USA vs USSR

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by dudmont
You've peeked my interest, now follow through. Tell me more. Is it because of Airpower, Tanks, mobility, logistics, artillery? Why?

More or less all of the above. First of all I do not necessarily subscribe to the view, that Allied airpower will gain air supremacy over the battle field, second of all I do not think that airpower would have been as decisive in the vast expanses of Russia.

Obviously that takes a bit of explaining. The Red airforce of '45 was surprisingly strong. It was made up of trained and experienced pilots, and its fighters and bombers could certainly match Western designs.

Since the Allies would be attacking, most of the airwar would take place behind Soviet lines. Close to their own bases and at the far end of Allied fighter range. As for deep Allied strikes with heavy bombers they would have to penetrate very far indeed before they could do any significant amount of damage to Soviet industry, so they would be without their Mustang escorts. The Schwinemunde (sp?) Raids showed all to clearly how vulnerable bombers are on such missions.

So IMHO the main Allied strenght - its airforce - would not be a decisive factor.

The Soviet and Allied armies were huge in '45, but the Soviet was by far the largest. And while the difference may not seem so significant in terms of manpower, it definitely was so in terms of available frontline personnel since the two armies had very different philosophies for force structure. In the Allied armies most of the personnel was assigned to support duties such as supply etc. The Soviets took the opposite approach and did everything possible to cram as many men as possible into the actual combat units. The much smaller "tail" gave their units less staying power in combat compared, but the effects of this were neglible since it gave the Soviets more units/reinforcements so they could shift units in and out of the frontline more often.

If you look at the number of available units and formations in '45, the Allies were vastly outnumbered. So in order to break through the initial Soviets lines they would have to deploy their entire strenght (I am at work right now, but I think we are talking about 3 or 4 US armies, 2 British armies, 1 Canadian army and 1 French army). The Soviets were in a far more favourable positions. They would have been able to build a defence of immense depth with several fully manned lines of defence and strategic reserves at least in tank army strenght. Even if an Allied army succeeded in breaking through 3 lines of their own strenght, any breakthrough could easily have been cut off by Soviet mechanized formations.

Let's also not forget, that the Soviets for 4 years had fought the bulk of what might have been the best army of the 20th century, and that they had won. Not "only" through attrition, but by playing the Germans game better than the Germans. They, and their leadership, was undoubtedly hightly skilled and experienced and with an extremely high moral by '45. They also had equipment that in some respects (as armour) was second to none. The T34/85 is probably the best (measured by general usefulness) of the war and the JS-II's and III's with their 122mm guns could blast through anything the Allies could throw at them.

Last, but not least, there's the whole strategic situation of the Allies. I guess they are supposed to repeat the German warplan and capture European Russia until the Volga? That means they would run into exactly the same logistical problems as the Germans before them. If they are supposed to tackle the winter of '46 better than Napoleon or Hitler, they should be prepared by '45. To the best of my knowledge, they were not.

A more interesting scenario would be a Soviet attack into Western Europe. That would at least give the Allies a fighting chance.

Regards,

EoE

 

[dudmont]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


More or less all of the above. First of all I do not necessarily subscribe to the view, that Allied airpower will gain air supremacy over the battle field, second of all I do not think that airpower would have been as decisive in the vast expanses of Russia.

Obviously that takes a bit of explaining. The Red airforce of '45 was surprisingly strong. It was made up of trained and experienced pilots, and its fighters and bombers could certainly match Western designs.

Since the Allies would be attacking, most of the airwar would take place behind Soviet lines. Close to their own bases and at the far end of Allied fighter range. As for deep Allied strikes with heavy bombers they would have to penetrate very far indeed before they could do any significant amount of damage to Soviet industry, so they would be without their Mustang escorts. The Schwinemunde (sp?) Raids showed all to clearly how vulnerable bombers are on such missions.

So IMHO the main Allied strenght - its airforce - would not be a decisive factor.

The Soviet and Allied armies were huge in '45, but the Soviet was by far the largest. And while the difference may not seem so significant in terms of manpower, it definitely was so in terms of available frontline personnel since the two armies had very different philosophies for force structure. In the Allied armies most of the personnel was assigned to support duties such as supply etc. The Soviets took the opposite approach and did everything possible to cram as many men as possible into the actual combat units. The much smaller "tail" gave their units less staying power in combat compared, but the effects of this were neglible since it gave the Soviets more units/reinforcements so they could shift units in and out of the frontline more often.

If you look at the number of available units and formations in '45, the Allies were vastly outnumbered. So in order to break through the initial Soviets lines they would have to deploy their entire strenght (I am at work right now, but I think we are talking about 3 or 4 US armies, 2 British armies, 1 Canadian army and 1 French army). The Soviets were in a far more favourable positions. They would have been able to build a defence of immense depth with several fully manned lines of defence and strategic reserves at least in tank army strenght. Even if an Allied army succeeded in breaking through 3 lines of their own strenght, any breakthrough could easily have been cut off by Soviet mechanized formations.

Let's also not forget, that the Soviets for 4 years had fought the bulk of what might have been the best army of the 20th century, and that they had won. Not "only" through attrition, but by playing the Germans game better than the Germans. They, and their leadership, was undoubtedly hightly skilled and experienced and with an extremely high moral by '45. They also had equipment that in some respects (as armour) was second to none. The T34/85 is probably the best (measured by general usefulness) of the war and the JS-II's and III's with their 122mm guns could blast through anything the Allies could throw at them.

Last, but not least, there's the whole strategic situation of the Allies. I guess they are supposed to repeat the German warplan and capture European Russia until the Volga? That means they would run into exactly the same logistical problems as the Germans before them. If they are supposed to tackle the winter of '46 better than Napoleon or Hitler, they should be prepared by '45. To the best of my knowledge, they were not.

A more interesting scenario would be a Soviet attack into Western Europe. That would at least give the Allies a fighting chance.

Regards,

EoE

Good post. Now some more questions. Would the Red Air Force survive without Lend-Lease(planes, petrol, trucks, etc.) Would the Red Army be able to supply their men and women, without the foodstuffs and trucks, that were supplied by lend-lease(as you probably know, the Red Army was called into help with the harvest in '45, due to a shortage of bodies/harvesting equipment). Would the Red Army be able to survive when there were no more bodies to press into service? Would the Red Army be able to defend against possible amphibious attack in the Baltics/Black sea areas? Would the people of Russia continue putting out the effort, when their new liberators would bring them freedom, rather than tyranny?

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by dudmont
Good post. Now some more questions. Would the Red Air Force survive without Lend-Lease(planes, petrol, trucks, etc.) Would the Red Army be able to supply their men and women, without the foodstuffs and trucks, that were supplied by lend-lease(as you probably know, the Red Army was called into help with the harvest in '45, due to a shortage of bodies/harvesting equipment). Would the Red Army be able to survive when there were no more bodies to press into service? Would the Red Army be able to defend against possible amphibious attack in the Baltics/Black sea areas? Would the people of Russia continue putting out the effort, when their new liberators would bring them freedom, rather than tyranny?

The Red Air Force could do very well without Allied planes in '45. While the P-39's, Hurricanes and occasional Spitfires were welcome in 42-43 the Soviets had excellent fighter designs of their own and turned them out in massive numbers. AFAIK shipments of petrol were not that important either, especially not in '45, when the Soviets were in possesion of the Ploesti oilfields.

Then there's the question of the trucks - probably the most important part of Allied lend-lease. While trucks are nice when you need to keep supplies flowing with the same speed as armoured advances, they are not indispensable. The Soviets would have moved slower in their counteroffensive, but they would have moved nonetheless. Besides, the Allies are attacking right? The defensive operations of the Soviets require less supplies than an offensive, and they would be fighting - or withdrawing - along their own lines of communication and supply, while the Allies would stretch their own supplies every step of the way. Remember that even as late as 1945 they lacked enough supplies to make an all out effort along their entire front.

I had no idea that the Red army gave a hand in the harvest of 1945, but it seems like an excellent way to employ the troops when the war ended. In case of an Allied attack I'm sure most of the crops would have been harvested anyway, without the help of the troops. If not, the alternative would be further sufferings and starving - not uncommon in Russian history.

I am aware that the Soviets apparantly scraped the bottom of the manpower barrel in 1945, so they would be pressed to find replacement for their 10 million man army. But hey, those are quite a lot of troops, and everyone else but the US was short on manpower as well, especially Britain.

As for Allied amphibious landings, they have always taken part within fighter range for very sensible reasons. So a Black Sea attack is highly unlikely. And while they may have made operational level landings in up to divisionsize along the Baltic coast, the Soviet strategic reserves mentioned earlier could easily have contained them - and probably thrown them right back in the sea. A major landing with a D-day like buildup is unrealistic IMHO since it requires the total destruction of the Red Airforce - remember that it took quite a few years before the Luftwaffe had been smashed enough to allow D-day.

The Soviet people (especially the Russians) were told, and felt, that they more or less had won the war on their own. I sincerely doubt that they would have joined sides with an aggressor who in their eyes tried to steal their victory and who placed further sufferings upon them, so I don't see why an Allied attack should lead to uprisings against Stalin in '45 - he, and the whole Communist system, were simply to popular after the victory against Germany.

Regards,

EoE

 

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe



The Soviet people (especially the Russians) were told, and felt, that they more or less had won the war on their own. I sincerely doubt that they would have joined sides with an aggressor who in their eyes tried to steal their victory and who placed further sufferings upon them, so I don't see why an Allied attack should lead to uprisings against Stalin in '45 - he, and the whole Communist system, were simply to popular after the victory against Germany.

Regards,

EoE

But what of the Ukranians, Poles, Baltic Republicans, Czechs, Finns, and Soviet moslems?

The Soviets had oppressed, or started to oppress each of thse groups by the end of the war. The Russians may have been happy to stay under Stalin but I severely doubt the other groups would have. The Ukranians and Baltic Republicans (is there a better collective term for them?) where willing to help the Germans had it not been for the NAZIs, so I have little doubt they would have felt the same in regards to the Western Democracies.

And I doubt honestly the West would have wanted to push all the way to Moscow or the Volga - and they would have had friendly help all the way to Kiev...

Also, how far of a flight would it have been from British bases in Northern India/Iran to Russian industry in Sibiria?

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
More or less all of the above. First of all I do not necessarily subscribe to the view, that Allied airpower will gain air supremacy over the battle field, second of all I do not think that airpower would have been as decisive in the vast expanses of Russia.

Obviously that takes a bit of explaining. The Red airforce of '45 was surprisingly strong. It was made up of trained and experienced pilots, and its fighters and bombers could certainly match Western designs.

Since the Allies would be attacking, most of the airwar would take place behind Soviet lines. Close to their own bases and at the far end of Allied fighter range. As for deep Allied strikes with heavy bombers they would have to penetrate very far indeed before they could do any significant amount of damage to Soviet industry, so they would be without their Mustang escorts. The Schwinemunde (sp?) Raids showed all to clearly how vulnerable bombers are on such missions.

So IMHO the main Allied strenght - its airforce - would not be a decisive factor.

Emperor, I agree that a suicidal allied attack into Russia would probably end up the way of Napoleon and Hitler. However, I don't think that the problem will be air support.

If there is one solitary, overwhelming advantage the allies have it's air power. Not only do they have excellent rocket armed tank killers, but long range maneuvarable fighters. They also have them in numbers greater than the Luftwaffe had in the East, and it took the Russians until 1944 to enforce any semblance of air superiority.

I think I'm repeating what I said in another thread, but if Stukas were effectively killing tanks in Russia in 1944 then the estimation of the Red Air Force is vastly overrated. Since 1939 it was recognized that Stuka V Fighter = a glorious death for the Reich. If the Red Airforce is so experienced and numerous, can someone explain to me how Stukas remained aloft.

There are also several hundred very large 4 engine planes capable of effectively destroying all Russian rail transport from Germany to the extreme range of a Mustang. Take a look at the reduction in German rail transport between late 44 and 45 for a taste of what the Russian rolling stock would be going through.

Finally, the British will not hesitate to take 3 years of experience in burning cities to the ground, and trasfer that to any Russian city within range. The bombing will be done at night, without the benefit the Germans had such as the radar grids directing fighters, and a vast quantity of AA around the cities. It doesn't matter if Moscow or Ural industry is not hit, any city will do, and if it contains a rail terminal, well there's justification for the removal of certain cities from the earth.

Whether the allies can breakthrough and encircle the Russian armies might be impossible. Even if they do, the advance will be slow, and April will turn into September very quickly. When that happens, allied air power will disappear. The heavy rains which then turn into heavy snow will ground allied air, leaving their army a long way from Germany, in terrain which has already been devastated by the German retreat, and made worse by any Russian retreat, and the allied armies will begin to di

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by swilhelm73


But what of the Ukranians, Poles, Baltic Republicans, Czechs, Finns, and Soviet moslems?

The Soviets had oppressed, or started to oppress each of thse groups by the end of the war. The Russians may have been happy to stay under Stalin but I severely doubt the other groups would have. The Ukranians and Baltic Republicans (is there a better collective term for them?) where willing to help the Germans had it not been for the NAZIs, so I have little doubt they would have felt the same in regards to the Western Democracies.

And I doubt honestly the West would have wanted to push all the way to Moscow or the Volga - and they would have had friendly help all the way to Kiev...

Also, how far of a flight would it have been from British bases in Northern India/Iran to Russian industry in Sibiria?

AFAIK we are discussing a war between the US and USSR immediately after the war. Stalin would not have time to do, what he later did especially against the various Caucasian people.You may not doubt that people longed for Western democracy, but I do, especially since very, very few had any idea what a democracy is.

Remember that even the Baltic and Ukranian Soviet soldier fought against the Germans even though some of their fellow countrymen viewed the Germans as liberators. Also remember that the largest Polish army contingent was in fact Communist, and that the Poles already felt betrayed by the Western allies.

What would the war objectives of the Western allies be - in your opinion? And what would ensure a Soviet surrender once these objectives had been reached?

If you look at a map you will find how long a flight it would have been from North India/Iran to Siberia. That's easier than asking me

You'll find it doesn't make much of a difference and besides: what should prevent the Soviets from regrouping their own planes?

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Red Army Motor Vehicle Park
Vehicle - Date

22/6/41 - 1/1/42 - 1/1/43 - 1/1/44 - 1/1/45 - 1/5/45

Domestic - 272.6 317.1 378.8, 387.0, 395.2, 385.7
% of Total Park - 100.0%, 99.6%, 99.7%, 77.9%, 63.6%, 58.1%

Imported - -, -, 22.0, 94.1, 191.3, 218.1
% of Total Park - 0.0%, 0.0%, 5.4%, 19.0%, 30.4%, 32.8%

Captured - -, 1.4, 3.7, 14.9, 34.7, 60.6
% of Total Park - 0.0%, 0.4%, 0.9%, 3.9%, 6.0%, 9.1%

Total - 272.6, 318.5, 404.5, 496, 621.2, 664.4


Never comes out as pretty as one would like, does it?
In any case, IF you take the time to decipher the numbers posted above, you will see that although there is no doubt the LL trucks helped a lot, they were in no way decisive in the outcome of the war (by decisive I mean their absence would have meant a German victory). The Soviets tailored their production to complement LL materiel deliveries, reduced Soviet truck output from '42 onwards was not a result of their Plant being maxed out, it was a conscious decision once it was clear LL trucks would become available in quantity.

On a side note, another little known fact about LL trucks is that about a third of them (119,000 mv) were actually assembled in Soviet factories.


All info from "Journal of Slavic Military Studies" Vol. 10, June 1997, "Motor Vehicle Transport Deliveries through Lend-Lease" by V.F. Vorsin.

Famine in 45/6,
This was in part due to the scorched earth policys of the retreating germans, the objection to reintroduction of collectivisation by the sov, and or just anther time of famine in russia, the army goes in to establish law and order and make sure they stay put and do as their told, some are demobed here as part of the colectivistion process BUT still draw army pay while working the land, as they do anti nationlist duties as well. Try a search on famine in russia, very unpleasent reading.

Hannibal

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by sean9898

If there is one solitary, overwhelming advantage the allies have it's air power. Not only do they have excellent rocket armed tank killers, but long range maneuvarable fighters. They also have them in numbers greater than the Luftwaffe had in the East, and it took the Russians until 1944 to enforce any semblance of air superiority.

Are you aware of the actual numbers of fighters/bombers since you call it an overwhelming advantage? Did you know for instance that there were built as many Soviets Yak-9's as there were built P-51 Mustangs?

I think the Korean war showed quite clearly that Soviet aircraft design could compete with the best the West could throw at them. That was especially thrue during and immediately after WWII. Especially when it comes to tank killers and fighters.

Besides, the Soviets could achieve air superiority in any chosen sector in 1943. By 1944 they almost at air supremacy along the entire front which is an entirely different thing.

I think I'm repeating what I said in another thread, but if Stukas were effectively killing tanks in Russia in 1944 then the estimation of the Red Air Force is vastly overrated. Since 1939 it was recognized that Stuka V Fighter = a glorious death for the Reich. If the Red Airforce is so experienced and numerous, can someone explain to me how Stukas remained aloft.

The Stukas did not remain aloft. Take a look at production and loss figures. The only operational Stukas left in 1944 were the G-1 version, that were only allowed to fly in the hand of very experienced pilots like Rudel. Besides, it was the only ground support aircraft the Germans had, so they did not have much of a choice, but to keep it flying.

Even though the Stuka J-87 was extremely outdated already at the start of the war it became one of the most succesful tank killers of the WWII. In fact only one aircraft killed more tanks: the Soviet Sturmovich.

There are also several hundred very large 4 engine planes capable of effectively destroying all Russian rail transport from Germany to the extreme range of a Mustang. Take a look at the reduction in German rail transport between late 44 and 45 for a taste of what the Russian rolling stock would be going through.

The railroad network is, even today, extremely concentrated in Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe. Also, the reduction of German rail transport took place in the face of a beaten Luftwaffe and within range of Allied fighters.

Finally, the British will not hesitate to take 3 years of experience in burning cities to the ground, and trasfer that to any Russian city within range. The bombing will be done at night, without the benefit the Germans had such as the radar grids directing fighters, and a vast quantity of AA around the cities. It doesn't matter if Moscow or Ural industry is not hit, any city will do, and if it contains a rail terminal, well there's justification for the removal of certain cities from the earth.

Undoubtedly the Allies would bomb Soviet cities if they had been able to penetrate Soviet air defence. They wouldn't gain much from it though. The cities within range had their industries destroyed or moved to Siberia in 1941, and whatever was left had been destroyed again during the German withdrawals of 1943 and 1944. What are the Allies supposed to damage here?

I do not have any available figures for AA for the belligerents of WWII, so I am not aware that the Soviet Union should be short on AA. Maybe you can help me out?

That the presence of a rail terminal within a city is a justification to remove said city and its inhabitants from the face of earth is new to me and probably to international law. It's beside the point anyway.

Though we agree that the an Allied attack would be suicidal, you seem to be convinced that the Allied airforce could eradicate an experienced, large and wellequipped Red Airforce in a very short time. I am not saying that the Red Airforce was stronger than the Allied. I am just saying that I very much doubt that it would have been as easy for the Allies as you seem to think.

Regards,

EoE

 

[dudmont]

What would the war objectives of the Western allies be - in your opinion? And what would ensure a Soviet surrender once these objectives had been reached?

Nation building, just like with Japan and Germany. How, start immediately, when a village was occupied by the Allies, get the people to elect a mayor. Continue east as long as necessary. Leave it up to the liberated people whether they want to assist the Allies in their liberation drive. When it comes to fighting communism, I will certainly go for nation building.
HB, could you do me favor? Post the quanity of AVgas that Russia got from LL for all years applicable. Thanks in advance.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by dudmont
Nation building, just like with Japan and Germany. How, start immediately, when a village was occupied by the Allies, get the people to elect a mayor. Continue east as long as necessary.

So basically the grand strategy would be to go east until the Soviets surrendered. In 1942 the Germans had ventured as far as Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, and Soviet resistance had never been harder. How much longer to you presume the Allies would have to go?

Even the Germans were sensible enough to plan for a stop along a the Volga. That would effectively leave them in control of all of European Russia, and an easily defendable border. Do you really suggest, that the Allies should (not to talk of could) cross the Volga and the Urals in their "nation building"?

Besides, nation building was not a war objective in the struggle against Japan and Germany. It was a political strategy instituted after the war objectives had been reached.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(592)]

"The Stukas did not remain aloft. Take a look at production and loss figures. The only operational Stukas left in 1944 were the G-1 version, that were only allowed to fly in the hand of very experienced pilots like Rudel. Besides, it was the only ground support aircraft the Germans had, so they did not have much of a choice, but to keep it flying. "

What about the outdated Henschel HS 123 ("Eins-Zwei-Drei") or the newer HS 129 Ground Support? Basicly the Stuka had proven outdated by 1940 when it was withdrawn from the Battle Of Britain alongside the Me 110 because of heavy losses.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Nation building, just like with Japan and Germany. How, start immediately, when a village was occupied by the Allies, get the people to elect a mayor. Continue east as long as necessary. Leave it up to the liberated people whether they want to assist the Allies in their liberation drive. When it comes to fighting communism, I will certainly go for nation building.
HB, could you do me favor? Post the quanity of AVgas that Russia got from LL for all years applicable. Thanks in advance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a culture that is used to being governd a certain way respond favourablly to a new system that they have no concept or experience of, this heart and mind approach would take decades to effect. How often are this poor people going to be liberated? some must have felt like the world was queing up to invade and liberate them. Even today after vast exposure to democracy at al, their are considerable amounts of Russians who would prefer the old ways to be back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WW2 US Civilian And Military Populations
Date Civilian Population Military Strength Overseas Total
July 1940 131,658,000 168,000 464,000
July 1941 131,595,000 281,000 1,807,000
July 1942 130,942,000 940.000 3,918,000
July 1943 127,499,000 2,494,000 9,240,000
July 1944 126,708,000 5,512,000 11,689,000
July 1945 127,573,000 7,447,000 12,355,000
Jan. 1946 133,782,000 3,462,000 6,907,000
July 1946 138,385,000 1,335,000 3,004,000

sov 41 male pop-------total pop c 200.000mil
Age
1-20----43.0--45%
20-39--31.5---33%
40-50--14.7---15.4%
60+---6.2-----6.6%
------95.4million
Allow c14 million for cas during war.

german as comparison
15.5%
15.5%
11.5%
5.6%
48.1million.

Balkans that were sov ocuppied and controlled c100.000 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US Weapon Production (1942-1945)
TANKS & VEHICLES NUMBER
Heavy tanks 2,464
Medium tanks 55,560
Light tanks 26,003
Jeeps 631,873
--- ---
AIRCRAFT NUMBER
Combat aircraft 129,255
Support aircraft 80,930
Bombs 37,701,000
--- ---
ARTILLERY NUMBER
240 mm howitzers 315
155 mm field guns 6,389
8 in. guns 1,193
105 mm howitzers 18,269
90 mm guns 4,853
76.2 mm guns 24,277
75 mm guns 58,342
57 mm guns 16,999
37 mm guns 62,397
Antiaircraft guns 49,60
Rocket Launchers 476,628
--- ---
ARTILLERY SHELLS NUMBER
240 mm 3,126,000
155 mm 27,340,000
105 mm 93,081,000
90 mm 16,386,000
75 mm 75,244,000
37 mm 60,500,000
mortar 97,174,000
--- ---
SMALL ARMS NUMBER
Aircraft machine guns 1,575,114
Infantry machine guns 945,989
Antiaircraft machine guns 72,777
Rifles 6,174,363
Carbines 6,117,822
Submachine guns 1,790,847

Sov air strength 5/45----present and ready
All combat types 17500
Art pieces 115.000
AFV 25.000
Rifle div strength 6 mill
total manpower c12 mill

I might be wrong but avgas is not really realevent, it allows higher perforence, but at a reduced level and loss of engine life if in the wrong mix, as i say im not up on it specificly.

Hannibal

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor

What about the outdated Henschel HS 123 ("Eins-Zwei-Drei") or the newer HS 129 Ground Support? Basicly the Stuka had proven outdated by 1940 when it was withdrawn from the Battle Of Britain alongside the Me 110 because of heavy losses.

Whoops, you're right of course. There were the two Henschels as well, and if I remember correctly there were fighter-bomber version of the Fw-190 and the Me-110.

But the mainstay of German close air support was still the Ju-87 even though it was totally outdated.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(592)]

IIRC The FW 190 D-9 was a F/B Version. Anyway, both the Bf 109 and the FW 190 had special provisions to hold bombs, extra MG's or a drop tank so there basicly was the chance to refit them for special duties.

The Me 110 was originally a heavy long range fighter. Both the concept and the actual design were outdated by 1940 and the plane sucked comparable to the P-38. It took heavy losses in the western campaign and on escort duty in England where it more or less was busy enough defending itself. Here it first was used as F/B against London.

Later versions were used as night fighters. It last saw action as daylight fighter in 1943 at the beginning of the US Bombing Campaign.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Are you aware of the actual numbers of fighters/bombers since you call it an overwhelming advantage? Did you know for instance that there were built as many Soviets Yak-9's as there were built P-51 Mustangs?

Well, the figure of total aircraft Hannibal gives puts the allied advantage at 7.3 : 1 That's at the outset of the war. Britain and US combined will outproduce the USSR as the war continues.

I think the Korean war showed quite clearly that Soviet aircraft design could compete with the best the West could throw at them. That was especially thrue during and immediately after WWII. Especially when it comes to tank killers and fighters.

The Korean war is irrelevant to the post WW2 era. For a Sturmovik to survive it will need fighter cover.

Besides, the Soviets could achieve air superiority in any chosen sector in 1943. By 1944 they almost at air supremacy along the entire front which is an entirely different thing.

Compare that to the situation the allies had on the western front. Total air supremacy over Western Europe.

The Stukas did not remain aloft. Take a look at production and loss figures. The only operational Stukas left in 1944 were the G-1 version, that were only allowed to fly in the hand of very experienced pilots like Rudel. Besides, it was the only ground support aircraft the Germans had, so they did not have much of a choice, but to keep it flying.

So is this a German Kamakaze?

Even though the Stuka J-87 was extremely outdated already at the start of the war it became one of the most succesful tank killers of the WWII. In fact only one aircraft killed more tanks: the Soviet Sturmovich.

Which makes me wonder where the Russian fighters are

The railroad network is, even today, extremely concentrated in Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe. Also, the reduction of German rail transport took place in the face of a beaten Luftwaffe and within range of Allied fighters.

How do you transport reserves to the front with no rolling stock? Trains do not arrive then magicaly leave, aside from the locomotive and cargo losses, the Russsians will have to devote considerable resources to the repair of track, the dispersal of depots and the replacement of skilled railwaymen.

Undoubtedly the Allies would bomb Soviet cities if they had been able to penetrate Soviet air defence. They wouldn't gain much from it though. The cities within range had their industries destroyed or moved to Siberia in 1941, and whatever was left had been destroyed again during the German withdrawals of 1943 and 1944. What are the Allies supposed to damage here?

The same as they attacked in Germany; people. It forces the Russians to divert resources to defend every city within night bomber range. There is no question of penetration of Soviet airspace, there is no effective means to stop night bomber attacks. The Germans set up very sophisticated radar guided defense and still could not stop the bombers getting through. What is Russia's air defense radar status in 1945? I have no idea, but considering it was never a part of the war with Germany I would suspect that airspace defense to be quite a low priority in war production.

I do not have any available figures for AA for the belligerents of WWII, so I am not aware that the Soviet Union should be short on AA. Maybe you can help me out?

I don't think they are short of AA, I don't believe that they will be as prepared for the onslaught as Germany was. The bombing campaign in Germany was a slow progression, where the Germans were able to build up vast banks of AA in their cities. The Russians will have to begin from scratch. If on day 1 of the war 800 bombers head to Minsk how many deployed AA batteries would you presume to be present?

That the presence of a rail terminal within a city is a justification to remove said city and its inhabitants from the face of earth is new to me and probably to international law. It's beside the point anyway.

We've had this discussion before, there is no international law in April 1945 which prohibits strategic bombing of cities.

Though we agree that the an Allied attack would be suicidal, you seem to be convinced that the Allied airforce could eradicate an experienced, large and wellequipped Red Airforce in a very short time. I am not saying that the Red Airforce was stronger than the Allied. I am just saying that I very much doubt that it would have been as easy for the Allies as you seem to think.

I believe that the overwhelming starting numbers combined with a greater production and replacement rate will allow the allies to destroy the Red Airforce before the weather changes late in the year.

The allies are going to suffer heavy casualties, are not going to have air superiority overnight, but the combination of tactical air over and behind the battlefield, combined with Russia's need to protect their cities will allow the allies to have temporary air superiority wherever their point of attack is aimed. From there, it's a battle of attrition which the allies will win.

I do not presume that the allies will eliminate the Red Air force, the theatre is too large, but they can reduce it's effectiveness, and guarantee air cover to protect their attacks.

I just don't see how the allies are supposed to gain a breakthrough in the first place.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by sean9898
I just don't see how the allies are supposed to gain a breakthrough in the first place.

"Fat Man" and "Little Boy"

Sorry, had to say it-this isn't an era of dispersed forces though, so use of a couple of bombs should be able to unhinge the initial Russian front line-certainly enough to push on to the Vistula.

 

[unmerged(4391)]

USA

If you exclude Siberia the USA is much larger than Russia. So Russia is vast, have any of you driven the US from coast to coast? Anyway, after the Urals, is there anyone or anything in Siberia. Not many people, even today, and they are mainly exiles the KGB sent from the Baltic States and Poland.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by sean9898:

Well, the figure of total aircraft Hannibal gives puts the allied advantage at 7.3 : 1 That's at the outset of the war. Britain and US combined will outproduce the USSR as the war continues.

Take a second look at Hannibals numbers. What they show is total allied production of combat aircraft (129,255) and the total strenght of the Red Airforce in May 1945 (17,500). Those two numbers simply cannot be compared. If you like, you should have no trouble finding Allied air strength in Europe in May 1945, then you may make your comparison.

These production figures for Soviet combat aircraft may also interest you:

1941: 8,200
1942: 21,700
1943: 29,900
1944: 33,200
1945: 8,200 (this figure is for Januar-April)

That gives you Soviet production numbers for 1942 until the first 4 month of 1945 of 101,200 that went to one front and not two like the Allied planes.

The Korean war is irrelevant to the post WW2 era. For a Sturmovik to survive it will need fighter cover.

I wrote is in response to your post about how excellent the Allied planes are. My point was, that Soviet plane design evidently not lacked behind the Allies, and that the Korean war showed that quite clearly. The planes that fought there were on the drawing board in 1945, so it’s highly relevant for the comparative state of the airforces.

Yes, a Shturmovich needed fighter cover just as every other bomber type aircraft. What’s the point?

Compare that to the situation the allies had on the western front. Total air supremacy over Western Europe.

So the Allies and the Soviets had air supremacy over their fronts in 1944. How does that make the Soviet airforce appear weaker?

So is this a German Kamakaze?

If you look at the loss ratios for the Ju-87 Staffeln, ‘Kamikaze’ would be a fitting description.

Which makes me wonder where the Russian fighters are

Shooting down Ju-87’s in droves of course. What else should cause their losses, and why else should the aircraft be deemed outdated for the Eastern front?

How do you transport reserves to the front with no rolling stock? Trains do not arrive then magicaly leave, aside from the locomotive and cargo losses, the Russsians will have to devote considerable resources to the repair of track, the dispersal of depots and the replacement of skilled railwaymen.

Thank you, I have played Railroad Tycoon
As I said: the reduction of German rail transport took place in the face of a beaten Luftwaffe and within range of Allied fighters. A comparable reduction of Soviet rail transport would take place in the face of a full-strength Red Airforce and the Allied planes would have to penetrate far deeper into enemy territory. So losses would be far greater and results smaller due to the low concentration of rail in Eastern Europe.

The Allies would have to devote considerable resources to the building of new planes, the construction of forwards airfields and the replacement of skilled aircrews.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Undoubtedly the Allies would bomb Soviet cities if they had been able to penetrate Soviet air defence. They wouldn't gain much from it though. The cities within range had their industries destroyed or moved to Siberia in 1941, and whatever was left had been destroyed again during the German withdrawals of 1943 and 1944. What are the Allies supposed to damage here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same as they attacked in Germany; people. It forces the Russians to divert resources to defend every city within night bomber range. There is no question of penetration of Soviet airspace, there is no effective means to stop night bomber attacks. The Germans set up very sophisticated radar guided defense and still could not stop the bombers getting through. What is Russia's air defense radar status in 1945? I have no idea, but considering it was never a part of the war with Germany I would suspect that airspace defense to be quite a low priority in war production.

What benefit was it to the Allied war effort to kill 60,000 women, children and old men in Dresden? It just boosted the German will to continue the fight, nothing else.

Anyway, let’s say the Allied night bombers (Brits) actually penetrated Soviet airspace and bombed a Soviet city within range. The target could for instance be the Belorussian capitol Minsk. It’s night, a good portion of the British bombers had survived the long approach, and most of those had actually been able to find the vicinity of their target. The open their bomb bays and the incendiary bombs start falling over the city. What happens? Approximately 40,000 or so women, children and old men die. Nothing else. There’s no industry in Minsk or anything else. Why should the Soviet high command care for one second that 40,000 more had died? It’s no threat to the war effort and it has the quite desirable effect, that it makes the Belorussians hate the Allied. How does that contribute in any way to the Allied war effort?

I don't think they are short of AA, I don't believe that they will be as prepared for the onslaught as Germany was. The bombing campaign in Germany was a slow progression, where the Germans were able to build up vast banks of AA in their cities. The Russians will have to begin from scratch. If on day 1 of the war 800 bombers head to Minsk how many deployed AA batteries would you presume to be present?

Soviet AA production was approximately one sixth of German production. I do not presume a lot of AA guns to be present around Minsk for the very simply reason, that there’s nothing valuable to protect in Minsk for the Soviet high command.

We've had this discussion before, there is no international law in April 1945 which prohibits strategic bombing of cities.

Tell that to the Luftwaffe officers who were accused at the Nuremberg Trials for the bombings of Rotterdam, Warsaw and London.

Air warfare was under the rules of ground warfare, which was regulated by the Hague Convention. Under those quite vague rule, the legal ground for strategic bombing was shaky. Morally it was totally unacceptable as pointed out by the bishop of Canterbury during WWII.

I believe that the overwhelming starting numbers combined with a greater production and replacement rate will allow the allies to destroy the Red Airforce before the weather changes late in the year.

There are no overwhelming starting numbers, and the production numbers to not suggest as great a superiority in the replacement rate. It took the Allied airforce almost 3 years to subdue the Luftwaffe. I see no reason why they should be able to do the same against the Red Airforce in less than half a year.

The allies are going to suffer heavy casualties, are not going to have air superiority overnight, but the combination of tactical air over and behind the battlefield, combined with Russia's need to protect their cities will allow the allies to have temporary air superiority wherever their point of attack is aimed. From there, it's a battle of attrition which the allies will win.

Why does an air war over Soviet held territory allow the Allies to have temporary air superiority? That would require the Allies to win that air war – preferably quite decisively. I am still not convinced that they will gain that decisive victory.

I do not presume that the allies will eliminate the Red Air force, the theatre is too large, but they can reduce it's effectiveness, and guarantee air cover to protect their attacks.

Sorry, I’m confused Will they reduce it’s effectiveness or will they destroy it before the weather changes?

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(860)]

If there were as many anti-communists etc in Russia in 1945 as all of you yanks seem to believe, then Siberia would be home to the world's largest cities today. But it isn't.

Because there weren't many who opposed the party. 200 million people who had basically been slaves until communism came, quite frankly had never had it better and did not give a hoot about democracy.

Russians respect strong leadership. That's why I believe that a true democracy like the west, will never rise there.


anyways, this is 1945, not 1960 we're talking about. Look at the amount of troops in Europe then. At most, the allied airforce would have had a few skirmishes with the Russians and heavily bombed some of their units.. but thats it. The Russians had fought the entire war with bombs dropping on their necks, whats new?

Besides , it would not last long. Because quite rapidly the Russians would throw the allied forces into the sea. Stalin would raise his hand in greeting as the Red Army marched through the Arc D'Triumph France and Germany forced to sign humiliating annexation agreements in Versailles.

Then what? Then we'd have another battle of Britain? No, the war would probably stop there. British and American armies lying in ruins, Russians having neither the desire nor the ability to truly push over the channel.

The cold war would have become a reality, then in 1989 the iron curtain would have collapsed and tens of thousands of Brits would have crossed the channel to live in economic freedom in the Soviet Union. In 2001 the USA would look helplessly as Putin announced a new "son of star wars" missile defence and the USA would have cried out "unfair!" because she'd be too weak to do anything.

(US economic growth from 1945-2001 was primilary spurred on by having a massive european market, if that market doesnt exist, USA would have been significantly weaker in all senses.)


We would be here posting on this InterNjet message forum discussing what we read in today's Pravda. Gradually over time more and more lands would submit to soviet rule and eventually we'd have one massive red planet, where we'd all wear the hammer and sickle proudly and sing Internazionale.

Then the Star Trek future would start happenening, we humanity would have less and less need to waste money on armies, as thered be no enemies (except those lunatics who want some silly freedoms, but thank god for the KGB). We would not be driven forward by induvidual greed but by a desire to challenge ourselves.

=)

 

[Agelastus]

Hmm, one hopes one is detecting a sarcastic trend here in Produce Pete's post.

If we were talking about a conventional war in 1960, much of your post might be accurate, but as you say we are talking about 1945 here.

As for anti-Communist forces, I believe the Soviets were still putting down Ukrainian partisans into the fifties, and points west certainly showed how enthusiastic the general population was for Communism in the fifty years of the Cold War.

The Russians may have fought the entire war with Bombs dropping on their heads-but the Germans never put together a strategic, or even a tactical, airforce as good as the western Allies deployed in 1945.

As I've said in previous threads on this subject, if the west could hold an initial Soviet offensive, or gain tactical surprise, they would have won in the end. All these posts for Russian war producti0n etc. ignore the fact that in 1944-45 the Russians were taking men out of the factories to maintain the combat strength of the Red Army-that's a sign of a war machine stretched to the absolute limit. They could only do it because the Germans were going down even faster, and with Allied war production effectively invulnerable to Soviet attack......well, you get the picture.