TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
...and as everyone keeps ignoring in this thread, a heavy bomber costs ~10x an Me-109 to produce. Absolutely unsustainable against an ATL LW producing >5,000 fighters per month, with the fuel to maintain an adequate training program.
Everyone ignores it...Because you have not explained where you are getting all this aluminium from. Germany had pretty much maxed out her production and Soviet production was 20% that of Germany.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
Germany isn't going to surrender after 2 atom bombs like Japan, not when it controls all of Europe, the Middle East, and most of North Africa.
So the Allies are going to have to be willing to incinerate millions of Germans along with millions of foreign workers residing in German cities.
That's just the first problem.
No one expects Germany to surrender after only 2...Look at how many the US produced in the following months. They would be completing 3 per month. That's 24 by March, 1946. Then, the US goes on a party spree.
Your problem is that your thinking historically...Stuck in the Pacific War.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
Next they have to be willing to accept an utterly horrific response from the Nazi regime.
OTL Germany had enough Tabun (sarin gas) to kill everyone on earth.
If A-bombs start incinerating German men, women, and children, can anyone really doubt that Germany would kill millions with Tabun?
Your presuming that there is a Nazi Party left. Or whomever takes over will wish to continue.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
They'd have thousands of jet aircraft with which to deliver small Tabun payloads and there's no chance of intercepting all - or even a quarter - of a determined bio-weapons raiding program against England.
More aircraft that Germany does not have the aluminium to produce.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
Further, would we put it past the Nazi regime to start gassing Paris, Athens, Stockholm, Moscow, and other centers under their control if the Allies evince an intent to murder millions of Germans with A-bombs? I don't think so.
Let them...Bye-Bye German slave laborers...Hello uprisings in every nation under German control. Bye-Bye Greater German Empire.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
[*]"Peripheral operations" This is spoken of but not specified. Where do the Allies land? Is there anywhere in Europe that they can? Nobody in this thread will tell us. The Victory Plan mentions "expeditions" in France and the Low Countries but that's risible absent an army capable of 1 on 1 battle against the full Heer.
Hard to say, without knowing what German units are stationed where.
Norway or North Africa would be a start...Any where the Germans have to use sea routes to supply and land troops.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
[*]Bomber offensive - so far nobody on the other side has explained how the bomber offensive continues against a much stronger LW.
Because, you have not sufficiently explained how the Luftwaffe is much stronger. No extra production facilities, the USSR is not much help providing extra Aluminium...oh, that's right, the Germans are building steel aircraft now. Germany only lost about 3,000 fighters on the Eastern Front 42-44. So your 5x more powerful LW doe not seem to be all that more powerful.
[*]"Cruise Missiles" or "Technology!" This T.A. Gardner's idea so far; it's completely implausible IMJ. Heavy bombers remained the primary instrument of strategic aerial warfare for decades after WW2; until there's some credible explanation of how tens of thousands of accurate cruise missiles time-travel into the 1940's this idea doesn't deserve much attention. [/quote]
Historically, with the end of the war, the US refunded most of their programs. But, this is not historical...Is it.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
[*]Rearm the SU after Japan's fall. Nobody has so far explained why Stalin would subject his rump state to the immediate German response of driving from the Urals to take Western Siberia and detach Central Asia from Soviet control, rendering the SU a bit player in world politics and likely causing collapse of the Soviet regime. Nobody explains how the Allies rearm the SU without the Germans noticing and doing the foregoing. Nobody explains why the SU wouldn't prefer to take Manchuria and Korea from Japan, presenting the West with a fait accompli, and then supporting the Reds in the Chinese Civil War. It's massively superficial "analysis."
The Soviets take Manchuria & Korea with what exactly?
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
[*]"After the defeat of Japan." Commenters in this thread refuse to engage the likelihood of German assistance to Japan over the Trans-Siberian railroad or via other means. If Germany provides thousands of cheap fighters, for instance, it will be a very long time before even the USN can field enough carrier-based planes to establish air supremacy over landing sites. And a very long time before it can wreck Japanese cities as in OTL, when the B-29's faced very weak opposition. That means either a longer fight against Japan or a peace with Germany in which Hitler stops propping up Japan.
Oh great...Even More airplanes Germany does not have aluminium for. Where is Germany getting all this aluminum?
Over a Trans-Siberian Railway that Germany does not control(I'd love to see Stalin tear it up out of spite).
Germany sends thousands of cheap fighters(must be made of wood). Sending short-ranged fighters to fight a very long ranged Pacific War is not a very smart move. Too many islands to far apart to be mutually supportive.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020 22:27
how do the Allies get back on the ground in Europe and eventually to Berlin?
They just can't.
At least that's my judgment so far. But I'm willing to hear out substantive arguments that don't rely on "something something Technology!"
What does it matter?
Decades of planning a Pacific War never once considered an invasion of Japan - the very idea was an anathema to US military planners. Yet, in 1945, there they were, planning to invade Japan.
Plans change as the situation changes, and what holds true now, may not hold true 2 or 3 years from now.
Besides, for all you know it will be something something technology.