. The infrastructure would especially be shattered for both sides. Hell, any advance would be very slow going until past germany and most of Poland.

I don't remember the Chinesse being communist at this point.

Alyeska wrote:I don't remember the Chinesse being communist at this point.

Mao Tsetung was still fighting the Civil war, albeit they weren't really a threat except in the rural areas until 1945.

The US can't do it in a year. We can do it longer-term, but not in a year.

However, Japan is probably going to be knocked out of the fight in August and mass production of nuclear munitions begins shortly afterwards. Once the fighting in the Pacific is over, the US can move forces over Europe to force at least a stalemate.

What really would happen is that what nukes we have probably would be dropped on the European Front this time rather than on Japan, which we can contain quite easily.

I don't think you could count on Chinese involvement at this point too much though - if asked they'd help, but both the Nationalists and the Communists were rather bent on taking out each other first at this point in time. And they were both fairly credible fighting forces, at least for each other.

Foreign affairs usually take a backstage to internal Chinese politics, and even though the Nationalist were supplied US equipment, you must remember they lost to the communists.

Ypoknons wrote:I don't think you could count on Chinese involvement at this point too much though - if asked they'd help, but both the Nationalists and the Communists were rather bent on taking out each other first at this point in time. And they were both fairly credible fighting forces, at least for each other.

Foreign affairs usually take a backstage to internal Chinese politics, and even though the Nationalist were supplied US equipment, you must remember they lost to the communists.

The Nationalists were exasperated, as the Communists were flexible and could effectively lse most of their territory and just retreat.

How many times must this question be asked? What happens is the US Army is driven behind the Rhine, and an exhausted Russia is then destroyed by US strategic bombing, which first isolates and pounds the massive forward Russian armies, then using the B-36 and nuclear weapons Russian cities begin to disappear. American forces would however never go past Poland no matter how great the victory. Trying to go to Moscow would be pointless, since we'd have nuked it, and a mild disaster.

In the far east Chinese communist forces would be ineffective, even with a pile of Soviet and captured Chinese weapons, in the face of American airpower and limited land intervention, while the large Soviet armies wouldn't be able to sustain operates in central or southern China. The road and rail network was extremely hard pressed just to support the mainly leg infantry armies deployed by the Japanese and Chinese who both took years to move over those areas.

Stravo wrote:Say that it summer 1945.

[/snip]

Patton cannot use nukes as the only ones they have are slated for the Pacific. McArthur not be outdone is racing to knock Japan out of the war as he will have the OK to invade Siberia only if Japan is knocked out.

If the US dropped a couple of nukes on Russia after VJ day, August 5th, how could Russia not lose? Would Stalin have been stupid or crazy enough to keep fighting against an enemy with nuclear weapons? Would Russia even last the entire year if it didn't surrender? Don't forget it has to deal with air, ground, and naval forces as well as atomic bombs. At the time it was estimated 204 atomic bombs were needed if the USSR were to become an enemy. My source does not say whether or not the 204 figure meant destruction of the USSR solely by nukes or in combination with conventional military forces. I would guess it means solely by nukes. The US nuclear inventory by June of 1946 consisted of 9 Fat Man bombs. There were only 9 because of limitations producing plutonium. However, after Nagasaki, the next bomb could have been dropped on August 17-18. I would assume at the very least one or two more were ready within 1945. US propaganda, lies, false encrypted data, etc. about the numbers of nukes and production rates could have also incited a coup to remove Stalin from power to end the war. Also, if Stalin died from a nuke, Russia would be without a leader. Perhaps an individual, or several individuals, would have come to power and surrendered in the event Stalin died.

Source: http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html

Doesn't happen. The bulk of Soviet industry is out of range of 8th AAF bombers, Zhukhov has numbers and reserves he can call upon quicker than Patton could his, the American supply lines are stretched thin, the US essentially has only one or two bombs in her inventory in September 1945, and there are as yet no B-36s.

Patton gets his ass handed to him.

The scenario is impossible. It is political suicide. The US would get
crushed hard on the ground. The soviet airforce is designed to
support a ground war while most of the US fighters are good
high altitude escort fighters. The soviet tanks are better than
most of their US counterpart and communist partisans in france
, italy & other countries will be a big problem. The US has to quit
because of political preassure and the USSR can't counquer much
more teritory because they have to face men power problems.

A US/Soviet War in 1945 Europe essentially favours the defence on either side of the scenario.

Hmmm..

If the US stayed out of fighting in the cities

If the US could maintain heavy air corp loss

Maybe in the long run the US could do it.. BUT

The US supply line is a lot farther away than Russia's. Russia has a lot of spare bodies that more than make up for whatever other deficiencies.

If the mighty Wermacht was driven to a halt and burned to a crisp.. what do you think would happen to US forces?

Patrick Degan wrote:Doesn't happen. The bulk of Soviet industry is out of range of 8th AAF bombers, Zhukhov has numbers and reserves he can call upon quicker than Patton could his, the American supply lines are stretched thin, the US essentially has only one or two bombs in her inventory in September 1945, and there are as yet no B-36s.

On the other hand, nuclear mass production will be felt shortly, and they can flatten the Russian logistics network. It hardly matters if Soviet factories are out of range, it's the railway networks that matter, and the USAAF has a lot of experience in destroying them (see the preinvasion campaign against France).

But as you noted, it doesn't happen in a single year, though I doubt the will of the people would be stressed that greatly.

Trytostaydead wrote:The US supply line is a lot farther away than Russia's. Russia has a lot of spare bodies that more than make up for whatever other deficiencies.

Russian manpower is running thin by 1945 while the US has plenty of manpower to throw around. In addition, sea lanes are so efficient that they don't count as supply lines - what you have to worry about is moving material from the ports to the frontlines. Russia has bigger problems here.

If the mighty Wermacht was driven to a halt and burned to a crisp.. what do you think would happen to US forces?

Poor analogy. The US Army has much better command and control and the USAAF will almost certainly maintain aerial dominance.

Thunderfire wrote:The scenario is impossible. It is political suicide. The US would get
crushed hard on the ground. The soviet airforce is designed to
support a ground war while most of the US fighters are good
high altitude escort fighters.

There are plenty of aircraft that play down low and can destroy the hordes of Soviet aircraft. Plus, the US can do her strategic bombing thing to interdict long Soviet supply lines.

The soviet tanks are better than
most of their US counterpart and communist partisans in france
, italy & other countries will be a big problem.

Yes, because Communist partisans against the Third Reich and Fascist Italy were so effective at tying them down...

The Soviets have bigger and better tanks, yes, but it's not enough to be such a decisive difference.

Patrick Degan wrote:Doesn't happen. The bulk of Soviet industry is out of range of 8th AAF bombers

Nothing is out of range of the B-36. And not everything has to fly out of England. B-29's flying out of the Persian Gulf region for example could hit most of Russia's domestic oil production.

Zhukhov has numbers and reserves he can call upon quicker than Patton could his

What reserves? Russia was stripped, there was no more manpower to mobilize and the Red Army was throwing liberated POW's, guys who had been starving for years, into front line units to make good its loss by 1945. The Russians can sustain a battle for some time, but they cannot increase their strength and will diminish.

, the American supply lines are stretched thin, the US essentially has only one or two bombs in her inventory in September 1945, and there are as yet no B-36s.

There will be many very very heavy bombers and plenty of atomic bombs in less then two years. American supply lines where fine, it was Russia that would be hurting as it attempts to rebuild the railway system of Germany under bombardment. They also have to convert everything to broad gauge.
[/quote]

Thunderfire wrote:The scenario is impossible. It is political suicide.

Lots of shits impossible politically and the Soviets didn't want war either because they knew they couldn't have sustained it. Stalin backed off and decided to try again in a decade or so with a rebuilt nation. Luckily he died first. But obviously these issues are being ignored if fighting starts in the first place, so it's irrelevant.

The US would get
crushed hard on the ground. The soviet airforce is designed to
support a ground war while most of the US fighters are good
high altitude escort fighters.

Actually US fighters worked extremely well at low level from ground attack, the P-51's radiator was an annoying radiator, but WW2 fighters had so many opportunities for golden BB's that it really didn't matter.

The soviet tanks are better than
most of their US counterpart

Yes, but the US already was deploying Pershing with hundreds in the pipeline and thousands building when the war ended, and even the late model Sherman's very roughly handled T-34's in Korea. American forces will retreat, and the Russians will never be able to amass the forces needed to cross the Rhine while facing the 8th and 9th air forces. Then the nukes arrive.

and communist partisans in france
, italy & other countries will be a big problem.

They never accomplished anything without the US and Britain dropping them weapons, and the majority of both nations hate them. I'm not seeing the problem. Russia has to deal with partisans who where highly active historically in Poland you know. And who knows what might could out of Germany. There's going to be allot of German troops wandering around whom historically where kept in camps for the first few years.

Sea Skimmer wrote:then using the B-36 and nuclear weapons Russian cities begin to disappear.

In 1945?

Wait a few years for the -36 to be modified into an acceptable long
range strategic bomber, roll off the production lines, be IOCed into
squadron service, and have the pilots trained.

The XB-36 rolled out of Convair's plant on September 8, 1945, and
made it's first flight on August 8, 1946, while the initial production
model of the -36, the B-36A first flew in 1947.

The nuking is going to be done by Silverplate B-29s, not the -36.

I know the -36 is the Cat's Meow, but really, sometimes the -36
proponents sometimes let inconvient facts such as dates when
the prototypes first flew, and when the first PRODUCTION model
flew get past them.

MKSheppard wrote:The nuking is going to be done by Silverplate B-29s, not the -36.

Yep, though they might be able to push out an improved B-29 to enter service. Removal of the defensive guns and perhaps improved engines would help them not get shot down by Soviet interceptors.

I know the -36 is the Cat's Meow, but really, sometimes the -36
proponents sometimes let inconvient facts such as dates when
the prototypes first flew, and when the first PRODUCTION model
flew get past them.

Sea Skimmer may have missed the whole "Win by March 1946 or lose" bit.