players in a prolonged war

[kool kitty89]

I'd read that the R4M only used a simple contact/impact fuze, but it would make sense that they switched to VT fuze. (I've just never heard/read it)

According to The wonder weapon R4/M Orkan ("Hurricane") it used a AzRz 2 contact fuze

 

[Udet]

When discussing all this you should ask the following question: what type of events should occur to see the war getting protracted?

No matter how good the Germans would have fared from the start of, say, 1945: the war could not go any longer than it did. Even if the German soldier proved its excellence until the very last minute of the war, by late 1944 or early 1945 the whole status of the business indicated a near unavoidable brutal end.

To see the war protracted a whole series of unthinkable events should have occurred perhaps since 1943...the battles and events should have been entirely different if compared with the known facts.

Now my points:

The war can get protracted well beyond its known termination date due to any of the following causes:

(i) Failure on the part of the allies to finish the war in spite of their overwhelming numerical superiority, and/or

(ii) Germans have the ability to play a combination of defensive/offensive battles causing the allied advance to stall or to have them retrating in certain significant sectors at the fronts, especially in the east. (Model´s brilliant command proved this scenario to be possible, when he took command of German forces in Holland in the final months of the war).

[Cause described in (i) could of course be the consequence of (ii).]

What if the resources utilized for launching the Ardennes offensive had instead been thrown at the Soviet face? This accepted notion that if the Western allies had not swallowed the land they did during their advance on continental Europe would instead have the Soviets swallowing it...and not just that, many suggest the Soviets "would have reached the Channel shores", is one of the most ridiculous versions in the war. The Red Army was way overbled and near to exhaustion.


In other words, a significant protraction of the war should imply a German ability to continue waging a war, even if against unsurmountable odds.

Given the political circumstances of the moment (1945), any significant protraction of the war would have had Germany as the main beneficiary. I could not tell for how long could UK/USA maintain an amicable relationship with the USSR beyond the summer of 1945.

Yet I do not see most of the German advanced designs becoming operational in a protracted war.

Their handling (or mishandling?) of their human and material resources was so horrific that unless a comprehensive revamping of their production methods is conducted, they will still lose the war in a way indentical to the one we know today.

As it´s been stated here, improved Me 262s and high altitude Ta 152s enter service in perhaps bigger numbers. V2´s continue falling over England. New U-boat types enter service.

In any case one of the most interesting consequences in this scenario could belong in the political aspect....could UK/USA keep relationship with the USSR?

Who the hell knows...

 

[drgondog]

When discussing all this you should ask the following question: what type of events should occur to see the war getting protracted?

No matter how good the Germans would have fared from the start of, say, 1945: the war could not go any longer than it did. Even if the German soldier proved its excellence until the very last minute of the war, by late 1944 or early 1945 the whole status of the business indicated a near unavoidable brutal end.

To see the war protracted a whole series of unthinkable events should have occurred perhaps since 1943...the battles and events should have been entirely different if compared with the known facts.

Now my points:

The war can get protracted well beyond its known termination date due to any of the following causes:

(i) Failure on the part of the allies to finish the war in spite of their overwhelming numerical superiority, and/or

(ii) Germans have the ability to play a combination of defensive/offensive battles causing the allied advance to stall or to have them retrating in certain significant sectors at the fronts, especially in the east. (Model´s brilliant command proved this scenario to be possible, when he took command of German forces in Holland in the final months of the war).

[Cause described in (i) could of course be the consequence of (ii).]

What if the resources utilized for launching the Ardennes offensive had instead been thrown at the Soviet face? This accepted notion that if the Western allies had not swallowed the land they did during their advance on continental Europe would instead have the Soviets swallowing it...and not just that, many suggest the Soviets "would have reached the Channel shores", is one of the most ridiculous versions in the war. The Red Army was way overbled and near to exhaustion.


In other words, a significant protraction of the war should imply a German ability to continue waging a war, even if against unsurmountable odds.

Given the political circumstances of the moment (1945), any significant protraction of the war would have had Germany as the main beneficiary. I could not tell for how long could UK/USA maintain an amicable relationship with the USSR beyond the summer of 1945.

Yet I do not see most of the German advanced designs becoming operational in a protracted war.

Their handling (or mishandling?) of their human and material resources was so horrific that unless a comprehensive revamping of their production methods is conducted, they will still lose the war in a way indentical to the one we know today.

As it´s been stated here, improved Me 262s and high altitude Ta 152s enter service in perhaps bigger numbers. V2´s continue falling over England. New U-boat types enter service.

In any case one of the most interesting consequences in this scenario could belong in the political aspect....could UK/USA keep relationship with the USSR?

Who the hell knows...

Interesting questions and interesting points Adrian.

The fundamental question is what set of events would have prolonged the war and when would they have to occur and what path would Germany have to take to extend more than say, six months?

1. Getting USSR out of war in 1943 is one way to triple the Wermacht resources in the west.. hard to imagine specifically what those conditions would be or what force multipliers Germany must have to achieve this condition

2. Winning the Battle of the Atlantic - or at least to point where Britain food supplies are drawn to extremely dangerous levels to a point where Hitler and Chruchill agree to an armed Peace? This was an interesting debate on this thread. I believe as long as US committed that we would sustain the losses and keep the supplies coming. The strategic consequences of Britain out of the war are dire.

Either condition in 1943 makes careful planning possible to create and protect natural resources, divert key programs to greatest threat at that point (US/Canada/rest of Commonwealth?).

Aside from one or both those scenarios I don't see Germany consolidating it's military and industrial base from ultimate destruction. early introduction of the Me 262 would have a severe effect on daylight strategic bombing but not in time to totally stop the attacks on the chemical and Energy industries, or to witness the strategic impact..

Even Harris could have been diverted to attack them if USAAF 'stopped' from daylight bombing. Long range fighter still a formidable threat to GAF in air and on the ground so there is no easy path to recover pilot quality and quantity but LW doesn't have to commit to defending against fighters either.

USAAF doctrine has to convert to night ops with a pause and initially slow build up.

I don't see a scenario that changes the outcome of the first two conditions and I can't think of a third?

 

[olbrat]

Reasons for a prolonged war? Here's just a few off the top of my head:

How long would the USA have waited to declare war if the attack on Pearl Harbor had not occurred? Many people in the US were against going to war.

What if the USA would have kept a truer neutral stance and supplied all countries, or even just not supplied Great Britain. A number of large industries wanted to do that to make more money.

What if Stalin and Hitler could have kept their truce for a couple of years.

What if Japan would have found our carriers first at the battle of midway?

What if D-Day would have failed? It could have very easily. How long would it have taken to produce another D-Day - especially when the Germans know you're coming.

What if the development of long-range escort fighters was delayed?

Udet - the point about the US/USSR relationship is an interesting one. I'd be curious to hear opinions on that.

 

[Udet]

Bill, hello...

Your points are well taken.

USSR out of the war in 1943 or German success in the Atlantic? Difficult to assess. Given the circumstances and the excellence of British ASW i tend to believe it would have been "easier" to have the USSR knocked out of the war by 1943.

What about a more comprehensive approach to matters related to Reichsverteidigung? All that German mismanagement of their resources and assets and they were still very capable of inflicting losses so brutal to the 8th A.F. during 1943 it made them wonder whether such attrition rate could be sustained; what if 8 AF losses during 1943 had been even greater than they actually were?

Anything that, directly or indirectly, might have caused a significant delay of Overlord...given the weather issues in the Channel area, maybe Overlord is postponed until late 1944 or even 1945.

Let´s not forget Churchill and Roosevelt´s spoiled child Stalin -an able boy- pressed the western allies for more support in the form of new fronts being opened. Even if Stalin was wary of his own Western Allies thinking "I need to advance faster and further into Europe than the capitalist criminals" it should make one wonder why was he pressing UK/USA to open extra fronts?

If Overlord is postponed until late 1944, it is unlikely to see the Soviets throwing their abundant human and material resources in the way they did during the summer of 1944.

Chances are causing a significant postponement of Overlord was key element that would provide the Germans with the springboard to recover to some extent.

Or what about the V2, more precise and destructive than the V1, becoming operational in the opening months of 1944? Falling at four times the speed of sound, and being more precise and deadly than the V1, the Germans could have focused the launching of the weapon on Southern England where the allies were assemblying their invasion fleet and war materiel for Overlord. More than 3,000 V2s were launched during the war. You do not need anything like an "ultra-accurate" missile here, for such areas were large and would have been easy to hit. With only a few V2s effectively hitting the ports and assembly areas in souther England who knows what could have happened...do not forget the Brits and USAers are not Bolshevik driven kids and a few V2´s hitting troop concentrations on a weekly basis will have a devastating effect.

I can not know for sure what the Germans should have done differently since 1943 or perhaps early 1944 to protract the war; it could have been even a random event of success...and not necessarily the consequence of well planned and outlined goals.

Do you think that if the war does not end in May 1945 they still have elections in England? Seems unlikely to me, but assuming they have elections and Atlee beats "the Statesman of the Century", do you believe Great Britain policies remain unchanged?

Olbrat...yes, it is indeed interesting.

Think of this scenario: the war in Europe is protracted and Japan still surrender´s in August, 1945...that would stretch the relationship between UK/USA and USSR to the critical limit. As i said, the main beneficiary here would have been Germany. Any political chaos ensuing means fresh air for Germany.

 

[kool kitty89]

On the V-2 though, they really didn't need those kind of offensive weapons and not neal as chep or asy to produce as the V-1. Though overall cost effectiveness is still debatable, the V-1 was much simpler easier to construct from (generally) low quality materials and had a similar cost effectiveness to conventional bombers for the same damage. (but without the loss of bombers and crew) The V-1 could also be intercepted, forcing the allies to use up reasourses doing so.


But on the reasons for a protracted war: how about if Germany acted as if Britain was neutral after the battle of France and just went straight on to Russia. Or, assuming the attack on Pearl harbour still occured, what if Germany severed ties or even declaired war on Japan after this: that would sure confuse the US on how to respond. (and Japan was at such a location that a real conflict with Germany would be all but impossible, in less of course Germany captured the Soviet Union...)

 

[drgondog]

Bill, hello...

Your points are well taken.

USSR out of the war in 1943 or German success in the Atlantic? Difficult to assess. Given the circumstances and the excellence of British ASW i tend to believe it would have been "easier" to have the USSR knocked out of the war by 1943.

I agree your perspective - The combination of excellent tactics and equipment used by RN, the ability of US to build and deploy shipping, the low numbers of U-Boat with which the Germans started the campaign, and last but not least the 'elastic' reserves the USN was getting. The latter could have been deployed to the higher priority of Britain had this been necessary.

The Soviets displayed amazing resiliency and willingness to sacrifice great numbers to stop the Germans. I tend to think the center of gravity was Stalin. I wonder what the outcome might have been if he had been assasinated say in May,1941?

What about a more comprehensive approach to matters related to Reichsverteidigung? All that German mismanagement of their resources and assets and they were still very capable of inflicting losses so brutal to the 8th A.F. during 1943 it made them wonder whether such attrition rate could be sustained; what if 8 AF losses during 1943 had been even greater than they actually were?

Had Goering understood the threat of daylight strategic bombing different priorities and tactics may well have been applied. Having said that the LW tactics and strength in central Germany only reached critical mass in the summer of 1943 - resulting in the first 'shock' on August 17, 1943..which would have been even worse had the Regensburg strike returned to England instead of going to Africa.

I suspect that had the tactics and relative strength dramatically increased in 1943, deployed in France and Belgium and Holland to bolster JG2 and JG26 the LW may have been able to stop daylight bombing of Germany in 1943 and only restarted when one of two changes occurred. First deploy all P-38 groups back to UK and swap some of the lesser performing P-47 groups to MTO. Second bolster the P-38 groups with all Mustang groups heading to ETO.. Absent the Me 262, I think the attrition to LW would have actually accelerated to late 1943. The P-38 groups in MTO were seasoned vets by this time and probably would have had a better accounting than the 20th and 55th in Fall 1943. No change to deployment of Mustang other than those diverted to PTO would have been shifted

Anything that, directly or indirectly, might have caused a significant delay of Overlord...given the weather issues in the Channel area, maybe Overlord is postponed until late 1944 or even 1945.

Adrian - here is the question, Weren't the bombers also used cynically as 'bait' from January 11, 1944 forward? The necessity of destroying the Luftwaffe was obvious condition of raising probability of success of Overlord.

Overlord was going to happen in June, the question was casualties

I think two things. One, the consequence of unacceptable losses for daylight raids would have shifted the focus to join the RAF at night. Might have also forced a re-thinking of priorities to accelerate attacks on oil.

Two, the strategic fighter force would still be positioned to escort tactical bombers and perform long range sweeps to engage and destroy the Luftwaffe

Let´s not forget Churchill and Roosevelt´s spoiled child Stalin -an able boy- pressed the western allies for more support in the form of new fronts being opened. Even if Stalin was wary of his own Western Allies thinking "I need to advance faster and further into Europe than the capitalist criminals" it should make one wonder why was he pressing UK/USA to open extra fronts?

I suspect that not all of his inner circle were as callous as Stalin with regard to the value of russian lives. He certainly could NOT be certain of ultimate victory given the incredible losses through 1943,, he probably knew that if he could not relieve the pressure someone would take him out or possibility of collapse may have crossed his mind.

One thing is certain.

I Don't KNOW, or have the remotest 'feel' to match your perspective in this area.

If Overlord is postponed until late 1944, it is unlikely to see the Soviets throwing their abundant human and material resources in the way they did during the summer of 1944.

Chances are causing a significant postponement of Overlord was key element that would provide the Germans with the springboard to recover to some extent.

I just don't see any set of realistic scenarios that stops Overlord from launching in June 1944 short of UK throwing in towel before we get there in force.

Or what about the V2, more precise and destructive than the V1, becoming operational in the opening months of 1944? Falling at four times the speed of sound, and being more precise and deadly than the V1, the Germans could have focused the launching of the weapon on Southern England where the allies were assemblying their invasion fleet and war materiel for Overlord. More than 3,000 V2s were launched during the war. You do not need anything like an "ultra-accurate" missile here, for such areas were large and would have been easy to hit. With only a few V2s effectively hitting the ports and assembly areas in souther England who knows what could have happened...do not forget the Brits and USAers are not Bolshevik driven kids and a few V2´s hitting troop concentrations on a weekly basis will have a devastating effect.

German troops were subjected to worse over the course of the war. US and Brit/Commonwealth troops, in my opinion were resiliant enough to endure this. Additionally the V2 was a weapon with less aimed accuracy than a diumb bomb. Operation Cobra dropped more tonnage in a smaller area than all the V2s launched in WWII - and probably killed more US troops than such attackes by V2 on England.

I can not know for sure what the Germans should have done differently since 1943 or perhaps early 1944 to protract the war; it could have been even a random event of success...and not necessarily the consequence of well planned and outlined goals.

Do you think that if the war does not end in May 1945 they still have elections in England? Seems unlikely to me, but assuming they have elections and Atlee beats "the Statesman of the Century", do you believe Great Britain policies remain unchanged?

Olbrat...yes, it is indeed interesting.

Think of this scenario: the war in Europe is protracted and Japan still surrender´s in August, 1945...that would stretch the relationship between UK/USA and USSR to the critical limit. As i said, the main beneficiary here would have been Germany. Any political chaos ensuing means fresh air for Germany.

I suspect one scenario of continuing post May 1945. The Allies are stopped way short of Elbe (maybe Bulge partially successful and Antwerp captured).. in which case most or all of Germany under Iron Curtain..

With Truman President, given this scenario, I expect there would have neen more forceful approach post WWII for USSR to withdraw from occupied countries.. Germany under USSR control might have been the final straw in US/USSR relationship - earlier.

 

[olbrat]

Do you think the UK and US would have shared their new jet aircraft technology with USSR in the event of a prolonged war, or was there enough strain on the relationship at the time where they would have withheld it.

If they had good co-operation, the US, UK and USSR could have launched jets from bases in the USSR, which would have solved some of the range and combat time issues. It would have forced Germany to shift more of their high tech resources to the eastern front, possibly allowing the allies on the western front to continue using prop fighters and bombers, and increasing the chances of a successful 2nd D-Day (if the first one failed). The down side would be that Stalin might have been able to go farther with his plans, such as "Germany under USSR", etc.

 

[kool kitty89]

I believe the Soviets had already captured several German engines and were working on copying/developing them by this point in the war. Along with there own jet designs, which had actually been some of the earliest to be funded in the world but suffered from protracted development. (particularly due to the war)

 

[olbrat]

Thanks Kool Kitty -

How were the jet aircraft designs? Were they comparable to the US and UK models?

 

[kool kitty89]

list of jets

Specifically: Gu-VRD
and EnginesUSSR

 

[olbrat]

Thanks again Kool Kitty,

Interesting design. Looks like it would have had decent speed too. You never hear about the USSR WWII jet programs. More food for thought!

 

[davparlr]

Do you think the UK and US would have shared their new jet aircraft technology with USSR in the event of a prolonged war,

Given the fact that the British sold the Russians a Nene engine (copied and used in the Mig-15) in 1945-6, the question is moot.

 

[kool kitty89]

But that wasn't until the new labor government had been voted in, I doubt the old British government would have done so.

 

[Flyboy2]

I remember seeing something that said that the Russians had a design that could have very possibly broke the sound barrier.. at least the scientists were pretty sure it would.
Alot of Russian jets where fragged because of Stalin's insane fear of aircraft. As the story goes he was on a transport plane that hit a bunch of turbulence and scared him to death. Ever since then he was afraid of aircraft and took out his fear on the Russian aerospace industry.
I'm pretty sure that if the Russian scientists had more free range they would have developed some interesting designs.

 

[kool kitty89]

The (original 1945) Su-9 and dirivatives were excelent a/c and it was probably the best first gen (depending on definition) early Soviet fighter.

It had a fully trimmable/variable incedence taleplane which would have allowed controll to be maintained at transsonic speeds. There was further development with thinner (straight) wing which may have been capable of a supersonic dive, this may be the one you're thinking of. Though there were other designs (contemporary to the MiG 15) that could do so as well. The MiG 15 its self lacked the controll ability and the proper wing to be able to safely break the sound barrier.