Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by GDS_Starfury:
Mist: your ruski air force didnt kill the lufftwaffe so much as a lack of fuel did. The Russain system was not a superior one, it just relied on overwhelming numbers and long pauses to resupply. Saying that the western allies used ww1 tactics is also absurd. Italy was not central europe and the terrain there is quiet nasty. While by no means perfect there are to many instances or succsesful manuver warfare to list here.
Also just cause your Russain dont be full of yourself and a lot of the false histories you guys get fed. Also dont make comments on things like Dresden and not discuss Soviet war attrocities. And finally dont hide insults behind smily faces
(brief pause in post to reread something)

[This message has been edited by GDS_Starfury (edited February 19, 2001).]

My point on Italy was made including allied air and naval superiority over the mediterain.
There were many possiblities on launching paradrop and naval landing missions either in tactical or even strategical scale(well known Creet operation had shown that it could be effective even without decisive air/naval supperiority). Landing missions could made everywhere. Even in Balcans. Despite this that possiblity was largely ingored. The bad side of being in defence is that you dont know where will you be attacked from. There was only one direction in Italy. And bad terrain also favors defender. So Axis forces were in very good position. That makes me wonder why attacking side which haves very many opportunities to hit hits one of the strongest(and somewhat secondary) points. And this point has only one(and so obvious) dirrection for attacker. That's it about Italy.

I am Russian. And I like history of wars. It seems that I am not as competent as people in this forum, but my main sources on WWII are German,Western and modern Russian. I like to compare various sources and see what differs. Those history books of Soviet times are piece of crap indeed, so here we have some agreement with you (warning:this is not insult!)
Since recently this board and Art Of War board had become usefull for me because they can give me some amateur(sometimes very interesting!) points from other side and a lot of references on history books.

Dresden was mentioned as an example of ineffective usage of air supperiority. This topic was hottly discussed on the other board(hundreeds of replies), but mostly from the ethic side(IMHO!). My point is that strategic bombing did not proved itself to be worthy enough. Liddle-Gard(father-founder of strategic bombing theory) noticed it during the course of war but was unable to change things to better usage of air-supperiority.

There were very many attrocities during the war. I would never try to justify either side(including russian). It was a TOTAL war and I do not try to discuss its ethics. Mostly both sides loses such wars. Because a cost is incredibly high.

And finaly I bring my appologies to everyone who is insulted by my previous nasty post(s?).
It seems that I tried too much to alter discussion balance toward russian



[This message has been edited by Mist (edited February 19, 2001).]

Originally posted by moni kerr:
NEON DEON:

Allied forces landed in Normandy June 6th 1944. They captured Liepzig in early April 1945. Therefore it took them 10 months to capture Liepzig. Has the absurdity of your 4 month claim set in yet?

I think what Neon Deon was trying to say was,-
The final Russian offensive against AG Centre also incorparated the encirclement and capture of Berlin, (Not positive about this). in which case his four months would be about right.
StratMan.

Mist: thanks man i to apologize for looking for trouble were none was to be had. like i said posting at 5:45AM can be a risky proposition.
I am interested in all sides to the story of war. Without multiple referance points no one can make a qualified sound judgement on a given historical situation.
Were you are right that the allies vcould have tried either air drops or naval assault you are missing the reality of the time. Market Garden left a VERY bad taste in the mouths of Allied high command. Also after things like Anzio the Allies were more inclined to use their resources in north Europe. By that time they knew thay could just use Italy as a holding action to draw away front line German units. Think of it as a massive diversion.

[This message has been edited by GDS_Starfury (edited February 20, 2001).]

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:

First off TO MIST.
A person, Company, organization, or Nation. CAN ONLY HAVE THE ETHICS IT CAN AFFORD. There is not a person on this planet,(barring the compeletly insane) even if he decides he is bad, that does not have some sence of what is right and what is wrong. America in 1945 was a very
and of course right thing is a thing that you're thinking is right If someone has a thing that is wrong from your point of view that he is a bad guy, despite he thinks that his thing is right. And vice versa.

strong country and could afford to have a certain amount of ethical point of view. That view being freedom. It is easier for America to have that point of view because of our great ecominics. Once that problem is out of the way. It becomes far easier to express your point of views on the world.

You probably do not suppose that your statement has two sides. I can hardly believe that there are human ethics in politics. It is an ART of lies. It is completly different discussion and would not want to go further in this dirrection.


We did not fight this war for ecomonic reasons. We fought this war because we were attacked by the Japaness.

I suppose that there were some economical reasons for this war. No one declares war to another if he has no economical reasons. I do not know much about this background of Pacific War, but it should be. In other case why should Japan put on the stake it own existence? Did those japan guys just mindlessly hated Americans? well, I think correct answer should be 'NO'

We didn't fight a war with Germany because of ecomonics reason. We fought a war with them, because on Dec. 8 1941 Hitler declared war on us.

naval hostilities had begun before this declaration. And they were from American side. I do not justify Hitler, I just state that the war between US and Germany had realy begun before Dec.8 1941. I believe that among others there were economical reasons for US to support GB . No alliance can be made on purely ethical basis. And one more and WWII is a logical continuation of WWI which econimical reason are so well described everywhere.

Once those things happen. This country, who could afford to have a good ethical point of view, begun to exert it on the world and has, ever since. This Country in which we Americas live in, was founded on certain principals, that all people have certain inalienable rights. That all people are created equal. All men, be they Russains, Poles, Czechs, Hungarian, Rumainians, East Germans and any other occupied country the Commies decided to enslave for there own purposes, had those rights.

Thats where it comes from! It comes from US Civil War! But even this war had economical reasons. It is arguable how much strong they were, but anyway those words about human rights were very strong. Did that war lead to realisation of such principles in US? well, yes..and no. Man is created equal, but after he is created he becomes non-equal. he has rights, but he has no possibilities. It takes hundreeds years to change peoples minds. It can't just be done by war itself. One more example. Vietnam/Afganistan/Chechnia/Yugoslavia problem. Despite of all military successes country cant just make people to live on the right ethics. To not kidnap people, to not grow opium, to not hide in the jungles, to live in peace, to respect man's right etc etc
Those countries which fell under communistic regim had either historical(or may be histerical ) or social, or geopolitical reasons for it. The idea of "freeing" people from their own government is wrong in most cases. They deserve what they have despite how bitter it could sound. For example people's life in GDR,Chekhoslovak Republic and Poland was VERY different of what we have in Russia,Albany, Romania and Northern Korea and China. Your position can be turned in opposit dirrection. I can say that Soviets should liberate all those people who are "enslaved" by capitalists. There was even communistic rebelion in Greece and Italy. It could be a good reason for Soviet Army to free greece and italian brothers.

Patton than, was a man who was brought up on theses principals. And like so many Americans back than, believed in them. Towards the end of the war, he wanted to enter Czechoslovakia because of there cries for help over a radio broadcast he had intercepted

I do not know (to my shame) anything about his biography, but the case which is described by you shows that country can swallow such things which are seemed as wrong in favor of economical/political interests.


Truly the Russains rewrote the book on mobile warfare. I won't agure that point with you on this one.

let it be. I gladly agree with you, despite it is somewhat surprising for me


Lend-Lease: Let me give you some figure on lend-lease that always seems to up end up missing

The lend-lease topic was discussed in art-of-wargaming forum.
Your data are good addition. Here in Russia we have common opinion that lend-lease help was very insignificant and matrix forums are the one of the rare sources for me on this subject.




[This message has been edited by Mist (edited February 19, 2001).]

Originally posted by StratMan:
I think what Neon Deon was trying to say was,-
The final Russian offensive against AG Centre also incorparated the encirclement and capture of Berlin, (Not positive about this). in which case his four months would be about right.
StratMan.

If your not positive then read my previous post detailing the Soviet operations from Jan. 1945 to the end of the war. There are 3 main operations, the drive to the Oder, the clearing of Pomerania and Silesia, and the final drive which began on April 16th.

One must ask 'Why assign the date for the Battle of Bulge as the starting point for the Soviet drive on Berlin'? Maybe I should assign the end of the Battle of Stalingrad as the starting point for the capture of the Ruhr. Then I could make the ridiculous claim that it took the British-American armies 2 years to capture the Ruhr.

Originally posted by Mist:
Here in Russia we have common opinion that lend-lease help was very insignificant and matrix forums are the one of the rare sources for me on this subject.

That opinion is both right and wrong. It is true that the immensly greater part of why the Russians were able to defeat the Germans depended on the Russians themselves, not the least their industrial policies in the 20 years preceeding the war. It was they who designed and built the vast majority of the weapons used, they who fought and they who died by the millions.

But on the other hand, since the Germans came so close to defeating the Soviet Union, that western help might have been the last grain to tilt the balance, and thereby very significant. When things are to close to call, marginal influences count for a lot.

At least, that's the way I see it...

Originally posted by Mist:
I suppose that there were some economical reasons for this war. No one declares war to another if he has no economical reasons.
[

There were economic reasons for Japan to start the war with the US, mainly having to do with oil and steel, but there were no economic reasons for the US to want a fight with Japan.

naval hostilities had begun before this declaration. And they were from American side.

Thats true. By late '41 US naval ships were protecting convoys headed for Britian, and if Uboats attacked those ships had authorization to shoot-to-kill.

However, it should also be pointed out that FDR was really concerned about the situation where the US was at war with Japan, but not yet at war with Germany. There was a conversation about this between FDR and Churchill. FDR was worrying about whether he could convince Congress to go to war against Germany, when Hitler declared war against the US, solving FDR's problem.

Here in Russia we have common opinion that lend-lease help was very insignificant and matrix forums are the one of the rare sources for me on this subject.

It goes both ways sadly. The role the Soviets played in WWII is seriously downplayed by textbooks and classes here in the US, except I think for college level instruction. The Soviet role in bleeding the German army white is under-represented here, and Lend-Lease and the efforts of Western Air Forces against Germany(*1) are under-represented in Russia, I'll bet.

*1: I'm not talking about strategic bombing so much as I'm talking about the side-effect of strategic bombing which was to bleed the Luftwaffe nearly to death as badly as the Red Army bled the Wehrmacht in the East.


As for the rest, I agree with you. Misdirection is a common element in politics, and most (but not all) wars ultimately have economic reasons behind them.



[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 19, 2001).]

I've got the answer for the question that started this thread if you're still interested. The programmer (Arnaud) gave me this info a little while ago.

Amount of squads per week is (TOTAL_CITY_POPULATION * multiplier), where the multiplier is

Year Germany USSR
'41...... 2 ......... 8
'42...... 2 ......... 4
'43...... 2.5 ....... 4
'44...... 2.5 ....... 4
'45...... 2 ......... 3

The '8' represents initial Soviet mobilization.

(I had to use a lot of periods because the forum software strips excess whitespace from messages.)



[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 19, 2001).]

Mist: To the lend and lease topic:
I once read a book, I don´t exactly know who wrote it, but it was an American and there was a very good point ain a dialogue:
American:" Oh, look: American trucks, American boots, American weapons!"
Russian:" Russian bodies!"


The whole problem of comparing the duration of the Allied forces to conquer territory and the Soviets conquering territory is that the enemy wasn´t the same.
Of course, both fought Germany, but the Western Front didn´t have the will to fight to the very last. German soldiers liked to be captured by the Allies, they didin´t like to be captured by the Red Army, that´s it. The Landsers beliefed they would have to suffer a little more being a Soviet POW than a Allied POW.

The last point is:
If Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union the US and the last Britains would still now stand on the US East coast and collect forces to recapture Great Britain.
No other country in the world ( exception China and maybe India) would have been able to stand a full scale fight agains the whole Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine.
Not attacking the Soviet Union would have freed resources to build planes and ships,long range rockets,... . Germany lost millions of first line soldiers in the East they all would have been there to invade England.


[This message has been edited by Frank (edited February 20, 2001).]

Mist,
Hey I thought for a couple of days there you were gone for good. Glad your are back!!!!!!

Well I will try to answer those question. Sometime soon.




[This message has been edited by Rover1gp (edited February 20, 2001).]

Originally posted by tsbond:
I don't see your point Teppo. Quality of equipment is only a small part of the big picture. I rarely compare equipment. To me the spirit and quality of your troops can overcome some if not most of the equipments short-fallings.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were of that opinion. I was just generally questioning the usefulness of equipment comparison piece for piece since it would only be a very small part of such a campaign. By that logic, Germany should have won the war.

The allies made mistakes but I can not see anywhere were they did *badly*. They beat the Germans in France the Low Countries and in there own backyard with far less casualties then the Russians. When I say that I mean % wise. I believe the Russians lost 4 men to every 1 German. To where the US lost fewer then the Germans in almost every battle and still won. With a force that was equal to their own and with better equipment. Part of

Again I must have been a bit unclear - I meant, keeping in mind the tools they had to do the job. But as to your last statement - are you saying that the odds on the Western front were 1:1, the Germans were on the defense and STILL had more casualties and lost? I'm sorry but I don't buy that.

At the battle of the Bulge the Germans out numbered the Allies. Here are some numbers although they seem to change a bit depending on the author.
More than a million men fought in the Battle of the Bulge including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British. The German military force consisted of two Armies with ten corps(equal to 29 divisions). While the American military force consisted of a total of three armies with six corps(equal to 31 divisions). At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were as follows: 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured

Remember that the Bulge was a local counterattack for which the Germans had stockpiled and prepared for a long time.
Still, given the numbers you quoted (almost 1:1 odds plus the Allies' muich better supply situation) shoudldnt' the attacker have been easily repulsed?

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

Originally posted by GDS_Starfury:

E: Nimits hit upon the naval topic. While the US Navy couldnt directly effect a war in central Europe it would have been useful in holding the Baltic flank and the east russian coast specificly Vladidovstock. The Russians were not strong everywere and having US Marines knocking on your back door and threatening the trans-siberian railway would at the very least force combat units out of Europe and across their own country.

Take a look at the map. _You can't go to the Baltic unless whoever is already there lets you._ Trust me on this. In a very cold winter the Danish Belts can be crossed _on foot_ from Denmark to Sweden. It's not the easiest bit to navigate at best of times, let alone under enemy action. The Allies had massive naval forces in Europe, so why didn't they do it against Germany?

As to East Asia, there were already Russian forces there to keep a check on Japan and prepare for the eventual invasion. The terrain there is very defensible and for the exception of that single rail line it's just wilderness, about as easy to invade as the Burmese hinterland or something. I don't think the Russians would worry too much about that flank. Anyway Lend-Lease would have ended so the need to protect the area would be much less than before.

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
World War III begins October 1945:
The West opens the war with massive airstrikes against Soviet airbases. Knowing their forces are not up to assaulting the Soviets head-on, Allied forces dig in and prepare for in depth defense, waiting for air power and A-bombs to decide the war. Soviet counterattacks do push deep into western Germany, but at a high cost. A-bombs vaporize entire Soviet armies as they mass to attack the allied front. Eventually, the Soviets give in and agree to a negotiated peace.

[This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited February 19, 2001).]

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?

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

Originally posted by Rover1gp:
Lend-Lease: Let me give you some figure on lend-lease that always seems to up end up missing from most of the Post I see here and on the other forums. This is from the WWII Encyclopedia Volume #8. Chapter 82 "Balance of strength". Subheading "Lend lease Materiel..." Pg 1092 to 1093. Written By Lt. Col. Eddy Bauer.

"There was more to come, and this would be more important. It is true that the arms sent under the lend-lease agreement totalled only ten or perhaps 15 percent of those manufactured in Russia, but can it really be believed that the Soviet war production
could have reached these record figures that the Communist historians boast of today, and with good reason, without massive imports of explosives and strategic raw materials as we call them today? Actually, without relaxing their own armaments programmes, the British Americans, and Canadians supplied the Soviet Union with:
218,000 tons of various explosives
1,200,000 tons of stell
170,000 tons of aluminium
217,000 tons of copper
29,000 tons of tin
6,500 tons of nickel
48,000 tons of lead
42,000 tons of zinc
103,000 tons of rubber
93,000 tons of jute
"Finally, under the industrial heading can be added 26,000 machine-tools and from the United States. 1,045 locomotives and 8,260 wagons, built especially for the Soviet Union's broad gauge railways."

In the post on all forums I have seen, I never see these figure ever brought up. Thought I would bring this to light.

[This message has been edited by Rover1gp (edited February 16, 2001).]

Even more important was the supply of food that was shipped over. One source I read put it at 1/2 pound of food for every Soviet soldier for the duration of the war. The US supplied food for the entire Allied cause. 30% of UK food consumption came from the US as well. Keegan gives the US as starting the war with 42% of the worlds production of capital goods and ending the war with just over 50% of the worlds total production of capital goods. Had there been a war post WWII the US could have starved out any competiton. Austrailia and parts of South America were the only other net food exporters at that time.
thanks, John.

Originally posted by Mist:

I suppose that there were some economical reasons for this war. No one declares war to another if he has no economical reasons. I do not know much about this background of Pacific War, but it should be. In other case why should Japan put on the stake it own existence? Did those japan guys just mindlessly hated Americans? well, I think correct answer should be 'NO'

A very good point. We always seem to get stuck on this what's wrong/right, ideological bit. The truth of course is that almost always it's just a facade, a way to get the people of a nation or an allied nation favourable to war. The economical issue, the control of resources and markets, is the real issue behind all the bullshitting.
War is a continuation of politics and politics is all about the division of wealth, be it between individuals, classes, countries or blocks of countries.

It was very well put in the words of a merchant in a novel about the Pharaohs' times in Egypt. I'll try and dig it out sometime so I can quote it to you all.

Cheers, Teppo

------------------
"I think, so I think I am." (Err... probably...)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
OK, many posts later, I have to admit that if the numerical strenght of the US, UK and Red Air Forces are those quoted, ie about 2:1 in favour of the west, then the west would have finished off the Soviet Air Force fairly fast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 2
Whoever posted this 2:1 ratio, would you please tell us where you got it, and whether its just the total number of aircraft for both sides. Allied air forces are bomber heavy, I don't believe the Allies would have had a 2:1 ratio in fighters and fighter-bombers. The Soviets had scads of those.

REPLY:
I15/3 2,000
I16 10,000
LAGG1 1,500
LAGG3 6,258
LA5 1,500@
LA7 5,753@
MIGG1 100@VW
MIGG3 3,322@VW
YAK1 8,721
YAK3 4,848@V
YAK7 6,400
YAK9AthruM 9,021V
YAK9DD 3,058VY
YAK9U 2,500@V
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 64,981


F2A BREWSTER BUFFALO
500Y
F4F-3/-4FM1 WILDCAT
3,060Y
F4F-4FM2 WILDCAT
4,800VY
F6F HELLCAT 12,514VY
F4U CORSAIR 7,861@VYZ
P36A HAWK 210
P36 75-0/75A-4 HAWK 451Y
P39D AIRACOBRA 1,767Y
P39N/Q AIRACOBRA
7,700VY
P40 thruF&N WARHAWK
11,766Y*
P40K/L/M WARHAWK
2,020VY*
P38F/G LIGHTNING 1,720@VWY
P38H/J/L LIGHTINING 7,494@VWXYZ
P47BthruM THUNDERBOLT
13,976@VWXY
P47N THUNDERBOLT 1,816@VWXYZ
P51A/NA73 MUSTANG
1,510@YZ
P51BthruK MUSTANG 13,632@VWXYZ
P61 BLACKWIDOW 735Y
P63 KINGCOBRA 410@VWXYZ

--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 94,242

BEAUFIGHTER 5,562Y
GLADIATOR 527
HURRICANE MKI 4,407V
HURRICANE MKIIB 9,644VWX
TYPHOON MKIB 3,330@Y
MOSQUITO 7,800Y
SPITFIRE I/II 2,486
SPITFIRE MKV 6,464V
SPITFIRE MKVII/VIII/IX 7,463@VW
SPITFIRE MKXIV/XVI 2,011@VWXY

--------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL: 46,694

KEY:
@=390mph+/ V=34,500ft+/ W=37,500ft+/ X=40,OOOft+/ Y=850mi range/ Z=2,000mi range

Source: http://www.acepilots.com/air_specs.html

See above Ed.


First I would like to respond to the YAK 9U issue. There were only 2,500 YAK9Us produced during WWII. There were 13,632 P51B/C/D/K/Hs produced (see above charts) of which 8,000 were the famous bubble canopied 6 50s D version. Note that the B & C still way outperform the 9U too. So its at least 4 – 1 but in reverse and, if you toss in the Bs & Cs its almost 14-1.

I have included a link to the page where I obtained this info since Ed asked where I got 2-1 allied advantage from. The US&UK combined to produce 140,936 fighters vs. the Soviet Unions 64,981. Now that’s just sheer numbers. Besides just the numbers are the fact that almost every fighter in the US/UK arsenal outgunned the Soviet Unions.

Performance:
3 to 1 US.
1)The USSR produced 18,023 fighters capable of 390mph+. The US/UK produced 61,223.

5 to 1 US
2)of those 18,023,only 10,770 could reach 34,500ft Vs. the US/UK’s 56,383.

14 to 1 US
3)of those only 3,422 could reach 37,500ft(none being the Yak9U) Vs. the US/UK’s 48,522.
NO ODDS
4)No Soviet fighter could reach 40,000ft plus. The US/UK had 39,339 of which 23,352 had a 2,000mi+ range(13,632 were P51B/C/D/H/K Mustangs).

Ask Chuck Yeager an old prop jock if speed and altitude doesn’t matter.)

This is why I said air superiority in one week.

What they produced in total doesn't tell us what they had ready to use in mid '45 against one another. Mustangs, for example, were used as ground attack planes even though the Thunderbolt was really designed for that, so Mustangs took significant losses to air-to-ground attacks. There were also substantial numbers of Army fighters in the Pacific, and unlike now, they could not be redeployed within a week or 2 to Europe.

And adding naval planes is misleading as 1) for the main part, they wouldn't be able to help in a war on the European continent due to range restrictions, and an absense of integration between Army/Navy in tactical flight operations, and 2) almost all of them were in the Pacific, and as I've already said it would take more than 2 weeks for the Navy to redeploy. By the time Pacific forces could redeploy to Europe, its possible that fatal damage had already been done to the Allied forces that faced the initial assault.

I'm not arguing that the Western Allied Air Forces wouldn't gain the upper hand at some point, I just don't agree with you that it would take only one week. Secondly, the Red Army spent the entire war without absolute air supremecy, so they are used to being attacked by the air and have the equipment to protect themselves. Claiming the utter destruction of the Red Army within 2 or 3 weeks of fighting solely by air power is highly dubious. And if you can't destroy them within 3 or 4 weeks, by that time the damage they've done to our ground forces could be acute.




[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited February 20, 2001).]

This is from a post by Fredrik Rask in the Art of Wargaming forum which has begun the same debate we are carrying on here. This post is on the 2nd page of their thread, "Patton's proposed invasion of Russia". Fredrik, below, tells us where he got this. This sounds much more credible than the opinions (mine included) that have been thrown around here.


****************************************

Searched the soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup and came up with the following interesting post by Stuart Wilkes.

On 1 October 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph published an account of "Operation Unthinkable", which was a study ordered by British Prime Minister Churchill to investigate the possibilities in a sneak attack on the Soviet Army. The plan was to rearm up to 10 German divisions, and attack the Soviet forces in Germany with the combined US, British, and German armies. It was presented to him on May 22, 1945. Following is The telegraph's discription of the fate of this plan.

"Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful whether we could achieve a limited and quick success, even if the political appreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our political object." Churchill asked Lt Gen Ismay to pass the Unthinkable reporton to the Chiefs of Staff committee (COS), composed of the most senior military officers; Gen Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Admiral of the Fleet Sir David Cunningham, the First Sea Lord, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff. They replied on June 8, dismissing the report's idea that offensive action against the Russians could be taken,instead suggesting that Britain should be thinking of defence. In the month since VE Day, the Americans had begun to demobilise at a rate which alarmed the COS. It laid the bare facts before Churchill: the Russians had 264 divisions in Europe, including 36 armoured divisions, compared with 103 Allied divisions, 23 of which were armoured. America retained 64 divisions in Europe. The Soviet air force outnumbered the Allies by 11,802 in fighters and fighter-bombers, although American, British and Polish heavy bombers had a superiority of almost three to one. The COS concluded: "It is clear from the relative strength of the respective land forces that we are not in a position to take the offensive with a view to achieving a rapid success."

"Since, however, Russian and allied land forces are in contact from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, we are bound to become involved in land operations. In support of our land forces we should have technically superior, but numerically inferior, tactical air forces."

"As regards Strategic Air Forces, our superiority in numbers and technique would be to some extent discounted by the absence of strategical targets compared to those which existed in Germany, and the necessity for using these strategic air forces to supplement our tactical air forces in support of land operations."

"Our view is, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should becommitted to a protracted war against heavy odds."

"These odds, moreover, would become fanciful if the Americans grew weary and indifferent and began to be drawn away by the magnet of the Pacific War."

As can be seen, the British Chiefs of Staff saw little prospect for success in the notion of a sneak attack on the Soviet Army.

****************************************


We were substantially outnumbered on the ground, and as I said, it was the bombers that warped the numbers, in the category of fighter/fighter-bomber we *were* outnumbered. The British obviously did not agree with the optimistic assumptions being made here.

So can we now put to rest the idea that Allied airpower could sweep the skies of Europe free of Soviet planes in one week, and destroy the Soviet Red Army in a couple more weeks by air attack? Reality demands re-entrance into this argument.

NOT JUST YET.)


Quote:
What they produced in total doesn't tell us what they had ready to use in mid '45 against one another. Mustangs, for example, were used as ground attack planes even though the Thunderbolt was really designed for that, so Mustangs took significant losses to air-to-ground attacks.

Reply:
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. These Planes served mainly in Italy and were
Powered by a non supercharged Allison engine unlike the P51B thru Ks. These were the only Mustangs to suffer any significant amount of casualties during the war. The P51s were used in ground attack on Dday, At the Battle of the Bulge and in 1945 when they were released from bomber escort to go after targets of Opportunity.


QUOTE:
There were also substantial numbers of Army fighters in the Pacific, and unlike now, they could not be redeployed within a week or 2 to Europe.And adding naval planes is misleading as 1) for the main part, they wouldn't be able to help in a war on the European continent due to range restrictions, and an absense of integration between Army/Navy in tactical flight operations, and 2) almost all of them were in the Pacific, and as I've already said it would take more than 2 weeks for the Navy to redeploy. By the time Pacific forces could redeploy to Europe, its possible that fatal damage had already been done to the Allied forces that faced the initial assault.


REPLY:
I totally missed the boat on this one (pun intended).)
Every Navy fighter including the Brewster Buffalo had a range of 850+ miles. And, the Baltic and Black seas were not ponds nor did the US Navy have to re-deploy in order to attack Vladivostock. But, no matter lets just chuck the Navy and leave 1/3 of all Army fighters in the
Pacific to defend against balloon bombs.) The Air weapon the US wants from the pacific is not a fighter anyways it’s the B29. And it wont take 2 weeks to re-deploy a long range strategic bomber.
I assumed this was like a stew a little bit build up war.
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:
2 to 1 US.
1)The USSR produced 18,023 fighters capable of 390mph+. The US/UK produced 35,753

3 to 1 US
2)of those 18,023,only 10,770 could reach 34,500ft Vs. the US/UK’s 32,510
9 to 1 US
3)of those only 3,422 could reach 37,500ft(none being the Yak9U) Vs. the US/UK’s 32,510.
NO ODDS
4)No Soviet fighter could reach 40,000ft plus. The US/UK had 26,357 of which 15,645 had a 2,000mi+ range(9,133 were P51B/C/D/H/K Mustangs).
Note: #3 & #4 never had any Corsairs to begin with. All US/UK FIGHTERS LISTED ABOVE
ARE P51/P47/P38/P63/THE TYPHOON OR LATE MODEL SPITFIRES.
RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT THAT MADE THE LIST WERE THE LA5/LA7/MIGG1/MIGG3/YAK3/YAK9U.
NO NAVY PLANES WERE INCLUDED, AND ONLY US/UK PLANES REFLECT A 33% REDUCTION
IN PRODUCTION. ALL US AIRCRAFT LISTED ABOVE ARE SUPERIOR IN FIREPOWER


One more thing about production. It’s a guide not an absolute. If you want to refute production numbers based on one side being better able to actually field what they produce then by all means have a crack at it. But I assume they are equal despite the US having a clear edge logistically speaking.

QUOTE:
Operation Unthinkable assessed the situation as follows: ``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.''

Wow! Did an Army officer write that or a lawyer? These excerpts sure do contradict each other.
Sure sounds like they intended on having air superiority to me.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm

I included a link to operation unthinkable. I read the whole article and found no such number referring to a 11,800 fighter superiority. Just on a side note. Tactical use of airpower Is ground attack in support of the army. The article does state (although in muddy round about terms That strategic bombers would have to be used for tactical purpose. The eighth already proved that carpet bombing whith heavy bombers was an effective method of dislodging troops.



And, besides why, after the war in Europe was over would the US have the bulk of its air force in Europe? If they intended to attack mainland Japan. Unless the bulk of US fighter production got swallowed up in the Bermuda triangle then there is something missing from that report. Demobilized units did leave the ETO too.

A little perspective of allied airpower from the German point of view.)

Field Marshal Rommel's reaction to being pinned to the ground by Allied tactical air was a repetition of the feelings he had expressed during the dark days of 1942, when scourged by the Desert Air Force. Already by June 9, Admiral Ruge was writing that "the air superiority of the enemy is having the effect the Field Marshal had expected and predicted: our movements are extremely slow." The next day, Rommel wrote to his wife: "The enemy's air superiority has a very grave effect on our movements. There's simply no answer to it." In walks with Ruge, Rommel continued to complain about the invasion situation, "especially the lack of air support." Ruge concluded that "utilization of the Anglo-American air force is the modern type of warfare, turning the flank not from the side but from above." The situation turned increasingly bleak. By July 6, during a dinner party, a "colonel of a propaganda battalion" remarked that soldiers were constantly asking "Where is the Luftwaffe?" In staff discussions about the future as if one really existed for the Third Reich-Rommel and Ruge concurred that "the tactical Luftwaffe has to be an organic part of the army, otherwise one cannot operate," which showed how little the two men understood the evolution of Allied air power over the previous three years of the war. It was precisely because Allied air power was not subordinate to the armies that it was free to use mass and concentration to achieve its most productive ends-and thereby help the Allied armies the most.

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
NOT JUST YET.)

QUOTE:
Operation Unthinkable assessed the situation as follows: ``Superior handling and air superiority might enable us to win the battle, but there is no inherent strength in our strategic position and we should, in fact, be staking everything upon the tactical outcome of one great engagement.''

Wow! Did an Army officer write that or a lawyer? These excerpts sure do contradict each other.

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