"A US-Soviet War in 1946/47" Topic

Was thinking of how / where such a conflict may take place – selfish wish is to play my WW2 US vs my Russians :-)

Was thinking of a flashpoint is Southern Europe….

Berlin would be a good starting point surely it has all the mix of a cracking flashpoint

If you want to push out the time frame a year or two, we came close to coming to blows during the Berlin airlift, not that much of a stretch to postulate things brewing up into a shooting war during that incident.

Dave

The British occupying forces were stationed in the north of Germany and would have been in the direct line of advance from Berlin. US forces were further south in Bavaria and Hesse, so if you wanted to game those two forces then the Czechoslovakian border would have been the initial battle ground.

There's always Alaska too, perhaps the US and Soviets clashed in the Arctic Circle somewhere.

You might want to check out "Operation Unthinkable" the British evaluation of a possible war with the Soviets in the aftermath of WWII:

history.neu.edu/PRO2

In Germany, of course.

The Berlin Airlift sets Operation Unthinkable into motion…hmm…

My Southern Europe one was based on the Julian March btw

link

I just read the Robert Conroy Novel 1945 Red Inferno, which covers an alternate history scenario in 1945-46 with the Soviets mving west from the Elbe and overruning the Us/Brits and driving on the Rhine. The war soon escalates dragging in most of Europe. Not a bad read and may offer some background for your proposed game scenario.

I wish I could remember the analysis I read quite a few years ago where several historians were pondering what would have happened if the Soviets and the Allies had gone to war right after Germany surrendered. I think there was a consensus that the Russians would have come off the worst for it due to several factors. First, they had no answer to the Allies strategic bombing forces and their supply lines would have been hammered unmercifully. Second, with little to no navy the Allies would have had complete control of the sea and could strike/land forces virtually anywhere. Third, most of the Russian army had been bled white with many divisions down to less than 2,000 effectives and they needed time for rebuilding. Still, it is an interesting premise.

@aegis interesting – thh "Operation Unthinkable" plan was felt to be very risky owing to a 3:1 USSR nu,erical superiority in Europe!

But boy – what a lot of USSR vs UK/US games one could play here from the above alone!

Wouldn't have happened simply because everyone was exhausted.

But the Russians also have no answer the jet fighters, so lose air superiority rather quickly.

Then we see how well massed armour fares against Typhoons.

The Russians also could not sustain a war effort without lend/lease which obviously would finish.

And you'd have SOE playing merry hell with their supply lines which stretch hundreds of miles through territory full of peoples who hate Russians.

I suspect a Soviet attack on the west would have failed and that a western attack on Russian forces in Europe would also have failed.

The USSR would have had no answer to western air superiority, but although it would have stopped a Russian attack it wouldn't have ensured the success of an Allied one IMHO.

The chances of repeating the German encirclements of 1941 in 1946 would have been slim. The Germans were good at it in 1941 and the Russian army was poor. In 1945, with Allied playing Germans and the much better later Russian army in place, these would have been much harder to do.

There are several board games on this subject, Patton in Flames is one that I have played a couple of times. Sadly the resulting scenario is actually quite dull. The Soviets should overrun most if not all of Western Europe but the Allies are free to flit round the edges with a massive naval advantage. It is not that interesting a game and it ends either when the Soviets can crush the allies (not easy when they have to get across large amounts of water) or the allies invent the H-Bomb (which will happen in the game if the Soviets don't win first.

Check out link for more information.

allies invent the H-Bomb (which will happen in the game if the Soviets don't win first.

Why would that matter? The Soviets didn't have the A-Bomb in 1946-1947, they didn't make their first test explosion until 1949 and it wasn't a deliverable system. BAM goes Leningrad! Had enough Uncle Joe? BAM goes Kiev! Had enough Uncle Joe? BAM goes Moscow! Uncle Joe, Uncle Joe, say, who's in charge there now, have you had enough?

Robert Conroy's "Red Inferno" is a good read, alt History positing a Soviet attack on the Allies following the fall of Berlin to try and grab as much of Europe as possible before the US finalizes the A-Bomb.

link

Interesting idea!

Where can I find OOB for the U.S., U.K, France and USSR for the period 1945-1950?

A good idea, pity the poor Russians who would have been hammered, as their veterans were going home and ha done their bit against the great facists.
And conscripts would have born the brunt, their airfields would have become untenerable, through the allied airpower very quickly.

And of course the US would have nuked somewhere just because they could.

A very short war i would guess

I'm not certain that Allied penetration of soviet airspace at this era would be a given- yes the Soviets wouldn't have jets, but the only Allied nuclear-capable bomber would be the B-29 and the Soviet Air Force was in far better shape then the Japanese one when we dropped the A-Bomb on them.

-Will

Fox

Real OOBs reflect rapid demobs, I presume if the shooting doesnt stop you are going to see the 1945 ORBAT stay about the same, allowing for manpower shortages of course.

Suspension of Operation Olympic probably means that the Brits and Yanks can keep their formations up to strength.

Question is, do you use your first A Bombs to bring Japan to its knees or on the Soviet hordes.

If the latter, presumably you keep the submarine noose tight and use your other assets V the Russkies – and how does Indian independence figure in all this?

A very strong Soviet advantage would be the large and dedicated Communist party elements throughout Western Europe. The trade unions were universally Communist, the Communists were generally the strongest surviving political party based on their history of resistance to the Nazi's, etc.

The biggest focus of the Marshall Plan, OSS, etc post-war was rolling back this communist presence (it wasn't just Joe McCarthy's fantasy!).

I would assume for any scenarios that there are very active "fifth column" elements sabotaging Western supply, spreading defeatism, etc.

At the time Operation Unthinkable was written there were a number of factors that were still unknown.

The first and most obvious was the future use of the Atomic Bomb. The Soviets knew of the program but would not have known about its capabilities or the numbers the US had. The successful test was in July and operational use in August.

By that time a large proportion of the Soviet Army was in transit to the Far East to build up and conduct the very successful Manchurian campaign. This belies the theory that the Soviets were spent after they took Berlin. Ten Armies with a strength of one million were used in that attack.

Stalin would probably wait until he had picked up whatever he could in the Far East and to get a good grip on the Atomic bomb.

In 1947 the situation had changed drastically. While the Soviets still had a large offensive force in Eastern Europe the American and British armies only had token forces. The major European Army the French were deploying to SE Asia. If Russia had attacked then say at the time of the Berlin Airlift.they would have enjoyed success but did not because of their fear of the Atomic bomb.

Nato was formed in 1949 because the threat of unilateral destruction of Russia by A Bombs no longer existed. Once the Soviets had the bomb then the "MAD" theory took over ( Mutually Assured Destruction) so the West had to then rearm with conventional weapons to match the Soviets. A race that continued until the break up of the Soviet Union.

Wminsing

I would say that Mustangs over Lenningrad and the Allied tactical airforces over the front would change matters. Allied airpower was enormous and its thinkers were good at using it as a weapon in its own right, not just a WWI type close suppport force.

As a Weird War it would be better.

You could try taking a look at the material in 'Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957'. Published in the late '70s, but written in the late 1940s. Even though the scenario envisaged is a war in 1957, the assumptions are explicitly based on contemporary reality. Lots of cool scenario ideas, especially in the Near East and eastern Med. Copies are pretty cheap these days.

The Dropshot plan can be read here… cool indeed!

link

My wife's Granddad was stationed in Austria as part of the British occupying forces after WWII finished and related a story where he had a stand-off with some Russian troops on a train after a dispute over its' possession. He said the Russians only backed down when they realised he was serious about shooting at least one of them before they could shoot him. Considering he had a rifle and they had SMGs I was fairly impressed with his bravery! He also said that across in the Russian sector there was constant shooting across the border as Germans/Partizans fought the Russians – it was all very chaotic in the post-war era and there was no love lost between the former allies.

>>The biggest focus of the Marshall Plan, OSS, etc post-war was rolling back this communist presence (it wasn't just Joe McCarthy's fantasy!).

I would assume for any scenarios that there are very active "fifth column" elements sabotaging Western supply, spreading defeatism, etc.<<

Correct.Lots of people subscribed to this fantasy, and apparently still do, so the fantasy was no just McCarthy's.

Tuscaloosa

I tend to agree. France and Italy had strong and aggressive comunist parties. It was not until the Czech Spring that the British trade union movement ceased to hold Moscow in considerable respect and awe. Australian stevedores in 1952 refused to load war materials bound for Korea.

Postwar Communism was not the spent force that it is today. It had considerable attraction to a wide base in many democracies, and maintained the moral advantage of having been on the good guy's side in WWII.

Uncle Joe was clever enough to have waited for the U.S. and Commonwealth to demobilize before attacking.

"Correct.Lots of people subscribed to this fantasy, and apparently still do, so the fantasy was no just McCarthy's"

The post-war strength of the various Communist parties in western Europe is historical fact, easily verified. Do some reading in this area, you might learn something new.

It would have been an ugly mess, with plenty of nukes.
-Kle.

6th Airborne Division came very close to a shooting-war with the Soviets on the Baltic coast, near Luebeck. Prior agreements with the Soviets had fixed the limits of advance by both sides – the Soviets were not permitted to enter Luebeck or Denmark. 6th Airborne were therefore surprised to find a Soviet battlegroup roaring through their newly-established roadblock. The three divisional anti-tank batteries were then ordered to deploy covering the Luebeck road and a couple of artillery regiments were brought up – the Soviet liaison officer was then shown the preparations and warned that the next incursion would be fired upon. The Soviets backed down and everyone was happy and in party mood until the Soviets started confiscating vehicles and weapons from British soldiers – then the lines were firmly drawn.

Re communism in the west – there was a very active Communist Resistance movement in France that De Gaulle's new administration had a hell of a job to subdue. British forces were already fighting a full-scale war in Greece to prevent a Communist takeover. In Britain and more critically the British Armed Forces, there was large-scale Communist sympathy and the general left-wing mood at the end of the war had already led to a landslide election victory for Labour.

Klebert

Dunno that there would have been too many nukes in 46/47, wasnt the US doing 4-6 per year? Bomber command were wiping a German city off the map every week by the end of the war by the simple use of HE and incendiaries.

But it is a chance to pit WWII Russians vs your western allies and slip in all that kewl allied gear that missed out on WWII.

You can probably use German tanks and US infantry to represent the French. Or German tanks and let your mind wander to represent the rearmed Germans.

Yep, a chance to get your Pershings and early Centurians into the fight -- vs. JS3s and T44s?

Hi

Actually, we were moving our early B36s in anticipation of fighting the russians in 46.

What ya'll don't realize is that besides the lend lease issue, much of the russian effort against the germans was predicated on their factories being out of range of the German bombers.

with the US involved, that goes away. Their logistics get worse. And it is not an issue of Jets. Jets get the glamor, but by the standards of the time, the B29 might as well have been a space ship from mars.

Its operational altitude is well above the absolute ceiling of the entire VVS, and its speed at cruise ment that if by some sudden superfuel cheat or something, I cannot come up with one, if the VVS could REACH the 29, the fighters involved would be slower.

THEN, if they got there, fast enough, the gun turrets on the B29 formation would OUTGUN them.

And THEN if they were B36s, the problem would be even worse.

We can have fun with T34s versus Shermans, some sort of grudge match where aliens snatch up some bregades and force them to fight somehow. WE are gamers and we have imaginations!

In in '46, while we are fascinated with German Jets and unflown prototypes, the actual american equipment was already a nightmare in that regard.

Rocky

Good point Rocky – so do we base our B36s and 29s in Europe, Palestine, Iraq or India?

Can't the Mig-3 get up to the 29's? I also think the Russians had a lot more planes and know how than the Japs.

I think the scenario must start in '46 before the B-36 arrives, and assume that it takes some time to win a strategic air war such that B29's can drop nukes.

Point is that even if Rocky is overestimating the penetrative power of the US bomber force, they can always bomb at night.

Even by the accuracy standards of Bomber Command I would guess that a 1940's nuke would have an ummmmm ….. dramatic impact on a city, not appreciably attenuated by missing Red Square.

But, how many nukes is the USA churning out?

Bomber command could drop 10kt of convential explosives on a city 3 times in a week. That is a lot of broken buildings. USAF probably could do the same with more range.

Oh what fun! This is what i'm collecting my 28mm and 1/72 stuff for. A campaign based on a surprise attack by the Ruskies in Oct 45' their plan to stam roller Berlin and as much of the west in as quick as time pos. I'm also writing a book based on the hypothetical attack, it involves the use of a German vlounteer Brigade with all their latest Kit! the Americans are still tied up in the Pacific and their nuke went pop!Should be interesting lol!

I can just see as many CB units as possible being mobilised to northern Iraq to make bomber strips, trans ural targets for the punishing of.

Russians find that looting the german rail system was not such a good idea and that they cant replace those US trucks the allied tactical airforce is burning.

Slim is told to collect whatever forces he can and set up a defensive line in Iran, then start making plans to advance to the North.

Still, the allies can withdraw from Olympic – the US sub fleet is not much use against the Russkies and will eventually starve Japan into the stone age.

So the Russkies have what? A couple of months before the allies can deploy to Europe big time, by which time Magnitorsk et al will be starting to resemble Dresden.

So the Russkies have what? A couple of months before the allies can deploy to Europe big time, by which time Magnitorsk et al will be starting to resemble Dresden

I think that's it – a Russian landgrab and then negotiate with possession being 9/10 of rule when the US/Commonwealth get their Rest Of World stuff on the road.

Hmmm… the Soviets would, I think, be in big trouble very quickly.

Allied strategic air power means that the production sites that were safe from the Luftwaffe are now vulnerable (around the clock too, as the VVS lacks night-fighters).

Allied naval supremacy, and Soviet impotence, means that whatever the Allies can build they'll be able to ship to where it's needed.

Allied tactical air means that the Soviets will be hard pushed to maintain their forces in the field.

And the turning off of the lend-lease tap means that all those Shermans and Studebakers are now as much a liability as an asset – fine while they work, irreplaceable when they stop.

Politically, if the Soviets can be posed as the aggressors, then its likely the home front would be solid. IF the continuation is believed to be an intervention then its quite possible that the West would find the home front lacked the will to bring things to a conclusion – so those invulnerable factories and ports would be strike-bound instead…

I doubt that the US would have had home front problems, but Europe could have been different. There was a large armed and experienced communist guerilla force in France and a possibility of strikes and sabotage in Britain.

Whilst the Russians would have been hard pressed to replace all those studebackers, do not underestimate their power to canabilise, file up new parts and keep most of them in working order, until somebody in a Gloster Meteor drills 20mm holes into them.

As for the shermans, they are more likely to explode than break down, when they do they will be replaced by a T34. provided the tank factories are not being bombed from the south.

It has to be a smash and grab, the Sov advantages attenuate with time whilst the Allied advantages increase.

Hi

The thing is that flight envelopes mean that the few mig 3s that might be found to chase the B29 operating at the small upper end of the flight envelope would be SLOWER than the B29 it was trying to attack…..and then the gun turrets with 2 or 4 x 50s would be shooting at, essentially, a non moving target.

The plan in place was to shuttle raid from Tokyo to japan and back.

and, no we did not have nukes around until 47 or 48. The two we dropped were the two we had, it was sort of a bluff.

Rocky

It would certainly be interesting to have seen the B-36 in combat. The early versions had something like fourteen 20mm cannons as defensive armament. The later versions stripped out most of the guns to achieve a sevice ceiling far, far above the altitude that any fighter (jet or otherwise) could fly and probably higher than any AA gun could shoot.

As a matter of interest what would the 1,448 Spitfire IX's that the PVO owned do to your bomber streams?

And even if we accept that the VVS would be swept from the skies what are you going to do with the smoking ruin that several thousand Il2's and Il10's will leave of your Red Ball routes on the first day?

Navy, schmavy they have internal supply lines and there's a reason they've been after a warm water port for centuries. If you're going to do it better make it quick.

Soviet manpower? Well, they actually released men back to the civilian economy starting in 1944 (and cut down arms production because they didn't need it). Everyone points to the falling numbers in Rifle Divisions while ignoring the fact that the overall strength of the RKKA never wavered during the last two years. They were simply putting men into tank and artillery units where they could get more bang for their ruble. Read Stalin's Keys to Victory by Walter S Dunn.

Interesting thread mind you….

Frontovik, it may be that the USAF would find it was limited to night attacks, but they could probably flatten two or three industrial complexes per week, and the RAF the same. The key is to build enough airstrips in range of the trans Ural factories. Spit IX is next to useless once the sun goes down.

I think that both sides are going to suffer attrition on their motor transport, but the numerically weak defender, who is pulling back, suffers less on this score than the attacker.

Internal lines is an advantage, but the allies have lodgements in germany, Iran, India and China.

MY money is that for two months it would look bad, shortly after the allies got their act together, Stalin would get the knock on the door.

As to where as such a conflict could spark up… the options are almost endless.

A Soviet move to support Greek Communists in their war against the Brits might be as good a start as any? In reality, Stalin seems to have distanced himself from them (not entirely sure why) and they were mainly supported by Yugoslavia, apparently. However, the British contribution in Greece was financially ruinous to an already impoverished Blighty, and the Soviets might have reckoned that they would have pulled the plug rather than get sucked into another protracted conflict, so they might have thought it was a gamble worth taking?
And rather than an outright invasion, a Soviet move in support of Greek Communists would have been portrayed as moving to the aid of a out-gunned and out-numbered local faction (and one which enjoyed considerable support in leftist circles in Western Europe) against the 'evil, oppressive British Empire'.

Quite how the resultant war would have panned out has been touched on by many others, but in terms of the OP, I'd go for Greece as the flashpoint.

Could be some stunning air naval actions to be fought in such a 'what-if' and perhaps it could be fought as a more 'low intensity' action, rather than an out-and-out East versus West, with the Soviets backing their proxies and providing 'advisors' etc. That might get round the mass bombing and nuking that others have mentioned, and turn it into more of a Vietnam / Angola type conflict.
Of course, if you want mass tank action, then this is not the right theatre / scenario.

I agree that Stalin could have done more in Greece without ignighting WWIII, but there was not much to gain. The idea of "keep on pushing" is to create a communist Germany and provide material assistance toi a greek style aremd resistance in France.

But I think we are looking for an excuse to wage war with T34s, Shermans and kewl "nearly made" it stuff. For that we must fight in either Europe or Central Asia – and of course the Chinese civil war becomes less of a backwater and more of a main theatre.

But I think we are looking for an excuse to wage war with T34s, Shermans and kewl "nearly made" it stuff. For that we must fight in either Europe or Central Asia

Well I certainly am, even if its just '45 kewl stuff. i am inclining towards an Austrian push and maybe an attempt to grab a warm water port like Trieste to spark it all off.

BTW whose hands would the Me 262s and Arado AR 234'shave fallen into?

Grizzlymc

What about the lure of a port on the Med? And airbases to threaten Suez, Italy etc? I am surprised the Soviets didn't push much harder to 'grab' Greece, especially as it could possibly have been done in a 'low-intensity' sort of way. It would also have been a massive blow for British prestige and would have caused enormous chaos in a war-weary (and worryingly left-leaning) UK.