German Jets introduced in 1941.

Amerigo Vespucci said:
Best case scenario for Germany: Allied air offensive takes high enough casualties that B-29s are deployed to Europe first. Germany survives long enough to get nuked in August before collapsing in anarchy.

I think the B-29s would have problems with jets too. The Bomb isn't so useful if it's hard to deliver it.
 

blysas

Banned
Look I like to keep this simple. Let's say for an appumption that jets are brought online by Germany in January 1941. We probably would see a slowdown in attacks by bomber command. Depending on how good the jests were. Even if the jests are advanced it doesn't mean germany wins the war. Evanually the war would turn against the axis.

Ok let's look at the affects of having more germans jets in the Eastern front.
Also let's add another POD to this thread. What if we have more planes bulid by Germany, let's say double the amount.
In the opening stages of the invasion of the USSR, the jsts won't have much affect on the battle of Moscow. Maybe more russians killed etc. If we skip on to the Casacucian offensive then we might see the german army get through to Baku. Wheter they hold it or not will be at a toss of a coin. Let's say they reach it but fail to utilise it. We have shroter offensives by the Russians to counterattack. If history somehow follows roughly along the timeline of WW2, then when we come to Kursk we might have the Germans going on the defensive more instead of attacking a million men.

Evanually the Russian army attacks the German lines because there are more advnaced planes and more jets the offensive staggers to a halt. Hovever, the germans still take some damage. We skip to nomarndy, the allied D-day landings will still break through. However, it will take a lot more damage. With more germans planes in the skies we have some of the artifical harbours brought form the UK destroyed so resupply is slower. Also we have the allied armies failing to break out of normandy for an exrta 3-6 months.

Even with the German increase in jets and planes. The USA is going to catch up with that technology gap quickly. So therefore the allies will evanually outprouduce and if the war drags out long enough, get ahead of Germany technoically wise.

Now we still have the attempted coup by hilters generals but because of more tertoirty being held by the German armies, less generals are willing to support the coup About only 1/5 instead of OTL about 50%. So let's say we have Rommel not join the coup. The after effects inculde less generalks diying and a failed coup. Now let's skip to March 1945, we have the german army launching a connter attack, let's say near Antwerp. Allied break apart because of more german jets and antwerp falls, the german offensive gets as far as Caliais. Evanually the germans are curshed by the allied counter attack. Patton reaches the Rhine but because the germans have still got loads of jets and troops we have more surive the counterattck.

Now it gets to the fun part. We have a final showdown on the Rhine itself. July-November 1945, we have a allied bridgehead over the rhine. The allies try to break through with Patton's tank column, the german army launches a last ditch counter attack with german reverists and cheap cannon fodder i.e kids and old men. The battle see saws over the rhine for a couple of months. Evanually it culminates with Patton and Rommel duking it out over the ruins of Bonn.

Sadly the Allies win but at a high cost, still though the allies overun the Rhine and charge towards berlin. Oh the soviets are still stuck somewhere deep inside the USSR. Allies reach berlin but Hilter has fled with German army and CO. While the battle of the rhine had dragged on, albet speer had relocated some of the German indusrty, to the USSR. Allied bomb berlin to rubble and fight there, the allies take about 150'000 castuales. After that Hilter and CO. flee east into poland and beyond. The Russian army is still fighting outside of Smolsesk. Then come march 1946, the germans start to lob V3 at the east coast of the USA. War drags on for a few more years.
 
whatisinaname said:
Would the bombers have got past a very strong German Air defence.
With Jet Fighter and surface to air missiles like the "Enzian", the first test flights of this missile took place in early 1944.
So it would be more difficult for bombers to bomb the hart of german war industry and the major citys.
I think that the A Bombs would have been used against Japan and not Germany.
They would've been dropped on both. For Germany, we could've just put the A-bomb carrying bomber in an air armada of hundreds. The Germans would be unlikely to shoot down the right one. Not only that, but earlier German jets would've spurred earlier Allied jet development. We might've had a jet escort fighter by 1945.
 
Mr.Bluenote said:
Just for the sake of the argument, would the war actually have gone on til '45 had jets been introduced successfully in '41?


Well, most of my readings usually states that the reason why Britain at times fielded rather, shall we say, not quite thought through equipment - mostly seen in their tanks - was down to wierd ideas about deployment and use (as with the tanks, the old cavalry idiots blunted Hobart & Co's attempt to build an effective mechanized army) and, not to forget, limited pre-war resources.

Fact was, as Redbeard often is fond of saying, and rightly so, Britain alone outproduced the Axis. Britain did not lack any weapons, but did lack an overall strategy and some sound ideas for use of their ground forces. Cancelling the Bomber Campaign will not change that.

That said, jets would no doubt wreck havoc on the bombers in 1941. Public opinion and morale would most likely - again it is ALL speculation, afterall it's AH - force Bomber Command to call off their attacks on Germany.

That would mean more focus on offensive weapons, less focus on defensive weapons. Fewer FlaK units, thus more guns, men and vital supplies for the Eastern Front. I really don't think anybody understand how much effort the Germans put intop defending their homeland from the Allied bomber campaign - just the strategic materials for munitions was a major resource drain. The numbers of guns deployed and the numbers of men to man said guns were very high. I seem to recall that at least 400,000 men served in the FlaK units.

Then there is the shift of fighters from the Eastern Front to the west, and deployment of night fighters, and the typical Hitlerisque idea of striking back, which meant that Luftwaffe was forced to conduct the small blitz, and so on... Perhaps even no need for the Germans to devout resources to the expensive V-programmes?!

Oh, and then we have the diplomatic implications. What will the British allies think, if Britain appeares to do nothing? The Soviets will be pissed off royally, and the Americans will most likely think theirs as well...

That said, in general I don't think it that unlikely to have seen jets appear much earlier. The technology was there and as long as we talk jets - not rocket planes -, it was not that demanding to put to use, and it had its proponents - Udet in Germany f.x.

Regards and all!

- B.

Are you suggesting the Germans would've won?
 
AMBOMB said:
Are you suggesting the Germans would've won?

If they play their cards right, possibly.

IIRC the Soviets developed a lot of good fighters and had air superiority (if not supremacy) in the East since Kursk (or possibly before).

Earlier and better German jets (or for that matter, proper use of the Me-262) might have prevented that. Give the Germans air supremacy (or superiority) and the Russians might be in for a world of hurt.
 
AMBOMB said:
They would've been dropped on both. For Germany, we could've just put the A-bomb carrying bomber in an air armada of hundreds. The Germans would be unlikely to shoot down the right one. Not only that, but earlier German jets would've spurred earlier Allied jet development. We might've had a jet escort fighter by 1945.

If the Germans have hundreds of Me-262s or better jets, then they just might.

Furthermore, having the A-Bomb does not necessarily guarantee victory. Lots of people merely assume that if WWII lasts until late 1945 in Europe, Germany gets nuked and the result is the same as OTL.

Not necessarily.

Earlier German jets would've spurred Allied jet development, true. However, if the Germans can use them to do a MAJOR reverse (winning the Battle of Britain if early enough, or turning the Russians back), then earlier Allied jets might not that make much of a difference.
 
MerryPrankster said:
If they play their cards right, possibly.

IIRC the Soviets developed a lot of good fighters and had air superiority (if not supremacy) in the East since Kursk (or possibly before).

Earlier and better German jets (or for that matter, proper use of the Me-262) might have prevented that. Give the Germans air supremacy (or superiority) and the Russians might be in for a world of hurt.
Not a chance. Russia might well have fallen if the Germans had deployed significant numbers of jets in 1941. But, the Germans still wouldn't have been able to invade Britain. The United States still would've entered the war and we still would've developed the A-bomb. Pretty good bet the war would've been prolonged, but nothing more.
 
MerryPrankster said:
If the Germans have hundreds of Me-262s or better jets, then they just might.

Furthermore, having the A-Bomb does not necessarily guarantee victory. Lots of people merely assume that if WWII lasts until late 1945 in Europe, Germany gets nuked and the result is the same as OTL.

Not necessarily.

Earlier German jets would've spurred Allied jet development, true. However, if the Germans can use them to do a MAJOR reverse (winning the Battle of Britain if early enough, or turning the Russians back), then earlier Allied jets might not that make much of a difference.
Of course having the A-bomb guarantees victory! There was no way the Germans could've kept us from nuking them. Their air defenses couldn't possibly have become that good. You're talking about shooting down every single bomber carrying a nuke. Wasn't going to happen. We could've gotten a jet escort fighter and built a lot more of them than the Germans built Me-262's and they would've taken control of the skies over Germany just like the P-51 did. What exactly is "winning" the Battle of Britain? The Battle of Britain wasn't going to result in a successful Sealion. So, Britain wouldn't have been invaded.
 
I am talking about introducing jets in 1941 onwards now the 1930's.
These Jets could have gradually replaced most piston planes by Jan 1944.
Britian was at least 18 months behind Germany in jet developent.
 
AMBOMB said:
Of course having the A-bomb guarantees victory! There was no way the Germans could've kept us from nuking them. Their air defenses couldn't possibly have become that good. You're talking about shooting down every single bomber carrying a nuke. Wasn't going to happen. We could've gotten a jet escort fighter and built a lot more of them than the Germans built Me-262's and they would've taken control of the skies over Germany just like the P-51 did. What exactly is "winning" the Battle of Britain? The Battle of Britain wasn't going to result in a successful Sealion. So, Britain wouldn't have been invaded.

We had very few nukes in '45. Had the Japanese not surrendered after Nagasaki, there wouldn't be another bomb for months. When Korea began, I think we only had twelve. Truman was MAD.

If we only have four A-bombs, the Germans could conceivably shoot them all down. To get a scenario you're describing, we'd need hundreds.

That's not enough firepower to devastate a Reich stretching for the Channel coast to the Ukraine enough to make them surrender.

Sealion was never going to work, but what if the destruction of the RAF makes the British leadership lose their nerve? Churchill would not blink, stubborn fellow that he was, but he could be removed from power.

If Britain is bullied into making peace, then the US will likely not enter the war with Germany.
 
MerryPrankster said:
We had very few nukes in '45. Had the Japanese not surrendered after Nagasaki, there wouldn't be another bomb for months. .

This is incorrect. The next bomb would've been available by around Aug 18 or 19. Enough bombs were being produced that if Japan didn't surrender about siz were to be used tactically during Olympic.

World War two does not go into 1946.
 

Tielhard

Banned
It is my understanding that the USA would have had to wait around three months for enough fissile material to make a third bomb.
 

MrP

Banned
On the plus side, though, the German military isn't crazed like the Japanese Army. So one successful bomb would almost certainly be sufficient - provided there's no silly "unconditional surrender" gubbins to encourage them to fight to the last man.
 
Tom_B said:
This is incorrect. The next bomb would've been available by around Aug 18 or 19. Enough bombs were being produced that if Japan didn't surrender about siz were to be used tactically during Olympic.

World War two does not go into 1946.

That depends. If the first nuclear raids are launched from Britain or even Iceland, you still have to invade continental Europe.

And let's not forget the Axis powers had poison gas. What if they start using gas-equipped V-2s to poison British cities?

Imagine D-Day with the Allies using tactical nukes and the Axis using nerve gas. That would be fun to read about, but in real life, it would be UGLY.
 
MrP said:
On the plus side, though, the German military isn't crazed like the Japanese Army. So one successful bomb would almost certainly be sufficient - provided there's no silly "unconditional surrender" gubbins to encourage them to fight to the last man.
Unconditional surrender was and would've been the only acceptable surrender. Hitler wasn't about to agree to an unconditional surrender. He knew the Allies were going to execute him if they got their hands on him.
 
MerryPrankster said:
That depends. If the first nuclear raids are launched from Britain or even Iceland, you still have to invade continental Europe.

And let's not forget the Axis powers had poison gas. What if they start using gas-equipped V-2s to poison British cities?

Imagine D-Day with the Allies using tactical nukes and the Axis using nerve gas. That would be fun to read about, but in real life, it would be UGLY.
Poison gas isn't a very effective weapon, certainly nothing compared to a nuke.
 
MerryPrankster said:
We had very few nukes in '45. Had the Japanese not surrendered after Nagasaki, there wouldn't be another bomb for months. When Korea began, I think we only had twelve. Truman was MAD.

If we only have four A-bombs, the Germans could conceivably shoot them all down. To get a scenario you're describing, we'd need hundreds.

That's not enough firepower to devastate a Reich stretching for the Channel coast to the Ukraine enough to make them surrender.

Sealion was never going to work, but what if the destruction of the RAF makes the British leadership lose their nerve? Churchill would not blink, stubborn fellow that he was, but he could be removed from power.

If Britain is bullied into making peace, then the US will likely not enter the war with Germany.
After the invasion of Russia, they had a new ally. Even if you're talking about pre-Barbarossa 1941, the British knew there was a chance they could gain the United States as an ally in the near future. So, with Britain not even invaded, they're not about to surrender.
It wouldn't have taken us long to develop the ability to produce A-bombs much more quickly. Besides, we had nothing but time.
 
Guys

I think we are overlooking possibly the main point. One reason Germany couldn't produce large numbers of jets was because they lacked the raw material. [As mentioned by a poster 4 days back - unfortunately on the 1st page so I can't see who it was]. Not just the metals but also things like good rubber. A number of the heavy Me262s were lost when sub-standard tires burst on landing. Also aren't jets pretty fuel hungry and oil was another problem for Germany.

On the general question of the bomber campaign, while I see the points about the considerable amounts of resources consumed by Germany I think it wasn't worthwhile for Britain. However, as said that not only uses the advantages of hindsight but would be politically difficult if it looked like Britain was doing little other than defend itself. [Although, given Stalin's previous record and Hitler's view of the Soviets I wouldn't have bothered too much about anything he said if I had been Churchill].

I think, besides a lack of technical and material resources another problem for Britain was time. With the loss of both our French ally and the bulk of the BEFs equipment in France we had to have tanks quickly and were always playing catch-up until the end of the war. It was a serious problem however that the cavalry regiments were mechanised, rather than developing professional forces. Too often men and equipment were wasted on wild charges, frequently onto the barrels of 88s.

Steve
 

MrP

Banned
AMBOMB said:
Unconditional surrender was and would've been the only acceptable surrender. Hitler wasn't about to agree to an unconditional surrender. He knew the Allies were going to execute him if they got their hands on him.

To be honest, I was implicitly suggesting a military coup if the nuke itself failed to eliminate him.
 
AMBOMB said:
Poison gas isn't a very effective weapon, certainly nothing compared to a nuke.

Quit worshipping the US and the A-Bomb. The Allies would have the advantage, but if several British population centers are dead and they take heavy losses on the beach (from German survivors using gas and their own lack of understanding of radiation), the Allies could be in for manpower problems.
 
Top