Soviet vs. American Armies 1945

[SRB]

You are wrong about steel of T-34 it was better than Panther because USSR had Ni, Co, Ti, Mo, Al etc. Also it was steel build to withstand Siberian temperature, and USSR had exelent metallurgy.
Quality steel in Germany goes for U-boat not for tanks.
Germans put sheels in turret and that is not good idea if you are in air attack.
Fact is that gasoline is more inflammable than diesel. So you could expect fires on Shermans from gasoline, also Shermans couldn't carry additional fuel tanks on hull because they use gasoline this is reason why later Shermans use diesel (bigger range plus smaller chance of fire)

Panther tank gun was exelent esspecily for flat battlefield, but when Germans start geting them in big numbers war was in Europe (forests, houses, hills) so efective range of Panther gun was the same as T-34 in this terrain.

[SRB]

Lend-Lease?

For USSR it end with defeat of Germany which many in May 1945 and I said that war would start in September 1945 it is 4 months for USSR to boost it production, don’t forget after kick out Germans from motherland.USSR began production of many things which it get for US.

Fuel?

High octane fuel was product in USSR before Barbarossa, because MIG-3 high altitude interceptors claim two Ju-
86 reconnaissance planes weeks before June 22 1941. So they knew it formula, but Germans hold same refinery so production was short for USSR, after 1944 they start it one production. Lend-lease lasted form December 1941 to May 1945, but had quantity of goods was different in 1942 and 1945.

Soviet heavy losses of tanks?

Barbarossa got USSR HQ of guard, Stalin purges help Hitler a lot, majority of Soviet tanks where obsolete T-26. Soviet tanks after Kursk battle get radio in every tank.
It was happy times for German tank crews, but in Summer 1943 this happy times was over at Kursk battle.
In first months of war Germans for each lost tank kill seven of Soviet tanks (majority for air attacks).
After Kursk Soviet did lost tanks but now Soviets were in offensive and Germans in defensive with many AT gun, 88s, RPGs, Stug3 and Stug4 (Stug is been more deadly to Soviet tanks than German tanks because it low profile).

Canada?
Bombing Ural industry from Canada. Please take a world map and ruler and see what is distance between this two things.
Escort fighters would fly with B-29 from London because of protective air fields, because air fields in Europe would be in range of Soviet bombers, maybe even run over by USSR. And P-51 couldn’t have range of 4500 km to reach Ural.

Far east?

Yes Americans could take USSR far east but there is nothing valuable, no industry, oil or rare metals. Only possible is build air bases in Siberia but extreme low temperature would big problem, so this air bases could be use only couple months, and to build infrastructure you would need years and willing workers to fork on –50 C.

We said Soviet army vs. US army in 1945, not 1946 or 1947.
J think that in 1945 Soviet would win that year, but later years they would be nuked to surrender.
In short USSR could win short war but lose long war. Because US superior industry and protection by navy.

Shearmans with 76mm (10000)?

Number of product tanks is not for 1944 and 1945 but for hole production included production after the war.
USSR product T-34/85 (June 1943 to May 1945) around 40000 tanks.

[Bill]

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1945, the U.S. accounted for over 50% of total global GNP.

Good christ all mighty!

LOL.

[dalem]

You are wrong about steel of T-34 it was better than Panther because USSR had Ni, Co, Ti, Mo, Al etc. Also it was steel build to withstand Siberian temperature, and USSR had exelent metallurgy.

I don't care if the USSR had blinkin' neutronium - it was being worked in Sov forges in 1945 so it was not good quality. Have you seen the metallurgy reports of the T-34 that the U.S. looked over and tested in 1943?

Quality steel in Germany goes for U-boat not for tanks.

Look, I HATE the frikkin' Nazis and their frikkin' Nazi junkwagens and the undue worship they get from rivet-counting morons, but the reality is that except for some brittleness issues with the RHA on the Panthers, German metallurgy was top-notch. Certainly better than the Sov stuff of that era.

Germans put sheels in turret and that is not good idea if you are in air attack.
Fact is that gasoline is more inflammable than diesel. So you could expect fires on Shermans from gasoline, also Shermans couldn't carry additional fuel tanks on hull because they use gasoline this is reason why later Shermans use diesel (bigger range plus smaller chance of fire)

No, they don't carry additional fuel tanks on hull because it's a stupid idea to which only a transport-deficient nation like the USSR would feel the need to stoop. Strap two gas bombs to the rear deck of a combat vehicle? How could that POSSIBLY sound like a good idea?

Panther tank gun was exelent esspecily for flat battlefield, but when Germans start geting them in big numbers war was in Europe (forests, houses, hills) so efective range of Panther gun was the same as T-34 in this terrain.

But the 85mm gun on the T-34 was less effective than the 75mm on the Panther at ANY range so range is relatively irrelevant for this discussion.

-dale

[dalem]

Lend-Lease?

For USSR it end with defeat of Germany which many in May 1945 and I said that war would start in September 1945 it is 4 months for USSR to boost it production, don’t forget after kick out Germans from motherland.USSR began production of many things which it get for US.

Like fire? Printing presses?

More seriously, how much retooling did they do in that 4 months? How long to stop making SU-76s and start making cross-country trucks?

Fuel?

I am ignorant of the fuel issue.

Soviet heavy losses of tanks?

Barbarossa got USSR HQ of guard, Stalin purges help Hitler a lot, majority of Soviet tanks where obsolete T-26. Soviet tanks after Kursk battle get radio in every tank.
It was happy times for German tank crews, but in Summer 1943 this happy times was over at Kursk battle.
In first months of war Germans for each lost tank kill seven of Soviet tanks (majority for air attacks).
After Kursk Soviet did lost tanks but now Soviets were in offensive and Germans in defensive with many AT gun, 88s, RPGs, Stug3 and Stug4 (Stug is been more deadly to Soviet tanks than German tanks because it low profile).

The Sovs lost thousands of tanks taking Berlin.

Canada?
Bombing Ural industry from Canada. Please take a world map and ruler and see what is distance between this two things.
Escort fighters would fly with B-29 from London because of protective air fields, because air fields in Europe would be in range of Soviet bombers, maybe even run over by USSR. And P-51 couldn’t have range of 4500 km to reach Ural.

Ahem. The Earth is round. Think about it.

Take your time...

Far east?

Yes Americans could take USSR far east but there is nothing valuable, no industry, oil or rare metals. Only possible is build air bases in Siberia but extreme low temperature would big problem, so this air bases could be use only couple months, and to build infrastructure you would need years and willing workers to fork on –50 C.

So, as pointed out already, either the USSR reacts to threats to its Far East or it doesn't. If it does, we keep large numbers of divisions occupied, if it doesn't, we build airbases and start bouncing rubble from yet another direction.

-dale

[Bill]

First of all(and this is important), the Soviets have NO CAPABILITY FOR A QUICK VICTORY because they just plain could not threaten the US directly in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, and because they had zero realistic prospect of any sort of invasion of the UK.

So AT BEST, they're looking at holding continental europe against endless massive allied air and naval attacks FROM ALL SIDES until the day comes in 1947 when the USAF flys over every major city in Russia in B-36s and incinerates the whole joint with Mk3 nuclear devices in a single afternoon.(Not that we wouldn't have already firebombed every major Russian city we could reach, killing yet millions more Russians than already died against the Nazis).

Now, about that air war and the bomber campaign, none of the Soviet high altitude fighters had the kind of firepower to take down the US and UK heavy bomber fleets reliably, and the Soviets absolutely were lacking in night fighters, which means the RAF Lancs get to operate almost unchecked.

Look at how the late war german fighters were armed, bristling with 30mm guns and firing timed aerial rockets. Not so for Soviet fighters. They were designed to take out much smaller two engine bombers and single seat fighters. So there's little wonder they were not properly armed for taking out massive high altitude 4 engine bombers.

20mm armed Bf109s would pour hundreds of rounds into B-17s or Libs, and sometimes even then they would not go down.

And that's another thing. Absolute combat ceiling is EXTREMELY misleading.
At high altitude a B-36A could outturn an F-86 or a Mig-15 because up there in that thin air it's about WING SURFACE AREA. So no dude, the Soviet 'high altitude interceptors' were WHOLLY unsuited to the task you are asking of them. A B-29 had better turning performance and acceleration/zoom climb rate at it's operational altitudes than almost any fighter of WWII.

And the USAAF had as many B-29s as the Soviets had high altitude fighters, lol.

And it's more than just the B-29 raids the Soviets have to defend from.

The have from the West the US B-17, B-24, and UK Lanc fleets interdicting everything the soviets have from Eastern Poland/Rumania to the front and endlessly attacking the transport nodes and LOCs(and yes, Allied heavy bombers were very effective at these roles in WWII) round the clock. There is also the chance of massed bombing raids staged out of Norway, or perhaps even Eastern France too.

Then from the South you've the Allied bases in Italy, as well as the various Allied carriers and transports that were stationed in the Altantic. With those the Western Allies can operate from the Med to land an Army sized group BEHIND the Soviets armies in Europe.

Then from the north you've got US B-32s and B-29s flying over the Polar cap to attack deep inside Russia proper.

Then from the East you've got the whole US far east airforces(including a B-29 base in China), and the entire mass of the Japanese Invasion forces.

So youve got a Russia that's under MASSIVE air attack from all four sides, and a Russia that is threatened along thousands of miles of E.European coastline by MASSIVE US amphibious operations, AND threatened in the far east by the very real prospect of a 38 division landing supported by 66 aircraft carriers into Manchuria with a historic invasion corridor right into the heart of the Eastern Soviet Union, AND threatened in the North in the Kola region by yet another possible amphibious invasion force that would then attack SE into the heart of the Soviet Union.

Plus the traditional European front.

And AGAIN SRB, the Soviet armies were SHATTERED and at the end of their supply tethers by V-E day. And somehow they managed to lose over 1200 of these supposedly invincible IS-2 and T-34s tanks in the Battle for Berlin alone(along with another 350k plus casualties).

And facing them were five completely intact Allied Army groups in the ETO alone with more fighter and fighter-bomber cover than you could shake a stick at.

And let's talk about those fighter-bombers. The P-47 with it's armament of 10 rockets was absolutely capable of tank busting, and the A-26 Invader and B-25/26 Mitchell/Avenger were fantastic battlefield interdiction platforms. Not to mention planes like the UK Tempest, the USMC/USN Corsair, and the USN Hellcat, all of which were very effective ground supoort fighters....and you're talking about numbers that make the Red Airforce look SMALL in comparison.

Oh, and BTW, the US 90mm gun killed German Panthers just fine. It was not ideal for frontal penetrations at longer ranges, but at closer ranges it certainly would penetrate, and also, the M26 only ever fought against the late war Panther G, which is a much better armored tank than the earlier Panthers were(especially the D, which was the one at Kursk). And so did the 76.2mm Hv gun and the UK 17lb'er gun.

Also, US TD systems were pretty much TANKS, as they had fully rotating turrets, unlike the German and Soviet TD's, which WERE extremely limited in utility.
And we had spit loads of them in the ETO, especially the 76.2mm armed M-10 Wolverine. And agian, the M6 75mm armed M-24 Chaffee had no problems killing tigers or late war panthers on flank shots, so the T-34 would've been no problem.(indeed in Korea M-24s quite easily blew holes in the frontal glacis of T-34/85 tanks)

And again, if the T-35/85 was so good, why the hell did the Russians lose so damned many of them?

By V-E day the Sovs manpower reserves were gone, they were surrounded on all sides by massively powerful allied navies, airforces and armies, the allies were walking away from them in all forms of advanced technology(that would make war in 1946 or 47 against the allies pure suicide), and there was simply NO WAY for them to EVER defeat the Allies militarily because both the UK and US were involatile, no matter how miraculous the Red army and it's tanks fought.

That is the first reality that you have to confront SRB, there is NO WAY TO STOP THE ALLIES FROM TAKING THE WAR INTO THE JET AND HYDROGEN BOMB AGE.

Had this war been fought it'd have ended as the single greatest rout in the history of mankind, and odds are, been the de facto end of the Russians as a people on this earth.

THAT my friend, is what you were facing.

[Bill]

No, they don't carry additional fuel tanks on hull because it's a stupid idea to which only a transport-deficient nation like the USSR would feel the need to stoop. Strap two gas bombs to the rear deck of a combat vehicle? How could that POSSIBLY sound like a good idea?

First thing they taught us to aim for.

I might not kill the tank with an M-16, but for about fifty cents to a hundred bucks i could start a nice diesel fire that stood a good chance of doing so. :)

[Bill]

One or two, and it need to deliver bomb from London to Moscow which is over 4500 km, without air cover with 2000 MIG-3 high altitude interceptors flying higher than B-29.

Yeah, those numbers dont add up for you much dude.

The B-29B had a range of 6759km.

And what exactly is that Mig-3 going to do with 3x 12.7mm MGs and 2x 7.62mm MGs against B-29s?(if a Mig-3 can even perform an intercept, which i highly, highly doubt).

You see SRB, the Soviets had no strategic radar net capable of detecting incoming B-29 waves with enough accuracy to accurately position interceptors IN THE AIR AND ALREADY AT ALTITUDE to stop them. Not even close.

And beyond that, the B-29 was 50 miles an hour faster than the Mig-3, and you don't want to be tail chasing a plane with twin radar aimed tail guns either. Not a good idea.

And again, 3x .50 cal machineguns would barely even have an effect on a B-29, and you'd probably just get yourself shot down by the tail guns of the B-29 for your troubles.

Compared to german high alitude interceptors(let alone those of the allies), the Mig-3 was a total piece of junk. And the Sovs had 2000 of them to face down over 10,000 4 engine heavies.

LOL.

Silly, silly boy. ;)

[Bill]

But the 85mm gun on the T-34 was less effective than the 75mm on the Panther at ANY range so range is relatively irrelevant for this discussion.

-dale

It was inferior to the 76.2mm HV gun of the US tanks too wrt penetration.

[Shek]

SRB,
Your assumption seems to be that the European mainland will fall in a hurry. A few questions.

1. How do the Soviets supply their Army? For every mile they gain, they have to to drive an extra mile to supply their forces, while the US and its allies would have an even easier time to supply their forces. Capturing ports does the Soviets no good, as they have no chance of exploiting those LOCs. Think about how long the Soviets took to stock the supplies necessary for the push to Berlin, and that was with full air supremacy thanks to the destruction of the Luftwafte over Germany by the US/UK.

2. How do the Soviets gain air supremacy? They have no where near the advances in avionics that the US/UK/allies have, and so they lack a technological edge. You claim that they will be able to magically produce enough high octane fuel for their fighter aircraft. How many gallons per day do these aircraft need and how many gallons of 100 octane fuel can the USSR produce a day. The figures that I've seen has the US providing somewhere in the range of 95% of all Soviet aviation fuel over the course of the war. How does the Soviet Union all of a sudden develop a capacity to refine 100% of their required aviation fuel against the air forces that were responsible for decimating the Luftwafte through constant attrition in 1942 and 1943 to the point of dominating the European skies beginning in 1944?

No supplies, no air supremacy, and the only thing that the Soviets accomplish is creating stories about how gruesome it is to attack into buzzsaw.

[Bill]

I was just reading an article last night that the US cancelled an order for 5,000 advanced high-performance B-29Cs because of V-E day.

LOL....5000.

WOW.

[leib10]

No supplies, no air supremacy, and the only thing that the Soviets accomplish is creating stories about how gruesome it is to attack into buzzsaw.

When you say buzzsaw, I imagine you mean MG42? :)

[gunnut]

I was just reading an article last night that the US cancelled an order for 5,000 advanced high-performance B-29Cs because of V-E day.

LOL....5000.

WOW.

When VJ day hit, the War Department cancelled just about every single contract on every single piece of military equipment. The navy wanted 900 destroyers. We "only" produced 500+. Fleets of carriers, battleships, and cruisers were cancelled.

The US produced almost 300,000 airplanes during the 4 years of war!!!

[leib10]

No doubt in my mind that US could've outproduced Soviet Union, with better quality equipment. US industry completely untouched and not even used to its full potential, whereas Soviet industry was ravaged by war and operating at its maximum capabilities. Even Germany's industry was only 60% devoted to producing war materials.

Only if we invaded the Soviet Union proper did we have a chance of defeat.

[HistoricalDavid]

US spending was 'only' 41% of GDP during the height of the war - as opposed to Britain and Germany's 60-65%, and probably a similar figure for Russia. A lot of wiggle room left.