Who would win the western allies or Russia?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap she could have hit them too where it would matter most. I dont thinkt he allies would have gone in without completly destroying the Soviet production first.

[mosquitoman]

It just wouldn't have been worth it- Sherman vs IS3 is noc ontest

[schwarzpanzer]

Jabberwocky:

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.

I'd heard the muzzle velocity and HE content was better.

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.

Sounds interesting, what calibre was it?

Originally Posted by 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

I think that the Russians may have used heavily armed PE3's to destroy bombers, whilst using MiG's against Escort Fighters?

From my discussions with delcyros, I feel it is possible that the Me262 could have been copied as a bomber-interceptor, along with it's 4x Mk108 30mm's or better?

It just wouldn't have been worth it- Sherman vs IS3 is noc ontest

IMHO it would be T34/76 vs Sherman/75, T34/85 vs Sherman/76 and IS2/3 vs Pershing. Apart from the 1st example, the Russians do not have absolute superiority. It would then be down to the crew's skill and experience...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

It just wouldn't have been worth it- Sherman vs IS3 is noc ontest

By that point the Allies would have been fielding Pershings. Plus Allied airpower would destroy the Soviet tanks and the the ability to produce more. By 1945 the Allies were a well oiled machine.

[delcyros]

Records confirm that Stalin originally wanted the Ar-234 B and C plus the Me-262 in serial production for late 45. Things changed later because there was no crucial need for them (and soviet designers insisted against the pure overtaking of german designs). The M-262 eventually was redesigned to the Su-7 with straight wings, a circular fuselage diameter and changed weaponry (including a 37 mm gun plus twin 20 mm guns). I rate it as the best soviet first generation jet fighter: best crit mach figure of them, faster than the Yak-jets, more agile than the La-jet and easier to fly than the Mig-9. It concentrates all positive aspects of the other planes including the very important fact to be comperatively easy to fly (unlike the La-150 and Mig-9) and it even wears a good firepower. With the advent of the british Dervent V engines (from which I believe they are not suited for underwing nacelle engines because of their huge size) the Su-9 called variant was even faster (for a reduced crit mach figure).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just like they did for the Germans the Ar-234 and the Me-262 would not have been much of a help for the Soviets either. Not when your ability to build them has stopped because you have been bombed into the stone age.

Plus the Russians would not have known what to do with them.

[marconi]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Not when your ability to build them has stopped because you have been bombed into the stone age.

Allies couldn't bomb Germany into stone age for several years, why are you so sure it could be done with USSR?
Also it was said here that allied aircraft would destroy Soviet tanks.Obviously it cannot be done by B29.But it was also said here that Soviet fighters were better at low altitudes.So such Aircraft vs. Tanks campain could have been quite difficult for Allies.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

By 1945 the allies were in a better situation than the Soviets. The USAAF and the RAF aircraft were far superior to that of the Soviets and the Allies were a highly efficient oiled machine. You have to remember the thousands of B-29's that they would bomb the Soviet Union with they did not have in 1942. That is why it took so long to bomb Germany into the stone age. If the Allies had continued into the Soviet Union in 1945 they would have had thousands of B-29s to hit them with from the East and the West. These B-29's would have been also getting help from thousands of Lancasters, thousands of B-17's, and thousands of B-24's as well as several hundred Lincolns. Also the USAAF Dominator would be coming into service soon. The allies would have been able to bomb the Soviets without much of a resistance.

To help protect the bombers they had P-51D's, P-47N's, P-38L as well as Corsairs from the west. They allies would have secured aerial supremacy very quickly over the Soviets. All of these aircraft were far more superior than the Soviet Aircraft.

Who said anything about B-29's destroying tanks, thats just putting words in my mouth. Once they bombed them into the stone age with the B-29's then the P-47's could go in with the Typhoons and take out the tanks from the air.

No production, no offensive ability and the lurking gloom of a possible US atomic strike on a Soviet City and the war would have been won by the Allies.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

By 1945 the allies were in a better situation than the Soviets. The USAAF and the RAF aircraft were far superior to that of the Soviets and the Allies were a highly efficient oiled machine. You have to remember the thousands of B-29's that they would bomb the Soviet Union with they did not have in 1942. That is why it took so long to bomb Germany into the stone age. If the Allies had continued into the Soviet Union in 1945 they would have had thousands of B-29s to hit them with from the East and the West. These B-29's would have been also getting help from thousands of Lancasters, thousands of B-17's, and thousands of B-24's as well as several hundred Lincolns. Also the USAAF Dominator would be coming into service soon. The allies would have been able to bomb the Soviets without much of a resistance.

To help protect the bombers they had P-51D's, P-47N's, P-38L as well as Corsairs from the west. They allies would have secured aerial supremacy very quickly over the Soviets. All of these aircraft were far more superior than the Soviet Aircraft.

Who said anything about B-29's destroying tanks, thats just putting words in my mouth. Once they bombed them into the stone age with the B-29's then the P-47's could go in with the Typhoons and take out the tanks from the air.

No production, no offensive ability and the lurking gloom of a possible US atomic strike on a Soviet City and the war would have been won by the Allies.

Agreed Alder, well said.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

I'd heard the muzzle velocity and HE content was better.

Nope.

Hispano; 130 gram shell, 870 m/ sec M/V, 10.4 grams HE content for HE/I round, plus 2-3 grams incidenary compound. It fired at around 600-650 RPM

ShVak; 96 grams shell, 750-790 m/ sec MV, 5.76 grams HE content for HE round. It fired at around 750 rpm

The Hispano had a more aerodynamic round (better shape), a higher sectional density, better ballistic coefficient and a higher initial muzzle velocity than the ShVak.

The Hispano was probably the king of 20mms during the war, only really surpassed by the Russian B-20, which fired the same ammo at the ShVAk, but was a much lighter and smaller gun.

Sounds interesting, what calibre was it?

The Russian UB was a 12.7 mm. The round was a 12.7x 108 shell (compared to the 12.7 x 99 in the M2, 13 x 64 in the MG 131 and 15x 96 in the Mg 151/15). It was a long and very powerful round, with more than twice the HE/ incidenary capacity of a M2 or MG131 round.

[delcyros]

We already excluded the nukes (remember Botulinum? nobody would win) for this theoretically.
And from mid 45 onwards, how many B-29 were avaiable? thousends? No. If you check you will find a few hundreds in operational service. It would be fine to verify how many in at mid 45. The B-17 and B-24 haven´t the range, nor have the P-51/P-47/P38 (from which I believe the last comes very close) to accompany them. Check out the maps. Take one third of max range as penetration depth and voilá, central sibiria cannot be touched by them.
And there is still no proof that you will have any succes by destroying the war economy (from which I believe it is impossible in case of the SU with the strategical means of the mid 40´s).
And I also believe that the Red Army was one of the best oiled war machines in mid 45 at the continent, it really could be a tough opponent, nothing you could wipe out in within months.
The SU also had it´s own jet development project, they had quite a good understanding of jet engines (while they still benefitted from german alloys like tinidur and chromadur) and jet planes, to think they cannot operate a jet is very unwise, such thinking was widely responsible for the Mig-schock in Korea. By the way it is impossible to bomb any industrialized country back into stone age as long as you don´t replace it´s whole population.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I Disagree with you del. While you have good points there. The allied economy just in the US alone would have those thousands of B-29s available plus they would be making Dominators by then. P-51/P-47/P38 all with drop tanks had the range.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well what exactly is happening? for either contry to win there has to be an invasion correct? as either side would advance across europe they would be getting closer and closer to the enemy and so vital targets would always be coming into range........

[delcyros]

From later times, maybe. But in the way Adler wanted them (destroying the war economy first) it simply wasn´t possible. Take a look into the Korean conflict, even with massive air attacks it wasn´t possible to cut off the ground transportation. Having a look into vietnam verifys this. Russia is a far larger country and uncomfortably hard to travel. It also isn´t easy to bomb out. I doubt that the UK/US ground and air forces in 1945 were suited for this task. And as far as I see, there is no possibility for the bombers to strike Gorki from Italy or France with escort. Even with drop tanks, no chance.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I still disagree. The B-36 Peacemaker could have been made quicker and it had a range of 6800mi and 10,000mi ferry range. It could have reached targets deep in Russia. It first flew in 1946 and I am sure it could have been brought online quicker.