Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2017, 11:14 AM   #1
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 552
Uddet's epiphany in 1927


When Lindbergh flew from NYC to Paris non stop in a a single engine plane with just 220 hp in 1927, he became the most famous celebrity overnight.

Uddet, an excellent pilot finds tremendous irony in the fact that a million Germans could not reach Paris from Belgium, a few hundred miles away between 1914 and 1918, which this American has been able to take Paris by storm with a single plane flying over 3,400 miles.

He wonders, what if the Kaiser had had tghousands of 4 engine transport planes (like the 4 engine plane built by Sikorski for the Tsar before the war) and landed thousands of troops inside London, Brussels and Paris (which have large open areas) and other crucial French, Belgian, Russian and British cities in peacetime, and thousands of troops were flown just over the French and Belgian fortifications and the English channel and landed ready to advance to seize key areas, roads, bridges, RR and roads. Thousands of troops landed in ports from passenger and merchant ships would seize key ports and allow reinforcements to disembark there.

Complete surprise in peacetime would be invaluable for an invader, depp in enemy territory.

Building those planes would have been cheaper than building the expensive German warships, huge cannon to destroy fortresses, etc, The rapid, deep penetration would cause collapse of defenses, which in 1914 took weeks to mobilize and deploy in France and Britain when war was declared before the invasion. Only Russia, Belgium and Serbia were mobilized and ready and bought invaluable time for France and Britain to deploy. But these 3 were ready only because Austria and Germany had been saber-rattling long before invading the allies. The Austrians could have also easily seized Belgrad and flown over the strong border, etc, with planes, while the bulk of the Serbian army was at the border.
ruthenium is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2017, 12:03 PM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,490

When you put yourself in your enemy's rear, you also put your enemy between you and your source of supplies. The easiest way to defeat an airborne operation is to cut it off from resupply.

Any such airborne operation in 1914 (or even 1945) would necessarily consist only of light infantry - no artillery, cavalry, or any other heavy weapon. It would have been relatively easy to defeat in a counter-attack even without figher planes and anti-aircraft guns to shoot down the resupply flights.

Capturing the enemy capital only works if you can hold onto it. Modern states are resilient enough that they can function for a few days or weeks even if their capital is occupied by the enemy. In 1870, France held out for several months after Paris was besieged and cut off from the rest of the country. In 1914, Belgium did not surrender after the fall of Brussels. Serbia continued to fight to the end of the war, even after Belgrade fell in 1915. In 1940, Norway held out for two months after the fall of Oslo. If an airborne operation had siezed Paris in August 1914, the French would have recaptured Paris in a few days. The Germans would have gained nothing except the loss of their airborne troops.
Chlodio is online now  
Old December 29th, 2017, 01:48 PM   #3

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 13,187

Planes in 1914 could barely carry a pilot and observer, even later in the war and bombers (or even Airships) will still struggle to carry more than 10-20 men. This means that (without logistical support which the poster seems to completely ignore) you are going to need hundred of planes (and crews) to transport any meaningful number of troops.

And just how are these ships taking all these ports supposed to sail past the RN?
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 08:59 AM   #4
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Planes in 1914 could barely carry a pilot and observer, even later in the war and bombers (or even Airships) will still struggle to carry more than 10-20 men. This means that (without logistical support which the poster seems to completely ignore) you are going to need hundred of planes (and crews) to transport any meaningful number of troops.

And just how are these ships taking all these ports supposed to sail past the RN?
As stated. a 4 engine Sikorski plane flew the Tsar's family all overwest Russia and ukraine before 1914. It was the first plane with a bathroom and a cabin. People walked on the wing during its slow flight.

In peacetime even warships sail to British ports.
ruthenium is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 09:04 AM   #5
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
When you put yourself in your enemy's rear, you also put your enemy between you and your source of supplies. The easiest way to defeat an airborne operation is to cut it off from resupply.

Any such airborne operation in 1914 (or even 1945) would necessarily consist only of light infantry - no artillery, cavalry, or any other heavy weapon. It would have been relatively easy to defeat in a counter-attack even without figher planes and anti-aircraft guns to shoot down the resupply flights.

Capturing the enemy capital only works if you can hold onto it. Modern states are resilient enough that they can function for a few days or weeks even if their capital is occupied by the enemy. In 1870, France held out for several months after Paris was besieged and cut off from the rest of the country. In 1914, Belgium did not surrender after the fall of Brussels. Serbia continued to fight to the end of the war, even after Belgrade fell in 1915. In 1940, Norway held out for two months after the fall of Oslo. If an airborne operation had siezed Paris in August 1914, the French would have recaptured Paris in a few days. The Germans would have gained nothing except the loss of their airborne troops.
If you can land divisions in unsuspecting Paris, you also can in Brussels, Amiens, Metz, Sedan, etc, Motorcycle and truck troops advance from the border and seized ports (Antwerp, Dover, London, Calais, Boulogne, Ostende, Dieppe, etc,)

In peacetime it takes weeks to mobilize France or Britain, this invaluable time was provided by Belgian fortresses and fierce Belgian troops along the German border and by Russia invading East Prussia and forcing the Kaiser to send troops there from the west.
ruthenium is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 09:05 AM   #6
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Planes in 1914 could barely carry a pilot and observer, even later in the war and bombers (or even Airships) will still struggle to carry more than 10-20 men. This means that (without logistical support which the poster seems to completely ignore) you are going to need hundred of planes (and crews) to transport any meaningful number of troops.

And just how are these ships taking all these ports supposed to sail past the RN?
A 4 engine Sikorski plane flew the Tsar's family all over west Russia and Ukraine before 1914. It was the first plane with a bathroom and a cabin. People walked on the wing during its slow flight.

In peacetime even warships sail to British ports.
ruthenium is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 09:43 AM   #7

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 13,187

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
A 4 engine Sikorski plane flew the Tsar's family all over west Russia and Ukraine before 1914. It was the first plane with a bathroom and a cabin. People walked on the wing during its slow flight.

In peacetime even warships sail to British ports.
The plane had space for 16 passangers, so lets say without luxuries you can transport 20 heavily troops. A German infantry division 17,500 so you are going to need upwards of 900 planes. This is just one division, without artillery, cavalry and with minimal supplies.

So do you think that the British and French might notice these thousands of planes being built?

Don't you that the British might notice dozens of troop transports are hanging around outside strategic ports?

Once the war starts they are isolated.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:05 AM   #8
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 552

Continuing with the thread.

Uddet goes back to basics, he analizes and compares Flyer I and the Spirit of St Louis.

He is immediately surprised by the fact that, despite lousy aerodynamics, Flyer lifted 5.68 times more kg/hp than the Spirit!

He realizes that Flyer had 4 propeller blades for just 12 hp, while the Spirit has 2 blades for 220 hp. Therefore, Flier I produces much less noise and turbulence and much more thrust per hp!

Uddet designs a novel, aerodynamic plane with the same hp/blade and TWO/hp than Flyer I:

A plane with two fuselages joined by 3 equal, tandem wings. There is a single pilot (a soldier). There are three 36 hp engines with 12 blade props on each wing. TOW is 9,180 Kg. The empty plane weighs 1,400 kg and has 600 kg of oil and fuel for 500 kg flights. So she can carry 71 soldiers (100 kg each with equipment). She cruises close to 100 km/h (60 mph), she has 840 sqft of wing (each wing has 280 sqft). Wing cord is 7 ft so wing length is only 40 ft. There are 2 wheel in eah wing (underneath 2 of the engine)

The plane has no wing tip or strut drag (the Spirit had a lot of both). The constant section wings are easy to build. Most importantly, the 36 hp engines can also be used to build motorcycles, 2 seat planes, 4 seat twin engine planes, small tractors for agriculture and for the military to haul cannon, munitions, etc, So millions of these engines will ne made in Ford like production lines.

Without passengers, she can carry 8 torpedoes or seven 1,000 kg bombs or over 120 50 kg bombs. The extremely stable and slow planes make unusually accurate level bombers for the opening attack of an invasion in peacetime.

Germany can easily build 20,000 of these planes, a million motorcycles and tractors, hundreds of ship, 5,000 fighters and 5,000 single seat, dive bombers to invade GB, Belgium, France and the USSR simultaneously. Provided Germany manages to induce Austria, Holland, Belgium, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Ireland to request annexation before the war in order to receive industry to build planes, motorcycles, tractors, etc, orders for ships and purchase of all agricultural products.

Holland will receive unlimited orders for 30,000 t ships, Germany will buy its oil, rubber, tin, coffee, cacao, etc, from the DEI (which becomes GEI after annexation)and send over 100,000 settlers to develop Borneo and secure the DEI from Japanese invasion. German settlers and developed Borneo will attract more Dutch settelrs in a year than the few thousand who have migrated throughout its history. Relieving unemployment and overcrowing in Holland and boosting DEI development and security from invasion. Germany will also send 50,000 settlers to develop Suriname. Germany will build large industries and shipyards in Holland, DEI and Suriname.

Belgium will also receive ship orders, industry, etc, and 50,000 Germans will settle in Belgian Congo to develop and secure it.

Similarly, Ireland will receive large order for ships, industry, German coal (it will not have to buy from detested Britian any more) and will sell all its agricultural products in Germany.

Austria, Finland, Poland, Romania, Estonia, etc, will also develop rapidly after annexation. Their armed forces will be absorbed by the German armed forces, discouraging Stalin from invading any of these otherwise weak countries, which he can invade peacemal easily with his huge read army and air force.

Airborne and motorcycle troops (from the German border of debarked) can be devastatingly effective with air support playing the role of artillery and with fromidable, but portable weapons:

1) a powerful light mortar (65 mm)

2) a light MG firing a 6.5 mm, 7 g bullet mounted on a much shortened version of the 7.92 mm Mauser case , but made out of steel or duralumin. It can fire 700 rounds per minute and it has a relatively short barrel.

3) an automatic rifle, like the US B.A.R. of late WW I, but much lighter, with a 30 round detachable magazine. It uses the same 6.5 mm, short cartridge ammo as the light MG.

4) a 9mm sub MG with 50 round magazines. Duralumin cases.


5) a .380 auto pistol (silenced) with an 8 round magazine. duralumin cases.

6) Most importantly: a mortar like weapon which can fire rockets horizontally to destroy tanks, pillboxes, gunboats, etc, with 88 mm rockets. thsi is in effect portable artillery.

7) a short, bolt action, sniper carbine in the same 6.5 mm short case. It has a 4x scope and a 10 round box magazine (like the British WW I Enfield). The short action allow more rounds per minute to be fired and the mild recoil allows firing hundreds of shots, without developing a sore shoulder.

8) a light and powerful hand grenade.

9) a powerful grenade, which can be launched over 80 m by the automatic and bolt action carbines, using blank cartridges.

10) light and powerful AT and AP mines.

11) a wire triggered mine to block roads, streets, canals, etc,

12) an 11 mm AA MG, also excellent against vehicles and infantry at long range.

Diplomatic immunity allows slow accumulation of fuel, arms, munitions, supplies, etc, in embassies and consulates in countries to be invaded. Tons of invaluable material can thus be made available to our troops in many crucial cities. Especially if official annexation is delayed long after the annexed countries are reinforced, so that their many embassies and consulates can also be used.

Thousands of troops posing as tourists in London, Paris, Sedan, Canterbury, etc, can go to the embassies or consulates and receive arms and munitions to attack at dawn, seizing airfields, airports, etc,
ruthenium is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:14 AM   #9
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 552

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
The plane had space for 16 passangers, so lets say without luxuries you can transport 20 heavily troops. A German infantry division 17,500 so you are going to need upwards of 900 planes. This is just one division, without artillery, cavalry and with minimal supplies.

So do you think that the British and French might notice these thousands of planes being built?

Don't you that the British might notice dozens of troop transports are hanging around outside strategic ports?

Once the war starts they are isolated.
I did not say that Germany used troop transports, but cargo and passenger ships, which were routinely travelling to Britain, France, Riga, Tallin, etc,

You are stuck in WW I, which started 13 years before Lindy's flight. That was just a mental experiment for Uddet. Now Uddet is considering starting WW II in an unsuspecting world.

I am talking about building millions of 36 hp engines for planes, motorcycles, tractors, etc, only 180,000 of which need to be diverted to build 20,000 cheap, efficient planes to transport 7o men each and return for reinforcements (the nearly empty planes, carrying perhaps a few wounded or important prisoners, obviously cruises above 100 km/h) , that allows hundreds of thousands of troops to land deep in Britain, France and the USSR (Minsk is a few km from the Polish border, Kiev only a little further. Leningrad is also nextdoor to Finland and Estonia. A much better proposition than walking to Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and the Caucasus from a much farther west German border OTL in 1941.

The planes are being built for Lufthansa, just like the He 111 and JU 52 were and the British and French did nothing to stop airliner production. Shortly before the war they were converted to bombers or used to transport troops (Ju 52 transported Franco's troops from Morocco to Spain to start the civil war, Guernica was bombed by Ju 52. These planes are slower than the Ju 52 so they will be considered even less threatening.

When you rule the air and have a huge number of large planes, the enemy's troops are isolated, not yours. Even with few small Ju 52 available. the Germans air supplied a large force in the Demyansk pocket in NW Russia in 1942 against formidable Soviet forces.

3,000 small, 4 seat, twin engine planes with the same 36 hp engines will be invaluable to destroy armor, pillboxes, artillery, entrenched infantry, etc, with 50 kg bombs, Panzerschrek, two light MG, etc, as spotters for artillery and motorcycle troops, bombers, etc,

Hundreds of thousands of the small, 12 blade propellers can be die cast in aluminum-magnesium alloy quite easily. Having a lot of short blades in light alloy makes them easier to balance.

Last edited by ruthenium; December 30th, 2017 at 10:31 AM.
ruthenium is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:20 AM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,490

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
If you can land divisions in unsuspecting Paris, you also can in Brussels, Amiens, Metz, Sedan, etc, Motorcycle and truck troops advance from the border and seized ports (Antwerp, Dover, London, Calais, Boulogne, Ostende, Dieppe, etc,)

In peacetime it takes weeks to mobilize France or Britain, this invaluable time was provided by Belgian fortresses and fierce Belgian troops along the German border and by Russia invading East Prussia and forcing the Kaiser to send troops there from the west.
The key word is IF you can land divisions... The largest airborne operation in history was Market-Garden in 1944. It involved three airborne divisions plus an independent brigade. Even after several years of wartime construction, there were not enough transport planes to land all of those troops at once. They were planned to be dropped in over three days and because of bad weather it actually took longer. Two German divisions were flown into Crete in 1941 but again it took several days to complete the lift. To suggest that this many transport planes would be available in August 1914 is, at best, unrealistic.

By attacking multiple points at once, you're just giving the French smaller targets to pick off one by one during their counter-attacks. You'd be better off dropping all of your airborne troops at one place, but it's still unrealistic. Even if you could insert three or four divisions into Paris, which you wouldn't have enough lift for, they would still be defeated by a French counter attack in about a week, if not less.

The peacetime French army would be able to mop-up the odd German airborne division or two or three without having to mobilize the French reserves.

If I was going to explore this idea further, I wouldn't use those Sikorsky four engine planes you mentioned. I'd use Zepelins - more proven technology and it's technology the Germans were more familiar with and therefore more likely to use.

As far as dashing across the border and sneaking into ports, the best you could hope for was to insert a few light forces which would be exposed to rapid counter-attack before they could be reinforced.

The German Schliefen Plan called for a rapid, overwhelming advance into Belgium and France. Yet, Germany was unable to begin its advance until four or five days after they began mobilizing. France began mobilizing on the same day as Germany and was already several days into mobilization when Germany first crossed the Belgian border. Germany could not make its first moves before France began its own mobilization. Wherever Germany made your proposed sneak attacks by light forces, France would be able to quickly counter-attack with heavier forces from its peace-time army.
Chlodio is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
1927, epiphany, uddet



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epiphany and the witch [Befana] AlpinLuke Art and Cultural History 0 January 5th, 2014 02:42 PM
May 22, 1927 Inc General History 10 December 12th, 2011 04:42 PM
Intellectual Epiphany: Know what I Mean? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 March 23rd, 2009 02:06 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.