Direction of German Aviation after Victory in WWI?

Deleted member 1487

Since any decisive naval battles will occur in the North Sea, it would seem most urgent then for Britain to develop a very large force of short range interceptors to avoid letting the Germans get air superiority and to try to stop their heavy bombers from reaching British cities. Such interceptors would need to be very quick climbing and nimble. They would also benefit from some more potent armament than what the RAF was using OTL.

That said, what sort of desire would there be for Britain to develop its own fleet of heavy bombers? It would think it likely that they would try to create some kind of bomber force capable of retaliating against German targets directly in the event of war. Such a force probably wouldn't be the most useful thing for a country that should definitely be focusing as much on its defense as possible but it would at least force the Germans to protect their own skies.
So not much different for them IOTL, but perhaps they were recognize the need for night fighters and ECM earlier. But so too will the Germans...
Remember IOTL WW1 German bombing was done at night, so single engine interceptors aren't going to be a big help for night raids as per OTL WW2. Of course a victorious Germany can also afford a lot more escort fighters with drop tanks from the get go ITTL, while if France is defeated and occupied then there are a bunch more resources to be dedicated just to defeating Britain in the next war, plus bases from day one in France and the Low Countries for use.

Britain would need heavy bombers as a countermeasure and give them some means of hitting back when unable to actually get troops on the continent, as per OTL WW2. You also need a way to divert resources away from being used against your home country, the best defense is a good offense theory. Of course perhaps with France bases the Germans also develop V-1 type missiles earlier...
 
View attachment 348199

The Zeppelin/Staaken E.4/20 was the direction of the German aircraft industry in 1922, the one that was cancelled by the Versailles commission. All metal, and cantilever was the trend, with Junkers having a pocketful of patents, and everyone else looking for ways to infringe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Great photo Just Leo.

Airliners would be the main focus post-successful WW1.
Anthony Fokker, Hugo Junkers, Claus Dornier, etc. would develop progressively larger and farther-flying airliners. Better airliners would improve communications with Germany's colonies in Africa. See William Stevenson's book above a LTA Zeppelin air service connecting colonies in Afrika (Tanganika, Namibi, Togo and Cameroon). Eventually, workplace safety regulations would ban hydrogen balloons from Europe, so older Zeppelins would shift to Afrikan routes. With luck, they would find helium deposits in Afrika. Some Zeppelin captains would wander off course far enough to by diamonds or gold-dust from disgruntled colonies of other European countries. The farther inland, the less likely that Europeans could interfere. Zeppelins would also help develop mines deep in the interior of Afrika, Asia and the Amerikas.
Better airliners would be great for by-passing shipping embargoes, canals, etc. Fixed wing airliners would still be limited to high-paying cargo like passengers, mail and gem stones.
Eventually airliner technology would transfer to building bigger military transports and bombers. Germany would lead the world in developing military transport airplanes with cargo ramps under the tail.
 
Regarding rocketry, you are probably right. The Germans have less need since they have such air superiority but they've still got a lot of people interested in and well, they kind of have the resources to do it so I don't see any reason that doesn't get attention as well. At least one idiotic rocket powered fighter probably does get a prototype.

Or perhaps a rocket-powered "shell" may be seen as the next step after Big Bertha.
 
You are just skipping way too many steps. We don't start 20 years in the future, we start with the end of the war and go year by year. So lets start with a generic win. Think through some of the decisions. I will start with naval aviation which is where I have spent most of my research.

  • Naval aviation will have quite a good reputation. They had a good war, particularly in the Baltic Sea theater. They had started work on an aircraft carrier. Zeppelins were very useful, but the weaknesses are know.
  • I wrote an ATL where German keeps their colonies, so for this one, I will work with they lost all their colonies. I assume A-H survives, but is not in great shape. Ottomans survive, but lost Arabia and Southern Iraq. Maybe a little bit of Palestine.
  • So you are the navy commander. The 15" guns make most of the older BB obsolete. There is talk of 17ish inch guns. The BB inability to take the war to the UK is well know. The solution to the blockade is the trade zone that runs from Berlin to Baghdad. You U-boats also need to be scrapped. You planes are also rapidly falling behind technology. You basically have the UK problems from OTL, except the army will be sucking the budget too. You have limited options. Here is what i think you end up with.
  • A slow BB building process where you live with 1/2 of UK level. Very slow overhaul of BB. You will be building carriers, probably 2-4. I think they will be more like CVL that focus on fighters plus torpedo planes. Probably under 36 planes or so. You need to save money. These same torpedo planes as land base naval aviation should be enough to keep the UK away from the coast line. I don't think interdiction west of England is practical. And it will be too expensive, as we build out modern ships at a slow, slow pace in the 1920's. Depending on funding, this is where it may stop in the 1920's.
  • Now what is the next cheapest option to stop the UK? Repeat the same pattern out of Ottoman land bases. Shut the eastern Med. We then get into a political discussion of the post war reality. Lots of ways this could go.
  • What is the next cheapest option. New U-boats.
  • Next cheapest option. The glide bombs since the weapons are near the deployment stage. While tested with Zeppelins, the smaller weapons come close to fitting on the Gotha. Funding of level medium bomber makes sense. 2000 to 4000 pound payload, large main bay.
Now lets jump to the army.

  • Russia lost less than OTL. They probably took the earlier peace treaty which is basically the loss of the Congress of Poland plus the Baltic Dukedoms. France is likely not much of threat now. But German will fear for the future. The promise of tanks is tempting. Begs for funding. Better chemical weapons. Motorize artillery. etc, etc. So funding will be an issue.
  • We will see a progression of better fighters. Probably better funded than the navy. Probably quickly moving to metal monoplanes faster than OTL. There will be a clear need for a close air support plane to help with maneuver warfare.
  • Now to level bombers. I tend to think the navy will be mentally tasked more with the UK threat. We have two full air commands here. Why would the Germany army need level bombers to take cities. It will think of taking Paris with the army. Probably the border moves a bit west from the pre WW1 border. In the east, the Germans plan to use the buffer/client states to handle an future Russian threat. I just don't see the push for level bombers designed to attack cities. Any level bombers will be more of a tactical design, at least in the 1920's.
  • Now here is what is interesting. IF, and it is an If, the German Navy continues substantial funding for guided weapons, then the Luftwaffe will use these weapons in land based version. A 500 pound guide weapon that can hit a BB can also hit a bridge quite nicely.
And we have now met the German needs. And the needs may exceed funding available. And after this, we go to ATL specific changes where the German air ministries react to butterflies. Sure, if the Brits go big on city bombing, the Germans will follow. Same if the Russians spend a lot of time on dive bombing. Or the Royal Navy goes for dive bombers on carriers.

My guess is the British focus a lot on the idea of the main BB battle line with fighter heavy carriers to defend the existing battle line. It will take a while for the Germans to catch up to the spurt of BB building the UK did during the war. The British will be focused on preventing Sealion and keeping lines of supply open to the Empire. And WW2 is not predestined ITTL.

OK, I've been reviewing all this. I have to say, I mostly agree with a lot of that. Given the actual concerns and tendencies of the Kaiserreich, the airplane is indeed going to be a weapon to assist the army above all else. I had given too much consideration to Britain and not enough to Russia so I've rethought it. So let's start with fighters since they're so fundamental to everything else being able to work.

As long as Britain remains anything less than openly belligerent for the immediate future, Germany's safety would be tied to its ability to fight Russia and France if they should make one last try to overthrow the new balance of power in Europe. Putting a lot of your early work into tactical machines could be an acceptable compromise. It would allow the substantial fleet of medium bombers and fast light bombers to do their job (that's another thing to talk about). That job is of course going to involve wrecking up Russia's supply centers, transportation network and troop movements so that when the two armies meet again, the Germans will be facing an enemy under attack behind its lines and with its logistics in disarray. After years of frustrating deadlock in the trenches, the promise that new tactical aircraft hold is just far too great to ignore. I imagine that what they would come up with would be highly innovative and ahead of the curve when compared to anything that was developed OTL. As for the navy, to what degree do you think they can make do then with versions of army designs?The better the air force can work with the army, the less chance of a protracted war in the first place. In the unlikely event that a blockade exists and is not lifted upon another continental victory, then German bought to be able to cross that bridge when it comes to it.

What is Russia bringing to the table? Except in the worst case scenario for them, which is Brest Litovsk followed by civil war and German intervention, the Russians will be able to continue their trend of economic growth in spite of the defeat. So, ITTL we see that Germany's Eastern neighbor has the ability to much more effectively arm its forces than before, including with a growing number of aircraft. Not having a Stalinist regime is going to be a good thing for most designers. Planes will be more modern and more competitive with each passing year and most will be tactically focused low altitude designs built with the specific goal of fighting German armies. The sense in Germany might be that the victory in the great war bought them time but that a second war with Russia might have to happen eventually to decide the fate of the continent.

The Russians need to be able to move very large armies in big battlefields as soon as any war starts and they need to be able to avoid another Tannenberg. These armies will want similarly large amounts of close air support of their own. I do not know whether Russia would adopt the Soviet strategy of mass producing easy-to-build planes (with a lot of wood in them) of lesser sophistication or not, though I would doubt they'd take this strategy as far as the Soviets. Still, whatever the quality, Russia should be expected to aim for an airforce worthy of its army in numerical strength. To counter them, the German fighters should be of the absolute highest performance and allow them to take the initiative from the very start of hostilities. With a lot of experienced and influential pilots coming off of biplanes, the next monoplanes will be built to be able to turn and dogfight though over time, speed, firepower and armor will become more significant. As the generations of fighters develop, I think you see the designs converge on something sleek, compact and extremely fast. I personally think you'd end up with something resembling the spitfire, the FW-190 or maybe one of those late war Italian fighters more than it would the Bf-109. It would probably be an inline design too. They could put whatever armament configuration they felt was needed. While they'll stick with the beloved interrupter gear for a few years, they'll have to move it to the wings when they start added more guns and cannons.
 
Last edited:
This is my current "penciled" in thoughts that I use to guide me. The Germans will be roughly a generation or a "half" generation ahead with certain countries on par or ahead in their "niche."

For example the British have an obvious need for longer ranged heavier bombers so that will get their focus, same with interceptors and radar for defense. The RAF as formed will let Army co-operation, ground attack and naval air suffer. They will be biased that "the bomber always gets through" and the fact that the enemy is "over there." German has its feet in everything but its priority will be air superiority and as they understand the RAF threat it will follow with interceptors and radar. Ground attack and medium bombers get priority to support Army operations. The Navy will be more independent longer and develop longer ranged aircraft, this will translate to heavy bombers once (or if) the Germans view Britain as a threat. The French should focus on fighters and radar then medium bombers and lastly heavy bombers. Russia should dominate German planning so I think the aircraft designed and built look to fighting them.

I think an issue will be overflight rights with less openness through the 1920s and 1930s at least. Civil aviation may get more restricted as a London to Berlin flight may not happen, instead you fly British to Amsterdam then German to Berlin or if lucky KLM all the way. Germany might be forced to use Zeppelins to overfly water only routes between Berlin/Hamburg/or Frankfurt and NYC. A lot of convoluted routing to avoid "hostile" airspace. Imagine if Italy refused to let British or French overflights? Or if Germany was denied flying over UK and France? I think that favors Zeppelins for Germany and also bigger flying boats as well as longer ranged aircraft generally. That may tie in with a less robust land (paved) airport infrastructure without another war too.

I would predict that Germany is a leader in civil aviation, not fully dominant but definitely having a big share. It should build and operate Zeppelins to cross long distances and pursue longer ranged aircraft also but the USA will lead the latter, buy the former and Britain will be a competitor. Both Britain and the USA should be leaders in large flying boats for civil aviation and that is how they compete with Zeppelins. Thus I think you get aircraft like the Constellation built in America as it has the distances over land to spur development, the flying boats serve longer on over water international routes except Europe to America where Zeppelins skim off mail and luxury passengers, the fixed wing and flying boats dog them until they get the upper hand by the late 1940s. Germany and the British likely are early innovators in jets and the USA should not be far behind, but I would give the Germans the edge in putting advanced ideas into production faster through the 1950s when things should get more even. That should give the Germans an edge in transport aircraft but the USA and UK have greater need for big air cargo lifters with range than does Germany so I think the Germans build great medium planes with the USA or UK leading in the big ones (think C130 vs C141). I think the Germans lead in military aircraft design but the USA will be dominant in Naval aircraft for many years. The British need the Navy to get back in control of the Fleet Air Arm before they can close the gaps. The USA will export more as the military should remain smallish.

The biggest change I made was having the USA neutral and I am pondering having the UK neutral as well. With a neutral USA their is greater room for a geopolitical shift with fertile ground for American-German cooperation. Both are going to have strong civil aviation industries and little conflict so I see more sales of German hardware, joint ventures and cross-pollination generally. For example Fokker returns to the Netherlands due to a tax problem, he is still a supplier to Germany as the trade relations between the Dutch and Germans should be very strong, Fokker went to the USA and he became involved with North American (a GM company then). GM owns Opel. Ford too might partner as did Goodyear with Zeppelin to keep in the aviation business. Overall I think you see a certain globalization of aviation sooner. Here the Anglo-French should track faster into their relationships. By the 1970s I see the biggest aerospace firms jointly American-German and Anglo-French. Imagine the Concorde program competing with a Junkers/Boeing or Folke-Wulf/Lockheed team.

I have kept the basic Army (Air Force) and Navy duality in Germany, unlike the unified RAF, so things look like how the USA was bifurcated but I think a unified Air Ministry does develop, that may hinder things until civil aviation moves to Transport and the unified Defense Ministry works out how best to oversee aviation and electronics development. I see the Deutsche Luftstreitkräfte staying aligned to the Army just like the Army Air Corps (Force) rather than going independent like the RAF. Eventually it becomes a separate force the way the Army, Navy and Luftwaffe were "unified" in the Wehrmacht. I have washed Luftwaffe from the vocabulary and I allow for some infighting but nothing like the Goring vanity show. In fact I tend to think there will be two camps, Army and Navy Air, with several unions, Fighters, Bombers, Ship-board, Maritime Patrol, Bombardment, Attack, etc., these will all compete for funding like the real world and pull for their own planes and style but cooperate on common ground. A long range maritime patrol plane is similar to a long range bomber for example so the contractors will be finding cross over applications for both engineering and aircraft. Overall I think we see at least 5 years if not 10 shaved off many developments, more if we also butterfly away the Depression.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
OK, I've been reviewing all this. I have to say, I mostly agree with a lot of that. Given the actual concerns and tendencies of the Kaiserreich, the airplane is indeed going to be a weapon to assist the army above all else. I had given too much consideration to Britain and not enough to Russia so I've rethought it. So let's start with fighters since they're so fundamental to everything else being able to work.

As long as Britain remains anything less than openly belligerent for the immediate future, Germany's safety would be tied to its ability to fight Russia and France if they should make one last try to overthrow the new balance of power in Europe. Putting a lot of your early work into tactical machines could be an acceptable compromise. It would allow the substantial fleet of medium bombers and fast light bombers to do their job (that's another thing to talk about). That job is of course going to involve wrecking up Russia's supply centers, transportation network and troop movements so that when the two armies meet again, the Germans will be facing an enemy under attack behind its lines and with its logistics in disarray. After years of frustrating deadlock in the trenches, the promise that new tactical aircraft hold is just far too great to ignore. I imagine that what they would come up with would be highly innovative and ahead of the curve when compared to anything that was developed OTL. As for the navy, to what degree do you think they can make do then with versions of army designs?The better the air force can work with the army, the less chance of a protracted war in the first place. In the unlikely event that a blockade exists and is not lifted upon another continental victory, then German bought to be able to cross that bridge when it comes to it.

My view is that the Navy will separately develop airplanes from the Army due to political reasons. My view is also that in a win, Prince Henry will be the power player in the navy. Who gets the glory is less certain in the army, but I tend to think the Crown Prince will get a disproportionated share of the credit. And then we can add in the Army/Navy rivalry found in all great powers. I think they will tend to go out of their way to have separate planes. Now I mentioned copying tech before, and this will happen IMO, but it will be at the manufacturer level. So say Gotha develops a nice level bomber for the Army that is big enough to handle the glide bombs. They will then prototype a different plane using the same tech for the navy. Could it have the same engine and 75% the same parts? Sure, but not because of Army/Navy cooperation.

What is Russia bringing to the table? Except in the worst case scenario for them, which is Brest Litovsk followed by civil war and German intervention, the Russians will be able to continue their trend of economic growth in spite of the defeat. So, ITTL we see that Germany's Eastern neighbor has the ability to much more effectively arm its forces than before, including with a growing number of aircraft. Not having a Stalinist regime is going to be a good thing for most designers. Planes will be more modern and more competitive with each passing year and most will be tactically focused low altitude designs built with the specific goal of fighting German armies. The sense in Germany might be that the victory in the great war bought them time but that a second war with Russia might have to happen eventually to decide the fate of the continent.

My view here is that the reds were a low probability event that is butterflied away in most ATL. I think you likely end up with a white government, and then you are writing against a blank slate. Forget Stalin, and communism, and collectivism, etc, etc. I think Russia will resume rapid growth about 5-10 years after the Whites win the civil war. Or if no civil war, then 5 years after the war is over. The Germans offered some pretty good terms to try to get Russia out of the war early.

Then in my view, we have to setup the political environment, and we could spend 10's of pages on these details. Just to give an example, there is a huge difference in an ATL where A-H survives versus one where A-H splits, Germany annex the German areas, and the Balkans are of a secondary interest. To go to extremes, if the Germans can keep the Germany, A-H, Ottoman Axis intact, Russia will be easily contained. If A-H splits and the Ottomans fall into disarray, then 10 years down the road, Russia will be mucking around in the Balkans or Middle East. Too complex to call, IMO.

The Russians need to be able to move very large armies in big battlefields as soon as any war starts and they need to be able to avoid another Tannenberg. These armies will want similarly large amounts of close air support of their own. I do not know whether Russia would adopt the Soviet strategy of mass producing easy-to-build planes (with a lot of wood in them) of lesser sophistication or not, though I would doubt they'd take this strategy as far as the Soviets. Still, whatever the quality, Russia should be expected to aim for an airforce worthy of its army in numerical strength. To counter them, the German fighters should be of the absolute highest performance and allow them to take the initiative from the very start of hostilities. With a lot of experienced and influential pilots coming off of biplanes, the next monoplanes will be built to be able to turn and dogfight though over time, speed, firepower and armor will become more significant. As the generations of fighters develop, I think you see the designs converge on something sleek, compact and extremely fast. I personally think you'd end up with something resembling the spitfire, the FW-190 or maybe one of those late war Italian fighters more than it would the Bf-109. It would probably be an inline design too. They could put whatever armament configuration they felt was needed. While they'll stick with the beloved interrupter gear for a few years, they'll have to move it to the wings when they start added more guns and cannons.

Again, back to the politics. Much of Soviet doctrine is based off the Brusilov offensive. If the success still happens and is viewed as a win, then the Russian doctrine will match Soviet Doctrine. If this is butterflied away, we get some other Russian doctrine.

Hope this helps.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Great photo Just Leo.

Airliners would be the main focus post-successful WW1.
Anthony Fokker, Hugo Junkers, Claus Dornier, etc. would develop progressively larger and farther-flying airliners. Better airliners would improve communications with Germany's colonies in Africa. See William Stevenson's book above a LTA Zeppelin air service connecting colonies in Afrika (Tanganika, Namibi, Togo and Cameroon). Eventually, workplace safety regulations would ban hydrogen balloons from Europe, so older Zeppelins would shift to Afrikan routes. With luck, they would find helium deposits in Afrika. Some Zeppelin captains would wander off course far enough to by diamonds or gold-dust from disgruntled colonies of other European countries. The farther inland, the less likely that Europeans could interfere. Zeppelins would also help develop mines deep in the interior of Afrika, Asia and the Amerikas.
Better airliners would be great for by-passing shipping embargoes, canals, etc. Fixed wing airliners would still be limited to high-paying cargo like passengers, mail and gem stones.
Eventually airliner technology would transfer to building bigger military transports and bombers. Germany would lead the world in developing military transport airplanes with cargo ramps under the tail.

Posen. The helium supplies are in Posen, and findable if people care enough. Also some in German East Africa if anybody wants to look hard. Also, some of the middle east oil fields have enough, if someone wants to look. Using only USA helium has to do with economics, not availability. The main Helium field we have which is actually a natural gas field has like 10 times more Helium per unit of gas than anywhere else on the earth, so is much cheaper to produce. Much like we developed the East Texas oil fields at a fairly early date. All economics driven.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Or perhaps a rocket-powered "shell" may be seen as the next step after Big Bertha.

When i read this post, I have a picture of the Germans making some rail moved rocket designed to blow up forts with some ridiculously large warhead (5000 pounds plus) with a 20 KM or so range. More ego than practical, probably call the Big Kaiser or something like that. Some hugely over size SCUD basically.
 
Does Kaizer Whilhelm II remain on the throne?
Does he continue his childhood fascination with Cowes Fleet Week?

If the answer is yes, then German naval aviation would enjoy plenty of funding.
If Willy realizes that battleships are a dying breed, he will shift funding to (successful) U-boats and emerging aircrat carriers. Better funding of U-boats as requires better funding of long-range maritime patrol airplanes to support U-boats.

Meanwhile, the two new aircraft carriers will be valuable to support German colonies. New 'carriers require more scout planes, then torpedo planes and finally interceptors to protect the other planes. Carrier-borne aircraft are especially valuable to "project" German naval influence beyond coast lines.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
For example the British have an obvious need for longer ranged heavier bombers so that will get their focus, same with interceptors and radar for defense. The RAF as formed will let Army co-operation, ground attack and naval air suffer. They will be biased that "the bomber always gets through" and the fact that the enemy is "over there." German has its feet in everything but its priority will be air superiority and as they understand the RAF threat it will follow with interceptors and radar. Ground attack and medium bombers get priority to support Army operations. The Navy will be more independent longer and develop longer ranged aircraft, this will translate to heavy bombers once (or if) the Germans view Britain as a threat. The French should focus on fighters and radar then medium bombers and lastly heavy bombers. Russia should dominate German planning so I think the aircraft designed and built look to fighting them.

I think an issue will be overflight rights with less openness through the 1920s and 1930s at least. Civil aviation may get more restricted as a London to Berlin flight may not happen, instead you fly British to Amsterdam then German to Berlin or if lucky KLM all the way. Germany might be forced to use Zeppelins to overfly water only routes between Berlin/Hamburg/or Frankfurt and NYC. A lot of convoluted routing to avoid "hostile" airspace. Imagine if Italy refused to let British or French overflights? Or if Germany was denied flying over UK and France? I think that favors Zeppelins for Germany and also bigger flying boats as well as longer ranged aircraft generally. That may tie in with a less robust land (paved) airport infrastructure without another war too.

Here is where I mentally have the routes if France, UK, and Italy remain hostile. The Zeppelins have the best range initially and we don't want to climb mountains with these planes. The route to American will run out of Western Germany, down the English channel over international waters, and then spread out to NYC, Rio, and probably a couple of other areas. This also has the side benefit of being able to look down into British naval facilities on a weekly basis as the ships pass down the channel. As fixed wing planes get better or sea planes get better than Zeppelins, we will look for intermediate airports on/near the same route. Spain, Portugal, and the Azores come to mind.

Assuming the Germans hold East Africa, then this route has two possibilities. You don't wan't to climb the elevation of the Balkans or Alps. One solution would be to head out of Berlin to the east of the Carpathians. Then down over the black sea, probably with a stop in Constantinople. Then down the Med, cut across land somewhere down to Red Sea, and follow the coast to German East Africa. Again, airports will develop to support this route once fixed wing airplanes take over. The other possibility would be taking a train to some Zeppelin Dome near the Med, then following the same route.

I also tend to assume these facilities will be dual use facilities. In case of a war with the UK, these are great locations to have squadrons of fighters, torpedo bombers, and glide weapon bombers. The Tel Aviv (or Gaza) airport just happens to be in great location to harass marine traffic using the Suez. Same for any possible airfields near Mecca. Or Dar Es Salaam.

If Kamerun is maintained, it could be serviced by either the English Channel route or eventually a trans african route. Or both. Or neither.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Does Kaizer Whilhelm II remain on the throne?
Does he continue his childhood fascination with Cowes Fleet Week?

If the answer is yes, then German naval aviation would enjoy plenty of funding.
If Willy realizes that battleships are a dying breed, he will shift funding to (successful) U-boats and emerging aircrat carriers. Better funding of U-boats as requires better funding of long-range maritime patrol airplanes to support U-boats.

Meanwhile, the two new aircraft carriers will be valuable to support German colonies. New 'carriers require more scout planes, then torpedo planes and finally interceptors to protect the other planes. Carrier-borne aircraft are especially valuable to "project" German naval influence beyond coast lines.

He lived to 1940 IOTL, so one would expect a couple a decades more rule with at least one decade where he is very active in military matters. Willie is much more likely to stick with big, ego boosting BB. Prince Henry was the naval innovator and the guy who thought outside of the box. He also had a very good war in the Baltic Sea are through 1917, so in a German win, he is likely a national hero. He also had a long naval career having held most major naval commands at one time or another. He probably still dies of cancer around 1929, but he will have a decade to dominate the naval strategy. If he would so choose.
 
Does Kaizer Whilhelm II remain on the throne?
Does he continue his childhood fascination with Cowes Fleet Week?

If the answer is yes, then German naval aviation would enjoy plenty of funding.
If Willy realizes that battleships are a dying breed, he will shift funding to (successful) U-boats and emerging aircrat carriers. Better funding of U-boats as requires better funding of long-range maritime patrol airplanes to support U-boats.

Meanwhile, the two new aircraft carriers will be valuable to support German colonies. New 'carriers require more scout planes, then torpedo planes and finally interceptors to protect the other planes. Carrier-borne aircraft are especially valuable to "project" German naval influence beyond coast lines.
As Blondie said, Wilhelm was big on the battleships. He grew up fascinated with them so letting go would be hard. On the other hand, battleships, while ultimately a dead end and a less effective use of resources than submarines or planes, were still going to be relevant for the next 15 years. Since the other great powers were continuing to build better ships, why wouldn't Germany try to keep up in the 1920's and 30's? Wilhelm's love of battleships might not have resulted in an outcome much different than what would have happened without his input. Additionally, and this one is a bit of a hunch, I think he will probably be more open minded to new ideas and willing to step back if he knows that the British navy is taking interest in it as well.
 
Last edited:
Top