A Victorious Luftstreitkräfte-Imperial German Aviation Development After WW1

[The Basket]

The airpower of air forces stagnated in the 1920s so that by the 1930s the best RAF fighter was the Bristol Bulldog.
But so what? Bulldog was perfectly fine in peacetime.
Unless their is an arms race then militaries stagnate and so only with a powerful enemy and war on the horizon would you get modern airplane.

 

[nuuumannn]

Yep, even though the Allies were officially victors after the Great War, military development took a back seat, perhaps in contrast to WW2 where the potentials of jet power were being realised and led to astonishing growth of technology over a very short period, spurred on by tensions between the West and the Soviet bloc. This didn't happen after the Great War, nations' armed forces were stripped bare; you also have to remember that the effects of war on ordinary people's lives took an enormous toll on national development immediately after each of the wars - the Great War was particularly savage as the first real pandemic of the modern age was underway - between 1917 and 1919, some 40 million people round the world lost their lives to influenza, that's more than three times the number (accepted as around 11 million, give or take a few either side) that died in the four years of the Great War.

The possibilities are endless in terms of speculation of what could have happened to cause a German victory, let alone what might have happened afterwards, but it was highly unlikely that Britain sit on the sidelines and watch Europe tear itself apart. As for Germany being dragged into the war; the Germans started the war; the killing of Franz Ferdinand was a trigger, but did not directly lead to the all-out global conflict without Germany jumping in and declaring that war is inevitable; on the scale that it became, it wasn't necessarily unavoidable immediately after his assassination. Enacting the Schlieffen Plan and its consequences had nothing to do with Ferdinand's assassination; what was France's involvement in that and how did invading France and Belgium bring about some sort of recompense for it? The German High Command decided the road to war.

As for what might have happened if Germany emerged victors? Who knows? Germany, like each other country involved had her youth stripped from her, there was a blockade imposed on her that brought starvation, riots and more needless death. Even with victory on the Western Front, the troubles at home would not have disappeared in the click of a finger. Just like in France and Britain, a period of suffering and rebuilding took place and who knows, just like in Britain, after the terrors suffered by its population, perhaps the Germans, without the spectre of Nazism might have had the same attitude that prevailed in Britain for the between-the-wars period - peace at all costs.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of things sometimes need to happen for large advances in "progress" to be made.

The Sopwith Camel was on it's way out in 1918, it was being replaced by the Sopwith Snipe among others and even the Snipe would have been replaced in due course in 1919 by the Sopwith Snapper had all gone according to plan. It didn't.
The Camel used a lot of engines but the average was a 130hp engine of about 16.3 liters that weighed 173KG. The Snipe used a 230hp engine of 24.9 liters that weighed 220kg, The Snapper used a 340hp 22.8 liter engine of about 270KG. This was the famous (or infamous) ABC Dragonfly that could have won the air war for the Germans in 1919. All these engines ran on fuel that was anywhere from 40 (common) to 70 (rare) Octane. and nobody knew which batch was which.

The put upon Bulldog used a 28.7 liter engine of 440hp that weighed around 800lbs It ran on 73-77 octane fuel and was supercharged, making it's rated power at 12,000ft and that rating was max continuous or at least 30 minute rating.
Yes the RAF used WW I left overs during the early 20s but both the aIrframes and engines wore out. The engine makers figured out how to make radials instead of rotaries and the fuel guys figured out the octane scale and how to measure and blend fuel to get what they wanted rather than try to get gas made from the crude of a particular oil field. Manufacturing of engines was also advancing. The Jupiter VIIs went through several models. The Jupiter VIIF going to forged alloy cylinder heads screwed and shrunk onto the steel barrels instead of trying to use an aluminium cooling "Muff" shrunk onto the a closed end steel cylinder. The Jupiter VII F.P. added pressure feed lubrication to the wrist pins in 1930. The Bulldog may still have been a biplane but it was 38mph faster than the Snapper and had 6,000ft more ceiling, it's engine was more reliable than anything made in WW I and went longer between overhauls.

This required not only better fuel but better metallurgy(it took years to find aluminium alloys with similar expansion rates as steel alloys), it took a better understanding of vibration, especially harmonic vibration (one of the main failings of the Dragonfly) and better cylinder cooling (another Dragonfly failing, a copper coating over the fins does NOT make up for not enough fin area to begin with).
The Bulldog was all metal construction with a fabric covering, a major advancement over the mostly wood framework of many WW II aircraft.

The 20s were a period of great advancement, or at least the behind the scenes advancement that made the progress of the 1930s possible. The Early 30s might well be criticized as with some of the knowledge/tools in place progress still didn't move forward very fast in some nations. The Lockheed Orion should have been a major wake-up call.

near the end of 1931, top speed 210mph at 6,000ft, cruised at 180mph while carrying 6 passengers (170lbs each) and 90lbs baggage, 100 gallons (US) of fuel was good for range of about 650 miles.

 

[The Basket]

In my view the lack of development in fighters wasn't a big deal. The RAF didn't need fighters so only needed bombers to keep the empire in line.

This why the Gee Bee could claim the record as the fastest land based aircraft because there was no development in fighters. Unless the victorious Kaiser faced a direct threat from somebody then the expense would have been wasteful.

 

[nuuumannn]

And it is worth noting that the biggest advances in aircraft structures and incorporation into useable aeroplanes were in American civilian machines, not European warplanes. In Europe, it was the likes of Junkers who was one of the first to put into production all metal aircraft, again, airliners rather than combat machines. That's not to say military machines did not advance, but they did so at a much slower rate. In the mid 1930s, some of the fastest airliners in service were quicker and had better altitude than the military's fastest fighters in many of the countries these aircraft flew in, like the Lockheed 10 Electras, for example.

America certainly lost large numbers of youth during the Great War, but did not suffer nearly as much in terms of the percentage of her population lost during the war, so in terms of impact, whilst being great, was certainly not as devastating as to Germany, France or Britain. The country that lost the largest percentage of people during the war compared to its population was New Zealand.

 

[Shortround6]

Race planes could claim the title of fastest planes for several reasons.
1. No armament means lighter, more streamline plane.
2. Lighter structure due to low "G" load limit.
3. Liquid cooled engines could use rather absurd radiator arrangements. Like surface cooling.
4. Race planes usually had a "low drag" canopy which generally meant lousy vision for the pilot

Since even 1920s aircraft took over a year to go from drawing board to squadron service (and engines took much longer) sitting on your hands waiting for threats to develop was a sure fire way to get get caught. Development and small scale production was the prudent way to go. Massive orders for planes that would be obsolete in a year or two was a waste of money.

 

[Elmas]

It must be noted that the beginning of the theory of bending and stretching thin plates (Bredt formula etc.), that led to monocoque fuselages and torsion resistant D-boxes in the wings, was a German affair of middle '20s, and took several years to be developed and applied to aeroplane structures. And so the glues that made plywood possible . Almost in the same years were developed the first aluminium alloys of practical use in aeronautics.

 

[nuuumannn]

Here's a wee gem of a clip that I saw on another forum; it was produced in 1935. Take a look at the aeroplanes in use by the RAF at that time, four years out from WW2. Avro 504s, Vickers Virginias, Blackburn Ripons, Fairey Seals, Supermarine Southamptons, Hawker Furies all feature, not an all metal monoplane in sight. Look for the cameo by the world's first true aircraft carrier, HMS Furious.

This illustrates the technical status quo for most, if not all air forces round the world at that time. This was the year the Douglas DC-3 and significantly in terms of this discussion, the Hawker Hurricane and Messerschmitt Bf 109 first flew, bearing in mind.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgwAphuwPMY

 

[pinehilljoe]

On what premise could the German Empire win WW1?

if the US stayed completely neutral, the German's may have won.

 

[Shortround6]

Define "completely neutral" as the Americans seemed to trade with both sides. At least until early 1917.
Trouble being that France and Britain had pretty much free access while German access to American goods was limited to a handful of blockade runners. German merchant Submarine Deutschland being a case in point.
The tonnage of goods, food, and war material supplied to both sides was absurdly lopsided in favor of the Allies but not actually violating being "neutral". Not the Americans fault the German merchant ships ( or ships working for the Germans) couldn't avoid the British blockade.

 

[swampyankee]

Define "completely neutral" as the Americans seemed to trade with both sides. At least until early 1917.
Trouble being that France and Britain had pretty much free access while German access to American goods was limited to a handful of blockade runners. German merchant Submarine Deutschland being a case in point.
The tonnage of goods, food, and war material supplied to both sides was absurdly lopsided in favor of the Allies but not actually violating being "neutral". Not the Americans fault the German merchant ships ( or ships working for the Germans) couldn't avoid the British blockade.

The US was legally neutral, although the elites were probably more anglophilic than pro-German. The Black Tom sabotage (terrorist) incident probably didn't help the German cause.

 

[Shortround6]

To get back to the original subject/question the 1920s saw a lot of changes and improvements in both engines and fuel. A lot of these are inter dependent. Without better materials (stronger engines) there is little need for better fuel. Without better fuel there isn't much need for superchargers or better fuel.
One "AH-HA" moment in fuel development came in WW I when the Allies (pretty much the Americans) realized that fuel made from California oil would allow higher compression to be used than fuel made from Pennsylvania oil. Or in reverse, engines that ran fine on California fuel melted pistons or blew cylinder heads off using Pennsylvania oil. It is not that the Americans were really that much smarter, it is that the British and French were often using fuels from other oil fields.
Now for the Germans, IF they are getting their fuel from one oil field, or if there isn't a big difference in the fuels from oil fields that are close together need a different "AH-HA" moment to start researching better fuels.
When tested later in the 1920s (after the development of the octane scale) the Pennsylvania oil made gasoline of about 40 octane while using the same refining process the California oil made gasoline approaching 70 octane.
The Germans had built "high altitude" engines in WW I. No supercharger though, What they did was use a higher than normal compression ratio and then used a throttle linkage and gate that prevented the throttle from being fully opened at low level. Once a certain altitude had been reached the throttle handle was moved to another slot so that the movement allowed the carb butterfly to be fully opened. Opening the carb butterfly at sea level might allow the engine to make enough power to wreck itself (or perhaps reach the denotation limit of the fuel.)
Many engines used iron pistons although aluminium pistons were coming in at the end.
And lets remember that the whole sleeve valve saga was an attempt to get around the limitations of the poppet valve cylinder as it existed in the 1920s.
Forced late comers, like the Germans, in the late 20s or early 30s could make full use of all the research and development done by other countries. However a lot of that development was going to happen regardless of war/conflict. Certain things did swap back and forth with upper level car makers and aircraft engine makers. Better valve seats, better valves (not counting sodium cooled valves) newer and better alloys. Better valve springs and piston rings. Aircraft superchargers got their "start" so to say as "mixing fans" on radials to help ensure that all cylinders got an equal mixture both quantity and quality. Early manifold pressure often didn't go above normal sea level atmosphere. In other words they didn't do much more than make up for the losses in the induction system.

 

[parsifal]

US involvement on the ground was hardly pivotal to the outcome. They made some noteworthy contribution, to the extent of eight divisions out of over 65 allied divisions, mostly French, at 2nd Marne, but it is a very long bow to claim they were needed to win the war on the western front, or anywhere really.

The US had shipped over 2 million men to France by armistice, but only a fraction of these ever saw combat or even came close to the front. The maximum frontline strength of the US army actively engaged peaked at about 320000 in September 1918. During 1918, at St Mihiel they played a significant, but not vital, role with the eight divisions mentioned above, and from September to November, Pershing with nearly a million men, mostly French, under his command made significant inroads on the German lines during the Meuse-Argonne offensives. Overall casualties were just over 50000 to combat causes and over 60000 to the influenza outbreak. This was less than even Australian casualties in the same time period.

By any measure, US intervention was not decisive in 1918, b ut the presence of such vast manpower reserves put the writing on the wall for Ludendorf. Had the fighting continued into 1919, there is little doubt that the Germans were facing toatal defeat, which is exactly what Pershing wanted to do.

US entry was caused by a multiple set of reasons but at the top was the german unrestricted submarine warfare. The only way that the US could be kept out of the war was by the germans not using their submarines for unrestricted warfare, and if they did that the allies would have been in a position economically and manpower wise of being much stronger than they were.

Either way, with the US neutral or the US in the war, Imperial Germany was doomed after April 1918, probably earlier really.

 

[The Basket]

Unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 was supposed to have won the war for Germany in short time and it certainly achieved results. However it didn't. America was ill prepared in 1917 so it's declaration of war could be discounted if the Germans believed that some kind of victory was possible in 6 months.
One way Germany could have won is by not having a huge navy. That money and manpower could have been spent elsewhere and UK reasons for entering the war is to stop a new naval rival.

 

[parsifal]

Assuming that Britain would hang back and allow the Germans a free hand in Europe, simply because the Germans were nice enough not to build a fleet is trying to ignore the fact that for more than 300 years, the British policy had always been to never allow a single nation to become the overwhelmingly dominant power in Europe. They always opted to support the lesser factions, to achieve balance in the European order. That wasn't because the British were super chaps. By keeping a delicate balance in the distribution of power in this way, it ensured that British colonial and commercial interests could not be swallowed up or overtaken by a single great power in Europe. With or without a fleet to worry them, the British were going to respond in some way to German aggression. Granted they may not get directly involved, that I would grant you, but there were any number of ways the British would ensure the German ability to project their power and dominate their opponents was kept in check.


Britain enjoyed a massive advantage in this regard, and her naval capabilities gave her an ability to apply indirect pressure in a way that was nearly always decisive. This cosy situation was eroded by the rise of the non-European powers like the US and Japan

 

[The Basket]

Austria Hungary aggression.
Ww1 is crazy complicated so understanding every nuance is very much a full time job.
Britain was a naval power and had a small army in 1913 so not sure how it believed it could be desisive in any land war.

 

[Graeme]

Some authors believe the destruction of E.4/20 demanded by the Inter-Allied Control Commission held up aircraft design for nearly 10 years.
So if the Germans were victorious at the end of WWI......
Would the advances in civil aviation made here then overflow to the military?

Zeppelin-Staaken E-4/20 - Wikipedia

 

[nuuumannn]

Would the advances in civil aviation made here then overflow to the military?

Yep, pretty much as it did in real life, but again, I'm thinking the Germans, like the rest of Europe would not have been so keen to rush into military spending - not that they could after the war. In the late 20s German society began a reboot and good times looked like they were ahead, but for the stock market crash in 1929, which had enormous impact round the world.

The Albatros H.1 was a German attempt at an altitude record after the war, but its wings fell off whilst taxying. The fuselage is in MLP in Poland: Polish Aviation Museum Cracow

One way Germany could have won is by not having a huge navy. That money and manpower could have been spent elsewhere and UK reasons for entering the war is to stop a new naval rival.

Britain didn't enter the war to stop a new naval rival. It's reason for doing so was because Germany invaded Belgium. Initially the government was not willing to be dragged into it. The growth of Tirpitz' navy definitely started well before the outbreak of war; Kaiser Bill made no bones about the fact he envied the size and scope of the British fleet; as a lad he used to love going to Cowes Week and Germany even created its own version, Kiel Week. He attended the Spithead Naval review with Granny Victoria, which left an indelible impression on him.

Also, the blockade against Germany was carried out by the Grand Fleet; Germany's efforts to counter it notwithstanding, if it had any hope of breaking it, it was with its navy, specifically its u-boats, but Tirpitz's Risk Doctrine relied on both the surface and undersea vessels to break the RN. The dithering of the German high command in introducing unrestricted submarine warfare contributed to the country's downfall, as had it maintained this from the outset, it might have made a big difference to the course of the war - again, arguable, but the U-boats were its best hope of doing real damage to Britain. In 1917 alone, a greater tonnage of merchant shipping was sunk by U-boats than the previous years of the war combined. Improved British countermeasures; anti submarine patrols by airships and flying boats, and the introduction of convoys sought to bring Britain back from the brink and prevent what might have been disastrous.

 

[mikewint]

In 1888, Kaiser Wilhelm II became Emperor of Germany, an empire that had been guided by the sure hand of its "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, since 1871. It was clear when Wilhelm took the throne that, although quick witted, he was also emotionally unstable and had a violent temper. Impatient to have his own way in everything no matter how trivial, he chafed at any restrictions. In his eagerness to extend Germany's power and influence throughout Europe and the rest of the world he embarked on a program of rapid territorial conquest and military expansion that worried his European neighbors. When Bismarck tried to steer him toward a more cautious approach to foreign policy, the young emperor made it clear that he intended doing things his way, and that he was not content to be merely a figurehead for an ambitious chancellor. Wilhelm's obsession with the armed forces meant that he came under the influence of the Prussian military elite whose advice he sought with alarming regularity. Finally, having been frustrated by his chancellor once too often, Wilhelm asked for, and obtained, Bismarck's dismissal from office.
With Bismarck's removal, Wilhelm began to take Germany in a new and dangerous direction. The chancellors he appointed were weak and vacillating, reducing the government's effectiveness, which meant that Germany was now under his personal rule. Wilhelm's poor grasp of the political world of the late 19th century lead him to make blunder after blunder.
For example, in 1908 seeking to allay British fears about Germany's naval build-up, Wilhelm had his views published in a popular British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph: "You English are mad, mad, mad as March Hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation?" With these words Wilhelm tried to win over the hearts and minds of the British in what has to be the most inept attempt at international diplomacy ever seen. But worse was to come as he implied that France and Russia had tried to persuade Germany to enter the Boer War to fight with the Boers against Britain. He thus alienated both the French and Russians. Then he went on to declare that the German naval build up was aimed more at Japan than at Britain alienating the Japanese as well.
Believing that his personal relationships with fellow monarchs were what counted (he was a grandson of Queen Victoria) he allowed a defense treaty with Russia to lapse in 1890, enabling the Russians to forge a treaty with France instead. He maintained his alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, even though it was on a collision course with Russia, an event which might lead to a war which would drag in France and Britain as well, because of the treaties signed between the three nations.
After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb on June 28, 1914, Wilhelm offered his support to Austro-Hungary if it were to take action against the Serbians. As soon as Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, the Russians began to mobilize troops along both the Austrian and German borders. Seeing this, and recognizing that since France had not declared itself neutral, it would therefore come into the war on the side of Russia. Military officials in Germany persuaded Wilhelm to sign the mobilization order and initiate the Schlieffen Plan, by which Germany would attack France. Although Wilhelm was worried by the approaching conflict, he vacillated between asking for more time for negotiations and fully supporting his military commander's approach. In the end, he gave the approval for Germany to declare war on Russia on August 1 followed by a declaration of war on Russia's main ally France on August 3. When Belgium asserted its neutrality, by denying Germany the right to cross its territory, the Germans invaded anyway on August 4. Britain did not have a mutual defense treaty with Belgium. The 1839 Treaty of London guaranteed Belgian independence as a collective agreement among several nations except Germany which did not become a nation until 1871. Legally the treaty called for a collective, not an individual response. Legalities aside Britain had the excuse it needed and had been looking for and the countries leadership took it. Had it not been for the Four Powers Imperial delusions, WWI may never have been fought in the first place. If Britain had not intervened, and Germany had defeated France in a European war, the circumstances that bred Hitler would never have eventuated. A German victory would have refashioned the face of Europe, with the next big war likely to have been a clash between Germany and the rising tide of Communism in the east. World War II would have been avoided. And with nothing to hasten the fall of the old imperial powers, the way would not have been so clear for the United States and the USSR to emerge as the two contending superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century.

 

[The Basket]

Germany threatened UK by naval power not as a land power.
The UK also thought France was a future enemy so all bets were off.
Britain had a small army so had the war been as short as was envisioned then British army would have played a small role in comparison.
Fokker was a Dutch national so maybe if you wanted you can see what he did and maybe say if he was still based in Germany he would have carried on.