-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The German leadership had many crazy plans that never came to fruition, mainly because they were so crazy/ unfeasible.
Interesting statement, but how can you say they were unfeasible? As regards specifically the Amerika bomber, are we not seeing the concept realized with the B-52? It has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers). In fact, Nazi Germany's technological advances, concept designs, and prototypes (once gotten after the war) were used to develop it. American design work started in June 1946. How coincidental, or not at all a coincidence?
The B-52 developed directly from the B-47 which first flew December 1947. And in a history written by the victors, even Wikipedia today touches on giving some true credit when it states (regarding the B-47) "To shorten the landing roll, Air Force test pilot Major Guy Townsend promoted the addition of a 32 ft German-invented ribbon drag chute." Now doesn't that just admit a lot? Why had the Germans needed to invent a ribbon drag chute? Because they flew something remarkably similar to the B-47 as regards concept goals; and did so before WW2 even ended.
I think there were far different reasons why Nazi Germany's plans did not reach fruition - but none of them even touch on "crazy".
Monster tanks were certainly crazy given the RL situation. But MJF had posted about the Amerika bomber - which was not crazy.
The sobering fact is that - had the Battle of Britain gone completely different with a decisive German victory - a Dirty Bomb dropped on London would have been the testing ground for a miniaturized nuclear bomb dropped on New York in 1946, or perhaps a year or two later. The Amerika bomber was indeed just as sensible as the V2 rockets - which would also have obtained technological advancement to ICBM status.
Of course not in a Germany that had its industrial base pounded to smithereens using such strategic bombing techniques as Tallboy "Bunker Busters" and "Dam Buster Bombs" to take out the Ruhr Valley electrical power grid. Take away the strategic bombing technique in a scenario of a winning Luftwaffe; and the Amerika bomber would have been built in large enough numbers. What you say about the Amerika bomber you could just as easily say about the Me-262, the world's first jet fighter that did not change the war because it was built in the difficulties of a rapidly declining industrial base due to the Allied strategic bombing campaign.
Well, your "assumption" you have already validated by your previous statement indicating that the Amerika bomber "could not have been produced in large enough numbers". You need only to relook to the cause (Allied strategic bombing) to see the incorrectness of your PoV that the Amerika bomber would not have made a dent.
The sobering fact is that - had the Battle of Britain gone completely different with a decisive German victory - a Dirty Bomb dropped on London would have been the testing ground for a miniaturized nuclear bomb dropped on New York in 1946, or perhaps a year or two later. The Amerika bomber was indeed just as sensible as the V2 rockets - which would also have obtained technological advancement to ICBM status.
Commander666
In the game possibly but even without the allied strategic bombing campaign, which was probably more important for its indirect effects - i.e. forcing some dispersal of production and allowing the Luftwaffe to be chewed up by long ranged fighter escorting the bombers, the Amerika bomber was never a practical proposition for Germany. Even if some sort of nuclear device had been practical for them and they didn't have the resources, as well as the wrong turnings they too, it would have be dubious. Conventional bombing at that sort of range across the Atlantic against a well equipped air defence would have made the sort of losses the allied bombers suffer in RL look trivial. Simply the fact that any a/c damaged or suffering mechanical problems would be highly unlikely to make it back to Europe would have made it a huge resource sink.
Plus such a massive project would mean a hell of a lot of other stuff wouldn't have been developed. Even the B-29's the US developed by 45 were a huge drain on their resources including in manpower to develop, produce and maintain them. Something far more ambitious such as the Amerika bomber would have been well beyond the German capacity unless they pretty much totally cut out say all armoured production and a few other things.
Ditto with the Me 262. Apart from other problems the Germans lacked access to special metals that meant their engines were often very short lived and never as reliable as the British jets. Also the a/c itself was extremely dangerous to the pilots and the small numbers and vulnerability to counter-measures meant it was fairly easily suppressed by the allies. The limited access to fuel and short term stance of the Nazis in general meant they could never really match either western or Soviet airforces in massed numbers once those fully mobilised for war.
There were a lot of technological ideas in Nazi Germany but many were never anywhere near development simply because of the huge resources that it would take for developing them. Even if Germany had somehow conquered Britain and much of the Soviet empire this might well have had limited effect because of the inefficiency of the Nazi regime. A few ideas were taken up by the allies and Soviets but there's a world of difference between a good idea and getting it from a sketch on a napkin to an actual produce in general production.
Steve
In the game possibly but even without the allied strategic bombing campaign, which was probably more important for its indirect effects - i.e. forcing some dispersal of production and allowing the Luftwaffe to be chewed up by long ranged fighter escorting the bombers, the Amerika bomber was never a practical proposition for Germany. Even if some sort of nuclear device had been practical for them and they didn't have the resources, as well as the wrong turnings they too, it would have be dubious. Conventional bombing at that sort of range across the Atlantic against a well equipped air defence would have made the sort of losses the allied bombers suffer in RL look trivial. Simply the fact that any a/c damaged or suffering mechanical problems would be highly unlikely to make it back to Europe would have made it a huge resource sink.
Plus such a massive project would mean a hell of a lot of other stuff wouldn't have been developed. Even the B-29's the US developed by 45 were a huge drain on their resources including in manpower to develop, produce and maintain them. Something far more ambitious such as the Amerika bomber would have been well beyond the German capacity unless they pretty much totally cut out say all armoured production and a few other things.
Ditto with the Me 262. Apart from other problems the Germans lacked access to special metals that meant their engines were often very short lived and never as reliable as the British jets. Also the a/c itself was extremely dangerous to the pilots and the small numbers and vulnerability to counter-measures meant it was fairly easily suppressed by the allies. The limited access to fuel and short term stance of the Nazis in general meant they could never really match either western or Soviet airforces in massed numbers once those fully mobilised for war.
There were a lot of technological ideas in Nazi Germany but many were never anywhere near development simply because of the huge resources that it would take for developing them. Even if Germany had somehow conquered Britain and much of the Soviet empire this might well have had limited effect because of the inefficiency of the Nazi regime. A few ideas were taken up by the allies and Soviets but there's a world of difference between a good idea and getting it from a sketch on a napkin to an actual produce in general production.
Steve
On nearly every point you have given the wrong reason regarding the debate that the Amerika bomber could not have become a viable concept.
Precisely where you and Mr_BOnarpte lose your debate. As RL never gave that chance, you fail to compensate your predictions for what would have occurred if the strategic bombardment of Germany is stopped.
In all of your long and I am sure very considered post - this is where you quite by accident hit the only truly valid reason why the Amerika bomber concept might have failed. Your point - applied to the ME-262 - is very true... and would have been a very serious short coming for trying to fly any aircraft trans-Atlantic. Lack of enough of the rare materials needed to fit the endurance requirements of the Amerika bomber concept might have caused concept failure because enough bombers may never be built.
All in all, I think your debate points fail (except one).
No, we are discussing RL possibility here. In rea life - if the Battle of Britain had been won and so resulted in the end of strategic bombing of Germany, German industry and all would have managed far more than it actually managed. I trust this is not any stretch of the imagination. The point is that the successful Allied strategic bombing is the reason the Amerika project was not realized... and not the technical reasons you offer.
Precisely where you and Mr_BOnarpte lose your debate. As RL never gave that chance, you fail to compensate your predictions for what would have occurred if the strategic bombardment of Germany is stopped.
Maybe you should ask Curtis LeMay or "Bomber Harris" for their opinion?
Some dispersal? How about most of the final industry burrowing into tunnels to be able to continue any production.?
This is irrelevant to the fact that such would not even have occurred had the strategic bombing been stopped. The final demise of the Luftwaffe is not at all an argument in your favor that the America bomber was a failed technological concept.
Yes it was practical when design work was started in early 1942 and the renewed Barbarossa spring offensive indicated that the war on the east would be won. It only became an impractical proposition once the Allied strategic bombing of Germany intensified enough.
Using the word "practical" again here hardly fits. Perhaps you would like to try instead "possible" or "not possible" because what is really practical is very dependent on the success of the Allied strategic bombing campaign. A thousand more Messerschmitt's would have been infinitely more "practical" than any effort spent on a future nuclear bomb, but there is no doubt that Germany would have invented the A-bomb if time had allowed it. If the strategic bombing campaign had not crippled Germany so massively, Germany could also have mustered the equivalent of a Manhattan Project investment. Of course, things like losing the heavy water to the bottom of a very deep lake did indeed present "wrong turnings"... if that is what you mean by that phrase.
Oh very true. Nobody seriously thought that one would fly some 500 pound bombs across the Atlantic to annoy the Yanks. Germany already had a much better weapon working that was equivalent to one bomb but could sink a whole ship. Of course the Amerika bomber concept was part of the "Wonder Weapons" package that included a whole new class of bomb.
Not true. Again you don't conceptualize that there would have been much greater production with the strategic bombing stopped. Of course, the project was too massive given the actual reality that was later-war era Germany... and it is astounding that the project even got as far as it did. But that is not the point of the debate. Mr_BOnarpte's use of "feasible" is the debate. Obviously it was not feasible given the RL rubble of Germany. But, as I said, change fortunes to stop the strategic bombing of Germany and you should be able to see a most already advanced concept of the Amerika bomber succeeding.
But then nobody was bombing the US factories. Your comparison is not valid. Germany had the industrial base (before it was crippled) to build Amerika bombers. In fact they did build some.
That is just not right. Nobody cuts out all panzer production to build aircraft. You think saving on armor and tank treads somehow morphs into more aluminum for aircraft skins?
Well, with the length of the many points already disputed, let's j not side track to other examples.
In all of your long and I am sure very considered post - this is where you quite by accident hit the only truly valid reason why the Amerika bomber concept might have failed. Your point - applied to the ME-262 - is very true... and would have been a very serious short coming for trying to fly any aircraft trans-Atlantic. Lack of enough of the rare materials needed to fit the endurance requirements of the Amerika bomber concept might have caused concept failure because enough bombers may never be built.
Not true if applied to the America bomber. There already were flying prototypes and just like the USA B-47 program evolved into intercontinental B-52s, Germany was headed down a similar road. Maybe the problem is with your use of "anywhere near development" because, as stated, they were indeed being developed.
Come on now - winning 2 wars and the only remaining front being with U-boats results in "limited effect". I think I will skip even addressing the 2nd bit.
I find this somewhat insulting to the German research program. Maybe you are overly influenced by the "tech sketches" you see in AoD? If you check your history, you should learn that the good ideas (turbo jet engine, swept wing design, ballistic missile and more )all were developed by Germany... and taken by the Allies to help them advance. Germany did not have sketches as you imply but jet fighters flying, missiles falling on England by the hundreds, and - actually - America bomber porotypes that were being tested (flying in the air) to help further the research for the design concept that was envisioned with that project.
All in all, I think your debate points fail (except one).
Last edited:
In 1939 Germany had the largest supply of aluminium worldwide. Arguably aluminium would not be the limiting factor. Oil an thus fuel was the one resource Germany was severely short on. Next after oil comes manpower. The rest comes after that.
I remember debating the Battle of Britain with you before Commander. It's better suited for the historical forum. Really, this entire thread is better suited for that.
I didn't know that but makes sense. And Germany was short on oil... especially once we get to the strategic bombing destroying the Romanian oil fields. Again, it is the Allied bombing that causes the problems, and not some supposed "crazy concept".
Commander666
You vastly over-estimate the effectiveness of the strategic bombing campaign. There was a view that it was very important in the immediate aftermath of WWII. In part because of the degree of destruction, which was mostly achieved after mid-44 as the German defence system collapsed, the interests of the bomber commander to promote the importance of their forces and in some cases German officials to talk up the damage for various reasons.
Similarly you vastly underestimate the inefficiencies of the Nazi economic system even assuming they assume the virtual impossible of conquering either Britain or the bulk of the European USSR.
However I think its best we agree to differ rather than spend a long time arguing our views on a site for discussing a game.
Steve
You vastly over-estimate the effectiveness of the strategic bombing campaign. There was a view that it was very important in the immediate aftermath of WWII. In part because of the degree of destruction, which was mostly achieved after mid-44 as the German defence system collapsed, the interests of the bomber commander to promote the importance of their forces and in some cases German officials to talk up the damage for various reasons.
Similarly you vastly underestimate the inefficiencies of the Nazi economic system even assuming they assume the virtual impossible of conquering either Britain or the bulk of the European USSR.
However I think its best we agree to differ rather than spend a long time arguing our views on a site for discussing a game.
Steve
If you don't want to spend "a long time arguing" (especially if you think here is not for discussing the Amerika bomber post made earlier) then why are you posting to tell me that I "vastly over-estimate". I point out to you that all of my posts to you have been in response to what you posted about quoting me. You quoted me at #7, and I replied. And now I am replying to your address of me just above.
In reply to your above, I would say you underestimate what the strategic bombing of Germany accomplished - especially as regards Germany having to cancel specific projects. But if you wish to agree to disagree, go ahead. The ball is in your court. You don't have to kick it back, unless you wish to debate this further, which is also fine with me.