PDA

View Full Version : What if we didn't ally with USSR in 1941?



gunnut
18 Jun 14,, 19:46
Was it possible to only help UK and France but not USSR? Let the Nazis and commies annihilate each other.

SteveDaPirate
18 Jun 14,, 20:38
I think the problem with not helping the USSR is that Germany had just steamrolled through most of Europe, and the Red Army had just undergone massive purges and reorganizations. From the standpoint of the United States, the possibility that German forces would quickly bulldoze their way to Moscow and force a surrender had to be a serious consideration.

When Napoleon took Moscow he expected a delegation and an offer of capitulation from the Tzar. Instead he found a largely deserted city that had been stripped of food and supplies, while saboteurs burned 4/5th of the city the night he arrived. In hindsight, Hitler would probably have gotten a very similar reception if the Germans had taken Moscow. In 1941 however, all people saw was a weak looking USSR still reeling from revolutions, a Red Army in disarray from purges, and a German juggernaut that had crushed most of Europe.

I think that the primary reason the landings at Normandy even became a possibility is because the majority of German forces were tied up fighting the USSR. In hindsight we know that Stalin was willing to burn his own cities and countryside while sending untrained, underequipped men to their deaths by the tens of thousands just to slow the German advance. On the other hand, if the USSR had offered a quick capitulation (as many suspected it might) and the Germans had 3 years to consolidate their gains, Normandy would never have happened. The Atlantic Wall would have been fully manned, with armored reserves and garrisons of troops close enough move in and repulse any attempts to force a landing.

We needed the Germans to be fighting a two front war as much as Stalin did.

Stitch
18 Jun 14,, 22:45
This was possible, but not probable; IIRC, Roosevelt actually had to do some political arm-twisting to get Congress to go along with the Lend-Lease program vis-a-vis the Soviets. You have to remember, we had just spent some treasure (and lives) supporting the "white" Russians in their war with the "reds" in the 1920's; IMHO, we would have been better off, in many respects, NOT including the Soviets in our Lend-Lease program of the '40's.

In the long run, we actually gave them a head-start on the (eventual) Cold War; they ended up reverse-engineering several platforms that they would not otherwise have had access to. Yes, WWII might've been a few months longer; but in the long-term, I think Lend-Lease actually hurt us vis-a-vis the Soviets.

zraver
18 Jun 14,, 22:55
Was it possible to only help UK and France but not USSR? Let the Nazis and commies annihilate each other.

Yes it was possible and with hindsight may have been a better strategic move. It would have likely meant Soviet exhaustion somewhere in Belarus/Ukraine leaving the US/UK free to defeat Germany and liberate Eastern Europe.

astralis
19 Jun 14,, 15:06
gunnut,


Was it possible to only help UK and France but not USSR?

well, by 1941...France was already done. :)

z,


Yes it was possible and with hindsight may have been a better strategic move. It would have likely meant Soviet exhaustion somewhere in Belarus/Ukraine leaving the US/UK free to defeat Germany and liberate Eastern Europe.

but only in complete hindsight.

in 1941 it looked to any rational observer that the USSR was about to collapse, leaving at best a siberian rump state and Germany in control of Europe/European Russia at the minimum.

another year after that and the nazis would scoop up the Middle East. perhaps one more year after that, they'd be at the gates of India with Japan hammering on the other side.

prior to dec 7, 1941, the isolationists-- IE the vast majority of the US-- thought that Churchill or no, Great Britain would then go under and sue for terms, if they hadn't done so already.

in any case, even with complete hindsight this would be a very difficult sell to the US public. how many more GIs would have died just at normandy if the germans had a bigger strategic reserve? how about the taking of berlin? of course the Western Allies wouldn't have taken even a third of the casualties that the USSR did in their desperate drive, but you're talking anywhere from another 250-300K casualties for the US alone, at least.

recall for operation olympic the US was bracing itself for some 400-500K casualties. those perspective casualties were enough to daunt the Allied high command, even given the post-pearl harbor US desire for blood vengeance, verging on race war.

astralis
19 Jun 14,, 15:50
Stitch,


In the long run, we actually gave them a head-start on the (eventual) Cold War; they ended up reverse-engineering several platforms that they would not otherwise have had access to. Yes, WWII might've been a few months longer; but in the long-term, I think Lend-Lease actually hurt us vis-a-vis the Soviets.

i'd say from a non-hindsight perspective Lend-Lease to the USSR from 1941-1943 were fully justifiable. by 1943 Stalin was already making ominous notes that if more aid or a second front wasn't opened up, he might very well ask hitler for status quo ante bellum. decision makers at the time were -fairly- certain Stalin wouldn't, but he had made surprising deals with hitler before.

by mid-1944 it was becoming pretty clear that the USSR really didn't need Lend-Lease anymore, but by this time the Allies were also preparing to ask for Soviet assistance against Japan.

in short, most of the decisionmakers weren't willing to trade the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops for Eastern Europe.

Albany Rifles
19 Jun 14,, 21:44
There was no way in hell we would not ally with Russia. We had to follow our Allies. After all, Churchill said about Russia:

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

gunnut
20 Jun 14,, 01:36
gunnut,

well, by 1941...France was already done. :)

The Free French government in exile in London continued to fight. Plus there was substantial colonial holdings under the banner of Free French government.



z,

but only in complete hindsight.

in 1941 it looked to any rational observer that the USSR was about to collapse, leaving at best a siberian rump state and Germany in control of Europe/European Russia at the minimum.

another year after that and the nazis would scoop up the Middle East. perhaps one more year after that, they'd be at the gates of India with Japan hammering on the other side.

prior to dec 7, 1941, the isolationists-- IE the vast majority of the US-- thought that Churchill or no, Great Britain would then go under and sue for terms, if they hadn't done so already.

in any case, even with complete hindsight this would be a very difficult sell to the US public. how many more GIs would have died just at normandy if the germans had a bigger strategic reserve? how about the taking of berlin? of course the Western Allies wouldn't have taken even a third of the casualties that the USSR did in their desperate drive, but you're talking anywhere from another 250-300K casualties for the US alone, at least.

recall for operation olympic the US was bracing itself for some 400-500K casualties. those perspective casualties were enough to daunt the Allied high command, even given the post-pearl harbor US desire for blood vengeance, verging on race war.

I thought about the scenario some more and came to a slightly different conclusion.

If we only helped UK and Free French, but not USSR, then the Soviets probably would have fought Germany to a stalemate on the eastern front, somewhere around the Ukraine area. Soviets would have had a hard time pushing Germany back without Lend Lease. Germany and USSR might sigh a cease fire like what we did in Korea. Soviets get a breather and Germans can consolidate their holdings.

Assuming Japan still attacks Pearl, US would crush Japan with the full might of US military in 1944. But without the A-bombs, the land invasion could cost US 400k dead and maybe 2 million wounded.

The world might settle down to a 3-party cold war with US/UK vs. the Third Reich in Europe vs. USSR.

The tricky part is China. Would there be enough US military in Asia (from fighting Japan first) to prevent a complete collapse of the Nationalists in China? Or would that have been inevitable, resulting in USSR/China bloc being the 3rd participant in the 3 way cold war?

zraver
20 Jun 14,, 02:33
z,



but only in complete hindsight.

in 1941 it looked to any rational observer that the USSR was about to collapse, leaving at best a siberian rump state and Germany in control of Europe/European Russia at the minimum.

another year after that and the nazis would scoop up the Middle East. perhaps one more year after that, they'd be at the gates of India with Japan hammering on the other side.

prior to dec 7, 1941, the isolationists-- IE the vast majority of the US-- thought that Churchill or no, Great Britain would then go under and sue for terms, if they hadn't done so already.

in any case, even with complete hindsight this would be a very difficult sell to the US public. how many more GIs would have died just at normandy if the germans had a bigger strategic reserve? how about the taking of berlin? of course the Western Allies wouldn't have taken even a third of the casualties that the USSR did in their desperate drive, but you're talking anywhere from another 250-300K casualties for the US alone, at least.

recall for operation olympic the US was bracing itself for some 400-500K casualties. those perspective casualties were enough to daunt the Allied high command, even given the post-pearl harbor US desire for blood vengeance, verging on race war.

With complete Hindsight I think over casualties may have been lower since we would know to go after Nazi fuel production and transport nets without mercy. When we finally figured out that the key to strategic bombing of Germany was to concentrate on electrical production, oil refining and transport nets the war was already all but won. Nothing the Germans can do from 1944 on is going to save their transport net. The transportation and fuel limits are going to put a cap on how many divisions Hitler can throw West no matter how much he wants to.

zraver
20 Jun 14,, 02:35
The Free French government in exile in London continued to fight. Plus there was substantial colonial holdings under the banner of Free French government.



I thought about the scenario some more and came to a slightly different conclusion.

If we only helped UK and Free French, but not USSR, then the Soviets probably would have fought Germany to a stalemate on the eastern front, somewhere around the Ukraine area. Soviets would have had a hard time pushing Germany back without Lend Lease. Germany and USSR might sigh a cease fire like what we did in Korea. Soviets get a breather and Germans can consolidate their holdings.

Assuming Japan still attacks Pearl, US would crush Japan with the full might of US military in 1944. But without the A-bombs, the land invasion could cost US 400k dead and maybe 2 million wounded.

The world might settle down to a 3-party cold war with US/UK vs. the Third Reich in Europe vs. USSR.

The tricky part is China. Would there be enough US military in Asia (from fighting Japan first) to prevent a complete collapse of the Nationalists in China? Or would that have been inevitable, resulting in USSR/China bloc being the 3rd participant in the 3 way cold war?

Without the A-bomb, Japan would be starving and facing mass famine before the first American boot lands on the Home Islands. I'm not sure Japan would not have come hat in hand to the Allies anyway within just a few weeks of the A-Bomb/ Soviet Invasion. The Submarine offensive and mining operations created a very real promise of mass famine.

tbm3fan
20 Jun 14,, 05:01
Without the A-bomb, Japan would be starving and facing mass famine before the first American boot lands on the Home Islands. I'm not sure Japan would not have come hat in hand to the Allies anyway within just a few weeks of the A-Bomb/ Soviet Invasion. The Submarine offensive and mining operations created a very real promise of mass famine.

I agree. After a couple of months of a blockade by the US Navy the Japanese would be out of fuel and out of food. Soon winter would be upon them and existence in that country would be extremely hard. However, crushing the Japanese for Pearl Harbor no doubt held a certain appeal for some so why wait for them. Not faulting the use of the A-bomb since my Dad was waiting around for the invasion but still think a blockade, while less satisfying, would have achieved surrender also.

Triple C
20 Jun 14,, 05:16
Hm. If China is the only sphere of influence left to the US government, who knows? To prevent Mao's victory, however, would require a gigantic amount of materiel and direct intervention with US troops.

Albany Rifles
20 Jun 14,, 13:31
Before Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped Japan HAD been starved into a stupor.

The US Pacific Fleet Submarine Force had seen to that.

Bigfella
20 Jun 14,, 13:50
Was it possible to only help UK and France but not USSR? Let the Nazis and commies annihilate each other.

How many America lives is it worth to you?

As others have pointed out, it is only with complete hindsight that we understand the point at which Hitler shot his bolt. Until Stalingrad fell the result seemed unclear from the outside, and even then there was no way to know how long it would take to defeat Hitler. You need to understand just how unbeatable the Nazi war machine looked in 1941. it had brushed aside the army considered the best in the world in a few months, had taken most of continental Europe & had virtually destroyed the largest army in the world. To assume at that point that the Russians would recover and eventually win would be an act of the greatest optimism.

Had a stalemate developed on the Eastern front there is simply no telling what the war in the west might have looked like. Perhaps Germany doesn't lose as many troops & as much equipment by the time the Western Allies land in Europe. Perhaps the Nazis are able to inflict heavier casualties. Perhaps Stalin, realising he is being hung out to dry, cuts a deal with Hitler Brest-Litovsk style & allows the Nazis to turn on the Western Allies in far greater numbers.

Further, any US President had to consider that Russia might be a valuable ally against Japan. That remained a firm hope right up until the end. While that turned out to be a bust in the end, it held out the prospect of saving thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of US lives. Remember that until that first A-bomb flattened Hiroshima there was still no guarantee it would work. If you believe the Colonel that eventual Russian invasion of Manchurian was as much a part of Japan's decision to surrender as the A-bombs, Every day of war cost more US lives even without an invasion of Japan. Had it been necessary to invade Japan there were orders to massacre Allied POWs & prisoners - several hundred thousand of them.

No responsible US President could afford to ignore supporting the one power with the resources & position to crush the German Army without the Western Allies expending hundreds of thousands more lives. It would have been an act of criminal irresponsibility.

astralis
20 Jun 14,, 14:41
gunnut,


The Free French government in exile in London continued to fight. Plus there was substantial colonial holdings under the banner of Free French government.

eh, vichy france did more for the nazis than the Free French ever did for us.


If we only helped UK and Free French, but not USSR, then the Soviets probably would have fought Germany to a stalemate on the eastern front, somewhere around the Ukraine area. Soviets would have had a hard time pushing Germany back without Lend Lease. Germany and USSR might sigh a cease fire like what we did in Korea. Soviets get a breather and Germans can consolidate their holdings.


that's the most likely scenario. i'd say actually closer to 1939 borders, though.


Assuming Japan still attacks Pearl, US would crush Japan with the full might of US military in 1944. But without the A-bombs, the land invasion could cost US 400k dead and maybe 2 million wounded.

probably 1945 vice 1944, i think. given the japanese defense system where you had to dig them out of islands to get closer to the mainland, numbers had limited utility.

operation downfall was scheduled to last until either late '46 or early '47 IIRC (horrifying if you think about it), with multiple smaller operations built in if japan didn't surrender.


The tricky part is China. Would there be enough US military in Asia (from fighting Japan first) to prevent a complete collapse of the Nationalists in China? Or would that have been inevitable, resulting in USSR/China bloc being the 3rd participant in the 3 way cold war?

well after such a bloodbath on japan i'm not sure how interested the average american would be in China. we did a LOT of stuff for the nationalists in 1945-1946; huge airlifts of Nationalist soldiers to accept Japanese surrenders, a bunch of weapons/tanks turned over. if Japan fought to the end there probably wouldn't be as much interest.

Albany Rifles
20 Jun 14,, 14:55
probably 1945 vice 1944, i think. given the japanese defense system where you had to dig them out of islands to get closer to the mainland, numbers had limited utility.

As my other posts said....the conditions for a succesful invasion fo the Home ISlands were not met until the Japanese merchant fleet was destroyed whcih choked off the ability to produce sufficient arms and equipment. Unlike Germany they did not have the means to synthesize oil from coal.

And one other point....don't forget part of the reason for the dates for the Home Island invasions was so sufficient fissile materiels could be developed to have sufficient bombs to use in the prep bombardment...and I think I just wet myself with fear just thinking about what utter devestation that would have meant.

astralis
20 Jun 14,, 15:19
z, tbmfan,


I'm not sure Japan would not have come hat in hand to the Allies anyway within just a few weeks of the A-Bomb/ Soviet Invasion. The Submarine offensive and mining operations created a very real promise of mass famine.

the militarists didn't really care about that. they KNEW an invasion was coming and they hoped to inflict enough casualties in the next 3 months for the US to accept a negotiated Japanese surrender.

and if they didn't get that, they were talking about the "glorious sacrifice of 100 million".

the a-bombs got enough of the pragmatists to weigh in for surrender because they didn't know just how many bombs the americans had. they were afraid that they'd get wiped out with no chance for fighting back.

astralis
20 Jun 14,, 15:24
AR,


As my other posts said....the conditions for a succesful invasion fo the Home ISlands were not met until the Japanese merchant fleet was destroyed whcih choked off the ability to produce sufficient arms and equipment. Unlike Germany they did not have the means to synthesize oil from coal.

yeah, the japanese were massively transferring troops/arms/equipment from their mainland empire and the Kwantung Army back to the homeland for the expected invasion.

after the war, Army planners were shocked at how much the japanese had stockpiled up. IIRC they underestimated the number of kamikaze planes by a factor of 10.

the japanese were just concerned about fighting one massive battle and the future would have to take care of itself.


And one other point....don't forget part of the reason for the dates for the Home Island invasions was so sufficient fissile materiels could be developed to have sufficient bombs to use in the prep bombardment...and I think I just wet myself with fear just thinking about what utter devestation that would have meant.

especially considering that very few people had any idea about the medium/long-term effects of radiation. that'd be a LOT of sick GIs later on. absolutely horrifying.

and IIRC the japanese were prepping chem and biological agents as well.

zraver
21 Jun 14,, 02:57
z, tbmfan,



the militarists didn't really care about that. they KNEW an invasion was coming and they hoped to inflict enough casualties in the next 3 months for the US to accept a negotiated Japanese surrender.

and if they didn't get that, they were talking about the "glorious sacrifice of 100 million".

the a-bombs got enough of the pragmatists to weigh in for surrender because they didn't know just how many bombs the americans had. they were afraid that they'd get wiped out with no chance for fighting back.

Starvation has the same result but more Japanese dead, by the time the US was close enough to realize invasion plans the IJN was dead and gone. There was nothing Japan could do if the US just sat back and starved her into submission. If you read the Strategic Bombing survey it shows japan was looking for an out in May 45. In June the Emperor took a direct hand. Polls of the population also show the will to resist was broken by August with 68% of the Japanese population feeling the war was unwinnable.

astralis
21 Jun 14,, 04:51
z,


there was nothing Japan could do if the US just sat back and starved her into submission.

that was the USN viewpoint. Army argued that it would take too long. ultimately allied high planners decided to go with an invasion because they didn't feel that the US home populace could take another year or so of war, and they didn't want the Soviets to grab the Japanese pie that the US had been baking for years.


If you read the Strategic Bombing survey it shows japan was looking for an out in May 45.

more accurately, certain portions of the japanese command, largely the IJN, was looking for an out with conditions, mainly that the Emperor stay on.

the IJA was looking for a lot more conditions than just that; they wanted to make sure there was no allied occupation, that they would conduct any war crime trials if necessary, etc.


In June the Emperor took a direct hand.

the Emperor only took a hand after the second bombing and the reports of the Soviet invasion filtered through. even then it was a close run thing; IJA fanatics tried to assassinate the peace faction, and tried to organize the war faction into defying the Emperor. they wanted to put the Emperor into house arrest and then destroy the recording of the surrender proclamation that the Emperor made.


Polls of the population also show the will to resist was broken by August with 68% of the Japanese population feeling the war was unwinnable.

imperial japan wasn't a democracy. they were handing out spears to the housewives and telling them that the Americans would rape and kill them all if they got ashore. look at what happened on okinawa.

zraver
21 Jun 14,, 06:18
z,

that was the USN viewpoint. Army argued that it would take too long. ultimately allied high planners decided to go with an invasion because they didn't feel that the US home populace could take another year or so of war, and they didn't want the Soviets to grab the Japanese pie that the US had been baking for years.

Which we invited them to do at Potsdam...


more accurately, certain portions of the japanese command, largely the IJN, was looking for an out with conditions, mainly that the Emperor stay on.

the IJA was looking for a lot more conditions than just that; they wanted to make sure there was no allied occupation, that they would conduct any war crime trials if necessary, etc.

They still wanted out, in the end the IJN/Peace Party got what they wanted.


the Emperor only took a hand after the second bombing and the reports of the Soviet invasion filtered through.

That is not what the survey states.


even then it was a close run thing; IJA fanatics tried to assassinate the peace faction, and tried to organize the war faction into defying the Emperor. they wanted to put the Emperor into house arrest and then destroy the recording of the surrender proclamation that the Emperor made.

Close but failed, no reason to suspect a different out come for that faction if its millions dying for lack of food- dies the fire style. Mass famine causes social and political breakdown


imperial japan wasn't a democracy. they were handing out spears to the housewives and telling them that the Americans would rape and kill them all if they got ashore. look at what happened on okinawa.

First, mass famine trumps social conditioning. Second, Okinawa was not subjected to the type of sustained operations to gut cities than the Home Islands suffered, was much more food self sufficient and had a much higher military to civilian ratio.

tbm3fan
21 Jun 14,, 06:22
z,
that was the USN viewpoint. Army argued that it would take too long. ultimately allied high planners decided to go with an invasion because they didn't feel that the US home populace could take another year or so of war, and they didn't want the Soviets to grab the Japanese pie that the US had been baking for years.



In the end no doubt waiting a year or two off the islands to starve them to death was a little too long. Let's get it over with and let's make sure the Russians don't take what they want as we sit around. Now if the Japanese had not surrendered after the two A-bombs then what? Did we have more in the making? If not then invasion or now starve them to death. I would have to guess that the American populace was more sick and tired of the mounting death toll then the actual time needed if they were asked to rate the two. With what 500,000 American casualties how would the American populace taken that? You are right about the weapons hidden around as my father, who landed in Yokohama as part of a security detail for General Eichelberger I believe he said, saw the hidden small subs and numerous hidden planes and took pictures of them.

Triple C
21 Jun 14,, 09:42
In the end no doubt waiting a year or two off the islands to starve them to death was a little too long. Let's get it over with and let's make sure the Russians don't take what they want as we sit around. Now if the Japanese had not surrendered after the two A-bombs then what? Did we have more in the making?

Yes. Operation Olympic referred to by previous posts are just such an event for which additional A-bombs would be used. George Marshal was not convinced that A-bombs alone would do the job and oversaw the planning for Operation Olympic, an amphibious assault on Hokkaido, the northernmost island of Japan. The plan was to concentrate the firepower of five atomic bombs in one drop on the landing beaches as a substitute for pre-assault bombardment.

zraver
21 Jun 14,, 14:06
In the end no doubt waiting a year or two off the islands to starve them to death was a little too long. Let's get it over with and let's make sure the Russians don't take what they want as we sit around. Now if the Japanese had not surrendered after the two A-bombs then what? Did we have more in the making? If not then invasion or now starve them to death. I would have to guess that the American populace was more sick and tired of the mounting death toll then the actual time needed if they were asked to rate the two. With what 500,000 American casualties how would the American populace taken that? You are right about the weapons hidden around as my father, who landed in Yokohama as part of a security detail for General Eichelberger I believe he said, saw the hidden small subs and numerous hidden planes and took pictures of them.

In hindsight, Potsdam was a mistake. But minus Potsdam, starvation would have forced Japan out of the war by the end of 1945 any way. We had sunk 90% of their merchant fleet, the civil population was on starvation rations, there was no fuel, the cities were burned out, the Emperor, peace party, navy and people wanted out.

astralis
22 Jun 14,, 15:01
z,


But minus Potsdam, starvation would have forced Japan out of the war by the end of 1945 any way.

that's what the Strategic Bombing Survey states, yeah. but again, that's hindsight speaking. Navy at the time thought the process would take anywhere from 12-24 months, which would have been unacceptable to the US public. the US strategy in late '44 and early '45 was predicated upon an invasion, not a blockade, which is part of the reason why the US went to okinawa and the philippines instead of taiwan/china.

the US had little idea about just how close japan was to collapse, which is why the war planners correctly assumed the worst case scenario, based off the okinawa example. operation downfall, after all, was set from oct 1945 (operation olympic) to march 1946 (operation coronet). war planners thought each stage would take approximately 90 days. they planned the use of 5-15 (!!) atomic bombs.

tbm3fan
22 Jun 14,, 19:29
z,
war planners thought each stage would take approximately 90 days. they planned the use of 5-15 (!!) atomic bombs.

With that we may still have had unbelievable casualties just that many would have been years later from radiation induced cancers.

Doktor
22 Jun 14,, 19:40
That way, maybe we would have had a cure for cancer by now.

zraver
22 Jun 14,, 21:36
z,



that's what the Strategic Bombing Survey states, yeah. but again, that's hindsight speaking.

Like I said with the benefit of hindsight.


Navy at the time thought the process would take anywhere from 12-24 months, which would have been unacceptable to the US public.

Not so sure I buy that, we lasted through Vietnam and GWOT... I think a plain statement that we were going to starve them out before an invasion would have been acceptable. There still would have been a lot of freed up production for consumer goods regardless.


the US strategy in late '44 and early '45 was predicated upon an invasion, not a blockade, which is part of the reason why the US went to okinawa and the philippines instead of taiwan/china.

We had to go back to the Philippines, it was a matter of national honor. Plus control of the Philippines helped our choking off of imports from the Dutch East Indies and would aid any assault on China if we had gone that route.


the US had little idea about just how close japan was to collapse, which is why the war planners correctly assumed the worst case scenario, based off the okinawa example. operation downfall, after all, was set from oct 1945 (operation olympic) to march 1946 (operation coronet). war planners thought each stage would take approximately 90 days. they planned the use of 5-15 (!!) atomic bombs.

Would we have that many bombs available?

Gun Boat
23 Jun 14,, 13:10
With hindsight I believe that Operation Olympic would have bene relatively trouble free. Bar the odd skirmish, Japan would collapse as fast as the US could get ashore and take ground.

Even without dropping the a-bomb Japan's defenses were dwindling to pitiful levels whilst the forces pursuing them were growing ever stronger. April saw the Yamato sink to the bottom and with it the symbolic hope of any chance of resistance. Come the end of October '45, and the worry of typhoons eased, the US Navy would have turned Japan into hell on earth by itself. But then you had the US airforce coming to the party as well.

I would imagine a round the clock Naval presents, within visual range of the coast, attacking whatever looked good with both naval artillery and aircraft. Constantly. In 1946, with unhindered buildup from 1944, I'm frothing at the mouth imagining the conventional destructive power the US armed forces could bring to the table. They could thoroughly support it logistically aswell.

The planned kamikaze defenses would flop and any forces that managed to get airborne would be pounced on by a huge US fighter force hungry for targets. With better aircraft, pilots and a huge numerical advantage what Japanese aircraft is going to be able to do anything at the start of 1946 other than provide the US with some targets?

The Japanese are tough but no human could be exposed to what was coming Japan's way and still be expected to mount an organised resistance. Sure there'd be a few Japanese military units that would put up a fight, but any concentration of Japanese force would attract a staggering amount of explosives.

It is quite amazing, to me, at what the US Navy had grown to in 1945. What amazes me more is that it could have been bigger still, with experience and across the board arms superiority. Japan didn't stand a chance.

All with 20/20 hindsight of course.

Doktor
23 Jun 14,, 13:16
In essence Truman made a big favor to more people on both sides then he have ordered to be killed with the 2 bombs.

What if the bombs were dropped later, after USSR got the tech?

astralis
23 Jun 14,, 14:02
z,


Not so sure I buy that, we lasted through Vietnam and GWOT... I think a plain statement that we were going to starve them out before an invasion would have been acceptable. There still would have been a lot of freed up production for consumer goods regardless.

total war is different from limited war. the US economy was beginning to overheat by late 1944, which is why the US began massively throttling back by then. everyone was tired and just wanted to finish it. again, this and the threat of the Soviets coming in drove the timeline. in the absence of this (and of course the atom bomb), I'd agree that the Navy plan was better.


We had to go back to the Philippines, it was a matter of national honor.

not really a huge driver from my POV, although it was for MacArthur (more of a matter of PERSONAL honor for him). given the blockade operations the japanese on the Philippines were effectively imprisoned while the main action would be on the japanese mainland.


Would we have that many bombs available?

IIRC the manhattan project was scaled way back in '46 because each bomb was ungodly expensive. they cranked out two more anyway for tests by Jul '46. keeping the line open, you probably could have had rather more given the expected length of Operation Downfall.

astralis
23 Jun 14,, 14:16
gun boat,


With hindsight I believe that Operation Olympic would have bene relatively trouble free. Bar the odd skirmish, Japan would collapse as fast as the US could get ashore and take ground.

Even without dropping the a-bomb Japan's defenses were dwindling to pitiful levels whilst the forces pursuing them were growing ever stronger. April saw the Yamato sink to the bottom and with it the symbolic hope of any chance of resistance. Come the end of October '45, and the worry of typhoons eased, the US Navy would have turned Japan into hell on earth by itself. But then you had the US airforce coming to the party as well.

I would imagine a round the clock Naval presents, within visual range of the coast, attacking whatever looked good with both naval artillery and aircraft. Constantly. In 1946, with unhindered buildup from 1944, I'm frothing at the mouth imagining the conventional destructive power the US armed forces could bring to the table. They could thoroughly support it logistically aswell.

there was a huge buildup. however, allied intel -badly- underestimated the japanese defenses.

there was absolutely no doubt that the US would have rolled over japan but the casualties would have been pretty bad. war planners thought if both Olympic and Coronet took place, there would be over 1 million casualties (250K-500K fatalities). that's probably way too high, but even 10% of this number would have been equivalent to 2 okinawas.

i can't even imagine street fighting through Tokyo, or trying to flush holdouts in the mountains....

Albany Rifles
23 Jun 14,, 19:04
Planners at the time did not underestimate the number of casualties expected....we are still issuing Purple Heart medals which were cast in 1945 in preparation the Invasion of Japan.

zraver
23 Jun 14,, 22:59
z,

total war is different from limited war. the US economy was beginning to overheat by late 1944, which is why the US began massively throttling back by then. everyone was tired and just wanted to finish it. again, this and the threat of the Soviets coming in drove the timeline. in the absence of this (and of course the atom bomb), I'd agree that the Navy plan was better.

I think with the defeat of Germany there would be enough slack to convert some lines back to civilian production and ultimately there would be little need for the bulk of the troops in Europe who had already fought and won their war. So while the public was tired, I don't think it was exhausted.


not really a huge driver from my POV, although it was for MacArthur (more of a matter of PERSONAL honor for him). given the blockade operations the japanese on the Philippines were effectively imprisoned while the main action would be on the japanese mainland.

The scene of our greatest military defeat on land demanded retribution and we had to go back and win. Not only that, but unlike the people of Taiwan or Malaysia, Filipinos in 1945 were pseudo-Americans. It was just Mac who had a special relationship but the country as a whole.



IIRC the manhattan project was scaled way back in '46 because each bomb was ungodly expensive. they cranked out two more anyway for tests by Jul '46. keeping the line open, you probably could have had rather more given the expected length of Operation Downfall.

1. I'm not sure we had the fissile material to do so. We had one more war shot a PU bomb and might have been able to make one more bomb of various types a month through 46. This leaves the planned November landings lacking atomic support. 2. When did planners learn about the A-bomb? I wonder how much of the talk of atomic carpet bombing is wishful thinking from the post war. 3. I think the Japanese will to resist would have broken down rapidly. Units at the front would have tried to fight, but once the full scale of the US effort became undeniable I think even the most die hard leadership would have been looking for an out. Until Okinawa, Japan never really got a taste of just how vast the resources arrayed against them were.

Gun Boat
24 Jun 14,, 10:01
gun boat,



there was a huge buildup. however, allied intel -badly- underestimated the japanese defenses.

there was absolutely no doubt that the US would have rolled over japan but the casualties would have been pretty bad. war planners thought if both Olympic and Coronet took place, there would be over 1 million casualties (250K-500K fatalities). that's probably way too high, but even 10% of this number would have been equivalent to 2 okinawas.

i can't even imagine street fighting through Tokyo, or trying to flush holdouts in the mountains....

I understand the defences as found upon surrender may have appeared formidable but what would they look like after 6 months come the invasion?

Total air-superiority and the complete attention and focus of a war machine with the most destructive power the world has ever seen. The build up to the invasion would destroy the moral of the Japanese. They are only human beings and humans can only take so much before they crack.

Imagine what it would be like to live through that. The skies full of enemy aircraft day and night. Any vehicular transport down to the horse and cart would attract the attention of strafing aircraft, every piece of even the most basic infrastructure bombed repeatedly. Warships steaming up and down the coast bombarding anything and everything. I don't think the focus of what the US could have done to Japan takes into account the Japanese people. It would be hell on earth for them.

astralis
24 Jun 14,, 13:39
twas the same on okinawa, and countless other crappy little islands. where the US had total air dominance, naval fire support, vastly superior logistics, intelligence, and coordination.

the outcome was never in doubt but that didn't prevent the japanese from reaping a butcher's bill every time.

same thing with germans fighting in Berlin against the Soviets.

breaking morale against a defender fighting on home soil with even half-competent leadership is extremely, extremely difficult. usually it takes a complete beat-down and attrition warfare until so many of them die that the rest sicken of it.

it was a damn good thing we had the atom bomb-- and even better for the japanese.

Albany Rifles
24 Jun 14,, 16:46
There was sufficient materiel to have 5 bombs available for use in preinvasion bombardment for OPERATION OLYMPIC on 1 NOV 45.

zraver
24 Jun 14,, 22:21
twas the same on okinawa, and countless other crappy little islands. where the US had total air dominance, naval fire support, vastly superior logistics, intelligence, and coordination.

the outcome was never in doubt but that didn't prevent the japanese from reaping a butcher's bill every time.

same thing with germans fighting in Berlin against the Soviets.

breaking morale against a defender fighting on home soil with even half-competent leadership is extremely, extremely difficult. usually it takes a complete beat-down and attrition warfare until so many of them die that the rest sicken of it.

it was a damn good thing we had the atom bomb-- and even better for the japanese.

I wonder how much terrain near the beach would influence causalities. Even on bigger islands like Okinawa there is limited beach space and really limited flat spaces but lots of defensible mountains. In Japan the US had greater ability to find beaches that didn't immediately give rise of cave riddled volcanic mountains. Southern Kyushu seems to favor the attacker as it allows mobility and fewer really good defensive areas compared to say Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Though I don't know how heavily forested it was, or how built up the regions cities were. Could any Japanese cities offer the type of strong points to the defenders that Manila or Berlin did?

Officer of Engineers
25 Jun 14,, 02:01
If we didn't allied with the USSR? Stalin would own China. Mao and Chiang Kie Shek would be dead. By extension, Stalin's reach would have gone all the way down to the South Asia, Nehru against Stalin (are you kidding me?). Stalin would have bought peace with Hitler before restarting that war with overwhelming armies (Japan, South Korea, and China) ... Actually, nothing would have changed. Germany would have been bled white defeating the USSR but not killing the USSR and the two world power blocs would have been still Soviets and the US ... with Germany being the European Somalia.

Triple C
27 Jun 14,, 04:11
AR,

I think the last of the Purple Hearts from WWII was used up last year. It's on the papers somewhere.

Albany Rifles
27 Jun 14,, 14:32
Could be....but

Triple C
03 Jul 14,, 16:28
That's a helluva lot of medals.

tbm3fan
04 Jul 14,, 04:09
Just reading an article about Okinawa. It said that if you total up all the American casualties of killed, wounded, and shell shocked you get a total of 83,000 men. When compared to Japanese casualties you get a ratio of 1:1.2. At the time it was thought there were 4 million Japanese waiting for an invasion and there were really 6 million waiting. Doing the math and you get an unbelievable number of American casualties which is what the Japanese High Command wanted. A war of attrition where we would sue for peace and they could preserve themselves. That many casualties would have stunned the American population and no doubt they would have demanded an end themselves.

Doktor
04 Jul 14,, 05:54
Stalin wouldn't mind sending couple of mil to fill the gap. After all, he wasted another 20 mil after the war.

MilkToast
30 Jan 15,, 18:02
If we didn't allied with the USSR? Stalin would own China. Mao and Chiang Kie Shek would be dead. By extension, Stalin's reach would have gone all the way down to the South Asia, Nehru against Stalin (are you kidding me?). Stalin would have bought peace with Hitler before restarting that war with overwhelming armies (Japan, South Korea, and China) ... Actually, nothing would have changed. Germany would have been bled white defeating the USSR but not killing the USSR and the two world power blocs would have been still Soviets and the US ... with Germany being the European Somalia.

If we had not allied with the USSR, the lend lease program, which supplied large numbers of trucks, tanks, and equipment for the Soviets would not have happened. Russia at the time was a third rate industrial power, and the Germans would likely have taken Moscow in '42, and then pushed Stalin (if he hadn't been captured at Moscow, where he refused to leave) back to the Urals. The Soviets would have sued for peace, similar to WW1. A big factor would have been how much territory the Germans and Finns gave back to the USSR after the cease fire, and if Japan would be granted Eastern Siberia. The USSR might have turned into a German puppet state and been remade.

That's a lot of hostile territory to hold though, and the amount of troops the Germans would have been able to remove from the area and turn toward the west for defense would be an interesting debate. You're talking about +10,000 sq miles and 200 million people (counting Poland, France, the Balkans, Norway, and former USSR) that you have to keep in check, all the while beating off aircraft from the West.

Bottom line is that it was probably for the best that we did make a deal with Stalin.

Vargas
11 Apr 15,, 16:57
Just reading an article about Okinawa. It said that if you total up all the American casualties of killed, wounded, and shell shocked you get a total of 83,000 men. When compared to Japanese casualties you get a ratio of 1:1.2. At the time it was thought there were 4 million Japanese waiting for an invasion and there were really 6 million waiting. Doing the math and you get an unbelievable number of American casualties which is what the Japanese High Command wanted. A war of attrition where we would sue for peace and they could preserve themselves. That many casualties would have stunned the American population and no doubt they would have demanded an end themselves.

That is true. There were close to 400 thousand American dead at World War II. And the highest death toll that United States ever took was in the Secession War, with 620 thousand people. I believe that for the United States to procure a white peace (nobody takes anything or loses anything) or at least let them keep Korea and give back what they held in China to the Chinese, it wouldn't take more than 1~1,5 million deaths. And This wouldn't take much more in the Japanese Mainland, specially if you take into consideration that the bombings there probably would diminish in power and frequency because most of the fight would be in Urban environments and at that time there was no precision bombings.

Vargas
11 Apr 15,, 17:12
If we had not allied with the USSR, the lend lease program, which supplied large numbers of trucks, tanks, and equipment for the Soviets would not have happened. Russia at the time was a third rate industrial power, and the Germans would likely have taken Moscow in '42, and then pushed Stalin (if he hadn't been captured at Moscow, where he refused to leave) back to the Urals. The Soviets would have sued for peace, similar to WW1. A big factor would have been how much territory the Germans and Finns gave back to the USSR after the cease fire, and if Japan would be granted Eastern Siberia. The USSR might have turned into a German puppet state and been remade.

That's a lot of hostile territory to hold though, and the amount of troops the Germans would have been able to remove from the area and turn toward the west for defense would be an interesting debate. You're talking about +10,000 sq miles and 200 million people (counting Poland, France, the Balkans, Norway, and former USSR) that you have to keep in check, all the while beating off aircraft from the West.

Bottom line is that it was probably for the best that we did make a deal with Stalin.

I think that if you read Mein Kampf and take into consideration Hitler's ideas and actions overtime, he really talks and believed of expanding to the East, where the lands were still of a low population density.
However, he really despised the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary, that had more than enough lebensraum but was a multi-ethnic fest. Every thing that he did in peace time, and also in war doesn't contradict this notion:
He declared Alsace Lorraine again as part of the Reich, but he did not invade Switzerland or Italy to get the South Tyrol back. His main goal was to make a Reich with all of the Germans possible inside of it and connected by land.

If you take that into consideration you will understand his despise for colonies and also that he wouldn't annex any big chunk of land that there wasn't at least a significant minority of Germans that could increase in population and germanize the other Europeans there over long periods of time. Taking that into consideration, I believe he would make the Soviets cut their Army to less than half and pay reparations to Germany, but would not take actual land out of them.
At the same time, he would probably give independence - even if only as a puppet state - to Ukraine and possible Belarus. This, together with the very diminished Poland (He would expand significantly further than the 1914 borders) would be buffer countries if the Soviets ever tried to take that territory back and would raise their own armies. That would make it even longer and harder for the Soviets to take that land back, what they might try to do some decades after.

Europe would look almost exactly like this:

39601

Samuels creek
17 May 16,, 12:30
What if America hadn't traded with Germany? How many Russians wouldn't of died?


But the heartbreaking truth is that a number of financial and industrial figures of World War II and several members of the government served the cause of money before the cause of patriotism. While aiding the United States' war effort, they also aided Nazi Germany's.I first came across this fact in 1978 when I was declassifying documents in the course of writing a biography that dealt with motion picture star Errol Flynn's Nazi associations. In the National Archives Diplomatic Records Room I found numerous cross-references to prominent figures who, I had always assumed, were entirely committed to the American cause, yet who had been marked down for suspected subversive activities.

https://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationals-supply-nazi-germany-world-war-2

bestellen
25 Oct 16,, 09:59
Because in 1939 Britain and France had (finally!) realised that Nazi Germany was aggressive and expansionist and planned to take over the whole of Europe, and was powerful enough to do it if nobody stopped them.

On the other hand, nobody back then really took Soviet Russia seriously. Oh, they didn't trust Stalin, and were wary of Communism; but everybody - both the Germans and the Western Allies - thought that the USSR would be useless in a fight. They could defend themselves well enough, simply by retreating into the steppes and letting the Russian winter do its work, but they were no big threat to the rest of Europe. The military might the USSR showed in 1941-45 came as a nasty surprise to everybody.

So the alliance Britain and France made with Poland was specifically directed against Hitler. It was a line in the sand, saying "Attack the Poles, and you'll have to face us too." It wasn't about Poland as such; Poland was just the excuse. (They tried to make a similar deal with Romania at the same time).

As for the Winter War, some people in Britain did say that they ought to go to Finland's defence. But since they were already at war with Germany, and Germany had a far larger army than Britain and was winning the war on all fronts, then picking a fight with the Soviets at the same time would have been suicidal.

hanneknut
20 Jul 17,, 13:25
There are lots of historians who point to basically three different turning points of the war. If any of these had gone differently, the war would have turned out dramatically different.

zraver
22 Jul 17,, 14:13
There are lots of historians who point to basically three different turning points of the war. If any of these had gone differently, the war would have turned out dramatically different.

More than three. Nothing Japan could have done would win her the war. For Germany to win she has to do everything right and this is not possible with the Nazi regime running things.

xerxes
17 Aug 17,, 02:39
More than three. Nothing Japan could have done would win her the war. For Germany to win she has to do everything right and this is not possible with the Nazi regime running things.

The one that I will always remember as the critical mistake was to declare was on US after Pearl Harbour. Dec 13th was date I believe.

Pearl Harbour was between Japan and US. I think the Nazi leader got carried away in excitement and traded off easy upfront U-boat victories in the opening shots of war against US against major mobilization of the US industrial base that came to bite him not long after.

Although 60 years later it might feel impossible to think that Germany could have stayed out of a Japan-US conflict. It was very possible given that Tokyo and Berlin were not natural allies. A good example is how Japan stayed neutral with USSR (even though the latter was at war with Germany) until the invasion of Manchuria in August '45. Which was really you snooze you loose (loose the Far East) scenario for the Soviet Union at that point.

People often talk about how USSR bore the brunt of war, but it was US that wipe out the Luftwaffe and tied up 1.5 million German troops in Ruhr and Berlin region to man the 88s against the Anglo-American bombing campaign.

Bigfella
17 Aug 17,, 04:24
I don't see a way for a US/Germany war to be avoided, even if Hitler hadn't declared war. FDR & an increasing percentage of Americans saw a Nazi-controlled Europe as a threat to their view of the world. America was getting deeper & deeper into the conflict there. With war underway in the Pacific America was already allied with Britain & the exiled Dutch government. Domestic support for Britain was very high in the US - well ahead of a more general acceptance that war was inevitable. At some point another US ship was going to get sunk helping Britain & it would be on.

I'm not even convinced the timing of US direct involvement would have changed much. FDR would have similar resources as he did in 1942 and most likely plans with the British on how to deploy them. He might even start moving forces to Britain to support his ally before war started. Won't be hard to sell with US & British personnel already fighting and dying together in Sth East Asia. 'Torch' was 12 months after Pearl Harbor. In this scenario that might not change much, if at all.

xerxes
17 Aug 17,, 13:34
I don't see a way for a US/Germany war to be avoided, even if Hitler hadn't declared war. FDR & an increasing percentage of Americans saw a Nazi-controlled Europe as a threat to their view of the world. America was getting deeper & deeper into the conflict there. With war underway in the Pacific America was already allied with Britain & the exiled Dutch government. Domestic support for Britain was very high in the US - well ahead of a more general acceptance that war was inevitable. At some point another US ship was going to get sunk helping Britain & it would be on.

I'm not even convinced the timing of US direct involvement would have changed much. FDR would have similar resources as he did in 1942 and most likely plans with the British on how to deploy them. He might even start moving forces to Britain to support his ally before war started. Won't be hard to sell with US & British personnel already fighting and dying together in Sth East Asia. 'Torch' was 12 months after Pearl Harbor. In this scenario that might not change much, if at all.


BF,
i don't disagree with the powerful anti-nazi sentiment in the FDR administration. But that just wasn't enough for FDR to declare war against Germany.
Pearl Harbour's rallying cry was to kill the Japs. Not Germans. Hitler solved FDR's problem for him on Dec 13, 1941.

It is just that USSR-Japan managed to keep their neutrality pact for several years before war became inevitable. With a Germany-first Japan-second FDR administration, perhaps that 'neutrality' would have lasted much shorter (i.e. only half-year) before US was pulled into the German war. But perhaps, that may have not changed much at the end, to your point about 'Torch'.

S2
18 Aug 17,, 04:44
Xerxes,

U.S. Navy ships were already escorting ship convoys to an exchange point in the Atlantic. U.S. Marines had "occupied" Reykjavik with the intent of securing an early version G.I.U.K ASW barrier. We were, in the FDR administration, a cocked trigger even if our ground forces were wholly inadequate to the immediate requirements.

That thing with Germany was going to quickly happen.

Bigfella
18 Aug 17,, 06:12
BF,
i don't disagree with the powerful anti-nazi sentiment in the FDR administration. But that just wasn't enough for FDR to declare war against Germany.
Pearl Harbour's rallying cry was to kill the Japs. Not Germans. Hitler solved FDR's problem for him on Dec 13, 1941.

It wasn't 'sentiment' that was going to get the US into a war with Germany, it was Germany attacking US ships. As S@ pointed out, the US was already 'in' by mid-1941. By the time Japan attacked German U boats had sunk 1 US supply ship (no casualties) one destroyer (over 100 dead) and damaged another destroyer with a dozen lost. FDR was a man in search of an excuse to go to war. With the public's blood already up over Japan attacking, it would have taken no effort at all to get a declaration of war with another US ship sunk. That would have been a matter of weeks or months.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic-the-u-s-navy-versus-the-u-boats/


It is just that USSR-Japan managed to keep their neutrality pact for several years before war became inevitable. With a Germany-first Japan-second FDR administration, perhaps that 'neutrality' would have lasted much shorter (i.e. only half-year) before US was pulled into the German war. But perhaps, that may have not changed much at the end, to your point about 'Torch'.

The USSR & Japan were both heavily invested in not going to war. Both had bigger problems to deal with and neither was trying to change things until right near the end. FDR wanted in all the way against Germany.

xerxes
20 Aug 17,, 20:25
Understood

zraver
23 Aug 17,, 01:55
The one that I will always remember as the critical mistake was to declare was on US after Pearl Harbour. Dec 13th was date I believe.

Pearl Harbour was between Japan and US. I think the Nazi leader got carried away in excitement and traded off easy upfront U-boat victories in the opening shots of war against US against major mobilization of the US industrial base that came to bite him not long after.

Although 60 years later it might feel impossible to think that Germany could have stayed out of a Japan-US conflict. It was very possible given that Tokyo and Berlin were not natural allies. A good example is how Japan stayed neutral with USSR (even though the latter was at war with Germany) until the invasion of Manchuria in August '45. Which was really you snooze you loose (loose the Far East) scenario for the Soviet Union at that point.

People often talk about how USSR bore the brunt of war, but it was US that wipe out the Luftwaffe and tied up 1.5 million German troops in Ruhr and Berlin region to man the 88s against the Anglo-American bombing campaign.

Declaring war on the US shaved off critical time he could have had in Russia and doomed him to fight a two front war in 44. Six months, just six months and Normandy would be a 1945 event and he gets an extra 6 months production before the bombers wreck things. Overall though the list of mistakes is the Nazi's made is huge. 1. Operation pause of Armygroup Nord in August 41. The decision to go after Kiev instead of Moscow. The failure to take Malta. Not pushing the Me262 into a bomber interceptor as early as possible. The Elephant and Tiger, building battleships in the 30's instead of U-boats, no true strategic bomber, not going to war time footing before early 1943, Hitler commanding field armies from Prussia, Nazi racial hierarchy, wasting millions of rail cars, untold supplies and tens of thousands of men on Jews instead of logistics for the army, not building enough trucks.... the list of critical mistakes is never ending.

zraver
23 Aug 17,, 03:24
I'm not even convinced the timing of US direct involvement would have changed much. FDR would have similar resources as he did in 1942 and most likely plans with the British on how to deploy them. He might even start moving forces to Britain to support his ally before war started. Won't be hard to sell with US & British personnel already fighting and dying together in Sth East Asia. 'Torch' was 12 months after Pearl Harbor. In this scenario that might not change much, if at all.

Hitler only has to hold off long enough that FDR is forced into a Japan first war. Had he played door mouse in the Atlantic for six months the US likely would have been forced to go pacific first with possible disastrous results if we tried to force the Japanese fleet to battle. Plus all the momentum of logistics, his generals getting emotionally invested in a Japan first strategy... With no war in Europe the US would have been sorely tempted to relieve the Philippines or help the British and Dutch more in the East Indies. A six month delay may buy him as much as a year in certain areas like strategic bombers and co-belligerent levels of LL to the Soviets. Even more so if the USN sallies for and gets sunk.

xerxes
25 Aug 17,, 02:34
Declaring war on the US shaved off critical time he could have had in Russia and doomed him to fight a two front war in 44. Six months, just six months and Normandy would be a 1945 event and he gets an extra 6 months production before the bombers wreck things. Overall though the list of mistakes is the Nazi's made is huge. 1. Operation pause of Armygroup Nord in August 41. The decision to go after Kiev instead of Moscow. The failure to take Malta. Not pushing the Me262 into a bomber interceptor as early as possible. The Elephant and Tiger, building battleships in the 30's instead of U-boats, no true strategic bomber, not going to war time footing before early 1943, Hitler commanding field armies from Prussia, Nazi racial hierarchy, wasting millions of rail cars, untold supplies and tens of thousands of men on Jews instead of logistics for the army, not building enough trucks.... the list of critical mistakes is never ending.


Mostly valid points, except your comments about battleship vs. u-boats

Heading toward Kiev, declaring war on US with no major upfront gain etc. were gambles and strategic blunders.

Whereas aiming to build a large surface fleet under Raeder was actually pretty conventional and in fact perhaps expected from a large power. In the hindsight perhaps, one can say the focus ought to have been on u-boats but that is the hindsight. It wasn't a gamble.

Hitler taking over the army, labour camps and other Nazi related points etc. were just a natural consequences of whom the German choose to lead them. So not a mistake or blunder but rather a by-product of the decision made in the 30s to elevate NSDAP to the leadership position.

As for ME262 or strategic bomber, the air war was pretty new at time. Their mistake was not learning from their mistake.

Bigfella
25 Aug 17,, 09:50
Hitler only has to hold off long enough that FDR is forced into a Japan first war. Had he played door mouse in the Atlantic for six months the US likely would have been forced to go pacific first with possible disastrous results if we tried to force the Japanese fleet to battle. Plus all the momentum of logistics, his generals getting emotionally invested in a Japan first strategy... With no war in Europe the US would have been sorely tempted to relieve the Philippines or help the British and Dutch more in the East Indies. A six month delay may buy him as much as a year in certain areas like strategic bombers and co-belligerent levels of LL to the Soviets. Even more so if the USN sallies for and gets sunk.

If FDR wasn't so determined to get into the war in Europe I'd agree Z, but he was. Even if Hitler had continued as before FDR would have stepped up provocations. How many more US ships will need to get sunk before a nation at war with a German ally and fighting along side Britain goes all in? I doubt it would even be 6 months. Meanwhile FDR can keep building up forces, especially Army & Airforce.

I don't know how 'deep' the US can realistically get into the Pacific, especially with troop numbers. Singapore fell in early Feb and the DEI excepting Irian Jaya was gone a month later. While the emotional pull of trying to reinforce MacArthur would have been strong, that wasn't practical either. I could certainly see US troops ending up in PNG along side Australian troops & with more naval & air backup rather than stopping the Japanese advance in the Solomons & the Coral Sea.

I don't see any of this committing the US to the extent that it throws off US involvement against Germany enough to change the course of the war significantly. Even if the US suffers a major naval setback in the Pacific I don't see it causing a huge problem in the Atlantic.

Albany Rifles
25 Aug 17,, 13:42
As I said before, once France fell we were going to war with Germany.

Inertia was in play.

After France the isolationists lost almost all of their power.

If there had not been a for Pearl something would have happened.

When the USS Reuben James was sunk on 31 OCT 41 the American populace became enraged. Hell, even Woody Guthrie wrote a song about it.

There was going to be a Lusitania moment...i.e., another US naval vessel would be sunk by a U Boat and that would have been the trigger.

zraver
31 Aug 17,, 02:35
If FDR wasn't so determined to get into the war in Europe I'd agree Z, but he was. Even if Hitler had continued as before FDR would have stepped up provocations. How many more US ships will need to get sunk before a nation at war with a German ally and fighting along side Britain goes all in? I doubt it would even be 6 months. Meanwhile FDR can keep building up forces, especially Army & Airforce.

I don't know how 'deep' the US can realistically get into the Pacific, especially with troop numbers. Singapore fell in early Feb and the DEI excepting Irian Jaya was gone a month later. While the emotional pull of trying to reinforce MacArthur would have been strong, that wasn't practical either. I could certainly see US troops ending up in PNG along side Australian troops & with more naval & air backup rather than stopping the Japanese advance in the Solomons & the Coral Sea.

PH sunk half the American battle line, the other half was in the Atlantic. Without a German declaration of war there is going to be a lot of pressure to mount a relief of the Philipines. Remember, Midway was only a couple days after Corrigedor surrendered.


I don't see any of this committing the US to the extent that it throws off US involvement against Germany enough to change the course of the war significantly. Even if the US suffers a major naval setback in the Pacific I don't see it causing a huge problem in the Atlantic.

A major US defeat in the Pacific could seriously imperil the USN's ability to supply NGF. Even a US victory-ish in the Philippines or commitment to PNG would eat up a huge amount of the combat ready US ground forces right as they would be historically used for Torch. More importantly though is a six month pause by the German's a year. That year gives Germany another campaign season where they can rest and rebuild units. The panzers don't get split by Bagartion and Overlord. Soviet causalities climb... Germany still loses but i think the map would be different. No Kalinigrad, no shoving Poland West, democratic governments in at least some Eastern European countries.

astralis
31 Aug 17,, 15:12
Soviet causalities climb... Germany still loses but i think the map would be different. No Kalinigrad, no shoving Poland West, democratic governments in at least some Eastern European countries.

i can see minor changes, but ultimately major changes to the post-war political map would require exceedingly major changes to the military situation, particularly in 1943-- and it'd have to be a situation where the Western Allies had a better strategic situation than the Soviets, too.

i can see lesser Soviet influence in Central Europe (particularly Hungary) and the Balkans, but not much more than that. Eastern Europe was going to be dominated by the Soviet bear just by proximity issues alone.

zraver
31 Dec 17,, 04:49
i can see minor changes, but ultimately major changes to the post-war political map would require exceedingly major changes to the military situation, particularly in 1943-- and it'd have to be a situation where the Western Allies had a better strategic situation than the Soviets, too.

i can see lesser Soviet influence in Central Europe (particularly Hungary) and the Balkans, but not much more than that. Eastern Europe was going to be dominated by the Soviet bear just by proximity issues alone.

The only thing that might have changed the situation by 1943 other than a delayed US entry into the European would be Germany adopting a war economy with the declaration of war on the US. Jumping the war time footing by 14 months will have an impact against the Soviets and in the air over France and Germany. An extra 2200 or so long barrelled 75mm armed AFV's and thousands more 75mm pak guns is going to wreck Soviet efforts to cut off the 4th Panzer Army and crush Armygroup Mitte. Add 4000 fighters and the RAF has a much harder time in North Africa and the VVS never gets breathing room to regain air supremacy in the East.

astralis
01 Jan 18,, 21:38
what i'd be curious about as if Hitler was assassinated, say, January 1943. a German military regime without Naziism means cancellation of the Holocaust before it really got going, and from the military situation that would be a LOT of resources suddenly freed up.

Dazed
01 Jan 18,, 23:45
what i'd be curious about as if Hitler was assassinated, say, January 1943. a German military regime without Naziism means cancellation of the Holocaust before it really got going, and from the military situation that would be a LOT of resources suddenly freed up.

It may free up resources, but they are still short on oil and strategic minerals. Instead of building the V2's to deliver 1 ton of HE which may not be on target and detonates underground or jet engines that use more fuel and strategic metals that last in terms of hours. Trucks and proximity fuzes would have been a better investment. Freeing up the resources doesn't change the scale and resources of the opposition and what they bring to the fight. With Hitler gone sure better outcome before defeat.

The war wasn't against Hitler but German aggression. Only total surrender and burn war from the German Peoples soul.

zraver
02 Jan 18,, 01:21
what i'd be curious about as if Hitler was assassinated, say, January 1943. a German military regime without Naziism means cancellation of the Holocaust before it really got going, and from the military situation that would be a LOT of resources suddenly freed up.

It may eat up a lot resources too as civil strife or civil war erupts. There really isn't anyone but the Nazi party to provide political leadership. From local gualeiters to SS divisions and even Luftwaffe field divisions there is a lot of built in resistance. If the German Army is distracted restoring order and putting down Nazi Loyalist, who kicks the Soviets out of Kharkov or defends Sicily?

astralis
02 Jan 18,, 15:45
z,


It may eat up a lot resources too as civil strife or civil war erupts. There really isn't anyone but the Nazi party to provide political leadership. From local gualeiters to SS divisions and even Luftwaffe field divisions there is a lot of built in resistance. If the German Army is distracted restoring order and putting down Nazi Loyalist, who kicks the Soviets out of Kharkov or defends Sicily?

maybe, but i find it unlikely. Germans especially then just didn't go into the whole civil war thing, they saluted smartly every time they saw an uniform.

probably some internal bloodletting as the Wehrmacht showed the SS who was boss. Wehrmacht would probably be happy to turn a blind eye to continued atrocities against Jews if that's what it took to keep the SS docile, but nothing like the industrial level slaughter.

1943 really is the last year for any departure that would result in major changes to the post-war settlement. well, absent an immediate US-Soviet war afterwards...

zraver
03 Jan 18,, 05:33
z,



maybe, but i find it unlikely. Germans especially then just didn't go into the whole civil war thing, they saluted smartly every time they saw an uniform.

Street battles of the late 20's and early 30's...


probably some internal bloodletting as the Wehrmacht showed the SS who was boss. Wehrmacht would probably be happy to turn a blind eye to continued atrocities against Jews if that's what it took to keep the SS docile, but nothing like the industrial level slaughter.

The combat power of the 1942 SS wasn't the 44 SS by a long shot, but it was even more fanatical.


1943 really is the last year for any departure that would result in major changes to the post-war settlement. well, absent an immediate US-Soviet war afterwards...

90% agree. My disagreement is there is a small window in 45 to change who occupies Berlin. If Mainstein's carefully horded armored reserves are not thrown away in the Ardennes they can do a lot of mischief to the Soviets in Poland and Eastern Europe.

WABs_OOE
03 Jan 18,, 05:57
My disagreement is there is a small window in 45 to change who occupies Berlin.I don't think so. Eisenhower deliberately avoided the butcher's bill for the city. There was never any race for Berlin. Esienhower just handed it to Stalin while taking the parts that were worth taking.

Ironduke
04 Jan 18,, 00:35
what i'd be curious about as if Hitler was assassinated, say, January 1943. a German military regime without Naziism means cancellation of the Holocaust before it really got going, and from the military situation that would be a LOT of resources suddenly freed up.
Maybe if there's a false flag, if most of the Nazi leadership can be taken out in one location, that could be alleged to be an "unfortunate" result of a lucky Allied bombing run. If it's just Hitler that gets offed by the military, perhaps Himmler, Goering, etc. are accused of carrying out the assassination, have a show trial and execute them, neutralizing them that way. Otherwise there's too many independent, powerful fiefdoms whose leaders have more obvious "legitimate" claim to succession than a junta of Wehrmacht generals. Himmler controlling the SS, police, and Gestapo, and Goering the Luftwaffe.

Ironduke
04 Jan 18,, 01:07
With regards to the OP... I don't think it's plausible for there to be two separate wars at two ends of Europe when there's a common foe in the middle. The Soviets were too goddamned useful to not help them, in absorbing the brunt of the German war effort and turning it back.

Ironduke
04 Jan 18,, 07:40
Yes it was possible and with hindsight may have been a better strategic move. It would have likely meant Soviet exhaustion somewhere in Belarus/Ukraine leaving the US/UK free to defeat Germany and liberate Eastern Europe.
If the Soviet Union is exhausted in Belarus/Ukraine, historically, that puts us roughly in the Spring of 1943.

If the US is 6 months to a year behind schedule, Operation Torch hasn't occurred. The Toulon fleet is non-scuttled. The invasions of Sicily and Italy have yet to happen. All of Germany's allies in Europe are still intact. Basically everything's on pause for a year. Not that it matters.

Now, if Torch and Tunisia happen in 43-44, the Italian campaign in 44-45, and Overlord is pushed back to summer 1945, while the Soviets are still stalemated/exhausted in Ukraine... the US is going to start dropping nukes. Probably one of the major industrial cities on the Ruhr, with a leaflet drop saying Berlin is next.

I don't think any of the conventional scenarios are going to play out one year belatedly. At this point either the German military carries out a coup and surrenders, or Berlin gets nuked, then the subsequent German military government surrenders, all while the Western Allies are just starting to parade in Paris or sitting pretty in England, and everything from Germany eastward turns into a big chaotic clusterfuck, like what happened after World War I, or the entirety of Japanese-occupied Asia after their historical surrender.


If we had not allied with the USSR, the lend lease program, which supplied large numbers of trucks, tanks, and equipment for the Soviets would not have happened. Russia at the time was a third rate industrial power, and the Germans would likely have taken Moscow in '42, and then pushed Stalin (if he hadn't been captured at Moscow, where he refused to leave) back to the Urals.
US lend-lease to the Soviets didn't begin (secretly) until September 1941, was officially approved in November 1941, and wasn't much of a factor for most of 1942.

zraver
05 Jan 18,, 12:13
If the Soviet Union is exhausted in Belarus/Ukraine, historically, that puts us roughly in the Spring of 1943.

If the US is 6 months to a year behind schedule, Operation Torch hasn't occurred. The Toulon fleet is non-scuttled. The invasions of Sicily and Italy have yet to happen. All of Germany's allies in Europe are still intact. Basically everything's on pause for a year. Not that it matters.

Now, if Torch and Tunisia happen in 43-44, the Italian campaign in 44-45, and Overlord is pushed back to summer 1945, while the Soviets are still stalemated/exhausted in Ukraine... the US is going to start dropping nukes. Probably one of the major industrial cities on the Ruhr, with a leaflet drop saying Berlin is next.

I don't think any of the conventional scenarios are going to play out one year belatedly. At this point either the German military carries out a coup and surrenders, or Berlin gets nuked, then the subsequent German military government surrenders, all while the Western Allies are just starting to parade in Paris or sitting pretty in England, and everything from Germany eastward turns into a big chaotic clusterfuck, like what happened after World War I, or the entirety of Japanese-occupied Asia after their historical surrender.

US bombing Berlin is a huge technical problem. The German air defenses begin to be emplaced and developed as a result of Bomber Command so a delayed US entry won't lead to a sudden change in how Germany devotes resources. If anything they get more time to emplace more guns. Even if the B-29 can get above the altitude of the 128mm and 150mm ADA guns, we still have to worry about the Me-262 which is quite capable of smoking an isolated B-29.



US lend-lease to the Soviets didn't begin (secretly) until September 1941, was officially approved in November 1941, and wasn't much of a factor for most of 1942.

But for the big battles to liberate the USSR of 43 onwards LL is critical. 1/4 of combat aircraft, almost all 4x4 and 4x6 trucks, more than half of the explosives, all of the high octane avgas. The Soviet ability to march west is predicated on the availability of LL.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 08:09
US bombing Berlin is a huge technical problem. The German air defenses begin to be emplaced and developed as a result of Bomber Command so a delayed US entry won't lead to a sudden change in how Germany devotes resources. If anything they get more time to emplace more guns. Even if the B-29 can get above the altitude of the 128mm and 150mm ADA guns, we still have to worry about the Me-262 which is quite capable of smoking an isolated B-29.
In your scenario, the conventional war is anything but a foregone conclusion, especially less so with Soviet forces fought to exhaustion, perhaps not even in the war anymore, at a time when the US has nukes. If the Western Allies don't sue for peace, I don't see any scenario in which the US won't start using nukes. Maybe not a lone B-29, but if the US perceives it can bring an abrupt end to the war with a decisive strike without having to commit to a conventional strategy that could cost millions of causalities, I think it's logical to assume that it would.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 09:06
In your scenario, the conventional war is anything but a foregone conclusion, especially less so with Soviet forces fought to exhaustion, perhaps not even in the war anymore, at a time when the US has nukes. If the Western Allies don't sue for peace, I don't see any scenario in which the US won't start using nukes. Maybe not a lone B-29, but if the US perceives it can bring an abrupt end to the war with a decisive strike without having to commit to a conventional strategy that could cost millions of causalities, I think it's logical to assume that it would.

How to get a 3 ship element over Berlin and not have it shot down dropping atomic secrets all over Germany without the big bright surprise announcement?

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 09:41
How to get a 3 ship element over Berlin and not have it shot down dropping atomic secrets all over Germany without the big bright surprise announcement?
Roosevelt wanted it done during the Battle of the Bulge, but the bomb wasn't ready yet.

Send up 1200 bombers, one of which has the bomb, escorted by 800 fighters, against the first city. We did that over Dresden and lost 8 aircraft. Keep dropping nukes against whatever cities it's practical to do so.

zraver
06 Jan 18,, 15:32
Roosevelt wanted it done during the Battle of the Bulge, but the bomb wasn't ready yet.

Send up 1200 bombers, one of which has the bomb, escorted by 800 fighters, against the first city. We did that over Dresden and lost 8 aircraft. Keep dropping nukes against whatever cities it's practical to do so.

Doing that would turn the A-bomb into a self inflicted anti-aircraft bomb.

astralis
06 Jan 18,, 17:58
IIRC the B-36 had a ceiling that would be untouchable by Germany.

Ironduke
06 Jan 18,, 23:25
Doing that would turn the A-bomb into a self inflicted anti-aircraft bomb.
We're not dealing with the Tsar Bomba here, B-29s move at 6 miles per minute and can get to a safe distance.

zraver
07 Jan 18,, 03:36
IIRC the B-36 had a ceiling that would be untouchable by Germany.

You can't drop an A bomb in the middle of a bomber stream.

Asty,


IIRC the B-36 had a ceiling that would be untouchable by Germany.

From most heavy flak guns yes, not from the naval 127 and 150mm guns or the Flak 40 128mm.

Ironduke
07 Jan 18,, 03:43
You can't drop an A bomb in the middle of a bomber stream.
So drop it near the end.

zraver
07 Jan 18,, 04:21
So drop it near the end.

That might work the first time...

zraver
08 Jan 18,, 00:15
Until the B-47, YB-35/YB-49 or B-36 come on line, the ability of the USAAF/USAF bombers to get high enough to avoid German radar and heavy guns doesn't really exist. This didn't matter as much against bomber streams, so many bombers could be sent in that more than 96% would get through. The Germans did't aim, they just identified the altitude and sent up flak into kill boxes the bombers had too fly through. Outside of the kill boxes, Luftwaffe fighters were free to roam. By the time we have the bomb, the Germans are using the Me-262 in combat and it was immune to interception. The Me-262 also more than makes up the speed difference between the B-17 and B-29. Even a clean B-29 can't out run a jet. In Korea Mig-15's hit B-29's and B-50's so hard we were forced to stop using them.

We know now, that if the stability and range problems could be solved, the YB-49 bomber would be the best bet for delivering the A-bomb over Germany around 1949/50. It likely had a small enough radar cross section and fast enough speed to be mistaken for something like an RAF Mosquito recon plane, something the German's rarely tried to intercept due to its speed and agility. Though if WWII had gone on till 1950, Germany may have had more and better SAM's...

Ironduke
08 Jan 18,, 16:17
If the war against Germany by the Western Allies is being dragged out to late 1945 and beyond, Germany's not going to be the only one in the jet fighter game. P-80s and Gloster Meteors are going to be entering the mix. Me-262s aren't immune to interception in your extended war scenario.

The P-80 Shooting Star has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, while the Me-262's was 37,500 feet. That's an enormous tactical advantage. The P-80 is also more maneuverable and a smidge faster at high altitude than the Me-262 is. The Me-262 has a slight edge in these regards below 20,000 feet, but that's not where the bombers are. And the US is capable of turning out thousands, and had originally planned to. The only reason we didn't is because the war was coming to an end.

The B-39 flown in late 1944 had a service ceiling of 36,000 feet, which is beyond the effective ceiling of the 8.8, 10.5, and 12.8 flak cannons (source (https://books.google.com/books?id=6-UDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=effective+vs+maximum+ceiling+anti-aircraft&source=bl&ots=VjZr5ckMxQ&sig=7C2plo1MGC_zCc3QQGByWq1wzEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYiZv7tcnYAhUk0IMKHer_AqYQ6AEISzAH#v=on epage&q=effective%20vs%20maximum%20ceiling%20anti-aircraft&f=false)). It was a perfectly fine aircraft in every respect, and it's just V-3420s engines slapped onto a B-29 airframe. It could have been put into mass production with ease. The Me-262 would have a much more difficult time executing its rollercoaster tactic starting their dive from 1500 feet above, rather than 6000.

zraver
09 Jan 18,, 06:32
If the war against Germany by the Western Allies is being dragged out to late 1945 and beyond, Germany's not going to be the only one in the jet fighter game. P-80s and Gloster Meteors are going to be entering the mix. Me-262s aren't immune to interception in your extended war scenario.

The P-80 Shooting Star has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, while the Me-262's was 37,500 feet. That's an enormous tactical advantage. The P-80 is also more maneuverable and a smidge faster at high altitude than the Me-262 is. The Me-262 has a slight edge in these regards below 20,000 feet, but that's not where the bombers are. And the US is capable of turning out thousands, and had originally planned to. The only reason we didn't is because the war was coming to an end.[/quote}

Without airfields a lot closer they are not flying to Berlin. But if the armies are already in France, no need to nuke Berlin.

[quote]The B-39 flown in late 1944 had a service ceiling of 36,000 feet, which is beyond the effective ceiling of the 8.8, 10.5, and 12.8 flak cannons (source (https://books.google.com/books?id=6-UDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=effective+vs+maximum+ceiling+anti-aircraft&source=bl&ots=VjZr5ckMxQ&sig=7C2plo1MGC_zCc3QQGByWq1wzEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYiZv7tcnYAhUk0IMKHer_AqYQ6AEISzAH#v=on epage&q=effective%20vs%20maximum%20ceiling%20anti-aircraft&f=false)). It was a perfectly fine aircraft in every respect, and it's just V-3420s engines slapped onto a B-29 airframe. It could have been put into mass production with ease. The Me-262 would have a much more difficult time executing its rollercoaster tactic starting their dive from 1500 feet above, rather than 6000.

Assuming the allies didn't waste the surprise early and give the Germans time to develop a higher altitude version or got the Go-229 into production with an estimated service ceiling of 52,000' and a 550mph cruising speed

Ironduke
09 Jan 18,, 08:04
Talking about stuff like the Go-229 is a bit unrealistic. The P-80, B-39, atomic bomb, Me-262 were all viable, existent technologies.

The Enola Gay made a non-stop round trip from Tinian to Hiroshima, and that's 3,150 miles. It's less than 1,100 miles flying distance between England and Berlin. There are plenty of cities (Hamburg, Cologne, Dortmund, Essen, Stuttgart, etc.) within 800-900 miles. There are no insurmountable technological or logistical challenges for the US to nuke Germany in 1945.

zraver
09 Jan 18,, 12:52
Talking about stuff like the Go-229 is a bit unrealistic. The P-80, B-39, atomic bomb, Me-262 were all viable, existent technologies.

The Go-229 was flying in prototype form

{quote]The Enola Gay made a non-stop round trip from Tinian to Hiroshima, and that's 3,150 miles. It's less than 1,100 miles flying distance between England and Berlin. There are plenty of cities (Hamburg, Cologne, Dortmund, Essen, Stuttgart, etc.) within 800-900 miles. There are no insurmountable technological or logistical challenges for the US to nuke Germany in 1945.[/QUOTE]

The P-80 didn't have that range

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 00:52
1,345 miles with drop tanks.

zraver
10 Jan 18,, 02:20
1,345 miles with drop tanks.

That is the Korean war era F-80C. Not the I40/J31 powered P-80A

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 03:19
That is the Korean war era F-80C. Not the I40/J31 powered P-80A
Pretty sure (https://books.google.com/books?id=gj_S_xeLeW8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=p80-a+drop+tanks&source=bl&ots=YURFP87AQJ&sig=G4T2XqCdpvnnTwPrEdRgGR0p-nA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6i4e8pMzYAhVB7mMKHQdaCVw4ChDoAQg6MAM#v =onepage&q=p80-a%20drop%20tanks&f=false) it's the P-80A.

All production models, A through C, used the J-33.

zraver
10 Jan 18,, 12:40
Pretty sure (https://books.google.com/books?id=gj_S_xeLeW8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=p80-a+drop+tanks&source=bl&ots=YURFP87AQJ&sig=G4T2XqCdpvnnTwPrEdRgGR0p-nA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6i4e8pMzYAhVB7mMKHQdaCVw4ChDoAQg6MAM#v =onepage&q=p80-a%20drop%20tanks&f=false) it's the P-80A.

All production models, A through C, used the J-33.

A's were upgraded to the C standard

Ironduke
10 Jan 18,, 14:38
From the Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model P-80A-1 Airplane, March 5, 1945.

You add the the range from these two charts together to get total range.

Say 30,000 feet, landing with 50-gallon reserve, at maximum continuous power the range is 1265 miles. Maximum range condition, it's 1415 miles. The numbers would be exactly the same for 35,000 feet landing with a 100-gallon reserve.

The absolute maximum is 1,835 miles, flying at 40,000 feet and running out of fuel just as landing. Needless to say, that isn't practical.

Now if the J-33 used in production models for whatever reason provides longer range, as you implied, the range would be even further.

https://i.imgur.com/uFC9PzE.png

https://i.imgur.com/gtDgAW0.png


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80A-Manual.pdf

zraver
11 Jan 18,, 01:51
From the Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model P-80A-1 Airplane, March 5, 1945.

You add the the range from these two charts together to get total range.

Say 30,000 feet, landing with 50-gallon reserve, at maximum continuous power the range is 1265 miles. Maximum range condition, it's 1415 miles. The numbers would be exactly the same for 35,000 feet landing with a 100-gallon reserve.

The absolute maximum is 1,835 miles, flying at 40,000 feet and running out of fuel just as landing. Needless to say, that isn't practical.

Now if the J-33 used in production models for whatever reason provides longer range, as you implied, the range would be even further.

https://i.imgur.com/uFC9PzE.png

https://i.imgur.com/gtDgAW0.png


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-80/P-80A-Manual.pdf

Did you look at the bottom chart for combat ranges not ferry? The P-80A had 285 gallons of onboard fuel. B and reffitted A (modernized to C standard) added 200 gallons via tip tanks The P-80A wasn't going to Berlin and fighting, and then flying back. Not only that but given the gap in speed between a cruising P-80A and a B-29/39 the P-80 is gonna burn up a lot of its fuel and maximum miles flying a pattern that has its speed over ground match the speed of the bombers


The F-86 had a bit over 500 gallons internally plus up to 400 gallons external. 900 gallons of fuel is how they got to the Yalu, fought and got back.

Ironduke
11 Jan 18,, 02:18
Did you look at the bottom chart for combat ranges not ferry? The P-80A had 285 gallons of onboard fuel. B and reffitted A (modernized to C standard) added 200 gallons via tip tanks The P-80A wasn't going to Berlin and fighting, and then flying back. Not only that but given the gap in speed between a cruising P-80A and a B-29/39 the P-80 is gonna burn up a lot of its fuel and maximum miles flying a pattern that has its speed over ground match the speed of the bombers

The F-86 had a bit over 500 gallons internally plus up to 400 gallons external. 900 gallons of fuel is how they got to the Yalu, fought and got back.
They didn't even do that with piston-engined fighters utilized in fighter escort operations over Germany. There was a phased relay system for fighter escorts in which separate escort groups would provide coverage for progressive range blocs, specifically for reasons you've brought up: to maximize fuel economy and extend fighter escort range. The P-80A was perfectly capable of doing this.

zraver
11 Jan 18,, 02:34
They didn't even do that with piston-engined fighters utilized in fighter escort operations over Germany. There was a phased relay system for fighter escorts in which separate escort groups would provide coverage for progressive range blocs, specifically for reasons you've brought up: to maximize fuel economy and extend fighter escort range. The P-80A was perfectly capable of doing this.

They did that for bomber streams, set up relays for a single 3 plane box and you give the game away.

Ironduke
11 Jan 18,, 02:53
They did that for bomber streams, set up relays for a single 3 plane box and you give the game away.
The A-bomb carrying aircraft could be inserted at the tail end of a bomber stream flying en route over City A (nuke target), meanwhile the stream continues on to City B with its conventional payload.

zraver
11 Jan 18,, 03:31
The A-bomb carrying aircraft could be inserted at the tail end of a bomber stream flying en route over City A (nuke target), meanwhile the stream continues on to City B with its conventional payload.

Tail end... most expensive weapon in history in the position of the bomber stream most vulnerable to enemy fighters (no support), and flak (had plenty of time to find the height and bearing despite chaff and jamming). Sorry, just don't see it.

Ironduke
11 Jan 18,, 04:59
Tail end... most expensive weapon in history in the position of the bomber stream most vulnerable to enemy fighters (no support), and flak (had plenty of time to find the height and bearing despite chaff and jamming). Sorry, just don't see it.
If you're at the same altitude as the bomber stream (which varied). Like I mentioned before, I'm envisioning B-39s that fly beyond the effective flak range of the German guns. The bomber stream can be B-17s or B-24s, or even B-29s, with the B-39s above. And they can surely have fighter support. The Germans would not know they exist, expect to be countering them, and may not even notice them at all.