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.
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 18:25

EKB wrote:
03 May 2020 18:34
Bikini Atoll is still considered uninhabitable.
I'm trying to keep up on the sprawling conditions of the AH. The Germans have coal powered wooden jet planes and, from your Bikini reference, the Allies now have the H-bomb in 1945?

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 » 04 May 2020 19:53

glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 17:36
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%.
No, the transition would have continued to a Very Heavy Bomber force of about 10,000 B-29. Why if they already had a force of 2,000 B-29 in mid-1945 would they choose to decrease it to prosecute a war against "more advanced defenses"?
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?
Yeah, assuming Me 262 outfitted with P&W F100 and AIM-9L and you've got a dangerous combination. Actual Me 262 with Jumo 004 and unguided rockets? Not so much.
Impressive. You meant 1944, not 1945?
Indeed.
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 » 04 May 2020 21:24

glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 17:36
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?
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.

The problem for the Germans becomes not one of simply intercepting such aircraft, but rather needing to design and put into general service pressurized cockpits that work. At the altitudes they would now be flying at an unpressurized cockpit won't fly unless the pilot is wearing a pressure suit of some sort.

Image

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.

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).

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.

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.
Then you need about 200 per flying day to replace those that have hit the service life limit.
So, say 225 engines per day to keep your stock of 400 Me 262 flying. At best, Junkers turned out about 1500 per month. But at 225 needed per day you need almost 7,000 per month (6750) to keep your planes flying at a 400 operational level. This doesn't include engines for other jets using the same one in service.
Thus, it is virtually impossible that Germany could keep 400 Me 262 flying on a daily basis. They might have managed 100, but it's more likely that 50 to 75 per operational day is the target limit. The only ways to improve that number are for Junkers to either substantially increase the engine's reliability-- that requires better materials that aren't available-- or greatly expand production by as much as 4 to 6 times what it was. Neither is a likely outcome.

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...
Last edited by T. A. Gardner on 04 May 2020 22:19, edited 2 times 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 » 04 May 2020 21:28

glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 18:25
EKB wrote:
03 May 2020 18:34
Bikini Atoll is still considered uninhabitable.
I'm trying to keep up on the sprawling conditions of the AH. The Germans have coal powered wooden jet planes and, from your Bikini reference, the Allies now have the H-bomb in 1945?
Hey, I was half-joking about the L-19a. It is a ludicrous design that I doubt even the Germans in desperation would have actually tried to produce beyond some failed prototypes. But it is a favorite of the Nazi fanboy sort that trots out If only the Germans had this airplane... tank... etc.

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 » 04 May 2020 21:48

glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 18:25
EKB wrote:
03 May 2020 18:34
Bikini Atoll is still considered uninhabitable.
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.

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 » 04 May 2020 22:24

EKB wrote:
04 May 2020 21:48
glenn239 wrote:
04 May 2020 18:25
EKB wrote:
03 May 2020 18:34
Bikini Atoll is still considered uninhabitable.
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.
Actually, in the short run residual radiation from the bomb wouldn't be a big problem. It is mostly alpha and beta and would take months to years to manifest issues in those exposed to it. Exposure would also require that the person be in the area for extended periods of time. Look at the radium watch painters for example. Same sort of radiation only much greater and concentrated exposure. They took years to show the effects.

So, in terms of a war, the radiation in the aftermath of a nuclear bombing is really not an issue for war fighting. It is a health issue for the peace that follows.

Bikini is inhabitable, but you risk the good possibility you will suffer from radiation exposure in 10 to 20 years of living there. It is a very slow killer.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
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 » 04 May 2020 22:53

glenn239 wrote:
02 May 2020 16:03
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.
Your joking right...

Hiroshima had a far larger, more concentrated population. About 3-4 times more population than Nagasaki.

Nagasaki was also in the bottom of a valley, surrounded by sparsely populated steep hillsides. Hence, most of the blast was expended on sparsely populated or unpopulated areas.

The steep hillsides prevented the blastwaves from reaching other parts of the city.

Hiroshima was surprised, but 50% of the population was unharmed. Nagasaki was hiding in bomb shelters, yet only 66% of the population was unharmed. If what Glenn says is true...There should be a much higher percentage of Nagasaki's population to be unharmed.

C'mon Glenn, at least do a little research on the topic.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

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

Post by History Learner » 04 May 2020 23:44

Yodasgrandad wrote:
09 Mar 2017 20:34
Sometime in 1941/42 the Reich defeats the USSR, Stalin dies and civil war ensues allowing Germany to occupy the country up to the Ural Mountains. They are still at war with Britain and the US.

Assuming they have the political will to defeat Nazi Germany (after they defeat Japan) how many casualties would the WAllies suffer in taking back the continent from a far stronger and prepared Nazi Germany that has had a significant amount of time to build up their military, finish the Atlantic Wall and drain the resources of Eastern Europe?

What would TTL's D-Day look like in terms of losses?

IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy. Possibly more casualties as they'll have to wade through more Germans?

Or would it be no different to the D-Day that happened?
Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8270
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 » 04 May 2020 23:55

History Learner wrote:
04 May 2020 23:44

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.
I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

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

Post by History Learner » 05 May 2020 00:16

Michael Kenny wrote:
04 May 2020 23:55
History Learner wrote:
04 May 2020 23:44

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.
I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.
No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.

At least one, maybe two, entire Army Groups are freed for duty in Western Europe or the Mediterranean here; IOTL, the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions, for example. Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Finally, they have the strategic depth and resources of the European USSR to continuously increase their own industrial production and move it beyond the range of anything but B-36s, which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

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

Post by Futurist » 05 May 2020 00:36

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 00:16
Michael Kenny wrote:
04 May 2020 23:55
History Learner wrote:
04 May 2020 23:44

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.
I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.
No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.

At least one, maybe two, entire Army Groups are freed for duty in Western Europe or the Mediterranean here; IOTL, the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions, for example. Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Finally, they have the strategic depth and resources of the European USSR to continuously increase their own industrial production and move it beyond the range of anything but B-36s, which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.
I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8270
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 00:37

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 00:16


No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.
Because all these 'confines' are carefully constructed to give every advantage to Germany. They bear no relation to actual WW2 events.
The WW2 version of the Flat Earth Society.

,
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 00:16
the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions,


Nearly..cudda...shudda...........

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 00:16
Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall.
A wall which was pierced easily...just like The Maginot line.......and The Siegfried Line.


History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 00:16
which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.
Ah yes the alternate reality where every German paper design is rushed into service within weeks of the concept drawings and is an instant fault-free specification-exceeding success. Meanwhile the Allies have to stick to years of boring old prototypes and testing before any of their designs bear fruit.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

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

Post by Futurist » 05 May 2020 00:38

Michael Kenny wrote:
04 May 2020 23:55
History Learner wrote:
04 May 2020 23:44

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.
I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.
The Germans aren't supermen, but their control of France and the French coastline gives them an extremely crucial strategic advantage that would probably be extremely difficult for the Anglo-Americans to actually overcome. If the Anglo-Americans would have already actually had some sort of foothold in France, then it would be a different story, but they didn't, so yeah.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8270
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 00:48

Futurist wrote:
05 May 2020 00:38

The Germans aren't supermen,
So why do we get the terms 'Spartans/Praetorians/Gladiators/Teutonic Knights/Samurai routinely used in connection with the Waffen SS?
There is an 'Uber soldier' assumption at the root of all this and it is futile to deny it.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

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

Post by Futurist » 05 May 2020 00:53

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 May 2020 00:48
Futurist wrote:
05 May 2020 00:38

The Germans aren't supermen,
So why do we get the terms 'Spartans/Praetorians/Gladiators/Teutonic Knights/Samurai routinely used in connection with the Waffen SS?
There is an 'Uber soldier' assumption at the root of all this and it is futile to deny it.
Well, I'm not using those terms, so you'll have to ask the people who are using those terms.

Return to “What if”