What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943?

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

What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943?

#1

Post by stg 44 » 03 Jun 2014, 13:07

Inspired by these threads:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1426291
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=68932
http://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?1 ... ermany-WW2
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eu ... /flak.html
The most effective shell developed by theGermans was incendiary shrapnel. This thin-walled shell was packed with containing numerous small pellets. Fortunately for allied air crews, this shell was not introduced until the final months of te war.
Basically I discovered that by late 1944/early 1945 the Germans introduced a new FLAK shell that instead of using standard shrapnel instead dispersed incendiary pellets and apparently increased the effectiveness of box barrages by 300%, as the shrapnel, instead of just making wholes in bombers, would actually light them on fire. Assuming it had been in full service by June 1943, what effect does it have on the Combined Bomber Offensive? Is it enough to force the 8th air force to abandon daylight bombing and move to British style night raids in bombers streams? Would the night bombing be as affected, as the bomber stream has less exposed bombers at any one moment, due to not being in a box filling up more space?

If the daylight bombing campaign had to be curtailed and the night bombing campaign was also affected, though not as much, then the remainder of 1943-45 becomes a lot harder for the Allies. The strategic bombing campaign was highly effective and really impacted Germany's ability to supply its forces and resist. IIRC Speer estimated that Allied bombing cost Germany at leat 35% of its production in 1944 due to actual losses due to the bombing, but also through dispersal of factories and having to build underground facilities too. It might well impact the V-weapon suppression campaign and the preparations for D-day too. If it is so effective it might also bring the B-29 to Europe, but even that was within range of the newer generation of 88mm guns and of course the heavier weapons. It was also a larger target and if the Germans ensure that the latest FLAK guidance equipment goes to the best guns for reaching the B-29, then combined with this type of shell, that aircraft may not be the panacea of getting around this more effective FLAK system.

thoughts?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#2

Post by stg 44 » 04 Jun 2014, 01:18

I'll add a bit of information about this shell; it apparently was about 5 times more effective than the standard FLAK shell, but the incendiary submunitions, designed to go off below a bomber box and spray upwards, were contact initiated, meaning if they hit a bomber they would ignite, but if they didn't they would fall to earth and ignite on the ground. If used over a city, they could start fires themselves, though not nearly as big as the ones a standard incendiary bomb the British were dropping would, due to their small size. Still, that is a major handicap over potentially vulnerable targets, so if only used on the outskirts of cities or factories, it would lessen their effectiveness in that they would not be fully used all the way in. Still, when coupled later with other innovations like the double fuse FLAK shell (both with a timer and contact fuse) and the improved standard shrapnel shells they would be a serious addition, especially if used in defense of transportation sites, which would be far less vulnerable to falling incendiary pellets.

Clearly then it would not be able to stop the CBO on its own, but it would make bombing far more costly if used effectively in combination with other innovations and fighters, as having bigger holes ripped in bomber boxes would enable fighters to pick off more bombers in 1943 (though by 1944 escorts would virtually eliminate the fighter threat). By mid-1944 though with the greater Allied focus on German transport and oil infrastructure, would this new shell, now with a year in full service, be able to blunt attacks on industrial targets like these? Clearly not all can be fully defended with enough FLAK, but with enough casualties resulting from these missions, do the Allies maintain the pressure that collapsed the German economy in the second half of 1944?


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#3

Post by LWD » 04 Jun 2014, 14:22

Starting a lot of little fires all over the place may be worse than a big fire in one place. Especially in summer fields and forests may be quite vulnerable and the fires could easily get out of hand before noticed. Consider that if the bombers are at 8km altititude the fragments may land that far or further from the battery. If they didnt' all impact hard enough to detonate on impact they could also act as an artillery implaced mine field. If nothing else they could be quite hard on tires I would imagine.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#4

Post by maltesefalcon » 05 Jun 2014, 01:08

Having trouble replying to this thread.
Fourth time lucky I hope.

Barium nitrate is very toxic and may be problematic over urban zones.
Also did the Third Reich have a large enough reliable source of barium in 1943?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#5

Post by stg 44 » 05 Jun 2014, 01:55

maltesefalcon wrote:Having trouble replying to this thread.
Fourth time lucky I hope.

Barium nitrate is very toxic and may be problematic over urban zones.
Also did the Third Reich have a large enough reliable source of barium in 1943?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_2010.svg
According to this Germany has 1% of the world's supply.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#6

Post by maltesefalcon » 05 Jun 2014, 02:36

Those would seem to be 2010 production figures. I wonder how much different this figure would be in 1943.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#7

Post by stg 44 » 05 Jun 2014, 02:56

maltesefalcon wrote:Those would seem to be 2010 production figures. I wonder how much different this figure would be in 1943.
German mining was quite highly developed in 1943, along with their chemical engineering industry.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#8

Post by Takao » 05 Jun 2014, 09:55

Hmph, the Japanese "San Shiki" shells never proved to be tremendously effective against aircraft. US pilots found them to be more spectacular than effective.

Wishful thinking on the OPs part.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#9

Post by maltesefalcon » 05 Jun 2014, 13:07

In fairness those rounds were very large caliber. Guns that large have slow traverse and low firing rates. Not the best choice for AAA.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#10

Post by Ironmachine » 05 Jun 2014, 13:23

maltesefalcon wrote:Also did the Third Reich have a large enough reliable source of barium in 1943?
It seems so:
Before 1939 Germany was the chief producer of barite, supplying nearly half the world output. German production in 1937 was 452,388 and in 1938, 480,877 metric tons. Subsequent data are not available, but loss of export markets for crude and ground barite and barium chemicals has probably curtailed current output. Prussia is the chief producing State, followed by Baden. The barite occurs chiefly in veins and is recovered by underground mining.
http://images.library.wisc.edu/EcoNatRe ... arness.pdf

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#11

Post by stg 44 » 05 Jun 2014, 13:29

Takao wrote:Hmph, the Japanese "San Shiki" shells never proved to be tremendously effective against aircraft. US pilots found them to be more spectacular than effective.

Wishful thinking on the OPs part.
Using 18 inch battleship guns to accomplish AAA work is insane and in no way comparable to the 88mm designed for the job.
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/5751-sanshiki-shells/

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#12

Post by Takao » 05 Jun 2014, 23:06

Yawn...

San Shiki shells were produced in numerous calibers...Including 5-inch(127mm) and 4.7-inch(120mm).

I believe that these guns are designed for the same job as the German 88mm.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if Brand Schrapnell rounds have been around in 1943

#13

Post by stg 44 » 05 Jun 2014, 23:17

Takao wrote:Yawn...

San Shiki shells were produced in numerous calibers...Including 5-inch(127mm) and 4.7-inch(120mm).

I believe that these guns are designed for the same job as the German 88mm.
Were they on AA mounts with German quality radar and gun laying computer guidance systems attacking bomber boxes at 25,000 feet? AFAIK they were used on naval ships without proper gun laying for AA work at single and double engine aircraft in small units that would not be properly dealt with in that manner, as they were moving too fast in a different plane, so pre-timing the fuze wouldn't work well; the Germans used much smaller fast traversing AAA for that and contact fuses, while the USN ended up doing the same, but buffed it with proximity fuses. Frankly you are saying because the concept didn't work in a vastly different situation it wouldn't work in another one.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”