Who said the B-29s would be flying from Europe? We could use the bases in Japan or in India. Plus, we wouldn't need to be hitting the factories. We'd just strike at the oil production facilities in the Caucasus. After all the Western air forces did realise the real key to war by late 1944.
Who would win the western allies or Russia?
- Thread starter RAGMAN
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Medvedya
Master Sergeant
Even from bases in Northern India a B-29 would barely make it back from the main production centres, and they'd be flying over hostile Soviet territory for at least 1000km.
From Iraq is more feasable, but then there's still the oil production in Siberia - and nothing with wings then could get there in one round trip.
From Iraq is more feasable, but then there's still the oil production in Siberia - and nothing with wings then could get there in one round trip.
The VVS had nothing capable of intercepting a B-29 in 1945. And it would depend how long the war would be dragging on. The B-36 wouldn't be long in the making.
And as has been mentioned, we wouldn't need to destroy the factories. There's more than one way to stop a tank. Destroy it's factory, destroy its transport, destroy its support, destroy its fuel or destroy it on the battlefield.
And as has been mentioned, we wouldn't need to destroy the factories. There's more than one way to stop a tank. Destroy it's factory, destroy its transport, destroy its support, destroy its fuel or destroy it on the battlefield.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
marconi said:
There seems to be a contradition there, tanks are equipment!
PlanD said:
Glider said:
It would have been hard/impossible to do both?
PlanD said:
But with the Soviets, you couldn't destroy all of them. As the Germans found; the tanks would still come, in spades.
Unlike with the Germans, the Soviet rail system (like radios) was desirable, but not completely vital.
PlanD said:
Nothing was needed 'till that point, I'm sure the MiGs would have been upgraded if the need arose?
What I'm wondering is if the Soviets/Allies could manage to fight on two fronts?
I reckon the Sviets would hold/take ground a lot better.
Would former British colonies make their bid for freedom?
Which Soviet city/place would/could be succesfully A-bombed?
i.e. my point on Stalingrad.
It certainly would not be hard or impossible to do both. The Western Allied air forces bombed the factories, transport network and cities of Germany all at once. But that doesn't matter as Glider and I both had differing views. I said bomb the factories, he said bomb the transport links. Bombing the transport would be the best option as it seems.
Did you read what I said? I stated there was more than one way to stop a tank. You don't have to destroy the actual tank on the field of battle to stop it. A concentrated attack against the Soviet oil production would deprive the Soviet Union of the vital fuels to run their masses of tanks.
The Soviet Union relied solely on their railway for transport. It was a vital part of their war. How do you expect to deliver replacement units from the Urals to Germany quickly without a railway system? Even the sturdy T-34 wouldn't be able to make that force march.
Of course nothing was needed to intercept the B-29 until then. And that was my exact point. It gives the B-29s free-roam of the skies. The VVS would have to adapt or design an aircraft capable to intercept the B-29 but unless you've got a magic wand, it takes time. Although you proposed the idea of a Red Navy matching the USN, RN and RCN in a matter of months maybe you have that magic wand.
The only British colony worth a mention that would strive for freedom at that moment would most likely be India. But even without India the British Empire would have Australia, New Zealand and Canada to call on. All of which provide mass amounts of man and material. Easily enough to out-number the Soviet Union. Combine that with the wealth of the United States and the Soviet Union wouldn't stand a chance.
You all seem to be forgetting that the Soviet Union could only build tanks, planes and guns in large numbers. They had no way of producing all those other vital material goods for war. Those came from the West and those would stop.
Did you read what I said? I stated there was more than one way to stop a tank. You don't have to destroy the actual tank on the field of battle to stop it. A concentrated attack against the Soviet oil production would deprive the Soviet Union of the vital fuels to run their masses of tanks.
The Soviet Union relied solely on their railway for transport. It was a vital part of their war. How do you expect to deliver replacement units from the Urals to Germany quickly without a railway system? Even the sturdy T-34 wouldn't be able to make that force march.
Of course nothing was needed to intercept the B-29 until then. And that was my exact point. It gives the B-29s free-roam of the skies. The VVS would have to adapt or design an aircraft capable to intercept the B-29 but unless you've got a magic wand, it takes time. Although you proposed the idea of a Red Navy matching the USN, RN and RCN in a matter of months maybe you have that magic wand.
The only British colony worth a mention that would strive for freedom at that moment would most likely be India. But even without India the British Empire would have Australia, New Zealand and Canada to call on. All of which provide mass amounts of man and material. Easily enough to out-number the Soviet Union. Combine that with the wealth of the United States and the Soviet Union wouldn't stand a chance.
You all seem to be forgetting that the Soviet Union could only build tanks, planes and guns in large numbers. They had no way of producing all those other vital material goods for war. Those came from the West and those would stop.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Yes but they were locked in ground combat with the Soviets/Allies.
The Soviets wouldn't have to worry too much about ground combat, but could they even defend themslves in the air?
More AA gunners would mean less succesful artillery etc (which was just as good as using bombers)
Come on! Siberia, no way!
It could, but: they would have to group together making them a great target for bombers, but then by that point the factories would be rebuilt...
Also how good were the Allied bombers at hitting moving targets? (other than maritime)
BTW: This is after being moved out of the Urals by train, always possible.
I don't think bombing train stations would be so succesful, but rocketing the trains/tracks...
What like the Spitfire IX, or the Panther? Necessity breeds innovation...
Even if the MiGs had IL-2 engines fitted that would be decent.
What was the Soviets best engine?
Then there's always the Merlin and even jets...
No, I merely asked politely if they could pose a threat.
I'm not so sure on this one.
.
They already had them and if war was planned would obviously start producing their own.
This would free up US labour though...
A point on the land battles is that the Brits would probably just build screens of 32 pounders?
Then the Soviets would have howitzers to deal with them?
Which would be replied to by allied howitzers?
= stalemate WW1-style, Rommel expected this.
Why would the Soviets not have to worry about Ground Combat? I think this would be a major worry. Do you know how fast the US Industry was producing by the end of WW2? They could replace more than the Russian could. Who cares if a T-34 was better than a Sherman. The Tiger was better than a Sherman and for every 5 Shermans destroyed by a Tiger the US made 20 more. The Russians would have been overwelmed.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Yeah I'm unsure on the 'numbers game' Adler.
That would be a weird scenario, but the Allied tankers would surely start to resent being used as suicidal pawns after too long?
Whereas with the Soviets vs Germans "The death of 1 is a tradgedy..."
That would be a weird scenario, but the Allied tankers would surely start to resent being used as suicidal pawns after too long?
Whereas with the Soviets vs Germans "The death of 1 is a tradgedy..."
marconi
Airman 1st Class
I was talking about how many tanks and other stuff both sides had at that time.
And I still think that this war would be ended quite soon.I think Russians would try to perform their own "Blitzkrieg".They would probably strike in Europe, Mid East and in China.
About Soviet Navy.Stalin was very fond of big ships.As far as i remember USSR had 3 battleships, several heavy cruisers (and lots of smaller ships).None of them were destroyed during the war.Directly before the war USSR changed plans and decided to build only small ships and submarines.But the main weapon of Soviet Navy in WW2 were mines.Most or a great part of German and Soviet ships were probably destroyed by mines.I don't think Soviet had enough power to defeat Allies on sea, but they could prevent them from using it actively in Baltic Sea.And if they could make a deal with Turkey they could move their fleet from Black sea to Mediterranean.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
How much would they be capable of and how long would they last?
Now that is interesting, thanks
, though how do you think the production facilities would respond to Allied bombing?I wasn't meaning that, Atlantic/Pacific convoys would likely have to be hampered to keep Soviet superiority on land.
Good point, though Turkey wouldn't be a problem IMHO.
If the Soviet subs could lay mines and torpedo the Allied supply ships, this would turn 'the war' in their favour, but I doubt it could happen?
schwarzpanzer said:Yeah I'm unsure on the 'numbers game' Adler.
That would be a weird scenario, but the Allied tankers would surely start to resent being used as suicidal pawns after too long?
Whereas with the Soviets vs Germans "The death of 1 is a tradgedy..."
Sorry if you see it other wise but Russian production could not keep up with the wester allies mainly the US.
marconi
Airman 1st Class
I was talking about possible Allied raids on soviet ports.
I don't think they would have used those battleships at all.Besides I've just found out that one of them WAS damaged at the beginning of the war and was under repair during entire war and after war it was used as a target for practicing.
Another interesting thing: one of the soviet submarines was destroyed in 1942 near San-Francisco by Japanese submarine!
Turkey could support Western Allies and let their forces on its territory.
Werent the Soviet Battleships old WW1 German ships that the Russians got after WW1? I might be wrong, correct me if I am.
marconi
Airman 1st Class
Yes they were old WW1 ship as I understand.USSR were going were going to build 4 battleships but war has begun.
That is what I thought.
Glider
Captain
The Soviet Navy was little more than an inshore navy. Its battleships were old WW1 vessels dating from 1912. The only 'Modern' Battleship was the Royal Sovereign that was transferred from the Royal Navy. I used Modern because it had at least been modernised before the war unlike the Russian battleships. When this was transferred the biggest ships that the Germans had were one Pocket Battleship and a couple of 8in Cruisers. So used effectively the Russians could have ruled the seas but she never went into action.
Its best ships were destroyers that were of Italian design (type 7) and were not strong enough for Arctic conditions. I know that sounds daft but its true. The Russians modified these (Type 7U) and these were simple basic but rugged ships and could have been used if fitted with modern equipment.
Its 3.9 and 5.1 in guns were as good as most but the fire control systems were obsolete and of course they had no radar. Torpedo's were of poor quality and lacked magnetic or acoustic pistols. The Russians had no Adsic as well so couldn't defend against submarines.
As an example of how poor their navy was the following is an example. On one occasion when a Russian destroyer stayed at sea for three consecutive days this was seen as a major feat and received much publicity. It should also be remembered that the Soviet Navy never came out to assist with any convoy that needed help no matter how close to port the ships were.
They did have some submarines that achieved success but nothing like the German U Boat fleet. They also had three interesting medium cruisers armed with 9 x 7.1in guns
As for aircraft carriers the Russians asked the Germans for help but they refused.
The RN could and would have handled the Russian Navy by its self without any problems. With the USN as well it would never have been a contest.
Its best ships were destroyers that were of Italian design (type 7) and were not strong enough for Arctic conditions. I know that sounds daft but its true. The Russians modified these (Type 7U) and these were simple basic but rugged ships and could have been used if fitted with modern equipment.
Its 3.9 and 5.1 in guns were as good as most but the fire control systems were obsolete and of course they had no radar. Torpedo's were of poor quality and lacked magnetic or acoustic pistols. The Russians had no Adsic as well so couldn't defend against submarines.
As an example of how poor their navy was the following is an example. On one occasion when a Russian destroyer stayed at sea for three consecutive days this was seen as a major feat and received much publicity. It should also be remembered that the Soviet Navy never came out to assist with any convoy that needed help no matter how close to port the ships were.
They did have some submarines that achieved success but nothing like the German U Boat fleet. They also had three interesting medium cruisers armed with 9 x 7.1in guns
As for aircraft carriers the Russians asked the Germans for help but they refused.
The RN could and would have handled the Russian Navy by its self without any problems. With the USN as well it would never have been a contest.
Cool thanks.
Nice info Glider.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Beside of what already was taken into consideration,
politics plays a major role. Unlike the starting scenario, I
see no justification for a "soviet attack on the western allies".
This undoubtly would bring Stalin in a lose - lose situation without proper
hope to win anything (..without considerable sea forces he could only hope to
take continental europe, and that´s nothing in the end..).
Such a situation would only increase the militaric risks for Stalin, he couldn´t
take any advantage. On the opposite site it is possible that the western allies could decide to attack Stalin and crush the SU. This could be done but would be a very nasty campaign. I doubt that the public opinion would allow such a step. However, this would bring the Western allies in an ATTACKER, not a DEFENDER´s situation, changing everything.
It is more plausible but still unprobable.
-beside of this the SU already had high altitude designs flying in early 1945, giving them a MIG made option to counter the B-29 thread. It wasn´t in mass production but in prototype stage, however it could be if needed. We should also remember that the SU had it´s own jet program and their first prototypes flying in 1945. The MiG-9 or SU-7 could easily deal with a B-29/ B-36. They also overtook the AR-234 C production lines in Slesia, the Me-262 production lines in Tschechia (both intakt), the jet engine assembly lines in Dessau plus further and innumerous german toolings. Hard to decide but a strategic campaign would be more difficult than you might estimate.
politics plays a major role. Unlike the starting scenario, I
see no justification for a "soviet attack on the western allies".
This undoubtly would bring Stalin in a lose - lose situation without proper
hope to win anything (..without considerable sea forces he could only hope to
take continental europe, and that´s nothing in the end..).
Such a situation would only increase the militaric risks for Stalin, he couldn´t
take any advantage. On the opposite site it is possible that the western allies could decide to attack Stalin and crush the SU. This could be done but would be a very nasty campaign. I doubt that the public opinion would allow such a step. However, this would bring the Western allies in an ATTACKER, not a DEFENDER´s situation, changing everything.
It is more plausible but still unprobable.
-beside of this the SU already had high altitude designs flying in early 1945, giving them a MIG made option to counter the B-29 thread. It wasn´t in mass production but in prototype stage, however it could be if needed. We should also remember that the SU had it´s own jet program and their first prototypes flying in 1945. The MiG-9 or SU-7 could easily deal with a B-29/ B-36. They also overtook the AR-234 C production lines in Slesia, the Me-262 production lines in Tschechia (both intakt), the jet engine assembly lines in Dessau plus further and innumerous german toolings. Hard to decide but a strategic campaign would be more difficult than you might estimate.
All those production lines and plants that the Soviet Union captured at the end of the war would have obviously been the first targets for the Allied air forces. The Soviet Union would have had to adapt deploy a lot of aircraft, very quickly to stop a massive Allied air offensive crippling their gains in Europe very quickly.
And who's to say those that fought for Stalin because Hitler was worse ...would carry on fighting for him if someone better is coming along to liberate them?
And who's to say those that fought for Stalin because Hitler was worse ...would carry on fighting for him if someone better is coming along to liberate them?
