Nuking of Germany after victory against the USSR

But most of the 80% manpower walked (or in trains) to battle so not sure how much you can convert to fighters ?
Yes but you don't have to have more than a fraction of them be pilots. Just having lots of men available for infrastructure and industry helps a ton, not to mention you don't have to build and waste fuel on Tiger IIs and Jagdtigers anymore. I heard that IOTL Germans had a problem with their jet fighters overheating all the time since they were running out of good steel, here they may not have such issues.

The problem is that no realistic air defence will really stop nuclear bombers (or at least all of them) and you only need a few to get through (and they can sacrifice 100s of other none nuclear bombers to decoy the defences).
Good point. Still, this only works if the war is still on in 1945, and remember the PoD is before 1943 so unconditional surrender hasn´t been made a requirment yet.
 
Oil, the fatal weakness

in the Summer of 1944, the USAAF concentrated on German oil production and reduced it by 90% by the fall of the 1944. This was a permanent loss, as every time the Germans tried to rebuild it Allied bombers hit it again.

US strategic bombing survey
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#taoo

This in OTL had catastrophic effects for the Germans.. German flight operations were severely limited and then reduced to only the most urgent, while major offensives (like the Battle of the Bulge) failed in part as there was simply not enough fuel to maneuver.

Even assuming the Germans have restored captured oil fields in Baku, Grozny etc, they still have severe problems. Distances are huge from Germany to that area, the infrastructure was designed to send oil to central Russia not to Europe so has to be built from scratch, and ultimately it isn't the production fields that matter, but the refineries, and those are relatively vulnerable targets to World War II era bombing raids.

Plus of course the Allies can hit Baku etc just as easily as they can any other German target.

The earliest that the Soviet Union could collapse would be the winter of 1941-42 assuming Operation Typhoon takes Moscow. Even then it would take at least another year simply to mop up and establish a firm line of control, and probably longer. But more likely a Soviet collapse would be sometime in winter of 1942-43 based on the assumption that Case Blue is a spectacular success and Stalingrad falls, the Soviet counteroffensive is destroyed, and the Germans secure the Caucasus region. (there are plenty of alternate history works that talk about how that could happen, some better than others)

So again, figure a year to mop up or more, and thus no significant freeing up of German resources until 1944 or later. Meanwhile the War against Japan continues, and the Allies are still going to be securing North Africa. Without the Soviets, their most likely next move would be to start a campaign in Southwest Asia to make sure their oil (Persia) is not taken out, and to allow some supplies and help to reach whatever post Stalin government survives in Soviet Central Asia and Russia east of the Urals. In OTL considerable assets were sent their just to build a supply line, and if instead of an Italian campaign this is done, it well within Allied capabilities while being a long way from the Fatherland for the Germans.

The Allies might just wait on Germany at this point, and focus on taking Japan out sooner but it wouldn't strictly speaking be necessary. Plenty of resources already available for that. So with forces already committed to dealing with Germany in OTL, the Germans still face the problem of a running sore in the East, while still having to face the possibility of invasion from the West, South or even in Norway. While their fuel supplies are hammered as well as their air force and transportation links.

As is, 2 million German military personnel, plus tens of thousands of guns and most of their fighters were facing the Allies in OTL by 1944. They don't have that much more to commit, even without a Soviet Air Force and Red Army to deal with.

The Western Allies are still very much in the fight even without the Soviets

it just is a lot harder.. especially for the Europeans
 
Ten A-bombs per year in 1946?
Wasn't it more like three or four per month in 1945?

I don't believe so, no. What I've read suggests they had a total of four across the year, and when they bombed Nagasaki they had one more and then nothing after that.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I don't believe so, no. What I've read suggests they had a total of four across the year, and when they bombed Nagasaki they had one more and then nothing after that.
Oh, I suspect they probably scaled back production after the end of the war... but the documents show them predicting about three and a half a month. (So Nagasaki had them using one of their last available bombs, but they were turning up one per nine days.)



http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

So by the end of 1945 you could expect a stockpile of about fifteen bombs if none were used.
 
Oh, I suspect they probably scaled back production after the end of the war... but the documents show them predicting about three and a half a month. (So Nagasaki had them using one of their last available bombs, but they were turning up one per nine days.)



http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

So by the end of 1945 you could expect a stockpile of about fifteen bombs if none were used.

Interesting, assuming we are interpreting it correctly. If A-bomb production can be ramped up so much than I was aware of then definitely the Nuking of Germany has the potential to become very literal.

However even without it, there can be seen the devastating effect of the conventional bombing campaign and the accompanying air war. We know had the war continued into 1945 in a serious war the 8th Air Force would have been re-equipped with the B-29, we know the US had the capacity to add to its squadrons of Mustangs with both planes and pilots and had further supplies of other single engined P-47s and twin engined P-38s had it needed simple numbers.

The ability of the Germans to ramp up the size of their Luftwaffe is more circumscribed by the bottle necks in their training program and the rate of attrition among new pilots.
 
I don't believe so, no. What I've read suggests they had a total of four across the year, and when they bombed Nagasaki they had one more and then nothing after that.

With the end of the War after two bombs, priority dropped for manufacturing new pits.

Post #31 I listed the HEU output.

But the real bottleneck for US Bombs was not the fissile material( had plenty) but the shortage of reactor made Polonium, needed for the Neutron Initiator for each bomb, and it had a short shelf-life so couldn't be stockpiled for more than a few months before replacement was required.
Neutron tubes came later in the '50s
 
...

Even assuming the Germans have restored captured oil fields in Baku, Grozny etc, they still have severe problems. Distances are huge from Germany to that area, the infrastructure was designed to send oil to central Russia not to Europe so has to be built from scratch, and ultimately it isn't the production fields that matter, but the refineries, and those are relatively vulnerable targets to World War II era bombing raids.

Plus of course the Allies can hit Baku etc just as easily as they can any other German target.

...

Part of the massive construction project surrounding the Lend Lease route through Persia, which was started in 1941, were airfields for route defense. After the HALPRO operation was canceled in China, & India, the aircraft were moved to the Middle east to test first hand the suitability of the airfields there for heavy bomber operations. It is not like the RAF or USAAF would be starting from scratch on small dirt fields as in 1939 or 1940. Given the amount of construction in the Persian Gulf in 1941-42 the Allies are going to have a clear head start in the region in terms of infrastructure for logistics support.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow
I don't believe so, no. What I've read suggests they had a total of four across the year, and when they bombed Nagasaki they had one more and then nothing after that.

Again I'd refer to Rhoades 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'. The most complete book on the subject I've seen.

Oh, I suspect they probably scaled back production after the end of the war... but the documents show them predicting about three and a half a month. (So Nagasaki had them using one of their last available bombs, but they were turning up one per nine days.)

The 3.5 per month or 36 in 1946 is based on the initill plans for the Haniford breeder reactors. that was scaled back when the construction was started and better understanding of the process was in hand. Hypothetically it could have been increased if the assorted 'new technology' problems had been solved. The estimate of 18 more bombs in 1946 seems reasonable, and is enough to put a hurt on Germany.

Note that the production of the implosion devices, the outer case & triggers was not tied to the Plutonium production. those were being built as quikly as practical in 1945 & at least a dozen were ready with more being made. Some researchers mistake those for completed bombs with Plutonium installed.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Reich, assuming it managed to defeat the USSR (which is quite a stretch), and the WAllies would wind up stalemated. There is little to no chance that the UK/U.S. alliance would attempt an invasion against much larger number of troops available in the West after a Soviet collapse, and there is no chance whatsoever of the Reich managing to assemble sufficient force to land in the UK.

That being said, the neither side was going to seek/accept terms from the other. A victorious Reich would have started/continued a bloodbath of epic proportions, mainly in the East, but far too wide-spread to keep under wraps. That alone would be enough to maintain a de facto war status. It is possible that it would evolve into a long term stand-off, but it is much more loikey that both sides continue to work at finding a "decisive" weapon.

"Europe First" was more of a slogan than a fact. Much more of the resources available went to Europe because they were not usable in the Pacific. The Pacific was a naval war. Ships took time to build, even at maximum effort. Until you had the carriers, fast BB and escort forces, the major advances couldn't happen.

About the only engagement where Europe effort really impacted the Pacific was the early part of the Solomons campaign, where more front line fighters, especially the long range P-38, would have been extremely helpful, and an additional brigade of reinforcements could have made a difference, assuming they could be kept in supply. Additional troops could have also been helpful in retaking Burma and even Malaysia, but that was very much a secondary theater, important in the defeat of Japan, but not the decisive one.

The only time the Pacific/Europe balance would have had to shift would have been in an actual invasion of Japan.
 
Top