https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber
Though it largely didn't advance to a functional production version, this was the result of war conditions in 1944 and the canceling of anything bomber related for the Emergency Fighter Program.
I get your point about the A-10 as it existed in our timeline, but ITTL without the pressures of the war being lost, Germany would have more time to refine the design, because until Japan is defeated at some point (in 1944 or 45 depending on the scenario), that doesn't mean the US and Germany are immediately coming to blows. If anything there will be a Cold War situation.
Also Germany IOTL worked out the Jumo 222 engine, which was their 3000hp engine, but couldn't build it due to the raw material costs; without a war in the East or even full peace they could afford to build it for their Amerika Bomber program, which gave it the same power as the B-36 when it was introduced in 1949.
Its also not like their wouldn't be jet engine versions either, as several strategic bombers (not Amerika bomber ranged though) were to be ready in 1946-47.
I've read other works of Slade and I have no intention of reading anything by him again.
Several years, because they were working on it tens years before the Soviets started on the R-7. I'm not saying it would be ready before the late 1940s or even early 1950s, but the Soviets were too busy working on the V-2 derived R-1 for years first to catch up to wear the Germans were in 1944; once they had mastered what the Germans had in 1944 by November 1950, they could start working on more advanced versions; in 1940 the work on the A-10 began and though not with a viable guidance system by 1943 when it was cancelled IOTL, it was a start and well ahead of the rest of the world. Testing was supposed to have begun in 1946 without cancellation, which probably would have left 1949 as the earliest it would have been ready. The real question is not whether the missile would reach the target, that it could do for sure, its more a matter of the guidance system. The Germans were the farthest ahead in that department thanks to the experience working with the V-1 and V-2s. Further developments with years of peace would probably have yielded something that could hit New York by the early 1950s, though possibly by 1949.The A-10 is essentially a ICBM. The first ICBM was the Soviet R-7 in 1957. How much faster would have the Germans being able to develop something similiar?
Armageddon and Pantheocide.
Several years, because they were working on it tens years before the Soviets started on the R-7. I'm not saying it would be ready before the late 1940s or even early 1950s, but the Soviets were too busy working on the V-2 derived R-1 for years first to catch up to wear the Germans were in 1944; once they had mastered what the Germans had in 1944 by November 1950, they could start working on more advanced versions; in 1940 the work on the A-10 began and though not with a viable guidance system by 1943 when it was cancelled IOTL, it was a start and well ahead of the rest of the world. Testing was supposed to have begun in 1946 without cancellation, which probably would have left 1949 as the earliest it would have been ready. The real question is not whether the missile would reach the target, that it could do for sure, its more a matter of the guidance system. The Germans were the farthest ahead in that department thanks to the experience working with the V-1 and V-2s. Further developments with years of peace would probably have yielded something that could hit New York by the early 1950s, though possibly by 1949.
The Amerika Bomber would have been ready sooner of course.
The Ta400 was also a bomber in this category, which with 6 engine and the Jumo 222, could have performed the necessary task, though probably with a lower bomb load than the B-36.
Since both of those works really don't deal with past alternative timelines why do you think his view point of history is narrow and slanted? If you have never read any of his books from his "The Big One" alternative timeline I don't see how you could make a solid informed opinion. What where your issues with Armageddon and Pantheocide if you don't mind me asking?
I would really be interested in a source that supports this point. I have a hard time reconciling this with German/Nazi tendency to document everything. Documentation is generally a function of bureaucracy as it is the primary reason for such documentation. Hitler might have been the lynchpin of the Nazi party but I think the German state would have been a little more resiliant. This is particularly since, as of this TL, it would not have suffered under strategic bombing, which destroyed so much infrastructure. But, I suspect you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I, so I am interested in your sources.
Nobody argues that hypothetical replacement German leaders could not try that in a victory scenario - without the Führer. The point is whether they would.
Note that by 1942 already - with war going on - the chances of surviving one of the worst possible situations, probably the worst after that of being a Jew, i.e. being a Soviet POW, greatly increased, not because the Germans had had a change of heart, but because they realized they needed HiWis. In that victory scenario, they would need serfs. Dismantling the conquered cities would also mean losing the manpower for their industries. In words of General Leykauf, certainly a great killer within the Ostplan, and yet a pragmatic man, if they killed millions, "who is actually supposed to produce economic values?"
At the end of 1941, German officers tasked with policing the rear areas voiced grave concerns about the chances of maintaining order, when the populace was starving.
An all-out Hungerplan, leaving aside all ethics, did not come without serious very practical drawbacks.
I don't expect the German decision makers to suddenly grow a heart. But I wouldn't be surprised if they saw those.
Middle Eastern oil didn't really develop until after WW2. Prior Iraq and Iran were the primary sources, but were pretty minor compared to the US, as it was the #1 producer of oil until the 1970s. Saudi Arabia didn't even start producing oil until the late 1940s and prior the US had very little involvement in the Middle East. It was only after and with the Saudis giving US oil companies concessions on their newly discovered fields that the Middle East took on strategic importance; even then it was mostly Britain's problem until Operation Ajax in the '50s.
Don't forget that Germany too was well ahead in the development of intercontinental ballistic missile and had the technology to make a 'dirty' radiation bomb; they were close to a proximity fuze, which would have make the A10 missile with a uranium/HE tip capable of irradiating New York and D.C. The Germans were also slightly ahead of the B36 in terms of intercontinental bombers, so could hit the US if need be with chemical and/or bioweapons (the Germans were weaponizing Anthrax and a host of other nasty things, but were behind the USSR in terms of technology...have the Japanese share samples of their weapons and they can have a formidable program ready very quickly). So using nukes is not the end-all/be-all of potential warfare between Germany and the US.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/a9a10.html
Without the need to abandon development due to the failing war effort in 1944, Germany could have had something ready by the late 1940s.
Ian Kershaw writes a lot about the structure of Nazi Germany, and I draw most of my conclusions from his works, along with various information about how its government functioned. Biographies on Stalin also offer insights into the important differences between the two systems of rule. Essentially the German government was divided into numerous competing factions, all of which vied for power and were led by a Plenipotentiary; by 1944 these were Speer, Bormann, Himmler, and Goebbels, but ITTL such centralization is unlikely without the pressures of war. These factions were filled with their own subfactions, ambitious subordinates, etc all looking to seize power. This constant competition and jockeying for control was kept in a delicate balance only by their mutual loyalty to Hitler and adherence to his leadership. Despite this, as time went on Nazi Germany became an increasingly confused mess with the opinions of Gauleiters, Party officials, factory managers, etc replacing bureaucratic rule by law. Remove Hitler from this picture and there's nothing to control the competition and chaos in the Nazi system; no one has the means or power to take and hold the position of Fuhrer, because they lack the system of control that Hitler had built.
This isn't to portray Hitler as a skilled manager or heavily involved in government; just the opposite, he mostly left things to his subordinates. But his personality and the general idea of what he wanted, along with the loyalty towards him (All of his inner circle owed everything they had to his personal support and favor), created a powerful system of control which IOTL was only broken by his suicide.
No doubt it would have been difficult, but not impossible with the right resources and uninterrupted development from 1940. By 1952 it should be ready IMHO provided it gets uninterrupted development from 1940.I get where your going with the ICBM's. However I think with the current tech of the time trying to develop a full scale ICBM would have been really difficult.
Agreed, it would have been a much more expensive V-2 unless pared with a dirty bomb.Of course without a nuclear bomb to put on the ICBM it isn't much use.
Looking t the Ta400. The B-36 used 3500HP Wasp Major engines the Ta400 used 1700 hp engines, the Ta400 2,000lb thrust engines and two of them. The B-36D was using 4x 5,000lb thrust engines. Payload of 22,000lb versus over 80,000lb for the B-36. To me while it could perform the task of intercontinental bomber it wasn't in the same league as performance as the B-36.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
The effects would be pretty quick for people most exposed, resulting in some pretty ugly deaths and sickness for those less exposed that sets soon thereafter. Once the effects are known, which would be in a matter of days then the public would panic over these weapons and evacuate major cities that are in range of these weapons.
Without the war in the East the Jumo 222 could be built, which had 3000hp. IOTL it wasn't produced, as by the time it was ready in mid-1943 there was no need for it and every need for extra fighters.
The economic concerns about the mass killing of tens of millions, which a rational mind would of course note, played very little part in Nazi policy or the Heer's cooperation with it.
Thus any economic damage in the short term was, theoretically, to be replaced by an immediate benefit in food for Germany and economic growth in the long run as the East was settled.
More like thousands dead per missile with tens of thousands sickened or more in densely settled cities. We are talking about 1 ton air bursts over densely populated urban centers on the East Coast of the US, rather than a small dirty bomb at ground level as was tested for a terrorist weapon in the link I posted. Especially if they launch a few thousand of uninterceptable missiles at cities on the East Coast, which kills even 100,000 people, it would sicken millions in the short term and cause mass panic that would badly disrupt the US economy; its certainly not the power of a nuclear tipped ICBM, but its not a firecracker either.So then, the resulting war looks like this:
United States: A few hundred (at best) deaths, with some resulting panic.
Nazi Germany: Totally Annihilated.
Yeah... not seeing a credible deterrence from the Germans here.
They worked out the bugs by mid-1943 IOTL, but the production version required more high heat metals than Germany was able to spare for large scale production and the factory that was to produce it was virtually leveled by US bombers, so they opted out of producing the ready model and instead focused on fighter engines:Of course the reason the Jumo 222 was abandoned was because the engine proved to be a horrendous failure in testing. I'm not seeing the Germans managing to make a bomber with it.
Junkers still did not give up. Using the original 46.4 litre displacement A/B design, they added a new two-stage supercharger including a trio of aftercoolers, one per pair of neighboring cylinder banks for high-altitude use, producing the 222E and F-series. Although sea-level performance was unchanged, the engine was able to produce 1,439 kW (1,930 hp) at 9,000 m (29,530 ft). By this point it appeared that the problems were finally being worked out, but bombing of the Junkers Motorenwerke's headquarters factories in Dessau made production almost impossible. A final attempt for even higher altitude performance resulted in the turbocharged 222G and H, built only to the extent of a few testbed prototypes.
More like thousands dead per missile with tens of thousands sickened or more in densely settled cities. We are talking about 1 ton air bursts over densely populated urban centers on the East Coast of the US, rather than a small dirty bomb at ground level as was tested for a terrorist weapon in the link I posted. Especially if they launch a few thousand of uninterceptable missiles at cities on the East Coast, which kills even 100,000 people, it would sicken millions in the short term and cause mass panic that would badly disrupt the US economy; its certainly not the power of a nuclear tipped ICBM, but its not a firecracker either.
Not necessarily, as they had an experimental reactor, but were nowhere close to a workable bomb. Apparently they were talking about building a dirty bomb in 1944.The only way Germany can produce that much highly radioactive material is in a nuclear reactor. If they have a nuclear reactor they have plutonium, and that means that, in a year or two, they have an actual nuclear weapon.
Not necessarily, as they had an experimental reactor, but were nowhere close to a workable bomb. Apparently they were talking about building a dirty bomb in 1944.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranprojekt#Uran
If you haven't read it then how would you know his understanding of history and how it is shaped is incorrect?
Undoubtedly. That was actual OTL Nazi policy, and the Heer carried out its orders. Now the issue is that what we are talking about here is no longer the kind of Nazi Germany, and Nazi Germany at war, that we know with positive certainty from actual history.
Where the key word is "theoretically", and the theory was Hitler's, Rosenberg's, Himmler's. If the ATL implies that these players, and others entertaining the same theories, disappear, the question is whether those who remain at the helm of Germany won't question the theory, and assuming they do question it, whether they'll find that it is indeed, objectively, sound - or not.