Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "If the Soviets and the West went to war in 1945 - who would have won?" video.

Land - lease was no longer in use in 1945. Soviet airforce was modern and not much weaker then allied. Who cares about navy - this is land battle. Take a look at the map and see what would you accomplish attacking from India - nothing other then waste of time and huge losses. As movie points out the main - 98% theater would be Europe.
4
LOL - the west would not politically survive if it attacked the reds & the reds would not survive politically if they did the same. You forget that a WAR is an extension of POLITICS - thus it is intimately tied. People would not fight if they did not have a good reason to fight - morale would fall to zero. Explain to a Soviet soldier why he needs to go to Paris or explain to US soldier why he needs to go to Warsaw. Churchill and UK by 1945 were of no value of any kind - only powers left were Soviets and US. What Churchill said and did was of little consequence. UK was no longer an empire - they "lost" that during the war.
4
You mean Soviet troops were far more experienced then allied troops - which would give them initial edge. Soviets also by 1945 possessed better command and control structure then allies - i.e. they had much better commanders.
3
Soviet Union would have certainly tried if Trotsky was in charge. By time Stalin was in charge Soviets no longer were "exporting" revolution. Their main operations were on easy pray. Certainly taking on the west would not fall into that category. The idea was to show that Soviet System was superior - i.e. cultural victory.
2
Ummm, close air support with armored aircraft was invented by Soviets.... So I guess they had more tank busting aircraft - i.e. that had excellent ground support aircraft. Bringing Germany to fight with allies would be a huge victory for Soviet propaganda. The disaster would be on the side that attacked - how would US explain they attacked their former allay with ... help of Germans at home? Public opinion would crucify them. Do you think French and British morale would float above zero - I think it would sink lower.
2
As shown in Yemen :) Saudi Arabian army is a total joke - they are even worse then Iran or Iraq (!) - they would do well to get rid of 100% of their soldiers and hire small mercenary army of maybe 60k people.
1
Yes with a new peace treaty.
1
@youraveragescotsman7119 problem is you cannot sink a continent. It's not the navy that would be an issue, it would be ground based airforce. Your carrier task force would be very vulnerable to counter attack by air. Also taking out oil fields is not easy, if it was Germans would take out these oil fields when they were within tactical distance. More likely targets would be traditional far east, such as Vladivostok. But these attacks would have little to do against war in Europe. Finally Caucasus is on the black sea. It's small. Entry is through bosphorus and according to the treaty no aircraft carriers are allowed. Turkey joined NATO only later on. Even then your carrier task force is on a lake and can be attack from multiple sides from close by. If sending carrier task force was easy then British would have helped Poland in 1939, yet they determined that it was no go... Or British simply did not want to fight at all.
1
@youraveragescotsman7119 Soviets had plenty of dive bombers and plenty of fighters. They had no issue sinking German ships. The reason Royal navy carrier did not enter Baltic sea was overwhelming disadvantage at air operations. And that is with help from nearby bases. Germans had only about max two dozen subs at sea and most not in the Baltic so that was not the issue. Nor was luck of carriers, planning for this was over 6 months. Plain and simple it would be suicide VS. German airforce. I doubt few cruisers of German navy and destroyer squadron would be an issue. Now imagine far worse black sea. At least on the Baltic you had Polish ports and neutral ports later on, places to hide or get out of range. On the Black sea the only escape would be south to Turkey, while North and East were in Soviet hands. Target rich environment which could not escape nor run away or resupply. It would be a sloughter. This is not at all like US campaign with Japan, where there was open sea and you could attack peacemeal, this will be more like full frontal attack without chance to retreat against half of Soviet airforce. Certainly Soviets would loose well over 1000 planes but US losses would be far and wide higher. Why do this when there are far easier ways to fight.
1
@youraveragescotsman7119 Soviets could easily throw 2x as many aircraft as there are on these carriers & they would have dozens of new airfields ready before that task force even gets there. Sure these ships can throw a lot of flak - so what? They still can be sunk. Plus imagine the amount of ammo needed - how would you resupply your fleet? Oil? Food? Through paper thin Bosporus? Seriously? You do know at its narrowest its just 750m and at its widest it is just 3700m. Ignoring protests from Turkey would not prevent this from being heavily mined and/or constantly attacked. Remember to put your flak screen you need that ammo and these 80 escort carriers need lots of food for their like 80k sailors and air crews. At least on the Baltic Poles would provide food, shelter, oil, some spare parts, hospital facilities etc. Or such things could be arranged. There is a reason Soviets nor Russia today have Black sea fleet as priority - it is actually least one to get anything. Finally how far are these oil fields from the Black sea? Turns out they are on the shores of the Caspian sea roughly at least 400km each way to attack even when parked on the coast. Some may be as much as 500km each way. This will put it beyond or at reasonable combat range of carrier based aircraft, i.e. either it would be too far or they would need grossly reduced bomb load.
1
@youraveragescotsman7119 ok so now we are attacking from Malta... You do know that most targets would be outside of the range even with reduced load. How would you get there anyways, Turkey is neutral and Bulgaria is within Soviet zone and would object to flying over it. I guess you could convince Greece. As for nukes they were reserved for cities, a WWII style nuke would do almost no damage to an oil field, these are 100km wide. You may take out a rafinery but why waste nukes when you can use regular bombers. How about attacking from British mandate of Palestine or from Iran. Trying to help you out here. At least these were nominally under UK control and UK would be with US on this one.
1
They only had few nukes of tiny size and marginal air superiority to inferior personnel and personnel training as well as inferior armor and inferior artillery. Nukes would only play minimal role in 1945 / 1946.
1
Allies could not even crush weak Germany with 80% of their forces in the east in 6 months. How do you propose finishing off Soviets that had far more forces then Germany in less time?
1
@sgtmayhem7567 They were so well treated 1000s died. Only in Finland were POW well treated. Certainly not in the west.
1
Allies would disintegrate within minutes. French would no longer want to fight. British the same. Remember 1939. I doubt US would want to fight for Warsaw as well. Who says allied POW camps were "nice"? You really think German POWs would be now welcome with open arms? Imagine what this would do to already limited allied moral. Imagine what would it do to boost Soviet morale - Soviet propaganda would make excellent use of this. Why would Soviet officers suddenly defect? Who would pay for it all in the west?
1