What if the German adanced aircraft technology was mass produced by D-Day?

[hurricane55]

What would have happened if the Me 262, Me 163, Ta 152, V1, Horton Bomber, Ar 234, and/or He 162 were mass produced at least over 3,000 for each aircraft and operational by D-Day? What would their effect be on the war? Would the Allies still be triumphant, or would the tables turn?

I believe they would have at least a moderate effect on the war, at least delaying the Allies a victory until late '45, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

 

[Elmas]

What if Third Reich had the Atomic Bomb?

 

[cimmex]

What would have happened if the Me 262, Me 163, Ta 152, V1, Horton Bomber, Ar 234, and/or He 162 were mass produced at least over 3,000 for each aircraft and operational by D-Day? What would their effect be on the war? Would the Allies still be triumphant, or would the tables turn?

nothing at all, Germany didn't have enough fuel and pilots to fly those planes

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

Assuming that there were sufficient fuel and trained pilots to fly them, they would have slightly increased Allied heavy bomber losses. By 1944, if I were Hitler and assuming I couldn't have the atom bomb, I'd want V-2 rockets that instead of having an accuracy of only about a mile, would have a CEP (circular error probable) of just 30 or 50 meters to hit pinpoint targets.

 

[hurricane55]

True, I would think so too.

 

[hurricane55]

nothing at all, Germany didn't have enough fuel and pilots to fly those planes

Yes, good point cimmex. Sufficient fuel and other necessities such as spare parts, maintenance crews, pilots, ect. would also be present.

 

[davebender]

Germany had fuel for jet engines during 1944. However they aren't going to magically produce 10,000 or so additional fighter aircraft as this topic suggests.

 

[tyrodtom]

It would no doubt slow the western front advances down.

But how about the eatern front ? That scenario might mean the Soviets advance even further into Germany. Or it might mean the first atomic weapons end up being used on Germany.

WW2 is full of "what ifs" , strangly it's always what if the Germans had more success in weapon developement, etc. I don't think anyone has ever asked what would have happened if the US had fully developed the atomic bomb six months or a year earlier than they did. Why is that ?

 

[proton45]

The invasion of Europe would have been delayed..."IF" Germany had that kind of industrial infrastructure. One of the big factors that led to the invasion, was the Allies "Air Dominance" over Europe.

 

[davebender]

Actually I think the requirement was for Allied air domminance over NW France. That way Allied heavy bombers could isolate the invasion area by destroying the French transportation network in that region.

 

[fastmongrel]

These scenarios always require the Allies to sit back and twiddle their thumbs doing nothing whilst the Nazi vunderveapons are designed and tested and produced. The Allies had pretty good intelligence on what Germany was doing in a general sense from photo intelligence, code breaking and human intel. How about the new factories needed for these new planes being pounded into rubble 24/7. Even if they are all built underground there is the problem of moving them. Then there is the problem of training all those pilots not much use building an expensive jet plane if the inexperienced pilot flies it into the scenery.

 

[davebender]

Germany knew how to train pilots. So did Japan. All they needed was an adequate fuel supply.

 

[norab]

What if, instead, The Germans had been faced with B-32's with nukes escorted by F-80's. In real life there were enough parts on Tinian in August of 1945 to produce over 60 A-bombs, so in September of 1945 there could have been 60 irradiated craters throughout Germany.

 

[hurricane55]

What if, instead, The Germans had been faced with B-32's with nukes escorted by F-80's. In real life there were enough parts on Tinian in August of 1945 to produce over 60 A-bombs, so in September of 1945 there could have been 60 irradiated craters throughout Germany.

VE day was in May, too late for all those nukes, but in this scenario, it could happen! However, as the nukes dropped on Japan showed, the US would probably drop a few warning bombs and Germany would surrender, not being able to deal with such a powerful weapon and the Allies advance on the nation.

It might also have taken more than a month to build the bombs, but if the Germans could delay the Allied assault long enough, the bombs could have been produced and used.

 

[tyrodtom]

What if, instead, The Germans had been faced with B-32's with nukes escorted by F-80's. In real life there were enough parts on Tinian in August of 1945 to produce over 60 A-bombs, so in September of 1945 there could have been 60 irradiated craters throughout Germany.

You need to quote a source for that claim.

From several sources i've read there were only 4 devices made, the Trinity bomb (gadget), Little Boy, Fat Man, and one more that Tibbets and a crew were back in the states to pick up when Japan surrendered.

Though if the war had continued to the end of 1945, more could have been made, i've heard a total of 6, not 60.

 

[stona]

Germany had fuel for jet engines during 1944.

There were supplies of J2 fuel available,infact the SBS notes German stockpiles of more than 100,000 tons of similar diesel fuel at the end of the war.What the Germans couldn't do was transport it to where it was needed.
From the USSBS

A more difficult problem is that the Germans didn't have the materials to build the jet engines which might have burned this fuel,chromium,molybdenum,nickel to name a few. In fact the whole "what if" is dependant on Germany already being in a war winning position in 1943 which it certainly was not. It had already lost the war but didn't know it yet.

The reason why these "what ifs" are never asked of the allied side is simple. We won.

As for irradiated craters in Western Europe someone has already pointed out the paucity of weapons grade material available,but more importantly the US's European allies might have had something to say about it.
In 1946 the US probably had seven atomic weapons,maybe nine,none fully assembled.

Later Soviet assessments of US nuclear capabilities were based on information provided by Klaus Fuchs. Pavel Sudoplatov, Deputy Chief of Soviet Intelligence, wrote,about Fuchs information;

"… that American production was one hundred kilograms of U-235 a month and twenty kilos of plutonium per month. From this information Soviet intelligence could calculate the number of atomic bombs possessed by the Americans.
Thus, we [Soviet Intelligence] were able to determine that the United States was not prepared for a nuclear war with the Soviet Union at the end of the 1940s or even in the early 1950s."

Then;

"Stalin pursued a tough policy of confrontation against the United States when the Cold War started; he knew he did not have to be afraid of the American nuclear threat, at least until the end of the 1940s. Only by 1955 did we estimate the stockpile of American and British nuclear weapons to be sufficient to destroy the USSR."

These Soviet estimates were actually much too low,by 1950 the US had 264 weapons built,but it emboldened Soviet policy towards the USA as the cold war developed.
By 1955 the US had 806 weapons built of 2,442 in its inventory.

A bit off topic....sorry


Cheers

Steve

 

[norab]

You need to quote a source for that claim.

From several sources i've read there were only 4 devices made, the Trinity bomb (gadget), Little Boy, Fat Man, and one more that Tibbets and a crew were back in the states to pick up when Japan surrendered.

Though if the war had continued to the end of 1945, more could have been made, i've heard a total of 6, not 60.

the source of the claim is this program that aired on the Smithsonian Channel

Dive Detectives - Episodes - Lost A-Bombs

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the source of the claim is this program that aired on the Smithsonian Channel

Dive Detectives - Episodes - Lost A-Bombs

That is wrong - there are many sources that show atomic bomb availability in August, 1945. This is from Wiki, they give references for the sources;

"Groves expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[105] On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[105]

There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall had begun. "The problem now [13 August] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."[105]

Two more Fat Man assemblies were readied. The third core was scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 12 August,[106] and Tibbets was ordered by Major General Curtis LeMay to return to Utah to collect it.[107] Robert Bacher was packaging it in Los Alamos when he received word from Groves that the shipment was suspended.[108]"

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gixxerman]

I believe they would have at least a moderate effect on the war, at least delaying the Allies a victory until late '45, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

Adolf Galland reckoned all an earlier more numerous fleet of Me262s would have done is ensure more of western Europe fell to the Soviets.
I think his is probably the most informed opinion here.

As has been said, not only does Germany in mid 1944 not have enough of the experienced pilots to capitalise on the jets, she has a collapsing heavy transportation system making sure nothing moves properly (so spares, fuel, raw materials stocks can't move where they are needed).

It's merely delaying the inevitable.

The only game-changer I see is a nazi A-bomb.....and even there I think they need more than 1.

 

[stona]

The only game-changer I see is a nazi A-bomb.....and even there I think they need more than 1.

They were many years away from an atomic weapon. It's been discussed before.
A simple comparison of the massive Manhattan project to the German effort (one very basic reactor in a cellar under a pub) should be the non-scientific evidence.

There's been a bit of revisionism recently,based on some documents turned up in a private archive. The relevant report,critically and suspiciously,lacks a front page so we don't know for sure who wrote it,or when.Most think it was composed immiediately after the war. This would post date the Smyth Report into the development of the US atomic bomb, which was published in July 1945.

Hindsight,as we all know,is 20:20 vision.

Cheers

Steve