Tanks or Aircraft, An alternate-history poll

That is why I think there must be some technical reason. Navies are conservative, but it is impossible to believe all the world's navies populated their design bureaus with idiots. They were always looking for some advantage.

I am just guessing, but it may be that shaped charges do less damage, aside from the armor piercing effect. In a tank, this does not matter, as the inside is only a few m3. But when you are trying to disable a ship, a shell which just pierced one compartment would not be much use. Contrast that with a heavy naval armor-piercing shell, which depends on its mass for penetration, then explodes to do catastrophic damage inside the ship.

Shaped charges also are vulnerable to countermeasures that cause them to explode out of contact with the armor -- look at the armored skirts introduced on tanks to defeat them. When I was a child I had a model of a Pz IV with this extra armor around the turret.

After some searching, I did find the rocket you are talking about. That was fascinating -- it was years ahead of its time. There must have been some problem with it, because I have not heard of it being in wide use. Maybe they could not solve the accuracy problem. Or maybe they just did not have a need for it, with their masses of conventional AT guns and tanks.

I would caveat that to say "the gun-armed, surface navy".

Certainly the development of carrier-based aviation from a curiousity to a dominant form of naval warfare was a huge change. Submarine warfare, too.... just look at the long list of technical innovations introduced by the Germans (although the American submarines were less sophisticated, I would argue they were more effective ultimately). One could also point to the developments in the supporting functions, such as underway replenishment and refueling. That was a big change too, as it allowed the US Navy to operate over long distances, for longer periods, and at a higher operational tempo than any navy before. The sustained operations off Okinawa in 1945 are the example that comes to mind.

After some searching, I did find the rocket you are talking about. That was fascinating -- it was years ahead of its time. There must have been some problem with it, because I have not heard of it being in wide use. Maybe they could not solve the accuracy problem. Or maybe they just did not have a need for it, with their masses of conventional AT guns and tanks.

Or maybe the inventor won a free trip to the GULAG arhipelago?

Well, I think a shaped charge shell fired from a 16" caliber naval gun will have a proportional effect on a ship as one fired from a smaller caliber gun at a tank.

In order for them to explode inside the ship they had to penetrate. For that, some of them had very small explosive charge and focused on steel volume.
Also, trying to penetrate kinetically will mean that the armour plate will resist in its entirety, by acting as a compact block who cannot be stretched/penetrated by a hard object without that stretching being distributed through the whole mass (in more or less percentages).
So the resistance will be harder than in the case of a shaped charge which will focus the melted metal on a smaller area which will have to resist thermically not mecanically.

I dont know if I was clear enough, or if what I said is 100% correct.
But I also think that if it was something technical with it, at least we would have had some proofs about them considering this solution and maybe test-trying it before discarding it.

First of all, it was supposed to supply the paratroopers.

After assembling the first paratroopers division in history, Soviet Union seemed to back off from taking seriously the usage of paratroopers. Also, Marshall Tukachevski, the guy who founded the paratroopers division, was executed following orders from Stalin.

That weapon wouldn't be the only Soviet technological marvel going unnoticed.
MiG-3, produced in 3000 pieces, an excellent airplane with the exception of its bad optical/aim system, did not make an impact in 1941...1942, and I would say is quite unnoticed regarding its usage by U.S.S.R.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About naval technology I would say you are right. I forgot about the last type of German submarines when I wrote my notes. One German project, never turned into prototype, was for a submarine using a fuel containing its own oxygen, thus not needing air from atmosphere. But the same fuel was needed for V-2, a priority project.
Also the Japanese engineers did quite a cool thing with those submarines able to travel 20,000 miles without refueling and also able to carry 5 foldable airplanes each. If the 3 submarines would not receive the order to cancel their trip toward Panama, in order to hit the American fleet from the rear, near Japan, their airplanes would bomb the Panama Channel in the last days of the war!

This post has been edited by Florin on July 12, 2005 04:24 am

Yes, what they actually did in the war was 180 degrees off from their pre-war demonstrations. I wonder if they were influenced by the German experience -- the casualties the German paratroops suffered in Crete and Norway? Of course, the purges could not have helped -- inexperienced small unit leaders with the initiative terrorized out of them are the last thing you need in an airborne operation.

I actually saw that foldable plane, at the Smithsonian Institute's Air & Space Museum's restoration facility in Silver Hill, Maryland, USA. It was the last example of the type, and it was in rather poor condition. I didn't realize they had five of those submarines, but it still seems like a desperate plan. Five bombs, or even five planes, crashing in to the Panama Canal would not have done much. Even the lock gates are huge. And it's not like it was undefended, certainly not by that stage of the war. But I still would have used them for that mission rather than wasting them against the US fleet.

The earlier comments about "asymmetric" warfare made me think of World War 2 Japan. They certainly seemed to be the masters of creative (but impractical) solutions to military problems: the bomber-carrying submarines, the half battleship/half aircraft carrier conversions, releasing balloons with bombs to float over the USA, anti-aircraft shells for the 18 inch guns on Yamato/Musashi, and so on. And of course many innovations that did work: their deadly torpedoes and the Ohka suicide plane for example

First, it is safe to claim that the Russian leaders, regardless the regime, never cried too much for the human casualties of their own troops. I would say that high human losses were not a deterrent in thinking Russian strategies.
Second, let remember that in the 40's, for friends and for foes whatsoever, the German paratroopers campaigns in Crete and Norway were perceived as huge successes. The victors, which were the Germans, hold the ground and made most of their enemies prisoners, which allowed them to hide their own losses.

Thank you for information. I'll try to pay a visit myself.
Regarding the operation targeting Panama Channel, I guess that in the last days of the war the American units were relaxing there, and some sudden Japanese planes would be a surprise comparable with Pearl Harbor.
The planes could be able, technically speaking, to interrupt the traffic of the Panama Channel for a period, but obviously this could not impact the war too much. (I don't think a "huge" dam gate is invulnerable to a lucky one half ton bomb.)

...And the list is not over. Tens of Japanese jet fighters and tens of Japanese jet bombers were ready to attack the American armada during the scheduled landing on the Japanese southern main island (Kyushu?), in September 1945.
Also Japan was the first to use gyrocopters (not the same thing with helicopters, but cousins), as early as 1942 in the Philippines. Surprisingly, the American chain of command never learn about their existence during war. Also a Japanese gyrocopter destroyed an American submarine, which of course did not change anything, but would stay nice in a book with priorities.

However, on a daily basis the war was very asymmetric. I doubt the American Marines could sustain the fight if they would have the food ratios, the lack of aerial support and the equipment of their counterpart.
Also, the nuclear blasts still make no sense. Before them, the Japanese leadership accepted all of the Allied conditions, but still insisted to keep the Emperor and his family in power. For Truman and the other good guys, this was too much.
2 atomic bombs and 200,000 dead later, what did we got? General Mac Arthur kept Hirohito in power, exactly what the Japanese asked as the only condition to cease fight. Why the American kids do not learn this in the public school?

This post has been edited by Florin on July 13, 2005 03:52 am

Please stay on topic.

Well... first option means... things that existed in reality, no? Situation resulted with this is well known. So, why to vote something who will not change things?

Third option is with minor changes in front of the reality - we produce under license Savoia Marchetti, Messerschmitt, Fleet... more changes will be presented in the tank part - i'l go for CKD Lt-38 light tank and chasies adapted to Maresal project [series production of a middle class tank like Panzer III or IV will be hard to believe in this half-half scenario, and if we started P III/IV will be hard to have a speedy production, of course quality of finit machines are to be inferior to what germans make; maybe, MAYBE STUG III G can make some differences from what really happens - imagine Maresal and TAS (Stug III G) to all mobile (cavalry) divisions and battalion of this vechicles in all infantry divisions of the front line].

So, the second option can give a lot of changes. Is my opinion. Maybe if first option may become different then reallity.

We can go back to the topic, and continue this nice subject?
Someone can try to expose another scenario to convince others about his option/opinion?

Iama

Edit: we can make an Lt-38 with his armor welded not with "nituri" (what is the word?), some supplementary armor plates and some german radio equipment.. maybe a variant with 45 m.m. soviet at gun or 50 m.m. german gun. and a modified turret.

This post has been edited by Iamandi on July 13, 2005 10:19 am

Yes, it is the historical reality. That's the question behind the poll: "Would you do things differently, if you were in charge of Romanian industry in the same situation? Would the costs of change have been worth the benefits?"

As for the philosophical question, people often vote to keep things as they are... just look at the last American Presidential election for example.

It is like a curse against the Romanian engineers that talented and enthusiast individuals did not find the support of the people having politic power. This is something going on since 1906 to this day - the same sad story in Romania regardless times and regimes.

The Romanian leadership did not take seriously the need of having a strong industry to supply the army. When things started to speed up in 1938...1939, it was too little too late.

I still consider that it was OK the way it was, an aviation industry in stead of one focused on armored vehicles, as long unfortunately we could not have them both.

I am surprised that the engineers from IAR were not able to change the design of IAR-80 to install one of the air cooled star motors used by the early FockeWulf-190. Or why they did not obtain the license to manufacture such a star type German motor.
Also it is interesting to see that even though Romania improved the capacity and the output of the existing Romanian factories, no new factories were built in 1941...1944 to produce more AT guns, more tanks, more airplanes.

As far as I know, the other European Axis allies - Italy, Finland, Hungary, also did not build new factories for military equipment, so in a way they left Germany alone in the industrial race which changed the tide of the war.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 14, 2005 04:48 am

It was estimated that in September 1944, the production of Maresal tank destroyers will reach 100 pieces/month. IMO, that isn't so bad. If locally built tanks/tank destroyers would have become interesting several years earlier, maybe some Romanian lives could have been saved. But this is only speculation. The Germans started supplying needed technology for airecraft and tank destroyers only in 1944.

Florin mentioned a larger engine for the IAR-80. Some experiments were made with a DB engine taken from a Romanian Bf-109 and the results were superior to the 14K engine. Romania wanted to import/buy the license for the engine, but was refused. The same with the intention to buy BMW radial engines (mounted on the Fw-190s). IIRC, Romania also wanted to import an assembly line for Czech tanks and later Swiss machine-tools. All requests were canceled after German intervention. It is not like Romania didn't try to open new factories. It seems it wasn't allowed to. When things finally started to move, it was too late for both Germany and Romania. Ironically, the Bf-109Gs built by IAR were used after September 1944, against the Axis.

On the topic of building new factories during the war: all you guys talking about the grand Romanian war industry are forgetting one thing. When they entered the war, all the axis countries believed/hoped/wanted for the war to be short (about 6 months). They knew they had to spend all available resources in producing what wheapons could pe produced, and not to invest in new factories. It wold have been hopeless anyway, to try to beat the allies in an industrial competition.
Just my two (new) "bani".

Rumania was granted by Berlin with the licence of the DB-605 in-line engine, in October 1943 (for the intended Bf 109G production, plus spares). The first series-production targeted 265 engines.

Gen. Dénes