What if.....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Messy,

I'm 100% on your side on this, but I'll try to name one battle where it was won without air superiority. Please tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Russians win Stalingrad without controlling the sky?
 
I don't know Thor, and I was thinking about Stalingrad while I was writing my last post. Did anyone have control of the air? If it was the Germans, that may be one of the few times overall when the victor did not own the skies. I have never heard too much about the air war over Stalingrad, but I have not studied up very much on that battle. I'm sure someone here knows the answer. I know that Germany could not get supplies to it's troops, even by plane, so I am guessing they did not have total air superiority.
 

I would very much like to know the source of these data you presented. According to you it appears as if Russia had no natural resources of their own. Have you ever heard of Caucasus oil fields? Ural area is also known for its mining industry and being rich with different ores.

DBII said:
...I do not think using atomic weapons against them would have the same impact it did against Japan.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from book "Russia at War 1941-1945" written by Alexander Werth:

"However, despite dissapointments that acompanied the postwar years, horrible but heroic war of 1941-45 remains the most glorious memory of Russian people - war, which with all loses it brought, made Russia the greatest power of the old world... The thought of another war is ever more horrible to the Russian people. For this would be the war without Sevastopol, Leningrad or Stalingrad, this would be war with casualties but without heroes."

Werth spend war as news correspondent in Russia, so I believe he knew what he was talking about. Russians are humans as everybody else. They endured horrible loses in WW2 because they were fighting for very survival of their entire nation. If they were subjected to atomic warfare in this what if scenario, I believe it would have great effect.

Messy1 said:
...Germany's industrial capability to produce weapons was reduced to zero.
Click to expand...

And yet, German armament production peaked in 1944 at the hight of Allied bomber offensive. (For example: Germany produced 14.700 planes in 1942, 25.200 in 1943 and 37.950 in 1944!)


Great source of info about air war over Stalingrad are books (highly recomended) Jagdwaffe Vol 3 Section 4 War over Russia Jan-Oct 1942 and Jagdwaffe Vol 4 Sect 3 War Over Russia Nov 1942-Dec 1943, same as Black Cross Red Star Volume 3 Everything for Stalingrad.

I would have to check for exact numbers, but at the beginning of Operation "Blau" Luftflotte 4 was the most powerfull of all German Air Fleets. Germans achieved and kept air superiority until October 1942 when they (under false impression that battle is all but won) withdraw many of their air units to other sectors, some to the Caucasus and other sectors of Eastern front and some (like JG 53 for example) to Mediterranean. In November and December reinforced Soviet air forces premanently achieved and kept air superiority over the area, effectively preventing Germans to air supply their troops at Stalingrad pocket.
 
Last edited:
Great info Imalko, I stand corrected in regards to German war production, is there a figure available for total production numbers?
 
Last edited:
Total production numbers for German war industry during 1939-1945:
- Airplanes - total number produced: 109.185
- Tanks and other armored wehicles - total number produced: 67.777

Source: "Drugi svetski rat" Knjiga 1 (in translation "World War Two" Volume 1 published in 1982) which is Serbian translation of book "Bericht Van de Tweede Wereld Oorlog" published in Amsterdam in 1975
 
Last edited:
Japan's not only down, it's your second unsinkable aircraft carrier.

I don't see how the US can stay out of Russia. Airpower can strike at enemy territory but it cannot, in itself, deny territory to the enemy. There would need to be a territorial goal, this isn't the same Soviet Union that the Nazis invaded, this one is geared up for war production.
The goal would need to be attained before winter set in and a hold-fast plan put in place for the duration of the winter. Construction of all-weather strips capable of lighting bombers and fighters that can strike forward and keep the enemy from amassing assets for a big counter-push.
This really would be the problem, an 'Army Group Central' on US forces would be unthinkable and given the level of manpower the Soviets have proved they can call up on, a very real threat.
Strategic air power would need to keep hitting Soviet war production, so that the US are not facing the same problem that the Nazis had, not being able to knock out assets faster than the Soviets could manufacture them.
The US have a real advantage here with the Soviets having nothing that could really threaten a bomber stream.
 
Colin1 said:
Japan's not only down, it's your second unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...

Yea, but what can you bomb with forces stationed in Japan? Siberia?

I think, it was beyond US capability to invade USSR in similar way as Germans did. The main theater for ground operations would be Central Europe, but I still can't see how could US emerge victorious out of this "what if" conflict without using nuclear weapons.
 
You don't necessarily need to bomb anything
do you think the Soviets are going to turn their backs on the Far East with the US massing assets on the Japan mainland, or do you think they're going to use their common sense and tie up some of their own assets making sure a bomber platform doesn't turn into a springboard for a Far East D-Day?

The US wouldn't be doing it in a similar way to the Nazis, the Luftwaffe didn't implement strategic bombing in anything like the same way that the USAAF did and don't forget it wouldn't have stopped with the B-29; bigger, better, faster, greater-payloading, higher-flying bombers were being designed and built - the Soviets would initially have had trouble intercepting B-17s, let alone the later stuff.
 
Hello Imalko. I do not think we have met. If I remember correctly, the losses of Stalingrad alone was more than the total US losses. A quick net search shows US military losses to be around 416,800 and the Soviets around 10,700,000 military and another 11 million+ civilains. The losses around Stalingrad over 1 million. The loss these lives is sad. Despite the heavy losses, the government continued to fight. Any atomic or nuclear strike would result in horrable losses. The impact of such an attack would effect the population for generations to come.

The use of atomic weapons in this pretend war could have two results: the government has enough and surrenders as Japan did or they continue to fight despite the losses. Because the government continued to fight after high losses to the German's, IMO is that they would have contiuned to fight after an atomic strike or two. Stalin would be fighting for survival of communism over capitalism.

Ok guys, is my logic fuzzy?
DBII
 
No Colin, I don't think Soviets would turn their back to the Far East and this 'what if' conflict would (as far as ground operations are concerned) probably been fought on two fronts in Central Europe and Far East... But question remains what would US achieve by staging Far East D-day? You certainly can't advance on Moscow from there...

As for air war... Agree that US would had higher edge due to the strategic air power and B-29 in particular, but in case of years long prolonged conflict Soviets would have eventually designed and deployed new types of interceptor fighters to counter this bomber offensive...
 
DBII said:
Hello Imalko. I do not think we have met...

...that they would have contiuned to fight after an atomic strike or two. Stalin would be fighting for survival of communism over capitalism.
Click to expand...

Hello DBII
We haven't met officially but I have noticed your posts around the forum...

It would probably take more then one or two atomic strikes and that is why I'm glad it never happened. It would have had horrible impact to many generations to come.
Stalin would probably be keen to continue to fight for survival of communism over capitalism, but question remains would Soviet people be too? There is big difference in fighting for ideology and for your very survival as a nation as it had been the case in war against the Nazis.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify this, I didnt try to deny importance of ground attack and fighter aircraft ie air superiority in warfare but thinking of Thorlifter's post about sending a 1000 planes to bomb Moscow or Stalingrad, I do not beleive you can win a war with strategic air raids. Even if some of those bombers in 1945 miraculously reached their targets on soviet territory and 5 or 10% of them could make it home wold usaf continue these raids you think?

Germany's GDP was at its height in 44', aircraft and tank production increased comparing to the previouse years and moral was high up until the end of the war. If it didnt work with Germany why do you think it would work with Russia.
Strategic bombing (before nuclear) was more a propaganda tool rather then an efficient weapon.

Flying bombers to Siberia, bombing something in the middle of nowhere, losing aircrafts and crews by hundreds or maybe thousands, that's not what public opinion in US would tolerate for very long.
 
No it wasn't

Why would anyone bomb something 'in the middle of nowhere' and how, by doing so, would they lose hundreds or thousands of aircrew? Is this based on the assumption that the Soviets would be fiercely defending the middle of nowhere?
 
Last edited:
We can toss around all kinds of numbers for equipment and troops but it does become a question of will to fight. I am not sure that the American public would have supported a war so soon after VJ day. IMALKO, once the airwar starts over the Soviet Union, it would become a matter of survival. WWII was war between facism, communism and capitalism and I do not se how a US Russian war would be any different in terms of the reason why it started. I am interested in everyone's thoughts about the the Allies' will to fight after VJ day. IMALKO nice siggy.

DBII
 
imalko said:
But question remains what would US achieve by staging Far East D-day? You certainly can't advance on Moscow from there...
Click to expand...
It would achieve much
but a footslog on Moscow a la footslog on Berlin is not really what it would be about
the large flat expanses of Manchuria would be very easy to turn into airstrips, with mechanised US Engineers pushing forwards and building a strip, then leapfrogging forwards it would signal to the Soviets there is only so far east they can push their war production.
An air-hop into bombing range on war manufacture, rather than a footslog on the capital; the capital can be taken from another direction.
 
Agree with DBII, without a direct attack by Russia, I do not see the US wanting anything to do with getting involved in any type of further conflict. It would have taken a direct attack by Russia to provoke the US, maybe along the scale of Pearl Harbor, to fill the Us with the will to fight a new war so soon after Japan's surrender.
 
Hey!
You've just killed our what-if
 

You're right; by then the American military and public were tired of fighting a multi-front war for 3 long years, and had already begun to look forward to days of peace, not more war, so I think FDR would've been forced to make concessions to the Russians (which is pretty much what he did at Yalta), not prosecute another war in central Europe OR the Far East (Manchuria, et al). There were people like Patton and MacArthur pushing for an invasion of eastern Europe, but pretty much everybody else just wanted to go home and be a normal human being again.
 
DBII said:
Imalko nice siggy.
Click to expand...

Thanks! If you are interested we can try to make some siggy for you too in official signature thread. Just say which aircraft you like... P-38 Lightning, maybe?

DBII said:
...once the airwar starts over the Soviet Union, it would become a matter of survival. WWII was war between facism, communism and capitalism and I do not se how a US Russian war would be any different in terms of the reason why it started.
Click to expand...

You missed my point when I wrote about question of survival. In war against Nazis the Soviet people were aware of atrocities commited and they knew that in case of defeat in this war they could be literary exterminated as a nation due to the Hitler's racial policy. So, what if war agains US would be war of ideology but war against Nazis was war against ideology, yes, but even more fight for avoiding extermination.


DBII said:
I am interested in everyone's thoughts about the the Allies' will to fight after VJ day.
Click to expand...

I believe that after VJ day, Soviet Union had very good reputation with the public in Allied countries as major contributor in victory over Nazism, so there was no will to fight them. At that point they were seen as allies and friends.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Wondered if anyone knows what it is ?
Replies
5
Views
1K
AMCKen
A
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
A
What if - Four-Power Pact 1933 is confirmed
Replies
3
Views
848
Zmauky
Z
Menu
Log in
Register