# What if General George Patton Had Gotten His Wish With Regard to Russia



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

He wanted to Invade Russia right after we got done with Germany. What if he had ? Would the US and Uk and France have been able to defeat Russia in a War or Would it have ended in disaster ?

The UU and Uk had access to the B29 bomber which could reach any target in the USSR and this plane would have been difficult for The Russians to bring down.  The P 51 mustang and Spitfire which outclassed every other fighter plane.   Then there was the combined power of the US and Royal Navies .  Then there was the A bomb which at in 1945 no one else had.

But the Russians had some advantages  as well, a large forces battle hardened  armed with the Ak 47? not sure on hat last one though.  The T 34 take which was superior to them M4 Sherman tank ,   They would be fighting on their own turf.

Thoughts?


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 9, 2015)

I think we would have gotten our arses handed to us on a plate if we'd attacked them in 45. Forget the T34, by the time the Russians got to Berlin, not only were they extremely battle-hardened, well disciplined and of huge numbers, they had numerous beasts like the IS2 and at the end of the war, starting to build the IS3. These were designed to take on the German Panthers and Tigers with a 122mm gun. 

Add to this the thousands of faster T34-85s for exploiting breakthroughs along with millions of infantry and we wouldn't have stood a chance. The US and Royal Navies would have been sitting ducks from land air and sea if they'd entered the Baltic and I wouldn't discount the quality of the late Soviet air force either. They had good fighter aircraft, good ground attack aircraft and a sizeable Paratrooper section. Not only would air-landings behind our lines have caused havoc but we could have also ended up having to deal with Communist uprisings in both France and Italy - diverting much needed resources away from the front line. 

The only way to stop them would have been using nuclear weapons and even then I'm not sure it would have been enough. Sure, there would have been huge numbers of dead but  all Soviet production had been moved beyond the Urals (an awfully long way over enemy territory for a bomber - especially as the B52 hadn't been built yet). Even if the bomb had been dropped, war production would likely have been unaffected and Stalin didn't worry too much about the human cost.

Of course, nobody knows for sure what the result would have been but it should be no surprise that NATO, when it was formed, created a strategy relying on nuclear weapons because the member states just couldn't match the USSR in terms of numbers.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 9, 2015)

It had been studied by us Brits in quite detail at the end of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Their conclusions were: '_militarily unfeasible due to a three-to-one superiority of Soviet land forces_' and  '_Any quick success would be due to surprise alone. If a quick success could not be obtained before the onset of winter, the assessment was that the Allies would be committed to a protracted total war. In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous"._'


----------



## HareBrain (Aug 9, 2015)

The war-weary population of the UK at least would never have gone along with it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> I think we would have gotten our arses handed to us on a plate if we'd attacked them in 45. Forget the T34, by the time the Russians got to Berlin, not only were they extremely battle-hardened, well disciplined and of huge numbers, they had numerous beasts like the IS2 and at the end of the war, starting to build the IS3. These were designed to take on the German Panthers and Tigers with a 122mm gun.
> 
> Add to this the thousands of faster T34-85s for exploiting breakthroughs along with millions of infantry and we wouldn't have stood a chance. The US and Royal Navies would have been sitting ducks from land air and sea if they'd entered the Baltic and I wouldn't discount the quality of the late Soviet air force either. They had good fighter aircraft, good ground attack aircraft and a sizeable Paratrooper section. Not only would air-landings behind our lines have caused havoc but we could have also ended up having to deal with Communist uprisings in both France and Italy - diverting much needed resources away from the front line.
> 
> ...



The US has the M 26  Pershing coming on line thought admit-ably we didn't large numbers of them  Those could take out both the T34 and The ramped up T 34's   And even a T34 would have a hard time against an attacking P 51 Mustang ,  Spitfire or P 47 Thunderbolt which deal with tanks. Both the  US and RAF combined  have the advantage and they outclass almost even Russian Fighter planes .  With Regard to the B29 all they had to do was take out the Russian Oil fields, without fuel  Russia mechanized forces would ground to a halt.  

Your also forgetting the fact that Eastern Europeans would very likely rise up against the Russian and very likely some to he Soviet  Republics. They both had an intense hatred of the the Russians and didn't want to be under their thumb.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

HareBrain said:


> The war-weary population of the UK at least would never have gone along with it.



Even if meant potentially getting rid of Stalin?


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 9, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> The US has the M 26  Pershing coming on line thought admit-ably we didn't large numbers of them  Those could take out both the T34 and The ramped up T 34's   And even a T34 would have a hard time against an attacking P 51 Mustang ,  Spitfire or P 47 Thunderbolt which deal with tanks. Both the  US and RAF combined  have the advantage and they outclass almost even Russian Fighter planes .  With Regard to the B29 all they had to do was take out the Russian Oil fields, without fuel  Russia mechanized forces would ground to a halt.
> 
> Your also forgetting the fact that Eastern Europeans would very likely rise up against the Russian and very likely some to he Soviet  Republics. They both had an intense hatred of the the Russians and didn't want to be under their thumb.



The Ilyushin IL2 ground attack aircraft with a total of 42330 was the single most produced aircraft in aviation history. It was used _en masse_ to devastating effect at the battle of Kursk against infantry and armoured targets. I doubt if there would have been enough Spitfires or Mustangs to deal with these and, as I said, the T34 would be reduced to exploiting gaps. The IS2 and IS3 were massive beasts that outgunned even the Super-Pershing with its 90mm gun. With an infantry ratio of 4:1 and a tank ratio of 2:1 in Soviet favour, even an uprising by eastern european nations (already devastated by war) wouldn't have had much impact.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 9, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Even if meant potentially getting rid of Stalin?



Churchill may have liked to get rid of him, but there were many in the UK and the rest of Europe who thought at the time he was a wonderful chap. But I agree with HB. It was the sixth year of the war for us - rationing, war economy, being bombed and V-rocketed it all took a huge toll...it was time for rebuilding and stopping total war.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 9, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> _In the report of 22 May 1945, an offensive operation was deemed "hazardous"._


Indeed.  

Also Bloody Stupid, pardon my French. Literally.

The main worry was the USSR wouldn't be content with Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. The USA didn't have enough Nuclear weapons, then. 
Whatever the USA might have thought, no-one in Europe would have supported a first Strike. The Common Market and later EU was born out of desire of Western Europeans to have no more of the Franco - German etc wars that had cursed Western Europe for Generations. Apart from Channel Is, the UK hadn't been actually invaded since William Of Orange (which was more almost an invitation as few wanted James and Mary sort of Legitimised William), or really since the other William in 1066.
Hence Western Mainland Europe is more committed to EU than UK. The USA may see CM and then EU more as a bastion against Russia, but before Putin if Russia had applied to join? 

I think the Cold War had most support in USA and only secondarily in UK and Germany, less everywhere else. With re-unification Germany was more interested in integration than the Cold War, which petered out temporarily a year later. Now we have huge tension again with USSR Russia, except now many of Russia's critical Military suppliers (Military Steam Turbines for ships, Famous Antonov Aircraft works/Design) are in Independent Ukraine, who are now blocking all supplies to USSR Russia. Latvia (Riga) was a major Electronic Supplier. Whatever Pole might feel about German WWII, they don't have happy memories of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czarist Russia (though a Czar gave them defacto independence), USSR etc. They very much prefer EU to USSR. So do many recent EU entrants. Latvia even joined Euro SINCE the recent Euro Crises.

*Learning from past: Napoleon, Hitler etc Vs Russia*
So No, attacking Russia would have been madness in 1945, any Cold War 1st Strike would have been madness. Right now is extremely problematic as one doesn't want to actually provoke Putin, but he's the scariest Russian leader since Stalin.  Where exactly is Putin going to stop?


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> The Ilyushin IL2 ground attack aircraft with a total of 42330 was the single most produced aircraft in aviation history. It was used _en masse_ to devastating effect at the battle of Kursk against infantry and armoured targets. I doubt if there would have been enough Spitfires or Mustangs to deal with these and, as I said, the T34 would be reduced to exploiting gaps. The IS2 and IS3 were massive beasts that outgunned even the Super-Pershing with its 90mm gun. With an infantry ratio of 4:1 and a tank ratio of 2:1 in Soviet favour, even an uprising by eastern european nations (already devastated by war) wouldn't have had much impact.




There were 15,000  Mustang produced during the War , same number of P 47'   20,000 Spitfires, and we had other planes like the Grummon Hellcat , The Lighting ,  We could match their plane numbers and ultimately exceed them .  US and Uk Industrial capacity was greater then that then Russia and also we supplied them with many of their military supplies in the early part of the war without which they would collapsed against the Reich.  in protracted war could ultimately outproduce then in terms of weapons .  Your also forgetting  that they had nothing that touch or the B29 , we could bombed their factories into oblivion and their fighters would have had a very difficult time reaching them at the altitude that stye could fly.  And then there is are Russian oilfields , knock those out and their amy bass no fuel., you can't wage  a mechanized war without fuel.  They Liberator and Lancaster Bombers which would the to the carnage. Then there's the Bomb, We have it , the Russians at this time don't.

The T 34 and it Stalin variant are very impressive , but against strafing aircraft are still vulnerable to planes like the Thunderbolt.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 9, 2015)

Foxbat said:


> even an uprising by eastern european nations


1948 (E. Germany) and 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechslovakia) didn't have any effect. I think the cracks started appearing in 1980 when USSR was ambivalent about supporting Polish Communist state against _Solidarność_ (Solidarity).


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 9, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> We could match their plane numbers and ultimately exceed them . US and Uk Industrial capacity was greater then that then Russia


That's the sort of logic that led Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour. Look at map. US / UK bombers couldn't have reached USSR factories in 1945/1946.
West Europe was rubble. Rationing in UK got WORSE after WWII ended! 
Any war effort production would have been mainly USA and had to cross Pacific and/or Atlantic


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> 1948 (E. Germany) and 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechslovakia) didn't have any effect. I think the cracks started appearing in 1980 when USSR was ambivalent about supporting Polish Communist state against _Solidarność_ (Solidarity).




By 1980 Russia was broke and could not support it's empire.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> That's the sort of logic that led Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour. Look at map. US / UK bombers couldn't have reached USSR factories in 1945/1946.
> West Europe was rubble. Rationing in UK got WORSE after WWII ended!
> Any war effort production would have been mainly USA and had to cross Pacific and/or Atlantic



I looked at the map Ray.  Im wrong, we couldn't have reached the factories  Not at all. We'd have had to conquer territory to get closer an there would have been no guarantee of that happening.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 9, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> By 1980 Russia was broke and could not support it's empire.


One theory is that while Regan's Star Wars could never really work, that it meant massive increases in USSR military spending.

Logic:
If a "defence system" is say 90% effective against your current missiles, then the people with that system might be tempted to do a first strike (yes, the USSR was a bit paranoid, but so was USA and the USSR HAD had over 30 Million casualties 1939-1945, they did fight other people before the Germans attacked).
So you try to build x10 as many ICBMs, Nuke Subs etc to "neutralise" the defence system.

One theory is that inefficient management  due too much repeat orders of  Military HW collapsed the USSR economy.

Also US Military HW sold abroad wasn't subsidised, USSR was. Even USA "grants" to militarily support US Allies had to be spent on USA products at full price!


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> One theory is that while Regan's Star Wars could never really work, that it meant massive increases in USSR military spending.
> 
> Logic:
> If a "defence system" is say 90% effective against your current missiles, then the people with that system might be tempted to do a first strike (yes, the USSR was a bit paranoid, but so was USA and the USSR HAD had over 30 Million casualties 1939-1945, they did fight other people before the Germans attacked).
> ...



I think Star Wars was  all bluff.  It was designed to get the Russians in to finically ruinous Arms race.  That's my theory 


The Soviet Bureaucracy and it's workings  helped cripple parts of their space program in the 60's, it's one of the factors that kept them from landing on the moon.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 9, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> I think Star Wars was all bluff. It was designed to get the Russians in to finically ruinous Arms race. That's my theory


I'll buy that. Regan was a LOT more clever than either Bush (or Jeb  )

They didn't land men. But they did land Lunar Rovers.

Men on the moon for a visit rather than some sort of base with a logical purpose?  That would be topic for a different interesting thread.

Probe / Robotic exploration vs manned.

Was Apollo a "Dead End" project with just a single "ego" goal?
Moon / Mars / some moon of Jupiter Base. Venus seems impractical. Other than ego is there science value vs better rovers etc?

I'm not sure how much it affected their space program as in the earlier days their lifters were based on ICBMs.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> They didn't land men. But they did land Lunar Rovers.
> 
> Men on the moon for a visit rather than some sort of base with a logical purpose?
> 
> I'm not sure how much it affected their space program as in the earlier days their lifters were based on ICBMs.



If  Sergei Korolyov  hadn't died 1966 , The Soviets ( even without Micro Computers) might have gotten a man on the moon first.  Part of the problem was the Giant N1 Rocket had a nasty habit of exploding . Korolyov died before he could fix the problems with booster .  With him out the picture their space program lost direction .


----------



## MWagner (Aug 11, 2015)

All of the combatant populations were war-weary in '45. The Soviets were scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel in the final offensives of the war. Sure, their front-line units were powerful and battle-hardened, but they were badly chewed up in the Battle of Berlin. And their industry was only kept running by women working in factories around the clock. The Western Allies could hardly get their ground troops to carry out offensives in the face of stiff  opposition from half-broken German armies in '44 (see Armageddon: The Battle for Germany by Max Hastings). Hard to see the citizen soldiers of the democracies pressing on in the face of the massive casualties they would have sustained against intact Soviet armies.

I doubt it would even be a military contest - more of several political struggles to see which regime could stay in power in the face of massive popular exhaustion and dissent. You'd have to give the slight edge to the Soviets there.


----------



## Temperance (Aug 12, 2015)

It's one of those few things that makes Operation Downfall look perfectly reasonable and a good idea.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 14, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I'll buy that. Regan was a LOT more clever than either Bush (or Jeb  )
> 
> They didn't land men. But they did land Lunar Rovers.
> 
> ...




Ronald Reagan had his faults but he was a lot smatter then people give him credit for. He was also a great orator, one the best of all time.


----------

