China successfully pockets Eighth Army 1950

Commissar

Banned
all of what you say is true... except... 80,000 US troops works out to 1 division (1st Armored) plus attachments, corps support, a lot of military government types and the Air Force. This is a 1945 organization US Armored Division with only 9 task forces (built around the battalions). That isn't a lot of tanks or frontage. It was the only full strength US Division in 1950.

Which was a match for two Soviet Divisions which were just as depleted from the heavy losses from WW2 and are spread out keeping Eastern Europe down.

They also have nearby France to call in for help. Worse comes to worse, they fall back to the Maginot Line which was still mostly operational and hold out there for UK and French forces to build up and CONUS to send the reserves.

There isn't nearly enough equipment on hand to mobilize the US Army to wartime strength in 1950. Incidently, only around 7.6 million of those veterans were from the Army or Marines, most of the rest were Navy or Air Force. There are the National Guard Divisions, a few reserve divisions, and the 5 divisions on hand in the US (4 in Korea, 1 in Germany). One of those is the 82nd which is close to full strength and has specific duties as the strategic reserve and will not be committed (one of its jobs was to help SAC secure its overseas bases). It will takes months to recall, organize, retrain, and establish base facilities for those recalled reservists, especially as most of the bases used in World War II were deactivated and a lot are not even available anymore because they were absorbed into the civilian economy. A lot will be, but their facilities have not been used in years and are in poor or nonexistent repair.

And the Soviets will have it even worse. When it comes down to it, the U.S. can mobilize faster than the USSR can and won't have to work with its transport system wrecked.

Dropshot planners were not nearly as optimistic as you are about their ability to shut down Stalins railroads. A similar sized operation in World War II occurred prior to the invasion of Normandy and required thousands of tactical and medium bombers which are no longer around in 1950-51.

"Snickers" They were using iron bombs with the odd TV guided glide bombs here and there.

Nuclear bombs, especially the Mk. 4 (31 kilotons), of that era are completely different can of fish. Moscow has twelve rail terminals. B-50s or B-36s dropping twelve Mk. 4s on Moscow's rail terminals would have, so long as they were dropped within 200 feet in a ground burst, scoured off the tracks. Even an Airburst would wreck the rail terminals, destroying cars, locomotives and whatever is within its radius of destruction. If properly coordinated, the airbursts would also cause a firestorm in Moscow, wrecking much of it.

SAC also had the Soviet Oil Industry targeted.

Seriously are you that dense?

B29s did not during the Korean War have a good track record in dropping bridges. Lemay was right to insist on keeping SAC available for its main mission and Truman was right to agree. Truman also ordered a massive buildup after the War started, but to a level consistent with deterrence, not immediate war fighting. The 1950s economic boom is the result of that.

Actually they dropped four bridges across the Yalu using VB-13s, achieving a 36% hit rate.

A nuclear bomb as long as it got within 400 feet would have annihilated the bridges.

Also nearly every bridge across the Yalu was destroyed except one by conventional bombing.

The Soviets have at least 50 divisions available for immediate deployment to the primary front, and could raise 200 more fairly quickly (and have their wartime stocks on hand). The main problem the Soviets have is supplying that force, not raising it. The NATO nations do not have the West German Army, the French Army has significant (and its best troops too) forces in Indochina and elsewhere in their Empire, while the British are in bad shape economically and the BAOR is only a couple of divisions (with maybe 10 or so it can get to Germany relatively quickly). The Dutch and Belgians have forces in name only at this point. So what is to stop those Soviet divisions on the ground?

The fact that the Soviets immediate frontline troops are garrison forces holding down Eastern Europe and SAC would have wrecked the Soviet Transport system preventing the reserves from even coming.

The French can immediately recall it Divisions in Algeria to assist and rapidly mobilize its significant force of reservists rather quickly. The Magniot Line was still operational and the Soviets lacked the equipment to make a frontal assault on it, so the French can narrow the front significantly.

Only nuclear weapons, and the US can wreck the Soviet Union, but only at great cost, and even then possibly not soon enough to stop the Soviets from overrunning the continent. The big issue was that Stalin wasn't willing historically at the time to accept the certain level of damage to the Soviet Union that would result. But he was pretty crazy toward the end in the last 2 years before he died, and it is not impossible that he might decide that the Revolution was worth the cost if he can strip France and the rest of Europe of its industrial plant to make up what he loses to American atomic bombs.

The Soviets till 1951 had massive holes in its RADAR coverage, lacked night fighters, and had nothing that could stop the B-36 till the MiG-19 came along.

That and Stalin will be dead when SAC is done.

Cause after the SAC's primary targets are taken out, B-50s and B-36s with full bomb loads will mop up the USSR via conventional firebombing until the rubble is rubble and the Soviets will have little real defense.

Considering B-29s only lost 16 of their number to Soviet piloted MiG-15s who in turn lost 16 of their number to B-29 gunners. In total 34 B-29s would be lost to all causes in the Korean Conflict while they shot down 33 planes in return, had 17 probables, and damaged 11 more MiG-15s. The USSR would have been hard pressed to hold back B-29s.

The B-50 flies higher and faster than the B-29 and the B-36 even higher and faster...

So where the hell do you get the notion that SAC would suffer heavy causalities when it is clear Dropshot was a worse case scenario cooked up to secure funding for various weapons projects and Soviet defenses were not up to snuff.

And Stalin knew this. It was why he used proxies till his death. He knew to take on the U.S. directly before he had consolidated Eastern Europe and rebuilt his manpower base which had been depleted greatly by over 27 million, he would lose everything, so did those around him who were busy trying to find an opportunity to kill him.
 
Which was a match for two Soviet Divisions which were just as depleted from the heavy losses from WW2 and are spread out keeping Eastern Europe down.

They also have nearby France to call in for help. Worse comes to worse, they fall back to the Maginot Line which was still mostly operational and hold out there for UK and French forces to build up and CONUS to send the reserves.



And the Soviets will have it even worse. When it comes down to it, the U.S. can mobilize faster than the USSR can and won't have to work with its transport system wrecked.



"Snickers" They were using iron bombs with the odd TV guided glide bombs here and there.

Nuclear bombs, especially the Mk. 4 (31 kilotons), of that era are completely different can of fish. Moscow has twelve rail terminals. B-50s or B-36s dropping twelve Mk. 4s on Moscow's rail terminals would have, so long as they were dropped within 200 feet in a ground burst, scoured off the tracks. Even an Airburst would wreck the rail terminals, destroying cars, locomotives and whatever is within its radius of destruction. If properly coordinated, the airbursts would also cause a firestorm in Moscow, wrecking much of it.

SAC also had the Soviet Oil Industry targeted.

Seriously are you that dense?



Actually they dropped four bridges across the Yalu using VB-13s, achieving a 36% hit rate.

A nuclear bomb as long as it got within 400 feet would have annihilated the bridges.

Also nearly every bridge across the Yalu was destroyed except one by conventional bombing.



The fact that the Soviets immediate frontline troops are garrison forces holding down Eastern Europe and SAC would have wrecked the Soviet Transport system preventing the reserves from even coming.

The French can immediately recall it Divisions in Algeria to assist and rapidly mobilize its significant force of reservists rather quickly. The Magniot Line was still operational and the Soviets lacked the equipment to make a frontal assault on it, so the French can narrow the front significantly.



The Soviets till 1951 had massive holes in its RADAR coverage, lacked night fighters, and had nothing that could stop the B-36 till the MiG-19 came along.

That and Stalin will be dead when SAC is done.

Cause after the SAC's primary targets are taken out, B-50s and B-36s with full bomb loads will mop up the USSR via conventional firebombing until the rubble is rubble and the Soviets will have little real defense.

Considering B-29s only lost 16 of their number to Soviet piloted MiG-15s who in turn lost 16 of their number to B-29 gunners. In total 34 B-29s would be lost to all causes in the Korean Conflict while they shot down 33 planes in return, had 17 probables, and damaged 11 more MiG-15s. The USSR would have been hard pressed to hold back B-29s.

The B-50 flies higher and faster than the B-29 and the B-36 even higher and faster...

So where the hell do you get the notion that SAC would suffer heavy causalities when it is clear Dropshot was a worse case scenario cooked up to secure funding for various weapons projects and Soviet defenses were not up to snuff.

And Stalin knew this. It was why he used proxies till his death. He knew to take on the U.S. directly before he had consolidated Eastern Europe and rebuilt his manpower base which had been depleted greatly by over 27 million, he would lose everything, so did those around him who were busy trying to find an opportunity to kill him.

first of all, even though you are being arrogant and unnecessarily snotty, I have maintained a reasonable tone. Do the same.

Make your case... list how many divisions that the Western Alliance and Soviet Union have under arms as of 1951 (which is the projected date this would happen) and explain your reasoning. You clearly have not read the actual book Operation Dropshot, just skimmed the summary. The information you need is in there. Read it, and then come back to us with some actual information.

The Strategic Bombing Survey determined at the end of World War II that hitting rail road yards did not affect logistics nearly as much as hitting bridges and even under the worst of conditions the Germans kept supplies flowing to their troops in Normany and Italy. They suffered serious delays and curtailments, but they kept flowing. In spite of thousands of sorties. So did the PLA after they entered Korea. Granted they weren't supporting a mechanized army, but they did have to move a lot of supply in tonnage.

The Mig15 is designed specifically to shoot down the US bomber fleet. It inflicted serious losses on the B29 force to the point that escorts were required for daylight operations, and most operations were conducted at night (and even then suffered losses to ground controlled Migs). Numbers do not tell the story, look at how the USAF changed its operational patterns during Korea. That is a more telling pattern.

the official estimate in 40% + losses in four weeks suffered by SAC to deliver its nuclear arsenal and to strike all targets. We are talking Schweinfurt/Battle of Berlin level casualties (using World War II examples) and that is not a loss rate that can be continued very long. Seeing as the planners were career military officers with combat and planning experience from World War II, while you are some guy who seems to know everything, I am going to go with the Dropshot planners on this one.

Now lets talk about Western Europe. In 1951, the Europeans have a lot of problems. First of all, it is no sure bet that Italy or France will be able to maintain internal cohesion in case of invasion. They have large, powerful communist parties, and the governments themselves are worried about strikes and sabotage as well as possible uprisings. So significant numbers of troops will be required at home. The Dutch and Belgians do not have an army, neither does West Germany. This leaves you at most about 9 divisions worth of troops in West Germany (includes various brigades and all nationalities), a few divisions in the UK and France that will have to mobilize and a couple of dozen other French, Spanish and Portugese divisions that could be mobilized at varying degrees of effectiveness (medium to very low).

Don't forget the Soviets too have millions of reservists by the way, and have equipment for them. A lot of it is World War II vintage, but so is everyone elses equipment.

A Soviet offensive only worries about moving fuel and ammunition. The Army will plunder for everything else. The Soviets will take enourmous losses, suffer tremendous wastage, but they will drive right through Europe and possibly even cross into Spain and no matter how wonderful the Pershing and M4E8 is, there simply aren't enough of them.

The USAF will destroy a lot of the Soviet cities, but probably only inflict the same kind of reduction in productivity on the Soviet Union that the Allies did on Germany in World War II (a sizeable brake, but the Germans always had plenty of tanks, planes and weapons in spite of the bombing). Only in fuel can SAC actually create a major problem, because oil refineries are too vulnerable to nuclear attack and cannot be moved or dispersed. Actual studies by the US Strategic Bombing Survey by the way (you should read this) discuss how little actual damage was done to the factory equipment (vs the buildings) in all major attacks, including Hiroshima and Tokyo. It was the disruption of daily life that actually inflicted more productivity damage. Keep in mind we are talking atomic weapons in the low kilotons, not thermonuclear weapons in 1951.

Now in a couple of years, after the US mobilizes (which calls for 200+ divisions and huge amphibious assaults bigger than Normany or even what Downfall called for) then Europe can be liberated... maybe. But maybe not.
 

Commissar

Banned
first of all, even though you are being arrogant and unnecessarily snotty, I have maintained a reasonable tone. Do the same.

"Raises eyebrows" Really, I keep destroying your arguments point by point for being ludicrous and you fall back on the age old fallacy of civility. Sorry does not fly.

Make your case... list how many divisions that the Western Alliance and Soviet Union have under arms as of 1951 (which is the projected date this would happen) and explain your reasoning. You clearly have not read the actual book Operation Dropshot, just skimmed the summary. The information you need is in there. Read it, and then come back to us with some actual information.

I have read Dropshot fully and found it a carefully cooked document designed to secure funding from Congress. There are many like it.

Anycase, lets go over the Ukrayins’ka Povstans’ka Armiya. From 1943 to 1949, this group fought a full scale war against against Nazi Germany, Poland, and Stalin. From 1949-1956, they fought localized Insurgencies against Stalin that tied down 10 divisions. So vicious was the fighting that the NKVD listed Western Ukraine as a hardship post as NKVD officers were being killed by the thousands. Hundreds of thousands people were deported by the NKVD and the Ukraine remained in Chaos for into the late 50s.

Hungary was undergoing a purge initiated by the Soviets which tied down 60,000 troops who were needed to maintain order as the purges went in.

1944-1956 saw Poland's Armia Kajowa engaged in a brutal war with the USSR in ehich 2,000,000 would be arrested, killed, or disappear. 6,000,000 additional Poles were labeled enemies of the state and subject to invigilation. Making Poland the largest concentration of Soviet Occupation troops after Germany.

And that is the tip of the Iceberg.

The Strategic Bombing Survey determined at the end of World War II that hitting rail road yards did not affect logistics nearly as much as hitting bridges and even under the worst of conditions the Germans kept supplies flowing to their troops in Normany and Italy. They suffered serious delays and curtailments, but they kept flowing. In spite of thousands of sorties. So did the PLA after they entered Korea. Granted they weren't supporting a mechanized army, but they did have to move a lot of supply in tonnage.

USSBS European Theater, 200 The Effects of Strategic Bombing on Germany Transportation states otherwise and found that wrecking the transport system cut German Production by 90% and greatly impeded the tactical movement of the German Army and cut the Luftwaffe's flying time greatly to where the Luftwaffe was unable to give its trainee pilots adequate flight training.

The Mig15 is designed specifically to shoot down the US bomber fleet. It inflicted serious losses on the B29 force to the point that escorts were required for daylight operations, and most operations were conducted at night (and even then suffered losses to ground controlled Migs). Numbers do not tell the story, look at how the USAF changed its operational patterns during Korea. That is a more telling pattern.

Actually numbers do tell the story. 16 for 16. As for the USAF changing to night so what. Any organization tries to minimize the risk to its operations and compared to WW2 the B-29s were doing extremely well with 34 lost. 16 to MiG-15s (IJAAF prop fighters did far better), 4 to flak, 14 to various operational causes. In turn they shot down 33 Aircraft, 16 of which were MiG-15s, 17 probables against MiG-15s, and damaged 11 MiG-15s.

By switching to night bombing by Shoran Radar, the B-29s avoided most opposition. That and it wasn't till early 1951 that they did this.

the official estimate in 40% + losses in four weeks suffered by SAC to deliver its nuclear arsenal and to strike all targets. We are talking Schweinfurt/Battle of Berlin level casualties (using World War II examples) and that is not a loss rate that can be continued very long. Seeing as the planners were career military officers with combat and planning experience from World War II, while you are some guy who seems to know everything, I am going to go with the Dropshot planners on this one.

"Yawn" Given the MiG-15s poor performance and the gaping holes in the USSRs RADAR coverage. No. Also I already pointed out that this study was a cooked up nightmare scenario designed to secure funding.

Also need I point out that trained military officers in the USMC continue to push the V-22 Osprey as a needed aircraft despite its constant failure, unsafe operations, poor lift capability compared to helicopters, and the massive waste...

As for that Era's trained Officers of WW2. Well they failed to win a war against North Korea and China by being arrogant, and got their asses handed to them in Vietnam because they failed to work together.

Sorry but the trained military officer argument does not fly and never will. They are human beings who are as fallible as anyone else. The greatest disservice we can give is to worship them as demi-gods and overlook their very real failings.

Now lets talk about Western Europe. In 1951, the Europeans have a lot of problems. First of all, it is no sure bet that Italy or France will be able to maintain internal cohesion in case of invasion. They have large, powerful communist parties, and the governments themselves are worried about strikes and sabotage as well as possible uprisings. So significant numbers of troops will be required at home. The Dutch and Belgians do not have an army, neither does West Germany. This leaves you at most about 9 divisions worth of troops in West Germany (includes various brigades and all nationalities), a few divisions in the UK and France that will have to mobilize and a couple of dozen other French, Spanish and Portugese divisions that could be mobilized at varying degrees of effectiveness (medium to very low).

"Yawn " And the Soviets have it even worse holding down occupied Eastern Europe. If the Western States were unprepared, so were the Soviets who would have to contend with uprisings in the rear and the destruction of its transport system.

Don't forget the Soviets too have millions of reservists by the way, and have equipment for them. A lot of it is World War II vintage, but so is everyone elses equipment.

Who will be either dead, or unable to deploy once SAC goes in.


The USAF will destroy a lot of the Soviet cities, but probably only inflict the same kind of reduction in productivity on the Soviet Union that the Allies did on Germany in World War II (a sizeable brake, but the Germans always had plenty of tanks, planes and weapons in spite of the bombing). Only in fuel can SAC actually create a major problem, because oil refineries are too vulnerable to nuclear attack and cannot be moved or dispersed. Actual studies by the US Strategic Bombing Survey by the way (you should read this) discuss how little actual damage was done to the factory equipment (vs the buildings) in all major attacks, including Hiroshima and Tokyo. It was the disruption of daily life that actually inflicted more productivity damage. Keep in mind we are talking atomic weapons in the low kilotons, not thermonuclear weapons in 1951.

In 1944, Germany built 44,000 Aircraft. Due to the CBO, only 1,200 of them made it to operational units.

Germany's planned Air-to-Air missiles never reached operational units because the factory that was producing the engines for them was destroyed.

Destruction of the rail lines reduced Germany production by 90% and limited the mobility of the German Army.

And that is the tip of the ice berg.

USSBS at the end concluded that a more focused campaign on the Rail Roads or Oil Industry would have crippled Germany much earlier.

Now in a couple of years, after the US mobilizes (which calls for 200+ divisions and huge amphibious assaults bigger than Normany or even what Downfall called for) then Europe can be liberated... maybe. But maybe not.

Went even get that far as the USSR will pretty much cease to exist.
 
"Raises eyebrows" Really, I keep destroying your arguments point by point for being ludicrous and you fall back on the age old fallacy of civility. Sorry does not fly..

you have destroyed nothing and merely proved that your are at best semi-educated and arrogant. Analysis of your other posts in other threads, which are mostly fantasy genre games, more than proves that. Incidently, the rules in the forum require civility, thus it is not a fallacy

"
I have read Dropshot fully and found it a carefully cooked document designed to secure funding from Congress. There are many like it. .

now that is simply silly and paranoid

"
Anycase, lets go over the Ukrayins’ka Povstans’ka Armiya. From 1943 to 1949, this group fought a full scale war against against Nazi Germany, Poland, and Stalin. From 1949-1956, they fought localized Insurgencies against Stalin that tied down 10 divisions. So vicious was the fighting that the NKVD listed Western Ukraine as a hardship post as NKVD officers were being killed by the thousands. Hundreds of thousands people were deported by the NKVD and the Ukraine remained in Chaos for into the late 50s.

Hungary was undergoing a purge initiated by the Soviets which tied down 60,000 troops who were needed to maintain order as the purges went in.

1944-1956 saw Poland's Armia Kajowa engaged in a brutal war with the USSR in ehich 2,000,000 would be arrested, killed, or disappear. 6,000,000 additional Poles were labeled enemies of the state and subject to invigilation. Making Poland the largest concentration of Soviet Occupation troops after Germany...

finally something real... yep, the NKVD, with assistance from the Army, did indeed fight a war against not only the Poles but also the Ukranians that lasted well into the 1950s. The US government did provide some covert support to the rebels, but obviously not enough to make a difference. Whether or not this would materially affect the Soviet ability to wage war is another question, seeing as during the Great Patriotic War the Soviets found plenty of manpower to deal with northern Persia, move whole populations and imprison millions while fighting the Germans.


"
USSBS European Theater, 200 The Effects of Strategic Bombing on Germany Transportation states otherwise and found that wrecking the transport system cut German Production by 90% and greatly impeded the tactical movement of the German Army and cut the Luftwaffe's flying time greatly to where the Luftwaffe was unable to give its trainee pilots adequate flight training.

Actually numbers do tell the story. 16 for 16. As for the USAF changing to night so what. Any organization tries to minimize the risk to its operations and compared to WW2 the B-29s were doing extremely well with 34 lost. 16 to MiG-15s (IJAAF prop fighters did far better), 4 to flak, 14 to various operational causes. In turn they shot down 33 Aircraft, 16 of which were MiG-15s, 17 probables against MiG-15s, and damaged 11 MiG-15s.

By switching to night bombing by Shoran Radar, the B-29s avoided most opposition. That and it wasn't till early 1951 that they did this.

All true, except that is not the point you were stating. You were stating that US losses would be immaterial (in so many words) and the SAC campaign would bring the Russians to their knees. The caviet by the way, is that the transportation campaign did not materially affect German production until the final weeks of the war when the Allies were able to finally mine the canels, and had inflicted sufficient attrition on the German transportation network at large to reduce performance. Any history you care to pick up will show that German production peaked in 1944, after years of bombing, and was still at a very high level well into 1945. Moving it around was the hard part, and a lot of that was because of oil shortages, manpower shortages and Allied troops overrunning territory.

"
"Yawn" Given the MiG-15s poor performance and the gaping holes in the USSRs RADAR coverage. No. Also I already pointed out that this study was a cooked up nightmare scenario designed to secure funding..

The Mig 15 was designed as an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter, and as such did well in combat when flown by experienced pilots. It did less well when flown by inexperienced pilots... like any fighter. Even histories just after Korea stated that the aircraft was fine, and that some of the pilots engaged by UN forces were second to known. The high kill ratio by the Saber was because most of our pilots had hundreds of hours of experience compared to the relatively rookie Chinese pilots mainly engaged. Less success occured when fighting Soviet pilots, and a number of them became aces shooting down F86s.

.
"
Also need I point out that trained military officers in the USMC continue to push the V-22 Osprey as a needed aircraft despite its constant failure, unsafe operations, poor lift capability compared to helicopters, and the massive waste...

As for that Era's trained Officers of WW2. Well they failed to win a war against North Korea and China by being arrogant, and got their asses handed to them in Vietnam because they failed to work together.

Sorry but the trained military officer argument does not fly and never will. They are human beings who are as fallible as anyone else. The greatest disservice we can give is to worship them as demi-gods and overlook their very real failings. .

while you, a civilian with limited academic background are as qualified to conduct or plan military operations as someone who planned, fought and won World War II, or for that matter, successfully prevented defeat in Korea and most of the ones in Vietnam (which we lost to failure of national will and willingness to cut our losses, not on the battlefield), or for that matter, won the 1st Gulf War with minimal casualties. What the V22 has to do with anything is another question.. and another argument.

The remainder of your argument is simply misreading the facts or simply not understanding the implications. I agreed with you that SAC would eventually inflict massive damage on the Soviet Union. You think the costs would be minimal, while the planners (and I agree with them) thought (or think) otherwise. They at least have fought a major air war so I think their understanding far outweighs your armchair theorizing.

Throughout this thread you have been guilty of that theorizing, brushing aside the real conditions of the campaign this thread is about, the real difficulties both sides fought over, and making blanket assumptions about what military forces can do. There are many good histories and analysis on the Korean War that discuss in detail those very things and why the Chinese could not do what you think they should have done. I suggest you read more than one book on the matter.
 
Top