Patton vs Zhukov, USA vs USSR after 1945, who would have won?

[Spook]

Originally posted by Grisha:

True, and the Soviets had to cope with that until the end of the war. This is the question that is the most interesting really, because air power would determine to a large degree overall success. In order for US airpower to achieve superiority would require engagement at low altitude, placing US fighters at a distinct disadvantage.

The US/UK tactical aircraft would have been certainly at risk of higher losses at lower altitudes, especially from ground fire, as borne out from actual experience. But regarding air-to-air, the disadvantages might not had been so "distinct." Soviet fighters were likely more maneuverable at lower altitudes in balance, but this was the case for many Italian fighters too. It still ultimately depended on pilot proficiencies & tactics where the edge would lie.

On one such occasion in mid-1944, US P-38's of the 82nd Group accidentally strafed an advancing Soviet column, and Soviet fighters jumped in. It was close-quarters on the deck for several minutes before the 82nd's flight CO realized they were fighting Soviet planes and called a disengagement, but up to then, the P-38's were getting the better of the duel.

Who would remain dominant at lower altitudes would have been fairly intangible.

Also, US airpower was primarily a strategic weapon throughout the war with only a fraction of its forces employed tactically.

Save the US 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th AF's as primary tactical air forces, to name a few, along with added air forces like RAF 2nd TAF.

In contrast, the VVS was a tactical air force that was refined in the use of tactical airpower. This likely would've placed the onus on US airpower, since it would require 'on-the-job' training as they learned to conduct tactical support with ground forces.

Um, that all was already ironed out in 1943-44 quite effectively by both the US and RAF tactical air forces. During Operation Cobra, a central means of added support for the leading US armored columns was rotating flights of fighter-bombers helping to provide cover, controlled by an observer within one of the forward tanks. And the IXth TAC's commander, Quesada, did much in Normandy (in concert with RAF Gen. Broadhurst of 83rd Group) to reduce turnover times of CAS missions as well as improve target-marking.

Other innovations like P-38 "droop snoot" bombadier guidance helped Allied fighters to function even as level bombers with greater levels of accuracy, even as to take out bridges this way.

The RAF and USAAF didn't have to play "catch-up" in tactical operations by 1945; if anything, they paced it, further enhanced by improved flexibilities in their ground control communications. Doubler's "Closing with The Enemy" is one such reference useful for further details on this matter, although references on larger formations like the US 9th AF would also avail a good bit too.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Basically, my opinion is that the Red Army would've effectively responded to any western allied attack, then swept them out of continental Europe in under three months. From that point it gets hazy, since we are talking about a formidible industrialized nation, the USA, with an untouched production infrastructure. How the war would've progressed from that point is anybody's guess.

Almost all the arguments I've seen for one side winning seem to start with the premise that the other side will attack first. The defending side will then win with a sweeping counterattack after the intial attacker has spent its strength.

To turn around what I said above, where I argued that the Allies could probably have staved off a Russian attack, I think the Russians could probably have stopped an Allied attack as well. Both sides had considerable strength--enough to win a defensive war, or at least make that defensive victory an outcome that looked as likely as any. Neither side could realistically look at the other side and consider it ripe for the pickings. Each could probably achieve a local advantage on some narrow front, but sustaining that advantage during a long war would have been dicey at best. And each was aware that,counterbalancing its own strength was a conspicuous strength of the other side (e.g. Russian ground strength vs. Allied airpower and navy.) The Allies weren't about to repeat Hitler's mistake of trying to conquer the Russian landmass, and Stalin wasn't about to try to conquer western Europe in the face of Allied airpower (and in the long run, the atom bomb). And that's why the attack didn't happen, despite grave mutual distrust and the presence of a powerful army ready at hand.

Anyway, my money would be on the defender--I assumed that defender would be the WA, but if the Russians were defending, then I'd bet on them.

[Tripps]

Well, we are all debating different points, lets see if we can pin-point it down a little bit.

If war broke out between Russia and the W.A. in 45, I would imagine the Russian goal would be Western Europe, and the W.A. would be to stop this.

I believe the Russians would accomplish their goal initially, but after 1946 who knows, we can only go on the relative strengths of 1945, and where things go after that is anybodies guess...

I would think the W.A. economic strength would win out in the end, but it would take a very long time.

For those who dont believe the Russians could have conquered W.E. in 1945, cite supply, airpower, mobility/radios, arty, and the naval strengths for the W.A.'s.

IMO, supply was as much of a problem for the W.A. as it was for the Russians, so the same problems for the Russians also apply for the W.A.

I would go so far as to say that the Russians did not have to first ship their oil to Europe, so even have an advantage.

Naval power, only effective to about 20 klicks inland, so when that comes into effect it means the W.A. are doing another Dunkirk.

Airpower. Bomb the hell out of Germany, see if the Russians care, after seeing the effects of strat bombing on German forces (and sometimes yes it was effective on static positions or when the Germans were in pockets), but now times the numbers of troops and tanks by a factor of say 10, have them swarming around here there and everywhere, and then think about how effective that bombing will be overall.

Chuck in the worlds largest tactical airforce, which does not have to fly from England, and I would say that the Russians would have the advantage in the air.

Especially if the W.A. bugger off to bomb the southern oil fields.

The massed W.A. arty? Hmm, I guess the Russians didnt have any?

As far as i'm concerned, the W.A. would have been swamped, and I have seen nothing here to make me re-think that. (remember, 1945-1946 though)

cheers

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Basically, my opinion is that the Red Army would've effectively responded to any western allied attack, then swept them out of continental Europe in under three months. From that point it gets hazy, since we are talking about a formidible industrialized nation, the USA, with an untouched production infrastructure. How the war would've progressed from that point is anybody's guess.

Almost all the arguments I've seen for one side winning seem to start with the premise that the other side will attack first. The defending side will then win with a sweeping counterattack after the intial attacker has spent its strength.

To turn around what I said above, where I argued that the Allies could probably have staved off a Russian attack, I think the Russians could probably have stopped an Allied attack as well. Both sides had considerable strength--enough to win a defensive war, or at least make that defensive victory an outcome that looked as likely as any. Neither side could realistically look at the other side and consider it ripe for the pickings. Each could probably achieve a local advantage on some narrow front, but sustaining that advantage during a long war would have been dicey at best. And each was aware that,counterbalancing its own strength was a conspicuous strength of the other side (e.g. Russian ground strength vs. Allied airpower and navy.) The Allies weren't about to repeat Hitler's mistake of trying to conquer the Russian landmass, and Stalin wasn't about to try to conquer western Europe in the face of Allied airpower (and in the long run, the atom bomb). And that's why the attack didn't happen, despite grave mutual distrust and the presence of a powerful army ready at hand.

Anyway, my money would be on the defender--I assumed that defender would be the WA, but if the Russians were defending, then I'd bet on them.

[General Lee]

The American Airpower would have decimated the red army. Sure the red army had some good airplanes but none were designed for high altitude interceptors since germany really did not pose a threat from the air in the east. Most of germany's air power was directed to the west to stave off the US bomber fleets.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Tripps:

For those who dont believe the Russians could have conquered W.E. in 1945, cite supply, airpower, mobility/radios, arty, and the naval strengths for the W.A.'s.

IMO, supply was as much of a problem for the W.A. as it was for the Russians, so the same problems for the Russians also apply for the W.A.

I would go so far as to say that the Russians did not have to first ship their oil to Europe, so even have an advantage.

I think this misreads the situation. During WWII, the Allies had a challenging supply situation because of U-boats, German control of ports, and a temporarily disrupted rail system. To counteract those problems, they built a massive, massive merchant fleet and a massive, massive fleet of trucks (they gave thousands of their SURPLUS trucks to the Russians.) With WWII over, the Allies had all the European ports open, had the massive merchant fleet, and had time to rebuild the rail system. They had a massive logistical infrastructure without the problems they'd had while fighting Germany. Meanwhile, Russia loses access to its main source of land mobility, American trucks, and has to transport its supplies over much poorer (Russian) roads. They inherit many of Germany's supply problems which grew out of transporting supplies across Russia while fighting a long war.

Naval power, only effective to about 20 klicks inland, so when that comes into effect it means the W.A. are doing another Dunkirk.

I think this misreads the significance of a navy. The ability to interdict a few miles of coast is comparatively trivial. Much more important is that Russia would be essentially blockaded for the duration--not only no lend lease trucks and other equipment but no supplies of any kind from anywhere else unless they can be shipped overland--but from where?

Airpower. Bomb the hell out of Germany, see if the Russians care, after seeing the effects of strat bombing on German forces (and sometimes yes it was effective on static positions or when the Germans were in pockets), but now times the numbers of troops and tanks by a factor of say 10, have them swarming around here there and everywhere, and then think about how effective that bombing will be overall.

Chuck in the worlds largest tactical airforce, which does not have to fly from England, and I would say that the Russians would have the advantage in the air.

Especially if the W.A. bugger off to bomb the southern oil fields.

Russians have the advantage in the air? C'mon. And keep in mind that the WA had massive tactical forces on airfields in Europe. Only the 8th AF and Bomber Command were still flying out of England.

The massed W.A. arty? Hmm, I guess the Russians didnt have any?

The Russians had plenty of arty, too, yes. But it's awfully hard to ATTACK somebody when the defenders have massive arty support. Esp. when they also have air superiority, which I'm personally quite certain the WA would have achieved in short order.

As far as i'm concerned, the W.A. would have been swamped, and I have seen nothing here to make me re-think that. (remember, 1945-1946 though)

cheers

I have no illusions about the likelihood of persuading you. But keep in mind that the Germans relied on winning a short war with a land based army and a tactical-only airforce and it didn't work for them, even though they started against a WA whose military strength was weak and undeveloped. Why should it then work for Russia against a far more developed and experienced military force?

[Tripps]

Originally posted by CombinedArms: And each was aware that,counterbalancing its own strength was a conspicuous strength of the other side (e.g. Russian ground strength vs. Allied airpower and navy.) [/QB]

Just how was the Allied navy going to stop an attack over the Rhine? Or where ever in Europe apart from the coast.

And dont you think the Russian Airforce would, to a lesser or greater extent, pretty much negate the Allied Airforce?

Leaving the Russians with all their advantages and the the Allies none.

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

The Allies weren't about to repeat Hitler's mistake of trying to conquer the Russian landmass, and Stalin wasn't about to try to conquer western Europe in the face of Allied airpower (and in the long run, the atom bomb). And that's why the attack didn't happen, despite grave mutual distrust and the presence of a powerful army ready at hand.

[/QB]

Please, can we not argue why it didn't happen, that just takes all the fun out of hypothetical debates and 'what if's'!

cheers

[CombinedArms]

Sorry--didn't want to spoil anyone's fun. I was merely moving from my conclusion about the hypothetical situation, which was that neither side had very good odds of winning and offensive war, to the admittedly more realistic and historical conclusion that that's probably why neither side chose to launch such an offensive.

[ October 16, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Grisha]

On one such occasion in mid-1944, US P-38's of the 82nd Group accidentally strafed an advancing Soviet column, and Soviet fighters jumped in. It was close-quarters on the deck for several minutes before the 82nd's flight CO realized they were fighting Soviet planes and called a disengagement, but up to then, the P-38's were getting the better of the duel.

Yes, the US got the better of the VVS in this instance. But it wasn't a case of Soviet fighters jumping in as it was US fighters. You see, the Soviet fighters were hit as they were taking off from their airfield in response to the hit Soviet column - which, incidently, resulted in the death of Lt.Gen. Kotov. A 'vulch' basically. I have the declassified documents on this incident in Yugoslavia in 1944. Also, it was the VVS leader who risked his life by flying alongside one of the P-38s so that the US pilot could see the red star on his Yak. And, yes, the US commander in charge of that sortie was relieved of his command, but no Soviets were likewise fined, incarcerated, or executed for one of those strange 'Stalinist' reasons.

Regarding American tactical airpower, it would be interesting to see how many of their sorties were interdiction, and how many were CAS. I do know that CAS was dead last on the USAAF's list of priorities, but some personalities did good work in advancing air-ground cooperation with specific units.

Be that as it may the fact remains that US aircraft largely had engines rated for medium or high altitude, and Soviet planes were for low altitude. Soviet fighters from 1944 and the La-5FN from 1943 were superb fighters within their effective altitude (on the deck to about 16,000ft.), being both quite maneuverable yet possessing very good energy characteristics and high speeds. The only prop plane faster than a La-7 on the deck was the Tempest. The Yaks were particularly maneuverable yet fast, and all Soviet fighters possessed high power ratios (high acceleration). Armament was not as heavy as VVS pilots would've liked, but it was primarily 20mm, the ShVAK.

Whatever the case, the battle in the air would've been at low level and hotly contested. It wouldn't have been an assured thing for either side, I'm sure.

Just so you know, my comments aren't meant so much for those who've put some thought into such a ghastly scenario, trying to correctly weigh the sides as best they knew, based on their existing knowledge. It's mostly for those who base opinions on "Rah Rah" ideology posturing. Personally, I'm just glad that scenario never happened, because whatever the outcome it would've been a senseless waste of material, and more importantly, lives, at a time when the worst horror to visit Humanity had just been snuffed out.

[Tripps]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I think this misreads the situation. During WWII, the Allies had a challenging supply situation because of U-boats, German control of ports, and a temporarily disrupted rail system. To counteract those problems, they built a massive, massive merchant fleet and a massive, massive fleet of trucks (they gave thousands of their SURPLUS trucks to the Russians.) With WWII over, the Allies had all the European ports open, had the massive merchant fleet, and had time to rebuild the rail system. They had a massive logistical infrastructure without the problems they'd had while fighting Germany. Meanwhile, Russia loses access to its main source of land mobility, American trucks, and has to transport its supplies over much poorer (Russian) roads. They inherit many of Germany's supply problems which grew out of transporting supplies across Russia while fighting a long war.

I'll grant that supply would have been easier after Germany was knocked out, to get supplies to Europe. So maybe that did mis-read a little.

And because lend-lease stops does that mean every single American truck in Russia will stop functioning immediately? No, the effects of lend-lease will take time to influence the outcome, and yes, the longer it all goes on the Russians become more and more disadvantaged, i've already said this.

The Russians already had the disadvantage of long supply lines over poor Russians roads, and although this caused some problems, they seemed to cope enough to reach Berlin, another few hundred km's on good roads would not stretch them to breaking point.

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I think this misreads the significance of a navy. The ability to interdict a few miles of coast is comparatively trivial. Much more important is that Russia would be essentially blockaded for the duration--not only no lend lease trucks and other equipment but no supplies of any kind from anywhere else unless they can be shipped overland--but from where?

I think they could live without their canned spam

The lend-lease was effective for the Russians, but I think in 1945 they had quite enough for the short term.

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Russians have the advantage in the air? C'mon. And keep in mind that the WA had massive tactical forces on airfields in Europe. Only the 8th AF and Bomber Command were still flying out of England.

Maybe I should not have said advantage, maybe a parity then? Or cancel each other out?

but I did say especially if they bugger off to bomb the oilfields, i'll hold to that

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

The Russians had plenty of arty, too, yes. But it's awfully hard to ATTACK somebody when the defenders have massive arty support. Esp. when they also have air superiority, which I'm personally quite certain the WA would have achieved in short order.

Not if you are attacking where the defenders didnt have massed arty, but thats a moot point.

The Russians had enough to cover a lot more areas than the W.A., I dont think the W.A. could.

The reference to air superiority would mean we have to agree to disagree

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I have no illusions about the likelihood of persuading you. But keep in mind that the Germans relied on winning a short war with a land based army and a tactical-only airforce and it didn't work for them, even though they started against a WA whose military strength was weak and undeveloped. Why should it then work for Russia against a far more developed and experienced military force?

Oh you can hold your illusions, i'm quite ammendable to changing my views based on the whatevers presented.

Umm, it _did_ work for the Germans in Western Europe, and c'mon now, you have to admit it was a close-run thing in 1941...

It could work for the Russians as well because they are (arguably I guess) more experienced than the W.A., and could I be so bold as to believe the Russian ground forces were more developed than the Allies? (apart from the sheer numbers) IE, T34/JS2 etc

[Spook]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Yes, the US got the better of the VVS in this instance. But it wasn't a case of Soviet fighters jumping in as it was US fighters. You see, the Soviet fighters were hit as they were taking off from their airfield in response to the hit Soviet column - which, incidently, resulted in the death of Lt.Gen. Kotov. A 'vulch' basically. I have the declassified documents on this incident in Yugoslavia in 1944. Also, it was the VVS leader who risked his life by flying alongside one of the P-38s so that the US pilot could see the red star on his Yak. And, yes, the US commander in charge of that sortie was relieved of his command, but no Soviets were likewise fined, incarcerated, or executed for one of those strange 'Stalinist' reasons.

Good catch on the Soviet general, I had forgotten his name. Actually, the earlier reference I had on the incident stated that in the immediate aftermath, the Soviets wanted the 82nd's CO to be executed instead!! If true, the reaction from the Soviets was understandable when a high-ranking commander falls to "friendly fire." But indeed, to ratchet things down, the noted CO was relieved or transferred.

(It was because of incidents like these in the Balkans as that encouraged the Soviets to argue for a "bomb line" in early 1945 which Allied bombing sorties east of it were disallowed, a line along which Dresden lay and MIGHT have helped lead to Dresden being firebombed later. But that's taken up in earnest in another topic thread in the GF.)

Regarding American tactical airpower, it would be interesting to see how many of their sorties were interdiction, and how many were CAS. I do know that CAS was dead last on the USAAF's list of priorities, but some personalities did good work in advancing air-ground cooperation with specific units.

Up until 1943, CAS was for all intents a non-existent "doctrine" for the USAAF; much had to be learned first in Italy, and by the RAF too, which germinated more in the Normandy campaign. But by early 1945, 9th AF did have comparable numbers in fighter-bomber aircraft as did 8th AF providing fighters for long-range escort.

As to how many were interdiction vs. CAS, it's worthy to consider in balance, but tactical interdiction if helping to "isolate" the battlefield could actually provide more sum payoff. The trick of course is to be able to penetrate more behind the FEBA, where Soviet fighters and other air defenses would recognizably been a challenge too.

Be that as it may the fact remains that US aircraft largely had engines rated for medium or high altitude, and Soviet planes were for low altitude. Soviet fighters from 1944 and the La-5FN from 1943 were superb fighters within their effective altitude (on the deck to about 16,000ft.), being both quite maneuverable yet possessing very good energy characteristics and high speeds. The only prop plane faster than a La-7 on the deck was the Tempest. The Yaks were particularly maneuverable yet fast, and all Soviet fighters possessed high power ratios (high acceleration). Armament was not as heavy as VVS pilots would've liked, but it was primarily 20mm, the ShVAK.

To which could also be added that the Soviets certainly had their own share of stellar pilots, like Kozhedub(?). Again, though, relative proficiencies and tactics on unit-level would've had no small part to dictate the air combat arena.

Whatever the case, the battle in the air would've been at low level and hotly contested. It wouldn't have been an assured thing for either side, I'm sure.

I think the likely air battle, even over Germany, would've ranged at all altitudes, as US/RAF heavies would've been pressed to help in here too (to least "disrupt" to some degree, if not flexible enough to target accurately mobile formations). But yes, I would concur that the sum air battle would not had been an easy matter for either side.

Just so you know, my comments aren't meant so much for those who've put some thought into such a ghastly scenario, trying to correctly weigh the sides as best they knew, based on their existing knowledge. It's mostly for those who base opinions on "Rah Rah" ideology posturing. Personally, I'm just glad that scenario never happened, because whatever the outcome it would've been a senseless waste of material, and more importantly, lives, at a time when the worst horror to visit Humanity had just been snuffed out.

Also concur here.

[CombinedArms]

I think the Allies big advantage in achieving air superiority would be range. They had very long range fighters that could go after the Russian fighters on their airfields, whereas the Russians could not similarly strike the Allied airfields, except those very close to the front lines. Plus, the Allies have a very large advantage in numbers. They used this approach--long range fighters in massive numbers-- to blow the German airforce out of the sky in a few months in late '44, once they got the P-51, and they almost certainly could have done the same vs. Russia. Even P-51Ds, which were essentially high level escort planes, proved sufficient in the strafing role against the German airforce. And if the Russian planes pull back out of Allied range, they leave the Russian troops unsupported. The Russian advances of '44-45 were made against a non-existent German airforce. It's hard to see them duplicating those feats against Allied air superiority, against an army with lavish arty ammo supplies, and against an army that had 4-5 tanks or more for every one the Germans had.

When it comes to strategic bombing, the Russians lacked the high level fighters and the extensive long-range AA defense weapons that the Germans had. The Germans had more than a million men serving in their AA services. Allied strategic airpower was able to triumph over these German defenses. It's hard to see how the Russians, with much weaker defenses, could have stopped Allied high level raids on strategic targets, including their oil supplies.

And the Allies--like the Russians--had a very strong army in the field. It wasn't as big as the Russian army, but it was a big, capable, experienced well supplied army--a much stronger armed force, obviously, than the Germans had in 1945. Such an army is not quickly defeated, even by a force boasting superior numbers. And the time it would take to defeat such a force would give the WA time to mobilize its strategic advantages.

I'm with Grisha in thinking the whole thing would be a horrible waste, but even as a purely hypothetical scenario--shorn of the horrors of war-- I just can't see Russia winning a quick victory. And that's the only kind of victory that has any chance. I similarly can't see the Allies winning a quick victory if they attacked. The Russian land army is just too strong and the Russian landmass is just too big. Call me a no-fun realist, but that's the way it looks to me.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Interesting, but does not tell the whole story. SOME Soviet fighters were better handling in the soup than SOME WA fighters, but certainly not true across the board, and not enough better to overcome pilot differences. By 1945, with all due respect to the Russians, the average US/UK pilot was better than the average Russian. Also, numbers favor the WAs dramatically. Not only did they have on the order of 2 to 6 times the number of fighters (depending on when the war would start, and if Pacific theater fighters could be redeployed (including excellent low altitude fighters like the F4U and F6F)), but concentration of force would favor WAs. Soviet fighters may fly good in the junk, but they had pathetic range. A 150 (400 to 600 mile max range for most Soviet fighters) mile practical combat radius means that Russian fighters would not be able to concentrate in numbers like WA fighters that had combat radius 3 to 5 times as great. Added bonus is that WA fields can be out of range of Soviet fighters, while the Soviet fighter bases get hit from the air.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Just so you know, my comments aren't meant so much for those who've put some thought into such a ghastly scenario, trying to correctly weigh the sides as best they knew, based on their existing knowledge. It's mostly for those who base opinions on "Rah Rah" ideology posturing. Personally, I'm just glad that scenario never happened, because whatever the outcome it would've been a senseless waste of material, and more importantly, lives, at a time when the worst horror to visit Humanity had just been snuffed out.

Oh, I agree. Nobody in their right minds would have really wanted such a war to happen. Just a little fun wargaming as it were might have beens.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Tripps:

The Russians already had the disadvantage of long supply lines over poor Russians roads, and although this caused some problems, they seemed to cope enough to reach Berlin, another few hundred km's on good roads would not stretch them to breaking point.

But they didn't have B29s, B24s, and B17s raining 1000 lb bombs on their heads. Transport hubs would likely have been prime targets.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Tripps:

could I be so bold as to believe the Russian ground forces were more developed than the Allies? (apart from the sheer numbers) IE, T34/JS2 etc

Probably not.

Tanks. T34/85 more or less equal to M4 easy eight in fighting power/mobility. M4 is far more reliable (force multiplier). JS2 probably somewhat better than M26 in firepower and protection, but Pershing better in fire control and ROF. The Centurian would have also made and appearance in the proposed scenario. Firefly would have done well. WAs far better in keeping tanks running.

Infantry mobility. Not even close. WA mechanized to very large degree.

Infantry equipment. Probably on par except in radios. Would start to change as war went on since some soviet kit was lend lease (boots for example). WAs had better infantry AT.

Arty. Quality of guns, ammo, and fire control with WAs.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Grisha:

You see, the Soviet fighters were hit as they were taking off from their airfield in response to the hit Soviet column - which, incidently, resulted in the death of Lt.Gen. Kotov. A 'vulch' basically.

Isn't it true that most air-to air kills take place where one side is at a disadvantage? With the short staying power of Soviet fighters, and with their airfields within striking range of Allied planes without the ability to hit allied airfields, I'd expect the "vulch" to be a fairly common means of Soviet air loss in our hypothetical war.

[Grisha]

the average US/UK pilot was better than the average Russian.

This has to be seen as a subjective comment. See Christer Bergström's link on this. He's author of the Red Star/Black Cross series on the air war in Russia.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Grisha:

[ See Christer Bergström's link on this.

Speaking of highly subjective:

"Without doubt, the Soviet fliers in general were the toughest and most determined opponents ever to be faced by German airmen. Any other air force probably would have disintegrated morally following the immense losses that were dealt the Soviets by the Luftwaffe on June 22, 1941 - at least this was what the Germans had anticipated would happen to the Soviet armed forces. In spite of this, Soviet bomber crews kept launching one mission after another against the advancing German ground troops during the first weeks of the war, and the Soviet fighter pilots never ceased challenging the Luftwaffe of air superiority."

He needs to look at other air forces during tough times in the war before this statement passes the test.

[White Phosphorus]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripps:

The Russians already had the disadvantage of long supply lines over poor Russians roads, and although this caused some problems, they seemed to cope enough to reach Berlin, another few hundred km's on good roads would not stretch them to breaking point.

But they didn't have B29s, B24s, and B17s raining 1000 lb bombs on their heads. Transport hubs would likely have been prime targets. </font>

[Marlow]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

You would have to find those supply lines before you could bomb them. Soviet deception extended to all levels of warfare, rear area was no exception.

People need to stop drinking the Soviet deception Kool-Aid. Useful, yes, but come on. Ninja supply trains sneaking across the steppes through the night?

[ October 16, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Tripps]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

They used this approach--long range fighters in massive numbers-- to blow the German airforce out of the sky in a few months in late '44, once they got the P-51, and they almost certainly could have done the same vs. Russia.

I dont know the figures, but I wouldnt have thought the German Airforce in mid-end 1944 would have amounted to much.

When I say that, I mean the difference in numbers with Russia, and the fact Russia will have enough gas for them all

So even taking this, (that the W.A. clean the skies of Russian fighters) it would take much longer yes? Maybe three - four times as long?

By then, my theory is, the Russians will have accomplished their aim, and conquered W.E.

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Even P-51Ds, which were essentially high level escort planes, proved sufficient in the strafing role against the German airforce. And if the Russian planes pull back out of Allied range, they leave the Russian troops unsupported. The Russian advances of '44-45 were made against a non-existent German airforce. It's hard to see them duplicating those feats against Allied air superiority, against an army with lavish arty ammo supplies, and against an army that had 4-5 tanks or more for every one the Germans had.

I dont know the figures, but I would find it hard to believe the Luftwaffe had all their planes only in the western theatre, so to say the Red Airforce had a easy go at it while the W.A. had to fight it out, sounds a bit out.

So the reverse argument to answer your question, would the W.A. Airforce duplicate their feats against the Red Airforce?

I thought we had come to a consensus that both air-forces would pretty much negate each other?

The comments about lavish ammo and 4-5 tanks for every German one, great, but they wouldnt be fighting the Germans anymore would they, they would be fighting the Red Army, that had something like a 3-1 figure in numbers over the W.A.

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

When it comes to strategic bombing, the Russians lacked the high level fighters and the extensive long-range AA defense weapons that the Germans had. The Germans had more than a million men serving in their AA services. Allied strategic airpower was able to triumph over these German defenses. It's hard to see how the Russians, with much weaker defenses, could have stopped Allied high level raids on strategic targets, including their oil supplies.

They lacked all that because nothing could bomb the Urals!

They only place they can bomb as far as i can see, that effects production, is the oil fields, so how much time is involved getting all those high level bombers, and all their appropriate equipment, staff, supply lines etc, to a place where it can actually bomb there? I would hazard a guess the Russians would be using this time to develope high altitude fighters.

Granted it might take a while...

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

And the Allies--like the Russians--had a very strong army in the field. It wasn't as big as the Russian army, but it was a big, capable, experienced well supplied army--a much stronger armed force, obviously, than the Germans had in 1945. Such an army is not quickly defeated, even by a force boasting superior numbers. And the time it would take to defeat such a force would give the WA time to mobilize its strategic advantages.

Oh I dont know, your argument above states that the W.A. airforce would clean the skies in a few months of the Russian Airforce, which is almost on comparitable numbers/exprience and supply, so I dont see why you cannot comprehend a Russian army, what, 3 times as big? tearing a few ardennes into the W.A. armies, only with more equipment, their own gas, and led by commanders who had been doing this successfully the last couple years.

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I'm with Grisha in thinking the whole thing would be a horrible waste, but even as a purely hypothetical scenario--shorn of the horrors of war-- I just can't see Russia winning a quick victory. And that's the only kind of victory that has any chance. I similarly can't see the Allies winning a quick victory if they attacked. The Russian land army is just too strong and the Russian landmass is just too big. Call me a no-fun realist, but that's the way it looks to me.

yeah, poo-poo's to you, ya no-fun realist

You play CM yeah? They are all hypothetical battles, you think every battle was a 3000 point ME?

So discuss or no.

I'm not even going to get into the whole horrible waste issue, war is, its a given.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Tripps:

I dont know the figures, but I would find it hard to believe the Luftwaffe had all their planes only in the western theatre, so to say the Red Airforce had a easy go at it while the W.A. had to fight it out, sounds a bit out.

This is actually closer to the truth than you probably think. Germany devoted massive resources to stratigic defense, including a huge AA effort (draining quite a bit of manpower) and a very large portion of Germany's fighter plane strenght, a lot of which was withdrawn from the East.

I've seen figures (wish I could remember where) that stated that Germany lost 4 fighters in the West for every one they lost in the East. In a way, it is sort of the reverse of the ground situation with the air war in the East was small scale compared to the thousand plane actions in the West.

I thought we had come to a consensus that both air-forces would pretty much negate each other?

Where was that said in this thread? I certainly don't think the analysis so far has shown anything of the sort. Numbers are between 2 to one and 6 to one in combat aircraft, depending on scenario. Over time this would only get worse for Soviets given huge disparity in aircraft production. Add in lack of range for Soviet fighters, and control of the air is not at issue.

[ October 17, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Tripps]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tripps:

could I be so bold as to believe the Russian ground forces were more developed than the Allies? (apart from the sheer numbers) IE, T34/JS2 etc

Probably not.

Tanks. T34/85 more or less equal to M4 easy eight in fighting power/mobility. M4 is far more reliable (force multiplier). JS2 probably somewhat better than M26 in firepower and protection, but Pershing better in fire control and ROF. The Centurian would have also made and appearance in the proposed scenario. Firefly would have done well. WAs far better in keeping tanks running.

Infantry mobility. Not even close. WA mechanized to very large degree.

Infantry equipment. Probably on par except in radios. Would start to change as war went on since some soviet kit was lend lease (boots for example). WAs had better infantry AT.

Arty. Quality of guns, ammo, and fire control with WAs. </font>

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Tripps:

Would you rather have say, 80% mechanized, or 3 times the troops, 30% mechanized, in a smaller arena that the Russians were used to?

Where do people keep coming up with this 3 times the number of troops figure? In April 1945 the US Army had 3 million troops deployed in Europe, and another 2.2 million in other overseas locations (according to US Army published figures). This does not include those that could be mobilized from the United States. Add in the numbers for the other Western Allies, and the Soviet manpower advantage is probably 1.5 to 1 at best. Too much of the calculations here are counting divisions. As I have said twice, this is not a valid measure. Many WA divisions were twice as large as Soviet divisions. Further, large parts of the combat strength of the US army was not in divisions, but rather in seperate units (e.g. seperate tank and TD battalions). This is not included in the 61 divisions in Theater at the end of the war.

Thirty two separate tank batts. were sent to Europe. Another 30 or so were located elsewhere. This is enough to equip 10 armored divisions in Europe. There were 52 separate TD batts. In Europe, most of them SP. Not tanks, but this represents about 18 divisions worth of armor. About 5 divisions worth of separate cav units were in Europe. About 10 divisions worth of separate infantry units. A metric buttload of separate arty units were in Europe, but this is probably similar to most armys. Overall, the US Army was supposed to have the greatest amount of non-divisional fighting strength of any WWII army. Figures I’ve seen put the number at 45% of strength outside of the divisions vs. about 20% for the Soviets.

[ October 17, 2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]