players in a prolonged war

[kool kitty89]

On the V-2 though, they really didn't need those kind of offensive weapons and not neal as chep or asy to produce as the V-1. Though overall cost effectiveness is still debatable, the V-1 was much simpler easier to construct from (generally) low quality materials and had a similar cost effectiveness to conventional bombers for the same damage. (but without the loss of bombers and crew) The V-1 could also be intercepted, forcing the allies to use up reasourses doing so.




But on the reasons for a protracted war: how about if Germany acted as if Britain was neutral after the battle of France and just went straight on to Russia. Or, assuming the attack on Pearl harbour still occured, what if Germany severed ties or even declaired war on Japan after this: that would sure confuse the US on how to respond. (and Japan was at such a location that a real conflict with Germany would be all but impossible, in less of course Germany captured the Soviet Union...)

[drgondog]

Bill, hello...

Your points are well taken.

USSR out of the war in 1943 or German success in the Atlantic? Difficult to assess. Given the circumstances and the excellence of British ASW i tend to believe it would have been "easier" to have the USSR knocked out of the war by 1943.

I agree your perspective - The combination of excellent tactics and equipment used by RN, the ability of US to build and deploy shipping, the low numbers of U-Boat with which the Germans started the campaign, and last but not least the 'elastic' reserves the USN was getting. The latter could have been deployed to the higher priority of Britain had this been necessary.

The Soviets displayed amazing resiliency and willingness to sacrifice great numbers to stop the Germans. I tend to think the center of gravity was Stalin. I wonder what the outcome might have been if he had been assasinated say in May,1941?

What about a more comprehensive approach to matters related to Reichsverteidigung? All that German mismanagement of their resources and assets and they were still very capable of inflicting losses so brutal to the 8th A.F. during 1943 it made them wonder whether such attrition rate could be sustained; what if 8 AF losses during 1943 had been even greater than they actually were?

Had Goering understood the threat of daylight strategic bombing different priorities and tactics may well have been applied. Having said that the LW tactics and strength in central Germany only reached critical mass in the summer of 1943 - resulting in the first 'shock' on August 17, 1943..which would have been even worse had the Regensburg strike returned to England instead of going to Africa.

I suspect that had the tactics and relative strength dramatically increased in 1943, deployed in France and Belgium and Holland to bolster JG2 and JG26 the LW may have been able to stop daylight bombing of Germany in 1943 and only restarted when one of two changes occurred. First deploy all P-38 groups back to UK and swap some of the lesser performing P-47 groups to MTO. Second bolster the P-38 groups with all Mustang groups heading to ETO.. Absent the Me 262, I think the attrition to LW would have actually accelerated to late 1943. The P-38 groups in MTO were seasoned vets by this time and probably would have had a better accounting than the 20th and 55th in Fall 1943. No change to deployment of Mustang other than those diverted to PTO would have been shifted

Anything that, directly or indirectly, might have caused a significant delay of Overlord...given the weather issues in the Channel area, maybe Overlord is postponed until late 1944 or even 1945.

Adrian - here is the question, Weren't the bombers also used cynically as 'bait' from January 11, 1944 forward? The necessity of destroying the Luftwaffe was obvious condition of raising probability of success of Overlord.

Overlord was going to happen in June, the question was casualties

I think two things. One, the consequence of unacceptable losses for daylight raids would have shifted the focus to join the RAF at night. Might have also forced a re-thinking of priorities to accelerate attacks on oil.

Two, the strategic fighter force would still be positioned to escort tactical bombers and perform long range sweeps to engage and destroy the Luftwaffe

Let´s not forget Churchill and Roosevelt´s spoiled child Stalin -an able boy- pressed the western allies for more support in the form of new fronts being opened. Even if Stalin was wary of his own Western Allies thinking "I need to advance faster and further into Europe than the capitalist criminals" it should make one wonder why was he pressing UK/USA to open extra fronts?

I suspect that not all of his inner circle were as callous as Stalin with regard to the value of russian lives. He certainly could NOT be certain of ultimate victory given the incredible losses through 1943,, he probably knew that if he could not relieve the pressure someone would take him out or possibility of collapse may have crossed his mind.

One thing is certain.

I Don't KNOW, or have the remotest 'feel' to match your perspective in this area.

If Overlord is postponed until late 1944, it is unlikely to see the Soviets throwing their abundant human and material resources in the way they did during the summer of 1944.

Chances are causing a significant postponement of Overlord was key element that would provide the Germans with the springboard to recover to some extent.

I just don't see any set of realistic scenarios that stops Overlord from launching in June 1944 short of UK throwing in towel before we get there in force.

Or what about the V2, more precise and destructive than the V1, becoming operational in the opening months of 1944? Falling at four times the speed of sound, and being more precise and deadly than the V1, the Germans could have focused the launching of the weapon on Southern England where the allies were assemblying their invasion fleet and war materiel for Overlord. More than 3,000 V2s were launched during the war. You do not need anything like an "ultra-accurate" missile here, for such areas were large and would have been easy to hit. With only a few V2s effectively hitting the ports and assembly areas in souther England who knows what could have happened...do not forget the Brits and USAers are not Bolshevik driven kids and a few V2´s hitting troop concentrations on a weekly basis will have a devastating effect.

German troops were subjected to worse over the course of the war. US and Brit/Commonwealth troops, in my opinion were resiliant enough to endure this. Additionally the V2 was a weapon with less aimed accuracy than a diumb bomb. Operation Cobra dropped more tonnage in a smaller area than all the V2s launched in WWII - and probably killed more US troops than such attackes by V2 on England.

I can not know for sure what the Germans should have done differently since 1943 or perhaps early 1944 to protract the war; it could have been even a random event of success...and not necessarily the consequence of well planned and outlined goals.

Do you think that if the war does not end in May 1945 they still have elections in England? Seems unlikely to me, but assuming they have elections and Atlee beats "the Statesman of the Century", do you believe Great Britain policies remain unchanged?

Olbrat...yes, it is indeed interesting.

Think of this scenario: the war in Europe is protracted and Japan still surrender´s in August, 1945...that would stretch the relationship between UK/USA and USSR to the critical limit. As i said, the main beneficiary here would have been Germany. Any political chaos ensuing means fresh air for Germany.

I suspect one scenario of continuing post May 1945. The Allies are stopped way short of Elbe (maybe Bulge partially successful and Antwerp captured).. in which case most or all of Germany under Iron Curtain..

With Truman President, given this scenario, I expect there would have neen more forceful approach post WWII for USSR to withdraw from occupied countries.. Germany under USSR control might have been the final straw in US/USSR relationship - earlier.

[olbrat]

Do you think the UK and US would have shared their new jet aircraft technology with USSR in the event of a prolonged war, or was there enough strain on the relationship at the time where they would have withheld it.

If they had good co-operation, the US, UK and USSR could have launched jets from bases in the USSR, which would have solved some of the range and combat time issues. It would have forced Germany to shift more of their high tech resources to the eastern front, possibly allowing the allies on the western front to continue using prop fighters and bombers, and increasing the chances of a successful 2nd D-Day (if the first one failed). The down side would be that Stalin might have been able to go farther with his plans, such as "Germany under USSR", etc.

[kool kitty89]

I believe the Soviets had already captured several German engines and were working on copying/developing them by this point in the war. Along with there own jet designs, which had actually been some of the earliest to be funded in the world but suffered from protracted development. (particularly due to the war)

[olbrat]

Thanks Kool Kitty -

How were the jet aircraft designs? Were they comparable to the US and UK models?

[kool kitty89]

list of jets

Specifically: Gu-VRD
and EnginesUSSR

[olbrat]

Thanks again Kool Kitty,

Interesting design. Looks like it would have had decent speed too. You never hear about the USSR WWII jet programs. More food for thought!

[davparlr]

Do you think the UK and US would have shared their new jet aircraft technology with USSR in the event of a prolonged war,

Given the fact that the British sold the Russians a Nene engine (copied and used in the Mig-15) in 1945-6, the question is moot.

[kool kitty89]

But that wasn't until the new labor government had been voted in, I doubt the old British government would have done so.

[Flyboy2]

I remember seeing something that said that the Russians had a design that could have very possibly broke the sound barrier.. at least the scientists were pretty sure it would.
Alot of Russian jets where fragged because of Stalin's insane fear of aircraft. As the story goes he was on a transport plane that hit a bunch of turbulence and scared him to death. Ever since then he was afraid of aircraft and took out his fear on the Russian aerospace industry.
I'm pretty sure that if the Russian scientists had more free range they would have developed some interesting designs.

[kool kitty89]

The (original 1945) Su-9 and dirivatives were excelent a/c and it was probably the best first gen (depending on definition) early Soviet fighter.

It had a fully trimmable/variable incedence taleplane which would have allowed controll to be maintained at transsonic speeds. There was further development with thinner (straight) wing which may have been capable of a supersonic dive, this may be the one you're thinking of. Though there were other designs (contemporary to the MiG 15) that could do so as well. The MiG 15 its self lacked the controll ability and the proper wing to be able to safely break the sound barrier.