Marlow

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(draining quite a bit of manpower) and a very large portion of Germany's fighter plane strenght, a lot of which was withdrawn from the East.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. 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 ]

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 ]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The French divisions to which I referred were fully equiped with modern hardware(US), and for the most part fought very well in Western Europe.

A couple of points here. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the balance of combat formations in Europe is not quite as bad as it seems in just counting divisions given the vast disparity in division size between Soviet and the Western Allies. Next, you are doing a bit of a disservice to the Italians (if you really want to get into it, we can talk about the reasons they performed poorly in some cases). For the last bit, by 1945, it wouldn't be very difficult to move anything to Europe from the US or South America. The Wolfpacks were gone, so their is no risk to transports. The tonnage of shipping available to the US in 1945 was staggering. In addition to the huge quanity of existing shipping (much of which could be moved from the Pacific), by late 44, US shipyards on the east coast were cranking out 1,000 liberty ships per year. That is three new cargo ships PER DAY. They wouldn't even need to form up in convoy, since the Soviets had nothing in the way of a naval threat.

The numbers on the website are way off for Allied airpower. According to USAAC documents, the Army Air Corps had almost 70,000 aircraft on hand at the end of the war. Of these, 17,000 were fighters (14,000 first line P51s, P47s, P38s etc…), over 2,000 very heavy bombers, 12,000 heavy bombers, and 9,000 light and medium bombers. The rest were support aircraft. This does not count the 40,000 US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, many of which were first line fighters, nor does it count Commonwealth aircraft. US and Commonwealth training was also the best in the world at the end of the war. Curious to know how many of the USSRs 15,000 or so planes were fighters. Next take into account that at the end of the war, the US was manufacturing aircraft at an annual rate of 100,000. Further, all aircraft are not created equally. While some Soviet planes were capable short range low/medium level fighters, they had few high altitude fighters, and most of those were pitifully armed. The Soviets would have had a very hard time with mass bomber formations 4 miles up. Even worse, B29s could fly higher than the service ceiling of most Soviet fighters. Soviet fighters would be further restricted in that most had pathetic range. The maximum range for most types was between 400 and 600 miles. These means a maximum radius of 200 to 300 miles, and a practical combat radius of probably half of this. Thus, these fighters are far less useful in strategic defense, and are more vulnerable to attack, since they must be stationed quite close to the front. It is my opinion that the Western Allies would have little problem in establishing air supremacy in the strategic realm, and only marginally more difficulty in the low level tactical world. Your better point is that the impact of strategic bombing on the Soviet war effort is not known. This is true, but there is reason to believe that it would have been more effective against the USSR than against Germany. First, the effect of the air campaign against Germany was being seen first hand, and that experience would be valuable focusing on targets that could be effectively stuck from the air (transportation hubs, oil, power generation). Second, in much of the USSR, there are relatively few routes for moving men and materials east to west (unlike the many routes available to the Germans in moving materials into France from Germany). This same restriction that hampered the German move east, would constrict Soviet resupply and movement. These funnel points would represent an ideal target for strategic interdiction. [ October 14, 2003, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

All I can say is that I did put a small, mud floored ramshackle hut on the map at that location, but the map editor had the good sense to remove it from the final map. Guess you sleep in the swamp skippy.

All I can say is that I did put a small, mud floored ramshackle hut on the map at that location, but the map editor had the good sense to remove it from the final map. Guess you sleep in the swamp skippy.

Your numbers are a little off. 61 U.S. Divisions alone (with about a third armored and a very high percentage of mechanized and motorized units). France had at least 8 divisions (three armored). Great Britain had somewhere around 30. So, we are at 90 plus without even adding in the Polish, Canadian, and other Commonwealth troops that may have been available. Now add in the 21 U.S. in the Pacific, and more in the US, some of which would certainly been moved to Europe in the event of hostilities with the USSR, and the numbers are getting closer. Finally, the difference in division size was not a trivial issue. Soviet divisions were often around one half the size of a Western Allied division. Now we are looking at something closer to parity in manpower, with the Western Allies on the defensive with far shorter lines of supply. You also discount lend lease, which is strange given that the Soviet Army moved on US made vehicles, and was fed in a suprisingly significant amount with US food. Finally, the Soviet air force was strictly a short-range, low-altitude tactical air force. It would not have been able to mount any real defense against long range high altitude bombers. B-29s, B-17, B-24s, Lancs, etc... and their escorts would have been able to strike at will deep into Soviet territory with out much danger. The long supply lines of the Red Army would have been in shambles very early on.

WildChild, where is my turn you yellow bellied useless former squire?!? Boo, how are you and Wildwoman enjoying the battle for Schloss Peng? Pictures and stories please.

WildChild, where is my turn you yellow bellied useless former squire?!? Boo, how are you and Wildwoman enjoying the battle for Schloss Peng? Pictures and stories please.

Too much focus on number of tanks. Factors to consider: Who is on the offense? Soviets already were running into trouble keeping forces moving, and this only gets worse the further into Europe they push. Compound this with allied air superiority (see below)and it is bad news for the USSR. Who has control of the air? Remember, the Western allies not only had a huge advantage in the numbers of tactical aircraft, they also had the only stratigic bombers available. Those stratigic bombers flew at an altitude at which most Sov. fighters could not operate effectively. The Soviets never faced anything like Western Allied airpower from the Germans, even in 1941. End of lend-lease. The Soviets relied very heavily on lead-lease for raw materials, food, trucks, boots, you name it. Without materials from the west, the Soviets have real problems with supply. Manpower. The Soviets were facing far greater manpower problems that is immediatly apparent by examining only the number of men in their army. The Bomb. May not have had many, but the US had the means to deliver the few that could be built quickly basically anywhere.

What’s all this “Four Horsemen” stuff about anyway? These mental midgets are supposed to be the dark power behind the Forum? I mean, does anyone seriously think that Emrys could run an asylum like this one? He’d be chewed up faster than the last bag of Cheetos at a Grateful Dead Concert. Dorish? I suppose he could Grog porn them to death, but lets face it, Mannequin owning Canadians don’t inspire much fear. Nausea and pity maybe, but is that any basis for a proper iron fisted rule? Andreas? A Japanese looking German who wants to be English? Enough issues to employ a whole staff of therapists, but not really overlord material. Berli? Maybe. Running the Forum probably isn’t much different than managing a minor suburb of one of the middle levels of Hell, but he can’t do it on his own. Now, the Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse is somefink I can get behind. We have plenty of assorted Swedes, Finns and whatnot. Give the Forum over to the likes of Geier, CMplayer, Hortland, and Keke, and were on the right track. Who better to enforce the rules than the folks with a proud tradition of raping, pillaging, drinking far too much, eating rotten and/or lye soaked fish, living in conditions so bad that only the strongest and stupidest survive, and thumping people over the head with assorted large bladed instruments. Perfect background for keeping the rabble in line.

You insipid little toad without the brains that God gave a carp, I am Seanachai’s true stalker. If you were versed in the Lore of the Pool, you would know better than to claim the bard for your personal stalkee. Long before you were even a wee floaty bit sluggishly circling in the current of Cess, I was pursuing Senility into the nothingness of the MBT. You and that humorless Canuckelhead crapon66 can go take a long walk off a short cliff. Thankfully mister 66 has gone into meltdown and is hopefully gone for good. You, on the other hand are unlikely to self immolate has he did, so I’ll have to help you on the way. Kannigetts, a map and forces are required so that I can send this pretender packing and claim the title of Eternal Nemesis of the Bard for once and all.

Seanachai I see your stalker is loose on the forum again ( in the follow roads command thread). Maybe you should go say hello.

Oh [blushes], don't you say the sweetest things.

Elite is only available in the editor. You will get a few elite units (and a few vets) if you chose a crack force.

On the way, enjoy.

You've called for a map, and for your sins, I send you one. Check your inbox sparky.

Somfink with you as the Nazi Evildoers® (term used with permission. VRWC license number 0715) will be winging its way to your porn ridden harddrive as soon as we settle on which battle I will use for kicking your fat flyboy butt. You played "South of Heaven" yet?