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



## Freebird (Aug 7, 2008)

This was one question that came to mind in another thread.

If Germany had managed to defeat Russia in the Spring/Summer of 1943, could the Luftwaffe have held off the US/UK air forces from mid 1943 onward?

Was German production pilot training high enough to keep ahead of the Allies? {with no drain on the eastern front}

Also assumes that the Italian/Rumanian air forces can be re-deployed to the Med to help boost Axis strength.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 8, 2008)

Good poll with good choices Freebird... Tough call.... 

With the Sovs bein defeated Rumanian oil remains German and no fuel shortages... No fuel shortages, better flight training for the young Luftwaffe boys... More boys in the air to meet the 8th bombers... More bombers goin down...

I think its more important that the ground forces would be freed up by the Sovs defeat than the Luftwaffe... Stop the Allied advances into Germany herself and keep those damn shortranged fighter bombers from the Luftwaffe airbases...

My answer to ur question Freebird is the Luftwaffe could maintain air superiority over Europe if the USSR is eliminated...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 8, 2008)

I think I would go with that too. Even with the P-51's up there, a lot of bombers would still be downed if there were more German planes in the air, and maybe better stratagies to defeat the bombers? 

The P-51's would probably hold their own, but they couldn't protect the bombers all the time. 

So I think Germany would have lost in the end. Eventually their resources would get depleted or destroyed before USA and UK, and simply Hitler would have ruined the country by the 1950's.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 8, 2008)

im considering that germany obtained a fast and low-casualties victories in soviet union.

so, in 1942, the germany would have all his military force to fight in a single front against england and usa.

considering this scenario, i think very difficult to allies even reach the german airspace. because germany would be attacking allies and not in defensive.

i believe the main effort of allies would be maintain and protect the supply lines from atlantic and mediterranen and defend the british islands and north africa.


----------



## Wurger (Aug 8, 2008)

I think the main thing is that Luftwaffe could move its air training schools farther to the East where young German pilots could take their training without any disturbance form Allies.The same would be with the plane assembling.No bombes , more factories working correctly and much equippment.Additionally German economy would gather much more free prisoners for working at these factories.The war would last longer and LW air superiority could be maintained.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 8, 2008)

If the timetable was mid to late 1943 I believe the play unfolds the same way, just longer. The question is how fast do the Allies focus on and attack the oildfields and refineries.

The bomber losses are higher due to rotation of the remaining JG's but why should Germany do anything differently relative to tactics or speed up production of the Blitz Bomber? The Lightnings and Mustangs take heavier losses due to an extra couple of hundred 109s. Night fighter increases not much so RAF losses shouldn't go up too much on the transition

Like Dan - I think the huge difference is on the ground.

The war in Europe lasts with heavier air losses on both sides until the period August 6, 1945 - through (?) depending on how many nuclear weapons it takes and how much Sarin gas is dispensed by Germany on the UK.

More probably a Truce of some kind. I don't think Germany has free reign in USSR or Yugoslavia for example so a lot of troops tied down to supress guerilla ops. Italy advances stop and maybe retaken. Ploesti gets enough damage if US willing to take the losses. The 51 will still make the same difference, slower, until the LW fields the 262 in great numbers. But if you look at that timetable - many German petroleum and chemical plants are still gone by Fall/winter of 1944. Soviet production may or may not be brought back on line in time but it probably does make a difference in pilot training in summer of 1944.

USAAF shifts resources from CONUS and SA to Italy and North Africa and invade Siberia as USSR starts to collapse and race to the oil fields there.
Germans remain victors as most of USSR collapses through Moscow but significant residual of Russian Army falls back to create lines where US can supply troops and air... Germany shifts some of their army back to Italy to try to force Allies (and airbases) out. Until they do Ploesti under relentless attack and remains under attack from Egypt and Libya.



USN shifts resources destined for PTO in spring 1944 and delays future invasions of Okinawa to plan for Manchrian ops to support Siberian thrust. Make sure Siberia is 'spiked' if Germany has strength and commitment to retake Siberian oil fields.


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2008)

in a word NO

if you look at the extreme bombing during 1944 and what the LW had on the Ost front for fighter support which was practically nothing, removing those 3-5 LW fighter units would not have bolstered up the LW front in the Reich to add even any response against the US/Allied P-47, Stang, Spitfire, Tempest units.

In the same regard about nil for the LW in the night fighter realm as well


----------



## fly boy (Aug 8, 2008)

i'd say if the germans where able to beat off the air attacks from at lest mid 43 to mid late 44 becasue by late 43 you got p-51ds comeing to service and combo of the mustang and bombers and attack fighters that would crush them and war would end possibly as late as mid 46 at the time japan would have been nuked and germans might have had an abomb in the face too


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2008)

think you guys again need to go see the OOB's of the LW fighter units on the Ost front before making any clear decisions, the factor is plain and simple there was not enough LW fighter forces to contend with the Soviets though the LW JG's 51, 52 and 54 which bore the brunt of the action slaughtered the Soviet A/F in incredible numbers till wars end


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Njaco (Aug 8, 2008)

I think Erich is right. Not many units on the Ostfront. From Dr. Price. I only chose day fighters and NJG as I would think these would be used against the Allied heavies and escort. 

*May 1944*
Luftflotte 1:
Stab, II. and II./JG 54 - Fw 190 - 90 aircraft servicable
II./NJG 100 - Ju 88, D0 217 - 21 servicable

Luftflotte 4:
IV./JG 51 - Bf 109 - 22 servicable
JG 52 (three Gruppen and Stab) - Bf 109 - 82 sevicable
I./JG 53 - Bf 109 - 30 servicable
III./JG 77 - Bf 109 - 24 servicable
II./JG 301 - Bf 109 - 10 servicable
NJG 100 (reforming) - Bf 110 - 9 servicable

Luftflotte 5:
III., IV. and 13./JG 5 - 63 Bf 109 and 16 Bf 110 servicable

Luftflotte 6:
I. and III./JG 51 - Bf 109 - 66 servicable
I./NJG 100 - Ju 88, Do 217 - 19 servicable

452 aircraft total


*Jan. 1945*
Luftflotte 1:
Stab./JG 51 - Bf 109 - 16 servicable
Stab., I., and II./JG 54 - Fw 190/Bf 109 - 74 servicable

Luftflotte 4:
II./JG 51 - Bf 109 - 26 servicable
II./JG 52 - Bf 109 - 30 servicable
I./JG 53 - Bf 109 - 18 servicable
Stab./JG 76 - Bf 109 - 4 servicable

Luftflotte 5:
Stab., III. and IV./JG 5 - Bf 109/Fw 190 - 82 servicable
IV./ZG 26 - Me 410 - 35 servicable
NJG Norwegian - Bf 110/Ju 88/He 219 - 9 servicable

Luftflotte 6:
I., III. and IV./JG 51 - Bf 109 - 78 servicable
Stab., I. and III./JG 52 - Bf 109/Fw 190 - 75 servicable
I./NJG 5 - Bf 109/Ju 88 - 36 servicable
I./NJG 100 - Bf 109/Ju 88 - 41 servicable

524 servicable total

I don't think thats adding much to the Reich defense.

Would the Allied A-bomb priorities change?


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2008)

And that enforces my opinion. After 1943, it was just a matter of time due to attrition.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2008)

I am not sure if they could have held them off long eneogh to win the war. I want to agree with what Bill is saying, but I also agree with what Erich is saying as well.

I think there would have to be a change in tactics and the German jets would still have to come online faster for any effect to be truely noticed.

In the end it certainly would have lengthened the war though..


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 8, 2008)

Even if the Germans managed to reconstitute some type of training program, they would still be on the receiving end of the vast RAF/USA aerial armada.


----------



## delcyros (Aug 8, 2008)

I think the most plausible scenario for an end of hostilities in the east is either late 1941 (when Stalin negotiated via the ambassador of Rumania as to what the conditions of a cease fire were with Hitler) or again in late 1942, assuming both, Leningrad and Stalingrad could be secured.
If War in the east ends on 1st of jan. 1942, bad news for the western allies.
The Luftwaffe lost from 1.1. to 31.8. 1942 4.561 planes (3.740 further were damaged) out of which the majority were on the Eastern front (2.459 total losses with 2.201 additional damaged) compared to losses of 1.113 planes (1.008 additional damaged) for Reich and western front and 989 planes total (531 additional damaged) in the METO during the same period.

Late in may 1943, the Luftwaffe could deploy additional 3.415 planes (all types) to the west, which would in effect more than double it´s strength.
The difference is most pronounced on offensive transportation abilities.
The fighter planes in question are not nigliable. Luftflotte Reich had 296 day and 456 nightfighters (servicable) by may, 31th, 1943. Eastern front Luftflotte 1, 4, 5 and 6 recorded on this day 547 day and 33 servicable nightfighters.

I tend to believe it would make a difference, if 296 servicable Fw-190/Bf-109 (&fighter pilots) are aviable over the Reich or 843 (assuming all eastern forces are spend to Reichsverteidigung, which is unlikely).

Also note that a lot of auxilary fighter forces would be aviable (hungarian, slovakian, rumanian, bulgarian...)


----------



## Freebird (Aug 8, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Good poll with good choices Freebird... Tough call....
> 
> My answer to ur question Freebird is the Luftwaffe could maintain air superiority over Europe if the USSR is eliminated...



Thanks! I was hoping to get some input from the aircraft experts.



Erich said:


> in a word NO
> 
> if you look at the extreme bombing during 1944 and what the LW had on the Ost front for fighter support which was practically nothing, removing those 3-5 LW fighter units would not have bolstered up the LW front in the Reich to add even any response against the US/Allied P-47, Stang, Spitfire, Tempest units.
> 
> In the same regard about nil for the LW in the night fighter realm as well



Erich, I would think that the Axis defeating USSR in 1944 would be far too late for any real help. However without the disasters in the summer of 1943, could the LW not maintain a better grip, without the Eastern front grinding down the JG strength in 43?



Thorlifter said:


> I think it depends on when they beat the Soviets. IMO, I believe the line is 1943.



I think you are exactly right Thor, which is why the choice is not easy.  

Let me expand on the question a bit.

We were looking at the results on the other thread {KM IJN thread} if the Axis launched an all out total submarine offensive right after Pearl Harbor. 
The most probable result is that in 1942 the US would be mainly concerned with holding on building up defences in Hawaii, Australia, NZ, and the Caribbean. The extreme shipping losses would force the Commonwealth to concentrate on suppling the UK, and to hold on to Australia and perhaps India.

They would have had to sacrifice the Mediterranean Middle East fronts, as they simply do not have enough ships for the "Round the Cape" route.

The results:

*1.)* Due to shipping losses the Japanese cutting off the "Pacific" route to Russia *NO* lend-lease arrives in Russia after Jan 1942

*2.)* As the British abandon Egypt, this allow the Axis to transfer ~ 150,000 - 200,000 men and substantial LW elements to the Eastern front in the spring/summer of 1942 as they don't need to guard Greece Southern Europe.

*3.)* The Axis do not send ~250,000 men to Tunisia in the fall of '42, nor do they lose ~250,000 men of the 6th Army at Stalingrad.

*4.)* The Axis are in a substantially better position in the fall of '42, having captured Leningrad, surrounded Moscow and driven deep into the Caucusas.

*5.)* With the capture of parts of the Caucusas Middle East the Axis fuel situation will be much improved in 1943


----------



## Freebird (Aug 8, 2008)

So assuming that the Axis can defeat the main elements of Soviet air tank strength in March/April of 1943, leaving a large portion of the ground troops to mop up Soviet pockets, but withdrawing most of the Luftwaffe in spring 1943. 

Due to the severe shipping situation the arrivals of US airpower to Western Europe are delayed by several months. The Allies could still possibly launch "Torch" in the spring of 1943, however with the Germans in complete control of the eastern Med, the situation will be much different.

*Now to the aircraft part...*  

From what I understand, the turning point was in the summer of 1943, when the Luftwaffe losses increased dramatically due to pressure on both the East West fronts. They were never really able to recover from these losses, and the desparate situation resulted in the shortening of LW training. The real difference wat the arrival of the US 8th AF, which had ~ 150 bomber crews in March/April, and up to 600 in November, also along with a huge increase in long rang fighters.

I used the data from "Attrition the Luftwaffe"

Attrition and the Luetwaffe


*Am I correct that the key factor in the air war is the Luftwaffe fighter strength?* The turning point seems to be from June - August 1943, when monthly fighter losses jump from 20% to over 35%

This is the period when the Red Air Force begins to be a serious match for the LW, and the US AF's are rapidly gaining numbers clout.


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2008)

in the Ost Freebird the LW was actually gaining ground till 1945. in 44 some of the Ost front LW JG's were being pulled back into the Reich to help the meagre and slaughtered remnants only by numbers. Literally as Adler pointed out in 42 the LW had to have the jets in hand, worked out the fuel shortage problems and give the jets more air time than only the minutes and one rear attack to be made before they had to land and re-fuel up.

Obviously our replies are added up to a monster what-if, we really just don't know what the Allies would of done and how quick but certainly the prop jobs would of come to some conclusion and something faster would have to be in place very soon to tackle the 262 in the early years had it been provided.

In the late winter of 44-45 the Reich defense except for very few JG's moved to the Ost front and fought it out with the Soviets thus the Allies from the west pounded the LW and the Reich into annialation. Certainly this thread would have to be developed as to when the Soviets were defeated as the effects of US/RAF bombings were only being really felt in early 1943 when the LW was sending up conventional prop jobs to counter the heavy bomber threat


----------



## Freebird (Aug 8, 2008)

Erich said:


> in the Ost Freebird the LW was actually gaining ground till 1945.
> 
> Obviously our replies are added up to a monster what-if, we really just don't know what the Allies would of done and how quick but certainly the prop jobs would of come to some conclusion and something faster would have to be in place very soon to tackle the 262 in the early years had it been provided.



Erich during the summer of 1943 {May - July} *was the Luftwaffe divided up fairly evenly among the 3 fronts?* For example 35% East, 35% West 30% Med/Africa? Or did one theater dominate? Assuming that Germany was in a better position strategically in 1943 could they have shifted some LW production pilot training to fighters?


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2008)

you had JG's 1, 2, 11 and 26 in the internal Reich and that is it............slowly Ost front and some gruppen from the Med were being pulled back for experimentation with different rockets and bombs and cannon, even the twin engine Zerstörers from different theaters were being armed up and equipped with rockets and as the air war developed the southern portion of the Reich aka Austria/Hungary was then defended against the US 15th AF and RAF units associated with day and sometimes night bombing.

As to %'s I could not give you an accurate count.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2008)

If Russia would have been beaten in '43, would this have had freed up more material etc. towards the Me-262, Arado-234, Horten-229 etc projects....got them in the air sooner in their intended roles?


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2008)

to really take effect the 262 had to come in 1942


----------



## Njaco (Aug 8, 2008)

Freebird, some stats from Dr. Price. Gonna condensed to just day fighter units, for your comparison.

*May 1943*
WESTERN FRONT
Luftflotte 3:
JG 2 - 128 servicable
JG 26 - 79 servicable
11./JG 54 - 9 servicable

Luftwaffenbefehlshaber Mitte (Reich defense)
JG 1 - 59 servicable
JG 3 - 20 servicable
JG 11 - 54 servicable
I./JG 27 - 24 servicable
III./JG 54 - 41 servicable

414 total servicable for the West (day fighters)

EASTERN FRONT
Luftflotte 1:
JG 54 - 78 servicable

Luftflotte 4:
JG 3 - 44 servicable
JG 52 - 61 servicable
10./ZG 1 - 7 servicable

Luftflotte 5: 
JG 5 - 115 servicable

Luftflotte 6:
I./JG 26 - 30 servicable
JG 51 - 78 servicable
ZG 1 - 32 servicable

445 total servicable for the East(day fighters)

MED FRONT
Luftflotte 2:
JG 27 - 79 servicable
II./JG 51 - 29 servicable
JG 53 - 55 servicable
JG 77 - 17 servicable
ZG 1 - 14 servicable
ZG 26 - 32 servicable

Luftwaffenkommando Sud Ost
JG 4 - 40 servicable

266 total servicable for the Med / South area(day fighters)


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2008)

In my opinion the area from the Franco german border would have been an Allied zone of control as it was the Luftwaffe was very selective in attacking 2TAF and 9AF missions which were being escorted by several hundred fighters even on smaller missions and that would not have changed what would have changed would have been the Strategic aspect . The German jets would been effective at least until 45 at which point the British and particularly US industries having been forced to ramp up the production and developement of jet aircraft something they were never forced to do


----------



## Freebird (Aug 8, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Freebird, some stats from Dr. Price. Gonna condensed to just day fighter units, for your comparison.
> 
> LW 445 total servicable for the West (day fighters)




What would the Allied strength be at that point?

{counting only the long range fighters that could escort into Germany}

If the LW chose not to engage the fighters over france, the UK Spitfires would be out of range correct?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2008)

delcyros said:


> Also note that a lot of auxilary fighter forces would be aviable (hungarian, slovakian, rumanian, bulgarian...)



That is a much interesting equation to throw into the mix. Also with Russians gone and Germany having supported Finnland, what are the odds that the very formidable Finnish airforce would have joined in as well.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 8, 2008)

> What would the Allied strength be at that point?



Not sure as my endeavour is the LW. But maybe Bill or Erich might have a numbers stat.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2008)

Erich said:


> to really take effect the 262 had to come in 1942


If Russia was beaten in '43, things must have gone really good for for the Heer and Luftwaffe in '42 already right, I mean as we all know, Russia is no small country, right.....so, if things were going this well, I'd think that they'd speed things up a bit, especially those project that was in the works, or am I wrong in my line of thinking here?


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm finding this thread very confusing or maybe I still have the terrible jet lag from Germany and not completely coherent in my thoughts

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


----------



## Freebird (Aug 8, 2008)

Erich said:


> I'm finding this thread very confusing or maybe I still have the terrible jet lag from Germany and not completely coherent in my thoughts
> 
> gents when is Russia defeated the ? once that is established then what facts and fantasy figures can come to light. we have to deal with the present at the time as well as the what-if(s)




The Soviets are much weaker through the fall/winter of 1942, with the main resistance of the USSR collapsing in the spring of 1943, but with a sizable number of German army units "mopping up" throughout 1943. With very little remaining Soviet air opposition, perhaps 80% of the LW fighters 60% of the LW bombers could be withdrawn by May 1943 and sent to the west. 

The elimination of the UK threat in the Med means that perhaps 60 - 70% of the fighters would be available to counter the Allied threat.

{However, most UK US air units that were sent to North Africa in 1942-1943 would be available in Britain instead}


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 9, 2008)

Erich said:


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



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

It's almost two questions.

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

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

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


----------



## JugBR (Aug 9, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> *I think it depends on when they beat the Soviets. IMO, I believe the line is 1943*. Before that, the Luftwaffe would still have had significant numbers to put on only one front, which would have help to defend the factories.
> 
> After 1943, the allies advanced fighters and mass production would have drove Germany into the ground. However, I do believe it wouldn't have ended in 1945. All those men and resources on one front! wow.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure Hitler would have screwed up a one front war too!



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## JugBR (Aug 9, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


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



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

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


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 9, 2008)

Erich said:


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





Freebird said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 9, 2008)

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

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

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

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


----------



## renrich (Aug 9, 2008)

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


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2008)

renrich said:


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



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

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


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2008)

renrich said:


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



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

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


----------



## Freebird (Aug 9, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> I really do think it would have made a difference, not only from the units that were available to go back to Germany is Spring 1943, *PLUS *the number of aircraft that would have been assigned to the Reich and Germanys infused ground forces instead of going to Russia.... Normandy and D-Day would NOT have succeeded if Russia falls in the Spring of 43....
> 
> How many troops are the gonna be in Germany/France/Belgium etc etc instead of Russian soil???



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

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



drgondog said:


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



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

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


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 9, 2008)

Here's another question....

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


----------



## Freebird (Aug 9, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


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




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

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


----------



## HoHun (Aug 9, 2008)

Hi Parmigiano,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Njaco (Aug 9, 2008)

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



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


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2008)

Njaco said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Freebird (Aug 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> P38's in the UK started ops in November 1943.
> 
> They also were flying in the Med since the "Torch" invasion.
> 
> And anyway you want to slice it .... the P38 flying over Germany was a mortal danger to the LW. it was a threat they couldnt ignore.



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


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2008)

freebird said:


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



They could fly well into Poland.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> They could fly well into Poland.



Did not the original P-38 have a range of 700 miles? Was there an extended version?


Also how did the P-38 fare in combat with the FW-190's? {in combat with roughly equal #'s}


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 9, 2008)

The early P-38's had a range (on 300 US gal internal) of ~900 mi with ~1,750 mi with 2x 165 US gal drop tanks.

They had problem though, the lack of cockpit heating heating could be a considerable hinderance for the pilot at high altitudes (particularly in the cold skies of Norther Europe). There were some engine problems (possibly fuel or maintenence related, sometimes overcooling of the radiators too) and problems with the turbochargers at high alt. The intercoolers in the wing LE were inadequate to allow full combat power at altitude (designed for 1,150 hp). And of course there were the compressibility issues.

All models (prior to the boosted ailerons on the late P-38J's) suffered from mediocre roll performance, and prior to the addition of maneuvering flaps on the P-38G also had rather poor turn rate. (the flaps, combined with an increased in engine power gave the P-38G roughle double the sustained turn rate of the P-38F)


The P-38 was the best climbing fighter the US had at the time though, and was slightly longer ranged than the contemporary P-47's. (and significantly longer ranged than the P-47's w/out wing tank capability)

The P-47 pre-D-25 (with 305 US gal) had ranges of ~800-850 mi clean, and the max extenal fuel carried on the belly was a 200 long US gal semi-conformal laminated paper tank that was not well liked. And even then it would only allow ~1,400 mi max range.

Once they started getting wing pylons standard (some were modified in the field, but it was a long and time consuming process, particularly with the necessary plumbing for wing tanks) the 200 gal ferry tank was not used at all. (though a 200 gal flat steel belly tank was introduced later in the war) With the wing pylons they could carry 150 US gal under each wing plus one 75 or 110 gal belly tank. This allowed a max "yardstick" range of ~1,850 mi with 410 gal external, and a max combat radius of ~600 mi. (which would allow a maximum of only ~15 min at combat power with 30 min reserve at cruise power -assuming tanks are dropped at start of combat-)

I believe the early P-38's had nearly double that combat time at similar ranges.

The first P-38Js' range decreased a bit as they still had only 300 US gal capasity (and it was a bit less fuel efficient than it's predicessors, due in part to the increased drag of the new "chin" intercooler/oil cooler intakes), but this was quickly mitigated by a 62 gal tank added to the LE of each wing.(where the intercoolers had prevously been) This increased internal capacity to 424 US gallons and max range (on internal fuel) to ~1,200 mi. 


Starting with the P-47D-25 internal capacity was increased by 65 gal to 370 US gal allowing a max range of 1,050 mi on internal fuel. But this model was introduced after the P-51 began taking over escort duties.


By comparison the ealr P-51's (B's and C's w/out fuse tank) ranged ~950 mi on internal fuel. (with fuse tank ~1,350 mi, though part of the fuse tank had to be used up before being stable for combat)
Also range figures for models with the V-1650-7 seem to be significantly lower (over 100 mi) than those with the 1650-3.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> .....slightly longer ranged than the contemporary P-47's. (and significantly longer ranged than the P-47's w/out wing tank capability)



The P38's far exceeded the range of the P47's.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 10, 2008)

Are you talking "yardstick range" or useful combat range? (since the P-38 could carry 2x 300 gal drop tanks -and did in the PTO it's "yardstick" or max ferry range, far exceeded its useful combat range)


I was comparing the early (pre J) P-38's (with 300 gal) to the contemporary P-47's (305 gal). Those P-38's might be able to get anothe 100 mi combat radius than the P-47 (with wing tanks), but probably not much more than that. Granted 100 mi, was probably poorly described as "slightly longer."

Now, the P-38J's (with 424 gal) were capable considderably larger combat radii than the pre-D-25 P-47's with the P-38 now having ~350-400 mi advantage (the J being introduced some time before the P-47D-25). However, the D-25 closed this gap somewhat again. (with the P-38's lead down to ~100-150 mi)

(again I'm atempting to compare useful combat radius, not range)

And I'm nt getting into the P-47N...


----------



## Freebird (Aug 10, 2008)

Does anyone have information on the numbers types of US aircraft? How many P-47's P-38's were available in the ETO in June/July of 1943? {including MTO}

And how did the P-38 match up against the FW-190? losses even? Or 60/40 in favor of the US?


----------



## HoHun (Aug 10, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>and prior to the addition of maneuvering flaps on the P-38G also had rather poor turn rate. (the flaps, combined with an increased in engine power gave the P-38G roughle double the sustained turn rate of the P-38F)

What's your source on this?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 10, 2008)

P-38 Performance Trials

see: Tactical Suitability of the P-38G type airplane as compared to the P-38F Conclusions


> The P-38G turns much better than the P-38F (will close 180* in 360* circle) due to maneuver flaps.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 10, 2008)

Which were the versions of the 109 and 190 flying in '43? The Dora's and Karl's didn't show until mid/late '44, right?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 10, 2008)

Another thing, if Russia was beaten by '43, wouldn't this also mean then more of Luftwaffe's Top Guns (Aces that was killed on the Eastern Front) would be fighting over Western Europe, and also train more green pilots, I'm sure that this would cause more headache for 8th and 9th Air Force....


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 10, 2008)

Don't forget the massive increase in AAA (incl. airfield protection), maintenance crews etc...

The main difference would be on the ground though, I doubt any invasion would've been possible for a long, long time.

I guess eventually day time bombing campaigns would've stopped due to non-satisfactory ratio of effect to losses. This was discussed in 1943 even without any German victory in the east in sight.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 10, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>P-38 Performance Trials

Ah, thanks! Too bad there is so little detail on the exact parameters, such as altitudes ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 10, 2008)

freebird said:


> Does anyone have information on the numbers types of US aircraft? How many P-47's P-38's were available in the ETO in June/July of 1943? {including MTO}
> 
> And how did the P-38 match up against the FW-190? losses even? Or 60/40 in favor of the US?



First - the P-38, until the late J and L were not a great match for either the Fw 190 or Me 109 in a turning fight. It was also handicapped at high altitude in that it quickly entered compressibility in a dive - so the 109/190 could evade by diving.

The 56th FG brought the first P-47s to UK in February 1943, followed by the 78th and the re-equip of the 4th by March 1943

The 82nd FG had P-38 in Oct 1942 but transferred to 12th AF in Dec 1942. The other P-38 Groups that were active included the 14th (oct 42) in 12AF in North Africa. In the PTO the 35th and 49th FG were equipped with P-38's in operations in April/May 1943.

The 348th FG had 47's in PTO at same time.

None of the 9th AF P-47s were in UK at that time but the 'flood' started in summer to re-equip most front line FG with either P-38G/H or P-47C/D's 

The P-38 still had a lot of value on Long Range Escort simply because of it's presence - stall a great deterrent of T/E fighters of all types and it's great speed and climb at 25000 feet still made it formidable against the Fw 190 and Me 109 if used properly.

I think the net effect would have been to shift from 12th AF and PTO to ETO for all the P-38's and continue using the less capable P-40 for MTO and PTO, replacing with P-38s as production continued to ramp up.

There would have been more USAAF Fighter losses engaging larger LW forces, but more P-38s would have meant far fewer losses to the Me 110/210/410s than experienced from Aug 1943 to March 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 10, 2008)

I haven't posted any comments on this issue until now.

I don't think that a Russian surrender was ever likely, but a temporary ceasefire may have been possible. All this talk about a Russian surrender is a gross westernized misunderstanding of how the Russians think. The deeper you penetrated Russia, the more intractable their psyche becomes, the Russians would never have surrendered, although they would have sort a temporary ceasefire. Moreover the ground east of Gorki rapidly descends into dense swampy forests, almost totally devoid of roads, and completely unsuited to a war of maneuver.

Admittedly the capture of Leningrad, Moscow, the Caucasus and Stalingrad would deal a heavy blow, but instead of fighting with an average of 600 Divisions, they would fight with 300. The eastern front would scale down in importance, but would never quieten down. Moreover, in 1941, the British had promised to intervene on the ground with British troops on the eastern front. The Americans would also have committed to a united effort on the eastern front, with surplus Lend lease (now that the Russians were only half as strong as they were historically, being poured into India, to raise an additional 70 or so Divisions from the subcontinent. This had been envisaged, but never implemented because of equipment shortages, and because these troops were never needed. The most obvious place where these troops would be used would be on the southern front in the Caucasus. Along with the fully implemented Marshal Mobilization plan, which envisaged a full 200 divs taking to the field by 1943 (albeit not completely trained), and assuming that a quid pro quo somewhere exists, that probably would see less shipping in the pacific (and no counteroffensive) so that more can be poured into the ETO, I think a wavering Russia spells big trouble for Germany.

As for this notion that oil would be enhanced, and that Luftwaffe training could be moved east, thats a complete pipe dream. With the front line moved approximately 1000 kms further east than it reached historically, the German logistics system would have been in total melt down. They lacked the rolling stock to keep the armies in their historical positions, what lesser chance would they have if the front was even further from home. As for the economic resources of the occupied territories, well this too was never able to be exploited, again because of the breakdown in the German supply systems. The only hope for Germany was to secure a negotiated settlement with the Russians. The distances and the terrain, along with the Russian attitudes would ensure that outright surrender was never going to happen.....


----------



## Njaco (Aug 10, 2008)

Parsifal, I was thinking the same thing. I don't think surrender would be a good term. More like a cease-fire as you said with concessions. Maybe some territories under German control or access to industries or something similar.

But that would be hard with Nazi ideaology. Which leaves no surrender, no cease-fire, just all out war.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I haven't posted any comments on this issue until now.
> 
> I don't think that a Russian surrender was ever likely, but a temporary ceasefire may have been possible. All this talk about a Russian surrender is a gross westernized misunderstanding of how the Russians think. The deeper you penetrated Russia, the more intractable their psyche becomes, the Russians would never have surrendered, although they would have sort a temporary ceasefire. Moreover the ground east of Gorki rapidly descends into dense swampy forests, almost totally devoid of roads, and completely unsuited to a war of maneuver.
> 
> ...



Parsifal, I completely agree with your post, and it's the most sensible one I've seen in this thread. I've composed nearly identical posts twice now, then decided not to post them. Glad to see you took the plunge! 

regards
Claidemore


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2008)

just to get back to a request on the previous page.

the LW was flying Bf 109G-6's no souped up models until 44. Fw 190A-5's and A-6's some of them with experimental short lived 2cm in underwing waffenpods which just added weight ....pretty much dogmeat in an aerial duel with 38's and 47's though they did knock the 4 engine heavies for a fact.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 11, 2008)

Maybe this thread isn't the right place for this, but:
What if the Axis had foregone the Battle of Britain and gone straight to Russia in 1940?
Ramp up millitary production and try to delay further conflict with the west for as long as posible. Don't declare war on Brittain, and after the Pearl Harbor attack break ties with Japan. (or possibly declare war on Japan, which would certainly confuse things for the allies)


----------



## Freebird (Aug 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I haven't posted any comments on this issue until now.
> 
> I don't think that a Russian surrender was ever likely, but a temporary ceasefire may have been possible. All this talk about a Russian surrender is a gross westernized misunderstanding of how the Russians think. The deeper you penetrated Russia, the more intractable their psyche becomes, the Russians would never have surrendered, although they would have sort a temporary ceasefire. Moreover the ground east of Gorki rapidly descends into dense swampy forests, almost totally devoid of roads, and completely unsuited to a war of maneuver.



Parsifal this does not contemplate a Russian "surrender", but if the Germans are able to capture a large number of Russian divisions and more imortantly the factories supply lines, the Soviet ability to coordinate and organize attacks breaks down. The Eastern front would more likely turn in to a low-intensity partisan struggle.

Remember that the original question was based on the assumption that the Axis sub offensive has been successful in cutting off Russia collapsing the British position in the Middle East Indian Ocean. 



parsifal said:


> Admittedly the capture of Leningrad, Moscow, the Caucasus and Stalingrad would deal a heavy blow, but instead of fighting with an average of 600 Divisions, they would fight with 300. The eastern front would scale down in importance, but would never quieten down.



Agreed, the Germans would still need large #'s of troops in the east, but with much less need for aircraft. If the Germans are really smart they will recruit the large number of anti-Soviet populace in the Ukraine Eastern Europe to help eliminate the partisan threat. 



parsifal said:


> Moreover, in 1941, the British had promised to intervene on the ground with British troops on the eastern front. The Americans would also have committed to a united effort on the eastern front, with surplus Lend lease (now that the Russians were only half as strong as they were historically, being poured into India, to raise an additional 70 or so Divisions from the subcontinent. This had been envisaged, but never implemented because of equipment shortages, and because these troops were never needed. The most obvious place where these troops would be used would be on the southern front in the Caucasus.



Ok first, the Allies cannot pour anything into India, with all available ships used to supply the UK, Australia, Hawaii other vital bases. Once the Axis subs cut off the "Cape" route, there is no lend lease via Persia, no supplies to Egypt, Burma or India. The whole Indian Ocean position becomes untenable. If there were equipment shortages historically, how could they possibly raise an army with NO EQUIPMENT delivered? Also with the weakening British strength in India the INA becomes a serious consideration. 

In the historical model the US was fully engaged in the build up in the Pacific for "Torch", while the available shipping allowed the UK to send only ONE division per month to the Indian Ocean, barely enough to replace losses. Now how would they do with less than half that amount of shipping?



parsifal said:


> The only hope for Germany was to secure a negotiated settlement with the Russians. The distances and the terrain, along with the Russian attitudes would ensure that outright surrender was never going to happen.....



Or by eliminating the Russian ability to wage war, the Eastern front devolves into a large Partisan struggle.


Some points to remember:

1.) The question supposes that the Axis wage a far more aggressive submarine action, and that the Japanese cut off the Soviet Pacific ports, which supplied about 30% of lend-lease.

2.) The Axis cutting off of the "Cape" route not only isolates the UK forces in Egypt, India Malaysia, but obviously also interrupts the lend-lease via Persia.

3.) Churchill stops lend-lease to Russia via the Arctic in 1942 when heavy shipping losses make it untenable. An aggressive sub campaign right from the start would bring this halt of the "Murmansk" convoys forward to the beginning of 1942, effectivly isolating Russia.

considering the vast amount of vital supplies sent to Russia, including tanks, aircraft, trucks, rubber, food, locomotives, avgas, railcars, ammunition, this elimination of "Lend-Lease" could not fail to have a dramatic effect.

4.) It was the success of the commonwealth "Desert army" and "Torch" that caused the Axis to send some ~250,000 troops to North Africa/Sicily in the fall of 1942, if the Allies have been forced from the Middle East due to cutting of the supply line, there would be no Lightfoot/Supercharge to begin with. Without a British threat in the Med, the Axis could deploy 150,000 - 200,000 more troops in the East.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 11, 2008)

How would this affect the Eastern Front in the south, with Romanian's and Hungarian's etc. fighting...? I guess that they'd move a fair bit into the country as well, or?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2008)

_Parsifal this does not contemplate a Russian "surrender", but if the Germans are able to capture a large number of Russian divisions and more importantly the factories supply lines, the Soviet ability to coordinate and organize attacks breaks down. The Eastern front would more likely turn in to a low-intensity partisan struggle._

Hi Freebird

I know this looks a bit like an about face from the discussion about the Km attacking allied shipping, but the situations are in fact fundamentally different. I firmly believe that Merchant shipping was the glue that held the allied efforts together, without it, nothing is possible, with it, many alternatives to the way the allies project their power is entirely plausible, including a massive involvement on th Eastern Front.

What you are saying is just not plausible to me. The Germans were not able to capture more than about 16% of available factory space during the 1941-42 offensives, although the total amount of factory space lost and/or damaged exceeded 30% (according to overy). Provided allied Sealift capacity is not compromised, (and thats the big "if"), the Soviets are not going to break down in the manner you describe. They would keep on fighting, in the same manner that the British and the dominions would keep fighting even of the British Isles had been invaded. This is where I disagree with your theory. you are assuming a lessening of effort on the Eastern front, but i think that were there to be significantly greater advances on the eastern front by the Germans, the Allies would have intervened, as they had pledged to do in 1941 and 1942. In 1941 Churchill had promised to commit the British army to the eastern front (even though it was not completely ready, and would have suffered acute problems of its own. In 1942 there were the Bolero plans (the cross channel invasion, in the event that a Russian collapse was imminent, however it is just as plausible, indeed more likely that Allied forces would deploy directly to the eastern Front if the collapse was as bad as you suggest. Lastly there were plans to arm the Indian army to a much greater extent than historical (which was 35 Divs anyway) to the point of creating a new army of about 70 Divs.

All this depends on the allied shipping reserves being held intact. without it, they can do none of this. with it, it doesn't matter if one of the grand alliance member falters, others can go to his aid, and protect him until he recovers. And the Russians absolutely would not lessen their ferocity, it would actually increase, just the numbers would go down. The Germans would be suffering additional problems, however. the further they ventured from their supply bases, the worse it gets. 

_Remember that the original question was based on the assumption that the Axis sub offensive has been successful in cutting off Russia collapsing the British position in the Middle East Indian Ocean_. 

Well then it is a no brainer.....what you are saying is that if the Germans manage to defeat the allies and the Russians, can they win????.....well...yes 

From that point the discussion becomes a bit silly. What you have to assume in this kind of hypothetical is a quid pro Quo of some sort. Granted that I believe the axis could make a big hole in the available MS fleet, but if there was an emergency on the eastern front as well, then the allies and the Soviets were defeated. I dint believe this was achievable for the axis. if they did well, or better than historical in one area, there is likely to be a counterbalancing effect somewhere else. I believe that a re-ordering of priorities in the U-Boat war may have achieved a negotiated settlement for Germany, but never thought it likely that complete defeat could be achieved through them.


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2008)

well the LW and the KM needed to organize an offensive campaign together which they never did and because of it both failed miserably on all fronts. had they been able to entrap those Soviet shipping forces and cut off the lanes altogether with Murmansk as the base then who knows what may have happened to choke off the life blood of the country from the outside


----------



## Freebird (Aug 11, 2008)

parsifal said:


> * I firmly believe that Merchant shipping was the glue that held the allied efforts together*, without it, nothing is possible, with it, many alternatives to the way the allies project their power is entirely plausible.
> 
> *All this depends on the allied shipping reserves being held intact.* without it, they can do none of this.



I agree 100%. Problem is, in 1942 the Allies have no "Shipping Reserve", after Pearl the situation goes from strained to critical.

Just to keep the threads on-topic Parsifal, I will reply to the "shipping U-boat" questions on the "KM IJN" thread, and open an new thread on Russia China's survivability with a drastic reduction or elimination of Western aid, and also possible Allied intervention in a collapsing Soviet situation. 



parsifal said:


> Well then it is a no brainer.....what you are saying is that if the Germans manage to defeat the allies and the Russians, can they win????.....well...yes



*The questions I wanted to explore in this thread*:

How much would the German fighter strength have to be increased in spring 1943 to achieve a balance of power with the US/UK?

If the LW had an extra 400 fighters in the West would it make a difference? 

I'm trying to figure out what types what numbers each side had in the ETO at this time, and who generally had the superior aircraft?

Were the early model P-38's equal to the FW? Were there enough of them in the ETO?

How did the P-47C or D compare to the Me109G?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 11, 2008)

The P-47 was a very good match for the 109 or even FW 190. It could absorb a lot of rounds and shells and still keep going. It's climb wasn't as good as the 109 but it had an excellent dive. It had a powerful engine, and could sustain fast manuevers except maybe at low altitudes. 

As far as I know, the P-47's were never slaughtered by the enemy the way a P-40 or P-39 might have been.


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2008)

why was the P-38 replaced by the jug and the Stang, you have to ask yourself that question ........... range ? you are also standing up against earlier variants of the 109 and Fw were not really top notch in the fighter role until 44, so it appears as an even keel to me.

Granted without the contention of the Soviets to the east there will be several more Geschwaders training up in Reich defense so at least this will give the LW the numbers increase but still not an overwhelming air superiority


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 12, 2008)

Another question fellas....if they'd have "beaten" the Russians, would they have had finished their carriers if things were going well for them on the Eastern Front? If so, how would that have affected the war on the Atlantic?


----------



## Kruska (Aug 12, 2008)

IMO three main factors would out rule any “if” possibility of Russia being knocked out of the war in order for Nazi Germany to recuperate against an allied western front, be it on land, sea or in the air.

1. Nazi Germany was not ready for war at all in 1939-40 – The industrial resources were not targeted primarily towards military production, which makes an ongoing war based on attrition impossible – such as history has proven it.

2. Hitler grossly underestimated the Russian military strength and its human and material resources in regards to quantity and quality, not to mention the huge support in regards to material by the USA and its allies, or even Russia’s leading military technology or assets in certain fields such as the T-34 amongst many others. 

3. Hitler’s racial abnormalities forbid him to take advantage of human resources in the “Liberated from Stalin” territories in order to refill the ranks of the Wehrmacht.

Even “if” despite all these above mentioned factors Hitler could have squeezed Stalin into an armistice, Germanys industry was never and could never have been a match towards the US and its allies. Its technological lead in regards to jets would have been short-lived and insufficient to actually prevent the allies from gaining the air superiority. 

I do believe Germany itself could have had a realistic chance to win against Russia and England.
However without Hitler, Germany would have never gone to war, but history brought in Hitler and as such the whole possibility became a 12 year dream that ended in disaster.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Freebird (Aug 12, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> The P-47 was a very good match for the 109 or even FW 190. It could absorb a lot of rounds and shells and still keep going. It's climb wasn't as good as the 109 but it had an excellent dive. It had a powerful engine, and could sustain fast manuevers except maybe at low altitudes.
> 
> As far as I know, the P-47's were never slaughtered by the enemy the way a P-40 or P-39 might have been.



Was this the P-47 "D"? 



Erich said:


> why was the P-38 replaced by the jug and the Stang, you have to ask yourself that question ........... range ? you are also standing up against earlier variants of the 109 and Fw were not really top notch in the fighter role until 44, so it appears as an even keel to me.
> 
> Granted without the contention of the Soviets to the east there will be several more Geschwaders training up in Reich defense so at least this will give the LW the numbers increase but still not an overwhelming air superiority



The German FW Me109 could out-turn all of the Allied fighters in '43 correct?

The US fighters were heavier, more firepower could take more punishment?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 12, 2008)

Also, with some of the aces form the eastern front fighting over the channel, France etc. with the Luftwaffe pilots having TWO years of war experience over the US pilots, shouldn't that also count for something? With the lull on the eastern front, I'm sure that they'd put some of these to train new fresh pilots...I mean, some of the BIG guns, that were killed later in the war on the eastern front would still be alive and well....
This would give them a better chance to school new fighter pilots, right? 
With more well trained pilots up in the air, this must be a pain in the neck...


----------



## mad_max (Aug 12, 2008)

Above 19-20k and over 250 MPH the P-47 was a real handful for the Luftwaffe planes of the time. Under 18k and under 250 MPH both the 109G and 190A had the upper hand. Esp. before water injection and high activity propeller were available on the Jug.

Disclaimer: Only things I've read and could be BS.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 12, 2008)

freebird said:


> The German FW Me109 could out-turn all of *the Allied fighters *in '43 correct?
> 
> The US fighters were heavier, more firepower could take more punishment?



Gennerally true in the case of the US fighters (though at low level some P-40's and P-39's could probably have been able to out-turn contemporary Fw-190's)

For the many British and Russian planes though, a different story.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2008)

freebird said:


> Was this the P-47 "D"?
> 
> *In July 1943 only the P-47C and no operational paddle blades until the kits arrived in January 1944.*
> 
> ...



Me 109 yes, Fw 190 with 4 2cm cannon - no as far as firepower. US aircraft heavier than everybody else's primarily because of fuel and engine selection for the Big 3 USAAF and F6F and F4U.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 13, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Also, with some of the aces form the eastern front fighting over the channel, France etc. with the Luftwaffe pilots having TWO years of war experience over the US pilots, shouldn't that also count for something?
> This would give them a better chance to school new fighter pilots, right?
> With more well trained pilots up in the air, this must be a pain in the neck...



Exactly right Lucky, the heavy LW fighter losses in the summer of '43 forced them to push pilots into combat with incomplete training, this was the beginning of the end, it can only get worse after that.



drgondog said:


> Me 109 yes, Fw 190 with 4 2cm cannon - no as far as firepower. US aircraft heavier than everybody else's primarily because of fuel and engine selection for the Big 3 USAAF and F6F and F4U.



Ok, so the main US { Allied} long-range arcraft aircraft in the summer of 1943 are the *P-47C*, and the *P-38G*. The P-38H's first went into service May/June 1943, and the "J" varient did not go into service until August. The P-51B does not go into operation in Europe until Dec 1943.

I looked up more data on the P-38:

The P-38 Lightning



WWIIAircraftPerformance said:


> The records show that the P-38 did not do well as a long range, high altitude bomber escort with the Eighth Air Force. The major problem would appear to be the unusually large number of engine failures that occurred. There was also the restriction requiring a low dive speed above 20,000 feet, which was the standard altitude for escort fighters. The engine problems were under control by mid 1944 and the other problems were eventually eliminated or improved.
> 
> If the Lightning did not do that well with the Eighth Air Force (for whatever reason) it more than made up for it in the Pacific...
> 
> ...



In summary the Lightning problems in 1943 are: 

1.) High speed, high altitude compressibility until the dive flaps were added on the later "J" series 
2.) CAT problems in the "A" through "H"
3.) Engine failures in the "J" series
4.) Difficult high speed handling until power flaps introduced on the "L" series.


So it would appear that the German aircraft could hold there own quality-wise against the US aircraft, it was simply a matter of the Allies having more aircraft, pilots fuel supplies to wear down the Germans....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 13, 2008)

Once the P-51D came along, there would be less casualties to the bombers, even if the Germans had scores of 262 jets at their disposal. Eventually the Allies would have put their own jets to use, like the British Gloster Meteor, not a bad aircraft, and without the engine problems of the 262. 

It might have lasted until 1946 or maybe even longer, but remember that D-Day was coming soon so the Germans would have still have had advancing Allied armies coming to Germany. The P-47 would still have hampered German troop movement by daylight, even if there were more FW 190's to stop them.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 13, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Once the P-51D came along, there would be less casualties to the bombers, even if the Germans had scores of 262 jets at their disposal. Eventually the Allies would have put their own jets to use, like the British Gloster Meteor, not a bad aircraft, and without the engine problems of the 262.
> 
> It might have lasted until 1946 or maybe even longer, but remember that D-Day was coming soon so the Germans would have still have had advancing Allied armies coming to Germany .



I think without the heavy German troop losses in the East, and without Allied Air superiority in the West, D-Day would not be launched in 1944, if at all.

The P-51 B's only come in December, and the 51 "D" in '44, so the question would still be in doubt. Even with the German Army badly weakened and with the Allies in control of the air, "Omaha" was almost a costly defeat.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 14, 2008)

Why the P-51D?

The B/C models were quite capable (moreso performance wise -particularly in climb and turn ability). The increased(and, more importantly) more reliable armament was a plus, as was the increased visibility, but the 4x .40's were generally adequate fr Fvs.F combat and the visibility with the malcolm hood was decent. If you're talking range wise, there were variants of the B/C with the fuselage tank as well.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Why the P-51D?
> 
> The B/C models were quite capable (moreso performance wise -particularly in climb and turn ability). The increased(and, more importantly) more reliable armament was a plus, as was the increased visibility, but the 4x .40's were generally adequate fr Fvs.F combat and the visibility with the malcolm hood was decent. If you're talking range wise, there were variants of the B/C with the fuselage tank as well.



All early P-51B-3 and B-5's were retrofitted and, IIRC, the -7 forward had the 85 gallon tank installed as production variant. The -7 was the first 51 to have the 1650-7 installed also for better low and medium altitude perfromance


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Gennerally true in the case of the US fighters (though at low level some P-40's and P-39's could probably have been able to out-turn contemporary Fw-190's)
> 
> For the many British and Russian planes though, a different story.



Getting into a turning fight against a "Curtiss" type fighter was not a good idea for 109 drivers.

If considering just the original question which revolved around Russia's defeat in 43, with other factors not being substantially changed, I would think Hitler would have sent the bulk of the available airpower to Tunisia vs. the Reich given his track record.


----------



## Soren (Aug 14, 2008)

If the USSR had fallen the Western Allies could've kissed goodbye any chance of a successful invasion of France.

First of all with no fuel shortages there'd be more LW a/c in the air and better trained pilots in them = Huge and unacceptable Allied a/c losses. Secondly with all the fuel needed the German Panzers could then roll along when needed, which means the Allies would've been completely incapable of pulling off any invasion of France.

Had the USSR fallen then Germany would be in complete control on the ground, it was then only in the air that the Allies were a problem.

If Germany wanted complete air superiority right away and not have to struggle for it for a great deal of time, despite no lack fuel or trained pilots, then they'd have to press the Me-262 into service when it was ready. The Me-262 was the only a/c which, if properly fueled and piloted, could negate the Allied superiority in numbers. 

Anyway the way I see it is that if the USSR had fallen then the war would've progessed with the Allies bombing Germany and Germany bombing the Allies (Britain) until finally the A-bomb would settle the matter in some way. Any attempt at a landased invasion of france would've resulted in tragedy for the Allies, and so the war would've went on in the air over Europe until the A-bomb came along.

The important thing for the LW was the fuel trained pilots, this is what it lacked.


----------



## Soren (Aug 14, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> Getting into a turning fight against a "Curtiss" type fighter was not a good idea for 109 drivers.



The Bf-109 was a better turn fighter than the P-40 P-39, so no.


----------



## Soren (Aug 14, 2008)

Bill,

I'm sure you'll agree that the Hurricane was definitely a better turn fighter than both the Bf-109, Spitfire, P-40, Fw-190, P-51 etc etc.. The only a/c I think of which beats the Hurricane in turn performance is the A6M Zero.

As for the Yak-9, it didn't turn quite as well as the Bf-109G. According to German 109 pilots the Yak-9 was no match in tight turning fights against a clean Bf-109G (Clean refers to no gunpods as many had these equipped). Are you sure you didn't mean the Yak-3 ?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 14, 2008)

I still say that the skies in NW Europe would be ruled by the 9AF and 2TAF with a large superiority in air power ,the Strategic component would have to be scaled back as I think lossed over the Reich proper would have been prohibitive . The U boats would have been neutralized in the same manner with the advent of proper ASW aircraft and naval tactics which were lacking pre 42 . Seeing how IMHO a invasion of France would have been too costly so maybe an Invasion of Norway in which the Allied control of the sea would have made it impossible for the Germans to resupply


----------



## Freebird (Aug 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> If the USSR had fallen the Western Allies could've kissed goodbye any chance of a successful invasion of France.
> 
> First of all with no fuel shortages there'd be more LW a/c in the air and better trained pilots in them = Huge and unacceptable Allied a/c losses. Secondly with all the fuel needed the German Panzers could then roll along when needed, which means the Allies would've been completely incapable of pulling off any invasion of France.



Without air superiority I don't think an invasion would be successful



Soren said:


> Had the USSR fallen then Germany would be in complete control on the ground, it was then only in the air that the Allies were a problem.
> 
> If Germany wanted complete air superiority right away and not have to struggle for it for a great deal of time, despite no lack fuel or trained pilots, then they'd have to press the Me-262 into service when it was ready. The Me-262 was the only a/c which, if properly fueled and piloted, could negate the Allied superiority in numbers.



If you count only the long range Allied aircraft available in mid 1943 {P-47 C P -38 H} how do they compare with the German Me109G FW 190? {Is it still mostly the FW 190 "A" in the summer of 1943?



Soren said:


> Anyway the way I see it is that if the USSR had fallen then the war would've progessed with the Allies bombing Germany and Germany bombing the Allies (Britain) until finally the A-bomb would settle the matter in some way. Any attempt at a landased invasion of france would've resulted in tragedy for the Allies, and so the war would've went on in the air over Europe until the A-bomb came along.



Unless they both get it at about the same time...


Soren do you have an approximate idea of the size of the LW in western Europe vs. the Allies? Was it 2/1 for the Allies?


Suppose {as some have said} that the USSR has not fallen, but is much weakened {due to lack of lend-lease etc}. The Germans cannot withdraw ALL of the LW rom the East, but enough to increase the fighters in the West to 150% of historical in summer 1943. Fuel supply from the captured Russia is not total, but say double historical. Is that enough to contest the Air superiority?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> If the USSR had fallen the Western Allies could've kissed goodbye any chance of a successful invasion of France.


Would this then maybe change the point for the invasion to, I don't know, Norway and work from there? Don't know much of the strength and importance of Luftwaffe in Norway, when it comes to get fresh pilots and aircraft. Also, would this scenario have prolonged the war much further and maybe in one way or another dragged Sweden into it?


----------



## Kruska (Aug 15, 2008)

Hello Lucky13,

“IF’ Russia had fallen, or let’s rather say armistice in early-middle 1943. Allied troops already had their grips on North Africa and were on route towards Italy and would have expanded their offence into the Balkans, taking Tito’s support into account and the close proximity to Austria/Germany.

Having to face the freed up divisions from the Wehrmacht coming from Russia, the Balkan operation would have ended in disaster for the Allies, leaving them with the Italian front fighting for their lives. Therefore I do not think that any additional troops or ships would have been available to forward an occupation of Norway and at the same time to keep a lifeline to Italy.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Bf-109 was a better turn fighter than the P-40 P-39, so no.



Not according to the Experten pilots who fought against it. [P-40]


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> Had the USSR fallen then Germany would be in complete control on the ground, it was then only in the air that the Allies were a problem.
> 
> If Germany wanted complete air superiority right away and not have to struggle for it for a great deal of time, despite no lack fuel or trained pilots, then they'd have to press the Me-262 into service when it was ready. The Me-262 was the only a/c which, if properly fueled and piloted, could negate the Allied superiority in numbers.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say a defeat of Russia sometime in 43 completely negates the success factor of an Overlord type operation. Much would depend on the air superiority question which the Allies are still more than capable of achieiving even against an augmented Luftwaffe. 

I'm still unsure why defeat of Russia (or as one poster put it more accurately, a suppression of Russian resistance) suddenly means more fuel and pilots trained for the Luftwaffe. (outside of the existing JG's that could be tapped of course) Germany's fuel plants remain where they are. Its questionable how much fuel resource she can pull from deep inside Russia and Russia's defeat won't change the problem of attrition that will ramp up with the arrival of long range fighter escorts for the Allies. The sheer level of attrition, which by many accounts was not a huge issue for the German fighter pilots till late in the war in the East, overtaxed the pilot replacement program in similar vein to that of the Japanese. The decline in skill as pilots were rushed through training, + fuel shortages only served to increase attrition against the swarms of Allied fighters. Does Russia's suppression in 43 really change that so radically?

As for the Me-262.....its technical issues remain....and with Russia's defeat i'd wager the inertia and interference revolving around the program would be increased.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 15, 2008)

I think there are some additional areas which need consideration,,,

There are issues about the hidden history of wWII which are just now seeing the light of day. For example;
1. It would appear the first nuke was tested near Lubeck in Oct 1944 (NARA/RG 38 Box 9-13 Entry 98c TS Naval Atache Repaorts 1944-47.
2. German U-234 which surendered to the USN after VE day on its way to Japan had a very interesting shipment onboard..lest of which was a gross quanity of U235 and nuke scientists.
3. Near the end of the war in the west Hitler gave te orders that an area in southern Bavaria and an airfield in Norway (with 40 LR bombers on it) were to have all of german's last defenses. WHY?
4. Patton was diverted from his drive on germany to this area of southern Bavaria.
5. Japan set off a Nuke on Korea after Nakasaki. (looking for copy of USN intel report)
6. Enola Gay probally dropped nuke material and detonators found aboard U234 which were bound for Japan, just got there by a different route.
7. The weapon dropped from the Enola Gay was untested by the US..the trinty site weapon was the type used for Nakasaki...Hiroshima was like the Lubeck weapon....why would you drop an untested weapon?
8. Reports and Docs of German and Japanese nuke status are still classified until late 2040's.

If the USSR capitulated would the Axis Nuke timetable been realized?


----------



## delcyros (Aug 15, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> I'm still unsure why defeat of Russia (or as one poster put it more accurately, a suppression of Russian resistance) suddenly means more fuel and pilots trained for the Luftwaffe. (outside of the existing JG's that could be tapped of course) Germany's fuel plants remain where they are. Its questionable how much fuel resource she can pull from deep inside Russia and Russia's defeat won't change the problem of attrition that will ramp up with the arrival of long range fighter escorts for the Allies.



High grade fuels (C3) are essential for high performance fighter engines such as BMW-801 (requiring C3) and the overpowered Bf-109 variants. One of the prime issues taken away with Russia´s "hypothetical" demise in mid 43 is that high grade fuels required transportation capacity. Fuel had to be produced from either central german synthetic fuel raffineries according to the Fischer-Tropsch process or via oil fields from Rumania and the smaller ones aviable in Germany and Austria, which had to be moved to Germany for refining and then from Germany towards the russian plains for it´s consumers situated at the remotest end of the logistic lines. These operations were overstraining the logistical chain of transportation aviable by then due in part to the less developed, less redundent infrastructures aviable in Russia and in return required a lot of fuel to make it possible in the first place. 
Had the 547 servicable day fighters of the Lufwaffe on the Eastern Fronts (state: 31.05.1943, without all auxilaries) been deployed to the Reichsverteidigung instead, distribution and aviablility of high grade fuels would have been greatly enhanced immideately. Furtherly, more low grade fuels would have been aviable because much of the transportation was direct, quicker, redundant and didn´t even required that much oil fuels due to coal firing, shipping and the shorter distances involved.
Furtherly, the kaukasian oil fields at Baku were a prime supplier to Germanys oil reserves before operation Barbarossa. The fields had been builded with help of german firms in the late 19th century and was run with a german-russian joint venture over decades until 1921.
Transportation via Black Sea towards Rumania is easy and comparably safe (only Russia could project airpower over the Black Sea as long as Turkey remains neutral). All this contributes to change the logistic picture drastically.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

delcyros said:


> High grade fuels (C3) are essential for high performance fighter engines such as BMW-801 (requiring C3) and the overpowered Bf-109 variants. One of the prime issues taken away with Russia´s "hypothetical" demise in mid 43 is that high grade fuels required transportation capacity.
> 
> 
> Had the 547 servicable day fighters of the Lufwaffe on the Eastern Fronts (state: 31.05.1943, without all auxilaries) been deployed to the Reichsverteidigung instead, distribution and aviablility of high grade fuels would have been greatly enhanced immideately.
> ...



Thanks......reasonable views. I still have serious doubts though. First off, as previously mentioned, Germany's primary fuel generator and synth plants remain where they are and since nothing occurs in a vaccum it could be argued that the push for Big Oil (as Arnold IIRC championed) might be implemented all the sooner, dependant in part on the arrival of the long range fighters. Damage to these plants would still IMO create a fuel issue for the Luftwaffe. 

I'm also of serious doubt that the Germans would be able to make immediate and/or full use of the Baku fields. The Russians after all were champions of Scorched Earth policy and it was standard for them to leave the Germans nothing of use if it could be helped. Combined with the distance and theoretical continued Russian partisan/civilian resistance I don't see Russia becoming a major fuel source for the Reich in such a short time frame with a war still ongoing.

The issue of the redeployment of the JG's from the east is also still one that can be debated. I don't think they would all be immediately re-deployed and once begun there are other theaters i am sure Hitler would like to send a good chunk of them too that are [currently] much hotter than over the Homeland which really didn't become ramped up till 44.

Finally, there's still the question of attrition which didn't really start hitting the Luft where it hurt prior to 44. While theoretically a bloodier one with the preposed reinforcement JG's, I still don't see this going all the Luft's way. The USAAF after all "wanted" a bloody fight to the finish with Goering's creation. They felt they had the assets/resources to win a brutal hands-down contest even in the face of bloody losses, something the Eighth was by 44 no stranger too. Such a clash would be one quite different from the target rich environment the "Experten" from the East were used too. (with a massive alleged stilted kill ratio) Inevitably these "experts" would continue to die off from such a clash to be replaced by lesser pilots, which would, like the Japanese example, accelerate the ruin of an armed forces that even before this theoretical Russian defeat, suffered serious manpower shortages.

It kind of harkens back to the argument of more planes vs. more flak. The more planes champions seemingly kept ignoring the simple facet that they couldn't train enough pilots quickly enough to keep pace with such a ramp up in production.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 15, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Would this then maybe change the point for the invasion to, I don't know, Norway and work from there? Don't know much of the strength and importance of Luftwaffe in Norway, when it comes to get fresh pilots and aircraft. Also, would this scenario have prolonged the war much further and maybe in one way or another dragged Sweden into it?



Norway was a potential disaster for the Allies Lucky, it's terrain heavily favours the defender, the availabilty of LW to attack RN ships combined with the RAF too far to provide cover is perilous to say the least. Why do you think the Allies attacked at the Normandy beaches and not at some less heavily defended place like Gascony or Brittany? Because Normandy was the practical limits of the fighter "unbrella" from the UK.

The advantages of a Norway invasion would be minimal {except to Norway's govt in exile!  }, as it does not take away much in the way of resources, and there is no way to advance into Germany afterwards.


Kruska said:


> Hello Lucky13,
> 
> “IF’ Russia had fallen, or let’s rather say armistice in early-middle 1943. Allied troops already had their grips on North Africa and were on route towards Italy and would have expanded their offence into the Balkans, taking Tito’s support into account and the close proximity to Austria/Germany.
> 
> ...



Kruska, the hypothesis for the German "defeat" or severe weakening of USSR is that a stronger U-boat offensive had cut off lend-lease *AND* collapsed the British position in North Africa Indian Ocean. So in early - mid 1943 the Desert army is probably in Northern Sudan and Rommel is in control of Egypt. I don't think the Allies would risk attacking the Vichy French by launching "Torch", more likely the US will be trying to stop Japanese from over-running India.



Nikademus said:


> I wouldn't say a defeat of Russia sometime in 43 completely negates the success factor of an Overlord type operation. Much would depend on the air superiority question which the Allies are still more than capable of achieiving even against an augmented Luftwaffe.



Yes, air superiority is key. I still have not seen an accurate estimate of Allied long-range fighter strength in Europe in mid 1943. 

Delcyros was the LW day fighter strength in the West about 600 in mid 1943? So if the LW left about 200 - 250 fighters in the east against a much weaker USSR, they could transfer about 300 to the west which would be about 150% of historical correct?



Nikademus said:


> The issue of the redeployment of the JG's from the east is also still one that can be debated. I don't think they would all be immediately re-deployed and once begun there are other theaters i am sure Hitler would like to send a good chunk of them too that are [currently] much hotter than over the Homeland which really didn't become ramped up till 44.



Yes indeed, many factors to consider. 

Remember that with the Allied positioned collapsing in the Indian Ocean, the USSR will not get any "Avgas" by rail from the British plant in Abadan, {Persia} which was cetainly a significant factor in Russian efforts to fight the Luftwaffe.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 15, 2008)

Norway is very stategic look who they border on the north and look what body of water is to the south... closing the Baltic to the germans would be a diasaster as well as limiting the shipment of oil and raw materials from Sweden.


----------



## delcyros (Aug 15, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> Thanks......reasonable views. I still have serious doubts though. First off, as previously mentioned, Germany's primary fuel generator and synth plants remain where they are and since nothing occurs in a vaccum it could be argued that the push for Big Oil (as Arnold IIRC championed) might be implemented all the sooner, dependant in part on the arrival of the long range fighters. Damage to these plants would still IMO create a fuel issue for the Luftwaffe.



This is plausible but wouldn´t effect the ability of the fighter forces. The historical shortages cancelled effectively all offensive LW-operations (with whole Bomber Geschwader beeing grounded due to inaviability of fuels) and even reduced the degree of training operations. The LW fighter forces received fuel with priority until well into early 1945. And much more low grade fuel will be in reserves.So the effects noted by Yourselve will take longer to have any effect, assuming that the targets could be bombed with histroical effect, which in turn is arguable, judging from the more stout AAA and LW-fighter opposition the 8th USAAF is going to face in this scenario.



> I'm also of serious doubt that the Germans would be able to make immediate and/or full use of the Baku fields. The Russians after all were champions of Scorched Earth policy and it was standard for them to leave the Germans nothing of use if it could be helped. Combined with the distance and theoretical continued Russian partisan/civilian resistance I don't see Russia becoming a major fuel source for the Reich in such a short time frame with a war still ongoing.


This basically depends on the conditions of armistice / occupation or surrender and whether or not oil supply is part of the agreement. Scorched earth works well on oil fields but usually is of limited effect when intimate knowledge of the site is aviable, which here likely is the case.



> The issue of the redeployment of the JG's from the east is also still one that can be debated. I don't think they would all be immediately re-deployed and once begun there are other theaters i am sure Hitler would like to send a good chunk of them too that are [currently] much hotter than over the Homeland which really didn't become ramped up till 44.


I agree. Likely You would see some kind of split up. Depending on the conditions of Russia´s state by then. Most of the auxilary airforces may still be used in anti partisan or air controll capacity (perhaps with the exception of Rumania which would be relocated to their oil fields for strategic reasons). And certainly not all of the LW-strength would be taken away but I can hardly see more than 4 Gruppen / 1 Geschwader max. (144 fighter planes legend strength) beeing useful in the east, augmented by italian, slovenian, slovakian, bulgarian and finnish fighter forces. For comparison: Norway: 76 and the whole Balkan (territories of the former Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania and Moldavia): 90 day fighters (as of 31.05.1943).
The LW had a nasty habit to avoid spray pray habits with their strength relocations and likely would try to establish somewhere a local aerial superiorty accompanied with related offensive actions. 
The (dayfighter) strengths of the Luftwaffe day fighters (only) as of 31.05.1943 were (according to Gröner, p.376, tab.):
east: 547. Reichsverteidigung: 296. France, Belgium and the Netherlands: 328. Norway: 76. Italy: 287. Balkan: 90.
Total: *1.724 (servicable)*
east: 547 -to be reduced to ca. 144.
west (France Reich): 624 -high density of fighting, strategic tactical
south: (italy Balkan): 377 -high density of fighting, mostly tactical
North: 76 - very low density of fighting

Assume You have to choose to shift ca. 400 freed up day fighters somewhere. What do You choose? 



> Finally, there's still the question of attrition which didn't really start hitting the Luft where it hurt prior to 44. (with a massive alleged stilted kill ratio) Inevitably these "experts" would continue to die off from such a clash to be replaced by lesser pilots, which would, like the Japanese example, accelerate the ruin of an armed forces that even before this theoretical Russian defeat, suffered serious manpower shortages.



N^2 rule. The historical high degree of attrition was greatly enhanced by numerical overpowering in skillfully achieveing local superiorities on a tactical base. Much more difficult to achieve with more enemies around. Those conditions now are greatly favouring the defender. A shot down LW pilot may return to the base, a shot down US pilot will face prisonship.

Day bombing will become more difficult. As a matter of fact, Regensburg Schweinfurt would be more disastreous than they were historically with a single LW Gruppe more involved. The US 8th Bombers would be the first to suffer from excessive attrition. Each bomber lost over enemy terretory means ten crewmen lost.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

delcyros said:


> This is plausible but wouldn´t effect the ability of the fighter forces. The historical shortages cancelled effectively all offensive LW-operations (with whole Bomber Geschwader beeing grounded due to inaviability of fuels) and even reduced the degree of training operations. The LW fighter forces received fuel with priority until well into early 1945. And much more low grade fuel will be in reserves.So the effects noted by Yourselve will take longer to have any effect, assuming that the targets could be bombed with histroical effect, which in turn is arguable, judging from the more stout AAA and LW-fighter opposition the 8th USAAF is going to face in this scenario.



If one includes factoring in redeployment of the East JG’s to other Theaters first, with the resultant decision, I’m not sure the numbers would make the substantial change that is being postulated against the growing strength of the Eighth Air Force. The training issue was one of the other facets I was touching upon in regards to fuel. With the inevitable attrition of 44, The Luftwaffe pilot cadre will still feel the strain thus putting more greenies in the cockpit in a very hostile environment against an aggressive and numerically potent force. A couple hundred more fighters in Home Defense might prolong the struggle, depending on the losses for both sides, or it just be be bloodier and not too much longer. Its certainly debatable but then thats the fun of "what if's"  



> This basically depends on the conditions of armistice / occupation or surrender and whether or not oil supply is part of the agreement. Scorched earth works well on oil fields but usually is of limited effect when intimate knowledge of the site is aviable, which here likely is the case.



I don’t see much possibility of Russia agreeing to an armistice similar to WWI. This was a fight to the death. Giving up the oilfields would pretty much make Russia a rump state coupled with the loss of Ukraine and so much Industry. A more likely scenario is a retreat even further into the Russian hinterland. If the Germans drive on the oil fields as per 1942, most likely Stalin would order their demolition.



> Assume You have to choose to shift ca. 400 freed up day fighters somewhere. What do You choose?



Good Question! The scenario I’m postulating only goes along with a Russian defeat per the original post in 1943 so my best guess would be the bulk of them would be redeployed or rotated into Tunisia. While I think they would do well there, based on what they historically acheived, the scale of the fighting along with the inevitable Allied reinforcement to compensatep would make a good number of the Jager less available for the upgraded offensive in 44 over Germany. One would have to scratch off (wounded or killed) a number of the Experten too to the fortunes of War.




> N^2 rule. The historical high degree of attrition was greatly enhanced by numerical overpowering in skillfully achieveing local superiorities on a tactical base. Much more difficult to achieve with more enemies around. Those conditions now are greatly favouring the defender. A shot down LW pilot may return to the base, a shot down US pilot will face prisonship.
> 
> Day bombing will become more difficult. As a matter of fact, Regensburg Schweinfurt would be more disastreous than they were historically with a single LW Gruppe more involved. The US 8th Bombers would be the first to suffer from excessive attrition. Each bomber lost over enemy terretory means ten crewmen lost.



True, but I think the attrition will work both way and not just the way the Luftwaffe plans it. They have to choose between the bombers and the fighters…..historically they chose the bombers which will allow the fighters to mix it up with them as they did. In such a scenario I see the attrition war playing out very much the way it did, only with greater intensity. This is a battle the Luftwaffe, even with a couple hundred reinforcements, can’t win in the end. 1943 I don't see changing that much if one goes along with a more historical time line in other theaters. With the Home Front not so critical yet, the forces in France/Germany would most likely remain as is so Regansburg/Schwein might occur much as they did......bloody enough to make the USAAF back off for months while they continue to await a long range fighter.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 15, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> With the inevitable attrition of 44, The Luftwaffe pilot cadre will still feel the strain thus putting more greenies in the cockpit in a very hostile environment against an aggressive and numerically potent force.



Would the attrition be "inevitable" in 1944? If Germany keeps control of the air in Western Europe, it might be the Allies that have this problem.

Consider: The US has to build aircraft and train pilots to send to Europe for BOTH fighters bombers, plus any pilots shot down become POW's, while most German fighter pilots that are shot down can fly again {if not KIA} 



Nikademus said:


> I don’t see much possibility of Russia agreeing to an armistice similar to WWI. This was a fight to the death. Giving up the oilfields would pretty much make Russia a rump state coupled with the loss of Ukraine and so much Industry. * A more likely scenario is a retreat even further into the Russian hinterland.* If the Germans drive on the oil fields as per 1942, most likely Stalin would order their demolition.



I think you are right, the remnants of the USSR would retreat east of the Urals. with a stronger drive into the Caucusas in fall 1942 {no "Stalingrad!} they have a chance to cut off the Russians before the oilfields are completely destroyed. Much like the situation in Burma Indonesia, the Aliies tried to destroy the oilfields, but were only partially successful. 



Nikademus said:


> Good Question! The scenario I’m postulating only goes along with a Russian defeat per the original post in 1943 so my best guess would be the bulk of them would be redeployed or rotated into Tunisia. While I think they would do well there, based on what they historically acheived, the scale of the fighting along with the inevitable Allied reinforcement to compensatep would make a good number of the Jager less available for the upgraded offensive in 44 over Germany. One would have to scratch off (wounded or killed) a number of the Experten too to the fortunes of War.



Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in the original question, I expanded on it in post # 16. The most likely way for a defeated or much weaker USSR is if the Allies suffer a heavy defeat in the U-boat war. 

Without Monty's Desert Army in Egypt in fall '42, I can't see the Allies launching "Torch", I think both sides will avoid fighting in French North Africa. The Allied objectives in winter 42/43 would probably be to hold on to Australia East Africa {Sudan/Kenya}, if they were to launch an offensive it would be to regain control of India China.

The Med will not not see any combat in 1943 unless the Allies can gain air superiority in Western Europe, IMO



freebird said:


> Let me expand on the question a bit.
> 
> We were looking at the results on the other thread {KM IJN thread} if the Axis launched an all out total submarine offensive right after Pearl Harbor.
> The most probable result is that in 1942 the US would be mainly concerned with holding on building up defences in Hawaii, Australia, NZ, and the Caribbean. The extreme shipping losses would force the Commonwealth to concentrate on suppling the UK, and to hold on to Australia and perhaps India.
> ...


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Consider: The US has to build aircraft and train pilots to send to Europe for BOTH fighters bombers, plus any pilots shot down become POW's, while most German fighter pilots that are shot down can fly again {if not KIA}



True. There are some other factors though that help compensate for the Luft being over home turf. The Germans, as mentioned previously suffered a serious manpower shortage even before 43. One major impact this had on the Luftwaffe was that they tended to keep their best pilots in the mix vs. rotating them out, sending them to where they were needed most in the best equipment. While the pro of this was creating a small cadre of extremely competent pilots, it also had the con of denying their services in the training field similar to the problem Japan faced. Further, because they tended to assign their best pilots to missions with the best equipment available, this tended to cause the "lesser" pilots to build exp at a slower rate vs. their Allied counterparts. The Allies on the other hands had a far greater manpower resource pool....enough that they could maintain a rotation policy which resulted in many experienced pilots returning from the fronts to train the next batch. This did mean a greater preportion of greenies in the cockpit but they were supported by a huge logistical net and were getting better equipment and had great numbers (along with experienced trainers and flight leaders)

Going to the late 43 situation, by this time the Luft in Europe was facing not only BC and 8th AF but the 2nd TAF and soon, elements of the IX AF. Combining this with a fight in NA, this is why i don't see several hundred additional LW as a sure thing for victory.



> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in the original question, I expanded on it in post # 16. The most likely way for a defeated or much weaker USSR is if the Allies suffer a heavy defeat in the U-boat war.



Ok.....understood. .....I think that for the Allies to suffer such a defeat via the Uboat war, enough to cause Monty's fall in NA, that any such discussion of invading Europe or defeating the LW is largely moot. Without a secure sealane, none of it is possible. (I would personally consider such a what if (a massive Uboat victory) far more unlikely than a Russian defeat in 43)


----------



## Freebird (Aug 15, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> Going to the late 43 situation, by this time the Luft in Europe was facing not only BC and 8th AF but the 2nd TAF and soon, elements of the IX AF. Combining this with a fight in NA, this is *why i don't see several hundred additional LW as a sure thing for victory.*



Nothing in war is a sure thing, that's why I posted the thread, to see what opinions were on the effect. Plus it can be like a "domino" effect, with the lesser side losing more aircraft each time. if the Germans were to gain the upper hand, the domino effect might go the other way. {At least over German controlled Europe}



Nikademus said:


> Ok.....understood. .....I think that for the Allies to suffer such a defeat via the Uboat war, enough to cause Monty's fall in NA, that any such discussion of invading Europe or defeating the LW is largely moot. Without a secure sealane, none of it is possible. (I would personally consider such a what if (a massive Uboat victory) far more unlikely than a Russian defeat in 43)



Read the KM IJN thread, you might see what the theory is based on.  Instead of the Kriegsmarine launching attacks in Jan '41 against the US {Drumbeat} using only *FIVE* boats, they should have used 50 or 60+.

Also if the Japanese had listened to their sub commanders instead of the BB Admirals, they could have contibuted significantly to Allied losses in the Pacific


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Nothing in war is a sure thing, that's why I posted the thread, to see what opinions were on the effect. Plus it can be like a "domino" effect, with the lesser side losing more aircraft each time. if the Germans were to gain the upper hand, the domino effect might go the other way. {At least over German controlled Europe}



sure! anything's possible. I was just adding a voice to the side that thinks that not all that much would change. Events tend to have inertia as well as dominos.




> Read the KM IJN thread, you might see what the theory is based on.  Instead of the Kriegsmarine launching attacks in Jan '41 against the US {Drumbeat} using only *FIVE* boats, they should have used 50 or 60+.



I don't think the Germans had that many subs to spare for such an op which is why the initial effort was so small to begin with. My thoughts on the uboat war are based largely on the late Clay Blair's exhaustive study of the Uboat war. 



> Also if the Japanese had listened to their sub commanders instead of the BB Admirals, they could have contibuted significantly to Allied losses in the Pacific



Had Sixth Fleet HQ acted better, yes the Japanese subs could have done alot more damage to merchants but not enough to cause such a serious alteration. Their training, good for the attack was badly lacking in ASW defense which coupled with big sub designs of modest maneuver, dive speed and max depth would be harder and harder pressed to survive in a hostile ASW environment. So there would IMO be a serious limit to their ability to maintain effectiveness once USN assets redeploy to counter a dedicated mechant campaign by the IJN.


----------



## Soren (Aug 15, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> Not according to the Experten pilots who fought against it. [P-40]



That's wrong Nikademus. Marseilles for one only turn fought the P-40 and always with success.

The Bf-109F G both turn better than the P-40, that's the reality of things.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> That's wrong Nikademus. Marseilles for one only turn fought the P-40 and always with success.



Hi,

Marseilles was an exceptional pilot....arguably the greatest of his generation. His skill was such that yes, on rare occasion he could and did outturn even a Hurricane in a defensive circle long enough to shoot it down. That didn't translate to the Emil being able to outturn a Hurricane under normal circumstances with a lesser pilot in the cockpit.




> The Bf-109F G both turn better than the P-40, that's the reality of things.



I was mainly thinking of the E varient along with the F. Not sure about the G. "Reality" according to the Experten who flew against the Curtiss type in NA in 41/42 was that getting into a turning fight with it, especially at low altitude was not a good idea.


----------



## Soren (Aug 15, 2008)

Nik you need to read up on Germany's situation and the Me-262.

With the USSR taken Operation Overlord could've never succeeded and would've only resulted in tragedy for the Allies, and for the simple reasons below:

1.) The Eastern front took up 80% of German ground forces, which means a 4 times greater force would be available in the West, an unmatched experienced and equipped one.
2.) Without the acute fuel shortage the panzers could roll unhindered, and this alone would doom any Allied invasion to failure.

And as for the Me-262;

With the USSR taken there wouldn't have been a lack in the proper metals for the Jumo 004 engine, which reliability was the sole problem plaqueing the Me-262. So this problem would disappear and the Me-262 would fly with reliable engines, which wouldve meant the Allied could kiss air superiority goodbye over mainland France and the channel.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 15, 2008)

How would this scenario have affected the aircraft carriers of the Kriegsmarine, would they have been finished, if so, what kinda threat would they have made?


----------



## Njaco (Aug 15, 2008)

Would the air units of Rumania and Hungary factor in at all? Or even ground forces culled from disgruntled Russian soldiers?

I think the focus would shift again to the Med with Malta as a target much heavier than before.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nik you need to read up on Germany's situation and the Me-262.



Thank you. I have.



> With the USSR taken Operation Overlord could've never succeeded and would've only resulted in tragedy for the Allies, and for the simple reasons below:
> 
> 1.) The Eastern front took up 80% of German ground forces, which means a 4 times greater force would be available in the West, an unmatched experienced and equipped one.
> 2.) Without the acute fuel shortage the panzers could roll unhindered, and this alone would doom any Allied invasion to failure.



Well the exact "nature" of the USSR being taken is a tad bit up in the air. Like the Air Force, some forces would need to be taken back but I agree that a majority of the armored forces would probably be redeployed....some to Italy if things were to go reletively on sched there. I think however you are greatly oversimplifying things. Armor without adequate air cover might not succeed as well as you think and I doubt that there would be no fuel shortages at all if the Allies can hurt Big Oil.



> And as for the Me-262;
> 
> With the USSR taken there wouldn't have been a lack in the proper metals for the Jumo 004 engine, which reliability was the sole problem plaqueing the Me-262. So this problem would disappear and the Me-262 would fly with reliable engines, which wouldve meant the Allied could kiss air superiority goodbye over mainland France and the channel.



From what i've read, the issues revolving around the 262 were not simply linked to the USSR's existance, including Eighth Air Force interference. Other factors were present that helped delay the deployment of the Jet, including Hitler, who it can be postulated would have interfered more or been less inclined to proceed with haste with one of his major opponents on the lam.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren meant that supplies of Nickel, Chromium, etc from Russia would solve the engine reliability problems and short service lives of the 004Bs.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 16, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> sure! anything's possible. I was just adding a voice to the side that thinks that not all that much would change. Events tend to have inertia as well as dominos.



Yep, that's what makes the discussion interesting.



Nikademus said:


> I don't think the Germans had that many subs to spare for such an op which is why the initial effort was so small to begin with. My thoughts on the uboat war are based largely on the late Clay Blair's exhaustive study of the Uboat war.



According to Uboat.net the Germans comissioned 312 U-boats from 1935 - 1941, of which 68 were sunk in that period.

*So at the end of 1941 Germany had 203 U-boats {Type VII/IX}* plus a further 41 coastal boats {type II} If only 60% of these are available for patrol in any given month, that gives 146 U-boats.....

uboat.net - The U-boat War 1939-1945



Lucky13 said:


> How would this scenario have affected the aircraft carriers of the Kriegsmarine, would they have been finished, if so, what kinda threat would they have made?



Germany had two that could have been ready in 1942 {Zeppelin Strasser}, but there were some serious technical problems to be solved, considering that Germany had never built an Aircraft Carrier and had no experience in A/C ops. Delcyros poited out some problems with the Me109 Ju87 as carrier aircraft in the other thread. In any event, if they did send them out in the Atlantic, the Allies would throw everything at them to eliminate this threat.

In Dec '41 the UK has 5 CV's, 1 CVL 4 CVE's, while the USN has 7 CV's, you can bet that they would send at least 3 or 4 of these to eliminate the Axis CV right away.



Njaco said:


> Would the air units of Rumania and Hungary factor in at all? Or even ground forces culled from disgruntled Russian soldiers?



One of the greatest failings of the German war effort was not recruiting from among the millions of anti-Soviet Ukrainians who hated Stalin for killing millions of Ukrainians. They would have been willing to fight against the Red Army Soviet partisans

Good questions Njaco! I would think that some of their air units would stay in Russia to help continue eradicating leftover Russian forces.



Njaco said:


> I think the focus would shift again to the Med with Malta as a target much heavier than before.



If the UK loses Egypt and retreats down the Nile into Sudan, that would be the new "Med" frontline. With the loss of Alexandria, Malta would be unsupportable in 1942, and would surrender mid-year IMO. {no gas, no food}

I would imagine the the UK effort in Africa would then be a holding action, to prevent the Axis from moving up the Nile into Kenya/Uganda. The main UK US action in '42 would be a relief effort to re-open supplies to India China, both of which would be near imminent collapse.



delcyros said:


> The (dayfighter) strengths of the Luftwaffe day fighters (only) as of 31.05.1943 were (according to Gröner, p.376, tab.):
> east: 547. Reichsverteidigung: 296. France, Belgium and the Netherlands: 328. Norway: 76. Italy: 287. Balkan: 90.
> Total: *1.724 (servicable)*
> east: 547 -to be reduced to ca. 144.
> ...



Do we know what the US had available in summer-1942 for long-range fighter aircraft in Europe?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 16, 2008)

With all "quiet" on the eastern front, Baltic Sea would pritty much become a German domain, right, with the Finns on the German (they were still allies with Germany at this point, right?) side and Sweden still neutral (I guess), where would they go from there? I guess that they could come and go as they wanted, would they move shipbuilding to this safe haven, more u-boat bunkers etc?


----------



## Soren (Aug 16, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren meant that supplies of Nickel, Chromium, etc from Russia would solve the engine reliability problems and short service lives of the 004Bs.



And by that the Allies could kiss control of the air goodbye. Furthermore the proper metals would improve fuel consumption, giving the Me-262 further range. The abundance of the needed raw materials would also mean an increased development speed of the Jumo 004D E series engines, which would both considerably increase power and fuel efficiency.

Now that put aside, that the panzers in France suddenly wouldn't lack fuel was enough in itself to make sure that operation overlord would become very onesided, while the addition of 2 to 3 times as many panzers troops would make it a complete tragedy for the Allies.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 16, 2008)

Not to mention the Luftwaffe Long Range Aviation dropping a nuke on New York.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> And by that the Allies could kiss control of the air goodbye. Furthermore the proper metals would improve fuel consumption, giving the Me-262 further range. The abundance of the needed raw materials would also mean an increased development speed of the Jumo 004D E series engines, which would both considerably increase power and fuel efficiency..


US priorities would also have changed. With Roosevelt being president you can be sure in case of a Russian defeat (which was considered a possibility in 1941-42) a larger proportion of material would've been diverted to the European theatre.

Even with only the UK and US as adversaries, an allied numerical advantage would've been inevitable. Most likely prohibitively large bomber losses would've meant a stalemate for maybe 2 years (basically that was already the case from 1941-mid 1943). Eventually you would have an Allied jets vs. German jets scenario with B-29 bombers flying high altitude campaigns. Very similar to the early stages of the Korean War. The atomic bomb would've sealed this.


----------



## Kruska (Aug 16, 2008)

krieghund said:


> Not to mention the Luftwaffe Long Range Aviation dropping a nuke on New York.



What nuke? the Neo Nazi fantasy nuke?

I still stick to my opinion, that Germany could never have won the war, simply because its industry including that in the occupied countries was no match for the US and its allies. The historical war timeframe starting at 1939 was years ahed of Germanys industrial and military readiness. 

Even a success against Russia would have lulled Hitler and Goering (the latter was responsible for the industrial program) into further neglecting the non fully war instructed German industry. It would have taken at least 2-3 years to gain an industrial added output from within the conquered Russian territory.

And as I stated before, if you would take out madman Hitler from the equation, anythink could have happened right up to Germany never getting itsself into a WW2 in the first place.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 16, 2008)

Wasn't Germany quite a few years behind US in the development of the A-Bomb?


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 16, 2008)

I have never seen evidence there even was such a program. The only nuclear program in Germany at the time I know of was the Uranverein (uran association) and fellow smaller associations. They were creating a primitive nuclear reactor, not a bomb.


----------



## red admiral (Aug 16, 2008)

> Soren meant that supplies of Nickel, Chromium, etc from Russia would solve the engine reliability problems and short service lives of the 004Bs.



Better turbine materials means greater thrust levels (more heat added = more power available) and better lifetime. The extra thrust would be the most useful but even so, the advantage would be small - between 5 and 10% increase at the most. Specific Fuel consumption would increase not decrease because you are adding more fuel. The thermal efficiency increases, but this is not the same as specific fuel consumption.

Better materials do nothing to rectify the largest flaws of the Jumo 004; unreliability and the fact that its so heavy. The introduction of nickel superalloys would in fact increase the weight, nickel being a fair amount heavier than the steels used. The difference wouldn't be much though. The unreliability comes from the basic design of the axial compressor which had lower efficiency than the the allied centrifugal types, and poor surge characteristics which made it vulnerable to rapid throttle changes.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 16, 2008)

I wasn't talking about the flamout problems, I meant the turbine softening from rapid throttle changes (overheating turbine due to lack of adequate cooling air) leading to turbine failures. I believe there were also occasional combustion chamber failures.

Increased fuel consumption doesn't immediately mean increased specific fuel consumption. SFC is thrust/weight of fuel consumed per hour. So if the increase in thrust devided by thin increase in hourly fuel consumption is less than the previous SFC (at lower thrust value), the nominal SFC will be lower. Also, as you mentioned, the thermal efficiency shoul increase, which should lower SFC as well. And don't forget that the air bleed would no longer be necessary, which consumed some power as well. (the elimination of the air bleed and hollow turbine blades would mean the RPM limitations of the 004B due to turbine blade vibrations would no longer be a problem either)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> What nuke? the Neo Nazi fantasy nuke?
> 
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



There's also the his previous post which most seem to have ignored full of other stuff. I wasn't sure about commenting on it (in attemt of keepin the threadon topic) but seeing as ther's already some atention drawn to it...




krieghund said:


> I think there are some additional areas which need consideration,,,
> 
> There are issues about the hidden history of wWII which are just now seeing the light of day. For example;
> 1. It would appear the first nuke was tested near Lubeck in Oct 1944 (NARA/RG 38 Box 9-13 Entry 98c TS Naval Atache Repaorts 1944-47.
> ...



From all that I've read the German program (and few smaller programs) focused on development of nuclear reactor developmet for power generation. There was some minimal work on possible bomb development, as well as some radological/"dirty bomb" considderations. Also possibly a theoretical, very strange fission-fusion transition bomb design. (different in design than any modern or previously tested fusion, or fusion boosted fission weapon)

The Japannese programs seem to have focused primarily on enrichment of U-235 and bomb development. The more well known mainland Army project was actually fairly far along with small scale enrichment using thermal diffusion. It was destroyed, however, by a US bombing raid.
The far more secret Navy project continued up to the end of hostillities, based off shore of Northern Korea. There a relatively small, staged, Uranium fission bomb may have been tested. (possibly a "Fizzle") Fizzle (nuclear test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## Soren (Aug 16, 2008)

re admiral,

1.) The Jumo 004B was never too heavy. 
2.) The lack of proper materials was the sole reason for the reliability problems
3.) With proper metals fuel consumption would decrease and more performance would be available.


----------



## Soren (Aug 16, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I have never seen evidence there even was such a program. The only nuclear program in Germany at the time I know of was the Uranverein (uran association) and fellow smaller associations. They were creating a primitive nuclear reactor, not a bomb.



There were plans for such a program very early on by German scientists, but Hitler didn't like the idea. Hitler also cut the budget on the nuclear power project, which by the start of WW2 had come very far, Hitler cut it off from funding though.


----------



## Kruska (Aug 16, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> There's also the his previous post which most seem to have ignored full of other stuff. I wasn't sure about commenting on it (in attemt of keepin the threadon topic) but seeing as ther's already some atention drawn to it...



Oh Jesus  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## krieghund (Aug 16, 2008)

Gents,Gents..yes I agree this is pushing the limit for this thread if the Luftwaffe could defend against the Allies onslaunt if the USSR capitulated as in WWI.......but!!!! the resourses needed for LR aviation would now be at hand....a good defense is a good offense.

Ever play Axis'n'Allies? If the axis player can put LR bombers on Iceland watch out Canada and USA.

To answer the issue of the detonators..Oppenhiemer reported to his chiefs that they had a fusing problem and probally could not perform a 'Trinity' test until late Nov '45, then U234 is acquired with it's cargo and one of the scientists aboard was the nuke fusing detonator expert and lo and behold the rest is history

Look into the U234, we all accepted the story about WMD in Iraq and Dec 7 is raising a few questions.

Anyway I will discontinue this line so we can all stay in our comfort zones.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

Do you mean an "initiator," somthing unnecessary for the Little Boy bomb.

(an initaiator produces an intense shower of neutrons to help activate the runaway fission reaction more quickly as the crtical mass is reached, such was used in the center of The Gadget and Fat Man)

Detinators were used in the implosion type bomb to detonate the explosive "lenses" (shaped charges) that forced the chunks of Plutonium into a single mass, but they were simply used to detonate the high explosives and had nothing to do with nuclear science.

In the case of Little Boy, it used a "gun type" assembly method, using propellant (cordite iirc) to propell a peice of Uranium down a "barrel" into one or more peices of uranium at the end of the "barrel" to form a critical mass.

The gun type method was also proposed for a Plutonium bomb ("Thin Man"), but the neutron flux from the spontanious fission of the mass produced plutonium was far too high to make this viable. (initially much purer Pu-239 which was practical for this method, but the reactor bred Plutonium prooved far too contaminated with other Pu isotopes to use in this manner, and thus the implosion type assembly was utilized and tested with in the Gadget)


----------



## Njaco (Aug 17, 2008)

> Gents,Gents..yes I agree this is pushing the limit for this thread if the Luftwaffe could defend against the Allies onslaunt if the USSR capitulated as in WWI.......but!!!! the resourses needed for LR aviation would now be at hand....a good defense is a good offense.



I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of the USSR being defeated! Its tough!


----------



## Kruska (Aug 17, 2008)

krieghund said:


> .........we all accepted the story about WMD in Iraq.....



No, I don't  and I am not alone with this opinion.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## red admiral (Aug 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> re admiral,
> 
> 1.) The Jumo 004B was never too heavy.
> 2.) The lack of proper materials was the sole reason for the reliability problems
> 3.) With proper metals fuel consumption would decrease and more performance would be available.



1. The power to weight ratio was very poor in comparison to other engines.
2. No it wouldn't. See my post above.
3. You don't really know anything about jet engines do you? See my post above for an explanation of why fuel consumption increases with extra power.


----------



## Soren (Aug 17, 2008)

red admiral said:


> 1. The power to weight ratio was very poor in comparison to other engines.



Untrue. Besides it was the size vs power where it was considerably superior to the other engines.



> 2. No it wouldn't. See my post above.



Wrong, you can scate around the facts all you want but it was the lack of the right metals which was the sole reason for the Jumo 004's reliability issues. With the right metals a Jumo 004 ran for over 10 hours full power producing 9.8 kN of thrust, which was the the gain from 8.8 kN when using the intended metals = not exactly a minor improvement as you so falsely claim! 

The first batch of Jumo 004B's made with atleast some of the intended metals passed several 100 hour tests, so reliability was good even when only some of the proper metals were used.



> 3. You don't really know anything about jet engines do you? See my post above for an explanation of why fuel consumption increases with extra power.



You don't have a clue about jet engines red admiral, if had you'd know fuel consumption would decrease as less than 100% power output would be needed to reach previous top speed.


----------



## red admiral (Aug 17, 2008)

Who is the engineer who specialises in gas turbines?

Clue: It isn't yourself


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 17, 2008)

red admiral said:


> Who is the engineer who specialises in gas turbines?
> 
> Clue: It isn't yourself


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

The surging and flameout problems would remain, but these would be mitigated by improved throttle cotols and/or pilot training on the engine operation. And while such occurances would be a nusince (particularly in combat) they were not nearly as serious a the short service life and issues wih complete failures.

And did you miss my earlier response?


kool kitty89 said:


> Here




I still fail to see why higher power settings woul necessarily increase SFC, actual fuel conumption, yes, but SFC... (and efficiency should be higher at the previous power settings limits as well meaning lower SFC in that range at least)


----------



## Soren (Aug 17, 2008)

red admiral said:


> Who is the engineer who specialises in gas turbines?
> 
> Clue: It isn't yourself



You failed to answer the question. 

But lets try again mr. gas turbine specialist; how can less than full throttle equate to a higher SFC vs previous full throttle SFC ?


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> According to Uboat.net the Germans comissioned 312 U-boats from 1935 - 1941, of which 68 were sunk in that period.
> 
> *So at the end of 1941 Germany had 203 U-boats {Type VII/IX}* plus a further 41 coastal boats {type II} If only 60% of these are available for patrol in any given month, that gives 146 U-boats.....
> 
> uboat.net - The U-boat War 1939-1945



Hi Freebird,

It is true that Uboat "losses" did not skyrocket until mid-late war after the tide of technology and greater numbers irrevecably turned the tide against the Uboats. However straight losses by themselves say very little about actual boat availability at the time period specified. Such a statistic (Losses and builds...all types) doesn't take into account boats under repair/refit...boats working up, boats in transit too and from operational theaters, boats assigned to special missions, unsuitible types for the mission in question (You are not, for example going to send Type II's to the US coast), boats assigned to other theaters, and uboat crews on rest after a mission. In addition, there were frequent times when Donetz withdrew boats entirely from a sector due to unprofitable and/or dangerous conditions that made it not worth risking.

It'll have to wait till i get back from vacation, but if your still interested, i can pull my Blair from the library on return and get you a better breakdown of the boats that were "immediately" available for Donetz's "Drumbeat" operation after Hitler's declaration vs. the US. It was, as I mentioned, a very small, modest # of boats. (which did acomplish alot thx to US unprepardness though that would change quickly)


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 18, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren meant that supplies of Nickel, Chromium, etc from Russia would solve the engine reliability problems and short service lives of the 004Bs.



Thx, figured that was it though its always good to get clarification. Given the time period,'. I still don't think it would have changed anything all that quickly in regards to the 262's eventual deployment in 44 and might have actually retarded it a bit due to a major opponent having been either knocked out or at least reduced in threat. The technical problems and bugs would still require a good period of time to work out and then there's still the question of training up pilots to deal with the tempermental and very new type of plane. Then there's Hitler of course.

All during this, the Combined Bomber offensive is still on the cusp of exploding and Russia's peril would place greater emphasis on it's being implemented.


----------



## red admiral (Aug 18, 2008)

> But lets try again mr. gas turbine specialist; how can less than full throttle equate to a higher SFC vs previous full throttle SFC ?



Less than full throttle in this instance means reducing the TET to the same level as with the air-cooled blades so you've got the same sfc as before. This is not improved fuel consumption. With higher TET possible due to better materials the sfc goes up. You are adding more energy to the cycle but extracting the same amount from the turbine so the work done is the same. The higher jetpipe temperature means that you are able to make more thrust (sfc = fuel consumption/thrust/hour) but not enough to offset the extra energy added in the combustion chamber.

The poor fuel economy came mostly from the axial compressor which had a 3.14:1 pressure ratio as opposed to around 3.80 - 4.0:1 for the British jets. The only way to get around this and have better sfc than the British jets would be to have more efficient compressors and turbines. However, the compressor efficiency on the 004 was less than the Whittle types (72% ->78-80%) and the turbine efficiency was better on all the British jets at around 90%.

With regards to materials, stainless steels are good for 650°C with air cooling you can get up to around 100-200° higher. Whittle's early engines used stainless steels then moved to Nimonic which was a nickel superalloy. Even so, the TET was only around 720°C rising to 780°C with later Nimonic series blades. The difference between the two is small, around 5% at the most. For lifetime, the Nickel alloys are much better because of the lower creep rates.

The pressure drop caused by bleeding air off the turbine was fairly small. Even for the Spey Buccaneers with active full span blown flaps it was only 10%. There isn't much advantage to be had there. It should be noted that the Whittle and RR designs also used bleed air for cooling of ancillaries.



> The surging and flameout problems would remain, but these would be mitigated by improved throttle cotols and/or pilot training on the engine operation.



Thats a different area though. Those are design improvements not materials improvements.

You can get around the lifetime issues of the actual 004s produced by adopting better maintenance procedures and swapping engines more often. Jet engines are cheap and its easy to do this. There would still be more problems than a design with better materials, but the difference would be small.


----------



## delcyros (Aug 18, 2008)

red admiral said:


> _re admiral,
> 
> 1.) The Jumo 004B was never too heavy.
> 2.) The lack of proper materials was the sole reason for the reliability problems
> ...



Red Admiral is correct ,Soren. Nickel and Chromium would have helped to shorten the time for production models but it would not have helped anyhow in the reliability issue from advaning the throttles below 6.000 rpm. This was construction related. Compare BMW-003 with Jumo-004 for this.



> Thx, figured that was it though its always good to get clarification. Given the time period,'. I still don't think it would have changed anything all that quickly in regards to the 262's eventual deployment in 44 and might have actually retarded it a bit due to a major opponent having been either knocked out or at least reduced in threat.


As far as Nickel is concerned, it would have helped a lot, really.
Germany received it´s Nickel primarely from Finland and never was short on this ressource until the soviet army occupied the finnish Nickel mines in oct. 1944, which effectively brought a halt to german Nickel imports. 
This was about the time when Jumo-004B1/2 left the assembly lines. The whole production had to be stopped and the design reworked to make it free from Nickel due to the aforementioned shortages induced by the soviet advance into Finland and the resuling design was the Jumo-004B3 aviable from dec. 1944 onwards. You speak about 2 1/2 months brutto delay, and the resulting -B3 subvariant was initially more sensible to material overstrain, too.


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

Russia is a big country which could build a massive amount of war material without being found. The Germans would have to patrol it and maintain a sizeable prescence there as the Russians wouldn't be peaceful forever. This would mean the entire Luftwaffe couldn't shift over to the western front. 
The westen allies were also more advanced with radar and countermeasures than the Nazis and were using tried and tested airframes like the P51 and Spitfire, Lancaster and B17. Rather than wasting time with many different ideas All the Luftwaffe really wanted was a replacement for the 109 as the plane had outgrown its airframe. 
Most of the new and wonderful Nazi planes didn't fly until late 44 early 45 and were also rushed into action, like the ME163. 
So late 43 and early 44 would have been pretty hard for the Luftwaffe and the allies but i do believe the allies would wear them down eventually.


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2008)

> Nickel and Chromium would have helped to shorten the time for production models but it would not have helped anyhow in the reliability issue from advaning the throttles below 6.000 rpm. This was construction related. Compare BMW-003 with Jumo-004 for this.



I disagree. And the German 100 hour full trottle tests seems to support what I'm saying.

The main problem plagueing the Jumo 004 production engine was the turbine blades made of substitute metals which couldn't take the heat generated above 8,800 rpm and were prone to failure even at much lower rpm's. Had the needed materials such as the special heat resistant metals been there this problem wouldn't have existed.


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2008)

Btw, IIRC the Me-262 got outfitted with a new engine throttle control system in Dec. 1944 which prevented flame outs. Wether it improved fuel efficiency as that introduced with the D series I am not sure.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 26, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I think it depends on when they beat the Soviets. IMO, I believe the line is 1943. Before that, the Luftwaffe would still have had significant numbers to put on only one front, which would have help to defend the factories.
> 
> After 1943, the allies advanced fighters and mass production would have drove Germany into the ground. However, I do believe it wouldn't have ended in 1945. All those men and resources on one front! wow.
> 
> Of course, I'm sure Hitler would have screwed up a one front war too!


very ture say they beat them in 42 witch we all know would never happen hitler could foucus on us england and africa


----------



## namvet68 (Aug 26, 2008)

No...with Japan being knock out all the might of the US military would be turn on Germany. Now the Luftwaffe would have to face the high flying B-29's. All American forces would be able to focus on bring Germany to her knees and lets not forget the possible of having the A-bomb dropped on her also. Turman would not be a fraid to do it.

American flight schools can turn out more pilots than Germany could and American factories can turn out more everything than Germany could. 

England than could turn to all of her empire to send all the troops from the Asia to Europe.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 26, 2008)

namvet68 said:


> No...with Japan being knock out



Who said anything about Japan being knocked out?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> I disagree. And the German 100 hour full trottle tests seems to support what I'm saying.
> 
> The main problem plagueing the Jumo 004 production engine was the turbine blades made of substitute metals which couldn't take the heat generated above 8,800 rpm and were prone to failure even at much lower rpm's. Had the needed materials such as the special heat resistant metals been there this problem wouldn't have existed.



The problems at higher RPM were due to vibrations not heat. The resonance of the solid turbine of the 004A was at a much higher frequency than the hollow air-cooled versions and thus experienced this well above the operating RPM. (and thus it could overrev to 10,000 rpm)
(improvements on the 004D solved the vibration problem)

The reliability issues Delcyros and red admerial are reffering to aren't related to service life issues or complete failures, but the surging anf flame-out problems durring rapid throttle movements at lower rpm. The engine could be restarted of course (unlike the 003), but this was still a problem. (this was also improved on the D model iirc)


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2008)

Well AFAIK the turbine blades turned soft because they couldn't take the heat, creating the problem with resonance you explained. Had the blades been made of the right heat resistant metals this problem wouldn't have existed.

And then there's the solid blades, well the D series didn't have solid blades like the A series, yet they solved the problem somehow ?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 26, 2008)

Yes, Delcyros probably knows more on the specifics, but I believe the shape of the turbine blades were alter slightly and other things were alterd upstream of the turbine as well. (the turbine stator arrangement I think, and the inlets from the combustion chambers to the diffuser)

There were different vipration problems encountered on the early 004A's, but these were mainly to due with the compressor section, and not the "hot" section.



The soc-history-war-world-war-ii November 2006 Archive by thread
I think it was discussed somewhere in the couple jet engine threads listed there, or in a link poster there.

I think this is th earticle:
Anselm Franz and the Jumo 004

There's smoe interesting discussions in the aformentioned threads nonetheless. (regarding the 004, 003, and some on the HeS 006)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 26, 2008)

I read through the parts I was looking for, and my explanation wasn't quite right, but read for yourself:

Anselm Franz and the Jumo 004

(on the 004A)


> In the spring of 1940, the 004A made its first test run; by January 1941, the engine was brought to its full speed of 9,000 rpm and a thrust of 946 pounds. At this juncture, the engine's compressor was plagued by vibration failures in the sheet-metal stator vanes, which were originally cantilevered from the outside. Max Bentele, a renowned blade-vibration specialist, was asked to help solve the problem. The stator's design was changed, and by August 1941 a thrust of 1,320 pounds was attained. In December 1941, a 10-hour run at a thrust of 2,200 pounds was demonstrated. The engine was flown in an ME 110 test bed on March 15, 1942, and on July 18 the first flight of the ME 262 powered by two Jumo 004 jets took place. The flight lasted 12 minutes.



And the 004B


> Extensive air cooling was used throughout the engine. A later version of the 004B engine had hollow air-cooled stator vanes. Compressor discharge air was used to cool the blades. With hollow blades of Cromadur sheet metal, the complete 004B engine contained less than 5 pounds of chromium. The first production model of the 004B weighed 220 pounds less than the 004A. Additional modifications were made to the first compressor stages. A series of 100-hour tests were completed on several engines, and time between overhaul of 50 hours was achieved.
> 
> During the summer of 1943, a sixth-order excitation caused several turbine-blade failures. Franz resorted to asking a professional musician to stroke the blades with a violin bow and use his trained musical ear to determine the ringing natural frequency. The air ministry, however, was getting increasingly impatient and scheduled a conference in December 1943. Bentele attended the conference and listened to the numerous arguments pertaining to material defects, grain size, and manufacturing tolerances.
> 
> *When his turn came, Bentele told the assembled group that the culprits were the six combustor cans and the three struts of the jet nozzle housing after the turbine. These induced forced excitation on the turbine rotor blades where a sixth-order resonance occurred with the blade-bending frequency in the upper speed range. The predominance of the sixth-order excitation was due to the six combustor cans (undisturbed by the 36 nozzles) and the second harmonic of the three struts downstream from the rotor. In the 004A engine, this resonance was above the operating speed range, but in the 004B it had slipped because of the slightly higher turbine speed and the higher turbine temperatures. The problem was solved by raising the blade's natural frequency—increasing blade taper, shortening the blades by 1 millimeter, and reducing the operating speed of the engine from 9,000 to 8,700 rpm.*





Perhaps Delcyros can shed some more light on the changes to the 004D that allowed the higher rpm's.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 27, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> So late 43 and early 44 would have been pretty hard for the Luftwaffe and the allies but i do believe the allies would wear them down eventually.



Interestingly, much of elements regarding air strength are not really hypothetical, since the Luftwaffe, on realizing the growing threat from the USAAF by late 43, transferred a sizable portion of their fighter forces from the Med and Eastern fronts. In the end the Americans still fielded a bigger force that just kept on growing in size. On changing their tactics under Doolittle, the 8th AF wanted the Luftwaffe to come up en mass and fight it out, figuring they could win such an attrition war.

-Freebird,

As promised, I looked up the information from Blair's "Hitler's Uboat War" regarding the Uboat component thrown into the mix along with a Russian setback. At the beginning of 1942, the Atlantic portion of the Uboat force stood at 64 boats. (19 x Type IX's, 44 x Type VII's and the U-A) 22% of this force (14 boats), were not combat ready. Of the 50 remaining boats, U-A was undergoing a conversion into a U-Tanker, 1 x Type IX and 4 x Type VII's were homebound or in Germany being overhauled, repaired or being retired. Four more Type VII's were in France undergoing repairs while Artic transfer was in Germany for overhaul before joining the Atlantic group.

Due to the distances involved, only the Type IX's were considered suitable craft for Drumbeat. (Type VIIC's would be used to attack Canadian waters) At the time Hitler authorized the campaign, 8 out of 20 available Type IX's [Dec 41] were not available; (4 returning from South Atlantic patrols and requiring overhaul....1 other also returning and needing an overhaul and 3 Type IX's were being committed to the battle with Homebound Gibraltar convoy 76.)

Ultimately Donitz was able to make ready 6 x Type IX's for the first wave in Dec, 41. Of them, 1 developed an oil leak and aborted. In addition, 10 x Type VIIC's were committed to the first wave to attack shipping in Canadian waters as that was considered [barely] feasible for a total of 15 boats.


----------



## Freebird (Aug 28, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> -Freebird,
> 
> As promised, I looked up the information from Blair's "Hitler's Uboat War" regarding the Uboat component thrown into the mix along with a Russian setback.




Nikademus, thanks for the post.
I'm going to post my reply to this on the KM IJN thread, as it mainly deals with the sub question.


----------



## Soren (Aug 28, 2008)

Well according to your qoute KK the problem was solved with the reduction in rpm from 9,000 to 8,700 rpm. So the resonance problem was solved before the Me-262 entered full service, as the Me-262's in service weren't allowed to run at over 8,700 rpm producing 8.8 kN of thrust. 

Now according to my research some problems with engine service life remained because of substitute metals used in the hot section and because of the initial throttle system allowing large amounts of fuel to be dumped into the engine at once, causing a flameout. This problem was later solved, preventing the risk of flameouts and allowing more aggressive throttle control. However the problems with the metal softening in the hot section still remained as the needed metals weren't available, and IIRC full throttle flight was only allowed for 30min at a time.

The Jumo 004D series had a new throttle control system which like that on the late B series prevented flameouts and allowed aggressive throttle control. However the D series was also allowed to run at higher rpm's, suggesting a new turbine blade design amongst other things. The increase in rpm's was considerable at some 1,300 rpm, and the increase in power was noticable as-well at 1.5 kN. And all this for no increase in weight.

Performance with the D series was pretty mindblowing at 920 km/h at SL and 945 km/h at 5.5km.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

I think it was more due to thermal creep than softening. Continued expansion and contraction of the metals used in the hot section caused certain components (namely the turbine blades) to become distorted over time. The use of nickel alloys can mean hot section components that are virtually immune to thermal creep, as the addition of nickel in certain combinations greatly reduced the expansion with heat. (Nimonic alloys used in the british engines, in addition to being resistant to high temperatures and oxidation, were particularly good in this respect as I recall)


The blade softening problem occured in a similar manner to the flame-out behavior: too much fuel was dumped in at once and (rather than resulting in a flame-out) the ai-fuel mix was made richer (ie closer to stoichiomentric in this case), causing higher temperatures. At the same time there would be insufficient cooling air while this is occuring, worsening the problem. This results in temporarily overheating the hot section and softening/warping of the turbine. (depending on the severity of the event and the condition of the engine this may cause an immediate failure of the turbine or possibly a ruture in the combustion chamber, or simply result in more minor damage that will shorten engine life and possibly fail lter on)


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

I saw A show on the history chanel that said the germans could start production of 1,000 Heinkal he 162 volksjagers a month, some variants were estimated to be more than a mach for a mig 15 or f-86.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 29, 2008)

Those would be the Swept wing variants with the HeS 011 engine. (He 162C)

There was also the He 162D with foreward swept wings.


----------



## delcyros (Aug 30, 2008)

The reliability issue of the Jumo-004B was due to the fuel regulation system, which (unlike the BMW-003) was not regulating the fuel flow in correspondence to airflow but to engine rpm. Easy to burn out the turbine blades when accelerating from idle to ca. 6.000rpm. That´s why 100 hour benchtests are not very reflective, they do undergo the critical throttle setting only once and then remain fro the duration of the benchtest at high rpms. In service conditions, one has to accelerate from time to time (every take off, f.e.) and the intervals are probably related to less than one hour. Hence the avg.* service lifetime* of the turbine section of the BMW-003 was 200 hours instead of 25 for the Jumo-004 while both engines passed multiple benchtests in well in excess of 100 hours. Both engines used identic alloys. Check my post #23 in this thread for more details:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/heinkel-he-162-engine-1745-2.html


----------



## red admiral (Aug 30, 2008)

A few bits to add; changing materials isn't a magic fix. Prolonged heating of a material under load will eventually result in failure. This is called creep and its probably the most boring failure mechanism possible. The blade will grow in length until it either snags the side panel or breaks from excessive stress. Adopting a nickel superalloy reduces the rate of creep it doesn't stop it so the failures will still happen, only after greater running periods. However, if you have good maintenance procedures you can reduce the failure rate by replacing the blades (or the engine more likely in this case) before this becomes a problem. This stands whether you have steel, nickel or ceramic blades. More regular engine changes for the 004 would have mostly solved this problem.

*Note, modern engines have FADEC that continously measure the clearance between the blades on the casing and move the casing outwards as the turbine blade grows.

For reliability of the engine in service use combustion is a big problem and the limiting factor in the early British designs before being mostly solved in 1941/42 (though a better burner was put into service on the Nene and subsequent designs). You're trying to burn a lot of fuel in a combined space, short time in a howling gale. Excessively quick throttle movements are going to have bad results. The US ran into lots of problems in the 50s with the adoption of on/off afterburners.

My comments with regards to reliability in service are more to do with the other end - the compressor. Rapid throttle changes (or even differences in AoA) could cause problems because of the poor surge characteristics. Rpm increases so more air has to be compressed and against a higher pressure gradient so at times it will break down and the air flow reverse direction and start coming out of the front. Its a lot more rapid and violent than that, with lots of vibration and the possibility of blades breaking. The low pressure ratio of the 004 (compared to the immediate postwar Avon) reduces the problem but fuel consumption is poor as a result.



> Performance with the D series was pretty mindblowing at 920 km/h at SL and 945 km/h at 5.5km.



Pretty similar to the Meteor F.4 which is more or less constant 590mph up to 15000ft whereupon its limited to M0.82


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 30, 2008)

The 003, 004, and 006/HeS-30 (as well as Heinkel's centrifugal-flow engines) all had fairly low pressure ratios of around 3.0-3.2:1 (even lower on the early Centrifugal models).

The 004A/B/D/E (and iirc the 003A/E) used the relatively simple impulse blading in the compressors (with ~80% of compression taking place at the rotor blades and most of the stators acting as guide vanes only), which allowed the blades to be made of stamped sheetmetal, cheap and efficient method of construction, but a lower mechanical efficiency and greater weight. (albeit the 003 was a little more efficient than the 004's compressor)

The HeS-30/006 (as well as some versions of the 003 being devloped with much greater performance, significatly higher pressure ratio, and greatly reduced SFC; namely the 900 kp 003C and 1,200 kp 003D) used reaction blading (with compression acheived ~50/50 at the rotors and stators) with much greater efficiency and compression per stage, achiving a similar pressure ratio to the 003 and 004 but in only 5 compressor stages. With much lower specific fuel consumption, size, and weight. The downside is that the blades had to be machined and required the use of thrust bearings.

Early jet engines

I believe Delcyros has brought a lot of this up before as well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 24, 2008)

Early jet engines

I found the post I was looking for on that forum regarding the vibration and TBO. (it seems I overlooked it a while ago)


It also gives a good summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the Britich vs German engines. (ie the 004 the 004 had a much smaller frontal area at the expense of considerable weight gain)


----------



## Venganza (Sep 26, 2008)

namvet68 said:


> No...with Japan being knock out all the might of the US military would be turn on Germany. Now the Luftwaffe would have to face the high flying B-29's. All American forces would be able to focus on bring Germany to her knees and *lets not forget the possible of having the A-bomb dropped on her also.* [Emphasis added.] Turman would not be a fraid to do it.
> 
> American flight schools can turn out more pilots than Germany could and American factories can turn out more everything than Germany could.
> 
> England than could turn to all of her empire to send all the troops from the Asia to Europe.



I think the part about the A-bomb is the crucial part and it has nothing to do about whether of not we had knocked the Japanese out of the war. If the war had gone on into 1945, it wouldn't have mattered how many wonder weapons the Nazis had. If the bomber streams started getting hammered by these jets and the Allies started to lose their air superiority, they would have just started dropping A-bombs on the Germans and the party would have been over. It might have been a little more difficult to drop atomic bombs on people who looked like us (the Germans as opposed to the Japanese) but I'm sure we would have gotten over those qualms. If the Nazis had also had the bomb, then that would have changed everything, but even in real life, with the impetus of getting hammered by both sides, they didn't have the bomb by 1945, and if they had defeated the Soviet Union, I think their atomic research would have been put even more on the backburner, so no Nazi A-bomb by 1945. The Allies win.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 26, 2008)

In a horific/terror factor kind of way, yes, but the allies (the US) had only one more bomb nearing readiness after Fat Man, after that it would have been several months before another could be completed. (so a total of 1 Uranium bomb and 2 Plutonium bombs detonated durring the war, with a third in readiness)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 26, 2008)

Hi Venganza,

>If the Nazis had also had the bomb, then that would have changed everything, but even in real life, with the impetus of getting hammered by both sides, they didn't have the bomb by 1945

Hm, we know that today, but how much did the Allies know in 1945? I suppose the consideration that Germans might possibly have an atomic bomb could have dampened the enthusiasm to nuke Berlin, even if it was only a low-probability chance ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

and the junkers 390 made it possible for them to drop it on one of our cities because one mission they came within 12 miles of new york


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

The validity of that has been discussed ad nauseum, I'll dig up the thread...


However, a one way trip could be made by, say an He 177B/277, which had the payload (and iirc bomb bay size requirements) capabilities as well. I believe the Ju 290 (if suitably modified) may have been possible to do it with as well.


But the question is would the Germans have had a nuclear bomb available? And IMO the answer is no. There just wasn't serious work being done to develop one, and out of the relatively small nuclear projects that were going on all serious reasearch was going into development of reactors and nuclear power development.


Had work been concentrated on weapons development and producing sufficient amounts of enriched uranium for bomb use, it may have been possible, but I doubt they would have been able to complete more than one (in the 10 kTon class) or maybe a couple smaller ones. I'm not sure if there was work being done on breeding plutonium. (which can be produced much more quickly than enrichiching natural Uranium to weapons grade -hence why the US only completed a single Uranium bomb, while they had enough material to build 3 Plutonium bombs by the wars end) 

Of course, the functioning mechanism of the Uranium bomb can be made much simpler (gun-type opposed to implosion) than a plutonium bomb. (which is why the US decided it necessary to test their plutonium bomb before deployment)

The point is,, German devleopment was minimal in terms of a bomb. 

Otoh the Japanese focused their 2 projects -1Army + 1Navy- solely on Uranium enrichment and weapons development. And there is evidence of a posible test of a staged device just days befor the surrender. (from the more secret IJN project off shore of N. Korea)


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

that could have been bad


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

Yes (I assume you're referring to my discussion on German development), and it possibly could have ended the war in a stalemate with the begining of a cold war with the Axis in place of the Soviets.


----------



## Venganza (Sep 28, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Venganza,
> 
> >If the Nazis had also had the bomb, then that would have changed everything, but even in real life, with the impetus of getting hammered by both sides, they didn't have the bomb by 1945
> 
> ...



HoHun, that's a good question about how much did the Allies know about the Nazi atomic program in 1945. I still think even with that uncertainty, the U.S. would not have allowed air superiority to be wrenched from them, not after so many air casualties on the U.S. side. Remember that one nuclear bomb on Berlin, and with the Germans still thinking they're in good shape (having taken out the Soviets) all the good Nazis would have been in Berlin, and that bomb probably would've taken out almost all of the Nazi High Command, including der Furhrer. Probably the end of the war. Now I'm talking about the U.S., who did have the bomb, and had an ocean between them and the Nazis. If there were a possibility of a Nazi counter nuclear strike, say against London, then I imagine the British wouldn't have been so keen on a nuclear strike on Berlin. However, the U.S. might have just gone ahead and done it anyway without British approval (or knowledge). Who knows - thankfully it never came to that.

Kool Kitty89, you seem to know more about the WWII U.S. nuclear program than I do - do you think that if necessary we could have increased production of A-bombs to counter the still extant Nazi threat?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

I'm not sure. There was already a huge amount of reasourses going to the bomb program and production of weapons grade uranium was relatively slow. Uranium production was considerable but I realy don't think it could be made particularly faster. (at least not without breaking -partial- secrecy and widening industrial production)

In any case I don't think combating one nuclear threat with another would realy be the right choice. The allied nuclear arsenal would still be ~5x the size of any axis one. (not taking Japan into account) But I think finding and taking out German nuclear facilities would be the top concern. 


Historically there was a considerable amount of reasourses put toward thwarting the "Nazi Nuclear Program" (attacking supplies of hevay water etc.) as the allies though the Germans were making considerable progress in developing nuclear weapons (farther along than the allies were). Which of course we now no isn't true.

Rather ironically, the allies never seem to have taken Japan's exploits into nuclear weapons as a serios threat. Only having made "small" progress and having their (mainland army) program bombed out anyway. (after they had begun enrichment of Uranium using thermal diffusion)
However, as mentioned, the much more secret IJN project had continued up to the end of the war, being moderately aided by some data from the defunct army project (the IJA and IJN didn't work well together) and managed to attemt a test of a nuclear device (with possible sucess) just before the wars end.

A History Channel documentary on the topic:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdCe2wBeCiw_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCpZvyHW0NI_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCPH5kTj-5Y_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fv2_-AJeE_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWOuxC9jkYs_



The discussion on Japan leads me to another thought: if the entire allied force focused solely on Europe after the USSR's defeat (as some have proposed) and it does lead to a victory: 

*What the hell is going on in the Pacific with little to no intervention from the US or Britain?*


----------



## delcyros (Sep 28, 2008)

> all the good Nazis would have been in Berlin, and that bomb probably would've taken out almost all of the Nazi High Command, including der Furhrer. Probably the end of the war.



This is a very unlikely event. Central european cities simply aren´s build like japanese. If You compare the damage to buildings with the distance to point zero, You can analyse the blast effect of the then in use bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hieroshima. The high degree of area destruction caused by them is to a very large extent attributable to the light, wooden construction of buildings in both japanese cities. Beton, stone and brick constructions usually prevailed in Japan. Damage was generally caused above the surface and damage below the surface was limited instead.
The large european cities not only are build from very thick and solid stone walls but also regularely have cellars for shelters. 
In addition to this, Flakbunkers of the period placed on the larger cities are proof against blast, heat effects and radiation. They do have their own electrical plants and ressources. The subway system would also offer a degree of protection depending on distance to point zero.
This all is nothing in comparison to the autark Führerbunker substructures where the nazi elite housed during the latter part of the war. Don´t expect the nazi leadership to be taken out by a nuke unless the nuke happens to hit the bunker physically.



> If there were a possibility of a Nazi counter nuclear strike, say against London, then I imagine the British wouldn't have been so keen on a nuclear strike on Berlin. However, the U.S. might have just gone ahead and done it anyway without British approval (or knowledge). Who knows - thankfully it never came to that.


Yes, thankfully. They were in possession a more dangerous substance than a nuke. Had they been nuked, they may have used their refined Botulinum against the UK and likely also against the US East coats with millions of losses on human life. The UK may have used it´s stocks of nerve gas in return, causing millions of losses in europe. Anyhow, these are bitter prospects.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

Goo points (I thought about mentioning the chemical and biological weapons, but I wasn't too sure on the specifics, particularly on the German side. The British had anthrax at their disposal as well.


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2008)

red admiral said:


> Pretty similar to the Meteor F.4 which is more or less constant 590mph up to 15000ft whereupon its limited to M0.82



Which wasnt even close to seeing service in WW2.


----------



## Venganza (Sep 28, 2008)

Delcyros, you make some very good points. Maybe a nuclear attack against Berlin would have been a futile gesture that would have backfired against the Allies. In that case, and with the possibility of German nuclear or biological counterstrikes, the war might have, as Kool Kitty89 wroter earlier in this thread "ended... in a stalemate with the begining of a cold war with the Axis in place of the Soviets.". Then the Nazis would have had free reign to put into place their "New World Order" in all of Europe. A very chilling thought and let's be thankful it didn't happen, as it would've been a tremendous and bloody disaster, even for the German people.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *red admiral *
> _Pretty similar to the Meteor F.4 which is more or less constant 590mph up to 15000ft whereupon its limited to M0.82 _
> 
> 
> ...




Soren the F.4 prototype flew on May 17, 1945. At the very least it would have been in service by the end of the year. THe delay in post-war introduction was due to the greatly reduced pace of millitary development and spending in Brittain.


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2008)

If the war had lasted till the end of the year 45 then the Germans would've fielded a/c with top speeds i excess of 1,000 km/h. Furthermore a/c such as the P.1011 would've likely been ready in limited numbers, and the Ta-183 would've been in production. And on top of that there would be HeS-011 equipped Me-262's flying around at 1,000 km/h.


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2008)

Venganza said:


> Delcyros, you make some very good points. Maybe a nuclear attack against Berlin would have been a futile gesture that would have backfired against the Allies. In that case, and with the possibility of German nuclear or biological counterstrikes, the war might have, as Kool Kitty89 wroter earlier in this thread "ended... in a stalemate with the begining of a cold war with the Axis in place of the Soviets.". Then the Nazis would have had free reign to put into place their "New World Order" in all of Europe. A very chilling thought and let's be thankful it didn't happen, as it would've been a tremendous and bloody disaster, even for the German people.




IMO Hitler would've been assinated before that could ever happen. Sooner or later the entire German people would come to know about the concentration camps etc etc, and thus Hitler would've lost all his power.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

Soren,

I'm not sure on how ready the HeS 011A (1,300 kp) was for production. Also I'm not sure the Ta 152 would have had all its bugs worked out. (likely the normal type tail yould have been utilized as well) I'll admit the P.1011 was proceding well (and a much more practical a/c than the Ta 152 IMO) but may have had to use a different engine.

Likewise the swept-wing He 162's might have made it as well. (at the very least an up-engined standard He 162)


When you say "1000 km/h Me 262's" do you mean regular ones, or with a swept wing and tail a-la HG-II.


In any case the 004E (with AB) and the excellent (1,200 kp) BMW 003D could have made up for a lack of available HeS 011. (for the later Me 262's He 162's and the P.1011) And possibly the Ho 229.


----------



## red admiral (Oct 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> If the war had lasted till the end of the year 45 then the Germans would've fielded a/c with top speeds i excess of 1,000 km/h. Furthermore a/c such as the P.1011 would've likely been ready in limited numbers, and the Ta-183 would've been in production. And on top of that there would be HeS-011 equipped Me-262's flying around at 1,000 km/h.



There would be very small numbers of these aircraft if any. The Ta 183 is best described as downright dangerous given the highly swept wings and complete lack of high lift devices. Add in the fact that it would be woefully underpowered and you've got serious problems. Given that it was developed postwar into the Pulqui II which was a complete pig even with twice the power. The Saab Tunnan was a bit more successful but again with twice the power and considerable changes to the wing design. Similarly the X-5 developed from the P.1101(though not the same aircraft) was rather dangerous. The speed calculations of all the Luft46 aircraft are rather optimistic given the lack of accurate theoretical means of calculating transsonic drag.

The HeS-011 never came close to making it's designed power but would be more reliable in flight due to the mixed-flow compressor and easier to build. It would still be heavy and have poor lifetime.

The rapid production and successful adoption of transsonic designs moving into the M0.9+ range is not going to happen in 1945. The US and USSR both kept production and development at near wartime levels and ended up with these aircraft in 1949 with the F-86 and MiG-15. There's no way to compress that development into a year with limited production and development facilities. Even then its hardly an exact science with designs that seemed promising in early testing soon found to have serious problems when the envelope was pushed a bit further (e.g. Supermarine Swift)


----------



## davparlr (Oct 2, 2008)

red admiral said:


> There would be very small numbers of these aircraft if any. The Ta 183 is best described as downright dangerous given the highly swept wings and complete lack of high lift devices. Add in the fact that it would be woefully underpowered and you've got serious problems. Given that it was developed postwar into the Pulqui II which was a complete pig even with twice the power. The Saab Tunnan was a bit more successful but again with twice the power and considerable changes to the wing design. Similarly the X-5 developed from the P.1101(though not the same aircraft) was rather dangerous. The speed calculations of all the Luft46 aircraft are rather optimistic given the lack of accurate theoretical means of calculating transsonic drag.
> 
> The HeS-011 never came close to making it's designed power but would be more reliable in flight due to the mixed-flow compressor and easier to build. It would still be heavy and have poor lifetime.
> 
> The rapid production and successful adoption of transsonic designs moving into the M0.9+ range is not going to happen in 1945. The US and USSR both kept production and development at near wartime levels and ended up with these aircraft in 1949 with the F-86 and MiG-15. There's no way to compress that development into a year with limited production and development facilities. Even then its hardly an exact science with designs that seemed promising in early testing soon found to have serious problems when the envelope was pushed a bit further (e.g. Supermarine Swift)




I agree with your assessment. There is always a tendency here to assume paper aircraft will perform as proposed, and the transonic arena was especially dangerous. However, I do think the P.1101 could have been developed in 1945 utilizing a fixed wing sweep to a moderate degree; with inflight variable sweep, it was years away.

The Horton, while very advanced in theory, was five to ten years away.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 2, 2008)

As far as the original premise, it must be remembered that Germany would not be bringing all of it Eastern aviation resouces back to face the western forces, but rather, they had to face the Western forces plus the resources not sent to Russia. The US delivered about 15,000 aircraft, most probably delivered in '43, '44. So, the allies would now have thousands of new bombers, fighters, etc. that it would not have otherwise, and these would be flown by better trained allied pilots. Also, the manufacturing facilities would probably have tranformed into building aircraft better suited for the Western front such as P-51s, 47s, 38s instead of P-40s, p-39s, etc. although even those would have been effective in quantity.

The war in Western Europe would have been an even larger cauldron, but I don't think the air war would have changed, the Axis would still be overpowered by numbers. The Allies would have maintained control of the air and the added ground resouces of Germany would have been fodder to even more hordes of P-47s, P-51s, and maybe even P-39s and P-40s. And, there could have been thousands of more B-17 and 24s.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 2, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Also, the manufacturing facilities would probably have tranformed into building aircraft better suited for the Western front such as P-51s, 47s, 38s instead of P-40s, p-39s, etc. although even those would have been effective in quantity.


Isn't that what happened anyways? Or are you referring to the lend-lease aircraft provided to the SU.



> The war in Western Europe would have been an even larger cauldron, but I don't think the air war would have changed, the Axis would still be overpowered by numbers. The Allies would have maintained control of the air and the added ground resouces of Germany would have been fodder to even more hordes of P-47s, P-51s, and maybe even P-39s and P-40s. And, there could have been thousands of more B-17 and 24s.


I think it depends entirely on when the SU would've been defeated. If it had been in late '41, early '42 the whole setup would've been so entirely different that noone can really say what would've happened. The war in the west might've dropped to another phoney war altogether. The total number of bombers doesn't play that much of a role (imo) as the overall casualties determined whether bombing campaigns were continued or not.

If it had been in '43-'44 I would agree with you, however the only time Germany was remotely close to a 'victory' was late '41.


red admiral said:


> There would be very small numbers of these aircraft if any. The Ta 183 is best described as downright dangerous given the highly swept wings and complete lack of high lift devices. Add in the fact that it would be woefully underpowered and you've got serious problems. Given that it was developed postwar into the Pulqui II which was a complete pig even with twice the power.



The Pulqui isn't the Ta-183 it's just based on the same layout. Given that the Ta-183 was just a wooden windtunnel models and pre-production versions by the time the development stopped, I doubt it would've made it into production in this exact shape if the war had progressed as the premise here says. With its projected powerplant I have no doubt it would've reached or at leat come close to the performance specs.
Same goes for the X-5 and the P.1101: The X-5 had swept-wings adjustable in flight and thus the center of gravity problem which could've never been solved. The P.1101 was much simpler.


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2008)

The Ta-183 wasn't underpowered by any means what'so'ever, and the performance of the a/c would've been mindblowing for its time. The light weight, large wing area, high sweep high performance engine would ensure great performance. 

That the Ta-183 wing didn't feature any LE slats or wing fences on the drawing board illutrations is no surprise as it hadn't been flight tested yet and thus the placements for the devices couldn't yet have been established. However as soon as the a/c had undergone flight testing it would've without any doubt quickly have been equipped with either automatic LE slats (most likely) or wing fences (a German invention from 38 ), just like the Me-262.

And as for comparing the Ta-183 to the Pulqui II well that just illustrates a lack of insight and reasonable arguments on the subject. The Pulqui II and Ta-183 are two VERY different designs, which should be clear visually as-well as technically. (Note for ex. shoulder vs midfuselage mounted wing) Tank didn't even design the Ta-183, he wasn't even involved in the project, the lead designer project leader was hans Multhopp who assembled his own team to make the a/c. If you want to compare the Ta-183 to anything it has to be the MIG-15 which is much closer to The ta-183 in terms of design than the Pulqui II.

Here's a bit of info on the Pulqui II, which btw was anything but a pig, despite what red admiral falsely claims. The Pulqui suffered from deep stall, that was it's only issue, and the solution was already there when the Argentinian government cut the budget:
FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as for the P.1101 and X-5, they can't be compared, they were different in many ways as-well.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 2, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Isn't that what happened anyways? Or are you referring to the lend-lease aircraft provided to the SU.



Exactly.



> I think it depends entirely on when the SU would've been defeated. If it had been in late '41, early '42 the whole setup would've been so entirely different that noone can really say what would've happened. The war in the west might've dropped to another phoney war altogether. The total number of bombers doesn't play that much of a role (imo) as the overall casualties determined whether bombing campaigns were continued or not.



If the SU had not been invaded, almost the entire productive might of the US (all except the small portion used to push Japan back) would have been applied to the Western front. Even without war against the SU, Germany could not hope to keep up with the allies in war production. Remember, GB alone out produced Germany in aircraft manufacture. Great amounts of aircraft would still be over Germany, and "quantity has a quality all its own".



> The Pulqui isn't the Ta-183 it's just based on the same layout. Given that the Ta-183 was just a wooden windtunnel models and pre-production versions by the time the development stopped, I doubt it would've made it into production in this exact shape if the war had progressed as the premise here says. With its projected powerplant I have no doubt it would've reached or at leat come close to the performance specs.



Possibly, but I think a lot of aerodynamic problems would have to be solved, which I think would have pushed the aircraft to '47 or so before an acceptable design could fly.



> Same goes for the X-5 and the P.1101: The X-5 had swept-wings adjustable in flight and thus the center of gravity problem which could've never been solved. The P.1101 was much simpler.



I agree. I think the P.1011 could have been the first swept wing aircraft to be combat ready, mainly because they could test the aircraft with various sweep angles until they found a good one and then bolt it down.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 2, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I agree with your assessment. There is always a tendency here to assume paper aircraft will perform as proposed, and the transonic arena was especially dangerous. However, I do think the P.1101 could have been developed in 1945 *utilizing a fixed wing sweep to a moderate degree; with inflight variable sweep, it was years away.*
> 
> The Horton, while very advanced in theory, was five to ten years away.



The *P.1101* was never intended to have in-flight variable sweep. The V1 prototype had an adjustable sweep feature (adjusted on the ground, pre-flight) to determine the best sweep to use for the subsequent fighter.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 2, 2008)

I too think the P.1101 was the best bet for the next generation German fighters in development at the war's end. (there was the HG II configuration for the Me 262, but I don't know if that was even proposed for production, or just an experiment)

This one looked pretty promising and practical too, had it gotten more attention:
http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvp211i.html

I also think the alternate variation of the Ta 183 was more practical: http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-ii.html


----------



## delcyros (Oct 3, 2008)

> There would be very small numbers of these aircraft if any. The Ta 183 is best described as downright dangerous given the highly swept wings and complete lack of high lift devices. Add in the fact that it would be woefully underpowered and you've got serious problems.



Agreed. There is every reason to believe that the Ta-183 would have shown unacceptably difficult low speed handling. Tank / Multhopp were never keen in implementing LE-slats to their designs, altough wing fences may have been an option (reducing straight level performance in return).



> The speed calculations of all the Luft46 aircraft are rather optimistic given the lack of accurate theoretical means of calculating transsonic drag.


It is understandable when judging the difficulties engaged in the transsonic speed calculations. The DVL compiled a comparison of the different calculation methods dating to mid january 1945. Prof. W. Quick and Dr. P. Höhler still didn´t agreed on one solution in this report. Therefore, every company continued on it´s own, slightly differing methods of calculation, Heinkel beeing rather conservative and Messerschmidt beeing optimistic in this process.



> The Ta-183 wasn't underpowered by any means what'so'ever, and the performance of the a/c would've been mindblowing for its time. The light weight, large wing area, high sweep high performance engine would ensure great performance.


With 2.0 t. max. fuel, the Ta-183 with HeS011 A would show a thrust to weight ratio of 0.24 (taken into account average intake and exhoust losses) as opposed to 0.28 for the P-80 / Me-262A and 0.31+ for the He-162 (each with max. fuel). Even with reduced 1200 Kg fuel load (66 minutes full power) the Ta-183 is no better than the very first version of the Me-262 at full load. It would compare unfavourably in acceleration and powerload to all contemporary jet fighters, which would justify to say it was underpowered.



> If you want to compare the Ta-183 to anything it has to be the MIG-15 which is much closer to The ta-183 in terms of design than the Pulqui II.


The MiG-15 has as much to do with the Ta-183 as the Pulqui-II has. Basically two different designs. The design to see service beeing (perhaps) more influenced by the Ta-183 was the swedish Saab Tunnan. But the Tunnan nevertheless is an indigenious swedish design, benefitting from Focke Wulf construction works.

The 1945 jet fighter development program was continueing in to many ways to show any significant deployment of such products in late 1945:

-The Me-262 program was concentrating in improving the performance of the Me-262. Improved engines and gradual changes on the tail design, finally a new wing were to be put under investigation (the HG-II prototype for the 35 deg. swept back wing, Werknummer 111 538 was damaged during taxiing). Lots of industrial ressources went into this program
-The Ar-234 program was introducing crescent wings and four engined types
-The He-162 program demanded a lot of ressources and just build prototypes with interchangable, swept forward / swept back wings
-Messerchmidt continued development of the P1101 as a testbed (possibly a more valid choice than the Ta-183) and various other projects
-Focke Wulf concentrated on the Flitzer and Ta-183
-Junkers got a developmental production order for the Ju-EF-128 (another complex highly dangerous design)
-Lippisch concentrated on a He-162 / Me-163 hybrid, the P-15 Diana in Vienna
-Blohm Voss concentrated on the P-212.III jet fighter
-Henschel designed the P135, which also was favoured by the EHK (my personal favourite)

That´s simply to much diversion.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 3, 2008)

After spending ages reading this threat, I selected "other". 
I cannot help to think that if Heman Goering was NOT the head of the Luftwaffe, and if Hitler did not interfere, whould the Luftwaffe been beaten by anyone then?

edd


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 3, 2008)

davparlr said:


> If the SU had not been invaded, almost the entire productive might of the US (all except the small portion used to push Japan back) would have been applied to the Western front. Even without war against the SU, Germany could not hope to keep up with the allies in war production. Remember, GB alone out produced Germany in aircraft manufacture. Great amounts of aircraft would still be over Germany, and "quantity has a quality all its own".


I would like to see the numbers for that because if i do the naive assessment of just adding up the most relevant fighters and bombers i think Germany produced more. But since Germany wasn't on full wartime production until '43 you might be correct on this. Total production capacity certainly was (is) higher for Germany than for the UK.

However, I highly doubt Japan could've been pushed back by a "small portion".

So even if Germany's air force was defeated by say, late 1945, then that's that. The point is: If the number of troops commited to the east were stationed in the west, I doubt there would've been any invasion plans in the form of overlord. 
The ground war in the east was what broke the neck of Germany not the air war in the west. Without a serious sacrifice in manpower on the US and Commonwealth part France could not have been liberated with an invasion and even then the undertaking was highly risky and could've spawned a second dunkirk incident. I am not sure the US would've committed to that. The air war was not self sufficient and the strategic planners were well aware of that,


> Possibly, but I think a lot of aerodynamic problems would have to be solved, which I think would have pushed the aircraft to '47 or so before an acceptable design could fly.


maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter anyways since Gemany had the Me-262 (and a cheap He-162 to flank it). The 262 was a better airframe than anything the allies had at the time and had enough development potential. With the P.1101 and the Ta-183 they had two reasonable next generation jets and one of them would cut it. The allies were still behind.


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

There is absolutely no reason to suspect that the Ta-183 would be dangerous to fly, at all, not anymore than the MIG-15 was anyhow. And ofcourse either automatic LE slats or wing fences would've been equipped on the a/c soon after or even before the first test flights, the low speed characteristics quickly making them an obvious necessecity. With the addition of either wing fences or LE slats the tricky low speed flying characteristics of the a/c would be emmidiately solved.

Neither Hans Multhopp nor Kurt Tank was against wing fences or LE slats, and to suggest that they were is pretty ridiculous as any self respecting designer would add them if they were found necessary to the stability and performance of the design. Kurt tank didn't put slats on his a/c for the simple reason that they were complicated devices to manufacture and prepare the wing for, slowing down the production process and they added extra weight to the a/c. Kurt Tank emphazised excellent high speed handling, knowing full well that most dogfights by 43 and onwards took place at such high speeds that G forces well beyond the human ability to withstand could always be pulled.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 3, 2008)

Perhaps You show me a single Focke-Wulf design with either wing fences or LE-slats? The focke-Wulf company had no experiences with these. There would be plenty of use for such high lift devices in case of many Fw-planes but not a single one was installed into them. I also haven´t ever seen such in the very detailed Baubeschreibung of the Ta-183. 



> There is absolutely no reason to suspect that the Ta-183 would be dangerous to fly, at all, not anymore than the MIG-15 was anyhow.



I must disagree. The tail design of the MiG-15 is inherently more stable, the wings enjoi a slightly larger area, a different airfoil and a greater thickness ratio, so they do produce significantly more lift per area. The Ta-183 has 40 deg. sweep (!) as opposed to 35 deg. in the MiG-15, and the wings of the MiG have 2 deg. anhedral as opposed to 0 on the Ta-183, pointing to somehow better stall behavior (the MiG-15 nevertheless was tricky in this regard). More importantly, the MiG has twice the power aviable and enjois a much better powerload figure, giving You more acceleration ellbows low slow.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 3, 2008)

For Design II of the Ta-183 they had already reduced wing sweep to 32 degrees, so even less than the MiG. I would say the P.1101 looked more promising though. I agree on the tail design. Interestingly Messerschmitt ran tests with Me-262s on how much poweroutput decreases when the air intakes on the nacelles in front of the engine (i hope you get what I'm trying to say) were significantly lenghtened. The resulting loss of power was not significant. Both the P.1101 and the Ta-183 could've benefitted from that (with the engines moved back thus making the tail more stable).

And which of the Focke-Wulf aircraft would've benefitted from slats besides possibly this one? I can't think of any.

With the scenario in mind I don't think it makes much sense to assume that these aircraft would've flown in these configurations anyways. The Ta-183 aswell as the P.1101 programs were highly sped up due to the desperate situation, under the conditions presented here that would've been different.


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2008)

Delcyros,

How many a/c did FW make with any meaningful wing sweep ? None. Hence why wing fences (in particular) and LE slats weren't a necessity. The deal is different with an a/c with any meaningful wing sweep, and you can be sure Multhopp Tank both knew that!

Also to repeat myself, that there are no LE slats or wing fences shown on the drawing board illustrations is no surprise at all even if they were planned. Why ? Cause you need to fly the a/c to assess the necessity of such devices and where they are to be placed. 

Also I'd really like to know where you got the info that the MIG-15's wing was of a higher TR and the idea that the tail design was more stable as-well. 

And as for wing dihedral anhedral (wing twist) did you know that the Ta-183 featured elevons and do you know the effect this has on lift distribution at high AoA's ?? Doesn't seem like it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 3, 2008)

Soren, T-tails are inherantly problematic, though there was an alternate tail design (from design III) which looked more promising.

Though I think Design III was entirely more practical. (and more attractive)


----------



## davparlr (Oct 4, 2008)

delcyros said:


> , and the wings of the MiG have 2 deg. anhedral as opposed to 0 on the Ta-183, pointing to somehow better stall behavior (the MiG-15 nevertheless was tricky in this regard).



I suspect that the anhedral (wing droop) of the Mig is do mainly to offset swept wing roll stability and mid-wing roll stability and increase roll rate (fighters like instability for manueverability, most modern fighters are electronically stable). I don't know how anhedral would apply to stall characteristics.



Soren said:


> And as for wing dihedral anhedral (wing twist) did you know that the Ta-183 featured elevons and do you know the effect this has on lift distribution at high AoA's ?? Doesn't seem like it.



Dihedral/anhedral (angle the wing makes with the fuselage, looking from the front: Dihedral-wing tips are higher than the base, anhedral-wing tips are below base (droop) ) has nothing to do with wing twist (twisting of wing to ensure stall occurs first inside ailerons). 

I don't think the Ta-183 was anywhere near deployment in '45, maybe the end of '46. Too many unknown transonic aero problems and configuration control couplings to fix. In Argentina, Tank and his German design team had a tough time with control and stall problems. I think you are waving a magic wand of German engineering over a very complex and advanced design (like the Horton), and saying everything will work as planned.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2008)

Stop dwelling on the Me-262 and other advanced designs. They were not going to be available in quantity or effectiveness untill after 1945.

The LW has to stop the allied invasion in June 1944 or the war is lost.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 4, 2008)

Wing twist is "washout," not dihedral. Also I think the Type II configuration was quite problematic (as mentioned earlier) and the Type III configuration (particularly to the more conventional tail and elevator) was much more practical. 




syscom3 said:


> Stop dwelling on the Me-262 and other advanced designs. They were not going to be available in quantity or effectiveness untill after 1945.
> 
> The LW has to stop the allied invasion in June 1944 or the war is lost.



What do you mean? For the advanced swept-wing variants, maybe, but the standard Me 262, certainly not.


The point on the invasion is true, but this has alerady been discussed here quite a bit.


*I'm still wondering what would have happended in the Pacific with the Allies so concentrated on Europe.*


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2008)

The post I started on the Me-262 provided plenty of evidence that this magnificent fighter didn't do anything until the final months of the war, when it was irrelevant to the outcome. 

It wasn't even available in quantity until after the summer of 1944.

It is unfortunate for the LW that right when it could recover from the losses on the eastern front, it would still have to deal with an ever increasing allied AF that had the resources to still hunt them down wherever they went.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 4, 2008)

You said until after 1945, which I took as the end of 1945. If you meant the begining of '45 that would make sense.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> You said until after 1945, which I took as the end of 1945. If you meant the begining of '45 that would make sense.



Yes, I should have said beginning 1945.

My mistake.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 4, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> I would like to see the numbers for that because if i do the naive assessment of just adding up the most relevant fighters and bombers i think Germany produced more. But since Germany wasn't on full wartime production until '43 you might be correct on this. Total production capacity certainly was (is) higher for Germany than for the UK.



Here are a couple of sources on total aircraft production. I don’t know the validity of the numbers but they seem compatible.

Wikepedia

US 303,713
UK 131,549
Ger 119,871

Taphilo

US 297,199 
UK 131,549
Ger 119,871


US produce 100,000 fighters

By January, ’44, the production quantity was

US 161,394
UK 93,018
Ger 71,728

A guess, about 24,000 US production was allocated to the Pacific Theater (I couldn’t find any data).

So at the start of ’44, Germany would have had roughly one third the air forces that the Allies had. This would never improve, In 1944, Germany out produced UK. However, Germany produce only 36% of the aircraft the UK and US produced for ETO.
Germany could never out produce the US. If the P-51B production had improved, say by converting P-39 production to P-51B, then there is no reason to believe air dominance over Germany in early ’44, would change. That is, the additional Luftwaffe forces available would not have been able to overcome the additional P-51s. It there were no increase in P-51B production, then control over Germany would probably been delayed six months, delaying D-Day. 






> However, I highly doubt Japan could've been pushed back by a "small portion".



I shouldn’t have said “pushed back”. The original plan of Roosevelt’s was to prevent further expansion of Japan while Germany was being defeated. I do not think a large percentage of AAF forces were ever allocated to the Pacific until ‘45. In any event, I think the Navy could have “held” Japan without AAF air support. Indeed, I think the Navy could have eventually defeated Japan alone by simply strangulation, but in a longer time span. The US Navy was never a big player in ETO (except, maybe D-Day). I think that without doubt, the majority, if not all of AAF Pacific could be used in ETO.



> So even if Germany's air force was defeated by say, late 1945, then that's that. The point is: If the number of troops committed to the east were stationed in the west, I doubt there would've been any invasion plans in the form of overlord.
> The ground war in the east was what broke the neck of Germany not the air war in the west. Without a serious sacrifice in manpower on the US and Commonwealth part France could not have been liberated with an invasion and even then the undertaking was highly risky and could've spawned a second dunkirk incident. I am not sure the US would've committed to that. The air war was not self sufficient and the strategic planners were well aware of that,



With the influx of added aircraft, from Lend-Lease, to the Allies to offset the new available Luftwaffe aircraft from the Eastern front, I do not see the defeat of the German air forces much later than it was.



> maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter anyways since Gemany had the Me-262 (and a cheap He-162 to flank it). The 262 was a better airframe than anything the allies had at the time and had enough development potential. With the P.1101 and the Ta-183 they had two reasonable next generation jets and one of them would cut it. The allies were still behind.



Except for the Ta-183, which I think would require substantial development, I agree. Although, I think the Allies would be only six to nine months behind. Of course, these new planes would still be swamped by hordes of lesser types.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

Once the allies had the atomic bomb, then the days of the reich were numbered.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2008)

We already discussed that specifically on pg. 11-12. As Delcyros mentioned, while they may not have had nuclear weapons to counter with, the Germans had chemical weapons at their disposal which would be even more devistating.

The best stuff is on pg. 12 and the total quote:


delcyros said:


> > all the good Nazis would have been in Berlin, and that bomb probably would've taken out almost all of the Nazi High Command, including der Furhrer. Probably the end of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

The psychological effects on being nuked would have shattered the morale of the populace.

Being bombed by conventional weapons is one thing, being bombed by nukes is another.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Oct 5, 2008)

That's what they said about the conventional bombs and then the fire bombs. It didn't happen. Unless we are talking about one nuke every few days, in a totalitarian state like Nazi-Germany, the effect would've been loss of life only.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> That's what they said about the conventional bombs and then the fire bombs. It didn't happen. Unless we are talking about one nuke every few days, in a totalitarian state like Nazi-Germany, the effect would've been loss of life only.



A military revolt would have ensued after a couple of cities dissapeared.

The Loss of Hamburg and Suttgart (to pick a pair of cities at random) would be an unrecoverable loss, especially if it was timed to coincide with a massive allied ground attack.

Reagrdless of that happening. The LW, even with the help of Russian based fighter units, would still be overwhelmed anywhere they went to. The resources of the allies were so tremendous, that nothing was going to stop the attrition on the LW.


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Dihedral/anhedral (angle the wing makes with the fuselage, looking from the front: Dihedral-wing tips are higher than the base, anhedral-wing tips are below base (droop) ) has nothing to do with wing twist (twisting of wing to ensure stall occurs first inside ailerons).



You're right confused two things with each other, a brain fart. The He-162 for one used wing droops instead of wing dihedral.

However looking at the Ta-183 there doesn't seem to be any dihedral or anhedral at all. 



> I don't think the Ta-183 was anywhere near deployment in '45, maybe the end of '46. Too many unknown transonic aero problems and configuration control couplings to fix. In Argentina, Tank and his German design team had a tough time with control and stall problems. I think you are waving a magic wand of German engineering over a very complex and advanced design (like the Horton), and saying everything will work as planned.



I disagree, the German understanding of the transsonic region was pretty good by 45 and completely unrivalled. 

Furthermore the Ta-183 project would benefit a lot from German high speed research studies made in 1945, not to mention the planned test flying of the P.1101 prototype.


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren, T-tails are inherantly problematic, though there was an alternate tail design (from design III) which looked more promising.



If used as a platform for the elevator control yes. But the Ta-183 featured elevons, the horizontal stabilizer on top of the tail only being used for trim changes, and thus there wouldn't be the problems with deep stall as that experienced by the Pulqui II. 

Furtermore the wing placement on the Ta-183 was entirely different from the Pulqui II and indentical to that of the MIG-15.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 5, 2008)

> _A military revolt would have ensued after a couple of cities dissapeared.
> 
> The Loss of Hamburg and Suttgart (to pick a pair of cities at random) would be an unrecoverable loss, especially if it was timed to coincide with a massive allied ground attack._



I overlaid the 2000ft. and 1000ft. radius of blast over Hamburg (3rd picture) and it doesn´t even cover the old, 14th century area ofthe city (yellow line), not to speak of ww2 area. All of Hamburg is build from structures comparable to those of Hieroshima, which remained standing. A nuke would just reassemble the debris caused by the various conventional bombing raids that city was subject to. It would -in my opinion- not have the power to wipe out large cities as long as the building structure was NOT WOODEN. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not very large cities.
Please note also the image taken from Hieroshima at ground zero: The area destruction effect caused by blast and heat effects is remarkable and frightening but The concrete buildings do not show much damage, as a matter of fact, they remain standing (1st picture).

I overlaid historic photographs of Nagasaki before after the bomb with the current google earth picture (see below, 2nd picure). Note that the destructive force reduces greatly at a distance to point zero: At 1000ft. distance, bridges remained standing, at 1500 ft. distance, large factory buildings (no. 17) were heavy damaged but not destroyed.
It would require a nuke with a figure of merit of 60 to 80 compared to that dropped over Nagasaki to wipe out Hamburg.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2008)

Soren,

But if the (type II) horizontal stabilizer was blanked, wouldn't that still have a dramatic change of trim?

Similarly wasn't it found that using elevons for control in such conditions was problematic arrangement in its own right. (as with the X-4 and DH.108 Swallow, though it didn't seem too much of a problem on the Delta configuration)


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Soren,
> 
> But if the (type II) horizontal stabilizer was blanked, wouldn't that still have a dramatic change of trim?



The lower wing placement would ensure that wouldn't happen as the critical AoA of the wing would be reached first. But if it did get blanked by the wings then it wouldn't matter anaway as it would only zero the trim, the elevons controlling the pitch of the a/c. The problem with the Pulqui was that the wing would block airflow to the elevator controls that were situated on the horizontal stabilizer, resulting in the dangerous deep stall.



> Similarly wasn't it found that using elevons for control in such conditions was problematic arrangement in its own right. (as with the X-4 and DH.108 Swallow, though it didn't seem too much of a problem on the Delta configuration)



No it isn't a problem, it's just more complicated build. Remember the Me-163 used the same system and it was an excellent flying platform (Too bad the engine was a bomb waiting to explode).


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2008)

Yes, but I think the real problems came in when these aircraft got close to or exceeded Mach 1 (in dives), somthing the Me 163 didn't do. (additionally the Swallow had structural problems)

I could be wrong, as I'm not totally sure what specific problems were found with the configuration. (in the case of the X-4 it was deemed impractical, but I haven't seen a full explaination)


----------



## davparlr (Oct 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> However looking at the Ta-183 there doesn't seem to be any dihedral or anhedral at all.



Like I said, I didn't understand what this had to do with stall characteristics, anyway.





> I disagree, the German understanding of the transsonic region was pretty good by 45 and completely unrivalled.



That magic wand. It was not much more than a paper plane.



> Furthermore the Ta-183 project would benefit a lot from German high speed research studies made in 1945, not to mention the planned test flying of the P.1101 prototype.



This would have been invaluable and could have been the first swept wing fighter, but it would have taken awhile to integrate to get the data and integrate it into the 183. I still don't believe it would have been viable until late '46. Just too much of a technology leap. Did that engine ever work well? It seemed like a kludge.



> The lower wing placement would ensure that wouldn't happen as the critical AoA of the wing would be reached first. But if it did get blanked by the wings then it wouldn't matter anaway as it would only zero the trim, the elevons controlling the pitch of the a/c.



If that tail mounted surface provided some stabilization, which it probably did, instability problems would probably occur.



> No it isn't a problem, it's just more complicated build. Remember the Me-163 used the same system and it was an excellent flying platform (Too bad the engine was a bomb waiting to explode).



I am not sure the Me-163 had to do very much low speed, high alpha maneuvering like the 183 would have to do. The Ta-183 seemed pretty close coupled in pitch, but then, so did the Northrop XP-56.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 5, 2008)

delcyros said:


> I overlaid the 2000ft. and 1000ft. radius of blast over Hamburg (3rd picture) and it doesn´t even cover the old, 14th century area ofthe city (yellow line), not to speak of ww2 area. All of Hamburg is build from structures comparable to those of Hieroshima, which remained standing. A nuke would just reassemble the debris caused by the various conventional bombing raids that city was subject to. It would -in my opinion- not have the power to wipe out large cities as long as the building structure was NOT WOODEN. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not very large cities.
> Please note also the image taken from Hieroshima at ground zero: The area destruction effect caused by blast and heat effects is remarkable and frightening but The concrete buildings do not show much damage, as a matter of fact, they remain standing (1st picture).
> 
> I overlaid historic photographs of Nagasaki before after the bomb with the current google earth picture (see below, 2nd picure). Note that the destructive force reduces greatly at a distance to point zero: At 1000ft. distance, bridges remained standing, at 1500 ft. distance, large factory buildings (no. 17) were heavy damaged but not destroyed.
> It would require a nuke with a figure of merit of 60 to 80 compared to that dropped over Nagasaki to wipe out Hamburg.



I assure you that an atomic bomb blast in the middle of any German city would have stunned and paralyzed the Germans. It would have been felt and seen and heard for miles around. Those building you see standing were reinforced, earthquake-proof structures. I doubt any of the German buildings had that type of reinforcements. Most were probably brick/stone, which, people from my neck of the woods, So. California, know are very poor at shearing forces such as earthquake and horrific wind.


----------



## Soren (Oct 6, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Like I said, I didn't understand what this had to do with stall characteristics, anyway.



Did I mention it ? I just responded to what Delcyros said.



> That magic wand. It was not much more than a paper plane.



Nope, no magic wand. The Germans were way ahead in transsonic research and high speed aerodynamics, and by 45 they had a very good understanding of the transsonic region and even the supersonic one.



> This would have been invaluable and could have been the first swept wing fighter, but it would have taken awhile to integrate to get the data and integrate it into the 183. I still don't believe it would have been viable until late '46. Just too much of a technology leap. Did that engine ever work well? It seemed like a kludge.



If the war had went on a year then there's no reason to believe that Ta-183 wouldn't have made it. Remember how long it took from idea to realization with the He-162.



> If that tail mounted surface provided some stabilization, which it probably did, instability problems would probably occur.



Well seeing that the Ta-183 used elevons I really don't see any real problems occuring. The Me-163 didn't even have any horizontal stabilizer.



> I am not sure the Me-163 had to do very much low speed, high alpha maneuvering like the 183 would have to do. The Ta-183 seemed pretty close coupled in pitch, but then, so did the Northrop XP-56.



Davparlr the Me-163 glided back home to land so you can be pretty sure that a lot of slow speed maneuvering was done with that a/c, and according to it's pilots it maneuvered excellently. 

The Me-163 featured integrated wing slots btw.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 6, 2008)

The slots would have increased drag considerably though, wouldn't they? (iirc indicuded drag resulting from slots wasn't a problem, but the parasite drag at gh speed would be)


----------



## delcyros (Oct 6, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I assure you that an atomic bomb blast in the middle of any German city would have stunned and paralyzed the Germans. It would have been felt and seen and heard for miles around. Those building you see standing were reinforced, earthquake-proof structures. I doubt any of the German buildings had that type of reinforcements. Most were probably brick/stone, which, people from my neck of the woods, So. California, know are very poor at shearing forces such as earthquake and horrific wind.



I respect you differing opinion but remain unchangd in my disagreeing.
The bombings of London didn´t paralized the british, the unparalleled bombings of Coventry just heartened resistence. The fire-bombings of Hamburg didn´t paralized the citizen and a nuke wouldn´t have don either.
We in Germany call surviving houses of pre-ww2 period in the cities "Altbau", because they do differ greatly from more recently build houses in construction and wall thickness. They are stone-brick constructions but very strong and uncomparable to US light brick constructions. Heck when I measure the wall at the window, right next to my desk, I come out with 19.6" deepness! This wall is not certified as earthquake proof but sure, it´s tough. Not shear forces are applied at nuke bombs but blast (pressure) effects, radiation, em-impulses and heat. 
Stone-brick cancel two of the four out (EM is rather unimportant here, too) and offers more resistence to blast than any wooden frame building.
At Hieroshima, a number of wooden frame building remained standing at 3.1 to 3.5 psi overpressure.
The rather stronger ~20 Kt Nagasaki-bomb mentioned above developed 10psi at 3.700 ft., 5 psi at 5.800 ft., dropping to 3.0 psi at 8.500 ft. distance to point zero. 
Any damage to buildings below 3 psi is unlikely, it would translate to only 150 Km/h windfactors (not uncommon at very heavy storms). I personally expect a pressure of at least 8 psi to show significant results on typical urban constructions as those employed in Hamburg.
You can try Yourselfe:
Federation of American Scientists :: Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator


----------



## davparlr (Oct 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> Did I mention it ? I just responded to what Delcyros said.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did.




> Nope, no magic wand. The Germans were way ahead in transsonic research and high speed aerodynamics, and by 45 they had a very good understanding of the transsonic region and even the supersonic one.



Understanding does not necessarily lead to success. History if full of failures in the presence of theoretical understanding.



> If the war had went on a year then there's no reason to believe that Ta-183 wouldn't have made it. Remember how long it took from idea to realization with the He-162.



I don't buy it. Even Tank and his team had difficulties with the design. The He-182 was basically a conventional design with only the jet engine being being particularly unique.



> Well seeing that the Ta-183 used elevons I really don't see any real problems occuring. The Me-163 didn't even have any horizontal stabilizer.



It seems to be quite a sophisticated and complex design just for trim. I suspect it also provided some stablization.



> Davparlr the Me-163 glided back home to land so you can be pretty sure that a lot of slow speed maneuvering was done with that a/c, and according to it's pilots it maneuvered excellently.
> 
> The Me-163 featured integrated wing slots btw.



I think it landed like the space shuttle. With no power you don't want to be using much speed killing maneuvers. I would suspect almost all maneuvering was at rather high speed.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 6, 2008)

delcyros said:


> I respect you differing opinion but remain unchangd in my disagreeing.



While I agree that the damage impact would not be great, certainly compared to previous airbourne attacks (I do think you are underestimating the damage, though), I think you are not addressing the psychological impacts. This would have been an event never seen before in Germany. Briliant light, incredible noise, huge cloud, tens of thousands dead, all instantaneous, all visible and heard for miles around. You have to remember, Japan had also seen horrendous bombings including firebombing of its cities and still resisted. They did not resist when they saw what damage one bomb could do. I do not think the Germans would have reacted in a less intelligent manner.


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 6, 2008)

I believe it still comes down to a war of attrition, and it is one that Germany can not win facing all the nations that were opposing Germany. It would still lose the battle in the Atlantic, and once it did, allied supplies could come over to Europe almost unopposed.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 6, 2008)

If Germany is going to survive, It will need to defeat the allied invasion of France in 1944. And the LW will need to maintain air superiority throughtout 1944, well into the fall of 1944.

They couldnt, thus the clock is ticking for Germany the moment the allies land.

No matter what the scientists in Germany cook up, none of it would be available untill well into the end of 1945, when it would be irrelevant.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 6, 2008)

> _If the war had went on a year then there's no reason to believe that Ta-183 wouldn't have made it. Remember how long it took from idea to realization with the He-162._



It is a common misbelief that the ralization of the He-162 was that short. As a matter of fact, Heinkel did extensive preliminary works on a plane called He-500 since late 1943. These works included many windtunnel studies and detail constructions and must be regarded as the root of the He-162. When the Volksjäger specifications were issued by the RLM on sept., 10th, 1944, Heinkel used the 10 days construction time to modify the He-500 according to the RLM requirements. The RLM didn´t choosed the most promising or the simpliest but the most developed proposal. 



> Well seeing that the Ta-183 used elevons I really don't see any real problems occuring. The Me-163 didn't even have any horizontal stabilizer.


Your opinion differs from that of the EHK in a discussion of the single engined jet fighters dating to feb. 22, 1944. The elevons of the Ta-183 in combination of high sweep ar were considered likely to give trouble at high mach fractions (including the possibility of "Umkehrwirkung").


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (May 13, 2011)

In the event that Germany would have been winning in 1943, it would have been the USSR and not the US or the UK that the Luftwaffe would be facing. The Russians were a type of people who would never give up. Had Germany successful defeat the USSR in 1941 or 1942, it would have been very difficult for Germany to have control over Russia; riots or even a revolution may have occurred. Going back to 1943, if Germany won the Battle of Kursk, the Russians would have been set back, but not defeated. The reason for why it was such a huge turning point in WWII is because unlike Russia, Germany always had a lack of resources, equipment, etc...; the Germans could never recover from such a defeat. 

As for the fighting against the US and GB, it was possible for the Luftwaffe to stop Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign. The strategic bombing campaign for the allies was a very difficult task to do. Aircraft needed to be organized and mobilized properly, bombers were costly and proper equipment and pilot training was essential. High casualties were all that was needed for the allied strategic bombing campaign to stop. Why didn't the Luftwaffe achieve this? Because they always had a shortage of pilots, aircraft, and equipment; the majority of all those things being used on the Eastern Front. It wasn't until early 1944 that the Luftwaffe began to mass produce their fighters, but by then, they didn't have enough pilots or fuel to use them.

If the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign were to stop, the only place that Germany would need to fight the US or GB would be in the Mediterranean. I think from the beginning Germany and Italy had no chance of winning in N. Africa. Italy was not prepared what so ever and Germany always had a lack of equipment and resources. This was once again due to the Eastern Front. The only way for the Axis to have won was if Malta was invaded. This would have made it possible for enough equipment and resources to go to Tobruk which would have made the Axis forces win at the Battle of El Alemain. 
By 1943, there was no way in which Germany would have been able to hold Tunisia; the only reason why it took so long for Italy to fall was that Germany from a geographical standpoint was at an advantage (the Gustav line). If Germany had more forces there i.e. not lose the Battle of Kursk, then I think it may have been possible for the Gustav line to never fall; a counter-attack may also have been possible.

Going back to the original question of could the Luftwaffe survive after 1943 if it faced only the US/UK airforces, my answer is yes. If the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign was stopped (which was possible) then the only place in which the Luftwaffe would need to deal with US or GB air forces is in Italy. In Italy the Allies already achieved air supremacy yet achieving that had almost no effect on the fighting on the ground. Because of this, I would argue that it would Russian air power, which is almost limitless, that would have been the main threat.


----------



## drgondog (May 14, 2011)

wwii:)aircraft said:


> In the event that Germany would have been winning in 1943, it would have been the USSR and not the US or the UK that the Luftwaffe would be facing.
> 
> *In 1943 there was zero chance for Germany to defeat USSR. The Sovs had tipped the balance with respect to reserves, manufacturing and strategic resources. So the only chance for Germany to diengage would have been for either Hitler or Stalin (or both) to be dead and their successors negotiate an armed peace.
> 
> ...


 
*Russian airpower was a.) less limitless than US, much less US and Commonwealth combined, and b.) less capable in context of mid range and long range bombing - both from strength and quality.*

The end game for the Allies with Russia out of the war was strategic bombing to reduce Chemical/Oil industries and Power generation and distribution until Aug 1945. The Germans would have developed jet aircraft first as they did, the Allies would have countered with higher quantity and equal quality aircraft. Losses would have much higher in the air, much lower on the ground (if invasion was impossible due to increases on infantry armor from east to west... but there would be no increase in petroleum reserves, continued pressure on chemical/oil and power generation - and with chemical industry issues - so goes fertilizer and food supplies.

IMO the length of the war increases, nuclear war is inevitable (one sided), possible chemical (Sarin from Germans) so civilian casualties also go way up... and Germany becomes near extinct in the end if the WMD are deployed.

But recognize if Sarin deployed Germany was at FAR greater risk based on US ability to get through even if Britain was compromised.


----------



## Readie (May 14, 2011)

There are a lot of 'what ifs' that make an interesting discussion. If Britain had lost the BoB and been invaded would Germany's 3rd Reich remained unchallenged by the USA? 
Back to the thread, we needed the Soviets to press Germany on the Eastern front to give us breathing space. Valuable resources were sent via the conveys to support the Soviets. Germany could not fight a war on three fronts and like Napoleon made the error of underestimating the Russian will.
Germany had a window to defeat the British Empire and her allies before the USA arrived on the scene.
There is a parallel with WW1 and the arrival of the seemingly limitless resources of the Americans tipped the balance.
Have we finished paying for the lend lease yet?
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (May 16, 2011)

After the repluse of the assult in '41, ther was never the slightest chance of a German victory, or Russia staying out of the war permanently. Even if a temporary truce had been brokered in the early months of 1942, the Soviets were only looking at a breathing space of 6-12 months. They wouldhave returned in late 1942, better trained and organized clobbered the germans as they did and gotten back on track to crushing the germans on the eastern front as historical. There should be no doubt about that


----------



## fastmongrel (May 16, 2011)

Readie said:


> Have we finished paying for the lend lease yet?
> Cheers
> John



Yes the final repayment was made on 29th December 2006. 2 days before it was due


----------



## Readie (May 16, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Yes the final repayment was made on 29th December 2006. 2 days before it was due


 
Ah, the price of freedom, as in Churchill's words 'whatever the cost may be'.
Only taken 61 years. I wonder why we never charged our liberated european friends for the same privilege?

Cheers
John


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2011)

Drgndg covered alot of points for me but this......



> By 1943, there was no way in which Germany would have been able to hold Tunisia; the only reason why it took so long for Italy to fall was that Germany from a geographical standpoint was at an advantage (the Gustav line). If Germany had more forces there i.e. not lose the Battle of Kursk, then I think it may have been possible for the Gustav line to never fall; a counter-attack may also have been possible.



Last German forces surrendered in NA in May '43
Battle of Kursk was July '43

Not sure the point your making. And as for mass produced fighters, Germany started the war with the most modernized and largest AF in the world. Ground resources were about even but Germany had the advantage in AFs.


----------



## razor1uk (May 17, 2011)

Who here knows of the M.A.N companies shaft turbine projects, or that very advanced compressor assemblies were developed and model tested upto around 5 to 1, and higher comp ratio hought possible, with more efficient fuel-rpm-airflow characeristics. 
IIRC, BMW was the most resistant to ouside it own technical expertise, Heinkel the most guarded, but with most promise once the design development had progressed to production development, Junkers was quite important specificaly earlier in the desgin of combustion chambers/cans, Daimler Benz had some very complex designs, some alternative jet pressure theory designed motors.


----------

