U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

Entirely possible, but that would require the war to last quite a while to take advantage of that. With the two armies looking right at each other in Germany the war would probably have come to an end long before then. My guess is that the losses on both sides would be so high that some sort of truce would be reached.

 

Herk- I happen to love the P-47.

Do you have any more info on the HVAR rocket? I would like to read more.

 

I think a nation like the USSR would have been willing to lose more people than the US would have.

 

True. The Russians had suffered more than 20 times the casualty than we did and they just kept on fighting. Losing, say half a million men in a few months fighting the Russians in an all-out war in central Germany, and we would probably see a lot of people at home questioning the rationale for continuing. But that is the disadvantage of being a democracy in a war.

 

True. The Russians had suffered more than 20 times the casualty than we did and they just kept on fighting. Losing, say half a million men in a few months fighting the Russians in an all-out war in central Germany, and we would probably see a lot of people at home questioning the rationale for continuing. But that is the disadvantage of being a democracy in a war.

 

As a few russians have said on this topic, the americans woulden't have the stomach for this conflict.

If this war ever started after ww2, with american troops in the same cities as russian after the fall of hitler in germany. Usa would lose tens of thousands of troops on a single day. This would cause the so called democracy to rethink the presidents action. Probably cause revolts/riots in usa with the americans realisation of the hell they just walked into.

 

As far as I've ever read they didn't explode and launch a HEAT round. That's rockets in development now afaik.

 

People also have to remember one very important fact that almost everybody seems to be ignorant of.

In WWII, tanks were not designed to combat other tanks.

During that era, there were essentially 3 different types of heavy armored vehicles (not counting forms of APCs like halftracks).

The first is the self propelled artillery. These could be used in indirect fire against tanks (Sgt Audie Murphy). They had a big gun, no turret, and were primarily designed simply to give the artillery crew some protection. These were not designed as anti-tank weapons, but could fill in if absolutely needed (but not very effectively).

The second is the conventional Tank. These could (and often were) used in tank against tank battles. However, it should be realized that this was not their role. These were designed as they were in World War I, to give fire support for infantry units, and were mostly placed so the tanks and infantry could support each other.

Then finally, you actually have the "tanks" that were really designed to attack other tanks. These were known as "Tank Destroyers" (or as the Germans designated, them, Panzerjager or "tank hunters"). These were very similar to self-propelled artillery, normally having no turrets or a turret with the top open to the elements. These were tracked vehicles with truely massive guns. The Germans primarily used the Marauder series as well as the Jagdpanther, the Soviets used the SU-85 and SU-100, and the US used the M10.

German Jagdpanther:



Soviet SU-100:

http://battletanks.com/images/SU-100-2.jpg[/img

US M10:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/M10_tank_destroyer_crossing_the_Saar,_December_1944.jpg

This is the unusual design of the era. The M10 did mount it's gun in a revolving turret. However, notice the soldiers on top. There was absolutely no protection at all on top, it was open to the air. This made the turret lighter and made it possible to rotate faster to engage other tanks. However, it was horribly vulnerable to elevated snipers or aircraft.

 

The Panzer III was designed to kill other tanks. That's why it came with a better gun than the PzIVs at first. PzIIIs killed tanks and PzIVs killed soft targets.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_velocity_aircraft_rocket

I remember seeing several times footage of US aircraft attacking German trains with rocket armed aircraft. I wish I knew where I could find that film, it was really impressive.

This is newsreel footage and not actual combat footage, but it helps make the point.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_eseG4AOnc"]P-38 Lightning and P-47 Thunderbolt firing rockets. - YouTube[/ame]

 

It entered service a month after the war ended.

 

Who said anything about stopping production of the Sherman? Both the Sherman and Centurion would have been in use. A navy gives you movement something the Russian couldn't do, and what about cutting off the supplies from the allies to Russia, stopping them from moving in the Arctic ocean, and cutting the island Russia had taken from Japan off from the mainland. The navy would have been much less important, but still given the allies a huge advantage.

 

From what references I could find, the first unit issued Centurion's received them in 1946.

Look- nothing against the Centurion- but by the time it was entering service, the Soviets had thousands of IS2 and IS3's.

 

I would disagree only in that was the original intention at the beginning of the war, and that fairly rapidly evolved. Later designed tanks, like the Panther and the Tiger 2, were designed very specifically to be able to take out other tanks. Arguably that is the case also with the T-34/85 and the IS series also. Look also how the Brits upgunned the Sherman with the 17 pounder- that was done strictly to make it able to take out German tanks.

During that era, there were essentially 3 different types of heavy armored vehicles (not counting forms of APCs like halftracks).

Is the Marauder series the STGIII?

I think you are really leaving out the middle ground here. Both sides used Assault guns- which were designed as cheap alternatives to tanks, to intended to be used as support for infantry, but which often ended up substituting for anti-tank weapons or even as tanks.

The STGIII was an assault weapon which ended up being used as a anti-tank weapon. The SU-152 was a massive assault gun that was often used as an anti-tank weapon. The SU-122 filled both roles also.

The armored anti-tank role evolved from rather awkward early efforts of mounting anti-tank guns on whatever chasis were available(the wierd combo of the Czech chasis with a 75 mm gun mounted on it, the Nashorn with an 88 mounted on a chasis to specially designed anti-tank weapons like the jagpanther and jagtiger.

The M-10, its successor the M-36- and what was that fast one- ah the M-24 were all odd vehicles out. I think if I had to chose between an M-10 and a Jagpanther or even a SU-85 for survivability- it wouldn't be a hard choice

 

This only further proves that the effectiveness of 1 tank versus another wasn't that important in determining the outcome of the war. Plus, people are forgetting how vulnerable tanks are to Infantry.

 

It never came anywhere close to playing out, only the warmongering idiot Patton wanted it.

 

I agree with your contention that everything is subject to the combined total- air, artillery, armor, infantry, logistics- etc. German armor greater effectiveness however meant that the Americans had to use more resources to take them out, than vice versa. In a conflict with the Soviets, Americans would be facing an adversary that tanks almost as good as the Panther and Tiger 2, but with numbers similar to their own.

Tanks are vulnerable to infantry only in certain terrain- and were practically invulnerable in open terrain- in the desert and steppes- infantry were not a real threat to armor. In Western Europe- in the towns, and hedgerows, and forests- certainly infantry was a threat. But infantry really is only a threat on the defensive. And Soviets had plenty of infantry of their own.

 

The only place that tanks can truly operate without Infantry support is the Desert and wide open plains. In this type of terrain aircraft become an even greater threat though. The hills/mountains/towns/cities/forests of Western Europe would have required Infantry support. Infantry is still quite capable of knocking out tanks on the offensive, though they are generally more effective in the defensive. Tanks without Infantry support are sitting ducks.

I still content that the U.S. COULD have produced more tanks than the Soviets...and DID produce more of pretty much every other war material.

 

Depends on the desert. In North Africa tanks needed infantry support. At Tobruk Rommel was defeated by the Australians because they isolated the tanks from the infantry by allowing the tanks to break through the perimiter and then killing the following infantry. Without their infantry support the tanks weren't able to spot the hidden anti tank guns (tanks were almost blind back then) and they were destroyed.

 

This is true. Tanks get slaughtered without Infantry support. In wide open terrain the need tends to be less. You're also able to rely on mechanized Infantry too.

 

We didn't have anymore after the second one dropped in Japan.

 

Forgot to add the other important part......Russia also had nuke technology....that's kinda what created that little thing called the Cold War.

 

But they did not produce a bomb until August 1949. And it measured in at 22 kt. Now let me show you the progression of the US and USSR and the number of weapons in their stockpile from the end of 1945 until the end of 1950:

US USSR
1945 6 0
1946 11 0
1947 32 0
1948 110 0
1949 235 1
1950 369 5

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

And yes, there were more bombs ready. They scientists had 4 bombs ready to go, the Trinity bomb and the 2 dropped on Japan. The third one was being prepared for movement to the theatre on 10 August 1945 when the order came to stop loading procedures. The decisions had been made that if Japan did not surrender, then 1 more would have been dropped. All further bombs would have been moved and held in preperation for Operation Downfall.

This should be of particular interest. It is a declassified transcription of a conversation between General John Hull (Army Chief of Staff George Marshall's chief aide) and Colonel L. E. Seeman, chief assistant to General Groves.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

This document clearly states that if needed, they could have 7 by the end of October, and were producing them at the rate of 3-4 per month.

And by the time the Soviets did their first test, the US had moved up to the X-Ray and Yoke test blasts, which measured in at 37 and 49 kt each.

And 2 years after the Soviets did their first atomic test, the US detonated it's first Thermonuclear bomb, George, which came in at 225 kt. And the next year (1952) they detonated Ivy Mike, which came in at 10.4 mt. The USSR detonted their first Hydrogen bomb 3 years after that.

This is a huge gap during a time of war. And being in a war, it is highly doubtfull that the Soviets could have continued their program. In fact, they did not even have a program until 1945. Until then, they only had a small think tank that was involved in theoretical research into the possability. It was not until after the war that they started into actually trying to make one (once the US proved it was possible).

No, they did not have "nuke technology". They were years behind the US, both in the theory, and the actual manufacturing of such devices. And it can't be stressed enough that a great deal of the Soviet initial progress in this area was not due to their own research, but by espionage. The GRU and NKVD had both the US and UK projects penetrated at among the highest levels, and often got designs before they were even finalized.

During a continued war, this would not have been available to the Soviets.

 

If a war between usa-soviet union after ww2. The russians would be motivated to create their atomic option faster and quicker.

But when they 'officially' created one, is really only known by the kremlin archives.

 

If you'd attacked the USSR, Comrade Palin would be head of your Politbureau now, obviously, and you'd have a much smaller population..