Question about Axis Powers
If Russia sided with Germany and fought on the same side as the Nazis, how would WW2 have panned out?
(I wonder what would've happened if a big country (e.g. Russia) sided with the Axis Powers).
The Axis would probably have won.
shareIn such a case, an Axis victory would have been a forgone conclusion. With Soviet manpower to draw on, the invasion of the UK would have been a walk in the park for a combined force of Germans, and Russians. Without the British Isles from which to stage an invasion of the mainland from, there is no way the US could have prevailed. Remember, the technology for round trip bombing raids from the US to Europe did not exist yet. That's not even taking into account the fact that the US forces, even with the US's manufacturing capabilities could not hope to match the loss of the British contributions.
Fortunately, there is also no way the egos of Hitler, and Stalin would have stayed in a mutually cooperative military alliance long enough to take the UK, much less defeat the US as well.
TNSTAAFL
Remember, the technology for round trip bombing raids from the US to Europe did not exist yet.Yep. That's why the USAAF put out the specification for what became the B-36 in 1941. They wanted a bomber capable of hitting Germany from the US in the event of England fell. But short of turning western Europe into a nuclear wasteland I don't see how an Axis consisting of Germany and the USSR could have been defeated.
Fortunately, there is also no way the egos of Hitler, and Stalin would have stayed in a mutually cooperative military alliance long enough to take the UK,True. I'm surprised they cooperated as lone as they did. I wouldn't sell England short though, they are a tenacious people and would have been a tough nut to crack. Especially if the US could still have kept them supplied with food, fuel, and other consumable resources. share
That's why the USAAF put out the specification for what became the B-36 in 1941. They wanted a bomber capable of hitting Germany from the US in the event of England fell.
But from the US AND back in 1941? Did the B36 have that kind of range with WWII era bomb loads and no in-flight refueling? And what about fighter cover? Look at the losses of Allied bombers over Germany before long range fighters were available. With an occupied UK, US bombers would have been subjected to fighter attack from way out over the Atlantic all the way to Germany,and back to that point.
I wouldn't sell England short though, they are a tenacious people and would have been a tough nut to crack.
Not taking anything away from the British, but consider the enormous manpower the Soviets had to draw on coupled to that the Germans had, and adding many conscripted troops from the occupied countries. British courage and tenacity would have been overwhelmed. There is no way they could have held out, especially once the ports and airfields were captured. And with those gone,there goes American aid as well.
TNSTAAFL share
But from the US AND back in 1941? Did the B36 have that kind of range with WWII era bomb loads and no in-flight refueling? And what about fighter cover?In 1941 no. That is when the USAAF sent out the specification, the first flight wasn't until August 1946. It's purpose was to be able to bomb Germany from the US mainland if flying from England was not possible. Once it became evident that England was going to survive, development of the B-36 became low priority. Based on that fact that the B-29 specification went out in 1938 and the 1st flight was in Sept 1942 it is likely that had the need for the B-36 materialized development would have been significantly faster. As far as the range the B-36 had range of 9900 miles. With a round trip from Maine to Berlin being roughly 7200 miles it was well within range. It carried a bomb load of 87,000lbs and operated at 45,000 ft. at a speed of 418mph which would have afforded it some protection from Axis fighters until the German and Russian aircraft industries developed something to counter it. It was quite a machine, it had bunks and galleys for the crew since it stayed in the air so long. It was so large that the flight engineer could enter the wing to work on the engines in flight. It became the main US Heavy Bomber in 1948 until replaced by the B-52 in 1955.Fortunately it's services were never needed.
Check out the movie Strategic Air Command with Jimmy Stewart,it features the B-36. share
I remember the movie. I am currently out-of-state for the holidays, and don't have access to my references books, so I was unable to look up that info. So, thanks for that. You present a good case.
TNSTAAFL
Development of the B-36 was more-or-less placed on hold once it was clear that the UK would remain in the war. Resources that would have gone to the B-36 program went instead to the B-17, B24, and B-29.
The fully developed B-36 had enough performance that it was essentially un-interceptable until the MiG-17 came out. Nothing the Axis would have had in the mid to late forties could have done the job.
Development of the B-36 was more-or-less placed on hold once it was clear that the UK would remain in the war. Resources that would have gone to the B-36 program went instead to the B-17, B24, and B-29.
I wish I said that...oh wait i did lol. I guess it possible that facing the B-36 threat Germany would have put more resources into the ME-262 . As deployed it had the speed to oppose the 36 but not the service ceiling, assuming that the B-36s operated at 40k + ft. It guess if German industry could have survived the pummeling of getting hit everyday by 500 or more planes carrying 87,00o lbs of bombs they might have been able to overcome the ceiling issue. share
If I recall correctly it would take one day using about three hundred aircraft with a single 10,300 pound bomb each.
shareThe Germans were working on several anti-aircraft missiles (eg the Wasserfall) which might have proved effective against the B-36. I believe the Me163 Komet could achieve 40,000 feet without difficulty but only had a short flight duration due to the high fuel consumption, plus it was bloody dangerous to its pilots on landing. Focke-Wulf had a version of its Ta152 that had a pressurised cockpit that would have meant it could have achieved the altitude needed to attack B-36s, it could fly up to 49,540 ft apparently.
Even without the Ta152 I doubt the B-36s would have flown unopposed for long-the Germans weren't exactly amateurs in designing aircraft were they? And there was no way at that time to provide the B-36s with any fighter escort from the USA unless something like the Goblin could have been used- and that didn't work very well anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserfall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
The Germans were working on several anti-aircraft missiles
None of which had any prospect of being particularly effective. Note that it was not until the fifties that effective SAMs entered service. If Waserfall and the other Nazi Napinwaffen were so effective, we would have seen them put into production in the forties.
the Me163 Komet . . .Focke-Wulf had a version of its Ta152
Are you seriously claiming that those aircraft were superior to the F-86 which demonstrably could not intercept the B-36? Spending a few seconds at 40,000 feet after using most of ones fuel to get there does not make for a successful interceptor against bombers that routinely cruised at that altitude. Not only that, but the B-36 was more maneuverable at high altitude than were those fighters. It seems at that height, the large wings provide a significant advantage. share
As all this is purely conjecture I'm conjecturing FFS- try not to take things so seriously, Dave!
If the B-36s were as concentrated over the target as say B-17s were the Wasserfalls wouldn't have found too much difficulty in finding a target- just pointing them in the general direction would have been enough. Most post war SAMs were obviously guided too, but intended to be used at individual targets not massed formations.
As we're talking conjectural here who's to know how well the Ta152 would have performed against the B-36? Yes, the F-86 had problems- why did they fail BTW? The Ta152 was very capable and certainly had the ability to fly at that altitude and heavy enough armament to do the job. And while the B-36 may have been maneuvrable I somehow fail to see it dogfighting exactly. I've seen one up close at the USAF Museum in Dayton, in point of fact I've sat and had a coffee under one as they had tables and chairs under the tail of the one there.
Whilst I've little admiration for the Nazis, I do think the Germans were superb engineers and that they would at least have tried various solutions to tackling the B-36. Yes, again it would have been possible to drop atom bombs on the Jerries but would that have been ever advisable in Europe with so many friendly nations nearby? Not forgetting that the USAAF bombed Switzerland several times- nuking Zurich by mistake would have been a tad embarrassing.
The Americans frequently claimed they could drop a bomb into a pickle barrel when in truth they couldn't even drop a bomb on the right country quite a few times...
PS Happy New Year, Dave!
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
If the B-36s were as concentrated over the target as say B-17s were
Even if Wasserfall worked as claimed, which it did not, why would nuclear bombers fly in close formation? For that matter, why would Wasserfall be much more effective against them than single targets? Firing SAMs like AAA is not very effective as you cannot get anything close to the number of rounds up there to cause significant casualties.
why did they fail BTW?
Until the MiG-17 came out, no fighter had the endurance or maneuverability at 40,000+ feet to do the job.
Yes, again it would have been possible to drop atom bombs on the Jerries but would that have been ever advisable in Europe with so many friendly nations nearby?
They had little idea of fallout patterns in the 1940s so that wouldn't be a concern. A smaller bomber force would have had better navigators and fewer errors. While individual USAAF crews did, sometimes, miss the correct city, they usually had no problem doing so and nuclear weapons don't need a high level level of accuracy to hit a city. Now perhaps Prague or Berne might be hit accidentally, but they were a great deal more cavalier about collateral damage then than now. Indeed, French cities were carpet bombed on occasion to destroy industries working for the Nazis.
Note, BTW, that US/NATO nuclear war plans included targets in most Warsaw Pact countries including East Germany and Czechoslovakia which border West Germany as well as "enslaved" nations like Poland and the Baltic States. share
As far as the range the B-36 had range of 9900 miles. With a round trip from Maine to Berlin being roughly 7200 miles it was well within range. It carried a bomb load of 87,000lbs and operated at 45,000 ft. at a speed of 418mph which would have afforded it some protection from Axis fighters until the German and Russian aircraft industries developed something to counter it.
Your post suggests the B-36 could achieve its maximum ferry range and maximum ceiling while cruising at maximum speed with maximum payload. No aircraft could do such. In practice, achieving any one of those was only at the expense of reducing all the others.
The B-36 cruised somewhere in the 200mph range, even the later variants with jet engines added. It could not carry 87,000 pounds to Germany with any chance of returning. A completely unarmed B-36A managed 8000 miles with a 10,000-pound payload, enough range to reach Berlin from Maine, but adding the 16x20mm cannons of the B-36B would take a bite out of either the payload or the fuel load, and increase drag.
At $4 million each (20x the cost of a B-17), it's difficult to imagine large formations of the B-36. Two cost as much as a destroyer. Fifteen cost as much as an Essex-class carrier. The B-17 was practical for the war of attrition over German skies. Not so sure about the B-36.
Live long and prosper. share
The B-36 cruised somewhere in the 200mph range, even the later variants with jet engines added.
And one would assume that they would travel most of the way there and back at the most economical cruise speed, The extra two hundred MPH would be used over Germany. The USAF couldn't intercept them with Sabres. I don't give the Germans much of a hope with their fighters.
It could not carry 87,000 pounds to Germany with any chance of returning. A completely unarmed B-36A managed 8000 miles with a 10,000-pound payload, enough range to reach Berlin from Maine,
And by the time a priority program B-36 would have been ready, they would only need a payload of about 10,300 pounds - the weight of a Mark III nuclear device.
At $4 million each (20x the cost of a B-17)
If they needed the B-36, they wouldn't bother building many B-17s or B-24s. Instead of the twenty seven thousand odd USAAF Fortresses and Liberators, they could have built over a thousand B-36s - more than sufficient to deliver several hundred Mark IIIs to Germany. share
It seems we agree that the notion of the B-36 carrying 87,000 pounds to Germany and returning was not feasible.
Where did you read that Sabres could not intercept the B-36?
Live long and prosper.
It seems we agree that the notion of the B-36 carrying 87,000 pounds to Germany and returning was not feasible.
Mind you, five tons of conventional bombs per aircraft is about twice the load carried by Allied bombers. Three hundred B-36s would have a similar effect as six hundred Halifaxes.
That won't be war winning, but it would be felt and the US could afford it for a while. As I noted, though, the load would be single Mark IIIs rather than HE and incendiary bombs and those would be war winning as in the elimination of Germany as a viable nation.
Where did you read that Sabres could not intercept the B-36?
USAF tests in the late forties. Source on the way. That RB-36s could operate with impunity over the USSR in the early fifties also indicates that intercepting B-36s would have been beyond German capabilities. share
I think I found it:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff told Johnson the test was a bad idea. And the Air Force said it had already demonstrated that fighters couldn't maneuver at that altitude. Simulated B-36 attacks on bases in Florida and California were met by three front-line fighters: a North American F-86A Sabre, a Lockheed F-80C Shooting Star, and a Republic F-84 Thunderjet. Radar picked up the intruder 30 minutes out; the fighters took 26 minutes to climb to 40,000 feet and another two minutes to find the B-36. The fighters were faster than the big bomber, but their wing loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to area of the wings) was so high that they couldn't turn with the bomber without stalling in the thin air. Even if a B-36 were detected and Soviet fighters caught it, the pilot could evade them by making S-turns, said the Air Force.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/b-36-bomber-at-the-crossroads-134062323/?no-ist
Several problems with that.
1. The issue seems to be the maneuverability of the early US jet fighters at altitude due to high wing loading. This maneuverability issue might not apply to other types, like the Ta-152 or Do-335. The wing loading of the Ta-152H seems to be around 41 lb/ft^2 while that of the F-86 was around 49 lb/ft^2.
2. A bomber cannot proceed to its target while S-turning, nor will it have the fuel to get home if it spends a significant time S-turning.
3. The B-36 was underpowered until the jets were added. Those jet engines were derived from British jet technology which, in the case of the J-47, used German axial-flow jet technology. These technologies would have been unavailable to the USAAF/USAF in this scenario in which Britain falls ca 1940.
4. Project Manhattan employed some British scientists which might be unavailable in this scenario, possibly delaying the availability of the atomic bomb. Not a big factor, since the B-36 was not ready for combat until at least 1947 or 1948.
5. By 1947 or 1948, the Germans might have had an atomic bomb and perhaps a means to deliver it.
Live long and prosper. share
I think I found it:
I was going to go with Convair B-36: A Comprehensive History of Americas Big Stick by Meyers K. Jacobsen. It goes into more detail, but it seems your article covers it well enough. I note that the USSR didn't build a bunch of Ta-152 clones. As for using fuel to maneuver, a fair point. They wouldn't have to return, though. They didn't plan to against the Soviet Union.
These technologies would have been unavailable to the USAAF/USAF in this scenario in which Britain falls ca 1940.
Assuming Whittle's team and the Tube Alloys people don't evac to America.
5. By 1947 or 1948, the Germans might have had an atomic bomb and perhaps a means to deliver it.
Nope. They had decided it was impossible in 1943 and there is o reason to assume they'd decide differently in this scenario. The only way they might is if the Soviets cooperate and the Germans agree to listen to Judeo-Slavic Untermenschen. I do not see any realistic prospect of the first happening.
Similarly, there as no realistic prospect of them building an effective Amerika bomber. In real life they were barely able to make a prototype inferior B-29 counterpart. In 1945 they were several years from a B-36 counterpart - not even at the stage the US was in 1941. The Soviet experience is illustrative. Instead of a Soviet version or development of a German aircraft, they built a Superfortress clone, the Tu-4 Bull, until the Bear was ready. share
Nope. They had decided it was impossible in 1943 and there is o reason to assume they'd decide differently in this scenario. The only way they might is if the Soviets cooperate and the Germans agree to listen to Judeo-Slavic Untermenschen. I do not see any realistic prospect of the first happening.
Similarly, there as no realistic prospect of them building an effective Amerika bomber. In real life they were barely able to make a prototype inferior B-29 counterpart. In 1945 they were several years from a B-36 counterpart - not even at the stage the US was in 1941. The Soviet experience is illustrative. Instead of a Soviet version or development of a German aircraft, they built a Superfortress clone, the Tu-4 Bull, until the Bear was ready.
Yet the German nuclear program continued. They had a reactor built by 1944 or 1945. The Allies had bombed the heavy water separation plant in Norway, delaying the reactor start-up, but that delay may be absent from this scenario. When the war ended, the Germans were 2-3 years from an atom bomb, a speculative claim, but may have been accelerated a bit if the heavy water plant is not bombed.
The Germans had multiple long-range bomber projects. The Ju-390 of 1944, for example. While the story of the Ju-390 flying to New York and back in mid-1944 (or one-way to Manchuria) was purely mythical, a one-way flight, as you envisage for the B-36, was probably possible with the 390, even with a nuclear payload. By 1947 or 1948, the 390 would probably have had some more capable successor.
Live long and prosper. share
Limited nuclear research continued but nuclear weapon research was essentially at an end in 1943. The 1944/45 work was barely supported, especially compared to the Manhattan Project. As for the JU-390, that's the inferior B-29 equivalent I was writing about. It was at the bleeding edge of German aeronautics and seems to have been more suited as a transport or LRMPA than a nuclear bomber.
shareI agree the German project was slow compared to Manhattan, but it was never stopped. In this scenario, we have the Soviets assisting Germany. The Soviets developed a bomb in 1949. The two countries working together would have been at least a little quicker.
The Ju-390 or a successor, the Me-264, or the Ta-400 would have been able to deliver a nuke to the US if we do not require a return trip to Germany. I agree the B-29 was more advanced than the Ju-390, with a pressurized cabin, but it was smaller and could not match the range of the 390.
Live long and prosper.
Always surprised the Germans didn't bomb New York (or some other targets in the US) then ditch the aircraft in the sea and have the crew(s) picked up by U-Boat. They could claim the aircraft returned to base and the propaganda value would have been enormous and much of the resources meant for Europe would have remained in the USA to mount a defence against future air attack.
The attack on the heavy water plant at Telemark was carried out by Norwegian resistance members but they had been equipped and trained by SOE- would a similar operation been possible with Britain out of the war?
Mind you, five tons of conventional bombs per aircraft is about twice the load carried by Allied bombers. Three hundred B-36s would have a similar effect as six hundred Halifaxes.
Twice the load carried by the B-17 and B-24 maybe but the Avro Lancaster and HP Halifax both carried a bomb load of 13,000lbs on average- rather more than 5 (US) tons(10,000 lbs)- and still couldn't defeat Germany so I fail to see why a B-36 flying from the USA with a similar bombload would succeed where the Lancasters and Halifaxes couldn't. Despite Bomber Harris's strident beliefs Germany couldn't be solely defeated by area bombing with conventional bombs.
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm
http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. share
would a similar operation been possible with Britain out of the war?
Who cares? The German nuclear weapon program was as good as dead with or without that those raids.
he Avro Lancaster and HP Halifax both carried a bomb load of 13,000lbs on average-
Not if they wanted to strike targets deep in Germany, they weren't. Those were maximum bombload figures. Loads of about 5,000 pounds (4,000 pounds of bombs and several hundred pounds of small incendiary devices) were not uncommon and maximum loads on some raids, presumably on targets in northwest Germany, might be as high as 8,000 pounds. I note from one of your sources that the averageBomber Command load during the wa was under four tons.
so I fail to see why a B-36 flying from the USA with a similar bombload would succeed where the Lancasters and Halifaxes couldn't.
Then it's a good thing no one has made that claim. share
Who cares? The German nuclear weapon program was as good as dead with or without that those raids.
As this is conjecture, the Germans may have discovered the mistakes they were making and with the heavy water supply not disrupted still managed to build a bomb- they did have some brilliant physicists, do you agree or not? A German atomic bomb was not an impossibility.
As for loads many photos show aircraft being readied for operations over Germany with a 4000 lb "cookie" with a bomb bay full of of 500 lb bombs - clearly over your 4 tons "limit". I think you're hedging here a bit, Dave.
Yes, the Bomber Command average may well have been under 4 tons but Bomber Command also consisted of light and medium bombers such as the Wellington and b-25 Mitchell did it not? A more accurate average load has to be about the heavy bombers of Bomber Command to be relevant to this discussion.
You still haven't explained how Germany is going to be defeated by B-36s bombing from the USA anymore than the bombing it got from both the RAF and USAAC. Bombing wasn't sufficient to defeat Germany, there needed to be a ground invasion and where could that be launched from?
The atom bomb is the only possible way but even that may have been delayed without British and Canadian participation.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. share
...how Germany is going to be defeated by B-36s bombing from the USA anymore than the bombing it got from both the RAF and USAAC.
You mean USAAF. The USAAC never bombed Germany.
Live long and prosper. share
As this is conjecture, the Germans may have discovered the mistakes they were making
That doesn't follow from the initial premise, an alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union. Adding new powers as required just send you down a Nazi-wank rat hole. Even if they did know what they were doing, it is not at all likely that they'd do better than the Soviets
As for loads many photos show aircraft
Why are you trying to make a point I've already made as If I hadn't made it? As usual, it's quite clear you have no interest in applying basic reading comprehension to my posts in order to make your strawman attacks..
You still haven't explained how Germany is going to be defeated by B-36s bombing from the USA
Seeing as I said just that in the first place, I see no reason why I should justify something I didn't say. As usual, you're seeing things in my posts that were not there. Welcome back to my ignore list. share
The heavy water plant and peripherals were also bombed by the USAAF. Also, the sabotage operations were not indigenous operations, but originated from Britain, so Britain's removal from the war still removes those sabotage ops and leaves Germany with a supply of Norwegian heavy water. The Germans might even get their hands on the heavy water that had been moved to Britain.
I considered debating the Halifax bomb load, but it's not material to the discussion. He could have substituted B-17 or B-24 and his general point would have remained in effect. B-17 and B-24 bomb groups only averaged about 2 tons of bombs delivered per sortie. On the long mission to Marienburg in East Prussia, the B-17s carried only 3000 pounds each. Fortunately German flak was minimal so the attack could be carried out from relatively low altitude, around 9000 feet if memory serves, and the resulting greatly improved accuracy meant the plant could be badly damaged with a modest quantity of bombs. B-24s carried only 1 ton or less on the famed Ploesti raid. More typical payloads were 8 to 12 500-pounders. The B-17s each carried ten 500-pounders to Schweinfurt in August 1943.
Live long and prosper.
The Germans might even get their hands on the heavy water that had been moved to Britain.
Lack of heavy water wasn't what caused them to virtually abandon nuclear weapon research. It was poor program management and some fundamental theoretical errors. At best, I don't see them beating the Soviets who didn't get the bomb until 1949.
I considered debating the Halifax bomb load, but it's not material to the discussion.
The point about conventional load was very much an aside and I corrected it in a subsequent post.
As for the B-36 itself, I did see a quote by USAF General Hoyt S Vandenburg which might be somewhat relevant:
"A series of test interceptions pitting the F-80C, the F-84 and the F-86A against the B-36B [i.e the one without jet assist] indicated that the jet fighters are unable to make a significant percentage of successful attacks and have never been able to make an interception until after the bomber had reached its target and released its load."
I've requested an original source, but I'm pretty confident of its accuracy.
The point is somewhat moot anyway as there was no way the USSR and Nazi Germany would have allied in a more meaningful way after they split Poland or conquered Britain before the US production entered the war if they did. The B-36 was properly put on the backburner until after the war.
By mid 1945 and for a few years after, the Allies could have rained nuclear fire on Germany if needed. They could have done so either at a starting rate of three cities per month or saved up devices for a massive strike that would have turned Germany into a radioactive wasteland. This would have been possible been sometime in 1947. Escorted B-29s from the UK could certainly have done that job. At over thirty thousand feet and over three hundred MPH, B-29s would be difficult to intercept, though not invulnerable. share
Gen. Vandenburg was quoted in the March 21 1949 edition of Aviation Week
sharealbert speer, the german minister of armaments, said that the germans never came close to nuclear weapons and didn't have the financial or raw material resources to make them even if they did figure out the physics - which, since it was "jewish physics" they would have been loath to do. german nuclear weapons are a total non-starter.
and max bomb loads don't really matter. if a plane is capable of delivering a single nuke (and these planes would have been), that's plenty enough.
finally, the soviets and nazis allying doesn't really change the status of britain at all. the soviets would have been useless as far as an invasion of the british isles goes, so needing to fly from north america (or iceland, more likely) to germany is also moot.
(also consider - a germany under heavy attack from allied bombers will make an extremely tempting target for their soviet "allies". that alliance won't last very long)
In this scenario, we have the Soviets assisting Germany.
The only way that would work is if the Germans let the Soviets take the lead. IN contrast to the Germans, the Soviet effort was very well supported with the highest priority under the special oversight of NKVD chief Lavrenti Beria on the orders of Stalin himself. With all that going for them, they couldn't get a device ready until 1949. This would be about two years too late for Germany. They had agents in place in the Allied program who provided a valuable check on their own efforts.
Letting the Soviets take charge would simply not happen. Nazi arrogance wouldn't accept it. Letting the German clown show run things instead of Beria would more likely add a couple years top the project than shorten it. Not only that, but sharing was just not in the Axis vocabulary. In real life, there was no information passed between the German and Japanese programs, for instance. The Japanese were much further advanced than the Germans were yet neither would so much as acknowledge the existence of their programs. share
Good discussion, Dave. Thanks.
Live long and prosper.
You know what it is, DaveR011, I try to be fair to you, I try to be courteous to you, I even try to be friendly to you- I wished you a Happy New Year- which was not reciprocated I see. But you still come across as a santimonious, arrogant prick of the first order. I now hope you have a miserable New Year as you're such a miserable git.
For a Canadian you really enjoy licking Yank arse don't you? For a Canadian you do like to put down even your own country's considerable efforts in WW2.
You're quite the most obnoxious Canadian I've ever met and I've visited your fair country and most Canadians are decent fellows. You're a twat though.
Put me on your ignore list, I welcome it- If you can't stand the heat, DaveR011 should stay out of the kitchen...- as you're obviously gutless too. And an anti-British wanker of the first order.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Do you not notice Spock, that Davey Boy hasn't the courtesy to wish you a Happy New Year in return or thank you for your input? Probably because he's an ill mannered oaf. An uncouth peasant.
I'm now heartily sick of his condescending manner. This discussion could have continued in a friendly civilised way but as usual as soon as anyone contradicts old Davey and his inane dribblings, he insults them. I merely responded in kind to the Canadian c!nt.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Yeah, I noticed. This board has seen some very smart people over the years, and Dave has long been among the smartest of them, but he's not among the most friendly. Still, I am very glad for the information he has brought to hundreds of our discussions, and that is what we come here for, far more than the common courtesies.
You have always showed more of your human side, with the confafthums jokes and such. You are more the type I'd have an ale (or 4 or 5) with. Dave is more serious and academic. Neither is really a bad thing.
Keep in mind that we internet types tend to be well below average on social indices.
Live long and prosper.
Dave is an intelligent interesting poster but I don't see why he has to be so objectionable. I try to be civil to him but it usually falls apart somewhere.
He was talking cobblers about the average operational load carried by the RAF's Lancasters and Halifaxes and he knows it. The average load was far larger than he claimed- he was somewhat ingenuously including all of Bomber Command's tonnage dropped- a considerable number was dropped by medium bombers so average load per bomber would be less. If Bomber Command heavies carried no greater loads than the USAAF then how does he explain the fact that Bomber Command dropped some 50% or so more bombs than the USAAF for the last three years of the war? And anyway I say it again- the war couldn't be won by conventional bombing alone. So even if the B-36 had operated over Germany how could the USA defeat Germany other than by the very dubious use of atom bombs?
I'm not convinced that the USA with a quarter German derived population wouldn't be a bit squeamish dropping atom bombs on German civilians. The Japanese were sufficiently different racially to quell such qualms and could be more easily portrayed as all rabidly fanatical subhumans in propaganda. But most people were well aware many of the ordinary German people were forced along on the ride and thus vapourising them with atom bombs was going to be a lot more difficult morally.
Tonnages dropped compared- at bottom of page:
http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
would those soviet spies have been so eager to turn over nuclear secrets if the soviets were actually attacking britain and the usa instead of being allies who should have had the info shared with them? i don't think so - the soviet spying efforts were greatly enhanced by the soviet status as nominal ally (much like the usa's treatments of israeli spies today).
sharewould those soviet spies have been so eager to turn over nuclear secrets if the soviets were actually attacking britain and the usa instead of being allies who should have had the info shared with them
Probably. Nearly all those spies were committed Communists and many had been OGPU (later to be called the KGB) or GRU (military intelligence) officers before the war. Klaus Fuchs, for instance, joined the German Communist Party in 1933. Harry Gold joined the OGPU in 1935. They and other Soviet spies continued their espionage well into the Cold War. I have little doubt that they'd follow orders from Moscow Centre just as they did in real life.
Without that information the Soviet project would likely not have been seriously delayed. That data served more as a check on the work being done by Soviet scientists than as a basis for their work. Once it was cut off, further Soviet nuclear weapons research still went better than the West expected.
greatly enhanced by the soviet status as nominal ally (much like the usa's treatments of israeli spies today).
If that's an allusion to the Pollard case, it seems he did it for the money. Israel was not his only client nor the only people he had approached and he was likely disgruntled at having his clearance reduced for lying when vetted. share
doubtless some of the soviet spies would have carried on as they did, though some probably wouldn't have if the soviets were in an actual shooting war with the usa. american efforts to ferret out soviet spies as well as german spies might have been increased, also. no way to tell what info would have gotten out through those channels.
as you say, the soviets didn't really need the info they got from the spies. but even a few years after the western allies would have been too late, as they too would have been nuked into oblivion by then. they also had no means of delivering the weapons to targets.
yes, that was an allusion to pollard. whether he did it for money or for israel or sloppiness or just for his ego, israel was his primary client and worked hardest for his release. it seems his other beneficiaries were either our allies or potential business partners who didn't give him any cash for secrets. his true motivations seem muddy at best.
By the way, I miss these discussions. Did you ever post on the old Feldgrau board?
Have a nice New Year, Dave.
Live long and prosper.
Did you ever post on the old Feldgrau board?
Sorry for the belated reply. No, I've never posted there. I've come across posts from there when researching various things, but I wouldn't say I was ever even a lurker. No special reason, just that one can only post/lurk on so many boards. share
There was a Dave that posted there long ago. We were internet friends, but lost track of each other about 15 years ago.
By the way, I once held one of the uranium cubes from the German reactor. It was passed around the room at a history lecture by one whose job was to track German nuclear progress during the war. Fascinating lecture.
Live long and prosper.
Did you now? Fascinating!
shareThe funniest part was when he described the Germans taking thorium from France as they withdrew in 1944. It is theoretically possible to make a thorium fission device, although it would be huge. The material was eventually tracked down postwar. It was for a toothpaste additive that would make teeth glow.
Live long and prosper.
Used to be a total plane nut when I was young (far less so now), so I just had to check...
I had never realized the B-36's range was that impressive. Holy! Roughly 16,000 Km!
BTW, I take it you meant "That's why in 1941 the USAAF put out the specification for what became the B-36"? The other way creates ambiguity; the first flight for a B-36 was in 1946.
Ignorance is bliss... 'til it posts on the Internet, then, it's annoying.
it might not have been quite so forgone. manpower alone isn't enough to cross the english channel against the raf and royal navy, and the russians would have been practically useless against the brits. without sea control and air superiority any troops that actually made it to the islands would essentially be marching right into prison camps.
india and the middle east would certainly be lost. probably gibraltar & malta too. the allies would not be able to knock out italy, but japan would be crushed earlier. damaging but not fatal.
by the time the germans & russians have built up sufficient naval forces to launch an invasion - assuming they could do so at all in the face of constant us/british bombing - the americans would have nukes. there's also no way the germans and russians would have worked together as closely as the british and americans did, even if they are allied.
the allies might not win outright, but the axis would most likely still be wrecked.
If Germany and Russia teamed-up, would the bombing of UK been much more severe and destructive? (i.e. more Axis planes, fighter jets, bombers, bombs attacking UK etc)?
sharei suppose if you have the russians joining in during the battle of france then maybe, but i don't see it as likely that you'd have russians basing in france even if allied with germany. with that in mind, the russians didn't have any planes capable of reaching britain. so no, germany is going to lose the battle of britain even if they're allied with russia. hitler will still get frustrated that britain is in the war so will keep using jets as ineffective bombers instead of fighters.
and with the war in the west stalemated eventually stalin and hitler will attack each other, it's just inevitable.
What if Russia and Germany controlled all of Europe and the UK was left on their own (Germany and Russia prevented aid reaching UK from USA). Instead of losing the battle of Britain, the Axis could deprive UK of Allied help, materials etc by taking nation after nation over and becoming very powerful..
shareThe Soviet Union would add nothing of significance to Axis naval power. This would not improve the Axis ability to cross the Channel in the face of the RN. The Red air force was as obsolescent in 1940 as the Italian one and would be of little use during that year's Battle of Britain. By 1941 there would be a flood of trained aircrew from the Commonwealth Air Training Plan as well as plenty of US-made fighters to make up numbers. An alliance of the three greatest totalitarian powers against the Western democracies would probably bring the US in even sooner. The P-40 may not have been as good as the Me-109F, but were certainly as good or better than any Soviet fighter of the time.
This new Axis has little or no more ability to interdict convoys to the UK than the Germans did alone. US and British (including Commonwealth) production outstripped them. By mid to late 1945, the Allies would have nuclear weapons and the Axis would not. Yes, the Soviets had a better theoretical handle on the issue than the Germans even without intelligence from their spies in the Allied project. They would not under any circumstances share that information with the Germans.
Of course, this ignores some serious problems with the initial concept here. Western Europe is not a serious threat to the USSR at this time. Stalin would gain nothing by letting Germany take it over. That just strengthens Germany making it harder for the USSR to defend itself or expand to the west. He also would not be keen to expose large numbers of ordinary Soviet soldiers to the west. Nor does allying with the Soviet Union for more than the minimum necessary to secure the east while Germany took the west do anything to allow Hitler to secure Ukrainian and Russian land or enslave their peoples.
Actually I heard despite disdain for each other, the nonaggression pact was formed to create a new future of relations between Russia and Germany. Germany simply guaranteed their own downfall by attacking Russians because AFAIK from what I've read Russians didn't really have any plans to fight Germans at all prior to the incident in Stalingrad. Had Germany never attacked Russia, there was a chance Russians never would have gotten involved.
shareno, the nonaggression pact was made simply because neither was prepared to attack the other yet. it was standard operating procedure for hitler to make deals so he'd only have to fight one enemy at a time, and a bit of desperation on the soviets' part who doubtless expected germany to be worn down on the western front as in ww1 while they rebuilt their forces after the purges.
share