Would it have been effective if it entered production in mid/late 43?

File: 1.jpg (207KB, 1100x802px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1100x802px

>>34694081

If by "effective" you mean "capable of changing WW2 in any significant way" then the answer is no. By '44 America has B-29s and by '45 atomic weapons. Even if Hitler had a plane that could bomb DC itself (with the pilots picked up by a uboat, as Germany studied), all it would have done is piss us off more and render Germany a higher priority against Japan. Which isn't a small thing, because if Germany isn't dead by summer '45 then Berlin and Frankfurt are eliminated. Even if they still somehow held on, by '46 we have the B-36 and by '47 jet fighters.

However, it would have greatly changed the dynamics of the Cold War. Had Japan not surrendered (or had surrendered then was invaded by the Soviets) this greatly changes how America responds to Red China in the 50s and would have likely prevented the detente Nixon brokered in the 60s. Which would have made WW3 a much likelier possibility in the 80s and 90s, as China wouldn't have opened up meaning they would have allied with the USSR politburo if they had a civil war (say, due to an extended economic downturn).

File: 1498392536757.png (187KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 640x360px

>>34694081

>>34694159

Additionally, the war itself (for Germany) was largely decided in winter '42 when German troops froze to death outside of Stalingrad. The only way Germany could survive WW2 is if they have the he277 in service by summer 1942, and they use it to airdrop supplies onto German troops outside of Stalingrad while bombers annihilate the city from the air. In which case, Hitler would have moved onto Moscow itself while building a both a 4,000 mile pipeline between Baku and Dresden and 100,000 me262s before '45 and hoping America doesn't just build a better missile to deliver their atomic bombs.

In other words, many more components are needed much more quickly for Germany not to get slaughtered. But even then it's debatable as Germany would still not have atomic bombs. The same would have applied to Stalin if it wasn't for the Rosenbergs selling nuke plans to them.

File: 1498077010771.jpg (15KB, 251x218px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 251x218px

>>34694172
Wehraboo reporting in.

What that meant to be an insult?

File: static.politico.com.jpg (122KB, 1160x629px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1160x629px

>>34694245
>The same would have applied to Stalin if it wasn't for the Rosenbergs selling nuke plans to them.

Say it together now: any line of communication with Russia is a good one.

>>34694268
yes because you constantly search for ways you could've won but never find them

File: Me 264.jpg (85KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1200x720px

>>34694348
not a Wehraboo/Stormfag but
>put everything in nuke research from 1933
>have nukes a few years later
>build heavy strategic bombers (pic related)
>nuke every opponent
wew

>>34694515
>pour everything into nuke research


It ain't civ kiddo. You can pour half your country into a tech and still get nowhere

Germany only had half the GNP of the USA, and only spent about half of what the USA spent on the war.

>>34694627
Sure, but in theory it would have been possible.

>>34694515
>British destroyed the only heavy water production in German held europe.
>a lot of the scientists in germany were actively stalling bomb research.

Japan was closer to getting the bomb. Only the lack of fissile material kept them from making at least one bomb before war's end. even then there is a story about the Imperial Army nuclear program having successfully test fired a bomb in korea.

No, nothing short of nukes would have saved the Nazis because they were shit.

>>34694661
In theory Nazis were supposed to win because they were Aryan masterrace and were that much better.

>>34697116
Yes, that's totally what I was saying.