Shortround6
Major General
It is not just the number of tubes, it is the amount of ammo per day they are allocated/supplied with.
USAAF/RAF vs VVS 1945
- Thread starter NevadaK
- Start date
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
My thoughts on that were Japan really couldn’t offer much more than being an unsinkable aircraft carrier. One in dire need of re-supply. Super tough to invade though.
I think their troops in China were busy with the Koumintang(?) and the communists. They weren’t beaten but their nation had surrendered. The Russians couldn’t invade Japan. No reason to tick off yet another big, scary power.
I think their troops in China were busy with the Koumintang(?) and the communists. They weren’t beaten but their nation had surrendered. The Russians couldn’t invade Japan. No reason to tick off yet another big, scary power.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
...although it would have been SUPER COOL to have IJN Amagi joining the 847 U.S fleet carriers and the 352 British fleet carriers.
Oldcrowcv63 might have the actual numbers.
Oldcrowcv63 might have the actual numbers.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I don't know a lot about the final few months of the war in Europe but with the Battle of the Bulge shocking the military at the end of 1944, ending in early 1945, I suspect there was no let up of the accelerator unto VE day. Plans may have been made for a wheel to the Pacific but I suspect nothing had been implemented. As such, I suspect there were significant stores in the US, in England, and at forward support bases.
Soviet AAA in WWII is probably one of the worst studied segments of USSR military history. Several books issued until 1991 have created a rather "rosy" picture focusing on the issues which Luftwaffe experienced over Moscow and Leningrad. The myth about successful PVO (anti-aircraft defense) was shaken considerably in the post-Soviet period when numerous failures became known: Stalingrad in 1942, destruction of the Soviet industry of Povolzhye region in May-June 1943, Poltava raid in 1944, etc. As for the front line AAA units, they were numerous in 1945 but their efficiency was seldom tested due to LW declining strength. Radar equipped 8x85 mm batteries and new command centers were introduced at the end of 1944 as a part of new organizational structure but as far as I know, this internal "reform" was far from complete in May 1945. I agree that the lack of proximity fuse and poor radar coverage is one of the main disadvantages of the Soviets in this scenario.
According to Oleg Rastrenin (who is probably the best expert in everything related to Il-2 and Il-10), the Soviet ground attack aviation was in the difficult transition period in 1945. Factories were forced to switch to Il-10 as soon as possible, but this new aircraft was full of bugs by design, and the haste and the pressure did not help to improve the production quality. Unreliable engines, weak undercarriage, deformation of the fuselage skin and control surfaces, etc. 118th GShAP, one of the three regiments equipped with Il-10, has stopped its operations on the 2nd day after numerous incidents. All 45 brand new Il-10s were grounded and shipped back to the USSR.
Most probably, the overall combat effectiveness of Sturmovik regiments in late spring and in summer 1945 dropped due to the low serviceability of new equipment and the cease of production of the (more reliable) old one.
Glider
Captain
Thanks for this, I wasn't aware of the problems with the Il10. To be honest though it would have made little difference. An IL10 would be almost as vulnerable as an Il2 when faced with the fighters fielded by the allied airforces. Let's not forget that the GA Typhoons and P47 would have overwhelming advantages should they come across an Il2 or Il10.
Escuadrilla Azul
Staff Sergeant
- 1,225
- Feb 27, 2020
Has long as I know, the Soviets were very capable hiding and concealing their artillery and troops from the eyes of the Luftwaffe (maskirovka) and manage to surprise the germans several times (Kursk, Bragation).
Sure, the Western Allies got an inmense advantage in reconaissance but I doubt if it would made an inmediate impact in the search of targets or the US & british GA planes would have to loitier over the front lines trying to seek them, with the AAA risk.
Glider
Captain
First of all the Germans never had the recce capabilities of the allies and it is one thing to hide forces, and quite another to marshal then into a position where they can launch an attack. Kursk wasn't a surprise to the Germans, they had a good idea as to what was waiting for them plus of course the Russians were defending. Operation Bragation was a significant success but still encountered heavy losses. Against a German army that was short of everything including of course aircover. I cannot recall the odds but I think the Russians had approx twice the soldiers and ten times the artillery and aircraft of the Germans but am happy to be corrected on that. Those odds would not have existed in Europe.
Also don't make the mistake of believing that only the Russians were capable of putting down a barrage. El Alamein started with a co-ordinated 1,000 gun barrage and I can safely say that the Russian forces had never faced anything like that.
Recce isn't done by having GA aircraft swanning around over the Russian forces. Its far more comprehensive than that. To have any chance of success the Russians would need to know where the allied forces were before they could plan an attack. Without that detail any attack is doomed to fail and its a capability Russia simply didn't have. They may have been able to put something together for the initial attack but one the bullets started to fly the Allies would have been able to effectively close the curtain.
Shortround6
Major General
Both sides would be up against something new or out of their experience. The Germans were always a bit short on artillery, more importantly, for a good part of the war they were short on ammunition.
The western allies would be up against an opponent who had more artillery support in general than than Germans, but perhaps were not as flexible as the Germans. The Russians did very well with pre-planned bombardments and set piece battles.
However the Soviets would likewise be up against opponents with a much better supplied artillery arm than the Germans and at times, even more flexible and quick responding.
The British 21st Army group from D-Day to VE Day averaged 7,900 rounds of 5.5 in shells per day as an example of the supply.
It would take a while for both sides to adapt, except the Russians have a time limit before their supplies start to dry up.
The western allies would be up against an opponent who had more artillery support in general than than Germans, but perhaps were not as flexible as the Germans. The Russians did very well with pre-planned bombardments and set piece battles.
However the Soviets would likewise be up against opponents with a much better supplied artillery arm than the Germans and at times, even more flexible and quick responding.
The British 21st Army group from D-Day to VE Day averaged 7,900 rounds of 5.5 in shells per day as an example of the supply.
It would take a while for both sides to adapt, except the Russians have a time limit before their supplies start to dry up.
Glider
Captain
I think those numbers would have been matched by the allied forces. If you include the fighters assigned to defend the UK (ADGB) would probably comfortably exceed them. I admit to not knowing the exact size of the 2TAF but believe it to be in the area of 60 squadrons which would be about 1,100 aircraft. Add the 9th Air Force into the mix plus the medium bombers available and its going to be a good number. The 2TAF and 9th Air Force are primarily the GA units and would stand a much better chance against opposing fighters than an IL 2 or IL 10. At the end of the day a Typhoon or P47 that doesn't want to get caught, takes a lot of catching and if they want to fight, they stand a good chance. The Russian aircraft are simply out of options in those situations.
Additional fighters would be available from the ADGB for the RAF and the 8th Air Force for the USAAF.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I think that W.Allied tactical airpower would see heavy business. While the Soviets made great low-altitude fighters, they had two weaknesses vis-a-vis American and British tactical air:
1) Weak armament. Typhoons and -47s could take a solid hit, and dish out the same. Additionally, having a top-cover of P-51s and Spits could play havoc on Soviet interceptions, especially given disparities in radar and a/c ranges.
2) Allied fighters with longer range could perform more effective cab-rank roles, especially if given top-cover mentioned above.
I think ten miles a day might be optimistic. I also think the Rhine would pose a barrier that may or may not be accounted-for in the timeline you mention.
Another thing to be considered: Allied bombers had fresh experience bombing the hell out of a rail network in order to congest/cut off rail lines and bridge choke-points. Rail bridges in Poland were within range of -17s, -24, and Lancs flying from the UK and/or France, meaning that fuel and spares could be isolated to the battlefield. At the same time, that could perhaps force VVS up to defend those targets at an altitude where -47s and -51s were at their best.
Either way, it'd certainly be ugly.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm glad this thread was resurrected. I had no idea what the VVS was until I started reading this thread.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I'd always thought it was a medical condition.
Maybe Beez was cranky, but I thought it was a cool topic and had a couple of pennies to toss in.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Another consideration:
The U.S. military industry was still capable of turning out tremendous amounts of equipment, plus there were new types in the pipeline: P-51H, F8F, plus the Jets (aside from the P-80) like the Ryan FR and others.
The U.S. had the B-29 and the B-32, plus several super-heavy tanks in the works that were cancelled when Germany collapsed.
There was also the proposal by Patton to rearm the Germans and turn them loose on the Soviets...
The U.S. military industry was still capable of turning out tremendous amounts of equipment, plus there were new types in the pipeline: P-51H, F8F, plus the Jets (aside from the P-80) like the Ryan FR and others.
The U.S. had the B-29 and the B-32, plus several super-heavy tanks in the works that were cancelled when Germany collapsed.
There was also the proposal by Patton to rearm the Germans and turn them loose on the Soviets...
Glider
Captain
If I could add to this. In the UK the Vampire, Meteor and Hornet were all in low level production at the end of the war and if push came to shove would easily have been ramped up. On the ground, the Centurion Tank was entering production at the end of the war and for once the UK had a tank that was far better than just average.
