Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although we moved heaven and Earth to build an atomic bomb in just under 3 years from the time Enrico Fermi built a crude nuclear reactor in Dec 1942, our labors produced enough enriched uranium to produce one uranium bomb and 3 Pu bombs with partial assemblies for 3 more. One Pu bomb was used in the Trinity Test July 16, 1945. The Uranium bomb was detonated over Hiroshima. Another Pu bomb exploded near Nagasaki. Leaving only one working device that might have seen use if needed at either Kokura or Kobe. The 4th bomb was used in a US Navy sponsored nuclear test at Bikini Island in 1946. So in late 1945 the USA did not have a militarily useful nuclear arsenal and would not until 1947-8 . A lot of work and a considerable expansion of the facilities built by the Manhattan District of the US Army Corps of Engineers were needed to build first a few bombs each year to tens and hundreds of bombs a year. By 1948 the US nuclear arsenal had about 50-80 working nuclear devices and work was underway to use new technology to increase nuclear yield and to make bombs that would trigger fusion reactions between deuterium and tritium but such super bombs were from 5-10 years in the future. Amy credible nuclear attack against the Soviets or their forces in Europe would have had to wait until 1948.So attacking them in 1945 would have meant they would have at least two maybe 3 years to drive the Western Allies out of Europe plus the Soviets had a blue print of the US nuclear device code named Trinity courtesy of Beria's NKVD and some well placed spies like Dr. Klaus Fuchs. Lavrenti Beria was the Soviets answer to Leslie Groves and Yuli Khariton played the role of J. Robert Oppenheimer. The USSR had a working bomb by early 1949.
Now if you have an atomic bomb now you have the problem of getting it to the targets. This is where Russian geography works against you. Most Soviet industry had been moved with great effort and haste to Western Siberia and the Urals just beyond the Volga river. B-17s and B-24s based in Western Europe, or the Middle East couldn't reach it even on one way flights. B-29s could make one way flights but that option would not be popular with US flight crews. especially since they would have to set down or parachute into Soviet territory! A new plane called the B-36 was built for the atomic mission along with the mastery of midair refueling but the B-36s were only starting to become available in 1947 with mid air refueling in the early 1950s. The B-36s were slow and the introduction of jet interceptors or pursuit planes (The Soviets built a copy of the ME262 called the Mig 9 in 1946 and a much better Mig 15 by 1948 ) meant much faster and higher flying jet bombers were needed and became a priority for Curtis LeMay and SAC.
Did the Soviets had high-altitude flying fortresses, B-17, b-24, B-36 capable of blanket bombing from hight altitude?
No need to pound the industrial complex in the Urals, Baku was enough.
Last edited by Karlo Marlo; 08-08-2015 at 12:18 PM..
Did the Soviets had high-altitude flying fortresses, B-17, b-24, B-36 capable of blanket bombing from hight altitude?
Even if those high-altitude bombers managed to do significant damage that would impair production for a brief time, do you have evidence that Soviet interceptors could not reach the altitudes of those bombers? Or are you assuming that US escort fighters would suddenly develop the range to stay with them to and from their targets, in spite of the ability of air defenses to congregate at higher speeds than bombers can approach targets? If the war dragged on, are you presuming that the Soviet jet interceptors sure to come would have been completely outclassed by US airborne firepower, in spite of the fact that lost US aircrew would become prisoners and bailed-out Soviet aircrew could be back in action the next day?
"The fastest advance of the British army," and I thought the British got irony?
The advance was stopped at the Elsenborn Ridge by 1st, 2nd, 9th and 99th Infantry Divisions under Bradley.
By Montgomery using British and US armies. The German commander Hasso von Manteuffel said of Montgomery:
The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough
I just explored the subject.
Russians had no high-altitude flying fortresses, nothing resemblant remotely to B-17, Lancasters or Halifax? etc.
Russian pilots improved a lot, but were no match...they were still suffering Stalin's purge.
They only had tactical planes, mostly Ilushin, ***, low flying planes incapable of intercepting high-altitude flying fortresses as the Americans and English had.... The US could make 60.000 planes a year, Russians, 20.000.
The enormous industrial power of Americans, the technological know-how of English and Germans (reconstruction of Leopard construction facilities in a very short time) could produce "blanket bombing fleets" and armor capable of erasing all Soviet artillery and armor in less than six months.
It was not necessary to destroy the Industrial Complex in the Urals, it was enough to bomb Baku out of existence. No oil, no industry.
Plus, high-altitude planes with base in Iran could destroy all communication infrastructre.
In fact, Allied only had to continue the war.
Just a more primitive but similar scenario to Irak war.
But of course, the goal would be not to invade and destroy ussr, just get the ussr out of Europe..possibly creating a buffer zone in Ukraine, etc, 100 km from Moscow.
I just explored the subject.
Russians had no high-altitude flying fortresses, nothing resemblant remotely to B-17, Lancasters or Halifax? etc.
Russian pilots improved a lot, but were no match...they were still suffering Stalin's purge.
They only had tactical planes, mostly Ilushin, ***, low flying planes incapable of intercepting high-altitude flying fortresses as the Americans and English had.... The US could make 60.000 planes a year, Russians, 20.000.
By 1945 they were not suffering Stalin's purge at all. The USA made 86,000 planes in 1944. The British about 25,000. In 1945 the field was as a seen, not how it might be. The Soviets had the edge. You forgot the Soviet direct copy of the B-29. Any battle would primarily on the ground. The Soviets by far were better in that. They were 110% battle proven.
They were not suffering Stalin's purge, but as you know, creating a school of pilots as English and Americans had, capable of outmaneuver the enemy, you need time, instructors. Germans wiped out almost all the Soviet aircraft and they had to start from scratch. As to Soviet copies....they might have had a prototype, 10 prototypes...but they did not have the resources to mass produce them.
But what was more important, they did not have planes capable of fighting flying fortress, they did not have fighter-flying fortresses..mosquito types, nothing like a Mustang....their planes were tactical.
Battle, unfortunately for that European region, would have been from the "sky above"....Nothing new...English and American had been doing it for years. Blanket bombing.
What could Soviets do against blanket bombing and German experience? What could Ilushins do against British or American fighters? Nothing.
Armor..artillery...dead ducks from above....trenches...they had to long supply lines.
As to land battle, Germans were definitevely better, and of course, allies would have to count with them and their experience.
Soviet, and Hitler knew it but he was crazy, had a weakness, Baku... and allies could easely reach Baku from the airfields they had in Persia, even from Europe.
When Germans arrived to Stalingrad and bombed the place, a very capable aircraft general, I don't recall his name, wanted to bomb Baku...but the madman told him that he "wanted to conquer and use the oil", that was absurd. Had he bombed Baku, soviet offensive would have stopped in two months.
When you copy technology, you are always 4 to 10 years behind.....Soviets could beat Germans because Germany did not have the physical capacity to conquer the USSR and maintain such a long front....But the US, and England and allies, yes, they could.
At least keep them away...up to Smolensk.
Last edited by Karlo Marlo; 08-09-2015 at 10:39 AM..
They were not suffering Stalin's purge, but as you know, creating a school of pilots as English and Americans had, capable of outmaneuver the enemy, you need time, instructors. Germans wiped out almost all the Soviet aircraft and they had to start from scratch. As to Soviet copies....they might have had a prototype, 10 prototypes...but they did not have the resources to mass produce them.
But what was more important, they did not have planes capable of fighting flying fortress, they did not have fighter-flying fortresses..mosquito types, nothing like a Mustang....their planes were tactical.
Battle, unfortunately for that European region, would have been from the "sky above"....Nothing new...English and American had been doing it for years. Blanket bombing.
What could Soviets do against blanket bombing and German experience? What could Ilushins do against British or American fighters? Nothing.
Armor..artillery...dead ducks from above....trenches...they had to long supply lines.
As to land battle, Germans were definitevely better, and of course, allies would have to count with them and their experience.
Soviet, and Hitler knew it but he was crazy, had a weakness, Baku... and allies could easely reach Baku from the airfields they had in Persia, even from Europe.
When Germans arrived to Stalingrad and bombed the place, a very capable aircraft general, I don't recall his name, wanted to bomb Baku...but the madman told him that he "wanted to conquer and use the oil", that was absurd. Had he bombed Baku, soviet offensive would have stopped in two months.
When you copy technology, you are always 4 to 10 years behind.....Soviets could beat Germans because Germany did not have the physical capacity to conquer the USSR and maintain such a long front....But the US, and England and allies, yes, they could.
At least keep them away...up to Smolensk.
I just laugh when I hear this kind of reasoning. There are so many assumptions built into this that it is ridiculous. Here are a few:
1. That after having Russia as a reliable (if Totalitarian) ally for four years and after losing 400,000 servicemen in World War II, the American people would have supported turning on our former ally and committing to another long war just to drive the USSR out of Eastern Europe.
2. That America had any vital interests in Eastern Europe that would have justified another war.
3. That America would not have suffered an immense loss of prestige in the world, by turning on a former ally and deliberately starting a war with them.
4. That the British would have supported America in this effort.
5. That American casualties would have been "minimal" because of the alleged superiority of our weapons and armed forces.
6. That American troops (which were largely drafted) would have cooperated in waging a war against a former ally without some sort of rebellion on their part.
At best some of these assumptions are half truths. The reality is that they are mostly false. We allowed the Soviets to occupy Eastern Europe for a number of reasons. Some realized that after two world wars, the Soviets might legitimately want some kind of a buffer zone at least temporarily to protect themselves against a resurgent Germany. Nations fight wars over vital interests not out of a desire to protect the human rights of different groups. America is no different than other countries in this respect. We had vital interests including trade in Western Europe. We had nothing in Eastern Europe that could be considered a vital interest. I'm sorry these people had to live under communism for 40 plus years, but in the end, it was their problem. It was not America's problem. Nor, was it our responsibility to "liberate" them.
I've often wondered if the people in all the Eastern European had risen all at once in some kind of revolution against Russian occupation if the Russians could have subdued them? Yes, they subdued the Hungarians in 56' and the Czechs in 68'. However, if all the countries had risen at once, I suspect they could have liberated themselves. It would have been bloody. However, why is more reasonable to expect liberation from American soldiers than to liberate yourselves? The answer: Its not.
No, things were handled the way they should have been. George Patton, frankly, was going "psycho" towards the end of his life. It was smart to relieve him of command of the Third Army before he became a bigger problem.
Last edited by markg91359; 08-09-2015 at 12:29 PM..
We were not discussing politics, but technical feasability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
