German mega defense

[Peter89]

My point is this: the Germans have lost the air battle because they didn't draw the correct lessons from 1940 regarding production, and because they sent the air force to the peripheries in 1941. The only thing that they could do from that point on was to correct these mistakes. Which of course they couldn't do because they couldn't even keep pace with the British aircraft industry alone and their commitments in the east and south never really ceased.

The problem with your "wall" is the impossible nature of it. Given Germany's position - fighting against superior enemies that surrounded it - no wall would be unbreakable. It has been tried in WW1. Didn't work.

The best "wall" the Germans could build was occupying defensive positions which would be very hard to assault. Two things come into my mind: sea shores and mountains. Mountains were not really there so we are stuck with sea shores.

If were gonna occupy just mountains and shores theres no point in doing anything but a mini Atlantic wall on the north.Mountains ? I see no reason for any kind of forts or proper defenses there.

I really fail to understand why you all believe such a defense that i propose would fail so easily to do its job.For starters whos gonna be stupid enough to attack them head on ? Artillery aint gonna do much to the forts and the big guns will far outrange anything so a land invasion will be almost impossible unless the gun handlers suddenly all have a heart attack.We are talking about a "wall" consisting of moats,trenches,small forts,bigger forts and flak towers and finally those giant guns i said.Of course radars,command post,observation points and all the goodies will be in and between all the things i mentioned.All that equally spread for weakpoints to be as few as possible.These weakpoints will be full of infantry and heavy tanks but noo matter the position of the line there will always be a strong airforce presence.How is something like this going to totally fail without the attackers having expended everything they got and more to do it ? Peter you mentioned a way that the British would approach such a defense but i there too fail to understand how would they not be spotted way before they got there and how the AAs are gonna be so ineffective at doing anything while the defenders airforce sits around doing plane spotting.If the Germans play deff i guess theyre gonna have an as advanced as the British one and an equally well trained crew.

If Germany was going to play defensive, they would probably do better than OTL but not with this mega fortress idea. The answer to your question is rather simple; fortifications were combat value multiplicators but they could not rewrite the laws of war, and the German side did not have any unique, game changer technology. Thus: with the proper force disparity, the defenses would fall.

[Destroyer500]

If Germany was going to play defensive, they would probably do better than OTL but not with this mega fortress idea. The answer to your question is rather simple; fortifications were combat value multiplicators but they could not rewrite the laws of war, and the German side did not have any unique, game changer technology. Thus: with the proper force disparity, the defenses would fall.

What does OTL mean ? I searched it and it said out of lunch but that doesnt make sense.What would be a game changer technology ? With a force disparity everything will eventually fall but at what a cost for the attacker ?

[ThatZenoGuy]

If Germany was going to play defensive, they would probably do better than OTL but not with this mega fortress idea. The answer to your question is rather simple; fortifications were combat value multiplicators but they could not rewrite the laws of war, and the German side did not have any unique, game changer technology. Thus: with the proper force disparity, the defenses would fall.

What does OTL mean ? I searched it and it said out of lunch but that doesnt make sense.What would be a game changer technology ? With a force disparity everything will eventually fall but at what a cost for the attacker ?

OTL.

Original Time Line.

[Peter89]

If Germany was going to play defensive, they would probably do better than OTL but not with this mega fortress idea. The answer to your question is rather simple; fortifications were combat value multiplicators but they could not rewrite the laws of war, and the German side did not have any unique, game changer technology. Thus: with the proper force disparity, the defenses would fall.

What would be a game changer technology ? With a force disparity everything will eventually fall but at what a cost for the attacker ?

Let's say the atomic bomb and intercontinental rocket technology.

By the way the resource & force disparity does not equal battlefield victory. The Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) was a strategic blunder, but the Allies were very much committed to this blunder and continue with it as long as the war lasts. It is much cheaper to produce a FW 190 and train its pilot than to produce a B-17 and train its crew; not to mention maintenance and operational costs. It is also very much debatable whether the Anglo-Saxon powers could ever break the Luftwaffe over the Reich on their own, had Germany opted for a defensive strategy (which they'd never do but anyway). In any case, the flak-idea doesn't really work. The flak forces the bombers to fly higher and exact some toll from them around the target, but all along the way, the fighters should attack the bomber stream with large formations. The Germans knew it and did it, but with a considerable chunk of the Luftwaffe fighting in the East and the South, they simply didn't have enough men and aircraft.

[Destroyer500]

Let's say the atomic bomb and intercontinental rocket technology.

By the way the resource & force disparity does not equal battlefield victory. The Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) was a strategic blunder, but the Allies were very much committed to this blunder and continue with it as long as the war lasts. It is much cheaper to produce a FW 190 and train its pilot than to produce a B-17 and train its crew; not to mention maintenance and operational costs. It is also very much debatable whether the Anglo-Saxon powers could ever break the Luftwaffe over the Reich on their own, had Germany opted for a defensive strategy (which they'd never do but anyway). In any case, the flak-idea doesn't really work. The flak forces the bombers to fly higher and claim exact some toll from them around the target, but all along the way, the fighters should attack the bomber stream with large formations. The Germans knew it and did it, but with a considerable chunk of the Luftwaffe fighting in the East and the South, they simply didn't have enough men and aircraft.

First of all thank you for taking the time and properly answering all i asked in the last few pages.A nuke and a missile able to send it everywhere would eventually be done by the Germans especially if they werent at a full all out war.It wouldnt matter that much in my opinion though.
One thing you are wrong though is about the bombers flying higer to avoid the flak.The 30-40cm guns with rocket propeled shells,that i proposed earlier and that everyone seems to just cast aside,although horizontaly could reach 100 and more kms verticaly i guess their limit would be 50-70 max.Nothing went above that in the 40s.Also lets not forget that flying higer means less accurate bombing and at 12km which was the max range of the b29 hitting anything would be due to pure luck.The problem could of course be fixed with glide-guided bombs but again its too high for much accuracy.

[Destroyer500]

OTL.

Original Time Line.

Thanks man

[T. A. Gardner]

First of all thank you for taking the time and properly answering all i asked in the last few pages.A nuke and a missile able to send it everywhere would eventually be done by the Germans especially if they werent at a full all out war.It wouldnt matter that much in my opinion though.
One thing you are wrong though is about the bombers flying higer to avoid the flak.The 30-40cm guns with rocket propeled shells,that i proposed earlier and that everyone seems to just cast aside,although horizontaly could reach 100 and more kms verticaly i guess their limit would be 50-70 max.Nothing went above that in the 40s.Also lets not forget that flying higer means less accurate bombing and at 12km which was the max range of the b29 hitting anything would be due to pure luck.The problem could of course be fixed with glide-guided bombs but again its too high for much accuracy.

To get a gun to do what you propose you end up with things like:

Green Mace



A 127mm water-cooled, auto-loading, monstrosity weighing over 30 tons of both high complexity and cost per copy. Or, you end up with something like HARP



A 5" or bigger mega-cannon that has a barrel life of maybe 100 rounds capable of reaching 70,000 meters altitude at a cost of tens of millions a copy.

A guided missile is cheaper and more accurate. Hence why you don't see big AA guns today.

[Takao]

One thing you are wrong though is about the bombers flying higer to avoid the flak.The 30-40cm guns with rocket propeled shells,that i proposed earlier and that everyone seems to just cast aside,although horizontaly could reach 100 and more kms verticaly i guess their limit would be 50-70 max.Nothing went above that in the 40s.Also lets not forget that flying higer means less accurate bombing and at 12km which was the max range of the b29 hitting anything would be due to pure luck.The problem could of course be fixed with glide-guided bombs but again its too high for much accuracy.

Cast aside...Why sure...Why would early-1930s Germany have them? Late-1930's Germany even...When 1945 Germany did not have them.

For that matter, the Allies could develop more sophisticated aircraft and/or bomb aiming devices, or perfected television guided bombs.



Yet another mindless thread where the Germans get all the goodies, and the Allies are too dumb to figure out which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.

[Destroyer500]

To get a gun to do what you propose you end up with things like:

Green Mace



A 127mm water-cooled, auto-loading, monstrosity weighing over 30 tons of both high complexity and cost per copy. Or, you end up with something like HARP



A 5" or bigger mega-cannon that has a barrel life of maybe 100 rounds capable of reaching 70,000 meters altitude at a cost of tens of millions a copy.

A guided missile is cheaper and more accurate. Hence why you don't see big AA guns today.

WOOOOOWW I never said that i want anything like that to fire in the sky.I was imagining this exact gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40.6_cm_SK_C/34_gun being able to elevate to 90 degrees with a shell like that of the Sturmtiger or that of the proposed long Gustav,thats why i said multiple times ROCKET PROPELED SHELL.I dont know if it could reach 50-70km up that was more of a guess but 15-20 it would be able to for sure

Cast aside...Why sure...Why would early-1930s Germany have them? Late-1930's Germany even...When 1945 Germany did not have them.

For that matter, the Allies could develop more sophisticated aircraft and/or bomb aiming devices, or perfect television guided bombs.



Yet another mindless thread where the Germans get all the goodies, and the Allies are too dumb to figure out which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.

I never said the defense is completely impregnable.Instead of slow bombers the allies could overwhelm the defenses with much faster bombers flying lower,they could built a revolutionary jet bomber,they could make a long Gustav themselfs that outranges the defenses or anything for that matter one can think of.The Mega Defense will force a response no matter what but at the same time they will be advancing to new threats too

Since were talking about long range guns and as a side note take a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tmocTSCNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vIPNElDkns https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... ch-hurdle/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ge-cannon/ Thats a massive range.Could things like these be created earlier or are the techs involved there too modern ?

Edit;look what i found

Capture.PNG

Bellow this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxQkUqYzOpk I searched those names and places and they are all true.So i guess they could make longer range artillery-guns even back then.It would of course make these shells very costly.

[Destroyer500]

Let's say the atomic bomb and intercontinental rocket technology.

With links i presented on my previous post there was info and some evidence about artillery shells getting far bigger ranges.These links involve modern and old tech.What if a big caliber stationary gun (1 or 2 of them) with some ramjet engine and a nuclear warhead was made far behind and in "hidden" positions behind my mega defenses ? Wouldnt that count as a "superweapon" ? Of course the other western powers could probably built one of their own too but that doesnt make the idea worse.If the whole weapon platform could be lowered bellow ground and elevated when the need to fire arose that makes it even harder to spot and hit.

[T. A. Gardner]

'Atomic' cannon were a technological dead end.

Be it the Soviet version(s)



or the US one

[Destroyer500]

'Atomic' cannon were a technological dead end.

That does not include a shell with a ramjet engine so its not close to being the same as the ones i proposed.

[Takao]

'Atomic' cannon were a technological dead end.

That does not include a shell with a ramjet engine so its not close to being the same as the ones i proposed.

Doesn't matter. Rockets can be produced at a fraction of the cost, and are much more survivable in a combat environment.

[Destroyer500]

Doesn't matter. Rockets can be produced at a fraction of the cost, and are much more survivable in a combat environment.

Thats really relative.Early icbms werent even that movable and were of giant sizes.If a gun in the 150-200 caliber in the US was in modern times being developed to fire at 1000km then a much bigger gun may be able to reach or even surpass ICBM ranges due to the ramjet shell having more fuel in it.Will the accuracy be the same ? Propably no.Will the gun be more mobile ? Certainly cannot be loaded in a multi wheeled,8x8,truck and be thrown from anywhere but i never said replace missiles completely.At the same time its not like missile bunkers move that much either and if the US version that is that small a caliber could probably reach 1000km then why couldnt a railway mounted K5 do the same or surpass it ? Again not as mobile as a truck but still mobile.

[T. A. Gardner]

'Atomic' cannon were a technological dead end.

That does not include a shell with a ramjet engine so its not close to being the same as the ones i proposed.

I can put a ramjet on a cruise missile and do better. A round fired from a cannon has to withstand the stresses of firing, whereas a missile undergoes less stress in firing so more of it can be put to fuel and payload. Also, with guidance, it is far more accurate than a shell.

For instance, an early tactical SSM was the US Lacrosse missile. This was a tactical missile designed to hit a bunker-sized target out to about 12 miles. It was initially a derivative of the USN Lark missile that started development in late 1944. One missile, one hit, done. It could be carried and launched from a 5 ton truck.

The US Talos SAM was turned into an ARM (homes on enemy radar) that could accurately take out a radar site at up to about 80 miles from the launcher. Another was using the nuclear armed variant as an SSM. So, now you have a SAM that is also an SSM and can be used and operated by the same launch and guidance systems. Far cheaper and more flexible than a huge cannon.