The amount of Soviet Spuads

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Teppo Saarinen:
Hmmm. Would this be good enough? This post started just on that crazy notion of Patton's, but he was just a general. The Soviet goals would be clear enough, but what would the Allied war aims actually *be* here?

Very unclear, I grant you that. The scenario is based upon the assumption that the Allies DO decide to start a war in late 1945. Since ground offensive is out of the question against 1:2 odds (at least when the enemy is more experienced AND better equpied than you), this would be the way they would have had to do it, Desert Storm style. Obviously, in a situation like this you would NOT start a war, which is also the conlusion of the operation Unthinkable study.

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited February 21, 2001).]

[NEON DEON]

Quote:
There is no contradiction here just a case of you once again seeing what you want to see.

Reply
Obvious you failed to see air superiority. Or, the fact Churchill’s biggest fear came from the US not being 100% committed to war. And you fail to see that demobilization or the commitment of more forces to the Pacific. Oh by the way that document is 29 pages long. From what (I see) is that the US was still at war with Japan and that was its threat not the USSR. The USSR was our ally.

Its obvious from previous posts that all kinds of restrictions have to be put on the total US war machine for the USSR to stand a chance. Now the UK has to fight the Bear almost by himself.
What next? We gonna pit The Canadians against the USSR or do the Americans have to resurrect the Brewster Buffalo and use the Mustang for a ride at Coney Island?

Besides its production that wins wars. You guys seem to forget that the US fought a 2 front war across 2 oceans and all the while it still managed to supply half the world (including the USSR) while doing it.


“I fear we have a awoke a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve”
YAMAMOTTO DEC 7, 1941.

[tsbond]

Ahmen Neon I agree with you. US never really had to dig very deep to fight. The US had a lot more digging to do before they started hurting.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
Quote:
Besides its production that wins wars. You guys seem to forget that the US fought a 2 front war across 2 oceans and all the while it still managed to supply half the world (including the USSR) while doing it.

Two points on this:

First, production wins PROTRACTED wars. In the Gulf war, for example, wartime production played almost no role at all. Ed's and my point is that the Soviet ground army was so superior to the Allies that it would virtually destroy the Allied forces in Europe BEFORE the weight of US war production could even the odds.

Second, the US had fought across two oceans, yes, but against industrial midgets. The Soviet war production rivalled the American, not perhaps fully equal, but at least in the ballpark. And it is true that it was geared to producing mainly vehicles, weapons and ammo, but they HAD a production of other necessities and large stocks of lend-lease stuff. Enough to keep going for quite a while, I would imagine.

And a note on logistics: Soviet logistics were extremely crude compared to US standards, but this was also a strenght. Supply for a tank unit would be mainly fuel and ammo. They would cannibalize for spare parts and live off the land to the greatest possible extent. This decreased the number of trucks/trains etc needed to supply the armies. The Red Army was notorious for avoiding a heavy tail, trying to be all teeth.

[Yogi Yohan]

Look, to end the argument on the air aspects of a WWIII-45, lets assume for the sake of argument that the allies gain absolute supremacy in the air after one week, but during that week, they cannot give very effective ground support. OK?

If the Soviets were the ones starting the war they would have completely shattered the allied front in that week and all the planes in the world could not have put it back together again.

If the allies were the ones to begin the war, then it depends a bit on how much the Soviets were expecting the attack, but if the Allies take the offensive in the first week, they're dead. There's no way in HELL that you can sucessfully attack an enemy 2-2,5 times your numerical strenght, with better equipment and more experienced troops than you, unless you hit them with their pants down. And Stalin was severely paranoid, I doubt he would have been caught napping a second time. If the Allies wait for the Russians to come to them, they will still get mauled, but somewhat less so, and might be able to hold the Russians at the Rhine for some time. Even then, I'm not sure about the outcome.

Remember, the Allies had absolute air superiority over the Germans from D-Day on, AND crushing superiority in numbers and it STILL took them six months to reach the German border. So what took them so long? The Germans only had superior equipment(to some extent) and experience going for them, so it must have been that. Now, the Russians had both those, and massive brute force to boot. Why do you think it would go so much faster to defeat them with air power than the Germans?

Air power is indeed a war winning weapon, but it takes time for its effects to be noticed. And against the 260+ divisions of the Red Army in Europe, time would be something the Allies had preciously little of.

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Svar]

This is an interesting discussion, however everyone seems to forget that the US had just developed, built, and used the atomic bomb. Land warfare in total war had just been made obsolete. Also most of you don't seem to know that in 1945 the Soviet Union was not leaving Iran as they promised and to make sure they did the Soviet foreign minister was sent to Washington to be shown a film of the New Mexico atomic bomb test and told that if they didn't leave Iran immediately that the US was prepared to drop the bomb on Moscow. I think that action precipitated the cold war. Oh, the Soviets did get out of Iran.

Svar

[Rover1gp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mist:
This reply can be seen as far from common discussion theme, but the dicsussion theme did also go far from original topic
Thank you for enligtment, Rover(no kidding!). It took me days of thinking before I decided to make reply to you.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rover1gp:

[quote]
Like I said earlier, nice to here from you.

[Rover1gp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mist:
This reply can be seen as far from common discussion theme, but the dicsussion theme did also go far from original topic
Thank you for enligtment, Rover(no kidding!). It took me days of thinking before I decided to make reply to you.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rover1gp:

[quote]
Like I said earlier, nice to here from you.

[Rover1gp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mist:
This reply can be seen as far from common discussion theme, but the dicsussion theme did also go far from original topic
Thank you for enligtment, Rover(no kidding!). It took me days of thinking before I decided to make reply to you.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rover1gp:

[quote]
Like I said earlier, nice to here from you.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
There was a Mustang that was used for ground attack. It was designated the A36 and does not appear in the numbers I used previously.

Wrong. All Mustangs in Europe did close-in dirty work. They often broke off after escorting bombers, and went to the deck looking for targets of opportunity.

I totally missed the boat on this one (pun intended).) Every Navy fighter including the Brewster Buffalo had a range of 850+ miles.

For heavens's sake they couldn't even fly from the West Coast to Hawaii. They either got on a carrier or were packed up and taken by cargo ships. Secondly, there wasn't the worldwide network of airbases that we have now, never mind midair refueling.

Besides, why bother arguing about this? You're the one saying the Allies would have air superiority in a week. Pacific-based aircraft couldn't get there and make ready for combat in time to participate in the slaughter you proclaim would occur.

Oh well. Let me just re-adjust my figures a little here using just the planes that had a chance. Here are the new figures minus 7,861 Corsairs then minus 33% of all US/UK fighters.

Performance:

The British told Churchill it wouldn't work, and here you go right back to throwing your "adjusted" production and performance numbers at me. That the Allies had better stats for their fighters doesn't logically lead to them being able to sweep the skies of Europe of Soviet planes all in a week, considering how outnumbered they were.

Can you at least admit to the possibility of the air war lasting more than a week?


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 22, 2001).]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by tsbond:
Ahmen Neon I agree with you. US never really had to dig very deep to fight. The US had a lot more digging to do before they started hurting.

We were already hurting in '45. Someone noted that the Army that landed at Normandy was composed of men, the Army left at the end of the war was made of boys. At the very least, assuming this fight lasted very long, we would have had to forcibly mobilize all women, and men not able to fight, to man factories so we could send more men. We weren't as bad off as the Germans at the end (using every one from ages 12 to 65), but the lack of replacements was increasing the pressure.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Svar:
This is an interesting discussion, however everyone seems to forget that the US had just developed, built, and used the atomic bomb.

You're right, we're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Seriously, we've tacitly ignored the issue of the A-bomb for the moment, assuming there were no A-bombs available to send to Europe, since Truman delayed the construction of the third one, and at the time, we couldn't mass produce them quickly. Timing on this issue is critical of course, we would have to take into account exactly when this war started, who was the aggressor, and what was the status of the Pacific theatre. We haven't forgot about the A-bomb, right now we're just assuming none were available in Europe for use at the beginning of this.

[Admiraal Karel Doorman]

Well, I was/am facinated by this while thread. In a earlier wargame peiod (the paper one, during the '70's and '80's) there was this game NNN (Nato, Nukes and Nazis) (based on the then bestselling wargame topics) in which there was a scenario for WWIII right after WWII. An article in a wargame magazine (I believe it was by Jim Dunnigan, but it has been a while so I might be wrong...) stated that it would be almost impossible to succesfully attack the Soviet forces for the Western Allies. (This supposes the active cooperation of all western allies, but without a ressurected german army), even with a massive ammount of "tactical use of stategical airforces". But the other side would also be next to impossible, that is, the attack of the Soviet forces upon the western allies (barring use of this A-bomb thingie).
The reason beeing: Logistics. Had the russians attacked in may\june 1945, they would have lost steam in 2 days. Russian offensives had to build up for up to 5 months, the more they came to the west. In Russia proper, it only took them about 2 to 3 months, but the leap from the Vistula to the Oder was the offesive of the prevouis autumn\winter. And they build up for the last leap (to Berlin) for 4 months (also because they wanted to be sure that they COULD and WOULD take Berlin). A new (russian style) offensive in the west would not have been possble for at least 2 and probably 4 to 5 months.
On the other hand, the western allies were just coming of a supply squeeze, with Antwerp finally coming on line, and new equipment arriving every day.
Also the fightingstyle of the Soviet army would have rather qiuckly reduced the odds. They did still throw loads of people at the enemy, (mostly) regardless of losses, (just with a lot more tactical finesse than in 1941), and would have burned up their elite units (which were below strenght anyway from the fight for Berlin) against a more flexible (and desperate) western defence. Most Soviet divisions could only sustain contiues fighting for up to 5 to 6 days (even during a properly supplied offensive), after that the next echelon would take over. While US (and to a lesser extent other allies) divisions could keep it up for twice that.

About the airforce debate. I seem to remember that (at least during the middle portion of the war) almost all high-octane fuel for fighters and about half of the lubricants for all mechanical equipment were supplied by lend-lease. Granted that the Soviets had build a big stockpile, but even then, that would be in the USSR proper. And THEY did not have an "unsinkable aircraft carrier on the coast of Europe (read: the UK)" with a POL (Petrol\Oil\Lubricants) pipeline running from that through the Channel almost right up to the airbases on the continent. It would have to be moved, by train and\or trucks (US-supplied for the most part) to the front, subject to interdiction by the strategic airforce.

All in all the feeling that I get is that there would probably be some VERY sharp fighting in may\june, after which the soviet forces would have to rest, and the allies would have to REALLY build up to dislodge them from what was (at that time) the soil of a recently vanquished enemy. I doubt if anyone would be able to bring up much enthousiamn (sp?) for such an operation....

So: stalemate. (almost exactly like what happend, but with a lot more dead bodies)

------------------
Ik val aan! Volg mij! (All ships follow me)

[Grisha]

Soviet operations took time to develop not only because of logistics, but for razvedka and maskirovka, intelligence/reconnaissance and deception. The Soviets spent the entire war not only improving their tactics, and command/control, but also in perfecting their capabilities at operational intelligence and deception. By 1943, the Soviets were really beginning to become quite adept at these two qualities. From 1944, on, Soviet execution of intelligence and deception were second to none, allowing them to create tactical attack ratios of anywhere from 8:1 to 16:1. Combining this with more fluid exploitation methods like forward detachments, the Soviets were capable of attaining advances of 500km in three weeks against prepared German defensive lines. When one considers that overall Soviet combatant strength did not exceed total German combatant strength by 3:1 until fall of 1944, this was quite an achievement.

As for the air war, I will say this. Late in the war, Kozhedub, the greatest Allied ace of WWII, was flying in his La7 when he met a straggling B-17. He escorted it for a time until attacked by two P-51Ds (they must have mistook the La7 for a Fw190). For a short time he tried to maneuver his plane so that the American pilots could see the red stars on his aircraft, but they continued their attack. In the combat that ensued, Kozhedub shot down both P-51Ds.

Lastly, air combat is generally determined by the aircraft that most directly influences ground combat. Il-2s almost never flew above 3000m, and usually were below 1000m. Thus, combat with the VVS would entail many engagements at low altitude, something the Luftwaffe could attest to.

------------------
Best regards,
Greg Leon Guerrero

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited February 22, 2001).]

[tsbond]

I don't think sighting one ace that had a natural ability in air-to-air combat changes the much. Germans Aces in the EAST
Major Erich Hartmann 352
Major Gerhard Barkhorn 301
Major Günther Rall 275
That did not change the outcome of the war. Every county had their best pilots and I bet Kozhedub would have beat them if he was flying Mig 3 or Yak 1 for that matter.

[moni kerr]

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
Quote:
There is no contradiction here just a case of you once again seeing what you want to see.

Reply
Obvious you failed to see air superiority. Or, the fact Churchill’s biggest fear came from the US not being 100% committed to war. And you fail to see that demobilization or the commitment of more forces to the Pacific. Oh by the way that document is 29 pages long. From what (I see) is that the US was still at war with Japan and that was its threat not the USSR. The USSR was our ally.

Its obvious from previous posts that all kinds of restrictions have to be put on the total US war machine for the USSR to stand a chance. Now the UK has to fight the Bear almost by himself.
What next? We gonna pit The Canadians against the USSR or do the Americans have to resurrect the Brewster Buffalo and use the Mustang for a ride at Coney Island?

Besides its production that wins wars. You guys seem to forget that the US fought a 2 front war across 2 oceans and all the while it still managed to supply half the world (including the USSR) while doing it.


“I fear we have a awoke a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve”
YAMAMOTTO DEC 7, 1941.

Obviously you didn't read my posts. I said that I believed the Allies would gain air superiority over the Soviets but I challange the absurd conclusion you make. Demobilization and transfer to the Pacific were very real and I am not discounting them. This whole issue is in the form of 'what if' so all kinds of things are being considered. In fact I am assuming that the US would be fully involved and I am not, as you so conveniently suppose 'putting all kinds of restrictions on the total US war machine for the USSR to stand a chance'.

Unfortunately I could not find the 29 pages of Operation Unthinkable. All that I have to go on are the two posts that deal with it. As far as I can tell it is not full of contradictions. Please let us know what these contradictions are?

What is clear from the study is that the high ranking British officers involved, the ones most intimately aquainted with Allied air, ground and sea power rejected the plan for military reasons. Notice that they did not reject it for political or economic or moral reasons. They rejected it for military reasons. And it goes like this:
1) The strategic situation favors the Soviets.
2) A long war favors the Soviets.
3) Therefore if the West is to win it must stake everything on one large and decisive battle which must be won quickly(sounds very much like the reasons Hitler gave for Operation Citidalle, and we all know how that turned out)
4) In order for the West to win this battle two things must be achieved:
a)superior manuverability ( this does not refer to airplanes but to the handling of military assests)
b)air superiority

Now since the plan was rejected for military reasons it follows that at least one of the two conditions necessary for success could not be met. Either 'superior manuverability' could not be achieved or 'air superiority' could not be achieved. Or they concluded that neither could be achieved.

Now once again I'll ask you, where are the contradictions?

[frank1970]

The strategic bombing of Germany could (that is my point of view) not be compared to a strategic campaign agains the Soviet Union.
Germany was a tiny country, with most of its industry packed together at about 3 larger areas (each about 100x60 km), the distances from the bases to the targets were about 1300km.
The distances from England to the ural is about 5000km, 4000km from German Bases, which would be under Soviet attacks. The range of the Mustang was about 2500km. That means there would have been an unescorted way as long as the whole way to Germany and back!!!!
The US Bombers suffered more on Flak than on fighter attacks in 1944/45: Your strategic bombers could have dropped their bombs from 35000 feet, but would they hit anything? So they would fly much deeper and would be hit by AA fire (and the Soviets had lots of AA guns).

It is really great when you have fighters that fly so high, but whom should they fight with? When the aim is to destroy the enemy fighters or bombers you should get to them and not wait until the enemy gets to you, that won´t work. The Soviets attacked low flying with their Shturmvoiks and their targets were tank divisions, the range of their attacks would be about 100km max behind enemy lines. The Allies must have steady air patrols over their frontlines and that in great strength (or did the Allies have lots of transportable radar). The whole time to attack the enemy raid would be 5-10 minutes, then the raiders would be back home again, spred on hundreds of small field airports you could not see from above.

The Allied armies would have no chance against the Red Army. The Red Army had tanks of the same quality than the Germans and they had really lots of them, they captured millions of German Pzfausts and had no scruples to loose 100 men to destroy a tank.
The quality of the Allied soldiers was poor.Liddel Hart said in one of his books, that he knew no case unsupported Allied infantrists had some real success against unsupported German infantrists when the force ration wasn´t bigger than 6-1.

So friends it is a nice theme to discuss about but all Europeans are really happy it did not happen, because the Allies would not have been able to protect Europe at all.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by tsbond:
That did not change the outcome of the war. Every county had their best pilots and I bet Kozhedub would have beat them if he was flying Mig 3 or Yak 1 for that matter.

Yep, every major air force involved in WWII had its own fair share of high scoring aces. That says to me that the Soviet Air Force was just as competent as the others were.

[Grisha]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Yep, every major air force involved in WWII had its own fair share of high scoring aces. That says to me that the Soviet Air Force was just as competent as the others were.

That was the intent of my posting the story on Kozhedub. The VVS was quite competent in '44-'45. I contest that the USAAF would've been very hard put to win air supremacy from the VVS, especially when considering that USAAF fighters would've had to meet the VVS over the front at low altitude(where the Il-2s would be attacking), as well as any possible high altitude strategic bombing missions. And could USAAF bombers have reached the Soviet industrial base in the Urals from West Germany?

------------------
Best regards,
Greg Leon Guerrero

[Randy Stead]

I have followed this thread in fascination. Although there have been many good arguments from both sides of the debate regarding military capabilities of the Allies and Soviets, I would like to contribute to this debate from a different angle.

We should not overlook the moral aspects of such a conflict in the context of the time. Both the Soviets and the western allies had overrun Nazi concentration and death camps. I cannot imagine the frontline soldiers who had seen such things having the stomach for a fight with their former allies who had contributed together to defeat such evil. Neither can I envision the civilian populations being mobilized for such a crusade. Can we imagine the war-weary English, British or Canadian civilians who have been awaiting the return of their fathers and sons getting behind such a thing?

Here in Canada there was a replacement crisis. After avoiding the issue for years, the Canadian government had reluctantly to introduce conscription. The U.K. was in a similar state, scraping to keep the infantry divisions fleshed out. It seems to me that the Anglo-Allies would not be able to contribute much more than they already had, and that only the U.S. would have the resources to sustain a war of attrition against the Red Army.

As for the feelings of the Russian people, I think that they would not be able to have much say about it anyway. Stalin would have told them what to think. But I can't imagine that having suffered such grievous losses in four years of war with the Germans that they would have much stomach for a new fight either. Perhaps our Russian friends on this site would contribute their thoughts about this?

After having fed the civilians of both sides with anti-Nazi sentiment and propaganda, and having glossed over the ideological differences of their erstwhile Allies, I just can't fathom the governments being able to put over such an about-face and now getting away with vilifying their former allies. We [westerners] might have been able to rally round the flag if we had been attacked, but I cannot imagine there being popular support for nuking the liberators of Auschwitz!

Anyhow, thanks for listening. I thought I'd like to contribute a Canadian viewpoint.