AHC: Germany as militarily powerful as France/UK

I think the only way post WW2 the Germans become militaryily powerful would be something to do with west Germany during the cold war, that place was effectively a military base.

loldaddycom-1329713438_zpsb0c03a03-1_zpsb08f71d2.jpg

Kind of a silly question, but...what's that on the USA's head?
 
post WW2 Germany limited it self to a tactical role within NATO and while it;s forces were large and well equipped they were primarily to provide a defence against attack from the WarPac nations and their Soviet paymasters.

the UK and France maintained their expeditionary warfare capabilities because of their overseas holdings and/or relationships ,plus in the UK case it's role (with the Dutch)in any NATO 'winter war' in Norway etc...

The post war West German Navy didn't have carriers as the marineflieger could operate from coastal airbases and provide coverage of the Baltic from those ...

Aircraft Carriers are an expression of long distance expeditionary warfare -look at recent North African/ Arab excursions by NATO /European forces, and modern Strike aircraft were flying into Libya etc from Italy /France / UK despite the Sharkey Ward's wailing and gnashing teeth over the retirement of the RAF and FAA harrier fleet -despite the support from tornado and typhoon and the AAC apaches operating from HMS Ocean

I wouldn't think West Germany needs carriers in the 70s and 80s or would be allowed to acquire them, but something like Jean de Arc or Vittorio Veneto would be a different story. NATO and WP nations wouldn't be threatened by a helicopter cruiser or two but they could provide West Germany with the ability to do more than just limited Baltic and North Sea escort missions. When these ships need to be replaced in the 90s then a proper through deck design would be high on the list and Germany's recent history of running large ships would set the precedent.
 
Given anything remotely similar to OTL up to and including the initial stages of WW2, the only way this could possibly occur is (1) a German victory, which changes everything and is highly unrealistic, or (2) a Werhmacht coup against Hitler and the National Socialists in the 1942-43 period, leading to a "white" settlement in the west (essentially a return to pre-1939 borders together with a pledge to restore Polish independence) and an alliance against the USSR. Unlikely also. The cute picture says it all. There is no way a defeated Germany that did what it did in WW2 would ever feel able (both internationally or domestically) to become a major military power with nuclear weapons and the ability to project force outside of the NATO umbrella.
 
I wouldn't think West Germany needs carriers in the 70s and 80s or would be allowed to acquire them, but something like Jean de Arc or Vittorio Veneto would be a different story. NATO and WP nations wouldn't be threatened by a helicopter cruiser or two but they could provide West Germany with the ability to do more than just limited Baltic and North Sea escort missions. When these ships need to be replaced in the 90s then a proper through deck design would be high on the list and Germany's recent history of running large ships would set the precedent.

the problem is a 'helicopter cruiser' is actually just a scanty disguise for a pocket carrier - e.g. Invincible class 'Harrier Carrier' and after 1982 the Harrier carrier came of age ( also you've got USMC, Spain, Italy,Thailand and India flying Harrier family aircraft)

Unless you are going alone against a nation equipped with the then state of the art kit like F16s the Harrier is a pretty awesome opponent especially if VIFFing is used to full capability (which the F35 has traded for top speed but interestingly the P1154 would have been capable of both Viffing and supersonic dash )

Harrier vs F15/F14 /Phantom/Tornado/ MIG25 is an interesting one as it requires the (lumbering) aggressor and/or it's missles to maintain a lock against an aircraft that can stop dead, plummet like a stone and then fly off at high subsonic/ transonic speeds

West Germany was an early partner in Harrier development although they didn;t buy production versions... that said a Significant RAFG tasking was dispersed operations of Harriers (also spawned the pyrene Mk8 and the TACR2 to support this mode of operations)
 
Harrier vs F15/F14 /Phantom/Tornado/ MIG25 is an interesting one as it requires the (lumbering) aggressor and/or it's missles to maintain a lock against an aircraft that can stop dead, plummet like a stone and then fly off at high subsonic/ transonic speeds

If VIFFing is useful (and it's a big 'if') it is only useful in dogfighting. You will notice that all the aggressor aircraft are BVR capable, and could put a missile into the Harrier from 40+ miles away. Improved manoeverability won't help much in that situation.
One of the reasons there was so much angst over the Sea Harrier leaving service was because it was the only variant that was BVR-capable, with it's Blue Fox radar.
 
I feel obliged to point out that for most of the Cold War, West Germany was the most powerful European member of NATO; with ground forces far larger, better trained and better equipped than either Britain or France. The West German Air Force was also well equipped and trained and they had tactical nuclear missiles in their possession (technically the United States maintained ownership of the warheads.)

Still, wasn't a big part of the Spiegel affair in 1962 the revelation that Germany's armed forces had "flunked" the 1962 NATO military exercises, and that the Bundeswehr at the time was completely incompetent? I imagine that afterwards, there was probably a lot of cleanup, and at the time, Germany had only regained its armed forces for barely a decade, but still, for the first 2 decades of the Cold War, my understanding is that Germany was a nonentity militarily.
 
Don't want to sound like a pedant but I guess I will, but FA2 SHAR had Blue Vixen radar that was the equal of APG66/67 and had BVR hence SHAR carrying 2 AMRAAM. It would have been quite capable of operating any successor system too. Marineflieger wanted the SARO rocket fighter and Bucaneer as a combination during the 60s and 70s, they got shafted by some very shady dealing and got the terrible F104 Widowmaker instead, not what anyone would call a low level maritime strike aircraft is it?

Oh and UK would have LOVED the Bundesheer to have been even larger, could then mean BAOR reduced or cycle times between BAOR and UK reduced due to the pressures of Northen Ireland troubles.
 
...FA2 SHAR had Blue Vixen radar that was the equal of APG66/67 and had BVR hence SHAR carrying 2 AMRAAM. ...

You're right, I was just looking it up. It was the Blue Vixen and not the Blue Fox that was suitable for BVR missiles.
 
the problem is a 'helicopter cruiser' is actually just a scanty disguise for a pocket carrier - e.g. Invincible class 'Harrier Carrier' and after 1982 the Harrier carrier came of age ( also you've got USMC, Spain, Italy,Thailand and India flying Harrier family aircraft)

Unless you are going alone against a nation equipped with the then state of the art kit like F16s the Harrier is a pretty awesome opponent especially if VIFFing is used to full capability (which the F35 has traded for top speed but interestingly the P1154 would have been capable of both Viffing and supersonic dash )

Harrier vs F15/F14 /Phantom/Tornado/ MIG25 is an interesting one as it requires the (lumbering) aggressor and/or it's missles to maintain a lock against an aircraft that can stop dead, plummet like a stone and then fly off at high subsonic/ transonic speeds

West Germany was an early partner in Harrier development although they didn;t buy production versions... that said a Significant RAFG tasking was dispersed operations of Harriers (also spawned the pyrene Mk8 and the TACR2 to support this mode of operations)

The Vittorio Veneto, Jean d'Arc, and Moskvas are not scantily disguised Harrier carriers, they lack the through deck needed to get the Harrier to its 80kt STOL speed. What's more when Helicopter cruisers were the go back in the 60s the Harrier wasn't even in service. However after 30 years of service in about 2000 the Germans could get on the through-deck bandwagon and build a Harrier/JSF carrier.

Just a comment on the Harrier stopping in a dogfight, it would be the worst thing it could do, the opposition could just line it up with the guns like a ground target. Speed is life in dogfights, pilots are few and far between who don't try their hardest to keep their speed up and engine flat out during dogfights.
 
I wouldn't think West Germany needs carriers in the 70s and 80s or would be allowed to acquire them, but something like Jean de Arc or Vittorio Veneto would be a different story. NATO and WP nations wouldn't be threatened by a helicopter cruiser or two but they could provide West Germany with the ability to do more than just limited Baltic and North Sea escort missions. When these ships need to be replaced in the 90s then a proper through deck design would be high on the list and Germany's recent history of running large ships would set the precedent.

Not impossible but ...

As part of the negotiations to end the Occupation statute Germany pledged in the WEU treaties in 1954 (1954 - Protocoll No. III) not to manufacture:
- ABC weapons
- Long-range missiles, guided missiles and influence mines
- Warships of more than 3,000 tons displacement
- Submarines of more than 350 tons displacement
- Strategic bombers
Amendments to all but the first point could have been made if the NATO Supreme Commander in Europe had recommended it, West Germany had requested it and a two-third majority of the member states had approved the amendment.

The WEU was officially declared defunct in 2011. But as far as I know all discriminatory restrictions (points 2 to 5) were lifted after German reunification.

And some amendments were made. Submarine displacement for example went up in several steps over the decades since 1954. Guided missiles were allowed (without it no AA missiles :)). But the Bremen class frigates, the last build under WEU treaty restrictions, still only had a displacement of 3680 tons.

As others have mentioned the West Germany military - for good reasons - was designed for a ground war in Central Europe. With some attention given to the Baltic Sea and North Sea.
You´d have to convince West Germany, the NATO Supreme Commander and the WEU member states that one or two German helicopter cruisers would be worth it. That the resources for it wouldn´t be better spend on ground war capabilities.
(Maybe a larger fear of Soviet submarines?)
 
Top