Politician01 wrote:Historically - when Russia was occupying and destroying 80% of German ground forces.
80% hum? How many divisions were in Italy in late 1943? How many were in France and the West at that time? Norway? Show that 80% of German ground forces were in Russia, because that isn't the case.
Given that the Allies initially stick to an air war, raiding and peripheral attacks, and eliminating the U-boat threat their casualties will remain low.
And then what? Lets assume that its mid 43 and that both the BotA and the Battle for NA is won (unlikely but lets assume it) what now? The Allies cant just stick to bombing which will be much much more difficult than OTL - they will have to invade mainland Europe - and without an Eastern Front the Germans are strong enough to crush them anywhere resulting in horrendous casualties. US population will demand to end the war in Europe because its senceless, and as OTL the British will be afraid of an invasion which without an Eastern Front is impossible anyways.
Then when German industry is in ruins, the transportation system destroyed, internal strife and resistance movements abound, the Allies invade at a point of their choosing and engage in a one-sided war of attrition that the Germans can't win.
Of course. Problems that partialy existed because of the Eastern Front and that they took WITH an Eastern Front OTL will now magically become unsurmountable.. :roll:
The German problem is they're a land power. They have no way to cripple the British or US and absolutely no way to go on the offensive and win. Germany can only defend. Eventually that means they lose unless the Allies decide to quit. I understand, that's why you keep trying to make that argument because you recognize otherwise the Germans can't win. They have to make the Allies quit.
Of course the Allies will allways accelerate projects they neglected OTL - project that might perhaps defeat Germany in the far future - thats much more promising than ending the war especially the US population doesnt want.
Show that the US population didn't want to win the war but would rather have accepted a negotiated peace. Certainly not with Japan. Japan was going to be hit and surrender on their knees. That happens regardless of this scenario. Then it's a matter of defeating Germany. I don't see the US public suddenly mass protesting the war. Mass protests against either war didn't happen during WW 2 in the US. Protests were small and usually by a select group of rabble rousers. But, I guess you can continue to wish in one hand...
Of course the Allies will continue to push projects at a wartime rate rather than slow them down, or even cancel them, if the war isn't coming to a favorable end. That's what the Germans did. They pushed as hard as they could to put new stuff into service, often prematurely and in poor functional condition.
For example, the USAAF cancelled the XP-72 just after D-Day telling Republic to concentrate on the XP-84 jet instead. The USAAF knew it didn't need a better high speed prop plane than the ones it had in service. The P-47N was allowed to continue only because it was a much longer ranged escort plane and needed in the Pacific. Otherwise, it too would have been cancelled.
MX-774 was largely defunded once the war ended. Convair was allowed to continue with existing funds and build 3 of 10 RTV-2A Hiroc missiles for test purposes. The Azusa guidance system by Hughes, however continued to get funding because the USAAF / USAF recognized the future need for such a system. Their view on ballistic missiles was a proper long range one would take a decade or more to get in service so there was no rush to getting the research done right away.
10 years in advance compared to OTL - Im impressed!
The United States Air Force's first operational surface-to-surface missile was the winged, mobile, nuclear-capable MGM-1 Matador, also similar in concept to the V-1. Deployment overseas began in 1954,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile
Too bad you know so little. Operational, maybe. First no.
The JB-1, JB-2, and a plethora of other designs were built and tested as early as 1944 by the US. That these weren't pushed into service doesn't mean they weren't capable designs, but rather the US felt no need to push them into service. You seem to think that only what the US did historically counts while the Germans get all sorts of wunderwäffe pushed into service.
This is an alternate scenario. If the Western Allies thought they needed a cruise missile in mass quantities they'd put one or more in service and as early as mid 1944. Certainly they could do the JB-2 (V-1 copy) seeing as how the first test flight by the US was 60 days after the first German one hit England. I could see an improved version being put into service quickly using the Westinghouse 9.5A or B (J32) turbojet instead of the Argus 014 pulse jet.
Gorgon, Rascal, and other ASM's could have been pushed into production too.
Even Bat, an anti-ship ASM was in operational use by early 1945. It was a better system than the German Fritz X or Hs 293 by far.
B-36 first flight end of 1946
B-35 first flight mid 1946
Lincoln and B-29 maximum are 30 500 and 31 000 feet - thats WITHOUT bombs - also WITHIN the range of the 8.8 gun.
So, you are dead, flat, wrong on that issue.
Both the B-35 and B-36 were scaled back dramatically as the war ended. The B-35 was reduced to two prototypes and nothing more. The B-36 was continued but at a much slower pace. Without an end to the war both would have continued at a wartime production rate with the first plane in both programs flying in mid to late 1945.
You quote for a B-29A. I quoted the improved version that was being flight tested at the beginning of 1945 and would have been operational by mid 1945, the B-29D. It was renamed the B-50 for budgetary and political reasons by the USAF postwar to continue its funding.
To use your seemingly singular source...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-50_Superfortress
T. A. Gardner wrote:As for Wasserfall, it was never going to work as a SAM.
Your bringing Wasserfall up shows an amateurish level of knowledge on the subject of SAMs and SAM development.
Oh really: According to Albert Speer and Carl Krauch it could have devastated the Allied bomber fleets.[4] Speer, Nazi Germany Minister of Armaments and War Production later claimed:
To this day, I am convinced that substantial deployment of Wasserfall from the spring of 1944 onward, together with an uncompromising use of the jet fighters as air defense interceptors, would have essentially stalled the Allied strategic bombing offensive against our industry. We would have well been able to do that – after all, we managed to manufacture 900 V-2 rockets per month at a later time when resources were already much more limited.
— Albert Speer, Reichsminister für Bewaffnung und Munition (Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions), from memoir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall
You didn't read my sources did you? Wiki is so pathetic a source to quote on Wasserfall. I refer you to this discussion here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... wasserfall
You are wrong on flak, and you are wrong on Wasserfall.
Oh, try quoting some real sources rather than Wiki. You are impressing no one by using it.
