A very touching and well written tribute to the unsung heros of this and every modern-era war.
Hero of Canton
Hero of Canton
The Anglo/American - Nazi War
- Thread starter CalBear
- Start date
- Status
Good job CalBear. It's all too true that all the glory, glamor, and importance tends to be placed on the guy on the front line, with all the rear-line forces who are crucial for allowing the guy on the front line to do his thing being ignored or despised.
nice update Calbear, its sad the the front-line troops get all the glory and the REMF's don't, and I do remember being told once that for every solder on the front-line their is 5 more keeping him alive.
See Ya
Mark
See Ya
Mark
Winston Smith
Banned
Is the Martin P6M Seamaster in service, or in the prototype stage? Does the same apply to the TSR.2, the CF.105 and the SR.177?
I've heard it said that amateurs discuss tactics and dilettantes (sp?) discuss strategy, but it's professionals that discuss logistics.
Given how the Nazis drove out many of the Jewish scientists who helped make the atomic bomb possible, it would be downright hilarious if the Bomb was used on the Nazi spiritual capital of Nuremburg.
Just making a suggestion.
Just making a suggestion.
First post to this board...count me among the "I joined up to post about your thread" crowd.
I've been an off and on lurker around here for years, but hadn't visited for quite a while; a lot of interesting works have emerged in the interim. TheMann's "Canadawank" was also a great read, particularly for me. I was CF basebrat from the mid-60's to early 80's.
Having the opportunity to read the bulk of this TL (and the comments) in one go, provides a distinct clarity in my impression and this has raised a few questions.
The massively overriding omission I can see is the lack of any advancement in the field of tactical rocketry/missiles by the Germans. Would there not be a significant effort to provide for at least some development of these concepts? Faced with the situation of defending a huge coastline against amphibious assault, why on earth would you rely solely upon artillery if you had such an option available for a minimal investment?
Such a weapon (I'm talking about a 15 year improved one here) would have the capability to cause mass havoc upon the invasion shipping and I just can't see this being overlooked by the powers that be. Wire/TV guided, so it's invulnerable to any jamming. Relatively cheap to make and fitted out with a high capacity hollow charge warhead, this has the all the makings of a serious game changer in a situation like the one you're describing.
Deploy them forward within the coastal fortifications, in invulnerable underground slit trenches with massive concrete protection. Launching could be from "ski-ramps/trolleys" (like the OTL Fi103), with the control bunker built at the base of ramp's end...do able? I can't see why not. Can you say "target rich environment"? While such a system appears cost prohibitive on the surface, the sheer scale of the fortifications you're describing confirms the fact that the Germans are taking the threat very seriously and are already dumping massive funds into the defenses. A system like I'm describing could easily be funded by dropping the "defense in depth" idea.
It's a no brainer that the only way you can hope to repel an amphibious invasion is to interdict the shipping which is delivering the assault force (and more importantly), those providing the artillery support during this very vulnerable stage. If you can make the littoral waters untenable for shipping, then you're in a far better position to bring your mech divisions forward and push the assault troops into the sea, even if the attacker has air supremacy. While ground attack aircraft have great destructive potential, they lack the persistence of NGF, especially in the face of well developed AAA defenses.
Defensive fortifications 20km deep are a waste of resources when the actual battle zone starts at the shoreline and extends 10-15km offshore.
I think they would have figured this out...way before 1958.
Another little quibble would have to do with the ostensibly invulnerable monster tank (M92) in the scenario. The hollow charge warhead of 1945's (relatively) primitive "panzerfaust 100" could penetrate 220mm (~8 3/4") of homogeneous plate...you can't tell me that this tech is just going to "stand still" for the next 13 years.
The impetus for the hollow charge infantry weapons came from the Ostfront (circa 1942 OTL) so these are definitely in play here; also, there were designs on the way with far greater penetration/range even before the war ended.
Operational wire guided (CLOS) battlefield weapons (with performance on par to the TOW) will also be in play here. The late war Kramer X-7 Rotkäppchen is an example from OTL; development started at BMW in 1941. Such a weapon would be very dangerous against Amtracks and LCM/LCT's on their "run-ins" to the beach, reaching out at least 1500m.
I could go on here...what happened to the EZ42/1 gunsight? Mk213 revolver cannon (imagine a ground-based version of these, firing capped AP out to 500m against the landing craft)? Germany has a huge lead in ironing out the problems with (far superior performing) axial turbojets. Having nothing better than 262's with 004's and 162's (emergency program OTL, would never even be considered for production ITTL) with 003's doing the pushing, seems a bit unrealistic? No?
It's your wank (and I fully understand that you initially wished to use the exercise to explore the ramifications of "lebensraum") but having the USN flying F-8's and A-4's (and the FH4-1 on deck), while the Luftwaffe is stuck in 1945 is just a little beyond preposterous, IMO.
The minerals/rare metals to build decent performing axial compressors have been under German control since at least 1942 (Donets basin/Yugoslavia/Greece) but they were never able to exploit them fully in OTL...again: 15 years and? (I mean you have them exploiting the Caucasian oil in good order and that's going to be a whole lot harder than putting a mine/smelter back into operation.)
Finally, for those who commented upthread regarding how the "final solution" was a "huge" drain on the DRG's (Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft) ability to conduct timely car placements, I would advise you to seek out "The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich, Vol.2" by Alfred C. Mierzejewski...this should set you straight as to the (relative) insignificance of these "movements" within the bigger picture.
This is a common misconception.
I am not a "fanboi" (I am a very serious student of WWII history however.)...please don't interpret my assessments of the timeline as such. These are "game changing" omissions, and are fully plausible, irrespective of some of the other rather "questionable developments" described within the timeline (Gotterdammerung of the KM and Luftwaffe in particular).
Happy to be here and I'm looking forward to contributing a "wank" or two of my own in the future...
Cheers, Ron
I've been an off and on lurker around here for years, but hadn't visited for quite a while; a lot of interesting works have emerged in the interim. TheMann's "Canadawank" was also a great read, particularly for me. I was CF basebrat from the mid-60's to early 80's.
Having the opportunity to read the bulk of this TL (and the comments) in one go, provides a distinct clarity in my impression and this has raised a few questions.
The massively overriding omission I can see is the lack of any advancement in the field of tactical rocketry/missiles by the Germans. Would there not be a significant effort to provide for at least some development of these concepts? Faced with the situation of defending a huge coastline against amphibious assault, why on earth would you rely solely upon artillery if you had such an option available for a minimal investment?
Such a weapon (I'm talking about a 15 year improved one here) would have the capability to cause mass havoc upon the invasion shipping and I just can't see this being overlooked by the powers that be. Wire/TV guided, so it's invulnerable to any jamming. Relatively cheap to make and fitted out with a high capacity hollow charge warhead, this has the all the makings of a serious game changer in a situation like the one you're describing.
Deploy them forward within the coastal fortifications, in invulnerable underground slit trenches with massive concrete protection. Launching could be from "ski-ramps/trolleys" (like the OTL Fi103), with the control bunker built at the base of ramp's end...do able? I can't see why not. Can you say "target rich environment"? While such a system appears cost prohibitive on the surface, the sheer scale of the fortifications you're describing confirms the fact that the Germans are taking the threat very seriously and are already dumping massive funds into the defenses. A system like I'm describing could easily be funded by dropping the "defense in depth" idea.
It's a no brainer that the only way you can hope to repel an amphibious invasion is to interdict the shipping which is delivering the assault force (and more importantly), those providing the artillery support during this very vulnerable stage. If you can make the littoral waters untenable for shipping, then you're in a far better position to bring your mech divisions forward and push the assault troops into the sea, even if the attacker has air supremacy. While ground attack aircraft have great destructive potential, they lack the persistence of NGF, especially in the face of well developed AAA defenses.
Defensive fortifications 20km deep are a waste of resources when the actual battle zone starts at the shoreline and extends 10-15km offshore.
I think they would have figured this out...way before 1958.
Another little quibble would have to do with the ostensibly invulnerable monster tank (M92) in the scenario. The hollow charge warhead of 1945's (relatively) primitive "panzerfaust 100" could penetrate 220mm (~8 3/4") of homogeneous plate...you can't tell me that this tech is just going to "stand still" for the next 13 years.
The impetus for the hollow charge infantry weapons came from the Ostfront (circa 1942 OTL) so these are definitely in play here; also, there were designs on the way with far greater penetration/range even before the war ended.
Operational wire guided (CLOS) battlefield weapons (with performance on par to the TOW) will also be in play here. The late war Kramer X-7 Rotkäppchen is an example from OTL; development started at BMW in 1941. Such a weapon would be very dangerous against Amtracks and LCM/LCT's on their "run-ins" to the beach, reaching out at least 1500m.
I could go on here...what happened to the EZ42/1 gunsight? Mk213 revolver cannon (imagine a ground-based version of these, firing capped AP out to 500m against the landing craft)? Germany has a huge lead in ironing out the problems with (far superior performing) axial turbojets. Having nothing better than 262's with 004's and 162's (emergency program OTL, would never even be considered for production ITTL) with 003's doing the pushing, seems a bit unrealistic? No?
It's your wank (and I fully understand that you initially wished to use the exercise to explore the ramifications of "lebensraum") but having the USN flying F-8's and A-4's (and the FH4-1 on deck), while the Luftwaffe is stuck in 1945 is just a little beyond preposterous, IMO.
The minerals/rare metals to build decent performing axial compressors have been under German control since at least 1942 (Donets basin/Yugoslavia/Greece) but they were never able to exploit them fully in OTL...again: 15 years and? (I mean you have them exploiting the Caucasian oil in good order and that's going to be a whole lot harder than putting a mine/smelter back into operation.)
Finally, for those who commented upthread regarding how the "final solution" was a "huge" drain on the DRG's (Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft) ability to conduct timely car placements, I would advise you to seek out "The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich, Vol.2" by Alfred C. Mierzejewski...this should set you straight as to the (relative) insignificance of these "movements" within the bigger picture.
This is a common misconception.
I am not a "fanboi" (I am a very serious student of WWII history however.)...please don't interpret my assessments of the timeline as such. These are "game changing" omissions, and are fully plausible, irrespective of some of the other rather "questionable developments" described within the timeline (Gotterdammerung of the KM and Luftwaffe in particular).
Happy to be here and I'm looking forward to contributing a "wank" or two of my own in the future...
Cheers, Ron
Welcome. I'm glad you decided to become an contributing member and that you are enjoying the T/L.
The Reich built itself to re-fight the last war (something that armies, including the U.S. and British ones, have a very bad habit of doing) and, thanks to the ideology of the Parry leadership, assumed that the Americans and British couldn't possibly be able to produce weapons that the Reich hadn't. Had the Allies rolled into Europe with B-36 bombers as the heavies and B-45 mediums (or even English Electric Canberras), which was where the Reich's bomber designs were, the Luftwaffe would have torn them to bits. The Luftwaffe was ready to defeat 400 mph bombers at 40K, 560 mph bombers at 50K have presented a serious problem simply because nobody ever imagined they would appear (this is something the U.S. ran into with the MiG-25, which even today presents a tactical problem for the USAF in certain circumstances).
The Luftwaffe has far better aircraft then the Me-262, (including the B&V P.320 which is mentioned early in the T/L as holding the absolute time record from a standing start to 10,000 meters until 1961), but it hasn't just thrown the Swallows away, any more than the U.S. threw away Shooting Stars (which IOTL the USAF reserve flew until 1958) using the older aircraft in lower threat environments and to equip some "National" squadrons. What has happened during the long air war has been that the Luftwaffe has been ground down, as was the case IOTL, and the remaining high performance interceptors are kept inside the Inner Reich for defense against Allied bombing raids. Most of the Luftwaffe aircraft are either short range fast medium bombers or point interceptors designed to destroy B-36 style bombers (again, similar to what the Red Air Force consisted of in the 1950s & early 60s which had to deal with a similar threat environment).
The Reich has shown advances in both SAM and SSM missiles (an example being the SSM that caused the devastation at Mulberry "B" in the last chapter). A truck mounted Mach 2 SSM with a 1,000 KG warhead is quite a threat, and the A-9 Ballistic missile represents a serious threat, one that the British suffered under in the early months of the war (although the destruction of the primary manufacturing/research facility has crimped the usage of the weapon). SAM tech has advanced as well, although this has been retarded by the lack of transistor tech and the relative lack of reliable millimeter radars in the Reich. Nazi Germany, as has been described a couple of times in the discussion threads, is very much like OTL's USSR, except with a serious anti-intellectual bent that extends into the sciences (the Russians refer to them as nekulturny, which just about covers it).
The SS had short range missiles as part of the Atlantic Wall defenses, and they took a good part of the toll of the amtracs (as noted, the first wave of amtracs took 25% losses, which is far higher than you could achieve without some sort of guided munitions), but these weapons, just like the conventional anti-boat guns and mortars took a beating from the massive Allied naval gun fire and air attacks in the months before the invasion as well as during the firestorm laid onto the beaches on the day of the landings.
The M-92 uses the best armor yet deployed. It consists mainly, as noted earlier, of Class B naval armor, but it also has some of the features that were just coming into use in the late 50s-early 60s including a center of perforated plate. Thanks to the much smaller size of a tank compared to even the smallest warship the armor is also able to be rolled in a single mass, which allows it to retain the same performance throughout the piece. It also has a good degree of slope to it, not as extreme as you see in modern MTB, but fairly pronounced. The folks who designed he Chamberlain were more used to building thing with series number that start with a "CA" rather than a "M" and it shows in the overall design. It has venerabilities, a shaped charge is a particular hazard, but it requires a warhead that would be considered to be far in excess of need by the SS (and by anyone else before it rumbled onto the battlefield. The tank has the usual venerabilities in that its top armor is less robust, especially over the engine, but it, like the Sheridan, were purpose built to defeat the best the Panther III had to offer.
Thanks for the feedback, especially the constructive criticism. Much as I like the "good job" comments, it is also always useful to get a well reasoned bit of criticism. It allows me to both clear up points that I have neglected to make clear, and hopefully allows me to improve future efforts.
The Reich built itself to re-fight the last war (something that armies, including the U.S. and British ones, have a very bad habit of doing) and, thanks to the ideology of the Parry leadership, assumed that the Americans and British couldn't possibly be able to produce weapons that the Reich hadn't. Had the Allies rolled into Europe with B-36 bombers as the heavies and B-45 mediums (or even English Electric Canberras), which was where the Reich's bomber designs were, the Luftwaffe would have torn them to bits. The Luftwaffe was ready to defeat 400 mph bombers at 40K, 560 mph bombers at 50K have presented a serious problem simply because nobody ever imagined they would appear (this is something the U.S. ran into with the MiG-25, which even today presents a tactical problem for the USAF in certain circumstances).
The Luftwaffe has far better aircraft then the Me-262, (including the B&V P.320 which is mentioned early in the T/L as holding the absolute time record from a standing start to 10,000 meters until 1961), but it hasn't just thrown the Swallows away, any more than the U.S. threw away Shooting Stars (which IOTL the USAF reserve flew until 1958) using the older aircraft in lower threat environments and to equip some "National" squadrons. What has happened during the long air war has been that the Luftwaffe has been ground down, as was the case IOTL, and the remaining high performance interceptors are kept inside the Inner Reich for defense against Allied bombing raids. Most of the Luftwaffe aircraft are either short range fast medium bombers or point interceptors designed to destroy B-36 style bombers (again, similar to what the Red Air Force consisted of in the 1950s & early 60s which had to deal with a similar threat environment).
The Reich has shown advances in both SAM and SSM missiles (an example being the SSM that caused the devastation at Mulberry "B" in the last chapter). A truck mounted Mach 2 SSM with a 1,000 KG warhead is quite a threat, and the A-9 Ballistic missile represents a serious threat, one that the British suffered under in the early months of the war (although the destruction of the primary manufacturing/research facility has crimped the usage of the weapon). SAM tech has advanced as well, although this has been retarded by the lack of transistor tech and the relative lack of reliable millimeter radars in the Reich. Nazi Germany, as has been described a couple of times in the discussion threads, is very much like OTL's USSR, except with a serious anti-intellectual bent that extends into the sciences (the Russians refer to them as nekulturny, which just about covers it).
The SS had short range missiles as part of the Atlantic Wall defenses, and they took a good part of the toll of the amtracs (as noted, the first wave of amtracs took 25% losses, which is far higher than you could achieve without some sort of guided munitions), but these weapons, just like the conventional anti-boat guns and mortars took a beating from the massive Allied naval gun fire and air attacks in the months before the invasion as well as during the firestorm laid onto the beaches on the day of the landings.
The M-92 uses the best armor yet deployed. It consists mainly, as noted earlier, of Class B naval armor, but it also has some of the features that were just coming into use in the late 50s-early 60s including a center of perforated plate. Thanks to the much smaller size of a tank compared to even the smallest warship the armor is also able to be rolled in a single mass, which allows it to retain the same performance throughout the piece. It also has a good degree of slope to it, not as extreme as you see in modern MTB, but fairly pronounced. The folks who designed he Chamberlain were more used to building thing with series number that start with a "CA" rather than a "M" and it shows in the overall design. It has venerabilities, a shaped charge is a particular hazard, but it requires a warhead that would be considered to be far in excess of need by the SS (and by anyone else before it rumbled onto the battlefield. The tank has the usual venerabilities in that its top armor is less robust, especially over the engine, but it, like the Sheridan, were purpose built to defeat the best the Panther III had to offer.
Thanks for the feedback, especially the constructive criticism. Much as I like the "good job" comments, it is also always useful to get a well reasoned bit of criticism. It allows me to both clear up points that I have neglected to make clear, and hopefully allows me to improve future efforts.
Calbear: Glad to see the nod to logistics, having worked in one section of that myself at least with medical planning. Logistics was the biggest failure of both the Nazis & the Japanese in WW2 - Yamato martial spirit or Aryan racial superiority does not make up for a supply chain lacking from factory to front line as well as priority for transport etc. Given the fact they "won", and the rigid ideological bent of the Nazis I would expect that their logostics situation in this TL is still deficient. FWIW their logistic failures in WW1 & WW2 came in spite of a professional general staff run by professional soldiers, not SS ideologues...
Winston Smith
Banned
The Nazis are very well prepared to fight their last victorious war. Like most armies and countries, the Nazis won OTL because they learnt from the defeats of the 1st World War. The Nazis ITTL have the same problem the OTL Allies had in 1939.
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
I'm not sure we'd see an F-4 that is quite like that of OTL. For one, the USAF (or is it still USAAF now?) is probably still of the mindset that guns are still needed in designing a fighter.
I think it's USAF, given the long war and the huge number of planes the Allies have produced thus far. Also, didn't later F-4 models came with a cannon? The Allies might have went with that at the beginning.
Another question: does the Allies have any SSM?
Marc A
P.S. By the way, nice touch on the logistics crew, CalBear (don't think I've seen a TL with that part). Please accept a humble kowtow from a Trojan
I think it's USAF, given the long war and the huge number of planes the Allies have produced thus far. Also, didn't later F-4 models came with a cannon? The Allies might have went with that at the beginning.
Another question: does the Allies have any SSM?
Marc A
P.S. By the way, nice touch on the logistics crew, CalBear (don't think I've seen a TL with that part). Please accept a humble kowtow from a Trojan
I'm glad that there is so much positive feedback on the last post.
Everyone tends to ignore, or worse, look down on, the service forces (including themselves). For the most part, NOBODY joins the military to unload trucks, but somebody has to, and somebody else has to keep track of what goes where.
The Allies do have some SSM, although not that many since the Bomb is not yet on the table for use. There will be a post regarding the artillery soon (might be the next post, or the one after that, have to see how it fits). Mainly, for better or worse, the Allies prefer manned systems over guided missiles.
The first F-4 model to have a built-in gun OTL was the AF's F-4E (first flight 1967), , which had a M-61 mounted in a blister under the nose (taking the place of a sensor which occupied that position in other models), earlier AF models & Navy versions could use a 20mm gatling gun mounted in a gun pod mounted on the centerline stores position, although there were some issues with it that limited its effectiveness against other fighters (had issues working at high speed & under high g-forces, & those planes had no lead-computing gunsight, IIRC.) Even though the Phantom (probably still the F4H-1/F-110A if the AF decided to go for any, at this point ITTL) was designed as a fleet-defense interceptor relying on long-range radar-guided missiles to kill bombers before they could get into range of a task force, with the combat experience of this TL, I don't see any reason why the designers couldn't find somewhere to stick a built-in gun.
The F4 is, at this time, as was the case IOTL, a Navy interceptor in waiting. It may make a cameo, but it won't be a major player. The Phantom's ability to act as a significant bombing platform or in the not-quite-invented-yet Wild Weasel role is not going to be discovered in this T/L's reach of years.
The F4 WILL have a Gatling Cannon, the experiences in this war have shown that guns are still needed on anything that may engage in air-to-air.
As far as the U.S. cultural outlook it is a lot close to OTL's 1946 than 1958 in most ways. The idea of sacrifice for the Nation is still very strong, and the constant state of Warm War has resulted in a more military positive view than was common into the last years of Ike's Administration, along with a rather robust Foreign Policy perspective.
What is MUCH better than IOTL is the matter of Race Relations. The U.S. is more early '70s than late '50s in this area, thanks to the integrated military and the overwhelming number of American males who are in the military (either active or reserve). The constant interaction, and the necessity of learning to rely on "those people" has worked wonders, as has the Nazi's policies in Europe. Segregationists find it really difficult to gain traction when the enemy's main, most visible, and most decried policy is built on racial segregation and racism. Tends to mute the voices that were so loud in OTL Little Rock and Selma.
- Status