PDA

View Full Version : Could the Luftwaffe have been defeated by the USAAF or the RAF acting alone?



mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 04:22 AM
In the ETO considering that the Luftwaffe was still fighting against the VVS and Red Army on the Eastern front, could it have been beaten by just one of the Western Allies air forces in the West?

Two main factors spring to mind, for the USAAF fighting it alone without the RAF night bombing distractions the distribution of AAA and night fighters would be altered to focus entirely on the day bombing threat. If the RAF fought alone the lack of a really long ranged day fighter would be a problem - although in 1944 the Tempest could provide reasonable escort capacity.

RAF 4 engined heavies could be modified to be wholly equipped with 20mm or .50 cal defensive weapons. Box formation could be trained and Mosquitos could be used as high altitude long range fighters acting in unison with Tempests and longer ranged Spitfire Mk's helping to interdict Luftwaffe twin engined heavy fighters from forming up and attacking bombers unmolested.

British aircraft production figures actually decreased in 44 and 45 because they knew the war was won whereas German capacity was picked up. Realistically if the war wasnt going as well British productive capacity would have been increased in 44 / 45 providing that the US still picked up the tab. It couldnt have matched the German figures of 44 but arguably Britain was producing more useful/advanced designs by 44 anyway ie Spitfire XIV, Meteor, Tempest V and II, Mosquito, Lancaster, Halifax. German capacity was still split between East and West fronts so the RAF could achieve a numbers advantage.

If the USAAF had to fight alone (based in Britain ofcourse) would it have employed night bombing in addition to day bombing? Would it have conducted increased number of tactical raids? and would aircraft like the P61 been utilised in a more proactive role as night intruders ect

Numerically the USAAF had enough numerical potential to do it but would their tactics be modified to provide 24/7 attacks wearing the Luftwaffe down or would their doctrine focuse entirely on an increased strategic bombing scheme.

Was the Luftwaffe strong enough to beat or hold off the USAAF or the RAF if given the chance to face one or the other?

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 04:22 AM
In the ETO considering that the Luftwaffe was still fighting against the VVS and Red Army on the Eastern front, could it have been beaten by just one of the Western Allies air forces in the West?

Two main factors spring to mind, for the USAAF fighting it alone without the RAF night bombing distractions the distribution of AAA and night fighters would be altered to focus entirely on the day bombing threat. If the RAF fought alone the lack of a really long ranged day fighter would be a problem - although in 1944 the Tempest could provide reasonable escort capacity.

RAF 4 engined heavies could be modified to be wholly equipped with 20mm or .50 cal defensive weapons. Box formation could be trained and Mosquitos could be used as high altitude long range fighters acting in unison with Tempests and longer ranged Spitfire Mk's helping to interdict Luftwaffe twin engined heavy fighters from forming up and attacking bombers unmolested.

British aircraft production figures actually decreased in 44 and 45 because they knew the war was won whereas German capacity was picked up. Realistically if the war wasnt going as well British productive capacity would have been increased in 44 / 45 providing that the US still picked up the tab. It couldnt have matched the German figures of 44 but arguably Britain was producing more useful/advanced designs by 44 anyway ie Spitfire XIV, Meteor, Tempest V and II, Mosquito, Lancaster, Halifax. German capacity was still split between East and West fronts so the RAF could achieve a numbers advantage.

If the USAAF had to fight alone (based in Britain ofcourse) would it have employed night bombing in addition to day bombing? Would it have conducted increased number of tactical raids? and would aircraft like the P61 been utilised in a more proactive role as night intruders ect

Numerically the USAAF had enough numerical potential to do it but would their tactics be modified to provide 24/7 attacks wearing the Luftwaffe down or would their doctrine focuse entirely on an increased strategic bombing scheme.

Was the Luftwaffe strong enough to beat or hold off the USAAF or the RAF if given the chance to face one or the other?

Ratsack
04-18-2007, 04:51 AM
I think the answer is: probably yes. I think either air force, properly applied, may have done the deed.

However, it would be a close run thing. There would also, in my opinion, be no requirement for high altitude massed raids, in daylight or otherwise.

I'll see if I can dig up the two posts I did on a possible alternative air strategy that were lost in the Great Ubi Server Crash of 2007.

cheers,
Ratsack

FluffyDucks2
04-18-2007, 04:54 AM
Simple to answer (I think)....the LW may have held on for longer than they did, but the MASSIVE industrialisation of the USA would have gradually overwhelmed them.
While the LW was very good at POINT defence (masses of fighters intercepting fixed plots of bombers/escorts), they could not have continued dealing with MASS attacks by bomber/fighter aircraft hitting multiple targets for weeks on end. IMHO.

Ratsack
04-18-2007, 05:14 AM
I've found the two long posts I referred to above. Part one is below, and is in response to a post by Leitmotiv about the efficacy of the strategic bombing campaign, particularly on oil. The post below starts from a position of acknowledging the effect of the bombing campaign, but arguing that better results might have been achieved by a different strategy.



I've been meaning to come back to this for ages but I haven't got around to it. My apologies for the tardy response.

You gave an interesting run down on the development of the strategic bombing campaign during WWII, Leitmotif. For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to separate the USAAF's contribution from that of the RAF's Bomber Command, given that they fought virtually separate campaigns until early 1944. Focussing on the daylight campaigns also keeps the breadth of the discussion more manageable. In addition, the Americans came to strategic bombing with a well-articulated theory and doctrine, and it's this that I wish to critique. By contrast, the RAF fell to night bombing as the best that was possible under the circumstances. It was an example of the technical tail wagging the strategy dog. Where the British approach was inherently pragmatic, the U.S. approach was doctrinal.

The main part of your narrative with which I disagree is the contention that the heavy bombers were the only thing that could've drawn the Jagdwaffe to combat - and thus to destruction - in early 1944. I think this is untrue, and that there were other ways to achieve this.

The Germans themselves had demonstrated that a direct attack on the air defence system itself would draw the defenders. We know that during the Battle of Britain the RAF was hardest pressed when the Luftwaffe went after the southern airfields and Sector Stations. During the period from 15 August 1940 until the end of the first week of September 1940, the Germans pressed the RAF almost to breaking point. Dowding was nearing the point where he either had to withdraw his force from southern England, or let his command be destroyed. The reason this attack caused such a problem was that Fighter Command had to defend the target – itself – or cease to exist as a coherent force. The German attacks on the Sector Stations in August were critical. As it was put in the West Point military history of WWII:

...had [the Germans] understood the situation, they doubtless could have deprived the Fighter Command of mass and economy of force by punching out its brains in its control rooms.

This is from Thomas E. Greiss (ed.), ˜The Battle of Britain', in The Second World War: Europe & the Mediterranean, (Avery, New Jersey, 1989), p. 76. The important point here is that while the Germans didn't understand the significance of these strikes, the RAF did.

We also know that the most destructive individual German bombing strikes were performed by relatively small numbers of bombers that attacked with surprise, usually from low altitude. An excellent example of this is the one of the attacks on the station at Biggin Hill in early August. A formation of nine (9!!) Ju-88s, escorted by twelve Bf-109s, separated from a larger formation milling on the French side of the Channel during the early evening, and dropped to just below some cloud at 5,000 feet to cross the Channel. They hit land and headed for Biggin, where they achieved complete surprise as they made:

...a fast, low run on the airfield on the hill. While the 109s strafed, each bomber dropped two weapons so that eighteen bombs wrecked workshops, the M.T. yard, the armoury, the meteorological office, and the N.A.A.F.I. The Sergeants' Mess, the W.A.A.F. quarters, and the airmen's barracks were made uninhabitable. Most of the transport, carefully dispersed, was badly damaged: two Spitfires were burnt out, all electricity, water and gas mains were cut, most telephone communications were out, and thirty nine personnel were killed.

The bombers escaped unmolested, and the escorts engaged some interceptors on the way out. This relatively tiny force – a mere 21 aircraft in all - performed the single most destructive raid of the Battle, for the loss of a single 109. (From J.E. (˜Johnnie') Johnson, Full Circle, (Cassel & Co, London, 2001), p. 146.)

Thirdly, we know that the German attacks on the radar system had a crippling effect on Fighter Command. On the morning of 12 Aug., the Germans attacked the radar stations at Dover, Rye, Pevensey, and Dunkirk (Kent), putting some of them out of action for several hours. The integrated coverage of the south coast was compromised. (David E. Fisher, A Summer Bright and Terrible, (Shoemaker & Hoard, 2005), p. 168.) Attacks over the next three days knocked out more stations, so that by evening of 15 Aug., six out of the total of only 20 Chain Home stations were down, including Ventnor, which was out for eleven days. (ibid, p.180, and Greiss (ed), ˜Battle of Britain', pp. 75-6.)

The loss of early warning and plotting information meant that Fighter Command was blind in the region where the Chain Home stations were out of action. This meant the loss of the main force-multiplier for the defence. The Germans considered these attacks unproductive and discontinued them after the Commanders' conference on 15 Aug., but they were simply wrong in this judgement. The Brits, who were on the receiving end of the damage, knew far better what this attack was really worth if the Germans had pursued it. It would have been decisive. (Greiss)

I have used the word ˜we' above, saying that ˜we' know these things. The ˜we' to whom I am referring is not just us, sitting at our computers nearly seventy years after the fact, with the full benefit of hindsight. I am actually referring to the Allies at the time, and in particular, to the RAF. The RAF had learned these lessons, at terrible cost. By the end of 1940 they had demonstrated the value of an integrated air defence system and, even more valuably, they understood the circumstances under which such a system could be defeated. Nobody understood the problems better than they.

The fact of the matter was that the Germans, despite their dilettante approach to strategy during the Battle, had inadvertently pointed the way. By extensively testing the British defence system, they had demonstrated to the British – and anybody else who cared to pay attention - the attack methods that worked and those that didn't.

The four key lessons are as follows:

1. critical elements of the air defence system, such as the radar and sector stations, were vulnerable to air precision attack. To this list might be added the radio transmitters used to direct the interceptors.

2. where the air defence system was defeated or disrupted, the defenders were forced to use highly ineffective pre-radar tactics of standing patrol and guidance by non-expert ground observers.

3. where the air defence system could be defeated or evaded, it was possible to bomb with minimal losses; and

4. very small numbers of bombers delivering their weapons accurately from low altitude could do more damage than large formations bombing from high altitude. Accuracy was more valuable than quantity of bombs delivered.

The Germans had actually mapped out the high road to air superiority in airspace under the enemy's radar control. All that was required was Allied air leaders able and willing to heed the lessons. The irony of this is that the Allies spurned this unintended gift, preferring instead to hurl themselves in frontal assault against the intact German air defence system.


cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
04-18-2007, 05:22 AM
Part Two of the long posts mentioned above. This develops the possible alternative strategy based on the lessons above. It ends with a fairly harsh critique of the US bombing strategy, but much the same might be said of the RAF strategy, too. Anyway, Part Two:



In light of the clear lessons of the Battle of Britain, it is my contention that the Allies had available to them a viable air strategy that would destroy the German air defence system and deliver the conditions necessary for the destruction of German industry on a vast scale. It would achieve this without the requirement for huge fleets of heavy bombers, bombing inaccurately from high altitude. It would also do the job with far fewer losses than those the USAAF finally accepted to achieve the same ends.

At the highest level, the strategy is simple and obvious: attack and destroy the German air defence system. The key benefit of destroying the air defence system is that once it is disabled or destroyed, the Allies would be able to attack any target they chose, and do so more effectively, and with lower losses. The targets could include German industry, oil production, transport, ˜leadership' targets, and so on. As Adolf Galland put it in The First and Last, once the war for the air was won, the Allies could conduct warfare from the air at will.

For the purposes of planning a series of operations to destroy the German air defence system, the Allies could consider the key elements of that system to be:
* the German fighters themselves;
* the airfields and their supporting infrastructure;
* the radar sites and their supporting systems;
* the control centres;
* the radio navigation beacons; and
* the large, powerful radio transmitters used to transmit instructions to aircraft in the air.

As the British had discovered to their discomfort during the Battle of Britain, all of these elements of the system were vulnerable to air attack. The question then becomes, what sort of operations could be conducted to destroy or neutralise this target set? The answer is what I would term, the ˜Air Superiority' strategy, and it comprises a number of tasks, some of which can be conducted simultaneously.

The first task would be intelligence collection: the sites must be located. For the airfields and controls centres this would be a matter of aerial reconnaissance and human-source intelligence from France and the Low Countries. The location of the nav. beacons, radio transmitters and radar sites would require an intensive electronic intelligence (ELINT) campaign. The British were already well advanced in this regard by 1942. Indeed, in the lead up to D-Day in 1944, all of the German radar sites around Calais were located and destroyed, with a single exception that was left as part of a deception operation. The capability was there. (See Operation TAXABLE. John Terraine, The Right of the Line, (Wordsworth, Ware, 1997), p. 629.) The British also had a very well developed signals intelligence (SIGINT) system in place, and this would be useful later also.

The second task would be the construction in Britain of the force suited to destroy these targets. The bomber requirement would be for aircraft able to deliver weapons with a high degree of accuracy. This requirement rules out high-altitude bombing: there would be no requirement to plaster a target area and measure the accuracy of the attack by calculating the percentage of weapons that landed within 2 km of the target. The requirement would be to deliver the bombs to the target and destroy it, first time. The weapons themselves need not be particularly heavy, like the 4,000 lb ˜cookie' aerial mines used by Bomber Command. Bombs in the 1,000 lb category would be sufficient for most purposes, provided they were dropped with sufficient accuracy. Aircraft available in 1943 that were capable of performing this role include the B-25, B-26, A-20 (Boston), Mosquito, P-47, P-38, Hawker Typhoon, and Mustang I. By the end of 1943 we could add the P-51B and Tempest V to this list.

For the fighter roles, the obvious choices are the P-38, P-47, P-51, Tempest and Spitfire. While the Spit IX as it existed in 1943 could be used for short-range roles, there was no technical reason its range could not have been improved in 1943 by adding the rear fuselage tank that was introduced in 1944. Either way, the Spitfire IX would be a valuable addition to the force. The tasks of the fighters would include escort, sweep, flak suppression, strafing and fighter-bombing.

In addition, the force would also require an airborne ELINT capability in the later stages of the campaign. This could be based on existing British ELINT technology, and fitted in an existing heavy or large medium bomber airframe (B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Halifax, Wellington, etc). Tasks would include monitoring German radar and radio activity to confirm radar / radio kills, identify new sites, and monitor repaired sites.

These first and second tasks would be carried out concurrently, so that when the target list was ready, the force would be deployed and ready to attack.

The third task would be the first operational phase. The objective would be to clear the Luftwaffe and its supporting organisation out of northern France. In particular, the attacks would concentrate on the German early warning system (i.e., radar sites). There would be two immediate pay offs from this assault. Firstly, it would give the Allies air superiority into northern France, allowing Allied air forces in Britain to move to the exploitation phase. This might include the interdiction of German communications, which would have obvious benefits in the lead up to the cross channel invasion. German forces in France could be paralysed in daylight hours, again with obvious benefits to the planned invasion.

Secondly, the removal of German radar sites in France would vastly reduce German early warning and response time for raids further into Germany itself. The radars in France picked up Allied formations as they gathered over England: anything flying higher than 5,000 feet was visible on the Freya systems out to a range of roughly 100 miles. (Gordon Swanborough & William Green, The Focke Wulf Fw190, (David & Charles, London, 1976), p.102) That early warning would be eliminated, particularly for aircraft operating at lower altitudes. This attack would begin the erosion of the force-multiplying effect of the German air defence system.

Given that the Germans fighters tended to avoid combat with superior Allied formations until 1943, we might expect the early parts of this assault to proceed with minimal resistance until the Germans understood that the target was their entire air defence capability. Then the fighters would be drawn to combat. We could therefore expect a lot of short, sharp engagements as the German fighters attempted to intercept. These would fall away as the warning system was destroyed. The German fighters would either withdraw to airspace under German radar control, or resort to ineffective standing patrols. In addition, the nature of the targets would ensure that in most cases it would not be necessary to dispatch aircraft that need escort: a group of Mustangs, Typhoons or P-38s - some carrying bombs or rockets, some without - could take out the radar sites AND look after themselves if the Jagdfwaffe show up.

On the ground, we would expect the Germans to take counter measures. These would include camouflaging their radar sites, deployment of mobile radar systems and changes to their operational practices, such as ˜blinking'. We would also expect them to beef up their light AAA defences around radar sites. However, destruction of fixed sites serviced with landline communications would probably lead the Germans to use radio to communicate from radar sites to control centres. This would be another source of ELINT and SIGINT for the Allied controllers.

The next phase would be the extension of the attack further to the East. This would require the longer-ranged aircraft (P-38, Mustang I, P-51) acting in the escorting role, and it would also require the introduction of the airborne ELINT capability. The objective would be to clear the Luftwaffe right out of western Europe to the German border. This second phase of the assault would benefit from the effects of the first attacks because the Germans would have far less warning of the Allied attacks. As a consequence, they would have a reasonable chance of achieving surprise in attacks on Western Germany.

The airborne ELINT would be deployed in Allied-controlled airspace well behind the assaulting aircraft, with a heavy local fighter escort. It would search for operational sites along or near the path of the assault group, and alert the fighters of the assault group so they could find those sites and shut them down. For the fighters, the lines separating escort, target support and attack would thus become very thin.

Strong resistance could be expected from the start of this phase. The air-to-air combats would be heavy, and the escorts would have to be numerous to ensure the success of the bombing. However, as with the first attack phase, the nature of the attacking aircraft – mostly fighter types – would make the interception job very expensive for the Germans. For those attacks requiring heavier bomb loads, fast bombers (i.e., Mosquito) could be used.

Nearly all of the action described so far would take place at low-altitude. The notable exception is the airborne ELINT function, which would be carried out at high altitude, but well inside friendly airspace. The main reasons for this are to reduce or eliminate early warning, and to provide the bombing accuracy necessary to actually destroy targets. There would be no requirement in this force for large, high-altitude aerial battleships. Speed and accuracy would be the primary attributes of the Air Superiority air force.

The rest of the campaign follows fairly obviously on from there, with each phase biting further into the German defence system, and each benefiting from the destruction wrought by the previous assault. By the end of it, the German air defence system of radar, communication and control, airfields, aircraft and aircrew would be in ruins. Germany would be laid bare to the heavy bombers, who could then incinerate any and all targets they chose, with pinpoint accuracy and minimal losses. There would, for example, be no attacks on ball bearing plants that reduce production by X percentage. The attack would be delivered with excellent accuracy from 5-15,000 feet (to stay out of the light AAA), and the ball bearing complex would be WIPED OUT. Substitute oil or your target of preference.

This is in stark contrast to how the daylight offensive was actually carried out. The formations formed up over England, circling over the Wash to gain height. They were picked up by German radar, and the Jagdwaffe went into action, pre-positioning fighters and crews at forward bases. The assault would then go in, against a fully alerted and active air defence system. The Germans would vector their interceptors into the path of the bombers and try to arrange their attacks so that they went in where the escorts were thinnest or absent altogether. The rest of the story is very well documented.

In tactical terms, the approach adopted by Spaatz and Eaker before him was very primitive. The tactic that finally worked was attrition. The bombers kept coming in numbers that grew faster than the defending force could grow to keep up. If you consider the USAAF heavy bomber losses at Schweinfurt (either raid), they amounted to 60 planes. That is a loss rate of 25% from an attacking force of 240 bombers. And yet in Big Week, the USAAF lost 59 heavies in a single attack on Berlin. The difference was that the attacking force was more than 1,000 bombers strong. A 6% loss rate is tolerable, even though the losses in absolute terms were practically the same. The escorts helped by increasing German losses and reducing American losses, but this shouldn't disguise the fact that the strategy Spaatz was pursuing was one of attrition. It was the aerial equivalent of defeating machine guns by human wave assault.

Thus my contention that the daylight strategic bombing offensive as carried out was unnecessarily expensive, and unnecessarily long. It was needlessly primitive in tactical approach, and it did not represent a combined arms offensive at all, but rather the single-minded pursuit of a theoretical ideal that placed the primacy of an independent air strategy above all else. It was in fact the very antithesis of combined arms.


cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 05:25 AM
I should add that when I say more useful designs I mean not spending as many limited resources on types like the Me 309, Natter, Me 163 Komet, He 177, He 162, Me 410, Bf 110, He 219, V1, V2 ect

Germany had some great and proven designs and could have benefitted on a rationalisation of useful aircraft types like the Bf 109, Fw 190, Ju88, and adding a heavy bomber and ONE jet fighter to the mix.

So Ratsack you feel it would have been better for the Allies to stage repeated large attacks on Luftwaffe facilities throwing in multiple pinpoint low level surprise raids by Mosquitos on nerve centres forcing the Luftwaffe in to a war of attrition?

claypidgon
04-18-2007, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Simple to answer (I think)....the LW may have held on for longer than they did, but the MASSIVE industrialisation of the USA would have gradually overwhelmed them.
While the LW was very good at POINT defence (masses of fighters intercepting fixed plots of bombers/escorts), they could not have continued dealing with MASS attacks by bomber/fighter aircraft hitting multiple targets for weeks on end. IMHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This post kinda says it all as I belive,they could not not have kept up in pilots and planes.We would have overwhelmed them by shear numbers..

DKoor
04-18-2007, 05:36 AM
This is a good thread... it's time to dust off our alternate history data (eg. proofs & facts). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Ratsack
04-18-2007, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
...

So Ratsack you feel it would have been better for the Allies to stage repeated large attacks on Luftwaffe facilities throwing in multiple pinpoint low level surprise raids by Mosquitos on nerve centres forcing the Luftwaffe in to a war of attrition? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More precisely, I think the Allies should have sorted out their strategic and tactical thinking about air power more clearly. It was obviously a bit of a muddle. In effect, the Americans were attempting, with their Strategic Bombing doctrine, to exploit the victory of air superiority before they'd actually won it. This is acknowledged in almost as many words in the West Point history.

My main point is that the first step in defeating the buggers should have been to attack their air defense system. The air defense system is much more than a huge force multiplier: it is the thing that makes defense possible at all. Without an integrated system of early warning and control, the best fighter aircraft in the world would not save you. They'd all be flying in useless standing patrols, burning precious fuel...


cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 06:01 AM
If you think about the area that the German defenses had to cover it is quite phenomenal, only the USAAF and the USSR in the Cold War had larger areas they had to defend from aerial attack. The German fighter force stationed in the West was entirely inadequate for the task imo, considering their limited numbers they did a heck of a job.

How would the RAF be able to wreck the Luftwaffe's control network and bases? Were these targets susceptable to night bombing ?

tools4foolsA
04-18-2007, 06:31 AM
LW vs RAF 1:1 (all production has to be done in UK, no US pouring in tons of equippment. No east front either.
Winner LW. German industry can outproduce UK industry.

LW vs USAF 1:1
Winner USA; USa can outproduce Germany...
But sure would have take a hell lot longer...
++++++

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 06:48 AM
Germany was fighting Russia too in this scenario remember.

German Industrial capacity was lesser than Russia and Britain together.

Inafct it took Germany yeard to over take British production in tanks and aircraft. When it did the two countries were much closer than Germany compared to the USA.

FlatSpinMan
04-18-2007, 06:50 AM
Ratsack - thanks for posting those long um...posts. They made for interesting reading and left me thinking, "Why didn't the think of that?"

jarink
04-18-2007, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the RAF fought alone the lack of a really long ranged day fighter would be a problem - although in 1944 the Tempest could provide reasonable escort capacity.

RAF 4 engined heavies could be modified to be wholly equipped with 20mm or .50 cal defensive weapons. Box formation could be trained and Mosquitos could be used as high altitude long range fighters acting in unison with Tempests and longer ranged Spitfire Mk's helping to interdict Luftwaffe twin engined heavy fighters from forming up and attacking bombers unmolested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you think the British would have attempted daylight bombing? They were in full-scale night bombing well before the Eighth AF was able to mount any sort of effective raids in mid-43. The Brits had fully given up on the idea that daylight precision bombing was viable and were constantly trying to convince USAAF leaders to adopt a "proper" (nighttime) bombing stategy. I think the RAF would have stuck with nighttime raids only, with the exception of small Mosquito raids on precision targets like radar sites, control centers and airfields.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the USAAF had to fight alone (based in Britain ofcourse) would it have employed night bombing in addition to day bombing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the personalities of the USAAF leaders at the time, I think there is NO WAY they would have considered nighttime bombing. Eaker, Spaatz and Doolittle were all longtime (and very outspoken) proponents of precision daylight bombing. The only way the USAAF would have considered night bombing is if casualties would have been even higher than they actually were in '42-'43, causing these leaders to be sacked.

tools4foolsA
04-18-2007, 07:28 AM
If

LW:USSR 1:1
USSR wins too in the long run.

As soon as you team up 2 of them LW/Germany is dead meat indeed...

++++

FliegerAas
04-18-2007, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I should add that when I say more useful designs I mean not spending as many limited resources on types like the Me 309, Natter, Me 163 Komet, He 177, He 162, Me 410, Bf 110, He 219, V1, V2 ect

Germany had some great and proven designs and could have benefitted on a rationalisation of useful aircraft types like the Bf 109, Fw 190, Ju88, and adding a heavy bomber and ONE jet fighter to the mix.

[...] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree on the UHU. It was a great plane and an exeptional nightfighter. There should have been built more of them instead of planes like the 110. Also Jet fighters in general would have been a great addition to the fighter force if they were deployed earlier and in bigger numbers. Then they would have been able to justify the 'waste' of resources by causing havoc on the enemy.

my 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG52Karaya-X
04-18-2007, 08:04 AM
Also disagree on the He162A, it was an exeptional performer with a top speed that was higher than the Me262s and with very low costs (only one engine, non-strategical material) and although conceived in such a short time span rather forgiving for such an early jet.

Daiichidoku
04-18-2007, 08:19 AM
one must bear in mind, that in the case of a USAF only scenario, sans RAF, would necessarily mean that RAF, and by extension, England would have been always destroyed/defeated, or otherwise neutral

thus, USAF cannot deploy from UK

can they deploy from africa? with no RAF/England to help, torch may not have happened...

where from then, does USAF seek to strike the LW?..seems perhaps the only choice would be to join the eastern front
but....not so easy to funnels men and materiel through Vladivostok, sitting in Japans backyard... or even Northern route, the environment is dangerous enuff alone, as it is


RAF alone without USAF?it MAY be able to defend itself, at least so long as germany would be occupied with russia....and with very little offensive cabability

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
one must bear in mind, that in the case of a USAF only scenario, sans RAF, would necessarily mean that RAF, and by extension, England would have been always destroyed/defeated, or otherwise neutral

thus, USAF cannot deploy from UK

can they deploy from africa? with no RAF/England to help, torch may not have happened...

where from then, does USAF seek to strike the LW?..seems perhaps the only choice would be to join the eastern front
but....not so easy to funnels men and materiel through Vladivostok, sitting in Japans backyard... or even Northern route, the environment is dangerous enuff alone, as it is


RAF alone without USAF?it MAY be able to defend itself, at least so long as germany would be occupied with russia....and with very little offensive cabability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geography plays a role here, but I am looking at the two airforces capabilities. It is easier for the sake of comparison that the two are stationed in Britain. If the USAAF were stationed in North Africa the disposition of the Luftwaffe would have to be reorganised also.

I also disagree that the RAF would have had only minimal offensive capabilities. The Luftwaffe were on the defensive after BoB not the RAF. The RAF's night time bomber force was hugely capable and its day time fighter force were more than a match for the smaller numbers of Luftwaffe fighters that opposed them - that is why the Luftwaffe chode to ignore many raids that were not on primary targets.

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Also disagree on the He162A, it was an exeptional performer with a top speed that was higher than the Me262s and with very low costs (only one engine, non-strategical material) and although conceived in such a short time span rather forgiving for such an early jet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The He 162 in IL2 is indeed excellent, yet it suffered from directional stability problems in reality, poor endurance, limited weapons load and would have proved incapable of attacking heavy bombers.

The 262 had 2 engine reliability, 4 x 30mm and the option of carrying 2000lbs of bombs.

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:

I disagree on the UHU. It was a great plane and an exeptional nightfighter. There should have been built more of them instead of planes like the 110. Also Jet fighters in general would have been a great addition to the fighter force if they were deployed earlier and in bigger numbers. Then they would have been able to justify the 'waste' of resources by causing havoc on the enemy.

my 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The UHU has mixed test reports you should delve deeper, some thought it was great others didnt - and I dont just mean the political rivalry that existed in the 3rd Reich.

It used Jumo 213s better suited to Fw 190s, it held no speed margin over the Mosquito therefore it was pointless: existing night fighters could catch the Lancaster and Halifax like the Ju 88. The He 219 just wasnt a big enough improvement over the improvised types in service because it wasnt capable of matching existing threats, it would also be in trouble if caught by Mosquito night fighters. The Me 262 night fighter was suitable for catching the Mosquito however.

Its like I said, concentration on fewer types would mean earlier delivery dates for the Me 262, Fw 190 D9, more Ju 88s ect

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the RAF fought alone the lack of a really long ranged day fighter would be a problem - although in 1944 the Tempest could provide reasonable escort capacity.

RAF 4 engined heavies could be modified to be wholly equipped with 20mm or .50 cal defensive weapons. Box formation could be trained and Mosquitos could be used as high altitude long range fighters acting in unison with Tempests and longer ranged Spitfire Mk's helping to interdict Luftwaffe twin engined heavy fighters from forming up and attacking bombers unmolested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you think the British would have attempted daylight bombing? They were in full-scale night bombing well before the Eighth AF was able to mount any sort of effective raids in mid-43. The Brits had fully given up on the idea that daylight precision bombing was viable and were constantly trying to convince USAAF leaders to adopt a "proper" (nighttime) bombing stategy. I think the RAF would have stuck with nighttime raids only, with the exception of small Mosquito raids on precision targets like radar sites, control centers and airfields.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the USAAF had to fight alone (based in Britain ofcourse) would it have employed night bombing in addition to day bombing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the personalities of the USAAF leaders at the time, I think there is NO WAY they would have considered nighttime bombing. Eaker, Spaatz and Doolittle were all longtime (and very outspoken) proponents of precision daylight bombing. The only way the USAAF would have considered night bombing is if casualties would have been even higher than they actually were in '42-'43, causing these leaders to be sacked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As both sides doctrines complimented each others they didnt need to chose. If you take away the RAF could daylight bombing alone have defeated the Luftwaffe? If you take away the USAAF could night bombing have remained effective?

When faced with different circumstances both air forces changed their tactics. The USA used area night bombing against Japan and the RAF did make use of large scale escorted daylight raids in 44 and 45.

Bremspropeller
04-18-2007, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The He 162 in IL2 is indeed excellent, yet it suffered from directional stability problems in reality, poor endurance, limited weapons load and would have proved incapable of attacking heavy bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stability problems were solved (Eric Brown confirms this).


The fact you fail to realize is that the 162 was designed as mass-producion fighter (easy to build and easy to replace).
It's two 20mm guns could be replaced by MK108s or even Mk213s.

BTW: some D-9s managed to shoot down USAAF heavies (having only two 20mm guns either) - therefore, downing a B-17 or B-24 was anything but impossible for the Salamander.

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The He 162 in IL2 is indeed excellent, yet it suffered from directional stability problems in reality, poor endurance, limited weapons load and would have proved incapable of attacking heavy bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stability problems were solved (Eric Brown confirms this).


The fact you fail to realize is that the 162 was designed as mass-producion fighter (easy to build and easy to replace).
It's two 20mm guns could be replaced by MK108s or even Mk213s.

BTW: some D-9s managed to shoot down USAAF heavies (having only two 20mm guns either) - therefore, downing a B-17 or B-24 was anything but impossible for the Salamander. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the poor suckers having to fly the Fw 190 Sturmbocks or the Bf 109 Gs with gun pods while getting shot to shreds by escort fighters. Only one or 2 Mg 151 were insufficient to destroy 4 engined heavy bombers, if you also consider that the Jet has a closing speed of 100 mph greater then scoring sufficient hits becomes even more unlikely.

As for the He 162

"n investigation into the failure revealed that the wing structure had to be re-stressed and redesigned for more strength, as the glue bonding required for the wood parts was in many cases defective, but the schedule was so tight that testing was forced to continue with the current design. Speeds were limited to 500 km/h when the second prototype flew on 22 December. This time the stability problems proved to be more serious, and were tracked to Dutch roll which could be solved by reducing the dihedral. However, with the plane supposed to enter production within weeks, there was no time to change the design. A number of small changes were done, including adding lead ballast to the nose to move the center of gravity more to the front of the plane, and slightly increasing the size of the tail surfaces."

from Wiki but I have read similar information in several books.

Daiichidoku
04-18-2007, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:

I disagree on the UHU. It was a great plane and an exeptional nightfighter. There should have been built more of them instead of planes like the 110. Also Jet fighters in general would have been a great addition to the fighter force if they were deployed earlier and in bigger numbers. Then they would have been able to justify the 'waste' of resources by causing havoc on the enemy.

my 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The UHU has mixed test reports you should delve deeper, some thought it was great others didnt - and I dont just mean the political rivalry that existed in the 3rd Reich.

It used Jumo 213s better suited to Fw 190s, it held no speed margin over the Mosquito therefore it was pointless: existing night fighters could catch the Lancaster and Halifax like the Ju 88. The He 219 just wasnt a big enough improvement over the improvised types in service because it wasnt capable of matching existing threats, it would also be in trouble if caught by Mosquito night fighters. The Me 262 night fighter was suitable for catching the Mosquito however.

Its like I said, concentration on fewer types would mean earlier delivery dates for the Me 262, Fw 190 D9, more Ju 88s ect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



it would seem you have delved in to the Uhu

if so, they you know the A5 specalist did quite well vs mossies

the Uhu was a great package, and did indeed have a hand up on many compemporaries....even ignoring the high cruise speed, and heavy weapons, its other intangibles, like "crew-friendliness" and room to "stretch" the design and innate versatility...could have proven to be almost as versatile as the mossie even

JG52Karaya-X
04-18-2007, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Tell that to the poor suckers having to fly the Fw 190 Sturmbocks or the Bf 109 Gs with gun pods while getting shot to shreds by escort fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what does that have to do with the He162, it certainly wont have to bother with escort fighters being a good 180km/h faster than say the SpitXIV (around 720km/h top). Another point favouring the 162 is it dogfighting potential, being nimble enough to mix it up with some of the heavier piston engined fighters and more importantly with most or all of the allied jet fighters that were about to enter service or in various stages of development so it could potentially provide top cover for the heavier, less agile Me262 which on the other hand then would be able to carry greater A2A loads (rocket racks, rocket tubes, rocket propelled mortars, missiles,...) kind of like what the Bf109s did for the FW190s in Reichsverteidigung duty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only one or 2 Mg 151 were insufficient to destroy 4 engined heavy bombers, if you also consider that the Jet has a closing speed of 100 mph greater then scoring sufficient hits becomes even more unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe not for one but 2 or 3 of them firing at one and the same and you'll have one heavy baby less. Coming back to the point of ease of mass-production of the He162 this relativates its lack of firepower in the bomber interceptor role

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the He 162

"n investigation into the failure revealed that the wing structure had to be re-stressed and redesigned for more strength, as the glue bonding required for the wood parts was in many cases defective, but the schedule was so tight that testing was forced to continue with the current design. Speeds were limited to 500 km/h when the second prototype flew on 22 December. This time the stability problems proved to be more serious, and were tracked to Dutch roll which could be solved by reducing the dihedral. However, with the plane supposed to enter production within weeks, there was no time to change the design. A number of small changes were done, including adding lead ballast to the nose to move the center of gravity more to the front of the plane, and slightly increasing the size of the tail surfaces."

from Wiki but I have read similar information in several books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are showing/proving us here is that the He162 suffered production quality problems related to german industry's eclatant problems related with the massive allied day and night bombings and not problems inherent to the Salamanders design.

Bremspropeller
04-18-2007, 11:19 AM
As for stability problems, read Eric Brown's report about the plane. He gotta know it, because he actually FLEW the sucker.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tell that to the poor suckers having to fly the Fw 190 Sturmbocks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sturmjäger-pilots approached their argets from rear aspect and were ordered to shoot at closest range. Maybe you should get your sources straigt.

The best tactic to bring down a bomber was to attack from 12 o'clock, to kill or severly wound the pilots. That works perfectly with two 20mm guns.

horseback
04-18-2007, 11:23 AM
I really liked Ratsack's scenario, but it sounded to me a lot like the air war strategy for the First Gulf War.

Obviously, it is a very good plan, but it was built on lessons learned not only in every theater of WWII, but Korea, Vietnam, countless Cold War think tank studies and the various Arab-Israeli conflicts that have taken place since 1939. I'm not sure that it would translate well to the technology of the time, the normal weather patterns of Western Europe, logistics issues (not least being the loss of either the Royal Navy or the USN in fighting the Battle of the Atlantic), or the strategic and tactical understanding of ANYONE at the time.

The use of radar, ELINT and electronic countermeasures were in their infancies during WWII, and their technical demands were met as the art was developed throughout the war. That development was largely British inorigin, with American embellishment and later, production, so a one country operation would only be slower for the British, and almost negligible for the US (until German ops required countering).

I'll address the RAF only scenario first:

I suspect that the RAF and Commonwealth air forces would have continued to expand the night bomber effort, but would also have developed a more pervasive Rhubarb campaign to supplement it, and then would have rebuilt their low to medium altitude daylight strike capability. As I understand it, the whole Tactical Air Force concept had its roots in relatively junior fighter pilots lacking enemy fighters or bombers to defend against looking for a way to strike at Jerry. As they proved their theories, the Higher Ranks were forced to examine the idea more closely, and expanded it from there.

This would probably been heavily invested in Mosquito bombers or even Beaufighters with a Mustang I escort, assuming that the Spitfire's range could not be improved without losing its combat capability. At low alts, the Mustang I was VERY competitive throughout the war; while not quite as nifty as the Spit V, it was faster and had much longer legs. As such, it would have been well suited to fast, low level excursions across to France and the Low Countries in company with the Mossies. Going to the Mk Ia/P-51 standard with 4x20mm armament would be probable though, as the 4x.50 +4x.303 armament would be inadequate for the quick kill. At low altitudes, an extended dogfight over enemy ground is ill advised.

There is also the issue of industrial capability. While the Spit IX was available in early to mid 1942, it was deployed in very limited numbers, and the Spit V was the mainstay of Fighter Command well into 1943. In the absence of US support, the Spit IX becomes even more important, but the issue then becomes: could Britain produce them any faster? By early 1943, Packard was producing Merlin engines for Lancasters and Mosquitos, as well as for P-40F/L models. How would the loss of that supplemental production affect Rolls Royce's engine development programs?

The LW held the Channel coast pretty securely until late 1943 with just the two Geschwaders. Attacking across the Channel in either direction during that time was a very risky business, and if you got caught by the defenders, it was usually fatal. However, the Germans held a clear advantage in aircraft technology and tactical doctrine, allowing them to effectively cover their side of the water with far fewer fighters. The LW became quite adept at the concept of defense in depth, and it seems likely that without one or the other major players operating out of Britain, their tactical and logistic problems become smaller and easier to deal with.

However, the Germans were quite complacent about the US heavy bombing efforts while they were still perceived to be lacking a capable long ranged escort, and I can't imagine them becoming less so in the absence of a daylight strategic effort aimed at their industrial base.

A Commonwealth only scenario takes at least a couple of years longer, and not only slows progress on the Western Front, but also requires a much more costly campaign in the East. One has to wonder if the Soviets could be bled dry, especially if our exclusion of the US leaves them without Lend Lease trucks, ammunition, and foodstuffs, never mind aircraft and aviation fuels. Stalin might well have considered a more cautious approach and possibly let Hitler (temporarily at least) off the hook.

It all looks pretty precarious to me.

cheers

horseback

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Tell that to the poor suckers having to fly the Fw 190 Sturmbocks or the Bf 109 Gs with gun pods while getting shot to shreds by escort fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what does that have to do with the He162, it certainly wont have to bother with escort fighters being a good 180km/h faster than say the SpitXIV (around 720km/h top). Another point favouring the 162 is it dogfighting potential, being nimble enough to mix it up with some of the heavier piston engined fighters and more importantly with most or all of the allied jet fighters that were about to enter service or in various stages of development so it could potentially provide top cover for the heavier, less agile Me262 which on the other hand then would be able to carry greater A2A loads (rocket racks, rocket tubes, rocket propelled mortars, missiles,...) kind of like what the Bf109s did for the FW190s in Reichsverteidigung duty.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only one or 2 Mg 151 were insufficient to destroy 4 engined heavy bombers, if you also consider that the Jet has a closing speed of 100 mph greater then scoring sufficient hits becomes even more unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe not for one but 2 or 3 of them firing at one and the same and you'll have one heavy baby less. Coming back to the point of ease of mass-production of the He162 this relativates its lack of firepower in the bomber interceptor role

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the He 162

"n investigation into the failure revealed that the wing structure had to be re-stressed and redesigned for more strength, as the glue bonding required for the wood parts was in many cases defective, but the schedule was so tight that testing was forced to continue with the current design. Speeds were limited to 500 km/h when the second prototype flew on 22 December. This time the stability problems proved to be more serious, and were tracked to Dutch roll which could be solved by reducing the dihedral. However, with the plane supposed to enter production within weeks, there was no time to change the design. A number of small changes were done, including adding lead ballast to the nose to move the center of gravity more to the front of the plane, and slightly increasing the size of the tail surfaces."

from Wiki but I have read similar information in several books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are showing/proving us here is that the He162 suffered production quality problems related to german industry's eclatant problems related with the massive allied day and night bombings and not problems inherent to the Salamanders design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like I have to re write my post again

You hold the belief that 2x Mg 151s were enough to destroy 4 engined bombers. Maybe if you are Marseille. The Luftwaffe had other views on the subject and used multiple 20mm and or 30mm cannons. They did this because for the average pilot scoring sufficient hits with one or two 20 mm cannons was deemed impossible.

As for having 2 or 3 He 162s to do the job of one Me 262. This is a fools gold economic strategy for an airforce which:

A - doesnt have any fuel
and
B - lacks well trained pilots

The He 162 had inherrent design problems to go with the production and reliability problems of its engine.

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FliegerAas:

I disagree on the UHU. It was a great plane and an exeptional nightfighter. There should have been built more of them instead of planes like the 110. Also Jet fighters in general would have been a great addition to the fighter force if they were deployed earlier and in bigger numbers. Then they would have been able to justify the 'waste' of resources by causing havoc on the enemy.

my 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The UHU has mixed test reports you should delve deeper, some thought it was great others didnt - and I dont just mean the political rivalry that existed in the 3rd Reich.

It used Jumo 213s better suited to Fw 190s, it held no speed margin over the Mosquito therefore it was pointless: existing night fighters could catch the Lancaster and Halifax like the Ju 88. The He 219 just wasnt a big enough improvement over the improvised types in service because it wasnt capable of matching existing threats, it would also be in trouble if caught by Mosquito night fighters. The Me 262 night fighter was suitable for catching the Mosquito however.

Its like I said, concentration on fewer types would mean earlier delivery dates for the Me 262, Fw 190 D9, more Ju 88s ect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



it would seem you have delved in to the Uhu

if so, they you know the A5 specalist did quite well vs mossies

the Uhu was a great package, and did indeed have a hand up on many compemporaries....even ignoring the high cruise speed, and heavy weapons, its other intangibles, like "crew-friendliness" and room to "stretch" the design and innate versatility...could have proven to be almost as versatile as the mossie even </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the He 219 was more effective than improvised Ju 88s and Bf 110s. No surprise there. It did not possess a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">sufficient</span> performance margin over the Mosquito to render losses unacceptable. The Me 262 night fighter did have this needed margin of speed.

This leaves you with He 219s chasing after Halifax's and Lancasters which are already being knocked down by Ju 88s and Bf 110s.

Anyway placing your He 219 appreciation aside - can we get back on topic please ?

mynameisroland
04-18-2007, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
As for stability problems, read Eric Brown's report about the plane. He gotta know it, because he actually FLEW the sucker.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tell that to the poor suckers having to fly the Fw 190 Sturmbocks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sturmjäger-pilots approached their argets from rear aspect and were ordered to shoot at closest range. Maybe you should get your sources straigt.

The best tactic to bring down a bomber was to attack from 12 o'clock, to kill or severly wound the pilots. That works perfectly with two 20mm guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read Eric Browns comments. He praises the aerilon control of the He 162.

As for head ons being th best tactics, well thats obvious but what is the closing speed for a 562 mph Jet and a 250 mph bomber ? You do the math. How many rounds do those two Mg 151s squirt off and what kind of gunnery accuracy would you need to score enough hits?

Its tough getting sources straight for He 162s attacking bomber formations isnt it Brem ? Maybe you can help me out there .....

Sturmocks were used because not enough bombers were being shot down using safe tactics. It wasnt because they liked attacking from dead 6.

Bremspropeller
04-18-2007, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He praises the aerilon control of the He 162. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is also satisfied with the rudder control, labelling it a bit over-effective.

He doesn't mention stability problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sturmocks were used because not enough bombers were being shot down using safe tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong.
Statistics show that attacking bombers from 12 o'clock was the most effective approach.
Sturmbock-units were a buch of volunteers that were willing to take the risk and engage from the rear.
That method was effective, but not because of their rear-aspect attacks, but because of their heavy armament. However, they payed a high price for their success: the R2 and R8 Rüstsätze turned the Fws into sitting ducks for escort fighters.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How many rounds do those two Mg 151s squirt off and what kind of gunnery accuracy would you need to score enough hits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunnery accuracy? You're closing the target at high speeds, thats true, but you also approach it with almost no offset. There is no deflection required.
How many hits I need?
Well, Minengeschoss-rounds do quite some damage. Not as much as a MK108-round, but a lot more than a plain-vanilla 20mm HE-round.
A B-17 is not an IL-2. The crew does not sit in a flying tank.
Knocking out the crew is no big deal with all that shrapnell flying around and bullets tearing big holes into the fuselage.
There's a reason why frontal attacks were that successful.

PraetorHonoris
04-18-2007, 12:29 PM
Stating the He162 would suffer from directional instability is - in this particular generalisation - simply incorrect. It suffered at low speeds. At high speeds there were no problems.

William Benson, another RAF test pilot, noted this and despite his stressing of the sensibility and the need of an experienced pilot, he concluded it had excellent performance, matching the best (sic!) German performance figures with ease (563 mph in level flight).
"I have little doubt that, if flown correctly, the Spatz would have been a serious problem to the Allies", he said.

Brown, in addition to his statements also found the He162 a very stable gun platform, "much better" than most contemporaries.

Harold Watson, US test pilot, considered it "extremely easy to fly" and was impressed by the controls' sensivity.

The Russians also tested it very much and critized only the upward opening canopy, while regarding the rest as flawless. Not bad for a hastily produced, hardly tested, wooden jet. In the situation of late 1944 and early 1945, there was hardly a better alternative, even though it may have been no excellent bomber destroyer (in it's first incarnations, the later versions might have been different).

(cf. Balous/Bily: Heinkel 162 Spatz, pp.35-45; Smith/Creek: Volksjäger, pp.25-29 on allied tesing, Nowarra: Der Volksjäger for a general overview)

Viper2005_
04-18-2007, 12:36 PM
Nope.

The RAF needed American fuel, and to a lesser extent American produced aircraft.

The USAAF needed access to the biggest aircraft carrier in Europe...

horseback
04-18-2007, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Gunnery accuracy? You're closing the target at high speeds, thats true, but you also approach it with almost no offset. There is no deflection required.
How many hits I need?
Well, Minengeschoss-rounds do quite some damage. Not as much as a MK108-round, but a lot more than a plain-vanilla 20mm HE-round.
A B-17 is not an IL-2. The crew does not sit in a flying tank.
Knocking out the crew is no big deal with all that shrapnell flying around and bullets tearing big holes into the fuselage.
There's a reason why frontal attacks were that successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought that in real life situations, it took a fairly skilled fighter pilot to score consistantly in head on passes on the heavies with the Focke Wulf or 109. With a combined closing speed of over 450mph, there is a VERY small window of time in which to aim and fire accurately before having to roll and avoid collision, not only with your intended victim, but with his wingmen and your own as well.

That firing window shrinks significantly for a jet...

If it were as simple as you paint it here, there would have been a LOT more viermot killers with dozens of victories over the bombers.

In reality, it was an elite few who had both the nerve and the skill to successfully use this tactic on a regular basis.

cheers

horseback

JG52Karaya-X
04-18-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The RAF needed American fuel, and to a lesser extent American produced aircraft.

The USAAF needed access to the biggest aircraft carrier in Europe... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Exactly, thats why one these two on their own couldnt defeat the LW

luftluuver
04-18-2007, 01:16 PM
Regarding the He219.

The pilots of NJG 1 preferred their Ju88s over the He219s they were supplied with.

Someone mentioned the He219 did quite well against the Mosquitos. I would not call 10 Mosquito claims out of a total of 133 claims in 5 months (June 44 to Nov 44) doing quite well. That is 7.5%.

From May 1943 to May 1945 only 108 Mosquito bombers in 26,939 missions failed to return, with another 88 damaged and written off.

Bremspropeller
04-18-2007, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought that in real life situations, it took a fairly skilled fighter pilot to score consistantly in head on passes on the heavies with the Focke Wulf or 109. With a combined closing speed of over 450mph, there is a VERY small window of time in which to aim and fire accurately before having to roll and avoid collision, not only with your intended victim, but with his wingmen and your own as well.

That firing window shrinks significantly for a jet... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I never said it was easy, I just said it is far from impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it were as simple as you paint it here, there would have been a LOT more viermot killers with dozens of victories over the bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some Viermot-killers:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/viermot.html

The very problem for newly-trained fighter pilots was not their own scoreboard, but being shot down by escort-fighters.

An average german fighter-pilot's life in a Reichsverteidigung-unit ended with a funeral ceremony after his 8th combat-mission.

tomtheyak
04-18-2007, 01:24 PM
OK...

Ratsack is IMHO, spot on.

His strategies are a practical mirror of those doctrines used by modern airforces, and ably demonstrated in the Gulf conflicts and also the NATO campaign against Serbia.

Airpower is recognised as the primary constituent of defensive and offensive capabilities; therefore it must be the first to be destroyed.

These are lessons that horseback says were learned from experience across the last 50 years of air conflict, and I am inclined to agree; however, as Ratsack has very importantly pointed out, ALL THE LESSONS WERE DEMONSTRATED DURING THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN.

The desire for a new 'offensive-minded' attitude to the air war over Britain/Channel/French coast spurred the RAF into reacting at short notice with less than suitable offensive aircraft (Blenheim/Stirling) and practically reapeating the mistakes of the Luftwaffe a year before. The loss ratios of RAF to Luftwaffe were something like 3-1 in the Luftwaffes favour.

This haste is understandable, but if attention was better turned to analysis of the Germans near success during the Battle of Britain then I can foresee a far more efficient campaign in the nature of Ratsacks doctrine being more successful. Indeed, as 1942-43 came around these below radar ingress, aggressive fighter sweeps, and low alt and medium alt escorted strike packages really begin to shine. A good example of the former are the Mossies, and Typhoons, of the latter is the Marauders, whose loss rates were very low in comparison to their heavy breatheren, thanks to ranging sweeps and excellent spitfire escort.

As for the arguement of RAF or USAAF?

Well, an arguement for RAF alone is easily arrived at: USA do not enter the war. Would the ability then for the Germans to dedicate nearly all concentration on the problem of night interception without the worries of the daytime raids have made a difference? RAF heavy bomber losses were high enough as it was; if the Nachtjadgwaffe had a monopoly on most if not all defensive research and production the RAF heavy bomber losses might well have become critical. Its a complex speculation however.

As for USAAF alone, that would indicate a reason for RAFs non-involvement in strategic issues at least, and that could sway some very important factors.

The first is disposition of units; the reason Germany had only two JG to guard the channel front was primarily because of the Russian campaign. Very few important (to German eyes) targets in Northern France. Plus with the 109F, and imminent Fw190A, the Jagdwaffe could be rightly confident of holding the Tommies at bay, who were oddly adopting the same questonable tactics the LW learned last summer...

However as the things start to go wonky in Russia, the USAAF appears with its strategic bomber arm, and the RAF are finally starting to learn the lessons of the Cross Channel Campaign. Suddenly Jerry is on the back foot. He's having to bolster Reich defense with units from the East and South, but could also do with them over the channel and northern France. The airwar over France even in 1943 is an Allied dominated affair.

So this brings me to my point....

Without the USAAF, RAF tactical doctrine operations over France would probably had a much harder time of it. The Luftwaffe high Command would have realised and quickly the need to bolster units in that area and had the units to do so. In reality the Reich Defense monopolised much of the Jagdwaffe's time and resources mid to late war.

With the RAF out of the picture? Difficult. The western Jagdgeschwader could have concentrated almost solely on daylight interception techniques, but then as we have seen the sheer mass of USAAF assaults might still well have broken the back of the defenses.

Of course I could be completey wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

horseback
04-18-2007, 04:55 PM
I have to disagree with ratsack in a number of areas, primarily because the the RAF and the Yanks didn't know what lessons the Germans learned (or failed to) until after the war. Nobody at the time knew exactly what actions on the RAF's part may have prompted the LW to get so dumb at the last moment.

The lessons might have been there, but it took time to put the pieces together and digest them. Operating in real life is composed of a great deal of groping about in the dark. You have lots of information, but which piece is valid and which is not? Which pieces go together and which must stand alone?

It's simply a classic example of twenty-twenty hindsight, with a few unrealistic assumptions thrown in.

His proposal for ELINT platforms (for example)supposes that the necessary electronics were air portable, that trained and aircrew qualified personnel were available to operate it, and so on.

Radio receivers sufficiently sensitive to detect distant voice or coded comms, radar systems, and transmitters powerful enough for jamming remained enormously power-hungry, bulky and extremely complicated well into the sixties. Early in the war, they were almost the exclusive realm of research scientists and university professors and graduate assistants, a limited group of which a small percentage were capable of the rigors of military flight training.

There was a huge effort to shrink radar down to the point that it was possible to mount one of sufficient range and power on an aircraft to be useful for detecting bombers as far as a thousand yards away. It still required a well trained two-man aircrew flying a twin engined aircraft to do that, carry weapons and still be able to run the relatively slow night bombers down.

A practical long range radar mounted in a heavy bomber type aircraft may have been feasible by 1945, but it would have been hugely expensive, and taken resources and manpower wanted elsewhere.

Frankly, I can't see that happening under the command of men who had been flying biplanes with open cockpits less than 10 years before. It was simply too risky to bet that much of the farm against most of the accepted prewar doctrine.

Even assuming that the professionals would have been tempted, I doubt that it would have gotten past the politicians.

cheers

horseback

tomtheyak
04-18-2007, 05:31 PM
Horseback, I agree for the most part, but I will say that it surprised me that the RAF didnt more closely scrutinize the most dangerous and damaging factors during the attacks, and reverse engineer them, so to speak, rather than adopt the same tactics as used by their foes that partly cost them the battle. Some lessons are hard won, I know, but it still seems a bit, well, ignorant.

As for ELINT, I think ratsack is applying a modern term to the rudimentary art form that did exist back then - its nowhere near as sophisticated as now, or even the 60's, but I think you'd be surprised. The history of the very secret '100 Group' is a good place to start looking for RAF airborne jamming, radio interception/deception and signals analysis.

BfHeFwMe
04-18-2007, 06:22 PM
Russia was nill as a factor in the air war. The first time the VVS gained local air parity in winter 43 around Jan-Feb there was nearly ten times the air sorties going on in Africa alone. Not including any of Europe, which was far beyond Africa.

East front was a ground war, all the armor and infantry in Africa couldn't even match the numbers in the immediate Kiev sector at that same time period. Air power was spread extremely thin, was never much of a threat until the end.

Fighter groups transiting raids via Russia in late 44 were amazed to find Stukas operational, they had long ago made mince meat out of them.

Truth is they 'were' defeated in the air by just the RAF and her allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
In the ETO considering that the Luftwaffe was still fighting against the VVS and Red Army on the Eastern front, could it have been beaten by just one of the Western Allies air forces in the West?

Two main factors spring to mind, for the USAAF fighting it alone without the RAF night bombing distractions the distribution of AAA and night fighters would be altered to focus entirely on the day bombing threat. If the RAF fought alone the lack of a really long ranged day fighter would be a problem - although in 1944 the Tempest could provide reasonable escort capacity.

RAF 4 engined heavies could be modified to be wholly equipped with 20mm or .50 cal defensive weapons. Box formation could be trained and Mosquitos could be used as high altitude long range fighters acting in unison with Tempests and longer ranged Spitfire Mk's helping to interdict Luftwaffe twin engined heavy fighters from forming up and attacking bombers unmolested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 4 engined bombers of course can be modified technically, but they never were, nor do I think it would make much difference, given what happened to the well-armed flying Fortresses in 1943. Bombers can't operate alone, and the British don't have a suitable escort fighter without US help. The Mosquitos would merely be able to re-enact the Bf 110s role in the BoB, being hopelessly outclassed by single engined fighters and - not available in numbers until 1944, the high alt versions not available at all until 1944. The Tempest is a far cry from an escort fighter for deep penetrations, it's not well particularly suited for altitude missions, and in any case, available only in tiny numbers. I doubt the historically existing ca. half a dozen Tempest Squadrons could do much to protect the bombers. 'Longer Ranged Spitfire Mk's' simply didn't exist.

If the situation would be the RAF would attempt escort daylight bomber operations, it would find it have neither enough nor really satisfying types of fighter escorts. The biggest problem of all of course, that the RAF can simply not attempt a war of attrition against the LW as the USAAF successfully did, since the RAF has neither the numerical superiority, neither the industrial background. The only outcome would be the RAF bleeding itself dry if attempting so.

The LW otoh, if it decides to launch an offensive war on Britain has a great geographical advantage, and none of the above problems concern them as they have their bases right across the Channel, and a proper escort range for that range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">British aircraft production figures actually decreased in 44 and 45 because they knew the war was won whereas German capacity was picked up. Realistically if the war wasnt going as well British productive capacity would have been increased in 44 / 45 providing that the US still picked up the tab. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like a bit of an excuse. In reality the British production figures were decreasing because the industry was pushed well beyond it's limits for years by 1944, and it started to crack down. They simply lacked the workforce, and coal production was decreasing continously, and despite workers have been recalled from the Army back into the mines, it continued to do so. Simple fa

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It couldnt have matched the German figures of 44 but arguably Britain was producing more useful/advanced designs by 44 anyway ie Spitfire XIV, Meteor, Tempest V and II, Mosquito, Lancaster, Halifax. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a extremely arguable and optimistic to claim to British had 'more advanced designs' and they would make up for lack of numbers with quality - neither of these were any more advanced than their Axis counterparts. The XIV was no better than the 109K, the Tempest was no better than the 190D and so on, while production problems meant that neither the XIV or the Tempest was available in numbers. Especially I fail to see how the Meteor was more useful/advanced(!!!) or even produced.

Ie. XIV production per month :

Total Delivered by end of month - Number delivered that month / Comparison with 109K cumulative-monthly production up until the end of the war.

1943 : 18 18
01-44 : 30 12
02-44 : 45 15
03-44 : 50 05
04-44 : 56 06
05-44 : 68 12
06-44 : 101 33
07-44 : 129 28
08-44 : 151 22
09-44 : 185 34 / 15-15
10-44 : 245 60 / 308-293
11-44 : 300 55 / 529-221
12-44 : 341 41 / 854-325
--------------
01-45 : 399 58 / 1192-338
02-45 : 511 112 / 1425-233
03-45 : 648 137 / 1593-168
04-45 : 743 95 / NA.

The trend was pretty much the same during the war with advanced types. The British produced them slowly, the Germans produced them fast. Which meant that altough technical development was matched, the Luftwaffe usually had the technical edge in the actual operations, having it's newest types there, and the RAF not. At least in fighters, in heavy bombers the RAF had a clear edge, but that was also a result of their doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">German capacity was still split between East and West fronts so the RAF could achieve a numbers advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF had massive numerical advantage for years above France against the limited size LW contingent deployed there, with the entire RAF facing just two German Jagdgeschwaders, and yet it couldn't even claim air superiority over France or Dieppe (or the Desert for that matter).. They lacked suitable long range fighters (droptanks were not introduced until 1942 IIRC, and even then range was very limited), and lacked aggressiveness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Luftwaffe strong enough to beat or hold off the USAAF or the RAF if given the chance to face one or the other? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USAAF certainly no. The US hd simply vastly greater indusrial potential, and the technical background to force the war into the enemy territory, as they did historically. It would take longer, cost a lot more and so on, but looking on the simple numbers is a no-brainer on the outcome.

The RAF otoh has little chance. Without the US raids, all forces could be concentrated on the RAF, Germany's industrial potential is vastly greater, than Britain's, and it would easily win a war of attrition, especially if one considers the historical record between 1940-1943, the loss rate was throughly in the Luftwaffe's favour, even on offense. And that was achieved while Britain figthing (and yet loosing) the war on total war economy footing for years with Germany, which was still very much at peacetime production standards up to 1943, a hand tied behind the back for years if you like, when it switched to top gear after Stalingrad and conviniently left Britain behind in every field. The RAF record up to 1943, until the USAAF appeared on the scene hardly suggest it would be able to defeat the LW alone. If it would have been the RAF on the West alone, at that 'attrition rate' they could fight that war in the air for a hundred years, unless the USAAF comes and sets things in motion, as it historically did.

SUPERAEREO
04-19-2007, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Russia was nill as a factor in the air war. The first time the VVS gained local air parity in winter 43 around Jan-Feb there was nearly ten times the air sorties going on in Africa alone. Not including any of Europe, which was far beyond Africa.

East front was a ground war, all the armor and infantry in Africa couldn't even match the numbers in the immediate Kiev sector at that same time period. Air power was spread extremely thin, was never much of a threat until the end.

Fighter groups transiting raids via Russia in late 44 were amazed to find Stukas operational, they had long ago made mince meat out of them.

Truth is they 'were' defeated in the air by just the RAF and her allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No doubts about the fact that the RAF thoroughly licked the Luftwaffe in 1940 and that RAF and USAAF did it in 1944-45, but I would not say that the USSR was nil as a factor in the air war.

In the first four months of Barbarossa the Luftwaffe lost 36% of its fighter pilots and 56% of its bomber crews, an attrition rate that is nothing short of astonishing.


S!

luftluuver
04-19-2007, 03:54 AM
So you are saying Kurfurst that if Nazi Germany launched a Sealion in 1942 or 1943 it would have been successful?

luftluuver
04-19-2007, 04:00 AM
What Kurfurst so convienently forgets that there was no real need for massive production of the Spit XIV, unlike the production of the K-4 which was desperately needed. Besides, the attrition of LW fighters was so great that high production numbers was required just to keep the status quo of available LW fighters.

hop2002
04-19-2007, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That sounds like a bit of an excuse. In reality the British production figures were decreasing because the industry was pushed well beyond it's limits for years by 1944, and it started to crack down. They simply lacked the workforce, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aircraft production in Britain increased very slightly in 1944, 26,461 aircraft produced, up from 26,263 in 1943.

However, the slight increase in numbers of aircraft produced was down to an increase in the balance of heavy bombers being produced. Aircraft production by airframe weight went up considerably, from 185,000,000 lbs to 208,000,000 lbs

If you look at comarable German figures, aircraft production went up from just under 25,000 to just under 40,000, but airframe weight only increased from 142,000,000 lbs to 175,000,000.

What's remarkable is how poor German aircraft output was, in comparison to the resources invested in it. There were more people in the German aircraft industry in 1941 than in the British aircraft industry at any point in the war, and in 1942, 1943 and 1944 the German aircraft industry employed far more people than the British aircraft industry, yet they managed to produce less aircraft, and far less weight of aircraft.

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
However, the slight increase in numbers of aircraft produced was down to an increase in the balance of heavy bombers being produced. Aircraft production by airframe weight went up considerably, from 185,000,000 lbs to 208,000,000 lbs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Went up considerably' = 23 000 lbs increase, or 12.4%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you look at comarable German figures, aircraft production went up from just under 25,000 to just under 40,000, but airframe weight only increased from 142,000,000 lbs to 175,000,000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Only increased' = 33 000 lbs increase, or 23.2%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's remarkable is how poor German aircraft output was, in comparison to the resources invested in it. There were more people in the German aircraft industry in 1941 than in the British aircraft industry at any point in the war, and in 1942, 1943 and 1944 the German aircraft industry employed far more people than the British aircraft industry, yet they managed to produce less aircraft, and far less weight of aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the above, I'd like to see the actual detailed figures, and the source.

Naturally there were differential factors. Germany could ge erously use a large number of unskilled labour, who really weren't actual part of the aircraft industry or producing plane parts, just helping out in aux. tasks. Early on in the war the British industry was working in long wartime shift, the German industry was working in peace-time 8 hour shifts up to 1943. Germany, unlike Britiain was self-supplying in aircraft of every kind, even for civillian use(!!), whereas the British would receive American made transports aircraft and concentrate on bomber production (this had catastrophic consequences on post-war civillian aero industry : transports like the C-47and the lessons learned from them would serve for decades, whereas the hideously expensive toys of Bomber Command went straight to the scrapyard after the war ended). German aero industry was bombed heavily by the USAAF, unlike in Britain. Britain was basically relying on US produced 100 octane avgas through the war, it's own production being inaduquate.

bazzaah2
04-19-2007, 05:04 AM
and the Germans still wouldn't have had enough fuel or pilots to run and man all the extra planes/toys that they might have produced had they gone to war production footing sooner than they did.

While I don't agree with you a lot of the time Kurfurst, you often put together some interesting arguments that at least provide opportunity for reflection. Your persistent, though (I suspect) unintentionally amusing, use of invective language, however, does little to support some of the ideas that you put forward.

hop2002
04-19-2007, 05:10 AM
The point of "only increased" is that it was still far behind Britain (ie Britain was producing about 19% more, despite employing far fewer workers in the aircraft industry)

The source is Sebastian Richie, Industry and Air Power, but some of the figures are also published in the BBSU.

The idea that production was declining in Britain because industry was exhausted, rather than a phase down as the end of the war was coming, isn't borne out by the US figures.

British 4 engined aircraft production, for example, peaked in the first quarter of 1944. US four engined aircraft production peaked in the second quarter of 1944.

The reason for the only slight increase in the numbers of aircraft produced in Britain in 1944, but the larger increase in weight of aircraft produced, can be seen by the shift of production from fighters to bombers.

Fighter production peaked in Britain in the first quarter of 1943. After that, it began a gradual decline. Twin engined production peaked a year later, in the first quarter of 1944, as did four engined production. Resources were being switched from fighters to bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Naturally there were differential factors. Germany could ge erously use a large number of unskilled labour, who really weren't actual part of the aircraft industry or producing plane parts, just helping out in aux. tasks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As did everyone. All industries need someone to sweep the floors, and clean the toilets, repair the windows, change the lightbulbs, cook the food etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Early on in the war the British industry was working in long wartime shift, the German industry was working in peace-time 8 hour shifts up to 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which should have improved German output per man hour relative to British. Night shifts might make more efficient use of machinery, but they tend to take more man hours. Working 1 shift should maximise production per man hour.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany, unlike Britiain was self-supplying in aircraft of every kind, even for civillian use(!!), whereas the British would receive American made transports aircraft and concentrate on bomber production </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, that should make German aircraft production better, not worse. Transport aircraft tend to be much cheaper and simpler than combat aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">German aero industry was bombed heavily by the USAAF, unlike in Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again. The German aircraft industry employed more people in 1941 than the British did at any stage of the war. The British aircraft industry outproduced them. How much bombing of the German aircraft industry was there in 1941?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While I don't agree with you a lot of the time Kurfurst, you often put together some interesting arguments that at least provide opportunity for reflection. Your persistent, though (I suspect) unintentionally amusing, use of invective language, however, does little to support some of the ideas that you put forward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used to find him funny too. However, he certainly doesn't intend to be amusing. Ask him why he was banned from the Aces High board.

Whirlin_merlin
04-19-2007, 05:32 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Naturally there were differential factors. Germany could ge erously use a large number of unskilled labour, who really weren't actual part of the aircraft industry or producing plane parts, just helping out in aux. tasks. Early on in the war the British industry was working in long wartime shift, the German industry was working in peace-time 8 hour shifts up to 1943.[QUOTE]

Another important difference is the widespread use of slave and forced labour, allowing the German workers to have their peace-time 8hr shifts until 1943. Sorry if this seems flammy but please remove the rose tinted spectacles.

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
The point of "only increased" is that it was still far behind Britain (ie Britain was producing about 19% more, despite employing far fewer workers in the aircraft industry)

The source is Sebastian Richie, Industry and Air Power, but some of the figures are also published in the BBSU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, Sebastian Richie repeating the figures put forward in the British BBSU.

For those who doesn't know, the BBSU was Bomber Command's politically motivated 'survey' to justify and provide arguements for the resources spent on Bomber Command and their terror bombing campaign, which was being questioned at the time. Thus BBSU was prepeared, along the lines of the US Strategic Bombing Survey, but as opposed to it was set out to provide arguements for Bomber Barons. and pursue an agenda, rather than survey the results and draw conclusions. It was set to show that BC's operations were highly successfull, very cost efficient, and the resources allocated to the British aircraft industry were efficiently used. BBSU is ever since criticized by prominent British historians like Hastings etc. for this, and generally the creative use of statistics.
Take for example, the lbs of airframe produced by worker. It's all depend on how you define 'lbs of airframe' and 'worker'. Say a turret on a bomber, that weights 500 lbs, and was produced elsewhere, and shipped in a 'ready' state into the actual aircraft assembly factory. Naturally, the workers of the sub contractor, that actually manufacturer the bomber turret are not counted, but only the one worker that lifted ready turret into the bomber with a crane. And there you go, 500 lbs of airframe weight produced by only one worker in less than 15 mins starts to show up in the statistics... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Putting slave workers, who were performing non-productive tasks (moving of material instead using machines - slaves are still cheaper! -) in the same category as productive workers of course will reduce overall worker effiency. Say one factory has 8 workers, producing 10 lbs per man - 80 lbs in total. The other has 8 workers, again producing 10 lbs per man, and 2 'slave labourers', sweeping the floor, helping out when they can - they are non-productive workers. Counting them all the same results in 10 lbs/man in the first factory, and 0.8 lbs/man in the second factory...

The other catch is the nature of the statistics, which gives lbs produced/worker. Time is missing from the equotation - if there are two workers who produce exactly the same amount per hour, but one will work 5 days a week and 40 hours, the other 6 days a week and 54 hours, which worker will produce more per capita? The worker that works for longer duration of course, despite actually they have exactly the same effiency.

BBSU is full of such 'presentable', 'creative' statistics that could be tossed into the middle of a meeting about next-years founding of Bomber Command - even if the statistic itself is totally meaningless. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Another important difference is the widespread use of slave and forced labour, allowing the German workers to have their peace-time 8hr shifts until 1943. Sorry if this seems flammy but please remove the rose tinted spectacles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suppose you are being captured in war as a PoW and forced to work in an aircraft factory. They tell you are supposed to manufacture turbine blades for jet engines, and position you next to some sort of machine.

You see, it isn't as simply as putting someone into a factory and tell him to do things he just can't.

bazzaah2
04-19-2007, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I used to find him funny too. However, he certainly doesn't intend to be amusing. Ask him why he was banned from the Aces High board. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm 100% sure he does it to antagonise/insult, rather than to amuse. It's just I find that kind of posturing silly rather than provocative. I like the fact that I find him amusing when he probably wants to come across as sneeringly contemptuous.

I'll go and ask at the Aces High message board and see what I can find out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Whirlin_merlin
04-19-2007, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Suppose you are being captured in war as a PoW and forced to work in an aircraft factory. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't thinking of 'PoWs' here.


http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-3/Birkenau-selection.GIF

Don't look like PoWs to me.

P.S that's a 'nice' image worse exist, look around.

luftluuver
04-19-2007, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Britain was basically relying on US produced 100 octane avgas through the war, it's own production being inaduquate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where did most of the iron ore for the steel used in Nazi Germany's war machines come from?

mynameisroland
04-19-2007, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: Usual Anti British - Germany RoXoRs Stuff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stopped reading after you blow open your lack of knowledge of 3 main RAF types in your 1st paragraph.

Likening the Mosquito to the Bf 110, whereas in reality the bomber versions high cruise speed rendered interception extremely difficult even for Fw 190s and the fighter variants comfortably exceeded most Luftwaffe fighters speeds at most altitudes.

Failing to comprehend that the RAF did not operate its bombers at the same altitudes the USAAF did, infact RAF bombers operated in the perfect height bandwidth for fighters like the Tempest V.

You then state that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V were no better than the Bf 109 K4 or Dora 9. Frankly this smacks of bias. The XIV was still a highly manuverable, capable aircraft compared to the overtaxed, overstretched Bf 109 K4 and the Tempest V in its 11lb boost for comfortably outperformed the Fw 190 D9 at all heights up to 20,000ft. The Spitfire XIV and Tempest V pairing out performed any combination of Bf 109 and Fw 190 model.

Claiming that the Spitfire had no longer ranged marques - while last week claiming that the Bf 109 could theoretically range from Germany to London and function as an escort fighter and posting documents which show a 109 fitted with THREE drop tanks ie more than twice its fuel was in drop tanks.

You also fail to note that the RAF actually did have a numerical advantage for most of the war - especially in bombers.

Here is a map I posted a while back which visualises the range extremes that Spitfires reached while flying combat patrols during WW2. Flying to within sight of the Swiss border from bases in Southern England - thats not too bad for a fighter that Kufurst writes off as being short ranged, and one that actually was in production and not some test bed with no ammunition or weapons festooned with external undroppable drop tanks.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/europe_95copy.jpg

faustnik
04-19-2007, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Britain was basically relying on US produced 100 octane avgas through the war, it's own production being inaduquate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where did most of the iron ore for the steel used in Nazi Germany's war machines come from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iron from Sweden, oil from Rumania?

Where did they get rubber from?

mynameisroland
04-19-2007, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That sounds like a bit of an excuse. In reality the British production figures were decreasing because the industry was pushed well beyond it's limits for years by 1944, and it started to crack down. They simply lacked the workforce, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aircraft production in Britain increased very slightly in 1944, 26,461 aircraft produced, up from 26,263 in 1943.

However, the slight increase in numbers of aircraft produced was down to an increase in the balance of heavy bombers being produced. Aircraft production by airframe weight went up considerably, from 185,000,000 lbs to 208,000,000 lbs

If you look at comarable German figures, aircraft production went up from just under 25,000 to just under 40,000, but airframe weight only increased from 142,000,000 lbs to 175,000,000.

What's remarkable is how poor German aircraft output was, in comparison to the resources invested in it. There were more people in the German aircraft industry in 1941 than in the British aircraft industry at any point in the war, and in 1942, 1943 and 1944 the German aircraft industry employed far more people than the British aircraft industry, yet they managed to produce less aircraft, and far less weight of aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some figures, Germany had a workforce of 40 million labourers compared with Britains 21 million. Yet Britain recognised unions and actually fed her workers therefore its output was much higher per capita than Germany's. Britain also out produced Germany in small arms, shipping and in Tanks - until 43/44 where Germany overtakes in Tank and small arms production but remains far behind in shipping.

mynameisroland
04-19-2007, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
The point of "only increased" is that it was still far behind Britain (ie Britain was producing about 19% more, despite employing far fewer workers in the aircraft industry)

The source is Sebastian Richie, Industry and Air Power, but some of the figures are also published in the BBSU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, Sebastian Richie repeating the figures put forward in the British BBSU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see, yet another British propaganda document that contradicts Kufursts version of WW2. That explains it then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

John_Wayne_
04-19-2007, 10:14 AM
Er...if Kurfy is ignoring Roly's posts, how come...aw, ferget it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

horseback
04-19-2007, 10:19 AM
Kurfy ignores any posts that might set him off and reveal his true nature.

He is not only our primary 109 enthusiast, but also our Number One Axis Apologist and Tagert's Alpha Nancy.

cheers

horseback

csThor
04-19-2007, 11:00 AM
Kurfürst may have a rather one-sided POV, but there are enough folks "on the other side of the fence" who are nothing short of him, too.

horseback
04-19-2007, 11:24 AM
I've never said that he doesn't make an occasional good point; I merely point out that he is incapable of comprehending or appreciating a good-natured jibe (at least in English), and that he will not accept any data that disagrees with his own preconceptions.

His attempts at debate usually degenerate into more heat than light, I'm afraid.

If having qualities like that doesn't put an enormous bull's eye in the middle of your forehead, I don't know what will.

Let's get back to the original subject, please.

cheers

horseback

JR_Greenhorn
04-19-2007, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I should add that when I say more useful designs I mean not spending as many limited resources on types like the Me 309, Natter, Me 163 Komet, He 177, He 162, Me 410, Bf 110, He 219, V1, V2 ect

Germany had some great and proven designs and could have benefitted on a rationalisation of useful aircraft types like the Bf 109, Fw 190, Ju88, and adding a heavy bomber and ONE jet fighter to the mix. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a grave error to make in planning for the future. Innovation dies when one "rests on his laurels."

True, there were some very good types developed early on by Germany, namely the Bf 109 and FW 190, and they served well throughout the war, continuously developed to keep pace with their opposition. However, had the war continued for a couple more years, could the two have kept pace?

The Me 262 was also a fine aircraft once it was finally allowed to be developed and used, despite its engine teething problems. I assume this is the ONE jet you refer to.

While the Germans were probably guilty of spreading the development resources too thin, if they would've started cutting unnecessary projects, the jet projects likely would have been among the first to go, at least early in the war.

You criticize the Me 309, but hail the Bf 109. Without developing and building a prototype for a project like the Me 309, how do you decide if a plane like the 109 should be developed further or simply replaced with a newer, updated type? True, the 309 was disappointing in testing, but could that have been known early on?

Consider Grumman's naval fighters. Could the successive improvements of the F4F-F6F-F8F advancement have been possible if just one type was selected for development? That is, could the F4F have been as good as the F6F was if they had chosen to re-engine and update a few areas of the F4F? The F6F and F8F use the same engine type; could the F6F have become as good as the F8F if they had merely clipped and trimmed its airframe instead of designing a new one?

It was the "existing types are good enough" mentality that endangered jet development throughout the war. Now with 60 years of hindsight, you're saying that existing types and ONE jet would've been good enough?

WOLFMondo
04-19-2007, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Kurfürst may have a rather one-sided POV, but there are enough folks "on the other side of the fence" who are nothing short of him, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lack of any objective thought I think.

Daiichidoku
04-19-2007, 12:38 PM
Greenhorn is absolutely correct;

look at almost any fighter made and accepted for use in any AF (today notwithstanding)

most, if not all of them were already slated for replacement by newer types, often before they even saw service!

air ministies et al never stop thinking about the future, thats part of the task of an AM

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: Usual Anti British - Germany RoXoRs Stuff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stopped reading after you blow open your lack of knowledge of 3 main RAF types in your 1st paragraph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical ranting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Likening the Mosquito to the Bf 110, whereas in reality the bomber versions high cruise speed rendered interception extremely difficult even for Fw 190s and the fighter variants comfortably exceeded most Luftwaffe fighters speeds at most altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical ranting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Failing to comprehend that the RAF did not operate its bombers at the same altitudes the USAAF did, infact RAF bombers operated in the perfect height bandwidth for fighters like the Tempest V. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's true, they also operated at the perfect height bandwith of 88s..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You then state that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V were no better than the Bf 109 K4 or Dora 9. Frankly this smacks of bias. The XIV was still a highly manuverable, capable aircraft compared to the overtaxed, overstretched Bf 109 K4 and the Tempest V in its 11lb boost for comfortably outperformed the Fw 190 D9 at all heights up to 20,000ft. The Spitfire XIV and Tempest V pairing out performed any combination of Bf 109 and Fw 190 model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical ranting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Claiming that the Spitfire had no longer ranged marques - while last week claiming that the Bf 109 could theoretically range from Germany to London and function as an escort fighter and posting documents which show a 109 fitted with THREE drop tanks ie more than twice its fuel was in drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical ranting combined with a bald faced lie about documents, in any case the Bf 109 never had a 3 drop tank version, nor did I make any statements like the ones you wish to put into my mouth, but hey, we have been over this, you have lied this before, you lie it now, and no doubt you will lie the same again and again and again.
In the end, it's only your credibility that will suffer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You also fail to note that the RAF actually did have a numerical advantage for most of the war - especially in bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well according to the actual strenght figures they didn't, but I'll let you show your figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is a map I posted a while back which visualises the range extremes that Spitfires reached while flying combat patrols during WW2. Flying to within sight of the Swiss border from bases in Southern England - thats not too bad for a fighter that Kufurst writes off as being short ranged, and one that actually was in production and not some test bed with no ammunition or weapons festooned with external undroppable drop tanks.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/europe_95copy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

fordfan25
04-19-2007, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
one must bear in mind, that in the case of a USAF only scenario, sans RAF, would necessarily mean that RAF, and by extension, England would have been always destroyed/defeated, or otherwise neutral

thus, USAF cannot deploy from UK

can they deploy from africa? with no RAF/England to help, torch may not have happened...

where from then, does USAF seek to strike the LW?..seems perhaps the only choice would be to join the eastern front
but....not so easy to funnels men and materiel through Vladivostok, sitting in Japans backyard... or even Northern route, the environment is dangerous enuff alone, as it is


RAF alone without USAF?it MAY be able to defend itself, at least so long as germany would be occupied with russia....and with very little offensive cabability </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well if the USA were not haveing to fight the japo's "yea that always gets neglected from these discussions" thay would have a HUGE navy force to throw at germany ect. the USAF+USN=byby germany http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Suppose you are being captured in war as a PoW and forced to work in an aircraft factory. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't thinking of 'PoWs' here.


http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-3/Birkenau-selection.GIF

Don't look like PoWs to me.

P.S that's a 'nice' image worse exist, look around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't answer the question, but since you want to open the can of worms... well fine.

Do these look like PoWs to you ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Boercamp1.jpg

P.S that's a 'nice' image worse exist, look around here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#The_concentration_camps

Should we re-course to our original discussion, or should we scratch the origins and pioneers of concentrations camps further? I'd prefer we should stick back to the discussion.

luftluuver
04-19-2007, 01:32 PM
Do I see another crash and burn coming?

http://www.antraspasaulinis.net/uploader3/failai/Wreckage%20of%20Me%20109.jpg

Roland, do you have the Radinger and Otto book, Bf109F-K? On pgs 85 & 86 there is photos of a G-1, BD+GC with a drop tank under each wing but has a bomb instead of a dt under the fuselage.

On pg 94 of the Prien and Rodereike Bf109F, G & K there is a couple of photos of a 109G-4 Og NAG 11 with drop tanks under the wings.

Bf109s were plumbed for a fuselage drop tank.

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I have some figures, Germany had a workforce of 40 million labourers compared with Britains 21 million. Yet Britain recognised unions and actually fed her workers therefore its output was much higher per capita than Germany's. Britain also out produced Germany in small arms, shipping and in Tanks - until 43/44 where Germany overtakes in Tank and small arms production but remains far behind in shipping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea then why did Britain keep loosing on every front until 1943. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
As for the production of a few selected figures (wonder about relative production of submarines, and why Britain needed so much replacement shippinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), this has been already discussed. Britain was on wartime footing since 1940, Germany wasn't. German civillian living standards were high during the early and mid-war years, whereas in Britain they had strictly rationed every civillian commodity, food was scarce and strictly rationed and rationalized. Britain had to ration food even after the war ended. That was probably the greatest single mistake committed by the nazi goverment, which was far more concerned with the morale of the homefront - and neither having suffering a disasterous chain of defeats as the Brits, until Stalingrad rang the bell.

What was happening in 1943 that the German industry simply pulled out it's other hand from behind it's back, after Goebbels declared the total war in 1943, and the economy geared it's full capacity to war. From that onwards, the slight (10-20%) British production advantage suddenly turned into massive disadvantage. In 1942, Germany produced ca 6300 tanks vs. Britain's 8600. In 1943, it was over 12 000 German tanks vs. 7500 British tanks. By 1944, it was 19 000 tanks, almost as much as Britain's tank production in 1941, 1942, 1943 combined. In 1942, Germany produced 5100 field guns of 75mm or larger caliber vs 4000 produced in Britain; in 1943 it was 11 700 vs 3000. By 1944, it was a ratio of 24 000 vs 2800.

It was literally pulling the other hand from behind the back. Arguing that Britain had any chance in a war of attrition is like arguing Germany would stand a chance against the massive US industry, based on a comparison of say, 1938 combat aircraft production.

Whirlin_merlin
04-19-2007, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Suppose you are being captured in war as a PoW and forced to work in an aircraft factory. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't thinking of 'PoWs' here.


http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-3/Birkenau-selection.GIF

Don't look like PoWs to me.

P.S that's a 'nice' image worse exist, look around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't answer the question, but since you want to open the can of worms... well fine.

Do these look like PoWs to you ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Boercamp1.jpg

P.S that's a 'nice' image worse exist, look around here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#The_concentration_camps

Should we re-course to our original discussion, or should we scratch the origins and pioneers of concentrations camps further? I'd prefer we should stick back to the discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Kurfurst they weren't, and the British treatment of the Boers has been rightly condemded by history. You wont find me trying to justify it.

However your admiration of Nazi industry (note Nazi here not German) is at best naive and and worst sickening.

My original comments were relevent as you seemed to be expousing the merits of the Nazi war machine compared to that of Britian without an understanding of it's dark nature.

However as to the original question I can only say that fortunatly neither the USAAF or RAF had to counter the LW alone. Something for which I am thankfull.

mynameisroland
04-19-2007, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Do I see another crash and burn coming?

http://www.antraspasaulinis.net/uploader3/failai/Wreckage%20of%20Me%20109.jpg

Roland, do you have the Radinger and Otto book, Bf109F-K? On pgs 85 & 86 there is photos of a G-1, BD+GC with a drop tank under each wing but has a bomb instead of a dt under the fuselage.

On pg 94 of the Prien and Rodereike Bf109F, G & K there is a couple of photos of a 109G-4 Og NAG 11 with drop tanks under the wings.

Bf109s were plumbed for a fuselage drop tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Luft, Kufurst has already been shown to be a liar over this very subject. Wait until after I finish work and I'll find the thread and I'll link it. You and horseback were involved in it too iirc.

I will also post the pilots quotes concerning the Spitfires flights to the Swiss border and back AGAIN

Kurfurst__
04-19-2007, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
No Kurfurst they weren't, and the British treatment of the Boers has been rightly condemded by history. You wont find me trying to justify it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am glad to hear that - that puts you to an entirely different category than Hop and his views on the same issue. He maintains that these camps were 'detention centers' to which the Boer population was 'evacuated' etc. ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However your admiration of Nazi industry (note Nazi here not German) is at best naive and and worst sickening. My original comments were relevent as you seemed to be expousing the merits of the Nazi war machine compared to that of Britian without an understanding of it's dark nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As naive I may be, I am not aware of the Nazi's having their own army or their own industry. The nazi party was the political party in charge of Germany in the 1930s, defininig it's goals, as was the communist party in the USSR for decades, still neither I'd find it reasonable to describe either the Wehrmacht or the Red Army as either 'Nazi' or 'Communist', even if I do not symphatize with either. Or the US army 'democratic' (esp. with all it's segregation issues). That's simply not their nature, an army, and industry is a pragmatic entity, not an ideological one. Neither do I believe much in a constant need for condemning sad events 60 years ago, which any normal people would find a natural thing to do anyway. Those times are thankfully long time behind us, as is the en masse messacre of Muslism when the Crusades took Jerusalem. They can be, hopefully, debated in a distances manner, without the ideoligical **** coming up.

And I'd say given the original question, the relative industrial background of the opposing countries esp. in view of long lasting campaign of attrition cannot be evaded to be examined.

luftluuver
04-19-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Neither do I believe much in a constant need for condemning sad events 60 years ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif, yet every chance, that I have seen, Kurfurst is on about the detention camps of the Boer War some 105 years or so ago.

Was not the Brown Shirts the Nazi Party's private army?

Was not the SS in charge of the V weapons? They ran that undergound manufacturing facility for the V-2s using slave labour.

The SS had gained exposure to the V2-systems after the RAF raid on Peenemünde in 1943. The V2 tests had been moved to the secret SS testing facility at Heidelager in Poland. Soon, the SS would also control the A4/V2 manufacturing plant, the Mittelwerk (near Nordhausen, Germany).

The V2 command structure that evolved at this point would place SS General Kammler in charge.

More on Mittelbau, http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/mittel.html

On August 28, 1943, two days after the choice of the Mittelwerk, the SS delivered the first truckloads of prisoners from the concentration camp at Buchenwald to begin the heavy labor of expanding and completing of the Wifo tunnel system. Dora was the name given to the Buchenwald subcamp that was set up within the tunnels for the laborers. By November of the same year, the subcamp became independant and the surrounding workshops became known as KZ Mittelbau. Later, fbeginning in the spring of 1944, Dora was transformed into a more traditional camp, with 58 barracks buildings surrounded by barbed wire being set up about a quarter mile west of the south entrance to Tunnel B. Camp construction was not completed until October, 1944.

It was during October, November, and December of 1943 that the most physically punishing work was done by the Dora prisoners, who struggled under terrible, inhuman conditions to enlarge and fit out the Mittelwerk tunnels. Prisoners drilled and blasted away thousands of tons of rock. They built rickety, temporary narrow gauge tracks to support the multi-ton loads of rock that were extracted from the caves. If the skips or small rail cars, full of rock fell off these tracks (and this happened frequently), prisoners were kicked, whipped, and beaten until they could re-rail and reload the cars.

The prisoners were made to eat and sleep within the tunnels they were digging. Thousands of workers were crammed into stinking, lice infested bunks stacked four-high in the first few south side cross tunnels at the mouth of Tunnel A, in an atmosphere thick with gypsum dust and fumes from the blasting work, which continued 24 hours a day. Prisoners had no running water or sanitary facilities. Dysentery, typhus, tuberculosis, and starvation were constant causes of suffering and death for these unfortunate people. The Detainees worked atop 30 foot scaffolds using picks to enlarge the tunnels. From time to time, a prisoner would become too weak to continue, fall to his death from the scaffolding, and be replaced by another. Trucks bearing piles of prisoner corpses left every other day for the crematorium ovens at Buchenwald. All of the manufacturing equipment from Peenemünde had to be installed in the tunnels. This was done by hand by prisoner workers using hand-carts, block and tackle, huge skids pulled by teams of prisoners, and the temporary narrow gauge rail lines.

Sergio_101
04-19-2007, 04:12 PM
--I say, Britian alone is a stalemate.--

--US would be a German loss.--

--Soviets would also win, but because of the time needed
to ramp up production and no lend lease it would take longer.--


Britan alone, no aid, NO.
Britian could have held off the Germans from landing.
Britian could have defended itself, but not likely
to have been able to go on the offensive.
Many what if's here.
North Africa would have to have been abandoned.
The Soviets may have continued supplying raw materials.
Italy would not have been garrisoned by German soldiers.
The combined strength of all German airpower on Britian
would have been overwhelming.
The results of the BOB hints that a stalemate would have resulted.

USofA, is a different story.
massive industry, more capable than even Americans knew in 1938.
Remember, the US canceled the B-17 in early 1945.
The number of contracts canceled BEFORE the war in Europe
ended is staggering. Weapons like the B-17 were seen as useful in the ETO
but not as useful in the Pacific.
A panicked production schedule would have resulted in many thousands more bombers and fighters.
New types, massive numbers of trained crews, it was a war of attrition.
No older types like the B-17 would not have been canceled if still effective
as weapons. At the rate of production in late 1944 the US would have produced
as many combat aircraft in 1945 as it did in 1944 and 1943 combined
if orders were not cut and or canceled.

To defeat Germany a foothold was needed. that would have ment that
without Brtitian new territory would have needed.

Without Britian the B-35 and B-36 would have been finished eariler.
There in lies the ace, the finished B-36 (escorted by P-82s) drops
nuclear weapons on Germany and or Japan in late 1945 or early 1946.

But carriers and ultra long range aircraft alone could not have brought
the air war to Germany.
Seized territory would have been needed.
In that what if scenario Italy, particulary Sicily
is the likely candidate.

The three powers posessed the combined power to
squash Germany and Japan in the three and a half years after the US
was dragged into the conflict.

Even without the defeat of the Luftwaffe, nuclear intervention
would have ended it if the US was involved.

Sergio

DmdSeeker
04-19-2007, 05:39 PM
In debating the relative efficiencies of German and British aero industries; does any one have any idea how much Germany benefitted from it's conquered territories?

I know Dutch labourers were shipped off to Germany.

Weren't the 109 G14's Hungarian built?

Didn't the Luftwaffe benefit from captured French engines (or am I mixing that up with WWI)?

Didn't the Germans use the French airforce stock for it's training needs?

Did the Germans utilise the French (and other conquered) aerospace capacity?

While it's really amazing how Germany held out against the allies; I think it's a simplification to say Germany did it alone. There was more than just Germany in the Axis powers; and I think it's wrong to ignore the spoils of war Germany garnered; in the same way it's a simplification to think of a purely RAF/USAAF alliance.

There were Canadians and Australians there too; just to name a couple. After all; a goodly proportion of the most famous RAF aces were non-British.

JG4_Helofly
04-19-2007, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
You then state that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V were no better than the Bf 109 K4 or Dora 9. Frankly this smacks of bias. The XIV was still a highly manuverable, capable aircraft compared to the overtaxed, overstretched Bf 109 K4 and the Tempest V in its 11lb boost for comfortably outperformed the Fw 190 D9 at all heights up to 20,000ft. The Spitfire XIV and Tempest V pairing out performed any combination of Bf 109 and Fw 190 model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure. With high performance late war planes one thing became more and more important: manoeuvrablility at high speed. What's the use of a high speed fighter if you can not manoeuvre correctly at these high speed ranges? That was the problem of the spitfire, it was a very manoeuvrable plane, but at low speed. This plane was built for stall fights in which it was one of the best in the war. Also the d9 had a manoeuvrability advantage over the tempest even in turns. I don't know how close there were in climb and speed but there were close, so I think that 109-190 vs spit-tempest would be a close match but the old fashioned slow speed doghfigthers 109 and spit would have a hard time against the 190 and tempest.

jarink
04-19-2007, 07:32 PM
I think this thread has about run it's course. Heck, the only reason I've kept reading it is to see what kind of wild rebuttal Kurfy would give to my comments on this post he made...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As naive I may be, I am not aware of the Nazi's having their own army or their own industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Hint: they were the Waffen SS and Organisation Todt)

I guess this reply will have to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Really it is not neccessary to engage in such degenerated debates with persons who have a set in concrete opinion, and will keep arguing no matter what.

You can't wake up someone who pretends to be asleep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
04-19-2007, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I have no idea then why did Britain keep loosing on every front until 1943. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ahh wasnt rommel sent packing in 1942. You know after that little battle of el alamein.

Plus in the european front, german was kinda defensive ever since their defeat in the bob, cant be losing on that front ither.

JR_Greenhorn
04-19-2007, 11:12 PM
fordfan25 starts to hit at something important in a non-Britain scenario.

It's important to keep in mind that the US had a essentially a whole other branch of armed forces fighting a basically separate war simultaneously on the other side of the world.

If the British Isles would have been lost to the German advance at some point, I think it would have been likely that the US would have concentrated on Japan and employed a "holding strategy" to keep the Germans "contained".

While the ultra-long range heavy bombers like the B-36 would certainly have been moved up and likely used (the AAF couldn't help but press its strategic bombing doctrine, right or wrong), the Japanese presented a more readily defeatable foe compared to the Germans possessing the British Isles.


Once Japan had been defeated, the US would have possessed a formidable force from which to mount attacks on an almost entirely German-held Europe.


This represents a very interesting concept in the air war. The LW likely wouldn't have seen the need to press the development and implementation of more advanced types in the absence of the air war over western Europe.

However, advanced US Naval aircraft were spurred on by experience gained fighting with Japan, and in a lengthened-war scenario, a bunch of advanced USN types would have been in service for an assault on German-occupied Europe.

Historically, the F8F was operational in May, 1945 (however this plane's development was influenced by a "captured" FW 190, which may not have happened without the air war in Europe). The F7F was also operational by late 1945, as was the FR-1. Even the FD-1/FH-1 could have been operational in early '46.



Imagine then, the US having just defeated Japan, moving forces to the Atlantic in roughly 1945 (depending on how long the Japanese air war would have taken without large-scale fighting in Europe and Africa). With the power of the USN, especially compared to the German KM, I think the British Isles would certainly have been the first objective. By then the USN/USMC would've been quite adept at taking islands. Just imagine flight simming ground attack in a F7F over German-occupied Britain...
F4Us, F6Fs & F8Fs, even FR-1s and FH-1s would have become available to fight the German types in the air.


Once a foothold was gained in the British Isle, the USAAF would definitely have started moving in Army fighters and bombers, and the USAAF's strategic bombing doctrine would've likely been pursued as it was. However, the Navy would still be present as well. That makes for a lot of interesting US types in the air opposing the Germans. Perhaps also the Italians would've also been able to field their 5-series fighters on a larger scale in this scenario as well.


Of course, allied victory in this scenario still hinges on the allies' ability to keep Germany from getting access to more oil while the US fights Japan. Something would have to have been done, either in Russia or in the Middle East, to keep the Germans from the oil they so badly needed. This is likely where the US Army would've had a ground presence while the USN fought Japan.

Would Germany have become much more powerful if they had obtained the oil resources they were after, or would it simply allow them to continue fighting longer?

The-Pizza-Man
04-20-2007, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Here is a map I posted a while back which visualises the range extremes that Spitfires reached while flying combat patrols during WW2. Flying to within sight of the Swiss border from bases in Southern England - thats not too bad for a fighter that Kufurst writes off as being short ranged, and one that actually was in production and not some test bed with no ammunition or weapons festooned with external undroppable drop tanks. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/europe_95copy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did do sweeps as far as the swiss border, so I wouldn't laugh too hard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I have no idea then why did Britain keep loosing on every front until 1943. Razz
As for the production of a few selected figures (wonder about relative production of submarines, and why Britain needed so much replacement shippingWink ), this has been already discussed. Britain was on wartime footing since 1940, Germany wasn't. German civillian living standards were high during the early and mid-war years, whereas in Britain they had strictly rationed every civillian commodity, food was scarce and strictly rationed and rationalized. Britain had to ration food even after the war ended. That was probably the greatest single mistake committed by the nazi goverment, which was far more concerned with the morale of the homefront - and neither having suffering a disasterous chain of defeats as the Brits, until Stalingrad rang the bell.

What was happening in 1943 that the German industry simply pulled out it's other hand from behind it's back, after Goebbels declared the total war in 1943, and the economy geared it's full capacity to war. From that onwards, the slight (10-20%) British production advantage suddenly turned into massive disadvantage. In 1942, Germany produced ca 6300 tanks vs. Britain's 8600. In 1943, it was over 12 000 German tanks vs. 7500 British tanks. By 1944, it was 19 000 tanks, almost as much as Britain's tank production in 1941, 1942, 1943 combined. In 1942, Germany produced 5100 field guns of 75mm or larger caliber vs 4000 produced in Britain; in 1943 it was 11 700 vs 3000. By 1944, it was a ratio of 24 000 vs 2800.

It was literally pulling the other hand from behind the back. Arguing that Britain had any chance in a war of attrition is like arguing Germany would stand a chance against the massive US industry, based on a comparison of say, 1938 combat aircraft production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't want to talk about selective figures why don't you include the amphibious craft, merchant vessels, corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, battleships and carriers produced as well as submarines.

WOLFMondo
04-20-2007, 12:07 AM
Kurfurst, how many of those large calibre guns were used in city defense? Enough to supply 1 million men I guess.

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Kurfurst, how many of those large calibre guns were used in city defense? Enough to supply 1 million men I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None, I guess, field guns make pretty poor weapons against targets they can't shoot at... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Supplying 1 million men, well, if your counting 15 year old boys, or even girls from high schools being part-time Flak gunners, certainly. Now to think of it, that battle was fought by schoolboys shooting at university students. War really tears the social boundaries down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here's a rather well known ex-Flakhilfer or aux. Flak crew :

http://index.hu/cikkepek/0504/kulfold/ratzinger.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
They did do sweeps as far as the swiss border, so I wouldn't laugh too hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Swiss border is some 400 miles from the British Isles. It needs to return from such distance.
The Spitfire IX had a range of 434 miles on it's internal tank after dropping the droptank, provided the conditions are favourable, the aircraft strictly flies straight at around 220 mph IAS (non-advisable over enemy territory) and there's no fighting which would quickly drain the tanks. The VIII would manage, but it was never available in quantity, most going to the PTO anyway.

It's technically doable, but not very viable for an operational sortie, and as such it is false to display it as such. Under the same rather inpractical conditions, the Bf 109G or FW 190A could venture beyond the Alps and fly from England to Milan or Berlin and back. It's also technically doable, but not viable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't want to talk about selective figures why don't you include the amphibious craft, merchant vessels, corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, battleships and carriers produced as well as submarines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can provide figures if you wish, but basically we agree that each country what was most needed for it, therefore it's easy to pick a number and rejoice over it. I doubt it would have produced so many carriers and such since the vast majority was provided by the might of the US industry (btw congrats on paying out final bill last year http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) BBs, hmm, they did laid down and complete four during the war, Germany did laid down four and completed 2 asthere was no need to them.

As for other seafairing vessels go, I pretty certain Germany would be way behindall others with a negative production of -15 000 000 GRT of shipping, nor having much need to produce merchantman, or destroyer escots given the lack of similiar threat.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

ImpStarDuece
04-20-2007, 01:12 AM
Five squadrons of Mk VIIs operated as long-range daylight escorts and long-range sweep aircraft in the ETO from mid to late 1943 and onwards into the middle of 1944, after the expected high altitude threat never materialised. After the D-Day landings they reverted back to their role of high alt top cover.

No 124: March 1943
No 131: March 1944
No 616: September 1943
No 154: November 1943
No 313: July 1944

WOLFMondo
04-20-2007, 02:14 AM
So Kurfy, where in those figures do all those 88's fit in?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
(btw congrats on paying out final bill last year http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) BBs, hmm, they did laid down and complete four during the war, Germany did laid down four and completed 2 asthere was no need to them.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. Gotta pay the price for standing up to a tyrant. At least we did :P.

So just how many cruisers, destroyers, frigates, fleet and escort carriers were build eh? Compared to Germany? That were built in the UK. That didn't use slave labour?

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Thanks. Gotta pay the price for standing up to a tyrant. At least we did :P. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the motiv for paying the price was rather more like remaining the standing tyrant in India, Africa, Southeast Asia and other places far from Europe. Being so much concerned with Poland's freedom, Britain was rather less concerned with the freedom of a few hundred million souls in it's own colonies.

Really I've troubles that the largest remaining colonial empire at the time had true, honest concerns for human rights and the right to self-govern, just by looking at best known case of India's struggle for freedom.

"Quit India became the most forceful movement in the history of the struggle, with mass arrests and violence on an unprecedented scale.[11] Thousands of freedom fighters were killed or injured by police gunfire, and hundreds of thousands were arrested. Gandhi and his supporters made it clear they would not support the war effort unless India were granted immediate independence. He even clarified that this time the movement would not be stopped if individual acts of violence were committed, saying that the "ordered anarchy" around him was "worse than real anarchy." He called on all Congressmen and Indians to maintain discipline via ahimsa, and Karo Ya Maro ("Do or Die") in the cause of ultimate freedom.

Gandhi and the entire Congress Working Committee were arrested in Bombay by the British on August 9, 1942. Gandhi was held for two years in the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. It was here that Gandhi suffered two terrible blows in his personal life. His 42-year old secretary Mahadev Desai died of a heart attack 6 days later and his wife Kasturba died after 18 months imprisonment in February 1944; six weeks later Gandhi suffered a severe malaria attack. He was released before the end of the war on May 6 1944 because of his failing health and necessary surgery; the Raj did not want him to die in prison and enrage the nation. Although Quit India movement had moderate success in its objective, the ruthless suppression of the movement brought order to India by the end of 1943. At the end of the war, the British gave clear indications that power would be transferred to Indian hands. At this point Gandhi called off the struggle, and around 100,000 political prisoners were released, including the Congress's leadership."

Example of benevolent British rule of India, 1857 :

".... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi) when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed".

1919 :

The British military commander, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, blocked the main entrance, and ordered his soldiers to fire into an unarmed and unsuspecting crowd of some 5,000 people. They had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh, a walled in courtyard in defiance of the ban. A total of 1,650 rounds were fired, killing 379 (as per government estimate, actual figure believed to be above 1000) people and wounding 1,137 in the episode, which dispelled wartime hopes of home rule and goodwill in a frenzy of post-war reaction.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Amritsar_Massacre.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement

Yup, the Brits really stood up against tyranny.

joeap
04-20-2007, 03:15 AM
Another UBI thread crosses into stoopid land.

bazzaah2
04-20-2007, 03:21 AM
WALOB.

Whirlin_merlin
04-20-2007, 03:24 AM
Nice displacement Kurfurst, irrelevent but nice.
I'm fully aware that my nation has acted wrongly in the past.
This isn't a competion you know.
None of it changes reality.

Answer me one question please so I know where you stand.

'Do you concider the use a slave or forced labour by Germany during WW2 to have been moraly wrong?' A simple Yes or No will do.

Oh and BTW the reason I was using the term Nazi instead of German was because I do understand that we are talking about 60 odd years ago. I wanted to differentiate between then and now. I have no neagative feelings towards Germany, I have had some wonderfull times there and meet some great people.

ploughman
04-20-2007, 03:38 AM
Kurf, if you're going to say "I think the motiv for paying the price was rather more like remaining the standing tyrant in India, Africa, Southeast Asia and other places far from Europe." You shouldn't then post a quote that has this line in it; "At the end of the war, the British gave clear indications that power would be transferred to Indian hands. At this point Gandhi called off the struggle, and around 100,000 political prisoners were released, including the Congress's leadership."

Coupled with the fact Indian independence came within 2 years of the conclusion of hostilities, it undermine's key aspects of your thesis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 03:39 AM
To the question : Yup. Happy?
Sorry 'bout sidetrack but this 'standing up against the tyrant' was a bit too much. Clearly this wasn't the motiv. The justification maybe, that some people even believed, but not the motiv on govermental scale.

Granted that sons should not be blamed for their father's crimes. Yet I have troubles with such use of word, crimes have been committed by real people in the 1940s, having grown up in a real natio, not 'communist', 'nazis', 'fascist' or 'democrats'. That may have been a self-justification of it, but the crimes they committed were as old as humanity itself. I find using ideologies to describe group of people just flawed.

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Coupled with the fact Indian independence came within 2 years of the conclusion of hostilities, it undermine's key aspects of your thesis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was hardly undermine it. The British occupation of India was brutal, and resulted in a freedom fight that lasted about a century, in the end conclusion the Brits have to give up India, not because of British generousity though, Britain after the war simply no longer in the position to maintain it's Empire, the economy was in ruins, the country bankcrupt, the merchant fleet was waving from the bottom of the Atlantic, and the creation of the UN just made it politically impossible, though the British did try to maintain it with either compromises like attempting to transform the Empire into a 'Commonwealth' or by brutal force as in SE Asia.

You basically argue that the opressor`s record of being an opressor is erased if they fail in their role of an opressor despite their very best try. It's nonsensical, like if a thief would argue before the court he's not a thief because he tried but failed attempt to steal something, or that he gave back the stuff after he was forced to do so.

Whirlin_merlin
04-20-2007, 04:17 AM
Glad to hear it Kurf'. So you're not quite the blinkered obsessive you sometimes appear.

However I stand by the use of Nazi in the context I did.

John_Wayne_
04-20-2007, 04:20 AM
[quote:]the merchant fleet was waving from the bottom of the Atlantic...[end quote]

Of course it was Kurfballs, that's why our history books are full of stories of starving Brits, with no gas for their planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

As for the rest of your anti-colonialist caterwailing, why don't you tell us all about German East Africa?

toohooah
04-20-2007, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... 'communist', 'nazis', 'fascist' or 'democrats'... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
you're pretty good at synonyms (if by democrats you meant the Democrat Party)

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
You then state that the Spitfire XIV and Tempest V were no better than the Bf 109 K4 or Dora 9. Frankly this smacks of bias. The XIV was still a highly manuverable, capable aircraft compared to the overtaxed, overstretched Bf 109 K4 and the Tempest V in its 11lb boost for comfortably outperformed the Fw 190 D9 at all heights up to 20,000ft. The Spitfire XIV and Tempest V pairing out performed any combination of Bf 109 and Fw 190 model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure. With high performance late war planes one thing became more and more important: manoeuvrablility at high speed. What's the use of a high speed fighter if you can not manoeuvre correctly at these high speed ranges? That was the problem of the spitfire, it was a very manoeuvrable plane, but at low speed. This plane was built for stall fights in which it was one of the best in the war. Also the d9 had a manoeuvrability advantage over the tempest even in turns. I don't know how close there were in climb and speed but there were close, so I think that 109-190 vs spit-tempest would be a close match but the old fashioned slow speed doghfigthers 109 and spit would have a hard time against the 190 and tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfires manuverability at high speed was not as impaired as the Bf 109s was. It retained elevator and airelon authority (after the early marks) at higher speeds as well as possesing low speed manuverability. There are accounts of Spitfire pilots luring Bf 109 E in to power dives during BoB then pulling out at high speeds while the Bf 109 pilots would crash in to the ground.

The Tempest compared to the D9 is another one which is hard to call. Considering that most reports claim there was little between the two in turning circle. While the Tempest actually had a higher rate of roll at high speeds than the Fw 190. Its control authority at high speeds was second none.

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Swiss border is some 400 miles from the British Isles. It needs to return from such distance.
The Spitfire IX had a range of 434 miles on it's internal tank after dropping the droptank, provided the conditions are favourable, the aircraft strictly flies straight at around 220 mph IAS (non-advisable over enemy territory) and there's no fighting which would quickly drain the tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Lets not hear anymore about the 1600km range of the 109 considering the aluminim overcast that flew off the carrier British Isles.

So what was the range when the additional tankage was added? Forgot about that did you? If 85gal gave a range of 434mi then the additional 69gal or 77gal would give a range of at least ~785mi.

Oh yes, I find Kurfurst's comparing the British Empire to Nazi Germany absolutely hilarious. Off hand I can't recall any nice things Nazi Germany did in the countries it conquered.

for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol
for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol
for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol
for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol
for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

Bremspropeller
04-20-2007, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Off hand I can't recall any nice things Nazi Germany did in the countries it conquered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, thats what I call "on topic".

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Spitfires manuverability at high speed was not as impaired as the Bf 109s was. It retained elevator and airelon authority (after the early marks) at higher speeds as well as possesing low speed manuverability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the claim Spitfire retaining aileron authority, even spitfireperformance.com doesn't dare to claim that.. it should tell you something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are accounts of Spitfire pilots luring Bf 109 E in to power dives during BoB then pulling out at high speeds while the Bf 109 pilots would crash in to the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any Spitfire pilot who willingfully 'lured' a 109 onto it's tail was simply an idiot. Of course such stories have only one possible account, from those who survived. In any case, pilot failure to pull out in such dive, quite often because he blacked out or lost conciousness due to pulling too many Gs, or simply overstressing the airframe. The latter was a continous problem with the Spitfire and reports were issued in 40-41 to investigate the cause, which was found that the pilots could pull too many Gs. Even the Spitfire manuals warn against it, noting that the control harmony of the Spitfire is poor; Spit pilots described it as 'arm wrestling the ailerons while applying a light fingertip in pitch'. The NACA noted the Spitfire's excessive sensitivity in pitch, noting that as little as 3/4 inch of pull on the stick brought the plane to stall, whereas full deflection of the (metal) ailerons was no longer possible above 140 mph IAS, despite the pilot using all his strenght. The 109 had no such problems with control harmony, it's control forces in pitch were higher, that's true but they did not restrict manaouverbilty. Even Brtisih trials note that 'fairly tight turns were still possible' in dives at 420 mph IAS (!!), while another notes that accelerations as high as the pilot can bear can be readily put up.

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Wow, thats what I call "on topic". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So tell me, what does the British Empire have to do with the topic? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Spitfire had no long range variants</span>

The Swiss border is some 400 miles from the British Isles. It needs to return from such distance.

It's technically doable, but not very viable for an operational sortie, and as such it is false to display it as such. Under the same rather inpractical conditions, the Bf 109G or FW 190A could venture beyond the Alps and fly from England to Milan or Berlin and back. It's also technically doable, but not viable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Kufurst pwonage here we go again :

Wing Commander Pete Brothers
Culmhead Wing
April to October 1944

"During deep penetration fighter sweeps over France in 1944 my three squadrons would spread out in pairs in a near line abreast formation, thus allowing us to cover a vast swathe of sky. This formation comprised of two squadrons equipped with Spitfire F VIIs and a sloitary unit with Mk XIVs. <span class="ev_code_RED">Range was never a great problem.</span>

I remained at Culmhead with a wing comprising Spit VIIs and XIVs, both which boasted superb range that allowed us to <span class="ev_code_RED">sweep as far east over the continent as the Swiss border.</span>

We also flew daylight bomber escort missions in our LONG-RANGE Spits, with three and a half hour sorties becoming quite common place."

Spitfire - Flying Legend
John Dibbs and Tony Holmes
pgs 130 and 132

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Spitfires manuverability at high speed was not as impaired as the Bf 109s was. It retained elevator and airelon authority (after the early marks) at higher speeds as well as possesing low speed manuverability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the claim Spitfire retaining aileron authority, even spitfireperformance.com doesn't dare to claim that.. it should tell you something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are accounts of Spitfire pilots luring Bf 109 E in to power dives during BoB then pulling out at high speeds while the Bf 109 pilots would crash in to the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any Spitfire pilot who willingfully 'lured' a 109 onto it's tail was simply an idiot. Of course such stories have only one possible account, from those who survived. In any case, pilot failure to pull out in such dive, quite often because he blacked out or lost conciousness due to pulling too many Gs, or simply overstressing the airframe. The latter was a continous problem with the Spitfire and reports were issued in 40-41 to investigate the cause, which was found that the pilots could pull too many Gs. Even the Spitfire manuals warn against it, noting that the control harmony of the Spitfire is poor; Spit pilots described it as 'arm wrestling the ailerons while applying a light fingertip in pitch'. The NACA noted the Spitfire's excessive sensitivity in pitch, noting that as little as 3/4 inch of pull on the stick brought the plane to stall, whereas full deflection of the (metal) ailerons was no longer possible above 140 mph IAS, despite the pilot using all his strenght. The 109 had no such problems with control harmony, it's control forces in pitch were higher, that's true but they did not restrict manaouverbilty. Even Brtisih trials note that 'fairly tight turns were still possible' in dives at 420 mph IAS (!!), while another notes that accelerations as high as the pilot can bear can be readily put up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kufurst I thought that Bf 109 pilots didnt black out because of their reclined seating position and dodgy elevators ?

As for stupid pilots - I guess diving in to the ground because you 'forgot' your plane sucked at high speeds is pretty stupid lol

Bremspropeller
04-20-2007, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The latter was a continous problem with the Spitfire and reports were issued in 40-41 to investigate the cause, which was found that the pilots could pull too many Gs. Even the Spitfire manuals warn against it, noting that the control harmony of the Spitfire is poor; Spit pilots described it as 'arm wrestling the ailerons while applying a light fingertip in pitch'. The NACA noted the Spitfire's excessive sensitivity in pitch, noting that as little as 3/4 inch of pull on the stick brought the plane to stall, whereas full deflection of the (metal) ailerons was no longer possible above 140 mph IAS, despite the pilot using all his strenght. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Let's not forget, the 109Fs also had problems..let's call it a "wing-off bug".
Same goes for early probles with it's stabilizer which pas prone to falling off due to weak fittings which were broken during certain engine RPMs.


Now let's talk upon the Spit's responsiveness:
I never really figured out why british planes used such a crappy control-stick desing.
You know what I mean: pich is put in with the whole length of the stick, while aileron only is controlled with the tip od the stick.
=&gt; Teh suckage.
Now think why applying aileron-force was such a pain in the azz in the Spit.


The british stick design of those days is only beaten by the italian/ french idea of reversing the throttle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

bazzaah2
04-20-2007, 05:19 AM
all roads lead to the was the 109 better than the Spitfire 'debate'.

I'm surprised it took 6 pages. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

John_Wayne_
04-20-2007, 05:22 AM
"The british stick design of those days is only beaten by the italian/ french idea of reversing the throttle"

Care to explain that one in depth? The reversing the throttle bit, I mean.

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
"The british stick design of those days is only beaten by the italian/ french idea of reversing the throttle"

Care to explain that one in depth? The reversing the throttle bit, I mean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Instead of pushing the lever forward to advance the throttle, the French and Italians pulled the lever back to advance the throttle.

Bremspropeller
04-20-2007, 05:26 AM
Open QMB and try out a Fiat or Macci http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

John_Wayne_
04-20-2007, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Instead of pushing the lever forward to advance the throttle, the French and Italians pulled the lever back to advance the throttle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't 109 pilots do that? Seem to remember a post about it a while ago.

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

"During deep penetration fighter sweeps over France in 1944 my three squadrons would spread out in pairs in a near line abreast formation, thus allowing us to cover a vast swathe of sky. This formation comprised of two squadrons equipped with Spitfire F VIIs and a sloitary unit with Mk XIVs. <span class="ev_code_RED">Range was never a great problem.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the Spitfire VII it wasn't. However, there's a problem...

"In total, 140 Mk VIIs were built, the last of which used the Merlin 71 engine and reportedly had superb high altitude performance with a service ceiling of 45,100 feet. For instance, French ace Pierre Clostermann recalls in his book, The Big Show, the successful interception of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">a reconnaissance Messerschmitt Bf 109</span> by a Mk VII from No. 602 Squadron RAF at 40,000 feet over the British Home Fleet's base <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">at Scapa Flow</span> in early 1944.[/i]


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I remained at Culmhead with a wing comprising Spit VIIs and XIVs, both which boasted superb range that allowed us to <span class="ev_code_RED">sweep as far east over the continent as the Swiss border.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Swiss border is 'as far as over the continent' as... a mere 380 miles. Scapa Flow lies some 380 miles from Norway LW bases, and some 550 miles from the nearest LW bases on the continent.

Compared to the regular Mk IXs 434 miles range on internal fuel, the Mk VII and Mk VIII 'boasted superb range[/i] of 740 miles. That's still vastly insufficent range to perform escrot duties like the US P-38s, P-47s and P-51 did, and that would have been required for the RAF to attempt any daylight escorted bomber sorties from England deep into Germany.

There's a problem though. As of 18th May 1944, Spitfires with Sqn's...

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
You can provide figures if you wish. I doubt it would have produced so many carriers and such since the vast majority was provided by the might of the US industry (btw congrats on paying out final bill last year http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) BBs, hmm, they did laid down and complete four during the war, Germany did laid down four and completed 2 asthere was no need to them.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Kufurst I will, seeing as you obviously lack knowledge in this area as well yet continue to rant and rave and splutter.

Great Britain never laid down and completed 4 battleships during WW2 neither did Germany. WW2 started in September 1939 remember?

Great Britain commisioned 5 modern Battleships after the 2nd Washington treaty expired, and laid down a further 2 with another 2 planned

HMS King George V
HMS Prince of Wales
HMS Duke of York
HMS Anson
HMS Howe
HMS Vanguard
HMS Lion - laid down but uncompleted - cancelled after the war
HMS Temeraire - laid down but uncompleted - cancelled after the war
HMS Conqueror - cancelled
HMS Thunderer - cancelled

It laid down and launched the following carriers:

HMS Ark Royal 1938
HMS Illustrious 1939
HMS Formidable 1939
HMS Victorious 1939
HMS Indomitable 1940
HMS Unicorn 1943
HMS Vindex 1943
HMS Nairana 1943
HMS Campania 1944
HMS Indefatigable 1944
HMS Implacable 1944
HMS Colossus 1944
HMS Terrible 1944
HMS Magnificent 1944
HMS Powerful 1945
HMS Majestic 1945
HMS Leviathan 1945
HMS Glory 1945
HMS Venerable 1945
HMS Vengence 1945
HMS Pioneer 1945
HMS Ocean 1945

I havent inlcuded any ship completed after the end of the war or any ship with a capacity of less than 21 aircraft - infact only two of this list were converted escort carriers.

How many Aircraft Carriers did Germany lay down AND complete ?

*edit Leviathan was launched but never completed - as per Kufursts claims*

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Swiss border is 'as far as over the continent' as... a mere 380 miles. Scapa Flow lies some 380 miles from Norway LW bases, and some 550 miles from the nearest LW bases on the continent.

Compared to the regular Mk IXs 434 miles range on internal fuel, the Mk VII and Mk VIII 'boasted superb range[/i] of 740 miles. That's still vastly insufficent range to perform escrot duties like the US P-38s, P-47s and P-51 did, and that would have been required for the RAF to attempt any daylight escorted bomber sorties from England deep into Germany.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Kufurst but why are you dodging the point you said THERE WERE NO LONG RANGE SPITFIRE VARIANTS. And that no operational sorties were practical. You also ignore that the XIV conducted the same sweeps.

So you compare a recon Bf 109 flying over Scapa flow to a 3 Squadron fighter sweep to the Swiss border and back - lol your funny.

So in May 18 1944 there were 372 FRONT LINE in service Spitfires capable of flying sweeps to the Swiss border and back - not bad.

How many Bf 109s were in service which flew operational sorties of the same range and scope in May 18 1944 ?

Now you are trying to change the argument - as
usual.

Look how far their small ranged allowed them to fly in to Germany.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/europe_95copy.jpg

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 05:55 AM
Here is the link to the thread where Kufurst posts data relating to a Bf 109 G with 3 drop tanks - stating that this was the Bf 109s range for escort duties :

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/862...821018745#8821018745 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8621078645?r=8821018745#8821018745)

Yet here he is in this current thread saying No Bf 109 ever flew with 3 drop tanks.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

RocketDog
04-20-2007, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Oh yes, I find Kurfurst's comparing the British Empire to Nazi Germany absolutely hilarious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfles is a bit mixed up, I think. His obsession with the superiority of the Bf-109 over all other aircraft appears to have slid into a similar view about the societies that produced them. Of course, history shows that the Nazis were pretty disgusting, so to justify his stance he has to try and paint everyone else as being at least as bad or worse.

Cheers,

RD.

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ok Kufurst I will, seeing as you obviously lack knowledge in this area as well yet continue to rant and rave and splutter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unneccesary to address all claims, a few cross check showed that the gentlemen lies again as usual. Ie.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It laid down and completed or converted the following Carriers

HMS Majestic 1945
HMS Terrible 1944
HMS Magnificent 1944
HMS Powerful 1945
HMS Leviathan 1945 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though none of them were completed and commission during WW2 ...

The Majestic-class aircraft carriers were initially intended to be part of the Colossus-class, but were instead built to a modified design, still based on the Colossus design for operating heavier aircraft. The Majestics have the dubious distinction of having no service in the Royal Navy, each of them was sold, with the exception of just one.

* Hercules - She was launched in 1942, yet was neglected for 10 years until bought by India. She was commissioned into the Indian Navy in 1961, being named INS Vikrant.
* Leviathan - She was launched in 1945, though never completed. Her boilers were removed for the Argentine carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, a Colossus-class carrier. Leviathan was scrapped in 1968.
* Magnificent - Once completed, she was loaned to the Royal Canadian Navy. Broken up, late 1960s.
* Majestic - Sold to Australia, becoming the flagship of the Royal Australian Navy, being renamed HMAS Melbourne. She was broken up in 1985.
* Powerful - Launched in 1945 and subsequently purchased by Canada in 1952. She was renamed HMCS Bonaventure and was scrapped in Taiwan in 1971.
* Terrible - She was launched in 1944, and was transferred to the Royal Australian Navy, under the name of HMAS Sydney in 1948. She was broken up in 1975

Or...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I havent inlcuded any ship completed after the end of the war or any ship with a capacity of less than 21 aircraft - infact only two of this list were converted escort carriers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HMS Vindex 1943
HMS Nairana 1943 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nairana class were a small group of escort aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy that saw service during World War II. There were two ships in the class, HMS Nairana and HMS Vindex. A third ship, the HMS Campania was of a similar design, but not officially part of the class. Both ships were originally laid down as merchant vessels, but were completed as escort carriers and enetered service in late 1943. They served escorting convoys in the Atlantic and Arctic theatres. Both ships survived the war, the Vindex later being sold for mechant service, and the Nairana being transferred to the Dutch Navy as the Karel Doorman before also becoming a merchant ship. In the early 1970s they were scrapped.

Specifications for the class :

Displacement: 17,000 tons fully-loaded
Length: 524 ft
Beam: 68 ft
Draught: 25 ft
Propulsion: Diesel, 10,700 bhp
Speed: 16 knots
Complement: 728
Armament: 2 x 4" guns,
16 x 2pdr guns (4x4),
16 x 20mm guns (8x2)
Aircraft: 15-20


I think that will suffice.

HellToupee
04-20-2007, 06:04 AM
Like the VIIIs they didnt seem to swtich mk9 production to them, you would think they would have if they really needed the extra range, and not just sent them overseas to the med and far east, australia, they even equiped some american squadrons with mk8s.

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ok Kufurst I will, seeing as you obviously lack knowledge in this area as well yet continue to rant and rave and splutter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unneccesary to address all claims, a few cross check showed that the gentlemen lies again as usual. Ie.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It laid down and completed or converted the following Carriers

HMS Majestic 1945
HMS Terrible 1944
HMS Magnificent 1944
HMS Powerful 1945
HMS Leviathan 1945 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though none of them were completed and commission during WW2 ...

The Majestic-class aircraft carriers were initially intended to be part of the Colossus-class, but were instead built to a modified design, still based on the Colossus design for operating heavier aircraft. The Majestics have the dubious distinction of having no service in the Royal Navy, each of them was sold, with the exception of just one.

* Hercules - She was launched in 1942, yet was neglected for 10 years until bought by India. She was commissioned into the Indian Navy in 1961, being named INS Vikrant.
* Leviathan - She was launched in 1945, though never completed. Her boilers were removed for the Argentine carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, a Colossus-class carrier. Leviathan was scrapped in 1968.
* Magnificent - Once completed, she was loaned to the Royal Canadian Navy. Broken up, late 1960s.
* Majestic - Sold to Australia, becoming the flagship of the Royal Australian Navy, being renamed HMAS Melbourne. She was broken up in 1985.
* Powerful - Launched in 1945 and subsequently purchased by Canada in 1952. She was renamed HMCS Bonaventure and was scrapped in Taiwan in 1971.
* Terrible - She was launched in 1944, and was transferred to the Royal Australian Navy, under the name of HMAS Sydney in 1948. She was broken up in 1975

Or...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I havent inlcuded any ship completed after the end of the war or any ship with a capacity of less than 21 aircraft - infact only two of this list were converted escort carriers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HMS Vindex 1943
HMS Nairana 1943 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nairana class were a small group of escort aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy that saw service during World War II. There were two ships in the class, HMS Nairana and HMS Vindex. A third ship, the HMS Campania was of a similar design, but not officially part of the class. Both ships were originally laid down as merchant vessels, but were completed as escort carriers and enetered service in late 1943. They served escorting convoys in the Atlantic and Arctic theatres. Both ships survived the war, the Vindex later being sold for mechant service, and the Nairana being transferred to the Dutch Navy as the Karel Doorman before also becoming a merchant ship. In the early 1970s they were scrapped.

Specifications for the class :

Displacement: 17,000 tons fully-loaded
Length: 524 ft
Beam: 68 ft
Draught: 25 ft
Propulsion: Diesel, 10,700 bhp
Speed: 16 knots
Complement: 728
Armament: 2 x 4" guns,
16 x 2pdr guns (4x4),
16 x 20mm guns (8x2)
Aircraft: 15-20


I think that will suffice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man you are a complete smacktard. Please point to where I said commisioned ...

The fact that the ships were launched before the end of the war still stands. Commissioned in the Royal Navy or in any other navy doesnt matter. The War finished in 1945 remember ? We are talking about productive capabilities remember not manning levels or after war sales.

As for your specifications did you pull them out of your a*se as usual?

Nairana class
displacement 16,980 tons
Length 498ft 3 "
Beam 68 ft
Draughgt 23ft 6"
Machinerey 5-cylinder Doxford Diesel engines
Aircraft - 21
Complement 700

Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to present
Roger Chesneau
pg 126

YET AGAIN CLUTCHING AT STRAWS AFTER BEING PWONED

Where will the discussion go now? what new wonderous claim can you make regarding Carrier numbers, Aircraft production figures, Spitfire lacking range ect

The mind boggles mate - oh and when did I come off the ignore list ? Is that you lying again by false advertisement - par for the course isnt it.

Blutarski2004
04-20-2007, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Spitfire had no long range variants</span>

The Swiss border is some 400 miles from the British Isles. It needs to return from such distance.

It's technically doable, but not very viable for an operational sortie, and as such it is false to display it as such. Under the same rather inpractical conditions, the Bf 109G or FW 190A could venture beyond the Alps and fly from England to Milan or Berlin and back. It's also technically doable, but not viable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Kufurst pwonage here we go again :

Wing Commander Pete Brothers
Culmhead Wing
April to October 1944

"During deep penetration fighter sweeps over France in 1944 my three squadrons would spread out in pairs in a near line abreast formation, thus allowing us to cover a vast swathe of sky. This formation comprised of two squadrons equipped with Spitfire F VIIs and a sloitary unit with Mk XIVs. <span class="ev_code_RED">Range was never a great problem.</span>

I remained at Culmhead with a wing comprising Spit VIIs and XIVs, both which boasted superb range that allowed us to <span class="ev_code_RED">sweep as far east over the continent as the Swiss border.</span>

We also flew daylight bomber escort missions in our LONG-RANGE Spits, with three and a half hour sorties becoming quite common place."

Spitfire - Flying Legend
John Dibbs and Tony Holmes
pgs 130 and 132 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Those ranges were absolutely practicable for a later Mk Spit carrying an external drop tank. The Malta Spits made an 800 mile ferry flight using the 90 gal capacity drop tanks. Spits also carried 170 gal tanks, but it does seem that the 90 gal types were the most common.

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: Typical ranting combined with a bald faced lie about documents, in any case the Bf 109 never had a 3 drop tank version, nor did I make any statements like the ones you wish to put into my mouth, but hey, we have been over this, you have lied this before, you lie it now, and no doubt you will lie the same again and again and again.

Mynameisliar is lying again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/109grange5.jpg

Keep digging Kufy the mods will be along in a minute http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh and since your not ignoring me can you please remove my name from your sig - I think you will find that it makes you a hypocrite.

Chris0382
04-20-2007, 06:39 AM
I believe since the Luftwaffe was controlled by a ego-centric Goring who made bad decisions that they would not be successful. Also hitler did not respect goring since goring was a hunter and killed animals and hitler as a vegetarian was against that. Now had Confucious ruled........

I know Im gonna get spanked for the above so break out the paddles.

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 06:39 AM
Do I see another one of these coming?

http://perso.orange.fr/ansa39-45/images/Id4.jpg

John_Wayne_
04-20-2007, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chris0382:
I believe since the Luftwaffe was controlled by a ego-centric Goring who made bad decisions that they would not be successful. Also hitler did not respect goring since goring was a hunter and killed animals and hitler as a vegetarian was against that. Now had Confucious ruled........

I know Im gonna get spanked for the above so break out the paddles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now that's irony. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

joeap
04-20-2007, 07:01 AM
*pops head in*

Yup, thread still in stoopid land bye all.

hop2002
04-20-2007, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I never really figured out why british planes used such a crappy control-stick desing.
You know what I mean: pich is put in with the whole length of the stick, while aileron only is controlled with the tip od the stick.
=&gt; Teh suckage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Legs.

Look at a cockpit, then imagine the pilot's legs alongside the stick. They restrict sideways movement of the stick.

The Spitfire's stick is pivoted at about the same height as the pilot's legs, so they don't restrict movement at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now think why applying aileron-force was such a pain in the azz in the Spit.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It actually seems to have worked quite well. Ignore Kurfurst's opinions, and go and read the opinions of the AFDU who tested the things, or read the RAE report which measured them.

According to the AFDU, the Spitfire rolled better than most of it's contemporaries, and the only mainstream fighter that was significantly better was the 190.

For example, vs the Mustang:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vs the 109G:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vs the P-47C
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The good aileron control gives the P-47 an excellent rate of roll even at high speeds, and during mock combats it was considered to roll as well as, if not better than the Spitfire at about 30,000 feet. At lower altitudes there is nothing to choose between them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gripen produced a German test report for the 109 F2 roll rate some time ago, it showed that at 50 lbs force the 109 rolled worse than the Spitfire at all speeds apart from 250 - 255 mph IAS, at which point they were about equal. At 200 mph IAS it was about 25 degree/sec worse, at 350 it was about 12 deg/sec worse.

If you plot the figures for the 109 at 50 lbs force on the NACA 868 roll chart, at 390 IAS the 109 has a lower roll rate than any of the planes shown, even the Zero (although Naca 868 says the force limits on the Zero were unknown). Set in stone indeed.

Now Kurfurst really doesn't like any of these figures, so he will come up with all sorts of other things, like tests done at much lower stick force limits, and the tests of an early Spitfire Va in the US, but all the evidence is that the Spitfires with metal ailerons rolled as well as, or better than, most of their contemporaries, apart from the 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The Swiss border is 'as far as over the continent' as... a mere 380 miles. Scapa Flow lies some 380 miles from Norway LW bases </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's 310 miles from Stavanger.

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 07:14 AM
Carry on like this hop and you'll be on the ignore list http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: Typical ranting combined with a bald faced lie about documents, in any case the Bf 109 never had a 3 drop tank version, nor did I make any statements like the ones you wish to put into my mouth, but hey, we have been over this, you have lied this before, you lie it now, and no doubt you will lie the same again and again and again.

Mynameisliar is lying again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/109grange5.jpg

Keep digging Kufy the mods will be along in a minute http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh and since your not ignoring me can you please remove my name from your sig - I think you will find that it makes you a hypocrite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I am very happy if the mods will be here, after all it's you who's aggressively stirring up trouble, lie about other's statements continously, use derogating language and such. I am sure the mods will be happy to give you a bit of rest.

Well the URL that you posted this picture is :

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/109grange5.jpg

And I though you claimed I was posting this document and claiming based on this 1600 km range for a '3 droptank 109'.

Funny thing about it that it's uploaded it to your webspace, and doesn't say anywhere 1600 km... it's the same one that luftluuver has been waving around for some time. It's a British estimation for a fictional Bf 109 variant, as no 109 carried 3 droptanks, typically they carried a single 300 liter droptank with which they had a maximum range of 1600 km, or about 1000 miles.


Of course both you and luftluuver manipulate the document and only post the page 3 of the paper, since page 2 tells the conditions relevant to the range figures given (it states the range is to be understood for an aircraft spending 5 minutes at maximum power, and otherwise cruising at 600 km/h, and from that figure further 20% was substracted). And of course both of you have did this already at least 4-5 times in other threads.

What really puzzles me is the reasoning behind what is basically sysyematically eroding any sort of credibilty you may have. You're claiming I have claimed a range for '3 droptank 109', a variant that never existed, then you even post and then you post a link where everyone can see I state no such thing, then you upload a picture you took from luftluuver's post to your webspace and claim it was I who had uploaded it.... it's just a silly thing to do, but I think I've wasted enough time on you. You simply cannot be taken seriously, and altough normally I give a chance for people to prove they were put on an ignore list in error, you just proved that you belong to the same category as luftluuver, a forum troll who spends every day of his life with pointless argueing and trying to provocate others to get some attention he probably never gets in real life. If you wish, you may create as much noise as you want in the future, nobody will take either of you seriously here. You will be your own audiance in this sad show, so I hope you'll enjoy it.

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Those ranges were absolutely practicable for a later Mk Spit carrying an external drop tank. The Malta Spits made an 800 mile ferry flight using the 90 gal capacity drop tanks. Spits also carried 170 gal tanks, but it does seem that the 90 gal types were the most common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

800 mile ferry flights are one way only, and were flown on economical setting. The 170 gallon tank was strictly a ferry tank, for the simple reason after using up 170 gallon from the droptank, the aircraft could not return to base, having a much smaller internal capacity. This applied to some extent to the 90 gallon tank, as the most commonly used Spit types had only 85 gallon internal capacity. This allowed in theory to return from 434 miles distance, but that is understood without spending time in combat at high powers, and cruising back at slow economic speeds.

That is a bit different from having to escort a bomber over enemy territory, preferably at high speed, and return back to base. One-way ferry missions deep into Germany might not have been plausible in the long term.

Of course that may be all wrong, and ubizoo may yet prove that there was no need for the Mustang as the Spitfire did have better range, too, and could do the same job.

Ubizoo surprises you with new 'facts' daily anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course both you and luftluuver manipulate the document and only post the page 3 of the paper, since page 2 tells the conditions relevant to the range figures given (it states the range is to be understood for an aircraft spending 5 minutes at maximum power, and otherwise cruising at 600 km/h, and from that figure further 20% was substracted). And of course both of you have did this already at least 4-5 times in other threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL Kurfurst. I posted the other pages so who really is the liar. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I never really figured out why british planes used such a crappy control-stick desing.
You know what I mean: pich is put in with the whole length of the stick, while aileron only is controlled with the tip od the stick.
=&gt; Teh suckage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Legs.

Look at a cockpit, then imagine the pilot's legs alongside the stick. They restrict sideways movement of the stick.

The Spitfire's stick is pivoted at about the same height as the pilot's legs, so they don't restrict movement at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now think why applying aileron-force was such a pain in the azz in the Spit.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It actually seems to have worked quite well. Ignore Kurfurst's opinions, and go and read the opinions of the AFDU who tested the things, or read the RAE report which measured them.

According to the AFDU, the Spitfire rolled better than most of it's contemporaries, and the only mainstream fighter that was significantly better was the 190.

For example, vs the Mustang:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vs the 109G:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vs the P-47C
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The good aileron control gives the P-47 an excellent rate of roll even at high speeds, and during mock combats it was considered to roll as well as, if not better than the Spitfire at about 30,000 feet. At lower altitudes there is nothing to choose between them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gripen produced a German test report for the 109 F2 roll rate some time ago, it showed that at 50 lbs force the 109 rolled worse than the Spitfire at all speeds apart from 250 - 255 mph IAS, at which point they were about equal. At 200 mph IAS it was about 25 degree/sec worse, at 350 it was about 12 deg/sec worse.

If you plot the figures for the 109 at 50 lbs force on the NACA 868 roll chart, at 390 IAS the 109 has a lower roll rate than any of the planes shown, even the Zero (although Naca 868 says the force limits on the Zero were unknown). Set in stone indeed.

Now Kurfurst really doesn't like any of these figures, so he will come up with all sorts of other things, like tests done at much lower stick force limits, and the tests of an early Spitfire Va in the US, but all the evidence is that the Spitfires with metal ailerons rolled as well as, or better than, most of their contemporaries, apart from the 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The Swiss border is 'as far as over the continent' as... a mere 380 miles. Scapa Flow lies some 380 miles from Norway LW bases </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's 310 miles from Stavanger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know Hop for some 5 years now (I still recall he was arguing an American, brokenclaw on 20+ page thread that the Spitfire dived better than US fighters - already he have been dubbed 'Hop, the fanatic Brit'..), initially our little arguements used to be funny, even if Hop's opinion is sometimes so nonsensical that I found that irritating. But it is no longer even funny... it's just sad. Once he at least tried to look like objective and convincing, put forward some arguement. Nowadays it's just putting the nonsense en masse, then moving to the next claims. I guess he burned out and it's just become a daily routine of proving Britain is superior in everything, often with the exact same words, with the same nonsense put forward, trying to make up for the lack of facts with repetition and petty ad hominem attacks that sound increasingly frustrated. I guess real life's values have been pushed entirely into the background by his 'mission'. Eventually it's already 4 AM in the morning, Hop is still writing a post on some forum, then a new day comes and the whole routine starts all over again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I don't think I'll ever understand what drives people into such a sad waste of a life.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

hop2002
04-20-2007, 09:22 AM
As is usual with Isegrim, when he loses an argument he turns to personal attacks.

If anyone is actually interested in roll rates, theres a good thread discussing the 109 roll chart at http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php...%20rate&pagenumber=1 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160997&perpage=25&highlight=roll%20and%20rate&pagenumber=1)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess he burned out and it's just become a daily routine of proving Britain is superior in everything, often with the exact same words, with the same nonsense put forward, trying to make up for the lack of facts with repetition and petty ad hominem attacks that sound increasingly frustrated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has anyone else noticed that Isegrim does exactly what he accuses others of? Change the word "Britain" to "Germany" in that sentence and you have an exact description of Isegrim.

HellToupee
04-20-2007, 09:44 AM
I dont think anyone needs to prove britian is superior in everything, or even thinks britian is superior in everything, we just know its superior to germany in everything!

Spitfire the plane,car and beer &gt; germany!

mynameisroland
04-20-2007, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don't think I'll ever understand what drives people into such a sad waste of a life.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think if we held a poll right now on which forum member has sunk to the lowest level you would comfortably win.

Once you run out of preposterous arguments you become the vile snivelling Kufurst we all know and hate - better put me back on the ignore list because Im finished with your twaddle.

bazzaah2
04-20-2007, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
As is usual with Isegrim, when he loses an argument he turns to personal attacks.

If anyone is actually interested in roll rates, theres a good thread discussing the 109 roll chart at http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php...%20rate&pagenumber=1 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160997&perpage=25&highlight=roll%20and%20rate&pagenumber=1)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess he burned out and it's just become a daily routine of proving Britain is superior in everything, often with the exact same words, with the same nonsense put forward, trying to make up for the lack of facts with repetition and petty ad hominem attacks that sound increasingly frustrated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has anyone else noticed that Isegrim does exactly what he accuses others of? Change the word "Britain" to "Germany" in that sentence and you have an exact description of Isegrim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read that thread, another weird one.

WOLFMondo
04-20-2007, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
I dont think anyone needs to prove britian is superior in everything, or even thinks britian is superior in everything, we just know its superior to germany in everything!

Spitfire the plane,car and beer &gt; germany! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im British and unfortunately they do make better beer than us, I have to conceed. Never tried Hungarian beer though. Got a feeling it might be sour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bewolf
04-20-2007, 10:08 AM
The way I see it ALL the people here so vehemtenly going against Kurfürst in this thread in general do not behave any better atm. Insofar this thread is a perfect example of what a forum does "not" need.

JG4_Helofly
04-20-2007, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
The way I see it ALL the people here so vehemtenly going against Kurfürst in this thread in general do not behave any better atm. Insofar this thread is a perfect example of what a forum does "not" need. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
The way I see it ALL the people here so vehemtenly going against Kurfürst in this thread in general do not behave any better atm. Insofar this thread is a perfect example of what a forum does "not" need. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, it's a sad waste of time and I feel sorry for the time I've spent on even replying on some persons (altough I am delighted to see Whirlin Merlin's very honest and civilised opinion).

Really it is not neccessary to engage in such degenerated debates with persons who have a set in concrete opinion, and will keep arguing no matter what.

You can't wake up someone who pretends to be asleep. Or what Beowulf's sig says, it could be the motto for this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Kurfurst__
04-20-2007, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Im British and unfortunately they do make better beer than us, I have to conceed. Never tried Hungarian beer though. Got a feeling it might be sour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you ask me, it sucks. The foreigners I've asked though told me it's OK. Well, it's a perfectly ordinary lager, no bad, no good, it's just ordinary beer for ordinary days.

Now BELGIAN ale, that's something entirely different, dozens of world beaters are being brewed there.
I kinda understand why Belgium was a battleground so often. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BigKahuna_GS
04-20-2007, 11:58 AM
S!

quote:
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
one must bear in mind, that in the case of a USAF only scenario, sans RAF, would necessarily mean that RAF, and by extension, England would have been always destroyed/defeated, or otherwise neutral

thus, USAF cannot deploy from UK

can they deploy from africa? with no RAF/England to help, torch may not have happened...

where from then, does USAF seek to strike the LW?..seems perhaps the only choice would be to join the eastern front
but....not so easy to funnels men and materiel through Vladivostok, sitting in Japans backyard... or even Northern route, the environment is dangerous enuff alone, as it is


Fordfan-"RAF alone without USAF?it MAY be able to defend itself, at least so long as germany would be occupied with russia....and with very little offensive cabability
well if the USA were not haveing to fight the japo's "yea that always gets neglected from these discussions" thay would have a HUGE navy force to throw at germany ect. the USAF+USN=byby germany"
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



Exactly
Is this a 1v1 only ?
Britain vs Germany only and not engaging Japan also ?
USA vs Germany only and not engaging Japan also ?

With so much on the line in a 1v1 scenario, advanced technology and aircraft design would be pushed even further. Both Britain & the US would have to deploy these advanced designs as soon as possible.

Having additional PTO resources in Naval Carrier Battle groups available to engage Germany from any number of possible locations with a "hitting were they least exspect it" mentality would cause redeployments Luft resources spreading their defensive air response and making it a little thinner. All US Naval & Marine Air Groups are now availble for strategic & tactical strikes. Aircraft such as the F4U-4 & F8F Bearcat, F7F Tigercat, & AD-1 Skyraider are pushed into service sooner.

Britain would have their entire PTO Fleet Air Arm of Naval Aircraft available.
Sea Fury sooner ?

USA B-29 raids against Germany
All of the combined PTO USAAF aircraft including Heavy & Medium bombers B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, A-20s, A-26s, Night & Day Fighters P38Ls, P47Ns & P51Ds on 150 grade fuel and over boosted like they were in the PTO (P51Ds on Iwo Jima 81"MAP similar to boost levels of the Mustang Mark III). The P-80s would be pushed into service sooner to counter the German jet threat.

Little Boy & Fatman are now availble if needed to force Germany to unconditional surrender.



__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Daiichidoku: thus, USAF cannot deploy from UK

can they deploy from africa? with no RAF/England to help, torch may not have happened...
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



One alternate D-Day landing site was Italy, attack the "Belly of the Beast".

If Britain was nuetralised, this would of still been possible. Sicily/Malta could of also been used for additional air bases. Of course the terrain in Italy aided the germans but it also extended their lines of communication and material. The USAAF did deploy from Italy, it just could of done it on a more massive scale. The USAAF Bomber Force could of operated from North Africa until bases in Italy, Sicily & Malta were availble.

With the resources from the PTO available, additional invasion sites in the Mediterranean & Adriatic Seas would of been available to US Marines & US Army Forces--&gt; Invasion Forces to possibly Southeast France or the west cost of Slovakia? (west coast of countries to the south of Austria) from possible bases in North Africa & Italy.

_

Bewolf
04-20-2007, 01:26 PM
Oh my. Now it is completly going down the drain.

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
The way I see it ALL the people here so vehemtenly going against Kurfürst in this thread in general do not behave any better atm. Insofar this thread is a perfect example of what a forum does "not" need. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>An example of Kurfurst's style directed at Blutarski &gt; Blutarski, you kiss/lick the anal orfice.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ibn0061l.jpg

I don't see anyone else posting this gutter trash.

Also for those that looked at link Hop posted, notice that Kurfurst has Persona Non Grata status. The Mods got sick of the disruption he was causing. To bad the Mods here won't do the same.

Oh and Bewolf notice it is 'Kurfurst vs the world' on that board as well. It is the same on any board I have come across where he posts. That should tell you something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Really it is not neccessary to engage in such degenerated debates with persons who have a set in concrete opinion, and will keep arguing no matter what. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hello Mr B Kettle, have you met Mr B Pot?

Bewolf
04-20-2007, 03:36 PM
And you think it will improve your position or that of anybody else so active here, least aside this forum itself by making a personal vendetta out of that grudge and becoming as personal and polemic as the one you blame it for?

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 04:16 PM
Are you really that blind? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif There is a root cause and that is Kurfurst's German aryan supremicy and anti British agenda. As I said, it is the same on every board I have come across where he posts. I have read many of the old posts here and you have been here long enough (Dec 02) to see a pattern &gt; Kurfurst, and a few other of the same ilk (aryan supremicy) vs the world.

There is a way to remove the root cause of the disruption here, as was done on the AH board, or he looses the bigoted myotic tunnel vision of his agendas.

As for personal vendatta, look first at your hero.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2007, 04:28 PM
Perhaps controversially Ihave to say that apart from that one document I have never seen or heard of a 109 with more than one drop tank, and I've seen quite a number of photos of 109s with drop tanks. They are all relatively large centrally mounted tanks. A three tank plane must have been a rare bird if it existed.

By way of conversion 66 impersial gallons is exactly 300 litres.

JSG72
04-20-2007, 04:28 PM
Ok! Never read the 7 pages before.

And now. Slightly squiffy.

I take it the Germans still lost the War?

Due to the fact that.............Their Arse, didn't know what their Elbow was doing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kindoff like what goes on Today. (We learn't a lot from the War?).

Bewolf
04-20-2007, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Are you really that blind? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif There is a root cause and that is Kurfurst's German aryan supremicy and anti British agenda. As I said, it is the same on every board I have come across where he posts. I have read many of the old posts here and you have been here long enough (Dec 02) to see a pattern &gt; Kurfurst, and a few other of the same ilk (aryan supremicy) vs the world.

There is a way to remove the root cause of the disruption here, as was done on the AH board, or he looses the bigoted myotic tunnel vision of his agendas.

As for personal vendatta, look first at your hero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen, I do not much care if you are right nor not here. But let's assume you are. It won't improve "anything" to pick it up and answer in the same manner. It is "all" up to oleg how to influence the gameplay. Nobody cares **** about the outcome of the arguments here aside the "combatants". The only reason why a forum like this is of any interest is the information delivered in such discussions. But the joy and will to read such information exchanges is not just threatend by trolls, but even more so by the those people feeding the trolls, thus entirely rendering a discussion a pest. Even in the case that Kurfürst is a Troll, he at least ignores the ones he knows he clashes with. I suggest you to do the same. This would be the "common sense" way and "the smarter person backs away" type of tactic so rarely seen here. Cuz if you fight these discussions with the intend to convince not so informed bystanders from your POV, it won't work, cuz nobody aside those with a joy for drama read this anymore anyways.

Sergio_101
04-20-2007, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course both you and luftluuver manipulate the document and only post the page 3 of the paper, since page 2 tells the conditions relevant to the range figures given (it states the range is to be understood for an aircraft spending 5 minutes at maximum power, and otherwise cruising at 600 km/h, and from that figure further 20% was substracted). And of course both of you have did this already at least 4-5 times in other threads. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL Kurfurst. I posted the other pages so who really is the liar. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfie/Isegrim/Barbi rarely lies outright.
He carefuly shows the desired slice of information
or mixes facts with fabrications.
That is masterful generation of propaganda.

Sergio