Challenge - World War 2 without airpower

[zoomar]

Throughout the 1920's and early 1930's there were serious and not so serious political or diplomatic efforts to eliminate aerial bombing (and in some cases military aviation altogether). These ranged from proposals to replace all national air forces with an international air force maintained by the League of Nations, a Hague treaty setting firm limitations on the scope of aerial bombing, and as late as 1932 the Geneva Disarmament Conference considered a variety of proposals ban or significantly reduce air forces. Some of these proposals actually had solid support within the military establishments of a number of major powers - usually centered around conservative army and navy leadership.

Beginning no earlier than 1923 create a timeline leading in 1939 to a WW2 including a Germany under the Nazis in which none of the major powers have air forces capable of offensive bombing, either against civilians or military targets. You may allow naval aviation, presuming that by treaty, carrier-based planes can only participate in naval actions and scouting. For an added bonus, imagine how the war would play out - including the possibility that, starting essentially from scratch, some or all combatant powers might, after 1940, begin developing airforces, lacking any training in the doctrines of air power and probably with militarily less capable aircraft.

 

[Forum Lurker]

The only way I can imagine is if land-based AA is sufficiently potent as to make bombing completely impractical. Perhaps an earlier development of radar, which is then exploited by an emphasis on static air defense?

 

[Hierophant]

The thing is, I dont see Hitler going along. I mean how else is he to strike at the UK and bring it to the peace table (so he thinks). I think the only reason he didnt use gas (that we know of) against the Allies was because he himself was gassed during the Great War, and didnt do it out of his own phobia.

 

[Forum Lurker]

If the military doctrine of the time is "You put a plane up that can carry bombs, they'll bring it down before it can drop them", Hitler might not insist on the attempt. Instead, he'd probably focus on submarine blockades, the V-2 project, and possibly invent the missile sub for convential munitions use.

 

[Tony Williams]

That would be a tough one. If civil aviation were still functioning, you would basically have the situation which actually developed in Germany in the 1920s and early 30s, when they were banned from military aviation. So they developed fast, slim, 'mail planes' which just happened to be rapidly convertible to bombers. Or fast light planes like the Bf 108 which led to the design of the Bf 109.

In the event of war, or threatened war, then the temptation to convert the planes to warlike uses would be immense. And the first nation to break the rule and do this would open the floodgates.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Hierophant]

I think Tony hit the nail on the head. Military Airpower was something everyone realized after the end of WW1, and they knew with increased speeds, cealings, and carrying weight, more destruction could be visited at greater distances. If anyone decides and keeps to a strict anti- air force policy it would be the isolationist US of the 20s and 30s. We are surrounded on both sides be oceans and weak nations to are north and south (in comparison at least. I love Canada! Please dont kill me ). The other possibility might be the Soviet Union and Italy, but I doubt it.

 

[Matthew Craw]

The SU would be another barrier to this - they denounced OTL's disarmament talks as a sham, and were deeply paranoid about foreign attack after the Civil War ended. I can't see them giving up on a potentially decisive area of warfare - especially if their potenitial enemies had given up any capability in the area.

 

[Thande]

I think a good start towards this would be having more strategic bombing of cities in WWI - enough so that strategic bombing of civilians is seen as as big a horror weapon as gas. So there is more of an international effort to ban bombing, which then extends to all aircraft. I still don't think this is plausible though. You really need an ASB to eliminate aircraft from WW2, IMO.

 

[Forum Lurker]

Or improvements in rocketry. If a radar base can see and hit a bomber a few hundred miles away, it'd dissuade their use. Don't know how plausible effective SAMS in WWII would be, though.

 

[Thande]

Well, the Germans tested a guided SAM in 1944, but of course that was too late to save them and it was never produced in sufficient numbers. Rack rocket research up a bit and maybe...?

 

[Forum Lurker]

It also gives a viable alternative to bombers. If, instead of risking your planes against their radar and SAMs, you can simply throw a bunch of unmanned short-range ballistic missiles at the foe, why risk expensive equipment and pilots?

 

[zoomar]

Tony.

I agree. No doubt virtually all powers would look at ways around limitations by building civil aircraft which could fairly easily be modified into bombers and fighters if they were needed. However, it is possible some powers may take a ban on military aviation more seriously, both because of internal interservice power struggles and how seriously committed their governments were to the basic concept of negotiated disarmament. It is important to consider that a serious ban might also affect R&D on ancillary technologies (like bombsights, gunsights, aerial bombs and cannon) and of course training by cash-strapped military establishments who would rather spend what little R&D money they had on things which were allowed, like naval ships, tanks, artillery, etc. My guess is that, even if the civil aviation industries of some nations (Germany and the USA particularly come to mind) had produced lots of sleek and fast mailplanes, high powered racing planes, and long range airliners, the effort to turn the relatively small number of such market-ordered civilian craft into large and efficient airforces essentially from scratch in 1939 would have been herculean. I suspect planes would be signifcantly less capable than 1939 OTL craft, combat doctrine at essentially a late WW1 level, and personnel very poorly trained. This would have had a major effect on how WW2 was fought, at least until 1943 or so - which one suspects might have altered some outcomes, etc.

 

[zoomar]

The discussions regarding rocketry are also very interesting. It is virtually impossible that any treaty to limit airpower would have considered rockets, which if considered at all, would have been thought of as combat artillery.

Perhaps, this might have greatly accelerated the research into long-range ballistic rockets to provide a "legal" means of attacking "military" targets in rear areas. Who knows how quickly the development of ballistic missiles might have been accelerated if the early US, Soviet, and German pioneers were amply funded and supported by their war departments.

 

[Nik]

1917 Cruise missiles = Kettering Bug

Er, 1917 saw first 'cruise missile', namely the 'Kettering Bug'.

War ended before it reached Front...

Hmm: even if aircraft were banned from carrying bombs, they could still strafe.

Just as specialist air-craft hunted Zeppelins & observation balloons, so others might be fitted with multiple guns for ground-attack...