Impact of Small Arms on WW2.

[Agua Perdido]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[Hypothetical WWII situation with Germany managing to conquer British Isles and knock Russians back to Urals]

Looks to me like it would be like two sumo wrestlers, circling each other warily, waiting to spot an opening in the other's defense. At some point, the A-bomb would come into play, and my guess is the Americans develop it but the Germans don't, or at least not as soon. And without bases within flying range, it's hard to see how it could be effectively used before the war was already well along.

The enormous B-36 Peacemaker strategic bomber, a mainstay of pre-B-52 U.S. Strategic Air Command in the late '40s and early 50's, grew out of an April 1941 requirement for a bomber that could hit Germany from the continental US (45K ceiling, 12,000-mile range w/5-ton payload--this requirement later scoped down slightly). The program suffered from low priority throughout the war and didn't make its first flight until 1946. But in the spirit of counterfactuals, I think it's arguable that it could have been ready at the same time as the a-bombs were, given higher priority.

Given that making the a-bombs, themselves, took until mid-1945 to invent and build, that already means that they wouldn't be used until the war was "well along," irrespective of the availability of bases and heavy bombers for delivery. (And I don't think it's arguable that the Manhattan Project could possibly have gone much faster or received much higher priority than it did.)

Keep Em Flying,

Agua Perdido

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I don't see how even "perfect play" will win Sealion for Germany. But let that pass with a bit of handwaving and suppose by some miracle Germany did triumph over Britain and the USSR.

Agreed. And even so, with every victory, that's one more nest of hornets the Fuhrer needs to garrison.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

...I dunno, taking Britain and the USSR out of the picture changes everything so profoundly, it's hard to guess what would happen next. And you can be sure that whatever you and I might guess, the reality would be very, very different.

Michael

I think the latter half of the war against Japan was just vanity for the US and, if we had to, we would have scaled it down after retaking the Phillipines ("Be right back, Emperor, we've got a Fuhrer to stomp."). Japan, even more than Germany, would take years to create a viable force to threaten even a token American presence in Asia. We'd end up with a Chinese Korea and a Chinese Vietnam, but that wouldn't be nearly as bad as a Soviet Korea and a French Vietnam.

I'm assuming the same timeframes for everything, Pearl Harbors and such, and I'd think that, even if experiencing more success in Russia (Perhaps because of it), Africa wouldn't be the toughest nut to crack. We still had Patton, he was a decent general, and even a more battered Russia would be a problem for the Germans. I guess that depends on Russia's breaking point. Does it take Stalin's bloody corpse being dragged through the streets of Tankograd or does he start getting practical after Moscow falls?

Just think how much that stretches things and how little any of that stretch relates to SG44s. It wouldn't be WWII, that's for sure, and that's how drastically you'd need to change it to give Germany a fighting chance. I think the propaganda engines were running so hard back then that to this day we overestimate German soldiers, German technology and, really, Germany's chances of taking over the world. Stuck in our heads are reels of goosestepping ubersoldiers and great big black arrows streaming out from a cartoon Germany and into Europe and beyond.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Agua Perdido:

The enormous B-36 Peacemaker strategic bomber, a mainstay of pre-B-52 U.S. Strategic Air Command in the late '40s and early 50's, grew out of an April 1941 requirement for a bomber that could hit Germany from the continental US (45K ceiling, 12,000-mile range w/5-ton payload--this requirement later scoped down slightly). The program suffered from low priority throughout the war and didn't make its first flight until 1946. But in the spirit of counterfactuals, I think it's arguable that it could have been ready at the same time as the a-bombs were, given higher priority.

The problem with the B-36 was that although it first flew in 1946 (and I agree that that date could be pushed up) it didn't actually become a useful bomber until they hung jets on it (in 1949?), and I don't see how development of jet engines could be accelerated very much, especially if Britain goes under in 1940. Yes, the US had its own programs, but British jet design was well in advance at this point.

So, given the time required to ramp up production, it looks to me like it takes until at least 1950 to get an A-fleet built around the B-36 together. So what I'm asking myself is, could the B-29 have bombed Germany from Iceland?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

I think the propaganda engines were running so hard back then that to this day we overestimate German soldiers, German technology and, really, Germany's chances of taking over the world. Stuck in our heads are reels of goosestepping ubersoldiers and great big black arrows streaming out from a cartoon Germany and into Europe and beyond.

Absolutely. I remember how shocked I was when I learned that more than 90% of the German army was horse drawn. They were fighting a 20th. century war with a 19th. century army. So were a lot of countries, but one didn't think of the Germans in that light. Looking around the web, it's clear that a lot of gamers and history buffs still haven't grasped the significance of that fact.

Michael

[Denwad]

when you have 6 million enlisted men, it's hard to give them all motorcars to ride around in.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Denwad:

when you have 6 million enlisted men, it's hard to give them all motorcars to ride around in.

The Americans did it.

[Michael Emrys]

So did the Brits, as I recall. Of course, some of them wouldn't run.

Michael

[Hamstersss]

We've so deviated from the poor SG44...

With that ignored, what hope did Germany have? Should they have just stopped with France and entered a cold war with Britain (And likely America?) From what I've heard, they didn't need to go to war with the US when Japan did. Was Barbarossa just Germany starting a war with Russia before Russia did the same back to them or could the continent have stabilized with a Greater Germany and a French rump state? If war with Russia was inevitable, did that doom Germany to destruction no matter what (Would they have benefitted from a defensive war? Would it have affected US involvement if they were the attacked instead of the attacker)? Was WWII at its scope unavoidable or could Germany have won a Tactical/Minor Victory*? I'm more conversant with the Pacific theatre from a causal standpoint and it seems that Japan had been forced into war with the Western powers (And by 'forced' I must stress that I'm not being an apologist for the Imperial government; I suppose I mean it in a realpolitick sense). I know that in the economic miracle in Germany was sustained through fascist policies regarding military investment, was it at the point where it was the case with Germany that they had to have a World War II?

*In the CM sense, of course, it was after all a strategic conflict.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Denwad:

when you have 6 million enlisted men, it's hard to give them all motorcars to ride around in.

Maybe - but the Germans did not even try.

Also, the issue is not that the whole army should be able to move truck-bound. None of the WW2 armies could have done that. Instead, it is whether you have your logistical elements down to platoon level motorised (the British had achieved that from about 1939 with the exception of a cavalry division), and whether you can move forces at the point of main effort motorised (as e.g. the Red Army did during Bagration and later). This the western armies achieved completely, and the Red Army sufficiently.

The issue is not whether every Gefreiter should have had their own KdF vehicle and a Blitzmädel as driver.

[Leopard_2]

Many interesting points here (if horrendously off-topic, but as long as everyone enjoys it... )

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

From what I've heard, they didn't need to go to war with the US when Japan did.

Correct, Hitler declared war on the US to "back up our fascist allies in Japan" - one of his monumental mistakes. IIRC, the US were rather reluctant about getting directly involved in the European theater; what if they'd have stayed out of the war for a while longer?

Was Barbarossa just Germany starting a war with Russia before Russia did the same back to them or could the continent have stabilized with a Greater Germany and a French rump state?

Possibly, but not with Hitler in the lead. His whole reason for going to war against Poland was "Lebensraum", winning space and ressources - oil not being the least important! - for a Germany that couldn't sustain itself.

(How true that latter point is was shown very nicely during WWII. Oil, tungsten, chrome, ...)

Would it have affected US involvement if they were the attacked instead of the attacker?

After Hitler attacked just about every neighbour Germany had (well, except for Switzerland), being attacked could have strengthened his diplomatic position. Not that he and his men were very skilled at playing that card. (As their ridiculous, blunt attempt at winning British neutrality shows. Who could ever consider Ribbentrop a diplomat?)

I know that in the economic miracle in Germany was sustained through fascist policies regarding military investment, was it at the point where it was the case with Germany that they had to have a World War II?

Yes. They did a number of tricks to avoid short-term inflation, but with things as they did them during the 1930ies, in the long run they "needed" a war.

----

Regarding a German / US standoff and nuclear weapons... if you look at the B-36 and Manhattan Project, you also have to take into account that a winning Germany could actually have carried through one of its "America Bomber" projects.

There was the Ho XVIIIB, the Ar 555, Me 1107/1108, Ju 132... and the "Virus House" nuclear device. Whether "Virus House" would actually have exploded, or simply sprayed the area with high radioactives ("dirty bomb", anyone?) doesn't really matter in my book. To the contrary - I could perfectly imagine a public opinion "preferring" a large-scale contamination weapon over a "city-buster" killing a hundred thousand outright.

Perhaps a winning - and less repressive - Germany could have kept some of the bright heads of nuclear physics in the land and give the Manhattan project a run for their money.

And while we're at the completely hypothetical anyway, let's for a second ignore the a-bomb issue: A Germany that has conquered the USSR would have all the raw materials it would need to push those projects that in our real history struggled due to severe shortages: oil for the tanks and planes, rare ores to build jet engines that haven't to be replaced every 10 flight hours, tungsten for the tanks... and all that being build by an industry that is reasonably safe from strategic bombing, so you don't have to disperse it all across the country...

But then... the Maginot line was invincible, Eben Emael was able to hold up an army for weeks, battleships were the decisive factor at sea, and building a bomb many thousand times stronger than any conventional explosive was just science fiction.

How can we believe we could figure out alternative histories with any degree of accuracy? Perhaps the Germans really would have made the "Glocke" project a success and build anti-gravity devices - no more "impossible" than the a-bomb seemed to the people of 1930.

(And just as an aside, wouldn't a "Maus" with an AG device and running 50 km/h cross-country be a sight? :-D )

[Agua Perdido]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The problem with the B-36 was that although it first flew in 1946 (and I agree that that date could be pushed up) it didn't actually become a useful bomber until they hung jets on it (in 1949?)

Well, that depends what you mean by "useful bomber" (and the jet-assisted B-36D went into serial production in 1949). The prop-only B-36A had a combat radius of nearly 4K miles with a nuke-sized payload. Granted, it was slow--max speed at altitude around 350 kts. All the jets did was reduce the enormous takeoff roll and add some dash speed over the target (to ~450kts, I think). Still, the prop-only version has performance comparable to a B-29 with much longer legs and payload, and the SuperFort was a "useful bomber."

So, given the time required to ramp up production, it looks to me like it takes until at least 1950 to get an A-fleet built around the B-36 together. So what I'm asking myself is, could the B-29 have bombed Germany from Iceland?

Well, I think you could have had a reasonable B-36A fleet by late 1945, albeit one that would be vulnerable to fighter interception (just like a B-29 fleet would be). Late-model B-29Bs had a combat radius around 1800 miles. The post-war B-29D/B-50 (renumbered to get through Congress) had a combat radius of 2200ish miles, and probably could have been ready in 1945 if the lower marks weren't cutting it.

Anyhow, a Great Circle from Keflavik to Berlin is about 1500 miles. Plus, an 1800-mile ring around Keflavik reaches all the way to northern Italy and Poland, easily covering all of Germany.

So, yeah, nuking Berlin from Iceland would certainly have been doable in 1945, as would nuking Berlin from North America (assuming more effort to the B-36). The bigger problem would be getting past the fighters--even the most tanked-up, late-war P-47s and P-51s had combat radii less than 1200 miles. I suppose, we can also assume a bigger push for the P-82 "Twin Mustang" (two P-51s joined by a center wing). Intended for long PTO escort missions, it's max radius was up around 1300 miles, although one flew nonstop from Hawaii to New York on a ferry flight (almost 5000 miles). Given that, one can assume the "Twin" might have been ready and able to escort missions to Berlin from Keflavik in 1945.

Of course, if the Luftwaffe had enough StG44s, all bets are off.

Originally posted by Leopard_2:

Perhaps a winning - and less repressive - Germany could have kept some of the bright heads of nuclear physics in the land and give the Manhattan project a run for their money.

Probably not. Germany badly failed its "nuclear fission theory" die roll attempts in 1940-42, mostly because of adverse DRMs due to all the "bright heads" fleeing well before the war started. The other source of negative DRMs was that nukes were a long-term vision--why bother when you'd already "won" in 1941 (beaten France, spanking USSR)? If Germany were "winning" even more in our scenario, why would it bother with the a-bomb, especially after they screwed up the initial feasibility calculations?

Keep 'Em Flying,

Agua Perdido

[Edited because Croda is a brainless prat.]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Agua Perdido:

Of course, if the Luftwaffe had enough StG44s, all bets are off.

Heh. Furthermore, if Germany finds reason to develop SAMs like the Wasserfall, that could make things a bit tricky for the bombers, even if they have fighter escort.

From this vantage point, it's hard to predict what the decision path of measure/counter-measure tree would have looked like.

Michael