Allied Strategic Bombing Offensive Called to a Halt

Hardly. The same technology that lead to proximaty fuses and guided bombs can easily be used to home in on a radar signal.

 

Let's face it. The U.S. and its factories were simply too powerful for said rockets to cause too many casualties. If the U.S. could survive regular casualties from the regular Luftwaffe, it could probably handle missiles, too. Besides, if the Germans COULD produce a half-decent missile, and if it COULD be accurate enough to even hit one out of ten times, AND by the time D-Day was happened or even before, it: A. couldn't have happened. and B. If it did happen, the same strategic bomber campaign they were trying to stop would almost certainly destroy it! How ironic. But who knows? Maybe it could have worked...

 

Some good arguments here!
The Canadian War Museum concluded (wrongly I believe) at first that the strategic bomber offensive was a failure because (and this is an ironic argument) German submarine construction continued on the increase until April 1945. The obvious argument (to me) is "How much MORE would it have increased had we not been bombing the German production facilities as hard as we could?)
I believe that the original writer here had this in mind when referring to the Battle of the Atlantic. If this had not been won -the war might not have been won -although it also might not have been lost -a "tie" was a possibility -with much of Europe remaining occupied.
But for Germany the war was lost the day Russia was invaded. Although it took years to finish them off -they were doomed thereafter. American entry into the shooting war after Pearl Harbour just guaranteed their defeat and quickened its arrival.
No one weapons system wins or loses a war -and that would even have included the atomic bomb. Japan was on its knees when the bomb was dropped -it just helped them to adapt to reality. \

Regards

Jock Williams Yogi 13

 

I could think of the R4M missile, which had the potential to slow down or even halt for a brief period the Allied Bomber Offensive.

However I am not aware if this missile would have been available ealier on then March 1945.

Could an intensified use (if that wasn't already happening) of the Werfer-Granate 21 have complicated things for the allies?

Regards
Kruska

 

In general, I agree with your comments.

The U-boat war was already lost by the time the Allied strategic bombing offensive began to seriously impact Germany's war effort.

As for the atomic bombs, the distinction between "winning" the war and "ending" it is crucial here.

 

Although certainly an innovative weapon system, the Wasserfall launching sites, supply routes, fuel supplies, and factories would still have been vulnerable to disruption. The Wasserfall would not have been effective against smaller, faster fighter-bombers. The Allies could have also shifted to dispersed flights of individual aircraft more as a stream instead of a formation.

But even if all Allied strategic air operations ceased in summer of 1944, the outcome of the war would not have been any different in Europe.