Patton was right in wanting to attack Russia after WWII avoiding the Cold War and the Berlin Wall?
What exactly would humanity as a whole stand to gain from that? Oh boy, another world war with millions of deaths immediately after the last one. Great fucking idea.
>>698793
Probably not. Even in a best case scenario, an attempt to topple Russia would have caused tens of millions of deaths and the wholesale devastation of most of Europe.
Absolutley. Communism must be stopped wherever it is
>>698807
free Eastern Europe, save China from Mao as well as Vietnam and Cambodia, prevent soviet funding proxy wars and warlords in Africa
It wouldn't cost millions of lives, we just say "we will use the a bomb on you unless you return to pre-1939 borders"
Communists would have launched revolutions in France and Italy. Both countries had well organized mass parties.
>another world war this time to save slavs
I don't know if I like this idea.
Quite a few countries had communist revolutions ready to trigger, it wouldnt have been as easy as you think and would have led to the deaths of a million more people,
>>698816
Russia was already well into developing its own bomb at that point.
Considering the USSR had the strongest army in Europe by far, including the best leadership, and the US didn't have any nukes ready after Japan. Russia could've easily steamrolled the rest of the Allied forces in Europe and the situation would've been terrible for the US.
>>699087
Also, soviets had around 11.3 million soldiers, while us had 2.4 million. Pic is positions of armies right after Germany surrenders. They could've easily pushed all the way through France.
>>699133
>soviets had around 11.3 million soldiers
Six million or so in the Red Army. Not to mention their manpower pool was exhausted.
>while us had 2.4 million
Which only made up around half of all Allied troops. That's not even mentioning the near-endless amount of troops that could be transferred to Europe within a year.
Don't get me wrong, the Allies would've been pushed back hard at first, but they will win eventually. The US was simply to overwhelmingly powerful by that point to be defeated. It's industrial output and manpower reserves eclipsed the USSR. It's boggling to see how many people aren't aware of the difference in power between the two states.
>>699155
>Six million or so in the Red Army.
US didn't have 2.4 mil soldiers in the army either m8.
>That's not even mentioning the near-endless amount of troops that could be transferred to Europe within a year.
US army's own study concluded that ~100 divisions was the maximum it could support in Europe.
>>699155
Don't forget the overwhelming air advantage the Allies (but really the U.S.) would enjoy from the moment of conflict, and the fact that a U.S. or British (not sure about the French) infantry division usually packed about twice the firepower of a Soviet one.
While the Soviet would almost certainly throw the Western Allies out of Germany in short order, pushing across the Rhine is a much trickier job, with the terrain and the narrower front negating a lot of the Soviet numerical advantages.
But still, the only way the Soviets win this war is by lasting long enough for the western will to fight to break. And given what they've been through already, I doubt it would last too long if they were the aggressors.
>>699166
Yeah, a lot of people forget about the big-ass american air advantage. No matter how many troops the red army has, it doesn't really matter if all of their food and ammo trucks are getting the shit bombed out of them. All you get at that point is a bunch of half-starved Russians with empty guns.
>>699166
I've also heard that WW2 had been going on so long that the allies declared VE day to placate their people. The US president lost the next election when he kept pushing for victory in the pacific too. Everyone was just too tired at that point and wanted it to end. Though I don't know what Roosevelt was suppose to do to secure a second term. The US was in deep in the pacific.
I like the suggestion that we could have got what was left of the German military to fight along side us.
"Hey guys! We're fighting the Russians now! Come with us!"
"But that is what we were doing"
"Yeah that's why we need you!"
"You went to war and bombed and invaded us to stop us fighting the Russians. You dropped a bomb on my house. Mama is dead. Trudi is dead. Because you wanted to help the Russians. Now you want us to fight the Russians with you? "
"Yeah..."
>>699363
>Roosevelt
>second term
nigga what?
>>699363
>The US president lost the next election when he kept pushing for victory in the pacific too. Everyone was just too tired at that point and wanted it to end. Though I don't know what Roosevelt was suppose to do to secure a second term. The US was in deep in the pacific.
I... jesus fuck you are so stupid I don't even know what to say.
>>699133
The russians didn't have combined arms like the west did, and Patton knew it
>>699395
>I like the suggestion that we could have got what was left of the German military to fight along side us.
There was a rumor within the German ranks at Tangermunde bridge that it was going to happen.
Also some Germans were allowed to keep their arms and march west; http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=414_1427026018
>>699425
They were also heavily dependent on horses for logistics and supply. ~3,000 horses per infantry division, 3.5 million horses total. While America was the only fully mechanized army in the war.
>>699087
Best leadership? yeah no.
No fuel no munitions, but they would glow in the dark first w/V2 delivered sunshine.
>>698793
>was Patton right in wanting the world to end
>>699402
I'm less stupid then I sound, I promise you that. A late night and half remembered history channel episodes will do that.
I don't think anyone has thought about the soldiers and what they were promised:
Think about the average GI that got into the army with the promise that when Hitler is dead (or when they capture Germany rather - and this is only for the European stationed soldiers), they are going back home with their families. Now, some had the idea that even with Market Garden they were going back home within a year, but that was delayed and a tactical failure, which probably affected the morale of some already. Afterwards it was the Battle of the Bulge, were the US lost around 89500 soldiers (between wounded and dead - according to Wikipedia), which also hit the morale hard. Then they didn't even get to Berlin first, but even then most thought that they were going home after all of this. Imagine the insubordination levels when some General says: 'lmao guys, we now need to take the Russians and we are done, I swear!'.
And I'm not taking into account those that were in Asia fighting, which probably had it worst when it comes to morale after Okinawa and the guerrilla cave fighting that the Japanese were developing. Think about having to go to the other end of the globe to fight on Europe (since Marines were among the best trained soldiers) or having to travel into snowy Vladivostok to take the Russians. Most would have complained, I'm sure.
Surely most high-ranking officers didn't want to risk their careers for a literal coin-flip with what seemed a big steam-roller. Even if the US had air superiority, they would have needed to travel a substantial amount of planes and Ships into Europe, which was already a logistical problem.
It's funny to theorize, but my guess is that the general feeling among soldiers was that it was enough already, and also the civil society had their war in home too, it's not easy to see your son, brother or husband go. Winning in Germany and Japan was a good enough headline to bring the veterans home and reactivate the economy.
>>699252
>Yeah, a lot of people forget about the big-ass american air advantage.
Their was another war with a big-ass american air advantage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#United_States_aircraft
>>699068
>Russia was already well into developing its own bomb at that point.
The Soviets wouldn't test their first nuke until Aug.1949.
>>699133
Inaccurate map, as Soviet "Armies" were in fact corps sized units.
>>699502
the commies did not have nukes
>>698793
Related question, to what extent would this receives support from the Europeans. Would trying to create a new war risk huge civil disturabance and revolt?
>>699556
They had nothing that could stop B29s, nor any bombers comparable until '47 when they reverse-engineered one.
>>699690
Yak-9 dumbass.
>>698793
>ANOTHER operation unthinkable thread
To give it to ya straight, after 6 years of nonstop war and 60 million people dead, the last thing any thinking man wanted was another war immediately after to match it. People were sick and fucking tired of war, food supplies all around the world were failing from all labor and work being geared to war, living conditions went to shit after the bombings, the entire infrastructure of Continental Europe was simply gone, it wasn't worth spending even more soldiers lives to conquer more rubble and broken railroads.
The US and Britain had to swallow Soviet dominance of the East like a bitter pill because everyone knew it was going to happen whether they fought for it or not.
Starting another war over principle and ideology made no sense after witnessing everything that World War II had to offer. The only thing soldiers wanted to do was go home and see their families, and the allied leaders didn't want to keep fighting any longer than they had to because every power except the US and USSR were on the brink of total economic collapse from war spending.
It may not be the ideal result the allies wanted, but Soviet control of Eastern Europe was seen as acceptable given the circumstance, and hell, almost even deserved after everything the Soviets did to crush the Nazis.
To put it in more simpler terms, the Soviets were an enemy the US could live with, unlike Nazi Germany which had to be defeated.
>>699695
Those things B29s flew against with impunity in Korea until mig-15s showed up?
>>699730
So much this.
Also, militarily it was not possible, simply put. First, you have that initial Soviet manpower advantage: double your force, all of whom being veterans, with plenty of armour and air support and the logistical capability to keep them fighting for an extended period. Speaking of air power, while yes, there was little that could successfully intercept B-29s, their actual impact wouldn't be much at the front since B-29s are strategic, not tactical, bombers, meaning they are meant to attack cities and other large static targets, not troop positions; in order to accurately hit troops you need to fly low, making a big lumbering 4-engine bomber a giant target. So no allied air superiority plus being outnumbered by a force of well supplied, well led, and veteran troops is a recipe for disaster and any sane man should see that.
There is a reason Patton wasn't part of the high command. He was a good field commander but strategically he was short-sighted to say the least.
>>699165
>~ 100 divisions
The Americans push West and South, avoiding the Western Siberian Plain, or from the south to the Caucasus via Iran. Either seems far more plausible than simply relocating everything to the East.
the eternal anglo cowards would attack soviets in a heartbeat but they knew they would be kicked in the ass so hard they would fly back straight to kentucky
so ofcourse they didnt
>>698793
No. The world needed to recover from WWII before it dived into another war costing 60 million lives.
>>700446
That's hardly fair, fighting the largest army on the planet with the population of
an island smaller than Texas is impossible.
>>698816
>It wouldn't cost millions of lives, we just say "we will use the a bomb on you unless you return to pre-1939 borders"
And Stalin's response would be "lol try".
Then Americans would nuke Moscow and some big industrial city like Tankograd and pretend that they absolutely can stop 11 million big Red Army in Europe. Like, totally.
>>700422
Why would they attack from the East? They would of course attack from Germany.
>the south to the Caucasus via Iran
Probably even worse option than attacking across Siberia.
>>699690
So fucking what you retard?
The only time Americans were able to break Vietnamese supply routes was when they've had USS Missouri bombing it with its main artillery. Airforce tried to do it for several years but couldn't.
Why would anybody think that they would able to break Soviet supply routes 20 years earlier, when we're talking about front that was starting in Balkans and ended in Pommerania?
US Airforce is taxpayer's moneydump, 3/4th of their budget was, is and will be spent on whores and they'll never achieve anything.
>>699133
What about German army positions, and how quickly could they be absorbed into the allied command structure
>>700539
>hey guys, we just dumped million fucktons of ordnance on your home, burned your cities down so the fat from burning bodies flowed like streams in the streets. why don't you join us and be our meatshield?
>>699666
The US didn't have nukes after Japan either
>>700548
>letting you brothers fall to communism
Better dead than red you son of a bicht
Also Unthinkable was to armed 100k German soldiers
>>700539
German Army was broken and factories were fucked up. The resulting mess in trying to restore would take too much time.
I mean just think about very simple thing - artillery. You need spare parts and you need ammo for it right? German used guns up to 155mm:
>several Russian captured guns/howitzers
>their own 105 and 150mm howitzers
>37, 50, 75, 88, 105, 128 mm AT guns
>20, 30, 88, 128 mm AA guns
Plus several types of mortars etc. And I haven't even counted heavier artillery. It was all using different ammunition and spare-parts than whatever Americans or British had.
And then we have trucks, cars, motorcycles, tanks, tractors, firearms, radios...
Can you realise how messy this thing would be? Remember that you have to rebuild factories and organise this stuff a bit before Russians will roll through the frontlines and take them over.
>>700552
They've had 2 but not very big.
>>698793
Absolutely, Patton mentioned how undisciplined, uncivilized and exhausted the Russia troops were. The Americans only had to cease Russian supply lines for their forces to be severely weakened, something the Nazi's couldn't have done but the Americans were more than capable of doing. The Russians relied heavily on numbers, and lets not forget the that America and Britain had Air dominance and could have easily taken out Russian tanks.
I personally think it was a catastrophic mistake that the Europeans didn't try and push the Soviet forces out of Europe altogether. The west sold out Eastern Europe to the Communists. They literally fought the Germans just to then give eastern Europe to the Communists who would enslave them just the same...pfft
>>700590
>USAF achieving anything
>ever
Churchill promised to save Poland the whole war.
Stabbed them in the fucking back.
Go ask an Eastern European under Soviet rule if they think we should have fought the Soviets immediately after WW2.
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Ukraine, Lithuanian, Latvia, etc.
Yeah, I think they would have appreciated not waiting out the Cold War in a fucking gulag because we're giant pussies who didn't do the right thing.
>>700527
Why would the attack from the West? Cause half the US army is there and a good number of boats available to shore them to Iran. From there they take the Caucasus.
Give them the ol two front war.
>>700552
The US did. They had one finishing in late August and I believe another in September and another in October. We knew there was a chance 2 didn't do it.
>>700753
realistically, what could britain have done? by that point the war was still far from over
>Was Patton right...?
Fixed that for you.
>>700525
Nukes would bring the whole 'Great patriotic war' meme to a whole new level.
>>700882
Look at a map you moron.
>>700882
Anon I don't know if you understand it but Iran was occupied by British/Soviet forces at that time and it's not the kind of terrain you want to fight in.
Back in early modern era, Ottomans invaded it multiple times yet they've never brought it down despite having a population TWICE the size of Persian.
The reason was that the terrain is absolutely horrible if you want to supply army in this region, the amount of troops you could have here(and the amount of Soviet soldiers you'd lure-in here in this way) would be miniscule.
>>700753
> Churchill promised to save Poland the whole war.
> Stabbed them in the fucking back.
2nd generation Polish-American here, whose parent’s were post-WWII immigrants and you can’t really blame Churchill for this, the UK had been fucked by the war and was wholly dependent on the U.S. and it was in fact FDR who sold out Poland and half of Europe to the Soviets.
FDR hated the British and was pro-Soviet from the start, stupidly seeing them as some kinda benevolent “United States of Eastern Europe” and simply couldn’t stop sucking Stalin’s cock. His administration was filled with Communist spies and sympathizers who presented the Soviets as the Good Guys and constantly talked shit about the British.
Churchill would have liked to have invaded Europe via the Balkans, in an effort to head-off the Soviets and prevent them from absorbing Eastern Europe into their empire but couldn’t do anything about it, as FDR and the U.S. the were calling the shots.
>>701106
Well the invasion of Balkans made only sense if you wanted to curb out Soviet influence, attacking Italy and France made sense if you wanted to defeat the germans and italians which where still heavily invested in the war when Churchill made that proposition. so can't blame the allied higher ups going with the latter choice for defeating the enemies they allready had.
One thing I have to agree on and that is that US leadership really read Stalin wrong. Western allies should have really put harder fight about how much Soviet influence was being allowed in Eastern Europe. That would have probably been enough to scare him off from pulling off what he did. You have to remember Stalin was opportunistic fuck, if he saw weakness he would use it to his gain. and tended to back down if he saw a fight he could not win.
>>700954
>patton was right.
ftfy
>>700538
Strategic bombing had just proven its ability to disrupt Germany's rail and canal network.
You're comparing jungle trails and tunnel networks to an already damaged rail system.
The "US airforce" didn't exist in WW2.
>>701229
> so can't blame the allied higher ups going with the latter choice for defeating the enemies they allready had.
Sure, the situation on the ground made a Balkan invasion impossible but my point was to illustrate that it wasn’t Churchill who sold out half of Europe, but FDR (the crippled fuck).
> One thing I have to agree on and that is that US leadership really read Stalin wrong.
Indeed, those in FDR’s administration who weren’t openly anti-British / pro-Soviet were simply clueless about what Stalin and the Soviets were really about and as the U.S. was clearly the dominant power of the Western Allies, American arrogance and disregard for British opinion only grew stronger as the war progressed.
The attitude among most of the American people and many American leaders, was that the Soviets were more or less like us, in that they had thrown out the nobility and were trying to build a democratic nation, while the Brits were stubbornly trying to hold on to their (unofficial but nonetheless pervasive) caste system.
>Attack Russia
>They steamroll over France meaning they get conquered for the second time in a decade.
>Sit on well defended island
>Destroy their navy again (One tugboat)
Aside from doing that it was a dumb idea only an absolute mad man like Churchill would think was going to work.
>>700554
i doubt that'd endear the western allies to polish ppl or even french/italian communists which were at risk of revolting
>>700753
czechoslavakia and ukraine were pro soviet dude
>>701351
czechoslovakia was by no means 'pro soviet' if by that you mean 'inviting soviet-backed communist dictatorship for a forty years'
it was 'pro soviet' in that it saw the soviets as liberators, whereas the west was still tainted by the perceived munich betrayal
the communists had indeed made gains in the postwar elections of 46, but they only secured roughly less than a third of the mandates
but by 47 and 48 their position started to become untenable, their ties to the soviets known, the threat of a possible fate as a soviet puppet realized, and they were forced to act, resulting in the 48 coup
>>701081
>Pacific fleet literally crossed the worlds largest ocean
>Cannot skirt around Indochina, India, and through the Gulf of Oman
You are a fucking retard, mate.
>>701093
Oh no shit? You do know the Brits held South Iran up to Hamadan and most of the Trans Iranian Railway (which connects the Persian Gulf and the Caspian, right?
>>701093
The Americans had 30,000+ troops there by 1943 and were more popular than the British and Soviets. They were training the Iranian army and effectively ensuring that Iran wasn't about to become a colony or satellite.
>muh ooga booga evil communism
Either way the UK would lose.
On one hand this way, they'd still have the Suez canal on the other hand they'd be in even more debt to the Americans, so they couldn't even afford to keep it.
>>701408
name one good thing communism has produced
>>701408
>european countries under the soviet yoke experience a quantifiable drop in living standards, economy, industry, human developmen and human rights when compared to the western parts of europe
yes, it certainly is ooga booga evil communism
>>701416
>countries that were always poor continue to be poor
>>701389
>They were training the Iranian army and effectively ensuring that Iran wasn't about to become a colony or satellite.
Too bad it became pseudo-colony anyway and it ended in 1979 which was disaster made by carter.
>>701380
Anon, you have no idea.
To reach actual USSR territory you'd have to cross one of 2 mountain ranges. Same goes for oil fields in Baku. It achieve as much as invasion of Italy - sure, several Soviet divisions would be engaged here but nothing else would happen. Oh, except Italy still had better infrastructure than Iran
>>701310
You should've write "disrupt".
Harris was a dumb faggot.
>>701421
>It achieve
it would*
>>701416
We can say that we the knowledge we have now. Back in 1945 for many workers communism was a great promise of a bright and fair future.
If the US had taken up arms against the Russians, I'm pretty sure my grandfather (Dutch) would have fought for communism.
>>701418
Czechoslovakia had a comparable gross national product per capita to Italy, and higher than Spain (pre Civil War) or Portugal in the interwar years. Hungary and Poland gnp was higher than ESP and POR. During forty years of socialist governments, their economic development and growth was nowhere near the levels experienced by these and other non-communist countries.
>>701421
>Harris was a dumb faggot.
Harris was RAF. The RAF didn't precision bomb.
>>701459
>The RAF didn't precision bomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron_RAF
>>701457
What is the Marshall plan?
>>701465
>It operated the Tornado GR4 in the ground attack and reconnaissance role
The RAF didn't precision bomb.
>>701457
Why are you comparing those countries to Spain and Portugal, as if Spain and Portugal are some paragons of Western European economies and not known shitholes?
>>701483
Because of the developments in the countries in question over the 20th century. Comparable - or indeed worse off - countries had quickly overtaken those plagued by the scourge of communism.
>>701468
A measure that had not affected Spain and offered minuscule amounts of aid to Portugal, yet these two countries still saw greater economic growth rates than those behind the iron curtain.
>>701496
Cute, now try Ireland and Greece.
>>698793
S T U P I D
T
U
P
I
D
>>701106
t. /pol/
>>701473
Fucked up squadron, either way - Americans sank Tirpitz right?
Oh wait.
>>701457
Poland had 10th biggest industry in the world before 1989, it's just that they've been cucked by corps who bought out and closed everything to not let China #2 happen.
Same applies to basically every eastern bloc country apart from Eastern Germany because surprisingly enough - when everybody was closing "outdated post-communist factories" Germans decided that they're worth modernising.
>>701675
Please just get the fuck out. Not everything you dislike is fucking /pol/. You just as bad as the actual "lol niggers xd" /pol/ faggots.
>>701712
Not him but hitting twice out of 29 tallboys dropped on your 8th ( I think) attempted port attack isn't exactly precision bombing.
>>701772
That's only because ultimately airforce is not dangerous for battleships.
>>701798
Which is why the single biggest sinker of WW2 battleships was airplanes, right?
>>701815
In all those situations battleship crews weren't prepared(Taranto, Pearl Harbour), outdated and lacked enough escorts(Yamato last ride).
In fact the only battleship that couldn't be saved after Pearl Harbour was Arkansas and it was only because of hatch to black powder magazine being open and one pilot being lucky enough to hit it with bomb.
Hardly any post-WW1 battleship was sunk, and they were hit numerous times(see North Carolina or Littoro).
The few that were really sunk either had to be hit with 5000 kilogramme bombs(Tirpitz), "consume" over 15 torpedoes and almost 20 bombs(Yamato, Musashi) or get a bomb through superstructure destroyed by artillery fire(Bismarck).
There is no situation in which the Russians would have lost. Their population would feel so backstabbed you would rekindle the war fury. They had the strongest land army on the planet by far, with the best leadership, and at that point they had the industrial capacity to not be dependant for supplies. They could have rolled all of western europe up.
>>701675
Why can't you fuckers just have an interesting conversation about _________ that I can read and enjoy without resorting to this "WHATEVER REDDIT" "WHATEVER /POL/" horseshit.
>>701841
Here's the thing. If an air force wants to hit a battleship with 15 torpedoes, there's nothing a battleship can do about it.
>>701915
Airforce needs like 600 planes to do it, first of all(574 in case of Yamato) and battleships can have proper escorts(unlike Yamato) that would bring them down to the ground quite quickly. Surprisingly enough - battleships are also very fast for ocean-going warships and notoriously hard to hit(Renown was hit with 3 out of ~27 torpedoes fired at it and it wasn't even fast nor modern).
Let's not forget the fact that CV's can carry 60-80 planes at best. So you need lots of them to sink it if you don't have support from the airfields on ground.
>>701915
muh AA though
>>698793
>severely outnumbered
>public opinion is in favor of the USSR everywhere
>A-bombs can't be produced fast enough and may not be able to reach Soviet cities
Considering the knowledge that the US has won the Cold War, hell no.
>>701934
Oh, and there's another detail - which airforce can afford throwing 600 planes on a single ship? I mean both historical and modern. Very few of them.
>>701934
Just because the US sent 574 planes against the Yamato doesn't mean it needed every last one of them. It could have done it with less, but when you have overwhelming power, you use it.
>>701976
They needed that planes on Okinawa anon. They've used that many of them because they were shit-scared of one Battleship running on fumes and 6 escorts.
No single carrier would cause such chaos. No.
>>701251
That, too. But OP is quite obviously asking a question, and I don't know how anyone could make THAT mistake.
>>701934
>Surprisingly enough - battleships are also very fast for ocean-going warships and notoriously hard to hit(Renown was hit with 3 out of ~27 torpedoes fired at it and it wasn't even fast nor modern).
Renown did 31.5 knots, which is faster than any battleship in history except the Iowa-class.
And in what world is 10% hit rate with torpedoes "notoriously hard to hit"? A battleship would be mission-killed at best and crippled and left for dead at worst with one torpedo hit. Getting 3 hits would almost guarantee a kill.
>Let's not forget the fact that CV's can carry 60-80 planes at best. So you need lots of them to sink it if you don't have support from the airfields on ground.
With 10% hit rate, you are talking 4 torpedoes and 4 bombs. That's a kill. The battleship may continue to float and even move, but it will not be able to return to harbor alive as it will be hunted down later by aircraft or subs.
>>701421
No, anon, you have no idea. Their is a fairly good railway system in place at that time. For fucks sake, their was still A LOT of Turkish rail systems throughout the Taurus Mountains. Most of these were privately funded and built by the French and Germans and used throughout WW2.
You also have the Baghdad Railway and, to some extent, the Hejaz Railway. The region, specifically present day Turkey, was littered with infrastructure to assist in the movement of troops.
Just stop fucking talking. Please.
>>702002
>A battleship would be mission-killed at best and crippled and left for dead at worst with one torpedo hit.
North Carolina was hit with Type 95 Long-lance torpedo and shrugged it off, continued mission like nothing happened.
In fact majority of battleships can work as long as single main battery, machinery and steering is working.
>>702010
Compare it to Italy anon.
>>701351
It sure wasn't.
>>702013
First of all, Long lance is the Type 93. And I highly doubt the North Carolina continued mission like nothing happened, considering her mission was to escort the Wasp which was burning to its death.
In any case BB-55 had to go in for repairs for a month after that hit. So much for your indestructible battleships that shrug off torpedoes like nothing.
>>701841
You're that retarded battleship autist, aren't you?
Let me enlighten you with some perspective.
During WW2, there were 30-32 battleships sunk and not raised within the timeframe of WW2 by all factors.
1 from the U.S. (Oklahoma, Arkansas was raised)
6 from France (Courbet, Jean Bart/Ocean, Bretagne, Provence, Dunkerque, and Strasbourg, )
1 from the USSR (Marat)
6 from Britain, (Prince of Wales, Repulse, Hood, Royal Oak, Barham, and Iron Duke)
1 Italian (Roma)
11 from Japan (Musashi, Yamato, Mutsu, Ise, Hyuga, Yamashiro, Kirishima, Hiei, Haruna, Fuso, and Kongo)
4-6 Germans, depending if you count the Schlesien and Schlieswig-Holestein, but the other 4 also got trashed.)
Oklahoma: Sunk at Pearl Harbor.
Courbet, not sunk in combat, used as a target ship for plane bombs.
Jean Bart/Ocean, sunk by allied planes
Bretagne, sunk by naval gunfire.
Provence, Dunkerque, and Strasbourg scuttled to prevent seizure in port.
I won't count the Clemencau because it was under construction, but it was also hit by planes.
Marat: Hit by a pair of 1,000 kilo bombs from the sky, one of which was from Rudel.
Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by Type 1 Bettys.
Hood was of course sunk by the Bismarck
Royal Oak was sunk in Scapa by a u-boat raid.
Barham was also got by a submersible, this time in the mediterranean.
Iron Duke was crippled by Ju-88s.
Roma: Sunk by Do217s from Germany.
1/2
>>701841
Musashi: Sunk at Leyte gulf by airpower.
Yamato: Ten-go, sunk by airpower.
Mutsu: Likely blown up in an accident, possible sabotage.
Ise: Sunk by TF 58 aircraft
Hyuga: Run ashore and not recovered until post war following raid by U.S. carriers.
Yamashiro: Sunk by torpedos and naval gunfire.
Kirishima: Sunk by the Washington, naval gunfire.
Hiei: damaged continually by both naval vessels (San Francisco) and airplanes. Eventually scuttled.
Haruna: sunk by TF 38's planes in port.
Fuso: likely sunk by torpedo fired from a destroyer.
Kongo: Sunk by submarine sealion.
Scharnhorst: Sunk by Duke of York
Gnisenau: scuttled to prevent captured in port.
Bismarck: Crippled by swordfish from ark royal, finished off by battleships.
Tirpitz: Sunk in port by lancasters.
I don't really care about those 2 pre-dreadnoughts.
So of our 30 ships, we have 5 ships destroyed in port by their own people. Of the remaining 25 losses, we have 12 destroyed wholly by airpower, and another 2 that were shared kills. 6 were sunk by naval gunfire, and 3 were sunk by submarine.
"Post WW1 battleships" were a tiny minority in all forces save the U.S.'s, owing to treaty limits and expenditure. If we're only counting "modern" naval vessels, only the Scharnhorst was sunk by naval gunfire alone.
Planes were, by far, the most deadly thing to battleships out there. You control the skies, you control the seas. It doesn't matter how many hits you can absorb before going down if you can't catch your opponents in kind, you just delay the inevitable.
>>702013
>In fact majority of battleships can work as long as single main battery, machinery and steering is working.
No, in fact a battleship struggles to survive an air raid with all its AA guns working and moving at 30 knots. With reduced speed and AA guns dead, a carrier can pound it over and over without any danger to itself.
>>701712
>There is good reason to question Speer’s testimony to American Air Force interrogators. Knowing he would soon be tried as a war criminal, he was surely tempted to tell them what they wanted to hear—that American economic bombing was more effective than British area bombing. But Speer told British interrogators exactly the same thing. “The American attacks, which followed a definite system of assault on industrial targets, were by far the most dangerous. It was in fact these attacks which caused the breakdown of the German armaments industry.” In the words of Field Marshal Erhard Milch, deputy armaments minister under Speer, “The British inflicted grievous and bloody injuries upon us, but the Americans stabbed us to the heart.”
>>702018
Italy is apple to oranges. A force of ~100,000 vs. the 3.6 million at war's end.
Goddamn, you are fucking stupid.
>>701550
You mean countries which also received minimal amounts of Marshall Plan funding, yet both enjoyed a greater degree of growth than the socialist countries?
>>701772
>tallboys
You're confusing RAF bombers with American. The latter neither dropped 'tallboys' nor 4,000 pound 'cookies'.
>>702528
No, I'm not. The RAF carried out the raid that sunk the Tirpitz, and they used tallboys to sink the vessel.
>>700593
They are gr8 at making POGs
>>702538
Ah, I thought you were talking about US bombing raids on ports and uboat dens.
>>699395
Eternal Anglo, knows no shame.
>>698793
Clearly not, dumb dumb. Should've pursued mutual relations as FDR was building towards and could have saved the entire planet from the dumbfuckery that is the Cold War.
>>702079
Arizona was sunk at Pearl and couldn't be salvaged, as well
> itt people for some reason take issue with the course of events of the Cold War
Nigga that shit gave us spehss race shit lite satellite communications and a landing on the moon, nuclear reactors and all sorts of other cool shit that probably would have taken way longer to come about in a different setting where the two power locks just slugged it out and then had to deal with even more economic ruin with less competitive incentive to rebuild afterwards.
I dare say you might not be posting on 4chan
>>702891
I bet you're in favour of eugenics.
>>698793
Too right, RIP.
>>702079
>Mutsu, Ise, Hyuga, Yamashiro, Kirishima, Hiei, Haruna, Fuso, and Kongo
>implying they were Battleships
World of Warships pls go
>>702915
I don't see how being okay with history as it stands being a better alternative to millions of people dying on a continent where millions of people had just died is somehow the morally questionable stance. Shit turned out fine.
>>702915
And yeah so what if I am?
>>702925
What? Is this post a really bad attempt at trolling or something?
>>702959
He's claiming that they were battlecruisers, implying there was a hard and fast dividing line between a battlecruiser and a battleship.
If they're not battleships, then the Hood isn't one either, and there goes the one "modern" BB sunk by another SCS.
It's stupid besides, because half of them are battleships by any designation.
>>702980
Eh? Literally the only vessels where you could plausibly claim some ambiguity exists are the Kongous.
>>702991
Precisely. I don't see how by any stretch of the term, you could claim something like the Yamashiro or the Mutsu were anything but battleships.
>>698793
Yeah if you wanted Stalin to use weaponized smallpox against the US mainland
>>698793
Yes, recovery time is for pussies we should of went balls deep into Russia's boypucci.
>>698793
Yes
>>699252
Overestimate. Soviets had means to do with aircraft.
They also did well prepairing fro war with Germany putting their production over Urals. They didn't manage to finish it befor Hitler attacked, but did after. Even if air strikes succeed, at this point it's plenty of room to retreat, having aviabase comes to be a problem, to support strikes further. Too much of ladmass to spot supply lines effectivly and bomb them. Also, need count land manpower, at the end soviets had masses of more experienced men and proven tactic.
If air superiority succeeds, then allies push USSR to somewhere Eastern Europe, then what.
>>706106
The USSR wins
There's a reason they never attacked Russia.
Patton believed in a lot of crazy, stupid shit. OP being one of them.
>>698793
Yes and no. Russia had millions of blood trained troops in the field, and to attack them would have been prohibitively expensive in terms of material and human life.
They were allowed to return to Russia, where they then slaughtered each other at rates far greater than we would have.
>attack an enormously beneficial ally that you just finished supplying with huge amounts of war materiel
What a great fucking idea.
>>701726
holy fuck you're retarded
>cucked by corps to not let china #2 happen
more like smartly intervened by the government to not let ukraine/belarus/russia #2 happen, read: oligarch shitholes
>eastern germany
yeah maybe they had utterly ridiculous amounts of money handed to them for free?
and even then they're still lagging behing western germany
>>698793
Russia would not have a chance.
>>698793
no that would have been fucking retarded. going against a fully mobilised Soviet union with industry in full production and all the supplies from the US and others would have made for a fucking brutal war even worse then both world wars combined
>>706262
russia was bled white @ the end of the war dude.
>>706356
as was everyone else yet the soviets could easily match the allies numbers. the 2 sides were both basically at their peak power and it would have been very fucking nasty had they clashed
>>706380
Not the A-bombs, massive bomber formations , plus the German jet fighters and nerve agents, i guess.
>>706392
US couldn't produce nukes fast enough and the Soviets weren't far off from getting their own. even during the cold war the Soviets were producing more nukes then the US could. also running around dropped nukes everywhere would have been pretty fucking stupid once the radiation set in
Itt
Amerifats being retards as usual
>>699133
>>699087
The Army wouldn't have mattered. The Soviet Air Force had no real means to stop strategic bombers. Our B-17s would have destroyed the armies in their cities and American fighters outclassed anything the Soviets could put up.
B-29s from Tehran were more than enough to bomb any Russian city or factory as well, at a flight ceiling no Russian fighter could reach.
>>706515
Name a single division in WW2 that was wiped out by airpower alone. It worked great as a support arm, but not so great in winning wars on its own. B-17s don't destroy armies.
And B-29s can be intercepted by Yak-9s, who have a higher flight ceiling. Please consult a technical manual.
>>706572
>Name a single division in WW2 that was wiped out by airpower alone.
Every single one of them.
Man, nobody fought on the ground during WW2 at all it was all Luftwaffe vs USAF, don't let communists tell you otherwise.
>>698816
good luck building enough
good luck with the public opinion, bud
we all know you want to be the emperor of makind
>>699425
