# What If Nazi Germany Had Recognized The Potential Of Jets Early On?



## BAYLOR (Jul 13, 2014)

The Henkel 178 prototype flew successfully in 1939 just before Germany launched its attack on Poland. Fortunately for everyone, they saw little initial value in Jet propulsion and when they did put the ME 262 into production and action, They had already lost the war.  But what if they had seen the possibilities? what if they had put jet fighters like the Me 262 in production  a few years sooner ? How do you think it would have impacted the outcome of the second world war ? 

And as an added Question The Arrado Jet Bomber?


----------



## Huttman (Jul 13, 2014)

Nun, es würde viel anders gewesen sein, das ist sicher. Wir würden jetzt sprechen Deutsch, für einen. Essen viel mehr Sauerkraut als gut. 
Hagel die Hälfte Schnurrbart Kerl.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 13, 2014)

They would have won the Battle of Britain and England would have been defeated.

The US would be unable to have a base on this side of the Atlantic and with the ability of the Germans to quickly have the ability to reach American via landbases in the UK. With no real possbilities of defeating Germany, and with no real incentive to do so, there would have been either an alliance or at least an uneasy truce.

There would still have been war with Russia of course, but having only to fight on a single front the Blitzkrieg, and perhaps more importantly been able to go in at least 6 months earlier before Winter set in, they would easily have dealt with the Soviets.

What would have been more interesting (and thankfully didn't occur) would have been if Germany had developed an atom bomb in 1944. With the war almost lost, Hitler's real 'wonder weapon' could have been a game changer.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 13, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> They would have won the Battle of Britain and England would have been defeated.
> 
> The US would be unable to have a base on this side of the Atlantic and with the ability of the Germans to quickly have the ability to reach American via landbases in the UK. With no real possbilities of defeating Germany, and with no real incentive to do so, there would have been either an alliance or at least an uneasy truce.
> 
> ...



They did have a  prototype The Horton Flying Wing very late in the War.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 13, 2014)

In some ways, they did - the He 280 (which first flew on its engines in 1941, and as a glider at the time of the BoB) was replaced by the superior Me 262.

The problems still lay in getting the engines to work, building enough engines, and developing airframes to exploit those engines.

It took three years to bring the Me 262 into production - not an excessive total by anyone's standards - abut the same as it took us to get the Gloster Meteor flying, and while the advocates of jets were certainly vocal, there were many real problems competing for resources.

Imagine standing at your border and telling an invading army, "Could you come back in 6 months ?  We're a bit short of weapons at the moment, but the new generation to repel you should be ready by then."

Germany was, apart from anything else, fighting a war on two fronts and trying to keep two vast armies equipped and supplied, so the resources which could've gone on the jet aircraft and their enormous potential, simply couldn't be spared.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 13, 2014)

Life isn't like a game of civilization where one side gets jet aircraft and everyone else has to wait until they get on the right tech tree. 

At several times during the war aircraft types were introduced that completely outclassed their opponents, work around were sought, New tactics, counter measures and improved designs worked upon. The allies have plenty of resources and brains that can be thrown at a problem and were well on the way to their own jet designs.

Throw in the German raw material shortages and general Nazi incompetence and the allies would never be facing that many decent jets. Adam tosses book Wages of Destruction goes into wonderful detail on the Nazi economy and it's shortfalls.


----------



## Vertigo (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't think it would have made much difference but I also think the initial premise is wrong. The German jet fighter was not slow to come into production purely because of its potential not being seen. Referring to the ME 262:

_Design work started before World War II began, but engine problems and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944._

So partly top level interference but also partly production problems. Also even once it went into service it suffered many reliability problems with the engine. Then when it did come into service the first allied jet the Gloster Meteor (contrary to popular belief) went into service at almost the same time. It had been in development for a similar length of time though wasn't quite as good as the ME 262.

The main reason I don't think it would have made that big a difference is that (1) it is unlikely even with full 'top-level' support that a jet aircraft could have gone into production in time to affect the outcome of the Battle of Britain. And (2) my understanding is that the main reason Germany 'lost' the Battle of Britain was Hitler's decision to switch bombing from the airfields to the cities. One of the most staggeringly bad military decision of the war (amongst many others of course). At that time our air power was almost completely wiped out. The breather the switch gave us made all the difference. Bad for British civilians but it saved the RAF.


----------



## Overread (Jul 13, 2014)

Chances are if Hitler had just been banned from the Warroom the war would have gone very differently! 

Technological superiority over your enemies can be a major game changer; but at the same time you've not only got to have superior weapons, but also put them into production. For a large war machine that means mass production - so your new technology has to be reliable enough for batch production. Not only that but the wider the circle of knowing individuals there are the more chance there is for a leak of information. 

Certainly if Germany could have mastered the skies with an even more superior air force they could have taken the UK earlier which would have basically destroyed that front of the war. America wouldn't have gotten involved save to attack Japan, whilst most of the other western European countries would have likely sought alliance or other diplomatic approaches to avoid being invaded themselves. 

The Russian front however might or might not have fallen - its a front we don't hear as much of and yet was critical in the war. Similarly whilst the Russian army was woefully under equipped the country itself has vast resources. With the right drive that front could have been a stalemate for years to come - although if we assume that the allies lose nothing would then have likely threatened Germany with their A-bomb development. In fact with less of an avenue for scientists and others to leave Germany they might have even had an accelerated progress. 

It's also very likely that Abombs would have been seen as the ideal weapon to beat a country as vast as Russia


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 13, 2014)

Vertigo said:


> I don't think it would have made much difference but I also think the initial premise is wrong. The German jet fighter was not slow to come into production purely because of its potential not being seen. Referring to the ME 262:
> 
> _Design work started before World War II began, but engine problems and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944._
> 
> ...



German intelligence underestimated the importance of Radar stations .


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 13, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> German intelligence underestimated the importance of Radar stations .



Well, they did bomb them so they knew they were a threat. What I'm saying though is that the benefit of radar was to direct the fighters to where the Germans were heading. Against jets, they simply wouldn't have enough time to do so; they would have dropped their bombs and been halfway home. And if they HAD got there in time, the vast difference in power between jet fighters and propeller based aircraft would have meant that they would have been suicide missions for the RAF.

I know they had jet fighters in the pipeline at that time, but what we are theorising here is if the Germans had fully functioning squadrons of them in 1940.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 13, 2014)

German Intelligence was often acting directly against Germany's best interest. Sometimes deliberate, sometimes just so comically inept it's impossible to tell whether it was deliberate.

Besides, German radar was actually better than the British, they just didn't have it integrated into a unified air command. There were other weak links they could have gone after. Or looking at the casualty rates they needed to achieve, simply sat on the defensive and let the RAF attack them with their hilariously outraged tactics.

But destroying the RAF doesn't make Sea lion a goer. A couple of destroyers cruising the channel would have swamped the invasion barges with their wake alone and at this point the Luftwaffe had a terrible record against warships.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 13, 2014)

Null_Zone said:


> German Intelligence was often acting directly against Germany's best interest. Sometimes deliberate, sometimes just so comically inept it's impossible to tell whether it was deliberate.
> 
> Besides, German radar was actually better than the British, they just didn't have it integrated into a unified air command. There were other weak links they could have gone after. Or looking at the casualty rates they needed to achieve, simply sat on the defensive and let the RAF attack them with their hilariously outraged tactics.
> 
> But destroying the RAF doesn't make Sea lion a goer. A couple of destroyers cruising the channel would have swamped the invasion barges with their wake alone and at this point the Luftwaffe had a terrible record against warships.



There was also the problem of Fuel . The RAF was fighting  much closer to their fuel supply then the Luffewaffe. The ME 109 was almost as good a plane as the Spitfire but having spent fuel to get to the battle, they were at a bit of a disadvantage.

The Germans didn't have much in the way of a Surface fleet to defend any kind of invasion fleet.

Back on topic. The biggest problem with the  ME 262 was the engines were  subject o lots of breakdowns. Perhaps they might have been able to solve some of the technical problems had they gotten them into production earlier? No way to know for sure on that one  And the Me 262's  were not particularly fuel efficient , they had  relatively limited range.  None of the early jets fuel efficient.

Interestingly Henkel came up with a fighter before the ME 262 but for some reason Henkel couldn't get much backing from the german government.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 13, 2014)

I don't think Hitler ever would have invaded Britain. I think he firstly expected England to side with him, then to capitulate after Dunkirk. After this, blasting the RAF out of the sky, destroying English cities and having a flotilla or barges threatening invasion, I think he expected them to finally surrender.

Crippling the RAF would have prevented his troops being splattered all over the South coast beaches, but as has been said they still had no answer to Britain's naval force. And just like Napoleon , he knew that barges, even escorted barges, would have no chance against our fleet - at least not without suffering horrendous losses.

No, I think it was all a bluff to get us to finally surrender. But what Hitler didn't realise was that Churchill was just as fanatical as he was, and would rather have destroyed the country rather than surrender to the Germans.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 13, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> I don't think Hitler ever would have invaded Britain. I think he firstly expected England to side with him, then to capitulate after Dunkirk. After this, blasting the RAF out of the sky, destroying English cities and having a flotilla or barges threatening invasion, I think he expected them to finally surrender.
> 
> Crippling the RAF would have prevented his troops being splattered all over the South coast beaches, but as has been said they still had no answer to Britain's naval force. And just like Napoleon , he knew that barges, even escorted barges, would have no chance against our fleet - at least not without suffering horrendous losses.
> 
> No, I think it was all a bluff to get us to finally surrender. But what Hitler didn't realise was that Churchill was just as fanatical as he was, and would rather have destroyed the country rather than surrender to the Germans.



Ive always found that part a bit curious, Britain has a large and very powerful Navy, at that time the best navy in the world  , So why didn't Germany build a Surface fleet to match Britain?


----------



## Overread (Jul 13, 2014)

Probably because Germany was more focused upon the ground war in Europe and Russia. Remember even though they wanted to take the UK and master the seas they still had a massive ground war going on which likely was a major drain on their resources. 

Also don't forget whilst the planes of the time had bad luck against warships, if the Germans had functional and mass production scale jet aircraft; just as they'd be more effective against air to air they'd also be more effective against air to ground and air to sea. It would have taken time for the allies to try and counter and existing AA of the time might not even have been up to the task. 

Germany did build some very powerful warships, along with Uboats, but they didn't really want a pitched battle against the British Navy; instead they went after the supply ships from America. 


Remember Germany didn't want war with the UK; it was only because they went through Poland that the UK entered the war (or at least found enough excuse to do so). Hitler did hope for an alliance which might explain some of the more strange tactics chosen. Also whilst they shifted from airfields to cities don't forget that a big part of invasion is breaking the moral not just the weapons of your opponents. I suspect their hope was that continued bombardment of civilian areas would turn civilians against the idea of supporting a war which is "overseas" and might have made the UK pull out.


----------



## ralphkern (Jul 14, 2014)

It would have been a tougher fight, but an easier war. The Germans produced hundreds of ME262's, for example, but simply couldn't fuel them or maintain them. 

On a per unit basis they were far more expensive than our cost of destroying them. Sometimes that math was horrific for us, the finest overall fighter of WW2, the Mustang, was sliced and diced by them at times. Something like a 12 /1 ratio at times, yet the weight of numbers was on our side once the Americans got involved. The Hawker Tempest was pretty good versus the early jets as well.

If they had redirected their efforts into tried and tested fighter/bombers and smaller incremental steps at improving them over complete seed changes we would have struggled far more (although still a win I suspect for us).

In relation to the surface fleet that stems from coming out of the Treaty of Versailles. They were allowed a very limited navy. The lead time on warship construction is very long, especially the Capital ships which in the opening stages of WW2 were considered the way to go, before the Pacific war that was. I doubt Britain would have tolerated a significant German naval construction program and would have taken steps, through sanction or direct action (e.g. destroying) to curtail it.


----------



## Aquilonian (Jul 14, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> There would still have been war with Russia of course, but having only to fight on a single front the Blitzkrieg, and perhaps more importantly been able to go in at least 6 months earlier before Winter set in, they would easily have dealt with the Soviets.



They would not have dealt so "easily" with the Russian people, once they realised that so far as the Nazis were concerned this was a racial war. If Hitler had only had to fight on one front, and the USSR hadn't recieved supplies of American lorries etc through Murmansk, with an RAF squadron protecting the port, for sure they'd have lost even more than their actual 20 million dead. But the USSR is a big place- they could have pulled back far beyond the Urals. The Russians have always had an immense capacity for endurance, and Stalin was an even more ruthless leader than Hitler. 

Most of WW2 was fought on the Eastern Front, and Stalingrad decided the outcome of the War. Ordinary British people like my parents knew this at the time- it's the post-war generation, with their knowledge of the War derived from Hollywood, who have forgotten. In fact, I've known fairly intelligent 30-something Brits who were actually surprised to learn that the UK's armed forces lost as many war dead as the USA's, and that we fought for more than two years longer.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 14, 2014)

Aquilonian said:


> They would not have dealt so "easily" with the Russian people, once they realised that so far as the Nazis were concerned this was a racial war. If Hitler had only had to fight on one front, and the USSR hadn't recieved supplies of American lorries etc through Murmansk, with an RAF squadron protecting the port, for sure they'd have lost even more than their actual 20 million dead. But the USSR is a big place- they could have pulled back far beyond the Urals. The Russians have always had an immense capacity for endurance, and Stalin was an even more ruthless leader than Hitler.
> 
> Most of WW2 was fought on the Eastern Front, and Stalingrad decided the outcome of the War. Ordinary British people like my parents knew this at the time- it's the post-war generation, with their knowledge of the War derived from Hollywood, who have forgotten. In fact, I've known fairly intelligent 30-something Brits who were actually surprised to learn that the UK's armed forces lost as many war dead as the USA's, and that we fought for more than two years longer.




If Germany had taken the oilfields to the South, That might have knocked the Russians out of the war.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 17, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> If Germany had taken the oilfields to the South, That might have knocked the Russians out of the war.



Exactly. Capture or destroy the major cities and the oilfields. Most of the USSR was uninhabited, so you didn't need to conquer it all, just the bits that mattered.

I agree that Stalin was just as ruthless as Hitler, but if he'd lost his main supplies of fuel and munitions there wouldn't have been a lot he could have done other than carry out guerilla raids.

In my opinion Germany's intention wasn't to conquer Russia; in fact if Hitler had thought Stalin trustworthy he wouldn't have invaded at all. But he knew that given time, Russia would have attacked him, so he was just getting there first.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 17, 2014)

Hitler's stated aim from the very beginning was war with Russia and expansion to the east.

As for capturing the oil fields, the Soviets did a good number on destroying them, getting them back into operation would be tricky given the Axis black sea ports were being bombed, there were only a couple ship loads of drilling equipment and somehow they need to ship the oil back and refined with the Germans limited refineries.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 18, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> Exactly. Capture or destroy the major cities and the oilfields. Most of the USSR was uninhabited, so you didn't need to conquer it all, just the bits that mattered.
> 
> I agree that Stalin was just as ruthless as Hitler, but if he'd lost his main supplies of fuel and munitions there wouldn't have been a lot he could have done other than carry out guerilla raids.
> 
> In my opinion Germany's intention wasn't to conquer Russia; in fact if Hitler had thought Stalin trustworthy he wouldn't have invaded at all. But he knew that given time, Russia would have attacked him, so he was just getting there first.




 1937 Stalin had purged the Soviet army of any  Generals and officers who might be a potential threat to him. he in effect weakened his army.  That and the difficulty that The Soviets had against Finland's Much smaller army convince Hitler that the Soviet Union would fall over like a house of cards.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 18, 2014)

I agree, but the USSR isn't a country you would ever want to occupy; it's just impossible without stupid amounts of men. Capture (or even destroy) their oilfields though and you pretty much remove any meaningful threat.

Also there's a massive difference between a small nation using guerilla tactics against a larger force, and the threat of extinction. When Hitler invaded, the Russians were literally fighting for their lives - a big motivator!


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 19, 2014)

I recall a number of times where it was stated (on the TV) that the fighters Germany already had were told to stay with the bombers they were meant to be protecting. Giving the fighters a higher top speed wouldn't have helped: they'd still have spent most of their time at lower speeds. Of course, the answer to this would have been to give the bombers jet engines, but then there would have been the problem of range (or reduced bomb carrying capability if they carried more fuel).

 For a technology to be a game changer, it has to work, it has to be amenable to being produced in numbers** larger than that of prototypes, its extra capabilities have to be useful, its capabilities have to be understood by those who have to use them, its capabilities must be available quick enough to justify transferring resources from the main war effort, etc.  It seems that only the first of these -- getting jet engines to work -- had been fully achieved. Without all of the others, that sole achievement meant little.  


** - Okay, globally affecting doomsday weapons perhaps do not need to be made in large numbers (although testing the effectiveness one might pose problems...).


----------



## HareBrain (Jul 19, 2014)

From what I've heard, bringing the Me262 into full production a couple of years earlier, and training enough pilots to fly them well, might have effectively halted daylight bombing raids on Germany. But I doubt that would have had a huge impact on the timing of the end of the war.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 19, 2014)

The Germans also had the minor problem that their fighters and bombers had incompatible radio equipment, they simply weren't capable of communicating. Which makes close support, well any kind of support really, kind of tricky.

When your dealing with a mentality that comes up with that kind of problem technology is the least of your issues.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 19, 2014)

Tbh if their bombers had (reliable) jet engines, they wouldn't have needed escorts - they would have been able to fly higher and faster than any propellored fighter.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 19, 2014)

With what sort of payloads?

The B52 which was a proven design with a long ancestry doesn't have a great strategic bombing record. But the Germans are meant to develop a high altitude bomber with sufficient payload and accuracy to take out airfields, warships and industrial centres. All with no expertise in heavy bombers and without anyone noticing and thinking hmm that look interesting.

The proven method for dealing with German jets was to bomb the bell out of them using low altitude fight/bombers. Mayberry catch the jets taking off or landing but probably just work over the infrastructure. No German jets can deal with that.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 28, 2014)

HareBrain said:


> From what I've heard, bringing the Me262 into full production a couple of years earlier, and training enough pilots to fly them well, might have effectively halted daylight bombing raids on Germany. But I doubt that would have had a huge impact on the timing of the end of the war.





It might have delayed the end of world war II  by a few months.


----------



## Bowler1 (Jul 28, 2014)

If Germany had a functioning squadron of jets for the Battle of Britain one would have been shot down somewhere over the UK. The boffins would have reverse engineered it and caught back up within a year - sort of like WWI aircraft development. It would have caused big problems for allied night bombing and impacting the German war machine early in the war, but eventually American industrial might would have seen the day through. Russia would have suffered a lot more, as the real fighting was done on the ground and mostly by Russia. It would have been a longer war, but Hitler being a bit of a control freak was always going to end in an allied victory, jets or not. Or so I think.

That was a good what if question.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 28, 2014)

Bowler1 said:


> If Germany had a functioning squadron of jets for the Battle of Britain one would have been shot down somewhere over the UK. The boffins would have reverse engineered it and caught back up within a year - sort of like WWI aircraft development. It would have caused big problems for allied night bombing and impacting the German war machine early in the war, but eventually American industrial might would have seen the day through. Russia would have suffered a lot more, as the real fighting was done on the ground and mostly by Russia. It would have been a longer war, but Hitler being a bit of a control freak was always going to end in an allied victory, jets or not. Or so I think.
> 
> That was a good what if question.




Didn't Frank Whittle begin Jet engine development in the early  1930's ?  Britain was working on it's own jet fighter Meteor  during later part of the  time of war?


----------



## Bowler1 (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes they were BAYLOR, but the RAF were still using the tried and trust technology at that point, not that you could blame them really. I've no doubts the jet gap would have been close ASAP, if it had ever occurred.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 29, 2014)

But if the Luftwaffe had jet fighters flying over Britain, they would have won the war long before the British developed their own jet propelled aircraft..


----------



## Gramm838 (Aug 11, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> The Henkel 178 prototype flew successfully in 1939 just before Germany launched its attack on Poland. Fortunately for everyone, they saw little initial value in Jet propulsion and when they did put the ME 262 into production and action, They had already lost the war.  But what if they had seen the possibilities? what if they had put jet fighters like the Me 262 in production  a few years sooner ? How do you think it would have impacted the outcome of the second world war ?
> 
> And as an added Question The Arrado Jet Bomber?



The British Government would have rushed Gloster E/39 into production in some form, and with American help would have soon surpassed Germany's abilities with jets (the German jets would have been better, but the allies would have had far more of theirs than the Germans did due to the differences in the scale of the respective aviation industries).

The Martin Baker company had some world class designs that we gave away to the Mercans late in the war, and they took those developments and eventually arrived at the F-86 Sabre


----------



## Null_Zone (Aug 11, 2014)

As is the Meteor beat the 262 into service, even then it wasn't needed to actually fight German jets.

The Germans really just didn't having the material to win and air war. 

And interesting statistic I read on aircraft production I read was that the allies put 30-40% of.it's aircraft production into spare parts, the Germans less than 10%. So a damaged.German fighter was more.likely to be a write off and you need to drastically increase allied fighters if their are more lost airframe.


----------



## Flyerman11 (Aug 24, 2014)

It is also important to note that the ME 262 while faster than anything the allies had, was not very maneuverable or reliable and several were shot down as they were landing (slow and near the ground) where they were easy targets, this practice was called "rat catching".  Not very sportsman like, but then again, it was war.  If memory serves, the allies downed some 120 or so German jets during WWII, plus many more on the ground.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 24, 2014)

Flyerman11 said:


> It is also important to note that the ME 262 while faster than anything the allies had, was not very maneuverable or reliable and several were shot down as they were landing (slow and near the ground) where they were easy targets, this practice was called "rat catching".  Not very sportsman like, but then again, it was war.  If memory serves, the allies downed some 120 or so German jets during WWII, plus many more on the ground.




Thing is though, that if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, there would have been no Allied planes over Germany. If the Germans had managed to destroy Britain's airforce they would have defeated them, and the US (with no foothold or allies in Europe) would have not entered the war


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 24, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> Thing is though, that if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, there would have been no Allied planes over Germany. If the Germans had managed to destroy Britain's airforce they would have defeated them, and the US (with no foothold or allies in Europe) would have not entered the war




Even had they defeated Britain and conquered Europe, he wouldn't have been able to hold onto it. Eventually the conquered territories would have rebelled  against the Nazis, they wouldn't had the resources or manpower to hold down the territories and deal with the all consuming  Russian Front, and their lack of dependable fuel supplies would have other material shortages would have further weakened them The Reich would have collapsed within  a few short years.


----------



## Flyerman11 (Aug 26, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> Thing is though, that if the Germans had won the Battle of Britain, there would have been no Allied planes over Germany. If the Germans had managed to destroy Britain's airforce they would have defeated them, and the US (with no foothold or allies in Europe) would have not entered the war


True enough, however, this was mostly a strategic mistake by the Germans, especially Hitler, who abandoned their initial objective of destroying the RAF shifting to a terror bombing campaign.  Had they stayed the course they may have won out, with the aircraft they already had.  The main deficiency in the German fighters was a lack of range, something jets would not have solved.  Germany also lacked a heavy long-range four engine bomber.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 28, 2014)

Flyerman11 said:


> True enough, however, this was mostly a strategic mistake by the Germans, especially Hitler, who abandoned their initial objective of destroying the RAF shifting to a terror bombing campaign.  Had they stayed the course they may have won out, with the aircraft they already had.  The main deficiency in the German fighters was a lack of range, something jets would not have solved.  Germany also lacked a heavy long-range four engine bomber.



Agreed. If Hitler and Goering had persevered with destroying British aircraft and airfields then he would have had total air superiority and could have picked the British off at will. The problem was that he assumed the British would surrender just like everyone else had done; he should have known that with a beligerant chap like Churchill in charge this was never going to happen.


----------



## Null_Zone (Aug 28, 2014)

There were several air groups completely untouched by the German assault, the only time they ever achieved the kill ratios they needed occurred when the Luftwaffe were on the defensive. The Sea lion barges would take 24 hours to cross the channel and even the loaded Sandhurst exercise involving the likes of Manstein concluded in a few German shock troops slaughtered on the beaches.

As for Churchill's belligerence, that is a good term for his attempts at strategy. He got a lot of good men killed or taken prisoner directly because of his inability to grasp that warfare had moved on since his time as a journalist and a ADHD attitude to finding new fronts on which to fight.


----------



## JoanDrake (Aug 29, 2014)

Another scenario of interest might be what would happen if von Braun had developed a few of his A-10's, a multistage rocket which he said could go to America. The thing to remember about that is that once you've gotten to suborbital speed and height it's not really that much difference between a few hundred miles and a few thousand.

Or what if he'd worked with the Horten bros. the ones who had the Flying Wing that was said to be planned to fly to America at the edge of Space. If it had a rocket assist....


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 30, 2014)

JoanDrake said:


> Another scenario of interest might be what would happen if von Braun had developed a few of his A-10's, a multistage rocket which he said could go to America. The thing to remember about that is that once you've gotten to suborbital speed and height it's not really that much difference between a few hundred miles and a few thousand.
> 
> Or what if he'd worked with the Horten bros. the ones who had the Flying Wing that was said to be planned to fly to America at the edge of Space. If it had a rocket assist....



The Horton brothers flying wing fighter crafter developed and introduces a few years earlier might have given Germany Air superiority but even with that they still would have lost the war . 

Then was Eugene Sanger


----------



## paranoid marvin (Aug 30, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> The Horton brothers flying wing fighter crafter developed and introduces a few years earlier might have given Germany Air superiority but even with that they still would have lost the war .
> 
> Then was Eugene Sanger



As I mentioned earlier, what also would have been interesting if in 1944, on the brink of defeat, Germany had created an atomic bomb. Would this have won them the war? Or just a stalemate? Or would the Allies have thrown everything at them?


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 30, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> As I mentioned earlier, what also would have been interesting if in 1944, on the brink of defeat, Germany had created an atomic bomb. Would this have won them the war? Or just a stalemate? Or would the Allies have thrown everything at them?



Germany didn't have the resources or really the means to build a bomb. The exodus of top scientists  in the 1930's pretty much crippled them in that endeavor . What resources they did have were taken up by all these so called wonder weapon programs most of which could never have worked .  Even if somehow germany  managed to come up with the bomb, all it would had done is delay the inevitable they would have needed a reliable 4 engine heavy bomber to carry it which they didn't have . Yes they had the  V2 rocket but it had some serious technical and  reliability issues which they never had time to solve  so using that as platform wasn't a viable option for the the Third Reich.  You have to remember that the the US  Manhattan program  was near completion at that time.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 31, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Germany didn't have the resources or really the means to build a bomb. The exodus of top scientists  in the 1930's pretty much crippled them in that endeavor . What resources they did have were taken up by all these so called wonder weapon programs most of which could never have worked .  Even if somehow germany  managed to come up with the bomb, all it would had done is delay the inevitable they would have needed a reliable 4 engine heavy bomber to carry it which they didn't have . Yes they had the  V2 rocket but it had some serious technical and  reliability issues which they never had time to solve  so using that as platform wasn't a viable option for the the Third Reich.  You have to remember that the the US  Manhattan program  was near completion at that time.



Well they _might _have been able to construct an atomic bomb. But it's a very iffy _might_.

There is evidence to suggest, I believe, that members of the big team brought together to work on Uranium were fully aware of the potential of building a fission weapon, but in 1942 their evaluation of what it would take to actually construct and test it was that it would mean that the weapon would only come on line post 1945 and therefore, by their own estimations, after the war ended. (They expected of course that Germany was going to win in a year or two at the time, but ironically they were more or less correct. They just got the result wrong...)

Thus because the project was in everyone's eyes never going to materially impact on the war, they essentially disbanded the team, sent most of it onto other projects - like the V2 - and split who was left into something like 9 much smaller projects to try and exploit uranium and radioactive materials in other ways, thus meaning that in fact progress would be little and piecemeal. For example, I believe by the end of the war they had in fact just constructed a test nuclear reactor for the German post office to generate electricity.

If the evaluation team had been a bit more gung-ho and perhaps looking at a more desperate war situation (1942 was about the Apex of Nazi power - yes they had been stopped just outside Moscow, but the summer offensive in South Russia seemed to be going well, Britain didn't look too dangerous and the US was more or less neutral for most of the year i.e. not doing so much - so wonder weapons of such power just didn't look like they were required) then perhaps they might have piled more resources into it and perhaps given the allies a nasty surprise right at the end of the war.

However I do think that it is a big perhaps and might. The allies with a few months or so head start in starting the project with a huge team and all the resources that they needed, just managed to get a couple of operational bombs up and running before the war ended. (And in fact missed the war that they had been originally been ordered to impact - versus the Nazis.)


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2014)

If Hitler had not invaded Russia at all, That would enabled him to concentrate all of resources against the UK

Other big mistake declaring war against the US. He did it because of his treaty obligations to Japan and because he very poorly misunderstood the US.

Hitler in his prime could craft a speech and get an audience all pumped up and in his pocket , but as a strategist , he was thankfully very shortsighted. He got away with sending troops in the Rhineland, annexing Austria and  Munich, because the western countries were willing to do almost anything to avoid war.  After Munich everything changed. Chamberlain and Daldier  both knew deep down that giving in to Germany on the issue of the Sudetenland wasn't going to satisfy Hitler or guarantee peace, more so after Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia. They'd both had enough of Hitler, so all they could do was prepare for the coming war.  Hitler  wasn't bright enough to see the abyss opening up right in front of him.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 5, 2014)

He invaded Russia because of three reasons, it was unavoidable.

Obsession with more space
Obsession with Jews
Russia was going to attack him.
It's well documented that Stalin was annoyed that Hitler attacked before Russia attacked.

Either way Germany was going to lose to the Russians. The Russians won the war in Europe. I'm glad the USA belatedly joined in 1941 (earlier would have been better, say 1938) as otherwise France might be speaking Russian today.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> He invaded Russia because of three reasons, it was unavoidable.
> 
> Obsession with more space
> Obsession with Jews
> ...




But  in a scenario in which he doesn't attack Russia, He would have had the men and  resources and fuel which  would have otherwise been lost. In a purely defensive situation , Germany would have had more then enough resources to  stop the Red Army in it's tracks and given how poorly the Russians did against Finland, Germany could have held out for a long time. Long enough for them to develop some of their more advanced weapons.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Oct 6, 2014)

Yes, then maybe defeated by about 1948 to 1950. Ultimately Germany and the conquered area could not match the resources of Russia and USA.
The V rockets killed about 2,000.  Over 20,000 died building them. 
Maybe if someone had assassinated Hitler there would have been no war with Russia. Or they would have ceded most of Poland to Russia or something. But with Hitler in charge Germany was bound to lose.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 10, 2014)

In my opinion , if it hadn't been for WW2 then it is quite conceivable that Europe would have been invaded and conquered by Russia; so quickly and easily that the US would never have had time to get involved. It was only the US presence in Europe that averted this. The atomic bombs used in Japan were as much a warning to Stalin as they were about ending the war in the East.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 2, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> In my opinion , if it hadn't been for WW2 then it is quite conceivable that Europe would have been invaded and conquered by Russia; so quickly and easily that the US would never have had time to get involved. It was only the US presence in Europe that averted this. The atomic bombs used in Japan were as much a warning to Stalin as they were about ending the war in the East.



If Stalin had chosen to , he could have taken Europe, he had men and the means. But he couldn't be sure how many atom bombs we had.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm disputing the idea that the USSR would or could have invaded Europe had WWII not happened. For a start, Stalin had purged the Red Army of most of its decent officers. The Red Army was brave but largely inept at the start of the German invasion. As someone above said, look how poorly they did against the Finns. The Russians became a great army by repelling invaders from their homeland. What overwhelmingly powerful inspiration could they have got by invading someone else's? It seems to me that Stalin had largely a defensive (not so say paranoid) mindset rather than a conquering one.

Also, had there been no WWII, isn't it likely that Europe would have allied against the USSR, and probably with American help? Bear in mind how much Communism was reviled even before the Cold War.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 2, 2014)

I have to more or less agree with you HB, with regards to WW2. 

The idea that 'they would have attacked us if we hadn't attacked them, so this was all inevitable' was very probably starting to circulate as an excuse amongst most of the top brass of the German army late in the war. IMO

From _Panzer Leader - _the memoirs of Heinz Guderian, who eventually became chief of staff of the German Army (my bolding):

"_The conclusion he (Hitler) drew from Molotov's visit and its results was a belief that war with the Soviet Union must sooner or later be inevitable...*It is true that he never talked to me about this matter before 1943 *(but) I have no reason to believe that what he said to me was not a repetition of his opinions at the time in questions."
_
A  few points:

-Guderian is writing for his captors, the Americans. He knows full well that the cold war is developing and that there are hostilities developing between the US and the USSR. Thus he wants to be on their side. He does not even proffer any reason given in 1941 for the invasion of the USSR in the memoir. He discusses his shock at finding out about operation Barbarossa, at how wrong a strategic decision it is to wage war on two fronts, but then he quickly concentrates on what he did in practical terms. This is in my mind deliberate and selective remembering!

-But even so it's interesting that he states that Hitler only starts talking this 'justification' for war at a point where it really starts to look like they can't win it. It's hindsight (on a terrible decision). I don't know exactly when Guderian starting hearing this from Hitler, but it is at least after Stalingrad and the defeats in North Africa. It is seems likely to me that Guderian started to hear such talk when he was pulled from reserve in about March '43 (which he had been languishing for about a year after personal fights with higher ranking generals) to become Inspector General of Armoured Troops in order to re-arm the German army in tanks and prepare for the summer offensive. It's clear from a number of sources that Hitler had reservations about the Kursk offensive and that in many senses knew it was futile.

-When he states that war must 'sooner or later be inevitable' does he really mean that Stalin would have attacked him and then steamrollered through to the west? As I've pointed out above some of his more level-headed generals tried to imply that to get the United states on song. But Hitler has had a long standing view (decades old) that the land of the Soviet Union was destiny for the German people:

In 1922 he explained to Eduard Scharrer (an owner of a newspaper) "_Germany would have to adapt herself to a purely continental policy, avoiding harm to English interest. The destruction of Russia with the help of England would have to be attempted. Russia would give Germany sufficient land for German settlers and a wide field of activity for German industry."*
_
He then publishes in the second volume of _Mein Kampf _in 1925:
"_If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states...For centuries Russia drew nourishment from (the) Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. It has been replaced by the Jew...He himself is no element of organisation, but a ferment of decomposition. The giant empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state..." _The mission of the National Socialist Movement was to prepare the German people for this task. "_We have been chosen by Fate as witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest confirmation..."*
_
It was Hitler's stated goal to take the Soviet Union, remove the Slavs and the Bolsheviks and repopulate the land with German settlers. With views like that, then of course war was going to be inevitable. 


<->

Did the Soviet Union have similar aims for Western Europe? While it is true that they aggressively invaded and occupied the Baltic states, Poland and parts of Finland amongst other sovereign states in Eastern Europe, I would argue these were opportunistic acts of a bully, who seeing that the world's eye was more or less turned on Germany and Hitler, decided to swoop in and take some of the spoils at little cost to themselves (until they messed up against the Finnish.) Possibly Stalin, knowing full well what Hitler had publicly stated in _Mein Kampf_ wanted as much of a buffer, or a sphere of influence - territory that was not really Russian - between him and Hitler.

It should be noted that the 'natural' enemy of mother Russia/USSR at the time was in fact the British. And had been with the exception of the first world war with the exception of the first world war , more or less for at least 100 years or so up to 1940. 

Publicly Britain (and France) had supported the Ottoman Empire against Russia leading to the Crimean war, as well as actually sending troops in 1919 to support the White Russians (If you were communist then this was just another western invasion). Add to this all the espionage in Afghanistan as Britain worried about protecting its Indian asset, plus the help that the British gave the Japanese (who shocked the world by defeating them in 1905)

But there was also all the secret stuff: When the Soviet declared war on Finland, Churchill came up with a plan to invade neutral Sweden and then pass on supplies and arms to help the Finnish. It was thankfully ignored as one of Winston's harebrained schemes. Also as the war came to the end, Churchill ordered a study into a surprise attack on the Soviet in Germany (Codename: Operation _Unthinkable, _yes that's what they called it) to 'impose the will of the Western Allies' on the Soviets. It actually involved the rearming of at least 100,000 German PoW and shows that some of the fantastical thinking of some of the German officers at the end of the war, that they should surrender to the West and then (presumably all of them) concentrate on defeating the Soviets, may have actually had a little traction amongst at least the British. 
_
<->
_
I'm not trying to excuse the Soviets/Russians - many of their actions were reprehensible and wrong - but it makes more sense to view them as defensive (and as it turned out, their paranoia was in many senses fully justified.) Yes they became more aggressive in the cold war...but even then looking at the evidence it seems to me it's their fear of the US and the west and their struggle to even get close to parity in many respects that drove them, not really naked ambition for turning the world communist red. 

Anyway that's another essay. And this one is long enough 
_

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* _I've_ t_aken both passages from _Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris _by Ian Kershaw


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 21, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Yes, then maybe defeated by about 1948 to 1950. Ultimately Germany and the conquered area could not match the resources of Russia and USA.
> The V rockets killed about 2,000.  Over 20,000 died building them.
> Maybe if someone had assassinated Hitler there would have been no war with Russia. Or they would have ceded most of Poland to Russia or something. But with Hitler in charge Germany was bound to lose.




In part Hitlers erratic behavior can explained by The medical treatment  he was getting from his personal physician  Doctor Theodor  Morrell.  Some the drugs and pills he was giving him to treat his flatulence contained arsenic and other unhealthy chemicals, very likely he was poisoned. In anything these made him even more mentally unstable.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jul 22, 2015)

Interesting thread.

IMO the single biggest issue for the Nazis had was their racial doctrine - if they had bee all encompassing we may well have seen a different outcome:

No loss of Jewish scientists and banking & support from the US
Welcomed by the oppressed of Stalin's regime  (which they were until they turned out to be worse!!!) Which means more bodies for their armies and less worries about partisans


The there is the failure to develop heavy and long-range bombers....


the timidity ineptness of the KM surface ships.... 


The list goes on


----------



## mosaix (Jul 22, 2015)

WaylanderToo said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> IMO the single biggest issue for the Nazis had was their racial doctrine - if they had bee all encompassing we may well have seen a different outcome:
> 
> No loss of Jewish scientists and banking & support from the US



But without the racial doctrine the Nazis wouldn't have come to power in the first place. They needed someone to blame, an enemy who could become the focal point for their nationalism.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2015)

mosaix said:


> But without the racial doctrine the Nazis wouldn't have come to power in the first place. They needed someone to blame, an enemy who could become the focal point for their nationalism.



They created a scapegoat and used it to stoke the fires of longstanding prejudice and resentment.

If  Von Papen and the Social Democrats  had allied with the Communist instead of the Nazis , they could have blocked the Nazis in the Reichstag. That might have been enough to stop them. But It's possible that had that happened, Hitler, Rhoem and the Brownshirts would have likely seized  power by force of arms. The German army poorly equipped and numbering 100,000 was weak and far less numerous then the Brownshirts and would not have been able to stop Hitler.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 1, 2016)

I've just finished reading _Inside the Third Reich_ by Albert Speer, and something that's not said but I've inferred is that Hitler made most of his production and strategy decisions solely on the basis of his WWI experiences.

That meant a focus on heavy tanks, rifles, and almost no interest in aeroplanes.

Even when his generals pushed on the need for air superiority, he completely disregarded them. Presumably because he'd seen little of them in action during his time in the trenches. And when he'd finally been persuaded to push on development of the Me 262, he tried to have it fitted not as a fighter but as a light bomber. 

I guess we should all be thankful for Hitler's general disinterest in planes. If he'd have focused on building up the Luftwaffe properly, as everyone advised him from early on, he could have dragged out the war for a long time - not least by preventing Allied bombing raids on German industry.

Then again, Goering, who was ultimately the head of the Luftwaffe, was also claimed to be more interested instead in feeding a hedonistic lifestyle.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 2, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> I've just finished reading _Inside the Third Reich_ by Albert Speer, and something that's not said but I've inferred is that Hitler made most of his production and strategy decisions solely on the basis of his WWI experiences.
> 
> That meant a focus on heavy tanks, rifles, and almost no interest in aeroplanes.
> 
> ...



Fortunately Hitlers insistence on using the ME 262 as a dive bomber did a lot harm to the Me 262 program , delaying it .  Had he not interfered with  the ME 262 program , they would have had an operational jet fighter interceptor that would wreaked absolute havoc on the Allied bombers and fighters. It might have been enough to stop the Bombing of German cities .  But it would not have won them the war for them  The engines were constantly breaking down and they  guzzled  alot of fuel which limited their operational range to a few hundred miles .   At best it might have extended the war for maybe another year.


----------



## Ajid (Mar 2, 2016)

I seem to recall reading that there was a vast difference in reliability between the different types of engines used on the 262 and the Meteor, the former using an axial flow compressor engine and the later a centrifugal design. If I remember correctly, and I may well be wrong here, whittle had the rough design for his centrifugal version in the mid twenties and this was past to an "expert" who ridiculed it and set brittish jet design back years.

Assuming I'm remembering correctly the axial flow design was far more fragile for the alloys available at the time allthough far supperior in many other ways. The Centrifugal design however was more reliable and therefore reusable, and made the Meteor much more economical than the 262 although inferior in the air. Of course the 2 never met in combat.

I'm sure one of you guys will know more about it than me but that is the gist of what I recall.


----------



## Bowler1 (Mar 2, 2016)

Given the lower-quality steels used in the 004B, these engines typically only had a service life of some 10–25 hours, perhaps twice this in the hands of a skilled pilot. Another shortcoming of the engine, common to all early turbojets, was its sluggish throttle response. Worse, it was fairly easy to inject too much fuel into the engine by throttling up too quickly, allowing heat to build up before the cooling air could remove it. This led to softening of the turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures. Nevertheless, it made jet power for combat aircraft a reality for the first time.

See above from Wikipedia Ajid, and the answer to your question was that the 262 engine was a fragile beast. This was because production was late in the war and materials were scarce. If the jet engine had been developed earlier the war would have lasted longer (not by much I'd say as the Russians numbered in the millions and boots on the ground counted for more in 1945, or so I think). Earlier development would have seen more reliable jet engines, but I have no doubt a 262 would have crashed over England and would have been reversed engineered very quickly. The appearance of jets focused the allies on our own technology and this would have happened sooner is all. An interesting what if all the same, but the early jet was no war winning weapon.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 3, 2016)

Henkel bilt a working Jet plane prototype that flew in 1939 shortly before the war started.


----------



## Ajid (Mar 3, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> Henkel bilt a working Jet plane prototype that flew in 1939 shortly before the war started.


I was directed to a wiki page earlier and it showed me that whittle did indeed have a design for a jet engine in 1926.

Here's another thought. The V1 was effectively a pulse jet cruise missile, what if Germany had had that abbility 5 years earlier?


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 3, 2016)

Ajid said:


> I was directed to a wiki page earlier and it showed me that whittle did indeed have a design for a jet engine in 1926.
> 
> Here's another thought. The V1 was effectively a pulse jet cruise missile, what if Germany had had that abbility 5 years earlier?




Yes Whittle  did have the jet engine before the Germans But I think the Germans had a working prototype before he did 


The Pulse jet wasn't really suitable for combat aircraft and it had some safety issues.  But at one point the German High command was think of using the V1 as piloted suicide planes like the Japanese Oka program.  

You might want to look up the name Hannah Reich.


----------



## Ajid (Mar 3, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> You might want to look up the name Hannah Reich.



I have and I thank you for it, you have managed to reignite a short story I'd abandoned years ago


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 3, 2016)

The hypothetical change or enhancement of a single weapon system, with the exception of nuclear technology would not significantly alter the the result or timings of the war. The ME262 was, without a doubt a spectacular aircraft (and the more significantl Arado) but sheer economic power would have swept them away.    

Production totals for WW2.

*Major weapons groups*
*System* *Allies* *Axis*
Tanks, self-propelled artillery, vehicles       4,358,649         670,288
Artillery, mortars, guns                             6,792,696       1,363,491
Aircraft                                                      637,248         229,331(of those, around 2000 were jets)
Missiles                                                              0           45,458
Ships                                                          54,932            1,670 


*Vital commerce and raw materials *

*Category* *Allies* *Axis*
Cargo ships                    47,118                            x
Merchant shipping     46,817,172 5,               621,967
Coal                      4,581,400,000        2,629,900,000
Crude oil                1,043,000,000             66,000,000 (The real clincher)
Steel                         733,006,633                         x
Aluminium                     5,104,697             1,199,150
Asbestos                       3,934,043                          x 

Of more importance was strategic and tactical doctrine. For example, throwing the ME262 production into Arado production and then actually using them as bombers may well have had more of an impact. (fighters win battles but bombers win wars). Perhaps reconfiguring German air power completely to missile based power projection (putting most of the medium and heavy bomber production into missiles and diverting the rest to fighter and light/dive bomber production - which would also have freed up tens of thousands of men). That would be so radical it would have been a hell of a sell.

The ultimate result of a significantly extended war could well have been the employment of nuclear weapons in Europe. Its still not clear what the allied commands view to this was, but I'd suggest it was certainly a strong consideration.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 3, 2016)

The Germans did  successfully launch a V2 rocket  from a submarine.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 3, 2016)

ralphkern said:


> The hypothetical change or enhancement of a single weapon system, with the exception of nuclear technology would not significantly alter the the result or timings of the war. The ME262 was, without a doubt a spectacular aircraft (and the more significantly Arado) but sheer economic power would have swept them away.
> 
> Production totals for WW2.
> 
> ...




The German Nuclear program was stymied by a number things. Anti-semitism cost Germany many of their best scientists and engineers  who emigrated to the US and Britain. That combined with the fact that they didn't have the budget to build the necessary Cyclotrons. Even if the war hard lasted  longer they never would have developed nuclear weapons.


----------



## Ajid (Mar 3, 2016)

Are there any good alt history stories on this? I'd love to read one from you guys if anyone has one published or available?


----------



## ralphkern (Mar 3, 2016)

Apologies, the tables messed up - underlined indicates Axis production. 


Ajid said:


> Are there any good alt history stories on this? I'd love to read one from you guys if anyone has one published or available?



Hitler, Triumphant (Matthew Moses) is a rather dry alternative history text envisioning a scenario where Axis won the war. It did rely on everything going right for them.

The most entertaining series I've read on a similarish note is John Birmingham's World War 2.0 series. Not a true alt history (A modern day battlegroup is transported back in time). It is very well researched with the added thrill of both sides scrambling to recover and utilize technology.


----------



## Bowler1 (Mar 3, 2016)

I've no doubt that the Americans would have been keeping a close eye on any potential nuclear facilities in Nazi Germany, which would have been quickly bombed. The American effort to make the first bomb was really, really massive and super expensive. Little old Germany on her own would never have been able to produce a bomb, but even if they did, Hitler would have had one or two bombs at most - not war winners, and I've no doubt it would have only forced the allies on to finish Nazi Germany off.

Lets face it, the Russians never had amazing technology, but they had manpower to spare. Resources won the war, that and blood.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Mar 3, 2016)

IIRC one of the issues that Hitler had is that he/his scientists believed that the A-bomb could lead to an unstoppable chain reaction and an extinction of all life on earth. Naturally even he was a little perturbed by this - the US on the other hand.....


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> IIRC one of the issues that Hitler had is that he/his scientists believed that the A-bomb could lead to an unstoppable chain reaction and an extinction of all life on earth. Naturally even he was a little perturbed by this - the US on the other hand.....



Fortunately for Us , The Nazi  didn't really have the resources to to mount a viable bomb program  and of course many of their top scientists left Germany in the 1930's.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 4, 2018)

Bowler1 said:


> I've no doubt that the Americans would have been keeping a close eye on any potential nuclear facilities in Nazi Germany, which would have been quickly bombed. The American effort to make the first bomb was really, really massive and super expensive. Little old Germany on her own would never have been able to produce a bomb, but even if they did, Hitler would have had one or two bombs at most - not war winners, and I've no doubt it would have only forced the allies on to finish Nazi Germany off.
> 
> Lets face it, the Russians never had amazing technology, but they had manpower to spare. Resources won the war, that and blood.



The Manhattan project was hugely expensive.


----------

