GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It is when you examine their respective equipment and logistics closer, instead of raw numbers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It is when you examine their respective equipment and logistics closer, instead of raw numbers.Versus >260 Soviet (in equivalent)? Not very impressive.
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.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.
What was wrong with the equipment in June 1945? Logistics - the Soviets has enough transport to provide everything in time.It is when you examine their respective equipment and logistics closer, instead of raw numbers.
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.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
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.
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.
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 western allies would gain (quickly IMO)
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.
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.
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?Seriously? You think Yak-9s would do any better?
And you had no idea that US submarine activity in the Sea of Japan was heavily restricted by mines.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.
Only one. You're just not taking range into account.You argued that the Allies had no long-range escorts; you were shown at least four.
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.You implied that the Allies hadn't crossed the Rhine by the end of the war, and you got corrected on that.
I haven't complained about beams in other people's eyes in a long time. Although sometimes I wish I could.Before you complain about motes in anyone else's eyes, attend to the beam in thine own.
Versus >260 Soviet (in equivalent)? Not very impressive.
Devastated German network was much better that devastated Soviet network. Nothing especial for the Soviets.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.
Seems, that you cannot imagine that even worse conditions didn't stop Soviets in Poland.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.
Soviet artillery density greatly outnumbered Allied artillery.The Soviets haven't fought such numerical air forces, nor faced the density of artillery.
This would be in the end the inevitable defeat of the Soviets. They will be forced to withdraw from Europe. But LATER.It won't be the walkover you apparently think. It won't necessarily be a WA victory either; a stalemate is possible.
Damn, you missed "in equivalent". Or do I need to explain what it means?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.
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?
And you had no idea that US submarine activity in the Sea of Japan was heavily restricted by mines.
Only one. You're just not taking range into account.
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 haven't complained about logs in other people's eyes in a long time. Although sometimes I wish I could.
Damn, you missed "in equivalent". Or do I need to explain what it means?
The Red Army was fighting an army who's infrastructure was collapsing with no reserve.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.
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.The Red Army was fighting an army who's infrastructure was collapsing with no reserve.
Germany was out of fuel and food. They had no reserve manpower. Their industry was in ruins and their infrastructure was nearly non-existant.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Nope. I just clearly understand Soviets' huge numerical superiority. Exactly like the Joint Planning Staff in 1945.I get your point. I just think you're missing some factors.
It was sarcasm from my side.It's a metaphor. I'd think a writer would understand that.