Can Germany stay in the war past 1946 ( or can it withstand atomic attacks )

[Equuleus]

It is generally assumed that regardless of German performance on the eastern front or other factors, that Germany is doomed to be wiped out by the USAAF atomic bombers come late 1945 / 1946.

So I have a few questions:

I. What was the destructive capacity of early atomic weapons compared to heavy 1,000 bomber raids?

II. How many weapons would the US be able to deploy in combat by the end of 1946?

III. If Germany is able to perform far better on the eastern front ( say they've taken out Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku but can't advance further due to the sheer logistical problems involved, highly debatable, but lets just say they did this for the sake of argument ), how much better of an air defense could be built up with resources from a less active Eastern front freed? Additionally how much potential did the German jets and early SAMs in the works have to inflict loss on the allied bomber fleets?

IV. Could Germany continue to stay an effective combatant in the war past 1946 calculating the above questions in?

V. If Germany had effectively won the eastern front by 1943, what is the earliest the Germans could develop a bomb of their own?

[juanml82]

The thing is, with an stronger German air defense, the USAAF can drop atomic bombs during the night. Accuracy would suck, but who cares?

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by juanml82

The thing is, with an stronger German air defense, the USAAF can drop atomic bombs during the night. Accuracy would suck, but who cares?

In this case count, the first atomic bombs were in the 20 kt range, not really a city destroyers so some degree of accuracy is needed.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

In this case count, the first atomic bombs were in the 20 kt range, not really a city destroyers so some degree of accuracy is needed.

Two words, Norden bombsight, end of story.

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Two words, Norden bombsight, end of story.

Well there is the fact that sometimes the allies bombarded the wrong nation...so precision high altitude precision bombardment can be an opinion matter, at least in the 40's with the navigation tecnology they had, and as my grandfather attested from below allied bomber were not very 'surgical'.

[Easterling]

Yes, Germany can withstadn at least some atomic attacks. Remember that the alleies needed two nukes to defeat Japan (and they allmost needed a third one) and that was when the Japanese had no more air or naval forces to speak of and were starving to death). I suppose that an Europe-spanning Reich would be a lot more resilient and that a great many more targets would need to be destroyed before it collapsed. I allso suppose that such a Reich would have some relatively potent air defence forces and it will have (at least initially) some "no-go" areas for allied bombers. Remember that hisotrically the Germans had better air-defence forces than the Japanese with good high altitude fighters (including jets) and some primitive SAMs, and this time they will have more of them (and probably with the bugs ironed out) due to superior industrial capability.
This being said, successfull atomic attacks will obviouusly hurt. If the germans are still fighting on the eastern front as of 1946 their military should be quite strained, and if they aren't loosing allready they will most certainly be loosing now and this will be obvious to everyone. So unless Hitler can convince his army that they will be able to quickly retaliate in a meaningfull way or completely stopp allied attacks, German morale could collapse.
So in conclusion, while I do believe it will take more than a couple of nukes to defeat an europe-spannig Reich, I allso wonder how much longer it can stay in the war past 1946.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Easterling

Yes, Germany can withstadn at least some atomic attacks. Remember that the alleies needed two nukes to defeat Japan (and they allmost needed a third one) and that was when the Japanese had no more air or naval forces to speak of and were starving to death). I suppose that an Europe-spanning Reich would be a lot more resilient and that a great many more targets would need to be destroyed before it collapsed. I allso suppose that such a Reich would have some relatively potent air defence forces and it will have (at least initially) some "no-go" areas for allied bombers. Remember that hisotrically the Germans had better air-defence forces than the Japanese with good high altitude fighters (including jets) and some primitive SAMs, and this time they will have more of them (and probably with the bugs ironed out) due to superior industrial capability.
This being said, successfull atomic attacks will obviouusly hurt. If the germans are still fighting on the eastern front as of 1946 their military should be quite strained, and if they aren't loosing allready they will most certainly be loosing now and this will be obvious to everyone. So unless Hitler can convince his army that they will be able to quickly retaliate in a meaningfull way or completely stopp allied attacks, German morale could collapse.
So in conclusion, while I do believe it will take more than a couple of nukes to defeat an europe-spannig Reich, I allso wonder how much longer it can stay in the war past 1946.

I postulate six cities up in atomic flame before Germany collapses.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

I postulate six cities up in atomic flame before Germany collapses.

Germany lost far more cities than that and still had to have essentially the entire nation occupied before it surrendered.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Equuleus

It is generally assumed that regardless of German performance on the eastern front or other factors, that Germany is doomed to be wiped out by the USAAF atomic bombers come late 1945 / 1946.

So I have a few questions:

I. What was the destructive capacity of early atomic weapons compared to heavy 1,000 bomber raids?

II. How many weapons would the US be able to deploy in combat by the end of 1946?

III. If Germany is able to perform far better on the eastern front ( say they've taken out Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku but can't advance further due to the sheer logistical problems involved, highly debatable, but lets just say they did this for the sake of argument ), how much better of an air defense could be built up with resources from a less active Eastern front freed? Additionally how much potential did the German jets and early SAMs in the works have to inflict loss on the allied bomber fleets?

IV. Could Germany continue to stay an effective combatant in the war past 1946 calculating the above questions in?

V. If Germany had effectively won the eastern front by 1943, what is the earliest the Germans could develop a bomb of their own?

Oh, look, a "Wunderwaffe" thread.

O.K., I'll bite.

By early 1945, Germany was done. Her industry and road/rail net was smash. Her logistics were stretch to breaking by a two front war they should not have started and could never have afforded anyway.

If one presumes Germany is still occupying Russia that makes things worse for them, not better as a significant amount of those ME 262 sparrows are in the East trying to keep the Red Army at bay.

Same with those early SAMS versus the red air force.

Them too, the B-50 Dominator bomber was designed as a high altitude supercruise plane, it's up there, like 35 or 40 thousand feet.

Those Same and SParrows can look, but they won't be abler to touche.

If the U.S> can produce say, three Little boy type bombes per year that gives them six weapons to use on Germany by 1946.

That means six German cities reduced to irradiated rubble by American supercruising DOminators that the Luftwaffe cannot hit.

Do the math.

[juanml82]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Oh, look, a "Wunderwaffe" thread.

O.K., I'll bite.

By early 1945, Germany was done. Her industry and road/rail net was smash. Her logistics were stretch to breaking by a two front war they should not have started and could never have afforded anyway.

If one presumes Germany is still occupying Russia that makes things worse for them, not better as a significant amount of those ME 262 sparrows are in the East trying to keep the Red Army at bay.

Same with those early SAMS versus the red air force.

Them too, the B-50 Dominator bomber was designed as a high altitude supercruise plane, it's up there, like 35 or 40 thousand feet.

Those Same and SParrows can look, but they won't be abler to touche.

If the U.S> can produce say, three Little boy type bombes per year that gives them six weapons to use on Germany by 1946.

That means six German cities reduced to irradiated rubble by American supercruising DOminators that the Luftwaffe cannot hit.

Do the math.

Well, the POD includes a peace with the USSR in 1943, so the east would need men for antipartisan duties. The front line fighters would be in the west, challenging allied aircraft, and production would have switched to aircraft and air defenses. Thus, their industry and rail/road net would be in better shape and they'll have surviving Soviet factories as well. The B-50 didn't enter service until 1948

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Well, the POD includes a peace with the USSR in 1943, so the east would need men for antipartisan duties. The front line fighters would be in the west, challenging allied aircraft, and production would have switched to aircraft and air defenses. Thus, their industry and rail/road net would be in better shape and they'll have surviving Soviet factories as well. The B-50 didn't enter service until 1948

Even so, B29's are pretty high flyers much higher than B-17s.

[miketr]

Having seen photo's of German cities post war from conventional bomber raids I never bought the idea that 2, 3 or a dozen nukes getting the Germans to surrender. That requires a rational response by the German leadership and if you have rational German leadership they make peace 1943 or 1944. For that matter if you have rational German leadership there is no WW2 at all.

Hitler was willing to have Germany come down to a crashing ruin around his ears. So nukes, unless one some how gets him, aren't going to drive Germany out of the war. You need to actually take the land from them with a ground campaign.

Michael

[Simon Darkshade]

US atomic bomb production would be six Model 1561s/Fat Man and one Mark One/Little Boy a month from September 1945. Making new lines for Mark IIIs, as was done in @, would take about 18 months, after which 10/month could be built.

[juanml82]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Even so, B29's are pretty high flyers much higher than B-17s.

Yes, but wouldn't the jets be able to reach them, though? And, assuming peace with the USSR, then should be able to get better metals and thus, more reliable jet engines.

[Equuleus]

I'll add another question to this:

What potential do the Germans have to retaliate with gas or other WMD?

[Jukra]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Yes, but wouldn't the jets be able to reach them, though? And, assuming peace with the USSR, then should be able to get better metals and thus, more reliable jet engines.

In addition, would Britain be able to sustain it's war effort in face of V-weapon bombardment which would be far superior in scale to one of 1944-1945, assuming if USSR was conquered? Even use of just V-1 type missiles would be devastating if they were deployed truly en masse (say, few thousand a day). The use of atomic weapons would mean German counter-effort using sarin and tabun tipped warheads.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Yes, but wouldn't the jets be able to reach them, though? And, assuming peace with the USSR, then should be able to get better metals and thus, more reliable jet engines.

Those B-29's still have guns on them you know and don't forget the British COmet Jet and the American Meteor Jet, both of witch would be in production by then given what the O.P. has already established.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by juanml82

Well, the POD includes a peace with the USSR in 1943, so the east would need men for antipartisan duties. The front line fighters would be in the west, challenging allied aircraft, and production would have switched to aircraft and air defenses. Thus, their industry and rail/road net would be in better shape and they'll have surviving Soviet factories as well. The B-50 didn't enter service until 1948

That implies a Nazi leadership actually negotiating a serious peace with the USSR, a concept entirely beyond the ken of the omnicidal menchildren running Hitler's empire.

[juanml82]

IIRC there were some secret and failed peace negotiations during 1942-3. They knew there weren't going to drive all the way to Vladivostok so they had to assume they had to make peace at some point.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by juanml82

IIRC there were some secret and failed peace negotiations during 1942-3. They knew there weren't going to drive all the way to Vladivostok so they had to assume they had to make peace at some point.

Only on the Soviet side. The Nazis had no concept of negotiating a peace with the USSR, their only goal was to kill all Slavs. Period. To them there would be a peace of the Tacitean sort, no more and no less.