How the Soviets Really Won WWII :)

[KrazyHorse]

Drake

With the UK in Axis hands, assuming it underwent the same GDP contraction that France did after its capture (~40%) the ratio of US to Axis GDP would only have been 4:3

[David Floyd]

If we are going by Wiki, the B-29 has a maximum altitude of 40,000 feet. Now, I readily accept that other sources rate the maximum altitude of the B-29 at around 32,000 feet. Those sources are more accurate. My initial assumption was incorrect - I readily admit that the B-29 was intercept-able by a limited number of German fighters produced during the war. That's fine, because even assuming 32,000 feet, the vast majority of German interceptors can't reliably get there, and when the B-36 is introduced, none of them can reliably get there.

So yes, I will back off my initial statement that B-29s could have ended the war. I still think it's possible, given luck, but much more probably the Germans could have defeated it. I still don't see a way for them to defeat the B-36, though.

[Drake Tungsten]

With the UK in Axis hands, assuming it underwent the same GDP contraction that France did after its capture (~40%) the ratio of US to Axis GDP would only have been 4:3

The Germans aren't going to be able to make full use of even the reduced industrial capacity of the UK for quite a while; the US would have an industrial edge for a few years. Besides, Canada would most likely cooperate with the Americans, making the US unbeatable.

[chequita guevara]

Maximum ceiling and service ceiling are two different numbers. Kinda like the numbers listed on commercials for mpg for new cars and what you get in the real world.

Also, the Germans were working on a couple surface to air missile systems. Those might have been working by the time the B-36 is on the scene.

[chequita guevara]

With the UK in Axis hands, assuming it underwent the same GDP contraction that France did after its capture (~40%) the ratio of US to Axis GDP would only have been 4:3

My initial assumption was not an occupied Britain, merely a defeated one. Had Hitler not held back at Dunkirk and hadn't treated the DAK as a bastard child, the British might have been forced to sue for peace.

[KrazyHorse]

With the UK in Axis hands, assuming it underwent the same GDP contraction that France did after its capture (~40%) the ratio of US to Axis GDP would only have been 4:3

The Germans aren't going to be able to make full use of even the reduced industrial capacity of the UK for quite a while

Why not? Industrial production in France was certainly used.

[David Floyd]

che, German SAM systems were simply not reliable, at least not to any degree we can measure from history. Now, you can try to extrapolate out performance, but it's impossible to know, and in my opinion, highly doubtful anyway. German V2 rockets weren't even all that accurate, so how can you assume a SAM system in the same time frame capable of countering bombers flying at 40,000+ feet?

As for a defeated but unoccupied Great Britain, how would this add to Germany's combat power?

[KrazyHorse]

My initial assumption was not an occupied Britain, merely a defeated one. Had Hitler not held back at Dunkirk and hadn't treated the DAK as a bastard child, the British might have been forced to sue for peace.

Why are you trying to make it easy for the US? The UK would have torn up any ceasefire the day the US joined the war.

[Drake Tungsten]

Industrial production in France was certainly used.

How long did it take to adapt the factories for German use? I really don't know.

[chequita guevara]

As for a defeated but unoccupied Great Britain, how would this add to Germany's combat power?

It's not about adding to Germany's combat power. Kuci made the statement that the Allies could not have won the war without Great Britain, the USSR, or the USA. I countered that basically, the USSR and USA could have defeated the Nazis without Britain's help.

Yes, KH, the Brits could have resumed the war later, but with the Suez occupied and their army smashed Dunkirk, I'm not considering it likely for them to resume the war quickly.

[KrazyHorse]

Industrial production in France was certainly used.

How long did it take to adapt the factories for German use? I really don't know.

Don't know. I have heard anecdotal evidence of its use. This is a complex question, by the way. But you have to remember that factories, machines and weapons of the day were far less complex than they are today.

[Drake Tungsten]

I have heard anecdotal evidence of its use.

I'm sure the UK's industrial capacity would be used eventually. I'm just trying to factor in the time it would take the Germans to change over UK factories to produce German weapon systems.

But you have to remember that factories, machines and weapons of the day were far less complex than they are today.

Still, you can't just waltz into a Rolls Royce factory and start making engines for a Me-109.

[chequita guevara]

Industrial production in France was certainly used.

How long did it take to adapt the factories for German use? I really don't know.

I doubt they had to adapt them. The Germans were pretty happy to take whatever they had. Czech tanks made up a huge portion of the German military in the early years (with Marders and Hetzers being used all through the war), and French Hotchkiss tanks and variants were commonly used.

[chequita guevara]

Still, you can't just waltz into a Rolls Royce factory and start making engines for a Me-109.

Why not? They're probably already making engines for fighters. If not for fighters, then for armor.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, KH, the Brits could have resumed the war later, but with the Suez occupied and their army smashed Dunkirk, I'm not considering it likely for them to resume the war quickly.

Why not? The ships and troops arriving from the US (and their own rebuilding) would protect the UK from invasion. Even the COMPLETE loss of the BEF at Dunkirk would not have stopped the UK from raising a good-sized new army within a year or two