German mega defense

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#61

Post by Destroyer500 » 29 May 2022, 02:09

Michael Kenny wrote:
28 May 2022, 22:46
Destroyer500 wrote:
28 May 2022, 13:22
how ironic that the Soviet Union didnt get a declaration of war
The Treaty with Poland was very specific and was designed to protect Poland from a German attack and a German attack only. It had no provisions to deal with an attack on Poland from any other country.
Doesnt make it less ironic and stupid of a deal especially when there is no way you can fulfill it but were diverging.Britain and its treaties is not the matter of the topic

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German mega defense

#62

Post by Michael Kenny » 29 May 2022, 02:30

Destroyer500 wrote:
29 May 2022, 02:09


Doesnt make it less ironic and stupid of a deal especially when there is no way you can fulfill it.
Britain did fulfil it. They declared war on the aggressor and the UK and Poland both fully understood that there was no direct action they could take to prevent a Polish defeat once German troops crossed her borders. There was NEVER an expectation that Poland would be saved in the short term and it was only after the war that Poland was to be resurrected. The stupidity, if there is any, belongs with those who knew what would happen if they invaded Poland and decided it was worth the risk.


User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#63

Post by Destroyer500 » 29 May 2022, 12:50

Michael Kenny wrote:
29 May 2022, 02:30
Destroyer500 wrote:
29 May 2022, 02:09


Doesnt make it less ironic and stupid of a deal especially when there is no way you can fulfill it.
Britain did fulfil it. They declared war on the aggressor and the UK and Poland both fully understood that there was no direct action they could take to prevent a Polish defeat once German troops crossed her borders. There was NEVER an expectation that Poland would be saved in the short term and it was only after the war that Poland was to be resurrected. The stupidity, if there is any, belongs with those who knew what would happen if they invaded Poland and decided it was worth the risk.
I always thought the purpose of the deal was to not allow Poland get conquered.Well of course the stupidity belongs to them thats why i made this mega defense post were their expansion stops right before that :D
Last edited by Destroyer500 on 29 May 2022, 15:28, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German mega defense

#64

Post by Michael Kenny » 29 May 2022, 13:01

Destroyer500 wrote:
29 May 2022, 12:50


I always thought the purpose of the deal was to not allow Poland get conquered.
The purpose was to dissuade Hitler from invading Poland as the consequences would be a war.
Hitler took the view it was a bluff.
He was wrong.
He lost the subsequent war.
For clarity. Poland was given a guarantee that only applied to a German invasion.
Poland was never promised direct and immediate attacks to prevent the nation from being conquered.
The UK kept to the terms of the deal.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#65

Post by Destroyer500 » 29 May 2022, 17:55

Michael Kenny wrote:
29 May 2022, 13:01
Destroyer500 wrote:
29 May 2022, 12:50


I always thought the purpose of the deal was to not allow Poland get conquered.
The purpose was to dissuade Hitler from invading Poland as the consequences would be a war.
Hitler took the view it was a bluff.
He was wrong.
He lost the subsequent war.
For clarity. Poland was given a guarantee that only applied to a German invasion.
Poland was never promised direct and immediate attacks to prevent the nation from being conquered.
The UK kept to the terms of the deal.
I may have been wrong but again were diverging from the topic,whats your opinion on the mega defense the way i proposed ?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: German mega defense

#66

Post by Michael Kenny » 29 May 2022, 18:16

You introduced an error of fact. That the UK should have attacked Germany and The Soviet Union when they invaded Poland and that the failure to do so was a betrayal and/or a broken promise. I simply pointed out it was understood by both the UK and Poland that this would not be the immediate reaction, that the treaty was a guarantee that Poland would still be an entity at the end of the hostilities and that it only applied to military action by Germany and not The Soviet Union. The UK fulfilled its obligations.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#67

Post by Destroyer500 » 30 May 2022, 18:08

Michael Kenny wrote:
29 May 2022, 18:16
You introduced an error of fact. That the UK should have attacked Germany and The Soviet Union when they invaded Poland and that the failure to do so was a betrayal and/or a broken promise. I simply pointed out it was understood by both the UK and Poland that this would not be the immediate reaction, that the treaty was a guarantee that Poland would still be an entity at the end of the hostilities and that it only applied to military action by Germany and not The Soviet Union. The UK fulfilled its obligations.
Thank you for doing that but please give me an honest opinion on my German Mega Defense initial post

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#68

Post by Destroyer500 » 05 Jun 2022, 14:33

thaddeus_c wrote:
23 May 2022, 17:50
we have a long thread here about better flak defense viewtopic.php?f=11&t=68932

as well as one on an earlier "evolutionary" u-boat development viewtopic.php?f=11&t=64873

couple those with a somewhat "shrunken" footprint, to more defensible river and mountain lines, and you have your "mega defense"

just IMO, it was a mistake for the KM to construct French Atlantic u-boat bases, it soured any chance for a deal with the Vichy regime (or was one of the reasons for a souring of chances), if the u-boat bunkers had been constructed in Norway (as was originally considered), they would have had some defensive value, as it was they were simply bypassed.

also (again just IMO) it doesn't seem impossible that something like the Berlin Ubahn could have been at least started in other major cities instead of the Autobahn? it seems a dictatorship might like control over how people move around a city?

on a less grand scale, I've read several times that the ability of Germany to create smokescreens was lacking around Normandy, I don't know if that was a overall problem, but a robust capacity in that regard might have allowed them more mobility?
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.
Getting a kill on a bomber or a fighter is what matters because its not that much the machines that win the war but the men using them so losing experienced pilots and crew means that even if you have the best possible weapons the users skills will be lacking.For example the men lost at Stalingrad were some of the best Germany had to offer and their loss was never truly "absorbed".Had Germany broken those 300k out of Stalingrad but lost all its vehicles it would matter but far less than if it lost both.Britain used its "aces" smarter than Germany by sending them back to training camps in between missions to give tips to cadets and new pilots,then gave them a few days rest and then resent them to a mission.The experience was passed on and could be further used(and the pilot got some rest).Germany threw its aces to battle almost immediately and either lost them or "made them better" and this led to a big skill gap.Im going of topic though,lost or captured men cannot be replaced so a kill is all that matters,whatever the weapon that kills should be used be more.
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 ?


I will post this both in the Flak Alone Blasts Allies out of the Sky and in my German mega defense thread so dont be confused if you see it 2 times

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: German mega defense

#69

Post by Peter89 » 06 Jun 2022, 15:54

Destroyer500 wrote:
05 Jun 2022, 14:33
Getting a kill on a bomber or a fighter is what matters because its not that much the machines that win the war but the men using them so losing experienced pilots and crew means that even if you have the best possible weapons the users skills will be lacking.For example the men lost at Stalingrad were some of the best Germany had to offer and their loss was never truly "absorbed".Had Germany broken those 300k out of Stalingrad but lost all its vehicles it would matter but far less than if it lost both.Britain used its "aces" smarter than Germany by sending them back to training camps in between missions to give tips to cadets and new pilots,then gave them a few days rest and then resent them to a mission.The experience was passed on and could be further used(and the pilot got some rest).Germany threw its aces to battle almost immediately and either lost them or "made them better" and this led to a big skill gap.Im going of topic though,lost or captured men cannot be replaced so a kill is all that matters,whatever the weapon that kills should be used be more.
The problem with the Stalingrad breakout (actually no breakout was possible, only a timely disengagement) is that would mean cutting off the armies deployed towards the Caucasus, thus: giving up most territories won during the summer and fall of 1942.

In the 1942/1943 winter battles the German forces would suffer an attrition beyond hope to recover from, even if the Stalingrad disaster didn't happen. Even when Model won against Zhukov and Konev, he realized that the next blow will shatter his weak forces (it was rather a surprise that it didn't crush the AGM the first two times) and had to retreat. In the north, the Soviet offensive could be halted only by using up most of the transferred reserves.

As for the training (could the Germans introduce a tour of operations system to improve the new pilots): mostly no, first of all, the German training system as well as the frontline units were stretched to the limit, and most of the aerial victories were scored by the veteran pilots. There is no indication that keeping the best pilots in schools could produce more results by their students compared to leaving them at the front.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#70

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Jun 2022, 19:49


The problem with the Stalingrad breakout (actually no breakout was possible, only a timely disengagement) is that would mean cutting off the armies deployed towards the Caucasus, thus: giving up most territories won during the summer and fall of 1942.

In the 1942/1943 winter battles the German forces would suffer an attrition beyond hope to recover from, even if the Stalingrad disaster didn't happen. Even when Model won against Zhukov and Konev, he realized that the next blow will shatter his weak forces (it was rather a surprise that it didn't crush the AGM the first two times) and had to retreat. In the north, the Soviet offensive could be halted only by using up most of the transferred reserves.

As for the training (could the Germans introduce a tour of operations system to improve the new pilots): mostly no, first of all, the German training system as well as the frontline units were stretched to the limit, and most of the aerial victories were scored by the veteran pilots. There is no indication that keeping the best pilots in schools could produce more results by their students compared to leaving them at the front.
Stalingrad was unescapable after a certain point,that i know,i mostly wanted to talk about the men vs machines theme.It could only be taken and help with ease if AGS didnt split in two but thats im getting of topic.
I dont know a lot when it comes to how Germany trained its new troops but i guess painting yellow the squad leaders plane nose,sending them to one mission after the other and using them as human torches .... i mean test pilots for jets werent the smartest moves possible.Sending them even briefly to schools would definitely help spread some knowledge but wouldnt be a game changer on its own.These are small changes that make things +10% better,if we somehow quantify this "betterment",but accumulate enough of them and noticable progress will happen.
Any opinion on the big guns ? I would like to add that these missiles,of my version of AA,could be aimed using a platform or rail and definitely be rail transported and used in the trains wagons just like some Soviet ICBMs years later.Furthermore i think sabbot rounds for big railway guns and even smaller are too expensive for ww2 Germany and cannot be used en mase (tungsten was rare for them from what ive learned).

Why cant i edit old posts mine ? Did i get a shadowban-abillity restriction or did the forum get some universal update ? Or was it like this all the time and i just happened to notice now

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

Re: German mega defense

#71

Post by Takao » 06 Jun 2022, 21:10

The big guns as AA guns are about as laughable as using the big guns as AT guns.

1 shell every 1/2 hour is not going to do very much. Not to mention aimed on a railroad track.

Shipping it by rail? Better hope there are no tunnels or bridges...That's why it was taken apart & shipped by rail to where it was needed, then rebuilt.

Surprised you have not mentioned just building a concrete roof over Germany.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#72

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Jun 2022, 23:21

Takao wrote:
06 Jun 2022, 21:10
The big guns as AA guns are about as laughable as using the big guns as AT guns.

1 shell every 1/2 hour is not going to do very much. Not to mention aimed on a railroad track.

Shipping it by rail? Better hope there are no tunnels or bridges...That's why it was taken apart & shipped by rail to where it was needed, then rebuilt.

Surprised you have not mentioned just building a concrete roof over Germany.
Laughanle ? Am i chained into thinking only in conventional ways ? I think not.
Its a big mortar with propably an autoloader on a stable concrete position,the rate of fire aint gonna be that slow and the same goes for a simmilar naval caliber gun.Now that you mentioned rail i though of a system mounted on a train for a naval gun to fire as AA.
I dont remember the V1 being that big thats its not transportable by rail.For a bigger missile i guess a silo like system that protrudes the rocket on a rail-aiming system and fires is not that far fetched.Well of course these are for bombers only and i guess some smaller caliber guns with the contact fuses mentioned could do the trick.

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

Re: German mega defense

#73

Post by Takao » 06 Jun 2022, 23:42

Thinking rationally would be a start.I

What's a big mortar? You never mentioned a "big mortar"?
You did mention "Langer Gustav", did you not. Apparently, you have no clue what "Langer Gustav" was to be?
Langer Gustav was the Schwere Gustav with a barrel liner that made it a 50cm bore.

The Schwere Gustav had a firing cycle of about 45 minutes, I was being generous with 30 minutes.

Similar to a naval gun? Because the Japanese did not have much success with their San-Shiki shells.

The V-1 is transportable by rail. However, the big fat immobile gun that fires it is nothing but a target.

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

Re: German mega defense

#74

Post by Takao » 07 Jun 2022, 00:08

Forgive my impertinence.

You are creating stupidly big guns firing stupidly big shells a stupidly long distance.

Now, rather than using these stupidly big guns and stupidly big shells fired at stupidly long distances to bombard the bomber air bases. You are, instead, using them to plink at the bombers when they are already in the air.

Now, hopefully you see the absolute ridiculousness of this rabbit hole.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

#75

Post by Destroyer500 » 07 Jun 2022, 00:51

Takao wrote:
06 Jun 2022, 23:42
Thinking rationally would be a start.I

What's a big mortar? You never mentioned a "big mortar"?
You did mention "Langer Gustav", did you not. Apparently, you have no clue what "Langer Gustav" was to be?
Langer Gustav was the Schwere Gustav with a barrel liner that made it a 50cm bore.

The Schwere Gustav had a firing cycle of about 45 minutes, I was being generous with 30 minutes.

Similar to a naval gun? Because the Japanese did not have much success with their San-Shiki shells.

The V-1 is transportable by rail. However, the big fat immobile gun that fires it is nothing but a target.
Takao wrote:
07 Jun 2022, 00:08
Forgive my impertinence.

You are creating stupidly big guns firing stupidly big shells a stupidly long distance.

Now, rather than using these stupidly big guns and stupidly big shells fired at stupidly long distances to bombard the bomber air bases. You are, instead, using them to plink at the bombers when they are already in the air.

Now, hopefully you see the absolute ridiculousness of this rabbit hole.
The Langer Gustav unfortunately is a weapon i could barely find info and i dont know why i called it mortar,thats my mistacke.BUT ! My proposal remains.The schwerer Gustav was loaded by a massive crew and is 300mm bigger than the long Gustav.The reload of the long Gustav at worst would be a shell every 5 minutes because again were talking about auto loaders not tens of men.
So firing 5000-8000 shells to bring down a single bomber when even a near miss of this big a gun can kill many and scare the shit out of the rest is ridiculous ? These guns would also serve as artilery in my "mega defense" so theyre not purely AA.The big rockets ok i know theyre a bit too much and cant be mobile but i proposed some sort silo storage.Am i thinking too much in cold war terms ?
The reasoning behind this is,big guns make big enough booms for bombers to get destroyed even in near misses and require far less shells to do so than standart flak plus the psychological effect.These big guns aim to stop or create big problems for strategic bombing that was one of the biggest strengths of the allies and the easiest way they could wreck a defense like mine and of course a Germany like on our timeline.
The rockets reasoning is that they were not really effective for killing civilians in the long run so why not use them as a time fused giant AA ? The missile part of this theme is a pure guess,in terms of how well will it work,but i consider the V1 and some theoretical bigger version as workable (again with a time fuse or even some contact fuse).Not much i can say about V2 sized AA but theres some positivity in me theyll work.
In general planes are killed in 2 ways 1)prescise weapons like advanced rockets or some big caliber bullet 2)area of effect weapons,i choose the latter.Even some modern Rheinmetall AA machine guns use AoE bullets (or will use because it was a presentation that i saw some years back) that fragment in paterns that guarantee a hit.
I expected you to call it stupid and im not even mad but please show me how im wrong by countering the points i have made in a less emotional manner.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”