U. S. Airbases in Siberia during 1942 or 1943

[Bobollie]

What would have been the effect on the course of the war if Stalin had allowed U. S. airbases in Siberia during 1942 or 1943?

When Japan invaded the Aleutians, the Soviets were wary of a Japanese thrust toward Siberia, despite the non-aggression treaty. Hoping to get U. S. airbases in Siberia, Roosevelt offered Stalin assistance in the event of an attack by the Japanese. But, Stalin refused. It is clear he wanted to remain neutral with Japan and concentrate Soviet forces on defeating Germany.

What if Stalin had agreed to provide U. S. airbases during 1942, as a defensive measure? Or, in 1943, after the Russian victory at Stalingrad, and the Japanese retreat from the Aleutians?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Supplying those would have been difficult. While the Japanese had been allowing "nuetral" Soviet cargo ships to pass from US west coast ports to Siberian ports they would probablly not do so in this case, and certainly would not allow US cargo ships through without a fight. Air supply would be slow, much like the India to China air route, but with worse weather. The US did fly some reconissance missions and some experimental bombing missions from the Alteutians. The weather made those extremely difficult.

 

[Color-Copycat]

Those B-29s that ended up interned by the Soviets after having to land in the Russian Far East as a result of being blown off course might remain in American hands if they can make it to US-controlled airbases in the RFE. Subsequently the Tupolev Tu-4 might not be reverse engineered from those interned B-29s, thus depriving the Soviets of a long range strategic bomber able to compete against those of the USAF in the opening decades of the Cold War. Of course, all this is 1944 and onward speculation.

As for the immediate repercussions in '42 and '43, I think I'd have to see a map of the proposed airbase locations in order to get a better idea of how the USAAF's bomber command might use them.

Another interesting side effect might be changes to the Alaskan-Siberian Air Road (the route used for delivering Lend-Lease aircraft to the USSR). IOTL, American pilots took the planes up to Alaska, and upon arrival in Alaska, Soviet pilots trained on them before ferrying them back across the Bering Strait to Siberia. This allowed Soviet intelligence/espionage operatives under the guise of diplomats/military attaches, to smuggle briefcases and briefcases of sensitive documents from the continental US to Alaska before being secretly loaded aboard USSR-bound and crewed Lend-Lease aircraft.

If, instead, American pilots take the aircraft all the entire trip from the continental US to Alaska and then to US bases in Siberia before handing over the aircraft to their Soviet counterparts, this might deny Soviet espionage machine a vital transportation route for both personnel and documents.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

(Shooting from the hip here with very little factual basis)

One of my favorite WI's is if the US sent substantial amounts of troops as well as materiel in Russia (besides just chucking L-L gear at them) and fought on the Eastern Front side-by-side with the Red Army.
IMO, it'd have butterflied the Cold War.

VIPS in both the US and USSR were worried about Soviets contaminating American troops with communism, Soviets being contaminated by American democracy and decadence, as well as the logistical nightmare of getting WAllied troops there and keeping them supplied,
as well as taking the horrific casualties involved with slugging it out with the bulk of the Wehrmacht.

There were rumors that Stalin begged the US to do so ca. 1942 when things were actively desperate. WI they took him up on it?

 

[Color-Copycat]

I can see Roosevelt agreeing to send some token USAAF units along the lines of the Normandie-Niemen pilots that De Gaulle sent to fly on the Eastern Front, but sending infantry and armor seems more trouble than it's worth.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

No question it'd be a logistical and political nightmare, and chances are, a bloodbath for the untried US forces if they tried fighting in the Eastern Front in 1942. There were just too many lessons they needed to learn the hard way.

However, what do you want to bet the US takes up Deep Battle doctrine and maybe goes with a bit heavier tank, say, T-26 a bit earlier if they're worried about stowing it on a freighter then a rail-car, not trying to fit it on an LST??

If USAAF planes were based near the Black Sea, they could've been hitting Ploesti from the git-go and tearing up the RR/river-barge transport networks a lot earlier.

Just throwing it out there, but the US and USSR both pushing on Berlin's front door = victory by 1944.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Men were the least thing the Red army needed. Specific things were needed from the US & critically valuable cargo ship space could not be wasted on the less needed things that would make up complete combat units.

If one want valuable lessons for the US Army from the eastern Front then sending more Army officers as observers in 1941-42 might help.

 

[lycan]

If the Wehrmacht had defeated the Red Army, theoretically Asiatic Russia would still be intact. Could there be U.S. forces in at least the Russian Far East?

 

[HMS Warspite]

There might have been a technical problem as well in case of USAAF aircraft based in Siberia in 1942/1943. US Aircraft ususally were fitted with radial aircooled engines, which were quite volumeous and needing space for air to pass through. This volume and space in deep freezing winters was likely to freeze completely with ice, where a liquid cooled enigne, with a smaller, more compact volume would not. Most Russian aircraft used liquid coolant engines for this reason partly, as it seemed to be more reliable in these conditions. (Some Russian enginemanufaturers also developed radials, but these were not used in the same scale as in line engines.)

 

[Just Leo]

There might have been a technical problem as well in case of USAAF aircraft based in Siberia in 1942/1943. US Aircraft ususally were fitted with radial aircooled engines, which were quite volumeous and needing space for air to pass through. This volume and space in deep freezing winters was likely to freeze completely with ice, where a liquid cooled enigne, with a smaller, more compact volume would not. Most Russian aircraft used liquid coolant engines for this reason partly, as it seemed to be more reliable in these conditions. (Some Russian enginemanufaturers also developed radials, but these were not used in the same scale as in line engines.)

The Soviets built about 58,000 Shvetsov M-82 radial engines during the Great Patriotic War. Before the advent of turbo-prop engines, radials were the engine of choice for arctic bush planes, such as the Beaver and Otter. There is a TV show featuring a C-46 in Alaska. Older than most pilots.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Soviets built about 58,000 Shvetsov M-82 radial engines during the Great Patriotic War. Before the advent of turbo-prop engines, radials were the engine of choice for arctic bush planes, such as the Beaver and Otter. There is a TV show featuring a C-46 in Alaska. Older than most pilots.

Yes. Air doesnt freeze, water does. The suggestion that aircooled radials would freeze solid and liquid cooled ones wouldnt is ... strange.

 

[Tonymecury]

What would have been the effect on the course of the war if Stalin had allowed U. S. airbases in Siberia during 1942 or 1943?

Siberia? or the Far East?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I could theoretically imagine a crazy us North Pacific strategy, basing bombers etc on Shemya, and trying Japan from the north. It would be stupid - youd lose more planes to the weather than to enemy action, but in a scenario where the japanese got lucky and got all the carriers at Peal along with the battleships, i could see the seductive short distances and possibility of the Air Corps 'winning the war' might counter balance good sense.

From there, the next hop would be Petropavlovsk, and the Soviets have no way of preventing the us from seizing it and building a base there. In such a case, even Stalin might make virtue out of necessity, and 'allow' the us to use the base.

(From Petropavlovsk, the us could attack the major naval base at paramushir. Trying to get enough bombers and fighters there, and all the necessary support structure would be ... fun. Quite possibly not doable, but i could see us planners getting sucked in. For instance, MacArthur never understood eg the Kokoda track - maps are so warm and friendly and dry....)

 

[Julian]

There were rumors that Stalin begged the US to do so ca. 1942 when things were actively desperate. WI they took him up on it?

I believe it was Britain that he asked, to help defend Leningrad. Churchil called the request ridiculous.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Yes. Air doesnt freeze, water does. The suggestion that aircooled radials would freeze solid and liquid cooled ones wouldnt is ... strange.

Under the right conditions carburators will "ice over". I've seen this condition refered to in aviation literature, and witnessed it on automobiles. Where there was very high humidity and near freezing temperatures water would condense and freeze on the carb. That caused the fuel passing through to not vaporize incorrectly, causing the engine to run ragged or stall. Most automobile engines were laid out so as to keep the carb. in a optimal range of operating temperatures, but those missing parts or early examples were vulnerable.

If the Wehrmacht had defeated the Red Army, theoretically Asiatic Russia would still be intact. Could there be U.S. forces in at least the Russian Far East?

Buried in the WWII docs is a US plan for establishing a army or army group in the Persian Gulf region were the Red Army driven out of European Russian or the Caucassus region. After 1948 the US 'Drop Shot' plans included a similar size force of air and ground forces built up in Persia & adjacent areas.

Given a unhindered sea route and large enough ports the US could place its armies about anywhere. Siberia might have interferance from weather, the Japanese navy, and few ports.

 

[HMS Warspite]

The Soviets built about 58,000 Shvetsov M-82 radial engines during the Great Patriotic War. Before the advent of turbo-prop engines, radials were the engine of choice for arctic bush planes, such as the Beaver and Otter. There is a TV show featuring a C-46 in Alaska. Older than most pilots.

As for aircraft flying at low altitudes not requiring top- or combat performance, I agree. First rate frontline aircraft however required more reliable and more powerful engines, which were in the USSR at the time. Il-2 and 10, LaGG-3, MiG-1 and 3, Pe-2, Pe-3, Su-1 and 3 and the Yak series all used liquid cooled inline engines, asn these were produced in even bigger numbers. These aircraft bore the brunt of the fighting at the Eastern Front. Especially the Il-2, of which some 36,000 were build, was a clear example of this. LaGG-3 had 6,427 build, MiG-1 and 3: 3,422, Pe-2 (twin engined): 11,427 and the Yak series over 18,000 in all, just to name a few of the more common types.

 

[Just Leo]

As for aircraft flying at low altitudes not requiring top- or combat performance, I agree. First rate frontline aircraft however required more reliable and more powerful engines, which were in the USSR at the time. Il-2 and 10, LaGG-3, MiG-1 and 3, Pe-2, Pe-3, Su-1 and 3 and the Yak series all used liquid cooled inline engines, asn these were produced in even bigger numbers. These aircraft bore the brunt of the fighting at the Eastern Front. Especially the Il-2, of which some 36,000 were build, was a clear example of this. LaGG-3 had 6,427 build, MiG-1 and 3: 3,422, Pe-2 (twin engined): 11,427 and the Yak series over 18,000 in all, just to name a few of the more common types.

I'm glad you mentioned the LaGG-3 which was re-engined with the M-82 to become the LaGG-5, progenitor to a successful series of fighters without the GG. The LaGG-3, by the way, carried the moniker "guaranteed lacquered coffin". The engine choices were not based on how well they froze, but how they performed, and availability.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Under the right conditions carburators will "ice over". I've seen this condition refered to in aviation literature, and witnessed it on automobiles. Where there was very high humidity and near freezing temperatures water would condense and freeze on the carb. That caused the fuel passing through to not vaporize incorrectly, causing the engine to run ragged or stall. Most automobile engines were laid out so as to keep the carb. in a optimal range of operating temperatures, but those missing parts or early examples were vulnerable.

But that affects both types of engines.

 

[mattep74]

(Shooting from the hip here with very little factual basis)

One of my favorite WI's is if the US sent substantial amounts of troops as well as materiel in Russia (besides just chucking L-L gear at them) and fought on the Eastern Front side-by-side with the Red Army.
IMO, it'd have butterflied the Cold War.

VIPS in both the US and USSR were worried about Soviets contaminating American troops with communism, Soviets being contaminated by American democracy and decadence, as well as the logistical nightmare of getting WAllied troops there and keeping them supplied,
as well as taking the horrific casualties involved with slugging it out with the bulk of the Wehrmacht.

There were rumors that Stalin begged the US to do so ca. 1942 when things were actively desperate. WI they took him up on it?

Patton and Sjukov on the same side and commanding a army group each. Who will spend the most men?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

PoD: an alaskan politician in the early '30s boasts about the New Deal infrastructure inprovements in Alaska. He mentions expanding to the Yukon. Now, what he MEANT was building a good road to the River, not the canadian territory. However, the line gets taken out of context, and used as a catch phrase for Alaska taking over part or all of the canadian territory.

Canadian politicians react with alarm, but even when it is made clear that this is not an official position, even of the alaskan territorial government, let alone the us federal govt, still there's a real problem. The only way into the Yukon with a load bigger than a packhorse is through the us, either up the yukon river or via the whitepass and yukon railroad to whitehorse.

So, part of the canadian public works in ttls depression is pushing a road north. By the time wwii breaks out, theres rail to ft nelson bc (otl not built until about 1970), a truck road to watson lake, and a hacked out rough trail all the way to whitehorse.

Meanwhile, the us responds by building roads se from fairbanks.

With the fall of France, and the increased tensions in the pacific, the Alaska and the pacific start looking vulnerable. An eqivalent of otls nortwest staging route and AlCan highway are considered, and funding rises. The us pays canada for some of the upgrades needed, and does work of its own in alaska, and rough road, equivalent to otls AlCan highway, is pushed through the fairly short distance from ttls roadheads to form a continuous road by the time of pearl harbour.

Moreover, some of the rough track portion gets upgraded, and rail pushes southeast from delta junction, east and west from whitehorse (initially built to standard gauge for curves, etc, but the actual track is narrow gauge to use the wp&y eqipment.) And nw from ft nelson.

When pearl happens, the emergency effort that built the whole blasted AlCan highway in 11 months goes into improving an existing road.

This makes an Alaskan based effort far more feasible, thus allowing the North Pacific attack vector i outlined above.