Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...
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.
The PM of France was of the Center Right party, which was pushing for a strike on the USSR in 1940: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
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.
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?
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.