Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:02 pm
mrhenniger wrote:I think we all may be missing the obvious. It only would take one or two bombs make the point. It worked in Japan, and I suspect Germany could have been made to see reason if all of Europe was under the threat of the A-bomb. It is a dark possibility to consider, but not out the realm of possibilities.
Mike
Yes, but would it make a difference. The use of atomics on Japan had one major item reinforcing it, namely, the Pacific fleet knocking on thier doorstep. Without the threat of imminent invasion I doubt Japan would have surrendered unconditionally (or relatively so). The USAAF laid waste to numerous Japanese cities in a similar manner to what they did in Europe. Both theaters lay in rubble by the end of the war with untold thousands dead. Without invasion forces to back it up it probably wouldn't work too well. And how any nukes could we have built?
And would you nuke London, Paris, Rome? I doubt even the Allies angl-centric viepoint would allow for that? Nuking Berlin would just be asking for Washington to be destroyed.
I think the best effect that nukes would have would be to cause a ceasefire and a cold war. But without the ground pounders to back it up I don't think it would end the war.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:29 pm
I was thinking one or a few B-29s or B-36s with extra fuel tanks. You bomb one target, like Berlin, to send a message.
Of course even for the B-36 that would be difficult, and all of this assumes types like the B-29 and B-36 could be advanced into service. As far a production goes, perhaps something exactly like that would have happened. Resources could be moved from B-17 and B-24 programs to put resources into the extra long range bombers.
The use of the A-bomb would not likely have happend until 1945 anyway. As I understand it the R&D problem was already advancing at 110%.
Mike
Of course even for the B-36 that would be difficult, and all of this assumes types like the B-29 and B-36 could be advanced into service. As far a production goes, perhaps something exactly like that would have happened. Resources could be moved from B-17 and B-24 programs to put resources into the extra long range bombers.
The use of the A-bomb would not likely have happend until 1945 anyway. As I understand it the R&D problem was already advancing at 110%.
Mike
Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:06 pm
Britain came very close to falling in September of 1940. It was only the tactical blunder of switching the bombing attacks to the cities of Britain rather than maintaining the assault on the RAF that changed things. I remember reading somewhere that the RAF had about two days of operations left in them when the Luftwaffe started targeting the cities.
The B36 was specified in 1941 to be able to hit Germany from US bases. This tell us that the US didn't think Britain could last and also that the US was well aware that they would have to enter the war in Europe eventually. The fall of Britain in 1940 would have accelerated that. Even if the US couldn't have secured Merlins, either Allison or Packard may have stepped up to the plate. My question is: did the US engine development lag because the Merlin was so good that there was no immediate need to improve engines with haste? Without the Merlins, haste would have been very necessary indeed.
Personal opinion: D-day would not have been in Europe, it would have been somewhere on the British west coast. I think a landing on the coast of Wales would have happened. Launching an invasion from anywhere else would mean having the enemy on both sides. Remember, the US would have only had the Canadians for support - there would have been no British troops. Britain would have to be taken first.
Very interesting thread
Walrus
The B36 was specified in 1941 to be able to hit Germany from US bases. This tell us that the US didn't think Britain could last and also that the US was well aware that they would have to enter the war in Europe eventually. The fall of Britain in 1940 would have accelerated that. Even if the US couldn't have secured Merlins, either Allison or Packard may have stepped up to the plate. My question is: did the US engine development lag because the Merlin was so good that there was no immediate need to improve engines with haste? Without the Merlins, haste would have been very necessary indeed.
Personal opinion: D-day would not have been in Europe, it would have been somewhere on the British west coast. I think a landing on the coast of Wales would have happened. Launching an invasion from anywhere else would mean having the enemy on both sides. Remember, the US would have only had the Canadians for support - there would have been no British troops. Britain would have to be taken first.
Very interesting thread
Walrus
Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:13 pm
Hmm.
The big pic:
My reading of European W.W.II is that in the strategic picture it was the Eastern Front that Germany was broken. The Eastern front was a lot less of a close run thing than stages of the Western front; despite Scott's comment. Russia was able and intended to absorb a lot more incursion by the Germans, and with Russian winters and the 'life is cheap' approach of Stalin, I'd bet that would still have been where the Germans would be exhausted. Numbers of dead is no way to measure effective warfare (urgh) but the Great Partiotic War was a millstone grinding Germany into dust. We'll never know but the smart money which looks at the statistics says that the Germans were never going to beat Russia (even without the distraction of the West, and without western armaments). It doesn't do the US / UK ego any good to admit one evil dictator beat the other, but that's most of the story.
Britain fall?
It's possible, but as has been pointed out the Germans were never very serious about a seabourne invasion, and never assembled a speciallised landing fleet. 'Saving Private Ryan' highlights in part the US re-learning the Anglo-Canadian lesson of Dieppe that you need specialised equipment, or it costs you dear. The Germans would probably have lost the invasion. The British (and the others fighting alongside) didn't know this, and hence fought the good fight, for which we should be greatful.
Equipment - quality vs numbers.
Lets look at the Sherman tank. A basic tank, inadequate for the theatures it found itself in, yet produced in enough numbers and well enough made with brave enough and enough crews to win the long battle. A bunch of Pershings or Centurions would be better, but if you make enough of the second rate, you can still win. It's just expensive.
German training and aces.
The biggest lesson often overlooked is that the Germans didn't rest or rotate their air crews enough. The good got to be aces, racked up huge scores, and eventually, their luck would run out. The junior pilots were cannon fodder late war.
So?
The types developed are mostly irrelevent. (Fun though it is to consider!) It's what you did with what you had that counted. The Germans tried to fight a Tactical war on two fronts. The fought Russia. Big mistake. They didn't plan long, train well, manage their front line resources. They would lose.
This is, of course, just my opinion!
The big pic:
My reading of European W.W.II is that in the strategic picture it was the Eastern Front that Germany was broken. The Eastern front was a lot less of a close run thing than stages of the Western front; despite Scott's comment. Russia was able and intended to absorb a lot more incursion by the Germans, and with Russian winters and the 'life is cheap' approach of Stalin, I'd bet that would still have been where the Germans would be exhausted. Numbers of dead is no way to measure effective warfare (urgh) but the Great Partiotic War was a millstone grinding Germany into dust. We'll never know but the smart money which looks at the statistics says that the Germans were never going to beat Russia (even without the distraction of the West, and without western armaments). It doesn't do the US / UK ego any good to admit one evil dictator beat the other, but that's most of the story.
Britain fall?
It's possible, but as has been pointed out the Germans were never very serious about a seabourne invasion, and never assembled a speciallised landing fleet. 'Saving Private Ryan' highlights in part the US re-learning the Anglo-Canadian lesson of Dieppe that you need specialised equipment, or it costs you dear. The Germans would probably have lost the invasion. The British (and the others fighting alongside) didn't know this, and hence fought the good fight, for which we should be greatful.
Equipment - quality vs numbers.
Lets look at the Sherman tank. A basic tank, inadequate for the theatures it found itself in, yet produced in enough numbers and well enough made with brave enough and enough crews to win the long battle. A bunch of Pershings or Centurions would be better, but if you make enough of the second rate, you can still win. It's just expensive.
German training and aces.
The biggest lesson often overlooked is that the Germans didn't rest or rotate their air crews enough. The good got to be aces, racked up huge scores, and eventually, their luck would run out. The junior pilots were cannon fodder late war.
So?
The types developed are mostly irrelevent. (Fun though it is to consider!) It's what you did with what you had that counted. The Germans tried to fight a Tactical war on two fronts. The fought Russia. Big mistake. They didn't plan long, train well, manage their front line resources. They would lose.
This is, of course, just my opinion!
Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:26 pm
The debate about Germany's intent to go-ahead with Operation Sealion will go on for many years to come, with little chance of a resolution. Hitler wanted to limit Britains ability to hinder his invasion of Russia. It is true that Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain - he considered them fellow Aryans - but, if you read through "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", you soon realise that he was serious about shutting Britain down before launching against Russia. Hitler wanted to invade with the Wehrmacht immediately. It was Goering who wanted his Luftwaffe to have the glory of smashing Britain and he convinced Hitler that he should be allowed to try. When they failed, Hitler was furious. He refused to back down from his timetable for taking the Soviet Union, and headed east without having solved the British issue.
His mistake
Walrus
His mistake
Walrus
Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:30 pm
I'd just like to add that I absolutuely agree with Warus 7's posts.
Interestingly, in the 1960s, the British army colleage at Sandhurst ran a Sealowe wargame. The Germans lost.
There have been various other studies, and in most Germany lost. The issue is if Britain could carry on fighting and if America would have come in later. (I wrote an article of the scenarios for a magazine several years ago; and the old memoty isn't what it was!)
Cheers
Interestingly, in the 1960s, the British army colleage at Sandhurst ran a Sealowe wargame. The Germans lost.
There have been various other studies, and in most Germany lost. The issue is if Britain could carry on fighting and if America would have come in later. (I wrote an article of the scenarios for a magazine several years ago; and the old memoty isn't what it was!)
Cheers
Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:33 pm
I'm with JDK.
Assuming,(It would not have been possible in reality) Germany took England. Lets just say WC went crazy and surrendered. Peacefull occupation. Even with all of the resources available to the germans in this case, they still would not have beat Russia. The germans had no, or very little idea that the bulk of the industrial infrastructure had been moved east. The only difference I could see happening on that front would be the taking of Moscow. They still would have been through a meatgrinder getting it, and they still would have to face giant eastern armies in the coming months. The other overlooked aspect of this is, On the Allied western or atlantic or European front, there would be very little dillution of resources, meaning.
There would probably be no African or Italian landings. Lend lease is pretty much exculsivley going to Russia, all of it. The U.S. Navy would end up commanding the Atlantic by 1945. The germans didn't have a surface navy to speak of, and even left unmolested for two or three years would not be able to field the kind of naval force the U.S. could. Pick a landing spot, I'd go north personnaly, Norway maybe, in conjunction with a russian push.
And you got the nukes. I'd use one on my landing site, I'm thinking of the place the German fleet ties up in Norway, gets rid of a bunch of german navy, I'd use the other on Berlin.
Assuming,(It would not have been possible in reality) Germany took England. Lets just say WC went crazy and surrendered. Peacefull occupation. Even with all of the resources available to the germans in this case, they still would not have beat Russia. The germans had no, or very little idea that the bulk of the industrial infrastructure had been moved east. The only difference I could see happening on that front would be the taking of Moscow. They still would have been through a meatgrinder getting it, and they still would have to face giant eastern armies in the coming months. The other overlooked aspect of this is, On the Allied western or atlantic or European front, there would be very little dillution of resources, meaning.
There would probably be no African or Italian landings. Lend lease is pretty much exculsivley going to Russia, all of it. The U.S. Navy would end up commanding the Atlantic by 1945. The germans didn't have a surface navy to speak of, and even left unmolested for two or three years would not be able to field the kind of naval force the U.S. could. Pick a landing spot, I'd go north personnaly, Norway maybe, in conjunction with a russian push.
And you got the nukes. I'd use one on my landing site, I'm thinking of the place the German fleet ties up in Norway, gets rid of a bunch of german navy, I'd use the other on Berlin.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:22 pm
The problem with lend lease is how would it be delivered? Could convoys run the u-boat gauntlet across the Northeastern Atlantic? With out bases in the UK there is a whole are of the atlantic out of range of shore based patrol aircraft. Also, would we rush to help the Russians in the first place? I have a feeling that with the rapid fall of the western part of the Soviet Union I wonder if the U.S. would commit large amounts of aid (similar to how the U.S. hesitated to aid England until the around the end of the Battle Of Britain.
Delivery of lend lease materials via the Pacific would be hampered by the Japanese, at least in the beginning of the war. By the time Japan had been neutralized it would probably be too late for Russia to be anything other than become a partisan hell hole.
Delivery of lend lease materials via the Pacific would be hampered by the Japanese, at least in the beginning of the war. By the time Japan had been neutralized it would probably be too late for Russia to be anything other than become a partisan hell hole.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:53 pm
Scott WRG Editor wrote:The problem with lend lease is how would it be delivered? Could convoys run the u-boat gauntlet across the Northeastern Atlantic? With out bases in the UK there is a whole are of the atlantic out of range of shore based patrol aircraft. Also, would we rush to help the Russians in the first place? I have a feeling that with the rapid fall of the western part of the Soviet Union I wonder if the U.S. would commit large amounts of aid (similar to how the U.S. hesitated to aid England until the around the end of the Battle Of Britain.
Delivery of lend lease materials via the Pacific would be hampered by the Japanese, at least in the beginning of the war. By the time Japan had been neutralized it would probably be too late for Russia to be anything other than become a partisan hell hole.
I think Russia would come out on top of the germans no matter what. Lend lease would take the same routes that they would normally take. The same inovations would happen in code breaking, sonar, ect. I doubt England would fall without getting all of their brainiacs out to the allies overseas. The "Murmansk" run would be brutal, just as it was, but the available ships and escorts to do it would be greater. If the entire west of russia falls, go pacific. The delivery of lend lease through the pacific routes would happen as they did also. There wouldn't be a big need to change the way the pacific war was fought. The main change would be to supply, or evacuate BEF troops dependant on England for supplies.
With the russians having to face a more powerful german army, that fight will be brutal, and probably go all the way to the urals. The main thing in my mind, about that, would be time. That probably ties both of them up for another year , inside Russia, at least....with another year, we're getting close to nuke time, and B-36 time.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:24 pm
The B-36D could carry a 72,000lb payload with a radius range of aproximately 1,700 mi. at 417mph at 38,000ft with a max. altitude of 45,000ft. Or cut the bomb load in half and stretch the range out to 3500mi. U.S. front line interceptors of the late 40's and early 50's had a hard time intercepting the B-36. They ususally got one pass and that was it. So I think the B-36 would have been an effective intercontinental bomber and with forward bases in Greenland, would have pounded the Germans quite hard. As for the FICON mission, I think air to air refueling would have taken precidence, enabling whole squadrons to escort the bombers. The P-82 would definately have been a player.
Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:42 pm
Don Martin wrote:The B-36D could carry a 72,000lb payload with a radius range of aproximately 1,700 mi. at 417mph at 38,000ft with a max. altitude of 45,000ft. Or cut the bomb load in half and stretch the range out to 3500mi. U.S. front line interceptors of the late 40's and early 50's had a hard time intercepting the B-36. They ususally got one pass and that was it. So I think the B-36 would have been an effective intercontinental bomber and with forward bases in Greenland, would have pounded the Germans quite hard. As for the FICON mission, I think air to air refueling would have taken precidence, enabling whole squadrons to escort the bombers. The P-82 would definately have been a player.
It would be interesting to see what some of the prototype fighters (Ho 229, Ta 183, etc... ) could have done against the B-36. How many B-36's were produced and how long did it take to build one? As for the P-82, it probably wouldn't happen considering the specifics of this scenario, however the XP-67 might have made a production appearance since the jet engine would be severely delayed with the fall of Britain.
Was ar-to air refueling tried with single engine prop fighters?
if the snatzis conquered uk question
Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:29 am
the beer would have been better for sure!!!
Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:34 am
Was ar-to air refueling tried with single engine prop fighters?
Have a look for the 'Hillson Bi-Mono' Scott. (See http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/ ... I-MONO.htm) What the side doesn't say was the idea of extending range by allowing a fuel overload was a consideration.
There was also a trial for towing Hurricanes with a birficated bridle to get them to Malta. Not air to air as such, but a similar objective.
Oh, and Tom, 'beer' isn't just lager. The lager might be better, but the beer would be worse. Enough to drive one to Pils.
Given the desire of everyone in Britain today seems to be to drive BMW; Audi; VW and Porch, I'd also hope that the other result would be that the Germans would have been driving Morris and Rover! 
It's great fun to speculate, but I'd keep coming back to the whole shebang hinging on the USSR.
That aside, two other factors to consider is 'non-licence production' (CF the engine in the Swedish FFVS J-22 was an unlicenced copyof an American engine; there would be nothing to stop Packard or Ford copying the Merlin.) similar to 'inginuity when the chips are down' (the CAC Boomerang) plus who and what would have escaped Britain when it fell; it's amazing what got away to Britain (a much shorter journey, but...).
Fun thread. It's sure held up my 'proper' writing!
Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:55 am
Well if AH had taken England there would be few if no curry houses in UK not to mention the other mobs from ye olde empire....
Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:21 am
If this topic interests you then maybe you should get hold of a copy of Len Deighton's book "SS-GB"
The Sunday Telegraph reviews it as
"A brilliant picture of Britain under German rule"
another review
"There is little doubt that this is much the way things would have turned out if the Germans had won the war"
...which just about sums it up
A very interesting read.
The Sunday Telegraph reviews it as
"A brilliant picture of Britain under German rule"
another review
"There is little doubt that this is much the way things would have turned out if the Germans had won the war"
...which just about sums it up
A very interesting read.