Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Buzzbait on March 22, 2001, 02:25:00 AM
-
S!
I read all these posts by U.S. and German fans complaining their aircraft are underrated in one way or another. The Russian, Japanese and Brits are all overdone. Well, time to wake up and smell the coffee. The modelling in AH is the most accurate of any Flight Sim around. The designers have accurately portrayed the aircraft as they existed.
The facts are, the various nations produced particular types of aircraft in order to fulfill their strategic goals. What that meant is the performance of their fighter aircraft was tailored to meet their military requirements. And most importantly, their military requirements were primarily centered around the delivery of ordinance, (in the case of the British, Americans and Russians) or the prevention of the delivery of ordinance (in the case of the Japanese and Germans) For example:
Britain:
Britain, (unlike the U.S.) made a decision in 1941 that they would build a strategic bomber fleet which would operate UNESCORTED at night. (not counting the small number of Beaufighters and Mosquitos which operated in the night intruder roles) This meant they DID NOT require a long range escort fighter. Their needs were:
1) Short range air superiority
This role was assigned to the various Marks of Spitfires, and later to a smaller extent, the Tempests. The Hurricanes were briefly used in this role in '41. These aircraft had no requirement for large fuel capacity, armour protection, or heavy weaponry. In the case of the Tempest, high altitude performance was sacrificed.
2) Bomber Interceptors
This is what the Typhoon was initially designed for. However, its altitude performance was not good. It did do a fine job of dealing with the low level FW190 Jabo raids in 1942-43. The Tempest filled in as an interceptor against the V1's. Once again, no major design handicaps were imposed, thus performance was excellent.
3) Ground attack
The Hurricane was initially assigned this role, but was superceded by the Typhoon when the threat of bombers diminished
Because the British did not need to concern themselves with escorting Strategic bombers long distances at high altitude, they could focus on performance from 20,000 ft down. They could also design aircraft which were lighter and performed better versus other fighters.
Germany:
Germany had initially on one requirement:
1) Short range Air Superiority
The German airforce was a tactical airforce at the start of the conflict. Its fighters were designed to establish air superiority over the battlefield in order that the Luftwaffe light and medium tactical bombers could strike the enemy ground forces. The 109 and 190 were both designed for this role, and in the period 1940-1942 they were very successful, being the best performing fighters in the world. They were designed to operate under 20,000 ft. However, with the advent of the American Strategic bombing campaign, there was suddenly a requirement for another Fighter type. The high altitude Interceptor. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, due to Goering and Hitler's bad planning, they did not have anything which was designed for this role. All the German resources, (which were now very limited due to the two front war they were fighting) went into interceptor developement, which meant the existing designs which could have been improved in their air superiority role, weren't. The only aircraft developed for the air superiority role after 1941 was the 190D. And it was a 'Patch' job. As AH users are discovering, it is a very good fighter, and a tribute to the German designers.
With the 8th Air Force raids beginning to seriously affect German industry, the Germans had to adapt their existing fighter types to a different role.
2) Interceptors
This type is typified by high speed at altitude, heavy armament and good pilot protection. An interceptor requires engine boosting systems to provide power at high altitudes as well as heating, sealed cockpits, and oxygen systems. None of these requirements were completely fulfilled by either the 109 or 190. The German designer's response was to accelerate new designs like the Me262, and in the meantime adapt the existing designs. This meant huge compromises in performance. For example, the 190's had sufficient armament and armour protection, but performance at altitude with all these encumbrances was inferior. The 109's had good altitude performance initially, but when sufficient armament was added, then performance fell off. In addition, the 109 was too fragile for a bomber interceptor. But these modifications were carried out anyway. And the result was the Luftwaffe fighters were generally inferior to their fighter opponents.
But the central factor in Germany's inferiority was economic. With the limited resources they had, they could not afford the programs required to develop a completely new series of Air Superiority Fighters, they had to direct their energies towards the real threats. Hence the pinnacle of German aircraft design was the Me262. An Interceptor. An aircraft not suited to the Fighter vs Fighter role.
Soviet Union
The Soviet Union's VVS was designed much like the Luftwaffe. Its role was the delivery of ordinance on a Tactical level, on the battlefield. Its Fighter requirements did not vary throughout the war.
Air superiority:
All of the Soviet Fighters (with the minor exception of the Mig-3) were designed to fight under 20,000 feet. Usual operating altitude was between 5,000 and 10,000 feet. They were intended to provide cover for the Soviet Ground attack Squadrons, and additionally to act in the ground support role as well. There was no requirement for heavy weaponry, (there were no German Heavy bombers which would require mulitiple heavy cannon to bring down) and no requirement for a long operating range. This meant the aircraft could be light in design and therefore have better performance. Heavy Armour protection was not particularly stressed either.
All of this added up to a type of fighter which does very well in the AH enviroment.
United States:
The U.S. had two main air services: The USAAF and the USN. Each had different requirements.
The USAAF had as its primary doctrine the concept of Daylight Strategic Bombing with heavy 4 engined aircraft operating at high altitude over very long ranges. That meant its Fighter requirement was primarily:
High Altitude Long range Escort:
All of the big 3 U.S. Fighters, the P-38, P-47 and P-51 (Merlin engine model) were designed to provide escort for bombers at 20,000 feet and higher, (the B-17's were initially intended to bomb from 30,000 feet, but problems with cold resulted in them lowering their standard flight altitude) while operating over long distances. This meant they had to be larger aircraft, capable of carrying a lot of fuel. They also required heavy engine boosting systems which would provide power at high altitudes as well as heating, sealed cockpits, and long range oxygen systems. This all meant the aircraft were larger, heavier and less maneuverable. That American Industry was able to produce extremely good aircraft, despite all these competitive disadvantages is a tribute to their genius. At the altitudes at which the bombers were operating, the U.S. Fighters were superior to their opponents despite the requirement they fly very long distances to reach the combat zone.
Tactical Ground Support
As the numbers of opponents in the air diminished, an opportunity to use the Escort Fighters in a Ground support role presented itself. Although they were not designed for this task, two of the big three (P-38, P-47) performed superbly.
USN
The USN's theater of operations was the vast region of the Pacific, which could only be controlled with Carrier forces.
Medium Range Carrier Fighters
The USN's requirements were for medium range Carrier operable air superiority fighters which would provide escort for Dive bombers and Torpedo planes operating under 10,000 feet, as well as CAP over the Carriers themselves. These aircraft needed longer range than comparable land based aircraft, (hence more space required for more fuel) due to the very long sea distances which they were required to fly. Their undercarriages had to be sturdier to allow for the rigours of Sea landings, as well they needed to have folding wings, which also meant more weight. Overall they needed more tolerances built into the aircraft to compensate for the conditions under which they operated.
All of the above meant they were generally slightly heavier and larger than their land based opponents. (The Zero and Seafire are exceptions in Carrier aircraft. The Zero was a very lightly built aircraft, but that required very large sacrifices in the area of armour protection. The Seafire was less lightly built, but still had huge problems with its undercarriage collapsing in service. During the Salerno Campaign when the beachead was covered solely by Carrier based Seafires, 40% of the British aircraft were out of service by the second day due to damage incurred during landings.)
The USN's aircraft did not operate under as many design handicaps as the USAAF's, but they were comparatively disadvantaged compared to the British, Soviet and Japanese. Despite that, once again U.S. technology provided their airmen with the best carrier aircraft of WWII.
Japanese
The Japanese had two sets of requirements. One for their Navy and one for the Army.
Navy:
Medium Range Carrier based Fighter
The Japanese requirement was the same as the U.S., that being air superiority fighters which would provide escort for Dive bombers and Torpedo planes operating under 10,000 feet, as well as CAP over the Carriers. The Japanese chose to approach their design differently, sacrificing armour protection for performance. Ultimately this proved to be the wrong decision. Their later model Navy fighters were not expected to operate from Carriers, so they were not under the design handicaps which the U.S. aircraft had. They were essentially short range air superiority fighters designed to operate under 20,000 feet. Thus they were able to get very good performance out of these designs at those altitudes. But although they were successful at their intended role, they proved to be unable to adapt to the task of high altitude interception, with the arrival of the B-29's and Mustangs over Japan.
The Army
The Japanese Army required a medium range Air superiority fighter, designed to escort the Japanese medium tactical bombers. The longer distances of the Pacific theater meant more fuel capacity had to be designed in. Once again the Japanese responded by sacrificing armour protection and additionally in the case of the Oscar, firepower. And once again this proved to be a shortsighted decision. Although their aircraft were superbly maneuverable, they could not survive in a dense air to air enviroment.
The second generation of Japanese Army fighters were essentially designed for short range air superiority with their operating altitude being under 20,000. With no design handicaps, they were very successful. But once again, they proved incapable of being adapted for the high altitude interceptor role once the U.S. Strat. bombing campaign began. The Japanese NEVER were able to seriously challenge the B-29's in the way the Germans challenged the B-17's.
Fighters are not a end in themselves. They only exist to ensure or to prevent bombers from fulfilling their tasks. And while the later model U.S. and German Fighters perhaps are not able to compete as well in a low level, purely fighter versus fighter situation, that is irrelvant to their intended tasks. That the German aircraft were less successful is more a function of economics than design skill.
The best Fighter of the War? Considering the huge design handicaps imposed by USAAF requirements, undoubtably the P-51 was the most successful in carrying out its intended task while providing superior Fighter vs Fighter performance.
-
i like pizza.
-
It's just too easy to fly these planes and spray sky full of lead without fear of jamming..
-
"The designers have accurately portrayed the aircraft as they existed. "
Wow thx.Just what I needed to know.
:=)
danish
-
Nice!!!
-
Well, buzzbait, I'd say the P-51D was the best high altitude long range escort fighter. But the best pure fighter it was not. Aircraft more deserving might be the Spitfire XIV, Fw190D-9, Ki-84, N1K2, Yak-3, Yak-9U, and La-7.
-
Except for a few tiny minor exceptions you might have a point. But consider this.
1. The average altitude for combat in WW2 was between 20K and 30K. The average Aces High combat is around 5K. Not really representitive of actual combat. American and German A/C were notable better performers above 20K than any Russian, Itailian design. The Spitfire performance held up into altitude, but had to land shortly after arriving because of low fuel storage. The Tempest and Typhoon were reduced to a mild breeze at 25K compared to the P-51, P-38 or P-47 or any contemporary Me109 or FW190D.
2. No country in the world flew anything off of carriers even close to the F4U or F6F. End of story.
3. Cannons are overmodeled in AH. If you choose to disagree with that statement then you are saying the F4U-1C is the best fighter plane of WW2. I luv the F4U and I don't believe that.
4. The greatest equalizer of all. The fear of death. In AH there is none. In WW2 it was your first concern. Many WW2 pilots thanked God every day they flew the P-47 because it was a tank and got you home alive. There was no other plane except the Sturmovich (which is a bomber) that was as tough on the British or axis side. While the F4F, F6F and F4U all had similar reputations. It is great to scamble an La-7 from a capped field when you life isn't at stake. IRL you would take a P-47 from a rear field get to 25K and then attack. At 25K a La-7 is fish out of water.
The bottom line is the Brits, Russians and Japanese designers put an emphasis on maneuverabilty and the Americans on Speed and survivability. And everybody knows tactics and speed will always win, alla the F4 Phantom vrs Mig-17 engagements of Veitnam. Tactics * Speed = Victory (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ummm sorry F4UDOA, but your American centric side is stating "facts" that reality can't back up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
1. The average altitude for combat in WW2 was between 20K and 30K
Maybe on the Western front in Europe from around 1942-1945, but that is far from "average" if you look at the entire war on all fronts. On the eastern front, combat was typically below 15k for the entire war. And in the Pacific theater combat was much lower as well.
3. Cannons are overmodeled in AH.
Highly debateable. I would bet its more the matter of icons, perfect radar ranging, high levels of pilot gunnery and combat experience, and several other variables in Aces High, rather than the fact that the cannons are overmodeled. Believe what you will, but your looking at it too narrowly.
4. The greatest equalizer of all. The fear of death
Agreed. But I see in no way how this relates to aircraft "toughness", especially when you just assume that British and Russian aircraft are fragile. How much studying have you done on Russian aircraft? The Lavochin series was considered very tough and rugged, as were most Russian aircraft (which meshes with their engineering design principals). And your trying to tell me that the Typhoon, Tempest, and the Hurricane were fragile aircraft? Puhhhlleeaaase (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) And a La7 scrambled for base defense? Why would you scramble ANY fighter with the same sustained turn rates as a P-51 for defense? Oh wait... I see quite a few P-51's scrambled for base defense too. Idiots will be idiots no matter what. So I don't think I would use that either of those points to boost your arguement F4UDOA.
The bottom line is the Brits, Russians and Japanese designers put an emphasis on maneuverabilty and the Americans on Speed and survivability.
Oh really.... ?? Perhaps you would like to discuss the relative speeds of the Typhoon in comparison to any other American 1942 aircraft or the Tempest in 1944. Perhaps you would like to discuss the relative speeds of the Spit XIV versus the P-51D, P-38L, and the P-47D? How does the speed below 10k of any wartime American fighter compare to the La7?
Realize that I'm mostly just giving you a hard time F4UDOA, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but I'm trying to make a point of "Don't believe the hype". Just because you grew up watching John Wayne movies, and lots of propaganda on how the P-51D Mustang "Won the War", doesn't necessarily mean its true.
Don't get me wrong. American fighters have many strengths, and if used properly are a fearsome opponent. But alot of the generalizations you made above are simply not true, or are being used out of context. There is a bigger picture out there, that includes industrial strength, overwhelming numbers, resupply, reinforcements, and the tactical/strategic constraints and goals, that play a crucial role in "who wins the war".
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-22-2001).]
-
First off he has a point on a few things, but one point I do disagree on is the LW AC. The FW's never had good high alt performance "cept the TA-152" even the D-9 the performance fell off around 30K. FW's were designed to operate under 20K there threshold of there performance was 21K. Superior AC did not win hte war for Russia, the number of AC did though. Even in the final months of the war the Luftwaffe was able to hold air superiority in certain areas. 262 could dogfight, and shot down 51's. Was it a great dogfighter? Nope but it could. Also the IL-2 was an attack aircraft, once jettisoning its bomb load had the manueverablity of a 109 E and same speed. Reading different sources on this plane each account reports of its handling as being far superior then one wo0uld assume. Overall though this mapset or size the LW and US fighters are at a distinct disadvantage.
------------------
Sturm 6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
Ahh Verm,
I think your over complicating things.
1. I have read the following autobiographies and war diaries
a. Chuck Yeagers
b. Greg Boyington
c. Saburu Sakai
d. Tommy Blackburn
e. JG26 war diaries
Amoung others
The one common thread that runs through these books is Altitude and speed. You are using the Typhoon and Tempest for examples of speed and I tell you that they sorely lacked it where they needed it. Neither of those two A/C could compare to any of the American three in performance at 25K or higher. They were use primarily for point defense and lost much of there effectiveness above 20K. And weather in AH or IRL the A/C with an altitude advantage has the advantage in the fight 100% of the time. You might not be able to fight a Jug against a Tempest at 5K but at 25K I'll take the Jug every time.
2. Average alt of combat. On Gaudacanal where both sides A/C had there best performance at 10K or lower, Joe Foss and company routinely climb there F4F Wildcats to 30K waiting for the Zero's and Betty's at 20K to 25K. Yeager and Bud Anderson have written about there engagements at 30K being routine. But the most compelling arguement for 20K and higher being the desiding factor in fighter technogy is the critical alt of any A/C engine, and why it is designed that way. Is the USAF and USN it was centered around the height of the Bombers the escorted. The USN F6F and F4U were 20K and the AAF was between 25K to 30K. That's why it was called the critical altitude. Sure combat took place at lower alts. once the fight had started. But initial engagements start high and end low.
3. Are cannons overmodeled in AH? Verm, you can't be serious? Just look at the eny values assigned to different A/C. Is the F4U-1C the best A/C of WW2? according to AH it is. Why does the F4U-1C have an eny value of 10 while the La-7 has a value of 20 and the La-5 has a value of 30!! Is the F4U performance 3 times better than the La-5? Remember, all pilots have radar icons, and auto ranging in ah. Not just the cannon birds.
4. I am not calling the Soviet or British A/C fragile. I am saying that the durabilty of American A/C gave it's pilots confidence above and beyond what any pilot of a Spifire or Hurricane could have felt. My knowledge of Soviet A/C is limited however by sheer size alone I do not imagine that they would have been comparable to the P-47 in durabilty. In other words a 20mill whole in the wing of an A/C with 300sq ft of wing is not as bad as a whole in a wing with 200sq ft of surface.
Believe me I am not reading from the propaganda factory. I am just simplifying history. The Russians, Brits and Germans fought a tactical war. The American fought a strategic war. If America did not influence A/C design for the time they would probably still be fighting over there.
BTW, you asked me to compare the speed of the Typhoon vrs any 1942 American fighter A/C? Well the P-47 could have caught anything on the deck when diving from 25K (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Also as good as the La7/5 and Yak9U/T in senario vrs American A/C P-47, P-51 and P-38 the American side would win in AH becuase it would never be necessary to go below 20K to fight.
Name one Euro-fighter that could be used for strategic offensive missions? The Zero was the best offensive fighter made by the Soviets, British or Axis country during the war. No other country except for the US. put out anything other than a short rage fighter with limited tactical use.
And no, the BF110 doesn't coun't.
-
Just as a side note, I don't think it's really fair to consider the British and the US as seperate entities given the amount of weaponry and information that the two shared. US pilots flew spitfires, and often used British flight equipment. FAA flew Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs, and the RAF made use of the Mustang.
Also, one should note that the US' late war monsters saw little to no combat due to the fact that they were an ocean away from the action, and they weren't needed. Imagine F4U-4s, F8Fs, F7Fs, P-47M/Ns, P-51Hs flying around. I don't think too many VVS/LW/IJN/RAF fans would be happy about that. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sable
352nd FG
-
Sable wrote:
Imagine F4U-4s, F8Fs, F7Fs, P-47M/Ns, P-51Hs flying around. I don't think too many VVS/LW/IJN/RAF fans would be happy about that
Why is that? At least in regards to the Soviet fighters, the equivalent to the La7 and the Yak-9U, in terms of numbers and combat time, for the US would be the P-51D and the P-47D-25& -30.
Once more... what we have for the VVS is NOT the period equivalent to the F4U-4, F8F, or the P-51H. Jeez why does everyone think the VVS planes are some low time low production crap.
F4UDOA, your having problems distinguishing between the game and reality (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) . Remember that in reality you don't have icons, and the color depth/shadows/clouds make it much more difficult to spot enemy aircraft. So tool around all you want at 30k on the eastern front, all you will do is burn gas.
All I'm saying is that your looking at it all too narrowly, from a total western point of view. For example, remember the "dog" of the USAAF, the P-39? The Soviets did a whole lot with it.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I'd like to make a point if I might. One way to make sure that the combat takes place at high altitude is to utilize more heavy bombers. An indisputable rule of air fighting says that "the air war is fought where the bombers fly." Using B-17s bombing from 25-28,000 ft. forces the defenders to come on up to that altitude if they want to intercept. If they are foolish enough to select one of the low altitude fighters, they will be 'meat on the table' for the Thunderbolts and Mustangs. Remember, to defend the bombers, you need only attack drive the enemy away. Better yet, send in a diversionary attack at 10,000 feet, which should entice the defenders to select the low altitude fighters. Then, perhaps 30 minutes behind, bring in the heavies. Odds are that the heavies will be unmolested, and if they do try and come up, it's a field day for the Thunderbolts.
As to no fear of death: Well, there's not much to fear at all. Moreover, there is not much realism to be experienced either. Here's my solution: Prior to beginning play,
drink two liters of fluid, then strip down to you underwear and step into an ice-cold shower. Open all the windows or turn the air conditioning to its coldest setting. Now, position a fan so that it blows that cold air on you as you sit soaking wet. Put on a pair of thick, heavy mittens. Set your volume so loud that it hurts your ears.
At this point, you need HTC to write a line of code that will automatically re-format your hard drive if you should be killed during the game.
So, here you are; a full bladder, freezing your bellybutton blue, nearly deaf from the racket, struggling to operate systems with the heavy mittens and scared toejamless that you'll die.
Now we have an accurate simulation!
My regards,
Widewing
[This message has been edited by Widewing (edited 03-22-2001).]
-
I would bet its more the matter of icons, perfect radar ranging, high levels of pilot gunnery and combat experience, and several other variables in Aces High
you forgot to mention the most important factor: lag
When the enemy aims at you where you´ve been 1-2 sec ago, and you try to escape his attack but you can only react to his move where he was on his FE 1-2 sec ago, too, well... tracer fall 400yrads behind you, you think 'hehe missed me' and suddenly BANG BANG BANG... not funny (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
niklas
-
Widewing,
Exactly!! Your great at saying what I'm thinking. One day I'll learn to read and write too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Anyway the point that I wanted to make was that the altitude of the combat is directed by the altitude of the bombers. That's what I mean by the critical alt of the engines in the fighters. It is no mistake it matches the operating alt of the heavies. They were designed that way for a reason. The Russians built fast fighters at low alt for two reasons. They had low alt Bombers and they didn't have the supercharging or turbocharging technology to fly higher. Any country can put a big engine in a small plane and go fast. But building a long range high alt escort fighter for strategic offensive bombing is hard. Just look at what happened to the Germans at the BoB. If the Germans had Zero's the war might have been different.
Just picture 1945 and the war ends with Germany and begins with the Soviet Union. There would be no Mig15, that was captured German technology. Imagine hoards of B-17 and B-29's flying over Moscow at 25K to 30K. What was going to come up and stop them?
-
Also, one should note that the US' late war monsters saw little to no combat due to the fact that they were an ocean away from the action, and they weren't needed. Imagine F4U-4s, F8Fs, F7Fs, P-47M/Ns, P-51Hs flying around. I don't think too many VVS/LW/IJN/RAF fans would be happy about that.
Sable
I'd be more than happy if the equivalent RAF aircraft were included. Spitfire XVIIIs and 21s, (hell even the Spit XIV would be nice), Tempest II, Meteor III, Mosquito B XVI and Nf30.
-
Exactly the problem in AH widewing. We dont have big formations of buffs going into enemy territory, so HT painted a red and yellow "S" in a diamond logo in their chests and sent them out. These Superbuffs and their turbolaser can happily fly at 10k and have a good chance making it to target (nobody cares about living, since bombs are gone, they got their perkies... and hell, theres lots of fighters around to singlepingkill. why go home?).
"Imagine hoards of B-17 and B-29's flying over Moscow at 25K to 30K. What was going to come up and stop them? "
Use the Napoleonic Defense: Wait for Winter and then catch them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
IMO, you should only get perks if you land or ditch your plane in friendly territory. Getting captured, dying, ditching in enemy land should give you no perks. Maybe then people might fly to live instead of banzai flights.
On subject of this thread: Isnt it amazing each nation in the conflict made planes so specialized in their roles... yet none of them have a counterpart in the other nations? Its almost poetic. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
1. The average altitude for combat in WW2 was between 20K and 30K. The average Aces High combat is around 5K. Not really representitive of actual combat. American and German A/C were notable better performers above 20K than any Russian, Itailian design. The Spitfire performance held up into altitude, but had to land shortly after arriving because of low fuel storage. The Tempest and Typhoon were reduced to a mild breeze at 25K compared to the P-51, P-38 or P-47 or any contemporary Me109 or FW190D.
Um, you're wrong.
The Spitfire, particularly late war Spits had better range than their German counterparts. Believe me you, a Spitfire MkXIV does not have to immediately descend to land after climbing for 9 minutes up to its best altitude of 27,000ft. With droptanks a Spit XIV would have more than two hours of fuel after reaching 27,000ft.
All of the big 5 produced some excellent fighters.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
bah LW planes look meaner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
RAF planes sound nicer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
russian planes are tough little ugly things (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
USAAF are dull (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
mwahahah
------------------
Hazed
3./JG2 (http://members.home.net/winyah999/3jg2.htm)
-
WHAT? You saying my P-38 looks dull?
All the rest of US planes I agree (well, P-39 has some nice lines though!). But P-38? Sir, I feel insulted (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Also as good as the La7/5 and Yak9U/T in senario vrs American A/C P-47, P-51 and P-38 the American side would win in AH becuase it would never be necessary to go below 20K to fight.
- F4UDOA
Well, in a pure dogfighting situation this may be true. But, what if a group of Shturmoviks were laying waste a US armored column? That would require a response from the USAAF, which would result in air combat at low altitude with the likes of La7s, Yak-9Us, and Yak-3s.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Well, in a pure dogfighting situation this may be true. But, what if a group of Shturmoviks were laying waste a US armored column? That would require a response from the USAAF, which would result in air combat at low altitude with the likes of La7s, Yak-9Us, and Yak-3s.
Your assuming that the Il-2s could even get to the battleline. Which, I doubt they could. Remember the problem the Luftwaffe had with Mustangs setting up CAPs over German airfields? Guess what? It will happen again. Another factor not generally known was that the Soviets received 70% of the aviation fuel from the west. Gee, how long do you think they are going to fly once the fuel got cut off. In fact, on May 9, 1945 the fuel was cut off and the Soviets found themselves with only a 20 day supply for full operations. IIRC, 27 tankers were inroute to Soviet ports when the war ended. They were recalled immediately. The other problem facing the Soviets was that the Americans and Brits were flying much better fighters than the Germans were generally operating on the eastern front, flown by better trained, highly aggressive pilots. If you understand that 200 German fighters beat the snot out of the VVS on a daily basis, picture what 8,000 American and British fighters would do. We have wargamed this several times, and the results were always the same. The VVS gets clobbered in short order. They would never hold air superiority over the battlefield, largely because they would be pounded around the clock on their own fields. The problem was that the Soviet Air Force was a tactical air force, and utterly unprepared to deal with a strategic air force that could reach out to attack the them day and night from altitudes that the Soviet aircraft could barely reach, much less fight at. Of course, the Soviets were well aware of this and by 1950 had rectified this to a substantial degree. They recognized that the threat had changed and moved swiftly to counter that threat. However, in the early summer of 1945, the VVS was nearly helpless to deal with thousands of high altitude bombers and fighters operated by the U.S. and Britain.
My regards,
Widewing
[This message has been edited by Widewing (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
widewing,
When did the Soviets import 70% of their aviation fuel? The Soviets weren't receiving any lend lease of worth until 1943. And what wargame are you talking about that simulated a possible confrontation between the USAAF and VVS? Unfortunately, you assume too much, like VVS airfields would be easy to locate. Germans found out how difficult it was to determine fake airfields from the real ones. It seems you are not aware of the level of skill that the Soviets possessed at operational deception. They got very good at convincing the Germans that they were at point 'A', then show up in force at point 'B'.
And who do you think the Soviets had been fighting with for four years? The Luftwaffe, the most skilled group of pilots in WWII. And for about half of those years the Soviets had to deal with overwhelming German air superiority. The VVS was very adept at dealing with adverse combat conditions. I'm quite confident that the resultant tactical effect the VVS would've had on a US attack of Russia would've drawn USAAF fighter resources into a tactical role, which in turn might have depleted escort cover for bombers.
One last thing. The Soviets built their planes to meet specific criteria. If a US attack upon Russia was ever seriously attempted, the Soviets would've immediately begun design on high altitude fighters.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
...which brings us back to the original point. All participants had a certain bias in terms of design philosophy. If they were forced to change the way they fought they would have changed what they built.
[This message has been edited by Bombjack (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
I like nachos
-
But baked beans are better for gaining "air superiority"! (see Blazing Saddles for clarification) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Bombjack:
...which brings us back to the original point. All participants had a certain bias in terms of design philosophy. If they were forced to change the way they fought they would have changed what they built.
[This message has been edited by Bombjack (edited 03-23-2001).]
Yes, they would have. However, it would take at least a year to get new designs in service. That's assuming they are not having the aircraft plants flattened during the process.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yea but what if Uncle Adolf and his freak show henchman would of had some HEAVY water.... and a v2? What Goring hadn't of been such a ninny. What if the Germans would of continued to hit Brit airfields and not cities... what if Sea Lion had gone ahead and a beach head had been formed in England. What if the Japanese had pressed on and taken. Harbor? Hehehe.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
batdog
[This message has been edited by batdog (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
Hello everyone! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Nice topic and I've got some things to say (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
As it was said Soviets didn't operate hi alt fighters in large numbers. But did they exist? Look at 1940: I-185 was being tested (didn't go due to Stalins paranoya), Mig 1 and 3 ready to go to the production line. Not gonna say anything about other designs of hi alt fighters (there were a lot of em). What was I-185? 4x20+680km/h+21sec turn time. Best speed at 8 km. What was Mig3? The fastest fighter that saw combat in 1941 (650km/h at 6km) Who said Soviets didn't have superchargers? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Btw look at Pe8 (4 eng buff that took raids to Berlin in 1941) - what a supecharger did it have! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Germans flew their 109's low in early days of war cause they didn't have a plane to fight Mig at high, btw pretty smart move (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As to a year that Soviets needed to produce a hi alt fighter then you prolly don't know about Yak history (the most obvious example) Take Yak9. It's M105P eng could be easily replaced with M106 (this work was made in 1942 and 1943 to intercept high flying german recon. Btw along with Yak9(M106) there were a number of spit9 that scrambled the same time but didn't reach that Ju. Yak9 reached 12500m and intercepted the enemy) Btw this was done to an ordinary Yak9 taken from the front.
It would take tonns of time to describe what was in store of soviet aircraft industry in 1944,1945. Just the highlites: bunch of new eng VK107,VK108,AM41 ets. with good hi alt performance; bunch of new aircrafts based on the prooven designs (La, Yak and Mig construction beuros had fighters that used prop and jet power together reaching speeds around 850km/h) and a heck of other cool prop designs that didn't go due to jet aera. And lots of other interstings things to talk (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
One more thing: noone could match USSR in producing new planes, designs without stoping the production line and in surprisingly short time periods.
Ready to discuss! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Let's kick the tires and light the fires!
Best wishes
Storm
[This message has been edited by StormFB (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
- Distance from London to Berlin = ~570 miles.
- Distance from Berlin to Ural Mountains = ~1700 miles.
Range for a B-17 was around 1,100 miles. Thus, Soviet heavy industry would've been untouched by any US attack on the Soviet Union.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Yes, they would have. However, it would take at least a year to get new designs in service. That's assuming they are not having the aircraft plants flattened during the process.
Widewing
You may know that most of Russians aircraft factories were evacuated from western territories of Russia to Ural (Siberia) in the end of 1941. Nevertheless in 1942 the production of aircrafts increased drastically.
You may also know that in 1944 the production of Me-109s and Fw-190s reached amazing numbers per month (as well as new Jets were put into mass production) and it was the time when Allied bombers were extremely succesfull in flattening German cities.
-
S!
German fighter production reached record numbers in the second half of 1944... Yes. Too bad 90% of the experienced pilots were dead. By that time there were a few 'Experten' and a mass of green cannon fodder. When and by whom were the core of the experienced pilots killed? November '43 to July '44. By the 8th A.F. I will get the figures for German fighter losses broken down by front and post them on this board in the next week or two if anyone is interested to read them.
-
Originally posted by -aper-:
Widewing
You may know that most of Russians aircraft factories were evacuated from western territories of Russia to Ural (Siberia) in the end of 1941. Nevertheless in 1942 the production of aircrafts increased drastically.
As was mentioned in other posts, the range to the Soviet fighter plants was substantially greater. Indeed, this did exceed the range of the B-17 with effective bomb loads (please remember that the B-17 was not originally designed to be a heavy bomber, but more of a long range medium bomber). However, the B-24 could range out considerably further, with a greater bomb load (1,200 - 1,500 miles combat radius with 5,000 lbs of bombs). The major threat to the Soviets would have been the Lancaster and the superlative B-29. From Bases in China, India, Europe and the Middle East, these heavy bombers could reach any location within the Soviet Union. I should also point out that the B-32 Dominator would have continued in production, replacing the B-24.
I should also mention that the best years of Soviet aircraft production were those in which Lend-Lease material were being delivered. Nonetheless, American aircraft production capacity was nearly 3 times that of the USSR, excluding British capability, which was about 80% of the Soviets maximum. This includes heavy bombers, which the Soviets were not building. As you must realize, the Heavy bombers consume 6 to 8 times more manhours and material than fighters. So, it is obvious that U.S. industry could produce a great many more aircraft than the Soviets, who would not longer be supplemented by western aircraft.
Someone else asked questions how much avgas was being imported via Lend-Lease. I will have to dig out my materials on this to be specific, and will post that data here shortly. But, rest assured that the total of all equipment and material supplied to the USSR during the war remarkable. IIRC, this total was nearly three times greater than that produced by Japan between 1939 and 1945. However, we can look to Marshall
Zhukov for insight to the value of American Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union's survival.
Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one’s reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American ‘Studebekkers’ [sic] (trucks), we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided our front transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."
Moreover, Zhukov underscored that "we entered war while still continuing to be a backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov’s truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and 1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of eavesdropping by security organizations beginning in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and **could not have continued the war ** . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us... We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
You may also know that in 1944 the production of Me-109s and Fw-190s reached amazing numbers per month (as well as new Jets were put into mass production) and it was the time when Allied bombers were extremely succesfull in flattening German cities.
I would not call German production amazing at all. It was still only a fraction of the total being produced in the U.S. during that time. Moreover, we know that the quality of later war German aircraft was far below the standard of pre-1943 aircraft. This is because quality control fell off rapidly under the stress of bombing and the decentralizing of the production facilities. Besides, it takes but a few days to produce an aircraft, but it takes months to produce a pilot. Likewise, it takes 18 years for a man to mature to military age. It takes several more months to train him. In contrast, it takes but 5 seconds to manufacture the bullet that kills him. Indeed, survivability is the greatest asset. Maintaining your trained and skilled manpower was the one of the most important aspects of waging war in the mid 20th century.
One other point that is indicative of U.S. manufacturing capacity. During the war, the U.S. manufactured over 9,000 surface ships exceeding a displacement of 1,500 tons. The USSR produced less than 110. The Soviets depended upon others navys and ships to deliver the Lend-Lease material. They concentrated their efforts on tanks and artillery. Remarkably, the U.S. produced more tanks in 1942 and 1943 than the USSR did. In fact, entire Soviet Tank Brigades were equipped with American M-4s. Where the Soviets really impress is in the number of artillery tubes produced. Typically, the USSR produced twice as many as both the U.S. and Britain combined. It is facinating to study the weapons manufactured, as it enables one to better understand the type of war each nation believed that it needed, or was required to fight.
My regards,
Widewing
[This message has been edited by Widewing (edited 03-24-2001).]
-
Well, when I said there were better pure fighters than the P-51D I didn't expect to be drawn into a strategical assessment of said fighters. But now that we're talking strategy such a discussion must encompass more than merely airpower, because wars are decided by possession of real estate, requiring ground units. Below is a post from another forum that I've pasted here, and it concerns a British feasibility study that was prepared by order of Churchill right after the war. The object of this study was to explore the possibility of a suprise attack on the Soviet Union by western Allied forces. It was called 'Operation Unthinkable'...
****************************************
Searched the soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup and came up with the following interesting post by Stuart Wilkes.
On 1 October 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph published an account of "Operation Unthinkable", which was a study ordered by British Prime Minister Churchill to investigate the possibilities in a sneak attack on the Soviet Army. The plan was to rearm up to 10 German divisions, and attack the Soviet forces in Germany with the combined US, British, and German armies. It was presented to him on May 22, 1945. Following is The telegraph's discription of the fate of this plan.
"Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful whether we could achieve a limited and quick success, even if the political appreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our political object." Churchill asked Lt Gen Ismay to pass the Unthinkable reporton to the Chiefs of Staff committee (COS), composed of the most senior military officers; Gen Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Admiral of the Fleet Sir David Cunningham, the First Sea Lord, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff. They replied on June 8, dismissing the report's idea that offensive action against the Russians could be taken,instead suggesting that Britain should be thinking of defence. In the month since VE Day, the Americans had begun to demobilise at a rate which alarmed the COS. It laid the bare facts before Churchill: the Russians had 264 divisions in Europe, including 36 armoured divisions, compared with 103 Allied divisions, 23 of which were armoured. America retained 64 divisions in Europe. The Soviet air force outnumbered the Allies by 11,802 in fighters and fighter-bombers, although American, British and Polish heavy bombers had a superiority of almost three to one. The COS concluded: "It is clear from the relative strength of the respective land forces that we are not in a position to take the offensive with a view to achieving a rapid success."
"Since, however, Russian and allied land forces are in contact from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, we are bound to become involved in land operations. In support of our land forces we should have technically superior, but numerically inferior, tactical air forces."
"As regards Strategic Air Forces, our superiority in numbers and technique would be to some extent discounted by the absence of strategical targets compared to those which existed in Germany, and the necessity for using these strategic air forces to supplement our tactical air forces in support of land operations."
"Our view is, therefore, that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success and we should becommitted to a protracted war against heavy odds."
"These odds, moreover, would become fanciful if the Americans grew weary and indifferent and began to be drawn away by the magnet of the Pacific War."
As can be seen, the British Chiefs of Staff saw little prospect for success in the notion of a sneak attack on the Soviet Army.
****************************************
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
I would not call German production amazing at all. It was still only a fraction of the total being produced in the U.S. during that time.
No they are amazing. How the industry of Gemany that was 'disorganized' managed to increase greatly the production of aircrafts and other kinds of weapons in 1944?
And yes, the war was very hard to Russia. Especially in 1941-42. And all the help was very appreciated. (even if Russia was needed to pay in gold for this help). But do you really think that Russia could not survive without this help? The help from Britain btw in 1941-42 was more important even it was quite limited because it came in time. And the American Lend-Liza started in 1943 after the break point in war (Stalingrad) was overcome.
[This message has been edited by -aper- (edited 03-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by -aper-:
No they are amazing. How the industry of Gemany that was 'disorganized' managed to increase greatly the production of aircrafts and other kinds of weapons in 1944?
Albert Speer did not believe that German industry had been disorganized by bombing. He believed that it was over-organized to the point of inhibiting production. Are you aware that it took until the spring of 1944 before Speer was able to begin real mass production of aircraft and tanks? Indeed it took years to convince Hitler to shift to a war-time economy.
And yes, the war was very hard to Russia. Especially in 1941-42. And all the help was very appreciated. (even if Russia was needed to pay in gold for this help). But do you really think that Russia could not survive without this help? The help from Britain btw in 1941-42 was more important even it was quite limited because it came in time. And the American Lend-Liza started in 1943 after the break point in war (Stalingrad) was overcome.
What do you think the Brits were sending Russia in 1941 and 1942? Largely, the material was American made. Those P-40s that arrived were not built by the British. Those trucks, the raw materials needed for explosives and steel production were not generally British produced. Britain was the broker, but to a significant extent, America was the manufacturer. The Soviets knew where this material came from. See Zhukov's remarks quoted in a previous post.
There is no doubt that Russia suffered more than any other nation (with the possible exception of Poland) at the hands of Germany. People with any sense at all will understand that the sacrifice of the Russians beating back the Nazi armies ultimately saved countless hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have been required for the U.S. and British to defeat Germany by themselves. I would hope that the American people were (and are) grateful for this, and the fact that their fathers and grandfathers were spared as a direct result of Russia fighting the bulk of the land war. I know that I am. My father was assigned to the 78th Infantry Division. What are the chances that he might not have survived the war had we been forced to fight the entire Werhmacht in western Europe? In fairness, I believe many forget that the U.S. was fighting a major war against Japan that involved a considerable percentage of military resources. Likewise, a significant portion of Commonwealth resources were involved as well.
I would also add that Stalingrad by itself was not a war winning turning point. It took Kursk to establish that the outcome was cast. Had the Soviets been defeated at Kursk (and it was a very close run thing), momentum would have switched back to Germany.
My regards,
Widewing
[This message has been edited by Widewing (edited 03-24-2001).]
-
Gotta love the smell of patriotism in the morning.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"I think I´ll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you don´t
believe in Gosh too, you´ll be darned to heck."
---
-
What do you think the Brits were sending Russia in 1941 and 1942? Largely, the material was American made. Those P-40s that arrived were not built by the British. Those trucks, the raw materials needed for explosives and steel production were not generally British produced.
May be the couple of British infantry tanks could be considered as a row materials for steel production. But actually only Hurricanes were delivered to Russia in significant numbers up to 1943. P40s were delivered in very small numbers in 1941-42 as well as trucks an some other equipment.
I would also add that Stalingrad by itself was not a war winning turning point. It took Kursk to establish that the outcome was cast. Had the Soviets been defeated at Kursk (and it was a very close run thing), momentum would have switched back to Germany.
The point is that Russian army could not be defeated in battle of Kursk. The plans of German offence were well known the defence was well prepared and the reserves of Russian army were huge. Yes it was a great battle and both sides got heavy loses. The German army did it best but wasted too many of rather small reserves and lost the initiative totally.
[This message has been edited by -aper- (edited 03-24-2001).]
-
Hi!
Buzzbait- I would LOVE to see those numbers. And especially where they came from. Black Cross Red Star had some nice little statistics as well. There was absolutly no way you could state the Mighty 8th killed off the majority of the Luftwaffe during the Dolittle strategy change. For one thing the forces going against the 8th were never more than a pittance the Luftwaffe command could spare from the Eastern front. And for another- by the time the eighth got to hunt down the germans freely there only consisted of two types of pilots in the Luftwaffe- those with enormous experience and training- and those with almost none. And it was the sacrifices of the Eastern front over 3 years that made it so. And to top it all off- pilots transferred to the western front in '44 usually continued their records- the reverse usually left high scoring aces on the western front dead in weeks fighting the Soviets.
-
Just got around to noticing this thread...
"Why British, Soviet and Japanese aircraft are better than U.S. and German in AH"
They are? I thought the P-51 and FW-190D were the two best fighters (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
All a matter of opinion, and we all have a different one--which is what makes these BB's so great!
J_A_B
-
Widewing wrote:
Another factor not generally known was that the Soviets received 70% of the aviation fuel from the west. Gee, how long do you think they are going to fly once the fuel got cut off.
I'd like a reliable source for this statement, Widewing. It's certainly news to me.
avin
-
aper if you actually think Kursk was not a close fought battle with the issue in serious doubt on several occasions, then you neither read German or Russian accounts of the battle, where do you get your info?
As for the few Itanks Britain sent, The Russians did not like them at all, mobility was too low for their doctrine and cold weather reliability was non-exsistant.
And to take up one of Widewing's comments to task, so to speak, Why in the world would you need to escort bombers in the MA? hell, I've lost count of the times 5-6 guys would be flat out on the deck after a single fleeing fighter, while a buff coming in at 10-15K flew right past them, all because it doesn't matter to them until they RTB and find they have no fuel. Can't imagine real life fighter pilots allowing an enemy bomber to proceed unmolested like that. would have made a real poor showing for the RAF in BoB now wouldn't it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
As for the few Itanks Britain sent, The Russians did not like them at all, mobility was too low for their doctrine and cold weather reliability was non-exsistant
The "few" tanks included over 3700 Valentines, some from Canada, over a thousand Matilda IIs and around 300 Churchills. Perhaps you left out thousand after few?
The Russians liked the Valentine. They used them as light tanks, and asked that the production lines be kept open when Britain wanted to switch to prodcing better tanks.
The Matildas were sent early enough that some of them participated in the battle for Moscow in the winter of 41.
Britain also sent over 4500 Spits and Hurricane, again many in 1941 when the Russians most needed it.
-
Originally posted by avin:
I'd like a reliable source for this statement, Widewing. It's certainly news to me.
avin
See Professor Richard Overy's book, Russia's War. Published in 1998, Overy was granted access to much of the Russian's WWII records.
Did you know that more than 90% of all railroad stock, locomotives and rails used by the USSR were made in the USA? You may also wish to read Overy's Why the Allies Won.
My regards,
Widewing
-
pzvg
As I pointed out Kursk was great battle especially by number of tanks and aircrafts been involved in it. But the turn point in the war was Stalingrad because after the Stalingrad's catastrophe German army never was successful in strategic operation on Eastern front.
Nashwan
About 3000 of Hurricanes were sent to Russia in 1941-42. The first planes appeared to be unoperational in the terrible winter conditions of 1941-42. The oil radiators got broken under freeze and MGs worked very unreliable. The lack of spare wooden propellers was also big trouble. In spring of 1942 all the Hurricanes (old and newcoming) were sent to the special factory in Podlipky where they were reequiped and rearmed (2x20mm Shvak + 2x12,7mm UB) and the other factory started the production of wooden propellers for Hurricanes. So only in summer of 1942 the Hurricane squads became really operational.
Unfortunatelly they were totally outclassed at that time.
-
Well on Kursk. If you read accounts from both sides you will certainly come to the conclusion that it was indeed very close for the Soviets. If I remember correct, the clash at Prokhorovka was something like a desperate attempt to stop the 2nd SS and 3rd Panzerkorps. The 5th Guards Tank Army was rushed out of their readiness position and into this Head-to-Head battle. So tactically the Soviets were in a very disadvantaged position at that time, though strategically they achieved what they wanted. Without the landing in Sicily "Zitadelle" might have gone on and I don´t think anybody wants to think of what had happened in case of german success.
All in all I have to say that I´m very sorry to see how the american part of the war is overemphasized (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) .
-
Nashwan few was in Russian terms (g,d,r) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And yes I do know they liked the valentine, I said Itanks, you'll note.
Aper, I think you will find the Battle of the Bulge took place long after Stalingrad, Not too shabby an effort for an army that was no longer capable of offensive operations. Try this for an exercise in free thought, run Kursk in your mind, but kick off the German attack a week early.
(We ran this in a wargame, US Army staff college, and boy does it have a significant impact on the whole East front war, The Germans still lost WW2, but in Aug of '46)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Well on Kursk. If you read accounts from both sides you will certainly come to the conclusion that it was indeed very close for the Soviets. If I remember correct, the clash at Prokhorovka was something like a desperate attempt to stop the 2nd SS and 3rd Panzerkorps. The 5th Guards Tank Army was rushed out of their readiness position and into this Head-to-Head battle. So tactically the Soviets were in a very disadvantaged position at that time, though strategically they achieved what they wanted.
csThor
Russian Army had the compete reserve front in the battle of Kursk with their best tank armies and other guard forces. Btw these forces were use in the further offence of Russian Army in Ukraine in summer-autumn of 1943. Even huge Dnepr river didn't help a lot German Army to stop this offence.
Without the landing in Sicily "Zitadelle" might have gone on and I don´t think anybody wants to think of what had happened in case of german success.
All in all I have to say that I´m very sorry to see how the american part of the war is overemphasized
If you think that Sicily was a main reason of Zitadell's fail you really overemphasize something (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by -aper-:
If you think that Sicily was a main reason of Zitadell's fail you really overemphasize something (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I have read documents from Bundeswehr University Munich that state that the 5th Guards army was directed towards 2nd SS and 3rd Panzerkorps as the Soviets had nothing else left to stop them. In the original soviet plan the 5th Guards should be the spearhead of the soviet counter offensive after "Zitadelle" was stopped and so this unit had to be protected from suffering unnecessary (Golly-geen, this word makes me crazy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) losses. In fact the Southern german Group (4th Army, Genobst. Erich von Manstein) was close to break through the defensive lines in spite of heavy losses and a breakthrough would have thrown the soviet plans out of the window.
I do not overemphasize the importance of the landings in Sicily, but you can read in several sources (mine was "Memories of a soldier" by Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, Chief of all german armoured units at that time) that Hitler refused to allow Manstein to continue his attacks because he wanted the 2nd SS Panzerkorps to be shipped to Italy for defense. That means the soviet superiority in numbers (which was there already when "Zitadelle" started) had grown to a much greater extend and so (considering the losses of german tanks, artillery and planes and the capabilities of the soviet war industry) the successfull soviet offensive was not that surprising.
[This message has been edited by csThor (edited 03-26-2001).]
-
I have read documents from Bundeswehr University Munich that state that the 5th Guards army was directed towards 2nd SS and 3rd Panzerkorps as the Soviets had nothing else left to stop them. In the original soviet plan the 5th Guards should be the spearhead of the soviet counter offensive after "Zitadelle" was stopped and so this unit had to be protected from suffering unnecessary (Golly-geen, this word makes me crazy ) losses.
Actually the Russian reserv (Stepnoi front) had 580000 infantry, 9000 artillery , 1640 tanks - very significant forces (several armies including 5th Guards tank army and 5th Guards infantry army).
Only these two 5th Guards armies were taken from reserv and sent to cover the positions of the Voronezh's front (on the 6th of July). It was the most dangerous part of the Russian lines where German army despite of heavy losses managed to drive a wedge up to 30-35 km into Russian defence positions. The German panzerkorps hardly tryed to find the way to Oboyan', but the 1th and 6th Russian armies of Voronezh's front stayed well and the only way for panzerkorps was 8-9 km field on the west of Prokchorovka. The first groups of panzers were spoted there in the evening on the 11th of Julay. The 5th Guards armies got the order to counterattack the German tank forces and in the morning on the 12th of July the great tanks battle began...
BTW simultaneously on the 12th of July Russian armies of Brjansky and Zapadny fronts started the offence operation on the opposite flank and on the 15th of July it was supported also by the armies of Centralny front. So the German army got a big problem (because of the very limited reservs) and was needed to stop the offence on Voronezh's front and start to think something about defence. (So it happend without Sicily operation).
-
I think you should not confuse "..nothing left..." with the general lack of reserves. In fact the main part of the Reserve Front stationed behind the ops area was placed far north as the STAWKA had thought of the northern sector to be center of attack (which was not correct). So no forces were close enough except the 5th Guards, as the majority of the tank units stationed in the southern sector had suffered high losses from german tanks and planes. I cannot completely recall when and which units but I know that some of the reserves had to be included into the defensive units because of the losses.
-
Regarding the battle of Kursk, it wasn't that the Soviet's Steppe Front were running dry - far from it. It was that the Stavka had to get reinforcements to the main attack axis in a timely manner. It was difficult at times to insure that this was done, which is why Steppe Front assets were used: they happened to be the closest armor assets at the crucial moment.
The Soviet plan was to put continuous pressure on the German flanks while blunting the head of the attack. By doing this German reserves would be redirected to the flanks, and the actual push would be very narrow, ripe for possible encirlement. Operationally, as aper states, there were a series of diversionary attacks, both north and south of the Kursk salient, and these were done to use up German operational reserves.
So basically, while the SS Panzer Corps was making steady headway, it was being done at a terrible price in men and equipment (there were not many German Pz Vs and VIs losses in the attack, but their support was taking a very heavy beating). Couple this with the fact that almost all German reserves had been committed, and you can understand why the attack was called off.
Glantz has compared German archival records with Soviet archival records, and wrt Kursk OKH had no idea just how many Soviets were deployed in and around the salient, nor did they realize how fortified the area had become. This became more and more common as the war progessed. While the Red Army may not have been as skilled in tactical combat as the Germans, they were second to none when it came to operational intelligence and deception.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Originally posted by Widewing:
See Professor Richard Overy's book, Russia's War. Published in 1998, Overy was granted access to much of the Russian's WWII records.
Did you know that more than 90% of all railroad stock, locomotives and rails used by the USSR were made in the USA? You may also wish to read Overy's Why the Allies Won.
My regards,
Widewing
I find it interesting that Overy also theorizes that no other type of government could have withstood such a German attack, and that it may be possible that only a leader such as Stalin could have held it all together during that time.
Btw, how much Glantz have you read?
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 03-26-2001).]
-
Originally posted by leonid:
I find it interesting that Overy also theorizes that no other type of government could have withstood such a German attack, and that it may be possible that only a leader such as Stalin could have held it all together during that time.
Btw, how much Glantz have you read?
I've read some of Glantz's magazine articles and I just picked up a copy of his book on Operation Mars.
I'm curious as to how Glantz has been received in Russia. How reliable do you see him?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing:
I've read some of Glantz's magazine articles and I just picked up a copy of his book on Operation Mars.
I'm curious as to how Glantz has been received in Russia. How reliable do you see him?
My regards,
Widewing
Glantz has been at this for quite some time, not as long as Erickson, but since the 80's at least. He is very respected within the historian community, including the Russian one. Glantz' work on the Russian front is usually done by getting as much material from both sides, then trying to find the answer through the biases. He tends to focus more from the Soviet side, mostly because it has not really been represented since war's end, in the western world. However, that doesn't mean he necessarily favors the Soviets' side as his work on Operation Mars illustrates. That book incidently pissed off quite a few Russians. Personally, I have great respect for his work, as well as Erickson's. The reason is that they both have taken great strides to getting sufficient data from both sides before making any assessments. A lot of Glantz' earlier works can be found at Frank Cass Pubs.
And regarding Soviet military archival material, it is probably one of the most detailed, and accurate, library of documents you'll find in the world. The reason is that this was the collection of reports and assessments created by military circles for military circles in the Red Army. Accountability was demanded to determine the methods and the cost for victory. Anything less then truthful reports could have very dire consequences. In reality, accuracy wasn't too hard to come by, since the Soviets were really fighting for their existence as a people, rather than just a political entity.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
S! Leonid
You asked me to post material regarding which airforce was the most responsible for the destruction of the Luftwaffe. I did so in my post: "Who destroyed the Luftwaffe?". But I don't see a comment from you.
By the way, I am not biased against the Soviets. Neither am I an American trying to show how wonderful they were. I'm a Canadian and I grew up admiring Spitfire and Typhoon pilots. But the facts say the US Strat bombing campaign was the largest factor in destroying the Luftwaffe's ability to control the air over its troops and Germany.
In regards to the discussion ongoing regarding the contribution of the Soviets on the ground:
The Soviets did more damage to the Werhmacht than any other nation. Without a doubt the Lend Lease which was provided to them by the U.S. and Britain was very helpful, perhaps crucial in a logistical sense. But the vast majority of the material which the Soviets used to fight the German Army was Soviet produced. Their tanks were superior to any the Allies sent them. In fact many experts believe the Soviet Tanks were superior to the German. Their guns usually had equal armour penetrative ability, but additionally they usually were a larger caliber, which made them more effective versus Infantry. They were usually faster, and had as good armour protection. Their treads were larger, which gave them better cross country ability. The IS-122 was more than a match for the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II. The only area where the Germans had significant advantages was in Optics. The better lenses on the Panzers allowed them to engage successfully at much longer ranges. The Soviets compensated for this by extensive use of smoke to obscure the view of the attacking tanks.
The German Army never had less than 55% of its troops committed to the Eastern Front. During the crucial years '41-'43, the number was closer to 70%. While the British were fighting 4 or 5 German Divisions at El Alamein, the Soviets were facing 100's. And beating them. The fact is, the Soviet Armies would have driven to Berlin whether or not the Allies had invaded at Normandy. Beginning in 1943, the Soviets launched offensives twice a year, in Summer and Winter. These always cracked the German Fronts within a few days. The subsequent advances only ended when supply distances to depots became too great for trucks (yes U.S. Supplied often) to supply the attacking columns, or the heavy artillery to keep up. (Normally supply came from railheads, and the Russian rail gauge was a different width from the standard European and German, and since the Germans had converted all the rail to standard, the Soviets had to regauge it as they advanced. This took some time.)
Once the advance ended, the Soviets would simply begin preparations for another offensive. They would bring up and emplace their artillery, restock their divisions, create new supply depots and when everything was ready, would simply break the front again. There was nothing the Germans were able to do to stop them.
Matching up the Soviet Armies versus the Western Allies in 1945 shows to the Allies disadvantage. The Allies only had advantages in the area of artillery fire control and in the air. The Soviets greatly outnumbered them, and their equipment was generally superior. It is likely that with the start of hostilities, the Allies would have been driven back to the Rhine. But Strategically, the Soviets would undoubtably have lost in the end, ever without considering the Atomic bomb.
The fact was, the Soviets were actually exhausted by '45. They had suffered 27 million dead, (mostly civilians killed during the incredible barbarism of the German occupation, their military losses were in the 8 million range) They were actually beginning to run out of manpower to replenish their divisions. They needed to rebuild their infrastructure, the Germans had destroyed everything of value as they retreated. The Soviets needed to put people back to work rebuilding their country, not keep them under arms.
One last comment: Someone above mentioned he thought that the Soviets needed a leader like Stalin in order to win the war. I strongly disagree. Stalin was the primary reason the Soviets had so many problems initially in surviving the German onslaught. It was his purges in the '30's which eliminated the experienced Officer corps, and it was his idiotic commands during the summer of '41 which saw 1/2 the Soviet army destroyed. It was only when he surrendered tactical command to Zhukov and allowed him to prepare the Moscow Counter-Offensive in November of 1941, that the Soviets began the long road back. Even then he didn't learn his lesson. In the Spring of 1942, Stalin insisted on the ill-considered Kharkov Offensive, which lost the Soviets close to 500,000 troops which they could ill-afford. They should have been held back to meet the Summer '42 German Offensive. After that he let his generals run things until 1944, by which time the situation was very much under control. Stalin was a parasite on his people. Only the ordinary Russian soldier's incredible heroism and stamina saved the Soviet Union.
-
The lend-lease equipment did not reach the Soviets in time to aid the the decisive battles of '41 and mid '42, however, by late '42 and '43 onwards the lend-lease equipment played a very important role in the Soviet's ability to advance and keep their army in check. The most important objects supplied to the Soviets were most likely the trucks used for transportation of troops and supplies, iirc during one of the advances towards Berlin by the soviets in late '44 14,000 of the 18,000 trucks used in this advance were of Western origin.
Also, I disagree about how the Soviet advance across the Don towards the Donets and into Belgogrod and Kharkov was a mistake. This front in the northern sector above the caucuses was important to prevent a German counter attack from this sector to the south and indanger the Soviet southern front. Also, I belive Stalin knew that Hitler would order his forces to hold Kharkov to the last man, similar to his mistake in Stalingrad, however, this time the German command in Kharkov went against the Fuehrer directive and evacuated the city on Feb 15th 1943 and retreated back only to retake the Kharkov front from the Soviets in early March--which caught them totally by surprise.
It most also be remembered that the Soviet's waited to see if the British 8th Army advance in N. Africa was successfull before launching their Nov 19th winter offensive towards Stalingrad and to the South along the Volga and into the Caucases.
-
Buzzbait,
Sorry, but I really never questioned who hit the Luftwaffe the hardest. My posts were directed at the effect lend lease had on the Red Army. In fact, I agree with you. The USAAF daylight strategic bombing was the major cause of the destruction of the jagdfliegeren, and in hindsight was arguably of greater importance than the actual bombing campaign itself. And the P-51 was the icing on the cake.
Nath,
From an operational point of view the reckless Soviet advance towards Kharkov in the winter of '43 was a clear case of self-deception. The STAVKA and operational commands were so firm in their belief that the German line would collapse that they continually ignored their subordinate commanders' warnings of a German buildup until it was much too late. Fortunately, the recklessness of this costly operation was not lost on the Red Army. From that point on, the Soviets never took anything for granted.
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
well, i dont think many of us are ww2 pilots, so we dont know how the planes flew. in most cases the guys flyin, for which ever side in real life had a few hours in the plane, or at least to where the could feal what the plane was going to do, not may people get to that point on aces high. they just get pised off and start callen people hacker (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) thats my opionin, btw i still fly the G-10
------------------
(http://www.user.shentel.net/vonz/jato.JPG)
[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 03-27-2001).]
-
S! Nath
I wasn't referring to the Spring '43 advance towards Kharkov and the Dneiper. That was part of Zhukov's plan for the advance after Stalingrad. And it was certainly worth the attempt, although the Soviet Tank Corps overstretched themselves in the attempt to cut off and trap the Germans in the Rostov area.
I was referring to the Spring '42 Offensive, the first attempt to retake Kharkov. This followed the Soviet Counter-Offensive at Moscow. After that successful attack, Stalin thought the Soviets had worn down the Germans enough to resume a strategic offensive posture. In fact the Germans actually outnumbered the Soviets at that point in the war, and the best tactic would have been a defensive mode. As it was, the attack was a complete failure, and made the German Army Group South Offensive in towards the Caucasus and the oilfields much easier. Fortunately for the Soviets and the rest of the world, Hitler got fixated on Stalingrad, instead of bypassing it, and the rest is history.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Widewing,
Just picture 1945 and the war ends with Germany and begins with the Soviet Union. There would be no Mig15, that was captured German technology. Imagine hoards of B-17 and B-29's flying over Moscow at 25K to 30K. What was going to come up and stop them?
Except of course with the Russian strategic targets all safely behind the Urals, the B17's and P51's could not reach them..... then the best prepared ground war (ground support airforce) would have won..plus the Russkies would have had 20 million people not yet killed in the war to throw into the equation.
-
Actually, as has been mentioned before, B-29's and such could have reached the VVS factories by flying from India and surrounding countries I believe.
Also consider this. Japan had surendered. This gives the extremly experienced US and Comonwealth forces a base from which to launch an invasion of the eastern coast of Russia. I believe that between the US Navy and planes from Japan, air superiority could have been achieved and landings effected. Plus, if a port like Vladivostok (sp) could be taken, supply problems would become much less problematic.
And I wonder how long it would have taken someone to figure out to use the A-Bomb in a tactical roll. It would take only one B-29 to stop any massed Soviet army in it's tracks. And that is something that wouldn't require very accurate bombing.
This move instantly would instantly take some pressure off the Allies in Europe. In fact it might become the bigger problem due to the proximity to Soviet industry.
This is just an idea I've had. Not completely sure it would work, but I don't see why not.
And remember, the Allies would have been able to fight with two jets, not just one. Not only did the RAF have Meteors, but the F-80 had already reached Italy by the end of the war. Lockheed was gearing up for major production of the jets when the war ended. At that point production was significantly scaled back, several hundred were still built by 1947. And you know that the US could've churned out a bunch more if the need was there.
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
-
3 jets. The Vampire entered production in eary 45
-
S!
And the Vampire was a lot better jet than the Meteor.
-
RE: a post-WWII Allied invasion of the Soviet Union. It's true that B-29s might have been able to bomb the Urals or the Baku region, and that Allied troops might even have been able to land troops in Siberia. But what you're not taking into consideration is time. All these theories would require a lot of time, a couple months at the very least to plan for(think logistical nightmare). In the meantime the Red Army is parked right in front of the Allies along the front, complete with the VVS.
After what the Germans did to Russia from a surprise attack, do you think the Soviets would idly watch once again as all the telltale signs of buildup became evident along the Allied front?
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
I think it's quite amusing to see people theorising on the B29s winning the war with Russia (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Any army needs infantry to win and hold territory. On the ground Russian tanks would be shoving the remains of Allied would-be-assailants into the Mediterranian before the B29s from the first air assault would return to their bases.
By early '45 nothing Allies had was even comparable to latest Russian tanks arriving to the front in droves - IS-2s (IS-3s and T44s just missed the action but were manufactured and shipped to frontline tank divisions). Majority of Soviet infantry carried automatic weapons. Il-2s/10s were never actually matched in their day as an air-to-ground attack aircraft... And the army that had just defeated Hitler's Germany had the best combat experience and highets possible morale.
America reigned supreme in the Pacific/sea battles and in startegic bombing but on the ground... Let's just say you guys weren't the best, OK? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Exhaused industry? Sure, in "mainland industrial Russia" it was actually non-existent as Germans destroyed anything they couldn't take with them. It was different story altogether in, say, Novosobirsk - a town (wasn't obviously as big in those days but now ~1.5 million people) in the middle of Western Siberia where all factories were working in full swing building planes, tanks etc...
Allies planes using bases in China? You do remember who is in power in China, don't you? At the time Mao Tse Dung was the best friend with Russians - they brought him to power after all.
Nuke the bastards? Hmmm... How many A-bombs did US have at the time?
Allies landing in Siberia? Hmmm again... And then what? The Soviet Union used to occupy 1/6 (!) of all landmass on this planet. You land in Vladivostok and it's a 6,000 miles to Moscow - through mud, wilderness, forests...
Guys, no disrespect, but you have no idea what you're talking about when you say "we ran a wargame and..."
I've been watching all the experts on Russian affairs available in this country for the last 10 years - and they just make me laugh with their "assessments".
On the other hand, it's great to see some people whose outlook on history does not seem to have heavy anti-communist bias - <S>!
p.s. I was also wondering how your democratic government would explain to the voters the unprovoked attack on an country you fought together against Nazis just a few days ago with hunderds of thousands of casualties to boot arriving in a very short order?
p.p.s. I bet you anything that if you run an "wargame" with an American army, Navy and the Airforce attacking with all they've got a small country in, say, Indochina...
-
Hehe Yeah lynx you are oh so correct,
Tell you what old chap, I'll just pop down to the U.S. Army Staff College and tell them those wargames were pure BS, would you do me the kindness of dropping by SandHurst and letting them know the participation of Her Majesties Armed Forces was a mistake, since it was all baloney.
Next time read everything and comprehend it,
To look knowledgeable is a lot trickier than looking merely foolish.
Regards,
Wilton Stewman, United States Army
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
pzvg
Aren't you mixing WAR and War Game? In War Game you can win the Battle of Kursk in 3 days in real life - never.
If WWIIOnline be successfull we'll see the big online War Game. And we'll be very surprised how good the French Army will do against the German Army just because it is a game where too many important factors are not taken into account.
-
Next time read everything and comprehend it,
To look knowledgeable is a lot trickier than looking merely foolish.
Hey pzvg - sure thing pal, can't agree more: next time you try to realise that "wargame" outcome depends on information input, so does the accuracy of that outcome. 200 fighters, apparently, beat the hell out of VVS on a daily basis (I wonder what happened to 39,000 109s manufactured, musta been damaged in taxiing accidents) - too bad it didn't affect the outcome, right? Quotes taken out of context are represented as underlying views etc. Hell - I saw it so many times it stopped being amusing.
Again - lets see the U.S. Army Staff College playing Vietnam over and over. And winning. You suggested the same versus an enemy who was just as motivated, infinitely better armed and trained, not afraid to die for their country and on a scale that would swallow both Americas. And you'd won? Hey waiter - I'll have what this guy's having, sounds like a good stuff (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Michael Zarutsky, 1st Lieutenant (retired) Motorized Infantry.
-
Go ahead have a cow, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Politicians lost 'Nam, The NVA never won a single battle by their own admission. So that's not relevant.
While you seem overwhelmingly proud of the Soviet's war effort, You forget the rather obvious, namely the America fought 2 wars, the pacific and european, at the same time, across vast distances, In case you hadn't noticed, the Soviet Navy of the time wasn't up to stopping the US from arriving off it's shores, as for the "impenetrable" vastness of the Eastern USSR, that's hardly the problem it seems to an army that got there over 9,000 miles of ocean. The upshot is, my Russian friend, not only do the military people in America disagree with your theory, but in others as well, Hell, I'm sure the Russians themselves weren't looking at the idea with a gleam in their eyes post '45. You can take whatever stance you choose, In the real world you stand discredited by the people who do know what was possible then, Basing your conclusions on the much later status quo of the Cold War and some rather suspect facts, Is kind of like trying to describe the taste of fire.
On that note, I'll be departing this conversation, since using established proof seems to be rebutted by "I know you are but what am I"
Y'all try to have a nice life, y'heah (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
[This message has been edited by pzvg (edited 03-30-2001).]
-
"Just the facts, ma'am, if you please."
Equipment Lend-Leased To The USSR
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/lus.htm (http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/lus.htm)
or, if you prefer specifics, item by item:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html)
It's all there, blasting cap by blasting cap, shoe by shoe, tack by tack, chemical by chemical, and on and on and on.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Here's the summation:
SUMMARY
MUNITIONS $4,651,582,000
NON-MUNITIONS 4,826,084,000
Total 9,477,666,000
Note: the figure of $11 billion includes services as well as goods furnished.
The U.S. Government has never released detailed reports on what was sent in Lend-Lease, so Major Jordan's data, gleaned from the Russians' own manifests, is the only public record. More than one-third of Lend-Lease sent was illegal under the terms of the act which specifically prohibited "goods furnished for relief and rehabilitation purposes."
It should be kept in mind that Russia was an ally of Japan throughout the war, that it had been the ally of Hitler during the first two years of the war, that its division of Poland with Germany started the war, that it was an agressive imperialist force that attacked Finland and subverted the Baltic states as well, that it had announced that it intended to take over the world and that most of the aid sent in 1945 was sent after Stalin's February speech in which he said he would continue the war but against the United States.
Franklin Roosevelt's alter ego and Lend-Lease administrator Harry L. Hopkins, a KGB agent, declared to Russia before a crowd at Madison Square Garden on June 22, 1942, that: "We are determined that nothing shall stop us from sharing with you all that we have." He was not joking.
-
S! to those non-paranoid types
Hey Toad what have you been smoking? Harry Hopkins is a KGB agent... OK :O)
The fact is, the U.S. and Britain sent a lot of supplies to the Soviet Union. Yes.
Why?
Because they were in a life and death struggle with an extremely powerful alliance of nations. The outcome of the war was not a certainty. In 1941, '42, '43 someone had to deal with the monster which was threatening to overwhelm the world.
And the Soviet Union was tying down and fighting the overwhelming BULK of the Germans/Italians/Rumanians/Hungarians/Slovaks/Finns, etc. Have a read of the facts re. how many German divisions were commmitted to the Eastern front. Check the figures on how many Wehrmacht casualties were inflicted there. The Soviet Union won the war on land versus the Germans. No ifs, ands or buts. Yes, the Western Allies supplied a lot of material, but the guys doing the fighting... They spoke Russian.
Have you ever heard the phrase: "My Enemy's enemy is my friend"? Well figure it out from there.
The U.S. government did not like Joe Stalin and his evil crew, but they did know some basic strategy. If the Soviets lost and 200+ German divisions were turned around to face the West, how easy would it be to get ashore at Normandy????? If the all the German's Oil supply problems were solved with the capture of the Caucasus oil fields how helpful is that????? If the Germsns suddenly get the huge resources of the Soviet Union, including all those people they can use for slave labour, how big a boost is that going to be for the Axis economy????? If the Germans and Japanese now have a land bridge to link them so they can exchange supplies and technology, how is that going to affect fighting in the Pacific?????
Figure it out.
Maybe next time you won't come here talking out your A**
-
By the way...
The Soviet Union was NEVER an ally of the Japanese. Their relations were semi-hostile neutrality. The Russians and Japanese were never friendly. Heard of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War???? In addition, the Soviet Union and Japan fought an undeclared war in 1937 at Khalkin Gol in the Manchurian/Mongolian Border region. Zhukov commanded the Soviet troops and the Japanese got their butts spanked. Armies involved totaled in the 300,000 range.
After that the Japanese figured out that the Soviets were tough cookies and left them alone. And the Soviets weren't stupid enough to declare war when they were barely hanging on by their fingernails at Moscow and Stalingrad.
You need to do some historical research instead of consuming whatever intoxicants you specialize in.
-
Yes, but what could the Soviets have done without the 13,328 teeth, 400$ of lipstick and $4,352 of amusement park and playground devices sent by the US?
Imagine the look of horror on the beleaguered German soldiers' faces when they saw fresh Soviet divisions all gussied up and grinning ear to ear atop their brand new ferris-wheels. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
S!
Correction: Khalkin Gol was in 1939.
-
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Good one Regurge. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Buzz,
That is not my summation. That's the summation on that web page. Did it get you stoked up enough to read the web page? I hope so. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The web page is probably the most complete list of items the USA sent to the USSR that I have ever seen.
I did do a search on Major Jordan's Diaries. Those are pretty interesting all by themselves and led me to the book he wrote. I want to find that and read it.
That led to some interesting info on Hopkins and other aspects of our atomic program. That led to a search on "Harry Hopkins KGB" on Google. More interesting info.
Here's a taste to whet your appetite for controversy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"There is one more book based on VENONA due out in 2000, the late Eric Breindel and Herbert Romerstein’s The Venona Secrets: The Soviet Union’s World War II Espionage Campaign against the United States and How America Fought Back: A Story of Espionage, Counterespionage, and Betrayal. It has distinction beyond its long title. It will add corroboration to the work of Haynes and Klehr with new documentation and analysis, putting particular emphasis on the role of the Communist Party in Soviet espionage in America. Undoubtedly, the most controversial facet of this book will be the portion arguing that Harry Hopkins was VENONA Agent 19. This will surely not be a popular thesis."
I can't vouch for any of it, however. The Venona documents are available on the NSA website: http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/ (http://www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/)
I haven't had time to look at those yet. It does look like an area where I would like to do more research and it does provide a starting point for the discussion.
If you want to dismiss it because you've already made up your mind, fine. I enjoy researching stuff like this. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Now, to some of your points.
I think calling Russia an "ally" of Japan is too strong. But then, I didn't write that summation.
However, it is undeniable that they both signed a "PACT OF NEUTRALITY BETWEEN UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND JAPAN" on April 13, 1941. Here's the entire text:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410413a.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410413a.html)
A good page. Has the later (1945) Soviet denunciation and rejection of the neutrality treaty (one year before the pact expired (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) and declaration of war against Japan as well.
Now you figure this out, Buzz old chum:
Where on this BBS have I ever said anything against the Russians in their fight against Germany? About all I have ever addressed with regards to that topic, in various threads, is the Lend-Lease aspect. Nor have I ever suggested it wasn't worth it, for either side.
For the most part I have merely pointed folks to threads that show the terms of the agreement, how much aid and what type aid was given, the cost and the eventual unlimited term, interest-free repayment of, write-off of and deferred payment of some of the debt.
So, before you go tooting through your own rectal orifice, why don't you take a bit of time to read what I have actually said instead of jumping to conclusions? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
A pact of neutrality is a long way from an Alliance. They signed the agreement because they didn't want anymore "undeclared wars" erupting on their borders, not because they were bosom buddies. And either side would have broken the treaty had they felt they had the opportunity. The Soviets got the first chance. The Japanese didn't because the Soviets kept a large force of men in the Vladivostok, Manchuria area during '41-'44 to discourage them.
-
What? No apology about accusing me of taking illicit drugs? No remorse about the accusation of a "lack of historical research?" No thought of the pain that being called "intoxicated" brings?
No comment on the Venona information about Hopkins? The possibility that there may be something there?
I'm saddened. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Yeah, and FDR was a Commie too.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
What? No apology about accusing me of taking illicit drugs? No remorse about the accusation of a "lack of historical research?" No thought of the pain that being called "intoxicated" brings?
No comment on the Venona information about Hopkins? The possibility that there may be something there?
I'm saddened. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You really want it? You get it: you're taking illicit drugs that intoxicate you and thus you lack of historical research (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Just 2 questions to you:
1. American and Britain troops had already tried to invade Russia. Maybe you know when and why?
2. Can you plz tell me the name of that "herb" ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Íåò íó ÿ çíàë, ÷òî àìû îãðàíè÷åííûå, îçàáî÷åííûå ñîáñòâåííûì ïðåâîñõîäñòâîì äåãåíåðàòû (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) íî ÷òîá íàñòîëüêî!!!
[This message has been edited by StormFB (edited 03-31-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Equipment Lend-Leased To The USSR
Here's the summation:
SUMMARY
MUNITIONS $4,651,582,000
NON-MUNITIONS 4,826,084,000
Total 9,477,666,000
An estimated 13,600,000 Soviet sons and daughters in the Red Army died in the war against the Axis. They died fighting to stop Hitler, his band of genocidal maniacs, and a militaristic country that couldn't see the forest for the trees. If they hadn't stopped Hitler, then the USA would've had to do so at some later point, and under worse conditions, possibly even, in a worst case scenario, on their own home soil.
So, in a way you could say the USA paid $696.89 for every Soviet soldier that gave their life trying to stop Hitler. By doing so, the USA insured a number of things:- That only 0.4% of the pre-war population would die in war(as opposed to the Soviets' 10.4%).
- That the chance of Axis invasion would never occur.
- That the economic structure of the USA would remain untouched and intact, guaranteeing a very profitable future in a war-torn world market.
Now, I call that money well spent, don't you? What better way to fight a war? The Byzantines could not have done any better.
Flame on!
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GvIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
This discussion is too cool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
Who is flaming anyone?
The others here I'd expect, but you usually read for content Leonid.
Look at the above post:
"About all I have ever addressed with regards to that topic, in various threads, is the Lend-Lease aspect. Nor have I ever suggested it wasn't worth it, for either side."
Leonid: "So, in a way you could say the USA paid $696.89 for every Soviet soldier..."
Yeah, I guess you could say that if you were really trying twist things into unrecognizable shape.
The US wasn't hiring mercenaries and you know it.
Roosevelt stated the policy in his "FOUR FREEDOMS" SPEECH on January 6, 1941, nearly a year before Pearl Harbor.
"Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need man power. They
do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense...
Let us say to the democracies: "we Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge."
Here's the text of the Lend-Lease act with Russia:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/amsov42.htm (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/amsov42.htm)
Here's the correspondence between Stalin and Roosevelt about Lend-Lease.
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/LendL.html (http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/LendL.html)
We supported the Soviet effort to a degree second only to that which we supported the British effort.
Storm, I guess you are referring to the US participation in this:
"An Allied force under British command was dispatched by sea and on August 3, 1918, seized the city of Archangel and drove the Bolshevik troops to the south of that place. The first American troops ashore are fifty sailors from the USS Olympia. The British government had previously urged the United States to contribute a contingent and as a result the War Department directed the Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces to send three battalions of infantry and three companies of engineers to join this Allied venture. The 339th Infantry, 1st Battalion of the 310th Engineers, 337th Field Hospital and 337th Ambulance Company, all of the 85th Division, were designated. They sailed from England, and arrived in Northern Russia on September 4...."
...and the British/French/Turkish invasion of Crimea?
Lot of world history to review, given the general nature of the question. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Lets not forget that "arsenal of freedom" wasn't giving away weapons for free, it was all paid for by countries who recieved it.
mx22
-
Yep, that's right. That's why they called it "LEND-Lease".
"In a personal message to Mr. Stalin, President Roosevelt states:
...(5) He proposes, subject to the approval of the Soviet Government, that no interest be charged by the United States on such indebtedness as may be incurred by the Soviet Government arising out of these shipments and that on such indebtedness as the Soviet Government may incur, payments shall begin only five years after the end of the war, and that the payments be made over a period of ten years after the expiration of this five-year period."
Those were the terms for all countries initially, I think. However, the terms were amended and some debt was totally forgiven, some debt was restructured, the length of the loans were significantly extended and some of the debt remains unpaid to this day.
I guess your implication is that there is something wrong with the "Lend" part of lend lease? That we should have just given it away without requiring repayment?
If the Lend-Lease total in 1945 dollars was converted to 2000 dollars the total would be $485,142,857,143. Could we just give that away today?
Beyond that, governmental and business practices were quite a bit different in the 1940's than they are now. The very idea of Lend-Lease was considered pretty radical at the time.
United States Lend-Lease Act
British Empire $31,390,000,000
Soviet Union 11,100,000,000
France 3,230,000,000
China 1,557,399,993
American republics 495,410,240
The Netherlands 230,127,717
Greece 75,475,880
Belgium 148,394,457
Norway 51,524,124
Turkey 26,026,355
Yugoslavia 32,026,355
Other countries 24,787,879
Aid not charged to foreign governments 2,578,827,000
Total $50,940,000,000
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 03-31-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Storm, I guess you are referring to the US participation in this:
"An Allied force under British command was dispatched by sea and on August 3, 1918, seized the city of Archangel and drove the Bolshevik troops to the south of that place. The first American troops ashore are fifty sailors from the USS Olympia. The British government had previously urged the United States to contribute a contingent and as a result the War Department directed the Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces to send three battalions of infantry and three companies of engineers to join this Allied venture. The 339th Infantry, 1st Battalion of the 310th Engineers, 337th Field Hospital and 337th Ambulance Company, all of the 85th Division, were designated. They sailed from England, and arrived in Northern Russia on September 4...."
...and the British/French/Turkish invasion of Crimea?
Lot of world history to review, given the general nature of the question. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Exactly (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Now can you please say in brief what happened next and why?
The whole idea of intervention into the USSR in 1945 is even more a bluff the Hitler's BlitzKrieg. I don't need to prove it. Russia has been proving it for hundreds of years.
PS: as for Land-Lease you just need to compare numbers produced by the UUSR and landleased.
-
You'll have to be a bit more specific Storm.
What happened in Crimea?
What happened after Archangel in 1918?
Also, I don't know what you are referring to here:
"The whole idea of intervention into the USSR in 1945".
Lastly, I'm glad you folks didn't need the Lend-Lease at all, since you had it all well under control with production.
-
Toad,
Noone says that Lend Lease wasn't needed, nor that US didn't help other Allied countries. It's just from reading above posts it's easy to get an idea that US did it for absolutely free, which is of course, not true.
mx22
-
Originally posted by Toad:
You'll have to be a bit more specific Storm.
What happened in Crimea?
What happened after Archangel in 1918?
Sorry if my question was unclear. I meant what happend to the troops in general. How succesfull were they?
Originally posted by Toad:
Also, I don't know what you are referring to here:
"The whole idea of intervention into the USSR in 1945".
Lastly, I'm glad you folks didn't need the Lend-Lease at all, since you had it all well under control with production.
This refered to the idea of attacking the USSR right after the war by the allies.
Land lease... hmmm, you probably think it played the key role in the war, don't you?
-
Note: Vast oversimplification follows (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif):
Crimea 1854-1856: Tsarist forces move into Ottoman Turkish territory. British & French help Turks engage and quickly drive Russians back out of disputed territory. Probably should have quit right there, but tried to take Sevastopol. Russians lose a close one at Balaclava, get pushed back again at Inkerman. After a lot of sickness (cholera), inept supply and stupidity, Sevastopol falls to British/French/Turks and war is ended by the Treaty of Paris.
That about what you were looking for?
Vast oversimplification of The 1918 Russian Intervention follows (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif):
Allied war supplies were stored both at Murmansk and Archangel. An Allied representative who saw the supplies wrote that there were "acres on acres of barbed wire, stands of small arms, cases of ammunition and pyramids of shells of all calibres; great parks of artillery, motor trucks, field kitchens, ambulances--thousands of them; railroad iron, wheels, axles, rails, coils of precious copper telegraph wire; most important of all, the regularly piled, interminable rows of metal pig--the alloys so essential for artillery production--and the sinister looking sheds where the T.N.T. was stored."
The Allies thought the Bolsheviks might be working with the Germans (Remember that Lenin was sent back to Russia on a German train), and so were afraid of the possibility that the supplies would fall into German hands.
Meanwhile, there was a lack of food in North Russia. Two British food ships were sent to Archangel trade food for the Allied war materials, but that was refused. Later the contents of one of the food ships was traded for the release of foreign nationals who were trying to leave Russia by ship from Archangel.
The British and the French were pressing the U.S. to send three U.S. battalions to North Russia. In a memorandum on July 17, 1918, President Wilson yielded to these requests "in the matter of establishing a small force at Murmansk, to guard the military stores at Kola, and to make it safe for Russian forces to come together in organized bodies in the north."
Wilson went on to say that these U.S. military units were not to take part in an organized intervention in the Murmansk or Archangel areas, and that he would withdraw them from Russia and send them to France if offensive use of the Americans troops came to pass.
President Wilson thought he was sending the 339th Infantry to guard supplies at Murmansk, but the British had a different Russian strategy.
To make a long story short, a small multinational force at the end of a very long supply line, operating for the dubious purpose of trying to influence the Russian Civil War... eventually withdrew.
The US troops got a new American commander who arrived at Archangel in April 1919 with orders to withdraw. As soon as navigation opened in June, the American forces left northern Russia.
British troops withdrew a few months later, but the anti-Bolshevik government they left behind held the city until February 1920.
American forces numbered about 5000; between Sept 1918 and May 1919 many minor operations
against the Bolshevist forces took place, resulting in more than 500 American casualties.
BTW, Allied forces also intervened in Siberia about the same time and with about the same result.
With the withdrawal of Russia from the war against Germany, the 40,000 strong Czech Legion, which had been fighting with the Russians against the Germans, began a slow retreat eastward, through the Ukraine, and then into Siberia. The allies had decided to remove the Czechs from the port of Vladivostok and transport them around the world to the western front in France, but on their way across Siberia on the Trans-Siberian railroad, conflicts developed between them and the Bolshevik officials along the route, which by May had become open warfare.
Another multinational force, including 70,000 Japanese, 829 British, 1,400 Italian, and 107 Ammahese troops under French command were in Siberia. Canada sent troops both on the task force to northern Russia and to Siberia.
About 8,5,00 men, primarily from the US 8th Infantry Division were deployed. There were several encounters with armed partisans that resulted in the death of 36 Americans.
So the "Russian Intervention" involved two diffent sets of US troops working with other multinational forces. All did relatively little fighting and casualties were relatively light. Nothing much was accomplished.
Do I get a passing grade in history now, Professor Storm?
...and no, I don't think Lend-Lease won the war.
Do you think Russia didn't need it at all?
-
Thank you Toad for the links - very interesting reading. I don't think anyone is saying that LL was not needed. Some people just go somewhat overboard pushing it's contribution to the outcome of the war.
Pointing the finger to the value of the supplies and not showing the value of Russia's own contribution to the war effort leaves a one-sided picture IMHO. To keep to the aviation theme I'll give you just one example: ~19,000 planes of all makes were sent to Russia under LL while Il-2s alone production run was in excess of 44,000 with a total of ~140,000 planes of all types supplied to VVS by Soviet aviation industry during the war.
A good page. Has the later (1945) Soviet denunciation and rejection of the neutrality treaty (one year before the pact expired (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) and declaration of war against Japan as well.
This looks like you're not entirely approve of Russia's sticking to the treaties with your good selves and England about declaring war on Japan - your enemy at the time.
It's been discussed here before. Had someone on your side bothered to tell the Russians that you had the bomb and were planning on winding up the Pacific campaign before tea tomorrow at the latest they wouldn't have bothered shipping hundreds of thousands of troops with all the tanks, guns and other related crap 6,000 miles across the continent. You were fighting the war in the Far East. They promised to help and stuck to their word, facing ~1,000,000-strong Japaneese army btw. Would you agree that winking at their efforts was a tad disrespectful?
So, in a way you could say the USA paid $696.89 for every Soviet soldier that gave their life trying to stop Hitler.
Leonid - it wasn't an investment, Russia paid for everything in gold as far as I know. This payment included over thousand Cobras and Kingcobras (and other supplies) lost with merchant ships in the North Atlantic to the U-boats.
In case you hadn't noticed, the Soviet Navy of the time wasn't up to stopping the US from arriving off it's shores, as for the "impenetrable" vastness of the Eastern USSR, that's hardly the problem it seems to an army that got there over 9,000 miles of ocean.
/sarcasm mode off/pzvg - if you can't see the difference between moving troops through virgin forests with no roads and shipping them 9,000 (???) miles by sea - I can't help you. BTW, last time I looked Alaska was less than 50 miles from Russia, Japan (where the US fleet I presume would come from) - couple of hundred miles... I try to stick to facts - if you know where I was factually incorrect - let me know, I will apologise and learn for the future.
Regards (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by leonid:
- Distance from London to Berlin = ~570 miles.
- Distance from Berlin to Ural Mountains = ~1700 miles.
Range for a B-17 was around 1,100 miles. Thus, Soviet heavy industry would've been untouched by any US attack on the Soviet Union.
[/b]
-
Leonid - it wasn't an investment, Russia paid for everything in gold as far as I know. This payment included over thousand Cobras and Kingcobras (and other supplies) lost with merchant ships in the North Atlantic to the U-boats.
lynx
No, I know, lynx. I don't really think any life is worth something so base as money. That was written with heavy sarcasm.
-
Lynx,
This is getting to be a bit of a circular argument.
I am most certainly not impugning the courage or tenacity of the "troops", the Soviet Armed Forces in WW2. They fought long, hard and well and suffered huge losses.
For some to bring up those losses as a mercenary investment issue to the US does "tweak my beak" a bit, however. It simply isn't true and also, IMO, the Soviet fighting style contributed significantly to the magnitude of loss. That's a different discussion, however.
Sure, Russian industry contributed significantly. However, just as significant is that the US contributed $50,940,000,000 by 1945 ($485,142,857,143 in today's dollars) to nations around the world while building its own huge war machine that fought a two-front war and did so in such a short period of time.
Further, these LL items were offered on a "cost" basis, with no interest and an extremely deferred repayment schedule. Who else but those arrogant, heartless, capitalistic Yank bastiges would demand such usurious terms from countries involved in desperate warfare involving national survival? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Money is the absolute cheapest cost of a war. Balanced against the loss of life and sorrow it, is almost meaningless. Nonetheless, check this link if you wish to compare industrial effort:
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/wc1.htm (http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/wc1.htm)
"This looks like you're not entirely approve of Russia's sticking to the treaties with your good selves and England about declaring war on Japan - your enemy at the time. "
Treaties? Just pointing out a little problem the Stalin regime seemed to have with almost ANY treaty. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You must admit that Stalin's regime always had a very difficult time abiding by the treaties it signed. In fact, one could probably make the case that the regime merely used treaties as expedient means to achieve goals and simply ignored them as soon as they became an impediment to the next goal.
Perhaps Professor Storm could now take us through the various treaties the Soviet Union made with Poland in the 18 years prior to September 17, 1939? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Stalin was suprised by our having the atomic bomb? No, I don't think so. He may not have had the exact date, but he knew the capability and knew we were close to using it.
http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm (http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/preface.htm)
"Stalin's clandestine sources, however, obtained detailed political, military, and diplomatic reports on his allies' strategic planning and war aims.(34) He knew of the bomb project long before the new President Truman finally divulged it to him in July 1945. The KGB effort against the Manhattan Project (codenamed ENORMOUS) represented a shift in collection emphasis. Moscow hitherto had regarded the United States primarily as a source of information useful in the war against Germany; now America became in Russian eyes a rival and even a threat to the Soviet Union itself. Soviet agents penetrated the Manhattan Project at several points. At the Los Alamos facility alone, at least four agents reported through couriers such as Lona Cohen to the Soviet consulate in New York, where a KGB sub-residency under a young engineer named Leonid R. Kvasnikov (covername ANTON) coordinated operations and dispatched intelligence to Moscow."
Also, this statement is incorrect:
"Russia paid for everything in gold as far as I know."
It's been discussed in previous threads as well as this one. To recap, first it hasn't yet all been paid off. Some was paid eventually, some was written off entirely as a "bad debt" and some small amount remains today (still without interest btw (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ).
Secondly, of the debt that was repaid, not all was in currency or precious metal. Some was commodity or other type payments.
A small note, but "factually" correct I think, as a bit of research will show you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I am most certainly not impugning the courage or tenacity of the "troops", the Soviet Armed Forces in WW2
Thank you Sir (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It really needs to be moved out of this group (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)