Military History Thread

[-Snafu- 78]

Since the International Politics Thread has went completely OT and became a discussion on WW2. I felt that there was a need for a thread such as this.

This topic can be a centre for discussions from Ancient Wars to Modern Wars. From Roman Legionnaires to British Grenadiers. Arrows to machine guns and so on and so forth.

Want to discuss the effectiveness of the Soviet T-34? Use this thread.

Want to discuss US Military strategy for the Vietnam War? Use this thread.

Try to keep to the purpose of the thread. Military History and not Political History. Although politics will be a theme of military history in some cases.

[-Snafu- 78]

In response to otk-members comment in the Intl. Politics Thread.

Only responding to this comment since the rest has been dealt with by other people.

Quote[/b] ]I know. And you know that Churchill  knew about plans of Japan to attack Pearl Harbour? But has not informed on it the USA.

Yes I know the codebreakers probably knew about it. But how do you know the US was not told? Or that the US knew themselves? They are not stupid you know. The power of the Navy, the carriers, were not in port and so were safe and sound. I'm not saying the US would let such a thing happen. But getting attacked is a good way to get public support, especially when just days before they were isolationist. Although I'm not much of a conspiracy fan.

Anyway I have a question regarding HM Forces. The Royal Marines specifically. What would have been their role if the 'Cold War went hot'? Would they have been deployed to Europe? Or sent on raids behind the enemy lines?

[scary 0]

Anyway I have a question regarding HM Forces. The Royal Marines specifically. What would have been their role if the 'Cold War went hot'? Would they have been deployed to Europe? Or sent on raids behind the enemy lines?

Assuming the war went as was expected and the Red Horde was travelling rapidly towards the Rhine, Royal's primary role would have been to insert into Scandinavia, get behind the forward line and attack the logistic elements. If all went well there could well have been an additional role of entering deeper behind Soviet lines for strategic attacks on military infrastrucure.

A similar attack from the south, travelling through the Balkan states was also a possibility.

Under no circumstances would Royal be used in a conventional role against such an enemy, 3 Cdo Bde isn't constructed with that intention. A small unit with no armour against a mass line of rapidly advancing armoured infantry would be suicide, that was BAOR's job.

[-Snafu- 78]

Anyway I have a question regarding HM Forces. The Royal Marines specifically. What would have been their role if the 'Cold War went hot'? Would they have been deployed to Europe? Or sent on raids behind the enemy lines?

Assuming the war went as was expected and the Red Horde was travelling rapidly towards the Rhine, Royal's primary role would have been to insert into Scandinavia, get behind the forward line and attack the logistic elements. If all went well there could well have been an additional role of entering deeper behind Soviet lines for strategic attacks on military infrastrucure.

A similar attack from the south, travelling through the Balkan states was also a possibility.

Under no circumstances would Royal be used in a conventional role against such an enemy, 3 Cdo Bde isn't constructed with that intention. A small unit with no armour against a mass line of rapidly advancing armoured infantry would be suicide, that was BAOR's job.

Thank you for the information. I just got Amongst the Marines by Steven Preece and since that dealt with the social aspect, I was wondering about their military role at that time.

What about the Parachute Regiment?

[otk-member 0]

I have been read some info about second world war starting...

What do you think, why WWII has started?

It was 1 september 1939. German declade war to Poland. Why? What a reason?

What country was a German in this time, and what country was a Poland?

What was in 1938 with Czechoslovakia?

Whats a Poland role? Whats a French and England roles?

[MehMan 0]

Well the official version goes something like this:

The germans decided to expand their territory and yada yada, so they did this step by step, anexing the Sudetenland, Czech land and Slovakia became their bitch. Then they wanted more, so they staged a faked attack on Germany by Poland and invaded Poland. Two weeks later the USSR held up to the secret side of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and attacked Poland, DPing it like a dirty whore.

Britain and France both gave support to Poland before the actual invasion, claiming they will defend their independance, but were terribly non coordinated and equipped to fight the much better functioning German war machine, so that plan went to hell pretty soon, so empty words. Then they waited to see what Hitler was going to do, and got outsmarted by his generals when they rolled over Benelux and France going around the all famous Maginot line. The french were at the time very non coordinated, had old tactics to give the Germans a good fight and while in some places they managed to fight, in many they didn't.

Both the British and French were expecting this to be like WWI and they didn't really expect the war to roll on very fast so they soon got a lesson in modern warfare and the word came in that trenches are a thing of the past and warfare is far more mobile, planes make a huge difference and tanks were not there to roll over trenches. As such the British and French tactics were outdated as they planned to use tanks not as a main weapon on the battlefield and independant regiments, but as infantry support.

In 1938 Britain gave Hitler what he wanted, because I believe they weren't really ready for war and didn't want to risk it yet. Later as Hitler became more and more greedy they knew there wasn't going to be a way out. The French? Bleh. Don't know much about them.

But WWII was started by Hitler and his idea of being the ruler of the world, and it's rather impressive that a single nation of sausage eaters managed to nearly take over a huge chunk of the world. But it's good they DIDN'T take over a huge chunk of the world, because I doubt many of us would be alive right now if they'd kept it.

There, I hopefully managed to mix in some humor with something that isn't funny at all.

[sanctuary 19]

Quote[/b] ]I have been read some info about second world war starting...

What do you think, why WWII has started?

It was 1 september 1939. German declade war to Poland. Why? What a reason?

What country was a German in this time, and what country was a Poland?

What was in 1938 with Czechoslovakia?

Whats a Poland role? Whats a French and England roles?

Additionally to the bad economical situation in europe and germany after 1st world war, the emergence of racist ideology linked to that economical problems, anyone ever heard of "mein kampf" that Hitler wrote after going out of jail in germany around 1924/1925 ?

Basically, Hitler explained in this book what he will do when he will get in power : invasion of nearby countries to get more manpower for other wars and massive production, destruction of what he hated the most : communists and jews, and ultimately war for global domination with the remaining countries that were out of reach for now.

Of course, the slow minds that were ruling world countries when Hitler got named chancellor in germany, seem to have totally overlooked what Hitler was wanting to do, despite it was available publicly as a book.

And guess what happened next , after they decided to do nearly nothing while Hitler was simply making the preparations of the 1st phase of his plan described in his book ?

[otk-member 0]

Ok... In september-october 1938 - Czechoslovakia was collapsed. German take a Sudecks territory, Poland take Teshinsk territory.

France was having with Czechoslovakia a friendship and alliance deal. USSR - too. But, with one objective. If France will help, will help USSR.

France, England, German, Italia has make a deal at 30 september 1938 in Munhen, Germany. It must be prevent a big european war. But, Czechoslovakia must be resized.

To prevent war between German and USSR, Czechoslovakia was capitulate without war.

By the summer 1939, USSR was war with Japan on river Halhin-Gol. At this time the USSR and Germany have concluded the nonagression pact.

Japan has declared Germany the protest, having specified, that the Soviet-German contract contradicts Anticommintern pact according to which the parties which have signed it have undertaken "to not conclude without a mutual consent from the USSR any political contracts". The Japanese cabinet led by Kiitiro Hiranuma, a was supporter of joint Japan-German war against the USSR, has been compelled to submit to resignation on August, 28th, 1939. Thus Kiitiro Hiranuma has declared, that the situation does necessary "absolutely new orientation of the Japanese foreign policy". Thereof the Japanese government have made a choice in favour of "the Southern variant", assumed war with England and the USA. After an attack of Germany to the USSR, Japan has not opposed USSR.

[jakerod 254]

Since we're on the topic of World War II I thought i'd just throw this in here.

Stanislaw Maczek

Its a wikipedia article about a Polish General during World War II. From the sound of it he was a very good General.

[mr burns 132]

Basically, Hitler explained in this book what he will do when he will get in power : invasion of nearby countries to get more manpower for other wars and massive production, destruction of what he hated the most : communists and jews, and ultimately war for global domination with the remaining countries that were out of reach for now.

Of course, the slow minds that were ruling world countries when Hitler got named chancellor in germany, seem to have totally overlooked what Hitler was wanting to do, despite it was available publicly as a book.

Maybe Hitlers fellowship was just blinded by his (to those times) very plausible view of a re-rise of something like the mighty roman empire which was basically what that guy wanted to recreate.....ethnological questions put aside.

Oportunism was a key feature & reason for all the things happening back then, possibly being also one of the reasons for my grandfather to take a bestowal of a german family name instead of his russian Romanov family roots.

But this may all be too political, so lets say that the T34 was far better than any german tanks being produced during that era.

On the other hand - any major technological improvements after WW2 were based on german research. Period.

[-Snafu- 78]

Since we're on the topic of World War II I thought i'd just throw this in here.

Stanislaw Maczek

Its a wikipedia article about a Polish General during World War II. From the sound of it he was a very good General.

Thanks for pointing that out. Interesting stuff. My town was just 40 odd miles out of the area of defence the Polish were responsible for. You can still see old fortifications at my beach and if your lucky, find some rifle rounds.

On the note of tanks. I would say that the T-34 was the best all round tank. Not the best but the best all round tank. Quite hard to argue what the best tank would be. In my opinion I would say the Panther. Germany had quite a technological advantage that they squandered. They might have just been better off mass producing MkIV's mixed with some heavy tanks.

[Pathy 0]

Trouble was, by the time the Panther and the later era German Tanks came into play, although technologically they were sound, the strains of war meant that materials and production quality were sub-par, and as a result, frequent mechanical failures plagued these tanks, whilst the structure of the tanks themselves was weakened. Combine with the expense of many of the later war tanks Germany was producing, and it proved very difficult to manufacture both quantity and quality.

[stevevcb 3]

I'd say the Panther was superior to the T34 in many regards, but better armour and armament don't count for much when you're outnumbered ten to one by tanks that are broadly comparable. Especially if yours has broken down.

I always found it interesting how it was the losing side that everyone learned so much from in WWII. Assault rifles, GPMGs, MBTs, camouflage uniforms... if they Germans didn't come up with an idea, they certainly played a part in shaping how it turned out. I always found it sad that the British only cottoned onto the idea of making a tank that wasn't in some way woefully deficient (i.e. the Centurion) when the war was drawing to a close.

[-Snafu- 78]

Trouble was, by the time the Panther and the later era German Tanks came into play, although technologically they were sound, the strains of war meant that materials and production quality were sub-par, and as a result, frequent mechanical failures plagued these tanks, whilst the structure of the tanks themselves was weakened. Combine with the expense of many of the later war tanks Germany was producing, and it proved very difficult to manufacture both quantity and quality.

Yes. I was watching this programme (can't remember the name: takes place in a British tank museum) on tanks on Discovery Knowledge during Tanks and Tactics weekend. An ex-army guy who worked there (grey haired, tad eccentric) argued that the Germans would have been better off just mass producing the IV model. There were loads of problems with the different tanks they produced. Only certain factories could produce certain tanks, resources were split, lack of tanks because of diversification etc.

[otk-member 0]

T34 was good, but not best. It was a massproduced tank with not bad armor, very simple and too light with service.

It take a victory by mass. It has a good angle of armor, it let a ricochet of shells of the opponent. And it was a very fast tank.

[BlackScorpion 0]

I'd say T-34/85, Panther or (later) StuGs. T-34/85 combined a prooven, compact and cheap design with a powerful gun, that could actually engage enemy armor at most ranges. Panther was very good thanks to its armor, relative lightness and very effective main gun, but as said somewhat lacked the reliability and cheapness Wehrmacht could've really used.

Although I might have to go with the StuGs (and to some extent, Hetzer, the 38(t) based equilants) as my choice. Despite being assault guns and thus not having a traversing turret, they were mobile, destructive and very low in profile. Using prooven designs of the Panzer series, they were easy to manufacture, and as they lacked a turret they were also cheaper and lighter. They used the same medium lenght 75 mm cannons as later Panzer IVs, which could reliably take on most tanks they countered, as long as it could be traversed at the target. Finns achieved a near 1:11 kill ratio with the tanks we had, and over 12000 IIIs and IVs were produced.

[kakagoegie 0]

So what do you guys think about the way the allies and germans treated each other on the western front. I've heard that both sides shot POWs, but they also respected medics.

I think in general on the western front both sides respected the Geneva conventions. Would the amount of German heritage in the US army play any part in this?

About the t34. It was a great tank because of it's numbers. In most 1 vs 1 tank battles the Germans would win. The t34 was so import because of the number of units build.

[Second 0]

Finns achieved a near 1:11 kill ratio with the tanks we had, and over 12000 IIIs and IVs were produced.

No it's not the iron they used, it was other factors. Typical tankfighting was done in distances where allkinds medium and long 75mm or greater cannons had good change to destory opponent (well not Josif Stalin 2) and first shot usually was a hit. Skill of crew and situational awareness had vital importance: Stugs commonly were participating in counterattacks and they had supprise in their side and they had idea of enemy's location. I quess that usually was enough to give finnish crew a upperhand and first shot.

And besides Stug overall wasn't very important tools during -44 in Finland, infact it was least imporant AT-weapon. In antitankrole artillery (both AT and indirect), airstrikes and infantry AT-weapons caused more destoryed tanks than Stugs.

[-Snafu- 78]

Finns achieved a near 1:11 kill ratio with the tanks we had, and over 12000 IIIs and IVs were produced.

No it's not the iron they used, it was other factors. Typical tankfighting was done in distances where allkinds medium and long 75mm or greater cannons had good change to destory opponent (well not Josif Stalin 2) and first shot usually was a hit. Skill of crew and situational awareness had vital importance: Stugs commonly were participating in counterattacks and they had supprise in their side and they had idea of enemy's location. I quess that usually was enough to give finnish crew a upperhand and first shot.

And besides Stug overall wasn't very important tools during -44 in Finland, infact it was least imporant AT-weapon. In antitankrole artillery (both AT and indirect), airstrikes and infantry AT-weapons caused more destoryed tanks than Stugs.

Excuse my ignorance but how did the Finnish manage to give a 'superior' force not only a bloody nose but two black eyes and a broken arm?

Also if anyone is interested I just found clips on YouTube from a documnetary about the World's best rifles.

World's Top 10 Rifles

[Second 0]

Finns achieved a near 1:11 kill ratio with the tanks we had, and over 12000 IIIs and IVs were produced.

No it's not the iron they used, it was other factors. Typical tankfighting was done in distances where allkinds medium and long 75mm or greater cannons had good change to destory opponent (well not Josif Stalin 2) and first shot usually was a hit. Skill of crew and situational awareness had vital importance: Stugs commonly were participating in counterattacks and they had supprise in their side and they had idea of enemy's location. I quess that usually was enough to give finnish crew a upperhand and first shot.

And besides Stug overall wasn't very important tools during -44 in Finland, infact it was least imporant AT-weapon. In antitankrole artillery (both AT and indirect), airstrikes and infantry AT-weapons caused more destoryed tanks than Stugs.

Excuse my ignorance but how did the Finnish manage to give a 'superior' force not only a bloody nose but two black eyes and a broken arm?

Infact it's very nice that you asked. Few reasons:

1. Great artillery usage. I think we had best FO system during ww2. Red Army had more cannons but we could use them much more effectively. If remember right we could consentrate 20 batteries of arty in 5 minutes to enemy's attack formations.

2. Weapons and food from Germany. We could muster more men and gained more weapons (expacely AT) and great german aircraft-unit Kuhmley.

3. Will to fight by Finnish units. At first morale of troops was bad, as we were on Soviet soil (many troops were against this) and many units did suffer from exhaustion of war fro verious of resons. But when fighting turned to Finnish soil morale of men boosted. Many time i have heard the reference to Winter War at this point (fighting wasn't illegal anymore to anyone, but it was necessarity)

4. Final clashes were fought in terrain where "machine army" (like Red Army was) couldn't fight well. Steep rocky hills, rivers and lakes. Soil was rocky which made artilleryfire to become very murderous.

I'm not starting to lecture more now, maybe later, but right now i don't have time.

[Second 0]

Conserning westren Karelia in where major battles were fought (eastern Karelia was mostly delaying battle in swamp- and forestlands by infantry troops): At start of offencive Red Army had crushing superiority in all aspects, but mostly in tanks, artillery and airplanes, and Soviet had all first line equipment, while finns had old and obsolent gear almost 1/4 of it's aircrafts and tanks. Red Army had lots of experience from great offencives while finns had sat more or less passively in trenches for few years. There was major flaws in all levels of Finland's preparations against Red army's offence. It could be said that Red army was able supprise finnish generals while their pants were in their knees. Red army was respectable and skillful opponent, nothing like giant with clay feet back from 39-41.

In men it had 4 times more men than finns, this wasn't as much as in southern German-Soviet front in where Red army had 6 times more men than Germans during -44, so basically which finns faced was machine army which weakness was in number of men, but in tanks and aircrafts it had the edge.

This combined with poor fortification lines both in location and readiness. Expacely first fortification line was in terrain which enbaled Red Army to use tanks very freely. First Finns went into shock by power of Red Army during -44. This resulted that Red army could advace 100 kilometers. This took 2 weeks, in which time finns were doing few (basically failed but time buying) counterattacks and succesful delaying to give time for thier reinforcement from other sectors to arrive to third "fortification" line. Infact there was not fortifications in this line, just line on map into where fortification should have been built.

Typical for Red Army offences during -44 were that they were rapid, they advanced alot (several hundreds if not thousand kilometers) and they seized lost of POWs during that time. Soviet offence in western Karelia wasn't like this. It was rapid, but from start to finish finns could fall back in order. Sovets couldn't gain many POWs (finns could get to own lines by using forests) and they advanced only 100 kilometer before they were halted. dont' know reasons whi this happened, maybe it's terrain and nature of Karelian istum, broken by forests, rivers and lakes and having only few roads.

Finally Finns faced the moment when (beloved and hated) Marshall Mannerheim had to tell to troops that if Red Army's advance region can't be stopped to Tali-Ihantala (part of third fortification line) then Red Army can advance to in-land and even to Helsinki capitol.

At this point biggest battle in Scandinavian history flamed for two weeks. Finns won that battle after two weeks of mayhem for both sides, which factors of success i listed in earlier post. At first Red Army could advance and dominate slightly, while tired and weakened finns were trying to buy time for reinforcements. Attacks and coutner attacks swayed in battlefield, it could be said that hardly any finnish or Red Army's attack (or counterattack) was a success, but they all dried up to defenders artillery. But by time more and more finnish reserves were pouring in and expacely artillery was getting stronger while Red army was loosing it's men at high phase. Typical aspect from last days of this battle was that Red army's attack formations were broken with just artillery fire before they even managed to start attacking. Red army's attacks were also getting weaker and more scattered. Red Army's advantage on men had reduced to 2-3 times more men (i don't know is this actual or organizational strenght)

After this battle there were few Red Army's offences trying to break thru finnish defences in other sectors close ot Tali-Ihantala, but they failed aswell. Finnish defence was reinforced enough while Red army's units became weaker and weaker by each beaten back offence. And when Tali-Ihantala was won by Finns (or was it bit later i don't remeber it right now), Stalin ordered that race for Germany had main importance and troops were begun to be shipped to south. During Winter War Sovet Union could wait months and muster more men when their first offence was failure, but now it wasn't reasonable because German was main target of Soviet Union and race for Berlin was on.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I've recently re-read the book "The Blond Knight of Germany", a book covering the life of Erich Hartmann, and my curiosity was aroused with regards to the fact that he stated that in more than one occasion, USAAF aircraft were involved in combat with the soviet Air Force. Also, Hartmann surrendered to a U.S. Army unit that had been farther to the east than the supposedly established border line that would separate soviet territory from that held by the western allies. Is there anywhere specific data on how many planes each allied shot down from each other? Were the ground forces also shooting at each other or just the air forces?

[-Snafu- 78]

BUZZARD @ Mar. 29 2008,19:58)]I've recently re-read the book "The Blond Knight of Germany", a book covering the life of Erich Hartmann, and my curiosity was aroused with regards to the fact that he stated that in more than one occasion, USAAF aircraft were involved in combat with the soviet Air Force. Also, Hartmann surrendered to a U.S. Army unit that had been farther to the east than the supposedly established border line that would separate soviet territory from that held by the western allies. Is there anywhere specific data on how many planes each allied shot down from each other? Were the ground forces also shooting at each other or just the air forces?

With regards to Allied aircraft engaging Soviet aircraft you have to account for aircraft recognition training on both sides. Were Allied and Soviet pilots trained to recognise each others aircraft? Maybe but I would be a bit sceptical about that. Moreover German aircraft were still flying in 1945 so the could have mistaken to be enemy aircraft.

Allied and Soviet troops did engage each other. It is mentioned in one of the books I have. An American officer suspected that they were fighting Russians so he went and got a flag, climbed to the top of a building and waved it. The firing stopped. I can post it up here if you want?

This would be expected. The end of the war is close thus there are still German troops moving around the area so Allied and Soviet troops are still weary. Furthermore I doubt that both sides were trained to recognise each other and their equipment.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

BUZZARD @ Mar. 29 2008,19:58)]I've recently re-read the book "The Blond Knight of Germany", a book covering the life of Erich Hartmann, and my curiosity was aroused with regards to the fact that he stated that in more than one occasion, USAAF aircraft were involved in combat with the soviet Air Force. Also, Hartmann surrendered to a U.S. Army unit that had been farther to the east than the supposedly established border line that would separate soviet territory from that held by the western allies. Is there anywhere specific data on how many planes each allied shot down from each other? Were the ground forces also shooting at each other or just the air forces?

With regards to Allied aircraft engaging Soviet aircraft you have to account for aircraft recognition training on both sides. Were Allied and Soviet pilots trained to recognise each others aircraft? Maybe but I would be a bit sceptical about that. Moreover German aircraft were still flying in 1945 so the could have mistaken to be enemy aircraft.

Allied and Soviet troops did engage each other. It is mentioned in one of the books I have. An American officer suspected that they were fighting Russians so he went and got a flag, climbed to the top of a building and waved it. The firing stopped. I can post it up here if you want?

This would be expected. The end of the war is close thus there are still German troops moving around the area so Allied and Soviet troops are still weary. Furthermore I doubt that both sides were trained to recognise each other and their equipment.

Hehe, nice concept of being an ally if the brass knows they're sending their forces into an area where allied forces are known to be, without giving your own proper id training... Apart from the fact that the russians were also still flying some american lend-lease planes... Means the americans weren't able to identify even american-built planes?    Makes me think that's not a snafu, that's a fubar... and not a german one... Hartmann recalls in that book having attacked a flight of lend-lease Douglas A-20's operated by the soviets, being escorted by soviet-built fighters, and a squadron of Mustangs appeared. As Hartmann was flying higher than all those planes, he ordered his flight to dive through, killing whom they could along the way. As it was usual for Hartmann to use the Boom'n'Zoom tactic and fire at point-blank range, he attacked the Mustangs first, more than 1 going down, then proceeding to dive onto the bombers, diving through the soviet fighter cover. I think he got one bomber but didn't take the time to see it go down, as he and the rest of his flight kept on building speed until they hit the deck to race away for safety. Since nobody had spotted him before but the soviets discovered the Mustangs in the area, the bombers dropped their load into the countryfield and turned tails, and a scrap ensued between the soviet fighters and the Mustangs, several soviet fighters going down as a result and at least one Mustang also having been damaged. Probably those Mustangs belonged to the 15th USAAF...

[-Snafu- 78]

BUZZARD @ April 01 2008,11:03)]

BUZZARD @ Mar. 29 2008,19:58)]I've recently re-read the book "The Blond Knight of Germany", a book covering the life of Erich Hartmann, and my curiosity was aroused with regards to the fact that he stated that in more than one occasion, USAAF aircraft were involved in combat with the soviet Air Force. Also, Hartmann surrendered to a U.S. Army unit that had been farther to the east than the supposedly established border line that would separate soviet territory from that held by the western allies. Is there anywhere specific data on how many planes each allied shot down from each other? Were the ground forces also shooting at each other or just the air forces?

With regards to Allied aircraft engaging Soviet aircraft you have to account for aircraft recognition training on both sides. Were Allied and Soviet pilots trained to recognise each others aircraft? Maybe but I would be a bit sceptical about that. Moreover German aircraft were still flying in 1945 so the could have mistaken to be enemy aircraft.

Allied and Soviet troops did engage each other. It is mentioned in one of the books I have. An American officer suspected that they were fighting Russians so he went and got a flag, climbed to the top of a building and waved it. The firing stopped. I can post it up here if you want?

This would be expected. The end of the war is close thus there are still German troops moving around the area so Allied and Soviet troops are still weary. Furthermore I doubt that both sides were trained to recognise each other and their equipment.

Hehe, nice concept of being an ally if the brass knows they're sending their forces into an area where allied forces are known to be, without giving your own proper id training... Apart from the fact that the russians were also still flying some american lend-lease planes... Means the americans weren't able to identify even american-built planes? Makes me think that's not a snafu, that's a fubar... and not a german one... Hartmann recalls in that book having attacked a flight of lend-lease Douglas A-20's operated by the soviets, being escorted by soviet-built fighters, and a squadron of Mustangs appeared. As Hartmann was flying higher than all those planes, he ordered his flight to dive through, killing whom they could along the way. As it was usual for Hartmann to use the Boom'n'Zoom tactic and fire at point-blank range, he attacked the Mustangs first, more than 1 going down, then proceeding to dive onto the bombers, diving through the soviet fighter cover. I think he got one bomber but didn't take the time to see it go down, as he and the rest of his flight kept on building speed until they hit the deck to race away for safety. Since nobody had spotted him before but the soviets discovered the Mustangs in the area, the bombers dropped their load into the countryfield and turned tails, and a scrap ensued between the soviet fighters and the Mustangs, several soviet fighters going down as a result and at least one Mustang also having been damaged. Probably those Mustangs belonged to the 15th USAAF...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but are you suggesting there was a conspiracy?

First of all the Soviets probably were not really 'Allies' as there had been no cooperation between each others forces. The closest cooperation was something along the lines of, 'Oh look they are launching an offensive in 3 weeks so I will launch one as well.'

Second of all the aircraft were likely not to know that they were in the same area. I highly doubt that they were communicating with each other. Moreover you would have to consider how much lend lease aircraft the Soviets actually had. The Soviets got a number of Sherman tanks but they were never favoured by the Soviet military. It could have been the same for aircraft.

Third of all the the pilots were probably not trained to identify Soviet aircraft. Same goes with Soviets not trained to identify US aircraft. The Soviets and Allies were busy fighting a war against the Nazis and didn't have lots of time to study each others aircraft. I have an aircraft recognition guide that was issued during the war (to Western Allies) and not one Soviet aircraft is listed.

Furthermore I imagine the aircraft were rather confused when a bunch of planes zoomed through the sky and opened fire. I would envisage panic and evasive manoeuvres to dodge fire and then the pilots would probably be trying to get a bead on the attacking aircraft. They (Soviets/Allies) just saw each other and reacted. The adrenalines pumping and suddenly it is a question of life and death. Even if one of them did recognise they were shooting an ally how were they supposed to get the word out? It would take hours to go through their HQ, then over to some other dept., through red tape, then message to gets to other ally, message has to be sent to their departments and by the time it reaches the other aircraft squadron the fight would probably be long finished.

In addition with a war the size of WW2 there is no possible way you can avoid blue on blue. As I said I really doubt the Soviets and Western Allies had comms with each other so they cannot say 'hey mate stop it. You are shooting friendlies'. Friendly fire; the spoils of war.

With regards to communication between Allies take a look at some modern examples. Look at the 2003 Iraq War. We have a pair of A-10's circling a British convoy. The convoy has orange markers on the vehicles so aircraft can identify them as friendly. The pilots fail to recognise this but they call the convoy in to their HQ to make sure there are no friendlies in the area. HQ calls back and says there are none so the A-10's have permission to engage and so they do. Only until after they have fired on the convoy do HQ call back and say it's a British force. The tragedy has already happened. During this war the British and Americans were close Allies fighting with each other, trained to recognise each others vehicles and a blue on blue still happens. Thus I am not surprised if it happened with Soviet and Allied forces. They were not fighting with each other, probably didn't communicate with each other (unless you can show otherwise) and were probably not trained to recognise each others equipment (unless you can show otherwise).