Germany defeats the Soviet Union - Most likely course of action by the Wallies?

[Deleted member 1487]

I imagine even if the USSR holds out until March/April 43 and Roosevelt still declares Unconditional surrender, it will be swept under the rug once he is dead, because without the USSR the policy is not possible to fulfill.

- Either the Wallies invade in 43/44 and sustain such horrendous casualties that they will have to quit the war
- They invade the Med islands and continue bombing - basically admitting that they have no idea how to win the war - this means American attention shifts to the Pacific
- Restarting the war after a victory against Japan (more costly than OTL due to no Soviets) will be something no President/party would survive politically
- Britain has no manpower left and simply cannot take large losses
- The modified B-29 is a flying coffin
- The US built far to few Atomic Weapons in the 45-48 period to deliver more than 1 bomb/month, which will be less than what the Wallies dropped OTL in 44/45
- German AA defences by late 1945 would be monstrous, uncomparable to what they had at their height OTL

FDR only declared unconditional surrender due to the victory at Stalingrad and the situation in North Africa going reasonably well, and more importantly as a signal to Stalin that the Wallies were in it to win it so he didn't try and make a separate peace deal given that the Wallies hadn't lived up to the promise to open a second front in France as promised. ITTL with Stalin out of the picture the conditions for OTL declaration won't be there.

 

[thaddeus]

If Moscow falls in 1941, say they go for the capital instead of Kiev, and through that Leningrad also falls then it is inevitable that the USSR was going to start unraveling. It would take until probably late 1942 for the Soviet war effort to break down enough to allow for it to be called a 'victory' for the Axis and allow transfers to the west.

they could capture Leningrad and Kiev without a doubt, and let the Soviets shoot their bolt in a drive to recapture one or both?

(of course that does not preclude maneuvers on the road up to Moscow, rather a switch in scenarios for Moscow and Leningrad)

 

[Johnrankins]

Since the answers are limited in lenght, I couldnt elaborate on that one. Britain is out of manpower by 1945, even without an invasion of Europe, the country lacks several hundred thousand people for its industry and armed forces by this point.Especially with larger losses in the air in the 43-45 period. In the US public support fot the war, especially after Okinawa and Iwo Jima, will be pretty low. Additionally the war in the Pacific might take a few months longer without the Soviets, leading to more US losses and the exhaustion of the entire 45/early 46 atomic bomb arsenal.

As for point 6, I couldnt elaborate the following: Would it be even possible for the US to deliver so many bombs against much much stronger/better German AA defences and with B-29´s that were basically flying targets with no armor plating and no gun turrents? I say no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate

Also what is never answered in these discussions, the Allies wait for the bomb from May 43 onwards, except for bombing and some small landings in the Med, the war in Europe lays dormant for over 2 to 2.5 years. Where is the support comming from? Also from 45 - 47 the US produced only 20 bombs. So the bombing would have to go on for years. Where are the resources comming from,the support, what about German retaliation? Ect Ect

This whole scenario is just some 1984 perpetual war fantasy scenario which has little to do with reality. And this doesnt even adress the moral question.

The US only produced 20 bombs by 1947 because it was operating on a peacetime budget. If the war is still going on it will be on a wartime budget which is far higher, at least 50 and probably more. By 1948-1949 it will have H-bombs, again because of the much higher weapons R&D budget. By 1946-1947 B-29s would have armor plating. It wasn't needed OTL but if it is it will be made. Again the US won't sit still and it is still operating on a wartime budget. US jets would be improved as would GB's. Some of the money going to the navy would go to the AAF instead, the USN could have built considerably fewer ships with little effect. It was overwhelmingly powerful and somewhat less overwhelmingly powerful would make little difference.

 

[Borisbogdanov]

The US only produced 20 bombs by 1947 because it was operating on a peacetime budget. If the war is still going on it will be on a wartime budget which is far higher, at least 50 and probably more.

I see this argument used very often, however I want proof that the US in fact scaled back its atom bomb production and that it could have produced much more. Can you provide it?

By 1946-1947 B-29s would have armor plating. It wasn't needed OTL but if it is it will be made.

Without guns/plating the B-29 could barely carry the atom bombs. So enlighten me how it could have transported them with several hundred additional pounds of armor plating?

Again the US won't sit still and it is still operating on a wartime budget. US jets would be improved as would GB's.

As would German ones. By spring 1945 they had some pretty scary things nearing completion and some pretty effective things entering service. All of these projects were hampered by the manpower problems caused by the Eastern front and had to be evacuated in 44/45 before the Soviet advance. So all of these projects are finished months earlier than OTL and mass produced.

 

[Marko]

If USSR is defeated wouldn't that result in Spain and Turkey joining the Axis and thus Germany having a land route into middle East and eventually towards India. Wouldn't that have knock on effects on the Pacific War?

 

[Johnrankins]

I see this argument used very often, however I want proof that the US in fact scaled back its atom bomb production and that it could have produced much more. Can you provide it?

Without guns/plating the B-29 could barely carry the atom bombs. So enlighten me how it could have transported them with several hundred additional pounds of armor plating?

As would German ones. By spring 1945 they had some pretty scary things nearing completion and some pretty effective things entering service. All of these projects were hampered by the manpower problems caused by the Eastern front and had to be evacuated in 44/45 before the Soviet advance. So all of these projects are finished months earlier than OTL and mass produced.

Do I really need to prove US military spending went way down after ww2? There is nothing special about A-bombs as far as industrial production. With enough money they can (and were) mass produced. If there were a lot more money available there would be more bombs. Once you have one working there is nothing stopping you from building 10 nuclear reactors with bomb production commencing within a year or so. You have to prove that we couldn't as we ramped up production on everything else we made.

Improved engines, somewhat bigger bombers with more engines, weight reductions elsewhere. The planes are going to improve and faster than OTL.

Virtually all German "super-weapons" were generally near useless and often near deathtraps for their operators . They were glitzy but of limited use.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

I see this argument used very often, however I want proof that the US in fact scaled back its atom bomb production and that it could have produced much more. Can you provide it?

Memo sent by Gen. Groves to US CoS

relevant section

The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by airplane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four bombs. One of these will be made from 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring this up to full power. There should be either four or three bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November, there should be at least five bombs and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type.

Without guns/plating the B-29 could barely carry the atom bombs. So enlighten me how it could have transported them with several hundred additional pounds of armor plating?

Presumable the Allies would lump a Silverplated B29 in with a squadron of aircraft designed to look identical throw it together with a heavy escort and time it with several other major raids. Of course, given how the CBO would be entering into it's second year by the time the A-bomb would be ready it's questionable if the LW would even bother sortieing after a single bomber

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Presumable the Allies would lump a Silverplated B29 in with a squadron of aircraft designed to look identical throw it together with a heavy escort and time it with several other major raids.

Meh. This is mainland Europe being attacked from Britain we’re talking about. A Lancaster could carry a Little Boy easily and probably a Fat Man with a few modifications.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

- Either the Wallies invade in 43/44 and sustain such horrendous casualties that they will have to quit the war
- They invade the Med islands and continue bombing - basically admitting that they have no idea how to win the war - this means American attention shifts to the Pacific
- Restarting the war after a victory against Japan (more costly than OTL due to no Soviets) will be something no President/party would survive politically
- Britain has no manpower left and simply cannot take large losses
- The modified B-29 is a flying coffin
- The US built far to few Atomic Weapons in the 45-48 period to deliver more than 1 bomb/month, which will be less than what the Wallies dropped OTL in 44/45
- German AA defences by late 1945 would be monstrous, uncomparable to what they had at their height OTL

I suppose if they can take and keep a toehold in France in 1942, the Allies will gut out the war and put Japan on the backburner for a while and throw all their material against the European Axis to grind them down. The author of "How the War Was Won" spends a fair bit of time talking about Allied planning and contingencies in case the USSR was seriously on the ropes or out in 1942 and makes the case for the material being available for larger invasion of Europe in late 1942/early 1943 if the Pacific offensive wasn't launched in 1942. In some ways that would have been the smart move for the US given that they might well have defeated the Japanese entirely through their submarine offensive alone, as without their merchant fleet, which was already badly overstretched in 1942, they'd not only be starving in their island outposts, but in Japan too considering the level of imports necessary to keep the economy functioning in the Home Islands.

So if the US and UK are willing to handle the losses that are coming from a 1942 invasion of Europe they could eventually defeat Germany on the ground, but it will be very bloody. IOTL they were considering that, but if it got too costly I could see public pressure to negotiate an end to the war, but only with a German pull out of western Europe at a minimum.

Meh. This is mainland Europe being attacked from Britain we’re talking about. A Lancaster could carry a Little Boy easily and probably a Fat Man with a few modifications.

It very well could, but the problem they found out IOTL was that it couldn't achieve a 30k feet operating ceiling, which was the minimum necessary to avoid the blast of the bomb. So they could use a modified Lancaster if they didn't mind it being a suicide mission. The 1945 Lincoln IIRC could achieve the necessary height, but that only entered service after the war was over.

Virtually all German "super-weapons" were generally near useless and often near deathtraps for their operators . They were glitzy but of limited use.

IOTL by the time they really got attention the material and war situation in Germany was so bad, the designs so rushed, and engineers were trying to find ways to create projects so they didn't end up as cannon fodder that it's hardly a surprise what got pumped out was a mess.
ITTL depending on how things play out the late war 'wonder weapons' might be less desperate and more realistic than they were IOTL due to a better material situation, potentially less bombing damage, industry being built out of range of bombers, less deaths in the East, more labor, etc.

 

[nbcman]

I see this argument used very often, however I want proof that the US in fact scaled back its atom bomb production and that it could have produced much more. Can you provide it?

Without guns/plating the B-29 could barely carry the atom bombs. So enlighten me how it could have transported them with several hundred additional pounds of armor plating?

As would German ones. By spring 1945 they had some pretty scary things nearing completion and some pretty effective things entering service. All of these projects were hampered by the manpower problems caused by the Eastern front and had to be evacuated in 44/45 before the Soviet advance. So all of these projects are finished months earlier than OTL and mass produced.

In addition to the referenced memo from General Groves, the Mark III 'Fat Man' bombs identical to the Nagasaki device were a limited production run. There were further refinements in the design which led to the Mark III Mod 0 devices (53 produced) and the Mod 1 and Mod 2 devices (approximately another 60 produced). The Wiki page notes that bomb production was suspended from late 1945 until mid 1946 while the engineers developed the Mark III Mod 0 design:

After the war, two Y-1561 Fat Man bombs were used in the Operation "Crossroads" nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. The first was known as Gilda after Rita Hayworth's character in the 1946 movie Gilda, and it was dropped by the B-29 Dave's Dream; it missed its aim point by 710 yards (650 m). The second bomb was nicknamed Helen of Bikini and was placed without its tail fin assembly in a steel caisson made from a submarine's conning tower; it was detonated 90 feet (27 m) beneath the landing craft USS LSM-60. The two weapons yielded about 23 kilotonnes (96 TJ) each.[57]

The Los Alamos Laboratory and the Army Air Forces had already commenced work on improving the design. The North American B-45 Tornado, Convair XB-46, Martin XB-48, and Boeing B-47 Stratojet bombers had bomb bays sized to carry the Grand Slam, which was much longer but not as wide as the Fat Man. The only American bombers that could carry the Fat Man were the B-29 and the Convair B-36. In November 1945, the Army Air Forces asked Los Alamos for 200 Fat Man bombs, but there were only two sets of plutonium cores and high-explosive assemblies at the time. The Army Air Forces wanted improvements to the design to make it easier to manufacture, assemble, handle, transport, and stockpile. The wartime Project W-47 was continued, and drop tests resumed in January 1946.[58]

The Mark III Mod 0 Fat Man was ordered into production in mid-1946. High explosives were manufactured by the Salt Wells Pilot Plant, which had been established by the Manhattan Project as part of Project Camel, and a new plant was established at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. Mechanical components were made or procured by the Rock Island Arsenal; electrical and mechanical components for about 50 bombs were stockpiled at Kirtland Army Air Field by August 1946, but only nine plutonium cores were available. Production of the Mod 0 ended in December 1948, by which time there were still only 53 cores available. It was replaced by improved versions known as Mods 1 and 2 which contained a number of minor changes, the most important of which was that they did not charge the X-Unit firing system's capacitors until released from the aircraft. The Mod 0s were withdrawn from service between March and July 1949, and by October they had all been rebuilt as Mods 1 and 2.[59] Some 120 Mark III Fat Man units were added to the stockpile between 1947 and 1949[60] when it was superseded by the Mark 4 nuclear bomb.[61] The Mark III Fat Man was retired in 1950.[60][62]

 

[BaronVonDouchebag]

How defeated is the Soviet Union? Is there still a Soviet government? How much territory are the Germans occupying? Are partisan activities in Russia enough to tie down a significant number of German troops?

 

[Borisbogdanov]

Memo sent by Gen. Groves to US CoS

In addition to the referenced memo from General Groves, the Mark III 'Fat Man' bombs identical to the Nagasaki device were a limited production run. There were further refinements in the design which led to the Mark III Mod 0 devices (53 produced) and the Mod 1 and Mod 2 devices (approximately another 60 produced). The Wiki page notes that bomb production was suspended from late 1945 until mid 1946 while the engineers developed the Mark III Mod 0 design

Hmmm not very convincing. One is a memo , memos are often overly enthusiastic. The other shows that bomb production was halted for just 6 months. There seems to be a good reasons for this halt however. and therefore it stand to reason that this halt would have ocured in ATL as well.

 

[Borisbogdanov]

So if the US and UK are willing to handle the losses that are coming from a 1942 invasion of Europe they could eventually defeat Germany on the ground, but it will be very bloody. IOTL they were considering that, but if it got too costly I could see public pressure to negotiate an end to the war, but only with a German pull out of western Europe at a minimum.

OTL the" British" (including Poles/Czechs/Canadians/ ect) lost 60 000 dead/missing during 44-45 in Western Europe. This was enough for them to run out of manpower:

In 1944, the United Kingdom was facing severe manpower shortages. By May 1944, it was estimated that the British Army's strength in December 1944 would be 100,000, less than it was at the end of 1943. Although casualties in the Normandy Campaign, the main effort of the British Army in 1944, were actually lower than anticipated, losses from all causes were still higher than could be replaced. Two infantry divisions and a brigade (59th and 50th divisions and 70th Brigade) were disbanded to provide replacements for other British divisions in the 21st Army Group and all men being called up to the Army were trained as infantrymen. Furthermore, 35,000 men from the RAF Regiment and the Royal Artillery were transferred to the infantry and were retrained as rifle infantrymen, where the majority of combat casualties fell.[18][19] In addition, in the Eighth Army fighting in the Italian Campaign of the Mediterranean theatre several units, mainly infantry, were also disbanded to provide replacements, including the 1st Armoured Division and several other smaller units, such as the 168th Brigade, had to be reduced to cadre, and several other units had to be amalgamated. For example, the 2nd and 6th battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers were merged in August 1944. At the same time, most infantry battalions in Italy had to be reduced from four to three rifle companies.

British Army during the Second World War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

HyperWar: US Army in WWII: The Supreme Command (ETO) [Appendix E]

If the Wallies manage to invade and establish a foothold in 42/43, their nummerical superiority in both men/equipment will be much much smaller than OTL, leading to more casualties. Some 300 000 + dead/missing and a million casualties overall are an conservative estimate of what the "British" would lose from mid 43-mid 45, American losses could easily surpass 2 Million, of which some 500 000 would be permanent (dead/missing). These are unsustainable losses for the Allies, focing them to either massively reduce the Navy/Air force or industrial workforce to replace battlefield casualties. Then comes Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the planned invasion of Japan. So the Americans have to pull out, they will be glad to cut a deal with the Germans, the British will have no choice but to follow suit. Assuming Churchill has not been thrown out of office months ago.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

But do you have any idea of what the Germans would gain from a military victory? The natural resources of the Soviet Union were immense, and would more than make up for the losses Germany had to take to get hold of them. It's preposterous to suggest that Germany would HAVE to be out of resources after defeating the Soviet Union.

Of course there’s a lot to gain, but my focus is manpower, and that’s going to take a massive hit in such a scenario. They can gain all the resources in the world; they can have a big resource cakewalk right through Red Square if they want. But if too many of their soldiers are dead or unable to carry on, what exactly are they going to do with them?

Limited manpower means difficulty harnessing the resources and it means depletion back home. That definitely means resources and manpower diverted from Germany, and it makes taking Berlin easier (though managing the ensuing chaos is another story.)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

OTL the" British" (including Poles/Czechs/Canadians/ ect) lost 60 000 dead/missing during 44-45 in Western Europe. This was enough for them to run out of manpower:

In 1944, the United Kingdom was facing severe manpower shortages. By May 1944, it was estimated that the British Army's strength in December 1944 would be 100,000, less than it was at the end of 1943. Although casualties in the Normandy Campaign, the main effort of the British Army in 1944, were actually lower than anticipated, losses from all causes were still higher than could be replaced. Two infantry divisions and a brigade (59th and 50th divisions and 70th Brigade) were disbanded to provide replacements for other British divisions in the 21st Army Group and all men being called up to the Army were trained as infantrymen. Furthermore, 35,000 men from the RAF Regiment and the Royal Artillery were transferred to the infantry and were retrained as rifle infantrymen, where the majority of combat casualties fell.[18][19] In addition, in the Eighth Army fighting in the Italian Campaign of the Mediterranean theatre several units, mainly infantry, were also disbanded to provide replacements, including the 1st Armoured Division and several other smaller units, such as the 168th Brigade, had to be reduced to cadre, and several other units had to be amalgamated. For example, the 2nd and 6th battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers were merged in August 1944. At the same time, most infantry battalions in Italy had to be reduced from four to three rifle companies.

British Army during the Second World War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

HyperWar: US Army in WWII: The Supreme Command (ETO) [Appendix E]

If the Wallies manage to invade and establish a foothold in 42/43, their nummerical superiority in both men/equipment will be much much smaller than OTL, leading to more casualties. Some 300 000 + dead/missing and a million casualties overall are an conservative estimate of what the "British" would lose from mid 43-mid 45, American losses could easily surpass 2 Million, of which some 500 000 would be permanent (dead/missing). These are unsustainable losses for the Allies, focing them to either massively reduce the Navy/Air force or industrial workforce to replace battlefield casualties. Then comes Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the planned invasion of Japan. So the Americans have to pull out, they will be glad to cut a deal with the Germans, the British will have no choice but to follow suit. Assuming Churchill has not been thrown out of office months ago.

In the case of the Czechs and Poles they had no manpower to conscript except when they got to the continent and found the Germans using conscripted Czechs and Poles who were very willing to join their army's in exile. The Canadians never had conscript and made do with an all volunteer army throughout the war, which really started to hurt by late 1944 when recruits dried up.

Britain favored the navy and air force over the army, so they got the last dibs on manpower IOTL. That's why Churchill was so reluctant to invade France before 1944 to preserve what manpower there was especially for post-war occupation and economy functioning. If push came to shove though they would have to suck it up, but without the Italian Front and Torch they'd have a lot more manpower to use in NW Europe in 1942-44 even if for some reason Libya was still Axis in 1944.

But largely yes, I don't see the US paying the necessary price to totally defeat Germany, but they would probably fight to liberate France and Belgium. As it was IOTL the US was prepared to fight for over a year to liberate just France in 1944 and were surprised by the quick German collapse and pull back. Of course by then the USSR was in the war and doing the heavy lifting on the ground.

 

[King Augeas]

How defeated is the Soviet Union? Is there still a Soviet government? How much territory are the Germans occupying? Are partisan activities in Russia enough to tie down a significant number of German troops?

a) Defeated enough to allow large movements of troops back west
b) Not one of any great relevance to the above
c) Enough to address a decent chunk of their resource problems
d) Yes, but not enough to prevent (A)

Assumptions - Fall Blau is much more successful and Germany is able to successfully attack Moscow in spring 1943. Russia is basically done for by the autumn; although there's still a lot of mopping up and shooting of anyone who gets in the way, large numbers of troops are able to go back west to make the numbers for Overlord look hopeless.

So by early 1944 it's obvious that OTL Overlord won't work - the assault shipping and logistics are inadequate to win the build-up race in Normandy. Meanwhile, Italy is a meatgrinder going nowhere fast. So the situation on land is a Problem.

Elsewhere, however, things are looking much better. The Luftwaffe has still been gutted in the Med in 1943 and will still be destroyed over France in early 1944. The U-boats were still defeated in Black May and their attempt to reopen the battle in autumn 1943 was still barely noticed. The war against Japan is still going well.

So the strategy for 1944 is bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Germany, and crush Japan. There's a strategic choice here - OTL they emphasised transport in France as part of the preparations for Overlord. Things get uncertain here but they may decide that with sufficient bombing of the French transport net, they can get divisions ashore in Normandy to fight a late 1944 land battle on their terms - one with air supremacy and where resupply of the Germany forces in Normandy is very difficult. Sounds like it'd be a bloody mess to me, but it might work... At least it shouldn't be driven back into the sea, as the defensive firepower of the lodgement, supported by thousands of aircraft, would be extraordinary. Call it stalemate into 1945 in Europe, but plentiful victories in the Pacific and south-east Asia as Japan gets crushed. Alternatively, they might just decide to wait for 1945 and spend 1944 cratering German cities and the surrounding countryside, believing that bombing alone will win the war, and presumably doing some peripheral operations. This will have a considerable impact on German cities and industry, but won't fundamentally get them anywhere.

1945 is where things gets trickier. Japan is obviously left to starve as the Pacific moves from "second priority" to "strategic backwater". The Luftwaffe stages some sort of recovery as a specialised anti-bomber force, but mostly operates in the core, defending key cities and industry - the peripheries such as northwest France are too vulnerable to Allied fighter strength. We may get a 1945 Overlord but it's not going to win the war any time soon. So we look to the impact and deliverability of atomic bombs...

The production schedule for the bombs have been discussed plenty of times, no need to rehash it. Deliverability is a challenge but not nearly as great a challenge as interception. The Luftwaffe is still required to intercept every B-29 package, day or night, as each one could be carrying a bomb. Even when there's a mass raid on one target, and ten packages break off the stream towards ten secondary targets, the Luftwaffe must counter them all - while of course dealing with a sky full of escorts. They'll get some successes, but it won't be enough. Initial industrial targets would presumably be the Ruhr, including Hamburg and nearby cities - close enough and important enough.

But again, this won't get boots on the ground. German industry will be moved east into the strategic depths. Unfortunately the logical endpoint here is the isolation of France from that industry via atomic/conventional bombing of the transport net and a super-Overlord. France becomes the new Poland - ground to dust between two too-powerful enemies.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Assumptions - Fall Blau is much more successful and Germany is able to successfully attack Moscow in spring 1943. Russia is basically done for by the autumn; although there's still a lot of mopping up and shooting of anyone who gets in the way, large numbers of troops are able to go back west to make the numbers for Overlord look hopeless.

Only problem with that is it conflicts with the TL laid out in OP:

Germany manages to defeat the Soviet Union at the end of 42/early 43.

So the POD would have to be in 1941 rather than as late as Case Blue. I suppose you could have a scenario where the change is in early/mid-1942 that gets you an early 1943 win, but it would have to be something like what I proposed in a TL a while back: forget Sevastopol, focus on Leningrad first in 1942 to cut it off and starve it out while then going for Case Blue after the Leningrad operation is wrapped up in May. At that point Case Blue could go ahead and the USSR will be massively weakened due to the loss of Leningrad and opening of the rail lines for an offensive to cut off Murmansk by the Finns. Since that was the vital route of LL in 1942 it will probably be fatal given the economic damage done by Case Blue too. So by early 1943 the USSR is still around, but unable to attack and probably facing a disintegration internally, so no real need to go after Moscow and incur those losses. At that point the Wallies are left with a challenge of whether to suck it up and suffer the casualties necessary to try and invade either France or Italy and advance from there.

Even with the Mediterranean going as per OTL to that point from that point on out things do start changing even with OTL levels of attrition that were inflicted in the Mediterranean on the Axis. Not having to sustain a massively costly ground campaign against the Soviets from early 1943 on really alters production priorities, which makes Allied efforts to invade Europe then that much more grueling.

 

[jerard]

There would be massive amounts of resources available in the conquered areas but there is a huge problem getting them. This was a war of annihilation, as such a between securing the boarder from raids, liquidating of the majority of the population, suppressing the population that knows what is going on, and the annihilation of people already in concentration camps would still require massive numbers of troops and much of the population being murdered wouldn't be helpful gathering resources.
On top of this industry, agriculture and the populace inside Deutschland will be calling for as much manpower as possible to be released from the Wehrmacht. With the war all but won it their eyes they would want to go back to a civilian economy as much as possible. After winning the war the Volk would deserve more food being produced and more consumer goods and luxuries. Britain would be coming to the peace table any time now anyway wouldn't it. They keep waiting for it while fighting in the air until A-bombs start being dropped on cities leading to a coup that sues for peace, even unconditionally.
Or when it is obvious the CCCP is going to collapse Britain and the US probably invade Norge, Sverige joins the Allies, Deutschland loses access to the iron ore and ball bearings they were getting and has to heavily defend the Baltic coast. Suomi probably goes neutral or maybe Allies. Even if it went full Axis Deutschland isn't going to be able to conquer Scandinavia. Allies roll up the islands in the Mediteranian including Sicilia and maybe eventually invade Italia leading to a stalemate in the Alps. Either the economy implodes from having too many people in the military leading to a coup or A-bombs start being dropped on cities leading to a coup that sues for peace, even unconditionally.

 

[Johnrankins]

IOTL by the time they really got attention the material and war situation in Germany was so bad, the designs so rushed, and engineers were trying to find ways to create projects so they didn't end up as cannon fodder that it's hardly a surprise what got pumped out was a mess.
ITTL depending on how things play out the late war 'wonder weapons' might be less desperate and more realistic than they were IOTL due to a better material situation, potentially less bombing damage, industry being built out of range of bombers, less deaths in the East, more labor, etc.

Increased manpower . resources no . As you yourself said

In the long run yes, but it would be years before the gains offset the costs, something Hitler's advisors told him IOTL and proved to be the case during the war; the Eastern Front never became less costly than the resources gained at any point in the war IOTL. As it was Scorched Earth policies ensured that there was huge costs in repairing any captured extraction industries or factories before they'd become usable again. In fact Germany spent pretty large resources building Ukraine back up IOTL only for those regions to be overrun as they were about to come online in a larger way

By the time resources come back in numbers one German city after another is going to be nuked. Probably around 1948 or 1949 the atomic bombs are going to be replaced with H-bombs. The B-29 is going to be replaced by the B-36 or possibly a B-50 in 1946 .

Most likely the B-36 because it is a better plane and the military has a wartime budget. Shooting Stars will only be able to cover them to around Hannover until the Sabre is produced. If the Sabre is produced merely on schedule it will probably be produced in numbers around 1948. This is enough to escort the bombers to Berlin.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

At that point the unconditional surrender declaration hasn't been decided on...

The requirement of "Unconditional surrender" was announced at the end of the Casablanca Conference, 24 January 1943. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which Soviet surrender happens much earlier than that (and not in 1941). In any case, the US was pledged to "the destruction of Nazi tyranny" in the Atlantic Charter, issued in 1941.

The most likely scenario I can envision is this:

Tthe Germans manage the Stalingrad campaign better, don't get exhausted in house-to-house fighting, and defeat the Soviet counter-attack. This (along with the defeat of MARS by Army Group Center) demoralizes the Soviets. Stalin goes crazier, and decides to purge the army again. This leads to a coup against him by Voroshilov, Molotov, and Beria (who is trying to save his own ass). Stalin however has his own informants in the Cheka watching Beria. In April, the coup move kills Stalin, but his planned counter-coup moves eliminate the coup leaders. Soviet leadership dissolves with factionalism everywhere. The Germans drive east and take Moscow. Kalinin forms a new government in Kuibyshev and sues for peace, which is agreed on May 15.

This would be a week after the US/UK took Tunis and Bizerta OTL. Maybe there would be some more Germans in Africa and it would take longer, but not much. So the US/UK are winning their theater. Why should they give up?

I would note that Britain didn't give up in 1940, under much worse circumstances. Nor in early 1941, after major additional defeats and the Blitz, nor in late 1941, after the USSR almost collapsed. Why would the US give up before meeting any really hard fighting?

A point not addressed is what happens in Iran, where Soviet and US/UK forces were in contact, and Transcaucasia, which is adjacent to Iran and very likely would be cut off from the rest of the USSR. IMO the US/UK would recruit some Soviet commander there to be the "Russian De Gaulle", and the Soviet troops there would form a Free Russian Army. Also the US/UK would move forces ASAP into Azerbaijan to forestall German occupation of the oil fields.

Longer term: the US/UK air war against Germany continues. Germany can improve their air defenses somewhat - but OTL 1/3 of all German ammunition production was fired up. And IIRC there were more 88mm guns deployed as flak in Germany than as AT guns on the Eastern Front. So there isn't a lot of room for improvement. The Germans can put more fighters over western Europe, but they will still be massively outnumbered, and lose.

The Battle of the Atlantic is won. The Allies are reading U-boat Enigma, and they have escort carriers, plenty of VLR aircraft, and H2X radar.

That leaves the question of the ground war. The Germans will have a lot more troops to deploy in the west and Mediterranean. But the US/UK have more - potentially a lot more - and an avalanche of equipment and munitions. The Axis also has a lot of outlying positions to defend: the Dodecanese, Crete, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Norway. The US/UK can concentrate overwhelming forces against one of these positions at a time.

Eventually the US/UK will have to engage the main strength of the Wehrmacht on the mainland of Europe. Can the US/UK get ashore? Consider D-Day with twice as many Germans. However, ISTM that the US/UK can achieve a beachhead somewhere, and maintain it, if only by lavish use of air and naval firepower - which they have loads of. Around an established beachhead, US/UK artillery firepower will make German forces bleed. Any battle will cost the Germans at least as many casualties as the US/UK.

So I don't see US/UK morale breaking first. However, the war is likely to stretch on through 1945. At which point, the US/UK deploy atomic bombs and Germany breaks. Millions of war dead. Every major city ravaged, and now several obliterated. Shortages of food and everything else. Hitler will never surrender, but a Bomb will get him. And at some point, the destruction inside Germany will make it impossible for the army to keep fighting.