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

[GarfieldtheCat]

Yes it would take a re-deployment of forces. However launching from what is now Pakistan is doable. Launching from China is much more iffy because of logistics of getting the fuel and ordnance into position.

However all of these problems go away when the B-36 comes online. The B-36 could fly from Bases in Alaska and from the UK and reach all of the Soviet Union. Also when flying over 42000+ feet the Soviet's really didn't have a aircraft with the performance to intercept the B-36.

Interesting, but that would have meant fighting a war for about a year before they came into service correct?

To be able to use Pakistan airbases I would think would takes months at least to get them ready, and move forces, supplies, fuel and personnel into position. (maybe 6 months??? just guessing, never saw timelines on getting B-29 bases ready in China) That is a long time to fight in Europe before starting to take out factories.

As a theoretical it's interesting, but I still can't see the public or government willing to go along with a massive re mobilization to fight a global war against the USSR. That is the most important point, and one that cybrtroll refuses to accept.

 

[Brovane]

Interesting, but that would have meant fighting a war for about a year before they came into service correct?

To be able to use Pakistan airbases I would think would takes months at least to get them ready, and move forces, supplies, fuel and personnel into position. (maybe 6 months??? just guessing, never saw timelines on getting B-29 bases ready in China) That is a long time to fight in Europe before starting to take out factories.

As a theoretical it's interesting, but I still can't see the public or government willing to go along with a massive re mobilization to fight a global war against the USSR. That is the most important point, and one that cybrtroll refuses to accept.

Yes the war would have gone for another year before planes like the B-29D and B-36 would have started to come into service. Probably it would have been late 1946-1947 before serious numbers of the B-36 would have rolled off the assembly line. In 1945 Pakistan didn't exist. The Area in what would become Pakistan was part of India. Building bases their would have been easier than in China, however their would have been logisitical challenges.

Realistically I see more of a strategy of containment of the Soviets and slow strangulation. The cutting off of outside supplies. Forcing the Soviets back in Germany and Eastern Europe. Maybe with a front line around the middle of poland and extending into Romania. One of the keys I can see is cutting off Soviet oil production. That would mean forcing the Soviets out of Romania and then also opening up a front in Iran to force the Soviets back and trying to take the Baku oil fields. These targets would be easily within reach of B-29 and B-17 bombers from Iraq and India.

However as we alluded to the US public had no stomach for a continued war. The only way I see this scenario remotely happning is if the Soviets attack the Allies as the front lines meet in Germany. The Soviet's decided they want all of Germany and attack and try force the Allies back. Even then I don't think the US public would want a total war. Maybe just enough to push the Soviets back to their border. Then a negotiated peace.

 

[cybrsage]

Facts?

I see you are still too cowardly to post your proof. Cannot say I am surprised by this.

 

[cybrsage]

As a theoretical it's interesting, but I still can't see the public or government willing to go along with a massive re mobilization to fight a global war against the USSR. That is the most important point, and one that cybrtroll refuses to accept.

You just love to be wrong.

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.

 

[alexruiz]

Interesting thread, but for all the discussion, most of what I see is everyone telling everyone else "you are wrong" and calling them dumb and tool, but I see very little numbers and facts. And the way to prove or disprove wrong is to provide those facts and numbers. I also see a lot of claims about "superior equipment, air superiority" but again, little numbers to back it up.

I would ask also who has honestly read enough about the Eastern front to make an objective comparison to the western front. These is something of what I remember back from those history lessons, reading and documentary watching. Corrections and additions are welcome.

- The Wermacht was allocating ~80% of its resources, call it man power, troops and equipment to the eastern front. The most veteran units were also focused on the Eastern front.

- I don't remember the exact number, but the Luftwaffe was also allocating most of the planes to the Eastern front. Tank busters, escort for the own tank busters and anti-task busters. A different kind of air fighting.

- Someone claimed the soviet airplanes would be no match for the USAF/RAF. Prove it. The La-5 was every bit as good as the FW190, and the FW190 was better than pretty much anything fielded by the USAF/RAF. Numbers is what won the air fight over Germany. The Yak-3 was tough and agile at low altitude. Remember, the Red army was using planes as tank busters and forcing the Luftwaffe into low altitude fight. They would have done the same. IL-2 as ground busters, Yak-3 as support. Force the P47 and P51 to fight low.

- Someone pointed to the GDP disparity between the Soviets and the USA. How that GDP disparity translate into actual production? Yes, today, a factory in the USA spends 10 times the amount of money that a similar factory in China. Does it translate to 10 times more production? If someone has data of actual production would be appreciated.

- The red army had over 10 millions of soldiers in Europe. The USA? ~3 million. The soviets had also better tanks. USAF air superiority? Call it a wash, in both quality and numbers. The Soviets had over 30k operational airplanes at the end of the war, most of them for precision ground attack / support. No heavy bombers, but would you use B17s to bomb tanks? I wouldn't either.


My take: In a prolongued all out war, the USA would probably win eventually (better navy) But, we are talking here the scenario that Patton would take it on the red army right in 1945 as he wanted. All the babbling about B29 from India, bombing the soviet factories East of the Urals etc is nonsense. The immediate focus is combat right in the heart of Europe, and the red army would simply have steamrolled the USA/Brits.

Some of you argued about the incompetence of the red army fighting against a weakened Wermacht. Does it make the US army 4 times as incompetent, as they were fighting an enemy that was only 25% as strong as that "weaked Wermacht" the Soviets faced, and still took the same amount of time to make it into Germany?

The same kind of war that prevailed in the Eastern front would have moved to the west. Armor battles + low altitude air fighting. The Yak3/La5 would beat the P47s/P51 as ground busters / ground busters escorts. Even if all they achieved was air parity, that is what they needed, the armor superiority by the red army would take care of the rest. Remember, who cares how many aircraft carriers you have, they were NOT is position to help at the heart of the fighting. The Soviets would take all of Europe quite quickly. Carpet bombing with B17s? Seriously? This is not to take out production sites, but rather actual moving combat units. Supply chain annihilation? I'll take the IL-2s over the B17s.

As final factor, would you take Patton over Zhukov? I wouldn't.

Retaking Europe would be another story, lots of additional factors, many of the arguments provided before would apply here, nukes availability, the Soviets steamrollijg into France, and likely capturing Von Braun and his team... but for the original question "What if Patton would have gotten his way?" Well, simply, he gets steamrolled. Timing matters, superior equipment and production half a world away does no good to the immediate battles when the enemy has more firepower at that place at that moment.


Alex
Ps. As corollary, Stalin had at some point a similar idea, taking all of Europe. Why didn't he? Among other things, his commanders showed him that conquering and occupying were different things

 

[BoomerD]

What about if Rommel would have gotten his way...and gotten the reserve Panzers sent to the coast when D-Day was first starting? Would that have severely impacted the outcome of the Normandy invasion?

What about if Curtis LeMay had gotten his way and we nuked Hanoi and Haiphong?

I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.

3 October, 1968

 

[CallMeJoe]

The only thing of which we may be absolutely certain is that, had General Patton had his way in 1945, there would have been far fewer Americans, northern Europeans and Slavs by 1946.




I am intrigued by cybr's continual characterization of anyone who does not share his admiration of General Patton's megalomania an "Internet Coward". Perhaps he can share his own extensive military experience and citations?

FWIW, CoD does not count...

 

[blankslate]

If Patton got his way America would be the shining Light of a New Roman Empire that would last 100k years and spread overtime into a interplanetary empire that would shine on as a glorious testimony to the vision of mankind united under One Vision....


sadly that didn't happen.

 

[cybrsage]

The only thing of which we may be absolutely certain is that, had General Patton had his way in 1945, there would have been far fewer Americans, northern Europeans and Slavs by 1946.

That is definately true.

I am intrigued by cybr's continual characterization of anyone who does not share his admiration of General Patton's megalomania an "Internet Coward". Perhaps he can share his own extensive military experience and citations?

FWIW, CoD does not count...

Nah, only Garfield is routinely called out on how he acts. He has a history of it.

As for me, I do not have to have extensive military experience and citations, I simply have to show those of the person whose view I am using. You are not claiming General Patton was not a highly successful general and a great military tactician, are you?

It is the same in that I do not have to be a theoretical physicist in order to quote Asimov and Hawking wrt theoretical physics. They are both experts in the field, so if I agree with their position on physics, my knowledge is irrelevant - theirs is what matters.

It is the same in that I do not hae to be an expert on how to be a strong safety in professional football in order to quote Troy Polamalu wrt being a strong safety. He is an expert in how to be a strong safety, so if I agree with his views on strong safety actions, my knowledge is irrelevant - his is what matters.

 

[cybrsage]

What about if Rommel would have gotten his way...and gotten the reserve Panzers sent to the coast when D-Day was first starting? Would that have severely impacted the outcome of the Normandy invasion?

Rommel was an amazing warrior as well. Had he been properly equipped, he would have made the allies suffer greatly.

 

[cybrsage]

Interesting thread, but for all the discussion, most of what I see is everyone telling everyone else "you are wrong" and calling them dumb and tool, but I see very little numbers and facts. And the way to prove or disprove wrong is to provide those facts and numbers. I also see a lot of claims about "superior equipment, air superiority" but again, little numbers to back it up.

One of the big issues is that armies tend to not be effective without food. The US was feeding the Soviets, something we would have stopped if the two nations warred.

The amazing thing about WW2 is just how balanced out everything was. One side had better equipment, but another had unbombable production facilities. One side had better trained soldiers, but another had an all but endless supply of men. All sides had larger than life generals and leaders, capable of pushing their people to do what normally could not be done.


I often wonder, do the times create the men, or do the men create the times?

 

[JustMe21]

Well, we saw how well it worked for Germany to invade Russia. Sure, we could have used atomic bombs on Russia as well, but they were no enemy at the time, so the U.S. would have loss face with every country in the world. Also, I would think the top military leaders would always have opposed it because having a potential threat allowed them to gear up and greatly inflate their budget without casualties and loss of support because of said casualties.

 

[Brovane]

One of the big issues is that armies tend to not be effective without food. The US was feeding the Soviets, something we would have stopped if the two nations warred.

The amazing thing about WW2 is just how balanced out everything was. One side had better equipment, but another had unbombable production facilities. One side had better trained soldiers, but another had an all but endless supply of men. All sides had larger than life generals and leaders, capable of pushing their people to do what normally could not be done.


I often wonder, do the times create the men, or do the men create the times?

Actually everything was balanced until the US entered the war. Basically at this point the Axis had lost. The sheer industrial might of the US coupled with the fact that it had large amounts of natural resources and factories that couldn't be bombed guaranteed victory for the US as soon as it entered the war.

 

[Brovane]

Snip

I don't have much time but I will offer some production figures to see the Industrial might of the US. What is also scary is the US never really fully mobilized during WW2. This will help translate how the US GDP advantage over USSR translates into war production. Also note left out of this is the amount of production that was also taken up for the Atomic Bomb development which was a large industrial undertaking in its own.

Lets look at strategic Raw Material for 1945. Note all Figures unless noted are in Millions of Metric Tons.

Coal - 523.9 - USA 149.3 - USSR
Iron Ore -90.2 USA 15.9 - USSR
Oil - 227.2 - USA 19.4 - USSR
Steel - 86.6 USA 12.3 - USSR
Aluminium 1,026.7 USA 86.3 - USSR (This is in 1000 Metric Tons)

Lets look at production of war material Total

Tanks-Self Propelled Guns 86,410 - USA 105,251 - USSR
Machine Guns - 2,679,840 - USA 1,477,400 - USSR
Military Trucks 2,382,311 - USA 197,100 - USSR
Aircraft Production 324,750 - USA 157,261 - USSR

Naval Construction
USA 141 AirCraft Carriers (Note this includes Escort Carriers and Jeep Carriers)
USA 8 Battleships
USA 48 Cruisers
USA 349 Destroyers
USA 498 Escorts
USA 203 Submarines

USSR 2 Cruisers
USSR 25 Destroyers
USSR 52 Submarines

Merchant Shipping - (I cannot find any numbers for USSR Merchant Shipping)
USA 33,993,230 (Tons of merchant shipping where produced)

I would say that relatively based on these numbers the US and USSR where fairly evenly matched on the ground, especially if you through UK numbers in also. Since any ground fight in Europe or UK Allies would be their fighting with us.

This is all I have time for now since I gotta get ready for work.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I see you are still too cowardly to post your proof. Cannot say I am surprised by this.

I see you haven't been banned yet, disappointing....like I said, your trolling history is easily available via google if anyone wants to look it up. I suggest anyone interested can google for "victory mosque" and "iraqi WMD" to see your crazier and bigoted thoughts.

So 6th time you refuse or are unable to refute my assertions.

3rd time you ignore that your conecpt that Patton is right since he is a general is totally refuted by Colin Powell admitting that Iraq did not have WMD (which you still falsely claim).

Keep on trolling, you are still too afraid to point out that you cannot dispute me.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Nah, only Garfield is routinely called out on how he acts. He has a history of it.

As for me, I do not have to have extensive military experience and citations, I simply have to show those of the person whose view I am using. You are not claiming General Patton was not a highly successful general and a great military tactician, are you?

It is the same in that I do not have to be a theoretical physicist in order to quote Asimov and Hawking wrt theoretical physics. They are both experts in the field, so if I agree with their position on physics, my knowledge is irrelevant - theirs is what matters.

It is the same in that I do not hae to be an expert on how to be a strong safety in professional football in order to quote Troy Polamalu wrt being a strong safety. He is an expert in how to be a strong safety, so if I agree with his views on strong safety actions, my knowledge is irrelevant - his is what matters.

No he is correct and you are wrong, just like the Iraqi WMD you still insist that you believe in.

I correctly pointed out pages ago that Patton's reputation meant nothing, and your claim is irrelevant. I also pointed out that of course people that are non-generals that had 50+ years of research and access to way more intel (and correct official intel, taken from the actual soviet sources) can be more accurate then a general that said something without knowing all the facts. (see facts, there is that word you hate and refuse to use again).

I pointed this all out pages ago, you did the usual troll hand-wave and ignored it. you still have refused to explain how I am wrong.

You also have refused to admit that Colin Powell blows your theory out of the water, since as a general you must believe him, but he says you are wrong about Iraqi WMD. So you have to pick one or the other, but in troll-fashion, you ignore it.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually everything was balanced until the US entered the war. Basically at this point the Axis had lost. The sheer industrial might of the US coupled with the fact that it had large amounts of natural resources and factories that couldn't be bombed guaranteed victory for the US as soon as it entered the war.

The unbombable factories really made a difference. Had Germany's uboat fleet been much larger, it would have nullified it, but it was not.

 

[cybrsage]

..lots of words that do not support my lie about banned forums...

Still too frightened to post the list? I can at least grant you that it is rational to be a bit afraid to have your lies exposed. That fear is pretty normal.

 

[Brovane]

The unbombable factories really made a difference. Had Germany's uboat fleet been much larger, it would have nullified it, but it was not.

This is the thing however. Even if Germany's u-boat fleet was larger and the British dropped out of the war. The US had plans to carry on the war against Nazi Germany without overseas bases. Once Germany went to war with the US, it had essentially lost the war.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Still too frightened to post the list? I can at least grant you that it is rational to be a bit afraid to have your lies exposed. That fear is pretty normal.

LOL...truth hurts doesn't it? Banned, temp banned, threads locked...you really don't do well with rules don't you? As I said, anyone that cares can google.

Since you still are too chickenshit to refute me, I'll quote it here again:

There is no way Patton could have won, no way.

-Politically - US Gov would never have allowed it, and the US was in no mood for continuing the war for a lot longer.

-Logistically - You want to give some logical explanation on how we could even supply forces as they went into the USSR?

-Numbers - The entire US military in WWII was 16million, and all of them couldn't possibly be deployed to the ETO. Of those, only ~3 million were in the Army and deployed in the ETO. The Russian military was what, about 20million strong? Care to explain the huge disparity in numbers? What about Japan still?

Trying reading some real books instead of trolling, you might learn something. Talk about clueless.

5 pages ago I posted this, you still can't respond to anything? Are you that pathetic?

And you still think Patton knew more about the USSR then we do now? Again, from like 3 pages ago:

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.

So again, you are WRONG. Don't see anyone agreeing with you, sorry. And even if that was true, Colin Powell says you are wrong about WMD....just how do you reconcile two contradictory ideas?

On one hand, you have to admit Powell is right, but on the other hand, you can't admit there were no WMD. Your own arguments don't even make sense to you. LOL

But you will continue to refuse to comment on these facts, and troll away.

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually everything was balanced until the US entered the war. Basically at this point the Axis had lost. The sheer industrial might of the US coupled with the fact that it had large amounts of natural resources and factories that couldn't be bombed guaranteed victory for the US as soon as it entered the war.

Germany was going to lose to the USSR with or without the US. Or, at a minimum, they could not have held on to the portion of the USSR that they had conquered, and probably not any of eastern Europe either. The presence of the US had little to no impact on Germany's loss at Stalingrad in November 42 because it didn't really divert any troops from that front that would not have otherwise been needed for occupation of various countries and to block any coastal threats from the UK.

After Stalingrad, Germany had little to no chance to hold on to the vast territory against an immense Soviet war machine which was now battle hardened and had learned from its earlier mistakes. Germany's last chance was in its offensive in the summer of '43 (Kursk). By that time, the US was having some impact as Germany had to divert several divisions to fight the western allies in Italy. However, Germany was not even close to winning that offensive and those extra divisions very likely would have made no difference. Even if Stalingrad wasn't technically the end, Kursk was.

It's possible that without the US the Soviets would have been stopped at the German border, or else a peace treaty between the two would have resulted in them dividing up Europe east and west between them. So our entry may have saved western Europe from Nazi rule. Possibly. However, it's more likely that what we did was save half of Europe from Soviet rule because Germany was probably done with or without us.

- wolf

 

[Brovane]

Germany was going to lose to the USSR with or without the US. Or, at a minimum, they could not have held on to the portion of the USSR that they had conquered, and probably not any of eastern Europe either. The presence of the US had little to no impact on Germany's loss at Stalingrad in November 42 because it didn't really divert any troops from that front that would not have otherwise been needed for occupation of various countries and to block any coastal threats from the UK.

After Stalingrad, Germany had little to no chance to hold on to the vast territory against an immense Soviet war machine which was now battle hardened and had learned from its earlier mistakes. Germany's last chance was in its offensive in the summer of '43 (Kursk). By that time, the US was having some impact as Germany had to divert several divisions to fight the western allies in Italy. However, Germany was not even close to winning that offensive and those extra divisions very likely would have made no difference. Even if Stalingrad wasn't technically the end, Kursk was.

It's possible that without the US the Soviets would have been stopped at the German border, or else a peace treaty between the two would have resulted in them dividing up Europe east and west between them. So our entry may have saved western Europe from Nazi rule. Possibly. However, it's more likely that what we did was save half of Europe from Soviet rule because Germany was probably done with or without us.

- wolf

Germany secured it's defeat in December 1941 when the US entered the war. It is more targeted at the people that think if only Germany did this or did that could it win WW2. The balance of victory or defeat for Nazi Germany wasn't even close.

I would say this. With at least UK at Germany's back forcing a 2-front war things look better for the USSR facing down Germany. However if the UK negotiates a separate peace with Germany in May-June 1940 then things look fairly bad for the USSR if it is left alone to face Nazi Germany.

 

[cybrsage]

like I said, your trolling history is easily available via google if anyone wants to look it up.

Yep, still to cowardly to admit you lied. You have been busted.

But you will continue to refuse to comment on these facts, and troll away.

Once you either show these sites (the reason you have yet to do it is because you are lying) or admit you are a liar, then we will continue to other things. Until then, why should I humor a liar?

 

[cybrsage]

This is the thing however. Even if Germany's u-boat fleet was larger and the British dropped out of the war. The US had plans to carry on the war against Nazi Germany without overseas bases. Once Germany went to war with the US, it had essentially lost the war.

I have to wonder, would the US declared war on Germany even if they had not declared war on the US? I suspect we would have.

 

[Brovane]

I have to wonder, would the US declared war on Germany even if they had not declared war on the US? I suspect we would have.

If the Roosevelt Administration had it's way we would have. However their was a large movement in the US to not get involved in the European War. Charles Lindbergh was speaker for this movement. Basically I believe the Roosevelt Administration would have put the US in a position where it would have been attacked by Germany so declaration of war would have been feasible. By running supplies to the Allied powers you are putting yourself in a position to get attacked. Eventually this will come to a head.