I need statistics, numbers, not just a list.
Great. If you're that interested, look 'em up. I'm not your secretary and don't work at your beck-and-call.
Or less often, the fuel ran out over the ocean. I prefer to operate with numbers.
Running out of fuel happened but usually only in conditions of battle-damage. USAAF wasn't in the habit of pushing margins too close. Most non-combat losses arose from engine trouble, not bingo fuel.
At least two, may be more. The first one was shot down by a woman, or rather a woman/man pair from the same regiment, claim was confirmed. But in general, the He 177 was so unreliable and used in extremely difficult conditions not for intended purpose (Stalingrad, winter-spring 1943) that its losses were very high.
So: the Soviets had little to no experience in combatting even mediocre heavy bombers in small numbers, and even at that only bagged one or two.
But they're going to put a stop to a couple thousand very experienced bomber crews flying airframes honed to good tolerances, and then deal as well with a few hundred bombers that were head-and-shoulders above those older designs in performance.
Ok, the real value of soviet fighters is difficult to estimate. May be, I overestimate it. Who can make an unbiased reliable estimation?
I think it's fair to say that their armament was much too light, if they could even perform well at those altitudes. The Germans saw fit to equip their bomber-destroyers with up to four 20mm cannon and then found that those propeller fighters couldn't hang with the escorts.
They put four 30s on the -262, but USSR doesn't have that capable airframe, so it's not relevant.
Of course, the Soviets will have a very hard time. But they already have a high percentage of experienced pilots. Anyway, I don't see the point in guessing.
Well, we're discussing how Unthinkable might unfold on a WWII aircraft forum. Opinions will be offered.
Soviet fighters perform better as well.
Do they perform well enough in delivering lethal armament to the fighting zone?
It's not "years of experience" at all. Rather, it is a rather modest experience.
The Brits had been flying against Germany since 1939, the Americans since 1942, so yes, it is actually
years of experience delivering heavy loads against a damned good opponent.
And to be clear. the VVS had literally zero-point-zero experience defending against raids of 300-1000 bombers flying day and night. That's a mighty steep learning curve against a force well-honed for -- yes -- years in the task.
I.e., a whole new machine, much more complicated and less reliable.
Sure, it had teething troubles. Some were mechanical, some were environmental, some were operational. The Soviets themselves recognized it as great, which is why instead of designing something better than this crap they reverse-engineered it.
3x20 or 3x23 or 1x23+2x20 or 1x37+2x12.7 - weak armament?!
What planes, what armaments, and what capabilities? Be specific.
The range of Soviet fighters was quite sufficient to counter Allied tactical aircraft. It would not be a decisive factor. Much more important is the training of the pilots. And here I find it difficult to say whether the Soviets had sufficient training in 1945. Probably not. But the occasional air combats with the Americans demonstrated rather equality.
I don't think you understand me. I'm not talking about Allied tactical bombers. I'm talking about the heavies.
Without an efficient radar net, dialing in an intercept on high-flying heavies will be tough. The Brits found that out in 1940 even with medium bombers, for all Chain Home was great at the time. But if your radar is not great, your airspace is large (like, Russia large), and your fighters don't have a lot of fuel, getting them to 27,000 ft or so, at speed, and on the right vector, and they only have one cannon and a couple of MGs, their short range means that they may not get there at all, and if they do, B-17s have already shown they can stand up to 4x20mm from better fighters.
Now, if you want to use those Soviet fighters to defend against Allied tactical bombers, what's attacking the heavies?
Ok, you prefer to fight longer with heavier losses.
Not a preference, just an understanding of realities. B-29s can't reach the Urals efficiently.
Me, I'm happy this scenario never came to pass, so my preference was actually met.
I know of one good example where a large number (several hundred) of B-17s during the day tried to bomb a large railroad junction with several bridges over a river. As a result, only one bridge suffered non-critical damage and was quickly repaired. The railroad structure suffered little damage and transportation continued after a day or two.
Right, and I know of a German army that got chased out of France because they couldn't be supplied or moved by rail because heavy bombers destroyed communications. What of it?
I will not respond to what I consider irrelevant to the discussion.
What you consider "irrelevant" speaks to your limitations in thinking about this topic. It's about the Western Allies conducting war against the USSR in 1945. If you think logistics are irrelevant in that discussion, I'm not sure you bring much to the table.