How do the US and UK respond?

[bsmart]

Let's say sometime in 1943, the Soviets negotiate surrender to Germany. To keep this from turning ASB, I don't want to give details as to how the Germans could pull that off, given its one hell of a long shot. However, I am just curious as to how the western allies would respond after losing the Soviets.

It depends on the conditions of the Soviet surrender. Do the Germans feel they have to keep substantial forces along the Eastern border to keep the Soviets from renigging on the deal?

Are there major reparations owed the Germans by the Soviets? If not what will be the Germans situation as to oil,strategic metals, rubber, oil, etc.

If the Wallies control North Africa I see a possible invasion of Sicily just to reduce the risk of trans Mediterranean convoys which are key to communicating with India and the Middle East.

Eventually an Invasion of Italy with a static defensive line North of Naples (again to reduce the risk to the Mediterranean trade routes.) This would also establish forward bases for air attacks into Eastern Europe.

This will all mean a longer war and the longer it goes the more worried Germany has to get that the Soviets will consider getting back in to seek revenge.

 

[ppaul16]

You missed a couple:

FORAGER (June, 1944) - 535 combatant ships and auxiliaries, carrying an expeditionary force of 127,600 troops, equating to four and half reinforced infantry divisions (2nd, 3rd, 4th Marine divisions; 27th Infantry Division; 1st Marine Brigade (2 rcts+), simultaneously afloat and combat loaded.

It's also worth noting the objective (Mariana Islands) lay 1000 miles of steaming from the nearest advanced base (Eniwetok, which was basically an anchorage) and 3,500 miles from the nearest bastion of any significance, Oahu.

The shipping above does not include that used for the nearly simulatanous Wakde-Sarmi and Biak operations, which included enough assault and escort forces to put the reiforced 41st Infantry Division ashore in May, split between the two beachheads.

Throw in what was supporting operations in the Med and elsewhere in May-June, 1944, and the Allies could have put at least a dozen reinforced assault divisions ashore simultaneously, and reinforced and sustained them at the same pace as OVERLORD or even faster.

There's a reason the US (alone) was planning to have 12 divisions afloat simultaneously for OLYMPIC in 1945; they had the shipping...

Best,

Operation Olympic was expecting extremely heavy causalities and Japan in 1946 would be a much weaker opponent than this Germany in 1944. FDR and Churchill aren't Stalin and I don't think they would choose a strategy of putting everything on hold in the Pacific, getting all the ships to Europe and then throwing every man possible onto the beaches to try to overwhelm the Germans by sheer numbers.

 

[CalBear]

Semantics. Regardless, the Germans would eventually be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers the WAllies could commit in addition to established air superiority. If not, nuclear fire might have convinced them.

Italy was a disaster. The German forces there held out until the very end. Give then two additional Panzer divisions and they hold until 1946

D-Day was a success due to the massive battlefield prep and air supremacy, but also because the Heer had, just to face the Soviet Bagration offensive, over 1,000,000 troops 1,700 heavy armored vehicles (tanks/assault guns) and 1,600 aircraft, including the vast majority of the ground attack platforms available to the Luftwaffe. By comparison the Heer had 380,000 troops in the West positioned to oppose the landings. Using the common strategic planning math of the era if the majority of these forces (620K to make the math easy) Overlord would have required THREE MILLION ground troops. Not going to happen, not by mid 1944. For that matter an extra 400 fighters and 600 light & medium bombers would have drastically impacted the air superiority calculations.

It is also important to keep in mind that, by mid-1944 the Commonwealth had come close to its manpower limits, at least those available for use in the ETO (Australia and New Zealand having mainly withdraw forces to face the continuing threat in the Pacific). The U.S. itself, started to hit manpower limits in early 1945, as much due to the absolute limitation on resources that can be pulled for military service while managing to continue to be the industrial power-plant for the Alliance.

Lastly, the effectiveness of the Bomb against the Reich is frequently overstated. Two weapons were enough, when combined with the shock of the Soviet DoW, to allow the elements of the Japanese government who had long been advocating for peace, to gain the upper hand for a few critical days (it was actually a near run thing). Japan was also out on its feet, starving burning, and utterly surrounded. In short the country was looking for the referee to stop the contest. A Reich that had successfully defeated the Soviets would not be desperately looking for a way out. Hitler wouldn't surrender when the Red Army was INSIDE Berlin firing 203mm howitzers over open sights into buildings. The chances he folds over a couple more Dresdens are nil, regardless of the number of aircraft on the raid.

 

[ppaul16]

I don't think the WAllies getting air superiority is a given. First, is far cheaper to build a fighter than a four engine bomber. Second, while it takes time, Germany can switch from producing armaments for fighting in land to armaments to contesting the air (and stuff like 88mm antitank/flak guns don't even need to be retooled, they just get redeployed). Third, peace with the USSR likely means they get access to a lot of metals they lacked OTL, so they get more reliable jet engines. Four, while it also takes time, they can move factories further east, meaning the Allied bombers need to expend more time over Nazi airspace.

All in all, I think the WAllies will keep the fight in the periphery: North Africa, the Italian islands, Norway, maybe the Aegean and Greece while bidding their time for Project Manhattan to bear fruits. And then they begin to drop nuclear bombs on Germany at night. After 6-7 nuclear bombardments, some sort of peace is achieved. The main issue will be that the Allies will (understandably) want to occupy Germany and, without Wallies armies in mainland Europe, the Nazis won't easily budge, despite weekly nuclear attacks.

The US would be able to outproduce Germany in aircraft, but with the Germans being able to put more resources into air defense the bombing campaign would be more costly. Allied aircrews shot down over Germany are also out of the war so having to train and replace more aircrews will put another strain on the allied efforts.

 

[bsmart]

I agree that Italy could be a sink for troops if offensive operations are planned. My main reason for Invading is to reduce the threat to the trans Mediterranean shipping routes. That is why I suggest digging in North of Naples and not trying to advance further up the penninsula. A side benefit is gaining the areas around Bari, Foggia and Brindisi for Airbases to spread the air offensive into Central Europe

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Hitler wouldn't surrender when the Red Army was INSIDE Berlin firing 203mm howitzers over open sights into buildings. The chances he folds over a couple more Dresdens are nil, regardless of the number of aircraft on the raid.

There is a point.

One of the Axis powers fought to the last room, of the last building, of the last street of the last city.

It wasn't the Japanese.

 

[riggerrob]

If Russia surrendered, that would allow Germany to transfer more troops to Western Europe.
OTL Germany deployed 200 divisions to the Eastern (Russian) front and only 26 Divisions to the Western Front (primarily Normandy, France). Furthermore, many occupation troops on France were second-rate "volunteers" from the Eastern Front (anti-Bolshevik Poles, Ukrainians, etc.). Stiffened by a few SS and paratroopers, they repeated fought WALLIES to a stand-still in Normandy. WALLIES only succeeded in France because they out-numbered (German) defenders. If German defenders were better-supplied, they could have permanently stalled WALLY liberation of France, then WALLIES would be forced to forget about liberating Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, etc.

WALLIES cheerfully gave millions of tons of Lend-Lease to Russia because it meant that Russian soldiers did most of the bleeding. The German Army bled dry on the Eastern Front.

 

[Just a Rube]

I actually see nukes being used more tactically; drop a nuke on the Atlantic Wall to destroy the defenses, and then send troops ashore through the big hole in the German lines. Repeat whenever a sufficiently large German formation masses to oppose you. Sort of like chemical weapons in WWI, only without the problem of gas drifting back and affecting your own troops. The dangers of radiation were much less understood at the time.

Depending on when in '43 we are talking about, Allied forces may already be on the mainland in Italy; that front will go no where (unless nukes get used), but it's a front that both sides have to cover.

 

[david_herdson]

Its going come down to nukes. Others upthread have suggested that Hitler and co would have taken the attacks in their stride but I'm not so sure. The response to the Hamburg raid (in July 1943, so on the cusp of the PoD in this TL), is instructive:

http://ww2today.com/29th-july-1943-germany-is-stunned-by-the-impact-of-the-hamburg-raids

However, thousand-bomber raids couldn't be mounted weekly or even more frequently; providing that the bombs were there, atomic attacks could. To minimise the risk of their being shot down before reaching their targets, presumably most of the targets would be in the north-west or near the northern coast bar the obvious exception of Berlin.

I agree with those who say that it'd have taken more than the two bombs that forced the Japanese to surrender but that would have been the end game.

In the interim though, there'd be a whole lot of changes.

- Probably no D-Day landings, or if there are, they'd almost certainly be unsuccessful.

- Renewed and heavily intensified German air assault against Britain and particularly London.

- German attacks through the USSR towards Iran, Iraq, Suez and perhaps India.

- Reallocation of German armament production towards U-boats and aircraft.

- Changes in the politics of the Reich from 1943-5: instead of being denigrated as traitors and incompetents, the generals and field marshals on the Eastern Front would be heroes. I'm not quite sure how that pans out other than there'd have been personnel changes from OTL. Does the army acquire more prestige? Perhaps, but it'd be unable to use it - Hitler too, above all, would have gained prestige.

- No meaningful coup / assassination attempt/s.

 

[CalBear]

I actually see nukes being used more tactically; drop a nuke on the Atlantic Wall to destroy the defenses, and then send troops ashore through the big hole in the German lines. Repeat whenever a sufficiently large German formation masses to oppose you. Sort of like chemical weapons in WWI, only without the problem of gas drifting back and affecting your own troops. The dangers of radiation were much less understood at the time.

Depending on when in '43 we are talking about, Allied forces may already be on the mainland in Italy; that front will go no where (unless nukes get used), but it's a front that both sides have to cover.

Unfortunately nukes were not that accurate at the time (At Hiroshima the weapon missed the IP by 240 meters but at Nagasaki it missed the targeting point by three kilometers/1.9 Miles) nor were they sufficiently potent (Little Boy had a "sure kill" of hardened bunkers of ~340 meters and a exposed lethal radius of ~1.6km) to destroy a well designed defensive belt. With the tech of the era it almost as likely that that a tactical weapon misses the defenses completely, Detonating over the Channel (which would result in some extra nasty fallout) or inland over what was mostly farmland or flooded fields would be a full out failure and leave the defenders still combat ready.

 

[mack8]

I'm curious, what kind of disaster could happen in 1943 the east for USSR to surrender to Germany? I can understand some sort of armistice, but surrender?

Perhaps the POD could be a more succesful german advance in 1941, maybe they take Moscow or something, and in 1942 they avoid being bled in a Stalingrad type battle and manage to take the oil fields in the Caucasus. I guess i could see how possibly the USSR would be on it's last stregth in 1943 in this scenario. Though i still think a total surrender, as in germans having full and total control of ALL USSR is very improbable. Maybe we have a rump USSR (no doubt, plotting for revenge) beyond the Urals.

Anyway, yeah, the implications are massive in both Europe and Japan. The germans will have a lot more oil, a lot more resources AND manpower to exploit, and i too believe US-UK air superiority even in 1944 is rather far fetched, in fact given what we know about the german toys of these days, they are likely to lose it by 1945! Ironically, B-29 is an easier target for the jet fighters because it's much faster than the B-17 and B-24. Plus, you have things like Ta-152C/H, Do-335 as well as FW-190D and Bf-109K coming by the THOUSANDS every month, plus night fighters with the latest gear not, to mention the latest type of jet and piston bombers which probably are still produced in significant numbers.

Another issue, even before somehow having a B-29 manage to sneak in and drop an A-bomb, is the UK. By the 1945 the germans are far away from being beaten, in fact likely they're as strong as ever. Conversely UK is at the limit of it's endurance, probably still under constant V-1 and V-2 attacks, plus sporadic bomber attacks. I would doubt that they would be very enthusiastic about the A-bomb, because german reprisals will be taken against UK, and they might not know what the germans have in store for them.

 

[david_herdson]

I'm curious, what kind of disaster could happen in 1943 the east for USSR to surrender to Germany? I can understand some sort of armistice, but surrender?

Perhaps the POD could be a more succesful german advance in 1941, maybe they take Moscow or something, and in 1942 they avoid being bled in a Stalingrad type battle and manage to take the oil fields in the Caucasus. I guess i could see how possibly the USSR would be on it's last stregth in 1943 in this scenario. Though i still think a total surrender, as in germans having full and total control of ALL USSR is very improbable. Maybe we have a rump USSR (no doubt, plotting for revenge) beyond the Urals.

Anyway, yeah, the implications are massive in both Europe and Japan. The germans will have a lot more oil, a lot more resources AND manpower to exploit, and i too believe US-UK air superiority even in 1944 is rather far fetched, in fact given what we know about the german toys of these days, they are likely to lose it by 1945! Ironically, B-29 is an easier target for the jet fighters because it's much faster than the B-17 and B-24. Plus, you have things like Ta-152C/H, Do-335 as well as FW-190D and Bf-109K coming by the THOUSANDS every month, plus night fighters with the latest gear not, to mention the latest type of jet and piston bombers which probably are still produced in significant numbers.

Another issue, even before somehow having a B-29 manage to sneak in and drop an A-bomb, is the UK. By the 1945 the germans are far away from being beaten, in fact likely they're as strong as ever. Conversely UK is at the limit of it's endurance, probably still under constant V-1 and V-2 attacks, plus sporadic bomber attacks. I would doubt that they would be very enthusiastic about the A-bomb, because german reprisals will be taken against UK, and they might not know what the germans have in store for them.

But wouldn't that be precisely why Churchill - assuming it is still he in charge - would want to drop the bomb? Where's victory going to come from otherwise against a brutally repressive regime? Sure, it might collapse from overstretch but then so might Britain. It would certainly have solved its raw material problem and, in the West, its manpower shortages. A dozen atomic bombs might well do the trick, even if only half get through. Against which there's the ever-present threat that the Nazis might develop their own bomb (it was, after all, in the light of intelligence that Germany was trying to do just that, that Roosevelt gave the green light for America's project). And if London and SE England was again subject to massive bombardment, public opinion would demand as much retaliation as possible.

 

[mack8]

I guess it's possible, though i would genuinely like to know how much Churchill was willing to risk ruining (from his POV-like i said, they probably don't know how destructively the germans can retaliate) the UK to ruin Germany.

Actually i was thinking, if in the second half of 1944 US and UK still try Overlord with everything they got, and after a climactic battle with huge losses on both sides they have to evacuate, then i think one possibility is for the conflict to head to a stalemate and possibly some kind of ceasfire.

Now if one really wants to do something with the A-bomb, then they are best served to wait until 1946 when they'll have a dozen or two of them. But we still go into the tech stuff, the germans likely have thousands of jets fighters and even SAMs, so their airspace will be a death trap, and if in this ATL the nazis were competent enough to actually defeat USSR, then likely they are competent enough to know something is being cooked in the UK. How do they react and what kind of reprisals they have the possibility to use at that point, that's something i'd like to hear more.

 

[NamelesStatistic]

Also in addition to the American nukes the Brits are producing weaponized Anthrax with operation Vegetarian coming online in 1944. With mass anthrax poisoning of the German (and likely occupied nations) countryside and subsequent famine in addition to regular B29 delivered atomic bombing of German cities, things aren't looking so good for Nazi Germany. This is of course assuming that the American and British leadership are willing to use their WMDs.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I don't think the WAllies getting air superiority is a given. First, is far cheaper to build a fighter than a four engine bomber…..

Using the number in John Ellis 'Brute Force' the German in 1944 built approx 85,000 aircraft with engines. Nearly all those were single engined as the directive for concentration on fighters had been given. The US along in 1944 built 105,000+ flyable aircraft. Nearly half of those were multi engine models. Also this number does not reflect total US capacity. In the autumn of 1944 the decision was made to stop increase in production & reduce production in 1945.

Commonwealth production for 1944 was over 40,000 bringing the US/CW output to nearly double the German. As with the US Commonwealth output reflects a stabilization in production, vs a steady increase as in the first half of the year.

More important than all this hardware is the training of the German pilots. The Brits had from the start in 1939 been building a better training program, and the US followed suit in 1940-42. By the start of 1944 the rookie German pilot was scheduled for a reduced regime of 175 flight hours in school. His counterpart in the USAAF was scheduled for 280 flight hours & the RAF was increasing initial training hours for the fighter pilot to 340 hours.

One result of this difference was the German operational loss rate was steadily rising through 1943 into 1944, approaching 50% of losses. the RAF & USAAF operational losses fell below 30% of all losses.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Using the number in John Ellis 'Brute Force' the German in 1944 built approx 85,000 aircraft with engines. Nearly all those were single engined as the directive for concentration on fighters had been given. The US along in 1944 built 105,000+ flyable aircraft. Nearly half of those were multi engine models. Also this number does not reflect total US capacity. In the autumn of 1944 the decision was made to stop increase in production & reduce production in 1945.

Commonwealth production for 1944 was over 40,000 bringing the US/CW output to nearly double the German. As with the US Commonwealth output reflects a stabilization in production, vs a steady increase as in the first half of the year.

More important than all this hardware is the training of the German pilots. The Brits had from the start in 1939 been building a better training program, and the US followed suit in 1940-42. By the start of 1944 the rookie German pilot was scheduled for a reduced regime of 175 flight hours in school. His counterpart in the USAAF was scheduled for 280 flight hours & the RAF was increasing initial training hours for the fighter pilot to 340 hours.

One result of this difference was the German operational loss rate was steadily rising through 1943 into 1944, approaching 50% of losses. the RAF & USAAF operational losses fell below 30% of all losses.

Your German Aircraft numbers are off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
only 25k fighters in 1944.

Not even the US made 85k combat aircraft in 1944:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Let's talk about what the TL would be if the USSR started to collapse in 1941. I'm assuming Leningrad, Moscow, and Rostov fall in 1941 and Sevastopol probably does too. In 1942 the USSR is in collapse and organized resistance is falling apart as the Red Army fights it out amongst itself for power and probably with the NKVD. The Axis roll over Stalingrad and into the Caucasus with minor losses, securing Maykop more or less intact, same with the ports on the Black Sea and pipelines, enabling them to start extracting oil. They probably are able to reach and secure Grozny, its oil, and the pipeline to Tuapse. In the meantime to prevent the Germans from securing Baku and Tiblisi the Wallies bomb them, but cannot get at Maykop and Grozny. Oil is exported via the Black Sea to Romania for refining and gives the Axis all the oil it needs for the war effort. Pilot training isn't gutted in 1942 then and can be stepped up.

Let's say Japan still attacks the US, just ITTL the Kwantung army attacks Russia in the Far East once the USSR falls apart.

In 1942 there is significantly more airpower for the Mediterranean and in France due to the Soviets pretty much collapsing in 1941. There is more aluminum available to the Axis from the USSR when the Volkov/Tikhvin area falls. Finland secures all of Karelia, all the German mountain troops used in the north are either sent to the Caucasus, Norway, or Yugoslavia. The Battle of the Atlantic plays out roughly the same ITTL. The Baltic is secured. Malta falls in August 1942 when Operation Pedestal fails to supply Malta due to greater German airpower in the Mediterranean and extra fuel for the Italian navy allowing major units to sortie against the convoy. Egypt does not, that front plays out the same due to insurmountable logistics issues. Dieppe perhaps fails even worse with greater German army and air power in France in August 1942.

Operation Torch still happens, perhaps sooner without the need for LL to the USSR. Thanks to improved supply due to the fall of Malta and more trucks and replacements of everything Rommel is able to rally and check Monty around Benghazi while a new Panzer army in Tunisia checks the Torch landing and secures more turf than IOTL due to more men being available and better supply. North Africa is a more active front into 1943, perhaps with Kasserine being an Axis victory due to more men, equipment, and supply. Not sure how that plays out in the long run, but its a meat grinder for the Axis pretty much no matter what, even if all the Tigers available end up there and there is plenty of supply and aircraft. Probably no Sicily invasion until 1944 at the earliest.

More Axis production is based on air defense, meaning more AAA and fighters. Probably greater attempts at night bombing against Britain too. Without the East Front France probably doesn't happen in 1944, so the V-1 problem continues throughout 1944 into 1945, with lots of bombing effort aimed at stopping it. Without a foothold in France the German radar screen is not breeched and Allied fighters cannot do their OTL damage from continental bases. Oil production, even if attacked from Britain, cannot be destroyed like IOTL due to Caucasian oil via the Black Sea being untouchable and without Italian bases, so it Romania effectively. The Yugoslav partisan problem is probably quashed in 1943 without an active Eastern front. The Wallies are pretty wary about an invasion of the continent given how many more German/Italian troops are around from 1943 on. Sicily is probably too tough a nut to crack, so Sardinia probably gets invaded first to set up a bombing base against Italy. Depending on how quickly North Africa falls that may not be until 1943 or even delayed into 1944. In the end Africa will wear down the Axis pretty badly, while the Wallies suffer worse overall losses than IOTL between 1942-44.


I don't think Operation Vegetation would be approved, probably too much risk of blow back if the Germans collect spores and use them against Britain. It would also cause inhuman suffering among civilians, not just enemy ones if it spreads and once the Germans replace their cattle losses from occupied populations in the West.

The question is whether the LW could be beat down enough in 1944-45 to enable Normandy in 1945 or whether they wait for the bomb. Likely the Germans evacuate industry and population East out of range of bombing, while the Allies bomb transport heavily to prevent that material from moving West to France. The Axis even with resources from the East and careful husbanding of aircraft, plus all the extra AAA, would likely still be suffering quite heavily, even if they are able to inflict much more heavy combat losses. The big issue in 1945 is that without a foothold on the continent and with greater mineral resources the Germans will have their jet fighters en masse with more reliable engines thanks to the nickel from Finland and the Donbas. Turkey and Spain won't stop selling to the Axis in 1944 ITTL due to how much better they are doing and how much of a threat they still are, so that means chromium and tungsten still flow even with Allied bidding wars driving up prices. Without the large human losses in the East from 1941 on German production likely keeps German labor for the more sensitive production like aircraft, engines, and whatnot, preventing the problems of sabotage. By 1944 the German electronics industry was putting out cribbed cavity magnetron based radar of British design captured from shot down bombers and without the collapsing ground situation and somewhat better air situation that will be a big problem for the Allies in 1945 as much more of that is around and improving FLAK and night fighter defenses. By day though P-51 spamming and by night Mosquito night fighter intruders will be major problems from 1944 on, not sure how the Axis can handle that given their production disadvantage. Even with Italy still onside in 1944-45, it will be a mess due to bombing once Sardinia is a bomber base.

At what point is there too many losses for British and US publics? When nukes come online do they get first used in Asia or Europe? Would knocking out Japan be a priority or possible without the USSR helping on the mainland?

 

[david_herdson]

I'm curious, what kind of disaster could happen in 1943 the east for USSR to surrender to Germany? I can understand some sort of armistice, but surrender?

Perhaps the POD could be a more succesful german advance in 1941, maybe they take Moscow or something, and in 1942 they avoid being bled in a Stalingrad type battle and manage to take the oil fields in the Caucasus. I guess i could see how possibly the USSR would be on it's last stregth in 1943 in this scenario. Though i still think a total surrender, as in germans having full and total control of ALL USSR is very improbable. Maybe we have a rump USSR (no doubt, plotting for revenge) beyond the Urals.

[snip].

I think the disaster would have to happen well before 1943. A much weaker USSR in 1941 would be the best place to start, whether from an even more brutal purge, less effective rearmament or whatever. Alternatively, maybe Stalin is shot in July 1941, as he expected to be (and not without reason). From there, it's quite possible to re-run 1917 and have Russia collapse from within.

 

[Locke01]

In 1943 there isn't much to know, other than the US was making pure Uranium Metal economically(Tons of it!), and had a working reactor.

They never accomplished either.

They Soviets cracked the theoretical side of MP, but not the mundane Engineering side.

Thats what took them to 1949 to make a single bomb, not the assembly line that the US did.
It took the Soviets till 1954 to have more than a dozen bombs, a place the USA would have been at by January 1946

One of the dirty little serets of the early Cold War period is that the United States had NO operational nuclear weapons in the immediate aftermath of the war. What they may have had were components for possibly two or three more bombs, but not functional weapons that could be loaded onto a Silverplated B-29 at short notice. As late as the spring of 1947, the US had in inventory seven nuclear cores that could be mated with other components to from a Mk-1 nuclear weapon, and the dissembled non-nuclear portions of six other bombs, but no actual fissile material to insert into them. Mass production of new models did not begin until 1948.

 

[mack8]

One never stops learning news things in these discussions. For the purpose of this ATL, OK they only had 7 bombs all the way to 1947, given that the war is still going into 1945 and 1946, could they have made more in that timeframe, or that's really all they would manage up to 1947 even with all their resources?

If all they have is 3 bombs to drop on Germany in 1945, not only there is a good risk not all would make it in the face of german defences (if any!), but also all that would do is really piss off the germans.