Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
Oh the germans would have the pilots and the fuel, because they (according to the original situation posed) would never have expended vast amounts of them fighting the russians on the eastern front. I have a feeling that the germans wouldnt have 300 score aces though in this situation, but youd have a higher number of aces overall
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Italy was number 7 in aircraft produced in WW 2 do you think that it would do anything to change the balance I do not
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
I believe top luftwaffe officials were planning to have german factories and manufacturers produce the german worked italian designs(heinkel for the SAI.403, for example). germany had quite larger capability for mass production than italy. and theyd probably be disappointed by the poor quality of the aircraft they would have initially recieved from italy, and thus decided to make the planes themselves. but if this situation is going on, it is possible the germans would have sent workers and engineers to fix the manufacturing problems italy had
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
I am unclear - in the current premise - what the status of the German-Russian MT Pact of September, 1939. Can someone please clarify this. ????
MM
This is one of the key issues, along with what happens to japan. The status of the Rusians is one of the key issues.
With regad to Russia, there are a number of possibilities:
1) the Russians eventually join the Axis as an active partner. In that scenario, if nothing else, the vast natural resources of the USSR support the rest of the Axis economies, the vast manpower resources place the Axis in an unassailable military position. The allies will be forced to capitulate under that scenario.
2) The Rusians start out in cahoots with the Axis, but remain neutral, suggesting the Rusians continue to follw their own foreign policy agenda. Eventually the Axis inability to pay the Russians for their resources ( as you know Axis economies were technically insolvent for most of the war, and needed the constant injection of "conquest money" to stay afloat. Without continual conquest, and the graduall pillaging of the European economies generally, and no access to international markets, the Axis economies are headed south in this scenario.
With Russia pursuing its own agenda, and gradual drift away from economic support by the Russians, there has to be a gradual buildup of tension along the eastern front. Ties down a gradually weakening Germany to a large garrison on the eastern front.....a kind of Fascist "Cold War" if you like
3) The Russians do not sign the pact with the Germans and in fact retain a collective security stance in 1939. Maybe they go to war against the germans in 1939, maybe they dont, but either way, in this scenario the German demise is going to be rapid and complete. They have no economic access, and a hostile neighbour on their eaastern border. In this scenario, I doubt if the Germans would even be abale to take out France.
We have opted in this what if to simply say that the russians dont provide assistance but dont get involved in the battle.... akind of artificial option 2 variant. Hard to visualise or extrapolate that position. Russia cannot be ignored, and wont just sit around on its hands forever.....
If I may express a healthy dose of doubt that planes you declared as wanted for LW would've never seen such a service.
Bf-109 makes a far batter point-defender than SAI.403 (it can knock out heavy bombers, too - unlike the 403); another bi-plane in WW2 is another anachronism; for a BMW-engined fighter bomber Germans have Fw-190F; Re.2006 was a paper project. That leaves us with G.56, a plane that really flew (prototype) in spring of 1944, so the production examples will be flying in early 1945 - with nothing exceptional to offer?
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Thanks Parsifal. M-R Pact in September '39 - set a 'line" between Nazis Germany and Stalinist Russia. If that Pact had not been settled, Russia would have been in no hurry to wrap up Gulkin Gol with Japan that September. Since Japan was the aggressor there, the Reds might have started to push into Japanese territory. Meanwhile, Germany would have had to forego Poland -- or take it alone -- but either way Hitler has no one covering his back when in invades France-Belgium.
No M-R Pact and Stalin would have just worked on his game -- eventually attacking Nazis Germany, but sending resources right up to the last minute.
But, if Hitler is getting resources in 1942 and 1943 from the Soviets, then it's a tough slog for Allied airpower ....
MM
No M-R Pact and Stalin would have just worked on his game -- eventually attacking Nazis Germany, but sending resources right up to the last minute.
But, if Hitler is getting resources in 1942 and 1943 from the Soviets, then it's a tough slog for Allied airpower ....
MM
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
We also have the economic squeeze applied by the Allies while Russian prevarication means that Germany is denied her natural resources.
I think that the Russians are wily enough for your option 2 to be feasible in the context of this thread. I would not put it past the Russians to be in league with the allies at the same time. Sort of playing one off against the other.
I agree with you about the Axis insolvency. No country could afford WW2, the British were bankrupt along with the other Europeans. No change from today's EU /EZ shambles really. The late joiner in the 'bankrupt nation club' are our friends over the pond.
I know I draw parallels to the Nazi Reich and Roman Empire a lot but, the Nazi's tried to do everything too quickly and that was their undoing.
John
- Thread starter
- #369
I wouldn't desconsiderate a Japanese answer. The Japanese lost in Khalkhin Gol mainly due to underestimation of the enemy and lack of Intelligence data.
Last edited:
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Good point Jenisch. That Japanese lack of foresight is displayed at Pearl Harbour too...
John
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
Thats actually a very good point tomo. but in 1945 in this hypothetical scenario, what do you see the tides of the war as? but then again the scenario is for up to 1944, stating whether or not great britain and the usa had pummeled germany enough for an invasion, perhaps just like the d-day invasion. but without war on the eastern front, germany could put massive resources from the start into constructing a truly impenetrable Atlantic Wall. heavy guns used in the assault on the soviet union would be used to guard the approaches to the coast. i heard an interesting scenario though. if the soviet union had joined the axis, then it would be pretty much all over for the allies. there might still be a war going on in 1960 if the axis had controlled nearly all of europe, africa, and asia
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
You are right Sagittario,if Russia was more politically culturally aligned to the Axis it would have been game over for the allies.
I suppose the greatest irony is that Stalin was no better or worse than Hitler with his brutalities ethnic cleansing but, as he 'won'and was included in the Allies history judges the Russians as WW2 heroes.
So, back to the thread. Does Russia hold the balance in WW2? I think it may...
John
- Thread starter
- #373
Yes. But after the Soviets started an all out offensive, the Japanese logically would even pull out of China if necessary to counter it. They would focus their Intelligence capability to monitor the Soviets. Therefore, it's possible they would not do the same mistake again. The main problem I see here is the Japanese obcession with counter-offensive, similar to the Stalin's one in the opening of Barbarossa, which cost much to the Soviets.
Last edited:
Sagittario64
Airman 1st Class
If Russia was aligned to the axis, how would their fighters have turned out? they were still riding I-16s in late 1941, and they ramped up production of military equipment because they were being invaded. would we ever see fighters like the La-5 in this scenario, and in the massive quantities that they were really produced? but im not sure how soviet-japanese relations would go. the incident in 1939 kinda drifted them apart.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
We mustn't forget the warrior culture in Japan ( if that is the right expression) they fought at a different level to all other WW2 combatants. Maybe it was the utter refusal to 'surrender' or admit defeat that cost them so dearly (and the allies too I might add). Stalin was also obsessed with 'mother Russia' and the Russians fought at the next level down from the Japanese, without regard to the loss of individual life.
That is it in a nutshell...individual life is unimportant.
JOhn
- Thread starter
- #376
I don't think the Russians were like the Japanese in this regard. This appears to be a Cold War myth. While the Japanese actually did this kind of thing. They thought they were spiritually superior to their enemies, and this would overcome everything, including material difficults. I would say they were 50/50 in the spiritual and material questions to make their tactical decisions.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Without sidetracking from the original thread Jenisch, please have a look at this figures about Soviet WW2 deaths World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 13.9% of the total population killed. I know its wiki but, it illustrates my point.
John
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
ok first as far as russia goes. i think old joe would have been smiling so wide he could have eaten a banana sudeways ... watching everyone else in the world beat each other up while he makes money. he said in one of his speaches that they ( the ussr ) would watch everyone else expend their resources and drain their supplies...THEN they would go it with fresh ( but not battle tested << my opinion ) troops and act as peace keepers..aka take over. so i dont think they would have been in any hurry to jump into the fray ( although at some point they would have no option ) and would have picked who they would side with depending on the situation at the moment and which would have got them THEIR goals. i also dont know if they could have capitalized on their success against the japanese and expanded. i think the ussr had more manpower but the japs had a better military..i think it would have turned around with japan having the upper hand.
could allied air power cut the supply lines in africa? what bases are the allies flying out of? and can the allies keep those bases supplied. germany held much of north africa...so your operating sphere is limited. with out invading NA your aircraft are not even going to be a factor against the german supply lines. so you are speaking of allied submarines. without germany going into russia a NA landing would have been harder to mount.
could allied air power cut the supply lines in africa? what bases are the allies flying out of? and can the allies keep those bases supplied. germany held much of north africa...so your operating sphere is limited. with out invading NA your aircraft are not even going to be a factor against the german supply lines. so you are speaking of allied submarines. without germany going into russia a NA landing would have been harder to mount.
parsifal
Colonel
Hi John
Nazi Germany was an unviable state in the longer term, without access to resources, and access to quick forms of cash, in the form of conquest money. Without access to Russian resources, on one side of her frontiers, and contained by the allied blockade on the western front front, that leaves only the southern front. We have already done quite a bit of bloodletting on that issue....but I remain unmoved by the counter arguments about the possibilities in this area. Most people seem to think long term gains on the southern front are not possible. i take an even more pessimistic view, I dont think anything much beyond the historical gains for the germans was possible. The main limiting factor is logistics....the italians merchant marines and the ports they could use were simply too limited to achieve much.
So at the end of all this we have germany bottled up and constrained by both a cash flow and import restrictions. It all gets down to whether the Russians give access to their resources to the germans.
This equation generates an awful equation for the germans, WWII was a war of machines, and without access to money and resources, germany and her axis partners are on the losing horse in this department.They have vastly improved nmanpower availability, and far less attrition to their tanks, trucks and aircraft reserves, but this is balanced against a much enhanced allied military capability and increased manpower reserves as well. The whole thing looks very meat grinderish to me.
Regards
vinnye
Senior Airman
If the Russians were not forced into the war by the ir invasion, I bleieve that Stalin would have continued to stay out of the fighting and re-equip and develop Russia and its infra-structure.
This would have allowed the LW to keep up the air attacks on Britain. If the LW had continued grinding down the RAF bases and Radar installations - then the Germans may have had an opportunity to invade Britain brfore the US could intervene.
That would have enabled Germany to pretty much do as she pleased for a number of years. No disruption to many resources by RAF or RN.
Germany develops stealth aircraft (Horton designs) and maybe the A bomb?
Now what does the US do?
This would have allowed the LW to keep up the air attacks on Britain. If the LW had continued grinding down the RAF bases and Radar installations - then the Germans may have had an opportunity to invade Britain brfore the US could intervene.
That would have enabled Germany to pretty much do as she pleased for a number of years. No disruption to many resources by RAF or RN.
Germany develops stealth aircraft (Horton designs) and maybe the A bomb?
Now what does the US do?
