Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn
The USSR had an air force of it's own, and would've been much more capable of defending itself against strategic bombing than germany was. Tactical superiority would also not be guaranteed, and it probably would not have turned the tide.

When I get home, I'll look up the actual numbers.

I'd be interested in seeing the stats for

Russian fighters versus B-29's
Russian fighters versus Mustangs and Corsairs

Russian fighters were actually pretty good, the Yak-9 being caparable to the P-51(we learned the hard way in Korea not to underestimate Soviet fighter technology). They were also produced in similar numbers(although ours were greater at the time)

The Korean War was five years later. What was the state of Soviet fighter technology in 1945-1946? Would they have been able to apply the jet technology taken from the Nazi's in time to thwart US/British aircraft? How many Yak-9's did the USSR have in 1945? What was it's top speed? Ceiling? Armaments? Maneuverability? How did those specs compare with Mustangs and Corsairs? Could the Yak-9's reach the 40,000 foot altitude that the B-29 could reach?

Yak-9's and P-51 were built for two different types of airwar. The P-51 was mainly a high-altitude, long range esort fighter, because most of the airwar on the Western front was fought at relatively high altitudes. Fighting in Eastern front on the other hand took place at relatively low altitudes, mainly in support of the land armies, so the Yak-9 was tailored to excel in those conditions. With that in mind, each airplane performed differently in the others realm, so it would all depend on the conditions of the fight to say which plane had the true advantage.

Another aircraft besides the Yak-9 which was considered to be the best Soviet fighter of the war was the Lavochkin La-7, which excelled in lower level combat, and could pretty much match any western fighter of the war at low altitudes. In fact the highest scoring Allied ace of the war was a Ukranian fighter pilot who flew La-7's.

As for the B-29's 40,000 foot ceiling, that would be under extremely favorable conditions, and didn't allow for any bombing accuracy whatsoever on account of our lack of understanding regarding the jet-stream. That's one of the prime reasons for General Lemay's decision to switch to low level attacks on Japanese cities during WWII, their bombs were missing by miles.

One thing that the Western allies had a huge headstart in was jet technology, although our jet fighters had nowhere near the capability of the German Me-262, so their effectiveness in combat against the Russians (who had no jets in production at the end of the war) is debatable.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Prinz Eugn
The USSR had an air force of it's own, and would've been much more capable of defending itself against strategic bombing than germany was. Tactical superiority would also not be guaranteed, and it probably would not have turned the tide.

When I get home, I'll look up the actual numbers.

I'd be interested in seeing the stats for

Russian fighters versus B-29's
Russian fighters versus Mustangs and Corsairs

Russian fighters were actually pretty good, the Yak-9 being caparable to the P-51(we learned the hard way in Korea not to underestimate Soviet fighter technology). They were also produced in similar numbers(although ours were greater at the time)

The Korean War was five years later. What was the state of Soviet fighter technology in 1945-1946? Would they have been able to apply the jet technology taken from the Nazi's in time to thwart US/British aircraft? How many Yak-9's did the USSR have in 1945? What was it's top speed? Ceiling? Armaments? Maneuverability? How did those specs compare with Mustangs and Corsairs? Could the Yak-9's reach the 40,000 foot altitude that the B-29 could reach?

Yak-9's and P-51 were built for two different types of airwar. The P-51 was mainly a high-altitude, long range esort fighter, because most of the airwar on the Western front was fought at relatively high altitudes. Fighting in Eastern front on the other hand took place at relatively low altitudes, mainly in support of the land armies, so the Yak-9 was tailored to excel in those conditions. With that in mind, each airplane performed differently in the others realm, so it would all depend on the conditions of the fight to say which plane had the true advantage.

I didn't bring up Yak-9's. I asked about Russian fighters. Prinz Eugn brought up Yak-9's in response. So which US fighter would the Yak-9 have been pitted against?

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo
Another aircraft besides the Yak-9 which was considered to be the best Soviet fighter of the war was the Lavochkin La-7, which excelled in lower level combat, and could pretty much match any western fighter of the war at low altitudes. In fact the highest scoring Allied ace of the war was a Ukranian fighter pilot who flew La-7's.

5,753 of those were built.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo
As for the B-29's 40,000 foot ceiling, that would be under extremely favorable conditions, and didn't allow for any bombing accuracy whatsoever on account of our lack of understanding regarding the jet-stream. That's one of the prime reasons for General Lemay's decision to switch to low level attacks on Japanese cities during WWII, their bombs were missing by miles.

How accurate does an A-bomb need to be?

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo
One thing that the Western allies had a huge headstart in was jet technology, although our jet fighters had nowhere near the capability of the German Me-262, so their effectiveness in combat against the Russians (who had no jets in production at the end of the war) is debatable.

That's why I asked if the Soviets would have been able to catch up.

My point with the whole Yak-9 vs. P-51 thing was that airplanes behave way differently depending on the conditions they fly in. For example, the U.S. got rid of the P-39 Airacobra as soon as they could, and subsequently gave tons of them to the Soviets via Lend-Lease. The Soviets, because they were fighting at low, rather than high altitude, were able to take a mediocre high altitude fighter, and turn it into an exceptional low altitude fighter, where they could play to the P-39's strengths.

Quote:5,753 of those were built.

True, but the Lavochkin La-5, essentially a wooden version of the La-7 was also an extremely good warplane, and they built 9,920 of them.

Quote:How accurate does an A-bomb need to be?

How many A-bombs did we have right after World War II ended? Also, a B-29 carrying a heavy crude nuclear weapon would not be able to climb to its vaunted 40,000 foot altitude, nor cruise at 350+ mph, which puts it easily into the realm where Soviet fighters could stand toe-to-toe with their American counterparts.

Quote:That's why I asked if the Soviets would have been able to catch up.

IMO, The Soviets could have caught up eventually, but only by utilizing captured German technology, whereas the U.S. and Britain were already creating jet engines of their own.

EDIT: Also, your statistics for numbers of fighter produced are a little skewed, as production of P-51's and F4U's (or Soviet fighters for that matter) didn't stop after WWII ended, they continued to produce improved versions of both into the 1950's, so the numbers provided by wikipedia don't give an accurate account of the numbers of aircraft available to each side immediately following the end of the war.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo
My point with the whole Yak-9 vs. P-51 thing was that airplanes behave way differently depending on the conditions they fly in. For example, the U.S. got rid of the P-39 Airacobra as soon as they could, and subsequently gave tons of them to the Soviets via Lend-Lease. The Soviets, because they were fighting at low, rather than high altitude, were able to take a mediocre high altitude fighter, and turn it into an exceptional low altitude fighter, where they could play to the P-39's strengths.

I understand that planes behave differently depending on flying conditions etc. That's why I asked what I asked in the first place.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:5,753 of those were built.

True, but the Lavochkin La-5, essentially a wooden version of the La-7 was also an extremely good warplane, and they built 9,920 of them.

An extensive list of Soviet Military aircraft can be found here.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:How accurate does an A-bomb need to be?

How many A-bombs did we have right after World War II ended? Also, a B-29 carrying a heavy crude nuclear weapon would not be able to climb to its vaunted 40,000 foot altitude, nor cruise at 350+ mph, which puts it easily into the realm where Soviet fighters could stand toe-to-toe with their American counterparts.

I answered that question earlier - 6 in 1945, 11 in 1946. We've been looking at aircraft production rates in WW2, but we haven't looked at aircraft loses. # Soviet Union: Total losses were over 106,400 including 88,300 combat types.[3] Unfortunately for our purposes those figures aren't broken out by specific class of combat aircraft. # United States: Total losses were nearly 45,000, including 22,951 operational losses (18,418 in Europe and 4,533 in the Pacific).[2] I suspect that at the end of the war the US had a larger air force than the USSR. So it's debateable whether the Soviet numbers could compensate for the technological disadvantage.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:That's why I asked if the Soviets would have been able to catch up.

IMO, The Soviets could have caught up eventually, but only by utilizing captured German technology, whereas the U.S. and Britain were already creating jet engines of their own.

EDIT: Also, your statistics for numbers of fighter produced are a little skewed, as production of P-51's and F4U's (or Soviet fighters for that matter) didn't stop after WWII ended, they continued to produce improved versions of both into the 1950's, so the numbers provided by wikipedia don't give an accurate account of the numbers of aircraft available to each side immediately following the end of the war.

I realized that when I provided those statistics but that was what was quickly available. Per my comment above, production numbers don't account for combat losses either.

Quote:
I understand that planes behave differently depending on flying conditions etc. That's why I asked what I asked in the first place.

Well, because of that fact, you can't make a broad generalization about which aircraft is better because of all those variables. Both sides had aircraft tailored to the war they were fighting. The Western Allies main method of offensive pre D-Day was strategic bombing, so most of their aircraft were designed for high altitude operations. The Soviet Air Force was essentially there to defend and support the Red Army, which is evident in the preference given to the production of ground support aircraft like the Ilyushin Il-2, which they ended up producing 36,163 machines. The Soviets didn't have a true strategic bombing force until the 1950's, even after copying the American B-29 (Tupolev Tu-4). So that leaves the Soviets with an extremely effective ground support air force, with little way to project its power, and the United States with an incredible strategic bombing capability (although I'm not sure even the B-29 could reach the factories of the Urals with a sizable bomb load). I think it would have been quite the even match between the two air forces had anything actually started.

Quote:I answered that question earlier - 6 in 1945, 11 in 1946. We've been looking at aircraft production rates in WW2, but we haven't looked at aircraft loses. # Soviet Union: Total losses were over 106,400 including 88,300 combat types.[3] Unfortunately for our purposes those figures aren't broken out by specific class of combat aircraft. # United States: Total losses were nearly 45,000, including 22,951 operational losses (18,418 in Europe and 4,533 in the Pacific).[2] I suspect that at the end of the war the US had a larger air force than the USSR. So it's debateable whether the Soviet numbers could compensate for the technological disadvantage.

Sorry, I missed that nuke post. I don't know if I would say the Soviets had any technical disadvantage other than their lagging behind in jet technology, which in the early days after the war was still producing aircraft with barely higher performance than high-end piston engine fighters of the day. We just didn't understand enough about high speed flight to make good use of jets. The Me-262 is a definite exception to this rule, but even then, most of its "advanced" features, such as its swept wings were created by accident. The jets of that era were just too finicky, heavy, and unreliable to create a real all-around good aircraft. An often overlooked advantage that the Western Allies had was the availability of extremely high octane aviation fuel, which gave their aircraft quite a power advantage over one burning lower grade avgas. I don't think that the Soviets had the capability to produce fuel of that quality on a grand scale(I don't have any real source for that one, so thats mainly an opinion), but I guess you could chalk that up as a bit of a disadvantage to them.

Quote:I realized that when I provided those statistics but that was what was quickly available. Per my comment above, production numbers don't account for combat losses either.

True, but while we're on the subject, one must also take into account the logistics of actually getting a produced aircraft to the front where it can be used. The Soviets had a definite advantage here, as any aircraft produced in America had to make it halfway around the world before even getting to face combat. Soviet planes, while still having quite a ways to travel, didn't face nearly as much hardship getting to the fight.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:
I understand that planes behave differently depending on flying conditions etc. That's why I asked what I asked in the first place.

Well, because of that fact, you can't make a broad generalization about which aircraft is better because of all those variables. Both sides had aircraft tailored to the war they were fighting. The Western Allies main method of offensive pre D-Day was strategic bombing, so most of their aircraft were designed for high altitude operations. The Soviet Air Force was essentially there to defend and support the Red Army, which is evident in the preference given to the production of ground support aircraft like the Ilyushin Il-2, which they ended up producing 36,163 machines. The Soviets didn't have a true strategic bombing force until the 1950's, even after copying the American B-29 (Tupolev Tu-4). So that leaves the Soviets with an extremely effective ground support air force, with little way to project its power, and the United States with an incredible strategic bombing capability (although I'm not sure even the B-29 could reach the factories of the Urals with a sizable bomb load). I think it would have been quite the even match between the two air forces had anything actually started.

Yes, that's why a spec comparison is necessary. The ground support role likely accounted for the greater combat aircraft loss figures. If B-29's couldn't reach factories in the Urals, could they reach the population centers of the Western USSR? The combat radius of the B-29 was 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) (per the wikipedia entry). According to this, distance between Moscow and London is 1558 Miles. So, would the USSR have kept fighting with Moscow in ashes? St. Petersburg? The US had at least three bombs remaining at the end of the war and more on their way.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:I answered that question earlier - 6 in 1945, 11 in 1946. We've been looking at aircraft production rates in WW2, but we haven't looked at aircraft loses. # Soviet Union: Total losses were over 106,400 including 88,300 combat types.[3] Unfortunately for our purposes those figures aren't broken out by specific class of combat aircraft. # United States: Total losses were nearly 45,000, including 22,951 operational losses (18,418 in Europe and 4,533 in the Pacific).[2] I suspect that at the end of the war the US had a larger air force than the USSR. So it's debateable whether the Soviet numbers could compensate for the technological disadvantage.

Sorry, I missed that nuke post. I don't know if I would say the Soviets had any technical disadvantage other than their lagging behind in jet technology, which in the early days after the war was still producing aircraft with barely higher performance than high-end piston engine fighters of the day. We just didn't understand enough about high speed flight to make good use of jets. The Me-262 is a definite exception to this rule, but even then, most of its "advanced" features, such as its swept wings were created by accident. The jets of that era were just too finicky, heavy, and unreliable to create a real all-around good aircraft. An often overlooked advantage that the Western Allies had was the availability of extremely high octane aviation fuel, which gave their aircraft quite a power advantage over one burning lower grade avgas. I don't think that the Soviets had the capability to produce fuel of that quality on a grand scale(I don't have any real source for that one, so thats mainly an opinion), but I guess you could chalk that up as a bit of a disadvantage to them.

Technological not technical. What you've said about the fuel availability jives with my understanding.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:I realized that when I provided those statistics but that was what was quickly available. Per my comment above, production numbers don't account for combat losses either.

True, but while we're on the subject, one must also take into account the logistics of actually getting a produced aircraft to the front where it can be used. The Soviets had a definite advantage here, as any aircraft produced in America had to make it halfway around the world before even getting to face combat. Soviet planes, while still having quite a ways to travel, didn't face nearly as much hardship getting to the fight.

That also means their cities were closer to the front lines.

Quote:
Yes, that's why a spec comparison is necessary. The ground support role likely accounted for the greater combat aircraft loss figures. If B-29's couldn't reach factories in the Urals, could they reach the population centers of the Western USSR? The combat radius of the B-29 was 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) (per the wikipedia entry). According to this, distance between Moscow and London is 1558 Miles. So, would the USSR have kept fighting with Moscow in ashes? St. Petersburg? The US had at least three bombs remaining at the end of the war and more on their way.

They managed to keep fighting when Leningrad and Stalingrad were being reduced to rubble, but that doesn't take into account the fear that a nuclear weapon instills. I think that the English Blitz and the bombing of civilian centers such as Dresden showed that in most cases strategic bombing of civilian populations serves only to harden the resolve of those on the recieving end.

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:
Yes, that's why a spec comparison is necessary. The ground support role likely accounted for the greater combat aircraft loss figures. If B-29's couldn't reach factories in the Urals, could they reach the population centers of the Western USSR? The combat radius of the B-29 was 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) (per the wikipedia entry). According to this, distance between Moscow and London is 1558 Miles. So, would the USSR have kept fighting with Moscow in ashes? St. Petersburg? The US had at least three bombs remaining at the end of the war and more on their way.

They managed to keep fighting when Leningrad and Stalingrad were being reduced to rubble, but that doesn't take into account the fear that a nuclear weapon instills. I think that the English Blitz and the bombing of civilian centers such as Dresden showed that in most cases strategic bombing of civilian populations serves only to harden the resolve of those on the recieving end.

Leningrad and Stalingrad weren't literally flattened like Hiroshima. I agree that the Blitz hardened the resolve of the British, but I don't think that was the case with Dresden. At that point in the war there wasnt much German resolve left. That's not to say that dropping an A-bomb on Russian cities wouldn't have had that effect. It probably would have.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Sir Sapo

Quote:
Yes, that's why a spec comparison is necessary. The ground support role likely accounted for the greater combat aircraft loss figures. If B-29's couldn't reach factories in the Urals, could they reach the population centers of the Western USSR? The combat radius of the B-29 was 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) (per the wikipedia entry). According to this, distance between Moscow and London is 1558 Miles. So, would the USSR have kept fighting with Moscow in ashes? St. Petersburg? The US had at least three bombs remaining at the end of the war and more on their way.

They managed to keep fighting when Leningrad and Stalingrad were being reduced to rubble, but that doesn't take into account the fear that a nuclear weapon instills. I think that the English Blitz and the bombing of civilian centers such as Dresden showed that in most cases strategic bombing of civilian populations serves only to harden the resolve of those on the recieving end.

Leningrad and Stalingrad weren't literally flattened like Hiroshima. I agree that the Blitz hardened the resolve of the British, but I don't think that was the case with Dresden. At that point in the war there wasnt much German resolve left. That's not to say that dropping an A-bomb on Russian cities wouldn't have had that effect. It probably would have.

Hiroshima was made mostly of wooden buildings, whereas cities in europe woud be made mainly of masonry and would be much less susceptible to such damage. Stalingrad was as destroyed as it could possibly be without being flattened example