Wagner’s Germany: An Axis Victory TL

[Gudestein]

The RAF gets to chose where and how it makes it interceptions it has command and control over the UK

The Luftwaffe has no command and control when its aircraft are over England. The RAF has a considerable advantage.

and in terms of aircraft quality Id argue that there is less of a performance gap between spitfires and FW190's compared to Hurricanes vs 109's

in terms of aircraft performance compared with OTL the advantage lies with the RAF !

cheers Hipper

I would argue that a campaign aimed at coastal air defenses would in principle go better than OTL and the Germans do not need to really win. As seen above, I agree its not justified that British losses should be higher, but its immaterial for the strategic win (the feeling that this is but the prelude).

Regarding the weather, no need to argue, the daily weather reports are available. Certain not every day ideal for air attacks.
Here they are:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/archive-hidden-treasures/daily-weather-report

 

[hipper]

I would argue that a campaign aimed at coastal air defenses would in principle go better than OTL and the Germans do not need to really win. As seen above, I agree its not justified that British losses should be higher, but its immaterial for the strategic win (the feeling that this is but the prelude).

Regarding the weather, no need to argue, the daily weather reports are available. Certain not every day ideal for air attacks.
Here they are:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/archive-hidden-treasures/daily-weather-report

The German strategy with the lowest casualties is the low level diving attacks by fighter bombers which gave the RAF some trouble in 1942 and 1943 however they can only be harassment raids. daylight twin engined bombers are going to suffer significant casualties.

Nice weather reports, 7 days in November 1941 with 3 or more hours of sunlight over Shewbureyness

So the LW need to shoot down 100 RAF fighters on those 7 days ....

 

[Gudestein]

The German strategy with the lowest casualties is the low level diving attacks by fighter bombers which gave the RAF some trouble in 1942 and 1943 however they can only be harassment raids. daylight twin engined bombers are going to suffer significant casualties.

Nice weather reports, 7 days in November 1941 with 3 or more hours of sunlight over Shewbureyness

So the LW need to shoot down 100 RAF fighters on those 7 days ....

I think we are in agreement on the technical bits. However, there is no need to keep Luftwaffe casualties VERY low for the strategic purpose. Heavy intense air battles over most southern English installations when the chance occurs and you might see some significant casualties on both sides. In fact, politically, the weather works to Germany's (political) advantage. It keeps casualties down, while the British will have to fear what happens when the weather improves.

This could be modified without changing the conclusions in the last update

 

[CrimsonKing]

well the weather in November is worse than Summer so the number of days in when you can see the targets is smaller than the number of days in say September. So you have a less intense air campaign with fewer chances of repeat attacks. Fighter command is under less stress. has a larger pilot pool and better aircraft

The RAF gets to chose where and how it makes it interceptions it has command and control over the UK

The Luftwaffe has no command and control when its aircraft are over England. The RAF has a considerable advantage.

and in terms of aircraft quality Id argue that there is less of a performance gap between spitfires and FW190's compared to Hurricanes vs 109's

in terms of aircraft performance compared with OTL the advantage lies with the RAF !

cheers Hipper

I would argue that a campaign aimed at coastal air defenses would in principle go better than OTL and the Germans do not need to really win. As seen above, I agree its not justified that British losses should be higher, but its immaterial for the strategic win (the feeling that this is but the prelude).

Regarding the weather, no need to argue, the daily weather reports are available. Certain not every day ideal for air attacks.
Here they are:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/archive-hidden-treasures/daily-weather-report

The German strategy with the lowest casualties is the low level diving attacks by fighter bombers which gave the RAF some trouble in 1942 and 1943 however they can only be harassment raids. daylight twin engined bombers are going to suffer significant casualties.

Nice weather reports, 7 days in November 1941 with 3 or more hours of sunlight over Shewbureyness

So the LW need to shoot down 100 RAF fighters on those 7 days ....

I think we are in agreement on the technical bits. However, there is no need to keep Luftwaffe casualties VERY low for the strategic purpose. Heavy intense air battles over most southern English installations when the chance occurs and you might see some significant casualties on both sides. In fact, politically, the weather works to Germany's (political) advantage. It keeps casualties down, while the British will have to fear what happens when the weather improves.

This could be modified without changing the conclusions in the last update

In view of the weather situation and losses among bombers the LW would incur, RAF losses have been reduced by 100 and LW losses increased by the same amount.

That said, the figures are for the entirety of the period between mid-October and mid-December, not just November. The RAF also doesn't have a larger pilot pool in this TL, which is the result of a combination of having Wever in charge of the German air force and plenty of fuel for training from Austria and Libya. This is without considering Axis allies.

The Fw 190 is definitely superior to British fighters during this period. "When it was first introduced in August 1941, it quickly proved to be superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force (RAF) front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V variant.[1] The 190 wrested air superiority away from the RAF until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX in July 1942 restored qualitative parity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history In addition, unlike during the historical BoB, the Me 109s have drop tanks.

 

[Gudestein]

It works for me

 

[hipper]

In view of the weather situation and losses among bombers the LW would incur, RAF losses have been reduced by 100 and LW losses increased by the same amount.

That said, the figures are for the entirety of the period between mid-October and mid-December, not just November. The RAF also doesn't have a larger pilot pool in this TL, which is the result of a combination of having Wever in charge of the German air force and plenty of fuel for training from Austria and Libya. This is without considering Axis allies.

The Fw 190 is definitely superior to British fighters during this period. "When it was first introduced in August 1941, it quickly proved to be superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force (RAF) front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V variant.[1] The 190 wrested air superiority away from the RAF until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX in July 1942 restored qualitative parity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history In addition, unlike during the historical BoB, the Me 109s have drop tanks.

Hmm have you considered how the RAF in OTL managed to shoot down so many German aircraft during the Battle of Britain OTL using Hurricanes? It's not. As if they had a performance advantage over the 109 E the LW used in 1940.

It was the ability of the. RAF's fighter controll system to place the Fighters in places where they could attack with advantage i.e. Bounce the enemy that made the difference, if a FW 190 is forced into close escort its as vulnerable as any other aircraft, if there is no close escort then the bombers suffer higher casualties.

Unless you are going to make the new BOB solely a fighter bomber campaign there is no driver for changing the OTL casualty ratios

Cheers Hipper

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Well, would't just deploying French, Spanish and Italian fighters change the casualties in itself ?

 

[Cregan]

The French must be feeling really weird and conflicted right now. They went from fighting side-by-side with the Brits, their staunch allies who bled and died in droves in the trenches with them in WW1, against the hated Boche, to now being allied with the Nazis and fighting the British across North Africa, the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic and skies over Britain. It must be quite jarring.

 

[Diego]

their staunch allies who bled and died in droves in the trenches with them in WW1

That betrayed them in Mers-el-kebir, I think that Mers-el-Kebir will be the french Pearl Harbor of TTL. Oh, that Perfidious Albion... lol

 

[skarosianlifeform]

I cal already see the French schools, teaching generations of children thant Britain is their natural enemy (Hundred Years War to Napoleonic Wars) and that the alliance with her in WWI was an historical fluke.

While glossing over any conflicts (other than 1871 War and WWI, too big and recent to gloss over) with Germany, and insisting on how "France and Germany were united under Charlemagne" and things like that.

Also, if the French-German reconciliation could blossom in second half of the 20th c (with much more bad blood), sure it can work there.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

In fact the big losers of this conflict will be

1 ) China (screwed)
2 ) Korea (remains Japanese, but at least no Best Korea)
3 ) SE Asia. With Japan being even more ruthless than West, and much closer (so bye bye any hope of independence, hello co-prosperity)
4 ) Czechia, Poland, Ukraine, Bielorussia and Russia. Might very well become Lebensraum. Wagner might use subtler means (proxy civil wars, organized "accidental" famines...) to kill or enslave their populations and still look good.à
5 ) French, Spanish and Italian Africa. With those countries strong and on the winning side (and with Franco, Benny and Petain), any rebellion will be crushed hard.
6 ) British Africa. British, after losing the war (and all their influence in Middle and Far East) will be even more reluctant to let any colony go. They will need African resources to counterbalance Germany, France, Italy and Japan, to offset the loss of Middle East oil. Plus wounded pride. And even if some colonies DO manage to drive out the British they may be conquered by the Axis.
7 ) Portuguese Africa. In this context, the Estado Novo won't fall.
8 ) Maybe India. Might become a proxy war theater for Germany (which will be next door thanks to Iran), Japan and UK.
9 ) Greece and Yugoslavia may join the New Roman Empire (like Albania), with Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania and Hungary getting bits.

Central Asia and Middle East will join German sphere of influence but likely keep their nominal independence and be mostly left alone (as long as no country tries to escape status quo).
It may be better than OTL for them (no competing Westerners and Soviets, and no Israel, means less wars, less civil wars... at least).

There may never be any decolonization in this world.

 

[Diego]

(Hundred Years War to Napoleonic Wars

In fact, at least since the Angevin Empire, or even 1066.

In fact the big losers of this conflict will be

1 ) China (screwed)
2 ) Korea (remains Japanese, but at least no Best Korea)
3 ) SE Asia. With Japan being even more ruthless than West, and much closer (so bye bye any hope of independence, hello co-prosperity)
4 ) Czechia, Poland, Ukraine, Bielorussia and Russia. Might very well become Lebensraum. Wagner might use subtler means (proxy civil wars, organized "accidental" famines...) to kill or enslave their populations and still look good.à
5 ) French, Spanish and Italian Africa. With those countries strong and on the winning side (and with Franco, Benny and Petain), any rebellion will be crushed hard.
6 ) British Africa. British, after losing the war (and all their influence in Middle and Far East) will be even more reluctant to let any colony go. They will need African resources to counterbalance Germany, France, Italy and Japan, to offset the loss of Middle East oil. Plus wounded pride. And even if some colonies DO manage to drive out the British they may be conquered by the Axis.
7 ) Portuguese Africa. In this context, the Estado Nuevo won't fall.
8 ) Maybe India. Might become a proxy war theater for Germany (which will be next door thanks to Iran), Japan and UK.
9 ) Greece and Yugoslavia may join the New Roman Empire (like Albania), with Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania and Hungary getting bits.

Central Asia and Middle East will join German sphere of influence but likely keep their nominal independence and be mostly left alone (as long as no country tries to escape status quo).
It may be better than OTL for them (no competing Westerners and Soviets, and no Israel, means less wars, less civil wars... at least).

There may never be any decolonization in this world.

I think that Wagner should not let the british retain any colony at all, they need to give territories to their allies and make sure that Britain will never be a threat again. Giving the North Ireland to the Irish Republic, "independence" to Australia, India, New Zealand and Australia under some form of nazi party. Taking South Africa and all those oceanic islands (Falklands, Saint Helena, Bermudas...) to Germany and dividing the rest of Africa and Asia between Germany and its allies, Italy for example really needs some territory or they should start to feel depreciated.

 

[Pylon_Mountain]

He can probably carve off some of the African and Middle Eastern colonies, but Britain is nowhere near demolished enough that their empire could be completely gutted like that. You'd need Axis troops marching down the streets of London before you could dictate terms like that without being laughed out of the room.

 

[Teiresias]

Even then, it wouldn't be enough - New Zealand and Australia are de facto independent, and India's only a few years away from OTL independence.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

True. No way Britain accepts to give India, Australia and NZ (neither to Germany nor Japan nor local Nazis). Even if the British did accept that, Australians, Neo Zelanders and Indians will be like "lol nope".

Same thing for South Africa and Rhodesia. Locals (black or whites) would not accept German dominion.
SA and Rhodesia whites MAY be happy to become independent, and I can see them having good relations with the Axis (without formal alliance though).

Atlantic and Caribbean islands remain British, or at most, Britain sells (some of) them to America.

Germans don't have the navy to have any overseas territories anyway, nor the army and air force to hold them (not with Barbarossa coming).

Ulster given to Ireland is also a huuuuuge stretch.
It would require the RN having basing rights in United Ireland, and consequent compensation for Protestant colonists. And Germans giving up something else.

That said, Wagner could play the Ireland card in negociations. Ask for full Irish independence, and then having to renounce to it (and making a show of it). It would earn him brownie points with Irish-Americans.

 

[Gukpard]

7 ) Portuguese Africa. In this context, the Estado Nuevo won't fall.

Estado novo* portuguese isn't spanish

 

[cortz#9]

Hmm have you considered how the RAF in OTL managed to shoot down so many German aircraft during the Battle of Britain OTL using Hurricanes? It's not. As if they had a performance advantage over the 109 E the LW used in 1940.

It was the ability of the. RAF's fighter controll system to place the Fighters in places where they could attack with advantage i.e. Bounce the enemy that made the difference, if a FW 190 is forced into close escort its as vulnerable as any other aircraft, if there is no close escort then the bombers suffer higher casualties.

Unless you are going to make the new BOB solely a fighter bomber campaign there is no driver for changing the OTL casualty ratios

Cheers Hipper

The Brits prevailed during the BoB because of their Superior radar and the way they used their radar, but ITTL I believe the Germans have radar systems equal or almost as good as that of Britain. I believe it was also mentioned they have better methods of jamming radar and were not afraid of using "Window" as they were in OTL.

RAF Fighter control would not be as effective in this scenario as it was in OTL.

 

[Diego]

He can probably carve off some of the African and Middle Eastern colonies, but Britain is nowhere near demolished enough that their empire could be completely gutted like that. You'd need Axis troops marching down the streets of London before you could dictate terms like that without being laughed out of the room.

You are right, my premise was incorrect, it was in case of an unconditional surrender. More like Germany after the world war I or France in 1940.

 

[Random Walk]

Another amazing chapter, worth every minute of waiting! So Barbarossa is getting close, since without Britain to fight Wagner only has 1 big enemy left.

 

[Gudestein]

Hmm have you considered how the RAF in OTL managed to shoot down so many German aircraft during the Battle of Britain OTL using Hurricanes? It's not. As if they had a performance advantage over the 109 E the LW used in 1940.

Unless you are going to make the new BOB solely a fighter bomber campaign there is no driver for changing the OTL casualty ratios

Cheers Hipper

I think these are valid arguments, but are you sure the situation ITTL does not offer some changes. I have looked for the fighter vs. fighter casualty ratios and while I don't know what sources to trust they seem to be a bit in Luftwaffe's favor (Me-109 vs hurricane decidedly so and vs. spitfire possibly ALSO with some superiority). Quoted in Wood&Dempster that I don't have. The casualty differences seems to have been in the bombers.
ITTL with a more limited offensive keeping is to the south, the Luftwaffe could have maintained high-rates of fighters per bomber and kept bombers escorted, in effect turning casualty rates in Germany's favor relative to OTL. Also think the fast bombers of TTL would be more difficult targets.