Thread: U.S. versus Soviet Union- end of WW2

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

B-29's could fly at an altitude of 47,000'

Please tell me what aircraft in the Soviet inventory at the time that could pursue a bomber at that altitude?"....

Every source I looked at rate the B-29 as having a service ceiling of 33,600, and several Russian fighters could reach that altitude- the Yak-3, the LA-7.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

They were untouched over Japan, and they would be untouched over Russia.?"....

Until P-51's started escorting B-29's, they did indeed worry about the remains of Japanese fighter groups- mostly fearing kamikaze attacks, which downed many B-29's. But remember- by this time Japan had almost no viable air force- Russia had a viable, modern air force, with production facilities.

The B-29's would have had to operate at the limit of the range- and still probably could not have reached the bulk of the strategic industries located past the Urals- 2,000 miles away.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

We had the technological edge in 1945, and if an invasion was ever going to occur the time was ripe to do it then."....

We had a technological edge in air power- and the atomic bomb. Those were the only relevant technologies- our naval superiority would have been largely irrelevant. The Soviets had technological superiority in armor. And that would have bene relevant.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

The high casualties would have been inflicted on the ground, not in the air...as the Allies would have air superiority in short order."....

I believe that the Allies would have gained air superiority- whether or not it would have been short order, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

As I said...drop an atomic bomb the equivlaent to Nagasaki in the center of Moscow, and see what that does to Soviet morale...take out Stalin and cut off the snake's head."....

Stalin wouldn't have been anywhere we could have found him. That despicable tyrant was far too canny, and too much of a survivalist. And he would have been fine with sacrificing Moscow- this is a man who ordered the starvation of millions of his own citizens.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

America's war machine was superior to the Soviets at VE day, and you can deny it all you want......

Look, I proposed the question- and I am glad you responded. I just disagree that it is as clear cut as you think it would have been. America would have had the air superiority, the Soviets had the superiority in armor.

In a drive to Moscow, we would have faced the same issues the Germans had, except the Soviets of 1944 were far better equipped and lead than the Soviets of 1940. We were not prepared for the winter combat- look at our experiences in the Battle of the Bulge and in Korea- but the Soviets were masters at winter combat.

I am not being partisan here- I am enjoying the mind exercise of thinking through how such a thing would play out, and recognizing the Soviet's strengths is just that- recognizing their strengths, not approving of Stalin.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Every source I looked at rate the B-29 as having a service ceiling of 33,600, and several Russian fighters could reach that altitude- the Yak-3, the LA-7.

47,000' is incorrect but I disagree about the 33,600 as the service ceiling.

Pressurized cabins, in addition to standard oxygen equipment, and use of two turbosuperchargers on each of its four engines, enable the airplane to fly at a service ceiling in excess of 40,000 feet. The four 18-cylinder Wright Model R-3350-23 engines develop 2200 horsepower each, giving the airplane a total of 8800 horsepower.

The airplane carries a 10-ton bomb load and has for defensive armament 10 caliber .50 machine guns and one 20 mm cannon.

what makes you think the B-29 would need fighter escort?

A few would be lost, but I don't see the Soviet air power at the end of WWII as anything challenging what the Allies were already fielding in combat.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2527.

"comrade"

P-51s and P-47s would take care of Soviet armor...

Google..."Rudel" and see what one German pilot did to Soviet armor in a Ju-87g...an aircraft designed in the 1930s

Over 450 tanks taken out by one man.

The P-51 and P-47 are superior aircraft to the Stuka...so Soviet armor is really of no real concern in this scenario.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRUj6RiCj4w&feature=re lated"]Rudel attacking Soviet tanks (Jan 1945) - YouTube[/ame]

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Soviets at the time were not even aware that while war was raging in Berlin...Stalin was busy slaughtering and starving 20 million of his countrymen, Ukrainians, Poles and anyone else who stood in his way. 7,000,000 Ukrainians alone...died of starvation due to forced famine.

The Ukrainian famine happened about a decade before the war started.

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

The Soviet Union lost 24 million people during WW2 and it didn't phase them.

They took on 2/3 of the Germany military and infliced 80% of its casualties.

I don't think a few nukes, which would have to be flown on large, heavy bombers, would have phased them too much. It'd be the US that would have got sick of the casualties long before the USSR did.

There was a German Landser-joke during the WWII: "The western front is the vacation from the eastern front."

The Americans would have crushed into a red army which was not only superior in numbers, but also had the more powerful weapons. One example: That Sherman tanks would have little chances against the T-34 tanks. Well, the other, real heavy soviet tanks don´t need to be included in that calculus to know, that this would have been the beginning of a soviet Europe.

But there is another thingy:
Finally, it was the Russians who repelled the Japanese from the Asian continent. With that help, Stalin bought many political concessions.

The Americans just were not in the position to claim for something or play the big boy, because it was only the Russians, who won that war. Or do you think, that one Brit or American would have entered French and Italian soil without the eastern front? Or do you think that the Wüstenfuchs would have lost the war in Africa without the eastern Front?

Soviet Union was big stomach and USA exploded brain.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

The U.S. was slowly integrating the M26 Pershing into their armored units which was easily a match for the T-34. By the end of 1945 they had more than 2000, and could have increased that number had they decided the war would have continued. .

The M-26 was a heavy tank- and should be compared to its Soviet equivelents. In 1944, the Soviets produced over 2,000 IS2, and by the end of 1945, had produced 3,800 IS2 and 350 IS3. Perhaps the IS2 and the M-26 were equivelents, but from what I have read, they proved to be underpowered in Korea, and there is no such report for the IS2. The M-26 was more than a match for the T-34/85- but in WW2 ,the T-34/85 was more than a match for the 75 mm gunned Sherman- only the British Fireflys carried the 76 mm gun.

The T34/85 was better armored, faster, more mobile on rough terrain and better gunned than the M4 the Americans were using.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

U.S. doctrine at the time also didn't rely on tank versus tank combat. U.S. strategy was to use fast lightly armored tanks to exploit breakthroughs and outmaneuver the enemy while relying on air power, infantry, and antitank guns to dispose of enemy armor. While it was dicey for the tank crews, this strategy worked quite well against the Germans. .

Actually it was rather disastrous at the Battle of the Bulge. American tanks couldn't take on the Panthers and Tigers and Tiger 2's. And this strategy assumed air power, and superior American forces.

American tank destroyers- the M-11's and M-36's had big enough guns, but could only survive if they operated as ambush's.

Compare that to the Soviet tank destroyers and self propelled assault guns- the Su-100, the Su-122 and the SU 152- heavily armored, mobile and with big enough guns to take out any armor either side had.

American air power would have been the difference- but again as shown in the Battle of the Bulge- not reliable enough to count on to win every battle.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

I don't think the U.S. could have successfully invaded the Soviet Union (nor would it have wanted to), but I think it would have definitely come out on top in a war over Europe, albeit with very heavy casualties.

I agree with you on the economy part- in essence what won the cold war would have won a fighting war. Luckily for us, we avoided the casualties of the fighting war, and achieved the desired end result.

Originally Posted by Sovietskaja Zenzina

Soviet Union was big stomach and USA exploded brain.

The Soviet way to fight the Germans looks simple and not very smart at the first view. But at the second view you´ll see that it was either that way or none. There was no other choice, but come to trumps by being outnumbering in every battle, which means horrendously casualties.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

47,000' is incorrect but I disagree about the 33,600 as the service ceiling.

Pressurized cabins, in addition to standard oxygen equipment, and use of two turbosuperchargers on each of its four engines, enable the airplane to fly at a service ceiling in excess of 40,000 feet. The four 18-cylinder Wright Model R-3350-23 engines develop 2200 horsepower each, giving the airplane a total of 8800 horsepower.

The airplane carries a 10-ton bomb load and has for defensive armament 10 caliber .50 machine guns and one 20 mm cannon.

what makes you think the B-29 would need fighter escort?]

Because every example of unescorted Strategic day light bombing against an enemy with modern fighters resulted in heavy bomber losses. Even Japanese fighters- with essentially untrained pilots managed to take down unescorted B-29's. Soviet planes had the altitude to engage the B-29's, and the Soviets had a pool of experienced fighters to use against them.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

A few would be lost, but I don't see the Soviet air power at the end of WWII as anything challenging what the Allies were already fielding in combat.]

I understand that is your opinion, but in my opinion you are discounting both the quantity and quality of Soviet interceptors, and the experience of their pilots.

I think American airpower by 1944 was superior- but not enough to make for an easy conflict.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

P-51s and P-47s would take care of Soviet armor...

Google..."Rudel" and see what one German pilot did to Soviet armor in a Ju-87g...an aircraft designed in the 1930s

Over 517 tanks taken out by one man.

The P-51 and P-47 are superior aircraft to the Stuka...so Soviet armor is really of no real concern in this scenario.]

First of all- the P-51's and P-47's are incredible machines- I happen to love the P-47. The only reason they were effective against armor were rockets- and they indeed were effective.

The Ju-87 carried twin 37 mm anti-tank guns, which actually made it a better anti-tank platform- even though it was obsolete against any fighter opposition.

Rudel's history is amazing- no discounting that. And I agree that if Americans were to eliminate the threat of Soviet armor it would be by tactical air power. But I disagree that this would have done so easily, or eliminated the threat of Soviet armor- after all- up to the end of the war, P47's, P51's and Typhoons and Tempests and P-38's still hadn't eliminated the threat of German armor entirely. Even the destruction they did cause took months of action- when the weather permitted.

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Because every example of unescorted Strategic day light bombing against an enemy with modern fighters resulted in heavy bomber losses. Even Japanese fighters- with essentially untrained pilots managed to take down unescorted B-29's. Soviet planes had the altitude to engage the B-29's, and the Soviets had a pool of experienced fighters to use against them.



I understand that is your opinion, but in my opinion you are discounting both the quantity and quality of Soviet interceptors, and the experience of their pilots.

I think American airpower by 1944 was superior- but not enough to make for an easy conflict.



First of all- the P-51's and P-47's are incredible machines- I happen to love the P-47. The only reason they were effective against armor were rockets- and they indeed were effective.

The Ju-87 carried twin 37 mm anti-tank guns, which actually made it a better anti-tank platform- even though it was obsolete against any fighter opposition.

Rudel's history is amazing- no discounting that. And I agree that if Americans were to eliminate the threat of Soviet armor it would be by tactical air power. But I disagree that this would have done so easily, or eliminated the threat of Soviet armor- after all- up to the end of the war, P47's, P51's and Typhoons and Tempests and P-38's still hadn't eliminated the threat of German armor entirely. Even the destruction they did cause took months of action- when the weather permitted.

It would not be an "easy" war...my only point was that the timing was at the best point of a potential conflict..while we had the technological edge...I think that militarily the Soviets could have been defeated if an occupation was avoided.

That's my opinion...

"Easy" was probably a poor word choice, and easy to say from the comfort of an armchair...I think it would have been a grueling conflict.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Also have to take into consideration with these war military debates on this forum. The american chatters are vastly nationalistc. They give far too much credit to america involvement while ignoring allies, uk australia etc...


So impossible to judge the true strength of the usa forces.

Well Britain was about to collapse economically- it essentially did immediately after WW2. Australia's main forces were in the Pacific, Canada would have supported the U.S., but .....really in a conflict like this it would be primarily a U.S. game.

Britain had some very good equipment- its Sherman varient was superior to the U.S., and its fighters and ground attack aircraft were on par with the U.S., but they just couldn't match the production numbers of the U.S. or the USSR.