how would history have been different if Patton got his way?

[Brovane]

Invading Russia by land hasn't exactly proved successful in the past. At the end of WWII, Russia had a rather massive and battle hardened army, more so than the US.

You are correct. Due to Russia's extreme size it is very difficult to mount any type of conventional invasion. The sheer size of the territory is very daunting. Also in WW2 their was a lack of any type of road infrastructure. The US would have a very difficult time supplying its forces.

Probably the US could force Soviet's back out of Eastern Europe. Their is one thing that the US has over Soviets. Air Power, especially in Strategic Bombing. The Soviet's had a fairly rigid factory infrastructure with large factories clustered together. Germany had a fairly dispersed factory system, the strategic bombing by the Allies only increased this dispersion. However the Soviet's will not have this luxury. Also the Soviets basically fought WW2 with very little effort by the Germans to bomb those factories in the interior. The US is going to start reaching out to start bombing those factories.

The Soviet's air power was situated at a tactical level. Basically once you got 20-30 miles behing the front lines their wasn't much effort made by the Soviets or Germans to control this air-space. The Allies would basically fight with Air Power all the way from the front line back to the factory where the equipment was made at. This will be a severe shock to the Soviets to all of a sudden have rail heads 500-miles behind the front line getting bombed. The US will have to deal with a Larger Air Power contingent at the tactical level by the Soviets, however the US Army Air Corp knows how to control the skies.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Bravery due to anonymity is not actual bravery.

Says the anonymous troll how admits to trolling on at last three forums? So you are an expert on this not being brave, right? LOL

Patton did not agree with you, and he wass a subject matter expert on warfare and an amazingly brave man. You are the opposite of him.

Gotta love the mindless and baseless personal attacks. Patton did not have access to all the official Soviet documents and histories, we do....but hey, you never believe in facts like that, so I can see why you ignore them again here (hello Victory Mosques!, hello ignorance about Iraq WMD)

Says a man who was not of fighting age during WW2. Patton disagreed with you.

So what? Talk about more ignorance from you. What does it matter? Patton didn't know what we know now...do you somehow believe he knew more then we do know (see above about the access to official Soviet records)?

If so present proof so we can show you (again) that you are wrong. Man up troll, you love to say what you THINK, but you never can provide facts.

With boats and planes and trucks. The same way we supplied the troops in Germany. What, do you think magic is needed to move these items a few extra hundred miles further?

Again, your total ignorance and refusal to use facts is revealed. A few extra hundred miles? Really? Are you that clueless (don't answer, we all know you are anyway).

Try a several thousand miles, through, that is closer to the truth...and through hostile Territory, formerly hostile Territory, and all of it bombed and blown up. Not easy to move supplies that way.

Nuclear weapons make numbers useless. You cannot amass large groups because they all die in a fireball. What about Japan, they received two fireballs and stopped fighting?

More cybrtroll ignorance.....you do realize that conventional weapons did more damage to Japan then two nukes....and the USSR is a HUGE area.

Says the man who thinks Patton knew less about warfare than he does. Your kind saddens me.

Given I have read a lot about Patton, and you can't even understand basic facts, what you THINK is almost 100% guaranteed to be wrong (hello WMD! hello Victory Mosques!)

50+ years of historical research using actual official Soviet sources to better understand exactly what the Soviet Army did and didn't do, 50+ years of research on their leadership, 50+ years of research on what their equipment can and can't do, and how much they had. All of that wasn't around when Patton said what he said. Do you deny this too? LOL ignorance abounds with you!

It's called information, and we have orders of magnitude more information now, then 50 years ago. Fact.

Oh, I don't really care what a admitted troll on multiple forums, and a known and admitted bigot really thinks of me. Kind of like I don't care what a KKK member thinks about me, or a criminal.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I do not doubt a modern general, given the knowledge we have about Patton's time, would be far more capable than Patton at knowing what would happen.

An anonymous Internet poster who is obviously unlearned in war, though, certainly does not fall into such a category.

Please provide your proof that you know as much as Patton then, Mr anonymous internet troll......you claim a lot, but have not posted one word of proof or evidence to support your outrageous claims.

And please link your service record to show you are not "unlearned in war" (WTF does that even mean?) since you are somehow claiming expertise in this.

 

[cybrsage]

Says the anonymous troll how admits to trolling on at last three forums? So you are an expert on this not being brave, right? LOL

These sentences make no sense. Can you rephrase them using English?

Gotta love the mindless and baseless personal attacks. Patton did not have access to all the official Soviet documents and histories, we do....but hey, you never believe in facts like that, so I can see why you ignore them again here (hello Victory Mosques!, hello ignorance about Iraq WMD)

Wow, you love showing us why we should not listen to you, don't you? You cannot even complete one thought without plunging deep into rhetoric.

So what? Talk about more ignorance from you. What does it matter? Patton didn't know what we know now...do you somehow believe he knew more then we do know (see above about the access to official Soviet records)?

And yet you understand military strategy better than Patton. Good job! :thumbsup: The military requests your insights on things all the time right? Right?

Again, your total ignorance and refusal to use facts is revealed. A few extra hundred miles? Really? Are you that clueless (don't answer, we all know you are anyway).

Try a several thousand miles, through, that is closer to the truth...and through hostile Territory, formerly hostile Territory, and all of it bombed and blown up. Not easy to move supplies that way.

Berlin, GM13.4000
52.5167Moscow, RS37.6156
55.7522Miles:999.19Kilometers:1607.99

http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Berlin_GM_and_Moscow_RS.html

A few hundred miles.

More cybrtroll ignorance.....you do realize that conventional weapons did more damage to Japan then two nukes....and the USSR is a HUGE area.

This is why we all know your military assessment is worse than useless. You fail to understand so much and happily wallow in your own ignorance, parading it around as a badge of honor.

 

[cybrsage]

Please provide your proof that you know as much as Patton then, Mr anonymous internet troll......you claim a lot, but have not posted one word of proof or evidence to support your outrageous claims.

I do not claim to know as much as Patton knew. I only claim to know that Patton knew as much as Patton knew. I realize this is hard to understand, so you may have to just accept it as true, but Patton really did know as much as Patton knew.

And please link your service record to show you are not "unlearned in war" (WTF does that even mean?) since you are somehow claiming expertise in this.

Take your pic of these three:

un·learn·ed

   /ʌnˈlɜrnɪd for 1, 2, 5; ʌnˈlɜrnd for 3, 4/ Show Spelled[uhn-lur-nid for 1, 2, 5; uhn-lurnd for 3, 4] Show IPA
adjective 1. not learned; not scholarly or erudite.
2. uneducated; untaught; unschooled; ignorant.
3. not acquired by instruction, study, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unlearned?s=t
Since I am using Patton as my support for Patton's understanding of war, I will link you to a little bit of info about Patton which should help you see why his assessments in war are far superior to yours.

Patton is an example of someone who is learned is war.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Moscow is 1000 miles from Berlin.

How far to the Urals and beyond?

The Soviets moved their manufacturing behind the mountains.

The largest bombers would be at their limits and completely exposed to attack; the US has never had fighters with the endurance of a bomber.

Our bombers never had fighter cover over Berlin and that was only 600 from England. We were taking 30-40% losses for each sortie.

Also realize that any airfield in Europe was pretty much destroyed.

 

[peonyu]

Russia would have over ran Western Europe without a doubt. Patton was a good General but sheer numbers wise he must have been drinking to think Russia would be a cake walk, at the close of the war Russia had 6 million battle hardened troops, and tens of thousands of T-42 tanks. The T-42 by itself was far superior to the Sherman...The Sherman was a pee shooter in comparison. The Russian troops themselves I would bet were superior to US troops to, considering that they experienced battles that dwarfed the Battle of the Buldge or Normandy on a weekly basis..

 

[K1052]

IIRC, the number of atomic weapons were small, maybe one being produced every other month? So 6 (small by today's standards) nuclear weapons getting used a year isn't some overwhelming attack.

USSR is was vast country, lot of real estate there. And as most accounts point out, the further east you go, the wider the front becomes, dispersing your forces even more.

Since strategic bombing by B-17/24/29's did as much or more damage to cities with conventional weapons, I don't see how a few small nuclear weapons would matter that much.

Based on the best estimates from the War Department two weapons per month would have been available through the end of 1945 with production ramping to 3 or 4 per month and increasing thereafter if required. By the end of 1947 the US had enough weapons grade fissile material for 100 Mk 2 / Mk 3 bombs.

 

[Brovane]

Moscow is 1000 miles from Berlin.

How far to the Urals and beyond?

The Soviets moved their manufacturing behind the mountains.

The largest bombers would be at their limits and completely exposed to attack; the US has never had fighters with the endurance of a bomber.

Our bombers never had fighter cover over Berlin and that was only 600 from England. We were taking 30-40% losses for each sortie.

Also realize that any airfield in Europe was pretty much destroyed.

You are assuming the attacks are launched from Europe. The attacks could be launched from China or India. Getting to the interior of Russia the only option isn't Europe. Also I am more thinking the B-29 would be launching the raids which has a radius of over 1500 miles. The Soviet's didn't have to deal with Strategic Bombing attacks so probably high flying B-29's would be a rude shock to them.

From a AirField Perspective the US has no trouble with creating air fields from scratch litteraly within days when necessary. I would see B-29 raids being launched from India and China into the interior of Russia. Then having B-17 raids launching from Europe going behing the Russian lines destroy supply depots, rail heads etc. The B-29 raids would fly un-escorted. The B-17 raids would have escorts and the Army Air Corp would use this as a oppurtunity to establish air supremancy.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

These sentences make no sense. Can you rephrase them using English?

How is this?
Fact - you have trolled and been banned on two other forums, this is your third.
Fact - You are an anonymous troll, who willfully lies and is intentionally deceitful

Result - LOL at you of all people claiming someone else is cowardly.

BTW, how many thread have you had locked here already, for intentionally deceiving titles? I've had zero.

How many temp bans have you gotten here already?I've never had one.

Wow, you love showing us why we should not listen to you, don't you? You cannot even complete one thought without plunging deep into rhetoric.

No, I show you are willfully ignorant. Again, would like to tell us how 50+ years of research, and getting access to all the Soviet records, doesn't mean anything?

And yet you understand military strategy better than Patton. Good job! :thumbsup: The military requests your insights on things all the time right? Right?

LOL, you are so ignorant. It is not strategy we are talking about, it's logistics and facts. Too bad you are too ignorant to see that.

But you don't don't believe in facts (still discriminate against those Victory Mosques, right? And you and Santorum are still the only two people that mistakenly believe that Iraq had WMD,). Your track record with facts is pretty horrible.

This is why we all know your military assessment is worse than useless. You fail to understand so much and happily wallow in your own ignorance, parading it around as a badge of honor.

Sigh, you must be on good drugs. Yes, I must be wrong, given that all modern historians all say the same thing I did, that it is impossible for multiple reasons. But you claim, based on your vast number of voices in your head, that you are right and I am wrong. Gotcha.

Again, care to present any facts? Once again, you devolve to insults and "you're wrong" without any concept of logic or facts. Typical given you are an ignorant bigoted troll.

So for the third time, do you have any facts at all?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

misc phots clipped

Patton is an example of someone who is learned is war.

Patton was a great General. Doesn't make him always right, or is that too hard for you to understand?

And your idea of making a point that he is right by posting a picture or two of him? Laughable. That the only thing you can do? Can't argue any facts or logic, you can only post pictures of him. Wow.

Once again, we have 50+ years or knowledge and research to assess the odds. Patton had none of that. That has nothing to do with how good he was. Nothing. But you have nothing, so I guess a emotional strawman appeal is all you can try.

Being a troll, and only believing what you think is right, you don't know this, but most accounts of the Eastern Front up until recently have been written with minimal knowledge from the Soviet side. That means we either analyzed everything based on German retellings of the war, or used German records.

All official Soviet records were locked up, and the few memoirs were pure propaganda, and couldn't be relied on.

It hasn't been until recently, post-downfall of the USSR that western historians got access to the official Soviet records, and a true analysis of this war could be done. I believe most historians now believe that the Germans accounts downplayed the operational ability of the Red Army, and played up the "overwhelming numbers" as the only reason for their loss. Not to say they didn't help alot, but the Red Army wasn't as bad as was always portrayed by the Germans.

But you would have had to read many historical accounts to know this, which obviously you haven't done since you don't know anything about this anyway.

So with your vaunted military knowledge, and in your zeal to believe Patton was right, care to explain these points that I have already pointed out, and you have of course ignored?

-Political - the US was sick of war, and the leaders would never had allowed Patton to attack.

-Logistics - supplying these forces across vast distances and across hostile Territory? The further we advanced, the easier the Russian lines became, and harder for us. Moscow doesn't mean anything, most industry was by the Urals, and Politburu was staged way east of Moscow as well. So Moscow would only have been the starting point.

-Sheer numbers - The US was outnumbered what 7 to 1? Or more? And don't forget, but at the end of WWII, the British were having to eliminate infantry divisions because they had no manpower to fill their units. In addition, the US Army was always desperately short of infantry as well.

So anytime you would like to debate these points, go for it. But more namecalling and photoposting doesn't really prove anything on your part.

 

[cybrsage]

How is this?
Fact - you have trolled and been banned on two other forums, this is your third.

Can you list these "banned forums"?

Result - LOL at you of all people claiming someone else is cowardly.

Your two statements have nothing to do with bravery. But it is no surprise you do not understand what bravery actually is.

You did set yourself up very nicely for that, you know.

No, I show you are willfully ignorant. Again, would like to tell us how 50+ years of research, and getting access to all the Soviet records, doesn't mean anything?

Why do you invent a position I never stated, then attack it? Is it to have a success in something?

LOL, you are so ignorant. It is not strategy we are talking about, it's logistics and facts. Too bad you are too ignorant to see that.

And again you prove why you should not be consulted for anything to do with warfare.

So for the third time, do you have any facts at all?

You have been pretty good at showing you should not be listened to about anything to do with warfare. I need to provide no additional facts to bolster what you have so clearly shown.

Patton was a great General. Doesn't make him always right, or is that too hard for you to understand?

Yet you demand that I believe YOU over Patton wrt warfare. Interesting. Lets see...who should I trust more concerning warfare? A great General or a cowardly anonymous Internet youth? Hmm...a hard choice. Oh wait, no it is not, the great General is the one I trust more concerning warfare. Thanks for again aiding me in showing you should not be listened to concerning warfare.

 

[K1052]

You are assuming the attacks are launched from Europe. The attacks could be launched from China or India. Getting to the interior of Russia the only option isn't Europe. Also I am more thinking the B-29 would be launching the raids which has a radius of over 1500 miles. The Soviet's didn't have to deal with Strategic Bombing attacks so probably high flying B-29's would be a rude shock to them.

From a AirField Perspective the US has no trouble with creating air fields from scratch litteraly within days when necessary. I would see B-29 raids being launched from India and China into the interior of Russia. Then having B-17 raids launching from Europe going behing the Russian lines destroy supply depots, rail heads etc. The B-29 raids would fly un-escorted. The B-17 raids would have escorts and the Army Air Corp would use this as a oppurtunity to establish air supremancy.

That and US aircraft coming off the lines in 44 and 45 were FAR superior to basically everything in the Russian inventory and going directly into the hands of experienced pilots. Heavy/fast long range fighters with larger caliber weapons in particular would have been a total nightmare for them doing harassment raids on supply lines.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You are assuming the attacks are launched from Europe. The attacks could be launched from China or India. Getting to the interior of Russia the only option isn't Europe. Also I am more thinking the B-29 would be launching the raids which has a radius of over 1500 miles. The Soviet's didn't have to deal with Strategic Bombing attacks so probably high flying B-29's would be a rude shock to them.

From a AirField Perspective the US has no trouble with creating air fields from scratch litteraly within days when necessary. I would see B-29 raids being launched from India and China into the interior of Russia. Then having B-17 raids launching from Europe going behing the Russian lines destroy supply depots, rail heads etc. The B-29 raids would fly un-escorted. The B-17 raids would have escorts and the Army Air Corp would use this as a oppurtunity to establish air supremancy.

From India, there is a 3000 mile haul to get to the Urals.
From NW China it is at least 2000.

The B29 ceiling was 31,850 ft
The range is only 2900 miles - bases will have to be within 1300 miles of the targets.
Those do not seem to be viable locations, especially the 35000 altitude that is needed to clear the chain if coming from India

 

[PieIsAwesome]

The Soviet Union had the largest and strongest army in the world at the end of World War II. Europe and the U.S. combined did not have the strength, and the only nukes the U.S. had were used on Japan. One does not simply march into Moscow.

 

[Exterous]

From India, there is a 3000 mile haul to get to the Urals.
From NW China it is at least 2000.

The B29 ceiling was 31,850 ft
The range is only 2900 miles - bases will have to be within 1300 miles of the targets.
Those do not seem to be viable locations, especially the 35000 altitude that is needed to clear the chain if coming from India

While I agree that the distances to the Urals was too far (I don't think people grasp how large Russia is) I believe the service ceiling is 33600 with it being able to eventually clear 40,000

Edit: An internet search turns up conflicting data on the ceiling of the B29. The military channel has it at the 31,850 but the aviation museam has it at 33600.

 

[KMFJD]

with dominant air power could you not bomb the fuck out of their ground based army, who ever controls the air and has the stomach for it will win any war

 

[RampantAndroid]

The Soviet Union's military was huge, battle experienced, and well equipped at the end of WW2.

Really? They used SMGs in place of rifles, had to steal out B-29 design and couldn't duplicate it for ages, wasted so many soldiers, killed anyone who stalin didn't like...their fighter planes were made by us, and were less capable. If Germany had not been fighting a war on two fronts, they might have beaten Russia, though with big losses. We could have won by saying "we won't go into a city of rubble and fight you, we'll nuke it" - assuming we built more.

 

[Ventanni]

As much as I love a good "what-if" conversation, a massive and climactic US vs USSR battle simply would have never happened following the events of the Second World War. The United States public by 1945 was emotionally and financially exhausted from fighting, and the USSR had been nearly bled dry from nearly 25+ million dead.

You guys have to understand that the German Wehrmacht time and time again kept fighting, kept defending, even after logically they should have collapsed. When the American and British forces finally broke through the hedgerow country in northern France in 1944 and surrounded the Germans at the Falaise Pocket, the Germans were as good as done, and nearly lost the entire western front as a result. But instead, they fell back, regrouped, re-equipped, and continued the fight. Despite taking catastrophic losses in 1944/1945, the Wehrmacht was superb at performing this strategy, and after years of warfare, both the US and USSR were simply exhausted.

By 1945 and with Berlin in ruins, neither side had any stomach to fight. Patton may have wanted to continue the fight, but thank goodness our politicians had more level heads. The USSR didn't want it, and neither did we.

 

[rchiu]

It would have been a huge mistake for the US if Patton got his way.

1) US allies were battered, tired. There weren't many countries the US could've counted on, just GB maybe. Most of the fight would have been carried out by the US ourselves.
2) US would have to fight on Russian turf, in harsh winters, deal with long supply line
3) China was quickly over ran by the communists right after WW2 and at that time, they were still friendly with Russia.
4) US would have to continue the war and won't have the resource to stabalize all the area taken from Germany and Japan, very possible for those countries to recover quickly and come back and fight the US.
5) Even if US is willing to use atomic bomb to hit Russia into submission, US would have a tough time with the occupation of all the areas, reconstruction effort.

Sun Tzu says you attack your enemy when you have 5 times their strength. If US attack Russia on their turf, with China backing Russia up, it would have been a very difficult war to win. With the lack of resource after a long world war, possibility of Germany and Japan military force to rebuild when US attention is diverted to Russia. The US had to be extremely stupid to engage Russia right after WW2.

 

[cybrsage]

Sun Tzu also said how to fight when you are not numerically superior.

Nukes would have made all the difference. The willingness to use them on civilian populations (and WW2 was certainly a slaughter the civilian type of war) would have allowed success.

 

[CitizenKain]

For everyone saying to use nukes, how much of the US Army would still be standing after being manhandled by the Red Army?

 

[monovillage]

For everyone saying to use nukes, how much of the US Army would still be standing after being manhandled by the Red Army?

Kinda like Zimmerman after being manhandled by Martin.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

lots of meaninless BS snipped for brevity

So, you got nothing. No facts, just your belief...just like those WMD and the Victory Mosques. Got it. Guess we know why you troll so much when you never use facts.

I pointed of several valid and logical reasons why it wouldn't work. You are incapable of making a reply to refute those. I wonder why?

You only concept is:

1. Patton said we could win
2. Patton was a great general
3. Therefor, Patton must be right over non-military generals who had 50+ years to access and investigate all the information available.

Are you really that ignorant? (yes, yes you are obviously)

So Patton never made a mistake? Never did the wrong thing? LOL Guess that blows your so-called "idea" out of the water.

How great a general he was is irrelevant, but you can't comprehend that. He didn't have access to the facts (remember that word, since you don't have any) that we all do now.

So why don't you go read some real books, learn something, and come back when you can refute my points, instead of this meaningless BS that "Patton was right because he was great".

And calling me a coward because you are unable to read and comprehend multiple official reports all refuting your BS that Iraq had WMD was and still pathetic on your part. It isn't my fault you are willfully ignorant of the facts (see, there is that word again) and refuse to believe them. But troll on, you'll be banned sooner or later, and you will have to move on to forum #4 to troll.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So once again cybrtroll, once he gets proved wrong and is asked for any evidence supporting his position (or any evidence that any other poster's arguments are wrong), bails out and runs away like the little troll he is.

He always refuses to present evidence (probably since he never has any) and just goes and threadcraps in another thread, starting the whole cycle over again, and again, and again.