What if scenario, A diferent equipped Romanian Army

It is more acceptable to discuss the "what if" of different economic power and different political leadership than different technological progress. By different I mean faster than it occurred.
In those years there was a fast succession of inventions and technological improvements, and for Romania to start to design the I.A.R. 80 or the "Maresal" tank destroyer just 5 years earlier would mean to really invent and be the first in the world in technologies like retractable wheels or sloped armor.

[off topic discussion deleted by admin]

Sure, making IAR-80 like planes couple years earlier and in bigger number if we paid a bigger attention to aviation industry and that was much developed by then is much easy to take in consideration even in this "what if" thread

This post has been edited by Victor on April 28, 2012 09:11 pm

If we really had invested in local aviation industry since 1930 let say, i am sure would be possible to come with a airplane with similar capabilities with IAR-80, at least couple years earlier. And having an already much developed industrial base would be able to build it in larger quantities (maybe close to 1000 planes, since 1936-1937 lets say, up to 1940), and make improvings to it, as was the case with Me-109 or Spitifire over the time.

About the Maresal tank destroyer, yes, it is harder to take in consideration to be build before 1940. But, let say we buy some heavy French or Czech tanks, even some license for them (this in the case we would invest much more in local industry and militarization, since late 20's).

And pay more attention to what others might do or have. We'll either had much more tanks, and better ones, either even come to an original concept as "Maresal", maybe even before 1940.

I agree that PZL-24 was a poor fighter, and that was the reason IAR-80 was produced, unfortunately too little and too late

The off-topic discussion was deleted in most part, starting from the moment when even the off-topic issue was no longer the subject and had been dropped in favor of personal attacks. Any further derailing of this topic will lead to deletion of the respective posts.

I don't like the feuds going on the forum. We came together on this forum to discuss and learn about military history. We don't have to like each other, we don't have to be friends or hold hands and sing together. But we do have to control ourselves. Holding grudges, paying scores, exerting revenge etc. it's utterly childish.

If the discussion reaches a point when the two parties are a irrevocably dug into their own positions, just agree to disagree and let it go or take a break for a few days. There is no point in continuing on a path which inevitably leads to personal attacks, conflict and clean-up work for Dragos and me.

If one of the members tackles the player and not the ball and moves from discussing the topic to making personal attacks, just report the post and then move on. I am absolutely sure that each and everyone has something better and more fulfilling to do than to exchange insults with an unknown person on the Internet.

Please carry on with the on topic discussion.

In my opinion the only way Romania could have rapidly industrialized before WWII would have been for it to become communist soon after WWI. Communists had an obsession with industrialization and economic development and they were ruthless in reaching their goals. They also hated the "bourgeoise" which in Romania made up the corrupt political class. A Romania whose economy was largely based on agriculture and oil industry and whose politics was atrophied and corrupt needed a shock to move it forward faster.

That's a radical theory, but not devoid of any truth.

Gen. Dénes

But the entire premise of this tread was that industrialisation would increase the military capability in order to repel Soviet aggressiveness.
Would a interwar "communist" Romania still be under the same level of threat from Russia?
Radu

ON TOPIC:

I think there are at least to levels on which this “what is” discussion can develop. The first (and more plausible one) would be that involving a slightly but plausibly stronger Romanian economy and army - including the developments which were actually explored or contracted in reality (production lines, licenses built, ordered weapons or vehicles), and this was the level addressed in my first post.

The second could employ a more radical alternative course of history, which in my opinion would be less credible and more of a fictional (fantasy) construction than a realistic alternative history approach (issues like having the IAR 80 into mass production by mid-late 1930, a 75 mm tank destroyer manufactured by the beginning of the war - and in great numbers - or a radically improved industrial base, somehow au pair with the agriculture as GDP generator). Part of these would have required for an alternative path of the entire Romanian modern history (not only of the interbellum), and other would be simply technically or theoretically implausible (a 75 AT cannon by 1939, or a low wing, all metal built, retractable landing gear Romanian fighter plane before the He 112, MS 406, Bf 109 or Hurricane Mk. I).

If i may intervene.

These what-ifs are dear to me aswell , in a sad way i guess , because here's you thinking of what might have been if this or that would have been different , and what is the (usually depressing) reality.

Anyway , if we're to have a stronger Romania in 1940 , imho we would have need the following:

A militaristic, nationalistic government taking power AT THE LATEST in the second half of the twenties. I'm thinking more on the right-wing way (a la Italy) rather than communism , afterall communism was our mortal enemy no ?
This leadership must put the defence of the country and the power of the military at the highest, i might say obsessive.
Crucially we needed to eradicate as much as possible corruption in the military apparatus.
The leadership must be competent and capable of anticipating ( within logic and reason ) the trends in the political and technological spectrum.

So, assuming IAR is created as historic , far more attention must be devoted to research and developement ( ie world quality wind tunnels etc .) Agressively building knowledge by sending trainees abroad. Initially licencing foreign designs to gain experience, say Potez-25 as historical , maybe go forward with Spad-91. Reasonable foresight of the PZL-11 breakthrough techology wise , and licensing this starting say 1932-33 (assuming license agreemend signed 1931 with historical purchase). This way IAR gains it's metal cosntruction knowledge much earlier, which in turn a could lead to a succesful IAR-15 -class all metal fighter by 1934. Engine is no good, HS-12X then Y for fighters must be aquired. At this time also licencing multiengine aircraft like Potez-54 , and still licence the 14 K for bomber and observation reconnaisance duties.
Next , by mid thirties we are looking at the next generation fighter with HS-12Y engine and retractable gear ( result of sufficient local inspiration in interpreting the trends in fighter aviation). Assuming prototype in 1936 (only slightly later than Bf-109 or Hurricane f.e.) we can assume full series production by late thirties.
Meenwhile , for the bomber force the licence for S-79 trimotor is still reasonable , being powered by improved 14K engines.
At the same time , by the mid thirties we really need to get friends with the germans ( if not already ) and in face of the common "red menace", get everything we can from them for oil ( like aircraft and crucially licences for Jumo-211, and DB-600/601. Even so by 1940 we'd have in prototype/ initial production at the most a local medium bomber with Jumo engines , and an improved fighter with DB-601, but the bulk will still be the IAR/HS-12Y fighter , the Savoias, and whatever could have been aquired from Germany and Italy.

In the meentime , factories like SET must have been greatly expanded compared to historical, SET being able to manufacture first line combat aircraft like IAR works ( f.e. part of S-79 order and licensing the IAR monoplane fighter, or possibly a SET designed "light-fighter", a concept quite in vogue at that time, able to be built in significant numbers and powered by either a 14K or 14N or HS-12Y.)

So aviation wise , imho the above "timeline" could give us say aprox 1,500 combat aircraft by 1940 (say 800 fighters, 250 bombers , 300 to 500 observation and light bomber aircraft, rest being made of seaplanes, and transports.). I think this is a reasonable figure looking at what other similar sized countries have achieved in those years, and under a best case scenario.

...to be continued!

In my opinion the only way Romania could have rapidly industrialized before WWII would have been for it to become communist soon after WWI. Communists had an obsession with industrialization and economic development and they were ruthless in reaching their goals. They also hated the "bourgeoise" which in Romania made up the corrupt political class. A Romania whose economy was largely based on agriculture and oil industry and whose politics was atrophied and corrupt needed a shock to move it forward faster.

@”Imperialist”
My comment quoted by you also had: "...for Romania to start to design the I.A.R. 80 or the "Maresal" tank destroyer just 5 years earlier would mean to really invent and be the first in the world in technologies like retractable wheels or sloped armor."
It is interesting that both innovations were implemented for the first time in Soviet Union, deemed as retarded by others considering themselves as superior.
Also, while the American documentaries assure everybody that their "Bazooka" was the first of its kind, the Russians designed since 1936 something equivalent and distributed it to paratroopers and very light boats. The Finns captured 2 during the Winter War and sent one to Germany for evaluation.
There is a connection between your comment and all I had mentioned above.

@"Radub"
A Communist Romania between the 2 world wars would not be threatened by Soviet Union, but it would also be forced on the side of Soviet Union during any possible European conflict. That would not be an independent country. It would be something filled with all kind of technical and economic advisors, engineers and officers, and maybe also with Soviet troops as "support".
The only other long lasting Communist state before WWII was Mongolia (you know that very well, I am not teaching here). Mongolia was a state only by name, flag and coat of arms.
When the Japanese invaded the edge of Mongolia, the real fighting was with the Red Army. The Mongolians were present occasionally with some sporadic cavalry.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 30, 2012 09:13 pm

Off topic posts deleted.

Romania was destined to become a satellite of Germany or of the Soviet Union. Its independence would have been limited in both cases, so I don't think it's even an issue.

I believe joining the German order would have been socially easier for Romania's overwhelmingly rural population. Romania would have retained the economic role alotted to it in Europe - exporter of basic products, importer of manufactures. This would certainly have been on the liking of conservative groups and the political elite that derived benefits.

Joining the Soviet order on the other hand would have been socially disruptive, but ideologically its emphasis would have been on rapid industrialization and on breaking out of that economic role of "inferiority".