Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[evangilder]

To get back on track....

My feeing has always been that air power is just a singular component of a military force - you still need feet on the ground. If I can use a recent example, Desert Storm had total air power and destructive force but it still took the grunts to complete the operation.

So to the question: Could they defeat Germany? No, but air power could have created a situation where Germany would sue for peace. I guess it boils down to the definition of 'defeat' and what you would consider success.

Absolutely correct. If you look at Vietnam and Korea, air power was thought to be able to bring about the end of the war as well. It is one additional tool in the toolbox. Air power can certainly be a great tool to soften things up before the boots hit the ground. But taking and holding territory is what decides the outcome.

 

[Milosh]

Absolutely correct. If you look at Vietnam and Korea, air power was thought to be able to bring about the end of the war as well. It is one additional tool in the toolbox. Air power can certainly be a great tool to soften things up before the boots hit the ground. But taking and holding territory is what decides the outcome.

But air power in VN and Korea was severely restricted in what it was able to do by politicians.

 

[Readie]

But air power in VN and Korea was severely restricted in what it was able to do by politicians.

Yes, and in every conflict since.

 

[parsifal]

But substantially, airpower cannot take ground and hold it and generally cant root out a determined enemy enemy. In the context of WWII airpower was not sufficiently accurate or deadly enough to achieve outright victory independantly. Douhet and the other air theorists were just overoptimistic. But it could achieve the preconditions necessary for victory

 

[evangilder]

But air power in VN and Korea was severely restricted in what it was able to do by politicians.

And with boots on the ground as well. Unfortunately, ROE can, and has, effectively nullified strategic advantages. But taking and holding territory cannot be done without boots on the ground. The only possible exception would be laying waste to a territory so that it was no longer usable to the enemy, but that's not a good way to go.

 

[tyrodtom]

What about the Afgan-Russian conflict. The Russians definitely had air superority, but lost, or were just outlasted.

 

[Readie]

What about the Afgan-Russian conflict. The Russians definitely had air superority, but lost, or were just outlasted.

No one has beaten the Afghans in relatively modern history.
John

 

[evangilder]

What about the Afgan-Russian conflict. The Russians definitely had air superority, but lost, or were just outlasted.

Exactly. Air superiority was there and even with boots on the ground, they could not contain the Afghans. We are now in the same boat.

 

[fastmongrel]

Exactly. Air superiority was there and even with boots on the ground, they could not contain the Afghans. We are now in the same HOLE.

Fixed that for you

 

[Readie]

Fixed that for you

Yep.

Would Hitler have unconditionally surrender if the B29's had delivered A bombs on the strongholds of Nazi Germany?
It took the Japanese 2 to get the message.
How many would it have taken Hitler?
If this would have worked think how many allied lives would have been saved.

John

 

[DonL]

Would Hitler have unconditionally surrender if the B29's had delivered A bombs on the strongholds of Nazi Germany?
It took the Japanese 2 to get the message.
How many would it have taken Hitler?
If this would have worked think how many allied lives would have been saved.

This is very hard to speculate! But he wasn't very interested at the german people.
Many orders at 1945 showed that he wanted to destroy germany completely.
His argument was that the german people had failed against the enemy and were weak.
And weak people had not the right to live!

That was his credo!

Also it is possible that he (Hitler) would escalate the war with the A4 (V2) armed with Tabun warheads.
He has always denied the escalation with toxic gas, but after an A-bomb, I'm not sure what he was doing, because he knew no mercy even with the german people.

 

[cimmex]

The question is, when were the US able to have another A bomb? They didn't have enough uranium or plutonium after the strikes against
Japan.
cimmex

 

[tyrodtom]

The only way Hilter could have got the message was if a A-bomb was droppen ON him. Or is someone close enough to him took the initiative and put a bullet in his head, he would not surrender. Hilter, was several statements he made to those around him thought the German nation didn't deserve to survive if they failed him. He didn't care about Germany or it's people, it was all about him.

 

[tyrodtom]

Col. Tibbets and a crew were back in the US to pick up the third bomb when Japan surrendered. And more bombs were in production.

 

[Readie]

This is very hard to speculate! But he wasn't very interested at the german people.
Many orders at 1945 showed that he wanted to destroy germany completely.
His argument was that the german people had failed against the enemy and were weak.
And weak people had not the right to life!

That was his credo!

Also it is possible that he (Hitler) would escalate the war with A4 (V2) armed with Tabun warheads.
He has always denied the escalation with toxic gas, but after an A-bomb, I'm not sure what he was doing, because he knew no mercy even with the german people.

It is a complicated subject and Hitler was bonkers by 1945....
I'm sure the V2 would have used as intended. I have read that the WW1 horror of gas prevented even Hitler from using chemical weapons against his foes.
I'm aware that his 'care' of his people was nil to low and that's why I asked the question.
The Japanese had little regard for the 'weak' and 'defeated' but, the Japanese high command surrendered when faced with complete destruction.
Whether Hitler and co would have surrendered given the same circumstances we'll never know.

John

 

[Readie]

Col. Tibbets and a crew were back in the US to pick up the third bomb when Japan surrendered. And more bombs were in production.

Yes, so the nuclear strike capability was there.

John

 

[DonL]

I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.

Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?

Also I think the german chemical weapons in conjunction with the V2, that could deliver this chemical weapons till england, was one major point, that japan was the goal and not germany.

 

[Readie]

I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.

Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?

Also I think the german chemical weapons in conjunction with the V2, that could deliver this chemical weapons till england, was one major point, that japan was the goal and not germany.

I was thinking of a pre invasion A bomb strike. Berlin the bunkers could have been obliterated and maybe, just maybe, German common sense may have prevailed to save allied German lives by calling WW2 to an end.

John

 

[tyrodtom]

They didn'y know nearly as much about fallout from nukes in 1945 as we do today.

Both the V1 and V2 had a certain % of launch pad failures, one of the disadvantages of using slave labor in their manufacturing I guess. Using either as a system to disperse poison gas would probably result in some releases over Germany.

 

[DonL]

Both the V1 and V2 had a certain % of launch pad failures, one of the disadvantages of using slave labor in their manufacturing I guess. Using either as a system to disperse poison gas would probably result in some releases over Germany.

I don't deny this, I'm even sure that would happened. But the germans shot more then 3200 A4's and many of them to England.
And an A4 with a Tabun warhead is much more dangerous then a conventional A4, because you don't have to hit anything to be very dangerous.
And there was no possibility to shoot down the A4 other then the V1!

I'm convinced that this played a role to the very important persons that make the decisions.