Mod for Patton's move East?

[cruces]

George Patton advocated going East to take care of the USSR at the end of the WWII. Though not the brightest suggestion of all time, it would be fun to see how such a strategy would have worked. Would a mod be possible to play a US-Soviet War in the EAST, timeline around 1946-1950? I would assume that the weapons would be the same. China and Japan could also be attacked by USSR and Germany could be made a minor ally of the Western Powers?

[Oleg Mastruko]

Patton's idea was totally crazy and good thing for the planet was that he wasn't taken seriously.

USSR would hand him his hand on the platter. In 1945, USSR landpower was unmatched.

But, having said that, it's cool idea for a mod... [8D]

O.

[5cats]

Perhaps Patton was under the illusion that the USA had several Atomic Bombs available. Of course they didn't not for several months at least.
I don't think that commie-friendly Britian and France would have gone along with attacking the USSR, the USA might have been all on their own. And with so much manpower massed in the Pacific, it would have been a weird war.

[Drax Kramer]

While it's obvious that such scenario was an impossible one due to political considerations, I don't think 1945 Soviets were match for 1945 Americans. Americans had superior artillery, superior logistics, superior air force (both tactical and strategic) and were not exhausted by four years of titanic combat.


Drax

[5cats]

True, I do recall reading that Soviet units were stretched to the max & pushed to the limit in the race to grab Berlin before the war ended. ...Dispite their little "rest" outside Warsaw...
Not that the other Allies would take Berlin, it having been decided in secret that Russia would do that. Just that the Germans might surrender before they got there, which could have caused Stalin some problems & allowed many German scientists & such to escape to the West.
Still, it sure would be an interesting Mod.

[Dunckelzahn]

I havn't heard of Patton proposing an attack on Russia, but during the Korean War MacArthur proposed to President Truman to nuke the Chinese coast and continue into Russia afterwards.

Could it be this you are thinking about?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

While it's obvious that such scenario was an impossible one due to political considerations, I don't think 1945 Soviets were match for 1945 Americans. Americans had superior artillery, superior logistics, superior air force (both tactical and strategic) and were not exhausted by four years of titanic combat.

Soviets were more than match for Americans. Despite being "exhausted by titanic combat" Soviets pulled Bagration in summer 44 and Berlin operation a year later, both operations being, in operational warfare terms, and combat forces involved, light years ahead of anything western armies were able to mount in the similar timeframe.

There are two strategic considerations though.

a) US had atomic bomb, Soviets did not
b) but Soviets had tons of commie loving regimes and forces all accross Europe, starting from France, Italy, etc etc. US did not.
c) US still had war with Japan on their hands.

Now when I mentioned Japan, lets just take a look at Manchurian operation in August 45 for comparison. All things being equal, and my respect for US Army notwithstanding, I would bet my cojones on the fact US Army would not be able to pull anything nearly fast, efficient and deadly as Soviet August Storm in Manchuria.

O.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Soviets were more than match for Americans. Despite being "exhausted by titanic combat" Soviets pulled Bagration in summer 44 and Berlin operation a year later, both operations being, in operational warfare terms, and combat forces involved, light years ahead of anything western armies were able to mount in the similar timeframe.

Fortunately, we never had to find out who was better, but Bagration was launched against German Army Group Centre, not US 12th Army Group. Germans occupied exposed position, had grand total of two panzer divisions in reserve and tactical and operational mobility was extremely limited due to Hitler's orders and lack of vehicles. Similarly sized US army group would have had ample warning (due to air superiority), a lot of air support, superior artillery and a lot of tanks to rely on.

Berlin, as far as First Belorussian Front was concerned, was a botched operation and the quantity and quality of German defenders was for an order of magnitude worse than anything Western Allies could present. Bagration and Berlin shows that 1944/45 Red Army was superior to Wehrmacht, not the US Army.

There are two strategic considerations though.

a) US had atomic bomb, Soviets did not
b) but Soviets had tons of commie loving regimes and forces all accross Europe, starting from France, Italy, etc etc. US did not.
c) US still had war with Japan on their hands.

Russo-Allied conflict was not likely to take place, but if it did, I doubt Soviets would trust their East European "allies" very much. Aside from Yugoslav partisans and a division worth of communist colaborators in each country, I can't imagine any Pole or Czech taking arms against Americans on behalf of Stalin.

Now when I mentioned Japan, lets just take a look at Manchurian operation in August 45 for comparison. All things being equal, and my respect for US Army notwithstanding, I would bet my cojones on the fact US Army would not be able to pull anything nearly fast, efficient and deadly as Soviet August Storm in Manchuria.

Soviet offensive against Japanese was indeed magnificent, but once again, I have to point out at the quality of the opposition. Allied advance through Germany after the Rhine crossing was nothing short of spectacular either.



Drax

[Oleg Mastruko]

Fortunately, we never had to find out who was better, but Bagration was launched against German Army Group Centre, not US 12th Army Group. Germans occupied exposed position, had grand total of two panzer divisions in reserve and tactical and operational mobility was extremely limited due to Hitler's orders and lack of vehicles. Similarly sized US army group would have had ample warning (due to air superiority), a lot of air support, superior artillery and a lot of tanks to rely on.

Probably, but thats not my point.

My points are: a) Western Armies never launched anything nearly complex, fast and deadly, on a scale comparable to Bagration. And b) If there would be Bagration v2.0 in Russo-Western war, it would be maybe Russians launching it (successfully or not I can't say) but Western Armies in Europe would not even be in a position to think about something remotely similar to that (vs Russians). Simply a non issue.

Berlin, as far as First Belorussian Front was concerned, was a botched operation and the quantity and quality of German defenders was for an order of magnitude worse than anything Western Allies could present. Bagration and Berlin shows that 1944/45 Red Army was superior to Wehrmacht, not the US Army.

I don't agree.

Russo-Allied conflict was not likely to take place, but if it did, I doubt Soviets would trust their East European "allies" very much. Aside from Yugoslav partisans and a division worth of communist colaborators in each country, I can't imagine any Pole or Czech taking arms against Americans on behalf of Stalin.

As if he'd be asking them nicely? [:D] Forced drafts.... but Russians didn't even need that. Had someone like Patton be foolish enough to provoke hostilities in summer of 45 you'd have Soviet tank armies on Rhine in matter of weeks, before any mass forced draft of Czechs or Poles would even take place (let alone any mass draft of, say, French, to fight on the Westernside). Just my, somewhat educated guesswork.

Communists in France and Italy would not be contributing "divisions" (or maybe they would but thats not the point) but they will simply undermine political and moral will to fight vs Soviets in those countries.

Soviet offensive against Japanese was indeed magnificent, but once again, I have to point out at the quality of the opposition. Allied advance through Germany after the Rhine crossing was nothing short of spectacular either.

Quality of the opposition? I can hardly imagine more determined and stubborn opposition than Japanese in unpassable, mountainous, roadless, hard Manchurian terrain. Now wheres Becket when you need him [:D] Glantz's (historian) fascination with Manchurian operation is well known, and I suggest everyone should read his papers on this topic (some of his works on Manchurian operation are available freely on the net).

You're talking with the benefit of the hindsight. Now imagine we're back in 45 and you know nothing about future. Being an Allied commander (any allied army), I would perhaps try to avoid invading Manchuria more than anything else on the planet (except Japan Home Islands). Japanese were so determined they threw themselves on the Russian tanks kamikaze style (Russians called them "smertniki"), some Japanese positions held out for weeks in the Manchurian mountains, to fight to the very last man etc.

Hardly a low quality opposition.

Yes Japanese lacked tanks and AT weapons, but regardless of this fact, I repeat, I can't imagine any western army conquering Manchuria nearly as quick and brutal as Soviets did in 45.

You need to play WITP more [:D]

Germans on the other hand were quality opposition, but by spring 45 were more then ready to surrender to the West, as they realised the real deadly enemy bent on bloody revenge, comes from the east. They never fought US to the last man, and since Feb-March 45 on many occassions surrendered without a bullet being fired. You can't really take that as basis for comparison.

O.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

My points are: a) Western Armies never launched anything nearly complex, fast and deadly, on a scale comparable to Bagration.

What was so complex about Bagration compared to say Normandy? Do you think organisation of amphibious operation of such scale was simpler than Soviet redeployment? Do you think Allied deception measures that kept 15th army for most of the summer at Calais were any less impressive than Soviet maskirovka?

As far as lethality is concerned, very few Germans emerged from fighting in Normandy in fighting condition.

And b) If there would be Bagration v2.0 in Russo-Western war, it would be maybe Russians launching it (successfully or not I can't say) but Western Armies in Europe would not even be in a position to think about something remotely similar to that (vs Russians). Simply a non issue.

Why? I know you're in love with Red Army, but can you be more specific? What was it that Red Army had while Allies hadn't? Artillery? Tanks? Air support? Logistics?

As if he'd be asking them nicely? [:D] Forced drafts.... but Russians didn't even need that. Had someone like Patton be foolish enough to provoke hostilities in summer of 45 you'd have Soviet tank armies on Rhine in matter of weeks,

Who's going to provide the fuel? It was easy to protect the vulnerable logistics against what was left of Luftwaffe in 1944/45. Preventing Allied air forces from disrupting Soviet logistics would have been much more difficult.

How well would Soviet tanks operate without air support? Allied AA was far superior than German one and had plenty of fighters to supplement it. Fighters that were superior to Soviet types.

Quality of the opposition? I can hardly imagine more determined and stubborn opposition than Japanese

Kwantung army was but a shaddow of its former strength and it wasn't overly impressive in 1939 either. With years, it was hardly capable of improvement.

in unpassable, mountainous, roadless, hard Manchurian terrain.

Are you saying that Allies scored no victories in difficult terrain?

You're talking with the benefit of the hindsight.

What hindsight? There was no Allied-Soviet war in 1945. I was merely comparing what was available to both contestants and offered my opinion about their achievements.

Now imagine we're back in 45 and you know nothing about future. Being an Allied commander (any allied army), I would perhaps try to avoid invading Manchuria more than anything else on the planet (except Japan Home Islands).

Which is exactly what Allies were preparing to do.

Japanese were so determined they threw themselves on the Russian tanks kamikaze style (Russians called them "smertniki"), some Japanese positions held out for weeks in the Manchurian mountains, to fight to the very last man etc.

Hardly a low quality opposition.

With that line of reasoning one could call Iraqi insurgents as high quality opposition too. It doesn't mean that Japanese suicidal attacks on Shermans would have been any more successful in stopping Allied armies.

Yes Japanese lacked tanks and AT weapons, but regardless of this fact, I repeat, I can't imagine any western army conquering Manchuria nearly as quick and brutal as Soviets did in 45.

That's because you inflate Japanese defenses and underestimate Allied strength.

Germans on the other hand were quality opposition, but by spring 45 were more then ready to surrender to the West, as they realised the real deadly enemy bent on bloody revenge, comes from the east. They never fought US to the last man, and since Feb-March 45 on many occassions surrendered without a bullet being fired. You can't really take that as basis for comparison.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Soviets captured tens of thousands of prisoners in Manchuria. It wasn't like Iwo Jima or Saipan (which Americans won, by the way). How about Burma where Commonwealth army smashed Japanese who were no less determined than their compatriots in Manchuria? Perhaps the terrain in Burma was better and Slim had a priority in supplies and abundance of tanks?



Drax

[Oleg Mastruko]

What was so complex about Bagration compared to say Normandy?

Scale. Speed and ferocity of of advance. Number of units (especially armor) involved.

Normandy was more complex in naval and air segments of the operation - nbo doubt about that. Western allies "leveraged" the use of forces where they are strongest - and that is navy and air. You can use your naval and air supremacy when doing Normandy, but Western Russian war in Europe would be primarily fought on land. Your mighty navy does not mean a thing then except to help you bring supplies & fresh troops from US but that would not win the war alone.

Why? I know you're in love with Red Army, but can you be more specific? What was it that Red Army had while Allies hadn't? Artillery? Tanks? Air support? Logistics?

I am not in love with the Red Army, though, now that you mentioned, I do think they are usually under-represented in western histories, and wargames (WAW included [:D]).

They had more and much better tanks, more artillery, and it was solid and very deadly, massed arty, not as pinpiont precise as German or US, but quite terrifying in numbers of tubes deployed.

How well would Soviet tanks operate without air support?

Easy - They will have air support [:D] Youre assuming Soviet air force was in shape worse than Luftwaffe. It was solid airforce, particulary in groud support segment. Keep in mind West invested a lot in strategic bomibng arm, which would be pretty much useless in the opening months of the West-East war of 45. By the time "opening months" are over, the war itself is over and Soviets are on the Rhine, with French and Italian commies making their respective nations BEG for peace, and "protection" by mighty Soviet troops and what not.

You're talking with the benefit of the hindsight.

What hindsight?

Hindsight of knowing Kwantung army was defeated in 15 days. Prior to Manchuarian operation no one, in East or West, believed that it can happen, and that Soviet Far East war machine is so efficient.

Japanese were so determined they threw themselves on the Russian tanks kamikaze style (Russians called them "smertniki"), some Japanese positions held out for weeks in the Manchurian mountains, to fight to the very last man etc.

Hardly a low quality opposition.

With that line of reasoning one could call Iraqi insurgents as high quality opposition too.

Not "high quality" but certainly very very nasty, determined guerilla opposition. Japanese were still way better than that.

Compare the time it took US to wrestle tiny speck in the ocean called Iwo Jima from Japanese fanatics, or time it took to clear Okinawa, while having absolute supremacy in every way imaginable, fighting just a couple of understrength divisions worth of (nominally) second rate troops (many stranded ex-sailors etc.) to the time it took Soviets to take Manchuria, from Kwantung army.

Yes I know Manchuria and Iwo Jima are apples and oranges but still...

O.