WWIII 1946 Weapons Development

I have concluded that T-54 would've been butterflied in a 1946 WW3 scenario it took them 3 years to develop something acceptable for the red army which unacceptable during war time.
 
Uh... What about the 2000 or so M26 Pershings? They should be able to be modified with a new engine design to help ease the problems out, while work on a possible better tank design can be done.
 
I have concluded that T-54 would've been butterflied in a 1946 WW3 scenario it took them 3 years to develop something acceptable for the red army which unacceptable during war time.

I'd say, yes and no for that. As the POD is, I think 1943, you can still have a tank called the T-54 but it would look different, or a tank that 'is' a T-54, but called something else. If you know what I mean.
 
I'd say, yes and no for that. As the POD is, I think 1943, you can still have a tank called the T-54 but it would look different, or a tank that 'is' a T-54, but called something else. If you know what I mean.

If the POD is 1943 why would everything happen up to 1946 just like it did in OTL? Shouldn't any reasonable person assume some changes would show when major changes time line are made because of the vastly better organization of and rational use of Soviet industry by Sergie? Yet there seems to have been none. The Soviets seem to deal with the Germans in 1944 and early 1945 the exact same way they did in OTL.
 
If the POD is 1943 why would everything happen up to 1946 just like it did in OTL? Shouldn't any reasonable person assume some changes would show when major changes time line are made because of the vastly better organization of and rational use of Soviet industry by Sergie? Yet there seems to have been none. The Soviets seem to deal with the Germans in 1944 and early 1945 the exact same way they did in OTL.

That is why, I said 'I think'.:) If I am right it was a POD for just one man. Best check with Hairog.
 
I have concluded that T-54 would've been butterflied in a 1946 WW3 scenario it took them 3 years to develop something acceptable for the red army which unacceptable during war time.

Sorry but we will be going a different direction than you have summarily concluded. They are under wartime pressure and have Sergo improving their production, research and quality control with Georgi playing the heavy. Remember that even without Sergo this is the group that developed the T-34, T-44 in the first place along with the IS-2, IS-3 and did have the T-54 prototype done in 1945.

They had other priorities in OTL and none of the resources they have now. An example would be Southern France and even Germany. The bombed out Germany industry was ready to export steel in January 1946. Conquering Western Europe provided the Soviets with many many goodies. They were spending billions on the Tu-4 and the atomic bomb. The two most costly weapons systems in history at that point. By not working on them there are plenty of other projects that can be stepped up.
 
If the POD is 1943 why would everything happen up to 1946 just like it did in OTL? Shouldn't any reasonable person assume some changes would show when major changes time line are made because of the vastly better organization of and rational use of Soviet industry by Sergie? Yet there seems to have been none. The Soviets seem to deal with the Germans in 1944 and early 1945 the exact same way they did in OTL.

If you recall Sergo was consumed with aerospace with a minor in industrial development. He was busy with figuring out how to counter the B-29. That was his top priority. He has gradually branched out and is fast becoming a major force in the industrialization of the Soviet Union. It takes time to become the Czar of industry and get anything done. Especially when you have no people skills and must rely on an absolute dictator who has his own priorities such as a fascination with the IL2. See the post on Quality Control.
 
I don't usually comment in the weapons thread really but I'm curious if we will see new input in Aerospace from Bartini?

Are Seaplanes still likely to come to pass?

The Bartini A57 was an ingenious solution with it's Ice and Sea launch capacity but how about the Americans?

In OTL the Seadart was a Seaplane Fighter made by the USA that had some potential.

The Soviets would maybe have seen value in it too if Sergei got a peek. :D

admittedly in OTL these were early 50's aircraft but given changes like Bartini being declared rehabilitated and released sooner the A57 in the late 40's is possible.

How about Ekranoplans?

They have a place in my heart. :)

Ekranoplans to move Tanks, Artillery and troops rapidly could come in handy maybe? :)
 
On the main thread someone mentioned dropping tanks from planes. This would be useful for establishing beachheads and rapidly redeploying vehicles. It would be critical for the rapid blitz across NATO needs to win before public support wanes. NATO has an aircraft carrier for helicopters, so using helicopters would be an option.

This is how I imagine the system working. There is a frame, into whichever the vehicle is placed. This protects it from impact with the ground and provides attachment points for cables and parachutes, so they don't have to be attached to the vehicle. When it lands the vehicle simply drives out. It could be repurposed to carry soldiers or other vehicles.

There are problems I see though:
Weight: are there any planes or helicopters (multiple helicopters would be necessary) big enough to carry even a small tank
Defence: the carrying aircraft would be vulnerable to air defence, and while descending the vehicle would be open to ground fire
Accuracy: a beach or clearing is a small target, can high flying planes be accurate enough to hit these targets?

Any other problems you can see? Would it be effective enough to be worth it? What technology and developments are necessary for it to be put in practice? Could it even be developed fast enough?
Any thoughts and criticisms welcome.
 
Rewrite of attack on the battleships

Chapter 9
Counter Strike
Stalin’s Plan

July 9th, 1946
30 miles from LeHavre, France
HQ of the Northern Group of Forces
08:23 hours

“This is ridiculous! Unacceptable! Insulting! We need to push the capitalist armies into the sea. Why can’t the whole Soviet Air Force deal with a few ships? They have defeated every other force in their path, yet a few dozen boats and their air cover can prevent us from cleaning the European land mass of every visage of capitalist corruption.”
“Calm down Marshal Sokolovsky. There is a solution to the problem. You know that strange companion of Stalin…that Sergo? He has been working on the solution that we all want. Combining Soviet science and the Nazi genius for killing, a plan has been hatched that will cripple or sink one of more of the “boats” as you call them. That should convince the capitalist pigs to abandon the English Channel and leave France all together.”

“So this plan comes from Stalin himself?”
“Yes.”
“That's exceptionally good. Do you know why Fillipi?...Of course, you don't...you're an idiot. If the plan fails our necks are not in the noose. I want to nothing further about it so we can deny that it was our fault. We do not need another fiasco to add to the growing list. Believe me Fillipi If I have a fall from power so will everyone on my staff.”
“Understood Marshal.”


Flag Ship BB South Dakota
Operation Louisville Slugger
English Channel off Le Havre
July 10th, 1946

“Something’s up admiral we just got a message that the Soviets have moved dozens of long range bombers near Brussels. From the reports we have received these bombers appear to be the PE8s. From the intel, we have these bombers are large, lumbering, virtually defenseless, heavy, level bombers. It appears they are getting them operational for some mission involving our battle group. They are being loaded with armor piercing 500 lb bombs.”
“Do you mean to tell me that these museum pieces are going to try and attack the fleet? Even if they somehow fought their way through our air cover the track record of attempting to level bomb maneuvering ships is less than abysmal. It sounds like virtual suicide to me.”
“Our planning team concurs with your assessment sir, but I would suggest that we have to be prepared for all contingencies. Remember how we caught the Japs at Midway. By any measure, we should have lost that one.”
“All right then let’s take no chances... Captain order the CAP to stay with the fleet, and under no circumstances are they to engage the heavy bombers. Your orders are to let the Army Air Corps and RAF deal with the heavy bombers outside of our operational area. We will let the Navy take care of the Navy if they somehow break through. I want a maximum effort on this once radar picks anything coming our way. Set up a plan to use even those ground based airfields to launch fighters when the time is needed. We may have a need to supplement our carriers CAP capabilities.”
“Yes Sir!”
“Draft an order to that effect and have it on my desk in 30 minutes. Get me NATO HQ and confirm that the air zone over the fleet will be the Navy’s responsibility. I want to reiterate that how don’t care how juicy the targets are we don’t want any interference within our airspace. We just don’t have the communications capability to control planes from the other services.”

July 11, 1946
05:15
Dover, England

Radar picks up multiple incoming bogies from the east.
It appears that the Soviets are stirring up a hornets nest. Hundreds of fighters and medium bombers and 30 PE8 heavy bombers start to form over Brussels. It is clear a major effort is underway. The weather is clear with temperatures in the low 70s F. The few clouds that appear seem to be spectators in what just might be the Battle for the English Channel.

The Bridge
TF77 Flag Ship BB South Dakota
Operation Louisville Slugger
English Channel off LeHavre
05:22

GENERAL QUARTERS…GENERAL QUARTERS… THIS IS NOT A DRILL…

“What’s the story so far Captain?”
“We’ve been alerted that the Soviets are making their move Admiral. Ground reports of over 1000 fighters and 30 heavy bombers vectoring in from the East Northeast from Brussels. Our radar has since pick up the bogies and this ain’t no drill sir! They are coming and they are coming in force. We have about 20 minutes before they hit us. It must be driving their fighters crazy escorting those heavies. They are virtually crawling towards us. I think a TBD can outrun em.”
“Alright you know what to do. Reissue standing order 258 and get our CAP in the air. Remind all your flight leaders that under penalty of courts martial are they not to leave our air zone of control. The Soviets are up to something and I think this heavy bomber attack is just a decoy and we will not be suckered. Do I make myself clear gentlemen!”

YES SIR!

USAAF HQ
Dover, England
05:26

“Scramble all available fighter aircraft. Remember to stay in your lanes gentlemen. The Navy has given strict orders to not venture into their Air Zone of Control. We don’t want any friendly fire incidents. It’s hard enough to keep all the players straight as it is.”
“I heard that besides our YP80s there will be a squadron or two of Meteors flown by Brit pilots and to make matter worse a few former German Aces flying ME 262s have been thrown into the mix.”
“You heard right Lt. This is a maximum effort and we need all the help we can get.”
“I got a real bad feeling about this Major…”
“Keep your thoughts to yourself Lt…unless you want me to call General Kenney and tell him my First Lt. has a bad feeling.”
“No sir, thank you sir, sorry sir.”

The Bridge
TF77 Flag Ship BB South Dakota
Operation Louisville Slugger
English Channel off LeHavre
05:45
“Admiral ground radar is picking up 30 more bogeys that just appeared near the bombers. They appear to be traveling at a much higher rate of speed than the bombers.”
“How much faster damn it!”
“They are going at around 400 mph and will be in range in 15 minutes.”
“Shit! Some kind of missile. Captain order a simultaneous turn to line abreast, full flank speed heading 345. Get Kenney on the horn and tell those Air Corps flyers to hit the PE-8 mother ships with all they got. They must have some kind of guidance. Get that Brit expert up here and fire up those gizmos they used against the German guided bombs. Rig for impact. All AA guns look to the east northeast for targets. Keep our flyboys close just in case.”

Cockpit of former German AR234 Blitz Bomber Serial number 140312
96 meters above sea level
801 kmh
Over Lion-Sur-Mer, France
05:56

The medium bomber that is slashing through the air at an unbelievable speed is a refurbished German jet bomber. The German Blitz Bomber is a marvel of modern technology. It is a single seat or with the pilot laying on his from and flying from basically a prone position. His only defense is a rear firing 20 mm cannon that is aimed by the use of a back facing periscope. The Blitz Bombers great speed assumes that the only attack angle possible will be from the rear.
This bomber proved it can easily survive in a heavy anti-aircraft environment. This plane was personally involved in the attacks on the Bridge at Remagen. It repeatedly flew through walls of flack without being severely damaged. The young pilot inside has been flying it for over 4 months and had been training for just such a mission.
This is it Yuri. This is what you’ve been trained to do. Six months and you’ve seen a lot of comrades die trying to perfect just what you are about to do. Keep the speed up. That is your greatest weapon…your speed. Be steady on the throttle. Watch for flame out. No sudden acceleration or large increase in fuel. Jumos catch fire easily. Only the Yankee Shooting Star can keep up with you. That’s why you don’t have any forward firing guns and just the 20mm in the back. Every enemy will be behind you but not for long as you speed past their astonished faces… you hope. No need to worry. You were the best shot in attack school. No one can touch you in your Terror Bomber. The same does not go for Sirnove. He was a terrible shot but the best dive bomber they have ever trained. Too each his strengths. Keep it below 100 meters. No radar for you to tell of my arrival. Look at the faces of the trolls on the ground as you fly by. What’s the matter have you never seen death so close and moving so fast? You are an arrow flying straight into the heart of the enemy. The NATO pigs will pay for my brother’s death. They will pay today and for many todays to come. There is the coast... time to climb straight up and pounce while their mouths are still gapping in astonishment. Ahhhh the force…don’t black out…just like you trained…breath…Oh you beauty how you can climb. Damn…2000 meters in seconds. There is the target nice and fat. Hello Yankee Pigs here I am. Here is death.

Operation Louisville Slugger Naval CAP
Red flight
3046 meters above sea level
321 kph
Over Lion-Sur-Mer, France
05:57
Jesus…bogie at 12:00 low…what the hell is that?
“Cut the chatter Red four and dive on me…Red two stay high…where did that son of a bitch come from and what is it? Control we are diving on what looks to be a bomber climbing from wave top almost straight up over the fleet. We can’t catch it. Damn there are three more with him control. I repeat we can’t catch them even in a dive. Suggest you open up with every gun you got and lead the sons of a bitch by a country mile. Jesus they are fast. Some sort of jet bomber.”

Operation Louisville Slugger Naval CAP
Yellow flight
1290 meters above sea level
315 kph
Over Lion-Sur-Mer, France
05:59

"Yellow Flight Leader reporting we have 24 fast moving Tu2 level bombers at 3500...they appear to have torpedo of some kind or very large bombs. Request permission to climb to altitude to investigate."
"Negative Yellow flight we need you down low to deal with attacking torpedo bombers not high flying "appear to be bombers". Copy?"
"Copy ."
" If they come down low then they are your meat...over."
"Copy. Over."
Bridge USS South Dakota
English Channel off Le Havre, France
06:01
“Admiral…six bogies just pop up on radar out of nowhere and we have unofficial radio chatter urging us to open up with ever gun we got. Some kind of jet bomber...?”
“What do you mean from nowhere? Never mind…How unofficial is the request.”
“It came from a CAP flight...Red flight I believe.”
“Johnson's the flight leader...He's a rookie...A CAP flight…never mind we can’t take chances. Give the order to fire on anything that can’t be positively identified as ours. Belay that. It's probably a couple of those 2 engine Brit Meteors that strayed into our airspace after those missiles. Order the lookouts to keep an eye on em but don't shoot till we have a positive identification.”
2556 meters over the USS Missouri
06:01
“Red one…Red four…I’m on his tail when he climbed taking fire from tail gunner… left wing hit… I’m going in…”
“Red four get out…get out…”
Yuri celebrates in his mind his first air to air kill.
Got my first kill. That will teach you Yankee. Never try and shoot down a Terror Bomber from the rear. Now to do what I was trained to do. Split S…flaps…damn anti air…they didn’t train us for this much. This is too much for me to make it. It’s like a wall of explosions. Ha...there shooting in the wrong direction. What are they shooting at? Never mind if you die…die killing them. Line it up just like training. That ship is huge. Much bigger than the Soyuz we use for training. Steady…steady…release now. Pull up…pull…pull…now go, go, go. Speed is my only defense. Look in periscope. No one following. Ahh too bad Yakoff is down. Looks like two ships hit. Such explosions. I even feel pity for the sailors. They are just pawns for the capitalists. Pawns that need to be killed to save the vast minions. Keep your mind on survival Yuri. Keep your mind clear. Make haste less a Shooting Star comes up from behind.

Bridge USS South Dakota
English Channel off Le Havre, France
06:01
“I can hear em Admiral. It's those Buzz Bombs alright.”
“Give the order to fire. Fire with all we got. Put up a wall of flack to the East so that they will have to fly through. Fire!”


Over TF 77 English Channel
Yellow Flight
06:05

"Yellow Flight to base... those bombers just dropped torpedoes that deployed parachutes. Better get word to the battlewagons to be on the watch for torpedoes in the water."

Over TF 77 English Channel
Yellow Flight
06:11

"Yellow flight to base, those torpedoes appear to be circling after they hit the water. Someone better warn those ships."
Over TF 77 English Channel
Red Flight
06:13
Jees…they got the South Dakota and Mighty Mo. Crap now their shooting at us. “Red Flight climb to 12000 feet…make that 4000 meters…Damn NATO…oh no they got Willy.” Jees can’t they tell which ones are the bad guys? “Climb Red Flight CLIMB! They're shooting at anything that flies.”

Damaged Bridge USS South Dakota
06:26

“Lay back Admiral you’ve been wounded. Corpsman over here.”
“What hit us George? What the hell was that? The flames…the fire…smoke…what's that god awful smell?”
“I don’t know Sir it all happen so fast. We didn’t even have time to react…Sir…Sir…Never mind Corpsman he’s dead.” PREPARE TO ABANDONE SHIP!

Map Room
The White House
Washington D.C.
July 11th, 1946
06:21

"What the hell happened out there today Leahy?"
"Well sir it appears that the Reds have made operational the German AR 234…Hitler’s Blitz Bomber. They came in under the radar and climbed to 6,000 (ft) and then dive bombed the battleships. All the attention was on the East where the buzz bombs were coming out of the sun."
"It kind of reminds me of what happened at Midway where all the Japanese were shooting down the torpedo planes and failed to notice our dive bombers coming in. Then the gunners that did see them they thought they were those Brit Meteors jets. We have testimonials that they were ordered not to fire until too late. We just had no idea that the Reds had an operational jet bomber."
"The real killer though was some torpedo bombers that used the Russian version of that Motobomba FFF Italian circle torpedo that can be dropped from up to 4000 meters and then the descent is retarded by a parachute. Once they hit the water they circle in an ever increasing radius until they hit something or their motors stop. The Italian version was copied by the Germans with their... ah here it is... the LT350 and now the Soviets have their own version the 45-36AV-A.
Here's the report sir. The South Dakota is down with over 750 deaths, and the Missouri is a floating hulk being towed to England. They sustained 591 casualties."
"How did the South Dakota go down so fast?"
"She was hit three times by 1000kg armor piercing bombs and then by two of those torpedoes. The third bomb or the first torpedo caused the forward magazine to explode which broke her back. Much like the HMS Hood that went down in 3 minutes after a lucky hit by the Bismarck."
"So the Reds are cashing in on their captured German Wonder Weapons and scientists. You say it was a jet bomber?"
"Yes Sir and some IL4s with the damn circling torpedo. Some old and some new."
"We have jet fighters in the area do we not?"
"Yes sir but they were ordered not to enter the naval combat zone for fear of friendly fire incidents by Admiral Lee. The USAAF P80s were also lured into chasing after a couple of dozen decoys. The Navy wanted it that way claiming they could take care of their own. After all they have over 20 Fleet carriers on station right now. What they lacked was their own jet fighter."
"And why is that?"
"They wanted to develop their own and refused to work with the Army on an operational P80 variant. Instead they are trying to develop their own based on some German model but are having trouble with the tail section. So meanwhile they were caught too low and too slow to catch the new Soviet jet job. There is good news."
"I'll bet...and what would that be?"
"The Soviets appear to have only16 jet bombers and three were shot down."
"What about those reports about the V1 Buzz Bombs hitting the ships."
"Well Sir it appears they were a decoy all along. No one saw one of the V1s hit any ship. The torpedo depends on blind luck and is designed to be dropped in the middle of a convoy or busy harbor. In this case a battle line of dozens of battleships, and it can be effective. The torpedo is not some kind of wonder weapon but just the right tool at the right time. You have to give the Reds credit on this one."
"Alright Leahy I'm ordering Nimitz to use the P80 until your own plane is a reality. We need the Navy, and we need them bad for our plans to proceed. You'll just have to use the P80 for the meantime. From what I understand it is the fastest and best plane in the air. The Navy has to be able to defend itself now. Not tomorrow but now."
"Yes Sir. On another subject Sir…we just lost two battleships…"
"Yes I understand. Damn it we just stayed a little too long. We can't underestimate the Reds again. End Operation Louisville Slugger now."
"It was only a delaying tactic anyway. Just to buy us some time and that’s what it did. Two weeks and a very steep price for old Joe to swallow. That ought to slow him up a bit next time he decides to run through an open door just because it’s open. Send my condolences to all involved. I will address the nation on Wednesday about the losses of two magnificent ships and hundreds of brave young men."
"Well put sir. How long before you think the Reds will figure out our real plan?"
"Hopefully, not for another month at least we should be in position by then. At least that is the plan. You are dismissed Admiral … Churchill is calling, and he is a real windbag."
"Yes Sir."

Kremlin
Stalin's Private Office
July 11th
1358 hours

"So Sergo what is the situation as you see it?"
"Comrade Stalin thank you for seeing me and asking such an astute question. The NATO command now knows that we have used our own resources and combined them with our liberated Nazi technology to create what they could not. Our Terror Bomber and the torpedoes have done their job and for the loss of one we have sunk or destroyed two battleships, and they have cancelled their little game in the English Channel.
We can expect them to test our defenses against their B29 Super Fortress soon from the information you have given me. I am confident that we will be able to defeat a major raid if given the information about when and where it is to be. We have had over two years to study the B29. In that time we have developed 2 main counter measures to their existence. We only lack the numbers of weapons needed to cover all of our major strategic targets. With the proper preparation we will be able to confuse and confound the bombers and their escorts. They will not be able to determine just what we have done that has enabled us to destroy them in great numbers. I estimate that we will achieve a 20% or better destruction rate with a 80% chance of shooting down any bomber carrying an Atomic bomb."
"The NKVD is taking care of the when and where Sergo. I have been assured that we will have at least two weeks’ notice of the impending attack."
"Then there should be no delay in my receiving that information!"
"Yes Sir Mr. Sergo! Yes……………Sir."
"Oh excuse me your Excellency. I get carried away sometimes."
"One more question puzzles me Sergo. What do you need 100 hamsters for?"
"That actually is a personal project comrade."
"Just make sure it does not interfere with your work Sergo."
"I would not dream of it comrade."
"You are dismissed Sergo... Major Nikolai recall Sokolovsky to the Kremlin. I want to discuss the location of the Yankees. They seem to have disappeared. There are at least 10 divisions unaccounted for from all indications and reports from the NKVD."
"I would know nothing about that comrade."
"Of course you don’t Sergo that’s why I need to talk to Sokolovsky. I said you are dismissed Sergo."
"Thank you comrade."
 
Here is the issue. It is technically POSSIBLE that two ships can be sunk by six lucky bomb hits. But it is extremely unlikely - there is no parallel to it in history. The closest involved a much more lightly armoured ship.

One ship was sunk, not two.

The other issues include the fracas which happened when you tried to ask for advice on how to run the Battle of Britain mark 2, only to reject most people who were telling you that the Brits were going to be successful.

Because I ask for advice and get a few responses that were not based in the reality of the times means what exactly? Does it mean that I have to blindly take opinions from all sources even if they are conflicting and integrate them into the story? Most knowledgeable people (historians) do not think that the RAF could have defeated the VVS in August 1946. In fact none that I can find. Can you find any examples of an historian who thinks the opposite?


In essence, you are restricting the allies to their historical capabilities, and furthermore you are having them adopt tactics and strategies which are LESS effective than the ones they did historically (i.e. the big wing), and you are also letting the USSR come up with method after method to defeat problems which stymied their real world counterparts for years afterwards.

Yes Sergo has brought a new way of thinking just as Ford, Speer, Boeing did for the allies. Why is this so hard a concept to grasp?

For example, the issue of VT fuzes. You have had the USSR come up with a jamming method which renders them ineffective.

VT fuse- We came up with a method to make them ineffective and the Soviets copied it.

The nukes - people have told you that the method you described for disabling gun-type uranium bombs doesn't work.

I don't believe I ever discussed how to disable a gun-type uranium bomb only a Mark III plutonium bomb which required polonium.

As for the issue of reverse engineering - the B-29 is an example of Soviet reverse engineering in exactly this time period. The Tupolev copy of the B-29 had its first flight in May 1947 (2-3 years after capture) and was introduced in 1949 - four to five years after capture.

The Tu 4 flew a few days before it's 2 year timeline for development as decreed by Stalin. Not much development was done before Stalin's orders to replicate it and it took them less than two years once he did. Would not the addition of an industrial genius have sped certain things up like it did in the West. You would have the Soviets performing worse than they did historically.

This gives a rough time frame. To claim that the USSR could engineer jet aircraft into comparable effectiveness with Allied jets, given half the time or less, is most certainly NOT

What are you referring to?

This, in a fiction story, would be a writer's prerogative. I understand that.
But by posting it in the AH discussion board, you have forgone that prerogative in favour of intensive analysis. And "They could have" doesn't wash, especially when you're explicitly coming up with justifications POST hoc.

I'm afraid "They could have" is exactly what AH discussion is all about. I suggest that yes it does wash or there would be no such thing as AH.

Provide specific examples of the capabilities, not arguments that "they could have", especially when there are counterexamples that show it took substantially longer to do something equivalent in reality.

Name one thing I have not given specific examples of...repeatedly.

"This will probably change with the new edited addition as well. They will possibly include rocket assisted bombs etc. "

What that means is, you did not start with the capabilities and work towards the results. You started with the results (the USSR sinking two Iowas) and are now working towards a justification, based on conjecture and wild extrapolations of weapons.

What it means is that I did start with results from history. One lucky hit from the Bismark sunk the Hood. I know your objections to this an they are valid but at the time I did start with a justification just like I always do.


Now, that's fine for a story. But on the AH.com forums, it is generally understood that you have to justify why you have a side succeeding.

Which I have done to most everyone's satisfaction. It is only when people erroneously add their own misreadings or misinterpretations that these kind of problems appear for the most part. If I make and error I admit it and correct it. Let's see if you do the same.


In addition, I must take EXTREME objection to your citation of HMS Hood, for several reasons:

Hood was not a battleship. Hood was a battlecruiser - a ship class one step down from battleships.
Hood was commissioned in 1920, fully two decades before work STARTED on the Iowas. She was an old ship.
Hood was fitted with deck armour at MOST 3 inches thick - less than half that of the Iowa's average.
The Royal Navy did not have the ability to spend as much money on the Hood's armour as the US had on the Iowa's armour. Homogenous armour was not used (the Iowas used homogenous armour in the construction of the Iowa to an extreme degree.)
Hood was not sunk by a bomber. Hood was hit by a shell which struck an extremely lucky location, resulting in a direct magazine hit.
Armour piercing shells weighing 800 kilos are NOT 1000-lb aircraft bombs.

Good points all which is why I have and will revise the scenario further is need be. The kg and lb was a typo which I do a lot of and my editor will correct.


In short, Hood's sinking is in no way whatsoever comparable. The Bismark's shells would not have done nearly the same damage to an Iowa, and may have been turned by her deck armour. In addition, the Bismark was equipped with excellent gunnery, making the question of aiming much more explicable than in the case of this sinking of the Iowas.
I will repeat again -Iowas are and were the most heavily armoured battleships on the planet. I would also ask, if air dropped bombs are effective enough to sink a battleship of comparable type to the Iowas in one or two hits, why it took the Yamato and the Musashi so many bombs and torpedoes EACH to sink them.

No lucky hit.

Please give an example of where I have made a misstatement in my posts regarding the Iowas -

No errors that I can see in this small part of your post, numerous in other parts.

or, alternatively, give an example of the USSR in 1946, using weaponry which was state of the art for a different power in 1945 for a different power and which they did not have access to.

This is an Alternate History forum, not a history forum. Our POD is 1943.

Actually - related to that.

Please give evidence that, in the real world in 1946, the USSR had an effectual counter to the Iowa.

See answer above.

Please give evidence that, in the real world in 1946, VT fuzes could be disabled by something that could be fitted onto an aircraft.

Electronic countermeasures

A move to develop countermeasures against proximity fuzes stemmed from the Germans, who during the "Battle of the Bulge," captured an Army munitions dump that contained a large number of the new radar proximity-fused shells. Concerned that the Germans might attempt to copy the proximity fuze, the Research Division of the Aircraft Radio Laboratory at Wright Field, along with the help of the RLL, was called in begin the development of jamming equipment. Lieutenant Jack Bowers, an engineer with the Aircraft Radio Laboratory at Wright Field, recounted the following to Alfred Price:

"The proximity fuse had been a closely guarded secret on our side. Even though we had been working on countermeasures for a long time, we at Wright Field had never heard of the device. Now we were asked to investigate, on a crash basis, the possibility of a jammer to counter the fuse. We asked why such a jammer had not been developed earlier, and were told that the developing agency had conducted tests and concluded that the fuse could not be jammed! We worked on the problem, and within two weeks, a jammer had been built which would detonate the proximity fuses prematurely."

Since the body of the shell served as the antenna for the radar proximity fuse, it limited the frequency spread of the transceiver from 180 to 220 MHz. The APT-4, a high powered jammer, already covered that part of the spectrum. A motor-driven tuner was added to sweep the jamming transmitter’s signal up and down the band theoretically covered by the fuze. Several modified APT-4’s were installed in a B-17, and a top priority full scale test was arranged at Eglin to see whether the countermeasures would be effective.

Price, in another interview with Lieutenant Ingwald Haugen, one of people involved with the test, Haugen tells him:

"For the firing test, the Army sent a battery of 90 mm anti-aircraft guns. These were emplaced near Eglin. We had requested that during the test the guns would fire VT (proximity fused) shells with spotting charges, so that when the fuses operated, the shells would burst with only a puff of smoke. We were told this was not possible. The VT fuse was about 1 1/2 inches longer than the normal mechanical fuse and it would not fit in a shell carrying a spotting charge. So, we were going to have to use live high explosive VT fused shells for the test. As a safety measure, the guns were to be offset by a small angle, initially 30 mils (about 1.7 degrees), later decreased to 12 mils (about .6 Degrees)."

"It was the sort of test that would never be allowed today under the prevailing flight safety guidelines. At the time, however, there was a war on, and the small risk to our one aircraft had to be weighed against the far larger risk to our whole bomber force if the Germans used such a weapon against us. We who were to fly the test were confident we would be all right - we hoped that the jamming would work as planned, and if it didn’t, the offset fed into the guns would burst the shells at least 240 feet away from us at a range of about 20,000 feet."

"The test lasted about 3 months, during which about 1,600 VT shells were fired, individually, in our direction. Sitting in the fuselage of the B-17, the two RCM operators could pick up the radar transmissions from the shells coming up. The VT fuse radiated CW (continuous wave) signals, but the projectiles would often yaw a little in flight. This, in combination with the spin of the shell, would modulate the signal. We in the back could not see out, but the pilots and the navigator would get a kick out of watching the shells burst well below, or if there was a late burst because the jamming had taken some time to sweep through the shell’s frequency, it might explode close to our altitude. The general conclusion of the test was that, modified to radiate CW swept across the VT fuse band, the APT-4 jamming could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the proximity fused AA shell."

Please also give examples of Soviet mistakes, failures or strategic overstretches in this story (or allied successes or technical surprises) remotely comparable to:

The sinking of two Iowa class battleships by six USSR aircraft which are piloted by inexperienced crews.

The crews were not inexperienced.
How about losing a corps to those same battleships? How about not punching through the Pyrenees Line (this probably lost them the war right there)? How about concentrating all your air power in France and Germany and leaving your most critical area virtually unguarded? How about not discovering hundreds of B29 bombers in Egypt? How about what is going to happen in books three and four? Oh that's right you don't know that.

The disabling of the VT fuze system.

As stated we did that they just copied us.


The inability of thousands upon thousands of people in the USAAF to dig a ten foot deep hole, move an aircraft over it, and load it up.

All I know is what I read from three different sources. They gave no reason why it took so much time or why it was so hard to do. Until I do find out that is not in the book.


The complete disappearance of all Tallboy bombs.

What exactly would they be used for? Why would they have any better luck delivering them than the US with it's atomic bomb? They haven't disappeared I just haven't seen any use for them, do you?

Now for you to answer

1. Where does it say two battleships were sunk?
2. Who originally came up with a way to defeat the VT fuse?
3. Can you cite one historian who thinks the RAF could defeat the VVS in the fall of 1946?
4. Can you cite were I got into a discussion on how to disable a gun-type Uranium bomb?
5. How many days did it take for Tupolev to put the Tu-4 in the air from the day Stalin ordered him to do it?
6. Where do I say that the crews flying the planes were inexperienced?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Okay, so it's torpedoes now. Better, a bit, but still nowhere near good enough.



The Iowas had a TDS (Torpedo Defence System) complete with torpedo bulkheads capable of enduring a 700-lb torpedo warhead. The Italian torpedoes you mention had warheads of barely more than a third of this.
In addition, the Yamato that I cited earlier was struck by several torpedoes; these were the US mark 13, which at the time had a 600-lb warhead.
Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete because of their ability to quickly destroy the other; it was because of range. An aircraft carrier matched against a battleship can send strikes from far beyond the range of the battleship to reply, and can do so en masse and repeatedly.
Battleships were built to endure torpedoes as much as they were built to endure above-water weapons.






And the torpedo you cite did not have a stellar combat record in WW2 – in fact, the opposite. On one occasion, Junkers Ju-88s launched 72 of them at shipping at Tripoli. Result: two sunk supply ships, one damaged destroyer. Damaged – not sunk.
Battleships, as I'm sure you're aware, are tougher than battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are tougher than heavy cruisers. Heavies are tougher than lights. And compared to even a light cruiser, a destroyer is not particularly strong – hence the nickname of “tin can”.
And the Iowas were tougher than most battleships.
As such, I doubt that these torpedoes would do much better.
Now, if you want the Iowas sunk, there are two broad ways to do it. I'm afraid you'll probably have to forget the idea of a wunder-weapon doing it – those didn't have great service records. The wonder weapons which worked were adopted and became simply “weapons”. (The Axis didn't have all that much luck with wonder weapons against ships in particular.)
The ways to do it both revolve around – gasp! - conventional weapons of the WW2 era. It's less shiny, but it's also more likely to work (and to be risked) because they're proven technologies.



Option one: The USSR mounts a mass torpedo plane attack against the battleship line. They put together every air-dropped torpedo they can find, of every type they can find, mount them on every level bomber they can find (retrofitting level bombers into torpedo bombers or vice versa IS sensible) and zerg the combined fleet.
It would be entirely realistic for this to “swamp” even the high density CAP of a combined allied fleet – even one with properly distributed screens – and break through to attack, at which case they could make so many attacks that they sink several Allied battleships.
The downside, from the point of view of the USSR, is that they'll lose a huge chunk of the aforementioned air force doing it. It might well be worth it to scare the remaining Allied fleet off for several months in fear of losing the rest of their battle line, but it'll also seriously harm the numbers of level bombers the USSR can bring to bear.



The other option is to do the same thing, but with dive bombers and heavy AP bombs. Rather than half a dozen super-bombers which were born from the fevered dreams of the Nazi scientists when they were trying to come up with a way to save the Reich (and hence poured money into things which would not have worked as designed), just have thousands of Il-2 and other such dive bombers blacken the sky and deluge the combined fleet in bombs. In such a circumstance, you can more or less write off any half dozen battlewagons you care to name, though the Iowas are still so well protected that at most one of them should go down.
Combine the two and hey, you've splatted a large proportion of the Combined Fleet. Unfortunately for the USSR, you've also lost a VAST proportion of their tactical air strength and pilots.
A sort of “decisive battle” approach, in other words.









A key factor involved here is the concept of naval aviation – both from ships and at ships.
In this field, with the Japanese destroyed, the Allies were the world's masters at it. Both defensive and offensive. Kamikaze defense doctrine, the Combat Air Patrol, the heavy use of RADAR and IFF (yes, Identify-Friend-Or-Foe was around at this time)... defensively, they were the kings.
Offensively, the same.
Naval aviation has a steep learning curve. The UK started learning in world war one, and kept at it for a long, long time. The US learned over the course of over a dozen years as well. The IJN also spent decades learning. Italian air power had some effectiveness in the anti-shipping role, but their aircraft weren't great by Western Allies standards. (The same is true of USSR aircraft, minus the anti shipping effectiveness.)
It takes experience to learn how to attack a moving ship. It takes experience to design anti ship weapons (every single major power, when they started war, had serious and hard-to-resolve issues with their torpedo exploders, for example). It takes experience to learn tactics for anti shipping work (IJN, RN and USN had this experience; the Regia Aeronautica did as well, but where the hell are the USSR getting Regia Aeronautica pilots to teach them?) The Germans, who are the people the USSR are supposed to be learning this from, had a terrible record as far as naval air power goes.
Now, the US navy and the Royal Navy HAS that experience (the US navy especially.) They've paid in blood and death for it. They've learned by doing, over the long years of war in the Pacific, how to properly control a combat air patrol using radar identification. How to tell a low attack aircraft from a high one. How to split the attention of a fleet, so that one portion of the CAP and screen go after one threat while another stays on hand to deal with the rest. In short, how to defend against multi axis attacks by aircraft which threaten serious mayhem if they break through.
By contrast, the USSR hasn't even had to fight a ship in the whole time they've been fighting across Europe. To claim that the character you have created to alter the timeline is able to teach the USSR's air force more about naval aviation in three years (while they're fighting a major land war) or one year (when they actually have even the mockups of the aircraft they're going to use in the attack) than the US navy know is ludicrous.






Good timelines (and good stories) have give and take. One side is better at one thing, the other side is better at another.
In the original time line, the specialities of the USSR are: ground warfare, army air support, mechanized warfare, in general fighting a land war.
The specialities of the NATO sides are: Naval power, air power, air defense, and sheer industrial preponderance.
Their artillery can be considered broadly comparable (the USSR has numbers and some excellent pieces like the Katyusha; Allied counter-battery fire and control tactics are extremely fluid).
Tanks – both sides have Tiger-killers. The USSR has the IS tanks, the Allies have the Pershing. The USSR's heavy tanks are much more available than the USA ones due to the lack of ocean in the way.
Numbers – the USSR have more infantry and a larger army; the Wallies have far more front line fighters and bombers, along with a huge strategic air wing.
Super weapons – the Allies have the gun-type uranium bomb and the implosion-type plutonium bomb. At this time, fallout is not understood, so it may potentially be used as a huge conventional weapon. The W-Allies also have Anthrax – lots of it – which they are unlikely to use, but may if pushed.
Other secret weapons – the Allies have much, much more centimetric radar production and equipment, because they invented it. Proximity fuzes are commonplace. They also have fully understood, second-generation jets and an active development plan, while the USSR will at most have had a year with the often flawed German jet program (which in reality they did not successfully reverse engineer; purchasing the Nene jet engine from Atlee's government.)
So, that's the original time line, in broad generalization.
Now, the big question.
In which areas are the USSR better than the original timeline? In which are they worse?
In which areas are the Western Allies better than the original timeline? In which are they worse?






This post was prepared before I saw your huge rebuttal posting; I will focus on only one aspect of the rebuttal, because it's past 1 AM here and I'm tired.


The setbacks you mention for the Soviets are really not very good evidence for your protestation that they have suffered setbacks. It's all not so much setbacks as less than complete and total success.
The fact they're having trouble with the Pyrenees does not change how they've driven across Western Germany, the Low Countries, France, Italy, and Sweden in one summer's campaign. That's frankly amazing, in that historically armies advance to the limit of their supply lines and then have to halt to reorganize them... this is why the W.Allies offensive after they broke out of Normandy took them past the Seine but not past the Rhine, it's why Operation Compass (barely) failed, and it's why Barbarossa had to pause around autumn. (And yes, capturing all those supply dumps would explain how they made it that far, but capturing all those supply dumps is itself a bit ridiculous. You can maintain operational surprise the first day, but not past the Rhine! This isn't the first outing of a new strategy of Blitzkrieg - by now both sides have experience with the strategy, and (as per Battle of the Bulge) know how to defeat it - or at least stall it.
The fact that they lost a corps to battleship bombardment does not change that, in the same engagement, the Allies lost one battleship sunk and another as near as makes no practical difference (hulked is not sunk, I admit, but it's close enough that it often gets lumped together when assessing the results of a battle.) If the Allies inflict more "setbacks" like that on the USSR, they'll run out of battleships pretty sharpish.
The fact that you're going to write something where they lose in the future does NOT IN ANY WAY equate to their suffering reverses already. It's several months into the war, and the sum total of serious reverses inflicted on the USSR is one corps and being stopped once.

Norway was an Allied triumph by comparison to these examples of Soviet reverses, and Norway was captured by the Axis!




Right, now for your questions.


1. Where does it say two battleships were sunk?
2. Who originally came up with a way to defeat the VT fuse?
3. Can you cite one historian who thinks the RAF could defeat the VVS in the fall of 1946?
4. Can you cite were I got into a discussion on how to disable a gun-type Uranium bomb?
5. How many days did it take for Tupolev to put the Tu-4 in the air from the day Stalin ordered him to do it?
6. Where do I say that the crews flying the planes were inexperienced?
I will concede that it is "only" one sunk and one rendered a hulk. Functionally the same in terms of "ships lost" in that engagement.
The VT fuze was disabled, indeed, by the Western Allies. However, I note that the APT-4 jammer was fairly expensive and indeed used multiple cavity magnetrons. And that the counter-countermeasure would be something as simple as adding a delay time fuze to the circuit. Out of interest, how did the plans for the APT-4 jammer or equivalent get shipped over to the USSR? I mean, the people who built the original APT-4 had been working with both magnetrons and jammers for several years - was there a Soviet equivalent of the Battle of the Beams to build up such a base of experienced personnel?
No, I cannot cite such a historian. But fighting the VVT over THEIR territory is different to fighting it over RAF territory - the question of "can a largely ground support based air force defeat a smaller force focused on defence, operating on home ground" is already answered in 1940. It is also answered in a different sense - it took a LOT longer for the Western Allies to destroy the Luftwaffe than it took them to push the LW back from bombing Britain. Fighting on the defensive is a huge force multiplier. Can you cite an example of a historian who thought that the VVT could defeat the RAF? (This is not a simple mirror of the "can the RAF defeat the VVT" question - if both can defend their own air space and neither can launch effective offenses, neither can defeat the other.)


https://www.alternatehistory.com/di...87776&highlight=polonium+gun+type#post4787776
Here you claim that gun type nuclear weapons would need polonium.


Quote:
The US could have built many more U235 Hiroshima gun type weapons than they did historically, but they were wasteful, inefficient and not as safe as more modern designs, hence the fact the Oppenheimer paused production intil further testing. They are far simpler than the Plutonium/implosion Nagasaki bombs however.
You:
They still need polonium, trained personnel, facilities and to figure out what is killing everyone.
This is your saying that they still need polonium in order to make a gun type.
Wikipedia:
Abner

A different initiator (code named ABNER) was used for the Little Boy uranium bomb. Its design was simpler and it contained less polonium. It was activated by the impact of the uranium projectile to the target. It was added to the design as an afterthought and was not essential for the weapon's function.


Note that bit about "afterthought" and "not essential". Thus, polonium initiators are NOT needed for a gun-type.


I am unable to find a precise date; however, the sources I can find say things like "well in progress early in 1945". That is to say, the aircraft was available before VJ-day and was finished by May 1947, with full production in 1949 onwards. I do not consider this fact (that a successful reverse engineering operation was performed in, generously, under two years) to mean that a successful reverse engineering operation could be performed in under one and a half years (assuming the most generous time frame for when the Luftwaffe jets were captured to be Jan 1945, then use of reverse engineered versions in operation before July 1946 would be unusual to say the least). In addition, the source I checked stated that "the entire" soviet aircraft industry was mobilized to work on this project, and that this was a key factor in finishing so soon. How many reverse engineering projects can be run at once, if the ongoing Tu-4 one is taking the whole soviet aircraft industry? (Even if it is an exaggeration, I'm assuming that most of their best and brightest designers are involved.)
And, finally. You do not say that the crews are inexperienced; that was simple logic. It is a newly reverse engineered plane - that means it is a new plane to the VVT. It is the first jet plane they have had - that means it does not behave like any other they have had before. Therefore, the pilots are inexperienced in flying it.
They should also be inexperienced in attacking ships, unless the Russians got a lot of first hand experience attacking ships with torpedoes/bombs that I didn't notice in WW2.
 
Okay, so it's torpedoes now. Better, a bit, but still nowhere near good enough.

The Iowas had a TDS (Torpedo Defence System) complete with torpedo bulkheads capable of enduring a 700-lb torpedo warhead. The Italian torpedoes you mention had warheads of barely more than a third of this.
In addition, the Yamato that I cited earlier was struck by several torpedoes; these were the US mark 13, which at the time had a 600-lb warhead.
Aircraft carriers did not render battleships obsolete because of their ability to quickly destroy the other; it was because of range. An aircraft carrier matched against a battleship can send strikes from far beyond the range of the battleship to reply, and can do so en masse and repeatedly.
Battleships were built to endure torpedoes as much as they were built to endure above-water weapons.

And the torpedo you cite did not have a stellar combat record in WW2 – in fact, the opposite. On one occasion, Junkers Ju-88s launched 72 of them at shipping at Tripoli. Result: two sunk supply ships, one damaged destroyer. Damaged – not sunk.
Battleships, as I'm sure you're aware, are tougher than battlecruisers. Battlecruisers are tougher than heavy cruisers. Heavies are tougher than lights. And compared to even a light cruiser, a destroyer is not particularly strong – hence the nickname of “tin can”.
And the Iowas were tougher than most battleships.
As such, I doubt that these torpedoes would do much better.
Now, if you want the Iowas sunk, there are two broad ways to do it. I'm afraid you'll probably have to forget the idea of a wunder-weapon doing it – those didn't have great service records. The wonder weapons which worked were adopted and became simply “weapons”. (The Axis didn't have all that much luck with wonder weapons against ships in particular.)
The ways to do it both revolve around – gasp! - conventional weapons of the WW2 era. It's less shiny, but it's also more likely to work (and to be risked) because they're proven technologies.

Option one: The USSR mounts a mass torpedo plane attack against the battleship line. They put together every air-dropped torpedo they can find, of every type they can find, mount them on every level bomber they can find (retrofitting level bombers into torpedo bombers or vice versa IS sensible) and zerg the combined fleet.
It would be entirely realistic for this to “swamp” even the high density CAP of a combined allied fleet – even one with properly distributed screens – and break through to attack, at which case they could make so many attacks that they sink several Allied battleships.
The downside, from the point of view of the USSR, is that they'll lose a huge chunk of the aforementioned air force doing it. It might well be worth it to scare the remaining Allied fleet off for several months in fear of losing the rest of their battle line, but it'll also seriously harm the numbers of level bombers the USSR can bring to bear.

The other option is to do the same thing, but with dive bombers and heavy AP bombs. Rather than half a dozen super-bombers which were born from the fevered dreams of the Nazi scientists when they were trying to come up with a way to save the Reich (and hence poured money into things which would not have worked as designed), just have thousands of Il-2 and other such dive bombers blacken the sky and deluge the combined fleet in bombs. In such a circumstance, you can more or less write off any half dozen battlewagons you care to name, though the Iowas are still so well protected that at most one of them should go down.
Combine the two and hey, you've splatted a large proportion of the Combined Fleet. Unfortunately for the USSR, you've also lost a VAST proportion of their tactical air strength and pilots.
A sort of “decisive battle” approach, in other words.[\quote]

How about this I propose both of these scenarios in another venue. I can quote you or I can pretend I'm doing it. I have posted extensively in the Armchair General and the moderator lets those folks get way out of hand. How about we offer these solutions there and see what kind of a response we get? There are about 12 guys who hate this story and it will be interesting to see what they have to offer.

A key factor involved here is the concept of naval aviation – both from ships and at ships.
In this field, with the Japanese destroyed, the Allies were the world's masters at it. Both defensive and offensive. Kamikaze defense doctrine, the Combat Air Patrol, the heavy use of RADAR and IFF (yes, Identify-Friend-Or-Foe was around at this time)... defensively, they were the kings.
Offensively, the same.
Naval aviation has a steep learning curve. The UK started learning in world war one, and kept at it for a long, long time. The US learned over the course of over a dozen years as well. The IJN also spent decades learning. Italian air power had some effectiveness in the anti-shipping role, but their aircraft weren't great by Western Allies standards. (The same is true of USSR aircraft, minus the anti shipping effectiveness.)
It takes experience to learn how to attack a moving ship. It takes experience to design anti ship weapons (every single major power, when they started war, had serious and hard-to-resolve issues with their torpedo exploders, for example). It takes experience to learn tactics for anti shipping work (IJN, RN and USN had this experience; the Regia Aeronautica did as well, but where the hell are the USSR getting Regia Aeronautica pilots to teach them?) The Germans, who are the people the USSR are supposed to be learning this from, had a terrible record as far as naval air power goes.
Now, the US navy and the Royal Navy HAS that experience (the US navy especially.) They've paid in blood and death for it. They've learned by doing, over the long years of war in the Pacific, how to properly control a combat air patrol using radar identification. How to tell a low attack aircraft from a high one. How to split the attention of a fleet, so that one portion of the CAP and screen go after one threat while another stays on hand to deal with the rest. In short, how to defend against multi axis attacks by aircraft which threaten serious mayhem if they break through.
By contrast, the USSR hasn't even had to fight a ship in the whole time they've been fighting across Europe.

So far so good.

To claim that the character you have created to alter the timeline is able to teach the USSR's air force more about naval aviation in three years (while they're fighting a major land war) or one year (when they actually have even the mockups of the aircraft they're going to use in the attack) than the US navy know is ludicrous.

Now there you go again. Where did I ever say that Sergo taught anyone anything about combat? He develops weapons and the means to manufacture them. He knows a good idea when he sees one and knows how to capitalize on others research and conclusions.

You maybe astounded to know that thousands of Soviets were sent to North America for training in many different areas. Could a handful have been trained by the navy in naval aviation? Yes it could, and did happen in 1944.

Your attitude about how a group of untested flyers could not effectively attack a battleship remind me of the British Admiralty when they sent in the
Prince of Wales which had 6 inch decks as well.

Good timelines (and good stories) have give and take. One side is better at one thing, the other side is better at another.
In the original time line, the specialities of the USSR are: ground warfare, army air support, mechanized warfare, in general fighting a land war.
The specialities of the NATO sides are: Naval power, air power, air defense, and sheer industrial preponderance.
Their artillery can be considered broadly comparable (the USSR has numbers and some excellent pieces like the Katyusha; Allied counter-battery fire and control tactics are extremely fluid).
Tanks – both sides have Tiger-killers. The USSR has the IS tanks, the Allies have the Pershing. The USSR's heavy tanks are much more available than the USA ones due to the lack of ocean in the way.
Numbers – the USSR have more infantry and a larger army; the Wallies have far more front line fighters and bombers, along with a huge strategic air wing.
Super weapons – the Allies have the gun-type uranium bomb and the implosion-type plutonium bomb. At this time, fallout is not understood, so it may potentially be used as a huge conventional weapon. The W-Allies also have Anthrax – lots of it – which they are unlikely to use, but may if pushed.
Other secret weapons – the Allies have much, much more centimetric radar production and equipment, because they invented it. Proximity fuzes are commonplace. They also have fully understood, second-generation jets and an active development plan, while the USSR will at most have had a year with the often flawed German jet program (which in reality they did not successfully reverse engineer; purchasing the Nene jet engine from Atlee's government.)
So, that's the original time line, in broad generalization.

Now, the big question.
In which areas are the USSR better than the original timeline? In which are they worse?
In which areas are the Western Allies better than the original timeline? In which are they worse?


This post was prepared before I saw your huge rebuttal posting; I will focus on only one aspect of the rebuttal, because it's past 1 AM here and I'm tired.[\quote]

Okay.


The setbacks you mention for the Soviets are really not very good evidence for your protestation that they have suffered setbacks. It's all not so much setbacks as less than complete and total success
.

Your opinion and I totally disagree. Strategy they have may very well have lost the war. You are very wrong if you think otherwise as will be demonstrated.

The fact they're having trouble with the Pyrenees does not change how they've driven across Western Germany, the Low Countries, France, Italy, and Sweden in one summer's campaign. That's frankly amazing, in that historically armies advance to the limit of their supply lines and then have to halt to reorganize them... this is why the W.Allies offensive after they broke out of Normandy took them past the Seine but not past the Rhine, it's why Operation Compass (barely) failed, and it's why Barbarossa had to pause around autumn. (And yes, capturing all those supply dumps would explain how they made it that far, but capturing all those supply dumps is itself a bit ridiculous. You can maintain operational surprise the first day, but not past the Rhine! This isn't the first outing of a new strategy of Blitzkrieg - by now both sides have experience with the strategy, and (as per Battle of the Bulge) know how to defeat it - or at least stall it.

Oh comeon not his crap again. See the FAQ thread. I will not waste anymore time going over this for the 20th time. Your wrong, I have precedence on my side, and expert after expert who agree with me and no one has come up with one who doesn't.

The fact that they lost a corps to battleship bombardment does not change that, in the same engagement, the Allies lost one battleship sunk and another as near as makes no practical difference (hulked is not sunk, I admit, but it's close enough that it often gets lumped together when assessing the results of a battle.) If the Allies inflict more "setbacks" like that on the USSR, they'll run out of battleships pretty sharpish.

In other forums the battleship idea is laughted out of the room. Very few besides you and me see a use for battleships in 1946.

The fact that you're going to write something where they lose in the future does NOT IN ANY WAY equate to their suffering reverses already. It's several months into the war, and the sum total of serious reverses inflicted on the USSR is one corps and being stopped once.

How many major defeats did the Germans have in their first 6 months? How many did the Japanese have?

Norway was an Allied triumph by comparison to these examples of Soviet reverses, and Norway was captured by the Axis!


Not following you on this.

Right, now for your questions.

I will concede that it is "only" one sunk and one rendered a hulk. Functionally the same in terms of "ships lost" in that engagement.
The VT fuze was disabled, indeed, by the Western Allies. However, I note that the APT-4 jammer was fairly expensive and indeed used multiple cavity magnetrons. And that the counter-countermeasure would be something as simple as adding a delay time fuze to the circuit. Out of interest, how did the plans for the APT-4 jammer or equivalent get shipped over to the USSR?

I mean, the people who built the original APT-4 had been working with both magnetrons and jammers for several years - was there a Soviet equivalent of the Battle of the Beams to build up such a base of experienced personnel?

Well if you read the timeline, blog or book you would know that the US quickly made 200 APT-4 jammers after the Germans captured hundreds of thousands of proximity fuses in the Battle of the Bulge thinking they would use the fuses on Allied troops. 200 jammers that the Soviets knew exactly where they were stored and captured them very early in the war.

I really can't retell the story to everyone and I suggest that you should read it and comprehend it before you comment. Please stop cherry picking.


No, I cannot cite such a historian.

Because there isn't one because anyone who studies this time period knows that what I have proposed concerning the RAF, VVS, US Army and the Soviet Army is correct.

But fighting the VVT over THEIR territory is different to fighting it over RAF territory - the question of "can a largely ground support based air force defeat a smaller force focused on defence, operating on home ground" is already answered in 1940.

You conviently forgot to add ...
1. spies
The Germans had not one. The Soviets have hundreds
2. range of Soviet aircraft
No place for RAF to hide or refit or resupply
3. 5 to one odds and not 1.4 to one
4. Foreknowledge of targets
Exactly where the fuel dumps, storage facilities, bunkers for personne
5. Napalm
6. Cluster bombs
7. Knowledge of what the Germans did wrong and the British did right

etc.

It is also answered in a different sense - it took a LOT longer for the Western Allies to destroy the Luftwaffe than it took them to push the LW back from bombing Britain. Fighting on the defensive is a huge force multiplier. Can you cite an example of a historian who thought that the VVT could defeat the RAF? (This is not a simple mirror of the "can the RAF defeat the VVT" question - if both can defend their own air space and neither can launch effective offenses, neither can defeat the other.)

Yes and I have numerous times.


https://www.alternatehistory.com/di...87776&highlight=polonium+gun+type#post4787776
Here you claim that gun type nuclear weapons would need polonium.


Quote:
The US could have built many more U235 Hiroshima gun type weapons than they did historically, but they were wasteful, inefficient and not as safe as more modern designs, hence the fact the Oppenheimer paused production intil further testing. They are far simpler than the Plutonium/implosion Nagasaki bombs however.
You:

This is your saying that they still need polonium in order to make a gun type.
Wikipedia:
Abner

I did not say they needed polonium for a gun type bomb. I was talking about both types of plutonium bombs. If you interpreted it differently then I'm sorry but you are wrong.


A different initiator (code named ABNER) was used for the Little Boy uranium bomb. Its design was simpler and it contained less polonium. It was activated by the impact of the uranium projectile to the target. It was added to the design as an afterthought and was not essential for the weapon's function.


Note that bit about "afterthought" and "not essential". Thus, polonium initiators are NOT needed for a gun-type.

Didn't say they were.


I am unable to find a precise date; however, the sources I can find say things like "well in progress early in 1945". That is to say, the aircraft was available before VJ-day and was finished by May 1947, with full production in 1949 onwards. I do not consider this fact (that a successful reverse engineering operation was performed in, generously, under two years) to mean that a successful reverse engineering operation could be performed in under one and a half years (assuming the most generous time frame for when the Luftwaffe jets were captured to be Jan 1945, then use of reverse engineered versions in operation before July 1946 would be unusual to say the least). In addition, the source I checked stated that "the entire" soviet aircraft industry was mobilized to work on this project, and that this was a key factor in finishing so soon. How many reverse engineering projects can be run at once, if the ongoing Tu-4 one is taking the whole soviet aircraft industry? (Even if it is an exaggeration, I'm assuming that most of their best and brightest designers are involved.)

Once again please read the story before you comment on a particular part and stop cherry picking. I explicitly state a number of times that they were not working on the Tu-4 or the atomic bomb which frees up incredible amounts of resources for other things that Sergo convinces Stalin are much more valuable for future wars.

And, finally. You do not say that the crews are inexperienced; that was simple logic
.

No it wasn't it was assuming and you know what the say about that.

It is a newly reverse engineered plane - that means it is a new plane to the VVT. It is the first jet plane they have had - that means it does not behave like any other they have had before. Therefore, the pilots are inexperienced in flying it.

They were original planes hence the line "Cockpit of former German AR234 Blitz Bomber Serial number 140312"


They should also be inexperienced in attacking ships, unless the Russians got a lot of first hand experience attacking ships with torpedoes/bombs that I didn't notice in WW2.

And of course the pilots who sunk the Bismark, Prince of Wales, Kickis, Limno, De Zeven Provincein had attacked many other battleships. You know I bet if I wanted to waste my time researching the pilots who hit the Yamato, Musashi, Hiei and Roma we'd probably discover that not one of them had ever dropped a bomb on a moving battleship or possibly any ship under combat conditions. It was the training that mattered not experience.

Now what is your broader point? What did you hope to accomplish by zeroing in on a very old post, bringing it up after so much time and then bringing up almost every other well discussed controversial subject?

You think the timeline is a piece of crap? Stop reading it.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
There's only one thing I'm going to comment on, because it is a case of you either lying or not understanding english.

Your reply to someone saying:
The US could have built many more U235 Hiroshima gun type weapons than they did historically, but they were wasteful, inefficient and not as safe as more modern designs, hence the fact the Oppenheimer paused production intil further testing. They are far simpler than the Plutonium/implosion Nagasaki bombs however.

Was to say:

They still need polonium, trained personnel, facilities and to figure out what is killing everyone.

Note the first part of that sentence

They still need polonium

This is as a DIRECT reply to someone talking specifically about U-235 Gun type weapons. Uranium 235 gun type weapons, and you say they need polonium.
To claim that you were talking about plutonium weapons is disingenuous or lying. As such, I don't want to continue to get into an enormous argument with you, because you're twisting your own words to say what you want them to have said.
 
Uh... What about the 2000 or so M26 Pershings? They should be able to be modified with a new engine design to help ease the problems out, while work on a possible better tank design can be done.

This was addressed by instituting a WWII stop-gap: the mating of the M26 Pershing turret to the M4 Sherman HVSS hull (Sherman and Pershing turret rings were the same diameter, coincidentally) to make a Super-Sherman tank. In the forum, the story was posted of just such a thing being tested with a new gyro-stabilizer that allowed it to fire on the move, and an improved version of the German 'Uhu' infrared night vision system. US M4 Super Sherman HVSS 90mm 002.jpg

US M4 Super Sherman HVSS 90mm 002.jpg
 

hipper

Banned
There's only one thing I'm going to comment on, because it is a case of you either lying or not understanding english.

Your reply to someone saying:
The US could have built many more U235 Hiroshima gun type weapons than they did historically, but they were wasteful, inefficient and not as safe as more modern designs, hence the fact the Oppenheimer paused production intil further testing. They are far simpler than the Plutonium/implosion Nagasaki bombs however.

Was to say:

They still need polonium, trained personnel, facilities and to figure out what is killing everyone.

Note the first part of that sentence

They still need polonium

This is as a DIRECT reply to someone talking specifically about U-235 Gun type weapons. Uranium 235 gun type weapons, and you say they need polonium.
To claim that you were talking about plutonium weapons is disingenuous or lying. As such, I don't want to continue to get into an enormous argument with you, because you're twisting your own words to say what you want them to have said.

Saphroneth

Take some advice and stop discussing this now , this is Hertzogs story, he's not that interested in logic and enjoys argument. he has a story arc and is not going to change it.

He does not understand air combat or why the RAF won the Battle of Britain. He has hand waved Bomber Command out of existence to preserve the story arc.

The story is filled with numerous implausibilities starting with using an appreciation of the soviet threat written as a budget raiser for the American armed forces. I'm not sure the concept of friction has ever occurred to him.

Flee now and know peace, he won't stop arguing.

regards

hipper.
 
Top