If you want insight into why the Germans didn't use nerve agents, check out the superb book "A higher form of killing" a history of biological & chemical warfare. It describes how at the end of WWI a german artillery corporal(?) was gased & temporarily blinded by mustard gas. It turned him off from chemical weapons (the corporal was Hitler). (there were also other reasons the Germans didn't use them)
Yep, its called tit for Tat.
On jets: Even an unreliable jet engine is likely to be far more reliable than a piston engine. Jet engines have far less parts than piston engines and are much easier to maintain. While things like Tiger tanks were problematic because of reliability, if the Me-262 had been released early, it would have given the Germans a huge advantage.
As I understand it, the early jets that powered the M262, once mass produced (of sorts) had a lot of problems with the quality control, (happens when you use slave labor for technical duties) so that the powerplants only worked for a few hours before needing refurbishing. Of course I may be wrong.[8|]
Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu
if the Me-262 had been released early, it would have given the Germans a huge advantage.
Unless it happened to be available before the Battle of Britain was lost, it's just another toy. Had it been around to take part in the battle, perhaps Sea Lion would have been possible. Afterwards, it's just more of an annoyance factor. People tend to think of D-Day as the turning point, the way was already lost for Germany long before hand with the failure to deal with England before the Yanks entered into things. Without England, D-Day would have had to stage in New York [:D]
People also forget that if the germans had prolonged the war it would have been Berlin and not Hiroshima that we would be talking about, even if they would not have folded after that the americans would have produced (and did irl) more bombs and turned germany into a nuclear wasteland..
if the Me-262 had been released early, it would have given the Germans a huge advantage.
Unless it happened to be available before the Battle of Britain was lost, it's just another toy. Had it been around to take part in the battle, perhaps Sea Lion would have been possible. Afterwards, it's just more of an annoyance factor. People tend to think of D-Day as the turning point, the way was already lost for Germany long before hand with the failure to deal with England before the Yanks entered into things. Without England, D-Day would have had to stage in New York [:D]
The ME262 had the ability, given the right conditions, certainly later than BoB, to completely shut down the strategic bombing against Germany, since the fighters couldn't shoot them down for the most part. The Allies could destroy them on landings or takeoffs, but there was a sizeable window in the war where the air superiority wasn't good enough for the Allies to where they could've coped with shooting them down on the airfields (nor did the Allies fighters have the range they did later) when they were landing or taking off. Of course some of them were based underground such that they were safe anyway.
Galland believed they could do it, only I don't know how long he thought it would take or what other factors (like getting them earlier) would be needed.
Heinkel had a jet that was available earlier, but politics turned Hitler's attention to Messerschmidt.
People also forget that if the germans had prolonged the war it would have been Berlin and not Hiroshima that we would be talking about, even if they would not have folded after that the americans would have produced (and did irl) more bombs and turned germany into a nuclear wasteland..
I wouldn't be entirely sure of that, not that it matters. Bombing a European country that didn't attack one of your naval bases was quite a different cookie. There was reasonable confidence that the Enola Gay wouldn't get shot dfown. Could you guarentee that against the Germans? I also think it wouldn't have been used against the Germans simply because they weren't planning the fanatical resistance that the Japanese had showed. Even so, it is possible that with all things being equal between AJ and GE (and they weren't of course) that you might still spend it on JA, for one thing because the bomb could be used to stop the USSR massive attack from helping them to acquire territory in Asia.
I think with A-bombs built (two only) they end up using them, but I don't think they use them against GE unless GE is the only enemy left.
The ME262 had the ability, given the right conditions, certainly later than BoB, to completely shut down the strategic bombing against Germany, since the fighters couldn't shoot them down for the most part.
Strategic bombing did little to decrease German industrial production, which peaked by 1944 - and by then the war was lost already due to the Soviet Uniton alone.
The Japanese in this game sorely lack something like the B-17/B-24.
That's because the Japanese Economy sorely lacked the resources to get involved
in producing a Strategic Air Force. Choices had to be made as to where the limited
assets would be invested. Strategic Air Forces were not a cheap investment, and it
turned out that only the US and Britian could afford them. Japan "made do" with
their long ranged twin engined bombers when they felt the need of this type of force.
You have to remember that on a "value of goods produced" basis, Japan's entire
economy was only a slight bit larger than a single US company..., General Motors.
Let's see, the Nazis did not use chemical weapons ("nerve gas," etc.) because they feared that U.S./U.K. developments were as advanced as their own (not true), and would be used against Nazi forces. The historical evidence (including the U.S. decision not to gas the hell out of Iwo Jima) is that everybody feared everybody else's theorized chemical warfare ability. Who was actually on top? Germany, followed by Japan. The Allies came in distance thirds and fourths in terms of actual abilities. Of course, nuclear weapons would have later put "paid" to any Nazi effort on this track.
The U.S. Manhattan Project (Atom Bomb) was DESIGNED for us against the Nazis (true). The Nazis surrendered before we (the U.S.) could use it on them! This is fairly well established (even on the History Channel!). As to the assertion we only built two, this assertion lies entirely upon non-historical premises. We built two because that was all the time that there was. The first ("Little Boy," a U-238 bomb) was a crude barrel-type fission weapon. This was a PROVEN and known technology, although it produced limited nuclear yields (as was known at the time). The U.S. could have easily mass-produced these weapons (and such weapons are what the U.S. Government fears today for the same reasons). The Plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki (by the largely forgotten B-29 named "Bock's Car") was a PU-239 weapon using implosive-sphere technology to obtain a larger nuclear yield. Would we have delayed the nuclear elimination of Nazi Germany to use only PU-239 weapons? The world will never know, and the Brandenburg Gate still stands in the heart of Berlin because they never were faced with learning that lesson. (P.S., I'm glad I got to see Berlin when it was still "walled.")
The Japanese failed to create a "strategic bomber force." True. Their pre-war estimates were that the U.S. would rather surrender than fight. The rest of the Allies would be forced into surrender. The Yamamoto quote about running amok for 6 months to a year is a reflection of that viewpoint. Of course, the IJN training was derived from and based upon a Royal Navy-origin viewpoint that emphasized comprehending the difference between short-term and long-term war objectives. Thus, Yamamoto was smart enough to understand that there would be short-term gains that would be off-set by later industrial odds that Japan could not even begin to think it could match, lest master. Hence, his un-verbalized (but understood-within-the-context-of-Japanese-
cultural-speaking) message that Japan could not win a protracted war. The IJA, on the other hand, was modeled after the Prussian Army military doctrine that conquest was the end of all matters. This was Hitler's viewpoint, and greatest failure. Thus, the IJA was based upon the now-disproven Nazi/facist model that overwhelming force won under all circumstances. Plus, the IJA, not the IJN, controlled the Japanese war government. As "Ace Ventura" was wont to say, "Can you say LOSER?"
By the end of the war, the IJN had plans to destroy the Panama Canal locks, and it might have delayed the invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall - encompassing Operations Olympic and Coronet - see my previous posts where I erroneously identified Shikoku as Olympic's goal instead of Kyushu - views about eradication (i.e., genocide) of Japanese population still valid). Since now-published reports indicate that the U.S. government would have used chemical warfare agents to kill Japanese defenders, and the post-war experiments of the U.S. Government showed it's willingness to expose U.S. soldiers to radiation hazards caused by near-bursts of nuclear weapons, I have no doubts whatsoever that the U.S. would have willingly (and deservedly-so) nuked Japan into oblivion (not a statement in hyperbole, but instead in practical effect) in order to reduce U.S. casualties. Remember, World War II was fought decades before political correctness made it unfashionable to kill one's enemies.
And for the whiners who want to drivel on about starving Japan through naval/submarine blockades, read the history about Curtis LeMay, who altered U.S. bombing tactics from high-altitude precision bombings (such as it was at the time) to low/medium-level incendiary strikes. We were killing civilians in wholesale lots, and we had NO problems about doing so. There is NOTHING in the historical record that indicates that the U.S. would have stopped this practice if Japan had not surrendered when it did. The Japanese are just damned lucky we DIDN'T decide to kill them all, and didn't decide to make them confront their sins (like we did with the Nazis/Germans).
I would not have treated the Japanese so kindly as Maccy-boy.
Rant over (actually, Rant Out).
"Casualties many. Percentage of dead not known. Combat efficiency - we are winning."
-- Col. David M. Shoup, Tarawa, Nov. 21, 1943
