No Allied Bombing

This thread is inspired by the 'Dresden' discussion.

OK - no Bomber Command, no 8th USAAF. No heavy bombers. No early invasion of Europe, though - the armies would still have been too weak and inexperienced and - no heavy bombers to wreck rail centres !

What do you think would have happened ?

 

We would still have to look at what Germany could muster-would it's forces be ready to confront so many enemies on a constant circle?
It would have kept factories in tact-and may have led to production of fierce fighters (Ta152, Me262, Me163 etc etc)sooner and wouldv'e led to an air offensive against the Allies, that then wouldv'e led to developement of armaments-and quite possibly a renewed offensive-armoured-against the Russians that may have ended teh campaign in the East-and spelt disaster for the Allies in Africa, and then a larger scale of the ETO overall-oh the possibilities-i don't really want to consider the larger scale of things that might have been???

 

I think Germany might have won, but in any case the war would have gone on at least a year or two longer. In fact, they might have been able to produce a deadlock on the eastern front. With rail centers intact and factories at optimum production, fighters and tanks would have been made in higher numbers and could have checked any Allied invasion of Europe. As for Russia, though...

My opinion as to the chain of events is as follows...
Germany withdraws from North Africa as usual, and loses Sicily. But Kesselring, armed with more firepower is able to drive the Allies off the shores of Italy. Targets in eastern Europe are safe from the west. The failure in Italy causes the Allies to postpone the invasion of Europe by at least a year. With the west at least temporarily secure, Germany diverts as much manpower and equipment as possible to the east. Perhaps they score a victory at Kursk, and then try to resume the offensive against the Soviets. But either way, Germany can now more fully develop "wonder weapons" and use them with a higher degree of potency. If they manage to beat the Soviets, then the Western Allies dont stand a chance. If they dont but develop the A-bomb, then very soon after England would be bombarded with it and rendered useless as a staging point for an invasion. And of course, it would likely be used on Russian troops and cities. All in all, Germany is in a MUCH better position to conduct a war.

In my opinion, strategic bombing of industrial targets in Germany was critical to the war effort. I personally dont like the residential bombing, as it seems rather cowardly, but overall, without heavy bombers and the use of them, the Allies would have been in a world of hurt.

 

Good thread! This one requires some thought, because as dasreich mentioned the strategic bombing offensive was central to Germany's defeat. I'd have to go along the lines of the war being longer, but germany still losing. For one thing, despite the bombing offensive, germany's tanks and weapon production was actually HIGHER in 1944 than it had been in 42 or 43. Also, many of the super-weapons germany was working on were pretty impractical, and I'm pretty sure I've read that Hitler did not want to research the A-bomb because of the time involved.
Even without the bombing offensive, I'd have to stick with my standard line- the russians eventaully would have overwhelmed the germans anyway. Probably would have taken longer though...

 

The war would have lasted longer. The Luftwaffe would not have lost as many pilots and the allies would not have air superiority over the D-Day landings. The panzers would not have been dogged by allied aircraft. The number 1 gain for the Germans, Their fuel shortage problem would not have existed. More fuel for the jet fighters and panzers. That makes a big difference.

 

I agree that the war would have lasted longer but the outcome would have been the same. I dont think the me262 would have been produced inlarge enough numbers to make a great difference. If my memory is correct, Hitler wanted to build them as bombers not fighters. The Eastern Front would have been drawn out longer but Russian manpower numbers would have overwhelmed the Germans in the end. I think without bombing Germanys greatest problem would have been Hitlers irrationality.

 

The outcome would have been the same, at least in the Eastern front, the most important theatre of the war. Because we perfectly know that the Wehrmacht lost the war in Russia in 1941. The general strategy and horrendous losses gave the Wehrmacht a hit of which it never recovered.

At the Western front, there would not have been a D-day and Great Britain would have been defeated, because of the new technologies and air power. Rommel would have not been expelled from North Africa and if he was, as das Reich said, Keßelring would havenot permitted the Allies to land in Italy. The German industry would have been able to produce much more weaponry to counter attack and hold the Soviets and make Great Britain surrender. Imagine that the new submarine types would have been ready in 1943, along with the wolves-packs... Of course that the D-day would have been absolutely impossible. No Western front, no German industry damaged, no German cities destroyed, no German people killed.

But there was no chance of winning where was important after 1941. We perfectly know that at the Eastern front the technology and superior tactics were not the tactics to win. Once the strategy failed, no tactics would fix the things.

 

Friedrich :

Think about your statements for a minute......

how many fronts did the Thrird Reich have to fight on in reality. without RAF and US bombers destroying all forms of military connections, which included it's vast industry, where do you think the main focal point of fighting would have been ? I have to disagree with you on this my firned, as the war on the Ost Front would of continued possibly in the German favour. Energies would of been pushed to the limit to produce a/c, most likely 4 enigne and possibly 6 engine bombers to fly beyond the Urals and bomb Russia's factories into the ground. Masses need weapons and the Luftwaffe strategists and the powers to be of the Reich may have produced the proper materials to accomplish this task. But this is of course a huge what if !!

E

 

Erich, you are right. Of course we would have made it. Herr Speer would have been able to overwhelm the Russians with technology in big quantity. But I think there is a much more important factor; workers, natural resources and factories could have been able to overwhelm the Soviets. But German mothers could not. What do I mean by this? A 50.000.000 people fighting one with 150.000-200.000!!! That means that Geramny could use (very difficulty) 6 million men, able for combat, when the USSR could have use 20 or 25 million!!!

Do you know that after the campaign in 1941 the Wehrmacht (even with the reinforcements) had 600.000 men less for the campaign of 1942? OK. Without any other front, the German industry could have supplied very well the three army groups with a lot of tanks, guns, aeroplanes and ammunition, BUT NOT WITH MEN. That is my point.

 

I see your point but do you see mine ?

The GErmans were quite technologically advanced over the Soviets. Without having to deal with western powers and the bombing of it's industry......well don;t you think the German atomic bomb would have been rused into service by 44 ? ......sounds terrible but it might well have been. Then in this case human numbers really doesn't matter. The Soviets would have been nuked.

E

 

Ahhh... the A-bomb changes things... Why didn't you mention this before? Yeah... then the man power does not matter.

And yes, we were technologically superior (in some stuff) to the Soviets, the radio and electronic communications and things like that. But the Soviet technology produced quite good stuff, didn't it? Example: T-34.

 

would the T-34 factories have been bombed right off ? the point taken that no Allied bombing of the Reich in 1942 at all, then what would of happened ? ......there is still too much what if's in the gneral question !

E

 

Well, I suposse we would have come with heavy bombers then and bomb the Urals... althought (I insist) the strategy was already ruined...

 

Well, I suposse we would have come with heavy bombers then and bomb the Urals... althought (I insist) the strategy was already ruined... Like the Greif in early 1943, adequately tested. What do you think, Erich?

 

I think the newer versions of the He 111 and Ju 88 bombers would have been elevated in some way with longer fuselages for extra fuel and this would have been the way to attack the Soviet factories beyond the Urals. It is so hard to say since history did not happen this way, but can only presume that if Moscow had been taken and General winter had not affected the Wehrmacht the way it did, who then knows what may well would have happened.... ?

E

 

We would have won!!!

That is precisely my point: if Moscow was taken and reinforced all the Eastern front would have been secured as well as all the most important strategic level-general situation. Then, our tactics and technology could have smashed the rest of our enemies. But just then. We must remember that wars are won or lost because of strategy, not because of tactics, and technology is a tactic.

 

this is off from the original topic...but oh well! I tend to think that the war in the east would not have ended with the capture of Moscow. I don't see why it would...the government would just go somewhere else and definitely NOT surrender and the army would just go to another line of defense. eventually they would gather their numbers in men and equipment and history would be the same.
remember napolion captured Moscow and burned it to the ground...but who lost? Napolion.

 

Another factor not mentioned yet is the German anti-aircraft effort.

Without Allied bombing, considerable quantities of weaponry and munitions would have 'released' for use elsewhere. Not sure about manpower - were the flak crews high-quality troops ?
But the Luftwaffe put massive efforts into destroying RAF & USAAF bombers - those guys for sure would have been useful on other fronts.

 

I'd agree with Ron on the Moscow issue. Had the germans taken Moscow, it certainly would have been a major setback for the russians. But Friedrich mentions thier manpower advantage; this would not have been affected by the capture of Moscow. Most of the russian heavy industry was already out of range in the Urals- the government could have moved as well.

Martin, along the same lines as the german FlaK troops- would not the absence of the bombing offensive also have freed up significant allied resources? There would have been more fighter pilots theoretically, or at least there would have been a significant amount of extra resources and manpower available to the allies as well as the germans...

 

Well, read the Moscow thread (there are several...) and we can discuss it there. Let's not hi-jack this thread, right?

The fall of Moscow to Von Bock in 1941, with all the men power and resources used if the Western front would have been absolutely quiet would have meant a tremendous hit for the Soviets. The strategic level of the German positions would have been absolutely excellent. In 1942, there could be launched an aerial offensive against the Urals and other kind of offensives, perhaps not very decisive, but they would have been able to stop ANY Soviet counter attack and the entire Western Soviet Union could have been ocupied and swept easily. The remains of Russia would have had to ask for peace. Forget then about the man power and the industry in the Urals, the Soviets lost the strategic advantages. And as I have said: strategy and only strategy wins wars.