A thought for the future

[Placebo]

How much interest would there be in a campaign (after BF have released the first Eastern front game) continuing the war - Alles vs Soviet Union in 1945-6?

Most of the units and equipment would be already there, i think it could be really interesting and bring into play the IS -3 and latest allied tanks that did not really see action before the end of the war.

[baron Jacquinot]

It will be nice, I want to try to smash Capitalists)))

[Placebo]

Funnily enought it was your comments on the Russian infantry topic that reminded me how much hostility and mutual distrust there was between the capitalists and communists. So better than 40 years cold war, this needs to be settled on the battlefield

[Duckman]

Cool idea, sort of a prequel to CMSF.

[baron Jacquinot]

But one thing! What about nuclear bomb? Will be presented in the game?

[Wodin]

With out a nuclear weapon...Allies will loose

[baron Jacquinot]

Funnily enought it was your comments on the Russian infantry topic that reminded me how much hostility and mutual distrust there was between the capitalists and communists. So better than 40 years cold war, this needs to be settled on the battlefield

I not communist, but no one can talk bad about Russian(Red) Army)))

[baron Jacquinot]

With out a nuclear weapon...Allies will loose

In Europe yes, but we will see battle for Britain and Soviet invasion on US soil, it would be hard battle for last splinter of west civilization! ;-)

And at the end we will see how all Europeans, Britons and Americans will be dressed in Ushanka hats, will drink vodka, play the balalaika and of course bears appear everywhere on the streets)))))))

God bless Soviet Union!!!!!!!!! Uraaaaaaa!!!

[evo6tme]

I am no expert , so somebody will probably correct me. But would air superiority not be key ,and the allies were far superior in 1945 ?

[baron Jacquinot]

I am no expert , so somebody will probably correct me. But would air superiority not be key ,and the allies were far superior in 1945 ?

In Europe it's not will be so painful for Soviet Union I think, but in battle for Britain or US that's would be a key.

[sfhand]

It has been brought up before... status: doubtful

[Rokko]

I believe the Soviet Airforce by 1945 wasn't bad at all, they just lacked any significant long-range airplanes IIRC.

[Lt Belenko]

I believe the Soviet Airforce by 1945 wasn't bad at all, they just lacked any significant long-range airplanes IIRC.

But did they have anything that could stand up to the P-51?

The war had already proven to be a war of attrition. Also the Russians had already lost 8 to 10 million men - America lost 418K both fronts. How many more men could Russia afford to lose?

[evo6tme]

If the stats here are to be believed the allies massively outnumbered the Russians in pure numbers!

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/Journal/Vol3-2010/Iss1-Winter/Sections/08-Worlds_Fourth_Largest_Air_Force_e.pdf

[Davek555]

Didn't Patton already have this idea?

[Lt Belenko]

Didn't Patton already have this idea?

Yeah but Patton didn't work for BFC.

[slysniper]

I would just like to comment in that when you study the War, it becomes pretty clear in that it was Russia that Really won the war vs the Germans, not the Americans or brits, or anyone else. No matter how many Hollywood movies say otherwise.

It was by the sheer bleedy of them dry in men and materials against a giant that sacraficed its people to adcheive it. I alway think about how Germany lost more then 70 % of their men to the Russian Front.

Take even 20% of that and place it on the Western Front and I think Germany would have been Kicking ass in every campaign that was waged in the west.

But with how things played out. Russia had exhausted much of its manpower by the end of the war. Where as the Americans were still gearing up and had not come close to using available manpower and sources available.

I am pretty sure there has been plenty an expect play out this "what if war"

and most feel that as long as the other Allied nations were to stay united. Russia would have lost and if you do not beleive that, then throw in the nukes as a trump card that no matter what, they sure would not have won.

[Davek555]

Also don't forget the US was still fighting a war in the pacific in 1945. Much of their manpower was focused in that theater. In 1946 this would not be the case so it would be an interesting conflict. But of course by this time both sides were sick of war.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Yeah but Patton didn't work for BFC.

Maybe it was BFC (BTS) that had him bumped off so they wouldn't have to make this game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If the stats here are to be believed the allies massively outnumbered the Russians in pure numbers!

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/CFAWC/eLibrary/Journal/Vol3-2010/Iss1-Winter/Sections/08-Worlds_Fourth_Largest_Air_Force_e.pdf

Yes, the US and UK would have achieved air superiority in the first few weeks, IMO. It's hard to imagine how the Soviets could have maintained supply lines all the way to the Atlantic under those circumstances.

Add to that the end of Lend-Lease and it seems the only chance the Soviets would have had would be a quick knockout blow that mostly destroyed the Western armies in the initial offensive. Possible? Maybe, but not likely.

[Sublime]

It's really tough to say. It depends a lot if the balloon goes up before Japan capitulates or after as well. Though I don't doubt a quick repositioning of many troops slated for Op. Olympic. Anyway, I think eventually the USAAF and RAF would gain air superiority. The USSR had a lot of power right after the end of the war, but after Germany's defeat and the stop of Lend Lease - all those trucks and all important every day items, in addition to the shermans and other weapons, would cease. Everything they had would age and I wonder how many spare parts were on hand. Even then I think perception from later in the Cold War filters onto envisioning this scenario anyways -

Later in the Cold War NATO relied heavily on nuclear weapons. Tactical and up, and most of the forces in Europe, while very powerful and specialized, were hugely outnumbered by the forces East of them. However the disparity is not nearly as great right at the end of WW2. The amount of US Army troops in Europe was staggering and would rival the Soviet Unions. Also US divisions were much larger than Soviet, and I think keeping this in mind the amount of Soviet divisions, while higher than US, isnt nearly as significant. Add in the British, French, etc. I won't even count the Germans, who definitely would contribute men and weapons, as this contribution would be obviously small compared to otherwise. And who knows, maybe they would be kept in captivity and still occupied by the victors.

I guess you can say that there's just no telling one way or another. The US had B29s, etc that the Soviets would be hard pressed to even intercept in the first place. (Due to being the first pressurized plane, and it's capability to fly at 30k feet) The atomic bomb really isn't a factor as mentioned previously, the US only had a few, and they would almost certainly be used in Europe how they were on Japan, as a city busting weapon. Naval power is obviously on the US side. Army wise is where the decision for Western Europe would be made. One could make a serious argument that the US Army was not nearly as beaten up and war weary as the Soviet, and as the greatest industrial nation in the world, and with a military the same size as the Soviet, it would win. I mean come on, the Soviet's lost 30 million people total in WW2. No one is arguing they did the lion's share of bleeding and ground fighting against the Nazi's in WW2. The US army in comparison was just getting started. Of course, anything could happen to change a western win though... It would make a hell of a CM scenario.

[noob]

reminded me how much hostility and mutual distrust there was between the capitalists and communists.

To be specific, AFAIK, when the Red Army linked up with the US and UK armies, the troops got on well, which isn't a surprise given their similar experiences, if there was any distrust, it would of been between the officers and politicians of each side, both siders ruling classes so to speak.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In May of 1945 the United States had 3 million troops in the European theater, and another half million in the Mediterranean. It's really hard to see how the Soviets could ever have made it across France.

But would make a great game. I'd like to see it as a module for the Bulge game.

[Sublime]

Im too lazy to compare how many Soviets were actually in Europe or at least West of Moscow right now. Back to school today. I'm sure someone knows off the top of their head. I wonder how many were in the British Army, how many combat effective units the Germans had left, and of course, the US #'s for Pacific and Stateside.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The British Army was about 2.9 million strong in June 1945. I haven't been able to track down exact deployments, but I have read that around 2 million were in Europe and the Med combined. Surprisingly (to me at least), France had 1.3 million under arms by V-E Day.

The Soviets had around 6.5 million on the German front at the end of the war, with a higher proportion of front line troops than Western armies. I do think the Soviets' lack of infantry anti-tank weaponry would have bit them in the ass more-so than it did against the Germans given the much higher number of tanks the Western allies were sporting. But overall I don't see much advantage either way in ground forces. The war would have been decided by logistics and air power, IMO.