Invading Nazi-controlled Europe with Britain under Nazi rule

So the assumption seems to be that by the mid 1950s, the development of smaller nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear weapons, make an invasion impractical, and until the B52 and ICBM there is no practical way to attack the other with success. Even the cruise missile type weapons (like the Snark for example) are too impractical.

But what about a fleet of Midway and United States (CV58, the one that triggered the revolt of the Admirals in OTL) carriers carrying AJ1 Savage bombers (which could carry the 2nd generation atomic bombs) in the late 1940s-early 1950s?

Granted a carrier task force would be vulnerable to nuclear attack by aircraft, although the odds of the pre 1970s era (in OTL) ballistic missiles having a CEP accurate enough to get them (unless you use a really big nuke) seems low. Certainly an American task force, defending with ships armed with very high rate of fire 3 and 5 inch guns, not mention a rather effective interceptor defense would be a very hard target to air attack, while the nuclear torpedo isn't an option until the late 1950s.

So that means there is some window of vulnerability for the Nazis, even with nuclear weapons on both sides, for a few years 1948-54 (possibly a bit earlier as the AJ Savage could have been pushed forward a bit more urgently).

As to the bombers.... the B36 never was tested in combat, which seems lucky for everyone. My thinking is that a large force of B50s supported by B50 Tankers would be a larger threat and thus more likely to see at least some get through.

Now according to Operation Dropshot, which was the official early Cold War plan, the United States was supposed to destroy the Soviet nuclear capability and its key industry with conventional and nuclear attack... THEN there would be a massive World War II (Operation Olympic/Overlord size) invasion.

For those who don't know what Dropshot is

http://www.allworldwars.com/Dropshot - American Plan for War with the Soviet Union 1957.html
 
But what about a fleet of Midway and United States (CV58, the one that triggered the revolt of the Admirals in OTL) carriers carrying AJ1 Savage bombers (which could carry the 2nd generation atomic bombs) in the late 1940s-early 1950s?
Is this a plan for just nuclear bombing the Reich or actually putting American troops on Nazi territory as well?

There's no plausible reason why Nazi Germany (which would have a nuclear stockpile however small) would allow an amphibious landing to occur nor would the US attempt one if they know the Reich has nukes. Simply put, nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded.
 

Magical123

Banned
If it becomes a Cold War might we see a 1984 scenario where the US stands in for Oceania and Nazi Germany for Eurasia with neither able to overpower and the other and yet both with near unlimited population and natural resources.

Waging an long Cold War for control of Africa, Central and East Asia, the Arctic and Space?
 
Is this a plan for just nuclear bombing the Reich or actually putting American troops on Nazi territory as well?

There's no plausible reason why Nazi Germany (which would have a nuclear stockpile however small) would allow an amphibious landing to occur nor would the US attempt one if they know the Reich has nukes. Simply put, nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded.

depends on the stakes and the will... the US in the Cold War had plans to do that very thing according to Dropshot

whether that is realistic is anyone's guess, but that there was a plan to do so does indicate a certain expectation
 
depends on the stakes and the will... the US in the Cold War had plans to do that very thing according to Dropshot

whether that is realistic is anyone's guess, but that there was a plan to do so does indicate a certain expectation
Unless the US has a magic wand that can eliminate the Reich's nuclear weapons the odds of a Dropshot working ITTL are small. All it takes is a single weapon to screw up an entire invasion effort. Imagine if the Reich detonated a tactical nuke off the shores of Normandy during Overlord.
 
Unless the US has a magic wand that can eliminate the Reich's nuclear weapons the odds of a Dropshot working ITTL are small. All it takes is a single weapon to screw up an entire invasion effort. Imagine if the Reich detonated a tactical nuke off the shores of Normandy during Overlord.

Dropshot was aimed at the Soviets who did indeed have all that

But I am discussing the period 47-54, when there weren't tactical nuclear weapons or even H-Bombs.

Certainly several atomic bombs would wreck D-Day

But keep in mind that the size of the Soviet and US nuclear stockpiles remained fairly small (a couple of hundred) until the mid 1950s, and how the ebb and flow of a nuclear war will likely take out some of them.

My point is that the US Navy does have some options when it comes to hitting Europe, particularly western Europe. The US Military did have a plan for total war with the Soviet Union which included airborne and amphibious landings, and intended to carry it out.

So the OTL experts seemed to think it was possible. Whether they were right or not we don't know for certain, although it seems likely to be beyond even the resources of the United States to carry out the full extent of Dropshot (which called for, after wrecking the bulk of Soviet industry and POL production, a massive invasion on the North Sea coast of Germany and a drive into the Soviet Union)

Of course the big question is whether or not a series of nuclear strikes manages to take out Hitler and the other leading Nazis full scale invasion is necessary. Plus whether or not the US has the capability of doing that.

My question is whether or not the carriers could get bombers that could penetrate the German air defenses into position and whether or not sufficient bombers could do sufficient damage.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So the assumption seems to be that by the mid 1950s, the development of smaller nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear weapons, make an invasion impractical, and until the B52 and ICBM there is no practical way to attack the other with success. Even the cruise missile type weapons (like the Snark for example) are too impractical.

But what about a fleet of Midway and United States (CV58, the one that triggered the revolt of the Admirals in OTL) carriers carrying AJ1 Savage bombers (which could carry the 2nd generation atomic bombs) in the late 1940s-early 1950s?

Granted a carrier task force would be vulnerable to nuclear attack by aircraft, although the odds of the pre 1970s era (in OTL) ballistic missiles having a CEP accurate enough to get them (unless you use a really big nuke) seems low. Certainly an American task force, defending with ships armed with very high rate of fire 3 and 5 inch guns, not mention a rather effective interceptor defense would be a very hard target to air attack, while the nuclear torpedo isn't an option until the late 1950s.

So that means there is some window of vulnerability for the Nazis, even with nuclear weapons on both sides, for a few years 1948-54 (possibly a bit earlier as the AJ Savage could have been pushed forward a bit more urgently).

As to the bombers.... the B36 never was tested in combat, which seems lucky for everyone. My thinking is that a large force of B50s supported by B50 Tankers would be a larger threat and thus more likely to see at least some get through.

Now according to Operation Dropshot, which was the official early Cold War plan, the United States was supposed to destroy the Soviet nuclear capability and its key industry with conventional and nuclear attack... THEN there would be a massive World War II (Operation Olympic/Overlord size) invasion.

For those who don't know what Dropshot is

http://www.allworldwars.com/Dropshot - American Plan for War with the Soviet Union 1957.html
I would be much more concerned with about subs than surface or air threats, although the air threat that far east would be mind-numbingly severe (a couple hundred miles from Dounreay Scotland, around 250 from southern Norway).

ATL there are NO choke points that can allow some control over the access to the North Atlantic, that allows the KM to have a nearly unopposed patrol line out beyond the possible strike arc of the Savage (Combat Radius was roughly 700 miles). Any strike against Berlin would have be launched EAST of the Shetlands (and that launch point is within ARTILLERY range of coastal batteries) meaning there is no realistic hope of aircraft acting in an ASW role.

The U.S. could attack Britain (actually Scotland) using carriers, but Germany proper is pretty much out of the question, at least until/if the U.S. captured the Faroes and Shetlands (which would, of course, present some rather significant tactical issues ATL). Until then it would be like the U.S. trying to operate a carrier Task Force in the Sea of Japan circa 1943 (the distance between Busan, Korea and Fukuoka, Japan is even similar to the distance between the Faroes and Shetlands).

BTW: In 1953 U.S. had 1,150 bombs by 1955 the number had grown to 2,400 nukes.
 
Last edited:
The ABC-1 conference and the Arcadia conference do not happen ITTL at all

The US will definitely take North Africa and Gibraltar if need be at some point to keep Dakar safe.

With what logistics?

(Leaving aside the issue of how Germany got to UK in the first place)

The Rainbow 5 war plan actually called for this scenario at least. Logistics by U.K. railroads and ports, and US ships sailing from US ports all the way there I imagine meet the requirements for logistics. Although, air superiority is something they won't have.

Lack of warships, especially carriers.
Lack of amphibious lift.
Lack of sufficient numbers of trained personnel.
Lack of sufficient supply chains.
Lack of experience.

I mean I had suspected it might be unfeassible which is why the US didn't think about it in War Plan Red, earlier Rainbow 5 plans may have entertained those kind of ideas at least, but I was unsure.

I would say why don't they use the British navy along with USN warships used in Torch but maybe Germany is in the possession of the British navy, along with the French navy. They would land at night.

Now that the Allies don't need cargo vessels to be sent to the U.K and the USSR. There is going to be a lot of extra ships. This could mean orienting towards landing craft. Maybe.

They would definitely try for North Africa at some point, and would be interested in trying to go after Europe
 
If the British are occupied the Italians have either taken Egypt as part of their rebuilt Roman Empire, or the Egyptians have thrown off the British yoke (Even if the British manage to hold on to Egypt somehow the round trip to Baku is 2,600 miles, until the B-29 enters service the Allies can't touch it, and the bombers will be unescorted.). Iraq fought a war with the British IOTL, one that they lost. Not going to lose it this time, not with the Britain occupied.. That effectively eliminates the best jumping off point for any U.S. attempt to move into the Iran. I would say that even continued control of the Raj is more than slightly questionable given the facts on the ground.

We might as well discuss the implications of Slovakia's occupation of China and how that affects the Reich's procurement of raw materials if we keep throwing in assumptions like that. Neither of those scenarios are in any way plausible.

The Iraqi's were utterly incapable of actually fighting a modern enemy. Hell, I think they would have had trouble resisting Townsend's men from 1915. Likewise the Italian invasion of Egypt was defeated almost entirely with the forces at hand, with some very lopsided casualty rates.

Mosul to Baku is easily within range of Allied bombers. The Reich is not getting any oil from there anytime soon.

Plus, I don't see a reason why Iran wouldn't be occupied ITTL as well by the Commonwealth and Soviets.

However, this is immaterial anyway.

At best Manhattan can produce one Little Boy bomb every four months.
Directly from the horses mouth:

1945-Hull-and-Seaman-Third-Shot.jpg

"They come out approximately at the rate of three a month."
(source)


North Africa was already touched on above, but with the British out of the war there is little to prospect of a successful invasion of North Africa before 1944, very possibly 1945 or later. Operation Torch was only possible because the Vichy French had minimal resources (and lacked support from a noteworthy segment of the French population). That is unlikely to be the case if the Italians have followed up on their reestablished Roman Empire scheme (which was close to Mussolini's heart). It is also very likely that the Wehrmacht would have a substantial presence on Gibraltar, even if the Rock has been returned to Spain. Such a force would make any effort in North Africa quite difficult.
If the Italians had been the ones garrisoning everything between Dakar and Tunis, I would expect any Torch* analogue to go even smoother :p

Jokes aside, a mini version of Torch, targeting only Morocco, could have been launched much sooner than the OTL one, before any major shift in Axis forces could occur, and would probably be seen as imperative to gaining a foothold in the region the event of a collapse of the UK/USSR.

Also, Hitler greenlighting an Italian invasion of North Africa (or do we handwave this as well, and just assume its already occupied?) would probably see the whole region invite the Americans in, such was the animosity between French and Italians.

Honestly, I don't see how the Axis, even in the wankiest of wanks, prevents the Americans from landing on the western coast of Africa.
 
"They come out approximately at the rate of three a month."
(source)
That's including (and probably mostly concerned with) the Fat Man-type implosion device, which CalBear is explicitly excluding from consideration. It doesn't say anything about how many Little Boy-type bombs could be made per month (or per year, if CalBear's estimate is accurate).
 
I was talking about this scenario with someone on a WWII Facebook page.

In the event that the Nazis conquered Britain and defeated the USSR before the end of 1941, if the Commonwealth (and the Americans if they decide to declare war on Germany in this scenario) decide to invade Europe, how would this be accomplished?

The person I was talking to suggested that the invasion could be similar to our present-day scenario, invading through Western Europe and Italy.
I would suspect that the british fleet is not captured, but escaped and fights on or was sunk somehow. In any case, Nazi Germany has no fleet to challenge a US/Canadian/rest of GB fleet. As such I would think the best approach is to reconquer Britain and go from there.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
We might as well discuss the implications of Slovakia's occupation of China and how that affects the Reich's procurement of raw materials if we keep throwing in assumptions like that. Neither of those scenarios are in any way plausible.

The Iraqi's were utterly incapable of actually fighting a modern enemy. Hell, I think they would have had trouble resisting Townsend's men from 1915. Likewise the Italian invasion of Egypt was defeated almost entirely with the forces at hand, with some very lopsided casualty rates.

Mosul to Baku is easily within range of Allied bombers. The Reich is not getting any oil from there anytime soon.

Plus, I don't see a reason why Iran wouldn't be occupied ITTL as well by the Commonwealth and Soviets.

However, this is immaterial anyway.


Directly from the horses mouth:

1945-Hull-and-Seaman-Third-Shot.jpg

"They come out approximately at the rate of three a month."
(source)



If the Italians had been the ones garrisoning everything between Dakar and Tunis, I would expect any Torch* analogue to go even smoother :p

Jokes aside, a mini version of Torch, targeting only Morocco, could have been launched much sooner than the OTL one, before any major shift in Axis forces could occur, and would probably be seen as imperative to gaining a foothold in the region the event of a collapse of the UK/USSR.

Also, Hitler greenlighting an Italian invasion of North Africa (or do we handwave this as well, and just assume its already occupied?) would probably see the whole region invite the Americans in, such was the animosity between French and Italians.

Honestly, I don't see how the Axis, even in the wankiest of wanks, prevents the Americans from landing on the western coast of Africa.
The British are CONQUERED per the OP (already noted the low order of probability on this scenario). They did not make a deal, they did not arrange to retain anything. The British got punched in the mouth and rolled just like France, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland IOTL and the ATL USSR. Game Over.

British troops are now utterly unsupported. No aircraft, no ammo, no rations, hell, no new boots and socks. Assuming the Government in Exile manages to retain control of the forces, which if far from a certainty (the Reich does, it should be noted, have an actual King of England available to install back onto the throne) there will have to be a series of decisions made regarding where they make their last stand. There is simply no way to retain everything. Trying to hold all means losing everything. Unquestionably that effort would be made in India.

Without India Egypt has no value, nor does Iraq. India already has some issues with independence efforts, the division & a half in Iraq, along with the obsolescent aircraft will be much needed in India, as would the forces in Egypt. Unlike the forces in Egypt the forces in Iraq can readily move to India (which at this point in time included Pakistan) using local shipping (some movement could even be made overland along the Iranian Persian Gulf coast). Iraq has absolutely no value to the British in this scenario. The RAF has exactly ONE bomber in Iraq with the range to reack Baku from Mosul, a Bristol Blenheim. There are also 14 Vickers Valiant single engine biplane bombers (max speed 143mph, combat radius 525 miles)

It is also rather important to keep in mind what the Reich did regard France's colonies that another member of the Axis wanted. The French were required to stand aside and allow the Japanese to take control of French Indochina (and Berlin's relationship with Tokyo was far less cordial that the partnership with Rome). Mussolini wanted to recreate the Roman empire around the Med, Hitler was not going to stand in his way, IOTL Hitler went to considerable lengths to support his Italian partner, in this scenario it is impossible to believe that the Reich would not support Rome's demands from the British. Even if the British force decide to screw their navels to the ground and defend Egypt (which would be strategically idiotic for any Government in Exile in this scenario) the Wehrmacht will be sent to support the Italians, same as IOTL, except this time there will be no British fleet to send to support Egypt, no daring efforts to support the brave defenders on Malta, no RAF or RN forces on the Rock to provide support. Rommel (or whoever Hitler dispatches to command the Africa Corps) will roll the British up like a rug.

Iran won't be occupied by the Soviets because the Soviets got their ass handed to them ATL. They lost the war, almost certainly during the in initial Barbarossa Zerg-rush. The Soviet Union is done like dinner in this scenario. It won't be occupied by the British because the British don't have the ability to shift forces like that and it is no longer critical in the overall scheme of things, the Americans won't occupy Iran because there is no reason to. USSR lost the war, no reason for Lend Lease, Iran doesn't matter in this scenario.

The memo you attached is discussing the Mark III (i.e. Fat Man) weapon. The U.S. never put the Mark I Uranium (i.e. Little Boy) weapon into large scale production, primarily because it was vastly more difficult to produce sufficient enriched uranium. Only five Mark I bomb assemblies (physics packages) were ever produced, only one was weaponized and it was expended at Hiroshima.

There is no way that one can simply overlay OTL onto this scenario. It is entirely possible that the POD butterflies away the Pacific War. The U.S. embargoes against Japan, especially oil, were only effective because the UK and Dutch Government in Exile went along with the U.S. That is no where near as certain ATL. While the U.S. military build-up will likely still occur (if the Congress lost its mind after the Fall of France, any defeat of the British will have them pushing every panic button they can find). It is very possible that the U.S. adopts a "Monroe Doctrine" on Steroids, where America's umbrella extends to Australia and New Zealand, but it is also possible that the decision is closer to "New World is ours, stay on you side of the Atlantic and we're cool".
 
So can the US build a fleet of ice breakers and sail across the Arctic from Norway to Berlin?
Sailing over the Arctic, landing in Norway (which had 400,000 German troops there even in 1945 IOTL), getting past the coastal fortifications and actually defeating the Wehrmacht would be implausible given the scenario (it would take years including the logistical buildup and air campaign), let alone doing all that and then using Norway to attack the rest of the continent.
 
Last edited:

Magical123

Banned
Sailing over the Arctic, landing in Norway (which had 400,000 German troops there even in 1945 IOTL), getting past the coastal fortifications and actually defeating the Wehrmacht there would be implausible given the scenario (it would take years including the logistical buildup and air campaign), let alone doing all that and then using Norway to attack the rest of the continent.
If an Norway could be conquered what would be the Nazis response?
 
So can the US build a fleet of ice breakers and sail across the Arctic from Norway to Berlin?
No. It's ridiculous. It was extremely difficult to sail across the Arctic Ocean at this time; remember, the first commercial (not exploratory) ship to sail through the Northwest Passage only did it in 1969. The Northeast Passage was better, the Soviets actually used it fairly frequently at this time, but it would also be extremely obvious and time-consuming to sail through it. It would require a vast expense in vessels that would only be of any use in the Arctic for a very dangerous operation. It makes far more sense to invest in conventional ships and plan on fighting in the Atlantic.

Iran won't be occupied by the Soviets because the Soviets got their ass handed to them ATL. They lost the war, almost certainly during the in initial Barbarossa Zerg-rush. The Soviet Union is done like dinner in this scenario. It won't be occupied by the British because the British don't have the ability to shift forces like that and it is no longer critical in the overall scheme of things, the Americans won't occupy Iran because there is no reason to. USSR lost the war, no reason for Lend Lease, Iran doesn't matter in this scenario.
Still has a lot of oil, though. And the United States did have commercial interests in Saudi Arabia...

There is no way that one can simply overlay OTL onto this scenario. It is entirely possible that the POD butterflies away the Pacific War. The U.S. embargoes against Japan, especially oil, were only effective because the UK and Dutch Government in Exile went along with the U.S. That is no where near as certain ATL. While the U.S. military build-up will likely still occur (if the Congress lost its mind after the Fall of France, any defeat of the British will have them pushing every panic button they can find). It is very possible that the U.S. adopts a "Monroe Doctrine" on Steroids, where America's umbrella extends to Australia and New Zealand, but it is also possible that the decision is closer to "New World is ours, stay on you side of the Atlantic and we're cool".
They might like to do that, but I don't think it's going to last very long, any more than the similar period after the end of World War II. Sooner or later the United States is going to recognize that it can't just stick to its knitting in the Western Hemisphere, it has to go out and engage with the rest of the world to keep its own position secure. That doesn't mean invading Europe, necessarily, but more the kind of thing that the US spent most of its time on during the Cold War--supporting rebels (and they'll certainly have plenty of opportunities for that), propping up friendly countries, occasionally invading peripheral states, trying to isolate the Nazis as much as possible. That kind of thing.
 

Magical123

Banned
No. It's ridiculous. ..It was extremely difficult to sail across the Arctic Ocean at this time; remember, the first commercial (not exploratory) ship to sail through the Northwest Passage only did it in 1969. The Northeast Passage was better, the Soviets actually used it fairly frequently at this time, but it would also be extremely obvious and time-consuming to sail through it. It would require a vast expense in vessels that would only be of any use in the Arctic for a very dangerous operation. It makes far more sense to invest in conventional ships and plan on fighting in the Atlantic.


Still has a lot of oil, though. And the United States did have commercial interests in Saudi Arabia...


They might like to do that, but I don't think it's going to last very long, any more than the similar period after the end of World War II. Sooner or later the United States is going to recognize that it can't just stick to its knitting in the Western Hemisphere, it has to go out and engage with the rest of the world to keep its own position secure. That doesn't mean invading Europe, necessarily, but more the kind of thing that the US spent most of its time on during the Cold War--supporting rebels (and they'll certainly have plenty of opportunities for that), propping up friendly countries, occasionally invading peripheral states, trying to isolate the Nazis as much as possible. That kind of thing.
They couldn't just plow through the ice? It's not like environmental concerns would even registered.
 
Top