Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 21222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 493

Thread: What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

  1. #436
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Specifications (P-47D Thunderbolt)
    General characteristics

    * Crew: One
    * Length: 36 ft 1 in (11.00 m)
    * Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.44 m)
    * Height: 14 ft 7 in (4.45 m)
    * Wing area: 300 ft (27.87 m)
    * Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
    * Loaded weight: lb (kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,935 kg)
    * Powerplant: 1 Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 twin-row radial engine, 2,535 hp (1,890 kW)

    Performance

    * Maximum speed: 426 mph at 30,000 ft (685 km/h at 9,145 m)
    * Range: 800 miles combat, 1,800 mi ferry (1,290 km / 2,900 km)
    * Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
    * Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)

    Armament

    * 8x 0.5 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
    * Up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
    * 10x 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets
    Ah yes, the Thunderbolt. A much underrated aircraft IMHO. Had a great rep with those that flew it for being 'rugged' (one of those intangibles that doesn't usually show in 'spec' sheets) and protecting the pilot with generous armour. Plus a rugged radial engine, much less vunerable than an inline. Unfortunately the Spitfire and Mustang got all the 'good press'.

  2. #437
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33
    I think those in the West underestimate the strength of the Soviet Army and Air Force at the end of WWII. Too many folks do not realize the magnitude of the Red Army's contribution to the defeat of Germany. U.S. and British strategic bombing of German industry was huge plus many German divisions were diverted in North Africa and Italy, but the Red Army was 75% resposible for the defeat of the Wermacht on the ground. Without U.S. lend lease, strategic bombing, and diversion of some German divisions the Red Army may have not defeated Germany in 1945 but they would have prevailed on their own by 1946 or 47. Germans did not have the strategic bombing capability to knock out Soviet industry east of the Urals.

    The Russian T-34 Tank would have caused the U.S. and British problems. It was proven in the Korean War (1950) that the U.S. WWII era bazookas could not stop the T-34's that the North Koreans were using in Korea. The U.S. then developed a new bazooka in 1950 that was able to knock out a T-34. The T-34 caused havoc against U.S. troops in the early months of the Korean War and that was five years after the end of WWII.

    I don't think the U.S. WWII Shermans would have matched up well with the T-34 as well. Another big advantage for the Red Army was that Stalin and his Generals were ruthless when it came to casualties and would simply pour men and tanks into an area until a breakthrough was achieved. On the flip side this ruthlessness would have aided the Western Allies as the Polish, Hungarians, Germans, and possibly the Ukranians would have joined the Western Allies in a crusade against the Soviet Union. In this hypothetical war, I think it would have been wise for the Western Allies to push the Soviets out of Germany, Poland, Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe (possibly the Ukraine) and then stop. However, the Western Allies would then have had to occupy the borders of these regions for the next fifty years.

    The Western Allies would not have lost as they had the atom bomb which you all know the Soviets did not at the time. The question would be when would the Western Allies have deployed it.

  3. #438
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Irishman, some points need to be cleard up.

    The early war Bazzooka m1 given to ROK troops could not punch a T-34 but the WW2 era M9 could indeed do so.

    By 1945 US Shermans were superior to the T-34 in every catagory. They had gyroscopic stabalisation, better optics, a higher velocity gun with APCR ammo, thicker armor with wet storage and the British Comet was being deployed and the Centurion was ready to enter service. The Americans also had the Pershing and Jackson to deal with the JS series with thier high velocity 90mm guns

    Soviet armor was not an issue one on one, the only threat the Red Army posed was numbers.

    Without U.S. lend lease, strategic bombing, and diversion of some German divisions the Red Army may have not defeated Germany in 1945 but they would have prevailed on their own by 1946 or 47. Germans did not have the strategic bombing capability to knock out Soviet industry east of the Urals.
    Without those things Russia would have lost via starvation and attrition. The USSR's breadbasket was overrun and its rail network was over taxed. and by mid 1945 was out of men. Add the troops fightign the western allies to the German order of battle and Poland and large parts of Russia would be German colonies today.

  4. #439
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33
    Zraver,

    I have to disagree with you on the U.S. bazookas. At the beginning of the Korean War, Task Force Smith and Task Force Dean had standard issue 2.36 Bazookas. U.S. Survivors repeatedly comment how the shells would simply bounce off the T-34. The 3.0 bazooka which was under testing was rushed to Korea and proved effective against the T-34. The 3.0 was not available during WWII. For reference, I recommend Roy Appleman's "South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu", Clay Blairs and Ferenbachs account of the Korean War. Also, their is a Korean War Veteran's memoirs website that provides excellent recounts of the various stages of the Korean War.

    I am not trying to minimize the U.S. contribution to the European theatre of WWII as you are right U.S. lendlease Spam and other foodstuffs fed the Red Army plus thousands of Studebaker and Dodge trucks provided the Red Army mobility. However, the Red Army was a force to be reckon with with the T-34tank, massed artillery, Kaytusha rockets, Generalship. use of air to ground support and hardiness of the individual Ivan. The quantity of the T-34's were overwhelming and although not equivalent to the Tiger the ease of T-34 mass production far outweighed a few Tigers.

  5. #440
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    Another interesting point - someone commented previously that the later version of the Sherman compared favourably to the T34/85. However, those vehicles actually faced each other in Korea, and the consensus was that the Sherman was at a significant disadvantage up against the T34.

  6. #441
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Faliase Pocket, but we will adress this issue after visiting the conest between the VVS and Western Airforces.
    The Faliase Pocket is a terrible example. German froces were being squeezed through a rapidly diminshing corridor close to Allied air bases with absolutely no friendly air cover. Compare that to the interdiction campaigns in Italy, or later in Korea (or even in Vietnam).


    Lets compare the primary tactical fighters of the combsatants shall we?
    You've compared two of the dozen or so types available to the Allies, and the stats themselves are almost meaningless - the P-47s top speed at 30,000 feet isn't that relevant because it's not going to be fighting the Yaks at 30,000 feet.

    While having similar performance if we only look at speed and rate of climb the much lighter VVS fighter lacked armor and firepower.
    See above - and as for lacking firepower, .50 cal MGs aren't OMFGPWNED material either.

    Also the allies had jets in service by Aug 45 somethign the soviets had no answer for.
    And the Germans had jets in service in June 1944, something the Allies had no answer for. Oh, wait.

    its not just the strategic airforces, it is the tactical airforces hammring the armored colums of the Red Army as well. Back to Falaise now. the Allies had thousands of tactical aircraft to hit the Red Army with and thiusands more to hit the logistics net work with. Tanks in the open were nothing but targets to marauding Allied fighters armed with rockets, bombs, and what was the most terrifying weapon of the war in a ground support role... Napalm. How fast can the Red Army advance with out infantry? The Tankdesti would not have been hitching ride son the backs of T-34's with napalm armed raiders swooping over head time and time again.
    Which ignores numerous factors. I've already addressed the Falaise issue - in this scenario it will not be a small number of concentrated targets but multiple front-level offensives across Central Europe, with the VVS at least being a presence (as opposed to the total absence of the Luftwaffe). On top of that, the Red Army's willingness to fight at night further hampers the effectiveness of Allied air forces. On top of all that, the Red Army will be advancing at a clip that could threaten the forward air fields of the Allied tactical airforces.

    the Gemrans had 2000 combat aircraft in 1941. The Allies had 11,000 in 1945.
    And the Soviets had no air cover in 1941.


    The Red Army might be able launch big attacks but sustaining them was always a problem. Unlike depleted German formations the Allies wer emuch more mobile, at full or very nearly at full levles of equipment and men, had more and better radios, food, infantry weapons, artillery etc.
    Sustaining them? They blew apart a German army group and raced from the Belorussian border to Warsaw in a couple of months. One might as well accusse the Western Allies of being unable to sustain an attack after they ran out of gas in September 44. As for better infantry weapons...if you want to point me to the Allied equivalents of the 'faust, Stug 44 and MG42, go right ahead. Soviet offensive tactics are going to cause immense problems for Allied commanders and the speed and size of the attack will overwhelm them.

  7. #442
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    The Faliase Pocket is a terrible example. German froces were being squeezed through a rapidly diminshing corridor close to Allied air bases with absolutely no friendly air cover. Compare that to the interdiction campaigns in Italy, or later in Korea (or even in Vietnam).
    Vietnam, you mean like the destruction of Giaps offensive at Ke Shan, or the hammering the commies took every time they tried to stand and fight?

    Korea, You mean the way the PDRK mechanized assault was ripped apart by allied air and isolated to such an extent that it couldn't effectively counte rinchon? Or do you mean the way the CVA was starved of supplies excpet what could be carried by coolies?

    You've compared two of the dozen or so types available to the Allies, and the stats themselves are almost meaningless - the P-47s top speed at 30,000 feet isn't that relevant because it's not going to be fighting the Yaks at 30,000 feet.
    No I comapred two of the leading low level figthers of each side. But regardless allied fighters thanks to superior technology like super chargers and 100 octane fule could fight at any level effectively.

    See above - and as for lacking firepower, .50 cal MGs aren't OMFGPWNED material either.
    have you ever bothered to watch gun camera footage of American fighters cutting into Me and FW's? The 6-8 .5in HMG's literally cutting enemy fighters apart? The American system of massed HMG was OMFGPWND IN 1945. The reason is simple, volume of fire and increased aummintion storage.

    And the Germans had jets in service in June 1944, something the Allies had no answer for. Oh, wait.

    One huge differance thanks to P-38R and Mosquito recoin variants the Allies knew where the Jet landing strips were. This is something the VVS will not have acess too, as well as having to contend with far more defending prop jobs than allied rat catchers ever had too.

    Which ignores numerous factors. I've already addressed the Falaise issue - in this scenario it will not be a small number of concentrated targets but multiple front-level offensives across Central Europe,
    supported by a logistics network that has to run on roads and bridges that are extremily vulnerable thanks to damage sustained while the Nazi's were in power or done by the nazi's to deny them to the Reds. There is a very limite dnumber of rail lines across Poland. I don't doubt the Reds might be able to drive the BOAC across the Rhine and take Denmark for awhile, but they'd never get across and eventually the massive allied lead in material, men, and technology will make it self felt and those troops will end up encirlced.

    with the VVS at least being a presence
    Finnish and Gemran pilots in Me109's and FW 190's were ripping the VVS apart right up to the end of the war, they were swamped under with numbers alone. quite simply Russian pilots stunk. Sure they had a few naturalls like Kozthub(?) but one has only to comapre the number of aces vs the number of total pilots to see just how inferior the VVS was.

    On top of that, the Red Army's willingness to fight at night further hampers the effectiveness of Allied air forces. On top of all that, the Red Army will be advancing at a clip that could threaten the forward air fields of the Allied tactical airforces.
    Allied airfeilds were in France, night combat might be an issue, but I bet RAF pathfinders could figure out a solution. "Comrade, what are those red and green flares for, and what is that massive rumbling?"

    And the Soviets had no air cover in 1941.
    They had the biggest airforc ein the world in 1941. Outclasse dand out trained just like this scenerio expcet for one major differance, in this hypothetical they are also outnumbered.

    Sustaining them? They blew apart a German army group and raced from the Belorussian border to Warsaw in a couple of months. One might as well accusse the Western Allies of being unable to sustain an attack after they ran out of gas in September 44.
    point taken, but in Aug 45 the Allies finally had Antwerp and Cherbourg in full operation.

    Deadkenny,

    Another interesting point - someone commented previously that the later version of the Sherman compared favourably to the T34/85. However, those vehicles actually faced each other in Korea, and the consensus was that the Sherman was at a significant disadvantage up against the T34.
    source please, be it US vs commie or IDF vs Arab the Sherman's blew the T-34's apart with ease. The T-34's advantages simply did not hold water against a foe that had both skill and numbers a combination the Germans never had. the M4A3E8 and M4A3(76)W were superior in almsot every technical regard expce tsimplicity, and ahd a clear lead in protection and anti-armor capability.

  8. #443
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Soviets in WW2 never faced an air power like the USAAF. The few thousand combat planes the Luftwaffe brought to the eastern front wern't close to what the US could do, in addition to the very healthy Fighter and Bomber Command of the RAF.

    Mass Soviet frontline formation would be completely decimated by the heavies of the western allies. USAAF by day and the RAF by night. Both escorted by fighters. They could make life very difficult for the Soviet troops.

    Sure the western allies have never faced Russian winter before. But at the same time, the Soviet army have never been bombed by the western allies' heavies.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #444
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,198
    another point to make,

    the allies were going to be better prepared for a russian winter than the russians themselves would have been. that russia was COLD was not exactly something the allies failed to see, looking at the german experience; and US factories were in a better position to pump out winter garments, i'd imagine, than russian factories increasingly stripped of men. also, the US soldiers were better fed than their russian counterpart, which also increases resistance.

    the russian infantry were tough, no doubt, but they weren't SUPERMEN. plenty of russians, along with germans, froze to death in the terrible days of '41 and '42.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #445
    Banned Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,048
    Who cares about Russian winters anyway, when the argument at hand is about how Allied air power fares against massed Sov Front operations in NW Europe?

    As I've opined in this (or the other similar) thread, IF the Allies went East I think they would have been stopped by the Sovs for a whole bunch of reasons, but IF the Sovs came West they would have been crushed with Allied air power being the key.

    -dale

  11. #446
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Vietnam, you mean like the destruction of Giaps offensive at Ke Shan, or the hammering the commies took every time they tried to stand and fight?
    Or the consistent failure of the USAF to stop infiltration along the Ho Chi Minh trail?

    Korea, You mean the way the PDRK mechanized assault was ripped apart by allied air and isolated to such an extent that it couldn't effectively counte rinchon? Or do you mean the way the CVA was starved of supplies excpet what could be carried by coolies?
    I mean the failure of Operation STRANGLE - ie the failure of the deliberate, sustained operation to break Communist logistics. Allied pilots were droping bridges only to find them ressureccted the next day.

    No I comapred two of the leading low level figthers of each side. But regardless allied fighters thanks to superior technology like super chargers and 100 octane fule could fight at any level effectively.
    Perret states in Winged Victory that the P-47s superchargers didn't add anything until high altitude was reached...which is what made them such dangerous opponents. A similar situation afflicted the Allison-engined P-51s, only in reverse.

    have you ever bothered to watch gun camera footage of American fighters cutting into Me and FW's? The 6-8 .5in HMG's literally cutting enemy fighters apart? The American system of massed HMG was OMFGPWND IN 1945. The reason is simple, volume of fire and increased aummintion storage.
    Have you watched gun camera footage of 20mm cannon firing cutting apart B-17s? Cannon is and always has been the best gun to have in the air. The RAF realised this as early as 1941 - the 20mm simply was far more destructive than any MG.

    One huge differance thanks to P-38R and Mosquito recoin variants the Allies knew where the Jet landing strips were. This is something the VVS will not have acess too, as well as having to contend with far more defending prop jobs than allied rat catchers ever had too.
    Which is irrelevant to the point you were making. Allied prop-engined fighters were consistently able to beat German jets despite their 'inferiority'.

    supported by a logistics network that has to run on roads and bridges that are extremily vulnerable thanks to damage sustained while the Nazi's were in power or done by the nazi's to deny them to the Reds. There is a very limite dnumber of rail lines across Poland. I don't doubt the Reds might be able to drive the BOAC across the Rhine and take Denmark for awhile, but they'd never get across and eventually the massive allied lead in material, men, and technology will make it self felt and those troops will end up encirlced.
    What Allied superioirty in men? Britain was out of them. So was Canada. In order to keep rifle divisions up to strength the US was using class III and IV recruits, black service personnel, ex-air force mechanics...The Red Army was running out of men, but that disguises the fact they still had 2,000,000 in theatre.

    Finnish and Gemran pilots in Me109's and FW 190's were ripping the VVS apart right up to the end of the war, they were swamped under with numbers alone. quite simply Russian pilots stunk. Sure they had a few naturalls like Kozthub(?) but one has only to comapre the number of aces vs the number of total pilots to see just how inferior the VVS was.
    I wouldn't particullarly deny that, but it's also irrelevant. The VVS through its mere presence makes the Allied task much harder.

    Allied airfeilds were in France, night combat might be an issue, but I bet RAF pathfinders could figure out a solution. "Comrade, what are those red and green flares for, and what is that massive rumbling?"
    LOL! Yeah, it's not like there's a huge difference between marking static targets that can only be one thing and trying to identify the armoured spearheads of your fast-moving opponent (as opposed to your own troops). Fraticide happens enough as it is by pilots flying at hundreds of miles per hour, let alone at night. Again...the consistent thread running through Allied attempts at interdiction is that night and bad weather made a hard task even harder.

    They had the biggest airforc ein the world in 1941. Outclasse dand out trained just like this scenerio expcet for one major differance, in this hypothetical they are also outnumbered.
    And they were caught on the ground while their command system reeled under a war it hadn't expected and wouldn't actually fight for a few days into the war.

    point taken, but in Aug 45 the Allies finally had Antwerp and Cherbourg in full operation.
    I don't think logistics will be an issue for the Allies, all I'm trying to say is that you're underestimating Soviet logistical resilience. They made huge gains, and as the battles along the Vistula show, were able to hold onto them even at the very limit of their supply lines.

    Mass Soviet frontline formation would be completely decimated by the heavies of the western allies. USAAF by day and the RAF by night. Both escorted by fighters. They could make life very difficult for the Soviet troops.
    Look at both the battles of Caen and COBRA...Allied bombers were able to heavily soften up German lines, but German troops still sruvived to man them. And this was an operation on an extremely limited front against divisions already badly weakened by weeks of fighting. The heavies are not going to simply stop multiple front-level offensives in their tracks.

    the allies were going to be better prepared for a russian winter than the russians themselves would have been. that russia was COLD was not exactly something the allies failed to see, looking at the german experience; and US factories were in a better position to pump out winter garments, i'd imagine, than russian factories increasingly stripped of men. also, the US soldiers were better fed than their russian counterpart, which also increases resistance.
    ...look at the trouble the US Army had in adapting to the challenges of the winter '44-'45. Now consider how much more extreme the conditions in Russia would be. The Allied armies are going to have big problems if they ever spend a winter in Russia.

  12. #447
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Or the consistent failure of the USAF to stop infiltration along the Ho Chi Minh trail?
    Ther eis a world of differance between infiltrating infantry and coolies down a jungle trail network and moving masses of tanks, men, and guns. The primary axis of the Russian advance is the North German Plains to isolate Denmark and force a Crossing of the Rhine in Holland and then a sweep into Belgium. The massed tanks on those plains are a very inviting target.

    I mean the failure of Operation STRANGLE - ie the failure of the deliberate, sustained operation to break Communist logistics. Allied pilots were droping bridges only to find them ressureccted the next day.
    failure? You mena how the CVA was reduced to mortars and light artillery and had to compensate with blood vs a vastly smaller UN force?

    Perret states in Winged Victory that the P-47s superchargers didn't add anything until high altitude was reached...which is what made them such dangerous opponents. A similar situation afflicted the Allison-engined P-51s, only in reverse.
    Uhmm superchargers were just one advantage the big advantage was 100 octane fuel.

    Have you watched gun camera footage of 20mm cannon firing cutting apart B-17s? Cannon is and always has been the best gun to have in the air. The RAF realised this as early as 1941 - the 20mm simply was far more destructive than any MG.
    Bombers are slower bigger targets and are much less manuverable. Fighters are small, high speed, and manuvering agressively and here volume of fire is superior.

    Which is irrelevant to the point you were making. Allied prop-engined fighters were consistently able to beat German jets despite their 'inferiority'.
    The allies calle dit rat catching for a reason, they would bounce the jets over airfeilds on aproach or take off, not in high speed combat. Without acess to detailed info showing which of the airfeilds was in use the VVS could not rat catch (and would have to surge to do so and that would have drawn in allied prop fighters)

    What Allied superioirty in men? Britain was out of them. So was Canada. In order to keep rifle divisions up to strength the US was using class III and IV recruits, black service personnel, ex-air force mechanics...The Red Army was running out of men, but that disguises the fact they still had 2,000,000 in theatre.
    none of the Western allies has yet stripped its farms or industry the USSR did. The US also has an increasing amount of material and men being sent to the Pacific in 45, and a Soviet attack would reverse this.

    I wouldn't particullarly deny that, but it's also irrelevant. The VVS through its mere presence makes the Allied task much harder.
    To an extent, but the VVS and Red Army also present a target rich enviroment.

    LOL! Yeah, it's not like there's a huge difference between marking static targets that can only be one thing and trying to identify the armoured spearheads of your fast-moving opponent
    Have you ever studied how the reds conducted a deliberate attack? Guns would be lined up almost tube to tube. Tanks and men packe dinto sardine like masses waiting to jump off. The Soviet tactic was to mass the most amount of power on the narrowest frontage to achieve breakthrough. An ideal target box. Remember the terrain dictates the location of the battle. That type of troop massing opposite the BOAC will have the Brits drawing up contingencies.

    And they were caught on the ground while their command system reeled under a war it hadn't expected and wouldn't actually fight for a few days into the war.
    The VVS had 18,000 aircraft in 1941 in the first week of Barbarossa the Luftwaffe claims 1811 VVS losses for 32 of its own shot down (USSR admits loss of 1200), but only claims around 2/3 toi 3/4 caught on the ground so that is 400 to 600 shot down in the air in one week that is pretty feirce combat by any standard.

    I don't think logistics will be an issue for the Allies, all I'm trying to say is that you're underestimating Soviet logistical resilience. They made huge gains, and as the battles along the Vistula show, were able to hold onto them even at the very limit of their supply lines.
    I don't think the Red Army's logitcs life line already strecthed thin from the Urals to Berlin across a fuel lines of track can absorb the losses induced by bombing on the scale the allies can inflict.

  13. #448
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Ther eis a world of differance between infiltrating infantry and coolies down a jungle trail network and moving masses of tanks, men, and guns.
    You and I both know that the Ho Chi Minh trail was far more sophisticated than infilitarting infantry and coolies and than large numbers of tanks, men and guns - that in itself ignoring that there's a 25 year technology gap between what the Americans were using to interdict in Vietnam and what they'll use in this scenario.

    The primary axis of the Russian advance is the North German Plains to isolate Denmark and force a Crossing of the Rhine in Holland and then a sweep into Belgium. The massed tanks on those plains are a very inviting target.
    Even if we assume that the Red Army is just going to copy the plans it would come up with 20 years later for a war against NATO...so what if they're an inviting target? There's a huge difference between being inviting and being invited, if you catch my meaning - and that also assumes, as you later, that the Soviet attack is not the commencement of hostilities.

    [QUOTE]failure? You mena how the CVA was reduced to mortars and light artillery and had to compensate with blood vs a vastly smaller UN force?/QUOTE]

    Yes, failure. The Allied air forces set to completely isolate a light infantry force in static positions, and they failed. As I said, it goes beyond the Chinese not being able to bring up heavy weapons - Allied pilot wer knocking down spans and then seeign them be rebuilt in days. That is the failure of interdiction.

    Uhmm superchargers were just one advantage the big advantage was 100 octane fuel.
    Superchargers are irrelevant because of the altitude that the combat will be fought at, and I very much doubt that high octane fuel will provide any real advantage compared to the likes of teamwork. I'm not denying that the Allies will have the edge in the air, I just don't think it will be a walk over.

    Bombers are slower bigger targets and are much less manuverable. Fighters are small, high speed, and manuvering agressively and here volume of fire is superior.
    Bombers are also much tougher. As F-86 pilots learned in Korea, volume of fire doesn't mean much when you're bullets aren't doing enough damage to the enemy.

    The allies calle dit rat catching for a reason, they would bounce the jets over airfeilds on aproach or take off, not in high speed combat.
    Yes, they would. The use of CAPs over jet airfields was an obvious tactic, but they also developed ones to the fight the 262 in the air (the 'box') and circumstances would often dictate they had to dogfight them, and they did suprisingly well. The reality is German jets never gained a decisive advantage over their Allied counterparts, and it's hard to see how Allied jets would change anything.


    none of the Western allies has yet stripped its farms or industry the USSR did.
    They certainly put women into the factories and farms, though to not nearly as great an extent as the USSR. But some blokes sitting at home are useless; the issue of trained manpower. This isn't going to a long, attritional contest; nuclear weapons ensure that. The USSR is out of trained men but still has huge numbers in the field. The UK is out of trained men but barely has any left in the field. The US is gradually increasing it's number of trained men but they are often 2nd/3rd rate recruits.

    The US also has an increasing amount of material and men being sent to the Pacific in 45, and a Soviet attack would reverse this.
    Much of it from Europe...and I'm sure the Soviets would tremble in their boots at the thought of 5th Fleet arriving off the Kola. Not.

    Have you ever studied how the reds conducted a deliberate attack?
    Yeah, they would execute an extremely complex deception plan beforehand, conceal their preparation from the enemy, and then use the RIF to 'hug' the enemy. On top of this, you're assuming hostilities have broken out before the Soviets attack.

    That type of troop massing opposite the BOAC will have the Brits drawing up contingencies.
    Which will be utterly worthless. You've got an extreme faith in the PFF if you think they can pin point a lonely part of german countryside, mark it accurately, and then expect the Main Force to bomb it accurately enough to prevent widespread friendly casualties. On top of that, even the full force of Bomber Command would be able to at best hit one army sized formation. That still leaves about ten others to execute the initial attacks.


    The VVS had 18,000 aircraft in 1941 in the first week of Barbarossa the Luftwaffe claims 1811 VVS losses for 32 of its own shot down (USSR admits loss of 1200), but only claims around 2/3 toi 3/4 caught on the ground so that is 400 to 600 shot down in the air in one week that is pretty feirce combat by any standard.
    32 v 400-600? It shows the extreme disaprity between an air force that didn't know what it was doing and one with the killer instinct.

    I don't think the Red Army's logitcs life line already strecthed thin from the Urals to Berlin across a fuel lines of track can absorb the losses induced by bombing on the scale the allies can inflict.
    I woudl agree to an extent, except I don't think the Allied air forces will be able to put the logistical cramp on before the damage is done.

  14. #449
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by thejester View Post
    What Allied superioirty in men? Britain was out of them. So was Canada. In order to keep rifle divisions up to strength the US was using class III and IV recruits, black service personnel, ex-air force mechanics...The Red Army was running out of men, but that disguises the fact they still had 2,000,000 in theatre. .
    Perhaps you've forgotten about the entire Pacific forces? All those American and Empire troops and equipment and aircraft etc fresh from stomping the Japanese?

    Also
    The USSR had a peak strength of 12.5 million men at arms and by wars end had lost 7.5 million. America had a peak strength of 12.3 million and lost 290,000
    The Empire had a peak strength of 9 million and lost 345,000

  15. #450
    Banned Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,048
    Quote Originally Posted by thejester View Post
    ...look at the trouble the US Army had in adapting to the challenges of the winter '44-'45.
    What troubles were those?

    -dale

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Israel works on Iran N-strike
    By Ray in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 27 Sep 08,, 12:20
  2. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  3. Do G4 have a case.
    By crooks in forum International Politics
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 31 Dec 06,, 11:58
  4. America's Pathetic Putin-Envy
    By VovaLee in forum International Politics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 19 Dec 06,, 22:34
  5. Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard
    By Gio in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Dec 04,, 04:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •