# The events of WWII without aircraft



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2016)

As the title says, World War Two without aircraft...

Typically, when the name World War Two is mentioned, one of the first things that come to mind, is the aircraft (one of the reasons we're all here, right?) and it is the only time in human history that Airships, Biplanes, Jets and some of the fastest piston powered aircraft in history all shared the same timeline. Airships attacked U-boats, Jets attacked piston powered bombers, biplanes attacked modern Battleships, entire naval battles were won and lost without the opposing fleets being within sight of each other - almost the stuff of science fiction.

Aircraft played a key role in nearly every battle that was fought during the war and this was in most cases, the contributing factor in how a battle was won or lost.

But let's consider for a moment, how World War Two would have taken it's course if there were no aircraft. Keep in mind, that in World War One, aircraft were a novel idea at the onset of the war. It wasn't for two years that the concept of military aviation actually was taken seriously and by 1917, the rush was on for air superiority.

As the war in Europe drew near, Germany was on the verge of the jet age, but it wasn't taken seriously enough to be made a priority and so the cycle once again replayed itself, the jets becoming a priority once the war was well underway, just like the airplane itself had been considered almost 30 years before.

So this brings me to my question: What if aircraft had not developed to the point where it was considered a military asset by 1935? What if the Armies and Navies held firm to their traditional ideologies and insisted that Battleships or Infantry won wars and stifled the introduction of military aviation.

How would World War Two have played out in it's entirety without the influence of Bombers, Fighters and Transports?

Would this have prolonged the war, shortened it or brought it to a draw?

Would WWII have become a contest of Battleships and Trench Warfare like the Great War and ground everything down into a muddy standstill?

I'd be interested in seeing what everyone thinks about this.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 19, 2016)

I like this scenario GG.....

The Battle of Britain certainly wouldn't have been RAF vs Luftwaffe. It would have been Operation Sea Lion in full effect. Then it would have certainly depended on the number of German troops landed and the ability of Germany to resupply those troops with men and materials. Our resident experts have a better feel for how that might have played out better than I do but if Germany could continue to supply armor and men, I think England might have been in trouble. To support the supply chain, Bismark, Tirpitz (if ready), Prinz Eugen, Admiral Hipper, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and others would have been clogging up both ends of the channel. Completely different slugfest involving the capital ships of the two navies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 19, 2016)

On a bigger front, you have the Pacific. Would Pearl Harbor have happened? Doubtful, but if we look at it like it did happen, maybe it would have played out like this.

So no aircraft, no aircraft carriers. Japan could concentrate on building more Yamato class ships which were started in 1937. Without the effort of building/converting aircraft carriers, Musashi could have been done sooner and maybe the the Shinano would have also. There could have been a greater effort in Japan building subs and midget subs. If they time it right, they could bottle up the majority of the US fleet inside the harbor. Sink just one in the channel trying to get out and Pearl almost becomes irrelevant. Japan now has complete freedom in the Pacific. 

But lets say they don't come after Pearl Harbor. Does Japan even need to expand as far to the south and west? They don't need Midway, they don't need Wake. Iwo Jima and Guam, yes, to guard it's back door to the west. Do they need the Marshall Islands? Maybe, maybe not. The only reason would be if they have effective radar to watch for ship movement if they didn't bother the U.S. Again, no airfields or recon planes. Japan could focus more on China, Burma, India and the East Indies.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2016)

I think your original concept could do with a slight modification. You bring up the analogy of WWI and the initial disregard for aviation. IIRC, even at the very outset of WWI, the infantry generals and battleship admirals were intrigued with the observation and reconnaissance potential of aviation, even if they didn't acknowledge its tactical or strategic value. Therefore, unless you're going to assume no progress in civil aviation between wars, it seems unlikely that the generals and admirals would resist the temptation to use aircraft such as the Pan Am Clippers or the original "airliner" FW-200 Kondor for long range patrol. For a surface navy without radar ya gotta have something to give the "Old Man" peace of mind! Same for troops on the ground. Thus the suggestion that Japan didn't need the outlying islands may not be accurate. They would need to know if the US Navy was at sea, and if so, where. Also the US advantage in radar would probably not have occurred as aviation was a driving force in its development.
And so, Long Lance torpedoes and night fighting techniques against a peacetime mentality US Navy with a "we're better than they are" mindset. You can write the script. It doesn't look pretty. I largely concur with the analysis of the European Theater. Even though the Royal Navy was large and nearby, its ships were mostly a generation older and with less sophisticated fire control.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2016)

Also, without the involvement of aviation, U-boats would have OWNED the Atlantic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2016)

America would have been invaded.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 19, 2016)

"The Man in the High Castle" would be reality.


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2016)

I don't think that the Kriegsmarine would have been able to defeat the Royal Navy and protect and support 'Sealion', which would have been a disaster if attempted. The KM still has to win a *decisive* naval battle against largely superior forces. Just look at the numbers (you can forget _Tirpitz_). The KM was historically not keen to sail out and take on the RN. A failed 'Sealion' may even have hastened the end of the war, at least the Anglo-German war in the West, a point I will explain below.

I don't think that U-boats would have owned the Atlantic either. Aircraft certainly hastened the demise of the U-boat, they sank nearly as many boats as ships did, particularly from 1943 onward, but better Allied tactics and technology were equally important. A comprehensive convoy system, improved anti submarine weapons, Asdic/Sonar, and of course the breaking of German naval codes to name a few. I also don't believe that the Germans could ever have built enough boats.

No combined bombing offensive, if still required after the failure of 'Sealion' would seemingly have have enabled the Germans to prolong the war, whatever form it now took,* but*, no Luftwaffe might have enabled an invasion of NW Europe in 1943. Two preeminent naval powers in Britain and the USA against a minor naval power? Invasions are all about control of the sea once you take control of the air out of the equation. The only contest is on land.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2016)

A lot comes back to production and logistics. 
As far as the war at sea goes the Bismark wasn't fit for sea duty until the spring of 1941, (main guns weren't even test fired aboard ship until Nov 1940) so Sea Lion is pretty much a disaster for the Germans even if Norway wasn't attempted. German ability to out build the British in ships is highly doubtful. Once the US joins the Germans are simply going to be swamped.

Going to Japan the Japanese have a similar but much more severe problem. US production of steel is greater than the rest of the combatants put together, Japan managed to beat Italy. Once treaty restrictions are over the US can out produce Japan several times over even while matching Germany. 
Japanese need most if not all of the small islands as bases, refueling points and long range radio stations for large numbers of picket boats. Even converted fishing boats with radios doing visual search. 

The war would have been much different in type/style of fighting but the out come wouldn't have been much different.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> America would have been invaded.



No, I don't think so.

Neither Germany or Japan would have been able to put any serious amount of troops 5656 km across the Atlantic on US Soil, and then sustain, supply and maintain an occupying force.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Also, without the involvement of aviation, U-boats would have OWNED the Atlantic.


Perhaps but also possible that any port where U Boats operated from would be reduced to rubble by battleships.


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Sea Lion is pretty much a disaster for the Germans even if Norway wasn't attempted.



I agree, but in the Norwegian campaign the KM lost _Blucher_, _Karlsruhe_ and _Konigsberg_, only the latter cruiser sunk by aircraft after being severely damaged by coastal artillery. They also lost 10 destroyers, leaving only 7 to screen an invasion of England. 
To put this in perspective, the RN could call on 3 battleships, 2 battle cruisers, 2 aircraft carriers (discounted in this scenario), 8 heavy cruisers, 20 light cruisers and 76 destroyers in home waters. Immediately available to confront 'Sealion' were the battleship _Revenge_, 2 light cruisers and 6 destroyers at Plymouth, 1 light cruiser and 16 destroyers at Portsmouth, and on the South Coast another 5 light cruisers and 20 destroyers. Many of the major combatants were at Scapa Flow, though the battleships _Rodney_ and _Nelson_ and the battle cruiser _Hood_, 2 light cruisers and 8 destroyers deployed to the Firth of Forth (historically on 13th September) to counter an invasion threat. They would have been able to sail South in plenty of time to meet the invasion fleet as it made the return journey to resupply whatever forces (if any) had actually managed a landing. 
Of the few resources the KM had, both _Admiral Hipper _and _Admiral Scheer_ were to have joined the diversionary operation (along with the light cruisers _Nurnberg, Koln and Emden_) in the north Sea in the hope of drawing of major British units from Scapa Flow.
As I said, the numbers don't add up. The Germans had NO chance with air power and NO chance without it.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No, I don't think so.
> 
> Neither Germany or Japan would have been able to put any serious amount of troops 5656 km across the Atlantic on US Soil, and then sustain, supply and maintain an occupying force.


The Canadians could have advanced south from Canadia.

Supporting an army across the Atlantic or Pacific would be close to impossible with out any opposition. So long as the USA made sure there was no food or fuel it is a massive task.


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Neither Germany or Japan would have been able to put any serious amount of troops 5656 km across the Atlantic on US Soil, and then sustain, supply and maintain an occupying force.



Of course not. I can't comment on the Japanese, but the Germans didn't have enough shipping to even attempt such a thing. 
In 1939 the Germans had 3.5 million GRT of blue water* and coastal* shipping, but with a typical lack of foresight and planning allowed about 1 million GRT to be blockaded in neutral harbours at the beginning of the war. They never thought to get the vessels out of neutral ports before they started the war!
At the time of Sealion, with shipping captured from the Netherlands, Belgium and France they had a total of just 750,000 tons of ocean going shipping. They would have had less a couple of years later, and you can't tow barges from inland waterways across the Atlantic Ocean. I'm not sure they would have got across the English Channel, particularly with 40 or so RN destroyers amongst them 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2016)

Some great discussion, guys!

What actually led me to create this thread, was a conversation I had with a friend who tried to convince me that WWII could have been won on airpower alone. This was an interesting point of view, but I countered with the fact that infantry needs to occupy and hold territory won regardless of how the territory is taken, or else there's no point. That's where the discussion turned to how the war would have taken it's course in the absence of airpower.

Regarding a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor without the use of aircraft - this would have been exceedingly difficult, as they would have had to bring their battleships in close enough without being detected or challenged in order to affect a bombardment. This means they would have had to get past U.S. Navy patrols (remember, it was a combination of mine sweepers and destroyers that detected and went after Japanese subs before and during the attack) and then they had to get past Oahu's shore defenses. Yamato and Musashi certainly had the range but only Yamato would have been available for an attack on Pearl *if* they attacked on the historical date of 7 December 1941.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The Canadians could have advanced south from Canadia.
> 
> Supporting an army across the Atlantic or Pacific would be close to impossible with out any opposition. So long as the USA made sure there was no food or fuel it is a massive task.



Exactly, invading the US was an impossible task. I don't even think it would be possible today.

The US has the best defense. It's called tge Atlantic and the Pacific.

Then throw in the vast amount of land, and a citizen population armed better than most countries.


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> What actually led me to create this thread, was a conversation I had with a friend who tried to convince me that WWII could have been won on airpower alone. .



Even the most vociferous proponents of strategic air power had reservations about that. Some who followed the reasoning of Douhet, Trenchard, even Mitchell, felt that it could be decisive and even hoped that it might win a war before it really started. They were all wrong.

Douhet seriously over estimated the effect of aircraft when he wrote.

_"Would not the sight of a single enemy airplane be enough to induce a formidable panic? Normal life would be unable to continue under the constant threat of death and imminent destruction."_

Stanley Baldwin summed up the prevailing attitude of the 1930s in his 'bomber will always get through' speech.

_"I think it is well … for the man in the street to realise there is no power on earth that can protect him from bombing, whatever people may tell him. The bomber will always get through. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."_

Churchill was grasping at straws when he wrote (to Beaverbrook)

_"… when I look round to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path … and that is absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through."
_
Franklin D Roosevelt famously said.
_
"Hitler built a fortress around Europe, but he forgot to put a roof on it."_

Most realistic of all was the so called ultimate proponent of strategic bombing, a man who was simply implementing the directives handed to him by his superiors, Arthur Harris, when he said.

_"There are a lot of people who say that bombing cannot win the war. My reply to that is that it has never been tried... and we shall see."
_
Well, we did see.

Air power alone has never won any war, it has certainly made significant contributions to winning wars. A glance at world events today will show that the hope that air power can be decisive, even if not alone, springs eternal.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly, invading the US was an impossible task. I don't even think it would be possible today.
> 
> The US has the best defense. It's called tge Atlantic and the Pacific.
> 
> Then throw in the vast amount of land, and a citizen population armed better than most countries.


The English Channel is just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. This has stopped many armies invading England but also stopped the English invading France and the Netherlands. Much is made of Agincourt as a victory but eventually the "English" were forced to withdraw. I put English in quotes because the leaders were French trying to control both sides of the water even that proved impossible. 

The early settlers in the USA found it difficult enough to survive, keeping an army of 100,000+ is a massive task, Germany didnt manage it in N Africa.


----------



## Elmas (Dec 19, 2016)

No aviation, no Stuka.

No Stuka, no Blitzkrieg.

No Blitzkrieg, no Poland.

No Poland, no France.

No France, no submarine bases on the Atlantic coast.

No submarine bases on the Atlantic coast, no England…

Germans would have starved just as in the First World War.








That an airforce would have been not useful, but _essential_, to invade G.B. was well known from Napoleon's times.


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2016)

I don't see why the Germans couldn't have launched a version of Bltzkrieg, somewhat similar to 1914, without any aerial assets. They wouldn't need to destroy other western air forces in advance of the attacks as they would not exist either 
Some of the 'coup de main' exploits (like Eben-Emael) might have been a bit tricky, but the German divisions could still have smashed their way through. It wouldn't have looked the same, but then what would have with no aircraft?

With no Luftwaffe to finance, and the investment was huge, what might Germany had spent that money on?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elmas (Dec 19, 2016)

The Blitzkrieg in 1914 was stopped because an airplane discovered a gap between the two German Armies...
The most successful part of the 1939 and 1940 Blitzkrieg in Poland and France was the cooperation between Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, a cooperation that had almost no rival throughout the entire war. Without Stukas ( and other aircraft, of course) destroying antitank artillery and stopping or delaying reinforcing forces I'm not sure that those campaigns would have been so quick as they were. And no aircraft means no aerial reconnaissance, and so no possibility to strike at weakest point of the enemy. Surely Poland and most probably France would have been defeated even without the "assistance" from above: but at what price for Wehrmacht, not only in men and materiel, but also in time, a raw material that Nazi Germany could not afford to waste?


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2016)

Well, it's a great 'what if'.
The important point is that no side has aircraft in this scenario.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2016)

Well, Germany may have had a harder time with Poland without the benefit of the Luftwaffe, but historically, Poland's forces weren't mobilized leading to Germany's ability to gain ground at a rapid pace.

And the situation with France was also a blunder on France's behalf, as they had far more armored vehicles, many of which were superior, but they did not employ them to the front at a time when it was critical, which also allowed the Wehrmacht to gain territory at a rapid pace.

In the case of Belgium and Denmark, their armies put up a heroic fight, but would have still been overwhelmed by sheer numbers of the Wehrmacht

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 20, 2016)

stona said:


> With no Luftwaffe to finance, and the investment was huge, what might Germany had spent that money on?



That was my point with the Tirpitz and Musashi (and Shinano). Without putting $$$ and manpower into building an aircraft industry (planes, carriers, factories, research, material, etc) all that effort would have been put to completing projects already started so you would think these capital ships would be completed much sooner, as well as additional smaller vessels (light cruisers, destroyers, subs, etc)

Of course, the thought just crept into my little brain that theory goes the other way too. The US would not have had the Enterprise, Lexington, and others. England would not have had the Ark Royal, Furious, etc. So what would have stood in their place?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2016)

Thorlifter said:


> ...The US would not have had the Enterprise, Lexington, and others. England would not have had the Ark Royal, Furious, etc. So what would have stood in their place?


Battleships, Heavy Cruisers and subs. Plus the focused development of torpedoes, aiming systems and radar, most likely.

Same can be said for land-based systems since there's no aviation industry to detract money and development away from armored warfare development.


----------



## stona (Dec 20, 2016)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Also, without the involvement of aviation, U-boats would have OWNED the Atlantic.



They would have struggled to find the convoys without Luftwaffe reconnaissance (quite apart from the fact I don't agree with the premise in any case  ) A lack of aircraft cuts both ways!
It was Luftwaffe reconnaissance, particularly effective against the convoys to the USSR, but also in the Western Approaches and convoys to the Mediterranean, that compelled the British to develop countermeasures, including the Camships with their Fulmars and Hurricanes.

The British were so concerned that a conference to discuss the protection of convoys from Luftwaffe reconnaissance was held on 12th November 1940 at the Air Council Room in King Charles' Street. An idea of its significance may be gathered from the attendees who included Portal, Pound, Philips (Chief of Naval Air Services/Fifth Sea Lord) and the C-in-Cs of Coastal and Fighter Commands, RAF.
None of this would have been necessary had the Germans had no aircraft.

Attached is a detail from an Air Staff Assessment, presented at that meeting.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Trilisser (Dec 24, 2016)

An excellent question. And the answer is that if the political situation had been the same in this scenario with the same players as in reality, there would have been no different end result. 

However, there would have been one significant difference: far fewer civilian deaths. In WW1 only some 5 % of all direct deaths from military action were civilians. In WW2 it was some 50 %. There are two key factors in this: ideology and air power. I know that some air power fans will be furious of the following statement, but it is fact: air power is far better in killing civilians than military personnel. All major WW2 air forces were responsible for more civilian KIA than military KIA. Excepting possibly the Soviet AF. And then smaller air arms. But especially the R.A.F. and the U.S. air forces record in this is clear. The previus statement is true even today. Air power excels in attacking civilians.

So, a WW2 without air power would have greatly reduced civilian suffering.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Battleships, Heavy Cruisers and subs. Plus the focused development of torpedoes, aiming systems and radar, most likely.
> 
> Same can be said for land-based systems since there's no aviation industry to detract money and development away from armored warfare development.



Or heavy artillery. Artillery being one of the big killers on the land battlefield. Stukas got too much credit in Poland and France, yes they did good work but the German army had more artillery tubes per division (mostly), bigger tubes and had more ammo in the division supply train. The Stukas were a bonus. Fewer aircraft, more artillery or more motor traction and more supply trucks.


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2016)

Trilisser said:


> So, a WW2 without air power would have greatly reduced civilian suffering.



It would, but by how much? Your 'direct deaths' comprise a tiny fraction of total fatalities.

You have to put these numbers into perspective. A few hundred thousand people died as a direct result of the Anglo-American bombing campaigns, maybe as many as 350,000 Germans perished.
Nazi policies of starvation and labour killed millions. In Belorus 2.3 million of a prewar population of 10.1 million died.
German demand for food stuffs caused at least 40,000 Greeks to starve to death in the Athens-Piraeus area alone, within 5 months of the German occupation.
I don't like the numbers game, but I could carry on with this for pages.

Goering, 6th August 1942:

_"I have before me reports on what you are supposed to deliver...
It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your people will starve. Let them do so, as long as no German collapses from hunger. If you had been present when the Gauleiter spoke here, you would understand my boundless anger over the fact that we conquered such enormous territories through the valour of our troops, and yet our people have almost been forced down to the miserable rations of the First World War....
I am interested only in those people in the occupied regions who work in armaments and food production. They must receive just enough to enable them to continue working."_

The Germans caused famine throughout the occupied territories, killing tens of millions, it was state policy. Lets not even mention the millions of 'labourers' who died in Germany itself. There were 8 million of them by the summer of 1944. During the war at least 2.4 million perished (a very conservative estimate), this quite aside from the holocaust. This too was official government policy, these people did not starve by accident, they were starved by the Germans.

Do not take the moral high ground over strategic bombing with me! You must understand all the facts, the enemy that was being confronted, in order to understand why the morals of 1939/40 were steadily eroded throughout the conflict.

I have said this before, and I will repeat it for your benefit, the most immoral thing the Allies could have done would have been to lose the war.

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 24, 2016)

Something that might give an idea of how the war in the Pacific might have played out, is the Battle of Surigao Strait during the bigger Battle of Leyte, where U.S. Naval surface forces engaged IJN surface forces virtually unsupported by aircraft.

There were also several battles during the Guadacanal campaign that were devoid of aerial support, too.


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2016)

Elmas said:


> No aviation, no Stuka.
> 
> No Stuka, no Blitzkrieg.
> 
> ...


I basically agree with the main thrust of this. Poland would ahve been overwhelmed but it would take longer and this would ahve bought the French time to sort out their defence.
France would not have collapsed like it did and the rest is true. No invasion of Norway, No Battle of the Atlantic. The British may even have concentrated and built better tanks. The Cromwell 12 months earlier would ahve made a huge difference, let alone the Centurion.


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2016)

Glider said:


> The British may even have concentrated and built better tanks.



Steady on old bean 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2016)

stona said:


> It would, but by how much? Your 'direct deaths' comprise a tiny fraction of total fatalities.
> 
> You have to put these numbers into perspective. A few hundred thousand people died as a direct result of the Anglo-American bombing campaigns, maybe as many as 350,000 Germans perished.
> Nazi policies of starvation and labour killed millions. In Belorus 2.3 million of a prewar population of 10.1 million died.
> ...



I agree with you. 

It is easy for people to look back at things 70 years later and judge. Germany wanted total war, well they got it...


----------



## stona (Dec 24, 2016)

Without air power how many German civilians would have died? I would venture far more than died in the bombing. The Germans surrendered in 1918, a year when an extra 200,000 civilian deaths may be attributed to the effects of starvation. The Allied blockade never caused widespread famine, though hardship enough.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Nazi regime would have surrendered because the German people were starving to death. I think Hitler's view of the German people and their 'worthiness' to survive if they failed in their providential fight against 'Judaism and Bolshevism' are well known.
Hitler and the Nazi regime were responsible for the death of every single German that died, not the Allies. Hitler would have tried to take them all with him in a kind of fantastic 'Gotterdammerung'.

Steve


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 24, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> There were also several battles during the Guadacanal campaign that were devoid of aerial support, too.



You mean, like Savo Island or Tassafaronga Point?


----------



## Elmas (Dec 25, 2016)

The Blitzkrieg was a kind of lacework: the Germans concentrated an overwhelming effort on a few important points and the rest fell by itself: it is quite clear that without aviation this trick would have not succeeded. After the invasion of Russia an agile foil had to turn into an heavy sword and the defeat of the Nazi Germany was granted: the war was simply won by who had in his hands the bigger…


Regarding hunger, the Germans managed to survive in WWII both with what they stole in the barns of Ukraine at the beginning of the war (some historians say that the somewhat late beginning of the Russian campaign was strictly coordinated with the wheat harvesting ...) and with their logistic organization, which throughout the war was able to distribute efficiently the food resources. Calories eaten by Germans in WWII were more than those eaten by English, if I remember well.


Let’s not forget that in 1918 were just a few tens of thousands of Germans, which went home because hungry for the lack of food and simply put out the blast furnaces, that left Germany on his knees: Hitler wanted at all costs to avoid this scenario. Contrary to general believing, the Germany economy in WWII was not a “total war economy” and were present in the shops goods that had disappeared in other Countries, namely England. The manpower represented by German women, for example, was never fully exploited, as the Nazi Germany was able to use laborers from other Countries (France, Italy)







or from slaves from Russia and Poland.
Many of the steam engines drivers were Italians, for example, and the old survivors still narrate of the German girls they had in every town the railway line touched… German men were in Russia.


----------



## stona (Dec 25, 2016)

200,000 German deaths in 1918 were attributed to the effects of starvation, not necessarily directly. (I say this as I stuff a 5Kg goose for six people).

In 1942, despite the German successes severe rationing was introduced for the German civilian population. You can imagine what this meant for the millions of non-Germans in Germany, particularly those from the East. From the beginning of 1942 until mid 1943 Sauckel 'imported' 34,000 workers a week into Germany. According to the Nazi's own book keeping 1,375,567 civilian workers were sent to the Reich between April and November 1942, they had to be fed too, some weren't.

During the planning for Barbarossa the Germans estimated that 20-30 million 'Slavs' would have to be starved to death (they liked big round numbers). They were surprised in 1942 that the actual number was somewhat lower. It was Backe who consequently drafted a second 'hunger plan', imposing new food delivery quotas on the East and imposing them also in the West. 
By 1943 Germany drew 30% of its meat, 25% of its fats and 20% of its grain from occupied territories. Levies on France and the Soviet territories more than doubled from 3.5 million to 8.78 million tons. If the indigenous populations starved as a result, it was all in the plan.

Steve


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 13, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> As the title says, World War Two without aircraft...
> 
> Typically, when the name World War Two is mentioned, one of the first things that come to mind, is the aircraft (one of the reasons we're all here, right?) and it is the only time in human history that Airships, Biplanes, Jets and some of the fastest piston powered aircraft in history all shared the same timeline. Airships attacked U-boats, Jets attacked piston powered bombers, biplanes attacked modern Battleships, entire naval battles were won and lost without the opposing fleets being within sight of each other - almost the stuff of science fiction.
> 
> ...



Not as far fetched as one might think. If Orvile or Wilbur had an accident on the way to Kittyhawk, or one crashed and died in the early glider tests and the other got discouraged and gave up, it might have set back the invention of the airplane by 20 or 30+ years. The butterfly affect. 

I think the RN and emplaced artillery would have stopped the Sea Lion. The RN free in the channel without having to worry about the Luftwaffe would have outgunned the Kriegsmarine. Its hard to say how the Battle of France would have turned out without the Luftwaffe, I suspect in Germany's favor, but but it would have lasted more than 4 weeks.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 13, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> Not as far fetched as one might think. If Orvile or Wilbur had an accident on the way to Kittyhawk, or one crashed and died in the early glider tests and the other got discouraged and gave up, it might have set back the invention of the airplane by 20 or 30+ years. The butterfly affect.


What about Langley, Curtiss, and the horde of Lilienthal disciples in Europe? I think someone else would have come along pretty soon. Maybe even someone who wouldn't have impeded further development in the early years as the Wrights did with their aggressive patent infringement lawsuits. Progress by 1914 might have been even further advanced. And military authorities maybe even more intrigued with it.


----------



## stona (Jan 14, 2017)

I don't think that the Wright's dropping out of the development of powered flight would have had such a disastrous effect on early aviation. A delay? possibly. 20-30 years? no chance, maybe a year or two, probably less.
It's not like the Wrights were working on an original idea and they were certainly not the only ones working on it.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 14, 2017)

stona said:


> I don't think that the Wright's dropping out of the development of powered flight would have had such a disastrous effect on early aviation. A delay? possibly. 20-30 years? no chance, maybe a year or two, probably less.
> It's not like the Wrights were working on an original idea and they were certainly not the only ones working on it.
> Cheers
> Steve



I maybe biased after reading David McCullough book on the Wright Brothers. He stresses through the book the Wrights were the only team to take a scientific approach to flight. They made flight happen through determination, collecting data and experimentation. Others pioneers were more trial and error. Langley's designs never did and never would fly. The Wrights were the first to design an effective control system for planes. An interesting What If in any case. 

Its a good book if you haven't read it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 14, 2017)

I think the Wrights deserve a great deal of credit, largely for the reasons you give, but I still reckon that someone else would have got there sooner rather than later.
I would draw an analogy with a nuclear weapon! Any A level physics or chemistry student knows how they work, but that's a long way from actually building one 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 14, 2017)

stona said:


> I think the Wrights deserve a great deal of credit, largely for the reasons you give, but I still reckon that someone else would have got there sooner rather than later.
> I would draw an analogy with a nuclear weapon! Any A level physics or chemistry student knows how they work, but that's a long way from actually building one
> Cheers
> Steve



True, if the Russian's hadn't infiltrated the Manhattan Project and the UK's MAUD, the Soviet bomb would have taken many more years to develop.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 14, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> Not as far fetched as one might think. If Orvile or Wilbur had an accident on the way to Kittyhawk, or one crashed and died in the early glider tests and the other got discouraged and gave up, it might have set back the invention of the airplane by 20 or 30+ years. The butterfly affect.
> .


I doubt it, the important thing was engines and propellers which the Wright brothers commissioned or made themselves. People were working on them all over particularly France. Bleriot crossed the channel six years after the Wright flyer first flew in a design that owes little to the flyer. It was a different era, people routinely did die pioneering aviation even before the Wrights flew.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 14, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I doubt it, the important thing was engines and propellers which the Wright brothers commissioned or made themselves. People were working on them all over particularly France. Bleriot crossed the channel six years after the Wright flyer first flew in a design that owes little to the flyer. It was a different era, people routinely did die pioneering aviation even before the Wrights flew.



I think the Wright's genius was realizing the need and inventing a way to control the plane in all three axis. Wing warping was the breakthrough that no other pioneer thought of at the time. Even the Bleriot XI copied wing warping, albeit with a different form of pilot control. I think that was the Wright's real Eureka moment, and its speculation if someone would have stumbled on the idea sooner or later. The Wrights were the only pioneers to approach the problem scientifically. If it weren't for the Wright's, and the resultant delay in developing plane technology, WWII might have been fought with Sopwith Camels and Fokkers.

My theory is every now and then Mankind does get blessed with true geniuses that advance some theory or technology years ahead of the normal technological progress curve. People like Newton, Brunell, the Wrights, Einstein. The rest of us mortals use the math and the theory these geniuses originate to refine, build on, and put to practical use. Without the Pincipia, and F=Ma, the Industrial Age probably would have been delayed or occurred much slower, without Special Relativity, the Bomb would have been delayed. The Wrights realized early on the secret to flight was being able to control the aircraft in 3 axis and developed the science to do it. Enough philosophizing.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2017)

WW2 without aircraft?

Well, the entire war would have moved much more slowly.


Trilisser said:


> An excellent question. And the answer is that if the political situation had been the same in this scenario with the same players as in reality, there would have been no different end result.
> 
> However, there would have been one significant difference: far fewer civilian deaths. In WW1 only some 5 % of all direct deaths from military action were civilians. In WW2 it was some 50 %. There are two key factors in this: ideology and air power. I know that some air power fans will be furious of the following statement, but it is fact: air power is far better in killing civilians than military personnel. All major WW2 air forces were responsible for more civilian KIA than military KIA. Excepting possibly the Soviet AF. And then smaller air arms. But especially the R.A.F. and the U.S. air forces record in this is clear. The previus statement is true even today. Air power excels in attacking civilians.
> 
> So, a WW2 without air power would have greatly reduced civilian suffering.



If the number I've read are correct, about the same number of Germans died of malnutrition due to the German reaction to the British blockade in WW1 as by US/UK bombardment in WW2. Of course, for the first, the German government could have used more of the nitrates produced (indirectly) by the Haber process (which produces ammonia) for fertilizer. Then the number of civilian casualties would have dropped because Germany would lose sooner.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> I think the Wright's genius was realizing the need and inventing a way to control the plane in all three axis. Wing warping was the breakthrough that no other pioneer thought of at the time. Even the Bleriot XI copied wing warping, albeit with a different form of pilot control.



George Cayley had addressed the problem of steering almost one hundred years before. His method based on moving the center of gravity is pretty similar in principle to that used by a hang glider today. Ailerons were first used in 1885 on a glider, to my mind once the power and thrust was available to get airborne the method of steering would have been sorted out pretty quickly, after all we are surrounded by birds that seem to do it without effort, each one proving that it is possible.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 16, 2017)

When there is an invention, many people seem to leap to the conclusion that it was a singular act of genius. This may be true _sometimes_, but heavier-than-air flight was a very active area of research, and several developers had come tantalizingly close. The Wrights were first (but see note), but there were some people who got close, not excluding Langley.

Without the Wrights, I believe there would have been manned heavier-than-air flight by 1910.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 16, 2017)

There is no question of powered, controlled flight being developed at some point along the way, but the question is how confidant are the is the military in it's usefulness?

Like I mentioned in the original post, military leaders were not really impressed with the aircraft's value at the onset of WWI and so it remained almost a novelty during the early years. There was also the constant bickering between the Army and Navy regarding airpower. A classic example of that, would be the can of worms that Billy Mitchell opened when he demonstrated aerial bombing of Warships.

There were several instances in military history, where new inventions changed the face of warfare, like the U.S. Civil War for example, that saw many innovations that were a herald of things to come like Ironclads, Submarines, rail-mobile artillery, aerial observation complete with real-time communication and so on.

But all these innovations were dependent on the inventors not only being successful in their attempts, but also successful in promoting their idea to the military.

There is no question that the Wrights and others were on the fast-track to creating controlled, powered flight but these were the successful few out of the many aviation pioneers who failed along the way.


----------



## stona (Jan 16, 2017)

I'm not sure there was too much bickering between the Army and Navy in the early days. Most Navies were still looking to lighter than air aviation, with its range and endurance as the best option in the years leading up to WW1. In Britain the RNAS started the first war with zero heavier than air aircraft, finishing it with nearly 2,500. The RFC finished the war with more than 4,000 aircraft.
It shows how things changed during that war, and after WW1 with the capabilities, or maybe more accurately possibilities, demonstrated, the world's navies were keen to gain or retain control of naval aviation. In Britain it would become a three way tug o' war between the three services, with serious consequences, above all for naval aviation, when the second war started.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 16, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> There is no question of powered, controlled flight being developed at some point along the way, but the question is how confidant are the is the military in it's usefulness?
> 
> Like I mentioned in the original post, military leaders were not really impressed with the aircraft's value at the onset of WWI and so it remained almost a novelty during the early years. There was also the constant bickering between the Army and Navy regarding airpower. A classic example of that, would be the can of worms that Billy Mitchell opened when he demonstrated aerial bombing of Warships.
> 
> ...



Of course, ironclads were used during the Crimean War; so were forces nearly completely armed with rifled small arms. Interestingly, it seems to have been the first time that synchronizing watches was used to make sure attacks started simultaneously. 

Your sentence invention and promotion is very important. There are some fairly noteworthy cases, most notably the sewing machine. Indeed, one of Edison's most important inventions was the merger of invention and self-promotion.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 16, 2017)

The ships used in the Crimean War may have been called Ironclads, but they were actually armored floating batteries. They were capable of less than 5 knots and had to be towed if travelling long distances.

The world's first battle involving an Ironclad warship was the CSS Manassas against Union warships on 12 October 1861. While it wasn't a spectacular fight by any stretch of the imagination, it remains the first.

The world's first battle between ironclad warships was the showdown between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia (Merrimack) on 9 March 1962. 

There would be many more battles over the next 3 years that pitted Confederate Ironclads against Union Ironclads but none were quite as notable as the Battle of Hampdon Roads, which also caught the attention of world Navies.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2017)

I think a war without airpower of any description would have tended to be an enormous slugging match. You have to go back a long way to witness warfare without any sort of airpower. Certainly before the US civil war


On land the vital contribution of airpower wasn’t at the pointy end. Its main contribution was in recon and logistic support. Without eyes in the sky artillery cannot register its indirect fire, commanders cannot know developing threats, breakthroughs risk being encircled, positioning of reserves impossible. Something worse than WWI would have developed, in which the winner would be the man left alive at the end of the fight


At sea both sides would have felt the absence of airpower. Airpower assisted the u-Boats, but also was causing huge problems for them by the end of 1941. Convoys would have been a much more hit and miss affair as would battles.


In WWI the limited amounts of development and the range of warships meant their approximate positions could be guessed at, whereas in the WEWII situation the greater range of warships and the greater levels of supporting infrastructure would have made naval encounters a much rarer occurrence


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 16, 2017)

Without aircraft, the War could have still been a mobile war of fire and movement. The Germans showed this in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. The initial phase was fought with out air support for either side due to weather. 

But there would have no strokes like the taking of Fort Eben Emel, Crete, the Airborne component to Overlord. I don't think Sea Lion would have been contemplated.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2017)

The supposition is based on an erroneous assumption. The LW was actually quite active during the offensive.


During the battle, the Luftwaffe undertook constant recon operations, especially with some of its newer types such as AR234, as well as night bombing attacks against key targets. A paradrop and aerial re-supply of German spearheads failed completely. On 1 January 1945 the Luftwaffe undertook a final attack operation in the form of the bodenplatte offensive against Allied airfields in the Netherlands and Belgium in a bid to establish air superiority and eliminate air attacks on the German forces in the Ardennes area.


III./KG 76 flying AR 234Bs is worth singling out. The unit operated over France and the Low Countries until the end of the war. It flew some of the first jet bomber missions in history on 24 December 1944 against rail targets in Belgium. Troop concentrations were attacked around Liege and Bastogne on 26 and 31 December respectively, in support of German . The unit also flew both battlefield and deep penetration reconnaissance missions including critical missions over Antwerp's docks and airfields on 1 January 1945 during operation Bodenplatte the unit was tasked with providing vital intel of Allied air dispositions . On 20 January 1945 Ar 234s struck the docks at Antwerp, and struck again on 24 January 1945.

this is just one unit of the LW.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2017)

Reconnaissance was the first use of 'air power' and still an important one. The expression 'when the balloon goes up' might now mean that things are about to get unpleasant, but it's origin is in the imminent action by artillery once the observer(s) had been lifted in their balloon. Initially WW1 aircraft were used as an extension of this, its why the British called them 'scouts'. Next, one side wants to shoot down the others scouts and so on, and so on...

It was the Luftwaffe which should have 'blown' the Ardennes offensive, if Allied intelligence analysis had been better. As early as 4th September the Japanese ambassador in Berlin had reported that the Germans were planning an offensive in the west in November, "as soon as replenishing of air was concluded." Not very accurate, but ears should have pricked up.
Luftwaffe communications were compromised by Bletchley Park, largely because of the laziness and poor discipline of Luftwaffe operators. On 31st October a signal from JG 26 quoting an order from Goering that all fighters must be capable of conversion to fighter bombers at 24 hours notice was intercepted. There is a clue there that operations in support of ground troops were planned.
On 14th November another signal ordering that _"fighter units in West not to use Geschwader badges or unit markings" _was intercepted. This one seems to have been ignored by both sides! On 3rd December a signal calling for a report from Luftflotte Reich _"on measures taken for technical of units that had arrived for operations in the West" _was read. There were other clues, the Allies knew that all day fighter commanders were summoned to a conference at the headquarters of Jagdkorps II on 4th December. They knew that special ground attack units (like SG 4) had moved from East to West. I could go on. 
What is clear is that the Germans were intending to muster significant air assets to cover and support the upcoming offensive. They were hampered by the weather as much as the Allies were, which is why the Luftwaffe played less of a role than intended. It did support ground formations directly, Peiper's infamous 'Kampfgruppe' was resupplied from the air by Ju 52s on 22nd December. The fiasco that was 'Bodenplatte' was just one of many for the Luftwaffe in this period.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 17, 2017)

From Dec 16, to Dec 23, I thought the weather was too poor for flight operations for both sides? Operation Bodenplatte did not start until Jan 1.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2017)

The weather was terrible, but the Luftwaffe did undertake some operations. Peiper's unit was re-supplied on 22nd December, though most of the supplies were not recovered. The Luftwaffe refused requests from 6th Panzer Army for similar operations. Other operations were carried out when they should have been abandoned, the drop of von der Heydte paratroops on 16th December would be a good example of such an operation. Given conditions it was always a guaranteed fiasco, Heydte only managed to assemble 150 men and retrieved just 8 of the 500 panzerfausts dropped!
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 17, 2017)

stona said:


> The weather was terrible, but the Luftwaffe did undertake some operations. Peiper's unit was re-supplied on 22nd December, though most of the supplies were not recovered. The Luftwaffe refused requests from 6th Panzer Army for similar operations. Other operations were carried out when they should have been abandoned, the drop of von der Heydte paratroops on 16th December would be a good example of such an operation. Given conditions it was always a guaranteed fiasco, Heydte only managed to assemble 150 men and retrieved just 8 of the 500 panzerfausts dropped!
> Cheers
> Steve


So basically no air operations up to the high water mark of the penetration. Original point, the War could have still been a mobile war without the aid of air power. Mechanization was the key factor to alleviate the static war, not air power alone.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2017)

Is that the correct question?
I would ask, what might the German spearheads have achieved with air support? Of course, a big problem would have been the ability of the Allies to fly as well, but the Luftwaffe had accumulated a substantial number of aircraft, enough maybe to gain at least temporary, local superiority in some areas?...perhaps. It's what they had done in the East.
Air power was not the only factor in alleviating static warfare, but it was a factor, as demonstrated in the spring of 1918. The limitations of air power as well as its capabilities have been amply demonstrated in the last few months in Syria. There is still a tendency, as there was in the 1930s, to underestimate the former and overestimate the latter.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 17, 2017)

You could argue that aircraft played a major part in keeping WW1 static, it was almost impossible to make any substantial military build up without it being seen.

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 17, 2017)

Something that may be of interest, is during the U.S. Civil War, it was common to have lanterns at the peak of their tents in the evening, as well as additional lanterns illuminating the interiors of officer's tents and other administration related structures, as well as cooking fires.
When the Confederates were aware of Union balloons in the area, they would either double the lanterns (and cook fires) or extinguish them entirely.

There were also a few cases where the Confederates would simply place lanterns on poles in distant locations to create the illusion that they had either moved or there was an additional force at that location.

This form of deception wasn't lost to the military as we saw similar ruses used during WWII in the form of inflatable tanks, wooden (or even straw) aircraft at mock airfields and even hangars disguised as farmhouses, etc.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> Something that may be of interest, is during the U.S. Civil War, it was common to have lanterns at the peak of their tents in the evening, as well as additional lanterns illuminating the interiors of officer's tents and other administration related structures, as well as cooking fires.
> When the Confederates were aware of Union balloons in the area, they would either double the lanterns (and cook fires) or extinguish them entirely..



Even before balloons, when opposing armies would encamp within sight and earshot, this deception was used to confuse the enemy as to the exact strength of the opposition. It was a technique used in the 100 years war.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2017)

Dust from armoured columns in the desert was used for deception purposes as well conversely dust rising from an advancing column would usually serve as a giveaway of an impending attack.

in the jungles airpower was hard pressed in the recon role, but air supply took on a vastly more important position in the fighting


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 25, 2017)

This is an interesting thread.

Historically speaking, the German Army advanced through Poland in 1939 at just about the same rate as it did in 1914-15. (It is noted that Poland as we know it in 1939 did not exist as a country in 1914 and therefore the dynamics are different). This was due to logistics in keeping the armored blitzkrieg going. Think of the armor can only go so far then has to return to refuel. The mechanized army can't get too far ahead of the unmechanized army and so forth.

I agree with GG's comments earlier about the French having substantially better and more numerous armor. They simply tried to utilize them in penny packet fashion (or not at all fearing loss) that essentially handed the Germans the initiative.

On the European continent, I think given the German's mastery of the railway for logistics and maneuver, and given lack of air power to hinder the rail movement, Germany may well conquer all of Europe. Excepting England. I cannot see a way forward for invading England or vice versa. Without air cover, I believe it is too easy to defend the coast either way.

Russia is another nut to crack though and may end in stalemate. Without air power, Germany grinds to a halt probably right where it did historically. They still can't reach the factories beyond the Urals. Russia I believe won't be able to overcome the now strengthened Wehrmacht (extra resources and materiel not needed in the west and south, extra $$ not devoted to air).

As far as the Pacific goes, it becomes Battle of Jutland again everywhere instead of Coral Sea or Midway. Japan obtains and keeps perhaps just a little less than they did historically even if it takes longer. They may not even bomb (attack) Pearl Harbor and that keeps US out of the war perhaps. At least for a while longer anyway. Without air, we cannot get to Japan to any degree that affects their heavy industry nor can they us. I am not sure without air power we can kick them out of many places they are entrenched.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 25, 2017)

I would assume Zeppelin and balloons would still be available so super Zeppelin dogfights!


----------

