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
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?

#46

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 21:13

So you think Atlantic sea recon was a waste of German resources?
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

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

#47

Post by BDV » 09 Apr 2013, 21:36

Indeed.

Pretty much like with everything else to do with Kriegsmarine, beyond the most basic of coastal defense.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


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?

#48

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 21:40

So you think Atlantic sea recon was a waste of German resources?
It was costly; if KG 40 had been restricted from the start to convoy recce ONLY rather than recce/bombing, the cost would have been worth it. As it was, across the duration of the war there was a slight profit on the equation given the limited amount of resource the Germans put into it.

If they vastly increase it - it ALSO becomes costly in terms of maintenance and crew, and not uncostly in terms of fuel! 8O

There's also the shadow that 4-500 Ju88s reassigned casts on other Luftwaffe campaigns...

And there's ANOTHER problem...

Up to a hundred aircraft in the air at once...making periodic radio reports, and signalling if they spot a convoy...followed hard on its heels by the KM sending new orders to concentrate on specific locations to its u-boats at sea!

Right there's a set of unbroken code following a set of broadcasts in broken code :wink: Containing the same position data...that's what they call a "crib", an easy way into the Uboat codes ;)
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 09 Apr 2013, 21:47, edited 1 time in total.
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
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

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

#49

Post by LWD » 09 Apr 2013, 21:44

Can someone state just what the combat range of the variant in question was with the proposed bomb load?
How would dive bombing affect this?

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?

#50

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 21:55

The historical variant in question is the H-4, which had a TOTAL range of ~1,700 miles...so a "combat radius" of a third that, or 560-600 miles. It was to be used to combat PBYs and B24s, thus protecting uboats returning to port, but was never operational; the few built were diverted to "Mistel" operations...

It's really only a ~300-mile improvement over "standard".
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?

#51

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 21:59

I can only guess with the resources I have.

You can start with an A4 with maximum internal fuel and a quartette of SC250 lbs. Subtract that weight from Max Unassisted takeoff weight. That, plus the additional savings from deleting the fourth crewmember, the gondola and defensive armament represents the total addtional weight in fusalage, tankage and fuel you can add to the extended range Ju88. It is somwhere between 1600 and 2000 miles at a guess. Go down from a quartette to to two SC250 bombs to if actual range is insufficient. Use RATO only for max overweight when equiped with external drop tanks.

The Ju88 D-1 with two 900 liter external tanks had a range of 2,250 mile.
"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?

#52

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 22:08

The Ju88 D-1 with two 900 liter external tanks had a range of 2,250 mile.
It ALSO had at most three (3) Mgs for defence, and NO ordnance...just cameras. It was the long range recce variant.

it also had ALL divebombing equipment, including dive brakes, removed...
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...

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

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

#53

Post by John T » 09 Apr 2013, 22:45

phylo_roadking wrote:
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!
Oh dear. Okay, here we go...

10 repeat ten Ju88 attacked HMS Suffolk.

to quote from http://www.world-war.co.uk/duck.php3
At 1037 Suffolk was approached down sun by a single Ju88A from K.G.30 at 10,000 feet. Previous attacks during the day were from the He111 in horizontal approaches and Captain Durnforth presumed this was also the case now. He turned his ship on beam to bring weapons to bear when the Ju88A dove at 65 to 70 degrees, down to a release point of 4,000 to 5,000 feet.

One SD1000 bomb struck the heavy cruiser just forward of X-turret, penetrating the upper, main, lower, and platform decks. It detonated near the after engine room and X-shell room. The explosion spread to the X-Cordite handling room where it triggered a further explosion that vented into X-turret gun house and lifted the turret roof. The flames shot through the engine room exhaust trunks and hatches from the wardroom flat, causing a column of flame to reach up the mainmast destroying the ensign. Severe structural damage was incurred and splinter damage was extensive- a small hole being blown in the ships side and in 20 minutes 1,500 tons of water entered. Both aft 8-inch turrets were disabled and speed reduced to 18 knots. 32 men were killed and 37 wounded. Radio communication was disabled and messages were passed via signal to Kipling who then transmitted them onward.

By this time C-in-C Home Fleet informed Durnforth that he had ordered 2 battle cruisers plus an antiaircraft cruiser with destroyers to assist the besieged squadron. Suffolk's commander responded that he felt supporting warships would only find themselves at risk under the circumstances of unchallenged Luftwaffe supremacy. He continued to request fighter cover repeatedly.

By now the conditions for air attack were exceptional - blue sky, a bright sun, and patches of white clouds at around 8,000 feet. Sporadic Ju88 attacks continued as the group headed west. At 1325 while the steering motor was temporarily out of action, a Ju88A from K.G.30 dived at the ship in a 70-degree dive from starboard, strafing the seaplane hangar and dropping 2 SD1000 bombs. They detonated on impact 15 to 20 feet starboard just aft of X-turret causing extensive splinter damage. This caused the after end of the ship to become flooded completely.

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?

#54

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 23:02

Oh dear. Okay, here we go...

10 repeat ten Ju88 attacked HMS Suffolk.
Noone said ALL the attacks were from Ju88s.

But quite correct - I forgot there was one (1) hit from 88 bombs dropped...
At 1037 Suffolk was approached down sun by a single Ju88A from K.G.30 at 10,000 feet. Previous attacks during the day were from the He111 in horizontal approaches and Captain Durnforth presumed this was also the case now. He turned his ship on beam to bring weapons to bear when the Ju88A dove at 65 to 70 degrees, down to a release point of 4,000 to 5,000 feet.

One SD1000 bomb struck the heavy cruiser just forward of X-turret, penetrating the upper, main, lower, and platform decks. It detonated near the after engine room and X-shell room. The explosion spread to the X-Cordite handling room where it triggered a further explosion that vented into X-turret gun house and lifted the turret roof. The flames shot through the engine room exhaust trunks and hatches from the wardroom flat, causing a column of flame to reach up the mainmast destroying the ensign. Severe structural damage was incurred and splinter damage was extensive- a small hole being blown in the ships side and in 20 minutes 1,500 tons of water entered. Both aft 8-inch turrets were disabled and speed reduced to 18 knots. 32 men were killed and 37 wounded. Radio communication was disabled and messages were passed via signal to Kipling who then transmitted them onward.
To put that into perspective - which was what i was attmepting to do earlier...from Suffolk's deck log at naval-history.net -

17th Met HM Submarine SEAL which had acted a navigational Beacon off Stavanger.
Bombarded Stavanger airfield (Operation DUCK).
Deployed to intercept force of German destroyers and came under heavy air attacks for several
hours
(Note: 33 individual attacks were counted).
Only one direct hit of the 88 near misses reported.
Sustained major damage aft that disabled steering gear.
Extensive flooding and fire resulted and speed was reduced to 18 knots.
...which actually reinforces my point; that means HOW many sorties flown against the Suffolk/bombs dropped to obtain one (1) direct hit and one (1) close enough to damage??? 82 sorties (Hooton, p.230)

And remember - as noted above - obtaining maximum range historically from the Ju 88 meant removing the divebombing facility...
a Ju88A from K.G.30 dived at the ship in a 70-degree dive from starboard, strafing the seaplane hangar and dropping 2 SD1000 bombs. They detonated on impact 15 to 20 feet starboard just aft of X-turret causing extensive splinter damage. This caused the after end of the ship to become flooded completely.
Starboard of the ship is NOT a "hit"; the "splinter" damage was shrapnel damage from the bombs themselves.
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
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#55

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 23:22

In the meantime, it's just struck me that there something else seriously wrong with this idea....
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.
It's this...
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.
Only...ONLY...if the first wave plane locates a convoy early enough in its search pattern that any other first or second wave aircraft within reach have fuel in hand to rendezvous with the convoy!

Otherwise - only a very few aircraft can ever hope to "concentrate"...

Then there's THIS consideration...
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.
Having already flown off a total of EIGHTY (80) Ju88s on their initial patrols from various locations...there is absolutely NO guarantee that the "remaining" available aircraft on the ground are from any Luftwaffe maritime patrol bases in range to allow its aircraft to join the party! 8O

It's a bit like saying that KG 40 at Trondheim could send its Condors to support KG 40 Condor operations off Spain and Portugal in 1942-3!

Oh...and it of course assumes that with it being sent off in reaction to a "search" wave actually finding a convoy, and requiring time to fly out to Mid-Atlantic to the convoy's position - that there's still DAYLIGHT in hand to locate the convoy and attack!
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 09 Apr 2013, 23:40, edited 1 time in total.
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
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

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

#56

Post by stg 44 » 09 Apr 2013, 23:39

So again, despite this side tracking, it seems that there is value to having convoy recce available with an aircraft using non-strategic fuel very efficiently and doesn't take up airfield space. Again, I'm not getting where the little cost of having 100 or so Do26s spotting for Uboats is a bad thing. Attacking shipping in the Atlantic from the air in 1940-41 is not profitable compared to Uboat attacks, as well as bombing ports while mining the Mersey and Clyde rivers. The Ju88s are much more valuable bombing Britain, while the long range recce version of the Do26 spots for Uboats, which historically did far more damage than anything German naval air bombers ever achieved.

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?

#57

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 23:39

Fine. Don't send ANY extended range Ju88 on recon. Hold them all back and wait for the uboats to find the convoys. Then send everything available as long as the location is outside single engine fighter range.
"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?

#58

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 23:42

Don't send ANY extended range Ju88 on recon. Hold them all back .... Then send everything available as long as the location is outside single engine fighter range.
And meanwhile - what happens on all the other fronts crying out for tactical support???
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
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#59

Post by phylo_roadking » 09 Apr 2013, 23:50

it seems that there is value to having convoy recce available with an aircraft using non-strategic fuel very efficiently and doesn't take up airfield space. Again, I'm not getting where the little cost of having 100 or so Do26s spotting for Uboats is a bad thing.
I'm not really that sure that THIS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_26 - is an aircraft I'd care to to be sitting in as it tries to traverse standing RAF/USAAF patrol areas in the Western Approaches and Eastern Atlantic...with a Mosquito or Beaufighter, or a P-38...or even a Hudson!...bearing down on me...
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?

#60

Post by Old_Fossil » 09 Apr 2013, 23:50

What other fronts? Time Frame! Time Frame! Fall 1940 to summer 1941 is when the convoys are at their most vulnerable. Many Ju88 D models were assigned to ocean recon in the OTL. Just make them extended range Ju 88s. And in the first place if the decision is made to make this concerted effort then more resources would be available by limitting the useless blitz raids.
"If things were different, they wouldn't be the same."

Post Reply

Return to “What if”