Jump to content
Ridaz

Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not convinced that a B-29 mission into the teeth of the Red Airforce would be much fun, the US would have to degrade their combat airpower as they did with Japan before they could risk a nuclear strike.  Frankly it would be the mission from hell IMHO.

Soviet fighter aircraft were designed for low- and medium-altitude tactical combat, and thus would have literally been gasping for air at the altitudes where the B-29s roamed. It's a similar problem the Japanese ran into and why the Germans looked for a replacement for the radial-engined Fw 190. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect.  :mellow:

The Yak-3 and La-7 both had service ceilings that allowed them to operate several thousand meters higher than a B-29.....They were more than a match for the P-51 too.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Why not?  They defended us.  ;)

Not convinced that a B-29 mission into the teeth of the Red Airforce would be much fun, the US would have to degrade their combat airpower as they did with Japan before they could risk a nuclear strike.  Frankly it would be the mission from hell IMHO.

 

Saying the Soviet Union defended 'us' is a bit of a stretch I think.  They defended themselves and just happened to be fighting against the same opponent, but the Soviet Union wasn't too concerned about 'us' when the Germans were overrunning Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Greece, and Yugoslavia.  Good thing the Soviets sent the UK all that Lend Lease equipment during 'The Blitz'.  Oh wait. :P 

Nobody knows how a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union would have gone, but the Western Allied Air Forces would have been difficult for the Soviets to deal with.  I don't know how many fighter aircraft each side had available, but I don't think that the Soviet Union had anything close to the type of heavy bomber force that the Western Allies had.  The Soviet air forces were probably not as tactically adept either.  The Western Allied ground forces were smaller, no doubt, but the manpower reserves of the US had barely even been tapped yet and there were still several new divisions ready to ship by the time the war ended.  There were also millions of US troops fighting in the Pacific who, once the Japanese surrendered, could have easily gone into the Soviet's Pacific coastal areas and the Soviets weren't going to be able to leave those areas undefended.  US Air Force and Naval Air Force assets in the Pacific were substantial.  The Western Allied ground forces were also much more mobile and mechanized than even the Soviet forces were by the time all those lend lease trucks made it to their motorized forces.  It is difficult to imagine how mobile the Soviet forces would have remained once the Lend Lease faucet was turned off.  Certainly after a few months of fighting the reduction in mobility would have become more and more noticeable.  I don't think it would have been a cake walk for either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm British so, as far as I'm concerned, 'Uncle Joe' defended 'me' between 1940 & 1944.....That's just how it is.  While Germany was fighting the USSR they weren't invading the UK (not that they were ever really equipped to do so). 

No reflection on the character we subsequently discovered 'Uncle Joe' to be, nor on the politics of the intervening years.  :mellow:

As for how the opposing sides might have fared.....Well, that's kind of why we have complex, realistic games like CM isn't it?  ;)

BTW - You seem to have forgotten that at the time Roosevelt was much more pro-USSR than Churchill.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

...but the Western Allied Air Forces would have been difficult for the Soviets to deal with.  I don't know how many fighter aircraft each side had available, but I don't think that the Soviet Union had anything close to the type of heavy bomber force that the Western Allies had.  The Soviet air forces were probably not as tactically adept either.  The Western Allied ground forces were smaller, no doubt, but the manpower reserves of the US had barely even been tapped yet and there were still several new divisions ready to ship by the time the war ended...

People consistently forget these points; and it bears re-iterating. Especially the war-weariness and manpower crises of everyone who wasn't the US. 

The RKKA probably had the most robust (re: the only) coherent operational doctrine, and had showed it in practice several times, but they made relative botches of the East Prussia and Berlin campaigns and gutted otherwise hardy veteran formations. The Ground forces remain the single greatest unknown, but I'd narrowly give it to the Soviets.

The problem are force multipliers; the Red Banner navy and the VVS were lightweights compared to their Western counterparts, both in capability, training and doctrine. You read about non-stop carousels of IL-2s attacking and not really blunting or interdicting movement satisfactorily as late as Mius. The fact that the Germans had a light cruiser firing in close defense of its forces in 1945; despite the Red Banner army being only kilometers away, in strength and ready to pounce, is I think illustrative enough of their deficiencies. 

It's all academic of course, but the reality is the US and UK were forced by geography and circumstance to fight a strategic war that saw all branches truly fighting in concert, the USSR not so much - and that matters when a belligerent is half a world away.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

People consistently forget these points; and it bears re-iterating. Especially the war-weariness and manpower crises of everyone who wasn't the US. 

That is a very good point, in fact the whole post is very thoughtful, can't disagree with it at all.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Incorrect.  :mellow: The Yak-3 and La-7 both had service ceilings that allowed them to operate several thousand meters higher than a B-29.....

:lol: You really want to go there?

  • P-51 service ceiling: 12,800 meters, max speed 708 km/h at 7,600 meters
  • P-47 service ceiling: 13,100 meters, max speed 697 km/h at 8,839 meters
  • La-7 service ceiling: 10,450 meters, max speed 661 km/h at 6000 meters
  • Yak-3 service ceiling: 10,700 meters, max speed 655 km/h
  • B-29 service ceiling: 9,710 meters

And that's to say nothing about max range, level of training of American pilots versus Soviet, etc. Bottom line, the Soviet fighter air force of WWII was not, repeat not, an airforce set up for high altitude combat, because it was irrelevant to their doctrine. Their doctrine by war's end was to cover their Sturmoviks and to interdict the German's fighter-bombers which (surprise!) operated at low altitudes. 

11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

They were more than a match for the P-51 too.

...at low and medium altitudes., yes.

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

:lol: You really want to go there?

  • P-51 service ceiling: 12,800 meters, max speed 708 km/h at 7,600 meters
  • P-47 service ceiling: 13,100 meters, max speed 697 km/h at 8,839 meters
  • La-7 service ceiling: 10,450 meters, max speed 661 km/h at 6000 meters
  • Yak-3 service ceiling: 10,700 meters, max speed 655 km/h
  • B-29 service ceiling: 9,710 meters

And that's to say nothing about max range, level of training of American pilots versus Soviet, etc. Bottom line, the Soviet fighter air force of WWII was not, repeat not, an airforce set up for high altitude combat, because it was irrelevant to their doctrine. Their doctrine by war's end was to cover their Sturmoviks and to interdict the German's fighter-bombers which (surprise!) operated at low altitudes. 

...at low and medium altitudes., yes.

I would have liked to have seen the face of the first Soviet fighter group commander who had to scramble and defend Soviet territory or troop concentrations from 1000 B17s in box formation covered by hundreds or thousands of P51 and P47 fighters.  You can't just ignore them because you would have no idea where they were headed.  Certainly it would have been a new and exciting experience for Soviet fighter command.  They would need to develop an entirely new set of tactics and operational procedures in order to deal with it.  I suspect the Soviet Flak defenses would have been considerably lighter compared to what the US was dealing with over German cities as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus if the war continued unabated the B-50 upgraded Superfortress with a ceiling of 11,200m could have been rushed into service sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking to the facts isn't willy waving. You could perhaps accuse them of tech-wanking, but a title like CM precludes itself to that. 

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, that is probably more accurate.  :mellow:

But I find the indignation at my suggestion that the Red Air Force might not just let the USAF waltz up and nuke Moscow utterly comical.  :lol:

5 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

I would have liked to have seen the face of the first Soviet fighter group commander who had to scramble and defend Soviet territory or troop concentrations from 1000 B17s in box formation covered by hundreds or thousands of P51 and P47 fighters.

Not sure the B-17 would have the range to hit industrial targets in the USSR, heavy industry had relocated to the east.....The B-24 might with a reduced bombload and the B-29 could probably do it, but it would be a terrifying mission.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/01/2018 at 6:02 PM, sburke said:

Actually I don’t think the issue is their interest level but more a question of the financial viability. The product has to sell well enough to make the effort worthwhile. There are some of us who would definitely buy it, but I suspect the view is not enough of us.  That and as was noted above certain aspects simply can not be simulated limiting what the game could actually cover.

also as a side note I have experimented with jungle type terrain fighting in other titles just trying to get perspective. It really is not all that appealing.  Basically imagine setting scenario parameters to where visibility is measured in a few meters then try playing with a battalion of infantry.  Because of fortification issues you can’t really portray the island hopping  - end result is you are not left with much. 

Oh I don't know.. I reckon there might be enough interest.  The general consensus is that anything Battlefront produce is pretty awesome and there's probably enough core fans and beyond to make it financially viable.  To have a game set in the pacific would be great, great fun!  Imagine giving orders to your troops in the jungle!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andy_101 said:

Oh I don't know.. I reckon there might be enough interest.  The general consensus is that anything Battlefront produce is pretty awesome and there's probably enough core fans and beyond to make it financially viable.  To have a game set in the pacific would be great, great fun!  Imagine giving orders to your troops in the jungle!  :)

Well you'll have to convince Steve.  he actually works off their real numbers and he says.. nope.  Consensus is irrelevant unfortunately if that consensus is not shared by BF.  :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sburke said:

Well you'll have to convince Steve.  he actually works off their real numbers and he says.. nope.  Consensus is irrelevant unfortunately if that consensus is not shared by BF.  :( 

Ah, 'twas a beautiful dream!   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

But I find the indignation at my suggestion that the Red Air Force might not just let the USAF waltz up and nuke Moscow utterly comical.

I'm sure the Argentinians thought that the Falklands airfield was invulvenurable due to its location and local air defences right up until it got clobbered.

http://www.b29-superfortress.com/b50-superfortress.htm

The First Round-the-World Non-Stop Flight by Lucky Lady II

One of aviation's most historical flights involved the B-50 and took place in early 1949, the first non-stop around the world flight.

...

The flight successfully demonstrated to the Soviet Union, and other enemies, that the United States could launch air attacks to any war-zone in the world, and return the planes safely to U.S. bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Indeed, that is probably more accurate.  :mellow:

But I find the indignation at my suggestion that the Red Air Force might not just let the USAF waltz up and nuke Moscow utterly comical.  :lol:

Not sure the B-17 would have the range to hit industrial targets in the USSR, heavy industry had relocated to the east.....The B-24 might with a reduced bombload and the B-29 could probably do it, but it would be a terrifying mission.

Nobody said it would be easy, but the idea that the Soviet Air Force would be able to brush aside and manhandle a very large and experienced heavy bomber force is also ridiculous.  B17s were also used on troop concentrations and I never mentioned nukes.  It's entirely plausible that Soviet refineries in the Caucasus could be rendered unusable from the Middle East.  Port facilities and shipping in the Black Sea and Baltic would be attacked by both sea and air.  There is also a political angle to be considered since the Soviets were attempting to set up 'friendly' governments in the nations that they were occupying.  Allied bombing raids would make the process of installing friendly governments a little more difficult to pull off once they declare they are part of the Soviet Bloc.  How encouraging would it be for anti Soviet partisans when the Soviets can't seem to control the skies overhead?  Medium bombers would destroy rail yards and attack roads, air fields, and rolling stock throughout Eastern Europe.  Yeah, both sides would take heavy losses at first, but these raids would go on day after day, month after month and let's face it, the Soviet air force had zero experience fighting off massed bomber raids of the type that attacked Germany.  When you consider the fact that the German air force was able to continue operating in the east in ways that were impossible in the west I think you are placing a very large discount on the capabilities of the Western Allies air forces if you think the Soviets would be able to gain and maintain air superiority.  Soviet ground attack doctrine didn't even allow for attacks more than ten miles behind enemy lines until 1944 so they didn't even have much experience in gaining and maintaining air superiority deep over the enemy battle space.  German ground troops could still move around on the eastern front in ways that would be unthinkable in the west during the same time frame.  The Soviet air force was just not as capable or well trained as its Western Allied counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets were "just around a corner". Time gap when western powers had a big advantage was narrow, 45-46 or so. Mig-9 was designed specially for B-29s, it was ready to large series. Production was delayed because there was no need, as war was over. (Like in case of T-54, SKS)  And modifications of La, Yaks with jet engines. How effective were B-29s against Mig-15 is well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ASL Veteran said:

but the idea that the Soviet Air Force would be able to brush aside and manhandle a very large and experienced heavy bomber force is also ridiculous.

I didn't say that did I?  :rolleyes:

What I said was:

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 1:59 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Not convinced that a B-29 mission into the teeth of the Red Airforce would be much fun, the US would have to degrade their combat airpower as they did with Japan before they could risk a nuclear strike.  Frankly it would be the mission from hell IMHO.

And nothing you've said has really changed my mind very much, at best you face a bloody war of attrition on the ground and in the air against an opponent who has already demonstrated a considerable ability to fight and win such a war......While you might be keen to see the results of taking on the USSR head on at a 'temporal safe distance', you can be bloody sure the servicemen of the time would not have shared your enthusiasm one little bit.  :mellow:

1 hour ago, ASL Veteran said:

How encouraging would it be for anti Soviet partisans when the Soviets can't seem to control the skies overhead?

Ummmm.....The Soviets didn't control the skies overhead for much of their existence, but they survived.  :lol:

1 hour ago, Wicky said:

I'm sure the Argentinians thought that the Falklands airfield was invulvenurable due to its location and local air defences right up until it got clobbered.

http://www.b29-superfortress.com/b50-superfortress.htm

The First Round-the-World Non-Stop Flight by Lucky Lady II

One of aviation's most historical flights involved the B-50 and took place in early 1949, the first non-stop around the world flight.

...

The flight successfully demonstrated to the Soviet Union, and other enemies, that the United States could launch air attacks to any war-zone in the world, and return the planes safely to U.S. bases.

Indeed, a 'Dam-Busters/Doolittle Raid' type operation might have been doable, but once again:

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 1:59 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Frankly it would be the mission from hell IMHO.

I think both of those missions would fit that description nicely.....Undertaking such an operation with one of the Allies' precious few nuclear devices aboard might be condidered a bit foolhardy, which brings us back to my original point:

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 1:59 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

the US would have to degrade their combat airpower as they did with Japan before they could risk a nuclear strike.

Which apparently was more than some of you could take.  :huh:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, for the benefit of those whose wargaming tastes extends beyond CM, a hypothetical 1948 WWIII scenario is available for Strategic Command Global Conflict Gold.....I've not played it before, but you can be damned sure I will now, from both sides!  ;)

PS - Just started it as the Allies and I gotta tell ya, after the Commies' opening move things ain't looking great!  :o 

A fortnight into the war & communist insurgencies are popping up all over the British Empire and the liberated territories, Denmark has surrendered, Hamburg is in Soviet hands already, light US forces are barely holding out in Munich and the lead Soviet armoured spearhead is just north of Essen.  British forces in the north literally evaporated under the weight of Soviet firepower and their HQ will be forced to retreat immediately behind a very thin screening force.  I'm probably going to have to abandon Germany completely and try to use the major river terrain to the north & the mountains to the south of the Swiss border to my advantage , hopefully forming a defendable line (D'you reckon they will invade Switzerland.....How much gold did they have stored there I wonder?  :P ).  With a bit of luck I can then crush them with my 'Silver Birds' by day & 'The Heavies' by night......Hopefully!  :unsure:

As for the situation in China.....Well I should be able to keep hold of Taiwan, put it that way!   :(

The scripted messages in the campaign are very elegantly done and they set the scene beautifully.....Highly recommended.  B)

"Right you goddam commie pinko b******s.....It's my turn now!"  :angry:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

BTW, for the benefit of those whose wargaming tastes extends beyond CM, a hypothetical 1948 WWIII scenario is available for Strategic Command Global Conflict Gold.....I've not played it before, but you can be damned sure I will now, from both sides!  ;)

PS - Just started it as the Allies and I gotta tell ya, after the Commies' opening move things ain't looking great!  :o 

A fortnight into the war & communist insurgencies are popping up all over the British Empire and the liberated territories, Hamburg has fallen already, light US forces are barely holding out in Munich and the lead Soviet armoured spearhead is just north of Essen.  British forces in the north literally evaporated under the weight of Soviet firepower and their HQ will be forced to retreat immediately behind a very thin screening force.  I'm probably going to have to abandon Germany completely and try to use the major river terrain to the north & the mountains to the south of the Swiss border to my advantage, hopefully forming a defendable line.  With a bit of luck I can then crush their armoured spearheads with my 'Silver Birds' by day & 'The Heavies' by night......Hopefully!  :unsure:

As for the situation in China.....Well I should be able to keep hold of Taiwan, put it that way!   :(

The scripted messages in the campaign are very elegantly done and they set the scene beautifully.....Highly recommended.  B)

"Right you goddam commie pinko b******s.....It's my turn now!"  :angry:

basing what might have happened on a game with scripting that is questionable is not a very valid historical argument.

Regarding Soviet military capability.  I think you highly over rate what Russia would have been capable of with out lendlease.  Forget RR stock replacement, food stuffs, critical components, oil industry would be devastated as ASL vet noted.  The thought that there would be uprisings all over the British empire gives way way too much credence to Comintern capabilities (a fortnight?  You realize this is not the internet age right?  How did those units even get info in 2 weeks?)  As it was they had already done as much as they could given their logistical reach.  To think they would do more in an active war footing scenario is pretty funny.  Every single Russian Embassy would have been shut down depriving them of a base for activities. Makes one wonder about Tito with allies in the west. Not to mention, the Soviets would actually be even more vulnerable to an anti Russian partisan movement in Poland and the Ukraine.  So you have a Russian army in Germany under assault from everything the Allies can throw at it with a logistical supply line going back to the Urals that is under attack throughout Poland and the Ukraine while US carrier groups are raiding the Baltic coast all the way back to St Petersburg...mmm I am not thinking this is a winning scenario.  The Russians had never experienced the artillery power of the west either.  That was gonna be a real bad experience as Russian artillery capabilities weren't even close.

As to the Soviets taking Hamburg.  No not in the 1940's.  With the full might of US and Allied armies still in Europe (that were far more mobile and with a logistical base the Soviets couldn't even begin to hope to match) and the Soviets facing a logistical burden trying to keep supplies coming east (yeah that is more what ASL Vet is referring to - think Normandy prior to D Day when the US air force targeted every RR route coming in towards the front.)

As to China taking Taiwan.. How did that happen when they couldn't do it in real life and wanted to? How did they manage in your game with no navy or air force to speak of?

Mind you that wouldn't stop me for a moment in wanting CMRT units in CMFB.  :D  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMS said:

Jets were "just around a corner". Time gap when western powers had a big advantage was narrow, 45-46 or so. Mig-9 was designed specially for B-29s, it was ready to large series. Production was delayed because there was no need, as war was over. (Like in case of T-54, SKS)  And modifications of La, Yaks with jet engines. How effective were B-29s against Mig-15 is well known.

The Soviets had a demonstrated advantage in the jet department as was shown in Korea, although the US adapted fairly quickly once they realized the disadvantage.  Pershing / Super Pershing and T54 would be interesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×