Spun off from the Germany gets the bomb, thread.

When Germany attacked Great Britain their lack of a heavy bomber proved to be an issue. It proved to be an even bigger issue when they went after Russia and the Russians moved their industrial plants out of bombing range.

It has been said that the Germans did not have a 4 engine heavy bomber because of an odd combination of factors and the death of this guy in 1936.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Wever_

Who was the Luftwaffes chief advocate for strategic bombing.

If the Germans had some thing akin to the B-17 or Lancaster could it have tipped things in their favor? Or would it all have gone down the same way it did?

They did. FW-200 Condor.

They also had this
He-177

But they had issues with over heating. Still a cool plane imho

Longer bombing missions with 4 engine planes would have hurt England's capacity to wage war. It would have held us back from staging there for the invasion as well.

I would have had an effect on the british at the beginning and the russians but not on the outcome of the war. Maybe prolonged it for another year.



At the point of staging for the Invasion there was not that much of the Luftwaffe left, and the british mostly had air supperiority over their island. (iirc)

They never had the industrial base to support their efforts. Perhaps they would have done slightly better with some heavy bombers, but in the end they were going to lose.

With the A bomb at the start of the war they could have won, but they would need to be able to build several a month and then build heavy bombers to utilize them.

The bomber wasnt gonna make it to the us to change the ampunt of manufacturing here so it wouldnt change much

If memory serves the Condor had a weak landing gear and fuselage. It was a converted airliner. Not able to carry much of a bomb load. I think Hitler used one to fly to a meeting in Finland and the brakes caught fire on landing.

As for the He-177. I don't know what they were smoking when they came up with that one. Though I think it was used on the eastern front and to bomb London later in the war.

They were pushing technology as far as it could go at the time. It was probably inevitable that the tech pushed back.

Twin engine bombers had the range to bomb most of what they wanted to in England, and "Schnellbombers" (designed for speed instead of robustness and defensive firepower) were the more sensible strategy when development in time for early WWII had to begin in the mid-30's.

Germany didn't have the resources to build both a real strategic air force and a winning tactical air force.  The Germans didn't really start getting their asses kicked in North Africa or Russia until the Luftwaffe lost air superiority.  Normandy didn't get invaded until the Luftwaffe was thoroughly suppressed.  These things would have happened much sooner if the Germans redirected resources and tried to build a real strategic bombing arm.

Germany was Doomed the minute America got into the War.

If they had a more effective propaganda program, they could have turned more Italian, Irish and German immigrants, just like Putin flipped America’s disaffected Conservatives.  

There were a great many Americans who hated Britain, Jews, Communists and Roosevelt.    

The Anti War sentiment at that time, was more powerful, than at any other time.      Germany failed to exploit it.    They should have ordered Japan to cease and desist.

They would have been much better served with an extra 100 u-boats to start the war. I forget how many they started with, but it was laughably small.

Unless your hypothetical starts with "The USA does not provide Lend-Lease to the USSR" - The answer is always that Germany will lose.

4x, 10x whatever times more bombs over England/Russia/Italy aren't going to be enough.

The heavy bomber was the most overrated weapon system in WW2.  The bomber boys promises never came to pass. Enormous treasure was expended, casualties were among the worst of any unit in the war.  Yet German war production peaked in 1944.   The one possible exception was the B-29 and Japan.

Bombers were useless without fighter escort. The USAAF learned this in 1943. If the Luftwaffe had had 4 engined bombers during the Battle of Britian all that would have happened was the BF109E's still would have bugged out when they ran low on fuel and the Bf110's would have been target practice for the Hurri's and Spitfires

Don't think it would matter for Battle of Britain. Even with the two engined bombers they were hurting the RAF and air bases.  It was Hitler switching to city bombing that allowed the RAF back in the fight.  

Doctrine, not aircraft design lost the battle for the Luftwaffe.

A better long range escort would have been better for the Luftwaffe than a longer range / heavier bomber.  The Bf-109 had something like less than 20 minutes of battle time when over London. The Bf-110 was supposed to fill that role but ended up spending all their time defending each other due to their poor turn radius.

Germany lacked the raw resources to win the war from the start. They had no real source of oil and gas which was a big reason for attacking Russia. They needed oil.

Germany was just deficient in so many areas (materiel, leadership, manpower, etc.) that it's difficult to pin any one thing as the critical issue.

Daytime bombing in ETO was a waste until the end of ‘43 when the USAAF had enough capable long range fighters to destroy the Luftwaffe faster than they could make up their losses. British nighttime bombing was always a waste, and a war crime.

Since Germany could never gain air superiority over England because their fighters were too few and too short-ranged, they were never in a position where having a 4 engine bomber would have made much difference. 100 more submarines in 1939 would have been a game changa fo sho.

Why would the Luftwaffe need the range of a heavy bomber fleet in 1940-41?  Strategic bombing wasn't part of their war plans, their medium fleet was perfectly adequate to support infantry/armor operations at that time, and by the time they really began a bombing campaign against the UK they were operating from bases in France so the range was less of an issue.

Heavy Bombardment used aircraft and crews as bait for the Luftwaffe.  The Luftwaffe had to be destroyed to give the western allies air superiority and safety on the ground from attack.

The damage from bombing was a significant wound to German war production but hardly fatal in and of itself.

Not enough fuel ?? for their tanks or planes

It would not have mattered after a while. Germany didn't have enough oil, and other stuff for a long war.

If the Germans and Japanese coordinated an attack on Russia the Axis could have won WWII.  Their strategies were entirely separated and misaligned by two years, if Khalkhin Gol happened in the fall of 1941 instead of 1939 the Germans and Japanese would have certainly broken the Soviets quickly with a two front war, and would have cut off 75% of lend lease in a long war (most American lend lease to the USSR sailed unmolested through Japanese patrolled waters on Soviet flagged US built ships, Japan didn't touch them after the shock of losing against the concentrated Soviets in 1939 and shifting to a Pacific strategy).  

Being allies enough to give the US casus belli (even if Germany hadn't declared war first) but not allies enough to actually coordinate action was fucking stupid.  If they were close allies they could have entirely occupied the USSR in 1942/43 and would have been damn near unassailable until the US had a thousand nukes in the 1950's, if the Germans had been entirely unattached to the Japanese they could have avoided major US involvement in the European war until Japan was defeated, probably still 1945-ish.

A lack of proper fuel for the bombers would have made them targets.

Germany's problem from the onset of the invasion of Poland was they were not ready for war or a prolonged war.  Also Italy still needed time to prepare for the war but Hitler thinking the Soviets would be in a better spot if he delayed went ahead and kicked off.  From the start Germany was fighting in a deficit had they waited to actually have a better combat readiness and Italy been prepared the war might have gone on for a few more years or they might have beat the Soviets.

The South was never going to win the ACW do to lack of raw materials and inadequate weapon production.

Japan was never going to win WWII do to lack of raw materials and inadequate weapon production.

Germany was never going to win WWII do to a lack of raw materials and inadequate weapon production.

Italy wasn't going to win because....see above.

Any power that is depending on a quick victory to get permanent objectives is damn near always doomed to failure.

My alternate history thinking is that Japan and Germany should've both jumped on the soviets first. Especially given how inherently anti communist their ideologies were. Once they got done crushing that scum, the rest of the world could look at them and say. Damn, good job! We thought this might be a problem, but you guys really did a great service for us all, soooo... Germany can have France, and the Japs can have whatever of China they can work out with the nationalists after they wipe out Mao.
Peace in our time!

^This.  

If would have been as helpful as jet fighters and super heavy tanks with no fuel.

Germany lost the Battle of Britain because Hitler had to Hitler and terror bomb and shifted the focus away from destroying Britain’s ability to wage the air war.  

Germany lost Barbarossa because Hitler had to Hitler again and mucked with his general’s ability to correctly identify which axis of advance to focus on because he wanted to take symbolic cities and wasted a tremendous amount of resources and the tactical and strategic initiative to do it


A 4 engine bomber wasn’t going to change that

Good point.

If they had convinced the Japanese to attack the soviets instead of the United States, or if they had gained china's favor instead of Japan's they may have had a chance.  

Strategically they were still fucked.

Hitler ordering the stand down that allowed the UK expeditionary force to leave was incredibly stupid. Then they bombed cities and ignored radar stations and air fields. Their hubris regarding communications and how they aimed their bombers was also another nail in the coffin.

I really don't think having less bombers, but larger (numbers of engines were a limitation) would have done much for them. Maybe being able to reach critical Soviet factories and convincing Japan to end the war in China and not attack the United States and instead attack the soviets would have made a difference.

Doesn't matter eventually the beast that is America in the 40s arises

My research from Axis and Allie states the Heavy Bombers with long range fighter escort are devastating

This.


The German economy was hampered by a lack of resources especially oil.

They were incapable of producing large numbers of heavy four engine bombers

Strategic bombing at that time was more of an annoyance. Production gets moved to underground or hardened facilities. Big bombers are also big targets. Unescorted bombers are basically one way missions.

Not one bit.  They list the moment the US threw its logistical and industrial might in the mix.

Germany signed its death warrant via several things, biggest was when they decided to attack to the west, ( France, England,etc ), AND to the east, ( Russia etc ). Second, not being better at PR. You could buddy with the East and attack west, or buddy with west and attack east, but attacking both at once was stupid. As fuck. Allowing your Japanese ally bomb the Americans / largest capacity industrial country on earth with good defense from attack was equally stupid,

Imho, germany should have gone after Russia first, attack Russia over some made up reason, while telling Europe how much they loved them and want peaceful great relations with them, even to the point of repaying WWI debts, or whatever to show sincerity, worked peacefully with them ( fraud / lie etc ) probably won against Russia easily, since russias military sucks at that time, lend lease from USA would probably not happened as no one cares if they attack Russia.

then retool / rearm with russias vast resources / manpower, / factories using and vast production capacity,  producing war material deep in Russia or eastern Russia safe from long range bombing, then  used Russian men as forced conscripts / additional manpower to fight for them, then went east, and won there too easily when they stab their European “ friends “ in the back when they roll in 10x stronger in say 1942 / 43 then they were in 1938/40 when it started.
Secure Europe, go after England, USA has no foothold, England falls in 6 months as they shove hordes of Russians at them via sea assaults, paratroopers, etc.

Japan should have stuck to attacking China , the South Pacific, and other smaller countries etc securing military capacity from them, and securing their foothold and building fortifications and bases. And upgraded their god awful weapons with German or even American designed ones, like the EXCELLENT mp-40 smg, grease gun, mg-34 / mg-42 belt machine gun, and copied the American m2 50 caliber machine gun. Then a few years later when your much better equipped and armed with more capacity and conscripts to fight for you, when Germany attacks west into France, Japan goes after the USA and Australia.

I can’t believe how shitty Japanese weapons were. Having no belt fed infantry machine guns after the results from WWI is simply shocking, I can excuse their bolt action rifles as that was the standard for every country, but having no machine guns, no heavy machine guns ,  no sub machine guns, and those shitty nambu pistols after the much, much better 1911, Luger, p38, browning high power etc existed for many years is silly.

My feelings are countries were too obsessed with fielding their own original shit, wanting the pride of their own unique weapons, vs stealing other countries designs, which is a weakness imho. Let those other countries waste money and time doing the R&D research, just copy their shit and have better guns and saving resources.

This, Germany needed better planning, better propaganda, better ability to lie / receipt to everyone and more emotional control to make better tactical decisions .

Not giving massive speeches about your plans to conquer the entire planet and giving a warning of your long term goals would be nice. Hard to tell England we’re your friends while giving flaming speeches about killing them.

They were great fighter bait!

Spitfires have a field day.

Besides, while the Luftwaffe was aware of Guilio Douhet and his theories on aerial bombing, Hitler would have insisted on cities instead of factories.

German war production peaked in 1944 BECAUSE the German economy was not placed on a war footing until some time in 1943.

" From mid 1943 on, Germany switched to a full war economy overseen by Albert Speer. By late 1944, almost the entire German economy was dedicated to military production. The result was a dramatic rise in military production, with an increase by 2 to 3 times of vital goods like tanks and aircraft, despite the intensifying Allied air campaign and the loss of territory and factories. "

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

Thus the increase cannot be blamed on a lack of efficacy on the heavy bombers.  Look at the german shortage of POL.

They should have left the cities alone.......continue hitting bases, along with targeting the RAF radar installations, and eventually the British might have sued for peace. Had the Germans used the V1 and V2 rockets on bases and military installations, it could have been somewhat of a force multiplier

Attached File

Don't forget, Goring was a fighter pilot and had the fighter pilot bias.

This always the correct response to "What if the Germans did XYZ?"

Germany was not allowed to have a military air force in the twenties and early 30’s due to the Treaty of Versailles. They built the beginning of the Luftwaffe in secrecy, disguising their prototype war planes as Red Cross planes.

Nien!

A warmed over pre-war civilian transport that was so flimsy that a number broke their backs just landing.

It was nothing like a purpose built heavy bomber like a  Lancaster, Halifax, B-17 or B-24.

Good for flying around the Atlantic to scout convoys for U-boats or bomb lightly armed merchant ships

Bigger_Hammer

Pretty much this.

Anything that didn't deal with the US manufacturing capacity would not ultimately change the outcome of the war.  The remainder of the allies kept in the war because they had a near limitless supply chain, provided by the US.  

The Germans had it right sinking supply vessels in the Atlantic. The Japanese weren't doing so in the Pacific because they didn't want war with the Soviets as supply ships heading there from the US weren't US flagged.

No. Contrary to European propaganda, the US involvement was the deciding factor in the war. Not the boots on the ground, but the unfathomable amount of supplies produced for the war.

The nazis steamrolled across Western Europe in the early days, and without the millions of tons of American supplies the Soviets received, the German push into Russia would have been an all out slaughter.