The events of WWII without aircraft

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[Thorlifter]

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.

 

[Thorlifter]

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]

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

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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

 

[XBe02Drvr]

America would have been invaded.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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.

 

[pbehn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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