Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Would Stalin attack the West? Operation Unthinkable 1945" video.

@darkoneforce2 "[Soviet] logistics were not good either" Have you looked into the invasion of Manchuria?
7
" the P-47 and P-51 were vastly supperior in range " Soviet doctrine didn't require range (or altitude, for that matter), and that's why they built their fighter the way they did. Carpet-bombing cities is a very expensive way of doing damage to the enemy. Soviets relied on close air support. Total air superiority was considered as a nice-to-have, not a necessity. Temporary and local air superiority was what they went after. For that, their planes were fine.
5
@horatio8213 " They even didn't try attack German airfields! " Why would they do it? It achieves very little at a high cost, because grass airfields are easy to fix and tend to have good air defenses (not even talking about anything that manages to take off in time). " Sowiet aitforce was vwry ineffective. " More effective that the Western Allies, who were experts and burning women and children alive and not much of anything else. Anyway, it's really a very different doctrine. Soviet pilots despised German approach, of going after the planes instead of objectives. They saw it as cowardly. Because achieving objectives is usually much harder. They knew. They had experience in both approaches.
3
@darkoneforce2 " virtually anything moving towards the front " Soviets did that. To a lesser degree, but the scale W. Allies did it was of questionable value. Basically, instead of the dream of destroying the enemy forces before they reach the frontline, you simply limit their mobility. They have to camouflage, hide, move at night, drag some defenses with them, but once they do that, it's very ineffective. People keep making YT videos trying to puzzle out why anybody would do it at all, THAT ineffective! With that said, Soviets did such missions. Apart from bombing Frenchmen. They weren't any good at it, apparently. " The sacrifice of bombers didn't change the fact that the US achieved total air superiority. " But at what cost? You risk a heavy bomber in exchange for a chance to get a fighter? That's a really bad trade. One could argue, that it would be better to use those assets more carefully, and simply deal with some enemy air presence, but that would make way too much sense... " The american planes were simply better " Nah. You guys simply had more of a much better aviation fuel. That's the whole difference. " boom and zoom tactics " That's "hit and run" in common lingo. Meaning, you take a potshot and scram, leaving the assets you were expected to protect unprotected. Brilliant! " german planes when they had to land due to running out of fuel " While they were defending Germany ? Right on top of their airbases? Okay, that's enough. I stop here.
3
@darkoneforce2 " The US did CAS/ tactical bombing but also did area denial/ interdiction and strategic bombing. " What do you mean by "area denial"? Bombing Frenchmen before Goodwood? Yes, you guys were good at it. " Plus they achieved total air superiority. " At what cost? Sending bombers against women and children in order to make fighters take off? Sure it worked. You traded a four-engine bomber for a chance to get a fighter... Weird economy. If Germans were not pressed by the Soviets, they'd love to call your bluff! " Have you looked at logistics (or lack of) of the japanese army at that point ? " Yeah, I did. They had a fresh army heavily fortified in an extremely difficult terrain. The Soviets advanced at such a pace, that I doubt the Japanese ever run out of supplies, apart from encircled hard-points, which Soviets bypassed on purpose. In those last cases, even the best logistical chain will not run through Soviet lines, will it? " Or the trucks, materials and fuel the soviets received from the US ? " The supplies ended in May 1945. The invasion of Manchuria was in August.
2
@darkoneforce2 " * had very small range. And that meant they couldn't go far behind the front line.* " Yeah, they couldn't go to Berlin, so women and children were safe, but they were good enough to escort IL-2s conducting tactically relevant missions. Regarding air superiority, I'm not saying that it is useless, I'm only saying that how useful it seems depends on the price you pay for it. You guys were willing to trade a crew of 12 (not even talking about women and children) for a chance to get a single fighter. The pilot likely survived, too. Just because you guys paid too much for something does not mean that the goods you purchased were worthless. And further, those who refused to pay the same price are not necessarily stupid, are they? " germans finally wihdraw from Monte Casino " Oh, that means my uncles fought for nothing. One stayed there too... " An american bomber has more armor " Look it up. Practically nothing. You repeat wartime propaganda. 80 years later. Daytime "precision bombing" was a flop. The losses were unsustainable. " Bomber losses were never really the problem " BS Regarding dogfighting tactics, when you escort a force, you need to stay with them. Or they become defenseless. Boom and zoom is fine, if you catch someone unawares and then escape to safety. For actually contesting an airspace, it's not all that. Soviets had both types of fighters. For escorts, they preferred Yaks. Regarding killing off the pilots being the goal, I finally agree. Most of them died on the Eastern Front, though...
1