Author Topic: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline  (Read 16197 times)

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Folks,

A short story timeline that I have put together based upon the scenario postulated here.

1941:

June 22: Germany attacks Soviet Union as Operation Barbarossa begins.
June 26: Hungary and Slovakia declare war on the Soviet Union.
June 26: The Soviet Union bombs Helsinki. Finland pronounces a state of war between Finland and Soviet Union. Continuation war is started.
June 28: Albania declares war on the Soviet Union.
June 28: Huge German encirclement of 300,000 Red Army troops near Minsk and Bialystok.

July 1: German troops occupy Latvia's capital, Riga, on the way to Leningrad.
July 5: German troops reach the Dnieper River.
July 8: The German armies isolate Leningrad from the rest of Soviet Union.
July 9: Vitebsk is captured; this opens the battle of Smolensk, an important communications centre, considered by the German high command to be "the gateway to Moscow."
July 10: Guderian's Panzers take Minsk; the Germans advance farther into the Ukraine.
July 16: German Panzers under Guderian reach Smolensk, increasing the risk to Moscow.
July 21: The Luftwaffe strikes heavily at Moscow.
July 25: Neutral Iran occupied by Britain and the Soviet Union.
July 28: The Germans push against Smolensk, and in the meantime solidify their presence in the Baltic states.

August 5: German armies trap Red Army forces in Smolensk pocket and take 300,000 soldiers; Orel is taken.
August 6: Germans take Smolensk.
August 12:  Despite wavering, Hitler follows the advice of his Generals and orders a continuation of the original Barbarossa plan of Army Group Centre to seize Moscow.  ***Turning Point from Real World***
August 22: German forces close in on Leningrad; the citizens continue improvising fortifications.
August 25: British and Soviet troops invade Persia (Iran) to save the Abadan oilfields and the important railways and routes to Soviet Union for the supply of war material.
August 29: 3 Panzer Groups (under Generals Hoth, Guderian and Hoepner) converge on Moscow. Citizens panic as hastily arranged defences are prepared. Stalin and top Communist Party members evacuate to Saratov.
August 31:  Moscow falls despite last ditch defence attempts. 

September 6:  Last remaining pockets of Soviet troops in Moscow region captured/eliminated.  With key logistics/communications node of Moscow under German control, Soviet fronts in Kiev and Leningrad thrown into disarray. Killing of Commissars and subsequent surrenders to German forces becomes more common amongst Soviet troops.
September 8: Panzer Group Hoepner advance South aiming to link up with Army Group South
September 9: Now completely cutoff from all support Leningrad surrenders.
September 10: Panzer Group Guderian continues advance in SE direction towards Saratov. Panzer Group Hoth advances east towards Gorki and Kazan.
September 12: Gorki falls. Krasnoye Sormovo Factory No. 112 captured intact with T-34s on assembly line.
September 12 – 19:  Large battle east of Kursk between remaining Soviet Ukranian front forces and Army Group South.
September 17: Kazan falls
September 23:  Army Group South eliminates Kursk pocket and continues eastward advance.
September 24 – October 10: German forces consolidate positions.  By October 10, German and allied forces command most Soviet territory up to the Volga river including the five most populous cities in the Soviet state (Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Gorki and Kharkov).

December 5:  Remaining Soviet forces (including divisions from Siberia) launch winter offensive to retake Moscow.
December 5 – 8:  German forces operating from well prepared positions absorb Soviet attacks and then cut off attacking forces.  Panic ensues in Soviet ranks.
December 7: Japan launches aerial attacks on Pearl Harbor, Guam and Wake Island; they invade Thailand and Malaya; Japan declares war on the United States and the United Kingdom.
December 8: Japan invades Malaya; the United States and the United Kingdom declare war on Japan;
December 10:  General Georgi Zhukov sends message to German forces asking for ceasefire and talks on ending conflict.  Stalin and aides arrested.  They are executed by the end of the day.
December 11: Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. The United States reciprocates and declares war on Germany and Italy.
December 13:  Remaining Soviet forces surrender unconditionally to Germany.  Communist party declared outlaw.
December 14: Civil war breaks out between forces loyal to General Zhukov and remaining Communist forces.
December 15: Allied troops push Rommel back at the Gazala line.
December 16: Rommel orders a withdrawal all the way to El Agheila, where he had begun in March. He awaits reinforcements of men and tanks.
December 20 - 24:  Large numbers of German troops return “Home for Christmas” from the East.

1942:

January2:  Hitler orders Grossadmiral Erich Raeder to accelerate the Kriegsmarine’s Plan Z with especial emphasis to be given to the new battleships, and aircraft carriers to counter the USN and RN.
January 6: In his State of the Union speech, President Roosevelt promises more aid to Britain, including planes and troops, however also declares that this must be measured to ensure American forces aren’t compromised.
January 19: Japanese forces take prisoner large numbers of British troops north of Singapore.
January 21: Rommel begins a surprising counter-offensive at El Agheila; his troops, with new reinforcements and tanks, capture Agedabia, then push north to Beda Fomm.
January 27: The British withdraw all troops back into Singapore.
January 29: Rommel enters Benghazi, Libya in his drive east. For the next few months, the two sides will rest and rearm.
January 31: The last organised Allied forces leave Malaya, ending the 54-day battle.

February 1: Rommel's forces reach El Gazala, Libya, near the border with Libya; during a "Winter lull" he will remain there.
February 9: British troops are now in full retreat into Singapore for a final defence;  Top United States military leaders hold their first formal meeting to discuss American military strategy in the war – although not made public, their recommendation is to focus on the Pacific war against Japan and to simply contain the War in Europe if possible (privately, many believe the war is already decided there);
February 15: Singapore surrenders to Japanese forces; this is arguably the most devastating loss in British military history.
February 20: Japanese troops cross the important Salween River in Burma; Japanese also invade Bali and Timor by a combined use of paratroops and amphibious troops.

March 6: Rangoon falls to the Japanese.
March 8; The Japanese land at Lae and Salamaua, on Huon Bay, New Guinea, beginning their move toward Port Moresby, New Guinea, and then Australia. Reports of German troops in Turkey.

April 5: The Japanese Navy attacks Colombo in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Royal Navy cruisers HMS Cornwall and HMS Dorsetshire are sunk southwest of the island.
April 6: Japanese naval forces are observed on the Indian Ocean; they put troops ashore in the Solomon Islands.
April 7:  Turkey officially joins the Axis and welcomes German troops (these have been already entering the country since early March)
April 10:  Turkey acquires first modern combat aircraft from Germany: Bf-109Fs and Bf-110s along with Ju-88As. 

May 1: Rommel readies for a new offensive.  New reinforcements fresh from the War in the East are sent to strengthen Panzerarmee Afrika.  Luftflotte 2 is also strengthened.
May 26: Operation Aida launched – this involves Rommel attacking at the Gazala line (west of Tobruk), whilst Generals Guderian (Fifth Panzer Army), Hoth (Fourth Panzer Army) and Paulus (Sixth Army) and supported by Luftflotte 4 & 6 begin concurrent operations from Southern Russia and Turkey.  Turkish troops also involved.
May 30: British and Commonwealth forces in Africa and Middle East in general retreat on all fronts against massive German/Axis offensive; Churchill orders preparation to evacuate forces in Egypt and to mine the Suez;

June 4:  Egyptian officers under Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat launch uprising against British forces in Egypt;
June 5:  German and Turkish forces capture Jerusalem.
June 6: German, Italian enter Cairo.
June 10:  Historic meeting up of Rommel and Guderian at Beersheba – Axis forces now control entire Mediterranean except for Gibraltar and Malta.
June 14:  Germany offers Great Britain a possible ceasefire - following losses in Middle East and Pacific/Asia this is now considered seriously.
June 16:  Following days of debate, British Parliament agrees to German offer of Ceasefire.  Winston Churchill immediately tenders resignation.
June 17:  War in Europe officially declared over.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline MaxHeadroom

  • The man has built a jet Stuka, need we say more?
Ooops!

Thank god, it never happens this way.

Max

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Likes to brag about how long his...wings are.
  • Made it at last!
Ooops!

Thank god, it never happens this way.

Max

Dead right there!
Regards
Kit

--------------------------
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

Oh dear ...... must not launch tirade.......

East of Suez..... I have no problem with your scenario but in North Africa I got a big one. How are Rommel's Panzers going to move much less kick Britain out of Egypt without petrol. See there's this little thing called the Royal Navy that was pretty effective at stopping shipments of little things like reinforcements and supplies. The RN's Mediterranean story is one of losses yes but of carrying the day regardless. I'm not sure that can be just butterflied away!

I'm not even remotely concerned with the Axis forces to the east as they have to ford the Suez..... good luck with that! I'd just sit a Royal Sovereign in the canal and plink tanks with 15inchers for a few days......  >:D

As ever, feel free to ignore everything I say, I'm very much a believer of "your scenario, your rules".

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
The theory underlying this is that by knocking Russia out of the war in '41 Germany is no longer committing vast forces and resources there.  This allows them to put greater focus on the Southern front, including air and naval forces.  Similarly they would have been better able to defend against any British incursions in Western Europe thus ensuring less impact upon home industries.  Combine this with the potential resources available from the Eastern conquered territories.  Finally, the threat of a grand pincer movement which would be a concern to the Allied forces in Eygpt etc.  Remember that even in the real world situation, the British were getting ready to evacuate when Rommel was at the border.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Hitler may have the combined Eastern Front force available but he has to get it to North Africa, a logistical feat only possible with a POD far earlier than '41. There just aren't the ships! What ships there are are T and U class submarine bait. The only way I can see the RN being scared out of the Med is if the RLM switches over to Ju-88 production pretty exclusively and the RM is seized by the Kreigsmarine and even then.....

Alternatively, A hop across the Bosporus and a drive across the Sinai is possible but time-consuming and difficult going. A sufficient concentration of force against Egypt will take a lot of time to gather and those are awfully long supply lines.

FWIW, I have taken a slightly adversarial tone because of slight national pride issues but this scenario does fascinate me and I want it to work. Perhaps British forces in the Med are doomed but I don't think it would be quite so matter of fact as portrayed here. We revel in upsets!  ;)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Very interesting, I imagine the UK would do anything they could to not only keep Commonwealth forces in North Africa but to get the promised reinforcements sent (i.e. the Australian Armoured Divisions).  What could to UK trade off to get those extra forces into North Africa, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines?

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Could they offer enough? ???

This scenario is worse than the real one & the Curtin government, seeing what looks to be a much worse situation in Europe & North Africa, could well decide that a complete removal of Australian forces from these theatres was the only way of preserving sufficient forces to defend Australia from the Japanese.

We may, also, have been lucky enough to get Eisenhower as Supreme Commander South West Pacific, instead of that slaughter-mad maniac MacArthur.

:)

Guy
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
I'd just sit a Royal Sovereign in the canal and plink tanks with 15inchers for a few days......  >:D

Not really a good idea since it makes said ship an easy, non-manouvering target.  Potentially, even one Stuka may even end up blocking the canal.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 05:47:12 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

One Stuka. Er no, just no.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Queeg

  • Master armour builder
  • Lost but now foun .... nope - still lost!
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2013, 03:10:44 AM »
One Stuka. Er no, just no.



All things are possible ........




It's all swings and roundabouts when speculating. My view is the RAF was a more effective inderdiction force against the North African supply line than the RN.

All ships are vunerable to air even the RN. With even a little more German aircover the med would have been a much more dangerous lake .... if a serious attempt to take Malta had been made and succeded it might have been Luftflotte 2 who was the one cutting supply lines.

Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2013, 06:22:40 AM »
I lift more than a Stuka's warload during my weekly shop! One is not sinking a battleship, maybe a garbage scow. A Ju-88 or a SM.79 is a threat. A Stuka is not. Also, unless it's Fred Flintstone-ing it's not got the combat radius to cover the Med!

I maintain that Rommel's petrol is gonna find a one-way ticket to hell from a British torpedo. Whether by Stringbag, destroyer flotilla or T-boat is academic.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2013, 06:41:41 AM »
Look up the sinking of the Battleship Marat.  The Stuka did have a number of successes against naval vessels.

Regardless of the type of attacking aorcaft, if you parked a battleship in the canal it would be an easier target since it would not be able to manoeuvre.  It would also be in a known location.  Therefore it would be more likely to be attacked. Thus it would not be a panacea to the problem theoretically presented in this scenario.

Moreover, it's sinking would result in the canal being blocked which would actually hurt the Allies more than the Axis.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2013, 07:11:21 AM »
The temporary sinking of the Marat was as much a matter of luck as skill, the two bombs detonated the forward magazine and it was a pre-WWI ship, of an uninspired design, tied up at its moorings. It was also re-floated and put back into service as a floating battery. A Revenge-class ship would be a harder target.
anyhow monitors with big guns and heavy AAA might do well for mobile canal defense and doesn't involve
any more handwavium than the base scenario.

“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2013, 07:55:22 AM »
Quote
A Revenge-class ship would be a harder target.

This! A thousand times this!

I'm not saying a RN battleship is impossible to sink mind you. Just that a Ju-87 ain't cutting any mustard!

Also, I was being utterly facetious about parking a battleship in the canal. No sane person is going to hamstring a real warship in such a fashion (Fisher's plans for Glorious et al notwithstanding).

Monitors on the other hand, as jcf points out, would be ideal!

A few questions regarding the advance via Turkey/Syria etc. How easy was it for the Allies to cross the Rhine historically? How big is the Suez in comparison with the Rhine? Are the Axis of '42 as well equipped as the Allies of '45?

Offline Queeg

  • Master armour builder
  • Lost but now foun .... nope - still lost!
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2013, 02:49:13 PM »
Quote
A Revenge-class ship would be a harder target.

This! A thousand times this!

I'm not saying a RN battleship is impossible to sink mind you. Just that a Ju-87 ain't cutting any mustard!

Also, I was being utterly facetious about parking a battleship in the canal. No sane person is going to hamstring a real warship in such a fashion (Fisher's plans for Glorious et al notwithstanding).

Monitors on the other hand, as jcf points out, would be ideal!

A few questions regarding the advance via Turkey/Syria etc. How easy was it for the Allies to cross the Rhine historically? How big is the Suez in comparison with the Rhine? Are the Axis of '42 as well equipped as the Allies of '45?

Ahhh the age old Battleship power vrs the new fangled and fragile plane debate  :D

It's all semantics and a dash of luck but I'm pretty sure a 2000lb AP bomb would mess up an aging Revenge class ship pretty significantly, whether it's circling at full steam in open sea or not. The Revenge's deck armour would likely be on par with the Hoods top protection (or the US Pearl fleet for that matter). The more modern ships of Force Z didn't last long and they had a much better AA compliment.

Sorry for the mini derail but my own '46 has the Germans taking Africa and Egypt so I've given it some thought before. IMO it's not really the tactical/weapons systems details that make a difference anyway as opposed to grander strategy and will.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2013, 02:52:55 PM »
IMO it's not really the tactical/weapons systems details that make a difference anyway as opposed to grander strategy and will.

I agree fully.  Combined with moral/confidence (or lack thereof) of the forces involved.  Also add in a dose of good/bad luck...depending upon one's point of view.

Anyway,  at the end of the day, this was simply a fictional story/timeline based upon one interpretation of a scenario.  Please feel free to post your own alternate.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2013, 06:39:52 PM »
I remember reading that during the Battle of Crete no RN cruisers were lost until after they had exhausted their AA ammunition.  Also Illustrious was attacked by Stukas and was holding up pretty well until one managed to drop a bomb down an aircraft lift into the hanger.  I suppose the thing is the IJN, USN and RN FAA (and maybe coastal command) were expert in anti-shipping operations where the average air force was not.

Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2013, 07:50:54 PM »
Maybe I'm talking to myself here. There is no aircraft vs. battleship debate. WW2 proved the case for aircraft handily.

What I am saying is that a Ju-87 is a piece of crap and cannot lift a 2000lb AP bomb, let alone take it anywhere. An SBD or D3A is a different story. A SB2C (late model) and it's game over. A Ju-87 is not any of these things! I've owned stronger tents. A rubber duck is as much a threat to a proper battleship as a Ju-87!

As I've already mentioned multiple times, Axis torpedo bombers are a real threat in the Med. and I do not dismiss them at all. More Panzers in the Med. wouldn't worry me in the slightest. They'd either get bogged down in terrain or outrun their own supply lines (again very long, very interdictable supply lines). More Ju-88s/SM.79s and it could very much be a game changer. You would have a very real threat to the Allies own supply lines. Wars are won and lost on logistics.


Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2013, 10:02:26 PM »
Side stepping the whole ship/aircraft debate;

My father, who was definitely not pro-German (having fought them as a member of the Czech resistance), told me that he had a great respect for the German soldiers of the early war period (before losses on the Russian front drained the Wehrmacht of too many of its best soldiers), who he considered were the most professional soldiers of the era & the best trained, especially for a large-scale European conflict, whereas the other armies had become little more than colonial police & had learned little from WW1.

My own reading on the subject over the years tends to support his view.

So, if the Germans didn't stop in Poland & pushed through the Red Army in 1939, which would not have been that hard compared to their later effort (JS was taken by surprise but he had been expecting a conflict with Germany, eventually, & had been planning how to counter the Blitzkreig since 1939/40), knocked out the USSR first & secured the Ukranian POL reserves, then I think they would have stood a good chance of pushing down into the Middle East at least as far as the Suez, even while taking on France & Britain in the West. Especially if Adolph had continued his charm offensive & kept promising that he only intended to attack East before moving against them. Also, with the Germans knocking at the back door, the Egyptians, who were pretty skittish in real life at the time regarding the Brit's, may well have openly revolted & aided the Germans in crossing the Suez.

Just my ha'penny's-worth.

:)

Guy

PS: The whole Blitzkreig thing should have been very familiar to British & Australian commanders, as it was based on the tactics of the big Allied break-throughs & advances at the end of WW1, orchestrated by John Monash. An armoured spearhead, supported by infantry, moving forward behind a creeping barrage of artillery, then, when the break-through occurs, rapidly moving artillery keeping pace with the advance & softening up strategic targets & pockets of resistance ahead of the it. The only difference was that the Germans used aircraft more than artillery, which gave them better range & versatility to react to unexpected resistance, & they had better tanks.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Queeg

  • Master armour builder
  • Lost but now foun .... nope - still lost!
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2013, 01:45:36 AM »
I remember reading that during the Battle of Crete no RN cruisers were lost until after they had exhausted their AA ammunition.  Also Illustrious was attacked by Stukas and was holding up pretty well until one managed to drop a bomb down an aircraft lift into the hanger.  I suppose the thing is the IJN, USN and RN FAA (and maybe coastal command) were expert in anti-shipping operations where the average air force was not.

Yeah my Grandfather served the whole war on Illustrious as an aircraft mechanic finally demobbing in Australia after their pacific tour. He had a few pictures of her in Valletta while under repairs. He said the worst time was when they were divebombed (repeatidly over several days) in the Harbour as the couldn't maneuver at speed, fish in a barrel he felt like.


Maybe I'm talking to myself here. There is no aircraft vs. battleship debate. WW2 proved the case for aircraft handily.

What I am saying is that a Ju-87 is a piece of crap and cannot lift a 2000lb AP bomb, let alone take it anywhere. An SBD or D3A is a different story. A SB2C (late model) and it's game over. A Ju-87 is not any of these things! I've owned stronger tents. A rubber duck is as much a threat to a proper battleship as a Ju-87!

As I've already mentioned multiple times, Axis torpedo bombers are a real threat in the Med. and I do not dismiss them at all. More Panzers in the Med. wouldn't worry me in the slightest. They'd either get bogged down in terrain or outrun their own supply lines (again very long, very interdictable supply lines). More Ju-88s/SM.79s and it could very much be a game changer. You would have a very real threat to the Allies own supply lines. Wars are won and lost on logistics.

Sorry, I apologise .....
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 01:55:18 AM by Queeg »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2013, 02:28:41 AM »
Axis torpedo bombers are a real threat in the Med.




 ;)

BTW, the Ju87D could carry a 1800kg bomb load ...

But getting back on topic and re-emphasizing what I posted above:  at the end of the day, this was simply a fictional story/timeline based upon one interpretation of a scenario.  Please feel free to post your own alternate.

I also suggest you have a read of the book that was the trigger for this story/scenario:  "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted", by Russell H.S. Stolfi. Details available here.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2013, 03:11:20 AM »
No reason to apologize, Queeg.  With all due respect to Empty Handed, he's completely wrong about the Stuka.

The Ju 87A had somewhat anemic performance and could only lift a 500 kg bomb with difficulty sans rear gunner.

The Ju 87B was considerably better and could carry a 500 kg bomb and four 50 kg bombs as standard.  Again, it could carry a heavier bomb load (in this case, a 1000 kg bomb) as long as the pilot could convince the gunner to stay at home and play solitaire.  I know of no reason the Ju 87B couldn't carry a PC 1000 (2,200 lb armor piercing) bomb in these circumstances.  In fact, Rudel's Ju 87B carried a 2,200 lb SC 1000 bomb when he sunk the Marat.



The Ju 87D had even more horsepower and could carry a 1000 kg bomb as standard without these restrictions.  In fact, as Greg points out, it could carry an even greater load.

By comparison, Empty Handed says that the SBD and D3A were different stories and (as I read it) implies that they could do things the Ju 87 could not.  This is not true.  I've read that the SBD Dauntless could carry 2,250 lbs of bombs in places, but I've never heard of it actually being done.  In fact, I know that pilots got really wary about carrying a 1,000 lb bomb more than a couple hundred miles.  They carried 1,000 lb bombs quite often and this would prove to be a major advantage in a number of battles.  The D3A, on the other hand, only carried a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb.  This was only one QUARTER of what a Ju 87B could carry under similar conditions.  It's roughly equivalent to a Ju 87A.  Embarrassing.  It's also one of the major reasons you saw US carriers taking hits and getting repaired only to participate in the next battle during the early war.  Vals were getting hits, but they weren't enough to sink or even knock out most US carriers.

In short, when it comes to bomb loads, I mentally keep three rough categories for single engined dive bombers from WWII in my mind:

Light: Ju 87A, D3A Val, Skua
Medium: Ju 87B, D4Y Judy, SBD Dauntless, Vengeance
Heavy: Ju 87D, SB2C Helldiver, Barracuda

Cheers,

Logan

Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2013, 07:07:09 AM »
Axis torpedo bombers are a real threat in the Med.




 ;)


Dammit! There's always one!  ;)

Logan, I may very well be wrong about the Stuka but a few questions to enlighten me if I may.

What was the field performance of a Ju-87 with a 2200lber?
Rough field or prepared strip?
What was it's range with said weapon?
What was it's kinetic performance compared with oh say a P-40C/E, Spitfire V, Hurricane II or Fulmar (any of which it could be expected to encounter)?
Could Marat match a Royal Sovereign with say 2 C class cruisers, a Leander and assorted destroyers in terms of AA firepower? I'll leave the Didos at home.

Wrong, quite possibly but not nearly completely. The Ju-87 should not go playing in the Med.

Queeg, you have nothing to apologise for! I for one am really enjoying this debate and would welcome your continued involvement.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 10:49:31 AM »
I'll do what I can, but I'm no expert.  I don't know if anyone knows the answer to some of your questions with certainty.

What was the field performance of a Ju-87 with a 2200lber?
From what I've read, even with excessively heavy bomb loads takeoff performance of the Stuka was surprisingly good.  The only thing negative that I've EVER read about the Stuka's field performance was that the spats sometimes got in the way in muddy conditions.

Rough field or prepared strip?
I don't know.  I would assume semi-prepared.  That's what most fields were at the time, especially for the Stuka.

What was it's range with said weapon?
Depends on the variant, but the Stuka's range was never too impressive.  That's one reason it always operated so close to the front lines.  The Ju 87R and D were better, though.

What was it's kinetic performance compared with oh say a P-40C/E, Spitfire V, Hurricane II or Fulmar (any of which it could be expected to encounter)?
What do you mean "kinetic performance"?  The Stuka was vulnerable to any enemy fighters under any circumstances.  I'd get worried for a Stuka if there were enemy Bristol Bulldogs over the target area.  In the right hands, it was still very much dangerous in its own right, but the Stuka was quite vulnerable to enemy fighters.  That having been said, Stukas successfully penetrated British fighter cover and anti-aircraft fire to attack the HMS Illustrious in Malta's Grand Harbour.

Could Marat match a Royal Sovereign with say 2 C class cruisers, a Leander and assorted destroyers in terms of AA firepower? I'll leave the Didos at home.
I've never read of AA fire preventing Stukas from attacking a target.  The combined fire of HMS Warspite, Valiant, Nubian, Dainty, Greyhound, Griffin, Jervis and Illustrious didn't prevent the Stukas from knocking out the Illustrious and removing it from the Mediterranean.  In fact, while the Illustrious was under repair in Valletta, one of the British anti-aircraft gunners even noted that the Stukas successfully carried out attacks on the Illustrious diving through a "curtain of steel" (his words) and with a Fulmar on its tail.  Not only that, but they carried 1000 kg bombs during that attack, so they had range enough to reach Malta with it.

As for the Didos, it's a good thing you're going to leave them at home, they might get hurt!  When the Dido had a run in with Stukas, the Stukas beat the crap out of it!


HMS Dido being bombed by German aircraft in the Mediterranean off Crete, May 1941


What was left of the "B" turret.

Wrong, quite possibly but not nearly completely. The Ju-87 should not go playing in the Med.
I think you really need to get this book, Empty Handed.  You really don't have enough respect for the Stuka.  When the Stukas were operating in the Med, it was enemy surface ships that didn't go playing without adequate air cover.  Crete showed that.



The short version is that the Stuka was murder for enemy ships.  It was absolutely deadly.  It could carry one of the heaviest bomb loads of any dive bomber in its time.  Its range was short--inadequate by Pacific standards, but certainly adequate for European operations.  It was, however, VERY vulnerable to enemy fighters.  Theater air superiority could certainly curtail Stuka operations and make losses unsustainable, but it really took total air dominance to ensure the safety of naval surface forces.  That was true off Norway, in the English Channel, in the Med, in the Baltic, and in the Black Sea.

Admiral Cunningham is widely considered to be one of Britain's finest admirals.  I'll let his words regarding the Stuka hopefully illustrate the point more eloquently than I ever could.

Quote
"We opened up with every AA gun we had as one by on the Stukas peeled off into their dives, concentrating the whole venom of their attack upon the Illustrious.  At times she became almost completely hidden in a forest of great bomb splashes.  One was too interested in this new form of dive-bombing attack really to be frightened, and there was no doubt we were watching complete experts.  Formed roughly in a large circle over the fleet they peeled off one by one when reaching the attacking position.  We could not but admire the skill and precision of it all.  The attacks were pressed home to point-blank range, and as they pulled out of their dives some of them were seen to fly along the flight-deck of the Illustrious below the level of her funnel."


Cheers,

Logan

Offline Queeg

  • Master armour builder
  • Lost but now foun .... nope - still lost!
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 12:40:35 PM »
A few more thoughts for the debate then  ........  :)
 

My comments haven't really been to advocate the Stuka as a superweapon, rather the Rudel post was meant as a comment to what a very (very) skilled man could do with a capable weapon system, some luck and a heck of a lot of determination. There's a reason that his book was recommended reading for new A10 crews ....

In general I think the Stuka has gotten a bit of a bad rep as fighter bait mainly through the German tactical misuse when employed without aircover.

There are many reason for this repeated misuse but here's a couple of main ones in my view;

- The Poland/Low Countries and France campaign saw Stukas pitted against poor opposition, bad air defence and a scattered and demoralised enemy.
- The vast spaces in Russia allowed for deployments where there was often no fighter opposition and in the initial stages when there was it was poor.
- When the Stuka was used in a maritime role in the early war period shipboard AA fire was in it's infancy, poorly directed and sparse.
- The effective (read Me109) German fighter cover had a short range and loiter time leading to difficulties in supporting bombing operations.

So you get success which tend to have the victor overlooking any inadequacies and leads to more misuse. When adequate fighter opposition showed up there was a missmatch and subsequent heavy loss ...

My comments on poor naval AA outfit aren't just aimed at the RN though. The early German heavy fleet wasn't any better. Witness the difficulty in the Bismarks crews in hitting slow flying Stringbags and the inadequate depression ability of many secondary DP mountings. The comments on "diving through a curtain of fire" are all relative. Heavy AA fire in the early war was nothing compared to the state of the art barrage the late US fleet would put up during 44-45 against the suicide attacks. 

As I mentioned my Grandfather served on the Illustrious and he felt it was only a matter of time before they got hit, not if. He also mentioned that during their Pacific deployment all the British fleet got extra AA guns and even then it was only the armoured flight deck that saved them when they got hit. He witnessed US AA fire and when they first saw it all his shipmates were very impressed with the volume and effectiveness. Even with this at their disposal though the US fleet still suffered significant losses.

As for the Stuka itself, later marks had around 1000km operation range, earlier models much less. There was an extended range 'R" model but it's bombload was significantly reduced to be able to carry the extra tankage. The Ju87G which I was thinking of when I made my 2000lb comment could carry this at range and with full crew. The 87B Rudel used to sink the Murat had the radio op and gear removed to save weight. 

As for the Brit ships (average AA suite notwithstanding) remember the Sovereign was essentially a WW1 ship with most of it's armour belt designed to defeat low angle horizontal fire. From Jane's "The forecastle deck was 1 inch (25 mm) thick, while the upper deck was 1–1.5 inches (25–38 mm) in thickness. The main deck was 2 inches (51 mm) thick over the magazines and machinery spaces and one inch elsewhere, except for the 2-inch-thick slope that met the bottom of the main belt. The middle deck was one inch thick over 'Y' magazine, but increased to two to four inches over the steering machinery." It's possible you might get penetration with only a 500lb AP bomb let alone anything bigger.

In summary,

Ships (British, German, Japanese) are vulnerable to well coordinated (bombers with fighter cover) or to uncontested air attack.
All bombers (sic Stukas) are very vulnerable to fighters if unsupported with their own fighter cover.

Does this mean Stukas would wipe the Med clean of Allied shipping - of course not. It doesn't even guarantee that a strike would sink the Sovereign. What it does though is give them a fighting chance and with enough threat to put some pause into the Admiralty when considering the deployment of it heavy units.

cheers
Brent
 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 12:42:53 PM by Queeg »

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 01:05:02 PM »
Agree completely with Queeg's comments.  I, likewise, am not saying that one Stuka is going to sink a Royal Navy battleship.  There were instances of whole squadrons of Stukas making attacks on capital ships without scoring a single hit.  As Brent points out, however, they wouldn't have to sink a ship to make the Royal Navy think twice about operating within sight of a hostile enemy shore without air superiority.  One Stuka getting a solid hit with a 1000 kg bomb would mot likely send even the heaviest capital ship running, even temporarily.  As Rudel showed, if you get particularly lucky with that single bomb, you can even do decidedly more than that.

Empty Handed's comment a couple of weeks ago implied that Royal Navy capital ships could safely operate within sight of German ground forces.  Not even counting the threat that heavy field artillery would pose to such an effort, I would agree with Greg that the potential of nearby Stukas would quickly disavow the Royal Navy of any such notions.  Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, operations off Norway, the English Channel, and Crete did just that for the Royal Navy.  They were even chagrined at times by their comrades for their unwillingness to operate within range of enemy Stukas without sufficient air cover.

Again, I'm not saying it would happen that way, but it's certainly plausible enough that if someone writes that into their alternate history timeline, I can't find enough fault with it to warrant raising an objection.

Cheers,

Logan

Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2013, 07:51:13 PM »
Again and again the BB in the canal thing was tongue in cheek. Sheesh. Although I don't think a handful of Panzer IVs that have just driven 1000+ miles are gonna be a massive issue for one. The heavy artillery you mention is probably a week or two behind. Not to mention what one may consider heavy on land is considered light at sea.

Quote
You really don't have enough respect for the Stuka

WTF! I'm not bloody well required to! It's an inferior design. Anything's a threat if there's enough of them.

One Stuka getting one hit on one capital ship is not disavowing anybody of anything. What are these bombs, nuclear?!!!  If that were true, what the hell was the RN still doing in the Med by Dec '42. Surely they would have run home to Scapa by then? Your contention is laughable!

The RN took it's licks and carried on regardless. They lost a lot of ships but somehow always found more. They stayed the course, fought the good fight. Determination and courage won the Med. An obsolete dive-bomber lost.

nemo me impune lacessit






Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2013, 12:00:51 AM »
By December of '42, most of the Stukageschwader were on the Russian front.  There never were enough to go around.  This was in no small part due to its vulnerability to enemy fighters, a fact illustrated on November 11, 1942 when USAAF P-40Fs mauled 15 Stukas in the Med.

As for the RN, they absolutely took their licks and carried on.  That's why they won the war.  The Italian and German navies in WWII, in contrast, were scared back to their home ports after taking a few losses and never seriously challenged the RN again.  It's been that very willingness to carry on with the mission despite losses that made the Royal Navy the formidable force in history that it has been.  It knows that you're going to get your nose bloodied, but you have to stay with it if you want to win.


HMS Orion the morning after on May 30th 1941.

That having been said, the Stukageschwader gave them those licks.  For example, the Royal Navy lost 29 of its 40 destroyers used in the Battle of Dunkirk (8 sunk, 23 damaged and out of service), primary to the Stuka.  In many ways, their Mediterranean experience was even more sobering.  Not only were the HMS Illustrious, Warspite, Orion, and Ajax so heavily battered that they had to be sent to the US for repairs, but the Royal Navy outright lost at least the cruisers HMS Southampton, Gloucester, and Fiji to Stukas.  Add many more Allied destroyers to that and you can see that Stukas represented quite the threat to the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.

So, if they were that dangerous, why was the Royal Navy operating throughout that period?  Well, for a few reasons.  First, the Stukas were short-ranged.  If you were in the middle of the Med or at either end, Stuka's didn't represent much of a problem.  If you got close to Crete or Sicily, well, that was a different matter altogether.  Second, there were never enough Stukas to go around.  You can think of certain campaigns as "Stuka seasons".  They would come out at certain times and beat the ever-living daylights out of all the ships in an area, then go off to spearhead the next campaign.  Last--and most importantly--the Royal Navy didn't have a choice.  To cede Malta or Crete without a fight would be to cede effective Royal Navy presence in an entire region of the Mediterranean.  Doing that would cut British forces in half and allow the Germans and Italians to resupply their forces in North Africa unhindered.


Photograph taken by a German airman recording the sinking of Gloucester off the coast of Crete, 22 May 1941

To lose Malta was to lose the central Mediterranean.  To lose the central Mediterranean was to lose North Africa.  To lose North Africa was to lose the Western Front's only ground theater against the Germans.  To lose that was to jeopardize the relationship with the Soviet Union.  To lose the Soviet Union was to lose the war.  Something as seemingly minor as a few squadrons on a little rock or a couple of cruisers in an otherwise unimportant stretch of sea was potentially crucial to the whole war.

So, knowing full well that they would lose ships and hundreds of sailors, the Royal Navy had to operate close to shore under the very noses of the Luftwaffe on more than one occasion.  The Stukas made them pay dearly for it, but it was the Royal Navy's willingness to accept these losses and carry on fighting time and time again that allowed the Allies to keep fighting through the dark days of WWII until they were ready to start driving the Axis back.


http://worldwariipodcast.net/wordpress/2012/11/episode-64-the-royal-navy-mediterranean-sea-1940/

I really would encourage people to listen to this podcast featuring Andrew Lambert, Laughton Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, about the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean in 1940 from the history of WWII podcast.  He talks at length about Admiral Andrew Cunningham and the Royal Navy's understanding that naval operations will incur losses, but they're necessary to win.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Queeg

  • Master armour builder
  • Lost but now foun .... nope - still lost!
Re: "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" Possible Story Timeline
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2013, 12:42:37 AM »
Spot on Logan, nice pod cast btw.

For more discussion ........

There's a reason my own scenario has Malta falling to an early and committed Crete style combined arms assault, as it very well could have. Overall though the RN was a huge difference maker and for a long time the only bright spot in what was a near run campaign early on. The Kriegsmarine wasn't up to things in terms of equipment and numbers (the Uboat arm notwithstanding) and the Italians just weren't up to things.

It goes back to my comments on will - both political and military. This ties to the willingness to accept and take losses and on occaision to gamble with everything. One of the often underestimated British traits is will .... and a large dash of stubborn in the face of what seems like bad odds.

The Germans didn't really have the will in the Med. It wasn't seen as vital to them and they really got sucked into a commitment to support their allies incompetence. And once you committ you can't really withdraw and save any face plus handing territory over easily is not the tendency of any military. This has been ably demonstrated in most of the post war/modern "limited objective" conflicts ever since WWII. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan being classic exampls where the forces are committed to theatre but the political will limits objectives. It makes subsequent withdrawls as difficult as achieving clear and decisive victory, or at least victory as the public would understand it. Interestingly the Falklands campaign is an example of where political will carried the day, in the face of limited military capabilty and what were at times quite servere naval losses.

My own belief is that the Germans could have "won" in the Med if they had wanted to badly enough and early enough. They didn't and Russia once started was always Hitlers focus, necessarily as it was the conflict meat grinder that really lost the war for the Germans and enabled the Allies to win. What forces were committed by the Germans to the Med were always (until the end) just enough to cause problems and occasionally strong enough to deliver a bloody nose and cause pause, but never enough to win in a classic sense.


And it may also be of interest to see the nominal Armour piercing capabilities of Luftwaffe bombs:

AP bombs:
PD 500: 120 mm
PC 1000: 100 mm
PC 1400: 120 mm

SC series GP bombs:
SC 500: 40 mm

SD series semi-AP bombs:
SD 500: 90 mm
SD 1700: 70 mm


Just to finish, we haven't been discussing the big ships just being based in the middle of the canal for some time. For me any added vulnerability was implied by their use as close ground support gun units. Close to land in a contested theatre is the worst of scenarios for any navy. If it had been possible they would have just parked off Torbruk and withstood the air attacks while sweeping the perimeter clean of Rommel's useless and broken down PzIIIs and IVs. The naval gunfire support you see in Normandy and the Pacific is the product of a completely different tactical situation, virtually complete air superiority being but one ....
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 01:27:19 AM by Queeg »