04.08.2009, 17:25
Just some thoughts I've had about possible mission scenarios for the events that might have happened:
1. Soviet Navy was too weak to take on the British Navy. A Soviet seaborne invasion has no chance. The Isles are safe as long as the Soviets don't plan a massive airborne invasion protected by thousands of fighters. They would need bases in western Europe which would be possible to have.
2. The Soviet Army would have little problem with their former allies' armies. Their numerous armies not only greatly outnumbered US and GB in manpower but the huge numbers of tanks far out-matched them. The US and GB had nothing comparable to the JS-2 tank and the new JS-3. In 1945 the Red Army was a highly mobile machine which could have easily swamped western Europe.
3. US and GB have the advantage in airpower and bases in England. Good for defense vs. airborne invasion and to prevent Soviets from having airfields close to England. Heavy bombers could be used to bomb Soviet tank armies.
Soviet Air Force has the tactical advantage at lower altitude but US and GB have advantage at high altitudes and could bomb at will with little opposition...until the Soviets could design large numbers of (probably jet ) fighters to counter.
4. With the Soviets practically occupying all of Europe the war would turn into an air war of attrition. It would be a will of which powers could take the most punishment. The Red Army is good at "maskirovka" and being able to camouflage their equipment making high altitude bombing difficult and with control of western Europe the armies could be dispersed limiting the effectiveness of US/GB bombings.
5. How many bombers and aircrew could US/GB afford to lose? How many lives and equipment on the ground could the USSR afford to lose?
6. US has the atomic bomb to be used vs Soviet armies as a tactical nuclear weapon. How many bombs could they use? Would not have had too many. The bomb is THE factor for the outcome of this conflict. Even though the USSR could build one and have their own version of a B-29, it probably would be shot down easily.
7. This war is simply not worth it for either side. Stalin made a good choice not to fight his former allies. Both sides were already tired from a long war with losses.
***
with the above mentioned scenarios it would be easy to create missions portraying the air battles for this conflict.
1. Soviet Navy was too weak to take on the British Navy. A Soviet seaborne invasion has no chance. The Isles are safe as long as the Soviets don't plan a massive airborne invasion protected by thousands of fighters. They would need bases in western Europe which would be possible to have.
2. The Soviet Army would have little problem with their former allies' armies. Their numerous armies not only greatly outnumbered US and GB in manpower but the huge numbers of tanks far out-matched them. The US and GB had nothing comparable to the JS-2 tank and the new JS-3. In 1945 the Red Army was a highly mobile machine which could have easily swamped western Europe.
3. US and GB have the advantage in airpower and bases in England. Good for defense vs. airborne invasion and to prevent Soviets from having airfields close to England. Heavy bombers could be used to bomb Soviet tank armies.
Soviet Air Force has the tactical advantage at lower altitude but US and GB have advantage at high altitudes and could bomb at will with little opposition...until the Soviets could design large numbers of (probably jet ) fighters to counter.
4. With the Soviets practically occupying all of Europe the war would turn into an air war of attrition. It would be a will of which powers could take the most punishment. The Red Army is good at "maskirovka" and being able to camouflage their equipment making high altitude bombing difficult and with control of western Europe the armies could be dispersed limiting the effectiveness of US/GB bombings.
5. How many bombers and aircrew could US/GB afford to lose? How many lives and equipment on the ground could the USSR afford to lose?
6. US has the atomic bomb to be used vs Soviet armies as a tactical nuclear weapon. How many bombs could they use? Would not have had too many. The bomb is THE factor for the outcome of this conflict. Even though the USSR could build one and have their own version of a B-29, it probably would be shot down easily.
7. This war is simply not worth it for either side. Stalin made a good choice not to fight his former allies. Both sides were already tired from a long war with losses.
***
with the above mentioned scenarios it would be easy to create missions portraying the air battles for this conflict.
Link to my MEDIAFIRE downloads page: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=11eb9c2dafe61348e7c82ed4b8f0c380e04e75f6e8ebb871">http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=11eb ... f6e8ebb871</a><!-- m -->