privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Also, even if the Russians had by some miracle trained a million airborne soldiers, can someone please tell me how they intended to deploy them? Whilst I accept that the Russian air force had many a plane, how many of these would be as capable of delivering airborne troops as the Dakota or the Ju52? Airborne divisions usually require hundreds of such planes simply to land their forces, assuming from your posts that Stalin intended to drop even 1/2 of these troops before an invasion, and an average of 30 to a plane (generous considering), we end up with over 1600 planes I somehow doubt Stalin's russia could afford to divert 1600 large planes for such a role Especially when the bombers were intending to attack airfields, how exactly would Stalin have planned to do both?
This, you will note will be at the same time as towing numerous "glider-tanks" into the battlefield, something that, if not in concept flawed, in practice would have been. Winged tanks need planes to tow them, it seems to me the air force would have been stretched enough already in it's numerous roles. Some of the information I've read claims that the Russians had no more than 500 bombers in the western military district, less than the total needed to transport a corps of airborne troops (in one lift) let alone a million. Now it could be a vast reserve was hiding somewhere in the other areas, but seriously, a million airborne troops, plus bombing missions, plus winged tank transporting? I find this unlikely, if you look at:
It suggests that the notion of no fighters is also innacurate. Of the 1812 planes in the area, only 489 were bombers, 1043 were fighters and 239 were assault or recon and 41 were misc. This makes me wonder who came up with the idea that the soviets had gone "bomber heavy"
Generally, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the majority here, though the evidence is interesting, it is also scattered and as has been said, open to criticism due to the source's authors. As case says, it needs special evidence to prove such a thing.
This, you will note will be at the same time as towing numerous "glider-tanks" into the battlefield, something that, if not in concept flawed, in practice would have been. Winged tanks need planes to tow them, it seems to me the air force would have been stretched enough already in it's numerous roles. Some of the information I've read claims that the Russians had no more than 500 bombers in the western military district, less than the total needed to transport a corps of airborne troops (in one lift) let alone a million. Now it could be a vast reserve was hiding somewhere in the other areas, but seriously, a million airborne troops, plus bombing missions, plus winged tank transporting? I find this unlikely, if you look at:
http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/russia/wfront.html
It suggests that the notion of no fighters is also innacurate. Of the 1812 planes in the area, only 489 were bombers, 1043 were fighters and 239 were assault or recon and 41 were misc. This makes me wonder who came up with the idea that the soviets had gone "bomber heavy"
Generally, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the majority here, though the evidence is interesting, it is also scattered and as has been said, open to criticism due to the source's authors. As case says, it needs special evidence to prove such a thing.