If WW2 ended in 1950+ possible combat aircraft out of service dates

[Light Blue Job]

At the end of WW2 the myriad RAF & USAAF combat aircraft were drawn down, scraped or in the UKs case “given back” (either literally to the US or again scraped in the UK). But what would the out of service dates be of these iconic aircraft if the war continued to 1950 or later. Frontline Typhoons, Corsairs, Beaufighters, B-17, B-24s and more all disappeared in the immediate post war period either totally or moved to secondary roles…..but what if?

 

[pathology_doc]

My call: the phasing out is probably less abrupt, but I'd anticipate the B-17 and maybe even the B-24 not lasting into 1946. By 1947, the only prop fighters are things like the Hornet, Sea Fury, Bearcat, P-47N, P-51H and the late Corsair developments, i.e. stuff that can hit 450mph without breaking a sweat; and the B-29 and the less technically demanding B-32 are doing all the heavy bombing (sorry, Bomber Command). The B-36 is probably even starting to edge out the B-29.

By 1950, again under pressure of wartime demands which keep money flowing for development and high-volume production, you're looking at an all-jet air force.

 

[Gentleman’s Astronautics]

As long as my poor boy the YB-49 or 35, or other earlier jets actually managed to see combat, like the shooting star and the Meteor actually being Abe to shoot down enemy aircraft, I'd be happy.

Question is, how would ww2 continue until 1950?

 

[pathology_doc]

Question is, how would ww2 continue until 1950?

The Western allies deciding to eliminate Soviet Russia and/or Communist China.

As for the Meteor and P-80, both got air-air kills in Korea.

 

[Gentleman’s Astronautics]

The Western allies deciding to eliminate Soviet Russia and/or Communist China.

As for the Meteor and P-80, both got air-air kills in Korea.

I meant during the war itself, not in later conflicts, so operation unthinkable happens, and ww3 is just ww2 part 2?

 

[Antonio]

To me it depends on the evolution of facts leading to a longer war but I vote for a massive introduction of P80, replacing the P51 in air superiority and interception from late 1945. Meteor and Vampire for RAF Squadrons (Probably also Shooting Star Mk.I).
Other fighter jets competing for contracts from 1946: Republic P-84, NAA P-86 (NA-140) and McDonnell Phantom ( On board the Coral Sea Class CVB). During 1946, with jets reaching enough numbers, latest prop fighters would end relegated to specialised roles like fighter bombing or operations from CVE.

The same about bombers with Canberra for RAF or even Martin B-? Canberra for USAAF from 1946. Also NAA Tornado. Full production of B-29, replacing B-17 and B-24 during 1946. But a jet/turboprop replacement program should be launched in late 1945. An aircraft in the B-47 class.

With no British Islands KO and, obviously USSR with the Allies there was no reason to keep the intercontinental bomber program alive thus, definitely, the B36 ending cancelled.

 

[Gentleman’s Astronautics]

To me it depends on the evolution of facts leading to a longer war but I vote for a massive introduction of P80, replacing the P51 in air superiority and interception from late 1945. Meteor and Vampire for RAF Squadrons (Probably also Shooting Star Mk.I).
Other fighter jets competing for contracts from 1946: Republic P-84, NAA P-86 (NA-140) and McDonnell Phantom ( On board the Coral Sea Class CVB). During 1946, with jets reaching enough numbers, latest prop fighters would end relegated to specialised roles like fighter bombing or operations from CVE.

The same about bombers with Canberra for RAF or even Martin B-? Canberra for USAAF from 1946. Also NAA Tornado. Full production of B-29, replacing B-17 and B-24 during 1946. But a jet/turboprop replacement program should be launched in late 1945. An aircraft in the B-47 class.

With no British Islands KO and, obviously USSR with the Allies there was no reason to keep the intercontinental bomber program alive thus, definitely, the B36 ending cancelled.

how does the war extend itself though? Germany would obviously become a nuclear hellhole by 1946, and Japan would probably go down fighting by 1948, but there's no way it could drag on until 1950+ unless we turned around and threw caution to the winds and declared war on the USSR

 

[Light Blue Job]

Its alternative history. Maybe the German’s invaded later, maybe the German’s were turned around to face the Russian’s along with the allied forces to stop the Bear. Maybe, maybe…..its more a discussion about great aircraft and out of service dates if the end wasn’t in 1945. Typhoon was still going strong in 1945, so would it have soldiered on until say 1948?

 

[Antonio]

Question is, how would ww2 continue until 1950?

As Light Blue Job answers...alternative history could be developed to a different degree of intensity and multiplicity of conditions.
For instance,
a) War starts later. It was the real original plan.
b) War starts in 1939 but what if Manhattan project never existed or suffered delay combined with a more victorious Axis.
c) As Pathology Doc notes, there was a real possibility of WWII extending into an open confrontation between the Allies. At the end it was known as The Cold War.

But please, try to stay on topic. The thread is about US/British aircraft in a extended WWII scenario

 

[DWG]

At the end of WW2 the myriad RAF & USAAF combat aircraft were drawn down, scraped or in the UKs case “given back” (either literally to the US or again scraped in the UK). But what would the out of service dates be of these iconic aircraft if the war continued to 1950 or later. Frontline Typhoons, Corsairs, Beaufighters, B-17, B-24s and more all disappeared in the immediate post war period either totally or moved to secondary roles…..but what if?

Most of them would still disappear anyway, but probably quicker than OTL. There were a whole generation of late war aircraft that would have replaced the aircraft that fought between 1939 and 1945, but for the order cancellations that started in 1944 when it was apparent we were going to win.

So Typhoons would have been replaced by Tempest IIs or VIs, Spitfires and Tempest in the air superiority role would have given way to Spitefuls, or Meteors, or Vampires, or Furies, or Hawks, Beaufighters and fighter-bomber Mosquitos would have been replaced by Brigands and Hornets, Lancaster by Lincoln, Halifax by Hastings (not the OTL transport) and so on.

 

[Scott Kenny]

At the end of WW2 the myriad RAF & USAAF combat aircraft were drawn down, scraped or in the UKs case “given back” (either literally to the US or again scraped in the UK). But what would the out of service dates be of these iconic aircraft if the war continued to 1950 or later. Frontline Typhoons, Corsairs, Beaufighters, B-17, B-24s and more all disappeared in the immediate post war period either totally or moved to secondary roles…..but what if?

I suspect that Mustangs would continue to serve as bomber escorts, nothing else had the range. Yes, they'd be G,H, or K models, or even F-82s.

Jets would be flying closer to the front lines, they don't have the range to play escort. For example, when the YB-35s had the piston engines removed and jet engines installed, the plane lost 50% of its range!

B-29s would stay in service, probably as B-29Ds not B-50. B-32s might see decent service over Japan or China into Russia as a low altitude bomber (the pressurization system had issues and was eventually left out entirely). B-36s would eventually arrive, and likely fly unescorted.

 

[uk 75]

Since most WW2 after 45 stuff focuses on the Axis this is a good topic.
Lots of scope for the US and USSR but even though its not my period I will have a go with the RAF.
Developed Meteors, then Vampires for Fighter Command. Spitfires, Whirlwinds and the various US supplied types.
Bomber Command would get the Lincoln to follow Lancs etc. A Canberra/Sperrin style straight wing bomber seems reasonable.
Going more exotic, delta rather than swept wings? (Pterodactyl flew).

The RN suffered much more from peace. It loses the Malta class and only lays down two Audacious. Keeping US supplied types would be a major boon.

The Army would get helicopters from Sikorsky. Outside the topic here, Centurions would arrive in numbers (would Tortoise be needed to take on Maus/E100).

 

[pathology_doc]

...

But please, try to stay on topic. The thread is about US/British aircraft in a extended WWII scenario

It bears thinking about, though, because the range of aircraft selected for production depends on who you're fighting and what job they have to do, flying from which bases and against which targets. What you need to finish off a Japan that's dug in on the Chinese and Korean mainland and is fighting a guerrilla war to the finish is very different from what you're buying in bulk to take on the full might of a Soviet Union that might or might not have German technology in its hands and enough time to develop and field it... or a hypothetical Germany that's somehow (for argument's sake) held the Allies at bay and managed to field everything up to the Ta152, He162 and Go229 in full squadron service, with endless streams of early surface-air missiles (Rheintochter, etc.; stuff they actually had in hardware; not sci-fi UFO garbage) making the heavy bomber offensive too costly to continue.

 

[BlackBat242]

The RN suffered much more from peace. It loses the Malta class and only lays down two Audacious. Keeping US supplied types would be a major boon.

Well, I think the 3rd may well have been laid down as historic - but it might have been cancelled earlier than historic in favor of the Malta class (as happened to the historic 4th Audacious hull order):

AUDACIOUS laid down 24 October 1942, renamed Eagle 1946, launched 19 March 1946, suspended postwar but later resumed. Completed 1 March 1951, commissioned 5 October 1951. Harland&Wolff, Belfast

IRRESISTIBLE laid down 3 May 1943, renamed Ark Royal 1945, suspended postwar but work later resumed. Launched 3 May 1950, completed 26 February 1955. Cammell Laird, Birkenhead

EAGLE laid down 19 April 1944, canceled January 1946, 23% complete. Ordered from Swan Hunter, Wallsend-on-Tyne in August 1942. Transferred to Vickers-Armstrong Barrow in December that year.

unnamed (Africa?) Ordered on 12 July 1943, abandoned before being laid down in favour of the "Malta" Class. Assigned to Fairfield, Govan.

 

[BlackBat242]

To me it depends on the evolution of facts leading to a longer war but I vote for a massive introduction of P80, replacing the P51 in air superiority and interception from late 1945. Meteor and Vampire for RAF Squadrons (Probably also Shooting Star Mk.I).
Other fighter jets competing for contracts from 1946: Republic P-84, NAA P-86 (NA-140) and McDonnell Phantom ( On board the Coral Sea Class CVB). During 1946, with jets reaching enough numbers, latest prop fighters would end relegated to specialised roles like fighter bombing or operations from CVE.

The same about bombers with Canberra for RAF or even Martin B-? Canberra for USAAF from 1946. Also NAA Tornado. Full production of B-29, replacing B-17 and B-24 during 1946. But a jet/turboprop replacement program should be launched in late 1945. An aircraft in the B-47 class.

With no British Islands KO and, obviously USSR with the Allies there was no reason to keep the intercontinental bomber program alive thus, definitely, the B36 ending cancelled.

Even with the war continuing I don't see the McDonnell Phantom seeing more service than historic (60 aircraft used mostly as piston>jet transition trainers)... since not only was the F4U-5 Corsair almost as fast as the Phantom (and with better range), the better Banshee was already in the works, its prototype having been ordered two months after the Phantom's first flight.

McDonnell FH-1 Phantom & F2H Banshee

Work on the (Phantom) prototypes began in January 1944, the first prototype flying on 26 January 1945 with test pilot Woodward Burke at the controls. This was just a brief hop, since only one engine had been installed; the first twin-engine flight took place a few days later. It was followed by the second prototype, with the two machines successfully passing company and initial Navy trials. On 21 July 1946, an XFD-1 began carrier trials on the USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, making it the first US jet aircraft to operate off a carrier. The Navy had already placed a production order, for 100 aircraft, in March 1945.

Only 60 FH-1s (manufacturer code for McDonnell was changed from "D" to "H" in 1946) were actually built, since the end of the war ended any urgency for obtaining jet fighters, and though the Phantom was apparently a very pleasant aircraft to fly it was also underpowered, being not much faster than the best piston fighters. It also had much poorer range.

Even before the FH-1 Phantom went into production, McDonnell had been considering a "bigger and better" Phantom for the Navy, with higher performance and more range. In March 1945, only weeks after the first flight of the Phantom, the Navy ordered a single prototype of the improved machine as the "XF2D-1".

Of course, the larger XF2D-1 needed more power than the Phantom, and so the XF2D-1 was fitted with twin Westinghouse J34-WE-22 engines, with 13.3 kN (1,360 kgp / 3,000 lbf) kilograms thrust each -- almost twice the power of the Phantom's J-30s. Internal fuel supply was 3,320 liters (877 US gallons).

The initial flight of the XF2D-1 was from Saint Louis on 11 January 1947, with test pilot Robert Edholm at the controls. Trials proved satisfactory, and so the Navy ordered 56 production machines as the "F2H-1 Banshee" in May 1947, with the first rolled out in August 1948. The F2H-1 differed from the XF2D-1 in various details, such as a shallower tailfin extension and a flat tailplane, instead of the dihedral tailplane of the XF2D-1. Following carrier qualification on the USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, the Banshee went into service late in 1948, replacing the FH-1 in squadron service.

Don't forget the Douglas F3D Skynight - which was a jet-powered night fighter which won a USN competition in April 1946 (the RFP had been issued in October 1945).

First flight was in March 1948, with production aircraft being delivered in late 1950 - but if war was still raging, this might have been sooner.


Then there is the Grumman Panther... the original XF9F-1 night fighter design was a large aircraft that was similar in layout to the Grumman F7F Tigercat (which would have been produced in greater numbers with the war going on) - but with 4 small Westinghouse turbojets instead of the 2 large radials. Even though it lost to the F3D, the USN issued a contract for 2 prototypes on 11 April 1946 - just as a back-up.

Grumman had already been working on a smaller jet fighter, and in October 1946 the XF9F-1 contract was amended to be for a single-seat single-engine jet fighter, designated XF9F-2.

The first prototype Panther flew in November 1947, with production aircraft delivered from August 1949.

 

[Hood]

Petter's twin-jet fighter-bomber ancestor of the Canberra may have reached flight status and production by 1950 in this scenario, assuming that Petter stays with Westland.

As pathology_doc says, it depends what the opposition is fielding. For example without direct access to German research do we assume the XP-86A stays as a straight wing fighter? Does the B-47 even exist in that form?

I wouldn't go too jet crazy, most of the early jets were limited in range and performance, although saying that the ultimate piston engines were troublesome and fickle beasts that would have taken a lot of fine tuning and tinkering to get right.
Certainly a massive run of late-model P-51s, Spitefuls and Tempests seems very likely. But then a lot of WW2 aircraft saw fairly long lives and the 1945 models were not completely outclassed.

Assuming in this war that Germany gets its Elektro subs out in reasonable numbers then MR types are likely back on the agenda, Shackletons and perhaps new flying boats, perhaps something like the Grumman Guardian pairing or the Tracker appears early on escort carriers.

More helicopters seems likely in the AOP role, especially in the Far East.

 

[Dilandu]

so operation unthinkable happens, and ww3 is just ww2 part 2?

Operation Unthinkable could not last long. Neither side was prepared for prolonged action. Allied forces in Europe would be too easy for USSR to destroy (they simply weren't capable of operating on anything even remotely like Soviet level, and their assumption about Red Army taking "defensive stance" were just plainly absurd - the modus operandi of Soviet army in 1945 was a massive assault along the whole frontline, with highly mobile tank armies being immediately directed into any breakthrough). On the other hand, USSR did not have resources for prolonged warfare. So neither side would want anything like prolonged war.

 

[Dilandu]

Lots of scope for the US and USSR but even though its not my period I will have a go with the RAF.

Well, USSR would probably be rapidly replacing IL-2 with IL-10 - which was much more capable and durable.

In terms of fighters, Yak-9 would probably remain the mainstay of Soviet fighter force for some time, but augmented with both new piston-engine fighters (like La-7), and mixed-engine interceptors (like I-250 and Su-5). USSR lagged a bit behind others with turbojets, so mixed - piston & motorjet - propulsion fighters were viewed as best approach.

In terms of bombers, Pe-2 would be gradually replaced with Tu-2, as soon as industry would be able to switch for a new type. The Tu-2 was significantly better than older bombers, and its introduction was mainly limited by the reluctance to distract the industry from crunching out scores of Pe-2. But the switch on a new type was already planned, so in 1946 it could be expected that Tu-2 production would surpass Pe-2.

 

[Michel Van]

the YB-49 or 35

So beautiful it look so dangerous it was to fly, next to that it could NOT carry atomic bomb,
Do de-central bomb bay design
From that standpoint the YB-49 was failure, compare to YB-36 who enter service in this intellectual pastime.

I suspect that Mustangs would continue to serve as bomber escorts, nothing else had the range.

I wonder if USAAF transform B-36 to P-80 carrier plane, drop off at traget site to defend the Bomber and pick them up.
Other solution to build long range Fighter with jet-engine or mix propulsion.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIRC Alfred Price said that if the Me262 had been able to make an impact on the USAAF daylight bombers that would only last until the B29 entered service.

IIUC only about 1/3 of the ~1400 Me 262s were actually delivered and peaked at 52 fighter-bomber and 55 fighter sorties in a day. Should the war continue, more Me262s be delivered and hundreds of daily sorties flown the B17 and B24 would be retired in short order.

 

[Dilandu]

I wonder if USAAF transform B-36 to P-80 carrier plane, drop off at traget site to defend the Bomber and pick them up.

I really doubt that. The performance of early B-36 would suffer too much for practical purposes.

Other solution to build long range Fighter with jet-engine or mix propulsion.

That seems to be more practical solution, yes.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, there were several 'hybrid' designs, 'Turning & Burning' before that huge 'Flying Wing'.

Beyond 'experimental', where the 'turning' got you home if jet(s) misbehaved, I seem to remember an elegant prototype photo-recon with twin 'trad' engines on the wings, akin to a 'metal' Mosquito, plus a fuselage jet engine. So, fair 'cruise', plus 'Wow' climb and/or scoot...

 

[Archibald]

The big missed opportunity for B-35 was to go turbojets rather than turboprops. Would have been less disruptive than turbojets, and mechanically much more simpler than big piston engines.

How about the USN ? they had a few hundreds CL, CA, BC, BB, CV, CVL, CVE in construction by 1945.
-Baltimore / Oregon
-Des Moines
-Worcester
-Alaska
-Iowa number 5 and 6
----------
-32 Essex rather than 24 (26 hulls started out of 32 planned, pick your choice number)
-6 Midways rather than 3
-Saipan & Wright
-11 Independance
-------------------- total 51 fast carriers
- Tons of CVE / light carriers (150 ? 200 ?)

As for military aircraft - it would be a pornfest. Boeing F-8B (drools) Douglas B-42, Beech A-38... so many fantastic types that never got a chance. Republic P-47J & P-72...

 

[Antonio]

IIRC Alfred Price said that if the Me262 had been able to make an impact on the USAAF daylight bombers that would only last until the B29 entered service.

IIUC only about 1/3 of the ~1400 Me 262s were actually delivered and peaked at 52 fighter-bomber and 55 fighter sorties in a day. Should the war continue, more Me262s be delivered and hundreds of daily sorties flown the B17 and B24 would be retired in short order.

Then the Me 262 couldn't had been a threat for the B29?
Were the P 1101 and Ta 183 designed with to counter the B29? That designs promised the same powerful armament combined with more speed and ceiling (Although still below the MiG-15 which became the real B29 killer at the Korean War)

 

[Archibald]

Except Me-262s were being shot down during takeoffs and landings... when not betrayed by their rudimentary turbojets dismal reliability... also P-80A and Meteor Mk.4 and Vampire were coming in service soon.

 

[Gentleman’s Astronautics]

I think that given Britain's state towards the end of the war, I think it perhaps somewhat likely that they would opt to convert some existing airframes into jet propelled ones, such as the Lancastrian, which would be possible likely at much cheaper expense than designing a whole new craft from scratch. This would likely be done in addition to fielding newer types such as the Meteor and Vampire

Also, is rear a rocket assist takeoff motor in the first image?

 

[Dilandu]

Were the P 1101 and Ta 183 designed with to counter the B29? That designs promised the same powerful armament combined with more speed and ceiling (Although still below the MiG-15 which became the real B29 killer at the Korean War)

Germans have little to zero chance to actually put those advanced designs in service. To put it simply, the second-generation jet fighters were beyond the decreasing competence of German engineers (they blundered rather hard even with much simpler designs, like Me-262 and He-162).

 

[DWG]

I think that given Britain's state towards the end of the war, I think it perhaps somewhat likely that they would opt to convert some existing airframes into jet propelled ones, such as the Lancastrian, which would be possible likely at much cheaper expense than designing a whole new craft from scratch. This would likely be done in addition to fielding newer types such as the Meteor and Vampire

If you convert existing designs to jets, you slash their available range because of increased fuel consumption. That's why everyone was looking at mixed-power designs to get around the issue. The service Lancastrian had four Merlins, the ones in your pics are simply engine testbeds.

And while the UK was suffering financially, remember it's solution for a bomber replacement under B.14/46 was not one V-bomber project, but four.

 

[Gentleman’s Astronautics]

If you convert existing designs to jets, you slash their available range because of increased fuel consumption. That's why everyone was looking at mixed-power designs to get around the issue. The service Lancastrian had four Merlins, the ones in your pics are simply engine testbeds.

And while the UK was suffering financially, remember it's solution for a bomber replacement under B.14/46 was not one V-bomber project, but four.

true, but given that the Vulcan and the other V-bombers only flew in the 50s, it would be interesting to see what designs would have to fill the specification with the jets they had. It would have been most interesting to see a mixed-power bomber replacement.

 

[DWG]

The aircraft that 'only flew in the 50s' are the ones built to the late war/early post war specifications. Continued wartime pressures would drag them forward a year or two.

 

[Rule of cool]

Then the Me 262 couldn't had been a threat for the B29?

Certainly yes, but the B29 flew 50% higher and 50% faster than the B17/B24 and had the high velocity 20mm cannon in the tail, not to mention it's huge bombload. This will drastically alter the exchange rate that total wars of production are fought on. While the B17/B24 would be mincemeat the B29 with the best escorts would be able to keep fighting and challenge the Me262 force.

 

[Atomic Coyote]

From Greg's video on the Ta-152 it could have threatened the B-29 at altitude;

(There's an implicit assumption here that if the Germans are lasting until 1950 their stuff built in 1945 won't have atrocious build quality like the Ta-152s in real life did.)

If you're going up against the Soviets the I-225 or similar likely gets built as the MiG-7.

 

[Rule of cool]

Just to be clear, 1945 German fighters can well and truly tangle with B29s, what the b29 does is moves the fight higher and faster. This means that whereas fighters based within say 50km of a B17/24 stream can make intercepts these same fighters would need to be based within say 25km of the b29 stream: or fighters need better performance to reach the stream from further away. This reduces the number of fighters able to engagethe bomber stream.

Or to take it from another angle; new, fast German fighters could attack the b17/24 stream from bases 75km away, bringing more bases and therefore more fighters are able to engage the bomber stream.

Its amazing how uncool this sort of attrition maths is. :-(

 

[red admiral]

I don't really see any mixed power UK bombers, instead more likely for Lincolns as historical, and then a variety of jet powered bombers e.g.

AW.52 derivative
Glosters' P.109 4 jet bomber, like a big Meteor
Nene Canberra
And then maybe bigger ones like Shorts SA.4

 

[Scott Kenny]

So beautiful it look so dangerous it was to fly, next to that it could NOT carry atomic bomb,
Do de-central bomb bay design
From that standpoint the YB-49 was failure, compare to YB-36 who enter service in this intellectual pastime.

Because the USAF would not tell Northrop how big the bombs were originally and would not pay for redesigning the bays to allow the Mk3 "Fat Man" to fit!!! All USAF told Northrop was that the bomber needed to carry 10,000lbs of bombs.

Also, second generation bombs would fit in the Flying Wing bays. Like the Mark 5 (44" diameter, ~130" long).

I wonder if USAAF transform B-36 to P-80 carrier plane, drop off at traget site to defend the Bomber and pick them up.
Other solution to build long range Fighter with jet-engine or mix propulsion.

XP-85 proved that a manned Parasite Fighter was not viable.

 

[MadRat]

The premise of the thread suggests that the German industry doesn't flounder. This can only happen if either Europe/China falls or Russia capitulates. So the answer depends on why Germany wasn't folded.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The premise of the thread suggests that the German industry doesn't flounder. This can only happen if either Europe/China falls or Russia capitulates. So the answer depends on why Germany wasn't folded.

Okay, let's have a fun one.

Germans take Moscow, Stalin moves to the Urals and swears he'll take the city back. That should buy enough time for the Germans to not have Russians in Berlin until 1947 at the earliest.

 

[BlackBat242]

Okay, let's have a fun one.

Germans take Moscow, Stalin moves to the Urals and swears he'll take the city back. That should buy enough time for the Germans to not have Russians in Berlin until 1947 at the earliest.

Then his generals decide that since Ukrainians welcomed them as "gotta be better than being starved to death by Stalin" that they should be treated as allies and not as a conquered "untermensch" territory to be purged.

Suddenly there are tens of thousands more soldiers for the Eastern Front to impede the Soviet efforts.


Yes, I know... depends on the Nazis not acting like Nazis, so not plausible.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Then his generals decide that since Ukrainians welcomed them as "gotta be better than being starved to death by Stalin" that they should be treated as allies and not as a conquered "untermensch" territory to be purged.

Suddenly there are tens of thousands more soldiers for the Eastern Front to impede the Soviet efforts.


Yes, I know... depends on the Nazis not acting like Nazis, so not plausible.

Not totally implausible. One of the battalions in Normandy was made up of former Slavic POWs, for example.

So the additional soldiers are still German, the Slavs get sent to hold occupied countries in the west.

 

[Gentleman’s Astronautics]

Not totally implausible. One of the battalions in Normandy was made up of former Slavic POWs, for example.

So the additional soldiers are still German, the Slavs get sent to hold occupied countries in the west.

while the undesirable civvies are still massacred en masse I assume? Those fit enough for work are turned into slaves or soldiers?