Operation Unthinkable...

[tigerclawstyle]

fortunately didn't happen, but the fact that the British considered it to be a military option at the time, and by chance enacted on it would have had disastrous consequences indeed. Europe would look completely different today. But alas it didn't.

I was curious to see what EF mod's armchair generals had to say on the matter. What possible outcomes could have happened if the British/Commonwealth forces (and most likely the Americans as well if they stopped relocating forces to the Pacific) attacked the Soviet Union after Germany was defeated?

Reason I bring it up is because afew times on the forums I've spotted posts about a "Cold War Mod" and it peaked my curiosity.

This isn't a thread about which ideology was best or anything. It's from an all military and strategic perspective. Also take into account that both Winston Churchill and General Patton shared the same views regarding the occupation of Europe, and possible conflict with the Soviet Union(reason I bring that up is because this Operation was considered by powerful people).

Also please try to limit the "fan boy" mentality, and look at this with an open mind.

For those who don't know about Operation Unthinkable;

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

[RedGuard]

I think that it would have started another world war so to speak, that would have lasted longer than WWII

and that eventually the soviet union would have won because at the time it was then that they actually had the advantage. strike while the iron is hot. if they engaged each other then soviet would have kept the upper hand

nato vs warsaw pact if escalated at the time you say would still have been fought in a style that favored soviets i believe

the soviet union eventually crumbled because of betrayers
the long cold war of economy and indirect confrontation obviously favored the united states, and i guess UK too

[Cranialwizard]

and that eventually the soviet union would have won because at the time it was then that they actually had the advantage. strike while the iron is hot. if they engaged each other then soviet would have kept the upper hand

If launched in 1945 the allied forces would have won. I don't care how you argue it but it took Russian scientist another 4-5 years to invent nuclear missiles. By then the US would have re-armed and bombed moscow.

[tigerclawstyle]

Their alot of things to take into account.

1) How big were each sides armies (manpower) the day after Germany surrendered?
2) How many artillery pieces, tanks, and heavy tanks did each side have?
3) The strength of each sides navies and air forces?

If both forces engaged each other, their would be an immediate realization in the differences in each sides strategic and tactical abilities. Both were facing off against the Germans, and faced different combinations of arms of the Germans during the course of the war (1941 large manpower, veterans, tanks) and as the war got on it gradually depleted. The German soldier was very professional and well trained, aggressive in attack and stubborn in defence. He was always adaptable, particularly in the later years when shortages of equipment were being felt. Adapting to that would have to be a huge and fast undertaking, if Operation Unthinkable came to realization.

Now if the Allies split, they'd both be fighting against forces that were immensely different. Would the British Commonwealth/American Forces be able to adapt in time to face the Soviet Union Red Army massive manpower and material's before it was overwhelmed?

Would the Soviets be able to counter an amphibious invasion in the north beyond Finland, or a land invasion through Norway and Sweden, and still be able to counter the bulk of British/American forces in central Europe?

Nuclear weapons of course would be a major factor as well. How many could the Americans produce and how fast? And with the prospect of war between the former allies, how fast could the Soviets catch up in their development of their nuclear bombs? Also, at CranialWizards comment, bombing Moscow would have been alot harder then bombing Tokyo I believe.

[RedGuard]

good point cranial but I dont think in those 5 years it took soviet scientists to finally make nuclear weapons that the allies would have resorted to used nuclear weapons again in that timeframe, the war in the pacific was a much different war fought for much different reasons, the allies would have been the agressor and I think another use of nukes would have gotten the soviet union much global outrage and support and villify the allies, besides soviets were much more resilient than than the japanes in manpower and production. so nuclear war would be averted because both sides would have nuclear detterent mutual destruction by then.

this is all theory of course

[neosdark]

You would also have to take into account Soviet and Allied intel and spy cells and their levels of infiltration of their objectives. The Soviets had the ability to sabotage America's bomb program, the Soviet's had infils in British MI 6, MI5, other Intelligence, etc. I'm not aware that the Allies had that ability against the Soviets.

Also don't forget that the Soviets had a much more mobile force, had a larger army with better equipped and much more experienced troops (at least more than the Americans who would by this time make up the prime force of the Allies).

Soviets did however lack in Jet technology and their first effective jet came about due to the British loaning a copy of the Nene jet engine (which was later copied into the MiG15's engine), thus had worse airforce capabilities in technology and (I don't know exact numbers so please no flaming) most likely a numerical disadvantage in the air. They did have some well proven designs but none would be fast enough to catch and destroy a British Meteor or American Shooting Star.

The result of this new war would also mean increased American support for the Nationalists of China as well as the battleground of Manchuria. Soviets had much less men and material there so the Americans would no doubt win at minimum the first few engagements with better air support and possibly more skilled and effective troops, Marines that should have been prepping for Operation Slugger, the invasion of Japan's mainland with M26 Pershings and other new surprises in tow, mainly the lovely recoilless rifles used by our in game Paras.

As for the bombing of Moscow, you would be surprised on how easy it would be if ALL PROPER CONDITIONS WERE MET. You forget that most of Lend-Lease went through Iran and Iraq, thus America which maintained a sizable contingent of forces would most likely use airbases to mount operations against the Russians flying across Soviet Azerbaijan against Stalingrad's ruins and possibly till Moscow with extra Fuel tanks fitted.

Of course as was stated this is all a probability and the fact that I'm here means it didn't so lets keep it that way, no Commies gong back in time and getting Stalin to attack the Allies

[tigerclawstyle]

Great post neosdark! I didn't even take that into consideration when I started the thread. The Soviet infiltration in the the Western powers spy agencies was extensive. The espionage involved if the allies turned on each other would have probably been the deciding factor.

I also wanted to bring up the Asian battleground, but couldn't conclude what would happen. If say, after the German surrender, and Operation Unthinkable was initiated, would the Soviets ally themselves with Japanese? If that were the case the American's would have been in the same situation Germany was in, fighting a war on two fronts (in that particular theater). I mean the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had what, 3 million troops? Combine that with the millions of Japanese troops in China and the Japanese home islands, that would have been a very bad spot to be in. Be even more justification to drop nuclear bombs to end nations abilities to fight wars.

[GodlikeDennis]

The world would have ended. There wasn't much known about long term radiation troubles. As soon as nukes became involved (they inevitably would) the planet would be rendered uninhabitable. If you forget about that extremely grim prospect, the Allies had vastly better aircraft in the early post-war period. Strategic bombing could be carried out pretty easily as Neosdark said. Many former German territories would rather be affiliated with the Western Allies than the Soviets and would switch sides, rather than a part of what would become the Warsaw Pact.

[RedGuard]

I dont think american air advantage would have mattered, the distances were too great at the time for a succesful strategic bombing campaign and when the jets started rolling out so did the soviet SAM missiles which alone could have defended the skies considering the allies would not have gotten a strong foothold in europe IMO

and communism was on the rise in asia at the time, the chinese and koreans basically forced a stalemate in korea which with direct soviet support would have been a decisive victory. and again with direct soviet support in vietnam I think allied powers would have been overrun in the whole of asia much easier

it would have been like a soviet fortress europe and a WWI trench meat grinder on another level. by now no one would have been a clear victor with boundaries being drawn and both sides looking for peace. soviets would have controlled asia and most of europe with allies struggling to hold far western europe and middle east. balkans and central europe would be no mans land

[GodlikeDennis]

B-29s could easily reach most of the useful parts of the USSR from Western Europe, Japan or the Middle East, including Moscow or production facilities in the Urals. SAMs weren't operational until 1953. China in 1945 was US-aligned remember. Vietnam would never have happened. Korea would be geared for war though. There's no way the Soviets could invade Japan with the US Pacific fleet there.

Many of the countries that made up the Eastern bloc would've sided with the Western Allies. Poland, Hungary etc. would've thrown as much support as they could towards NATO, and we know how much damage a partisan movement can do as well.

The Soviets in 1945 would've had superior tank technology and experience however, the following few years would see the Pershing and Centurion enter full production. I would guess that the Soviets would take over most of Asia except Japan, and take all of Germany but the arrival of newer allied tanks, combined with bombing of production facilities, would cause the Soviets to falter and fall back.

Upgunned shermans were considered slightly better than T-34/85s in the Korean war. The Allied ground force wouldn't just be swatted aside. Large beasts like IS-2/3s could be taken out the same manner as they took out German tanks - air superiority and glass cannons like fireflies.

Not to mention a nuke on Moscow would end a war pretty quickly.

As a side note, it would be depressing in this situation to think that the Nuremburg trials would probably take a back seat to the new war. Who knows what could've happened there.

[Killar]

Not to mention a nuke on Moscow would end a war pretty quickly.

most important point. Shortly after the war british and american long range bombers equipped with nuclear weapons were deployed to GB before the Soviets had their long range missles. That would be GG for the western forces making tank armys completly useless

[neosdark]

Well it wouldn't be an immediate game over. You are forgetting about what i mentioned in my first post, Soviet Infiltration of Allied armies, it would be possible to sabotage a large number of these bombs and create false intel.

Then the Soviets could intercept enemy bombers, those didn't have Jet engines yet, nor could Jet fighters be used to effectively protect them since the guzzled fuel and couldn't effectively stay in the air for longer than 2 or 3 hours tops. They would still rely on P-51 Mustangs for Bomber escorts. Most Soviet interceptors would easily take out a bomber. They also possessed good AA guns on the ground, with new 100 mm AA flak cannons appearing right after WW2 and a possible use of German 12.8 cm cannons that were captured, as well as domestically produced 130mm Cannons, which would get accelerated production. Plus there were a ton of good interceptors and fighters, well proven and improved designs. 

Sure there would be quite a few close air bases, but Russians were very well known for their Scorched Earth Policy, I'm sure they would implement it with little considerations (particularly in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic countries)

[tigerclawstyle]

Apparently after they dropped the bombs, they were capable of making 3 bombs a month. After Nagasaki, one was being readied for another drop.

I'm definitely getting the impression that the British/American forces would have immediately considered dropping nuclear bombs on the Soviet's either cities, or on their armies. Considering how they dropped the bombs on Japan because they didn't want to go through with Operation Downfall, it would probably be the same case if war broke out between the formers allies. Just would have been way to many casualties very quickly on both sides.

Jet Fighters would definitely be a game changer. Does anyone know the status of the Soviet Navy right after the German surrender? I know their was a Baltic and Black Sea Fleet, but how were they compared to British and American navies?

[RedGuard]

if you ask the soviets their navy was superior if not equal to the allie fleets - but in my opinion it was inferior.

not nearly as many capital ships, the strength of the soviet navy was the submarines and even in this area they were outclassed

soviets were always a land power while the allies were a sea and air power

[neosdark]

Indeed. The Soviets might have won if this came down to the battle in Europe, but including external factors such as Carriers (which i believe the Soviets had none of at the time), Supplies, Jets, Navies in general, and Airforces in general the Soviets would have been defeated.

I'm not too sure that they would auto-drop nukes on the armies stationed in Europe because they wouldn't want to drop them on the newly liberated peoples. You do have to consider this from the Total War perspective, what about the Civilians? They would most likely be caught in the blast and the Americans and Allies in general need to be the Liberators not the Annihilators. Otherwise the Soviets would easily draw upon the ire of the other peoples (the not yet bombed).