Manhattan Project failure, no atomic bomb was born in 1945, the Soviet Union continued to go west after the occupation of Berlin, Japan did not surrender and still occupied Manchuria, Southeast Asia, Pacific war continues, The Soviet Union will not declare war on Japan. World War WWIII will start immediately after the collapse of Nazi Germany?
WW3 in 1945: Japan didn't surrender, Soviet Union continue to go west
- Thread starter blackadam
- Start date
- Status
RodentRevolution
Banned
The Soviet economy and especially the war economy was still critically dependent on supplies from the West principally America. Soviet supply lines are overextended as is. Given the power of Western artillery and air support The Red Army would likely find itself back in Poland in short order.
Japan was already emasculated, the holdings in Manchuria were effectively useless as the garrisons were cut off and by 1945 Japan's merchant fleet was all but destroyed, they could not bring resources back to the Home Islands.
Hard to give a play by play outline without more research but the Soviets would be looking for a negotiated peace at the latest by 1947. Japan well actually the Emperor and those loyal to him were looking for a formula of surrender by 1945. The more militant fascists might have been able to hold them off longer but that would simply raise the death toll. With Allied land forces needed for other theatres Japan would have simply have had to endure fire bombing for longer...the longer they hold out the more de-urbanised they become.
Japan would most likely surrender before the USSR.
This scenario is repeated many times, but this is the first time without nuclear weapons
USSR could develop weapons technology Germany before, because they occupied Germany first, air force Soviet Yak-9, La-7 can be supported by Me-262, in addition to factors mentioned Japan. Soviets could not indirectly help Japan they will use the Japanese for busy US Navy in the Pacific, by failing to declare war on Japan. And not attack Japan in Manchuria, the Soviets could share intelligence with Japan against US forces in the Pacific
By the end of WWII Soviet Union has more than 13 million troopers, they have powerful allies such as Yugoslavia, Poland and East Germany military department may cooperate with them, Soviet history was the development of military technology ahead of the US in the last year of 1940 (MiG-9, T-44, T-54 in 1946), they had AK-47 in 1946, while the United States only M14 in 1959 and M16 in 1962, I am convinced that the Soviet Union might push allied troops back to the Rhine, problem P51D and B-17 is really not scary, even B-29 at that time did not have the ability to threaten the Soviet Union (if the United States had the atomic bomb, that is another matter). Soviet surplus flak and the confiscation of Germany like Zsu-37, Flak 88 (the flak wisdom of the Soviet Union and Germany in WWII North Vietnamese had been used against supersonic aircraft as F-4, F-105), the their aircraft & Germany (captured) can against B17 and P51D, Centurion tanks, M4 Sherman really do not bring results, quantity and quality T-34, IS-2, IS-3 can overwhelm them, the heavy tank strongest of US M103 and M48 tank just was developed in 1948 & 1953. Maybe we will see the F-80 vs MiG-9 in Europe before the F-86 vs MiG-15 in Korea
Last edited:
RodentRevolution
Banned
Japan is a dead duck, does not matter how much the Soviets tell them they remain a duck that is dead. The West found the A-bomb useful but did not rely on it. The Pacific fleets are ample to the tasks of continued blockade, covering supplies to Nationalist China and oh how about a landing to take Vladivostok?
This really does neatly encapsulate the situation facing the USSR in Europe.
The Western powers command air forces that can operate continuously the Soviet VVS by contrast was reliant on surges of effort. This causes problems as when the Soviets mass for an offensive the Allied air forces are going to be presented with prime targets to pound into little pieces. if the VVS launches its fighter strength to meet them it does not have it available when the offensive kicks off as it has been used up and needs time for maintenance and fuel etc to be brought up, if does not the offensive fails because the ground forces have been largely destroyed before operations commence.
Long overland supply lines are also going to be vulnerable.
Not to mention but war is not decided by tanks but artillery, the Red had great numbers of tanks in 1941 but the German artillery killed them in numbers. American artillery fire control systems are far superior to the Germans and the Germans had superior artillery doctrine to the Soviets and the British artillery doctrine is even better.
Further but the British and Americans and their allies are far better equipped with anti-tank weapons than the Germans also their entire forces are motorised or mechanised. Finally British and American tanks are quite effective at close range, the Red Army's tank drivers had only one tactic, drive in close. They used this at Kursk where it counted the edge of the Panthers and Tigers but they also used it in Barbarossa where it gave away their advantage over then Wehrmacht tanks.
Anglo-American strategic bomber forces will not be targeted against the USSR's industries at least at first but rather against the supply and on occasion front lines. The Soviet economy will struggle to maintain war production without Western inputs.
As for the Mig-9...not until they can buy British jet engines post war will it be effective...butterflies have therefore eaten it in this scenario.
The Soviets definitely have the resources to keep going for a solid year. That is enough time for them to smash the WAllies back across the Rhine (at minimum) or even off the continent (at maximum). But after that year, things start getting difficult.
For the record... a neat little comparison of Soviet late-war major operations versus Anglo-American late-war major operations:
To summarize the above: Western Allied ground offensives largely broke into enemy defenses, fought their way through them, and (if they didn't exhaust themselves doing that last step) then broke out. This conserved lives, but wasted time and produced less results in terms of casualties inflicted upon the enemy and territory gained. The exceptions was where the enemy had already been whittled away so much that they were bound to collapse under Allied pressure anyways (as happened with Cobra and the Allied offensives over the Rhine). There were no attempts to coordinate separate ground offensives. Soviet offensives, in contrast, obliterated enemy defenses in the opening blow and then powered their way forward with overwhelming force until the offensive was exhausted. This was more expensive in terms of lives, but was much faster and inflicted devastating losses in men, equipment, and territory upon the enemy. Furthermore, Soviet ground offensives were coordinated to be executed either simultaneously or in sequence so as to support one another.
From 1943-1945, the VVS operated continuously against the Germans. Western Allied air power is only worthwhile if there is a long-war. Airpower needs breathing space to be really effective. Allied air-power in Normandy in 1944 pinned the Germans down, but it did so at the end of a long campaign spanning years to pound German industry, cripple their transportation networks, and destroy their air force. When the rebuilt Red Air Force clashed with the Luftwaffe over Kursk, the air battles were titanic, but the two air forces largely canceled each other out. As a result, neither side's air power played much of a part in the decisive ground battles. In this scenario, both sides would start with vast, experienced, and effective air forces. There would have been no long campaign before the initial land war in which the air forces could slowly soften up the defences, and whittle away the threat - it would have been an immediate dive into a colossal air battle. By the time the WAllies had managed to win this, the initial ground battles might well be over. During this period of air parity, the advantage goes to the one with more powerful ground forces... which is the Red Army.
This is the Soviet Union in 1945, not 1941. The Soviets had massive artillery stocks that far outstripped what the Americans and British had in quantity and just as good doctrine. The Anglo-Americans neither experienced nor employed artillery on the scale of the late-war Red Army, where multiple Breakthrough and Rocket Artillery Divisions would be massed and annihilate German defenses wholesale.
Which would be flushed out by infantry and artillery, as the Germans were.
And yet they never managed successful offensive operations on the scale of such operations as Barbarossa or Bagration. They also never faced an offensive on the scale of a Soviet late-war operation or any German operations against the Soviet Union in 1941-1943.
You... really know nothing about how Soviet tank formations operated, do you?
Where they will largely hit dummy and decoy targets, while the painstakingly camouflaged real targets continue to happily function on. The WAllies will eventually cotton on to this, but given their over-reliance on signals and air intelligence, it will take awhile.
For the record... a neat little comparison of Soviet late-war major operations versus Anglo-American late-war major operations:
To summarize the above: Western Allied ground offensives largely broke into enemy defenses, fought their way through them, and (if they didn't exhaust themselves doing that last step) then broke out. This conserved lives, but wasted time and produced less results in terms of casualties inflicted upon the enemy and territory gained. The exceptions was where the enemy had already been whittled away so much that they were bound to collapse under Allied pressure anyways (as happened with Cobra and the Allied offensives over the Rhine). There were no attempts to coordinate separate ground offensives. Soviet offensives, in contrast, obliterated enemy defenses in the opening blow and then powered their way forward with overwhelming force until the offensive was exhausted. This was more expensive in terms of lives, but was much faster and inflicted devastating losses in men, equipment, and territory upon the enemy. Furthermore, Soviet ground offensives were coordinated to be executed either simultaneously or in sequence so as to support one another.
In 1945, Western inputs dried up. The Soviet economy kept going.
Last edited:
Daffy Duck
Banned
Comment
Japan would be starved out, sooner or later.
Even if the USSR pushed west, they'd quickly get a lesson in strategic bombing, something the western allies excelled at. The Soviets were great at low levels but the Western Allies absolutely owned the mid and upper levels.
Also, they'd never be able knock out Britain. No way. The moment their ground forces came within 20 miles of the channel or Atlantic, they'd get a steel enema from allied naval artillery.
Once Japan was knocked out, the entire might of the US and British navies would own the Black, Baltic and Mediterranean seas, the Arctic ocean, in addition to the Sea of Japan and the northern Pacific.
The navy would lay down a shit-beating of epic proportions on to any and all Soviet coastal cities.
Japan would be starved out, sooner or later.
Even if the USSR pushed west, they'd quickly get a lesson in strategic bombing, something the western allies excelled at. The Soviets were great at low levels but the Western Allies absolutely owned the mid and upper levels.
Also, they'd never be able knock out Britain. No way. The moment their ground forces came within 20 miles of the channel or Atlantic, they'd get a steel enema from allied naval artillery.
Once Japan was knocked out, the entire might of the US and British navies would own the Black, Baltic and Mediterranean seas, the Arctic ocean, in addition to the Sea of Japan and the northern Pacific.
The navy would lay down a shit-beating of epic proportions on to any and all Soviet coastal cities.
Strategic bombing against the Soviet Union means foregoing fighter escorts. That means they will take absolutely unsustainable losses until the airbases can be moved close enough to provide fighter cover. That... is going to take awhile.
The Soviets do have aircraft capable of performing at high-altitudes just as well as their Anglo-American counterparts: the MiG-3, YaK-3, and YaK-9PD. In fact, the YaK-3 was pretty much a Soviet version of the P-51, if with a shorter range, and excelled at all altitudes.
Agreed.
The Med, yes. But how are they going to get into the Black and Baltic seas? The Soviets will rapidly overrun Denmark, closing access to the Baltic and the Black Sea is off limits so long as Turkey is neutral.
And exposing themselves to return fire from the considerable Soviet coastal fortifications? The Allied navies are not suicidal.
Soviet artillery doctrine was at 1915 levels, so basically dead after a couple of rounds. Yes the allied CB staffs were that good.
Soviet air power is fighting a radar equipped mobile set of GCI stations.
And prox fused equipped AA.
You also might want to heck on the force densities around Normandy.
Soviet air power is fighting a radar equipped mobile set of GCI stations.
And prox fused equipped AA.
You also might want to heck on the force densities around Normandy.
In 1941. But in 1944-45? Experts do not agree.
Because Western Allies always managed to suppress the vastly weaker German artillery which they were facing in 1944-1945.
Good enough to handle 10+ times their number of enemy guns and rocket launchers, a large number of which already have their location targetted thanks to pre-battle Soviet special reconnaissance detachments infiltrating through the front-lines and scoping them out?
Neither of which will give the Western Allies instant air superiority. It is going to take months, at minimum, to establish air superiority over the VVS just like it did with the Wehrmacht.
And you don't think similar force densities ever appeared on the Eastern Front?
More to the point: the battlefield is practically all of Central Europe, not Normandy. There is a ton of room for both sides to maneuver.
Stalin also had no real interest in keeping a war going when the Soviet economy was running on fumes by 1945. If you had Trotsky in charge you could get a Red WWIII but Stalin was not the kind of man to bet it all on a series of risky, dangerous gambles like Hitler in a world war for domination.
Exactly. The Soviets might win in the short-run, but just like the Germans they have no means of delivering a truly knock-out blow to the Anglo-Americans. They can drive them off the continent, but they have to do much more then that in order to actually defeat them and they don't have the capability to do that. This, combined with the PR problem that a sudden surprise attack upon it's former Allies would leave the Soviets in, leaves them in a long war with the WAllies and there they are in trouble. Stalin was well aware of this and hence was more interested in consolidating in what he got and rebuilding the USSR.
Whether Trotsky would go for it is totally irrellevant because a USSR which wounds up led up Trotsky would unleash so many butterflies as to mean an entirely different pre- and (possibly) during WW2 as to leave ITTL 1945 unrecognizable.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Actually I would estimate the Soviets can go for two years but there after we diverge
You see this is where we begin to diverge, the Soviet will most probably not push the Western Allies as far back as the Rhine. They might of course get lucky but it is very unlikely, it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to push past the Rhine.
No actually as you should know the Soviets proceeded to restore their trading relationship with the West. The supply of free stuff was all that stopped and that alone was enough to set up howls of protests because the Soviets really could have done with a lot more free stuff. Never in its existence was the Soviet Union a completely sealed Hermit Kingdom Autarky.
Now as for the rest
See in just three sentences you restate what I said and not merely that but you assume it must be the natural order and apply to the Western Air Power doctrine as well. The VVS was able to surge in support of particular operations otherwise its tempo of operations was dramatically lower than those of Western Air Forces.
I don't think you even pretend to yourself to believe that as as you switch from talking about individual tank tactics to operational doctrine via a claim that the Allied Air Forces will be utterly flummoxed by Maskirovka.
So as to this doctrine...your study begins with Allied operations in Normandy and then compares this to Soviet Operations on the Eastern Front. You later dismiss Gannt's pointing out that you are comparing Normandy to the Eastern Front by merely saying there will be more room to manoeuvre in Germany.
Indeed...that is why the entirely motorised Allies will have the edge over the Red Army. In addition but tighter co-ordination between Allied armour and infantry formations and their supporting artillery and air power will be a profound shock to the Soviets.
Even your chosen history ignored the very direct impact Allied Close Air Support had on the battlefield in utter contrast to the experience of both Western and German participants.
The Soviets are not a force to be dismissed and it is entirely possible that they could if they got the right amount of jump on the West and kept up the tempo of operations and things went lucky (but not I admit outrageously lucky) for them then yes they could drive the Western Allies back across the Rhine.
That however I will argue is unlikely, that is to say, it is the lesser of the balance of probabilities. If we agree that a year is short order I would with confidence predict that Poland is where the Red Army would find its forward battle area.
However driving back the Soviet to Poland would not by itself constitute an end to the war. If Stalin wished I would imagine he would have the power over the Soviet apparatus to continue the war for around about another year. After that the general trend of economic realities would bite on the USSR.
Yet again that is merely my most likely point for the Soviets to send out peace feelers. It does not mean the Soviet Union would be incapable of fighting on however it most likely from this stage it would simply be fighting for the best negotiating position it could achieve rather than a hope of driving as far as France say.
However there is one Theatre of Operations that presents a point of concern to the West that has not been examined at all yet. That is a Soviet thrust via Persia and in to the Middle East. Now this is not easy for the Soviets to pull off but is a likely area of operations due to the need to protect the Baku and other Caucasus oilfields.
The question here is really roads and rails versus ships and ports. Can the Western Allies shift more combat power into the region quickly enough to prevent at least a brief Soviet occupation? The outcome of that result could effect how long the war was potentially by several years (as in more than three) and thus the particular outcome of the war.
Yes. Although it never really seemed to have reached considerable levels for quite awhile. However, the reality does remain that the Soviets could keep going without Western support for the short-term. It is the long war that really screws over the Soviets.
Because historically it did. The Western allies did not manage to do their round-the-clock support of their ground troops until the Luftwaffe was already suppressed. Until they suppress the VVS, they will be too busy fighting off enemy fighters to effectively deliver timely ground support with enough reliability.
It is a claim with historical basis though: the Serbs in the 90's were able to mitigate the effect of NATO air power via the use of Soviet WW2 doctrines of camouflage, concealment, and decoys with only modest adjustment for advances in technology. And that was after the West had a full half-century to study their opponents doctrine quite thoroughly.
That was because that was the quote I had on-hand at the time. On the tactical level, the T-34s did not "drive in close". Instead they maneuvered into the optimum position to deliver the killing blow under the covering fire of assault guns, tank destroy and heavy tanks which provided overwatch support.
Which is why the Western Allies failed to ever match the speed of advance of their Soviet and German counterparts in major operations against serious resistance.
And the sheer amount of firepower and numbers of Soviet formations will be a massive shock to the Western Allies used to the comparatively anemic forces of the late-war Germans. Both sides do have some pretty serious shocks to deliver to each other.
The soviets do already occupy northern Persia, but yes they would have to drive the Allies from at least the southern part and at least advance into northern Iraq in order to drive the bombers far enough away.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Oh indeed, depending on exactly what the Soviets think they are hoping for they can certainly continue to fight for a long time, longer in fact once they are pushed on to the defensive.
Actually the problem was not fighting off fighters it was developing a system of alerting the Air Forces to the existence of ground forces needs that held things up. Once the system of mobile forward controllers tied into the radio nets was up and running then Allied planes stopped swanning around uselessly and were directed to where they were needed.
The performance of the USAAF in Tunisia for example is quite impressive in terms of planes operational and sortie rates per operational plane, just most of it happened no way near where it would do most good. Even later most air ops were aimed at interdiction but there was enough left over for very impressive close air support.
remind me again how far into Germany were the Serbs?
That said once it gets to the stage of trying to push into areas such as Poland where the Soviets have had time to prepare then yes it will aid their defensive abilities.One point worth considering is that the Germans lost half their casualties to air power against the Allies in the later stages of the war. This compares with five percent losses to air power on the Eastern Front which was pretty consistent to both sides.
Yes both sides will employ combined arms methods. the big advantage of the Western Allies is they have more radios and more robust communications nets.
No and you know it, the Allies went slow to minimise unnecessary losses and not blow up allied territory. Went they wanted to rush they could cf Operation Cobra. When they need to retreat they can. Armies rarely brag about their talents at going backwards but the Allied armies would demonstrate their ability keep on falling back from one fire position to the next in Korea. Even though the forces they deployed there were at times vastly more outmatched than they would be in this scenario with the North Korean deploying a greater percentage of motorised units (at least early on)and greater numbers disparity in ground troops as well.
It won't be pleasant but the Soviet fire doctrines and co-ordination of different arms was a lot less effective than it might have been. Which will mitigate the effects of what the Soviets can do to the Western arms somewhat. The Air power change will be a complete and total shock from what they are used to.
It feels a bit cold to be talking about something that would have resulted in multiple tens of thousands of dead and injured at the very least. For most in the line of fire it would have been hellish. Still fortunately it did not happen so I can up probabilities somewhat coldly.
The forces in theatre in OTL are not really enough to allow either side to take the offensive, the question is and it is one that would have to be examined, who could pry loose reserves first and or fastest?
The US has massive unused fire power not altogether far away in the Pacific but I also know that STAVKA maintained a deep strategic reserve throughout the war but am not sure who, what, where and their state of readiness in 1945.
With no nukes the The Convair B-36 "Peacemaker"[N 1] was a strategic bomber built by Convair and operated solely by the United States Air Force (USAF) from 1949 to 1959. The B-36 was the largest mass-produced piston engine aircraft ever made. It had the longest wingspan of any combat aircraft ever built at 230 ft (70.1 m). The B-36 was the first bomber capable of delivering any of the nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal from inside its four bomb bays without aircraft modifications. With a range of 16,000 km (9,900 mi) and a maximum payload of 33,000 kg (73,000 lb), the B-36 was the world's first manned bomber with an unrefueled intercontinental range.
It would do a lot of damage in Russia and Russian held territory.
If you think the American people were pissed about PH the demand to destroy Russia completely, our allies that we gave tons of supplies to, when they turn on us. We had scaled back production but it could be ramped up I think the use of chem/bio weapons could be a possibility.
Last edited:
Well of course not: by the time the US committed major ground forces to battle, the allied air forces already had achieved superiority over the battlefield in question. US ground troops from World War 2 onwards have never had to fight in conditions where the enemy still possessed at least air parity.
That will not be the case against the Soviet Union in 1945.
I'm not sure how much of the example you really understand: the Serbs successfully protected not just their own military forces, but their army's logistical network from NATO air power using Soviet methodology. The particular example of a rail bridge they tricked NATO into thinking was blown up yet they continued to use to supply their forces is a stand-out example. The Soviet system of maskirovka was built around conducting the offensive just as much as it was preparing for it.remind me again how far into Germany were the Serbs?
Of course, because the WAllies had spent two years pushing the Germans into the whole death spiral "lose a pilot, bring up a replacement before he is ready, lose him, bring up the replacement even earlier etc". The WAllies had years to conduct a pro-longed air war against Germany before the ground war began. This is not the case against the Soviet Union in 1945.
You mean when they were repeatedly encircled by Chinese foot infantry and managed to break-out largely because the Chinese didn't concentrate their (much worse equipped then the Soviets) forces along the relevant escape routes?
Cobra happened at the end of a two month grind where the Germans had been attrited away to the point where they were going to collapse under any bit of pressure. Previous attempts for a grand and sudden breakout over the two months had resulted in grinding attritional slugfests with little to no territorial gains.
Compare that to the Battle of Orel, a year earlier, where the Soviets tore through German defense lines of similar density (albeit in somewhat more favorable terrain) in half the time.
It ripped apart heavy German defense lines far more rapidly then the WAllies ever managed.
Tens of thousands is rather an underestimate, don't you think? Both sides will easily see casualties shoot into the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions if it drags out...
All excellent questions and I'm unsure about the answers myself.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Everything else we are chunttering on about is merely an argument over the exact effectiveness of this or that and then arguing over the definition of effectiveness.
The problem with the above is there may be an answer. I fear I might find myself looking at maps. I should not be looking at maps tomorrow but do you want to make a bet I will find myself idly seeing if some old maps of the forties offer any more insight?
I wonder, are there any pictures of ME 262's that were captured by the soviets, and also in soviet colours?
- Status