Nazi Helicopters at Kursk

[Tony Williams]

That is true, but it doesn't alter the basic fact that even the best modern attack helos are far less effective than a purpose-designed fixed-wing CAS plane. The same was true to a vastly greater extent in WW2, given the marginal performance of the helos.

TW

 

[Tielhard]

"WI: Nazi helicopters make a surprise appearance at the Battle of Kursk, and they have some primitive anti-tank capability. They don't have to be terribly effective, but they do some damage and cause the Soviet push to slow down, at least temporarily...."

I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that I think I can get you a significant German helicopter force at Kursk and something that behaves not unlike air cavalry without getting completely into ASB land. The bad news is that they will make naff all difference and you are really not going to like it!

POD: Igor Sikorski does not emigrate to France during the Bolshevik revolution because someone in either the military or Bolshevik government, Trotsky, lets say, is made aware of his work and sees the potential of the helicopter to move troops around a huge country with few roads, and in the east few settlements.

In our time-line Sikorski removes first to France and the to the USA in 1919. Once there he spends many years working on other things until the late 1930s when he returns to helicopters. Suppose that he stays in Russia and the Bolsheviks have him funded and supported from 1917-8. Bearing in mind that the state of engineering is more primitive in 1917 than it was is 1939 assume it takes him 10 years to get something workable and another couple of years to get a production helicopter this puts the date around 1929. Which give the military about 12 years of peace and a few small wars to put together a doctrine on how to use helicopters in combat. This is less time than the USA had to sort things out before Vietnam but not a lot less.

If you don’t like using Sikorski, then we could consider Zhukovskii’s work taking a more practical bent or we could give Yuriey a similar opportunity to the one we just gave Sikorski.

So what sort of helicopters are we going to get? As we are not using gas turbines and the object of the exercise is to move troops about I suspect we are looking at a large twin engine twin rotor initially mounted laterally then later fore and aft, a very primitive Chinook or a larger Belvedere. . I would anticipate that due to the primitive nature of the helicopters they will not initially be used for opposed landings, they will be used to move around opposition so initially they may not be armed or only lightly armed. As the Soviets develop a rudimentary air cavalry concept they will begin to be armed and given their taste for rockets in WWII I would anticipate the things get armed with some primitive rocket pods and side machine guns, maybe a cannon in the front. They may get armoured. During WWII they get the T34 treatment, everything is simplified so that they can be made as quickly and simply as possible

At some point they get around to using them as MOPs, AOPs and later in the close air support co-ordination role. I would suspect they will still be using twin rotors for this work. At some point they start to get used to co-ordinate attacks by Sturmoviks, the WWII A10.

The Soviets have an opportunity to test their ideas in relative obscurity during the war in Mongolia against the Japanese. Then we can either have them making a significant impact on the Winter war or not being used in the Winter war for fear of being evaluated by the Germans and the rest of the west. In the former case the Germans step up their own helicopter development as a result of the stunning way in which the Soviets outflanked the Mannerhiem line using the helicopters. However, they also reach very different conclusions regarding Soviet military capabilities and decide against invading in the first place! So no Kusk. Instead we employ the later possibility.

The Germans invade the Soviet Union on schedule and the Soviet armies are routed as in our time-line. The advancing Germans find many damaged helicopters at airfields which have been bombed. At the time they are unimpressed, as they have not seen a working example. Then the Germans suffer a number of localised but very successful interdictions of their logistics train using air cavalry. The damaged helicopters are then sent back to Germany for evaluation. The Germans, who already have a promising helicopter programme, change the engines for gas turbines getting greatly increased performance and make other smaller changes. They begin to use helicopters quite successfully in a similar way to the way they have seen the Soviets use them, as air cavalry.

At the battle of Kursk they have better, but far fewer helicopters than the Soviets which they use as air cavalry. The Soviets on the other hand use them as air cavalry, for observation and artillery direction and for close co-ordination of Sturmovik attacks. In this alternative time-line Kusk is even worse for the Germans.

 

[Tony Williams]

If you just want to use helos as transports, to move troops around the battlefield, there were other ways of achieving the same ends - paradrops and gliders. They have pros and cons but they will both deliver far larger numbers of troops than a similar number of helos - more quickly, over longer ranges and more cheaply.

The Russians did have some large and powerful autogyros which give you most of the advantages of helos, but again they didn't make much use of them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Now that sounds very intriguing as I wasn't aware of such a jet replacement for the Stuka. As far as I knew, there was the Arado Blitz bomber & the Me 262, which where around from mid 1944 onwards, but both are far too late in service to effect the outcome of Kursk.

So please tell us a bit about this Stuka "jet" replacement.

I have seen it only as a diagram on one of the History Channel's shows about jets in WWII. Quite possibly, it was designed and never built. It showed a plane with short, straight wings and two jet engines mounted on both sides of the tail. Whether it would have performed like the A10 is unknown to me, but the show said it was designed to do what the Stuka did, (ie ground support) only better.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

How would total Control of the Air around Kursk for the Germans, allowed the Germany to win the battle of Kursk?

Well, first of all the German CAS could have operated freely AND the recon planes might give the Germans a far better view of what the Soviets are up to. Basically, the Germans have better control of the battlefield and will be able to interdict the Soviet Reserve Tank Army when it begin to move into action and most likely not blunder into it by accident as in OTL, but actually hit them were it hurts. Kursk could end in a narrow German victory. Not that it would change much, I think.

And if the Helicoper were used to attack bridges and railway lines and command and communication centers would that had changed the development of hellicopers after the war?

I think that at this point in time, Stukas and Panzerknäckers etc etc will be more efficient in that role. I don't believe you can armour and arm helicopters sufficiently with the means available in the 40's. As air cav and transports for wounded ala Korea and early Viet Nam helicopetrs might see more use, though (see below).

That is true, but it doesn't alter the basic fact that even the best modern attack helos are far less effective than a purpose-designed fixed-wing CAS plane. The same was true to a vastly greater extent in WW2, given the marginal performance of the helos.

Hmm, I think that's like comparing appels to oranges, Tony. While you're right, the circumstance under which the two types of weapon systems were designed to opperate differ somewhat. The AH-64 was designed to slow the advancing Soviet Tank formations down by sneaky hit and run tactics from ambush positions, while the F-R A-10 is a Ground Attack Plane and thus need some amount of "safety". Flying the A-10 aganist a Soviet armoured formation, moving forward through Germany under a constested, if not downright hostile sky would be suicidal, while the AH-64 most likey could get away with it. Armoured and well-protected as it is (angainst up to 20mm or so, right?), the old Warthog can't withstand SAMs. Of course, nor can the Apache, but it is less likely to be spotted in the first palce.

The appearence of the A-10 as devastatingly effective more or less stems from the Gulf Wars where air superiory was guaranteed and the AAA of the Iraqis were, hm, below par so to say.

I suppose, one also could say the a helicopter like the Apache is more versatile than a CAS/GA plane ala the A-10.

POD: Igor Sikorski does not emigrate to France during the Bolshevik revolution (...)

You don't need old Igor, Tielhard. The Soviets had plenty of helicopter profets of their very own. Just have one of them capture Stalins eye or perhaps Tjukachevskij before he got executed and you might get Soviet helicopters in numbers.

One thing a nazi helicopter ala the Drache could have been used in was heliborn anti-partisan operations in and around the Pripjet Marshes and elsewhere in the USSR, and I suppose the Balkans along with Norway and France. If the terrain is diffcult, the land wast and manpower levels low, heliborn operations are a good way to extract the most of your meager resources.

Helicopters truly became important when jet aircraft got universal. Many WW2 prop planes had a very limited need for runways, whereas a jet usually need a fairly long runway and a good one too. German Storchs and Ju-52's could almost land everywhere, so the need for helicopters where less pronounced.

My regards!

- Mr.B.

 

[Tony Williams]

Hmm, I think that's like comparing appels to oranges, Tony. While you're right, the circumstance under which the two types of weapon systems were designed to opperate differ somewhat. The AH-64 was designed to slow the advancing Soviet Tank formations down by sneaky hit and run tactics from ambush positions, while the F-R A-10 is a Ground Attack Plane and thus need some amount of "safety". Flying the A-10 aganist a Soviet armoured formation, moving forward through Germany under a constested, if not downright hostile sky would be suicidal, while the AH-64 most likey could get away with it. Armoured and well-protected as it is (angainst up to 20mm or so, right?), the old Warthog can't withstand SAMs. Of course, nor can the Apache, but it is less likely to be spotted in the first palce.

The appearence of the A-10 as devastatingly effective more or less stems from the Gulf Wars where air superiory was guaranteed and the AAA of the Iraqis were, hm, below par so to say.

I suppose, one also could say the a helicopter like the Apache is more versatile than a CAS/GA plane ala the A-10.

An interesting point, but the A-10's tactics in the Gulf Wars were, I believe, not those they would have used in 'WW3'. There they would have operated at very low level, like the AH-64. They would have been more vulnerable in some respects, less so in others - in particular, their far greater speed and resistance to damage would have made them pretty well immune to the kind of unsophisticated small-calibre AA fire which caused an entire unit of AH-64s to turn back from their mission with various degrees of damage. And the A-10 has a vastly greater payload/range, as well as a far more effective gun.

However, all of this is moot. The fact is that WW2 helos had enough difficulty lifting themselves into the air even for short distances, let alone a gun of any size, let alone armour. The technology wasn't mature enough for an armed helo for at least a decade after the end of WW2.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

(...) their far greater speed and resistance to damage would have made them pretty well immune to the kind of unsophisticated small-calibre AA fire which caused an entire unit of AH-64s to turn back from their mission with various degrees of damage.

True enough, but that mission especially was not according to doctrine, meaning that it was not the intended use of the AH-64 either, so it's hard to draw lessons from that encounter. It seems to me that the AH-64's in Iraq nowadays are used to control and/or patrol a given area, which naturally make them more vulnerable as they are in the open, not sneaking around taking pot shots at the enemy, so to say.

However, all of this is moot. The fact is that WW2 helos had enough difficulty lifting themselves into the air even for short distances, let alone a gun of any size, let alone armour. The technology wasn't mature enough for an armed helo for at least a decade after the end of WW2.

Good points, Tony, and I agree!

Best regards!

- B.

 

[The Saint]

If the Germans had a better view of the battlefield, they'd have seen that if they simply flanked around the salient, they'd have been between Zukov and Moscow--and they'd have had a clear shot at the capital. If Moscow falls, Russia falls.

If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, could Moscow realistically have fallen in 1943?

Could a land version towed Fa 330 with a 1000' ceiling have helped the German's recce?
http://uboat.net/technical/bachstelze.htm

 

[Redbeard]

If you just want to use helos as transports, to move troops around the battlefield, there were other ways of achieving the same ends - paradrops and gliders. They have pros and cons but they will both deliver far larger numbers of troops than a similar number of helos - more quickly, over longer ranges and more cheaply.

The Russians did have some large and powerful autogyros which give you most of the advantages of helos, but again they didn't make much use of them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I wonder why STOL planes weren't developed and used for landing combat formations. I guess it would be possible to have a plane powered by a 1000-1200 hp engine (a la P&W Twin Wasp) to carry a ton (a squad), land safely and take off again (a ton lighter) - I imagine something like a Lysander on steroids. Speed would of course be slow, but such operations would anyway require total air superiority. A STOL plane would however appear to be more surviveable than a glider and have a better chance of dropping the troops at a the right place than either gliders or paradrop.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard