Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

With no war at the east, the extra skilled workmen from 1940 forward, the LW and KM ( U-Boats) would be one hell of an enemy at 1941-to 1943!
To my personal estimation not a single aircraft carrier of the first hour (Wasp, Lexington, Yorktown etc.) would have any chance near european homeland at that timeline!
 
Procrastintor said:
Again, never said it was single sided, but Germany is much smaller industrywise, manpowerwise, not to mention the US had the UK, Canada, and LE FRENCH RESISTAAANCE on their side even without counting Russia.
Click to expand...
Think of Germany as one big carrier. Could you imagine the air power it could bring to our carriers? The Luftwaffe would have sunk Britain if it wasn't an island.
 
Do we really need Hellcats, Corsairs, etc if there are no carriers? Why not just concentrate on what is working - mass production of P-51s, B-17s, and the like. Which leads me to the next answer......

I realy ask you what Wildcats, Warhawks, Liberators can do against Bf 109 F-4, Fw 190A3 (both with drop tanks) and ME 110F?
Click to expand...

Easy. Overwhelm them with numbers. What is that superior Fw 190, Bf 109 or anything going to do against a - insert noun here (mass, throng, horde...) - of Allied fighters?
 
Do we really need Hellcats, Corsairs, etc if there are no carriers? Why not just concentrate on what is working - mass production of P-51s, B-17s, and the like. Which leads me to the next answer......
Click to expand...


No, you dont need them. but as shown in the pacific, Carriers gave airpower strategic mobility....the ability to concentrate, and hit targets at will. it forced the enemy to decentralize forces and then that made them vulnerable to defeat in detail. During the war in Europe, the British showed it quite feasible to operate carriers with relative impunity even in waters supposedly dominated by the enemy.

U-Boats were the most effective counter to Fast Carriers, though they were more of an attirional weapon, hoping for the best opportunityto get lucky and sink a carrier. as the war progressed on the allied side it became increasingloy harder for the Axis to get at their carriers with subs

Easy. Overwhelm them with numbers. What is that superior Fw 190, Bf 109 or anything going to do against a - insert noun here (mass, throng, horde...) - of Allied fighters?
Click to expand...

Superior quality fighters will give you a better than even loss ratio in actual battle statistics. however, it makes little difference to the overall losses to all causes, if both sides are aiming for air supeiority. To challenge for air superiority, you need to be able to undertake offensive missions at will. The Germans never seriously attempted that in the west after June 1941. This greatly reduced their losses as their defending fighters could sit back and choose which strikes they were going to react to. Wherever they could manage it, they only ever fough the battles they wanted to. But being on the defensive automatically gives the initiative to the attacker, and the attacker can always halt operations until he recovers. This is basically what happened 1941-2. the British kept coming a the Germans, and lost far more heavily. Ultimately they gained control of the skies in the west, and from there, the allies won the war.

It wasnt all about the numbers, although they were part of it. it was also about the strategy each side pursued. The allies were more consistent, and purposeful and that eventually won them the battle.
 
Procrastintor said:
Stolen ones! Also, I believe I read somewhere the Allies sneaked them a few warhawks. Also, their raids destroyed air fields and aircraft regularly, so that helped quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Stolen aircraft? Warhawks?

Sources?

As for their raids, you said only airpower could be used. Gorilla fighters raiding airfields are not airpower...;)
 
I thought the origional poster meant alone, as in no help from the Soviets, meaning using mostly only airpower to weaken Germany so Europe could be invaded and freed.
That wouldn't mean naval aerial assets couldn't be used. Or a few battleships bombarding when it could be used.
Or the resistance.
Going to war without , and not using whatever weapons you can use would not be very smart.
 
Ok, so it sounds like the original poster needs to lay down some more specific ground rules. What all is allowed in this scenario?
 
tyrodtom said:
I thought the origional poster meant alone, as in no help from the Soviets, meaning using mostly only airpower to weaken Germany so Europe could be invaded and freed.
That wouldn't mean naval aerial assets couldn't be used. Or a few battleships bombarding when it could be used.
Or the resistance.
Going to war without , and not using whatever weapons you can use would not be very smart.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am only saying things because our young friend procrastinator said carriers were oke, but not U-Boots. That only airpower is allowed, but it only seems that applies to the Germans.

I just like playing devils advocate...;)
 
parsifal said:
Superior quality fighters will give you a better than even loss ratio in actual battle statistics. however, it makes little difference to the overall losses to all causes, if both sides are aiming for air supeiority. To challenge for air superiority, you need to be able to undertake offensive missions at will. The Germans never seriously attempted that in the west after June 1941. This greatly reduced their losses as their defending fighters could sit back and choose which strikes they were going to react to. Wherever they could manage it, they only ever fough the battles they wanted to. But being on the defensive automatically gives the initiative to the attacker, and the attacker can always halt operations until he recovers. This is basically what happened 1941-2. the British kept coming a the Germans, and lost far more heavily. Ultimately they gained control of the skies in the west, and from there, the allies won the war.

It wasnt all about the numbers, although they were part of it. it was also about the strategy each side pursued. The allies were more consistent, and purposeful and that eventually won them the battle.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing what happened but what could happen. If US production was focused on the ETO TOTALLY then I believe numbers would make a difference regardless of strategy. The best single plane doesn't have a prayer against 100 mediocre planes let alone something as good as a P-51. IMHO. :)
 
Adler,
I was only letting Carriers slide because they were plane holders, never said German carriers were not allowed. But anyway, even if we allow full navies, the u-boats wouldn't be able to get past the Destroyers, Anti Sub Planes, US subs, missing the carrier (thus dooming them, and also not getting their target) etc. in a big carrier group. 1, If they surface, they die. 2, If they fire and miss, they die. 3, If they fire and hit, the carrier is likely to survive, and they still die. 4, If they stay around long enough to aim well, they'll get seen and, you guessed it, die. Basically, the carriers should be more afraid of German Carriers, not U boats.
 
NJaco, that's a good point, I was assuming that we'd just redirect PTO stuff, but didn't consider just replacing them all with the ETO equipment, maybe we would even see some new planes since Grumman and Vought wouldn't need to make their 'cats and Corsairs.
 
without russia in the war and no boots on the ground in africa or europe....the best us/uk/cw could manage imho is a ceasefire or treaty...stalemate. it would be nice to think you could like LeMay said..."bomb them back to the stoneage"...but you arent going to win that way. there was more ordnance dropped on viet nam than the us dropped in all of ww2. if airpower could win it should have there.
 
For the record, Vietnam mostly saw bombs dropped in the middle of jungles, and against an enemy that had no definite military bases, and no factories to speak of. Nazi Germany was very different, if they bombed their factories beyond repair then the Luftwaffe would be out of bullets, bombs, and eventually planes. However, that is not easy to do, and each probably would have required a few tons of bombs each, and perhaps a Tallboy or two. But it could be done. Even without fighting Russia, the US had more industry (which was, helpfully, not being bombed) and resources from allies and from it's own soil, if, for example, the Romanian oil fields were bombed, Germany would have a tough time keeping their very advanced birds in the air, as they need gas. Also the allies had the option to just starve them, if you cut off all access to places not called Germany than there will be problems. Basically, the allies had two things Germany didn't, options, and time. Germany couldn't attack the US or UK, because they'd have to reroute their diminishing resources to develop and build long-range bombers, which would most likely not make it from Germany to the UK because of Britain's radar and interceptors, they couldn't retreat because they were already home, and they had no back up to fall on, they had no allies except Italy and Japan, and Italy stopped fighting in 1943, and Japan was on the other side of the world.
 
Last edited:
rolling thunder was the bombing of hanoi, haiphong harbor, and SAM and other sites in NV. the bombing in the jungle was the ho-chi-minh trail, an attempt to cut the main supply and troop transport route from NV to SV... or where there were large troop formations as in the battle of khe sanh, ai drang, etc. as the allies you do not have the luxury of time. remember it took PH to get america in the war...to have an airwar only is going to take a LONG time. you then risk the chance the public will grow weary of the war and losing their support. without feet on the ground the reich will always only be as close as the other side of the channel....where they can rocket or bomb the uk as well. how long do you expect that to last?? germany almost doubled their ac output despite the bombing....they were adapting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Holtzauge
Could the Bf 109 E really out-turn the Spitfire Mk I?
10 11 12
Replies
227
Views
22K
Engineman
E
I
WW2 US 8th AF bombing Germany - Bomber Escorts joining the bomber group later
Replies
2
Views
267
PStickney
P
H
The proposed American armistice to Nazi Germany, 1942
Replies
16
Views
568
GrauGeist
GrauGeist
J
F4U-4 air to air losses to piston engine fighters
Replies
13
Views
2K
Frog
F
B
The Winning Strategy - WW2 air campaign against Germany
9 10 11
Replies
211
Views
35K
Dimlee
Dimlee
Back