Could the Soviets had taken Europe after the unconditional surrender of Germany?

[DudleySmith]

Do you think Russia knew that?

Even the Soviet spies in the bomb project couldn't know how many were built, so they couldn't inform the Soviets then like they could later.

The secret cities where the atomic bomb was built

Three entire cities were built to make the atomic bombs that the US used against Japan in 1945, but they were so secret that they didn't appear on any map.

www.cnn.com

Moeller guesses that just a few hundred people in the country knew about the bomb before it was dropped. Nothing was explained to the tens of thousands who lived and worked in the cities that produced them, working "like moles in the dark," as Life magazine put it in 1945.

"Obviously people knew something was afoot, but they didn't really know what it was," Moeller said.

"And even if they were working on uranium, no one had ever seen or heard of a nuclear weapon before. But it's hard to put ourselves in the mindset of the 1940s. At the time, most people wouldn't question anything in the name of the war effort."

 

[HenryBHough]

Looking at the manner in which The EU is throwing a tantrum over Brexit, maybe it would have been better that way.

 

[Mushroom]

Albert Speer said the bombing nearly ground production to a halt for lack of ball bearings

Which is strategic, not tactical.

The US and UK could not have reached the USSR to have the same effect.

 

[Polishprince]

No, they couldn’t

They were depleted and couldn’t extend their supply lines that far

Plus, they didn’t want Western Europe

Sure they wanted western Europe- Communism has always been about world conquest.

In fact, communist parties were established in Spain, France, Italy, areas far out of their sphere of influence.

In later decades, the USSR established communist regimes as far afield as Cuba, Grenada, and a beachhead in Nicaragua on the American continent. All, but the way, were totally illegal and a violation of the Monroe doctrine.

 

[Polishprince]

Which is strategic, not tactical.

The US and UK could not have reached the USSR to have the same effect.

A lot of soviet war production was in cities like Magnitogorsk in the trans-Ural regions, which would have made it a lot harder to bomb.

 

[Mushroom]

A lot of soviet war production was in cities like Magnitogorsk in the trans-Ural regions, which would have made it a lot harder to bomb.

Pretty much impossible. Which is why they were moved there after Germany invaded.

Either way, both sides were ultimately doomed if they tried invasion because of supply lines.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Which is strategic, not tactical.

The US and UK could not have reached the USSR to have the same effect.

B-29s had the range to hit many Soviet targets, and the B-36 wasn't that far from production and it was designed to bomb Germany from the US. The B-36 was planned to enter squadron service in mid to late 1945, just months after the German surrender. Formations of B-36s could have hit any target in the USSR from bases in England or Alaska. It had a thirty four hundred mile combat radius. It also flew above the reach of any Soviet fighter.

With escorted B-17s and 24s hitting targets within a few hundred miles of the front, B-29s hitting targets in the European Soviet Union and B36s hitting the factories behind the Urals, the Soviets would have been in real trouble. That's not even mentioning the loss of all the Lend Lease supplies and equipment that allowed the Red Army to go on the offensive in 1944. Troops without fuel for its vehicles and ammo and food for its troops are nothing but POWs waiting to be rounded up as they scrounge for supplies in the countryside.

 

[Mushroom]

B-29s had the range to hit many Soviet targets, and the B-36 wasn't that far from production and it was designed to bomb Germany from the US.

Only the closest of them, with no air cover through the heart of the Soviet Union. Losses would have been unsustainable.

It is more than just looking at distances and points on a map, you have to consider what they would have to fly over.

To give an idea, The US-UK were taking losses of almost 6% in the Battle of Berlin, the year long bombing attacks against the capitol of Germany. And that was less than half the distance that they would have had to fly to take the bombing raids to Soviet industrial centers. Expect 5 times more losses or more, and no "Friendly Allies" to try and shelter downed aircrews. Almost any mechanical issue would be a death sentence.

That is the problem when you only look at numbers, and not really comprehend how they all come together.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Only the closest of them, with no air cover through the heart of the Soviet Union. Losses would have been unsustainable.

It is more than just looking at distances and points on a map, you have to consider what they would have to fly over.

To give an idea, The US-UK were taking losses of almost 6% in the Battle of Berlin, the year long bombing attacks against the capitol of Germany. And that was less than half the distance that they would have had to fly to take the bombing raids to Soviet industrial centers. Expect 5 times more losses or more, and no "Friendly Allies" to try and shelter downed aircrews. Almost any mechanical issue would be a death sentence.

That is the problem when you only look at numbers, and not really comprehend how they all come together.

None of the Soviet fighters had the altitude performance to intercept B-29s at their operational altitudes. Even more than the IJAF and IJNAF, the Red Airforce was a low to mid altitude force, and the Japanese found it nearly impossible to intercept B-29s at altitude. The Soviets also lacked the radar tracking system and radar directed flak that resulted in most of the American casualties over Germany. At altitudes of over thirty thousand feet, B-29s and B-36s would be able to roam at will over Soviet territory.

The Soviets had no air defenses to speak of because the Luftwaffe never practiced strategic bombing against it, just raids of small numbers of medium bombers attacking the Red Army. As late as the end of the war, Ju-87 Stukas were able to operate against Soviet forces long after it was suicide for them to attempt to operate against the RAF and USAAF. Soviet pilots were outclassed by the Germans until the 8th Air Force’s bombers and fighters gutted the Luftwaffe’s fighter force. The Red Airforce’s lightly armed fighters flown by mediocre and (by US and UK standards) poorly trained pilots would have done far worse than the Luftwaffe’s fighters did against Mustangs, Lightnings and Thunderbolts. the US would quickly gain control of the air and once continental bases were secured, the RAF’s Spitfires, Tornados and Tempests bolstered by Gloster Meteors and Lockheed P-80 Shooting Stars would slaughter the Red Air Force.

The B-17s and B-24s would destroy road and rail nets and supply dumps near the front. The mediums and fighters of the Ninth Air Force would destroy any Soviet vehicle or train that tried to move in daylight and the Red Army would starve. The WAllies did it to the Germans and the Soviets were a far softer target that depended on mass attacks to be effective.

 

[rupol2000]

They have already captured the east of Europe. The West of Europe was captured by the USA. The marshal's regime was a colonial regime.
And this situation suited everyone before the series of leftist coups in the 60s. Then Europe fucked US

 

[rupol2000]

Europe created the European Union and overthrew US power. Reagan corrected the situation, but not for long. Now Europe is playing a hypocritical game, it pretends to be friends with the United States, but in fact they use the Kremlin against the United States.

 

[Mushroom]

None of the Soviet fighters had the altitude performance to intercept B-29s at their operational altitudes. Even more than the IJAF and IJNAF, the Red Airforce was a low to mid altitude force, and the Japanese found it nearly impossible to intercept B-29s at altitude. The Soviets also lacked the radar tracking system and radar directed flak that resulted in most of the American casualties over Germany.

Oh nonsense! They had multiple RADAR controlled systems by 1943. And they can indeed build high altitude fighters.

Specifically the Su-1, Su-3, and the MiG-1 and MiG-3. There was simply no need to do so, as the Germans did not operate as a traditional bomber force and rarely employed high altitude bombing. But they already had four aircraft specifically designed for high altitude interception, they just never built them in large numbers because there was no need to build them.

The Japanese like the Germans never invested much effort into large or high altitude bombers. In fact, Japan had among the worst tanks and bombers of any nation during the entire war. So even bringing them up is rather silly to be honest. And Japan's problem was not in reaching the bombers, it was simply that they were so low on fuel and skilled pilots that they made the decision to not interfere, and save their resources for the final attack when the Americans finally came ashore.

 

[rupol2000]

Specifically the Su-1, Su-3, and the MiG-1 and MiG-3. There was simply no need to do so, as the Germans did not operate as a traditional bomber force and rarely employed high altitude bombing. But they already had four aircraft specifically designed for high altitude interception, they just never built them in large numbers because there was no need to build them.

It is interesting that Germany took a very active part in the formation of Soviet aviation, although there is information that after 1933 they left, apparently this was due to the arrival of Hitler.
Aviation in the USSR was really good, and this is probably the most developed branch of defense in the USSR.

Japan had among the worst tanks and bombers of any nation during the entire war

Tanks in the USSR were also very bad, there are memories of German tankers about this. They lost the tank battle near Dubno, it was the largest tank battle, and the USSR lost about half of the vehicles of its arsenal, although the USSR had a great advantage in the number units.
Among other things, this suggests that the tanks in the USA and England were also bad, because the engineering developments of the tanks were common there, they were apparently all based on the designs of the British Vickers.

 

[Mushroom]

Tanks in the USSR were also very bad, there are memories of German tankers about this. They lost the tank battle near Dubno, it was the largest tank battle, and the USSR lost about half of the vehicles of its arsenal, although the USSR had a great advantage in the number units.
Among other things, this suggests that the tanks in the USA and England were also bad, because the engineering developments of the tanks were common there, they were apparently all based on the designs of the British Vickers.

At the outbreak of the war, each nation had their own concept of how to build tanks. And to be honest, they were all equally bad.

But yes, Soviet and German companies worked hand in hand during the interwar years in producing both tanks and aircraft.

Case in point, the Kama Tank School, that ran from 1929-1933. It was that program that developed the Panserkampfwagen I and II (Panzer I and Panzer II). The most common design of the Panzer III was not developed until 1939.

And it was not that US tanks were bad, it was a compromise. The US made the choice to build huge numbers of lighter tanks for Infantry Support, and limited numbers of heavy tanks. Hence, almost 50,000 M-4 Sherman Tanks, yet only a little over 2,000 M-26 Pershing Tanks. The Sherman was better than the Panzer III, on par with the Panzer IV. And those were the tanks and rolls they were designed and built in huge numbers to compete against. And the M-26 was as good in armor and movement as any Soviet or German tanks of the era. But it was decided at the highest levels to concentrate on sheer numbers, choosing quantity over quality.

And the Soviet designs in the early war mirror that of the Germans. Most of the tanks until 1939 on both sides were largely copies of each other. But then the Germans went for super complex and heavy machines, the Soviets through a stroke of luck realized the advantage of sloped armor in the T-34. The T-34 was really not any "better" than the other tanks of the era, and the sloped armor was born of the need to use thinner inferior steel, not because it was a "super design". Just a lucky fluke that worked to their advantage.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Oh nonsense! They had multiple RADAR controlled systems by 1943. And they can indeed build high altitude fighters.

Specifically the Su-1, Su-3, and the MiG-1 and MiG-3. There was simply no need to do so, as the Germans did not operate as a traditional bomber force and rarely employed high altitude bombing. But they already had four aircraft specifically designed for high altitude interception, they just never built them in large numbers because there was no need to build them.

The Japanese like the Germans never invested much effort into large or high altitude bombers. In fact, Japan had among the worst tanks and bombers of any nation during the entire war. So even bringing them up is rather silly to be honest. And Japan's problem was not in reaching the bombers, it was simply that they were so low on fuel and skilled pilots that they made the decision to not interfere, and save their resources for the final attack when the Americans finally came ashore.

They had very few and they were unstable, under armed and underarmed. By the time the Soviets could ramp up to mass produce any of them, their factories would be in ruins and their armies starved into submission. You can’t just turn on the spigot and start producing aircraft, even ones of an existing design. The Soviets lacked the engines for one thing and all their octane boosters and a very large percentage of their aviation fuel came from Lend Lease which would stop immediately when war started. Without Lend Lease the Soviets couldn’t even feed the Red Army and even with it Soviet civilians were living on near starvation rations that were unhealthy. There wasn’t much food and no fuel to be gleaned in Germany, Eastern and Western Europe, so using local supplies would be out and any attempt to seize what little there was would result in large scale revolt and partisan action wasting even more ammo and fuel.

 

[Mushroom]

ey had very few and the were unstable, under armed and unstable. By the time the Soviets could ramp up to mass produce any of them, their factories would be in ruins and their armies starved into submission.

 

[rupol2000]

But yes, Soviet and German companies worked hand in hand during the interwar years in producing both tanks and aircraft.

Case in point, the Kama Tank School, that ran from 1929-1933. It was that program that developed the Panserkampfwagen I and II (Panzer I and Panzer II). The most common design of the Panzer III was not developed until 1939.

Wow, I didn't know that. It turns out that the USSR and the Weimar Republic were allies and together they were preparing for war.
And the Weimar Republic was apparently the direct heir to the Prussian Empire, which is called "Germanic".
But this is a political issue, not a military issue.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

A British report on the subject speculated that American and British forces could raise 9 German divisions to help fight the Soviets.

If that came about, it would've been interesting politically.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Oh nonsense! They had multiple RADAR controlled systems by 1943. And they can indeed build high altitude fighters.

Specifically the Su-1, Su-3, and the MiG-1 and MiG-3. There was simply no need to do so, as the Germans did not operate as a traditional bomber force and rarely employed high altitude bombing. But they already had four aircraft specifically designed for high altitude interception, they just never built them in large numbers because there was no need to build them.

The Japanese like the Germans never invested much effort into large or high altitude bombers. In fact, Japan had among the worst tanks and bombers of any nation during the entire war. So even bringing them up is rather silly to be honest. And Japan's problem was not in reaching the bombers, it was simply that they were so low on fuel and skilled pilots that they made the decision to not interfere, and save their resources for the final attack when the Americans finally came ashore.

I was bringing up the Japanese fighter force which resembled the Red Air Force in many ways. Both operated cheap, flimsy, low powered fighters because both lacked the powerful engines that the US, UK and Germany used to power their fighters. And the a Japanese attempted to intercept the bomber raids, but rarely had any noticeable success getting few kills because even when most Japanese fighter struggled to the altitude of the B-29s their performance was so degraded that they were limited to one pass at best because the bombers were faster at altitude than the fighters.

 

[alang1216]

Were bombers that effective?

I understand that they didn't bother the Germans that much.

I believe that is true. German war production continued to increase despite the bombings. Also, the Russians had captured German jet and rocket technology that would have been useful against B-29s. It would have been another nightmare for all concerned.