How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 05 May 2020 19:46

Peter89 wrote:
05 May 2020 19:20
Politician01 wrote:
05 May 2020 18:18

By having 40 divisions stationed in Italy instead of the 20 that were there OTL? Why do Anglos allways get so upset when they get confronted with the truth that without the USSR the simply are to weak to defeat Germany?
Kenny is a respected member of the AHF, he is just sensitive of wehrabooid comments. The Wallies could win with or without the USSR, if not in May 1945 then in September 1945. We are talking about a few months of diffrence.
And I am sensitive to Allied Wanker comments. There is 0 proof that if the Soviets throw in the towel the Anglos can stomach the losses, or have the political will to restart the war in Europe after they delt with Japan. Even if they would try, they would most likely fail due to a stronger AA System and a larger German Army. Also the Atom Bomb is not a war winner. OTL the US estimated that they would need some 200 - 400 Atom bombs to defeat the USSR (cant remember the exact number) and the plan was abandoned as impossible. The same would apply to Germany. Even if the Anglos try, it is something ENTIRELY different throwing Nukes at a Japan with 0 AA cababilites compared to a Germany that had time and resources to complete many Projects they had to abandon/were hampered OTL.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2143
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Peter89 » 05 May 2020 20:10

The Anglos were doing just fine. The naval blockade was in place, the Axis got broken up piecemal and they enjoyed the high-technological edge over the Germans all the way to their victory. It was only the question of time, and the judgement day came in mid-1945, when they invented the A-bomb.

A-bomb is a war winner. The Germans could not keep their firm grip on the continent if Rome, Bucharest, Belgrade, Oslo, Budapest and Paris were vaporized. We can invent 10,000 more Bf109s, 1000 more U-boats and 10,000 more Tigers, it does not change the outcome.

Re the losses, the naval blockade and the aerial war did not cost too many lives.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6092
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Terry Duncan » 05 May 2020 21:12

Several posts were removed by this moderator due to revealing the location of secret Nazi bases and insulting remarks towards another member.

Politician01 Please consider this an unofficial warning. The term 'retarded' is generally considered to be insulting, please refrain from using it. This is not a matter of PC or not, it is a matter of not starting flame wars on the forum. Try to argue nicely please.

Terry Duncan

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5627
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by glenn239 » 05 May 2020 21:39

T. A. Gardner wrote:
04 May 2020 21:24
Production would have switched to the B-29D (aka XB-44, B-50) replacing the fire prone Wright Duplex-Cyclone engines with the much more powerful P&W Wasp Major R4360. There were also major structural changes that would have increased the bombload. The result would have been a B-29 by late 1945 that was flying higher and faster (about 40 mph top speed and about 20 mph higher cruise at between 5 and 10,000 feet more altitude) than the B-29A. Then I'd expect the USAAF to slap a couple of jet engines on the B-50, like they actually did with the B-50J, boosting the performance even further.
Google "Black Tuesday B-29".

The problem is that 4-engine piston driven bombers were obsolescent with the introduction of jet fighters. The fact that the B-29 was bigger, could fly higher and faster did not resolve this inherent vulnerability.
Without something like this, the low pressure at altitude alone becomes a serious issue. And, as it was, Germany had great difficulty getting cockpit pressurization on their fighters and such to actually work as advertised so-to-speak. That means even if you have planes that can go that high, without pressurization or pressure suits and the system to pressurize them, your pilots can't spend more than a few minutes at 35,000 to 40,000 feet before it becomes almost a life threatening issue, oxygen mask or no.
So what I take from that is the Germans have to build pressurized fighter cabins in order to reach that high, while the Americans have bombers that if hit at 35,000 feet and lose cabin pressure, the crew is either going to die within minutes or has to descend immediately to 24,000 feet. A B-17 had no such vulnerability, correct?
The air to air rocket is only an interim solution at best. As the US and USSR found out in the late 40's and early 50's unguided rockets similar to the R4M were nearly worthless against a maneuvering target. Also, the simple reflector gunsight was no longer proving sufficient to accurately shoot down now faster planes. These were replaced by radar gunsights with gyro stabilization and the first of these appeared shortly after the war ended. Again, it's something the Germans really aren't even in the race to build (yes, they did design a gyro gunsight and made a handful, but one connected to radar? Not that I know of).
One hit from an air to air rocket would tear a B-29 apart. They fired them in packs of 12 or 24. The B-29's were even worse off than the B-17's because they would still go down with one hit, but were bigger so more likely to be hit, and could not take depressurization at high altitude from a hit.
The large bomber killer would have to be an AAM using either IR or radar homing, and even a beam rider radar homing missile would be of only marginal value. You really need a missile that can accurately home on the target from most angles and follow it if it maneuvers. A beam rider versus an RAF bomber doing a "corkscrew" maneuver would be useless.

Image

All of this would be even more necessary against night bomber raids.
A fully loaded B-29 in the thin air at 35,000 is going to corkscrew to get out of the way of missiles moving at 500 meters per second? I don't think so. Here is one of the few R4M combats against bombers,

https://books.google.ca/books?id=_LJJ0R ... 18&f=false

I'm not thinking the bombers have the advantage.

As for the Me 262... To keep 400 flying and assuming that the Jumo 004B continues to have a roughly 10 hour service life, you need 800 engines for the planes. You could expect losses to all causes per day to be 8 - 12 aircraft assuming historical rates. That means you need 16 to 24 engines per day going into replacement planes.
Historically Germany did not have access to the necessary materials to extend jet engine service life. In this AH they've conquered the Soviet Union. Would they have access to these materials there? I see references to Soviet nickel, cobalt and molybdenum online- could the Germans have accessed it?
Oh, and on fuel the Germans would need about the same tonnage of it needed to keep 1200 single piston engine fighters flying an equal amount of the time. Jets are very thirsty things...
Yes, I said the Allies would need to cripple German fuel production and the Germans would need to keep it going. Rich posted some interesting stats suggesting that the Allies could very well succeed at crippling fuel production even against improved defenses.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 05 May 2020 22:20

Peter89 wrote:
05 May 2020 19:20
Politician01 wrote:
05 May 2020 18:18

By having 40 divisions stationed in Italy instead of the 20 that were there OTL? Why do Anglos allways get so upset when they get confronted with the truth that without the USSR the simply are to weak to defeat Germany?
Kenny is a respected member of the AHF, he is just sensitive of wehrabooid comments. The Wallies could win with or without the USSR, if not in May 1945 then in September 1945. We are talking about a few months of diffrence.
This thread has devolved into a lot trading generalized statements based on prior commitments, absent analytical insight or evidence. That's in no small part due to Mr. Kenny's decision to invoke odd and random ramblings about the Spartans and Nazi supermen, none of which anybody on the other side raised. Pure strawman rhetorical strategy. It's internet-quality discourse not tending to inspire respect.

----------------------------------

As for your statement that the Wallies win no matter what, that requires one of two main things:

1. Resolute application of atomic bombs to vaporize Europe; or

2. Resolute development of land power to invade Europe.

Re (1) I am agnostic about the political/moral willpower to do so. As I have said numerous times in these threads and as nobody has rebutted, Germany would respond to A-bombs with mass deployments of Sarin gas against Britain, which could kill millions. Is Britain ready for reciprocal WMD holocausts to ensure Germany's defeat? Seems unlikely but I could see it playing out that way as a matter of unplanned momentum, as with WW1's carnage.

Plus it's not obvious that the first A-bombs don't fall on Japan instead of Germany and that many more will be needed in Asia than OTL. A Japan that is secure on continental Asia (more on that below) does not surrender after two A-bombs; it's going to take maybe dozens.

Re (2) I am agnostic about whether the Wallies can build a sufficiently large army while also dealing with Japan - a Japan that is stronger in this ATL due to Germany's ability to support it via the Trans-Siberian railroad. If they can do build a super-army, there is the additional question of whether they would. It is completely ahistorical not to recognize the aversion to mass land war that dictated US/UK strategy OTL.

With a relatively cheap infusion of land weapons (MG42's, older tanks) from Germany, Japan will likely conquer so much of China as to render the Nationalist regime impotent and the Communists a marginal guerilla force. As in Manchukuo and Korea, cooperation becomes rational and widespread once organized state resistance has been destroyed - people have to eat and will not persist in futile resistance absent any hope of victory. Even guerilla resistance will decline and economic cooperation by the Chinese will increase.

Japan will be able to ensure communications with its Southeast Asian possessions via China as planned OTL.

That means if the Wallies ignore Japan to focus on Germany, Japan can conquer China and even India. Unlikely that's allowed to happen as China's importance in FDR's worldview was far greater than commonly recognized.

If the Wallies merely try to defend the British Isles during 43-45 while pumping resources to Asia, then Germany is going to overrun all the Mideast and Africa.

In addition, a Germany that retains control of France in this ATL can send tens of thousands of cheap V-1's at Southern England. As V-1's cost only 5,000 RM, a Germany devoting just 10% of its production to them (~5bn RM) could build hundreds of thousands of them annually.

Launched on a scale >10x the OTL number simultaneously, Britain will need >10x the AAA and fighters to achieve a similar kill rate. That is a massive and asymmetric drain on Wallied resources. Even if only 20% get through there's going to be hundreds of thousands of British casualties unless Southern England is largely abandoned.

Meanwhile, the Type XXI U-boats will see action significantly earlier due to less/no damage to its production facilities by B-17/24's (which won't survive >2.5x OTL Luftwaffe production) and given a free Baltic for training operations. By early '45, these boats will be wreaking havoc on Britain's supply lines and the Wallied buildup in England.

Is Britain willing to endure mass civilian deaths and economic deprivation to free France et. al.? Or would they agree a deal with Hitler that allows them to retain most of the Empire, while removing the threat to the homeland? That latter seems far more likely.

War weariness was widespread in Britain by '44, even with its martial successes. A Britain that has lost everywhere and is besieged and bombed will be more war-weary, more willing to agree to peace with Germany and pivot to Asia with the U.S. As in the OTL Cold War, Britain would have to trade a foreign policy based on preventing a European hegemon for a policy based on accession to the American security umbrella.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 05 May 2020 22:32, edited 1 time in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Politician01 » 05 May 2020 22:30

Peter89 wrote:
05 May 2020 20:10
A-bomb is a war winner. The Germans could not keep their firm grip on the continent if Rome, Bucharest, Belgrade, Oslo, Budapest and Paris were vaporized.
This would be an insane move, destroying Anglo relations and throwing all of Europe into supporting Germany.
Peter89 wrote:
05 May 2020 20:10
Re the losses, the naval blockade and the aerial war did not cost too many lives.
OTL....

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3775
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Takao » 05 May 2020 22:31

Politician01 wrote:
05 May 2020 19:46
Also the Atom Bomb is not a war winner. OTL the US estimated that they would need some 200 - 400 Atom bombs to defeat the USSR (cant remember the exact number) and the plan was abandoned as impossible. The same would apply to Germany. Even if the Anglos try, it is something ENTIRELY different throwing Nukes at a Japan with 0 AA cababilites compared to a Germany that had time and resources to complete many Projects they had to abandon/were hampered OTL.
You might want to read the memo, it is online.

123 bombs minimum - 466 optimum.

The plan was not abandoned because it was impossible, it was abandoned because the Soviets detonated their A-Bomb.

The bomber loss rate used was the maximum loss rate of 35%(Kessel) for early sorties until some air superiority has been achieved. It estimated that the Bombs would have an effectiveness rate of 48% bombs delivered on target.

Primary delivery platform was to be the B-36, supplemented by B-29s.


Of course, the plan had it's critics...In that the number of bombs was grossly overestimated based on an underestimation of actual damage done by the Bombs(blast damage out to 6000-7000 feet, despite being double that). This underestimation would continue for decades with thermonuclear weapons.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7945
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 May 2020 22:40

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 May 2020 22:20


War weariness was widespread in Britain by '44, even with its martial successes
Fiction.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 May 2020 22:20
A Britain that has lost everywhere and is besieged and bombed will be more war-weary, more willing to agree to peace with Germany

Fiction. The summer of 1940 was the lowest point for the UK and she never even considered doing a deal with Hitler.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 May 2020 22:20
Britain would have to trade a foreign policy based on preventing a European hegemon for a policy based on accession to the American security umbrella.
Britain could just keep using the umbrella she used to defeat the 1940 German invasion plan.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7945
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 May 2020 22:45

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 May 2020 22:20


Is Britain willing to endure mass civilian deaths and economic deprivation to free France et. al.? Or would they agree a deal with Hitler that allows them to retain most of the Empire, while removing the threat to the homeland? That latter seems far more likely.
You might want to look up the pre-war estimates of civilian deaths to bombing to see just how many deaths (C.600,000 killed in 60 days) the UK was prepared to endure. Given that they expected many more deaths than actually occured and that poison gas attack was also expected then the answer to the question 'Is Britain willing to endure mass civilian deaths and economic deprivation to free France et. al' is a resounding yes.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 06 May 2020 04:40

glenn239 wrote:
05 May 2020 21:39
Google "Black Tuesday B-29".

The problem is that 4-engine piston driven bombers were obsolescent with the introduction of jet fighters. The fact that the B-29 was bigger, could fly higher and faster did not resolve this inherent vulnerability.
The B-29 would make the FW 190 largely impotent as an interceptor. That leaves the more lightly armed Me 109, and aircraft that would be in limited supply like the Me 262 and Ta 152 to intercept. Worse, given that the B-29 is equipped with excellent (for the time) bombing and navigation radar, it could switch to night raids at the same altitude. That would leave the Germans in a real fix since their extant nightfighters and flak would be rendered all but worthless against them.
So what I take from that is the Germans have to build pressurized fighter cabins in order to reach that high, while the Americans have bombers that if hit at 35,000 feet and lose cabin pressure, the crew is either going to die within minutes or has to descend immediately to 24,000 feet. A B-17 had no such vulnerability, correct?
Correct. the B-17 generally flew up to about 25,000 feet operationally. Going above that was difficult to achieve. The B-17 wasn't vulnerable because it wasn't flying high enough to need pressurization as a prerequisite for that altitude. That's why the B-29 was designed to be pressurized. The competing B-32 Devastator was supposed to be pressurized but Convair couldn't get it to work on their design.
One hit from an air to air rocket would tear a B-29 apart. They fired them in packs of 12 or 24. The B-29's were even worse off than the B-17's because they would still go down with one hit, but were bigger so more likely to be hit, and could not take depressurization at high altitude from a hit.
This is clearly not true. While one hit could bring a large bomber down, it is far more likely that it will take several. Hitting the plane alone without causing critical structure or control failure will create massive damage, but it won't ensure a shootdown. There are plenty of pictures and accounts of bombers hit directly by flak rounds, etc., that demonstrate that a 55mm warhead isn't a certainty for a one-shot, one-kill.
A fully loaded B-29 in the thin air at 35,000 is going to corkscrew to get out of the way of missiles moving at 500 meters per second? I don't think so. Here is one of the few R4M combats against bombers,
Why couldn't it when the attacking plane is spotted? British bombers, fully loaded executed corkscrews frequently and it was highly effective in preventing a nightfighter from getting into gunnery position. Here, the B-29 (or other bomber) sees an attacking aircraft closing with it and begins a corkscrew. Now the attacking fighter has to try and target a maneuvering aircraft. It makes accurate fire far more difficult.

Historically Germany did not have access to the necessary materials to extend jet engine service life. In this AH they've conquered the Soviet Union. Would they have access to these materials there? I see references to Soviet nickel, cobalt and molybdenum online- could the Germans have accessed it?
It isn't just having ore in the ground. It is also having the facilities to make the particular alloy, then work with it. For example, if you have a high nickel alloy like Inconel, then you need different welding rod with different flux. There's more to this than just having access to the raw ores. So, while Germany could in time likely get some of the high temperature metals they need, it is also likely that like Tungsten carbide that the company producing it will monopolize the process and limit production and distribution. That's just how things ran in Germany at the time.
Yes, I said the Allies would need to cripple German fuel production and the Germans would need to keep it going. Rich posted some interesting stats suggesting that the Allies could very well succeed at crippling fuel production even against improved defenses.
Not necessarily. German fuel production is such that even going full tilt they can't make enough to put a large air force in service and keep it flying daily. Even in the BoB fuel was an issue and German production was intact in 1940. The same thing here. Jets are very thirsty aircraft. Germany has limited access to fuel--even with the eventual adding of Soviet production to some extent-- and they simply won't have enough for a large fleet of jets to fly all the time.

A better solution for the Germans is to develop a workable SAM, but that is likely going to take them into the 50's simply because they don't have a workable targeting and control system available, and aren't even close in 1945. Add to that that the missiles they were experimenting with were mostly crap and this becomes a problem. But, a working SAM would be a good solution. It avoids the fuel issue. It avoids pilot training issues. It would work better than flak guns on higher flying, faster aircraft. It's cheaper than building lots of airplanes. So, the reasons for doing it are there, it's the lack of technology and engineering that's holding them up.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 5261
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by Richard Anderson » 06 May 2020 04:43

glenn239 wrote:
05 May 2020 21:39
Google "Black Tuesday B-29".
What does an operation by nine B-29 in Korea versus numerous Mig-15 six years after the end of World War II have to do with anything?

Google Eighth Air Force Mission 894.

The much bally-hooed debut of the R4M. "The new Weapon received its baptism of fire on March 18, 1945, six aircraft of 9.Staffel, each with twenty-four R4M rockets beneath the wings, attacked enemy aircraft over Rathenow. The pilots were Lt. Schnörrer, Oblt. Seeler, Ofhr. Windish, Fhr. Ehrig and Ofhr. Ullrich. Leading the formation was Oblt. Wegmann.

The impact of the rockets, which were launched from about 400meters was devastating. “Shattered fuselages , broken-off wings, ripped out engines, shard of aluminium and fragments of every size wirled through the air” stated one of the participating pilots, “it looked as if someone had emptied out an ashtray”"

That's the story at least, a devastating attack by the Luftwaffe that, gee, could have changed the course of the war, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The reality?

Those six Me 262 were part of a total of 30 Me 262 and 40-odd other conventional fighters that engaged...one of sixteen Eighth Air Force missions that made up 894. 1,329 heavy bombers and 733 fighters dispatched, 1,259 bombers bombed. Five bombers shot down by fighters and eight by flak. Assuming all five bombers were shot down by the Me 262...24 R4M times 30 aircraft = 720 rockets fired, so about 144 rockets to shoot down a single bomber. Three Me 262 were lost, 10% of those dispatched. As many as ten of the other fighters were shot down, 25% of those dispatched. Thirteen bombers were shot down, 0.75% of those dispatched. Six escort fighters were lost, 0.82% of those dispatched.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3123
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by T. A. Gardner » 06 May 2020 05:00

Then there's the Battle of Palmdale... Same sort of rockets as the R4M used against a slightly maneuvering aircraft...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 06 May 2020 08:06

T.A. Gardner wrote:The B-29 would make the FW 190 largely impotent as an interceptor. That leaves the more lightly armed Me 109, and aircraft that would be in limited supply like the Me 262 and Ta 152 to intercept.
We should be clear about timeframe for Ta-152 and Me-262. If we're talking early '45 then yes, the next-gen fighters will still be somewhat rare. Don't make the mistake of ignoring the ATL, however. In this ATL Germany can devote some of its massively amplified resources to new tech, unlike OTL where it scrambled to maximize production of existing designs.

The B-29 will also be relatively rare. Considering that only ~1,000 reached operational status by VJ-day, the American bombing effort is still going to rely overwhelmingly on B-17/24. Me-109's are more than adequate against them.

Me-109's will also be adequate against the B-29, especially the K-4.

K-4 did 416 mph at 30,000ft, more than enough for several passes at 300mph B-29's. Considering that the B-29 cost on the order of 20x the Me-109, Germany can afford to lose 10,000 Me-109's destroying the 1,000 or so B-29's deployed in first-half of '45. Of course it wouldn't be nearly that ratio. [and what about Japan? No B-29's there?]

You call the Me-109 "Lightly armed" but with a 30mm cannon and two 13mm guns the K-4 can definitely destroy a B-29. And as said, it's cheap and the B-29 would face thousands of them.

Ta-152 was actually overkill against the B-29. It was designed a counter a bomber far more capable than B-29, something more like a B-36 that was cruising at 350mph at 35,000ft. Its 48,000ft ceiling and extreme high-altitude speed were not needed against B-29 but would have enabled it to swoop down on its formations and with sufficient speed to evade interception.

-----------------------------------------------

Too many of these discussions focus too much on the tech war and the flashy new late-war products. That's not what would have decided the war in this ATL.

Rather, it's the economic fundamentals of (1) the relative strength of economic blocs and (2) the economic efficiency of a given strategy.

The Wallies have at best a 50% edge over German+Europe in this ATL; with Japan it's basically even.

German aircraft production will be 2.5-3x as high as OTL and its training will be better due to fuel (Russia). Trading heavy bombers 1-1 for fighters (as in OTL until after LW's collapse) only works in the OTL situation where the economic ratio was probably 5:1 in terms of what Germany could spare from the Eastern Front.
Worse, given that the B-29 is equipped with excellent (for the time) bombing and navigation radar, it could switch to night raids at the same altitude. That would leave the Germans in a real fix since their extant nightfighters and flak would be rendered all but worthless against them.
Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129

Besides the dedicated nightfighters, there's the Wilde Sau tactic of using dayfighters and searchlights. This worked effectively until the dayfighters were withdrawn to counter the more-threatening USAAF. In this ATL, Germany has fighters to spare and can produce many more searchlights.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by EKB » 06 May 2020 08:53

Takao wrote:
05 May 2020 14:24
EKB wrote:
05 May 2020 07:20
T. A. Gardner wrote:
04 May 2020 22:24
EKB wrote:
04 May 2020 21:48
glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 18:25


from your Bikini reference, the Allies now have the H-bomb in 1945?

No. The point is that you dismissed the catastrophic effects of a radioactive blast.
It is a very slow killer.

Your statement is at variance with the death of Midori Naka. And the Japanese soldier in the attached photo.


Japanese soldier radiation victim Nagasaki.png


http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230008.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_Naka
Actually, it is not at variance. You are comparing those who were directly exposed to the original bomb blast radiation. As opposed to US troops who would only be exposed to the background radiation & possible fallout. Unless you are walking within 750-500 meters of ground zero(radiation levels drop of quickly beyond that), you exposure to radiation will be limited.

Let me get this straight so that we understand each other. Do you claim that humans were safe from a rapid demise by radiation poisoning, as long as they stayed outside your magic 750 meter radius of death?
Last edited by EKB on 06 May 2020 10:44, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 710
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

Post by EKB » 06 May 2020 09:02

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
06 May 2020 08:06
T.A. Gardner wrote:The B-29 would make the FW 190 largely impotent as an interceptor. That leaves the more lightly armed Me 109, and aircraft that would be in limited supply like the Me 262 and Ta 152 to intercept.
We should be clear about timeframe for Ta-152 and Me-262. If we're talking early '45 then yes, the next-gen fighters will still be somewhat rare. Don't make the mistake of ignoring the ATL, however. In this ATL Germany can devote some of its massively amplified resources to new tech, unlike OTL where it scrambled to maximize production of existing designs.

The B-29 will also be relatively rare. Considering that only ~1,000 reached operational status by VJ-day, the American bombing effort is still going to rely overwhelmingly on B-17/24. Me-109's are more than adequate against them.

Me-109's will also be adequate against the B-29, especially the K-4.

K-4 did 416 mph at 30,000ft, more than enough for several passes at 300mph B-29's. Considering that the B-29 cost on the order of 20x the Me-109, Germany can afford to lose 10,000 Me-109's destroying the 1,000 or so B-29's deployed in first-half of '45. Of course it wouldn't be nearly that ratio. [and what about Japan? No B-29's there?]

You call the Me-109 "Lightly armed" but with a 30mm cannon and two 13mm guns the K-4 can definitely destroy a B-29. And as said, it's cheap and the B-29 would face thousands of them.

Ta-152 was actually overkill against the B-29. It was designed a counter a bomber far more capable than B-29, something more like a B-36 that was cruising at 350mph at 35,000ft. Its 48,000ft ceiling and extreme high-altitude speed were not needed against B-29 but would have enabled it to swoop down on its formations and with sufficient speed to evade interception.

The Superfortress did not need defensive weapons or crew stations behind the cockpit if the only goal was to drop atomic bombs. In 1945 a B-29 stripped of its armament, serial 44-84065, lifted an 11,000 lb. load to 45,252 feet.

At night Germany had nothing that could get close to that height. A day interception was extremely unlikely, supposing that the Ta 152 still existed in your fantasy timeline. The record of that aircraft in high altitude combat (above 30,000 feet) was not impressive in the real time line.

Return to “What if”