PDA

View Full Version : What if the Germans won the war



Sergeant Dorr
10-04-2007, 10:14 PM
I have been thinking about this for a long time. What if the germans won WWII? What would the outcome of the world be? If you have any ideas post here!

tankgeezer
10-04-2007, 11:33 PM
I have been thinking about this for a long time. What if the germans won WWII? What would the outcome of the world be? If you have any ideas post here! history would repeat itself, As it has with all Empires. the Empire of the 3rd Reich would eventually stagnate, decline, and crumble. Entropy is the only undying Monarch.

AllHailCesar
10-05-2007, 01:52 AM
Alternate histories are a facsinating, endless topic.

It's a good thing they didn't win.....I don't speak German.

Drake
10-05-2007, 06:32 AM
I would possibly be a middle rank officer somewhere on a nice little post in the carribean or the pacific atolls and you would be my subordinates hrhr ;)

Rising Sun*
10-05-2007, 11:11 AM
This alternate history scenario usually concentrates on what the Allies would do.

What about the Axis?

How long would the Germans tolerate the ambitious but incompentent Italians?

How long would it take for the Japanese to realise that the Germans held them in contempt as an inferior race?

What Axis powers had control of which resources? e.g. Japan had almost all the rubber and most of the tin in the world. Then we get into wolfram etc, not to mention China and its resources.

The odds are that even if Germany won the war in Europe, there was going to be another war within the Axis in time.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2007, 11:18 AM
I would possibly be a middle rank officer somewhere on a nice little post in ... the pacific atolls and you would be my subordinates hrhr ;)

In your dreams, mate. :D

The Japs wouldn't let you anywhere near the Pacific in any permanent role.

They'd tolerate you as an ally, but if you want to know how they'd really like to treat you just read up on how they treated, say, the Dutch from the NEI.

Drake
10-05-2007, 12:50 PM
How about we define the scenario a little more precisely and then all those interested could summ up their ideas (this time I'll even try a serious answer, hihi).
Let's say Germany somehow miraculously manages to pull of Sealion, the british sue for peace and without hope for western aid stalin signs a bitter peace (like in hoi2) later in 41. That would leave us in say october '41 with a victorious germany in europe and no US involvement. Now we could make up a timetable till today where some geeks hang out in the weltweitnetz and talk about the hypothetical "What if the allies won" scenario :mrgreen:

overlord644
10-05-2007, 06:39 PM
i dont think the reich could possibly last for more than 10 years or so, first of all hitler would have a hell of a time slugging it out through areas of N. America like the Canadian wilderness or the Rocky Mountains against the guerrilla warfare which would be sure to follow a nazi invasion of america. Also if hitler could rule the world, i think constant revolutions which would arise in places like America and England combined with the fact that the german populace would eventually grow tired of thousands of dead germans every year would be enough for nazi germany to destroy itself.

tankgeezer
10-06-2007, 04:14 AM
Just to put a twist on things, and considering the historic role of the Papacy and the Vatican in world events, I would expect that after awhile, the Vatican would succeed in deposing, or liquidating Hitler, in order to retain their own power, and control in the world.

tankgeezer
10-06-2007, 09:56 AM
Quote: "I dont think the reich could possibly last for more than 10 years or so, first of all hitler would have a hell of a time slugging it out through areas of N. America like the Canadian wilderness or the Rocky Mountains against the guerrilla warfare which would be sure to follow a nazi invasion of america."

I do not believe that the Axis would have the power in men, and materiel to mount an effective or viable land invasion of the contiental U.S. The land mass is just too large, and the well armed,an irate citizenry would harry, and hound them to death. The Axis would need to have Nuclear capabilities in order to force a surrender. Otherwise, it would prove a futile venture.
As with Russia, our industrial power would continue to operate to supply the fighters, and that would be the U.S. military, coast guard, merchant marine, reserves, and national guardsman and about any able man and woman available. And a scorched Earth policy would also leave the attackers without anything to work with.
The Axis supply lines would be attacked constantly, and could not keep any re-supply effort going for long. The Great lakes would be of no use to them particulaily during the colder months, as the stormy conditions on the lakes are too dangerous for the ships of the time,(the lakes are far worse than the oceans in terms of severe weather.) as the St. Lawrence seaway would not be there until the 50's, and the Mississippi River is not deep enough to handle any but the most shallow draft boats.Also, The greatlakes area was, at the time the industrial center of the U.S. and would be safe from most attacks being too far inland to reach with the aircraft of the time.
The Axis would take some areas,and be able to hold them for awhile, but it would be hopeless for them in the long term without some type of operational, and deliverable super weapon. Just my thoughts..

Drake
10-06-2007, 11:36 AM
Where did you get the idea of a cross ocean invasion anyway? Why on earth should Germany attack the US, I even doubt that Pearl Harbour would still be on the timetable as there is absolutely no reason for that anymore. The US would stay isolationist happily ever after, sitting on the Monroe doctrin. Possibly a cold war scenario with 3 poles instead of two would be my bet in the long run. And given the fact that there were many pro nazi people in the US prior to the war I can even imagine, that the US and a german dominated Europe would have pretty close ties pretty fast again (at least economically anyway), with the Japanese Empire considered as the real outsider and threat.

@overlord: lol, couple of thousand dead each year, yeah that would turn the tide in Nazy Germany in the long run :rolleyes:
You cannot apply todays US standards to one of the most life disdaining dictatorships in history.

tankgeezer
10-06-2007, 11:46 AM
Although I dont remember the Title, but there was a book on this subject, from the viewpoint of a "modern " german official, Hitler's 75 birthday was approaching, and the world map showed most of Europe and much of the worlds smaller nations were under German control. Asia, and the Americas were not, and perhaps the U.K. as well, but it was interesting to read it. Maybe someone out there knows the title.

Panzerknacker
10-06-2007, 07:35 PM
I think that movie was "fatherland".

tankgeezer
10-07-2007, 12:52 AM
Thank you P.K. it was a good read, which is about all I remember about it,, some illustrations etc. So I recommend it to anyone who really wants to look into "what if".

pdf27
10-07-2007, 05:16 AM
Ummm... just remember everyone that by 1947 the US would have had intercontinental nuclear-capable bombers (the B-36 - which was effectively uninterceptable until the advent of the MiG-17) and several hundred nuclear devices (assuming they kept to their original production plans rather than shutting down their plants after the surrender of Japan as they did historically to rebuild them to peacetime standards of safety).
That gives them the capability to effectively destroy Germany in a single day, sometime in summer 1947. That effectively sets a timeframe in which the Germans have to knock the UK out of the war, build a fleet capable of dominating the atlantic in the face of the USN and RCN (by 1945 the biggest and third biggest navies in the world respectively), build an amphibious fleet capable of launching an invasion several times the size of D-Day, successfully land in the US and then carry out a large enough invasion to knock the US out of the war.

Short of Lindbergh being elected president I really can't see any possible way this could happen.

Drake
10-07-2007, 05:37 AM
Ummm... just remember everyone that by 1947 the US would have had intercontinental nuclear-capable bombers (the B-36 - which was effectively uninterceptable until the advent of the MiG-17) and several hundred nuclear devices (assuming they kept to their original production plans rather than shutting down their plants after the surrender of Japan as they did historically to rebuild them to peacetime standards of safety).
That gives them the capability to effectively destroy Germany in a single day, sometime in summer 1947. That effectively sets a timeframe in which the Germans have to knock the UK out of the war, build a fleet capable of dominating the atlantic in the face of the USN and RCN (by 1945 the biggest and third biggest navies in the world respectively), build an amphibious fleet capable of launching an invasion several times the size of D-Day, successfully land in the US and then carry out a large enough invasion to knock the US out of the war.

Short of Lindbergh being elected president I really can't see any possible way this could happen.

:confused:
Would you mind to describe the global situation in which your scenario takes place, cause I can't see the relevance in mine.

pdf27
10-07-2007, 08:57 AM
Any scenario where the US and Germany end up at war. Frankly, I really don't think Hitler was smart enough to keep out of a war with the US in conditions of conquering Europe. The British Empire would almost certainly have fought on, and were the Germans to engage Canada anywhere west of mid-atlantic that would probably bring the US into the war.

The only hope of a Thousand-Year Reich is either not to start a war in the first place or to ensure the US remains a friendly neutral. The latter requires IMHO a far smarter leader than Hitler ever was.

tankgeezer
10-07-2007, 11:32 AM
Besides,, this is an exercize in contrivance,,, you know, what if? doesnt have to make any particular sense, or adhere to any manner of reason, or basis of fact.

Drake
10-07-2007, 02:01 PM
Any scenario where the US and Germany end up at war. Frankly, I really don't think Hitler was smart enough to keep out of a war with the US in conditions of conquering Europe. The British Empire would almost certainly have fought on, and were the Germans to engage Canada anywhere west of mid-atlantic that would probably bring the US into the war.

The only hope of a Thousand-Year Reich is either not to start a war in the first place or to ensure the US remains a friendly neutral. The latter requires IMHO a far smarter leader than Hitler ever was.

I'll give you that, Germany was never a thread to any country on american soil, but neither was the US to a victorious Germany in Europe. Hitler wouldn't care less, if the Empire "fought on" if he somehow managed to invade Britain and defeat Russia. There would be a state of war without any serious fight. Why would Hitler declare war on the US if he had nothing to gain. In our timeline he basically declared war, because he was hoping Japan would return the favor and he thought it would happen anyway, given the ongoing struggle. And while the US government was hostile to nazi germany I can't see the senate backing Roosevelt in an attempted declaration of war if they fight Japan.

pdf27
10-07-2007, 02:39 PM
but neither was the US to a victorious Germany in Europe.
Ummm.... there was probably not a threat of conventional invasion, no. However, the US would have had the capability to utterly destroy Germany using nuclear weapons from about mid-1947 onwards. In reality of course this capability was aimed against the Soviets, but it was very much a real capability and had the US found itself in a war with Germany then it may very well have been used.

The real kicker in this is that there is no way the Germans would have any idea of this capability - the B-36 was massively more capable at high altitude than any other aircraft before the mid-1950s and effectively immune from interception until then, but until the US started to use it the Germans wouldn't have any idea it was a threat. Also, the bunch of clowns running the German nuclear programme (thankfully) caused the Nazis to think that nuclear weapons were impossible. The combination of the two means that even if the US does give Germany an ultimatum, it will be ignored as they won't believe in the threat. Furthermore, the Germans will think they are secure inside Festung Europa and not see the need to make peace with the US. That's very, very bad news for Germany.

Nickdfresh
10-07-2007, 03:37 PM
I watched the wonderful PBS series, "The War," a five part series on WWII from the American point of view of course in which numerous veterans of the War and civilians who were caught up in it were interviewed..

In one of the interviews, a former sniper/medic named Leopold (I think it was him) said he had been treating German POWs and one of the men, a mid-level officer asked him where he was from - in perfect English with little accent. Leopold replied, "The United States."

The German solder came back at him, "yes I know this but what part?"

Leopold said, "The northeastern part, not far from New York City."

The German officer further asked, "Where in the northeast?"

Leopold, annoyed, finally said, "Danbury, Connecticut."

The German's face lit up and he said, "Oooohhh! Danbury, where the (such and such) rivers meet the (whatever) river?"

Leopold was stunned that anyone would be aware of such a mundane fact, and said, "Yes! How did you know that?"

The German smiled and replied, "I was in training for the 'Administrator's program."

:)

overlord644
10-07-2007, 05:39 PM
i have always heard that hitler had in fact planned to invade the us. Historians have recently (within the last 5 yrs) found a sequel to "Mein Compf" outlining hitlers us invasion. THen there is also teh fact that he put a great deal of effort into the development of an "Amerika Bomber" which would fly nonstop from france to new york and then back again. So i think hitler really did despise american as much, maybe more, than the rest of the european ethnic groups

And as for hitlers manpower it is likely that his armys wouldnt have come just from germany.....


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Whywefight30vs200.png

windrider
10-07-2007, 06:39 PM
sorry I was starting a new post, so that's why the title is off topic
But...
the book that depicts perfectly this scenario
is THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE, by Philip K ****
Not made "à la sauce" Hollywood yet, I think?

Drake
10-07-2007, 06:40 PM
Ummm.... there was probably not a threat of conventional invasion, no. However, the US would have had the capability to utterly destroy Germany using nuclear weapons from about mid-1947 onwards. In reality of course this capability was aimed against the Soviets, but it was very much a real capability and had the US found itself in a war with Germany then it may very well have been used.

The real kicker in this is that there is no way the Germans would have any idea of this capability - the B-36 was massively more capable at high altitude than any other aircraft before the mid-1950s and effectively immune from interception until then, but until the US started to use it the Germans wouldn't have any idea it was a threat. Also, the bunch of clowns running the German nuclear programme (thankfully) caused the Nazis to think that nuclear weapons were impossible. The combination of the two means that even if the US does give Germany an ultimatum, it will be ignored as they won't believe in the threat. Furthermore, the Germans will think they are secure inside Festung Europa and not see the need to make peace with the US. That's very, very bad news for Germany.

Well this pretty much ignores the fact, that Germany in this scenario also has six more or less peacetime years, in which it can spend vast ressources on R&D instead of weapons. They would've achieved nuclear capabilities sooner or later, possibly sooner than the USSR in our timeframe. If Japan still foolishly declares war on the US, then Germany will know in 1945 that the bombs are feasible and put all effort into its development & production. Then we are again in the Cold War.
The B-36 would probably be countered by radarguided AA missiles based on the A4 by 1947 and I am fairly sure they would've come up with high altitude interceptors if the need would be. Though all those technical developments are imho to fast, because many developments were fuelled by the actual situation, even the Manhatten Project. And like I said I think it is politically more likely, that the US will arrange itself with the new situation in europe once the fighting stops.

Now on Hitler dreaming of an invasion of the USA. If he really did that, he was even more stupid than I thought, though I have never actually read something which would prove that. All his "visions" as far as I know were based around livingspace in the east for some farming type guys capable of feeding themselves from the soil they live on and such nonsense, this "each guy on his own land" seems to appeal to dictators, didn't that guy in zimbabwe ruin his countries economy the same way?

pdf27
10-07-2007, 06:53 PM
Maybe the Nazis would have got manpower from elsewhere, but the ones which didn't come from Germany really weren't up to scratch and tended to get slapped stupid by any competent military force they came up against. There is a great deal more to an army than just warm bodies.

As for the Amerika bomber, most of the designs were little more than dirty paper. You can't take these things seriously in terms of the effort going in until you get half a dozen prototypes flying - that's when the major work really starts going in. It's also worth noting that the US had it's own equivalent in the B-36 - which came from a specification in April 1941, long before the Germans were even thinking in such terms. It was put on the back-burner when it became apparent that the UK would survive to act as a bomber base, but even so was flying shortly postwar...

pdf27
10-07-2007, 07:07 PM
They would've achieved nuclear capabilities sooner or later, possibly sooner than the USSR in our timeframe.
Thing is, we know from the Farm Hall transcripts (where the high-ranking German nuclear physicists were interrogated after WW2 - their living quarters were bugged and they didn't know it) that Heisenberg et al didn't think that nuclear weapons were theoretically possible. The transcripts show that when given news of Hiroshima, they simply didn't believe that it was caused by a nuclear device. If they were running the German nuclear programme in this alternate history as well, the chances are that they'll think the same way and the first time they'll realise that nuclear weapons are possible will be when someone drops one on them.


If Japan still foolishly declares war on the US, then Germany will know in 1945 that the bombs are feasible and put all effort into its development & production. Then we are again in the Cold War.
Point taken - assuming that Germany manages to stay at peace with the US until they have something approaching nuclear parity. That's IMHO a dodgy assumption, but an arguable one.


The B-36 would probably be countered by radarguided AA missiles based on the A4 by 1947 and I am fairly sure they would've come up with high altitude interceptors if the need would be. Though all those technical developments are imho to fast, because many developments were fuelled by the actual situation, even the Manhatten Project.
Indeed. The point I'm trying to make is that the B-36 redefined high altitude - the Featherweight III variants flew at 50,000ft over the target. "High Altitude" to the German armed forces of 1942 or so (the last time they would be at war in this scenario) is 32,000ft or so, and the few aircraft that can reach those heights are really struggling badly. Until the B-36 comes along, there is no reason to try flying that high, or developing missiles that can go that high - indeed, it's rather an "obvious" waste of resources. If the US is going for a "destroy Germany in a day" strike - which they are potentially capable of by 1947 - then any developments have perhaps 3 hours to be invented, bodged together and flown. IMHO, that isn't going to happen.


And like I said I think it is politically more likely, that the US will arrange itself with the new situation in europe once the fighting stops.
Maybe. Personally I think it's unlikely given US participation in WW1, the amount of cash they were making out of the Allies, German hostility and interference with freedom of the seas (NOT bright - that's what brought the US in during WW1) and Roosevelt's character. Hence my original Lindbergh comment - it would take a leader like that, IMHO, to keep the US out of WW2 in Europe, as well as a far smarter Hitler.


this "each guy on his own land" seems to appeal to dictators, didn't that guy in zimbabwe ruin his countries economy the same way?
Not particularly, Zimbabwe's all about terrorising and starving to death anybody not likely to vote for Mugabe. Yet another shining example of an African country whose people would benefit massively (to the tune of not being dead) by having a NATO Airbourne Brigade drop in and remove their current leadership, but we can't do so as it would be seen as "racist" and all that cr*p. Apparently, it's just fine for Africans to starve and be massacred as long as people with the right skin colour are doing the killing.:evil:

tankgeezer
10-07-2007, 08:59 PM
so serious must we be? this is s'posed to be a fun little pipe dream.

overlord644
10-08-2007, 12:22 AM
well, there probably would be a couple of years between the wars in europe and america and during those times training of all of germanys troops training would become more intense

and as far as the bomber, there was in fact a prototype of the plane not to mention the fact that once there was a war, germany could probably use iceland as a bomber base

Chevan
10-08-2007, 12:54 AM
I have been thinking about this for a long time. What if the germans won WWII? What would the outcome of the world be? If you have any ideas post here!
Hi Sergeant.
Hmmmn the germans won the war.... the world without jews, limited slavs and other low races ;)
Sounds great:);)
But my mind is too weak to imagine this scenario.
I don't like the pseudo-scientific fantasies:)

Cheers.

Chevan
10-08-2007, 01:32 AM
The B-36 would probably be countered by radarguided AA missiles based on the A4 by 1947 and I am fairly sure they would've come up with high altitude interceptors if the need would be.

Not only the first radio controlled AA missiles but do not forget about the perfect hight altitude fighters like the piston masterpieces Ta-152H and Me-262. This was REAL uber anti-bomber wearpon that was ready for combat use in 1944.
Both of those fighters could easy teared for a pieces the B-29 formation like it did the Mig-15 in a Korean war.
(BTW the firepower of the 2x23&1x37 mm guns was much less then the firepower of 4x30 mm Me-262) ;)
And only the lack of resources and industry power of Germans ( simply coz they lost the territories on the ground ) let the allies enought possibilities for firebombing compain.
Besides if the Axis won the war ( i/e they captured the Asian colonies) the Alles would innevitable have the lack of resources - this fact simply couild not let the US to lead the so experiece ( in literal sence) the strategic air compain. Hence the Germany would not have much problems with the armades of B-17/29.
If they won the war ( i.e they captured the Kavkaz with the soviet oil field and Iran with the British oil) the losing he war in the Europe by allies would be just the matter of time.

Cheers.

Chevan
10-08-2007, 01:51 AM
Indeed. The point I'm trying to make is that the B-36 redefined high altitude - the Featherweight III variants flew at 50,000ft over the target. "High Altitude" to the German armed forces of 1942 or so (the last time they would be at war in this scenario) is 32,000ft or so, and the few aircraft that can reach those heights are really struggling badly. Until the B-36 comes along, there is no reason to try flying that high, or developing missiles that can go that high - indeed, it's rather an "obvious" waste of resources. If the US is going for a "destroy Germany in a day" strike - which they are potentially capable of by 1947 - then any developments have perhaps 3 hours to be invented, bodged together and flown. IMHO, that isn't going to happen.

My dear pdf you know i/m not a adirer of Nazy wearponry like the some of our members in here;)
But you naive believe in Super/Uber werponry is bother me :)
In spirit of Further you think that the parody for the bombers the ugly Piston/Jet B-36 could be the absolute mean that could win the war:)
You clearly know that the Germans was superior in many techoligies including the jet aviation. For the comparition the best alles fighter in 1944 the Meteor was much worst then the Me-262( and american YP-80 was still in testing) . Despite of lack of the Nickel the Germans was able to build in 1944 the jet engine that was better then the british.
So if you realy think that if they were techically able to creat the effectiive wearpon against the B-17 already in the 1944 ( and just the problems with resorces in total war did not let tem to build enought jet fighters).
they was not able to create the super jet fighter in the 1947 agains the ugly monster B-36 ?:)
If even the soviets have builded the Mig-17 int he 1950- the superior Germans engeeners had projected the simular fighter in the 1945 ( the me-183 project).
There is no any doubts thay could build the German analog of mig-17 already in the 1946-47. Accurate to meet the B-36 for dinner:)

Chevan
10-08-2007, 02:14 AM
Thing is, we know from the Farm Hall transcripts (where the high-ranking German nuclear physicists were interrogated after WW2 - their living quarters were bugged and they didn't know it) that Heisenberg et al didn't think that nuclear weapons were theoretically possible. The transcripts show that when given news of Hiroshima, they simply didn't believe that it was caused by a nuclear device. If they were running the German nuclear programme in this alternate history as well, the chances are that they'll think the same way and the first time they'll realise that nuclear weapons are possible will be when someone drops one on them.
:
You will laught but even in the USSR till the 1945 the physics were not sure the nucler wearpon was ever theoretical possible. In the mid of 1943 when they have begin the soviet nuclear program - untill the 1945 their resaults were still very humble in comparition with Germans. And only after the Red Army had captured the part of Germans documentation and in the USA nucler test was clearly prowed the possibility of the nukes- the Stalin read the soviet intelligence report after the few days.
Immediatelly he order to force the soviet project and gives all matter under command of Beria. Already in the 1950 the pure soviet progect of a-boomb should be ready , but we used the american datas and build it in the 1949.
So if the SU was able to creat the own bomb for the 5 years - i have no any doubts the Germans who have the more great experience and more idustrial possibilities would buld the bomb through 2-3 years.

Firefly
10-08-2007, 05:21 AM
PDF -
The point I'm trying to make is that the B-36 redefined high altitude - the Featherweight III variants flew at 50,000ft over the target. "High Altitude" to the German armed forces of 1942 or so (the last time they would be at war in this scenario) is 32,000ft or so, and the few aircraft that can reach those heights are really struggling badly. Until the B-36 comes along, there is no reason to try flying that high, or developing missiles that can go that high - indeed, it's rather an "obvious" waste of resources. If the US is going for a "destroy Germany in a day" strike - which they are potentially capable of by 1947 - then any developments have perhaps 3 hours to be invented, bodged together and flown. IMHO, that isn't going to happen.

I have absolutely no doubt that this being the case Germany would have had no defence or very little defence against it. However, if the US does not enter WW2 in 1941 and the UK is not in the War from 1940 then would the US have developed both the B-36 and an Atomic Bomb. If the B-36 does not carry the Atomic Weapon then it really serves no purpose as its not going to bomb Germany with any effect from the US. If the B-36 is used to bomb Germany before any Atom Bomb is used then the Germans would probably develop a counter to it. Lastly is the US and Germany arent at War before 1947 then the development of the B-36 probably wouldnt be any secret.

There was a short story banging around a few years ago called 'The Big One', which concentrated on the very subject of a B-36 nuclear strike on a victorious Germany. If anyone can find it it is a cracking read.

Actually he expanded his short story into a Novel, on sale at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-One-Stuart-Slade/dp/1430304952/ref=sr_1_1/202-5033922-9121456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191835651&sr=8-1

pdf27
10-08-2007, 08:26 AM
Firefly:
Yeah, The Big One is one of the major sources for my attitude here - or to be precise the background discussions to it. I happened upon the book when he was halfway through writing it online, and participated in the background discussions to every chapter.

With regards to both nuclear weapons and the B-36 actually being developed, I think that's pretty much a given. Both programmes started and were given high priority prior to the US entering the war, and German espionage at least in the US was pretty inept. I doubt either could have been kept secret from the Soviets (given how much Fuchs, Greenglass and the like handed over to the KGB from the Manhattan project) - but that isn't the same as the Germans. Remember that the Germans thought nuclear weapons theoretically impossible until one went off over Hiroshima. If the US elected to hold the B-36s back for a nuclear strike on Germany (as happened in The Big One - I'm not sure how realistic this is) then the countermeasures would never be developed.

Chevan:
There is a world of difference between the MiG-17 and the MiG-15 at high altitude, let alone the MiG-15 and Ta-183. The difference is in reheated jet engines, something Whittle had thought about in the UK but as far as I can tell the Germans knew nothing about. Without them, no jet fighter has a prayer pf reaching the B-36.
The Ta-183 was actually build postwar (in Argentina as the Pulqui II) and turned out to be a complete dog. There is a superficial resemblance between the Ta-183 and the MiG-15, but no more. Aerodynamically they are very different beasties.
Oh, and German wartime jet engines were very, very bad - and it wasn't just the lack of Nickel and Tungsten. The Soviets tried to build them postwar with unlimited supplies of strategic minerals, with very little success. All their immediately postwar fighters were powered by British designed jet engines, despite their easy access to "superior" German designs.

Panzerknacker
10-08-2007, 09:03 AM
The Ta-183 was actually build postwar (in Argentina as the Pulqui II) and turned out to be a complete dog.


The Ta-183 in his original form was never made. And by the way the Pulqui II was not a "dog".

Firefly
10-08-2007, 10:39 AM
Soviets (given how much Fuchs, Greenglass and the like handed over to the KGB from the Manhattan project) - but that isn't the same as the Germans. Remember that the Germans thought nuclear weapons theoretically impossible until one went off over Hiroshima. If the US elected to hold the B-36s back for a nuclear strike on Germany (as happened in The Big One - I'm not sure how realistic this is) then the countermeasures would never be developed.

Again I agree with you PDF, the only thing I dont get, as is the same with all 'what if's' is the premise that something will still be made at huge expense to a country that wouldnt be at war if they hadnt gone to war, if you get my drift. And by this I mean the B-36 and perhaps, but not generally so, the A Bomb.

Hiding the giant bombers in peacetime and their cost and production just wouldnt have worked in my opinion and no matter how inept that the Germans were (and they sure were) at espionage in War Time, they surely couldnt fail to notice the development of the B-36 in what we are assuming to be peace between the two nations.

So its the delivery system I have problems with hiding rather than the object to be carried. Interesting stuff nonetheless.

pdf27
10-08-2007, 11:32 AM
Firefly:
Depends I guess on when the US enters the war. Prototyping, etc. could easily be kept quiet about, but mass production probably could not (at least in peacetime). However, that isn't the critical bit. All the US needs to do to completely fox the Germans (at least in peacetime) is to keep quiet about the high altitude capability of the B-36, and pretend the range is lower than in reality. Both are relatively easy - the ceiling was kept very quiet for a long time, to the extent that even the US Navy thought it a lot lower than it was (see the Revolt of the Admirals for details), and the range could be concealed by stating the mission as being bombing a potential invasion fleet - this was the stated mission for the B-17 after all.
The funding is a whole other issue, but again I think not too difficult. The US is suddenly faced with a hostile Japan in the Pacific and a nation it fought 20 years before suddenly conquering several nations friendly to the US on the other side of the Atlantic, as well as trying to develop a major fleet (as well as probably trying to seize a large chunk of the RN). At the very least, that is IMHO going to lead the US to start a phase of rearmament. More likely is some form of Cold War kicking off across the Atlantic. The B-36 was originally designed for exactly this scenario (the US involved in a war with Germany after the fall of the UK), and the Manhattan Project was largely inspired by the fear that Germany would develop the weapons first. IMHO funding would not be that big an issue.

Panzerknacker:
At work at the moment so can't check, but from memory there were two or three flying prototypes of the Pulqui II. Of these, IIRC two crashed killing one test pilot. Given this and the fact that it had a British engine far more advanced than anything available to the Ta-183 yet had performance inferior to aircraft like the MiG-15, I stand by my opinion it was a dog. As for the comparison between the Pulqui II and the Ta-183, there is a far closer relationship than with the MiG-15 (the Pulqui II was after all designed by Kurt Tank and his team also built it, by and large). Visually, apart from the changes forced by the engine change the two are also far more similar than the Ta-183 and MiG-15 are.

Drake
10-08-2007, 01:32 PM
I just checked, the TA-152-H1 would be capable to intercept the 1947 type B36, both had roughly the same service ceiling and I assume that a fully loaded wartime bomber would hardly reach its theoretical maximum (both speed and ceiling). The A4 can easily fly that high without modifications and if its the base for a SAM it will wreck havoc. Imho there is not even a real need for jet engines, but pdf is right, they lacked in certain areas, but this is imho too due to the wartime situation. Not only the material, but the time constraints. While the allies had the time to go through a proper development cycle most of the engine types germany used were rather hurried designs when Hitler wanted it again done yesterday after previously not seeing the potential.
Politically even if at war I can't see any situation that would lead to the annihilation of an entire country + collateral damage to a lot of the rest of europe by the US government short of a successfull invasion of the USA and immanent thread of defeat, in short: impossible.
Concerning that other scenario: In no circumstance would Stalin allow allied troops en masse on its territory, not even on the brink of destruction, he was way to paranoid for that. And if you remove Stalin in wartime say in 1941 with germany victorious on all fronts, you'll have a power struggle for his successor or even the complete dissolution of the USSR as a working entity.

tankgeezer
10-08-2007, 01:45 PM
Hmmmm,

pdf27
10-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Drake:
Check the US definition of "Service Ceiling". IIRC at the time it was the height at which the rate of climb dropped off below 500 ft/min with full warload - might be wrong on that one, but it's definitely defined by rate of climb dropping below a pretty substantial number with a lot of weight on board. Looking at some quickly googled numbers (don't have a decent set of books to hand sadly) it does appear that a Ta-152 H1 could reach the same altitude as a B-36, just about. However, as it is relying entirely on GM1 boost to reach that target (it could run on that for what, 10 minutes maximum?) then it will have a very limited intercept window. If the B-36 crew are awake, flying in good weather with good optics they can potentially run away from the fighter with no problems - leg it far enough that it can't reach them with sufficient boost remaining.

No argument that an A4 based SAM could reach the operating heights of the B-36 from me. However, unless the Germans knew that the B-36 was coming and that it had such an extraordinary high altitude performance, why would they bother building it?

Drake
10-08-2007, 02:36 PM
Hmm, maybe because they could, after all they're german engineers :D
But depending on how the situation developed I would rather think, that going faster and higher is a pretty much obvious choice for aircraft developers. They would get the money if their US collegues get the money, cause if one side feels threatened it's usually a mutual feeling, meaning if the US thinks of ways to deal with germany so would germany both offensively and defensively.

p.s.
The TA was service ready in 1945, I think there was still room for improvements till 1947, but yes the opportunity window wouldn't be all to big. But then till 47 we have a pretty sophisticated radar network imho and maybe we have somethink really stylish by then, such as the Horthen IX.
Oh and I meant the max altitude, sorry for the confusion.

pdf27
10-08-2007, 07:00 PM
Hmm, maybe because they could, after all they're german engineers :D
I'm a professional engineer, I know the feeling :twisted:

Gutkowski
10-08-2007, 08:19 PM
In the last part of the PBS series The War an American GI was talking to a German solder and German solder asked with out a German accent where he (the US GI) lived and he said "in the Northeast" ,the German said "Where in the Northeast" ?, GI "Connecticut", German Solder "Where in Connecticut" ?,GI "Waterbury" ,German "oh where the Mad river and the Naugatuck river meet" , The US solder just froze and asked "how did you know that " The German said that he worked in the Territory board for the Germans
So Hitler did have his mind set on taking over the USA and Connecticut is not that big
4,845 square miles of Connecticut are land areas and 698 square miles of Connecticut are covered by water.
Length 110 miles
Width 70 miles

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/ct_geography.htm

alephh
10-09-2007, 03:59 AM
If Nazi Germany wouldn't have been crushed, I cannot help but to think that they would have been a lot like Soviet Union: closed, one-party state. Maybe being more efficient society than Soviet Union - making it pretty scary vision.

And considering Hitler's pool health, I immediately start to think who would have his successor later... A big difference between a Nazi Germany run by Göring, Himmler, Bormann or Göbbels.


_

FW-190 Pilot
10-09-2007, 05:22 AM
I think if Fatherland is a pretty good movie (base on a novel) on what if Germany has won the war. check out that book if you want to.

Firefly
10-09-2007, 05:46 AM
Second FW, see the Book Fatherland by Robert Harris. A decent thriller what if.

Panzerknacker
10-09-2007, 06:43 PM
Panzerknacker:
At work at the moment so can't check, but from memory there were two or three flying prototypes of the Pulqui II. Of these, IIRC two crashed killing one test pilot. Given this and the fact that it had a British engine far more advanced than anything available to the Ta-183 yet had performance inferior to aircraft like the MiG-15, I stand by my opinion it was a dog. As for the comparison between the Pulqui II and the Ta-183, there is a far closer relationship than with the MiG-15 (the Pulqui II was after all designed by Kurt Tank and his team also built it, by and large). Visually, apart from the changes forced by the engine change the two are also far more similar than the Ta-183 and MiG-15 are.


I am aswering in the Argentine military Topic.

FW-190 Pilot
10-10-2007, 05:08 AM
also see shattered world in the internet. Its an alternative world war 2 where the allies are fighting a much stronger germany. The Germans are now winning but the allies has created the nuclear bomb first while the first german A-bomb is still years away for Germany. A atomic bomb has dropped in North africa to attempt to kill Erwin Rommel, but all they have accomplished is to destroy a fake military base while erwin is in somewhere else, sound and safe.

Rising Sun*
10-10-2007, 08:00 AM
also see shattered world in the internet. Its an alternative world war 2 where the allies are fighting a much stronger germany. The Germans are now winning but the allies has created the nuclear bomb first while the first german A-bomb is still years away. A atomic bomb has dropped in North africa to attempt to kill Erwin Rommel, but all they have accomplished is to destroy a fake military base while erwin is in somewhere else, sound and safe.

That's certainly a shattered world.

Of all the things to use a nuke on, getting rid of a minor general in a less than critical campaign has to be a long way from the top of the list

Chevan
10-10-2007, 08:22 AM
There is a world of difference between the MiG-17 and the MiG-15 at high altitude, let alone the MiG-15 and Ta-183. The difference is in reheated jet engines, something Whittle had thought about in the UK but as far as I can tell the Germans knew nothing about. Without them, no jet fighter has a prayer pf reaching the B-36.

It was not so great difference between the Mig-17 and Mig-15 endeed pdf.
Both had a Klimov VK-1 turbojet with centrifug compressor.The only difference was the afterburner in Mig-17.
The service celling of Mig-17 was only 1 km more then the Mig-15 and 70km/h more maximum speed.
So there is no any principal tehnological difference between those subsonic/transonic aircrafts.




Oh, and German wartime jet engines were very, very bad - and it wasn't just the lack of Nickel and Tungsten. The Soviets tried to build them postwar with unlimited supplies of strategic minerals, with very little success. All their immediately postwar fighters were powered by British designed jet engines, despite their easy access to "superior" German designs.
Yea the germans Jumo-004 engeen was superior.At least in its design.
This was a Axial jet engen that today is the most useful in the jet aviation.
The centrifugal Vk-1 ( Nine II) had worst perspective characteristics. For instance when the first soviet Axial turbojet was ready ( Rd-9 in 1953) - all the soviet fighter from Mig-19 were developed with this type of turbine .

Nickdfresh
10-10-2007, 11:13 AM
That's certainly a shattered world.

Of all the things to use a nuke on, getting rid of a minor general in a less than critical campaign has to be a long way from the top of the list

Yeah, the nuke would have been used to get rid of Hitler and his high command...

pdf27
10-10-2007, 11:44 AM
It was not so great difference between the Mig-17 and Mig-15 endeed pdf.
Both had a Klimov VK-1 turbojet with centrifug compressor.The only difference was the afterburner in Mig-17.
The service celling of Mig-17 was only 1 km more then the Mig-15 and 70km/h more maximum speed.
So there is no any principal tehnological difference between those subsonic/transonic aircrafts.
Afterburner/reheat is actually a critical difference. If you look at the historical record, the MiG-15 was no danger to the B-36 while the introduction of the MiG-17 rapidly brought about it's retirement. Maximum speed can be traded for altitude in a zoom-climb, where the aircraft is flying beyond it's rated altitude (i.e. it can use momentum to reach altitudes it can't stay at, but can reach for short periods).



Yea the germans Jumo-004 engeen was superior.At least in its design.
This was a Axial jet engen that today is the most useful in the jet aviation.
The centrifugal Vk-1 ( Nine II) had worst perspective characteristics. For instance when the first soviet Axial turbojet was ready ( Rd-9 in 1953) - all the soviet fighter from Mig-19 were developed with this type of turbine .
Ummm... it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that - I spent several years at university learning all this stuff. Axial flow compressors are great when they can be made to work. The problem is that unless you get to very sophisticated designs (three shaft engines, moving inlet guide vanes, etc.) they work very poorly outside the design condition, break easily, are very heavy and suffer severely from stall & surge. Whittle was well aware of the theoretical superiority of the axial flow turbojet when he developed his engines - A.A. Griffith at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough had been banging on about how good they were for years. Whittle's genius was that he realised it was possible to build a simple, practical and reliable engine using a centrifugal compressor.
In just about everything that counts, for a primitive engine centrifugal compressors are better - better compression ratio, higher mass flows, better balance and much tougher. Axial flow engines are only better if you get them right, and particularly for transonic/supersonic aircraft. Even today, some aircraft (mainly helicopters) use centrifugal compressors, as do all car turbochargers that I'm aware of.

Chevan
10-11-2007, 12:18 AM
Yeah, the nuke would have been used to get rid of Hitler and his high command...
.....together with the 500-600 000 of civils in Berlin:)
This is in spirit of the allies hight military command so.
Precision strike..;)

Chevan
10-11-2007, 01:18 AM
Ummm... it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that - I spent several years at university learning all this stuff. Axial flow compressors are great when they can be made to work. The problem is that unless you get to very sophisticated designs (three shaft engines, moving inlet guide vanes, etc.) they work very poorly outside the design condition, break easily, are very heavy and suffer severely from stall & surge. Whittle was well aware of the theoretical superiority of the axial flow turbojet when he developed his engines - A.A. Griffith at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough had been banging on about how good they were for years. Whittle's genius was that he realised it was possible to build a simple, practical and reliable engine using a centrifugal compressor.
In just about everything that counts, for a primitive engine centrifugal compressors are better - better compression ratio, higher mass flows, better balance and much tougher. Axial flow engines are only better if you get them right, and particularly for transonic/supersonic aircraft. Even today, some aircraft (mainly helicopters) use centrifugal compressors, as do all car turbochargers that I'm aware of.
I/m not deny the obvious fact of complicated developing of the axial turbojet.Historically the first effective axial jet have appeared later then the centrifugal.The technical and technological problems of the Axial was solved later with the participation of newest alloys and ets. Sure you right.
I just want to notice you that althought the Juno-004 wasn't so effective in the landing and take-off , but the maximum speed of the Me-262 was already impressive in the mid 1944 and it was OVER 150 km/h more then the Meteor F1/2.
So this is no anu doubts that the brits losed the jet competition till the beginning of the 1945 when germanse simply lost its industry potential.But we consider the situation "if germany won the war"- so there is no any doubt that the Germans were able to create the enought reliable jet engine and improved its jet fighters till the 1947.
However the british jet engines were the best among allies for the first after war time.

pdf27
10-11-2007, 02:33 AM
I just want to notice you that althought the Juno-004 wasn't so effective in the landing and take-off , but the maximum speed of the Me-262 was already impressive in the mid 1944 and it was OVER 150 km/h more then the Meteor F1/2.
Thing is, the limiting speed on the Meteor wasn't down to the engines. Instead it was down to the design of the cockpit canopy and the engine cowling design. Postwar Meteor designs were substantially faster than the Me-262, with minimal extra installed power.

Chevan
10-11-2007, 03:41 AM
Thing is, the limiting speed on the Meteor wasn't down to the engines. Instead it was down to the design of the cockpit canopy and the engine cowling design. Postwar Meteor designs were substantially faster than the Me-262, with minimal extra installed power.
Yes the Meteror F5 with Rols-Roys Dervent was a best... for the while;)
But i think you will not deny the fact technical progress in Germany that was stoped in the begining of 1945.
And be sure that the improved next modification of jet axial engines and new Me-262-HG2/3 with the Swept wings that Germans first in the world used in mass production of jet aviation.
So it should be at least naive IMO to think that the Germns who during all the war have the technical superiority in aviation would lost it after 1945:)

pdf27
10-11-2007, 01:34 PM
So it should be at least naive IMO to think that the Germns who during all the war have the technical superiority in aviation would lost it after 1945:)
I've gone over the designs of the WW2 German jet engines (not had one to play with, but photos/plans in some depth). They're a mix of the incredibly advanced with the terminally stupid. The problem they had was that the terminally stupid stuff was integral to the engine, while the incredibly advanced stuff was both not implemented well and used as a sticking plaster fix to get it to work.

The fundamental problem at the time was that while axial turbines were well understood (steam turbines had been around for 60 years at this point), axial compressors were NOT well understood. The Germans made the mistake of assuming that they behaved a lot like axial turbines, thought about the advantages an axial jet gives an aircraft and went for it. Whittle made use of the vast experience which had been gained by the big engine companies in the design of turbochargers/superchargers and used a centrifugal compressor design.
Fundamentally, this meant that the Whittle type engines had a high frontal area but were well behaved, reliable, etc. while the German ones looked good but had cr*p performance (particularly regarding service life and off-design behaviour). As an example of the problems axial compressors give you, the engine which eventually entered service as the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire in about 1950 started off as the MetroVick F.1 in 1939. Despite always been a far better performer than the Whittle-type engines, it was 10 years before it was considered suitable to enter service simply because reliability and engine behaviour were so poor.

Nickdfresh
10-11-2007, 02:37 PM
.....together with the 500-600 000 of civils in Berlin:)
This is in spirit of the allies hight military command so.
Precision strike..;)

Well, I guess the 250,000 civilians killed in the Battle of Berlin was nicer.:)

BTW, they probably would have nuked several German cities like Munich, Vienna and Hamburg...

Chevan
10-12-2007, 01:04 AM
Well, I guess the 250,000 civilians killed in the Battle of Berlin was nicer.:)

Sure it is nicer Nick.
At least their kids could survived without radiation fallout.
From 3+ mln of civil population of Berlin. Plus 1 mln of higher the refugees plus 1.5 mln of army- the 250 000 victims is not really much.
Look for instance to Hiroshima where from 400 000 of civil population in the end of the 1945 were killed and died from ilness - about 140 000 i.e one third of population.
But as we peoples continie to dies after the war.
Besides - this is not a fact that the atomic bombing could destroy the Hitler deep bunker.


BTW, they probably would have nuked several German cities like Munich, Vienna and Hamburg...
The total nuclear bombing of Germany would not mean the capitulation or the surrender of German army.
While the Hitler was alive - they would fight.
Coz the firebombing compain did not forced them to the surrender ( untill the our land troops captured thier cities)- there is no any proves that the nuclear compain could do it...

Chevan
10-12-2007, 02:49 AM
Fundamentally, this meant that the Whittle type engines had a high frontal area but were well behaved, reliable, etc. while the German ones looked good but had cr*p performance (particularly regarding service life and off-design behaviour). As an example of the problems axial compressors give you, the engine which eventually entered service as the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire in about 1950 started off as the MetroVick F.1 in 1939. Despite always been a far better performer than the Whittle-type engines, it was 10 years before it was considered suitable to enter service simply because reliability and engine behaviour were so poor.
Yes i/m agree.
However you will not dany fact that the Me-262 with axial turbin already WAS suitable for the Me-262 in the 1945?
The flay and shoted down the allies afaircarfts- what else the proves do you need for it.
Besides there is no any doubt thet the Jumo004 could be much improved after the 1945.

Nickdfresh
10-12-2007, 10:27 AM
Sure it is nicer Nick.
At least their kids could survived without radiation fallout.
From 3+ mln of civil population of Berlin. Plus 1 mln of higher the refugees plus 1.5 mln of army- the 250 000 victims is not really much.
Look for instance to Hiroshima where from 400 000 of civil population in the end of the 1945 were killed and died from ilness - about 140 000 i.e one third of population.
But as we peoples continie to dies after the war.
Besides - this is not a fact that the atomic bombing could destroy the Hitler deep bunker.

Well, if it was a "one-off" surprise attack, then Hitler may not even have been in his bunker. He only resorted to the infamous bunker as things began to look bleak.

And are you seriously arguing with me over the niceties of who killed more how? :D And I think it has been established here that radioactive fallout was only a short term problem since the bombs were detonated above ground, and it was quickly dissipated. And claiming that everybody who has died since 1945 is the result of the bomb does not make it any truer...


The total nuclear bombing of Germany would not mean the capitulation or the surrender of German army.
While the Hitler was alive - they would fight.
Coz the firebombing compain did not forced them to the surrender ( untill the our land troops captured thier cities)- there is no any proves that the nuclear compain could do it...


It would have meant a massive decapitation strike, and that the US had a weapon far more fearsome than anything the Third Reich could hope to have - indeed, whatever was left may have wanted to sue for peace. Not to mention that the resulting anarchy would naturally result in uprisings in various occupied countries...

Drake
10-12-2007, 11:49 AM
Now how did we get here, thought we were talking about a WINNING germany and what would follow :rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
10-12-2007, 12:09 PM
Now how did we get here, thought we were talking about a WINNING germany and what would follow :rolleyes:

And just to pursue that line, what would have happened to the Triple Alliance if Germany, that is Germany, won in Europe and North Africa?

Italy would have become irrelevant.

Japan's control of resources would have been significant to Germany, as would Germany's technological skills been siginificant to Japan.

Do Germany and Japan co-operate in taking Iran etc and then India, or do they fall out?

There is still the question of what "Germany wins" means.

There's a world of difference between peace terms with Britain and Britain's surrender. The former was possible, the latter most unlikely.

pdf27
10-12-2007, 04:25 PM
Yes i/m agree.
However you will not dany fact that the Me-262 with axial turbin already WAS suitable for the Me-262 in the 1945?
The flay and shoted down the allies afaircarfts- what else the proves do you need for it.
There's a major difference between working (sort of) and being a useful weapon. Germany was desperate by the time the Me-262 was into service as anything other than a prototype. Problems which would otherwise have been considered unacceptable were simply ignored. A good example of this is engine life. The average life of a Jumo 004 before it needed a major overhaul/scrapping was 10 hours by 1945. This was however not considered a problem simply because the life expectancy of the average pilot was less than this.


Besides there is no any doubt thet the Jumo004 could be much improved after the 1945.
Ummm... the Soviets tried postwar and got nowhere. There is no Jumo 004 heritage in any Soviet engine flying nowadays - it's all based on the imported British engines and on prewar indigenous Soviet designs. All the evidence suggests that there was something fundamentally wrong with the German wartime engines - they appear to have been technological dead ends, with no descendents anywhere on earth. The way engineering works, that's only going to happen if there is something fundamentally wrong with the design.

tankgeezer
10-14-2007, 11:50 PM
It would have been the same for Hitler,, scene from movie "Little Nicky"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YssMT0qXYOw

Chevan
10-15-2007, 04:52 AM
Well, if it was a "one-off" surprise attack, then Hitler may not even have been in his bunker. He only resorted to the infamous bunker as things began to look bleak.

The "one-off" surprise attack?
Are you kidding Nick? May be for Germans civils in Berlin it could be surprise but not for Hitler.He practically lived last two month od the war in Bunker. And sure the GErmans although the GErman AA defence were weaker in this period but they still was able to recognize when the Strategic bombers fly up to the Brtin;)


And are you seriously arguing with me over the niceties of who killed more how? :D And I think it has been established here that radioactive fallout was only a short term problem since the bombs were detonated above ground, and it was quickly dissipated. And claiming that everybody who has died since 1945 is the result of the bomb does not make it any truer...

Oh come on Nick the Neitron radiation during the reaction that charged the Ground around and the 600 gramm of extremally radioadtive products of Division of Uran - is not matter that could be "quickly dissapaited".
In fact near the zone of epicenter the radiation fon was so great that even peoples who arrived in Hirosima after the bombing has been charged and died.


It would have meant a massive decapitation strike, and that the US had a weapon far more fearsome than anything the Third Reich could hope to have - indeed, whatever was left may have wanted to sue for peace. Not to mention that the resulting anarchy would naturally result in uprisings in various occupied countries...
Oh really the nuclear strike in Japane were more massiev thet previouse firebombing compain that killed MUCh more civils that the a-bombing for the first time?The initial damage effect of Nuclear bombing was ever less than the Firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945- when were burned the whole civils areas with population.
I think you rather overestimate the first a-bombs effect. Sure the most danger was the radioactive consequences- but in that time peoples knew a too small about it and this could not impress the Hitler for suiting of peace.
Besides do not forget about censorship and propoganda in Nazi media- Nobody out of capital could learn about the real scale of victims of possible a-bombing in Berlin.

Chevan
10-15-2007, 06:34 AM
There's a major difference between working (sort of) and being a useful weapon. Germany was desperate by the time the Me-262 was into service as anything other than a prototype. Problems which would otherwise have been considered unacceptable were simply ignored. A good example of this is engine life. The average life of a Jumo 004 before it needed a major overhaul/scrapping was 10 hours by 1945. This was however not considered a problem simply because the life expectancy of the average pilot was less than this.

The Me-262 was a damn useful wearpon, pdf.
Especially with the rockets R4M - this was REAL death for the Strategic bombers.
Plus 4X30 mm gun was deadly effective agains the bombers and the speed 800+ was FAR over the service combat speed any of ALLIES escort fighter in the 1944-45.
And not 10 but i/ve read 25 hours.
BTW when after the war the Jumo004 and BMW-003 were copied for the soviet production ( As the RD-10 and RD-20 accordingly). For the 1946-1947 this was a basic jet engine of the first Soviet aviation ( Mig-9,Su-9, Yak-15)
And one intersesting moment - in the conditions of the unlimited Nickel supplies in USSR the AVERAGE life of RD-10 immediatelly increased untill 100 hours!!!.
Simply coz there were enought alloy steel;)


Ummm... the Soviets tried postwar and got nowhere. There is no Jumo 004 heritage in any Soviet engine flying nowadays - it's all based on the imported British engines and on prewar indigenous Soviet designs. All the evidence suggests that there was something fundamentally wrong with the German wartime engines - they appear to have been technological dead ends, with no descendents anywhere on earth. The way engineering works, that's only going to happen if there is something fundamentally wrong with the design.
You dear pdf complitelly unaware of the history of the soviet jet aviation.
What about Su
Meanwhile the Mi-15 and Mig-17 used the temporary succesful VK-1 ( based on the British Nine2).
The OTHER soviets jet aircrafts used the axial RD-9 ( Little modernized copy of Jumo-004/RD-10)
Whan in the 1953 were ready the first RD-9 that was MORE effective that centrifuge compressor VK-1- the all soviet aviation has got this type of engine-
So this is quite right to say that althought the Firsts 2 Migs used the British engeens- the ALL OTHER untill the nowadays USE the German axial compressor engeens.
Coz the Axial engeens proved to be much more effective and perspective - whatever today tells the some british comrides who try ignore the germans jet achievenments.;)
And histroy of modern jet engeniring obviously proves the facts that the Germans Jumo/BMW were the superior in technological sense.
Perhaps you right- in the Britain the Germans jet engeens were tested and recognized to be very uneffective, but the history of Soviet jet aviation that widly used the GErmans Axial compressor documents and end even serial Jumo engeens - this was a basis for the all succesfull soviet axial compressor from RD-9.

Cheers.

pdf27
10-15-2007, 01:35 PM
Coz the Axial engeens proved to be much more effective and perspective - whatever today tells the some british comrides who try ignore the germans jet achievenments.;)
And histroy of modern jet engeniring obviously proves the facts that the Germans Jumo/BMW were the superior in technological sense.
Perhaps you right- in the Britain the Germans jet engeens were tested and recognized to be very uneffective, but the history of Soviet jet aviation that widly used the GErmans Axial compressor documents and end even serial Jumo engeens - this was a basis for the all succesfull soviet axial compressor from RD-9.
Um, Chevan, you're falling into the classic Ironman trap of assuming that because two things look the same they must be related to each other. The use of axial compressors in gas turbines way, way predates the Jumo-004. For example, A.A. Griffith was writing and publishing papers on the subject in the 1920s, while Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyulka (a name you may recognise) proposed a turbofan design (almost certainly using an axial compressor, although I can't find an english language reference to confirm) in about 1940.

The British were well aware when they started down the centrifugal compressor route - indeed, the MetroVick Beryl predated knowledge of German jet engine designs. Likewise, I think you're doing a disservice to Soviet engineers if you think that they relied on the Jumo 004 to come up with a jet engine. At most, it will have given them a good lesson in "things not to do because they're a really bad idea".

Chevan
10-16-2007, 08:54 AM
Um, Chevan, you're falling into the classic Ironman trap of assuming that because two things look the same they must be related to each other.

Sure it related to each other...coz it uses the simular tehnical principles.
And even the first Lyulka's engeen TR-1 ( 1947, the power 1300 kgs) was very simular like the Jumo-004 ( 800kgs) but was a litlle modified with the new construction of burning camera and turbine.
But this engine was not


Likewise, I think you're doing a disservice to Soviet engineers if you think that they relied on the Jumo 004 to come up with a jet engine. At most, it will have given them a good lesson in "things not to do because they're a really bad idea".
Do i disservice somebody pdf, If i tell about historical fact?!!
The first soviet jet engin was RD-10/20 the copy of the BMW/Jumo.
Does it mean that i decreace the role of Soviet engeneers? Sure no. But they widelly used the German experience after the war - this is historical fact.
And not only the soviets;)
However you partly right, the first SUCCESFUL and useful soviet axial turbojet was the TR-3 that was installed in Su-11 in 1953.Later the Tumanovsky has developed the excellent RD-9 ( Mig-19).

pieandmash
10-16-2007, 09:03 AM
Apologie if its been mentioned earlier in the thread, but have to mention 'It Happened Here', a low budget anmd relatively little known, but frankly utterly fantastic 60s film about life in a post German victory Britain, one of the best films on the reality war as a civilian in an occupied country and the choices faced. very effective partly because it is complete fantasy

Recently reissued on DVD in the UK

Nickdfresh
10-17-2007, 06:49 PM
The "one-off" surprise attack?
Are you kidding Nick?

When do I kid you, Chevan. Yes, if the US had deliberately not launched air raids using the B-36, the a first raid using atomic weapons would in fact be a surprise attack, would it not?


May be for Germans civils in Berlin it could be surprise but not for Hitler.He practically lived last two month od the war in Bunker. And sure the GErmans although the GErman AA defence were weaker in this period but they still was able to recognize when the Strategic bombers fly up to the Brtin;)

I think I mentioned that Hitler was only in the bunker because his armies were caught in a vice and he was losing. He wouldn't have been in Europe was under his control, unopposed...

And there are many hypotheticals, but Luftwaffe interception of B-36s flying special missions, perhaps at night, may have been quite different and the air defense of the Reich would have been far different if the threat of bombing attack had been greatly reduced or was nonexistent...


Oh come on Nick the Neitron radiation during the reaction that charged the Ground around and the 600 gramm of extremally radioadtive products of Division of Uran - is not matter that could be "quickly dissapaited".
In fact near the zone of epicenter the radiation fon was so great that even peoples who arrived in Hirosima after the bombing has been charged and died.

But only for a relatively short time. The radiation levels on the two Japanese cities are little higher than any others today. And what levels there were would have been psychologically devastating...


Oh really the nuclear strike in Japane were more massiev thet previouse firebombing compain that killed MUCh more civils that the a-bombing for the first time?

Well, they surrendered not long after, right? In fact the A-bomb was quit shocking to the Japanese consciousness...


The initial damage effect of Nuclear bombing was ever less than the Firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945- when were burned the whole civils areas with population.
I think you rather overestimate the first a-bombs effect. Sure the most danger was the radioactive consequences- but in that time peoples knew a too small about it and this could not impress the Hitler for suiting of peace.
Besides do not forget about censorship and propoganda in Nazi media- Nobody out of capital could learn about the real scale of victims of possible a-bombing in Berlin.

But the German and Japanese peoples had been conditioned for aerial bombardment over a long period of time. And the Tokyo bombardment was very damaging to morale and helped lead to the defeat of Japan along with many other factors. Even the Emperor could no longer ignore what was happening to his nation. The attacks were gradual, so the those being bombed had grown somewhat used to it as much as a population could. The Tokyo "firestorm" bombing was in itself a horrific, but a rare act as the atmospheric conditions, and the flimsy construction of Japanese housing, combined to permit a phenomena that was rare, and rather horrifying, to take place. This was something the the AAF and RAF were unable to carry out for the most part in German cities.

As too your other point regarding the media, what happens when there is no more radio or TV emanating from Berlin? When there are no more orders going out to Wehrmacht and SS garrisons, internal security commands, etc.? Who really knows? You may have even had several German commands vying for control. There is no way that the bombings, and the disappearance of several German cities could have been kept secret for long. And hopefully, Hitler would have died or have been severally incapacitated...

Chevan
10-18-2007, 07:02 AM
. Yes, if the US had deliberately not launched air raids using the B-36, the a first raid using atomic weapons would in fact be a surprise attack, would it not?

No it would not Nick.
COz even Americans hid the B-36 till the 1948 - they still used the B-29.
And Gernay would have the excellent training to improve its AA-defence system ( both fighters and Radio controlled AA-rocketry).
And i think you are forgetting - we cinsider the situation the Germany win the war in Europe- i.e they would had not lack of the resourses,oil and manpower ( as it was in 1944-45 in reality).
So there is no any doubts that the Geramny would had the DEADLY effective means of against Strategic bombers . Besides they could seriously improved its jet aviation and create the new transobic aircrafts ( using the modernized Me-262HGIII or probably Ta-183).
Even if the single B-36 was able to reach the Berlin drop the a-bomb. There is no any guaranties that Hitler would be killed.And do not forget about political consequences of the sudden A-bombing of winner Germany.
Hitler will use it in its anti-american propoganda and could order to treat the American POWs ( pilots and soldiers ) as with the Military crimes.
They would execute them all in case of a-bombing.And the Nazy propogandy would portray the USA ans the World evil ;)
Besides do not forget about V-2 project. In fact in the end of the war Germans had reached the effectiveness over 70%( i.e the 70% reached the Britain). So there is no any doubts that possibly till the beinning of 1950 they would ready the transcontinentall V-9/10.
Shortly speaking Nick - there is no any chances for the America if the USSR and Britain would defeat;)


I think I mentioned that Hitler was only in the bunker because his armies were caught in a vice and he was losing. He wouldn't have been in Europe was under his control, unopposed...

Not just.
He lived in bunker coz of continious Strategic bombers dropped the bomb over the Germany since 1944.
And he clearly understand that the Berlin could be the target in any time.SO he live in bunker.


But only for a relatively short time. The radiation levels on the two Japanese cities are little higher than any others today. And what levels there were would have been psychologically devastating...

Today Nick have passed over 60 years.
But in the 1945 the radiation background was still great con the fissionof Uran-235 prodused a great flux of neitrons that charged the land around for the different times ( from few minutes until the 20++years).
Besides the the products of the fission: Ku-92 , Ba-141 ans T-139 are very HEavy and deadly radioactive elements. Do not believe me - ask the pdf


Well, they surrendered not long after, right? In fact the A-bomb was quit shocking to the Japanese consciousness...

Unfortinatelly Nick we have NO any proves that confirms that Japanes were quite shocking by a-bomb. The death rate for the first time was ever less then in previous firebombing compain. They officially refused Wishington vertion that bomb "helped to finish the war".
Indeed the part of historians even doubt the fact that Japan imperor even conside the a-bomb as a factor for surrender .


As too your other point regarding the media, what happens when there is no more radio or TV emanating from Berlin? When there are no more orders going out to Wehrmacht and SS garrisons, internal security commands, etc.? Who really knows? You may have even had several German commands vying for control. There is no way that the bombings, and the disappearance of several German cities could have been kept secret for long. And hopefully, Hitler would have died or have been severally incapacitated...

What disappearance of GErman cities Nick you talk about?
The firebombing compain nothing destroyed- it only killed the number of peoples and temporary damaged the military production. But soon Germans restored it untill the Germany will captured by land troops.
Did the allies "destroyed " any city via firebombing or somehow decrease the ability GErmany to resist?
True, they created more problems for the Germans - but at that same time thay had a great loses of the superexpensive Strategic bombers till the end of war.
And Only total material and manpower superiority of allies let them to use such a Super uneffective way to fight using the B-17/29.
Cheers.

Firefly
10-18-2007, 11:06 AM
Apologie if its been mentioned earlier in the thread, but have to mention 'It Happened Here', a low budget anmd relatively little known, but frankly utterly fantastic 60s film about life in a post German victory Britain, one of the best films on the reality war as a civilian in an occupied country and the choices faced. very effective partly because it is complete fantasy

Recently reissued on DVD in the UK

Thanks for that info matey, I shall keep an eye out for it.

Digger
10-19-2007, 07:31 AM
A cheaper alternative to firing thousands of A-9/10 rockets with their one tonne payload at America targets, the Luftwaffe would have been better served by the Amerika Bomber(no matter what version) if this project was completed by 1948.

A missile bombardment programme capable of bringing America to it's knees would have sent Germany broke before acheiving any military goal.

Digger

Firefly
10-19-2007, 08:25 AM
Of course, Hitller may have been dead anyway by 1948. He was on a rapidly downhill slope way before 1945.

Chevan
10-19-2007, 08:28 AM
Well i've heared the Hitler was ill by a cancer in the 1945.
Is it true?

Drake
10-19-2007, 09:03 AM
Well i've heared the Hitler was ill by a cancer in the 1945.
Is it true?

Hard to tell without remains (body and files), but I thought I once heard the reason for his condition was a mix of a degenerative brain disease (Alsheimer) and substance abuse. He would've probably lived on for quite some time if that was true but would've turned into a veggie sooner or later.

Nickdfresh
10-19-2007, 09:09 AM
Hard to tell without remains (body and files), but I thought I once heard the reason for his condition was a mix of a degenerative brain disease (Alsheimer) and substance abuse. He would've probably lived on for quite some time if that was true but would've turned into a veggie sooner or later.

The hypothical stuff is giving me a headache...So I'll just stick to this.

But I have heard Hitler had Parkinson's Disease, and was essentially on a "cocktail" of drugs such as speed and painkillers to combat his shakes...

He didn't have long after 1945...

It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened when Hitler kicked. Who would ascend to be the Third Reich's new leader?

Was any form of liberalization or moderation possible?

Rising Sun*
10-19-2007, 09:19 AM
Hitler's health status and medical treatment have been closely researched and debated for years by historians and medicos.

There is a strong chance that his problems were as much created as relieved by his favoured physician Dr Theodor Morell, who wasn't held in high regard by some other members of the Nazi elite.

This is a superficial summary, but it's what Google threw up so it'll do as an introduction as I threw out the books I had on this a while back.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-151964700.html

Digger
10-19-2007, 09:47 AM
Interesting article, but no mention of Morrell's successful treatment for Hitler's impotence.

While Morrell's competence has been heavily questioned over the last sixty plus years, much of it was derived from a degree of professional jealousy. Remember there was no body for autopsy and therefore some accusations are largely unfounded.

digger.

Rising Sun*
10-19-2007, 10:00 AM
Interesting article, but no mention of Morrell's successful treatment for Hitler's impotence.

While Morrell's competence has been heavily questioned over the last sixty plus years, much of it was derived from a degree of professional jealousy. Remember there was no body for autopsy and therefore some accusations are largely unfounded.

digger.

Re the professional jealousy, I assume you're talking about Dr Brandt, who got sidelined by Morell.

I'm wary of a lot of the stuff put out about Hitler's health.

Can't think of the book (went into a Brotherhood bin about six months ago) but I remember florid accounts of Hitler's alleged coprophagia (eating shit) and lying under a glass table while some sheila ?Eva Braun? shat on it.

If he was a genuine coprophagic, you'd think he'd dispense with the glass table. :D

Wouldn't argue it didn't happen, quite possibly did. Might explain why he had digestive problems. :D

The problem is, most of these things are speculation or claims built on slim facts.

Rising Sun*
10-19-2007, 10:03 AM
Interesting article, but no mention of Morrell's successful treatment for Hitler's impotence.


As long as Hitler stayed sterile, I don't care what Morell did in that area. :D

Digger
10-19-2007, 10:10 AM
Most of the claims about Hitler's sexuality are pure fabrications and in some way designed to explain away his madness based on some form of sexual deviency.

This is why the recent claims of Hitler's homosexuality are laughable. Hitler was a middle aged man, a product of conservative late 19th century Austria, with all the inherent fears of sexual promiscuity. Add the fact by the late 30's he was already dispaying signs of impotency and some form of mental disorder.

I believe the only sexual 'condition' which may explain some of Hitler's acts was he may well have been a voyeuristic sadist.

digger

Rising Sun*
10-19-2007, 10:22 AM
I believe the only sexual 'condition' which may explain some of Hitler's acts was he may well have been a voyeuristic sadist.

digger

Puts him ahead of Himmler, who couldn't watch SS executions.

Digger
10-19-2007, 10:25 AM
What would you expect of Himmler, he was a failed chicken farmer because he was incapable of lopping the head off a chook!

digger

Rising Sun*
10-19-2007, 10:45 AM
What would you expect of Himmler, he was a failed chicken farmer because he was incapable of lopping the head off a chook!

digger

He wasn't any more of a paradox or hypocrite than many Nazis, such as the SA head Ernst Roehm , a mate of Hitler, who IIRC correctly was found on the Night of the Long Knives in bed with another man, despite Nazi hostility to homosexuals and despite Hitler and the rest his crew knowing for years that Roehm was a shirt lifter.

Nickdfresh
10-19-2007, 06:08 PM
Most of the claims about Hitler's sexuality are pure fabrications and in some way designed to explain away his madness based on some form of sexual deviency.

This is why the recent claims of Hitler's homosexuality are laughable. Hitler was a middle aged man, a product of conservative late 19th century Austria, with all the inherent fears of sexual promiscuity. Add the fact by the late 30's he was already dispaying signs of impotency and some form of mental disorder.

I believe the only sexual 'condition' which may explain some of Hitler's acts was he may well have been a voyeuristic sadist.

digger


..And that he had a sexual relationship with his cousin who later committed suicide...:D

Drake
10-20-2007, 03:24 AM
Thought that was his niece

Nickdfresh
10-20-2007, 07:51 AM
Thought that was his niece

I'm not sure. I also thought it was his niece at one point but thought I had heard it was his cousin. I'll check...

RifleMan20
10-20-2007, 04:45 PM
hey, just for your information, i made a similar thread, look at this if you would like to know more http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4312 (http://http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4312)

if that does not work just try this one

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4312&highlight=turnout

aly j
09-19-2008, 07:25 AM
history would repeat itself, As it has with all Empires. the Empire of the 3rd Reich would eventually stagnate, decline, and crumble. Entropy is the only undying Monarch.

be4 they crumble......every one would be speakin german
right now

pdf27
09-19-2008, 08:32 AM
Why? We don't all speak Latin, or English, or French nowadays do we, so why should the Germans be any different?

aly j
09-19-2008, 08:38 PM
Why? We don't all speak Latin, or English, or French nowadays do we, so why should the Germans be any different?
if they did win they would of made everyone speak
there language...................
england took half of the world now english is the main language
i think thats what the germans were aiming 4
i wouldet mind if some germans took over my world hehehe

SS Ouche-Vittes
09-19-2008, 09:42 PM
lawl!!!:D

aly j
09-19-2008, 09:50 PM
Where did you get the idea of a cross ocean invasion anyway? Why on earth should Germany attack the US, I even doubt that Pearl Harbour would still be on the timetable as there is absolutely no reason for that anymore. The US would stay isolationist happily ever after, sitting on the Monroe doctrin. Possibly a cold war scenario with 3 poles instead of two would be my bet in the long run. And given the fact that there were many pro nazi people in the US prior to the war I can even imagine, that the US and a german dominated Europe would have pretty close ties pretty fast again (at least economically anyway), with the Japanese Empire considered as the real outsider and threat.

@overlord: lol, couple of thousand dead each year, yeah that would turn the tide in Nazy Germany in the long run :rolleyes:
You cannot apply todays US standards to one of the most life disdaining dictatorships in history.
germany only declare war on usa only after
when japan attacked peal hubour

blu3bottle
12-07-2008, 11:20 AM
Sorry to scare you but Germany had allready got intercontintal aircraft during the war long before 1947.I cant for the life of me remember which aircraft but by all accounts they flew to within twelve miles of new york city before turning back during a trail.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Sorry to scare you but Germany had allready got intercontintal aircraft during the war long before 1947.I cant for the life of me remember which aircraft but by all accounts they flew to within twelve miles of new york city before turning back during a trail.

I think this is a myth and was never verified. There's a thread around here about it...

pdf27
12-07-2008, 01:51 PM
I think this is a myth and was never verified. There's a thread around here about it...
Even if they had, what would they do when they got there? The RAF demonstrated that it took a serious effort by several hundred heavy bombers with serious scientific support and a good dose of luck to do significant damage to a city. Unless the Germans had developed nuclear weapons (and their efforts can best be summed up in the words of one of the Manhattan project engineers looking at it postwar as "who were these clowns") then they never had a prayer of doing serious damage.

PIKZAK
12-07-2008, 02:41 PM
The Ju-390 was a real plane with 6 engines and the range to fly to New York and back. There is no reason to believe that one of those that were produced didn’t fly there as reported. One also flew a polar flight to Japan in 1944.


I think if Germany would have won the war quickly against the USSR like it had planned and if Britain then were forced into a peace with Germany like Hitler had wanted after Dunkirk things would have continued on Earth much the same way the cold war did with the Nazis taking the place of the Soviets, only more powerful. It may have even been a friendlier cold war. The heavy water plant would not have been attacked which means that Germany would have acquired the bomb earlier and since they already had bombers that could reach America it would have eventually meant a draw, that is if America would have started and continued with the Manhattan project.

America didn’t go to war to liberate Europe in the real WW2 so it is doubtful that they would have in an alternate outcome against a more powerful Germany. Besides, without the USSR and the other western allies to help, America alone would have been no match for Germany.

Hitler never had a desire to conquer America or the whole world anyway. In that scenario the Germans would have been the first on the moon and America, less the technology that it looted from Germany after the war, would have been far behind in rocket science and other technology and never would have caught up. The Germans would have eventually put nuclear warheads on their rockets to reach anywhere in the world and the Americans, if they eventually acquired the bomb, would have had to rely on dropping them from bombers. The Jews would have been wiped out of course which would have meant peace in the Middle East. Perhaps no one would have even ever heard of Iraq today. Or terrorists.

But in the end all empires fall and so would have the Third Reich.

PIKZAK
12-07-2008, 03:02 PM
Unless the Germans had developed nuclear weapons (and their efforts can best be summed up in the words of one of the Manhattan project engineers looking at it postwar as "who were these clowns") then they never had a prayer of doing serious damage.



I have no idea if Germany was entirely on the wrong track or not but they were shipping nuclear material or technology to Japan. Another thing that is not positively known is if Japan set off a nuclear device or not before the end of the war. If they did it means Germany was on the right track.

If that doesn’t work for you how about this since this is a “what if” type of history.

What if all the Germans that worked on the Manhatten project never left Germany when they did. That would mean no A bomb built in America and more brains for Germany.

pdf27
12-07-2008, 05:58 PM
I think if Germany would have won the war quickly against the USSR like it had planned and if Britain then were forced into a peace with Germany like Hitler had wanted after Dunkirk
And if pigs had personal helicopters they might fly. Actually, that's rather more likely than the scenario you suggest above.


things would have continued on Earth much the same way the cold war did with the Nazis taking the place of the Soviets, only more powerful.
What gives you that idea? Outside of the army (and even there the Soviet high commanders like Zhukov were substantially better) and some small sections of the navy the Germans were a bunch of clowns. The Soviets were extremely competent, had access to far greater resources and no desire to launch a suicidal war against the rest of the world. There is no way that the Nazi ideology is compatible with a long cold war - it would have turned hot in one big hurry, at which point Germany faces nuclear annihilation.


It may have even been a friendlier cold war.
Not flaming likely. The Germans are ideologically committed to the extermination of the non-Aryan races, of which there are rather a lot. The Soviets never were. The chances of this putative cold war being friendly are close to zero, even if Joseph P Kennedy reaches a senior position in the US.


The heavy water plant would not have been attacked which means that Germany would have acquired the bomb earlier
Errr.... nope. They were a bunch of clowns when it came to physics, with even the Japanese and Soviet nuclear programmes being miles ahead of the German one (the Germans failed to calculate critical mass correctly, or to come up with any practical means of Uranium enrichment). As for the heavy water, the fact that the Germans managed to boil dry and then melt down their research reactor - containing what was at the time their entire supply of heavy water - suggests strongly that unlimited heavy water would not have done them very much good. Indeed, if you look out the Farm Hall transcripts*, you'll find that the German nuclear physicists taken prisoner at the end of the war didn't believe the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were possible when told about them - they believed them to be a hoax.

* Farm Hall was a house near Cambridge in England where those German scientists suspected of participation in nuclear weapons related research were detained at the end of the war. The place was thoroughly bugged, and the transcripts indicate that those detained there thought it probably wasn't. It is clear from the transcripts that they had thought nuclear weapons to be impractical (due to a massive miscalculation in critical mass) although once told that they had been built worked out the basic theory fairly quickly. There is no reason to believe that given more time they would have done any better, at least until the first public test of a nuclear weapon.


and since they already had bombers that could reach America it would have eventually meant a draw, that is if America would have started and continued with the Manhattan project.
Err... no. As already established, the German nuclear programme could have been run more effectively by Coco the Clown, while the Manhattan project was run with ruthless efficiency. Furthermore, the German bombers did not have the performance you claim - the "New York" flight is first mentioned in 1955, and the German records clearly show both that the aircraft was in Prague at the time the flight is claimed to have taken place, and that the maximum take off weight would have to be doubled to reach New York from France. To claim that an aircraft with such marginal (to put it charitably) performance could deliver an extremely heavy weapon* and have the performance to survive doing so - given that the B-29 only marginally survived the experience, and had much higher performance - goes beyond implausible. It goes into the range of the borderline insane.

*Fat Man, the Plutonium type bomb that Germany would have produced in the unlikely event of their Heavy Water research actually bearing fruit, weighed approximately 5 tonnes - more than 10% of the maximum take-off weight of the Ju-390. Adding even a small amount of weight to an aircraft radically increases fuel burn in the early stages of the flight - so even if the Ju-390 had achieved the impossible and actually reached New York as claimed, it could not have done so with a nuclear weapon on board.


America didn’t go to war to liberate Europe in the real WW2 so it is doubtful that they would have in an alternate outcome against a more powerful Germany.
No, America went to war when Germany declared war on them. However, it is clear that from late 1940 onwards the US was planning to fight a war with Germany with no European allies to hand. This can be seen in the release of the specification that became the B-36 in April 1941. It is for a bomber with frankly awesome payload characteristics, capable of attacking anywhere in Europe from bases in the Continental United States, and with a performance such as to make interception almost impossible*. The fact that the specification for this was drawn up more than a year before Germany declared war on the United States clearly indicates that the US was seriously considering the need to fight a war with Germany by itself, and planning to produce the tools required. When Britain demonstrated that it could hold out and the US entered the war, priorities changed - hence what was actually built - but the early orders clearly demonstrate what the US had in mind.

* The initial requirements were for 275 mph at 45,000 ft, later reduced to 300 mph at 40,000 ft. For comparison, that is right at the ragged edge of the performance of the then current Me-109F, making the B-36 virtually uninterceptable. For interception to be practical, fighters need significant range and early warning to get into approximately the right position, and a significant performance advantage to make a kill. At operating altitudes it would appear that the B-36 would have more performance and probably more manouverability (due to the lower wing loading). This makes it an extremely difficult target.


Besides, without the USSR and the other western allies to help, America alone would have been no match for Germany.
OK, seriously, are you sober here? The US had roughly 60% of the entire world's industrial capacity in 1941, and since it had the world's most powerful navy (and hence the capability to blockade Germany, a capability Germany could not apply to the US) also had access to just about any resources it wanted. Furthermore, the US population in 1940 was 132,000,000 while the German population in 1940 was approximately 80,000,000. By any measure you care to apply, the US was superior to Germany.


In that scenario the Germans would have been the first on the moon and America, less the technology that it looted from Germany after the war, would have been far behind in rocket science and other technology and never would have caught up.
Man, we've got another "German uberweapons and Erwin Rommel should have won WW2" moron here. The Germans were a bit ahead of everyone else when it came to rockets during WW2, largely because everyone else had more sense than to bother. The reality of it is that during WW2 Von Braun couldn't reliably hit London from the other side of the Channel, and that while there were a small number of prominent Germans in the US rocket programme postwar the overwhelming majority of the work was done by Americans.
Now, because I feel like a giggle, list the technology the Americans "looted" from Germany after the war, and demonstrate exactly how that pushed the US forward.


The Germans would have eventually put nuclear warheads on their rockets to reach anywhere in the world and the Americans, if they eventually acquired the bomb, would have had to rely on dropping them from bombers.
The fact is, of course, that up until Robert S MacNamara <spit> gutted the US bomber programme and missile defence systems in a misguided attempt to save money, bombers were both the most accurate and reliable way of delivering nuclear weapons to a target. The fact is that just about everyone who has tried (including recently the Indians) has come up with a working ABM system very rapidly indeed - it just isn't very hard at all.


The Jews would have been wiped out of course which would have meant peace in the Middle East. Perhaps no one would have even ever heard of Iraq today. Or terrorists.
Ah, now we see the real reason you admire the Nazis. Consider this an informal warning for anti-semitic Nazi trolling. When you do it again in future (as I have no doubt you will, your sort always do) I'll take great pleasure in giving you the boot.


But in the end all empires fall and so would have the Third Reich.
Indeed it did. In blood and smoke, 12 years after it was proclaimed. And not a moment too soon.

pdf27
12-07-2008, 06:15 PM
I have no idea if Germany was entirely on the wrong track or not but they were shipping nuclear material or technology to Japan.
They were shipping a small amount of natural Uranium ore to Japan, in a submarine captured before it got there. That stuff is actually pretty inoccuous - we used it as a doorstop at a place I used to work before someone realised it made the paperwork look bad and banished it to a suitable storage cupboard.


Another thing that is not positively known is if Japan set off a nuclear device or not before the end of the war.
I've read the reports of a large explosion in Manchura claimed to be of a Japanese nuclear bomb. Quite apart from the question of why they hell they tested their only device in an out-of-the-way province instead of using it to attack the US fleet, the descriptions are inconsistent with a first generation nuclear weapon. The authors of this report (which I regard to be a work of fiction, as I do the almost identical report from the German Baltic coast in 1945) appear to be making the assumption that smaller weapons are easier to make, and thus the Japanese must have made a mini-nuke. In fact, weapons of around 10kT are the easiest and small ones are actually quite difficult, making the reports of this device entirely implausible.


What if all the Germans that worked on the Manhatten project never left Germany when they did. That would mean no A bomb built in America and more brains for Germany.
They would have ended up being turned into soap in some concentration camp or other. By and large they didn't leave for the hell of it, but because they had good reason to fear for their lives.
In any case, it's pretty much irrelevant - there is good reason the Manhattan project was run by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the official name was the Manhattan Engineering District. While the Physics problems were hellish, the majority of the manpower was devoted to the engineering of building and running the enrichment & reactor/reprocessing facilities (the Germans couldn't even manufacture basic materials for it, for example Graphite free from Boron and Cadmium (both ravenous neutron absorbers) as a reactor moderator). This was the purely American contribution to the project, and the reason why the scale and achievement of the project was beyond anyone else on earth for some years postwar.

Take a uranium enrichment plant for instance. It has to use Uranium Hexaflouride (UF6) because Flourine has only one stable isotope (19 F) and accordingly this is the only Uranium gas which can be used in a mass seperation process. UF6 of course is extremely corrosive and reacts violently with water, and is therefore extremely dangerous to any humans who come in contact with it. This deeply unpleasant gas must then be run through a massive industrial plant that humans can't enter for safety reasons, which consumes immense amounts of electrical power and which has to work right first time. The enriched Uranium which eventually emerges from this process must be treated extremely gingerly (there was a fatal accident involving mishandling enriched Uranium at Tokaimura (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf37.html) as recently as 1999) and eventually if your physicists and bomb engineers are competent then around 6 months after you start production you have enough highly enriched Uranium for a single weapon.

Nickdfresh
12-08-2008, 08:03 AM
Even if they had, what would they do when they got there? The RAF demonstrated that it took a serious effort by several hundred heavy bombers with serious scientific support and a good dose of luck to do significant damage to a city. Unless the Germans had developed nuclear weapons (and their efforts can best be summed up in the words of one of the Manhattan project engineers looking at it postwar as "who were these clowns") then they never had a prayer of doing serious damage.


It would have been merely a symbolic gesture and political attack to remind Americans that they weren't immune...But I imagine that one of the reasons that the Germans never made a more concerted effort was that pin***** attacks would in some ways make them look weaker for the very reason you mentioned, it took a lot of bombers to inflict serious damage...

If they dropped a few bombs, and no one was killed and few buildings were damaged, or worse, US AAA fire caused more damage than the attack, I think it would have been slightly embarrassing...

One of the things I'd like to know more about was the US continental air defense network of the day. I'm sure there were at least some P-51s stationed around NYC...

herman2
12-15-2008, 12:24 PM
...all I know is that Beer today, would be a lot cheaper if they had won the war!

herman2
12-16-2008, 10:53 AM
The germans would have taken over the world and we would be slaves:shock:

Ya, but we would have been drunk slaves, with all the Great beer!

kiwimac
12-19-2008, 01:39 AM
Actually I imagine by now that things would be much the same as they are. The forces of history would still have moved in the same general direction (IMO.)

akashdnazi
12-19-2008, 02:08 AM
on this topic......

check out this video..:
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=lVksVZs0nmo

___________________
"On Average it took 5 Panthers to take out a Sherman.....4 would be in a ditch out of fuel or broken down...and the fifthe one simply blew the Sherman away"

pdf27
12-19-2008, 05:14 AM
on this topic......

check out this video..:
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=lVksVZs0nmo
That video has a seriously messed up premise. Germany conquering the British Isles and knocking America out of the war just because the Normandy invasion fails? That's the sort of territory you can only get in to with Alien Space Bat intervention - by that stage in the war even if all the allies had been magically knocked out the Soviets would still have crushed Germany, with the war taking only a few months longer.

Cuts
12-19-2008, 05:17 AM
Akashdnazi, is there a window in your soft-walled room ?
If so, how many moons can you see from it ?

akashdnazi
12-20-2008, 05:06 AM
i just posted a link and so much condemnation???

i m really depperessed

Rising Sun*
12-20-2008, 05:37 AM
i just posted a link and so much condemnation???

i m really depperessed

You shouldn't be.

That's a very funny video.

Admittedly, I stopped watching it around the end of the first minute as it was clearly a hopelessly clumsy attempt at a spoof on lugubrious alternate history, but as spoofs are so rarely attempted in that area it deserves recongnition for a humorous approach to a turgid area of non-history.

You need to watch it a few more times to get some laughs and cheer yourself up.

Terry_214
12-29-2008, 09:41 AM
Yeah very funny....

Schuultz
01-15-2009, 09:50 AM
Well, without going into any arguments that already occured, here's my idea for what would have happened if Germany had won the war against Russia, UK and US:
(In bullet points, so it's easier to put them in quotes for the inevitable counter):D

- The majority of the Jews would be dead, with a few having taken on new identity and some having fled to the Americas. The Holocaust would be scratched out of the Annals of history by the Nazi censors.

- Since I don't see German territorial ambitions ending with winning the war against it's known oppositions, I would say that Germany would control all of Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

- Berlin would be Germania, the "capital of the world", and Speer would be the new Nero.

- The Japanese Empire and the Third Reich would meet somewhere along the lines of India. At the very least, a War between the two would happen, though I have little doubt that Germany would win, simply because of the bigger technological advances they had made (Japan would probably get Nuked by the Germans instead of the Americans...)

- America would go back to Isolationism, though I can see South America (Argentine, Chile) and Mexico joining the Axis cause (as they were offered but repeatedly declined in reality, mainly because they were smart enough to know that Germany was going to lose) and possibly even attacking the US.

- Through this, North America would be the new Middle East, a constant conflict zone.

- Sooner or later, the German Empire, like every Empire before it, would collapse, with most of the 'colonies' outside of Europe becoming independent states.

- Central and continental Western Europe as well as the Eastern European states with the exception of Eastern Russia would remain under German control, simply because they would be easy to check up and keep pressure on.

Uyraell
03-18-2009, 12:44 PM
The hypothical stuff is giving me a headache...So I'll just stick to this.

But I have heard Hitler had Parkinson's Disease, and was essentially on a "cocktail" of drugs such as speed and painkillers to combat his shakes...

He didn't have long after 1945...

It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened when Hitler kicked. Who would ascend to be the Third Reich's new leader?

Was any form of liberalization or moderation possible?

My money is on Reinhard Heydrich as Hitler's successor.
Heydrich would have disposed of both Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler.
This is one of the reasons Himmler so very much feared Heydrich, but was scared to eliminate him after Hitler passed the mantle to Heydrich.
Heydrich would eventually have reached an accommodation with each of Schellenberg and Gehlen, after which Canaris ceases to be relevant, as does Goring.

From there, case closed.

Modernisation, would be a certainty: Heydrich believed in technology.

As to liberalisation; to the degree Heydrich found it expedient he would have permitted it, as long as it was th the advantage of the Reich.

Regards, Uyraell.

Schuultz
03-18-2009, 01:08 PM
Well, Uryaell, depends on how different the war went. IIRC, Heyrich was assassinated in 1942, so unless you we say that everything went completely different, he would've been out of the race, anyway.

But if he hadn't been killed, then yes, I think Heydrich would have been the one with the best shot at the title of 2nd Fuhrer or something like that...

pdf27
03-18-2009, 02:46 PM
- America would go back to Isolationism, though I can see South America (Argentine, Chile) and Mexico joining the Axis cause (as they were offered but repeatedly declined in reality, mainly because they were smart enough to know that Germany was going to lose) and possibly even attacking the US.
To get the US going back to isolationism, you have to push the point of departure WAY back - probably at least as far as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. After those two, the US was pretty much irrevocably committed to world affairs, and it would also have had an effective monopoly on nuclear weapons and delivery systems until the 1950s (as in @). If you do that, then the whole Third Reich will be butterflied away anyway, as the conditions causing it to rise in the first place would never happen. You also need either a totally different Japan or a massively weaker Russia (after Khalkin Gol, any Japanese expansion would have involved war with the US - which would shatter US isolationism, and be a war Japan could not win).

Nickdfresh
03-18-2009, 04:17 PM
My money is on Reinhard Heydrich as Hitler's successor.
Heydrich would have disposed of both Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler.
This is one of the reasons Himmler so very much feared Heydrich, but was scared to eliminate him after Hitler passed the mantle to Heydrich.
Heydrich would eventually have reached an accommodation with each of Schellenberg and Gehlen, after which Canaris ceases to be relevant, as does Goring.

From there, case closed.

Modernisation, would be a certainty: Heydrich believed in technology.

As to liberalisation; to the degree Heydrich found it expedient he would have permitted it, as long as it was th the advantage of the Reich.

Regards, Uyraell.

Um, Heydrich was killed by SAS Czech patriot commandos on a suicide mission. And thankfully the ****ing butcher **** died a very painful death, agonizing death of blood poisoning.

Moderation you say? Um, he was one of the key figures that goaded Germany into the "Final Solution" at the Wannasee Conference and was known as "The Butcher of Prague." Thank Jesus his guts got a spattering of car-seat from a grenade and lingered for days. I guess that was a small measure of justice in a World War devoid of it!

Nickdfresh
03-18-2009, 04:24 PM
The US was already fighting a low-intensity Naval conflict in the Atlantic by 1941 and was certainly not neutral nor isolationist by that point. In the unlikely event Britain were taken, there were already US war-plans that called for the deployment of US divisions to the Soviet Union...because there was no way Germany was going to conquer both Britain and the Soviet Union simultaneously...

Schuultz
03-18-2009, 05:14 PM
Moderation you say? Um, he was one of the key figures that goaded Germany into the "Final Solution" at the Wannasee Conference and was known as "The Butcher of Prague." Thank Jesus his guts got a spattering of car-seat from a grenade and lingered for days. I guess that was a small measure of justice in a World War devoid of it!

I think he said modernization, not moderation....

Nickdfresh
03-18-2009, 08:58 PM
I think he said modernization, not moderation....


You're right. He also mentioned "liberalization."

Uyraell
03-20-2009, 02:37 AM
We were dealing with a hypothesis in which the timeline is altered significantly, and which posits an either neutralised or defeated Britain.

As such, the assassination raid that killed Heydrich doesn't take place, because that was launched from Britain.

That being the case, it is a given that (absent evidence to the contrary) Heydrich would have lived.

By the time of his death (in our actual timeline) he was already the Fuhrer-designate, and had been so confirmed by about three days. The signs leading to it were apparent within about three month's of Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain.

As such, I chose to hypothesise that Heydrich would have lived.

As a personal view on Heydrich, I think him to have been a genuine human monster. However, Adolf Hitler openly admired him, Heinrich Himmler feared him, Canaris was very very wary of him. All of that comes from various accounts I have read over the last 25 years or so.

Granted, this thread is dealing in hypotheses, however, Heydrich surviving into the 1950's at least is certainly valid within the nature of this thread.
As such, he is very likely to have become Fuhrer, once Hitler dies from whatever cause, though the Parkinson's Disease is the likeliest.

Regards, Uyraell.

Uyraell
03-20-2009, 02:48 AM
If Nazi Germany wouldn't have been crushed, I cannot help but to think that they would have been a lot like Soviet Union: closed, one-party state. Maybe being more efficient society than Soviet Union - making it pretty scary vision.

And considering Hitler's pool health, I immediately start to think who would have his successor later... A big difference between a Nazi Germany run by Göring, Himmler, Bormann or Göbbels.


_

Which was precisely why I posited Heydrich as Fuhrer.
Hitler had, according to Toland and various other authors, including IIRC Wilmott; already passed the mantle of successorship to Heydrich before Heydrich's death.

I can make sense for Heydrich running the Reich where the personalities you cite each have serious drawbacks in comparison to Heydrich, which is precisely why he was chosen as successor.

Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
03-20-2009, 07:58 AM
Didn't Josef Goebbels actually "succeed" as the Fuhrer for a glorious reign of a few days before Dönitz formed the gov't that actually surrendered?

Chevan
03-20-2009, 09:53 AM
Didn't Josef Goebbels actually "succeed" as the Fuhrer for a glorious reign of a few days before Dönitz formed the gov't that actually surrendered?
Was Goebbels in a power as a fuhrer even a single day?
I heard the Herman Hoering has succeed against Hitler's will.And Himler as well.

pdf27
03-20-2009, 10:43 AM
In the unlikely event Britain were taken, there were already US war-plans that called for the deployment of US divisions to the Soviet Union...because there was no way Germany was going to conquer both Britain and the Soviet Union simultaneously...
There was also the Manhattan project being given an ultra-high priority, and until the Battle of Britain conclusively proved that the Germans could not defeat the UK the US was also working very hard on the bomber that would later become the B-36. Which as you have no doubt noticed me banging on about before was both capable of launching bombing raids on Germany from bases in the Continental United States and virtually uninterceptable until the 1950s.

Schuultz
03-20-2009, 11:02 AM
Would the Me262 hypothetically have been able to intercept that bomber?

Chevan
03-20-2009, 01:16 PM
Ah, mr pdf again start that "Wunderwaffen" old plate:)
Indeed even if B-36 were ready to operate in say 1948( but it was in ONLY in 1949), the GErmans should already have an entire arsenal to destroy/intercept the stragetic bombers.
From radio-controlled "Wasserfall" to the Me-262/ 163 , that must be essentialy modified to 1949, and would to do the strategic bombings very problematic.
Even if couple of B-36 dropped few bombs at Western Europe , controlled by Germany , this should lead to nothin neither in military nor in political sense , even if 20 000- 40 000 of civils would be killed by bombs
But then Hitler just would get an excellent pretext to execute , say, all the POW american pilots as a "war criminals"( just in case if Nacis has exterminated all the jews in continent , whom they associated with American Ruling elite:))

Nickdfresh
03-20-2009, 04:54 PM
There was also the Manhattan project being given an ultra-high priority, and until the Battle of Britain conclusively proved that the Germans could not defeat the UK the US was also working very hard on the bomber that would later become the B-36. Which as you have no doubt noticed me banging on about before was both capable of launching bombing raids on Germany from bases in the Continental United States and virtually uninterceptable until the 1950s.


Right. I was talking ground war stuff. The fact is that there were several war plans and contingencies being drawn up by the Pentagon simply glowing over the first peacetime US conscription ever in 1940-1941. One of them was to deploy US divisions directly to the Soviet Union. This was of course the last option at they wanted a theatre of their own, namely in France (aka Operation Sledgehammer). It was the British high command that reasoned (correctly) that this was implausible and the best course was to kick the Axis out of North Africa...

Nickdfresh
03-20-2009, 05:04 PM
Ah, mr pdf again start that "Wunderwaffen" old plate:)
Indeed even if B-36 were ready to operate in say 1948( but it was in ONLY in 1949),

Largely because the project's priority had declined after the defeat of Germany and Japan and the B-29 was thought to be enough as an atomic bomber...


the GErmans should already have an entire arsenal to destroy/intercept the stragetic bombers.
From radio-controlled "Wasserfall" to the Me-262/ 163 , that must be essentialy modified to 1949, and would to do the strategic bombings very problematic.

Only a couple of nukes need get through. And 1949 is key here, since the Germans had a demonstrated complacency once a sort of victory was achieved...

They didn't even have a real four engine bomber by 1942 and most research was castrated after the fall of France. So what makes you think they'd have an arsenal of super-weapons that only received priority too late, AFTER their defeat was almost inevitable?


Even if couple of B-36 dropped few bombs at Western Europe , controlled by Germany , this should lead to nothin neither in military nor in political sense , even if 20 000- 40 000 of civils would be killed by bombs

Um, an enemy that can destroy your cities at will whilst you cannot retaliate is a pretty big military and political "sense."


But then Hitler just would get an excellent pretext to execute , say, all the POW american pilots as a "war criminals"( just in case if Nacis has exterminated all the jews in continent , whom they associated with American Ruling elite:))

Or maybe he would have died, with most of his henchmen and high command, in Berlin?

And I forgot that Hitler was really, really nice to Jews before he claimed War on the US...I guess it the US's "ruling elites" fault now. :rolleyes:

pdf27
03-20-2009, 07:35 PM
Ah, mr pdf again start that "Wunderwaffen" old plate:)
Indeed even if B-36 were ready to operate in say 1948( but it was in ONLY in 1949), the GErmans should already have an entire arsenal to destroy/intercept the stragetic bombers.
From radio-controlled "Wasserfall" to the Me-262/ 163 , that must be essentialy modified to 1949, and would to do the strategic bombings very problematic.
It is a favourite hobby-horse of mine, isn't it :D
Wasserfall and the Me-163/263 could (just about) intercept it, but only for a radius of about 5 miles around their launch sites for the Me-263 and less for the others. The B-36 has got the fuel to simply go around them.


Even if couple of B-36 dropped few bombs at Western Europe , controlled by Germany , this should lead to nothin neither in military nor in political sense , even if 20 000- 40 000 of civils would be killed by bombs
A couple of hundred Atom bombs would destroy Germany as a functioning nation for all time to come, killing ~90% of the population and destroying all the industry. That's a cataclysm, not just a few civilians.


But then Hitler just would get an excellent pretext to execute , say, all the POW american pilots as a "war criminals"
So what? If the US is dropping nuclear weapons on Germany, that probably means they have a couple of Army Groups fighting in Russia. The fate of a few thousand PoWs (most of whom will probably die in the nuclear bombings anyway) is a minor concern. The US of the time was NOT the casualty-averse nation of today.


Largely because the project's priority had declined after the defeat of Germany and Japan and the B-29 was thought to be enough as an atomic bomber...
Structurally the B-29 is significantly more advanced (it's a later and more modern design). Because the B-36 was so much bigger (dictated by it's range) it actually had a higher ceiling which made it harder to intercept, but that was just serendipity.


Only a couple of nukes need get through. And 1949 is key here, since the Germans had a demonstrated complacency once a sort of victory was achieved...
Depends what you're trying to achieve. A handful are probably enough to force a surrender. 200 would utterly destroy Germany as a nation.

Chevan
03-23-2009, 02:19 AM
Largely because the project's priority had declined after the defeat of Germany and Japan and the B-29 was thought to be enough as an atomic bomber...

True.
But don't forget all the GErmans project have been stopped in aprill 1945 at all.
If they migh to so much great things ( Jet fighters, missles and est) in 1945- i/m scary to think what they might to do in 1949.


Only a couple of nukes need get through. And 1949 is key here, since the Germans had a demonstrated complacency once a sort of victory was achieved...

They didn't even have a real four engine bomber by 1942 and most research was castrated after the fall of France. So what makes you think they'd have an arsenal of super-weapons that only received priority too late, AFTER their defeat was almost inevitable?

The priority to bomb the Enlgland was never denied, and even their V-1/2 project got the priority since 1939 or early.
And they had their 4-engine bomber ( FW-200) that might to be used , in future, for military missions.
But why they need it?
The GErmans did have an excellent project of Sub-continental V-9/10, that might to reach the USA.
Or even i heard the first project of Missles Submarine.


Um, an enemy that can destroy your cities at will whilst you cannot retaliate is a pretty big military and political "sense."

Really?
GErmans bombed and destroyed the British cities WHOLE a years in 1940-41.
Destroyed the London , Koventry and ets.
And till the most 1944 the Britis can't retaliate.
Did it helped them to reach the any political "sense"- except to irritate the Brits and turned them to strong determination to resist?


Or maybe he would have died, with most of his henchmen and high command, in Berlin?

Maybe..
Maybe the AA-posts shall sleep all the night to pass the Mega-loud B-36 righ to BErline , or the American inlettigent service know how to bribe the Luftwaffe officer corp not to notice the American armade in a way to BErline:)Not to notify Adolf Hitler and all the GErmans govenment to go at bunker during the Bombings raids.
Everything is possible
They migh too killthe Hitler , say in 1 case form 10 000.
Would you bet on his death with such a probability Nick?
I wouldn't.


And I forgot that Hitler was really, really nice to Jews before he claimed War on the US...I guess it the US's "ruling elites" fault now. :rolleyes:
Sure it was "US's fault"- did you hear Hitler's/Goebbels speeches Nick?:D
He diluted thier giult with "primary Jodo-Bolshevics' gult on definition" in various proportion, but in general - "Poor GErmany fough alone against the Jewish world" - it seems it was the general line:)

Chevan
03-23-2009, 04:28 AM
It is a favourite hobby-horse of mine, isn't it :D
Wasserfall and the Me-163/263 could (just about) intercept it, but only for a radius of about 5 miles around their launch sites for the Me-263 and less for the others. The B-36 has got the fuel to simply go around them.
Yes this is the best your hobby -horce:)
5 miles?
Well probably Wasserfall was about 5 miles of radius( more then enough for missle) ,but was the me-262/263/163?


A couple of hundred Atom bombs would destroy Germany as a functioning nation for all time to come, killing ~90% of the population and destroying all the industry. That's a cataclysm, not just a few civilians.

Oh really could destroy?
And how about tonns of chemical/biological wearpon ,that Germany/Japane shall ready to use for sure in this way?
And who said that GErman didn't own their niclerar wearpon in 1949?
Groundless optimism again?


So what? If the US is dropping nuclear weapons on Germany, that probably means they have a couple of Army Groups fighting in Russia. The fate of a few thousand PoWs (most of whom will probably die in the nuclear bombings anyway) is a minor concern. The US of the time was NOT the casualty-averse nation of today.

Of by other words , if the USA would have NO the any troops in Russia- they NEVER dropped the single bomb?
Well , if we consider the "What if scenario" , when USSR would have been defeated in 1941, i.e. the GErman troops were displaced up to Syberia, i doubt that couple of American Armies group migh to do something( if even Red Army couldn,t)
If , say the GErmany didn't attacked USSR at all- there wouldn't any american troops at all.
Thus even if as i said the few nuclear charged has been droped on germany , it shouldn't help to reach the decisive victory , but just would make the war more BLOODEST.


Structurally the B-29 is significantly more advanced (it's a later and more modern design). Because the B-36 was so much bigger (dictated by it's range) it actually had a higher ceiling which made it harder to intercept, but that was just serendipity.

Yes.
The monstrous B-36 should be the perfect target for Wasserfall, that in fact migh easy to reach such altitude.

Cojimar 1945
03-25-2009, 12:40 AM
People have suggested that the B-36 bomber was uninterceptible until the 1950s but I am highly dubious of this. The performance specifications of B-36 models that I have seen do not indicate that the aircraft had a higher ceiling than fighters of the 1940s. Additionally, it appears that the early models of the B-36 were underpowered and inferior in performance to the later models which were not available until well into the 1950s.

TheBeam
03-25-2009, 02:02 AM
I don't get this thread at all! The Germans did win WWII and it's their fiendish propaganda that has convinced us that 'we won' in order to pre-emptively discourage all forms of insurgency.

Geez...I thought you people knew history.

But the cracks started showing through in the 1970's when a Thomas Sutherland, a retired British Major visited a major German festival, saw all kinds of drinking, beer swilling, cleavage and singing of patriotic songs. He was heard saying, "Well, we certainly taught them a lesson they'd never remember."