Allies vs Russians

as a matter of facts, the allies estimated that if the russians did continue to push west after germany`s surrender they will have to use about 6 atomic bombs, and the main problem was that they did not have money to get the bombs

 

The U.S. lacking fonds !!?? Thats not often that happens !!

 

I read quite a bit of the conversation and you guys make some good points, but some are moot. In a war betten the Allies and Russia I firmly think that air power would win the war. The USAAF/RAF had stratigic bombimg wings. The soviets did not. The US would be able to bomb any troop movements by the russians to smitherians just like we did to the germans after normandy. We would be able to win air supremeacy because even by the end of the war the vast majority of ruusia fighters were not up to snuff with P-51/38/47. The russias had also fought lots of Me-109s, which by the end of the war were obsolecent. The fact that the Russian production facilities were out of range (maybe) of the B-29 is also a moot point. The B-29s would simply lay waste to the front, american forces would be able to push far enough in to hit "Tank-o-grad" Moscow, and any other place of importance, plus the P-51s would be able to out range the russia hunks of junk. I think the biggest factor would be the shipping factor. the soviets can ship massive numbers of the supper efective T-34/85 and IS-2 tanks to the front in a matter of days after finishing each batch. These tanks would be able to smash any American or British tank on the open steppes. Plus the US has to bring the armor and troops in on ships which takes weeks then ship them to the front. But the common denomiator is still air power. In the early stages of Barbarossa, the russians could not move a tank without a bomb hitting it. After the Normandy lands, it was the same for the Nazis. We could eliminate the Russian ground superiority with bombs. They would not be able to crack the air umbrella with the out modeled planes thye flew, and they could not ever match the bombing capabilities of the B-17/29s or Lancasters. Plus America had the NUKE. I times of need, we probably would have hit them with the bomb. Also, the American continent was untouched by the war. American casaulties were in the order of 500,000 for the war. My father estimates the russians had 20,000,000 casaulites civilian and military in the war. Now take into accout the fact that in 1941, russia has 20,000,000 military aged people. put them through the war and they have a lot less while America would still have plenty of people to draw uppon. We would also have had $$$$$$$$$$$$$. The Russia, German, French, British, Jappanese, Chinese, and the rest of the war zones economy's were SHOT TO HELL AND BACK. America has $$$$$, people, and an air army of unstoppable power. Plus we had George S. Patton, called by the germans "That crazy American cowboy". The russias had 1 good general. Zhukov. America wins in all aspects.

 

You are forgetting alot of things !!

Russia has planes too you know !

 

Hi Wspauldo12, and welcome!
I look forward to discussion!

Strategic bombing is sadly less of an issue when the bombers cannot reach their targets. And using strategic bombers in a tactical role (besides being a waste) is not all that effective. Look at how well it helped the British outside Caen.
What would be an idea is to use them against the railways and other methods of communication & transport. Maybe oil wells, if they get the chance. I would also base all the B-29s from the Pacific in India, too try to bomb the giant factories (this is where I would use my nuke, if I had one...)

Have to disagree here. The Yak 3 & 9 were up to snuff. As were the LaGG 5 & 7, and the Soviets also had new designs up their sleeve. Where the West would win is in pilot quality...

Well, strategic bombers on tactical missions are not as effective as tactical bombers on tactical missions. And the Soviets had a LOT of tactical bombers... (yes, mostly the rather obsolete Il-2... ). Also, the range of the P-51 is not really an advantage unless it is escorting bombers.

Very good point. logistically, the Soviets have a massive advantage.

Well, Soviet planes were not outmoded. Plus they had more of them than the Western Allies did - especially tactical bombers. Any troop movements by either side would be accompanied by a flurry of bombs & rockets, until the question of who 'controlled' the air was settled. I reckon that in the air (and probably on land) the Western Allies would eventually win through due to superior tactics/training, and more resources back home to carry on with. However, it would not be easy.

Well yes. Fear of the nuke was what alledgedly stopped Stalin form simply carrying on with the war. However, while the US had the technology, they'd gone and vapourised damn near all their fissionable material over Japan. How to make a nuke without Uranium or Plutonium? (I think I'm right on this, but let me know if I'm not!)

All good points, none of which I can argue with!

 

Welcome to the forum Wspauldo12.

I have little to say that haven´t already been said by Ricky. I would like to arrest you on single point though :

That is just not true. Several talented leaders had emerged during the war on the Eastern Front. Leaders who had learnt their trade the hard way. Valutin, Konev and Rokossovsky for example. Any Western General would have had his hands full opposing any one of them.

EDIT : Valutin was of course killed in 1944, so he wouldn´t have been available to the Soviets post-war.

 

Manpower would have been the key advantage of the West. The Russians had difficulties replacing their losses as early as 1943. They drafted men from liberated areas, but that did not help much. By 1945 their reserves were ZERO. Almost all of the Divisions were under strength; often they had just 50% of the authorized men.

The Allies were in a much better position, the manpower reserves of the US had been barely touched at all, we might have seen large scale defections by Russia’s kind-of Allies(Poland: 150,000 men, Bulgaria and Romania) and last but not least there were literally (POW)-Camps full of soldiers willing to defend their home from the Communists.

I do not think strategic airpower would have played a big role. If suddenly thousands of T-34 with 85mm gun and AGs/TDs with even bigger guns smash into your defences the allied Air Forces would be busy attacking the advancing Red Army units and clearing the air from Il-2s.
In the long run strategic bombing might have had an affect, but the USSR was in no shape to fight a full strength enemy for a long time anyway.

 

It also depends on how you would define victory in this case.

I agree that the soviets, if attacking would probably not get very far, but I also can't imagine the allies conquering great territories in eastern Europe, led alone in the Soviet Union itself.

Another important factor could be communist influence in western europe.
After the liberation, communism was a very important force in western europe, and a soviet vs allies war could well have provoked civil war like situations, seriously threatening allied supplies.
But then again, soviets too would have had similar(if not worse) problems in eastern europe.

 

I would like to point out 1 thing frst in response to you guys. i an talking about war as seen by George Patton. He tried to get us into the war with russia before germany had had a break (ok they had a short break). Patton thought we would end up fighting russia so he though best to do it then when the army was there.


You guys bring in some good air power points. Someone said the longer range of the P-51s and 38s and 47s would not have an effect i a dogfight. I think that is crap. With a range 3 times greater than a russia fighter mentioned the mustange could stay over target and fight 3 times longer. The remaining US planes would force the soviets to try and land, thus shooting them at landing, or on takeoff.

I also am not budging on the heavy bombers in the infantry support role. When the allies ran into a company of tigers in Normandy they did 2 things. Call in the battleships, or stop and have the airforce carpet bomb them out. If you have large numbers of troops in any form of comsentration near the front, they are vulnerable to bombing. The biggest advantage of a B-17 is they bring in 3 tons instead of half a ton.

I also stand firm that we could get into range of soviet production by using ground forces to push far enough into the soviet union to hit them with the heavies. Plus I don't think we would have to go far.

I also consuted and X Marine Corp tank commander who is really big into WWII. He says that the soviets would be unable to put up go air or ground resistance because of the lack of thinks made in America. We sent then aviation fuel, trucks, and other things needed to keep the army marching.

I also have trouble thinking the soviets could keep up with US production. We out produce all german armour with just the Sherman tank. We could also build massive numbers of bombers, fighters, guns, bullets, artillery peices and shells, as well as jet fighters.

Lastly, the A-bomb. by the hight of the cold war the Soviets had enough nukes to kill the world 10 times over. America had enough to kill the world 300 times over. I think we could have 1 or 2 nukes by at least 1947, greanted two years later, but still, its quiker than Stalin would have had em.

I don't even want to adress the bombers in Japan thing. why put your bombers in a place where they are not in range, or in a position to mmove into range, or to support the front? It just doesn't make sense to me. I could be wrong on it all, but I think I got most of it right.

 

Victory would probably be fighting them to a standstill and being able to dictate terms. Any real advance into the CCCP would cause huge western casualties.

Much (but not all ) of the longer range of Western planes was due to the drop tanks, which are jettisoned in combat. Plus, a fighter can only fight as long as its ammo lasts. Damaged fighters and fighters low on ammo have no business trying to intercept enemy fighters over their airfield.

It also ploughs up the countryside and both gives your enemy a lot more places to hide, and gives your advancing army horribly disrupted/broken ground to cross.

Partly this depends on who invades who, but I reckon that whatever happened, an initial Soviet attack (or counter attack) would push the western allies back. Re-gaining that territory would be a slog.

Agreed in full. Although this would not affect their initial offensive, it would doom them long-term.

If the US really geared up to a war economy, yes.

Not Japan, India. Or even China, if they'd let us. Fly them over to the Soviet factories deep behind the Urals and bomb them flat. That is what strategic bombers are for.

A bit of both - same as me!
You're putting up a good argument and making me think - I love a good debate!

 

i only got a little this time.

1. We would not have been able to base bombers in China because the communist were winning after the war, and we supported the nationalist. The communist chinese hate us.

2. The thing that makes US prodution imposible to keep up with is the oceans. We can go about our business with almost no hope of the enemy toching us because it was too far to fly ona mission, and our Navy was much better than that of russia. We could have hit russia factories in one way or another. If they were out off we would have got into range, or built something with the range.



You people are smart! Thats a big complement. I can out argue anyone I know personally about tanks or plains of WWII. You people are stiff resistance, and smart resistors.

 

Now your again forgetting something

Do you think that the Russians will just allow the U.S. to build long range bombers, while they themselves remain passive ?! I dont think so !

The USSR would surely have come up with some solutions themselves for conquering the vast ocean seperating the U.S. and USSR.

KBO

 

Very true. However, by 1945 Mao had not won yet. Although, to be honest, the only way the western allies could have based bombers in China would be to join the fight against Mao, which would not have been sensible if we were also fighting Stalin...

Agreed in full - plus, initially at least, the soviet's lack of high-altitude interceptors would make our bombers *relatively* immune. The only problem is finding a base where the existing planes can hit decent targets, but will not be in danger from ground forces when they land. India is my bet...

Thank you!

Like the Germans did?
Their only real options are:
1) conquer enough of Europe & Asia to make sure that no bombers can reach them.
2) send an invasion fleet out into the Pacific - either after islands or even after mainland America itself (maybe Alaska). Out of the Soviet Navy, and the American Pacific Forces, who do you reckon would win?

 

The pacific fleet wins i think. we had so many aircraft carriers that the russias would have been hard put to keep up with the US Navy, plus I am almost willing to garentee superior carrier aircraft (I don't know if russia operated a carriar).

The germans were looking for a way to bomb america. They had plans for an Amerika Bomber, but nothing ever developed.

I did think of a knew bombing option. US based bombers in Greenland. In 1947 a B-29 crashed in greenland returning to Tuhle Airforce base (which is still aruond) after a secret mission over russia. From greenland, flying over the pole, US bombers might have been able to hit them. We would have needed much bigger bases though. But russia fighters and bombers were pretty short range, right, so US assets would have been relatively safe (as safe a possible in war).

Thoughts?

 

I moved this topic into World War II since it got rather more universal than just Air Warfare. Keep up the good work!

 

I once heard about an incident inh 44 or 45 where american P 38's flying a combat mission over Yugoslavia saw a russian military convoy and wrongly tought it was german.
The Ligthnings attacked the convoy and later were intercepted by some Yak's protecting it.
Some of the P38's(2 or 3 I think) were shot down during this incident, as well as at least 1 Yak.

 

Thats cool, in a interesting way. What was russia's best air superiority fighter by 1945? How would it hold up against America/Britian's best?

 

The clincher is this IMO:
The US GDP (gross domestic product) in 1945 was greater than all the other WW II combatant countries combined.

Wartime GDP of the Great Powers
1938 to 1945 in International Dollars and 1990 Prices (billions)*
Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
USA........800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 ..1499 ...1474
UK...........284 287 316 344 .353 .361 ....346 ......331
France .....186 199 164 130 116 110 ......93 ......101
Italy .........141 151 147 144 145 137 .....117 ....92
USSR ......359 366 417 359 274 .305 .....362 .....343
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 .426 ......437 ....310
Austria ......24 27 ..27 ..29 ..27 ..28 ......29 ......12
Japan .....169 184 192 196 197 194 ......189 ...144

Table didn't reproduce properly..go here to see table:

http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm

 

Thanks for that.

 

Yup. The US WWII economy was great. WWII may have trashed the european economic scene, but it saved the American economy. The US government had been working hard to pull out of the depression, but the kicker was WWII. THe government could pour in all the money in the world to fight the war, but at the same time they were revitalizing the US industrial machine and every other part of the national economy. WWII saved us.