WI: Operation Unthinkable Happens?
- Thread starter Ace009
- Start date
-
- Tags
- operation unthinkable ussr ww2
Probably not much. The country's devastated, De Gaulle probably wouldn't want to help after their sidelining him, and they have a massive communist party that could cause problems if they do go in. I'd imagine some lend-lease to the minor parts of the allies to help the economy recover, but that's it
History Learner
Banned
OP has already specified such participation and I already said numerical parity multiple times?
The firepower does. The Anglo-Americans have 10,000 more planes, a 3:2 advantage, and a 2:1 advantage in tanks. That is decisive in modern warfare, and that's not even looking at other factors such as the superior logistics of the Anglo-Americans vs those of the Soviets who are over-extended and dependent upon three railway hubs in Poland to sustain themselves.
The effect of worker strikes on Western economies will be an equalizer on the Soviet side. The Allies dominate the seas and are somewhat stronger in the air (still have to fight dearly for full control). Soviets have better land forces (greater numbers of heavy tanks designed to counter German zoo exhibits), are more numerous and experienced.
My bet is: a Red Europe minus Spain and Portugal.
My bet is: a Red Europe minus Spain and Portugal.
![[totally a legit person]](/forum/data/avatars/m/134/134906.jpg?1617940240){kind=avatar}
In 1945 the allies would've enjoyed around a parity in terms of infantry, with a slight advantage for the Soviets, unless the allies were able to get the support of the former German military, as Churchil had initially planned, which would've allowed them to the edge in terms of raw numbers. When we look at the makeup of the Russian military at the time, a significant portion were forced conscripts from the rest of Eastern Europe outside it. There's a significant probability that they could've defected to the Allies as sort of liberators, and there would definitely be partisan movements in Eastern Europe, which would've been a serious for the supply lines. A majority of Soviet factories are East of the Urals, meaning they'll have to travel thousands of kilometers to get to the front, that is without mentioning the fact the Soviets are dependent on three congested polish railway hubs. That is also not to mention Ally airpower, they would hold a 3:2 superiority in numbers, their bombers flew higher then the effective range of the Soviet AA guns, and the Soviets had just implemented a purge on their best pilots, which would all be giving the Allies full reign of the skies. Which means that they could effectively bomb the very congested Soviet supply lines without repercussions, along with Polish Partisans damaging them. The Allies would also enjoy complete superiority on the High Seas, which could be very helpful for amphibious landings and helping supply lines, but which would help with pushes and offensives. The Allies supply lines unlike the Soviets would be much better handled, as they have much more support troops and the likes, and also would enjoy from help from the locals possibly donating to help drive out the Soviets from their lands. The Allies would've also held a 2:1 advantage in tanks, as the Second World War saw Soviet tank "divisions" see themselves become regiments sized. Whilst it would be a very bloody offensive, if they had held the element of suprise, they could probably push all the way to Warsaw by the winter of that year. By November they would have a dozen, maybe more, nuclear bombs, if they target oil producing cities in the South, key train hubs, and key cities in Russia, they could put a real wrench in Soviet logistics. The Allies could've also possibly brought tens of thousands of more planes from other fronts, which that along with Soviet casualties could've seen the Allies achieve an even bigger advantage, ~2:1. In the long run, the Allies, in the form of America, held the overwhelming advantage in terms of manpower and industrial might, when compared to the Soviets, who were bled white by the Second World War since 1943, the Soviets would most likely capitulate to the demands of the Allies. Which would precipitate to the earlier fall of the Soviets, perhaps a few years after the war, thanks to lacking Eastern Europe's resources and the failed war weighing heavily on their phsyche. Or at least, that's what I believe would happen, the Soviets lose the war thanks to the many Ally advantages, but I might be very wrong about all of this, I don't claim to be an expert.
Instant Sunshine is due soon. I see two possible uses for it. 1 is tactical, to hit a Soviet army or two. The other option is to END the war in Japan--at the same time letting Stalin know, "We have new toys."
If it's used to end the Pacific war, that frees how many carrier planes, strategic bombers, and more?
But--would Instant Sunshine be enough to bring Japan to the table if the USSR was fighting against the Allies?
If it's used to end the Pacific war, that frees how many carrier planes, strategic bombers, and more?
But--would Instant Sunshine be enough to bring Japan to the table if the USSR was fighting against the Allies?
Probably not. hears screaming American soldiers as Operation Downfall begins
Or a steady drumroll of more Instant Sunshine...
I think Downfall gets put on hold--Japan isn't going anywhere, but the Red Army IS. Japan gets blockaded, bombed, and possibly, in the end, nearly eliminated as a culture. The USA has no reason to play nice.
WAllied calculations account for the discrepancy in division strengths. More properly, the Soviets didn't actually have tank divisions: what they had were tank and mechanized corps, which were really corps in name only: organizationally and in both paper and actual strength, they fit the criteria of armored divisions. The Soviets had 36 such tank and mechanized corps, precisely the number of divisions the WAllies credited them with having. Likewise, it's pretty clear that the number of infantry divisions the western planners estimated were arrived at by counting the number of cavalry and rifle corps (6 and 174, respectively) and then amalgamating the left over Rifle Divisions together into corps-equivalents. The idea that a Soviet corps was equal to a Western division is one that is frequently held up even by modern military-historians and you'll often hear a lot of bally-hoo about how Soviet corps are only equal to WAllied divisions, but that falls apart once one realizes that the Soviets have more then two corps for each WAllied division.
The wiki article also engages in some accounting games that make WAllied forces vs the Soviets seem bigger then it actually is, mainly by counting the sum total of WAllied manpower and equipment in Europe with no regard for whether they are part of the "operational" or "non-operational" forces. For example, it includes the nearly-four hundred thousand US personnel sitting in Britain, despite the fact that in no reasonable way these could be considered as the same as the Soviets "operational forces". A more useful figure would be the quantity of WAllied forces in Western Germany and Northeastern Italy, as these would be the equivalent to Soviet "operational forces". But I can't actually seem to pin down an actual source that breaks it down like that.
In any case, the most likely outcome for the initial offensive, assuming the alien space bats magic in enough public support to initiate and maintain the war, is a massive defeat but not a crippling one. The WAllies will likely be thrown back out of Western Germany and maybe even driven a ways into the Low Countries or France, but their industrial advantages will allow them to turn the tide and win the longer war.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
I still think the Russians win, Not enough atom bombs to stop echelon attack or deep battle, they have a 20% margin in tanks and artillery, their LOCs are not as exposed, They are geographically deep. Their generals are better than our generals. Unified command. and they have a single front war. The allies still have to clean up the Pacific mess and the Americans are shipping 1 million combat veterans home from Europe which they will have to replace with new half trained levies.
PLUS... the Americans have picked the worst possible time to re-equip their fighter, tank and general equipment lines for the planned final showdown with Japan.
PLUS... the Americans have picked the worst possible time to re-equip their fighter, tank and general equipment lines for the planned final showdown with Japan.
Something I don't see often brought up in Operation Unthinkable debates is the situation in India. Should the war stretch on longer than '45, the British Empire is royally screwed. Assuming the Soviet-Japanese alliance, that's like 12-15 decent Japanese divisions to be used to reinforce Home Isles, finish off China after Ichi-Go, or to revive the situation in Burma. Indian army would probably be exhausted and likely mutiny at the prospect of endless war with no independence in sight IMO. Also, the US and Uk populations are geared for war with Japan and Germany, only to now be told they are at war with their former ally in order to change an agreement already settled at Yalta, of which Churchill (The main proponent of Unthinkable) was a signatory. While from a military standpoint it's very likely the Allies could push into Central Poland with air and *maybe* armor supremacy, the soviets would have not only seen an attack coming, but also make the Allies bleed for as much as they're worth. My guess is that Stalin escalates it, at which point the West is faced with either a full-scale invasion of the Soviets (And all the risks that come with that) Or the bomb really, at which point you'd be stomaching a nuclear campaign (Two nukes aren't knocking Russia out), which really puts the Allies in a no-win scenario, especially given the massive communist populations in France and to a lesser extent Germany and Britain. So in essence, while theoretically possible for an allied "Victory" they would likely be sacrificing their empire, arming nazis (big no-no right after ww2) and abandoning Japan (Which likely collapses and becomes a pro-Soviet state.) Also, the Kuomintang army by this point has been quite thoroughly battered, and the CCP simply had such an edge with the peasants of China that a "9 year's war of resistance" Would have only ended the KMT more spectacularly.
So..............how bad is it post-War if I am guessing correctly?
Depends, ironically Poland would be even more devastated than OTL, likely destroyed with both Germans and Soviet scorched earth policies, could range from an irradiated Eastern Europe with a USSR revanchist state (likely with Molotov, Beria or Zhukov in charge), either 1. Communist Japan due to America not occupying Japan, but empire still collapses or 2. American occupation of Japan which is much more virulent due to a strained US and much more popular left leading to nasty guerrilla war. China still likely turns red, tho Taiwan is wildcard. Marshall plan now has to repair Poland, Czechia and maybe Hungary. France might have already fallen to Revolution. Violent collapse of British India, could go a lot of ways, tho I’d like to hope Hindu-Muslim split solved peacefully (prolly not) Malaya will be interesting. Back to Europe, Germany is united, essentially with the same government in Flensburg and with a standing army made up of actual former Wehrmacht. Looking around Europe, you got a broke and dissolutioned Britain, a revolutionary France, a quasi-Nazi Germany, democratic but broken Poland, and a battered and revanchist Russia eager to give the west a “taste of their own medicine” and send instant sunshine their way. Not very good for lasting peace now is it.
Would those men be fighting material, or Volkssturm conscripts? Germany had practically run out of bodies to throw on the pile by 1945, even if the war happens a few years later they still wouldn't have replenished those, not by a long shot.
History Learner
Banned
Red Storm on the Reich by Christopher Duffy, on Soviet tank corps.
U.S. armored divisions:
UK armored division:
So, actually, Soviet tank corps were indeed equal to or even weaker than Western armor divisions in both men and material. As for the claim they had two Corps to every Anglo-American, again citing Duffy:
So, what, six tank armies in 1945 with two tank corps each is ~24 Western divisions, equal to the 22 the West had. Even if we're being generous for some reason and saying the six tank armies have three tank corps, that only nets them an additional six divisions. This is nowhere near the 2:1 you claim.
Exactly the same argument can be made for the Soviets, in that their total forces with no distinction of "tooth" vs "tail" is being counted. Further, what your analysis leaves out is those 400,000 personnel "sitting" in Britain are sustaining the U.S. 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, who will soon not be sitting and will instead be cutting Soviet SLOCs just as they did for the Germans.
Taking the situation as it was in May of 1945, the Anglo-Americans have 500,000 more men in the combat sector than the Soviets, as I pointed out already. If we discount Allied forces in Italy and Soviet forces in Austria, that leaves us with 4.5 million Western Allied troops in Germany vs 4 million Soviets in Germany/Czechia.
Explain to me how the Red Army achieves such when the Anglo-Americans have a 2:1 advantage in tanks, a 3:2 advantage in the air and the same number of troops on the ground. Control of the air, vastly more tanks and the same number of men is going to be defeated with what? Elan?
Last edited: