PDA

View Full Version : What Gave The Edge To Allied Aircraft?



Fish40
11-25-2004, 06:45 PM
I was reading an article today in some scientific magazine, about what gave allied aircraft the edge over both the Germans and the Japanese during WWII. Besides the obvious design innovations of the allied planes, it was the fuel that gave them the edge. Advances in oil refineing, and particularly "thermal cracking", a process by which a fuel's octane rateing is boosted, enabled the allies to produce a superior fuel, which in turn allowed their aircraft to outperform their enemies in all obvious ways. Very interesting.

LuckyBoy1
11-25-2004, 06:49 PM
The biggest advantage they had was numbers. For you "full real" freaks, you need to start outnumbering the German planes by 4-1 margin in late war coops!

tsisqua
11-25-2004, 06:51 PM
My friend, who posts here from time to time, Skidro, and I, have discussed this before, yet this is the first time that I have seen it mentioned here at the forum. Thanks for bringing it up, and I hope that you you don't get flamed for it.

~S~
Tsisqua

tsisqua
11-25-2004, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
The biggest advantage they had was numbers. For you "full real" freaks, you need to start outnumbering the German planes by 4-1 margin in late war coops! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, yes, Lucky . . . numbers was the biggest advantage held by the allies. Don't forget that the Luftwaffe was trying to even the odds by sending up alot of very green pilots late in the war. A superior fighting machine was useless in the hands of an unskilled pilot.

~S~
Tsisqua

Fish40
11-25-2004, 06:56 PM
I thought it was an interesting article, because at least for me, I never gave any thought to the difference in fuel quality between the sides. You learn something new every day.

LuckyBoy1
11-25-2004, 07:11 PM
Exactly tsisqua, the violin was only as good as the person playing it. A very important point that I overlooked as well! Even if you can argue that one plane was better than another, it didn't make up for the numbers game on both well trained pilots and planes.

Just look at the Sherman Tank! My Father was a Sherman Commander and when they were in North Africa, his tank along with 20 Aliied Shermans caught 4 new experimental (quickly put into full production anfer that) Panzer IV tanks that were at the bottom of a bowel shaped area in deep sand. One of them was stuck on the sand and the others were trying to pull it out. Of course, the battle was very much one sided. After 20 minutes of battle the score was...

Germans 20

American 0

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

My Father got his leg ripped open and was sent back to the States. He didn't get back into the war until we were just doing a milk run at the end of the war. He assumed command of his Patton Army tank on December 12, 1944... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Yikes! The way we knocked out German tanks in Normandy was to run 8 Allied Shermans at one German tank and that would finally do the trick.

The planes were matched much better than the tanks, so Allied superior numbers and well trained pilots more than tipped the balance.

Arguing about which plane was superior, in this case, is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

tsisqua
11-25-2004, 07:36 PM
Great story about your father, Lucky. Thanks for that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fish40, I was looking for somthing on the web about your topic, but didn't do to well. You don't happen to have a link, do you?

Tsisqua

ImpStarDuece
11-25-2004, 07:54 PM
Well the Sheman did have the nickname `Ronson` after the cigarette lighter company whos advertising line was `lights first time, every time` http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

The Sherman tank was good, maybe even excellent, for when it was designed, 1941. But put it up against 1943 tanks such as long barreled Panzer IV's at the same tonnage, PAnther tanks which were 12 tons heavier and tigers which were twenty or so tons heavier and it was in real trouble, without the underpowered gun and high profile it was saddled with.

The two best things done to the Sherman were the Sherman firefly, which put the excellent British 17pdr into the sherman turret and the Sherman Jumbo, which kept the L31 75mm but at least seriously up armoured the front and sides (somewhere in the order of 3 or four tonnes, iirc)

As for fuel, isnt it onlty an advantage if you have the appropriate technology to take advantage of it? The British couldn't initially use the higher grades of American fuel because their engines weren't geared to accept it. Late however, they used the 150 octane to run their merlin 71s ect at 26lbs boost or higher. The so called 'Basta' modified engines. Gave Spits a 15 mph boost at optimal alts and was used in V1 interception groups. Was also used on Mustand IV and V in a lot of cases, resulting in HIGHER performance for British Mustangs than American P-51's

WTE_Galway
11-25-2004, 08:14 PM
i am not sure how big an advantage high octane fuel actually was as the fuel injected DB engines, at the very least, ran well on all sorts of weird and wonderful gasoline and gasoline substitute concoctions

StellarRat
11-25-2004, 09:51 PM
Allied planes are way better performing at high altitudes where they protected bombers. Don't base any assumptions on the typical dogfight server in PF. If you want to fight the real war stay above 6000m all the time. Also, you have to remember that besides numbers the Allies had lower pilot loses, so their pilots got more experienced while the Axis pilots got less experienced as the war progressed. When the planes are even close to the same in performance the pilots skill makes all the difference.

JR_Greenhorn
11-25-2004, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
i am not sure how big an advantage high octane fuel actually was as the fuel injected DB engines, at the very least, ran well on all sorts of weird and wonderful gasoline and gasoline substitute concoctions <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A good quality, high octane fuel is a huge advantage when it comes to engine performance!
Higher octane fuel allows higher boost levels, static compression ratio, cylinder pressures, etc--all critical for high power.

This does not necessarily mean that all allied planes were taking advantage of the high octane fuel availible, but the advantage was there for the taking. The allies had 130 and 150 octane fuel availible, while the Germans only had reliable fuel supplies in the 80 octane range. Thats a big difference.

Hendley
11-26-2004, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
Allied planes are way better performing at high altitudes where they protected bombers. Don't base any assumptions on the typical dogfight server in PF. If you want to fight the real war stay above 6000m all the time.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough for part of the Western Front, over Germany, after, say, 1942, and Japan after 1943. But the real war was fought on lots of battlegrounds where the fighting was down low (eg. the whole Eastern Front). The Allies had some great low alt fighters--the Tempest, for example.

Buckaroo12
11-26-2004, 12:54 AM
Another way of looking at the side-effects of the higher octane...

A higher octane is easier on your engine, that's why you can buy Premium at the gas pump even though regular will do just fine. If the engine undergoes less stress, it will be more reliable, spend less time in the hanger for overhaul, and the performance boost is not only because the fuel is better quality but also because the engine is in better shape to begin with.

I will have to agree though that numbers were the biggest advantage the allies had. If the numbers were evenly matched, I think some of the late war German planes would've had a profound effect on the outcome of the war. 262's for example were simply overwhelmed and quite often the allies had mustangs out just looking for a jet trying to take off. If the 262 had been able to come out in strength, there may have been a different ending to the air war. If the allied numbers weren't so great, the loss of german aces probably wouldn't have been so high. It doesn't matter how good you are, you could be the ace of aces fighting 4 rookie pilots, but you are still only 1 plane and only able to shoot in 1 direction which means while you're moving in for the kill on one 3 more are maneuvering to get behind you.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-26-2004, 01:03 AM
Hi,

Not so much what entirely....two things:

a. Whining
b. Oleg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Just kidding, kids.

Cheers,
Norris

k5054
11-26-2004, 01:21 AM
When the Germans were outnumbered, but with better planes and pilots, they dominated the Allies, especially the RAF. In africa, JG27 were outnumbered 5 to 1. They outscored the RAF/USAAF and Commonwealth by about that ratio. So it's not just numbers. Equally, if the allies outnumbered the germans later, numbers alone could not give the advantage. The german philosophy of smallish numbers combined with quality can only work if the quality is relentlessly maintained. If you start losing the good pilots you cannot recover. Germany, and Japan, completely failed to develop good engines in the 2000hp range. Japan didn't even put the biggest engines into fighters, thought it wasn't a good idea. German fuel was not the problem, they had ways of getting the power, but they did not have the correct engines for it. DB603 was in bombers in 1943, never got into a single-engined fighter in service. Jumo 213 did, but only far later than it appeared in He111s! Neither of these had 2000hp except in WEP, whereas the Allies had the R2800, Sabre and Griffon all in service in 1943. Faster planes keep your pilots alive.

Another factor was the freedom of the LW to engage at will. In Africa, as shown above, JG27 had freedom to engage allied fighter and ignore the bombers. Allied bomber losses to fighters were moderate, most of the allied losses were fighters. Thus JG27 had a good kill/loss but failed to prevent allied use of airpower to influence the land war. Same thing happened in Russia. When the LW HAD to engage bombers, B-17s and 24s which could really do some damage, they were at a tactical disadvantage. When they were ordered to leave the escorts alone, they lost the fight, because air war is not about kill/loss, it's about who uses air power best, to attain war objectives.

Fuel didn't make that much difference, it was engine technology, although the Allies had a little advantage from the fuel.

Numbers didn't make a difference in the simplistic way some people think. Anecdotal accounts show that both sides were outnumbered in the same fight. The numbers engaged make the difference in a fight, not the numbers deployed in theatre.

Poor planning and foresight on the Axis side made a big difference.

Better planes at the right time on the Allied side made a BIG difference.

Allied training programs with no limitation on time or fuel and no threat of interference made a big difference.


It's a principle of war that the winning is the one which made fewer mistakes. This is the case here. Although the almighty dollar did help quite a lot.

So the long version is as above, and could probalby be a book for some historian. The shortest answer I can make is.....$

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-26-2004, 01:57 AM
but consider, if you are run an engine at high-boost you need good alloys to keep the engine together, and that was one of the problems; germany had nearly no rescources for alloys at 43 and later.

One example were the jet-engines, it is said that these engines, unsing advanced alloys would last way longer than that 24 hours.

And for fuel, well germany had not that much fuel left. they could produce B4 fuel out of Brown coal, which is 85 Octane i think. Thats alsow the reason why the Jumo-Engine with Bodenlader (A-Lader) never entered production (only 12? engines build) they just run out of C3-Fuel (98 Octane).

The BD60x for the K4 wich could be run at C3 (not in game) provided 1800hp unboosted and 2000 with boost (we have 1300 unboosted and 1800@Boost > B4 > 85 octane)

The D-9 with the A-Lader (lowLevel optimized Jumo and Supercharger running at C3) archived 680kph @ 3000m.

That's alsow the reason why we got 44 and 45 Doras. the 44 is still using C3 and should run some 620 @SL.
the 45 is using B4+MW50 (to get close to the Performance of the C3-Variants) (should perform worse because of the higher wight)

And of cause Pilots and numbers.
i read somewhere that on D-Day the allied forces had an advantage over the Luftwaffe of 24 to 1 (i think it is alsow counting bombers)
But that has been said already.

WOLFMondo
11-26-2004, 02:23 AM
IMHO its down to resources, the Allies had more of everything which gave them an advantage. They also were free from having an inept leader like Hitler who's decision making was always questionable when it came to military matters and some of his commanders like Goerring were bad tacticians.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
Allied planes are way better performing at high altitudes where they protected bombers. Don't base any assumptions on the typical dogfight server in PF. If you want to fight the real war stay above 6000m all the time.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As mentioned, allot of the combat took place at tree top height in France and Holland, you almost had 2 air battles happening, 1 at high altitude and one at very low altitude, the RAF 2nd TAF was all about ground attack, old Spitfire VB's were configured for low altitude flight where they still performed excellently against German fighters and fough along side Typhoons, SpitIX's, Jugs and Tempests. Read the Big Show by Pierre Closterman, I've almost finished it now and it really sheds allot of light of actually what went on in those days.

TheGozr
11-26-2004, 04:04 AM
BTW i wanted to signal that more Octane gasoline doesn't mean more Power...
It depend of many different things.

Many factors significantly increase an engine's octane requirement. They include a higher compression ratio, a bigger cylinder bore, leaner mixtures, higher coolant and intake-air temperatures, dry air (low humidity), higher barometric pressures, altitude closer to sea level, and more spark advance. Also, cast-iron heads need more octane than aluminium heads.

k5054
11-26-2004, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> but consider, if you are run an engine at high-boost you need good alloys to keep the engine together, and that was one of the problems; germany had nearly no rescources for alloys at 43 and later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you care to say which alloys were in a Merlin (the engine which ran at the highest boost) which were not available to Daimler Benz? Both RR and DB engines were designed during peacetime when all alloys were available.

k5054
11-26-2004, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And of cause Pilots and numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I explained above, the LW and the IJ forces managed fine while outnumbered up until 1942-3. Being outnumbered is an excuse. When aircraft meet, it's not in numbers related to the force ratio. The LW gruppe would meet a US FG. The other 23 US FGs would see nothing that day. (The ratio was not 24-1 in fighters, it may have been or 5-1, the same ratio it was in the desert in 1942)
The fight was lost already by D-day. LW enthusiasts could well do with learning some real history about the period from mid '43 to mid '44 when Germany lost the air war. No Doras, no Ks, no 51Ds, no La-7s. Check the actual numbers involved on a per-mission per-day basis, and the losses on each side. Check out how attrition works over a time period. See what happens when you play lightning war and don't finish off an enemy who is playing the attrition game. See what happens when you needlessly declare war on the world's greatest industrial nation, relying on your own skill and fighting spirit to defeat the 'tired corrupt decadent' western democracies.

Bewolf
11-26-2004, 07:17 AM
Hmm...if my memory serves me right, it was Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not vice versa. And if I further allow my knowledge to creep out, the US already helped Britan in land and lease and escort assistance (armed conflicts with U-Boats included) way before the declaration of war against the US. But those certainly are unimportant tidbits in the grand scheme, no?

Anyways, about the decline of the Luftwaffe. It was often statet that the fall of the LW was decided way before summer 44, when the allies really came in with big numbers. Which is correct.
Just those people don't realize, that it still was an uneven fight. The german fighters went after the bombers. Allied fighters did not meet german fighters on equal terms.

A noticeable difference to the eastern front, where german fighters still managed to gain local air superiorty and shot down russian planes in numbers, despite beeing outnumbered, till the end of the war.

bazzaah2
11-26-2004, 07:35 AM
"Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Hmm...if my memory serves me right, it was Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not vice versa."

Why do I see a connection between these two statements? You really need to ask the question of WHY war was declared. Think you might find it had something to do with the invasion of Poland.

Enough of this though, I don't want to be dragged down to your level and have you beat me with your experience.

k5054
11-26-2004, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Allied fighters did not meet german fighters on equal terms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Not in a fight where the acknowledged thing to do is sneak up behind the guy and fill him full of lead before he sees you. When bombers were not present (bodenplatte eg)? the allied fighters did Ok. If germany could not deal with bombers and fighters both at once, again it shows how they had not provided for real air war. Fighters are only an adjunct to the aircraft which do the real work. Where is the german counter-air effort, why no attacks on escorts still over the sea, or attacks on bases?
Why was the german jabo effort over the UK abandoned? Because they couldn't live in enemy skies. Not in the BoB, and not in the desert, and not later. They chose the defensive war, and lost it.

Did Germany declare war on the US? Yes. Did Hitler have to? Well, he made a promise to the Japanese, and after that the two nations hardly worked together at all. Congress was pretty PO'd about Pearl Harbour and might not have decided to declare war on Germany, just assist the UK and Russia. Hitler removed the need for them to debate it.

Germany and Japan lost because of mistakes at all levels, but this should not obscure the fact that for a crucial period allied aircraft were superior, and after that the axis forces could not recover from a position of inferiority.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-26-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

true words.
S!

Jaws2002
11-26-2004, 08:14 AM
WW2 was not won or lost in the air. no matter how good 109's and fw's you have you can't stop the ocean of T-34's running over you. It did not matter if you shoot down all the bombers over Berlin, you still needed to get the Tidal wave of man and machines running the ground war.
I think the war would have ended in the same way in Europe with or without Allied strategic bombing. Just few weeks later.

bazzaah2
11-26-2004, 08:25 AM
destroying fuel supplies probably the most useful aspect of the bombing campaign - doesn't matter how uber you are if you can't use your equipment.

The destruction of transport networks sure helped as well.

Even if the strategic bombing can be argued to be unnecesary in terms of its impact on industrial production, it tied down guns troops and ammunition that weren't used elsewhere.

k5054
11-26-2004, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
WW2 was not won or lost in the air. no matter how good 109's and fw's you have you can't stop the ocean of T-34's running over you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In modern war it is unusual (I can't think of a case) to mount a successful offensive against an enemy with air superiority.
How many T-34s would there have been if a million soldiers engaged in air defence, with many thousands 88mm guns with a/t ability, were deployed on the ostfront. With no worries about fuel. Much of the allied bomber effort was misdirected, but it all hurt Germany. It was in order to see victories actually over Germany that made Goering deny the LW permission to strike the allied bases. It was damage to the cities which convinced Germany to invest in V weapons to get revenge, militarily a useless waste of resources. It was the bomber offensive which made the LW useless for any other purpose but to defend the Reich. WW2 was not won in the air alone, nor on land or at sea. All three are interconnected. But the effects of allied bombing were instrumental in victory. No bombing, no D-day. No german forces wasted on the west front or reich defence, more on the east. Russia has a harder time in winning. I think that makes more than a few weeks difference alone, never mind the damage bombing did, or the distortion to war production and deployment of forces.

WOLFMondo
11-26-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I think the war would have ended in the same way in Europe with or without Allied strategic bombing. Just few weeks later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strategic bombing made a huge difference, think of the men and resources it took to relocated all those factories to underground facilities, all the concrete and steel to make those re-enforced structures, the food to power the men, the fuel to power there machines. No doubt the USSR was pretty much unstoppable but had that strategic bombing not have happened those men and resources could have been put to use against the allied in more 'productive' ways. It also soaked up German fighters, they had to tackle the USAAF fighters and bombers and the Spitfire escorts closer to home which took pressure of the 2nd TAF to support the ground troops which was of vital importance. Without the 2nd TAF the Normandy invasion might have lead to a second Dunkerque (sp?) very quickly.

Also there was the morale effect it had.

Sir.Robin-1337
11-26-2004, 09:25 AM
I have nothing relevant to say, except for:

Mustang owns in-game. fact.

Kurfurst__
11-26-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Germany, and Japan, completely failed to develop good engines in the 2000hp range. Japan didn't even put the biggest engines into fighters, thought it wasn't a good idea. German fuel was not the problem, they had ways of getting the power, but they did not have the correct engines for it. DB603 was in bombers in 1943, never got into a single-engined fighter in service. Jumo 213 did, but only far later than it appeared in He111s! Neither of these had 2000hp except in WEP, whereas the Allies had the R2800, Sabre and Griffon all in service in 1943. Faster planes keep your pilots alive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, hmmm. The 2000 HP engine thing rose it`s ugly head again.. now for start, Germany did have 2000 HP engines regardless of what you say. There was the DB 605Ds, the Jumo 213A and E, the BMW 801 variants. All fighter engines, all 2000HP+ types, and were produced in serious quantities. Other, more rarer types also existed. Only under WEP, hmm, so? 2000 HP is 2000 HP. Not to mention most Allied 2000HP engines required some sort of special setup as well to reach those powers. Besides the fixation on 2000 HP is moot. An 2000 HP R2800, or Sabre no matter how great engine other wise, won`t make your plane faster than a much less powerful inline... why? Huge drag and weight. Kills speeds and performance. The Sabre developed over 2000 HP, the BMW 801 initially only 1800 PS, but was the Typhoon ANY faster than the FW 190? No. Various reasons, along them poor altitude performance of the Sabres.. The 2000 HP Griffons didn`t appear until the MkXIVs, and never appeared in any real numbers. In comparison with the number of Jumo213/Db 605D produced... almost nothing. True that Germany did it`s homework on aerodynamics, that`s one reason why less engine power was enough to get just as great performance. But that`s only one side of the coin... an engine, when smartly designed, gives the plane performance, not just huge powers.. an engine that develops over 2500 HP+, but weights a ton, it`s accessories like a giant turbocharger weighting another half ton, the vast fuel it consumes weights another half ton, an intercooler that eats up 100 HP with the extra drag it causes... and in the end you find you would be just as nice with an engine of half that size, half the horsepower. At least with fighters.

Japan is another matter.. they were a bit like the Russians, heavily relying on foreign engines until the war, and had no comparable engine development to the US, UK or the Reich.

And Re: fuel. True that most of the time the Germans relied on lower quality fuel of 87 octane nominal, for whatever reason, possibly it was easier to make in greater quantities.. despite that, Fischer-Tropsch states that apprx. 2/3s of the German production was 96 octane C-2(natural) and C-3(synthetic) type, and this was quite good. Actually, a bit better than Allied 100/130 octane types at great powers and MAP, due to it`s high aromatic content. Something like 96/143 octane iirc if converted to the same type of octane ratings the Allies used. So almost as good as allied 150 grade which was begun to be used in early 1944, but the German C-2 and C-3 was already there in 1940 (they certainly used it in the 601N engine, but perhaps it was available even before).

k5054
11-26-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> mm, hmmm. The 2000 HP engine thing rose it`s ugly head again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not because 2000hp is a magic number, but because the lack of true 2000hp engines earlier in the war is an indication of the fact that germany failed to increase engine power as a matter of policy. Even the db603 was a private venture, not ordered by the RLM. If smaller engines are better, why not see just how small and light they can be made, Yak-3 went well on 1300hp, why not try 1000. No? Bigger HP is better, because you can always do more with more power rather than to try and make do with less.
This is so obvious I don't know why I'm even explaining it. The fact is the LW did not have the right engines at the right time, lost the initiative and had to play catch up. Do you say the aircraft designers picked less powerful engines by choice? Did not ME try to develop the 209 and 309? Did not FW put the 603 into prototypes, and turbos too?
Was the 801 really any better than the Sabre at altitude? Anyone have Sabre II power curves, I have the 801 of course? Wasn't the problem with the Typhoon a draggy airframe, and the Tempest could have been made in 1942 if they'd had the sense to put a better wing on in the first place?

joeap
11-26-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm...if my memory serves me right, it was Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not vice versa. And if I further allow my knowledge to creep out, the US already helped Britan in land and lease and escort assistance (armed conflicts with U-Boats included) way before the declaration of war against the US. But those certainly are unimportant tidbits in the grand scheme, no?

Anyways, about the decline of the Luftwaffe. It was often statet that the fall of the LW was decided way before summer 44, when the allies really came in with big numbers. Which is correct.
Just those people don't realize, that it still was an uneven fight. The german fighters went after the bombers. Allied fighters did not meet german fighters on equal terms.

A noticeable difference to the eastern front, where german fighters still managed to gain local air superiorty and shot down russian planes in numbers, despite beeing outnumbered, till the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why the hell do these "subtle" revisionists keep crawling out from under their rocks?

p1ngu666
11-26-2004, 11:08 AM
tiffy was very very fast at low alt, hunted 190s down. and tiffys where cruising at SL...
at mid/high alt, i dont know, but there was normaly spits or p51's up there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

on Dday, the lw didnt show up basicaly, a few did.

read 2 tiffy books, only 3-4 mentions of german fighters in air to air, or air to ground.

2 190s straffing airfield (without much effect) a me109 that got in turn fight and lost, luckly tiffy shot all ammo at germans on the ground before for that 109 driver, and a me262 droppin ab bombs on airfield.

and yes, with clever design u dont need so much power, look at japanease fighters
oh, did u know u can pwn 190s in climb with ki43? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tiffys wing was very thick, thicker than hurri, didnt effect low alt much, but high alt it did aprently. and sabre lost power...

oh, and british had mossies to frustrate the lw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Sir.Robin-1337
11-26-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> An 2000 HP R2800, or Sabre no matter how great engine other wise, won`t make your plane faster than a much less powerful inline... why? Huge drag and weight. Kills speeds and performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

The fastest piston engine fighters ever built had large radial engines.

P-47M - P&W R-2800-57(C) rated at 2800hp
SeaFury - Bristol Centaurus 15 rated at 2,470hp

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Not that I realy care... but there you go.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-26-2004, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm...if my memory serves me right, it was Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not vice versa. And if I further allow my knowledge to creep out, the US already helped Britan in land and lease and escort assistance (armed conflicts with U-Boats included) way before the declaration of war against the US. But those certainly are unimportant tidbits in the grand scheme, no?

Anyways, about the decline of the Luftwaffe. It was often statet that the fall of the LW was decided way before summer 44, when the allies really came in with big numbers. Which is correct.
Just those people don't realize, that it still was an uneven fight. The german fighters went after the bombers. Allied fighters did not meet german fighters on equal terms.

A noticeable difference to the eastern front, where german fighters still managed to gain local air superiorty and shot down russian planes in numbers, despite beeing outnumbered, till the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why the hell do these "subtle" revisionists keep crawling out from under their rocks? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably to counterbalance all those that take their history in via movies such as U-571 which, of course, is not 'revisionist', at all.

On that subject, it's well known that a significant number of people's entire view of JFK's assassination is that given in Oliver Stone's movie; consider the effect that Pearl Harbor or U571 has.

I agree with what Bewolf has said and from what I've read on the subject mostly from (anecdotal!) pilot accounts. The LW were outnumbered heavily and had other quality problems both in terms of aircraft and pilots. That's not, of course, saying that allied planes were cr*p but that other factors need to be considered when assessing kill ratios and such like.

Cheers,
norris

k5054
11-26-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The LW were outnumbered heavily and had other quality problems both in terms of aircraft and pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but they were outnumbered in 1941-2. They did fine. The numbers served as extra target practice, and gave them experience at a rate the allies never matched. Then by 1944 it had all changed. The thing is, why? How did they transition from out-numbered, successful, to outnumbered, failed?
Anyone must see that it's no good framing the answer in terms of numbers. Especially as few here have any real idea as to how outnumbered they were at any given time, and no idea at all of what happened when the LW locally out-numbered the allies. Anecdotal evidence is not much good here. It's very hard to count large numbers of a/c in the sky in a battle. Both sides thought they were outnumbered in Spring 44. Check out the memoirs. Then check the actual forces engaged during the period the change took place. Not very outnumbered, but significantly out-performed by better aircraft.
I'll repeat an observation I've made before. No air force in the WW2 milieu can give away a 20-30mph top speed advantage and remain competitive. That's the kind of advantage the USAAF had over the 109Gs and 190As in the crucial early 44 period. That advantage is necessary and sufficient to explain what happened to the Luftwaffe's fighter force.

p1ngu666
11-26-2004, 12:47 PM
yeah, the germans lagged behind in 42-43 development, they thought the war was won around then..
i think 42-43-44 ish marks the highpoint of raf advantage of lw in some/most areas.
mossie,lanc,halifax, spits, p51s, tiffy's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

all would turn out to a **** pain for teh lw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DmdSeeker
11-26-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
When the Germans were outnumbered, but with better planes and pilots, they dominated the Allies, especially the RAF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


HAHAHAHA Battle of Britain HAHAHAHAHA

muHamad-ALi
11-26-2004, 03:37 PM
Cheers. The overmodeling of allied planes in pacific fighters can easily be explained. It is, in fact, very shrewd marketing. Most of the customer-base exists here in the United States. If the allied planes were represented accurately, many customers here would be 'dissapointed' to say the least. It is not a conspiracy, but rather, excellent marketing skills. Flight sims have always struggled to sell, but when they do, the majority of the business comes from here in the states. We can only hope that the jump toward accuracy will take place after a sufficient amount of copies have been sold.

Fish40
11-26-2004, 04:36 PM
Everyone brings up very valid points. There were many advantages the allied airforces enjoyed over the axis. The article itself, which wasn't totally devoted to this topic, mearly mentioned that because of the advances in fuel production in the U.S., allied aircraft engines could eek out that much more performance, over the enemy's. True, the allies had the numbers game on their side, as well as the skilled pilots. But if two equally skilled pilots were flying similar aircraft, I should think the aircraft with the higher quality fuel would perform better, even if slightly.

joeap
11-26-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm...if my memory serves me right, it was Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not vice versa. And if I further allow my knowledge to creep out, the US already helped Britan in land and lease and escort assistance (armed conflicts with U-Boats included) way before the declaration of war against the US. But those certainly are unimportant tidbits in the grand scheme, no?

Anyways, about the decline of the Luftwaffe. It was often statet that the fall of the LW was decided way before summer 44, when the allies really came in with big numbers. Which is correct.
Just those people don't realize, that it still was an uneven fight. The german fighters went after the bombers. Allied fighters did not meet german fighters on equal terms.

A noticeable difference to the eastern front, where german fighters still managed to gain local air superiorty and shot down russian planes in numbers, despite beeing outnumbered, till the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why the hell do these "subtle" revisionists keep crawling out from under their rocks? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably to counterbalance all those that take their history in via movies such as U-571 which, of course, is not 'revisionist', at all.

On that subject, it's well known that a significant number of people's entire view of JFK's assassination is that given in Oliver Stone's movie; consider the effect that Pearl Harbor or U571 has.

I agree with what Bewolf has said and from what I've read on the subject mostly from (anecdotal!) pilot accounts. The LW were outnumbered heavily and had other quality problems both in terms of aircraft and pilots. That's not, of course, saying that allied planes were cr*p but that other factors need to be considered when assessing kill ratios and such like.

Cheers,
norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ummm I would agree with your broad assesment about the relative performance of air forces, but you clearly misunderstood my point about "revisionist" where did I say I got my history by watching c@#$ movies like the ones you mentioned, instead of "U-571" I like "Das Boot", instead of "Pearl Harbour" I really enjoyed "Tora Tora Tora" oh and I do read books too mister. I just dislike this "Axis were not aggressors" by people who would rush to condemn (and rightfully so) current aggression in places like the Middle East and such. Stating "Britain and France declared War on Germany", while technically correct is just to me a way of deflecting blame away from Hitler's drive to conquest, and the US aid to the UK, and the embargo on Japan "pushed the Japanese against the wall" and "encouraged Hitler to declare War (the latter is nonsense he could have chosen not to declare war) while also correct ignores Japan's aggression against China.

ouston
11-26-2004, 05:30 PM
Although this thread started with a comment on fuel octane I believe that the real problem with the Luftwaffe and its loss of control of the skies over Western Europe was partly due to the numbers problem and also down to the severe drop in the quality of its pilots. As a rough estimate RAF and USAAF pilots had 200-300 hours much of which was on the type they flew in combat. German pilots in the late war period may have had less than 20 hours on the aircraft that they were supposed to fly. Look at Danny Parker's "To win the winter sky" which has stories of Luftwaffe fighters flying into the ground unable to control powerful aircraft in stessful situations. I do this all the time but not for real.

Pip pip

Ouston

Luftwaffe_109
11-26-2004, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ummm I would agree with your broad assesment about the relative performance of air forces, but you clearly misunderstood my point about "revisionist" where did I say I got my history by watching c@#$ movies like the ones you mentioned, instead of "U-571" I like "Das Boot", instead of "Pearl Harbour" I really enjoyed "Tora Tora Tora" oh and I do read books too mister. I just dislike this "Axis were not aggressors" by people who would rush to condemn (and rightfully so) current aggression in places like the Middle East and such. Stating "Britain and France declared War on Germany", while technically correct is just to me a way of deflecting blame away from Hitler's drive to conquest, and the US aid to the UK, and the embargo on Japan "pushed the Japanese against the wall" and "encouraged Hitler to declare War (the latter is nonsense he could have chosen not to declare war) while also correct ignores Japan's aggression against China. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Firstly let me say I detest "revisionist" "historians" (ususally used to denote holocaust deniers and the like), however, merely stating that Hitler did not want a war with France and Britain (he thought it likely that in his war of agression against Poland he would be unopposed by the western powers) at the time or that the US aid to Britain was activly occuring despite their supposed "neutrality" does not neccessarily make you one at all (as these thing certainly happened). Really, what matters is the point you wish to make, not the facts (or otherwise, as "reviosinsts" rarely use real facts) you use to support it.

You state that "the embargo on Japan "pushed the Japanese against the wall"... while also correct ignores Japan's aggression against China". In analising Japans motivations for war you seem to be on the right track regarding Japan's agression with China, but miss part of the point. The fact is that Japan was currently involved in a costly war with China, and had been for years. The reasons for this war basically lie in her perceived need to gain vital reasources to become an imperial power, the alternative was seen as a decline into obscurity. However, when the US placed an embargo on Japan (the reasons for this are not really relevent in assessing JAPAN'S reasons for war) a serious dilema ensued, "What to do?". How can the resource-deficient Japan maintain what was a bloody war in the Chinese mainland? The answer was obvious, expansion into South-East Asia. This made conflict with the States inevitable.

So as one can see, war was fought with the US not simply beacuse she was expansionist (which Japan certainly was) but because in her own mind it was essential (the alternative might be to lose the war with China, and then what, its ambitions would be dealt a mortal blow).

However, I sense you are instead talking of assaigning blame to individual parties, which is a wholy different endevour, and I wish to avoid that argument if I can. I find that the study of history is much more usefull when one tries to be as objective and unbiased as possible, something difficult to do when deciding who was "wrong" or "right".

HerrGraf
11-26-2004, 11:08 PM
Gentlemen, lets remember that the topic is what gave the allied aircraft the edge,not who started W.W.2.
Most of what I read is off on tangents. ouston has it right about the axis having a lack of pilots. K5054 has it correct about the fact that Germany did not properly provide for a real air war, and air power was but one facet of a multiple stratagy that won the war. Fish40 almost got it right, but left the pilots out of his equation.
Not Japan, nor especially Germany (Who was very lacks on how fast pilots were trained early in the war.) were putting emphesis on pilot training the way the U.S. and Britian did to put out huge quantities of well trained pilots.
Yes, England was guilty of this early in the war,but realized right away that huge numbers were going to be needed and set up programs right after the start of the war.
Who had superior planes depends on what month it is and which way the seesaw is headed. (Take the Spitfire vs. FW190 as an example.)
Yes the Axis planes are usually equal to in some cases better in some areas than their allied counterparts- so superior aircraft is not the answer. Higher grade of petrol helps, but again is not the answer. Pilots are the answer and the more and better trained they are, the better the odds of winning the conflict. This is not to say that, at least early in the war, the Axis pilots were not well trained-just that the training programs were not turning out enough of them. A few super pilots in great aircraft are not going to stop a wave of good pilots in almost equal aircraft! Methinks that some of you youngens were raised on too many Bruce Lee movies.
It is not the aircraft, but the pilot that is superior. Witness Hartman flying BF109 in 1945 still making high numbers of kills against planes that are far superior to his then outmoded design. So anyone looking for that uberplane to destroy all in sight, might I suggest that you learn how to really fly your airplane to the limit of its virtual capabilities: learn its strengths and virtues, its weaknesses and the same for your oppenents. Only then will you become the aces that you seek to be my little grasshoppers.


We all live in our own myopic worlds.

Fish40
11-27-2004, 03:36 AM
Well said! This could'nt be truer, even today! You could put a highly experienced pilot in an inferior plane, and he'll beat a "green" pilot, flying the most advanced aircraft in the world.

LuftLuver
11-27-2004, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HerrGraf:
Witness Hartman flying BF109 in 1945 still making high numbers of kills against planes that are far superior to his then outmoded design. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OUtmoded design?

Not is this SIMULATED GAME my fine little friend. Oleg brags himself, "Then why do all world championship winners fly Bf109?"

Good question. In Oleg land, apparently the Bs109 was the best propellor fighter ever conceived.

1 - Unending E
2 - Insta-Power chop
3 - Higher tolerance to blackout
4 - Heavier K4's out-turning spitfires down low

All this adds up to UFO-109. It's no wonder it has become the primary KlownWagon ride of bottomfeeder low alt turn and burn mono-brows everywhere. Yes, of course everyone knows the 109 was world famous for low alt turn and burn.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And I will cut you off at the knees right here. No I don't get downed by lots of 1 oh 9s. Win/loss ratio is completely in my favor, but it takes only 1 minute to see the bogus aerobatics these goofball bat-turners do.

I'm just p-o'ed that it takes me a bit longer to put them out of their misery these days. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

joeap
11-27-2004, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
...

Firstly let me say I detest "revisionist" "historians" (ususally used to denote holocaust deniers and the like), however, merely stating that Hitler did not want a war with France and Britain (he thought it likely that in his war of agression against Poland he would be unopposed by the western powers) at the time or that the US aid to Britain was activly occuring despite their supposed "neutrality" does not neccessarily make you one at all (as these thing certainly happened). Really, what matters is the point you wish to make, not the facts (or otherwise, as "reviosinsts" rarely use real facts) you use to support it.

You state that "the embargo on Japan "pushed the Japanese against the wall"... while also correct ignores Japan's aggression against China". In analising Japans motivations for war you seem to be on the right track regarding Japan's agression with China, but miss part of the point. The fact is that Japan was currently involved in a costly war with China, and had been for years. The reasons for this war basically lie in her perceived need to gain vital reasources to become an imperial power, the alternative was seen as a decline into obscurity. However, when the US placed an embargo on Japan (the reasons for this are not really relevent in assessing JAPAN'S reasons for war) a serious dilema ensued, "What to do?". How can the resource-deficient Japan maintain what was a bloody war in the Chinese mainland? The answer was obvious, expansion into South-East Asia. This made conflict with the States inevitable.

So as one can see, war was fought with the US not simply beacuse she was expansionist (which Japan certainly was) but because in her own mind it was essential (the alternative might be to lose the war with China, and then what, its ambitions would be dealt a mortal blow).

However, I sense you are instead talking of assaigning blame to individual parties, which is a wholy different endevour, and I wish to avoid that argument if I can. I find that the study of history is much more usefull when one tries to be as objective and unbiased as possible, something difficult to do when deciding who was "wrong" or "right". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftwaffe_109, points taken, I was in a bad mood only because some who make the points you made are trying to "excuse" the Axis, IMO. Furthermore the remark about people who learn from history from Hollywood I thought was directed at me so that set me off. To think of those kids who learn about Zeros and P-40s from "Pearl Harbour." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif But not all, yes you are correct about trying to be unbiased, something we all have to try whether we talk about FM or politics, sorry about my tone.


Now about the Luftwafffe I have a question, is it not true that after a certain point, (end 1944?) many Allied pilots never saw a Luftwaffe palne and thus didn't have the chance (except for mudmoving) to get combat experience? Wheras, while the Luftwaffe at this time had many inexperienced pilots, the top aces saw action EVERY time they flew, that is bound to have an effect but what?

Kurfurst__
11-27-2004, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Not because 2000hp is a magic number, but because the lack of true 2000hp engines earlier in the war is an indication of the fact that germany failed to increase engine power as a matter of policy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, and who had such engine? The Brits didn`t until 1944, unless you count the Sabre, with awfully poor altitude performance (rated alt. being only 18k ft), and the Typhoon it drove was actually slower than the FW 190A..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Even the db603 was a private venture, not ordered by the RLM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the DB 603 was _preferred_ by the RLM over the 605 series, which latter was seen only as an interim solution. And I see not what would that prove anyway. So similiar as the case with the Merlins and Griffons..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If smaller engines are better, why not see just how small and light they can be made, Yak-3 went well on 1300hp, why not try 1000. No? Bigger HP is better, because you can always do more with more power rather than to try and make do with less. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, then explain me please the performance curve:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/11679724

You can see two planes. The first with your theory, big, powerful engines, the other with a small, not so powerful, but light and compact engine.

Plane One weights over 6 tons, has a max. range of a 500 miles or so, and is driven by 2300+ HP, with a giant turbocharger..

Plane Two has a small 1475 HP engine, with a simple single stage supercharger. As a result it weights half as much, has a range of 700 miles, and as fast or even faster at all altitutdes. We shouldn`t even discuss the difference in ROC..



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is so obvious I don't know why I'm even explaining it. The fact is the LW did not have the right engines at the right time, lost the initiative and had to play catch up. Do you say the aircraft designers picked less powerful engines by choice? Did not ME try to develop the 209 and 309? Did not FW put the 603 into prototypes, and turbos too? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep repeating the LW didn`t have the right engines at the right time. That`s ain`t true, and I don`t see this being proven in ANY way. In fact they had a lead over the Allies well up to 1943, by when the Allies concern with the poor performance of their engines had paid off. And even in 1943, the Allies could not press their newest types in service in great numbers and had to rely on their older, obsolate machines, at least that`s true for the British. And I don`t get your point about various German prototypes, their existance and the fact they did not replace previous models proves my point, which is similiar to that of the German idea of development with fighters : a high-tech technology, such as two-stage superchargers, turbochargers only worth to be employed IF IT YIELDS PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES in combat. If it doesn`t, why bother? German designers said that something as bulky as turbocharger has no place in a light fighter. If the 109G and FW 190A could easily compete with ANYTHING the Allies throw at them, and often even surpass those rival designs, why is the need to desperately try to put bigger and heavier engines, which will hurt performance? Why, when new designs, with new engines like the 109K and 190D were already in the process of development in 1943? Pray tell me why a crash programme would have been neccesary to replace the 605A that drove the 109Gs with a 603G, if the plane was already vastly superior to the Spit MkVs which was still the RAF`s main ride? Yes, that`s the reason the Allies could catch up by late 1943. But it always goes this way. But what you say about engines... there`s little truth in it. The fact is that Germany was more capable of putting it`s advanced engines in frontline service than Britain. If 8 out of 10 enemy planes are flying with obsolate engines, and the remaining two are having slightly better engines then your planes, AND STILL their planes ain`t any better then yours, which have 10/10 use of the most modern engines you have, you won`t be urged to develop engine monstrosities and urged to put them into the existing fighters, when you know their weight comes with quite a few disadvantages.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Was the 801 really any better than the Sabre at altitude? Anyone have Sabre II power curves, I have the 801 of course? Wasn't the problem with the Typhoon a draggy airframe, and the Tempest could have been made in 1942 if they'd had the sense to put a better wing on in the first place? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s not the point, ie. not wheter was poorer at altitude then the 801, even if judged from the rated altitude of the Sabre, it appears to be case. The Typhoon wasn`t any faster than the 801 driven FW 190, that`s the point. And yeah, the Ta 152 'could have been there in 1942', too, nothing easier than that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

k5054
11-27-2004, 06:16 AM
Well, OK, if the german planes were indeed better throughout, how did they go from 1941-2, outnumbered, winning to 1944 outnumbered, losing?

Nobody here has actually addressed this question yet.

Pilot training on the allied side does not give a satisfactory answer, although it must have been a factor.
Give an example where any air force has reversed a situation of inferiority to superiority without a change of equipment.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-27-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
When the Germans were outnumbered, but with better planes and pilots, they dominated the Allies, especially the RAF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


HAHAHAHA Battle of Britain HAHAHAHAHA <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what has BoB to do with that?

lowbrainers all the way...

@k5054
well to your question:
LW lost most of it's good experianced pilots in 42-43 in Russia, they still "owned" the VVS but they had loses, loses they failed to compensate.

Keep in Mind that the small Luftwaffe was fighting the VVS, the RAF and the USAAF.
In the west (France/GB) South (Afrika) and east (Russia) and over the home territory.

Beacause of the constand outnumbering more and more of the verterans got killed...

by the Beginning of 44 (end of 43) Luftwaffe lacked experianced Pilots, training for newcommers was **** and so were there abilitys to surive air2air combat.
mid 44 amount of training was increased again but the training flights/squads were flying at germany and germany was under a none-stop attack of the Allied Airforces and they made no differance in shooting at a combat or training squad (who could?).

in 41/42 the LW had two things
a: better A/C than most of it's opponents
b: verry verry good trained Pilots but this training needed time, and time was running against germany from 42 onwards.

Aaron_GT
11-27-2004, 07:23 AM
Kurfurst wrote:
" An 2000 HP R2800, or Sabre no matter how great engine other wise, won`t make your plane faster than a much less powerful inline..."

Er... the Sabre was an inline engine.

Aaron_GT
11-27-2004, 07:34 AM
"The fastest piston engine fighters ever built had large radial engines.

P-47M - P&W R-2800-57(C) rated at 2800hp
SeaFury - Bristol Centaurus 15 rated at 2,470hp"

Actually the Fury (not Sea Fury) prototype with the 3000 hp Sabre VII was even faster than the Sea Fury (485mph at about 20k ft, as opposed to the Sea Fury's 466). Whether or not that would have been realised in a production version, I don't know, but the Sabre line did finally go up to a massive 3500hp. AFAIK production Furies for the middle east were all fitted with Centaurus engines, though. The Fury for the RAF wasn't worth continuing with, though, as the Tempest V, VI, and II were going to be fine for post-war work until all the new jets were fully online. A prop plane (the Sea Fury) was worth it for naval use as it was going to take rather longer to perfect a navalised jet.

Aaron_GT
11-27-2004, 07:38 AM
"Well, OK, if the german planes were indeed better throughout, how did they go from 1941-2, outnumbered, winning to 1944 outnumbered, losing?"

Earlier on they held the initiative, had good combat experience and pilots and were facing less experienced pilots (on the Eastern front at least).

As the war went on they lost the overall initiative and the number of experienced pilots reduced. The economy wasn't on a sufficient war footing initially to turn out pilots with sufficient qualification, and by the time this deficiency was realised it was too late.

In a sense it's like a dogfight. You can take on 4 planes with a pair if you come out of the sun and knock two out of the sky before they realise you are there. But if 4 jump you unawares, you don't have a hope.

Plus I think tactically the Germans started out ok, but later they really lost the edge. Strategically the war totally fell apart after the end of 1941.

p1ngu666
11-27-2004, 09:32 AM
Tiffy faster at low alt than fw190... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-27-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bewolf:
Hmm...if my memory serves me right, it was Britain and France declaring war on Germany, not vice versa. And if I further allow my knowledge to creep out, the US already helped Britan in land and lease and escort assistance (armed conflicts with U-Boats included) way before the declaration of war against the US. But those certainly are unimportant tidbits in the grand scheme, no?

Anyways, about the decline of the Luftwaffe. It was often statet that the fall of the LW was decided way before summer 44, when the allies really came in with big numbers. Which is correct.
Just those people don't realize, that it still was an uneven fight. The german fighters went after the bombers. Allied fighters did not meet german fighters on equal terms.

A noticeable difference to the eastern front, where german fighters still managed to gain local air superiorty and shot down russian planes in numbers, despite beeing outnumbered, till the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why the hell do these "subtle" revisionists keep crawling out from under their rocks? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably to counterbalance all those that take their history in via movies such as U-571 which, of course, is not 'revisionist', at all.

On that subject, it's well known that a significant number of people's entire view of JFK's assassination is that given in Oliver Stone's movie; consider the effect that Pearl Harbor or U571 has.

I agree with what Bewolf has said and from what I've read on the subject mostly from (anecdotal!) pilot accounts. The LW were outnumbered heavily and had other quality problems both in terms of aircraft and pilots. That's not, of course, saying that allied planes were cr*p but that other factors need to be considered when assessing kill ratios and such like.

Cheers,
norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ummm I would agree with your broad assesment about the relative performance of air forces, but you clearly misunderstood my point about "revisionist" where did I say I got my history by watching c@#$ movies like the ones you mentioned, instead of "U-571" I like "Das Boot", instead of "Pearl Harbour" I really enjoyed "Tora Tora Tora" oh and I do read books too mister. I just dislike this "Axis were not aggressors" by people who would rush to condemn (and rightfully so) current aggression in places like the Middle East and such. Stating "Britain and France declared War on Germany", while technically correct is just to me a way of deflecting blame away from Hitler's drive to conquest, and the US aid to the UK, and the embargo on Japan "pushed the Japanese against the wall" and "encouraged Hitler to declare War (the latter is nonsense he could have chosen not to declare war) while also correct ignores Japan's aggression against China. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

You'll have to excuse my comments because I'd just come away from a clown-filled conversation where I was actually told that it was the US cracked the Enigma code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wasn't suggesting that you, personally, obtained your history from those sources but that there can be a general tendency to forget information that can be rather pertinent. For example, it is oft quoted about certain aircraft having kill rates of 8:1 etc (cos it says so on the history channel) but they omit other factors such as numbers relating to numerical matchups at that time. When I think of 8:1, I think of Heinz Knocke's accounts of being outnumbered 8:1; the statistic then becomes hardly surprising.

I agree that we shouldn't engage in a discussion about who started WW2 and, while I do agree that Hitler didn't actually want a war with Britain and France. He got one, however, and I think we are all glad of the eventual outcome.

Cheers,
Norris

Aaron_GT
11-27-2004, 10:30 AM
Kurfurst wrote:
"Hmm, and who had such engine? The Brits didn`t until 1944, unless you count the Sabre, with awfully poor altitude performance (rated alt. being only 18k ft), and the Typhoon it drove was actually slower than the FW 190A.."

That's as much to do with the wing design as anything else. The Tempest V, with the same engine, was much better at medium altitudes than the Typhoon, if not as fast as, say, the Griffon-engined Spitfires up high. The engines in the Anton series of the 190 couldn't really compete with the likes of the Merlin or Griffon at high altitude, hence the development of the Dora.

Aaron_GT
11-27-2004, 10:32 AM
"You'll have to excuse my comments because I'd just come away from a clown-filled conversation where I was actually told that it was the US cracked the Enigma code"

Yep, wasn't even the British :-) It was the Polish, prior to WW2! The British did crack some of the developments of the Enigma later in the war, based on the work of the Polish mathematicians and the work of Turing and Flowers in moving from bombes to programmable electronic computers. Plus errors on the part of the Germans in devising keys and not destroying key setting books.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-27-2004, 11:00 AM
i think the whole discussion is pointless.

the FW190D was considered one of the best A/C's of the War and most Pilots said that it was on even pairs with most of the allied planes.(only one example)

alsow keep in Mind that the Allied Airforces used a wide variaty of A/C for all different duties, germany had only two (mainly) the BF109 and the FW190 the later FW's were adapted to fullfil multiple roles.
So it is not "specialized" as the Spit MkIX HF for example, or the P51.

We don't have any specialized FW in game, D's equipped with GM1 boost for high altitude or A-Lader for low-alt operations, only a hand full was build because of economical reasons, but the performance was quite impressive. (but it's still no use without pilots)

Zen--
11-27-2004, 12:20 PM
A couple of very informative books on this subject are:

'The Prize' by Daniel Yergin

Explains in great detail the effect of oil on the worlds politics. Naturally WW2 is a very important part of the book and deals very well with Japanese and American relations and how oil directly affected when and where the two nations would clash. What is interesting about this book is that you get the distinct impression that no one was naive about oil, everyone knew exactly how useful it was and each country's strategy held oil at the core...either to obtain or deny others access to it. All the tanks, carriers, airplanes etc etc were just the way that wars were fought, but oil was the beginning and the end of why WW2 was fought.


'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William H. Shirer

There is probably no better book that describes the evolution of German politics from pre-WW2 onward and it does an outstanding job of illustrating how German politics affected the entire world. For those of you claiming that Britain and France declared war on Germany first, read this book because it will tell you the whole story--and why.
In fact, if we as simulation lovers really do appreciate the sim, I recommend this book highly to understand the core influence of how Germany was involved in WW2. Shirer has written some really great books and his style is so microscopic that you feel as though you were actually there (as he was during the 20's and 30's).



This is an interesting thread, because it's rare to see anyone discuss WW2 in terms of anything other than country vs country, tank vs tank or airplane vs airplane. We all like to read about the details of battles and what kinds of equipment was used, but we hardly ever realize the bigger picture, which often has nothing to do with the equipment itself and is more often based on some strategic objective like oil, or logistic access to oceans or supply ways.

Again I recommend the two books above because they tell a story of much larger proportions than we are used to seeing in many history books and they both do a good job of explaining WHY things occured in the first place.

<S>

HerrGraf
11-28-2004, 06:26 PM
To have a realistic late war online server, there should be at least a 2 or 3 to 1 numerical edge to the allies and we just won't worry about anyone quality! Perhaps then one can get the feel of combat without all the whining that sometimes goes on in the forums.
Wishful thinking on my part.
Again, some miss the point of this thread...... the planes were somewhat equal with superiority seesawing between each side as various improvements were brought online. Pilot training is the key to allied sucess in the air. Early on the Axis held the edge for better trained pilots, but lost that edge as many of their better pilots were lost through attrition and not replaced with simularly trained replacemnts.
The same holds true in this game. Go up against any of the really good online folks and it won't matter what uber plane you're flying if your unskilled.
Yes the Allied strategy of bombing oil production helped keep the number of new trained pilots to a minimum, as did other aspects of their stratigic outlook



Take off your mental blinders and see the whole picture

GR142-Pipper
11-28-2004, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
Cheers. The overmodeling of allied planes in pacific fighters can easily be explained. It is, in fact, very shrewd marketing. Most of the customer-base exists here in the United States. If the allied planes were represented accurately, many customers here would be 'dissapointed' to say the least. It is not a conspiracy, but rather, excellent marketing skills. Flight sims have always struggled to sell, but when they do, the majority of the business comes from here in the states. We can only hope that the jump toward accuracy will take place after a sufficient amount of copies have been sold. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a fine story except that the Allied planes have been de-tuned.

GR142-Pipper

Copperhead310th
11-28-2004, 11:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
A couple of very informative books on this subject are:



'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' by William H. Shirer

There is probably no better book that describes the evolution of German politics from pre-WW2 onward and it does an outstanding job of illustrating how German politics affected the entire world. For those of you claiming that Britain and France declared war on Germany first, read this book because it will tell you the whole story--and why.
<S> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would aso recomend the biogophy of Adolf Hitler for insight into the political situation inside germany. it is very detailed in his rise to power and the political structure of Pre-Nazi Germany. i read it a number of years ago. cannot remember the author i'd have to look it up. Oh did you know that Hitler's anscetors were Jewish? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

There actually are quite a few here that need to pick another book besides Mein Kampf and stop spinning out revisionist history.
"Galloping goosesteppers batman there are Forum Nazi's in there!"

Copperhead310th
11-28-2004, 11:21 PM
Another thing. Hitler did well in his conquest of the country's on germany's baorders. most were taken with out firing a shot.

IMO
one Hitler's biggest mistakes was invading Russia 1st. instead he should have kept his slice of poland and when france and Brittan delcared war he should have invaded england 1st & then france securing the west and building up power for the eventual invation of Russia.
instead he put himself in the precarious position of a war on 2 fronts...one of which Germany was NEVER fully prepared for. a war wich the Germans could never sustain themselfs with thier manufaturing capabilites and resources for the duration.By late spring of '43 she was already straining under the burden of supporting a war on 2 fronts.
his situation was unatenable.

Luftwaffe_109
11-29-2004, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

IMO
one Hitler's biggest mistakes was invading Russia 1st. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement, as the Soviet Union was not invaded first by any stretch of the imagination, but only after the successful invasions of Poland, the Low Countries, France, Denmark and Norway and Yugoslavia and Greece and after the invasion of Britain was postponed indefinitely (due to the failed Battle of Britain).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>instead he should have kept his slice of poland and when france and Brittan delcared war he should have invaded england 1st & then france securing the west and building up power for the eventual invation of Russia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how exactly could Hitler have had even the remotest chance of launching an invasion of the British Isles without, first, conquering France in order to secure airbases in order to gain and maintain air supremacy for an invasion and, secondly, to set up naval and army bases close enough in order to mount an amphibious invasion (supply lines across to Germany or to Norway would certainly have been much to far, and completely vulnerable to both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>instead he put himself in the precarious position of a war on 2 fronts...one of which Germany was NEVER fully prepared for. a war wich the Germans could never sustain themselfs with thier manufaturing capabilites and resources for the duration <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True enough, Barbarossa (June 22nd, 1941) was a monumental gamble which failed, however it was taken after an invasion of Britain became impossible, not before as you erroneously suggest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By late spring of '43 she was already straining under the burden of supporting a war on 2 fronts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The strain was being felt before that, notice that each major summer campaign after Barbarossa dramatically decreased in intensity, Barbarossa being a massive offensive in three different directions, Operation Blau an offensive by Heeresgruppe Sud only towards the Volga and the Caucuses and Operation Zitadel limiting itself only to encircling a massive bulge around Kursk.

The manufacturing and industrial capabilities of Germany indeed had much to do with this (catastrophic losses on the Ostfront also had a huge effect, as did massively increasing force levels of her enemies), and this was due to the simple fact that she had not entered into a war economy at all. It was partially due to the expertise of Albert Speer that this was rectified and Germany geared for total war, reaching a peak industrial capacity in 1944.

In any case, your knowledge of World War II seems quite below par, I suggest you read further to understand the full complexities of this conflict.

Regards

Edit: Typo pointed out by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep

Von_Rat
11-29-2004, 01:42 AM
first rule of warfare,,,,DON'T INVADE RUSSIA.

joeap
11-29-2004, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Hi,

You'll have to excuse my comments because I'd just come away from a clown-filled conversation where I was actually told that it was the US cracked the Enigma code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wasn't suggesting that you, personally, obtained your history from those sources but that there can be a general tendency to forget information that can be rather pertinent. For example, it is oft quoted about certain aircraft having kill rates of 8:1 etc (cos it says so on the history channel) but they omit other factors such as numbers relating to numerical matchups at that time. When I think of 8:1, I think of Heinz Knocke's accounts of being outnumbered 8:1; the statistic then becomes hardly surprising.

I agree that we shouldn't engage in a discussion about who started WW2 and, while I do agree that Hitler didn't actually want a war with Britain and France. He got one, however, and I think we are all glad of the eventual outcome.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Norris, no problem, just hate Hollywood history (for the most part). As one gentleman pointed out it was in fact the Poles who got their hands on an Engima first...and the Brits who captured a u-boat with one. Sigh...books are great if we could get kids to read.

Anyway, agree 100% with your point re: 8:1 ratio. Again I reiterate that Allied arcrew often did not see enemy aircraft towards the end of the war, those German pilots had guts to take off to confron those armadas regardless.
Joe

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-29-2004, 02:19 AM
Barbarossa was in 41 not 44.
and invasion become impossible because Hitler wanted to bomb London instead of the RAF, but well better the way it is now.

leadbaloon
11-29-2004, 04:40 AM
It's argued that the decision to bomb London rather than the RAF deciding the outcome of the Battle of Britain is something of a myth.

The Heinkels, Dorniers and JU88's had limited loadouts meaning that they could only do limited damage to the RAF bases, which were quickly repaired,. The massive raids that took place on Kenley and Biggin Hill on August 18th for example, cost the Luftwaffe dear (100 planes lost on that day) and only put Kenley out of action for two hours, Biggin Hill remained operational. In fact Biggin Hill wasn't put out of action at any point during the battle. And even if the Luftwaffe had inflicted heavier damage on all the RAF bases in the south east of England then the RAF could have easily switched to using private flying club airfields (which some squadrons were doing already), or any strip of grass long enough. Which is exactly what the Luftwaffe were doing with their 109's in northern France.

Other targets included the radar stations. More pressure on these would have made life difficult for the RAF, but not impossible, the masts were difficult to hit, and even harder to destroy as most of the force of the blast merely passed through the structure. Stukka raids on these were very costly to the Luftwaffe, and when radar stations were knocked out, it was only ever for a couple of days. A long time in a short battle, but the holes were plugged by the RAF's reserve of mobile radar stations and the Obserever Corps.

The fighter control rooms were also vital to the RAF, but central command was in an inpenetrable underground bunker, others were in concrete bunkers, others weren't, but in either case without a heavy bomber delivering massive devastation over a wide area, they remained small pin point targets and the Germans didn't even know where they were. Nor did they know where the buried communications lines were located.

Finally the Luftwaffe could have attacked the aircaft production facilities (as they did on 26th September, when the Supermarine works at Woolsten and Itchen were hit, production continued outdoors under canvas while repairs were done), but many of the production centres were out of the range of the 109 and many parts were produced by sub-contractors that were dispersed all over the place. Also, after the attack of Sept 26th production of aircraft was dispersed. The main Supermarine production facility at Southhampton was dispersed to 35 smaller factories within a 45 mile radius of each other (Germany did the same thing in 1944, achieving it's highest aircaft output while the large factories were under pretty much constant attack).

It's argued that the Luftwaffe couldn't have destroyed fighter command, either by attacking the bases or London, given the size, strength, training, equipment and morale of the RAF in 1940, unless it took the form of a Pyrrhic victory (where losses are unnaceptably high). On many days during the battle Germany lost five aircrew to every one British, which was about the ratio of German crew taking part in the battle to those of Fighter Command. To destroy the RAF while taking those kind of losses would have been to destroy the Luftwaffe itself. Had the Luftwaffe taken this Pyrrhic victory invasion would have been impossible anyway. Without air power to subdue the British Navy any invasion plan would have been doomed to faliure.

Just some food for thought...

DarthBane_
11-29-2004, 04:49 AM
What gave edge? Rusia. Defeat at Stalingrad and later Kursk shaped the things that came. Allies? Lol. Yust try to imagine the German resorces concentrated to the west only. The future of the world was decided in Rusia. These facts come from numbers (over 80% of losses were on the Eastern front). Ivan gave edge to the allied aircraft.

DarthBane_
11-29-2004, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
first rule of warfare,,,,DON'T INVADE RUSSIA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly

joeap
11-29-2004, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
What gave edge? Rusia. Defeat at Stalingrad and later Kursk shaped the things that came. Allies? Lol. Yust try to imagine the German resorces concentrated to the west only. The future of the world was decided in Rusia. These facts come from numbers (over 80% of losses were on the Eastern front). Ivan gave edge to the allied aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, "allies" in WWII were the USSR, UK and US, you obviously meant "Western Allies" or "Anglo-Americans" this term by itself is not correct. (We should include the Commonwealth and various Free French, Dutch etc. as well)

For the other points yes and no, German army losses were mostly on the East front as you said, but most Luftwaffe planes were pulled from the East from 43 onwards, IIRC. Furthermore the Germans made some decisions, like building almost 1000 u-boats that affected the resources available on the East front. I don't want to demean the Soviet contribution at all but I don't think the same result would have occured if each party were fighting alone against Germany (IE. there some evidence of peace feelers between USSR and Nazi Germany in 1943 I imagine Stalin might have made peace if fighting alone after stopping the advance, and no way the UK alone without either the USSR and USA could have returned to Europe)

Also, the Germans used up a lot of resources for air defence, without getting into the morality esp. of RAF area bombing, or its effectiveness the diversion effect was real.

Doesn't change the significance of the Soviet sacrifice, plus I hate this "numbers" game relating to human suffering.

edit: for crappy typing and spelling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

k5054
11-29-2004, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's argued that the Luftwaffe couldn't have destroyed fighter command, either by attacking the bases or London, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leadbaloon, you are so right. It wasn't within the technology of the day to shut down airfields by air action alone, just to affect each one for a day or two. The Luftwaffe couldn't do it in the BoB, nor in 1942 over Malta where there were only five bases to knock out and a Luftflotte to do it. Fighter command had a choice of about a hundred airfields, and new ones could be made by knocking down a few hedges. Later the USAAF wasn't able to shut down the Luftwaffe through airfield attack either. It wasn't even done successfully in Desert Storm, ont to completely stop operation.
That old story about the LW turning to London just when it was about to beat Fighter Command is nonsense. They did not have the resources. In fact they didn't even know which bases were FC fields.

And if you think you know of an example where air units were stopped from operating by air power alone, by all means give it.
(Various times the IJAAF were slowed down a whole lot in the SWPA, but they were not getting supplies through, so sea power and air power used elsewhere played a part.)

WOLFMondo
11-29-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The 2000 HP Griffons didn`t appear until the MkXIVs, and never appeared in any real numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite a few XIV's saw service before the end of the war. Certainly allot more than TA152's and Me262's combined.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmm, hmmm. The 2000 HP engine thing rose it`s ugly head again.. now for start, Germany did have 2000 HP engines regardless of what you say. There was the DB 605Ds, the Jumo 213A and E, the BMW 801 variants. All fighter engines, all 2000HP+ types, and were produced in serious quantities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't they all require MV50 or equivilent to get there power?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Not to mention most Allied 2000HP engines required some sort of special setup as well to reach those powers. Besides the fixation on 2000 HP is moot. An 2000 HP R2800, or Sabre no matter how great engine other wise, won`t make your plane faster than a much less powerful inline... why? Huge drag and weight. Kills speeds and performance. The Sabre developed over 2000 HP, the BMW 801 initially only 1800 PS, but was the Typhoon ANY faster than the FW 190? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Sabre was an inlinehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And it did make the Tempest fast, faster than any Fw190 or BF109 upto 20,000ft and the Tempest was seen in large numbers.

Didn't the Sabre produce 2100HP or 2400Hp later on and that wasn't with WEP? In the Big Show Pierre Closterman talks about the first time he uses his WEP and it took his Sabre to 3040HP from 2400HP. The Tempest might have weighed 7 tons but by pilot accounts it had excess power and could out accelerate either in a dive or straight like a FW190D.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2004, 10:03 AM
WolfMondo wrote:
"Didn't the Sabre produce 2100HP or 2400Hp later on and that wasn't with WEP?"

2400 was achievable during WW2 in the Tempest V.

The Sabre VII (during WW2) was able to produce 3000 hp, but wasn't fitted in any service aircraft in WW2, and I don't think it ever was in any form as the Fury was cancelled and the Centaurus did the job well enough for the Tempest II and Sea Fury. Jets were taking over in the pure fighter role.

The pinnacle of the Sabre was a 3,500 hp version.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-29-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

Hi,

You'll have to excuse my comments because I'd just come away from a clown-filled conversation where I was actually told that it was the US cracked the Enigma code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wasn't suggesting that you, personally, obtained your history from those sources but that there can be a general tendency to forget information that can be rather pertinent. For example, it is oft quoted about certain aircraft having kill rates of 8:1 etc (cos it says so on the history channel) but they omit other factors such as numbers relating to numerical matchups at that time. When I think of 8:1, I think of Heinz Knocke's accounts of being outnumbered 8:1; the statistic then becomes hardly surprising.

I agree that we shouldn't engage in a discussion about who started WW2 and, while I do agree that Hitler didn't actually want a war with Britain and France. He got one, however, and I think we are all glad of the eventual outcome.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Norris, no problem, just hate Hollywood history (for the most part). As one gentleman pointed out it was in fact the Poles who got their hands on an Engima first...and the Brits who captured a u-boat with one. Sigh...books are great if we could get kids to read.

Anyway, agree 100% with your point re: 8:1 ratio. Again I reiterate that Allied arcrew often did not see enemy aircraft towards the end of the war, those German pilots had guts to take off to confron those armadas regardless.
Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

If you want a short but sweet account of the Enigma story, you would do worse than take a look at Simon Singh's 'The Code Book' which looks at the long history of code making and code breaking from as far back as early civilisation through Mary Queen of Scots having her head lobbed off because her cipher was nobbled...and on to WW2 and later.

As said, the Enigma (a disgruntled German sells it to the French who pass it on to the Poles who are about to be invaded who do most of the initial work before handing it over to the British...phew...etc) is obviously in there as well as an interesting account of the Zimmermann Telegram which is supposedly how Britain 'tricked' the US into entering WW1.

Advertising for Mr Singh apart, one 'edge' that should be given consideration to is the very fact that the Allies were adept at employing technology to good effect in addition to the intelligence information obtained from codebreaking to maximise their air power effectiveness.

As for why the Allies won, there are a lot of small factors which, when they came together, gave the allies something which was greater than the sum of it's parts.


Cheers,
Norris

Aaron_GT
11-29-2004, 11:10 AM
Well, there's always the old suggestion that Hitler was the reason why the Allies won, with the suggestion that when SOE could have assassinated Hitler during WW2 they decided that Hitler was more of an asset to the Allies alive than dead, ruining the German war effort quite effectively with stupid strategic decisions.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-29-2004, 11:23 AM
Hi,

"SOE could have assassinated Hitler"

They should have sent Telly Savalas and Lee Marvin in along with the rest of the Dirty Dozen - they'd have sorted it out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

Copperhead310th
11-29-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

"SOE could have assassinated Hitler"

They should have sent Telly Savalas and Lee Marvin in along with the rest of the Dirty Dozen - they'd have sorted it out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So long as Telly didn't choke on his lolly....
then again with that crome dome he could have simply polished it up and won the entire war effort by blinding the nazi's into submission. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DRB_Hookech0
11-29-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
As I explained above, the LW and the IJ forces managed fine while outnumbered up until 1942-3. Being outnumbered is an excuse. When aircraft meet, it's not in numbers related to the force ratio. The LW gruppe would meet a US FG. The other 23 US FGs would see nothing that day. (The ratio was not 24-1 in fighters, it may have been or 5-1, the same ratio it was in the desert in 1942)
The fight was lost already by D-day. LW enthusiasts could well do with learning some real history about the period from mid '43 to mid '44 when Germany lost the air war. No Doras, no Ks, no 51Ds, no La-7s. Check the actual numbers involved on a per-mission per-day basis, and the losses on each side. Check out how attrition works over a time period. See what happens when you play lightning war and don't finish off an enemy who is playing the attrition game. See what happens when you needlessly declare war on the world's greatest industrial nation, relying on your own skill and fighting spirit to defeat the 'tired corrupt decadent' western democracies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without reading all 4 pages of posts here, I will add my comments to the oringial question.

"Is higher octane enough to produce an advatage?"

Let me put it in these terms. I used to have a trailer queen bracket camero. At the track I ran it on 120 octane VP racing fuel. For fun I used to take it out to cruze nights and at times forgot to fill up with 120 (which at the time was over 2.50 a gallon), when I used 97-98 octane pump gas the engine would suffer from detonation (permature/hot firing of the air-fuel mix, especally when the engine temp was up). I burned several domes due to this. So yes high octane fuel is a must for high performance in a high compression/high horsepower engine. Today, fuel injection matched with a engine management CPU is what allows modern cars to run very high compression, low cubic inches, on pump gas. In this area bigger is better octane wise. Would it have produced an advatage? I'm not sure. I think it helped the allies perform better at altitude where the majority of the escorts flew, but down low in the weeds I cant see it making a huge differnce. On the track, at the big end (about the 1000 foot mark) is where your high end horsepower comes into play because the engine is out of torque and has to rely on horsepower to get thru the lights. At that point everything is running at maximum so being able to control proper detonation at high RPM, and high load is where high octane gas comes into play. I would imagine that high altitude, max performance would benefit from high octane because up there the engine is starved for power, just like on the track.

Now as to when the air war in the ETO was lost, as in the above quote, it was about attrition, and knowing that one side will suck up losses to complete the mission. I give you for example the Schwinfurt/Regansburg missions in August of 43. LeMays group laid bombs on Regansburg and then flew to N. Africa while under heavy LW air attacks prior to target. The Schwinfurt group was savaged into target and all the way home but it too made it to target, although thru some bad leadership in the leadign groups and just over all loss of integrity, they for most part missed and we had to go back and do it again.

But, the germans failed to stop a deep penetration of the home land by unescorted bombers who made their targets. To me this signaled the end of the LW, because once the deep raid were escorted, they had even less of a chance to stop them. It was a war of attrition that Germany could not match in the air. Simple as that.

It was even worse in the PTO where by the time the Japanese abandoned Rabual, they had lost almost all of their highly skilled air fleets in the eastern solomans. They never recovered from these losses and were on their heels until the end.

Luftwaffe_109
11-29-2004, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH-BlackSheep:
Barbarossa was in 41 not 44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course it was in 41, how silly of me to let such a typo creep in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif(mistake corrected).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For the other points yes and no, German army losses were mostly on the East front as you said, but most Luftwaffe planes were pulled from the East from 43 onwards, IIRC. Furthermore the Germans made some decisions, like building almost 1000 u-boats that affected the resources available on the East front. I don't want to demean the Soviet contribution at all but I don't think the same result would have occured if each party were fighting alone against Germany (IE. there some evidence of peace feelers between USSR and Nazi Germany in 1943 I imagine Stalin might have made peace if fighting alone after stopping the advance, and no way the UK alone without either the USSR and USA could have returned to Europe) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly, all of this merely shows just how critical the ostfront was in deciding the war. Taken on their own, the Battle of the Atlantic, the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign over Europe, etc, did little ON THEIR OWN to tip the balance of WWII. Note, for example, that despite the mass bombing of industrial centres, industrial capacity peaked during 44, when the bombing campaign was at its greatest.

For instance, German industry produced 218000 rifles in December 44 alone, double the average monthly output of 1941. The manufacture of automatic weapons had risen four times, tank production nearly fivefold. In December 44, German war industries produce 1,840 armoured fighting vehicles in a single month, more than half of that produce throughout the whole of 1941.

However, when the effect that these had on the ostfront is examined, their effects become more serious. Firstly, it is the resources taken from the ostfront, the anti-air artillery that was desperately needed in the east to be employed in the anti-tank role, the industrial resources badly needed to produce ever more tanks (here we can see that the decision to give U-Boats high priority, while a sound strategic one in my opinion, has a detrimental effect), manpower, etc.

Thus it becomes clear I think that each of these contributions by the western allies, despite having an effect on their own, had a more substantial effect on the ostfront, which was undeniably where the war was lost and won.

Regards

joeap
11-29-2004, 03:19 PM
Yes, actually that is more or less what I was trying to drive at...it would have been very bad for the Russians to be on their own, and much much worse for the Western Allies. Darn those Germans were good to hang on for six years. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Agree with your analysis.

CRSutton
11-29-2004, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
Another way of looking at the side-effects of the higher octane...

A higher octane is easier on your engine, that's why you can buy Premium at the gas pump even though regular will do just fine. If the engine undergoes less stress, it will be more reliable, spend less time in the hanger for overhaul, and the performance boost is not only because the fuel is better quality but also because the engine is in better shape to begin with.

I will have to agree though that numbers were the biggest advantage the allies had. If the numbers were evenly matched, I think some of the late war German planes would've had a profound effect on the outcome of the war. 262's for example were simply overwhelmed and quite often the allies had mustangs out just looking for a jet trying to take off. If the 262 had been able to come out in strength, there may have been a different ending to the air war. If the allied numbers weren't so great, the loss of german aces probably wouldn't have been so high. It doesn't matter how good you are, you could be the ace of aces fighting 4 rookie pilots, but you are still only 1 plane and only able to shoot in 1 direction which means while you're moving in for the kill on one 3 more are maneuvering to get behind you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a good point. After 1943 the bulk of Japanese planes were destroyed on the ground-not in the air. Lack of parts and insuficiently trained ground crews contributed to this as much as anything. Lower quality fuel meant lower engine life, thus more down time, thus more demand for parts and repair crews. Thus more opportunity for a plane to get shot up while sitting on the ground.

Luftwaffe_109
11-29-2004, 03:54 PM
Hello Joeap, it is nice to see we have reached a similar conclusion.

Best Regards

Aaron_GT
11-29-2004, 04:07 PM
"For instance, German industry produced 218000 rifles in December 44 alone, double the average monthly output of 1941. The manufacture of automatic weapons had risen four times, tank production nearly fivefold. In December 44, German war industries produce 1,840 armoured fighting vehicles in a single month, more than half of that produce throughout the whole of 1941."

The problem was that with a lack of fuel (even though the Allied bombing campaign could have been better on hitting fuel targets) a lot just sat at the factories until bombed by the USAAF and RAF.

Luftwaffe_109
11-29-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problem was that with a lack of fuel (even though the Allied bombing campaign could have been better on hitting fuel targets) a lot just sat at the factories until bombed by the USAAF and RAF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is right, as Albert Speer mentioned, "the trickiest problem was the shortage of fuel", quite the understatement. Of course, it should also be mentioned that the invasion of Russia also had a detrimental effect on fueld reserves for the Germans as a substantial amount of oil was being imported from the Soviet Union right up until Barbarossa if I am not mistaken.

Now to return to the question of the thread, namely whether higher octanes of Allied aircraft gave better performance over the lower octanes of German ones.

My, admitedly limited knowledge of fuels, is that increasing octane doesn't neccessarily increase power. Higher octane does however reduce the chance of early detonation, so extra power can be developed by increasing the manifold pressure. That became usefull for the allies at lower altiudes after the switch from 100 to 150 octane, which added perhaps 30 mph to some fighters, but wouldn't this make less differece to the max speeds which are achieved at higher altitudes?

Since the Germans didn't have enough crude they were unable to produce enough of these high grade fuels, and so used water methanol boost instead. Since this performs a similar function (reducing the chance of early detonation, so extra power can be developed by increasing the compression ratio), wouldn't the corresponding increase in performance at low alts also be similar?

Did higher octanes really make much difference to performance?

A point that I don't think has been mentioned, would higher octanes allow you to get more milage out of less fuel?