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

[Genx87]

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..

The Russians expended a lot of manpower and equipment fighting to berlin against an opponent that was out of supply, equipment, and filled its ranks with volkstrum. The idea the Soviets would simply run right over the Western allies is misguided. We have bought into the propaganda about the Soviet military machine. I think it was overstated at the end of the war all the way through to its collapse in 1991.

The Sherman was a pea shooter compared to German tanks. But Pattons army covered vast amounts of ground with it. The Soviet troops and their C&C were much more rigid than the US military. This caused a lot of uneeded casualties and indecision. They also had to deal with the dreaded NKVD and political comissars. Talk about killing your morale. Attack that hill, if you dont, you will be shot by a comissar. You are dead either way.

 

[cybrsage]

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

Most of it...and they would have been doing the standing inside Moscow...unless they nuked it, then they would have been standing outside of the burned out husk of Moscow.

Why do you ask?

 

[cybrsage]

So, you got nothing. No facts, just your belief...

When the choice is to believe Patton or a cowardly Internet poster concerning military tactics and strategy, only a fool would choose you as the one to believe. Do you honestly believe you are a better military strategist and tactician than Patton? Really?

But troll on, you'll be banned sooner or later, and you will have to move on to forum #4 to troll.

You still refuse to post the forums you pretend I have been banned from. Put your proof on display, or at least admit you are a cowardly liar.

Do it, or I will have to report you for your lies.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

True, and that is where others failed. Marching is overrated. You use railroads, airplanes, tanks, and jeeps to ride, drive, or fly into Moscow.

Their ability to stop people from flying in did not change for many decades:

This is the guy who embarassed the Russians and astounded the world, when in 1987 at the age of 19 flew a Cessna 172B undetected all the way from Malmi airport in Helsinki, landing the craft in Moscow’s Red Square.
Mathias Rust (born 1968) is a German pilot who, in 1987, at the age of 19, flew from Hamburg to Moscow, eluding the Soviet air defences and landed in Red Square near the Kremlin.

http://englishrussia.com/2006/10/17/landing-on-the-red-square/

The most recent revision of the aircraft has a range of only:

Range:

696 nmi (801 mi; 1,289 km) with 45 minute reserve, 55% Power, at 12,000 ft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172

Which is far less than US bombers in WW2. Moscow, therefor, was well within range of our bombers if we wished to bomb the crap out of it.

 

[fskimospy]

The Russians expended a lot of manpower and equipment fighting to berlin against an opponent that was out of supply, equipment, and filled its ranks with volkstrum. The idea the Soviets would simply run right over the Western allies is misguided. We have bought into the propaganda about the Soviet military machine. I think it was overstated at the end of the war all the way through to its collapse in 1991.

The Sherman was a pea shooter compared to German tanks. But Pattons army covered vast amounts of ground with it. The Soviet troops and their C&C were much more rigid than the US military. This caused a lot of uneeded casualties and indecision. They also had to deal with the dreaded NKVD and political comissars. Talk about killing your morale. Attack that hill, if you dont, you will be shot by a comissar. You are dead either way.

The vast majority of advanced German tanks were destroyed by artillery or air attack, not by ineffective American tanks. Our air power was the key to defeating the Germans, not our armor so much. The Soviet air force in 1945 was far superior to that of Germany's, so such an advantage for the Allies couldn't have been guaranteed. Without almost total air superiority, things could have gotten really dicey for our troops.

That all being said, I think the biggest question is what we would have gotten out of the deal. Say we win. I imagine no person thinks the US could have (or would have wanted to) conquer the Soviet Union, so I think that victory would mean expelling them from all occupied European territory, back to Soviet frontiers. While it is true that we would have saved the region from about 50 years of oppression and economic stagnation, how much of an advantage would that have been for the US? Worth the risk and the cost of (likely) years of additional warfare and likely millions of casualties? I think President Truman would have had a very tough time justifying the risk/reward calculation there.

 

[cybrsage]

I agree with eskimospy. We could have pushed them out of Europe, but to what gain? It was known the Europeans they conquered did not want them there...so we could have had help from partisan forces, and I highly doubt we would have bothered conquering the asian portion - no gain in that at all.

I am confident we would have taken Europe from them...but without any real gain in it, it would have been an impossible sell for Truman.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

When the choice is to believe Patton or a cowardly Internet poster concerning military tactics and strategy, only a fool would choose you as the one to believe. Do you honestly believe you are a better military strategist and tactician than Patton? Really?

LOL, I see my statement is still accurate about your trolling:

Don't bother...he has a "belief based" system where he believes what he wants, and refuses to acknowledge other peoples facts that prove him wrong.

When you point out facts, he just sticks his fingers in his ears, and won't listen. Then he will just say you are wrong and he is right with no evidence. Then he will insult you some more. It's his only MO around here.

Good to know I was 100% accurate. So unless you can prove Patton was always right, your idea has no merit. Patton made mistakes. He made one in this case. All historians, with the benefit of 50+ YEARS of research can make a better informed decision then he could.

Unless you have proof that Patton had total secret knowledge of everything the Red Army had and did, lol. Good luck with that one.

So you have proof he couldn't make a mistake? I can list ones he made, if you want to show that he wasn't always right.

So given that you for the third time refuse to argue the facts, why don't you provide reasons for the things I list below:

-US government - Explain why you think the gov would allow this to happen.

-US Public - Explain why the public would go along, especially given that they have been told for 5 years of war that the Russians were allies and were sick of war especially with the Japanese side still going on.

-Logistics - Explain how we could get supplies all the way to Moscow and further east through hostile territory already blown up by battles

-Numbers - Please explain how you ignore the overwhelming superiority between the US Army in Europe vs the Red Army.

Come on troll, man up and show everyone a real reason why you believe this, instead of another voice in your head saying it. Post some proof why don't you?

I realize you are mad that you have been proved wrong about those Iraqi WMD what like 10-20 times now? But it isn't my fault you refuse to acknowledge the facts. You have been proved wrong on this forum and others, so I don't know why you refuse to believe it (well, yes I do, you are a troll, but no normal person would refuse).

 

[cybrsage]

LOL...

You still refuse to post the forums you pretend I have been banned from. Put your proof on display, or at least admit you are a cowardly liar.

Do it, or I will have to report you for your lies. Last time I say this.

 

[alzan]

You still refuse to post the forums you pretend I have been banned from. Put your proof on display, or at least admit you are a cowardly liar.

Do it, or I will have to report you for your lies. Last time I say this.

Wow, I'm not even Garfield and you've got me quaking in my boots over your threat to report.

Better post the forums Garfield, he's given his last "report" post

 

[cybrsage]

You may think it is ok to violate forum rules, but your view is irrelevant. Good thing, since you quake a lot.

Aren't you even the least bit curious to see his list?

 

[alzan]

You may think it is ok to violate forum rules, but your view is irrelevant. Good thing, since you quake a lot.

Aren't you even the least bit curious to see his list?

Just as irrelevant as yours.

I "quake" a lot? What the hell does that mean?

And no, I'm not interested in the list. I just think your threats are hilarious, as well as childlike.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You may think it is ok to violate forum rules, but your view is irrelevant. Good thing, since you quake a lot.

Aren't you even the least bit curious to see his list?

Easy, google "cybrtroll" and as pointed out by another poster, you can find at least two other forums he used to troll on. Mostly the exact same stuff too.

BTW, how many times have you been temp banned already on AT?

And how many misleading troll thread titles have you had locked? You might want to look in the mirror before accusing others, LOL. This from the person you calls me a coward for proving him wrong about WMD....might want to report yourself for that.

Still unable to comment my reasons? Still can't come up with anything, huh? No explanation of why 50 years of research might be better then knowledge at the time? Really? Deafening silence as usual from one of our resident trolls.

BTW, just to really point out how ignorant you are, what do you think about this?

Link

In a forthcoming memoir, Colin Powell will describe the speech he gave at the U.N. justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the basis of bogus evidence that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons as "a blot, a failure will always be attached to me."

So Colin Powell, a former 5-star general and CJCS, admits he was wrong about WMD in Iraq.

Given you both trust what generals say, and you wrongly believe that WMD were found, how do explain this problem? LOL. Really points out how clueless you are. Gotta pick one or the other....we'll be waiting to see how you twist this.

 

[EagleKeeper]

True, and that is where others failed. Marching is overrated. You use railroads, airplanes, tanks, and jeeps to ride, drive, or fly into Moscow.

Their ability to stop people from flying in did not change for many decades:


http://englishrussia.com/2006/10/17/landing-on-the-red-square/

The most recent revision of the aircraft has a range of only:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172

Which is far less than US bombers in WW2. Moscow, therefor, was well within range of our bombers if we wished to bomb the crap out of it.

Range of bombers, not fighter escort. Flying bombers the last 300 miles where every field would support a squadron of fighters.

A similar scenario would be starting at New York and bombing Chicago. Yet all the industrial targets are west of the Rockies. Fighter escorts can not fly past Pittsbugh.

Puts things in a little better perspective.

Any way of getting to Moscow would be through hostile territory.
Rail is the feasible method, but also forces defined weaknesses to be clearly exposed.
Bridges and marshalling yards are vulnerable.

Every mile advanced requires supplies to support the front and supply lines themselves.
Those supplies have to come into Europe by ship.

 

[cybrsage]

I "quake" a lot? What the hell does that mean?

You have to ask yourself, you are the one who claims you quake.

 

[cybrsage]

Range of bombers, not fighter escort. Flying bombers the last 300 miles where every field would support a squadron of fighters.

A similar scenario would be starting at New York and bombing Chicago. Yet all the industrial targets are west of the Rockies. Fighter escorts can not fly past Pittsbugh.

Puts things in a little better perspective.

Any way of getting to Moscow would be through hostile territory.
Rail is the feasible method, but also forces defined weaknesses to be clearly exposed.
Bridges and marshalling yards are vulnerable.

Every mile advanced requires supplies to support the front and supply lines themselves.
Those supplies have to come into Europe by ship.

Yeah, it would not have been easy, but it certainly would have been doable. I believe that had it been easy, Truman would have said yes.

 

[cybrsage]

...losts of stuff that does not answer the question...

I see you refuse to recant your lie.

 

[alzan]

You have to ask yourself, you are the one who claims you quake.

It's an expression, whizkid. Also known as an idiom.

You seem just as poor at reading comprehension as you do about deducing that Patton could have taken Moscow if allowed to. Hell, I'm no military strategist but just a quick perusal of some of the links provided by Garfield and others tells me that Patton would not have been successful.

You should probably just stop since you're so far behind.

 

[cybrsage]

It's an expression, whizkid. Also known as an idiom.

No need to flatter me!

You seem just as poor at reading comprehension as you do about deducing that Patton could have taken Moscow if allowed to. Hell, I'm no military strategist but just a quick perusal of some of the links provided by Garfield and others tells me that Patton would not have been successful.

You should probably just stop since you're so far behind.

You are correct, YOU are not a military strategist, but Patton was. What I see here is ANOTHER armchair general who thinks he knows more about military strategy than an ACTUAL general.

At least you think you are good at it...builds self esteem thinking you are good at something.

 

[alzan]

No need to flatter me!



You are correct, YOU are not a military strategist, but Patton was. What I see here is ANOTHER armchair general who thinks he knows more about military strategy than an ACTUAL general.

At least you think you are good at it...builds self esteem thinking you are good at something.

You just can't take it when you're proven wrong. How sad for you.

Patton was a blowhard, who got by on bluff and bravado.

Oh and you're no military strategist either; just another Internet luser who's found another boyfriend from the past to put up on a pedestal. I hope you two have fun on your first date.

 

[Brovane]

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

Remember that in 1945 Pakistan was part of India. I show on Google Earth it is right around 1500mile from some parts of Pakistan to Chelyabkinsk, which was also known as "Tankograd", key tank production center. Also it is around 1500 miles from Iraqi to Chelyabinsk which in 1945 was under British control. I would say 1500 miles is right around the edge of the B-29's capability, especially if you use the B-29B which has all defensive armament stripped out except for the tail guns.

At the outset it will be difficult to get to the Soviet factories. However if the war progresses and 1945 turns into 1946 things start to get interesting. The B-29D (Which was later renamed the B-50) is staring to be produced. This was essentially a B-29 with Wasp Major engines (3500hp) which allowed for much more performance. The regular B-29 engines produced 2200hp. Of course if the war continues into 1946, one Air Craft that had the reach and then some the B-36 is going to start coming into service. Once the B-36 starts coming into service in numbers all of the Soviet Union is in reach. Also fighers and flack are going to have trouble intercepting B-36s flying missions at over 45000+ fleet.

 

[Brovane]

The vast majority of advanced German tanks were destroyed by artillery or air attack, not by ineffective American tanks. Our air power was the key to defeating the Germans, not our armor so much. The Soviet air force in 1945 was far superior to that of Germany's, so such an advantage for the Allies couldn't have been guaranteed. Without almost total air superiority, things could have gotten really dicey for our troops.

That all being said, I think the biggest question is what we would have gotten out of the deal. Say we win. I imagine no person thinks the US could have (or would have wanted to) conquer the Soviet Union, so I think that victory would mean expelling them from all occupied European territory, back to Soviet frontiers. While it is true that we would have saved the region from about 50 years of oppression and economic stagnation, how much of an advantage would that have been for the US? Worth the risk and the cost of (likely) years of additional warfare and likely millions of casualties? I think President Truman would have had a very tough time justifying the risk/reward calculation there.

I agree that Truman would have a lot of difficulty justifying the continued fighting. In 1945 the US didn't have any more appetite for war and the US home population wanted things to end. It would have taken a lot of convincing to get the US to continue the war against the Soviets.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I see you refuse to recant your lie.

I didn't lie.

And you still for 4 pages now refuse to refute any of my reasoning....I wonder why? So man up troll....provide some reasoning why I am wrong. You think you are such the internet tough guy, but you can't provide reasons why I am wrong? LOL pathetic.

And given your WMD claims, I guess you have admitted you are wrong, since another general has said you are wrong? Colin Powell says you are wrong, so you must accept that right?

Funny how you just keep ignoring facts, and refuse to ever provide any facts at all. Not even any attempt at reasoning.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You are correct, YOU are not a military strategist, but Patton was. What I see here is ANOTHER armchair general who thinks he knows more about military strategy than an ACTUAL general.

At least you think you are good at it...builds self esteem thinking you are good at something.

Colin Powell (a REAL general) says you are full of shit about your idea of WMD in Iraq.

So I guess you have proved yourself wrong, LOL. Can't wait to see the contortions you try to do to get out of this one.

Quite the problem you have here.....you have certainly painted yourself into a corner on this one.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Remember that in 1945 Pakistan was part of India. I show on Google Earth it is right around 1500mile from some parts of Pakistan to Chelyabkinsk, which was also known as "Tankograd", key tank production center. Also it is around 1500 miles from Iraqi to Chelyabinsk which in 1945 was under British control. I would say 1500 miles is right around the edge of the B-29's capability, especially if you use the B-29B which has all defensive armament stripped out except for the tail guns.

At the outset it will be difficult to get to the Soviet factories. However if the war progresses and 1945 turns into 1946 things start to get interesting. The B-29D (Which was later renamed the B-50) is staring to be produced. This was essentially a B-29 with Wasp Major engines (3500hp) which allowed for much more performance. The regular B-29 engines produced 2200hp. Of course if the war continues into 1946, one Air Craft that had the reach and then some the B-36 is going to start coming into service. Once the B-36 starts coming into service in numbers all of the Soviet Union is in reach. Also fighers and flack are going to have trouble intercepting B-36s flying missions at over 45000+ fleet.

Interesting info....but that would take a lot of redeployment of forces to create and man airfields, and a lot of logistical hassles to supply fuel and weapons. I vaguely remember reading about the Air Corps flying "the Hump" to deliver supplies to China, and what an incredible logistical pain it was. Don't remember any efficiency numbers though.

But like you said, the US was tired of war, and the people and government would not have supported this massive undertaking (not just this, but the whole war on the USSR). To wage any type of war on the USSR would have to be an all-out effort, and no one would want that.

 

[Genx87]

The vast majority of advanced German tanks were destroyed by artillery or air attack, not by ineffective American tanks. Our air power was the key to defeating the Germans, not our armor so much. The Soviet air force in 1945 was far superior to that of Germany's, so such an advantage for the Allies couldn't have been guaranteed. Without almost total air superiority, things could have gotten really dicey for our troops.

That all being said, I think the biggest question is what we would have gotten out of the deal. Say we win. I imagine no person thinks the US could have (or would have wanted to) conquer the Soviet Union, so I think that victory would mean expelling them from all occupied European territory, back to Soviet frontiers. While it is true that we would have saved the region from about 50 years of oppression and economic stagnation, how much of an advantage would that have been for the US? Worth the risk and the cost of (likely) years of additional warfare and likely millions of casualties? I think President Truman would have had a very tough time justifying the risk/reward calculation there.

A lot of German armor was destroyed by their own crews due to lack of fuel. In my post I wasnt claiming our tanks destroyed German armor. But Pattons army covered large amounts of territory with the Sherman none the less. Our doctrine of war allowed us to bypass German armor then starve them out of fuel. Our air superiority absolutely was key to this kind of starvation process.

And i dont think or know if we could have gone to Moscow. I am simply stating in my opinion the theory the Soviets would steamroll the Western allies is misguided. We had larger economies, a nearly untapped manpower reserve, and our homefront was untouched.