Dornier 19 instead of FW 200

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Same arguments I offered in May.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=243943
For those unfamiliar.


You neglected to say that the tail group needed modification as well as everything else. The strut-braced configuration is very much like that used on the Whitley, and quite poor aerodynamically. I found the max range on internal fuel listed as 994 mi, and max internal bomb load at 1600 kg. Both these figures pale in comparison to the Whitley with twin Merlins. Since most of the aircraft would have to be redesigned, wouldn't it have been better to build it correctly in the first place, and doesn't it mean that the resulting aircraft will bear little resemblance to the original except for the fuselage tube, the same fuselage tube which cannot accommodate more than 1600 kg of bombs internally?

The Jumo 211 engines were in much demand early in the war, and the BMW323 engines had similar power at 10,000 ft altitude.

Goering made the decision to cancel based on industrial capacity and fuel availability. The cancellation of other aircraft which you don't favor, and which did serve various roles, against a possibly viable bomber which could never have been manufactured in quantities required to make a difference, doesn't seem a likely option, even with hindsight.


Just to address a trend, the Do-19 would not compare in performance to the B-17 because it did not use turbo-supercharging. The airplane being discussed is totally mythical, being an extrapolation of something built in a quantity of one. Presuming long range, large bombload, and invincibility to British fighters is ill-founded. German bombers grouped crews closely together and armored the crew area. The Do-19 spread the crew throughout the aircraft, making protection much less effective.
 
The potential extra shipping losses for this are big numbers, meaning a decisive victory for Germany.

Britain will have to respond with drastic countermeasures, curtailing bombing of Germany and committing their fleet carriers to North Atlantic convoy duty meaning they can do less in the med/east africa etc..

A question would be what happens politicially in Germany as a result of this success. Because:

Germany is apparently winning in the North Atlantic, why not increase D019 production, throw these over the North Atlantic, put ME110s and JU88s over the bay of biscay as escorts, night bomb British ports and try to win, push in the med as hard as you can to stress British shipping further. Try to win it all in 1941/early 1942, Delay the attack on the Soviet Union until 1942, sure the Soviets are stronger, but if the British are out, you will be stronger too and will have more allies to help (Turkey?)
 

Deleted member 1487

The potential extra shipping losses for this are big numbers, meaning a decisive victory for Germany.

Britain will have to respond with drastic countermeasures, curtailing bombing of Germany and committing their fleet carriers to North Atlantic convoy duty meaning they can do less in the med/east africa etc..

A question would be what happens politicially in Germany as a result of this success. Because:

Germany is apparently winning in the North Atlantic, why not increase D019 production, throw these over the North Atlantic, put ME110s and JU88s over the bay of biscay as escorts, night bomb British ports and try to win, push in the med as hard as you can to stress British shipping further. Try to win it all in 1941/early 1942, Delay the attack on the Soviet Union until 1942, sure the Soviets are stronger, but if the British are out, you will be stronger too and will have more allies to help (Turkey?)

Bombing the ports is a critical part of the battle. Here is a quote from another forum about the damage of the May 1941 raid on Liverpool that lasted one week (from the UK Civil Series "Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War":
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=178145&start=30

Quite a lot of planning went into this pre-war. Convoying was something which the British in general and the RN in particular were well prepared for. The main problem with convoys, it appears, wasn't so much that all cargo arrived pretty much at once, but rather having it all removed from docks and quays in a timely and orderly manner. Also, the fall of France and the consequent closure of many east and south coast ports had not been anticipated prior to the war.

Even so, congestion issues pertained mainly to evacuation of imported stores, not so much to the ability of ports to handle many ships arriving at once. Particularly the winter of 1940-1941 was something of a crisis period - the Clyde ports being the most congested of all - but many problems were solved administratively by employing port masters with wide-ranging powers.

A major culprit in pre-war planning was the privately-owned railroad companies who had simply operated with traffic averages for their traffic calculations, not realizing or anticipating that only part of their networks would be strained by greatly increased traffic. Again the Clyde ports serve as a good example because their hinterlands weren't as well developed as other west coast ports; stores had to be unloaded from ships, sometimes by lighter, then removed from quays and into storehouses and warehouses, then all the way across Scotland on frequently single-track rail lines, via Gretna and Carlisle down to England over a rail network which had the added burden of having to deal with coal traffic due to port closures and a general shortage of coastal shipping.

The books to get about this highly interesting subject are C. B. A. Behrens Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War, Martin Doughty's Merchant Shipping and War, and also C. I. Savage Inland Transport

At one point there was a ten day wait at Liverpool for oil tankers waiting to discharge, which took 3 days.

Yes, Behrens has something about the May 1941 raids on Liverpool. She recaps a June 1941 Ministory of Home Security report tallying losses in GRT thusly:

Ships totally lost: 39,100 tons
Ships damaged: 40,400 tons
Ships diverted: 83,600 tons
Ships delayed while working: 185,000 tons
Ships needed to replace lost imports: 66,000 tons

For a total of 414,100 GRT of shipping temporarily or permanently lost, or a loss of 26,116,100 ton-days. For a while, Liverpool only had 12 out of 130 berths in operation. (Ammunition ship carrying 1,000 tons of explosives blew up and knocked out over half of Liverpools quays)

However, the Luftwaffe only really began bombing west coast ports in earnest by spring 1941, by which time the 'transport crisis' alluded to above had largely been overcome, and the raids weren't sustained - no doubt because Barbarossa was looming on the horizon.

The damaged ships were especially problematic, because they took an average of 6 weeks to repair (seems to be the average for ships damaged in port bombings) and tied up slip space that could not be used to build new merchant vessels.

In 1940 and 1941 about 2 million tons worth of shipping was damaged and took about an average of 6 weeks to repair, tying up lots of construction slips in Britain that could then not be used to build new ships. According to Behrens, author of the UK Official History of merchant shipping and ports in the war, the damaged hulls were in some ways worse than sunk ships, because of tying up dock space and not being available for shipping. Its the same logic that a wounded soldier is worse than a KIA, as it takes more resources to take care of him and remove him from battle.
Bombing ports cause lots of damage to ships docked for unloading during the war, yet bombing ports was really not attempted on a large scale for a sustained period of time.

The Do19 could provide a serious help by bringing large ordnance in large quantities to the docks. The British used 'cookies' 2 ton bombs to blow the roofs off of houses and building to expose the innards to incendiaries, which had a better chance of starting fires by landing inside buildings, where the combustable substances were. The British determined that incendiaries and fires were 10 times more effective at damaging steel and other goods than High Explosives. So there is going to be a major push to expand Do19 production early for port raids if the strategy against Britain is a tonnage/trade war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a question for you. Short of butterflying away Wever's death who could replace Wever that might push forward a 4 engine bomber type? Key about Wever I get isn't so much his vision, that was important, but also he was a good staff officer and he tried to balance the chaos of early expansion of the Luftwaffe.

Michael
 
Easiest way to give the LW a credible long range maritime capability is by having them buy some SM79II before May 1940. The Italians always put foreign customers first and it keeps Dornier free for their OTL commitments.
 
Here is a question for you. Short of butterflying away Wever's death who could replace Wever that might push forward a 4 engine bomber type? Key about Wever I get isn't so much his vision, that was important, but also he was a good staff officer and he tried to balance the chaos of early expansion of the Luftwaffe.

Michael

theo osterkamp
 
Every two months

Is just me, or do we have the exact same LW maritime aircraft discussion every two months?
 
theo osterkamp

Why? From his German wiki, he left the Imperial Navy after WW1 and was in private industry. He doesn't return to military service till 1933, his staff experience doesn't come about till well after the war starts. What makes him a better choice over Albert Kesselring who before being seconded to the Luftwaffe was a Lt. Col and had some staff experience even if no formal war college training. Osterkamp was a major, in 1936. It would be a massive out of zone promotion to move him up to general rank.

Sorry I don't see this choice making any sense.

Michael
 
I enjoy air power threads and these Luftwaffe threads in particular. Fixing the underperforming Luftwaffe early is one of the few PODs that give the Germans a chance at winning (or maybe hanging around significantly longer) and making a significant change from history.

The General Wever living scenerio is used a lot because its a convienient early POD. but I wonder if he lived if he would be caught up in the swamp that is Nazi Germany politics and many of the same problems would persist.

As far as the Allies, well their aircraft were already pretty good and they won anyway so "fixing" them is less interesting. Though, some more French air force ATL would be interesting though since they also seemed to underachieve.

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

As far as this thread. I believe the Germans do much better against shipping, so the British are forced to get lazy in the bombing campaign, and in the med and middle east since they need the fleet carriers and some destroyers for the Atlantic. This allows the Italians to get away with their parallel war longer, keeping the Germans out of this area and since the Italians have limitations, nothing really happens here for a while (which is ok for Britain). Which leads to 2 paths:

A)

Since the British are on their heels through 41, the Germans can concentrate a bit more in the Soviet Union in 1941, using the DAK on the Eastern Front someplace.

The Allied counter offensive is delayed meaning the Germans get distracted less from the eastern front in late 42, early 43. Best case the Germans get in a position they can force some sort of peace on the Soviets.

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

B)

The Germans are in it to win it in 1941 against Britain, and would be winning the battle of the slopes and curves of the submarine war, USA entry happens in 42 however and after a rough 1942 - 1943 the Allies can start thinking about invasions in Europe but not before 1944 and maybe 1945. As soon as the Allies are on the ground in France, the Soviets join in.
 
Why? From his German wiki, he left the Imperial Navy after WW1 and was in private industry. He doesn't return to military service till 1933, his staff experience doesn't come about till well after the war starts. What makes him a better choice over Albert Kesselring who before being seconded to the Luftwaffe was a Lt. Col and had some staff experience even if no formal war college training. Osterkamp was a major, in 1936. It would be a massive out of zone promotion to move him up to general rank.

Sorry I don't see this choice making any sense.

Michael

Kesselring didn't play nice with Milch which is why he was only COS for 10 minutes

Milch and Goering loved Osterkamp; he was picked to run the secret German fighter school in Lipetsk in Russia when the LW was still under wraps; it wouldn't be the first time in nazi germany that someone with no experience or limited experience was promoted to general officer rank
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Supposedly the Condors sank about 360,000 tons of shipping by themselves by picking off single ships that didn't want to convoy or fell behind. Of course those numbers have been challenged, so for the sake of argument, let's say about 150k tons of shipping to the Condors.
Plus until 1941 B-dienst had cracked the convoy codes, so knew when and where the convoys were supposed to be. Of course they zig-zagged, so the Uboats with their limited spotting range often missed them in this period, even though they posted up where the convoys were supposed to be. They also had a hard time assembling Wolf Packs, but when they did, the Uboats were brutally successful in this period. With 100 Do19s with less accidents and greater serviceability, they could easily double or triple interceptions and Wolf Packs. Especially in the early period with minimal escorts the Uboats could sink entire convoys with surface attacks at night. The Do19 could also target the escorting ships and help pick them off.

You should probably start with the base of 360K and then make adjustments. The first will be that 3 times as many planes will not be 3 times as effective due to the tendency to hunt high return areas first and less profitable areas second (less active sea lanes, closer to land base fighters, cloudier, etc). So say the lost effectiveness is 15%, so you get about 2.5 times the kills for 3 times the airplanes. Up to a certain level, the UK will not react, then they will react strongly. You then will have to figure out how much the extra UK reaction helps reduce losses. At first blush, it might be up to 900K units sunk by air (540K more). I don't see this as a war winner, but you will have to decide what is lost because it is enough to effect some battle somewhere in a large way. If we assume the UK reacts somewhat effectively, I would guess it will be more in the 300-400K extra lost tons.

I don't think you will get anywhere near the 2.5 to 3 times as much sunk by U-boats. There are several issues that lower effectiveness.

1) Even with the airplane spotting the convoy and accurately relaying the information to the U-boats, they may be unable to intercept due to the distance and limited speed advantage of the U-boat.

2) As you get a lot more effective, you will start eliminating targets. You will find situations where a ship in OTL was sunk by U-boat XXX, but with better air information was sunk by U-boat YYY a few days earlier.

3) The UK will take a series of reaction steps faster than OTL. Stripping bombers from bomber command to hunt for submarines, use of carriers as escorts, cancelling other operations using escort ships, reroute convoy's to limit effectiveness of the airpower. It is not that this happens immediately, but it happens well before losses reach 2.5 times OTL.

I would wager that 1.5 to 1.75 more effective is closer to what the U-boats can achieve. Since OTL it looks like 300K to 400K was a common number, we are probably talking less than 200K extra a month or 2.4 million per year. Combined with the extra airplanes, we might be talking 2.8 million per month. In many ways it is crippling to the UK, but unless you skip attacking Russia in your ATL, the UK does not appear to be knocked out. I can see it setting the UK back a good bit, maybe even a year, but I don't see the critical change at first blush. Egypt can be supplied through the Indian Ocean which will not be effected much by your changes. Rommel is stopped. Good chance Torch is cancelled because the UK will be begging for escorts and carriers. I see it helping Italy a good bit, and they might even be able to own the Med Sea. Maybe even the UK falls back to the Suez as its defensive line.
 
Goering POD

As anyone ever used a POD were Goering, instead of being a fighter ace in WW1, makes his name flying Gotha long range bombers, and from then on sticks to political events as in OTL, but his experience makes him sponsor advocates of long range heavy bombers over tactical aircraft defenders?
 
Kesselring didn't play nice with Milch which is why he was only COS for 10 minutes

10 months, which is enough time to kill the Do-19.

Milch and Goering loved Osterkamp; he was picked to run the secret German fighter school in Lipetsk in Russia when the LW was still under wraps; it wouldn't be the first time in nazi germany that someone with no experience or limited experience was promoted to general officer rank

So we go from the highly trained Wever to the liked but inexperienced Osterkamp? What is the upside?

Second I am having trouble seeing the jump from Major to General here. Who else did they jump so highly as you suggest?



Michael
 
10 months, which is enough time to kill the Do-19.



So we go from the highly trained Wever to the liked but inexperienced Osterkamp? What is the upside?

Second I am having trouble seeing the jump from Major to General here. Who else did they jump so highly as you suggest?



Michael

Goering and Milch themselves were promoted in such a way

and LW COS at least then didn't require you to be FM... Wever did most things as a one and later two star general

inexperienced is relative... Wever was a trained staff officer but he wasn't in the airforce in WW1 where Osterkamp had flown hundreds of missions and by 35/36 had squadron and gruppen command experience as well as staff and organizational experience from the secret flight school in Lipetsk he was running

osterkamp is upside because Milch and Goering loved him which means limited conflict... he also had flown dozens of missions against the UK and knew the difficulties of projecting airpower against them; plus as a highly decorated combat veteran he would be heavily respected by all of his subordinates and fliers and squash any end around attempts to undermine his authority
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Second I am having trouble seeing the jump from Major to General here. Who else did they jump so highly as you suggest?

Rommel. It take connections, but he went from Major in 1932 to Major General in 1939. Donitz went from Commander in 1933 to Rear Admiral in 1939. Himmler went from unemployed and living with his parents (1925) to Reichfuhrer in five years (1929).

A lot of the logistical issues in Russia relate to the tendency of the officers to have skipped staff work. They often had company level experience in WW1. Then a military gap, then battalion level experience in mid 1930's. to corp/army/army group commanders by mid 1942. Today the USA takes 25 years to get a Division commander. A lot of the Nazi commanders had less than 12 years by mid 1942 (4 or so WW1, 5 prewar, 3 in war), and it showed. The jobs as staff officers at the regimental, then division, then corp level was simply missing. And these are the commanders I am looking up. The true staff officers had even less experience.
 

Deleted member 1487

Egypt can be supplied through the Indian Ocean which will not be effected much by your changes. Rommel is stopped. Good chance Torch is cancelled because the UK will be begging for escorts and carriers. I see it helping Italy a good bit, and they might even be able to own the Med Sea. Maybe even the UK falls back to the Suez as its defensive line.

The African front was supplied from Britain. Sinking more shipping limits the shipping that is available for that front, as keeping the home isles alive is the main goal, Africa could end up short changed. Not only that, but if ports are bombed in a sustained fashion then there won't be places to export from, which means again that Africa is short changed.

Beyond that one of the facets of a trade war is the destruction of goods and materials. Sinking the hulls is nice, but if the goods can be destroyed then money and another voyage is needed to replace the lost items. Imports and exports can be destroyed in the warehouses of the docks, which then requires replacement either from dwindling financial resources for imports, or from dwindling resource stockpiles for exports. As imports of critical raw materials start to dry up through sinking of ships and bombing of ports, then production for the army or colonial battles will dwindle and find itself transfered to more critical sectors, like nightfighters, day fighters, and patrol aircraft, not to mention escorts or rebuilding materials for ports.

How much supply for Africa came from India? I think the majority came from Britain. That's not to say that the Italians are capable of winning there on their own, but that Britain won't be able to launch an offensive without UK supplies/support.
 

Deleted member 1487

Goering and Milch themselves were promoted in such a way

and LW COS at least then didn't require you to be FM... Wever did most things as a one and later two star general

inexperienced is relative... Wever was a trained staff officer but he wasn't in the airforce in WW1 where Osterkamp had flown hundreds of missions and by 35/36 had squadron and gruppen command experience as well as staff and organizational experience from the secret flight school in Lipetsk he was running

osterkamp is upside because Milch and Goering loved him which means limited conflict... he also had flown dozens of missions against the UK and knew the difficulties of projecting airpower against them; plus as a highly decorated combat veteran he would be heavily respected by all of his subordinates and fliers and squash any end around attempts to undermine his authority

Goering and Milch aren't the best examples. Goering was a political appointment and received his military rank based on being a high ranking cabinet member; initially the Luftwaffe was not a separate organization from the RLM, so technically he was just the minister for aviation, which meant he was also in charge of military aviation through his ministry. When he decided to break the two organizations up he was then technically a military commander, which he wasn't exactly before.

Milch too wasn't really a military officer in the RLM. He was a government official as the under state secretary for aviation. Yes he had rank, as he dealt with military aviation in his duties, but he wasn't 'promoted' because of his military experience, but rather his production/management experience as head of Lufthansa. Still, he wasn't technically a military authority and was only really involved in production matters, no matter how much he styled himself a military officer.

And Wever had lots of help from the ultra-experienced and politically toxic because of his Jewish heritage Helmuth Wilberg. Wilberg was the aviation von Seeckt. He had Wever's job until Hitler came to power. Thereafter he wrote the Luftkriegführung, Luftwaffe doctrine, for Wever and then ran the Condor Legion from Germany with a special staff, Sonderstab W (for Wilberg), that he was asked to construct and run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–1945)
Another prominent figure in German air power construction this time was Helmuth Wilberg. Wilberg was to play a large role in the development of German air doctrine. Having headed the Reichswehr air staff for eight years in the 1920s, Wilberg had considerable experience and was ideal for a senior staff position.[5] Göring considered making Wilberg Chief of Staff (CS). However, it was revealed Wilberg had a Jewish mother. For that reason Göring could not have him as CS. Not wishing his talent to go to waste, Göring ensured the racial laws of the Third Reich did not apply to him. Wilberg remained in the air staff and helped draw up the principle doctrine The Conduct of the Aerial War and its Regulation 16 under Walther Wever.[6][7]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Wilberg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Goering and Milch themselves were promoted in such a way

Goering was a pure political appointment. Milch had way better private sector connections and experience than this guy.


and LW COS at least then didn't require you to be FM... Wever did most things as a one and later two star general

inexperienced is relative... Wever was a trained staff officer but he wasn't in the airforce in WW1 where Osterkamp had flown hundreds of missions and by 35/36 had squadron and gruppen command experience as well as staff and organizational experience from the secret flight school in Lipetsk he was running

I see NO staff experience or training. I see command experience, very different things. Goering had command experience for that matter in WW1 but he never climbed higher than Captain. I repeat, the guy was a Major in 1936. There are no stints at General Staff for Osterkamp, no war collage training. Sticking him into chief of staff slot sounds like a disaster in the making.

osterkamp is upside because Milch and Goering loved him which means limited conflict... he also had flown dozens of missions against the UK and knew the difficulties of projecting airpower against them; plus as a highly decorated combat veteran he would be heavily respected by all of his subordinates and fliers and squash any end around attempts to undermine his authority


Lets assume all of what you say here is true, I am still waiting for proof he had the training or expiring to do the actual job of chief of staff for a rapidly expanding service.

Michael
 
Top