Franco-British vs. USSR in 1942

[wiking85]

Supposing a wildly implausible situation in which Germany is stymied in 1940 leading to their defeat in 1941, what would a Franco-British war against the USSR in 1941/42 have looked like in the air as they fight over control of Central Europe?

The scenario, for those interested would be that the Germans don't go for the Sickle Cut and instead just plow into the Allied armies in Belgium in 1940, which bogs down; without the disaster in France the Allies don't pull out of Norway and end up winning at Narvik. Germany, now without is primary source of quality iron ore, starts losing due to the fall in weapons and munitions production. The anti-Nazi resistance in Germany kills Hitler provoking a Civil War and Stalin invades in July 1941 in the East. The Allies manage to recruit the Italians into the war to invade Austria, while they push in the West and Stalin in the East (without signing on with the Allies). Paralyzed by the death of Hitler and power struggle, Germany cannot shift around forces and collapses as the Soviet march into Berlin and the Allies into the Ruhr. They meet near the Elbe in late 1941/early 1942, with most of the German forces being captured/fleeing West to surrender, but the Allies and Soviets end up clashing upon meeting up. The Soviets refuse to back down and leave Germany, Poland, or the parts of Czechoslovakia they control. The Allies can't tolerate the Soviets controlling that much of Europe and the violence escalates into full war, both sides blaming the other. The Soviets' objective is to control Central Europe to the Rhein, the Allies to stop on the Vistula.

Hungary, which has occupied Slovakia before the Soviets, and Romania are neutral. Italy, which moved into Austria advanced as far as Brno in Moravia, is onside with the Allies, as its Belgium, the Netherlands, Free Poles and Czechs. The Germans are disarmed and in PoW camps, but could theoretically be reactivated to fight if needed, but politically in 1942 that's not possible. The US is offering LL to the Allies.

What does the war shape up to look like in terms of production, technology, counter measures, etc.?

 

[wiking85]

No thoughts about Hawker Typhoons mixing it up with Yak 9s? Or British P-51s against Soviet Su-3s? Or French developments with the Dewoitine 520?

 

[Shortround6]

The French get a bit tooo whatiffy real quick. We have no real idea what their engines would have been like in 1942. We know what was projected but the projected figures were never realized using post engines using post war fuel. Perhaps teh post war engines were rated at lower power for increased overhaul life? or the projected figures were just too good to be true? We have no idea what the french guns would have been like, France was outof the war before a belt fed Hispano 20mm gun showed up although the British belt feed was based on a French design.

Basically the Russians are screwed. They could get away with low level planes because the Germans didn't have very many high level (over 20,000ft) bombers. They didn't have to go up and the Germans had to go down to engage the IL-2s and Pe-2s. The Allies have got thousands (not hundreds) of bombers that can fly at 20,000 (including Lancasters) and the western Allies have also got fighters that can operate at low level in addition to high level. The Russians also have a bit of problem with fuel. Without lend lease supplies do they have enough additives to boost their domestic fuel to even 95 octane/PN for the amount of fuel needed ( I am sure they can make small batches but small batches won't get the job done).

 

[wiking85]

The Soviets had high altitude fighters, but didn't develop them out of lack of need. The Su-1/3 being a perfect example. How about Maskirovka to help counter Allied strategic bomber attacks?

 

[Shortround6]

Actually the TSu-1/3 being a perfect example of the problems the Russians faced. They had several prototypes, They didn't work. It wasn't lack of need, it was the fact that the Russians couldn't build reliable turbochargers. And they tried putting turbos on practically every engine they had.

Maskirovka is only going to work to a limited extent, Not even B-29s could actually bomb the Urals from Europe so the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters aren't going anywhere near that far.

It isn't hard to hide tanks, guns in forests. It is an awful lot harder to hide dozens of miles of railroad tracks leading to a factory. Russians had an awful lot of empty landscape and only a relatively small area of built up areas.

 

[Koopernic]

The Soviets would do extremely well.

The force they were developing in 1941 was an offensive force with a strategic bombing capability and was a different force than they ended up having in 1943 that they developed in response to the German invasion. For instance the MiG 3, generally much faster and longer ranged than most Allied and Axis aircraft such as Me 109F and Spitfire V at altitude. It was never developed. (if you wanted an high altitude escort fighter in 1941/42 the MiG 3 was it). The Yak 1, nearly 500 in service before the German invasion.

Stalin was up to something, many Russian Historians posit an Invasion for Europe scheduled for 1941 that failed to build up sufficient modern weapons apart from tanks and was held of. Prior to Operation Barbarossa the Soviets had nearly 3000 T-34s and 1800 KV-1 in service. (albeit 33% in the East facing Japan) No western or German tank could match these vehicles. The claim usually is that there hadn't been enough training or debugging etc. I don't know how you can produce and deliver 3000 tanks so overnight and not have worked out a few things. They also had 25,000 light tanks, perhaps 14000 serviceable that had excellent mobility and the fire power of a 45mm gun.

The long range Pe 8 bomber (1941) would have been outstanding in range and altitude except for its finicky Diesel Engines in early versions. Moreover the MiG 3 could escort it. The Russians were not lacking in resources such as crude oil, strategic raw materials. I would say much of Lend Lease compensated for resources they had lost to the German invasion.

They would have a weakness in radar, while their aircraft lack finesse in 1941 due to their relative newness and lack of refinement but they were fundamentally sound.

 

[wiking85]

So we could well see Soviet strategic bombing of the Allies?
I think strategic bombing is more going to be limited to logistics interdiction, because that's what's in range; the Soviet though would probably suffer from dealing with Allied radar interception, while the Allies won't face sophisticated Soviet radar, especially without Lend-Lease.

 

[Shortround6]

The key word there is "developing" as many of the aircraft (and engines) never reached their intended performance. Or achieved it very late. Work started on the VK-107 engine in March of 1940. Granted production was interrupted by the war, however that excuse doesn't work for the the times production was stopped in late 1945 and in 1946 because of problems. The VK-107 only reached it's goal of 100hrs between overhauls in 1946.

The PE-8 was built to the tune of 93-96 aircraft (?) and used 4-5 different engine set-ups. The first prototype used four AM-34 engines supercharged by a M-100 engine in the fuselage. This wasn't working so well and production problems(?) with special model AM-34 engines forced a switch to the AM-35A engine. Desire for greater range saw both M-40 and M-30 diesel engines fitted. fuel system controls were rather basic and in the case of the M-40 engine if it cut out due to fuel delivery problems it could only be restarted below 1500 meters. Most planes built had the AM-35s because of greater reliability. Late production aircraft got M-82 radial engines. Speed and range are all over the map due to the different engines. A few of the very last ones got ACh-30B Diesels and while these were much better than the early diesels they still suffered from failures of the compressor bearings and piston rings. in 1943/44 pilots were said to "fondly remember the less powerful and economical but far more reliable AM-35A,"

BTW, range for the Mig-3 is also all over the place as there were several different fuel tank set ups. The Mig-1 started with a 88.8 gallon fuel capacity (that sure gives a vast improvement over a Spitfire-sarcasm) but space for a 54.9 gallon tank was found by repositioning the radiator. Unfortunately for long range escort plans, after the plane was armed with three 12.7mm mg and two 7.62s ( and 821 built that way) the deterioration in speed and handling was such that not only was it recommended to get rid of the under-wing guns but reduce the capacity of the rear tank by about 25 gallons and the center tank by about 11 gallons. Some performance figures for a late production plane are with 102-103 gallons of fuel. That sure isn't going to go far trying to escort PE-8s.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Basically the Russians are screwed. They could get away with low level planes because the Germans didn't have very many high level (over 20,000ft) bombers. They didn't have to go up and the Germans had to go down to engage the IL-2s and Pe-2s. The Allies have got thousands (not hundreds) of bombers that can fly at 20,000 (including Lancasters) and the western Allies have also got fighters that can operate at low level in addition to high level.

In 1942, the French and British won't have thousands of bombers that can fly well at 20000 ft. The French AF is not USAF of 1943 leat alone of 1944. The low-level battle would be interesting in 1942. The WAllies don't have proper escort fighter; expecting from RAF and FAF bombers to bomb Kiev from Frankfurt (960 miles in one way) is a bit too much, Harkov with it's tank factory is further East.
Basing the heavy bombers too close to Elbe is going to attract VVS attacks on the bases.

The Russians also have a bit of problem with fuel. Without lend lease supplies do they have enough additives to boost their domestic fuel to even 95 octane/PN for the amount of fuel needed ( I am sure they can make small batches but small batches won't get the job done).

The fuel situation might be more problematic. A solution that was historically done with Miklulin engines was to lower the compression (AM 42 went down to 5,5:1) so the boost (and hence power) will be good even if the fuel was not by standards of 95 oct.

The Soviets would do extremely well.

The force they were developing in 1941 was an offensive force with a strategic bombing capability and was a different force than they ended up having in 1943 that they developed in response to the German invasion. For instance the MiG 3, generally much faster and longer ranged than most Allied and Axis aircraft such as Me 109F and Spitfire V at altitude. It was never developed. (if you wanted an high altitude escort fighter in 1941/42 the MiG 3 was it). The Yak 1, nearly 500 in service before the German invasion.

Even though I like the MiG-3, it needed plenty of polishing to meet the performance standards of Bf 109F. As vast majority of other Soviet aircraft, it never carried drop tanks, and internal fuel amount was on European level, not on US/Japanese, and that equals short range.

Stalin was up to something, many Russian Historians posit an Invasion for Europe scheduled for 1941 that failed to build up sufficient modern weapons apart from tanks and was held of. Prior to Operation Barbarossa the Soviets had nearly 3000 T-34s and 1800 KV-1 in service. (albeit 33% in the East facing Japan) No western or German tank could match these vehicles. The claim usually is that there hadn't been enough training or debugging etc. I don't know how you can produce and deliver 3000 tanks so overnight and not have worked out a few things. They also had 25,000 light tanks, perhaps 14000 serviceable that had excellent mobility and the fire power of a 45mm gun.

The Soviets produced prior 1942 the amount of T-34s and KV1s, the amount of available tanks of those types was far lower when Op Barbarossa started. I'd really love to see the number allotted for Siberia. Truth is that both of those needed plenty of care and would not be that well suited for major invasions in 1941. 1942 might be another story, though, especially since Soviets will not have need to relocate their factories.

The long range Pe 8 bomber (1941) would have been outstanding in range and altitude except for its finicky Diesel Engines in early versions. Moreover the MiG 3 could escort it. The Russians were not lacking in resources such as crude oil, strategic raw materials. I would say much of Lend Lease compensated for resources they had lost to the German invasion.

Pe 8 need to be deployed in great numbers and with strong escort for success. From Eastern Germany, the UK is out of question. The bulk of WAllied fighter force will be based in W. Germany and France anyway, and I'm not sure that Yak-1 and LaGG-3 will be and answer for Spitfire or a souped-up French fighters; the P-39 will make plenty of problems under 12-15000 ft, and it's 37mm would come in handy for busting the Il-2s. The WAllies might get the P-38 and Allison Mustang in 1942. VVS would not have and answer for Mosquito, even the A-20 would represent problems to intercept it. WAllies would have less numerous AAA (when compared with German) to worry.

They would have a weakness in radar, while their aircraft lack finesse in 1941 due to their relative newness and lack of refinement but they were fundamentally sound.

Good radars in good quantity would indeed be a problem.

 

[wiking85]

In the case of the Il-2 the French had this:
Potez 630 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plus of course the British Typhoon and later Meteor.

 

[Juha]

A few comments
Much would depend on what the French had in 1942 and how eager would the french be fighting against Soviets, after all French Communist Party was powerful in 1940. In a land war in Central Europe 1942 the British would have been a junior partner and what would they have? Without Dunkerque 6pdr production would have begun earlier, so they would have had a merginally effective gun against T-34s and KV-1s with the initial armour, uparmourd KV-1s, if there would have been any in this scenario, would have been unvulnerable from frontal fire by 6pdr. Soviet 45mm A/T and tank gun wasn't a star performer as anti-armour weapon, Matildas and Valentines were too well armoured for it. T-26s and BTs would have been easy targets even to 2pdr but uparmoured T-28 would have been too much to it as also T-34s and KVs would have been.

Hispano would have been an effective weapon against Il-2

 

[bobbysocks]

french invade russia where have i heard that before??? russias size is a national defense system in itself. how long can someone extend their supply lines before reach an end?

 

[wiking85]

A few comments
Much would depend on what the French had in 1942 and how eager would the french be fighting against Soviets, after all French Communist Party was powerful in 1940. In a land war in Central Europe 1942 the British would have been a junior partner and what would they have? Without Dunkerque 6pdr production would have begun earlier, so they would have had a merginally effective gun against T-34s and KV-1s with the initial armour, uparmourd KV-1s, if there would have been any in this scenario, would have been unvulnerable from frontal fire by 6pdr. Soviet 45mm A/T and tank gun wasn't a star performer as anti-armour weapon, Matildas and Valentines were too well armoured for it. T-26s and BTs would have been easy targets even to 2pdr but uparmoured T-28 would have been too much to it as also T-34s and KVs would have been.

Hispano would have been an effective weapon against Il-2

The PM of France was of the Center Right party, which was pushing for a strike on the USSR in 1940:
Paul Reynaud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With so much support from the left – and the opposition from many parties on the right – Reynaud's government was especially unstable; many on the Right demanded that Reynaud attack not Germany, but the Soviet Union.[1]:524 The Chamber also forced Daladier, whom Reynaud held personally responsible for France's weakness, to be Reynaud's Minister of National Defense and War. One of Reynaud's first acts was to sign a declaration with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that neither of the two countries would sign a separate peace.

The left was in the majority, but in the face of the USSR's behavior there would be enough defections to support a war. Ironically the Radical Party, a member of the popular front, was opposed to the radical leftism of their coalition partners and were moving rightward; their defection would hand the right a majority in parliament. Daladier, a member of that party, broke with the popular front and formed a coalition with the right in 1938.

The 17 pounder would probably show up on time and in the meantime the Hurricane probably would do a lot of ground attack work in 1941-42 until the A-36 avenger showed up. The Allies could end up fielding the P-47 in the ground attack role too.

 

[Shortround6]

Without the US getting actively involved it looks like a bloody stalemate. Great British and France can't put enough boots on the ground and neither country has armor worth much in this time period regardless of what is on the drawing board. Russian supply lines are pretty stretched too. No lend lease trucks or rail road rail. Allied Air can chew up Russian rail transport even if they can't hit factories.
Western Allies own the seas, except for the Black sea and that depends on Turkey.

Can W oAllies hit Russian oil fields from bases in Mideast?

 

[wiking85]

Without the US getting actively involved it looks like a bloody stalemate. Great British and France can't put enough boots on the ground and neither country has armor worth much in this time period regardless of what is on the drawing board. Russian supply lines are pretty stretched too. No lend lease trucks or rail road rail. Allied Air can chew up Russian rail transport even if they can't hit factories.
Western Allies own the seas, except for the Black sea and that depends on Turkey.

Can W oAllies hit Russian oil fields from bases in Mideast?

Yes:
Operation Pike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nuuumannn]

Russians are not stupid. They would adapt to conditions in the unfolding conflict. If Allied bombers were striking from high altitude, they would pour their efforts into developing a high altitude fighter. Yes, they were technologically behind the west, but they would make up for it in dogged determination over time and let's face it, Russia has vast stretches of land for a western army to cover and a vast resource in man power to hold them at bay. Western forces might reach Moscow, but I doubt they would get further east, where the all important munitions factories were built. The conflict would be a stalemate for a time, but the Russians are crafty and have the potential to surprise and also to endure enormous amounts of hardship. You can never underestimate the Russians in combat. I think that any invasion of Russia at that time would be futile and would result in what actually happened to German forces during WW2.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The RAF in the UK at the beginning of 1942 is smaller than I thought it would be. RAF returns for November 1941 give a total of 4500 first line aircraft on the books and serviceable, of which about 2800 are in the UK. RAF numerical strength doesn't really begin to climb until late 1942.

I wonder, does anyone have VVS fighter and bomber strengths for pre-Barbarossa and strengths for mid-1942? Also production rates for their medium and heavy bombers?

I can project Armee de l'Air figures, but the VVS is a bit of a black hole.

Also, does anyone have Fleet Air Arm figures?

 

[parsifal]

I think the most likely alternative history that could lead to some sort of conflict between East and west is not as postulated. The most likely might be Hitler removed or assassinated 1939. Germany gets a peace party, restores Polish independence, accept disarmament and occupation. 1940 rolls around and the newly restored Polish Govt is placed under pressure by the Soviets. Soviets back off for a while, whilst they build their red fleet and replace their slaughtered officers. By 1942 they have their fleet, the largest air force in the world, control of the Baltic states, occupation of the whole of Finland, pressure on Sweden and Poland, as well as Rumania, a traditional French client. Yugoslavia sides with the USSR as well as Bulgaria. Turkey and Greece stay neutral. Poland allows French and British troops into her territory.

Rough comparison of numbers

Just Poland for now

Polish forces

30 Divs, 700-1000 a/c a bit of manpower, low industrial base, excellent troop quality, competent leadership

French

80 Divs, 4-5000 a/c short of manpower, no expansion capacity, susceptible to losses. Patchy troop quality good technology base. military leadership conservative

British

maybe 30 divs (some relaxation of their prewar decisions about the size of the army)
5000-8000 a/c
Quite a bit of spare manpower (if dominions are in, otherwise, same as france). Good quality soldiers, good technology. military leadership proficient but uninspired

Soviets
500 Divs about 25 million men under arms, about 40-50000 frontline airforce, largely obsolete

The ability to raise another 500 divs in two years. Inexperieced army, improving leadership, basic technology

I don't like the numbers for the allies

 

[Jabberwocky]

Parsifal, I get closer to 50 divisions for the British Army in 1942:
8 armoured divisions
20 independent armoured regiments/brigades(equivalent to around 3 1/3 divisions)
35 infantry divisions (including two airborne and the Polish and Commonwealth divisions)
Seven independent infantry brigades (equivalent to around 1 2/3 divisions)
Four independent motorised brigades (equivalent to around a division)
8 County divisions (smaller forces of ~10,000 that were mostly static)
All told, about 43 proper divisions, and about six more when you count the smaller independent forces.

By mid 1942, the British Army had called up 2.2 million men. Joining it are the Commonwealth forces - India, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa - all of which added multiple divisions to the UK war effort. The Indian Army alone called up 2.5 million men in the war.

 

[Koopernic]

So we could well see Soviet strategic bombing of the Allies?
I think strategic bombing is more going to be limited to logistics interdiction, because that's what's in range; the Soviet though would probably suffer from dealing with Allied radar interception, while the Allies won't face sophisticated Soviet radar, especially without Lend-Lease.

If the Soviets march into Berlin they get German radar tech which was excellent. Companies such as GEMA (Seetakt, Freya, the Jagdschloss PPI radars), Telefunken (Wurzburg series), Lorentz (Hohtenweil sea search and naval PPI radar) and Siemens (Mannheim FLAK radar).

The Germans can deal with microwaves on the receiving side but cant generate powerful ones, the Russians have invented a magnetron but can't process the signals very well. The two technologies might combine.