WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?

[Readie]

We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?

Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed.

Could Japan have hit mainland America?

Being an island nation is always an advantage from the defence point of view.

What do you all think?
Cheers
John

 

[davebender]

Port of Liverpool Weekly Cargo Throughput.
181,562 tons. Week ending 26 April 1941.
1 to 7 May 1941. 681 Luftwaffe bomber sorties attack the Port of Liverpool.
35,026 tons. Week ending 10 May 1941.

681 Luftwaffe medium bomber sorties reduced Port of Liverpool cargo throughput by 80%. Would it make a difference if Germany had enough bombers (heavy or otherwise) to continue the attacks every week? I think so.

 

[tyrodtom]

No matter what bomber they had, they never had a fighter with enough endurance to escort them.

 

[Readie]

No matter what bomber they had, they never had a fighter with enough endurance to escort them.

But if the German's had had the likes of the P51?

 

[ctrian]

We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?

Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed.

Could Japan have hit mainland America?

Being an island nation is always an advantage from the defence point of view.

What do you all think?
Cheers
John

Ehm what was the He-177 a tactical bomber? When they got ~300 of them in operation in mid 1944 they realized one thing ...they didn't have enough fuel for them AND the rest of their fleet.Germany never had the fuel and industrial infrastructure to produce thousands of 4 engine bombers.

 

[Shortround6]

We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?

That depends, In this scenario do the Germans also get the British, American, Canadian production capability or just the Allied aircraft designs or just German equivalents?

Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed.

Again, what are the conditions. DO the Germans get 1943 allied bombers (or german equivalents) to use in 1940 or do they get 1940 allied bombers (or German =) in 1940?

Could Japan have hit mainland America?

NO. or at least not without bases in Alaska

Being an island nation is always an advantage from the defence point of view.

 

[Readie]

Just for the purpose of a discussion I imagined the scenerio where the Germans had the allies bombers instead of the ones they actually did have and the allied fighters to protect them. I know its all ifs and buts and easy to pick to bits.

Having seen pictures of Plymouth pre and post blitz we can be glad that the Germans only had the medium bombers they did have !

If no one wants to chew the cud then that's ok with me, the idea follows on from a discussion between Stanford Tuck, Galland and other notable fliers about given a change of aircraft etc whether the Germans could have prevailed.

There have been other discussions about the ultimate success of any German invasion of Britain.I choose my words carefully as the Romans invaded Britain but, never fully conquered.

Happy for a moderator to delete the thread if you consider it a blind alley.8)

Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

Just for the purpose of a discussion I imagined the scenerio where the Germans had the allies bombers instead of the ones they actually did have and the allied fighters to protect them. I know its all ifs and buts and easy to pick to bits.

Having seen pictures of Plymouth pre and post blitz we can be glad that the Germans only had the medium bombers they did have !

Cheers
John

Just wanted to know the conditions. If the Germans get several thousand B-17Gs, and several thousand B-24s and several thousand Lancasters III's in 1940 and get thousands P-51C&Ds to protect them of course they win.

If, in 1940 they get a few hundred Wellingtons and a few hundred Whitleys and a few hundred Hampdens with a sprinkling of B-23s escorted by P-36s it becomes a rather different story.

If you shift the time to, say 1943, to allow for the better bombers you also have to allow for the better defenses. Better radar, better radios, more AA guns Defensive fighters are Spitfire MK Vs and IXs, Typhoons, P-47s and Mustangs fighting over home ground. Baled out pilots back in the air in a day or two. Beaufighters and Mosquitoes for night fighters.
In this scenario do the Germans also get the allied radar?

We have a thread on "what if" the Germans had pursued a different strategy (4 engine bombers).

Now maybe I am too narrow minded but while I enjoy a discussion on what was possible (4 engine vs twin engine bombers) when you start mixing times (1945 fighters in 1940) it starts to get silly.

 

[davebender]

You don't need an escort fighter when bombing at night. Which is how the Luftwaffe attacked the Port of London during the fall of 1940 and the Port of Liverpool during May 1941.

Of course nothing prevents Germany from placing the long range Fw-187 into mass production as a bomber escort.

 

[Readie]

'Now maybe I am too narrow minded but while I enjoy a discussion on what was possible (4 engine vs twin engine bombers) when you start mixing times (1945 fighters in 1940) it starts to get silly'

I too enjoy a discussion Shortround but, not an aguement over semantics.

I have obviously hit the wrong button with this thread.

Cheers

John

 

[davebender]

It makes little difference whether the bombers are Whitleys or He-111s.

The key point is that Britain poured huge sums of money into building replacement aircraft and aircrew. Consequently RAF Bomber Command flew over 17,000 sorties at night during May to December 1940 while losing about 340 aircraft. The RAF
shrugged off the losses and just kept on bombing week after week. Give the Luftwaffe bomber force a similiar budget and they will keep on bombing week after week also.

 

[tyrodtom]

Germany never had the infrastucture in place to replace big numbers of flight crew loses, it would take more than just money to correct that.
But in this fantasy I suppose that is magically corrected too.

 

[davebender]

If you want the Luftwaffe to have an equivalent to RAF Bomber Command then the "Luftwaffe Bomber Command" must have a similiar level of funding. If they have the money then German infastructure will be built just as RAF Bomber Command paid to build infastructure.

 

[syscom3]

I think the outcome in Russia might have been a bit different if the LW could hit the factories in the Urals.

 

[Shortround6]

I too enjoy a discussion Shortround but, not an aguement over semantics.

I have obviously hit the wrong button with this thread.

Cheers

John

Sorry if I came on a bit strong but maybe the 'button' instead of being wrong was too big?

Some people ask the question "what was the best fighter of WW II?" Now in a war that was 6 years long and considering the progress made during the war the list gets short real quick. The fighters coming into use in 1945 make the list and everything else doesn't. One might as well ask "what was the best late war fighter" or "what was the best fighter of 1945?" because the list of candidates would be about the same.

Sort of the same thing applies to this question. Of course if the Germans are "given" 1943-45 bombers and fighters vs an allied 1940 defense things are going to be much different but "give" the Allies 1943-45 bombers and fighters in 1940-41 vs 1940-41 German defenses and the early British bomber offensive would be much different also.

If you want to propose a "second" BoB or blitz in 1943 or 44 based on the idea that Russia collapsed or something, allowing the Germans to concentrate on the west using bombers of similar capabilities to the British-American bombers that might be worth discussing. My narrow mind can play "suspend disbelieve" somewhat but the time travel bit for one side pushes it over the edge.
Discuss "what if" the Germans had more resources and built 4 engine bombers in 1939-40 and used drop tanks on the 109 or had a Me 209 with bigger wings and more internal fuel or what ever.

Right now we seem to be discussing (or not discussing) "What if" the Germans had 4 engine bombers with turbochargers and multiple gun turrets armed with fast firing .50 cal mg and night bombers with 1400-1600hp engines with power gun turrets and blind bombing radar and 1600-2000hp escort fighters with big fuel tanks and batteries of .50cal mgs and/or 20mm cannon vs 1940 allied 1000-1300hp fighters armed with eight .303s.
Or discussing how much better such a force would have done compared the historical twin 1000-1200hp engine bombers armed with a handful of manually aimed 7.9 mgs and escorted by small 1100hp fighters and big 3 seat twins with 1100hp engines.
Considering the allies didn't get such bombers or fighters until several years after the BoB it seems rather obvious that that such a major change in the capabilities and/or balance of forces would make a major change.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think the outcome in Russia might have been a bit different if the LW could hit the factories in the Urals.

I was thinking the same thing, but I think the Russians would have just moved the factories back further.

 

[davebender]

How many aircraft did RAF Bomber Command have as of June 1941?

 

[tyrodtom]

The allies or soon to be allies arms rebuilding increase in the late 30s was in response to the arms buildup they saw occuring in Germany.
If you're going to magically advance the Luftwaffe into B-17s and P-51s, seems like it could only be fair to apply the same magic to the allies, B-36s, P-80s, Mig 9s, etc.

 

[davebender]

World War 2 Bombers

In July 1941 Bomber Command had 732 operational bombers

 

[Readie]

"Sorry if I came on a bit strong but maybe the 'button' instead of being wrong was too big?

Some people ask the question "what was the best fighter of WW II?" Now in a war that was 6 years long and considering the progress made during the war the list gets short real quick. The fighters coming into use in 1945 make the list and everything else doesn't. One might as well ask "what was the best late war fighter" or "what was the best fighter of 1945?" because the list of candidates would be about the same.

Sort of the same thing applies to this question. Of course if the Germans are "given" 1943-45 bombers and fighters vs an allied 1940 defense things are going to be much different but "give" the Allies 1943-45 bombers and fighters in 1940-41 vs 1940-41 German defenses and the early British bomber offensive would be much different also.

If you want to propose a "second" BoB or blitz in 1943 or 44 based on the idea that Russia collapsed or something, allowing the Germans to concentrate on the west using bombers of similar capabilities to the British-American bombers that might be worth discussing. My narrow mind can play "suspend disbelieve" somewhat but the time travel bit for one side pushes it over the edge.
Discuss "what if" the Germans had more resources and built 4 engine bombers in 1939-40 and used drop tanks on the 109 or had a Me 209 with bigger wings and more internal fuel or what ever."

Right now we seem to be discussing (or not discussing) "What if" the Germans had 4 engine bombers with turbochargers and multiple gun turrets armed with fast firing .50 cal mg and night bombers with 1400-1600hp engines with power gun turrets and blind bombing radar and 1600-2000hp escort fighters with big fuel tanks and batteries of .50cal mgs and/or 20mm cannon vs 1940 allied 1000-1300hp fighters armed with eight .303s.
Or discussing how much better such a force would have done compared the historical twin 1000-1200hp engine bombers armed with a handful of manually aimed 7.9 mgs and escorted by small 1100hp fighters and big 3 seat twins with 1100hp engines.
Considering the allies didn't get such bombers or fighters until several years after the BoB it seems rather obvious that that such a major change in the capabilities and/or balance of forces would make a major change.



Point accepted Shortround.

May I explain why I posted the thread...

I talking to the in-laws about the blitz in Plymouth when they were children and how the evacuation and destruction affected people at the time and more poignantly how the much vaulted post war dream failed to be delivered in the rebuilding of Plymouth.

This led me to wonder what would have happened if the Germans had had bombers with the capacity of Lancasters et al and whether Britain could have withstood the onslaught.

Maybe this isn't the right forum to speculate on such matters and anyone would be quite to say it doesn't really matter anyway as the German's had the aircraft they had.

Time to move on methinks...

Cheers
John