WI: WW2 over by 1944

[hammo1j]

The War in Europe could have be ended by 1944 if the Allied Bomber forces had concentrated on Oil the Achilles heel of the Wermacht. Germany was dependent on generating gasoline through the hydrogenation of coal in a limited number of plants. Obviously modern warefare is impossible without fuel

The Americans to their credit followed the objectives, but the British continued to bomb cities when they had the accurate bombing techniques to attack the plants. When the British did attack their bigger bombs took out the plants for longer.

Speer was astonished that the Allies did not follow their strategy through to completion.

Ironically the bomber barons wanted to demonstrate they could end the war by bombing alone and with the prize before them they fluffed their lines.

 

[Simon]

If memory serves the best targets for Bomber Command right from the off would have been power stations and transmission lines, oil plants and refineries, and mining a number of the main rivers that the Germans used for barge freight traffic.

 

[frlmerrin]

Have the British give Harris the tools he needs to bomb Germany back into the stone age. With a heavy weight bomber force that can put up two 1000 bomber raids a night every night and a Mosquito force that can launch several 500 bomber raids a night the Red Army will be in Berlin by 1944.

Of course this does rather leave the British as the monsters of WWII as opposed to the Nazis, the British having caused several million if not several tens of millions of German and West European civilian deaths.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

The War in Europe could have be ended by 1944 if the Allied Bomber forces had concentrated on Oil the Achilles heel of the Wermacht. Germany was dependent on generating gasoline through the hydrogenation of coal in a limited number of plants. Obviously modern warefare is impossible without fuel.

The Allies bombed oil targets very heavily, with great effect on the German war effort, but not enough to shut down Germany's war effort.

The debate over "panacea" targets has raged since it started during the war.

On the one hand, if 100% destruction of the designated category can be achieved, that will be decisive.

On the other hand, in every category, some targets are more vulnerable than others. The easy targets go first, but the difficult ones may not go at all. The enemy may restructure and disperse the target function, making 100% destruction extremely difficult. Getting to 100% may require concentration of all bombing effort on that one category, neglecting valuable and very vulnerable targets in other categories. The enemy, not having to repair other damage, can focus their resources on protecting, repairing, and sustaining the attacked category.

There is an opposite targeting strategy: attack the most vulnerable targets and achieve the largest possible aggregate damage. This causes the most damage - but may not inflict critical damage in any category.

No one has shown that either strategy is "right".

Incidentally, there were other "panacea" targets suggested; ball bearing production was one.

Another such target (though not for bombing) was the other end of Germany's field transport: its stock of draft horses. The shortage of oil forced Germany to use vast amounts of horse-drawn transport. And unlike any industrial product, such as trucks, a draft horse cannot be produced in less than four years. Would systematic killing of German horses have paralyzed the German army in the field (other than the handful of fully motorized forces)? It was never tried.

 

[ModernKiwi]

I'll suggest that this was because of a preponderence of ex-Cavalry officers at the top levels of command...

 

[phx1138]

the best targets for Bomber Command right from the off would have been power stations and transmission lines, oil plants and refineries, and mining a number of the main rivers that the Germans used for barge freight traffic.

Unquestionably. The interruption of coal deliveries alone could have crippled electricity production, & so weapons & equipment production, without the morally indefensible waste of aircrew. Plus, it could have severely interrupted deliveries of weapons & supplies to the front & had serious knock-ons for production by interrupting parts deliveries.

This describes the situation really well IMO.

I'd guess the war could have been ended in a matter of months--at extraordinarily low casualties among aircrew.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Transportation is mentioned here. I'm all for it, beyond the river barge traffic specifically refered to. Multiple examples exist of what happened when the Allies focused their airpower on Axis transportation. The first sucessful example is over Italy/Tunisia in the spring of 1943. The object was to cut off supply to the Axis armies in Tunisia. After a warm up period with inadaquate forces and mistakes the Allied air forces became effective in the early spring. Both air and sea supply were shut off & the Axis army group Tunisia collapsed from lack of ammunition, fuel, and about everything else.

Next two examples were 'Operation Strangle' across Italy in the spring/summer of 1944 & the transportation attacks across norther France & Belgium in the same months. In Italy Kesselring choose to withdraw his forces before they shot the last bullet. Hitler did not allow that option in Normandy & by late July the German armies there had run through everything at hand six week earlier, tanks, trucks, artillery ammunition... Those items still existed inthe depots in Germany or eastern France & Belgium, but the French railroads were able to carry only a tiny percent of the needed replacement during June & July.

The fourth example comes from the late winter/spring 1945. As the Ardennes battle played out & Allied supply transportation problems were resolved the most intense transportation campaign to date was executed. Rail yards, bridges, repair shops, and individual trains were attacked as often as the light & medium bombers could be sortied. In late march the German quartermaster and production managers found it did not matter how much the factories could in theory put out. Raw materials and parts could not reach the production or assembly sites, and the finished products sat on the storage yards or loading docks waiting for trains that were no longer running.

I'm not much for panacea targets or golden strategies. What my take is a more focused Allied bombing effort aimed at the fuel & railroads from mid 1943 would have shut down German industry within the year.

 

[phx1138]

a more focused Allied bombing effort aimed at the fuel & railroads from mid 1943 would have shut down German industry within the year.

IMO, this could have been done in 1941. The long-term result would have been a shorter war, plus less damage to Germany postwar, which would be good for Europe. It would also IMO lead to an early fall of the SU, as West Germany's standard of living rises compared to DDR's.

 

[MattII]

What about aerial mining waterways, could that have slowed things down ans well?

 

[Strategos]

Congress never signs off on Lend-Lease or any assistance for the Soviets. But they do immediately sign off on expansion of the Army to 1.5 million men and landing craft for a potential AEF should America get dragged into the war. The Navy is also expanded and that includes the Marine Corps.

However, they do not sign off on immediately aiding France, preferring to let France stabilize the lines should they happen.

Then of course France falls shockingly, scaring Congress into holding on. Battle of Britain however convinces them that Germany is not invincible but Congress is still wary.


So at this time, the Army is at 1.5 million and FDR ask for Lend-Lease to Britain and the Spviets. It is only approved for Britain and slightly limited.


War edns up declared in August, 1941. America begins massively expanding and with the British, secure North Africa by June 1942. Normandy occurs in March 1943 with greater than OTL numbers but with the Luftwaffe not fully annhilated. Germany begisn to split its forces.

1944-February-Soviet Union was releived by the German eithdrawal to halt the WAllied advance but it wasnt enough. The entirety of Germany is in American hands and the Germans surrender with the Soviet Union still east of Poland.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

Goebbels is also killed during Valkyrie after committing suicide.

Very thorough, those guys..!

 

[phx1138]

What about aerial mining waterways, could that have slowed things down ans well?

I certainly think so. Some believe Bomber Command was incompetent to hit rivers. IMO, this would cripple movement of coal, which would severely impact power production. It would also severely impact delivery of spares & parts to factories & equipment & supplies to the front. Coal diverted from river to railway would have similar impacts. Lack of electricity would also mean production of all manner of goodies slows or stops, as parts don't arrive.

In short, you cripple German weapons production without burning cities or killing civilians, & without enormous & needless waste of aircrews. Also, you leave Germany stronger postwar.

 

[MattII]

So the big birds aerial-mine the rivers, and the smaller ones like the mossies blow up the train-tracks, bridges and power stations? Could you shut down the mines themselves with Tall-Boys?

 

[Devolved]

Bombing didn't have a significant effect until the end of 1943 and then RAF Bomber Command tried to destroy Berlin in early 1944. After that all heavy Bombers were diverted to supporting Overlord.

The Bombers were trying to end the war early but they couldn't do it. Changing targets might have shortened the war but the Allied armies would still have to fight a land battle all the way.

To end the war a year early - at least in Europe, you need to fight the main body of the German army earlier. The earlier the W Allies fight the German army in France the heavier the casualties at least initially.

Winning in North Africa by Christmas 1942 would strengthen the American strategy of landing in France in 1943.

Landing in France in May/June 1943 would be a bitter battle.

They wouldn't be facing as many Tiger tanks or Panthers and the jets and V weapons causing pain would be almost a year away.

I think the Allies would establish themselves and control Western France to the Seine by the end of 1943 but casualties would be heavy. OTOH with the Soviets winning after Kursk the Wehrmacht is facing a real problem. Bomber Command and the USAAF are facing less fighter opposition and can do more damage in early 1944. So the economic miracle under Speer achieves much less.

By Spring 1944 the Soviets are close to the Polsh border and the W Allies have experience on how to fight Germans. US reinforcements are arriving and a French army is being rebuilt. A Spring 1944 offensive breaks through the German lines and they fall back to the German border by June 1944. The Soviets launch an ATL Bagration and this takes them to the Oder.

I don't think you can get a year earlier but you could get an ending by September '44. Ending the war early means heavier casualties in the short term but probably saves millions of lives that OTL suffered genocide, starvation and bombing in the final 7-8 months of WW2.

 

[phx1138]

So the big birds aerial-mine the rivers, and the smaller ones like the mossies blow up the train-tracks, bridges and power stations? Could you shut down the mines themselves with Tall-Boys?

You can ignore the bridges, mines, & power stations. In fact, IMO, it's better if coal gets mined: you waste labor & energy doing it...

See, all you have to do is keep the coal from being delivered. As you stop (or even slow) canal/river deliveries, it gets shifted to rail--& that means other things, previously sent by rail, aren't... The knock-ons are immediate & serious.

Even better, you can do this with Hampdens, & in weather when bombing cities is impossible. Plus, the casualty rate is likely to be much lower than for city-bombing, which is good for the Navy & Army (more hi-skill men go there, instead of replacing casualties).

You do need to do a campaign against railyards, but mostly for political reasons: Britain has to be seen to be striking back, or Winston's government will fall. (Never mind the Sovs; he could tell them to go screw, & ask if they're seeing the effects.)

Bombing didn't have a significant effect until the end of 1943 and then RAF Bomber Command tried to destroy Berlin in early 1944. After that all heavy Bombers were diverted to supporting Overlord.

The Bombers were trying to end the war early but they couldn't do it. Changing targets might have shortened the war but the Allied armies would still have to fight a land battle all the way.

To end the war a year early - at least in Europe, you need to fight the main body of the German army earlier. The earlier the W Allies fight the German army in France the heavier the casualties at least initially.

Winning in North Africa by Christmas 1942 would strengthen the American strategy of landing in France in 1943.

Landing in France in May/June 1943 would be a bitter battle.

They wouldn't be facing as many Tiger tanks or Panthers and the jets and V weapons causing pain would be almost a year away.

I think the Allies would establish themselves and control Western France to the Seine by the end of 1943 but casualties would be heavy. OTOH with the Soviets winning after Kursk the Wehrmacht is facing a real problem. Bomber Command and the USAAF are facing less fighter opposition and can do more damage in early 1944. So the economic miracle under Speer achieves much less.

By Spring 1944 the Soviets are close to the Polsh border and the W Allies have experience on how to fight Germans. US reinforcements are arriving and a French army is being rebuilt. A Spring 1944 offensive breaks through the German lines and they fall back to the German border by June 1944. The Soviets launch an ATL Bagration and this takes them to the Oder.

I don't think you can get a year earlier but you could get an ending by September '44. Ending the war early means heavier casualties in the short term but probably saves millions of lives that OTL suffered genocide, starvation and bombing in the final 7-8 months of WW2.

If you've changed nothing in the German production picture, I'd agree with you. With the mining campaign (I'd also add intensive attacks on railyards & canals), you've so shattered production & deliveries, the OTL state of affairs would look ASB.

 

[M79]

What about in the East - Stalin does not stop for Warsaw but instead overruns the city and heads straight for Berlin?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Congress never signs off on Lend-Lease or any assistance for the Soviets. But they do immediately sign off on expansion of the Army to 1.5 million men and landing craft for a potential AEF should America get dragged into the war. The Navy is also expanded and that includes the Marine Corps.

You are slightly off on event dates here. Congress passed the 'War Powers Act' shortly after France colapsed in June 1940. That legislation authorized the complete call up of all Army and Navy Reservists, Activation of the National Guard into Federal service, taking in enough volunteers & draftees to bring the US Army to 1.4+ million men within a year (by June 1941), and purchasing equipment for a army & navy of over two million men. that was the inital mobilization. The Army and Navy Chiefs of Staff were directed to prepare mobilization plans for expanding the US military to over four million men by the end of 1942.

(If you mean the US starts mobilization in 1939 then your remarks make more sense.)

This was all authorized in the summer of 1940. The Lend Lease program was not started until a bit later in the autum of 1940, after the British government made it clear they would be bankrupt by 1942 were cash payments for material to continue. From 1938 to late 1940 Britain & France paid cash, or used gold deposited in North American banks as credit security for purchases from the US. The French were fairly well set for 'cash' with fair sized gold reserve and a adaquate flow of valuable commodities from their colonies. That had allowed them to contract enormous orders in the US. When France fell there had been firm orders for nearly 5000 aircraft placed with US factories (600 already built), and projected orders for another 10,000 in 1941-42. Britain was making similar aircraft orders with US industry. Both the French & British were contracting catch up maintiance & up grades in US ship yards, and there were enormous raw material orders from the US. All that was without Lend Lease.

However, they do not sign off on immediately aiding France, preferring to let France stabilize the lines should they happen.

Then of course France falls shockingly, scaring Congress into holding on. Battle of Britain however convinces them that Germany is not invincible but Congress is still wary.

So at this time, the Army is at 1.5 million and FDR ask for Lend-Lease to Britain and the Spviets. It is only approved for Britain and slightly limited.

This makes sense in the historical context. The early mobilization plans for the US Army provided for a realtively small overseas expeditionary force. The prewar cadre of active & reserve service NCOs and officers only allowed for a 1.5 million man force. To expand the Army to 4 - 6 millions required at least 700,000 to 800,000 men remain in the US as a training establishment for the three million plus raw recruits that would need to be trained.

Historically the US had approx 20 divisions & about 8 corps HQ with support units ready for expeditionary service by the middle of 1942. There were about fifteen other divisions at full strength in mid 1942, but they had to stay in the US to support the creation of the next batch of 40 divisions scheduled to be ready in mid 1943.

The main obstacle to US mobilization was the lack of a detailed industrial plan. The US Army Chief of Staff in 1919, Peyton Marsh had proposed such a plan be drawn up, but Congress never budgeted the funds for the staff this would require, despite appeals from the next CoS Pershing, Sommervell, MacArthur, Craig, and Marshall. When Roosevelt directed his Chiefs of Staff to present such a plan in 1940 they had little more than a few hundred pages of general requirements and estimates. It took over two years to organize and execute a practical industrial program for arming the US and its Allies. Had US industry not received a initial capitol investment from Britain and France in 1938, 39, & 40 from their arms & raw material orders, the US industrial mobilization could easily have dragged out 6-9 months longer.

There are a variety of books on the subject of US industrial mobilzation. A recent one I'd recommend is 'Freedoms Forge'. It focuses on the role of business leaders like Henry Kaiser, Knudsen, or Edsel Ford in converting and build factories.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

What about in the East - Stalin does not stop for Warsaw but instead overruns the city and heads straight for Berlin?

Probablly could not have gone much further than Warsaw. After each major offensive the Red Army had to stop while the railroads were rebuilt and supplies for the next offensive brought forward. They were no different than the US of Britain in that automobile transport of supplies was impractical for sustaining large scale offensive action. Since the Red Army had few opportunities for ship or barge transport they had to reconstruct the railroads to the capacity needed.

 

[mello man 59]

FDR does not run for a fourth term

With the war over and the United States celebrating VE Day on June 6, 1944, President Roosevelt, although at 62 years of age, is in poor health ... and decides to step down next March 4th, 1945, which is Inauguration Day.
Who will the Democrats pick to run against the republican nominee, Thomas Dewey of New York? Will it be Vice President Henry Wallace, Senator Harry Truman, or someone else? I am sure Roosevelt will want to have a say in who will succeed him.
Also, with the war over in 1944, and the pressures being relieved by the end of the war, does Roosevelt now continue to live, let us say, until 1946 or beyond?
Also, With the war over in 1944, CAN WE SAY that Japan was never the victim of an atomic bomb? If so, all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared!

Any thoughts?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I don't think Truman is in a position to run for the presidential nomination in 1944.