Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[Glider]

The Soviet Navy was little more than an inshore navy. Its battleships were old WW1 vessels dating from 1912. The only 'Modern' Battleship was the Royal Sovereign that was transferred from the Royal Navy. I used Modern because it had at least been modernised before the war unlike the Russian battleships. When this was transferred the biggest ships that the Germans had were one Pocket Battleship and a couple of 8in Cruisers. So used effectively the Russians could have ruled the seas but she never went into action.
Its best ships were destroyers that were of Italian design (type 7) and were not strong enough for Arctic conditions. I know that sounds daft but its true. The Russians modified these (Type 7U) and these were simple basic but rugged ships and could have been used if fitted with modern equipment.
Its 3.9 and 5.1 in guns were as good as most but the fire control systems were obsolete and of course they had no radar. Torpedo's were of poor quality and lacked magnetic or acoustic pistols. The Russians had no Adsic as well so couldn't defend against submarines.
As an example of how poor their navy was the following is an example. On one occasion when a Russian destroyer stayed at sea for three consecutive days this was seen as a major feat and received much publicity. It should also be remembered that the Soviet Navy never came out to assist with any convoy that needed help no matter how close to port the ships were.

They did have some submarines that achieved success but nothing like the German U Boat fleet. They also had three interesting medium cruisers armed with 9 x 7.1in guns

As for aircraft carriers the Russians asked the Germans for help but they refused.

The RN could and would have handled the Russian Navy by its self without any problems. With the USN as well it would never have been a contest.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool thanks.

[Gnomey]

Nice info Glider.

[delcyros]

Beside of what already was taken into consideration,
politics plays a major role. Unlike the starting scenario, I
see no justification for a "soviet attack on the western allies".
This undoubtly would bring Stalin in a lose - lose situation without proper
hope to win anything (..without considerable sea forces he could only hope to
take continental europe, and that´s nothing in the end..).
Such a situation would only increase the militaric risks for Stalin, he couldn´t
take any advantage. On the opposite site it is possible that the western allies could decide to attack Stalin and crush the SU. This could be done but would be a very nasty campaign. I doubt that the public opinion would allow such a step. However, this would bring the Western allies in an ATTACKER, not a DEFENDER´s situation, changing everything.
It is more plausible but still unprobable.

-beside of this the SU already had high altitude designs flying in early 1945, giving them a MIG made option to counter the B-29 thread. It wasn´t in mass production but in prototype stage, however it could be if needed. We should also remember that the SU had it´s own jet program and their first prototypes flying in 1945. The MiG-9 or SU-7 could easily deal with a B-29/ B-36. They also overtook the AR-234 C production lines in Slesia, the Me-262 production lines in Tschechia (both intakt), the jet engine assembly lines in Dessau plus further and innumerous german toolings. Hard to decide but a strategic campaign would be more difficult than you might estimate.

[plan_D]

All those production lines and plants that the Soviet Union captured at the end of the war would have obviously been the first targets for the Allied air forces. The Soviet Union would have had to adapt deploy a lot of aircraft, very quickly to stop a massive Allied air offensive crippling their gains in Europe very quickly.

And who's to say those that fought for Stalin because Hitler was worse ...would carry on fighting for him if someone better is coming along to liberate them?

[delcyros]

...undoubtly, but to late, if you ask me.
If we are serious, a "liberating act" wouldn´t happen
prior to sept. 45, when Japn surrenders.
By that date almost all production lines have been already
taken down in order to rebuild them in central Sibiria (beyond range).
And who says that millions of western soldiers would continue a war marching deep into Russia, where millions and millions of others died in their own attempts? Remind Spain, communistic thinking was quite popular for many of the western people as well. Esspecially since the SU did an important job to deal with nazi Germany.
And further: Directly after wars end most german civilians sympathized with the soviets, not with the western allies. The general thinking was quite something like: "..ummm, they are evil, mabe, but they did continue to fight our armys instead of dropping bombs on our cities.."
It wasn´t prior to the Berlin air bridge that the general thinking changed.
I do also think that the SU designers had quite a good knowledge about the capacities and abilities of the B-29, since they had some of them captured and examined very well.

In the end the SU cannot stand against UK and US forces but public opinion would only hardly allow the democratic gouvernments to continue a war against their most important partner in ww2 in an attackers position.

[plan_D]

Many Soviet soldiers have stated that they were not fighting for Stalin, but for Russia. It was probably the case of most Soviet soldiers, as it was mostly the case for German soldiers fighting for homeland rather than leader. The only difference being, the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was actually German. The Red Army was made up of various races, religions and nationalities. A lot of which would have loved to remove Stalin from over the top of them. I don't understand why liberating them wouldn't happen, it's exactly what the Western Allies stood for.

The Spanish Civil War had shown the truth to many Europeans about the Communists. They soon found out the truth about the Stalinist leadership and many in the Spanish Civil War turned against the Communists and joined the Anarchists or Socialists. The end of the Republic came with the removal of the Communists from it's power head. Many of the International Brigades also found out they were fighting for the wrong cause when fighting for Communists ...the Reds had shot themselves in the foot and now most of the world knew they were evil ...especially the British.

Britain had known the Soviet Union were a threat to freedom for a long-long time. Churchill had already admitted he'd sell his soul to the devil to defeat Hitler and he was directly refering to Stalin and the Soviet Union as the devil in question. FDR was a little more naive on the subject but Truman was a bit more up to date and soon realised the nuclear bomb was a good bargaining chip against the Soviet Union - he knew they were trouble.

And the soldiers ....the vast majority of the soldiers in World War II from the countries other than the Soviet Union and Britain didn't really know why they were fighting. They knew there were people called Nazis and they had to stop them to secure freedom - that's it. The same could have been said for the march on the Soviet Union - there are people called Communists and we have to stop them to secure freedom - the soldier is doing the right thing, or even to a lesser extent he thinks he is, and he carries on fighting. Even if the cry for war was to free Poland and East Europe - it would be enough.

The German civilians were mostly ed with the Soviet Union - "It was our holocaust but nobody cared..." about East Prussia was something that ran true throughout Germany. Sure, the Germans hated the Allied airmen but it's civilians that fight. The German troops right up until the last day were saying they'd turn and fight with the Allied troops against the Bolshevik evil that was the Soviet Union.

And it's impossible to say if the Western Allies would accept them ..after all, you could say they thought of them as the evil Nazis but then a lot of British civilians and troops especially did realise that these men were just soldiers doing their national duty. Although there were those British who thought they all needed to be killed ...and I don't judge them for that, obviously. However, had we accepted the aid of all those German soldiers and generals ..it would have been even further in our favour. In fact, during the 50s, NATO did accept the help of many German officers from World War II on the tactics to use against the Soviet Union.

Being up to date on the knowledge of the B-29 (which they weren't completely) doesn't mean they can instantly counter it. Plus, the B-29 would have soon be replaced by the B-36 which was bigger, stronger and more powerful. On top of that, does the Soviet Union have anything to fight at high altitude to stand up to the likes of the P-51H, P-47N or P-38K?

A lot of the civilians from World War II, and soldiers for that matter, didn't have a clue about the Soviet Union's actions in the war. In fact, a lot of people to this day don't have a clue. Politics aside ...the Western Allies had the edge, even without the nuclear bomb, if they fought the Soviet Union.

[delcyros]

As far as I know, numerous german soldiers and officers went to the red forces even during ww2 (NK Freies Deutschland) because of Hitler.
They all knew that they are fighting for Hitler, for Germany was of second priority ( remember that they had to swear on the person of Hitler since 1936 in military training, Hitler replaced Germany). That may be a reason why so many went for the SU.
The argument that soldiers of both forces (Germany as well as Russia) did not liked their leaders is misleading. We have tons of documentation to proof.
(remember all the SU bombs and airplanes written with "CA CTA/\UHA" (for Stalin)?) Such statements are unpopular today (I am not guilty, it was Stalin/Hitler).
But maybe back to the planes, dear Plan_D -
The advanced US escort planes doesn´t have the range to encompany their big friends all the way to Moscow. At low and medium altitude, they have less performance than the later Yak and La-fighter, at higher altitude they are superior to them but inferior to others. The P-80 might give the overall better solution but it has a much reduced range, reducing it´s worth in such a wide area scenario to CAP over vital allied fields/cities. The later Meteor (MK-IV, not MK-III) is probably the best allied jet, this bird has quite an excellent range for a jet.
The Mig- build I-225 (first flight march 14th, 1945) made some 725 Km/h at high altitude with full weaponry, this is remarkable. It also has a decent range and a very low wingload. It could deal with some of the escorts if necessary.
The B-29 are a heavier foe. Esspeccially for them MiG designed the I-250 (N), better known as Mig-7. Armed with 3 (later 4) G 20 /20mm guns and a n mixed propulsion (jet+prop) it flew for the first time at 3rd of march 45 and made some impressive 825 Km/h at 7.800 m. At the usual B-29 altitude it could sustain a speed of 500 mp/h bypassing all possible escort fighters. The Mig-7 had a small serial production. There are other prototypes like I-107 (Su-5) to produce a potent high altitude interceptor.
And they still had the option to continue on the Me-262 and Ju-287 (I own a Baubeschreibung from june, 2nd 45 of the Junkers Werke at Dessau, where they suggest a serial build modified Ju-287 for the soviet air forces), if necessary...

[plan_D]

The only reason Hitler gained support was because the vast majority of the German people wanted their "old" Germany back from the pre-Great War days. Many Allied airmen were asked to join the German fight against the Bolshevik spread - and although not many, if any, did ...a continued fight against the Communists would be an excellent chance for those captured by the West to carry on, if requested.

The Germans moving over to the Soviet Union were small in number. They would have much rather fought with the Allies to oust Stalin from the head of the Soviet Union and calm the world down a bit. Remember those 400,000 Ukrainians that Hitler turned down ...?

The P-38K, P-47N and P-51H all have extremely impressive ranges and are superior to all Soviet fighters at altitude. Remember, the fight takes place where the dictating force takes it. The strategic bomber campaign would be high ...the Soviets would have to rise them.

On the Soviet attacks, it may be low to medium altitude in which case the jet interceptors - P-80 and Meteor Mk.III could deal with them. If not those, then the likes of the Spitfire Mk.21 could handle all Soviet fighters.

All these prototype Sovet aircraft sound impressive ...but they were just prototypes. And remember, the B-29 wasn't defenceless ...it got a fair few MiG-15 kills during Korea!

[delcyros]

Your argument is two shaped, Plan_D.
The Mig-7 went from prototype to serial production (with a few squadrons
of the baltic air forces to deploy with the fighter) but wasn´t improved because of the advent of more potent jet fighters later.
In late 1945 it would provide CAP over vital cities just as Gorki in the PVO.
The I-225 were prototypes, yes, but they are based on the Mig-3. The P-51 H , P-38K and P-47 N were also protoypes based on regular planes, so it´s comparable.
Neither the Meteor nor the Shooting star would be effective in the low level theatre (where most of the fighting would take place), they are very fuel gulping at low alt. The VVS is also able to fly more missions than the UK/US forces could do, so that´s why the US would have a problem: Providing escort for B-29 deep into russia with long range escorts would reduce the avaiability of planes in the close combat area, where the VVS naturally hits hard. Thousends of IL-10 sorties a day may wreac havoc under the UK and US ground forces, as well as the airfields in their range (very bad for jets as we know)and we know that the VVS in 1945 was able to do so. The best allied fighter in low to medium alt would be the Tempest, it has the performance and firepower to deal with any threat but it needs protection against the more agile Yaks and Las. I do not deny that the losses would be high for the VVS but they don´t care about high losses. In the end initiative means all.
It is well probable that a strategic bombing campaign will set new priorities for the VVS (shifting more foces to the PVO), but it remains speculation, since no P-51 H is able to accompany a B-29 all the way from France to Moscow /Irak to Moscow and back...(not to even mention central Sibiria, where the key war production was concentrated)

[schwarzpanzer]

PlanD:

Many Soviet soldiers have stated that they were not fighting for Stalin, but for Russia. It was probably the case of most Soviet soldiers, as it was mostly the case for German soldiers fighting for homeland rather than leader.

Yes, either they fought with Stalin or were eradicated. Tough choice IMHO.

The Red Army was made up of various races, religions and nationalities. A lot of which would have loved to remove Stalin from over the top of them.

Yes Stalin banned Religion, banned Religion! Even Hitler didn't do that!

the Reds had shot themselves in the foot and now most of the world knew they were evil

The leaders were evil, Communists aren't.

Churchill had already admitted he'd sell his soul to the devil to defeat Hitler and he was directly refering to Stalin and the Soviet Union as the devil in question.

He downright said he hated them, but less than the Nazi's.

Even if the cry for war was to free Poland and East Europe - it would be enough.

English of German origin (like me) would want Poland and Czechoslovakia to suffer as much as possible, sorry.

Sure, the Germans hated the Allied airmen but it's civilians that fight.

From my family perspective, only the leaders and certain SS/NKVD were considered evil.

Some hate Communism, some are Communists.

you could say they thought of them as the evil Nazis but then a lot of British civilians and troops especially did realise that these men were just soldiers doing their national duty

To their credits, yes, the hearts and minds philosophy maybe? I also think the forgiving Christian Religion and general nice British nature at the time had a lot to do with it?

does the Soviet Union have anything to fight at high altitude to stand up to the likes of the P-51H, P-47N or P-38K?

Good point, the in-being MiG?

A lot of the civilians from World War II, and soldiers for that matter, didn't have a clue about the Soviet Union's actions in the war.

You can't tar them all with the same brush.

Fighting against Stalin is a good thing, but the Russians did nothing to hurt or threaten Germany, other than in the Spanish civil war.


delcyros:

The argument that soldiers of both forces (Germany as well as Russia) did not liked their leaders is misleading. We have tons of documentation to proof.
(remember all the SU bombs and airplanes written with "CA CTA/\UHA" (for Stalin)?)

That's like saying the Iraqis loved Saddam Hussein. If you didn't show your love for him, you died. Also a lot of brainwashing went on with Stalin.

The Germans initially liked Hitler though.

And they still had the option to continue on the Me-262

With all the raw materials they needed...

PD:

Remember those 400,000 Ukrainians that Hitler turned down ...?

Before having them killed. Why?? They'd suffered enough already.

He didn't trust them though, would you?

The P-38K, P-47N and P-51H all have extremely impressive ranges and are superior to all Soviet fighters at altitude.

The Soviets had good high-altitude performance planes, but withdrew them because they weren't needed. In fact their engines ended up in IL-2's!

delcyros:

Neither the Meteor nor the Shooting star would be effective in the low level theatre (where most of the fighting would take place)

Atually, the Meteor was succesfully used in the ground attack role.

I think it's a moot point as all the fighting would be high-altitude.

no P-51 H is able to accompany a B-29 all the way from France to Moscow /Irak to Moscow and back

With reduced weight, improved aerodynamics and engine and/or the twin 'Tang, it maybe could?

How long 'till the Soviet jets make them redundant though?

The P51 could hold it's own vs a Me262?

[delcyros]

One point why the jets can´t be effective in the low level duties
is that there fuel gulping engines (P-80, Meteor I and III, to a less degree also the Dervent-V driven MK-IV) reduce the effective endurance over enemy terretory/ airspace. Overloaded (bombs + additional fuel) they are not fast enough to avoid interception even by Yaks and Las in clean fighter configuration plus the Meteor (esspeccially) is a hell of a big target. It is completely different if a Meteor-III in early 1945 performs ground attack sorties from near airfields against demoralised german targets in a target poor environment /airspace or in late 45 against soviet forces in a target rich environment with excellent AA and lot of fighters performing CAP. (not to mention the effectiveness: How effective would a MK-IV/MK-III be, if forced to attack at very high speeeds with 20mm rounds against JS-II / late T-34?...)The Vampire could do better, I think.
But something scares me: You think most fighting would be in hi alt? I disagree. Some, sure. But the VVS would stay at their philosophy: Performing close support for their advancing panzers and leave the wide airspace at hi alt almost empty (with an independent PVO defense of their important centres).
The Me-262 /Su-7 was really an option. Directly after wars end, Stalin ordered the mass production of this fighter. The plane doesn´t have much raw materials: more steel than dural. A problem could be the raw materials for the engines but the soviets already benefitted from more efficient and powerful developments in the BMW-003 and Jumo-004 program (RD-9 and RD-10), including afterburner modification and more fuel efficiency as well as a tinadur and chromadur alloys to reduce the degree of raw materials. As we all know, Yakolev insisted against the Su-7 and succeeded in convincing Stalin that the Mig-9 and Yak-7/9 are better planes (which they weren´t).
It remains a question how long the soviets need to deploy a numerical force of jet interceptors. I suspect it wouldn´t be prior to late 45 (in case of the I-250 (N) and early 46 (soonest) in case of the Mig-9/Su-7. There was lot of engeneering to do (even in case of the Su-7: new (straight )wing and circular hull diameter) and the preperations for mass production would take additional time, also. At this time, there are still very few P-80 and Meteor MK-IV plus a number of older MK-III and a very few (if even) Vampires. In the engine dep. the West is clearly leading (think of the Nene and J-3 plus some german axial techs (BMW probably). Beside of the P-80 the allies have no plane suited for the superior Nene-engine.

[schwarzpanzer]

It is completely different if a Meteor-III in early 1945 performs ground attack sorties from near airfields against demoralised german targets in a target poor environment /airspace or in late 45 against soviet forces in a target rich environment with excellent AA and lot of fighters performing CAP.

It was used in that role when it was otherwise obsoleto. Not in WW2 IIRC?

How effective would a MK-IV/MK-III be, if forced to attack at very high speeeds with 20mm rounds against JS-II / late T-34?...)

But something scares me: You think most fighting would be in hi alt? I disagree. Some, sure. But the VVS would stay at their philosophy: Performing close support for their advancing panzers and leave the wide airspace at hi alt almost empty (with an independent PVO defense of their important centres).

We're obviously talking about different things, for those former targets P47's would suffice.

The wide airspace at high-alt would be full of B17/B29/B36's and if the Soviets didn't want to go there, so much the better for the Allies.

A problem could be the raw materials for the engines but the soviets already benefitted from more efficient and powerful developments in the BMW-003 and Jumo-004 program (RD-9 and RD-10), including afterburner modification and more fuel efficiency as well as a tinadur and chromadur alloys to reduce the degree of raw materials.

I was meaning the Soviets would have metals such as Chromium and Tungsten in abundance, whereas the Germans had very little, which was the main jet engine problem.

As we all know, Yakolev insisted against the Su-7 and succeeded in convincing Stalin that the Mig-9 and Yak-7/9 are better planes (which they weren´t).

No, I didn't now that.

It remains a question how long the soviets need to deploy a numerical force of jet interceptors. I suspect it wouldn´t be prior to late 45 (in case of the I-250 (N) and early 46 (soonest) in case of the Mig-9/Su-7.

So the high-alt bombers/escorts could only be effectively countered 'till then?

I expect the MiG high-alt 'props' wouldn't be ready any sooner either?

There was lot of engeneering to do (even in case of the Su-7: new (straight )wing and circular hull diameter) and the preperations for mass production would take additional time

A similar problem occured with the PzIII-T34-Panther saga. That was due to German national pride and material shortages. As the Russians wouldn't suffer from the latter, I would guess that it was all the former?

Still the actual manufacturing could be a problem? but wouldn't the Me262 tooling simply have been nicked entirely?

Beside of the P-80 the allies have no plane suited for the superior Nene-engine.

I wonder if the B36 could be modified to take Nene's?

My opinion now is looking like the Soviets couldn't win. In all likeliness Stalin would have been overthrown, but the Blitz-like and Guerilla tactics could have done it for them?

The weaknesses are:

1. High-alt air power

2. Naval power

Could these be remedied?

How long would that take?

What about Britains labour government/attitude post-war?

[102first_hussars]

If a war between Nato and The Warsaw PAct happend chances are the war would escalate into a nuclear war and there would be no winner.

[schwarzpanzer]

That's a good point, but:

1. The Allies public opinion wouldn't allow the Soviets to be nuked. (Britain was also kinda lefty :hippy: back then, the Neme mentioned above was given to the SU as a gift from the Government! ) Also Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type targets were invincible in the USSR (except Stalingrad...)

2. The SU wouldn't have nukes 'till '49.


However, industrial targets and Stalingrad may have been nuked? - unlikely IMHO.