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

[Bowler1]

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]

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

 

[Ajid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[BAYLOR]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.