Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated?

[Thorlifter]

Originally Posted by Erich

gents when is Russia defeated the ? once that is established then what facts and fantasy figures can come to light. we have to deal with the present at the time as well as the what-if(s)

Completely agree Erich. That's why I feel this could go either way before or after 1943. It truly was a different war at that dividing line. It switched from holding on because the enemy is strong to an offensive war because the enemy is beginning to lose through attrition.

It's almost two questions.

1. Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated BEFORE 1943

2. Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated AFTER 1943.

I think we all know the answer if it's #2. The only discussion could be how long Germany could hold out in a one front war at that point.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Thorlifter

I think it depends on when they beat the Soviets. IMO, I believe the line is 1943. Before that, the Luftwaffe would still have had significant numbers to put on only one front, which would have help to defend the factories.

After 1943, the allies advanced fighters and mass production would have drove Germany into the ground. However, I do believe it wouldn't have ended in 1945. All those men and resources on one front! wow.

Of course, I'm sure Hitler would have screwed up a one front war too!

i agree with you, the line is 43. if the situation changes before 43, and germany would fight just in one front, considering a quick victory over ussr, i believe the mass production advantage would be null. and allies would fight then against the main power of luftwaffe.

also, the afrika korps could have more supplies and panzer div. in that scenario, wich could allow germany to lock the suez channel. would be bad for the grat britain.

also bad would be a scenario where britons could be isolated in the islands, fighting against german raids, with most part of your armada in english channel and around the island to prevent a ground invasion.

that could allow german submarines to take control of north atlantic, making americans send more ships for that front, instead pacific, to combat the kriegsmarine and grant a supply of soldiers and weapons to england.

my point is the defeat of ussr couldnt grand a german victory, but they would be more closer of that. also england and usa would have much more casualties, and the air superiority wouldnt happend so easy and so fast.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Thorlifter

Completely agree Erich. That's why I feel this could go either way before or after 1943. It truly was a different war at that dividing line. It switched from holding on because the enemy is strong to an offensive war because the enemy is beginning to lose through attrition.

It's almost two questions.

1. Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated BEFORE 1943

2. Could the Luftwaffe survive against Allied attacks if the USSR had been defeated AFTER 1943.

I think we all know the answer if it's #2. The only discussion could be how long Germany could hold out in a one front war at that point.

if the losses and casualties in scenario 2 would be very similar of what really happened. and considering the "A bomb" factor. i think war would ends in 1945 same way.

but there is, you know ? its always the "if´s" of history... what i sure know is that could be a diferent kind of war for each scenario.

[lesofprimus]

Originally Posted by Erich

gents when is Russia defeated the ? once that is established then what facts and fantasy figures can come to light.

Originally Posted by Freebird

If Germany had managed to defeat Russia in the Spring/Summer of 1943

I really do think it would have made a difference, not only from the units that were available to go back to Germany is Spring 1943, PLUS the number of aircraft that would have been assigned to the Reich and Germanys infused ground forces instead of going to Russia.... Normandy and D-Day would NOT have succeeded if Russia falls in the Spring of 43....

How many troops are the gonna be in Germany/France/Belgium etc etc instead of Russian soil???

I honestly dont think the bombing campaign against Germany would have been what it ended up being with all the additional aircraft and pilots, and increased German production available to them.... Alot od resources went to the Russian Front, not just aircraft frames....

All that sh!t stays in Germany....

[Parmigiano]

I agree with Les.
In this 'what if' scenario, there should have been so many troops, Panthers and Tigers with proper air cover available to defend France that D-day should have been at least postponed.

This also means that in 44 the kammerhuber line would have been in place and able to properly vector the fighters and place them in the right place to bounce the bombers, increasing dramatically the effectiveness of the 262.

Plus all the 190 built as fighter-bomber for the east front would have been easy to be built as fighters or bomber destroyers.

I don't think that the 262 would have been esential in 42 or 43, the prop jobs were very effective against bombers until the long range P51 were available in numbers. If the LW had available almost the double of 109 and 190 to hold the few months between the P51 menace and the time when the 262 was in operation, they could have done the job.
In this scenario you can forget to chase and shoot down the 262 in their landing approach: only the P51 had the necessary range and the 109 and 190would have been available in numbers to chase the P51 at low level.
The Allies would have need a long range P80 able to take off from England, fight over Germany and made it back.

[renrich]

The big difference would be in the Pacific War. Instead of going after the Japanese hammer and tongs, the US would have diverted resources to the ETO. FDR always considered the Third Reich the principle enemy.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

The big difference would be in the Pacific War. Instead of going after the Japanese hammer and tongs, the US would have diverted resources to the ETO. FDR always considered the Third Reich the principle enemy.

I don't think so. The war in the Pacific didnt require as many resources as the battle in Europe. The public was still mighty pissed off about the treachery of the Japanese, and public opinion wouldn't allow for FDR, Marshall and King to simply sit still in that theater.

Plus the USN always had the carriers to bring the war to the Japanese.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

The big difference would be in the Pacific War. Instead of going after the Japanese hammer and tongs, the US would have diverted resources to the ETO. FDR always considered the Third Reich the principle enemy.

I agree this and also Dan's observations above. The question for me is waht conditions do the Soviets leave their own petroleum industry and does the combined USAAF/RAF attack Germany's achilles heel starting with Avalanche... and take the losses necessary to cripple the oil/chemical industry.

Big question related to the battle for the air.. as the US in no position to have the battles in 1942 that it was able to wage in late 1943/early 1844.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I really do think it would have made a difference, not only from the units that were available to go back to Germany is Spring 1943, PLUS the number of aircraft that would have been assigned to the Reich and Germanys infused ground forces instead of going to Russia.... Normandy and D-Day would NOT have succeeded if Russia falls in the Spring of 43....

How many troops are the gonna be in Germany/France/Belgium etc etc instead of Russian soil???

Well you figure if the Soviet Central government, command & serious opposition collapses in the spring of '43 the Germans might leave 50 - 60+ divisions to mop up the partisans & whatever. But the Allies were not ready to invade France until summer '44, and a large part of that success was the Russian had worn down the Axis by this point. Of course with the Axis holding all of North Africa there is no chance for invading Italy.

You figure at least 20 - 30 extra divisions would be in France, + probably another 20 - 30 in reserve in the south watching to see if the Allies try to land in Spain or Africa somewhere

Originally Posted by drgondog

Big question related to the battle for the air.. as the US in no position to have the battles in 1942 that it was able to wage in late 1943/early 1844.

Agreed, the real question is air superiority, without it no army succeeds.

What was the dynamic of the air war in the last half of 1943? {June - Dec} Were the German fighters superior to the long-range Thunderbolt & Mustang? Was it superior numbers that allowed the Allies to win? Or were their aircraft equal to the Germans? Was the main factor attrition on Germany's airforce - {shortage of new pilots}?

[Lucky13]

Here's another question....

If Russia was conquered in '42 early '43, what would have happened to Stalin? I guess that Hitler would have had a manhunt out for him, to catch him dead or alive, if caught, would he put him in prison or have him shot on the spot? Also, with Russia beaten, would this also, maybe, add a fleet where Germany could help out Japan in the Pacific? If this would be the case, in which spot would the USN end up in that theatre?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Here's another question....

If Russia was conquered in '42 early '43, what would have happened to Stalin? I guess that Hitler would have had a manhunt out for him, to catch him dead or alive, if caught, would he put him in prison or have him shot on the spot? Also, with Russia beaten, would this also, maybe, add a fleet where Germany could help out Japan in the Pacific? If this would be the case, in which spot would the USN end up in that theatre?

If Stalin escaped, he would be probably in Siberia with the partisans. However with all lend-lease cut off {especially trucks!}, once the factories in the Urals fall the Soviets are without artillery, aircraft, tanks ans short on ammo.

The Germans never had a fleet involved in the Med {other than subs}. The Kreigsmarine in Norway would still be facing the British. If the Axis capture Suez intact, the Italian fleet would then be facing the British fleet in the Indian Ocean {4 "R' class BB's + Cv's Formidable, Indomitable} If Suez is impassable then the Italian fleet would be stuck in the Med unless Gibraltar falls. By 1942 the Italian fleet is somewhat weaker, due to sinkings at Taranto, and a couple of BB's hit by British subs. Going against Gibraltar would be a very risky proposition for the rather timid Italian Naval command, especially without a CV

[HoHun]

Hi Parmigiano,

>I don't think that the 262 would have been esential in 42 or 43, the prop jobs were very effective against bombers until the long range P51 were available in numbers. If the LW had available almost the double of 109 and 190 to hold the few months between the P51 menace and the time when the 262 was in operation, they could have done the job.

An interesting question is how the raw materials available from a conquered Soviet Union would have affected the Me 262 development and production timetable.

The lack of certain materials - such as tungsten, chromium and nickel - was the main reason for the delay in getting the Me 262 into service, and if these materials could be provided from Russian sources, the historically fateful delays perhaps could have been avoided or minimized.

The Jumo 004A engine went into small-scale series production in 1942 (40 examples ordered), and while it was not as mature as the later Jumo 004B-2, being somewhat heavier and slightly less powerful, it had made a successful 100-hour run in 1943 (and in late 1942 it had even been bench-tested with an afterburner, by the way).

The work that resulted in the Jumo 004B was begun in early 1943, and it first flew in the Me 262 in October of the same year. As the main difficulties encountered with the Jumo 004B were caused by the problems resulting from insufficient supplies of temperature-resistant materials (that had been used liberally in the Jumo 004A engines), it appears that it might have been possible to save some six to nine months in getting the jets into combat, provided that these materials could have been supplied by newly conquered sources in the Soviet Union.

(I'm relying on Müller's "Junkers Flugtriebwerke" here.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Njaco]

What was the dynamic of the air war in the last half of 1943? {June - Dec} Were the German fighters superior to the long-range Thunderbolt & Mustang?

I don't believe the long-range P-51 started ops until Dec 43 / Jan 44 after Black Thursday. So in that time frame it would be P-38s, P-47s and Spits, right?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Njaco

I don't believe the long-range P-51 started ops until Dec 43 / Jan 44 after Black Thursday. So in that time frame it would be P-38s, P-47s and Spits, right?

P38's in the UK started ops in November 1943.

They also were flying in the Med since the "Torch" invasion.

And anyway you want to slice it .... the P38 flying over Germany was a mortal danger to the LW. it was a threat they couldnt ignore.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by syscom3

P38's in the UK started ops in November 1943.

They also were flying in the Med since the "Torch" invasion.

And anyway you want to slice it .... the P38 flying over Germany was a mortal danger to the LW. it was a threat they couldnt ignore.

So presumably the p-38's that were sent to the Med would be in the UK instead. How many squadrons were there? Did they have the range to reach Germany?