What if history scenarios

Remove this Banner Ad

The obvious answer is that the US would have dropped a fat boy on Moscow, if it came to that, after VE day. Then Leningrad, then Stalingrad, then Kiev and so on until the Soviets surrendered. I'm guessing they would have forced the Soviets to sign a peace without even needing to cross into Poland.
 
Ice-Wolf said:
Yep the Germans problem was that they couldn't absorb their losses as much as the Russians could.
Click to expand...

Germany were fine. It was the Romanian and Hungarians at stalingtad that cost Germany. They were about to hit it big, getting all that oil. Russians would of ended up over the urals and effectively isolated.

Germans were one division short of destroying the Russian attack on kursk a few Months later. They would of waltzed into Stalingtad unchecked. Wermach absorbed and destroyed the Russians attacking kursk. But had nothing to exploit the Russians on their knees.
 
Thegibbsgamble said:
Same s**t as Bill cLinton.
Click to expand...

* What response do we get to Sep 11?
* Does he invade Iraq as well?
* Does he try to curb climate change?
* Does American-Russian relations not decline?

Do these things set the world on a different course?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

00Stinger said:
* What response do we get to Sep 11?
* Does he invade Iraq as well?
* Does he try to curb climate change?
* Does American-Russian relations not decline?

Do these things set the world on a different course?
Click to expand...

September 11 wouldn't of happened.
There policy at the time different to what hillary took as sec of state.

Yes more renewable energy investment and drug reform.

Russia never been sure about who they are and their place in the world.
 
iluvparis said:
How many of the Wehrmacht (of decent quality) were left at the end of WW2?
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised,many thousands I'd say all over western Europe , dreading the Soviet advance. They weren't all Waffen SS Divisions of murdering Nazi fanatics. The majority would have been non political German citizens , fighting in the name of their country, a terrible political way to follow agreed, but they weren't all out their doing their anti world crimes , those bastards were recruited especially, so I believe that re arming the regular army , would have been accepted, and if a bloody big if! IF PATTON HAD GOT HIS WAY , Ike stopped that.
But there are always gung ho men NOT TOTALLY IN CHARGE.
Look at McArthur, I think he wanted to use a nuke or two in Korea , Truman his boss moved him on.
Even Westmoreland, I think , asked to use nukes in Vietnam, not 100% on that one.

But the Germans suffered pretty badly under the Russian invasion, and as per usual some didn't deserve to treated like that, but humans are brutal animals.

Yep, I reckon the Germans would have come to the party, and help to take the Allies further , but it didn't!
 
Ice-Wolf said:
Yep the Germans problem was that they couldn't absorb their losses as much as the Russians could.
Click to expand...
Germany lost the Russian war against the Russian winter, they thought they'd walk through Russia , blitzkrieg style, they didn't but at the start they were right in it, maybe even complacent that the Russians would fall over easily, it took longer and then the weather changed. Bogged them down, stuffed up their supply lines they headed into someone else's oil fields to the south east I think, Hitler split his divisions/armies, his planning was crap, his generals knew it, one of them surrendered to save the lives of his army, most of those prisoners would die in captivity.
So the tank? The idea of big gunned Panzers, who fought the Soviets who had smaller and more maneuverable T-34 tanks at the battle of Kursk and reamed the German army and its one or two allies, really the Germans were out numbered and out maneuvered. Numbers were the advantage in tanks and size that time!
All that happened from Hitlers mud and sludge disaster of a Russian winter.
How dumb was Hitler, how easily he believed his army was invincible? Poor old Poland easy meat, he surprised them and every one else the French and the Brits, he outsmarted the politicians in the thirties, walked into Austria and Czechoslovakia barely firing a shot, and he must have thought all his good luck had turned up at once.
But the stupid nut case, invades Belgium and France traps a British army on Dunkirk beaches and then turn around and says , hey we'll spring a little surprise on dopey Joe Stalin.
And now days as more and more comes out about WW2 history, we find that his military had extreme luck because Germany's military were not really ready , he went a couple of years too soon. And the stupid man thought he couldn't lose, thank heaven he did go in 1939, and not later when he was a totally full strength, in recent readings of the history of WW 2 which surprises me, the Nazi's were on the road to defeat, way before people think, Russia was a disaster. Then of course the drongo AFTER PEARL HARBOUR OFFICIALLY declares war on the biggest developing industrial nation on earth, the USA what the hell did he expect.
AND WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT POOR SILLY MISLED GEORGE BUSH AND IRAQ, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, YES , BUT HE WAS NO NAZI , BUT HE THOUGHT THE WAY TO HANDLE TERRORISM WAS SEND IN HALF A MILLION SOLDIERS TO IRAQ, WELL THAT WAR IS STILL ON, WE'VE SEEN ISIS, and Al Qaeda, Boko Harem lots of crap around, what George should have done was send his specialists under ground and hunted down world wide each and every known or suspected terrorist, arrested or killed them, like Mossad do.
Maybe bombing Afghanistan was not a good idea, he had no choice but to do that. Because they knew that Osama was there somewhere.
NOW!!!!!!!
I'd like to discuss the saturation bombing of the West Coast Eagles last weekend , but the Hawks have put their planes in the hanger for summer!
 
iluvparis said:
Actually the German tanks flogged the s**t out of the Russian tanks at Kursk - it's just that the Russians had 3 times as many
Click to expand...
That’s the thing though, they t-34 was produced at levels where they could suffer the losses and still win.

Doing some digging through Wikipedia looks like Russia produced more tanks in 1942 alone than Germany did in 1941-1945. Germany just couldn’t compete with that level of production
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Happy Mastenator said:
That’s the thing though, they t-34 was produced at levels where they could suffer the losses and still win.

Doing some digging through Wikipedia looks like Russia produced more tanks in 1942 alone than Germany did in 1941-1945. Germany just couldn’t compete with that level of production
Click to expand...
Exactly even if the Germans tanks and at guns could maintain a 5-1 kill ratio on Russian Armour it didn't matter because the Russians could maintain a even better ratio on replacement tanks. And they were willing to take those losses.
 
iluvparis said:
Actually the German tanks flogged the s**t out of the Russian tanks at Kursk - it's just that the Russians had 3 times as many
Click to expand...

Yes they did have more tanks and they were faster and more maneuverable, and eventually over came the Germans , the point was about numbers against numbers. So more tanks over less tanks won! Even if the Panzers were a devastating weapon?
Who ever had more or had less is not the point, the Nazis lost.

But looking at released documents over the last few years about WW2 history , I would say the Nazis were beginning to lose the war, around the time they got belted in the Soviet Union, against a horde, with nothing left but to survive, and a leader, Stalin , who didn't give a s**t about anybody
AND!!! Who was he fighting against , hah, another pea brained idiot who ran into the Russian winter. Thought he was a strategist, as well.
Both these murderous bast***s engaged in paranoid idiocy removing generals and sacking people around them, Stalin had purged his military earlier, and Hitler sacked one eastern front general ( and more than one) because he surrendered his army to the Russians instead of having them slaughtered, and the poor misled mongrels probably would have stayed and fought until they were all dead.
So Kursk and tanks and all the nonsense about machinery and numbers was fought for a big STUFF ALL, the dead numbers on all sides is what you look at and its a pity Stalin and Hitler weren't both drowned at birth!
 
Happy Mastenator said:
If the top of my head I think the issue is that the Russians had one of the best tanks, and had much more of them then anyone else combined. They would have just kept rolling and would have been very hard for the allies to stop them
Click to expand...
Except their highly centralised structure would.have struggled after Moscow and probably Kiev got the bombs they went to Hiroshima & Nagasaki with more to follow.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Regarding a Russia v US fight in 1945.

Yes, some in the US wanted it...notably Patton, but he was considered a bit of a kook, so it was never really a serious option.

Had it happened, the Russian Army would have kicked the butt of the US...for about a week, maybe two.


Then the Russians would have died.


The best tanks in the world are useless if they don't have any fuel, or ammunition, and the US air force was well practiced in bombing the crap out of German supply lines and would have just turned on the Russians, who were stretched to the limit of their supply lines to reach Berlin.

Added to that, much of the Russian logistics was made in the USA...they built all those tanks because the US game them millions of trucks, and trains, so they didn't need to produce them. They start fighting the US and none of their future losses in these areas would be replaced until factories are retooled.

The Russians were also starting to run into major issues with manpower. Russian manpower wasn't endless, and having lost 11 million soldiers fighting the Germans, they were pretty much at their limit. From '44 onwards, they'd been disbanding units, partly to ease supply problems, and partly because they needed those men back on the farms and in the factories.

So Russia kicks arse for a week or two, then their army would just stop, starving (well, pillaging the locals for food really) and running out of fuel and munitions. US forces, still mobile and supported by ground attack aircraft would just start picking them off. Russia would suffer major losses as they retreat (rout?) back to where they could supply themselves again, using scorched earth tactics to try and slow the US pursuit, only to discover that the thing the US was *really* good at was logistics, and they'd be building/repairing railroads and adding new rolling stock almost as fast as the Russians could destroy them.

The only thing that would have stopped/slowed the US would have been their own aversion to taking the kind of losses required, so they probably would have kicked butt for a month or two, lost a hundred thousand men or so, and ended up negotiating a different/better deal with the Russians (but probably not THAT different, because Stalin was a psycho, who probably would have been willing to do it all again if he didn't get his way).
 
Thegibbsgamble said:
Germany were fine. It was the Romanian and Hungarians at stalingtad that cost Germany. They were about to hit it big, getting all that oil. Russians would of ended up over the urals and effectively isolated.

Germans were one division short of destroying the Russian attack on kursk a few Months later. They would of waltzed into Stalingtad unchecked. Wermach absorbed and destroyed the Russians attacking kursk. But had nothing to exploit the Russians on their knees.
Click to expand...

Some of the history channel docos examine how batshit crazy hitler and some of his cohorts were at the end. Perhaps inevitable that as it was co closely linked to him it would have failed eventually, just a matter of when

Things like
Fortifying jersey
Deciding to change the guage of the railway while a war was going on, the very thing which brought so much success
And so on
 
telsor said:
Regarding a Russia v US fight in 1945.

Yes, some in the US wanted it...notably Patton, but he was considered a bit of a kook, so it was never really a serious option.

Had it happened, the Russian Army would have kicked the butt of the US...for about a week, maybe two.


Then the Russians would have died.


The best tanks in the world are useless if they don't have any fuel, or ammunition, and the US air force was well practiced in bombing the crap out of German supply lines and would have just turned on the Russians, who were stretched to the limit of their supply lines to reach Berlin.

Added to that, much of the Russian logistics was made in the USA...they built all those tanks because the US game them millions of trucks, and trains, so they didn't need to produce them. They start fighting the US and none of their future losses in these areas would be replaced until factories are retooled.

The Russians were also starting to run into major issues with manpower. Russian manpower wasn't endless, and having lost 11 million soldiers fighting the Germans, they were pretty much at their limit. From '44 onwards, they'd been disbanding units, partly to ease supply problems, and partly because they needed those men back on the farms and in the factories.

So Russia kicks arse for a week or two, then their army would just stop, starving (well, pillaging the locals for food really) and running out of fuel and munitions. US forces, still mobile and supported by ground attack aircraft would just start picking them off. Russia would suffer major losses as they retreat (rout?) back to where they could supply themselves again, using scorched earth tactics to try and slow the US pursuit, only to discover that the thing the US was *really* good at was logistics, and they'd be building/repairing railroads and adding new rolling stock almost as fast as the Russians could destroy them.

The only thing that would have stopped/slowed the US would have been their own aversion to taking the kind of losses required, so they probably would have kicked butt for a month or two, lost a hundred thousand men or so, and ended up negotiating a different/better deal with the Russians (but probably not THAT different, because Stalin was a psycho, who probably would have been willing to do it all again if he didn't get his way).
Click to expand...

Ya fink?

Russians most battle hardened army there was in 1945. They made an incursion into German terroritory at the start of barbarossa army big. A whole army, armouted divisions and all. German Air power didn't stop it. It was the training of the soldiers that absorbed the hit. In those first weeks, had Russia been attacking us, from Berlin, even the Germans would of found themselves pushed up against the North Sea and English channel. Our armies would of disintegrated, the French communist resistant would of run amok.
 
Thegibbsgamble said:
Ya fink?

Russians most battle hardened army there was in 1945. They made an incursion into German terroritory at the start of barbarossa army big. A whole army, armouted divisions and all. German Air power didn't stop it. It was the training of the soldiers that absorbed the hit. In those first weeks, had Russia been attacking us, from Berlin, even the Germans would of found themselves pushed up against the North Sea and English channel. Our armies would of disintegrated, the French communist resistant would of run amok.
Click to expand...

And how would these troops have been supplied?
 
telsor said:
And how would these troops have been supplied?
Click to expand...

Scotty had his teleportation devive working.

You western history tragics hey..

9 out of ten Germans were killed by Russians. The Germans fighting for thier homes.

The Americans fighting for free stockings to score pussy.

Its a no brainer. All the Americans wanted to take out Russia then and there but they knew they couldn't. They didn't have the logistics. For every Russian soldier, they needed more bullets and they didn't have them. The allied armoured divisions would of been destroyed on the first day. Such was the amount of Russian tanks and the experience of them.

Russians had more tanks than the Americans had latrines and that's saying something because America is s**t.
 
Thegibbsgamble said:
Scotty had his teleportation devive working.

You western history tragics hey..

9 out of ten Germans were killed by Russians. The Germans fighting for thier homes.

The Americans fighting for free stockings to score pussy.

Its a no brainer. All the Americans wanted to take out Russia then and there but they knew they couldn't. They didn't have the logistics. For every Russian soldier, they needed more bullets and they didn't have them. The allied armoured divisions would of been destroyed on the first day. Such was the amount of Russian tanks and the experience of them.

Russians had more tanks than the Americans had latrines and that's saying something because America is s**t.
Click to expand...

So you're saying you don't understand warfare....gotcha.
 
Wonder what happens if guy with tea stain on head had not be leader of USSR in late 80's and into 1991.
Cold War still going on.
The internet would be weird to imagine with a Cold War and Soviet Union still existing but maybe it would still exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top