World War III in 1948: Aftermath (US Victory)?

Nürnberger

Banned
Plenty of people die, but then after a couple of weeks at best or couple of months at worst fighting stops and status quo is more or less preserved as neither side wants another total bloodbath just tree years after WWII(the West can win probably, but it's not certain and they still will be screwed afterwards), then Cold war is much more tence(and possibly soviets snatch all of Germany if they're lucky or at least all of Berlin)
 
Last edited:
Plenty of people die, but then after a couple of weeks at best or couple of month at worst fighting stops and status quo is more or less preserved as neither side wants another total bloodbath just tree years after WWII(the West can win probably, but it's not certain and they still will be screwed afterwards), then Cold war is much more tence(and possibly soviets snatch all of Germany if they're lucky or at least all of Berlin)
The West will no doubt win because they have a superior navy, air force, and have the U.S. with the nuclear monopoly at this period but it will be a costly victory since Europe will be a wasteland. Countries like Britain would be plunged into a recession as they were still reeling from the World War II.
 
So it appears the United States will have to chug losses from the B-29 trying to penetrate Soviet air space. Alternatively, the U.S. can use a radioactive barrier among the Iron Curtain to prevent the Red Army from going further.
Not within the US’s capabilities at the start of this war. They only have 32 atomic capable B-29s, 12 poorly trained crews certified to fly them, and no prepared bases in Europe with the infrastructure to deploy atomic weapons. Not to mention the Soviets have overwhelming air superiority in Central/Western Continental Europe on the order of 5:1.
Elsewhere, the U.S. may get involved in China even more as there were Army and Marine Corps personnel in the mainland after World War II to protect American citizens and interests (see Operation Beleaguer) .
More the opposite: those forces would be withdrawn. The prevailing war plans at this time, the Pincher-series, called for a wholesale abandonment of continental East Asia and the assumption of a strategic defensive in Japan and Taiwan throughout the war.
 
Last edited:

Nürnberger

Banned
The West will no doubt win because they have a superior navy, air force, and have the U.S. with the nuclear monopoly at this period but it will be a costly victory since Europe will be a wasteland. Countries like Britain would be plunged into a recession as they were still reeling from the World War II.
Nah, they won't. Why? Because why the fuck would they WANT to fight another total war? The last one was 3(!) years before, and left most of Europe bombed so much that it is resembling a lunar landscape, broke and more or less hopeless, and even if US is overtaken in a coup(it won't be) by people insane enough to go for it what they can possibly gain from winning? A Vietnam the size of half of Eurasia that will be impossible to pacify and any attempt to do so would lead to US's own collapse? Or what, you unioronically think that people of SU will greet them with flowers? Yeah, just like they did Hitler 5 years before(there literally won't be any difference between US and Hitler ITTL, none at all), or maybe global economic crash will benefit US somehow? Notice that I write "US", not "West" all the time because it's the only western country still in shape to fight a war at this point, others are too deep in shit after WWII still. And SU obviously has no reason to attack either. So the only way through wich such a war may break out is through some freak accident during Berlin crysis or something, but if that is so the reaction on both sides will be not "this is a chance to crush the enemy once and for all" but rather "oh fuck, we gotta stop it before the real shit starts" and so Stalin and Truman sign a ceasefire couple of weeks later before losses became too big, that's how it ends because, AGAIN, NOBODY HAS ANYTHING TO GAIN FROM IT
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
s. Not to mention the Soviets have overwhelming air superiority in Central/Western Continental Europe on the order of 5:1.
But no real history of dealing with a determined Strategic Bombing campaign, not to take away from that the USAF couldn't do one in 1948, anyway.
The Truman post WWII drawdown crippled the armed forces from 1945 to 1948.

Point remains that the Soviets had a terrible early warning network the fraction of what the UK had in 1940, and SAC wouldn't be able to find the right city to bomb
 
But no real history of dealing with a determined Strategic Bombing campaign,
The few USAF bomber raids in Korea which flew far enough north to be detected and intercepted by Soviet air defense posts established in Manchuria from 1951 on generally suffered 90%+ loss rates, heavy enough that the USAF abandoned raids in these regions altogether by 1952. Given that these posts were using technologies and techniques already in widespread service in 1948, that rather says it all.

Point remains that the Soviets had a terrible early warning network the fraction of what the UK had in 1940

A claim which remains as baseless and unsubstantiated as the day you first advanced it.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
generally suffered 90%+ loss rates
On just one mission for that rate, and didn't stop the B-29s from destroying everything of value from the 38th to the Yalu.
MiG Alley was a small enough area to have good coverage from the long wave radar the Soviets had set in that small geographic area
 
On just one mission for that rate, and didn't stop the B-29s from destroying everything of value from the 38th to the Yalu.
Multiple missions, actually, which is why the USAF ultimately suspended operations that close to the Yalu. And of course they didn't stop the rest of those B-29s, since those B-29s didn't have to worry about encountering Soviet planes at all, much less dealing with concerted efforts at Soviet interception at all. Not a luxury they'll have in the aforementioned WW3 scenario and thus basically amounts to a non-sequitor that proves nothing.

MiG Alley was a small enough area to have good coverage from the long wave radar the Soviets had set in that small geographic area
Which given that said sets were operating in Manchuria, beyond Mig Alley, tells us quite well how well the much larger and thicker network of sets in Europe and the USSR itself would perform, especially since unlike in Korea the US would have to fly past them to get to their targets, as opposed to MiG alley where the defense posts were beyond the targets.
 
One thing I have read or been told by historians at this period was that the neither the U.S. and the USSR was in a position to fight another global war. Three years since the end of the last war meant both nations had to recover from their losses. Great Britain was bankrupt in the war while France was engaged in a war in French Indochina. The Martial Plan was still in effect of reconstructing Europe plus the U.S. Merchant Marine still continued shipping supplies to the Soviets as of 1948.

Here's some videos that may shed light on the post-WWII environment.

 

marktaha

Banned
Nah, they won't. Why? Because why the fuck would they WANT to fight another total war? The last one was 3(!) years before, and left most of Europe bombed so much that it is resembling a lunar landscape, broke and more or less hopeless, and even if US is overtaken in a coup(it won't be) by people insane enough to go for it what they can possibly gain from winning? A Vietnam the size of half of Eurasia that will be impossible to pacify and any attempt to do so would lead to US's own collapse? Or what, you unioronically think that people of SU will greet them with flowers? Yeah, just like they did Hitler 5 years before(there literally won't be any difference between US and Hitler ITTL, none at all), or maybe global economic crash will benefit US somehow? Notice that I write "US", not "West" all the time because it's the only western country still in shape to fight a war at this point, others are too deep in shit after WWII still. And SU obviously has no reason to attack either. So the only way through wich such a war may break out is through some freak accident during Berlin crysis or something, but if that is so the reaction on both sides will be not "this is a chance to crush the enemy once and for all" but rather "oh fuck, we gotta stop it before the real shit starts" and so Stalin and Truman sign a ceasefire couple of weeks later before losses became too big, that's how it ends because, AGAIN, NOBODY HAS ANYTHING TO GAIN FROM IT
Many Russians welcomed the Germans in 1941.If they'd treated the Russian people decently, the Germans would have won in a few months.
 
At this point the soviats still occupy east Austria
1611060233583.png

so even if the war deascalates this likly means Austria stays divided do to mutual mistrust or Stalin trys one final bid to appese Yugoslavia into there sphear of influance by exchanging most of east Austria for most of the British occupation zone to give Yugoslavia greater Slovenia
1611060606064.png

The only area of east Austria they would retain would be Burgenland in order to give to (or partition between) the the Hungarians (historic claim), the Czechs (resserect a half sized Czech corridor for increased pan Slavic sentiment), the Yugoslaves (for the same reason as the czechs but with the added bounds of further appeasing yugoslavia)
1611060861281.png

 
Last edited:
Not within the US’s capabilities at the start of this war. They only have 32 atomic capable B-29s, 12 poorly trained crews certified to fly them, and no prepared bases in Europe with the infrastructure to deploy atomic weapons. Not to mention the Soviets have overwhelming air superiority in Central/Western Continental Europe on the order of 5:1.

But what about: From Boeing B-50A Superfortress (joebaugher.com):

"The first B-50A (46-002) flew on June 25, 1947. 59 B-50As were built as standard bombers, with block numbers from -1 to -35. Although there was officially no prototype B-50, seven of the B-50As built were allocated to testing. The 60th and last example was held at the factory for modification as the YB-50C, which was intended as a prototype for the B-54A series, a further-improved version of the B-50.

The first B-50As were delivered in June of 1948 to the Strategic Air Command's 43rd Bombardment Wing, based at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. This wing was assigned the mission of being the primary carrier of the atomic bomb. The Strategic Air Command had come into existence in 1946 with about 250 B-17s and B-29s as initial equipment. It had always been intended that the B-50 would be only an interim strategic bomber, pending the availability of the B-47 Stratojet. However, delays in the Stratojet program forced the B-50 to soldier on until well into the 1950s."
 
But what about: From Boeing B-50A Superfortress (joebaugher.com):

"The first B-50A (46-002) flew on June 25, 1947. 59 B-50As were built as standard bombers, with block numbers from -1 to -35. Although there was officially no prototype B-50, seven of the B-50As built were allocated to testing. The 60th and last example was held at the factory for modification as the YB-50C, which was intended as a prototype for the B-54A series, a further-improved version of the B-50.

The first B-50As were delivered in June of 1948 to the Strategic Air Command's 43rd Bombardment Wing, based at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. This wing was assigned the mission of being the primary carrier of the atomic bomb. The Strategic Air Command had come into existence in 1946 with about 250 B-17s and B-29s as initial equipment. It had always been intended that the B-50 would be only an interim strategic bomber, pending the availability of the B-47 Stratojet. However, delays in the Stratojet program forced the B-50 to soldier on until well into the 1950s."
The link leaves out that it took another year for the B-50 to work it's way up to operational status.

"SAC took its first B-50A in1948, but maintenance and technical issues precluded this first unit from becoming operational until 1949. Therefore, the B-29s continued to be the only airframe capable of dropping atomic ordnance almost four years after the end of the war." -John M. Curatola. Bigger Bombs for a Brighter Tomorrow, Page 159.

Plus, the B-50 isn't really that much of an improvement over the B-29.
 

marathag

Banned
1948 SAC levels
Two Heavy Bomb Groups, with B-36B, 35 aircraft
Twelve Medium Groups, Eleven with with 486 B-29, one with 45 of the new B-50 by years end
Four Reconnaissance Groups, 24 RB-17 and 30 RB-29
4thQ two refueling Squadrons were equipping with KB-29 tankers, and tested with a series of flights from Texas to Hawaii with B-36 and B-50
 
Well if this called for a massive bombing campaign, the obsolete B-17s and B-24 Liberators would fly alongside the B-29 and B-36 bombing columns of Soviet armor.
 
Top