Allied victory if Russia falls in WW 2

Even with acelerated development, you won't get the B-36A in operations before 1946-47. By then at least 2 future german projects, the Ta183 and the Me P.1112 would have been operationla and both have easily out-climbed the B-36A.
 
Even with acelerated development, you won't get the B-36A in operations before 1946-47.
IOTL the B36 flew for the first time in August 1946 (not reached squadron service, just flew).

The WAllies will be in for a very difficult time until the B36 is built in large numbers (and after as well) considering the Reich would have far more resources in the air war and strategic depth in Poland and the former USSR to move factories and other industrial sites out of reach.

This fantasy that some have that if the Reich defeated the USSR freeing up millions of troops and thousands of vehicles and artillery then the Normandy landings would be postponed until 1945 or 1946 is mind boggling considering how long it took the WAllies to land troops in Western Europe with the USSR bleeding the Heer/Waffen SS white for 3 years straight IOTL. Would the WAllies eventually defeat Germany if they continued the war? Yes but it would probably take until the late 1940s and at least a million more Allied troops would die than IOTL. It would make Operation Downfall look easy.

CalBear explained it much better in a previous thread.
Control of the "European" part of the USSR also provides the Reich with the one thing it lacked, true strategic depth. Move the factories East (can NOT be any more difficult that building massive tunnels to put things underground as IOTL) and the one real equalizer the WAllies have is off the table. Move factories (as was always envisioned) to General Government or to Russia and the Bomber Offensive ends. UK bomber bases to Moscow is at the B-29's max range (the Lancaster can't even get close it taps out near Vilnius, with the Lancaster's replacement, the Lincoln, not quite equaling the B-29). The B-32 can get a bit farther, but then you are dealing with the B-32... God have mercy on you. The CBO is effectively out of the strategic bombing of industrial business (as opposed to killing civilians) until the B-36 arrives. Even the B-29 missions flying past 1,000 miles radius are going to present a massive set of problems since there is no way you can get an escort out that far, the F-82 had a combat radius of around 950 miles, meaning that, at best, a deep penetration mission by B-29s would have had around 900 miles of unescorted flight time (three-four hours depending on speed during that part of the run) when the bombers would be hellishly vulnerable. Perhaps worse than the bomber losses would be the reality that the WAllies would not be able to do what was necessary to defeat the Luftwaffe IOTL, use the bombers as the anvil that the fighter jocks could hammer the Luftwaffe to bits against.

The B-29 was also far from invulnerable to interception. During the Korean War some 34 aircraft were lost flying against the relatively rudimentary ADZ of the DPRK. Even during WW II IJA pilots flying Ki-61 and Ki-84 had some success, and that was with minimal radar support and low octane gasoline.
If the Reich get strategic depth in the East, the Strategic Bombing campaign is in trouble (this assumes that all of OTL's occupied Western Europe remains in Nazi hands).

If one takes, as the best possible case for the Soviets, a return by the USSR of its major shipments of materials, oil and food to the Reich, with the USSR not losing any territory (vastly unlikely, but, again, best case) but with a wide demilitarized zone along the Soviet borders of a couple hundred miles, with Reich observers (sort of a Saarland in reverse). The Reich now can set up manufacturing beyond the range of any escort fighter until the arrival of the P-47N, F-82 and potentially the F8B in General Government. Even then the missions will need to be straight line, no staying out over the North Sea or Baltic until it is time to make the attack run. The oil fields will be in Soviet hands, not the Reich's so any attempt to attack them would possibly result in a war with the Soviets, something that would put Iran and potentially Iraq in play. The Lancaster is the only bomber that can carry useful loads deep into General Government until the arrival of the B-29, even at night, with the sort of flight path that would have to be flown, the RAF would have 10% losses every mission, maybe more. The Bombing offensive, as we know it, would stop dead for at least a year, more likely two, when the ultra long range escorts came on line. Even then the escort would be hard pressed to get much beyond Lodz in General Government (Poland), using the generally accepted reduction of 25% of max range for take off, form up, 20-30 minutes at full throttle/combat. So all the reduction in production, and most of the attrition of the Luftwaffe (which was more or less the 8th AF using their bombers as anvils for the P-51s to hammer the Luftwaffe to pieces against) between mid 1943 and early, probably mid 1945 is gone.

Those would be epic missions for a single seat aircraft, 8-10 hours in the air, virtually all of it over enemy territory. The WAllies would also need absolute mountains of fighters. There would need to be fighters escorting the whole bomber stream AND the ultra long range fighters (who won't be able to drop their external tanks until they are almost at the target area) all the way to the German/General Government frontier (so P-47Ds covering through France to the German border, P-51s taking over up to the Oder, and then the ultra long range fighters taking things to the target and back, probably with more shorter range escorts running fighter sweep to hold down the Luftwaffe on the return trip.
 
Last edited:
It's not just the range. Even if the bombers have the range for it, the fighters I mentioned would have climbed above 45.000ft. The B-36B was rated for less than 43.000...
 
Theodore von Kármán | American engineer | Britannica

Start thinking about ATLAS around 1950. The bomb would have to be delivered from launch sites no further away than Iran and Iceland.

Don't forget the germans were far ahead on rockets. Even if they don't get the nuke (I've read they were on a completely wrong path, science-wise), a dirty bomb on top of a next gen V2 capable of reaching New York is not off the table.

Fine until the Canberra is operational. :)

By which time another generation of german fighters will be up and running, and SAMs will be as well.

Tbh, if the USAF/RAF can't get the job done till 1948-50, i doubt the war will go on. The political and economical stress will begin to tell (specially for the UK); and I assume the war will Japan will go on? A Japan can now receive tech support overland, via USSR? Even if trains won't go past, I'm sure long range cargo aircraft can transport high-level itens, like schematics, eletronics, etc. I think Japan still looses, but it can prolong the fight.
 
The chances of allied victory are still pretty good.
Smuggling arms to Russian partisans would keep a lot of German units tied down in the east.
 
Alaska could be used, I guess. But such assistance would quickly bring official complaints from the german government to the russian,
 
The war ends in late 1946/early 1947, with much of Germany a radioactive wasteland and the former USSR a nightmare patchwork of warring states.

No, 1945 nukes were simply not destructive enough to collapse a nation unless you used a vast amount of them. The combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only killed less than 300,000 people. And that was against japan whose city structures were mostly made out of paper and wood, firebombing, in general, was more effective because of this.
(Compare the casualties from the bombing of Tokyo vs the bombing of Dresden, where even though Dresden had 3x more bombers dedicated to it the Dresden bombings had 3x fewer casualties, this is because german city's of that era unlike Japanese city's did not easily catch on fire.)

So even the number of launching two nukes killing less than 300,000 would have to be reduced (probably cut in half) to two 1945 nukes only realistically being able to kill 150,000 people. This means just to match the casualties the Soviets inflicted on the nazi's during the Battle of Stalingrad alone you had to successfully launch at least ten nukes (and these casualties would mostly be amongst replaceable civilians as opposed to hard to train and replaced soldiers.)


Nuclear strategic bombing at least in the 1945's is not the country killing silver bullet it would become in the cold war.
 
No, 1945 nukes were simply not destructive enough to collapse a nation unless you used a vast amount of them. The combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only killed less than 300,000 people. And that was against japan whose city structures were mostly made out of paper and wood, firebombing, in general, was more effective because of this.
(Compare the casualties from the bombing of Tokyo vs the bombing of Dresden, where even though Dresden had 3x more bombers dedicated to it the Dresden bombings had 3x fewer casualties, this is because german city's of that era unlike Japanese city's did not easily catch on fire.)

So even the number of launching two nukes killing less than 300,000 would have to be reduced (probably cut in half) to two 1945 nukes only realistically being able to kill 150,000 people. This means just to match the casualties the Soviets inflicted on the nazi's during the Battle of Stalingrad alone you had to successfully launch at least ten nukes (and these casualties would mostly be amongst replaceable civilians as opposed to hard to train and replaced soldiers.)


Nuclear strategic bombing at least in the 1945's is not the country killing silver bullet it would become in the cold war.

That depends on your target sets. 8 bombs in the Ruhr and a landing on Cotentin Peninsula becomes possible, Think about the ROAD and RAIL nets. And the massive casualties the Germans will suffer?

1593294812376.png


The population density of the region was about 800-1000 Germans per urbanized kilometer which means a packed mass casualty target of 10-15 cities and large towns of about 3.5-4.0 million Germans. No reliable census was taken after the Berlin Maniac came to power, but I am comfortable with the RAF estimates. Other targets in the region besides the rail net, the Roer dams and the North Rhine bridges, were sub-system assembly plants for U-boats, steel mills (about 40) over a dozen synthetic oil plants a couple of synthetic rubber factories and 30% of Germany's electrical generation in about 25 coal powered power stations.

You could kill as in flat out murder from nuclear weapon effects, hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable skilled German workers. Total casualties anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million Germans including killed and maimed for life to the point of useless for labor. It is an absolutely hideous atrocity in and of itself and a war-crime, but if you have to get ashore in France against a 100 division Wehrmacht in 1945, it is about what is the minimum needed effort to dislocate, disrupt and shock the Germans into a logistical crisis and a civil collapse in Western Europe.

It will get the job done.
 
To piggy back on @Captain Marvel see this:

fighter-escort-and-bomber-ranges-european-theatre-ww2-john-king.jpg


As noted, the Germans could move their factories beyond the range of escorted bombing missions, which would not become possible on a strategic scale until 1947 with the introduction of the F-82 in large numbers; first flight of that wasn't achieved until October of 1945, so I don't see much acceleration being possible of the same. Likewise, the B-29 is no answer, given that it's maximum altitude is matched by the maximum range of contemporary German AA guns. U.S. leaders were also well aware of this, as Leslie Groves revealed when interviewed on the subject of atomic weapons on Germany:

REPORTER: General Groves, could we go back for a minute. You mentioned in your book [Now it Can Be Told] that just before the Yalta Conference that President Roosevelt said if we had bombs before the European war was over he would like to drop them on Germany. Would you discuss this?​
GROVES: At the conference that Secretary Stimson and myself had with President Roosevelt shortly before his departure, I believe it was December 30th or 31st of 1944, President Roosevelt was quite disturbed over the Battle of the Bulge and he asked me at that time whether I could bomb Germany as well as Japan. The plan had always been to bomb Japan because we thought the war in Germany was pretty apt to be over in the first place and in the second place the Japanese building construction was much more easily damaged by a bomb of this character than that in Germany. I urged President Roosevelt that it would be very difficult for various reasons.​
The main one was that the Germans had quite strong aerial defense. They made a practice, as every nation does, that when a new plane came into the combat area, that they would run any risk that they could to bring such a plane down so that they could examine it and see what new ideas had come in so that they could make improvements and also would know the characteristics of the plane so that they could prepare a better defense against it. We had no B-29’s in Europe. If we had sent over a small squadron or group as we did against Japan of this type, everyone of them would have been brought down on the first trip to Germany. If they hadn’t been, it would have been through no lack of effort on the part of the Germans.​
The alternative would be to bring a large number of B-29’s over to to England and that would have been a major logistical task and the other possibility would have been to have used a British plane which would not have been a bit pleasing to General Arnold and also would have created a great many difficulties for our general operation because then it would be an Allied operation with the United States furnishing the bombs and everything connected with it but using a British plane and a British crew to actually drop the bomb and it would have raised a tremendous number of difficulties.​
And difficulties like that — while you say you should be able to handle that — you can but in a project of this character there are so many little things, each one of them key, that you can’t afford to throw any more sand into the wheels that you can help.​
The bombing of Germany with atomic bombs was, I would say, never seriously considered to the extent of making definite plans but on this occasion I told the President, Mr. Roosevelt, why it would be very unfortunate from my standpoint, I added that of course if the President — if the war demanded it and the President so desired, we would bomb Germany and I was so certain personally that the war in Europe would be over before we would be ready that you might say I didn’t give it too much consideration.​

Leaving aside all of this, one cannot discount the industrial effects of conquering the USSR would have on Nazi Germany too. To quote from Wages of Destruction, Pages 450-451, by Adam Tooze:

"The floodgates in Luftwaffe planning finally opened in the summer of 1941 with the completion of the army's Barbarossa programme and the long-awaited decision to shift priority to the air war. In June 1941 the Air Ministry proposed a doubling of output to 20,000 aircraft per year over the following three years.72 To implement this expansion, Goering's staff came to an agreement with Fritz Todt to carry out the reallocation of resources from the army to the Luftwaffe in a 'consensual fashion'. Todt himself was to oversee the identification of spare capacity and to ensure continuity of employment for army contractors.73 Days after the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe revealed the full urgency and ambition of its new plans. At a meeting with representatives of the OKW, State Secretary Milch announced that, as of 1 May 1941, German intelligence believed that combined British and American output had exceeded that of Germany and Italy. The United States alone was turning out 2,800 high-performance aero-engines per month. On current trends, Anglo-American output would be twice that of the Axis by the end of 1942. 'There is not a minute to lose...', Milch declared.​
By the summer of 1942 Germany needed to increase its production of aircraft by 150 percent, to roughly 3,000 planes per month.74 The precise target set by Milch was new, but not the basic thrust of his comments. As we have seen, the expansion in productive capacity had already begun in the autumn of 1940. Milch's new target of 3,000 aircraft per month, however, required a further scaling up. Since earlier in the year Krauch had been envisioning a medium-term increase in the production of air fuel from 1 to 1.5 million tons. Now he raised his target to no less than 3 million tons. Given the cost of the hydrogenation process, it was unrealistic to assume that this could be produced from German coal. Hydrogenation was simply too expensive. Krauch's promise therefore hinged on the assumption that the Wehrmacht would conquer the Caucasus in the next few months and that Germany by 1942 would be importing Russian oil at the rate of at least one million tons per annum.75​
Here was the perverse logic of Barbarossa in a nutshell. The conquest of the oilfields of the Caucasus, 2,000 kilometres deep in the Soviet Union, was not treated as the awesome military-industrial undertaking that it was. It was inserted as a precondition into another gargantuan industrial plan designed to allow the Luftwaffe to fight an air war, not against the Soviet Union, but against the looming air fleet of Britain and the United States."​
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Operation Vegetarian proceeds, could be with weaponized anthrax not just anthrax cakes, if nukes are not yet available.
 
As noted, the Germans could move their factories beyond the range of escorted bombing missions
IOTL the USSR moved 1500 industrial sites past the Urals in 1941 during the chaos and bloodshed of the Nazi invasion so I don’t see why the Reich couldn’t pull off a similar effort if the USSR fell and there weren’t troops fighting on European soil yet.

I’m no economist but I wonder exactly how much of their vital industries would Germany be able to place in Poland and the former USSR without disruption to the rest of their economy (I have to do some research into their colonization plans).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I’m no economist but I wonder exactly how much of their vital industries would Germany place in Poland and the former USSR without disruption (I have to do some research into their colonization plans).
IOTL they were building up a bunch of industry in Poland IOTL. In fact Auschwitz/Oswiecim today hosts a major chemical industry due to the plant that Germany built there during the war, but wasn't operational yet in May 1945.
 
Top