Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[delcyros]

...undoubtly, but to late, if you ask me.
If we are serious, a "liberating act" wouldn´t happen
prior to sept. 45, when Japn surrenders.
By that date almost all production lines have been already
taken down in order to rebuild them in central Sibiria (beyond range).
And who says that millions of western soldiers would continue a war marching deep into Russia, where millions and millions of others died in their own attempts? Remind Spain, communistic thinking was quite popular for many of the western people as well. Esspecially since the SU did an important job to deal with nazi Germany.
And further: Directly after wars end most german civilians sympathized with the soviets, not with the western allies. The general thinking was quite something like: "..ummm, they are evil, mabe, but they did continue to fight our armys instead of dropping bombs on our cities.."
It wasn´t prior to the Berlin air bridge that the general thinking changed.
I do also think that the SU designers had quite a good knowledge about the capacities and abilities of the B-29, since they had some of them captured and examined very well.

In the end the SU cannot stand against UK and US forces but public opinion would only hardly allow the democratic gouvernments to continue a war against their most important partner in ww2 in an attackers position.

 

[plan_D]

Many Soviet soldiers have stated that they were not fighting for Stalin, but for Russia. It was probably the case of most Soviet soldiers, as it was mostly the case for German soldiers fighting for homeland rather than leader. The only difference being, the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was actually German. The Red Army was made up of various races, religions and nationalities. A lot of which would have loved to remove Stalin from over the top of them. I don't understand why liberating them wouldn't happen, it's exactly what the Western Allies stood for.

The Spanish Civil War had shown the truth to many Europeans about the Communists. They soon found out the truth about the Stalinist leadership and many in the Spanish Civil War turned against the Communists and joined the Anarchists or Socialists. The end of the Republic came with the removal of the Communists from it's power head. Many of the International Brigades also found out they were fighting for the wrong cause when fighting for Communists ...the Reds had shot themselves in the foot and now most of the world knew they were evil ...especially the British.

Britain had known the Soviet Union were a threat to freedom for a long-long time. Churchill had already admitted he'd sell his soul to the devil to defeat Hitler and he was directly refering to Stalin and the Soviet Union as the devil in question. FDR was a little more naive on the subject but Truman was a bit more up to date and soon realised the nuclear bomb was a good bargaining chip against the Soviet Union - he knew they were trouble.

And the soldiers ....the vast majority of the soldiers in World War II from the countries other than the Soviet Union and Britain didn't really know why they were fighting. They knew there were people called Nazis and they had to stop them to secure freedom - that's it. The same could have been said for the march on the Soviet Union - there are people called Communists and we have to stop them to secure freedom - the soldier is doing the right thing, or even to a lesser extent he thinks he is, and he carries on fighting. Even if the cry for war was to free Poland and East Europe - it would be enough.

The German civilians were mostly disgusted with the Soviet Union - "It was our holocaust but nobody cared..." about East Prussia was something that ran true throughout Germany. Sure, the Germans hated the Allied airmen but it's civilians that fight. The German troops right up until the last day were saying they'd turn and fight with the Allied troops against the Bolshevik evil that was the Soviet Union.

And it's impossible to say if the Western Allies would accept them ..after all, you could say they thought of them as the evil Nazis but then a lot of British civilians and troops especially did realise that these men were just soldiers doing their national duty. Although there were those British who thought they all needed to be killed ...and I don't judge them for that, obviously. However, had we accepted the aid of all those German soldiers and generals ..it would have been even further in our favour. In fact, during the 50s, NATO did accept the help of many German officers from World War II on the tactics to use against the Soviet Union.

Being up to date on the knowledge of the B-29 (which they weren't completely) doesn't mean they can instantly counter it. Plus, the B-29 would have soon be replaced by the B-36 which was bigger, stronger and more powerful. On top of that, does the Soviet Union have anything to fight at high altitude to stand up to the likes of the P-51H, P-47N or P-38K?

A lot of the civilians from World War II, and soldiers for that matter, didn't have a clue about the Soviet Union's actions in the war. In fact, a lot of people to this day don't have a clue. Politics aside ...the Western Allies had the edge, even without the nuclear bomb, if they fought the Soviet Union.

 

[delcyros]

As far as I know, numerous german soldiers and officers went to the red forces even during ww2 (NK Freies Deutschland) because of Hitler.
They all knew that they are fighting for Hitler, for Germany was of second priority ( remember that they had to swear on the person of Hitler since 1936 in military training, Hitler replaced Germany). That may be a reason why so many went for the SU.
The argument that soldiers of both forces (Germany as well as Russia) did not liked their leaders is misleading. We have tons of documentation to proof.
(remember all the SU bombs and airplanes written with "CA CTA/\UHA" (for Stalin)?) Such statements are unpopular today (I am not guilty, it was Stalin/Hitler).
But maybe back to the planes, dear Plan_D -
The advanced US escort planes doesn´t have the range to encompany their big friends all the way to Moscow. At low and medium altitude, they have less performance than the later Yak and La-fighter, at higher altitude they are superior to them but inferior to others. The P-80 might give the overall better solution but it has a much reduced range, reducing it´s worth in such a wide area scenario to CAP over vital allied fields/cities. The later Meteor (MK-IV, not MK-III) is probably the best allied jet, this bird has quite an excellent range for a jet.
The Mig- build I-225 (first flight march 14th, 1945) made some 725 Km/h at high altitude with full weaponry, this is remarkable. It also has a decent range and a very low wingload. It could deal with some of the escorts if necessary.
The B-29 are a heavier foe. Esspeccially for them MiG designed the I-250 (N), better known as Mig-7. Armed with 3 (later 4) G 20 /20mm guns and a n mixed propulsion (jet+prop) it flew for the first time at 3rd of march 45 and made some impressive 825 Km/h at 7.800 m. At the usual B-29 altitude it could sustain a speed of 500 mp/h bypassing all possible escort fighters. The Mig-7 had a small serial production. There are other prototypes like I-107 (Su-5) to produce a potent high altitude interceptor.
And they still had the option to continue on the Me-262 and Ju-287 (I own a Baubeschreibung from june, 2nd 45 of the Junkers Werke at Dessau, where they suggest a serial build modified Ju-287 for the soviet air forces), if necessary...

 

[plan_D]

The only reason Hitler gained support was because the vast majority of the German people wanted their "old" Germany back from the pre-Great War days. Many Allied airmen were asked to join the German fight against the Bolshevik spread - and although not many, if any, did ...a continued fight against the Communists would be an excellent chance for those captured by the West to carry on, if requested.

The Germans moving over to the Soviet Union were small in number. They would have much rather fought with the Allies to oust Stalin from the head of the Soviet Union and calm the world down a bit. Remember those 400,000 Ukrainians that Hitler turned down ...?

The P-38K, P-47N and P-51H all have extremely impressive ranges and are superior to all Soviet fighters at altitude. Remember, the fight takes place where the dictating force takes it. The strategic bomber campaign would be high ...the Soviets would have to rise them.

On the Soviet attacks, it may be low to medium altitude in which case the jet interceptors - P-80 and Meteor Mk.III could deal with them. If not those, then the likes of the Spitfire Mk.21 could handle all Soviet fighters.

All these prototype Sovet aircraft sound impressive ...but they were just prototypes. And remember, the B-29 wasn't defenceless ...it got a fair few MiG-15 kills during Korea!

 

[delcyros]

Your argument is two shaped, Plan_D.
The Mig-7 went from prototype to serial production (with a few squadrons
of the baltic air forces to deploy with the fighter) but wasn´t improved because of the advent of more potent jet fighters later.
In late 1945 it would provide CAP over vital cities just as Gorki in the PVO.
The I-225 were prototypes, yes, but they are based on the Mig-3. The P-51 H , P-38K and P-47 N were also protoypes based on regular planes, so it´s comparable.
Neither the Meteor nor the Shooting star would be effective in the low level theatre (where most of the fighting would take place), they are very fuel gulping at low alt. The VVS is also able to fly more missions than the UK/US forces could do, so that´s why the US would have a problem: Providing escort for B-29 deep into russia with long range escorts would reduce the avaiability of planes in the close combat area, where the VVS naturally hits hard. Thousends of IL-10 sorties a day may wreac havoc under the UK and US ground forces, as well as the airfields in their range (very bad for jets as we know)and we know that the VVS in 1945 was able to do so. The best allied fighter in low to medium alt would be the Tempest, it has the performance and firepower to deal with any threat but it needs protection against the more agile Yaks and Las. I do not deny that the losses would be high for the VVS but they don´t care about high losses. In the end initiative means all.
It is well probable that a strategic bombing campaign will set new priorities for the VVS (shifting more foces to the PVO), but it remains speculation, since no P-51 H is able to accompany a B-29 all the way from France to Moscow /Irak to Moscow and back...(not to even mention central Sibiria, where the key war production was concentrated)

 

[schwarzpanzer]

PlanD:

Many Soviet soldiers have stated that they were not fighting for Stalin, but for Russia. It was probably the case of most Soviet soldiers, as it was mostly the case for German soldiers fighting for homeland rather than leader.

Yes, either they fought with Stalin or were eradicated. Tough choice IMHO.

The Red Army was made up of various races, religions and nationalities. A lot of which would have loved to remove Stalin from over the top of them.

Yes Stalin banned Religion, banned Religion! Even Hitler didn't do that!

the Reds had shot themselves in the foot and now most of the world knew they were evil

The leaders were evil, Communists aren't.

Churchill had already admitted he'd sell his soul to the devil to defeat Hitler and he was directly refering to Stalin and the Soviet Union as the devil in question.

He downright said he hated them, but less than the Nazi's.

Even if the cry for war was to free Poland and East Europe - it would be enough.

English of German origin (like me) would want Poland and Czechoslovakia to suffer as much as possible, sorry.

Sure, the Germans hated the Allied airmen but it's civilians that fight.

From my family perspective, only the leaders and certain SS/NKVD were considered evil.

Some hate Communism, some are Communists.

you could say they thought of them as the evil Nazis but then a lot of British civilians and troops especially did realise that these men were just soldiers doing their national duty

To their credits, yes, the hearts and minds philosophy maybe? I also think the forgiving Christian Religion and general nice British nature at the time had a lot to do with it?

does the Soviet Union have anything to fight at high altitude to stand up to the likes of the P-51H, P-47N or P-38K?

Good point, the in-being MiG?

A lot of the civilians from World War II, and soldiers for that matter, didn't have a clue about the Soviet Union's actions in the war.

You can't tar them all with the same brush.

Fighting against Stalin is a good thing, but the Russians did nothing to hurt or threaten Germany, other than in the Spanish civil war.


delcyros:

The argument that soldiers of both forces (Germany as well as Russia) did not liked their leaders is misleading. We have tons of documentation to proof.
(remember all the SU bombs and airplanes written with "CA CTA/\UHA" (for Stalin)?)

That's like saying the Iraqis loved Saddam Hussein. If you didn't show your love for him, you died. Also a lot of brainwashing went on with Stalin.

The Germans initially liked Hitler though.

And they still had the option to continue on the Me-262

With all the raw materials they needed...

PD:

Remember those 400,000 Ukrainians that Hitler turned down ...?

Before having them killed. Why?? They'd suffered enough already.

He didn't trust them though, would you?

The P-38K, P-47N and P-51H all have extremely impressive ranges and are superior to all Soviet fighters at altitude.

The Soviets had good high-altitude performance planes, but withdrew them because they weren't needed. In fact their engines ended up in IL-2's!

delcyros:

Neither the Meteor nor the Shooting star would be effective in the low level theatre (where most of the fighting would take place)

Atually, the Meteor was succesfully used in the ground attack role.

I think it's a moot point as all the fighting would be high-altitude.

no P-51 H is able to accompany a B-29 all the way from France to Moscow /Irak to Moscow and back

With reduced weight, improved aerodynamics and engine and/or the twin 'Tang, it maybe could?

How long 'till the Soviet jets make them redundant though?

The P51 could hold it's own vs a Me262?

 

[delcyros]

One point why the jets can´t be effective in the low level duties
is that there fuel gulping engines (P-80, Meteor I and III, to a less degree also the Dervent-V driven MK-IV) reduce the effective endurance over enemy terretory/ airspace. Overloaded (bombs + additional fuel) they are not fast enough to avoid interception even by Yaks and Las in clean fighter configuration plus the Meteor (esspeccially) is a hell of a big target. It is completely different if a Meteor-III in early 1945 performs ground attack sorties from near airfields against demoralised german targets in a target poor environment /airspace or in late 45 against soviet forces in a target rich environment with excellent AA and lot of fighters performing CAP. (not to mention the effectiveness: How effective would a MK-IV/MK-III be, if forced to attack at very high speeeds with 20mm rounds against JS-II / late T-34?...)The Vampire could do better, I think.
But something scares me: You think most fighting would be in hi alt? I disagree. Some, sure. But the VVS would stay at their philosophy: Performing close support for their advancing panzers and leave the wide airspace at hi alt almost empty (with an independent PVO defense of their important centres).
The Me-262 /Su-7 was really an option. Directly after wars end, Stalin ordered the mass production of this fighter. The plane doesn´t have much raw materials: more steel than dural. A problem could be the raw materials for the engines but the soviets already benefitted from more efficient and powerful developments in the BMW-003 and Jumo-004 program (RD-9 and RD-10), including afterburner modification and more fuel efficiency as well as a tinadur and chromadur alloys to reduce the degree of raw materials. As we all know, Yakolev insisted against the Su-7 and succeeded in convincing Stalin that the Mig-9 and Yak-7/9 are better planes (which they weren´t).
It remains a question how long the soviets need to deploy a numerical force of jet interceptors. I suspect it wouldn´t be prior to late 45 (in case of the I-250 (N) and early 46 (soonest) in case of the Mig-9/Su-7. There was lot of engeneering to do (even in case of the Su-7: new (straight )wing and circular hull diameter) and the preperations for mass production would take additional time, also. At this time, there are still very few P-80 and Meteor MK-IV plus a number of older MK-III and a very few (if even) Vampires. In the engine dep. the West is clearly leading (think of the Nene and J-38) plus some german axial techs (BMW probably). Beside of the P-80 the allies have no plane suited for the superior Nene-engine.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

It is completely different if a Meteor-III in early 1945 performs ground attack sorties from near airfields against demoralised german targets in a target poor environment /airspace or in late 45 against soviet forces in a target rich environment with excellent AA and lot of fighters performing CAP.

It was used in that role when it was otherwise obsoleto. Not in WW2 IIRC?

How effective would a MK-IV/MK-III be, if forced to attack at very high speeeds with 20mm rounds against JS-II / late T-34?...)

But something scares me: You think most fighting would be in hi alt? I disagree. Some, sure. But the VVS would stay at their philosophy: Performing close support for their advancing panzers and leave the wide airspace at hi alt almost empty (with an independent PVO defense of their important centres).

We're obviously talking about different things, for those former targets P47's would suffice.

The wide airspace at high-alt would be full of B17/B29/B36's and if the Soviets didn't want to go there, so much the better for the Allies.

A problem could be the raw materials for the engines but the soviets already benefitted from more efficient and powerful developments in the BMW-003 and Jumo-004 program (RD-9 and RD-10), including afterburner modification and more fuel efficiency as well as a tinadur and chromadur alloys to reduce the degree of raw materials.

I was meaning the Soviets would have metals such as Chromium and Tungsten in abundance, whereas the Germans had very little, which was the main jet engine problem.

As we all know, Yakolev insisted against the Su-7 and succeeded in convincing Stalin that the Mig-9 and Yak-7/9 are better planes (which they weren´t).

No, I didn't now that.

It remains a question how long the soviets need to deploy a numerical force of jet interceptors. I suspect it wouldn´t be prior to late 45 (in case of the I-250 (N) and early 46 (soonest) in case of the Mig-9/Su-7.

So the high-alt bombers/escorts could only be effectively countered 'till then?

I expect the MiG high-alt 'props' wouldn't be ready any sooner either?

There was lot of engeneering to do (even in case of the Su-7: new (straight )wing and circular hull diameter) and the preperations for mass production would take additional time

A similar problem occured with the PzIII-T34-Panther saga. That was due to German national pride and material shortages. As the Russians wouldn't suffer from the latter, I would guess that it was all the former?

Still the actual manufacturing could be a problem? but wouldn't the Me262 tooling simply have been nicked entirely?

Beside of the P-80 the allies have no plane suited for the superior Nene-engine.

I wonder if the B36 could be modified to take Nene's? 8)

My opinion now is looking like the Soviets couldn't win. In all likeliness Stalin would have been overthrown, but the Blitz-like and Guerilla tactics could have done it for them?

The weaknesses are:

1. High-alt air power

2. Naval power

Could these be remedied?

How long would that take?

What about Britains labour government/attitude post-war?

 

[102first_hussars]

If a war between Nato and The Warsaw PAct happend chances are the war would escalate into a nuclear war and there would be no winner.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

That's a good point, but:

1. The Allies public opinion wouldn't allow the Soviets to be nuked. (Britain was also kinda lefty :hippy: back then, the Neme mentioned above was given to the SU as a gift from the Government! ) Also Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type targets were invincible in the USSR (except Stalingrad...)

2. The SU wouldn't have nukes 'till '49.


However, industrial targets and Stalingrad may have been nuked? - unlikely IMHO.

 

[delcyros]

We still forget about public opinion in the democratic UK/US
governments. If (my thesis) the SU could delay the advance of
UK/US ground forces (which they could do for a period, since they had a overwhelming numerical superiority and advanced techniques in 45 avaiable in central europe) -remember the UK/US are rather agressors than defenders in this szenario- wouldn´t the public opinion turn against their own governments? Could they feel comfortable by prolonging an otherwised ended war?
Nuking enemy targets is still another thing: I suspect it would have happen sooner or later (esspeccially in order to remove Stalin from SU government), but it wouldn´t probably have a big effect. Stalin could decide to kill anyone in western europe in response (he had acces to a large quantum of Botulinum captured from Germany in april 45, which means he had acces to a biological weapon capable of killing the entires earth population).
The SU nuclear project was based on
1.) espionage
2.) captured geman Uranium deposits
3.) own scientific work
and:
4.) Ardenne (a german scientist, who improved the enrichment facilities in Germany during ww2 and later became a key person in the SU enrichement project)
WOM shouldn´t concern us much, since as posted above, nobody could win.

The B-36 has enough range to strike targets deep within Sibira, the B-29 hasn´t. The B-36 cannot be equipped with the Nene (it´s diameter was way to large), I think of the Supermarine Ace or something like that.
From when on is the B-36 avaiable in numerical strength? 45? surely not. mid 46 is more probable. By that date the SU already has an enstrengthened PVO consisting of Mig-9 and I-250 (N).
Still: the effect of hi alt strategical bombing is a lot overestimated. I don´t expect that even heavy bombardments could reduce the military production and train services to more than around 15-20%, which is still under the acceleration limit = no visible effect (like the german industry output in 1944). Attacking the oil industry could make a difference.
Anyway I agree that the SU cannot stand against combined UK and US forces over a more than brief period (while ground fighting could be a very bad experiance for the western allies in russia..)

 

[Glider]

During the preparation for the Nromandy Landings France was to all intentes and purposes cut off from Germany. The number of loaded rail waggons that made ot through fell to a tenth of what it had been in April 1944 when the campaign started.
There is no reason to believe that at least as much could have been achieved against the Russians. The planes may not have had the range to hit the production centres but they certainly had enough to stop the supplies getting through.

 

[102first_hussars]

That's a good point, but:

1. The Allies public opinion wouldn't allow the Soviets to be nuked. (Britain was also kinda lefty :hippy: back then, the Neme mentioned above was given to the SU as a gift from the Government! ) Also Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type targets were invincible in the USSR (except Stalingrad...)

2. The SU wouldn't have nukes 'till '49.


However, industrial targets and Stalingrad may have been nuked? - unlikely IMHO.

The U.S. public will agree to anything if they truly feel their way of life hangs in the balance, and in Nato the U.S. opinion was considered back then "words of wisdom" and the allies would have easily followed the us into anything excep for France because they are already invaded by the Russians LOL.

 

[delcyros]

Greetings Glider!

I do not agree completely with you, but without knowing it, your argument
(beeing absolutely true in case of the Normandy) is going to underline my point of view. Strange?
The preperations against France haven´t cut off the Whermacht completely (it repeatedly succeeded in transfer of Panzer divisions, Jagdgruppen, fuel and ammo but to a very high loss rate) but effectively=reducing the capacity of the french railway net to 62% (source Groeler 1980, page 421). However, this was no strategical campign, it was a tactical one. Just the way the VVS used to fight. Carpet bombing was tried but found to be highly ineffective (up to the point of killing a allied General on the ground by own carpet bombings). The P-47, P-38 and Tiffys did most of the job. Against what? A lot of AA (which took a good deal of the allied losses there) and those rare fighters of the two JG´s stationed in France (barely 180 planes). At D-day 500 german sorties over France stood against 14.674 combat sorties for the allies. While this is a peak, since a high rate of sorties was a bit overheated, it reduced to an average of only 2.700 for the next two weeks. Under these circumstances it´s clear why they had a good time to do havoc. They already had the unchallanged aerial superirority there.
How much sorties could the VVS in late 45 fly over central europe? I don´t know but they a max of 13.950 combat sorties in feb 45, an average of 6.400 combat sorties between 19th and 25th april, till may 7th additional 3600 combat sorties each day. This is at least comparable.
With these numbers in mind, I see no justification for a clear UK/US aerial superiority against the VVS from the beginning on. This question would be answered in progress of the extensive air battles, but not because any air force was way superior over the other.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

delycros:

esspeccially in order to remove Stalin from SU government

This may be achieved by the SU itself! - he wasn't too popular.

he had acces to a large quantum of Botulinum captured from Germany in april 45, which means he had acces to a biological weapon capable of killing the entires earth population

He might do this in desperation?

Attacking the oil industry could make a difference.

Yeah, they are vulnerable.

The P-47, P-38 and Tiffys did most of the job. Against what? A lot of AA (which took a good deal of the allied losses there)

True, plus the Soviets also had better AA, e.g all Stalin tanks (and some T34's) carried a DShK .50 whereas Germany only had a few paltry MG42's on some heavies.

The US tanks also had a .50 AA gun usually though too.

Jet Jabo's make these redundant though...

 

[102first_hussars]

True, plus the Soviets also had better AA, e.g all Stalin tanks (and some T34's) carried a DShK .50 whereas Germany only had a few paltry MG42's on some heavies.

The US tanks also had a .50 AA gun usually though too.

Jet Jabo's make these redundant though...

Not to mention the SAM was well into development
[/quote]

 

[schwarzpanzer]

As was the ZSU.

Which side nicked the Enzian tech anyway? - I thought it was the US?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Early Soviet SAMS would not have been able to stop a B-29 onslaught.

 

[delcyros]

Some US scientist developed a ship based guided SAM during 45-47 but with little succes.
The Enzian tech was shared between french and british but none of them developed it further. V. Braun designed the NIKE-Sam (based on the latest EWM-2 W Wasserfall SAM´s which were more advanced but moreso difficult, too.) for the US after the war and the soviet took away most of the Rheintocheter SAM-tech, which in the end led (together with further soviet engineering) to their first SAM -missiles-series.
The Hs-Schmetterling SAM wasn´t even considered by the victors to improve the tech.
With Germany knocked out, no nation could develop and deploy a useful SAM in the timeframe up to 1947, which may threaten a high alt strike.
After all I know, I suspect that the either EWM 2W10 or the EWM 2W12 was the best tested SAM up to the late 40´s. It had the greatest performance, excellent range and altitude, a huge warhead and a semi active homing for it´s proximity based fuze. (way more advanced than the Enzian)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Until V. Braun continued his work in the United States correct?