Small airforces going to war: what would you do.

Soren said:

It all really depends on who is most likely going to attack you, and in Denmark, Norway, Poland, Belgium Holland's case that would be Germany. And in this case it's better to just capitulate. As for France, now they on the other hand had some opportunities to explore.

Click to expand...

This has been a discussion over and over here in the Netherlands and not as easy to conclude as you seem to do. But I won't discuss this with you in this thread as it was not my intention to start talking about the meaning of defending. I have a different opinion, let's leave it to that.

To all: it was my intention with this thread to start a technical discusion about how a neutral country could have prepared for war in the late '30ies, not to start discussing dangerous topics like this or how good the Russian or the German army was

tomo pauk said:

(I've bolded the parts of the response)
Thanks, Marcel.
Your answer goes nicely along with mine comment that heavy AAA was hardly an answer for the threats. The US usage in Phillipines is an exception in the rule (Joe B. kindly provided the info about that).

While being cheaper then fighters, and not prone to loose the crew members likely, the return value is similar with that. It took the radar direction and/or proximity fuse to make the heavy AAA count; hardly an option for the late 1930 buying.

Click to expand...

This is true in the case of the Dutch fight, as most of the action in the air was at low level. The Dutch were fortunate to have so many light cliber AA as it was more effective on lower altitudes.

I think play Canada and opt for the P36, PBY Canso(Catalina), and for bombing the Mitsubishi KI27 Sally all which were available in 1937 . Which was better then the Wapitis and Siskins and Stranears which we operated .

Hello tomo pauk
Finns saw the main role of heavy AA as protect targets, so main aim was to force enemy bombers higher and so lessen their chances to hit their targets or even force they to drop their bombs early. Shoot downs were secondary aim. And that tactic worked well in early 44 during ADD's attacks against Helsinki, our capital and Kotka, a very important harbour. Without heavy AA enemy bombers could bomb without much danger from AA defence just above the effective ceiling of 40mm guns which would make hitting their targets rather easy.

Juha

Okay.

Do you have any information if those were night or day attacks, did the AAA had the radars, what was the equipment breakdown (75mm, 88mm etc)?

In short
can give more info when I have time to dig it out.

Night attacks, Finns have a few Würtburg fire control radars and one Freya early warning radar at Helsinki, I cannot recall have we any at Kotka. Some 88 batteries had radar control but most of batteries (75-76,2mm) fired barrages to force ADD's planes to drop early, also 88s if noticed that Soviet bomber had dropped its bombs (turning away) immediately took a new target from planes still approaching Helsinki, aim was hinder bombing not maximise kills.

Lesson of the wars was that most bloody bombings were those which were targeted against targets without heavy AA protection.

Juha

As a small nation in 1936 such as Norway I would wrangle to get a fleet of I-16's and SB-2's. I am not sure how readily the USSR would sell I-16's in 1936 so either those or the I-15's. I would think a good amount such as at least 120 aircraft would be needed for interception and escorts for the SB-2's. And at least 30 Sb-2's would be needed. Against Germany I am not so sure if a protracted fight could be won but a skill force armed with the SB-2 which was one of the best bombers of the 1930's and the tenacious 1-16 would definantely be a deterant. I would have the airforces concentrate on training pilots as well as putting flak towers up around my cities and industrial complexes.

Soren said:

The Soviet army contained close to 5 times as many men as the German army had in the east, plus the fact that millions of Soviet combattens have never been listed as actual soldiers, yet they fought alongside the soldiers.

I think it is pretty telling that over 12 million Soviet soldiers were killed during WW2, plus a little over 1 million western Allies, and for that 3.25 million German soldiers had to pay with their lives. 80% of the German losses were on the eastern front, so thats ~2.65 million Germans for 12+ million Russians, which is not even counting the millions of unlisted Soviet troops. Anyway that's a 5:1 ratio.

Click to expand...

You are relying on dicredited data there Soren. The Germans suffered close to 8 million unrecoverable casultiesw, of which over 5 milion were dead

also, small nations survive by a mixture of luck and scare factor. They have to make it unprofitable for an enemy to attack them. this worked for Holland in WWI, and almost worked in WWII. One has to wonder if the Dutch had been a little less complacent about their defence pre-war whether or not they could have pulled it off in 1940. A powerful air force and a properly trained army, plus a more realistic defence plan centred around the concept of a fortress Holland with flooded dykes, blown bridges, and proper defences, may have saved them. They also needed to acquiense regarding German access through the maastricht gap.

Switzerland has the best record of a true neutral. Wartime studies by the germans to occupy that country varied the casualty lists from 250000 through to over half a million. In the end, the Swiss were able to present a sufficient deterrent as to keep the Germans at arms length. So too the Swedes.

Belgium had to allow the entry of the Franco British forces into their country from the start instead of vaccillating like they did. Even then, the French had to rethink their tactical concepts, get rid of Gamelin, and adopt Weygands Quadillage system of defence. The french had to stop their mania for "protecting Paris", pull back the approximately 15 divs they had in excess in the colonies, and learn to use their tanks better. In the air they had to learn to concentrate their airpower at the point of decision, rather than distribute in penny packets up and down the front

The British and the French had to stop the policy of appeasement, and make genuine overtures to the Soviets in 1939. The aim is to reform the old collective security pacts of the great war, and have the Soviets in the war from 1939, which is what Stalin wanted, but saw the allies for what they were at that time and went with the Germans instead. An abandonment of appeasement would also have kept the Italians neutral, at minimum, which would have provided a ready source of aircraft for the minors.

Poland would have had to accept some bitter truths. She either allows the germans in to exterminate rob them and enslave them, or they side with the mortal enemy Russia. The entry of Russian troops into Poland in 1939 would have allowed the Poles to maintain their forward defence posture, without them, they had to abandon the corridor and pull back from their over exposed forward defence positions to behind the Vistula and fortify, and pray the allies attacked in time to save them....an extremely unlikley possibility...

The Germans were a vastly superior force to the Russians in all but manpower. The only chance Germany had was in a quick sweeping victory. After their momentum of the advance was slowed in my opinion the result was inevitable. The Germans could continue to feed in fresh troops against a tiring force!

Don't forget also the Germans had the Western Allies in Italy, Africa to contend with and the defense of France. Introduce to that the commitments of occupying hostile countries and containing partisan forces.

As for the air force question.

I would focus (assuming European country) on building:

- A force of light attack bombers, I don't see the expense of building a strategical or tactical bombing force if you want to maintain neutrality and defend your airspace. Medium and Heavy bombers have anywhere from 4-10 aircrew who have to be recruited and trained and the maintenance of a large bomber fleet is expensive. Also if you get attack it would be hard to maintain proper runways for them to take off from. Light bombers are quick, harder to intercept and can perform various roles such as recon and close support. Something like a DB7 or Blenheim!

- My biggest focus would be a strong force of interceptors. Something that is easy to maintain and has performance comparable with potential rival nations. It's range doesn't have to be huge. Something like a D.520 or a Hurricane would be ideal for Europe.

- Assuming the Nation is bordering the Sea I would also maintain a small collection of maritime aircraft which are capable of defending convoy's and supply lines. These are the lifelines for international aid if you get attacked. A combination of some long range heavy fighter's such as the ME110 or Fokker G.I with some flying boats, such as the Supermarine Walrus or similar.

- Obviously a large amount of recon and training planes. These can be obsolete bi-planes or monoplanes. A would place a huge emphasis on training my pilots to a high degree. The best way to compete against a larger force or one of similar numbers is to out-class them. A competitive fighter (not state of the art) with an experienced well trained pilot will be more than a match for a young inexperienced pilot in a state of the art fighter such as Spitfire or 109.

parsifal said:

You are relying on dicredited data there Soren. The Germans suffered close to 8 million unrecoverable casultiesw, of which over 5 milion were dead

Click to expand...

Discredited ? How so ?

The official OKW figure is 3.25 million German soldiers KIA MIA. (Soviet soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht arent listed though) The wounded figure is much higher. Counting wounded captured I'm sure that the Germans had well over 8 million casualties, no doubt about that. But by comparison over 27 million Soviet army casualties were then suffered, plus another 30 million civilians, of which I'm sure a great part were actual combattants. But as the actual number of dead the figure can be cut in half.

However according to more modern rsearch the amount of Soviet soldiers KIA MIA is right now at over 16.7 million and it's rising as new graves are discovered.


______________________________

As for the thread:

I'd concentrate on acquiring the best defensive a/c available from my biggest ally, as well as vigorously train my army for defensive warfare. All to make it as painful a takeover for any enemy as possible. The only problem is that it would take immense amounts of funding and in the end it wouldn't hold for long against an invadeer as large and well equipped as the Wehrmacht. The invasion of France is a great example of the force possessed by Germany at that time, where despite the thousands of elaborate defensive installations the country was brought to its' knees in less than a month.

Not bad choices, Amsel
SB was fast but vulnerable so it became obsolete quickly but in 1936 a good choice. I-16 would have been even better, because even if speed advance was a short term advance, there were faster planes in pipeline, good maneuverability would hold its value longer. I-16 has maneuverability but also was rather fast and climbed well.
My rather cryptic statement "take a careful look around" in my message #7 mean that evaluate situation and see that aircraft design was in state of rapid progress and new and better planes were just emerging, so delay a bit a/c purchase and put first money to infrastructures as dispersal airfields, early-warning and control systems etc. maybe buy small number of interim fighter, like Fokker D.XXIs before bigger purchase of new emerging model but IMHO if available I-16 would have been a bit better choice.

Juha

Soren and Parsifal
I have opened a new tread on Soviet vs German manpower in WWII General section, it's a better place to discuss Soviet vs Germany question than this thread.

Juha

parsifal said:

also, small nations survive by a mixture of luck and scare factor. They have to make it unprofitable for an enemy to attack them. this worked for Holland in WWI, and almost worked in WWII. One has to wonder if the Dutch had been a little less complacent about their defence pre-war whether or not they could have pulled it off in 1940. A powerful air force and a properly trained army, plus a more realistic defence plan centred around the concept of a fortress Holland with flooded dykes, blown bridges, and proper defences, may have saved them. They also needed to acquiense regarding German access through the maastricht gap.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. Hadn't we had a mr. Colijn and mr. van Dijk as ministers of Defence in the years 1936-1939, we would have had a good chance to fend of the Germans at the Grebbe. Chances were that the Dutch would have lasted for a few months, giving the war in Europe a totally different course. Dutch soil is a defenders heaven as well, as long as you have the guns and equipment. The last minister, mr Dijxhoorn did his job wel, but couldn't do much as he only started in september 1939.

pbfoot said:

I think play Canada and opt for the P36, PBY Canso(Catalina), and for bombing the Mitsubishi KI27 Sally all which were available in 1937 . Which was better then the Wapitis and Siskins and Stranears which we operated .

Click to expand...

Were the Japanese on the export market at that time? Could have been a good one.

Amsel said:

As a small nation in 1936 such as Norway I would wrangle to get a fleet of I-16's and SB-2's. I am not sure how readily the USSR would sell I-16's in 1936 so either those or the I-15's. I would think a good amount such as at least 120 aircraft would be needed for interception and escorts for the SB-2's. And at least 30 Sb-2's would be needed. Against Germany I am not so sure if a protracted fight could be won but a skill force armed with the SB-2 which was one of the best bombers of the 1930's and the tenacious 1-16 would definantely be a deterant. I would have the airforces concentrate on training pilots as well as putting flak towers up around my cities and industrial complexes.

Click to expand...

Good idea, never thought of Russian a/c. But the Ratta was obviously cheap, rugged and powerful in 1940, everything a small airforce needs. Probably not as good as the Messerschmitt (not many were ), but that one was too expensive anyway. SB-2 is a good choice as well. I wonder if the Russians did export those to non-communist countries.

Juha said:

Soren and Parsifal
I have opened a new tread on Soviet vs German manpower in WWII General section, it's a better place to discuss Soviet vs Germany question than this thread.

Juha

Click to expand...

Thanks !!!

SB was produced in CZS you can buy from it, i think if pay good soviets sell all, not the top that they have.

Saw the condition it's hard do best of historical, in '36 market (ready for delivery) there were old fighters useless for 39/40 the rata (I-16) on market was away form the late rata (old but usefull fighter in 39/40), afaik other fighters avaialble are CR 32, Dewoitine 500, Gloster Gauntlet, Henkel 51, Hawks, none good for world war, need waiting, the delivery need in 39, so we can choice best fighter and more usefull

Vincenzo said:

SB was produced in CZS you can buy from it, i think if pay good soviets sell all, not the top that they have.

Saw the condition it's hard do best of historical, in '36 market (ready for delivery) there were old fighters useless for 39/40 the rata (I-16) on market was away form the late rata (old but usefull fighter in 39/40), afaik other fighters avaialble are CR 32, Dewoitine 500, Gloster Gauntlet, Henkel 51, Hawks, none good for world war, need waiting, the delivery need in 39, so we can choice best fighter and more usefull

Click to expand...

True, timeframe is of course 1936-1939, but remember, the market became increasingly difficult after 1937 until and after the outbreak of the war.
Available also was the He112 (which was tested in the Netherlands as well).

This thread is being derailed by 20/20 hindsight

Of course we all know what happened during WWII, and thus we all know the "right answers": No way Netherlands, Belgium, etc. were going to survive; thus, no reason to waste efforts trying to build airpower. Better surrender right away.

IMO that is not fun

I understand that the original concept for this thread was what would you do in 1936 to build airpower. WWII is still 3 years away, and you don't know what is going to happen. You just know that you need to be prepared. In 1936 nobody knew what was going to happen in 1939. There were so many alternative scenarios:

-Perhaps France and England had supported Czecheoslovakia against Germany
-Perhaps Poland would be able to resist and fix Germany in a two-front war.
-No Hitler-Stalin Pact, and Russia could have attacked Germany in Poland
-France and England could well accepted the fait accomplit in Poland, avoiding war with Germany
-Hitler could have opted for a frontal attack against the Maginot Line, sparing Belgium
-Perhaps Hitler had a epiphany and quit to become a sheperd
-etc., etc., etc.,

Saying that Netherlands' (or any other small country) best course of action was just to cross arms, wait for the slaughter and surrender makes no sense. You need to build a decent airforce to dissuade attacks and defend yourself, to be a valuable ally, to have a bargain chip on the negotiation table, etc.

So........... back on topic:

Some posts mentioned that the Curtiss H75 would have been the best option to build a creditable fighter force. I agree wholeheartedly!!!! The H75 is one of my all-time favorite planes.

As far as I know the H75 fought very well with the Armee de L'air in France. It was strong, manoeuvrable, reliable and pretty well armed for 1939 standards.

On top of that we have to consider the market conditions: by 1936 most big european air forces were building up their own strenght and monopolising aircraft building capacity in their respective countries, so it was not easy for a small couintry to get its requirements attended.

The logical decision was "Going American": compared to the european power, the U.S had a very small air force, huge industrial capacity available and many aircraft builders eager for contracts. Probably an american supplier had been able to deliver aircraft faster and in more quantitive than an european supplier.

Had I been defense minister in some small country I would have instituted a mandatory blood donation for all able men over 18, so to get funds and buy as many H75 as possible

-Perhaps Hitler had a epiphany and quit to become a sheperd

Click to expand...

Best case scenario ever!

Great ideas, Airbone Bunny, and welcome.

Getting the US as an Ally would've been a great idea actually. Awesome industrial power. Only problem would be actually getting that alliance treaty considering the unrest Europe was in by 1936.

But other than that if you could get the US as an ally then you'd be in a very good spot. Esp. if you foresaw the near future in regards to Germany's plans of expansion. Then you could make sure to quickly build up your military and make sure that the US would intervene in the case of an invasion.

With both Britain AND the US as a military ally from 1936 onwards, then that would make any nation think twice before conducting an attack.