LOL. Well.... does "Defcon" count? Each game only tends to last about 4 minutes, you set up your "defences" and then sit back and watch everyone die. :D

Shouting "I WIN!" has never sounded so hollow. :D

Sorry, but thats completely bullshit! Some years ago the grandpa of my wife was telling me from the war! He was MG gunner in a SPW from a german Panzerdivision in Russia. He told me the war in the east was terrible (he was there for 2 years in the middle and south of Russia)! There were masses of enemies and as a gunner there was no reason for aiming, just pull the trigger and you hit a target!
But compared to the Invasion in the Normandie it was nothing!(that's what he told me)
In the Normandie he was a veteran (EK II and 2 times seriously injured) and what he saw there was incredible! Masses of weapons! They dont has any chance to do something against the allied troops. Hunderts of planes in the air was making it almost impossible to drive in tank or vehicle! After some days he surrenders cause he said there was no chance to do anything!

I am not sure one can accurately predict a conventional war between the western allies and the USSR in 1945. The soviets, despite their seemingly enormous amounts of men and material, would have been at a considerable disadvantage if the war had gone on for quite some time.

1.) As incredible as it sounds the Red Army was running out of men at the end. The losses it suffered were horrendous and while they still had tanks, artillery and aircraft by the thousands they had trouble replacing their infantry losses. If the war had turned into a war of attrition they would have faced even more serious manpower shortages.

2.) The soviet war economy was totally focused on building tanks, artillery and combat aircraft - their entire logistical system was depending on allied deliveries. Soviet truck building was inadequate even before the war and once it got underway the production was little more than a trickle to douse a forest fire. It was not before some serious shipments of US-made trucks arrived that the Red Army got any kind of strategic mobility. So initially they had enormous strategic mobility but after a while, with losses due to accidents, wear&tear and enemy action growing, they would become less and less able to stage far-ranging offensives.

3.) Fuel was the other major achilles heel of the Red Army. It was dependent on oil coming from the Caucasian fields and the Allies had airfields within striking distance. A crippling blow to soviet oil production was theoretically possible ... and it would have been just as effective as the attacks against the german synthetic fuel works in 1944.

On the other hand the Red Army had a considerable numerical superiority over the allied ground forces - at least initially - and combined with the fact that allied ground forces just weren't used to considerable losses and an enemy on par with them the Red Army may very well have given them a beating.

This discussion is just a theory crafting based on personal preferences. Yes it is extremely hard to make predictions even if we are talking about alternative WWII results. So just a few notes
1) War of attrition was exactly the thing the Germans failed to win after their blitzkrieg failed.
2) There have ever been only two commanders who thought it was a good idea to attack Russia. Their names were Napoleon and Hitler. They both underestimated the Russians. So whenever i hear people making such assumptions that it was possible to fight the Red Army back to Russia i have to laugh. There was a good reason western allies didn't do that. Also Stalin knew why he had to share the victory with US/GB.

Hold on a second and I will edit that Wiki page up and correct it for you.

Of course but I see it also on the opposite side: there would be no lack of men but an issue with public opinion about the number of casualties. And against the experienced Russian ground forces I'm quite sure that number would be really big... IIRC the best of "German" ground forces was still on the East (since Germans' priority was Russia) and still US/UK lost many men.

Why does this thread come up as infected in Chrome?

But say that the US makes two A-Bomb strikes against Russia, I have no idea at the time what targets would have been even thought of... but what happens then?

Look at the fight in the Pacific, how long would that have continued and how would that have ended without those 2 horrific strikes against Japan...

The Allies faced with another down in the mud, costly front, would that have been used again... makes you think...

No one is doubting the Russian backbone in WWII, but there are a lot of factors to take into account for sure...

There is strong belief that the two A-bombs the US had were not US made. That the uranium was made in Germany and that the Germans sent an U-boat with the material to Japan right before the WWII ended in Europe. When the Germans capitulated all German boats received an order to go to nearest allied port and surrender. The U-boat was somewhere in Atlantic so it went to an US harbour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234
http://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/u234.htm
OK two A-bombs would not be effective against Russia (no Moscow couldn't be bombed). And the US was far from producing more of those. And would the U-boat had surrendered if the war didn't end? Too many questions there. Let's live in peace and be happy the war is over and we can amuse ourself flying planes in WWII sims.

There is no doubting that Germany helped advance both the US and Russia back in those days...

Anyways this is a "what if..." discussion, so many possibilities and all would have just resulted in more un-needed death... The war ended where it should have.

Now I am in Canada waiting on a patch from some russians for a very cool WWII flight sim... its all good... but I still prefer the Spits to anything :)