Very few countrys had engines with good capacities at high altitude : US, GB, Germany.
It was important for intercepting or protecting the heavies on strategic missions.
But when your flying Close Air Support, who cares ? Most of the air fighting in the east took place at low and mid level.
The yak 3, yak 9, La 5... were very efficient fighters, and they were going through constant improvement... A french unit deployed in Russia ( the mormandie Niemen) used to fly them and was extremely pleased with them.
Also, in 1945, the soviets seized a few B29s, retro-engineering them to create their own heavy bomber ( a simple copy ).

Ponysoldier, you are half right with respect to the Soviet Yak series fighters of WW2. That is, none of them had altitude performance. About 15,000 feet was their usual operational ceiling, although they could climb higher. The point is, they had no NEED to go higher--and they would not have had to do so has patton provoked a war in the early summer of '45. Their job was to clear the skies of hostile aircraft that would hinder the operations of their own ground attack aircraft operating at low altitude. Who needs 400mph performance at 25,000 feet to do that? In order to protect our own forces in this hypothetical fight, we would have been the ones going low to get to them--not the other way around. A B17 formation at altitude is a lousy CAS platform--just ask the 4th and 9th Infantry, who got clobbered by them at the start of Operaton Cobra. Some of the poor wretches were FOUR MILES from the target area. The Russians had little to fear from our strategic bombing force, and they did have high-altitude interceptors. Not many, because they didn't need them. But they could certainly have ramped up. But down low where it was designed to operate, the Yak was an excellent combat aircraft. Don't assume that the Mustangs would have swept the skies clear of them; the performance wasn't that different at low level and their pilots were just as experienced as ours. None of our guys got 62 kills...

Denizen, I find your economic arguments interesting. You are absolutely correct about the poetential economic and political costs of US aggression. I am not entirely sure that there was any sort of quid pro quo involved, however. I don't think we supplied weapons in exchange for a commitment to hew to our political line post-war. If we did, we were stupid because it certainly didn't happen. Remember Suez in '56... Rather, I think we saw it as in our best interest to keep allies fighting. It is indisputable that the economic activity generated by the war decisively ended the Depression, but I am not sure just how much money was actually made. A great deal of the cost of arms for the Allies was eventually written off or forgiven. Theoretically, US citizens are still paying for them and for the Marshall Plan that followed but nobody takes that accounting seriously. It was simply money spent to achieve an end, peace in Western Europe and the rebuilding of allies and foes alike as economic and political partners. Personally, I don't think we made a dime from these expenditures in a purely monetary sense. But I couldn't care less, because that money bought far more in terms of a stable, democratic, and increasingly wealthy Europe. Great discussion, guys!
Greg

true we had only 300 pershings, but the russians had only 50 js-lll( js-lll production got into full swing later in '45). american logistics did suck, but the russkies was almost non-existent. a pox on the commies.......glad they fell.
when arafat dies let's put a pigskin on his grave?!

This has gotten to be quite a dicussion.I do'nt entirely disagree with anyone here.
My initial point was Patton would have be told to stop before he actually reached the
the russian border.
If we choose to discuss tactics those were totally different between russia and
the usa. Russia tended to mass every thing at one point and hit it with every
thing they had including the sink.The USA in most cases was one of movement.
It might not have been to hard to encircle the massed Russian Army around Berlin.
To my fine Yak friend the yak was a fine fighter bomber and use quite well
in the role of close air support. A P51 or a P47 could and did operate in the
same role after d-day either had a superior top speed higher rate of climb
superior range had superior payload .
To my friend and his russian armor I admit that this is a short coming
of mine with only couple of exceptions I know very little of this , if you could
suggest areas on the web that i might research this i'll add this to my list
of things to read.
To my friend and his beginng of ww11 thought i hope that you will consider
dec 7 1941 yes we had cut off japan from many sources of raw material
But they were fighting prior to that date Yes I agree that a very few made a lot
of serious cash but in the long run they could have declared war on us which
they would have done given about 10 more hours to decypher the drawn
out letters from japan.
We all learn from discussions such as this,and I do so enjoy this
line of discussion I look forward to all of your replies.

respectfully

ponysoldier

The horse The Gun The Man

I stand corrected.
after some deeper research{i didnt read far enough} the 9u and p models could made things quite lively it seems that both were used in the air to ground role but were
able to out fly the 109 . does your information read the same as mine?

ponysoldier

It gets a bit complicated when you start comparing the yak and bf 109 series...
because both of them evolved a lot !
The bf109 saw its performance fall when so much armor, armament, equipment was added to it. It had
no more evolution potential.
On the other hand, the yak series were evolving a lot : high altitude interceptors and most of all low
altitude pure fighters...
The yak3 and yak9 series were even evolving at the same time...
And it doesn't matter if they didn't have a good payload, because they were there to protect sturmoviks,
and other bombers.

Yeah, I love this discussion ! It's great to see all these good ideas conflicting !

Ponysoldier and Penpen, you're both grasping the nugget here. The Soviet aircraft still had development potential; the Me-109 did not. For that matter, the Ta-152 series also ended the Focke-Wulf development at a specialized dead end. Russians had different operatonal priorities, so their fighters didn't carry the payload ours did. Didn't have to; they had Sturmoviks--we didn't. Net result was probably the same, good close air support; just a different force structure. One might say the Russians could have generated a slight advantage tactically given that their Yaks could all provide top cover while some of our fellows would have been tasked with offensive ordnance and thus vulnerable to interceptors.

As for tank numbers, very true about the JS3. But as alluded to before, the real issue isn't which one was better in a stand-up fight. The issue is how good were they in the aggregate and how well were they used tactically and operationally. Here, the Russians were every bit as good as we were and had FAR more tanks than the Germans. Remember, we got very used to outnumbering the Nazis five or ten to one in tank engagements--and not just against the Tigers and Panthers. Agains Zhukov and friends, the numbers would be just about even. Could we have encircled Berlin? I'll say probably. Could we have reduced the pocket or prevented a breakout or relief? I would say no. We were indeed more mobile but not that much more. The Germans were essentially foot-powered in the last year of the war, except for a few favored formations--and even they lost much of their organic transport. The Russians had a lot more vehicles, and so we should not assume that the moves we put on the Ruhr Pocke, for instance, could be repeated in the East. Keep it coming guys, this is fun!
Greg

In discussing the merits of any aircraft ,we must include its mission and its
potenital mission . This we have done to alimited extent. need i remind
that we had more than our fair share of operational fighter bombers
the P39,P63 B25 B26 all merit discussion.I really know little of russian armor
except maybe the T34 .One must remember by this time we would have
had many reinforcements coming in from the pacfic if not a second front
thru china would have been possible . We were already using the germans
on russia gelhen org. {abwer} to gain intellegence on the russians.
We were planning a million man invasion of japan it could have even
escalated to more bombs [atomic] being used

ponysoldier

The Horse The Gun The Man

I wonder if atom bombs on Russia would've had the same effect as the ones dropped on Japan.
The japanese did horrible stuff everywhere in asia, but they didn't use to commit massacres on their
own citizen. Also, their population isn't very high.
The soviet, on the other hand, where "used" to see their fellow countrymen... killed by the ennemy...
or killed by their own country !
And, Stalin is not Hiro Hito. I just cannot imagine him surendering. The soviet were not only defending
their motherland, but also the "revolution"... in the very same way that americans often fight for
"democracy".
Attacking through China ?
As I pointed out earlier, there would certainly have been a partisan war in Europe. In China, it would've
been the same. Mao and his men were there. Also, there were still many japanese troops deployed
there, and these would've had to be faught first.

It is very hard to image Stalin surrendering to anyonefor all the points you have given.
What if the summit in yalta had gone differenty? Certainly the US France Britian
knew that was Stalin was going to use this for expanision of russia. They did have
a valid fear of invasion{russia}.what if Patton only went as far as pre war borders?
Heavy bombing of russian industry which had been move beyond the urals.
The russian oil fields were which were much closer could have been bombed
much easier, and have more effect. Great discussion great ideas all the way around


ponysoldier

The Horse The Gun The Man

I wonder what the bombing of the oil fields would've given. Strategic bombing is never as efficient
as it was believed to be. And also, heavy forces were certainly positioned there. So this would
certainly've been a costly operation. So far as to use a nuke there...
It is difficult to use nukes (for that we are lucky) because it means that you are willing to wage total
war. Even during combat on the eastern front, war gazes were never used. So a nuke would've been
a tremendous step up !
Also, that would've given Stalin good reasons to use nukes in revenge when he got them in 47.

In 45 it wouldn't have been politicaly correct to ask the USSR to get back to its previous borders.
It would have meant recognizing the fact that it was one of the countries that had started the war
by invading Poland. And well, didn't the US do the same in the pacific ?
Whom did the marshal islands belong to before the war ?
Also, I think the soviet borders had moved a bit during the civil war, after the revolution.

In 1945, the communists were the main political force in France. they were still glorious from
their fight in the maquis ( the FTP) and from Stalin's voctories. In fact, we are lucky that they didn't
take the power. The political situation was probably not very far from what it was in countries like
czekoslovakia, BUT we didn't have soviet armies on the territory.

airplanes are one thing and tanks are another. let me just say again that the russian were in no shape for mount an invasion of western europe, tactically or stratigically. basically they were a mess and were to beat up. but on the other hand the american army, patton the exception, did not have the stomach for more fighting in europe. and truman was a weak president.

i support israel

OK, Pak40, now we've come full circle. You're correct in your assessment that the Russians were in no shape to mount an invasion of western Europe. Defending in place, however, is a different matter. Being unable to sustain a mechanized offensive and being able to defend against one are two very different operational problems. I submit that the Russians would have fought just as hard in the defense against an American assault as they had against the Germans. With a relatively fresher combat force at his disposal, Patton could certainly have grabbed some ground. But any contention that American arms, no matter who led them, could have decisively beaten the Soviet Union in 1945 is fantasy. Their leaders were good, their troop motivated, and their equipment of adequate if not superior quality. They would not roll over, particularly after just having pushed the Germans out.

Talk of using nukes is even further into the realm of wolkenkcuck-kucksheim. They didn't exist, for all practical purposes. We tested one in New Mexico, dropped two on Japan, and had materials for the fourth on Tinian. That's it. It would have been many months before we could make more. And frankly, the only reason we got away with using them on Japan was our total command of the air. Odds are any nuclear-armed B-29 sent over Russian-occupied territory would be shot down. No way we would have given it close escort as protection, the blast would inevitably fry our own fighters. The US doesn't send its plots on suicide missions like that.
Greg

i'm not saying that the russkies couldn't defend themselves, the allied armies would have broke like a wave upon the shore. i mean the offensive capability wasn't there and the russkies would have counterpunched very well. i think patton underneath all his bluster knew better than to attack the east. so neither side would attack the other, it would have been extremely messy and we had no nuclear option(thank god).