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.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8271
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 » 02 May 2020 15:57

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 15:44


I think the Allies would need to flatten the German oil production in order to cripple the Luftwaffe.
or (for example) destroy the transport infrastructure. You can not stop coal being mined but you can prevent it leaving the pit-head in any useful quantity.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
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 » 02 May 2020 16:03

ljadw wrote:
02 May 2020 15:09
Would their use be decisive ?
Maybe/probably in the following scenario :
August 1 1945 : a nuclear bomb is dropped on Rastenburg
August 2 1945 : a nuclear bomb is dropped on Berchtesgaden .
If needed ,on August 3 a nuclear bomb would be dropped on Berlin .
There would be no save place for Hitler to hide or to operate .
The best option would certainly not be at all what you list there. What the Allies would actually want to do is get a fix on Hitler's location and drop the first bomb on that point. They would get one chance, and judging from Nagasaki, the bunker was probably strong enough Hitler survives. Once they miss him once, they'd never get him with an A-bomb unless they had a mole on the inside giving real time location intel.

Hiroshima killed 80,000, Nagasaki days later more like 30,000. Had they dropped the 3rd one, no doubt less than Nagasaki. It may get to the point where the Germans would be losing less than 10,000 per A-bomb. Why? Because of dispersal and fortification. Hiroshima's casualties were so high because the Japanese were surprised. They thought one B-29 was no threat, so everyone was out in the open, taking no precautions. But very shortly it would be if a B-29 was in the area, everyone is in their slit trenches or bunkers.

I wonder if A-bombs might have been the dog that wouldn't bark. If Germany still had France to launch their attacks from, the British would have no interest in a WMD war.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
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 » 02 May 2020 16:05

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 May 2020 15:57
glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 15:44


I think the Allies would need to flatten the German oil production in order to cripple the Luftwaffe.
or (for example) destroy the transport infrastructure. You can not stop coal being mined but you can prevent it leaving the pit-head in any useful quantity.
Agreed, but at some point the Allies have to invade France and advance to the German heartland. No amount of bombing rail heads or synthetic oil plants would substitute for that, for the same reason that bombing North Vietnam did not win the war.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8271
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 » 02 May 2020 16:23

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
02 May 2020 07:41

Can't tell what your motivation is, of course, but there appears to be some background belief operating in which you're on a crusade against the "Nazi Germany alt.history movement." That's going to reduce the productiveness of our engagement; it might explain why several of your points respond to what you think I'm saying (what "movement" members say) rather than what I've said.
99% 'What Ifs ' are simply exercises to change enough conditions so that German wins WW2. That is what they are and why be shy about it?
That is why you never see a 'What If' like 'What If German was was beaten in France in 1940' ? This thread in now firmly in Luftwaffe 1946 territory and I expect we shall soon see the Haunebu getting a mention.If Luftwaffe designs can simply transfer effortlessly from drawing-board to operations why can we not do the same for all the Allied concepts?
Screenshot_130.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8271
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 » 02 May 2020 16:28

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 16:05


Agreed, but at some point the Allies have to invade France and advance to the German heartland. No amount of bombing rail heads or synthetic oil plants would substitute for that,
Which is why the cunning Allies built not just an Air Force and a Navy but an Army big enough to do that. Not a bloated under-equipped & horse-drawn German-style man-heavy style Army but a specific sized Army where it was only to be as big as could be supplied. It seemed to work out quite well for that Army.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6413
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 » 02 May 2020 17:22

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 15:44
By "not be necessary" what you actually mean is "flatly impossible". A quick google indicates that B-29's lost about 450 aircraft (all causes) in the Pacific Theatre, mostly in 1945 against weaker Japanese defenses.
Research indicates that the Twentieth Air Force lost (I'm not sure how "B-29's" can lose B-29s) 414 B-29 aircraft. Of those, 74 were to enemy aircraft, 54 were to antiaircraft fire, 19 were to a combination of enemy aircraft and antiaircraft fire, and 267 were to other causes, including unknown and mechanical causes.
US production should be adequate to field several hundred B-29's and keep them at strength, but the rest of the bomber force - thousands of aircraft - would be the older types, Lancasters, B-17's, etc.
As of 31 August 1945, the USAAF had 2,132 B-29 "Very Heavy Bombers" operational and 732 B-29 non-operational. As of the same date, 7,975 B-17, B-24, and B-32 "Heavy Bombers" were operational and 3,090 non-operational, which was a decrease from the wartime peak of 10,595 operational and 1,931 non-operational 30 September 1944. The heavy bomber force was in the process of transitioning to a very heavy bomber force, which would have continued if the war continued. B-29 production peaked at 375 in the month of July 1945, before it began to decrease as contracts were cut back. Perhaps most importantly, new and transitional training of B-29 crews also peaked in July 1945, with 473 graduating.
I think the Allies would need to flatten the German oil production in order to cripple the Luftwaffe. This would then allow for an invasion once they had air supremacy over Northern France and German armor was crippled by fuel shortages. I don't think the A-bomb would prove to be a panacea - it would just cause more dispersal of populations out of the city centers. How vulnerable was Germany's synthetic oil production to A-bomb attack?
They did flatten it. German production was 316,000 tons in April, 107,000 tons in June, and 17,000 tons in September 1945. Of that, 175,000 tons in April was AVGAS from the synthetic plants, which decreased to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September.
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: 3568
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 » 02 May 2020 17:59

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 May 2020 16:23
99% 'What Ifs ' are simply exercises to change enough conditions so that German wins WW2. That is what they are and why be shy about it?
That is why you never see a 'What If' like 'What If German was was beaten in France in 1940' ? This thread in now firmly in Luftwaffe 1946 territory and I expect we shall soon see the Haunebu getting a mention.If Luftwaffe designs can simply transfer effortlessly from drawing-board to operations why can we not do the same for all the Allied concepts?
Personally, I'm holding out for the more insane Luftwaffe 46 aircraft like a supersonic, delta wing, ramjet, fighter that runs on coal and is made from plywood...

Image

Imagine thousands of these intercepting Allied bombers! :roll:

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
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 » 02 May 2020 18:26

I seem to remember reading that the Lippisch P13 is one of the designs that would have been a pretty maneuverable fighter as soon as fly by wire came along. I would have loved to have seen the Silbervogel too. Same goes for the Vickers Swallow.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3568
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 » 03 May 2020 00:53

Terry Duncan wrote:
02 May 2020 18:26
I seem to remember reading that the Lippisch P13 is one of the designs that would have been a pretty maneuverable fighter as soon as fly by wire came along. I would have loved to have seen the Silbervogel too. Same goes for the Vickers Swallow.
The P-13 was a completely unrealistic project. First, it relied on a coal fired, largely untested, ramjet and was to use rocket boosters to get to speed for the ramjet to operate. Given Germany's lack of high temperature alloys I can't see a ramjet powered by a "basket" full of pulverized coal working in the slightest.
Since the aircraft was to be primarily made of non-strategic materials (eg., wood) at supersonic speeds it likely would have severe problems with structural integrity both from skin heating and material strengths. Then throw in the ramjet heating the plane as well and you are probably looking at more of a flaming shooting star than a practical aircraft. Add in that there were no systems in existence at the time that would allow a pilot flying at supersonic speeds to accurately aim cannon on a target that was maneuvering in the slightest. Even a non-maneuvering one would be difficult to hit except in a stern chase.

As for the Sanger plane, this has since been shown to be completely unrealistic on several fronts. First, the use of stainless steel wouldn't have saved it upon even shallow reentry. As we know now, it would have heated beyond the metal's ability to withstand heating and failed.
Next, Sanger's calculations on needed thrust and weight were far too optimistic. In point of fact, the Silbervogel would have likely not achieved low orbit at all. He really needed titanium and other exotic metals for the craft that would have reduced its weight. As it was, the plane couldn't carry sufficient fuel to achieve the expected results.

I think one of the "big ones" would be the Germans get a workable AAM that can take down an non-maneuvering bomber with a relatively high probability of success. And, no, the Ruhrstal X-4 isn't that missile. The X-4 is a nearly useless piece of crap.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3240
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

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

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 03 May 2020 09:36

T. A. Gardner wrote:
03 May 2020 00:53
Since the aircraft was to be primarily made of non-strategic materials (eg., wood) at supersonic speeds it likely would have severe problems with structural integrity both from skin heating and material strengths. Then throw in the ramjet heating the plane as well and you are probably looking at more of a flaming shooting star than a practical aircraft. Add in that there were no systems in existence at the time that would allow a pilot flying at supersonic speeds
At least the pilot would have been nice and warm! Was the design truly for him to be sitting on a coal-fired ramjet? Makes early-war British tank design look brilliant!

Regards

Tom

Aber
Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

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

Post by Aber » 03 May 2020 11:48

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
03 May 2020 09:36
At least the pilot would have been nice and warm! Was the design truly for him to be sitting on a coal-fired ramjet? Makes early-war British tank design look brilliant!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15688
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 03 May 2020 14:25

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 16:05
Michael Kenny wrote:
02 May 2020 15:57
glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 15:44




Agreed, but at some point the Allies have to invade France and advance to the German heartland. No amount of bombing rail heads or synthetic oil plants would substitute for that, for the same reason that bombing North Vietnam did not win the war.
Overlord was a sufficient reason to win the war, but not a necessary one : even without Overlord,the Soviets would be in Berlin ,And if the Soviets were defeated,the Wallies could invade elsewhere, or not invade at all : the longer the war the weaker was become Germany . General time was running against Germany .
The air attacks on Hanoi, not NVN failed to win the war,because they were limited to Hanoi.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
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 » 03 May 2020 18:34

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 16:03
ljadw wrote:
02 May 2020 15:09
Would their use be decisive ?
Maybe/probably in the following scenario :
August 1 1945 : a nuclear bomb is dropped on Rastenburg
August 2 1945 : a nuclear bomb is dropped on Berchtesgaden .
If needed ,on August 3 a nuclear bomb would be dropped on Berlin .
There would be no save place for Hitler to hide or to operate .
The best option would certainly not be at all what you list there. What the Allies would actually want to do is get a fix on Hitler's location and drop the first bomb on that point. They would get one chance, and judging from Nagasaki, the bunker was probably strong enough Hitler survives. Once they miss him once, they'd never get him with an A-bomb unless they had a mole on the inside giving real time location intel.

That would be comparable to using a flak tower for duck hunting season. Better if Stauffenberg or some other insider succeeded with a less expensive bomb.

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 16:03
Hiroshima killed 80,000, Nagasaki days later more like 30,000. Had they dropped the 3rd one, no doubt less than Nagasaki. It may get to the point where the Germans would be losing less than 10,000 per A-bomb. Why? Because of dispersal and fortification. Hiroshima's casualties were so high because the Japanese were surprised. They thought one B-29 was no threat, so everyone was out in the open, taking no precautions. But very shortly it would be if a B-29 was in the area, everyone is in their slit trenches or bunkers.

I wonder if A-bombs might have been the dog that wouldn't bark.

What about hot zones, radiation poisoning, cancers, black rain. No process existed to filter radioactivity from lakes, public water supplies and top soil. I don't suppose you would consume food and drink that might trip a Geiger counter.

Bikini Atoll is still considered uninhabitable.
Last edited by EKB on 04 May 2020 09:32, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3568
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 » 03 May 2020 18:38

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
03 May 2020 09:36
At least the pilot would have been nice and warm! Was the design truly for him to be sitting on a coal-fired ramjet? Makes early-war British tank design look brilliant!

Regards

Tom
Yep. The Lippisch P-13a was a complete technological pipedream and nightmare.

Starting with the ramjet...
This was to be powered by a basket of pulverized coal. Later designs had the basket replaced by a vertically rotating drum to give more even heating of the coal.

Then there's the ramjet intake. This was a plain duct meaning that once you got the plane into trans-sonic and supersonic speeds it would no longer allow for air flow into the engine as the shockwave would increasing create an air dam keeping it out. This was an unknown at the time. If you look at say the SR-71, who's engines operate more like ramjets at speed, there is a shock cone and massive bleed air system to regulate the air flow into the engine. The P-13a had none of that.

Many sources / sites claim that wind tunnel testing showed the aircraft was stable to Mach 2.5 to 3. The problem is these don't account for the actual skin heating the plane would encounter making use of wood in its design difficult to impossible.

Yes, the pilot would probably have fried operating it. The Caproni CC 1 motor jet the Italians built had this issue but to a somewhat lessor extent. The two crew normally flew with their canopies open to keep the heat from overcoming them in flight.

Then there's the how do you hit anything with your guns? issue to consider. At supersonic speed, assuming that problem is worked out, using nothing but a simple reflector sight isn't going to work. Then you have to limit your speed to less than that of the cannon velocity or you shoot yourself down--as actually happened to a Grumman F11 Tiger pilot who fired in a supersonic dive.
And, you have to modify the cannon fitting design to capture the spent casings as you can't let these fall out of the plane for fear of the damage they'll cause to it...

And, compared to early British tanks and such oddities as the Blackard Bombard, the P-13a was ludicrous.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
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 » 04 May 2020 17:36

Richard Anderson wrote:
02 May 2020 17:22
As of 31 August 1945, the USAAF had 2,132 B-29 "Very Heavy Bombers" operational and 732 B-29 non-operational. As of the same date, 7,975 B-17, B-24, and B-32 "Heavy Bombers" were operational and 3,090 non-operational, which was a decrease from the wartime peak of 10,595 operational and 1,931 non-operational 30 September 1944. The heavy bomber force was in the process of transitioning to a very heavy bomber force, which would have continued if the war continued. B-29 production peaked at 375 in the month of July 1945, before it began to decrease as contracts were cut back. Perhaps most importantly, new and transitional training of B-29 crews also peaked in July 1945, with 473 graduating.
Interesting stats. 375 per month by July 1945. I assume as time went on the non-operational losses, (engine fires, etc), were decreasing. Certainly enough to keep a force of about 1,000 B-29's operational against more advanced defenses provided losses were not more than about 3%. Question, assuming ME-262 production continued to increase, such that interceptions of bomber streams by 400 or more jets was routine, and air to air rockets entered mass usage, was maintaining less than a 3% attrition rate a realistic possibility?

They did flatten it. German production was 316,000 tons in April, 107,000 tons in June, and 17,000 tons in September 1945. Of that, 175,000 tons in April was AVGAS from the synthetic plants, which decreased to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September.
Impressive. You meant 1944, not 1945?

Return to “What if”