Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've always maintained that the VVS (and the soviets in general) would be in for a rude awakening if they decided to take on the USAAF and the RAF. Ugly, yes, bloody, yes, the VVS absolutely getting its ass kicked eight ways to Sunday, yes.
The de Havilland Hornet was a long range escort fighter.Especially after escort fighters are released for strafing after escorting B-29s. Remember, P-51Hs, P-47Ns are coming online. Not sure RAF fighters would have the range to help, but Bomber Command would sure throw some stick in here too.
Japanese bombers over China couldn't fly as high as the B-29, and had no need to go higher, given Chinese defenses. Little AAA, and only the Foreign Volunteer air units being effective at all with interceptionsRadar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?
The de Havilland Hornet was a long range escort fighter.
In the opening months of WWII, the Germans on the ground ran up something like a 20:1 kill ratio. They did not maintain this to 1945.
The effectiveness of strategic bombing over Europe is controversial. It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s. In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes. Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing. The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers. You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.
Radar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?
If there is a shooting war with strategic bombing, it is likely that Soviet ground forces with their supporting tactical air force, are getting into mischief. Your forces on the ground will be asking your airforce to do something about it. Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.
Good Points Howard,The de Havilland Hornet was a long range escort fighter.
In the opening months of WWII, the Germans on the ground ran up something like a 20:1 kill ratio. They did not maintain this to 1945.
The effectiveness of strategic bombing over Europe is controversial. It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s. In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes. Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing. The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers. You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.
Radar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?
If there is a shooting war with strategic bombing, it is likely that Soviet ground forces with their supporting tactical air force, are getting into mischief. Your forces on the ground will be asking your airforce to do something about it. Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.
All through the war, the Soviets tried to develop a high-altitude fighter, but failed. Not because they didn't want to, but because they lacked highly qualified personnel.Were the Russians desperate for high altitude performance. Ju86s were a nuisance, not an existential threat. They did have Spitfire_IXs. The Soviets were interested in low altitude ground support.
Of course. Sometimes western specialists were even sent there for installation and startup work - the Soviets received machinery and even entire factories under the lend-lease program. In fact, to defeat the USSR it was enough to bomb Baku - both oil fields and refineries. The Allies were going to do this as early as 1940 (Operation Pike), so they had the exact coordinates of the targets.Did the Americans and British even know where Soviet factories were?
They were already motivated in 1940 when the development of the two-stage supercharger began!Bombing would be destructive, and the Soviets would be motivated to develop two stage superchargers.
We discuss the hypothetical situation of a continuation of the war between the USSR and the Western Allies already in 1945. The USSR does not have "a couple of years". The question is what the USSR could do with the means already available or ready for serial production.It would take a couple of years, but the Soviet Union was a big place.
You don't need B-29s for that - they're just right for attacking industrial targets up to Urals. It is enough to bomb out Moscow, Kharkov, Leningrad and the Volga region - Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod), Saratov, Kazan, Kuibyshev (Samara). The remaining plants in Novosibirsk, Omsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur are absolutely insufficient to replenish reserves.Good Points Howard,
A couple things to think about, I doubt that a strategic bombing campaign would start out trying to knock out factories. It is more likely that a strategic campaign would target mobility and field reserves where the USSR ground forces would be particularly vulnerable.
Both of these tasks - strategic bombing of the Soviet industry and tactical bombing to destroy the VVS - can be effectively accomplished simultaneously.Second, just as in Western Europe the focus of the USAAF in 1944 became the destruction of the Luftwaffe, the initial goal would be the destruction of the VVS.
Somehow the Germans managed both to find and even seriously damage them. And the Allies were so stupid that with their much more advanced bombers and reconnaissance could not do it. Quite a controversial point of view.In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes.
In Germany, not all of them - especially synthetic fuel production facilities. The logistical infrastructure was critical, and it was hit first. The bombing of these plants quickly led to fuel shortages in the Reich.Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing.
They moved them even further away - to the Urals and Siberia. But critical production facilities remained in the European part of the USSR and were in range of the B-29s.The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers.
You have two or three month to destroy the critical facilities in the USSR. After that, you don't have to fear any new high-altitude fighters, radars, etc.You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.
How many B-29s were shot down by La-9s in Korea? And that was a more dangerous opponent than the Yak-3...Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.
Answering Questions DirectlyI have a conversation about the VVS's ability to react and intercept the super fortresses if Operation Unthinkable right in 1945 if it is carried out, there are a few questions and want to ask you guys in here, if in the case if a strategic bombing will take place targeting important cities of the Soviet Union such as Moscow or Leningrad, what will be the VVS's ability to react?
Tinian to Tokyo ís 1500 miles. Any distance less than that is workable. Berlin to Moscow is 1000 miles, B-29 bases in Germany would provide a measure of coverage of the USSR, however, as Germany would likely be where the majority of any conflict was, its unlikely to be used for strategic bombing resources. Northern Turkey would be an option as would northern Iran as both are about 1000 miles to Moscow. If we really want to be creative, bases in southern Finland would give the best coverage of the USSR by far.- If this happened, where would the Allies start bombing, what bases would they have to fly thier B-29 and escort fighter to strategic bombings on Soviet cities, would they take off from Germany, France or was there a country closer enough to have an airport for the B-29 to take off from?
Yes, P-47N and P-51D and H would be most likely. P-47N in particular was designed to escort the B-29 during the entire mission.- From France or Germany to Moscow is quite a long way, is there any escort fighter capable of doing this mission, I think of P-47N and P-51D but am wondering about the amount of combat fuel it has.
Probably, the Japanese were able to intercept B-29's at altitude with planes that struggled at altitude.- Can the Mig-3 or can any Soviet high altitude interceptors have the speed and ability to intercept the B-29 at 25,000 to 30,000 feet?
Western fighters such as the Spitfire, Mustang and P-47 performed quite well at altitude and held a distinct advantage over axis forces. VVS fighters lacked equal performance at altitude and would suffer in conflict.- I have seen some sources on the internet and Wiki mentioning the La-7's service ceiling of over 30,000 feet but I have not found any documents talking about its capabilities or speed at 30,000 feet (typically I find the La-7's top speed at 25,000 feet to be around 372mph.)
So my question is, was the La-7 or any Soviet fighter capable of competing with any Allied escort aircraft at 30,000 feet altitude and why?
No. Captured aircraft had a limited lifespan and were not superior to Allied air resources.- The Soviet Union also had a lot of captured German planes, do you guys think it would be able to intercept them?
No, it forced the Luftwaffe to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-51 Mustangs. Both further ranging than the P-47 and at an altitude right in the wheelhouse of the P-51.It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s.
LeMay had the B-29s fly lower, at night, so more bombs could be carried. At those lower altitudes, could carry 10,000 pounds, 1840 nautical miles. Targets shorter than that, more bombs could be carried.Tinian to Tokyo ís 1500 miles. Any distance less than that is workable.
not many, per this siteHow many B-29s were shot down by La-9s in Korea? And that was a more dangerous opponent than the Yak-3...
LeMay had the B-29s fly lower, at night, so more bombs could be carried. At those lower altitudes, could carry 10,000 pounds, 1840 nautical miles. Targets shorter than that, more bombs could be carried.
Cruising at 20,000 feet before climbing to over 30,000ft like the Atomic missions, had 1600 nautical mile range.
You don't want to drop a 15kt atomic bomb from 20,000 feet, not enough time to clear the target area.
From 34,000 feet Enola Gay had 44 seconds from release to detonation to get as far away as possible. It was bomb release, and then hard turn. IIRC had a nine mile slant range, and the aircraft still experienced severe buffeting
That's right. Actually, it was a rhetorical question on my part - the effectiveness of the best Soviet piston-engined fighters against the B-29 was extremely low. I suspect it would be insufficient against the B-17/-24/Lancs as well, but in this case a fighter escort would be necessary.not many
That is what all the strategic bombing aficionados said. You bomb a factory. Either they fix it in a week or two, or they move it to a new location.You have two or three month to destroy the critical facilities in the USSR. After that, you don't have to fear any new high-altitude fighters, radars, etc.