Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

Ratsel said:

Imo the only way the west would have won without the Russians would have been played out the same way as the war in the pacific... with a nuclear waepon. OR perhaps more resources to fight the war in Europe would have taken from the Pacific. The US was a manufacturing megamachine back then.. but there are limits.

Click to expand...

No Pacific here. People who say the Soviets could have won alone generally desconsiderate the Pacific. I'm doing the same here to see if can find if would be really so unlikely or impossible.

the atom bomb did not win the war. it hastened the end of what was already happening. japan was losing ground and had been for years...now the war was ready to begin on the japanese island. the lose of life to both sides would have been horrific. the A bombs were used to hopefully bring the end sooner....even after dropping them and the japanese high command was split as to surrender or keep fighting. ground troops won the pacific..taking of territory.

i agree it would probably have played out much the same way as in the pacific...with possibly a large carrier force in the atlantic....and who knows what.

and you are 100% correct...the american industrial might has limits....but so did germany's which was already commented upon had been waging war for 6 years....at a high cost....depleteing materials and $$$$. how much longer could they sustain that. and although hitler enjoyed a great degree of approval...how long can you wage war and keep public opinion with you before they say "enough is enough"!

Just combat aircraft the Americans produced almost 8500 in 1941. While the Germans produced 11,000 planes of all types. The americans produced 18,000 of all types in '41. And most combat types were send to fight Japan. Among several relevant things about the American aircraft industry, the B-29 program would be accelerated and to be used in Europe.

I don't see the Germans in a so good situation without their conquests in Russia. Specially after entered in full war economy. Their massive slave force brought from there would not exist. And the gap of the American and British industry would be hard to seal even after they entered in war economy. They already massively outnumbered them historically.

Another pecualiarity from this scenario is that the main German industrial centers were much more closer from Western Europe than from what the Russians faced due to the German advance in Russia. The main treat from the Western Front was this. There's a famous mention (rarely not insane) of Hitler talking about this. And while Allied casualities would be surely higher, the Germans would also suffer higher casualities. And they would felt much more than the Allies. Any comparison with the Russian casualities, I don't think it is correct. They suffered 50% of their casualities during the Barbarossa, when suffered a surprise attacked and were umprepared for the war. They also lacked proper air power until 1943. The Western Allies would be much better prepared. Also, the Germans would not be capable of put so much troops in the channel with control of the air from the Allies in a so small area. The Allies destroyed much of the railway network form France before the D-Day and the same would have happened in this scenario if they went for the victory.

Of course, I'm not saying this would likely happen or not. In the end I think it would be an evenly matched fight. Similar to the decisive Eastern Front historically.

The April 1940 Anglo-French invasion of Norway was defeated by Germany. What makes you think a later Britain invasion would fare better?

bobbysocks said:

the atom bomb did not win the war. it hastened the end of what was already happening. japan was losing ground and had been for years...now the war was ready to begin on the japanese island. the lose of life to both sides would have been horrific. the A bombs were used to hopefully bring the end sooner....even after dropping them and the japanese high command was split as to surrender or keep fighting. ground troops won the pacific..taking of territory.

i agree it would probably have played out much the same way as in the pacific...with possibly a large carrier force in the atlantic....and who knows what.

and you are 100% correct...the american industrial might has limits....but so did germany's which was already commented upon had been waging war for 6 years....at a high cost....depleteing materials and $$$$. how much longer could they sustain that. and although hitler enjoyed a great degree of approval...how long can you wage war and keep public opinion with you before they say "enough is enough"!

Click to expand...

All excellent points, but without the russians in this scenario for the Germans to worry about, 100% of German resources would have been against the west. Who knows if that would have been enough for the US to limit its envolvment in Europe. I mean the US people would yell the same ' enough is enough ' too. Especially with a Pacific War also.

Ratsel said:

I mean the US people would yell the same ' enough is enough ' too.

Click to expand...

The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets. My Brazil for example, would probably send it's planned 300,000 men to fight the Nazis. We send only 25,000 historically, and did very well. Most people don't know about our participation, which also included a P-47 fighter group. =D

Especially with a Pacific War also.

Click to expand...

NO Pacific war, I already said! =_=

Jenisch said:

The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets.

Click to expand...

Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually.

Ratsel said:

Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually.

Click to expand...

FDR was very inclined to enter in the war. About the American people, well, most were already in agreed with the attacks on the U-boats. And after they entered in the war, I doubt the population would retain a feeling of get out of it. Specially after the first sacrificies. They would want to liberate Europe and finnish Hitler. The Americans accepted a similar number of casualities of WWII in Vietnam, were the public was even less interested. I belive everything would depend on the situation. Still, I'm not quiet sure about this. After Pearl Harbor the American moral and enthusiasm against Hitler started to climb like a rocket. Which make appears they were already inclined to it.

I don't believe that either side could defeat the other through air power alone. The technology and techniques available to the combatants up until the development of atomic weapons meant that neither was able to inflict a mortal wound on the other through the use of conventional bombing, or even by guided/ballistic missile technology.

If take we take the Soviet Union out of the equation (assuming either a German victory or a negotiated settlement) in a mid/late 1942 situation, its clear that neither side is capable of bombing the other into ruin and forcing capitulation.

Its been shown historically that bombing alone by the Western allies – the UK at night and the US by day – was insufficient to cause a terminal collapse of Germany's war effort. Given the targeting priorities of the Allies in the 1941-1944 period, the best they could do was wound Germany, without ever bringing it to its knees.

While German bombing efforts against the UK were almost ceased by early 1942, I'd argue that any efforts by Germany against the British Isle would be less successful than those of 1940.

The UK has acquired a powerfully new ally in the form of the United States, which is now beginning to deploy fighter and bomber forces into bases in the UK. Compared to 1940, British day and night fighter defences and AAA assets are immensely stronger.

At the beginning of 1942, Fighter Command had expanded to 75 single-engine fighter squadrons and 23 night fighter squadrons, up from 56-58 squadrons from the BoB period. During 1941, 4,200 new pilots joined Fighter Command, and UK training was providing upwards of 400 new pilots per month, with more joining from the Commonwealth.

AAA strength was more than three times what it had been during 1940. Five new AAA divisions had been added during 1940 and 1700 3.7" guns and 2700 40 mm Bofors were produced in 1941 alone. Roughly double those numbers again for 1942 production.

The Chain Home and Chain Home Low systems have been revised, expanded and improved, and the British managed to work most of the remaining kinks out.

A return to day bombing is probably prohibitively costly for Germany, given the expansion of Fighter Command's single-engine fighter squadrons. Night bombing will be vastly more expensive than in 1940/1941. Fighter Command is deploying new Beaufighters with AI radar and the Mosquito night fighters make their first appearance in January 1942.

Bear in mind 1941 German and British bombing campaigns were completely different. Britain was attempting to destroy civilian property by area bombardment. Germany was attempting to strangle Britain economically by closing major seaports such as London and Liverpool. Neither side had effective night air defenses during 1941 so loss rates per sortie will be low.

Jenisch said:

FDR was very inclined to enter in the war. About the American people, well, most were already in agreed with the attacks on the U-boats. And after they entered in the war, I doubt the population would retain a feeling of get out of it. Specially after the first sacrificies. They would want to liberate Europe and finnish Hitler. The Americans accepted a similar number of casualities of WWII in Vietnam, were the public was even less interested. I belive everything would depend on the situation. Still, I'm not quiet sure about this. After Pearl Harbor the American moral and enthusiasm against Hitler started to climb like a rocket. Which make appears they were already inclined to it.

Click to expand...

You are seriously misinformed, The USA suffered over 400,000 deaths in WW2, but 58,000 in Vietnam. You would have to go back to America's Civil war to find a era with as much turmoil as the decade we fought in Vietnam.

Jabberwocky, I put the tittle of the topic incorrectly. The air power would be used to try pave the way for an invasion.

Something more to add:

In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi*ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc.

I found hard to desconsiderate this used against the Germans by the US and UK. Together with the 18,000 planes they send. While everything was not develivered simultaneously, anyway it was much more than the Germans would be able to produce and employ.

British aircraft for Russia in '41:

A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

British tanks for Russia in '41:

the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.

The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised

Canadian tanks for Russia:

A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British.

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

This subject is very complex. For every advantage one side has, the other has disadvantages. But I don't think the Germans have a favourable weight. I'm starting to think what I already hear from some people that Nazi Germany is overestimated though hardly a paper tiger.

tyrodtom said:

You are seriously misinformed, The USA suffered over 400,000 deaths in WW2, but 58,000 in Vietnam. You would have to go back to America's Civil war to find a era with as much turmoil as the decade we fought in Vietnam.

Click to expand...

Really. But I was talking about total casualities, those were really 400,000 in Vietnam.

Over 75% of Germany's military deaths were from fighting the Russians, not the 50% you stated. Causalties rates are even more lopsided. So these men not injured and killed fighting the Russian would certainly make a invasion of Europe a great deal more difficult, if not impossible.

Even with all the material the Allies sent to Russia, they didn't lack for supplies. What there was a shortage of was people, it took a lot of people to manufactor all those supplies.

I don't know if Americans would have been willing to sacrifice the way they did in WW2, if they were not directly attacked the way they were at Pearl Harbor.

Jenisch said:

Really. But I was talking about total casualities, those were really 400,000 in Vietnam.

Click to expand...

total in Europe was what? 50 million in WWII?

Ratsel said:

total in Europe was what? 50 million in WWII?

Click to expand...

I was talking about the total Americans casualities in WWII, which were about 400,000. In Vietnam the numbers are similar but the KIA-MIA were much higher than in WWII.

Well, I have to admitt that I was a little impulsive with this topic. And while I'm not convinced of anything yet, still need to study a lot about this subject to form an opinion. I like to view the historical possibilities which were frequentely desconsiderated. If someday I find strong factors showing a possibility of the Anglo-Americans and their air power to pave the way for defeat Nazi Germany only by themselfs, it will be pleasure to share this together with the proper consistent references with such a nice aviation community.

Now, I will abort my bombing mission and see if it can be flown in the future. Thanks for your attention guys!

Ratsel said:

England

Click to expand...

How is that?

What with Do 17s, Ju 88s and He 111s, being escorted by 109s with not enough range?

The allies had the heavy bombers and the numbers.

Jenisch said:

I was talking about the total Americans casualities in WWII, which were about 400,000. In Vietnam the numbers are similar but the KIA-MIA were much higher than in WWII.

Click to expand...

Nope, you are still off.

US Killed/Missing
WW2 - 416,837
Vietnam - 59,907

US Wounded
WW2 - 683,846
Vietnam - 303,635

Total US Casualties
WW2 - 1,100,683
Vietnam - 363,542

A bit of a difference.

And back to the original question.

No.

Why? Simple, you have to have boots on the ground to win a war. Without the Eastern Front, the Germans could concentrate their air forces over fortress Europe.

Answer to original question.....No.
Cheers
Steve