Radar delayed for some years.

Marc

Donor
Just a simple late night thought. Let's say that Heinrich Hertz for whatever reason doesn't do his critical work on electromagnetic radiation, and the process of developing radar is say, 5-10 years behind.
I can imagine that the consequences would be profound.
 

trurle

Banned
Just a simple late night thought. Let's say that Heinrich Hertz for whatever reason doesn't do his critical work on electromagnetic radiation, and the process of developing radar is say, 5-10 years behind.
I can imagine that the consequences would be profound.
5-10 years behind when? The delay will progressively shrink as you move into future, because better available tools will gradually reduce radar R&D costs.
Overall, more drawn-out wars, and better telephone networks are expected. Also, DIY radars will be eventually more common compared to OTL, due to explosive proliferation of radar uses when the radars will be discovered after all.
 

Marc

Donor
5-10 years behind when? The delay will progressively shrink as you move into future, because better available tools will gradually reduce radar R&D costs.
Overall, more drawn-out wars, and better telephone networks are expected. Also, DIY radars will be eventually more common compared to OTL, due to explosive proliferation of radar uses when the radars will be discovered after all.

10 years behind the real historical implementation. By 1939 there hasn't been any work done on radio detection systems; at best, some back of the envelope speculations.
Actually, to expand a little on the notion - radio as a technology in general likely would be at the circa 1930 level in this scenario by the 1940's.

It's interesting that we generally don't think much about the variability of technological progress, and when we do it is mostly in earlier, not later developments.
 

Deleted member 1487

Assuming it is 5 years behind in 1939 and there hasn't been any serious butterflies...the RAF is in serious trouble in 1940. Not sure what other effect you thought was going to result.
 
a) Graf Spee used its radar to avoid interception on it cruise, might be intercepted here.
b) I would think that the RAF is going to pull back north of London, disperse and preserve strength. Invasion would still be problematic but the Germans can cause a lot of damage for a lot less losses. Lots of extra aircraft (hundreds) for Barbarossa and/or the Med.
c) 1942 sea battles in the Solomons go the Japanese way.
 

Deleted member 1487

b) I would think that the RAF is going to pull back north of London, disperse and preserve strength. Invasion would still be problematic but the Germans can cause a lot of damage for a lot less losses. Lots of extra aircraft (hundreds) for Barbarossa and/or the Med.
The only way that is happening is if the RAF is defeated first, as without radar that makes them too ineffectual to really matter. Then the question is whether the British would deal if the RAF is defeated over Britain in 1940 (i.e. had taken crippling losses and had to pull back north of London to recuperate leaving England largely undefended from the air).
 
The only way that is happening is if the RAF is defeated first, as without radar that makes them too ineffectual to really matter. Then the question is whether the British would deal if the RAF is defeated over Britain in 1940 (i.e. had taken crippling losses and had to pull back north of London to recuperate leaving England largely undefended from the air).
Cuts both ways. We are back to eggshells with sledgehammers. At least over England there are some obvious targets and some kind of CAP can be maintained. Then there are the natural modifiers of being over home ground. If nothing else the returning bombers are going to get cut up.


At sea. Hehehehehehehehehehehe. Sorry. You can't run an effective CAP and what you can run is too easily misdirected. We are back to huge strike wings with minimal fighters. I guess we will get to hear why armored decks are awesome and wooden decks aren't ;)
 

Deleted member 1487

Cuts both ways. We are back to eggshells with sledgehammers. At least over England there are some obvious targets and some kind of CAP can be maintained. Then there are the natural modifiers of being over home ground. If nothing else the returning bombers are going to get cut up.
How? The RAF was in a bad way after the huge losses in France (around 1000 aircraft and over 1500 personnel), starting the BoB with fewer fighters and pilots than the Luftwaffe. Maintaining a CAP is going to be impossible and fatal if tried.
Returning bombers won't necessarily be cut up if their locations aren't known with any sort of certainty and RAF bases in southern England are too dangerous to use.

Per Britain's own war museum:
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-radar-gave-britain-the-edge-in-the-battle-of-britain
Radar was a crucial part of the Dowding System, Britain's highly effective and sophisticated air defence network. This system allowed Royal Air Force (RAF) Fighter Command to respond to incoming German attacks and use its precious resources of pilots and aircraft to the best possible effect.

Radar gave early warning of approaching raids. This information filtered through Fighter Command HQ and was then communicated throughout the defence network. This gave fighter defences vital time to prepare for and intercept the attacks.

What really gave Britain the edge was that Germany failed to recognise how vital radar was to the country’s defence. Although they did attack some stations, only Ventnor on the Isle of Wight was put out of action for any significant period. The Germans never concentrated their efforts on destroying radar stations and so this crucial element of Britain’s air defence remained generally intact throughout the Battle of Britain.

And per the RAF museum:
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/resear...attle-of-britain/radar-the-battle-winner.aspx
"I think we can say that the Battle of Britain might never have been won... if it were not for the radar chain"

MRAF Sir William Sholto Douglas

The vital factor:
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/dayintech-0226/
Hitler's strategic aerial onslaught, meant to clear the skies over the Channel and southeastern England preparatory to an invasion of the British Isles, might have succeeded if not for radar. The RAF was outnumbered by the Luftwaffe, and radar saved already-stretched Fighter Command from having to maintain constant air surveillance.

With radar providing an early-warning system, well-rested RAF pilots could be scrambled and rising to meet the incoming enemy formations in a matter of minutes. As the German fighters ran low on fuel and were forced to turn back, the Spitfires and Hurricanes could pick off the German bombers as they moved deeper into England.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

trurle

Banned
10 years behind the real historical implementation. By 1939 there hasn't been any work done on radio detection systems; at best, some back of the envelope speculations.
Radar prototyping work have started in 1935, and first operational models were fielded in 1938.
 

Marc

Donor
Radar prototyping work have started in 1935, and first operational models were fielded in 1938.

My "delayed discovery" speculation is that prototyping hasn't started by 1939, or later.
The core concept of course being that radar isn't implemented during WW2, or very late - with a side bar about more limited radio technology in general.
Hertz never made his great discovery, eventually others do. But in modern history, a handful of years can make all the difference.
 
5-10 years behind when? The delay will progressively shrink as you move into future, because better available tools will gradually reduce radar R&D costs.
Overall, more drawn-out wars, and better telephone networks are expected. Also, DIY radars will be eventually more common compared to OTL, due to explosive proliferation of radar uses when the radars will be discovered after all.
Yep...

Once radio communications and broadcasting systems come into common use I suspect an accidental discovery of how metallic air planes can be detected by radio waves becomes increasingly likely.

That being said not having radar reasonably well understood at the start of ww2 is an interesting POD. I'd suggest not having viable two way voice radios (or perhaps any radios ?) for tanks and air craft at the start of ww2 would also have some butterflies as well.

For example:

No radar and no viable voice radios (or perhaps any radios) for fighter air craft is IMHO a different problem for the RAF in the battle of Britian than just not having radar.

I suspect German blitzkrieg tactics might also be different without viable voice radios (or perhaps any radios) for tanks and air craft.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
No proximity fuzes.
Quick quote on its significance from Vannevar Bush via Wiki:

  • It was important in defense from Japanese Kamikaze attacks in the Pacific. Bush estimated a seven fold increase in the effectiveness of 5-inch antiaircraft artillery with this innovation.[32]
  • It was an important part of the radar-controlled antiaircraft batteries that finally neutralized the German V-1 attacks on England.[32]
  • It was used in Europe starting in the Battle of the Bulge where it was very effective in artillery shells fired against German infantry formations, and changed the tactics of land warfare.
 
Top