Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front. . .

[NTGray]

My perspective of World War II was shaped by my being both an American and a navy brat, so to me the War began on December 7, 1941. My father made it to the South Pacific in October of 1943 as a radioman aboard an LST, and got out in 1966. When I was able to read, one of my favorite household books was a dark blue Navy "yearbook" that detailed the Pacific War battle-by-battle, with battle diagrams and lots and lots of photos. (The book's title included the words "Battle Stations" in case anybody else here thinks they grew up with that same book.)

My two favorite planes were the SBD Douglas Dauntless dive bomber and the PBY Consolidated Catalina seaplane, and I had a plastic model of both of them, along with a fair number of warships, including the battleships Missouri and Pennsylvania. Sadly, there were no models of Essex class carriers in wartime configuration; my model of the CV16 Lexington had an angled deck and hurricane bow.

Now, I knew that the War technically started in 1939, and I was aware of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany. Twelve O'clock High was on my regular TV watch list, as was The Rat Patrol, Combat! and, uh, oh yeah, Hogan's Heroes. A few years earlier, I faithfully caught every episode of Navy Log and The Silent Service.

All of that is to say that I had only the dimmest awareness of what was going on along the Eastern Front. I knew it existed and that the Arctic Convoy was a thing, but when I discovered that Erich Hartmann, Germany's top fighter ace, scored his 352 kills mostly in the East, I figured that his score was so high in large part because he flew against weak opposition. My knowledge of MiGs started with the MiG-15; I had no idea whatsoever what planes the Russians were flying during the War, except that they snapped up a lot of P-39s that nobody else seemed to want.

It has literally been just in the past year that I began researching the Eastern Front in detail, and am only now beginning to understand that the Russians (or "Soviets," I know the difference, but who cares?) actually did the majority of the Allied heavy lifting during the war. Could the Russians have won without Lend-Lease or the bombing of Germany? Maybe, maybe not, but considering all factors, World War II could justly be described as a war between Germany and Russia, with major participation by Britain and America and Japan. And now I have a much better understanding of why the P-39 was so popular with the Russians. I also have a great appreciation for the Yak-3, Yak-9, La-7, and Il-2. (MiG-3s played a relatively minor role in the war.)

Considering that I knew something about Zeroes and Vals and Kates and Bettys and Tonys and Emilys and others, it seems a shame that it took me so long to discover those planes built by Yakovlev, Lavochkin, and Ilyushin. Those were some top-tier flying machines, and some of them were as good as or better than anything the Germans (or Americans or Japanese) built. And for those whose general ignorance of the Eastern Front (or The Great Patriotic War, as the Russians know it) rivals my own (probably not very many on this forum, but there may be a few), there is some good material of the "quick" variety available on YouTube if you search "animated history of the Eastern Front" and look especially for videos by Eastory. They're not heavy on aviation, but they'll help you get a broad idea of what was going on.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fully 60% of all Wehrmacht casualties occurred on the Eastern Front.

 

[Ovod]

Considering that I knew something about Zeroes and Vals and Kates and Bettys and Tonys and Emilys and others, it seems a shame that it took me so long to discover those planes built by Yankelovich, Lavochkin, and Ilyushin.

Yankelovich, never heard of it? Was the chief designer/founder of the design bureau any relation to this guy?

 

[NTGray]

Yankelovich, never heard of it? Was the chief designer/founder of the design bureau any relation to this guy?

View attachment 651856

Some things cannot even be explained with spell-check. Fixed.

 

[Graeme]

Hogan's Heroes.

I do remember as a youngster seeing Colonel Klink and Sargeant Shultz always in trouble and threatened with being sent to the "Eastern Front" - and not comprehending.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do remember as a youngster seeing Colonel Klink and Sargeant Shultz always in trouble and threatened with being sent to the "Eastern Front" - and not comprehending.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Soviet Union was in dire straights in the early years of the war. Without British and U.S. lend-lease, they would have been up the creek without a paddle.

The war in the West (and Afrika) accomplished several things, most importantly, though, was the diversion of much-needed German assets.
Without that diversion, the Soviets would have faced the full brunt of the German war machine.

I had two great uncles (USAAC/USAAF) at Pearl Harbor on 7 December '41 and two uncles (Mom's older brothers) who enlisted USN, 8 December '41 and served in the PTO (Uncle Fred - Submariner, Uncle Earl - signalman, destroyers).

 

[Njaco]

"Maybe, maybe not, but considering all factors, World War II could justly be described as a war between Germany and Russia, with major participation by Britain and America and Japan. "

I would disagree with anyone who has that concept. The Eastern Front was but one front which without the other countries would have been a massacre in the wrong direction. With that mindframe, 'World' War II is the wrong terminology and The Great Patriotic War should be correct. And if Russia was the great savior, why did they not enter into conflict with Japan until the closing weeks of the war? They could have handled that theatre very well, maybe, possibly. I understand what you are saying and it might be because this is mostly a Western influenced forum with history that is Western influenced. I am sure in Russia they see it as them against the world. A wise man once said "You are only as smart as the piece of the world you happen to be standing in."

 

[NTGray]

Some would say that Tojo and Hitler made similar blunders by attacking a much larger country. However, the two viewed the strategic situation differently. Tojo (I assume) agreed with Yamamoto and others that Japan could not win a long war, but they believed that the war would not be a long one because America did not have the will for a long fight and would sue for peace if things went badly at the beginning. That of course proved to be a serious miscalculation.

Hitler, on the other hand, had every reason to believe that his forces would militarily crush Russia before winter set in. (Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Germany, was launched in June of 1941). Russia had a greater quantity of soldiers and material, but the quality of both was inferior, and Stalin himself contributed to that inferiority by the way he had treated the army in the years just before the war. Stalin's purge of the top army leadership—along with his other political enemies—proved devastating to the war effort, and in the late fall of 1941, with the Wehrmacht rapidly approaching Moscow, any reasonable observer would have been excused for believing that Russia's defeat was only a matter of time, and not very much of it. It was only the onset of the Russian winter that finally slowed the German advance, and it took most of 1942 for the Russians to really turn the tide. Most authorities agree that Stalingrad was the decisive turning point, and the Russians launched their serious counter-offensive from Stalingrad in November 1942 with another winter coming on. After that, the Russians pretty much had control.

 

[Njaco]

I have no problem with what you posted. Just with the premise that there are those who could say it was only between Germany and Russia with help from other countries. Anyone who says that, has no real grasp of the history.

 

[J_P_C]

But you are realizing that in 1941 Soviets have switched side just because Hitler found them bigger threat than western democracies? Soviets have "won" just becuse of single reason - they sacrificed whole generation of their own nation - which was result of their disrespect for their own peoples and power hunger of their red rulers. Best prove of this statement is that untill now they are unable to establish their own casulty numbers - spread in Russian's sources is from 7 up to 30 millions.

 

[NTGray]

Now, regarding Russian air power:
The Yak-3 often gets compared to the Zero, as both were especially light and maneuverable. But the Yak-3 had a significant advantage in power, power-to-weight, top speed, and climb rate. (I have seen it called "lighter" than a Zero, but that is only if you include fuel weight. But the weight difference is not much.)
Of course, the Yak-3 didn't start making it to the front lines until 1944, by which time the outcome of the war was already clear, but that doesn't take anything away from its quality.

Yak-3​

Mitsubishi A6M0​

General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 8.5 m (27 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 9.2 m (30 ft 2 in) Wing area: 14.85 m2​ (159.8 sq ft) Empty weight: 2,105 kg (4,641 lb) Max takeoff weight: 2,697 kg (5,946 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Klimov VK-105PF2 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 960 kW (1,290 hp) Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed propeller Performance Maximum speed: 646 km/h (401 mph, 349 kn) at 4,100 m (13,451 ft) Combat range: 550 km (340 mi, 300 nmi) Service ceiling: 10,400 m (34,100 ft) Time to altitude: 5,000 m (16,404 ft) in 4 minutes 30 seconds Power/mass: 0.35 kW/kg (0.21 hp/lb) Take-off run: 345 m (1,132 ft) Landing run: 580 m (1,903 ft) 360° turn: 17 seconds

General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 9.06 m (29 ft 9 in) Wingspan: 12 m (39 ft 4 in) Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in) Wing area: 22.44 m2​ (241.5 sq ft) Empty weight: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb) Max takeoff weight: 2,796 kg (6,164 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Nakajima NK1C Sakae-12 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 700 kW (940 hp) for take-off 710 kW (950 hp) at 4,200 m (13,800 ft) Propellers: 3-bladed Sumitomo-Hamilton constant-speed propeller Performance Maximum speed: 533 km/h (331 mph, 288 kn) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft) Cruise speed: 333 km/h (207 mph, 180 kn) Range: 1,870 km (1,160 mi, 1,010 nmi) Ferry range: 3,102 km (1,927 mi, 1,675 nmi) Service ceiling: 10,000 m (33,000 ft) Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,090 ft/min) Time to altitude: 6,000 m (20,000 ft) in 7 minutes 27 seconds Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m2​ (22.0 lb/sq ft) Power/mass: 0.294 kW/kg (0.179 hp/lb)

 

[NTGray]

I have no problem with what you posted. Just with the premise that there are those who could say it was only between Germany and Russia with help from other countries. Anyone who says that, has no real grasp of the history.

The word "only" would be pushing it too far, of course, but I didn't say that. But I do agree that it is obvious that Russia bore most of the weight of the fighting. Even though they did none of the strategic bombing of Germany, the sheer numbers of soldiers, on both sides, involved in the land war in the East was far larger than in any other theater of operations. I cannot find a quick and exact reference for number of soldiers, but it appears to be somewhere around 4 million Allied soldiers in the West in late 1944, and around 6 million Russian soldiers in the East, with a greater number of German soldiers facing the Russians.

 

[Njaco]

The word "only" would be pushing it too far, of course, but I didn't say that. But I do agree that it is obvious that Russia bore most of the weight of the fighting. Even though they did none of the strategic bombing of Germany, the sheer numbers of soldiers, on both sides, involved in the land war in the East was far larger than in any other theater of operations. I cannot find a quick and exact reference for number of soldiers, but it appears to be somewhere around 4 million Allied soldiers in the West in late 1944, and around 6 million Russian soldiers in the East, with a greater number of German soldiers facing the Russians.

You are correct but the inference was there. And I'm not saying that is your opinion, just that you made a statement that I found a bit weird - that there would be people that think a "world" war was only between 2 countries with some hanger-ons. Just commenting on a portion of your post.

 

[NTGray]

But you are realizing that in 1941 Soviets have switched side just because Hitler found them bigger threat than western democracies? Soviets have "won" just becuse of single reason - they sacrificed whole generation of their own nation - which was result of their disrespect for their own peoples and power hunger of their red rulers. Best prove of this statement is that untill now they are unable to establish their own casulty numbers - spread in Russian's sources is from 7 up to 30 millions.

Having the Communists on "our" side was a problem for many. There is even evidence that Hitler thought that he could persuade England to join him in fighting against the Russians. There is also evidence that Hitler planned from the beginning to attack Russia, and that the "Non-aggression Pact" between the countries was intended by Hitler only to buy him some time to concentrate on Britain, after which he could focus 100% of his military power on conquering Russia.

 

[tomo pauk]

There is even evidence that Hitler thought that he could persuade England to join him in fighting against the Russians.

There is evidence that someone thought?

There is also evidence that Hitler planned from the beginning to attack Russia, and that the "Non-aggression Pact" between the countries was intended by Hitler only to buy him some time to concentrate on Britain, after which he could focus 100% of his military power on conquering Russia.

Concentrate on Britain in August of 1939? How that follows?

 

[J_P_C]

Having the Communists on "our" side was a problem for many. There is even evidence that Hitler thought that he could persuade England to join him in fighting against the Russians. There is also evidence that Hitler planned from the beginning to attack Russia, and that the "Non-aggression Pact" between the countries was intended by Hitler only to buy him some time to concentrate on Britain, after which he could focus 100% of his military power on conquering Russia.

what you mean "on our side" ? - soviets havent been in fact on allied side just accidently have common enemy and they used west to defeat germany. I think western allies were very, very naive in their push to count soviets as allies, and i cant understand why they have traded 1/3 of the wurope just to satisfy red tsar. Pobably it was fear and overestimating soviets - in 1944 Soviet Union has been close to depleting its demographic reserves and allies has started land action in very critical for soviets moment

 

[GrauGeist]

The Allies could not have successfully invaded northern Europe any sooner than 1944.
First reason was the Luftwaffe - their effectiveness needed to be reduced.

And let's not forget that the Allies were not idle while Russia was engaged with Germany - the North African and Italian campaigns were effective both in retaking land held by Germany as well as diverting valuable and irreplaceable German assets from the eastern Front.

The U.S. could fight a two-front war, Germany could not.

 

[NTGray]

The Allies could not have successfully invaded northern Europe any sooner than 1944.
First reason was the Luftwaffe - their effectiveness needed to be reduced.

And let's not forget that the Allies were not idle while Russia was engaged with Germany - the North African and Italian campaigns were effective both in retaking land held by Germany as well as diverting valuable and irreplaceable German assets from the eastern Front.

The U.S. could fight a two-front war, Germany could not.

Trying to imagine Germany waging a single-front war (either Western or Eastern) is hard, but it seems at least likely that Germany could have conquered Russia if there had been no British/American help, and that it would have taken the West a lot longer to win the war if Russia had not required over half of Germany's military production. Still, the Battle of Britain was won without Russian assistance, and the Battle of the Atlantic probably would not have turned out much differently even if Germany had been able to build more submarines. More Luftwaffe fighters available to defend against bombers might have had an appreciable effect in prolonging the conflict, but my guess is that in the end the sheer weight of American and British material production would have won the war anyway. But all those P-39 Airacobras and Il-2 Shturmoviks chewing up the German tanks and infantry certainly took a good bit of load off of the Western forces. (By the way, "Shturmovik" wasn't really the official name of the Il-2. It was never given a name; that was just a generic word for "ground attack plane" that caught on because I guess we Westerners had to call it something.)

 

[GrauGeist]

Beleive it or not, the P-39 wasn't used against AFVs - the 37mm was ideal against bombers, though.

They used types like the IL-2 and Pe-2 in that role.