Political Crossfire Forums

[Demonic Spoon]

No, they would not have helped.

Hitler was a complete dumbass when it camed to military strategy, and he apparently thought he was great at it.

If he had let his generals control the military, Germany could have won WW2 even without the new weapons.

With the new weapons, in Rommel's hands, could have kicked some serious ass. But yeah, German research was spread too thin.


The Allied A-Bomb would not have helped. Firstly, if Germany had not declared war on Russia, then the US would not even have gotten a foothold on continental Europe. Secondly, I believe that the US could have been pushed back into the sea had Rommel been able to do what he wanted.

For those unfamilier, Rommel requested some panzer divisions from Hitler so he could push back the Allies. Seeing as the allies landed freshly and lacked any serious armor (The tanks they sent to support D-day sunk), coupled with the fact that they didn't have enough time to set up a good defense, Rommel could have kicked some serious ass. Hitler refused.

[eynon]

Demonic Spoon wrote: No, they would not have helped.

Hitler was a complete dumbass when it camed to military strategy, and he apparently thought he was great at it.

If he had let his generals control the military, Germany could have won WW2 even without the new weapons.

With the new weapons, in Rommel's hands, could have kicked some serious ass. But yeah, German research was spread too thin.


The Allied A-Bomb would not have helped. Firstly, if Germany had not declared war on Russia, then the US would not even have gotten a foothold on continental Europe. Secondly, I believe that the US could have been pushed back into the sea had Rommel been able to do what he wanted.

For those unfamilier, Rommel requested some panzer divisions from Hitler so he could push back the Allies. Seeing as the allies landed freshly and lacked any serious armor (The tanks they sent to support D-day sunk), coupled with the fact that they didn't have enough time to set up a good defense, Rommel could have kicked some serious ass. Hitler refused.

yep...Rommel would have pushed us back and then around one year later Berlin goes up in a mushroom cloud....

[Demonic Spoon]

...

I would LOVE to see the US get a bomber that close to Berlin if the Germans had complete control of Continental Europe.

[Simon De Montfort]

Demonic Spoon wrote: ...

I would LOVE to see the US get a bomber that close to Berlin if the Germans had complete control of Continental Europe.

In Aug 1940 the Brits bombed Berlin. Berlin wasn't out of range of allied bomber. And by 1945 the US was using B-29 Superfortresses in the Pacific. If we needed to we could have used it in Europe. They had a range of 3,700 mi.

Bombing Berlin no problem.

[Il Principe]

Simon De Montfort wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: ...

I would LOVE to see the US get a bomber that close to Berlin if the Germans had complete control of Continental Europe.

In Aug 1940 the Brits bombed Berlin. Berlin wasn't out of range of allied bomber. And by 1945 the US was using B-29 Superfortresses in the Pacific. If we needed to we could have used it in Europe. They had a range of 3,700 mi.

Bombing Berlin no problem.

If the Germans had squadrons of Me262's prowling the skies it would be .. have a look at the loss figures for the 1940 raid as well ..

[Rizla]

There tends to be a pattern to war between two inductrial nations (or more than two in this case) where the side that is out in front pours all it's resources into the weapons that are working for it.
Meanwhile, that the side that is losing pours it's resources into new weapons to try to gain a technical edge. (While also rehashing old weapons - even recycling)

If any one weapon had managed to give germany a technical edge which turned the tide of conflict, I see no reason why the pattern wouldn't have continued. For example, lets say the Me262 and the Panther had between them caused a reverse of fortune, Germany would have put everything into the production of Panthers and 262s, to the neglect of all other projects.

But at the end of the day, it was production that won the war.

[Bobicito]

Demonic Spoon...

One if you are carrying a -Bomb and are worried of it being shot down by other aircraft, send air support. If you are worrying about it being shot from the ground, send multiple bombers to draw the fire. One way or another, if it had to come to the nuking of Berlin it wouldn't have been to difficult.

[superskippy]

What do you mean you'd love to see a bomber get in range of Berlin? You make it sound as if it was impossible and never happened...

Up until the very last days of the war, really until Konev moved up from the south to finish the encirclement of Berlin, the Americans and Brits were bombing Berlin.

[Skufr]

Il Principe wrote: If the Germans had squadrons of Me262's prowling the skies it would be .. have a look at the loss figures for the 1940 raid as well ..

They didn't use escort fighters in 1940.

And while the Me 262 was an excellent interceptor, it didn't stand much of a chance against the Mustangs or the Thunderbolts of the USAAF in a good old fashioned dogfight. The Thunderbolt could even keep pace with it in a dive, so it couldn't always run away either.

The elite squadron JV44 was equipped with the Me 262 and were usually attacking B-26 medium bombers which often flew unescorted. But the B-26 still got through, usually with few losses. Have a look at those figures instead.

[Skufr]

Just to comment on the first post. The Americans developed and used radio- and TV-guided bombs as well. And used them to a greater extent than the Germans. Germany wasn't the only country which developed 'secret' weapons, you know.

[Bobicito]

Quote: Germany wasn't the only country which developed 'secret' weapons, you know.

Really? I did not know that! :bang:

No kidding, Japan was trying to develop a jet fighter along with Germany and most of the Allies. The A-Bomb was a secret project until it was dropped. Many secret weapons were being developed during WW2.

[Skufr]

No offence meant. I was just pointing out that the threadstarter gave the impression of thinking that Germany was more technologically advanced then the other nations participating in WWII, which was not the case.

The Japanese jet fighters were copies of the Me 262 by the way. The first one, the Nakajima Kikka differed somewhat from the original because the engineers missed some of the original data and had to complete it from memory. The second, the Nakajima Ki.201 Karyu, was a lot closer to the original. But they both suffered from inefficient engines, just like the original, and none of them came even close to production.

The only nation which had a reliable jet-engine was Britain.

[Bobicito]

Quote: No offence meant. I was just pointing out that the threadstarter gave the impression of thinking that Germany was more technologically advanced then the other nations participating in WWII, which was not the case.

The Japanese jet fighters were copies of the Me 262 by the way. The first one, the Nakajima Kikka differed somewhat from the original because the engineers missed some of the original data and had to complete it from memory. The second, the Nakajima Ki.201 Karyu, was a lot closer to the original. But they both suffered from inefficient engines, just like the original, and none of them came even close to production.

The only nation which had a reliable jet-engine was Britain.

None taken. I guess I just misinterpretted what you said. My bad. I heard that the informatin for the jet plane that was going back to Japan from Germany was sent on two or three submarines which the Allies knew about and correct me if I'm wrong but they sunk two of them.

[Rebiu]

Nice thread.

I suspect if any of these weapons had turned the tide it would have only prolonged the war until the US developed a countermeasure.

I questions the usefulness of a nuclear weapon in conventional warfare. The US used one to convince an already defeated country to surrender. What targets could Germany have hit that would have won the war.

[Bobicito]

Quote: What targets could Germany have hit that would have won the war.

Well in the late part of the war I don't think Germany could afford losing planes to attempt these bombings. Besides even if they had used the atom bomb it would have made the Allies more pissed off and maybe Germany itself would find the same fate as Japan.

But if they were to choose a target it might ave been London, Moscow, and Paris perhaps in the later war (after the invasion of D-day)

[ozymandias]

marcfj said:

Quote: Obviously you’re confused; it was England that was trying to take over the entire world, not Germany.

be grateful for our imperialism: otherwise you'd either be speaking dutch or spanish right now!

and what do you mean, not germany?

well i think effects based planning would have won it for the allies in the end even with superweapons (well, minus the a-bomb). by bombing germany's ball bearing works we almost managed to neutralise their industrial capacity in 1944. by focussing on one component that was needed for the entire war effort (such as ball bearings, petrol, spark plugs etc.) we could eventually wear germany down. plus, of course it was helped by the nazi love of superfactories that made the entire supply of one thing for the country.

[mendosan]

Britain could have had Jet planes in 1939 but the people in charge of the air force Military planning refused to fund the project which is amazing check this out

www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/achievements/whittle/telgraph.htm

[Demonic Spoon]

lol..


Firstly, Germany would have complete control of Continental Europe, therefore they would have PLENTY of industrial power. They would have swarms of planes guarding every inch of land.

Alright, two scenarioes.

1) The allies launch a small raid to hit Berlin. The Germans launch a small group of fighters and take it down easily.

2) Allies launch a massive air strike. Germany proceeds to get insane amounts of fighters in the air. Anti-air guns and insane amounts of fighters (remember, Germany has a MUCH higher industrial capacity and can thus make more fighters) hit the Allies the second they cross the English Channel.

This is of course, assuming that the allies could send fighters. The range of the Spitfire (just to give you an example of the range of fighters) was 395 miles. Yeah, the bombers have the range, but the fighters do not.

[Quell]

Demonic Spoon wrote: lol..


Firstly, Germany would have complete control of Continental Europe, therefore they would have PLENTY of industrial power. They would have swarms of planes guarding every inch of land.

Alright, two scenarioes.

1) The allies launch a small raid to hit Berlin. The Germans launch a small group of fighters and take it down easily.

2) Allies launch a massive air strike. Germany proceeds to get insane amounts of fighters in the air. Anti-air guns and insane amounts of fighters (remember, Germany has a MUCH higher industrial capacity and can thus make more fighters) hit the Allies the second they cross the English Channel.

This is of course, assuming that the allies could send fighters. The range of the Spitfire (just to give you an example of the range of fighters) was 395 miles. Yeah, the bombers have the range, but the fighters do not.

I suggest you look at the bombing we did on their petrol and refining facilities..They essentially made these places ultra frotresses, with stand by fighters, and were constantly training..Guess what, we DID take these places out.

[Rebiu]

Bobicito wrote: Quote: What targets could Germany have hit that would have won the war. But if they were to choose a target it might ave been London, Moscow, and Paris perhaps in the later war (after the invasion of D-day) Cities were completely destroyed in the war without the Bomb. Would the destruction of London, Moscow, Paris, New York and Washington have saved Germany from defeat?