what if allies keep moving EAST??

[IAR80]

Hah, that's a good one...
Do you really think that the soviets made friends by the way they treated people in the "freed" lands. Wrong, they acted like medieval conquerors and looted and burned just like the germans, only difference is that the sovs had less to do because the Katyushas razed most of stuff animate or inanimate.
The former Axis sattelites joining commies was the LAST thing they wanted, they knew very well what hid behind the socialist dream.
As for the Taliban statement, the US and Taliban are sworn enemies, while in 1945 US and USSR are former allies, the average red soldier hated nazis and just nazis so the whole "bribing" thing would still work.
And yes, ever since june 1941 the soviet soldier was either executed by the politic police or fight against the germans, Stalin wasn't on the level, if you know what I mean and his purges in the 1930s prove it( LeoAU, I hope you know what I'm talking about, these are the purges that stripped the SU of its finest officers).
As for the nukes, I think the average russian will not hold his ground when he sees a wall of fire raging towards him. Again, the soviets were not superhuman.
As for past alliances, when Hitler died, Germany and Germans became quite fast the symbol of Western Europe and the resistance against communism, all of the good things Germany meant before 1933.
Once Hitler died, his evil spell if you like, vanished and the germans turned from monsters to men, how do you explain the support Germany received after the war instead of being treated like in 1918.
Communism was the new horrible enemy and everyone knew it, even the average russian.

[LeoAU]

Superfortress' would navigate to the target using a combination of stars (like in the Pacific) and radar. Soviet terrain would mean nothing. Also, the B-29 would be flying at an altitude higher than that of any Soviet night fighters

Terrain means nothing... hm.. should I leave right now...? DO you know anything about Ural mountains? In case you have never seen any mountains, I will tell you. 2000 miles long, 100 miles wide, up to 2000 meters hight.
Amoung those masses of stones are factories, hungrets of them. Weater conditions are tough - too cloudy, B52 would have to come down and let me tell you, radars are useless in there. I reckon dead bodies of superfortresses would look good on those rocks. And what impact would AB cause exploding in the mountains? Read about Nagasaki vs Hirosima and you may (perhaps not) understand that 'Tankograd' is pretty safe.
Question for you - how high can B52 fligh WITH full bomb load WITH full fuel load vs how high Soviet fighters - Yak-3, Mig-3 could fligh.
Don't reply to this one, I know you already admitted you are wrong.

They would be shot down , all of them while looking at the stars! It would be beautiful death. In the middle of nowhere... 'Where are we, where are we, they all around us, can't see any stars what do we do??' Cover? In Korea Soviets showed what they do with all that flying US equipment. Different planes they had, BUT same pilots.

Now the most important thing. How many missions would US have to fly before deploying AB? I really hope that I am not wasting my time and you are not sending AB in the middle of Russia on the first mission looking at stars! So, Soviets would have cover those areas, AA, fighters. It's not Japan, USSR had hige resourses and excellent planes and pilots (sadly enough, you are probably unaware of this fact).

#2 thing wrong about you're comments - You're assumptions about Japan are wrong. The Japanese Army HATED the Soviets after Nomanhan and would rather side with the Americans. They hated the USSR more than any other country in fact.

About Japan. Japan allies with US - r u nuts? Can you imagine USSR allies with Germany in 1945? This is a what-if scenario. Everything is acceptable. But not this! Come on, US with all its pride, after Pearl Harbour, would even consider offering such thing to Japan? And after Hirosima and Nagasaki Japan would ally with US??

And Japan hated US more than USSR - you know they attacked US, not Russia in dec 41. They were afraid of Russia more than of US, that is right.

With Russia on the other hand Japan allies easily . Do you know that before ww2 Russia and Germany were the best friends, and England hated Russia. I think you've heard this before, Russia allied with England and with US. That is the best example of 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle.

The US Navy had a blockade around Japan. The USSR had no navy to break the mighty USN's defences (esp. our carriers), therefore, they would be unable to help Japan.

As for your carriers. They can be very useless and very fragile (Midway - 10 min, less 3 carriers). Besides, the war would be happening on land.
1mln Kwantung army instead of facing Soviets could be turned South and together with communist Chinese forces wipe out Americans from Asia. Hence no airbases in China.

#3 wrong about you're comments - The atomic bomb would have a huge effect on moral if it was dropped on Moscow, Leningrad, or Stalingrad. It would have a huge effect on production if it was dropped on Tankograd, Vladivostok, Murmansk, or a Ural Mts. factory complex. You're VERY wrong, again.

I hope I don't have to prove even to you than on USSR military 1 or 2 bomb wouldn't have any effect, neither on economy. Let me know if you don't know why.

Morale - the only thing that could be shaken.

You, being an average ignorant person, don't know what morale is, what Soviet morale was. AB on Stalingrad? Man, do you know that Stalingrad saw 10 times more than 1 AB? Do you know that there was practically nothing to bomb after all? Leningrad? It would be a huge morale boost to Soviets. City of Lenin bombed - barbarians! Germans starved the city to death, but nothing like that! kill them all! Huge boost.
Moscow? Never! Hint - Tokio wasn't bombed. Simply because without goventment and head of the sate there would be noone to offer to capitulate, noone to negociate with etc etc I hope you understand this.

Your ignorance about USSR is just amazing. Even if they dare to drop a bomb, even if USSR government decides to let the country know about this (all mass media is controlled by governmtent), nothing but the hate would be in Russian heads.

p.s.
I tried to reply to your post in the old forum but it was locked.

[LeoAU]

Do you really think that the soviets made friends by the way they treated people in the "freed" lands. Wrong, they acted like medieval conquerors and looted and burned just like the germans, only difference is that the sovs had less to do because the Katyushas razed most of stuff animate or inanimate.

facts, figures, witnesses, statistics? can you provide me with them. I heard this before, it's all coming from nazi apologists - they say see, Germans were better than commies and we went east to save world against communism. But it's all rubbish.
Germany got what they deserved, similar stuff was happenning in Romania before they joined allies.

You can't compare Soviet and Nazi occupation regimes. Regarding 'evils' of communism - use newer sources, throw out your cold war text books.

USSR and Germany were best friends prior June 41. How was that bribing working after the war started.

And yes, ever since june 1941 the soviet soldier was either executed by the politic police or fight against the germans, Stalin wasn't on the level, if you know what I mean and his purges in the 1930s prove it( LeoAU, I hope you know what I'm talking about, these are the purges that stripped the SU of its finest officers).

As for the nukes, I think the average russian will not hold his ground when he sees a wall of fire raging towards him. Again, the soviets were not superhuman.

IMPORTANT: read this. US had ONLY 2 nukes in August 41. Full stop. Even if both are used against USSR, they wouldn't be used against front line troops. Because 1.they could hurt their own soldiers 2. Civil casualties - French if war is happening in France or German if war is still on German soil. And how do you want ally with them later if you nuke their cities.
3. Insignificance of damage.

Front line troops will know that their home was nuked by US capitalist agressor and that their only child that was left alive after German bombings and starvation was killed last day. 50 years later you would complain about terrible Soviet occupation of France - but hey, you know why that would've happened that way.

Once Hitler died, his evil spell if you like, vanished and the germans turned from monsters to men, how do you explain the support Germany received after the war instead of being treated like in 1918.

Yep, right on Nuremberg trial they turned from monsters to humans when the world was shocked by those atrocities. And on those thousands of trials around the world against nazies, ss, and other animals.
The support Germany received - it's cheaper to support Germany now and get prosper country full in debts rather than create another humiliated Germany and get the same result when 15years later another idiot comes to power and anything could happen. Plus US needed strong buffer zone between western europe and communists countries. But it's not becasue US was so sympathetic towards Germany.

Communism was the new horrible enemy and everyone knew it, even the average russian.

Where the hell did you get this idea from??? Communism saved the world against nazies. It was superior society and ideology. People were not spoiled by 50 years of cold war anti communist propaganda as yet. Communist party tripled during GPW because of what?? How do you explain that? Commisars made them join at gun point? Because people believed in party and many believed in damn Stalin.

[Logan Hartke]

Terrain means nothing... hm.. should I leave right now...? DO you know anything about Ural mountains? In case you have never seen any mountains, I will tell you. 2000 miles long, 100 miles wide, up to 2000 meters hight.

Amoung those masses of stones are factories, hungrets of them. Weater conditions are tough - too cloudy, B52 would have to come down and let me tell you, radars are useless in there. [/quote]
#1 - The B-29 could fly above the height of the mountains.

Amoung those masses of stones are factories, hungrets of them.

Then it shouldn't be hard to find a target.

Weater conditions are tough - too cloudy

#2 - Planes can fly above and/or through clouds, then come down to bomb the target.

B52 would have to come down and let me tell you, radars are useless in there.

#3 - I thought we were talking about the Superfortress, not the Stratofortress. You don't even know what war we are talking about.
#4 - Why can't you use radar there? This sounds like Bermuda Triangle science to me.

And what impact would AB cause exploding in the mountains? Read about Nagasaki vs Hirosima and you may (perhaps not) understand that 'Tankograd' is pretty safe.

#5 - The atomic bomb doesn't explode on a target, it explodes over it, making the destruction even worse. YOU are the one that needs to read about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, because, obviously, you know nothing about how an atomic bomb works.
BTW - I take it you admit that you are wrong about Tankograd.

Question for you - how high can B52 fligh WITH full bomb load WITH full fuel load vs how high Soviet fighters - Yak-3, Mig-3 could fligh.
Don't reply to this one, I know you already admitted you are wrong.

#6 - Same as #3
#7 - By the time the B-29 gets over the airfields protecting the factories, it doesn't have a full fuel load, it is about 1/3 gone.
#8 - This is at night anyway, the Soviets don't have night fighters capable of intercepting it.
#9 - I'm not admitting I'm wrong because I'm not.

They would be shot down , all of them while looking at the stars! It would be beautiful death. In the middle of nowhere... 'Where are we, where are we, they all around us, can't see any stars what do we do??' Cover? In Korea Soviets showed what they do with all that flying US equipment. Different planes they had, BUT same pilots.

#10 - What night fighters did the Soviets have capable of intercepting the B-29 and getting through P-61 fighter escort?
#11 - Also, the MiG-15 had the firepower, speed, and altitude to intercept the B-29, and the speed to outrun the gun turrets. The Soviets didn't in 1945.

Now the most important thing. How many missions would US have to fly before deploying AB? I really hope that I am not wasting my time and you are not sending AB in the middle of Russia on the first mission looking at stars! So, Soviets would have cover those areas, AA, fighters. It's not Japan, USSR had hige resourses and excellent planes and pilots (sadly enough, you are probably unaware of this fact).

#12 - Same as #8, #10, and #11.

About Japan. Japan allies with US - r u nuts? Can you imagine USSR allies with Germany in 1945? This is a what-if scenario. Everything is acceptable. But not this! Come on, US with all its pride, after Pearl Harbour, would even consider offering such thing to Japan? And after Hirosima and Nagasaki Japan would ally with US??

And Japan hated US more than USSR - you know they attacked US, not Russia in dec 41. They were afraid of Russia more than of US, that is right.

With Russia on the other hand Japan allies easily . Do you know that before ww2 Russia and Germany were the best friends, and England hated Russia. I think you've heard this before, Russia allied with England and with US. That is the best example of 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle.

#13 - Study your Pacific history, the IJN wanted to attack the US, but the IJA wanted to ally with Germany and attack the USSR. The IJN had more pull, so they got their way in 1941. Don't categorize the Japanese armed forces into one big pile; they had very different ideas and didn't get along. The IJA hated the Soviets and the IJN felt Americans were the greater threat.
#14 - The Kwantung Army is part of the IJA and by mid-1945, the IJN is not in existence, so it doesn't have any pull anymore. The IJA would be willing to go against USSR instead of USA.
#15 - The Kwantung Army is composed largely of the units that fought and hated the Soviets due to Nomanhan. They have nothing against the Americans because they have so little experience in fighting them. They do, however, still bear harsh sentiments for the Soviets and would sooner commit suicide than ally with them.
#16 - The Japanese had large stocks of chemical and biological weapons that they would turn against the Soviets, causing there to be no more Soviet Far East Army.
#17 - The Chinese air bases would still be intact.
#18 - The planned airbases for attacking the USSR would be in the Middle East, so it doesn't make a difference, anyway.

hope I don't have to prove even to you than on USSR military 1 or 2 bomb wouldn't have any effect, neither on economy. Let me know if you don't know why.

#19 - Again, the majority of tank assembly and production is done in Tankograd. No more "grand Soviet tanks" if tehre is no Tankograd.

Germans starved the city to death, but nothing like that! kill them all! Huge boost.

#20 - You can't "kill them all" if you are a permanent shadow on the sidewalk.

Moscow? Never! Hint - Tokio wasn't bombed. Simply because without goventment and head of the sate there would be noone to offer to capitulate, noone to negociate with etc etc I hope you understand this.

#21 - I'm sure the Soviets would be quite negotiable if their infastructure gets incinerated.

Your ignorance about USSR is just amazing. Even if they dare to drop a bomb, even if USSR government decides to let the country know about this (all mass media is controlled by governmtent), nothing but the hate would be in Russian heads.

#22 - Not true, I'm sure the Japanese thought the same thing - until they got nuked, then they were glad to come to the negotiating tables.
#23 - Also, I'm sure that there could be plenty of other things in their heads: .30cal bullet, .50cal bullet, shrapnel, radiation, nerve gas(in Manchuria), mustard gas(in Manchuria), Bubonic plague(in Manchuria), or nothing at all...

Logan Hartke

BTW -

As for your carriers. They can be very useless and very fragile (Midway - 10 min, less 3 carriers). Besides, the war would be happening on land.

#24 - Silly me, I thought those were Japanese carriers.
#26 - Those 3 carriers were sunk by other carrier forces. How many did USSR have?
#25 - Also, as for carriers being fragile, take a look at American carriers in 1945. Try the USS Franklin for beginners.

[Logan Hartke]

IMPORTANT: read this. US had ONLY 2 nukes in August 41. Full stop.

Those still do quite a lot of damage, and more could be constructed if a need to produce them arose.

Even if both are used against USSR, they wouldn't be used against front line troops. Because 1.they could hurt their own soldiers

Supply lines and staging areas was what I was referring to, not the actual lines.

2. Civil casualties - French if war is happening in France or German if war is still on German soil.

How is it you think that the Allies would be pushed back on their front lines? That's a silly assumption to make, also one that isn't backed up.

3. Insignificance of damage.

You really are crazy, aren't you?












Here's a before and after model of Hiroshima...




















There are more pictures out there if you don't believe me. There are ones of the shadows permantly etched into things and then, if ou can stomach it, there are pictures of the "survivors". I don't think the USSR could stand having that destruction unleashed on it again and again and again and again. The US could produce more of them if the threat existed.

Logan Hartke

[LeoAU]

The posts and replies become bigger and bigger, it's harder to reply, so, i'll just brake them down to 2-3.

Amoung those masses of stones are factories, hungrets of them. -
Then it shouldn't be hard to find a target.

You wanted to bomb Chelyabinsk (if you don't want to look rediculous, use a proper name instead of 'Tankogard'). My point is there are hundrets of factories in there among the mountains. How the f... do you want to find 'Tankograd' at night, in the darkness, on unknown terrain, among the mountains with visibility 0. Answer my question: how many missions would US plane have to flight before dropping AB? How many months?

Hirosima vs Nagasaki : it is well known (well, looking at you not that well know) that though the second atomic bomb was considered much stronger than the one exploded over Hiroshima, but terrain of Nagasaki prevented the bomb to do as much damage. Does it make any sence? Apply this to Ural mountains factories.

Weater conditions are tough - too cloudy#2 - Planes can fly above and/or through clouds, then come down to bomb the target.

To be shot by Soviet fighters and AA guns.

Question for you - how high can B52 fly WITH full bomb load WITH full fuel load vs how high Soviet fighters - Yak-3, Mig-3 could fly.

The question remains and you AVOIDING the answer.

#7 - By the time the B-29 gets over the airfields protecting the factories, it doesn't have a full fuel load, it is about 1/3 gone.

Do you understand that all that time US planes would be over Soviet territory, over Soviet airbases in Asia, Caucasus mountains etc where they have high chances of being shot down.

#8 - This is at night anyway, the Soviets don't have night fighters capable of intercepting it.

What about AA guns? And again, accuracy would be 1%. They would have to switch to day bombing and suffer the losses.

[Logan Hartke]

The posts and replies become bigger and bigger, it's harder to reply, so, i'll just brake them down to 2-3.

Amoung those masses of stones are factories, hungrets of them. -
Then it shouldn't be hard to find a target.

You wanted to bomb Chelyabinsk (if you don't want to look rediculous, use a proper name instead of 'Tankogard').

Does that mean you think Steven Zaloga is an idiot?

My point is there are hundrets of factories in there among the mountains. How the f... do you want to find 'Tankograd' at night, in the darkness, on unknown terrain, among the mountains with visibility 0.

That has already been answered by IAR80.

In addition to what Galahad said, I must also remind the fact that strategic night bombing was fairly accurate thanks to radio guidance, feature introduced originally by the Luftwaffe. Basically a bomber formation would be lead by a bomber with a radio receiver tuned to the guiding stations' frequency and "ride the beam", when the radio detected the "path beam" intersecting with the beam from another station over the target, it's purely X marks the spot. The British not only countered this successfully by jamming but also improved on it. Also, one critical factor is that papers and technicians that worked on a nigh-time telescopic range finder were in allied hands, along with prototypes. Night would be the allies' closest friend. ( A topic about this is on Third Reich with very useful links, check it out). Also, the B-29 could take off from Finland, a very defendable country. So are the bases in China, India, Middle East were getting there is only half of the problem.

Answer my question: how many missions would US plane have to flight before dropping AB? How many months?

Why would it have to fly more than 1 mission?

Hirosima vs Nagasaki : it is well known (well, looking at you not that well know) that though the second atomic bomb was considered much stronger than the one exploded over Hiroshima, but terrain of Nagasaki prevented the bomb to do as much damage. Does it make any sence? Apply this to Ural mountains factories.

Factories have to be built on fairly level land, and did those pictures get the idea through to you that even if they don't hit with their full efectiveness, they will still obliterate their target? Also, so what happens to Moscow?

Weater conditions are tough - too cloudy#2 - Planes can fly above and/or through clouds, then come down to bomb the target.

To be shot by Soviet fighters and AA guns.

You're right, the B-29s can find the target by radar or radio guidance(as IAR80 mentioned).
[quote="LeoAU]

Question for you - how high can B52 fly WITH full bomb load WITH full fuel load vs how high Soviet fighters - Yak-3, Mig-3 could fly.

The question remains and you AVOIDING the answer.[/quote]
I DID ANSWER IT!!! I said that it doesn't matter what Soviet planes can do, because the USSR had no night fighters to whoot it down. They couldn't find it, let alone shoot at it or catch it.

#7 - By the time the B-29 gets over the airfields protecting the factories, it doesn't have a full fuel load, it is about 1/3 gone.

Do you understand that all that time US planes would be over Soviet territory, over Soviet airbases in Asia, Caucasus mountains etc where they have high chances of being shot down.

No, I don't. Why would it be shot down? Let me say it again. THE SOVIETS HAD NO NIGHT FIGHTERS!!! Also, the best Russian fighters would have to be pulled from the front to counter the bombing. The Soviets didn't have enough planes or Aviation fuel to meet the double threat.

#8 - This is at night anyway, the Soviets don't have night fighters capable of intercepting it.

What about AA guns? And again, accuracy would be 1%. They would have to switch to day bombing and suffer the losses.

The accuracy would be fine. I told you, the B-29s could find little specks like Iwo Jima at night IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC,

I DID ANSWER IT!!! I said that it doesn't matter what Soviet planes can do, because the USSR had no night fighters to whoot it down. They couldn't find it, let alone shoot at it or catch it.

#7 - By the time the B-29 gets over the airfields protecting the factories, it doesn't have a full fuel load, it is about 1/3 gone.

Do you understand that all that time US planes would be over Soviet territory, over Soviet airbases in Asia, Caucasus mountains etc where they have high chances of being shot down.

No, I don't. Why would it be shot down? Let me say it again. THE SOVIETS HAD NO NIGHT FIGHTERS!!! Also, the best Russian fighters would have to be pulled from the front to counter the bombing. The Soviets didn't have enough planes or Aviation fuel to meet the double threat.

#8 - This is at night anyway, the Soviets don't have night fighters capable of intercepting it.

What about AA guns? And again, accuracy would be 1%. They would have to switch to day bombing and suffer the losses.

The accuracy would be fine. I told you, the B-29s could find little specks like Iwo Jima at night IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC, which is far more barren than Russia. Also, the AA guns weren't stationed in the middle of the Russian wilderness. What radar did the Russians have? How could they find the B-29 to shoot AAA at it? How?

Logan Hartke

[LeoAU]

You obviously want to use Oboe and Gee systems, right? Gee's maximum distance is 350 miles(~700km). Maximum. And accuracy was reduced with distance.
Oboe's Range was about 280 miles(~550km). Chelyabinsk is at least a thousand kms from the border, plus the distance to your airbase. No chanse.

What's left? H2S/H2X.

The accuracy would be fine. I told you, the B-29s could find little specks like Iwo Jima at night IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC, which is far more barren than Russia.

Ok, you know this, but you fail to understand why. Echoes from the ground areas bounced back with greater strengh, echoes from water were minimal. Minimal. That's why it's easy to find a piece of land in the ocean. They just had to fly in the right direction and wait until the echoes bounce back. Clear with this? That's why I said that German night bombing experience would be more useful, but English one.
So, you stating that in the first mission with the help of H2S/H2X target finding devices fortresses could find 'Tankograd' and hit it.

Soviet terrain would mean nothing.

Ok, I am back to this one. ok, when I said radars are useless in the mountains, I didn't get a discent response. How would you deploy your AB in your first mission if you don't know that this or that town/factory is 'tankograd' since you are there the first time and echoes bounce doesn't tell you anything???

Regaring Soviet radars. Since you don't want to do your homework, I will provide some info.
Soviets used radars since 1942. In the navy and for AA jobs. They were producing them (since 1942) as well as getting them via LL program. Son2 radars were used to direct 85mm AA guns. Also they used early warning and target acquisition radars. Quite primitive though.

Regarding night fighters. Soviets used Pe-2 (2 engine fighter/light bomber aircraft) as night fighters. They used searchlights mounted under the wings to pin down Luftwaffe bombers for destruction by single-engine fighters. 12,000 of them were produced.
So, you still believe the accuracy would be anywhere higher than 1%?

[Logan Hartke]

Regarding night fighters. Soviets used Pe-2 (2 engine fighter/light bomber aircraft) as night fighters. They used searchlights mounted under the wings to pin down Luftwaffe bombers for destruction by single-engine fighters. 12,000 of them were produced.

Maybe 12,000 Pe-2s were produced, but how many were fitted with searchlights? Also, witth US av gas cut off, how many planes could the Soviets keep in the air? Not enough to counter the US bomber offensive and the frontline US planes. I thought I already told you that. Do you ever listen? Also, the Soviet fighters would have to get through the formidable US P-61 Black Widow protection. Where were the 85mm cannons with the radars stationed? I bet they were not much farther east than Moscow. How many were there? I read that only 300 at most were built (and certainly many were lost in WWII), which is hardly enough to stop the US bomber offensive. (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/indexq.html)

Also, with the night fighter aircraft negated, the AA does very little damage. Here is a quote about the German AA defenses that I found...

The number of large anti-aircraft guns used to defend German cites against Allied bombers is quoted as 18,000. One commentator states that the Germans probably lost the Battle of Stalingrad by defending German skies against Allied bombers

Even against the combination of German fighters (some days 600 were available) and numerous anti-aircraft guns , usually 95 percent of the bombers dropped their bombs on or near their assigned targets and returned in re-usable condition to England. (Very few Allied raids had bomber losses higher than 20 percent. "Terrible losses" as viewed by bomber air crews, and "not nearly enough losses" as viewed by the Germans.)

Comments from Jerry L Brewer who did U.S. 90 mm AAA in Japan during the Korean police action. One final thought on AA guns against modern aircraft. It was taking your faithful old shotgun out to shoot birds flying by at 100 MPH. German author Werner Muller in his book "The Heavy Flak Guns" said,"Based on average monthly ammunition consumption in 1944, it took 16,000 rounds of 88mm gunfire to bring down one four engine bomber."
Mr. Mullers book contains details on German AA guns and fire control systems. It is published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. of Westchester Pa.ISBN: 0-8870-263-1

If it tood 16,000 rounds to bring one B-17 down, imagine how many rounds it would take to bring one B-29 down (which flew higher and faster). Remember, the Germans had far better radar in 1944 than the Russians did in 1945 and 1946. Also, the 85m AA was less accurate and less powerful (couldn't shoot as high) than the 88mm cannon and it took them 16,000 rounds to shoot down one B-17 or B-24. Not only that, but with all of those planes devoted to protecting the factories and cities, they'd have none for the frontlines. The Soviets didn't have the resources to fight a two-front war and defeat the combined bombing offensive of the European and Pacific Air Forces.

Also, as for finding the target, I already told you...

In addition to what Galahad said, I must also remind the fact that strategic night bombing was fairly accurate thanks to radio guidance, feature introduced originally by the Luftwaffe. Basically a bomber formation would be lead by a bomber with a radio receiver tuned to the guiding stations' frequency and "ride the beam", when the radio detected the "path beam" intersecting with the beam from another station over the target, it's purely X marks the spot. The British not only countered this successfully by jamming but also improved on it. Also, one critical factor is that papers and technicians that worked on a nigh-time telescopic range finder were in allied hands, along with prototypes. Night would be the allies' closest friend. ( A topic about this is on Third Reich with very useful links, check it out). Also, the B-29 could take off from Finland, a very defendable country. So are the bases in China, India, Middle East were getting there is only half of the problem.

So, you still believe the accuracy would be anywhere higher than 1%?

Yes, I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It was better in the Pacific and Europe, and USSR's AA defences don't compare to Germany's.

Logan Hartke

[Logan Hartke]

I'm getting visions of what the war would look like...





















Logan Hartke

[prejo]

[quote="LeoAU12 mln of USSR troops in the end of the war had A LOT of experience, they rather lacked good training - taht's why Soviets had quite big losses.[/quote]
I thnik that's a little contradiction in waht you're saying. Please define "experience" and "good training". Is what the HJ and Volkssturm had? Is the russian sodier less trained than a teenager or an elder? The most plausible reason of that great death toll is their lack of tactics.
I don't find right now your post with "unexisting graveyards" to quote from it. Have you ever heard the term "Gulag"? Does the number 25 millions ring a bell? If not let me complete the sentence" In russian were at least 25 millions deads, most of them suspected as "enemy of the communist regime" ".
This is not an invention. It's a fact, a proven fact - there were survivors to tell their tale, and also documents unburned. I think in this case Holocaust and Gulag are sinonimous.
In rest I must agree with you, the allies would never enterd Russia. Not with a single soldier, tank or plane.

[prejo]

The US could produce more of them if the threat existed.

Logan Hartke[/quote]

Logan, I think you're wrong and LeoAU is right. The americans had luck with the surrender on 15th of May '45 of the german U-234 (I think) which carries along with two japaneese officers a few hundreds of kilos of radioactive uranium from Germany to Japan. The american industry could not supply enough uranium for the A Bomb in such a short time. They had three bombs - first detonated on experimental purposes on Alamogordo and the other two over Japan. After that the americans would have to produce the uranium again tho build another bomb(s). Believe me even now is not so easy to produce uranium. Think back (technological-wise) fifty years. Sorry but LeoAU is right.
And by the way Logan. Nice pictures. See what german technology can do?

[Logan Hartke]

The first two are drawing of what American technology did to Russian technology. As for the bombs, how were more built between 1945 and Korea? Where did they get that uranium? Also, I thought plutonium could be used. Also, it's not like more than two would be needed. One for Moscow, one for Cheyalbinsk, and that'll do it.

Logan Hartke

[Galahad]

Don't you understand that the Allied air forces wouldn't need to conduct massive bombings of Soviet war plants east of the Urals? The success of the Transportation Plan against Germany showed that what's needed is to attack communications.
Given that the Allies stopped any eastward advance along the line of demarcation between the parts of the Soviet Union that were Russian and the parts that weren't, and then dug-in and based there, all they'd have to do is hit communications east of there, within range of the long-range bomber escorts. It would make any Soviet recovery/buildup/offensives damned difficult if they had to use ox-carts to move equipment from the Urals to the front line. Because raillines and bridges would become basically non-existent for a thousand miles or more to the east of said front line.
And Allied TACair would dominate the battlefield and rear areas, while Allied fighters would control the air. This would continue as the new jets entered service on a large scale, jets that would be superior to any the Soviets used--remember that the Mig-15 wasn't a very effective airplane until the British gave the Soviets the Rolls Royce engine.
Why would the Allies go against Soviet strength when they could go against Soviet weakness? Nuking "Tankograd" seems as silly to me--and as unneeded--as the idea of thousand plane raids past the Urals.
I don't think it would have been very long before Stalin offered to make peace, had this "what-if" happened.

[Logan Hartke]

Very good point Galahad, the P-80 could tackle anything the Russians could fly with ease. You're very right about that. Even Stalin admitted that in 1945, Russia was not ready for another war; their manpower had been bled white from fighting the Germans.

Logan Hartke