Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[tyrodtom]

FDR was very inclined to enter in the war. About the American people, well, most were already in agreed with the attacks on the U-boats. And after they entered in the war, I doubt the population would retain a feeling of get out of it. Specially after the first sacrificies. They would want to liberate Europe and finnish Hitler. The Americans accepted a similar number of casualities of WWII in Vietnam, were the public was even less interested. I belive everything would depend on the situation. Still, I'm not quiet sure about this. After Pearl Harbor the American moral and enthusiasm against Hitler started to climb like a rocket. Which make appears they were already inclined to it.

You are seriously misinformed, The USA suffered over 400,000 deaths in WW2, but 58,000 in Vietnam. You would have to go back to America's Civil war to find a era with as much turmoil as the decade we fought in Vietnam.

[Jenisch]

Jabberwocky, I put the tittle of the topic incorrectly. The air power would be used to try pave the way for an invasion.

Something more to add:

In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi*ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc.

I found hard to desconsiderate this used against the Germans by the US and UK. Together with the 18,000 planes they send. While everything was not develivered simultaneously, anyway it was much more than the Germans would be able to produce and employ.

[Jenisch]

British aircraft for Russia in '41:

A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

British tanks for Russia in '41:

the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.

The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised

Canadian tanks for Russia:

A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

This subject is very complex. For every advantage one side has, the other has disadvantages. But I don't think the Germans have a favourable weight. I'm starting to think what I already hear from some people that Nazi Germany is overestimated though hardly a paper tiger.

[Jenisch]

You are seriously misinformed, The USA suffered over 400,000 deaths in WW2, but 58,000 in Vietnam. You would have to go back to America's Civil war to find a era with as much turmoil as the decade we fought in Vietnam.

Really. But I was talking about total casualities, those were really 400,000 in Vietnam.

[tyrodtom]

Over 75% of Germany's military deaths were from fighting the Russians, not the 50% you stated. Causalties rates are even more lopsided. So these men not injured and killed fighting the Russian would certainly make a invasion of Europe a great deal more difficult, if not impossible.

Even with all the material the Allies sent to Russia, they didn't lack for supplies. What there was a shortage of was people, it took a lot of people to manufactor all those supplies.

I don't know if Americans would have been willing to sacrifice the way they did in WW2, if they were not directly attacked the way they were at Pearl Harbor.

[Ratsel]

Really. But I was talking about total casualities, those were really 400,000 in Vietnam.

total in Europe was what? 50 million in WWII?

[Jenisch]

total in Europe was what? 50 million in WWII?

I was talking about the total Americans casualities in WWII, which were about 400,000. In Vietnam the numbers are similar but the KIA-MIA were much higher than in WWII.

[Jenisch]

Well, I have to admitt that I was a little impulsive with this topic. And while I'm not convinced of anything yet, still need to study a lot about this subject to form an opinion. I like to view the historical possibilities which were frequentely desconsiderated. If someday I find strong factors showing a possibility of the Anglo-Americans and their air power to pave the way for defeat Nazi Germany only by themselfs, it will be pleasure to share this together with the proper consistent references with such a nice aviation community.

Now, I will abort my bombing mission and see if it can be flown in the future. Thanks for your attention guys!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

England

How is that?

What with Do 17s, Ju 88s and He 111s, being escorted by 109s with not enough range?

The allies had the heavy bombers and the numbers.

I was talking about the total Americans casualities in WWII, which were about 400,000. In Vietnam the numbers are similar but the KIA-MIA were much higher than in WWII.

Nope, you are still off.

US Killed/Missing
WW2 - 416,837
Vietnam - 59,907

US Wounded
WW2 - 683,846
Vietnam - 303,635

Total US Casualties
WW2 - 1,100,683
Vietnam - 363,542

A bit of a difference.

And back to the original question.

No.

Why? Simple, you have to have boots on the ground to win a war. Without the Eastern Front, the Germans could concentrate their air forces over fortress Europe.

[stona]

Answer to original question.....No.
Cheers
Steve

[evangilder]

The MIA numbers are below. This information comes from the United States Department of Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO).

WWI
Total POW/MIA 7,323
POWs returned 3,973
Still MIA 3,350

WWII
Total POW/MIA 194,879
POWs returned 116,129
Still MIA 78,750

Korea
Total POW/MIA 12,654
POWs returned 4,439
Still MIA 8,215

Vietnam
Total POW/MIA 2,596
POWs returned 591
Still MIA 2,005

Cold War
Total POW/MIA 124
POWs returned 0
Still MIA 124

[michaelmaltby]

Those are very sobering numbers, evanglider. Especially for Korea where prisoners were exposed to Communist indoctrination in a very serious way. Many US POW's, I have been told, simply rolled over in their bunks, gave up, and died.

MM

[Jenisch]

Why? Simple, you have to have boots on the ground to win a war. Without the Eastern Front, the Germans could concentrate their air forces over fortress Europe.

What lead you to belive the Luftwaffe would be invencible, specially with all the aircraft send to the Pacific and Russia (Lend Lease) being use against it?

About the ground forces, yes, already said the tittle of the thread was wrong. The question would be the use of the Anglo-American air power to pave a way for an invasion. Not necessarily from France or France alone.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What lead you to belive the Luftwaffe would be invencible, specially with all the aircraft send to the Pacific and Russia (Lend Lease) being use against it?

Where did I say they were invincible? I just said the allies would not be able to defeat the Germans off of air power alone. It would take a combination of air, ground and sea forces (just like it did historically).

[Hop]

Bear in mind 1941 German and British bombing campaigns were completely different. Britain was attempting to destroy civilian property by area bombardment. Germany was attempting to strangle Britain economically by closing major seaports such as London and Liverpool.

There wasn't that much difference in 1941. The RAF had other priorities for the first half of the year, chiefly German naval targets. It was only in July (after the Germans had abandoned the Blitz) that area bombing became a priority. As a result about a third of the RAF's tonnage went on area attacks in 1941.

There's no breakdown of the Luftwaffe's attacks by whether civilians or industry were the target, and many raids had both listed as priorities (eg Coventry). But there were certainly area attacks by the Luftwaffe. In London, for example, the boroughs that received the most bombs by area were in the centre of the city and to the north and west, well away from the docklands.