German mega defense

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

Post by Destroyer500 » 14 Jun 2022 12:00


I've heard about these project from you for the first time about a good year ago. Since then I looked into the matter, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they needed at least a year or so more to develop them into useful solutions. And given that in mid-1944 the game was already over in other aspects of the war, I doubt that anything fruitful would come out of this without a major alteration in the course of events.
Unless they had some sort of defensive doctrine or cared to do more research and give priority to SAMs far earlier by late 1944-1945 things can only go the way they did and at best slow the war for a week or month.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jun 2022 13:01

Destroyer500 wrote:
14 Jun 2022 11:56

The more I study the subject, the more I believe it is a literary invention based on a few snaps from Mussolini, Raeder and a few others who had little to no understanding of the strategic situation.

First of all, the North African and Middle Eastern theatre was not a very good place for Germany to fight Britain. Logistics and other military items are just one thing, but in reality the whole area was hardly kept under control and experienced a population boom that lasts to this very day. And the indication that the German alignment was better than the British or French would not last long either; there were serious signs that these countries craved independence and not another colonial overlord. It is also questionable whether Germany did or did not possess the capability to project power on the wrong side of the sea, and the answer is probably no. And wartime Germany was in no position to placate these nations with good trade offers; let alone to develop them. Hitler (and half the Orientkenner diplomats) was all but hesitant to give full support for Arab nationalism. They saw it as a tool to weaken the British (they did the same with India in WW1).

Second, there were no raw materials in the NA / ME that would knock the British out of the war. In fact it was Churchill's decision to give battle to the Axis in this region because he realized this is an ideal battleground for the British / Commonwealth forces and a nightmare to the Axis forces. Interservice cooperation, logistics and a keen diplomatic touch were all the weak points of the Axis and the strong points of the British. It is also very much likely that the British sacrificed a disproportionate amount of forces (naval forces included) to maintain their positions in the theater, so if the British lose the MTO, they most likely don't lose Singapore and the Japanese could hardly break into the Indian Ocean.

In my opinion (consistent with many historians like Citino) the German army would continue to attack until ten past midnight, until it exhausted itself. They did this in every campaign (sometimes victory came sooner than exhaustion). They never really gave a thought about good management and rationalization. If they would allocate resources to something, it would be offense (even in the form of retrbution) and not defense.
Many people on the internet and this forum have discussed the N.A.,M.E. campaign posibilty and even though its not a walk in park it definitely is better than Barbarossa and helps make Germany a lot stronger.Ocupation forces wouldnt be that much of a problem and in the end the hardest part would be sea supply lines due to the British navy.But the British navy is not god and lets not forget that the Italian navy although not an equal to the RN had no fuel to do its job,in this scenario this changes.A sucessfull ME and NA campaign secoures the oil the Axis needs and possibly brings Tourkey to the play,supply line can also be built through the Balkans and Greece.Then if a Russian campaign is to comence Baku can be grabed in a far easier manner and possibly from the start of that said campaign and if they do get it selling some oil to the Japs would be possible.Japan then could maybe coordinate better with its European allies and open a third front in a future Russian campaign.
Of course im not going to write 1000 pages of why this can happen,if the axis that almost won at Russia cant win over some ill equiped Arabs and British early one then what can they do ? I think that people in this forum underestimate Germany of the 40s too much.Even with that funny Africa Korps of theirs they were really sucessfull and if Rommel had what he needed far far earlier then what stops Egypt from falling ?
Page 50 of this thread theres been some small talk about this viewtopic.php?f=11&t=243557&start=735
Yeah, this topic has been discussed and while the idea might work to some degree, it has serious limits. I mentioned most of them above: interservice cooperation, logistics, diplomacy, coalition warfare - just to name a few. The Iberian direction is probably a no-go, and Turkey would resist an invasion (and it would probably antagonize the Soviets too much to avoid war with them). The central Mediterranean LOC was utilized as much as it could be, thus there was only one option: invading Turkey (they would play for time by themselves). The German illusions of gaining Turkey's cooperation were false, the weapons sent there - (2 trainloads of matériel - were lost in transit. What little the Germans could airlift or sea-transport into the ME circumventing Turkey would be inadequate by all means. They could probably crush the British forces invading Iraq, especially those coming from Palestine, but not much more. There was a serious food shortage in the Levant already, the SKL estimated one reinforced battalion could be shipped there, via air a few regiments, maybe a division. We are talking about very little gains here. It only looks good because Barbarossa failed.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

Post by Destroyer500 » 14 Jun 2022 15:19


Yeah, this topic has been discussed and while the idea might work to some degree, it has serious limits. I mentioned most of them above: interservice cooperation, logistics, diplomacy, coalition warfare - just to name a few. The Iberian direction is probably a no-go, and Turkey would resist an invasion (and it would probably antagonize the Soviets too much to avoid war with them). The central Mediterranean LOC was utilized as much as it could be, thus there was only one option: invading Turkey (they would play for time by themselves). The German illusions of gaining Turkey's cooperation were false, the weapons sent there - (2 trainloads of matériel - were lost in transit. What little the Germans could airlift or sea-transport into the ME circumventing Turkey would be inadequate by all means. They could probably crush the British forces invading Iraq, especially those coming from Palestine, but not much more. There was a serious food shortage in the Levant already, the SKL estimated one reinforced battalion could be shipped there, via air a few regiments, maybe a division. We are talking about very little gains here. It only looks good because Barbarossa failed.
The Iberian direction would work just fine if Wilhelm Canaris had not said to Franco "Germany is gonna lose dont enter an alliance with them" in 1940.He was sent 2 more times with the 3rd been in 1944 if remember correctly but the oportunity was lost since the first try.In a really good book i read some time ago it was said that many generals objected a Russian campaign and opted for a NA and ME one and it was also said that Goering repeatedly was trying to get operation Barbarossa out of Adolfs mind.It was also said that he managed to change his mind but as soon as Franco didnt join them he again changed his mind.
Tourkey had no tanks and i wonder if they had any sort of airforce so an invasion wouldnt be that hard but why wouldnt they join the axis if they were surrounded by axis ? Most nations that didnt join the axis but were closely related to it were afraid of Britain and the same goes for Tourkey.If Stalingrad was taken and then some operation regarding Baku,Tourkey was eager to help the axis as long as they got Georgia and some other lands close to it.Hell if Greece wasnt afraid of Britain and if Mussolini wasnt that retarded there wouldnt need be an invasion at all there.
Of course it all sounds easy on paper but it would be far easier than a Barbarossa like campaign

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2906
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: German mega defense

Post by T. A. Gardner » 14 Jun 2022 17:13

Peter89 wrote:
14 Jun 2022 08:42
I've heard about these project from you for the first time about a good year ago. Since then I looked into the matter, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they needed at least a year or so more to develop them into useful solutions. And given that in mid-1944 the game was already over in other aspects of the war, I doubt that anything fruitful would come out of this without a major alteration in the course of events.
The British with Brakemine and Stooge went from zero to a marginally viable CLOS / beam riding SAM of dubious quality in less than a year. Neither was really operational quality, but they did work as controlled test vehicles. The USN got Little Joe from zero to the same point in about the same amount of time.
Enizan, with its 500 kg warhead could have been viable as a simple beam rider / CLOS SAM using command detonation and possibly pushed into service in early 1945, possibly earlier if the program were pushed. It is roughly equivalent to Little Joe in concept where you have a somewhat guided weapon with a huge warhead that just needs to get close to work. It would have been a quick and dirty system, but certainly better than nothing.

What the Germans did was try and develop a quality system that was going to take years to produce when they didn't have that sort of time to do it. If they'd tried for a stopgap system they might have had one by mid to late 44. Yes, it wouldn't have changed the trajectory of the war, but it would have been better than nothing and possibly more effective than flak in use.

Enizan would have been a better option than building the Me 163 for example. The missile would have been far more mobile and could be emplaced in more locations. Having several batteries of these that are fired on a beam riding system with some degree of CLOS and a command detonation, could have really been effective against the tight US bomber boxes because of that 500 kg warhead. Would it have been a war winner? No. But it would have worked better than fiddling around with a half dozen plus missile designs that had no hope of reaching a stage where they were even being test fired with a viable guidance system.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jun 2022 17:32

Destroyer500 wrote:
14 Jun 2022 15:19

Yeah, this topic has been discussed and while the idea might work to some degree, it has serious limits. I mentioned most of them above: interservice cooperation, logistics, diplomacy, coalition warfare - just to name a few. The Iberian direction is probably a no-go, and Turkey would resist an invasion (and it would probably antagonize the Soviets too much to avoid war with them). The central Mediterranean LOC was utilized as much as it could be, thus there was only one option: invading Turkey (they would play for time by themselves). The German illusions of gaining Turkey's cooperation were false, the weapons sent there - (2 trainloads of matériel - were lost in transit. What little the Germans could airlift or sea-transport into the ME circumventing Turkey would be inadequate by all means. They could probably crush the British forces invading Iraq, especially those coming from Palestine, but not much more. There was a serious food shortage in the Levant already, the SKL estimated one reinforced battalion could be shipped there, via air a few regiments, maybe a division. We are talking about very little gains here. It only looks good because Barbarossa failed.
The Iberian direction would work just fine if Wilhelm Canaris had not said to Franco "Germany is gonna lose dont enter an alliance with them" in 1940.He was sent 2 more times with the 3rd been in 1944 if remember correctly but the oportunity was lost since the first try.In a really good book i read some time ago it was said that many generals objected a Russian campaign and opted for a NA and ME one and it was also said that Goering repeatedly was trying to get operation Barbarossa out of Adolfs mind.It was also said that he managed to change his mind but as soon as Franco didnt join them he again changed his mind.
Tourkey had no tanks and i wonder if they had any sort of airforce so an invasion wouldnt be that hard but why wouldnt they join the axis if they were surrounded by axis ? Most nations that didnt join the axis but were closely related to it were afraid of Britain and the same goes for Tourkey.If Stalingrad was taken and then some operation regarding Baku,Tourkey was eager to help the axis as long as they got Georgia and some other lands close to it.Hell if Greece wasnt afraid of Britain and if Mussolini wasnt that retarded there wouldnt need be an invasion at all there.
Of course it all sounds easy on paper but it would be far easier than a Barbarossa like campaign
No. The Germans could take the Iberian peninsula alright, but that would mean to lose all the islands on the Central Atlantic, which means they'd lose all hope for their merchant fleet to return; their U-boots to conduct a successful tonnage war on the mid-term and their limited naval aviation to have any success.

Yes, a few generals objected, because they realized that Germany's worst nightmare was a two front war; by my own calculation, Hitler's and Germany's most important cause for success in 1938-1941 was that Hitler could avoid a multi-front war. And the prime cause for their destruction was the multi-front war they engaged in 1941.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jun 2022 17:37

T. A. Gardner wrote:
14 Jun 2022 17:13
Peter89 wrote:
14 Jun 2022 08:42
I've heard about these project from you for the first time about a good year ago. Since then I looked into the matter, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they needed at least a year or so more to develop them into useful solutions. And given that in mid-1944 the game was already over in other aspects of the war, I doubt that anything fruitful would come out of this without a major alteration in the course of events.
The British with Brakemine and Stooge went from zero to a marginally viable CLOS / beam riding SAM of dubious quality in less than a year. Neither was really operational quality, but they did work as controlled test vehicles. The USN got Little Joe from zero to the same point in about the same amount of time.
Enizan, with its 500 kg warhead could have been viable as a simple beam rider / CLOS SAM using command detonation and possibly pushed into service in early 1945, possibly earlier if the program were pushed. It is roughly equivalent to Little Joe in concept where you have a somewhat guided weapon with a huge warhead that just needs to get close to work. It would have been a quick and dirty system, but certainly better than nothing.

What the Germans did was try and develop a quality system that was going to take years to produce when they didn't have that sort of time to do it. If they'd tried for a stopgap system they might have had one by mid to late 44. Yes, it wouldn't have changed the trajectory of the war, but it would have been better than nothing and possibly more effective than flak in use.

Enizan would have been a better option than building the Me 163 for example. The missile would have been far more mobile and could be emplaced in more locations. Having several batteries of these that are fired on a beam riding system with some degree of CLOS and a command detonation, could have really been effective against the tight US bomber boxes because of that 500 kg warhead. Would it have been a war winner? No. But it would have worked better than fiddling around with a half dozen plus missile designs that had no hope of reaching a stage where they were even being test fired with a viable guidance system.
Okay, that was a good one; you convinced me. I don't doubt that with better choices, the Germans could field a SAM system (that could change little to nothing) between mid-1944 and mid-1945.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

Post by Destroyer500 » 14 Jun 2022 18:36


No. The Germans could take the Iberian peninsula alright, but that would mean to lose all the islands on the Central Atlantic, which means they'd lose all hope for their merchant fleet to return; their U-boots to conduct a successful tonnage war on the mid-term and their limited naval aviation to have any success.

Yes, a few generals objected, because they realized that Germany's worst nightmare was a two front war; by my own calculation, Hitler's and Germany's most important cause for success in 1938-1941 was that Hitler could avoid a multi-front war. And the prime cause for their destruction was the multi-front war they engaged in 1941.
I never thought of them invading Spain.Let me put it on my list :) Jokes aside a two front war was unavoidable since the Soviet Union would 100000% try to invade the rest of Europe,Stalin didnt feel ready in 41 though but by max late 1943 it would happen.Germany attacked preemtively because apart from them wanting to expand and make the "German dream" come true they knew they had to either strike first and maybe surprise their enemy or lose a war of artrition.If the ME,NA campaigns in any way happened and succeded then a possible Russian war would have Germany in a better position to defend herself or even attack.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 14 Jun 2022 20:47

Destroyer500 wrote:
14 Jun 2022 18:36

No. The Germans could take the Iberian peninsula alright, but that would mean to lose all the islands on the Central Atlantic, which means they'd lose all hope for their merchant fleet to return; their U-boots to conduct a successful tonnage war on the mid-term and their limited naval aviation to have any success.

Yes, a few generals objected, because they realized that Germany's worst nightmare was a two front war; by my own calculation, Hitler's and Germany's most important cause for success in 1938-1941 was that Hitler could avoid a multi-front war. And the prime cause for their destruction was the multi-front war they engaged in 1941.
I never thought of them invading Spain.Let me put it on my list :) Jokes aside a two front war was unavoidable since the Soviet Union would 100000% try to invade the rest of Europe,Stalin didnt feel ready in 41 though but by max late 1943 it would happen.Germany attacked preemtively because apart from them wanting to expand and make the "German dream" come true they knew they had to either strike first and maybe surprise their enemy or lose a war of artrition.If the ME,NA campaigns in any way happened and succeded then a possible Russian war would have Germany in a better position to defend herself or even attack.
1. I debate that a Soviet attack would happen; Stalin was no fool. Why would he risk a war against a (coalition of) power(s) when they were enemies with a third party? I think Stalin would wait for the opportunity to strike, and wouldn't enter the war just for the taste of it.

2. A German (in fact Axis) occupation of the NA-ME theatre would not strengthen but weaken Germany - not just for 1941 but probably for 1942 too.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

Post by Destroyer500 » 15 Jun 2022 01:07


1. I debate that a Soviet attack would happen; Stalin was no fool. Why would he risk a war against a (coalition of) power(s) when they were enemies with a third party? I think Stalin would wait for the opportunity to strike, and wouldn't enter the war just for the taste of it.

2. A German (in fact Axis) occupation of the NA-ME theatre would not strengthen but weaken Germany - not just for 1941 but probably for 1942 too.
Answering to number 1;Stalin was repeatedly talking about an aggressive doctrine to generals and people as high as him and even said something similar to some cadets about to graduate from military schools of the time,when asked about some proper defensive fallback positions to be made of along with some forts,trenches and a better spreading of the army he said we dont need that and moved a big chunk of his army to the western border,the higher up people said that such a move was bad and that it could end up in all being encircled and lost really fast (guess what happened) but he never explained them why,i also remember that factories and in general equipment had started to be transferred westwards and finally when the SU was attacked the western border troops did not have maps for fallback positions (or orders for defense) only for forward ones.Stalin of course was never talking about his goals openly and only waited for the last moment to announce anything because he was extremely fearful of a coup,assasination or something along those lines.Now doing all the above moves can only mean 2 things,he either was amassing for an attack to happen in the near future or he was just utterly stupid,i guess we know the answer.

Answering to number 2;while i understand were youre getting at,that their forces will be spread too thin and logistics will get worse due to distance,you have to keep in mind that the UK that had all that stuff was a lot stronger not weaker.Yea sure they had a massive fleet but they cant move those ships to attack on land can they ? Germany could easily grab all that early on and move most of what they needed through land.The UK was in a process of leaving its colonies behind but they planned to do it on a steady and controlled manner,a sudden loss would ruin them.Would that be easy ? The answer as always is no but having all that oil,food and other raw resources and your only serious problem is some ill equipped locals that are not necessarily going to harm you if you treat them properly (and the British didnt treat then properly but they were forced to comply either way)plus even if they try you are 100 times stronger and the nonexistent infrastructure to move it then i say its not that big a deal.Germany built new rail lines on lands they conquered and what stops them from making something to sufficiently move stuff through all those conquered lands ? Hell why not built some Breitspurbahn version in those countries ? I propose the latter because due to the size of it it was said that you could move all of Ukraines yearly food production in a week.

Not trying to get into more details because im gonna lose 3 hours explaining.Since this threads topic is not about Barbarossa alternatives or African,Middle Eastern campaigns do you have anything to say about my most recent proposals of big AA guns or about the initial Mega Defense ? When it comes to the latter do you have any ideas to make it work ? I dont just want problems and how it cant happen,i want solutions and what would you do if someone asked you (or forced you) to make something similar.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 15 Jun 2022 07:24

Destroyer500 wrote:
15 Jun 2022 01:07

1. I debate that a Soviet attack would happen; Stalin was no fool. Why would he risk a war against a (coalition of) power(s) when they were enemies with a third party? I think Stalin would wait for the opportunity to strike, and wouldn't enter the war just for the taste of it.

2. A German (in fact Axis) occupation of the NA-ME theatre would not strengthen but weaken Germany - not just for 1941 but probably for 1942 too.
Answering to number 1;Stalin was repeatedly talking about an aggressive doctrine to generals and people as high as him and even said something similar to some cadets about to graduate from military schools of the time,when asked about some proper defensive fallback positions to be made of along with some forts,trenches and a better spreading of the army he said we dont need that and moved a big chunk of his army to the western border,the higher up people said that such a move was bad and that it could end up in all being encircled and lost really fast (guess what happened) but he never explained them why,i also remember that factories and in general equipment had started to be transferred westwards and finally when the SU was attacked the western border troops did not have maps for fallback positions (or orders for defense) only for forward ones.Stalin of course was never talking about his goals openly and only waited for the last moment to announce anything because he was extremely fearful of a coup,assasination or something along those lines.Now doing all the above moves can only mean 2 things,he either was amassing for an attack to happen in the near future or he was just utterly stupid,i guess we know the answer.

Answering to number 2;while i understand were youre getting at,that their forces will be spread too thin and logistics will get worse due to distance,you have to keep in mind that the UK that had all that stuff was a lot stronger not weaker.Yea sure they had a massive fleet but they cant move those ships to attack on land can they ? Germany could easily grab all that early on and move most of what they needed through land.The UK was in a process of leaving its colonies behind but they planned to do it on a steady and controlled manner,a sudden loss would ruin them.Would that be easy ? The answer as always is no but having all that oil,food and other raw resources and your only serious problem is some ill equipped locals that are not necessarily going to harm you if you treat them properly (and the British didnt treat then properly but they were forced to comply either way)plus even if they try you are 100 times stronger and the nonexistent infrastructure to move it then i say its not that big a deal.Germany built new rail lines on lands they conquered and what stops them from making something to sufficiently move stuff through all those conquered lands ? Hell why not built some Breitspurbahn version in those countries ? I propose the latter because due to the size of it it was said that you could move all of Ukraines yearly food production in a week.

Not trying to get into more details because im gonna lose 3 hours explaining.Since this threads topic is not about Barbarossa alternatives or African,Middle Eastern campaigns do you have anything to say about my most recent proposals of big AA guns or about the initial Mega Defense ? When it comes to the latter do you have any ideas to make it work ? I dont just want problems and how it cant happen,i want solutions and what would you do if someone asked you (or forced you) to make something similar.
1. Stalin indeed attacked north and eastern europe, but he - and by extension, the Soviets - never really attacked an enemy of comparable size. I don't doubt that he'd sweep into the Balkans if and when the opportunity rose, but he wouldn't attack before Germany and its allies are substantially weakened by the Wallies (see what happened with Japan).
2. "All that food and oil" is exaggerated, the food in particular. If the Germans were lucky they didn't have to import food into this region (at least for the moment, because on the long term it was impossible to sustain these lands' growing population). There are a lot of great threads about the topic.

As for the Mega Defense, I think the others have told pretty much everything about it. My principal concern would be that a mega defense like this would be overcome relatively easily by building faster bombers and using a different formation: instead of a stream, the light bombers could enter the killing zone in parallel with the defense line, draw the fire on the entire sector, and then the second wave could carry the heavy punch with relatively light punishment. Then the AA fire control has to decide whether they continue to aim at the first wave or shift fire to the second wave. The attacks could be layered as well, thus a wave of Mosquitos, Typhoons, etc. could arrive in a low altitude attack, confuse, provoke and set the defenses off-balance, drop smoke canisters or flares, rocketing and bombing some batteries, radar stations, communications and fire control centres (CCC); then a second wave of medium bombers could arrive to bomb the defenses proper, aim for the batteries themselves; not to destroy them but to stun them and force them to take cover or remain underground. Then the actual bomber waves could arrive before the defenses got time to recover. The Wallies also had such an overwhelming superiority in numbers that they could use saturation tactics as well; and given the extremely thin danger zone, it would be relatively easy to do.

While Flak was useful to some degree, it gave zero room to maneuver and attack the bomber streams properly. T.A. Gardner was right, a SAM system was the only way forward; Milch and practically everyone was responsible that they didn't stop the idiotic rocket programs on 26 May 1943, by which time Germany suffered a terrible raid over Köln already and had exactly zero chance to mount a successful rocket bombing campaign against the British.

Edit: I left out what would I do. I would probably focus on managing economy to protect key production and occupy a perimeter where I can trade losses cost-efficiently. I'd probably try to avoid a multi-front war at all costs, especially against stronger enemies. So my principal idea would be to keep the Americans and the Soviets out of the war as long as possible, integrate my allies' otherwise experienced aircrew into the defense and I would push forward with SAM projects instead of the retribution weapons. I'd probably move a large portion of the economy closer to the raw material sources, outside of the Allied bombers' range. Also I'd either occupy or completely abandon the wrong side of the Mediterranean; in any case, I'd cut the commitments on the peripheries.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

Post by Destroyer500 » 15 Jun 2022 13:26


1. Stalin indeed attacked north and eastern europe, but he - and by extension, the Soviets - never really attacked an enemy of comparable size. I don't doubt that he'd sweep into the Balkans if and when the opportunity rose, but he wouldn't attack before Germany and its allies are substantially weakened by the Wallies (see what happened with Japan).
2. "All that food and oil" is exaggerated, the food in particular. If the Germans were lucky they didn't have to import food into this region (at least for the moment, because on the long term it was impossible to sustain these lands' growing population). There are a lot of great threads about the topic.

As for the Mega Defense, I think the others have told pretty much everything about it. My principal concern would be that a mega defense like this would be overcome relatively easily by building faster bombers and using a different formation: instead of a stream, the light bombers could enter the killing zone in parallel with the defense line, draw the fire on the entire sector, and then the second wave could carry the heavy punch with relatively light punishment. Then the AA fire control has to decide whether they continue to aim at the first wave or shift fire to the second wave. The attacks could be layered as well, thus a wave of Mosquitos, Typhoons, etc. could arrive in a low altitude attack, confuse, provoke and set the defenses off-balance, drop smoke canisters or flares, rocketing and bombing some batteries, radar stations, communications and fire control centres (CCC); then a second wave of medium bombers could arrive to bomb the defenses proper, aim for the batteries themselves; not to destroy them but to stun them and force them to take cover or remain underground. Then the actual bomber waves could arrive before the defenses got time to recover. The Wallies also had such an overwhelming superiority in numbers that they could use saturation tactics as well; and given the extremely thin danger zone, it would be relatively easy to do.

While Flak was useful to some degree, it gave zero room to maneuver and attack the bomber streams properly. T.A. Gardner was right, a SAM system was the only way forward; Milch and practically everyone was responsible that they didn't stop the idiotic rocket programs on 26 May 1943, by which time Germany suffered a terrible raid over Köln already and had exactly zero chance to mount a successful rocket bombing campaign against the British.

Edit: I left out what would I do. I would probably focus on managing economy to protect key production and occupy a perimeter where I can trade losses cost-efficiently. I'd probably try to avoid a multi-front war at all costs, especially against stronger enemies. So my principal idea would be to keep the Americans and the Soviets out of the war as long as possible, integrate my allies' otherwise experienced aircrew into the defense and I would push forward with SAM projects instead of the retribution weapons. I'd probably move a large portion of the economy closer to the raw material sources, outside of the Allied bombers' range. Also I'd either occupy or completely abandon the wrong side of the Mediterranean; in any case, I'd cut the commitments on the peripheries.
Thanks for answering to exactly what i asked.Well leave the whole SU,ME,NA thing outside since its not what i care to go into more depth in this thread.

Since im not all knowing and mostly search military history and equipment in my free time theres a lot i dont know and came to this forum to learn and say what i believe could work and experiment with different ideas i had from time to time.So lets get started with the questions.

What is that killing zone you mentioned ? While all these wave attacks are nice and all with the amount of AAs of all kinds i propose i guess the attackers would get massive loses,or am i wrong ? In this whole scenario imagine guns like the 5.5cm gerat 58
(https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2020/07/0 ... -gerat-58/ take a look at this "One of the many things to note about this gun was its sophisticated servo drive systems intended for computerized aiming. Instead of the defective (in terms of accuracy) limited angular rate deflection system generally used for for aiming it was to calculate the complete and total firing solution in Cartesian co-ordinates"),early working SAMs,those big 40cm-20cm guns with the rocket propeled shells i talked about earlier with their massive blasts and of course some standard flak with contact fuses-times fuses and all the other in and between weapons of the time.Did most of these guns hand cranked to a firing position and target acquisition ? Could something like the gerat 58s system be integrated to more guns ?

Vengeance weapons were a big waste of time and resources.They did almost nothing to the enemies ability to fight and all those resources and minds could have build a better defensive or offensive system for military not terror bombing use.

By abandoning the wrong side of the Mediterranean you mean Italy i guess :lol: ?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 15 Jun 2022 14:37

Destroyer500 wrote:
15 Jun 2022 13:26

1. Stalin indeed attacked north and eastern europe, but he - and by extension, the Soviets - never really attacked an enemy of comparable size. I don't doubt that he'd sweep into the Balkans if and when the opportunity rose, but he wouldn't attack before Germany and its allies are substantially weakened by the Wallies (see what happened with Japan).
2. "All that food and oil" is exaggerated, the food in particular. If the Germans were lucky they didn't have to import food into this region (at least for the moment, because on the long term it was impossible to sustain these lands' growing population). There are a lot of great threads about the topic.

As for the Mega Defense, I think the others have told pretty much everything about it. My principal concern would be that a mega defense like this would be overcome relatively easily by building faster bombers and using a different formation: instead of a stream, the light bombers could enter the killing zone in parallel with the defense line, draw the fire on the entire sector, and then the second wave could carry the heavy punch with relatively light punishment. Then the AA fire control has to decide whether they continue to aim at the first wave or shift fire to the second wave. The attacks could be layered as well, thus a wave of Mosquitos, Typhoons, etc. could arrive in a low altitude attack, confuse, provoke and set the defenses off-balance, drop smoke canisters or flares, rocketing and bombing some batteries, radar stations, communications and fire control centres (CCC); then a second wave of medium bombers could arrive to bomb the defenses proper, aim for the batteries themselves; not to destroy them but to stun them and force them to take cover or remain underground. Then the actual bomber waves could arrive before the defenses got time to recover. The Wallies also had such an overwhelming superiority in numbers that they could use saturation tactics as well; and given the extremely thin danger zone, it would be relatively easy to do.

While Flak was useful to some degree, it gave zero room to maneuver and attack the bomber streams properly. T.A. Gardner was right, a SAM system was the only way forward; Milch and practically everyone was responsible that they didn't stop the idiotic rocket programs on 26 May 1943, by which time Germany suffered a terrible raid over Köln already and had exactly zero chance to mount a successful rocket bombing campaign against the British.

Edit: I left out what would I do. I would probably focus on managing economy to protect key production and occupy a perimeter where I can trade losses cost-efficiently. I'd probably try to avoid a multi-front war at all costs, especially against stronger enemies. So my principal idea would be to keep the Americans and the Soviets out of the war as long as possible, integrate my allies' otherwise experienced aircrew into the defense and I would push forward with SAM projects instead of the retribution weapons. I'd probably move a large portion of the economy closer to the raw material sources, outside of the Allied bombers' range. Also I'd either occupy or completely abandon the wrong side of the Mediterranean; in any case, I'd cut the commitments on the peripheries.
Thanks for answering to exactly what i asked.Well leave the whole SU,ME,NA thing outside since its not what i care to go into more depth in this thread.

Since im not all knowing and mostly search military history and equipment in my free time theres a lot i dont know and came to this forum to learn and say what i believe could work and experiment with different ideas i had from time to time.So lets get started with the questions.

What is that killing zone you mentioned ? While all these wave attacks are nice and all with the amount of AAs of all kinds i propose i guess the attackers would get massive loses,or am i wrong ? In this whole scenario imagine guns like the 5.5cm gerat 58
(https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2020/07/0 ... -gerat-58/ take a look at this "One of the many things to note about this gun was its sophisticated servo drive systems intended for computerized aiming. Instead of the defective (in terms of accuracy) limited angular rate deflection system generally used for for aiming it was to calculate the complete and total firing solution in Cartesian co-ordinates"),early working SAMs,those big 40cm-20cm guns with the rocket propeled shells i talked about earlier with their massive blasts and of course some standard flak with contact fuses-times fuses and all the other in and between weapons of the time.Apart from targeting computers was there a way in the 40s for these guns to become more aquarate ?

Vengeance weapons were a big waste of time and resources.They did almost nothing to the enemies ability to fight and all those resources and minds could have build a better defensive or offensive system for military not terror bombing use.

By abandoning the wrong side of the Mediterranean you mean Italy i guess :lol: ?
The fundamental problem is that the bombers spend too little time in the killing zone. You can either go for two things: fire control or massed blind shooting. The latter is insane so we're talking about a dense flak belt. But the problem is that the belt can not be very thick; if it was a single line as you proposed, a bomber cruising with 360 kmph moves 6 km in every minute. They would spend probably 1-5 minutes in the killing zone, depending on the guns. Now if the first two waves of lower altitude attacks stun the defenses for 1-2 minutes, the whole defense belt worths practically half of its strength as the majority of the flak guns would be the 88mm. Then the bombers could safely lower their altitudes and carry out a more accurate bombing.

Image
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: German mega defense

Post by Destroyer500 » 15 Jun 2022 15:04


The fundamental problem is that the bombers spend too little time in the killing zone. You can either go for two things: fire control or massed blind shooting. The latter is insane so we're talking about a dense flak belt. But the problem is that the belt can not be very thick; if it was a single line as you proposed, a bomber cruising with 360 kmph moves 6 km in every minute. They would spend probably 1-5 minutes in the killing zone, depending on the guns. Now if the first two waves of lower altitude attacks stun the defenses for 1-2 minutes, the whole defense belt worths practically half of its strength as the majority of the flak guns would be the 88mm. Then the bombers could safely lower their altitudes and carry out a more accurate bombing.

Image
So what would you propose ? That i spread them thinner and make the line wider ? That i make multiple lines ?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: German mega defense

Post by Peter89 » 15 Jun 2022 16:53

Destroyer500 wrote:
15 Jun 2022 15:04

So what would you propose ? That i spread them thinner and make the line wider ? That i make multiple lines ?
As for the flak I propose what the Germans did OTL: concentrate flak around the objects they had to protect. (There weren't enough guns to cover this single line anyway.) This is a battle of attrition and not a single slash of a sword.

In what year are we? Because if it's late 1940 then I would:
- court martial half the Luftwaffe's leadership
- stop production on half of the lines,
- stop the r&d on half of the undergoing projects
- send out and receive liasion officers
- make peace with the navy, allocate more resources to naval aviation and place all units reasonably capable of anti-shipping operations under navy control
- make peace with the army, allocate more resources to develop a single-engine ground attack aircraft and phase out Ju 87
- cut commitments on the peripheries

etc etc etc
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2906
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: German mega defense

Post by T. A. Gardner » 15 Jun 2022 17:32

Destroyer500 wrote:
15 Jun 2022 13:26
Since im not all knowing and mostly search military history and equipment in my free time theres a lot i dont know and came to this forum to learn and say what i believe could work and experiment with different ideas i had from time to time.So lets get started with the questions.

What is that killing zone you mentioned ? While all these wave attacks are nice and all with the amount of AAs of all kinds i propose i guess the attackers would get massive loses,or am i wrong ? In this whole scenario imagine guns like the 5.5cm gerat 58
(https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2020/07/0 ... -gerat-58/ take a look at this "One of the many things to note about this gun was its sophisticated servo drive systems intended for computerized aiming. Instead of the defective (in terms of accuracy) limited angular rate deflection system generally used for for aiming it was to calculate the complete and total firing solution in Cartesian co-ordinates"),early working SAMs,those big 40cm-20cm guns with the rocket propeled shells i talked about earlier with their massive blasts and of course some standard flak with contact fuses-times fuses and all the other in and between weapons of the time.Did most of these guns hand cranked to a firing position and target acquisition ? Could something like the gerat 58s system be integrated to more guns ?

Vengeance weapons were a big waste of time and resources.They did almost nothing to the enemies ability to fight and all those resources and minds could have build a better defensive or offensive system for military not terror bombing use.

By abandoning the wrong side of the Mediterranean you mean Italy i guess :lol: ?
The US already beat Germany to the punch on that with the M2 90mm gun. The mount was powered and included not only automatic laying but a power rammer and fuze setter. Coupled to the Bell M3 predictor and an SCR 586 radar, this allowed the battery to be laid and directed remotely, like a battery of guns on a ship might be. It reduced the errors that could be injected into the fire control system from prediction to gun laying and at the same time when using time fuzes improved the setting of those giving the shortest delay between setting and firing the shell possible.

For the Germans, while they could certainly match most or all of that technology, they couldn't mass produce it. Their electronics industry was simply too small to handle making all those extra servos, motors, and such necessary.

The norm for AA guns in WW 2 was for a central predictor to calculate the elevation and traverse of the guns in the battery and transmit that data to them. A trainer and layer on the gun would then traverse and elevate the gun using a "follow the pointer" system mounted on the gun that received the data from the predictor. Fuze setting was based on data transmitted too. The loaders would be setting fuzes on shells as they were passed for firing. The fuze data would have a few seconds delay between setting and firing at a minimum meaning the prediction was slightly off when fired.

Return to “What if”