Germany fights WW2 after Stalingrad with no Luftwaffe in the Western/Italian front?

Josef Goebbel's Sportpalast speech would announce this to the nation.

How much longer would Germany have lasted and what would it be like to fight the German Army after this effect? If this factoid from memory is correct..Germany spent half of their strategic materials and war resources on their Luftwaffe-which by well into 1943 wasn't really "worth a penny" except for fighting the Russians. The Germans were fighting a hopeless war in the air by the middle of 1943 in the West.

Instead of fueling and producing aircraft/crews, the resources would be poured into boosting the firepower of German ground forces. There would be increased production of tanks, Flak batteries, motor vehicles, artillery, and other material.

I think the German ground forces would have lasted considerably longer-with more tanks, vehicles, artillery, and much larger quantities of self-propelled Flak guns.

The Normandy battle/Bagration/Italy would be more treacherous for the Allies against an enemy with more firepower and mobility.

*by no Luftwaffe, I meant, minimal..*

 

Well by stalingrad without much resistance the allied bombings would have been much more frequent and severe. If the Luftwaffe had ignored England and all resources had been thrown at the eastern front from the beginning it would have been a very different situation. Also that would have made the allied bombing campaign much harder to justify to the population if Germany had never touched England.

Minimal fighter garrisons in the west and all out in the east. It all really just comes down to the German war effort being completely unprepared for the all out total war response from its enemies. Had they prepared better in a number of areas the war could have been easily won.

 

Well, if my memory serves me right, the Luftwaffe was pretty much completely gone and almost completely ineffective in the West by mid 1943.

The loss of an aggressive Luftwaffe fighter presence would have to be compensated by more FLAK guns throughout Germany.

And even during Barbarrossa, the Luftwaffe's role was only supporting due to the vast distances and logistical difficulties. Compared to the concentration of Allied airpower the Germans experienced in Normandy the Luftwaffe's role in Russia was meagre.

 

Anyone?

 

Minimal Luffwaffe in the West would have shortened the war. The Allies would not have had to spend resources knocking out the German aviation industry/Luftwaffe before switching to other targets but could have gone straight for the transport infrastructure.
Herr Speer could build all the fancy tanks/guns he wanted but they would never get beyond the factory gate. Indeed the factories would probably go silent because no new raw materials would be able to get to them.
Also, Allied resources put into the air campaign could be diverted elsewhere, maybe better tanks and anti-tank weapons. Also the manpower shortage would not have been so bad because men who would have gone to the vast infrastructure need to keep planes in the air could instead be trained as ground troops.
And finally, the Nazis would lose credibility among the military and civilian population if Allied planes were able to roam freely over the Reich. Even greater anti-air defence would not prevent this because they have to be fixed in one location and Germany could never build enough of them.

 

Less planes then historical? Don't you know what happened to the German armoured divisions in Normandy, only being able to move at night, being constantly harassed by the enemy air force, any real attack caught in the open is destroyed, your precious flak guns would be devastated by CAS aircraft such as typhoons.

More tanks mean nothing if your control the sky for "Who ever controls the skies controls the land". This air supremacy gives you the ability to decide when and where to attack then enemy without fear of enemy aircraft interference.

The constant threat of air attack also has an effect on the soldiers morale, without it the morale of the enemy rises knowing that they can move without being hit.

So to answer your question, No, less aircraft and more tanks mean more blown up tanks.

 

Flak guns are more effective than you would think. (particularly against fighter bombers) And more than 4,000 Allied aircraft were shot down in the normandy battles.

Actually, few tanks were destroyed by Allied fighter-bombers in Normandy. Fighter-bombers were more effective against soft targets like trucks, horse trains, etc.

There was no Luftwaffe in the West anyone-my point is "What difference would it make, anyway?"

 

Might want to check your figures. The Battle of Normandy (aka your Normandy Battles) involved the loss of 2,000 Allied Aircraft,

If Aircraft are no good at killing tanks, then why were the tanks forced to move at night? Simply tracking a Tank is worth the effort by the Airforce. It makes the tank a (literally) sitting duck.

 

"The allied airforces made 480,317 takeoffs in direct connection to the operation with the loss of no fewer than 4,101 planes and the lives of 16,696 crewmen."

I'm not saying that airpower is not effective, I'm saying that its effect in Normandy is exaggerated.

Effects of Allied Air Power