View Single Post
  #8  
Old 04-04-2012, 03:16 PM
6S.Manu 6S.Manu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Venice - Italy
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by binky9 View Post
I'm not sure the number of Soviet tanks would have been as great a factor. USA/UK probably would have had control of the air, which would have put the tanks at risk, just as it did to German tanks in western Europe.
Dammit! I forgot that if .50cal could take down a Tiger tank then they would obliterate those tiny T34 and IS2!

I'm joking here

I agree with Carguy and Rumcajs.

Russian would need a plane to intercept the heavy bombers at high altitude... La-7 best altitude was 6km and it was a very agile plane compared to late 109s (with gunpods because of the weak firepower) and 190s. Plus it could mount 3 Berezin B-20 over the engine, and that was really a great weapon. Still the Mig3 could have been improved...

US would still have air superiority because of the range of the P-51 but I'm not sure if they could actually CAP russian airbases: US planes need to go under 2km to get the Russian... A Yak3 or a La-7 would jump on them easily. And what about AA production?

Instead what about IL2s attacking US ground forces? 20mm shells were quite inefficent against it the german had to go at ground level to hit IL2's radiators. What about attacking them with .50cals? What about P47 and P38 fighting at that low altitude.

If (and this is a big IF) the russian could not quickly respond to the heavy bomber threat maybe US could do some damage. Infact I think that reaction should be the main factor and the russian did great in that (and they were desperate too at the start of the war...).

But I still have my doubt that they could really win the war against the Red: as carguy says the wars are won on the ground and there the Russians should have a great advantage.
__________________

A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.

Last edited by 6S.Manu; 04-04-2012 at 03:26 PM.
Reply With Quote