Best World War II Aircraft?

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by delcyros

This indeed is a good argument.
However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either.
It was the often underrated economy of the SU (which clearly hadn´t their best minds in the logistics department) and their military potential which broke the backbone of Germanys land & air forces. From 1941-1943, the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land & air forces (depending on months). It was not possible for the vaunted Whermacht to achieve a strategic victory over the SU (with a notable exception in late 1941, when Stalin asked the rumanian ambassador in Moscow what conditions Hitler would want for an armistice), and I would even go so far and say it was beyond possibilities. However, the composite efforts done by all allieds contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. And as Syscom pointed out, logistic advances contributed more to this than we would expect.

I certainly agree to a certain point. If Germany had defeated Great Britian before engaging Russia, then, with the Africa Corp and many troop from France, Germany may have punched through to Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad and may have forced an armistice on Russia (of course, who knows what that madman Hitler would have done. Something for sure to lose the war) before Russia could mobilize. Once Germany stalled in Russia, their war was lost. However, It would have been much longer and bloodier. With no strategic bombing of factories, oil fields/refineries, logistic links, etc. Germany production would have been significantly larger and more formidiable.

Russian contribution cannot be underestimated. They lost tremendous numbers of people and equipment to defeat Germany.

[syscom3]

The russians are loath to admit it, but the lend lease the US and UK provided often was of a critical nature. Without it, the USSR might have had difficulties on going on the offensive and might had to contend with a stalemate.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

with the Africa Corp

if, in the unlikely event Britain surrendered, that does not mean her colonies would also, we would've carried the fight on in Africa for as long as possible...........

[Gnomey]

Agreed, it was planned for as well. Move the Royal Family, government etc to Canada and continue the war from there. Even if Britain had surrendered its colonies would still have been a force to be reconed with, especially if elements of the RAF, RN and Army went with them...

[Udet]

Quote:

"However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either."

There are sufficient people that will certainly come along to contest that part of your arguent Mr.Delcyros.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by Udet

Quote:

"However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either."

There are sufficient people that will certainly come along to contest that part of your arguent Mr.Delcyros.

Since you are one of those people Udet, can you spell out why?

the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land & air forces

Land forces yes but not the LW.

In July 42, there was 62.6% of the onhand a/c of the LW were in Russian compared to in the West.

By May 43, this was reduced to only 46.8% in Russian compared to what was in the West.

The 'West' includes Italy, Germany/Denmark and France/Holland/Belgium.

[syscom3]

The moment the allies had the atomic bomb, the war was over. Period.

[delcyros]

The nuke may not have been that decisisive against nazi-Germany (in this event Hitler would have allowed the use of Botulinum and this would have been even more severe than a nuke, according to US plans it was believed (wrongly) that Germany already would be in the same situation when the nuke was avaiable to the US and therefore these weapon could have the same fate as the chemical WoM in storage) but this is speculative and fiction.
I counted the transportation and courier services for eastern front as well. And I included the airforce deployments efforts done by axis partners, such as Croatia, Slovenia, Rumania, Finnland, Bulgaria and Italy on the eastern front as well. But most important, I took notice about the numbers of combat sorties flown. All this gives an indication of Luftwafe presence and thus 70%-85% (the latter beeing a peak at Stalingrad campaign only) are reliable numbers.
Had Germany taken Moscow in 1941, Stalin would have moved behind the Ural and continued the war, there were similar plans (as stated with Britain / Canada) to do so, the industry was already in stage of replacing. There is no doubt that the US contributed a lot with food to the survival of the USSR those times.

[syscom3]

The first use of the atomic bomb on Germany would have caused a revolt in the army, and they would have sued for peace. Hitler could haveunleashed all the bacterial weapons he wanted to, but it wasnt going to end the systematic wiping out of the major cities.

The Rhur and Berlin would have been targets one and two. I wonder what the next one would be? Munich? Nuremberg? Magdeberg?

[Henk]

I would say the next would be Munich, Nuremburg and Hamburg.

Henk

[Pisis]

and Dresden...

[plan_D]

Not Nuremburg, where would Rock im Park be held then !?

[syscom3]

There were only three atomic weapons available throughout 1945. Only three cities could be hit.

I would say the order of bombing would be:
Hamburg, the Rhur and then, finally Berlin.

[Aggie08]

pisis, why dresden when the raf so thoroughly destroyed it already??

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree, however I dont think Berlin would have been bombed at all. I think it would have been Hamburg, Stuttgart, and then maybe Nurnberg. Nurnberg would have been a moral defeat for the Nazis. Stuttgart because of the Steel plants which allready were destroyed anyhow.