Soviet Air defenses during Unthinkable-Berlin Crisis

[tonycat77]

Would they be enough to:

• Stop tactical attacks by medium bombers, fighters, etc on logistics, troops, tanks, etc,
• Defend strategic areas, From Poland to European Russia
• Stop a potential silverplate raid

Soviets had a hardened tactical force by the late 40s, the Yak-3s, La-7s were probably one of the best low to medium level fighters ever fielded by a air force in ww2, however turbocharged versions that could deal with b-29s were cancelled in the 1944s as germany stopped any serious effort at strategic bombing.
Assuming something goes wrong, a accidental shootdown of a allied plane in berlin for instance, would they be up for the task?
How would the USAF and RAF deal with them? Since i'm assuming they were partially demobilized by August 1945 and by 1948, they were probably nowhere near the levels of 1944.
I don't see much info about this scenario at all, if anyone knows anything about very early cold war Oob's, plans and other stuff for Air forces, i'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
(By "Stop" i don't mean air supremacy, just enough to not completely stop the war effort or stop the ground efforts.)

 

[Gillan1220]

I was wondering if the Yak-3 and the La-7 could reach the altitude of the B-29. Also, did Soviet AA guns have this capability to shoot down a Superfortress?

For masses of tactical bombing, I could see the B-17, the B-24, and the Lancaster being used to hit Soviet T-34 tank columns.

My guess is the USAAF and the RAF would deal with the Soviet fighter jets the same way by deploying P-51s and Spitfires to counter them. Might as well see some Me.262s being piloted by former Luftwaffe to at least tip the balance of air superiority for the Western Allies?

 

[tonycat77]

I was wondering if the Yak-3 and the La-7 could reach the altitude of the B-29. Also, did Soviet AA guns have this capability to shoot down a Superfortress?

For masses of tactical bombing, I could see the B-17, the B-24, and the Lancaster being used to hit Soviet T-34 tank columns.

My guess is the USAAF and the RAF would deal with the Soviet fighter jets the same way by deploying P-51s and Spitfires to counter them. Might as well see some Me.262s being piloted by former Luftwaffe to at least tip the balance of air superiority for the Western Allies?

Soviets were deploying the 100mm AA gun capable of hiting the b-29, however they would mostly the 85mm which didn't had the range.
i can't see the b-17s being used for tactical bombing, they had far better planes for that task, i can see them taking targets like railway stations and marshalling yards in Poland and Germany while the b-29s hit the longer ranged targets in Russia.
Me-262s would probably be either scrapped or unserviceable or in testing in the US by late 45, they would probably only use former ground crew and mechanics.
I don't think anyone had fighter jets in large numbers ready for combat, it would take up to the korean war for both sides to learn how to fight and how to mantain and use them in a decisive way, i can see whatever small number of soviet early fighters being kept for defenses of big cities, probably even with miniscule number of captured german jets (Czechs did keep making the me-262 post war).

 

[aaronupright]

One of the things people forget is just what a major political issue demobalization was in Allied countries. The public wanted their boys home. By 1948, those massive armies and airforces were long gone. The officers and men who had manned them, were back home starting families.

 

[Gillan1220]

Soviets were deploying the 100mm AA gun capable of hiting the b-29, however they would mostly the 85mm which didn't had the range.
i can't see the b-17s being used for tactical bombing, they had far better planes for that task, i can see them taking targets like railway stations and marshalling yards in Poland and Germany while the b-29s hit the longer ranged targets in Russia.
Me-262s would probably be either scrapped or unserviceable or in testing in the US by late 45, they would probably only use former ground crew and mechanics.
I don't think anyone had fighter jets in large numbers ready for combat, it would take up to the korean war for both sides to learn how to fight and how to mantain and use them in a decisive way, i can see whatever small number of soviet early fighters being kept for defenses of big cities, probably even with miniscule number of captured german jets (Czechs did keep making the me-262 post war).

B-17s would still be in service in 1945 but not in 1948. I think we would see the B-24 Liberator and the Lancaster instead for tactical bombings on those railway stations and supply yards. Hitting the supply yards would hurt the war footing of the Red Army, which at this point was equally exhausted as their Western counterparts.

There were no jets at this period yet either.

One of the things people forget is just what a major political issue demobalization was in Allied countries. The public wanted their boys home. By 1948, those massive armies and airforces were long gone. The officers and men who had manned them, were back home starting families.

Oh yes definitely. Even the USSR continued to accept Lend Lease aid up until 1948. Both sides were not ready to fight another major conflict just a few after the last one ended.

 

[Belisarius II]

In 1948 both sides air forces were in transition. The USAF was still flying F-51D's, with the P-47's pretty much gone. The B-17's & B-24's are also just about gone, so the strategic bombing role will be filled by the B-29's, and the new B-50's. The B-36, with no jets were still testing. Long range escort duty would be filled by F-82 Twin Mustang's, which could take the B-50's all the way to Moscow. The medium bomber role would taken by the B-26 (formally the A-26). The F-80 Shooting star was available in numbers.

The RAF would be flying Avro Lincoln's, an upgraded Lancaster, for strategic bombing. The fighters would be the superb Spitfire Mk XIV & Mk 22. The Meteor, and Vampire jets were quickly replacing wartime prop fighters.

The Soviet Air Force had excellent late model Yak-3's, and La- 7/9/11's, and were introducing MIG-9 jet fighters. The MIG-15 was just starting to enter production, and still had teething troubles. Soviet aircraft often entered production before they were properly tested, or developed. The Red Air Force also had the TU-4 Bomber, a rivet by rivet clone of war time B-29 Superfortress, that made emergency landings in the Soviet Far East. The Allies would've had jet fighter superiority over the frontlines in a 1948 war.

The Soviets had little experience in air defense systems, and strategic air defense was almost none existent. The Soviets started building defenses around Moscow in the late 40's, but most of the country had almost nothing. Radar, and other critical equipment was in short supply, and air interception training and tactics needed to be developed. Night fighters had no radar, and with no network of ground radar they had virtually no night air defense. Day defenses in the west had some depth, but the north was wide open until the 1960's. B-50's, with inflight refueling swinging north would have little trouble hitting Moscow, or Leningrad, or coming at night hitting closer targets in Europe.

 

[Dan]

The MIG-15 was just starting to enter production,

I think A MiG-15 would be beginning production but it would have the engines developed from the Junkers 012 or BMW 018 engines rather than the Rolls Royce Nene clone that was used OTL. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the relative engine comparisons to comment on the performance or reliability of the alternately powered MiG-15 though.

 

[Belisarius II]

I think A MiG-15 would be beginning production but it would have the engines developed from the Junkers 012 or BMW 018 engines rather than the Rolls Royce Nene clone that was used OTL. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the relative engine comparisons to comment on the performance or reliability of the alternately powered MiG-15 though.

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes there was a big difference in engine performance. Unfortunately the Soviets got those engines in 1946-47, so in 1948 it's already too late. That the British government allowed Rolls Royce to sell them to the Soviets, and allow them to be built under license was one of the stupidest acts of the Cold War.

 

[Gillan1220]

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes there was a big difference in engine performance. Unfortunately the Soviets got those engines in 1946-47, so in 1948 it's already too late. That the British government allowed Rolls Royce to sell them to the Soviets, and allow them to be built under license was one of the stupidest acts of the Cold War.

A bit off topic but also remember in the 1980s Cold War, the West sold weapons, radars, and engines to China according to @RY1985

France:
AS365/AS565 Panther Helicopter, produced in China (licensed copy) as Z-9/Z-9A Haitun
AS565S Panther, produced in China (licensed copy) as Z-9C Haitun
SA-321G Super Frelon , produced in China (licensed copy) as Z-8C
DUUX-5 Submarine sonar
HOT-2 Anti-tank missile
Compact 100mm Naval gun
Engine designs (Pielstick)

Germany:
Engine designs (MTU)

Italy:
Aspide Air-to-Air BVRAAM/SAM

United Kingdom:
Spey Turbofan : Produced under licence in China as WS-9 and WS-9A
Watchman Air search radar
Royal Ordnance L7 tank gun

United States:
S-70 Blackhawk

This is however nothing compared to the Lend Lease aid the U.S. gave to the Soviet Union during WWII. I know for fact some of those weapons were reversed-engineered but the greatest feat was how the Soviets managed to copy the B-29 into the Tu-4.

 

[Leander]

Thanks for bringing that up. Yes there was a big difference in engine performance. Unfortunately the Soviets got those engines in 1946-47, so in 1948 it's already too late. That the British government allowed Rolls Royce to sell them to the Soviets, and allow them to be built under license was one of the stupidest acts of the Cold War.

You could argue that they were sold before the cold war actually began and at that point its was definitily not forseeable how bad relations between the USSR and the west were going to get.

I would in general agree with your asessment: The allies have more and better jets at this point (which could change if the war lasts long enough for the Mig-15 to truly come online) while the russians generally suffer with regards to air defences (especially against high flying targets) due to the way ww2 was fought on the eastern front.
Do you think the sovjets could leverage their experience and equipment for low level ground support type missions? They were after all very accustomed to that kind of tactical operations and a lot of their planes were built for it.

 

[aaronupright]

That the British government allowed Rolls Royce to sell them to the Soviets, and allow them to be built under license was one of the stupidest acts of the Cold War.

Second stupidest. After the Russians selling Alaska to the US.
The Cold War hadn't started yet when the British licensed the Jet Engine.

I know for fact some of those weapons were reversed-engineered but the greatest feat was how the Soviets managed to copy the B-29 into the Tu-4.

That wasn't lend lease. Anymore than a sidewinder being reversed engineered to make the AA4 Atoll by the Soviets or the Tomahawk being resevsed engineered to make the Babar CM family of missiles.

 

[Dan]

I know for fact some of those weapons were reversed-engineered but the greatest feat was how the Soviets managed to copy the B-29 into the Tu-4.

Allegedly, the Soviets copied the design so slavishly, a bottle opener attached to a bulkhead found in one of the aircraft was also copied over into the TU-4 Design, even though they weren't sure what it was for.

 

[Leander]

Allegedly, the Soviets copied the design so slavishly, a bottle opener attached to a bulkhead found in one of the aircraft was also copied over into the TU-4 Design, even though they weren't sure what it was for.

Thats a pretty widespread urban myth and while the Tu-4 is a case of very far reaching copying there are a number of differences with the B-29, including the engines and the defensive armaments.

 

[aaronupright]

Allegedly, the Soviets copied the design so slavishly, a bottle opener attached to a bulkhead found in one of the aircraft was also copied over into the TU-4 Design, even though they weren't sure what it was for.

That's a myth. It comes from the fact that old Tupolev wasn't too happy about being ordered to make a bolt for bolt copy or even change stuff he thought he could do better (except the engines, natch). The joke around the design bureau was they had to copy everything, even battle damage or production mistakes. This was reported by the CIA and then repeated in credulous western media as fact (as far as I can tell, the CIA/DIA never thought of it as anything, but a sarcastic joke).

ETA; As @Leander says.

 

[Gillan1220]

Allegedly, the Soviets copied the design so slavishly, a bottle opener attached to a bulkhead found in one of the aircraft was also copied over into the TU-4 Design, even though they weren't sure what it was for.

Funny enough, took them long to realize that it was a Coca Cola bottle holder. The Soviets thought they missed something in copying the design.

 

[Belisarius II]

''dYou could argue that they were sold before the cold war actually began and at that point its was definitily not forseeable how bad relations between the USSR and the west were going to get.

I would in general agree with your asessment: The allies have more and better jets at this point (which could change if the war lasts long enough for the Mig-15 to truly come online) while the russians generally suffer with regards to air defences (especially against high flying targets) due to the way ww2 was fought on the eastern front.
Do you think the sovjets could leverage their experience and equipment for low level ground support type missions? They were after all very accustomed to that kind of tactical operations and a lot of their planes were built for it.

Your right, that's what they'd be doing with all those Sturmoviks, shooting up Western ground troops, while they try to shoot them down. The question with the jets would be who would be able to build them faster. I'd think the Anglo/Americans had more reserve capacity in their aviation industry, to ramp up production. The F-86 Saber was right on the heels of the MIG-15, and was later built on license in Britain, and Canada. Getting more Sabre's in the air would be the top demand. Till then the Shooting Stars, Meteor's, and Vampire's would have to hold the line.

 

[comrade cat]

In 1948, the atomic bombs were still pretty regarded as just a very large bomb (no nuclear taboo yet) , and the Soviet Union still didn't have it.

How many nukes do y'all think will be deployed?

 

[Leander]

In 1948, the atomic bombs were still pretty regarded as just a very large bomb (no nuclear taboo yet) , and the Soviet Union still didn't have it.

How many nukes do y'all think will be deployed?

As many as are needed or can be used. The main problem would be production: Im not sure how many nukes the US can produce during that timeframe and how fast, because using them piecemeal might be ineffective against the sovjet union who, while not having a great air defense network are still way more capable of intercepting the likely delivery systems than the japanese ever where.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The PVO had nationwide point defense by 1946, full spectrum air defense in the European direction by 1948, and full spectrum air defense in the southern and eastern directions by 1950. The polar route wouldn’t be covered until later in the 50s, but was largely a non-factor until the more advanced models of the B-36 began entering service (the early models were lemmings). In the short-term, the Soviets also have an overwhelming numerical superiority, though this will fade with time.

And yes, La-9/11s and Yaks can intercept B-29s, even discounting the just shy of a thousand MiG-9s and YaK-15s the Soviets has by 1949. La-11 has a service altitude of 33,630 feet and a max speed at altitude of 419 mph. The B-29 has a service ceiling of 31,850 ft and a max speed of 357 mph. Less when ladened down with a payload of bombs. Even the lightly-ladened RB-29s which ran the Berlin Air Corridor doing ELINT work were routinely intercepted and buzzed by Soviet piston-engine fighters.

How many nukes do y'all think will be deployed?

In the first year, very few. The US faced crippling bottlenecks not just in the number of bombs, but in it’s ability to deliver them to target: there were only 32 aircraft modified to deliver atom bombs in 1948, of which more than half were not immediately operational due to the endemic maintenance problems. Those will steadily be overcome with time, so we can expect a massive ramp up in the late-second year of a late-40s War.

 

[Belisarius II]

In 1948, the atomic bombs were still pretty regarded as just a very large bomb (no nuclear taboo yet) , and the Soviet Union still didn't have it.

How many nukes do y'all think will be deployed?

At the start of the Berlin Crisis the U.S. had 12 disassembled Fatman type bombs. The USAF deployed a group of B-29's to the UK, with no atomic bombs. Bomb production ramped up pretty fast after that, so in a year there would dozens. In 1948 the U.S. ordered 400 bombs to be ready by 1952, mostly improved implosion type weapons. If it comes to that it would be a disaster for the world.