German mega defense

[thaddeus_c]

we have a long thread here about better flak defense viewtopic.php?f=11&t=68932

After many hours i managed to read almost the entire 14 pages of the AA thread whose link you provided and i cant really say that you people reached a conclusion.First contact fuses were deemed good then bad then good again and the same went on with timed fuses.Rockets didnt get a warm welcome and that is understandable since SAM systems were really in their infancy and unless they cared to make a SAM system from as early as 1930-1933,or as soon as the new government took power,then they wont be operational before 1950(a SAM system like that would get priority only if they switched to a defensive doctrine like that implied in the Mega defense thread).The wire guided plane missile is a joke and the rest of the systems were barely functional.

I was thinking of a bigger than a V2 (or even a standart V2) missile being thrown to the bomber formations and then exploding near them with some sort of time fused fragmentation warhead.There was also that thing called Langer Gustav Capture.PNG that had a massive range of 190km,according to wiki,range and if made for some kind of AA,could definitely be fired vertically to reach bomber height.Give this bad boy a fragmentation missile-shell with a good quality time fuse and you have very good anti bomber gun.Even the railway guns with the sabot shell mentioned in the AA thread,or even a standart time or even contact fuse could do the trick since the caliber is turly massive.What do you think ?

my view the best points were a subcaliber tracer shell (which would in itself have a disorienting effect), and as proposed would function as a crude timer (assuming it hasn't struck a target prior)

the other point was the professional AA troops were simply more effective than their civilian replacements.

as far as missiles and "mega guns" I would vote neither, the V-1 with conventional jet engine (as schemed historically) would be better.

[Destroyer500]

Hello Mark and thadeus welcome aboard.

Hello,

I thought rhis was supposed to be complete by 1943? Why ate we talking about nuclear tipped ICBMs and energy beams? Also rhe big German tanks were designed to beat the big Soviet tanks so if no war then you are still looking at panzers 3 and 4 (which is what Germany had in 1943 any way). Also 10 years is a long time, a lot of the weapons emplaced in 1933 will need updating/replacing by the time you are finished.

To be honest the cost and the resources are too much for Germany and nothing would be gained.

Just a thought what are you doing eith the Danzig corridor? Is East Prussia going to be a seperate fortress?

Just a few thoughts for now.

Thanks

Mark.

I went too far with futuristic tech but i had nothing else to say and i always like exotic stuff that seems could work.Big tanks were indeed made to counter big Soviet ones but France that was 10000% defensive built some heavies for its time so i guess Germany could too in this scenario.To be fair i wouldnt mind if the defense had mostly panzer 3s and 4s since it would give the ground units more mobile elements.Yes some things will need upgrading but not that much since technology was advancing really fast due to the big war else things would take more time.I believe the cost would be manageable and with the extra annexed countries economies it would make the whole situation a bit better.Anything near Poland is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary because we want Britain to stay away from the war.

Hello again,

Since we are completely in ASB mode the best mega defence for Germany was for the Nazis to be nice to other countries and their own people. That will mean that France and Britain can be friends with Germany as could Poland. If, as you say (without evidence) the Soviets do invade west then a coalition could be formed from these countries and the Soviets stopped.

Lets face it that's likely as Adolf totally going defensive and blowing the entire economy on a mega defence.

Not going to happen.

Thanks

Mark.

What does ASB stand for ?
Britain did not want to be friends with Germany and never gave a damn what happened to anything but their island.Adolf made many tries to befriend the British and just got bombs.The biggest problem was that fat alcoholic Churchill and had there been the more peacefull elements in control things wouldnt escalate that much.I dont want to talk about how the story with Poland was utterly stupid and Britain spent its entire empire just for a puny argument that none cared that much.Britain didnt want a strong Germany in Europe just like Britain never wanted any European country to be stronger than it or reign supreme in the continent and always medeled with everyones business.If the Soviets did attack first then yes a coalition would be formed but Stalin would never act that stupid.He would first take the Balkans till he reaches Greece then move to Austria,Italy or Germany and if Britain or France have the same attitude as in our time then Germany is alone and dead.In our timeline Stalin would definitely take a big slice of the Balkans had they not been invaded.Anyway thats not the matter of the topic.
The Soviets since the first 5 minutes of their existence started expanding and invading,remember the concept that they wanted to spread communism everywhere ? Remember how many revolutions broke in western Europe ? They were to prepare the ground for the greater Soviet Union or at least lead to more communist countries.The first revolutionaries were not soft westernized puppies like the 60-70s soviets were,they wanted conquest,expansion and spreading of their ideas.I have presented very few evidence in the past here but its very easy to find some regarding the USSRs plans but again this is not the matter of the topic.
Now if Germany,Britain,Polland and France were suddenly friends then that would make Adolfs wet dreams come true.He mostly wanted a proto European union not another European conflict.What he wanted was land in the USSR but that should never have involved anyone but Germany and Russia.The dispute would be over in a few years and finito.Adolf wasnt going to live for many more years so who knows how the next chancellors managed things ?
I think the economy could handle it in the long run but what another member mentioned here that i know little of is some materials needed for bunkers that were not abundant in that Germany.I dont know how they could get that but i guess they could trade it ? I guess they could trade with the USSR just like they historically did.

my view the best points were a subcaliber tracer shell (which would in itself have a disorienting effect), and as proposed would function as a crude timer (assuming it hasn't struck a target prior)

the other point was the professional AA troops were simply more effective than their civilian replacements.

as far as missiles and "mega guns" I would vote neither, the V-1 with conventional jet engine (as schemed historically) would be better.

Big guns were mostly my kind of spice and would be there as multipurpose (and this case every possible purpose) guns.With the shells i mentioned they could also hit almost anything in Europe.Even if we discard them or not then contact fuses are the best option for most caliber AA guns and of course some early SAM.Sub caliber shells are out of the question because Germany even in our standard timeline had small amounts of tungsten.If you can make subcaliber munition with other materials then yea fine throw them to the mix too.

[Takao]

ASB = Alien Space Bats
Google the term.

[Destroyer500]

ASB = Alien Space Bats
Google the term.

I googled it but couldnt really understand which one he meant.I mean look at all these https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asb Of course some dont make sense but he could also have called me attention seeking bitch

[Peter89]

But did we get to the point where we admit that in a war on the scale of WW2 the only dependable strategic defense is some kind of continental defense? Like the North Sea or the Pyrenees?

[Destroyer500]

But did we get to the point where we admit that in a war on the scale of WW2 the only dependable strategic defense is some kind of continental defense? Like the North Sea or the Pyrenees?

We reached the conclusion that a line of defenses cannot work and that it needs to be spread and used along with natural obstacles like mountains,rivers,lakes,forests and what not. You yourself said that and it can be seen on the quoted sentence bellow.

If you don't imagine defense as a thin "wall" but rather as a series of natural obstacles (including distance, climate, bodies of water, mountains, ravines, etc) paired with a series of manmade fortifications manned by the armed defenders, then yes, defense was a perfectly good way to wage war.

I personally never had purely a defensive wall-or line in mind but i didnt really give much thought to its spreading through natural terrain either.What does the North Sea or the Pyrenees have to do with all this ? Do you mean to say that a place like the North Sea or Pyrenees is perfect for that kind of job ? In my last answer to you,showcased bellow i have to say that i was totally wrong.

I never imagined it as purely a line but how is that gonna be implemented on a Germany,the natural obstacles part,that is almost totally flat ?

Germany has plenty of mountains and is only void of them in the northern part.Lets also not forget that in the end it would be Germany,Austria,Norway,Denmark,Chechoslovakia that these defenses would end up being spread to.

[Peter89]

But did we get to the point where we admit that in a war on the scale of WW2 the only dependable strategic defense is some kind of continental defense? Like the North Sea or the Pyrenees?

We reached the conclusion that a line of defenses cannot work and that it needs to be spread and used along with natural obstacles like mountains,rivers,lakes,forests and what not. You yourself said that and it can be seen on the quoted sentence bellow.

If you don't imagine defense as a thin "wall" but rather as a series of natural obstacles (including distance, climate, bodies of water, mountains, ravines, etc) paired with a series of manmade fortifications manned by the armed defenders, then yes, defense was a perfectly good way to wage war.

I personally never had purely a defensive wall-or line in mind but i didnt really give much thought to its spreading through natural terrain either.What does the North Sea or the Pyrenees have to do with all this ? Do you mean to say that a place like the North Sea or Pyrenees is perfect for that kind of job ? In my last answer to you,showcased bellow i have to say that i was totally wrong.

I never imagined it as purely a line but how is that gonna be implemented on a Germany,the natural obstacles part,that is almost totally flat ?

Germany has plenty of mountains and is only void of them in the northern part.Lets also not forget that in the end it would be Germany,Austria,Norway,Denmark,Chechoslovakia that these defenses would end up being spread to.

Yes you are right, Germany is indefensible from both the west and the east, contemporary military strategists acknowledged that fact. (the Westwall was a desperate attempt to combat this)

My point is that Germany could not rely on a weapon or a weapon system to offset the numerical disadvantage. It could rely on a favourable exchange ratio in natural and manmade defenses though.

[Destroyer500]

Yes you are right, Germany is indefensible from both the west and the east, contemporary military strategists acknowledged that fact. (the Westwall was a desperate attempt to combat this)

My point is that Germany could not rely on a weapon or a weapon system to offset the numerical disadvantage. It could rely on a favourable exchange ratio in natural and manmade defenses though.

Look at this mountain map of Europe and Germany

Capture.PNG (292.87 KiB) Viewed 451 times

Theres plenty of uneven terrain in western and eastern Germany with rivers and small mountains here and there and i think with the extra countries annexed it is defendable.

The Siegfried line-West wall wasnt really up to any task.From other forums,articles and wikipedia it is stated that it was not made for modern by ww2 standards warfare.

Capture.PNG (110.3 KiB) Viewed 453 times

They had the right idea though with where to place it.The eastern wall wasnt even half completed and was abandoned as an idea after Germany reached its borders almost to Moscow.When the need came they did some efforts to make it stronger but didnt go far because it was way too late.What i didnt know was the numbers the Westwall supposedly claimed for the allies and according to the wiki theyre substantial

Theyre not eastern front big but for the shitty defensive line that it was and with a dead airforce it did well.
In my scenario i almost forgot to mention,i think in the enirety of the thread this is the first time i say this,that the HQ should be moved from Berlin to something like the Alpine Fortress.In real life it did not exist as a fortress mostly as a retreat from what i remember but that wouldnt be the case in my version.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I googled it but couldnt really understand which one he meant.I mean look at all these https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asb Of course some dont make sense but he could also have called me attention seeking bitch

Alien Space Bats, or ASB.

Common forum acronym for debates referencing real-world scenarios but with aspects which simply could never have happened.

So, think "What if Japan nuked Pearl Harbour?" and "What if Russia had T-80U tanks at Kursk?"

Debating either topic is ultimately pointless because it could never have happened anyways, so you might as well crank it to 11 and suggest "What if alien space bats obliterated the entire british navy in WW2?"

[Destroyer500]

Alien Space Bats, or ASB.

Common forum acronym for debates referencing real-world scenarios but with aspects which simply could never have happened.

So, think "What if Japan nuked Pearl Harbour?" and "What if Russia had T-80U tanks at Kursk?"

Debating either topic is ultimately pointless because it could never have happened anyways, so you might as well crank it to 11 and suggest "What if alien space bats obliterated the entire british navy in WW2?"

Some times i feel like an old man asking what these things mean.

[Destroyer500]

Capture.PNG (252.01 KiB) Viewed 416 times

Recently i found this book.In it is discussed how the US tried to make nuke AA missiles to kill bomber formations.Unfortunately i dont have the full version but theres a shorter version with only the most important parts of the book on google and the author gave a 1 hour long interview on youtube so its easy to find info about the matter( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xDBp0sJJOw&t=492s ).I didnt even know this was a thing and i was really amazed when i also found that they were to include ramjet engines to the missiles and this is in the early 50s.The program was canceled in the 60-70ss because the nukes were delivered through missiles and ICBMs more than big high flying bombers but i still find a big boom to kill an ICBM a better option than trying to nit pick every single of the multiple warheads and decoys.I also dont think that any kind of maneuver can save the missiles from the blast of the nuke AA.Its like killing fire with fire but its actually killing nukes with nukes.

There was also that thing called YAL-1

that i have already talked about in the past that served the purpose of killing nukes or large missiles.It was deemed ineffective due to the small range it had,but what if something a lot bigger was on the ground that doesnt have the "we cant have big enough batteries" problem ? Why are people completely disregarding lasers and EDW anyway ? Of course this doesnt have anything to do with the initial German Mega Defense but a Germany (or any country playing their cards this way) surviving to the cold war era years and being doctrinally and militarily as defensive as i mention,while having Germanys mindset of "Were gonna experiment with tech",would happily incorporate them.

[T. A. Gardner]

Capture.PNGRecently i found this book.In it is discussed how the US tried to make nuke AA missiles to kill bomber formations.Unfortunately i dont have the full version but theres a shorter version with only the most important parts of the book on google and the author gave a 1 hour long interview on youtube so its easy to find info about the matter( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xDBp0sJJOw&t=492s ).I didnt even know this was a thing and i was really amazed when i also found that they were to include ramjet engines to the missiles and this is in the early 50s.The program was canceled in the 60-70ss because the nukes were delivered through missiles and ICBMs more than big high flying bombers but i still find a big boom to kill an ICBM a better option than trying to nit pick every single of the multiple warheads and decoys.I also dont think that any kind of maneuver can save the missiles from the blast of the nuke AA.Its like killing fire with fire but its actually killing nukes with nukes.Capture.PNG
There was also that thing called YAL-1 Capture.PNG that i have already talked about in the past that served the purpose of killing nukes or large missiles.It was deemed ineffective due to the small range it had,but what if something a lot bigger was on the ground that doesnt have the "we cant have big enough batteries" problem ? Why are people completely disregarding lasers and EDW anyway ? Of course this doesnt have anything to do with the initial German Mega Defense but a Germany (or any country playing their cards this way) surviving to the cold war era years and being doctrinally and militarily as defensive as i mention,while having Germanys mindset of "Were gonna experiment with tech",would happily incorporate them.

During this period, the US recognized and tried to evolve an air defense system that could stop an intercontinental bomber fleet from attacking the US. ICBM's weren't available yet, so bombers were the recognized threat.
As for SAM missiles, the US had several programs going and there was a fight between the US Army and nascent USAF over who would control them. This was settled with the Army getting responsibility for tactical and SAM's of less than 200 miles range. The result of that decision led to each service's development of their SAM systems.

The system the US Army adopted was Nike. The first version, Ajax, had a range of about 35 miles and a launch site could control a single missile at a time. This would be improved in the 60's with the Hercules variant that included a nuclear option. HAWK became the tactical SAM near the end of the 50's.

The USAF dropped their competing GAPA missile in favor of developing a very-long-range SAM, BOMARC. This missile is interesting because it's really almost a pilotless aircraft. It had a range of about 300 miles give or take. Yes, it ran on ramjets, and each launch site could control 1 or 2 in flight. The intercept system was to launch the missile and guide it to the target using remote radars and the USAF SAGE fighter control system that already existed. When the missile got in the vicinity of the target, it would begin to actively search for it using an on-board radar. It too had a nuclear option for a warhead.

The DEW line and other North American early-warning systems really didn't exist during the early to mid-50's. These came into existence starting in the late 50's and really didn't get coherently organized until well into the 60's.

If the Germans were going to have an effective SAM system against mass bomber raids, I'd think their system would look more like the S-25 Berkut system that Russia developed. Berkut was a conventional warhead SAM designed into a system that allowed mass firings. Each launch station could control 6 to 8 missiles in flight and had launch stands for up to 60 missiles associated with it.

Sites would be set up in concentric rings around the target to be defended, and the various sites could (theoretically) engage a mass bomber raid shooting down dozens of aircraft as they approached and passed through the defenses. The sites were hardened against air attack with the individual missiles on their launch pads making poor targets.

The problem with Berkut was it was grotesquely expensive. The one system installed around Moscow cost somewhere around $13 billion USD in 1955-ish (about $1.5 trillion today). Most of that cost went into a massive fire control computer system. Each firing battery (regiment) had 6 or 8 duplicate computer systems placed in a massive two-story bunker along with additional electronics for the radars, communications, etc. It wasn't as massive a system per site as the USAF SAGE (a huge four-story building full of similar electronics) but there were far more systems needed.

http://www.fortwiki.com/images/thumb/d/ ... khouse.jpg

That's a SAGE installation (think Berlin flak tower)

http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/bitby ... Copy-2.jpg

Interior shot

The amount of maintenance on those systems was incredible given they ran almost totally on vacuum tubes...

[Takao]

There was also that thing called YAL-1 that i have already talked about in the past that served the purpose of killing nukes or large missiles.It was deemed ineffective due to the small range it had,but what if something a lot bigger was on the ground that doesnt have the "we cant have big enough batteries" problem ? Why are people completely disregarding lasers and EDW anyway ? Of course this doesnt have anything to do with the initial German Mega Defense but a Germany (or any country playing their cards this way) surviving to the cold war era years and being doctrinally and militarily as defensive as i mention,while having Germanys mindset of "Were gonna experiment with tech",would happily incorporate them.

Do you do any research? Or just post what ever pops into your head,?

The YAL-1 airborne laser DOES NOT NEED BATTERIES OR EVEN ELECTRICITY. IT IS A CHEMICAL LASER! The energy needed to power the YAL-1's airborne laser comes from a chemical reaction, not electricity from batteries, an engine, a nuclear reactor, etc.
There is only so much power that you can get out of a chemical laser and it's given reactants. To get more power, you need to find different chemical reactants.

A ground-based chemical laser can fire longer,as there much more space for chemical reactants on the ground then in an aircraft. This will not make the laser, in and of it's self more powerful though.

[Destroyer500]

Do you do any research? Or just post what ever pops into your head,?

The YAL-1 airborne laser DOES NOT NEED BATTERIES OR EVEN ELECTRICITY. IT IS A CHEMICAL LASER! The energy needed to power the YAL-1's airborne laser comes from a chemical reaction, not electricity from batteries, an engine, a nuclear reactor, etc.
There is only so much power that you can get out of a chemical laser and it's given reactants. To get more power, you need to find different chemical reactants.

A ground-based chemical laser can fire longer,as there much more space for chemical reactants on the ground then in an aircraft. This will not make the laser, in and of it's self more powerful though.

Really ? My bad.Most of the times i do research about the stuff i post but sometimes i just guess.Sometimes that leads to mistackes unfortunately.The laser mounted on a US ship in 2014 was not chemical and i thought the same applied to the older ones.
In general chemical based lasers for the army are not the way forward since they require exotic elements to work and electricity is far easier to produce.
I will definitely dig the topic a bit more in the next days though and come back more informed.
As always i imagined the ground version bigger and with large enough power supplies (or chemical reactants if we go down that path) to shoot down anything flying.Of course lasers dont have to be gigantic to do the work i want them to do just more powerfull but size will at some point have to increase.

[Destroyer500]

During this period, the US recognized and tried to evolve an air defense system that could stop an intercontinental bomber fleet from attacking the US. ICBM's weren't available yet, so bombers were the recognized threat.

Thats true and its also said in the book multiple times but i also see a second role to it later on down the line.

As for SAM missiles, the US had several programs going and there was a fight between the US Army and nascent USAF over who would control them. This was settled with the Army getting responsibility for tactical and SAM's of less than 200 miles range. The result of that decision led to each service's development of their SAM systems.

The system the US Army adopted was Nike. The first version, Ajax, had a range of about 35 miles and a launch site could control a single missile at a time. This would be improved in the 60's with the Hercules variant that included a nuclear option. HAWK became the tactical SAM near the end of the 50's.

The USAF dropped their competing GAPA missile in favor of developing a very-long-range SAM, BOMARC. This missile is interesting because it's really almost a pilotless aircraft. It had a range of about 300 miles give or take. Yes, it ran on ramjets, and each launch site could control 1 or 2 in flight. The intercept system was to launch the missile and guide it to the target using remote radars and the USAF SAGE fighter control system that already existed. When the missile got in the vicinity of the target, it would begin to actively search for it using an on-board radar. It too had a nuclear option for a warhead.

The DEW line and other North American early-warning systems really didn't exist during the early to mid-50's. These came into existence starting in the late 50's and really didn't get coherently organized until well into the 60's.

If the Germans were going to have an effective SAM system against mass bomber raids, I'd think their system would look more like the S-25 Berkut system that Russia developed. Berkut was a conventional warhead SAM designed into a system that allowed mass firings. Each launch station could control 6 to 8 missiles in flight and had launch stands for up to 60 missiles associated with it.

Sites would be set up in concentric rings around the target to be defended, and the various sites could (theoretically) engage a mass bomber raid shooting down dozens of aircraft as they approached and passed through the defenses. The sites were hardened against air attack with the individual missiles on their launch pads making poor targets.

The problem with Berkut was it was grotesquely expensive. The one system installed around Moscow cost somewhere around $13 billion USD in 1955-ish (about $1.5 trillion today). Most of that cost went into a massive fire control computer system. Each firing battery (regiment) had 6 or 8 duplicate computer systems placed in a massive two-story bunker along with additional electronics for the radars, communications, etc. It wasn't as massive a system per site as the USAF SAGE (a huge four-story building full of similar electronics) but there were far more systems needed.

http://www.fortwiki.com/images/thumb/d/ ... khouse.jpg

That's a SAGE installation (think Berlin flak tower)

http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/bitby ... Copy-2.jpg

Interior shot

The amount of maintenance on those systems was incredible given they ran almost totally on vacuum tubes...

Berkut sounds really nice for the anti bomber purpose but that cost is just way too much.I can imagine 1-2,maybe even 3 (?),systems being built but not many more without killing the economy completely and that low a number cant protect much.A conventional early SAM or bigger AA guns for the 40s timeline would work fine.If you can make ramjet nuke shells for those big guns or just a US Nike equivalent later down the line then problem solved.