Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Sagittario64]

not really so easily. even 1000 bomber raids didnt slow down aircraft production. in fact, they caused it to increase by forcing germany to adopt a subsidiary based manufacturing system, which was far more efficient than the "castle" based manufacturing system previously used by all the german vehicle and airplane companies
germany was still getting plenty of oil from the east and plenty of raw materials from northern italy and sweden among other places. if the allies only used air power, the germans could concentrate their land forces into the eastern front and the italian front, and these were some of the best divisions germany had. the luftwaffe could continue operating from airfields without threat of land or airborne troops attacking. and most importantly, germany was doing fine even under bombardment in mid-1944, better actually due to fine-tuning of industry and economy. germany only had several million troops put 2 million in italy and the rest in russia, and you can halt the russians while you integrate the newer tanks and planes into the armed forces. the sad thing is, allied fighter bombers couldnt attack supply lines with enough effect far far inland like south eastern germany and the other axis territories. since germany wouldnt be concentrating her forces in the west, there would be fewer targets of opportunity.

 

[Readie]

How does allowing 80% of the Wehrmacht to concentrate against Britain rather then Russia help Britain?

You could put 100% of Wehrmacht in Calais. They will do no good unless they get across the English Channel
John

 

[Jenisch]

To repeat: this scenario could have endless outcomes. I just started this topic because I don't agreed with the people who point out the USSR would have defeated Germany alone in WWII, and the Western Allies didn't done nothing decisive. The scenario I'm presenting here, would be similar as if Germany, Italy and perhaps Japan striked the Soviet Union with Stalin alone. Yes, the Soviets still **could** have won in the end, or sign peace, all would depend on the circunstances. But by the same stroke the Western Allies also could have defeated Germany, as we are discussing. People like too much of use terms like "decisive" in wars. The problem I see is that in a World War, it's hard to use this term. The Eastern Front is usually credited as "decisive", usually with only the crude number of the German casualities there being pointed. I think that every front, every nation, was decisive. You take one side out, it's hard or even impossible to find the ansewer of the equation. That's my point.

 

[Jenisch]

.

 

[Ratsel]

You could put 100% of Wehrmacht in Calais. They will do no good unless they get across the English Channel
John

Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I see this as a far more difficult proposition to analyse than people are giving credit. Im not sure an accurate prediction can be made. In the end it wont get down to airpower, it will get down to manpower and conomic management, plus really what Russia does in the finish. The alternatives are endless really.

I have to try and consider how this scenario might work. Firstly, with regard to Japan, they would have to accept a humiliating back down, pull out of China and allow free trade as per US demands. that equals a complete meltdown of the japanese regime, and major retention of big money spinners for the allies......Indonesioan Oil, Malaysian Rubber, just toname a couple. The allies are richer and with far more manpower (for the Brits at least). 35% of US production is immedialtey diverted to the Atlantic, along with the entire US fleet....end of the u-Boat campaign. Brit production does not lose about 27% of its manpower, and 17% of its industrial potential, and right at the critical moment does not lose momentum in the Middle East. it does not need to divert about 9% of its industrial potential to Russia either.

These are all good results from the allied pespective. The allies would probabaly have about 100 US divisions, and 65 CW/Brit Divs comabt ready by the 1st quarter of 1943. Air forces on the allied side are much stronger, Italy almost certainly knocked out of the war, or in bad shape at least.

But against that, the Germans have not lost 750000 men on the russian front by the end of 1942. They would redeuce their attritional losses in aircraft by a whopping 40% or so, so there are no shortages of aircraft in 1941-2. Oil is still the limiting factor....it gets down to what Stalin is considering and how the Germans would avoid war with them.

Stalin viewed his alliance with hitler as long lasting,and was quite prepred to go to war against britain as an axis partner. stalin was an opportunist, and his money was on the germans at the beginning. but his price for frienship was high, too high. In 1940, in various negotiations (that eventually re-confirned for both sides that they had to go to war) the soviets wanted complete control of Eastern Europe, except Poland, but including Rumania, Hungary Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Germany was having none of that, and suggested the russians strike south. The russians saw no future in that. Both sides went away unhappy. there is now pretty clear evidence that the russians wer planning to attack the germans in 1942 or 1943, but the germans of course beat them to it. From the deployments they were making (concentrating 2/3 of their armour in the south for example) it seems clear the Russians were getting ready to monster the Rumanians. Loss of rumanian oil is game over for the Germans, so it all gets back to what the russians would decide....go with the Axis, go for their own interests, or side with the Allies. But at the very least, one would thgink that an uneasy standoff would arise, requiring more and more attention by the germans.

Lets speculate a bit. Say the Germans deploy 120 divs to cover the ewast from Soviet agression. By the spring of 1943, they might have another 100 divs for the west. The west might have 165 Divs to attack them with. If I were the allies, I would not attempt a cross channel attack....I think the best bet might be a reverse "felix", an attack from out of gibraltar....open up a napoleonic wars style campaign in Spain. It stretches the german supply network, it forces them into a new territory where application of air power for them is more difficult, it is not so open country, in parts. Another option along a similar vein might be to pressure the turks to join the allies and join the allies, and then attack up into Rumania using amphibious assualts from the black sea. again, knock out Rumanai, and you neuter the Germans.

Ultimately I see the war as likley to be won by the allies, but the war would be very different and more protracted, for sure. And certainly not guranteed either way

I agree. No one seems to take into account the combined Anglo/American economic and production power, the combined manpower of the US and Commonwealth, as well as Russia more than likely eventually buying in on the action as well.

Sure Russia is not part of this scenario because "Germany has not attacked them", but I question whether Russia would not have attacked Germany at some point anyhow.

without the russians to worry about, 100% of German resources would have been used against the WEst. N.Africa for instantance, wouldn't have been loss (or at least played to a stalemate) by the Germans due to badly needed equipment being diverted to the east ( fuel/arms/TANKS, etc.)

And the Germans would not have to worry about 100% of the resources, manpower and production from the combined American and Commonwealth forces?

You either seriously underestimate them or are very very naive. I think I know which is more likely...

 

[tomo pauk]

Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.

A starting point for another thread?

 

[parsifal]

not really so easily. even 1000 bomber raids didnt slow down aircraft production. in fact, they caused it to increase by forcing germany to adopt a subsidiary based manufacturing system, which was far more efficient than the "castle" based manufacturing system previously used by all the german vehicle and airplane companies
germany was still getting plenty of oil from the east and plenty of raw materials from northern italy and sweden among other places. if the allies only used air power, the germans could concentrate their land forces into the eastern front and the italian front, and these were some of the best divisions germany had. the luftwaffe could continue operating from airfields without threat of land or airborne troops attacking. and most importantly, germany was doing fine even under bombardment in mid-1944, better actually due to fine-tuning of industry and economy. germany only had several million troops put 2 million in italy and the rest in russia, and you can halt the russians while you integrate the newer tanks and planes into the armed forces. the sad thing is, allied fighter bombers couldnt attack supply lines with enough effect far far inland like south eastern germany and the other axis territories. since germany wouldnt be concentrating her forces in the west, there would be fewer targets of opportunity.

I see problems in this assesment. Chief among them is that the german economy after 1943 was being pushed at an unsustainable rate. Further the US economy was never pushed to its fullest extent. Ive read somewhere that the US aero industry only ever wa pushed to about 60 or 70% of its overall capacity.


Bear in mind also that with no Far Eastern Front to worry about US forces are going to be around 35% stronger than they were historically, and her entire Navy deployed to the western hemisphere. This would have flow on effects on the british economy. For the british her economy and manpower sources would grow by 17% and about 35-50% respectively.

Coal, iron and raw materials outputs for the Axis were a fracti0on of those by the allies and mostly constrained by limits in the transport system. Without ocean going trade links the german economy was pretty well stuffed for the duration. As a percentage of even European output, Northern Italy was insignificant in terms of raw materials, and a nett importer of iron and coal. It is little known that the trade route to Sweden was under pressure from the very beginning. In March 1941, the Axis lost about 50000 tons of shipping on the western seaboard alone, a lost of it in the Kattegat and parts of the baltic to Allied Mines. Thats gotta hurt eventually .

I dont see a "no eastern front" as a good outcome for the German economy. One should not assume that raw materials would continue to flow from the East, and with that oil is the limiting factor for the Germans.

A couple of observations about the war in the skies in 1940-41. without much help from the US and no help from the USSR, the RAF had denied the LW control of th skies over western Europe, and had challenged LW control over France and the low Countries, even before June 1941. Perhaps not all that successfully, but for the LW offensive operations over Britain had all but stopped by June 1941 ( and not solely because of redepployments, it was because , in part of losses they were sustaining).

Germany was being denied access to trade with overseas markets, an even within Europe itself. It was systematically looting by artificail economic controls the rest of Europe, that helped her in the short term, but in the long term sucked out and destroyed the European economy , and left Germany a net liability in the later years of the war. Whilst ever britain and the US controlled world markets by their control of the oceans, the German economy was doomed to being a pygmy amongst giants.

 

[Jenisch]

For every move the Germans make in this scenario that could have benefited them historically, an Allied reaction must be considerated. As well as vice versa.

As I already point out, Britain supplied the Soviets with almost 1000 planes and tanks towards the end of 1941, and by ship. They would simply turn all this to Africa in this scenario. And the transport capability of the Italians to bring troops and equipment to Africa was really not good compared to the RN. Not to mention the US participation.

 

[Ratsel]

I agree. No one seems to take into account the combined Anglo/American economic and production power, the combined manpower of the US and Commonwealth, as well as Russia more than likely eventually buying in on the action as well.

Sure Russia is not part of this scenario because "Germany has not attacked them", but I question whether Russia would not have attacked Germany at some point anyhow.



And the Germans would not have to worry about 100% of the resources, manpower and production from the combined American and Commonwealth forces?

You either seriously underestimate them or are very very naive. I think I know which is more likely...

And I think you seriousely under-estimate the impact the russians had on Germany, or very very naive.. I don't know which.
without the russians, I do not think America would be so eager to jump into the war in Europe.. but thats only my opinion.

Kindest Regards

 

[pbfoot]

A couple of observations about the war in the skies in 1940-41. without much help from the US and no help from the USSR, the RAF had denied the LW control of th skies over western Europe, and had challenged LW control over France and the low Countries, even before June 1941. Perhaps not all that successfully, but for the LW offensive operations over Britain had all but stopped by June 1941 ( and not solely because of redepployments, it was because , in part of losses they were sustaining).

.

Wow this a surprising statement , Fighter Command was not getting wiped but sure was not at all dominant

 

[Jenisch]

Wow this a surprising statement , Fighter Command was not getting wiped but sure was not at all dominant

But the USAAF would have surely make a difference. Together with the RAF, P-40's, P-39's, A-20's, B-25's and others would start to bomb the LW in France.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Actually Ratsel, I am neither naive or underestimating everything.

Unlike you, I look at every scenario in an unbiased way. If you wrote the history books, the allies would be portrayed as lucky idiots because the Germans could do not wrong. I get that you have national pride and all, but you can't rewrite history. Maybe you should take off the "fanbrillen"...

 

[Readie]

Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.

You are just being contentious Mr Ratsel. You know very well that in 1940 the Germans did not have the ability / resources to invade England.
John

 

[parsifal]

Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.

There is no evidence of that at all. Or at least none that i am aware of. please provide your sources for this.

In fact the LW assault on Britiain continued through until the end of May '41, with increasing losses, and little to show for it.

You are perhaps referring to "continue the assault on the airfields" option. This may have given the germans a partial dominance over part of the se, for a short space of time. AS is conclusively shown in the BoB thread, that still doesnt get the Germans across the channel. It gives them a slight face saving way of getting out of the battle and saying they "won".....

 

[DonL]

Many things in this post are speculative but one thing would be quiet sure!

If there is no war in the east the Wehrmacht and LW can concentrate there whole strenghts against GB in 1941 at the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.

The goal would be the oil at the arabian island.

And if we take the historical strenghts there would be no possibility for GB to defend the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
At Barbarossa were 3 Air fleets imagine what will happen if 2 Air Fleets operate at 1941 at the Mediterranean.
Rommel had the 5th and 15th Panzerdividion and roudabout 2 Divisions infantry, imagine what he can do with 10 Divisions 5 tanks 5 infantry!

End of year 1941 the Mediterranean Sea would be totaly free of the Royal Navy and the Wehrmacht would stand at Saudi Arabia.
From 1942/43 there would be massive oil supply for the germans and the italian navy.

And after that it would be very very difficult to make an invasion at North Africa, without the the Azores as big Navy and Aircraft base perhaps unimpossible!

This scenario would happen, if there was no war in the east and after the lost of BoB with GB as the only enemy!

The question is at which date the USA would get in the war?!

We should calculate this in such a scenario!

 

[Jenisch]

You are just being contentious Mr Ratsel. You know very well that in 1940 the Germans did not have the ability / resources to invade England.
John

And with the USN/USAAF they perhaps would have when? lol

 

[Ratsel]

Actually Ratsel, I am neither naive or underestimating everything.

Unlike you, I look at every scenario in an unbiased way. If you wrote the history books, the allies would be portrayed as lucky idiots because the Germans could do not wrong. I get that you have national pride and all, but you can't rewrite history. Maybe you should take off the "fanbrillen"...

I'm not. Just working with what the OP proposed In post #1 (pacific not withstanding/ no russian envolvement). Not an actual historical aspect. The Germans were finished in Mid-43 or so, how they lasted historically until May 8th 1945 was nothing short of a miracle... considering.

I just don't think in the proposed scenario that the US would be that heavily envolved. air/sea/ or land.

 

[Jenisch]

Many things in this post are speculative but one thing would be quiet sure!

If there is no war in the east the Wehrmacht and LW can concentrate there whole strenghts against GB in 1941 at the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.

The goal would be the oil at the arabian island.

And if we take the historical strenghts there would be no possibility for GB to defend the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
At Barbarossa were 3 Air fleets imagine what will happen if 2 Air Fleets operate at 1941 at the Mediterranean.
Rommel had the 5th and 15th Panzerdividion and roudabout 2 Divisions infantry, imagine what he can do with 10 Divisions 5 tanks 5 infantry!

Mediterranean Sea would be totaly free of the Royal Navy and the Wehrmacht would stand at Saudi Arabia.
From 1942/43 there would be massive oil supply for the germans and the italian navy.

And after that it would be very very difficult to make an invasion at North Africa, without the the Azores as big Navy and Aircraft base perhaps unimpossible!

This scenario would happen, if there was no war in the east and after the lost of BoB with GB as the only enemy!

The question is at which date the USA would get in the war?!

We should calculate this in such a scenario!

Could the Germans send so many troops to Africa? Could they easy off the defenses in Europe?

Until about May 1941, the Germans would be occupied with Britain. I think it would be fair to say that in June 1941, when the historical Barbarossa started, the US entered in the war in Britain side. Britain will be already reinforcing it's forces back them, and using the resources they send to the Soviets historically and the Americans send to the Soviets well. Also, any big German movemment in the Mediterranean would be closely followed by the Britsh Empire. They could have accepted risky of great losses for the RN, but specially now the US was entering in the war, they would not spare efforts to finnish any plans from Hitler.

 

[Jenisch]

I'm not. Just working with what the OP proposed In post #1 (pacific not withstanding/ no russian envolvement). Not an actual historical aspect. The Germans were finished in Mid-43 or so, how they lasted historically until May 8th 1945 was nothing short of a miracle... considering.

I just don't think in the proposed scenario that the US would be that heavily envolved. air/sea/ or land.

One interesting opinion for the US participation a member of another forum told me:

Best scenario I can come up with is the same one that got the US into WWI; Germans get too arrogant and try to dictate where and with whom the US can trade, using the U-boat fleet as a threat.

By mid-1941, the US was already 'neutral in favor of the Commonwealth', with a great deal of assistance sent in the form of Lend-Lease; this was already a source of enormous irritation to Hitler, and would have become a greater one if the US provided Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth with the sustenance to continue defying him.

Again I mention that Britain would obtain even more help from the US. German air losses could have been worst. As well a possible British aerial counter attack in France. The Fuher would not like from all those American flag ships in British ports.