Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I disagree at that point in time the Allies were coming out with the next generation of bombers and they could fly higher than any Soviet fighters. They could have gotten a bomb onto Moscow without a problem.

[schwarzpanzer]

Soviet fighters/pilots were always crap.

However Moscow's Flak defenses were always the best in the world.

Also stolen German research/scientists could have created some great Soviet fighters maybe?

[Glider]

I considered the JS3 but it was similar to the Perishing and Centurion. They were in theatre but in small numbers compared to the rest of the equipment in place.
Your right about armies having parity in armour after a few short years but it goes back to my comment on timing. If the Russians had attacked after six months we would have been in trouble. Our armies were ramping down and out of place whilst the Russians may well have been at full strength.
The Russians will have known about the Atomic bomb, but would have been powerless to stop the USA dropping one on Moscow. Large numbers of B29's escorted by the P51's and P47's that the USA had in numbers, would have the ability to rule the skies at altitude.
Russian fighters were fine at low altitude, I certainly wouldn't call them crap, but they didn't have any high altitude fighters of any note.
I must disagree with your view that Russian air defences were the best in the world. They were very short on radar and what they had was behind the best available in the West, neither did they have any proximity fuses. As a result, not having any real high altitude fighters, limited radar direction for the AA guns and no proximity fuses, left them very vulnerable to air attack.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed with what you said right there Glider. The western allies could have pummelled the Soviets with ease.

As for the captured German/Scientists just about all of them went to the west. Very few went to the Soviets. All the Soviets could do was make copies of the German stuff and not very well.

[schwarzpanzer]

Originally Posted by Glider

Russian fighters were fine at low altitude, I certainly wouldn't call them crap, but they didn't have any high altitude fighters of any note.

The MiG's were good there?

The Flak defenses had excellent observers/spotters on ground and in the air, I'm not sure, but I think swarms of aircraft would have been very easy to detect?

- better to make small raids?

The Flak was actually pretty decent, auto-cannons firing huge shells with great accuracy, then again against fast bombers/fighters, maybe not so effective?

Originally Posted by DerAdler

All the Soviets could do was make copies of the German stuff and not very well.

I dunno wasn't the MiG 15 based on a Kurt Tank project?

Also there is (again) new evidence to suggest the Germans had an A-bomb that the Italians and Russians ended up having.

I doubt they would have held 'till 49 though?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

However Moscow's Flak defenses were always the best in the world.

I would think the German flak defenses as the best in the world.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

FLYBOYJ

Ike?

The bickering would likely be worse than vs Germany?

Ike wouldn't of barreled into the Soviet Union on the verge of winter with the wrong equipment, and then threaten his commanders if they retreated. Hitler was a madman who thought he was a general, Ike was a politician who thought we was a general!!!!!!!

[schwarzpanzer]

The Germans never had decent proximity fuses syscom3, the UK was the best there?

(I just know a Yanks gonna argue that one! )

In general, German Flak defenses were far better than Russia's, with the (sole?) exeption of Moscow.

FLYBOYJ

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Ike wouldn't of barreled into the Soviet Union on the verge of winter with the wrong equipment

The wrong equipment?

It wouldn't be needed if the Panzers hadn't have halted!

This was Hitlers fault though, even when he knew what happened to Bonaparte , so I'll give you that.

and then threaten his commanders if they retreated.

Yeah, that was a bit daft!

Hitler was a madman who thought he was a general, Ike was a politician who thought we was a general!!!!!!!

He started off smart, ended up daft.

e.g. had he been listened to, most Panzers would be toting the 50mm L60 in '39!

[syscom3]

Ike knew that a successfull general is part warrior, part politician. Plus he didnt have an ego. He was successfull cause he knew how to plan and how to delegate.

Thats maybe why the allies won.

[Nonskimmer]

He basically kept Monty and Old Blood 'N Guts from killing each other long enough to get the job done.

[schwarzpanzer]

Didn't have an ego?

Come on, he was an American!

Didn't he say about Monty something like:

"Hard to serve with, impossible to serve over"(?)

[Nonskimmer]

That doesn't give him an ego. It just means that Monty could be insufferable. Montgomery and Patton were both renowned for their egos, and the two men despised each other.

[plan_D]

The Western Allies would have defeated the Soviet Union straight after the war. We all seem to forget that the Soviet Union had lost no less than twenty-three million people in the war, their country had been scorched and their industry was nothing comparable to the might of the U.S and British Empire, of whom were both in full working order and relatively untouched.

German troops would gladly join the Western Allies against the Soviet Union. The Germans still hated the Communists up to their dying day. Even during 1944 guards discussed with PoWs the idea of joining forces against the Soviet Union. Hubert Zemke, when captured, was even asked to join the Luftwaffe to fight against the Soviet Union. Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin wrote Panzer Battles to educate the Western World on armoured tactics so they could combat the Soviet Union. All, and I mean all, German forces capable of combat would gladly have taken up arms against the Soviet Union on the side of the Western Allies.

The VVS wouldn't have stood a chance against the Western Allied air forces. The USAAF had brought in the B-29 which the VVS had nothing to intercept with. The RAF had the Lancaster and I believe it wasn't long until the Lincoln came along. The VVS had no strategic bomber and even if it did, the RAF had the Meteor and the USAAF had the P-80. Not to mention the vast quantities of trained pilots in the Western Alliance compared to the ill-trained airmen of the VSS, even in 1945. And of course, there's the captured Luftwaffe airmen.

Then there's the Western supply to the Soviet Union, which would stop instantly. Everything from boots to trucks in the Red Army were provided by the Western Allies. There's more to war material than planes, tanks and guns ...and most of the less famous equipment was supplied by the Western Allies.

The vast wealth of airpower over the VVS and complete, and absolute air supremecy held by the Western Allies would more than make up for any deficient in armour capability. Despite the fact the Western armour was certainly on par with the Red armour. A combination of combat, tactical, operational and grand ability probably made the Western Allied equipment superior overall. Western armour tactics seem to work better in reality to those of the Red Army. Not to mention the fact the Sherman 76Ws and Sherman Firefly would be on par with the T-34/85. The Comet would be fighting the IS-2 on equal ground. And then there's the Pershing and Centurion fighting. The Pershing having already seen combat, and been proved combat capable. It most likely would have been in much larger numbers if the war had continued against the Soviet Union. I can safely say, the U.S could push out more Pershings than the Soviet Union could IS-3s.

On the point of Eisenhower, he was the best possible choice for Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Either him or Alexander, but Alexander was dealing with Italy. Eisenhower was far from a good general but he was a remarkable individual, and he alone kept the British and Americans, plus a whole host of other nations fighting against the Axis ripping one another to pieces. He didn't have a massive ego because he knew he couldn't consider himself anything but equal. Monty and Patton were two hard men to contain, they had massive egos ...but they had good reasons to have them.

Everyone has an ego, by the way. It's something we ALL have.

[RAGMAN]

True about everyone having an ego. The west was superior in terms of better aircraft and numbers.I always wondered about the manpower advantage of Russia as they always seemed to have unlimited reserves to call upon.(during the war)Russia didn't have a long range bomber that I am aware of,so bombing targets in the west might have posed a problem for Russia.If I am mistaken .

[syscom3]

One thing to ponder is the Russian economy had maxed out by 1944. On the other hand, the US war economy was still ramping up right up to the end of the war.

Imagine what the US could produce once the diversity in weapons were narrowed down to a few designs. And not having a navy to build would release an untold ammount of resources into other sectors of industry.

Just for the heck of it, If I was the secretary of war in Sept 1945, these are the warplanes I would order both the navy and airforce to concentrate on. All other types would have their production stopped. Since a battle with Russia would not be a naval war, the Navy would have to be second fiddle, whether they liked it or not.
Air Force:
B29 (replace B17 and B24 groups as B29's become available)
A26 (All B25, B26 and A20's to be removed from service as A26's are available)
P80 (P38, P47 production to terminate)
Skyraider (if AAF wants it to replace P47)
P82 (replace or expand P51 groups)
C54 (replace C47 and C46)
C69 (long range transport to be mass produced)
C119 (production to be accelerated)

Navy:
F4U (remove F6F and F8F)
F7F (if marines want it)
Skyraider (replace SB2C and TBF)