A thought for the future

[Sublime]

Well I'd say even with the Atlantic the US would dominate logistically. It's a hallmark of American arms and has been cited as reasons for defeat and with astonishment by every US foe since the Confederacy.

Air power too. It'd obviously be tough, but so was the Luftwaffe. The USAAF was gigantic. Huge. And had an amazing pilot training program, by rotating veteran pilots to train new pilots, plenty of men, great fuel supplies to give lots of flying time before combat, and a huge nation to train men in.

The redoubt aspect of America cannot be overstated. And while the Atlantic would be a hindrance in most situations, I don't think it would be so much in a 1945 scenario as the US was already so entrenched in Europe, and England. The W. Allies would have naval superiority anyways.

The US troops, with the Brits and French are equal in amount to the Soviets. They were also much more mechanized, with better AT ability for infantry. The Soviets had heavier tanks in return, though the Pershing proved able in Korea at defeating T34/85s, as did British Centurion tanks. It is interesting how close in size the two armies were. I would still have to say the Russians were scraping the bottom of their manpower barrel and the end of war accounts reflect this heavily. They were a victorious, incredibly powerful army, but they had just fought the biggest land war in history, and took losses to reflect this.

The US had taken heavy losses obviously, but nowhere near on the scale of the Soviets against the Germans, even against the Japanese. A lot of it is war strategy and different technique. A lot is the Germans had really beat themselves up by the time the US troops even first faced them.

The Brits too, were in serious manpower trouble. They were ordering generals to be careful with troops because the limit had been reached even in '44. The French I dont know as much about. I knew they had a lot of troops fighting but 1.3 million is impressive and it makes more sense to me now that a French zone was created in Germany. I also think in this WW3 scenario, down the road (outside CM scope perhaps) it would create a panic in that part of the world about the Rise of Bolshevism. I wouldn't be surprised to see Spain offer to join, along with lots of volunteers from nations destroyed with many young, unemployed men who knew nothing but war.

[Ales Dvorak]

In Europe it's not will be so painful for Soviet Union I think

After 1948 I'm waiting for you in Yugoslavia.

[baron Jacquinot]

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?

Of course because war going on Russian side, if war be in US, US will lost 10 millions.

[baron Jacquinot]

After 1948 I'm waiting for you in Yugoslavia.

Who know maybe after 2018?:-))))

[baron Jacquinot]

. I mean come on, the Soviet's lost 30 million people total in WW2.

Soviets lost 8 668 400 soldiers and 26,6 millions of all civilians and soldiers, but many of these people might die before 1941, from genocide that implement Trotsky and his band of Zionists, the Soviet leadership was certainly beneficial to all write off to war with the Germans, to not discredit the Communist Party

[winkelried]

Surprisingly (to me at least), France had 1.3 million under arms by V-E Day.

just to enlarge your knowledge

units of the 1re DMI fought since 1941 (Syria, Bir Hacheim, Western Desert)

most of the other units fought in Italy between 1943-1944 and were then engaged in Operation Dragoon fighting their way from Southern France to the Rhine and then into Germany reaching the western parts of Austria in May 45. A good number of units were raised in 44/45 from the FFI (forces francaises de l'interieur) in the liberated parts of France. Most units had U.S. equipment and were organized along U.S. TO&Es.

1944/45:

1re Armée (de Lattre de Tassigny)

2 corps (1er, 2e)

3 armored divisions (1re, 2e, 5e)

4 colonial infantry divisions (2e DIM, 3e DIA, 4e DMM, 9e DIC)

1 free-french infantry division (1re DMI)

4 infantry divisions formed from FFI forces (1re DI, 10e DI, 14e DI, 27e DA) rarely engaged in battle, mainly used for security duty.

6 tank destroyer battallions

2 cavalry squadrons

7 engineer battallions(4 génie, 3 pionniers)

16 independent artillery battallions

12 AA battallions

+various smaller units

outside of the 1re Armee:

+5 infantry divisions (19e DI, 23e DI, 25e DI, 36e DI, 1re DA) formed in late 44/early 45.

6 fighter groups (1 night fighter)

and other units

[Placebo]

Interesting views, so I guess the bottom line is that both sides were war weary and had other things on there mind, but if Stalin had not been happy with his conquests he could have easily added France and Italy to the eastern block if it had not been for the nukes the west had.

I would still love to play the tactical battles russia vs Western Allies with the added spice of all the german equipment shared between both sides.

[womble]

Interesting views, so I guess the bottom line is that both sides were war weary and had other things on there mind, but if Stalin had not been happy with his conquests he could have easily added France and Italy to the eastern block if it had not been for the nukes the west had.

I don't think that's a fair summary of the points made in this thread at all. The Allies matched the Red Army for numbers, and at least part of their contingent wasn't running out of warm bodies to throw, which the Reds were. Allied air power was superior, and they ruled the waves.

I would still love to play the tactical battles russia vs Western Allies with the added spice of all the german equipment shared between both sides.

I could stand to omit the german equipment, or at least have it used by notional German units fighting for one side or the other (probably high Rarity for Sov-side...), but otherwise, I'm right with ya.

[c3k]

Yeah, the "Patton Gambit". See how Zhukov et al. fare against western gear. Toss in some late German stuff for fun and giggles. The fighting swirls around Brandenburger Tor...

[TheBlackHand]

Anyway, I would play a Korean War Combat Mission.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy scenarios. If you want WW2 era Soviet & US equipment to face off . . . set it in Korea. That actually happened.

[Kuderian]

Korea sounds great fun but I do not think it is on BFC's radar.

But given China's rising offensive military power and soon to be biggest economy in the world status perhaps BFC could do a Chinese module for the forthcoming CM:SF 2?

And this might raise its profile to potentially 1.2 Billion Chinese wargamers?

[thejetset]

And this might raise its profile to potentially 1.2 Billion Chinese wargamers?

That would certainly make for some ... errmp ... interesting and colorful threads on this discussion forum.

[womble]

Couldn't sell it to China, because the Chinese side might lose sometimes, and the current regime doesn't like that.

[Badger73]

Couldn't sell it to China, because the Chinese side might lose sometimes, and the current regime doesn't like that.

Would not suggest that Battelfront sell any commercial entertainment software in China. Piracy and theft of intellectual property risks just aren't worth it.

[agusto]

I could stand to omit the german equipment, or at least have it used by notional German units fighting for one side or the other (probably high Rarity for Sov-side...), but otherwise, I'm right with ya.

Operation Unthinkable planned to rearm up to 100.000 german troops. That would be the size of seveal corps.

[Battlefront.com]

My quick take...

I don't think either side was in the mood to be the attacker, and that's no small reason why there was no war between the sides. Not only in 1945 but all the way up until the Soviet Union's collapse. Both sides realized there was more to be gained by having an enemy to focus on and no actual direct fight. Cloak and dagger, proxy wars, economic maneuvers, etc. were all far more predictable and profitable.

If the Soviets had attacked the West in 1945/46 they would have initially made great gains of territory and the West would have lost more men and material in a shorter period since 1940. But... the Soviets would have lost more than they could afford to.

Remember that in the tail end of the war the Western Allies had comparatively light casualties vs. what the Soviets shed in Berlin, Budapest, Baltics, and other places. So while I think the Soviets had a tactical and operational edge at the end of the war, they would lose it pretty fast and then things would have fallen apart.

The populace at home would probably have revolted against a further war. Oh, I don't mean 1917 style, but enough that it would hurt. The Soviets were already overstretched and battling unrest in all the territory they took since Bagration. If those people sensed the Soviet forces were faltering, they would have stepped up their activities. Not to mention what would have come from occupied areas immediately to the rear.

Further, look at the topography of Europe. Marching into Germany from the East is a piece of cake compared to marching into Western Europe, not to mention Italy. The scale is also much grander. Natural terrain being a huge factor, but also far more urban territory to get bogged down in compared to the more rural east.

Combine this with the fact that the Soviets were fine tuned to defeat the German way of warfare. The Soviet process of adaptation to changes on the ground was never very quick or efficient. They largely succeeded because their failed attempts earlier had weakened the Germans enough that pretty much any coherent strategy would defeat them given enough time. Especially because of gross incompetence at the senior levels of the Third Reich. Time is not something they would have against the Western Allies, especially with their air forces laying waste to whatever transport infrastructure they managed to cobble together.

The Soviet offensive would inevitably stall and would fail. Quite quickly too. Few months I think would do it. Then the Soviets would fall back onto the defensive and the Allies would continue to press onward. There would be a lot of unhappiness about this on the Western homefronts, but I don't think they would allow the Soviets to get away with attacking. The Soviet empire would then collapse under the stress far more spectacularly than it did in 1990. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" applies here.

Just more chum for the waters

Steve

P.S. I don't think there is any way, at all, the West would have attacked the Soviets. Look at the historical record and it clearly shows the West was willing to do just about anything to prevent war from breaking out.

[kgsan]

My quick take...

I don't think either side was in the mood to be the attacker . . . .

Well, also in 1945-1946 the US had the A-bomb and no other country did. It's hard to imagine that the Soviet Union under Stalin would not have sought to dominate Western Europe pretty quickly, without at least the implicit threat of American nuclear weapons to deter them.

[Lt Belenko]

My quick take...

............

Steve

P.S. I don't think there is any way, at all, the West would have attacked the Soviets. Look at the historical record and it clearly shows the West was willing to do just about anything to prevent war from breaking out.

Such as killing Patton?

.....

All that said the question remains will BFC be releasing "Europe at War 1946"?

[winkelried]

My quick take...

and mine too ...

we have seen a lot of military argumentation on a potential soviet attack against the west after ww2 - quite naturally for a community of wargamers . i want to stress two (mainly) non-military points: first that Stalin’s policy was driven by the attempt to conserve his power and to protect the Soviet Union and not to extend it by taking incalculable risks and second that the newly acquired buffer states in eastern Europe (where the Soviet supply lines ran through) were far from being stabilized in 45/46.

First – Stalin's doctrine (to be continued by the Soviet Union well in the 1980s) was the “Socialism in One Country” theory which he put forth in 1924. Based on the insight, that all communist revolutions in Europe after WW1 had failed, it stated, that the SU should focus on strengthening itself internally. With this doctrine (elaborated by Bukharin) he stood in contradiction of the more outwardly aggressive doctrine defined by Trotzky, the “Permanent Revolution”. Therefore with his theory Stalin broke with the Marxist/Leninist/Trotzkyist requirement for a “World Revolution”. When Trotsky was ousted by Stalin (1929) the “Socialism in One Country” became the state policy in the SU – with all the consequences like the purges in the late 1930s – and continued to be (in its core) until the downfall of the SU. This state policy had as a consequence, that the soviet leadership undertook expansive action mainly to achieve the goal of protecting the SU – especially after the traumatic events of 1941/42. The whole policy was underlined by Stalin’s personal paranoia which then became an intrinsic pattern of soviet policy after WW2. The occupation of Eastern Europe then served primarily the creation of a buffer between the West and the SU. Stalin left Austria and the territories occupied in China (well before China became communist). And after the war he only tried once at Berlin to apply soviet force directly to acquire territory from the West – all other attempts (until Afghanistan) were done through proxy’s with more or less open soviet support. So my point is that Stalin himself was too afraid of the risks he would take by attacking the West in 45/46 and that he wouldn’t take the risk to loose all he had gained in the desperate fight in 41-45.

Second – The newly acquired soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe (Baltic States, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria) was far from being stabilized in 45/46. In most states truly communist regimes were only firmly established in 1947/46 or even 48. Therefore quite a force was required to control these states (in Poland alone 500’000 soviet troops were stationed after 1945). This situation held a huge risk for soviet offensive operations in Western Europe by exposing their lines of supplies to potential uprisings and partisan movements (well in the 1950s the soviets still had to deal with anti-communist partisans in the Baltic States and in the Ukraine) – in addition the population gained in these countries - even organized in military forces under soviet command - would have been of doubtful value in a war against the West. On the other hand the Western powers had their supply lines running through friendly, liberated territory and could raise new forces from the liberated areas of Europe, just like the example of France shows.

Looking at these two points it seems to be understandable that a person like Stalin in 1945/46 would focus on consolidating his gains to protect the SU and his personal power from future threats coming from the West instead of taking the risk of attacking the West (which was still heavily armed by then). So no war against the West in 45/46.

[Aragorn2002]

As interesting as a confrontation between the Western Allies and the USSR in 1945-1946 may be to most of us, I still prefer a mod in which the war against Germany is dragging on into 1946, with a whole new series of vehicles and infantry weapons turning up on both sides, like the German E-series, Panther II etc. I recall someone (representing BF) mentioning the possibility for such a mod.

[dan/california]

My two cents. It is VERY difficult to run a combined arms offensive when the other sides air force is wrecking your supply lines. The Germans just didn't have the planes and pilots to do it effectively. I don't think the Eighth Air Force would have had that problem. They had pretty much perfected messing up rail systems by 45. No fuel, no offensive. And the allies engineers could have systematically wrecked whatever infrastructure remained in Western Germany as they retreated. Steve pointed out that west of Berlin there is just a lot less open country to allow the fix and flank strategy the The Russians used to run the Germans off the Motherland.

[winkelried]

As interesting as a confrontation between the Western Allies and the USSR in 1945-1946 may be to most of us, I still prefer a mod in which the war against Germany is dragging on into 1946, with a whole new series of vehicles and infantry weapons turning up on both sides, like the German E-series, Panther II etc. I recall someone (representing BF) mentioning the possibility for such a mod.

would be interesting to get a nuke in a QB playing the allies

[Aragorn2002]

Perhaps you could download a virus to get the same effect...;-D

[Michael Emrys]

SPI in one of their Modern Quad games suggested that the way to simulate a nuclear weapon would be to pour lighter fluid all over the map and then throw in a lighted match. I suppose with a computer game you could achieve a similar effect by smashing your monitor with a hammer.

Michael

[Lt Belenko]

SPI in one of their Modern Quad games suggested that the way to simulate a nuclear weapon would be to pour lighter fluid all over the map and then throw in a lighted match. I suppose with a computer game you could achieve a similar effect by smashing your monitor with a hammer.

Michael

Back in the day a good bump of the table also could end a war game without an arson arrest.