World War III in May 1946

[Top hats daily]

I'm not trying to be aggressive, but the guerilla campaign seems to be useless/not started/ineffective, there is no talk of the Pakistan/USSR/Afghanistan fronts, or Asia, and the USSR should have run out of gas by this point, literally and figuratively.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Top hats daily

I'm not trying to be aggressive, but the guerilla campaign seems to be useless/not started/ineffective, there is no talk of the Pakistan/USSR/Afghanistan fronts, or Asia, and the USSR should have run out of gas by this point, literally and figuratively.

Once again we are 5 months into the war. Aggressive Red Army forces are everywhere and are shooting at anything that moves. Did the French Resistance start within 5 months of the German attack? Were the Filipinos attacking Japanese patrols 5 months after the start of the invasion? Shock and awe is in effect for now.

The resistance fighters in Western Europe were for the most part communist.They are now the puppet governments in France, Germany, Italy, Greece. Would they not know who might be a potential threat?

An effective resistance takes time. A response to a sneak attack takes time.

Ranger Elite is working on the Asian fronts. Want to help? PM me.

[GarethC]

Are there airfields to support 7000 planes within range of Britain? I have no idea myself, but that's a lot more planes than the Luftwaffe put up in 1940, so I thought it's worth a question. I suspect that additional fields could be prepared fairly quickly, but the wouldn't involve hardened shelters which would then be significantly vulnerable to night strikes by Mosquitos or daylight Tempest raids.

Is the infrastructure of Europe sufficient to support the transfer of sufficient aviation fuel to maintain a high sortie rate from those airfields?

Is that infrastructure subject to nighttime interdiction by Bomber Command, e.g. gardening the Danube to disrupt supplies from Ploesti?

RAF production in OTL 1946 was still based on a peacetime production schedule. How many Vampires can instead be pushed out if there's a war on? The advantage in performance of just-post-war jets over the VVS piston planes is significant, particularly in this sort of scenario, where the thirsty nature of early jets is not as big a factor, and where bouncing an attack plane formation to make them jettison their ordnance makes the mission a failure.

The RAF needs to be qualifying a lot of demobbed pilots on current aircraft. Additionally, alternate airfields need to be prepared - it's not winter and rough fields in England won't be hard to put into operation. Soviet-style camouflage operations (suspended trees and hinged hedgerows, that sort of thing) is a good idea if a sustained counter-air campaign is expected.

The VVS has not really been challenged by a proper air defence previously - was there Soviet doctrine for that sort of air campaign in 1946 at all (and did I miss it up-thread?)?

Note that the RAF does have lots and lots of practice at this sort of thing, with the various air wars in the Western Desert and CBI theaters. For instance, the sheer volume of VVS traffic is going to make the job of air defence against raids infiltrating the returning bomber streams very difficult.

What sort of radar will the VVS be able to deploy?

[Andre27]

@hairog:

Part of the soviet advantage is their superior intelligence operation. They literally seem to know everything.
My question, possibly part of a new storyline to be developed, is how do they get that information to their home front.

From Spain since that is a European mainland country i can see covert transports, but from the US and UK this will be far harder.

Radios can be tracked down and embassies are most likely closed so how do the soviets deliver their information.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by GarethC

Are there airfields to support 7000 planes within range of Britain? I have no idea myself, but that's a lot more planes than the Luftwaffe put up in 1940, so I thought it's worth a question. I suspect that additional fields could be prepared fairly quickly, but the wouldn't involve hardened shelters which would then be significantly vulnerable to night strikes by Mosquitos or daylight Tempest raids.

There have been attacks by Mosquitos etc. As to the airfields. The Allies in their quest to bomb Germany create hundreds. The Soviets also have had a couple of months to add more. How many were there in East Germany before the Battle of Berlin? The VVS was putting up 6000 sorties a day.

Is the infrastructure of Europe sufficient to support the transfer of sufficient aviation fuel to maintain a high sortie rate from those airfields?

If the Allies could do it to attack Germany then the Soviets can use the same in reverse. There were pipelines or trucks transporting the fuel from the cost to the East. Now it's being transferred from West Germany to the Coast. If it can go one way it can go another.

Is that infrastructure subject to nighttime interdiction by Bomber Command, e.g. gardening the Danube to disrupt supplies from Ploesti?

They tried a night raid and it was repulsed.

RAF production in OTL 1946 was still based on a peacetime production schedule. How many Vampires can instead be pushed out if there's a war on? The advantage in performance of just-post-war jets over the VVS piston planes is significant, particularly in this sort of scenario, where the thirsty nature of early jets is not as big a factor, and where bouncing an attack plane formation to make them jettison their ordnance makes the mission a failure.

You have to get from 10% war production back to 90% and that takes time. The Brits are out of time and have to work with what they have.

The RAF needs to be qualifying a lot of demobbed pilots on current aircraft. Additionally, alternate airfields need to be prepared - it's not winter and rough fields in England won't be hard to put into operation. Soviet-style camouflage operations (suspended trees and hinged hedgerows, that sort of thing) is a good idea if a sustained counter-air campaign is expected.

So your suggestion is to disperse and hide?

The VVS has not really been challenged by a proper air defence previously - was there Soviet doctrine for that sort of air campaign in 1946 at all (and did I miss it up-thread?)?

So your saying that at no time during the 1940s or even over Berlin the Germans never had a proper air defense? That the VVS had air superiority through out the war?

Note that the RAF does have lots and lots of practice at this sort of thing, with the various air wars in the Western Desert and CBI theaters. For instance, the sheer volume of VVS traffic is going to make the job of air defence against raids infiltrating the returning bomber streams very difficult.

Good point. That sounds like a good tactic they can use.

What sort of radar will the VVS be able to deploy?

I would say it would be equivalent to the best the Germans had in 1945. They are not counting on have better technology than NATO just more of it at the point of attack. Similar to what happened in Kursk. The Tiger was better but the T34 was more.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Andre27

@hairog:

Part of the soviet advantage is their superior intelligence operation. They literally seem to know everything.

That is not true. They have lost track of SAC, the Pyrenees Line was a surprise, Operation Louisville Slugger. You are reading much more into the story than is there.

My question, possibly part of a new storyline to be developed, is how do they get that information to their home front.

How did the resistance get their information out through the German occupation? The Soviet spies, through the Soviet embassy, have had years to smuggle in radios etc. and years to prepare for how to communicate very short busts of information.

Unlike the Nazis, who were for the most part German. Committed Communists were very often home grown. No need to parachute in spies. They were all ready there and were cleaning your house, doing your laundry and in some cases running your spy network.

Once again read up on the Venona project and about the Cambridge 5.

From Spain since that is a European mainland country i can see covert transports, but from the US and UK this will be far harder.

Numbers, code words etc. embedded in news reports, news paper articles, commercial radio transmissions, a commie Edward R. Murrow script editor. There can be many ways.

Radios can be tracked down and embassies are most likely closed so how do the soviets deliver their information.

Mobil radios brought in over the years. Seehunds surfacing and getting a flashlight series of numbers from the local coast watcher who is a communist. The very coast watcher who is supposed to keep this from happening. Once again if the Allies could figure out a way to do it the Soviets could too.

We are not talking rocket science here. Which by the way the Soviets were better than we were for a period of time.

[Top hats daily]

How many communists are there holding sensitive positions?

[Hairog]

Sorry for my exaspiration but have you read the story? Are you familiar at all with The Venona Project or the Cambridge 5, the Rosenbergs? Google them and start reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...e_Soviet_Union

There were literally hundreds and many in sensitive positions. The US OSS was full of them. The FDR and Truman Administration was crawling with them. The Manhattan Project was full of them. Oppenheimer had communist sympathies. It goes on and on.

[Top hats daily]

Originally Posted by Hairog

Sorry for my exaspiration but have you read the story? Are you familiar at all with The Venona Project or the Cambridge 5, the Rosenbergs? Google them and start reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...e_Soviet_Union

There were literally hundreds and many in sensitive positions. The US OSS was full of them. The FDR and Truman Administration was crawling with them. The Manhattan Project was full of them. Oppenheimer had communist sympathies. It goes on and on.

Easy tiger, I acquiesce to your objection.

[Hairog]

Sorry. After answering the same questions for the 12th time I get ornery.

[GarethC]

Originally Posted by Hairog

So your suggestion is to disperse and hide?

Not as such, but if it's expected that there will be a lot of attacks on the fighter stations and that the German records of their locations will have been seized by the Soviets, then additional strips need to be prepared as a contingency and effort should be put into making them not trivially seen from the air.

So your saying that at no time during the 1940s or even over Berlin the Germans never had a proper air defense? That the VVS had air superiority through out the war?

As I understand it, the ostfront air campaign from Barbarossa onward was more about delivering CAS and its escort and interdiction, and much less to do with achieving blanket air supremacy as was the case with the initial BoB or Overlord. It was a very different conflict to the western air war (at least, after the fall of France).

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by GarethC

Not as such, but if it's expected that there will be a lot of attacks on the fighter stations and that the German records of their locations will have been seized by the Soviets, then additional strips need to be prepared as a contingency and effort should be put into making them not trivially seen from the air.

Again good points.

As I understand it, the ostfront air campaign from Barbarossa onward was more about delivering CAS and its escort and interdiction, and much less to do with achieving blanket air supremacy as was the case with the initial BoB or Overlord. It was a very different conflict to the western air war (at least, after the fall of France).

Did they not need at least local air superiority to allow the CAS to happen? The Germans found out that the Stuka could not live without control of the air. Would not the IL2 fair the same fate?

Also did not the Germans have the second best air defense system compared to the British and did they not employ this on the Eastern front to protect their troops? Did the IL2s just run rampant and were unmolested by AA and fighters?

[deathscompanion1]

Originally Posted by Hairog

Again good points.




Did they not need at least local air superiority to allow the CAS to happen? The Germans found out that the Stuka could not live without control of the air. Would not the IL2 fair the same fate?

Also did not the Germans have the second best air defense system compared to the British and did they not employ this on the Eastern front to protect their troops? Did the IL2s just run rampant and were unmolested by AA and fighters?

Mostly.

The soviet airforce was ineffective until 1943 when they achieve parity with the Germans around the same time the Luftwaffe was pulled back to defend Germany from the bombing campaign and to try and defend france.

Against the allies the soviets would of had a much harder time.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by deathscompanion1

Mostly.

The soviet airforce was ineffective until 1943 when they achieve parity with the Germans around the same time the Luftwaffe was pulled back to defend Germany from the bombing campaign and to try and defend france.

Against the allies the soviets would of had a much harder time.

How so? Where the British and US pilots better on an individual basis then the Germans they flew against in 1944-45? Wasn't it the case that the RAF and USAAF just plain wore down the Luftwaffe with shear numbers? Was it the individual skill level of the RAF and USAAF pilots that won the air war over Europe? I would suggest not.

So why would it be any different with the Soviets against the RAF in our story? Are the British pilots twice as good as their German counter parts...three times better...four? How about the AA forces? Are they 2 or 3 or 4 times better than the Germans at comparable times? That's what it's going to take for the RAF to survive.

From what I've read the vast majority of kills in WWII were because the victim was totally unaware of the danger he was in. Most great aces got the vast majority of their kills because they saw their intended targets first and were able to get into position to surprise their unsuspecting opponent. Very few kills where the a direct result of their flying skills but were more a matter of seeing the enemy first and not being caught unaware themselves. Aces did not become aces by getting into dogfights. They hit and ran. If their intended target knew they were there they declined combat if possible. That's how you stayed alive long enough to became an ace.

It would seem to me that all things being equal the side that had the greatest number of eyes in the air would have a huge advantage. Yes WWII radar could vector you in but it could not pinpoint your intended victim nor blind him to your presence. The mark one eye ball still was the deciding factor in most cases.

Both the US,VVS and RAF had very good pairs of veteran eyeballs in the air at this point in the war. In the case of BOB II one side has four times the number than the other.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by Hairog

How so? Where the British and US pilots better on an individual basis then the Germans they flew against in 1944-45? Wasn't it the case that the RAF and USAAF just plain wore down the Luftwaffe with shear numbers? Was it the individual skill level of the RAF and USAAF pilots that won the air war over Europe? I would suggest not.

Western Allied pilots had far more training hours then the Germans and would cycle their Aces back to teach their new recruits unlike the German practice of letting their Aces fly til they die.
Didn't you find this in your research?

Originally Posted by Hairog

From what I've read the vast majority of kills in WWII were because the victim was totally unaware of the danger he was in. Most great aces got the vast majority of their kills because they saw their intended targets first and were able to get into position to surprise their unsuspecting opponent. Very few kills where the a direct result of their flying skills but were more a matter of seeing the enemy first and not being caught unaware themselves. Aces did not become aces by getting into dogfights. They hit and ran. If their intended target knew they were there they declined combat if possible. That's how you stayed alive long enough to became an ace.

It would seem to me that all things being equal the side that had the greatest number of eyes in the air would have a huge advantage. Yes WWII radar could vector you in but it could not pinpoint your intended victim nor blind him to your presence. The mark one eye ball still was the deciding factor in most cases.

It isn't always just a question how many eye balls though. I would imagine that veteran pilots are better at spotting and identity enemy planes. And veteran pilots would also be better able to make a quick defensive move needed to save their life if they do get jumped.

And in the case of defending Britain, they would have the added advantage of be directed by radar on where the enemy is(along with its position, numbers, and velocity) unlike when they were over Germany and generally had no idea when the enemy was coming until it was sighted.

[Derek Pullem]

Interesting resource

http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2008/R556.pdf

Average sorties per day across all fronts by all Russian aircraft during 1944-5 = 3000

Note interdiction capability is very poor - all resources devoted to air superiority / ground attack.

I have no doubt that 6000 sorties could be carried out on a single day or even a few days, particularly in short range close combat support.

But targetting all of UK?

Or has the AAD suddenly improved beyond all recognition in a year?

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Western Allied pilots had far more training hours then the Germans and would cycle their Aces back to teach their new recruits unlike the German practice of letting their Aces fly til they die.
Didn't you find this in your research?

As did the VVS. Didn't you find this in your research? So which is better in your opinion and why?

It isn't always just a question how many eye balls though. I would imagine that veteran pilots are better at spotting and identity enemy planes. And veteran pilots would also be better able to make a quick defensive move needed to save their life if they do get jumped.

I agree.

And in the case of defending Britain, they would have the added advantage of be directed by radar on where the enemy is(along with its position, numbers, and velocity) unlike when they were over Germany and generally had no idea when the enemy was coming until it was sighted.

Did not the Germans have pretty good radar in 1945? In the Battle for Berlin did they not know exactly where the VVS was forming and attacking? Why would the situation be any different?

How would that help if the VVS flooded an area with overwhelming forces? Yes the radar would tell you where they were but so what? How would you use ground based radar to assist you in an individual fight? Think of a colony of army ants on the move. Yep you know where they are but so what?

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Derek Pullem

Interesting resource

http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2008/R556.pdf

Average sorties per day across all fronts by all Russian aircraft during 1944-5 = 3000

Which is not relevant to a restricted area like GB and not comparable to what they did over the Berlin area. In that battle they averaged 6000 a day with only a couple of months preparation. In addition Eastern Germany and Poland where in much worse shape than West Germany and the Channel coast with far fewer existing air fields, greater distances, less time to prepare and less time to replace losses etc. The Allies have been repairing and replacing the infrastructure of France and the Channel Coast for 6 full months. This was not the case with Poland or East Germany before the Battle for Berlin.

Note interdiction capability is very poor - all resources devoted to air superiority / ground attack.

I don't understand what this would mean in this situation. Could you explain your thought process further?

I have no doubt that 6000 sorties could be carried out on a single day or even a few days, particularly in short range close combat support.

This was an average number of sorties for the entire Berlin Campaign not just one day.

But targetting all of UK?

Not the entire UK at the same time but selected areas about 90 miles square... yes and for up to weeks at a time.

Or has the AAD suddenly improved beyond all recognition in a year?

Nope. Just performing at a level they have already demonstrated.

Please don't worry about the VVS strategy. That will depend on how the British set up their defense. What we have to decide is how does Fighter Command intend to defend the British Isles. That will determine the VVS response. You already know more than Fighter Command knows. I need suggestions as to how Britain will be defended.

[Andre27]

A little background on radars in WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_i...and_ship-based

During a battle local superiority is key. During WW2 the allies dropped chaff/aluminum foil to fool german radar.

Perhaps some fast light bombers can do the same to lure the masses of soviet fighters away, leaving allied fighters with local superiority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%...cond_World_War

[Claymore]

Originally Posted by Hairog

Please don't worry about the VVS strategy. That will depend on how the British set up their defense. What we have to decide is how does Fighter Command intend to defend the British Isles. That will determine the VVS response. You already know more than Fighter Command knows. I need suggestions as to how Britain will be defended.

I am not sure that I agree with this. You are suggesting that the VVS's strategy is going to be reactionary in nature depending on what the Brits decide to do. In other words, the VVS's is willingly giving up the initiative. This seems highly unlikely for any offensive action where having a clear cut offensive strategy, ie dictating the course of events is fundamental to success. Generally speaking, this is why it is always easier to defend rather than attack and why an attacker must always have a higher ratio of capability to the defender. Given that the UK is defending home soil the USSR is going to have to have a better strategy than "lets see what happens."