WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2242
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 21 Nov 2020 03:18

Or, the US could use ports on the Atlantic and move the supplies by rail forward. Unlike Italian Libya, the French colonies had operable rail lines that US Railroad engineers and operating battalions improved from something like 300 to 600 tons a day to over 1000. If more capacity was needed, I'm sure it would have been added. That would render Gibraltar irrelevant in stopping the flow of supplies to Allied forces operating out of French territory.
Of course, once past Gibraltar, the Allies could always put some of those supplies back on ships to move along the coast instead of relying solely on the railroads as well.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3381
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Nov 2020 03:21

T. A. Gardner wrote:
21 Nov 2020 03:18
Or, the US could use ports on the Atlantic and move the supplies by rail forward. Unlike Italian Libya, the French colonies had operable rail lines that US...
Why, yes, as in "transshipped overland". Or did you think I was talking about long-haul trucking? :D
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7821
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Nov 2020 12:16

Richard Anderson wrote:
19 Nov 2020 16:45
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
19 Nov 2020 07:34
I used to have some notes that showed the Allied totals across the MTO for January, and again in April or May. I can't trust my memory but it seems at the latter date the Allied strength in the operating units, and replacement/reserves were about triple the number shown above. Which is about what John Ellis gave for the full operating strength of the German air forces in January 1943. IIRC total Allied operating strength in both the UK & MTO mid 1943 was a bit north of 10,000 aircraft. 11 or 12k?
I doubt if adding the British would triple that figure and "replacement/reserves" were aircraft, which are not much good without crews. As of 23 February 1943, the Northwest African Air Forces on hand aircraft strength, including USAAF and RAF units was (USAAF/RAF):

Northwest African Strategic AF - 410/16
Northwest African Tactical AF - 178/184
Western Desert AF - 258/98
Northwest African Coastal AF - 19/127
Total - 865/425
I was referring to May 1943 as the latter date. Reserves are important. What you have in the replacement stream is what you have to keep units at strength, or not. That also effects the build up of new operating units.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2242
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 21 Nov 2020 15:21

Richard Anderson wrote:
21 Nov 2020 03:21
T. A. Gardner wrote:
21 Nov 2020 03:18
Or, the US could use ports on the Atlantic and move the supplies by rail forward. Unlike Italian Libya, the French colonies had operable rail lines that US...
Why, yes, as in "transshipped overland". Or did you think I was talking about long-haul trucking? :D
Well, the US did that too... Red Ball, Burma road, etc....

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 22 Nov 2020 04:10

Richard Anderson wrote:Is the Tarifa weapons platform going to close the straits with a gate?
Little thing called artillery. It could throw chunks of steel - exploding chunks of steel! - at ranges over 9 miles. Puts holes in ships. Holes are bad for ships.
Richard Anderson wrote:Uh, yes somebody did mention U-boats, me.
E-boats and their Italian equivalents. Mines.
Richard Anderson wrote: I would swear you just said, you had "discussed at length elsewhere the logistical problems posed by having to sail around South Africa" and "that's a terrible logistical proposition - a 15,000 mile route",
As you know, the OTL Italian efforts were supported by convoys transiting the strait. As we're discussing the logistical impediment to invasions of Europe via the Med, everything else pre-July '43 is a red herring, such as this:
Richard Anderson wrote:The round Cape Horn route involved about 200 sailings from the US in the last four to five months of 1942, before rerouting via the longer Panama Canal and Pacific route of about 500 sailings...in round numbers about 700 sailings out of 47,997 or about 1.5%.
...not relevant to an ATL invasion of Italy where Gemany controls Tarifa.
BTW, was Brooke talking deadweight tons or measurement tons?
AFAICS measurement tons was solely a US thing? Seems like something cooked up a rough/ready approximation tool for volume-weight conversion. I.e. a measurement ton worked out to around a short ton for most U.S. army cargo, more or less. But you've piqued my curiosity, I'm going to poke around a bit.
Richard Anderson wrote:Brooke's numbers sounded menacing at Casablanca, but they only worked because FDR had insisted Marshall not bring a large support staff to the conference, which severely hampered the Americans in negotiations when Brooke et all starting waving unfounded numbers about like bloody great swords.
IIRC Brooke wasn't talking about American shipments around the Horn or the longer way via Panama - rather British. Most shipments to the MidEast were British, not American.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3381
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Nov 2020 09:47

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
22 Nov 2020 04:10
Little thing called artillery. It could throw chunks of steel - exploding chunks of steel! - at ranges over 9 miles. Puts holes in ships. Holes are bad for ships.
Yes, I thought so. However, I suspect you don't know as much as you think you do about the Spanish coast artillery and its capability. At least you didn't say anything about the Dove guns firing chunks of steel 21.7 miles. :lol:
E-boats and their Italian equivalents. Mines.
Um, pray tell how you plan on planting mines in the Strait?
As you know, the OTL Italian efforts were supported by convoys transiting the strait.
Actually, I don't know anything of the sort. The invasion of Sicily staged out of North Africa. The invasion of Italy from North Africa and Sicily. The invasion of Southern France from Italy.
As we're discussing the logistical impediment to invasions of Europe via the Med, everything else pre-July '43 is a red herring, such as this:
We are? Here I thought we were discussing closing the Straits. Two-dozen odd scattered "modern" pieces in Spanish North Africa and the coast around Tarifa won't do it.
...not relevant to an ATL invasion of Italy where Gemany controls Tarifa.
I forgot about the magic that is Tarifa. :D
AFAICS measurement tons was solely a US thing?
Nope, it was a worldwide standard more or less by the early 20th century, set by the London Board of Trade IIRC?
Seems like something cooked up a rough/ready approximation tool for volume-weight conversion. I.e. a measurement ton worked out to around a short ton for most U.S. army cargo, more or less. But you've piqued my curiosity, I'm going to poke around a bit.
Enjoy. You may want to look into the Spanish coast artillery too.
IIRC Brooke wasn't talking about American shipments around the Horn or the longer way via Panama - rather British. Most shipments to the MidEast were British, not American.
No, he was talking Anglo-American bottoms and so was I.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2191
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 22 Nov 2020 10:49

Richard Anderson wrote:
22 Nov 2020 09:47
The invasion of Sicily staged out of North Africa.
Except for the Canadian Division as far as I know which deployed from the UK.

If the straits are closed in this fantasy, one would also need to consider the heavy naval covering forces which would have staged out of both the UK and Gibraltar (Force H).

Regards

Tom

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by maltesefalcon » 27 Nov 2020 17:31

Politician01 wrote:
14 Nov 2020 17:39
The costs of an 88 mm AA gun were around 15 000 Dollars, the average 3400 rounds of ammunition needed to down an Allied bomber cost another 107 000 Dollars = 120 000 Dollars. However a B17/24 cost 300 000 Dollars. In terms of costs the German Flak had a 2:1 or even 3:1 exchange ratio in its favor.
I am not questioning your cost statistics above, just the methodology. If you wanted a proper cost benefit analysis, you'd need to add in the factor of economic damage caused by the very same bombing raids. This would include physical damage and lost future output of dead or de-housed workers. That may not totally even the balance sheet, but it would tip it towards the allies a bit more.

In any case wars are not fought like that. How many shells were used per infantry casualty on the land front? Even today, US uses a multimillion dollar drone and Hellfire combination to take out two Taliban in a 4x4.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 354
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 28 Nov 2020 10:12

maltesefalcon wrote:
27 Nov 2020 17:31
I am not questioning your cost statistics above, just the methodology. If you wanted a proper cost benefit analysis, you'd need to add in the factor of economic damage caused by the very same bombing raids. This would include physical damage and lost future output of dead or de-housed workers. That may not totally even the balance sheet, but it would tip it towards the allies a bit more.
Well if you count everything, you have to count the Allied bombers that were damaged and had to be repaired as well. This costs a lot of money. You have to count the fuel,bombs and ammunition that were necessary for each bombing raid, all the bombs/fuel/ammunition wasted because they failed to hit their target, the training costs for the bomber crew, the extra equipment and armour the bombers received after they came out of the factory ect ect This would tip the balance sheet towards the Germans a bit more.
maltesefalcon wrote:
27 Nov 2020 17:31
Even today, US uses a multimillion dollar drone and Hellfire combination to take out two Taliban in a 4x4.
The Soviets used multi million helicopters in the Afghan war that were shot down by missiles that cost less than 50 000 dollars fired from launchers that costs less than 20 000 Dollars. That was one of the major reasons why the Soviets were "defeated" in the Afghanistan conflict - the exchange ratio was just not economical.

As for the US today: Yes multi million Dollar drones are used - but how many are lost? If the Russians would have supplied the Taliban with sofisticated and cheap AA equipment, US losses would have been far larger than OTL and US troops would have withdrawn from Afghanistan a long time ago.

Return to “What if”