less airpower

[Ravenflight]

Hi All,

Another thread got me to thinking, what would be required to have airpower play a much lesser role (particularly naval airpower) in WWII (particularly in the pacific, as it wasn't huge in the Europe anyway).

I think any deviation from OTL would require a reduction in the effectiveness of airpower altogether (difficult) but I think there is a means by which naval airpower could be limited by such things as less effect of airpower in the early war.

Thoughts?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Unless you moved the Pacific War up a few years I doubt you will be able to mitigate the importance of airpower. Also considering that airpower did play a significant role in the European Theater I would question your interpretation of the Second World War.

 

[Ryan]

the only way to lessen airpowers role is to either have the war earlier or to slow the progress of airpower technology so it's less advanced by the time the war happens.

 

[Ravenflight]

Unless you moved the Pacific War up a few years I doubt you will be able to mitigate the importance of airpower. Also considering that airpower did play a significant role in the European Theater I would question your interpretation of the Second World War.

I'm not saying that the European Theatre wasn't affected by airpower, I'm saying that the European Theatre wasn't AS affected by NAVAL airpower. Naval Airpower was mostly a Pacific thing, so any improvement on European airpower was as a spillover from lessons learned in the Pacific.

That's not to say that the lessons learned on land wouldn't be put into practice at sea, but I'm thinking of the Battleship making way to the Aircraft carrier. Even during the war Battleships were still being produced, even though they had had their day. Would there be a way of making battleships survive as the prime power in both the Atlantic and Pacific with airpower being more of a side show?

 

[Lindseyman]

Nobody invents the catapult? Then carrier planes have to be slower (and smaller?) to be able to take off and land safely. Mind you this wouldn't affect the Swordfish that much!

 

[Torqumada]

What WW2 era carrier aircraft were launched by catapult? None that I know of.

Torqumada

 

[zert]

What WW2 era carrier aircraft were launched by catapult? None that I know of.

Torqumada

Some of the scout planes also used on battleships and cruisers.

 

[MattII]

If you can stop the development of the Hall–Héroult process for refining anuminium from ore, you can keep aluminium at a comparable price to silver, which will seriously impede the development of early aircraft due yo their having to use steel for their engine-blocks.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I'm not saying that the European Theatre wasn't affected by airpower, I'm saying that the European Theatre wasn't AS affected by NAVAL airpower. Naval Airpower was mostly a Pacific thing, so any improvement on European airpower was as a spillover from lessons learned in the Pacific.

That's not to say that the lessons learned on land wouldn't be put into practice at sea, but I'm thinking of the Battleship making way to the Aircraft carrier. Even during the war Battleships were still being produced, even though they had had their day. Would there be a way of making battleships survive as the prime power in both the Atlantic and Pacific with airpower being more of a side show?

I'm thinking you need to go the other direction with technology. Battleship might continue on if it better anti-air defenses. Maybe computer aided targeting for anti-air guns like they had for their main batteries. This could be completely ASB for all i know.

The thing is, you had guys like Billy Mitchell trying to prove the effectiveness of air power vs ships back in 1920. So, short of giving the battleship better anti-air capabilities, there obsolesence seems rather inevitable.

 

[Torqumada]

Some of the scout planes also used on battleships and cruisers.

And what does that have to do with the non catapult planes launched from carriers? It wasn't until the jet age that you needed catapults to help launch the planes.

Torqumada

 

[zert]

And what does that have to do with the non catapult planes launched from carriers? It wasn't until the jet age that you needed catapults to help launch the planes.

Torqumada

Not much, I was just answering your question. There was also the flywheel catapult installed on some of the US carriers. True they were rarely used, but they were there.

 

[Ravenflight]

I'm thinking you need to go the other direction with technology. Battleship might continue on if it better anti-air defenses. Maybe computer aided targeting for anti-air guns like they had for their main batteries. This could be completely ASB for all i know.

The thing is, you had guys like Billy Mitchell trying to prove the effectiveness of air power vs ships back in 1920. So, short of giving the battleship better anti-air capabilities, there obsolesence seems rather inevitable.

This is an interesting consideration.

I know that the Iowa class had independant radar for each of their main guns. That was of course to target surface ships, but having something similar for anti air is certainly interesting.

I don't know anything about the targetting used by the B-29 for their remote turrets (anyone?) and have always been interested but haven't got around to reading up on it.

You might be onto something there TO91320... like nipping airpower in the bud before it develops into something. Maybe combining Matt-II's idea as well? I don't like doing that - as soon as you get two changes to a timeline without a reason it starts sounding like ASB territory.

 

[MattII]

Well if you can quash aircraft for the most part (I don't think you could make a really good aircraft engine with steel, it would surely be too heavy), then you probably wouldn't need to rework battleships' armaments. Of course writing convincing deaths for at least two people is more difficult than just a single one, but if it can be done well, then why not?

 

[Ravenflight]

Of course writing convincing deaths for at least two people is more difficult than just a single one, but if it can be done well, then why not?

Automobile accident - they crash into one another

 

[zert]

Without better airplanes, could there still be improvements in LTA airships to still give a fleet long range scouting but without any meaningful bomb load?

 

[Jukra]

Another thread got me to thinking, what would be required to have airpower play a much lesser role (particularly naval airpower) in WWII (particularly in the pacific, as it wasn't huge in the Europe anyway).

First World War lasts a year longer due to X and Y. In 1919 there are three inventions taken into use which make a deep impact upon public consciousness of the war. First was the sinking of USS New York and USS Texas in September 1919 by Zeppelin deployed guided bombs. This was a deep shock for naval leaderships worldwide, but particularly for the US Navy.

Second shock was the raid by RAF employing Handley-Page V/1500's on Berlin on October 1919 using gas bombs. While strategic air power spokesmen credit the German decision to start armistice talks on this alone, in minds of public this just strengthened the image of apocalyptic effects of air bombings. Heroic downing of one bomber by one Herrman Göring by ramming instituted a belief upon one generation of airmen that bomber should not allowed to get through.

Third shock was the sinking of SMS Baden by British magnetic mines deployed with submarines.

First and third shocks pressed home the idea that future weapons will employ electronics, second one that a defense against air threat was of vital national importance.

The US Navy made air defence it's primary religion and the US Government was surprisingly happy to spend meager defense funds on newly found radio industry. Other major powers watched, evaluated and stoled the new inventions.

By mid 1930's all major powers had radar guided air defence networks employing capable all weather interceptors. VT fuzes were coming into service and while German AA missiles were first to come to service they were just first ones in the wave.

Development of offensive aerial weapons lagged slightly behind. "Bomber will not get through" was a widely believed dogma during 1930's. Any large bomber was believed to be far too heavy and too expensive to be procured in large numbers except by largest powers which did purchase them. New stand-off weapons being developed would naturally cure some of the problems.

 

[MattII]

Automobile accident - they crash into one another

Two men in different countries (hells, on different continents), and working in the 1880s, which was about the time that the Benz Patent-Motorwagen came on the scene. Of course given that both were born in 1863, then it would be easy enough for, say, childhood illnesses to do the job...

Without better airplanes, could there still be improvements in LTA airships to still give a fleet long range scouting but without any meaningful bomb load?

Quite possibly, I mean there is some potential there, although again, with steel engine-blocks your workable bomb-load is probably best described as limited anyway, so ditching that to gain a bit of extra performance doesn't seem too big a trade-off.

 

[mudhead]

Hi All,

what would be required to have airpower play a much lesser role (particularly naval airpower) in WWII (particularly in the pacific
Thoughts?

To limit it strictly to the Pacific, simply have each side lose more carriers quickly - at Pearl, or any different engagements ITTL. Then you'd be limited to shore-based air, plus whatever aircraft cruisers and battleships could carry (there were some experiments fitting Fletcher-class DDs with floatplanes: 3 were built with a catapult fitted instead of No3 turret and one bank of TTs, but they weren't a success - ITTL they might try harder).

For the first year or so, you could have an entirely different situation, with both sides trying to bring the other to a gun action, so a greater number of Solomons Islands type engagements.

From late '42 onwards the Essex and Independence classes would be appearing, in opposion to whatever the IJN could put up, and things could become much as they really were.

Possible butterfly: the 8th and 15th AF buildups in the ETO are delayed, as LR aircraft are needed in the Pacific for reconnaissance and strike.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

I'm thinking you need to go the other direction with technology. Battleship might continue on if it better anti-air defenses. Maybe computer aided targeting for anti-air guns like they had for their main batteries. This could be completely ASB for all i know.

The thing is, you had guys like Billy Mitchell trying to prove the effectiveness of air power vs ships back in 1920. So, short of giving the battleship better anti-air capabilities, there obsolesence seems rather inevitable.

Maybe have effective SAMs invented and put into service before WWII?

 

[sharlin]

The thing is, you had guys like Billy Mitchell trying to prove the effectiveness of air power vs ships back in 1920. So, short of giving the battleship better anti-air capabilities, there obsolesence seems rather inevitable.

What you need to do is have Billy's 'tests' be fair. Have the ships under radio control and moving, have them set at action stations, not have every bulkhead and door open to help the flow of water.