Nazi Helicopters at Kursk

Weapon M · Jun 2, 2005

WI: Nazi helicopters make a surprise appearance at the Battle of Kursk, and they have some primitive anti-tank capability. They don't have to be terribly effective, but they do some damage and cause the Soviet push to slow down, at least temporarily....

Pretty standard type of POD...but add this:

American industrialists (maybe Ford) were at least partially behind the development of these early choppers, and the Nazis make this information public, as part of their psychological operations.

What happens to US industry? Is it nationalized to prevent things like this in the future?

How fast can the Soviets develop their own, assuming at least some were knocked down?

Assuming the helicopters were enough to really spank Ivan at Kursk, where does the war go from here?

How pissed will the British be that some American company helped with this?

Have fun with this...

Grettir Asmundarsen · Jun 2, 2005

For one thing, helicopters would've allowed for a better picture of the battlefield. The Germans might've been able to see that there was no significant SovCom forces backing up the salient; possibly, they would've been able to see the submerged bridges over/under the Don (?--I think that was the river), or at least have seen the build-up of tanks opposite the undermanned and equipped Italians on the German right flank.

If the Germans had a better view of the battlefield, they'd have seen that if they simply flanked around the salient, they'd have been between Zukov and Moscow--and they'd have had a clear shot at the capital. If Moscow falls, Russia falls.

Dave Bender · Jun 2, 2005

Moscow falls

Thats quite a stretch. Are these WWII era helicopters, or modern day AH-64s?

Germany was a pioneer in helicopter development. They do not need help from a U.S. firm. Just cancel some other weapon program (V-2 rocket maybe) and use the resources to purchase helicopters. I expect they could have a few deployed by 1943 if they wanted to.

Dave Howery · Jun 3, 2005

there was an article years ago in The General on this very subject.. the author basically developed helicopter counters for the Germans in the Panzerblitz board game. IIRC, he had the Germans inspired by the work of Sikorsky (I've heard the name, don't know who he is)...

Melvin Loh · Jun 3, 2005

Info on Igor Sikorsky, 1 of the most prolific helicopter pioneers- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Sikorsky

Sikorsky's aircraft co was involved in the design and production of many highly successful chopper designs after WWII.

Jason · Jun 3, 2005

I do remember the Germans had a contest for a battlefield recon aircraft either at the beginning of the war or only just before it that included a helicopter design, a conventional aircraft design was chosen.

If the helicopter had won, it could easily have been armed I suspect-however I think the deisgn was primative and might have proved very vunerable to ground fire.

DMA · Jun 3, 2005

To have an anti-tank chopper in 1943 is simply far too early. Anyway, as it was, the Germans had developed a tank-hunter Stuka, which performed well at Kursk, not to mention the purpose built Henschel 129. Yet if these two aircraft, couldn't change the balance of battle towards the Germans at Kursk, you can forget any German chopper making any impact whatsoever.

Dave Bender · Jun 3, 2005

Change the balance of battle at Kursk

Germany did not need any new "wonder weapons" to win at Kursk. Just more of the ones that they already had. Give Field Marshall Manstein 500 more tiger tanks (ILO Pz MkIIIs) and he will prevail.

Of course, Kursk was a poor place for Germany to attack. And Manstein stated so before the battle started.

Grettir Asmundarsen · Jun 3, 2005

Dave Bender said:
Germany did not need any new "wonder weapons" to win at Kursk. Just more of the ones that they already had. Give Field Marshall Manstein 500 more tiger tanks (ILO Pz MkIIIs) and he will prevail.

All the Germans needed was a better picture of the battlefield to win at Kursk. Zukov simply outplanned, outthought, and finally, outflanked them.

NapoleonXIV · Jun 3, 2005

DMA said:
To have an anti-tank chopper in 1943 is simply far too early. Anyway, as it was, the Germans had developed a tank-hunter Stuka, which performed well at Kursk, not to mention the purpose built Henschel 129. Yet if these two aircraft, couldn't change the balance of battle towards the Germans at Kursk, you can forget any German chopper making any impact whatsoever.

What about the Stuka's jet replacement? The pictures I've seen of it look for all the world like an A10. Wouldn't the jets have come online about this time if H hadn't canceled them?

Of course, the A10 isn't so much the plane as the gun it carries. Did the Germans have any sort of ultra rapid fire 20mm cannon or its equivalent in the works?

Weapon M · Jun 3, 2005

I was thinking of simple rockets. Not necessarily tank-killers, but enough to give the T-34 tanks a bit of a pause.....

And I hadn't even thought of simply using them for recon, that would certainly have more impact than flinging rockets at the edge of the tank formations....

DMA · Jun 3, 2005

NapoleonXIV said:
What about the Stuka's jet replacement? The pictures I've seen of it look for all the world like an A10. Wouldn't the jets have come online about this time if H hadn't canceled them?

Of course, the A10 isn't so much the plane as the gun it carries. Did the Germans have any sort of ultra rapid fire 20mm cannon or its equivalent in the works?

Now that sounds very intriguing as I wasn't aware of such a jet replacement for the Stuka. As far as I knew, there was the Arado Blitz bomber & the Me 262, which where around from mid 1944 onwards, but both are far too late in service to effect the outcome of Kursk.

So please tell us a bit about this Stuka "jet" replacement.

DMA · Jun 3, 2005

Weapon M said:
I was thinking of simple rockets. Not necessarily tank-killers, but enough to give the T-34 tanks a bit of a pause.....

And I hadn't even thought of simply using them for recon, that would certainly have more impact than flinging rockets at the edge of the tank formations....

Well the Germans had choppers for observation in service from about December 1942 in the form of the Flettner Kolibri. Then there was the Focke Fa 223 Drache (although it was more a transport chopper). But why the Germans didn't use the Kolibri at Kursk for anything, let alone in the observation role, well you'd have to ask Manstein.

Grettir Asmundarsen · Jun 3, 2005

DMA said:
Well the Germans had choppers for observation in service from about December 1942 in the form of the Flettner Kolibri. Then there was the Focke Fa 223 Drache (although it was more a transport chopper). But why the Germans didn't use the Kolibri at Kursk for anything, let alone in the observation role, well you'd have to ask Manstein.

Do any actual military people refer to helicopters as "choppers?"

In the Navy we called them Helos; that's what the Marines call them as well. The only place I hear them called "choppers" is on TV.

DMA · Jun 3, 2005

Grettir Asmundarsen said:
Do any actual military people refer to helicopters as "choppers?"

In the Navy we called them Helos; that's what the Marines call them as well. The only place I hear them called "choppers" is on TV.

I think you'll find it's just a general cultural colloquialism, which can be readily applied to everyone, & nothing more than that.

Matt · Jun 4, 2005

Grettir Asmundarsen said:
Do any actual military people refer to helicopters as "choppers?"

In the Navy we called them Helos; that's what the Marines call them as well. The only place I hear them called "choppers" is on TV.

I have heard soldiers call them choppers, but then again what does a soldier know?

Redbeard · Jun 4, 2005

Helicopters will not help the Germans at Kursk, but total airsuperiority might. With that they will have no problems in operating the already existing and effective recon and ground attack planes.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

orion900 · Jun 4, 2005

How would total Control of the Air around Kursk for the Germans, allowed the Germany to win the battle of Kursk?

And if the Helicoper were used to attack bridges and railway lines and command and communication centers would that had changed the development of hellicopers after the war?

Thank you;

Tony Williams · Jun 5, 2005

I agree with those who say that the helo was far too primitive to achieve anything in WW2. The Germans were the most advanced with their development, and they made only handfuls of them simply because they weren't much use. It wasn't until late in the 1950s that helos had enough performance for an armed version to be worthwhile.

Even today, fixed-wing planes like the A-10 are considerably more effective than the AH-64, as shown in this extract from 'Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself, concerning the 1991 Gulf War:

"The AH-64 helicopters also performed well, but could not compare with the A-10A in terms of speed, range, firepower, survivability or operational readiness. There were twice as many AH-64s as A-10s available, but the A-10s flew over twelve times the number of sorties and destroyed more than three times the number of targets."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

orion900 · Jun 5, 2005

A-10 vs AH-64

I would agree with your statement, but for one small point, the US army is by law not allow to have Attack Airplanes, and must use US Air Force Aircraft for ground support. The Army can have Attack Helicopers, but no attack fixed wing aircraft.