Don’t forget pdf if the Germans could get the resources of Caucaus in the 1941-42 and isolated the rest of the soviet army in the Syberia the cource of war could changed radically and already in the 1943 the Grmans could absolutly dominated in the whole Europe. Moreover they ( together with Turkey) could move farther to the Asia via Iran and finaly they could joined with Japane.
Moreover the germans army which were realised from the East could be succesfully used in other fronts like in N/Africa.
The other side of things is that the US was practically invulnerable to Germany at home, and by 1948 would have been in a position to produce enough nuclear devices to destroy Germany in an afternoon. It would also have been able to produce enough uninterceptable long-range bombers (Convair B-36s - prototypes flew during WW2 and they were virtually immune to intercept until the MiG-17 entered service) to deliver these nuclear devices. So if you call destroying Germany “victory”, then the Allies could have won without the Soviets.
But are you sure the Britain will EXIST till 1948? I/m not.
Using the new kind wearponry ( in fact the germans had the more hight tech fighters and tanks) they had NEVER lost the initiative in the air above continental Europe. Even the strategic bombers armads could be easy neitrelized by the jet fighters ( as it we showed in the Korea) and even the piston TA-152H ( which were the best high-altitude fighter of WW2).
If the German,s NAVY had get enough the resource from the East they could realize the dream of Deniz about 1000 U-boats battle-ready and thus practically could lead the Britain from the war ( despite of USA support).
And don’t forget about German rocketry. In fact the tactica of application the V-2 constantly inproved and already in ht e1946 the Germany coulde get the much more accurate and intensive bombarding of London. ( and the perspective transcontinental V-9/10 which could began to reach the USA coast since 1946-47)Analogical rockes could appears in the USA ONLY 7-9 years later.
And even if USA could use the (two or three) a-bomb in 1945 against Germany the rate of production of the a-bombs could not let to make more that 3-5 charges per year. And there is no any doubts the Germany could create the own a-bomb for the shortest time.
And the first Mig-17 could take off in the 1950 do you really think the high-thech German industry coul not create the simular ( or better) aircraft in the 1946-47 already?
Don’t be the naive pdf;)
The price - both for the rest of the Allies and the whole world - would have been a great deal higher, and thus I am and remain deeply grateful that the Soviets were on the same side as us during WW2.
I think possession of the nuclear weapon gives USA a certain edge in this situation.
Should the scenario (in case of USSR collapse) develop the way you and PDF describe, the USA woild use the nukes with no hesitation (and they did it, as we know).
USA had 2 nukes in 1945 and 32 in 1947.
Not too many, but still big help. I think nukes make it much more unsertain to speculate…
U.S. production was well beyond that of Germany. The reich did not make good use of their resources during the war anyway so their output was considerably lower than one might have expected. Taking out Britain would not be possible once the U.S. was involved given US production capacity.
The Germans occupied Belgium, France, Holland and some other countries but their output of weapons remained very unimpressive following these conquests. Clearly, these vast resources were not used.
The war seems rather pointless anyway given the German defeat in the first world war. World War II was unnecessary because if the allies had maintained a strong military presence in Germany following the German defeat the Germans could not have easily rearmed.
The allies didn’t need Russia to finish off Germany in World War I.
Doesn’t matter. Unrefuelled combat radius of a B-36 is somewhere over 3,000 miles (source Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force), and this appears to be for aircraft that have not gone through the Featherweight programme and are carrying 35 tonnes of bombs. Featherweight B-36s regularly hit 50,000ft in service and if carrying a single nuclear device should have a combat range of the order of 4,000 miles - more than enough to hit anywhere in Germany from North America.
Ummm… sort of. While the Germans produced a profusion of advanced designs, rather a lot of them never got past the prototype stage because they simply didn’t work. Of those that did, the majority of production was series-produced prototypes rather than true mass production. This caused rather a lot of problems - non-standard parts, limited production runs and the fact that the bugs were not fully worked out to name but three. An excellent example of an “advanced” German design is the Ta-183. Generally held to be a highly advanced design which everyone copied postwar, it was actually built in Argentina by Kurt Tank as the IAI Pulqui and turned out to be a complete dog of an aircraft.
The various WW2 high-altitude fighters were useless against a B-36 too - they simply had neither the wing area or the engine power. At very high altitudes stall speed and Vne get closer and closer together. The lower the wing loading the less this is a problem - and the B-36 had very low wing loading. From memory the Ta-152H topped out at around 45,000ft and was distinctly unpleasant to fly at such altitudes (not to mention it could only stay up there for the 5 minutes it’s chemical boost lasted).
Jet fighters were also of little use - the early jets simply didn’t have the power at high altitudes. It was on the introduction of reheat/afterburner which enabled fighters to fly and fight at such altitudes - hence my reference to MiG-17s.
Quite apart from the fact that I’m highly sceptical about this (I don’t think Germany had the infrastructure to build U-boats a great deal faster than they did - yards and skilled workers are far more critical than resources), it’s irrelevant. I was suggesting that the US was quite capable of destroying Germany by nuclear attack launched from the continental US.
Umm… again, I think you’re making the mistake of confusing what the Germans thought they could do with what they actually managed to do. It is notable that when pretty much the entire German rocket team was transplanted to the US and given resources far in excess of what they had available in Germany, it took them until 1960 for them to built a rocket with that sort of range (Atlas). Korolev in the Soviet Union frankly made monkeys of them, and it is notable that he looked at the V-2 design and discarded it as a pile of junk.
The reason that the US made so few nuclear weapons in the immediate postwar period was that they made the very courageous decision to shut down production to rebuild their systems to postwar standards. Furthermore, funding was cut massively at the end of the war. Had the war continued and had they continued with full rate production, they would have had around 150 weapons for summer 1947.
There is a great deal of doubt. The entire German nuclear programme was a comedy of errors, ranging from a physicist who didn’t notice that his graphite samples were contaminated with Boron* due to being lovesick, to a head physicist (Heisenberg) who couldn’t even calculate critical mass correctly (as shown by the farm hall transcripts - they initially thought the Hiroshima bombs were a trick).
No, I don’t think they could do it. The German aircraft industry produced two good aircraft in the entire war - the Me-109 and Fw-190 in their various guises. Most of the rest were as already mentioned little more than series production prototypes or were complete dogs. Even given the wartime conditions they faced, the Soviet aircraft industry consistently matched the Germans and the British/Americans consistently outmatched them. Couple this with the fact that most German “advanced prototypes” in the late war period were little more than dirty paper and you see why I strongly doubt that the Germans could produce anything nearly as good as the MiG-17 in that timeframe.
They were testing graphite to use as a moderator, i.e. to slow down the neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Boron is a ravenous neutron absorber, and was well known to be one at the time. At the same stage this lab level experiment was going on, the US was building an atomic pile in Chicago and was producing extremely pure graphite on an industrial scale - something the Germans never figured out how to do
Oh i didn’t know pdf you are so “soc…” of us military;)
Firstly the B-36 was ready the the serial ppoduction only in may of 1948.
The Germany which also could the priority in the developing of AAA-rocket has enough time to neitrealize this super-experiencive US-monster
Ummm… sort of. While the Germans produced a profusion of advanced designs, rather a lot of them never got past the prototype stage because they simply didn’t work.
Not in cases of Tiger tanks , Rocketry V-2 and the Jet fighters.
Agree in the initial of application those wearpon were unreliable and unaccurate. But it developed RAPIDLY. Moreover don’t forget that the new kinds of USA wearponry like bombers B-36 were also prototype till 1948 .
Of those that did, the majority of production was series-produced prototypes rather than true mass production.
Again the one “serial-propotype” Tiger 1/2 was equeal of 10/15 Shermans or others.
Ore one Panther - about 5/7 allies or soviet tanks.
This caused rather a lot of problems - non-standard parts, limited production runs and the fact that the bugs were not fully worked out to name but three. An excellent example of an “advanced” German design is the Ta-183. Generally held to be a highly advanced design which everyone copied postwar, it was actually built in Argentina by Kurt Tank as the IAI Pulqui and turned out to be a complete dog of an aircraft.
All this is true pdf, and we have already discussed it in other threads.
But you just forget the allies has aslo a lot of problems with new kinds of wearponry and they LOSED the thechnological competition in such field like the jet aircrafts, rocketry (especially!!!),U-boats and acoustic torpedos, the optic ecupment.
They a little lose in the radar technology but not critically.
The various WW2 high-altitude fighters were useless against a B-36 too - they simply had neither the wing area or the engine power. At very high altitudes stall speed and Vne get closer and closer together. The lower the wing loading the less this is a problem - and the B-36 had very low wing loading. From memory the Ta-152H topped out at around 45,000ft and was distinctly unpleasant to fly at such altitudes (not to mention it could only stay up there for the 5 minutes it’s chemical boost lasted).
Its strange but you critisize the German wearponry ( which really fliyed and fough in the WW2) as the unrealiable and non-effective but you are in delight from the piston-jet dinosaur like B-36 whic could to fight only in 1948.
I have no any doubt that in the 1948 the B-36 could meet not the T-152H, but the new kind of jet extra-high-altitude fighter and the newest radio corrected the AAA-rockets.
Jet fighters were also of little use - the early jets simply didn’t have the power at high altitudes. It was on the introduction of reheat/afterburner which enabled fighters to fly and fight at such altitudes - hence my reference to MiG-17s.
Well Mig-17 which firstly took off in the jenuary of 1950 was a good fighter but thre is no adoubt the germany could prodused the simular ( or better) jet fighter in the 1946-47 on the basis of Me-262 or other.
Quite apart from the fact that I’m highly sceptical about this (I don’t think Germany had the infrastructure to build U-boats a great deal faster than they did - yards and skilled workers are far more critical than resources), it’s irrelevant. I was suggesting that the US was quite capable of destroying Germany by nuclear attack launched from the continental US.
In fact the production ( and supplies) of the enourmous Germans tanks armies and aviation in the East absorbed the greap part of the Germany industry ( and the hight-skill manpower particulary). The realising those power from the East could let the Germany consentrate in the building the U-boats in more scale. Moreover the new millions of slavs from the East could ( and resources) could realised the Germans manpower from the civil fields and directed them to the war industry.
Umm… again, I think you’re making the mistake of confusing what the Germans thought they could do with what they actually managed to do. It is notable that when pretty much the entire German rocket team was transplanted to the US and given resources far in excess of what they had available in Germany, it took them until 1960 for them to built a rocket with that sort of range (Atlas). Korolev in the Soviet Union frankly made monkeys of them, and it is notable that he looked at the V-2 design and discarded it as a pile of junk.
Well as we knw today the Americans could repit the V-2 only in the end of 1940s. USSR builed its own copy of V-2 in the 1947 ( so called first rocket of Korolev R-1).
But the V-2 really flight in the 1943 ( inspite of the the problems with electronic system of stabilisation ).
The prototipe of transcontinental A-9/10 was able to appear not later than in the end of 40s.
The reason that the US made so few nuclear weapons in the immediate postwar period was that they made the very courageous decision to shut down production to rebuild their systems to postwar standards. Furthermore, funding was cut massively at the end of the war. Had the war continued and had they continued with full rate production, they would have had around 150 weapons for summer 1947.
Bu i heared the another point from Nicdfresh.
The USA forced the development of A-bombs and strategic aviation ( including your “lovelly” B-36) as hard as it was possible. At that same moment they decreased te common troops to the profite of the new atomic wearpon and aviation. This was the forced wway ( and more cheaper ) for the holding off the USSR in the first stage of Cold war.
There is a great deal of doubt. The entire German nuclear programme was a comedy of errors, ranging from a physicist who didn’t notice that his graphite samples were contaminated with Boron* due to being lovesick, to a head physicist (Heisenberg) who couldn’t even calculate critical mass correctly (as shown by the farm hall transcripts - they initially thought the Hiroshima bombs were a trick).
Bud do you agree that the entire soviet nucler program was just pity parody of Germans “comedy”?
Nevertheless the Soviets was able to creat a own bomb for the period of 1945-49 practically from the ZERO.
So doy you seriously thing the MUCH MORE HIGH-TECH Germany could not capable to creat the a-bomb ( using its "comedian"former experience ) until the end of 1946-47? I’m not.
Errr… two problems with that. Firstly, B-36 wartime production was massively delayed by the fact that a bomber with that performance simply wasn’t needed and would barely be in service by the end of the war. Thus, resources were diverted to built and improve the B-17, -24 and -29. Once resources became available at the end of the war (even under peacetime budgets) the problems were rapidly fixed.
Secondly, who says the Germans were to know that the B-36s were coming?
WW2 German spying in the US was an abject failure, and if the US were planning a nuclear strike with the B-36s it simply makes no sense to use them on conventional raids beforehand to let the Germans practice their defences. Thus they simply had no reason to build a rocket like Wasserfall (which would in any case be of very limited effectiveness against a B-36 - if it had any idea where the launchers were it could pretty much fly around them).
Umm… allowing for a bit of hyperbole, that’s sort of true. The thing is, that the US or Russians could produce 20 tanks for every one the Germans made without breaking a sweat, and these tanks would be more reliable and easier to maintain. Thus, you’re hitting a ratio of about 30 Shermans per tiger.
The other point - an absolutely critical one that everybody always seems to miss - is that tanks don’t only fight tanks. In fact, the major job of the Sherman was infantry support, and it did this superbly well. Because they never produced enough Tigers or Panthers, the German infantry was perennially short of tanks - so the contest wasn’t Tiger .vs. Sherman, but German Infantry .vs. Allied Tanks & Infantry. It may not sound too bad, but believe me when on foot any tank is a behemoth. Even for modern light infantry with decent anti-armour weapons, the minute something as weak and lightly armoured as a BMP-1 turns up it becomes your number one priority for destruction. Imagine what it must be like for Landsers facing full on tanks without decent anti-armour weaponry.
Ummm… not even sure that’s true.
With Jet aircraft, the RAF actually had jet fighters in squadron service before the Luftwaffe, and these were both better fighters (capable of dogfighting with Spitfires - something the Me-262 never was) and had enormously better engines.
Rocketry is again a bit of a mix - at a battlefield level the Allies were probably better at it, particularly the Russian rocket artillery and the US/UK use of air launched rockets for anti-tank work. Only at the very small level (Panzerfaust) and very large level (V-2) were the Germans clearly better, and the V-2 made a very minimal contribution to the effect of the war.
U-boats - again, not perhaps as much to chose from as you might think. The Schnorkel and Type-XXI battery capacity were about the only significant innovations without parallell on the Allied side, and the Allies were able to come up with successful countermeasures to both during the war. What is often forgotten is that the Allies actually ran the most successful submarine campaign in history (the blockade of Japan) which actually did to the Japanese what the Germans tried to do to the British. Furthermore, the British submarines operating out of Malta were extremely effective in cutting off supplies to North Africa - some convoys being completely wiped out.
Accoustic torpedoes - the Allies actually had the rather more technically difficult anti-submarine accoustic homing torpedoes in service by March 1943 (linky) and a variant for submarine use against surface shipping was deployed in the Pacific by summer 1944.
Optics - no idea.
Thing is I know the performance of both, and the technical challenges involved in getting both to work (remember that technically the B-36 was actually a lot less advanced than the B-29). I also have the benefit of 60 years worth of hindsight coupled to 4 years of professional engineering training at one of the better universities out there for engineering. This gives me a pretty good insight into just how good or bad the various wartime systems were. This is why I’m hammering many of the German systems - because I genuinely think they were a big steaming heap of faeces compared to the competition, not because I believe the Americans were some form of natural born genius.
Seriously, the Me-262 could not be pushed any further in performance without a major redesign that the German aircraft industry simply didn’t have the knowledge or the resources to push through. Furthermore, to reach the kind of height that the B-36 operated at requires very high performance engines. These require both a lot of strategic minerals the Germans don’t have access to (principally Nickel - they ended up being forced to use steel and aluminium for their turbine blades in WW2, cripping performance). Not only that, but the design of the engine was a blind alley - postwar the Soviets tried to get the new “advanced” German jet engines which were to power the next generation of fighters to work and simply could not. This despite having far more resources, access to strategic minerals, etc. The designs were simply that bad, which is why they bought a bunch of RR engines instead and based their initial designs on those.
Maybe. I’m far from convinced that very many of them would have the skills needed to expand production all that much. Some improvements could be made, but the Germans frankly did not employ the US mass production and process control systems which allowed them to produce huge amounts with unskilled labour. The German designs also tended to rely on tight tolerances, which in turn block them from the Russian method of loose toleranced designs which work anyway.
The A-9/10 might have appeared, but I simply don’t believe it would work. Pretty much the entire team from Peenemunde ended up working for the US, and like I said it took them 10 years longer than you’re thinking to do the same thing. Even today, only a very limited number of nation states are able to build missiles of that range, and they are generally both horrendously inexpensive and ludicrously inaccurate (missing the entire country you’re firing at is far from uncommon).
The bombers were. For the first few years of the Cold War, the bombs themselves were a giant bluff. Between 1945 and about 1950, the Americans actually had very small numbers of nuclear weapons available. They (successfully) gave the impression to the rest of the world that they had a plentiful supply however, and this kept the peace as effectively as real weapons would have done.
No way. The Soviets had an extremely capable bunch of Physicists backed up by some very capable engineers and plenty of resources. They also knew that Atomic weapons were possible, and from their spies within the Manhattan project knew at least some of the blind alleys they should avoid. The Germans had none of these - the project was of a very low priority, the physicists couldn’t even calculate the most basic of values like critical mass correctly (something even the Japanese had done by about 1943), and they never had the industrial or engineering resources to turn any theoretical design into reality. It is hugely insulting to those involved in the Soviet programme to even compare them the the German attempts.
Not so rapidly fixed indeed.( the proptotipe took off 1946. The first serial B-36A was ready to fly in mid of 1948. The latest and the best modification of B-36H( with additional jet engines - the very unoptimal technical design) had come to the service only in 1952.
So if in the peace time the USA has the entire 5-6 years of polish up and finish the B-36. Ans as we know the first prototipe of Mig-17 was ready in 1950 ( in the 1952 the serial production had begin).
So i never believe the Germany which already in 1945 had the enourmous experiece in the building of jet fighters was unable to create the own analog of Mig-17 in 1947-48.
Secondly, who says the Germans were to know that the B-36s were coming?
WW2 German spying in the US was an abject failure, and if the US were planning a nuclear strike with the B-36s it simply makes no sense to use them on conventional raids beforehand to let the Germans practice their defences. Thus they simply had no reason to build a rocket like Wasserfall (which would in any case be of very limited effectiveness against a B-36 - if it had any idea where the launchers were it could pretty much fly around them).
And who said them that B-17 had appeared in 1941?
And why they had enopugh reasons to developed the Wasserfall against B-17?
They were able to destroy about 15-20% of allies bomber in the raids of 1943-44 when the luftwaffe was still enought airplains. If they consentated the whole its airforces ( if the USSR was out of war) agains the stategic bombert - there is no any doubt the allies strategic fleet could dissapeared for the few month of “succesfull” raids
Moreover in the lates monts of war the Germans gas developed the wery effective and simple way to hit the bombers -they used the small guided rockets under wings of fighter.
The single volley was able to shot down the bombers with a hight probability.
Umm… allowing for a bit of hyperbole, that’s sort of true. The thing is, that the US or Russians could produce 20 tanks for every one the Germans made without breaking a sweat, and these tanks would be more reliable and easier to maintain. Thus, you’re hitting a ratio of about 30 Shermans per tiger.
The other point - an absolutely critical one that everybody always seems to miss - is that tanks don’t only fight tanks. In fact, the major job of the Sherman was infantry support, and it did this superbly well. Because they never produced enough Tigers or Panthers, the German infantry was perennially short of tanks - so the contest wasn’t Tiger .vs. Sherman, but German Infantry .vs. Allied Tanks & Infantry.
No so simple pdf.
You right the major task of Panther and Tiger was the anti-tank fight ( and honestly speaking they did it excellent).This two kind of last germans tanks had joined in itself the last tend of German war in 1943-45 - defence war. So they created the good defence anti-tanks ( which were especially effective in ambush ) Do you read the examples when the single Panther or Tiger crasher the 10-15 allies or soviet tank?
And do you remember the Michael Vittman battle in the 13 june of 1944 when he in its Tiger, hited the about 25 british tanks. for 20 minuts(!!!)
It may not sound too bad, but believe me when on foot any tank is a behemoth. Even for modern light infantry with decent anti-armour weapons, the minute something as weak and lightly armoured as a BMP-1 turns up it becomes your number one priority for destruction. Imagine what it must be like for Landsers facing full on tanks without decent anti-armour weaponry.
I’m believe you , but you you just ignore the some facts.
Lets imegine the sitution when the allies platoon supported of 10 tanks attack the villiage when the Germans platoon take the position with single Tiger.
In practice this tiger had more chances to destroy the all allies tanks before itself could be hitted and the allies infantry stay alone ( did you play the CoD2 mission “Tiger”?)
In fact if not the absolut air superiority of allies in Normandy ( about 15x1) they HAD NO effective way of fight with Germans tanks till the end of war except the aviation blows.
Ummm… not even sure that’s true.
With Jet aircraft, the RAF actually had jet fighters in squadron service before the Luftwaffe, and these were both better fighters (capable of dogfighting with Spitfires - something the Me-262 never was) and had enormously better engines.
firstly the the Germans had the shortage of the Nickel and Chrome for turbine blades therefore the Jumo 004-engine was too unreliable. But don’t forget we discuss the situation of collaps of the USSR and involving to the war the Turkey ( with its Crome and Nickel stockpile.In this case the Germany could receive the much more reliable jet-engine.
Sec why the Me-262 must firght with Spitfire ?The last piston FW and Me could easy fight with Spitfire. But the main task of Me-262 was the fight with strategical bombers.( 4x30-mm gun were more than enought for this action)
Rocketry is again a bit of a mix - at a battlefield level the Allies were probably better at it, particularly the Russian rocket artillery and the US/UK use of air launched rockets for anti-tank work. Only at the very small level (Panzerfaust) and very large level (V-2) were the Germans clearly better, and the V-2 made a very minimal contribution to the effect of the war.
Not a so minimal. If the in begining the aplication of V-2 he persantage of succesfull attack ( i.e. reaching the London) was the 30% than the in the feb of 1945 - already 50%.
This was due to progress with system of stabilizing and guidance to the target.
The Germans already in the 1944 HAD a good and realible rocket engine with the thrust of 20 tons(!!!)Nether allies nor the USSR had no nothing simular.
U-boats - again, not perhaps as much to chose from as you might think. The Schnorkel and Type-XXI battery capacity were about the only significant innovations without parallell on the Allied side, and the Allies were able to come up with successful countermeasures to both during the war. What is often forgotten is that the Allies actually ran the most successful submarine campaign in history (the blockade of Japan) which actually did to the Japanese what the Germans tried to do to the British. Furthermore, the British submarines operating out of Malta were extremely effective in cutting off supplies to North Africa - some convoys being completely wiped out.
The all succes of allies U-boats was just pity shade of the gernas Kringsmarine
The tonnage of sinking allies transport by the Kringsmarine per month of all war.
Besides the underwater blockad of Japane was sucsessfull due to the full collapse of Japane NAVY in the battles of 1944.
Accoustic torpedoes - the Allies actually had the rather more technically difficult anti-submarine accoustic homing torpedoes in service by March 1943 (linky) and a variant for submarine use against surface shipping was deployed in the Pacific by summer 1944.
The technically difficulity is not yet the effective.
In fact in the 1945 the allies were wery troubles of the new kind of germans torpedo.When the Red army cuptured the Donitz bases the Churchill asced the Stalin to send to the Britain the one accustic torpedo for the study.
Optics - no idea.
In the beginning of 1945 the Germany had began the serial production of new night vision devices and artillery sight which were establised on the selfh-propelers anti-tank guns.
Your personal thech experience sertainly good( and i have the enjoy to discuss it with you ).
But your hypercriticism of germas archivements could not refused the historical facts:
for instnace after the WW2 both USSR and USA wery succesfull used the Germans tech experience for instanse in the rocketry and U-boats.In fact the Geramny had the BEST examples of it.
First soviet jet fighter Mig-9 used the soviet copy of german Jumo-004. And the first soviet tactical rocket was the copy of V-2.The first after war soviet submarines widly used the tecnical desigions of Kringsmarine.
Seriously, the Me-262 could not be pushed any further in performance without a major redesign that the German aircraft industry simply didn’t have the knowledge or the resources to push through.
Nevertheless they had the best experience of the creation of jet fighter and they were the pioneers in the combat appication of jet aviation and just the shortage of special materials like Chrome did not let them to create the enough reliable engine.
Furthermore, to reach the kind of height that the B-36 operated at requires very high performance engines. These require both a lot of strategic minerals the Germans don’t have access to (principally Nickel - they ended up being forced to use steel and aluminium for their turbine blades in WW2, cripping performance). Not only that, but the design of the engine was a blind alley - postwar the Soviets tried to get the new “advanced” German jet engines which were to power the next generation of fighters to work and simply could not. This despite having far more resources, access to strategic minerals, etc. The designs were simply that bad, which is why they bought a bunch of RR engines instead and based their initial designs on those.
Don’t forgot the Nickel was not problem if in the war joined the Turkey.( the situation which we are considering)
Well you right the first soviet reliable jet engine RD-45 was the full copy of British Rolls-Royce Nene II. But already through year the first soviet endine VK-1 was ready.(This engine used the both achivement of Britains and Germans).
Maybe. I’m far from convinced that very many of them would have the skills needed to expand production all that much. Some improvements could be made, but the Germans frankly did not employ the US mass production and process control systems which allowed them to produce huge amounts with unskilled labour. The German designs also tended to rely on tight tolerances, which in turn block them from the Russian method of loose toleranced designs which work anyway.
The Russian loose tolerance was the forced mean coz the shortage of high-skilled
menpower which the tecnically more developed germany had no in the first time of the WW2.Nothing more. Plus the tecnical ecupments of soviet plants were less then the germans.
The succesfull way of mass production of the soviet wearponry was mostlu becouse this loose tolerence sure, ( and soviet and lend lise resources let this method to be effective) But this way was absolutly unpossible for the GErmany, becouse they had not enought resousec and instead of 10 Sherman or T-34 they prefered to produce one-two Tiger or Panther which was equeql the 10 allies tanks ( with one condition - if it was operated professional enough.).
The A-9/10 might have appeared, but I simply don’t believe it would work. Pretty much the entire team from Peenemunde ended up working for the US, and like I said it took them 10 years longer than you’re thinking to do the same thing. Even today, only a very limited number of nation states are able to build missiles of that range, and they are generally both horrendously inexpensive and ludicrously inaccurate (missing the entire country you’re firing at is far from uncommon).
Firstly the Germany never be the a “common nation” during the WW2 , this nation was ready to produce and used the 20 tonn rocket in the 1944(!!!).
Not 100% effective but it works.( in comparition with allies and soviet rocketry at this moment;).They were the pioneers in the manies of thech designs including the rocketry( this is the fact).So i have no doubts if the Germany did not lose the war in 1945 they wer able to create the strategical rocket the FIRST.
The bombers were. For the first few years of the Cold War, the bombs themselves were a giant bluff. Between 1945 and about 1950, the Americans actually had very small numbers of nuclear weapons available. They (successfully) gave the impression to the rest of the world that they had a plentiful supply however, and this kept the peace as effectively as real weapons would have done.
Not so a “great bluff” as you could to think.
The stategic aviation had the priory right after WW2 in USA as the means of the delivery the a-bombs to the USSR territory.
In this period the strategic aviation of USA has the great boom.And the technically ugly B-36 ( the pitfull mixture of the pistons and jet engines) was just intermediate level between the B-29 and the purelly jet B-49 and B-52.
No way. The Soviets had an extremely capable bunch of Physicists backed up by some very capable engineers and plenty of resources. They also knew that Atomic weapons were possible, and from their spies within the Manhattan project knew at least some of the blind alleys they should avoid. The Germans had none of these - the project was of a very low priority, the physicists couldn’t even calculate the most basic of values like critical mass correctly (something even the Japanese had done by about 1943), and they never had the industrial or engineering resources to turn any theoretical design into reality. It is hugely insulting to those involved in the Soviet programme to even compare them the the German attempts.
Well after the Hirosima ( or the possible nuke strikes tothe Germany) there were nobody doubt the Nucler wearpon is possible.
BTW in the Soviet union Stalin ordered the goupe of soviet Physicists to begin the developing the soviet a-bomb in the 1943. But till the end of war the work progressed a unsignificant coz the USSR had a shortage of Uran-ore. After the collapse of Germany the soviet physicists obtained the germans material and theretical stuff. Where the mistake were.
But the active work has begin after this and the soviet own progect of a-bomb could be ready in the 1950. But time is going out and the US nuclear monopoly threated the world.( for instance crazy MacArthur planned to burn the China in 1951).
The first soviet a-bomb was based on the americans datas. This let to create the bomb more quickly in 1949.
The Germans had some very advanced designs. The bashing of German technology seems comical given how they compared with the allies. The Germans had potential but sadly made many errors. However, there technology was quite impressive in many cases.
Germany actually was more impressive in World War I than in WWII. Germany held out against many adversaries for a long time.
Why when somebody damns the Nazy he firstly recalls about anti-semitism. The slav population were exterminated MUCH more then the jews in the WW2?
May be becouse jewish mass media portray them as the “international high-race” which only could be mentioned for the moral reproach for the other nations?
I recently found a book that discusses the experiences of Germans on the eastern front in the first world war and there impression of the inhabitants. However, i’m not sure this territoty is considered Russia today. They might have just been in the Ukraine and Belearus.
Without USSR Germany would have its hands free and ‘Sea lion’ would be inevitable reality. Then the only Allies footholds close to Europe would be Africa and Iceland maybe to field stratobombers. More, it is not safe to assume the US production would be higher forever - with USSR resources German production would go off the charts, as it was handicapped by lack of resources during most of the war. And here comes biggest trouble - without war in Europe US can’t safely sit behind the ocean anymore - it MUST act or face constantly increasing Axis production, thus losing it’s biggest advantage.
I think it would be a VERY bloody stalemate after some years at best. Atomic bombings of Reich would make peace impossible with every German thinking about revenge all the time. After that US, even if it manages to defend itself against entire Eurasia, would have very few options considering constant increasing of Axis power and potential making of Axis nuclear weapons. Kinda apocalyptic future:)
Sorry for the delay, I’ve been busy and missed this thread popping up again.
OK, I’ll grant that they might have done - the future is after all uncertain. However, based on what I know about just how difficult designing aircraft in that regime is, and how much the engine used owed to Whittle (a true genius, and one that Germany didn’t have an equivalent to in engine terms) I think it unlikely. Given that the Ta-183, generally touted as the German equivalent to the MiG-15 (with the MiG-17 after all being largely a developed and afterburning MiG-15) was a miserable failure when built as the IAe Pulqui II, despite having a better engine than the Germans ever managed, I’m left hugely sceptical. The fundamental principles of swept wings were known prewar, and only the Germans were dumb enough to think there was any point in trying them during the war. Everybody else knew that they simply didn’t have the engine power to benefit from them.
Personally I think it was politics. The Germans seem to have used rockets as the answer to most things, even when it was a really dumb idea. For examples see the Natter last-ditch fighter which killed the only pilot dumb enough to try flying it, or the Me-163 which could only intercept enemy flying right over it’s airfield and would dissolve the pilot given half a chance.
Before the introduction of escort fighters, this was true - the long range raids, whether day or night suffered horrendous losses. It’s worth noting that (for the war in the west - I have no access to Soviet statistics) the only job more dangerous than RAF Bomber command was being part of a U-boat crew.
However, once the escort fighters got going this probably wasn’t true. The USAAF had a hell of a lot of very high performance fighters which were free to engage the enemy, and they usually killed more than they lost. I see no reason why adding German reinforcements would change this trend.
Indeed - but remember that Wittman was eventually killed by a Sherman (probably a Sherman Firefly). Furthermore, Wittman was a truly exceptional tank commander - the average would be much less capable - and his Tiger was mobility killed and abandoned during the battle.
Incidentally, during this operation the six tanks under Wittman’s command killed roughly 30 British tanks. Wittman was credited with 27 of these - suggesting that either he was massively better than the average, or someone was cooking the books for propaganda purposes.
The 17pdr on the Sherman Firefly was effective, as were a number of the US tank destroyer designs, and the British towed anti-tank guns. In any case, the western Allies had plenty of air support and could use that against the Germans. Again, their industrial capacity was superior - they could have both.
I was trying to point out that the British equivalent to the Me-262 - which was in squadron service a little before it - was a much better dogfighter yet had the same speed. Had the Me-262 ever become a major problem then the Meteors would have moved to the continent (they did anyway in early 1945, probably tasked to shoot down V-1s) and we would have seen Meteor .vs. Me-262 dogfights. I think the Meteor would probably have won these - it was the better fighter and had a more suitable armament.
Umm… not so sure about that one. The Japanese prewar really didn’t have any effective antisubmarine warfare capability, and never built one. They concentrated on using their fleet as an offensive arm.
The US production genius was in devising a system of mass production which lets a small number of highly skilled people supervise a vast number of the unskilled, producing parts to a tolerance set that previously only skilled workers could achieve. The German (and indeed British) systems by and large combined the worst points of both systems.
