Bomber Harrris a German with Hitler's ear

Shortly after the conquest of Poland Paris and London are bombed- at night.

American opinion is appalled

US either sends lots of fighter aircraft OR actually declares War.

How quickly does Nazi Germany lose.

Without Harris is there a chance that the Britian and France would NOT adopt area bombing?
 
Didn't the Germans employ area terror bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw before the British bombed Berlin (in retaliation for an accidental German bombing of London IIRC)? So, US public opinion probably saw the Nazi's as terror bombing brutes by the time the BoB happened anyway. Also, in US eyes the Nazis were linked to the Japanese who already had bombed Nanking to great population reduction and negative PR effect. Thus, I suspect there would be no major differences in US reaction.

I think a more intersting POD would be what if Britain initiated unrestricted area terror bombing of German cities immediately upon the declaration of war in 1939 (especially since Germany would have lacked the ability to reply effectively in kind until they occupied channel coast airbases). Would this have lessened the apparent moral superiority of the Allied cause and strengthened the hands of those in the USA who wanted strict neutrality? Could the Nazis have sucessfully exploited these "atrocities" to counterbalance allied and Jewish emigre claims about the concentration camps ensure US non-participation in the European War even after Pearl Harbor? (assuming of course Hitler uses his brain and does not declare war on the US as he did on OTL). Might this have altered German overall strategy and weapons procurement decisions in response to negative German public reaction to getting bombed every night by the RAF?

BTW, when is justice going to be done and Harris get his pothsumus knighthood? IIRC, isn't he the only member of the British high command not to be so recognized after the war for doing only what he was asked to do?
 

Redbeard

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
Shortly after the conquest of Poland Paris and London are bombed- at night.

American opinion is appalled

US either sends lots of fighter aircraft OR actually declares War.

How quickly does Nazi Germany lose.

Without Harris is there a chance that the Britian and France would NOT adopt area bombing?

The bomber school wasn't confined to Harris himself, but had widespread support, and was a reason why Harris could attract the major part of the British war effort into Bomber Command. But if we assume Harris' substitute is less efficient in draining for resources, Bomber Command will not be quite as big as in OTL (Harris took over in January 42).

If the same tactics are chosen, it will mean area bombing but with smaller areas or less density. That could be the case, as area bombing much was out of necessity. Daylight bombing had proved way to expensive and at night you couldn't expect to hit anything smaller than a big city.

You could hope however, that the limited resources also motivates some innovation in Bomber Command. In OTL Harris was allowed to think in lines of: "Well if 500 bombers doesn't do the job, then we want 1000 bombers, and if 1000 bombers doesn't work, then we need 2000....". If the 500 is all Bomber Command can possibly hope for, strength will have to be found somewhere else, and my favourite is a focus on fast twin engined precision bombers (Mosquitos). A Mosquito force in numbers similar to OTL Bomber Command will reduce the demand on aero engines by appr. 50% and the need for aircrews by 75%. My guess is that a Mosquito force half the numbers of OTL Bomber Command will be able to achieve at least the same results for the war effort, but probably better.

Added to that can be the spaved resources, for instance it will now be easier to give Coastal Command what it needs and a Tactical Airforce might be possible before.

If USA joins the allies before June 40, it will probably mean France continuing the war from the overseas possessions. That alone will have tremendous importance, not only in the added French forces, but not at least in the base network now available. With French North Africa on allied hands the Axis position in NA becomes impossible, and I doubt they can hold on into 1941, and if then in a Tunis like scenario (Axis resource drain). French NA on allied hands will also make transfer of aircraft to the Far East much quicker and easier. In OTL they until 43 had to be packed in boxes and shipped around the Cape, but now they can be flown in a few days. That alone will make defending Malaya a cause with much more hope. Next the Japanese will now have to fight for French Indochina and take it, before they can hope of attacking Malaya. If heavilly committed in Europe I doubt the allies can keep Japan out of Indochina for ever, but once North Africa is secured, I actually think they can free up enough forces and have so much better logistical situation, that they can put up an effective fight. In other words Japan will have to enter the war at least a year earlier, and even if Indochina is taken, Malaya still remains as the main hurdle, but surprise is no longer possible.

If USA wasn't involved in the war already, the Japanese could at least go for a plan where only the Europeans are attacked, but that is really impossible now. The only shadow of a weak possibility I can see for the Japanese is to attack with all fury in Indochina, Phillippines and DEI as early as possible, and no later than December 1940. Leave PH alone and count on the USN not venturing into a major Pacific crossing before they feel ready (at least six months). If the USN waits, you can hope for the battle having been decided in SEA and a diplomatic settlement possible, and if they actually sortie, then the IJN has a chance to practice the tactics it has been training for the last two decades, and against a USN not yet having been forced to rely mainly on the CV. But most probably the Japanese campaign will bog down before a good negotiation position is reached. Compared to OTL the Japanese resources are smaller (two big CV's and two big BB's less) and the allies have much more available (the French overseas + a lot of British as soon as NA is secured, the US difference between 40 and 41 isn't big compared to 41 in relation to 42 or 43). I imagine that by 42/43 latest the Japanese seek peace and are given it (no PH to avenge), but on terms meaning a Japanese withdrawal to the Japanese homeland. The European Empires remain intact.

In Europe the main danger will be the allies getting over confident and say launch a major invasion in France in 1942. I doubt if the changed TL in NA will be able to influence the East Front before 42 earliest, as the German part in NA was very small before that. But the several 100.000 men lost in OTL Tunis would be handy in defending the Reich in 43 and on.

With the freed up logistical capacity in this ATL, it might just be possible to launch major allied operations in Europe in 43, but I'm deeply concerned about the allied tactical level. A succesful allied invasion in 43 should be capable of ending the war in 44 and with the Iron Curtain descending much further east. But a failed allied invasion might also have the war go on well into 46 or 47....

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Nice analysis, Redbeard. But wasn't the main question about "Bomber Harris" being a German with Hitler's ear - thus having Germany adopt large-scale strategic bombing as a major purpose of the Luftwaffe rather than tactical army cooperation?

Although there is some real question the German aircract industry could start (basically from scratch) in 1935 and have massive fleets of 4-engined heavies like the Do-19, Ju-89, or some other type in place in 1939 (a realisation which lead to the cancellation of the "Ural Bomber" program by the RLM in OTL) the existence of such a force and intent to use them by the Germans would, I suspect, lead to an RAF just like Harris commanded anyway. I also doubt if it would have changed US attitudes significantly, since they were just about as negative toward Nazi Germany as they could have been anyway. It would have created a very different Eastern Front, BoB, and Atlantic war.
 

Redbeard

Banned
zoomar said:
Nice analysis, Redbeard. But wasn't the main question about "Bomber Harris" being a German with Hitler's ear - thus having Germany adopt large-scale strategic bombing as a major purpose of the Luftwaffe rather than tactical army cooperation?

Although there is some real question the German aircract industry could start (basically from scratch) in 1935 and have massive fleets of 4-engined heavies like the Do-19, Ju-89, or some other type in place in 1939 (a realisation which lead to the cancellation of the "Ural Bomber" program by the RLM in OTL) the existence of such a force and intent to use them by the Germans would, I suspect, lead to an RAF just like Harris commanded anyway. I also doubt if it would have changed US attitudes significantly, since they were just about as negative toward Nazi Germany as they could have been anyway. It would have created a very different Eastern Front, BoB, and Atlantic war.

Sorry, when also reading the headline I can see you're right. :eek:

But in short, if the Germans use as many resources on heavy bombers as the British did, and they also organise it in an independent strategic arm lead by a loony, they will be able to smash a horrifying number of cities within range, but they will not be capable of conquering anything bigger than Poland, and herself be very vulnerable. A nation like Germany, without the benefits of a Channel or a couple of oceans, simply hasn't the option of spending big resources on strategic bombers, they need big, fast and powerful armies, and everything else has to seen as supporting elements.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Redbeard said:
Sorry, when also reading the headline I can see you're right. :eek:

But in short, if the Germans use as many resources on heavy bombers as the British did, and they also organise it in an independent strategic arm lead by a loony, they will be able to smash a horrifying number of cities within range, but they will not be capable of conquering anything bigger than Poland, and herself be very vulnerable. A nation like Germany, without the benefits of a Channel or a couple of oceans, simply hasn't the option of spending big resources on strategic bombers, they need big, fast and powerful armies, and everything else has to seen as supporting elements.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard


I suspect you are right, Steffan, given Hitler's avowed goal of conquering the Soviet Union - something which heavy bombers are ill-suited to doing. However, had he not had that fixation, a nation with Germany's technical and monetary resources could probably have afforded to develop the army and tactical airforce it used to subjugate France and the Low Countries together with an independent strategic air arm capable of replying tit for tat to anything the English did - as well as making the Atlantic war harder on the Anglo-Americans. With a suppliant western Europe, a large number of central european allies, and a bought-off Stalin on the east, a German-dominated western Europe might be almost as immune from outside invasion as Britain, and a viable strategic air arm could have made staging for an Anglo-American invasion of France much harder than in OTL.
 

Redbeard

Banned
zoomar said:
I suspect you are right, Steffan, given Hitler's avowed goal of conquering the Soviet Union - something which heavy bombers are ill-suited to doing. However, had he not had that fixation, a nation with Germany's technical and monetary resources could probably have afforded to develop the army and tactical airforce it used to subjugate France and the Low Countries together with an independent strategic air arm capable of replying tit for tat to anything the English did - as well as making the Atlantic war harder on the Anglo-Americans. With a suppliant western Europe, a large number of central european allies, and a bought-off Stalin on the east, a German-dominated western Europe might be almost as immune from outside invasion as Britain, and a viable strategic air arm could have made staging for an Anglo-American invasion of France much harder than in OTL.

Actually Germany's monetary resources were strained to the breaking limit by late 30's. There is general consent that without the loot from anschluss, Bohemia etc. German economy would have collapsed. Next developing, constructing and running bomber forces is incredibly expensive. In 1942 the British calculated that constructing and running a force of 40 bombers was equal to constructing and running a battleship! (and by 42 that even was mainly twin engined bombers). So in order to keep up a strategic bomber arm of Bomber Commands size the Germans will have to give in on other significant areas, and not just any, as the construction and running of airforces tend to occupy high tech bottlenecks. If setting this bomber force to 1000 bombers (BC in mid war) and equalling that to 25 battleships you get the magnitude of ressources. Having this force would mean giving up the entire Kriegsmarine incl. U-boats - for a start - or all tactical support capability of the Luftwaffe - or all mechanisation of the Army (incl. tanks), or cutting down the Army to less than 100 Divisions.

The "Kriegsmarine sacked" option (if that is enough "payment") might give the Germans good opportunities against the France and SU (bombing the Ural factories), but will leave UK immune, a situation I'm sure they will utilise to the utmost. A Wehrmacht without tactical airsupport will bounce off the French defences like a football on a battleships armour. A Wehrmacht with no mechanisation will be fighting WWII with a pre-WWI army, that was just what the French was best prepared for.

If the Germans can and will introduce war economy already in 1939 (and not wait until 42) that will surely give a lot of extra resources, but again, would be much better utilised in the Army. I guess that for one heavy bomber you can buy at least ten medium tanks - they will be handy in Barbarossa.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
You may be right, but I still suspect even a small (ca. 100-200) force of modern 4-engined heavy bombers could have been very beneficial in the war against England. One of the main problems Germany lost the war and could probably never have turned its European empire into a true superpower like the USA, USSR, and even British Empire, was the fact that weapons procurement/use decisions were not effectively rationalized on a continent-wide basis. The discussion of the P.108 on another thread is a case in point. Here was an Italian designed bomber fully as capable as anything the British and Americans used in Europe. Italy completely lacked the manufacturing capability to produce a big plane like this on a large scale. But production could have been licensed to some large industrial concerns in Germany, Austria, or Bohemia, with the Italian aircraft industry turned over to the production of fighters and other light craft. Instead you have both Germany and Italy producing, or attempting to produce, the complete range of aircraft for their air forces and ships for their navies. Ditto, the failure of the European fascists in Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Vichy to work together on military procurement, naval matters, and general strategy.
 
I think the larger issue is whether Germany simply decides to build such planes, or whether they also completely revamp military strategy along with this heavy bomber procurement.

I don't see where Germany can easily get the resources needed for a major endeavor of this type. One POSSIBLE source might be to cancel tactical air support like the Stuka, as the fans of Douhet and Billy Mitchell generally derided and resented the very idea that their precious planes might do something about the situation on the ground. This would increase the range of terror bombing while actually harming Germany's military capacity!

In 1939 and 1940 the few hundred Stukas available, used in proper coordination with the Wehrmacht, were exceptional force multipliers. Taking them away, and given the utter lack of precision bombing capacity, could enhance the rage of Germany's enemies while leaving them stronger.

We might also ask what would happen to these heavy bombers when they confronted radar and waves of British fighters, outside the range of German fighter support.

As a side note, it is often a source of astonishment and/or humor that anyone would oppose the formation of Germany's panzer divisions in WWII. In reality, opposition was due to the limited German industrial capacity, which meant 10% of the army with panzers meant the other 90% being similar in terms of transportation to units from the 1890s! By throwing another major industrial objective, requiring sophisticated equipment(and FUEL!), something has to give.
 
Wasn't there a controversy some yrs back re proposals to build a statue of Bomber Harris due to his reputation during WWII with the likes of the Dresden firebombing ?
 
Top