From: jbachman@igloo.Central.Sun.COM (Jay Bachman [Sun Denver SE])
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:51:34 GMT


From jbachman@igloo.Central.Sun.COM (Jay Bachman [Sun Denver SE])

In article Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:
>
>From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
>
>In article <BuBLLn.GC1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com> writes:
>
>>It would not, however, have changed the outcome of the war. Only the
>>amount of time it took.
>
>This is *highly* debateable*. There is considerable evidence to indicate
>that Germany would have had the atomic bomb several months before the
>U.S. did, were it not for resources diverted to the Luftwaffe for use
>against the bombers. Imagine an a-bomb on a V-2 for a couple of seconds.
>The most likely scenario is that Britain would have surrendered in late
>1945. Since plans were also on the drawing board at Dornier for a "New
>York" bomber, the U.S. would probably have been accessible by 1947.

One can imagine this, but I don't think it would be at all likely.  As
I recall, the German Atomic Scientists were significantly behind the
Allied Scientists.  Gone down a blind alley of some sort.  I don't
recall the details.  I do recall, that while they were in allied
custody, they were told of the A-Bombing of Japan and simply refused to
believe it.  They felt, that their work was still a year or two away
from success and couldn't believe that anyone was ahead of them.

In addition, the first nukes were about 10,000 lbs in weight.  That's
why they were delieverd by B-29's.  A Lancaster could probably have
done it also.  The A-4 nee V-2 had a warhead capacity of about 2,000
lbs.  Just not enough oomph.

The *Amerika Bomber* bears a striking resemblnce to the B-29, another
case of parallel evolution.  However, it was a one-off and other than
the range to reach the US, I don't have any other ready info regarding
useful payload.  I suspect it might not be able to haul a nuke of the
period that far.

As to the jets, well there are two sides to this one.  It is apparent
that the aircraft's introduction was delayed as the result of shifting
priorities and missions.  Had they been consistent as an air
superiority fighter, the aircraft might have been ready 6-12 months
earlier.  Work was actully slowed or stopped  after the fall of France
and the impending surrender of Great Britain (at least that is what the
Germans assumed) on almost all military research.  I believe munitions
orders were canceled too.  This also delayed the aircraft's
introduction.

On the flip side, there is evidence that the engines would not have
been available any sooner, in useful quantity, than they actually
were.  It was all brand new technology after all.  One problem was that
the engines were very prone to flame outs and/or catching fire with rough
handling of the throttle.  Now the best Luftwaffe pilots were very, very
use to slamming the throttles of their piston aircraft around in
combat.  It was a very hard habit for them to break in the jets.  The
solution was to put the throttle through some kind of governor so that
no matter what the pilot did to it, the input to the engine didn't
exceed certain rates. 
 
>In addition to this, Eisenhower regarded the bombing campaign as a means
>to eliminate the Luftwaffe as a threat to his forces on D-Day. The entire
>series of raids known as the "Big Week" was designed to ground the German
>fighters (at least temporarily). Without the daylight bombing raids in this
>period, D-Day would not have occurred - ever.

This is very true.  Suppresion of the Luftwaffe was a major goal and the
invasion could not have been successful without it.  

>Put jets into combat in 1943, and there is no invasion, Germany can devote
>much more of its resources into the Eastern front, London is radioactive
>vapor by 1946, and we're all speaking German by now.

I am afraid I must disagree.  Germany lost the war for one reason.  It
was overwhelmed by the Allies.  The classic story is the interrogation
of a German officer who commanded an 88mm anti-tank gun.  He was asked
why he lost his battle and was captured.  He replied that he commanded
the road.  The Ami's sent a tank up.  He destroyed it with his gun. The
Ami's sent another tank, he destoyed it.  After a while, he ran out of
shells for his weapon and the Ami's still had tanks.  I am sure I have
done a poor job rendering the story and will be properly corrected.
The point is, that as long as the Allies maintained the political will,
Germany was bound to be defeated.  The German military was good.  On a
man for man basis, probably the best.  But you can still swamp the best
with good enough.

The war would have gone on longer, maybe.  Maybe, the first nuclear
bombing in history would have been in Europe instead of Asia.  But I
really doubt that Germany could have won as long as Allied political
willpower was maintained.

Please, no flames. These are my personal opinions based on many years
of thinking about these very questions and reading as much as I can
about the technology, stategy, tactics, politics and people.  I would
love to hear more discussion on the subject as I am absolutely,
positively convinced that I still don't know enough.

A real chance for victory by the Germans would have been if they could
have removed Great Britain from the war in 1940 and avoided conflict
with the USA.  Had they been able to convince the Japanese to strike
North against the Soviets and not South against the US, then they might
have had a real chance on defeating the Soviet Union.

Sorry to be so long winded.


    /\
   \\ \		James (Jay) P. Bachman
  \ \\ /	Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 / \/ / /	
/ /   \//\	
\//\   / /
 / / /\ /	
  / \\ \	
   \ \\		EMail: james.bachman@Central.Sun.COM
    \/


Dislaimer goes here.  I can barely speak for myself, no way can I speak for
others.

Newsgroups: sci.military