Look, Logan, this becomes silly, don't you think? And you know you are losing.
What are these pics? Some kind of proof that Soviet tanks could be destroyed? Have you or I ever had any doubts about this? Do you want me to find pics of destroyed US equipment? But does it prove anything? Besides all of that Soviet built equipment and destroyed by Americans was not manned by Soviets. Planes were, and you know the difference between Soviet losses and American, which don't look good for Americans.
If this debate going to turn into pic posting I better quit now. It's an adult forum, not kid's one.
Regarding accuracy of bombing. You either read my post about US navigation hardware and prove that Americans could use anything they had, OR you drop your statement that it would be accurate.
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.
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.
what if allies keep moving EAST??
Russian could tackle anything Americans could fly with easy. No, Americans could, no, Russian could, No, No, Americans could ...blah, blah... Are you in the kinderdarden? What kind of childish statements are these? Americans had half of Russian experience, Soviet pilots were twice more experienced, if you know nothing about VVS, than don't argue the way you do!Logan Hartke wrote: Very good point Galahad, the P-80 could tackle anything the Russians could fly with ease. You're very right about that.
Logan Hartke
And? Your point? He wasn't ready in 41, you know the result. Because 'he wasn't ready for another war', had the allies attacked him he capitulates or what?Logan Hartke wrote:
Even Stalin admitted that in 1945, Russia was not ready for another war; their manpower had been bled white from fighting the Germans.
You either come up with something useful, or I quit.
The flow of discussion: Russian don't have radar or any night fighter, therefore US flying fortresses could use navigation equipment, and bomb any target with hips of ABs, meantime in Europe US planes destroy anything that Soviets could put in the air and because even Stalin said he wasn't ready for another war, Allies win! Hurrah!
After proving that Soviet had night fighters and radars (which you were unaware of), after proving that US navigation equipment could hardly be useful for Russian terrain and distances, after pointing that US had 2 AB and hardly any could be produced in time (thanks prejo), and after ignoring all childish statements, you, Logan losing. Looking forward to your next post.
-
Logan Hartke
- Member
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
- Location: Illinois, USA
What do you mean? What night-fighters did they have, what strategic bombers did they have, what jets did they have?LeoAU wrote:Planes were, and you know the difference between Soviet losses and American, which don't look good for Americans.
I already told you...LeoAU wrote:Regarding accuracy of bombing. You either read my post about US navigation hardware and prove that Americans could use anything they had, OR you drop your statement that it would be accurate.
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.
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.
That proves that they could find it. You're the one not listening.IAR80 wrote: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.
From the book "Horrido!", composed of accounts from Germany's best aces in WWII (including Barkhorn, Galland, Hartmann, and a slew of others, I take this...Russian could tackle anything Americans could fly with easy. No, Americans could, no, Russian could, No, No, Americans could ...blah, blah... Are you in the kinderdarden? What kind of childish statements are these? Americans had half of Russian experience, Soviet pilots were twice more experienced, if you know nothing about VVS, than don't argue the way you do!
Also...Most Soviet pilots were inferior to British and American fighter pilots. The Soviet pilots of other than than fighter aircraft did not stand much of a chance against an experienced Me-109 pilot.
Also, what I was stating in that sentence was that the P-80 out-performed every Russian fighter that was in the air by a considerable margin and that it would be 1947 before the Soviets caught up in performance.The majority of German fighter pilots who fought on both fronts give a clear edge to the Royal Air Force pilot over all others. The Americans rank next, and then the Russians.
#1-The Russians built 300 night-fighters of which many were shot down over the course of the war, therefore, there wouldn't be enough to defeat a night bomber offensive.LeoAU wrote:After proving that Soviet had night fighters and radars (which you were unaware of), after proving that US navigation equipment could hardly be useful for Russian terrain and distances, after pointing that US had 2 AB and hardly any could be produced in time (thanks prejo), and after ignoring all childish statements, you, Logan losing. Looking forward to your next post.
#2-Radar might be able to find the B-29s, but I proved that the Russians were incapable of shooting them down with AA in significant numbers.
#3-You didn't prove that US navigation couldn't be used, because you have ignored a primary navigation tool-radio guidance.
#4-You didn't point out that the US had only 2 atomic bombs, because I brought up the fact that plutonium could be used instead of uranium.
#5-Galahad proved that the US didn't need them anyway.
Logan Hartke
I will move on to what Galahad said after I finish with this pathetic 'tankograd' night bombing.
Don't redirect me to what IAR80 said. Calculate the distance from Finland to 'tankograd', or from China bases. I listed equipment used for navigation and proved it wouldn't be useful. Elaborate on your 'primary navigation tool-radio guidance'. And the accuracy of such navigation over the given distance. You'd need to carpet bomb with hundrets of AB to actully hit 'tankograd'.
As an example for US accuracy. During US agression against Yugoslavia, US managed to hit practically every neighbour around Yugoslavia, which were hundrets of miles from the target. And that's 50 years later.
Plus another major point. What if Soviet AA forces damage the plane or just some mechnical failure of your plane, they would have to land on Soviet territory, so they have significant huge risk of AB been captured by Russian. Too risky I believe. With Japan bombing such risk was minimal.
Ok, and about P80. I am concidering 1945 campaign. We discussed that US is still at war with Japan. What P80 at this time, what war do YOU have in mind??
As for German accounts and opinions about Soviet pilots. Next time you going to cite Rudel? Could subhumans possibly be as good as arians? Silly question! It's a major exuse for Germans - Russians won because of their numbers etc, how could they be better in pilots qualities? If you can't win, try to humiliate your opponent. That's what most of them did.
However, I can cite German pilots saying that Americans were cowards, in the field and in the sky, and British were almost as good as Soviets.
And I tend to believe such accounts more, and not because US soldiers and pilots were bad or something. They had nothing to fight for. Soviet fought against agressor, British avanged for destroyed London etc.
But provide 2 accounts and hope that you proved something - that is silly.
Plus perhaps you want to know that pilots in 41 with less than 8 hours of training were somehow different to aces of 45 with huge battle experience.
And some form of indication is the fact who were the best allies aces -Soviet pilots.
Don't redirect me to what IAR80 said. Calculate the distance from Finland to 'tankograd', or from China bases. I listed equipment used for navigation and proved it wouldn't be useful. Elaborate on your 'primary navigation tool-radio guidance'. And the accuracy of such navigation over the given distance. You'd need to carpet bomb with hundrets of AB to actully hit 'tankograd'.
As an example for US accuracy. During US agression against Yugoslavia, US managed to hit practically every neighbour around Yugoslavia, which were hundrets of miles from the target. And that's 50 years later.
Plus another major point. What if Soviet AA forces damage the plane or just some mechnical failure of your plane, they would have to land on Soviet territory, so they have significant huge risk of AB been captured by Russian. Too risky I believe. With Japan bombing such risk was minimal.
Ok, and about P80. I am concidering 1945 campaign. We discussed that US is still at war with Japan. What P80 at this time, what war do YOU have in mind??
As for German accounts and opinions about Soviet pilots. Next time you going to cite Rudel? Could subhumans possibly be as good as arians? Silly question! It's a major exuse for Germans - Russians won because of their numbers etc, how could they be better in pilots qualities? If you can't win, try to humiliate your opponent. That's what most of them did.
However, I can cite German pilots saying that Americans were cowards, in the field and in the sky, and British were almost as good as Soviets.
And I tend to believe such accounts more, and not because US soldiers and pilots were bad or something. They had nothing to fight for. Soviet fought against agressor, British avanged for destroyed London etc.
But provide 2 accounts and hope that you proved something - that is silly.
Plus perhaps you want to know that pilots in 41 with less than 8 hours of training were somehow different to aces of 45 with huge battle experience.
And some form of indication is the fact who were the best allies aces -Soviet pilots.
-
Logan Hartke
- Member
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
- Location: Illinois, USA
#1-You didn't move on to what Galahad said,LeoAU wrote:I will move on to what Galahad said after I finish with this pathetic 'tankograd' night bombing.
Don't redirect me to what IAR80 said. Calculate the distance from Finland to 'tankograd', or from China bases. I listed equipment used for navigation and proved it wouldn't be useful. Elaborate on your 'primary navigation tool-radio guidance'. And the accuracy of such navigation over the given distance. You'd need to carpet bomb with hundrets of AB to actully hit 'tankograd'.
As an example for US accuracy. During US agression against Yugoslavia, US managed to hit practically every neighbour around Yugoslavia, which were hundrets of miles from the target. And that's 50 years later.
Plus another major point. What if Soviet AA forces damage the plane or just some mechnical failure of your plane, they would have to land on Soviet territory, so they have significant huge risk of AB been captured by Russian. Too risky I believe. With Japan bombing such risk was minimal.
Ok, and about P80. I am concidering 1945 campaign. We discussed that US is still at war with Japan. What P80 at this time, what war do YOU have in mind??
As for German accounts and opinions about Soviet pilots. Next time you going to cite Rudel? Could subhumans possibly be as good as arians? Silly question! It's a major exuse for Germans - Russians won because of their numbers etc, how could they be better in pilots qualities? If you can't win, try to humiliate your opponent. That's what most of them did.
However, I can cite German pilots saying that Americans were cowards, in the field and in the sky, and British were almost as good as Soviets.
And I tend to believe such accounts more, and not because US soldiers and pilots were bad or something. They had nothing to fight for. Soviet fought against agressor, British avanged for destroyed London etc.
But provide 2 accounts and hope that you proved something - that is silly.
Plus perhaps you want to know that pilots in 41 with less than 8 hours of training were somehow different to aces of 45 with huge battle experience.
And some form of indication is the fact who were the best allies aces -Soviet pilots.
#2-I was talking about this P-80...
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap37.htm
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_4.html
http://216.219.216.110/lockheed/p80.html
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/p80/p80_en.htm
http://www.accessweb.com/users/mconstab/f80.htm
All America would've had to have done is willed the plane built and thousands woudl be rolling off the assembly lines. That means that YOU are still the one mis-identifying aircraft.
#3-As for crashlanding in Russia, the crew would've dropped the bomb, no matter what, ensuring its destruction, wherever they were. Also, I showed the number of rounds that it would take. How many guns did the Soviets have in the area?
#4-"However, I can cite German pilots saying that Americans were cowards, in the field and in the sky, and British were almost as good as Soviets. "
Can you now? Aces as good as Hartmann and others? I doubt it.
#5-"But provide 2 accounts and hope that you proved something - that is silly."
The statement I gave you came from the author after having met with dozens of German aces and asking them.
"Plus perhaps you want to know that pilots in 41 with less than 8 hours of training were somehow different to aces of 45 with huge battle experience."
What does that statement mean? I don't understand what you are asking/stating. Rephrase it.
"And some form of indication is the fact who were the best allies aces -Soviet pilots"
The first thing about Soviet aces, many of their sorties were flown thanks to American av gas. The second is that there were far more German planes in Russian skies in 41-44 than in the West in 44-45, which is when American pilots saw action. More targets=opportunity for more kills. Also, many American pilots didn't serve as long as their Soviet counterparts; they flew for a year or maybe two, then they went home. Russians served all war long, giving them far more time to rack up those impressive kill numbers. Kill numbers is no way to judge ace skill, that's why I the author knew it would be worth his time to interview such men as Galland, and to write about Falck.
Logan Hartke
BTW-As for calculating ranges, in hindsight, Galahad is right, therefore, it is not required.
LeoAu wrote:
But let’s for a minute play the game by your “rules”. Than the atrocities Romanian forces committed on Soviet land are justifiable, as they can be considered retribution for what the Soviets did in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina between 1940-41. It isn’t so fun anymore, is it?
I seriously doubt the credibility of anyone who can call war crimes “justifiable”. There is no such think. A crime is a crime. It doesn’t matter that the person who committed it was filled with anger from what his kin suffered.
Anyway, this isn’t the place to discuss war crimes. So I’ll return to the topic.
I don’t think that there was any possibility for WWIII. The Allies were to tired of it, not only the Westerners, but also the Soviets. But let’s fantasies a bit, since this is the What if section.
IMHO, the two sides were evenly matched on the ground. The Soviets weren’t facing the German foot soldiers that in many cases still relied on the horse for towing guns and others. They were facing an almost complete mobile army. Bagration 2 would not happen.
What would tip the balance would be the air force. In which case there is only one sure winner: USAAF+RAF. Sure the Soviets had some excellent pilots, but that was only a small part of the air force. The Western Allies had a LOT of good pilots. The average pilot was better trained and flied a better airplane than the average Soviet pilot. The huge strategic bomber force could very well be used to destroy the Soviet supply system, which is already far stretched. Another use would be for tactical bombardments. I remember reading somewhere that German Eastern Front veterans, which survived such a massive attack near Caen, said that an artillery barrage is a child’s play compared to that. The Soviet army would also have to face a new enemy: partisans!
The theory about incorporating Germans in the new Allied army is, I think, SF. Do you really think that the average Tommy, which probably lost someone, during the Blitz, would fight side by side with a Jerry? Anyway, the Germans were already exhausted. I don’t think there were that many combat capable men around. Maybe some small units (a few fighter and Schlact groups-imagine Hartmann in a Mustang 8)-, but nothing on a grand scale). I also think that Japan wouldn’t be of any help to Soviets if they joined them. Just another million men to supply, since Japan itself wouldn’t be capable of doing it (the US Pacific Fleet isolated it). I don’t see the US allying itself with Japan though… Maybe it would have remained neutral, like Germany.
In conclusion: this would also be a total war, so it would be won by the most economically capable power…the US!
So, in your opinion there are justifiable war crimes. Interesting concept! I never heard of it. Maybe you can give me examples of international treaties and conventions that establish this. :roll:So, Germany, Hungary and Romania payed for atrocities commited on Russian land.
But let’s for a minute play the game by your “rules”. Than the atrocities Romanian forces committed on Soviet land are justifiable, as they can be considered retribution for what the Soviets did in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina between 1940-41. It isn’t so fun anymore, is it?
I seriously doubt the credibility of anyone who can call war crimes “justifiable”. There is no such think. A crime is a crime. It doesn’t matter that the person who committed it was filled with anger from what his kin suffered.
Anyway, this isn’t the place to discuss war crimes. So I’ll return to the topic.
I don’t think that there was any possibility for WWIII. The Allies were to tired of it, not only the Westerners, but also the Soviets. But let’s fantasies a bit, since this is the What if section.
IMHO, the two sides were evenly matched on the ground. The Soviets weren’t facing the German foot soldiers that in many cases still relied on the horse for towing guns and others. They were facing an almost complete mobile army. Bagration 2 would not happen.
What would tip the balance would be the air force. In which case there is only one sure winner: USAAF+RAF. Sure the Soviets had some excellent pilots, but that was only a small part of the air force. The Western Allies had a LOT of good pilots. The average pilot was better trained and flied a better airplane than the average Soviet pilot. The huge strategic bomber force could very well be used to destroy the Soviet supply system, which is already far stretched. Another use would be for tactical bombardments. I remember reading somewhere that German Eastern Front veterans, which survived such a massive attack near Caen, said that an artillery barrage is a child’s play compared to that. The Soviet army would also have to face a new enemy: partisans!
The theory about incorporating Germans in the new Allied army is, I think, SF. Do you really think that the average Tommy, which probably lost someone, during the Blitz, would fight side by side with a Jerry? Anyway, the Germans were already exhausted. I don’t think there were that many combat capable men around. Maybe some small units (a few fighter and Schlact groups-imagine Hartmann in a Mustang 8)-, but nothing on a grand scale). I also think that Japan wouldn’t be of any help to Soviets if they joined them. Just another million men to supply, since Japan itself wouldn’t be capable of doing it (the US Pacific Fleet isolated it). I don’t see the US allying itself with Japan though… Maybe it would have remained neutral, like Germany.
In conclusion: this would also be a total war, so it would be won by the most economically capable power…the US!
LeoAu wrote:
The Soviet Union had indeed a great contribution in the war, but, it wasn’t alone. I think that it was the Russian people that did it and not communism. They would have been capable of doing it if Stalin was another type of dictator. Ideology had nothing to do with it. Patriotism and determination had. And let’s not forget the USA and Britain.
And I who thought the war was won by an alliance of three! Silly me! :roll: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.
The Soviet Union had indeed a great contribution in the war, but, it wasn’t alone. I think that it was the Russian people that did it and not communism. They would have been capable of doing it if Stalin was another type of dictator. Ideology had nothing to do with it. Patriotism and determination had. And let’s not forget the USA and Britain.
re
Another thing that would spice up the air war in this WWIII are jet fighters.I'm talking about the scores of Me262s captured by the allies, with only the unreliable Jumo jet engine missing. The allied jet engine program was quickly catching up and before long (Around Jan 1946 I estimate) we could very likely see Me262s with british jet engines which were much improved. Also the Americans would definately speed up research and introduction of the first jet fighters would come much earlier. Since most german scientists surrendered to the allies, this tech handicap would be very hard for the soviets to fix.
Also early cruise missiles derived from the V rockets would be developed ASAP to spare valuable pilots.
Also early cruise missiles derived from the V rockets would be developed ASAP to spare valuable pilots.
I was saying that in the initial period of war Rusian were so desperate that they gave no more than ~8 hours of training to a pilot. Most of the aces who finished the war entered the war in 43, and there not many that survived the whole war. The pilots who started in ~43, like say Kozhedub (his first kill - June 43, he served for 2 years (surprise!) and became top ally pilot) were better trained, and flew good planes, unlike their unlucky friends who flew those I-16's and I-153's with minimal training.Logan Hartke wrote: "Plus perhaps you want to know that pilots in 41 with less than 8 hours of training were somehow different to aces of 45 with huge battle experience."
What does that statement mean? I don't understand what you are asking/stating. Rephrase it.
I hope you know why it was this way...and where all those pilots and planes ended. Though some of them managed to stay alive, just to tell stories how still they were better. Those who were 6 feet under the ground couldn't tell who really was better, could they?The second is that there were far more German planes in Russian skies in 41-44 than in the West in 44-45, which is when American pilots saw action.
And Hartmann , he was extrimely lucky guy, been shot 16 times and stay alive... and how many hartmanns weren't that lucky to tell how good they were.
Interesting enough , Germans found themselves more willing to serve against the Western Allies than against the Soviets! Hans Philipp (206 victories)said that he was more willing to “dogfight a Spitfire,” than to “fight against twenty Russians out to kill you”. Which basically mean, he'd rather figth against better western pilots than fight inferior pilots and be killed.
What a nonsence!!! Mate, you getting toooo far with your patriotism. Americans didn't serve as long, they went home, but any way they were better.More targets=opportunity for more kills. Also, many American pilots didn't serve as long as their Soviet counterparts; they flew for a year or maybe two, then they went home. Russians served all war long, giving them far more time to rack up those impressive kill numbers. Kill numbers is no way to judge ace skill
??Kill number is THE WAY to judge an ace. You wouldn't be an ace without those kills and your skills wouldn't matter wihtout proper combat experience. Kills=Combat experience, skills <> combat experience, skills <> possible kills. Hope it makes sence.
Yep, that's what I thought. Thanks for being brave admitting it. We'll move onto Galahad's words.BTW-As for calculating ranges, in hindsight, Galahad is right, therefore, it is not required.
Of course it was alliance, but not of three though... And it was allied victory to which USSR contributed the most.Victor wrote:
And I who thought the war was won by an alliance of three! Silly me! :roll:
Communists were in power. It was communist party that orginised and managed defence, resistance, army etc etc. So, I would be pretty correct saying that communist party and communists contributed to victory despite you love or hate communists as such.I think that it was the Russian people that did it and not communism.
It was a war of ideologies after all , damn it! Super rase, cruside against bolshevicks! Ever heard of it? Germans never believed they were superior, they were arians? Communists never believed in worker's paradise? If you think so, you better do some research on it!Ideology had nothing to do with it. Patriotism and determination had.
-
Logan Hartke
- Member
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
- Location: Illinois, USA
It sounds to me like he meant that he would rather face one good Western pilot than the 20 poor pilots he was likely to face on the Eastern Front.LeoAU wrote:Interesting enough , Germans found themselves more willing to serve against the Western Allies than against the Soviets! Hans Philipp (206 victories)said that he was more willing to “dogfight a Spitfire,” than to “fight against twenty Russians out to kill you”. Which basically mean, he'd rather figth against better western pilots than fight inferior pilots and be killed.
You're absolutely wrong. Are you saying that Hartmann was more skilled than Marseille or Galland? Or that Falck had no skill? There is a chart in "Horrido!" that shows that American aces could have easily been better than such German greats as Moelders. When I have more time, I'll post those couple of paragraphs; don't let me forget.LeoAU wrote:What a nonsence!!! Mate, you getting toooo far with your patriotism. Americans didn't serve as long, they went home, but any way they were better.
Kill number is THE WAY to judge an ace. You wouldn't be an ace without those kills and your skills wouldn't matter wihtout proper combat experience. Kills=Combat experience, skills <> combat experience, skills <> possible kills. Hope it makes sence.
#1-I was admitting that Galahad was right, not you.LeoAU wrote:Yep, that's what I thought. Thanks for being brave admitting it. We'll move onto Galahad's words.
#2-I still think the B-29 could hit any Russian city with the atomic bomb, maybe in a one-way flight if necessary, did you ever think of that.
#3-I didn't bother looking it up, because as Galahad said, there is an easier way to kill the USSR.
It is easier and faster to kill a snake by cutting its head off than beating it to death.
Logan Hartke
BTW-Do you admit that you were wrong about the P-80, finally, smart boy?
Since when? There was nothing allies could do against Soviet tank armies, IS-2's ans -3's. Nothing, because air battle would still be going on, and despite who was better Soviets or allies, they would take quite some time. Allies would not enjoy sky free of enemy planes - the way war was for them in Europe against Germans. They would taste flying tanks, they would face thousands of Stalin's organs.Victor wrote:
IMHO, the two sides were evenly matched on the ground.
Sure the Soviets had some excellent pilots, but that was only a small part of the air force.
numbers, statistics-? Your opinions, nothing more. Unsubstantiated allegation
Source, criteria? Your opinions, nothing more. Better airplane? . List characteristics, numbers etc etc. Unsubstantiated allegationThe Western Allies had a LOT of good pilots. The average pilot was better trained and flied a better airplane than the average Soviet pilot.
So, what you saying is that thousands of miles across the ocean is not a stretched system?The huge strategic bomber force could very well be used to destroy the Soviet supply system, which is already far stretched.
What partisans? Western allies however, would face communist resistance.The Soviet army would also have to face a new enemy: partisans!
.. no mate, it would be won by the side who is more prepared to go till the end. Suffer maybe millions of lives, was US ready for this? I am not talking about UK, those were simply sick of this war. Could US government explain to its public why they have to fight its ally, why suffer such casualties, it wasn't 'their' war from the beginning - against Japan, yes, but not against Germany which didn't directly attack them. For Soviets as I said before it would still be Great Patriotic War, they suffered a lot alreay, who would give up such a victory?In conclusion: this would also be a total war, so it would be won by the most economically capable power…the US!
Re: what-if
This whole thread has been a what-if. Since it didn't happen, everything in it is speculation. I've based my thesis on the known capabilities of the forces as they existed when Germany surrendered. Leo seems to be basing his on his concept that the Soviet forces were unbeatable, except maybe by the God whose existence Communism denied.
Ok, fair enough. So I'll add one more reason why I think the Western Allies would win should things have come to a fight. Material. Even if the Soviets could kill on a 2 to 1 ratio in the air war--which I don't think would have happened--the US and the UK could out-produce the Soviet Union on a ratio of 3 to 1.
Here are the WW2 aircraft production statistics for the major powers. The 1945 stats show the decrease in production due to the war ending, but if production hadn't been reduced, the US' 1945 total would have been close to 130,000 aircraft, since the US never reached its production peak capacity. That wasn't true for the Soviet Union.
The Western Allies not only had a better air war machine, overall, but they had one that was considerably larger than the one the USSR had.
And this doesn't take into account the quality of the aircraft. However good the Soviet planes were...and they did have some good ones--the P-51 was superior by any standard you care to name. And the P-80--which was 1st deployed to Europe in Feb 1945--was superior to it. But the Soviets didn't have ANY jets.
WW2 Aircraft Production Numbers
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
UK 7940 15049 20094 23672 26263 26461 12070
US 2141 6086 19433 47836 85898 96318 46001
USSR 10382 10565 15735 25436 34900 40300 20900
Germany 8295 10826 12401 15409 24807 40593 7540
Japan 4467 4768 5088 8861 16693 28180 8263
Ok, Leo.....can you ignore these figures, like you have every other arguement that's been made?
Ok, fair enough. So I'll add one more reason why I think the Western Allies would win should things have come to a fight. Material. Even if the Soviets could kill on a 2 to 1 ratio in the air war--which I don't think would have happened--the US and the UK could out-produce the Soviet Union on a ratio of 3 to 1.
Here are the WW2 aircraft production statistics for the major powers. The 1945 stats show the decrease in production due to the war ending, but if production hadn't been reduced, the US' 1945 total would have been close to 130,000 aircraft, since the US never reached its production peak capacity. That wasn't true for the Soviet Union.
The Western Allies not only had a better air war machine, overall, but they had one that was considerably larger than the one the USSR had.
And this doesn't take into account the quality of the aircraft. However good the Soviet planes were...and they did have some good ones--the P-51 was superior by any standard you care to name. And the P-80--which was 1st deployed to Europe in Feb 1945--was superior to it. But the Soviets didn't have ANY jets.
WW2 Aircraft Production Numbers
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
UK 7940 15049 20094 23672 26263 26461 12070
US 2141 6086 19433 47836 85898 96318 46001
USSR 10382 10565 15735 25436 34900 40300 20900
Germany 8295 10826 12401 15409 24807 40593 7540
Japan 4467 4768 5088 8861 16693 28180 8263
Ok, Leo.....can you ignore these figures, like you have every other arguement that's been made?
re
Taste flying tanks... I like that... Heh
Although russian/soviet planes have always been regarded as very robust and reliable, "tank" is still too strong a word.
AS for the milions to sacrifice. Just curious, do you think the russians were maybe, say, a billion?
Come on, LeoAU, milions were killed during Stalin's purges, more importantly people with some brains in their head, those who protested against totalitarism toghether with people who earned their fortuned fair and square. Also millions perished during the brutal nazi occupation, and now this war. Not to mention the serious shortages coupled with the fact that USSR was communist and "the people" was just a two word expression to Stalin and not more (see purges and forced collectivization, relocation and industrialization). Also by now most men would be on the front, so there is no one to ensure the next generation. USSR had a depleted manpower, relying on fresh replacements after the violent battles in the spring, and especially the urban ones.
In conclusion, considering what was said on both sides I imagine the war like this:
- The soviet ground forces make rapid successs, but still fail to throw the allies into the sea. Causes for the failure : poor supply lines, partisan activity (maybe even open insurection in Balkans and Romania due to favourable terrain), superior OVERALL quality of allied pilots and most importantly, tactics.
- Then the allies would slowly push the soviets back while viloent skirmishes take place over Siberia
Because of the very reasons mentioned above the allies will advance in Europe, as for the strategic bombing campaign, two A-bombs will surely break the morale. Why? First off the sheer obliteration, second the average russian had no idea if there were only 2 AB or 20 or 200, and that is a critical thing for the overall morale of the stricken russian population.
For the last time : The AB needn't be used against Japan. Reasons:
- Japan depended (and still depends) solely on imports of raw materials for its industry
- Same case for food as the fishing fleet would be piece of cake to take out.
Ergo, Japan could be contained, blockaded. The Kwantung army again, could be sieged and starved. Not a single american life needed have been sacrificed.
Although russian/soviet planes have always been regarded as very robust and reliable, "tank" is still too strong a word.
AS for the milions to sacrifice. Just curious, do you think the russians were maybe, say, a billion?
Come on, LeoAU, milions were killed during Stalin's purges, more importantly people with some brains in their head, those who protested against totalitarism toghether with people who earned their fortuned fair and square. Also millions perished during the brutal nazi occupation, and now this war. Not to mention the serious shortages coupled with the fact that USSR was communist and "the people" was just a two word expression to Stalin and not more (see purges and forced collectivization, relocation and industrialization). Also by now most men would be on the front, so there is no one to ensure the next generation. USSR had a depleted manpower, relying on fresh replacements after the violent battles in the spring, and especially the urban ones.
In conclusion, considering what was said on both sides I imagine the war like this:
- The soviet ground forces make rapid successs, but still fail to throw the allies into the sea. Causes for the failure : poor supply lines, partisan activity (maybe even open insurection in Balkans and Romania due to favourable terrain), superior OVERALL quality of allied pilots and most importantly, tactics.
- Then the allies would slowly push the soviets back while viloent skirmishes take place over Siberia
Because of the very reasons mentioned above the allies will advance in Europe, as for the strategic bombing campaign, two A-bombs will surely break the morale. Why? First off the sheer obliteration, second the average russian had no idea if there were only 2 AB or 20 or 200, and that is a critical thing for the overall morale of the stricken russian population.
For the last time : The AB needn't be used against Japan. Reasons:
- Japan depended (and still depends) solely on imports of raw materials for its industry
- Same case for food as the fishing fleet would be piece of cake to take out.
Ergo, Japan could be contained, blockaded. The Kwantung army again, could be sieged and starved. Not a single american life needed have been sacrificed.
LeoAu wrote:
Yes, the SU contributed the most to allied victory, but as some other guy on another forum put it, it was a three-legged stool. You take one out, you may fall. Who knows what might have happened without one of 3 allies? But that’s the subject for another topic.
LeoAu wrote:
LeoAu wrote:
LeoAU wrote:
LeoAu wrote:
LeoAu wrote: Sure! All those Eastern Europe communists will fight till the end against the imperialist pigs and to free themselves from those evil capitalists! Do you have any idea of the sizes of the different communist parties in Eastern Europe. I’ll give an example. The Romanian Communist Party, prior to 23 August 1944 had about 200 members, out of which 20% were ethnic Romanians. Yeah, they would surely make a good addition to the battered Soviet forces!
Now seriously, do you really think that any of the Eastern bloc countries welcomed communism? Maybe you should be the one to do the researching and leave those communist text books aside, comrade LeoAu.
PS: BTW, did you ever live under communism and benefit from its “blessings”?
Last time I read There were three. Maybe you will publish a new revisionist history book?:DOf course it was alliance, but not of three though... And it was allied victory to which USSR contributed the most.
Yes, the SU contributed the most to allied victory, but as some other guy on another forum put it, it was a three-legged stool. You take one out, you may fall. Who knows what might have happened without one of 3 allies? But that’s the subject for another topic.
LeoAu wrote:
Yes, it was the communist party that organized and managed the defense, but I think that any other Russian totalitarian government would have succeeded. It was for Mother Russia, not for Communism that the vast majority fought.It was communist party that orginised and managed defence, resistance, army etc etc. So, I would be pretty correct saying that communist party and communists contributed to victory despite you love or hate communists as such.
LeoAu wrote:
Do you really think that many front line troops ever gave a damn about ideology? The Russians fought the invader with the desire to destroy him for what he did. Not the one to “liberate” the German and other European workers from their regimes.It was a war of ideologies after all , damn it! Super rase, cruside against bolshevicks! Ever heard of it? Germans never believed they were superior, they were arians? Communists never believed in worker's paradise? If you think so, you better do some research on it!
LeoAU wrote:
Numbers, statistics? Your opinions, nothing more. Unsubstantiated allegation. (Sounds familiar?:roll:)Since when? There was nothing allies could do against Soviet tank armies, IS-2's ans -3's. Nothing, because air battle would still be going on, and despite who was better Soviets or allies, they would take quite some time. Allies would not enjoy sky free of enemy planes - the way war was for them in Europe against Germans. They would taste flying tanks, they would face thousands of Stalin's organs.
LeoAu wrote:
It’s funny how some people who leave in an English speaking country don’t really seem to understand the language. Let me repeat my statement:” The huge strategic bomber force could very well be used to destroy the Soviet supply system, which is already far stretched.” Am I referring to the US-UK supply system here? No. Sure it was also stretched along many miles, but with a big difference: the Soviets couldn’t interfere with it. This was not the case of the Soviet supply lines which could be easily attacked by the strategic bomber force.So, what you saying is that thousands of miles across the ocean is not a stretched system?
LeoAu wrote:
What partisans? Western allies however, would face communist resistance.
Sure! All those Eastern Europe communists will fight till the end against the imperialist pigs and to free themselves from those evil capitalists! Do you have any idea of the sizes of the different communist parties in Eastern Europe. I’ll give an example. The Romanian Communist Party, prior to 23 August 1944 had about 200 members, out of which 20% were ethnic Romanians. Yeah, they would surely make a good addition to the battered Soviet forces! Now seriously, do you really think that any of the Eastern bloc countries welcomed communism? Maybe you should be the one to do the researching and leave those communist text books aside, comrade LeoAu.
PS: BTW, did you ever live under communism and benefit from its “blessings”?