Western Allies v German Wehrmacht 1944 - Page 3




View Poll Results :Western Allies v German Wehrmacht 1944 - who wins?
Western Allies push Germany back to Berlin 10 55.56%
German Wehrmacht pushes the Western Allies into the sea 6 33.33%
Stalemate, with neither side gaining the upper hand 2 11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
June 13th, 2005  
Arclight
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
What you're forgetting is that the first atomic bombs were incredibly heavy. Little boy weighed 9,000 pounds. Germany did not have a strategic bomber force. The Ju-188 could carry 4,400 pounds, the H-111 could cary 2,200 pounds. A V2 could only carry one ton, and the V3 is just a cross channel weapon. Hypothetically the Luftwaffe could have used a strategic bomber prototype to deliver an atomic weapon, not that one existed. Even the HE-177 couldn't have carried Little Boy. The only German plane that could take off with Little Boy was a transport, and it wouldn't have stood a snowballs chance in h**l. The Ju-287 would have been slower then propellor based interceptors and even if it could carry the weight, well you couldn't fit the bomb inside it. They certainly didn't have an assembled jet that could carry something as massive as an atomic bomb and out run allied interceptors.

If Germany had tried to deliver a nuclear weapon to any major allied city the bomber in question would have been shot down before even reaching England or Paris. Just about the only method they could have used to deliver an atomic weapon to a city is a U-Boat, and even that was risky for an important harbor.

Not to mention that the Allied nuclear program was literally years ahead of any Germany program.
Good points, I never really thought about that situation.
June 13th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
One last note on the V1 Ju287, a B-29 is slightly faster as far as maximum speed is concerned. A B-29 is also heavier armed, and can carry more ordinance a further distance.

Germany's Atomic Bomb program was years behind that of the allies for a variety of reasons. First Hitler divided up the nuclear program into several competitive teams. Which meant that they were constantly retreading ground that the other teams had already discovered. Also Germany relied on heavy water produced in Norway to regulate any possible reactor. The German method for building an atomic pile simply could not function without heavy water. The Norwegian heavy water plant was rendered non-functional by partisans and the German heavy water supply was destroyed at sea. Germany did not have a fuctional atomic pile. Without a functioning reactor they could not begin to produce plutonium for use in an atomic weapon. By 1942 the United States already had an atomic pile functioning in Chicago. Germany would also make a number of mistakes that would prevent any reactor of theirs from going critical. With the result that the atomic pile they built did not work. By the time they could have redesigned a pile around graphite instead of heavy water or built a new heavy water plant the Allies would have had the bomb for years. Historically the German nuclear works were also destroyed by an air raid in 1945. If that were to occur in this alternate time line the German atomic bomb project would have been set even further behind the Manhattan project.
June 20th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
One thing to consider is that, although Germany could not have retaliated with nuclear weapons, they could have with chemical weapons. Germany in 1945 had a 12,000 tonnes Sarin and a 12,000 tonnes Tabun production capacity per year. With this amount of potential chemical agent they could have literally poisoned the British Isles. They also had the delivery systems in place with their V2 and V3 rockets. The Western Allies would be very aware of this as their intelligence was much better than that of Germany's and I think they'd be hesitant to escalate any conflict to a nuclear one for fear of chemical retaliation. There was no effective antidote for nerve weapons available to the Western Allies and any deployment of nerve gas would IMO devastate the UK.

So IMO forget about this conflict turning into a WMD one. Both sides are well aware that they cannot escalate for fear of devastating reprisals.
--
June 20th, 2005  
Jäger
 
 
Germany would never had used the chemical weapons they had produced till 1945. Hitler was a crazy psychotic, but he had a dislike to chemical weapons. Maybe, because he was a victim of this weapon in WWI himself
June 20th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäger
Germany would never had used the chemical weapons they had produced till 1945. Hitler was a crazy psychotic, but he had a dislike to chemical weapons. Maybe, because he was a victim of this weapon in WWI himself
I think he would have used it in retaliation to an atomic strike on Germany, the only question I have on this topic is whether the allies would have used an atomic bomb on Germany at all.
I think the anti-Japanese feeling and views ran a lot deeper than the anti-German ones.
June 21st, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
By the time the Allies would have been able to use atomic weapons against Germany, the German capability to deliver a nerve agent such as Sarin was almost entirely gone. Not to mention that the Germans would have known that doing so would have invited Britain to have unleashed it's own considerable stockpile of chemical weapons. Albeit older then their German counterparts.

Secondly, although V2 loaded with Sarin would have caused more damage than a V2 loaded with explosives, it would still be localized. Britain would have simply mass produced gas masks or further evacuated the cities. And although the Germans may have had 12,000 tonnes of Sarin gas, they certainly didn't have the means to deliver it all.

Lastly, if the Germans had started to launch chemical weapons at Britain, the campaign to eradicate V2 launch sites would have greatly intensified.
June 21st, 2005  
ghost457
 
 
i voted for a stalemate because i think the Allied air superiority and the Axis land forces would have balanced out long enough for the Germans to produce more planes to even it out. however, i think that if the Germans had defeated Russia before D-Day, it would have been a huge one-sided turkey shoot, of course wiht our boys as the turkeys, but since this scenario assumes we got D-Day out the way, i voted for a stalemate.
June 21st, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
I'm not quite sure how you expect more German ground forces in western Europe to prevent the 8th Air Force from reducing Germany's oil production capability to rubble. In the end the problem wasn't that Germany didn't have enough planes, it was that it didn't have enough fuel or pilots.
June 21st, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
I'm not quite sure how you expect more German ground forces in western Europe to prevent the 8th Air Force from reducing Germany's oil production capability to rubble. In the end the problem wasn't that Germany didn't have enough planes, it was that it didn't have enough fuel or pilots.
I really think the key to this whole scenario lies in the hands of the Luftwaffes eastern front capabilities at the time of the Russian defeat.

If they had enough strength/quality left to gain air superiority between Russia, Romainia and eastern Germany then they "may" have been able to transfer troops and materials west in relative safety which would have given them a fighting chance of securing a level of air parity prior to D-Day.

I dont believe that the Luftwaffe could have hoped to regain total air superiority imediately as the numbers stacked up against them were just too high but given a a few months (6-12) I think they could have inflicted enough damage on the allied airforces to make Germany and its production more secure.

I do believe that given time a stalemate would have been more than possible but the Germans would have had to have prevented the allies getting ashore in France and probably thrown them out of Italy as I believe that as long as allied troops were on the ground in Europe they would have won eventually.
June 21st, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Just some random points.

The Allies had already landed in this hypothetical scenario. Perhaps the Germans are following Guderian's advice to allow the Allied Armies to advance inland before counter-attacking. This would hopefully replicate for them the huge encirclements achieved in Russia.

The Luftwaffe is quite a bit stronger than historically. The Luftwaffe has very little strategic bombing capability to speak of, but it probably has, man for man, the best CAS and Air Superiority capability in the world. It certainly has the most seasoned pilots.

It has been argued that strategic bombing is only truly effective on an already defeated opponent. In this scenario that is far from the case.

The Allies may run out of logistics, albeit temporarily, as they did historically.

If the weather dictates that Allied Air strikes are ruled out, a few days may be all that's needed for the Wehrmacht to achieve a decisive result. The forces available to Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk will probably be available to them here. That means 6th Army, 17 Army, 1st Panzerarmee, 4th Panzerarmee. There is no comparison between these forces and the forces available historically to the Germans.

If the Wehrmacht can deny the Allies the major ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam the Allied Armies will have their major supply depots denied to them.

If entire US Armies are cut off in the field and destroyed, will that affect US public opinion at home to 'bring the boys home'?

Likewise, if UK Armies are similarly destroyed, will Churchill be overthrown and say someone like Lord Halifax appointed who would secure a separate peace with Hitler?

If the Wehrmacht is gradually pushed back to Berlin and eventually loses, the casualties for the Western Armies will probably be much higher than historically.