Happy and Glorious.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Devolved

You're right. Frostbite casualties will be very high and many troops will be more concerned with staying warm than fighting.

It was the Soviet plan to use the winter to gain advantage over the Allied troops but even they didn't expect a European Winter to be this bitter. The weather has significantly reduced the intensity of the fighting in Northern Germany and Holland and has pretty much saved Denmark from being overrun.

AIUI, the US Army troops in 1947 had better winter equipment than the crap they were stuck with in the Ardennes, but I doubt it would be a panacea for what would be faced in the winter of 47.

EDIT: Though it hasn't been brought up, there is another major Soviet advantage that they were used to having in WWII and DON'T have in WWIII. No Hitlerian "No Retreat!" orders.

[usertron2020]

I would expect Russian Sturmoviks to be complete iron coffins by this time. The Red Force probably can't bring themselves to accept their complete obsolescence. Just as they couldn't about the T-34 in Korea. The British tanks there were literally blowing T-34s to pieces!

[Devolved]

Happy and Glorious

continued


February 4th 1947

Moscow

Fighting continued in Moscow during the whole day. Although most of the NKVD and garrison troops gave up with little to no resistance there were some who fought on. After the initial attack most of the SMERSH and army troops seemed to lack urgency in finishing off opposition. Beria remained in his bunker trying to figure out some heroic and memorable way to die.

In Leningad Zhadanov had made himself so unlikeable that many of his forces had melted away rather than fight. In the home of the Russian Revolution the battle was decided by the side that had the least apathy. In Leningrad it was Beria's forces that had the upper hand and in the late evening their troops broke into Zhadanov's HQ. When they finally found his office they discovered the door locked. A NKVD colonel insisted on shooting the lock himself and then kicked the door open. They found Zhadanov slumped in an armchair after blowing his brains out.

Stalin arrived in Gorkiy and was visibly annoyed that Beria was still holding out when he had so few loyal troops. He was told that overwhelming numbers have less effect in a city than in the open battlefield. This made Stalin even more angry as he already understood simple things like that.

Update reports then came in from Tula and Minsk on the aftermath of the bombing. Minsk and the surrounding area was in chaos and thousands of wounded were dying due to lack of attention. In Tula the situation was confusing and no one seemed to know what was going on.

Stalin was now visibly exhausted and he was advised to get some sleep after all the tribulations he had faced in Moscow. Stalin accepted and went to bed. Within 5 minutes of climbing into his Czarist era four poster there was a knock at the door.

A female major brought news that his country had been hit by a double atomic attack. One bomb fell on Astrakhan and the other on Bryansk. The B29 that hit Bryansk was shot down a few minutes after dropping its bomb and they were looking for at least three of the crew who were seen to bail out of the aircraft as it plunged downwards.

Stalin thanked the officer and said that he wanted the crew found and interrogated as soon as possible and then he went back to bed.

TBC

[iainbhx]

Double bombing, that's sent a nasty message. I wonder if the Soviets have got something we don't know about to have bagged a second B29.

Bryansk is good. Supplies to the west are now forced down 2 lines or the long way around. And one of those lines had a lot of single track in 1941, the sole double track line is the line basically by combining a number of routes. There's a place called Novosokolniki which cuts it, bags the main route to Riga and cuts the St Petersburg-Kiev line. It's a railway junction town, but it would probably cut supply to the west down below 20% of what it was (and how much of that is getting through Poland and Germany). The southern route can be nobbled at Mogliev, which also takes out various diversions.

Astrakhan is interesting, it's sort of saying to Zhukov that all your supplies now come through one choke point which can probably be conventionally bombed to smithereens from Northern Turkey and with a fighter escort. Your move, Georgii. It's also removed most of the rest of Soviet naval capacity on the Caspian Sea.

Remember there are virtually no long-distance roads worth squat in the USSR at this time.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

Double bombing, that's sent a nasty message. I wonder if the Soviets have got something we don't know about to have bagged a second B29.

Bryansk is good. Supplies to the west are now forced down 2 lines or the long way around. And one of those lines had a lot of single track in 1941, the sole double track line is the line basically by combining a number of routes. There's a place called Novosokolniki which cuts it, bags the main route to Riga and cuts the St Petersburg-Kiev line. It's a railway junction town, but it would probably cut supply to the west down below 20% of what it was (and how much of that is getting through Poland and Germany). The southern route can be nobbled at Mogliev, which also takes out various diversions.

Astrakhan is interesting, it's sort of saying to Zhukov that all your supplies now come through one choke point which can probably be conventionally bombed to smithereens from Northern Turkey and with a fighter escort. Your move, Georgii. It's also removed most of the rest of Soviet naval capacity on the Caspian Sea.

Remember there are virtually no long-distance roads worth squat in the USSR at this time.

The Soviet fighters in defence of the USSR are starting to use air to air rockets and are firing barrages of them at the B29s. They pretty much know which targets the Americans will be aiming at and the airfields they are using. I haven't mentioned the numerous failed attempts of the Soviet fighters but they are getting better at bringing down bombers. Perhaps they will finally get one before it releases its bomb.

The bombing of Astrakhan was actually part of a plan to further isolate Zhukhov not just from supplies but a possible Stalinist counter attack if he openly declares against him. Remember that earlier I mentioned that Truman had authorized a plan to establish contact with Zhukov and find out his intentions.

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by Devolved

The Soviet fighters in defence of the USSR are starting to use air to air rockets and are firing barrages of them at the B29s. They pretty much know which targets the Americans will be aiming at and the airfields they are using. I haven't mentioned the numerous failed attempts of the Soviet fighters but they are getting better at bringing down bombers. Perhaps they will finally get one before it releases its bomb.

The bombing of Astrakhan was actually part of a plan to further isolate Zhukhov not just from supplies but a possible Stalinist counter attack if he openly declares against him. Remember that earlier I mentioned that Truman had authorized a plan to establish contact with Zhukov and find out his intentions.

I presume that they have developed the РС-132 or PC-82 a bit further, because those things couldn't hit a barn door at 500m.

In a Russian study of rocket effectiveness vs. enemy armor, 182 rockets of the type RS-82 were fired at a stationary tank 500 meters away with only 7 hits, none of which caused any damage.

The PC-132 was even less accurate. I suppose a swarm of La-7's with 4 of them each might stand a chance.

Well, Zhukov is now dependant on two lines that have a chokepoint over the Kuban, both of which are running through territory which is in unrest.

[PMN1]

Interesting post on the HP and CA board on the usefulness of unguided rockets....


If anybody think that's harsh, there was a case when a QB-17 went out of control in California and two F-89Ds were ordered to shoot it down. Not only did they miss with every single shot (remember the F-89D carried 104 unguided rockets) but on numerous occasions one F-89 was endangered by out-of-control rockets fired by the other. The 'battle' finally ended when the F-89s ran out of rockets. It was concluded this was fortunate because if the 'battle' had continued any longer, the QB-17 might have won.

[usertron2020]

iainbhx
PMN1

The Soviets have a particular problem in that when A-Bombs are dropped, they tend to "scour" the skies of closing fighters. Silverplate B-29s can ride out the heat flash and blast wave of atomic blasts far better than single-engined solo piloted fighters operating at the absolute extreme edge of their combat ceiling. In addition, they have no national system of radar defense, or organized Air Defense Forces, as they would later. Plus demands at the front will leave the Red Air Force spread very very thin. With the winter the way it is, the same factors that keep British Bomber Command out of the war thus far will have a strangulating effect on Soviet abilities in the arena of strategic air redeployments.

OTOH, regarding their abilities to locate, intercept, and down American aircraft, as well as capturing downed airmen (perhaps even capture Silverplate B-29s and their payloads completely intact) the Soviets have one factor in play that is incalculably to their advantage, and will continue to have that factor in play in their favor permanently.

[Astrodragon]

Given even the slight possibility of capturing an A-bomb and using it against the allies, I would assume the USAAF has taken precautions.

For example arming the altitude fuze as soon as the bomber enters hostile airspace. Adding a time fuze (again, live in the air). Better a bomb goes off randomly if the aircraft is shot down that it being used by the Russians. Make it impossible to turn the fuzes off (you can always ditch the bomb over water in the worst case, or just let the damn thing go somewhere over Russia)

[usertron2020]

A 20% kill rate by interceptors of the quality of the Red Air Force against Silverplate missions with the quality of those bomber crews. Astounding, really. Considering B-29s suffered 4% losses against the Japanese at their worst and 1% after the Americans changed their tactics.

[kellineil]

A couple of years aircraft development - in OTL this was a time when aircraft were being developed extremely quickly

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

A 20% kill rate by interceptors of the quality of the Red Air Force against Silverplate missions with the quality of those bomber crews. Astounding, really. Considering B-29s suffered 4% losses against the Japanese at their worst and 1% after the Americans changed their tactics.

The statistical sample is a trifle small for that comparison.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

A 20% kill rate by interceptors of the quality of the Red Air Force against Silverplate missions with the quality of those bomber crews. Astounding, really. Considering B-29s suffered 4% losses against the Japanese at their worst and 1% after the Americans changed their tactics.

Considering that japanese air defenses were so useless at that point that they were stripping defensive armament out of us bombers, the loss rates over japan may be irrelevant.

20% does seem high, especially forr unguided rockets. What if they were using guided rockets? Theyve had a couple of years to put german tech into service.

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Considering that japanese air defenses were so useless at that point that they were stripping defensive armament out of us bombers, the loss rates over japan may be irrelevant.

20% does seem high, especially forr unguided rockets. What if they were using guided rockets? Theyve had a couple of years to put german tech into service.

Wire guided X-4's, decent range, fast, nasty propellant. French never got it to work operationally post war because of the propellant. Soviets trying to stop nukes would be a bit less caring about on the ground casualties.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Considering that japanese air defenses were so useless at that point that they were stripping defensive armament out of us bombers, the loss rates over japan may be irrelevant.

20% does seem high, especially forr unguided rockets. What if they were using guided rockets? Theyve had a couple of years to put german tech into service.

ITTL most German tech stayed out of Soviet hands. And the Soviets are defending 1/6th of the world's land surface. They don't have targeting intel or personnel on the ground to tell them which B-29 out of all those decoys is the golden BB. Not to mention just how large is the Soviet Air Force to be able to carry out such missions so relatively successfully and maintain a full court press everywhere else at the same time? Air superiority at this time simply was not a strong point for the Russians.

EDIT: Even in 1947, Soviet air defense technology was scarcely any better than Japanese. The Japanese had interceptors capable of taking on B-29s. It was only when they encountered escorting Mustangs that they ran into real trouble. And Japanese air defenses really only became useless when the American strategic bomber offensive turned to night attacks.

EDIT2: The stripping of defensive armament against the Japanese was also done during night missions only. For Silverplates, they used speed, altitude, and ability to get away post-bomb drop. Since the Soviet interceptors are basically doing maneuvers involving high angle climbs at high speed with attacks only possible at or near extreme apogee, with very little time to make an intercept approach against an opponent who knows they are coming, it has to be said they have been very lucky indeed.

EDIT3: Considering the losses they have to be taking not just operationally, not just from "friendly fire", but from atomic blast losses, how many of the Soviets' relatively few high altitude capable fighter aircraft are they going to have left?

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

Wire guided X-4's, decent range, fast, nasty propellant. French never got it to work operationally post war because of the propellant. Soviets trying to stop nukes would be a bit less caring about on the ground casualties.

It's not a question of ground casualties. It's a question of timing. Even the French barely began delivery of these weapons in 1947 OTL. In a TL where the war ends later, with the Soviets ending up much further east, developing such a weapons system, particularly en masse, seems rather unlikely. Slave labor notwithstanding.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by kellineil

A couple of years aircraft development - in OTL this was a time when aircraft were being developed extremely quickly

Except Soviet fighter development was concentrated in extremely unsuccessful jet fighter designs that were far more dangerous to their pilots than they were to any enemy they might try to attack. ITTL, no Nene engine transfer, no Mig-15s.

[usertron2020]

OOPS! Is my face red!

Apologies to the Red Air Force ITTL for my comments.

I said they had a 20% kill rate against American Silverplate missions. But as it turns out, I should have checked my math more carefully. Shame on me.

Baku: Survived

Minsk: Survived

Tula: Shot down

Astrakan: Survived (And that would have constituted a mission that included overflying much of the Caspian Sea, with no radar warning for air defense even possible).

Bryansk: Shot down

So, in fact the Soviets are scoring a 40% kill rate against American Silverplate missions.

Damn! That is about as bad or even worse than the proportional losses suffered by the US Eighth Air Force in its raids on Schweinfurt. At this rate the USAF actually WILL run out of Silverplate bombers pretty quickly!

I'm sorry for my criticism of the qualities of the Red Air Force before. Clearly the Soviets have the best pilots, with the best machines, and the strongest most co-ordinated air defense system on the Planet Earth. Puts even the UK's vaunted air defenses to shame. And all this, over such a vast geography, with such demands being placed on them in tactical operations as well. I guess I never realized what a qualitative and quantitative mastery Soviet air forces had over their enemies in 1947.

And when you throw on the Soviet's apparent abilities to detect and ignore decoy B-29s... All I can say is, AWESOME!

[kellineil]

And that maths demonstrates the issue with your maths - the sample size is far too small! On more mission would significantly change the kill rate. Down to 33% if the plane survived and up to 50% if it was killed.

You'd need at least 20 (and preferably 100+) missions before you could start making reasonably accurate assessments of kill rates. Otherwise the results from a single mission can massively change the stats.

And remember - the USAAF have told the USSR their target list. This means that the Red Air Force can concentrate defenses at these locations.

Usertron - you seem to be overly sensitive to any perceived criticism of the US in this TL. In any circumstance where something doesn't go the US's way you scream Ameri-screw! I do wonder what you are getting out of reading this TL since it only ever seems to cause you to get angry.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by kellineil

And that maths demonstrates the issue with your maths - the sample size is far too small! On more mission would significantly change the kill rate. Down to 33% if the plane survived and up to 50% if it was killed.

You'd need at least 20 (and preferably 100+) missions before you could start making reasonably accurate assessments of kill rates. Otherwise the results from a single mission can massively change the stats.(1)

And remember - the USAAF have told the USSR their target list.(2) This means that the Red Air Force can concentrate defenses at these locations.(3)

Usertron - you seem to be overly sensitive to any perceived criticism of the US in this TL. (4) In any circumstance where something doesn't go the US's way you scream Ameri-screw! (5) I do wonder what you are getting out of reading (6) this TL since it only ever seems to cause you to get angry.(7)

My last post DID acknowledge my error regarding calculating US Silverplate losses, as well as recognizing the great superiority of the Soviet Air Force over the USAF. Therefore, I do not understand exactly what you are talking about. In my last post at no time did I make any complaint nor claim any "Ameri-screw". So please do not put words in my mouth.

As to sample size, you can argue the essence and beauty of statistics all you want, but the raw numbers are still all too undeniably real. Otherwise, what is YOUR explanation for these sky-high casualties, other than that they are genuinely earned by the Soviets?

1) Are you are suggesting that the USAF can't come to a decision regarding new tactics unless they've launched 100 atomic missions? The US has plenty of experience using B-29s. I merely remarked how fantastically the Soviets are performing against a high altitude high speed bomber of a type they have never had to face before. Clearly the Soviets have been doing their homework, while just as clearly the Americans don't know what the hell they are doing.

2) I must have missed that. They dropped leaflets over many cities they had no intention of bombing (frex, Rostov, Odessa, Leningrad), but I don't recall them ever telling the Soviets of their ACTUAL target list. Do you remember the post #? I confess I do not.

3) Which only goes to show what kind of idiots are running things on the American side. As well as the strategic genius of the Soviets to be able to respond so handily while their country is crashing down around them.

4) There is absolutely no question about the oversensitivity of perceived criticism on this thread. All the way around. I myself have been guilty in the past of losing my temper in that regard. But don't for a minute pretend that I am even the worst offender, much less the only one. Nor that the problem exists only in one direction.

5) I haven't used that term in quite awhile, as it has become pointless by this time.

6) That's a very good question. I have PMed with a couple of others still following this TL over that very matter. I did go away for a long time. Then in curiosity I did an analysis of the thread in June regarding certain details in the TL's statistics. I have to say, it was very much satisfying, and restored my faith in the good people of AH.com, mods and members. Finding later about certain outside events affecting the TL's status history opened my eyes even more.

7) No. Not angry. Many months ago, but not anymore. Ironic that you would bring up math in the form of an argument about statistics. Because statistics are the reason that I can't get angry about this TL anymore. Just very entertained. Which is why I read my subscription on this TL before any other.

EDIT: Are you realizing that a lot of other posters are suggesting that the Soviets should or will be doing better in the future, not worse? Meaning the stats against the Silverplates will soon get positively catastrophically bad in terms of their losses even compared to losses in daylight deep-penetration raids against WWII Germany.