Two Whiffery Questions . . .

robunos

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
1 May 2007
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
1,752
I need the Forum's help with a couple of bits of Whiffery I'm working on.

1. What, if anything, would cause the Germans to repudiate the Armistice, in very late 1918/early 1919 ?

2. Would it be possible for the Allies to develop and deploy a wire guided anti-tank missile in the immediate post D-Day period ?
Thanks in advance,

cheers,
Robin.
 
By 1918, Germany was bankrupt and short of soldiers. The allied naval blockade restricted imports of fuel, food, metals, chemicals, etc. Starving German civilians forced the surrender.
Perhaps a German Communist government might repudiate the Treaty of Versailles, but it would take them another decade to rebuild before they could do anything outside of German borders.
 
OTL Germany developed several radio-guided air-to-ship missiles, but the US Navy soon learned how to jam their radio signals. The German Luftwaffe also tried to develop some air-to-Air missiles but never completed them before the war ended.
They also experimented with wire-guided missiles, but never completed development. Ruhrstahl Ru 344 X-4 aka. Ruhrstahl-Kramer 344 were wife-guided air-to-air missiles. Ruhrstahl was working on the X-7 wire-guided anti-tank missile when the war ended.
During the 1950s, France used German X-7 wire-guided missile technology to develop the Nord SS 10, wire-guided anti-tank missile The primary French contribution was switching to far more stable solid fuel. . The Nord SS 10 entered French Army service in 1955. Soon after SS 10 was adopted by the American and Israeli Armies. It only served briefly before being replaced by the SS 11 missile.
 
Last edited:
By November 1918, Germany was as another poster said, starving and bankrupt. The Navy was mutinying, the Austrian and Ottoman empires were falling apart, as was Russia. German troops were getting sucked into the borderland civil wars on an ad hoc basis, and Bavaria was in secession. There was no practical way Germany could continue the war.
 
1. The Germans probably had every reason to repudiate the Versailles Treaty before it was signed but they were militarily incapable of doing so, disarmament had already begun,the bulk of the Navy was in Scapa Flow or otherwise inoperable and what was left of the Army was busy trying to keep law and order in Germany.

2. The only precedent the Allies had was the Lay Torpedo of the 1870s. Modern wire-guided torpedoes didn't follow until the 1950s.
As to an anti-tank missile, there was probably no practical obstacle to trying out the idea on the Allied side, in fact its perhaps odd that nobody did think of it sooner. But I guess radio command guidance would have been explored first.
 
riggerrob said:
OTL Germany developed several radio-guided air-to-ship missiles, but the US Navy soon learned how to jam their radio signals. The German Luftwaffe also tried to develop some air-to-Air missiles but never completed them before the war ended.
They also experimented with wire-guided missiles, but never completed development. Ruhrstahl Ru 344 X-4 aka. Ruhrstahl-Kramer 344 were wife-guided air-to-air missiles. Ruhrstahl was working on the X-7 wire-guided anti-tank missile when the war ended.
During the 1950s, France used German X-7 wire-guided missile technology to develop the Nord SS 10, wire-guided anti-tank missile The primary French contribution was switching to far more stable solid fuel. . The Nord SS 10 entered French Army service in 1955. Soon after SS 10 was adopted by the American and Israeli Armies. It only served briefly before being replaced by the SS 11 missile.
Click to expand...

I red once in a history of French Ju-88, trials of these weapons. They were... epic, to say the least. And somewhat stressfull of the pilots.
 
robunos said:
What, if anything, would cause the Germans to repudiate the Armistice, in very late 1918/early 1919 ?
Click to expand...
The story I heard growing up: the French, the Brits, and just about all other Europeans, wanted to dismantle for good the German empire. Splitting it back into Prussia as one state, Bavaria as another, Rhine area, and so on. Basically what was done to Austro-Hungary and to Turkey.
"But it was those #*&%! Americans, hopelessly ignorant of the world's reality, especially Woodrow Wilson, who forced their idealistic views onto everyone else ... [and set everybody up for WW2]" (Choir of the grandparents)

Should the wisdom of the old world have prevailed, one can imagine that the dismantling would take some time to implement, and that a rebellion similar to Turkey's Young Turks could happen.
(And quite likely nobody would have had the gumption to restart the war to squash it)
 
They dig up the gas main in Berlin for the lead pipes to melt into bullets
 
Thanks for your input . . .
In regard to the Armistice, my idea was for the Germans ask for an Armistice, based on the then-current military situation, that is, following the cease-fire, the respective armies retain their positions; no withdrawals or advances, these would be negotiated at some later time.
Then, under pressure from Congress and the public, President Wilson announces not only are the US troops to be brought home as soon as possible, but that the USA will take no part in the peace negotiations. This then emboldens the French to take a hawkish line, and demand punitive conditions for an Armistice and eventual peace.
Since the Germans are only looking for a pause in hostilities, in order to regroup and re-arm, the US announcement is music to their ears, while the French position gives them a perfect reason to both rally German public opinion, and to recommence fighting. In particular, in diplomatic notes passed to the Americans, the Germans state that they expect the USA to remain non-belligerent in any re-commencement of hostilities.
With the guided missile, I'm looking for a solution to the 'Panther problem'. I'm thinking that HEAT or HESH warheads on guided missiles would substitute for a heavy anti tank gun, as there were never enough 17-pdrs, and the US 76mm proved less than effective.
To re-phrase my original question more accurately, did the Allies possess the technology, to enable them to develop and deploy a wire-guided anti-tank missile in the post D-Day period ?
 
Short version of a 1919 campaign... Germany gets crushed under masses of tanks and aircraft while being invaded from west and south.

Oh and in November 11th 1918 the Germans can either accept the allied terms, or the Lorraine offensive is launched and the 100 days continue.
 
On wire-guided ATMs: It seems that the Germans were close to introducing their experimental Ruhrstahl X-7 ATM. The X-7 is said to have inspired the French Nord SS.10 with a similar guidance systems. That suggests that a 1944 wire-guided ATM is not such a great stretch. The issue with the S.10 seems to have been the liquid fuel rocket motor. Maybe, in your whif, you could substitute a solid fuel motor (à la the much larger Malkara)?

OT, but this has me imagining the earlier development of an M20 'Super Bazooka' analogue. Contemporary resistance to 'up-sizing' to something the size of the German Panzerschreck is understandable (eg: not wanting to disrupt US wartime production). But, what if the enlarged Bazooka was a British product? Ie: enlarging the M9 launcher and rocket to take a PIAT HEAT warhead. That gives the British Army a 3.3 in (83 mm) Bazooka. Not quite the Panzerschreck's 88 mm (or RW M20's 3.5-inch/90 mm) but a bigger punch than the M9's 2.36 inch (60 mm).
 
I was thinking of something along the lines of a British 3in cordite RP motor, there had been a few attempts like Spandrel to make an AAM out of it so its not a wild stretch that someone says, "hey lets ground fire this, and use wires to transmit the control impulses.
The main problems are going to be line-of-sight and actually aiming the missile with the optics of the time, especially if its infantry deployed. Of course if you want to stick it on an M-4 or surplus Cromwell or M-10 hulls or something, it might work.
Even so, if you want this after D-Day then development would need to begin around 1941-42. Its not the sort of thing even the Americans could just throw together in six weeks.
 
Apophenia, Hood, thanks for your input. I'd originally looked at Bazooka type weapons, but the problem with them is (lack of) range and accuracy. The idea is to 'shoot on sight', with a high (<70%) kill probability, even if it's only a mission kill. Hence guidance and a big HESH warhead.
I know that the development process wouldn't be quick , I had the idea of a 'Barnes Whittle' type, beavering away on his 'Crazy Project', only semi-officially supported, ' just in case something useful comes of it', until the point that the weapon works, when the whole project is dumped on the shelf, and BW is re-assigned. Then, when the balloon goes up, it's a mad scramble to get the system into production and service . . .
I've also looked at RCLs, but in order to achieve the range and accuracy targets, you need high chamber pressures, projectile velocities and rifling, which means expensive to make barrels. Might as well stick to making 17-pounders . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
I need the Forum's help with a couple of bits of Whiffery I'm working on.

1. What, if anything, would cause the Germans to repudiate the Armistice, in very late 1918/early 1919 ?

2. Would it be possible for the Allies to develop and deploy a wire guided anti-tank missile in the immediate post D-Day period ?
Thanks in advance,

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

1. Nothing. Their army was beaten, and their navy had mutinied rather than face another Jutland (which they knew they would lose this time).
2. Not on the man-portable level. Maybe one or two on a tank, but they would have been high-value and probably highly unreliable targets that would attract a lot of attention. If you went back in time and showed them how it was done, I'm sure US industry at least would rise to the challenge of mass production - but you would have had to be working on it for quite a while already.

Recall that the first air-dropped homing torpedoes had severe constraints on their use to ensure as far as was possible that they did not fall into the hands of the Germans and that their use would not be observed and the weapon's capabilities deduced. I cannot see the Allies risking the use of such technology on European soil if there was even the slightest possibility that the Germans might counterattack and capture some intact. They didn't even use the Gloster Meteor in Europe until the end was so close it no longer mattered, and that was against an enemy who already possessed a jet fighter with superior performance.
 
Okay, another whiffery question for you all . . .
Here's the scenario. In the 1920s / 30s RAF, an aircraft, say a Bristol Bulldog, is to be transferred from a regular fighter squadron to a 'special' unit. This transfer will last for twelve months, and the aircraft will be repainted into a colour other than silver dope. At the end of the twelve months, the aircraft will be returned to it's original unit, and repainted back into silver dope. The question is, would the aircraft's fabric be replaced at any point in this process, and if so, when ?
Thanks in Advance,

cheers,
Robin.
 
Dear pathology.doc,
The primary reason that the RAF did not send their new Meteor jets to Continental Europe was that they were too busy defending the British Isles against V1 buzz-bomb, cruise missiles. V-1s were faster than all but the best propeller-driven fighters: Mosquitos and Tempests. V-1s caused considerable civilian casualties until WALLIED armies over-ran their launching sites in Northern France and Belgium during the late summer of 1944. Soon after, wet autumn weather linited visibility and flying over Germany. Besides, by the summer of 1944, the Luftwaffe had hardly any airplanes left and posed little threat to WALLIED ground troops.
 
Dear Robunos,
Airplanes only get new fabric cover when the first layer gets too heavy (too many layers of paint) or the fabric rots out. The silver (aluminum powder) dope prevents ultraviolet sunlight from penetrating and degrading fabric.
During wartime, airframes often wore out before the fabric. Mind you, parking them out in the snow and rain drastically reduces the life of cotton or linen textiles.

Modern Dacron fabrics and dopes often last 30 or more years when hangared. Rusted metal parts then become a greater risk than faded fabric.
 
because the attempts to compare and consolidate the Armenian issues of 1915 and the Holocaust are interminably delayed for some reason , it always surprises one to read Adolf and Ludendorff were marching to a Munich beerhall , totally empowered by the success and resilience of the Kemalist stuff in Anatolia . Same line of thinking but they in 1922 were no longer the Young Turks , which ı would rather use to describe Ottoman intellectuals , mostly exiled , about 1880s and 90s .

and was it on this site that ı read the Hungarians were either fielding or testing or designing a wire guided ATGM ? ln addition to their 1000 hp turboprop of 1940 ?
 
robunos said:
2. Would it be possible for the Allies to develop and deploy a wire guided anti-tank missile in the immediate post D-Day period ?
Click to expand...

Theoretically yes, it's not that complex. On practice, with amount of work to do, I expect it would not be ready till the end of war.
 
am pretty sure being amazed at the notion that they were so much on par with the Germans who are very much reported or something to have fired "hundreds" at Russians , which probably comes from Bill Gunston at some Air lnternational article when Air lnternational was Air lnternational .
 
r16 said:
am pretty sure being amazed at the notion that they were so much on par with the Germans who are very much reported or something to have fired "hundreds" at Russians , which probably comes from Bill Gunston at some Air lnternational article when Air lnternational was Air lnternational .
Click to expand...

Considering how much rockets we, Russians, fired at them - German rocketry may simply not exist) While initially their rocket projectiles were quite advanced, they essentially stagnated later.

Or did yo means German supposed ATGM's? As far as I knew, they never were actually deployed; at best some experimental samples may be fired by desperate crews when frontline came to them.
 
ı came to this site only to get accepted into the What lf forum when their then software took r16 as a bot or something . Would be quite content to be the forum idiot (especially here) but ı have somewhat enjoyed that when they kicked me out for talking too much , they kept the Bomberbolt , a Shturmovik of a P-47 with a bomb bay until the very day they could no longer support pictures loaded by members . So , the drill is not to take me too seriously and like never expect documentation . Also by vagaries and distasteful coincidences of life ı have come across people who took to trolling Bill Gunston , amongst others , when the Republic of 1923 was a thing and an aircraft factory would be a bonus . So , Gunston would sometimes have access to overgarbled reports and this might or might not have involved an idea that typically massive Russian casualties might have been contributed to by moderner and sterner stuff . You see , nothing to bet anything on . ('Cos , Gunston was a British nationalist or whatever and was part of a bunch why the Jaguar should have been the one , at a time when it was the F-5E and Americans concurred and that was a lot of fun.)


so that he would get to talk about smarter Commies like wolves in sheep gear and how they could use stuff to make things disappear ...
 
Thanks for your input so far, gents. If I may trouble you again, this question relates to a What-If model I currently have underway.
Would a US-built Private Venture prototype be allowed to carry service markings ? As in US 'Stars and Bars'?

cheers,
Robin.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom