Would the atomic bomb be a magic bullet against Germany if they defeated the USSR?

[MUC]

It would be an interesting fight. Think of the carrier battle groups becoming available after Japan surrenders in 1945

IMHO you'll see the war in the Pacific go on as OTL mostly, but Japan gets blockaded and bombed no OLYMPIC. You'll see a stepped up bombing campaign, you may see B-29s from Iran bombing the Baku oil fields if the Germans take them and seem to be getting them back in place - no matter what the Allies will clear out North Africa, and probably take Sicily and probably Corsica and Sardinia. Come 1945, maybe once 3-4 bombs are ready, mushrooms begin to spout...the B-36 may come in in early 1946. Using radar and atomic bombs, you don't really need to go in daylight, and that makes life worse for the Germans. even if the Germans put lots of money and effort in to an atomic program, it will take at least five years to do it and they have an issue with getting uranium in quantity.

There are certainly some issues when it comes to the Pacific War.
USSR collapsing may open up a corridor for the Japanese to trade with the Germans, depending on how exactly the USSR collapses and how far the Germans reach into the Caucasus.
A collapsed USSR means no DoW on the Japanese in the summer of 1945 and no invasion of Manchuria. It also means no Soviet support for the Chinese.
This may prolong the Pacific for quite a bit...

 

[Johnrankins]

riiiight...of course the US will allow private companies to extend credit to the Nazis, accepting stolen assets in payment. Yup.

And, of course, the RN will just allow the goods to pay for them to get past them "Just because". After all the Kreigsmarine was well known for its overwhelming power!

 

[marathag]

Being at war for years without any appreciable progress whatsoever will not please the American people, they will see no reason to fight this war.

The USA Burned most of urban centers of Japan to cinders before Enola Gay took off, because a couple thousand guys died at Pearl Harbor and then how the IJA behaved in the Philippines

Americans were not much happier about U-Boats sinking US ships before the war, and USSR out in '41 or '42 won't save North Africa, or Sicily, Corsica or Sardinia.

USA is in the fight, thats to Germany and Japan being part of the Axis(and no small amount of people thought the Germans helped at Pearl Harbor) and that fight will go on to the finish.

 

[sloreck]

Even assuming the Japanese and Germans can use the trans-Siberian RR for trade, exactly what will they send. Other than small quantities of of things like rubber or some metals going west, and blueprints and some machine tools going east, this really won't make much difference. If you have overflights, then personnel transfers of certain experts can occur, but again limited numbers. Anything bulk needs to go by sea, and that's not happening. Even if the Germans take Baku, get the oil areas producing (which the Allies will be bombing) there is simply not the tanker car capacity to send much to Japan - oh and don't forget the Germans will be redoing the rails to standard gauge so you'll need to switch wheelsets when they heat the rump USSR - another bottleneck. In any case the Germans will need every drop they get from Baku (all 10-2o liters of it).

 

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

If the allies are so insanely hellbent on destroying NG as you guys make it seem, they arent going to pursue a conventional war. They are either going to either:

1) Make an A-Bomb detonation and then give an ultimatum to Germany and/or advocating for an anti-Nazi coup. The terms offered to Germany will NOT be an unconditional surrender simply because Germany is never going to accept.

2) Stop attacking Germany beyond the absolutely necessary and stockpile enough A-bombs to destroy Germany in a single attack. And by destroy I mean "what Germany?" type of destroy.

3) Accept or propose any peace offer, build up, then betray Germany and poof away the nation itself in a series of mushroom clouds.

I don't think they would actually do this, but if the USA is so bent on bringing Germany to surrender in this scenario, this is what makes sense. Actually fighting through Europe and putting a body count in the millions? No, they are not going to do it.

 

[Mr Director]

If the allies are so insanely hellbent on destroying NG as you guys make it seem, they arent going to pursue a conventional war. They are either going to either:

1) Make an A-Bomb detonation and then give an ultimatum to Germany and/or advocating for an anti-Nazi coup. The terms offered to Germany will NOT be an unconditional surrender simply because Germany is never going to accept.

2) Stop attacking Germany beyond the absolutely necessary and stockpile enough A-bombs to destroy Germany in a single attack. And by destroy I mean "what Germany?" type of destroy.

3) Accept or propose any peace offer, build up, then betray Germany and poof away the nation itself in a series of mushroom clouds.

I don't think they would actually do this, but if the USA is so bent on bringing Germany to surrender in this scenario, this is what makes sense. Actually fighting through Europe and putting a body count in the millions? No, they are not going to do it.

Eh? The US was hellbent on taking down Japan too, but, afaik, they were still prepared to fight through it in addition to nuking if the two nukes weren't enough to knock them out.

 

[King Augeas]

Eh I'd say best case scenario is more like:

1943: North Africa cleared, Sicily invaded, Luftwaffe gets 365 days breathing space and slight boost compared to OTL. Japan driven back while the U-Boats get the lions share of the burden. Japan driven across the Pacific.

1944: Air War over Europe intensifies, Japan slowly driven to the Home Islands. Overlord is cancelled, no doubt. Too many Axis troops can be sent West as a counter (even slightly more than OTL is a problem which needs to be attired) and all the excess capacity goes to defeating Japan.

1945: The Atlantic is a victory as even with new U-Boats the WAllies have an overwhelming advantage. Jet fighters are ramping into production so you have the first jet battles over Europe. The Home Islands are blockaded*

I don't get it.

Why does the Luftwaffe get a breathing space in 1943? It suffered crippling losses in the Med that year, and will do so again.
Why aren't the U-boats defeated in May 1943 as OTL? Nothing has changed for them.

We'll see some changes in early 1944, but given the ease with which the Luftwaffe was defeated in spring 1944 OTL, and considering that units diverted from the East in 1943 would have been heavily attrited in the Med, its additional lifespan as an effective air defence force is probably measured in a matter of weeks.

 

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

Eh? The US was hellbent on taking down Japan too, but, afaik, they were still prepared to fight through it in addition to nuking if the two nukes weren't enough to knock them out.

Because the blood price that would be needed to pay to defeat a broken Japan by fighting through it (something that there is skepticism in the first place if it was at all something the USA would had gone along with rather than a blockade) and the blood price needed to defeat a Germany with an invincibility aura not seen since Napoleon by fighting through it are not remotely comparable.

To me its just come downs to a simple question:

Can the USA defeat Germany without casualties numbered in the millions and also without causing uproar from European nations that are being the affected by nukes? And if it can, will it do so?

Depending on the answer to these questions, will depend on if the USA will pursue the war to the finish or be willing to make peace, now which kind of peace, is up to discussion.

 

[Mr Director]

Can the USA defeat Germany without casualties numbered in the millions and also without causing uproar from European nations that are being the affected by nukes? And if it can, will it do so?

Probably, yeah? I mean, I dunno what sort of resistance you expect the Nazis to put up once their entire logistics base and command is pulled out from under them. The Allies can almost certainly shut down their ability to supply their armies, even without dropping nukes on occupied nations.

 

[fockewulf]

96,000 in 1945? It seems you might be going by the misprint on Wikipedia. A little bit of deeper digging indicates the 85k in 1943 and the 96k in 1944.

Yes my bad, I must admit i was lazy and just went with the wiki numbers without further checking.

The circumstances of Schweinfurt were but one mission by one numbered Air Force. The Luftwaffe came out to fight, but the strategic air war had for all intents and purposes been won by mid 1944. By the end of 1943, the USAAF held the advantage or had the measure of the Luftwaffe, which had lost air superiority over Western Europe compared to the end of 1942.

Sure, that was the case in OTL, first with inadequate training programs, and the when the training improved, they didn't have the fuel to implement it. In ATL that shouldn't be a problem any longer without the drain caused by the estern front. I said shuldn't because with Nazis you never know what bad ideeas they might have. With that in mind, missions like Schweinfurt could happen more often. They don't even have to keep air superiority all over the place, just locally to inflict as many loses as possible. They have the strategic depth to regroup, reform and strike again. From 1944 untill the end, the number of fighter planes was never a problem, they had thousands, the real problem was that were parked in the open, lacking in fuel and pilots.

It isn't clear where you are conjuring 1000+ German bomber raids in 1942 and early 1943, given that only small numbers of the He 177s and Do 217s you previously referred to in regard to that time were available.
That leaves He 111s and Ju 88s. Again, you haven't demonstrated how the Luftwaffe will achieve significantly better results than Operation Steinbock with inferior aircraft. Peak Luftwaffe strength of twin engine bombers in 1943 is around 1660 aircraft, not all of which are going to be available on the Western Front.

OTL, the Luftwaffe order of battle for 24 september 1942, gives about 860 Ju-88, 398 He-111, 120 Do 217, that is 1378, and I didn't count those from the Mediterranean theatre. Don't know how many of these are operational, but a couple of weeks i belive is enough time for repairs, rest and refit. In ATL, the war in the east must be over by that time, so the numbers might be higher, having sustained fewer losses against a desintegrating red army. Considering that for Operation Milennium in may 1942, Artur Harris used bombers and men from wherever he could find them, the Luftwaffe could do the same.
Operation Steinbock had far to fewer planes and a serious lack in training and organisation. Many pilots didn't even find London. And they were against a numerous and modern defense.

Building synthetic oil plants in Poland and points east would eventually be countered by B-29s, which most likely would be employed in the ETO against a more poweful German foe.

By that time, the germans too should have new interceptors like the Do-335 and jets with 30 mm guns, R4M missiles, revolver canons, first generation SAM, who knows. It is logical to asume that if the air war is the only real fight, they will invest a lot more resources in improving the air defense.

 

[fockewulf]

I don't get it.

Why does the Luftwaffe get a breathing space in 1943? It suffered crippling losses in the Med that year, and will do so again.
Why aren't the U-boats defeated in May 1943 as OTL? Nothing has changed for them.

We'll see some changes in early 1944, but given the ease with which the Luftwaffe was defeated in spring 1944 OTL, and considering that units diverted from the East in 1943 would have been heavily attrited in the Med, its additional lifespan as an effective air defence force is probably measured in a matter of weeks.

That happened in OTL because they didn't have the fuel for a coherent training program. Without the eastern front that won't be the case anymore, at least with the fuel, the training who knows, might remain bad. And 1943 Med is a lot different now, considering Spain, Turkey and Vichy will be in the Axis one way or another and with Gibraltar and Malta lost

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Eh I'd say best case scenario is more like:

1943: North Africa cleared, Sicily invaded, Luftwaffe gets 365 days breathing space and slight boost compared to OTL. Japan driven back while the U-Boats get the lions share of the burden. Japan driven across the Pacific.

1944: Air War over Europe intensifies, Japan slowly driven to the Home Islands. Overlord is cancelled, no doubt. Too many Axis troops can be sent West as a counter (even slightly more than OTL is a problem which needs to be attired) and all the excess capacity goes to defeating Japan.

1945: The Atlantic is a victory as even with new U-Boats the WAllies have an overwhelming advantage. Jet fighters are ramping into production so you have the first jet battles over Europe. The Home Islands are blockaded*

1946: Both sides are attired, but the Nazis are slowly being ground down, even though WAllied air casualties are much higher TTL. Nazi air defences are marginally improved, but the skies over Inner Germany remain contested while France and the Low Countries are won for the WAllies. Preparations to invade Europe begin.

1947: Overlord/Whatever as the WAllies invade. Brutal ground fighting, but the WAllies approach the Rhine by winter. Nazi counter attack is broken up, and risings begin across the East as the Nazis are forced to ship troops West.

1948: WAllies reach the Rhine. In an atomic bombing campaign they crush Arnhem, Hamburg and Nuremburg. The Nazis throw everything they have into the air, but soon the WAllies are cracking German troop concentrations with nukes. Blitz across Germany, Berlin is encircled and crushed. Victory in Europe by winter 1948.

*Japan might be more drawn out if you invade the Home Islands. No Soviet Declaration of War is a factor, and that might force the WAllies to invade Kyushu with all the nightmare that entails. If Japanese forces in Korea/Manchuria fight on it sucks away more resources that could slow down things in Europe.

I just don't think that you could end the War in Europe before 1947 without the Soviets they ground the Nazis down so much. Doing the same thing with air power would take longer, and dropping the bomb before the invasion of Germany proper wouldn't be a knockout blow without an army on the Rhine.

Your scenario has a few problems.

The basic outline of 1943 seems reasonable, apart from the Luftwaffe getting a breather. The aircraft from the East, which did not amount to anything close to a decisive number, will be divided between Defence of the Reich, Italy and the Med, an early Steinbock and a good sized Luftflotte in the Caucasus; additionally, there is Norway and European Russia to garrison.

The Allies don't seem to be reacting or doing anything different despite the elimination of the Soviets. This doesn't make too much sense. Plans would be altered and the scope of mobilisation increased in the USA, giving more forces for 44 and 45.

1944 comes around and the Allies haven't done anything new in a year to respond to the radically different circumstances of the war. The air battle only intensifies - you will need to present an argument and evidence as to how and why the Luftwaffe delays its effective defeat.

Sending additional materiel to the Pacific doesn't make sense with an increased threat in Europe. If anything, the air and land forces committed to the ETO would be increased, particularly the former.

The level of damage done by a full year of strategic bombing on Germany would be considerable; this is in place of invasion prep over France. The Luftwaffe would be smashed, its oil supplies smashed and transport heavily damaged.

In 1945, the one logical thing is the blockade of the Japanese Home Islands. The Type XXIs will be too little, too late to interfere with Bolero and the U Boat threat had been broken by mid 43. Atlantic victory comes much earlier and isn't dramatically affected by the PoD.

Allies jets don't yet have the range to go over Germany and Me 262 production will be hampered by the CBO. With Bomber Command having up to 1500 Lancasters, 400 Hastings and 300 Mosquitoes available and the USAAF deploying upwards of 4000 heavies (3300 available to the 8th and 15th in May '45; this would no doubt rise if bombing was the primary means of striking Germany as different to @, not to mention the B-29 force), there is a lot of conventional bombs raining down on Germany.

Meanwhile, nothing changes the schedule of the Manhattan Project, which will be turning out bombs by the second half of 1945.

Nazi air defences are more than marginally improved if they manage another 36 months of contesting air superiority over Europe - they are miraculously transformed!

It will take more than ~700 extra fighters in 1943 to radically change the course of the air campaign in Europe and it will need a bally big change to shift the breaking of the Luftwaffe fighter force from early 1944 to 1947.

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/WW2_US_Cancellations.htm

Aircraft cancelled after VJ Day is the relevant section. 3217 P-38s, 5934 P-47s, 5773 P-51s, 2583 P-80s (+1000), 5241 A-26s, 5168 B-24s, 1889 B-32s and 3526+ B-29s comprises just a tad of air power.

There aren't comparable resources on Britain that I have come across, but extrapolations can be made from available data on monthly aircraft deliveries in 1944.

The bombers won't win the war on their own, but the CBO will destroy the Luftwaffe and allow the heavies to be turned loose on the German Army along with substantial tactical airpower. Once the Allies are ashore in Northern France and have a secure lodgement, victory on the ground will follow in 12-18 months.

The atom bomb won't be a magic bullet, but it is a weapon the Germans cannot counter or match. It makes truly effective strategic bombing possible and they would be coming at a great rate, or in one overwhelming blow.

 

[Johnrankins]

Yes my bad, I must admit i was lazy and just went with the wiki numbers without further checking.


Sure, that was the case in OTL, first with inadequate training programs, and the when the training improved, they didn't have the fuel to implement it. In ATL that shouldn't be a problem any longer without the drain caused by the estern front. I said shuldn't because with Nazis you never know what bad ideeas they might have. With that in mind, missions like Schweinfurt could happen more often. They don't even have to keep air superiority all over the place, just locally to inflict as many loses as possible. They have the strategic depth to regroup, reform and strike again. From 1944 untill the end, the number of fighter planes was never a problem, they had thousands, the real problem was that were parked in the open, lacking in fuel and pilots.


OTL, the Luftwaffe order of battle for 24 september 1942, gives about 860 Ju-88, 398 He-111, 120 Do 217, that is 1378, and I didn't count those from the Mediterranean theatre. Don't know how many of these are operational, but a couple of weeks i belive is enough time for repairs, rest and refit. In ATL, the war in the east must be over by that time, so the numbers might be higher, having sustained fewer losses against a desintegrating red army. Considering that for Operation Milennium in may 1942, Artur Harris used bombers and men from wherever he could find them, the Luftwaffe could do the same.
Operation Steinbock had far to fewer planes and a serious lack in training and organisation. Many pilots didn't even find London. And they were against a numerous and modern defense.

By that time, the germans too should have new interceptors like the Do-335 and jets with 30 mm guns, M4M missiles, revolver canons, first generation SAM, who knows. It is logical to asume that if the air war is the only real fight, they will invest a lot more resources in improving the air defense.

They had thousands, while the US was producing them by the tens of thousands and would probably hit well over 100K a year in TTL by 1943 as less tanks and more planes would be built. Germany will outbuild the US basically never.

The US and UK will certainly grind the Luftwaffe into pulp by late 1944 at the latest, it simply can't put up enough planes. Thousands more up in the air mainly means thousands more will be shot down. That applies to the Wallies, of course, but they can replace the losses while NG can't.

So you have 1 maybe 2 thousand bomber air raids before the numbers are too low to pull it off again. That is assuming the they even try. They would be putting all their eggs in one basket , risking the vast majority if not the entirety of their bomber force in one air raid.

The Wallies were working on jets too. It was never a priority because it was felt (correctly) by the time they were ready in significant numbers the war would be over. Not true in TTL. The Wallies have more money and tend to spend it better. The Wallies put their money in producing reliable equipment while Nazi Germany put its money in flashy, unreliable weaponry that cost too much for the job. If Nazi Germany is able to put more money into jets the Wallies will be able to do so also and they have more money to do so.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes my bad, I must admit i was lazy and just went with the wiki numbers without further checking.


Sure, that was the case in OTL, first with inadequate training programs, and the when the training improved, they didn't have the fuel to implement it. In ATL that shouldn't be a problem any longer without the drain caused by the estern front. I said shuldn't because with Nazis you never know what bad ideeas they might have. With that in mind, missions like Schweinfurt could happen more often. They don't even have to keep air superiority all over the place, just locally to inflict as many loses as possible. They have the strategic depth to regroup, reform and strike again. From 1944 untill the end, the number of fighter planes was never a problem, they had thousands, the real problem was that were parked in the open, lacking in fuel and pilots.


OTL, the Luftwaffe order of battle for 24 september 1942, gives about 860 Ju-88, 398 He-111, 120 Do 217, that is 1378, and I didn't count those from the Mediterranean theatre. Don't know how many of these are operational, but a couple of weeks i belive is enough time for repairs, rest and refit. In ATL, the war in the east must be over by that time, so the numbers might be higher, having sustained fewer losses against a desintegrating red army. Considering that for Operation Milennium in may 1942, Artur Harris used bombers and men from wherever he could find them, the Luftwaffe could do the same.

Operation Steinbock had far to fewer planes and a serious lack in training and organisation. Many pilots didn't even find London. And they were against a numerous and modern defense.

By that time, the germans too should have new interceptors like the Do-335 and jets with 30 mm guns, M4M missiles, revolver canons, first generation SAM, who knows. It is logical to asume that if the air war is the only real fight, they will invest a lot more resources in improving the air defense.

1.) That is fine, but there are a lot of numbers available out there which do militate against your case. It might be worthwhile considering them.

2.) Extra training isn't a gamechanger. The USAAF has more fighters and more pilots in the tube. Germany cannot win an aerial battle of attrition with the United States alone. Sheer conjecture and 'could haves' aren't a substitute for hard evidence regarding the trends of the air war. Schweinfurt was not a picture of Things To Come, but an anomaly that was soon set aside. The USAAF adapted tactically and strategically, had increasingly improved planes in significantly greater numbers and a number of other advantages, such as intelligence.

3.) September 1942 is before any realistic PoD, so can be set aside as a useful figure. It is before the victory would have occurred in the East. It is more relevant to examine early 1943 figures. Even if we take those 1378 bombers, all of which are twin engine mediums, and assume the typical Luftwaffe operational figure of 75%, that only gives 1033 aircraft. That isn't a basis for a decisive aerial campaign; more German bombers operating against much weaker British defences in 1940 did not inflict decisive damage.

4.) You are correct on Steinbock. Doing the same thing with even twice the number of planes a year earlier in technological terms isn't going to radically change the result.

5.) The B-29s will be good to begin by June 1944. That is before Wasserfall, before the Do-335 and before the R4M. They are in addition to, not replacing the 3000+ B-17s and B-24s. None of the wunderwaffe are going to have any discernable impact on the thousands of heavy bombers hitting Germany by day and night. They will win some meaningless tactical engagements and increase the rate of attrition, but the Materialschlacht is not one they can win.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

That happened in OTL because they didn't have the fuel for a coherent training program. Without the eastern front that won't be the case anymore, at least with the fuel, the training who knows, might remain bad. And 1943 Med is a lot different now, considering Spain, Turkey and Vichy will be in the Axis one way or another and with Gibraltar and Malta lost

The Luftwaffe was defeated not by lack of fuel or pilots, although those play a role, but because the USAAF was a larger and better opponent that shot them out of the skies over Western Europe and Germany in great numbers, whilst aircraft production and a host of related industries were steadily plastered day and night, night and day.

As for the second part: What the Jim Christ?

How and why are we assuming that Spain jumps into the Axis with the Allies in North Africa? Why would Vichy France bother and how would it change the Mediterranean? Why would Turkey abandon its sensible policy of avoiding commitment to either side until the end was definitively in sight and how would it affect the balance of power in the Western and Central Med?

How is Malta going to fall with thousands of Allied planes in North Africa and large fleets available? How are the Germans going to get a siege train through Spain without the Allies knowing?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I don't get it.

Why does the Luftwaffe get a breathing space in 1943? It suffered crippling losses in the Med that year, and will do so again.
Why aren't the U-boats defeated in May 1943 as OTL? Nothing has changed for them.

We'll see some changes in early 1944, but given the ease with which the Luftwaffe was defeated in spring 1944 OTL, and considering that units diverted from the East in 1943 would have been heavily attrited in the Med, its additional lifespan as an effective air defence force is probably measured in a matter of weeks.

IIRC the WAllied air doctrine was only corrected to make up for its faults in late 43 early 44 which is what led to the massive casualties of 44. My thinking was based on the Luftwaffe suddenly having a larger fighter force (not to mention not suffering the attrition of the Eastern front) while also getting their historically doubled production and dispersion that Speer carried out in 44 which allowed them to fight on, but this time without losing territory, resources and equipment in the East.

Without thinking up a more specific Pacific front (do they WAllies have to invade Japan, leaving fewer resources for Europe, does this also entail an invasion of Manchuria to end the Kwantung Army, any expeditions to Vladivostok, ect) I don't know what the loss of Allied resources would be for operations in Europe. Any big operations in the Pacific would take away resources from Europe for at least 44-45 leaving any invasion of the Continent to 46. With German assets dispersed I'd think the clobbering by bombing and invasion OTL would be far less perilous for them.

 

[Mr Director]

How and why are we assuming that Spain jumps into the Axis with the Allies in North Africa?

Tbh, it would arguably be helpful to the Allies if the Spanish did join the Axis. Spain was in no condition to contribute much to the Nazis offensively, but suddenly, the Axis has gained a nice stretch of poorly defended coastline just across the channel, with an impoverished ally to prop up.

 

[Johnrankins]

IIRC the WAllied air doctrine was only corrected to make up for its faults in late 43 early 44 which is what led to the massive casualties of 44. My thinking was based on the Luftwaffe suddenly having a larger fighter force (not to mention not suffering the attrition of the Eastern front) while also getting their historically doubled production and dispersion that Speer carried out in 44 which allowed them to fight on, but this time without losing territory, resources and equipment in the East.

Without thinking up a more specific Pacific front (do they WAllies have to invade Japan, leaving fewer resources for Europe, does this also entail an invasion of Manchuria to end the Kwantung Army, any expeditions to Vladivostok, ect) I don't know what the loss of Allied resources would be for operations in Europe. Any big operations in the Pacific would take away resources from Europe for at least 44-45 leaving any invasion of the Continent to 46. With German assets dispersed I'd think the clobbering by bombing and invasion OTL would be far less perilous for them.

Not larger enough, even if they have more planes the Wallies have more than enough to beat them. I don't see the Wallies giving Nazi Germany any breathing room, they would simply continue the war of attrition.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Sigh: The V-1, limited payload and can be intercepted and was. The V-2, small payload and putting a chemical weapon there (or a bio one) is technically quite difficult and something that will take a lot of effort to solve - dropping nerve gas on an open field in the country is annoying but no moree and given the guidance system in a V-2 and what happens with liquid in a warhead...and you need to burst it at a precise altitude and btw the heat of the bursting charge, make sure that doesn't ruin your nerve gas...

Trying to solve all these problems while fighting a war with the Allies, and after nukes erupt in 1945 and Germany is getting bombed conventionally before then is simply too much. If Germany has 4-5 years of peace, then Baku is producing and the rails in the east are humming. Actual aircraft get designed and built, and so forth. THAT is why the Allies cannot stop the war, giving Germany time to do all this, integrate captured resources etc makes them a much more dangerous foe in the future. Under the best circumstances you get some sort of replay of OTLs Cold War where you have a nuclear standoff, and the west waits for the regime to collapse on its own. It is nice to imagine that would happen, and the odds are it probably would but that is by no means assured.

Bottom line is that, yes the Germans are better off to face the Allies if the USSR goes under in 41/42. Not going to mean the Allies quit or Germany "wins".

A lot of V2's actually broke up in flight and didn't hit their targets. Besides the points raised are absolutely correct.

 

[Crowbar Six]

1.) That is fine, but there are a lot of numbers available out there which do militate against your case. It might be worthwhile considering them.

2.) Extra training isn't a gamechanger. The USAAF has more fighters and more pilots in the tube. Germany cannot win an aerial battle of attrition with the United States alone. Sheer conjecture and 'could haves' aren't a substitute for hard evidence regarding the trends of the air war. Schweinfurt was not a picture of Things To Come, but an anomaly that was soon set aside. The USAAF adapted tactically and strategically, had increasingly improved planes in significantly greater numbers and a number of other advantages, such as intelligence.

3.) September 1942 is before any realistic PoD, so can be set aside as a useful figure. It is before the victory would have occurred in the East. It is more relevant to examine early 1943 figures. Even if we take those 1378 bombers, all of which are twin engine mediums, and assume the typical Luftwaffe operational figure of 75%, that only gives 1033 aircraft. That isn't a basis for a decisive aerial campaign; more German bombers operating against much weaker British defences in 1940 did not inflict decisive damage.

4.) You are correct on Steinbock. Doing the same thing with even twice the number of planes a year earlier in technological terms isn't going to radically change the result.

5.) The B-29s will be good to begin by June 1944. That is before Wasserfall, before the Do-335 and before the R4M. They are in addition to, not replacing the 3000+ B-17s and B-24s. None of the wunderwaffe are going to have any discernable impact on the thousands of heavy bombers hitting Germany by day and night. They will win some meaningless tactical engagements and increase the rate of attrition, but the Materialschlacht is not one they can win.

On point 3, the UK's air defences had improved considerably by 1942, there were some 90 squadrons in the UK and Iceland made up of 50 spitfire squadrons, 11 Hurricane, 7 Mustang, 4 Typhoon, 6 Kittyhawk/tomahawk and 2 Whirlwind squadrons, AA Command was also expanded with larger numbers of heavy AAA than in 1940 a lot of them radar controlled. If the Luftwaffe wants to drop it's collective dick into that particular hornets nest then good luck to them.

With a resurgent Germany then the US is likely to continue with a largely naval strategy in the Pacific using assets which would be mostly wasted in the North Atlantic. Carriers can't realistically operate in the North Sea to attack targets in Germany or the low countries for example due to the constrained waters, high risk of detection, mines, torpedo's and U Boats. If you need naval fighters or attack aircraft then it would make more sense to use them from land bases and avoid making the carriers targets, nor would the US Navies submarine force have a mission in European waters, there was not much for them to sink. However in the Pacific Carriers would be able to range far and wide attacking Japanese targets and submarines would have the opportunity to go after Japanese shipping with a much greater operational or strategic impact than they could ever achieve in Europe. in such a scenario the Allies would likely reduce troop numbers in the Pacific and divert them to the ETO.