Thumpalumpacus
Major
... that are no longer being supplied to the Red Army, yup.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The two economies that can produce a surplus of great trucks, quality avgas, wire, decent uniforms, well made boots and Spam.
I like this video. From my point of view - a very high quality product, in some places the author slightly simplifies in details, but without distorting the overall picture. Without a doubt, it can be recommended for viewing. I just have to mention that the major part of the video is not documentary, but taken from movies.I don't think the Mig-9 was going to be an issue. A good video about it here.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_Qyh6fZCg
Agreed. It took the USN over two years to developed an effective fighter control capability and that was with access to British experience. Without a sophisticated control system the best pilots and aircraft in the world are useless.Agree. The Soviet PVO (air defence) demonstrated a lack of ability to learn and adapt even after such disasters as German bombings of the industry and fuel stocks in May-June 1943 (Operation Carmen II of Luftwaffe).
One year later - the complete failure of PVO in Poltava:
The Poltava Debacle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The US would stage B-17s in the Soviet Union, to strike targets deep in German territory. It sounded lwww.airandspaceforces.com
You have a valid point and one that has to be factored in, here.Of course after LL is cancelled those LF IX's are going to wear out without replacements and parts. I think we all know that I just wanted to sound intelligent in here for once.
Don't forget powder and chemical components for its manufacturing.Lend Lease supplied more than just aircraft to the Soviet Union, it included raw materials like steel, aluminum, other metals and rubber. It also included lumber, clothing (including blankets) and food.
They also recieved locomotives/rail stock, trucks, fuel, oil and more important: replacement engines for their aircraft.
Everything is clear with lend-lease deliveries. As is the fact that the USSR is not capable of winning any prolonged war, especially with systematic bombing of its very vulnerable industry. But the Soviets have already accumulated huge forces and have the reserves to fight for several months. During this time, the Soviets can greatly displace the Allies in Europe and sign a military alliance with Japan. Even if the Soviets do not directly participate in the war against the United States, the participation of the Kwantung Army will cost the Americans huge casualties in the landing attempt on the Japanese islands and prolong the war indefinitely. That is, either the Americans must temper their pride (which is not difficult) and outrun the Soviets by offering the Japanese a separate peace with the promise of Soviet territories (North Sakhalin), or they must reckon with hundreds of thousands (at least) of additional casualties. In case the USSR is ahead, the use of B-29s in Europe is unlikely, which also leads to a prolongation of the war.Lend Lease terminated with Japan's surrender and the last shipments arriving in September 1945.
For example, in Romania?Also wanted to add that they would have few additional resources available from captured countries in Eastern Europe, too.
[...] the Kwantung Army will cost the Americans huge casualties in the landing attempt on the Japanese islands and prolong the war indefinitely.
1. The Soviets are not the Japanese, they are well aware of both the rate of accumulation of fissile material and the number of bombs.The atomics will still come into play a little later in 1945, and likely be used against Soviet ground forces first
It is difficult for me to judge how effective the blockade would have been if the USSR had entered the war. The Soviet Pacific Fleet apparently cannot be considered as a serious force, but it could play a role.while the submarines continue to starve the Japanese out. That Kwangtung Army's gonna have a hard time getting to the homeland through that blockade.
1. The Soviets are not the Japanese, they are well aware of both the rate of accumulation of fissile material and the number of bombs.
2. Even a nuclear strike on Moscow will not give the required effect - in a huge city, the plants are scattered, there was a backup control center near Kuibyshev.
3. As a result, the Soviets will have a drastic change in motivation - their attitude toward the Americans will probably be somewhat worse than that of the North Koreans. This will also cost many American lives - most likely no American soldiers will be taken prisoner anymore. Judging by the memories of the Soviet aces of the Korean War, they did not feel the same hate for the Americans as for the German pilots, some said they perceived the combat with the Americans rather as a sport competition.
Thus, it's not really clear why the Americans should do this. This is exactly the example of different priorities among allies.
It is difficult for me to judge how effective the blockade would have been if the USSR had entered the war. The Soviet Pacific Fleet apparently cannot be considered as a serious force, but it could play a role.
A couple of 15-20 kt explosions would not have had such an intimidating effect on the Soviets - the centers of Soviet cities were mostly built up with stone houses, and there were prepared bomb shelters in the basements. And knowledge of the details makes it possible to soberly assess the degree of threat.All the intelligence in the world is meaningless if you cannot address the threat.
Good options are Saratov, Rybinsk, Perm, Gorky. Even about Baku I am not sure - the shock wave could extinguish the fires caused by the flash. But a strike on any of the listed targets other than Baku would have had no immediate consequences.Which is one reason I don't think Moscow would be targeted.
I once even dealt with calculating the effects of tactical nuclear strikes at the corps level. Unfortunately, I have almost already forgotten everything. There were three or four nuclear bombs (5-20 kt) dropped on one corps. And something I remember is that I was not at all impressed with the casualty estimates at the time. In general, I have great doubts that two bombs could cause serious damage to troops, while cities could."[...] why the Americans should do this." Is "this" nuking Soviet armies, going to war itself, or what?
My question was how effective this blockade was and whether the USSR could influence its effectiveness. I don't know much about the navy.My point is that the Kwangtung Army is pretty much useless against the Americans in countering a home-island invasion because they've got to get home in safety past American submarines.
These are interesting observations, however, reality was much different.A couple of 15-20 kt explosions would not have had such an intimidating effect on the Soviets - the centers of Soviet cities were mostly built up with stone houses, and there were prepared bomb shelters in the basements. And knowledge of the details makes it possible to soberly assess the degree of threat.
Good options are Saratov, Rybinsk, Perm, Gorky. Even about Baku I am not sure - the shock wave could extinguish the fires caused by the flash. But a strike on any of the listed targets other than Baku would have had no immediate consequences.
I once even dealt with calculating the effects of tactical nuclear strikes at the corps level. Unfortunately, I have almost already forgotten everything. There were three or four nuclear bombs (5-20 kt) dropped on one corps. And something I remember is that I was not at all impressed with the casualty estimates at the time. In general, I have great doubts that two bombs could cause serious damage to troops, while cities could.
My question was how effective this blockade was and whether the USSR could influence its effectiveness. I don't know much about the navy.
What reality? How many atomic bombs were dropped on Moscow? These are not observations, these are estimates.These are interesting observations, however, reality was much different.
Dropping a Mark 3 (Fat Man) on Moscow with a comparable air burst to that of Nagasaki without warning, would be catastrophic.
The proportion of such houses was very low; they were only destroyed within a relatively short range.It is true that Japan's residential structures were wood, but the military and civic building were stone and/or concrete and suffered considerable or total damage.
Soviet cities had many more bomb shelters in the basements of houses.Humans (and animals) that were near the epicenter, were vaporized, some left permanent shadows behind, seared into stone or concrete.
There is a big difference between what the Soviets knew and what was available to the Japanese.The Japanese were aware of the American's atomic program, as were the Germans, but knowing about it and preparing for it are two completely different things (as the Japanese found out).
And then a long break would be required. I'm not impressed.The Americans had three Atom bombs in August '45, two were used, the third, intended to be deployed on 19 August, was not used.
Three more Mark 3 bombs were ready by September and three more by October.
I guarantee that even after six bombs, the Soviets would not surrender. But too bad for Europe...And just as a point of interest, had the Japanese not surrendered after the second bomb, the third was to be dropped, but the remainder were to be held in reserve in case Operation Downfall was put into motion.
A couple of 15-20 kt explosions would not have had such an intimidating effect on the Soviets - the centers of Soviet cities were mostly built up with stone houses, and there were prepared bomb shelters in the basements. And knowledge of the details makes it possible to soberly assess the degree of threat.
Good options are Saratov, Rybinsk, Perm, Gorky. Even about Baku I am not sure - the shock wave could extinguish the fires caused by the flash. But a strike on any of the listed targets other than Baku would have had no immediate consequences.
I once even dealt with calculating the effects of tactical nuclear strikes at the corps level. Unfortunately, I have almost already forgotten everything. There were three or four nuclear bombs (5-20 kt) dropped on one corps. And something I remember is that I was not at all impressed with the casualty estimates at the time. In general, I have great doubts that two bombs could cause serious damage to troops, while cities could.
My question was how effective this blockade was and whether the USSR could influence its effectiveness. I don't know much about the navy.
I guarantee that even after six bombs, the Soviets would not surrender. But too bad for Europe...
Referring back to Moscow, one atom bomb would only impact about 20% of the city. Four of five well-placed atom bombs would destroy most of the city.Fortunately, the U.S. would have another thirteen to fifteen atomic bombs available for use by the end of 1945.
3 in August (2 of which were used)
3-4 in September
3-4 in October
5 in November
7 in December
According to NUKEMAP a Nagasaki-style attack (I.e. 20 kiloton yield detonated 500m above the ground) would:
> have a fireball 222m in radius
> heavily built concrete buildings within a 760m radius are severely damaged or destroyed
> everyone within a 830m radius receives a 100% fatal radiation dose (death within 4-6 days)
> dry wood within a 1.06km radius probably ignites
> everyone within a 1.27 km radius receives an 80% fatality rate radiation dose (death within a month)
> most residential buildings within a 1.72 km radius collapse; chances of fire starting in damaged commercial and residential buildings are high
> unprotected persons within a 2.21km radius receive 3rd degree burns
These effects are certainly not inconsequential.
Referring back to Moscow, one atom bomb would only impact about 20% of the city. Four of five well-placed atom bombs would destroy most of the city.
Source of the numbers? According to Ellsberg the US possessed 9 bombs by June 30, 1946. That seems much closer to reality to meFortunately, the U.S. would have another thirteen to fifteen atomic bombs available for use by the end of 1945.
3 in August (2 of which were used)
3-4 in September
3-4 in October
5 in November
7 in December
Absolutely. But for a city like Moscow, it is not fatal. That's why the American plans from 1945 required 5-6 bombs - according to the same Ellsberg.According to NUKEMAP a Nagasaki-style attack (I.e. 20 kiloton yield detonated 500m above the ground) would:
> have a fireball 222m in radius
> heavily built concrete buildings within a 760m radius are severely damaged or destroyed
> everyone within a 830m radius receives a 100% fatal radiation dose (death within 4-6 days)
> dry wood within a 1.06km radius probably ignites
> everyone within a 1.27 km radius receives an 80% fatality rate radiation dose (death within a month)
> most residential buildings within a 1.72 km radius collapse; chances of fire starting in damaged commercial and residential buildings are high
> unprotected persons within a 2.21km radius receive 3rd degree burns
These effects are certainly not inconsequential.