Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[delcyros]

We still forget about public opinion in the democratic UK/US
governments. If (my thesis) the SU could delay the advance of
UK/US ground forces (which they could do for a period, since they had a overwhelming numerical superiority and advanced techniques in 45 avaiable in central europe) -remember the UK/US are rather agressors than defenders in this szenario- wouldn´t the public opinion turn against their own governments? Could they feel comfortable by prolonging an otherwised ended war?
Nuking enemy targets is still another thing: I suspect it would have happen sooner or later (esspeccially in order to remove Stalin from SU government), but it wouldn´t probably have a big effect. Stalin could decide to kill anyone in western europe in response (he had acces to a large quantum of Botulinum captured from Germany in april 45, which means he had acces to a biological weapon capable of killing the entires earth population).
The SU nuclear project was based on
1.) espionage
2.) captured geman Uranium deposits
3.) own scientific work
and:
4.) Ardenne (a german scientist, who improved the enrichment facilities in Germany during ww2 and later became a key person in the SU enrichement project)
WOM shouldn´t concern us much, since as posted above, nobody could win.

The B-36 has enough range to strike targets deep within Sibira, the B-29 hasn´t. The B-36 cannot be equipped with the Nene (it´s diameter was way to large), I think of the Supermarine Ace or something like that.
From when on is the B-36 avaiable in numerical strength? 45? surely not. mid 46 is more probable. By that date the SU already has an enstrengthened PVO consisting of Mig-9 and I-250 (N).
Still: the effect of hi alt strategical bombing is a lot overestimated. I don´t expect that even heavy bombardments could reduce the military production and train services to more than around 15-20%, which is still under the acceleration limit = no visible effect (like the german industry output in 1944). Attacking the oil industry could make a difference.
Anyway I agree that the SU cannot stand against combined UK and US forces over a more than brief period (while ground fighting could be a very bad experiance for the western allies in russia..)

[Glider]

During the preparation for the Nromandy Landings France was to all intentes and purposes cut off from Germany. The number of loaded rail waggons that made ot through fell to a tenth of what it had been in April 1944 when the campaign started.
There is no reason to believe that at least as much could have been achieved against the Russians. The planes may not have had the range to hit the production centres but they certainly had enough to stop the supplies getting through.

[102first_hussars]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

That's a good point, but:

1. The Allies public opinion wouldn't allow the Soviets to be nuked. (Britain was also kinda lefty :hippy: back then, the Neme mentioned above was given to the SU as a gift from the Government! ) Also Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type targets were invincible in the USSR (except Stalingrad...)

2. The SU wouldn't have nukes 'till '49.


However, industrial targets and Stalingrad may have been nuked? - unlikely IMHO.

The U.S. public will agree to anything if they truly feel their way of life hangs in the balance, and in Nato the U.S. opinion was considered back then "words of wisdom" and the allies would have easily followed the us into anything excep for France because they are already invaded by the Russians LOL.

[delcyros]

Greetings Glider!

I do not agree completely with you, but without knowing it, your argument
(beeing absolutely true in case of the Normandy) is going to underline my point of view. Strange?
The preperations against France haven´t cut off the Whermacht completely (it repeatedly succeeded in transfer of Panzer divisions, Jagdgruppen, fuel and ammo but to a very high loss rate) but effectively=reducing the capacity of the french railway net to 62% (source Groeler 1980, page 421). However, this was no strategical campign, it was a tactical one. Just the way the VVS used to fight. Carpet bombing was tried but found to be highly ineffective (up to the point of killing a allied General on the ground by own carpet bombings). The P-47, P-38 and Tiffys did most of the job. Against what? A lot of AA (which took a good deal of the allied losses there) and those rare fighters of the two JG´s stationed in France (barely 180 planes). At D-day 500 german sorties over France stood against 14.674 combat sorties for the allies. While this is a peak, since a high rate of sorties was a bit overheated, it reduced to an average of only 2.700 for the next two weeks. Under these circumstances it´s clear why they had a good time to do havoc. They already had the unchallanged aerial superirority there.
How much sorties could the VVS in late 45 fly over central europe? I don´t know but they a max of 13.950 combat sorties in feb 45, an average of 6.400 combat sorties between 19th and 25th april, till may 7th additional 3600 combat sorties each day. This is at least comparable.
With these numbers in mind, I see no justification for a clear UK/US aerial superiority against the VVS from the beginning on. This question would be answered in progress of the extensive air battles, but not because any air force was way superior over the other.

[schwarzpanzer]

delycros:

esspeccially in order to remove Stalin from SU government

This may be achieved by the SU itself! - he wasn't too popular.

he had acces to a large quantum of Botulinum captured from Germany in april 45, which means he had acces to a biological weapon capable of killing the entires earth population

He might do this in desperation?

Attacking the oil industry could make a difference.

Yeah, they are vulnerable.

The P-47, P-38 and Tiffys did most of the job. Against what? A lot of AA (which took a good deal of the allied losses there)

True, plus the Soviets also had better AA, e.g all Stalin tanks (and some T34's) carried a DShK .50 whereas Germany only had a few paltry MG42's on some heavies.

The US tanks also had a .50 AA gun usually though too.

Jet Jabo's make these redundant though...

[102first_hussars]

True, plus the Soviets also had better AA, e.g all Stalin tanks (and some T34's) carried a DShK .50 whereas Germany only had a few paltry MG42's on some heavies.

The US tanks also had a .50 AA gun usually though too.

Jet Jabo's make these redundant though...

Not to mention the SAM was well into development
[/quote]

[schwarzpanzer]

As was the ZSU.

Which side nicked the Enzian tech anyway? - I thought it was the US?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Early Soviet SAMS would not have been able to stop a B-29 onslaught.

[delcyros]

Some US scientist developed a ship based guided SAM during 45-47 but with little succes.
The Enzian tech was shared between french and british but none of them developed it further. V. Braun designed the NIKE-Sam (based on the latest EWM-2 W Wasserfall SAM´s which were more advanced but moreso difficult, too.) for the US after the war and the soviet took away most of the Rheintocheter SAM-tech, which in the end led (together with further soviet engineering) to their first SAM -missiles-series.
The Hs-Schmetterling SAM wasn´t even considered by the victors to improve the tech.
With Germany knocked out, no nation could develop and deploy a useful SAM in the timeframe up to 1947, which may threaten a high alt strike.
After all I know, I suspect that the either EWM 2W10 or the EWM 2W12 was the best tested SAM up to the late 40´s. It had the greatest performance, excellent range and altitude, a huge warhead and a semi active homing for it´s proximity based fuze. (way more advanced than the Enzian)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Until V. Braun continued his work in the United States correct?

[Glider]

Greetings Delc
I suspect that you underestimate the effect on the bombing.
By late May Rail transport in France was down to 55% of January's figures.
By 6th June it was down to 30% as a result of the attacks on the Seine Bridges.
After the 6th it dropped to 10% of January and it then fell in the West of France to 7%. No army can survive on those levels.

On June 3rd a German appreciation report on the attacks prepared by Rundstedt office stated
'If the aim is for the rail network to be completely wrecked. Local and through traffic is to be made impossible and all efforts to restore the services are to be prevented. This aim has so successfully been achieved at a local level that the Reichsbahn authorities are seriously considering whether it is not useless to attempt further repair work'.

It should be noted that cutting the lines from USSR to Germany would be in some ways easier than cutting Normandy from the rest of France. In any European country there was a web of lines, some major some minor some country lines but they can all be used to bypass damaged lines and keep some traffic flowing. The lines from the USSR factories to the front wouldn't have that kind of support and there would be larger chock points for the bombers.

The above quote came from Strategy For Defeat The Luftwaffe 1933 - 1945. It concentrates on political economical, production aspects of the war as opposed to a plane by plane comparison. If you can find it, I recommend it to anyone for background.

[schwarzpanzer]

I have that book Glider, bought it with Actung:Panzer! But haven't had much time lately to read either.

I read that after a single raid by USAAF that German oil production was reduced by aprox 3 quarters, maybe in that book?

If this happened in the Caucases...

Wasn't the Enzian the only heat-seeking missile development of the period?

[delcyros]

Correct, Adler.

Glider, I had no possibility to read the book, but if you would give me the ISBN I would really like to do. -
By the way, it wasn´t the strategic carpet bombing, which succeded, it was the mixture of french resistance and tactical bombardment.
Sample: In march 45 (!) the Wehrmacht succeeded in the relocation of their last major ground forces for their unsuccesfull counterattack in hungary. For these attempts, some Divisions travelled over 800 Km by train.
Russia on the way is more difficult, since they have a good CAP capability in the the close area and beyond them a strategical attack wouldn´t be soo promising (the Luftwaffe wasn´t able to disrupt the train service for a longer time even with heavy bombardments).
The caucasus wasn´t the only oil field in russia but I suspect that a concentrated, prolonged strike would be desastreous for the abilities of the red ground forces.
The Madrid Infrared guidiance was full of problems until late march 45.
It also was used for one of the Wasserfall protoype launches in oct.44.

[Glider]

ISBN 1-86160-615-X is the number you want.
It wasn't the carpet bombing either that did most of the damage, it was strategic bombing. The type the Russians would have had trouble dealing with. The Russians didn't have a fighter capable of taking on the B17's and 24's with their escort at altitude, neither did they have a nightfighter to stop the British. To compare the bombloads that the allies could drop on a target using their four engined bombers to that the Germans could drop using the He111 and Ju 88 is like comparing my family car to an F1, totally different capability.

[delcyros]

Thanks for the number, Glider! I am looking forward to read the book.
I think you may underestimate the abilities of the PVO in 45. They had
Pe-3 nightfighter as well as La-7 modified with 3 B-20 /20mm guns for the PVO Leningrad, PVO Moscow, PVO Gorki, PVO Baku and PVO Stalingrad. This fighter may deal with a bomber (essp. the B-24) but it could do match any fighter as well on (nearly) equal terms. They had excellent ground controll and radar supported directioning, also.
And they had the possibility to put a MiG-based high altitude fighter in serial production at any time if necessary.
I still don´t believe that any allied fighter operational in mid 45 could accompany a B-29 on a long range raid against Moscow.
The airspace between PVO and VVS was somehow empty. Strikes there wouldn´t have much soviet resistance.
I also think the average bombloads are not that important here, because if you want to knock out bridges and railways (instead of large cities) you have to drop your bombs with pinpoint accuracy. A diving Ju-88 has a much higher probability to hit the target than a high level bombing B-17. (The Ju-88 and Ju-87 did the job as we know).
A lots of railways, bridges and traffic knotes have been hit. But with little succes. The soviet railwaysystem is of different kind, very easy to repair even under the worst circumstances. They had also the possibility to transfer goods, ammo and fuel via the large plains or by hiding in the woods.