U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Georg_S
Forum Staff
Posts: 3447
Joined: 08 Dec 2016 12:37
Location: Sweden

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Georg_S » 22 Mar 2020 10:08

A post by Member "Richard Anderson" was deleted as it had personal insulting comment about a previous poster, if you have problems with the topic DON´T POST! Consider this as a small warning and behave!

//Georg
Waffen-SS, SS-TV, KZ/KL SS-Pz.A.A.
- http://wennallebruderschweigen.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Terry Duncan » 22 Mar 2020 12:28

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
21 Mar 2020 09:17
No doubt the Wallies could have built a causeway too. The British might have objected to that alteration to the Channel, however. And it would have cost a lot more than the landing craft for Overlord.

Actually, I might post a counter-ATL in which there's no A-bomb and the Wallies have to invade Europe to beat Germany. In that ATL, the causeway is probably the best tactic, with an invasion in '47 after beating Japan '46 (no A-bomb in this ATL).

Absent a causeway, a landing against the full Heer would require something on the order of 5-10 times the OTL Overlord force.
I know the Channel looks small and insignificant but it has some really nasty tides, and several times per year there will be 20-30ft waves, rather making the idea of building anything rather impossible given the facilities of the time and the small matter of a war going on.

https://www.myweather2.com/Marine/Coast ... chart.aspx

I live just on the English Channel, it is not as easy to cross it the storms after D-Day showed (I think we have had at least three gales this year so far), and the Germans had no ability or even concept for something like the Mulberry Harbours. Here are some nice clips of stormy weather on the Channel;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLtWDY6wRqI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfEMeJNfzpw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U579Rp_oLA8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kg_QweiLy0

The good news is that this is almost all footage taken off the Dover - Calais section which is the calm part!
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
21 Mar 2020 09:17
None of this is to say that such an Allied invasion would work. Just as I don't think the German invasion is certain to work. I haven't got that far in the ATL yet.

Whether each side could invade the other would depend largely on political factors. I.e. whether the US/UK would be willing to suffer millions of dead in either scenario - invading Europe or defending Britain to the last on land. Given my ATL up to the point of a German invasion of England, I find it likely they'd agree a peace leaving Britain her Empire, Germany dominant in Europe, and the US/UK alliance dominant across the rest of the globe (soon to be joined by Japan).

Alternatively, if the U.S. decides to raise and ship 200 divisions to England then the Wallies might be able to push Germany back over the causeway and, if willing to eat millions of deaths, might end in Berlin even absent the A-bomb.

OTOH if we add the Type XXI to this ATL a year or so earlier, then I think Germany can sink enough shipping to ensure success of her cross-Channel invasion causeway or no. Absent absolute control of the Atlantic, the U.S. wouldn't be able to move a sufficiently large army to England either to defend her or to invade Europe.

But that T21+Ostheersieg ATL is for another time, perhaps. Can't wait for all the constructive commentary on it.

But here's the meta-point: Any scenario in which the U.S. deploys hundreds of army divisions is one that diverges entirely from the Victory Plan in particular and from general American attitudes/expectations about the European war. The U.S. never seriously considered deploying armies on the scale discussed above; any conjecture about their willingness to do so is merely conjecture. What's more, it answers the question of the Victory Plan's feasibility in the negative (the topic of the thread, btw).
Re manpower. The British, US, and French have access to manpower in excess of 750 million, Germany has access to a maximum of at best 175 million given all the nations occupied fully co-operate. Whatever the Germans can produce and field the Allies can manage to double, and that is ignoring the material shortages the Germans had, and the massive US industrial base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... on_in_1939

Nuclear weapons are an interesting area, as the Allies believed Heisenberg was ahead of their research and they were desperate to close the gap as they saw it, even staging special missions to try and grab everything possible at the end of the war. If Germany is still holding much of Europe come mid-1945, you can expect all those nice B-29's to be able to start dropping the Little Boy type bomb that was 'inefficient' but able to be produced easily, and would still make nice glass deposits where needed until Germany gave up.

The way for Germany to win, in both 1914 and 1939 it to not fight, though in 1939 they were pretty much bankrupt unless they took other nations gold reserves.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 23 Mar 2020 16:18

Terry Duncan wrote:The British, US, and French have access to manpower in excess of 750 million, Germany has access to a maximum of at best 175 million given all the nations occupied fully co-operate.
Re the 750mil, you're including Indians and Africans. I've already made my arguments regarding whether they were included in Allied industrial economies (they weren't).

Re 175mil for the Germans, no idea where you're getting that. The population of continental Europe was ~500mil.
I know the Channel looks small and insignificant but it has some really nasty tides, and several times per year there will be 20-30ft waves
So several days a year you don't build.

Any book on Sealion mentions sea state for the Channel during September and mentions that it was less than 4 on many/most days (light waves). Only at the end of October would strong winds prevail. Causeway construction would be done mostly by very large barges, which would be fine more serious sea states.

I'll note that all the clips you show are from late-Fall or winter.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Terry Duncan » 23 Mar 2020 16:34

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 16:18
Re the 750mil, you're including Indians and Africans. I've already made my arguments regarding whether they were included in Allied industrial economies (they weren't).
So what? The Germans made use of slave labour, and in an AH scenario there is nothing preventing the other side from adopting any method, especially one already in use extensively by the other side. Indeed, if anything the Allies can simple ask for volunteers and still do better than Germany.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 16:18
Re 175mil for the Germans, no idea where you're getting that. The population of continental Europe was ~500mil.
The same place I got the Allied figure from and posted a link to. The only difference is that I only used half the French total, and rounded all European figures up for the Germans.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 16:18
So several days a year you don't build.
No. Several days a year you lose almost all the work you have attempted. There is a good reason people dont try such half-witted schemes as building causeways over such seas, especially when it can expect to be shelled, bombed, and stafed endlessly.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 16:18
Any book on Sealion mentions sea state for the Channel during September and mentions that it was less than 4 on many/most days (light waves). Only at the end of October would strong winds prevail. Causeway construction would be done mostly by very large barges, which would be fine more serious sea states.

I'll note that all the clips you show are from late-Fall or winter.
How long do you thing it taked the sea to wash away significant obstructions? Look at the fate of Mulberry A and that was in the shallows. You will not be building from September to April, will lose much of your progress to nature, and be under constant attack. You would have a better chance if you asked the army to swim the channel as you wouldnt be wasting so many resources.

Very large barges make great targets for Beauforts, Mosquitos, Swordfish etc. The Germans couldnt maitain air superiority against Britain alone in 1940-1941, doing so with US resources and manufacturing is a far worse scenario.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2081
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by T. A. Gardner » 23 Mar 2020 21:34

The worst part of this is the British have all sorts of methods they can use to attack the construction of this causeway. They could:

Push forward making Tallboy bombs-- first proposed in early 1941--
They could use submersibles to deliver large charges to the base of the completed sections to cause their collapse.
As it closes with England, they could simply shell it and the barges / ships working on it.
They could drop from aircraft or submarines contact mines designed to float into the structure, then sink and detonate collapsing or damaging sections.
They could send one or more ships like they did HMS Campbelltown, to ram the structure then detonate a huge charge to damage or collapse a section.
Mines, laid by plane, ship, or submarine would require constant sweeping by the Germans. Commandos could attempt or succeed in mining the top surface used as a roadway requiring constant patrolling and sweeping for mines as a result.


And, of course, then there's the problem this whole thing is a bottleneck in moving material etc., forward. You need sufficient room for at least two lanes of traffic, and turnouts to allow for breakdowns, etc.
It would also be far less efficient than simply sending loaded freighters to ports. Moving supplies by truck across this thing would constitute one huge bottleneck. You need room at both ends to park and load / unload. The spacing between vehicles would suggest that somewhere between 400 and 800 trucks might be moving across this causeway at any time with each requiring say roughly an hour to cross.

Also, given the design of real-life causeways like the one proposed, I'd say the amount of material to build it is grossly underestimated.

Image

Image

Note how gentle the slope is. That is typical of these constructions.

It would also probably require huge tide control structures along its length to allow for these to not act against the causeway. It would also require locks or passages to allow shipping to cross it, as shown here:

Image

Or, do the Germans intend to send their ships around England and Ireland to get past it?

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 23 Mar 2020 23:51

Terry Duncan wrote:The Germans made use of slave labour, and in an AH scenario there is nothing preventing the other side from adopting any method
There's nothing preventing you or anyone else from making an argument that the Allies would have done so.
Such an argument would have to explain why the Allies do so in this ATL but didn't do so OTL, despite a severe manpower crisis.
Several days a year you lose almost all the work you have attempted.
Waves don't wash away stone.
Look at the fate of Mulberry A and that was in the shallows.
That was a collection of ship hulls, not a continuous accretion of stone at least 600 feet thick at the bottom. Apples and oranges.
Very large barges make great targets for Beauforts, Mosquitos, Swordfish etc.
Already addressed. Beauforts et. al. make great targets for thousands of flak guns posted on this massive fleet of very large barges plus supporting vessels. And the Germans air have superiority in this ATL.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Mar 2020 00:07

Terry Gardner wrote:British have all sorts of methods they can use to attack the construction of this causeway. They could:
All of the proposals for blowing up a massive pile of rocks would be just pecking at the edges. Sure you could put a hole in the causeway with a Tallboy but that's a very inefficient use of Allied resources to blow up some rocks. Same with submersibles etc. The causeway is hundreds of feet thick.
I'd say the amount of material to build it is grossly underestimated.
Feel free to make a counter-proposal or at least to explain with some numerical analysis why my estimate is far afield.
You need sufficient room for at least two lanes of traffic, and turnouts to allow for breakdowns, etc.
Per my initial, back-of-the-envelope estimate, the causeway is 100ft wide at its narrowest point (deepest part of the Channel, ~15 miles from Dover).
It would also be far less efficient than simply sending loaded freighters to ports
Any analysis to back that up?

And the problem for the Germans - as with the Allies - is capturing a port and getting it into action before you're pushed into the sea for lack of supplies.

-------------------------------------------

As I said upthread, this isn't an idea that I'm 100% committed to and I anticipated discussion of it later in the ATL after the economic narrative.

I haven't heard anything that convinces me that my estimate of the physical parameters (tons of material to be moved) are far off base or that the cost would far exceed, say, 10bn RM. That's a huge number but it's still well south of 10% of the Grossraum's GDP in this ATL.

Given the near-parity of Axis and Allies in economic terms in this ATL, if the Wallies continue putting more than half their resources into blue-water navies and strategic bombing, then Germany can well afford to spend 10% of its resources to unleash the Heer into the England.

It, OTOH, the Wallies cut back on strategic bombing to meet heightened German production in other areas (fighters, land weapons), then there's little path to Wallied victory other than a massively bloody land war that doesn't seem likely.

DerGiLLster
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12 Aug 2015 00:38
Location: Chicago

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by DerGiLLster » 24 Mar 2020 01:49

I usually like to be nice to alt history posters, but I am positive to state that anyone who proposes building a causeway from France to Britain in a time of war is straight up trolling. Not even in my adolescent years would I ever consider that as a serious idea.

Also we have already had many US/UK vs Nazi dominated Europe threads already. The consensus is that America, who wasn't even half way with their industry, ramps up production to produce more bombers, fighters and tanks. Eventually America gets nukes and Germany dies a slow death to 1946-47.

Even then, Nazi Germany had a horribly inefficient bureaucracy. Thanks to the idiots of Goering and Canaris.

Maybe we should make a rule that anyone who makes such threads should provide actual sources to show why Germany would be in a good case to defend against the US. The Germany that never made a proximity fuze, never even knew that making nukes was possible, never even cracked the Enigma to begin with.

Oh and by the way, Britain will have the stomach to fight the Germans. They did in World War One. And why wouldn't the Americans want the blood to fight? They spent eight years in Vietnam before thinking it was pointless.

Once they get nukes, its game over. Germany dies, end of thread.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Mar 2020 04:31

DerGiLLster wrote: The consensus is that
There is nothing more reassuring to me than that I contravene AHF consensus.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2081
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by T. A. Gardner » 24 Mar 2020 05:47

DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 01:49
Even then, Nazi Germany had a horribly inefficient bureaucracy. Thanks to the idiots of Goering and Canaris.
The Nazis had far, far, more idiots running-- ruining?-- things than that. The RLM was rife with idiots when it came to research and production decisions. They had military officers with zero industrial or production experience making production decisions based on every whim coming from the field.

Not only was virtually every bizarre and drug addled (is there really any other explanation?) project getting some funding no matter how useless or insane it was, but within the political fiefdoms of the Nazi leadership it was possible to get your crazy, useless project massive funds regardless of overall economic consequences. So, if you could get Himmler's, Göring's, Hitler's, or someone in the inner circle of Nazidom, to agree to your project it got priority and funded. If not, even if it was a worthwhile one, you were screwed.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Terry Duncan » 24 Mar 2020 12:00

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 23:51
There's nothing preventing you or anyone else from making an argument that the Allies would have done so. Such an argument would have to explain why the Allies do so in this ATL but didn't do so OTL, despite a severe manpower crisis.
They didnt need to OTL. The war was won and the Russians provided most of the manpower to win it. Also, you posit a scenario where somehow Germany finds itself able to challenge the OTL Allied production figures, so the Allies would clearly need to produce more.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 23:51
Waves don't wash away stone.
They was away everything on top of it and a lot of large piles of stones dont make for good roads.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 23:51
That was a collection of ship hulls, not a continuous accretion of stone at least 600 feet thick at the bottom. Apples and oranges.
The Caissons weighed in at up to 6,000 tons empty, and they were pushed out of position too.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
23 Mar 2020 23:51
Already addressed. Beauforts et. al. make great targets for thousands of flak guns posted on this massive fleet of very large barges plus supporting vessels. And the Germans air have superiority in this ATL.
Handwaivium aside, you really have not come close to establishing German air superiority as more than a wish. The Germans never came close in the year they were fighting only Britain, and with the US active there is no hope of it.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Terry Duncan » 24 Mar 2020 12:01

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Mar 2020 00:07
Terry Gardner wrote:British have all sorts of methods they can use to attack the construction of this causeway. They could:
All of the proposals for blowing up a massive pile of rocks would be just pecking at the edges. Sure you could put a hole in the causeway with a Tallboy but that's a very inefficient use of Allied resources to blow up some rocks. Same with submersibles etc. The causeway is hundreds of feet thick.
I'd say the amount of material to build it is grossly underestimated.
Feel free to make a counter-proposal or at least to explain with some numerical analysis why my estimate is far afield.
You need sufficient room for at least two lanes of traffic, and turnouts to allow for breakdowns, etc.
Per my initial, back-of-the-envelope estimate, the causeway is 100ft wide at its narrowest point (deepest part of the Channel, ~15 miles from Dover).
It would also be far less efficient than simply sending loaded freighters to ports
Any analysis to back that up?

And the problem for the Germans - as with the Allies - is capturing a port and getting it into action before you're pushed into the sea for lack of supplies.

-------------------------------------------

As I said upthread, this isn't an idea that I'm 100% committed to and I anticipated discussion of it later in the ATL after the economic narrative.

I haven't heard anything that convinces me that my estimate of the physical parameters (tons of material to be moved) are far off base or that the cost would far exceed, say, 10bn RM. That's a huge number but it's still well south of 10% of the Grossraum's GDP in this ATL.

Given the near-parity of Axis and Allies in economic terms in this ATL, if the Wallies continue putting more than half their resources into blue-water navies and strategic bombing, then Germany can well afford to spend 10% of its resources to unleash the Heer into the England.

It, OTOH, the Wallies cut back on strategic bombing to meet heightened German production in other areas (fighters, land weapons), then there's little path to Wallied victory other than a massively bloody land war that doesn't seem likely.
If you looked, someone already has posted an estimate for the task at hand;

Not engineering proposals but proposals in general...Nature Magazine in 1968 ran a competition for damming the English channel. The article can be found on the internet.

72 meters tall and 82 meters wide at the crest would require 280,000,000 cubic meters of fill.


viewtopic.php?p=2257406#p2257406

DerGiLLster
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12 Aug 2015 00:38
Location: Chicago

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by DerGiLLster » 24 Mar 2020 17:40

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Mar 2020 04:31
DerGiLLster wrote: The consensus is that
There is nothing more reassuring to me than that I contravene AHF consensus.
Oh so you think going against the consensus when evidence doesn't support you make you smart or something. I remember those days in which I cringe.

Please, please, PLEASE explain how Germany can win when nukes get involved. I would love to see how Germany gets a fat can of sunshine every week.

And and you can forget about reverse engineering. The Germans will never do it. Took the Soviets four years in PEACETIME to get a nuke to work. How does Germany compare when having to put most of their resources to maintaining the conquered land and now fighting the WAllies.

Germany could capture a few duds and it wouldn't mean anything.

I also love how it never occurs to you how the inefficient their bureaucracy was. Do you still believe in the fairy tale that their science was superior?
T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Mar 2020 05:47
DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 01:49
Even then, Nazi Germany had a horribly inefficient bureaucracy. Thanks to the idiots of Goering and Canaris.
The Nazis had far, far, more idiots running-- ruining?-- things than that. The RLM was rife with idiots when it came to research and production decisions. They had military officers with zero industrial or production experience making production decisions based on every whim coming from the field.

Not only was virtually every bizarre and drug addled (is there really any other explanation?) project getting some funding no matter how useless or insane it was, but within the political fiefdoms of the Nazi leadership it was possible to get your crazy, useless project massive funds regardless of overall economic consequences. So, if you could get Himmler's, Göring's, Hitler's, or someone in the inner circle of Nazidom, to agree to your project it got priority and funded. If not, even if it was a worthwhile one, you were screwed.
Oh it was more than that, but those morons did play a siginificant role in hiring most of those idiots because they were the leaders of major agencies. Canaris, being of the intelligence, and Goering of the air force. Having semi competent leaders replace them would be a big improvement.

But yes I do agree that so many people with no background in what they were working on was just wasted effort. They really had an engineer problem throughout the entire war, would have helped by NOT DRAFTING skilled factory workers, or maybe starting a few engineering schools, considering almost half their aircraft was lost to accidents.

Also I can't find the source for it now, but is it really true during an artillery bombardment at Italian beacheads, that something like 70% of all German shells were duds and didn't go off? Can you confirm that? Because if thats true, than man, their problems run deeper than that.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 24 Mar 2020 22:28

DerGiLLster wrote:Oh so you think going against the consensus when evidence doesn't support you make you smart or something.
We haven't interacted yet so for a little while and I'm going to engage with you as if this is in good faith. I'm aware that there is a good chance it is not, but I'm also aware that there is some chance that it is.

No, there is no rule that contravening consensus makes one smart. For a forum without any intellectual gatekeeping, and with obvious biases towards a superficial analysis of the war in which the Axis never had a chance, contravening consensus is a necessary - not sufficient - condition for expressing analysis with any merit.
DerGiLLster wrote:I also love how it never occurs to you how the inefficient their bureaucracy was. Do you still believe in the fairy tale that their science was superior?
If you can find a single post in which I praise the Nazi bureaucracy overall as efficient or say they had better science overall, I'll post my private phone number so you can all leave me mean messages. In this very thread I have corrected somebody for saying German science was better overall.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=247189&p=2255994&h ... 1#p2255994

Please, please, PLEASE explain how Germany can win when nukes get involved.
Upthread I've already said the Wallies win if they're resolved to drop dozens of A-bombs and accept the German response.
Canaris, being of the intelligence, and Goering of the air force. Having semi competent leaders replace them would be a big improvement.
I have an ATL in which one of the mods is Goering and Canaris not being incompetent morons. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=242003&start=15#p2203237 (Also Raeder and Halder are not incompetent)

-------------------------------

Your response exhibits exactly the kind of AHF consensus that one has to reject: that anyone arguing the Axis had a chance for at least a favorable peace agreement (and actually only Germany IMO) is a Nazi-worshipping idiot who hasn't read anything about WW2. It's a facile consensus reinforced by cross-talk among its holders on this site and by a few actual Wehraboos whom the consensus sees as representative of all who contravene the consensus. If you can get beyond that view, maybe we can have a productive discussion.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7319
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 24 Mar 2020 22:37

DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 17:40
...
Also I can't find the source for it now, but is it really true during an artillery bombardment at Italian beacheads, that something like 70% of all German shells were duds and didn't go off? Can you confirm that? Because if thats true, than man, their problems run deeper than that.
Recall that from decades ago. Not sure where I read it, possibly a magazine, but can't say. I suspect its a distortion of some misquoted report or remark by the participants there. From elsewhere it does appear the German had a growing problem with quality control of ammunition. Bad primers or ignition cartridges in the propellant cases, bad propellant or explosive mixes, bad fuzes, inconsistent casting & millwork of the projectiles. This was about the time impending copper shortages cause the rotating bands to be made of Sintered Iron, which led to claimed inconsistencies in MV of departing projectiles & resulting range inconsistency. There was also a question of increase inbore detonations of projectiles.

A better documented problem was replacement of worn barrels. To reduce that use of the highest charge increment was only by authorization of the senior artillery commanders. This extended barrel life by 30 to 50 %, but reduced effective range by roughly 20%. That handed off a further tactical advantage to Allied artillery.

Return to “What if”