Customer Discussions > History forum

Interesting what if. WWII, repercussions of a Soviet collapse during the war.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 535 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jun 25, 2012 8:59:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2012 9:54:12 AM PDT
DarthRad says:
Igs',

You are talking about the "Nuclear Winter" scenario raised by Carl Sagan and others back in the 1982 TTAPS study, before the Soviet Union fell, before World Peace briefly seemed to be at hand (and before he started playing for the Lakers), and Global Warming suddenly became the new popular Coming Apocalypse Scenario.

The Nuclear Winter was a very real and well thought out possibility, and I have often thought that it would be one way to solve the seemingly intractable problem of Global Warming.

Human civilization would definitely take a step backwards, but probably not all the way back to the Stone Age. Probably back to mid-1800's to early 1900's technology. Simple machinery, hand-made tools and forgings, and simple electronics would all be fairly robust and capable of being produced shortly after a nuclear holocaust. Those countries in Africa and South America not directly destroyed by the nuclear blasts would retain a considerably higher level of technological infrastructure, and would most likely lead the way in the recovery of human civilization. Radiation would be a big problem, for sure, but, just like at Chernobyl, radiation levels thought to be unhealthy and unsafe for human life would surprisingly still allow large numbers of human beings to survive, at risk for cancer certainly, but beating the odds long enough to reproduce and thrive.

Mass starvation among the survivors in the attacked countries would be the biggest problem, as city folks used to chowing down at their fast food feeding place of choice would have their food supplies disrupted for a long time. However, given the world-wide obesity epidemic (a growing problem in Russia as well as some parts of Europe) the end results might not be what you imagine either. A nuclear war could also be a cure for the world-wide obesity epidemic. Let's see, a 300-lb man who should weigh 150 lbs. would have150lbs of stored fat to live off of. At a basal metabolic rate of 2000-2500 calories a day (fat gives you 9 calories/gm), he would lose 222-277 grams a day which is 0.49 - 0.61 lbs a day, so he could go for 240-340 days WITHOUT ANY FOOD, and end up at his ideal body weight. That's 8 months to a year in which to learn how to plant his own food and learn how to forage. So think of fat people as human versions of hibernating bears, storing up fat for the nuclear winter to come.

The more underdeveloped societies, still based on self-sufficient farming and hunting/gathering, would have a definite advantage in surviving a nuclear holocaust. The SHTF survivalists in this country would also have an advantage.

In terms of radiation risk, one has to distinguish between the very strict guidelines of radiation safety, which strives to prevent any increases in risk of cancer or other genetic problems, to that of wildlife survival capabilities in a highly radioactive environment. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that animals can live and thrive in very radioactive areas considered to be too dangerous for humans. As long as the background radiation levels are below that necessary to cause acute radiation sickness, it is clear that animals, and thus humans, can survive and reproduce in these highly radioactive areas. Whether you get increased rates of stillbirths/birth defects, and cancer are just statistics in such wildlife recovery situations. Enough survivors remain healthy to reproduce in spite of the background radiation, which is all that you need to get a thriving community started again.

Bikini Atoll would be a better area for comparison since you don't think Chernobyl is a fair comparison. Despite high levels of radioactive cesium and strontium everywhere, the coral and sea and land wildlife have recovered and are thriving. The islanders were even re-settled onto the island briefly, in 1968, before they were removed again in 1978 because of the buildup of radioactive strontium in their bodies. If you don't consume any locally grown food or fish on the islands, the radiation levels have dropped to the point where Bikini Atoll is safe to visit (and scuba dive).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 10:18:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2012 10:37:42 AM PDT
IGS says:
Darth

Nuclear winter has got nothing what ever to do with it. At worst that kind of stuff subsides. I am talking about a generous sprinkling of Cobalt-60, Zinc-65, ... the strontium family.. Just look at what that miniscule amount of testing in the '50's did. Every kid on the planet had heightened levels of strontium in their skeletal structure (e.g., just look at the baby teeth). Now increase it a million fold and we begin to get in the range of what we are talking about.

Carl Sagan, nuclear winter, pfffft. Who cares, if such a thing ever came to pass, that would be the least of your problems. Simple tools. ... yeah, like a hammer. Anything with highly conductive or electrical systems gone.

I think I see our disconnect. You keep bringing up Chernobyl as if it was somehow relevant. That is nothing, and I mean nothing, like a nuclear weapons blast. Either in volume of material used, blast distribution (none), isotopes created (the real killer), sustained exposure of a completely different family of radio-isotopes, reactor meltdowns are trivial, even in the event of a total core and containment vessel melt down, zilch. Chernobyl and its are about as similar to a nuclear weapon blast as Nemo the aquarium fish is to an entire ocean packed full of full grown and hungry Great White Sharks. I would ask that you spend a semester sitting through a nuclear chemistry class, a nuclear physics class, or certain types of biochemistry classes, I am told that some med schools (I think Hopkins has one) have classes on radiation medicine (aside from the standard nuclear medicine classes). I realize, you'd be at a huge disadvantage in the comprehension level. But you'd get enough of the gist. But, nuclear winter ;-), that ain't your problem. A much bigger problem would be, how do I get all that strontium-90 out of my bones before leukemia sets in, oh wait, I can't. There are worse things. There are both short half life, long half-life, water soluble, fat soluble, bone depositing, and other isotopes. Take your pick, it all going to be there in mass quantities. By comparison, Chernobyl is so slight an event as to have not occurred by comparison. For that matter, neither is Hiroshima, which by comparison was a pretty clean bomb. This is not alarmist, this is what is. Like I said, 99.9% of people, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It is not within the scope of ordinarily human understanding. If it ever looked real, the arguing would last for sometime, all of those decommissioned weapons would be reactivated, after all, in human terms, they last forever. And then, a massive nuclear exchange of over 10,000 weapons of all varieties.

Hibernating bears, that's a good one. Like I said, there are many isotopes that preferentially bond to triglycerides. Which will be easily transferred into babies via breast milk. Starvation is not your major killer. Radiation and blast damage will be. Besides, the majority of people on the planet are not fat, many are close to ideal body mass or less. Their ain't many of us that weigh 300lbs or carry 150 lbs of body fat. Most are like me, 6'4 185. So in your situation, I'm going to starve. The 300 lb guy, he's going to be buried in his collapsed house, too weak to climb out or too big to be pulled out by those who care. Although, the bright ones might shoot him, dress him out, and freeze his meat ... oh, but no refrigerators will be working. All the wiring burned out. No way to replace the coolant. But it won't matter, because all the power generation facilities will be gone, with no way to repair them.

This conversation is getting to morbid. But in truth, I have forgotten most of what I knew. But what I still retain gives me a far less optimistic view than yours. Body fat, that is a good one. People with your attitude will be needed.

"Human civilization would definitely take a step backwards"

This is the biggest understatement I have ever heard on this board. Rather like falling over the edge of the Grand Canyon is like tripping over a little rock.

"Simple machinery, hand-made tools and forgings" Radioactive, but many will probably survive. I am rather sure I do not know how to use an anvil.

"simple electronics would all be fairly robust and capable of being produced shortly after a nuclear holocaust. "

Like what? And what would power it in any event. Even gallium arsenide circuitry in Faraday cages is unlikely to survive. You know what a wire is? I great big EMP antenna. Besides, what difference would it make. Nothing to power it and even fewer that know how to fix it.

Cave men no. 1600's possibly. It depends on how many books survive. I am pretty sure I could make a telescope. I'd have a pretty rough time making gunpowder out of raw ingredients. Antibiotics? Medicine(s)? Inocculation? Automobiles? Gasoline? Finding them would be the rub. But after I am gone, that knowledge goes with me. Do you know how to make a gun barrel? I sure ain't going into a radioactive city to find one.

It would be a very long time back to our feet. Maybe I just picked up to much information from well educated professors that were not nearly as optimistic as you are.

Bikini had very little land mass to throw in the air, had massive water remediation and heat buffering (you do or don't know what the heat capacity of water is?). They are not representative and are nothing like 15,000+ Mt of contemporaneous nuclear detonation. Remember that world wide strontium I mentioned earlier? That was with those relative fly specks at Bikini. Imagine 1000+ boosted Ivy Mikes or Castle Bravos going off at the same time over every major metropolitan region of the world? Neither Castle or Ivy were enhanced. Funny thing is, they are still cleaning up those atolls ... 50 years later. And even that is not comparable. Those weapons were not boosted, they weren't cased, they weren't enhanced. They were simple fission-fusion thermonuclear weapons. It is like looking at the nose hairs of an elephant. You don't know very much about the rest of the animal. All you really know is that it may be big and it may be be a mammal.

Worse yet. Many of the weapons may be far different than their actual design behaviors. Because they have been only computer modeled, which wouldn't be such a big deal except that they use new material in new combinations. Castle proved how far off you could be.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 10:34:13 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
Igs: You did notice that your link is to a work that dates back to 1984 ? I'm looking at sources that are far more recent than that.

In terms of strategic weapons, there's the W-87 warhead, which used to be on the Peacekeeper, and now equips the remaining Minuteman 3s, it has a yield of 300 KT, scalable up to 475 KT. The W-88 equips the Trident 2 Mk 5 missiles, with a yield of 475 KT. The current high yield bomb is the B-83, with a yield of low KT to 1.2 MT.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

With all of the very major treaty reductions in nuclear weapons since 1984, most of the megaton weapons have been discarded.

Posted on Jun 25, 2012 10:42:32 AM PDT
IGS says:
Andre

I said it was an interesting work. Nothing more. The post stands as perfectly valid. Discarded? Don't you bet on it. You also might want to reflect on what "discarded" means. I'll bet they could be "undiscarded" within days. Also, why do you think they were discarded? you know what a MIRV is right?

I gotta go earn some money.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 10:58:22 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
Igs: OK. It is interesting as a historical document. The point is, though, that many of the weapons in stock then have been retired. Which is quite reasonable, as most of the ships and aircraft of 1984 are also gone now.

And, have you ever seen the huge guillotine that chops up discarded large aircraft to comply with the treaties ? Or, the way that nuclear subs, including the old boomers, are taken apart under the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program ?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 11:01:43 AM PDT
IGS says:
Andre

Nuclear material never goes away.

One navy geek to another, what is the best book you ever read on Naval Warfare?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 11:14:47 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
Igs:'Nuclear material never goes away.'

-Nuclear materials declared by the U.S. and Russian governments as surplus to defense programs are being converted into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. Arms reduction initiatives and the end of the Cold War have placed the governments of the United States and Russia in a position to declare portions of their nuclear weapons stockpiles as surplus.-
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/fmd/back.htm

Hmm... The best naval war book. That's really hard. If pressed, I might pick Barrier and the Javelin: Japanese and Allied Strategies, February to June 1942. Willmott really got in depth on the issues in the early part of the Pacific War in that one. Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway for Midway, no doubt. Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 for the IJN as a whole. Being Canadian, there's No Higher Purpose: The Official Operational History of the Royal Canadian Navy in the Second World War, 1939-1943, Volume II, Part I and A Blue Water Navy: The Official Operational History of the Royal Canadian Navy in the Second World War, 1943-1945, Vol. 2, Part 2.

And, I see that I'm well past just one. So, back to the first one, the Willmott.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 12:32:50 PM PDT
*I have my own ideas about it, what are yours

I tend to agree with you. I like one story of an attack in 1945 where a Soviet Human wave overran some German positions and as soon as they got there they threw down their weapons. When they realized there were more comisar slave drivers than german defenders they were forced to pick up their weapons.

I think had the Soviets collapsed it would have resulted much like any other occupied country. Doubtful the Germans would have occupied the whole country and that would have presented another series of challenges.

It would depend on what year the Soviets collapsed. Not likley after Kursk. That would basically leave Britian and the US against Germany. We still would have Britian as a base as well as the early successes in the Medeterrean. Our battles in France were the strongest German Army that our forces faced and the landing success had more to do with deception than troops available.

US forces did have a huge advantage in air power and logistics even if we were dealing with a larger force.

Say we were not able to have success in france because of overwheliming forces there might be a chance for the war to end. We then have to look at how Nationalist Socialism would play out over the long term. Their economics were not as successful as they made it appear. How would the Nazis carry on After Hitler. Could Hitler and his chaos of government provide a stable economy. I think history would be a bit different but the Germans replacing the Soviets in the cold war. I think over time the Germans would have gone the way of the Soviets economically and their domination of so many people untenable.

The Soviets inhereited a Russian empire that already had a successful administration of various people. The Nazis would be new at it and brutality was not new in that part of the world.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 12:45:58 PM PDT
*There is actually a hell of a lot of pro-German even pro-Nazi German sentiment in every branch of the Slavic world that I know of, with the possible exception of in Serbia.

Yes, the Nazis still have their following. I wonder how much they agree with socialist parts but they express their hatred. Nazis stand basically for one thing today hate. There was much more to the Nazis than eugenics gone wild.

We have to look at the Nazis were trying to do. Create and ideal state and to have an ideal state they sought to engineer the ideal people. Socialism was also part of the programme each person organization doing their part. What we often forget that Nazi and Sovet life was not that different they had very similiar idealistic ends.

What is scary is what if the Nazis were successful at what they were trying to do breed their superman. We have seen human breeding can lead to some success as the example of Sparta.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 12:49:39 PM PDT
*Hitler's paranoia precluded anything other than expansion IMHO. He would have overextended German conquests at some point.

Lets make an assumption that Germany did win. The next unknown is how long does hitler live? He was not a healthy man. Stalin died only what 7 years after the end of the war. It is not out of the question that Hitler might not have lived that long after the war. The next question is how does the Nazi state continue under new managment?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 12:55:02 PM PDT
*While most of the discussion so far has speculated upon a hypothetical Soviet collapse in 1941, does that collapse come about before or after December 7th? December 11th? Also, do the Brits seek a cease-fire immediately in response to the Soviet collapse, or do they hang in the fight until after December 7th/11th?

We can look at other alernatives. Possible that a better strategy is played out the next year in Stalingrad. German units do not get grownd down but more effort is placed in getting the oil fields. German units are allowed to withdraw and far fewer are lost.

Soviets are then defeated more decisivly in mobile winter warfare. Germans maintain the initiave into spring envlope sovet reserves before they can fortify as they did around Kursk. I take the assertion of Melenov who identified Stalingrad and Kursk as wastes of troops and could have ground down Soviet forces in mobile warfare where the Germans perserve their forces.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 1:28:14 PM PDT
IGS says:
Joe

Who is "Melenov"?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 2:21:09 PM PDT
Smallchief says:
I'd agree with "Barrier and the Javelin" and "Shattered Sword."

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 3:03:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2012 3:34:00 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
I'm goin' surfin' says:

[Chernobyl is not your baseline case for a nuclear weapon attack.]

I saw a news report one time about the side effects of Saddam's chemical weapons attacks in Iran.

This one guy was laying on a bed with some sort of large cancerous growth protruding out of his mouth.

That's just chemical weapons. I don't think their effects are totally understood.

I recall hearing that the fire ball from a 3 megaton hydrogen bomb will cause instantaneous and permanent blindness from 30 miles away. Such a fire ball would be miles in diameter. Those things are bright. The temperatures get up into the millions of degrees. This doesn't sound like something the human mind can even being to comprehend.

All of this basically sounds like a miniature sun being created on Earth.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 3:05:55 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
DarthRad says:

[There were, nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of survivors of the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.]

Are you familiar with how a neutron bomb works ?

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 3:10:07 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
I'm goin' surfin' says:

[The real problem with the weapons of today, is that ground bursts can shove tons of contaminated earth up into the jet stream where it will be spread over an unpredictably large area (those remote areas and hills you were talking about).]

I heard with the Hiroshima bomb they set if off 1900 feet above the ground to maximize the blast effect. That was the ideal altitude to maximize the shock wave.

Blast. Heat. Radiation. The three killers from a nuclear device.

One of those things going off in for example an oil field would set off fires. More pollution going up into the atmosphere. That's where they get the idea of a nuclear winter effect.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 3:13:37 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Andre Lieven says:

[Igs: On nuclear warhead yield size: You'd be quite surprised.]

I thought nuclear warheads have been getting lighter and more compact over the years.

I saw a nuclear missile on TV that weighed a few hundred pounds but could unleash about 175 KT.

That's a big difference from the first atomic bombs and the first thermonuclear test which was more like an entire laboratory.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 3:21:54 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
I'm goin' surfin' says:

[The itty bitty ones are tactical and not what we are speaking of here.]

Do they still have small nuclear bombs that one guy can carry in a backpack like to blow up bridges ?

I guess the risk of using any type of nuclear device in combat is the other side will become extremely alarmed about how far things are going to go. That's where the escalation factor comes into play and I presume this is the reason so called tactical nuclear weapons were never used.

There's an interesting episode of the TV show The Universe about how objects from space have affected the world, the human race, etc.. There's this one group of renegade scientists who claim that meteor impacts happen very frequently and they blame these events on many historical disasters.

The Tunguska explosion in 1908 in Siberia is shrouded in mystery. Some people think it was a meteor that exploded in the atmosphere, others say mad scientist Nikola Tesla was experimenting with a device for transmitting electricity wirelessly (i.e. a death ray). In any case the amount of energy released was in the megatons.

I bring this up here because a meteor exploded in the atmosphere above India during their Kashmir War with Pakistan and this could have been mistaken for a nuclear bomb detonation.

Jeff Marzano

Occult Ether Physics: Tesla's Hidden Space Propulsion System and the Conspiracy to Conceal It

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 9:00:00 PM PDT
I'm not going to offer an opinion on naval warfare titles, but I found this one to be an excellent, one volume discussion of naval design issues during the first decade of the interwar period.

Warships After Washington: The Development of the Five Major Fleets, 1922-1930

I'm hoping that there'll be a sequel (i.e. Warships After London). Obviously, the Friedman Design History series has greater depth and detail, but the Jordan book covers all five major navies (US, UK, Japan, France, and Italy) and discusses all warship types rather than focusing in on, for example, just US Cruisers or British Destroyers etc.. As such, I'd rate it as a pretty good value.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:37:26 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
RG:'Warships After Washington: The Development of the Five Major Fleets, 1922-1930'

One of the first things that I would do upon winning a serious lottery jackpot, is to dispatch to the Naval Institute press a list of all of their books that I currently own, and ask them to please send along one copy of every other book that they publish.

This one is on my salivating to-get list. The topic is a fascinating one, when you consider just the ship types that the Washington Treaty caused to be stillborn, and what got designed and built in their stead over the next 17 years. It's almost a shame that some of the early 20s capital ships weren't available, at least to the Allies come WW2. One can imagine the terror that a G3 battlecruiser could have put into the hearts of the crews of Scharnhorst or even Bismarck. But, to have built the G and N class capital ships, the SoDaks, and Lexingtons, the Amagis, Tosas and so forth, along with the needed cruisers of the 20s and 30s, would have been beyond affordable, even to command economies.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 10:58:23 PM PDT
I found the discussion of the cruiser design issues given the tonnage limits of the treaty quite illuminating. One wonders how anyone in their right mind could have imagined standard displacement to have been an enforceable metric. It's also kind of interesting as to the degree to which the British and the US were at odds. (Actually, the British and the French were often at odds as well.)

Personally, I believe that the moratorium on capital ship construction was a rational response to the budgetary constraints of the day. As you point out, there just wasn't enough money to fund everything. The British in particular were attracted to the idea of using the treaty regime as an alternative to the expense of unrestricted naval construction. However, I've also come away with the sense that while some of the British naval limitations proposals of the day contained a seed of a good idea and make for interesting "what ifs", a lot of the specifics of what they proposed were oddly out of touch.

Any idea regarding Friedman's next title? I would guess either British Battleships or British Aircraft Carriers.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:28:11 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
RG: As it turned out, especially with the Italian and Japanese 8 inch cruiser, that limit was also one that could not even be measured. It makes one think, and imagine what an officer on a RN or French 10,000 ton 8 X 8 inch ship must have thought upon seeing an IJN cruiser carrying ten 8 inchers. 'How the frak did they manage to do that ?'

Yeah, some of the RN proposals for smaller battleships are interesting to ponder, though one wonders how a navy would face having to build new ships that were outgunned by one's possible foes' older ships.

I'd love to know what he's going to do next. Though, he did do a naval aviation book: British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft. It's out of print, with used copies selling for around 100 Pounds.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 1:44:08 PM PDT
briefcandle says:
Joseph Creaney says:
"I tend to agree with you. I like one story of an attack in 1945 where a Soviet Human wave overran some German positions and as soon as they got there they threw down their weapons. When they realized there were more comisar slave drivers than german defenders they were forced to pick up their weapons."
..............................
Everything about this story is fishy- not least the date,1945, when everyone saw the writing on the wall. Did you hear it by torchlight, under a blanket, at an anti-soviet sleepover?

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:02:53 PM PDT
By late 46' the Germans also would have the a bomb. They had the know but lacked the heavy water quantity which they were procuring in Norway. Its scary to think of the possibilities of an a bomb attached to a v-2/v-3 and hundreds of me 262 jets. Given the facts that 80% of Germany's losses happened on the Eastern Front and more Germans died in last 12-18 months than the first 4 years of the war; allied victory was far from assured. I think America eventually could have agreed to an armistice w/ Germany but the British, bc of Churchill and their homeland being bombed, never would accept a peace w Nazi Germany. Moreover, Germany would likely have cut Britain off from the US/supplies via the new class uboats developed in last months of the war, which were a generation ahead of competitors like the me 262s were.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:11:48 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
BRG:'By late 46' the Germans also would have the a bomb.'

No, not a chance of that. As of when the war ended, the Germans hadn't even gotten as far as the US did in 1942. Plus, the resources that the Manhattan Project had from then onwards were totally unavailable to the Germans. Only willfully ignorant koo-koos have published claims that the Germans were close to a bomb:

-A book by Rainer Karlsch, Hitlers Bombe, published in 2005, alleged that Diebner's team conducted the first successful nuclear weapon test of some type (employing hollow charges for ignition) of nuclear related device in Ohrdruf, Thuringia on 4 March 1945.[108] However, Karlsch has been criticized for displaying "a catastrophic lack of understanding of physics" by physicist Michael Schaaf, who is himself the author of an earlier book about Nazi atomic research, while Karlsch himself has acknowledged that he lacked absolute proof for the claims made in his book.[109]-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

'Its scary to think of the possibilities of an a bomb attached to a v-2/v-3 and hundreds of me 262 jets.'

Not really, no. One, the V-3 was a multi chamber gun system, it had nothing to do with any kinds of bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-3_cannon

Next, early nuclear weapons weighed around 5-6 tons. The payload of a V-1 or V-1 was one ton, and that of the 262, only 1,100 lbs max. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

Germany's failure to win in 1942, doomed it to defeat at some point by 44, 45 or maybe 46, if they would have been very lucky. But, consider this: The Manhattan Project aimed to get a Bomb before Germany did. Had Germany still been fighting by August of 1945, they would have been a first target.

And, Allied bombing of U Boat yards and facilities made it very hard for German Type 21 subs to be built properly, on time, or to be trained and worked up in any numbers.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  535
Initial post:  May 31, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions