Who Would Have Won Operation Unthinkable, the Allies or Soviets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable#Offensive

Discuss.

The Soviets.

I guess you could argue for a win via Nuking, but unlike Japan, the Soviets aren't just gonna give up, even after that. Unless, of course, you limit nuking.

I wanna say the Soviets.

In Soviet Russia, you don't shoot rifle. Rifle shoot you.

Ultimately, it would have been the Allies on top. It would have been a long and bloody war through, really no side would benefit from it. Hence the name.

The allies. If nothing else, we could have nuked them.

I think it's safe to say that that would be their only real way of winning.

They would have surrendered if the only other option was nuclear annihilation.

Even Japan surrendered to the power of the nuke, and Japan was arguably the least likely nation on Earth at the time to ever accept surrender.

If the Allies are willing to abuse nukes, then I guess they'd win.

Without nukes, I wager the Soviets would come out on top.

The Soviets would win, that's why it was called Operation Unthinkable..

Following the operation to the letter described, the Soviets would probably have ended up the victor with the limited forces in play. They had more manpower, armor, artillery, and air forces than the Allies. That said, Soviet airpower was functionally a joke at the time. There were a large number of WW1 era type biplanes making up the bulk of it to my recollection. It's why German aces racked up in many cases hundreds of kills. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't mostly British or Americans...

Basically the bulk of Soviet equipment here is outmatched by their Allied counterparts, but its a lot of material and men to counter. Too much.

In an all out war, I'd favor the Allies. America was the only nation who's population and industries were largely untouched by the war, while the Soviets had taken horrendous war casualties into the several millions, had industrial sectors damaged and repaired to a degree, and had devastated cities with few supplies for their troops. Food production was an issue for them as well, I believe.

America on the other hand was still ramping up its war machine even then, yet still producing insane numbers of tanks, airplanes, and warships. The Soviets were already pushing as hard as they could really. America would have power projection issues so far from its mainland, but I see the Soviets collapsing eventually over too many casualties even for them. But the cost would have been enormous.

Britain had already sustained so much debt, casualties, destruction, and reduced colonial strength feeding their empire that they wouldn't have been able to make much of a difference either way. But their staging ground and troops would be helpful.

With or without nuking, the Allies. WW2 era America alone would give the Soviets trouble.

Depends on how early it happened. The US demilitarized Europe super quickly, legging its forces back home, stationing them to garrison duties, etc, while they concentrated on the Pacific Front. If it is 'right after germany waves the white flag', the Allies would win, too many advantages over the Soviets, at the time. The only real advantage the Soviets enjoyed, at this time ,was their divisions were more closely situated at what would be the front giving them local advantage for a short while.

... The Yak-3 was an amazing plane. So amazing that the Germans had a 'Don't engage it' rule. Only early in the war was the Soviet air questionable, late war, Soviets were an amazing air power.

I would say the Soviets considering how they continued to fight after losing 30 million. They would fight to the last man.

The Yak 3 was awesome, I agree, and it's a fair point. At the time I was considering the war as a whole. The issue is that it was also relatively new around VE Day '45. It only entered service in '44, and I believe there were fewer Yak 3's then P-51's and equivalent fighters. For one the P-51 entered service in '42. Nevertheless, the Soviets did have issues with not having enough experienced pilots thanks to how much attrition they'd suffered during the war.

@vivec3629: Yeah, but this is Operation Unthinkable. This is after VE Day which means the Soviets have great air assets.

@wut: Of limited numbers, yes.

@vivec3629: You.. do realize that by late war the Soviets had a very potent manufacturing base and were pumping out equipment second only to the USA, right? By mid 46 they had nearly 5,000 cranked out.

@wut: @wut: Of course it was second to the US. The British Empire was in shambles, France is gone, Italy is devistated, Japan is in shambles, and Germany is devistated. There's not a lot left.

For the purposes of this, it's spring 1945 per the article linked in the OP. Per that, allied airpower was some 32K combat planes vs. 19.5K Soviet planes. Your stat from mid 1946 wouldn't be totally accurate here, and even if so, that's only a quarter of their planes.

I'm not saying the Soviets are no threat in the air department here, particularly as you reminded me of the Yak, but they're not a juggernaut yet.

@vivec3629: Never said they'd be some unbeatable juggernaut. Just saying they were far, far from being a joke as even the Yak-9 [the Yak-3 was an oddball numbered one] was a very impressive plane and one of the best low-altitude fighters around [which is where the soviets fought for most of the war and suited its needs, compared to, say, the US who made their fighters be more high altitude for bomber escort duties which is where the P-51 really shined].

@wut: True. And I do stand corrected there. I do think they'd still be at a disadvantage in the air due to numbers for comperable aircraft. It's other areas where Soviet numbers and proximity to their industrial base give them an advantage here.

The US also had P-47s, P-38's, and the British Spitfires as well. It's not all on the 51's. And the 51's were quite effective dogfighters as well.

@vivec3629: The 51's were very important as they are what really helped the bombing campaign over Germany due to its very impressive fuel capability [three cheers for external drop tanks]. Which is what made their use so intense in Europe. Of course there were other fighters, however, I was directly comparing it to the widely known variant it would likely find itself up against the most as the war went on.

Never said it wasn't an effective dogfighter.

Numbers of operational aircraft don't mean anything. You can only send up so many aircraft at one time before it starts to become a negative, this is true even in the modern day. Having large amounts just makes it easier to replace and maintain. Having 20,000 aircraft doesn't mean you send up thousands as airfields, fuel, manpower and even space are not unlimited. Even when you have the room to send thousands [like in the Battle of Kursk] they don't fly at one time, usually, its multiple sorties over a long period of time. 32,000 compared to 19,000 [and where did you get those numbers from?] doesn't really matter.

Why would Nukes even exist?

@wut: I got the numbers from the article linked in the OP. Regarding the P-51 use, fair enough. And you're definitely right. Those external tanks made all the difference for the bombing campaigns to be effective. Otherwise bombers were taking a horrendous beating. I'd also see the 51's as important here for bomber escort as B-17's and 24's attack Soviet armor and positions, as well as any strikes on Soviet cities.

There are indeed limits to how many fighters you can field at any one time, but the number of aircraft you have available to field is important. Especially for mechanical failures and such which plagued both sides, particularly the Soviets though. More planes and pilots lets you engage in more areas as well. Not to mention that American/British pilots had lower attrition rates, so you could expect your average Allied pilot to be better than your average Soviet pilot.

Soviet bombers also had a long way to go to get parity with Allied bombers. The PE-8 for one was their premier bomber before ripping off the B-29, and it was below Allied bombers in both capacity and reliability.

The side with the nukes.

@chad_duby: Because Japan didn't suddenly disappear in this universe, the US doesn't suddenly forget they were making them and the bombings happened in 45 [VE day {when Germany threw in the towel} was in May, while the atomic bombings were in Aug of that year].

@vivec3629:Indeed, the bombers would be very important as I'd argue the US had the best bomber doctrine, also had the best use of artillery. [Although I firmly believe the Soviets have a far better land doctrine at this point in time].

The Allies also didn't fight as long, as hard or over as large a front as the Soviets did, so them having a higher casualty rate is to be expected. That isn't because the soviets are bad, it isn't because they didn't know what they were doing, it was just the pains of the Eastern Front as they didn't have the lovely piece of land known as England to base in or be as readily resupplied in.

Yes, US certainly has superior bombers.

The Allies would've dominated in Western Europe but not in the east & had it happened the cold war would've been WW3.

@wut: Yeah, I can agree the US had the best bombers of the lot, not to mention the best strategy. The British weren't even willing to do daylight bombing. They'd try to make significant use of those bombers here, and in a longer conflict I'd see the B-29 coming to the new European theater, and it was even better.

As for land doctrine, it certainly was the more efficient and somewhat reminiscent of the German's own Blitzkrieg. While I agree with your points about the length, breadth, and battlefield geography working against the Soviets, geography was also arguably their saving grace early on. If not for the winter they were used to and the Germans were not, they likely would have lost Stalingrad and eventually Moscow.

Soviet tactics and the sheer aggressiveness of them caused high casualties in and of themselves as well. The Soviet leaders were simply more accepting of casualties than their British and American counterparts. It led to them practically gaining more ground faster than anyone else by that point though. For a total war situation, it worked to end the war faster.

Just for discussion value, I'd also point out that the Americans and British had to put up with carrying out far more amphibious assaults in North Africa and Europe as well though, which are difficult to conduct and often result in high casualties when attacking well defended locations like Normandy. The Soviets had next to no amphibious assaults on those scales to my recollection. Also British and American forces had to coordinate far more, which did not go well as often as could be hoped. See Patton and Montgomery for instance. Integrating two different armies and separate command structures made the Western front more clumsy by nature of there being 2 powers involved IMO. The Soviets while facing the Germans solo with those disadvantages, also operated more or less autonomously on the Eastern front.