Too close for comfort? A greater appreciation for an Allied WW2 Victory

Sava · February 24, 2003, 23:57

For those of you who are fans of the history channel, I just got done a show called "Secret Japanese Aircraft of WW2" and I'm currently watching "Secret Nazi Aircraft of WW2". There are a few distrubing points I'd like to discuss with you guys.

1. Race to get the bomb. This point wasn't specifically talked about in these shows, but it's relevant to the discussion. The Nazis and Japanese were very close to developing an atomic bomb. In earlier shows like this, it was discussed that America only beat the Axis to having a working atom bomb by months. In fact, there as a German submarine sunk off the coast of Indonesia that was carrying U-235 Uranium. Scary!

2. Jet Engine technology in Japan. Japan did have working prototypes of a jet fighter and smaller, rocket fighter. I know the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan has been debated before on these forums, but the point was brought up that if Japan had enough time, an invasion of the Japanese islands in early '46 might have been repelled by jet torpedo planes and jet air superiority fighters.

3. Helicopter technology in Japan and Germany. Japan had been experimenting with anti-submarine gyro-copters that had seen battle and had success! Also, Germany had programs for Vertical Takeoff fighters that were designed to fly around 600 mph and shoot down allied B-29s at high altitude.

4. Jet Technology in Germany. Most of us have heard of the Me-262, but there were many other Jet fighters that had been built and many that were on the drawing boards. The Nazis did develop a swept-wing jet fighter that the Russians copied when they built the MiG-15. This fighter would have been better than the F-86 Sabre that the US didn't build until the 50's. We should also be thankful that Hitler wasn't an aircraft expert. Had he realized the Me-262's potential, he wouldn't have ordered it to become a fighter-bomber in conjuction with the fighter program. This would have had an effect on the Allied bombing campaign, and D-Day would not have been possible.

5. Guided air-to-air missiles. Yes, Germany did have this technology and had tested it in combat by August of '44. These new missiles would have been the weapons of the new Nazi jet fighters since they flew at speeds too fast for conventional cannons and machine guns of the day.

6. Stealth technology. The Nazis accidently stumbled onto stealth technology and designed a jet that was to become the inspiration for the American B2 stealth bomber. This jet bomber would have been able to strike America in early 1946. I suppose we should also thank Albert Speer who was opposed to providing resources to the German atomic bomb program. New York could have been nuked in April of '46.

These are all what-if scenarios, but it just makes you think about how different the last years of WW2 could have been. It gives me a greater appreciation of the sacrifices of the men and women of the Allied forces. And while this German technology fueled the Cold War era advances in aircraft and missile technology, I'm thankful that we're here today to talk about it in an online forum. Had just a few things gone differently, we might all be speaking German, or we might all be dead.

As Bodds' would say, discuss!

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 00:02

I think that all modern military technology, even to this day is based off of the work done by Nazi Germany.

Skanky Burns · February 25, 2003, 00:04

Yes, they had advanced technology. The problem was they didn't have enough resources to run these superior weapons.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 25, 2003, 00:05

I dont think that the Germans were interested in uranium for an atomic bomb. they wanted to make nuclear reactors so they could fit them into their submaries. HOwever, when the british, with Norwegian partisan help, raided that big dam in Norway, they destroyed germans only production and inventory of heavy water, which his needed to slow down the reaction period. The british also planted a bomb on a ship carrying the last remaining heavy water back to germany and sunk it.

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 00:06

Japanese especially were in dire straights. The Americans had a resource advantage of something like 3000%

Sava · February 25, 2003, 00:06

Yup... America and Russia had the quantity and outproduced Germany and Japan. Given just a few more months, the Axis might have forced a truce with their advanced weapons. Many of the German and Japanese factories that were building these weapons were constructed beneath mountains. Allied bombing did not have an affect on their programs to a large extent. Only the ground victories and occupation stopped their production. This gives a greater merit to the argument that if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, he might have been able to win the war.

These two shows were awesome, I might even buy them from the History Channel... or at least pay close attention and tape them because I'm sure they will be replayed in the next few days.

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 00:07

Also USA and UK dropped over 5 billion tons of explosives on Germany. Even though the figure is often put forward that German production went up, that just means more was being blown up as well.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 00:11

And that bombing would have stopped if Germany had high-speed, high-altitude jet fighters annihilating Allied bombers.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:14

While the Germans were very far ahead of the rest of the world in applied tech, Allied countries were ahead in some applied areas and in some basic areas. Some examples include materials research and radio and radar techs. Also, Allied countries were conducting research on a much wider scale than the Axis was. While the Axis was very definately ahead in some areas, Allied powers were by no means in the technological backwoods.

On last thing, Dad was scheduled for the first wave of the invasion of Japan. Given his description of their coastal defenses, I am convinced that I would not be here without the Atomic Bomb. No matter what you think of nuclear weapons, that use of them saved far more than it killed.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
And that bombing would have stopped if Germany had high-speed, high-altitude jet fighters annihilating Allied bombers.

Very true, if they could have built enough of them. Allied production was such that they may have been able to take incredible losses and still maintain the initiative. Using reverse engineering of downed German aircraft, the German advantage would have been short lived.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

On last thing, Dad was scheduled for the first wave of the invasion of Japan. Given his description of their coastal defenses, I am convinced that I would not be here without the Atomic Bomb. No matter what you think of nuclear weapons, that use of them saved far more than it killed.

Yes... I agree

But in regards to Allied radar... the Horton-18 (the stealthy bomber that was developed) would have flown at 39,000 feet and wouldn't have been detected by Allied radar. It would have been able to drop an atomic bomb on New York and flown back to Germany unopposed and undetected. People on the ground would not have even heard the jet approaching.

Sava · February 25, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Very true, if they could have built enough of them. Allied production was such that they may have been able to take incredible losses and still maintain the initiative. Using reverse engineering of downed German aircraft, the German advantage would have been short lived.

But the German aircraft would have been downed in occupied Europe. And even if the Allies outproduced Germany, they would have been unable to get more bombers to European airfields before Germany gained air supremacy. At best, America and Germany would have come to a truce. England would no doubt be invaded.

Another point I forgot from my original post. Even the Russian advance on the Eastern front could have been halted. With the jet-fighters, was a tank-buster. And with it's jet fighters, Germany would have had air-supremacy over the Eastern front. Russia's investment in tanks would have been their undoing because their research in air technologies was limited. With air-supremacy, Germany would have been able to put a stop to the ground advance. The Nazis might not have been able to push a ground force into Russia, but it no doubt would have stopped Russia in its tracks.

Ned · February 25, 2003, 00:35

Sava, Georing was quoted as saying that Germany's largest mistake was not mass producing the ME 262 fighter earlier - by 1942 for example. This fighter could have prevented the destruction of the Ploesti oil fields and critical German industry. It may have also lead to German air superiority in 1943 and beyond. That may have made D-Day impossible and so on.

Also, having the A bomb and a long range bomber to take out American, Russian and British cities would have beed decisive, IMHO.

Yeah, in retrospect, the NAZI's could have won.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:44

Sava, I have to agree with your points. Your knowledge of this subject is far beyond mine. However, I doubt that the Germans would have only flown these planes over occupied Europe. Many sorties would have included England. Even with these developments used as you suggest, I believe that the most the Germans could have done is to prolong the war. US was just to far away to be beaten by what the Germans could muster. Now...If they had turned these weapons to the Russian front, I believe that they could have broken the Russians back and caused total surrender. Once this happened and their access to oil and materials grew accordingly, then the Allies would have had no choice but to come to terms. Very different world it would be.

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 00:51

How about the sweet revenge when the USA sent a team of brothers from Tuskegee up in Mustangs that blew the hell out of German fighter crews.

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 00:52

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

How about the sweet revenge when the USA sent a team of brothers from Tuskegee up in Mustangs that blew the hell out of German fighter crews.

GO TUSKEGEE !!!

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
On last thing, Dad was scheduled for the first wave of the invasion of Japan. Given his description of their coastal defenses, I am convinced that I would not be here without the Atomic Bomb. No matter what you think of nuclear weapons, that use of them saved far more than it killed.

This isn't the place for the discussion (it's been discussed on this board ad naseum), but I completely disagree. Considering American intelligence was convinced Japan would surrender no later than November 1945, sans a-bomb, a land invasion would likely not even have been necessary.

My grandfather was to be in the first wave, too. He's come to have rather different feelings about the bomb than he did back then...

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
How about the sweet revenge when the USA sent a team of brothers from Tuskegee up in Mustangs that blew the hell out of German fighter crews.

Yeah, maybe it made them feel better about the whole syphillis thing...

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Considering American intelligence was convinced Japan would surrender no later than November 1945, sans a-bomb, a land invasion would likely not even have been necessary.

This is simply not a true statement.

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 01:06

Yah I don't buy that one either.

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
This is simply not a true statement.

I don't like being accused of lying, so this is all I shall post:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

-The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1946

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 01:11

hindsight doesn't count

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
hindsight doesn't count

The argument was that ultimately the bombs were not necessary. Hindsight doesn't enter into it.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 01:14

Boris, not accusing you of lying. Please accept apologies. I have done papers on this in the past (20 years ago). Obviously my Dad's involvement in the war made it my favorite topic in H.S. and college. You are going to make me do my homework, but I'll get back to you.

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 01:14

It does when you quote something that has an opinion based on interviews conducted after the fact.

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
It does when you quote something that has an opinion based on interviews conducted after the fact.

Me speak-a slowly...

An argument that is stating the bombings were ultimately not necessary to end the war does not hinge on only using information available prior to the bombings. Such information would only be needed for an argument that we absolutely knew the bombings were unneccessary and bombed anyway, which I did not stipulate (though I suspect we should have known this).

Ted Striker · February 25, 2003, 01:22

That's a silly argument.

All I care about is what was KNOWN at the time the decision was made.

H Tower · February 25, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

This isn't the place for the discussion (it's been discussed on this board ad naseum), but I completely disagree. Considering American intelligence was convinced Japan would surrender no later than November 1945, sans a-bomb, a land invasion would likely not even have been necessary.

this has no bearing on the decision to drop the bomb because at the time the intelligence services believed that Japan would fight to the last school child to drive back american troops.

Quote:

Now...If they had turned these weapons to the Russian front, I believe that they could have broken the Russians back and caused total surrender. Once this happened and their access to oil and materials grew accordingly, then the Allies would have had no choice but to come to terms. Very different world it would be.

Russia would still have won out IMO, the massive reserves they were able to bring forward to keep fighting the germans just couldn't be matched.

Urban Ranger · February 25, 2003, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
1. Race to get the bomb. This point wasn't specifically talked about in these shows, but it's relevant to the discussion. The Nazis and Japanese were very close to developing an atomic bomb. In earlier shows like this, it was discussed that America only beat the Axis to having a working atom bomb by months. In fact, there as a German submarine sunk off the coast of Indonesia that was carrying U-235 Uranium. Scary!

During the war, the Allies had known that the Germans were developing the bomb. The efforts were repeatedly thwarted by commando actions and bombing raids. OTOH, I do not know that Japan was trying to make it. However, it will require more evidence than a show on History Channel.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
2. Jet Engine technology in Japan. Japan did have working prototypes of a jet fighter and smaller, rocket fighter. I know the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan has been debated before on these forums, but the point was brought up that if Japan had enough time, an invasion of the Japanese islands in early '46 might have been repelled by jet torpedo planes and jet air superiority fighters.

That was not Japan's main problem. Their main problem was they ran out of pilots. Technology couldn't have helped there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
3. Helicopter technology in Japan and Germany. Japan had been experimenting with anti-submarine gyro-copters that had seen battle and had success! Also, Germany had programs for Vertical Takeoff fighters that were designed to fly around 600 mph and shoot down allied B-29s at high altitude.

That's fine. They still wouldn't have enough production and pilots to make a difference.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
4. Jet Technology in Germany. Most of us have heard of the Me-262, but there were many other Jet fighters that had been built and many that were on the drawing boards. The Nazis did develop a swept-wing jet fighter that the Russians copied when they built the MiG-15. This fighter would have been better than the F-86 Sabre that the US didn't build until the 50's. We should also be thankful that Hitler wasn't an aircraft expert. Had he realized the Me-262's potential, he wouldn't have ordered it to become a fighter-bomber in conjuction with the fighter program. This would have had an effect on the Allied bombing campaign, and D-Day would not have been possible.

Again, not enough to make a difference.

The parallel can be drawn in tanks. The US did not have any designs close to their Germans and Soviet counterparts until the M-26 Pershing. The Sherman wasn't bad but was still inferior. The Germans had excellent tanks but they didn't have enough.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
5. Guided air-to-air missiles. Yes, Germany did have this technology and had tested it in combat by August of '44. These new missiles would have been the weapons of the new Nazi jet fighters since they flew at speeds too fast for conventional cannons and machine guns of the day.

August 44? What difference would it make?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
6. Stealth technology. The Nazis accidently stumbled onto stealth technology and designed a jet that was to become the inspiration for the American B2 stealth bomber. This jet bomber would have been able to strike America in early 1946. I suppose we should also thank Albert Speer who was opposed to providing resources to the German atomic bomb program. New York could have been nuked in April of '46.

Again, you need more evidence than a History Channel show to back this baby up.