Allied Versus Russian Aircraft During WWII

[Ploughman]

Originally Posted by Meusli

Why does this thread come up as infected in Chrome?

Me too. Claims that home.arcor.de has in some way been compromised and that content on this thread originates there.

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by csThor

3.) Fuel was the other major achilles heel of the Red Army. It was dependent on oil coming from the Caucasian fields and the Allies had airfields within striking distance. A crippling blow to soviet oil production was theoretically possible ... and it would have been just as effective as the attacks against the german synthetic fuel works in 1944.

On the other hand the Red Army had a considerable numerical superiority over the allied ground forces - at least initially - and combined with the fact that allied ground forces just weren't used to considerable losses and an enemy on par with them the Red Army may very well have given them a beating.

That is the reason I think that time would have had a big meaning here. Russians would partly succeed in driving Yanks back to France if they attacked rightaway after conquering Berlin. Every history buff knows that western Alies did plan a what-if scenario against Stalin. And there is much material to think that German forces (even if short of basicly everything) would have been succesfully deployed against the Red Army, if given the American resources.
Also, both sides did not have their front lines at the same strenght in every single spot because both were stretched pretty much. A well planned strike by either one of them could inflict serious damage. That said, IMO allies would need some time to get organised while the Reds could take the nominal superiority both on the ground and in the air.

[Richie]

4) Allies didn't face the best german pilots since BoB. Also germany itself was poorly defended by minor Luftwaffe forces. Making conclusions based on fights when luftwaffe was outnumbered even worse than on the eastern front is not helping either.




Forgetting North Africa.

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by Richie

Forgetting North Africa.

Ok you are right. The point was that main german forces were alocated to the eastern front. So drawing conclusions of air superiority based on results of fighting luftwaffe in 1943 - 1945 is misleading. The Russians in 1945 were much stronger opponent than the Germans during the last three years of WWII.
We play this "what if" game here so i ask you a question.
Q: As the Western Allies would react if their losses skyrocketed up? Would they be able to bear hundred thousand killed within a month?

[adonys]

yes, it already happened before during WWI

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Ploughman

Me too. Claims that home.arcor.de has in some way been compromised and that content on this thread originates there.

That's my avatar/sig picture. I doubt there's suddenly a virus in there.

[Fredfetish]

Mostly this tread is about how an air war between the two sides would have played out. I'd love to play a scenario with P47's vs IL2's or Lagg's vs P51's. Maybe scramble missions of Migs to intercept massed bomber formations...

Couple things though:
1. Agree that the first side that would have taken the initiative would probably made major advances. Maybe the Soviets would even threaten the Western Allies (WA) ports. US probably would have pulled out of the war if this happened. At least with direct intervention.

2. My perception is that the Western Allies forces were not too badly equipped (e.g. navy, tanks, artillery and logistics). They were lacking in man power though, but would they not have a material advantage? Would liberated France not be a major contributor in this scenario?

3. Strategic high level bomber strikes against Russian airfields; could this have swayed the air power balance in favour of the WA?

4. Lets say it went in favour of the WA, how could they have approached the vast Russian country side and the winter differently from the Germans? To have won, would they have had to take Leningrad & Moscow?

[addman]

The American public would never have accepted the huge losses of men in such a scenario. Also the strategic capabilities of the allies wouldn't have had any effect in a short term, the reds would already be doing a "Dunkirk Part deux" before any effects of strategic bombing would have had any effect. The Russians had a clear tactical superiority and that would've forced the allied high altitude fighters to fight at a serious disadvantage, P-51 vs La-7 at 1-3000 meters altitude, bye bye little pony.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by addman

The Russians had a clear tactical superiority and that would've forced the allied high altitude fighters to fight at a serious disadvantage, P-51 vs La-7 at 1-3000 meters altitude, bye bye little pony.

Here I disagree. The VVS paid a high price for its enormous growth in 1943 and that price was the insanely low training it gave its aircrew. The number of soviet veteran aircrew, while always rather small in comparison to the size of any force, was considerably lower than in other air forces - even at the end of the war. A fresh american or british pilot had more flight hours than a soviet pilot with a few weeks of frontline experience ... and therefor more routine in handling his aircraft.
Secondly the VVS was always a rather rigid and inflexible institution when it came to tactics and doctrine (as was the whole Red Army, which is why the Wehrmacht could withstand it as long as it did) and did not make most of its forces. Often enough lives were squandered by utterly inimaginative tactics which in the end got the desired result but at a higher cost than any other air force would have been prepared to pay.

It's not so much the performance envelope of the aircraft involved but the considerable difference between pilot training, doctrine and tactics that set the two sides apart.

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by csThor

Here I disagree. The VVS paid a high price for its enormous growth in 1943 and that price was the insanely low training it gave its aircrew.

This is the common mistake people do. You underestimate the advance the Soviets had done since 1943. I've already posted that link but let me say that again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7

Only 115 La-7s were lost in air combat

Do you still think they didn't move a huge step forward? Sure it's a commonplace the Soviets fought by their numbers. It still was probably true on the ground. But in the air things had already been different.