If you look back at the Cold War, Europe was at its weakest in the early part of the 50s. Picking up the pieces of WWII, facing independence movements or outright insurrection in its colonies which slowed its flow of resources and sapped its strength, huge budget cuts in its Military due to the thinking of keeping nukes for protection, etc. crippled the West severely. Not to mention the fact that France lost almost all of her army and industrial infrastructure in WWII while Germany, split in two was very vulnerable and wholly dependent on the US for defence at the time.

At the same time, that was probably the pinnacle of Soviet and Communist power. Soviet power and Stalin were still on a high after WWII, and communist insurrections were breaking out all over the place. China, Africa, former Western Colonies like Malaya and Vietnam.......

Also, due to overreliance in Nukes and budget cuts, Western R&D was severely behind Soviets at this time, with all the German scientists they kidnapped from the Nazis. Space program, jet fighters, assault rifles, in all the Soviets were ahead of the West at this point, although that would later change of course.

If you look at it, in the beginning of the Korean war (which started ard that time) even US troops didn't perform really well due to being poorly trained, armed and understrength against North Koreans (who were probably as badly equipped and trained) so it would be interesting to know how the severely demobilised US army severely affected by budget cuts would have fared against the Red tide of the Warsaw Pact.

Lets see how they stack up:

Infantry

Western infantry were usually better trained than Soviet/Warsaw Pact ones, and probably had better morale (considering they would have fought for their lives and freedom) but there were much more Commies. Also, the Western infantry weapons were severely lacking - US troops were still using M1 Garands/Carbines in the Korean War, and M14 and M16 were still a long long way away.......

British and French didn't fare too well either, still using WWII-era infantry weapons. In fact, the EARLIEST Western Assault rifle was the FN FAL, introduced in 1953, opposed to the Warsaw Pact AK-47, inducted into service in 1949.

So the West would be up against it in this one.


Tanks and Armour


Here the Soviets lose out slightly, as in early 1950s they were still stuck with T-34s and the slightly improved T-44. On the other hand, the West had the US Patton which was slightly better than the Soviet tanks and of course there was the much superior British Centurion tanks, which were far better than the US or Soviet designs.


Aircraft

Here the West fares badly again. MiG-15s rolled off the production line while the US and West were still flying prop planes - with veteran Soviet pilots of WWII in the cockpit instead of ill-trained North Koreans and Chinese, it would have been a turkey shoot in the start of the invasion. Even when the US responded belatedly with the F86, the Soviets introduced MiG-17 in 1952, a big improvement over MiG-15, much more agile and fast than the F86. This was followed 1 year later by the MiG-19. In event of wartime, these planes would be rolling off the lines like toys at a Chinese factory.

No doubt the West would eventually have much better designs, but those only came later. Even accelerating their research programmes, how long would it take for, say, F-104s and F-5s to enter service? Before that, the Soviets could literally rule the sky and pluck Western aircraft from the sky.

The only saving grace was that Russia didn't have many bombers in the 1950s, with only the antique B-29 copy the Tu-4 and the Tu-95 coming much later, so they wouldn't be able to inflict that much damage to Western industry and military facilities from the air.


Navy

And only here are the soviets beaten comprehensibly. Soviet naval power was never equal to the US, what with the US' carriers from WWII still operational, and the British navy still a force to be reckoned with.



Going from the head-to-head, and the desperate situation of the Western allies in that period, I think the Soviets would have overrun West Germany easily. If their tactics were right, they would probably have taken France too, although not without some semblance of a fight from the French and British army - although they would have taken France quite easily if they could manage to cut their way through West Germany within 3-4 months. Once that happened, the likes of Austria and Belgium would probably have surrendered without much of a fight, paving their way to turn the entire European Continent Red, although Holland would give them a good fight, Italy has no chance as does the likes of Spain or Portugal.

They probably would have a hard time invading the UK though, due to lack of a propoer navy and amphibious invasion force, although Britain would probably be in the unenviable 1940 position, only this time with an enemy just a bit smarter than Hitler.

What do you think? Scary to think that almost the whole of Western Europe could have been swept by the Soviets..... and many WAFFers could be speaking Russian today.....

Were forgetting Nuclear wepons. Here were talking the US with up to 1000 bombs and the Russians with a number in the 10s. AS before the UK is a Big Aircraft carrier.

The Soviets were utterly exhausted after the war, they lost 27 million citizens most of them able bodied fighting men. The only country worse effected by losing able bodied men was Germany whose vast majority of casualties were this demographic.

Though the Soviets were still massive in population compared to the entirety of Western Europe as well as centralised, the Americans could match them in this field. If they could make massive amphibious landings in France in due course, the Soviets would have met a pretty strong resistance, especially if you take into account the 3-4 month preperation time you even stated (though Germany would have been crushed much faster, I mean what army did they have left?)

If the Allies used the bomb (which I doubt on Western European soil) the Soviets would have been useless, their cities and infrastructure would be long gone. The reaction of the Russians would have been minimal, at best only in Western Europe or over Britain or the West coast of the United States, though they had no real means to get there.

All in all if the Soviets and Warsaw pact continued on a Total War path then the Soviets would have over run the Western nations decisively but be stuck with Britain as a thorn in their ass. The other situation is a massive stalemate along the French boarder with American and Soviets troops being hurled at each other until one economy collapses or the other.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

Rzecz,


First with regards to nukes, you must remember, assuming the Soviet invasion started in 1950 (at probably the point where they had the highest advantage over Western Europe) only the USA and Soviets had Nuclear weapons.

Britain (1952) and France (1960) would only join the ultimate big boys club much later.

Would the Allies allow the US to nuke Moscow knowing that the US would remain almost untouched (no Soviet bomber capable of nuking the US mainland, and no ICBMs yet) but their own nations would bear the brunt of retaliation turning them into radioactive piles of slag?

If the US nuked Moscow, the Soviets couldn't hit Washington back, but they sure as heck can hit London, Paris, Munich, Milan, Amsterdam, etc. I highly doubt they would tempt armageddon like that.



Though the Soviets were still massive in population compared to the entirety of Western Europe as well as centralised, the Americans could match them in this field. If they could make massive amphibious landings in France in due course, the Soviets would have met a pretty strong resistance, especially if you take into account the 3-4 month preperation time you even stated (though Germany would have been crushed much faster, I mean what army did they have left?)

The Soviets wouldn't come alone, of course - they'd drag the rest of the Warsaw Pact in with them, willingly or unwillingly - so there'd be extra manpower in the form of Czech, Yugoslav, Romanian, Hungarian and Polish troops in, even if only for cannon fodder. So the Warsaw Pact would definitely outnumber the Western Allies in pop.

Also, the US still had a massive military, but you must remember they were spread out all around the globe, with a large number in Japan after the ending of WWII, and it would have taken ages to move the Japan-based troops to the UK, let alone train them for a D-day part deux. If Soviets struck hard and fast enough, they might even have eliminated a large number of US troops based in Germany via encirclement, although the Yanks would go down fighting.

I think given a non-nuclear exchange they'd have overrun France and Germany. If France held out for long enough the West just might have opened a new front or two via Holland, Finland, Japan or even Turkey, although it sure would not be easy.


@phifflon:

AS before the UK is a Big Aircraft carrier.

Sure, but carriers only work with planes, and the planes the West had were decidedly inferior to the Soviets as opposed to during the Battle of Britain.

In 1940, the Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane were more or less equal to Bf109 (less for the Hurricane) with the Messerschmidt not holding a huge advantage over either plane, so the air war was a battle of skill and wits.

In 1950, you would have had P-51s, P-80s, Meteors and Vampires vs MiG-15s, definitely a huge advantage for the Commies, and then when the F-86s were rushed in they would soon have to confront MiG-17s......

The soviets at their pinacle? are you nuts? They lost over 27 million people and were almost completly destroyed by the germans , their military , economy and man power was at the very low after the war , same as Europe , and nobody wanted a war after WW2 , its completly ridicilous to even ask such a stupid question.

Could the allies cause a rebellion in the eastern block countries?


Mobile airpower

"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.

The Red airforce of 1950 was Not that great, Weres the Bombers? In 1950 the Soviets could not retaliat to an Allied Bomber campain. Easten Europe could be Nuked with impuity as the Soviets could not retaliate.
Great you have the Mig-15, based on Rolls Royce Nene engin. But could it stop a Canberra?
You are also forgetting that GCHQ would have creaked the Soviet Codes.
Yes Germany would have fallen possibly France, But the end result would be the destruction of the Soviet as resiance groups Run by the CIA and MI6.
All the west would nead is for One sovet General to Kill Stalin in the name of the people to save the soviet and the war would be over.

Ground force alone, none could match Soviet.

//

Could the allies cause a rebellion in the eastern block countries?

//

In hindsight; everything is 20-20. The answer is a definitive yes; even within Russia itself (numbering in the millions). The whole of Europe would have been capable of unifying against the Soviets.

The Soviets had the land army; but not the support infrastructure. It would have been a terrible terrible conflict. But I can clearly envision a western victory.

especially if the conflict exceeds 6 months. It would have been a 2 (possibly even up to 4) front war against Russia. The longer it was drawn out; the less likely they would have had for victory.

-- Dee

Soviet power was exausted? Is that a joke? In the 1950s Soviets would have walked through all of Europe like a walk in the park, they would anihilated the entire USAF in 30 days, they would have had an empire spanning from the Pacific to the Atlantic in a year. Soviet might in the 50s and 60s was not only unprecedented but also unrivaled by anyone., US didnt come close.

Nuke argument means squat, try picking out vital targets in a country as large as the USSR, and than try flying a bomber at that target. Important cities like Moscow were so heavily protected by that time that Santa Clause would have been shot down before he even took off from the North Pole.

The Soviet navy was still lagging behind the Americans, but with so many recources at hand USSR would have caught up in the matter of a year or two. Never underestimate the Soviet war machine of that era, entire NATO allience wouldnt have been able to stop it from taking over Europe in 70s when they were all recovered. Luckuly for the World, Stalin was happy with what he had and Kruschev didnt have the ambition.

--------------------------------------------

Soviet power was exausted? Is that a joke? In the 1950s Soviets would have walked through all of Europe like a walk in the park, they would anihilated the entire USAF in 30 days, they would have had an empire spanning from the Pacific to the Atlantic in a year. Soviet might in the 50s and 60s was not only unprecedented but also unrivaled by anyone., US didnt come close.

Nuke argument means squat, try picking out vital targets in a country as large as the USSR, and than try flying a bomber at that target. Important cities like Moscow were so heavily protected by that time that Santa Clause would have been shot down before he even took off from the North Pole.

The Soviet navy was still lagging behind the Americans, but with so many recources at hand USSR would have caught up in the matter of a year or two. Never underestimate the Soviet war machine of that era, entire NATO allience wouldnt have been able to stop it from taking over Europe in 70s when they were all recovered. Luckuly for the World, Stalin was happy with what he had and Kruschev didnt have the ambition.


Just how many equipment did USSR have in 1950 ? You ignorant fool you seriusly don't know what your talking about , how old are you 5 ? Their army went from over 10 million to just above 2 million from WW2 to 1950, and their equipment was not doing much better back then , their army was exhausted from WW2. And for future reference USSR was never able to steam roll trough Europe , never during the cold war. YOu should be banned for just saying that USSR could span a empire from pacific to atlantic in 1 year because that speaks itself for a moron you are.

Had it been that easy, the Soviets would have done it. But they feared the US arsenal of Nukes.

You hit Moscow, St.Petersburg, Vladivostok, Kiev, Minsk, Pskov and some of the bigger cities with Nukes, the war is over... You can have all the strategic assests you want, but if 1/4 your population is either dead, dying or in open revolt who cares?

Even if they didn't hit Soviet cities, if they bombed the army invading then mute point... Soviets lose 2 million men after crossing the boarder... then what?

Had there been no Nukes maybe your theory migth have come to pass... as it were the Soviets were not going to try anything.

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

lol, starting with insults because you know that Im right? The 50s and 60s were a pinacle of Soviet power when measured proportionally to other armies. If you think US army stationed in Western Europe in the 50s would be able to stop a Soviet advanced than you are living in a dillusional world. The biggest roadblock would have been for the tanks to drive over all the rubble left over from WW2.

--------------------------------------------

How exactly do you think they would have been able to hit Moscow? By the 50s it was littered with S-25s, AAs and a crap load of fighters. Considering that the Soviets would have gained air superiority over North America at that time the threat of nukes was far more potent for the Americans, the number disparity in the 50s was nowhere as big as some make it out to be.

--------------------------------------------

Then you don't denie that the Allies could have bombed the Soviet Army, making a mute point... The Soviets would have lost, even at a high price for both sides.

air superiority over North America

From the Airports in Vladivostok or the no aircraft carriers of the Soviet Union?

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/c4120650912x74k7/fulltext.pdf

In 1950, you have 5 Soviet Nuclear devices, vs 369 for the USA. No matter what youay there is no way that soviet air defences can take down all that, the first missiles were 1953, I believe. USA already has large numbers of B-36 bombers, no comparison between that and B-29 knockoffs.


BTW anyone know what the comparitivs chemical and germ-warfare programs of the 2 sides were at the time? I know that VX was developed in Britian during early 50s, and that is way deadlier than anything soviets had.



.

While I admire the nationalistic fervor of our Russian contingent, their grasp of reality is a bit more tenuous. I think they are right that Soviet land armies could have reached France, But I think they'd then have been in much the same situation as their German predecessors when it came to the UK. The US decisive lead in nuclear weapons and the ready means to deliver them would have been decisive.

As to the claim that Soviet air defenses would have stopped strategic bombing, that's simply ridiculous. The US could have and would have penetrated Soviet airspace and bombed at will. Soviet air defenses of the time, as demonstrated in the actual Korean War, might have prevented complete Allied air superiority, but not devastating nuclear strikes.

As to the claim of Soviet air superiority over North America, all I can say is that you need to back off your meds a bit, you are having delusions.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

Actually Provost the most likely scenario if the Soviet did attack was that the Americans would have retreated to Africa and started setting up defenses. Im quite amazed that even you dont realize that the American land army in Western Europe was nowhere as large nor did it have the same amount of manpower as the Soviet one.

Americans would have not resorted to nuking the USSR, the few nukes that might have gotten through would have not had the same effect as they did on Japan. All resources would have been poured into enrichment of uranium and a real nuclear war would have commenced. In the mean time Im sure Stalin would have showered North America with as many chemical weapons as he could muster up.

In the 50s US did not have air supremacy, so I have no idea how they could even come close in Europe. In the continental US your air force would have been gone in 30 days, look at the fighters of the Soviet Union and their numbers, you might not like the facts but that wont change them.

--------------------------------------------

You seriously believe the USSR had a chance in the air?
You've been reading to many CCCP era history books.

The War potential of the UUS would have been devastated by nuclear atack, each one of those nuclear weapons represented a 1000+ bomber raid and taken the lessons of ww2 they would hit the right targets.

-----------------------

Actually Provost the most likely scenario if the Soviet did attack was that the Americans would have retreated to Africa and started setting up defenses.

Africa? You've got to be kidding, right? Why in God's green earth would the US, less than a decade earlier having used England as a base from which to launch a continental invasion, suddenly abandoned it and go to Africa?

Im quite amazed that even you dont realize that the American land army in Western Europe was nowhere as large nor did it have the same amount of manpower as the Soviet one.

I don't recall saying that USEUCOM had comparable manpower to the Red Army. Are you suffering further delusions or hallucinations? The US, in 1950, only had about 130,000 troops deployed in Europe. This, however steadily increased through the 50's to 350,000 in 1959, so the disparity depends on the timing of such an attack. There is an excellent source for US troop deployments, worldwide, available here: http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda04-11.cfm The spreadsheet available there gives a year by year, country by country list of US forces.

Americans would have not resorted to nuking the USSR, the few nukes that might have gotten through would have not had the same effect as they did on Japan. All resources would have been poured into enrichment of uranium and a real nuclear war would have commenced. In the mean time Im sure Stalin would have showered North America with as many chemical weapons as he could muster up.

Wishful thinking, at best.

In the 50s US did not have air supremacy, so I have no idea how they could even come close in Europe. In the continental US your air force would have been gone in 30 days, look at the fighters of the Soviet Union and their numbers, you might not like the facts but that wont change them.

Soviet forces couldn't even gain air superiority in Korea, much less over the US. How, exactly, are these short range fighters going to obtain air superiority over North America? They certainly couldn't fly there.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

that the Americans would have retreated to Africa and started setting up defenses.

that has to be one of the funniest, craziest statements ever written here but considering who wrote it, it isn't surprising..

Im quite amazed that even you dont realize that the American land army in Western Europe was nowhere as large nor did it have the same amount of manpower as the Soviet one.

you just said the same thing twice...rofl..so manpower trumps equipment and training and tactics plus a far superior air force?...throw a million  russians against 150,000 American troops and I bet you get your ass kicked..

Americans would have not resorted to nuking the USSR, the few nukes that might have gotten through would have not had the same effect as they did on Japan.

oh..so russians would have withstood radiation better than those in nagasaki did?..how so?..are russians mutant resistant superhumans or something?...or are you even more delusional than your reputation here?

All resources would have been poured into enrichment of uranium and a real nuclear war would have commenced.

which would have taken years quit being an x-box warrior..

 In the mean time Im sure Stalin would have showered North America with as many chemical weapons as he could muster up.

the more you post, the more convinced I am you are a teenager with no real grasp of how war is actually fought..

In the 50s US did not have air supremacy, so I have no idea how they could even come close in Europe.

yes they did but of course you would never admit it..of course with some of the statememnts I have seen you make above and in other threads where you are easily owned, it makes no sense to try to convince morons like you....

 In the continental US your air force would have been gone in 30 days, look at the fighters of the Soviet Union and their numbers, you might not like the facts but that wont change them.

 

you got your asses kicked in mig alley when your best pilots went up against American air force pilots and even the chinese will admit it just as the soviet generals have admitted it..you may not like these facts but it won't change the fact that a teenage x-box warrior is completely mentally ill if he believes what he posted above..

___________________________________________
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." -
-- Ronald Reagan

It would really help for this thread if somebody can actually post the strengths of allied vs. soviet Air forces/Armies.

.

Here are some of the types operated by the United States during the early fifties.

Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star (Fighter)


Northrop F-89 Scorpion (All weather interceptor)


Lockheed F-94 Starfire (All weather interceptor)


Douglas F3D Skyknight (Fighter)


Republic F-84 Thunderjet (Fighter-Bomber)


Republic F-84F Thunderstreak (Fighter-Bomber)


North American F-86 Sabre (Fighter)


McDonnell F2H Banshee (Fighter)


McDonnell F3H Demon (Fighter)


North American FJ-2/-3/-3 Fury (Fighter)







"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------

In addition in from 1954 to 1957 you have the F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, and others. And a few of those could carry a nuclear A2A missile to take care of Soviet Bomber formations.




"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------

nukes of that era were relatively low yield so 370 Americans bombs would not have been sufficient to destroy the bulk of the soviet industrial base. You an safely assume that at least half of those bombs would have never made it to target. 200 or so low yield bombs is minor sh*t. Soviet armor would have absolutely slaughtered the garbage the US was fielding on the ground.

As for the air war, soviet pilots in Korea maintained kill ratios of 5:1 in their favor over the UN forces. Our Chinese and N.Korean comrades were not so skilled, but still, in 1950 China would have also joined in with Russia so there would be nearly unlimited man power on the communist side in Europe.

MikePapa is the closest when it comes to reality , though its hard to imagine the whole scenario step by step 100% accurate as it is not possible because it did not happen but that just means you can't imagine the 100% accurate scenario but you can imagine with your logical sense the aproximetly formed scenario and what chance soviets had to invade europe , and they certainly were not on the peak of power in the 50's , seriusly you are a dillusional russian nationalost , if Russia had the best chance to invade Europe would it have been in the early 70's during the Vietnam War but they would have not succed without nuclear or biological weapons and they certainly did not want to ever invade Europe but actualy were afraid that NATO will attack them, you should get some more history lessions because you don't really know much.

most historians today agree that soviets enjoyed overwhelming conventional superiority for almost the entire cold war so I dont know WTF some of you are talking about. The US DoD by its own estimates gave the soviet air superiority in the the 1970's over all of europe. What you cant stomach is the fact that the soviet were never willing to engage in any nuclear exchange or war because soviet leaders were never war mongers looking to expand their territory through conquest.

Quote: 200 or so low yield bombs is minor sh*t.

Are you serious?

.

Quote: Soviet armor would have absolutely slaughtered the garbage the US was fielding on the ground.

I don't know about that. In the 50s the US fielded the M26, M46, M47, M24, M41,
and M103. During Vietnam the M41 light tank with its 76mm gun did well against the T-54 and T-55. The M46 and M47 were significantly heavier than the M41 with the M103 being the heaviest with its 120mm gun.




"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------

yes I'm 100% serious. 200 warheads going off in Russia even today would not be fatal

Quote: 200 warheads going off in Russia even today would not be fatal

Strategically detonated they would.




"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------

S nimi bespolezno govorit kokgda oni vidyat krasny cvet is orut komunist, day im nasladitsya Amerikanskoy propagandoy.

--------------------------------------------

ah, but that is the thing the technology of the 1950's did not allow for strategic aiming.

Quote: ah, but that is the thing the technology of the 1950's did not allow for strategic aiming.

The United States got pretty good with bomber accuracy. By the 1950s we had the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, Boeing B-47 Stratojet, etc. In addition the United States also had the MGM-1 Matador nuclear cruise missile .




"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------

By 1950, bombers could expect to hit within a few hundred meters of the target. USA was also producing 100KT+ designs. A mere fraction of that aresnal would be able to destroy all soviet nuclear installations, preventing soviets from making any more bombs. I would suspect that the soviets have less than 200 total large complexes for manufacturing vehicles, planes, and important machinery. USA at that stage is producing 300 bombs a year in 1950, and rapidly accellerating throughout the decade. How is any war effort supposed to be maintained under that bombardment?

.

sigh, those bombs couldnt be used to hit identified complexes, only cities. You would need to drop 50 of them on each city to ensure that all the strategic installations in that city are actually neutralized. Nuclear bombs are simply not as powerful as the common person believe. The USSR was and Russia still is the most bunker ridden nation on earth. Good bloody luck destroying factories that had basements going down 6 stories with nukes that were completely inaccurate.

Even in Vietnam accuracy was a joke. 10 sorties to neutralize a single refinery in Hanoi!

Quote: sigh, those bombs couldnt be used to hit identified complexes

Care to explain why?

Quote: You would need to drop 50 of them on each city to ensure that all the strategic installations in that city are actually neutralized.

I think that 50 is a bit of an exaduration. A single hit is going to knock out a major factory. And USSR did not have 50 major complexes in each city. Hell, I am sure that the USSR could not survive if any 50 of the major factories are destroyed. For instance I think there were something like 8 factories that turned out tanks.

Quote: The USSR was and Russia still is the most bunker ridden nation on earth. Good bloody luck destroying factories that had basements going down 6 stories with nukes that were completely inaccurate.

The basements mean nothing if they are not hardened. And I am sure that they are not, unless you can post something to show that they were. And again, a 100KT nuke within a few hundred metres of the factory is going to destroy it. Drop a few of those over the front lines, and you basically have a free breakthrough for allied armies.

And remember while soviet industry is being flattened, there is nothing to stop production in the west. You can come up with all the excuses you want, but you are not winning a war against somebody with such a large nuclear lead over you.

.

@ Oakridge:

P-80, F-89, F-94, F-3D, F-84s: All not the equal of the MiG-15 (flown by a capable pilot, that is, not a North Korean/Chinese greenhorn).

F-3H Demon - not ready in 1950, and even after it was ready, plagued by problems. Its combat performance would have been questionable. It had a remarkably short service life in the USN, which says it all really.

F-86/100 Sabre/SuperSabres: A good match for the MiG-15, but Bear (lol, ok that was a bad pun) in mind that by the MiG-17 would come out by 1951 and the Sabre doesn't look good vs that one. Heck, in Vietnam MiG-17s more than held their own against Phantoms and F-5s, decidedly more modern and lethal than the Sabres, so the USAF would be up against it here.

In addition in from 1954 to 1957 you have the F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, and others. And a few of those could carry a nuclear A2A missile to take care of Soviet Bomber formations.

Those other aircraft would be a match for the MiG-17, maybe.
But if the Soviets attacked in 1950, by 1954 (4 whole years later, almost 2/3 of WWII!) where would they have been by the time your F-8s and F-102/106s come into service? Southern France? The beaches of England? London?

Don't forget that US would have to churn more resources into trying to make F-86s to keep up with the Russians rolling MiG-17s off the production line, so the capability of the US in building these new more advanced aircraft in large numbers would also be in question.



@Provost:

Soviet forces couldn't even gain air superiority in Korea,

They couldn't because of 2 very important factors:

1) Although Soviet pilots did fly against the USAF, they were few, with majority of the pilots being NK and Chinese, who were nowhere near as skilled.
2) Soviets sent in older equipment into Korea as opposed to the USAF's newest and most modern equipment being fielded. I mean, MiG-17s were already deployed during the Korean war and still the Soviets didn't send them up against the USAF in Korea - if they had the scores might even have looked slightly bad for the Sabres.

Soviets could have theoretically gained air superiority over most of Western Europe, especially France, Holland and Germany, hitting Western allied troops with impunity. They would also have been able to launch large-scale bombing raids (assuming they had enough Tu-4s) in England, although I don't think they would have been able to gain complete air superiority there......


@filin:

As much as I admire your nationalism, there's no way for the USSR to gain air supremacy over the US mainland at ANY stage of the Cold War, much less in the 1950s. Only way would have been to try and ship over Soviet fighters into Cuba, but the USN would have made short short work of the ships.....


@eric:
Could the allies cause a rebellion in the eastern block countries?

It would probably be top of the CIA's list.

But equally, the KGB could have formented open Communist revolt in many Asian, African, Middle Eastern and South/Central American n