What If:

Depends how the western allies use nukes. if they are smart they could destroy whole soviet armies without even engaging them directly. But then whats the point, may as well glass all of the soviet union.

did the US even have nukes after dropping them on japan? think at that time it wasnt a case of mass production

They only had 2 for Japan in August, and a 3rd in production ready by later August, 3 more around September and another 3 in October. Operation Unthinkable takes place in May

I'm waiting for you to put your head in a door frame and slam them shut repeatedly with all your might, if you think Russians would just throw their hands up, when they were ready to sacrifice Moscow to Nazis.

and that is disregarding that you're full of shit about that flight ceiling thing, USSR had at least half a dozen different fighter types that could fly higher than B-29

Thats the point, almost every mass produced Soviet fighter 1942 was able to reach both normal B-29 and Silverplate modification+ they would be under constant fire of AA bateries.
Some people even unnironicaly bealive that it its possible to tacticaly deploy nukes with strategic bombers.
If i remember right, they had none and got one more after several weeks. Still its not enough and using strategic bombers to deploy nukes whne you opponent has great airforce is autism.

thats what iam saying you retard
thats impossible with 20kt nuke, armies are stacked like population in cities, you could kill several hundreds at most.

*arent

World in Conflict was such a great fucking game, why did they stop?

Patton forms blitzkriegs the Russians back to Stalingrad with the Germans. Instead of trying to capture it, we nuke everything across the Volga river. We also invade from China, forcing them to fight a war on two fronts. Don't listen to all the commie fags, Russia only had tons of men to throw into the meat grinder. They just say Russia will win because they like the taste of communist ball cheese.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>we

and we have the first sharter here, lets give him a clap

>communist ball licker can't admit Russia would get steamrolled

All Russia has an a man advantage, not even material.

And then Captain America shows up with the Avengers and takes Moscow!

Close but no cigar

glad you provided your photo with that post
I need a break from this place, I can't tell when people joke anymore

>Pidorashka can't admit he would lose

The Allies get destroyed completely. I say this as a Frenchaboo and a Britaboo and a bit of a Wehraboo.

>all I can do is make fun of the opposition and provide no direct points that prove him wrong

When we you retards admit communism is awful and Russia sucks balls? Muh red army. If the USA wanted to, estimated they could make a new nuclear bomb every 10 days if they actually tried too. Gg no re commie boot locker.

>I say this as a Frenchaboo and a Britaboo and a bit of a Wehraboo.
Are you schizophrenic? How can you possibly be all three?

I just like them all without any true "allegiance" to one.

>When we
What did you mean by this?

Operation Unthinkable had a higher chance to succeed than you might think. The Soviets had been running a war time economy at maximum capacity for the last years, the people were exhausted and the country lay in ruins. There was a huge faminie directly after the war in the Soviet Union and one reason for it was that they simply didn't have enough manpower to work the farms. Now imagine the war continued, what would happen to the food supply in such a situation? Also many "liberated" eastern European countries hated the Soviets and communism in general, so there was at least potential for an uprising.
If the western allies, especially the USA, put their whole industrial output behind it, there would definitely be a chance that they would win that war.

>provide no direct points that prove him wrong

1) it was called fucking Operation UNTHINKABLE
2) it never happened because they fucking realized they couldn't pull it off

what else do you need?

Great response, Becky

thank you

And the Dunkirk evacation was called Operation Dynamo, the plan to bomb Soviet oil fields was Operation Pike and the Falklands War was Operation Corporate. Code names don't mean anything.

civil war across the entirety of continental europe and most european colonies, americans use nukes against soviets, europe falls even harder than it did because of the nazis

It was Unthinkable because the Americans were pulling out to go invade Japan.

It was unthinkable because FDR was such a little bitch he wouldn't even fly some planes in to supply the Polish resistance without daddy Stalins express approval, thank god he died and Truman took over

IF (and this is a big if) western will to fight, especially out of the U.S., CW, and France, remains unlimited, they will win, eventually. They have enormously larger economies than the USSR, have production bases that the Soviets can't realistically touch, and overwhelmingly larger population bases.

The Soviets only real advantage lies in the fact that they have a huge preponderance of force in Central Europe in the middle of 1945, considerably more than the Western Allies. However, they have no real means of using this to strike at Britain, let alone America, owing to their enormous inferiority in naval and air power.

So to look at it strategically, the only way the Soviets can win is if the U.S. and Brits tire of the war before Soviet material gives out. To me, who admittedly have not done a lot of hard research in the subject, that seems reasonably likely; as people were tired of war and especially to suddenly attack an ally, albeit an uneasy ally, is not likely to go well, especially since the Soviets are likely to make the initial advances.

Those advances, however, are not likely to suddenly sweep the Allies into the Atlantic. The Soviets advanced at roughly 170 kilometers a month against the dregs of the German army in 1945. The Allied forces at that point are enormously stronger, and the Soviets will not be able to advance at anywhere near the rate, especially since the Allies will have almost total air dominance very quickly. A lot is probably going to hinge on the Rhine defenses; it's the natural barrier for the Western Allies, where the river and the shortening of Europe's geography makes it much harder for the Soviets to employ their numerical advantage and expertise in multi-axial strikes effectively. That in turn depends on how quickly the Soviets can advance in Germany in the opening phases, how quickly the Allies can drum up new troops to feed into Europe, and how orderly the Allies can retreat when they're being pushed back in Germany.

>the Allies will have almost total air dominance very quickly
What exactly is the basis for this argument? They were quite evenly matched and both would be putting Jet squadrons in the air relatively soon so that advantage doesn't exist either

>What exactly is the basis for this argument? They were quite evenly matched and both would be putting Jet squadrons in the air relatively soon so that advantage doesn't exist either
First off, you can look up the level of late war opposition that the Luftwaffe put up against both.

don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Then you can look up overall aircraft production,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production
To see that the Brits put up almost as many planes as the Soviets alone, and the Americans put up twice as many.

Furthermore, the western Allies were about 3 years ahead of the Soviets in jet development. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-generation_jet_fighter

And that many of their prop planes were simply vastly superior; the most commonly built Soviet air fighter of the mid-late war was the Yak 9, to which something like the P-51 is faster, flies much further, has a service ceiling almost 3 kilometers higher, can climb faster, and is more heavily armed.

The Soviets are pretty simply outclassed in every metric in the air, except for the number of CAS attack planes. That might help them win ground battles, but it's not going to help them win in the sky.

I want you to go and look up what happened to P-51s when faced with Raidens, and a Yak-9 is much closer to a Raiden than an Me-109G or K

P-51s didn't even get to the Pacific theater until 1945, and by that point, the Japanese air force was pretty much smothered. A lot of the time they'd stuff bombs onto the things because there wasn't anything to shoot down air to air when they were escorting real bombers.

But the J2M is slower, has a lower flight ceiling, and less armament. The only advantage I can notice is a better rate of climb, which is one the Yak 9 doesn't share.

How about the fact the P-51s high flight ceiling killed more people than actual combat due to ice build up, or the fact it's tail would rip apart? And these are late models, the P-51 was a piece of shit and one of the biggest memes perpetuated in history was that it was fantastic

How about the fact that you only get there by having an extremely low rate of combat losses (in part to its very high rate of kills), and the fact that its ultra-range gave a single-engine fighter that could escort deeper bombing strikes that the U.S. was going on in the ETO, which you know, is what it was fucking designed for.

Look, if you want to be a contrarian shitter, be my guest. But I've pretty amply demonstrated why the Allies would win air superiority very quickly in the event of an Unthinkable. If their planes were so shit, just why the fuck do you think that the Luftwaffe was consistently losing about 3 times as many planes to the Western Allies as they were to the Soviets in every quarter from 1943 onward?

Probably because Americans only ever fought the shell of a Luftwaffe, if they fought them in 1940 numbers with 1944 tech they'd tell a very different story, you're telling me 2 contemporary air forces, both experienced, is going to play out exactly the same as 1944-45 European air theater against an airforce that was basically high school graduates with the odd ace and want me to take your opinions seriously?

>Probably because Americans only ever fought the shell of a Luftwaffe
[citation seriously needed]

>If they fought them in 1940 numbers with 1944 tech they'd tell a very different story
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe_serviceable_aircraft_strengths_(1940–45)
Oh wow, it looks like Luftwaffe operational strength went UP throughout the war, peaking in 1944. Would you look at that?

It's totally not like the battle of the Ruhr cost the Germans more fighters than the Battle of Britain or anything, is it?
ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/index.html
ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/tables/AAF-Luftwaffe-XLIV.jpg

>, you're telling me 2 contemporary air forces, both experienced, is going to play out exactly the same as 1944-45 European air theater against an airforce that was basically high school graduates with the odd ace and want me to take your opinions seriously?
No, I'm telling you that the Allies built roughtly 3 planes for every 1 that the Soviets built, that they had more flight training time strategypage.com/dls/articles/Fighter-Pilots-Doomed-By-Poverty-1-16-2014.asp They had, in general, better equipment, a doctrine based around actually clearing airspace, and greater industrial might to replace losses. Hell, they even had operational jets when war broke out, something the Soviets wouldn't get for years, and were only declining to use them because of the uselessness against the then shattered Luftwaffe.

It will not play out the exact same as the 1944-45 ETO, but the long term trend will be the same. The bigger, stronger, more fighter heavy air force is going to win, and they're probably going to win fairly quickly.

>have production bases that the Soviets can't realistically touch
neither can Angloamerican touch the Soviet one
>Allies will have almost total air dominance very quickly
citation needed

>Bomber Harris wouldn't get to Stalingrad.
You just watch, the whirlwind will be reaped once more.

They had more aircraft in 1944 on paper, they weren't actually flying around accomplishing anything

source for this opinion?

>The appointment of Albert Speer as Minister of Armaments increased production of existing designs, and the few new designs that had originated from earlier in the war. However the intensification of Allied bombing caused the dispersion of production and prevented an efficient acceleration of expansion. German aviation production reached about 36,000 combat aircraft for 1944. However, by the time this was achieved the Luftwaffe lacked the fuel and trained pilots to make this achievement worth while
Literally any book on the history of the Luftwaffe will tell you the same thing

>Gives excerpt, but not the actual source.
Almost there. I'm not even the guy you were arguing with, I just want you to at least try here.

>neither can Angloamerican touch the Soviet one
I'm not sure where you're basing that on. See pic related, and then compute bombing ranges from possible bases in places like Norway, southern Iran, and India, all of which would start under Allied control.

>citation needed
SeeNo, they have more OPERATIONAL aircraft, that is, aircraft actually ready to go. The problem was that the Allied operational aircraft was growing even faster, and the ratios were getting more and more lopsided. But overall Luftwaffe strength was way higher in 1943 than it was in 1940, at least in number and quality of planes. Pilots was a slightly different matter, but it wouldn't reach the nadir of 44-45. The luftwaffe was crippled in the Ruhr, not the BoB. (which in any case would mean that it was the British who did it and the Soviets have to fight them too, don't forget)

It's not even relevant; as the expansion in the production of 109s and 190s like that was a direct result of the outcome of the Ruhr, which you know, happened before it.

>No, they have more OPERATIONAL aircraft, that is, aircraft actually ready to go
But no pilots to fly them, like I said, the aircraft are totally operational themselves

It's weird then, how they managed to fly enough planes to get the single engine fighter losses from say, September-December '43 higher than the entire Battle of Britain losses, never mind all the OTHER aircraft that were shot down.

I'm pretty sure you need pilots to fly those things.

>They lost more fighters over Germany than they did over Britain, even though the fighters didn't have the range to actually fight in Britain in 1940
Are you fucking retarded? They lost their best in Britain sure, everything after that is a slide into mediocrity and autistic Jet fight projects

>Are you fucking retarded?
No, I'm not.

>They lost their best in Britain sure, everything after that is a slide into mediocrity and autistic Jet fight projects
[citation seriously fucking needed]

Would be a bloodbath.

>Allies will see some success, perhaps push the Soviets back into Poland
>Soviets were suffering from serious manpower shortage at this time, will also no longer have American gibsmedat to keep their war machine chugging
>Would eventually get pushed back further and further by the millions of well-trained and well-equipped Allied troops pouring into Europe
>Strategic bombing and nukes help
>Soviets eventually lose, but not without killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of Western troops

>Soviets were suffering from serious manpower shortage at this time
>allies werent

>The Soviets would've wo-

The a-bombs are unlikely to be decisive unless the U.S. can massively ramp up production in late '45 to '46. They are not appreciably more devastating than a fire funnel type raid a la Cologne or Dresden; the square-cube law is a bitch that way.

They could appreciably help doing heavier raids to certain more distant strategic targets, but the war is likely to be decided by conventional weapons in Germany itself.

how do you want to use A-bombs withour balistic missiles

The same way were used in Hiroshima

Not really no

This

>They are not appreciably more devastating
Yes they are. They are morale busters because all that devastation was done by ONE bomb. That's a lot for a guy in 1945 to take in.

No one in these threads ever talks logistics. On top of all the problems of Unthinkable, the Americans are moving supplies from ports in France out across infrastructure torn up by invasion and scorched earth twice already, now going for a third time. And of course, all the problems that plagued barbarossa about the frontline expanding as you advance etc.

Both Allied armies were feeling the strain of logistics by 1945, it just didn't matter because the Germans were fucked.

USSR might seem to be in the stronger position, but USA + UK has a greater manpower pool and much greater economic power, not to mention nukes and total air superiority. USSR might make some early wins but total Western victory was inevitable.

Good luck doing that when enemy has airforce.

Not him, but it would be eminently possible to do so. Even unescorted daylight raids rarely had casualty rates greater than 7% per sortie. You stuff 250 B-29s together, give one of them a nuke, and send them at Baku or somewhere, and there's a very good chance that your A-bomber gets through, even before you start adding defensive fighters to shepherd the bombers.

No. America had a giant population and had light casualties.

Also

> Implying all of Central Europe doesn't rise up after the Russian rape fest they endured

The US did a good job of developing planes that could nuke all of Russia by the early 50s and churned out a fuck ton of nukes.

If rushed more they could probably turn Moscow, St. Petersberg, and the next 5 largest cities to ash by 1947. That'd make the industrial difference huge.

Honestly, if you're going for industrial attacks (as opposed to morale attacks) you're better off hitting places like Baku, Magnitogorosk, Sverdlovsk, and Perm than the biggest cities by population.

the world would be a better place, no SJWs

What I don't get is why some here say the USSR would win easily when they struggled against Germany for 4 years, while Germany was fighting a multiple front war, while they were dependent on Allied aid like lend lease and Allied strategic bombing.

Also the USSR lost over ten million soldiers alone (not including civilian deaths), while the UK and US together lost around a million people (or even less, don't know exactly).

Also the Americans had nukes and could build more, the Soviets only had them by 1949.

I think the Allies would definitely win, even more so with millions of German POWs and still lots of German equipment now usable again with American fuel, also possible that there would be anti-Soviet uprisings in Eastern Europe.

Obviously there would be many casualties, though.

You asume that WW2 nukes have any real effect on enemy industry.

Because Allied will to fight is not unlimited (and in fact is sharply limited), and at least in the late spring and summer of 1945, they do hold the preponderance of force in Central Europe, where the main theater is.

The Soviets don't' win by obliterating the Allied armies and invading England and then the U.S. The Soviets win by making some initial advances, digging in, and being way too bloody and expensive to dig out again, especially since the people who most directly from the Soviet union being trashed; the guys on continental Europe, are also the most devastated and the most interested in seeing peace NOW.

>anti-soviet uprising in Europe
Yeah, and half-communistic Western europe with famine and pacifist Ameria would walk straight to the Moscow.

I assume that they'd do more or less as much damage as a very severe conventional bombing raid, which would do a lot of damage to the factories hit, yes.

Do you have reason to suppose differently?

>pacifist Ameria

that means there could be a stalemate/peace, yes. In an all out total war the Allies would win.

If the Allies start a surprise assault against the Soviets, as per OP, and the Soviets don't lose ground, maybe even gain a little before peace erupts, then they've won. They havne't totally won, but they've succeeded in their war aims (presumably to keep what they've got, and ensure their domestic security), while the Allies have failed theirs.

>In an all out total war the Allies would win.
Well, yes. But not all wars are "all out total wars", in fact they're pretty few and far between. And offhand, I can't think of one erupting right on the ashes of a previous total war between victorious uneasy allies.

>Space Magic
Heh, nothin' personnel, kid, 2 years behind, huh?

>no jet engines
dismissed.

>Not mixed-propulsion
Lmao'ing right now.

>not even desintegrating in flight
are you even trying?

Fuck, I can't compete with tha- *explodes*

>lmao we fough a war so we are literally Sparta xD
American public made a fucking protests because demobilization was too slow, also good luck explaining the civilians that you are going to fight you ally.
iam sure that those 250 B-29´s with conventional bombs would do much greater demage than that +-20kt nuke.
First problem is that strategic bomber is extremely non-practical way how to deploy a nuke.
Seccond problem is that 20kt nuke is just too weak, iam not sure about the USSR and USA plans during the cold war, but Czechoslovakia planned to use 30kt bombs as the weakest, while 100kt were standard nukes to be used during the march throught the Germany and France.

Seems liable, Just one country would probably lose against Russia but if you had all of Europe fighting on your side, on top of having GOAT logistics, on top of having experienced combat veterans, on top of strategic bombing runs, on top of redirecting all the US Army and Marine units in the Pacific to open up another front and on top of having atomic weapons, I think the Allies could definitely stomp the shit out of Russia.

You could also take into consideration that Finland, the Baltics, Belorus and the Ukraine will probably side with the Allies. Hopefully the Allies won't treat them like the Nazis did and cause a whole Partisan insurgency. What I couldn't tell you is who would actually side with Russia in the middle of all this or if Russia will have to go at it alone.

Standard loadout on a B-29 was 9kg of bombs, and less if they were flying far. 250*9 is 2,250, or 2.25 tons, compared to 20,000 tons. The nuke, even the relatively weak nukes of the infancy of atomic warfare, carried a hell of a punch.

Granted, that will be enormously concentrated in a way that a conventional bombing run wouldn't be, but it's still packing a lot more power than the conventional bombers are.

>First problem is that strategic bomber is extremely non-practical way how to deploy a nuke.
In 1945, it's really the only practical way to deploy one. The fat man weighed in at 10,800 pounds, which is too heavy for most lighter bombers to carry. Even something like the Iowa's main 16" guns only fired projectiles about a quarter of that weight. Short of hiding it in a submarine on a suicide mission and detonating it on site, or dropping it off in a truck and blowing it on the ground, you're really only able to deliver it by a large, 4 engine bomber.

>Seccond problem is that 20kt nuke is just too weak, iam not sure about the USSR and USA plans during the cold war, but Czechoslovakia planned to use 30kt bombs as the weakest, while 100kt were standard nukes to be used during the march throught the Germany and France.
The fact that atomic weapons got enormously better very quickly doesn't mean that the early ones weren't very explodey.

err, standard loadout is 9,000 kg, not 9. That makes it 2,250 tons, or about 11% of the nuke, because I am a dimwit who can't remember to shift the decimal point.

...

>In 1945, it's really the only practical way to deploy one.
I never said there is any other, iam sure it would be possible to put nuke into the V-2, but 738kg nuke would be usseles+ V-2 is innacurate. My point is that Nukes early after the war were more of a scientificaly useful things that military, the only reason why it was sucesful on Hirshima and nagasaki is because Japanese had no earial cover and they ddint knew about the nukes unlike Stalin.

The soviets had a very real chance of completely BTFOing burger, anglo, and frog forces.

However, if the soviets didn't completely encircle and destroy the western forces in a month then the west would've regrouped and completely obliterated them.

Why?

Because the lend lease supplies had ended in 1945. Whatever fuel the soviets had with them in europe was all they would have until their own refineries began production.

Ivan can autistically screech "UURRAHHH" all he wants, he ain't going no where without fuel.

They'd definitely have use. They're the most efficient bang per sortie you've got at the moment, so if you want to do a deeper raid over targets far away from your airbases, it's probably easier to load them up with an atomic weapon than it is to keep sending zillions of conventional bombers to send in a similar bomb load.

But no, they're not going to win the war on their own. Hell, strategic bombing as a whole is unlikely to win this hypothetical war on its own, and 1st gen atomic weapons are just a supplement to that. I would actually even go further than you; the reason the nukes worked on Japan is that Japan was utterly crushed on every metric and had a deeply fractitious government, and it gave just the extra bit of impetus to the pro-surrender clique over the die fighting clique.

>Because the lend lease supplies had ended in 1945. Whatever fuel the soviets had with them in europe was all they would have until their own refineries began production.
Are you retarded? The USSR was the second biggest producer of oil at that time.
ww2-weapons.com/military-expenditures-strategic-raw-materials-oil-production/

The Soviets had a lot of problems, but fuel production wasn't one of them.

>it's probably easier to load them up with an atomic weapon than it is to keep sending zillions of conventional bombers to send in a similar bomb load.
You either send zilion of bombers or your nuke bomber will get shot down, and as you calsulated, avarage WW2 nuke has about the same effectivity as 10x loads of conventional bombs.

No, the average nuke has the same power as 2,222 B-29s at a standard loadout; or about 10 entire flights of 250. If you're flying far away, they tend to sacrifice some of that bomb load to pack more fuel, which diminishes ability to actually hit, and the atomic bomb is still exploding as good as ever as long as you can leave at least around 5 metric tons to carry it.

There's a difference between one pretty big sortie of 2-300 planes, and having to hit the same place day after day with that same amount of force to achieve the same "tonnage" of explosive. Especially since the Soviets are probably going to realize what's going on after the first raid or two and stuff the area with flak and fighters.