PDA

View Full Version : American Army vs Red Army 1945 (edited)



Pages : [1] 2

Achilles97
12-14-2005, 03:48 PM
I'm been having a debate with a friend about what would have happened if Patton's comments became a reality and the American forces had battled the Red Army. I am talking about a war between the forces available in Europe in May 1945, not who would win a potential total war between the two countries.

My opinion is that the American forces would have been annihalated by the Red Army. The Red Army was too large, experienced and battled hardened, and had extremely large amounts of equipment.

My friend is under the opinion that the Red Army was undersupplied and inexperienced. He thinks that Russia was struggling to produce enough war materiel. He has an impression of the Red Army as that portrayed in movies when one soldier carries a weapon and another soldier acts as a human shield. His opinion is that the Red Army of 1945 was the same as the Red Army of 1940.

Honestly, I don't think that there's much debate about this one.

What do you think? I think if my friend reads words typed on the screen by a stranger he'll believe it, but what I say must be wrong because I'm just a regular person.

Thanks!

PS - Does anyone have a link to websites showing statistics on army strength and war production?


****EDIT**** I'm not talking about a huge country versus country drawn out world war, I'm talking about the American Army that existed in Europe versus the Red Army that existed in Europe at the end of WW2. No A-Bomb, no "outlasting because of long term production", I mean if the shooting started in May 1945 my opinion is that the Red Army would have destroyed the American army that was there. I'm not asking about what would have happened after that initial campaign.

berg417448
12-14-2005, 03:53 PM
It would have been a massive bloodbath for both sides...especially when you throw in a couple A-bombs.

erco415
12-14-2005, 04:11 PM
Neat question!
US vs. Red Army, I think everyone was done with fighting for a while and thus not very likely, but... I'll go in on the American side, here's why-
I think that American war production far outstrips what the Soviets were capable of producing - I mean, what of lend-lease and all.

How do the Soviets handle the (finally) full strength and escorted 8th/9th/15th air forces?
And that's without the B-29s coming into service.

Patton vs. Zhukov? I want a ticket for that one!

LStarosta
12-14-2005, 04:16 PM
http://membres.lycos.fr/marcatchou/jpg/kremlin.jpg + http://www.thedemolitiondj.nl/images/atom-bomb-orange2.gif =
http://www.onthespotimprov.ca/Spot%20Victory.JPG

Goodwood_Alpha
12-14-2005, 04:28 PM
^^^The right idea, that is...

Since America already had The Bomb, and the Soviets were still four years away from it (would have been longer, save for the actions of a certain married couple), there can be no contest. To be frank, the Soviet Union was the ultimate "ruled from the top" society. In essence, Russia was very much what Hitler said it was in 1941; the problem was that Germany never did succeed in kicking in the door -- to Moscow.

Quite simply, if you decapitated the Soviet leadership in the first hours, the rest of the Army would have been reduced to milling masses with very few able to muster the appropriate bollocks to inspire some unit coheasion. You could draw paralells to how the Empire fell apart after Palpatine died, and you wouldn't be too far off.

Waldo.Pepper
12-14-2005, 05:03 PM
OK make it more interesting. Pretend no A-bomb. Now who'd prevail?

MLudner
12-14-2005, 05:07 PM
Miniature wargamed that one. USSR loses. Their armor is good, they are battle-hardened .... but, then, so was the US Army at the time. The Soviet Army is too rigid and our population was not that much smaller than theirs, so weight of numbers would not have made up for their operational deficiencies like it did with the Germans. Also, as pointed out above; the US would have out produced the Soviets in all armament categories. Lend-Lease would have stopped the moment the US was at war with the USSR.

But, ultimately, the Atomic Bomb would have ended it if the Army could not.

NekoReaperman
12-14-2005, 05:18 PM
sounds like an interesting campaign :-)


actually i heard a flight of Yak-3's bounced twice as many P-51's at the end of the war and won!

horseback
12-14-2005, 07:09 PM
There have been at least five major threads lasting over 10 pages on this subject since I've joined this forum.

In most cases, the best arguement was that while the Western Allies' forces, man for man, may well have been superior, the Soviets had them grossly outnumbered in Europe. Remember, we are talking about a time when it took weeks to get a single division across the Atlantic, rejoin it with its equipment, and get it to the front. Similarly, if the Soviets wanted to move the same sized units to the front from the interior of the USSR, they could pile it onto a few trains and be there within a week.

The West had a total of two atomic bombs on hand within the US, and no experienced B-29 crews in Europe. How many weeks would it take to get them to Britain, find a suicide crew for the one way trip to Moscow along with a suicide fighter escort in the forlorn hope that they would catch Stalin and his key supporters there with their pants around their ankles?

America and the Commonwealth countries had a great deal of their combat power spread across the Pacific and southern Asia, too far away to affect the outcome, and while I personally would argue that US and Commonwealth air forces were superior to the Soviet air forces in both quality and quantity, they would not have been able to tilt the contest sufficiently to prevent the Soviets from making a push to the Channel by the end of 1945, assuming that the hostilities began in the early summer of that year.

cheers

horseback

jetsetsam
12-14-2005, 07:34 PM
I haven't seen anybody yet take into account the forces of the countries liberated and defeated by western forces. Or allied to them after the defeat of Germany and Japan.

The Japanese could have been induced to attack with their forces in Manchuria in return for their retention of that area with victory. Finland wouldn't have minded taking St. Petersburg. And I'm sure there would have been a few German, Italian and Eastern European countries/soldiers (with equipment) looking to give some payback for some pay and food.

The French, of course, would have bugged out.

So I don't think there would have been a manpower shortage for the Allies.

Plus the Soviet forces were quite burned out/chopped up by the last campaigns against the Axis forces and I don't think they had an effective anti-aircraft capability to counter-act the tactical and strategic capabilities of the Allied airforces. Nor a credible naval response to the massive Allied naval forces.

But could the West really have conquered and occupied the vastness of the Soviet Union, including the factories in the Urals?

I doubt it.

So I'd say that the West and their allies could have driven the Soviet Union out of Europe, and the western and eastern parts of the Soviet Union. Then they would have bombed (with conventional munitions) the central part of the Soviet Union until there was just pieces to pick up by China, India and Turkey, as well as the resurgent Japan.

jds1978
12-14-2005, 07:49 PM
hook me up w/ some more info....who's attacking who's defending. what would victory look like?
Does the US army include French/British/Commonwealth troops? Does this hypothetical war start in August 1945?....

i'll meditate on Armegeddon tonight and give u an answer in the morning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWSensei
12-14-2005, 07:51 PM
I think the answer is it depends.

I believe if they had fought and the US had the goal of capturing East Germany they would have won. Had the US pushed into Poland, or worst, tried to capture Moscow they would have lost.

jds1978
12-14-2005, 07:53 PM
PS - Does anyone have a link to websites showing statistics on army strength and war production?

no website, but look into The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy.

waffen-79
12-14-2005, 08:02 PM
Talking 'bout '45???

Russia all the way 110% a-bomb or no a-bomb.

Xiolablu3
12-14-2005, 08:41 PM
If the fight was in Europe then Russia would probably win, depends if you are counting the UK on teh US side or not.

Think about it, the Russians already have all their forces there, the Americans are right across the pond.

Maybe if they could use Britain as a Aircraft carrier again then the US could win, but it would be a tough fight.

The US didnt have any more A bombs made did they? I thought they used them both up on Japan.

Plus, considering the size of Russia, that size A bomb would do little to the vast expanse of Russia. It would have been predominantly a conventional forces war.

That is a very good question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think we need numbers of troops, tanks, aircraft etc that the 2 forces had at the time before we can make an informed decision.

BSS_CUDA
12-14-2005, 09:18 PM
there is one key factor that is being left out of the equation here. we seem to be forgetting that the US has a HUGE Navy and thousands of men in the Pacific. it would have been a 2 front war for the Soviets. there would have been no lend lease, the US would have ruled the air, so the Soviet infrastruture would have been wiped out. granted the soviets had superior tanks, but that would have been countered by the superior air power of the US

HayateAce
12-14-2005, 09:52 PM
Nolo Contendere.


http://www.langley.af.mil/staff/ho/images/p80.jpg

ForkTailedDevil
12-14-2005, 10:04 PM
Not counting air power the Red Army would have steam rolled the Allied Army. Counting the vastly larger combined allied air force and better air doctrines I belive would offset the ground. Plus after the end of the war with Japan you would have many more troops that could be involved in a attack on the east coast of the Soviet Union. Also saying if...IF...the US had ended the war with Japan using atom bombs there was only one more remaining. For however long it would take to build a new one. Also I suppose they could have launched a raid on Moscow from Finland or Norway to nuke Moscow with a B29 also no need for escorts since I not to many VVS interceptors that could fly as high as a B29.

ABC_1982
12-14-2005, 10:17 PM
Chirchil wouldn't mind attacking Soviets. But he didn't. Why? Because it would keep GB to the lost. Stalin was not eagering to continue war.
The problem is - the lend lease was not so important for USSR on 1945. All Red Forces were overcoming on Soviet weapon. Only american transport (such as trucks and so on) was important. The production of Soviet weapon was established at last (the evacuation of factories was ended). The war on two fronts for USSR is not so critical as for Germany. In fact I don't think that USA's society would agree with continueing war after first collosal losts in first land contacts with Russian forces (who are former allies, don't forget it). First of all: we had much more altillery, better tanks, more expirienced troops and commanders.
Remember Arden? Exausting Germany almost failed the allies assault on the west. Only massive assault of Soviets saved the day.

p1ngu666
12-14-2005, 10:28 PM
seige of leningrad lasted over 900days, what makes u think a second attempt would do much better?

or maybe u really didnt want to waste those dinner invites.

the soviets did the biggest industrial migration *ever* and with less industrial capacity than germany, was out producing them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

the effort and the cost of ww2 to the russians was huge.

the russians would haveto fight smarter if fighting continued, theres only so many people...

jensenpark
12-14-2005, 10:29 PM
few big issues people always seem to overlook:

1) Soviets were led/strong-armed by an unpopular, corrupt dictatorship and army command. Even at the siege of Berlin, Soviet troops were still defecting to the German side(read Antony Beever's excellent book on the fall of Berlin). There would have been mutiny/revolt if forced to fight on against the non-invaders of the Western forces.

2) Biggest factor: German troops - still many million strong would have joined Western forces. Think Germany with near-unlimited Allied supplies and no round the clock bombing.

3) No lend lease to USSR - no aviation fuel, no trucks, etc. Cut off from this they wouldn't get far

4) US hadn't dropped the big ones yet. They had two ready and more on the way. One for Moscow, still one for Japan. But even without those nice, big bombs, the western armies would have won.

All said, one of my favourite 'what if' scenarios.

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-14-2005, 11:21 PM
Quite fancy the idea of an attack from the South too - many options there, up through Iran and into Armenia and beyond - or perhaps force a task group through the Bosphorous and into the Black Sea for an amphib landing, or even just carrier strikes from there on the Caucasus oilfields. Just the threat of such attacks could be a severe thorn in the Russina bear's paw

gorillasika
12-15-2005, 12:20 AM
Think how many armies have tried to invade Russia and how many have succeeded. The revolt would have had to come from inside. If there would have been enough non-communist Russians wanting to get rid of the drunken leaders, then maybe.

And those thinking that Finland would have lended airbases to USA or even tried to take Leningrad can withdraw those thoughts. No way Finland would have wanted to (or could have)join another battle right after the big one. Or even later.

stathem
12-15-2005, 02:43 AM
I believe that superior high altitude Western air power combined with the lessons learnt about how to use strategic bombers effectively (ie to hit fuel and transportation) would have eventually stopped the Red army, but not before it was at, or close to, the Channel.

Best case the Rhine.

In the tactical air power situation, I think the Tempests and Typhoons would have given the Il-2s and 10s a shoeing, so long as the P-51s could keep the Las and Yaks off their back.

nakamura_kenji
12-15-2005, 04:05 AM
have feel that if need be russia be capable make high altitude engine as have lend lease p47/p-63 and have shot down many bf-109 so knowledge of technology be much available to. main reason no develop high alt fighter guess be that was no need so if america + other allie fight russia would no be suprise to see highalt versions of fighter appear if allie were to try high level bombing.

tank wise russia have advantage feel quite bit on number and type of tank
t-34-85, t-44 v sherman, firefly, comet

Unknown_Target
12-15-2005, 04:28 AM
The US would win, hands down. World War II showed that air power is the decisive factor in almost any victory, and the US had the best in the world at the time. Basically, if the US and Russia went to war, Russia's superior tanks would have been brought to a halt by bombing raids, and their air force would've been shot down.
On top of that, the US had their Pacific Fleet to use, and they could put Moscow in a pinscher movement. The only problem is that if they make the same mistake as the Germans and push through the Russian Winter, then they would probably lose, same as the Germans did.

stathem
12-15-2005, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
have feel that if need be russia be capable make high altitude engine as have lend lease p47/p-63 and have shot down many bf-109 so knowledge of technology be much available to. main reason no develop high alt fighter guess be that was no need so if america + other allie fight russia would no be suprise to see highalt versions of fighter appear if allie were to try high level bombing.

tank wise russia have advantage feel quite bit on number and type of tank
t-34-85, t-44 v sherman, firefly, comet

Yes Kenji, you are right, but I think by the time they ramped up production of high altiude types, and developed the heavy weapons neccessary to bring the bombers down, the western powers would have moved into jet types. Development of the Canberra (say) was slowed by the drop off in neccesity after the war. If needed I think it could have been done much quicker. I'm sure the Americans had some Jet bomber types in the pipeline too. I think the Russians were too far behind to catch up in the timespan available.

Remember, most, if not all, of the early Soviet jets were powered by a copy of the jet engine that the British gave them (not sure when though). A lot would depend on who got the German jet (engine) technology.

(all this is ignoring A-bomb tech)

Regarding tanks I agree entirely. However the Western powers were aware that it was not neccessary to kill the tanks directly on the battlefield - it was as effective to cut off their fuel and supplies.

However, I don't think the western could have forced a conclusion either, certainly without going nuclear.

LStarosta
12-15-2005, 04:49 AM
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/p51-02.jpg

You forget we had these. We win by default.

BSS_Goat
12-15-2005, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
http://membres.lycos.fr/marcatchou/jpg/kremlin.jpg + http://www.thedemolitiondj.nl/images/atom-bomb-orange2.gif =
http://www.onthespotimprov.ca/Spot%20Victory.JPG

That's funny stuff....and true.

alert_1
12-15-2005, 05:19 AM
No way Stalin was able to win. NO WAY. USSR was very exhausted at the end of WWII, while USA were just getting on peak of industrial production. USA in 1945 were capable to produce about 300000 AC in a year, USSR about 100k but with tools and machinery provided by Lend&Lease agreement. 90% of RedArmy motorization was reprezented with US stuff, also high quality avgas was pouring from US. Now imagine thousands b17,24,29 along with thousands high altitude P51,P47M, P80 dumping their load over Moscow and everywhere. Even withut A Bomb USSR
would be doomed to totally colapse.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Unknown_Target:
The US would win, hands down. World War II showed that air power is the decisive factor in almost any victory, and the US had the best in the world at the time. Basically, if the US and Russia went to war, Russia's superior tanks would have been brought to a halt by bombing raids, and their air force would've been shot down.
On top of that, the US had their Pacific Fleet to use, and they could put Moscow in a pinscher movement. The only problem is that if they make the same mistake as the Germans and push through the Russian Winter, then they would probably lose, same as the Germans did.
The strategical cover bombers are not effective against moving targets. The official reports of bombing raids in WWII on production objects (relatively small, though non-moving targets) are a bit false. The diving bombings would do, but USSR had the best low-altitude fighters of that period, which were capable of defending land troops from air assaults. P-51 at low altitude, Tempest and so on are worse than late Yaks, Las. Don't compare LW-45 with VVS-45. Low losses of allied crafts in 44-45 owned to LW weakness, not the strength of RAF or USAF.
Even the A-bomb attack of Moscow wouldn't destroy soviet leaders, just believe me.
I think you underestimate soviet strength while overstimate allies one. The leaders of Allies didn't. That's why there was no war between USSR and Allies. BTW USA was not the leader of Allies, don't forget about it.

Concerning coward Stalin's tirany and so on. I have seen documents which showed that russian pilots ran away from Allies back to USSR (where they would be moraly marked as being prisoner, what was a shame) . Though they had an opportunity to stay with Allies and serve in USAF or RAF i.e. People are different. Some are traitors, some are patriots. Thankfully there were more patriots in USSR, that's why we won.

BTW how would naval forces helped in battle in the middle of Europe? I don't think that USSR would plan attack on Britain Islands after WWII. And by the way, who damaged Tirpitz, forcing it to cover in fjords, where it've been destroyed by RAF, while honorable and heroic RN and USN were fleeing away from area?

Von_Rat
12-15-2005, 05:58 AM
my father who is a ww2 vet saw the movie patton years ago. when i asked him this question about what would happen if patton had his way, he sneered and said everybody including the russians were sick to death of war.

i think nobody on either side would want to fight. and the threat of mutiny or crippling low morale would of stopped both sides from any offensive operations. not to mention a possible coup in russia or the political backlash in the u.s.

tigertalon
12-15-2005, 06:11 AM
Sorry for not reading whole thread, my answer is quite short:

Western allies in Europe would get crushed by Soviets in a 14 days, and BOB2 would begin. Hitler dedicated 80% of his war effort to Eastern front and 20 to western, and still Soviets were advancing 10 times faster than AngloAmericans.

In 1945, there was absolutely nothing apart from atomic bomb, to stop Stalin to march all the way to Atlantic.

If Americans wouldn't be engaged in PTO, story would maybe be just a bit different. Also, if war prolonged, Soviet exhaustion and American non-exhaustion would start to play a decisive role.

neural_dream
12-15-2005, 06:40 AM
You all know it, but I'll have to remind you:
The A-bomb wasn't that effective. Wiping out large parts of a medium-size city and causing an environmental and health catastrophe wouldn't provide any advantage particularly against Stalin. As for military targets, in order to find a suitable worth-A-bombing they should penetrate very heavy defences, which wouldn't be risked when carrying such a bomb. Against the Japanese it was relatively easy to drop the bomb, because of the the inexistent enemy defence. It wouldn't be the same against the Soviets. Again it would be used only if the war was almost over.


So, if we dismiss the possibility of gaining serious military advantage with any kind of non-conventional WMD that the Soviets didn't have, then the only Anglo-American advantage would be intelligence again, the advantage they used against the Germans to win. The war though would be open in too many fronts and an unprecedented bloodbath would have to follow. In this case I think Stalin would have the advantage.


In other words, such war wouldn't happen.

ploughman
12-15-2005, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:


In 1945, there was absolutely nothing apart from atomic bomb, to stop Stalin to march all the way to Atlantic.


Er...the armies and air forcese of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Free French, the Free Polish etc., and, had it come to it, lots of German combat veterans would've been wearing kakhi too. I'm not saying they'd've liked it, but they were in the way.

ForkTailedDevil
12-15-2005, 06:45 AM
Remember this is a hypothetical situation. No one wanted to fight at the end of the war. I belive the red army was more than capable of pushing the allies right back off the continent. The allies have a very poor record of "great offensives" and the commanders have done poorly in the past. Patton being the only general that understands maybe how to get that done will be dead by the end of '45 so he would be no help.

About airforces. I belive that the La-7's Yak-3's pound for pound at low altitude are better than their allied equivalents. I feel in the end better training, far larger numbers and better tactics used by the allies would change that situation. In the end I could see US Navy CAG's operating from the Baltic with Corsair's, F6F's, F8F's, F7F's and Avengers. In addition to USAF, P47's, A-26's and B-26's, plus RAF Typhoon's, Tempest's, and Mosquito's. Within a few weeks all the forward Red Air Force airbases would be large smoking craters. The biggest problem would be stoping the Red Army advance.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
If Americans wouldn't be engaged in PTO, story would maybe be just a bit different. Also, if war prolonged, Soviet exhaustion and American non-exhaustion would start to play a decisive role.

By that time the american losses would become unacceptable, as later in Vietnam happend. In fact the loss one major land battle lost plus severe air losses would force USA to search for peace. It's the democracy state weakpoint.
Citizens wouldn't find it acceptable to attack former allie and loose too many people (while USSR wouldn't attack USA by its own in 1945, so it would be USA's agression).
It would be something like that: Soviet army counterattacks and throws Allied forces back to chanel in weeks. A-bomb (if it came to Moscow, while Russian AF are not Japanese in 1945) will help only to keep things freezed. France is under soviet control, as well as all Western and Eastern Europe. The war is going to last for years, while people are tired of it. Japan is in action (A-bombs are for Moscow), they will try to unite with soviets as Finns did with Germany.
On next votes in USA the pacifist will win. The war is over, all western Europe is lost.
The polish peoples army, chechs, bulgarian, perhaps some spain, japans are the allies of USSR in that conflict. So it is possibile to throw some units from eastern borders somewhere else. Romania (oil) is under soviet control. The worlds authority is amazed with american traitment of a former allie. Not good...
That's why there was no attack by americans in reality.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
About airforces. I belive that the La-7's Yak-3's pound for pound at low altitude are better than their allied equivalents. I feel in the end better training, far larger numbers and better tactics used by the allies would change that situation. In the end I could see US Navy CAG's operating from the Baltic with Corsair's, F6F's, F8F's, F7F's and Avengers. In addition to USAF, P47's, A-26's and B-26's, plus RAF Typhoon's, Tempest's, and Mosquito's. Within a few weeks all the forward Red Air Force airbases would be large smoking craters. The biggest problem would be stoping the Red Army advance.
About tactics and learning. The Soviet pilots were the best in tactics and skill in 1945. See the statistics on that period. The only problem is outnumbering. But during all that war the Germans accepted fight only if they had significant outnumbering or an element of surprise (hit'n'run tactic, not effective one for accomplishing main tasks as history shows). But soviets often bet them even in that case. In reality since 1943 the every lost of an airplane in air combat (not from AAA) was a major incident for soviets with the following deep analize. In 1941-1942 the losses were not generally analized what led to further losses in similar situations...
In fact USA's and soviets pilots met in Korea. And if to take only soviet/american fights it was not good for americans 'aces'.

stathem
12-15-2005, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
And by the way, who damaged Tirpitz, forcing it to cover in fjords, where it've been destroyed by RAF, while honorable and heroic RN and USN were fleeing away from area?

ABC, that's more than a little unfair to the Royal Navy, altough I understand and appreciate your frustration with Unknown_Target.

Tirpitz, operational History Here (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_092300_tirpitz.htm)

stathem
12-15-2005, 07:32 AM
The link above ignores the St.Nazaire raid in 1942 by British Commandos which put the Normandie dock out of commission for the rest of the war, and thus sealed the only dry dock on the western seaboard of Europe capable of housing the Tirpitz.

djetz
12-15-2005, 07:47 AM
It would never have happened, everybody was sick of war... but:

It certainly happened that German officers, after surrendering to western allied forces, would approach the allied officers and volunteer their troops to fight alongside the western forces when they met up with the soviets. It was a widely held belief among the germans that when the two sides met, they'd start to slug it out.

It's also important to keep in mind that the red army was NOT fighting for Stalin et al, they were fighting for Russia.

In Poland, the baltic countries, and other places "liberated" by the soviets, the war DID continue for years, until the resistance were wiped out. It also happened, to a lesser extent, in the Ukraine and Bylorussia, places which welcomed the Germans as liberators back in '41, before they discovered that the Nazis were fractionally worse than the Soviets.

Western leaders knew this, and did nothing. Remember, the alliance with Poland was the reason France and the UK got into the war back in '39. By '45 they were tired of fighting enough to let the Soviets have Poland without even protesting. Any Pole will tell you that swapping the Soviets for the Nazis was not an improvement.

There was certainly a will to fight the soviets in eastern europe, and in Germany, but the US said no and the rest of western europe - the parts not under direct threat of soviet invasion - went along with it.

Another illustration of how much the west caved in to the Soviets was that western forces "repatriated" everyone the Soviets asked for, including former Russians who'd fled the revolution back in the teens and 20s, and citizens of countries that the Soviets had taken over in '45. This included the ones - literally millions of them - who had fought alongside the Germans. The ones that weren't killed on the spot spent decades in the gulags, and few survived.

The "A-bomb on Moscow" scenario is what it would have taken - had that happened the majority of Soviet citizens would have gladly surrendered to the west. Without that, it would likely have dragged on forever, with a huge amount of suffering and death on both sides.

The A-bomb hadn't even been tested when the Germans surrendered. Japan was still a serious threat, and the western allies were desperate to get the USSR into that war. Stalin played hard-to-get which is one of the main reasons the west sold out so much to him.

The Soviets finally declared war on Japan AFTER Hiroshima was A-bombed. Just in time to mop up Manchuria and grab some Japanese islands - which Russia STILL occupies. By that stage, I expect the west was kind of sad that they'd given so much to Stalin. But by that stage it was too late.

And everyone wanted to go home. After 4-6 years of war (depending on which country you were from) no-one wanted to start WW3.

gorillasika
12-15-2005, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
It would never have happened, everybody was sick of war... but:
It certainly happened that German officers, after surrendering to western allied forces, would approach the allied officers and volunteer their troops to fight alongside the western forces when they met up with the soviets.


Not only that, but at least some U.S. forces gave support (ammunition and guns) for those German troops, that still were fighting the Soviets. The Germans fought, until all of their remaining group was able to surrender to the U.S. instead of the Soviets.

OldMan___
12-15-2005, 08:31 AM
It seems US fans always glorify the A bomb and forget that Germany had Nerve gas much eralier than that. It they decided to use it it would have more or less the same effect. Soviets had already captured all that assets when germany surrendered (and that was in MUCH larger quantities of gas than US could make A bombs). So the result would be a completely torn out UK france and germany and both sides depleting most of their man power.

luftluuver
12-15-2005, 09:00 AM
djetz, this is a 'what it' scenario so that everyone was sick of war does not factor in.

The Soviets might have had some initial success but would have ground to a halt. It took the 2.5 million troops that started the battle to capture Berlin in April a couple of days to get even 2 small bridgeheads being defended by 1 million Germans.

Someone already mentioned Western airpower. Look what it did to the German transportation network. Every railhead, supply depot and bridge from Berlin to the Polish/Russian border would have been destroyed if the West and the Soviets went at it. It is hard to get supplies to the front then. The Soviets had no way to stop the 1000s of the West's heavy bombers (B-17, B-24, Lanc, Hallie). Western airpower would have dominated the battlefield making Soviet operations almost impossible.

Also like the British, the Soviets were having a hard time getting quality fresh troops, actually scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The battle for Berlin decimated the Soviet army.

Oldman, the Brits had poison gas as well.

BSS_AIJO
12-15-2005, 09:40 AM
ok, ill bite.

I think that had we done as many German commanders had hoped and kept on going till we reached moscow. 1. It would have been a blood bath. 2. The soviets would have been doomed. We would have had plenty of our own battel hardend troops, with the new addition of fresh axis toops and officers that knew how to take out soviet armor. With them and access to what remained of German production we would have ultimatly prevailed. As the front pushed east reconstruction of German industry would have begun and would have worked much better with the workers no longer worried about British or American air raids. In the east I have no problem witht he idea of the Japanees looking at the situation and offering up better surrendur terms based on the idea that their army help our from the far east as well. Now the Soviet Union is very well protected from Eurpoean attack from the west, but they have done very poorly when attacked from the east. There was entire armys worth of folks sitting around in Siberia who would have more than likely been willing to take up arms against the soviets if that included a chance of getting to go home. Soviet industry would have not lasted very long against non stop stratigic bombing. As for Stalingrad Leningrad and Moscow, yes they could have held out against a siege for a while. But I have one word for that. Dresden.
The big bomb would not have even been needed except for some shock and awe.

Ultimatly though, there was no way that this was going to happen. American and British leadership appear to have thought that Stalin was a great guy and that he should be givin whatever he wants.

It would have been an interesting fight though. Imagine tiger tanks with Stars on their sides and Me262's escorting B29's.


BSS_AIJO

OldMan___
12-15-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
djetz, this is a 'what it' scenario so that everyone was sick of war does not factor in.

The Soviets might have had some initial success but would have ground to a halt. It took the 2.5 million troops that started the battle to capture Berlin in April a couple of days to get even 2 small bridgeheads being defended by 1 million Germans.

Someone already mentioned Western airpower. Look what it did to the German transportation network. Every railhead, supply depot and bridge from Berlin to the Polish/Russian border would have been destroyed if the West and the Soviets went at it. It is hard to get supplies to the front then. The Soviets had no way to stop the 1000s of the West's heavy bombers (B-17, B-24, Lanc, Hallie). Western airpower would have dominated the battlefield making Soviet operations almost impossible.

Also like the British, the Soviets were having a hard time getting quality fresh troops, actually scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The battle for Berlin decimated the Soviet army.

Oldman, the Brits had poison gas as well.


UK never had the capability of mass producing NERVE gas. They had other gases to use, but not nerve gas that was much more capable of interdicting a large area for long term, since anything that got exposed to it would keep impregnated enough to keep extremely poisonous for weeks. Mustard gas is deadly, but not so tatically effective as nerve gas.


Imagine what would be if germany had louched a pack of V2 filled with it on london ? Not very different from Hiroshima.

BSS_CUDA
12-15-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by BSS_AIJO:
Imagine tiger tanks with Stars on their sides and Me262's escorting B29's.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-15-2005, 10:05 AM
It's a close call, I'd say. In terms of air power, the Russians would be about equal in the fighter stakes (they had the Yak-3, and La-7/9, and the highest scoring Allied aces), tactically, they would do not too bad with the IL-2 and IL-10, but they would need heavy escort I'd say. Strategically, however, they would struggle. The western allies had certainly mastered through necessity the art of high level strategic air warfare, and had the structure set up on 3 seperate fronts (from the west, from the east in the pacific, and from the south west in the Med).

Now, on the ground, you can forget about lend lease mattering to the Soviets. It was important in the early years, but in 1945, only the studebakers were important. I beleive lend lease accounted for 10% of the entire soviet war materiel. Not a small number, but considering the vastness of the resources available, it's inconsequential in my opinion.

Russian tanks were better than the western allies, and there was a heckuva lot of em, and in 1945 the Russian soldier was pretty well equipped, and generally knew his stuff about combat. I don't know the figures on how many were stationed in the west, but I know that in a couple of months, Stalin was able to shift 3 million men from the west to the east to kick the cack out of Japan, so there must have been quite a few in Europe!

As far as naval power goes, the western allies would have had Russia vastly outnumbered, again on three fronts. The only waters that Russian would freely navigate would probably be the arctic waters, which isn't much use to an army fighting in Germany/France.

And then there is the factor of those liberated nations, and wehrmacht, and which countries they would join with, and whether Japan would be supported by the western allies to fight the Soviets.

All in all, I would say that the Russian army would initially push back the western allies into France, maybe even the Channel, but ultimately, due to the proficiency of the US and UK at strategic air warfare (I'm not talking about the A-bomb), plus the fact they are being attacked from three sides, the Soviets would have to withdraw, or make a truce.

It would certainly have been interesting!!

As an aside, I often play Axis and Allies (a fantastic board game!!), and there have been times where we have decided to play it to the death, even if Germany has been captured, with the Russians fighting the Allies, etc. Normally, Russia is pushed back, and is hard pressed to keep the allies out of the Motherland, and Japan is almost always the hardest to kill!! But if you A&A: Europe, that's a different matter! I have played Russia, and have managed to capture the UK, and most of North Africa!! I was well impressed with myself when I did that.

I also remember one instance where I had a tank battle and I (Russia) had something like 50-60 tanks committed, and my mate (Germany) had about 80-odd I think, as well as infantry, aircraft and artillery. That was a fabulous battle!! I won!! After that I just steamrollered him back to Berlin. It was masterful!

neural_dream
12-15-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
As an aside, I often play Axis and Allies (a fantastic board game!!), and there have been times where we have decided to play it to the death, even if Germany has been captured, with the Russians fighting the Allies, etc.
When we finish an A&A we're already tired to death, no reason to continue to play to death http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Tooz_69GIAP
12-15-2005, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
As an aside, I often play Axis and Allies (a fantastic board game!!), and there have been times where we have decided to play it to the death, even if Germany has been captured, with the Russians fighting the Allies, etc.
When we finish an A&A we're already tired to death, no reason to continue to play to death http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far, my record is 14 hours straight, no breaks, and I was the winner (with Russia).

Unfortunately, I don't get to play often anymore, as the guy I usually played with only went and buggered off Down Under with his lassie!! Very inconsiderate of him I thought!!

djetz
12-15-2005, 10:53 AM
I know it's a "what if" - I did give my opinion:

1. With A-bomb: wipe out the soviet leadership and it's a swift victory to the west.

2. No A-bomb: a long drawn-out slugging match with no clear victor. Much like WW1 only worse. The Red Army was no pushover in '45.

neural_dream
12-15-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
1. With A-bomb: wipe out the soviet leadership and it's a swift victory to the west.

How do you do that?

luftluuver
12-15-2005, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
2. No A-bomb: a long drawn-out slugging match with no clear victor. Much like WW1 only worse. The Red Army was no pushover in '45.

No long drawn out struggle as the front line Soviet troops would wither like fruit on the vine as they would soon be out of the supplies to wage war. Peace would soon follow so the Soviets could save some face.

WOLFMondo
12-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
there would have been no lend lease, the US would have ruled the air, so the Soviet infrastruture would have been wiped out. granted the soviets had superior tanks, but that would have been countered by the superior air power of the US

The USSR by the end of the war probably didn't need lend lease any more. There industry was moved to the centre and east of Russia and was in full war capacity. Bomber missions to destroy it would have been one way even with the range of the B29 or the Avro Lincoln etc.

I do agree however that the combined USN and RN would have completely surrounded the USSR however the USSR has allot of natural resources within it and no surface fleet that could compete with either by themselves.

I think it would be foolish to assume the US, even with the UK and commonwealth, with a few jets and 2 a bombs could take on the USSR and win. It might have come down to an end like the cold war, which economy collapses first? US or USSR?

bazzaah2
12-15-2005, 12:05 PM
I think the Soviets would have made a good fist of it, if only because their tactics were much more aggressive than the western allies'. The British and Americans demonstrated a marked caution in their tactics, often failing to push home a decisive advantage for the sake of defending their flanks against non-existent German threats. The driver behind this was an understandable desire to minimise Allied losses; the USSR faced no such constraints, all the more after 4 years fighting an enemy altogether more brutalised than the US Britain etc. I think this factor would have helped tip the balance in favour of the Soviets.

BSS_CUDA
12-15-2005, 12:39 PM
he who control's the sky's control's the war. the Allies (US,GB,Others) would have control over the sky's, the Soviets had little that could compete with the allied planes at altitude, they had NO high alt bombers, and I doubt that the LA's, Yak's would have faired well against the onslaught of 51's 47's 38's, Tempest's, and Spit's, not to mention the influx of jets and captured 109's and 190's they would soon be putting into play, also the US Industrial might FAR outpaced the Soviets, could you imaging US warplants now pumping out King Tigers, or even Panther tanks by the tens of thousands, and NO soviet Navy to stop us from transporting them to our launching points in Britan and Japan, granted the USSR is a large expanse, but its only 1500 miles from Paris to Moscow, 3000 miles round trip, that is within range of the B29's which had a range of 3200 miles, granted at the extreme range but in it none the less. plus the fact the people seem to forget the China was our Allie during WW2 also, that give us a third front of operation and puts all of the USSR well within range of our bombers we would decimate the soviet industry the same way we did germany's while the US industry remained unscathed

jugent
12-15-2005, 01:21 PM
Red Army would have beaten anglo/french/americans on the ground.
VVS would have been a nasty surprise for USAF/RAF.
American soldiers where not mentally prepeared for fighting Russians.
America would have nuked Russian cities, like Moscow Leningrad, Kiev.
It would have ended in a ceasefire and many more millions would have died.
WWII ended in reallity when the WP was dissolved.

WOLFMondo
12-15-2005, 02:49 PM
VVS Combat tactics were never especially good. The USAAF and RAF has piston powered aircraft in development and on the productions lines which far exceeded the La9's and Yak9's in terms of range and performance: Spitfire Mk22, Fury and Seafury, Tempest V, II and VI, Bearcat, Tigercat, P51H, P47N etc then theres the jet development. Some of these aircraft also had extremely long range capability. If war had continued these aircraft would have been further developed too.


Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
but its only 1500 miles from Paris to Moscow, 3000 miles round trip, that is within range of the B29's which had a range of 3200 miles,

Getting to Moscow was never the problem. Its getting to the industrial heart of the USSR which might be a round trip of 4 to 5 thousand miles.

Its also a similar distance from China. The former USSR is massive!

To put this in perspective:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/rs-map.gif

GuNzABlaZiN
12-15-2005, 03:32 PM
How many armies have succesfully succeded at completely defeating Russia in the past 200 years? None. It's really simple. The industry is in the very heart, the people are rediculously brave and would do anything to stop the oppressors, and don't forget the mighty winter.

How many winters did the US fight in during WW2? Only one, and winters are nowhere near as cold in Russia as they are in France.

Someone said that a two-front war could be fought, either from the east or from the south. In the east, you have Siberia, trying to get an army across Siberia would be plain stupid because of the terrain and lack of roads. Even if it was possible, it would take months, and it would cost an awesome amount of resources. From the south, you have the mountains, same thing. Russia has a very powerful geographic location.

Now look at Vietnam, America bombed the living cr@p out of Hanoi and other major populated centers, America threw billions of dollars at the war and still lost. And this was 20 years after WW2!! The war with the USSR would be Vietnam 20x times over. American soldiers can't live without their cigarettes and playboys, while a Vietnamese (or Russian) soldier would sit in a foxhole for days without food or water. Any Russian could be given a gun, women, children, old people would fight to the death. So if a major army did manage to get in deep, they would be harrassed by guerillas. IT IS THEIR MOTHERLAND!!!

So what if Russia didn't have an uber airforce (although it did have a very good one), Russian scientists lived in think-tanks!! Anything the allies could throw at it, Russia could match withit months. And don't forget all the captured German technology.

Now throw in nukes, nuke all of Russia, every inch of it, now what? Now you've turned the biggest landmass on this planet into a radioactive wasteland. You've pretty much killed yourself too, as it is mutually assured destruction.

I am not bashing America, nor am I an America hater, I'm sorry to say this but some people need to get their heads out of their you know what!

Slickun
12-15-2005, 04:16 PM
Neither side had the necessary tools to be successful in the attack. The defender would be successful. The Soviets would never be able to dislodge the Allies, nor vice versa.

Both sides were exacusted after VE day, but the Communists took a fearful pounding at Berlin. In the lull that followed, facing a war with the Soviets, I can guarantee that the Allies would be stocked with ammunition, tanks, howitzers, and planes planes planes, dug in, waiting.

Slickun
12-15-2005, 04:22 PM
Now look at Vietnam, America bombed the living cr@p out of Hanoi and other major populated centers, America threw billions of dollars at the war and still lost.

Well, not exactly right. We bombed military targets around Hanoi and Haiphong, but didn't really go for the jugular until Linebacker II, very late in the war. We destroyed North Viet-Nams capacity to recieve and ship materiel to the south, did away with their airforce and air defenses. The country was laid bare.

We also never invaded North Viet-Nam. I don't think these idiotic policies would have been followed in 1945 vs the Communists.

Again, I don't think either side had the juice to win an offensive war.

GuNzABlaZiN
12-15-2005, 05:12 PM
Yes, a stalemate, yet nothing would have been achieved. Infact, doing nothing did more damage, USSR lost in 1991. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ForkTailedDevil
12-15-2005, 05:41 PM
I am not sure the Vietnam camparison works. Mainly politics and the fact that the US was trying to avoid bringing other countries into the conflict. They never tried to win only to hang on to South Vietnam.

Speaking of the Navy I was thinking of what a few USN and RN C.A.G.'s in the Black Sea filled with, Tigercats, Bearcats, Avengers, Sea Hornets and Sea Fury's could do. My thinking is all the big oil spots in the South would be gone in no time.

jensenpark
12-15-2005, 09:50 PM
First of all: love everyone's ideas - until they got a tad off topic on Viet nam...

One point of this discussion I can never understand is the "Soviets would push them back to the Channel" comment I see alot.

The Soviets had a horribly difficult time just pushing the Germans back - when Germany was fighting two huge fronts and getting bombed all to hell at the same time.
And yet somehow in the 'what if war' the Soviets would simply steamroll over US, Brit, Commonwealth AND German troops?
It's like "I have a tough time beating the Germans...but add the Yanks, Brits, Commonwealth troops to the Germans, and I'll walk over you...oh, and cut off all my lend-lease and aviation fuel, etc at the same time".

Doesn't compute...

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
First of all: love everyone's ideas - until they got a tad off topic on Viet nam...

One point of this discussion I can never understand is the "Soviets would push them back to the Channel" comment I see alot.

The Soviets had a horribly difficult time just pushing the Germans back - when Germany was fighting two huge fronts and getting bombed all to hell at the same time.
And yet somehow in the 'what if war' the Soviets would simply steamroll over US, Brit, Commonwealth AND German troops?
It's like "I have a tough time beating the Germans...but add the Yanks, Brits, Commonwealth troops to the Germans, and I'll walk over you...oh, and cut off all my lend-lease and aviation fuel, etc at the same time".

Doesn't compute...
Computes greatly. Add yankies and britts with their commanders (soviet specialists in Korea and Vietname were amazed about simple errors in tactics of american commanders, and used them greatly) and you'll get massive armie with poor control, germans are unexpirienced (expirienced soldiers have died already), commanders are even worse. Allies attack and Soviets counterattack, not allowing allies to enforce the defending positions. Soviet tactic was the most effective, you can't understand it just because you can't accept the possibility of non-minimum losses...
We had some high altitude fighters (Mig-3 i.e.) and high-altitude engines projected and tested. They were not needed during the war, but we had them in projects and tested production process, and had a possibility to produce them quickly and in great numbers.
And I laugh, when read your posts about russians, leaders and so on. The Great Patriotic War (WWII for you) was not the war for leaders, it was a war for our country. No coups in Siberia and elsewhere. Everybody was working for the victory. In fact many people (not all of course), who were sitting in camps in Siberia asked to let them go to the front, to fight against agressors (not to flee to Germans). Kill Stalin and Zhukov will lead the USSR to victory, kill Zhukov there will another... We had enough talented commanders and leaders, not only Patton.
Look at the list of Allies aces and aces of USSR. Name me at least one general, leading his pilots to attack, looking for new tactics, checking them all personaly. Name me the major changes in airforce/land tactics since BOB.
There were not wars in 'liberated' countries, but anti-partizans operations. Too small to call them a war. Bands anihilation. Most of population did accepted the communism. It will be later that they will realize it would be better without sovites talking them what to do... But now - meeting liberators with flowers, and so on. Soviets were not animals, they didn't slaughtered vilages, as it described here. It will be later, it will be the fight agains capitalists/private property. We cannot leave robbed and vasted land (and angry peolpe) behind us. And its already robbed and vasted by germans btw...

You make your decisions about russians without knowing who we are, and who we were. You read the books that say soviet leaders are stupid, lazy cowards (they were, perhaps, but after WWII). How did we won the war I wonder, if anyone of us (hundreds of millions) would gladly surrender?! Yes, there were traitors (and there are), as in every country. But readiness to fight against agressors is in blood of most of people, you call russian.

alert_1
12-16-2005, 01:21 AM
All those La7s (even 3xb20 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif), Yak3s and t34 would never get the chance in them same way as al those Tigers, Me262, Ta152 etc, without fuel, munition and milions troops withou food have ZERO combat value. And be sure, thousands of heavy bombers (untouchable by VVS fightres!) would casue awfull HAVOC on RedArmy supply lines an war indsustry.And Stalin woud be hanging as good as Hitlers war criminals if not better..

Lucius_Esox
12-16-2005, 01:37 AM
Sorry cant reference this and don't fully remember it all (lot of use then?) I remember reading somewhere about a victory parade being held after the war in front of high ranking soviet commanders.

The allies put up an absoltely massive show of airpower. The inferance being "come on then if you think your hard enough"

I'm sure one of the more learned on these boards will be able to verify this. If it's accurate than it means that the powers to be at the time, on both sides, realised the massive importance of airpower.

Given clear skies, and air superiority, which of course is a moot point because soviet airpower was much more ground fighting orientated, I think the killing ground that was Falaise in Normandy might have been a reality for the Soviet ground forces.

In retrospect thank God it never happened though, it crumbled in the end with out direct military intervention, i.e. economic war.

fighter_966
12-16-2005, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now look at Vietnam, America bombed the living cr@p out of Hanoi and other major populated centers, America threw billions of dollars at the war and still lost.

Well, not exactly right. We bombed military targets around Hanoi and Haiphong, but didn't really go for the jugular until Linebacker II, very late in the war. We destroyed North Viet-Nams capacity to recieve and ship materiel to the south, did away with their airforce and air defenses. The country was laid bare.

We also never invaded North Viet-Nam. I don't think these idiotic policies would have been followed in 1945 vs the Communists.

Again, I don't think either side had the juice to win an offensive war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually south won militarily vietnam war but the lost it politically.After USA left North got
whole country

fighter_966
12-16-2005, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now look at Vietnam, America bombed the living cr@p out of Hanoi and other major populated centers, America threw billions of dollars at the war and still lost.

Well, not exactly right. We bombed military targets around Hanoi and Haiphong, but didn't really go for the jugular until Linebacker II, very late in the war. We destroyed North Viet-Nams capacity to recieve and ship materiel to the south, did away with their airforce and air defenses. The country was laid bare.

We also never invaded North Viet-Nam. I don't think these idiotic policies would have been followed in 1945 vs the Communists.

Again, I don't think either side had the juice to win an offensive war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually south won militarily vietnam war but the lost it politically.After USA left North got
whole country </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I mean south won almost every battle they were in to ..

WOLFMondo
12-16-2005, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Sorry cant reference this and don't fully remember it all (lot of use then?) I remember reading somewhere about a victory parade being held after the war in front of high ranking soviet commanders.

The allies put up an absoltely massive show of airpower. The inferance being "come on then if you think your hard enough"


It was the RAF and in front of General Zhukov when they invited him to one of the cities Bomber Command levelled, not sure which one, might have been Dresden. They put up almost the entire 2nd Tactical Airforce and portions of bomber command in a huge fly past. It was 100% show of power to the Soviets i.e. look at what we got and look at what we can do with it.

The Soviets probably had reports from the signing of the surrender of Japan and the massive allied fly over of that as well.

ploughman
12-16-2005, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now look at Vietnam, America bombed the living cr@p out of Hanoi and other major populated centers, America threw billions of dollars at the war and still lost.

Well, not exactly right. We bombed military targets around Hanoi and Haiphong, but didn't really go for the jugular until Linebacker II, very late in the war. We destroyed North Viet-Nams capacity to recieve and ship materiel to the south, did away with their airforce and air defenses. The country was laid bare.

We also never invaded North Viet-Nam. I don't think these idiotic policies would have been followed in 1945 vs the Communists.

Again, I don't think either side had the juice to win an offensive war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually south won militarily vietnam war but the lost it politically.After USA left North got
whole country </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I mean south won almost every battle they were in to .. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know things have gone a bit "Alice in Wonderland" when the losing side bombs the winning side back to the negotiating table.

luftluuver
12-16-2005, 05:00 AM
Name me at least one general, leading his pilots to attack, looking for new tactics, checking them all personaly. So ABC wants a western general.

Brig Gen Fredrich W Castle, commander of the 4th CBW, 8th AF, with 29 missions, killed in B-17G 44-8444 of the 487th BG, while leading the mission on Dec 23 1944. Awarded the CMoH for while at the controls of the a/c gave time for 6 crewmen to escape the doomed bomber.

OldMan____
12-16-2005, 05:06 AM
Lol, do you guys really beleive USAAF would be able to cripple Soviet union transports and industry as it did with Germany? URSS industry was behind Urals... a distance from front larger than LA to NY. URSS is SEVERAL times bigger than whole EUROPE! It is not easy to keep pressure on communications and transport on something THAT huge.


And What about tha thousands os IL2 and low level bombers of URSS? They would have the same effect on US army as USAAF could do on red Army. Also US fighetrs would have ZERO chance against soviet low level fighters.


The losses would be so great US would have to withdraw to keep happy the population at home using torches in front of white house.

stathem
12-16-2005, 05:10 AM
WCmr Leonard Cheshire, who pioneered the art of low level target marking for 617Sq, at first in a Lanc. At 0 feet. At night.

Moving on to Mosquitos. And then to a Mustang, marking in one, again, at night, having had one brief familiarisation flight.

OldMan____
12-16-2005, 05:13 AM
Just try this scenario in Hearts of iron 2. Never ever I´ve played such a scenario with any result different from URSS taking out whole europe up to spain. And it is a fairly realistic strategic simmulation.

stathem
12-16-2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Lol, do you guys really beleive USAAF would be able to cripple Soviet union transports and industry as it did with Germany? URSS industry was behind Urals... a distance from front larger than LA to NY. URSS is SEVERAL times bigger than whole EUROPE! It is not easy to keep pressure on communications and transport on something THAT huge.


And What about tha thousands os IL2 and low level bombers of URSS? They would have the same effect on US army as USAAF could do on red Army. Also US fighetrs would have ZERO chance against soviet low level fighters.


The losses would be so great US would have to withdraw to keep happy the population at home using torches in front of white house.

One doesn't need to destroy the industry itself. It's enough to prevent the fruits of that industry from reaching the front. As you say, it's a long way from the front line isn't it?

By May 1945 the strategic bomber force had learnt, from the success of the transportation plan, and the fuel plan, a better way of doing things.

By night, British heavies could bomb almost as accuratley as by day. How many AI equipped night fighters did the VVS have? What was the state of their radar predicted AAA? What was the state of their EW radar? or IFF systems? By 1945 the RAF could i.d. individual flights from ground control.

Moving on to Recconaisance. Did the VVS have the capabilty to counter it? The Germans never achieved it. Could they have Recce'd the allied rear areas without Ar234s? People always underestimate the importance of strategic recconasaince.

BSS_AIJO
12-16-2005, 06:49 AM
Hey,

much has been made of the factories being out of range behind the Urals. Lets not forget that the US/Briton and the Soviets pretty much Occupied Iran for the purposes of moving lend lease into Russia from the middle east. The factories would have been in range of b29's
Also getting to Iran from Asia would have been conciderably more trivial than getting to Europe. Now we would have been breaking treties with Iran to do this, but that has never stopped anyone before. 8^)

BSS_AIJO

HellToupee
12-16-2005, 07:04 AM
How would they hit the oil and fuel industry? That was far outof range of the bombers and especially fighter escorts. I would expect they would throw everything at the front line forces just to slow them down. With the massive numbers i dont belive the allies were willing to commit to the massive losses fighting the russians would incur like the germans who were pretty fanitical about it. You can argue russians had a hard time with the germans, but so did the allies when they had so much commited in the east. It would come down to nukes, but how to deliver such a nuke? getting a bomber over japan who was essentially defeated would be much differnt to getting a bomber deep into russia who was far from it.

Slickun
12-16-2005, 08:27 AM
Allies had low level killers just as deadly as the Soviets. Had a lot more, too.

Soviets would have trouble with their AF as well. ANY airfield that the Communists put up close enough to the front for their planes to reach it would have been in easy range of the Allied air forces, not so the other way around. Can you say vulching on a massive scale?

This wouldn't be like against the Germans, with not enough planes to effectively cover the entire front, slowly being choked to death due to a lack of fuel.

We're talking thousands and thousands of Allied planes, from single engined fighters capable of taking off from an airfield well out of effective Soviet range and going 400+ on the deck, to thousands of late mark, fast, maneuverable twins, to thousands of heavy and very heavy bombers. The 4 engined bombers flying at altitudes just as vexing to the Soviets as they were to the Japanese.

All attacking from every direction imaginable, from the south, north, southeast, and west, from land AND sea. An onslaught of steel from the sky that would defy description, going on at all hours of the day, unabated.

There would be ferocious dogfights and air battles early, then the allies would win the war of attrition, and roam about as freely as they did over Germany, after air superiority was wrested from the Germans in the killer air battles of Jan-Apr 1944. Only this fracas would be an order of magnitude greater.

Then the atomic bombs. Where do you want the first one?

Kocur_
12-16-2005, 08:38 AM
If soviets were the attackers it would be pretty much like in case of great Red Army offensives from 1944 on, i.e. breahthrough, tens of even hundrets kms of advancement, that stabilisation of the frontline. Stabilization forced by expending all reasources close to former frontline: ammo, fuel, food, etc.,and... humans. Such breakthroughs were at terrible costs! Red Army lost about 20 million casualties in WW2. Thats Red Army, the frontline troops, not civilian casualties of nazis! Soviets produced about 65.000 T34s and lost about 45.000, while US Army lost about 5.000 Shermans of over 30.000 produced! Another factor was soviet artillery: without shadow of doubt the best equipped and the most powerful artillery in the world. You might not belive it, but Red Army artillery threw more explosives onto Berlin during 'the last battle', than allied bombers did in four years!
So there would be a breakthrough and then stategic pause with front line somewhere in the west Germany.
Now air force would come into play. And VVS stood no chance against allied air powers! As much as most of German land troops were 'consumed' in the east, in case of Luftwaffe the ratio is opposite. VVS had overwhelming numerical superiority over LW, but owed that to the fact that LW was drained in the west, i.e. VVS did not defeat LW! And in fact VVS did not have complete air superiority -late as spring 1945 LW was still capable of delivering painful air strikes.
VVS RL equippment were not La-7s and Yak-3s/9U we know in this game. Reality was that as late as december 1944 HUNDRETS of VVS soviet newest fighters, entire production batches, in factory fresh condition were grounded, because had nasty habit of breaking apart midair without any enemy intervention. About performance: remember that La-5FN tested in Rechlin...? VVS would be sloughtered even more severily than it was being sloughtered by LW in 1941-43 (in 1943 VVS lost over 10.000 fighters!). And that sloughter was stopped not by VVS, but by USAAF and RAF. And soon Tempests Mk II, P-51H etc., not to mention jets would arrive, giving VVS no chance of survival. Allies would enjoy total air domination and would destroy EVERY railway, EVERY crossroads and EVERY bridge within the range of tactical or stategic aviation. For it would be too far to strike soviet industry in the Ural indeed, so most of stategic bombers would be used in tactical or operational role, i.e. destroying and keeping destroyed land communication system. I dont even mention paralizing any daylight movement within range of tactical aviation.
In the result Red Army would not be able to make any move forward. And very little equippment and resources would reach Red Army units in the frontline. Allies would not move either - until enough of land forces would be gathered in Europe. And then soviet frontline with little ammo, little fuel and hungry, tired troops would break apart under the first strike, not without heavy casualties on allied side nonetheless.

Experienced Red Army troops? Those hundrets of thousands of guys from Asia in the infantry in late 1944/45, who rarely even spoke Russian were NOT experienced. US infantry divisions in western Europe losses were well above 100% and thats only 10 months of fighting under commanders who, with rare exceptions (Clark in Italy) were very careful about blood spill. Now what about Red Army after four years under BUTCHERS like Zhukov? After losses Red Army had, there very few experienced frontline soldiers and lower officers in 1945.

Red Army rear would be Poland, and historically it was nothing short of partizan war there in 1945-46/7 against new, soviet occupant. It stopped finally because communists promised abolition and those guys in the forests had no hope really. I know there were partisan groups in the Baltic countries and Ukraine well into late 1940. Now think what would happen if they had both material support, and even more importantly: hope!

Alies would move well into Germany or even Poland, and would stop for logistical reasons. After strategic pause they would go on, but I dont think western leaders would choose to attack pre-WW2 soviet territory and move further. OTOH I have no doubt, that soviet rule would collapse in Belarus and Ukraine, exactly the way it did in 1941. Now, part of my family was there so I know almost first-hand, how Germans were welcomed in Belarus in summer of 1941! Everyone, were happy and thankful, for chasing soviet murderes and thieves away! I mean scenes like tears of joy in eyes of elderly people and kissing German artillery guns!

stathem
12-16-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
How would they hit the oil and fuel industry? That was far outof range of the bombers and especially fighter escorts. I would expect they would throw everything at the front line forces just to slow them down. With the massive numbers i dont belive the allies were willing to commit to the massive losses fighting the russians would incur like the germans who were pretty fanitical about it. You can argue russians had a hard time with the germans, but so did the allies when they had so much commited in the east. It would come down to nukes, but how to deliver such a nuke? getting a bomber over japan who was essentially defeated would be much differnt to getting a bomber deep into russia who was far from it.

AFAIK the major centres of Soviet oil production would be the Caucusus, which is in reach of bases in Iran, Syria, maybe even Egypt with B-29s and Lincons, and the central European fields (around Ploesti?) easily within reach of Italy. The Soviets would have to physically conquer these two areas (Middle East and Italy) before their production facilites were destroyed. The mines of Upper Silesia would also be within range of Italy.

The battle for the middle east, and the position of Turkey, would be the most crucial long term issues.

HellToupee
12-16-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Allies had low level killers just as deadly as the Soviets. Had a lot more, too.

Soviets would have trouble with their AF as well. ANY airfield that the Communists put up close enough to the front for their planes to reach it would have been in easy range of the Allied air forces, not so the other way around. Can you say vulching on a massive scale?

This wouldn't be like against the Germans, with not enough planes to effectively cover the entire front, slowly being choked to death due to a lack of fuel.

We're talking thousands and thousands of Allied planes, from single engined fighters capable of taking off from an airfield well out of effective Soviet range and going 400+ on the deck, to thousands of late mark, fast, maneuverable twins, to thousands of heavy and very heavy bombers. The 4 engined bombers flying at altitudes just as vexing to the Soviets as they were to the Japanese.

All attacking from every direction imaginable, from the south, north, southeast, and west, from land AND sea. An onslaught of steel from the sky that would defy description, going on at all hours of the day, unabated.

There would be ferocious dogfights and air battles early, then the allies would win the war of attrition, and roam about as freely as they did over Germany, after air superiority was wrested from the Germans in the killer air battles of Jan-Apr 1944. Only this fracas would be an order of magnitude greater.

Then the atomic bombs. Where do you want the first one?

Yes they had good low level kills tempest spit xiv etc could easily match la7s and such but the numbers were far less not far more, la5fns were around 10,000 produced, la7 was around 6000 then theres yaks il2s pe2s and so on. Rember allies would have to have airfields close to the front as well, sure p51s 47s even fully fueled spits could outrange russian aircraft response times would be terrible, why do you think the harrier was so popular despite its performace in flight was nothing stella?, because it could operate closer to front line troops than any other aircraft.

Airfield vulching would not win a war of attrition airfield attacks were very dangerous to AA alone loses would be high. Germans lost the war of attrition inthe east, they destoryed 10s of thousands of aircraft at the start of the campaign but they lost the ability to control the skies as early as 1943.

Most fighters would be tasked with cap and air supremacy roles, to stop the ground troops being slaughted.

The japanese had most of their aircraft destoryed, and bombers didnt have to fly over hundreds of miles of hostile territory

Slickun
12-16-2005, 10:00 AM
You don't have to overfly an airfield to do vulching. ????? You sit just out of range. Planes HAVE to slow down to take off and land. Allies were past masters at this.

So. You didn't say it, but the great unspoken is that only Tempests and Spit 14's could match the la's. OK. Sure. That's backed up by history. So, the allied numerical superiority in fighters doesn't count because of Soviet advanced plane design?

Bearcats. P-51 by the hundreds, all marks, running all sorts of advanced boost, most all capable of at or about 400 mph on the deck, P-47D, M and N models running high boost, P-38J and L's, F4U-4 Corsairs, P-80's, these would have just gone by the wayside before the guns of the LA's.

The Allies had enough planes to defend AND bomb the pee out of the Soviets. They would have taken the fight TO the Soviets, just like they did in the West against the Germans, and the East against the Japanese. The US produced 100,000+ fighter planes in WW2, and was just getting going good when the war ended. Thousands of orders were cancelled. US flight training was churning out thousands of competent pilots.

This countered by 16,000 LA's, of which how many were available, left, at war's end?

Allies win the air war, just a matter of when.

LStarosta
12-16-2005, 03:32 PM
Okay, I got a sweet idea... Someone make a sweet campaign with America and its allies, as well as Germany vs the USSR.

I think it would be very interesting to have 109s and 190s flying alongside P51s, P47's, Spits and so on...

Tooz_69GIAP
12-16-2005, 03:54 PM
Well, 109s and 190s would also be on the Russian side surely. They certainly captured a good number of airfields I'd assume, before they got to Berlin.

But yeah, a what-if campaign would be cool!I'd say, a campaign with IL-10s, Tempests, P-80s, the German jets on both sides, and the latest tanks on the ground for both sides, including the Tigers and Panthers on both sides, would be very interesting.

DCG would possibly make a good job of it. I'd say, start it on the Normandy map pretending that the Russians just didn't stop at Berlin, and surprised the west and steamrollered them all the way back to Normandy. Dole out the equipment that would be there, with german panzer units abd squadrons having joined the western allies, and the Russians having nabbed a bunch of the German stuff as well like the jets and tanks, etc, and fight it out.

I'd love to fly that campaign on either side in an online war.

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-16-2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
have feel that if need be russia be capable make high altitude engine as have lend lease p47/p-63 and have shot down many bf-109 so knowledge of technology be much available to. main reason no develop high alt fighter guess be that was no need so if america + other allie fight russia would no be suprise to see highalt versions of fighter appear if allie were to try high level bombing.

tank wise russia have advantage feel quite bit on number and type of tank
t-34-85, t-44 v sherman, firefly, comet

By this time the UK would have had the Centurion - not sure when the 20lb was introduced but even the 17lb could knock out Soviet armour at battle ranges (firing APDS)

Kocur_
12-16-2005, 04:37 PM
Well, 109s and 190s would also be on the Russian side surely.
Actually a number of Doras were used in operational air unit of Baltic Fleet:]

Daiichidoku
12-16-2005, 06:13 PM
i thik its important to remember what a beating the vastly outnumbering red amy took at the hands of the weremachct alone at the time, despite the fact the germans had to fight a two front war

imagine what a beating the reds would have taken had the western allies stopped at the german border, allowing germany to put full effort to tenderly minstrating the red army....

now if one puts the US forces in europe at the time into the mix....

US would beat the snot outta red army, hands down

considering the british/commonwealth forces would also become involved....AND the all likelyhood the germans as well


sorry red fans....they's woulda been sunk

jensenpark
12-16-2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
i thik its important to remember what a beating the vastly outnumbering red amy took at the hands of the weremachct alone at the time, despite the fact the germans had to fight a two front war

imagine what a beating the reds would have taken had the western allies stopped at the german border, allowing germany to put full effort to tenderly minstrating the red army....

now if one puts the US forces in europe at the time into the mix....

US would beat the snot outta red army, hands down

considering the british/commonwealth forces would also become involved....AND the all likelyhood the germans as well


sorry red fans....they's woulda been sunk

Yup...my point all along. German forces alone with Western logistical support (and no second front to defend) would have fought the USSR to an easy stand still - and then add in all the US/Commonwealth forces?
Again, consider that the USSR had a very, very tough time fighting Germany as it was - can you imagine Germany with full Western support instead of fighting it? All the lend-lease stopped and poured in instead against the USSR in a combined Germany/Western army? Would be a slaughter.

huggy87
12-16-2005, 11:02 PM
The americans and brits would have never allied with the germans in 1945. There was still way to much bad blood and housekeeping to be done. Everyone was sick and tired of war except for that kook Patton, who btw, wanted to shoot his own soldiers for falling asleep on duty and believed he was the reincarnation of cesar.

CornbreadPattie
12-17-2005, 01:11 AM
You all seem to rely on the B-29 for long range strike capability, but you forget that the Soviets had the B-29 too. Had an imminent invasion of the USSR been a threat, developement of the TU-4 would have been significantly sped up, and viola a long range bomber that would reach London, Japan, and North Africa! Also, the Soviets had great intel, for it was Truman himself who sincerely thought he was delivering "news" when he told Stalin about the A Bomb.

There is nothing that would prevent the Soviets from using German born scientists for developing very effective A2A radar for nightfighters. One more thing about that, you have to remember the USA used LOW-LEVEL bombing to finally get ANY result from the B-29. That's why they had to fly at night - for the same reason as the British! There is no way that the B-29s would have effectively bombed the Soviet Union without heavy losses. If they flew high to avoid fighters, which they wouldn't have fully avoided, they would have greatly missed their targets. If they flew low-level bombing from 12,000 feet, they would have had to face an air force that was deathly afraid of not producing results for their superiors.

You can destroy every Soviet frontal base and the IL-2s, La-7s, Yaks, Tu-2s, and Pe-2s would still take off and bomb targets since they were all designed for rough field operations anyways. Runways would have been repaired in under a week with forced labor if they were even important enough to save. Il-2s and Pe-2s would have been very tough to cope with and US armor would be introdicted and destroyed with greater ease then the Germans because of the weak armor. Remember that a Tiger and Panzer always showed their superiority over the Shermans in the battlefields when fuel was available.

No matter how drunk the Soviet, they would have counter striked as the first Allied strikes were enroute to land. Their alchohol tolerance is obviously higher so they would have flown better drunk. Ok this paragraph was a joke - so what.

A Soviet strike would be in the air just as a US incursion would have been detected. Just as soon as radar and spotters had detected a large mass moving towards Berlin, the Soviets would have their planes being armed. As the bombers flew over the front lines, the Il-2s and Pe-2s and Tu-2s would take off and make use of their runways one last time. The Il-2s would first attack all known concentrations of tanks and supply stations. The Pe-2s would attack rail stations and dumps. The Tu-2s would make fast attacks on airfields and they would suffer highest losses. The first waves would probably go unescorted as the fighters would be up against the B-29s/B-17s/B-24s/Moquitoes and their escorts. Then comes the Il-2 raids against the foward airfields that deliver close air support. The P-47s, A-26s, Tempests, Typhoons, and other tactical bombers would be at an immediate disadvantage.

Then the masses of Soviet troops pour in and occupy destroyed remnants of Allied positions. The Allies, headed by the USA, are quick to strike back with counter attacks by Shermans backed by rocket artillery. The next morning, as the Allied tanks attempt the retake their positions, planes roar overhead and strike at the lost positions. The Soviets take losses but the tactical war quickly becomes a low level war and the air forces are always at bay.

The A-26s and Mosquitoes always need to be escorted by the Mustangs. The Mustangs score often, but as more expirienced Soviet pilots are deployed near the front, the score evens out a bit. The B-26s are used exclusively by France as they are obsolete to the US and UK. The P-47's have a hard time with the Soviet armor, the Il-2's take more losses, but they are quickly replaced, seeing as how 35,000 have already been produced. The Il-2s are feared because of their armor penetrating 37mm cannon and their resistance to .50 caliber arms.

The only thing the USSR is outclassed is in the Navy. I think the RN, USMC ,and USN opens another front in the Black Sea. The Soviets have a hard time attacking the US fleets and succeed very little while taking heavy losses against patroling US fighters. Baby flattops harass the coast and take losses, but the FM-2s are a match for the low level fighters because of tactics and keep the Soviet intercepters off of the Avengers and Helldivers. The already unstable Crimean Penninsula becomes an area of concern and the Soviets devote reserves after a successful invasion of the penninsula. But then the US finds a way to bomb USSR production in Asia. A-bombs are strongly considered, but both sides have them by now.

The Soviet Navy, particularly the Black Fleet, are mostly in shambles, and the Soviet Union becomes fully isolated and the borders of Europe are shaped to this day. The war ends at a stalemate and the USSR is much stronger then it was in 1945, as is the West. The Cold War continues today.

The end.

Kocur_
12-17-2005, 03:00 AM
The Il-2s are feared because of their armor penetrating 37mm cannon
Apart from short batch of such planes, which proved to be unable to hit a tank and were moved to anti-shipping duties, Il-2s did not have 37mm cannons...

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:12 AM
Bearcats. P-51 by the hundreds, all marks, running all sorts of advanced boost, most all capable of at or about 400 mph on the deck, P-47D, M and N models running high boost, P-38J and L's, F4U-4 Corsairs, P-80's, these would have just gone by the wayside before the guns of the LA's.

Also don't forget the A-1 Skyraider was becoming available, and the P61C which made an excellent night intruder, plus various other RAF types - F.3 Meteor, Vampire, the Tempest II and VI, and Fury (which probably wouldn't have been cancelled), Hornet, Wyvern, Firebrand, Brigand, late Mosquito NFs, etc.

The UK did formulate a plan, along with the USA, to attack the USSR in July 1945. (Information released in 1995 under the 50 year rule in the UK). Churchill was very much in favour of it, being staunchly anti communist, and concerned about the future state of Europe. Most of the military top brass was not, and FDR and Truman were more concerned with the Pacific.

There were some interesting training films for the US occupation forces produced as the war in Europe ended which did suggest that the new enemy was the USSR. I remember seeing these in a series of WW2 documentaries shown on Channel 4 in the UK back in the 1980s and was surprised that they were shown to US troops just as the war ended as it shows that the cold war started pretty much immediately in some ways, even though it didn't hit the full chill until 1948.

Truman woke up to the potential Soviet threat relatively quickly with some interventions by the CIA in European politics, especially in 1947-8. The threat of expansion was relatively short-lived, though as by the 1950s the USSR was militarily very much on the decline. By the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 the USSR had only a couple of dozen ICBMs versus several hundred in the USA, and the decline continued until the USSR broke up.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:28 AM
One more thing about that, you have to remember the USA used LOW-LEVEL bombing to finally get ANY result from the B-29.

Medium level (not low level!) area bombing against Japan at night was more effective then high altitude bombing and safer due to lighter opposition. But the level of opposition dropped and the B29 had sufficient bombing aids to do high level bombing, and to a certain extent even at night or in cloud. It simply wasn't as effective as medium level bombing, but it wasn't ineffective.


A Soviet strike would be in the air just as a US incursion would have been detected.

It would likely be preceeded by attacks at low level by light bombers and fighter bombers - e.g. Typhoons, Mosquitoes, A26s, etc.

In any case an attack by either allied or Soviet strike aircraft would take many days to destroy even all forward airfields, based on the fact that in all previous engagements by Soviet or allied forces it took this long.


The Soviets take losses but the tactical war quickly becomes a low level war and the air forces are always at bay.

The USSR would probably find itself in a position of overextended supply lines relatively quickly. The USA also had long supply lines, but also had a huge reserve of supplies built up in the UK. The USSR was obtaining a fair proportion of supplies from the USA. Basically the USSR would have been in the same position as Germany was in 1941 against the USSR. Given the geography a thrust into Europe would be more vulnerable on the flanks, particularly in the Baltic.

Kocur_
12-17-2005, 05:30 AM
the decline continued until the USSR broke up.

In some areas soviet weapons were at times better than western. In some cases that was caused by lack of symetry: soviet anti-surface vessels missliles exceeded western ones by far until SU collapsed, simply because until 1970's SU didnt have surface fleet worth mentioning. Also until M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger, and also M2 Bradley or Warrior (earlier Marder as an exception), i.e. 1980, soviet AFVs exceeded western considerably.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:30 AM
The americans and brits would have never allied with the germans in 1945.

The reactivation of German divisions on a Western Allied side was proposed by Churchill.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:31 AM
In some areas soviet weapons were at times better than western.

True, but not really my point. Mine was more the quantity. If you look at, say, the number of Bears versus B52s, then you see the Bears were competent aircraft, but there were only a few dozen against hundreds of B52s. As Stalin said, quantity is a quality of its own!

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:36 AM
i.e. 1980, soviet AFVs exceeded western considerably.

I'd argue that the Chieftan was pretty credible too, especially with Chobham armour. The M60 was outclassed, though. The Soviet designs did have issues in terms of crew efficiency and fatigue (in part due to the low profile) and tactics were different.

Kocur_
12-17-2005, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In some areas soviet weapons were at times better than western.

True, but not really my point. Mine was more the quantity. If you look at, say, the number of Bears versus B52s, then you see the Bears were competent aircraft, but there were only a few dozen against hundreds of B52s. As Stalin said, quantity is a quality of its own! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt! Tu-95 was the only succesful soviet long-range bomber of post-piston era. Despite many attempts, they never managed to built truly inter-continental jet bomber. OTOH Khrushchev gave red light for conventional weapons, giving green one for rockets of all kinds. In fact a show of a missile tank destroyer, after which he shouted to some highest generals, that "normal" tanks made no sense anymore might have a lot to do with coup which threw him off 'the trone' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i.e. 1980, soviet AFVs exceeded western considerably.

I'd argue that the Chieftan was pretty credible too, especially with Chobham armour. The M60 was outclassed, though. The Soviet designs did have issues in terms of crew efficiency and fatigue (in part due to the low profile) and tactics were different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact Chieftain was the only western tank before 1980s, which was respected behind iron courtain, but numbers matter too...
Soviet tanks were supposed to be used en masse, in a short, victorious steam rolling, so keeping profile low was the main objective, regardless of crews endurance... They had enough ppl to choose short guys, not taller than 1,7m for service in tanks...

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:56 AM
Despite many attempts, they never managed to built truly inter-continental jet bomber.

The Tu-95's speed is fairly comparable with that of the B-52, but it uses less fuel, so it compared favourably. Suprisingly few were built, though.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 05:58 AM
Soviet tanks were supposed to be used en masse, in a short, victorious steam rolling,

The western counter tactic was essentially to let them do that until they were depleted by air attacks (possibly including tactical nuclear weapons) lack of fuel, fatigue, and mechanical trouble, and then counter attack.

Kocur_
12-17-2005, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Despite many attempts, they never managed to built truly inter-continental jet bomber.

The Tu-95's speed is fairly comparable with that of the B-52, but it uses less fuel, so it compared favourably. Suprisingly few were built, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt! Still they tried with jets, until succesful one, i.e. Tu-160. Tu-95 was produced in limited numbers, because of priority given to ICBMs. Bears were converted to be cruise missiles carriers, both vs. land and naval targets.

Von_Rat
12-17-2005, 07:13 AM
in this thread some people have mention soviet superiority in number of troops. i seem to recall that, yes they had alot more divisions than western allies. but as far as number of troops in central europe in may 45 they were not all that disparate.

im to lazy to check, does anyone have numbers for troops in may 45 for both sides.

WOLFMondo
12-17-2005, 07:31 AM
The USSR had more immediate access to troops though. The US and UK had man power but the US would have to transport extra troops from the US. The Red army could simply hop on a train and get to the front.


Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
You all seem to rely on the B-29 for long range strike capability, but you forget that the Soviets had the B-29 too. Had an imminent invasion of the USSR been a threat, developement of the TU-4 would have been significantly sped up,

The Tu4 program was speedeed up as much as possible anyway. There wasn't much that could be speeded up on the program and it still took them years to get it working. Remember as well it wasn't an exact copy when it came to the thicknes of the metal used on the skin. It was actually heavier than the US B29 so either less range or payload.

The VVS also had no high altitude escorts for them where as the USAAF and RAF had thousands of high altitude aircraft capable of escort or interception.


Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:

The A-26s and Mosquitoes always need to be escorted by the Mustangs.

There is nothing the VVS had in operation in 1945 that could touch a Mosquito, which didn't require escorts, at 25K feet or more.


Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
The P-47s, A-26s, Tempests, Typhoons, and other tactical bombers would be at an immediate disadvantage.

Tempest isn't a tactical bomber or ground attack aircraft. Its a pure air superiority fighter.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ForkTailedDevil
12-17-2005, 07:36 AM
I would be willing to guess that the Soviets outnumbered the allies in men by at least 3-1. Also the main reason that the B-29 was used in low altitude in Japan was because of the jet stream wa blowing them all over the sky and way off target. It made more sense to come in low under the jet stream. Also the Japanese lacked mid range AAA.

Another thought the allies would not have a problem with "liberating" white russians that the Nazi's failed to take advantage of.

Slickun
12-17-2005, 07:36 AM
One more thing about that, you have to remember the USA used LOW-LEVEL bombing to finally get ANY result from the B-29. That's why they had to fly at night - for the same reason as the British! There is no way that the B-29s would have effectively bombed the Soviet Union without heavy losses. If they flew high to avoid fighters, which they wouldn't have fully avoided, they would have greatly missed their targets. If they flew low-level bombing from 12,000 feet, they would have had to face an air force that was deathly afraid of not producing results for their superiors.

It is also important to remember why it was so difficult to bomb Japan from high altitudes. The jet stream wreaked havoc. Not gonna be a problem, obviously, over Europe. Thus the low-level decision.

There WERE effective high level precision raids flown by the B-29's over Japan. It took better training and planning, but that nut WAS cracked, eventually.

You would have had Lancs at night, by the thousands. B-17's and B-24's in the daylight, by the thousands, hitting anything available out to their max range, escorted by P-51H's and P-47N's, by the hundreds, and B-29's, by the hundreds, going past that. Every train depot, every road junction, every convoy, would have been under constant threat of air attack.

Anybody thinking that quick advancements in technology would have tipped the scales must balance that with the same thing going on in the West. Anyone thinking that the copied B-29 would have become available in time, WITH crews trained in the business of effective long range bombing, well, think how hard, how many tough lessons it took, before the West got god at it. The TU-4's would have been escorted by what? Same thing, getting a proper plane was one thing, geting trained in escort techniques totally another. Allies would be able to intercept the bombers easily, no problem with the P-51 and P-47 flying and fighting at those altitudes. Adding a bigger gun would be problematic, not requiring changes in airframe and training. Just a maintenance problem.

Allies win the airwar, just a matter of time.

MLudner
12-17-2005, 10:42 AM
Another factor to consider:
By May of 1945 20,000,000 Russians had already died in the war.

Before the war Dzhugashvili had butchered another 20 - 30,000,000.

425,000 or so US Military personell had died. That actually changes the numerical odds significantly.

Again, like it or not, the reality is US armament production would have cleanly out-stripped Soviet production. Soviet Doctrine, both in the air and on land, was poor.

Are any of you who think the USSR would of have won aware of how many Red Army soldiers died in a MONTH of fighting with the Japanese? When it came to mechanized warfare in the open the Japanese were not very good and even though they were steamrolled they killed over 50,000 Soviet soldiers in the process.
In a MONTH.

The US and British Armies were amongst the very best at mechanized warfare; only the Wehrmacht at its best was better, and even that is debatable. The M4 Sherman was a match by 1945 for the T-34/85 as they were being produced solely now as the M4A3-E8 variant with 76mm main gun using a rudimentary gun stabilisation system. With the idiot General L. McNair dead and gone HVAP rounds were now standard issue to armored units. Along with that the M-26 Pershing with its Tiger I thick armor and 90mm main gun was available in numbers. It has an advantage over the Soviet IS series tanks in that its ammo comes in one piece as to where the Soviet 122mm gun that armed IS-2 and IS-3's used artillery ammo. They had to first feed the round into the breach, then load the powder charge behind it.
In the air the VVS was still flying in 3 ship Vics by and large and their pilots are also on average piss-poor trained; the only pilots they exceeded in flight time before being sent to the field were late war Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Even the Luftwaffe during its worst fuel-shortage still gave its pilots more than twice the flight training that VVS pilots were receiving. USAAF and RAF aircraft were just as good as the VVS aircraft, but our pilots were - on average - far, far better than the VVS and that would have made all the difference in the air. Because the USAAF and RAF were so much bigger than the LW the VVS would likely have been swept from the skies in a stunningly short amount of time. With the LW the VVS just took its losses where ever the LW was able to intercept them and pressed on around them. Against the USAAf and RAF that would have been a lot harder.
At sea the Soviet Fleet would have been converted into corals if it even dared put out against the US and British Navies.

Still, it would not be an easy fight by any stretch of the imagination. Red Army troops were stubborn and tenacious fighters and their equipment, both in the air and on land was good to first-rate.

CornbreadPattie
12-17-2005, 01:52 PM
So OK, you choose to believe that Soviet pilots were never as good as Allies, but they score more kills. So we can just leave it the USAAF to single handedly destroy 35,000 IL-2s and many more thousands of every type.

The Soviets knew what to use for high altitude missions. This is why they had the P-47s and Spitfires. Their equipment was no worse then what the French were recieving.

Here's some proof of how the doctorine's of East and West collide. The US defeated an undertrained and underskilled army in North Korea, but then they were overwhelmed and pushed back more then half way when millions of Chinese, also with little training and possibly underarmed with obsolete equipment.

The Soviets would know about the forthcoming US tactics because of intelligence. They would scatter their resources away from cities. B-29s would be shot down in desperation by pilots, because if they don't, they could be shot for cowardice.

If the USA wants any hope at crushing the Soviet Union, it needs the element of surprise. By sending planes to destroy airfields first, they are missing the real threats and the vast Red Army gets thru in no time.

Soviets=expendable
Allies=exhausted/over-extended

WOLFMondo
12-17-2005, 02:38 PM
The VVS had a few hundred P47's and a few hundred out of date Spitfire VB's and some IX's. With no spares for either the planes or engines they would have been wiped out quickly.

As for B29 interception, at 25,000ft, would a Yak even be able to catch a B29? They'd just be cannon fodder for the escorts.

Daiichidoku
12-17-2005, 02:39 PM
bears would make a great starting point for another "guppy" type http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
12-17-2005, 02:41 PM
The <span class="ev_code_RED">'Reds'</span> have to stop thinking with their hearts and use the organ that is suppose to do the thinking.

Slickun
12-17-2005, 02:47 PM
Cornbreadpattie, why do you think top Soviet pilots got more kills?

How many IL-2's were still around in 1945?

Why do you think only B-29's would be flying around? There were thousands of four engined heavies besides the 29.

Say, check up on the Korean war thing. Was the UN driven back to the coast by the Chinese? If you want to use that as a mini-model, check out what happened after the initial Chinese push.

MLudner
12-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
So OK, you choose to believe that Soviet pilots were never as good as Allies, but they score more kills. So we can just leave it the USAAF to single handedly destroy 35,000 IL-2s and many more thousands of every type.

The Soviets knew what to use for high altitude missions. This is why they had the P-47s and Spitfires. Their equipment was no worse then what the French were recieving.

Here's some proof of how the doctorine's of East and West collide. The US defeated an undertrained and underskilled army in North Korea, but then they were overwhelmed and pushed back more then half way when millions of Chinese, also with little training and possibly underarmed with obsolete equipment.

The Soviets would know about the forthcoming US tactics because of intelligence. They would scatter their resources away from cities. B-29s would be shot down in desperation by pilots, because if they don't, they could be shot for cowardice.

If the USA wants any hope at crushing the Soviet Union, it needs the element of surprise. By sending planes to destroy airfields first, they are missing the real threats and the vast Red Army gets thru in no time.

Soviets=expendable
Allies=exhausted/over-extended

Indeed, a handful of extremely good VVS aces out-scored the highest scoring USAAF aces.
Why? USAAF pilots went home after 50 missions, VVS pilots flew until they died. I also said "by and large and their pilots are also on average piss-poor trained". Pay attention. A VVS Guards fighter regiment is a first rate formation, but they would not make up for the rest.

The Chinese attack pushed the SURPRISED UN forces back, indeed. You are aware those same UN troops recovered and stopped them, then pushed them back as well. And the Chinese had not just lost 50,000,000 or so people.
The NKPA (North Korean People's Army), BTW was anything but half-trained. You underestimate them. Frankly, they were a first rate army until they ran out of men and in 1950 they out-fought the ROK Army and the US Army.

1950, however, is not 1945.

To shoot down the B-29's you have to get past their escorts. Better trained LW pilots had a hard enough time doing it, and they had pilots with 100 to 352 victories.

BTW: Are you aware that the Luftwaffe considered 1 kill in the West to equal 3 in the East? That is why for the Luftwaffe Hans-Joachim Marseille is considered to have been a greater fighter pilot than Erich Hartmann; Marseille had 158 Victories, all of them against the RAF and Commonwealth. Hartmann downed 345 VVS aircraft and 7 P-51's. Thus, by the LW consideration Hartmann comes out with 366 Luftsieg to Marseille's 474 Luftsieg.

Do you think maybe there was a reason the Luftwaffe looked at it that way? Might it have been - just maybe - that they discovered fighting the Western airforces was a tad more difficult - say, about three times more diffcult - than fighting the VVS? Something to do with the way their pilots racked-up victories in the East, then went West and got shot down?

neural_dream
12-17-2005, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
BTW: Are you aware that the Luftwaffe considered 1 kill in the West to equal 3 in the East? That is why for the Luftwaffe Hans-Joachim Marseille is considered to have been a greater fighter pilot than Erich Hartmann; Marseille had 158 Victories, all of them against the RAF and Commonwealth. Hartmann downed 345 VVS aircraft and 7 P-51's. Thus, by the LW consideration Hartmann comes out with 366 Luftsieg to Marseille's 474 Luftsieg.
Now is that true, or is it some kind of urban legend? Interesting nonetheless.

berg417448
12-17-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
BTW: Are you aware that the Luftwaffe considered 1 kill in the West to equal 3 in the East? That is why for the Luftwaffe Hans-Joachim Marseille is considered to have been a greater fighter pilot than Erich Hartmann; Marseille had 158 Victories, all of them against the RAF and Commonwealth. Hartmann downed 345 VVS aircraft and 7 P-51's. Thus, by the LW consideration Hartmann comes out with 366 Luftsieg to Marseille's 474 Luftsieg.
Now is that true, or is it some kind of urban legend? Interesting nonetheless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think that was what Erich Hartman told his Soviet interrogaters in order to piss them off. I seem to recall reading that in "The Blonde Knight of Germany".

MLudner
12-17-2005, 03:36 PM
Sad, but true. Erich Hartmann himself says this in his autobiography.

MLudner
12-17-2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
BTW: Are you aware that the Luftwaffe considered 1 kill in the West to equal 3 in the East? That is why for the Luftwaffe Hans-Joachim Marseille is considered to have been a greater fighter pilot than Erich Hartmann; Marseille had 158 Victories, all of them against the RAF and Commonwealth. Hartmann downed 345 VVS aircraft and 7 P-51's. Thus, by the LW consideration Hartmann comes out with 366 Luftsieg to Marseille's 474 Luftsieg.
Now is that true, or is it some kind of urban legend? Interesting nonetheless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think that was what Erich Hartman told his Soviet interrogaters in order to piss them off. I seem to recall reading that in "The Blonde Knight of Germany". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CornbreadPattie
12-17-2005, 03:46 PM
Well you manage to try to punch holes in my posts, but what have you come up with?

MLudner
12-17-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
Well you manage to try to punch holes in my posts, but what have you come up with?

Try? Son, this is your argument now:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c312/PROXIMVS/ntrk082-192.jpg

CaptAce
12-17-2005, 05:34 PM
One thing no one has really touched on is war-weariness.

I don't think citizens of Britain and the US would put up with a prolonged conflict with a country they called an ally a short time ago. Plus, a mere 10 years ago there were strong, general communist sympathies in both the UK and US.

In Russia, Stalin would have probably been easily able to convince his people that the West was just as serious of a threat as the Nazi's were. This would obviously continue the tremendous fighting spirit the Russian people showed.

CornbreadPattie
12-17-2005, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
Well you manage to try to punch holes in my posts, but what have you come up with?

Try? Son, this is your argument now:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Old thing, your time has come and gone :http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ToFly/ca60_1.jpg

Dinosaurs will die, and when they do, we'll move into their homes.

Von_Rat
12-17-2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
I would be willing to guess that the Soviets outnumbered the allies in men by at least 3-1. Also the main reason that the B-29 was used in low altitude in Japan was because of the jet stream wa blowing them all over the sky and way off target. It made more sense to come in low under the jet stream. Also the Japanese lacked mid range AAA.

Another thought the allies would not have a problem with "liberating" white russians that the Nazi's failed to take advantage of.


hmmm you guys do realise that because of the huge losses ussr suffered their highest number of mobolised men , never equaled the germans peak of 10 million.

u.s. peak was 15 million.

now i.m pulling these numbers from memory, if i'm wrong please correct me.

now of course only a fraction of these were in cental europe in may 45. but i think this stuff about the overwhelming numbers of the red army is wrong.

if anything u.s. had alot more men under arms in 45. and could mobolise even more,they weren't all in europe of course. ussr was reaching bottom of manpower pool. u.s still had many more in their man power pool.

anyway as i said in other post, everybody was sick of war.

HellToupee
12-18-2005, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The VVS had a few hundred P47's and a few hundred out of date Spitfire VB's and some IX's. With no spares for either the planes or engines they would have been wiped out quickly.

As for B29 interception, at 25,000ft, would a Yak even be able to catch a B29? They'd just be cannon fodder for the escorts.

a few hundred spits, they received a few thousand, they reserved most of them for highalt airdefence.

MLudner
12-18-2005, 08:22 AM
So, Cornbreadpattie, basically, your argument is this:



!

SkyChimp
12-18-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
So OK, you choose to believe that Soviet pilots were never as good as Allies, but they score more kills. So we can just leave it the USAAF to single handedly destroy 35,000 IL-2s and many more thousands of every type.



The VVS pilots scored more kills for the very reason the Germans did - they fought until they couldn't fight anymore. Also, the Soviets didn't face the quality of German pilots the Western Allies did. In 1943, the Luftwaffe stripped its best pilots out of the east and moved them to the west. The best pilots the Luftwaffe had defended the Reich against the strategic bombers and their escorts. The next best pilots served in France and Italy. The worst served on the Eastern Front.

Frequent_Flyer
12-18-2005, 03:41 PM
The best pilots of any on the combatants of WW II were the USMC and USN pilots. Landing on a moving carrier deck, at night after flying in combat for hours, there was nothing like this experience on the Eastern front. The VVS had no answer, not to mention no plane that could fly for hours.

CornbreadPattie
12-18-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The best pilots of any on the combatants of WW II were the USMC and USN pilots. Landing on a moving carrier deck, at night after flying in combat for hours, there was nothing like this experience on the Eastern front. The VVS had no answer, not to mention no plane that could fly for hours.

I'm pretty sure the VVS has many planes that could fly for more then an hour. At least 35,000 of them.

luftluuver
12-18-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
I'm pretty sure the VVS has many planes that could fly for more then an hour. At least 35,000 of them.

Such as? The only one I can think of is the DD Yak and it was a dog like the Spit and Pony with the rear fuselage tank until the fuel was burned off.

OldMan____
12-18-2005, 04:43 PM
This would not be a war of planes!! Before Any B29 could take off in europe thousands of T34 would be rololing over empity shells of Shermans. At logn Run US might be able to stall them dur to less extenuated supplies. But the US soldier was worth a fraction of a hardened Soviet soldier at that time (nothign personal here, just fact).


How many LAND battles US won against an organized german army ? Germany didn´t even had one after D-day.

horseback
12-18-2005, 04:48 PM
Cornbread, I don't know how serious you are about your contentions, but I have taken note of your registration date, and find it thoroughly appropriate.

The Soviet Union may have built over 35,000 aircraft during the course of the war, but I doubt that all of them were on hand on VE Day. Similarly, I doubt that there were 35,000 combat-ready pilots available to fly them at any point.

Whatever the case, the Soviet air forces, even if the numbers were remotely even, would have been waaaaay overmatched by the same Western Allies who vastly overmatched the German air force that overmatched the Soviets qualitatively throughout the war. If numbers or low altitude performance became a problem for the RAF or USAAF, the low alt specialized fighters of the Naval air arms could quickly be employed, and as Low Flyer pointed out, they were the best pilots (as an organized group) in the world by war's end. The F6Fs, F4Us, and F8Fs, especially flown by these men would make a serious dent in the VVS' ability to support the Red Army's movements.

I could not imagine a scenario wherein the Western democracies would have initiated a war with the Soviet Union in 1945, although I imagine that if Stalin took it into his head that controlling a war devastated Europe and its starving masses would be good for the 'world revolution', he might have been able to convince his Marshalls and Generals to go through with it. Fortunately, he was of the opinion that Europe would join the communist ranks if he just waited a bit...

Democracies tend to be unforgiving with leaders who take even a little bit too much initiative of that sort, so the most likely scenario would involve a cascading series of misunderstandings and errors fueled by paranoia and hotheads on both sides. That would mean that both sides would start the fight more or less flat-footed, without planning or preparation.

Therefore, it was and is my contention that the Soviets had a good sized advantage in combat manpower in Europe plus the ability to apply even greater manpower sooner (for my Southern brethren, that means that they could get there "fustest with the mostest").

They would push rather easily through the relatively meager ground forces the Western Allies had on the Continent, simply because the Red Army had been less eager to 'bring the boys home.'

While America's overall numbers might seem to favor them longterm, they could not get the men and materials needed to stop the Red Army cold before they had control of most, if not all of the European continent.

I've taken a modern military transport ship across the Atlantic from Norfolk, Virginia to Carolina to pick up a batch of Marines, and then to Rota, Spain. It took about two weeks.

WWII Liberty ships were much slower than the LSD that I took in 1998, the logistics were much less organized (and the Army even by war's end was nowhere as well prepared to move their units by sea as the USMC is today). With the pipeline originally set to run the other direction, even more delays could be expected.

At best, the Soviets might be stopped at the Pyrenees and the Italian Alps, but even with control of the air, the West couldn't stop them from flooding into Central Europe and France by Fall of 1945. The big difference would be that they would have no ability to mount another Battle of Britain.

cheers

horseback

OldMan____
12-18-2005, 04:49 PM
Plese guys.. read some books about WW2 written outiside US and UK please.. the history told around the world is quite different than the one told there.

neural_dream
12-18-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Plese guys.. read some books about WW2 written outiside US and UK please.. the history told around the world is quite different than the one told there.
They've no idea.

The funniest and frequently annoying is that they think you are a victim of propaganda and don't know your country's history if you disagree with what they read in their books.

Anyway, the Eye-Ellers in this forum are about 80% so don't expect many to understand that. The Eelers will probably agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

note: Eye-Elle-Two, and Eel-Two are the two ways to pronounce the name of the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

RedDeth
12-18-2005, 05:44 PM
everyone here is TOTALLY forgetting how long russian supply lines were and how much longer they would become.

it took the americans on the opposite side of berlin for russians to even have a small chance of cracking berlin.

the pro russia posters here are VASTLY overrating the T34 tank and russia.

you forget the americans blew the tigers, panthers, king tigers to smithereens with our air support.

and we had medium tanks in europe that were much better than shermans.

if you think thousands of T34s would swarm across the american lines your hallucinating.

they would have all been destroyed by american fighter bombers. ALL.

the germans had better tanks than the americans and were fighting a defensive war and they got SLAUGHTERED by american air power.

so what....russians on OFFENSE over open ground in tanks would do better? yea right. horribly long supply lines and thousands of T34s are the juiciest of targets for american air power. or are the russian tanks supposed to move across all of europe in one day?

american air power could...

does ANYONE remembered what happened to the IRAQI tanks when they were caught on the road?

how about the german panzers in falaise?

russia could never and i mean NEVER use its combined tank forces. if they did they would be sitting ducks.

what the russian air force is going to defend them? they would have much further to fly than americans or do you need to see a map ?

russia had absolutely no chance and their armies were constantly hammered by the germans.
to the last minute.

russia would have lost every army they had in europe. they would have all been surrounded eventually and slaughtered.

why? anytime they tried to move they would have been attacked by fighter bombers. they would only have been able to move at night and hide during the day.

same as the germans.

this isnt a battle of online egos and nationalism. it is simple facts and history plays these facts out.

russia could not even come close to damaging american air forces so they lose. and badly. they had much longer supply lines than the germans remember.

jds1978
12-18-2005, 07:40 PM
my take: Either side could blitz the other and achieve a unified Germany. "Victory" would, however, taste like #$&* with both armies wrecked. Russian tanks (T34/85, JSII, etc) would blow western tanks away while the RAF/USAAF would lay waste to the Soviet tank formations. i'm glad we never had to test this hypothesis

Frequent_Flyer
12-18-2005, 10:09 PM
Posted Sun December 18 2005 14:48
quote:
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The best pilots of any on the combatants of WW II were the USMC and USN pilots. Landing on a moving carrier deck, at night after flying in combat for hours, there was nothing like this experience on the Eastern front. The VVS had no answer, not to mention no plane that could fly for hours.


I'm pretty sure the VVS has many planes that could fly for more then an hour. At least 35,000 of them.

It came without a warning and no one just knew, except the ones who were doing it to you. Looked all around, it came without a sound, there was no reason, no time, no warning, not a sign.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Thu April 01 2004

Listening and reading are both skills, the word is hours not hour.By the time the VVS reached 30,000 ft, they would need to refuel their disposable planes.They would be landing about the same time the B-29's were raining destruction on their airfield.

BfHeFwMe
12-18-2005, 11:08 PM
Field Artillery.

Western allies were the world masters at employing it in direct combat support. Battle of Berlin the Soviets were still employing it in traditional WWI line style. If airpower didn't decimate their armor, artillery the third triad of any modern western army in combination with armor and infantry would have.

OldMan____
12-19-2005, 04:46 AM
Dominating sky up high is nothing relevant to a land battle when enemy dominates down low. And Low level fighters were in much higher number in VVS ( count the number of tempest against the number of LA5 and LA7.. and stop to think tha LA7 was superior to any western low level fighter).

US would dominate up high, VVS down low... about a match, but with VVS having more chance to act directly on battle field. That is one reason why Red Army would be able to push US back at beggining while US tatics would have result only after some time. If US could hold until them, they would have a good chance, if RA had pushed them back to Paris, then they would have a hard time since there would be no more wermarch to help them, while tons of captured german equipment (that was not being used by germans cause of lack of fuel, pilots and drivers) would be able to be used at 100% effciency by URSS).


URSS supply lines would not be that over extended,remeber Germany greatest desire was to capture URSS supplies sinc with that they beleived they could defeat both US and URSS. If they beleived that, they knew that is was possible to transport it to frontline.

And please foget the A bomb, unless you start to think that as soon as one would drop in europe (lets just think liek US had a third one ready to use...), there ould be a couter attack with chamical weapons. At the end this would ensure both sides to be completely torn appart.


Wars are never walk in the park , no one could predict the result. When US/ONU got in corea war it was supposed to eb a walk in the park.. but what happened? When URSS got in Afeghanistan it was supposed to be a walk in the park, but what happened?


The only think you can be sure is that there would be Millions of deaths if that ever happened.

WOLFMondo
12-19-2005, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
you forget the americans blew the tigers, panthers, king tigers to smithereens with our air support.


Most were actually destroyed on the ground and not by air power and most of the ones blown up on the western front by airpower was by the Typhoon and there 60lbs hollow charge rocketshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. There was vast overclaiming by the USAF and RAF on tanks destroyed. More so than US bomber crews with German fighters.

Many tanks were simply abandoned because the logistic support had disappeared because of the 2nd TAF and 8th AF close airsupport going after the supply chains, which was the doctrine at that pointhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


Originally posted by RedDeth:

how about the german panzers in falaise?


The number of tanks at Falaise was limited. The damage was done to there support vehicals, horses, men and soft targets.

Some real damage to German armour was done around Pattons failed spearhead. German flak battalions failed to keep up with the armour and the Tiffies came to save Patton and slaughtered the German armour due to this. Had the flak been there it would have been a different story. Tiffies just turned up with 8 or 12 rockets, fired them liberally in to the armour, went home, reloaded and did this for hours.

CZ_Opitz
12-19-2005, 05:54 AM
If I can say something here...
All in IMHO..

Well, some of you are aware that there is some difference between tactical and strategic air force. And some of you also know that you CAN'T win war just with strategic superior air force. You must put your soldiers on ground and kill other ones.
But I am sure that Soviet Army wouldn't stand for long in Europe. Russians would never play this game with Alies. But, unfortunately for milions of people, Alies didn't believe in that.
USSR had one advantage - first battles wouldn't hurt their industry, their town and their people. I believe this is was secondary goal of pushing German to Berlin. They were on the run and they were "liberating" democratic(in their bolshevic opinion, bad and wrong systems).
OK... simply:

1. They wouldn't take a chance if Alies started big offensive as in Normandy.. USSR would suffer a lot.
2. Strategic alied forces would doom their sources on the way to Europe, also they would terrible hurt russian industry and so-so infrastructure.
3. Dictatorship as Communism is VERY STRONGLY centralised. If Alies would attack this "power" centers, whole USSR would collapse.(You could see it in 1991 when central power were weakened and USSR was just collapsing like card house)
4. USSR in 1945 had very BAD infrastructure... That's why Germans failed. Distances are just cruel and nothing between two bigger towns. NOTHING... Even today...
5. USSR lost 20 milions of people in this war. How many next they would sacrifice in the name of "homeland"?
6. Majority of USSR citizen hated communist regime.
7. There would be thousands and thousands of desertions in USSR Army.
8. Nobody mentioned yet V-2 rocket technology, jet engines, USSR lack of strategic air force and many others...
9. They would probably end in A-bombing some non-central russian town(s).

All together, USSR would collapse, bolshevics would be put to jails or hang on and there would not be any Cold War for next 40 years. But would it be better? Who knows...

Grue_
12-19-2005, 06:18 AM
The worst served on the Eastern Front.

Skychimp is that from a reputable source? I think there were many skilled German pilots on the Eastern front: Hartmann, Rudel, Graf to name but a few.

I'm just wondering if there was a policy in place to keep the good pilots on the Western front.

OldMan____
12-19-2005, 09:09 AM
If I can say something here...
All in IMHO..

Well, some of you are aware that there is some difference between tactical and strategic air force. And some of you also know that you CAN'T win war just with strategic superior air force. You must put your soldiers on ground and kill other ones.
But I am sure that Soviet Army wouldn't stand for long in Europe. Russians would never play this game with Alies. But, unfortunately for milions of people, Alies didn't believe in that.
USSR had one advantage - first battles wouldn't hurt their industry, their town and their people. I believe this is was secondary goal of pushing German to Berlin. They were on the run and they were "liberating" democratic(in their bolshevic opinion, bad and wrong systems).
OK... simply:

1. They wouldn't take a chance if Alies started big offensive as in Normandy.. USSR would suffer a lot.
2. Strategic alied forces would doom their sources on the way to Europe, also they would terrible hurt russian industry and so-so infrastructure.
3. Dictatorship as Communism is VERY STRONGLY centralised. If Alies would attack this "power" centers, whole USSR would collapse.(You could see it in 1991 when central power were weakened and USSR was just collapsing like card house)
4. USSR in 1945 had very BAD infrastructure... That's why Germans failed. Distances are just cruel and nothing between two bigger towns. NOTHING... Even today...
5. USSR lost 20 milions of people in this war. How many next they would sacrifice in the name of "homeland"?
6. Majority of USSR citizen hated communist regime.
7. There would be thousands and thousands of desertions in USSR Army.
8. Nobody mentioned yet V-2 rocket technology, jet engines, USSR lack of strategic air force and many others...
9. They would probably end in A-bombing some non-central russian town(s).

All together, USSR would collapse, bolshevics would be put to jails or hang on and there would not be any Cold War for next 40 years. But would it be better? Who knows...

You are making political assumptions based on much laters era data. At that time comunism was not hated by URSS people, half the alive population was already at the red revolution, and remembered the Tzar era problems.

If US attacked URSS.. URSS would fight to the LAST man (not if URSS attacked first).... USA would not....

And please lets not make this a political ideology arena.

horseback
12-19-2005, 09:27 AM
Grue_:

From what I've read in Galland's biographies, among other sources, the original idea was to use the Eastern front as a "training ground" for young fighter pilots to prepare them before moving on to Reich defense.

Unfortunately for them, the lessons learned in low alt combat in the East did not apply well to high alt combat in the West. It was found that pilots trained in the Western theater had much higher survival rates. Dozens of East Front experten were lost after transferring to the West 'to show them how it's done...'

Finally, the decision was made to keep the best of the East Front pilots on the East Front, where their skills were most useful, rather than have them have to learn new skills under fire, risking the loss of morale if they went down prematurely.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
12-19-2005, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
You are making political assumptions based on much laters era data. At that time comunism was not hated by URSS people, half the alive population was already at the red revolution, and remembered the Tzar era problems.

Then why the cheering crowds and thrown flowers when German troops entered Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Bylerussia, Lithuanian, all controlled by the USS? This did not last as one tyrant who had replaced another was replaced by another.

MLudner
12-19-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by CaptAce:
One thing no one has really touched on is war-weariness.

I don't think citizens of Britain and the US would put up with a prolonged conflict with a country they called an ally a short time ago. Plus, a mere 10 years ago there were strong, general communist sympathies in both the UK and US.

In Russia, Stalin would have probably been easily able to convince his people that the West was just as serious of a threat as the Nazi's were. This would obviously continue the tremendous fighting spirit the Russian people showed.

Good point. But, I did consider it. That is why I mentioned that the USSR had just lost 20,000,000 people during the war and a further 20 - 30,000,000 just before it compared to the US losses of around 425,000. The US was in a much better position than the USSR because the reality is that Soviet manpower reserves had been hard-hit as to where US manpower reserves were still strong. That generation was the last worthy generation of Americans and would have fought on if necessary. They were capable of sacrifice, as were the generations beofre them, in the name of the Republic and I doubt but little that they would have fought.
As to where in the USSR the was a great deal of disenchantment with a regime that had killed even more of them than World War II had. One of the crippling blows to the Germans in the East was the fact - mentioned above - that their leadership was just as bad as the Soviet leadership and every bit as tyrannical. That situation would not have existed when facing the US and England. The Western Allies would have represented liberators rather than just a foreign tyrant. When the Germans attacked the USSR - as mentioned above - they were viewed by many people in the USSR from the Ukraine to the Baltic States as liberators initially until the Germans displayed to those people that they were just as bad as the Soviets and came not as liberators, but as new masters.

MLudner
12-19-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Plese guys.. read some books about WW2 written outiside US and UK please.. the history told around the world is quite different than the one told there.
They've no idea.

The funniest and frequently annoying is that they think you are a victim of propaganda and don't know your country's history if you disagree with what they read in their books.

Anyway, the Eye-Ellers in this forum are about 80% so don't expect many to understand that. The Eelers will probably agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

note: Eye-Elle-Two, and Eel-Two are the two ways to pronounce the name of the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not surprised at Old Man, but you should know better by now.

neural_dream
12-19-2005, 11:59 AM
My comment was general in the most general of ways. I didn't read what OldMan commented on and I still don't care to read, 'cause the issue exists. The majority of Angloamericans have read only Angloamerican books in their whole life. Don't tell me you thought I commented on YOUR knowledge and range of books you've read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ; that would be ludicrous.

MLudner
12-19-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
My comment was general in the most general of ways. I didn't read what OldMan commented on and I still don't care to read, 'cause the issue exists. The majority of Angloamericans have read only Angloamerican books in their whole life. Don't tell me you thought I commented on YOUR knowledge and range of books you've read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ; that would be ludicrous.

Not specifically, but I am an American. Oldman might be surprised by the range and variety of books we have available over here. He should come over here and walk into a Barnes & Noble or Borders ...

neural_dream
12-19-2005, 12:31 PM
I understand but I've never seen any of the books I was taught in history class in any of the Foyles or Borders. They were never translated in English. The fact that there's a Romanian or Turkish or Greek section in those fantastic bookshops doesn't mean they cover anything of what Romanians, Turks and Greeks learn as history. It only means that they have a small sample of translated books.

Off-topic in the Off-topic: Have you read Churchill's World War II. Is it good?

RedDeth
12-19-2005, 12:39 PM
OLDMAN your comments about americans holding high altitude but vvs the low is flawed.

americans had the planes and power to hold all elevations of combat and with high alt comes air superiority.

vvs would have been bounced relentlessly by high alt. dominance. not to mention all our planes flying just fine at mid alt also.

the vvs airfields within any striking distance would be the first things wiped out by allied air power.

russian T34s were very effective on the russian northern tundra. now try using them to go from town to town across europe.

its a no win situation for russia. they would have been routed within a couple weeks with no food. no ammo. no parts. first thing that would have happened is theyre airfields and supply lines would have been annihilated by airpower.

if you could show or prove HOW the russian army would win against america britain id be surprised.

what is the range of the LA7? what is range of P47, P51, P38, etc etc.

russia would not be able to touch american airpower.

even in the wildest fantasy of VVS parity with american air force you will eventually have to land those VVS planes. and once they land the JABOS will come in and knock them out.

jabos...american fighter bombers. not to mention our medium bombers like B25s etc.

it would have been a field day.

OLDMAN please tell me where those VVS planes would land that fight the americans.

??????????????????????

horseback
12-19-2005, 12:47 PM
On the other hand, what would lead you to believe that the versions of history "taught" in other countries is more complete or objective?

I have read German, Japanese, and Russian authors, both historians and the memoirs of actual combatants, and have come to the realization that everyone has a point of view formed by their culture which always includes a huge blind spot.

In my experience though, the Anglo Americans seem to make more of a genuine effort at telling both sides of the story, questioning "official" versions and trying to differentiate between opinion and fact. That's very much a part of our culture; the belief that everyone is responsible for discerning the facts for himself.

Disagree? Read this English language thread and see the exchanges. Some of the stuff written here is grossly insulting to British and American manhood, and would not be tolerated if directed at other nations or cultures.

Part of the process of maturation is the ability to accept that even if a piece of information appeals to our prejudices or is simply different from what we were told before, it doesn't mean that it is correct.

The general run of humanity is quite a bit less than admirable; that is why heroism, accomplishment or virtue stands out.

It is also why when great men (or at least the people who have done great things) show any sign of human failing, some of us more common folks take such glee in tearing them down.

cheers

horseback

neural_dream
12-19-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
On the other hand, what would lead you to believe that the versions of history "taught" in other countries is more complete or objective?

I have read German, Japanese, and Russian authors, both historians and the memoirs of actual combatants, and have come to the realization that everyone has a point of view formed by their culture which always includes a huge blind spot.
Precisely


In my experience though, the Anglo Americans seem to make more of a genuine effort at telling both sides of the story, questioning "official" versions and trying to differentiate between opinion and fact. That's very much a part of our culture; the belief that everyone is responsible for discerning the facts for himself.
I don't see why, but I understand your belief. You feel it is so, and sometimes that is enough.

MLudner
12-19-2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
I understand but I've never seen any of the books I was taught in history class in any of the Foyles or Borders. They were never translated in English. The fact that there's a Romanian or Turkish or Greek section in those fantastic bookshops doesn't mean they cover anything of what Romanians, Turks and Greeks learn as history. It only means that they have a small sample of translated books.

Off-topic in the Off-topic: Have you read Churchill's World War II. Is it good?

I have not, so I cannot comment. There are English speaking authors who write much about what these or those peoples think based on what they have said. I have books where former Waffen-SS soldiers were interviewed for their views, for example. A good history always does that, whether you get it here or in Nepal...

jds1978
12-19-2005, 02:21 PM
ND: i've read bits of it....be prepared to spend the remander of your life trying to finish it...isn't his history of WW2 like 20 volumes + ?...i seem to remember it taking up several shelves at my public library

neural_dream
12-19-2005, 02:52 PM
I saw it as a beautiful very big black volume sold for 15 quid.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2005, 03:16 PM
russian T34s were very effective on the russian northern tundra. now try using them to go from town to town across europe.

Er.. the Red Army fought through quite a number of urban areas with them. Most of their advance was not through some Russian Northern Tundra but through either the steppes or the northern European plain, which is temperate and extends on to Belgium.

RedDeth
12-20-2005, 12:55 AM
true aaron. they did have to fight into germany. now what was their kill to loss ratio once they started fighting town to town and trying to cross bridgeheads into germany?

dont look it up you wont like what you find.

great tank but even in numbers it would only be effective against americans with bad weather and planes grounded. after that its just another target.

ImpStarDuece
12-20-2005, 01:46 AM
Russian tanks are hardly just another target when you have frontal aviation air armies flying top cover. Don't dismiss Soviet aviation just beacuse it didn't produce long-range escort fighters. The USSR produced superlative low-level interceptors, as well as exceptional tactical strike aircraft (Il-2, Il-10, Pe-2, Tu-2).

The VVS was a tactial air force, built around the requirement of supporting and defending Russian ground forces. It exists to defend it forces in the field and destroy the forces arranged against it. If you want to defeat the Russian army in the field, you have to get down low and play in the mud. So you are forced to enter an envelope of engagement favourable to the VVS. All of a sudden all those wonderful advantages of high altitude engines, amazing top speed and excellent range become far less valuable.

From D-Day to VE-day, there were 1,086 P-47s, 1,318 P-51s, 270 P-38s, 870 Spitfires, 663 Typhoons, 319 Mosquitos and 200 Tempests lost on fighter operations. More than half of all operational losses in the period were to flak. If you combine this tempo of operations with an airforce that has greater presence of numbers and concentration of force than the LuftWaffe could array against the western Allies, then all of a sudden, things get very difficult for the West below 4000 meters.

WOLFMondo
12-20-2005, 01:58 AM
Good points ISD.

OldMan____
12-20-2005, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
My comment was general in the most general of ways. I didn't read what OldMan commented on and I still don't care to read, 'cause the issue exists. The majority of Angloamericans have read only Angloamerican books in their whole life. Don't tell me you thought I commented on YOUR knowledge and range of books you've read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ; that would be ludicrous.

Not specifically, but I am an American. Oldman might be surprised by the range and variety of books we have available over here. He should come over here and walk into a Barnes & Noble or Borders ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not saying you dont have books there, but it seems you (not you as aperson) decide to not pay attention on anything contrary to your beleif. Having lots of books in a library doesn´t make anyone more wise. Reading them and trying to understand why all have different views does. Do you know for example that for many countries in world.. the inventor of airplane was not american? This is not an anti american statement, this happens with all sides, but Americans (maybe becaus of a media issue) seems to be far more affected by it.

Not saying other side is the true always, but never make assumptions based on a single side.

I read books from brazilian soldiers that fought alongside US troops in Italy. Theirs comments on US effectivness are VERY different from the ones presented in " US favorable books". I even knew one of them that ever called US troops cowards. I would not make his words a "law strenght" statement, he just probably was operating with a fairly low level US army group, but this just proves that you must see sources from all sides.

History telling is always made of a carefull selection of facts that interest to be told. Like fake mass destruction weapons (just an example). This happens all the time, on all sides.

All sources I have point that URSS had not even close of shortage of resources, contrary to yours sources for example. They had 35% of oil production in world at that time! Almost as much in steel... They only real disadvantage against US was that US was out of range for any enemy.

OldMan____
12-20-2005, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
OLDMAN your comments about americans holding high altitude but vvs the low is flawed.

americans had the planes and power to hold all elevations of combat and with high alt comes air superiority.

vvs would have been bounced relentlessly by high alt. dominance. not to mention all our planes flying just fine at mid alt also.

the vvs airfields within any striking distance would be the first things wiped out by allied air power.

russian T34s were very effective on the russian northern tundra. now try using them to go from town to town across europe.

its a no win situation for russia. they would have been routed within a couple weeks with no food. no ammo. no parts. first thing that would have happened is theyre airfields and supply lines would have been annihilated by airpower.

if you could show or prove HOW the russian army would win against america britain id be surprised.

what is the range of the LA7? what is range of P47, P51, P38, etc etc.

russia would not be able to touch american airpower.

even in the wildest fantasy of VVS parity with american air force you will eventually have to land those VVS planes. and once they land the JABOS will come in and knock them out.

jabos...american fighter bombers. not to mention our medium bombers like B25s etc.

it would have been a field day.

OLDMAN please tell me where those VVS planes would land that fight the americans.

??????????????????????

Just read " The last burst" by Peter Henn, a german pilot that was nothing pro german position. HE was always complaining about lack of german efficency. But he stated numerously that US carpet combing NEVER EVER had serious results on their stationed planes. They always managed to keep them hidden or just take off to another small field few kilometers away. In his words carpet bombing was extremely annoying but was completely innefective at a tatical level. They only had problems when they tried to face the US fighter s in 20:1 superiority. If germans coudl do that, VVS could do it too.

Ruy Horta
12-20-2005, 11:19 AM
ISD is one of the very few with a sensible take on the matter. If Anglo-American High Command had only felt half as confident as some in this thread, they would have taken the gamble.

CV TFs in the Baltic, US Strategic AF dominating the skies, T-34s being little more than targets...etc etc etc

What a wet dream, makes you wonder why the pussies didn't attack in the first place, things being such a cake walk.

Perhaps things weren't so easy in the Real World (TM) after all.

luftluuver
12-20-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
ISD is one of the very few with a sensible take on the matter. If Anglo-American High Command had only felt half as confident as some in this thread, they would have taken the gamble.

CV TFs in the Baltic, US Strategic AF dominating the skies, T-34s being little more than targets...etc etc etc

What a wet dream, makes you wonder why the pussies didn't attack in the first place, things being such a cake walk.

Perhaps things weren't so easy in the Real World (TM) after all.

And if the Soviet forces were that so much better why didn't they? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif So, who is having the wet dream? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Who has the OoB for the opposing forces in Europe?

Ruy Horta
12-20-2005, 01:41 PM
The primary question is if the US could have/should have pushed back the Russians not the other way around.

Personally I am happy that wiser minds prevailed on both sides.

No wet dreams here buddy...

luftluuver
12-20-2005, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
The primary question is if the US could have/should have pushed back the Russians not the other way around.

Personally I am happy that wiser minds prevailed on both sides.
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">for sure</span>

No wet dreams here buddy...

The question is: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">American Army vs Red Army 1945</span>.

There is no doubt the Americans, and the British forces, would have pushed the Russians back.

LOL, Ruy is let out of his little house (his board) and he becomes a twit (to be polite).

BaronUnderpants
12-20-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
The primary question is if the US could have/should have pushed back the Russians not the other way around.

Personally I am happy that wiser minds prevailed on both sides.
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">for sure</span>

No wet dreams here buddy...

The question is: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">American Army vs Red Army 1945</span>.

There is no doubt the Americans, and the British forces, would have pushed the Russians back.

LOL, Ruy is let out of his little house (his board) and he becomes a twit (to be polite). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes...AMARICAN vs SOVIET, since when is GreatBritain a state of US??

And there seems to be a slight overconfidance about the capebileties of Us forces at the end of -45 and a grosse misstake about the Russian strenght.

Do anyone seriasly belive Allied would have won against the Germans to begin with in -45 without the huge effort from USSR?

This "russian have the Us to thank for saving them/Without lend lease Russia had 1 gun for every 3 soldier" mentalety is redicoulous to say the least

crazyivan1970
12-20-2005, 04:05 PM
Apparently everyone forgets about 200k russian lifes that prevented serious trouble for Allies in France. If those panzer divisions weren`t reverted to stop breakthru of Konev`s tanks ....allied invasion would have been is big trouble. But nobody mentiones it on History channel or most of the literature. Who would want to admit that Allied command had to beg Stalin to help and that cost Russians dearly. If allies didn`t have the balls to enter conflict in Europe untill there was pretty much nothing left of German firepower... do you honestly believe they would survive several million army of men who fought for 4 years? Don`t kid yourself people http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Being proud and being objective apparently do not mix well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
12-20-2005, 04:17 PM
OTOH would there be a breakthrough if those panzer divisions, everthing best what was left of German land forces, werent transferred to Ardennes? A stick has two ends, as they say where I live http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There were no millions, and I seriusly doubt there were many hundrets of men who fought 4 years in Red Army...

A riddle: what was ratio between theoretical and practical number of soldiers in 1945 RKKA infantry division?
And another one: how thick was T-34/85 front hull armour?

crazyivan1970
12-20-2005, 04:23 PM
That was not my point Kocur, you perfectly understand what i am trying to say. But still, arguing for the sake of arguing... nothing new there.

luftluuver
12-20-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Yes...AMARICAN vs SOVIET, since when is GreatBritain a state of US??

And there seems to be a slight overconfidance about the capebileties of Us forces at the end of -45 and a grosse misstake about the Russian strenght.

Do anyone seriasly belive Allied would have won against the Germans to begin with in -45 without the huge effort from USSR?

This "russian have the Us to thank for saving them/Without lend lease Russia had 1 gun for every 3 soldier" mentalety is redicoulous to say the least

Did I say that GB was a state of the US. Use your brain, for if the Soviets attacked, their northern flank would be wide open to the forces of GB. The Soviets would have to attack the 'British' as well to protect this flank, for the 'Brits' would not stand by and let the Russians rampage over the rest of Europe.


Apparently everyone forgets about 200k russian lifes that prevented serious trouble for Allies in France. Apparently someone has forgotten what the western Allied AFs did? Several 1000s of AA guns, several 100s of 1000s of Germans that stayed at home that could have been used on the EF to impede the progress of the Russian horde.


Being proud and being objective apparently do not mix well Be sure, so why your pro <span class="ev_code_RED">Red</span> stance?

The Russians took 2 days to get 2 small bridgeheads across the Oder in the opening phase of the battle for Berlin with odds of 3:1 in men, 4.5:1 in tanks and 7.5:1 in a/c. The Russians lost 80,000 men killed and 275,000 wounded or missing in the lead up to the battle and in the battle itself. Two thousand Russian tanks were destroyed.

Russian Tank Corps - ~11,800 men, 300 AFV
Russian Mech Corp - ~16,300 men, 250 AFV


Who would want to admit that Allied command had to beg Stalin to help and that cost Russians dearly It was Stalin doing the whining. The <span class="ev_code_RED">Reds</span> forget the western Allies were fighting in the Med before Russians was even spilling their blood.

Snuffly
12-20-2005, 05:15 PM
all us americans prolly be livin in russia right now

SkyChimp
12-20-2005, 06:26 PM
The Soviets would have fought a Fighting Retreat until the western Allies were frozen and overextended, then they would have counter attacked. That's the way the Americans would have fought the Soviets in Alaska or the European continent. When you have a strong army and a lot of land to give up, you're probably going to win.

Ruy Horta
12-21-2005, 01:20 AM
Sense is back again.

Ruy Horta
12-21-2005, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
There is no doubt the Americans, and the British forces, would have pushed the Russians back.

LOL, Ruy is let out of his little house (his board) and he becomes a twit (to be polite).

1. There is plenty of doubt, if you use your brains.
2. No need to be polite, in or outside my little house I am often far worse than a twit...

So if it had been such a clear case, why didn't the Anglo-Americans move East?

For that matter, why didn't they try it when it was much easier in 1918/20?

luftluuver
12-21-2005, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
1. There is plenty of doubt, if you use your brains.
2. No need to be polite, in or outside my little house I am often far worse than a twit...

So if it had been such a clear case, why didn't the Anglo-Americans move East?

For that matter, why didn't they try it when it was much easier in 1918/20? I see you are a few cells short of the grey matter.

Ruy Horta
12-21-2005, 02:52 AM
Many more than a few...

EDIT:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/2766/REDSCA.JPG

BSS_CUDA
12-21-2005, 11:36 AM
I was reading the other day and ran across a bit of history I had forgotten about, we all talk about the soviet tanks being superior to the US tanks, and that was true with the Sherman, but what about the US late war arrival of the Pershing M-26? she was 45 tons had a 500 hp engine was capable of 35 mph and had a 90mm main gun. it entered service in jan 45 and saw service in limited numbers till the end of the war, we also had the 1945 version of the Pershing the M-45 with a 105mm main gun. how would these have done against the soviet T-34? as they were punching hole through German armor with the 90mm gun

neural_dream
12-21-2005, 12:03 PM
I've never heard of this Pershing M-26. Would someone give us a short overview, little history and a few photos? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I prefer GD from wikipedia http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

berg417448
12-21-2005, 12:21 PM
Here is a site with lots of photos of the M-26:

http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/armourreferencearticles/id14.html

Lucius_Esox
12-21-2005, 12:38 PM
Good point Cuda. Just thought of a British tank that wasn't to far away as well,,, The Centurian. I'm sure someone will come along and give exact dates etc but I think it was a very close thing. At the time it only (only lol) had the 17pdr on it but that wasn't to shabby against German AFS's.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 01:38 PM
From 3 pages back:

The US and British Armies were amongst the very best at mechanized warfare; only the Wehrmacht at its best was better, and even that is debatable. The M4 Sherman was a match by 1945 for the T-34/85 as they were being produced solely now as the M4A3-E8 variant with 76mm main gun using a rudimentary gun stabilisation system. With the idiot General L. McNair dead and gone HVAP rounds were now standard issue to armored units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Along with that the M-26 Pershing with its Tiger I thick armor and 90mm main gun was available in numbers. It has an advantage over the Soviet IS series tanks in that its ammo comes in one piece as to where the Soviet 122mm gun that armed IS-2 and IS-3's used artillery ammo. They had to first feed the round into the breach, then load the powder charge behind it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-21-2005, 01:50 PM
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix...

http://expage.com/tanksrus1

http://www.usmilitarymuseum.org/exhibits/OutdoorExhibits/JS-1.htm

MLudner
12-21-2005, 02:06 PM
Let me pare it down even more:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Along with that the M-26 Pershing with its Tiger I thick armor and 90mm main gun was available in numbers. It has an advantage over the Soviet IS series tanks in that its ammo comes in one piece as to where the Soviet 122mm gun that armed IS-2 and IS-3's used artillery ammo. They had to first feed the round into the breach, then load the powder charge behind it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The IS-3 was an excellent design. Battles between them and Tiger II's are interesting because the 122 cannot penetrate a Tiger II and even with its 88mm L71 PAK 43 maingun the Tiger has to get mighty close to punch the IS-3. However, the Tiger crew can fire twice as many rounds per minute, like the Pershing and its 90mm.

Kocur_
12-21-2005, 02:34 PM
T-34/85 front hull armour was merely 45mm thick! Not much of a problem even for 75mm M3, not to mention 76,2mm of M4A3E8. The only problem would be IS-2m and IS-3, but it wouldnt be worse than Panters and both Tigers in case of Shermans, and M-26 was at least a match for them.

On the infantry:

RKKA infantry division model 1942 was supposed to have 9435 men, while guards infantry divison - 10670. Thats the theory. Practically averagely infantry divisions had 2300-3000 men! Say, 63 Infantry Division on 15 march 45 had exactly 2486 men, and that includes both teeth and tail! One must realize, that while western allies and German procedure was reinforcing divisions constantly, soviet standard procedure was throwing freshly (re)formed division into battle, letting it bleed away, pull back survivors, form it again, and so on.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 02:39 PM
The literal thickness is 45mm, BUT it is sloped steeply to over 45 degrees deflection. This means its effective protection is actually 90+mm as protection doubles at 34 degrees slope. The Sherman has an effective protection on its hull front of over 100mm due to slope.

I have designed a WWII miniature wargame (2 of them in fact, one where each vehicle miniature is 1 to 1, but infantry are team to squad level. The other is for everything being 1 to 1) and so I have studied this topic very, very closely.

Kocur_
12-21-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:

The IS-3 was an excellent design.
Outstanding form of armour! Very good angles in the front hull, and great shape of turret! Still, the same drawbacks as in IS-2: low rate of fire, VERY limited amount of ammo, VERY little space for the crew. 122 gun was a mistake, 107mm would be more efficent.


Battles between them and Tiger II's are interesting because the 122 cannot penetrate a Tiger II and even with its 88mm L71 PAK 43 maingun the Tiger has to get mighty close to punch the IS-3.
Surely you mean a what-if scenario, for IS-3 was late for the war and was not used in combat.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

The IS-3 was an excellent design.
Outstanding form of armour! Very good angles in the front hull, and great shape of turret! Still, the same drawbacks as in IS-2: low rate of fire, VERY limited amount of ammo, VERY little space for the crew. 122 gun was a mistake, 107mm would be more efficent.


Battles between them and Tiger II's are interesting because the 122 cannot penetrate a Tiger II and even with its 88mm L71 PAK 43 maingun the Tiger has to get mighty close to punch the IS-3.
Surely you mean a what-if scenario, for IS-3 was late for the war and was not used in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What-if scenarios done in miniature on the 1/285th (6mm) scale. In April of '45 the IS-3 was available, but there is no record of them being employed in combat .... though there was, evidently, a single regiment of them in the vicinity of Berlin.

Kocur_
12-21-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
The literal thickness is 45mm, BUT it is sloped steeply to over 45 degrees deflection. This means its effective protection is actually 90+mm as protection doubles at 34 degrees slope. The Sherman has an effective protection on its hull front of over 100mm due to slope.


Sloping increaces protection of course, still 45mm even at that low angle was not enough. Also large driver hatch, mg mounting and shape of front hull/turret considerably weakened front of the tank. Late T-34/76 had 60mm there, but heavier turret and gun in T-34/85 forced using thinner armour - front suspension was already overweighted.

ImpStarDuece
12-21-2005, 03:04 PM
The primary US tank of the late 1945/ early 1946 period is going to be the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman. It has a good, long barreled 76mm gun, good mechanical reliability, but only average mobility and slightly worse armour protection than most other 30 ton class tanks of the period.

The M26 was engaged in a few combat operations from February 1945. Although more than 200 served with operational units by VE day, less than 20 actually saw action. While the armour thickness, shape and firepower were superior to the Sherman, the M26 was also considered to be seriously underpowered, using the same engine as the Sherman but weighing 1/5 more. There were about 2300 made by the end of 1945.

The primary tank of the USSR would of been the 1944 mod T-34/85. Its an equal match for the Sheman, with slightly better armour, a slightly better cannon (the S-53 85mm cannon recieved in mid 1944 was very slightly better again), better off road mobility but worse optics and inferior fire control. There were about 23,000 T-34-85s built in 1944-1945.

Apart from the heavy Is-2 and Is-3 there was also the T-44, the direct ancestort of the T-54. It took the basic T-34-85 capability, and repackaged it in a smaller, better desgned and more heavily armoured form. The glacis and turret armour was thickend out to 90-120mm, and the engine installation, running gear and gearbox were improved. While only 3 tanks were used as an operational trials unit in WW2 there were ~1000 produced before the end of the war. Despite the fact that the excellent T-54 was in service, mass production of the T-44 continued until 1947.

Armed with sub-calibre ammunition (5 rounds per tank, standard loadout from 1944) the 85mm guns on the T-34 and T-44 should be able to reliably penetrate the frontal armour of the M26 Pershing at ranges up to 900-1000m and Sherman armour at ranges up to 1900m. Using normal solid shot (11 rounds per tank) the 85mm gun will defeat Pershing Frontal armour at 500m and Sherman frontal armour at up to 1000m.

Using APBC The 90mm M3 gun on a M26 would defeat T-44 armour at ranges up to 1300m, and T-34 armour at ranged in excess of 1800m.

USing HVAP the 76mm gun on the Sherman would defeat T-44 armour at up to 800-900m, and T-34 armour at ranges up to 1800m.

The 90mm M3 gun is generally better than either the 76 or 85mm for armour penetration and tank to tank combat. Still, the better shaped and thicker armour of the Russian tanks reduces this advantage by a small amount. The biggest overmatch is between the M26 and the T-34 (around 900m overmatch), followed the T-44 and the Sherman (around 700-800m overmatch). All tanks were capable of killing each other with frontal shots within 800 meters though.

The M26 is not going to be a wonderweapon in a ground war between the USA and USSR. It will perform significantly better than the Sherman, but not significantly better than the T-44, which is its contemporary. Victory will come to those crews who are generally more experianced, better trained, at the battlefield in greater numbers or just plain lucky.

Keep in mind also that the Red Army had both anti-tank guns and tank destroyers armed with the 100mm D-10S gun, which could defeat all US armour at ranges in excess of 1 mile.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The primary US tank of the late 1945/ early 1946 period is going to be the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman. It has a good, long barreled 76mm gun, good mechanical reliability, but only average mobility and slightly worse armour protection than most other 30 ton class tanks of the period.


>>That is what I have said. However, its armor protection is actually better than it is generally credited with having been due to the fact that it was facing German guns, which were the best of the War. The M4, in fact, has better hull front and turret front protection than the T-34/85 or 76 as it is physically thicker and just as well sloped (Save for the turret). The effective protection for a T-34 rates at 90mm to the Sherman's at 100+mm.
T-35 is faster and does have slightly better (vs. E8, much, much better vs. previous marks) cross country mobility. These AFV's are evenly matched until doctrine and crew quality is considered.<<

The M26 was engaged in a few combat operations from February 1945. Although more than 200 served with operational units by VE day, less than 20 actually saw action. While the armour thickness, shape and firepower were superior to the Sherman, the M26 was also considered to be seriously underpowered, using the same engine as the Sherman but weighing 1/5 more. There were about 2300 made by the end of 1945.


>>There would have been many, many more had we needed them.<<


The primary tank of the USSR would of been the 1944 mod T-34/85. Its an equal match for the Sheman, with slightly better armour, a slightly better cannon (the S-53 85mm cannon recieved in mid 1944 was very slightly better again), better off road mobility but worse optics and inferior fire control. There were about 23,000 T-34-85s built in 1944-1945.

>>See above.<<


Apart from the heavy Is-2 and Is-3 there was also the T-44, the direct ancestort of the T-54. It took the basic T-34-85 capability, and repackaged it in a smaller, better desgned and more heavily armoured form. The glacis and turret armour was thickend out to 90-120mm, and the engine installation, running gear and gearbox were improved. While only 3 tanks were used as an operational trials unit in WW2 there were ~1000 produced before the end of the war. Despite the fact that the excellent T-54 was in service, mass production of the T-44 continued until 1947.

Armed with sub-calibre ammunition (5 rounds per tank, standard loadout from 1944) the 85mm guns on the T-34 and T-44 should be able to reliably penetrate the frontal armour of the M26 Pershing at ranges up to 900-1000m and Sherman armour at ranges up to 1900m. Using normal solid shot (11 rounds per tank) the 85mm gun will defeat Pershing Frontal armour at 500m and Sherman frontal armour at up to 1000m.


>>All the subcaliber munitions of the period tended to be inaccurate, and wildly so at ranges in excess of 500m.


Using APBC The 90mm M3 gun on a M26 would defeat T-44 armour at ranges up to 1300m, and T-34 armour at ranged in excess of 1800m.

USing HVAP the 76mm gun on the Sherman would defeat T-44 armour at up to 800-900m, and T-34 armour at ranges up to 1800m.

The 90mm M3 gun is generally better than either the 76 or 85mm for armour penetration and tank to tank combat. Still, the better shaped and thicker armour of the Russian tanks reduces this advantage by a small amount. The biggest overmatch is between the M26 and the T-34 (around 900m overmatch), followed the T-44 and the Sherman (around 700-800m overmatch). All tanks were capable of killing each other with frontal shots within 800 meters though.

The M26 is not going to be a wonderweapon in a ground war between the USA and USSR. It will perform significantly better than the Sherman, but not significantly better than the T-44, which is its contemporary. Victory will come to those crews who are generally more experianced, better trained, at the battlefield in greater numbers or just plain lucky.

Keep in mind also that the Red Army had both anti-tank guns and tank destroyers armed with the 100mm D-10S gun, which could defeat all US armour at ranges in excess of 1 mile.


Never said the M-26 would be a wonder-weapon, just available in numbers with one distinct edge over it's Soviet counterparts in rate of fire (not vs. T-34 series).

WOLFMondo
12-21-2005, 04:48 PM
Available in numbers? The US couldn't ship them to Europe fast enough to compete with the thousands of Red army tanks they would be able to field. If your talking the numbers game the US and UK loose big time. The USSR in 1945 had the unrivalled ability to press its entire work force into war production and forget those little creature comforts at home like US citizens were used too. The US had industrial might but it also had to feed a consumer capitalist society. In the former USSR things were very much different.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 04:52 PM
OK, before any of you on the Soviet side of this discussion continue to say my view is unbalanced because I am American let me say you are fooling yourselves. Sheath your arrogance and open your minds.

Though I am a patriot to my Republic, I do not believe its military or population is inherently superior to any other. I hold that people are pretty much the same anywhere you go.

The best combat infantry of the 20th Century, for example, are not US Army Infantry or Marines:
They are Australians.
The Waffen-SS is right behind them.

The most lethal army in World History to date:
The Ancient Roman Army from CAMILLVS to the Early 3rd Century AD.
The Ancient Iberians are right behind them.

The 5 greatest armies in World History in order of appearance:

The HELLENIKOI (Greeks), particularly the SPARTIATAI (SPARTIATES, sing. - Spartan Citizens).
The MAKEDONIKOI.
The Roman LEGIONES.
The Swiss Pikemen.
The WWII Deutsche Wehrmacht.

Each army changed the face of warfare in their times. Their opponents either started copying them, hiring them, or were flattened. That is why the Mongols do not appear.

Gee, the US does not appear on any of those lists. Mighty peculiar if I'm a "jingoist."

MLudner
12-21-2005, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Available in numbers? The US couldn't ship them to Europe fast enough to compete with the thousands of Red army tanks they would be able to field. If your talking the numbers game the US and UK loose big time. The USSR in 1945 had the unrivalled ability to press its entire work force into war production and forget those little creature comforts at home like US citizens were used too. The US had industrial might but it also had to feed a consumer capitalist society. In the former USSR things were very much different.


If you understood economics you would not be saying that. Study economics for a while from the ground-up.
Yeah, the USSR buried us over here. Kruschev was soooooooooo right.

Otherwise, just know in advance, I'm not going any farther on that topic.

neural_dream
12-21-2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong</span> The HELLENIKOI (Greeks), particularly the
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">correct</span> SPARTIATAI (SPARTIATES, sing. - Spartan Citizens).
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong</span> The MAKEDONIKOI.

Since you chose to spell them in Greek, let me correct you a little bit.
HELLENIKOI is the plural-male of the adjective. You meant HELLENES in modern (pronounced Elleeness. emphasis goes to Ell) or HELLENAI in ancient Greek. In all cases the emphasis to HE.

The same for MAKEDONIKOI. It is again the plural of the adjective for male. You wanted to write MAKEDONES (plural) or MAKEDONAS (single). In ancient Greek MAKEDONAI (plural) and MAKEDON (single). In all cases the emphasis to O.


In case I wasn't very clear, MAKEDONIKOI would be used in "Macedonian Wars" as MAKEDONIKOI POLEMOI, but not for people. "The Macedonians" would be "OI MAKEDONES" (modern) and "OI MAKEDONAI" (ancient).
The same for HELLENIKOI.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MLudner
12-21-2005, 05:51 PM
Now, the above being said so you understand where I'm coming from:

This discussion is entirely theoretical. Battle is always a risky affair and comes with no guarantees of victory to any combatant. Even the Romans, with all their verifiable competence on the battlefield took a licking or two .... some of them pretty big.

Numbers do not assure victory. They never have. Just ask the Achaemenid Persians. Were we all ancient HELLENIKOI debating our chances against the coming invasion by the Persians many of you would be arguing that we would have no chance; for how could we possibly stand up to the proven might of the great empire of KYROS HO MEGAS? Their population and manpower potential far exceed that of our peoples; all combined, even with all cities fighting together, is but a fraction of theirs. This is why many Hellenic cities Medized and sided with Persia and her Great King when the invasion came. At MARATHON a pathetically out-numbered army of HELLENIKOI handily defeated the first Persian invasion. Even worse, the second invasion under XERXES, though slightly more successful in that they at least gained one battlefield victory (THERMOPULAI) - but at great cost and only as a result of treachery - and burned ATHENAI to the ground still met with defeat when the Great King's fleet was crushed at SALAMIS and then his army was likewise crushed at PLATAEA and forced to abandon its campaign.

Quality is a better factor to have on your side than numbers, for though it will not guarantee victory it has been shown to be a better assurance of success than numbers.

This is where the Soviet Army and Airforces run into trouble. Along with that problem, numerically their edge was wearing thin and was probably actually nonexistent. Their manpower reserves are not infinite and were dangerously low in 1945.

40 - 50,000,000 Soviets had lost their lives in a stunning amount of time. This factor cannot be ignored when calculating the numerical odds.

US losses at the end of the War (AUGUST 1945) hit around 425,000.

The math does not look good for the USSR. The US still had powerful and deep manpower reserves upon which it could draw if necessary.

The VVS has excellent aircraft.
So do the USAAF and RAF.

Three vital factors, however, count against the VVS: Pilot Quality, Doctrine and Organization.

VVS pilots receive 75 hours of flight training before arriving at the front. This means they rate a Private Pilot License, but are not yet qualifiable as Commercial Pilots in civilian aviation standards; if that helps you understand the situation better.
The VVS is a Tactical Airforce with very limited operational capacity on the Strategic Level.
The VVS is still flying in 3 ship Vics by and large.

The USAAF and RAF give their pilots a MINIMUM of 250 hours of flight training before sending them to the front.
The USAAF and RAF are both Tactical and Strategic airforces that operate well at both levels.
The USAAF and RAF are employing the proven superior Schwarm / Finger Four formation and methods.

(I am out of time here, but I will continue as soon as I am able)

MLudner
12-21-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong</span> The HELLENIKOI (Greeks), particularly the
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">correct</span> SPARTIATAI (SPARTIATES, sing. - Spartan Citizens).
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong</span> The MAKEDONIKOI.

Since you chose to spell them in Greek, let me correct you a little bit.
HELLENIKOI is the plural-male of the adjective. You meant HELLENES in modern (pronounced Elleeness. emphasis goes to Ell) or HELLENAI in ancient Greek. In all cases the emphasis to HE.

The same for MAKEDONIKOI. It is again the plural of the adjective for male. You wanted to write MAKEDONES (plural) or MAKEDONAS (single). In ancient Greek MAKEDONAI (plural) and MAKEDON (single). In all cases the emphasis to O.


In case I wasn't very clear, MAKEDONIKOI would be used in "Macedonian Wars" as MAKEDONIKOI POLEMOI, but not for people. "The Macedonians" would be "OI MAKEDONES" (modern) and "OI MAKEDONAI" (ancient).
The same for HELLENIKOI.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not according to the ancient Hellenic authors I am reading, but probably correct on the MAKEDONES as I could not look that up in advance.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 05:58 PM
In HELLENIKOS it would appear like 'ELLENIKOS. The pronounciation is Hel-lay-nih(or nee, mattering on a long or short iota)-kohss (It's an OMEGA between KAPPA and SIGMA, which surprised me).

The ' at the beginning is an aspiration and sounds as an H. The first E is an EPSILON (eh) and the second was an ETA (ay).

geetarman
12-21-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
My comment was general in the most general of ways. I didn't read what OldMan commented on and I still don't care to read, 'cause the issue exists. The majority of Angloamericans have read only Angloamerican books in their whole life. Don't tell me you thought I commented on YOUR knowledge and range of books you've read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ; that would be ludicrous.

Not specifically, but I am an American. Oldman might be surprised by the range and variety of books we have available over here. He should come over here and walk into a Barnes & Noble or Borders ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not saying you dont have books there, but it seems you (not you as aperson) decide to not pay attention on anything contrary to your beleif. Having lots of books in a library doesn´t make anyone more wise. Reading them and trying to understand why all have different views does. Do you know for example that for many countries in world.. the inventor of airplane was not american? This is not an anti american statement, this happens with all sides, but Americans (maybe becaus of a media issue) seems to be far more affected by it.

Not saying other side is the true always, but never make assumptions based on a single side.

I read books from brazilian soldiers that fought alongside US troops in Italy. Theirs comments on US effectivness are VERY different from the ones presented in " US favorable books". I even knew one of them that ever called US troops cowards. I would not make his words a "law strenght" statement, he just probably was operating with a fairly low level US army group, but this just proves that you must see sources from all sides.

History telling is always made of a carefull selection of facts that interest to be told. Like fake mass destruction weapons (just an example). This happens all the time, on all sides.

All sources I have point that URSS had not even close of shortage of resources, contrary to yours sources for example. They had 35% of oil production in world at that time! Almost as much in steel... They only real disadvantage against US was that US was out of range for any enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One man's (cultures?) coward is another man's smart soldier. Point of view is everything. Each nation and culture has their own way of defining courage, inteligence, prowess, etc. Grow old in this world and you begin to realize this. I'm, frankly, not surprised a professional Brazilian soldier might not be impressed with an American Army group. On the other hand, interview the Yanks.

geetarman
12-21-2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
OLDMAN your comments about americans holding high altitude but vvs the low is flawed.

americans had the planes and power to hold all elevations of combat and with high alt comes air superiority.

vvs would have been bounced relentlessly by high alt. dominance. not to mention all our planes flying just fine at mid alt also.

the vvs airfields within any striking distance would be the first things wiped out by allied air power.

russian T34s were very effective on the russian northern tundra. now try using them to go from town to town across europe.

its a no win situation for russia. they would have been routed within a couple weeks with no food. no ammo. no parts. first thing that would have happened is theyre airfields and supply lines would have been annihilated by airpower.

if you could show or prove HOW the russian army would win against america britain id be surprised.

what is the range of the LA7? what is range of P47, P51, P38, etc etc.

russia would not be able to touch american airpower.

even in the wildest fantasy of VVS parity with american air force you will eventually have to land those VVS planes. and once they land the JABOS will come in and knock them out.

jabos...american fighter bombers. not to mention our medium bombers like B25s etc.

it would have been a field day.

OLDMAN please tell me where those VVS planes would land that fight the americans.

??????????????????????

Just read " The last burst" by Peter Henn, a german pilot that was nothing pro german position. HE was always complaining about lack of german efficency. But he stated numerously that US carpet combing NEVER EVER had serious results on their stationed planes. They always managed to keep them hidden or just take off to another small field few kilometers away. In his words carpet bombing was extremely annoying but was completely innefective at a tatical level. They only had problems when they tried to face the US fighter s in 20:1 superiority. If germans coudl do that, VVS could do it too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The point is, when they faced 20 to 1, they lost their shirts!

neural_dream
12-21-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
In HELLENIKOS it would appear like 'ELLENIKOS. The pronounciation is Hel-lay-nih(or nee, mattering on a long or short iota)-kohss (It's an OMEGA between KAPPA and SIGMA, which surprised me).1
The ' at the beginning is an aspiration and sounds as an H. The first E is an EPSILON (eh) and the second was an ETA (ay).
MLudner I'm fluent in Ancient Greek. I don't have doubts about the corrections. Tell me, where can I find a text with HELLENIKOI instead of HELLENES for Greeks? I'll read it through print.google.com if you tell me. Preferrably something not very difficult to find in the original for comparison.
I admire the fact that you write in Greek and Latin what is Greek and Latin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. I suppose you pronounce IL-2 as eel-dva, like CrazyIvan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

MLudner
12-21-2005, 09:45 PM
Not that I doubt your word, but-
so was AILIANOU, and he is my source. I read transliterations from the Loeb Classical Library (The Internet is so great in this regard! I can now purchase them straight from the Harvard University Press, no more special ordering them and waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting) and I found a case where the word was definitely in the nominative singular and speaking of the HELLENIKOI as a people, then looked at the original text.
It was this:
(aspiration) EPSILON LAMBDA LAMBDA ETA NU IOTA KAPPA OMEGA SIGMA
(I tried to do that in the Hellenic Alphabet by using a font called Hellas in MS Word and copying and pasting, but - predictably - it did not work. The closest I can get in the Latin Alphabet is 'ELLHNIKOS).

I don't think that it's that you're technically wrong, just dialectically. Unless you can tell me why AILIANOU would be using HELLENIKOS in that context, rather than HELLENES, of course.

I will not pretend I am fluent in Classical HELLENIKOS, I am much better with LATINVM. I can read their Alphabet and understand a very finite vocabulary from memory, but while with LATINVM I can translate pretty much anything put in front of me and even construct simple sentences from memory (My goal is to eventually be conversationally fluent, but I'm not there yet) with HELLENIKOS it is much harder for me.

And, thank you. I always try to get as close as I can in every language I deal with. I am not the only one here, I trust, who esteems your in-put .... even when I disagree.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MLudner
12-21-2005, 10:09 PM
Sorry, I just got it.
Adjectives can be used for nouns. This occurs both in LATINVM and HELLENIKOS, and that is why AILIANOU used it in that way.

However, I just discovered that KAPPA OMEGA SIGMA is an adverbial form meaning "in Greek manner". KAPPA OMIKRON SIGMA is the adjectival form. I'll be more careful with my HELLENIKOS in the future.

We're both right.

neural_dream
12-21-2005, 11:10 PM
I will not insist more on Hellenikos, cause at the moment I can't find Ailianou's text on the web, but since you can read Greek in Latin alphabet, you might like the following:

ancient Greek:
`ELLHN - Greek (man)
ELLHN`IS - Greek (woman)
`ELLHNAI - Greeks (men, or generally)
ELLHN`IDAI - Greeks (women)
ELLHNIK`OS / ELLHNIK`HN / ELLHNIK`ON - Greek (the adjective for male / female / neutral nouns)
ELLHNIK`WS - Greek (adverb)
(I used W for omega and ` for the aspiration).

modern Greek is very similar (ELLHNAS, ELLHNIDA, ELLHNES, ELLHNIDES, ELLHNIKOS/ELLHNIKH/ELLHNIKO, ELLHNIKA)


Although I will not insist about HELLENIKOI, the common way in English is HELLENES or in Greek with Latin characters ELLHNES. You can google the two to see. Not that google is a linguistic tool, but gives an idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

I suck in Latin btw; I have to call my sister for simple translations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. Maybe I could use you instead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Not that I ever read anything Latin nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

RedDeth
12-22-2005, 01:29 AM
people seem to be comparing german fighter pilots to russian.

germans faced 20 to 1 odds so they lost...um..yea right. at what time? end of war.

russian fighter pilots were NEVER as good as german as a whole. thats fact.

do not try to compare german american air war to a hypothetical russian american air war.

germans were much better trained and had way better tactics...

too much b.s. is being tossed around here about russian superiority in air and on ground. russia used massed armies and pilots to succeed. they had aces but those were the exceptions not the norm.

as i stated but did not specify the M26 Pershing could go head to head with the T3485 TANK. and win every time russian T34-85S were not in the same league as the pershing...btw the american pershing was only a medium tank.


oh and impstarduece you completely ignore the MAJOR fact of the VVS. any vvs planes would have to land. they could never ever support their armies. as if they were in range to support their armies the americans would level every airfield they had. unlike the germans who could not as they fought a two front war with mainly me109s with very very very short range.

now substitute american long range fighters for german short range point defense fighters and every word you typed impstarduece becomes moot as they wont have an airfield in range to take off from....

please reply.

thanks

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 02:29 AM
What do you think would happen if 500 9th AF P47's tried to do a Boddenplate style attack against the VVS? They would be massacred by masses of light, high performance low and medium altitude fighters that way exceed the performance of the P47 on the deck.

If any lessons were learned from WW2 strategic bombing was a failure against airfields in Germany. High altitude superiority would mean very little apart from strategic bombing against cities, which by the way would have to cease for large amounts of the year due to severe winters, like against Hitler the USSR would use this 6 month gap in bombing to ramp there industry up and transport men and machines to the fronts knowing bad weather is on there side.

The VVS didn't send guys home after 25 missions, they kept them on the front until they died or the war ended. Thats how you get aces with 60+ killshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. While there doctrine was different, stratergy was poor, VVS pilots were neither bad nor poorly trained. They were surrounded by experianced pilots, motivated by communist propaganda and fear of being shot for disobeying.

Theres no BS there. ANd you have to compare the Allies vs the Germans because you have to look at lessons learned from that and apply them to new situations and potentially adopt tactics your enemy once used.

ImpStarDuece
12-22-2005, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:

as i stated but did not specify the M26 Pershing could go head to head with the T3485 TANK. and win every time russian T34-85S were not in the same league as the pershing...btw the american pershing was only a medium tank.

First of all, no tank can go up against another and win EVERY time. Absolutism has no place in combat. Chance, luck, skill, situation all play their part as much as the relative capabilities of the tank. Wars are not fought head on, on billiard table smooth battlegrounds, at maximum engagement ranges. Shermans took out Tigers, Pz IIIs took out Matildas, PzIVs took out IS-2s. As the T-34-85 was capable of relaibly penetrating the frontal armour of a Pershing at excess of 900m I'd say that the Pershing was still vulnerable to the T-34-85, unless you believe that all combats occured in excess of this range and were solely frontal engagemnets.

Secondly, the Red Army has the T-44 medium tank available to it with ~1000 completed by the end of 1945. It is much more of a contemporary to the Pershing than the T-34-85, which is much more readily comprable to the T-34. Additionally, you have to consider the presence of the IS-2 and Is-3 heavy tanks, and the specialised heavy tank destroyers with guns of 100mm, 122mm and 152mm calibre. Any and all of which are capable of defeating Pershing frontal arour in excess of 1500m.



oh and impstarduece you completely ignore the MAJOR fact of the VVS. any vvs planes would have to land. they could never ever support their armies. as if they were in range to support their armies the americans would level every airfield they had. unlike the germans who could not as they fought a two front war with mainly me109s with very very very short range.
now substitute american long range fighters for german short range point defense fighters and every word you typed impstarduece becomes moot as they wont have an airfield in range to take off from....

please reply.

thanks

I don't quite follow your logic on this point. Are you seriously suggesting that an airforce built around tactical requirements, flying aircraft designed to be tactical fighters, interceptors and bombers, couldn't fly short range CAP barrier patrols to protect both the Red Army and its own airfields? Surely its not an either/or choice between protecting their local assets and flying cover for the Red Army. The VVS had dedicated "Frontovaya Aviatsiya" (frontal Aviation) designed to establish and maintain local air superiority over the front, as well as provide close air support. It also had a completely seperate branch, the "Voyska protivovozdushnoy oborony" (Air Defense Forces) which was exclusively focused on interception and air defence. Two seperate organisations with two seperate tasks. Local air defence is a SPECIALITY branch of the VVS.

Are you suggesting that the Western Allies could launch an operation against the VVS in 1945 similar in style to the devestating Barbarossa operation of 1942, destroying all their airfields and fighters in a massive operation? That Allied long range airpower could instantaneously eliminate several hundred fighter, interceptor, fighter bomber and bomber squadrons (or at the least in a very short amount of time)? I doubt that a battle hardened, modernly equipped VVS would be caught the same way as it was in 1942. It took the combined US and British airforces at least 2 years of maximum effort to effectively nullify the LuftWaffe, an airforce split between three fronts and well outnumbered on all of them? Suddenly, long ranged US fighters are going to eliminate well over 3000 front line fighters and an equal number of fighter-bombers and tactical strike bombers. Long range is not a broom that allows you to sweep away enemy fighters and bombers with no risk to your own planes. Ground straffers and bombers face flak and interceptors, whether they can fly 2000 kilometers or 200 kilometers.

I tend to agree with the general opinion that the Western Allies would of won air-superiority in a hypothetical East vs West scenario. However, given the period of time required to defeat numerically inferior and similarly outranged German and Italian airforces in WW2, I submit that it would of been a long, bitter and drawn out contest of attrition, not the simple, sweeping victory that you are proposing. Given the size, experiance, organisation and level of expertise displayed by the VVS in 1945, no airforce on the globe would have had an easy time against them. Initially they face a large, well organised, well supplied and experianced fighter force. Somehow they are going to have to combat that.

The Western Allies are going to face a similar problem to the VVS if they want to support their armies in the field with tactical airpower. They are going to have to operate fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft from foward airfields in order to provide effective tactical support to ground forces. Its no good having your fighter bomber forces located 200-300 kilometers behind the front-line. Instead, it is better to have aircraft 50 kilometers or less from the front. This way interceptors will have time to react quickly to intrusions of enemy airpower over the front and fighter-bombers don't have to fly for 1-2 hours just to find that the situation on the front has changed. In order for tactical airpower to be effective, it will have to be placed in close proximity to the front. Effective CAS isnt going to happen if you rely soley on long-range strategic airpower.

Throughout WW2 the VVS showed remarkable resiliance and courage facing opponents which often outclassed and out numbered them, replacing technical brilliance with individual determination, courage, adaptability and skill. I have no doubt that they would of been just as difficult and dangerous opponent as the LuftWaffe, if not on an individual basis, but at the very least as an organisation.

nakamura_kenji
12-22-2005, 06:21 AM
as i stated but did not specify the M26 Pershing could go head to head with the T3485 TANK. and win every time russian T34-85S were not in the same league as the pershing...btw the american pershing was only a medium tank.

forget much about is-2/is-3 also want use pershing as american tank v t-34-85 which be unlikly as most comman american tank be m4 and want pershing would take large amount time come america. russia also begin enter golden 2nd genration tank design "t-54/t-55/t-62" as t-44(basic early t-54 with t-34-85 turret) was ready use had be kep from use ww2 as t-34-85+is-2 were do well enough would have mean need retrain crew/maintence ect but need could be use

america best tank be pershing but time take get large amount them theatre be long and russia be able easily reinforce armour to cope best hope for be armour stalement

MLudner
12-22-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
I will not insist more on Hellenikos, cause at the moment I can't find Ailianou's text on the web, but since you can read Greek in Latin alphabet, you might like the following:

ancient Greek:
`ELLHN - Greek (man)
ELLHN`IS - Greek (woman)
`ELLHNAI - Greeks (men, or generally)
ELLHN`IDAI - Greeks (women)
ELLHNIK`OS / ELLHNIK`HN / ELLHNIK`ON - Greek (the adjective for male / female / neutral nouns)
ELLHNIK`WS - Greek (adverb)
(I used W for omega and ` for the aspiration).

modern Greek is very similar (ELLHNAS, ELLHNIDA, ELLHNES, ELLHNIDES, ELLHNIKOS/ELLHNIKH/ELLHNIKO, ELLHNIKA)


Although I will not insist about HELLENIKOI, the common way in English is HELLENES or in Greek with Latin characters ELLHNES. You can google the two to see. Not that google is a linguistic tool, but gives an idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

I suck in Latin btw; I have to call my sister for simple translations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. Maybe I could use you instead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Not that I ever read anything Latin nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.

I do not doubt that you are technically correct. In fact, at the moment I am inclined on further reflection to think I misunderstood AILIANOU's context (BTW: try using Aelian. That is the Anglicized version of the Latin version of his name). He may have saying "in a Greek manner" or some such that I would have taken that for a Nominative-Singular use when in `ELLHNIKOS it was an adverb. It would take some time to hunt it down in his Historical Miscellainy where I encountered it.

Thank you for the help with my `ELLHNIKOS (W is a good way to represent OMEGA and I will use it henceforth). If you ever wish any help with LATINVM just ask.

crazyivan1970
12-22-2005, 11:04 AM
@RedDeah... to completely destroy airfield you have to find it first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, wars won on the ground...at least back then. Do you honeslty believe that heavy american fighters could provide close support to their troops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif without being eaten alive by Yaks and La`s

About russian pilots... i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark on you.... Oh wait, you still think that 8th Airforce put the end of Luftwaffe... pardon my ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
12-22-2005, 11:15 AM
Poltava...

crazyivan1970
12-22-2005, 11:17 AM
And?

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
@RedDeah... to completely destroy airfield you have to find it first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, wars won on the ground...at least back then. Do you honeslty believe that heavy american fighters could provide close support to their troops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif without being eaten alive by Yaks and La`s

About russian pilots... i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark on you.... Oh wait, you still think that 8th Airforce put the end of Luftwaffe... pardon my ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ivan what airfields would the Soviets be using? Most, if not all, known old German airfields were known.

this chart says the Western did.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/thtrloss.gif

i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
@RedDeah... to completely destroy airfield you have to find it first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, wars won on the ground...at least back then. Do you honeslty believe that heavy american fighters could provide close support to their troops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif without being eaten alive by Yaks and La`s

About russian pilots... i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark on you.... Oh wait, you still think that 8th Airforce put the end of Luftwaffe... pardon my ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ivan what airfields would the Soviets be using? Most, if not all, known old German airfields were known.

this chart says the Western did.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/thtrloss.gif

i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
12-22-2005, 11:28 AM
Anything that has enough space for the planes to take off and land would be considered airfield luft. Just FYI, VVS couldn`t use much of german airfields because they were either destroyed or stuffed with explosives.

As far as this chart goes... you made that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif What does it prove, anyways?

Kocur_
12-22-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
And?

And the same would happen everywhere, everynight. What would stop PR Mosquitos, PR Spitfires or F-5s? What would stop bombers? Would VVS be moving all those short ranged, tactical planes waaay back every evening to avoid Poltava being repeated by Allies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif?
VVS did not defeat LW in the east. Western allies forced LW to move to west, and LW was destroyed there! VVS never even had anything close to air domination western Allies achieved. Can you imagine Mistels attacking tactical targets in the west in early 1945 and not suffering losses from enemy fighters? And that happened in case of Oder bridges!

I hope your what you think was not shaped by this game. Do you imagine western figthers being "eaten alive" by planes which pilots are affraid to exceed 600kmh in dive? DO you imagine any organized fighting by air force, which bases are constanlty within range of enemy aviation, and not being able to reach opponents bases, even tactical ones?
And what would VVS have to oppose, say, P-51H being faster than any VVS plane, even those few perfect examples, which are basis for modelling of soviet planes in this game, at any alt by very safe margin?

MLudner
12-22-2005, 12:06 PM
Continuation from above:

Communications:

By 1945 the VVS had made a major leap in this area: Now in most Regiments not only do the Squadron Leaders have radios, the Flight Leaders are likely to have them, too. Below that it is exceedingly rare beyond regiments equipped with US or British produced aircraft for wingmen to have radios. Thus, the VVS still has use a follow the leader method.

Radios are standard equipment on ALL US and British aircraft.

Since Lend-Lease would have ended upon the beginning of a conflict between the Western Allies and the USSR the VVS' supply of Mustangs, Thunderbolts, P-39's, P-40's, Spitfires and Hurricanes and the spare parts and maintenance supplies needed to operate them is going to dry-up.

Taken all-together this shows that the odds are powerfully against the VVS in the air. Attempts to say VVS pilots were good enough to cope with the USAAF and RAF is to so disregard all historical facts as to verge on the ludicrous. Sorry, but the VVS was a quantity over quality organization that would be about to run into an opponent that could produce greater numbers of aircraft faster and put in them far superior pilots.

In the air is one of the two places where the US is on the cutting-edge of performance, and so is the RAF. Either airforce on its own was a qualitative match for the Luftwaffe at its best pilot for pilot. The Luftwaffe demonstrated its operational superiority to the VVS repeatedly all the way to end of the war even as its pilot quality deteriorated due to fuel shortages that were forcing them to reduce the training time significantly. If the LW could have focussed its efforts against the VVS instead of having to operate Reich's Defense, MTO and Western Front as well the VVS would have been rendered ineffectual.
The USAAF on its own is much, much bigger than the Luftwaffe and with the RAF included it's even worse.

In Air-to-air combat pilot quality is the single most decisive factor and this FACT has been amply demonstrated throughout the history of airwarfare. Factually there is no way around it. The qualitive edge possessed by the USAAF and RAF over the VVS alone is going to pose signifacant difficulties for the VVS in its operations along the front. Added to that is the fact that the USAAF and RAF are at best only marginally out-numbered by the VVS means the VVS has precisely a snow ball's chance in an active volcano of maintaining a significant presence over the battlefields.

Erich Hartmann in his autobiography reports witnessing two fights between the USAAF and VVS fighters during the War. Neither went well for the VVS.
The first was an instance where he had positioned his Schwarm above a VVS bomber force strongly escorted by fighters. He was behind broken cloud cover and the VVS pilots had not spotted him. Just before ordering his Schwarm to attack by Rotten he scanned the skies to make certain additional VVS fighters were not closing in and spotted aircraft in the distance above and behind. He noted immediately that they were glinting in the sunlight and he immediately realized they were USAAF Mustangs because the USAAF was the only airforce that did not always paint their aircraft (This was post-Ploesti). He realized he would only have time for one pass and ordered the attack. His Schwarm passed through the VVS formations and sent several of the bombers down in flames. The Soviet fighters never saw what had attacked them. Looking back and up they saw USAAF P-51D's and decided the Mustangs had attacked and went after them. Hartmann reported that he saw NO Mustangs go down, but saw a number of Soviet fighters going down in flames as he slipped away.

The second occured on 8 May 1945. Hartmann had taken a Bf-109(K4, I think, but a G10 or 14 would be possible as well) on a reconnaissance to a town to see if the Soviets had taken it yet. It would be his last operational flight of the War. Upon arriving at the town he found that it had, in fact, been taken by the Soviets and he spotted a Yak fighter doing a victory dance in the skies over it. He bounced the Yak and shot it down for his 352nd Luftsieg, then hit the deck and headed away before the other Yaks in the area could spot him. He reported that P-51D's then arrived in the area and evidently mistook the Yaks for LW aircraft and attacked. Again he reported that he saw a number of Yaks go down in flames and while I cannot remember at the moment whether or not he reported seeing any Mustangs go down he stated that the VVS was getting by far the worst of it.

In the PTO the F4F-3/4 was out-classed in most every performance characteristic by both the A6M2 and Ki-43 series fighters and the pilots flying them against the Wildcats were far better pilots than VVS typical. None-the-less, USN pilots developed methods that allowed them to stand-up to and defeat the superior Japanese aircraft. 2 vital factors in this were:
The Japanese were persisting in using the 3 ship Vic.
The Japanese pilots commonly stripped the radios out of their aircraft to lighten them.

(Out of time again. I will continue again later...)

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
As far as this chart goes... you made that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif What does it prove, anyways?

You can see the full article here http://jg26.vze.com/ under 'Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944'

Author is Prof. Olaf Groehler, a prominent East German military historian. Now being an East German, where would his bias be?

What does it prove? That the West was the primary reason for the demise of the LW.

So the Soviets were incompentant in restoring old LW bases for operational useage for whatever reason(s).

What was the order of battle for the Soviet AF in Germany in May 1945?

Loki-PF
12-22-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
@RedDeah... to completely destroy airfield you have to find it first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, wars won on the ground...at least back then.
Bollocks! Even "Back then" militaries *knew* that air superiority was the key to victory on the ground.


Do you honeslty believe that heavy american fighters could provide close support to their troops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif without being eaten alive by Yaks and La`s
Absolutely. Anyone looking at the numbers and the relative performance objectively would reach the logical conclusion that the VVS would be pwned.


About russian pilots... i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark on you....
Actually it looks like soviet socialist propaganda has clearly left it's mark on you Ivan.



Oh wait, you still think that 8th Airforce put the end of Luftwaffe... pardon my ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Yep, but to be more accurate it would be the entirety of the western front not just the Mighty 8th. Anyone who has seriously studied the total air war in WWII would reach the same conclusion

BSS_Goat
12-22-2005, 12:27 PM
I think we saw what would happen, it was called "KOREA"

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
@RedDeah... to completely destroy airfield you have to find it first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, wars won on the ground...at least back then. Do you honeslty believe that heavy american fighters could provide close support to their troops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif without being eaten alive by Yaks and La`s

About russian pilots... i can clearly see that cold war times left a heavy mark on you.... Oh wait, you still think that 8th Airforce put the end of Luftwaffe... pardon my ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If there is a lesson to be learnt from the Luftwaffe, you can hide an airfield with some camo netting and a few tins of paint. The RAF had real problems finding active airfields because the luftwaffles were so **** good at making there airfields hidden or already un usable by some clever painting.

crazyivan1970
12-22-2005, 04:38 PM
I said to myself not once to stay away from such discussions or any dicussions that mention Anything about VVS or soviet union in world war II...WTF was i thinking. By all means don`t mind me and please continue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

berg417448
12-22-2005, 04:39 PM
I thought the Soviets were part of the allies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
12-22-2005, 04:46 PM
I thought the Soviets were part of the allies?
Are you kidding me berg, they were a useless, mindless crowd that not even worth mentioning. At least that`s the conclusion i get after reading this board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Moving along now, sorry.

MLudner
12-22-2005, 05:32 PM
Continuation 3:

Raw numbers - Aircraft production by nation by year during WWII:

Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
UK 7,940 15,049 20,094 23,672 26,263 26,461 12,070 131,549
US 2,141 6,086 19,433 47,836 85,898 96,318 46,001 303,713
USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,218
Germany 8,295 10,826 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,871
Japan 4,467 4,768 5,088 8,861 16,693 28,180 8,263 76,320
Total 33,225 47,294 72,751 121,214 188,561 231,852 94,774 789,671


So much for the great VVS hordes that will overwhelm the USAAF and RAF. That leaves the VVS with only the hope of out-performing the USAAF and RAF .... that means they're in serious trouble. I said it before and there are the numbers: US out-produces the USSR, and by numbers greater than I remembered. US alone out-produces the USSR by a hair's breadth short of 2 to 1, then we throw the British into the mix - because like or not they would have been in it - and it gets really bad as we approach 3 to 1. In fact, Germany produced almost as many aircraft as the USSR on its own .... as the British almost did as well. In fact, the only major combatant that the USSR cleanly out-produced was Japan.

So, we find that in the air the VVS will not have numerical superiority and being over-matched in terms of Pilot Quality, Organization, Doctrine and Communications.

At this point we find the VVS would have been meat. At the start I was kind of assuming a VVS numerical edge, but that just melted away.

E.G. The USSR produced 5,753 La-7's.
The US produced 15,484 P-51's.
The VVS would not have had all 5,753 La-7's available as a number of them would have been lost in action to accident, FLAK and the Luftwaffe.
The same applies to the P-51, of course, but proportionately more P-51's would have been available due to the lighter losses suffered by the USAAF on operations.

The Luftwaffe did a job on the VVS.
The USAAF would have butchered them, because against the USAAF the VVS cannot even hope to overwhelm their opposition and in fact are likely to get overwhelmed by it. The VVS would not have even overwhelmed the Luftwaffe were it not fighting a four front war.

The USAAF and RAF would have run riot on the strategic level. The VVS was completely exposed there and the Western Allies would have exploited that weakness for all they were worth. The transportation network would have been destroyed in short order and those oil fields in the Caucasus region would have been bombed remorselessly; Ploesti, too. Moskva, Leningrad, Minsk, Smolensk and any other targets of military value would have soon resembled Berlin. All Soviet rail traffic would have been ground to virtual standstill, operating at a crawl.

The VVS would have had no choice but to withdraw numerous regiments from the front to try and cover their rear, which puts the numbers on the frontal aviation assets at even worse odds than initially.

And at the same time the US would have unimpeded transport from its ports to Europe. No more Kriegsmarine submarines hounding the shipping lanes...
The US had the largest merchant marine in the world which could move astounding tonnage across the Atlantic and there was not a thing the USSR could have done at the time to interfere.
The British had the second largest.
The Soviet merchant marine would have been sunk.

In the air the contest would have been short, but sharp. The VVS would have fought doggedly but in utter futility until it was no more.

When I continue we will move into land warfare.

MLudner
12-22-2005, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
I thought the Soviets were part of the allies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They were. This isn't reality; it's theory based on a potential conflict that might have occured after the War.

berg417448
12-22-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I thought the Soviets were part of the allies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They were. This isn't reality; it's theory based on a potential conflict that might have occured after the War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a joke..i was referring to Ivan's comment.

MLudner
12-22-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the Soviets were part of the allies?
Are you kidding me berg, they were a useless, mindless crowd that not even worth mentioning. At least that`s the conclusion i get after reading this board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Moving along now, sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong impression. The Russians are in fundament as capable as anyone, but when your leadership sucks you're in trouble.
The fault, dear Ivan, lies not in themselves but in their leadership that they would have been defeated.

BTW: A lot of these calculations fundamentally change in later decades. The VVS became a very capable strategic airforce and I believe would have posed a serious threat to the USAF from the 60's on. Their only weakness was in their strategic bombers, really. Thing is, we're talking 1945, not 1965...

MLudner
12-22-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I thought the Soviets were part of the allies? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

They were. This isn't reality; it's theory based on a potential conflict that might have occured after the War. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a joke..i was referring to Ivan's comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, I see. Sorry. I was not insulting you, by the way; in case you thought I meant something between the lines.

MLudner
12-22-2005, 07:30 PM
To elaborate, Ivan, on my last to you above:

The problem does not stem from the fact that the VVS was Russian; that is not the cause of the problem at all.

If you took Americans, gave them only 75 hours of stick time before sending them to the front, then gave them only enough radios for 1 of every 3 aircraft, had them fly in 3 ship Vics, then stripped them of their strategic operational capabilities they would do no better.

Loki-PF
12-22-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the Soviets were part of the allies?
Are you kidding me berg, they were a useless, mindless crowd that not even worth mentioning. At least that`s the conclusion i get after reading this board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Moving along now, sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan, Ivan, Ivan... Drop the persecution complex. No one *ever* said the russians were useless cowards not even worth mentioning.

You're letting a little too much of your personal emotions show thru here. Perhaps the fact that you've got a bit too much emotion wrapped up in this discussion is why you are not able to see the facts as they are.

The VVS was overmatched when compared to the western powers. This would lead to interdicted supply lines and forward bases for the USSR's ground forces. Brave men with no ammo and tanks with no gas are no match for ones that have ammo and gas.

Honestly if this scenario were to play out I don't know how it would end exactly, but I *do* know this. The USSR would *not* have steamrolled over the western armies in Europe in the spring of 45

luftluuver
12-22-2005, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought the Soviets were part of the allies?
Are you kidding me berg, they were a useless, mindless crowd that not even worth mentioning. At least that`s the conclusion i get after reading this board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Moving along now, sorry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont't run away Ivan and prove what you accuse others of thinking of Russians to be true.

Tell us the number troops, tanks, a/c the Russains had in the West.

Ruy Horta
12-22-2005, 11:39 PM
Once the Soviets got over the initial shock and losses, they improved their pilot training (pre-war they were already well trained). Late(r) war Soviet fighter pilots were held in higher esteem on an individual level, by their Luftwaffe counterparts, than US pilots, who were mainly overwhelming by numbers (remarks as getting in eachothers way and relatively bad shots).

That fighting in the West cost the Jagdwaffe more in terms of attrition, is NOT only a qualitative matter, but just as much based on tactics and numbers. The Jagdwaffe by choosing bombers as their main targets, became themselves targets of escorting fighters. The numbers game did the rest. In the East, the Jagdwaffe could maintain initiative in a fight.

That the Soviet Army suffered terrible losses in 1945 shows that they were always willing to accept a full frontal attack and breakthrough by numbers at a price which the Western Allies were not prepared (hence the shift towards strategic air power). But lets not forget that the Germans were VERY fanatic in their opposition. Someone called the Wehrmacht the best army of WW2, well that's arguable, but this army DID fight for its life on the Eastern Front, and was fighting harder as the fight shifted towards Prussia. Even the remains of the Luftwaffe were trown in the Battle.

Statistics mean little, look at the 8th AF, they claim 5000+ a/c destroyed on the ground in the last month of the war, just like the Anglo-Allies bombers upped their tonnage in the last months. These practically unopposed actions do nicely inflate the totals and were meant to both destroy German moral to ever wage war AND to proof that Air Power was effective (politics). The latter does give credit to the original SBS, the air boys did try to inflate their effect by kicking a dead horse.

Anglo-American airpower was a mighty weapon, but we should not inflate its effectiveness, and it would have taken some time to shift that force into fighting (effectively) against the Soviets.

IMHO the forces balance out evenly on paper, only when I look at the men I think that the Soviets have the edge. They would probably have had the better mentality for this fight, raised on Communism, fighting for Russia (near Russia), and hardened by war. That generation would also have been hardened in its youth by WW1, the Revolution and Russian Civil War. Many of them true communists and even Stalinists.

How hard would the average GI and Tommy have fought over German and Austrian (Nazi) soil, the location of much of the fighting?

Between fighting for the Rodina and Nazis, I think that the latter draws short.

Perhaps the Anglo-Americans would fight harder for France and Italy?

(BTW The die hard Dutch, French and Italian resistance movements were for a large part communist, so you'd have sabotage in the West too - not only anti-communistst in the East - already armed and experienced by war).

Again this is not about being Pro Soviet or Pro Anglo-American.

It is about the fact that the Soviets should not be underestimated and that the outcome of such a hypothetical clash is not a given.

IMHO, and that's opinion, I think that the Soviets hold the better cards, but that their window of opportunity is narrow, but if they are forced to retreat they again start gaining the upper hand (defense + room to maneuvre + shorter supply lines).

Russia is BIG, it swallows whole armies, even the Anglo-Americans would need to pump out millions of men to cover the front as it widens.

wolf.wotan
12-23-2005, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Sorry cant reference this and don't fully remember it all (lot of use then?) I remember reading somewhere about a victory parade being held after the war in front of high ranking soviet commanders.

The allies put up an absoltely massive show of airpower. The inferance being "come on then if you think your hard enough"


It was the RAF and in front of General Zhukov when they invited him to one of the cities Bomber Command levelled, not sure which one, might have been Dresden. They put up almost the entire 2nd Tactical Airforce and portions of bomber command in a huge fly past. It was 100% show of power to the Soviets i.e. look at what we got and look at what we can do with it.

The Soviets probably had reports from the signing of the surrender of Japan and the massive allied fly over of that as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have just finished The Big Show, Closterman stated this event to have occured in Hamburg.

BSS_CUDA
12-23-2005, 08:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Tokyo bay 1945. and these are just carrier borne planes, not NEARLY the amount that the land bases in europe could muster
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/USbb63_pic_45_jpsur_flyover.jpg

could you imagine the 1000 bomber raids, the formations would streach for 300 miles

alert_1
12-23-2005, 09:31 AM
I cant believe taht this discussion is still going on. Stalin would had no chance. Anyone care to compare economic potential of USA and USSR at that time? 10:1?

MLudner
12-23-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Once the Soviets got over the initial shock and losses, they improved their pilot training (pre-war they were already well trained). Late(r) war Soviet fighter pilots were held in higher esteem on an individual level, by their Luftwaffe counterparts, than US pilots, who were mainly overwhelming by numbers (remarks as getting in eachothers way and relatively bad shots).

That fighting in the West cost the Jagdwaffe more in terms of attrition, is NOT only a qualitative matter, but just as much based on tactics and numbers. The Jagdwaffe by choosing bombers as their main targets, became themselves targets of escorting fighters. The numbers game did the rest. In the East, the Jagdwaffe could maintain initiative in a fight.

That the Soviet Army suffered terrible losses in 1945 shows that they were always willing to accept a full frontal attack and breakthrough by numbers at a price which the Western Allies were not prepared (hence the shift towards strategic air power). But lets not forget that the Germans were VERY fanatic in their opposition. Someone called the Wehrmacht the best army of WW2, well that's arguable, but this army DID fight for its life on the Eastern Front, and was fighting harder as the fight shifted towards Prussia. Even the remains of the Luftwaffe were trown in the Battle.

Statistics mean little, look at the 8th AF, they claim 5000+ a/c destroyed on the ground in the last month of the war, just like the Anglo-Allies bombers upped their tonnage in the last months. These practically unopposed actions do nicely inflate the totals and were meant to both destroy German moral to ever wage war AND to proof that Air Power was effective (politics). The latter does give credit to the original SBS, the air boys did try to inflate their effect by kicking a dead horse.

Anglo-American airpower was a mighty weapon, but we should not inflate its effectiveness, and it would have taken some time to shift that force into fighting (effectively) against the Soviets.

IMHO the forces balance out evenly on paper, only when I look at the men I think that the Soviets have the edge. They would probably have had the better mentality for this fight, raised on Communism, fighting for Russia (near Russia), and hardened by war. That generation would also have been hardened in its youth by WW1, the Revolution and Russian Civil War. Many of them true communists and even Stalinists.

How hard would the average GI and Tommy have fought over German and Austrian (Nazi) soil, the location of much of the fighting?

Between fighting for the Rodina and Nazis, I think that the latter draws short.

Perhaps the Anglo-Americans would fight harder for France and Italy?

(BTW The die hard Dutch, French and Italian resistance movements were for a large part communist, so you'd have sabotage in the West too - not only anti-communistst in the East - already armed and experienced by war).

Again this is not about being Pro Soviet or Pro Anglo-American.

It is about the fact that the Soviets should not be underestimated and that the outcome of such a hypothetical clash is not a given.

IMHO, and that's opinion, I think that the Soviets hold the better cards, but that their window of opportunity is narrow, but if they are forced to retreat they again start gaining the upper hand (defense + room to maneuvre + shorter supply lines).

Russia is BIG, it swallows whole armies, even the Anglo-Americans would need to pump out millions of men to cover the front as it widens.

No underestimation involved. The VVS would never had had the chance to increase their flight training time. The reason they were only getting 75 hours as it was was because their losses were too high to allow them more time against the out numbered and over stretched Luftwaffe. In fact, in 1941 it became so bad that the VVS was giving their pilots less than 20 hours of stick time before shipping them to the front and virtual certain death. They needed pilots so badly that they gave the trainees only enough practice to safely take-off and land. If they learned this in 5 hours flight time, then that was all the training they had when they arrived at their squadron bases.

As attrition from facing already far better trained pilots, flying in a superior organization, possessed of superior communications and out-numbering them got worse - and it would have gotten worse fast - the VVS training program would have had no chance to increase its flight training. In fact, the hours each new pilot received would have gone down.

Every airforce that has been put in that position had the exact same problem. Witness the RAF during the Battle of Britain. As their losses mounted during the Freiejagd phase of the battle they had to reduce training time in order to maintain a sufficient number of available pilots to fly their fighters. In turn, this led to increased losses as these less trained pilots ran into the better trained and more experienced Luftwaffe Jagdflieger. This forced the RAF to further reduce training time, which increased their rate of loss.

It's a vicious cycle.

MLudner
12-23-2005, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
I cant believe taht this discussion is still going on. Stalin would had no chance. Anyone care to compare economic potential of USA and USSR at that time? 10:1?

Well, it can take considerable time and effort to disabuse people of their delusions. Emotions are curious things and can leave people clutching at straws to save the views born of them.
By which, incidentally, I mean no offense. I have been there myself and the lessons were learned the hard way, but they were learned.

Ruy Horta
12-23-2005, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:No underestimation involved. The VVS would never had had the chance to increase their flight training time. The reason they were only getting 75 hours as it was was because their losses were too high to allow them more time against the out numbered and over stretched Luftwaffe. In fact, in 1941 it became so bad that the VVS was giving their pilots less than 20 hours of stick time before shipping them to the front and virtual certain death. They needed pilots so badly that they gave the trainees only enough practice to safely take-off and land. If they learned this in 5 hours flight time, then that was all the training they had when they arrived at their squadron bases.

As attrition from facing already far better trained pilots, flying in a superior organization, possessed of superior communications and out-numbering them got worse - and it would have gotten worse fast - the VVS training program would have had no chance to increase its flight training. In fact, the hours each new pilot received would have gone down.

Every airforce that has been put in that position had the exact same problem. Witness the RAF during the Battle of Britain. As their losses mounted during the Freiejagd phase of the battle they had to reduce training time in order to maintain a sufficient number of available pilots to fly their fighters. In turn, this led to increased losses as these less trained pilots ran into the better trained and more experienced Luftwaffe Jagdflieger. This forced the RAF to further reduce training time, which increased their rate of loss.

It's a vicious cycle.

Very interesting, but what does this have to do with the 1944/45 situation?

My specialty is the Jagdwaffe, but I do know that you must not draw the wrong conclusions from 1941/42 attrition.

If we are talking about a clash between the Red Army and Anglo-Americans, the most opportune moment would have been June 1945, forces in place and the Americans still committed to the Pacific campaign. The very heavy strategic forces would have taken some time to be in place, perhaps too long to influence the initial onslaught.

On the VVS I'll quote Christer Bergstrom, much respected author, who wrote this on the forum that I host (the little home, as someone called it, ou of which I act as a twit):



It is difficult to compare the Western Front with the Eastern Front, since the nature of the air wars on the various fronts differed widely. To compare figures leads to very little.

Without doubt, the relation between the Luftwaffe's losses and victories were less favorable in "the West" than in "the East". During the first years of the war in the East, this can be attributed largely to lacking quality on the Soviet side - regarding pilot training and the quality of the equipment, as well as tactics.

However, it should also be noted that the airmen of the Luftwaffe had amassed an experience that was above that of any other air force - including the RAF and the USAAF.

To a large extent, the successes achieved by the German fighter pilots were due to tactical circumstances. In 1941 and 1942, they were able to score large successes against the Soviets because the German fighter pilots operated offensively (free hunting) against an adversary that was operating mainly defensively. In the summer of 1941, 7./JG 26 enjoyed the same situation in the Mediterranean area - it operated in free hunting sorties against British fighters that were tasked to defend Malta against enemy bombers.

Thus, in the summer of 1941, 7./JG 26 claimed fifty-two victories, mainly against RAF fighters - without losing a single pilot - in the Mediterranean area. That does not necessarily indicate that 7./JG 26's pilots were vastly superior to their RAF opponents. Instead, one can say that 7./JG 26's pilots succeeded in their task, while the RAF fighter pilots succeeded in =their= task.

It should also be pointed out that the most spectacular achievement by any fighter pilot in terms of shot down aircraft was when Hans-Joachim Marseille claimed seventeen victories - all against British fighters - on one day, September 1, 1942.

In order to get a rather even comparison, I have studied a case when there were mainly Soviet fighters operating against the Luftwaffe - and I have chosen the Murmansk area in August 1942. The Soviet fighter pilots in the Murmansk area in fact managed better against the Bf 109s than did the airmen of RAF Fighter Command during the same period. According to the loss statistics of both sides, the air war over Western Europe in 1942 cost RAF Fighter Command an average of 3.5 planes for every German fighter destroyed in combat. The statistics were even more negative, from a British point of view, in North Africa, where on average seven Allied fighters were lost for every Bf 109 shot down--once again according to the loss statistics of both sides. In the Murmansk area, the thirty-four Soviet and ten German fighters lost in combat during August 1942 give the relation 3.4 to 1.

There are several known cases where German fighters shot down large numbers of Soviet bombers during a single day, even after 1941. For instance, on July 5, 1942, II./JG 51 claimed claimed forty-six Soviet aircraft shot down - most of them bombers. However, what we are dealing with here are medium bombers.

A parallel to this is an event on the Western Front that took place as late as December 23, 1944. That day the Germans dispatched strong fighter forces against large formations of U.S. medium bombers (B-26s) that appeared over the Western Front. In an air battle with great similarities to some of the large air battles that were fought on the Eastern Front, the German fighter pilots claimed no less than 127 American and British aircraft shot down - including 73 against B-26s - on December 23, 1944.

However, there is one main difference between this operation and the main character of the operations on the Eastern Front: At the same time, the Americans dispatched a very high number of heavy bombers on strategic bombing raids, and these heavies were provided with an overwhelming escort by fighters that actively sought out the Luftwaffe fighters that took off to intercept the heavies. On December 23, 1944, a total of 2,046 U.S. heavy bombers, 2,010 fighters, and 376 medium bombers were dispatched. In addition to this total, the RAF dispatched 1,243 fighter sorties. This is the main reason why also the Luftwaffe sustained very high losses on December 23, 1944.

On the Eastern Front, the Soviets deployed their air force almost exclusively on tactical operations intended to support their ground troops. There were Soviet aircraft "everywhere" over the frontline - operating in small formations so that every sector could be covered all the time - but only rarely, and in very small formations, were there any fighter intrusions against the German airfields.

Most of the German pilot veterans that I have interviewed agree that after the first period of war on the Eastern Front, they could see no difference in pilot qualities between the Soviet airmen and those of the RAF and the USAAF.

Günther Rall (275 victories) - who was posted to the Reichsverteidigung in the spring of 1944, after serving over France and the English Channel in 1940, and on the Eastern Front 1941 - 1944 - told me only two weeks ago: "The Americans were no better fighter pilots than the Russians. The Russian fighter pilots were most aggressive and we had to fight hard against them."

Rall described how he - the experienced Eastern Front veteran - encountered American fighter pilots for the first time: He bounced a formation of Lightings from above, "in the Eastern Front style", and the Americans apparently were so shocked that they immediately entered a Lufbery circle - "just as the Russians had done in the early years". With the deflection shooting method that Rall had developed during his six hundred combat sorties on the Eastern Front, he could shoot down one of the Lightnings (this was one of the three aircraft that U.S. 364 FG lost - without any victories to balance - on April 29, 1944). Then Rall had to disengage since his Bf 109 was running out of fuel.

The Soviet Air Force in 1945 had amassed a fairly large core of immensely experienced combat airmen - men (and women) with experience from 400, 500, 600, or even more combat sorties. Due to the American and British "tour" system, there hardly were any American or British airmen with that amount of combat experience. Francis S. Gabreski, the top scoring ace in 8th USAAF, had carried out a total of 153 combat sorties when he was shot down and captured in 1944. The top-scoring American ace in service in Europe when the war ended was Lt Col David C. Schilling, with 22 victories and 132 combat sorties.

At the same time, the Soviet Air Force could muster experienced veterans such as Nikolay Skomorokhov (46 + 8 victories and 605 combat sorties), Andrey Kulagin (32 + 7 victories and 762 combat sorties), Aleksey Reshetov (35 + 8 victories and 821 combat sorties), Vasiliy Knyazev (29 victories and 1,088 combat sorties), and Petr Pilyutov (23 victories and 1,945 combat sorties) - only to mention a few. I am quite sure that the Luftwaffe veterans with 400, 500, 600, and even more combat sorties were the only ones who were able to offer these Soviet veterans an even fight. (The record, more than two thousand combat sorties, was achieved by Stuka pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel, but fighter pilots such as Heinz B¤r, Herbert Ihlefeld, Gerhard Barkhorn, Anton Hackl, and Erich Rudorffer carried out more than one thousand combat sorties each.)

In 1945, the USAAF, the RAF, and the Soviet Air Forces all were modern and highly efficient war machines, adequately adapted to the doctrines of their respective armed forces.

Best wishes

Christer Bergstr¶m

Similar articles can be found on:

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/nov44.htm

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm

We had a similar discussions:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=625&highlight=vvs

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=625&highlight=vvs

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=862&highlight=vvs

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=675&highlight=vvs

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=488&highlight=vvs

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1279&highlight=vvs

Ruy Horta
12-23-2005, 11:24 AM
Again I ask the question, how hard would the average GI have fought over Nazi soil?

I am talking summer of '45, just after the surrender, just after discovering concentration camps etc. How hard would the grunts have fought to keep that country clear of Russians?

Would he have given his life for Austrians and Germans? Or their Hungarian, Bulgarian and Rumanian (former) allies?

Far away from home, for people who only a few weeks ago he despised?

The Russian soldier could easily be made to believe that he was fighting for mother Russia, since the next step would be fighting in Mother Russia.

Add the ability to suffer hardship and sacrifice and I still think the Russian army would stand the better chance.

A 1945 summer campaign or even into the Russian Winter. Again, Russia is big, it swallows whole armies.

The Anglo-Americans would be ill prepared to fight the Russians in 1945. And unwilling to put up the sacrifice in manpower that would be required.

No safe broad front approach without the huge armies required.

US Victory would NOT be assured, certainly not in a 1945.

My approach differs in self assurance.

This hypothetical war would not have been an Anglo-American cake walk, I I personally think they would not have had the stomach to take on the Soviet Union in the early summer of 1945.

MLudner
12-23-2005, 12:08 PM
I am drawing no false conclusions. That was a lesson from combat experience. That is what happens when attrition gets too heavy no matter who you are.

I have read accounts by LW pilots completely at odds with what Bergstrom reports Rall as saying. Frankly, the other accounts mesh better with the results seen on the battlefields. I have previously pointed them out.

Also, I have previously said that a VVS Guards Fighter Regiment is pretty much as good as anyone. The hitch is that those Regiments do not make up for the difficiencies of the VVS typical units. There are other factors, however, that hamper even the GvIAP.
Most are still flying 3 ship Vics.
Most still have only 1 radio per three aircraft.

There are reasons that the other airforces ALL abandoned the 3 ship formation for fighters earlier. During the Battle of Britain the RAF's use of the 3 ship formation was part of their problem. Experience taught them to employ the 4 ship formation.
A few GvIAP Regiments on the southern front had learned this same lesson, and flying US built aircraft with radios were able to transition to the Schwarm formation and method .... but that was only a few; the rest were still using the out-moded method.

Why? No radios and they were adequately adopted to the doctrines of their war machine.

As I said above: Attempts to claim the VVS pilots were as skilled as anyone else is to so fly in the face of the actual history of the fighting as to verge on the ludicrous. There was a vast difference between fighting on the EF and WF in the air. Again, as I have stated previous, the LW considered 1 kill in West to equal 3 in the east. This was why Hartmann said that Marseille was actually a greater fighter pilot than he was because their tallies come up to 366 for Hartmann (345 VVS, 7 USx3 = 366) and 474 for Marseille. Numerous high-scoring LW pilots on the EF were sent west and perished quickly against the better opposition they were facing there.
LW successes against the USAAF does not show how good the VVS was; they simply show the fact that the LW could still put up effective resistance all the way to end of the war. But, by and large, by the latter part of the war the LW was getting worse than it gave.

In fact, Barkhorn (My personal favorite LW pilot of WWII due to his chivalrous nature) lost the race for top scoring fighter ace because he was transferred to Reich's Defense. He was soon shot down and wounded. While recouperating Hartmann passed him. When he returned to action because he continued on Reich's Defense his victory rate declined SIGNIFICANTLY against the USAAF and RAF and he was never able to catch-up.

No one here - me least of all - is arguing that the VVS did not have some great and absolutely out-standing pilots. All the ones listed in that article would have been very dangerous in air-to-air fighting, but those are their best and most elite pilots, not their rule. There were points, in fact, where VVS Guards creamed Luftwaffe fighters in head-on fights ... and sometimes almost humiliated them. Were that the norm you would have a point, but it was not; the norm was the exact opposite.

The same is true of the late war Luftwaffe: Their average pilot was no longer a well-trained and experienced pilot. However, if a USAAF Normal pilot has a run-in with Heinz Bar betting on the USAAF pilot is just throwing your money away.

Problem is: Heinz Bar can't be everywhere.

MLudner
12-23-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Again I ask the question, how hard would the average GI have fought over Nazi soil?

I am talking summer of '45, just after the surrender, just after discovering concentration camps etc. How hard would the grunts have fought to keep that country clear of Russians?

Would he have given his life for Austrians and Germans? Or their Hungarian, Bulgarian and Rumanian (former) allies?

Far away from home, for people who only a few weeks ago he despised?

The Russian soldier could easily be made to believe that he was fighting for mother Russia, since the next step would be fighting in Mother Russia.

Add the ability to suffer hardship and sacrifice and I still think the Russian army would stand the better chance.

A 1945 summer campaign or even into the Russian Winter. Again, Russia is big, it swallows whole armies.

The Anglo-Americans would be ill prepared to fight the Russians in 1945. And unwilling to put up the sacrifice in manpower that would be required.

No safe broad front approach without the huge armies required.

US Victory would NOT be assured, certainly not in a 1945.

My approach differs in self assurance.

This hypothetical war would not have been an Anglo-American cake walk, I I personally think they would not have had the stomach to take on the Soviet Union in the early summer of 1945.

Already addressed much of this. I will be rehashing it again, though, when I move into the ground war.

I have already said victory would not be assured, this is a matter of probabilities. In the air the 1945 VVS stands little chance, but on the ground there is another story.

luftluuver
12-23-2005, 12:22 PM
It should be pointed out that Bergstrom has an anti-American slant in his writing.

An attack by the Russians would have had the same reaction by the American as the Americans had for Japan.

Viking-S
12-23-2005, 12:41 PM
If the substance of the arguments in this thread could materialise we would have something to feed the roses with.

MLudner
12-23-2005, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
If the substance of the arguments in this thread could materialise we would have something to feed the roses with.

I am sure whomever you are addressing has just been skewered by your rapier wit.

Your comment is more ludicrous than any other on this entire thread .... and that includes something that Old Man said that up until now held that post. Many have rendered arguments with much substance on both sides of this discussion, from Imperial Star Deuce - whose points are invariably loaded with substance - to Ivan, to Ruy Horta, Old Man, Myself, Low Flyer and several others including Kenji. Your inability to perceive it says much and - frankly - sounds like a personal problem to me.

MLudner
12-23-2005, 01:35 PM
BTW, Viking-S:

By which I am trying to point out that one should not step into a thread and fire a shotgun blast insult into it. If you have an argument to render, then please render away.

Ruy Horta
12-24-2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
It should be pointed out that Bergstrom has an anti-American slant in his writing.

An attack by the Russians would have had the same reaction by the American as the Americans had for Japan.

Why anti-American?

I agree that since he's trying a make a case he presents his take with a positive bias, but that is only to be expected, however anti-American implies an agenda. If anything, it is polarization for the sake of argument.

However if you had been right, I am 100% convinced that his current publisher - Eagle Editions Ltd - would not conduct any business with him.

Jerry and Judy Crandall would not want to conduct business with such a person, period.

Christer is a Swede and as such neutral in most of his ideas, with perhaps a slight bias towards the Jagdwaffe if anything.

BTW, Christer Bergstrom and I haven't been on speaking terms for over a year, so I am not sucking up to him either.

horseback
12-24-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Again I ask the question, how hard would the average GI have fought over Nazi soil?

I am talking summer of '45, just after the surrender, just after discovering concentration camps etc. How hard would the grunts have fought to keep that country clear of Russians?

Would he have given his life for Austrians and Germans? Or their Hungarian, Bulgarian and Rumanian (former) allies?

Far away from home, for people who only a few weeks ago he despised?

The Russian soldier could easily be made to believe that he was fighting for mother Russia, since the next step would be fighting in Mother Russia.

Add the ability to suffer hardship and sacrifice and I still think the Russian army would stand the better chance.

A 1945 summer campaign or even into the Russian Winter. Again, Russia is big, it swallows whole armies.

The Anglo-Americans would be ill prepared to fight the Russians in 1945. And unwilling to put up the sacrifice in manpower that would be required.

No safe broad front approach without the huge armies required.

US Victory would NOT be assured, certainly not in a 1945.

My approach differs in self assurance.

This hypothetical war would not have been an Anglo-American cake walk, I I personally think they would not have had the stomach to take on the Soviet Union in the early summer of 1945. Ruy,

One of the great truisms of ground combat units is that you don't fight for Mom & Apple Pie, King & Country, General Ike's grin or Churchill's cigar: you fight for your buddies and comrades in arms. American soldiers, having access to a superior logistics system, are widely regarded as 'soft' because they took advantage of their better and more numerous supplies. This is not entirely fair. In fact, it sounds more like sour grapes to me.

Being well equipped and profligate with your advantages is not necessarily a sign of softness.

In combat, American veteran units did no worse and generally better than other units of comparable experience and unit cohesion. There aren't many examples, if any, of veteran US Units collapsing under pressure.

However, I agree with your assessment that the US (or Anglo-US) forces would have been at a severe disadvantage. Assuming that US/Soviet tensions started high and remained so until the breaking point, the veteran Anglo-US outfits would have been unlikely to collapse, but would absolutely have been forced back by the larger Soviet formations.

The key factor in a US/Soviet confrontation in Western/Central Europe in the summer of 1945 would be the numbers and composition of forces, which greatly favor the Soviets. Air forces would not be a critical factor, even assuming that the USAAF could reverse the course of its flow (more like a flood) of experienced personnel home.

True domination of ground forces by air forces has only been possible after the development of 'smart' weapons in the post-Vietnam era; prior to the first Gulf War, while close air support has been a factor, it was never able to stop a well equipped, determined army from advancing, taking, and holding ground.

In WWII, the technology and the numbers were not there for the Western Allies vs the Soviets at that point in time and geography.

In a six month campaign to take and hold sub Baltic Europe, the industrial and manpower advantages of the US would not be applicable.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
12-24-2005, 03:54 PM
American soldiers, having access to a superior logistics system, are widely regarded as 'soft' because they took advantage of their better and more numerous supplies.

Once the USA got into its stride during 1943 its logisitics were fantastic and I'd argue that it was a significant factor in winning the war. On the other hand German logistics were awful. No matter what the quality of forces, without logistical support they are nothing, and this is something recognised by armies today. In fact armies are among some of the leaders in improving supply chain systems and theories in the world.

Many years ago I was involved in a simulation of a WW2 Eastern Front battle at Camberly Staff College. There were four key factors: information flow, logistics, momentum, and air power, probably in that order.

Briefly it was an attack by Soviet forces on Front strength, which each Army being represented by a staff in separate rooms, linked to Front by phones. The players playing Front had devised a system for information flow which almost immediately fell apart under the sheer quantity of data coming up from Army to Front and back again. They quickly completely reconfigured it. The second error was a diversionary attack for which the logistic train crossed the logistics train for another part of the Front causing a huge traffic jam and loss of logistics to part of the Front which very nearly stalled the entire attack. After that Front got itself sorted out and everything worked after that. It was quite a learning experience, though. Admittedly it was a high level simulation but it demonstrated how important the logistic train was. Front had quite a headache timetabling logistics movements to Armies and where they were predicted to be in advance and along sufficiently safe corridors. Even over a Front level attack spanning about 4 days of game time it was vital and logistics lines were already stretching to the point where it was interfering with operational efficiency in the field due to the need to do a pincer movement making transit times so long.

BaronUnderpants
12-24-2005, 05:18 PM
I havent seen a clear definition of the senario beeing debated here, who is attacking and who is defending?

Depending on wich, the outcome would be very different i think.

1. US (Allies) attacking USSR.
2. USSR attacking US (Allies)

In both senarios im convinced that the attacker would ultimatly loose the war, why?

Without going to this and that till the cowes come home, there is one major factor, namely the countrys/people of a battled scared Europe. ( Havent forgotten about the rest of the world that took part in the fight but its in Europe the battles would be waged )

In senario 1 where the Allies attack USSR i find it hard to belive that a european population weary of war would ever support a war of conquest in the name of democrasy or any other, they defeated Hitler and there is finely peace and a chance to start living again. Why would they ever whant to start a part 2 of WWII? Making a preventive strike in the name of democrasy? Doesnt sound very realistic.

In senario 2 where USSR attack Allies the same factor playes in, Europe allredy deafeted one dictator and i find it hard to belive they would all of a sudden roll over for dictator nr 2. Defeating combined allied forces, in essance most of europe and a large part of the world that allredy took part in the fight against Hitler is a task to big for any army.

If there is a senario 3 where we only talk about US vs USSR without taking historical fact into consideration, such as political situation of the time, the mind of the generals, quality of soildiers at the time and so on, the simple fact is that there wasnt and there isnt a army on the planet that can overun and hold a area the sice of Russia for a prolonged period of time, many have tryed and all have failed and there isnt any reason to belive Allies would be any differant. We can all talk about precison/carpet bombing to take out airfields for example, but as many allredy pointed out, to bomb something u first have to find it and a step the sice of Europe is a big place to search.

Conclusion, the attacker looses.

RedDeth
12-24-2005, 09:47 PM
i think all my points have been addressed and expanded upon so far.

VVS does not have a chance at all against american air forces. and thats without american naval air power.

this discussion is over unless anyone can show how the vvs protects their ground forces AND their air bases AND wins the air battles.

with little to no training....

Ruy Horta
12-25-2005, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
VVS does not have a chance at all against american air forces. and thats without american naval air power.

with little to no training....

I still cannot figure out where the USN can be of great effect against the Soviet Union in a 1945 summer campaign.

1. Their main assets are still fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.
2. Apart from some coastal areas, most of the Soviet Union is far out of reach for Naval Air power.
3. Baltic Sea is narrow sea with very little room to maneuvre, fully covered by land based air power and the Soviet submarine arm.

As for the little training part, please take your head out of the "1941/42" narrow view and look at the far superior training and equipment of 1944/45.

Although there were more variables involved, I dare say that when American and Soviet veterans met over Korean skies they more or less came out even (the same goes for the few friendly fire incidents in WW2). No we are not talking all USAF claims over Korea, but the figures from fights between Soviet and USAF fighter units. Also these were not elite units, but a steady rotation of units to gain combat experience under modern conditions.

These 1945 Soviet pilots will not be drones flying outdated material, but generally pilots with good wartime training and equipment. Trained by survivors and flying with weapons that incorporate the lessons of 3 years of air warfare.

I'll hate myself for writing this, but we must remove the pink glasses of the Jagdwaffe and undo ourselves of the Barbarossa Turkey Shoot mentality. That most Russian pilots were just flying targets and had little skill.

First we mostly read memoirs from Experten who lived to tell and were exeptional pilots rather than the rule. Secondly we should not forget traditional anti-Bolshevik sentiment and the cold war mentality. Former Jagdwaffe pilots would be applauded at dinners during American fighter pilot association meetings as long as they praised their former american foes and kicked in with the cold war program - lets kick some more Communist ***.

Ironically, the Nazis made the same mistake, underestimating Soviet fighting quality and strength. Perhaps this can be attributed by the Russian collapse in 1917, but the Soviet citizen of the 1940-ies was very different from the Russian peasant of 1916. If anything, the revolution, civil war and Communism (and arguably Stalinism) were the ideal preparation for the Russian people to enable them to stand up to German aggression and wartime hardship.

Russians are a people between Europe and Asia, which sometimes makes them difficult to understand for westerners.

In 1945 Communism would have been a wildcard in Europe. Many armed resistance fighters would have been Communist. France, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia would all have strong communist forces ready to take up arms. Even in Germany and Austria there would be a possible reaction to Nazism in the form of communism.

As a back lash, continued fighting would be a good opening for revolutionary activity in Western Europe.

One of the main motives for the Marshall plan was quick rebuilding and raising standards of living, that is to stop the spread of communism.

The only counter in a new war would have been to embrace former Fascists, Nazis and traditional dictators, which to a lesser extend actually happened in the cold war.

Those who are in doubt just have to look at Spain, Portugal and Greece and to a lesser extend Italy.

But I am getting off track here.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS!!