Questions about B-29 operational range, VVS, VVS intercept capability if Operation Unthinkable happen.

[GrauGeist]

Versus >260 Soviet (in equivalent)? Not very impressive.

It is when you examine their respective equipment and logistics closer, instead of raw numbers.

 

[GrauGeist]

While I agree with most of this post, I don't think for a minute the USN will be putting fleet carriers into the Baltic. It's far too small, and dangerous because the Soviets have a ton of submarines.

The Soviet Navy did have a large number of submarines, true, but their only significant action came towards the end of the war when they were targeting German shipping that was transporting refugees fleeing the Red Army's advance in the east.

Add to that, the seasoned British and American ASW assets that would make being a Soviet submariner a hazardous occupation.

 

[bf109xxl]

It is when you examine their respective equipment and logistics closer, instead of raw numbers.

What was wrong with the equipment in June 1945? Logistics - the Soviets has enough transport to provide everything in time.

 

[special ed]

Damn, I'd really hoped you were serious about the last word.

USAF documents undercut your point here, as shown in this video:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_epYQLKPY

Your video confirms my late tail gunner friend's, as well as bf109xxl, in that the analog computer was designed to counter 400 mph interceptors rather than the future 600 mph fighters.

 

[33k in the air]

Carriers stationed in the Baltic and Aegean would provide considerable force projection into Eastern Europe and the F8F (1,105 mile/1,778 km range) and F7F (1,200 mile/1,900 km range) would be the prime movers in fighter protection.

Of course combat radius is rather shorter than range. From the relevant Airplane Characteristics and Performance or Standard Aircraft Characteristics documents:

FG-3 Corsair (with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank) = 339 miles
FG-3 Corsair (with 2 x 150 gallon drop tanks) = 586 miles
F2G-2 'Super' Corsair (with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank) = 408 miles
F2G-2 'Super' Corsair (with 2 x 150 gallon drop tanks) = 546 miles
F6F-3 Hellcat (with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank) = 385 miles
F7F-1 Tigercat (with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank) = 322 miles
F7F-1 Tigercat (with 1 x 300 gallon drop tank) = 500 miles
F8F-2 Bearcat (with 1 x 150 gallon drop tank) = 345 miles
F8F-2 Bearcat (with 1 x 150 gallon and 2 x 100 gallon drop tanks) = 730 miles
P-47N Thunderbolt (no drop tanks) = 523 miles
P-47N Thunderbolt (with 1 x 110 gallon and 2 x 165 gallon drop tanks) = 920 miles
P-51H Mustang (no drop tanks) = 437 miles
P-51H Mustang (with 2 x 110 gallon drop tanks) = 886 miles

 

[Peter Gunn]

Regarding USN air assets, I wouldn't count out using them from land bases, nothing in the rulebook says they HAVE to operate from a CV.

Again, apples to bowling balls, there were no MiG-15's in 1945. Also no credible interceptor in the VVS inventory that wouldn't crap it's pants when the escorting Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, F7F, F8F, Spitfire IX etc. shows up with a great big open can of whip ass.

Not saying the ground war wouldn't be ugly but, without air superiority, which the western allies would gain (quickly IMO), the 260 divisions would be underneath a veritable shit storm and running out of supplies to boot.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Soviet Navy did have a large number of submarines, true, but their only significant action came towards the end of the war when they were targeting German shipping that was transporting refugees fleeing the Red Army's advance in the east.

Add to that, the seasoned British and American ASW assets that would make being a Soviet submariner a hazardous occupation.

All very true. But the smallness of the Baltic is going to magnify the risk, and subs can interfere with flight ops even if they're detected. You can't sail straight into the wind when you have a sonar contact.

 

[bf109xxl]

the western allies would gain (quickly IMO)

In a month, the Soviets will be on the Rhine. See the Vistula-Oder offensive. Only now it will be easier for the Soviets - the Allies have no time to prepare similar defense lines.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Damn, I'd really hoped you have serious arguments.
I am not interested in American documents - they are completely irrelevant in this case. MiG losses can only be calculated from Soviet documents, which has already been done. In reality, B-29 crews shot down from 1 to 4 Soviet MiGs, of which 1 turned out to be Chinese, and two can be credited to the escort. How many B-29 gunners shot down Chinese MiGs - I don't know, I don't think it was much more.

Seriously? You think Yak-9s would do any better?

Speaking of serious arguments, I see you're in search of some. You argued the Kwangtung Army could man Japan, but didn't know that American subs and surface assets would make that suicidal. You argued that the Allies had no long-range escorts; you were shown at least four. You implied that the Allies hadn't crossed the Rhine by the end of the war, and you got corrected on that.

Before you complain about motes in anyone else's eyes, attend to the beam in thine own.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do not think, I am perfectly sure, that these AGs unable to stand up to the Soviets - at least within the first 1-2 month.

Sure. Trouble will start when Soviets reach the Rhine. They are unlikely to cross it. And most likely, they will then be thrown back - they will run out of reserves, logistical problems will significantly increase . But the first strike will be terrible.

More unserious arguments. The Soviets are going to have to get their supplies across much of a devastated Poland, and then over a devastated German transport network. Or maybe you haven't heard of the Transport Plan, I don't know. If not, I can tell you: the trains were most certainly not running on time in Germany, and those logistics will certainly be under intense attack. And the WA can turn the old Soviet strategy against them, and trade space for time.

The Soviets haven't fought such numerical air forces, nor faced the density of artillery. It won't be the walkover you apparently think. It won't necessarily be a WA victory either; a stalemate is possible.

 

[bf109xxl]

Seriously? You think Yak-9s would do any better?

What does the Yak-9 have to do with the MiG-15 if it was exclusively about the MiG-15? If you can't keep up with the twists and turns of the discussion, why participate in it at all?

Speaking of serious arguments, I see you're in search of some. You argued the Kwangtung Army could man Japan, but didn't know that American subs and surface assets would make that suicidal.

And you had no idea that US submarine activity in the Sea of Japan was heavily restricted by mines.

You argued that the Allies had no long-range escorts; you were shown at least four.

Only one. You're just not taking range into account.

You implied that the Allies hadn't crossed the Rhine by the end of the war, and you got corrected on that.

So you don't get the point at all. Okay, let me explain. The Allies will be pushed back over the Rhine by Soviet tank armies in the style of the Vistula-Oder offensive.

Before you complain about motes in anyone else's eyes, attend to the beam in thine own.

I haven't complained about beams in other people's eyes in a long time. Although sometimes I wish I could.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Versus >260 Soviet (in equivalent)? Not very impressive.

Compare division complements. Soviet divisions: 7-9,000 men. British divisions: 13,000 or so, though they're at the end of their manpower. American divisions: 15-18,000 men.

 

[bf109xxl]

More unserious arguments. The Soviets are going to have to get their supplies across much of a devastated Poland, and then over a devastated German transport network.

Devastated German network was much better that devastated Soviet network. Nothing especial for the Soviets.

Or maybe you haven't heard of the Transport Plan, I don't know. If not, I can tell you: the trains were most certainly not running on time in Germany, and those logistics will certainly be under intense attack. And the WA can turn the old Soviet strategy against them, and trade space for time.

Seems, that you cannot imagine that even worse conditions didn't stop Soviets in Poland.

The Soviets haven't fought such numerical air forces, nor faced the density of artillery.

Soviet artillery density greatly outnumbered Allied artillery.

It won't be the walkover you apparently think. It won't necessarily be a WA victory either; a stalemate is possible.

This would be in the end the inevitable defeat of the Soviets. They will be forced to withdraw from Europe. But LATER.

 

[bf109xxl]

Compare division complements. Soviet divisions: 7-9,000 men. British divisions: 13,000 or so, though they're at the end of their manpower. American divisions: 15-18,000 men.

Damn, you missed "in equivalent". Or do I need to explain what it means?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What does the Yak-9 have to do with the MiG-15 if it was exclusively about the MiG-15? If you can't keep up with the twists and turns of the discussion, why participate in it at all?

The discussion is about 1945. I mentioned MiGs in showing that B-29s had fared decently against them. And since this is about 1945, the fact that B-29s were able to survive jets implies that the more primitive, much weaker-armed Soviet 1945 fighters would not be able to stop the Superforts.

I had thought my point would not need explanation, but here we are.

And you had no idea that US submarine activity in the Sea of Japan was heavily restricted by mines.

I knew that they were, yet I also knew that they occurred. I also knew that those mines were equally an impediment to Japanese troopships. I also knew that the 5th Fleet was capable of combing it by air without entering it.

Only one. You're just not taking range into account.

Perhaps you should look at the ranges those fighters had: 750 - 900 combat radii. The idea, that B-29s must only fly maximum-range strikes is simplistic. In fact, at shorter ranges, their bombload goes up.

So you don't get the point at all. Okay, let me explain. The Allies will be pushed back over the Rhine by Soviet tank armies in the style of the Vistula-Oder offensive.

I get your point. I just think you're missing some factors.

The idea that anyone disagreeing with you must be incomprehending is both self-serving and wrong. You should be better than this, but again: here we are.

I haven't complained about logs in other people's eyes in a long time. Although sometimes I wish I could.

It's a metaphor. I'd think a writer would understand that.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Damn, you missed "in equivalent". Or do I need to explain what it means?

You're absolutely right, I did. My apologies.

 

[GrauGeist]

In a month, the Soviets will be on the Rhine. See the Vistula-Oder offensive. Only now it will be easier for the Soviets - the Allies have no time to prepare similar defense lines.

The Red Army was fighting an army who's infrastructure was collapsing with no reserve.

The Allies on the otherhand, were recieving new equipment, supplies and manpower daily.

The comparison between the Allies and Germans as a fighting force at that point, is night and day.

 

[bf109xxl]

The Red Army was fighting an army who's infrastructure was collapsing with no reserve.

Don't underestimate the German forces. The Germans put up a strong resistance - nothing collapsed on its own. But the balance of forces - and it was about the same in our case - allowed the Soviets a deep breakthrough. The Germans did not do the best with reserves, but in general we can expect a similar scenario in the first month. Perhaps the Joint Planning Staff had similar suspicions - they rejected any options for Operation Unthinkable because of the Soviets' huge numerical superiority and the impossibility of ending the war quickly.

 

[GrauGeist]

Don't underestimate the German forces. The Germans put up a strong resistance - nothing collapsed on its own. But the balance of forces - and it was about the same in our case - allowed the Soviets a deep breakthrough. The Germans did not do the best with reserves, but in general we can expect a similar scenario in the first month. Perhaps the Joint Planning Staff had similar suspicions - they rejected any options for Operation Unthinkable because of the Soviets' huge numerical superiority and the impossibility of ending the war quickly.

Germany was out of fuel and food. They had no reserve manpower. Their industry was in ruins and their infrastructure was nearly non-existant.

The reason why the operation was shelved, was not solely based on Red numbers, but other factors, such as he Soviets allying with Japan in the Pacific, the onset of winter and so on.

Once again, we have to look beyond numbers and examine how each side would use their equipment and logistics to best effect.

 

[bf109xxl]

The discussion is about 1945. I mentioned MiGs in showing that B-29s had fared decently against them. And since this is about 1945, the fact that B-29s were able to survive jets implies that the more primitive, much weaker-armed Soviet 1945 fighters would not be able to stop the Superforts.

I have explained in detail why all such extrapolations are fundamentally flawed. First, the B-29s themselves were practically defenseless against MiGs, only the escort allowed to maintain relatively low loss rate. Soviet pilots had many stupid limitations in Korea, so their effectiveness was limited and their motivation insufficient. When intercepting B-29s in the Volga region, there would be no escort, no restrictions and they will be fully motivated. Therefore, even poorly suited piston-engined fighters could be effective - including suicidal ramming.

I knew that they were, yet I also knew that they occurred. I also knew that those mines were equally an impediment to Japanese troopships. I also knew that the 5th Fleet was capable of combing it by air without entering it.

If necessary, the Sea of Japan is completely blocked by mines - especially if the Soviets put them in their waters. Afterwards, perhaps the remnants of the Japanese fleet and what the Soviets proudly called the "Pacific Fleet" could organize convoys to move troops.

Perhaps you should look at the ranges those fighters had: 750 - 900 combat radii. The idea, that B-29s must only fly maximum-range strikes is simplistic. In fact, at shorter ranges, their bombload goes up.

ALL of the most important targets in the USSR are farther away than the escort radius. It makes no sense to use B-29s against closer targets taking into account their long deployment time and relatively small numbers.

I get your point. I just think you're missing some factors.

Nope. I just clearly understand Soviets' huge numerical superiority. Exactly like the Joint Planning Staff in 1945.

It's a metaphor. I'd think a writer would understand that.

It was sarcasm from my side.

Indeed, there is only one question: where the Soviet tanks will arrive before their supply lines will be cut. I assume, at the Rhine, but it is possible that they will be stopped 50-100 km before.