what if allies keep moving EAST??

[Dave]

And again the Yak-3

Max speed: 655 km/h at 3100 m
Climb rate: couldn’t find it, but you will surely provide it
Range: 900 km
Armament: 1x20 mm cannon with 120 rounds and 2x12.7 mm MGs with 250 rounds each.

F6F-5

Max speed, 380 mph (612km/h) at 23,400 ft; cruising speed, 168 mph; initial climb, 2,980 ft/min (908 m/min)
Range:945 statute miles on internal fuel (1520 km), 1800 (2896 km) with drop tanks
Armament: 6x .50 cal MGs, 400 rounds per gun=2400 rounds

With water injection, as the Ironworks experimented with in the -6, top speed went to 417mph (671 km/h). The F6F was the std Fleet VF towards the end of the war. Advantage: US. The 'Cat outguns and outruns the Yak.

F4U-4

Max speed, 446 mph (717.75 kph) @ 26,200 ft (7,985.8 m), cruise: Couldn't find, Initial climb: 4,170 ft/min (1271 m/min) Max range: 1,560 mi (2,510.5 km)

So, the F6F was equal to the aircraft she was most likely to run across, possibly better, especially if the Old Fleet attitude of 'hang BuAer, let's get the pilots the best equipment' were to prevail. The F4U was superior in every demonstrable aspect; the F4U-4 accounted for most USMC MiG *JET* kills in Korea. Pasted directly from the Corsair source:

In terms of maneuverability, all models of the Corsair were first rate. The F4U-4 was better than the F4U-1 series. Why? More power and better performance in the vertical regime. Very few fighters, even pure fighters such as the Yak-3 could hang with an -4 maneuvering in the vertical. Its terrific climbing ability combined with very light and sensitive controls made for a hard fighter to beat anytime the fight went vertical.

Even when including the Soviets, only the Yak-3 could hope to survive a one on one with the Corsair. To do so, the Yak would have to expertly flown. Furthermore, the Yak-3 was strictly a low to medium altitude fighter. Above 20,000 ft its power dropped off rapidly, as did its maneuverability. The Yak-3 in question had better be powered by the Klimov M107A engine and not the low output M105. Otherwise, the speed difference is too great to overcome.

Here's the link:
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

[LeoAU]

Leo, I'm still waiting for your reply...
Anyway I will again address other posts

I had a look at your posts and my replies, I don't think I have many issues unaddressed. I can't argue about Crimea evacuation figures - mine state 60,000 evacuated, yours--130,000. Perhaps you talk about wide period of time where I use figures for what Soviets treated as evacuation.
Soviets failed to deal with the evacuation and therefore their aviation couldn't do anything against US in the Black sea?
As I said, around 100 planes were involved, their potential was used for no more than 10%. That just shows the importance of this operation. Sorry, it's not me, Soviets decided to use no more than that. Yes, those ~100 planes performed poorly. Those 100 planes failed to stop the evacuation or inflict significant damage. Yes, I agree with that. Severe fuel shortages are the cause of it. But my point is the whole operation wasn't of high importance or it appears to be like that. Crimea was there 'hanging' there for some time, Soviets were well west of it. If it was it the first priotiry, Soviets would've concentrated more planes, and what's more important allocate more fuel for the operation.

Did VVF pilots ever have to find a 600' long bit of teak out in the middle of an ocean, and LAND on it?

Well I see you keep it up with the VVF stuff. It's VVS!!!

I believe Victor is correct. VVS- Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily, Air Force (Sily=Force). What VVF is probably Voyenno-Vozdushnye Fleet, which is incorrect, Soviets used 'fleet' for thier navy only.

But, who's to say that Turkey wouldn't have joined the war. They had no reasons to like the Soviets (given their past wars with the Russians) and with proper American aid (like a big fleet in the Black Sea) they just might be convinced to join.

For all my US opponents it's not an issue. They think of US in 45 as if it's today when US do what they wish. So, I believe they would have to ask Turkey or make it join allies or simply invade. But not just ignore it and try to navigate in its waters.
My point was that with all their love towards Russia, they didn't join axis at their pick of power, when German troops were just a 100 kms away across Caucasus. Why would Turkey risk it when Soviets are at their pick of power and Russia is here, across Caucasus, in Romania and Bolgaria, all over the place and US is very far. What, Turkey didn't fear it could be occupied in a matter of days/weeks by the time the order to send US troops to Turkey would be given?

Anyway, I'm surprised no one mentioned a new front that would be created: the Balkans. Greece was in the British sphere of influence, wasn't it? Greece is a peninsula.

Victor, it was Asian, Middle East, Persian, Chinese, Far East, Kamchtka attacks, now you propose Balkans, we keep on avoiding ETO. Was US really capable of launching all of that?

When would the war end?

It's very hard to say. Probably 2-3 years.

Why 2-3? What would happen to Soviet Army? Totally destroyed? Partisan movement-non existent? How far would US troops go? Ural? Siberia?

Yes we would be better off if the W. Allies win. Think that right now there is only US supremacy and our knowledge doubles every 10 years. It doesn't have anything to do with rivalry, but with the money available for investment. A complete capitalist Europe would mean more money available for research and others.

If Russia becomes democratic and with market economy, themn not only SOviets would be the first in space, they would be the first on Moon as well! No, seriously, you should understand that without rivalry there probably would be no space programs of that size etc.

[Xanthro]

I am still waiting for you to prove that Mongolia was in USSR or admit you were wrong.

LeoAU, you've annoyed me enough about this stupid Mongolia issue, and I've not even the one you are talking too. It appears that you know as little about Mongolia, as you do about everything. While it's technically true that Mongolia was never an official part of the Soviet Union, it's easy enough mistake to think it was, and for all purposes agreed here, it WAS.

Mongolia was a Chinese province until 1911 when it declared its independence backed by Russia, it was then a Russian administered autonomous state from 1912-1919. It was under Chinese control again from 1919-1921, after the October Revolution and until the Communists had firm control. Finally, Mongolia became the second Communist Country in Nov. 1924. Joint Mongolian and Soviet armies faced the Japanese in border clashes in the 1930s.

Mongolian military structure was intergrated with the Soviets, as the only other communist nation, their ties were exceedingly close. Remember, the Communists didn't believe in national boundaries. The Soviets had economic, military and civil control of Mongolia.

So it's easy for someone to think, they were part of the Soviet Union.

Do NOT bring up this inane issue again, as it will only affirm your stupidity.

Xanthro

[LeoAU]

I am still waiting for you to prove that Mongolia was in USSR or admit you were wrong.

LeoAU, you've annoyed me enough about this stupid Mongolia issue, and I've not even the one you are talking too. It appears that you know as little about Mongolia, as you do about everything. While it's technically true that Mongolia was never an official part of the Soviet Union, it's easy enough mistake to think it was, and for all purposes agreed here, it WAS.

Mongolia was a Chinese province until 1911 when it declared its independence backed by Russia, it was then a Russian administered autonomous state from 1912-1919. It was under Chinese control again from 1919-1921, after the October Revolution and until the Communists had firm control. Finally, Mongolia became the second Communist Country in Nov. 1924. Joint Mongolian and Soviet armies faced the Japanese in border clashes in the 1930s.

Mongolian military structure was intergrated with the Soviets, as the only other communist nation, their ties were exceedingly close. Remember, the Communists didn't believe in national boundaries. The Soviets had economic, military and civil control of Mongolia.

So it's easy for someone to think, they were part of the Soviet Union.

Do NOT bring up this inane issue again, as it will only affirm your stupidity.

Xanthro

Xanthro, don't show your stupidity and incredible(for a historian! ) inability to read.
At the top of my reply there was little sign -'Lord Gort wrote:' etc. Perhaps you don't understand that that reply was addressed at that guy, not at you.
I thought it was pretty obvious, well, there are still people who don't know the basic rules of forum.

And yes, it afferms your stupidity. The guy said it was Mongolian troops that saved Moscow in 41. He was corrected by me. He said again, Mongolia was IN USSR and their hordes saved the situation. After accusing me of not accepting where I am wrong I decided to point out all of your (all of you) mistakes and see how many would you accept.
None so far. And you trying to prove that the guy actually was.
And how come you don't point out that Zhukov wasn't home arrested for 20 years? That's the same guy-Lord who posted it Gort, you know. It shows his level of knowledge.

[LeoAU]

For Leo:

Hawker Tempest Mk. V:

Max speed: 700 km/h at 5182 m
Climb rate: 1433 m/min
Range: 1320 km typical (max 2092 km)
Armament: 4x20 mm cannons with 150 rounds each.
Bombs: 2x 454 kg or 8 rockets

In case you are wondering the Tempest is well known for his incredible speed at low and medium altitudes. It was also responsible for 638 V-1s shot down.

And again the Yak-3

Max speed: 655 km/h at 3100 m
Climb rate: couldn’t find it, but you will surely provide it
Range: 900 km
Armament: 1x20 mm cannon with 120 rounds and 2x12.7 mm MGs with 250 rounds each.

Regarding YAK-3. Very interesting fact. French pilots of the Normandy-Nieman regiment chose the Yaks out of all available Soviet, English AND American fighters offered to them. They flew several Allied-built and Russian-built aircrafts but the decision was- YAKs. I wonder why?
Couple of quotes from different web sites, not Russian.
Yak-3 production variants had unmatched maneuverability.

another one

It had absolute superiority in terms of combat features over the latest German, English and American piston-engined planes at altitudes of up to 5,000-6,000m.

Regarding speed. YAK-3 with the engine VK-107A (1,500 HP), had speed 611 km/h at sea level and 720 km/h at 5,750m. Climb -1200m. To 5000 feet YAk gets in 1min 13 sec, Tempest - 1min 21. Yes, Tempest was fast and a good climber as well, but it was a poor turner.
Yak was a pure anti-fighter aircraft, interceptor, with poor ground attack capability or bomber escort. Quite short range. But in 1-on-1 combat it was better.

[Dave]

Regarding YAK-3. Very interesting fact. French pilots of the Normandy-Nieman regiment chose the Yaks out of all available Soviet, English AND American fighters offered to them.

There's your operative phrase. They were never offered any Grummans or Voughts.

They flew several Allied-built and Russian-built aircrafts but the decision was- YAKs. I wonder why?

Why do the French do anything they do? The Gallic mind's logic is at times quite indiscernable from psychosis...

Yak-3 production variants had unmatched maneuverability.

Horse manure. The F6F-5 coould stay with any Yak, and the -6 could outperform it no problem. And an average pilot in a Yak-9 better make sure his chute is well packed if he were to tangle with a F4U-4. He will most definitely be using it. Either the Hellcat or the Vought has 3 times the ammunition, and either has SUBSTANTIALLY more horsepower.

It had absolute superiority in terms of combat features over the latest German, English and American piston-engined planes at altitudes of up to 5,000-6,000m.

Question: Is LESS machinegun ammunition an 'advantage'?

Yak was a pure anti-fighter aircraft, interceptor, with poor ground attack capability or bomber escort. Quite short range. But in 1-on-1 combat it was better.

Than a Tempest, possibly. Either the Vought or the Grumman would shoot a Yak to pieces, as happened in Korea when Yaks would tangle with Voughts.

[LeoAU]

the Hellcat or the Vought has 3 times the ammunition, and either has SUBSTANTIALLY more horsepower.

See, that's where you get all wrong. Horsepower by itself is nothing. You look at the weight of the plane. Just compare Yak-3's weight and Hellcat's. And because it's almost twice lighter, it needs less power engine. It's so obvious.
Climb rate again - Hellcat - 1 min 42. Yak - 1min 13. Do you understand that if your Hellcat loses altitude and wants to regain it, Yak 3 would be there 30 sec faster there waiting for it? And as you put it - would shoot it to pieces.
Dave, do some reading of US and USSR planes. US planes need altitude to work. Soviets are designed to work at low altitudes. US planes' performance at higher altitudes is really impressive, but at lower, it's UK and Soviets who are the best.
US designed long range high altitude fightersto escort bombers or to work in Pacific, hence they take more fuel and need more ammunition.

It had absolute superiority in terms of combat features over the latest German, English and American piston-engined planes at altitudes of up to 5,000-6,000m.

Question: Is LESS machinegun ammunition an 'advantage'?

No. But is it the greatest disadvantage?

They flew several Allied-built and Russian-built aircrafts but the decision was- YAKs. I wonder why?

Why do the French do anything they do? The Gallic mind's logic is at times quite indiscernable from psychosis...

I'll take their expertise and opinion over yuors, they knew what they were doing.

[Dave]

Climb rate again - Hellcat - 1 min 42. Yak - 1min 13. Do you understand that if your Hellcat loses altitude and wants to regain it, Yak 3 would be there 30 sec faster there waiting for it? And as you put it - would shoot it to pieces.

Ever heard of the Thatch Weave? USN pilota ALWAYS worked in pairs. Thus, you get a jump on one F6F, you would be facing the 1500 odd rounds of 50 cal in the other F6F. And your specs are most likely from the -5, and were the war to continue, I have no doubt that BuAer would authorize the Fleet to upgrade their birds to -6 spec. With an F6F-6, all bets are off.

US designed long range high altitude fightersto escort bombers or to work in Pacific, hence they take more fuel and need more ammunition.

Carrier aircraft have good legs and carry plenty of ammo so they can stay in the air on BARCAP, and not have to trap every hour or 2...

BTW, it is very revealing that you did not address the F4U. It actually did prove quite superior to the Yak-9 in Korea, as the US Marine Aviators shot them down in droves.

[Victor]

LeoAu wrote:

had a look at your posts and my replies, I don't think I have many issues unaddressed. I can't argue about Crimea evacuation figures - mine state 60,000 evacuated, yours--130,000. Perhaps you talk about wide period of time where I use figures for what Soviets treated as evacuation.

The evacuation had two phases: 14-27 April and 5-13 May. You are probably referring only to the last one.

LeoAu wrote:

Soviets failed to deal with the evacuation and therefore their aviation couldn't do anything against US in the Black sea

Except for launching mines, I really don't see any other danger from them for a US Navy carrier fleet.

LeoAu wrote:

Why would Turkey risk it when Soviets are at their pick of power and Russia is here, across Caucasus, in Romania and Bolgaria, all over the place and US is very far. What, Turkey didn't fear it could be occupied in a matter of days/weeks by the time the order to send US troops to Turkey would be given?

Because unlike the Germans, the W. allies could have really supplied them with weapons and troops. What makes you think that Turkey would have been occupied in a matter of weeks? It's mainly a mountainous terrain. An offensive in the Asian part of Turkey would require special preparations and time. In the worst case it will tie down Soviet troops and resources.

LeoAu wrote:

Victor, it was Asian, Middle East, Persian, Chinese, Far East, Kamchtka attacks, now you propose Balkans, we keep on avoiding ETO. Was US really capable of launching all of that?

I wasn't the one that proposed those. However, the Balkan scenario is unavoidable, since there were allied troops in Greece.

LeoAu wrote:

Why 2-3? What would happen to Soviet Army? Totally destroyed? Partisan movement-non existent? How far would US troops go? Ural? Siberia?

He asked only when the war would end, not what would happen.

LeoAu wrote:

No, seriously, you should understand that without rivalry there probably would be no space programs of that size etc.

Not when it happen historically, but before the year 2000, you can be sure that men would have eventually walked on the Moon.
Btw, weren't the Soviet Luna space probes, the first to land on the Moon?

[Victor]

Regarding speed. YAK-3 with the engine VK-107A (1,500 HP), had speed 611 km/h at sea level and 720 km/h at 5,750m. Climb -1200m. To 5000 feet YAk gets in 1min 13 sec, Tempest - 1min 21. Yes, Tempest was fast and a good climber as well, but it was a poor turner.

There were only about 100 Yak-3/VK-107As produced in 1945. Let’s say that they were all on the front in Germany. How many Tempests were available? Over 2000, IIRC. Sure, this version of the Yak-3 was fast, but there few of them compared to the large numbers of faster Allied aircraft. The Tempest was indeed a poor turner, but the difference between Energy fighters and Turning fighters was already explained to you. There are countless examples of Energy fighters shooting down Turning fighters. The 100 Yak-3s which could have caught up with an allied Energy fighter that would attempt to disengage were too few to make a difference.

Question: Is LESS machinegun ammunition an 'advantage'?
No. But is it the greatest disadvantage?

Not if your name is G. A. Recikalov, A. V. Vorozheykin, D. B. Glinka, A. V. Aleliuhin, I.I. Babak or V. Smelev or any other Yak ace. But if you are Ivan Ivanov fighting John Smith, I would prefer to have more ammo. Not to mention more weapons and armor.

LeoAu wrote:

You look at the weight of the plane. Just compare Yak-3's weight and Hellcat's. And because it's almost twice lighter

And this also means less armor. Not very convenient.

They flew several Allied-built and Russian-built aircrafts but the decision was- YAKs. I wonder why?

Would you care to list those other western aircraft? I hope you are not going to say P-39 or Hurricane.

Why do the French do anything they do? The Gallic mind's logic is at times quite indiscernable from psychosis...

Another example of American arrogance. Let me give you some examples of "pshychotic" French: Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau, Napoleon etc, etc. Ever heard of these guys?
The pilots of the Normandie-Niemen Regiment were among the finest of WWII. They deserve much more respect than you give them.

[Lord Gort]

Bloody hell, hand bags at dawn. Things get quite heated here dont they.

Lord Gort wrote:
My god, I left for a couple of days for some exam revision and the earth has opened up and Leanou has appeared being idiotic again.

I am still waiting for you to prove that Mongolia was in USSR or admit you were wrong. How is I am the only one not acccepting?
I am reminding about this AGAIN to show the level of your knowledge.

Well there are a few countries that were 'protected', this is made worse by the ambiguity of Japanese and Soviet borders after the border war in 39, Also there is inner and outter etc.

But if i did make a mistake you yourself did say that China was communist in 45, which is kind of a bigger mistake!

Quote:
What next, ok, we have naval superiority. Who cares if we cant get into the the black sea and bomb Baku

Who cares if have it at all?
I asked before, what allies would do after the battlefield moves inland. How iseful would be all that hardware?

I think it ir quite stupid of you to say this. What would be the consequences of Allied navies being able to from the black, Baltic and Azov seas bomb the Soviet Union. Well there would be massive
consquences, the Granin basket of the SU the Ukraine and lots of industry and the Azerbaijani oil fields would all be in range.

Quote:
We add to this German Wehermacht units and that many Soviet generals in particular Zhukov were very friendly towards the west (Zhukov was shorty put under house arrest after the victory celebrations and remained in his dacha out side Moscow for 20 years).


Zhukov friendly towards the west? He was a Patriot of his country. Communist. You are saying he would cross the lines with several armies? Don't be silly.

And about the house arrest. This just shows how little or nothing you know about USSR, its history etc. Never he was under house arrest. He didn't remain in his dacha outside Moscow for 20 years. He was commander of Odessa then Ural military 'okrug', districts. He was minister of defence for some time. He was a free man.
I wonder what Xanthro would say about this isue.

Goddamit, cant anybody just trust somebody, if we all had to get proof then we would be here all day, these forums are here for inteligent people to discuss creativly and passionatley their views, not to accuse and through recriminations around, so in answer here is a quote form Antony Beevors book 'Berlin the downfall'....


"The following year, Abakumovs campaign of obtaining confessions under torture form colleagues of Zhukov led to the Marshals exile in the provinces, and then at his dacha. Apart from a brief period as Defence minister under Krushchev, he remained in domestic exile until the 9th of may 1965, the twentieth anniversary of the German surrender to him at Karlshorst. A great banquet was held in the Kremlin at the palace of congress. All the guests, including ministers, marhsals, generals and ambassadors, rose to their feet when Leonid Brezhnev entered at the head of his retuine. At the back Zhukov appeared. Brezhnev had invited him at the last moment. The Soviet leader must have rapidly regretted this gesture, because as soon as Zhukov was spotted applause broke out, then cheering. Chants of 'Zhukov, Zhukov, Zhukov!' were accompanied by the thumping on the table. Brezhnev was stony faced.
Zhukov had to return to his Dacha which was still heavily bugged. Even though officially rehabilitated, he was never to appear again on a major public occasion during the nine years left to him. Yet the cruelest wound of all was his discovery that he had been tricked by Stalin over Hitlers body."

[wotan]

puh.. Just finnished reading this..

[Mark V]

puh.. Just finnished reading this..

You read through this obstacle course ??

Cheers Wotan !!

We had good time with this thread.

And, not, no, no, no, no, no, don't start this all over again.

[wotan]

he he watch me

USA would have squashed USSR in less than a month since:
1. USSR pilots cant fly
2. and the Yak-3 was the worst wareplane ever
2. USSR tanks are made of light paper
3. IS-3 had no optical eqp. so it couldnt hit shit
4. and if, by some miracle, it actually hit a target its tiny gun wouldnt even scratch off the paint.
5. The general sovjet soldier was a 15 year old peasant with a fork as his main weapon.. spoon was considered a heavy weapon.
(this ought'o start a discussion)

[Mark V]

he he watch me

STOP !!

Leo might be around here somewhere - and he doesn't understand such humor.


BTW. Just got first thread of mine closed. I am bad boy