Who would win the western allies or Russia?

RAGMAN · 09-30-2005, 03:30 AM

I have thought of what would happen if Stalin and Russia was crazy enough to attack the western allies after ww2 ended.Britain and the US were not really getting along at towards the end of ww2.Russia had a millions of troops and equipment.The armour alone of Russian tanks overshadowed almost anything the western allies had.Could Russia be beaten off Europe?It would have been a titanic battle, maybe even making the battles of ww2 pale in comparison.

trackend · 09-30-2005, 01:22 PM

I would say the West would prevail as he would undoubtedly have to fight on at least two fronts Canada would be used as the start of one front and although the Russian could push the European front and it would probably be pushed back across the channel he never had any means of crossing it also we had the A bomb and the Russians didnt so its goodbye Moscow and just about very other Soviet city within 4 months.

the lancaster kicks ass · 09-30-2005, 01:26 PM

i think it all depends more on where this war would be fought mostly......

syscom3 · 09-30-2005, 01:30 PM

That would have been a monumental battle.

Id say the Russians could not have crossed the Rheine at all. Superior allied airpower (might even need to recruit the Luftwaffe pilots still around) would blunt much of the Soviet power. All of those massed tanks would be fodder for the Typhoons and P47's.

cheddar cheese · 09-30-2005, 01:55 PM

Well the Germans wouldnt want to fight for the Russians, Im sure of that...We would have all the German technological advances and designers, Kurt Tank + Allied production = awesome designs...

the lancaster kicks ass · 09-30-2005, 02:04 PM

well the germans wouldn't exactly be over the moon fighting for us either, are we assuming that both sides were as they were at the end of the war, ie they had the same engineers/scientists/designers they got at the end of WWII??......

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-02-2005, 07:09 AM

Western Allies deffinatly. They were in a better position to win a war than the Soviets were.

Soren · 10-02-2005, 02:54 PM

The West would undoubtedly win this one.

However with Nuclear weapons not far away, who really knows...

Gnomey · 10-02-2005, 03:00 PM

I would agree with what people are saying the Western Allies would have won if war had broken out between the 'Big Three'. However both the Western Allies and the USSR were tired of war and did not want anymore of it. This may of been different I know but that is my view but then as you have said Soren Nuclear weapons were around the corner so who knows what would (or could) have happened...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-02-2005, 03:07 PM

The West already had the Nuclear Bomb and the Russians were not going to get it for a couple of more years so the bomb would have just been in the wests favor.

Soren · 10-02-2005, 04:24 PM

Yes, by 49 the Russians had their first A-bomb. But who says a conflict couldnt have started between the west and the soviets in 49 ?

Glider · 10-02-2005, 04:33 PM

I must agree with the opinion that the west would have won but with one big question mark. Our air-power would have won the war but it would have taken time to destroy the Russian air-forces, not long, maybe a couple of weeks. We would have also cut them off from supplies from home, leaving them to run off the stores that were in situ.
The question-mark is, would our armies have been able to hold them for those two weeks.
My best guess is that we would have had a rerun of the early stages on the Korean War. The Russians would have made significant gains until they run out of steam. We talk about Pershing's and Centurions being introduced into the European Front, but in reality they were a tiny fraction of the forces in place. The vast majority of the fighting would be the Shermans, Cromwells, M10's etc against the T34/85, KV's, SU100's and JS2. In this situation my money would be on the Russian Armour.
Once we had stabilised the situation then from that time on we would have beaten them back. The unknown question is, how far back would we be forced before the Russians were held.
If the Russians were smart and waited until we started to withdraw our troops away from the front then its possible we may have been too late. If they attacked when we were still in place, our position would be better.

The question of Nuclear weapons is interesting. There were only a couple of them around and I am sure that Moscow would be target no 1. I doubt if the Allies would launch one against captured territory.
Would that make Russia surrender? I doubt it, but it would I suggest, make them negotiate. Negotiations that allied politicians would be happy to agree to. I doubt if anyone had the stomach for a fight to the death against Russia.

The other question asked was 'would the Germans fight for the allies'? My guess is that having known what its like to lose to the Russians, they would fight to the end on the allied side.

FLYBOYJ · 10-02-2005, 04:39 PM

The West - when comparing this situation with the German attempted conquest of the USSR, the allies would of went in without the liability of a surpreme leader (Hitler) undermining the allied command!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-02-2005, 08:20 PM

I agree with you on that. And on the idea of Nuclear Weapons, the allies would not have let it get as far as the Soviets to speed up there process and get one of there own. They would have simply nuked them.

schwarzpanzer · 10-02-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i think it all depends more on where this war would be fought mostly...

Well, my guess is Korea, or maybe (if the Soviets had the element of surprise) China, in the East

Germany more than likely would hold on better than Korea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

The vast majority of the fighting would be the Shermans, Cromwells, M10's etc against the T34/85, KV's, SU100's and JS2. In this situation my money would be on the Russian Armour.

You forgot the JS3!

In the East there were a few Pershings and KT's and Panthers etc would be pressed into service by both sides (they were anyway!)

After the Berlin parade, I reckon Centurion production was ramped up and improved?

An Allied or Soviet built KT would be better than a German one, or the E-series may have been produced?

To cut a long story short, both sides would likely have armour parity in a few short years.

The Russians would have had better guns though.

Quote:

The question of Nuclear weapons is interesting. There were only a couple of them around and I am sure that Moscow would be target no 1. I doubt if the Allies would launch one against captured territory.

Captured by the Soviets, ie Poland?

Anyway the Soviets knew about the A-bomb and Moscow would definately not have been vulnerable.

- Unless the V-3 or V-4 were produced and combined with an A-bomb warhead?

FLYBOYJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The West - when comparing this situation with the German attempted conquest of the USSR, the allies would of went in without the liability of a surpreme leader (Hitler) undermining the allied command!

Ike?

The bickering would likely be worse than vs Germany?