Challenge: The Germans use jet bombers during the Blitz

Here's POD I've never seen. What if the Luftwaffe had managed to produce a sizable force of jet bombers to be used against Britain during the Blitz.

Junkers Ju-287

ju287-1.jpg
 
Oh, please. Defeat in the battle of Britain was not a matter of equipment but of strategy. Had the Luftwaffe not switched targets but remained focused on defeating the RAF and eliminating its airfields, it would have had a small chance to ensure favourable conditions for Sea Lion.

But a quick knock out strategic bombing campaign was not possible in WWII with conventional means as years of bombing proved.

A nazi wank superdooper jet bomber with half the payload of a B17 isn’t going to change the face of war in 1940 besides forcing Britain to accelerate development of their Gloster jet fighter prototype.



And it is unlikely that the Germans could have built up a sizable force of jet bombers in secret so the RAF would probably already have jet fighters up and running as the countries were largely at the same technical level.
 
for this POD i think you would just have German jets being shot down by British jets, instead of prop planes. as the previous poster said, both nations were pretty much equal in 1940, so there wouldn't have been much different from OTL, except maybe by the end of the war, the jets would have been frightening and perhaps you would see Sanger space planes and some of the more super advanced Reichweapons. Not sure what would have happened with the Brits, but i am assuming they would share their advances with the USA, so the air war would be crazy to say the least.
 
Well, for a bomber that was intended to outrun enemy fighters, as mentioned in the Wiki page quoted, the prototype's performance listed is unimpressive. A 1944 design that was a tad slower than a 1940-vintage Spitfire Mk I. At least the Arado Ar 234 was actually faster than many piston+propeller fighters – including the Spitfire Mk I.

Now, what if the Germans had had jet bombers in 1940? Even just slightly faster than the Spitfire (and obviously than the Hurricane)? That would have made for some interesting changes. Not in the Blitz, as you asked; the Blitz proper was the campaign of night bombing that followed the Battle of Britain and ended with the departure of the Luftwaffe for the Eastern Front. At night, speed wasn't the factor that protected the bombers from the first, not terribly effective night fighters. If anything, jet engines would have been a priceless help in making the bombers visible.

But during the Battle of Britain itself? The Luftwaffe lost 1,887 aircraft; of these, slightly more than 1,000 were bombers. If the Germans had had 450 jet bombers (a quarter of the bombers they started the campaign with), which would be much harder targets, the Germans would have presumably incurred in less bomber losses, maybe 750 instead of 1,000. On top of that, each Ju 287 lost would still mean two crewmen lost, not four, thus the final toll in terms of trained aircrew would also be lighter, if we assume those 450 jet bombers replaced level bombers and not Stukas.

This wouldn't change the outcome of the Battle of Britain, but it would leave the Luftwaffe better off for the campaigns to follow, which in OTL it started much weakened by the losses over England.
 

sanusoi

Banned
We have the BOB going on and we introduce the jet fighters into the battle. They will devestate the entire South coast of England.
 
We have the BOB going on and we introduce the jet fighters into the battle. They will devestate the entire South coast of England.

How? You mean from the POV of the environmental damage done by lengthening those airstrips?
Jet fighters will place a heavier burden on the idyllic English coast, yes, but they will also toast the German jet bombers, no?
 
Jet bombers? 1940-41? Gimmie a break. Yes, I suppose if the RAF was opposed by a Luftwaffe consisting of several thousand amazingly long-ranged Me-262's and squardons of Ju-287's, they'd have been toast - if the Luftwaffe stuck to the original tactical aims. But why not just drop afew of those Uranium bombs Herr Heisenburg cooked up on Scapa Flow. Much quicker, no?
 
The only way I could really see jets that early on either side is if Britain really pushes jets from the start.
Germany started late but they went quite all out into them. If Britain had put as much faith in them they could get them up and running and then the technology would probally be ripped off before too long.
 
I think we really need a POD (something like 1930?) that goes a long way back. It would also mean a German gets credit with the first jet engine. How about 'Germany may not have a piston dependant airforce in the Versailles treaty'?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
How about the simple fact is that there is no way for this to happen short of ASB intervention?

The reason these early prototypes didn't move forward was they simply were NOT READY for prime time.

These POD's always seem to go WI the Germans did XXXX? The thing that gets me is that it never goes the opposite, albeit unlikely, but possible alternatives.

How about the RAF is equipped with a sizable force of Gloster Whittles (IOTL 1st flight 5/15/41) that had a 100 mph advantage over the Bf-109 during the BoB? That the prototypes engine engine is built under license in the U.S. and equips the P-59, allowing both the U.S. and UK to field operational jet fighters by late 1942?

Prince of Wales & Repulse make it to the invasion fleet as it is approaching the Malay Peninsula and utterly destroy it? (IOTL they were withing 4 hours steaming time before turning away and nothing in the convoy escort was up to handling two capital ships)

How about the U.S. following up on Goddard's work on rockets (which was at least five years ahead of anyone in the world) and begins launching missiles onto the Reich in 1943 instead of the manned bomber campaign?

Or the U.S. has two Subs exercising off Hawaii that the Combined Fleet runs over on December 7th just after the Air Raid warning has been sent, resulting in the sinking of three IJN Carriers a battleship, & two cruisers?

The U.S. manages to reinforce Wake with additional fighters and dive bombers, resulting in a defeat for the IJN during December 1941?

No one ever asks these, or many other, questions, despite the fact that they would have profound effect on the war and ALL are at least as likely (in most cases far more likely) than any of the Reich WI's. Kind of makes you go hmmm...
 
How about the simple fact is that there is no way for this to happen short of ASB intervention?

The reason these early prototypes didn't move forward was they simply were NOT READY for prime time.

These POD's always seem to go WI the Germans did XXXX? The thing that gets me is that it never goes the opposite, albeit unlikely, but possible alternatives.

How about the RAF is equipped with a sizable force of Gloster Whittles (IOTL 1st flight 5/15/41) that had a 100 mph advantage over the Bf-109 during the BoB? That the prototypes engine engine is built under license in the U.S. and equips the P-59, allowing both the U.S. and UK to field operational jet fighters by late 1942?

Prince of Wales & Repulse make it to the invasion fleet as it is approaching the Malay Peninsula and utterly destroy it? (IOTL they were withing 4 hours steaming time before turning away and nothing in the convoy escort was up to handling two capital ships)

How about the U.S. following up on Goddard's work on rockets (which was at least five years ahead of anyone in the world) and begins launching missiles onto the Reich in 1943 instead of the manned bomber campaign?

Or the U.S. has two Subs exercising off Hawaii that the Combined Fleet runs over on December 7th just after the Air Raid warning has been sent, resulting in the sinking of three IJN Carriers a battleship, & two cruisers?

The U.S. manages to reinforce Wake with additional fighters and dive bombers, resulting in a defeat for the IJN during December 1941?

No one ever asks these, or many other, questions, despite the fact that they would have profound effect on the war and ALL are at least as likely (in most cases far more likely) than any of the Reich WI's. Kind of makes you go hmmm...

i think its because the nazis were the uber antagonist of WWII....and by nature people are drawn to speculate on them..
 

Archibald

Banned
German jets bombers in 1940 ?
Try the Caproni / Coanda motorjet in this case. Interestingly Romania and Italy were on the axis side.

Motorjet He-111 ? hmmm....

For info, a motorjet looks like an early turbojet, main difference between the two being how the fan is driven.
In a motorjet, a piston engine drive the fan, thus adding its weight and fuel consumption to the jet, both sucking vast amount of fuel.

Coanda briefly flew a motorjet monoplane near Paris in 1911. To be honest he lost control of its machine and crashed.
but whatif he had been successfull ?
 
I think we really need a POD (something like 1930?) that goes a long way back. It would also mean a German gets credit with the first jet engine. How about 'Germany may not have a piston dependant airforce in the Versailles treaty'?

It did say something like that and they did take advantage of it.
 
i think its because the nazis were the uber antagonist of WWII....and by nature people are drawn to speculate on them..

Also, unless an AH favorable to the allies could unexpectedly turn out to assist the Axis, they are just not "different enough". (An example might be a total failure of the Pearl Harbor raid. No US ships are heavily damaged and the Japanese slink away. This might lead toward a situation where the effectiveness of BBs against A/C is overestimated by the USN and a BB-focused implementation of Plan Orange, leading to an alternate "battle of Leyte" in 1942 when the US Battleline is decimated in deep water by much more effective Japanese landbased and shipborne air attack and then totally destroyed in a modern Tsushima. Now that is cool!

Having the Axis win WW2 is a more radical AH than having the Allies win in some other way than they actually did, especially given the widely held presumption that an Allied victory was inevitable once the USA and USSR get involved.

Speculating about the long-term post war results of an allied victory in 1943, say, might be interesting, but speculating about how this victory might happen differently is not that interesting to many.
 
Top