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

[Politician01]

With Germany concentrating on Flak and fighters and 262 and R4M most Allies attacks would be as ineffective as this
one:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave

Standard delusionist tactic. Use the worst Allied performance to measure their effectiveness but take an unproven German prototype/concept/wet Dream that used carrots as a fuel and transform it into a fully-working fault-free wunder-waffen with a production run of 100,000. .
GIGO.

The Me 262 was there, the R4M was there, the proximity fuse was there and many projects were just months from completion. This was WITH an Eastern Front that sucked up 80% of German Manpower. Without such an front - or just at 5-10% its historical intensity, it is resonable to assume that many project are ready months before their OTL date, in far greater numbers. It is also resonable that Allied losses in the 43-45 period are much larger, as such the numbers dont accumulate over time and the nummerical superiority is reduced.

However there is NO proof that Anglo prototypes/concepts/wet dreams could be accellerated, since in this ATL they are in a worse situation than OTL - British Manpower shortages by 1944 would be insane in this ATL. If you can reasonably show that they can accelerate projects that were not there OTL - then produce your evidence.

[glenn239]

The talk of A-bombs and genocide is complete nonsense,

Whilst the formed might be correct the latter certainly is not. Look up 'The Final Solution'

No one is talking about The Holocaust. The Allies using A-bombs to the purpose of genocide against cities like Paris or Oslo or Rome, is nonsense. Posters should stick to A-bombs being used against industrial or political targets, or as battlefield weapons.

[glenn239]

The Me 262 was there, the R4M was there, the proximity fuse was there and many projects were just months from completion.

HE-162 is being overlooked, but it was evolving into a hot little number too, and with operational ejection seats.

[Richard Anderson]

1. The Germans save a LOT of fuel from not fighting the Soviets

They save a LOT of MOGAS.

They save very little AVGAS.

AVGAS is the critical component.

2. With Germany concentrating on Flak and fighters and 262 and R4M most Allies attacks would be as ineffective as this
one:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave

You do know a "comparison" of one thing that is not like another is not a "comparison" at all, don't you?

53 Bombers destroyed and 55 damaged out of 177 - for the price of 2 Romanian and 5 German Aircraft. The mission resulted in "no curtailment of overall product output." Most of the damage was repaired within weeks, after which the net output of fuel was greater than before the raid.

Apologies for the repetition, but it apparently isn't sinking in for the Fanbois.

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 Anderson]

The Me 262 was there, the R4M was there, the proximity fuse was there and many projects were just months from completion.

HE-162 is being overlooked, but it was evolving into a hot little number too, and with operational ejection seats.

Oh, FFS, sorry, I didn't realize you were just f@#king around with people again.

I forgot, everything in Fantasyland is "just months from completion".

[Michael Kenny]

No one is talking about The Holocaust...............

You shy away from direct mention of the murderous aspect but trumpet the 'advantages (to the Gerrmans) of slave labour and ignore the consequences on a population when all their domestic food is stolen and shipped to The Reich. Ignoring reality does not change that reality

[Michael Kenny]

The Me 262 was there, the R4M was there, the proximity fuse was there and many projects were just months from completion.....

As I said earlier nothing more than Luftwaffe 1946 delusions.

[Michael Kenny]

........ Eastern Front that sucked up 80% of German Manpower. ..............

That is an often quoted but incorrect statement. It shows you do not understand (or do know the error but don't care?) what the data actually says and misuse it to try and bolster you fantasy scenarios.

[glenn239]

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?

Your right in that the MIG-15's were at more of a disadvantage, because the B-29's in Korea at least had decent jet fighter escorts. But, if you are insinuating that the Me-262 wasn't broadly comparable to the Mig-15 in attacking B-29's, I would disagree.

The much bally-hooed debut of the R4M. …

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.

I'd estimated about 100 rockets to shoot down a single bomber (1 bomber per 4 attacks each with 24 rockets) and you estimate 144 to shoot down a bomber. So, even with your figures, if 30 Me-262's fire their R4M's, that would be 5 kills made even before they engage with cannons. Their lethality per sortie is maybe doubled with a cheap weapon.

Here,

https://legionmagazine.com/en/2009/12/f ... e-part-36/
https://ww2today.com/31-march-1945-germ ... ed-bombers

Is a second engagement where something between 12-20 Me-262's also equipped with R4's engaged RAF Lancs and Halifaxes, with 8 bombers shot down. This account suggests maybe something more like 1 bomber shot down for every 60 or 80 missiles fired. So we're in the ballpark - 1 bomber shot down by rockets per every three to six ME-262's. This is all on top of losses to cannon fire, so, is "free money" in terms of bang per buck, kills per sortie.

[glenn239]

Oh, FFS, sorry, I didn't realize you were just f@#king around with people again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162

[glenn239]

No one is talking about The Holocaust...............

You shy away from direct mention of the murderous aspect but trumpet the 'advantages (to the Gerrmans) of slave labour and ignore the consequences on a population when all their domestic food is stolen and shipped to The Reich. Ignoring reality does not change that reality

I see - you've confused two different posters, myself and I think TheMarkusPlan. The discussion you mention is not one I'm part of.

[Politician01]

As I said earlier nothing more than Luftwaffe 1946 delusions.

Produce arguments and proof that these were delusions and that the Anglos could have finished projects by 1945 that werent ready by 1947 OTL.

That is an often quoted but incorrect statement. It shows you do not understand (or do know the error but don't care?) what the data actually says and misuse it to try and bolster you fantasy scenarios.

Produce arguments and proof that show that this statment is incorrect. Considered this is common knowledge - I am eager to see the revolutionary proof disproving it.

[T. A. Gardner]

B-29 as a high altitude night bomber? Doesn't sound like a war winning weapon to me. Sounds more like a less accurate, more expensive, more combustible version of a Lancaster. Also, why can't the Germans build high-altitude night jet fighters? The AR-234, for example?

You kind of skipped over the part about what happens if a B-29 is depressurized at 33,000 feet. Do you suppose that if a B-29 is torn open at 35,000 feet their crew is going to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the B-32 Devastator? You keep saying that high altitude is the ticket, but it seems to me that any bomber operating at that altitude is actually far more fragile than a B-17.

One hit from an R4 would stand a decent chance of taking out a B-29. This is the idea, that the B-29 isn't a tougher aircraft than the B-17. Relative to the weapons it was facing, it was actually far weaker than the B-17 it was replacing. That's why the 4-engine piston bomber went extinct after WW2. They were obsolete.

The piston engine bomber was obsolete simply because jet bombers could fly higher and faster.

As for the B-29, it is a very tough aircraft. It will take as much or more damage than a B-17 and far more than a B-24. For example the skinning of the plane was thicker due to increased load and pressurization. There are three pressure compartments separate from each other, nose, mid section, tail gunner.
Unless an R4M hits a critical point, it isn't taking the plane down.



Your version is busted.

British bombers weren't flying at 35,000 feet. The air is really thin. I doubt a heavy B-29 could do anything except fly in pretty much a straight line if fully loaded and that high.

This is ridiculous.

No, for several reasons. First, if the Germans are out of gas they've lost the war. Second, SAM's are fixed position assets and vulnerable to ECM. They weren't going to be a panacea. Third, the Be-349 was entering operational service and, for that particular period in time and against wallowing 4-engine cows in daylight, would have proven very effective. Even more so if an air launched version entered service.

Yes, it is. First, a SAM doesn't have to rely on gasoline as propellant. There are many solid and liquid fuels available for rocket motors that don't use it.

The Ba 349 Natter is a short-range manned SAM. It's a poor man's alternative. The pilot is less efficient than a guided missile at interception and the whole aircraft weighs so much compared to an unmanned guided missile the range is made too short. The "warhead" is also highly inefficient and relies on a ring sight and tail chase to work at all.

What the Germans need is a true SAM capable of intercepting a bomber at say about 30 miles. The system could be mobile or semi-mobile. Many SAM systems are. Jamming and ECM can be countered by good design. For example, US SAM's in the 50's used a ballistic flight path separate from the target that allowed in flight guidance that was very difficult or impossible to jam simply because the highly directional antenna was pointed at the missile and not at the target. The tracking radars (2) used widely separated band widths and multiple frequencies meaning you needed to jam more than one radar simultaneously and because they were high powered, you needed a lot of power to prevent burn through.

The Soviets with the S-25 Berkut used saturation tactics firing multiple missiles on multiple frequencies with a track while scan that didn't disclose that the target was being targeted.

Of course, the Germans didn't get that far, not even close, before the end of the war.

[Michael Kenny]

Produce arguments and proof that show that this statement is incorrect. Considered this is common knowledge - I am eager to see the revolutionary proof disproving it.

If it is correct then you should have no trouble producing numbers showing it to be correct.

[Politician01]

Produce arguments and proof that show that this statement is incorrect. Considered this is common knowledge - I am eager to see the revolutionary proof disproving it.

If it is correct then you should have no trouble producing numbers showing it to be correct.

If someone produces a Theory/Claim - he/she has to back it up with evidence/a resonable hypothesis when asked to do so. So then - do so Kenny. Your burden of proof. I am very eager to see YOUR proof for the claim YOU made. And if you were wrong - just admit it - so that we can move on with the discussion.