World War III in May 1946

[Hairog]

Ah once again a wasted evening debunking a comparison between apples and oranges.

The true comparison would be between Soviets who were equipped with comparable equipment vs their Western counterparts. The La 7 entered service. In Sept. 1944

The 63rd Guard Fighter Aviation Corps began combat trials of the La-7 in mid-September 1944 in support of the 1st Baltic Front. Thirty aircraft were provided for the trials, which lasted one month. During this time the new fighters made 462 individual sorties and claimed 55 aerial victories while losing four aircraft in combat. Four other La-7s were lost to non-combat causes, mostly related to engine problems. A total of three pilots were killed during the trials to all causes.[7]
One regimental commander, Colonel Ye. Gorbatyuk, a Hero of the Soviet Union, commented: "The La-7 exhibited unquestionable advantages over German aircraft in multiple air combats. In addition to fighter tasks, photo reconnaissance and bombing were undertaken with success. The aircraft surpasses the La-5FN in speed, manoeuvrability, and, especially, in the landing characteristics. It requires changes in its armament, and urgent fixing of its engine."[7] The twin ShVAK armament inherited from the La-5 was no longer powerful enough to bring down later, more heavily armored German fighters, especially the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in a single burst, even when Soviet pilots opened fire at ranges of only 50–100 meters (160–330 ft).[7]
The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.[7] By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable.[9]By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable.[10] For the invasion of Japanese Manchuria, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.[11]
The La-7 was flown by the top Soviet ace of the war, Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub. The Ukrainian-born Kozhedub, nicknamed "Ivan the Terrible", a three-time Hero of Soviet Union, scored his last 17 air victories in 1945 in the La-7 numbered 27, which is now preserved in the Central Air Force Museum at Monino on the outskirts of Moscow. The last German aircraft that he shot down was the Messerschmitt Me-262, of Sergeant (German: Unteroffizier) Kurt Lange from 1./KG(J)54, over Frankfurt an der Oder[12] on 15 February 1945.
One fighter regiment of the 1st Czech Composite Aviation Division was equipped with the La-7 and participated in the Slovak National Uprising of August–October 1944.[13] A total of 56 aircraft were delivered and equipped the 1st and 2nd Fighter Regiments. The bulk of the aircraft, however, were delivered in 1945 and saw no combat during the war.[14] It remained in service with the Czechs until 1950 and was designated postwar by them as the S-97. One of these aircraft survives in the Prague Aviation Museum, Kbely.[13]
Production of the La-7 amounted to 5,753 aircraft, plus 584 La-7UTI trainers.[Note 2] Those aircraft still in service after the end of the war were given the NATO reporting name Fin.[15]
The follow-up model, the La-9, despite its outward similarity, was a completely new design.[16]
[edit]Tactical significance
The La-7 ended the superiority in vertical maneuverability that the Messerschmitt Bf 109G had previously enjoyed over other Soviet fighters.[17] Furthermore, it was fast enough at low altitudes to catch, albeit with some difficulties, Focke Wulf Fw 190 fighter-bombers that attacked Soviet units on the frontlines and immediately headed for German-controlled airspace at full speed.

The Yak 3 entered service in the Summer of 1944.

Operational history
Lighter and smaller than Yak-9 but powered by the same engine, the Yak-3 was a forgiving, easy-to-handle aircraft loved by both rookie and veteran pilots and ground crew as well. It was robust, easy to maintain, and a highly successful dog-fighter. [1] It was used mostly as a tactical fighter, flying low over battlefields and engaging in dogfights below 13,000 ft.[4]
The new aircraft began to reach front line units during summer 1944. Yak-3 service tests were conducted by 91st IAP of the 2nd Air Army, commanded by Lt Colonel Kovalyov, in June-July 1944. The regiment had the task of gaining air superiority. During 431 missions, 20 Luftwaffe fighters and three Ju 87s were shot down while Soviet losses amounted to two Yak-3s shot down. [5] A large dogfight developed on 16 June 1944, when 18 Yak-3s clashed with 24 German aircraft. Soviet Yak-3 fighters shot down 15 German aircraft for the loss of one Yak destroyed and one damaged. The following day, Luftwaffe activity over that section of the front had virtually ceased. [5] On 17 July 1944, eight Yaks attacked a formation of 60 German aircraft, including escorting fighters. In the ensuing dogfight, the Luftwaffe lost three Junkers Ju 87s and four Bf 109Gs, for no losses to the Yaks.[6] Consequently, the Luftwaffe issued an order to "avoid combat with Yak fighters without an oil cooler under the nose and with an inclined aerial mast below 5000 m". In fact, most of the Yak-3s had no mast, the aerial wire running from canopy to fin. Luftwaffe fighters in combat with the Yak-3 tried to use surprise tactics, attacking from above.[7]

Both of these late war fighters are the comparable equipment to the best of the West and these did not enter service until the Summer of 1944.
The La 7 and Yak 3 never met the P51 and Spitfire in earnest in large numbers for the most part. At low and medium altitudes they are considered comparable to each other with the Soviet fighters actually being considered better. So we will not have a situation where one side has demonstratively better equipment over the other.

We do however have a test as to how the veteran Soviet pilot stacks up against the veteran US pilots in Korea. The Mig 15 and F86 were about as comparable as you could get and both were flown by WWII vets. Now that is comparing apples to apples.

There is a mighty controversy on the numbers for each side but I believe that the Ace numbers are fairly accurate or at least as accurate as we can find.

Aviators from four nations may have qualified as aces during the Korean War; between six and nine aces have been estimated for China and up to four inNorth Korea. Pilots of the Soviet Union had the most difficulty confirming victories and accurately determining which pilots achieved ace status, and between 34 and 60 pilots from that nation have been postulated as possible aces in the war. For the United Nations, the United States was the only country with pilots to attain ace status, with 40 documented aces. No pilot from another UN country attained ace status, though many claimed victories. Among these, Royal Canadian Air Force pilot Ernest A. Glover claimed three victories.[1]

So let’s take the low for the Soviets of 34 and the high for the US at 40. In addition the Soviets were engaging in trying to stop strategic and tactical bombers and the US was on the offensive which is comparable to the Western front and not what happened in the East.

That I would suggest is an apples to apples comparison combined with an apples to apples offense and defense situation. Looks to me like a ratio of 1 to .85. Pretty close to one to one in the US favor.

Well what do you know that was a relatively quick one.

[Derek Pullem]

Originally Posted by Hairog

We do however have a test as to how the veteran Soviet pilot stacks up against the veteran US pilots in Korea. The Mig 15 and F86 were about as comparable as you could get and both were flown by WWII vets. Now that is comparing apples to apples.

There is a mighty controversy on the numbers for each side but I believe that the Ace numbers are fairly accurate or at least as accurate as we can find.



So let’s take the low for the Soviets of 34 and the high for the US at 40. In addition the Soviets were engaging in trying to stop strategic and tactical bombers and the US was on the offensive which is comparable to the Western front and not what happened in the East.

That I would suggest is an apples to apples comparison combined with an apples to apples offense and defense situation. Looks to me like a ratio of 1 to .85. Pretty close to one to one in the US favor.

Well what do you know that was a relatively quick one.

If you do the same calculations for German aces vs allied ones you will wonder how the Germans ever lost the war in the first place

The way in which the Allies rotated their pilots was completely different to the Germans (and the Russians) who basically burned them until they dropped. The Allies tended to rotate them out into training or other roles (plus they had more R&R)

Good discussion here

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archiv...hp?t-8837.html

Looks like F-86 vs MiG-15 was running at around 6-7:1 for all pilots and 3-4:1 for UN vs Russian in Korea.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Derek Pullem

If you do the same calculations for German aces vs allied ones you will wonder how the Germans ever lost the war in the first place

The way in which the Allies rotated their pilots was completely different to the Germans (and the Russians) who basically burned them until they dropped. The Allies tended to rotate them out into training or other roles (plus they had more R&R)

Good discussion here

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archiv...hp?t-8837.html

Looks like F-86 vs MiG-15 was running at around 6-7:1 for all pilots and 3-4:1 for UN vs Russian in Korea.

Holy mackerel are there conflicting numbers on the air war in the Korean War. I guess the USAF records were partially destroyed in a fire in 1973 and that’s where a lot of the problems stem from. Recently exposed Stalin-era Soviet documentation shows that only 345 Soviet MiG-15s were lost to all causes during the Korean War. Not all were shot down by F86s. Direct comparison of Sabre and Mig losses seem irrelevant, since primary targets for Migs were heavy B-29 bombers and ground-attack aircraft, while the primary targets for Sabres were MiG-15s. The Soviets claimed about 1,100 air-to-air victories and 335 combat MiG losses at that time. The US claims 78 F86 losses by air to air and of course some were by non-Soviet pilots. It’s pretty hard to figure out accurately.
But let’s go with a figure of 3 to 1 just for arguments sake. Here we run into a vagary or math. Lets assume that we have 5000 VVS aircraft vs 1000 RAF fighters. Let’s further assume that the RAF losses 200 a month so the VVS would lose 600/month after all replacements.

     Soviets	        RAF	      Ratio
         5000	         1000          5 to 1 
Month 1	-600		-200
Totals	4400		800		5.5 to 1
Month2	-600		-200	
Totals	3800		600		6.3 to 1
Month 3	-600		-200	
Totals	3200		400		8 to 1
Month 4	-600		-200	
Totals	2600		200		13 to 1
Month 5	-600		-200	
Totals        2000             0

I would suggest that once the ratio started to change the losses by the RAF would climb dramatically and the 3 to 1 losses would become less and less as the ratio of marauding Soviet planes became higher. With an 8 to 1 and then 13 to 1 ratio the RAF would collapse just like the Luftwaffe and long before the last RAF pilot took off to defend the skies of Britain.
Would the Soviets sustain such losses to take Britain out of the war and force her neutrality? You bet your ass they would.

[Derek Pullem]

Originally Posted by Hairog

Holy mackerel are there conflicting numbers on the air war in the Korean War. I guess the USAF records were partially destroyed in a fire in 1973 and that’s where a lot of the problems stem from. Recently exposed Stalin-era Soviet documentation shows that only 345 Soviet MiG-15s were lost to all causes during the Korean War. Not all were shot down by F86s. Direct comparison of Sabre and Mig losses seem irrelevant, since primary targets for Migs were heavy B-29 bombers and ground-attack aircraft, while the primary targets for Sabres were MiG-15s. The Soviets claimed about 1,100 air-to-air victories and 335 combat MiG losses at that time. The US claims 78 F86 losses by air to air and of course some were by non-Soviet pilots. It’s pretty hard to figure out accurately.
But let’s go with a figure of 3 to 1 just for arguments sake. Here we run into a vagary or math. Lets assume that we have 5000 VVS aircraft vs 1000 RAF fighters. Let’s further assume that the RAF losses 200 a month so the VVS would lose 600/month after all replacements.

     Soviets            RAF          Ratio
         5000             1000          5 to 1 
Month 1    -600        -200
Totals    4400        800        5.5 to 1
Month2    -600        -200    
Totals    3800        600        6.3 to 1
Month 3    -600        -200    
Totals    3200        400        8 to 1
Month 4    -600        -200    
Totals    2600        200        13 to 1
Month 5    -600        -200    
Totals        2000             0

I would suggest that once the ratio started to change the losses by the RAF would climb dramatically and the 3 to 1 losses would become less and less as the ratio of marauding Soviet planes became higher. With an 8 to 1 and then 13 to 1 ratio the RAF would collapse just like the Luftwaffe and long before the last RAF pilot took off to defend the skies of Britain.
Would the Soviets sustain such losses to take Britain out of the war and force her neutrality? You bet your ass they would.

It's your TL - I'm just observing that the Germans in a similar position facing fewer external enemies (no USA in 1940) could not sustain those kind of losses for two months let alone 4 or 5.

If the USSR is made up of bezerker zealots immune to casualties and unit cohesion issues then what you have written is true.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by RangerElite

I was thinking more along the lines of regional dialect differences, such as how how different someone from Castille would speak, as opposed to someone, say perhaps, from Catalonia. There are certain indecipherable words and phrases that don't translate well, even though the same basic language structure is used. But thank you for the head's up, Leo.

Hm I really feel like an ass for making such a big deal over this little point but the thing is that people in Manchuria, while they have accented Mandarin, by and large speak very standard language compared to people further south and west. And then in the deep south, like south of Shanghai (which has its own unintelligible dialect), the languages there are really different from Mandarin and not comprehensible to a northerner unless written.

The most probable case would be some old guard Communist guy who came from central south China where the movement originally took off and whose Mandarin is not very good; however, for someone like that to get into an official position and not at least have good Mandarin hearing ability would be almost impossible.

You could change it so that the Manchurian guy can't understand the officer's shitty Mandarin so he gets the local to "translate" for him.

[RangerElite]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Hm I really feel like an ass for making such a big deal over this little point but the thing is that people in Manchuria, while they have accented Mandarin, by and large speak very standard language compared to people further south and west. And then in the deep south, like south of Shanghai (which has its own unintelligible dialect), the languages there are really different from Mandarin and not comprehensible to a northerner unless written.

The most probable case would be some old guard Communist guy who came from central south China where the movement originally took off and whose Mandarin is not very good; however, for someone like that to get into an official position and not at least have good Mandarin hearing ability would be almost impossible.

You could change it so that the Manchurian guy can't understand the officer's shitty Mandarin so he gets the local to "translate" for him.

I defer to your superior grasp of the local linguistics and we'll go with that explanation, but I think it's too late for Hairog to change the post from it's original form. I think that I'll consult you from now on, Leo. I'd like to think that I am not ignorant, but suffer from imperfect knowledge. I am not too proud to admit that and ask for help from whomever is willing to do so

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by RangerElite

I defer to your superior grasp of the local linguistics and we'll go with that explanation, but I think it's too late for Hairog to change the post from it's original form. I think that I'll consult you from now on, Leo. I'd like to think that I am not ignorant, but suffer from imperfect knowledge. I am not too proud to admit that and ask for help from whomever is willing to do so

Well I guess you learned something new. I only know what I know but I will try my best to help weed out any errors in the future updates.

[Claymore]

Originally Posted by Hairog

<Snip>

I would suggest that once the ratio started to change the losses by the RAF would climb dramatically and the 3 to 1 losses would become less and less as the ratio of marauding Soviet planes became higher. With an 8 to 1 and then 13 to 1 ratio the RAF would collapse just like the Luftwaffe and long before the last RAF pilot took off to defend the skies of Britain.
Would the Soviets sustain such losses to take Britain out of the war and force her neutrality? You bet your ass they would.

Whilst I do not disagree that the RAF face a Herculean task your mathematical example is somewhat linear and overly simplistic and indeed displays the same flawed logic that befell the German planners during the OTL BofB. Having calculated that the RAF must be down to its last few aircraft, they were continually surprised to be met with the same dogged response and numbers. Production and aircrew are also critical as is fighting over your own territory. Whilst IOTL BofB Britain achieved about a 2:1 advantage of fighters lost to overall German aircraft, they achieved a staggering 9:1 in absolute losses of aircrew. Indeed the number of German aircrew taken prisoner almost doubled that of British aircrew killed.

I am sure that you have all of this in hand, one way or the other, and that we will eventually get to a resounding aerial thrashing - one way or the other. One last observation of nationalistic interest would be that without a follow up land invasion, the subjugation of a nation, any nation, in 1946 by non-nuclear aerial coercion alone is unlikely in the extreme (see Allied bomber offensive against Germany). In Britain's case, in particular given our history, if you truly believe the nation would crumble into quivering acquiescence then you have somewhat and spectacularly misunderstood what we are all about. But then again you probably already have this in hand - one way or another...

[tallthinkev]

How many aircraft could the Russian's really put up at one time? Bearing in mind you have to have them take off and land somewhere and have the fuel the first place.

[Life In Black]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

How many aircraft could the Russian's really put up at one time? Bearing in mind you have to have them take off and land somewhere and have the fuel the first place.

Even if you stagger takeoffs like on a carrier so as to get all of the aircraft in the air, you're going to end up with massive bottlenecks for aircraft trying to land. Factor in that most if not all of these aircraft will be low on fuel and that some of these aircraft will be damaged, and the potential for disaster is pretty damn high.

[tallthinkev]

So 2000 max?

[Life In Black]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

So 2000 max?

I'm not sure, it depends on just how many airfields in Europe are within normal operating range of England. Drop tanks are not going to be available for all fighters, and even if they are, they'll have to be dropped before mixing it up with the RAF. So you're basically limited to the bases the Luftwaffe attacked from. Even with Hairog's wanking regarding the Soviets being uber-prepared, there's no way the Soviets have been able to build enough airfields to operate all of their aircraft simultaneously. Nor can they keep up such a tempo for very long, as there will be combat losses, pilots captured, pilots getting disoriented and returning to the wrong airfields, pilots ditching because they ran out of fuel/ditching because of damage etc.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Claymore

Whilst I do not disagree that the RAF face a Herculean task your mathematical example is somewhat linear and overly simplistic and indeed displays the same flawed logic that befell the German planners during the OTL BofB. Having calculated that the RAF must be down to its last few aircraft, they were continually surprised to be met with the same dogged response and numbers. Production and aircrew are also critical as is fighting over your own territory. Whilst IOTL BofB Britain achieved about a 2:1 advantage of fighters lost to overall German aircraft, they achieved a staggering 9:1 in absolute losses of aircrew. Indeed the number of German aircrew taken prisoner almost doubled that of British aircrew killed.

I agree with a number of historians that put the failure of the Luftwaffe squarely in the lap of Goering and German intelligence. There was no one in overall charge of the operation and they had no idea of the effectiveness of their raids. So yes they were continually taken by surprise by the dogged response because they were clueless. The Germans had no idea where the factories were and when they got lucky they did not know if a follow up raid was needed etc.

This will not be the case with the VVS. They will be well commanded and their intelligence will be second to none. They know exactly where the production facilities are and exactly what is made in each. Unlike the Lufwaffe they know the location of the initial critical radar and communications command and control centers. Some of their most highly placed spies are very, very well placed just like IOTL.

The determining factor for the RAF will not be personnel but flyable planes that are competitive.

I am sure that you have all of this in hand, one way or the other, and that we will eventually get to a resounding aerial thrashing - one way or the other. One last observation of nationalistic interest would be that without a follow up land invasion, the subjugation of a nation, any nation, in 1946 by non-nuclear aerial coercion alone is unlikely in the extreme (see Allied bomber offensive against Germany). In Britain's case, in particular given our history, if you truly believe the nation would crumble into quivering acquiescence then you have somewhat and spectacularly misunderstood what we are all about. But then again you probably already have this in hand - one way or another...

Stalin's goals are to eliminate any offensive action by NATO based in Britain and to prevent the US from using her as well. That's it. He believes the internal politics of the British will run it's course over time with her skies filled with marauding heavy fighters wasting anything that moves and her shipping lanes shut down along with the eventual loss of the Suez and Kuwait oil. He wants Britain neutral. The internal communist party will take care of the rest eventually.

The historians who have written about his time period as well as the military planners who lived in these times are overwhelming in their estimation that the RAF would last at the most a month without massive intervention by the USAAF. Given the fact that the JCS etc. of the time had no idea of the extent that the NKVD has infiltrated their operations they were probably being overly optimistic. Most of you who doubt this have not provided any logical reasons to doubt their assessments beyond WAGs and emotional statements about the pluckiness of the Brits.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

How many aircraft could the Russian's really put up at one time? Bearing in mind you have to have them take off and land somewhere and have the fuel the first place.

They averaged 6000 sorties a day during the entire course of the Battle for Berlin.

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Life In Black

I'm not sure, it depends on just how many airfields in Europe are within normal operating range of England. Drop tanks are not going to be available for all fighters, and even if they are, they'll have to be dropped before mixing it up with the RAF.

Yes there will be more than enough drop tanks for all for every mission that needs them. Certain squadrons will be designated to intercept the interceptors but the rest will carry on with their tanks attached. Many of the Soviet fighters will have an internal fuel capacity and a range to roam to every corner of the British Isles.

Yak-9D and Yak-9T modified to further increase the range, fuel capacity increased to 845 l (220 US gal) giving a maximum range of 2,285 km (1,420 mi), radio navigation equipment for night and poor weather flying.

So you're basically limited to the bases the Luftwaffe attacked from.

Not even close. Go to Google Earth and see how far a 710 mile radius reaches.

Even with Hairog's wanking regarding the Soviets being uber-prepared, there's no way the Soviets have been able to build enough airfields to operate all of their aircraft simultaneously. Nor can they keep up such a tempo for very long, as there will be combat losses, pilots captured, pilots getting disoriented and returning to the wrong airfields, pilots ditching because they ran out of fuel/ditching because of damage etc.

I repeat they averaged 6,000 sorties a day during the Battle for Berlin. In less than a month the Soviet Army had built enough airfields and gathered enough supplies to mount an average of 6000 sorties a day for close to a months time.

The only wanking involved here is by you.

[Life In Black]

Originally Posted by Hairog

Yes there will be more than enough drop tanks for all for every mission that needs them. Certain squadrons will be designated to intercept the interceptors but the rest will carry on with their tanks attached. Many of the Soviet fighters will have an internal fuel capacity and a range to roam to every corner of the British Isles.





Not even close. Go to Google Earth and see how far a 710 mile radius reaches.



I repeat they averaged 6,000 sorties a day during the Battle for Berlin. In less than a month the Soviet Army had built enough airfields and gathered enough supplies to mount an average of 6000 sorties a day for close to a months time.

The only wanking involved here is by you.

Right. Consider me unsubscribed; I've had enough of this Soviet wank. RangerElite, tallthinkev, Claymore, Derek Pullem, LeoXiao, I apologize, but I refuse to put up with an author who insists that this blatant Soviet wanking is "realistic". I leave with this telling gem from Hairog himself:

Originally Posted by Hairog

You're right about wanking and that is why I have not done the usual US and UK wank that some of you seem to want. It just isn't interesting.

[Seraph]

Originally Posted by Hairog

retrofitted with an Allison turbocharged diesel engine and the entire turret assembly of the M26 “Pershing” (the “Pushing”) heavy tank, including its powerful 90mm gun, as the M26 hulls would no longer be needing them.

..mount a night-vision scope, allowing the tank crew, especially the gunner, to see heat signatures at night. Somebody said that it was something that the Krauts had been working on when the war ended, and our boys had gotten a hold of the research and the prototypes, and a few of the fielded models. That the U.S. had classified the project as “Top Secret” meant that government researchers, perhaps with the help of some the original German engineers on the project, had made a breakthrough in the technology.

I apologized if this is questioned answered already, but why a diesel engine?

And what breakthrough made the German infrared vision devices useful? The German themselves found them(OTL) to be useless and I recall that infrared/NV didn't became combat viable until the 1960's. I believe the German examples were active infrared rather than the passive ones of future models.

[Top hats daily]

When the UK surrenders as this is going, what will the US do? They can't surrender but they can't just morph into a magical dictatorship with no human needs. Why not prepare another few bombs before jesus dick help us the Soviets enter India and cause the popular revolution.

[tallthinkev]

The question I asked was how many aircraft could be in the air at one time. Not the amount of sorties. Rudel was flying up to 6 day in 1945. So could 2000 be a number to be worked with?

[CT23]

Originally Posted by Top hats daily

When the UK surrenders as this is going, what will the US do? They can't surrender but they can't just morph into a magical dictatorship with no human needs. Why not prepare another few bombs before jesus dick help us the Soviets enter India and cause the popular revolution.

Cause the Soviets have basically gutted the US atomic program in one fell swoop.