What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#31

Post by stg 44 » 08 Apr 2013, 04:36

Old_Fossil wrote:The Jumo 211J and Ju88 A4 were in the Battle of Britain, if only at the tail end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju88
You have to be very careful of wikipedia sometimes; the A4 airframe saw service in October 1940, which was the Ju 88A5; the Jumo 211J had to wait until January 1941 and the 'full' A4 went into action then.
Old_Fossil wrote: If there were a major committment to long range sea-air recon then FliegerFührer Atlantic would have been established earlier in your ATL.
Yep, that's the goal.
Old_Fossil wrote: Fuel will not be a limiting issue until after Barbarossa.
No it was a limiting factor in getting ready for the huge usage rates of Barbarossa; they had to tone down operations to conserve fuel to make sure they had enough, which they just barely did.
Old_Fossil wrote: Developing a long range Ju88 after the fall of France is a much more likely scenario than deciding to invest scarce resources in 1939 for flying boats with little prospect of reaching the Atlantic from bases in Germany.
The need for long range recon for naval purposes in the North Sea is very much an issue, which is why they had so many sea planes historically for the Norwegian Campaign. Unfortunately because of Göring's very poor relationship with Raeder, Göring never allowed the resources to be put into something like the Do 26, because he was monopolizing Dornier production capacity with the useless Do 17 design and older floatplane designs; he didn't want to use the resources to develop a useful model and instead when forced to decided on letting the Focke-Wulf entry into the role stand instead of making a major commitment; the FW 200 was a stopgap when Hitler forced him to help the Uboats.

So the change will have to be someone's attitude somewhere. Maybe the Ju 88 program actually isn't plagued with production problems from day one, so Dornier phases out the Do 17 in 1939-40 as planned in favor of the Ju88, so has spare capacity and can make the Do 26? Or someone at the LW pushes for greater cooperation with the Kriegsmarine. Given that this thread is about the change being that the LW produces the Do 26, it doesn't matter if a Ju 88 option is more likely or even technically feasible in 1940-41; rather, we are instead focusing on going with the best aircraft option available in 1939 to explore the results of that decision, rather than bickering over whether its likely or not.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10048
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#32

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 09 Apr 2013, 02:44

phylo_roadking wrote: Four bombs...actually, more ideally three...means only ONE attack on shipping per sortie 8O The Luftwaffe didn't have the guaranteed accuracy for hitting shipping - which is why the Condor pioneered the tactic of dropping a stick of bombs across a merchant ship so that at least one was close enough to stave in hullplates - they actually scored few DIRECT hits!

So if you reduce the Ju88's strike capability to one stick...once per sortie...are you really improving the Luftwaffe's maritime recce bomber capability?
From what I've read the 300k tons of shipping claimed by the Condor was actually split between the Condor and several other types of aircraft with Fliegerführer Atlantik, rather than just the Condor. Also note that I said claimed, rather than actually sunk.
Here's something ELSE to think about...

Yes, those 200-300,000 tons of shipping figures READ great...but you need to look at the actual SHIPS lost ;) It might for instance turn out that "300,000 tons" is only, say THIRTY vessels of 10,000 tons EACH across HOW many months of operations???

Also - is that tons of shipping...or tons of shipping plus cargo??? How many tons of cargo did a 10,000 ton merchant ship carry?
Hidden behind that post is the problem that the German air Force was not very good at maritime warfare in 1939-41. IIRC there was only one GAF unit, a small one, with any actual experience at attacking ships at sea. Hitting a moving ship, even a slow cargo scow requires a different technique from hitting stationary targets on land, on at a dock. Folks point to the British losses in the "Kannalkampf" in August 1940 as the contrary example. Fortunatly for the Allies the number of sorties per ship sunk is unimpressive in that battle or campaign.

Earlier in 1939 the GAF had attempted some attacks on Brit fleet units 'showing the flag' on the North Sea. The largest effort launched over 300 aircraft. I not only failed to hit a single Brit warship, but for the most part failed to even sight the ships. The few descriptions I've seen of this event make it sound like a true goat rope. The GAF did a lot of improving between then & its Mediteranean campaign in 1942.

As others have noted here there was a the problem of Goerings lack of interest in combined operations. As the managment consultants say the fish rots from the head first. Combined operations require all sorts of well oiled details. Command and control doctrine/protocols between the HQ are of course essential, and need to be tempered by rapid assimilation of practical experience. Then there are more than a few technical skills to master. Overwater navigation & long range radio communications to name two. The engineers & mechanics had a number of technical details to mater as well. Installing extra fuel tanks in not the only consideration for providing a long range aircraft.

If a serious effort at long range maritime air support is to be made all the items I've outlined and more need to be addressed early on.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#33

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 14:39

Carl, also....
Folks point to the British losses in the "Kannalkampf" in August 1940 as the contrary example. Fortunatly for the Allies the number of sorties per ship sunk is unimpressive in that battle or campaign.
...people tend to forget that the coastal convoys were limited to manouvering inside the confines of the Swept War Channels! As always noted in discussions on anti-shipping warfare of any kind - the ability to manouver to avoid fall-of-ordnance is vital, in terms of both speed and sea room.

in 1940, those long lines of small, coastal coalboats had NEITHER...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Old_Fossil
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: 20 Mar 2013, 22:29
Location: United States

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#34

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 17:09

by phylo_roadking » 07 Apr 2013, 18:59

The thing about the Fw 200 and any alternatives...and recce'ing for uboats...is that KG40 did continue to fly Fw 200 recce missions long after they were stopped from flying strike missions
A Ju88 with a quartette to bombs would be about eight times as effective as a Kondor considering it's greater suitablity as a bomber, survivability, and operational readiness.
Four bombs...actually, more ideally three...means only ONE attack on shipping per sortie The Luftwaffe didn't have the guaranteed accuracy for hitting shipping - which is why the Condor pioneered the tactic of dropping a stick of bombs across a merchant ship so that at least one was close enough to stave in hullplates - they actually scored few DIRECT hits!
Are you saying that a converted civilian airliner is just as good as a Ju88 in hitting ships? :lol: The Ju88s in this ATL will know about the Swedish Turnip tactics perfected by the Kondor. A Ju88, which actually has a bombsight, will be able to do with two bombs what a Kondor can do with three, giving the Ju88 two chances to hit or sink a ship. Add to this the greater surviveablity of a military plane to combat damage and a propensity to NOT break its back on landing and you have a plane that will perform more missions. Too, the operational readiness of the Kondor was horrendous. Again a legacy of its civilian origins. Double the operational readiness rate of the Kondor means even more sorties to sink ships. These benefits aren't addititive, they are multiplicative. A Ju88 will easily have eight times the combat effectiveness of a Kondor. So if each Kondor sortie had, say, a 1% chance of finding and sinking a ship, then a Ju88 should have an 8% chance. Now consider that you will have 200 of these Ju88s rather than 40 Kondors.

Now consider this scenario:
90 extended range (ER) Ju88s in Norway and 90 in France.
Aircraft available today: 100 (a 55% readiness rate)
In the early morning 10 Ju 88s overloaded with fuel take off from each base to search for convoys. Three hours later another wave takes off, to search additional areas or as backup for the preceeding wave. Repeat as necessary. Assume a plane in the first wave sights a convoy. It maintains contact as long as possible and is then backed up by second wave planes redirected to its location. While this is going on an attack wave is being formed up from the remaining planes. Thirty ER Ju88s armed with bombs take off to attack the convoy. They sink only ten ships, but four cripples are later sunk by uboats. If you do this just four times a month then thats an extra 250,000 tons of shipping sunk per month than in the OTL.

Yes, the Luftwaffe was abysimal in its attacks on shipping early in the war, but they were not stupid. They did eventually learn how to do it right with practice. 200 ER Ju88s would have have had a lot of opportunities to practice.
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#35

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 18:03

Are you saying that a converted civilian airliner is just as good as a Ju88 in hitting ships?
I'm saying they're just as good at sinking ships...for the Fw 200's tactic didn't need you to HIT ships!

Can I recommend you look at some of the often-discussed examples of even intentionally-designed Luftwaffe bombers hitting ships that have been discussed on AHF? And the actual sortie rates required? Like, say, HMS Suffolk after Stavanger-Sola? :P
In the early morning 10 Ju 88s overloaded with fuel take off from each base to search for convoys. Three hours later another wave takes off, to search additional areas or as backup for the preceeding wave. Repeat as necessary. Assume a plane in the first wave sights a convoy. It maintains contact as long as possible and is then backed up by second wave planes redirected to its location. While this is going on an attack wave is being formed up from the remaining planes. Thirty ER Ju88s armed with bombs take off to attack the convoy. They sink only ten ships, but four cripples are later sunk by uboats. If you do this just four times a month then thats an extra 250,000 tons of shipping sunk per month than in the OTL.
Do you really not see some of the major difficulties with that idea? Here's a hint on one GLARING issue...
In the early morning 10 Ju 88s overloaded with fuel take off from each base to search for convoys. Three hours later another wave takes off, to search additional areas or as backup for the preceeding wave. Repeat as necessary.
Here's the SECOND...
Assume a plane in the first wave sights a convoy. It maintains contact as long as possible and is then backed up by second wave planes redirected to its location. While this is going on an attack wave is being formed up from the remaining planes.
Here's a THIRD, although it's actually a repeat of the FIRST...
Thirty ER Ju88s armed with bombs take off to attack the convoy.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Old_Fossil
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: 20 Mar 2013, 22:29
Location: United States

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#36

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 19:16

The attack on the HMS Sufolk is irrelevant. That is early in the time frame we are discussing when talking about the learning curve the Luftwaffe eventually accomplished which you have not denied. Also, the HMS Suffolk is a 30+ knot ARMED warship, not a 10 kno unarmed merchant ship.

As to your other non-critique, you'll have to be more specific about your assumptions. I see no problem with waves of recon planes that be told to change their final search area while enroute. If an ER Ju88 spots a convoy in its assigned search area "AF", then succeeding planes are told to concentrate in areas around "AF". Those planes that haven't yet been sent on recon missions are then armed and sent to the convoy's location. If they don't have a most current location they can spread out to search. 30 planes can cover a lot of square nm is a short time. There is no need for them to form up and attack all at once. Individual attacks work just fine given the merchants non-existant anti-aircraft guns.
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#37

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 19:36

The attack on the HMS Sufolk is irrelevant. That is early in the time frame we are discussing when talking about the learning curve the Luftwaffe eventually accomplished which you have not denied. Also, the HMS Suffolk is a 30+ knot ARMED warship, not a 10 kno unarmed merchant ship.
The issue of actually HITTING a ship is exactly the same.
As to your other non-critique, you'll have to be more specific about your assumptions. I see no problem with waves of recon planes that be told to change their final search area while enroute
And there's Problem No.2 right there...
If an ER Ju88 spots a convoy in its assigned search area "AF", then succeeding planes are told to concentrate in areas around "AF".
..repeated again; still not get it?
Individual attacks work just fine given the merchants non-existant anti-aircraft guns.
Merchant ships WERE armed - usually with light AA, occasionally medium, depending on the ship. Why do you think the Fw 200 attack profile was still risky?? Because they had to fly LOW to carry out attacks, and were vulnerable to LAA from ships...and this was actually beefed up as a result of the Fw 200's attacks.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Old_Fossil
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: 20 Mar 2013, 22:29
Location: United States

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#38

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 19:52

The issue of actually HITTING a ship is exactly the same.
What?! You are saying the chances of hitting a warship maneuvering at 30 knots while shooting at you is just as hard to hit as a lumbering merchant ship? And in late 1940 and early 1941 those ships were most certainly not well armed with anti-aircraft weapons. Nothing that is going to deter a pilot. IIRC not a single Fw200 was ever shotdown by a merchant ship. The British were so short of anti-aircraft weapons they resorted to arming some ships with mortars firing grappling hooks into the air to snag the Kondors as they swept overhead!

Same issue with the non-critique. I don't see the problem and you aren't saying what it is so I won't guess.
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#39

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 20:08

What?! You are saying the chances of hitting a warship maneuvering at 30 knots while shooting at you is just as hard to hit as a lumbering merchant ship?
Yes - because the time a bomber actually SPENDS passing over the target is so short. That's why KG 40 came up with the tactic of straddling a target rather than wasting time and sorties attempting "precision" bombing.
IIRC not a single Fw200 was ever shotdown by a merchant ship.
Fw 200 Condor Vs Atlantic Convoy: 1941-43 by Robert Forczyk, p.69 - the Belgian coaster Rene Paul shot down a Fw 200 C5 on September 2nd 1943 off Cape St. Vincent. The table of Fw 200 losses by cause mention a second in 1940.
Same issue with the non-critique. I don't see the problem and you aren't saying what it is so I won't guess.
I'll give you one more chance to re-read the last few posts and see if anything actually leaps out at you...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Old_Fossil
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: 20 Mar 2013, 22:29
Location: United States

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#40

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 20:36

Yes - because the time a bomber actually SPENDS passing over the target is so short. That's why KG 40 came up with the tactic of straddling a target rather than wasting time and sorties attempting "precision" bombing.
The Ju88 was a dive bomber. I'm pretty sure they used dive bombing in the attack on the HMS Suffolk. Lining up you attack is a whole lot easier and more likely to succeed if your target is not maneuvering and shooting at you with something bigger than a Lewis gun. The Swedish Turnip was a successful tactic forced on the Kondor due to its inability to dive. Ju88s could use that tactic, but they don't have to.

Good catch on the one merchant shootdown that occurred during the time frame we're discussing. A Ju88 might have survived because of its more robust construction, if it was even hit all due to to being a smaller target.

Still waiting on what assumptions you are assuming.
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#41

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 20:39

The Ju88 was a dive bomber. I'm pretty sure they used dive bombing in the attack on the HMS Suffolk.
Told you you should have checked the details of that event - despite ALl the effort expended by three waves IIRC of bombers noone actually HIT the Suffolk! It was damaged by...a near miss!
Still waiting on what assumptions you are assuming.
Oh dear. Okay, here we go...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Old_Fossil
Member
Posts: 307
Joined: 20 Mar 2013, 22:29
Location: United States

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#42

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 20:46

Told you you should have checked the details of that event - despite ALl the effort expended by three waves IIRC of bombers noone actually HIT the Suffolk! It was damaged by...a near miss!
So your point is that if the Suffolk had been a 10 knot Merchant ship it would have been the same outcome? No Hits?
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#43

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 20:51

The problems I mentioned include...

1/TIME -
In the early morning 10 Ju 88s overloaded with fuel take off from each base to search for convoys. Three hours later another wave takes off, to search additional areas or as backup for the preceeding wave. Repeat as necessary.
You DO realise how long patrol flights out into the Atlantic at best economy take??? How many times do you expect the LW to be able to repeat this in a given day?

It will ALSO take a terrible toll of aircraft - ANY aircraft - in maintenance and downtime to rest crews. Your pool of 200 aircraft is NOT enough; KG 40 alone was flying from four bases - your idea means four waves of ten aircraft followed by another four waves of ten, and a follow-up wave. That's well over a hundred aircraft in the air on any day...let alone the "repeat as necessary" wrinkle!!! 8O 200 aircraft won't cut it; for downtime, crew resting atc, you're more likely looking at 400-450!

And THAT makes a BIG hole in the LW elsewhere.


2/ Radio!
I see no problem with waves of recon planes that be told to change their final search area while enroute
If an ER Ju88 spots a convoy in its assigned search area "AF", then succeeding planes are told to concentrate in areas around "AF".
ALL this "telling" will be "visible" to the British! They were breaking 50% of LW coded radio material by mid-1940, 80-90% by the end of the year...and they were monitoring realtime R/T traffic during the BoB (BOTH sides were...)

Your idea has the Luftwaffe TELLING the British where they are and where they're going to be at a given time!

which leads on to -


3/ Interception!

Transiting to and from the Atlantic coast of France means passing through a zone patrollable by the British by Mosquitos and Beaufighters - this actually occured in 1942-43 causing heavy losses to KG 40. Further afield, you had the USAAF flying B24s from Morocco to intercept Condors, and in this case from the south of England...and also flying P-38s from iceland to intercept KG 40 Condors flying from Trondheim-Vaernes!

In 1943 alone - seventeen KG 40 Condors flying from France were shot down by RAF/USAAF longrange patorls...and you have the LW actually TALKING to each other in flight, coordinating aircraft movements, arranging rendez-vous etc.???
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#44

Post by Orwell1984 » 09 Apr 2013, 20:57

phylo_roadking wrote:
IIRC not a single Fw200 was ever shotdown by a merchant ship.
Fw 200 Condor Vs Atlantic Convoy: 1941-43 by Robert Forczyk, p.69 - the Belgian coaster Rene Paul shot down a Fw 200 C5 on September 2nd 1943 off Cape St. Vincent. The table of Fw 200 losses by cause mention a second in 1940.
For reference here's a list of Fw200 lost to merchant ships and smaller vessels:
20 Aug 40 I/KG40 Fw 200 C-1 F8+KH Sortie over Northern Island. Damaged by Flak from cargo steamer early PM and crashed into Faha Mountain, Cologhane, Co Kerry
10 Jan 41 Stab I/40 Fw200 C-3 SG+KK/F8+AB Shot down by Mate Mr. Reilly, tug Seaman with Lewis gun during attack on ship, 200 miles north-west of Ireland
05 Feb 41 1/KG 40 Fw 200 C-3 F8+AH ( SG+KR) Crashed into hill between Durrus and Schull Co. Cork after being hit by gun fire from SS Major C [sic vessel name actually SS Majorca]
19 May 41 1/KG40 Fw200 C-3 F8+DH (DE+OO) Shot down by single 12 pdr shell fired by SS Umgeni 300 miles west of Donegal Bay, Northern Ireland
18 Jul 1941 StabI/40 Fw200 C-3 F8+AB(SG+KS) Atlantic, Convoy OB346 Shot down by gunfire from SS Pilar de Larrinaga
9 May 1942 7/KG40 Fw200 C-3/U4 F8+FR(KE+IL) Lost between Iceland and Faeroe Islands Probably shot down by SS Duoro
02 Sep 1943 9/KG40 Fw 200 C-5 F8+DT(TA+MC) Shot down by Flak from SS Renee Paul during low level attack off Cape St. Vincent

Sources: The Fw200 Condor - Jerry Scutts; Focke-Wulf Fw200 Condor by Juan-Carlos Salgado

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if Germany had better long range sea-air recon?

#45

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 21:04

Almost as an afterthought...

4/ Spotting!

It was actually quite difficult for Condors to spot convoys, they didn't get good at it UNTIL the fitting of Hohenstein radar IIRC. You intend the LW to have anything up to a hundred aircraft in the air at any one time daily over the Atlantic...incurring a huge maintenance burden, exhausting crews etc...with a relatively limited chance of spotting convoys?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “What if”