World War III?

Discussions on other historical eras.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 13611
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War III?

Post by ljadw » 21 Sep 2022 20:28

wm wrote:
21 Sep 2022 17:45
According to Soviet Strategic Bombers by Jason Moore and Russian Wikipedia:
Tu-4 entered service in 1949, 

Tu-16 (max. speed Mach 0.9) in 1954,
Tu-95 (the one that dropped Tsar Bomba) in 1956.

They had 847 Tu-4s in 1952 and 30 Tu-95s in 1957.
847 was the number of Tu-4 that was build between 1949 and 1952 , not the number that the Soviets had in 1952 .
The range of the Tu-4 was 5400 km and the standard Tu-4 could not carry nuclear weapons ,that was reserved to the Tu-4A.
A range of 5400 km means 2500 km going and 2500 km returning ( there was always a margin needed ) ;shortest distance Moscow NYC = 7500 km !
Thus the Tu4 was not a longrange bomber but could only be used over Europe .
The 100000 dollar question : if the Soviets had a strategic bomber that could nuke the US ,why did they not start a conventional war in Europe ? NATO would lose in a conventional war and US could not use their nuclear weapons .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7467
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: World War III?

Post by wm » 21 Sep 2022 20:47

It's all irrelevant.
The problem at hand is your ignorant statement:
US had til the launch of the Sputnik a nuclear monopoly: they could destroy the USSR and Europe ,while the Soviets could not attack US cities because they had no ICBMs and no bombers who could attack DC,etc,
When in fact, in the middle of the fifties, they could have obliterated entire Europe with their fleet of Tu-4s.
And bombed all major American cities with their Tu-95s, Tu-4s + Tu-16s (with in-flight refueling using their Tu-4 tankers), and Tu-4s on one-way missions.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 2436
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: World War III?

Post by Aida1 » 22 Sep 2022 07:29

ljadw wrote:
21 Sep 2022 20:28
wm wrote:
21 Sep 2022 17:45
According to Soviet Strategic Bombers by Jason Moore and Russian Wikipedia:
Tu-4 entered service in 1949, 

Tu-16 (max. speed Mach 0.9) in 1954,
Tu-95 (the one that dropped Tsar Bomba) in 1956.

They had 847 Tu-4s in 1952 and 30 Tu-95s in 1957.
847 was the number of Tu-4 that was build between 1949 and 1952 , not the number that the Soviets had in 1952 .
The range of the Tu-4 was 5400 km and the standard Tu-4 could not carry nuclear weapons ,that was reserved to the Tu-4A.
A range of 5400 km means 2500 km going and 2500 km returning ( there was always a margin needed ) ;shortest distance Moscow NYC = 7500 km !
Thus the Tu4 was not a longrange bomber but could only be used over Europe .
The 100000 dollar question : if the Soviets had a strategic bomber that could nuke the US ,why did they not start a conventional war in Europe ? NATO would lose in a conventional war and US could not use their nuclear weapons .
You were given sources that contradict you. The US could certainly still use its nuclear weapons.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7467
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: World War III?

Post by wm » 22 Sep 2022 20:48

The fact that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers should not come as a surprise; the first four-engined bomber ever built and used was built by the precursor to the Soviet state, Imperial Russia.
The development of large bombers continued after the First World War, and in the 1930s, included the first four-engined all-metal bomber in service anywhere, the TB-3.
Soviet Strategic Bombers by Nicholas Moore

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13611
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War III?

Post by ljadw » 23 Sep 2022 11:59

wm wrote:
21 Sep 2022 20:47


When in fact, in the middle of the fifties, they could have obliterated entire Europe with their fleet of Tu-4s.
This is totally irrelevant . The Soviets would not use tactical bombers to destroy Europe, unless the US would do it first .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13611
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War III?

Post by ljadw » 23 Sep 2022 12:12

wm wrote:
22 Sep 2022 20:48
The fact that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers should not come as a surprise; the first four-engined bomber ever built and used was built by the precursor to the Soviet state, Imperial Russia.


The development of large bombers continued after the First World War, and in the 1930s, included the first four-engined all-metal bomber in service anywhere, the TB-3.
Soviet Strategic Bombers by Nicholas Moore
The first sentence had no relation at all with the second sentence .
And the second sentence has no relation at all with the claim that in 1955 the Soviets could destroy US cities .
Thus Moore tells nonsense .
Besides, if the Soviets could destroy US cities with bombers, they would not have started the missile race .
After 1957 the Soviets started to build a few number of missiles ( the declarations/estimations of the CIA are lies ) as a defensive weapon,because their bombers could not prevent a US attack .They hoped that their missiles could do this .
What Moore is hiding ( not that I am surprised by this ) is that the maximum range of the TB-3 was 2000 km = less than 1000 km going and coming .This means that the TB-3 was not a strategic bomber .
Besides the production of the TB-3 stopped in 1939 .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 2436
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: World War III?

Post by Aida1 » 23 Sep 2022 12:23

ljadw wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:12
wm wrote:
22 Sep 2022 20:48
The fact that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers should not come as a surprise; the first four-engined bomber ever built and used was built by the precursor to the Soviet state, Imperial Russia.


The development of large bombers continued after the First World War, and in the 1930s, included the first four-engined all-metal bomber in service anywhere, the TB-3.
Soviet Strategic Bombers by Nicholas Moore
The first sentence had no relation at all with the second sentence .
And the second sentence has no relation at all with the claim that in 1955 the Soviets could destroy US cities .
Thus Moore tells nonsense .
Besides, if the Soviets could destroy US cities with bombers, they would not have started the missile race .
After 1957 the Soviets started to build a few number of missiles ( the declarations/estimations of the CIA are lies ) as a defensive weapon,because their bombers could not prevent a US attack .They hoped that their missiles could do this .
What Moore is hiding ( not that I am surprised by this ) is that the maximum range of the TB-3 was 2000 km = less than 1000 km going and coming .This means that the TB-3 was not a strategic bomber .
Besides the production of the TB-3 stopped in 1939 .
As usual contradicting anybody that actually know what they are talking about and caling anybody a liar that doesn't conform to whatever personal opinion you express for which never any source is given.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7467
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: World War III?

Post by wm » 23 Sep 2022 13:35

ljadw wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:12
Thus Moore tells nonsense .


The point is:
that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers
because this is why they had so many nice long-range and intercontinental bombers in the fifties.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13611
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War III?

Post by ljadw » 23 Sep 2022 16:06

Aida1 wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:23
ljadw wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:12
wm wrote:
22 Sep 2022 20:48
The fact that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers should not come as a surprise; the first four-engined bomber ever built and used was built by the precursor to the Soviet state, Imperial Russia.


The development of large bombers continued after the First World War, and in the 1930s, included the first four-engined all-metal bomber in service anywhere, the TB-3.
Soviet Strategic Bombers by Nicholas Moore
The first sentence had no relation at all with the second sentence .
And the second sentence has no relation at all with the claim that in 1955 the Soviets could destroy US cities .
Thus Moore tells nonsense .
Besides, if the Soviets could destroy US cities with bombers, they would not have started the missile race .
After 1957 the Soviets started to build a few number of missiles ( the declarations/estimations of the CIA are lies ) as a defensive weapon,because their bombers could not prevent a US attack .They hoped that their missiles could do this .
What Moore is hiding ( not that I am surprised by this ) is that the maximum range of the TB-3 was 2000 km = less than 1000 km going and coming .This means that the TB-3 was not a strategic bomber .
Besides the production of the TB-3 stopped in 1939 .
As usual contradicting anybody that actually know what they are talking about and caling anybody a liar that doesn't conform to whatever personal opinion you express for which never any source is given.
NIE 11-5-58 said that the Soviets could have 500 ICBMs in 1961, Alsop said that they would have 1500 in 1963 .
These are LIES.
The missile gap was invented by the CIA to prevent Nixon to become president,and by the USAAF to obtain more money .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13611
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War III?

Post by ljadw » 23 Sep 2022 16:08

wm wrote:
23 Sep 2022 13:35
ljadw wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:12
Thus Moore tells nonsense .


The point is:
that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers
because this is why they had so many nice long-range and intercontinental bombers in the fifties.
What is : so many ?

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 2436
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: World War III?

Post by Aida1 » 23 Sep 2022 17:17

ljadw wrote:
23 Sep 2022 16:06
Aida1 wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:23
ljadw wrote:
23 Sep 2022 12:12
wm wrote:
22 Sep 2022 20:48
The fact that the Soviet Union was a major builder and user of strategic bombers should not come as a surprise; the first four-engined bomber ever built and used was built by the precursor to the Soviet state, Imperial Russia.


The development of large bombers continued after the First World War, and in the 1930s, included the first four-engined all-metal bomber in service anywhere, the TB-3.
Soviet Strategic Bombers by Nicholas Moore
The first sentence had no relation at all with the second sentence .
And the second sentence has no relation at all with the claim that in 1955 the Soviets could destroy US cities .
Thus Moore tells nonsense .
Besides, if the Soviets could destroy US cities with bombers, they would not have started the missile race .
After 1957 the Soviets started to build a few number of missiles ( the declarations/estimations of the CIA are lies ) as a defensive weapon,because their bombers could not prevent a US attack .They hoped that their missiles could do this .
What Moore is hiding ( not that I am surprised by this ) is that the maximum range of the TB-3 was 2000 km = less than 1000 km going and coming .This means that the TB-3 was not a strategic bomber .
Besides the production of the TB-3 stopped in 1939 .
As usual contradicting anybody that actually know what they are talking about and caling anybody a liar that doesn't conform to whatever personal opinion you express for which never any source is given.
NIE 11-5-58 said that the Soviets could have 500 ICBMs in 1961, Alsop said that they would have 1500 in 1963 .
These are LIES.
The missile gap was invented by the CIA to prevent Nixon to become president,and by the USAAF to obtain more money .
As usual, your personal conspirationist opinion based on nothing at all.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7467
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: World War III?

Post by wm » 23 Sep 2022 19:11

The Myasishchev M-4 Molot strategic bomber.
The M-4 sparked fears of a "bomber gap" when 18 of the aircraft were flown publicly on May Day in 1954.
myasishchev-m4-bison.jpg
1954.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Helmut0815
Member
Posts: 860
Joined: 19 Sep 2010 13:13
Location: Lower Saxony, Germany

Re: World War III?

Post by Helmut0815 » 23 Sep 2022 19:17

Russia is about to start a new test on the nuclear propelled Burevestnik (=Petrel, NATO code name: Skyfall) cruise missile.

Image
Source

The missile has an unlimited range and has an unknown payload of thermonuclear warheads. It's propelled a by a nuclear ram jet which spits out radionuclides during it's flight.
In the 50s the US worked on an similar missile: Vought SLAM/Project Pluto aka The Flying Crowbar, a real doomsday device.


regards


Helmut

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7467
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: World War III?

Post by wm » 23 Sep 2022 20:26

A pointless weapon, costly, slow, and easy to shoot down. ICBMs are less costly and, at Mach 25, unstoppable.
Its supposed advantage of attacking from unexpected directions can be cheaper provided by SLBMs.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13611
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: World War III?

Post by ljadw » 24 Sep 2022 11:46

wm wrote:
23 Sep 2022 19:11
The Myasishchev M-4 Molot strategic bomber.
The M-4 sparked fears of a "bomber gap" when 18 of the aircraft were flown publicly on May Day in 1954.
myasishchev-m4-bison.jpg

1954.png
The M4 could not bomb the US and return ,only a few of the produced aircraft were put in service and in 1955 the Soviets replaced the M4 with a new prototype the 3M (Bison B ) which was not better .Only 74 3Ms were build, the CIA lied that it was 800 .
As the Missile Gap the Bomber Gap was an invention with as aim to increase the budget of the USAAF.
Source : Bomber Gap .

Return to “Other eras”