The events of WWII without aircraft

[pinehilljoe]

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.

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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]

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]

WW2 without aircraft?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pinehilljoe]

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]

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

 

[pinehilljoe]

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]

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