Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hypothetical 1945 Air War, USA V Russia  
User currently offlinedandy_don From United States of America, joined May 2000, 202 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8739 times:

I have been reading about the end of Nazi Germany in the spring of 1945, having watched a great German movie about the topic: "Downfall", as well as Ryan's "Battle of Berlin"

It has got me thinking about what would have happened if war broke out between Russia and the Western Allies along the battle lines of May 1945 once Germany collapsed?

Especially in terms of an air war. I am by no means an expert on the merits of the two air forces but it seems to me that the western air forces were designed for strategic use and Russias for tactical. Would that have given the advantage to Russia?

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nuke Moscow and industrial centers, air war over. Then the real mess starts.


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8665 times:

No.

You are correct that the Russian air force was centered on tactical roles. Because of this they lacked any meaningful long range aircraft save from the prewar tu-4(?). You have to remember that after the start of Barbarossa Russia was forced to move most of their aircraft production to regions on the east sides of the urals. This was to protect them from bombing from the Luftwaffe, which also was tactically oriented and lacked meaningful long range aircraft. Those factories would not have been safe from us aircraft. The British also benifited from the lack of German long range aircraft during the battle of Britian.

Russia under this scenario would also be fighting a two front was because there is no way that a second front would not be opened the the far east and pribabky one through the middle east from Iran. For the most part in WWII russiavhad only one front to worry about. It would be a a differentbwa if the had to worry about b-17s from the west and b-29's from the east.

Another key issue is that the us aircraft generally had battles at higher altitudes than Russian aircraft which tended to stck lower. So going high would also be a tactical advantage for the us.

I could go on. Russia was dependent on lend lease supplies, which would also be cut off.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7213 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8594 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1):
Nuke Moscow and industrial centers, air war over.

Based on the situation at the end of the war in 1945, that would have been the ultimate option, indeed Churchill was already talking about a conflict with Russia before the war ended.
No way the US were going to prolong the war, its why the nuke was used on Japan and the cold war commenced, because all parties agreed to disagree and not go to war.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
No.

You are correct that the Russian air force was centered on tactical roles. Because of this they lacked any meaningful long range aircraft save from the prewar tu-4(?). You have to remember that after the start of Barbarossa Russia was forced to move most of their aircraft production to regions on the east sides of the urals. This was to protect them from bombing from the Luftwaffe, which also was tactically oriented and lacked meaningful long range aircraft. Those factories would not have been safe from us aircraft. The British also benifited from the lack of German long range aircraft during the battle of Britian.

Russia under this scenario would also be fighting a two front was because there is no way that a second front would not be opened the the far east and pribabky one through the middle east from Iran. For the most part in WWII russiavhad only one front to worry about. It would be a a differentbwa if the had to worry about b-17s from the west and b-29's from the east.

Another key issue is that the us aircraft generally had battles at higher altitudes than Russian aircraft which tended to stck lower. So going high would also be a tactical advantage for the us.

I could go on. Russia was dependent on lend lease supplies, which would also be cut off.

Given the vast numerical superiority the russian army had on the ground I am not sure the air forces of either side would have made that much of a difference. The british army was exhausted and shrinking by this stage, the US army had no stomach for casualties and neither was as proficient as the Russians in armoured warfare. The Russians also had a large number of troops that marched into Manchuria at the end of the war and given the heavy armour component would have been a challange for the US pacific forces that weren't geared for fighting an armoured conflict. The Russian air force was the thrid largest in the world by this time and while as has been stated was tactically focused the number of targets for long range allied bombers would be small compared to Germany and at incredibly long distances.

Perhaps tactical western air power might had been able to restrict Russian rear battlefield movement but IMO the great weight of Russian grounds troops would simply have been too much.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1):
Nuke Moscow and industrial centers, air war over. Then the real mess starts.

There simply weren't that many nukes available and producing them was not an overnight job. Perhaps the allies would have been required to resort to chemical weapons to slow or stop Russian ground forces until a sufficient number of nukes were available.

Quoting dandy_don (Thread starter):
Would that have given the advantage to Russia?

If it was a quick grab for land then probably yes. If it ended up into a long drawn out campaign then the allied air forces would have much greater effect.


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8513 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
There simply weren't that many nukes available and producing them was not an overnight job. Perhaps the allies would have been required to resort to chemical weapons to slow or stop Russian ground forces until a sufficient number of nukes were available.

I think the war ended in August 1945 with one nuke in inventory, ready to go on Tinian. They could produce 2 a month at that point, and the rate soon increased. You don't need a lot to make an impact when the other side has none.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4832 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8484 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
Given the vast numerical superiority the russian army had on the ground I am not sure the air forces of either side would have made that much of a difference.

Don't forget that most (if not all of Europe) did not want to fall into Russian hands. So you would have had Britain (and empire), USA, France, Belgium, Netherlands, The Scandanavian countries, Finland. Plus inside resistance from the likes of Poland, and then the remainder of the German forces. Yes the Russian army was numerically superior (just), but its soldiers were poorly trained, were forced to fight (any form of retreat even for tactical reasons was treated as treason with instant execution), and had poor morale. USA had just hit its peak production and was supplying aircraft etc to Russia. In an airwar Russia would be cut off, The allies would have better planes, more of them, better resources, better training etc. Russia itself would unlikely fall, but Moscow Westwards would be taken, Hitler was really only a division or 2 short and a season out from achieving that earlier in the war.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8480 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 5):
You don't need a lot to make an impact when the other side has none.

Two major factors influence nuking Russia and particularly Moscow in 1945.

The first and probably most important is Stalin. Unless you kill him you start a war with a man that has willingly sacrificed millions of his own people to industrialise his country, let alone those who died in the war. He will not stop if you drop five weapons on Moscow let alone the one available. Sure Stalin doesn't know how many nukes you have but does he really care?

Second is the technical ability to actually fly to Moscow, drop your weapon and cause enough damage to the target to have more than a symbolic effect. Flying to Moscow and dropping the bomb would be a one way trip. There are no air to air refuelling aircraft and the B-29 was possibly the only aircraft that could have flown that far. To do so it would have had to fly direct over thousands of Russian fighter aircraft risking the bomb being shot down and falling in Russian hands. Once you get there the size and explosive power of the initial nuclear weapons would not have been enough to cause the type of damage seen in Japan. The weapons were by today's standards small tactical yield weapons and Moscow, a predominately stone, brick and concrete city, is not the powder keg a city mostly of wood construction in Japan was.

With so few weapons available you either hit symbolic targets or troops on the ground because Russia's industry is simply too far away. Given the production rate of nukes the Russians are in Paris by the time you have enough to make a marginal impact.

Of course this is all simply a matter of opinion but I don't think one or three nuclear weapons would have stopped Russia before they had taken most of western Europe.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8542 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8408 times:

Given the state of US industry in 1945 (which was good), and manpower (also good, if politically less solid than Stalin), I'd have a real hard time believing Russia would have a production or technological edge on the USA at that time. USSR was hurting.

Not commenting on specific air combat, only on the respective ability of USSR vs USA to produce planes. The USA had much greater industrial might. 1945 aircraft production in the USA: 46,000. USSR: 20,900 Were they equal in quality? That would be hard to believe. US technology is not "always best" but I do believe the US was a tech leader at that time. The US also had the majority of world economic product within its own borders. If you include a "NATO" style group, make that the vast, vast majority, like about 90%.

This implies that even if Russia got early gains, they could be rolled back using US/Western machines that were tooled up.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 6):
es the Russian army was numerically superior (just), but its soldiers were poorly trained, were forced to fight (any form of retreat even for tactical reasons was treated as treason with instant execution), and had poor morale. USA had just hit its peak production and was supplying aircraft etc to Russia. In an airwar Russia would be cut off, The allies would have better planes, more of them, better resources, better training etc.

Right.


User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

An air war between the Soviets and Western Allies in the second half of 1945 would have gone pretty bad for the Soviets.

The OP is correct in saying the air war on the Eastern Front was very much a tactical one centred on events occuring on the ground. The air war on the Western Front however, had both strategic and tactical elements running in parallel. Thus the air forces of the Western Allies were far better equipped and experienced to take on an air campaign against the Soviets.

Putting aside the atomic bomb for the time being, the most obvious difference between the Western Allies and Soviets was in strategic bombers. The UK had been bombing the Germans since 1939 and the US had been in the game since 1942. The RAF and USAAF had very large fleets of strategic bombers and had developed successful and effective doctrines for mounting strategic bomber offensives. The Soviets on the other hand, had no strategic bombers, and in 1945 were trying to reverse engineer B-29s which had force-landed on their territory. The Soviet copy of the B-29, the Tu-4 did not enter service until 1948.

In terms of fighter forces the difference wasn't quite so stark, but a significant difference nonetheless. The Soviets operated some superlative low altitude fighters by the end of the war - namely the Yak-3 and La-7. These fighters were optimised for securing air superiority over the battlefield and would have been ill suited to intercepting high flying American bombers. Let's not forget the Soviets also lacked an effective night fighter to counter the type of night time bombing offensive the British mounted against Germany. The Soviet fighters were excellent low altitude performers but began to look far less impressive at higher altitudes where they were not designed to operate. The Allies conversely had a full spectrum of fighters. At lower altitudes the likes of the Spitfire MkXIV and Hawker Tempest would have been a match for any of the Soviet fighters. At higher altitudes - the kind where the Soviets would have to intercept American daylight bombers - the P-51 was king. Also bear in mind the Soviets had no experience in intercepting and taking down heavy bomber formations - something even the Germans couldn't do effectively in 3 years of trying.

As far as fighter bombers go, the Allies again had the edge with the Typhoon/Tempest and P-47 - which I think can be argued were considerably better ground attack types than the Il-2/Il-10. The Soviets however, were well extremely well versed in ground attack and their doctrine of massed aerial attack, although lacking in finesse was extremely effective - although at great cost (one third of all Il-2 aircraft produced were shot down).

Then let's consider the jets - by 1944 the British already had a jet fighter in service, the Gloster Meteor. In the final weeks of the war they had a second jet fighter in service, the De Havilland Vampire. The Americans were well advanced in development of the P-80. The Soviets however, were quite a bit behind in jet technology - the Yak-15 and MiG-9 not flying until 1946.

Then there's the various Allied types that were just on the cusp of entering service when the war ended - the Hawker Fury/Sea Fury, De Havilland Hornet/Sea Hornet, all of which would certainly have seen service in any Soviet war.

Captured German research and technology may have made a difference too, but there once again the Allies got the lion's share of that too.


Having said all that......

An air war cannot be considered in isolation as it would have been accompanied by a ground war. The Red Army of 1945 was an absolute juggernaut that I very much doubt the Western Allies would have been able to stop without resorting to the use of atomic weapons.

[Edited 2011-06-26 05:22:07]

User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7213 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8241 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 6):
Yes the Russian army was numerically superior (just), but its soldiers were poorly trained, were forced to fight (any form of retreat even for tactical reasons was treated as treason with instant execution), and had poor morale

Well, the German forces who faced and were ultimately defeated by their front line forces will disagree with you, their occupation forces were another story, but their job was occupation.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8203 times:

A B-29 flying from LHR (London) to SVO (Moscow) would only fly 1563 miles, each way. That is well within the range of the Silverplate B-29s of the 509th Comp. Gr. Position P-51s and P-38s in Norway, and you have an escort capability. The USN can attack through the Black Sea, and the Pacific Ocean (after taking care of the IJN). The US Army and USMC can attack from Europe, Pacific, and China. Then you also have bases in Alaska to add to the USAAF. The Allies will only add to Stalin's problems.

LHR-SVO&MS=wls&DU=mi" target="_blank">http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-SVO&MS=wls&DU=mi

Unlike what the Germans tried to do, the Allies can fully surround Russia and strike from all directions. In 1945, Russia can be defeated. Patton was right.

We could get the Germans to build heavy tanks for us as the M-4 Sherman could not stand up against the T-34, but the Tiger I/II/King tank could, as well as the US built M-26 Pershing tank. The Tigers had an 88 mm gun and the M-26 (called T-26E2/3 during WWII) had a 90 mm gun.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8185 times:

Ending the lend/lease supplies would have an immediate impact, as the Soviets were importing a huge amount of food from the US to feed its citizens. This enabled them to shift manpower from agriculture to fighting. They'd be forced to choose, fight and starve, or move troops back to farming. Also no more P-39/63 and B-25 spare parts and ammunition.

The Soviets also never faced anything like strategic air raids done by the US and UK. Their industrial centers were moved inland and were not decimated the way Germany was. They may have operated while damaged before, however the damage from 20 HE-111s is nothing compared to what 1000 B-17s or Lancasters could do. The huge fleets of T-34s would be burning through spare parts left and right, taking those factories out even temporarily would deny them the ability to produce attrition replacements.

Opening a southern front in Ukraine and Iran would start to cut off fuel supplies as well. Pushing from Italy into Romania and Bulgaria would also strangle some supply lines. The baltic republics that the Soviets invaded in 1941 would also capitulate and join in the offense. Finland would push back east as well, especially if better supplied.

Manchuria would be a tougher nut to crack. The Soviets may try to instigate the Korean War a few years earlier, tying up the pacific fleet and USMC for years.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8121 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 12):
The Soviets may try to instigate the Korean War a few years earlier, tying up the pacific fleet and USMC for years.

How? A war between the Allies and the USSR in 1945 means they cannot spare folks to fight in NK. That also means no Mig-15. China would be sided with the US and that means no Chinese support for NK. The Korean War would be delayed for years, if it ever starts, since because the Russians do not get anything from the victory over Japan, there is no North Korea in 1945.


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8090 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):


We could get the Germans to build heavy tanks for us as the M-4 Sherman could not stand up against the T-34, but the Tiger I/II/King tank could, as well as the US built M-26 Pershing tank. The Tigers had an 88 mm gun and the M-26 (called T-26E2/3 during WWII) had a 90 mm gun.

Probably worth remembering here that the main problem with the Tiger and Leopard tanks was that they were simply too difficult to produce quickly. Added to that is the consequence of capturing Germany: That much of the factory capacity is destroyed or badly damaged, with many of the key facilities in Soviet hands. Likewise for the people that worked in them. you could have brought the plans and as much of the tooling / personnel that survive into allied factories to start anew but the ramp-up would be extremely slow, you certainly wouldn't see many vehicles trundling off the production lines for months or even a year.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7981 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
How? A war between the Allies and the USSR in 1945 means they cannot spare folks to fight in NK. That also means no Mig-15. China would be sided with the US and that means no Chinese support for NK. The Korean War would be delayed for years, if it ever starts, since because the Russians do not get anything from the victory over Japan, there is no North Korea in 1945.

The MiG is irrelevant, especially since there would be no F-86 either. You'd be seeing La-9s and Yak-9s vs P-51s and P-47s, with P-61s at night.

The Chinese revolution of 1949 would be influenced to happen earlier, providing a speedbump of sorts and lots of problems for the allies in Asia. Ho Chi Minh was active in 1945 and the Viet Minh would be keeping the French busy in Indochina. Lots of populist social movements around at that time that would probably find a push from mother Russia to rear their heads a few years earlier.

The question is whether the Asian socialists could keep enough allied forces busy so that the USSR wouldn't have to divert any forces away from Europe. Losses for them will be heavy, especially in occupied Germany, Czech, Poland and Hungary with guerilla warfare.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7918 times:

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 9):
The Red Army of 1945 was an absolute juggernaut that I very much doubt the Western Allies would have been able to stop without resorting to the use of atomic weapons.

Juggernaut yes, but a without proper logistics, they would stop in their tracks. All the allies would have to do (if they can not destroy the factories beyond the Urals) is to destroy the rail hub between the east and west. They can also destroy the oil pipelines. With these supply routes destroyed or damaged or harassed, the Red Army would be playing a defensive game.

The Red Army armor forces enjoyed excellent air cover toward the end of the war. As mentioned above, given the Allies superiority in CAP fighters, the T-34s would lose their air cover soon enough. They then would be more concern about the Thunderbolts than what tanks the allies have to offer.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7848 times:

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 9):
The Soviets however, were quite a bit behind in jet technology - the Yak-15 and MiG-9 not flying until 1946.

And they certainly wouldn't have received those RR Nenes "for civilian purposes" from which to make unlicenced copies.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7744 times:

Werent there a few instances toward the end of the war where Allied and Soviet fighters met in the air over Germany and a few blue on blue events occurred? I vaguely recall something with some MiG 3s and P51Ds - was a dogfight and shots were fired before either side knew the other was "friendly" but the fight continued as neither would disengage?


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7213 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7718 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 14):
Probably worth remembering here that the main problem with the Tiger and Leopard tanks was that they were simply too difficult to produce quickly. Added to that is the consequence of capturing Germany: That much of the factory capacity is destroyed or badly damaged, with many of the key facilities in Soviet hands.

One thing the US had during WWII especially in the latter years was industrial capacity, don't look at the facilities in Europe or their work force, look at the facilities in the US and see how fast they could be converted to producing upgraded Tiger tanks if the Pershing proved not up to the task.


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 19):

One thing the US had during WWII especially in the latter years was industrial capacity, don't look at the facilities in Europe or their work force, look at the facilities in the US and see how fast they could be converted to producing upgraded Tiger tanks if the Pershing proved not up to the task.

Oh I am assuming that the production would be attempted in the US as much or more than elsewhere, but my argument is that it would be difficult enough to get a complete set of drawings and process plans let alone the personnel to help you ease into production. Reverse engineering "missing" parts and re-developing process plans / analysing allowable tolerances etc all takes rather a lot of time wherever you do it. You need to be a fair way through that before you can start finalising your factory layouts.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7493 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 20):
but my argument is that it would be difficult enough to get a complete set of drawings and process plans let alone the personnel to help you ease into production. Reverse engineering "missing" parts and re-developing process plans / analysing allowable tolerances etc all takes rather a lot of time wherever you do it. You need to be a fair way through that before you can start finalising your factory layouts.

On the other hand, construction of tanks like the Centurion had already started in 1945. I confess don't know enough about tanks to know how it compared to what the Germans and Russians had but it was a big step up from its predecessors and distributed manufacturing shouldn't have been a problem.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4832 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7406 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):

Well, the German forces who faced and were ultimately defeated by their front line forces will disagree with you, their occupation forces were another story, but their job was occupation.

Yes but not by their training or ability, it was by shear numbers... IIRC often it was 10:1 ratio of Russian to German troops.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7264 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 20):
Reverse engineering "missing" parts and re-developing process plans / analysing allowable tolerances etc all takes rather a lot of time wherever you do it.

Toward the end, the Pershing have incorporated much of the technology that makes for a modern tank. The Sherman's wheels and spring suspensions have been replaced by the torsion type suspension. Optical range finder and the 90 millimeter guns would have been a match to any Tiger.

From what I read, the Pershing design was initiated early during the war, but because it was more difficult to build, the army opted for the Mass production of the Sherman over the heavier Pershing So I guess near the war end, mass producing the Pershing could be possible if the production was shifted over.

Quoting David L (Reply 21):
Centurion had already started in 1945.

And as history showed, the Centurion was an excellent tank. And in the hands of capable crew/army, they beat the crap out of all those Russian tanks (with less capable crew) during the Middle east conflict (with the added 105 mm guns of course). 


bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1914 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7121 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
and neither was as proficient as the Russians in armoured warfare.

General Patton would disagree with you.


25 MD11Engineer : It is true that in the early time after the German invasion of the Soviet Union the Soviet Union was extremely short of supplies. At this time (1941)
26 dandy_don : I have enjoyed the many comments so far. Does anybody know the relative strength of the Soviet forces compared to the Western forces at that time? Man
27 spudh : I think it has been proven in just about every war since WW 1 that air superiority is the crucial factor in warfare. Air Superiority on its own cannot
28 bikerthai : Yep, Air Power alone do not win war. But it does make it much easier. Imagine if the german had air superiority over the Russian Steps, then it would
29 Post contains links MD11Engineer : On November 7th, 1944 three P-38 squadrons of the 82nd USAAF fighter group misstook an advancing Red Army column near the Serbian city of Nis for Germ
30 L-188 : Yup, I have heard of a few after action reports where US aircraft describe encounters with "Round wingtip Me109's". The Soviets of cource called them
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Hypothetical 1945 Air War, USA V Russia
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing USA - Air Force,Landing Gear On Wing? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 14:46:10 by Halibut
India-US Air Force War Games! posted Sun Nov 6 2005 06:19:14 by JoyA380B747
Venezuela: Air Force Goes Shopping In Russia posted Wed Oct 13 2004 03:06:09 by Luisde8cd
US Admits Russia Has Air Fighter Superiority posted Sat Jul 3 2004 00:21:23 by Russophile
USA-Air Force 757 posted Tue May 18 2004 07:32:14 by Flygmolinafmly
Gulf War II Air Recon Imagery And The Media posted Wed Mar 26 2003 12:55:38 by Tomh
Peru Buys 12 Twin Otters For Peruvian Air Force posted Thu Jun 16 2011 22:05:13 by Arrow
Prince Harry Back In Afghan War As Apache Pilot. posted Thu Jun 16 2011 03:01:01 by bjorn14
F-15 Exports / German Air Force In The Cold War posted Sat Jun 11 2011 09:55:54 by racko
Boeing's New Air Dominance Fighter Concept posted Tue Jun 7 2011 12:49:26 by Devilfish

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format