What if? East Vs West 1945

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Did you read my post? I hope you are not asking me to list all the air bases that were operational. There were plenty...

 

[Milosh]

Did you read my post? I hope you are not asking me to list all the air bases that were operational. There were plenty...

I know there was plenty. A list of the major bases would be nice tho.

I was thinking that they would have to be far enough behind the front lines that Soviet ground forces would not be threat. That would eliminate many bases for the strategic bombers.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Both sides were prenty spent."

When I read "August Storm" the definitive (Western) account of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in August, 1945, I was stunned by the resources the Soviets had in "reserve" in the East -- many delivered by the USA directly from, Seattle. They didn't pull a lot of material from the west to use in the east - communications, engineering and medical mostly.

Now I grant that the operations we are discussing here are in the west, but I would venture that the USSR was only hitting its stride in terms of conventional warfare in May, 1945. By then, Stalin's methodology and Zhukov's tactics were tested and accepted. It was the west that really couldn't afford to test public opinion any longer -- one of the reasons why the Bomb was such a realistic option for President Truman..

MM

 

[iron man]

I know there was plenty. A list of the major bases would be nice tho.

I was thinking that they would have to be far enough behind the front lines that Soviet ground forces would not be threat. That would eliminate many bases for the strategic bombers.

And these remaining candidates would have to be sufficiently engineered to carry the MTOW of these machines. A functional rail spur (tied to a functional rail system) to supply the hundreds of tons of POL, defensive ammunition, bombloads, spares, etc... required for each Group sized mission would probably be a bonus as well.
Or are we trucking this all in...while the reeling armies are screaming for requisition of everything on wheels in the theatre?

This is a complete non-starter if the Soviets come across the river.

8th AF will be flying out of their same bases in GB, carrying "Berlin" sized bombloads.

 

[Shortround6]

With bases in Western Germany, Eastern France the bombers are in a much better position to contribute. Even used as staging fields. Bombers fly in with bombs already on board having taken off with partial fuel loads (many of these bombers could not land at or near full gross take-off weight), they are topped off and sent on the mission. They are refueled on the way back. Major maintenance and crew quarters are still in England. Certainly not ideal and requires lots of fuel to be transported but some missions could be mounted.
The entire bomber airforces to not have to be moved at once. Even a few groups based in Europe can contribute.

I would also like to know what the Russian "strategic" aircraft were? IL-4s and TU-4s? There weren't enough PE-8s to do more than generate a few headlines in the papers.

Another consideration for tactical airpower is the amount of low level Flak available. The Russians may be a little lacking in that area.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know there was plenty. A list of the major bases would be nice tho.

I was thinking that they would have to be far enough behind the front lines that Soviet ground forces would not be threat. That would eliminate many bases for the strategic bombers.

Oh sorry, I really don't have a list. I know for sure that Katterbach, Illesheim, Bad Kreuznach, Echterdingen and Boeblingen were operational, and I am pretty sure that there were plenty more. Those that were not operational, would could be made operational pretty quick. If we could build air bases on pacific islands in a very quick time, I am sure we can do so in Germany.

If the German bases were too close to the front lines, then there is always France.

 

[Ascent]

I've started something here haven't I.

I was mainly interested in how the air war would go, what kind of differences in the equipment, training and operational theory were there.

How well equipped with AA were the western allies? The threat from the LW was relativley low I understand so a lot of equipment wasn't utilised fully.

Despite the numerical difference was the qualitive difference in the tactical airforces good enough for the western allies?

As for the heavy bombers, how about operating out of Italy?

 

[Jenisch]

Certainty: Russians nuked. I suspect the B-36 would be rushed to nuke Moscow.

 

[tyrodtom]

In the real world the B-36 didn't first fly till the middle of 46, if the could rush that by 6 months or so, it'd still take a miracle to get get it operational in less than 2 years, and that'd be far too late to help in this scenario.

So at best it'd be B-29s or B-50s, maybe some B-32s flying deep into Russia. And they wouldn't have to fly from Europe. Didn't we have some bases that could handle, or did handle B-29s in China and India.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Despite the numerical difference was the qualitive difference in the tactical airforces good enough for the western allies?

This might be an unpopular opinion for this board, but I'd question if the Western Allies had any significant technical superiority in over the battlefield operations below 10,000 ft.

Their two main tactical fighter-bombers were never intended to do the jobs they eventually assumed. The Typhoon was a bomber interceptor that had been pressed into low-altitude operations thanks to its low-altitude rated engine and thick wing and the P-47 was originally be envisaged as a high-altitude fighter.

The Spitfire IX/XIV, P-51 and P-47 were all set up for medium to high altitude combat - 15,000 feet plus. Only the Tempest V was expressly a low-altitude fighter, and by May-1945 there were only 120-140 operational.

On the other hand, the Soviets had three fighters - the Yak-3, Yak-9/9U and the La-5/La-7 - which all had their best performance below 20,000 ft. They were smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than the majority of their more technically advanced Western counterparts. They also had scads of high performance P-39s and early P-63s.

Their primary support aircraft were just that: dedicated, designed-from-the-spec-sheets attack aircraft. The IL-2 and IL-10 had no true western counterparts at this point in time. Even adding close to 700 lbs of armour to the Typhoon doesn't count.

The rear edged of the battle area (say 50-100 km behind the front line) contest is also really interesting. On one hand you have superlative strike/attack aircraft like the A-26, B-25G, Mosquito and Beaufighter for the Western Allies, escorted by plentiful numbers of Spitfires and P-51s. This is going to make life very hard for rear echelon elements.

However, the Soviets also have their own excellent twin engine medium range attack aircraft - the Tu-2 and the Pe-2. Throw some Yak-9Ds in for escort out to 200-300 km and the Allies wouldn't have everything their own way.

As for the heavy bombers, how about operating out of Italy?

There were about 625 heavy bombers in Italy, compared to about 2000-2100 in the UK.

 

[GrauGeist]

What it boils down to, is that the Red army was able to push the Wehrmacht back to Berlin using brute force in manpower...not by thier airforce.

In the west, the Allies pushed the Wehrmacht back by a combination of land and air. This is where the Red army would be at a complete disadvantage against the Allies.

I'm seeing someone suggesting that the Red army would just wash over the Allied armies like a wave without even once considering the fact that the Allies had aircraft that would scour the earth where the Red army stood. It's true that the VVS possesed good aircraft that operated at low and medium altitudes, but so did the U.S. Britain. And with the experience that Britain gained from night bombing operations, plus escorted by night fighters such as the Mosquito and P-61, there would be no rest for the Red army being hammered by day with the U.S. and by night by Britain. It would make sense that the push against the Red army would be slow due to the war torn infrastructure, but the Allied push would be covered by extremely effective air cover. And a type of air cover that the Red army wouldn't have experience against. They were familiar with the Hs129, Stuka and Fw190 against thier positions and armor, but how would they deal with the P-47, A-20G, A-26B as well as the British counterparts? They would learn quickly what the Germans learned.

And when the Soviet fighters took to the air, the Allies would be able to engage on an equal footing, unlike the Luftwaffe, that was had been bled out both in experienced manpower and support for thier diminishing airforce.

Add to that, the ability of the Allies to deploy heavy bombers in large groups virtually unchallenged, during the day and at night, and it starts to look like the Red army wouldn't bo so invincable after all.

Also consider with the lend-lease supplies no longer going to Russia, you would see thier stockpiles dwindling and the much needed material now being diverted to the Allied effort.

With Germany down, this would also free up the Allied atlantic and Mediterranean fleets to challenge the Red navy.

I think that the confrontation between the Allies and Russia would be a hell of a slugfest, but the Allies would be able to push the Red army back into Soviet proper. At that point, I am willing to bet that Uncle Joe would perhaps come to the table to negotiate a peace, not only because he knows that the Allies would most like accept anything to stop fighting and finally end the war, but also by this point in time, Japan has been bombed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which will free up Allied forces to his rear and the potential of the atom bombs targeting him next will worry the hell out of him...

 

[Jabberwocky]

Saying that the Red Army "pushed the Wehrmacht back to Berlin using brute force in manpower...not by thier airforce" does a massive disservice to both the strength and effectiveness of the Russian airforces.

The AFHRA study on the effectiveness of Russian airpower concludes that Soviet airpower was an "essential ingredient of the Soviet victory" and "contributed a decisive share in breaking German resistance". Over 1943-1945, Soviet bombers achieved "a commendable measure of success in operations supporting the army on the ground". Fighter, ground attack and bomber cooperation "produced good results".

To quote the study (USAF historical study 175) at length:

Soviet air power served almost exclusively to provide direct or indirect support for the army on the ground and made a decisively important contribution to the final Soviet victory

The salient features of the Soviet air forces in this phase of the war [1944-1945] were their aggressive conduct of operations, their adherence to the principle of power concentration, and their retention of organizational and operational methods this had proved sound in the past.

What the study makes clear is that
1) The Soviets never had full air supremacy, only superiority, even with their massive numerical advantage
2) Soviet pilots had an inferiority complex compared to the Germans, right up to the end of the war, and the Germans were always more effective in aerial combat
3) Soviet air power only ever achieved 'semi-strategic' projections of power, and only on a moderate scale
4) Soviet night bombing was unimpresssive
5) Soviet pilot training, aggressiveness, technical equipment and morale continued to close the qualitative gap to their German opponents throughout the 1944-45 period, and fighter forces improved their effectiveness across all fields.

I get the feeling that some here think that an attack by the Western Allies against the Soviets would be like a Barbarossa re-run. I'm of a much different opinion. I feel it would be more like Kursk - more expensive for the Soviets numerically, but ultimately more costly for the attacker in the long run.

 

[Milosh]

And these remaining candidates would have to be sufficiently engineered to carry the MTOW of these machines. A functional rail spur (tied to a functional rail system) to supply the hundreds of tons of POL, defensive ammunition, bombloads, spares, etc... required for each Group sized mission would probably be a bonus as well.
Or are we trucking this all in...while the reeling armies are screaming for requisition of everything on wheels in the theatre?

This is a complete non-starter if the Soviets come across the river.

8th AF will be flying out of their same bases in GB, carrying "Berlin" sized bombloads.

Yes I was going to get to that. 70,000lb Lancaster, Halifax, B-17, B-24 heavy bombers and 120,000lb B-29 very heavy bombers. I don't think there was any bases in northern Europe that could take those weights at the time and have sufficiently long runways. Also from what I understand is that the bases in England had to be 'improved' to accommodate the B-29.

If the Soviets were the first to attack, what would the result of a Bodenplatte attack on the forward West's airbases?

Someone suggested opening other Fronts vs the Soviets. If a Front was opened in the east, that is a long way from the Soviet industrial complexes. From the south, I wouldn't want to attack thro the Caucasus. Besides, I think it would be to late to have any effect on the battle in north-west Europe.

 

[Jenisch]

I will work with the Soviets as agressors. That would meant their supply lines would be attacked by hundreads of fighter-bombers, while their railway system systematically bombed.

 

[Balljoint]

Someone suggested opening other Fronts vs the Soviets. If a Front was opened in the east, that is a long way from the Soviet industrial complexes. From the south, I wouldn't want to attack thro the Caucasus. Besides, I think it would be to late to have any effect on the battle in north-westEurope.

Yes, but the Soviet industrial complexes are likewise a long way from the fighting. Distance tends to work in favor of the defense over the offense not withstanding the ability of the US to supply Europe across the Atlantic. The Soviet transportation links would be the fat target.

As to the second front, you're right if it's a short fight with the Soviets quickly overrunning Western Europe. However, the strategy would be to bleed down the initially well-supplied Soviet forces. A second front threat would quickly bleed both forces and supplies. Referring to the above, the Trans Siberian RR would then become a particularly fat target in the case of a second front.

The extensive Lend lease aid to the soviets is a two edged sword. They start from a strong position. But they have little capacity to replace losses in a number of critical areas. Trucks come to mind.

 

[Jenisch]

The bomber force in Italy could set the Caucasus in flammes. Depletion of Russian forces and agriculture.

 

[Milosh]

Yes, but the Soviet industrial complexes are likewise a long way from the fighting. Distance tends to work in favor of the defense over the offense not withstanding the ability of the US to supply Europe across the Atlantic. The Soviet transportation links would be the fat target.

As to the second front, you're right if it's a short fight with the Soviets quickly overrunning Western Europe. However, the strategy would be to bleed down the initially well-supplied Soviet forces. A second front threat would quickly bleed both forces and supplies. Referring to the above, the Trans Siberian RR would then become a particularly fat target in the case of a second front.

The extensive Lend lease aid to the soviets is a two edged sword. They start from a strong position. But they have little capacity to replace losses in a number of critical areas. Trucks come to mind.

The only close West complexes were in GB with a limited capability. The other complex was in the USA, some 3000 miles across an ocean.

Not to sure about the trucks tho, Lend Lease trucks in Russia
Domestic - 77%
Imported - 19%
captured - 4%

this is total for whole war

 

[Shortround6]

Same chart gives lean lease trucks as 30.4% of the total in Jan 1945 and 32.8% in May 1945, captured trucks are up to 9.1%

The lend lease trucks tended to be bigger and more powerful than the domestic trucks, Not in all cases but a Studebaker 6 cylinder 2 1/2 ton is going to move more stuff than a Russian built 1930 4 cylinder Ford. The "deuce and half) was rated at 2 1/2 tons cross country and 5 tons on a road.

Rail networks over the entire area were a wreck. Russian locomotives and rolling stock had a different distance between the wheels (and tracks) than the rest of Europe and England. Russians could and did reset rails further apart (Germans narrowed them upon advancing into Russia) but that is slow going. Allies can import locomotives and rolling stock from England. Not ideal but better than no locomotives and rolling stock.

 

[Balljoint]

The only close West complexes were in GB with a limited capability. The other complex was in the USA, some 3000 miles across an ocean.

Not to sure about the trucks tho, Lend Lease trucks in Russia
Domestic - 77%
Imported - 19%
captured - 4%

this is total for whole war

I don't mean to minimize the soviet accomplishments. 40,000 aircraft, 30,000 tanks, 150,000 artillery, 500,000 machine guns, 2 million sub-machine guns and 3million rifles at the peak yearly production while winning in the field is no small effort. Overall production expanded 250%. As in the US, central authority can be very effective with a highly motivated work force.

My point is that these resources were poorly located relative to Western Europe and skewed by the needs met by the US aid.

 

[tyrodtom]

Any worthwhile strategic bombing of Russia would be a very difficult mission. Most of Russia's heavy industry was well dispersed, and well east of Moscow, some even past the Urals.
About the only way to reach those areas would be B-29 based in nothern India, or Iran. We already had a infrastructure in Iran for the Lend Lease supplies going to Russia, but Russia had troops in Iran also. Bases in nothern India would mean flying over the Himalaya mountains, having to gain that much altitute early in the mission would greatly shorten their range.
Thank goodness this never happened, because we might have been able to disrupt their supply lines, and supply dumps ( if we could find them) , but we couldn't touch their industrial, base with the aircraft we had at the time.