Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[schwarzpanzer]

Originally Posted by delcyros

By the way, it wasn´t the strategic carpet bombing, which succeded, it was the mixture of french resistance and tactical bombardment.

That and the SAS.

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

Too right but wasn't a Ju290 used to bomb Russia?

delcyros:

They had Pe-3 nightfighter

The Russian Mossie! Much better than the Me110.

They had also the possibility to transfer goods, ammo and fuel via the large plains or by hiding in the woods.

They also had Aerosan Aerosleds, they'd be hard to hit by anything other than a nimble fighter? (Spitfire?)

[Glider]

Best anti bridge bomb has to be the Tallboy. Knocked out a number of Bridges and viaducts that conventional bombs missed. Extreme I know but the evidence in France tells me that the Allies could knock out the bridges and infrastructure with conventional weapons.
I know about the Pe3 nightfighter but it wasn't a patch and more importantly, its radar wasn't close to being as good as those available to the UK and USA nightfighters. I would not try to bomb Moscow by day and I wouldn't try that often at night. My concentration would be on the marshaling yards and infrastructure.
I am a big fan of the LA7 and reckon in performance it was as good as almost anything, but the crews lacked the same discipline and training that Allied forces had. Right up to the end the Germans were more than holding their own in combat but were heavily outnumbered. The numbers would be more equal and then the training would really count. There is no reason to doubt that the average better trained allied pilot would be better than the average Russian pilot.
Laddie Lucas was leading 125 Wing to Berlin when they came across 100 Russian MiG fighters. He described what he saw
'There seemed to be no pattern or discipline to their flying. The pack followed the leader rising and falling as they quartered the rubble like buzzards'.
The Russians may have been able to put a high altitude fighter into production at any time but that would take time. It would take training and they would then be up against a selection of experienced high level fighters. I suspect that they would have had the same problem as the JAF. A suitable engine for high altitude work would I think have been a problem. The USA probably had the best engines for high altitude work and they didn't get it right first time. It took time to develop these engines into reliable machines and I doubt if the Russians would have got it right first time. I doubt if anyone could.

[102first_hussars]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

That and the SAS.

The Bombing definately helped but it didnt do much on German Aircraft production, cuz the destruction of the Luftwaffe in France was key to the success on D-Day '44, it was the german loss of fighter pilots intercepting the bombers that wore them down. same with B.O.B the Runway bombings didnt do as much damage in terms of killing pilots its was the AtoA losses that punished them.

The SAS and the French Partisans werent the only guys taking out railways and other strategic targets, there was the Dutch, Polish, Yugoslavic and Norwegian Partisans, Yes there was the SAS, but there was also the "Devils Brigade", American spies from the OSS and there was Canadian and British spies from the SOE.

So the factors cannot be narrowed down, because there is just so many.

[Glider]

I am afraid that the role of the SA in destroying the German transportation links was very small. In Europe they destroyed seven trains and derailed thirty three. A drop in the ocean.
The resistance movements did help a lot on the landing day itself but due to their nature they couldn't destroy a marshalling yard, take on a large bridge or operate on a daily basis as they would have been identified. This does not belittle what they did or their courage which was huge. The role of the resistance in tieing down german troops, the effect on their morale, identifying intellligence information and maintaining a steady drain on the German resources was very significant. As long as the resistance operated they knew that they hadn't won the war or cowered the population.

I am afraid that for a strategic campaign you need strategic forces and the bombers are far and away the best forces to use.

The wearing down of the German airforce was down to a number of factors. These incude

Attacks on Fuel production
Attacks on aircraft production facilities
Attacks on infrastructure (transport) etc.
Daylight bombing raids
Nighttime bombing raids

No doubt people can think of other examples.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I could not agree more with you both. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was because of many small things building up to the eventual defeat. Many players had a part in it also.

[delcyros]

I do agree well into multicausal reasons for breakdown of airforces.
However,

You don´t take the ground forces into consideration. the Luftwaffe in the west was not to the least beaten because it was splitted and couldn´t fight concentrated, even in the east, where they concentrated 75-80% of their forces from mid 41 till mid 43, they couldn´t achieve total aerial superiority. Till DDay they did not even had a considerable, balanced airforce over France, worthy to mention (compared to the east).

The fuel shortness caused from mid 44 on was possibly one of the most important key factors.

I do not agree in aircraft production. That´s more a myth than anything else.
(show me where the aircraft production DROPPED over more than a very few days because of bombing. However, the bombing contributed to a slower acceleration (disputable). In terms of breaking the production capabilities of the Luftwaffe the strategic bombing campaign was a failure...)

Infrastructure was partly a succes, but way overrated. It had succes in terretorries were the Germans were in control of as occupiers because repairs were done very, very slowly (also thanks to the resistance + civil morale of the occupied people), In the Reichsgebiet, the traffic wasn´t hampered badly (submarines, tanks and airplanes could be builded while the parts have been produced independently and seperated, without traffic nothing would have been done, but there was lot of traffic up to the time, when ground forces overran the terretories)
The Luftwaffe lost more planes against the VVS/PVO than against UK or US forces, The VVS also consisted of many very experienced pilots and some of their pilots -call them the elite- did an excellent job. The average trained pilot was way inferior to those of the western airforces, maybe except for the germans in 1945. The nightfighter wouldn´t have to fight allied nf but allied night bombers. For this task, the Pe-3 was suited well.
And You haven´t convinced me yet, that the fight would massively shift to hi alt sorties. IL-10 and Yak´s would go low level, and that´s exactly where they want to fight.

[Glider]

Delc
I certainly agree that the Germans didn't have anything close to a balanced airforce over France and this was due to the number of fronts that the Germans had to cover. They couldn't be everywhere at the same time.
You are correct when you say that aircraft production didn't drop, but it didn't increase by nearly as much as Germany needed it to. In 1944 Germany produced 8000 more aircraft than the Japanese who everyone believes had a slow production rate and wasn't close to being enough. Its also true that German losses were rising at least as fast as the production, the end result being that Germany wasn't gaining strength let alone build a reserve. If you are standing still and your opponents are gaining strength then at the end of the day, you will lose.
On August 31 1943 Germany had 1019 operational fighters
on December 31 1943 Germany had 1095 operational fighters

During December 43 Germany wrote off 22.8% of their fighter strength, During November 43 they wrote off 21% of their fighters
These huge losses were soaking up any increase in production

Around April 1940 the Strength of the German airforce was about 5000 aircraft. In September 1944 It stood at approx 5,750 a small increase compared to that achieved by the other countries.

All the countries had a core of elite pilots and that obviously includes Russia. However wars are won by the average pilot and if the average Allied pilot is better than the average USSR pilot then the allies will win.

[mosquitoman]

The tactical air battles woyld be happening at low level, where the VVS would want to fight, but the RAF and USAAF bombers and escorts would be coming in at high level, attempting to destroy strategic targets. The Allies would command the high level as Russian fighters weren't designed for that kind of battle and their armamnet was normally a 20mm and 2x12.7mm which would not be of much use when trying to take down a Lanc, Hally, Lib or Fort. At low level, Allied training and teamwork would break up the much less organised VVS fighter formations.

[Gnomey]

Agreed Glider and Mosquitoman. Well said, that is what I think would happen, there would have been some huge dogfights!

[schwarzpanzer]

They're all great posts since my last one.

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

their armamnet was normally a 20mm and 2x12.7mm which would not be of much use when trying to take down a Lanc, Hally, Lib or Fort.

The Russian ShVak and D20/DShK seem better than the Hispano and M2HB?

Probably had inferior ammo propellant though?

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

They're all great posts since my last one.

The Russian ShVak and D20/DShK seem better than the Hispano and M2HB?

Probably had inferior ammo propellant though?

The ShVak is a slightly inferior weapon to the Hispano. It fires a lighter, shorter shell at slightly lower velocity. The ShVak shell aslo has less HE/incidenary filler than a Hispaon shell.

The B-20 is a bit of a different case. While it has similar ROF to the ShVak and fires the same ammuntion, it is also a much llighter and more compact weapon.

The Russian UB was the best heavy machne gun of the war. Compared to the M2 Browning it was lighter, had a much better rate of fire, slightly lower muzzle velocity, but fired a heavier shell with more than double the HE filler than a standard M8 API round. A UB is roughly about 20% more effective than a M2 Browning.

[Glider]

I agree with Jabber here re the effectiveness of the guns. That said, I still wouldn't fancy my chances in knocking down a B17 with 1 x 20 and 2 x HMG no matter how good they were.

[mosquitoman]

Exactly, although once the Russians realised what they were up against I'm pretty sure they would have developed a better way of taking down bombers

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If they had the time. If the allies had continued into the Soviet Union they would have bombed them back into the pre stone age and they had the bombers with the B-29 and the Dominator to reach the factories behind the Urals and Siberia especially with control of Japan.

[mosquitoman]

Good point, don't forget the Lincoln aswell