Game Changing Weapons of the Third Reich

[DGuller]

You all know more about WWII than me, but to really turn things around for Germany, wouldn't there have had to be success on the Eastern Front? 300 jet fighters after Stalingrad seems unlikely to change the course of the war.

Had Germany defeated the Soviets quickly, they could have had the manpower to prevent a successful invasion of Europe. I don't know if jets could have turned the tide in the east, but fully mobilizing at the start of the war would have given Germany a better chance.

As I alluded to earlier, many unrelated problems get at least some relief when you have air superiority (or at least deny air superiority over your own territory).

[PDH]

As to the Me-262 debate, I would have to see when the greatest losses of experienced german pilots happened - if the large scale introduction came before this time than it indeed could have caused major changes.  Perhaps not winning the war, but changing allied tactics and the bombing campaign. 

The engine limitations, iirc, often were exacerbated by novice pilots opening the throttles too fast, changing throttle speeds too quickly, etc.  Having more experienced pilots in control would have multiplied the impact even more.

[Ape]

Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

[DontSayBanana]

Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

Heh. Mass production in general should be the answer, citing the obvious ammunition incompatibility anecdotes.

[jimmy olsen]

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

Interesting, I'd never heard of this plane before. Nice find Ape. Jet fighters being introduced in appreciable numbers that early would definitely be a devastating blow to the allied bombing campaign.

[grumbler]

Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

The problem with the He-280 was that it wasn't as good an airframe as the Me-262, and the long pole in the tent was producing a reliable and powerful jet engine (by which time the Me-262 was available and clearly the superior aircraft).

I would agree that the -280 could have been produced on a "good enough" basis far earlier than the -262.  The interesting result might have been an acceleration of the development process for the jet engines, because the Luftwaffe would have gotten widespread operation experience with them; another possible outcome, of course, would be the abandonment of the jet program entirely if the -280 program proved a severe disappointment.

[Iormlund]

Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

Those production defects could most likely be ascribed to the bombing campaign and other hardships in Germany. As for the actual performance of the XXI, I don't think it is too far fetched to say it may have been able to send 3 times as many fishes a convoy's way. Had it been available much earlier in numbers and coupled with rigorous torpedo testing and development in the 30's (specially had the Germans traded for the Type 95 with the Japs) it could have isolated the British Isles, freeing tons of divisions (and aircraft wings) stuck in France and Norway and leaving Stalin without a shitload of supplies. Even taking into account Bletchley Park, which in the face of bad enough odds could not win the war by itself, because the more you use such knowledge, the higher the probability that the enemy will take notice.

[jimmy olsen]

Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

The problem with the He-280 was that it wasn't as good an airframe as the Me-262, and the long pole in the tent was producing a reliable and powerful jet engine (by which time the Me-262 was available and clearly the superior aircraft).

I would agree that the -280 could have been produced on a "good enough" basis far earlier than the -262.  The interesting result might have been an acceleration of the development process for the jet engines, because the Luftwaffe would have gotten widespread operation experience with them; another possible outcome, of course, would be the abandonment of the jet program entirely if the -280 program proved a severe disappointment.

I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but from the links Ape provides while it doesn't look quite as fast as Me-262, it's certainly fast enough.  In what ways was the airframe inferior?

[Norgy]

Other.

Nuclear arms.
If Hitler hadn't viewed nuclear physics as "Jewish science", Germany might actually have a bomb.
Other than that, I believe more V2s destroying civilian targets in the West could have been effective.

As for the war on the ground (and the air), my view is that nothing would really have changed the final outcome of the war once both the Soviet Union and the United States were at war with Germany, bar extreme civilian losses in the West or a complete collapse of the Allied Expeditionary Force at Normandy.

[Neil]

Other than that, I believe more V2s destroying civilian targets in the West could have been effective.

Why?  Was terror bombing ever militarily useful?

[grumbler]

I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but from the links Ape provides while it doesn't look quite as fast as Me-262, it's certainly fast enough.  In what ways was the airframe inferior?

The -262 was faster, climbed faster, dove faster, had much more endurance (the -280 had a max air time of about 45 minutes, and would be much less using full power) and more heavily armed (and even with the heavier armament carried more rounds per gun).  The -280 had less wing loading and therefor presumably was more maneuverable in a dogfight, but these were not dogfighting aircraft.

As i noted, the -280 could probably have been produced on a "good enough" basis, but operational losses would have been high (engines had a distressing tendency to fly apart or burst into flames) and the ejection seat mechanism would likely have surprised and killed a fair number of pilots before it was disabled or removed. It is an open question as to whether or not it would have been perceived as a success, had it entered production.

[Norgy]

Other than that, I believe more V2s destroying civilian targets in the West could have been effective.

Why?  Was terror bombing ever militarily useful?

My assertion is based on the perhaps flawed premise that the western Allies would have a lower tolerance of huge civilian casualties than the Germans and Soviets. Of course, it is all counter-factual, since the V1 and V2 attacks on allied territory did not break the resolve to continue the fight and force Germany's unconditional surrender. I doubt that the Germans could ever have turned the tide, but at some point in 1942-43, a negotiated peace could have been an option, if the Allies were subjected to enough casualties.

In the end, it is all speculation, and a negotiated peace with Hitler remaining the German head of state is quite unthinkable.

[Tonitrus]

Other: some German scientist dude not making the calculation mistake and assuming you need a ball of uranium the size of Neil's ego to build a single nucular bomb. Because the only thing that could save Germany was an early atomb bomb to scare off the West.

This.  Though the Germans would have problems delivering it to anyplace anyone cares about(besides England).

The Axis of WW2 were pretty much like the South in the Civil War.  Destined to lose(not enough people/production to overpower their enemies, who are determined to win at all costs).

[jimmy olsen]

Other: some German scientist dude not making the calculation mistake and assuming you need a ball of uranium the size of Neil's ego to build a single nucular bomb. Because the only thing that could save Germany was an early atomb bomb to scare off the West.

This.  Though the Germans would have problems delivering it to anyplace anyone cares about(besides England).

The Axis of WW2 were pretty much like the South in the Civil War.  Destined to lose(not enough people/production to overpower their enemies, who are determined to win at all costs).

Destined to lose is too strong a statement, both the South and the Germans could have won. It was very unlikely but not impossible.

EDIT: Even if you disagree though, that's not the question I asked. I asked which weapon introduced a year earlier would have had the most positive impact on the German war effort. That's not the same as asking whether any of them could have won the war for Germany.

I didn't include the Atom bomb because their project never got close IIRC.

[Malthus]

According to Churchill, the obvious answer would be having a fleet of a few hundred regular ocean-going u-boats at the start of the war, rather than only gradually building up their force (thus allowing the Allies to adapt and survive).