Thumpalumpacus
Major
It's the entire premise of the thread that Operation Unthinkable occurs in 1945. Did you even read the thread?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The point was made above about the insufficient effectiveness of even the MiG-15 against the B-29 based on the Korean War. But from my point of view direct extrapolation is incorrect. No one mentioned 1945.
I was responding to a specific posting, so the entire premise of the thread is irrelevant in this case. Did you even try to follow the discussion?It's the entire premise of the thread that Operation Unthinkable occurs in 1945. Did you even read the thread?
I was responding to a specific posting, so the entire premise of the thread is irrelevant in this case. Did you even try to follow the discussion?
It's very unfortunate that you didn't even try to understand the discussion.Yes. Your point, such as it is, is still very ahistorical. I've already given it too much attention. Here, you can have the last word.
And there is no MiG-15 in the 1945.1. The motivation of Soviet pilots was lower than in World War II - they were not fighting directly for their country.
2. Soviet MiG pilots had many limitations in Korea, which reduced the effectiveness of MiGs against the B-29s.
3. The B-29s had an escort. In raids on the USSR it would be absent or inadequate.
4. The USSR could not organize a reasonable rotation of pilots in the Korean War. As a result, the units arriving for replacement had no combat experience and were ineffective suffering heavy losses.
In case of a war against the USSR, the effectiveness of the MiG-15s against the B-29s could have been much higher. But during night raids, most likely, the effectiveness of MiGs would drop much stronger than that of the B-29s.
Why then was it necessary to mention the losses of the B-29s in the Korean War? That's your idea, not mine. And the losses there were exclusively from MiGs under very specific conditions. And I only tried to explain that specificity.And there is no MiG-15 in the 1945.
Research on using composite Plutonium and Uranium Pits started in July 1945 with discussions between Groves and Oppenheimer that due to delays in production at Hanford, was possible to use both material in implosion devices. War ended sooner than expected, so production work on that was delayed a year, and then not tested til 1948 with the Sandstone pit design tests,for the Mk 3 Device design with improvements beside the composite material.As a result the Army apparently turned more towards the Uranium Little Boy weapons that relied on Uranium coming out of the Oak Ridge Tennessee facilities. BUt that still relied on Polonium from Hanford.
Mine gives a total of 11 cores for 1946, and 32 for 1947From the information I have read over the years was that the US nuclear stockpile in mid 1946 was 9 bombs. To me that reads bombs available for use. It does not mean that there were not more Plutonium cores sitting in storage. As I noted the problem is that the Polonium elements need regular replacement.
I mention them because it is reasonable to assume that B-29 losses caused by VVS piston engine fighters in 1945 would be lower than in the Korean War. That's all.Why then was it necessary to mention the losses of the B-29s in the Korean War? That's your idea, not mine. And the losses there were exclusively from MiGs under very specific conditions. And I only tried to explain that specificity.
PS. That's why it's quite funny to blame me for "ahistoricality" - especially if you take into account that I was probably the most critical in this thread about the Soviet industry's ability to produce jets in case of war continuation. Russians say that "no good deed goes unpunished" - I've tried just to share information and got reproaches in response.
It's not so obvious to me. The Japanese managed to shoot down B-29s using even less suitable fighters, some of the Soviet pilots could suicidally ram the bombers, especially since the escort range was insufficient. Fighter numbers would have been much higher, operating over their own territory. I don't want to say it would be an effective countermeasure, but I don't see much point in comparing it to Korea either.I mention them because it is reasonable to assume that B-29 losses caused by VVS piston engine fighters in 1945 would be lower than in the Korean War. That's all.
I am not sure that VVS/PVO were ready until 1952-1953. May by even longer. It is really difficult to estimate capabilities of the Soviet air defense within the period 1945-1955, you can find some information on technical parameters, unfortunately they could not be used without exact knowledge of real drawbacks/limitation of the Soviet weapons.the VVS was not ready for that in November, 1945
I assume the USAAF task is less challenging. They simply do not need to bomb precisely - just do it systematically. Perhaps that sounded too cynical, but it still would damage the Soviets, and after the bombing of Germany, hardly anyone would feel too much mental pain. I repeat - I am categorically against such a scenario, and have no regret that the continuation of the war with the USSR did not happen. I do not believe that the world would be a better place otherwise.Now could say that neither could the USAAF
Not for the full range if you want to reach the most critical objects on Volga. Most likely it will be necessary to organize complex shuttle flights with takeoff in Norway and landing somewhere in Iraq or Syria.The USAAF had escorts by mid-1945 that could provide cover.
I'm not sure if airfields east of the Rhine would be available to the escort.Especially if the escorts were picked up enroute.
The P-82 was deployed in 1948. It is unlikely that they would have been able to enter service as early as late 1946.The P-51H and P-38 are two candidates and if the offensive started a bit later, the P-82 becomes available.
The main targets are located deep in the European part of the USSR, 2-2.5 thousand kilometers range, the operations of aircraft carriers in the sub-polar seas are extremely difficult.If the US Navy were tasked with providing escort for some missions, then the F7F would be a candidate as well as the F8F.
The USAAF had escorts by mid-1945 that could provide cover.
Especially if the escorts were picked up enroute.
The P-51H and P-38 are two candidates and if the offensive started a bit later, the P-82 becomes available.
If the US Navy were tasked with providing escort for some missions, then the F7F would be a candidate as well as the F8F.
As the war drew down, the P-82s were put in storage. They were introduced a few years later and renamed F-82, but they were coming off the assembly line while the U.S. was still at war with Japan.The P-82 was deployed in 1948. It is unlikely that they would have been able to enter service as early as late 1946.
There were the Baltic and Aegean plus many Allied European nations (including India) that had airfields that fighters could fly from.The main targets are located deep in the European part of the USSR, 2-2.5 thousand kilometers range, the operations of aircraft carriers in the sub-polar seas are extremely difficult.
The level of B-29 shooters' overclaim of MiGs is too high to judge the actual ratio from their claims. No positives to be seen there. According to Tepsurkaev/Krylov, the Soviets confirm the loss of 2 or 3 of their MiGs from B-29 guns, of which only one can be accurately credited to the B-29, for the rest there is no solid evidence (it could be also credited to the escort), as well as one Chinese one - it was simply reported by Soviet pilots, Chinese losses are unknown to me. Most of the MiGs claimed shot down by B-29 gunners landed on their airfields with a few holes - the damages were rather minimal, there was one emergency landing outside the airfield, the plane was recovered. If necessary we can compare the lists of claims and losses with dates and names, but I think this topic has been discussed here at least thousand times in detail.Then your Soviet fighters get to the B-29's analog-computer FC system which managed a positive kill-ratio against jets.
Ok, I have to agree. It may be useful.As the war drew down, the P-82s were put in storage. They were introduced a few years later and renamed F-82, but they were coming off the assembly line while the U.S. was still at war with Japan.
Which exactly? Airfields beyond the range of Soviet tactical aviation would be needed.There were the Baltic
The same range - 2000-2500 km.and Aegean plus many Allied European nations (including India) that had airfields that fighters could fly from.
The Rhine may have to be crossed first.And let's bear in mind that Eastern Europe under Soviet control had to be neutered first, before focusing on Russian proper.