lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004 
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 18:04:36 GMT
The limited supply of nukes would have probably stayed in the Pacific. With no Western front in Europe the Luftwaffe probably would have been able to put up a pretty good defense against the bombers. I don't think that an untested weapon in a lone aircraft would have been sent in against a credible defense, nor would it have been used as part of a mass raid given the risk of friendly casualties. Would the US have been willing to use nukes in 1946 to push the Russians back maybe? If there was a western army on the continent would the US and UK have been willing to arm this pool of POW's to fight the Russians. I don't think the US home front would be willing to support this war Not sure of this. If Germany still controls most of western and central Europe at that point its going to have to be the primary target. They might go for coastal targets such as Hamburg to make it easier or try and sneak a nuclear attack through among others raids, albeit quite possibly being the only a/c to be directed at that target. The allies were willing to accept heavy losses during their strategic bombing campaigns so the chance of a case of fratricide among the attackers would be tolerated as long as it wasn't too large. In terms of the Soviets controlling more of Europe after the defeat of the Nazis it would depend on the circumstances but unless Stalin did something a lot more stupid than OTL I suspect the US wouldn't go for that and I fear it would seek to cut Britain out of nuclear capability as OTL so there could be a danger of the Soviets gaining control of most of continental Europe.
Any British World War II bomber that can carry a nuke ore do the British need to rent some B-29s (RAF designation in OTL was Washington B.1). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Feb 7, 2020 18:11:21 GMT
The limited supply of nukes would have probably stayed in the Pacific. With no Western front in Europe the Luftwaffe probably would have been able to put up a pretty good defense against the bombers. I don't think that an untested weapon in a lone aircraft would have been sent in against a credible defense, nor would it have been used as part of a mass raid given the risk of friendly casualties. Would the US have been willing to use nukes in 1946 to push the Russians back maybe? If there was a western army on the continent would the US and UK have been willing to arm this pool of POW's to fight the Russians. I don't think the US home front would be willing to support this war Was there a German fighter would could get to a B-29 ore even a B-36 operating from North Africa ore the United Kingdom.
According to a quick look at Wiki for it, see B-29 for details, its operating ceiling was about 38,000 ft (12,000 m) so I think that German a/c would be able to reach that height, albeit possibly not in time. IIRC we had a brief discussion about the heights during the Battle of Britain a few months back and the German fighters at this time were already capable of that sort of altitude. Hence I suspect an attack at night would probably be the best option, albeit the USAAF preferred day time raids. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 18:17:46 GMT
Was there a German fighter would could get to a B-29 ore even a B-36 operating from North Africa ore the United Kingdom. According to a quick look at Wiki for it, see B-29 for details, its operating ceiling was about 38,000 ft (12,000 m) so I think that German a/c would be able to reach that height, albeit possibly not in time. IIRC we had a brief discussion about the heights during the Battle of Britain a few months back and the German fighters at this time were already capable of that sort of altitude. Hence I suspect an attack at night would probably be the best option, albeit the USAAF preferred day time raids. Well the USAAF dropping a nuke in the day time on a German target is something else than dropping it on a target in Japan i would guess, especially if it is a flight of only 3 high flying bombers who will stand out very much. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Feb 7, 2020 18:51:46 GMT
Not sure of this. If Germany still controls most of western and central Europe at that point its going to have to be the primary target. They might go for coastal targets such as Hamburg to make it easier or try and sneak a nuclear attack through among others raids, albeit quite possibly being the only a/c to be directed at that target. The allies were willing to accept heavy losses during their strategic bombing campaigns so the chance of a case of fratricide among the attackers would be tolerated as long as it wasn't too large. In terms of the Soviets controlling more of Europe after the defeat of the Nazis it would depend on the circumstances but unless Stalin did something a lot more stupid than OTL I suspect the US wouldn't go for that and I fear it would seek to cut Britain out of nuclear capability as OTL so there could be a danger of the Soviets gaining control of most of continental Europe.
Any British World War II bomber that can carry a nuke ore do the British need to rent some B-29s (RAF designation in OTL was Washington B.1).
Sorry missed this as writing my previous post!
I have read that the Lancaster can carry a Fat-Man or Little Boy warhead although it wouldn't be able to do the sharp turn away that the B-29 could do when dropping the bombs on Japan so it might be a suicide mission. Although it could be that something could be developed if there was enough warning. I do remember reading in another TL on AH a few years back that there was a Barnes-Wallis design that was planned for dropping the very large Tall-Boy and Grand-Slam bombs from very high heights so something like this developed earlier could possibly be effective.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 19:01:23 GMT
Any British World War II bomber that can carry a nuke ore do the British need to rent some B-29s (RAF designation in OTL was Washington B.1). Sorry missed this as writing my previous post! I have read that the Lancaster can carry a Fat-Man or Little Boy warhead although it wouldn't be able to do the sharp turn away that the B-29 could do when dropping the bombs on Japan so it might be a suicide mission. Although it could be that something could be developed if there was enough warning. I do remember reading in another TL on AH a few years back that there was a Barnes-Wallis design that was planned for dropping the very large Tall-Boy and Grand-Slam bombs from very high heights so something like this developed earlier could possibly be effective.
Would that be something like this beast: Sir Arthur Harris (1947)- When the success [of the Tallboy bomb] was proved, Wallis designed a yet more powerful weapon… This 22,000 lb bomb did not reach us before the spring of 1945, when we used it with great effect against viaducts or railways leading to the Ruhr and also against several U-boat shelters. If it had been necessary, it would have been used against underground factories, and preparations for attacking some of these were well advanced when the war ended.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Feb 7, 2020 20:09:07 GMT
Sorry missed this as writing my previous post! I have read that the Lancaster can carry a Fat-Man or Little Boy warhead although it wouldn't be able to do the sharp turn away that the B-29 could do when dropping the bombs on Japan so it might be a suicide mission. Although it could be that something could be developed if there was enough warning. I do remember reading in another TL on AH a few years back that there was a Barnes-Wallis design that was planned for dropping the very large Tall-Boy and Grand-Slam bombs from very high heights so something like this developed earlier could possibly be effective.
Would that be something like this beast: Sir Arthur Harris (1947)- When the success [of the Tallboy bomb] was proved, Wallis designed a yet more powerful weapon… This 22,000 lb bomb did not reach us before the spring of 1945, when we used it with great effect against viaducts or railways leading to the Ruhr and also against several U-boat shelters. If it had been necessary, it would have been used against underground factories, and preparations for attacking some of these were well advanced when the war ended.
From the description that sounds like the Grand Slam bomb. What we're talking about is an a/c to carry them at a markedly higher level which might have also been suitable for carrying an early nuke.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 7, 2020 20:15:22 GMT
Would that be something like this beast: Sir Arthur Harris (1947)- When the success [of the Tallboy bomb] was proved, Wallis designed a yet more powerful weapon… This 22,000 lb bomb did not reach us before the spring of 1945, when we used it with great effect against viaducts or railways leading to the Ruhr and also against several U-boat shelters. If it had been necessary, it would have been used against underground factories, and preparations for attacking some of these were well advanced when the war ended.
From the description that sounds like the Grand Slam bomb. What we're talking about is an a/c to carry them at a markedly higher level which might have also been suitable for carrying an early nuke.
Seems you are right stevep, as always. But back to Africa 1944, could Italy have some better tanks by 1944, they still would be outmatched by British ore american designs but in 1944 the Italians would be fielding the P40 and the P43. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 8, 2020 5:01:19 GMT
Both sides would have had better equipment. I think the question would be how would the Germans hang on that long in North Africa without taking Gibraltar and Malta.
Mark
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 8, 2020 8:00:22 GMT
Both sides would have had better equipment. I think the question would be how would the Germans hang on that long in North Africa without taking Gibraltar and Malta. Mark Malta would be pounded by dust now if the Germans where still in Africa. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Feb 8, 2020 11:09:49 GMT
From the description that sounds like the Grand Slam bomb. What we're talking about is an a/c to carry them at a markedly higher level which might have also been suitable for carrying an early nuke.
Seems you are right stevep , as always. But back to Africa 1944, could Italy have some better tanks by 1944, they still would be outmatched by British ore american designs but in 1944 the Italians would be fielding the P40 and the P43.
Not always but I try. 
The Italians would have better tanks, although I'm not sure of their technology and industrial base or their commitment and motivation if they look secure. Likely to be outclassed by the larger British and US bases especially if the activation of Spain means Britain has been taking a basically defensive role at El Alemein as that probably means more time to get some of the bugs out of British tanks than OTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Feb 8, 2020 11:14:13 GMT
Both sides would have had better equipment. I think the question would be how would the Germans hang on that long in North Africa without taking Gibraltar and Malta. Mark Malta would be pounded by dust now if the Germans where still in Africa.
Would agree. If Spain joins the Axis in 1940 then Gibraltar falls. No way it can hold for 4 years. With it gone its very likely that Malta has also fallen. The nearest allied base is likely to be the Canaries, which Britain had plans to seize if Spain joined the conflict.
The key issue might be the status of Vichy France. Would they still be basically neutral or pressurised into the Axis as well and if still neutral would the allies seek landings in Morocco as the basis of opening up a 2nd front in N Africa, which would be easier for the US to use and possibly a base for a later invasion of Spain.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 8, 2020 11:17:50 GMT
Seems you are right stevep , as always. But back to Africa 1944, could Italy have some better tanks by 1944, they still would be outmatched by British ore american designs but in 1944 the Italians would be fielding the P40 and the P43. Not always but I try. The Italians would have better tanks, although I'm not sure of their technology and industrial base or their commitment and motivation if they look secure. Likely to be outclassed by the larger British and US bases especially if the activation of Spain means Britain has been taking a basically defensive role at El Alemein as that probably means more time to get some of the bugs out of British tanks than OTL.
So what would be the main British tank the German and Italians would face in 1944 Africa, i assume large numbers of Sherman tanks and Sherman Firefly's among others. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Feb 8, 2020 11:33:30 GMT
Not always but I try. The Italians would have better tanks, although I'm not sure of their technology and industrial base or their commitment and motivation if they look secure. Likely to be outclassed by the larger British and US bases especially if the activation of Spain means Britain has been taking a basically defensive role at El Alemein as that probably means more time to get some of the bugs out of British tanks than OTL.
So what would be the main British tank the German and Italians would face in 1944 Africa, i assume large numbers of Sherman tanks and Sherman Firefly's among others.
It would depend on the circumstances. With more time to develop tanks but less actual battle experience Britain is likely to have more of its own tanks but their performance, especially since you wouldn't have had the same level of battle experience gained could be considerably different from OTL, for better or worse.
|
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 8, 2020 19:40:27 GMT
I would suspect that given time you may have Churchill fireflies. Along with a lot of Sherman's. The British did like armored cars so some heavy armored cars would also be possible. If the war in Africa lasts until 1944 there would probably be so many mines laid at El Alamien that neither side would be able to pass without a large number of specialized mine clearance tanks. The British would have the advantage here with Hobarts funnies.
|
|
