# Who would win the western allies or Russia?



## RAGMAN (Sep 30, 2005)

I have thought of what would happen if Stalin and Russia was crazy enough to attack the western allies after ww2 ended.Britain and the US were not really getting along at towards the end of ww2.Russia had a millions of troops and equipment.The armour alone of Russian tanks overshadowed almost anything the western allies had.Could Russia be beaten off Europe?It would have been a titanic battle, maybe even making the battles of ww2 pale in comparison.


----------



## trackend (Sep 30, 2005)

I would say the West would prevail as he would undoubtedly have to fight on at least two fronts Canada would be used as the start of one front and although the Russian could push the European front and it would probably be pushed back across the channel he never had any means of crossing it also we had the A bomb and the Russians didnt so its goodbye Moscow and just about very other Soviet city within 4 months.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

i think it all depends more on where this war would be fought mostly......


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 30, 2005)

That would have been a monumental battle.

Id say the Russians could not have crossed the Rheine at all. Superior allied airpower (might even need to recruit the Luftwaffe pilots still around) would blunt much of the Soviet power. All of those massed tanks would be fodder for the Typhoons and P47's.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

Well the Germans wouldnt want to fight for the Russians, Im sure of that...We would have all the German technological advances and designers, Kurt Tank + Allied production = awesome designs...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

well the germans wouldn't exactly be over the moon fighting for us either, are we assuming that both sides were as they were at the end of the war, ie they had the same engineers/scientists/designers they got at the end of WWII??......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Western Allies deffinatly. They were in a better position to win a war than the Soviets were.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

The West would undoubtedly win this one.

However with Nuclear weapons not far away, who really knows...


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

I would agree with what people are saying the Western Allies would have won if war had broken out between the 'Big Three'. However both the Western Allies and the USSR were tired of war and did not want anymore of it. This may of been different I know but that is my view but then as you have said Soren Nuclear weapons were around the corner so who knows what would (or could) have happened...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

The West already had the Nuclear Bomb and the Russians were not going to get it for a couple of more years so the bomb would have just been in the wests favor.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Yes, by 49 the Russians had their first A-bomb. But who says a conflict couldnt have started between the west and the soviets in 49 ?


----------



## Glider (Oct 2, 2005)

I must agree with the opinion that the west would have won but with one big question mark. Our air-power would have won the war but it would have taken time to destroy the Russian air-forces, not long, maybe a couple of weeks. We would have also cut them off from supplies from home, leaving them to run off the stores that were in situ.
The question-mark is, would our armies have been able to hold them for those two weeks.
My best guess is that we would have had a rerun of the early stages on the Korean War. The Russians would have made significant gains until they run out of steam. We talk about Pershing's and Centurions being introduced into the European Front, but in reality they were a tiny fraction of the forces in place. The vast majority of the fighting would be the Shermans, Cromwells, M10's etc against the T34/85, KV's, SU100's and JS2. In this situation my money would be on the Russian Armour.
Once we had stabilised the situation then from that time on we would have beaten them back. The unknown question is, how far back would we be forced before the Russians were held.
If the Russians were smart and waited until we started to withdraw our troops away from the front then its possible we may have been too late. If they attacked when we were still in place, our position would be better.

The question of Nuclear weapons is interesting. There were only a couple of them around and I am sure that Moscow would be target no 1. I doubt if the Allies would launch one against captured territory. 
Would that make Russia surrender? I doubt it, but it would I suggest, make them negotiate. Negotiations that allied politicians would be happy to agree to. I doubt if anyone had the stomach for a fight to the death against Russia. 

The other question asked was 'would the Germans fight for the allies'? My guess is that having known what its like to lose to the Russians, they would fight to the end on the allied side.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

The West - when comparing this situation with the German attempted conquest of the USSR, the allies would of went in without the liability of a surpreme leader (Hitler) undermining the allied command!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I agree with you on that. And on the idea of Nuclear Weapons, the allies would not have let it get as far as the Soviets to speed up there process and get one of there own. They would have simply nuked them.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think it all depends more on where this war would be fought mostly...



Well, my guess is Korea, or maybe (if the Soviets had the element of surprise) China, in the East

Germany more than likely would hold on better than Korea?



Glider said:


> The vast majority of the fighting would be the Shermans, Cromwells, M10's etc against the T34/85, KV's, SU100's and JS2. In this situation my money would be on the Russian Armour.



You forgot the JS3!

In the East there were a few Pershings and KT's and Panthers etc would be pressed into service by both sides (they were anyway!)

After the Berlin parade, I reckon Centurion production was ramped up and improved?

An Allied or Soviet built KT would be better than a German one, or the E-series may have been produced?

To cut a long story short, both sides would likely have armour parity in a few short years.

The Russians would have had better guns though.



> The question of Nuclear weapons is interesting. There were only a couple of them around and I am sure that Moscow would be target no 1. I doubt if the Allies would launch one against captured territory.



Captured by the Soviets, ie Poland?

Anyway the Soviets knew about the A-bomb and Moscow would definately not have been vulnerable.

- Unless the V-3 or V-4 were produced and combined with an A-bomb warhead?

FLYBOYJ



FLYBOYJ said:


> The West - when comparing this situation with the German attempted conquest of the USSR, the allies would of went in without the liability of a surpreme leader (Hitler) undermining the allied command!



Ike?  

The bickering would likely be worse than vs Germany?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I disagree at that point in time the Allies were coming out with the next generation of bombers and they could fly higher than any Soviet fighters. They could have gotten a bomb onto Moscow without a problem.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 2, 2005)

Soviet fighters/pilots were always crap.

However Moscow's Flak defenses were always the best in the world.

Also stolen German research/scientists could have created some great Soviet fighters maybe?


----------



## Glider (Oct 3, 2005)

I considered the JS3 but it was similar to the Perishing and Centurion. They were in theatre but in small numbers compared to the rest of the equipment in place.
Your right about armies having parity in armour after a few short years but it goes back to my comment on timing. If the Russians had attacked after six months we would have been in trouble. Our armies were ramping down and out of place whilst the Russians may well have been at full strength.
The Russians will have known about the Atomic bomb, but would have been powerless to stop the USA dropping one on Moscow. Large numbers of B29's escorted by the P51's and P47's that the USA had in numbers, would have the ability to rule the skies at altitude. 
Russian fighters were fine at low altitude, I certainly wouldn't call them crap, but they didn't have any high altitude fighters of any note. 
I must disagree with your view that Russian air defences were the best in the world. They were very short on radar and what they had was behind the best available in the West, neither did they have any proximity fuses. As a result, not having any real high altitude fighters, limited radar direction for the AA guns and no proximity fuses, left them very vulnerable to air attack.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2005)

Agreed with what you said right there Glider. The western allies could have pummelled the Soviets with ease.

As for the captured German/Scientists just about all of them went to the west. Very few went to the Soviets. All the Soviets could do was make copies of the German stuff and not very well.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 3, 2005)

Glider said:


> Russian fighters were fine at low altitude, I certainly wouldn't call them crap, but they didn't have any high altitude fighters of any note.



The MiG's were good there?

The Flak defenses had excellent observers/spotters on ground and in the air, I'm not sure, but I think swarms of aircraft would have been very easy to detect?

- better to make small raids?

The Flak was actually pretty decent, auto-cannons firing huge shells with great accuracy, then again against fast bombers/fighters, maybe not so effective?



DerAdler said:


> All the Soviets could do was make copies of the German stuff and not very well.



I dunno wasn't the MiG 15 based on a Kurt Tank project?

Also there is (again) new evidence to suggest the Germans had an A-bomb that the Italians and Russians ended up having.

I doubt they would have held 'till 49 though?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 3, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> However Moscow's Flak defenses were always the best in the world.



I would think the German flak defenses as the best in the world.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> FLYBOYJ
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ike wouldn't of barreled into the Soviet Union on the verge of winter with the wrong equipment, and then threaten his commanders if they retreated. Hitler was a madman who thought he was a general, Ike was a politician who thought we was a general!!!!!!!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 3, 2005)

The Germans never had decent proximity fuses syscom3, the UK was the best there?

(I just know a Yanks gonna argue that one!  )

In general, German Flak defenses were far better than Russia's, with the (sole?) exeption of Moscow.

FLYBOYJ



FLYBOYJ said:


> Ike wouldn't of barreled into the Soviet Union on the verge of winter with the wrong equipment



The wrong equipment? 

It wouldn't be needed if the Panzers hadn't have halted!

This was Hitlers fault though, even when he knew what happened to Bonaparte  , so I'll give you that.  



> and then threaten his commanders if they retreated.



Yeah, that was a bit daft!  



> Hitler was a madman who thought he was a general, Ike was a politician who thought we was a general!!!!!!!



He started off smart, ended up daft.

e.g. had he been listened to, most Panzers would be toting the 50mm L60 in '39!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 3, 2005)

Ike knew that a successfull general is part warrior, part politician. Plus he didnt have an ego. He was successfull cause he knew how to plan and how to delegate.

Thats maybe why the allies won.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 3, 2005)

He basically kept Monty and Old Blood 'N Guts from killing each other long enough to get the job done.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 3, 2005)

Didn't have an ego?

Come on, he was an American!  

Didn't he say about Monty something like:

"Hard to serve with, impossible to serve over"(?)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 3, 2005)

That doesn't give him an ego. It just means that Monty could be insufferable. Montgomery and Patton were both renowned for their egos, and the two men despised each other.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2005)

The Western Allies would have defeated the Soviet Union straight after the war. We all seem to forget that the Soviet Union had lost no less than twenty-three million people in the war, their country had been scorched and their industry was nothing comparable to the might of the U.S and British Empire, of whom were both in full working order and relatively untouched. 

German troops would gladly join the Western Allies against the Soviet Union. The Germans still hated the Communists up to their dying day. Even during 1944 guards discussed with PoWs the idea of joining forces against the Soviet Union. Hubert Zemke, when captured, was even asked to join the Luftwaffe to fight against the Soviet Union. Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin wrote _Panzer Battles_ to educate the Western World on armoured tactics so they could combat the Soviet Union. All, and I mean all, German forces capable of combat would gladly have taken up arms against the Soviet Union on the side of the Western Allies. 

The VVS wouldn't have stood a chance against the Western Allied air forces. The USAAF had brought in the B-29 which the VVS had nothing to intercept with. The RAF had the Lancaster and I believe it wasn't long until the Lincoln came along. The VVS had no strategic bomber and even if it did, the RAF had the Meteor and the USAAF had the P-80. Not to mention the vast quantities of trained pilots in the Western Alliance compared to the ill-trained airmen of the VSS, even in 1945. And of course, there's the captured Luftwaffe airmen. 

Then there's the Western supply to the Soviet Union, which would stop instantly. Everything from boots to trucks in the Red Army were provided by the Western Allies. There's more to war material than planes, tanks and guns ...and most of the less famous equipment was supplied by the Western Allies. 

The vast wealth of airpower over the VVS and complete, and absolute air supremecy held by the Western Allies would more than make up for any deficient in armour capability. Despite the fact the Western armour was certainly on par with the Red armour. A combination of combat, tactical, operational and grand ability probably made the Western Allied equipment superior overall. Western armour tactics seem to work better in reality to those of the Red Army. Not to mention the fact the Sherman 76Ws and Sherman Firefly would be on par with the T-34/85. The Comet would be fighting the IS-2 on equal ground. And then there's the Pershing and Centurion fighting. The Pershing having already seen combat, and been proved combat capable. It most likely would have been in much larger numbers if the war had continued against the Soviet Union. I can safely say, the U.S could push out more Pershings than the Soviet Union could IS-3s. 

On the point of Eisenhower, he was the best possible choice for Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Either him or Alexander, but Alexander was dealing with Italy. Eisenhower was far from a good general but he was a remarkable individual, and he alone kept the British and Americans, plus a whole host of other nations fighting against the Axis ripping one another to pieces. He didn't have a massive ego because he knew he couldn't consider himself anything but equal. Monty and Patton were two hard men to contain, they had massive egos ...but they had good reasons to have them. 

Everyone has an ego, by the way. It's something we ALL have.


----------



## RAGMAN (Oct 4, 2005)

True about everyone having an ego. The west was superior in terms of better aircraft and numbers.I always wondered about the manpower advantage of Russia as they always seemed to have unlimited reserves to call upon.(during the war)Russia didn't have a long range bomber that I am aware of,so bombing targets in the west might have posed a problem for Russia.If I am mistaken  .


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

One thing to ponder is the Russian economy had maxed out by 1944. On the other hand, the US war economy was still ramping up right up to the end of the war.

Imagine what the US could produce once the diversity in weapons were narrowed down to a few designs. And not having a navy to build would release an untold ammount of resources into other sectors of industry.

Just for the heck of it, If I was the secretary of war in Sept 1945, these are the warplanes I would order both the navy and airforce to concentrate on. All other types would have their production stopped. Since a battle with Russia would not be a naval war, the Navy would have to be second fiddle, whether they liked it or not. 
Air Force:
B29 (replace B17 and B24 groups as B29's become available)
A26 (All B25, B26 and A20's to be removed from service as A26's are available)
P80 (P38, P47 production to terminate)
Skyraider (if AAF wants it to replace P47)
P82 (replace or expand P51 groups)
C54 (replace C47 and C46)
C69 (long range transport to be mass produced)
C119 (production to be accelerated)

Navy:
F4U (remove F6F and F8F)
F7F (if marines want it)
Skyraider (replace SB2C and TBF)


----------



## RAGMAN (Oct 4, 2005)

I agree with what you just posted except I would have kept the P47 as the longer range version was just coming into service and would have been a reliable ground attack fighter.(as it could take quite a beating)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> schwarzpanzer said:
> 
> 
> > However Moscow's Flak defenses were always the best in the world.
> ...



The Germans had possibly one of the best anti aircraft systems set up but as was stated the lack of proximity fuses is what they lagged.


----------



## marconi (Oct 4, 2005)

Russia could only conquer the continental part of Europe.They had no means to cross the channel.On the other hand I think its absurd to think that Western Allies could force Soviet forces to draw back, they simply hadn't enough armor for that.So, IMHO, there were to possibilities, either USSR conquers continental part of Europe or they fail to do this and sign peace treaty with Western Allies.I prefer the second variant.I think they would do this in a few weeks or month after the beginning of the war, probably even before Americans could bring A-bomb to Britain, which would be an excellent tool for negotiations.

P.S. Russia didn't have nuclear weapon, but they could use chemical weapon in respond.


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

Can you imagine what the germans would have done to the bomber formations at night and day, if they had the proximity fuse? Doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2005)

The Western Allies had perfectly enough armour to hold off any Soviet advance. They also had a superior airforce which would make up for any deficients on the ground. The Red Army would be smashed by Allied ground attack aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

RAGMAN said:


> I agree with what you just posted except I would have kept the P47 as the longer range version was just coming into service and would have been a reliable ground attack fighter.(as it could take quite a beating)



I thought of that, but figured the Skyraider as being a better plane for fighter bomber work. The P80, P51 and P82 would have been the air-air fighters.


----------



## marconi (Oct 4, 2005)

The Western Allies could probably stop Russians and even pull Soviet forces back, but I doubt they could defeat them.As soon as both sides would realize that this new war can last for several years they would start negotiations.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

I doubt it. Stalin would not give in until he was defeated and once the allies started they would not have stopped until an uncoditional surrender and the allied Military was far more superior to the Russians so it would have been a victory for the Allies and no Cold War.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2005)

The Red Army didn't have the manpower and resources to continue a prolonged fight against the British Empire and United States. The Soviet Union was a cripple after the Great Patriotic War. Any offensive by the Western Allies would have knocked it down and out.


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

I admit to not having any details to support this but its been my understanding that all sides were close to their last reserves on manpower, certainly the UK was. 
The USA had more but I believe the last surviving son rule would have had to be breached to use them.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2005)

Britain hadn't lost many people at all. At most I have seen it as 1.2 million, including civilians. The economy of Britain was at it's end but the manpower was still there. On top of that, do not forget the manpower of Britain's vast empire. India alone provided over ten million combatants and "combat workers" during World War II. 

The U.S lost just over half a million at most during World War II. This was nowhere near the Soviet loss of twenty-three million. The Soviet Union was at it's nearest end when it entered Berlin. They were struggling to produce fighting soldiers in 1943 and the losses just kept mounting throughout 1944-'45. 

We would be talking the manpower of Canada, United States, Britain and India alone being able to deal with the Soviet Union. Then you have the other nations in the British Empire and also the other Allied nations. We must remember that France did not lose very many people during World War II - they would have plenty youthful fighting soldiers from France itself and her colonies. Then there's Poland and the Eastern European nations that would be more than willing to fight for the Western Alliance to crush the Soviet Union. All White Russians would join against the Stalinist regime as well.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 4, 2005)

PlanD!  

Where've you been? I've missed ya!  



PlanD said:


> German troops would gladly join the Western Allies against the Soviet Union...



Great points there, in addition to that I believe most Soviet troops would want to defeat Stalin, though at that point any Soviets who didn't love Stalin were abroad, like the Kulaks.  



> The VVS had no strategic bomber



Oh, it did!

Stalin used one to go to Scotland IIRC?

Tuplovev IIRC?



> Everything from boots to trucks in the Red Army were provided by the Western Allies.



US felt boots and APC's/trucks were indeed important.



> absolute air supremecy held by the Western Allies would more than make up for any deficient in armour capability.



Yep, but the tanks were numerous...



> Despite the fact the Western armour was certainly on par with the Red armour.



No it wasn't, but the crews were a hell of a lot better.



> Western armour tactics seem to work better in reality to those of the Red Army.



No, the Soviets use of combined arms infantry/tanks/artillery/aircraft was far superior.



> Not to mention the fact the Sherman 76Ws and Sherman Firefly would be on par with the T-34/85.



The Sherman MAE8(W) was on par, the Firefly was a lot better.



> Comet would be fighting the IS-2 on equal ground.



With it's amazing 30mm of bolted vertical armour!  You're not serious??



> I can safely say, the U.S could push out more Pershings than the Soviet Union could IS-3s.



Maybe it could, but it couldn't ship them?:



syscom said:


> And not having a navy to build would release an untold ammount of resources into other sectors of industry.



With ships built dedidated to Pershing supplies though...

Just how bad was the Soviet Navy, wouldn't they have just gone ape on Sub production? (easy for Russia)

However the concentration of the war would then be:

1. Tank factories?

2. Sub pens?

Obviously the UK could deal with the launched subs.



> Everyone has an ego, by the way. It's something we ALL have.



Some don't at all, it's saddening.  


*syscom3:*

The P47 would be very useful for this 'war' and production should be ramped up.

Unless the Skyraider was a better prospect?

All fighters/Jabos would need to drop the .50 for cannons of @ least 20mm to deal with the very, very tough Russkie planes (esp the IL-2).



DerAdler said:


> The Germans had possibly one of the best anti aircraft systems set up but as was stated the lack of proximity fuses is what they lagged.



Yes, they had advanced AA missile systems though.
The Allies could maybe have put the Enzian etc online?



marconi said:


> They had no means to cross the channel.



They would make one!  



> On the other hand I think its absurd to think that Western Allies could force Soviet forces to draw back, they simply hadn't enough armor for that.



Bombers and Jabo's should do it though?

However the bombers would be desperately needed elsewhere?



PlanD said:


> The Western Allies had perfectly enough armour to hold off any Soviet advance.



   



> They also had a superior airforce which would make up for any deficients on the ground. The Red Army would be smashed by Allied ground attack aircraft.



There was a LOT of tanks though...  Would there be enough Jabos?



> The Red Army didn't have the manpower and resources to continue a prolonged fight against the British Empire and United States. The Soviet Union was a cripple after the Great Patriotic War.



Yes, but the sun was setting on the British Empire, the Soviet Union was just getting started.



> India alone provided over ten million combatants and "combat workers" during World War II.



And they all fought for the British, not!  (Well, maybe sometimes!)
 



> This was nowhere near the Soviet loss of twenty-three million.



Stalin killed more than 21 million of those! 
He was learning his lesson though?:



> The Soviet Union was at it's nearest end when it entered Berlin.



That's bull, have you seen the Berlin inventories?!



> losses just kept mounting throughout 1944-'45


. 

Except for Monkhe and a few others, even the SS were suffering stupid attrition rates in '45 - and they were fanatical super-soldiers!  

- the Soviets had their act together in '44-'45! 8) 



> plenty youthful fighting soldiers from France itself and her colonies.



Yes, except they were pro-Soviet surrender monkies!  

I'm sure the Vietnamese etc would only be too eager!  

- The Algerians IMHO would if that were the case.

The Spanish are forgotten here, fought very well in Siberia!  8) 

They seemed to hate the Russians, though that may have kicked off another civil war in Spain?



> Then there's Poland and the Eastern European nations that would be more than willing to fight for the Western Alliance to crush the Soviet Union. All White Russians would join against the Stalinist regime as well.



The Polish wouldn't fight with the Germans, funnily enough, neither would the Cossaks.

The Kulaks would though...  

A weird point is that Russian people loved the Commonwealth for stopping their eradication, even Stalin was depressed when Churchill wasn't re-elected. So they would want peace anyway.

If we're still 'at war' though; the thing is Moscow and the Urals couldn't be nuked, then what other targets? how about the Caucasus?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 4, 2005)

The Soviet Union had two aircraft that could be called a strategic bomber, the TB-3 and the Pe-8. Both easily intercepted by Western Allied interceptors. Which, remember, were fast becoming modern jet aircraft. The Meteor III and P-80 had already been introduced into service. The English Electric Lightning was designed in 1947 if we want to drag the war on that long. 

The M26 Pershing and A41 Comet were indeed capable of fighting off the IS-2 and IS-3. The MBTs of both armies, the T-34/85 against Sherman was an equal combat. 

The Allies lost less armour on a kill:ratio than the Soviets did. The Western Allies also provided greater tactical efficiency in their armour tactics. The co-ordination of arms had already been learnt in the Western Desert by the British forces in 1942. In 1944 the USAAF and RAF lined up in the air just waiting for that call. The Western Allies also had a superior infantry AT weapon, the Bazooka and PIAT. 

I don't know what Comet you're researching but the A34 Comet had a maximum of 101mm armour protection and was of all welded construction. It also had the Vickers 77mm which was only slightly inferior to the OQF 17pdr in hitting power. 

What exactly was going to stop the U.S from shipping it's Pershings? If Germany and Japan couldn't stop the United States Navy and Royal Navy (and her Commonwealth Navies) ...what makes you think the Russian Red Navy would have a chance? Which, by the way, was so bad and so small it's not even worth mentioning as a force in World War II unless you want to talk about target practice for the Axis. 

The British Empire was still large enough to fight the Soviet Union. The British Empire began to crumble in 1916 - it is well said to be the start of the end for the British Empire. However, in 1945 the British Empire was massive in power. It's Commonwealth was geared up for war and war it could make, on a global scale. 
The Soviet Union had not just started, it has existed since the Red Russians defeated the White Russians in the Russian Civil War, which was 1922. Once the Soviet Union chose to stand off against the western powers it began to crumble which ended in a complete collapse in 1990. 

All those ten million mentioned fought under the Union Jack, for Britain in World War II. They fought against the Japanese in the jungles of South-East Asia. They fought against the Germans in Africa, in Italy and in North-West Europe. Eight even fought over the skies of Britain in the Battle of Britain. 

No the Wehrmacht killed about 21 million of those more like. 

You have no idea. The Soviet Union was on it's last legs in 1943 - a loss at Kursk would have been the last ounce of strength in the Red Army. They were drawing from the oldest and youngest capable of carrying a rifle. When they entered Berlin the people and the country were tired ...their people had been slaughtered. 

The French colonies would fight with France, just like they did in Italy. I am refering more closely to those from North Africa which were remarkably brutal and effective combat troops. The French would provide men and arms if the need arose to continue the fight against the Soviet Union. Even without them ...the West would still win. 

The Polish would have sold their souls to the devil to free Poland. They would have fought with Germans if it meant kicking the Soviet Union out of Poland. And making them free.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 4, 2005)

> easily intercepted by Western Allied interceptors.



Yes indeedy.



> The M26 Pershing and A41 Comet were indeed capable of fighting off the IS-2 and IS-3



Agreed, the M26 less so.



> The MBTs of both armies, the T-34/85 against Sherman was an equal combat.



The main Sherman was the M4(75mm) and even the T34/76 '41 outclassed this and the Cromwell.



> The Allies lost less armour on a kill:ratio than the Soviets did.



Yes but the Soviets had more armour and the lions share of German armour to deal with, also Allied tanks weren't intended to engage other tanks; they were meant to run away!  - leaving the flimsy "tank-destroyers' to try to get through German armour.



> In 1944 the USAAF and RAF lined up in the air just waiting for that call.



Cab-ranks were also lethal to the Allies, cows etc...



> The Western Allies also had a superior infantry AT weapon, the Bazooka and PIAT.



The Soviets had the Bazooka (lend-lease) and the RPG-1 (copied Panzerfaust)

Both were better than the PIAT.

They also had schurzen on their tanks.



> I don't know what Comet you're researching but the A34 Comet had a maximum of 101mm armour protection and was of all welded construction.



It actually had 112mm max armour, but that didn't help it.

It was all welded though.  



> It also had the Vickers 77mm which was only slightly inferior to the OQF 17pdr in hitting power.



Like the KwK36 vs the '88' not only was the 77mm's barrel shorter, but it fired inferior ammo too (shorter wider cartridge).


On the Soviet Navy, it wasn't really needed 'till then, but it could have kicked off?




> It's Commonwealth was geared up for war and war it could make, on a global scale.



It could retreat on a global scale, more like. Though still formidable.
The control of the oceans is important though, esp here.



> The Soviet Union had not just started, it has existed since the Red Russians defeated the White Russians in the Russian Civil War, which was 1922.



I know, but for an absolute start? then I'd say 1917 .



> All those ten million mentioned fought under the Union Jack, for Britain in World War II. They fought against the Japanese in the jungles of South-East Asia. They fought against the Germans in Africa, in Italy and in North-West Europe. Eight even fought over the skies of Britain in the Battle of Britain.



And for the Nazi's/Japanese/independence.  



> No the Wehrmacht killed about 21 million of those more like.



No Stalin killed at least 21 million of his own people in WW2 (even though he wasn't Russian), along with the great purge.



> You have no idea.



Like saying that, don't you?



> The Soviet Union was on it's last legs in 1943 - a loss at Kursk would have been the last ounce of strength in the Red Army.



Operation Citadel couldn't succeed.



> They were drawing from the oldest and youngest capable of carrying a rifle.



They were bad for that, matched only by the Nazi's?



> When they entered Berlin the people and the country were tired ...their people had been slaughtered.



Are you meaning the Germans?

After pounding it with artillery. 
Plentiful supplies of tanks, guns, ammo, men, aircraft etc. I'll get the figures - the Soviet forces were simply overwhelming.



> They would have fought with Germans if it meant kicking the Soviet Union out of Poland.



The upper classes, yes. The empoverished majority, no.


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

Have to disagree withyou both on the JS3 against the M26 and Comet. The JS3 was way ahead of the game against those two. Centurians would have struggled against them. 
The Comet with its fairly thin vertical armour, smaller gun was out of its league. The M26 was probably about even with the Comet.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

The Sherman M4 was not out-classed by the T-36/76 Model 1941. The Sherman (76W) was the MBT of the U.S forces by May 1945. The various models were thrown into production in early 1944. Production totals for the 76mm armed Shermans are; 

M4A1 (76W) - 3,396 by Pressed Steel between Jan. 1944 and June 1945. 
M4A2 (76W) - 1,594 by Grand Blanc between June - December 1944 (That's six months! An average of 266 tanks a month.) and 21 by Pressed Steel between May - June 1945. Total: 1,615

M4A3 (76W) - 1,400 by Detroit Arsenal between Feb. - July 1944* and 525 by Grand Blanc between Sept. - Dec. 1944. Total: 1,925 

M4A3 (76W) HVSS - 1,445 by Detroit Arsenal between August - December 1944. 

*Ceased in July to gear up for production of the HVSS. The tooling up took just under a month. 

These numbers are more than enough to make it the MBT of the U.S forces. Especially since the U.S had designated it as such and the M4 Shermans were being converted to other roles at the time. The production of Shermans far out-paced the production of T-34s. 53,582 T-34s were produced from 1941 - 1945. Starting over a year later Shermans had been produced in numbers exceeding 40,000. Imagine an extra year for Detroit Arsenal producing an average of 226 Shermans a month, Detroit alone could produce another 2712 in one year. 

The Sherman was designed as a combat tank. It was designed when the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 was introduced. With which it could combat, especially since the production in the U.S could provide much more Shermans than Germany could Pz.Kpfw IVs. When they came up against the greater German designs, they were left to exploit the situation when the tank destroyers had destroyed the enemy armour. It's a reasonable tactic when tank destroyers were present. The Western Allied tank destroyers took a heavy toll on German armour. The Archer, M36 and M18 were all remarkable designs, although the Archer was merely a Valentine with a OQF 17pdr but we all know that 17pdr packed a punch. And if you're packing a good enough punch to out-range your opponent ...your armour could be paper for all it mattered. 

The Western Allied air forces slaughtered German ground forces. The Typhoons and Thunderbolts roaming the skies of North-West Europe would smash anything they saw ...if not the tank itself, they would destroy the train or truck sent to supply it. 

And the Soviets are going to still get the Bazooka when the U.S is at war with them? 

Wait a second, you go from mocking the Comet because it had 30mm armour ...which it didn't. Then you try and say armour protection over 100mm was useless? I'm quite shocked ...why do I bother? The A34 Comet was a remarkable combat machine, reliable, fast, well-armoured and packed a decent punch. 109mm at 500 yards, 30 degrees to be precise. 

The Soviet Navy could have kicked off? Are you saying they could produce a navy capable of combating the biggest navies in the world (USN, RN and RCN) in a matter of months?

...are you calling the British Commonwealth cowards? The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and East Africans just to name a few were remarkable fighting soldiers. The Commonwealth would easily out-produce the Soviet Union. I'd advise you learn a little bit about the Commonwealth contribution before you spout off like that. 

The Soviet Union could not exist with the mere October revolution. They had to defeat the White Russians first. 

What the hell are you going on about? Are you saying the Indians didn't aid the Allies during World War II? My word, you are amazingly disrespectful aren't you? The majority of those fighting in Burma were Indian. 

What are you going on about? The Stalinist regime killed around 20 million in it's entire time of existance, not just in World War II. 13.6 million of that 23 million are combat losses against the Wehrmacht, the rest are civilian losses either by enemy action or ...Stalinist actions. 

I don't like saying it ...but it seems I have to keep saying it when "discussing" with you. Since you don't provide anything in the way of evidence. 

The debate of Zitadelle succeeding or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet Union was on it's last legs in terms of manpower. The Soviet Union attacked Berlin with around one million men ...you call that a lot in a total, global war? 

No, all of Poland would. The majority of Poland are what got it the worst. You think that the Soviet Union was actually communist by nature? You're living in a dream world ...it was a fascist, Stalinist dictatorship of brutal proportions. The only way Stalin's leadership could have become more Tsarist is if he'd named himself Tsar Iosef Stalin ...Poland was under the iron boot ...the whole lot of it ...and all of them hated it.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

The Comet was a good opponent against the IS-2, Panther and Tiger. I wouldn't rank it along side an IS-3, no way. The IS-3 is impressive in armour protection and cannon power but it still wasn't the greatest, in my opinion. Lacking all kinds of vital aspects of a tank it was let down ...it was also let down by it's crews. 

We must remember when discussing a continuation of the war that the U.S was going to gear up for the production of the M26E4 'Super Pershing' which had the T15E2 90mm cannon. 25 had been built by May 7th and an order of 1000 had been made. One 'Super Pershing' served in north-west Europe. It served in the 33rd Armored Regiment of 3rd Armored Division. It destroyed a King Tiger and Panther in Dessau, in one day.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

Glider said:


> Have to disagree withyou both on the JS3 against the M26 and Comet.



He said A41, that means Centurion, I knew what he meant, sorry Glider.



> The Sherman M4 was not out-classed by the T-36/76 Model 1941



Yes it was, inferior (by far) on: armour, manouverability, ground pressure, speed, fuel consumption, range, protection, gun, the list just goes on!



> The Sherman (76W) was the MBT of the U.S forces by May 1945.



I was thinking '44 for some reason!  



> Starting over a year later Shermans had been produced in numbers exceeding 40,000.



Yes but it cost a lot of tankies they're lives as it excluded the production of heavies to concentrate on the Sherman.

I think it was Patton that said "the war will be either won or lost by that tank"?



> it was designed when the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 was introduced. With which it could combat
> 
> When they came up against the greater German designs, they were left to exploit the situation when the tank destroyers had destroyed the enemy armour.
> 
> And if you're packing a good enough punch to out-range your opponent ...your armour could be paper for all it mattered.



Right, >PzIV F2 = JgdPzIV/70 or Panther +? vs Archer, M36 and M18 = in that situation the Allied tanks would have no chance!

However a 76 Sherman could kill a Panther, though the gun was supposed to penetrate the glacis.  

Also the Hornisse proved to be a deathtrap at most times (except for Vitbesk etc).



> if not the tank itself, they would destroy the train or truck sent to supply it.



Good point, forgot that was the main part.



> And the Soviets are going to still get the Bazooka when the U.S is at war with them?



Copy it, like the did with the 'Faust.



> Wait a second, you go from mocking the Comet because it had 30mm armour ...which it didn't. Then you try and say armour protection over 100mm was useless? I'm quite shocked ...why do I bother?



Well the 102mm was on the turret IIRC, the hull's was around 60mm @ vertical (though the prototype had sloping armour no hull gun)

Though the glacis was only 30mm (but @ 17 degrees).

Even an 85mm is gonna spank that @ 1km.



> 109mm at 500 yards, 30 degrees to be precise.



So at half a mile and under it could kill a T34 or IS2? - very impressive!  

Sorry, I shouldn't, I know how much you love that Comet (you can still buy them BTW) 8) 



> The A34 Comet was a remarkable combat machine, reliable, fast



Yes, very. 8) 



> well-armoured and packed a decent punch.



Against Soviet armour, pathetic.



> The Soviet Navy could have kicked off? Are you saying they could produce a navy capable of combating the biggest navies in the world (USN, RN and RCN) in a matter of months?



Probably not, but irritating gradually?



> The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and East Africans just to name a few were remarkable fighting soldiers.



I know, I had uncles in Dunkirk and I said retreat not surrender/run/collabarate. You have to admit though that the oceans saved the Allies hides for a lot of the war.

My respect for Anzac and particularly Canadians in the 2 WW's is very high. I heard about the East Africans, but not much.

What were the Boers doing at this time?

The Indians? Hah they fought for anyone!  

The Gurkhas though... 8) 



> The majority of those fighting in Burma were Indian.



Who were they fighting for though?

I admit though a lot did fight against Nazi'ism, but a similar number fought with.



> My word, you are amazingly disrespectful aren't you?



No, but unlike most Englishmen I'm just not terrified of the PC Brigade.  



> The Stalinist regime killed around 20 million in it's entire time of existance, not just in World War II



I understand that is accepted, though it is more like 50 million.

The Kulak figures in the UK are kept modest, for obvious reasons.



> The Soviet Union attacked Berlin with around one million men ...you call that a lot in a total, global war?



Not bad for just 1 city! -Albeit Berlin.

I know Stalin was a monster, I don't deny it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

A part of what I said is unfair; the data you give for the 77mm penetration seems to be for plain AP and APCBC would do more damage, not to mention SV/APDS!

The 77mm's AP penetration is similar to the 85mm (whose optics are very accurate BTW)

The HVAP of the 85mm is better than the 77mm's APCBC.

We can conclude though that APDS would be used in '45?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2005)

Hey Schwarzpanzer the Enzian Missles that you are talking about while they were revolutionary for there time, they would have made little impact on massive B-29 raids over Russia. They were just not accurate eneogh.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

I don't think I even want to continue a discussion with someone that is so disrespectful of the Commonwealth. Go look up India's contribution to World War II schwarz ...if you read up a little bit then you'd find that the Indian forces fighting for the Axis never went into the tens of thousands ...while millions upon millions fought for the Allies. You're a disgrace ...and it's not a matter of the PC brigade at all...you're just a disgrace.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

Hi DerAdler,

I was actually thinking the Allies would have them.

A few of the missiles carried good prox fuses, so why not the Flak shells?

IIRC there was a German missile or airborne-mine that 'listened' and when it heard the sound of a Wright or P&W engine it exploded or sought it out?

I forget the name and details, anyone else know?




PlanD said:


> You're a disgrace



Why thank you!  



> and it's not a matter of the PC brigade at all



It is, don't lie to me. I can smell your fear from here.

Though to be honest, I can't blame you.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 5, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I understand that is accepted, though it is more like 50 million.



Not quite as bad as that - the official figures put the total casualties (civilian and military) around 30 million, but the truth is - we don't really know, or ever will know.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

You haven't the slightest idea about the Indian contribution to the war against the Axis powers. I'm actually ed you even carry on when you have already proven you don't have a clue. 

Read about Burma - get a clue, then apologise to all those people that fought in the jungles. And not just the Indians but those that relied on the Indians and were grateful of the Indians fighting alongside them one such person being my grandfather. You haven't the slightest ounce of a clue to disgrace the Indian troops and workers. You'd quickly receive a slap from all those who fought in Burma spouting that shit.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 6, 2005)

Medveya said:


> Not quite as bad as that - the official figures put the total casualties (civilian and military) around 30 million, but the truth is - we don't really know, or ever will know.



That is unfortunately so true.

*PlanD:*

How about commonwealth troops who had to fight them, or were stabbed in the back when they trusted them?

My gran is still upset by what happened t her uncle at the hands of those 'brave Allies'.  

I can see we are at different ends of this and I do not want to hurt you with this, I see your point and respect it but you must do the same with me?

This topic can obviously make us both bitter.

Funnily a colleagues dad was also in Burma and slagged every foreigner off.  

I think that was definately the worst place to be, I repect anyone who fought there, I could manage Siberia, but not there, no way.


----------



## marconi (Oct 6, 2005)

> I think that was definitely the worst place to be, I respect anyone who fought there, I could manage Siberia, but not there, no way.


I'm not sure what is better: 40 degrees Celsius below or above zero.

I think we are using wrong arguments for explaining our points of view.It doesn't really matter whether Sherman was equal to T-34 or not.More important how many troops both sides had,how were they equipped, where were they at that time.

By the way, why are you thinking that it would be Russians who would have started the war?I've heard that Americans were planning a nuclear attack against USSR (plan called "Totality").


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 6, 2005)

Well, the Soviet Union would have much less of a logistical problem in that it could keep shipping war material to the front without there being oceans in the way. A T-34 could be still made in Chelyabinsk and simply loaded on a train all the way to Germany. 

Also - I think there would be enormous public pressure from people in the west to call it off and negotiate, even if such negotiations were to the Soviets favour.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

Unlike the Germans, the Western Allies could bomb the Soviet factories though. 

And schwarz, there were a small number of murders that I already knew about. And in fact those were mostly the Burmese, not Indians and it's no excuse to go tarring the Indians contribution.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 6, 2005)

From Germany to the Urals and back? Nyet.


----------



## Glider (Oct 6, 2005)

We could of course just clobber the railway yards and depots. 
I know the Germans tried it but to compare the power of the German bombers to the 1000 bomber raids available to the allies on a dedicated basis. Next to nothing will move.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

Who said the B-29s would be flying from Europe? We could use the bases in Japan or in India. Plus, we wouldn't need to be hitting the factories. We'd just strike at the oil production facilities in the Caucasus. After all the Western air forces did realise the real key to war by late 1944.


----------



## Medvedya (Oct 6, 2005)

Even from bases in Northern India a B-29 would barely make it back from the main production centres, and they'd be flying over hostile Soviet territory for at least 1000km.

From Iraq is more feasable, but then there's still the oil production in Siberia - and nothing with wings then could get _there_ in one round trip.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

The VVS had nothing capable of intercepting a B-29 in 1945. And it would depend how long the war would be dragging on. The B-36 wouldn't be long in the making. 

And as has been mentioned, we wouldn't need to destroy the factories. There's more than one way to stop a tank. Destroy it's factory, destroy its transport, destroy its support, destroy its fuel or destroy it on the battlefield.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

marconi said:


> It doesn't really matter whether Sherman was equal to T-34 or not.More important how many troops both sides had,how were they equipped, where were they at that time.



There seems to be a contradition there, tanks are equipment!  



PlanD said:


> Unlike the Germans, the Western Allies could bomb the Soviet factories though.





Glider said:


> We could of course just clobber the railway yards and depots.



It would have been hard/impossible to do both?



PlanD said:


> There's more than one way to stop a tank. Destroy it's factory, destroy its transport, destroy its support, destroy its fuel or destroy it on the battlefield.



But with the Soviets, you couldn't destroy all of them. As the Germans found; the tanks would still come, in spades.

Unlike with the Germans, the Soviet rail system (like radios) was desirable, but not completely vital.



PlanD said:


> The VVS had nothing capable of intercepting a B-29 in 1945.



Nothing was needed 'till that point, I'm sure the MiGs would have been upgraded if the need arose?

What I'm wondering is if the Soviets/Allies could manage to fight on two fronts?

I reckon the Sviets would hold/take ground a lot better.

Would former British colonies make their bid for freedom?

Which Soviet city/place would/could be succesfully A-bombed?

i.e. my point on Stalingrad.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

It certainly would not be hard or impossible to do both. The Western Allied air forces bombed the factories, transport network and cities of Germany all at once. But that doesn't matter as Glider and I both had differing views. I said bomb the factories, he said bomb the transport links. Bombing the transport would be the best option as it seems. 

Did you read what I said? I stated there was more than one way to stop a tank. You don't have to destroy the actual tank on the field of battle to stop it. A concentrated attack against the Soviet oil production would deprive the Soviet Union of the vital fuels to run their masses of tanks. 

The Soviet Union relied solely on their railway for transport. It was a vital part of their war. How do you expect to deliver replacement units from the Urals to Germany quickly without a railway system? Even the sturdy T-34 wouldn't be able to make that force march. 

Of course nothing was needed to intercept the B-29 until then. And that was my exact point. It gives the B-29s free-roam of the skies. The VVS would have to adapt or design an aircraft capable to intercept the B-29 but unless you've got a magic wand, it takes time. Although you proposed the idea of a Red Navy matching the USN, RN and RCN in a matter of months maybe you have that magic wand. 

The only British colony worth a mention that would strive for freedom at that moment would most likely be India. But even without India the British Empire would have Australia, New Zealand and Canada to call on. All of which provide mass amounts of man and material. Easily enough to out-number the Soviet Union. Combine that with the wealth of the United States and the Soviet Union wouldn't stand a chance. 

You all seem to be forgetting that the Soviet Union could only build tanks, planes and guns in large numbers. They had no way of producing all those other vital material goods for war. Those came from the West and those would stop.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

> The Western Allied air forces bombed the factories, transport network and cities of Germany all at once



Yes but they were locked in ground combat with the Soviets/Allies.

The Soviets wouldn't have to worry too much about ground combat, but could they even defend themslves in the air?

More AA gunners would mean less succesful artillery etc (which was just as good as using bombers)



> A concentrated attack against the Soviet oil production would deprive the Soviet Union of the vital fuels to run their masses of tanks.



Come on! Siberia, no way!



> Even the sturdy T-34 wouldn't be able to make that force march.



It could, but: they would have to group together making them a great target for bombers, but then by that point the factories would be rebuilt...

Also how good were the Allied bombers at hitting moving targets? (other than maritime)

BTW: This is after being moved out of the Urals by train, always possible.

I don't think bombing train stations would be so succesful, but rocketing the trains/tracks...



> The VVS would have to adapt or design an aircraft capable to intercept the B-29 but unless you've got a magic wand, it takes time.



What like the Spitfire IX, or the Panther? Necessity breeds innovation...

Even if the MiGs had IL-2 engines fitted that would be decent. 
What was the Soviets best engine?

Then there's always the Merlin and even jets...



> Although you proposed the idea of a Red Navy matching the USN, RN and RCN in a matter of months maybe you have that magic wand.



No, I merely asked politely if they could pose a threat.



> Easily enough to out-number the Soviet Union.



I'm not so sure on this one.  



> They had no way of producing all those other vital material goods for war. Those came from the West and those would stop


.

They already had them and if war was planned would obviously start producing their own.

This would free up US labour though...


A point on the land battles is that the Brits would probably just build screens of 32 pounders?

Then the Soviets would have howitzers to deal with them?

Which would be replied to by allied howitzers?

= stalemate WW1-style, Rommel expected this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Why would the Soviets not have to worry about Ground Combat? I think this would be a major worry. Do you know how fast the US Industry was producing by the end of WW2? They could replace more than the Russian could. Who cares if a T-34 was better than a Sherman. The Tiger was better than a Sherman and for every 5 Shermans destroyed by a Tiger the US made 20 more. The Russians would have been overwelmed.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

Yeah I'm unsure on the 'numbers game' Adler. 

That would be a weird scenario, but the Allied tankers would surely start to resent being used as suicidal pawns after too long?

Whereas with the Soviets vs Germans "The death of 1 is a tradgedy..."


----------



## marconi (Oct 7, 2005)

> There seems to be a contradiction there, tanks are equipment!


I was talking about how many tanks and other stuff both sides had at that time.
And I still think that this war would be ended quite soon.I think Russians would try to perform their own "Blitzkrieg".They would probably strike in Europe, Mid East and in China.
About Soviet Navy.Stalin was very fond of big ships.As far as i remember USSR had 3 battleships, several heavy cruisers (and lots of smaller ships).None of them were destroyed during the war.Directly before the war USSR changed plans and decided to build only small ships and submarines.But the main weapon of Soviet Navy in WW2 were mines.Most or a great part of German and Soviet ships were probably destroyed by mines.I don't think Soviet had enough power to defeat Allies on sea, but they could prevent them from using it actively in Baltic Sea.And if they could make a deal with Turkey they could move their fleet from Black sea to Mediterranean.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

> As far as i remember USSR had 3 battleships, several heavy cruisers (and lots of smaller ships).



How much would they be capable of and how long would they last?



> Directly before the war USSR changed plans and decided to build only small ships and submarines.



Now that is interesting, thanks  , though how do you think the production facilities would respond to Allied bombing?



> I don't think Soviet had enough power to defeat Allies on sea, but they could prevent them from using it actively in Baltic Sea.



I wasn't meaning that, Atlantic/Pacific convoys would likely have to be hampered to keep Soviet superiority on land.



> And if they could make a deal with Turkey they could move their fleet from Black sea to Mediterranean.



Good point, though Turkey wouldn't be a problem IMHO.

If the Soviet subs could lay mines and torpedo the Allied supply ships, this would turn 'the war' in their favour, but I doubt it could happen?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Yeah I'm unsure on the 'numbers game' Adler.
> 
> That would be a weird scenario, but the Allied tankers would surely start to resent being used as suicidal pawns after too long?
> 
> Whereas with the Soviets vs Germans "The death of 1 is a tradgedy..."



Sorry if you see it other wise but Russian production could not keep up with the wester allies mainly the US.


----------



## marconi (Oct 7, 2005)

> >I don't think Soviet had enough power to defeat Allies on sea, but they could prevent them from using it actively in Baltic Sea.
> 
> I wasn't meaning that, Atlantic/Pacific convoys would likely have to be hampered to keep Soviet superiority on land.



I was talking about possible Allied raids on soviet ports.
I don't think they would have used those battleships at all.Besides I've just found out that one of them WAS damaged at the beginning of the war and was under repair during entire war and after war it was used as a target for practicing.
Another interesting thing: one of the soviet submarines was destroyed in 1942 near San-Francisco by Japanese submarine!
Turkey could support Western Allies and let their forces on its territory.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Werent the Soviet Battleships old WW1 German ships that the Russians got after WW1? I might be wrong, correct me if I am.


----------



## marconi (Oct 7, 2005)

Yes they were old WW1 ship as I understand.USSR were going were going to build 4 battleships but war has begun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

That is what I thought.


----------



## Glider (Oct 7, 2005)

The Soviet Navy was little more than an inshore navy. Its battleships were old WW1 vessels dating from 1912. The only 'Modern' Battleship was the Royal Sovereign that was transferred from the Royal Navy. I used Modern because it had at least been modernised before the war unlike the Russian battleships. When this was transferred the biggest ships that the Germans had were one Pocket Battleship and a couple of 8in Cruisers. So used effectively the Russians could have ruled the seas but she never went into action.
Its best ships were destroyers that were of Italian design (type 7) and were not strong enough for Arctic conditions. I know that sounds daft but its true. The Russians modified these (Type 7U) and these were simple basic but rugged ships and could have been used if fitted with modern equipment.
Its 3.9 and 5.1 in guns were as good as most but the fire control systems were obsolete and of course they had no radar. Torpedo's were of poor quality and lacked magnetic or acoustic pistols. The Russians had no Adsic as well so couldn't defend against submarines.
As an example of how poor their navy was the following is an example. On one occasion when a Russian destroyer stayed at sea for three consecutive days this was seen as a major feat and received much publicity. It should also be remembered that the Soviet Navy never came out to assist with any convoy that needed help no matter how close to port the ships were. 

They did have some submarines that achieved success but nothing like the German U Boat fleet. They also had three interesting medium cruisers armed with 9 x 7.1in guns

As for aircraft carriers the Russians asked the Germans for help but they refused.

The RN could and would have handled the Russian Navy by its self without any problems. With the USN as well it would never have been a contest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Cool thanks.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 7, 2005)

Nice info Glider.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 23, 2005)

Beside of what already was taken into consideration,
politics plays a major role. Unlike the starting scenario, I
see no justification for a "soviet attack on the western allies". 
This undoubtly would bring Stalin in a lose - lose situation without proper
hope to win anything (..without considerable sea forces he could only hope to
take continental europe, and that´s nothing in the end..).
Such a situation would only increase the militaric risks for Stalin, he couldn´t
take any advantage. On the opposite site it is possible that the western allies could decide to attack Stalin and crush the SU. This could be done but would be a very nasty campaign. I doubt that the public opinion would allow such a step. However, this would bring the Western allies in an ATTACKER, not a DEFENDER´s situation, changing everything. 
It is more plausible but still unprobable.

-beside of this the SU already had high altitude designs flying in early 1945, giving them a MIG made option to counter the B-29 thread. It wasn´t in mass production but in prototype stage, however it could be if needed. We should also remember that the SU had it´s own jet program and their first prototypes flying in 1945. The MiG-9 or SU-7 could easily deal with a B-29/ B-36. They also overtook the AR-234 C production lines in Slesia, the Me-262 production lines in Tschechia (both intakt), the jet engine assembly lines in Dessau plus further and innumerous german toolings. Hard to decide but a strategic campaign would be more difficult than you might estimate.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 23, 2005)

All those production lines and plants that the Soviet Union captured at the end of the war would have obviously been the first targets for the Allied air forces. The Soviet Union would have had to adapt deploy a lot of aircraft, very quickly to stop a massive Allied air offensive crippling their gains in Europe very quickly. 

And who's to say those that fought for Stalin because Hitler was worse ...would carry on fighting for him if someone better is coming along to liberate them?


----------



## delcyros (Oct 24, 2005)

...undoubtly, but to late, if you ask me.
If we are serious, a "liberating act" wouldn´t happen
prior to sept. 45, when Japn surrenders.
By that date almost all production lines have been already
taken down in order to rebuild them in central Sibiria (beyond range).
And who says that millions of western soldiers would continue a war marching deep into Russia, where millions and millions of others died in their own attempts? Remind Spain, communistic thinking was quite popular for many of the western people as well. Esspecially since the SU did an important job to deal with nazi Germany. 
And further: Directly after wars end most german civilians sympathized with the soviets, not with the western allies. The general thinking was quite something like: "..ummm, they are evil, mabe, but they did continue to fight our armys instead of dropping bombs on our cities.."
It wasn´t prior to the Berlin air bridge that the general thinking changed.
I do also think that the SU designers had quite a good knowledge about the capacities and abilities of the B-29, since they had some of them captured and examined very well. 

In the end the SU cannot stand against UK and US forces but public opinion would only hardly allow the democratic gouvernments to continue a war against their most important partner in ww2 in an attackers position.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2005)

Many Soviet soldiers have stated that they were not fighting for Stalin, but for Russia. It was probably the case of most Soviet soldiers, as it was mostly the case for German soldiers fighting for homeland rather than leader. The only difference being, the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was actually German. The Red Army was made up of various races, religions and nationalities. A lot of which would have loved to remove Stalin from over the top of them. I don't understand why liberating them wouldn't happen, it's exactly what the Western Allies stood for. 

The Spanish Civil War had shown the truth to many Europeans about the Communists. They soon found out the truth about the Stalinist leadership and many in the Spanish Civil War turned against the Communists and joined the Anarchists or Socialists. The end of the Republic came with the removal of the Communists from it's power head. Many of the International Brigades also found out they were fighting for the wrong cause when fighting for Communists ...the Reds had shot themselves in the foot and now most of the world knew they were evil ...especially the British. 

Britain had known the Soviet Union were a threat to freedom for a long-long time. Churchill had already admitted he'd sell his soul to the devil to defeat Hitler and he was directly refering to Stalin and the Soviet Union as the devil in question. FDR was a little more naive on the subject but Truman was a bit more up to date and soon realised the nuclear bomb was a good bargaining chip against the Soviet Union - he knew they were trouble. 

And the soldiers ....the vast majority of the soldiers in World War II from the countries other than the Soviet Union and Britain didn't really know why they were fighting. They knew there were people called Nazis and they had to stop them to secure freedom - that's it. The same could have been said for the march on the Soviet Union - there are people called Communists and we have to stop them to secure freedom - the soldier is doing the right thing, or even to a lesser extent he thinks he is, and he carries on fighting. Even if the cry for war was to free Poland and East Europe - it would be enough. 

The German civilians were mostly ed with the Soviet Union - "It was our holocaust but nobody cared..." about East Prussia was something that ran true throughout Germany. Sure, the Germans hated the Allied airmen but it's civilians that fight. The German troops right up until the last day were saying they'd turn and fight with the Allied troops against the Bolshevik evil that was the Soviet Union. 

And it's impossible to say if the Western Allies would accept them ..after all, you could say they thought of them as the evil Nazis but then a lot of British civilians and troops especially did realise that these men were just soldiers doing their national duty. Although there were those British who thought they all needed to be killed ...and I don't judge them for that, obviously. However, had we accepted the aid of all those German soldiers and generals ..it would have been even further in our favour. In fact, during the 50s, NATO did accept the help of many German officers from World War II on the tactics to use against the Soviet Union. 

Being up to date on the knowledge of the B-29 (which they weren't completely) doesn't mean they can instantly counter it. Plus, the B-29 would have soon be replaced by the B-36 which was bigger, stronger and more powerful. On top of that, does the Soviet Union have anything to fight at high altitude to stand up to the likes of the P-51H, P-47N or P-38K?

A lot of the civilians from World War II, and soldiers for that matter, didn't have a clue about the Soviet Union's actions in the war. In fact, a lot of people to this day don't have a clue. Politics aside ...the Western Allies had the edge, even without the nuclear bomb, if they fought the Soviet Union.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 25, 2005)

As far as I know, numerous german soldiers and officers went to the red forces even during ww2 (NK Freies Deutschland) because of Hitler. 
They all knew that they are fighting for Hitler, for Germany was of second priority ( remember that they had to swear on the person of Hitler since 1936 in military training, Hitler replaced Germany). That may be a reason why so many went for the SU.
The argument that soldiers of both forces (Germany as well as Russia) did not liked their leaders is misleading. We have tons of documentation to proof.
(remember all the SU bombs and airplanes written with "CA CTA/\UHA" (for Stalin)?) Such statements are unpopular today (I am not guilty, it was Stalin/Hitler).
But maybe back to the planes, dear Plan_D -
The advanced US escort planes doesn´t have the range to encompany their big friends all the way to Moscow. At low and medium altitude, they have less performance than the later Yak and La-fighter, at higher altitude they are superior to them but inferior to others. The P-80 might give the overall better solution but it has a much reduced range, reducing it´s worth in such a wide area scenario to CAP over vital allied fields/cities. The later Meteor (MK-IV, not MK-III) is probably the best allied jet, this bird has quite an excellent range for a jet.
The Mig- build I-225 (first flight march 14th, 1945) made some 725 Km/h at high altitude with full weaponry, this is remarkable. It also has a decent range and a very low wingload. It could deal with some of the escorts if necessary.
The B-29 are a heavier foe. Esspeccially for them MiG designed the I-250 (N), better known as Mig-7. Armed with 3 (later 4) G 20 /20mm guns and a n mixed propulsion (jet+prop) it flew for the first time at 3rd of march 45 and made some impressive 825 Km/h at 7.800 m. At the usual B-29 altitude it could sustain a speed of 500 mp/h bypassing all possible escort fighters. The Mig-7 had a small serial production. There are other prototypes like I-107 (Su-5) to produce a potent high altitude interceptor.
And they still had the option to continue on the Me-262 and Ju-287 (I own a Baubeschreibung from june, 2nd 45 of the Junkers Werke at Dessau, where they suggest a serial build modified Ju-287 for the soviet air forces), if necessary...


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

The only reason Hitler gained support was because the vast majority of the German people wanted their "old" Germany back from the pre-Great War days. Many Allied airmen were asked to join the German fight against the Bolshevik spread - and although not many, if any, did ...a continued fight against the Communists would be an excellent chance for those captured by the West to carry on, if requested. 

The Germans moving over to the Soviet Union were small in number. They would have much rather fought with the Allies to oust Stalin from the head of the Soviet Union and calm the world down a bit. Remember those 400,000 Ukrainians that Hitler turned down ...?

The P-38K, P-47N and P-51H all have extremely impressive ranges and are superior to all Soviet fighters at altitude. Remember, the fight takes place where the dictating force takes it. The strategic bomber campaign would be high ...the Soviets would have to rise them. 

On the Soviet attacks, it may be low to medium altitude in which case the jet interceptors - P-80 and Meteor Mk.III could deal with them. If not those, then the likes of the Spitfire Mk.21 could handle all Soviet fighters. 

All these prototype Sovet aircraft sound impressive ...but they were just prototypes. And remember, the B-29 wasn't defenceless ...it got a fair few MiG-15 kills during Korea!


----------



## delcyros (Oct 26, 2005)

Your argument is two shaped, Plan_D.
The Mig-7 went from prototype to serial production (with a few squadrons
of the baltic air forces to deploy with the fighter) but wasn´t improved because of the advent of more potent jet fighters later.
In late 1945 it would provide CAP over vital cities just as Gorki in the PVO.
The I-225 were prototypes, yes, but they are based on the Mig-3. The P-51 H , P-38K and P-47 N were also protoypes based on regular planes, so it´s comparable.
Neither the Meteor nor the Shooting star would be effective in the low level theatre (where most of the fighting would take place), they are very fuel gulping at low alt. The VVS is also able to fly more missions than the UK/US forces could do, so that´s why the US would have a problem: Providing escort for B-29 deep into russia with long range escorts would reduce the avaiability of planes in the close combat area, where the VVS naturally hits hard. Thousends of IL-10 sorties a day may wreac havoc under the UK and US ground forces, as well as the airfields in their range (very bad for jets as we know)and we know that the VVS in 1945 was able to do so. The best allied fighter in low to medium alt would be the Tempest, it has the performance and firepower to deal with any threat but it needs protection against the more agile Yaks and Las. I do not deny that the losses would be high for the VVS but they don´t care about high losses. In the end initiative means all.
It is well probable that a strategic bombing campaign will set new priorities for the VVS (shifting more foces to the PVO), but it remains speculation, since no P-51 H is able to accompany a B-29 all the way from France to Moscow /Irak to Moscow and back...(not to even mention central Sibiria, where the key war production was concentrated)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 26, 2005)

*PlanD:*



> Many Soviet soldiers have stated that they were not fighting for Stalin, but for Russia. It was probably the case of most Soviet soldiers, as it was mostly the case for German soldiers fighting for homeland rather than leader.



Yes, either they fought with Stalin or were eradicated.  Tough choice IMHO.



> The Red Army was made up of various races, religions and nationalities. A lot of which would have loved to remove Stalin from over the top of them.



Yes Stalin banned Religion, banned Religion!  Even Hitler didn't do that!



> the Reds had shot themselves in the foot and now most of the world knew they were evil



The leaders were evil, Communists aren't.



> Churchill had already admitted he'd sell his soul to the devil to defeat Hitler and he was directly refering to Stalin and the Soviet Union as the devil in question.



He downright said he hated them, but less than the Nazi's.



> Even if the cry for war was to free Poland and East Europe - it would be enough.



English of German origin (like me) would want Poland and Czechoslovakia to suffer as much as possible, sorry.



> Sure, the Germans hated the Allied airmen but it's civilians that fight.



From my family perspective, only the leaders and certain SS/NKVD were considered evil.

Some hate Communism, some are Communists.



> you could say they thought of them as the evil Nazis but then a lot of British civilians and troops especially did realise that these men were just soldiers doing their national duty



To their credits, yes, the hearts and minds philosophy maybe? I also think the forgiving Christian Religion and general nice British nature at the time had a lot to do with it?



> does the Soviet Union have anything to fight at high altitude to stand up to the likes of the P-51H, P-47N or P-38K?



Good point, the in-being MiG?



> A lot of the civilians from World War II, and soldiers for that matter, didn't have a clue about the Soviet Union's actions in the war.



You can't tar them all with the same brush.

Fighting against Stalin is a good thing, but the Russians did nothing to hurt or threaten Germany, other than in the Spanish civil war.


*delcyros:*



> The argument that soldiers of both forces (Germany as well as Russia) did not liked their leaders is misleading. We have tons of documentation to proof.
> (remember all the SU bombs and airplanes written with "CA CTA/\UHA" (for Stalin)?)



That's like saying the Iraqis loved Saddam Hussein. If you didn't show your love for him, you died. Also a lot of brainwashing went on with Stalin.

The Germans initially liked Hitler though.



> And they still had the option to continue on the Me-262



With all the raw materials they needed...

*PD:*



> Remember those 400,000 Ukrainians that Hitler turned down ...?



Before having them killed. Why?? They'd suffered enough already.  

He didn't trust them though, would you?  



> The P-38K, P-47N and P-51H all have extremely impressive ranges and are superior to all Soviet fighters at altitude.



The Soviets had good high-altitude performance planes, but withdrew them because they weren't needed. In fact their engines ended up in IL-2's!

*delcyros:*



> Neither the Meteor nor the Shooting star would be effective in the low level theatre (where most of the fighting would take place)



Atually, the Meteor was succesfully used in the ground attack role.

I think it's a moot point as all the fighting would be high-altitude.



> no P-51 H is able to accompany a B-29 all the way from France to Moscow /Irak to Moscow and back



With reduced weight, improved aerodynamics and engine and/or the twin 'Tang, it maybe could?

How long 'till the Soviet jets make them redundant though?

The P51 could hold it's own vs a Me262?


----------



## delcyros (Oct 27, 2005)

One point why the jets can´t be effective in the low level duties
is that there fuel gulping engines (P-80, Meteor I and III, to a less degree also the Dervent-V driven MK-IV) reduce the effective endurance over enemy terretory/ airspace. Overloaded (bombs + additional fuel) they are not fast enough to avoid interception even by Yaks and Las in clean fighter configuration plus the Meteor (esspeccially) is a hell of a big target. It is completely different if a Meteor-III in early 1945 performs ground attack sorties from near airfields against demoralised german targets in a target poor environment /airspace or in late 45 against soviet forces in a target rich environment with excellent AA and lot of fighters performing CAP. (not to mention the effectiveness: How effective would a MK-IV/MK-III be, if forced to attack at very high speeeds with 20mm rounds against JS-II / late T-34?...)The Vampire could do better, I think.
But something scares me: You think most fighting would be in hi alt? I disagree. Some, sure. But the VVS would stay at their philosophy: Performing close support for their advancing panzers and leave the wide airspace at hi alt almost empty (with an independent PVO defense of their important centres).
The Me-262 /Su-7 was really an option. Directly after wars end, Stalin ordered the mass production of this fighter. The plane doesn´t have much raw materials: more steel than dural. A problem could be the raw materials for the engines but the soviets already benefitted from more efficient and powerful developments in the BMW-003 and Jumo-004 program (RD-9 and RD-10), including afterburner modification and more fuel efficiency as well as a tinadur and chromadur alloys to reduce the degree of raw materials. As we all know, Yakolev insisted against the Su-7 and succeeded in convincing Stalin that the Mig-9 and Yak-7/9 are better planes (which they weren´t).
It remains a question how long the soviets need to deploy a numerical force of jet interceptors. I suspect it wouldn´t be prior to late 45 (in case of the I-250 (N) and early 46 (soonest) in case of the Mig-9/Su-7. There was lot of engeneering to do (even in case of the Su-7: new (straight )wing and circular hull diameter) and the preperations for mass production would take additional time, also. At this time, there are still very few P-80 and Meteor MK-IV plus a number of older MK-III and a very few (if even) Vampires. In the engine dep. the West is clearly leading (think of the Nene and J-38) plus some german axial techs (BMW probably). Beside of the P-80 the allies have no plane suited for the superior Nene-engine.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 28, 2005)

> It is completely different if a Meteor-III in early 1945 performs ground attack sorties from near airfields against demoralised german targets in a target poor environment /airspace or in late 45 against soviet forces in a target rich environment with excellent AA and lot of fighters performing CAP.



It was used in that role when it was otherwise obsoleto. Not in WW2 IIRC?



> How effective would a MK-IV/MK-III be, if forced to attack at very high speeeds with 20mm rounds against JS-II / late T-34?...)





> But something scares me: You think most fighting would be in hi alt? I disagree. Some, sure. But the VVS would stay at their philosophy: Performing close support for their advancing panzers and leave the wide airspace at hi alt almost empty (with an independent PVO defense of their important centres).



We're obviously talking about different things, for those former targets P47's would suffice.

The wide airspace at high-alt would be full of B17/B29/B36's and if the Soviets didn't want to go there, so much the better for the Allies.



> A problem could be the raw materials for the engines but the soviets already benefitted from more efficient and powerful developments in the BMW-003 and Jumo-004 program (RD-9 and RD-10), including afterburner modification and more fuel efficiency as well as a tinadur and chromadur alloys to reduce the degree of raw materials.



I was meaning the Soviets would have metals such as Chromium and Tungsten in abundance, whereas the Germans had very little, which was the main jet engine problem.



> As we all know, Yakolev insisted against the Su-7 and succeeded in convincing Stalin that the Mig-9 and Yak-7/9 are better planes (which they weren´t).



No, I didn't now that.  



> It remains a question how long the soviets need to deploy a numerical force of jet interceptors. I suspect it wouldn´t be prior to late 45 (in case of the I-250 (N) and early 46 (soonest) in case of the Mig-9/Su-7.



So the high-alt bombers/escorts could only be effectively countered 'till then?

I expect the MiG high-alt 'props' wouldn't be ready any sooner either?



> There was lot of engeneering to do (even in case of the Su-7: new (straight )wing and circular hull diameter) and the preperations for mass production would take additional time



A similar problem occured with the PzIII-T34-Panther saga. That was due to German national pride and material shortages. As the Russians wouldn't suffer from the latter, I would guess that it was all the former?

Still the actual manufacturing could be a problem? but wouldn't the Me262 tooling simply have been nicked entirely?



> Beside of the P-80 the allies have no plane suited for the superior Nene-engine.



I wonder if the B36 could be modified to take Nene's? 8) 

My opinion now is looking like the Soviets couldn't win. In all likeliness Stalin would have been overthrown, but the Blitz-like and Guerilla tactics could have done it for them?

The weaknesses are:

1. High-alt air power

2. Naval power

Could these be remedied?

How long would that take?

What about Britains labour government/attitude post-war?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

If a war between Nato and The Warsaw PAct happend chances are the war would escalate into a nuclear war and there would be no winner.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 28, 2005)

That's a good point, but:

1. The Allies public opinion wouldn't allow the Soviets to be nuked. (Britain was also kinda lefty :hippy: back then, the Neme mentioned above was given to the SU as a gift from the Government!  ) Also Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type targets were invincible in the USSR (except Stalingrad...)

2. The SU wouldn't have nukes 'till '49.


However, industrial targets and Stalingrad may have been nuked? - unlikely IMHO.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 28, 2005)

We still forget about public opinion in the democratic UK/US
governments. If (my thesis) the SU could delay the advance of 
UK/US ground forces (which they could do for a period, since they had a overwhelming numerical superiority and advanced techniques in 45 avaiable in central europe) -remember the UK/US are rather agressors than defenders in this szenario- wouldn´t the public opinion turn against their own governments? Could they feel comfortable by prolonging an otherwised ended war?
Nuking enemy targets is still another thing: I suspect it would have happen sooner or later (esspeccially in order to remove Stalin from SU government), but it wouldn´t probably have a big effect. Stalin could decide to kill anyone in western europe in response (he had acces to a large quantum of Botulinum captured from Germany in april 45, which means he had acces to a biological weapon capable of killing the entires earth population).
The SU nuclear project was based on 
1.) espionage
2.) captured geman Uranium deposits 
3.) own scientific work 
and:
4.) Ardenne (a german scientist, who improved the enrichment facilities in Germany during ww2 and later became a key person in the SU enrichement project)
WOM shouldn´t concern us much, since as posted above, nobody could win. 

The B-36 has enough range to strike targets deep within Sibira, the B-29 hasn´t. The B-36 cannot be equipped with the Nene (it´s diameter was way to large), I think of the Supermarine Ace or something like that.
From when on is the B-36 avaiable in numerical strength? 45? surely not. mid 46 is more probable. By that date the SU already has an enstrengthened PVO consisting of Mig-9 and I-250 (N). 
Still: the effect of hi alt strategical bombing is a lot overestimated. I don´t expect that even heavy bombardments could reduce the military production and train services to more than around 15-20%, which is still under the acceleration limit = no visible effect (like the german industry output in 1944). Attacking the oil industry could make a difference.
Anyway I agree that the SU cannot stand against combined UK and US forces over a more than brief period (while ground fighting could be a very bad experiance for the western allies in russia..)


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2005)

During the preparation for the Nromandy Landings France was to all intentes and purposes cut off from Germany. The number of loaded rail waggons that made ot through fell to a tenth of what it had been in April 1944 when the campaign started.
There is no reason to believe that at least as much could have been achieved against the Russians. The planes may not have had the range to hit the production centres but they certainly had enough to stop the supplies getting through.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> That's a good point, but:
> 
> 1. The Allies public opinion wouldn't allow the Soviets to be nuked. (Britain was also kinda lefty :hippy: back then, the Neme mentioned above was given to the SU as a gift from the Government!  ) Also Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type targets were invincible in the USSR (except Stalingrad...)
> 
> ...



The U.S. public will agree to anything if they truly feel their way of life hangs in the balance, and in Nato the U.S. opinion was considered back then "words of wisdom" and the allies would have easily followed the us into anything excep for France because they are already invaded by the Russians LOL.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 28, 2005)

Greetings Glider!

I do not agree completely with you, but without knowing it, your argument
(beeing absolutely true in case of the Normandy) is going to underline my point of view. Strange?
The preperations against France haven´t cut off the Whermacht completely (it repeatedly succeeded in transfer of Panzer divisions, Jagdgruppen, fuel and ammo but to a very high loss rate) but effectively=reducing the capacity of the french railway net to 62% (source Groeler 1980, page 421). However, this was no strategical campign, it was a tactical one. Just the way the VVS used to fight. Carpet bombing was tried but found to be highly ineffective (up to the point of killing a allied General on the ground by own carpet bombings). The P-47, P-38 and Tiffys did most of the job. Against what? A lot of AA (which took a good deal of the allied losses there) and those rare fighters of the two JG´s stationed in France (barely 180 planes). At D-day 500 german sorties over France stood against 14.674 combat sorties for the allies. While this is a peak, since a high rate of sorties was a bit overheated, it reduced to an average of only 2.700 for the next two weeks. Under these circumstances it´s clear why they had a good time to do havoc. They already had the unchallanged aerial superirority there.
How much sorties could the VVS in late 45 fly over central europe? I don´t know but they a max of 13.950 combat sorties in feb 45, an average of 6.400 combat sorties between 19th and 25th april, till may 7th additional 3600 combat sorties each day. This is at least comparable.
With these numbers in mind, I see no justification for a clear UK/US aerial superiority against the VVS from the beginning on. This question would be answered in progress of the extensive air battles, but not because any air force was way superior over the other.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 29, 2005)

*delycros:*



> esspeccially in order to remove Stalin from SU government



This may be achieved by the SU itself! - he wasn't too popular.



> he had acces to a large quantum of Botulinum captured from Germany in april 45, which means he had acces to a biological weapon capable of killing the entires earth population



He might do this in desperation?



> Attacking the oil industry could make a difference.



Yeah, they are vulnerable.



> The P-47, P-38 and Tiffys did most of the job. Against what? A lot of AA (which took a good deal of the allied losses there)



True, plus the Soviets also had better AA, e.g all Stalin tanks (and some T34's) carried a DShK .50 whereas Germany only had a few paltry MG42's on some heavies. 

The US tanks also had a .50 AA gun usually though too.

Jet Jabo's make these redundant though...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

> True, plus the Soviets also had better AA, e.g all Stalin tanks (and some T34's) carried a DShK .50 whereas Germany only had a few paltry MG42's on some heavies.
> 
> The US tanks also had a .50 AA gun usually though too.
> 
> Jet Jabo's make these redundant though...



Not to mention the SAM was well into development
[/quote]


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 29, 2005)

As was the ZSU.

Which side nicked the Enzian tech anyway? - I thought it was the US?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Early Soviet SAMS would not have been able to stop a B-29 onslaught.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 30, 2005)

Some US scientist developed a ship based guided SAM during 45-47 but with little succes.
The Enzian tech was shared between french and british but none of them developed it further. V. Braun designed the NIKE-Sam (based on the latest EWM-2 W Wasserfall SAM´s which were more advanced but moreso difficult, too.) for the US after the war and the soviet took away most of the Rheintocheter SAM-tech, which in the end led (together with further soviet engineering) to their first SAM -missiles-series.
The Hs-Schmetterling SAM wasn´t even considered by the victors to improve the tech. 
With Germany knocked out, no nation could develop and deploy a useful SAM in the timeframe up to 1947, which may threaten a high alt strike.
After all I know, I suspect that the either EWM 2W10 or the EWM 2W12 was the best tested SAM up to the late 40´s. It had the greatest performance, excellent range and altitude, a huge warhead and a semi active homing for it´s proximity based fuze. (way more advanced than the Enzian)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Until V. Braun continued his work in the United States correct?


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2005)

Greetings Delc
I suspect that you underestimate the effect on the bombing. 
By late May Rail transport in France was down to 55% of January's figures.
By 6th June it was down to 30% as a result of the attacks on the Seine Bridges.
After the 6th it dropped to 10% of January and it then fell in the West of France to 7%. No army can survive on those levels. 

On June 3rd a German appreciation report on the attacks prepared by Rundstedt office stated 
'If the aim is for the rail network to be completely wrecked. Local and through traffic is to be made impossible and all efforts to restore the services are to be prevented. This aim has so successfully been achieved at a local level that the Reichsbahn authorities are seriously considering whether it is not useless to attempt further repair work'.

It should be noted that cutting the lines from USSR to Germany would be in some ways easier than cutting Normandy from the rest of France. In any European country there was a web of lines, some major some minor some country lines but they can all be used to bypass damaged lines and keep some traffic flowing. The lines from the USSR factories to the front wouldn't have that kind of support and there would be larger chock points for the bombers. 

The above quote came from Strategy For Defeat The Luftwaffe 1933 - 1945. It concentrates on political economical, production aspects of the war as opposed to a plane by plane comparison. If you can find it, I recommend it to anyone for background.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 30, 2005)

I have that book Glider, bought it with Actunganzer! But haven't had much time lately to read either.  

I read that after a single raid by USAAF that German oil production was reduced by aprox 3 quarters, maybe in that book?

If this happened in the Caucases...

Wasn't the Enzian the only heat-seeking missile development of the period?


----------



## delcyros (Oct 31, 2005)

Correct, Adler.

Glider, I had no possibility to read the book, but if you would give me the ISBN I would really like to do. -
By the way, it wasn´t the strategic carpet bombing, which succeded, it was the mixture of french resistance and tactical bombardment.
Sample: In march 45 (!) the Wehrmacht succeeded in the relocation of their last major ground forces for their unsuccesfull counterattack in hungary. For these attempts, some Divisions travelled over 800 Km by train. 
Russia on the way is more difficult, since they have a good CAP capability in the the close area and beyond them a strategical attack wouldn´t be soo promising (the Luftwaffe wasn´t able to disrupt the train service for a longer time even with heavy bombardments).
The caucasus wasn´t the only oil field in russia but I suspect that a concentrated, prolonged strike would be desastreous for the abilities of the red ground forces.
The Madrid Infrared guidiance was full of problems until late march 45.
It also was used for one of the Wasserfall protoype launches in oct.44.


----------



## Glider (Oct 31, 2005)

ISBN 1-86160-615-X is the number you want. 
It wasn't the carpet bombing either that did most of the damage, it was strategic bombing. The type the Russians would have had trouble dealing with. The Russians didn't have a fighter capable of taking on the B17's and 24's with their escort at altitude, neither did they have a nightfighter to stop the British. To compare the bombloads that the allies could drop on a target using their four engined bombers to that the Germans could drop using the He111 and Ju 88 is like comparing my family car to an F1, totally different capability.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 1, 2005)

Thanks for the number, Glider! I am looking forward to read the book.
I think you may underestimate the abilities of the PVO in 45. They had 
Pe-3 nightfighter as well as La-7 modified with 3 B-20 /20mm guns for the PVO Leningrad, PVO Moscow, PVO Gorki, PVO Baku and PVO Stalingrad. This fighter may deal with a bomber (essp. the B-24) but it could do match any fighter as well on (nearly) equal terms. They had excellent ground controll and radar supported directioning, also.
And they had the possibility to put a MiG-based high altitude fighter in serial production at any time if necessary.
I still don´t believe that any allied fighter operational in mid 45 could accompany a B-29 on a long range raid against Moscow.
The airspace between PVO and VVS was somehow empty. Strikes there wouldn´t have much soviet resistance. 
I also think the average bombloads are not that important here, because if you want to knock out bridges and railways (instead of large cities) you have to drop your bombs with pinpoint accuracy. A diving Ju-88 has a much higher probability to hit the target than a high level bombing B-17. (The Ju-88 and Ju-87 did the job as we know). 
A lots of railways, bridges and traffic knotes have been hit. But with little succes. The soviet railwaysystem is of different kind, very easy to repair even under the worst circumstances. They had also the possibility to transfer goods, ammo and fuel via the large plains or by hiding in the woods.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 2, 2005)

delcyros said:


> By the way, it wasn´t the strategic carpet bombing, which succeded, it was the mixture of french resistance and tactical bombardment.



That and the SAS.  



Glider said:


> To compare the bombloads that the allies could drop on a target using their four engined bombers to that the Germans could drop using the He111 and Ju 88 is like comparing my family car to an F1, totally different capability.



Too right 8) but wasn't a Ju290 used to bomb Russia?

*delcyros:*



> They had Pe-3 nightfighter



The Russian Mossie! 8) Much better than the Me110.



> They had also the possibility to transfer goods, ammo and fuel via the large plains or by hiding in the woods.



They also had Aerosan Aerosleds, they'd be hard to hit by anything other than a nimble fighter? (Spitfire?)


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2005)

Best anti bridge bomb has to be the Tallboy. Knocked out a number of Bridges and viaducts that conventional bombs missed. Extreme I know but the evidence in France tells me that the Allies could knock out the bridges and infrastructure with conventional weapons.
I know about the Pe3 nightfighter but it wasn't a patch and more importantly, its radar wasn't close to being as good as those available to the UK and USA nightfighters. I would not try to bomb Moscow by day and I wouldn't try that often at night. My concentration would be on the marshaling yards and infrastructure.
I am a big fan of the LA7 and reckon in performance it was as good as almost anything, but the crews lacked the same discipline and training that Allied forces had. Right up to the end the Germans were more than holding their own in combat but were heavily outnumbered. The numbers would be more equal and then the training would really count. There is no reason to doubt that the average better trained allied pilot would be better than the average Russian pilot.
Laddie Lucas was leading 125 Wing to Berlin when they came across 100 Russian MiG fighters. He described what he saw
'There seemed to be no pattern or discipline to their flying. The pack followed the leader rising and falling as they quartered the rubble like buzzards'.
The Russians may have been able to put a high altitude fighter into production at any time but that would take time. It would take training and they would then be up against a selection of experienced high level fighters. I suspect that they would have had the same problem as the JAF. A suitable engine for high altitude work would I think have been a problem. The USA probably had the best engines for high altitude work and they didn't get it right first time. It took time to develop these engines into reliable machines and I doubt if the Russians would have got it right first time. I doubt if anyone could.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> delcyros said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, it wasn´t the strategic carpet bombing, which succeded, it was the mixture of french resistance and tactical bombardment.
> ...




The Bombing definately helped but it didnt do much on German Aircraft production, cuz the destruction of the Luftwaffe in France was key to the success on D-Day '44, it was the german loss of fighter pilots intercepting the bombers that wore them down. same with B.O.B the Runway bombings didnt do as much damage in terms of killing pilots its was the AtoA losses that punished them.

The SAS and the French Partisans werent the only guys taking out railways and other strategic targets, there was the Dutch, Polish, Yugoslavic and Norwegian Partisans, Yes there was the SAS, but there was also the "Devils Brigade", American spies from the OSS and there was Canadian and British spies from the SOE.

So the factors cannot be narrowed down, because there is just so many.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2005)

I am afraid that the role of the SA in destroying the German transportation links was very small. In Europe they destroyed seven trains and derailed thirty three. A drop in the ocean.
The resistance movements did help a lot on the landing day itself but due to their nature they couldn't destroy a marshalling yard, take on a large bridge or operate on a daily basis as they would have been identified. This does not belittle what they did or their courage which was huge. The role of the resistance in tieing down german troops, the effect on their morale, identifying intellligence information and maintaining a steady drain on the German resources was very significant. As long as the resistance operated they knew that they hadn't won the war or cowered the population.

I am afraid that for a strategic campaign you need strategic forces and the bombers are far and away the best forces to use.

The wearing down of the German airforce was down to a number of factors. These incude

Attacks on Fuel production
Attacks on aircraft production facilities
Attacks on infrastructure (transport) etc.
Daylight bombing raids 
Nighttime bombing raids

No doubt people can think of other examples.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2005)

I could not agree more with you both. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was because of many small things building up to the eventual defeat. Many players had a part in it also.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 3, 2005)

I do agree well into multicausal reasons for breakdown of airforces.
However, 

You don´t take the ground forces into consideration. the Luftwaffe in the west was not to the least beaten because it was splitted and couldn´t fight concentrated, even in the east, where they concentrated 75-80% of their forces from mid 41 till mid 43, they couldn´t achieve total aerial superiority. Till DDay they did not even had a considerable, balanced airforce over France, worthy to mention (compared to the east).

The fuel shortness caused from mid 44 on was possibly one of the most important key factors.

I do not agree in aircraft production. That´s more a myth than anything else.
(show me where the aircraft production DROPPED over more than a very few days because of bombing. However, the bombing contributed to a slower acceleration (disputable). In terms of breaking the production capabilities of the Luftwaffe the strategic bombing campaign was a failure...)

Infrastructure was partly a succes, but way overrated. It had succes in terretorries were the Germans were in control of as occupiers because repairs were done very, very slowly (also thanks to the resistance + civil morale of the occupied people), In the Reichsgebiet, the traffic wasn´t hampered badly (submarines, tanks and airplanes could be builded while the parts have been produced independently and seperated, without traffic nothing would have been done, but there was lot of traffic up to the time, when ground forces overran the terretories)
The Luftwaffe lost more planes against the VVS/PVO than against UK or US forces, The VVS also consisted of many very experienced pilots and some of their pilots -call them the elite- did an excellent job. The average trained pilot was way inferior to those of the western airforces, maybe except for the germans in 1945. The nightfighter wouldn´t have to fight allied nf but allied night bombers. For this task, the Pe-3 was suited well.
And You haven´t convinced me yet, that the fight would massively shift to hi alt sorties. IL-10 and Yak´s would go low level, and that´s exactly where they want to fight.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2005)

Delc
I certainly agree that the Germans didn't have anything close to a balanced airforce over France and this was due to the number of fronts that the Germans had to cover. They couldn't be everywhere at the same time.
You are correct when you say that aircraft production didn't drop, but it didn't increase by nearly as much as Germany needed it to. In 1944 Germany produced 8000 more aircraft than the Japanese who everyone believes had a slow production rate and wasn't close to being enough. Its also true that German losses were rising at least as fast as the production, the end result being that Germany wasn't gaining strength let alone build a reserve. If you are standing still and your opponents are gaining strength then at the end of the day, you will lose. 
On August 31 1943 Germany had 1019 operational fighters
on December 31 1943 Germany had 1095 operational fighters

During December 43 Germany wrote off 22.8% of their fighter strength, During November 43 they wrote off 21% of their fighters
These huge losses were soaking up any increase in production

Around April 1940 the Strength of the German airforce was about 5000 aircraft. In September 1944 It stood at approx 5,750 a small increase compared to that achieved by the other countries.

All the countries had a core of elite pilots and that obviously includes Russia. However wars are won by the average pilot and if the average Allied pilot is better than the average USSR pilot then the allies will win.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 4, 2005)

The tactical air battles woyld be happening at low level, where the VVS would want to fight, but the RAF and USAAF bombers and escorts would be coming in at high level, attempting to destroy strategic targets. The Allies would command the high level as Russian fighters weren't designed for that kind of battle and their armamnet was normally a 20mm and 2x12.7mm which would not be of much use when trying to take down a Lanc, Hally, Lib or Fort. At low level, Allied training and teamwork would break up the much less organised VVS fighter formations.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

Agreed Glider and Mosquitoman. Well said, that is what I think would happen, there would have been some huge dogfights!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 9, 2005)

They're all great posts since my last one.  



mosquitoman said:


> their armamnet was normally a 20mm and 2x12.7mm which would not be of much use when trying to take down a Lanc, Hally, Lib or Fort.



The Russian ShVak and D20/DShK seem better than the Hispano and M2HB?

Probably had inferior ammo propellant though?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 10, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> They're all great posts since my last one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The ShVak is a slightly inferior weapon to the Hispano. It fires a lighter, shorter shell at slightly lower velocity. The ShVak shell aslo has less HE/incidenary filler than a Hispaon shell.

The B-20 is a bit of a different case. While it has similar ROF to the ShVak and fires the same ammuntion, it is also a much llighter and more compact weapon.

The Russian UB was the best heavy machne gun of the war. Compared to the M2 Browning it was lighter, had a much better rate of fire, slightly lower muzzle velocity, but fired a heavier shell with more than double the HE filler than a standard M8 API round. A UB is roughly about 20% more effective than a M2 Browning.


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2005)

I agree with Jabber here re the effectiveness of the guns. That said, I still wouldn't fancy my chances in knocking down a B17 with 1 x 20 and 2 x HMG no matter how good they were.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 11, 2005)

Exactly, although once the Russians realised what they were up against I'm pretty sure they would have developed a better way of taking down bombers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

If they had the time. If the allies had continued into the Soviet Union they would have bombed them back into the pre stone age and they had the bombers with the B-29 and the Dominator to reach the factories behind the Urals and Siberia especially with control of Japan.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 11, 2005)

Good point, don't forget the Lincoln aswell


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Yeap she could have hit them too where it would matter most. I dont thinkt he allies would have gone in without completly destroying the Soviet production first.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 11, 2005)

It just wouldn't have been worth it- Sherman vs IS3 is noc ontest


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 11, 2005)

*Jabberwocky:*



> The ShVak is a slightly inferior weapon to the Hispano. It fires a lighter, shorter shell at slightly lower velocity. The ShVak shell aslo has less HE/incidenary filler than a Hispaon shell.



I'd heard the muzzle velocity and HE content was better.  



> The Russian UB was the best heavy machne gun of the war. Compared to the M2 Browning it was lighter, had a much better rate of fire, slightly lower muzzle velocity, but fired a heavier shell with more than double the HE filler than a standard M8 API round. A UB is roughly about 20% more effective than a M2 Browning.



Sounds interesting, what calibre was it?



Glider said:


> I agree with Jabber here re the effectiveness of the guns. That said, I still wouldn't fancy my chances in knocking down a B17 with 1 x 20 and 2 x HMG no matter how good they were.



*mosquitoman:*



> Exactly, although once the Russians realised what they were up against I'm pretty sure they would have developed a better way of taking down bombers



I think that the Russians may have used heavily armed PE3's to destroy bombers, whilst using MiG's against Escort Fighters?

From my discussions with delcyros, I feel it is possible that the Me262 could have been copied as a bomber-interceptor, along with it's 4x Mk108 30mm's or better?



> It just wouldn't have been worth it- Sherman vs IS3 is noc ontest



IMHO it would be T34/76 vs Sherman/75, T34/85 vs Sherman/76 and IS2/3 vs Pershing. Apart from the 1st example, the Russians do not have absolute superiority. It would then be down to the crew's skill and experience...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> It just wouldn't have been worth it- Sherman vs IS3 is noc ontest



By that point the Allies would have been fielding Pershings. Plus Allied airpower would destroy the Soviet tanks and the the ability to produce more. By 1945 the Allies were a well oiled machine.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 12, 2005)

Records confirm that Stalin originally wanted the Ar-234 B and C plus the Me-262 in serial production for late 45. Things changed later because there was no crucial need for them (and soviet designers insisted against the pure overtaking of german designs). The M-262 eventually was redesigned to the Su-7 with straight wings, a circular fuselage diameter and changed weaponry (including a 37 mm gun plus twin 20 mm guns). I rate it as the best soviet first generation jet fighter: best crit mach figure of them, faster than the Yak-jets, more agile than the La-jet and easier to fly than the Mig-9. It concentrates all positive aspects of the other planes including the very important fact to be comperatively easy to fly (unlike the La-150 and Mig-9) and it even wears a good firepower. With the advent of the british Dervent V engines (from which I believe they are not suited for underwing nacelle engines because of their huge size) the Su-9 called variant was even faster (for a reduced crit mach figure).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Just like they did for the Germans the Ar-234 and the Me-262 would not have been much of a help for the Soviets either. Not when your ability to build them has stopped because you have been bombed into the stone age. 

Plus the Russians would not have known what to do with them.


----------



## marconi (Nov 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not when your ability to build them has stopped because you have been bombed into the stone age.



Allies couldn't bomb Germany into stone age for several years, why are you so sure it could be done with USSR?
Also it was said here that allied aircraft would destroy Soviet tanks.Obviously it cannot be done by B29.But it was also said here that Soviet fighters were better at low altitudes.So such Aircraft vs. Tanks campain could have been quite difficult for Allies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

By 1945 the allies were in a better situation than the Soviets. The USAAF and the RAF aircraft were far superior to that of the Soviets and the Allies were a highly efficient oiled machine. You have to remember the thousands of B-29's that they would bomb the Soviet Union with they did not have in 1942. That is why it took so long to bomb Germany into the stone age. If the Allies had continued into the Soviet Union in 1945 they would have had thousands of B-29s to hit them with from the East and the West. These B-29's would have been also getting help from thousands of Lancasters, thousands of B-17's, and thousands of B-24's as well as several hundred Lincolns. Also the USAAF Dominator would be coming into service soon. The allies would have been able to bomb the Soviets without much of a resistance. 

To help protect the bombers they had P-51D's, P-47N's, P-38L as well as Corsairs from the west. They allies would have secured aerial supremacy very quickly over the Soviets. All of these aircraft were far more superior than the Soviet Aircraft.

Who said anything about B-29's destroying tanks, thats just putting words in my mouth. Once they bombed them into the stone age with the B-29's then the P-47's could go in with the Typhoons and take out the tanks from the air. 

No production, no offensive ability and the lurking gloom of a possible US atomic strike on a Soviet City and the war would have been won by the Allies.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> By 1945 the allies were in a better situation than the Soviets. The USAAF and the RAF aircraft were far superior to that of the Soviets and the Allies were a highly efficient oiled machine. You have to remember the thousands of B-29's that they would bomb the Soviet Union with they did not have in 1942. That is why it took so long to bomb Germany into the stone age. If the Allies had continued into the Soviet Union in 1945 they would have had thousands of B-29s to hit them with from the East and the West. These B-29's would have been also getting help from thousands of Lancasters, thousands of B-17's, and thousands of B-24's as well as several hundred Lincolns. Also the USAAF Dominator would be coming into service soon. The allies would have been able to bomb the Soviets without much of a resistance.
> 
> To help protect the bombers they had P-51D's, P-47N's, P-38L as well as Corsairs from the west. They allies would have secured aerial supremacy very quickly over the Soviets. All of these aircraft were far more superior than the Soviet Aircraft.
> 
> ...


Agreed Alder, well said.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 13, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I'd heard the muzzle velocity and HE content was better.




Nope. 

Hispano; 130 gram shell, 870 m/ sec M/V, 10.4 grams HE content for HE/I round, plus 2-3 grams incidenary compound. It fired at around 600-650 RPM 

ShVak; 96 grams shell, 750-790 m/ sec MV, 5.76 grams HE content for HE round. It fired at around 750 rpm

The Hispano had a more aerodynamic round (better shape), a higher sectional density, better ballistic coefficient and a higher initial muzzle velocity than the ShVak. 

The Hispano was probably the king of 20mms during the war, only really surpassed by the Russian B-20, which fired the same ammo at the ShVAk, but was a much lighter and smaller gun.



> Sounds interesting, what calibre was it?



The Russian UB was a 12.7 mm. The round was a 12.7x 108 shell (compared to the 12.7 x 99 in the M2, 13 x 64 in the MG 131 and 15x 96 in the Mg 151/15). It was a long and very powerful round, with more than twice the HE/ incidenary capacity of a M2 or MG131 round.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 13, 2005)

We already excluded the nukes (remember Botulinum? nobody would win) for this theoretically.
And from mid 45 onwards, how many B-29 were avaiable? thousends? No. If you check you will find a few hundreds in operational service. It would be fine to verify how many in at mid 45. The B-17 and B-24 haven´t the range, nor have the P-51/P-47/P38 (from which I believe the last comes very close) to accompany them. Check out the maps. Take one third of max range as penetration depth and voilá, central sibiria cannot be touched by them.
And there is still no proof that you will have any succes by destroying the war economy (from which I believe it is impossible in case of the SU with the strategical means of the mid 40´s).
And I also believe that the Red Army was one of the best oiled war machines in mid 45 at the continent, it really could be a tough opponent, nothing you could wipe out in within months.
The SU also had it´s own jet development project, they had quite a good understanding of jet engines (while they still benefitted from german alloys like tinidur and chromadur) and jet planes, to think they cannot operate a jet is very unwise, such thinking was widely responsible for the Mig-schock in Korea. By the way it is impossible to bomb any industrialized country back into stone age as long as you don´t replace it´s whole population.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

I Disagree with you del. While you have good points there. The allied economy just in the US alone would have those thousands of B-29s available plus they would be making Dominators by then. P-51/P-47/P38 all with drop tanks had the range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2005)

well what exactly is happening? for either contry to win there has to be an invasion correct? as either side would advance across europe they would be getting closer and closer to the enemy and so vital targets would always be coming into range........


----------



## delcyros (Nov 14, 2005)

From later times, maybe. But in the way Adler wanted them (destroying the war economy first) it simply wasn´t possible. Take a look into the Korean conflict, even with massive air attacks it wasn´t possible to cut off the ground transportation. Having a look into vietnam verifys this. Russia is a far larger country and uncomfortably hard to travel. It also isn´t easy to bomb out. I doubt that the UK/US ground and air forces in 1945 were suited for this task. And as far as I see, there is no possibility for the bombers to strike Gorki from Italy or France with escort. Even with drop tanks, no chance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

I still disagree. The B-36 Peacemaker could have been made quicker and it had a range of 6800mi and 10,000mi ferry range. It could have reached targets deep in Russia. It first flew in 1946 and I am sure it could have been brought online quicker.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes, Adler, the B-36 could do (but still without escort!), but a considerable number operating units wouldn´t happen prior to let´s say mid 47, by this time the PVO was already fielding a good number of jets, it´s R&D was working quite hard on the La-15 and Mig-15 and on the other hand tets have made with early SAM... I wouldn´t bed my money on a strategical conventional bombing campaign against the SU.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

delcyros said:


> We already excluded the nukes (remember Botulinum? nobody would win) for this theoretically.
> And from mid 45 onwards, how many B-29 were avaiable? thousends? No. If you check you will find a few hundreds in operational service. It would be fine to verify how many in at mid 45.



I think there were about 1,000.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 16, 2005)

you mention the russian jets, well, are we excluding the german engineers that russia and the USA got after WWII?? if we are then russia and the US would've lost a fair bit of research/development, which would've hit the russians hard, and what good would the MiG-15 be without it's VK-1 engine? we gave them designs for the Nene from which they derived the VK-1, no nene, a very poor or no mig 15..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

Good point there Lanc. The Russians would not have recieved any help form the western allies in there development of jets and other weapons.


----------



## Glider (Nov 16, 2005)

I think its worth remembering that the Russians had the Mig 9 in mass production in late 1946. It was a decent little plane with a performance similar to the Vampire and was well armed to take on bombers with 1 x 37 and 2 x 23.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 17, 2005)

You may exclude the Nene and Dervent V (RD500) but you cannot exclude the german techs from russia. These , unlike the former, were not given to them, they captured it all.
The VK-1 was a soviet build improved version of the copied Nene (RD45), and it proved to be worthy for their 50´s jets (IL-28, Mig-15).
Had that tech not been avaiable, I suspect that the Mig-15 would have never happened (cause the airframe was based on the Nenes huge diameter). In this case, the La-15 would have won the contract. Lawotchkin was impressed by the two captured and explored He-162 and the swept wings on papers, so he designed step by step a light fighter, not unsimilar to the early Ta-183, but with a more stretched airframe. This light plane is a much better dogfighter, thanks to it´s higher critical Mach figure capable to reach Mach 1.0 in a dive (unlike the Mig-15), beeing easy to fly and even more maneuverable than the Mig-15 was, esspeccially at high speeds. The lighter airframe could be fitted by a Tumanski TR-1 (genuine soviet tech), RD-21 (soviet version of the Jumo-012, cancelled because of the avaiability of the lighter Nene), or RD-9F /RD10F. In any case the VVS would field in the very late 40´s second generation (swept winged) jets...
Let´s make it detailed. How much B-29 have been produced till wars end?
How much got to training units, static tests and anything inside US/UK?
How many got to operational status?
How many have been lost during ww2?
How many could participate a strike against Moscow from Italy in oct.45?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I suspect that they would not have worked for Russian and would have rather died, knowing that the allies were fighting Russia now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

As for you question of the B-29's thats been answered by FBJ dont skirt around the fact: 1000's


----------



## delcyros (Nov 21, 2005)

At 14th of february 1945, Boing assembled the 1.000th B-29. However, by mid 45 less than 1.000 planes were deployed by the air forces. A 50% operational status was estimated (but records show it was better) by staffs.
Against Russia, most B-29 would need to be refitted with defensive turrets (often removed against japan in order to carry more payload). How many operational? I doubt it would be more than 800 by end of 45.
Level bombing from very high altitude proved to be very little effective. At lower altitude, they come into operational altitude for PVO-planes. Without escort, it´s going to be lunchtime for PVO.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 21, 2005)

But then again, fire-bombing was chosen over high-level strategic bombing in Japan- imagine 800 B-29s, Lancasters and Lincolns firebombing the same area over Moscow, The Ural factories etc


----------



## delcyros (Nov 22, 2005)

The use of fire proved to be effective against the paper and wooden, very light housesconstructions of the japanese, historcial grown cities, but not against the concrete struktures at Moscow. They would have a devastating effect on all on surface (like Hamburg maybe), but Moscow had (and has) the most effective defensive tunnel system for the entire inhabitants, 50 m beneath the surface. No chance with fire bombing.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 22, 2005)

*delcyros:*

I think you're making some good points and providing good info.  

I take it that, due to limited range, allied jet escort fighters are out of the picture 'till = ?

But I suspect a jet-bomber with the necessary range would come sooner?

On the Soviet side: 

When d'ya reckon the high-level piston-fighters (MiG etc) would be ready?

The Me262 would, I believe, be rushed into service as an interceptor, along with other German types (Comet? He162? FW190? Me109?).

Also eventually it sounds as if they'd have the La-15? 8) 



> Let´s make it detailed. How much B-29 have been produced till wars end?



-


> At 14th of february 1945, Boing assembled the 1.000th B-29.





> How many got to operational status?
> 
> How many have been lost during ww2?



Those are good points. Thing is the US wouldn't lose many in the initial high-level campaigns against the SU? Coupled with their capability to produce many more...



> I doubt it would be more than 800 by end of 45.



That doesn't seem an unreasonable figure IMHO.



> Level bombing from very high altitude proved to be very little effective.



Well, it certainly was on oil production, if the Caucasus were the first target then bye-bye.  



> At lower altitude, they come into operational altitude for PVO-planes.



I doubt they'd do that. Whilst high-level may not be as damaging, the Soviets would not be able to damage the bombers much either.

The thing is that the Soviets would have effective AA defences that could take a toll?



> Without escort, it´s going to be lunchtime for PVO.



I'm reckoning on swarms of twin-Mustangs?


With the fire-bombing thang; if done at lower altitude, it allows most Soviet fighters to be useful.



DerAdeler said:


> I suspect that they would not have worked for Russian and would have rather died



IMHO Scientists don't usually think that way DerAdler, self preservation almost always comes first.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

delcyros said:


> At 14th of february 1945, Boing assembled the 1.000th B-29. However, by mid 45 less than 1.000 planes were deployed by the air forces. A 50% operational status was estimated (but records show it was better) by staffs.
> Against Russia, most B-29 would need to be refitted with defensive turrets (often removed against japan in order to carry more payload). How many operational? I doubt it would be more than 800 by end of 45.
> Level bombing from very high altitude proved to be very little effective. At lower altitude, they come into operational altitude for PVO-planes. Without escort, it´s going to be lunchtime for PVO.



If need be they would be rushed into service sooner. So would the B-32 and B-36. Remember a country like the US which is already at the peak of its production could turn them out quickly, very quickly and deploy them just as quick.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 24, 2005)

The B-29 production already was at full scale since mid 44. Only in case the B17/B-24 program as well as the B-32 program would have been cancelled I see a chance to increase the B-29 output significantly.
Baku wasn´t the only oil production centre in russia. I admit that an effective oil campaign would be the best strategy against Russia. In within 4 months it could make an impact in ground transportation.
The AA of Moscow, Leningrad, Baku and Gorki is very good, if not the best of it´s time, It will take a toll on whoever is coming.
Fw-190: Beside of the -D variant (which was taken over in 45 for two wings of the Baltic units) no use in VVS/PVO (as Me-109).
Me-262: In this scenario probably by late 45 (production lines captured)
Me-163: unprobable because of the problematic with it´s fuel (and the russians did not had the capabilities to mass produce C-Stoff)
Ar-232B: unprobale
Ar-234C: In this scenario by mid -late 45 (Production lines captured) 
Mig-9: In this scenario by late 45
He-162: unprobale (?)


----------



## Glider (Nov 24, 2005)

I believe that B29 at night would be a difficult task for the Russians to deal with. 
I don't agree that the USSR air defence was the best of its time by a long way. They had average radar the best of which was supplied by the Allies so spares would have been difficult and the technology to build key components was not available. The Russians didn't have the proximity fuse. These are two components without which night attacks would have been difficult to counter
Neither did they have airbourne intercept radar in their aircraft although the German radars would have been available to them.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 24, 2005)

With capturing Peenemünde and Wielke Pavlovice the russians did got tons of material like SAM, radar equipment and proximity tech.
With capturing the Spandau production plant, the soviets even got the best of the german airborne radar equippment and even a few of the experimental FuG 244. 
Records show that Moscow had an excellent AA defense system and since they could concentrate on fewer cities (unlike the Germans), the defense was more intensive than you might estimate.
B-29 flying at hi alt and night would have been barely stoppable by the means of the PVO in 45, that´s correct.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The B-29 production already was at full scale since mid 44. Only in case the B17/B-24 program as well as the B-32 program would have been cancelled I see a chance to increase the B-29 output significantly.



Um where did I say anything about increasing production, now you are just feeding words into my mouth. I said they would rush the ones they had into service quicker. You said that less than a thousand were DEPLOYED. Trust me if the United States wanted to DEPLOY THEM QUICKER they could have. The definition of deploying is sending them to an operational area not building them. Trust me I know what deploying is. I have been deployed 3 times. Also the United States could build more and more quicker than you think, if they had to. A country that coudl build a Liberty Ship a week could put out more B-29's if they wanted too.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 20, 2005)

The Shvetsov engined MiG 9 seems to be a good high-altitude piston-engined fighter bet.

It could fit say, 3x 20mm cannons plus 2 .50's.

Thing is, to take on a Mustang it would be better off with the .50's, but only the hub cannon?

It seems though that radial engines are not good for high altitude performance?

There was a good Soviet V-engine, the AM-38. Dropped for the MiG, so it could be made instead for the IL-2 (a huge mistake IMHO). If that had been used in the MiG...


----------



## delcyros (Dec 21, 2005)

Now I can add that PVO since april 42 was in possesion of airborne radar for night interceptions.
Grief-II was a modified radar based on german tech aquired in 1940. It was tested in late 41 on a modified Pe-2 succesfully and become deployed in early 42 for PVO Moscow.
First succesful use was in august 42.
Since late 44 equippment was improved by a number of english radar but they found it to be complicated to be operated by PVO. It wasn´t until mid 45 that more improved airborne radar tech became avaiable for PVO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2005)

sounds like whatever radar the VVS did use was primitive, the British were world leaders in RADAR technology, we managed to beat some of the large german ground based radars, russian ones shouldn't be a problem..........


----------



## delcyros (Dec 21, 2005)

That I cannot denie.
VVS would have a bad surprise with technical warfare of UK. 
I just had to outline that - unlike most estimations - the soviets developed
airborne radar in ww2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

The Russians always had problems with there radar. Just to make the Su-27 and Mig-29 on the same level as the F-15 and F-14 they had to practically steel and copy the radars that were in them, and this was the 1970s so it would have been worse in the 1945-1950 range.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 29, 2007)

I notice that you forget one key thing with regard to bombers. The B-36 Peacemaker would have seen service if there had been a Soviet Attack as an ultra-heavy bomber. Basically considering it was twice as large as the B-29 and had a great range, it could have done the Russians a lot of damage. It was ready at this stage but was used as a Recon Plane with the ability to fly deep into Russia and back. That would have been scary for the Russians, at least at first. Look at the U-2 that they could detect but couldn't really do anything about until an SA-2 Grail SAM brought down Gary Powers U-2...


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Jan 30, 2007)

US production capacity surpassed that of the USSR. It appears that US production during the war was beyond that of any of the other combatants. For example, the US apparently surpassed the USSR by a wide margin in production of iron ore, crude steel, aluminum and coal. In some of these areas the gap is enormous and frankly the USSR is nowhere close.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

And that would be the main reason the Soviets could not have won against the western allies because of the allied production. Besides they all wanted to end the war as it was anyhow.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

What do people think of the idea of the use of a B-36 Peacemaker being used against Russia early on? We know that at least for a number of years, early on during the Cold War, the B-29 Stratofortress cruised around without being able to be hit, so during those years what fear would a B-36 Peacemaker cause even if it was just armed with conventional bombs considering its payload was greater than a B-29?


----------



## chemurgyinstitution (Feb 7, 2007)

Did the cold war front end in the jelling of fuels on the western front. ? was that diesel fuel? Does anyone know if the high octane Allied fuels were made with ethanol and not methanol? Are there threads related to aviation fuels and diesel?


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 11, 2007)

Not so far as I know. But we know the Germans panicked when the B-29 Stratofortresses were flying over very high, so what about B-36 Peacemakers that have a larger bomb-load flying over and decimating Russian cities...


----------



## Glider (Feb 11, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Not so far as I know. But we know the Germans panicked when the B-29 Stratofortresses were flying over very high, so what about B-36 Peacemakers that have a larger bomb-load flying over and decimating Russian cities...



Germans panicked? As far as I am aware the B29 didn't fly over Germany so who panicked?


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 11, 2007)

Opps, sorry the Russians panicked. So if B-29s with a smallish bomb-load could do that, imagine what B-36 Peacemakers armed with incindary bombs could do to Russian cities! Any thoughts on how the B-36 Peacemaker introduction would have affected a war against Russia in 1946?


----------

