PDA

View Full Version : Could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war? You decide. Mission inside:



Pages : [1] 2

Flying_Nutcase
01-13-2005, 02:38 AM
Hi there fellow Oleg fanboys. lol.


After much patient practice I have to say that the experts are right - head-on attacks against bombers are way more effective.

http://www.jumpintojapan.com/images/fb-pf-missions/relentless/ubi-1.jpg

I've put together two missions:

A training mission to practice head-ons from the 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock positions, called 'B17 Off-Center'.

And go up against five formations of the formidable B-17 in the full mission 'Relentless'.

http://www.jumpintojapan.com/images/fb-pf-missions/relentless/ubi-2.jpg

Get the mission files, ntrk and screenshots at:

Nutcase's Quick & Fun Missions for PF/FB. (http://jumpintojapan.com/fb-pf-missions.html)

So, could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war?

Try it and find out!


Salut ~


Nutcase


P.S. In 'Relentless', my best effort was six kills flying full switch (i.e. limited ammo). Anyone want to try for seven? Send me the post-mission screenshot and I'll stick it up for all to admire. :-)

SeaFireLIV
01-13-2005, 02:54 AM
Well I don`t fly Jerry, but historically, if enough 262s could have been built in time (say pre-1943), if they were mostly used in a fighter role and if the Allies hadn`t bomb the aircraft industry infrastructure to ribbons...

Yes, they would definitely have forced the Allies to think twice about any kind of B17 bomber air strikes and even stopped D-Day!

WildeSau
01-13-2005, 02:59 AM
If built immediatley and in good numbers and if used in the right role - as a fighter and not as a bomber, they might have prolonged the war for a few months but certainly not changed the outcome of it.

WildeSau

Flying_Nutcase
01-13-2005, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildeSau:
If built immediatley and in good numbers and if used in the right role - as a fighter and not as a bomber, they might have prolonged the war for a few months but certainly not changed the outcome of it.

WildeSau <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops, I meant the 'air war'.

WUAF_Badsight
01-13-2005, 03:26 AM
Q: " Could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war ? "

only if Adolf Galland had been listened too instead of ignored

thankfully , his reccommendations were totally ignored & the Moron in charge got his way

.

Adolf Galland in a 1991 interview :

"if i had gotten my way , Me-262 development would had been the number one priority & we could have had 800 flying by december 43"

thankfully , he didnt

Flying_Nutcase
01-13-2005, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Q: " _Could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war_ ? "

only if Adolf Galland had been listened too instead of ignored

thankfully , his reccommendations were totally ignored & the Moron in charge got his way

.

Adolf Galland in a 1991 interview :

"if i had gotten my way , Me-262 development would had been the number one priority & we could have had 800 flying by december 43"

thankfully , he didnt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

800 by '44? Yakes.

BTW, is he still alive?

Flydutch
01-13-2005, 03:37 AM
Luckely for everybody, it did not prolong the onslaught of Humankind any longer then it did!

SeaFireLIV
01-13-2005, 03:48 AM
Yep, scary to think how close it all came to going the other way...

btw, I didn`t know Adolf Galland was still alive by 1991..

Flying_Nutcase
01-13-2005, 04:20 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Yep, scary to think how close it all came to going the other way...
QUOTE]

Indeed. We take the way things are and what happened for granted, but history is a very fickle thing.

I read in the paper today how the Russian winter is now almost mild, e.g. apparently recently in Moscow it's been about 7 degrees celsius (45 degrees Farenheit) compared with -40 C (also -40 F) at this time in 1942 (can anyone from Russia verify this?).

You've got to wonder what difference that could have made to modern history.

p1ngu666
01-13-2005, 04:39 AM
dont invade russia, u gonna freeze if u do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the me262 is actully a good bomber, nearest we get to a mossie ingame, thats what hitler wanted bomber me262... tobe like mossie

Spitf_ACE
01-13-2005, 05:34 AM
Weather in Moscow. (http://weather.cnn.com/weather/forecast.jsp?locCode=MOSX)

Today it's 3 degrees celsius, but next week it'll drop down to about -7 during the day, and -12 at night.

Moscow is far from the coldest place in Russia, it still reaches -40, and hasn't changed much in the last 60 years.

Fritzofn
01-13-2005, 05:57 AM
actually, what nearly turned the tide was the Schweinfurt raids, the allies lost so many bombers that they had a serious discoussion about the effectivness of daylight bombing, and this ESPESIALLY after the rebuild factory was up to 150% more effective then the bombed out one.


262 alone could not have turned the tide, but 262, 163, and the single engine ME-10XX (forgot the designation) and FW TA-183 might have had a thing or 2 too say.

What killed germany was TOO many projects (ref www.luft46.com (http://www.luft46.com) ) at the same time, and a prolonged building of the FW190 and ME109.

Yimmy
01-13-2005, 06:29 AM
If the war had lasted longer, and there was time for the Me262 to enter mass production, it would have been eatern alive by meteors and F80's.

Athosd
01-13-2005, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
After much patient practice I have to say that the experts are right - head-on attacks against bombers are _way_ more effective.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Headon was certainly considered best for prop fighters - though I recall Galland and Steinhoff commenting that the closure rate was too great for this in the 262 (no doubt its all a great deal easier in our sim).
In his book "The Last Chance" Steinhoff mentions that a stern attack was the best approach, for the 262, as it offered a reasonable window for engaging the target - without running into it.

As to the Me262 changing the course of the airwar - if introduced early enough and in sufficient numbers the air campaigns over western and central Europe would certainly have been quite different.

Cheers

Athos

Rebel_Yell_21
01-13-2005, 09:16 AM
The Me-262 would absolutely have changed the air war. For a while. Allied engineers quickly overcame every obstacle they encountered while on the full wartime economy of late WWII,and, as such would have put far more advanced aircraft (which were a waste of money based on what was being encountered at the time) into production in an amazingly short period of time. Net result, delays, but no change in the end.

My .02

Von_Zero
01-13-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yimmy:
If the war had lasted longer, and there was time for the Me262 to enter mass production, it would have been eatern alive by meteors and F80's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. Me262 entered mass production (too late though)
2. neither the P-80 or the Gloster Meteor would have had may chances against a 262, mainly because, despite the limits the 262 had (wich were not only design limits but mostly problems releated to the proper manufacture of the components) it was a well tested and studied aircraft (the original program started around 1939, IIRC). You could find lots of sources to atest that the Meteor had a difficult "birth", and its engines had serious problems up to Mk.III or Mk.IV (i always confuse these two http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) that were solved after the war was over. I don't want' to start a F-80/Meteor vs Me262 war here, but the latter was superoiur to the others even if only for its swept wing design.
as already said, if Galland would have been listened, planes like the Me 262 and the Ar-234, having trained pilots and enough fuel, most probably would have put an end to the daylight bombing campaign.

Chuck_Older
01-13-2005, 09:54 AM
Could the metalurgy have been worked out even if the time had been available? The list of 'what ifs' is huge

Sharkey888
01-13-2005, 10:01 AM
I also used to go with the Galland/Speer line of blaming Hitler for trying to use them in a FB role, but maybe he was right!!
How about 100-200 ME-262 fighter bombers used against the D-Day Invasion. They might have had a larger impact on the war than being used against the heavy bombers.

DuxCorvan
01-13-2005, 10:20 AM
Q: " Could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war ? "

Oh, yes, by falling on Hitler and his staff's head the presentation test day...

The war would have finished earlier.

But, seriously, only USA had the human and material resources to face a sustained big scale war effort and develope the A bomb. Even if war had lasted a few months more, by summer 1945 would be all decided. Only the US had a real war-winning weapon.

WildeSau
01-13-2005, 10:38 AM
Hey Flying Nutcase - sorry, didn't read it correctly.

But I would say the same also to the airwar - it would have prolonged it but the outcome would have been the same.

WildeSau

Buckaroo12
01-13-2005, 11:59 AM
For what it's worth, here's my 2 cents.

Someone mentioned that only the US had the large scale infrastructure to sustain and win a war and develop the a-bomb. This is correct for the situation, but only after the Americans had bombed German industries to the stone age. If the Germans had been able to decimate american bomber formations in 43, it would have given German industry breathing room to step up production of war materials and the research sites time and space to refine the design and quality of the 262 and develop f/b variants. D-Day never would've happened on the scale that it did if the fleet could not have sailed under the umbrella of air superiority. Imagine hundreds of torpedo equipped jets too fast for the gunners to track annihalting the invasion fleet off the french coast.

As far as the A-bomb went, the Germans had their own Atomic weapons program and I have no doubt that the testing grounds would've been London or Moscow. The Germans were even planning a successor to the V-2 which would've been capable of delivering an a-bomb to new york city. How long would American public support last in the face of that development?

I don't imagine that the 262 could've enabled Germany to hang a swastika in Ottawa or Washington. But it may have been able to let Germany negotiate a peace that allowed it to keep most of Europe.

But aside from the 262, if Hitler had let his generals run the war the way they wanted to he wouldn't have lost entire armies in Russia with his "hold the line" policies. If Hitler had invaded and neutralized Britain before he attacked Russia, the americans would've had to ship troops through Russia or Africa in order to invade Europe and that could've made a huge difference.

I personally think that the 262 COULD'VE helped Germany conclude the war favourably, but it was only 1 of the many blunders made by Germany.

p1ngu666
01-13-2005, 12:50 PM
miles m52 woulda been faster than 262, buy a large margin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

aprently the japanease had a atomic weapons plan too. and the germans where stopped by the hero's of telemark, blew up heavy water plant 2x http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif. more impressivly they had little backup, and food, hadto scavenge in artic winter conditions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

and they all managed to get away from the germans after the bombing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

No601_prangster
01-13-2005, 01:13 PM
Actually the Germans were no where near developing an atomic bomb. Part of the reason was that they drove out most of there best physicists in the 1930's because they were Jewish.

As to destroying the invasion fleet with jet bombers that is exactly what Hitler hoped to do and it is why he converted Me262 fighter production into bombers. War production in Germany was terrible disorganised and inefficient until 1944 by which time in didn€t matter about the fighters they had already lost.

Yes the Me262 used in quantity as a fighter may have lengthened the war but it would only have lasted four more months before the US dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin.

Buckaroo12
01-13-2005, 01:31 PM
Again, with the A-bomb on Berlin, you are of course assuming that the bomber could've reached it's destination. With a weapon like that, I wonder if the americans would've risked losing it to German scientists if they didn't control the skies over europe. Remember, the question is based on the presumption that the 262 would've entered FULL production and deployed in strength as a fighter in early 1944 with pilots fully trained on its capabilities. I think if it had been deployed in strength it could've re-established Air Superiority over Europe at least for the Germans. I remember reading and watching documentaries as well written by allied tank commanders who speculated that if the Germans had been able to refine enough fuel for their panzer and tiger divisions, the battle of the bulge may have taken the allies all the way back to the french coast.

Von_Zero
01-13-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but it would only have lasted four more months before the US dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
possibly not:
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/nzisub4j.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

also, as Buckaroo said, the part with the A-bomb would take place after Germany would own the skies over Europe.

horseback
01-13-2005, 01:39 PM
Certainly, the Me-262 would have changed the course of the war if it had shown up in numbers before January of 1944. The Allies in the West had aircraft like the P-51H, P-47N and Spitfire Mk XIV already in the pipeline, and the P-80 & Meteor were not that far behind in priority, at least in the US.

All of these programs lost a lot of their urgency when it became obvious that the Germans were not able to beat us in the air during the 6 months prior to D-Day.

Had the 262 made any serious impact, all of these programs would have been seriously ramped up, and the P-80 would certainly have been a key player in the air combat over Europe after the invasion of France in the spring of 1945.

As to the fantasy of jets dropping torpedoes against an Allied fleet, it should be remembered that torpedoes usually had to be dropped from a maximum height of somewhat less than 40m at speeds somewhat less than the 262's (or the Ar 234's) stalling speed.

cheers

horseback

No601_prangster
01-13-2005, 01:45 PM
Von_Zero Germany had more uranium that the US but it didn't mean they were any nearer producing a bomb. Germany hadn't even managed to make a working pile a point the US passed in 1942. When the allies recorded the conversation of German scientist in prison after the war they realised that the German didn't even think a working weapon was possible.

The Japanese were even further behind although the Manhattan scientists were aware of the Japanese scientists interest in producing a bomb and even wrote a letter addressed to them that was tied to an instrument package drop to monitored the Nagasaki explosion.

SeaFireLIV
01-13-2005, 02:58 PM
I don`t believe that there is any clear-cut answers to this question. So much depends on SO many parameters...

Perhaps a fleet of 262s would`ve halted D-day, perhaps a similar number of Brit and American Jets would`ve countered them, perhaps the Allies would foul up and make more (and bigger) mistakes and perhaps the Luftwaffe leadership would have made all the right decisions and been a little lucky.

Who knows? It`s all history now and thankfully, the right guys made the right decisions (mostly).

But it makes for an interesting debate.

HvyPetals
01-13-2005, 03:39 PM
"only if" galland was listened too? uh, we'd all be ash now if the germans won WWII you realize that right? For all the dash and efficiency of the combat arms in those days the regime was really out to exterminate the world.

that said, the 262 even if it was introduced in 1939 wouldnt have won the germans the war. the US wouldve nuked them just like they did the Japanese.

oops somebody already said that. sorry

Flying_Nutcase
01-13-2005, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildeSau:
Hey Flying Nutcase - sorry, didn't read it correctly.

But I would say the same also to the airwar - it would have prolonged it but the outcome would have been the same.

WildeSau <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no. You read it correctly. I changed the wording from the original. lol.

Abbuzze
01-13-2005, 04:51 PM
No answer to the thread question, but a few facts.

1st- The USA started to develop the A-bomb, cause Einstein feared that the Nazis already started their A-bomb programm and could got it earlier.

2nd- When the US-Army captured Heisenberg, the chiefdeveloper of the german A-bomb, they were surprised how faw away they were from building it

Conclusion: If you are surpised- you don´t know something, do you real believe the british would let the USAAF drop an A-Bomb to Berlin, with the risk that the next V2 (or similar rocket) dont carry TNT but an atomic warhead to London???

Take a look at the whole chemical weapons all sides had- noone wanted to open the pandoras box...


Beside an interesting fact, many german scientist said after the war that they didn´t want to give Hitler an A-bomb. In reality they where real far away from building it, they even missed some basic knownledge...
On the other side after Heisenberg heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he calculated the critical mass very close in his prison in GB in a real short time ... the US Team needed some more guys and more Time for this...
We will never know if Heisenbergs Team were unable, or simply didn´t want to build the bomb....

No601_prangster
01-13-2005, 05:03 PM
The British would have assumed correctly that if Hitler had an atomic bomb he would have used it already.

sulla04
01-13-2005, 05:11 PM
Definitely could have stopped the bombing raids night and day if available in #'s by 44.Remember that 1944 even with allied bombing was the year where german production was the greatest of the war.As far as the bomb no germany was no where near.Speer laughed out loud when the building of a bomb was discussed,they simply didn't have enough resources.But luckily for the rest of the world Hitler thought that the allies were as far advanced with nerve gas as germany.Remember the US had 2 bombs.Germany had tons of nerve gas all ready and waiting.Am A bomb on berlin would have been devastating,but the next day would have seen the annihilation of millions and millions in Great Britain.

darkhorizon11
01-13-2005, 05:18 PM
Theres so many factors to consider.

I don't know about the Atomic Bomb, I was watching a special on the history channel and the Allies estimated it would've taken the Germans another two years to have an operational atomic bomb. Given it is the history channel so take it for whats its worth.

Despite the advantages of the 262 it couldn't alone change the course of the war. Even combined with the 162 the number of bombers the Allies were hurling at the Third Reich were simply too much.

To be honest I most dangerous weapon and advanced the Germans were developing (besides the A-Bomb) Were was the Feuerlillie and Wasserfall surface to air missiles. Though they were very basic, they would have caused Allied bomber losses to more than double per mission with no added risk to pilots. Its the same effect the V-1 and V-2 would've had if they were more accurate. Mind you there was really no defense since the missiles weren't radar heat-seeking, but guided by a man in a booth.

To put it into context, even today crude shoulder lanched SA-7 missles are still a great threat to even the most advanced fighter jets today. The only difference is that the SA-7 is heat seeking.

www.luft46.com (http://www.luft46.com)

Look at the bottom under missles theres a wealth of information there.

No601_prangster
01-13-2005, 05:23 PM
Britain had huge stocks of gas and Churchill had issued orders for it to be used in event of an invasion. The fact that nether side used gas during the war was partly due to deterrents but principally due to the difficulty of delivering it effectively.

A german gas bombing blitz might have killed a few ten's of thousand people in britain but Britain had far more heavy bombers and would have responded in kind.

darkhorizon11
01-13-2005, 05:29 PM
A second note. The original poster said "changed the course of the air war" and many replies here say winning the war.

There is a BIG difference. For the Nazi's winning the war meant invading England, forcing the USSR to capitulate, and getting their hands on the near infinite oil reserves in the Middle East.

For Italy, winning the war (post 1943) meant forcing the Allies out of Italy and Africa. And as a whole, the designation as being the biggest world power in Europe besides Germany.

For Japan, winning the war meant pushing all Western (or eastern how ever you want to look at it), influence out of the Pacific Ocean and the Eastern portion of Asia.

Although stopping the Allied bomber offensive would have completely changed the situation, by late 1943 absolute victory was nearly impossible. Especially for Japan, since there was really no hope or possibilily of victory after late 1942, the Japanese knew this even before Pearl Harbor.

Worse case scenario, Britain and the Soviet Union may have fallen, but for the Axis powers to invade and occupy North America would be impossible. There would have been peace treaty, or even worse, if the war dragged on, the Germans may have caught up to the Americans, and a nuclear war would've followed. I'm not even going to speculate what would happen then, since fortunately there has never been an all-out nuclear war, ever.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

No601_prangster
01-13-2005, 05:43 PM
Overall I don't think the Me262 would have made much of a difference. Even if it had managed to wipe the allied bombers from the skies of Germany the Red Army would still have overrun Berlin. Germany just didn't have the manpower to stop them and the Russian's had plenty of anti-aircraft guns to protect their troops.

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
So, could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Changed the course? Sure.. the course would have been different.. but the outcome would have been the same.. Except for the fact that the *delay* induced by and earlier apearance of the Me262 means that Germany would have been the first nation hit with an A-BOMB instead of Japan.. So, in short, Hitler requesting the Me262 be used as a bomber probally saved hundred of thousands of German lifes.

EPP-Gibbs
01-13-2005, 07:05 PM
I don't think the ME262 would have made much difference at the time. Apart from producing enough and training enough pilots to fly it, they would have had to keep enough serviceable as well. The engines were unreliable. The Allies would simply have increased the use of tactics developed to counter them..High alt fighters using speed in a dive to catch 262's, patrols over their airfields to catch them on take off/landing, etc. With the numerical superiority the Allies had at the time they'd have probably manged to contain them....then there's bombing the production plants, fuel sources, etc....

SeaFireLIV
01-13-2005, 07:08 PM
Well, Tagert, you haven`t read some of the other interesting comments on that, namely Britain would not condone America taking such an act when it was very possible (as far as they could tell at the time) that the Germans just might do the same to them.

Remember, Hitler was firing unmmaned rockets at and hitting London (V1s). I`m sure Churchill did not want one German A-Bomb retaliation on them.

I also greatly doubt that America would retaliate to 262s with an A-bomb. There were OTHER alternatives.

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, Tagert, you haven`t read some of the other interesting comments on that, namely Britain would not condone America taking such an act when it was very possible (as far as they could tell at the time) that the Germans just might do the same to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, but you would be in error assuming I have not read that. That combined with the fact that Germany didnt have an ABOMB makes it kind of mute imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Remember, Hitler was firing unmmaned rockets at and hitting London (V1s). I`m sure Churchill did not want one German A-Bomb retaliation on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Remember that Germany didnt have an ABOMB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I also greatly doubt that America would retaliate to 262s with an A-bomb. There were OTHER alternatives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note I never said they would use the ABOMB as retaliation.. I simply pointed out that had the war lasted longer that the ABOMB would have been dropped on Germany. Keep in mind that statement is based on the assumption that the early use of the Me262 would have provided Germany the *will* and *means* to fight. In RL had the war gone as it did.. And Germany managed to stick it out a few more months.. We probally would not have used it on Germany.. It was clear from 44 on they were loosing.. But had they had a chance of winning in and around the time the ABOMB was ready.. Well.. Lets just say the USA would not give a d@m what the UK thought.. Better the UK in 45 than the US in 46.

BlackShrike
01-13-2005, 07:27 PM
several misconceptions here.

1 262s are not good fighterbombers. they would have been wasted at dday and in fact the extra time used to make 262 fighterbombers is a major reason they came too late.

2 having 262 fighters almost 2 years earlier than they were introduced would have completely eliminated the allied bombing raids. so germanys infractstructure would have been secure.

3 the allies would Not have been able to mount any kind of fighter sweeps against germany in late 42 and all of 43. 262s would have decimated the prop fighters of that timeframe.

thus germany would have MANY more fighters and pilots by 1945. and most would be experienced in 45. i shudder to think of how many german pilots and fighters would have been saved by the early emergence of the 262

the 262 was a war altering plane. it was intruduced in the last months of the war. too late.

german bombers would have much greater protection with jets defending them. it would be suicide to attack german bombers with jets flying CAP.

AND MOST important of all the allies would never ever have been able to invade france on dday without fighter superiority. the allies would have been subjected to the same devastation that the germans faced with allied fighterbombers harrassing them constantly.

for the very same reason hitler couldnt invade britain the allies could never have invaded france.

and contrary to common myths and beliefs the allied armies were not better than the germans. the only reason patton and all allied armies could push back german troops is with air support which would be non existant with jets around and german fighter bombers attacking allied ground troops.

and all that malarkey about dropping A bombs on germany is a joke. americas only main focus was japan and we would only drop A bombs on japan first. we had 2 only. we dropped both. in 1945. it would have taken 2 or more years to make even 1 more A bomb. so were talking 1947 at earliest that we would have another nuke to drop.

and we would probably not at that point ever drop a nuke on germany because we wouldnt have invaded france at all without air superiority. we would have had to come to terms with germany in a similar way that we did with russia. it would have become a cold war with no ground troops engaging on the european continent. remember we only dropped the A bomb on japan as a LAST RESORT. and only because it would cost more lives in invading japan with troops. we would have had no chance to invade germany in the first place. dropping one A bomb on germany would have zero effect of stopping their war effort. japan was already completely beat when we dropped the A bombs on them. their cities were all destroyed by carpet bombing already. their navy was completely gone . and they were only a naval power. they had no air force left to speak of. and japan had not many troops left on the main island that were experienced. japan was a sitting duck and that is why they finally surrendered. NOT because we dropped A bombs on them. those 2 bombs had nothing to do with the destruction of japan. they were just the final period on a very long paragraph. A bombing germany would not scare them into surrender. not at all.

anyone that disagrees with this needs to go read a few books on the ground offensive in europe. no way would we have beat germany without total air supremacy. they were tough troops and fanatical.

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
several misconceptions here.

1 262s are not good fighterbombers. they would have been wasted at dday and in fact the extra time used to make 262 fighterbombers is a major reason they came too late.

2 having 262 fighters almost 2 years earlier than they were introduced would have completely eliminated the allied bombing raids. so germanys infractstructure would have been secure.

3 the allies would Not have been able to mount any kind of fighter sweeps against germany in late 42 and all of 43. 262s would have decimated the prop fighters of that timeframe.

thus germany would have MANY more fighters and pilots by 1945. and most would be experienced in 45. i shudder to think of how many german pilots and fighters would have been saved by the early emergence of the 262

the 262 was a war altering plane. it was intruduced in the last months of the war. too late.

german bombers would have much greater protection with jets defending them. it would be suicide to attack german bombers with jets flying CAP.

AND MOST important of all the allies would never ever have been able to invade france on dday without fighter superiority. the allies would have been subjected to the same devastation that the germans faced with allied fighterbombers harrassing them constantly.

for the very same reason hitler couldnt invade britain the allies could never have invaded france.

and contrary to common myths and beliefs the allied armies were not better than the germans. the only reason patton and all allied armies could push back german troops is with air support which would be non existant with jets around and german fighter bombers attacking allied ground troops.

and all that malarkey about dropping A bombs on germany is a joke. americas only main focus was japan and we would only drop A bombs on japan first. we had 2 only. we dropped both. in 1945. it would have taken 2 or more years to make even 1 more A bomb. so were talking 1947 at earliest that we would have another nuke to drop.

and we would probably not at that point ever drop a nuke on germany because we wouldnt have invaded france at all without air superiority. we would have had to come to terms with germany in a similar way that we did with russia. it would have become a cold war with no ground troops engaging on the european continent.

anyone that disagrees with this needs to go read a few books on the ground offensive in europe. no way would we have beat germany without total air supremacy. they were tough troops and fanatical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO but not IMHO

BlackShrike
01-13-2005, 07:40 PM
i edited my A bomb thesis in last post somewhat.


and my opinion is based on reading many books on the war in the pacific and the ETO war. im extrapolating on what i think would have realistically happened had germany got jets into the air quicker which they easily could have except for hitlers mistaken misdirections.

i am very pro american and believe we are the best. but i am a realist when it comes to these things. the jets would have been totally morale crippling against allied and russian allied pilots.

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and my opinion is based on reading many books on the war in the pacific and the ETO war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which does not change the fact that it is just your opinion. That is to say some experts look at the data and conclude that there is Global Warming.. Other experts look at the same data and conclude that there is an Ice Age comming. All in all they are guessing at the future.. As for Germany winning WWII.. All I know is that Im living in the future relitive to WWII and Germany didnt win.. Which IMHO is all the data that maters at the end of the day! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
im extrapolating on what i think would have realistically happened had germany got jets into the air quicker which they easily could have except for hitlers mistaken misdirections. i am very pro american and believe we are the best. but i am a realist when it comes to these things. the jets would have been totally morale crippling against allied and russian allied pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat theory and all.. But the fact is your basing it on one variable.. the Me262.. Assuming that nothing else would have changed.. Simple fact is the USA would have simply addjusted thier tatics and still won the war imho. Something as SIMPLE as switching to night bombing raids like the Brits would have cancled out the Me262 speed advantage in attacking swarms of bombers! There.. see how easy that was? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BlackShrike
01-13-2005, 07:53 PM
tagert take this as friendly arguement btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the germans modified their 262s as night fighters and they were very scary planes for the allied bombers. so the switching to night raids wouldnt have worked and night raids were very ineffective compared to day raids anyway.

it would have been almost impossible to shoot down german jets at night also.

and finally to the one gentleman who thinks the russians would have reached berlin think again. without the dday invasion germany would have used its full forces against russian ground troops and with its infrastructure still intact they would have had fuel for tanks and planes and spare parts and russia would have not had a chance at all. russian command and control couldnt hold a candle to the german generals.

battles and wars have been won on little details. and the 262 was a major factor not a small detail. large formations of 262s with experienced pilots would have been totally impossible to shoot down.

think :FINAL COUNTDOWN: the movie where american tomcat jets decimated the japanese invasion fleet off of hawaii.

large formations of jets cannot be matched by prop planes. it is not possible young padwans

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
tagert take this as friendly arguement btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same here!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
the germans modified their 262s as night fighters and they were very scary planes for the allied bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Scarry.. Enh.. Scarry dont win wars! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif FACT is all that extra SPEED that gives the Me262 an advantage during the day would have been a negative at night.. Granted they would be able to GET TO the bombers area sooner.. But once there they would have had to slow down to attack the slow bombers or they would have ran into them at night.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
so the switching to night raids wouldnt have worked and night raids were very ineffective compared to day raids anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%. Again.. your looking at just ONE variable changing.. FACT is *IF* the Me262 posed a threat to daylight bombing raids the switching to night raids and hitting 3/4 of the targets you use to hit during the day would be MORE EFFECTIVE than hitting 1/2 of what you use to during the day due to the Me262 being present.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
it would have been almost impossible to shoot down german jets at night also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two sides to that coin

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and finally to the one gentleman who thinks the russians would have reached berlin think again. without the dday invasion germany would have used its full forces against russian ground troops and with its infrastructure still intact they would have had fuel for tanks and planes and spare parts and russia would have not had a chance at all. russian command and control couldnt hold a candle to the german generals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You dont give the russian much credit.. Hitler made the same mistake once.. ONCE! The russins for the most part won the war in euro.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
battles and wars have been won on little details. and the 262 was a major factor not a small detail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many make the mistake of focusing on one detail and thinking it was what won the battle/war.. But that is typically a very nieve point of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
large formations of 262s with experienced pilots would have been totally impossible to shoot down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Assuming that nothing else would have changed.. But we know that would not be the case. Tatics would have changed and the US would have problly just scalled up the tatic of flying out ahead and capping the Me262 bases as they did.. Which work very well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
think :FINAL COUNTDOWN: the movie where american tomcat jets decimated the japanese invasion fleet off of hawaii. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>HHEHHEAHEAHHHEHHEHAHEEHeee.. Your kidding right? You claim to have read all these books and you have to rely on a movie reference? PLEASE! A F14 with a2a missles is no Me262!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
large formations of jets cannot be matched by prop planes. it is not possible young padwans <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One on one the Sherman was no match for a tiger tank either.. It took 3 Shermans to defeat one Tiger.. Thank god we had like 5 to 1.. Which would have been the case for the Me262 with regards to the US aircraft.

LEXX_Luthor
01-13-2005, 08:13 PM
BlackShrike:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>without the dday invasion germany would have used its full forces against russian ground troops and... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kursk, been there, done that. Germany lost the war July 1943, and lost it on the ground, forever. The German Army could never make up for the losses on Eastern Front with the same Quality of troops they had in 1941-1942, while USA troops were just starting to get warmed up by 1943.

In the Alternative 262 History, Germany would keep good industry and USA would just keep ramping up production so the end result is the same. As early as 1944 USA cut back making planes and pilots, too many lol, but not in this Alternative 262 History. The 262 History would have made a far more "spectacular" and bloody war, but the same end result.

The ground war on Eastern Front is where we find all the "what ifs" that might have changed the final outcome of the war. What if Hitler listened to his Generals who opposed the Kursk operation instead of retiring them? What if Stalin listened to his Generals instead of shooting almost all of them in 1930s, the Generals who were prepared for a "surprise" invasion from Germany, and the Generals who favoured 4 engine heavy strategic bombers--Stalin shot them too.

BlackShrike
01-13-2005, 08:27 PM
i read all thru kursk. germany didnt have enough resources to make it very effective but true that was a turning point in germanys offensives in russia.

but kursk in no way made it possible for germany to be invaded. not with all the armys at germanys disposal being available. and in defensive mode germany couldnt have been penetrated. remember germany would have a full air force with the 262 protecting the fw190s and me109s.

and true too that america could by far outproduce germany. but in 1944 the invasion couldnt have taken place without complete air domination and even with our serious advantages in materials and production an invasion of normandy would have been impossible with german air superiority of jets fws and me109s along with bombers and such.

only after america won the war in the pacific and if they parked 100 carriers off the french coast and built up their invasion force much larger could they have got a toe hold on french soil and it would have cost the allies more than the germans without total air superiority. the german artillery would have pounded american aircraft carriers id think.

you have to think in terms of invading beaches. just think about landing at iwo jima if the japanese had more planes than us AND jets too...


or worse imagine 262 jets by the hundreds capping the coastline as allied troops landed. even with our superior production we need to land it and organize it first for it to be effective. i believe that would have been impossible with the 262 in large production.

remember without air support no allied or american incursions into france would have been successful. even if we waited till 1947 or 48 to invade with many more troops.

and hitler would have possibly been dead by then due to mental disease. then we might face a much tougher battle. but i digress from the basic premice of jet superiority. strike that last thought about hitler.

p1ngu666
01-13-2005, 08:53 PM
in a kursk book i recently read, it said the germans nearly got thru the defenses, but the allies invaded italy and units where transfered to there.

why is 262 a **** fighter bomber? 500kg bomb load, the cannons would be ok against soft targets, its got tons of speed too.

russia was THE main theatre of operations in ww2. i think its like 3 out of 5 dead from ww2 where russian. average loss of 19,000russians PER DAY of the war.

the german land forces where unbeaten till moscow (driven back) and then stalingrad....

russians didnt actully have tons more troops, they did have far better production, germany had the capacity (thanks to capturing france etc) to make more, but it didnt. germany also captured 40% of russian production areas quickly (most of it evacuated and setup again amazingly quickly tho)

what about if hitler invaded middle east/africa instead of russia, or japan joins up with germany and goes after russia, leaving the pacific alone

LEXX_Luthor
01-13-2005, 08:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

They would have done things different. By changing the history of one thing, Me~262, you change the history of everything.

For example, If USA/Brits could not find a beach, they would never "think in terms of invading beaches". They would probably do far more to Fund the ground campaign coming from the East, sending supplies up through Iran and Alaska into Russia if they could not go through Murmansk (assuming Me~262 closes the Murmansk route http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

I just now actually *read* the thread title. Yes, 262 would have changed the air war totally, in ways flight simmers can only dream of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Basically, Germany did NOT have the population to fight this kind of war and win against the enemies Germany Chose (or rather, Hitler and friends Chose).

Not sure about Hitler's mental state. When things are going well, Hitler made better decisons. And he did make some brilliant strategy decisions early on. An alternative 262 History would probably Cheer him up into less maniacal leadership.

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and true too that america could by far outproduce germany. but in 1944 the invasion couldnt have taken place without complete air domination and even with our serious advantages in materials and production an invasion of normandy would have been impossible with german air superiority of jets fws and me109s along with bombers and such. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100% As with the example of switching to night bombing the US would have simply changed tatics.. For example, Battle of the Buldge.. Air Superiority was negated by the weather.. Yet the US prevailed.. So, Air Superiorty is important.. But it is only one variable.. One of many.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
only after america won the war in the pacific and if they parked 100 carriers off the french coast and built up their invasion force much larger could they have got a toe hold on french soil and it would have cost the allies more than the germans without total air superiority. the german artillery would have pounded american aircraft carriers id think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. your assumimg that nothing would have changed.. If it came to that, they simply would have invaded from the south from Italy.. The only reason we liburated France was because it was part of the shortest path from the UK to to Germany. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
you have to think in terms of invading beaches. just think about landing at iwo jima if the japanese had more planes than us AND jets too... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! A perfect example! JUST LOOK AT HOW MANY LANDINGS THE US DID IN WWII! The US was and is the best at moving troops around! If not France, than some other route, all in all it was not a mater of if but when Germany would loose.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
or worse imagine 262 jets by the hundreds capping the coastline as allied troops landed. even with our superior production we need to land it and organize it first for it to be effective. i believe that would have been impossible with the 262 in large production. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Imagine THOUSANDS of props fighters bouncing those Jets as they tried to straif out troops. Remember the Sherman example.. took 3 to 1 to beat a Tiger.. But we had like 6 to 1. Same would have been true for the air war! That and had the Me262 appear sooner.. The US would have just put more effort into getting the P80 online.. But in RL there was no rush.. The props were dealing with the blowers just fine

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
remember without air support no allied or american incursions into france would have been successful. even if we waited till 1947 or 48 to invade with many more troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO not IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and hitler would have possibly been dead by then due to mental disease. then we might face a much tougher battle. but i digress from the basic premice of jet superiority. strike that last thought about hitler. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some see Hitler as the best General the Allieds had due to all his blunders.. Fact is the Germans should be happy Hitler was such a boob.. In that had a real General been running things it would have prolonged the war and requires the US to nuke most of Germany... AT NIGHT! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-13-2005, 09:10 PM
night bombing was highly inefficient

& yes , with 800 Me-262's in full service by December 1943 , they would have massivly cleared the skies

air superiority would have changed to the German side & there would have been no D-Day

in other words , yes to the Me262 being able to change the course of the war

luckily , it didnt

TAGERT.
01-13-2005, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
night bombing was highly inefficient <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. It was less accurate, but still effective.. And would have been more effective had the US join in at night. Yes it would have been less accurate than daylight bombing .. but the assumption here is that the Me262 would have had a filed day during the day thus making daylight bombing less effective than night bombing. WITH THAT IN MIND it would have been easy to switch to night bombing which would have NEGATED THE ME262s SPEED ADVANTAGES!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
& yes , with 800 Me-262's in full service by December 1943 , they would have massivly cleared the skies

air superiority would have changed to the German side & there would have been no D-Day

in other words , yes to the Me262 being able to change the course of the war

luckily , it didnt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It would have only delayed the outcome.. Not changed it.

LEXX_Luthor
01-13-2005, 09:16 PM
WUAF:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>with 800 Me-262's in full service by December 1943 , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
December 43 is 5 months (misread you) after July 43 when the war was decided, on the ground, which is what matters. Me~262s no matter how many can't replace millions of highly trained and experienced German Army infantry and tank crews lost long before 1944.

Its typical of western flight simmers to think "air war" only, and Western Front only. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-13-2005, 09:25 PM
pingu:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...or japan joins up with germany and goes after russia, leaving the pacific alone <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ahhh, you mean Merged FB/PF. Yes.

Buckaroo12
01-13-2005, 10:20 PM
A couple of things I would really like to stress here.

1) Germany lost the battle of the bulge because their panzers ran short of fuel. No fuel, tanks can't advance. That says a huge amount about the effect of air superiority on a ground campaign (noting that allied air superiority was negated due to weather). So what if the Me-262 makes a horrible ground pounder (I personally disagree but that's me). If Germany owns the skies then dedicated ground pounding planes and bombers would have had a field day on allied ground formations.

2) All this talk about nuking Germany is assuming that the Americans would risk losing a nuclear weapon so that the germans could reverse engineer it. Think about it, if you were in the American's shoes would you send a weapon like that into a sky where the odds of you losing that weapon to the enemy were overwhelmingly against you? Also, the US had no way of knowing at the time what the progress of the German A-Bomb program was. With Japan, they had no fear of Japanese retaliation because the Japanese had lost any semblence of air superiority and had no way of delivering such a weapon. This would not have been the case with a German air superiority scenario.

3) Bombing at night, inefficient at best (which goes hand in hand with less accurate taggert) but the Germans also had night fighters equipped with radar whose crews would be very well rested from a hassle free afternoon.

4) Once German Air superiority over Europe had been established, it would not have taken very long to extend that control over Britain and allow the luftwaffe to target allied air bases, decimating the allied bomber force in much the same way we decimated theirs.

Like I said before, I don't think the 262 would've "won" the war for Germany the way Hitler had imagined, I do think though that it might've given Germany a position to negotiate an early withdrawl from the war by Britain and her allies leaving Germany firmly in control of most of Europe or at the very least a negotiated withdrawl by Germany to pre-war lines. Without air superiority, the allies would not have risked an invasion of Europe at ANY location. On the other side of the coin, American production capabilities untouched by the war would've ensured that Germany could NOT expand outside of Europe or further into Russia.

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 12:58 AM
ok tagert ill try to explain why i think all of your answers are incorrect . some have been stated by others already. here goes.

your first rebuttal that in the battle of the bulge america was able to win even without air support and push germany back.

4 problems with this . first german panzers all ran out of fuel. thats why the german attack failed. their first goal was to reach allied fuel depots to resupply on fuel.
second patton himself stated that without the P47s support he would not have been able to save bastogne.
third the bad weather broke in time for allied p47s and other fighterbombers to annihilate german armor on the ground.
the germans had King Tigers in the battle of bulge. without running out of fuel and american fighterbombers these beasts probably couldnt have been stopped.
fourth problem is that this happened at the very end of war and hitler had little to no planes to support his assault. if he would have had real air support it would have been ugly for the allies.

next issue...
your stating we could have invaded thru italy. well we tried. and failed. it was found to be much easier to land at dday than come thru italy or we would have done that anyway instead. try waging a war thru the mountains. even harder than landing on a beach. against hitler troops it would have been suicide.

next issue...

again with the night bombing. i repeat germany had jet night fighters with rader arrays on front. the problem is there were not enough jets and engines. if deployed 2 years earlier there would have been. and yes night bombing was found to be VERY ineffective. and without day bombing of strategic points of interest the luftwaffe would have had a field day shooting down all the allied bombers at night.
...

next issue

yes america had experience with tons of beach landings but you ignored my point that without air superiority these landings against the japanese would most often have failed if they had jets and air superiority.

...next

the point of it being not if but when germany would lose...well germany almost beat england and russia. it was a matter of scant timing and luck it didnt happen. not lack of german troops or resources.

...
next

i am imagining those thousands of prop fighters against the jets.

even not taking into account that in 1943 german airpower was able to hold its own against incursions into germany id say 500 german jets in the air could easily outfight 2000 allied fighters. they are jets and could only be shot down on landing. and without airfields in germany itself and france the allies would have a tough time of doing that. especially considering germany had more than enough prop fighters to protect its mainland air bases from allied fighters.

next... germany wouldnt be nuked. we were determined to destroy japan. not germany. japan was americas war and our focus. do not forget this. we were aiding england in the war on germany. but we were focused on destroying japan.

we already knew we would drop the A bombs on japan if anyone ....first.

we did not have any A bombs to drop on germany. and we would not drop them and waste them on germany as we would not have been winning any land battles against them without air superiority. we would not have had any bombs to drop on germany till 47 or 48.

i have to re iterate this very strongly. german armies could not be beat be american and british ground troops. our tanks and support did not match up to germany. germany had a larger percentage of automatic weapons than the usa and their tanks were 20 times better tank for tank than our shermans and british tanks. the only reason we could beat germany on the ground is because the allies had no enemy fighter bombers attacking them . we owned the skies. and germany was under 24 hr bombardment by allied jabos or fighterbombers. the germans could not move troops, supplies, or tanks in daylight. or they would get bombed and strafed. that is the real and only reason germany lost in france and got pushed back to germany. dont believe me just read pattons personal accounts.

if germany had air superiority with jets in 1943 even if the allies invaded with 50 to 1 troop advantage they would have all been pushed back into the sea by superior tanks jets and a unbeatable command structure and genius leadership. not counting hitler.

hitler lost the war due to allied air domination. if that was reversed hitler could not have been beaten. he would have been cordoned off in his fortress europe and there would have been stalemate. with him probably building nuclear bombs well before anyone could invade.

please ive read multiple books on the russian front and on the western front and kursk and bulge are or should be common knowledge. there is no way i can see that russia could push into germany without a two front war from france. and there is no way allies could have invaded france. truthfully if rommel would have not been ordered by hitler to keep his german tank armies in calais because hitler thought normandy a ruse then rommel would have pushed the dday invasion right back into the ocean even with allied air superiority.

russia was lucky to survive. allies were lucky rommel wasnt in charge during dday. allies were lucky the german generals were not heeded by hitler when he invaded france or all of englands troops would have been caught in dunkirk and england would have no defense against hitlers armies in england. we were lucky hitlers tanks in battle of bulge ran out of gas or they would have split the front and destroyed whole armies in sweeping pincers. the allies were lucky too many times for me to recall and any one of those occurances could have swung the entire war in germanies favor even without a large force of 262 jets 2 years earlier. we were not unbeatable allied armies. just very very lucky. if you dont believe me go read some history books. hitler was inches away from total victory. and with masses of jets in 43 america would not have been able to help. we would have went on to finish of japan then tried to think out a solution to the problem of germany . dropping one little A bomb on a city in germany would have been like dropping a firecracker on an anthill and thinking you would destroy them all. A bombs were not an answer against germany. and we only had 2 anyway. without land troops in germany even if you dropped both bombs nothing would have changed. and then you would have had to physically invade japan and the american death toll in japan would have been an additional 2 million minimum with many more wounded and maybe 10 to 20 million more dead japanese. and then you still would have to wait years for more A bombs. it took years to make them back then remember.

flemsha
01-14-2005, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
A couple of things I would really like to stress here.

1) Germany lost the battle of the bulge because their panzers ran short of fuel. No fuel, tanks can't advance. That says a huge amount about the effect of air superiority on a ground campaign (noting that allied air superiority was negated due to weather). So what if the Me-262 makes a horrible ground pounder (I personally disagree but that's me). If Germany owns the skies then dedicated ground pounding planes and bombers would have had a field day on allied ground formations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, the Me-262 carries a small payload, it goes very fast. Two things not great for ground attack. An Me-262 flying low to attack a ground target is as vulnerable to ground fire as any other plane. Remember in Vietnam, 20+ years on USAF fighters in ground attack, aircraft significantly more capable than the Me-262, faced harrowing losses against ground fire. The SAM was dramatic, but it was not the greatest threat the USAF faced in Vietnam.

What the Me-262 does well is bomber interception. How well would it stack up against allied fighters if it was forced to engage them, not avoid the fight? Because you don't establish aerial supremacy if you don't engage the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
2) All this talk about nuking Germany is assuming that the Americans would risk losing a nuclear weapon so that the germans could reverse engineer it. Think about it, if you were in the American's shoes would you send a weapon like that into a sky where the odds of you losing that weapon to the enemy were overwhelmingly against you? Also, the US had no way of knowing at the time what the progress of the German A-Bomb program was. With Japan, they had no fear of Japanese retaliation because the Japanese had lost any semblence of air superiority and had no way of delivering such a weapon. This would not have been the case with a German air superiority scenario.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You assume that they had no intelligence on the German nuclear program, and any idea of retaliation is ridiculous. This was total war, the only reason the Germans never used Gas (well except on civilians in the death camps) was the Hitler was so horrified by his experience on the Somme during WW1. Using a nuke, to win the war... do you honestly think that it would have posed many moral questions for that madman? He would have used it as soon as he could, and so the allies felt obligated to use their nuclear weapons as soon as they could, just the war in europe was over by then.

As for delivering the bomb, it doesn't have to happen by day does it? It would be a gamble, but one that it is likely could have paid off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

3) Bombing at night, inefficient at best (which goes hand in hand with less accurate taggert) but the Germans also had night fighters equipped with radar whose crews would be very well rested from a hassle free afternoon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, the night fighter crews were separate crews, so they will be just as rested. Night bombing targeted german cities and residential areas as part of a tactic, not out of inaccuracy. The tactic was to kill factory workers in their homes as they slept. A pathfinder with a flare, or a radar aiming point and you could possibly destroy industrial targets by night.

Also, the Me-262 day-fighter pilots left cooling their heels in germany can't be sent out over the front to tangle with the Russians or with an Allied invasion, and extra night-fighter pilots are also stuck in Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

4) Once German Air superiority over Europe had been established, it would not have taken very long to extend that control over Britain and allow the luftwaffe to target allied air bases, decimating the allied bomber force in much the same way we decimated theirs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the history of the battle of britain. Alone, with only her commonwealth to support her great britain defended herself from a german aerial onslaught, costing the germans a lot of good pilots (and the british too), but the end result was that britain ruled her airspace.

Go forward two years, and you have a britain, with western allies, especially the united states, and a war going on in the east. What hope do you think the luftwaffe had?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Like I said before, I don't think the 262 would've "won" the war for Germany the way Hitler had imagined, I do think though that it might've given Germany a position to negotiate an early withdrawl from the war by Britain and her allies leaving Germany firmly in control of most of Europe or at the very least a negotiated withdrawl by Germany to pre-war lines. Without air superiority, the allies would not have risked an invasion of Europe at ANY location. On the other side of the coin, American production capabilities untouched by the war would've ensured that Germany could NOT expand outside of Europe or further into Russia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question is could the Me-262 have prevented the allies obtaining local air superiority over the beacheads and areas of the ground campaign. Great bomber interceptors don't always make great air superiority fighters. It may have been a harder fight, but the numerical superiority of the allies, and their greater production ability would have assured victory. It is also likely we would have seen the P-80 and Meteor enter combat, and the beacheads would have been well within range. There were other american and british designs that may also have narrowed the gap had the 262 seen an earlier and more effective service.

I guess ultimately the biggest effect may have been a slight lengthening of the war as a whole, with little change to the outcome, and the first jet on jet battles occurring over europe instead of over Korea.

This is just my opinion of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
01-14-2005, 04:54 AM
horseback:
"As to the fantasy of jets dropping torpedoes against an Allied fleet, it should be remembered that torpedoes usually had to be dropped from a maximum height of somewhat less than 40m at speeds somewhat less than the 262's (or the Ar 234's) stalling speed."

What was a reality was German (and Allied for that matter) stand off anti shipping weapons. These could have been launched from second generation jet bombers, or modified first generation ones (e.g. a 2 crew Ar234C) as well as the planes they were launched from (notably the He177). So from the point of view of decimating the invasion fleet missiles and bombers were the requirement, not Me262s (except to provide cover for the bombers, and possibly skip bombing).

falco_cz
01-14-2005, 04:56 AM
Just only imagine Me262 flying routine reconnaisance mission over England BEFORE D day without being harassed by allied fighters!

Aaron_GT
01-14-2005, 04:59 AM
"Britain had huge stocks of gas and Churchill had issued orders for it to be used in event of an invasion. The fact that nether side used gas during the war was partly due to deterrents but principally due to the difficulty of delivering it effectively."

Churchill was very keen on air dropping gas on Germany from 1943, the raids to be launched from Yorkshire which is why as old airfields in Yorkshire are turned over to other uses there is a requirement to check for mustard gas dumps, which are still turning up. In the end the RAF disuaded Churchill on the basis that by 1943 the British population had thrown away their gas masks and would be vulnerable unless an entirely new set were produced which would give the game away somewhat. Chuchill was a great fan of gas, notably its use in the middle east with the young RAF officer Arthur Harris organising its use.

Aaron_GT
01-14-2005, 05:02 AM
"Well, Tagert, you haven`t read some of the other interesting comments on that, namely Britain would not condone America taking such an act when it was very possible (as far as they could tell at the time) that the Germans just might do the same to them."

Also in theory the Americans (based on the Toronto agreements) could not drop the atomic bombs without agreement from Britain and Canada, both of which had contributed large numbers of scientists to the project.

Aaron_GT
01-14-2005, 05:15 AM
If Me262s had been available in, say, early 1943 and had stopped the daylight air offensive switching to night bombing would have taken a while. The B17 and B24 lacked suitable equipment for night bombing (navigational aids, H2S, etc) so time would have been required to reterofit the USAAF fleet and train the crews which would have meant a delay of several months before the USAAF would have been effective again. Already by the end of 1943 the RAF night raiders were requiring escorts (Mosquito NFs) due to nightfighter attention from the LW. A respite in day bombing whilst the USAAF reequipped for effective night bombing would have left time for the LW to create more nightfighters.

Nightbombing, by the end of 1944, was just as effective as the typical daylight raids carried out. Night bombing techniques and equipment improved and in any case many daylight raids were 'drop-on-leader' area attacks rather than precision raids as precision raids were difficult due to unpreditcable weather conditions and AAA and fighter attention. But this didn't happen until late in the war. At the end of 1943 a mass change to nightbombing would have led to a reduction in the effectiveness.

Would it have made a difference to the progress of the war? Well Germany would still have lost the war as losing in the East was inevitable. The Allies would have needed to have been very creative to be able to launch a land attack in 1944, though. So the end result might have been a wider Soviet sphere of influence - maybe Austria, more of Germany, and Yugoslavia.

Taurus_Slo
01-14-2005, 06:18 AM
Like it was written before, most of the people are forgetting that Germany fougth on two front.

Even if Me-262 could stop allied bombing campain, they could never stopped Russian advance on eastern battlefield.

The russian manpower was just to big to defeat them. The Russian's didn't spared they manpower, no matter how strong defense it was. So the Germans didn't even had enough weapons to kill them all. German weapons was nonfunctional because of heavy use and lack of amunition. When this happened, the russian infatry won.

No matter how cruel and unreal this may sound to today standards, it was the real thing during world war two. Just read some books about it. But not just allied version, read some german books to get broader knowledge and different perspective.

So to conclude my post, if Germany would stop allied bombing, the Warsav pact would probably end on the coast of Atlantic. So the cold war would be a reality show for most of western Europe.

Best regards to all

Taurus_Slo

p1ngu666
01-14-2005, 06:52 AM
night bombing could be devistating, harris had "blue books", filled with photo's of wrecked german cities and towns. the raf could and where deadly, unfortunatly harris was bloody minded and i dont agree with what he did.

american bombers could have followed in raf bombers, h2s isnt needed if several miles of city is ablaze. american bombers had lots of guns too, best for tail end of bomber stream which would get it worse (nightfighters would be redirected from the spoof raids, tho sometimes the spoofers where NF mossies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

also ud be looking at 1000bomber raids being achiveable most of the time.

me262 night fighter, if it was still single seat, then its probably too much for the guy todo, also mk108 had bad muzzle flash, blind the guy, and he could quickly be peperd with defensive fire cos u do need to get close with mk108 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Abbuzze
01-14-2005, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

me262 night fighter, if it was still single seat, then its probably too much for the guy todo, also mk108 had bad muzzle flash, blind the guy, and he could quickly be peperd with defensive fire cos u do need to get close with mk108 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The nightfigherversion was successfull especially vs Mossies... and it was a two seater!

http://www.modelers-paradise.com/gallery/olsthoorn/Me262B-1a_U1.jpg http://mypage.bluewin.ch/Sturmvogel/images/me262b1ahead.jpg

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 08:52 AM
Yes, the 262 would have changed the war

Doesnt mean Germany still wouldnt have lost, ANYthing could have happened for ANY possible different timeline

But its easy to see, if the 262s were in service much earlier, that the strategic bombing campaign would have failed...daytime 262s would slaughter bombers...nighttime would be a slaughter as well, either by large stocks of prop types freed up to join the NF force, or by accelerated German aerial radar development to be used on 262s to deal the same blows to night bombers as day bombers

With a stategic bomber threat gone, Germany would not feel the material pinch nearly as much, D-Day as it happened IRL would be questionable, thus making a 2-front ground war also questionable, at least in the same time frame

Without the 2 front land war, Germany would have, at the very least, made things MUCH more difficult for the Reds, if not stopping them at some point

Nukes would likely have not been used vs Germany...no way Britain would have allowed that, because both for humane reasons (rememeber it was still largely unknown about death camps et al), not to mention concerns about fallout or other unknown effects they may have for all of europe...Towards Japan, of course, this is different...the US was VERY sore over the sneak attack on Pearl, and it was not uncommon for Americans, and even British at the time to regard the JP as "less" human as they are...ppl who werent quite the same as them...after the falsehoods of the rape of nanking, and displying the bushido mentality, deification of Hirohito, seppuku and self-destruction over surrender, the Allies had little to hold them back from nuking JP, they felt the JP were an alien culture and didnt hold the same values that the "more advanced or refined" cultures of the west were...or were percieved by those in the west, by and large

It would be hard to name any particular event or weapon that WOULDNT have made any difference in WWII, one way or another...

If Britain and France stood up to Hitler in 38 over Czech, his General staff would have deposed him

If the 88 had disposed of its bombs over a country field instead of London, the general bombing of civilians would have not taken place fo ra long time, at least, if at all

If Goring had pressed attacks on the RAF a FEW more weeks, we'd all be speaking German now

If US carriers were at Pearl dec7 41

If McCluskey didnt spot a tincan steaming towards JP fleet at Midway, or the JP observation plane that spotted US fleet had its radio serviceable

If Hitler postpone Barbarossa to deal with Yugoslavia

If Hitler didnt split his forces advancing on Moscow

Closer to the topic at hand, IF RLM went ahead with development of the He 280, that flew in 41,THAT fine jet fighter WOULD have made a huge difference, at least in the air war, and all that that would entail

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

me262 night fighter, if it was still single seat, then its probably too much for the guy todo, also mk108 had bad muzzle flash, blind the guy, and he could quickly be peperd with defensive fire cos u do need to get close with mk108 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The nightfigherversion was successfull especially vs Mossies... and it was a two seater!

http://www.modelers-paradise.com/gallery/olsthoorn/Me262B-1a_U1.jpg http://mypage.bluewin.ch/Sturmvogel/images/me262b1ahead.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe, just beat me to the fact that 262s would have np stopping night bombers, Abuzze...its in my post....only cuz I HAD to make a long winded post

I was surprised at all the arguments about US bombers going nighttime....wouldnt have done anything for them, either from 262s freeing up other older types for the NF force, or, eventually, 262s with radars

Probably would have ended up with radar lock triggered R4M type rockets as well...nasty

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 09:06 AM
As far as night ops go, IF RLM had went with the He 219 Uhu, it could have been in strength by late 43, and it would have dealt a serious blow to bombers, too...and those pesky Mossies! (dont flame me for that, I love Mossies!)

mmmmm He 219 NFs, He 280 dayfighters, Ar 234 daybombers, Do 335 long range strike and recce...sweet!

Plus Ta 183s in the pipeline, sweeter

BTW....262s vs P 80s and Meteors? a toss-up with the P 80s, but sorry, Brits, the Meteors would have been MEAT, and u know it!

Look at that bird in my sig....looks like an Owl about to snatch prey just sitting there
\/
\/
\/

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by falco_cz:
Just only imagine Me262 flying routine reconnaisance mission over England BEFORE D day without being harassed by allied fighters! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allies actually did leave single intruders unmolested over UK airspace during build up to D-Day....no jet would have been needed

They had whole armies and air fleets in mock up to disguise number of force and embarkation areas to fool Germany

Mulberrys were towed back n forth across southern English waters to disguise their purpose, too, knowing the Germans had recce flights, before they decided to sink them temporarily

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
A couple of things I would really like to stress here.

1) Germany lost the battle of the bulge because their panzers ran short of fuel. No fuel, tanks can't advance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your watching too many movies.. Again.. that ONE variable is just ONE of many reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
That says a huge amount about the effect of air superiority on a ground campaign (noting that allied air superiority was negated due to weather). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. are you trying to say that Hitler didnt have enough fule from the start of the Battle of the Buldge? That is to say not enough fule to finish what he started? You must be saying that because no allied aircraft were bombing his fule during the Battle of the Buldge due to the weather. In short the blitz like tatics that work well in 41 againt unpreparid armys didnt work well in 45. Oh, and your wrong about Hitler not having enough fule at the start.. The MYTH that he was going after the US gasoline to use in his tanks is wrong.. The Tigers were desil not gas! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
So what if the Me-262 makes a horrible ground pounder (I personally disagree but that's me). If Germany owns the skies then dedicated ground pounding planes and bombers would have had a field day on allied ground formations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! Take the P51 vs P47 wrt ground pounding.. The P47 was a better plane for that due to the lack of things like a radiator getting a hole in it and the motor buring up in a half hour.. Now take the early jet engine.. A little thing like one hand held riffle bullet in the intake and she is done.. Not to mention all the dirt and debree from bombs going off by other Me262s near by.. A prop would just fly right through most of that.. But would probally take a jet out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
2) All this talk about nuking Germany is assuming that the Americans would risk losing a nuclear weapon so that the germans could reverse engineer it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No more risk than dropping one on japan!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
Think about it, if you were in the American's shoes would you send a weapon like that into a sky where the odds of you losing that weapon to the enemy were overwhelmingly against you? Also, the US had no way of knowing at the time what the progress of the German A-Bomb program was. With Japan, they had no fear of Japanese retaliation because the Japanese had lost any semblence of air superiority and had no way of delivering such a weapon. This would not have been the case with a German air superiority scenario. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The bomb was initally intended for Germany.. Had Germany still had any fight left in them by late 44 we would have used it on them. Trust me.. if your smart enough to figue out a way to make an ABOMB you would be smart enough to figure out a way to include a small explosive device to blow it up had it not gone off.. Like that would even be necessary in that if a dude hit the ground gravity would more than likly did that for you for free.. and the radiation would have contaminated all the parts left that anyone trying to study it to make another would have died before they figured out how it went back togther (humpy dumpty) let alone worked

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
3) Bombing at night, inefficient at best (which goes hand in hand with less accurate taggert) but the Germans also had night fighters equipped with radar whose crews would be very well rested from a hassle free afternoon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only thing that made it inefficient was the inaccuracy.. FACT is had the US switched to night bombing the SUM of the UK and US would have made it effective enough to still work. Yes Germany had night fighters.. but they were.. how did you say it? inefficient RELITIVE TO day fighters also.. Must more inefficient than the bombing was.. But I digrees.. The simple FACT is that by switching to night bombing the allideds would have negated the jets advantage.. You know the thing we were talking about.. No need to avoid that topic and switch to night bombing being less accurate.. We all know that.. But it was accurate enough.. and it took the whole jet thing out of the fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
4) Once German Air superiority over Europe had been established, it would not have taken very long to extend that control over Britain and allow the luftwaffe to target allied air bases, decimating the allied bomber force in much the same way we decimated theirs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Had the jet shown up early, and was a threat, the UK adn US would have simly focused more on thier jet production and contered the Me262 within no time.. In the mean time the props out numbered the jets big time.. As with the Sherman tank.. it took 3 Shermans to take out a Tiger.. But we had like 6 Shermans to each Tiger.. The fact that the Jets range was not great either.. it all ads up to not much.. In short you would have seen tatics change.. The bombers would have switched to night bombing thus removing he jet threat and thing probally would have proceded as planned.. Just at a bit slower rate.. Which means the war would have lasted a bit longer.. Which means we would have nuked Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buckaroo12:
Like I said before, I don't think the 262 would've "won" the war for Germany the way Hitler had imagined, I do think though that it might've given Germany a position to negotiate an early withdrawl from the war by Britain and her allies leaving Germany firmly in control of most of Europe or at the very least a negotiated withdrawl by Germany to pre-war lines. Without air superiority, the allies would not have risked an invasion of Europe at ANY location. On the other side of the coin, American production capabilities untouched by the war would've ensured that Germany could NOT expand outside of Europe or further into Russia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat theory.. but in light of the fact that your only looking at changing one variable and keep the rest the same is silly.. The US would have done what they have allways done and are good at.. Adjusting tatics and over comming the situation. I gave just ONE example of what the US could have done to totally negate the jets speed advantge.. One that none of you pro jet guys wants to address.. cept to day that night bombing was less accurate.. well DUH!

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The nightfigherversion was successfull especially vs Mossies... and it was a two seater! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Effective in that it could catch it.. But aginst slow moving bombers the jet would have been no better than other night fighters in that it would have had to slow down.. Then it would have been subject to attack by allied night fighers.. And Ill bet you one thing for sure.. Many night fighter talk about how they would look for the exhast sparks comming out of the piston engines to find the bombers.. Ill bet those two jet engines were very easy to spot at night.. making them sitting ducks for fighers and gunners on the bombers due to the fact that they would have to slow down to attack.. Just a thought.. At which point Im sure all the pro jet guys will ignor and come back with the DUH statment that night bombing was less accurate.

joeap
01-14-2005, 09:37 AM
Lots of stuff, that I agree with and not Daiichidoku...

First of all, having read about the BomberCommand's campaign, don't agree the allies wouldn't have nuked Germany. I agree they saw the Japanese as different, and didn't understand the culture. But were did you get the idea about the "falsehood" of the Rape of Nanking?

Anyway, to the planes...just one plane was not enough...Germany was outclassed in resources and manpower, already on the Eastern Front, add in the US and its industry, well the war would have just lasted longer. Given the same political will that is. Your "what-if" list I pretty much agree with, the old story of the butterflies wings you know.

joeap
01-14-2005, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
The nightfigherversion was successfull especially vs Mossies... and it was a two seater! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Effective in that it could catch it.. But aginst slow moving bombers the jet would have been no better than other night fighters in that it would have had to slow down.. Then it would have been subject to attack by allied night fighers.. And Ill bet you one thing for sure.. Many night fighter talk about how they would look for the exhast sparks comming out of the piston engines to find the bombers.. Ill bet those two jet engines were very easy to spot at night.. making them sitting ducks for fighers and gunners on the bombers due to the fact that they would have to slow down to attack.. Just a thought.. At which point Im sure all the pro jet guys will ignor and come back with the DUH statment that night bombing was less accurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, I agree with you, anyway I think the US would have just shifted production and outproduced Germany in jets. At least if you change something for the Axis might as well for the Allies too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyone got P-80 production figures?

p1ngu666
01-14-2005, 09:52 AM
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messme262.html

i bet its successes where rather trumped up, cos of other night fighters, only he219 thingy could catch mossie, luckly there wherent many of either.

mossie would be vunrable due to it not having a large speed deficite and no guns


for night fighting its much more different to day fighting, u haveto make conntact first (hence radar) and ull need tobe guided close to the target, at a slow overtake speed otherwise u could zoom right by, limited visual range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif id if possible (manover so its siloweted) then u attack. the speed would help u get from intercept to intercept

think i read somewhere that to combat/learn howto go against 262's raf metores did mock attacks on bombers, i think mustang/p47 would need 5000ft advantage and dive down and take out 262.

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by joeap:
Lots of stuff, that I agree with and not Daiichidoku...

First of all, having read about the BomberCommand's campaign, don't agree the allies wouldn't have nuked Germany. I agree they saw the Japanese as different, and didn't understand the culture. But were did you get the idea about the "falsehood" of the Rape of Nanking?

Anyway, to the planes...just one plane was not enough...Germany was outclassed in resources and manpower, already on the Eastern Front, add in the US and its industry, well the war would have just lasted longer. Given the same political will that is. Your "what-if" list I pretty much agree with, the old story of the butterflies wings you know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe figured someone would key in on that one...
the Nanking story is an old one, done to death over and over again thru the ages, and all written by the victors....

Nanking wasnt treated much differently than any other Chinese city that didnt open itself right away to JP forces

Many cities were under the JP thumb, and looting, pilatging and rape were not uncommon

Allies made a bigger thing out of it to vilify the JP, aint anything new

Just as the Germans "raped" Warsaw or any other large (or small) city or town in the east

Parisians, even tho the city was opened to Germans, would consider mere bloodlees occupation of thier city a "rape"

Or the Red Army "raping" Berlin 45

A more recent example of this was Kuwait 90...remember the young Kuwaiti girl being touted by US gov before desert shield?
She had cliamed that, before one and all on tv, that Iraqi soldiers were doing such things as only evil-doers can, as unplugging incubators with newborns in them in Kuwaiti hospitals, among other not-so-nice things...came to light later, that the whole thing was a sham, intended to rouse sentiment against "monstrous" Iraq, particularly among US citizens, as to influence congress to ok operations and $$$ for the effort vs Iraq

In war, all sorts of bad things happen...Nanking was no different, but it was just highlighted and embellished for propaganda purposes

Germany and Japan were the only ones who did nasty things in WWII, or ever, and USA, Britain, and Russia simply angelic? HAHAHA

CD_kp84yb
01-14-2005, 10:20 AM
Quote by Tagert:

Oh, and your wrong about Hitler not having enough fule at the start.. The MYTH that he was going after the US gasoline to use in his tanks is wrong.. The Tigers were desil not gas!


LOL you realy know everything about WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Hehe the only tanks in WW2 that use diesel are the russian tanks. The engine in the Tiger 1 was a maybach V12 , The germans didnt used diesel engines in the tanks.
Btw you sayd the Sherman vs Tiger 1 Ratio was 5:1 , hehe wake up . Only 1350 Tigers where build, most of them where found on the eastfront. So the Us made only 6750 Shermans?????? No way bro.
The most used german tank in the battle of the bulge was yhe PZKW IV, some PZKW III, a few PZKW V, and som PZKW VI type 1 and 2. The Tiger 2 was not found in the spearhead of the attacks but second or third line in case it went wrong, as it did. The Tiger 2 is too slow for running in front, that was not the case for the turret rotation, it could rotate the turret 360 degrees in 19 seconds.


Btw i havent heard anyone in the Batlle of the bulge say the real goal of this german plan, That were the harbours of Antwerpen.

Cheers and have fun in this discussion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Effective in that it could catch it.. But aginst slow moving bombers the jet would have been no better than other night fighters in that it would have had to slow down.. Then it would have been subject to attack by allied night fighers.. And Ill bet you one thing for sure.. Many night fighter talk about how they would look for the exhast sparks comming out of the piston engines to find the bombers.. Ill bet those two jet engines were very easy to spot at night.. making them sitting ducks for fighers and gunners on the bombers due to the fact that they would have to slow down to attack.. Just a thought.. At which point Im sure all the pro jet guys will ignor and come back with the DUH statment that night bombing was less accurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prop types for night operations often had effective flame baffles, Tagert....and usually flame or embers/sparks would only occur with throttling down

NF considered exhaust flames gravy for location, and was luck only...and then, only at distance, up close could and would ruin night vision, not ideal when closing on a craft a few hundred meters or less away

Most common was GCI, bombers caught in spotlights, or even light from burning cities or those occasions of any sort of moonlight, with or without clouds above or below tgt



At the lower speeds needed and dictated for jet vs bomber night intercept, the jets lower throttle would produce little, if any flame, especially once cruise had been established

He 280 jets could have been in service by late 42, giving LOTS of time for more developments in radars, FCS, and maybe the most important, engine development, making them longer life, fuel efficient, more power, and less or no flame

Even so, most likely jets would not have been used as NF vs slower bombers, for, as you said, the speed difference made it too much to bother with...

You did mention in a post or so earlier that "Yes Germany had night fighters.. but they were.. how did you say it? inefficient RELITIVE TO day fighters also"....well, DUH!....sadly for many, many RAF crew, not ineffecient enough!...but chew on this...if Germany DID have jets earlier, and could have had He 280s by late 42, think about how many converted prop day fighters/attackers could have been let loose of those bombers...not so much the 109s and 190s, of course, totally unsuitable for NF, but the extra attackers, Me 210s, 110s, Do 217s, Ju 88/188s, etc...110s, 217s, 88s were already being used to good effect as NFs...oh, plus those freed up 109s in 190s would certainly been a boon to ground pounding in the east to add to what was already there doing that already


and oh, yeah, "Which means we would have nuked Germany."...tell me, plz...with an increased and likely more NF force, and jets ruling the skies by day, just HOW would you deliver that nuke?..easy enuff vs a JP with little resources or tools to stop a bomber, but a Germany under stated conditions? PUL-eeze...stop showing how much of an American you are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 10:42 AM
Konigstiger turret rotation 360 in 19 seconds!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
This IS a great thread!!
Come back down to earth and land just about at the 50 second mark for turret traverse for full 360 for a Konig!!
The SHERMANS are the ones with the 15 sec turret traverse speeds!Imagine that huge heavy step welded konigs turret with an 88 rotating 360 in 19 secs!!The darned gun mantlet is near the empty cast weight of the sherman turret!!<being facetious here!!EASY!! Have you ever seen one in r/l?
And besides whats all this 1944 propaganda goin round that they couldnt be stopped except by planes?
walks away: "konig with a 360/19 sec travvy ha!P-chairight!"

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 10:52 AM
Ok, not to nit-pick, and really is subjective, but
"it took 3 Shermans to take out a Tiger"

Just saw on tv a special on tanks...actually, a special on Tigers vs Shermans...with accounts from real tankers, and armor speciallist historians...the concensus was, that actually 4 Shermans were needed to take out a Tiger, in typical conditions of France/Germany...an entrenched or at least camo'd and hidden Tiger

First Sherman dead right off the bat
Second Sherman hides behind the first dead tank, and fires in general percieved direction of Tiger
Tiger kills Second Sherman
Third Sherman now locates Tiger position by the second shot, and fires at Tiger, doing nothing
Tiger returns fire, third Sherman dead
Forth Sherman has flanked Tiger and kills it the ONLY way it can, from rear flank/rear, but only assuming that it could use its decent speed to get there before the Tiger can traverse fast enough to the fourth Sherman

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 10:56 AM
"And besides whats all this 1944 propaganda goin round that they couldnt be stopped except by planes?"

**** skippy...stopped only by 262s with captured .50s strapped to em, and, of course, Fiat G.50s, heheheeh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 11:15 AM
"stopped only by 262s with captured .50s strapped to em, and, of course, Fiat G.50s,"

But dont forget the uber tank crews who can: "Neatly saw the wing off" of whatever you may be flying when you approach for attack from within the comfy confines of their,invulnerable tigers!!Unless you arm out with the Kryponite Supa-Dupa Fittee shells(captured as you have already mentioned!)
They are the BRAVEST tankers I have seen modelled in a sim thus far!!And they must have modelled the hydraulic turret traverse in game with the new "nuclear powered turret traverse system" which the germans were working on before their supplies of heavy water were sent to Davy Jones locker!!

Slick750
01-14-2005, 11:15 AM
The outcome would be the same, even with 4 times the number of Me-262s, theres still millions of men and machines heading your way on the ground. Just look at a plane like the Stuka how many of those can you send to slow down advancing armies for the cost of 1 Me-262, and what about the fuel, maintenance, and training needed. If jets don't have radar, you might be better off using many more prop fighters to cover airspace. In my opinion, to beat russia you need numbers not just fancy toys. It might have created more casualties on bombers but the bombings would not have stopped.

reisen52
01-14-2005, 11:17 AM
The B-17 can't carry a nuke but the B-29 & B-36 could.

B-29's which flew against Mig-15's escorted by P-80's would have caused a problem for the nazi's in 1945.

When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 Communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties.

Forget the kill claims by the bombers as they don't mean that much. The key thing is only 34 B-29's we lost in 3 years of combat against a jet that is very much superior to the 262 operating under a much more advanced GCI system in a much smaller theater.

Zeke

CD_kp84yb
01-14-2005, 11:17 AM
Dont worry i have seen a few in the museum in europe.
Cant upload specs for the gun, but nevermind here is something to read.

http://chsk.com/steppenwolf/tiger2_2.htm


Every tank can taken out by another tank.
The guns weight is total 2265kg, the weight of the turret is found in the site

joeap
01-14-2005, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


hehe figured someone would key in on that one...
the Nanking story is an old one, done to death over and over again thru the ages, and all written by the victors....

Nanking wasnt treated much differently than any other Chinese city that didnt open itself right away to JP forces

Many cities were under the JP thumb, and looting, pilatging and rape were not uncommon

Allies made a bigger thing out of it to vilify the JP, aint anything new

Just as the Germans "raped" Warsaw or any other large (or small) city or town in the east

Parisians, even tho the city was opened to Germans, would consider mere bloodlees occupation of thier city a "rape"

Or the Red Army "raping" Berlin 45

A more recent example of this was Kuwait 90...remember the young Kuwaiti girl being touted by US gov before desert shield?
She had cliamed that, before one and all on tv, that Iraqi soldiers were doing such things as only evil-doers can, as unplugging incubators with newborns in them in Kuwaiti hospitals, among other not-so-nice things...came to light later, that the whole thing was a sham, intended to rouse sentiment against "monstrous" Iraq, particularly among US citizens, as to influence congress to ok operations and $$$ for the effort vs Iraq

In war, all sorts of bad things happen...Nanking was no different, but it was just highlighted and embellished for propaganda purposes

Germany and Japan were the only ones who did nasty things in WWII, or ever, and USA, Britain, and Russia simply angelic? HAHAHA <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif No, the agressor is always wrong dude. Ask the Chinese themselves, not the Allies. Or the historian Iris Chang
(google it). Really, ask yourself, what do 1937, 1939,1980 (Kabul), or 2003 have in common. I think aggressions started then, but by different countries.
My opnion is the right side lost WWII, just the other side thought they "won."

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
"stopped only by 262s with captured .50s strapped to em, and, of course, Fiat G.50s,"

But dont forget the uber tank crews who can: "Neatly saw the wing off" of whatever you may be flying when you approach for attack from within the comfy confines of their,invulnerable tigers!!Unless you arm out with the Kryponite Supa-Dupa Fittee shells(captured as you have already mentioned!)
They are the BRAVEST tankers I have seen modelled in a sim thus far!!And they must have modelled the hydraulic turret traverse in game with the new "nuclear powered turret traverse system" which the germans were working on before their supplies of heavy water were sent to Davy Jones locker!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Silly Germans!...if only they'd used deltawood to armor thier tanks, they wouldnt need Zimmerit, and NOTHING would be able to penetrate em....d a m n good reason why today's space shuttle is made of it....if only the Exxon Valdez was made of deltawood, think of all the seagulls that would be alive today

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
The outcome would be the same, even with 4 times the number of Me-262s, theres still millions of men and machines heading your way on the ground. Just look at a plane like the Stuka how many of those can you send to slow down advancing armies for the cost of 1 Me-262, and what about the fuel, maintenance, and training needed. If jets don't have radar, you might be better off using many more prop fighters to cover airspace. In my opinion, to beat russia you need numbers not just fancy toys. It might have created more casualties on bombers but the bombings would not have stopped. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres a really good reason why RLM looked for Ju-87 replacements......

The 262s would not be used to do anything to the "millions" of troops headed your way....they would have stopped the strategic bombing (props stopped it for several weeks alone after the second schweinhurt raid), which would have given the breathing space for synthetic fuel and oil prod, (which would have helped for training for those jets, foot soldiers, munitions, food, etc etc etc) among other things

With jets coming eariler, would likely stop strategic bombing...likely would have pushed dday way back or even canceled...allowing soldiers to concentrate on ONE front

Jets could have slowly brought a limited offensive to England once again (assuming no dday under above conditions) with practically no defense vs fast jet jabos/bombers

These guys with the "USA/Russia could never be stopped no matter what" mentality...sheesh

s h i t happens, ya know....anything could happen

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 12:37 PM
everyone is arguing that 262s wouldnt change outcome of war due to all the men and machines the allies had.

your not addressing the strategic implications that the bomber war would have been stopped by the germans. and this was their downfall. that and allied jabo fighters.

tagert your defense of allies is admirable and i dont mean to insult you but you know nothing of tanks. and nothing of jets and nothing about what happened in the battle of the bulge. you need to read a book on the battle of bulge. and read about nightfighting.

seriously all your arguments are false....i have read books on what the germans were going for in the bulge. and your calling these history books myths. and yes the germans started the offensive without enough fuel to finish it. that is correct. heck they were even going for the supply dumps for other things than fuel too.

i understand all the allies were best rah rah. im american and think we are the best.

but our armies couldnt have landed without complete air supremacy. and even if they landed with horrific losses they could not have pushed back german troops without air supremacy and constant air domination. germanys armies were too well equipped and too well trained. and they were behind great fortifications and defensive works and used the countryside to their advantage. remember they were on the defensive. SIDE NOTE "THAT is why hitler didnt invade britain btw. he knew better than to try it without Complete air domination and supremacy. it would have been suicide to try. Even if he would have had adequate transport for his armies".


you cant just walk up to Germans with shermans and blow thru them.

and a more accurate model of german panthers and tigers vs shermans would be about 10 to 1 odds.

with a well held line 10 panthers would decimate 40 shermans in a very short period of time.remember the germans had 88s as artillery. those things sitting behind their tanks would wreak havoc.

and no real air support for allies? means no german withdrawals. none. remember germany had the bulk of its tank armies in calais and if they had been moved to normandy when the germans found out about the invasion the allies would have been pushed back to the sea . even without german air support.

the overwhelming consensus is that the allies were unbeatable in the con arguments against germany. ive read many books on the battles in europe and this is a completely false viewpoint.

remember with germany not being strategically bombed they would have much much more tanks and planes to defend france and they would have had many more parts and much more fuel for planes and tanks. there were many planes left to defend france for germany they just didnt have parts and fuel to put them in the air. and remember the luftwaffe with jets 2 years earlier means most of germanys pilots would have survived from early 43 on. thats huge.

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
everyone is arguing that 262s wouldnt change outcome of war due to all the men and machines the allies had.

your not addressing the strategic implications that the bomber war would have been stopped by the germans. and this was their downfall. that and allied jabo fighters.

tagert your defense of allies is admirable and i dont mean to insult you but you know nothing of tanks. and nothing of jets and nothing about what happened in the battle of the bulge. you need to read a book on the battle of bulge. and read about nightfighting.

seriously all your arguments are false....i have read books on what the germans were going for in the bulge. and your calling these history books myths. and yes the germans started the offensive without enough fuel to finish it. that is correct. heck they were even going for the supply dumps for other things than fuel too.

i understand all the allies were best rah rah. im american and think we are the best.

but our armies couldnt have landed without complete air supremacy. and even if they landed with horrific losses they could not have pushed back german troops without air supremacy and constant air domination. germanys armies were too well equipped and too well trained. and they were behind great fortifications and defensive works and used the countryside to their advantage. remember they were on the defensive.

you cant just walk up to them with shermans and blow thru them.

and a more accurate model of german panthers and tigers vs shermans would be about 10 to 1 odds.

with a well held line 10 panthers would decimate 40 shermans in a very short period of time.remember the germans had 88s as artillery. those things sitting behind their tanks would wreak havoc.

and no real air support for allies? means no german withdrawals. none. remember germany had the bulk of its tank armies in calais and if they had been moved to normandy when the germans found out about the invasion the allies would have been pushed back to the sea . even without german air support.

the overwhelming consensus is that the allies were unbeatable in the con arguments against germany. ive read many books on the battles in europe and this is a completely false viewpoint.

remember with germany not being strategically bombed they would have much much more tanks and planes to defend france and they would have had many more parts and much more fuel for planes and tanks. there were many planes left to defend france for germany they just didnt have parts and fuel to put them in the air. and remember the luftwaffe with jets 2 years earlier means most of germanys pilots would have survived from early 43 on. thats huge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very huge...2 years of pilot exp in jet, plus more in the pipeline...

Not only was dday successful cuz of air superiority, but for the initial beachhead breakout (and not the actual gaining of the beachhead itself, it wasnt effective), and a good what? 30 km inland, they had MASSIVE support from naval guns...without which, the breakout would have been VERY difficult...

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 12:51 PM
this thread is fascinating but im getting the impression most people are throwing in off the cuff ideas and havent read any books on german armies at all.

and one final falsehood. russia didnt have the manpower to bull thru into germany. germany ran out of supplies, parts, fuel. if the germans had withdrawn their western fron armies and tanks it could have stopped russia and pushed them back deep into their russian homeland.

this was actully debated in germany as russia advanced. they wanted to surrender to america and move their forces all east against russia. that would have been simple if the allies had not invaded or had been pinned on the beaches and pushed back to sea.

russia was not an unstoppable giant of uncountable tanks and troops. plenty of times in open battle german armies surrounded russian armies and captured over a million troops at a time. several times. german counter offensives and pincers would always work against russia. they didnt have command and control to counter germany. in the end germany lost the war not due to russia nor dday nor the strategic bombing . it took all factors in combination to beat germany. take out any of those factors and germany would have stood strong. EVEN while retreating from russia. which btw would have been harder with a stronger luftwaffe courtesy of a 262 appearing 2 years earlier.

the final question has to come down to this. could germany be beat without air supremacy on the allied side? and the answer is no. the allies were losing the strategic bombing war of attrition. the turning point was P51s escorting deep into germany. well with jets 2 years earlier that wouldnt have worked.

and i hear nonstop talk about 262s going too fast and not being able to engage props. that they would have to slow down. ive read books on air combat in eto. and maybe 90% of kills were by unseen opponents. now factor in jets. they would have had targets that never seen them coming and would have decimated the fighter pilot ranks of the allies. and most of those allied pilots wouldnt have been able to bail after getting hit by 4 mk108 cannons .

and the topper of it all???? allied armies pushing towards germany had gigantic supply lines that were untouched due to no german airpower left. with a sizable german luftwaffe the allies would have run out of fuel and ammo for troops and tanks.

remember pattons biggest problem for his armies? he never had enough fuel for his tanks to move forward. he always wanted more. imagine his supply lines constantly being bombarded. his whole army would have been overrun.

and imagine germany supply lines NOT being bombarded. and being able to resupply in daylight? that alone would have changed the course of the ETO land war without even having to bomb allied supply lines.

after dday the germans really had no air force left to speak of in any numbers. this is the caveat that all the pro allied war winnners fail to address. please please please everyone go read why germany was beat in france and pushed back. you will all be surprised it seems....

EPP-Gibbs
01-14-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a small detail. large formations of 262s with experienced pilots would have been totally impossible to shoot down.

think :FINAL COUNTDOWN: the movie where american tomcat jets decimated the japanese invasion fleet off of hawaii.

large formations of jets cannot be matched by prop planes. it is not possible young padwans <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.....apart from when they are taking off, and landing...which is what the Allies did.

As I originally said the Allies would have modified their tactics to cope, as each side did when presented with a new threat.

Tomcats..you're having a laugh. Youre talking about a present day Jet with a speed of over 1400mph (and AAM's) compared to a WW2 primitive jet with a speed max speed advantage of 100mph over the prop planes.

The other point you're missing is the 262 was unreliable owing to the engines and consequently had poor serviceability rates leading to problems in getting enough of them into the air at any one time.

Von_Zero
01-14-2005, 01:07 PM
~S~ BlackShrike
It is nice to see people than can keep their objectivity unaltered by all sorts of bias.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
The other point you're missing is the 262 was unreliable owing to the engines and consequently had poor serviceability rates leading to problems in getting enough of them into the air at any one time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those problems were mainly due to the poor quality of the components, which had to be produced in god-knows-where-and-how places, and mostly from "improvised" materials, because the alied bombings, that damaged/destroyed german production units. With the introduction of the jets earlier, and if they would have stopped the day/night raids, there wouldn't have been any problem in improving/manufacturing various components propperly.

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 01:10 PM
my comment on the final countdown was a side joke to movie buffs.

that was one fun movie!!

and i know all about service of 262s and average engine life of about 18 hours max before replacing the entire engine. even with that they werent malfunctioning left and right in the air like some fighters did.

but germany would have stockpiles of extra engines and with 2 extra years of jet usage they would have worked out more of the kinks in the 262 and built longer lasting engines. they didnt have time to do any of that in april of 1945.

i will quote Adolf Galland about his 262 squadron of experts.

and remember this is after he and all of his pilots already knew they would lose the war.

"It was a heady time, almost surreal under the circumstances, flying a superb new high-speed jet into battle each day even knowing the cause was lost."

this statement was made flying against 1945 allied fighters. now back it up 2 years earlier when allied fighters werent nearly as good nor nearly as fast.

Adolf Galland would have had a field day.

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 01:15 PM
btw i am not pro german and i want the P47M! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Von_Zero
01-14-2005, 01:29 PM
as a side note, P1ngu posted some time ago a little story about 3 or 4 german tanks fighting (succesfuly) against 20 Shermans or so, in the dessert. if the forum's search would be knd enough to work at least once, maybe i could find that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
BTW, Tagert, try reading the book "Nuts" by Michael Georis, it gives a quite good review of the "Wacht am Rhein".

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
~S~ BlackShrike
It is nice to see people than can keep their objectivity unaltered by all sorts of bias.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
The other point you're missing is the 262 was unreliable owing to the engines and consequently had poor serviceability rates leading to problems in getting enough of them into the air at any one time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those problems were mainly due to the poor quality of the components, which had to be produced in god-knows-where-and-how places, and mostly from "improvised" materials, because the alied bombings, that damaged/destroyed german production units. With the introduction of the jets earlier, and if they would have stopped the day/night raids, there wouldn't have been any problem in improving/manufacturing various components propperly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I must add to this; there wasnt a problem getting enough into the air for servicability problems, but for lack of fuel and pilots


For a good insight into 262 operations and politics, read "The Last Chance" by Johannes "Macky" Steinhoff

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 01:42 PM
good book ill bet i may pick it up

WUAF_Badsight
01-14-2005, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
everyone is arguing that 262s wouldnt change the overwhelming consensus is that the allies were unbeatable in the con arguments against germany. ive read many books on the battles in europe and this is a completely false viewpoint. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but it grates the ego to think otherwise , the allieds won so they simply must have been better regardless of anything

USA , USA , USA ! *cheering*

USA , USA , USA ! *cheering*

USA , USA , USA ! *cheering*

DuxCorvan
01-14-2005, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>think :FINAL COUNTDOWN: the movie where american tomcat jets decimated the japanese invasion fleet off of hawaii.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think how difficult would be for a Tomcat to shoot down a Zero: how tiny a target is for a radar-guided system, and how low is its IR signal... and don't count on F-14's cannon, Zeroes are so slow compared to Tomcat, that time for aiming reduces to nothing, it's like attacking a moving ground target, but you'll never see a Tomcat attacking ground with cannon -and this time the slow target moves in all 3 space directions!

Besides... in that movie you can see a Tomcat DOGFIGHTING T&B with a Zero... and in its tail... nuff' said... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 02:33 PM
another list of good books albeit pertaining to armor:

Tigers in the mud("tigers in schlamm" if memory is right on the german edition):Otto Carius by far THE MAN(to me) as far as armor vets go!!Note I said Vets or I would've said Herr Wittmann who was the biggest thorn in britains side since the Biz!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Panzer Leader:Gen. Heinz Guderian

Panzer Battles: Maj. Gen. F.W. Mellenthin

Panzer Aces:Franz Kurowski
all deal with armor but they have references to soviet air power namely il-2's and the myriad traps they set for them.
Hmmm as to the engine exchange:I could drop one and replace with a new one in 1hr and 45 minutes!!
Oh wait a tic thats a Kafer Im talkin of!!

BTW anyone needin some detailed pix of a REAL Sd Kfz 251(czech variant) for fine scale modellin let me know. I have detailed engine(darned things have air-cooled eight cylinders just like, well twice the injun, that my baja has!!),crew bay, front end linkage,dash,folded front seats,numerous crew compartment floor drive train access panels plus other pix. A man here in Oiho has one and he was gracious enough to let my 3 sons and myself climb on under on top and around and above all fire her up and let us Ride in this fabulous machine! YEP SHE RUNS!!Turns out the owners (there are three of them) use err actually rent it to ppl who use it in WWII re-enactments somewhere near here in Dayton)Also turns out that they were lucky to even get it cuz o' some bill concerning local militias http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifthey thought we'd actually import these things to assualt washington! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Ol' B.J. Clinton put into action blocking imports of such vehicles!!The whole day turned out to be a chance spotting on a back road drive with the Lads!And I happened to have a cam in the trunk o' da Chevy!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Oh and I doubt a .50 cal. could penetrate this a.f.v.(well the main hull) let alone anywhere on a tiger!!Too much comparison to new .50 cals. to the 1st gen. .50 cals. AND YES there is a diff!!In the propellant alone!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-14-2005, 03:00 PM
hm dont think i posted story about tanks in desert, but my memory is ****, it is beliveable tho.

i heard a tiger tank crew member say they hadto turn turret manualy (quieter, dont waste fuel and no smoke to draw attention to yourself) but slower so a another speedy tank like a sherman could outflank it.

germans tank main advantage was the radio equipment imo. also they had good tank generals, gudian or whoever and rommel too but hes more famous, but perhaps less good overall.

aprently french tanks where better in some ways, but they where never used effectivly.

russian tanks had some clever design stuff like wide tracks, sloping armour. but also bad like fitting fuel tanks to the side (un armoured fuel drums)

best sherman tank was the british one with a 75mm gun i think, called the firefly. still vunrable as a ordinary sherman but with more punch.

bizzare sherman engine tho
http://www.uploadit.org/gallery/12199

im amazed it worked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

btw night bombing had fewer causties than many think, battle or berlin was about the worst time. what was bad was the sustained few % losses.
raf was bombing targets in germany nearly every night of the war too. compaired to unescorted daylight raids losses are markidly lower. raf could inflict greater damage on german bombers while opporating on over england, than the german night fighters did over germany/france. also germany had far better flak than the uk.

german night fighters did bite hard in late 43 till middle of 44, then the mossies came and bomber losses soon dropped..

oh the extra performance on nightfighters doesnt matter so much, germans used 110 with radar, a extra man and other bits of equipment, and ju88 with radar things out the nose coursing drag and dont help handling. neither of those planes is stellar performer compaired to say a 109/190

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 03:11 PM
@pingu and anyone else interested in armor:
its old as hades but have you ever played Panzer Elite?

wide track was a german inno.
Best thing the soviets did ws to run their beasts on deisel.Less flammable!Sloping armor was the inspiration for the panther and then of course its trus big bro the Konig!!

yep inter-tank comm. was a big factor! no-one had it! Some used used flags!!Some used smoke. they didnt see it was of worth until almost EVERY SINGLE german tank they found hand one!
Heck while were at it lets talk about the combined arms radio com. they had even between tanks and stuka Schwarm leaders!!The Germans invented combined arms warfare!!PERIOD!!

firefly was a g.b. mod.
and it wasn't so much the "punch" the shermy had it was its ability to "take one on the jaw"
weakness coming from casting,upright surfaces and a ridiculously high silhouette!!

french tanks early on against german mark II-III's but not mk IV's
and yes after years of work on static defenses as the maginot line the germans just did the 2 step right round that silly waist of concrete and men.Actually the germans by passed and then came back and actually cut film for the pioneer corp on how to assault such useless defences!Yet.they wasted time and built the atlantic pitfall!! So many contradictions amongst the reich its comical!!

p1ngu666
01-14-2005, 03:34 PM
atlantic wall was more propaganda than reality. french didnt count on germans invading another country to go round the french defenses.

i dont have a big interest in armour actully, more into planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

never played panzer elite btw

fubar2niner
01-14-2005, 03:37 PM
Mjollnir111675 yup played it and loved it, best WW2 tanker sim IMHO,(**** you made me want to install it again, now i got to find all my skiin,patches et al, this might take some time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Unfortunately theres not enuf released of this genre, but thats another matter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Awaiting steel beasts 2

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 03:46 PM
Man I am down with the P.E.!!
go here: http://p087.ezboard.com/bpedg


Man you best be prepared there are now only 100 additional missions rangin from d-day to africa to the crimea!!there are or used to be a couple of sea lion scenarios.And I believe a few fellows haave modded a korean war scenario.Plus many more derivatives Pm me if ya need help gettin up to speed!!There are like 45-50 some odd missions for the new ostpak!! The graphics aren't all that but man when you get everything man you are there!!Still tryin to get my trackir3 pro to work with it!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Lemme know I'll host some games some time!!I can host at most 10 ppl.I miss the ol' days when it was boomin in mp not that it could ever compare to cod or anything now but if wings woulda released it about 3 yrs later same graphics and all just a beefed up mp system fuhgettaboutit!!
That whole wings/psygnosis/sony trademark copyright thing!?!?

edit:check out t-78? balkans on fire
lemme see if i can dig up a link

fubar2niner
01-14-2005, 04:01 PM
Mjollnir111675......yeps graphs are kinda dated, but what alternative is there? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Anyways thanks for the headsup. Little late here (UK) but scored your URL, and btw PEDG is no stranger hehe, great ref site ditto for mods etc. Looks like i gonna have to rise earlish to dig my old stuff out and program my hotas. BTW any luck you have with TIR Pro3, please let me know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fubar

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 04:07 PM
@Fubar:
"BTW any luck you have with TIR Pro3, please let me know "

Lol I will but dont holdjer breath!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif=Mjollnir, No literally!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 04:12 PM
yea but everyone knows from the old thread classic P-47 VS Tiger Tank that allied aircraft could make mincemeat of german armor with their 50cals. that much i know is true. just aim for the back grills covering engines or the allied video of jugs bouncing rounds off the road into underbellies of tigers

fubar2niner
01-14-2005, 04:17 PM
BlackShrike
You have a url for that vid? regarding the jug footage, i'd be interested to see it.

fubar

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 06:52 PM
" bouncing rounds off the road into underbellies of tigers"
Ya know I dont know where all this 50 cal. shell skippin came from but shell skip was a tactic used by allied tankers who fired a shell which landed similarly to skippin a rock across a pond.Their idea (if any in realityhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gifrob more of an urban warfare legend)was to acheive some arcane precise lucky angel on their shoulder hit by skipping into the belly.YES A 75mm round NOT a 50 cal bullet.BIG DIFF!
Now just think of it for just a moment:
Do ya honestly think youre chances of skippin a rock across a pond are actually that good coming from above? Think rock and pond first before you go and recite me this ignorant thread of which you speak.Or just for a field test if you wanna be the scientist :go out to your local pond,creek,what have you and climb a tree.Ok you up there? Not yet? Well hurry I haven't all day!
Ok good youre up there.Didja put a rock in yer pocket? Of course I'll wait.
Ok youre back in the tree with a flat rock.How high are you?About 15 ft will work for this exercise.
ok now try your best to skip that rock across said water body and tell me how you fare!!
And before you come back with your findings add a little oomph to that rock by firing it from a gun big enough to discharge it.
I dont want to hear it at all!! Skippin 50 cals. off the road and into belly armor!! Are you guys really that strung out to where you cant see the futility in this whole idea? More than basic physics come to mind before I even wanna hear some hot to trot army air corp vet who was only really gunnin for a better rank and to be the first to say "I took out a tiger with a 50 cal!"
I bet he was popular in the quonson hut that week!! Blanket Party for lying!!

I swear some ppl hear that the underside of a tank was "known to be weak" and they think they can fire a 45 into the driver and radio op/hull gunner through the "soft as butter underbelly"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WTE_Tigger
01-14-2005, 07:02 PM
S!

I do love these what if scenario's

here's my input:

According to Heinz Knoke's Biography the German Aircraft industry was going strong, in underground factories and was no where as subdued as the allies thought. Thier main issue by 44 was pilots and the lack of experianced ones.

I think once D-Day started even the 262 wouldn't have stopped the allied and soviet advances.

However, if 262 and other Jet Interceptors been employed as early as 43 and halted the allied bombing raids I suspect that the course of the war would have been altered. How much is open to debate.

There are a couple of other what if's that could be employed here and are relevant. The British had prototype jet technology as early as 1939 though few people realise it. It was at the time disdained and rejected by the air ministry, but it had been developed and a jet engine did exist.

The other thing is Hitler, had old adolph been assasinated by the generals as planned and the war continued under thier command -with or without a new chancellor or fuhrer- would we have not seen a completly differant course of events?

S!

WTE Tigger

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
atlantic wall was more propaganda than reality. french didnt count on germans invading another country to go round the french defenses.

i dont have a big interest in armour actully, more into planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

never played panzer elite btw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The French actually wanted to build all the way round, but the Belgians had a hissy fit, the French obliged and stopped at the Flemish border...silly Romance language speakers!


Ive never played ANY tank sim on PC....would like to find a nice one...but Im not sure if theres any newer ones..but I think there MAY be a steel beasts III coming out

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
" bouncing rounds off the road into underbellies of tigers"
Ya know I dont know where all this 50 cal. shell skippin came from but shell skip was a tactic used by allied tankers who fired a shell which landed similarly to skippin a rock across a pond.Their idea (if any in realityhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gifrob more of an urban warfare legend)was to acheive some arcane precise lucky angel on their shoulder hit by skipping into the belly.YES A 75mm round NOT a 50 cal bullet.BIG DIFF!
Now just think of it for just a moment:
Do ya honestly think youre chances of skippin a rock across a pond are actually that good coming from above? Think rock and pond first before you go and recite me this ignorant thread of which you speak.Or just for a field test if you wanna be the scientist :go out to your local pond,creek,what have you and climb a tree.Ok you up there? Not yet? Well hurry I haven't all day!
Ok good youre up there.Didja put a rock in yer pocket? Of course I'll wait.
Ok youre back in the tree with a flat rock.How high are you?About 15 ft will work for this exercise.
ok now try your best to skip that rock across said water body and tell me how you fare!!
And before you come back with your findings add a little oomph to that rock by firing it from a gun big enough to discharge it.
I dont want to hear it at all!! Skippin 50 cals. off the road and into belly armor!! Are you guys really that strung out to where you cant see the futility in this whole idea? More than basic physics come to mind before I even wanna hear some hot to trot army air corp vet who was only really gunnin for a better rank and to be the first to say "I took out a tiger with a 50 cal!"
I bet he was popular in the quonson hut that week!! Blanket Party for lying!!

I swear some ppl hear that the underside of a tank was "known to be weak" and they think they can fire a 45 into the driver and radio op/hull gunner through the "soft as butter underbelly"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


yup, silly concept, alright....if the 50 cal bullets hit asphalt at a shallow enough angle to skip, and not bury themselves in it, then they would hit the bottom armor at a shallow enough angle to only maybe make a helluva racket inside, no more

If striking asphalt at an angle enough to pierce bottom armor, well, they wouldnt even make it there, and bury themselves in the asphalt, lol

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Tigger:
S!

I do love these what if scenario's

here's my input:

According to Heinz Knoke's Biography the German Aircraft industry was going strong, in underground factories and was no where as subdued as the allies thought. Thier main issue by 44 was pilots and the lack of experianced ones.

I think once D-Day started even the 262 wouldn't have stopped the allied and soviet advances.

However, if 262 and other Jet Interceptors been employed as early as 43 and halted the allied bombing raids I suspect that the course of the war would have been altered. How much is open to debate.

There are a couple of other what if's that could be employed here and are relevant. The British had prototype jet technology as early as 1939 though few people realise it. It was at the time disdained and rejected by the air ministry, but it had been developed and a jet engine did exist.

The other thing is Hitler, had old adolph been assasinated by the generals as planned and the war continued under thier command -with or without a new chancellor or fuhrer- would we have not seen a completly differant course of events?

S!

WTE Tigger <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In 1938, the German general staff were prepared to depose Hitler, and only waited for the British and French to show backbone and oppose Hitler over Czech, thus casting him in a bad light to "justify" thier planned actions...but the Brits and French rolled over on it, and "the rest is history"

Mjollnir111675
01-14-2005, 07:42 PM
Even if it did hit underneath Daiichidoku I doubt amongst the transmission which is in front,the various torsion bars flexing,the tracks,the engine plus the fact that the crew were probably gettin yelled at by the commander to carry out orders and lest we forget the main gun traversing,loading,firing ,shell casings hitting the floor and myriad other ambiences that it would even be heard. Maybe on the sides or top but underneath?I can only imagine the sheer vibration of the vehicle cancelling out most noises.Especially a 50 cal on a tiger.
Who knows maybe that uber-armor the germans were using would just open up and swallow the 50 shells?

"If we are ALL children of god,
what makes Jesus so special?"

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reisen52:
The B-17 can't carry a nuke but the B-29 & B-36 could.

B-29's which flew against Mig-15's escorted by P-80's would have caused a problem for the nazi's in 1945.

When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 Communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties.

Forget the kill claims by the bombers as they don't mean that much. The key thing is only 34 B-29's we lost in 3 years of combat against a jet that is very much superior to the 262 operating under a much more advanced GCI system in a much smaller theater.

Zeke <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GOOD POINT!

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
everyone is arguing that 262s wouldnt change outcome of war due to all the men and machines the allies had.

your not addressing the strategic implications that the bomber war would have been stopped by the germans. and this was their downfall. that and allied jabo fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And all the pro jet boys are not addressing the fact that switching to nigh bombing would have negated the jets speed advantge.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
tagert your defense of allies is admirable and i dont mean to insult you but you know nothing of tanks. and nothing of jets and nothing about what happened in the battle of the bulge. you need to read a book on the battle of bulge. and read about nightfighting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None Taken! Considering the source! Tha and lack of any book references.. Though you claim to have read them all.. Yet all we get is fiction movie references.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
seriously all your arguments are false.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say.. But talk is cheap.. You have proved that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
i have read books on what the germans were going for in the bulge. and your calling these history books myths. and yes the germans started the offensive without enough fuel to finish it. that is correct. heck they were even going for the supply dumps for other things than fuel too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.. but your confusing your dream about reading books with the dream about you watching the battle of the buldge.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
i understand all the allies were best rah rah. im american and think we are the best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thus far it is not a mater of rah rah.. Just simple logic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
but our armies couldnt have landed without complete air supremacy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and even if they landed with horrific losses they could not have pushed back german troops without air supremacy and constant air domination. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is levels of air supremacy.. At the time of D-Day we had a big advantage.. But it was not to the point that the Lw was sure to die if they attempted to take off.. Like in Kuwate 1991. Having an edge over the Lw made things easier.. but it was not necessary imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
germanys armies were too well equipped and too well trained. and they were behind great fortifications and defensive works and used the countryside to their advantage. remember they were on the defensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Wait.. I thought you said all that stuff was blow up due to Air Supremacy? Now your telling me the had well trained, great fortifications and defensive works on D-Day? LOL! Yes they did.. even though we had Air Supremacy! And it didnt stop us did it!?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
SIDE NOTE "THAT is why hitler didnt invade britain btw. he knew better than to try it without Complete air domination and supremacy. it would have been suicide to try. Even if he would have had adequate transport for his armies". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He had more than air supremacy to wory about.. much more!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
you cant just walk up to Germans with shermans and blow thru them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet we did!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and a more accurate model of german panthers and tigers vs shermans would be about 10 to 1 odds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO not IMHO but OHO does not mater.. Because what EVER THE ODDS WERE we had them!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
with a well held line 10 panthers would decimate 40 shermans in a very short period of time.remember the germans had 88s as artillery. those things sitting behind their tanks would wreak havoc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And remember not every panther and 88 was destroyed by allied aircraft.. Nor did we have total air supremacy to the point that the Lw could not take off and attack us.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and no real air support for allies? means no german withdrawals. none. remember germany had the bulk of its tank armies in calais and if they had been moved to normandy when the germans found out about the invasion the allies would have been pushed back to the sea . even without german air support. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! But it wasnt our air support that stopped them.. it was the fear of waking up hitler to get the aproval to move those troops

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
the overwhelming consensus is that the allies were unbeatable in the con arguments against germany. ive read many books on the battles in europe and this is a completely false viewpoint. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont really care what your interptation of the facts is.. Fact is you have not addressed the simple notion that by simply switching to night bombing the war would have contined on pretty much the same path as it did in that the jet's speed advantage would be negated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
remember with germany not being strategically bombed they would have much much more tanks and planes to defend france and they would have had many more parts and much more fuel for planes and tanks. there were many planes left to defend france for germany they just didnt have parts and fuel to put them in the air. and remember the luftwaffe with jets 2 years earlier means most of germanys pilots would have survived from early 43 on. thats huge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But they would have been strategically bombed! Only at night instead of the day.. Thus making the jets speed adv useless and allowing the bombers to bomb at will.. Just not as accurate as they did during the day.. Which in and of itself was not all that accurate either!

All in all you can try and avoid the question put to you so many threads ago by trying to switch to tank topics or other what ifs.. I mean *IF* I could get monkeys to fly out of my butt with ray guns and red hats I too could take over the world! But that is not the topic at hand.. The question is would the 262 change the course of the air war. My answer is maybe.. At least until the B29s got to europe.. The 262 may have forced the B17s to bomb at night.. but it would not have changed the outcome of the war. It may have delayed it a few months.. but that is about it.

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a small detail. large formations of 262s with experienced pilots would have been totally impossible to shoot down.

think :FINAL COUNTDOWN: the movie where american tomcat jets decimated the japanese invasion fleet off of hawaii.

large formations of jets cannot be matched by prop planes. it is not possible young padwans <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.....apart from when they are taking off, and landing...which is what the Allies did.

As I originally said the Allies would have modified their tactics to cope, as each side did when presented with a new threat.

Tomcats..you're having a laugh. Youre talking about a present day Jet with a speed of over 1400mph (and AAM's) compared to a WW2 primitive jet with a speed max speed advantage of 100mph over the prop planes.

The other point you're missing is the 262 was unreliable owing to the engines and consequently had poor serviceability rates leading to problems in getting enough of them into the air at any one time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That and not too long ago someone posted here that even if Hitler would have allowed it to be a figher.. it would have still taken till late 44 to work out all the other bugs.. Most of which had to do with the engines

EPP-Gibbs
01-14-2005, 08:30 PM
These what if's are a little unrealistic..what you're really saying is "what if" the 262 was introduced 2 years earlier..AND the allies did nothing different.

The thing is..they would have done. They'd have reacted and developed the equipment and tactics to cope. That is the course of development; with each side reacting to its own perceived needs, and the actions of it's adversaries.

For all the 262's advantages, they had very little material effect of the Allied effort. Anyone could say, well, if they had them years before, had thousands of them with the backup and abundant ace pilots to fly them...and the allies did nothing to counter them, they'd have made a difference. of course they would..but it's not a realistic proposition.

What if they had them in 1914?

..or Blutcher had them at Waterloo? He'd be the hero and not Wellington

Another "what if" and a simpler one by far....what if Supermarine had developed the large "Spiteful" tail surfaces for the Spitfire in 1942 instead of 45...there would be no Mustang! Why?

It would have meant the longitudinal stability of the Spit would have been such that it could carry enough fuel to go to Berlin and back....one fine long range escort..and no need for the 'Stang. No need..no development.

But...it didn't happen..that's development for you.

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
These what if's are a little unrealistic..what you're really saying is "what if" the 262 was introduced 2 years earlier..AND the allies did nothing different.

The thing is..they would have done. They'd have reacted and developed the equipment and tactics to cope. That is the course of development; with each side reacting to its own perceived needs, and the actions of it's adversaries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
For all the 262's advantages, they had very little material effect of the Allied effort. Anyone could say, well, if they had them years before, had thousands of them with the backup and abundant ace pilots to fly them...and the allies did nothing to counter them, they'd have made a difference. of course they would..but it's not a realistic proposition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPP-Gibbs:
What if they had them in 1914?

..or Blutcher had them at Waterloo? He'd be the hero and not Wellington <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFLMAO!

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 08:44 PM
MOOT POINT!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reisen52:
The B-17 can't carry a nuke but the B-29 & B-36 could.

B-29's which flew against Mig-15's escorted by P-80's would have caused a problem for the nazi's in 1945.

When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (16 to fighters, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 Communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). Losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties.

Forget the kill claims by the bombers as they don't mean that much. The key thing is only 34 B-29's we lost in 3 years of combat against a jet that is very much superior to the 262 operating under a much more advanced GCI system in a much smaller theater.

Zeke <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GOOD POINT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Remember, our lil fantasy here has the 262, or possibly He 280 (which could have been in service by late 42) a 2 year minimum lead...

Thus, theres no Mig 15 if the Soviets are squashed by reasons in this thread...if no tsquashed, it would make a very late appearance...and far behind German dev.

Assuming that Britain was still in one piece, we can allow the P 80, due to England providing USA with a Nene

But by the time a B 29 could make an appearance, there would be even more capable jet types, the TA 183 for example....plus radar and CGI dev would probably stop any B 29 or even B 36 getting through


The B 29 losses in Korea have to be put into context as well...they were NOT employed as strategic bombers, but as tactical, a role it was unsuited for...its tgts of troops and nuisance tgts liek power stations were NOT critical to the N Koreans, who could, would and did make good any damage the B 29s could deal, quickly repairing bridges, power stations, roads, etc..not to mention the almost limitless supply of Chinese manpower flowing over the 49th

Thus, the Koreans did not place so much importance in taking out B 29s...they had not the needed jet fighter eq enough to conduct attrition battles for bombers that did little damage to thier war effort overall, and even less so with trained pilots....the best pilots they had were mostly Soviet "advisors" who by and large had little exp dealing with bomber intercepts, they primarily tangled with the fighters and low level attackers, as they had during WWII vs Germany only a few years before

Had the N Koreans focused on killing B 29s, and had more adequate AAA defences to do so, the toll on B 29s would have been MUCH higher, "be sure"


Just look at N Vietnam and see...of course, they had much mor esophisticated SAM defences, but also did not have any critical woes about B 52s, while they were not hitting strategic tgts, and kept thier Mig 19s out of the bomber hunt and left it to SAMs crewed by peasant girls...and they DID take a toll on B 52s and lower level bombers, too

p1ngu666
01-14-2005, 08:51 PM
allies fed the german intelligence lies and some truths to help the medicen down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the main invasion to the germans wasnt d day, that was a faint, real one was gonna come in later further up the coast.

allied deseption was impressive, german intelligence gathering was impressivly bad, everywhere i think, or they ignored it, like at kursk

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
MOOT POINT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%
In that what ever role they were when the MiG's did attack the B29 delt with it.. And the MiG is a far better jet than the 262.

Only real MOOT point is the 262.. In that by simply switching to nigh bombing it would have made the 262s speed advantage a disadvantage trying to attack bombers at night. Heck.. even some 262 pilots said that during the day they had to slow way down to engage the bombers because the speed difference was so great that taking a shot was nerly imposable.

262 may haved delayed the war.. But not changed it much

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 10:06 PM
to someones recent post. the 262 appearing 2 years earlier was not a fantasy but would have happened except for hitlers redirecting and slowing down the 262 program by 2 years.

tagert your a riot. you sit there and tell me german panzers used diesel fuel so i had to be stupid to think the germans were going after fuel depots. but you were wrong. there are many such mistakes in all your theories.

you keep talking in circles and have no proof of what you say. i have proof of the effectiveness of jets and german tanks and their armies.

you keep talking about night bombing taking out germanies resources. but your avoiding the fact that any incursion by allied fighters would be successfully fought back.

and if the germans focused on night bombers they would have cleared the skies of them. they had the technology. and they had advanced radar. and even though germany really did have jet nightfighters they didnt need to use jets against the bombers. they had other planes to do that better.

it seems youve picked a side on an argument but have nothing to back it up with except hopeful thinking that nightbombing would subdue germany. also your theory of using all the american bombers as night bombers was accurately shot down already as well.

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 10:53 PM
here are a few excerps about the night bomber campaign



The strategic bombing of Germany was designed to permanently weaken Germany€s ability and desire to wage war. Strategic bombing is defined as €œa strike at the enemy€s capacity and willingness to continue in the conflict€.[1] As such, it differs from tactical bombing which directly targets the enemy€s armed forces in the field.

The Casablanca directive of 1943 formally set out the objectives of the Allied strategic bombing campaign as €œthe progressive destruction of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened€.[2] As well as these stated goals, the strategic bombing campaign also aimed to bolster British civilian morale by retaliating for the German €˜Blitz€ on British cities[3] and, after June 1941, to support the Soviet Union by diverting German resources away from the Eastern Front.[4] It was also hoped that via the destruction of their cities the German people would be made to see the cost of war, thereby preventing any future German aggression.[5]



The Flawed RAF Campaign


The attacks made by the RAF in the early years of the war were largely ineffectual. The strategic bombing campaign got off to a very slow start as the RAF was initially only allowed to attack €˜pure€ military targets in an attempt to minimise German civilian casualties and thereby prevent German retaliations against British civilians.[6] This tactic was abandoned following the German terror bombing of Rotterdam in 1940, with the RAF widening its targets to include the night time €˜precision€ bombing of industrial targets.[7] However, this campaign ended in failure, with the ****ing Butt Report of August 1941 concluding that little damage was being inflicted on German industry as only a third of bombs were being dropped within five miles of their target.[8] This failure was especially severe as the RAF was the only means Britain had of directly attacking Germany and Bomber Command had paid a high price in aircrew and their aircraft in its attempt to strike back at the Germans.[9]



The failure of the night precision bombing resulted in the RAF changing its tactics. From February 1942 onwards night bombing attacks were directed at German cities as a whole, and not just selected targets. This change was prompted by the Butt Report€s findings that further €˜precision€ attacks were pointless as €œa city was the highest common factor which Bomber Command Crews could hit€.[10] In place of the high hopes once held for precision bombing, it was hoped that these €˜area€ bombing raids would weaken Germany€s ability to continue the war by lowering civilian morale and preventing civilians from reaching their jobs.[11] However, the area attacks inflicted only minor damage on German industry as while the RAF targeted the centre of the cities most German factories were actually located on the fringes of the major cities[12]. For example, following the fire bombing of Hamburg, which destroyed much of the city and killed tens of thousands of people, production returned to its pre raid level a mere two months after the raid.[13]

From the start of it€s bombing campaign in August 1942, the USAAF bombed by day in the hope of achieving greater accuracy then the RAF. Pre-war USAAF doctrine was based around the perceived ability of large and well armed bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress being able to successfully defend themselves whilst penetrating deep into enemy airspace and delivering an accurate attack before fighting their way home.[18] However, when the bombers were sent over Europe €œwithout fighter escort, the €˜self defending€ Flying Fortress formations were devastated by fighter attack€.[19] These high losses forced the Americans to abandon deep penetrations of Germany until February 1944 when enough long range escort fighters were available to protect the bombers.[20]

It was only from mid 1943 that the Allies strategic bombing of Germany began to make an impact on German industry. Due to the small size of the USAAF and the RAF€s inability to directly attack German industry by night, €œprior to the summer of 1943, air raids had no appreciable effect on German munitions production, or the national output in general€.[21] After the summer of 1943 the growing strength of the RAF and USAAF allowed the bombing campaign to be waged on a much greater scale and it began to show results. However, these results were very limited at first, and in 1943 only 9 percent of total German production was lost due to bombing, and by building new factories and increasing the output of undamaged factories the Germans were still able to meet their production targets.[22] This result was due to the RAF€s area bombing campaign continuing to only have a small impact on German industry[23] and the USAAF€s flawed target selection process which resulted in the USAAF suffering heavy losses sending unescorted bombers deep into Germany to attack targets of questionable strategic value. For example, the Americans primary targets in 1943 were aircraft and ball bearing factories. However these targets weren€t vulnerable to air attack and the bombing, which cost the USAAF hundreds of aircraft, achieved little.[24] Whilst pursuing this campaign, the Americans missed the opportunity to strike at more vulnerable sectors of the German war economy such as the refineries which produced aviation fuel, many of which were within the range of escort fighters.[25] Another of the major flaws in Allied tactics in 1943 was the failure to continue attacks against productive targets such as the German oil industry or the Rhur Dams. Had these targets been repeatedly attacked the Allies could have permanently shut down that sector of the German economy by preventing the Germans from repairing the damage and building new facilities.[26]


Another reason for the poor results of the Allied attacks against German industry in 1943 were the counter measures taken by Germany. Under the leadership of Albert Speer, the Minister for Armaments, many of the important segments of German industry were dispersed into smaller factories which were less vulnerable to the RAF€s area bombing, and did not present large targets for the USAAF€s precision bombing.[27] Whilst these dispersals reduced the efficiency of German industry, they limited the damage caused by bombing by robbing €œthe enemy air forces of much of their target system€.[28] Speer also proved to be highly skilled at repairing damaged facilities and increasing production in the economy as a whole, and under his leadership German armaments production defied the Allied bombers by tripling between January 1942 and July 1944.[29] The German military also can take much of the credit for blunting the bomber attacks. As well as defeating the unescorted American bombers in 1943,[30] the German Air Force (the Luftwaffe) was also successful in inflicting heavy casualties upon the RAF night bombers. Whilst the Luftwaffe had trouble intercepting bombers at night in the early years of the war, from 1942 it enjoyed greater success by improving its interception tactics, building more and better equipped night fighters and deploying more radar stations and flak batteries.[31] While the RAF would try to counter the German defences through the use of technical devices such as radar jamming, German night fighters continued to take a heavy toll of the RAF bombers until the final months of the war, when shortages of fuel and the capture of their ground control stations finally defeated them.
[32]

Whilst German morale suffered under the Allied air attacks, it never broke because of them. The RAF€s area raids, which were primarily aimed at civilian morale, were successful in killing and €˜dehousing€ German civilians, with 592,000 German civilians killed and 3.37 million homes destroyed by Allied (mainly British) bombing throughout the war.[59] However, whilst €œit was a terrible experience to be bombed, €¦ German morale never came near to collapse until the very end [of the war]€, [60] when allied troops entered Germany. However, the raids did lead to €œa loss of sympathy and support for the [Nazi] regime€[61] and this influenced the German government€s decision not to mobilise the country for total war.[62] However, the net effect of this is questionable as there is evidence that air raids actually motivated German workers and Albert Speer credited an increase in worker morale as one of the reasons German industry was able to increase production despite the bombing.[63] Because of this effect, it is clear that the RAF€s area bombing attacks failed to achieve their main objecting of decreasing the Germans€ will and ability to wage war.[64]


The Allies paid a high price, both in terms of money and lives for their strategic bombing offensive. The bombing campaign against Germany cost the RAF 75,000 casualties and the USAAF 43,742 casualties. [69] In addition, the bombing campaign cost the Allies 40,000 planes destroyed or damaged.[70] In economic terms, the British bomber offensive against Germany required 7% of total British manpower and up to a third of British industry to build, crew and maintain the bombers.[71] This had a major effect on the British war effort as a whole, with the resulting shortage of industrial capacity forcing Britain to buy most of its transport aircraft, landing craft, tanks and ammunition off the United States.[72] The American bombing campaign was also expensive, and €œcost $27.5 billion, about 11 percent of the total [American] cost of the war€.[73] So great was the cost of the campaign to the Allies that the costs they incurred in bombing Germany may have actually been greater then the damage they inflicted upon the Germans.[74] However, this is of questionable importance as the Allies (and especially the USA) could sustain a much higher attrition rate then Germany could.[75]



The Allies strategic bombing campaign was a qualified success. The campaign against Germany accelerated the destruction of the German military, with the Luftwaffe being destroyed by it and the German Army and Navy greatly suffering from the limitations placed upon them by the air raids. Whilst strategic bombing failed to make a significant economic impact on the Germany throughout most of the war, it was unquestionably an important factor in Germany€s economic collapse in the last 12 months of the war. However, as the Allies payed a very high price for these limited successes, the strategic bombing campaign cannot be considered anything more then a marginal Allied victory.

i think this summarizes quite well why tagerts night campaigns would do nothing to stop a germany with the jet 2 years earlier in production. tagert i await your reply with baited breath http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-14-2005, 10:55 PM
I'm not so sure night bombing would have worked, especially if Germany took some steps to hide industry like they did, but too little too late, but here they may have time.

Gone for a day and look what happens....I see we are still stuck on page 2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Germans already lost the war in July 1943, on the ground, where it matters--the Finns knew this, and began backing away from Germany after summer 43. Could Me~262 convince them to stay in the game?

But lets play 262, just for Fun...

Assume 262 causes such high bomber losses that USA gives up all strategic bombing, and B~29 is of no help in any numbers until 1945. All the AA guns and AA manpower would be releaced to Eastern Front, as well as BoB (Battle of Bulge) tanks and stuff. So, without any more western activity--USA/Brits just "give up," Germany could possibly stop the Soviets (some posters here make assumption of "excellent" German leadership, but the only valid assumption here is 262). But we already saw what happened at Kursk, so the Germans may or may not succeed here.

So, with 262 forcing USA to give up on strategic bombing, USA converts all B~17 and B~24 production into....P~47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif USA focuses on tactical airpower like Germany and Soviets. Worse, Everybody here assumes 262 Saves Germany's war production. Noboby here wants to post about how the USA historically began downsizing its WAR effort as early as 1944. Instead of historical 200 Me262 against 5,000 P~47, we have 2,000 262 against 50,000 P~47.

USA didn't even begin to fight before the war ended.

Also, some posters here "forgot" that defeating Germany was the USA #1 Priority and Pacific war was #23 (or something).

So, DDay happens a year later, with 50,000 P~47s flying against 2,000 Me~262s. Lopp off a Zero each side. Been there, done that.

Assume no DDay. Can't go through Italy--already discussed. Look at a map. Any place in Europe can be used as invasion point given a proper buildup, and Time was against Germany.

Without any western intervention, Germany might could stop the Soviets, but they could always be supplied even more than they were with Lend Leace--don't know if Stalin would have wanted USA/Brit troops going through Crimea though...assume NOT. So, where to invade Europe?

Most important because its NOT talked about at this webboard. Germany did NOT have the population to fight a war of this kind, against so many enemies it Chose to make. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Male Nazi Party officials knew this very well, and formed part of their Eugenics Plan (just a reminder, even the lol western "democracies" all had Sterilization Laws in this time period).

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 11:05 PM
50,000 jugs??? talk about a serious leap of faith...........

ive just posted excerps from night bombing failures of britain. i can now start with excerps of the german armies if needed. trust me they couldnt be beat without air superiority .

but lex luther did touch on one point which is fact also. without the constant threat of allied bombers anymore all its anti aircraft batteries would have been moved to the eastern front and decimated russian land forces and tanks.Decimated.

LEXX_Luthor
01-14-2005, 11:15 PM
800 Me~262 in 1943, talk about a serious leap of Faith.......

lex luthor touched upon USA historically downsizing war effort as early as 1944.

lex luthor touched upon Population.

Anybody want to touche upon lex luthor's touches...?

No. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif soooo lonely here.

flemsha
01-14-2005, 11:17 PM
The real value of the strategic bombing campaign has always been questionable. While the Luftwaffe undoubtedly lost pilots during the campaign, and some damage was done to some targets, Germany's industrial ability INCREASED under the bombing campaign.

Thus it could be argued that on the air war the 262 may have seen an end to the strategic bombing campaign, and a move to a tactical campaign, where the 262 would have to face off against fighters which could outturn them and outnumbered them. If they don't engage they're not in any danger, but if they don't engage they have no effect (much like the German U-boats).

So the end result is the allies hold aerial supremacy over the battlefield (where it counts), and Germany still loses the war, and the strategic bomber dies in World War II, instead of dying with the invention of the SAM.

BlackShrike
01-14-2005, 11:26 PM
flemsha your post doesnt take into account a couple of planes called ME109 and FW190.

and please elaborate on tactical ....that was ineffective to say the least

LEXX_Luthor
01-14-2005, 11:29 PM
Germany did increase production in 1944, but not as much it could have if there was no bombing.

flemsha:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...where the 262 would have to face off against fighters which could outturn them and outnumbered them. If they don't engage they're not in any danger, but if they don't engage they have no effect (much like the German U-boats). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Corsairs are not in danger if they don't engage good turning Zeroes....Something missing here... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Me~262 would be devastating in striking at high speeds against other aircraft over frontline battlefield. Instead of targeting B~17s they would be targetting B~26 or P~47s attack planes. However, it would not make such a good frontline battlefield tactical fighter (He~162 may be a different story) as much as it made a great strategic interceptor. Am thinking of the airfields needed to operate Me~262. Not very flexible, although this could use some discussion. Also, Being forced to fly low to intercept P~47 would place them at mercy of escorting P~51. However, 262 could be escorted by Fw or Bf. So we come back to the 50,000 P~47 produced. Same result.

Daiichidoku
01-14-2005, 11:34 PM
OT, but the He 280 first flew in 41!...

RLM nixed production, but it already had lots more development then the 262 ever had...if the He 280 was produced, it would have appeared in service (barring any Hitler-ference) by late 42

By the time Tagert's beloved B 29s even made service test status, LW would have moved on to even mor ecapable jets


but Im done with this thread now, Tagert keeps picking aprt every point scientifically with opinions and theories that ignore frameworks like what I have just stated above...and many others myself and other ppl have stated...like Lexx said (Lexxx....I know great minds think alike, but Geez, cmon, hehe) this is page 7 on page 2....Its stagnating

LEXX_Luthor
01-14-2005, 11:39 PM
I know, I know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

About 280, its not allowed. Only 262 can begin the changing of history in this thread. All other historical changes come after 262.

We could use a He~280 Thread.

Daiich, start one in Oleg's Recovery Room.....Oleg , Flyable He~280 plz

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

TAGERT.
01-14-2005, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
to someones recent post. the 262 appearing 2 years earlier was not a fantasy but would have happened except for hitlers redirecting and slowing down the 262 program by 2 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too bad you wernt here a few months back.. A guy posted some stuff that showed that was not the case.. The 262 had more problems than Hitler! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
tagert your a riot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What can I say.. It's a gift!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
you sit there and tell me german panzers used diesel fuel so i had to be stupid to think the germans were going after fuel depots. but you were wrong. there are many such mistakes in all your theories. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I said before.. Easy to say I am wrong.. Should be real easy for a guy who claims to have read as many books as you have.. Yet nothing presented here by you to prove I am wrong.. Again.. Talk is cheap! Your living proof of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
you keep talking in circles <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Circles? Oh.. Well.. yes I guess it would seem like a circle to you in that you have yet too address the issue about how the 262 speed advantage would have been disabled by switching from daylight to night bombings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and have no proof of what you say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You say that as if you have presented something here that is proof.. Keep in mind this is not a 5th grade history class where the teathers is going to pat you on the head when your done.. No mater how wrong you are. I would think that a guy like yourself who claims to have read all so many books could give us more than his *feelings* and *opinions*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
i have proof of the effectiveness of jets and german tanks and their armies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I told you before.. I am not interested in your take on what you read.. You have no proof of what the 262 might have done.. Because it didnt! Your wrong from the get go because you assume that the allieds tatics would not have changed.. *IF* the 262 would have been desimating the B17s during the day they could have simply switched to night bombimb which would have taking the 262 out of the equation with regards to attacking bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
you keep talking about night bombing taking out germanies resources. but your avoiding the fact that any incursion by allied fighters would be successfully fought back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat opinion.. One that you are wecome to belive.. One that most reasonable people here know is silly in that the speed advantage of the 262 would have been a disadvantage at night. But please contine to avoid that topic.. It only shows how weak your hand is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
and if the germans focused on night bombers they would have cleared the skies of them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO not IMHO. And just to be clear here.. You calling your statments proof is not proof.. Everythig I have said and you have said here from the get go is our opinions. The only facts here is that the US won the war ever with all the Nazi wiz bang weapons.. The only real WAR ENDING weapon that was light years ahead of everyone else was the ABOMB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
they had the technology. and they had advanced radar. and even though germany really did have jet nightfighters they didnt need to use jets against the bombers. they had other planes to do that better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! So.. just how many topic do you want to have in this thread? Please take that masive reading brain of yours and take one more look at the title of the thread.. The topic is about the 262.. My answer was night bombing would easly take the 262 advantage away.. So simple yet you still avoid it by trying to muddy the waters by pointing out obvious things like the Germans had other night fighters.. Geee really? Guess you must have got that out of one of them books?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
it seems youve picked a side on an argument but have nothing to back it up with except hopeful thinking that nightbombing would subdue germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL! The best part of that reply is that you seem to be under the false impression that you have something to back up your statements.. Just know that you have not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
also your theory of using all the american bombers as night bombers was accurately shot down already as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL! Hey.. while your avoiding the fact that the 262 speed advantae would be a disadvantge at nigth while attacking bombers.. Also keep in mind that I have not forgot about your sloppy excuse about the ABOMB falling into the hands of the Nazi.. Thus we wouldnt have used it.. I noticed you had no answer for that either.

In summary.. I just want you to know I really dont care what you think.. It aint going to change the fact that the allieds won the war and that no amount of buzz bombs, jets, or V2's changed the resolve or results of the allieds or the outcome of the war respfully.

flemsha
01-14-2005, 11:58 PM
Of course then we might have seen some of the designs that the USAAF had in the works but never saw the light of day because the war was practically over and it would have been a waste of money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

An interesting thought though is what would have happened if the west had sought a negotiated peace with Nazi Germany. Would the west then have joined the Germans against the Russians? It was not in the West's interest to see Germany overrun by the Russians. So many what ifs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And what would the effect have been on the Pacific war. Would Russia come in on the side of the Japanese then (seems highly unlikely given the history those two countries share).

TAGERT.
01-15-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
OT, but the He 280 first flew in 41!...

RLM nixed production, but it already had lots more development then the 262 ever had...if the He 280 was produced, it would have appeared in service (barring any Hitler-ference) by late 42

By the time Tagert's beloved B 29s even made service test status, LW would have moved on to even mor ecapable jets


but Im done with this thread now, Tagert keeps picking aprt every point scientifically with opinions and theories that ignore frameworks like what I have just stated above...and many others myself and other ppl have stated...like Lexx said (Lexxx....I know great minds think alike, but Geez, cmon, hehe) this is page 7 on page 2....Its stagnating <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See a simple change in tatics and they fall apart.. BOW DOWN! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cajun76
01-15-2005, 01:11 AM
Yes, once again, people diss the P-47, possibly the most under rated and under appreiciated plane of WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LW fans of this era scoff when they compare it to their favorite ride. Yet, often outnumbered and with reletively green pilots, it amassed a 4.6 to 1 kill record vs. the the best of the Western Front LW had to offer before the P-51 took over the majority of the A2A duties. It finished the war, despite air opposition and ground fire with only 0.7% lost. The top aces of the USAAF in Europe flew them and lived.

Development and flight testing of the XP-47J and P-47M was happening in mid 1943. No one needed them until the British requested the P-47M for V1 intercept duty, nearly a year after it was intially developed.

If Germany tried to put out 800 262's, production of 109's and 190's would have fallen way off. With their typical problems, I highly doubt your going to have them all operational, all the time. Plus, being spread out, and now things look much bleaker for the 262. I know the '800' is arbitrary, but given the complexity, and cost, having thousands most likely was impossible.

Now, forgeting that the US and the British had jets in developement, but didn't really need them at the time, the XP-47J had a top speed of around 500mph, and a higher ceiling than the 262. The next proposed evolution (XP-72) was cancelled due to the war winding down and jet delopement looked to be the wave of the future. The proposed XP-72 (which flew 2 Feb 44) used lessons learned from the XP-47J, and was nearly as fast in pre-production form.

Put P-47N wings on a XP-47J or XP-72 airframe and you'd also get a superlative fighter...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I even see this myth about 262's being shot down only landing or taking off. It was easier to get them this way, and why not, when you have control of the air. However, 262's were downed in A2A combat also.

So, even in decent numbers, the 262 wouldn't have the impact on the outcome of the war, as far the end result. It would have merely prolonged the inevitable, since the Germans had already lost the war at Stalingrad and other places. Saying it could have chaged the entire course of the air campaign or the war is like saying the P-51 won the war.

Ridiculous, because the P-47 did. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
01-15-2005, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I know, I know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

About 280, its not allowed. Only 262 can begin the changing of history in this thread. All other historical changes come after 262.

We could use a He~280 Thread.

Daiich, start one in Oleg's Recovery Room....._Oleg , Flyable He~280 plz_

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmmm

He 280...first ever jet fighter, first twin jet, first twin jet fighter, first trike jet, first aircraft with ejection seat (He 219 was first operational ac with ejection seat)

Top speed AFAIR was only about 20 mph less than the later 262, not bad for a straight-wing type

Was programmed for 4 x 30mm, and displayed wonderful flight characteristics, practically viceless, and without the 262's high speed snaking

RLM let a real winner go with this one, along with other Heinkel products, He 100 and He 219...but that was 41, when the Bolshelvists were soon to be crushed, England would sue for peace, and Amerika was a eunich


YOU know I wont thread for a He 280 Lexxx...stop tempting me...enough stupid one off experimental never built speculative FM types already

The He 219 another story tho...but then it would necessarily have to be such a good performer EVERYONE and thier n00b brother would fly it, and thus make it a hated type for me...sides, I dont imagine we will get any more types for FB ever again, aside from whats already been "slated" liek the Mossie, Tempest, et al....oh, and the "Russkie only" cd with the Red fantasy types


Hey, you familiar with the Fairy Fantome? Belgian made, and lines SO sweet...possibly nicer than even a late prod Fury


I know, Lexxx, YOU lobby Oleg for a Beech staggerwing..they DID serve

Aaron_GT
01-15-2005, 01:56 AM
Tagert wrote:
"So.. are you trying to say that Hitler didnt have enough fule from the start of the Battle of the Buldge?"

Indeed the fuel the Germans had for the Battle of the Bulge at the start was almost certainly insufficient but it what was available. The battle plans included the requirement to capture Allied fuel dumps intact to allieviate this. It was a last ditch effort and was launched with insufficient resources. Launching attacks with insufficient resources was done a number of times by German forces in various theatres. You could argue that the overall war production and logistics issues (insufficient trucks, rail gauge mismatches) meant that launching an attack on the Soviet Union was a mistake, even.

Aaron_GT
01-15-2005, 02:00 AM
"mossie would be vunrable due to it not having a large speed deficite and no guns"

Quite a lot of the Mosquitos were also NFs with guns sent to escort the bomber streams, not just various B marks used for pathfinding and target marking.

BlackShrike
01-15-2005, 02:08 AM
tagert once again you have shown gross error. i never mentioned anything about A bombs falling into enemy hands. that was someone else and is irrelevant to the thread at hand true.

you can put that mistake in the same basket as german diesel tanks. you still havent explained that major misconception.

and why do you keep discussing jets having to slow down at night? what does that have to do with 262s stopping the allied air war in germany? nothing.

please respond to my excerpts about the ineffectiveness of british night bombing tagert. you seem to hinge ALL your theories on those night bombers destroying germany and ive shot holes all through that theory. please let us discuss that theory.

SIDE NOTE TO CAJUN. i know about the jugs and experimental jugs. i want the P47M and N models in game. but to say they would stand up to jet fighters is stretching things as we both know. i do believe the p47m to be the best prop plane of ww2 but it was no match for a jet. even with 4 to 1 odds to its advantage. remember. no land bases for the allies in europe with the jets as C.A.P. over fws and 109s.

tagert you tell me this is not a 5th grade history class and i am wrong about german tanks not being diesel. so if i prove to you they are not diesel you will stop talking in circles? i have already proved your theory of night bombers incorrect in stopping germany.

now do i need to prove german tanks were not diesel too? anything else i need to prove?

be careful. the more you talk the deeper a hole you dig. truthfully its kind of funny to what lengths you go without any historical reference points. my opinion of you has changed 180 degrees in this thread.

have a good day and may i recommend a few books i have read?

JG26 Top Guns Of The Luftwaffe. great book.

Russia at War by werth

Panzer battles by von mellenthin

War As I Knew It ... Patton

War In the Pacific

The Blond Knight Of Germany.

these are a fraction of the books i have in my library. not bad for a 5th grade education eh?

what books have you read?

LEXX_Luthor
01-15-2005, 02:19 AM
Well, my book is bigger than your book.


Okay http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif If Me~262 can prevent the bombing of Bf~109Z prototype, then Bf~109Z can win the WAR for Germany. I was (choke) wrong.


I have al werth too, interesting take he has on Liberation of Warsaw. mmm

Aaron_GT
01-15-2005, 02:28 AM
Tagert wrote:
"In that what ever role they were when the MiG's did attack the B29 delt with it.. And the MiG is a far better jet than the 262."

But the intensity of the North Korea air defence was a fraction of what the LW could muster in 1943-4.

Flying_Nutcase
01-15-2005, 08:41 AM
Oh my, what a discussion.

From if and how a nuke would be delivered over Berlin to the time it takes for a full rotation of a King Tiger's turret.

It's nice to know there are so many active minds out there. lol.


S!


Nutcase.

Daiichidoku
01-15-2005, 12:13 PM
Yes many active minds...Tagert is here, too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Buckaroo12
01-15-2005, 12:35 PM
A couple of more points to ponder. For a moment, lets let taggert have his theory of massive American bomber formations being unmolested over the night sky in Germany. The fact would still remain that Germany would own the daytime sky, covering German armour, the German Navy etc. This alone, would make a huge difference with 262 flying air cover while JABO units decimated allied ground forces.

For all those of you who mentioned that the 262 could not stand up to massed allied fighter presence I'll ask a simple question, if that's the case and the 262 has no advantage v fighters why are they banned on almost all the HL servers? There was a thread a while back discussing a session (I forget which server) that allowed LW jets v spits and stangs. Those who flew allied were mad because they couldn't even finish a take-off run. This huge allied fighter presence your talking about probably would've happened as the US geared up to produce more fighters to take air superiority away from Germany. However, producing large amounts of fighters doesn't happen overnight and if the Germans gained air superiority over Europe and then extended that control to the skies over Britain, Luftwaffe bombers and JABO units would be able to decimate the newly arrived fighters as they arrived. German fighters could've done the same thing in the same manner the US historically attacked the 262's (establish local air superiority over a base and shoot down anything that taxi's to a runway)

Another intangible yet hugely important benefit of the early 262 scenario would be the loss of allied initiative if you don't think that this is an important point, ask anyone who has ever served in uniform just how important initiative is on the battlefield. I am 200% certain they will tell you that it is often a deciding factor. Yes, the Allies would've changed tactics, sped up production of their own jets etc. but now they are REACTING. Don't think for a minute that German scientists and developers would've sat back in '43 and said "Well, we've got the first jet in production... Lets all go on vacation, our work is done!" While the allies were scrambling to get their own jets operational, German scientists (Now freed from the task of figuring out how to put bomb racks on the 262) would be busy refining their interceptor and working on other designs (such as more fuel efficient and reliable engines) that would again take the initiative away from the allies.

airdale1960
01-15-2005, 01:08 PM
Yes, the ME 262 could've won the air war had the advantage not been sqwandered by dear Adolf. The allies had jets, the Meteor (not up to Me262 performance), the P-59 (Junk); even if the Allies had a counter like the P-80, the Axis countered with jets resembling the MiG 15 (Me1101,Ta-183,B&V P.211 for example), surely to out perform it. I never reasoned why the swept wing did not show up on American and British jets until F-86, Daa.
The Allied Powers fought on the battle field, but won in the factories and places of worship.
Rosie the riviter and Father Flanagan, baby.

Aaron_GT
01-15-2005, 03:20 PM
"The allies had jets, the Meteor (not up to Me262 performance), the P-59 (Junk);"

The Vampire only just missed the war and was of comparable performance to the Me262 and P-80. In theory the Miles M-52 was even envisaged as the basis of a fighter project, started in 1942 but the gestation period as a fighter would have been too long even for an extended WW2.

If things had got such that the Allies lost initiative they would probably have concentrated on producing a very high altitude version of the B29 and as a delivery mechanism for A bombs.

WUAF_Badsight
01-15-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
they would stand up to jet fighters is stretching things as we both know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well if anything was going to protect the bombers , the P-47N would have been the best choice in my opinion

& as you also probably know , Corsairs got kills on Migs during the Korean war

without air superiority , D-Day would never have been as successfull as it was & might have been halted entirely

IMO , the daylight bombing of Germany could have been made to be so wastefull that they would have stopped

in other words , the Me262 , if used the way Adolf Galland wanted , could have allowed a stand off for hitler in europe

GerritJ9
01-15-2005, 04:16 PM
First off, so far I managed to shoot down four B-17s max...... one with R4Ms, the others with 30mm.

He 280 performance was superior to Me 262's.
From William Green's "Warplanes of the Second World War: Fighters vol.1"

Top speed 578 mph at 19,685 ft (Me 262, 540 mph).
Initial climb rate 4,923 ft/min (Me 262, 3,937 ft/min).
Service ceiling 49,200 ft (Me 262, 37,565 ft).
Range, 435 miles (Me 262, 526 miles at 19,685 ft).
Armament: three 20-mm MG151 cannon (here, 262 is superior though development would undoubtedly have seen He 280's gunpower increase).
He 280 first flew with jet propulsion in April 1941....... more than a year before the Me 262's first jet engines only flight in July 1942. It could have entered service in 1942, the 262 was nowhere near entering service then.

Who's going to model it???????????

As for engine reliability, part of the problem was caused by a shortage of nickel, which was/is required for high-temperature turbine blading. Ceramics were under investigation as an alternative- considered innovative now, but nothing short of revolutionary then! But ceramics were in their infancy and no positive results were achieved before Germany's collapse.

mynameisroland
01-16-2005, 07:29 AM
Most of the posts in this thread have been informative and interesting. If you read them through only one poster seems to stand out as a troll and an ill-informed one at that.

Repeatedly he has unwittingly revealed his lack of WW2 knowledge and is a fine example of his countries renowned education system.

To get back to the topic I (yes in my opinion - but not yours as somebody will no doubt wittily retort) think that the 262 would have altered the course of WW2.

It would have rendered skies over Europe untenable for the 8th airforce. In 43 FW190's and Me109's managed to inflict such losses during raids on Schweinfurt and Regensburg that the 8th considered abandonment of the campaign. of around 300 odd bombers 61 were shot down and destroyed and hardly a single B17 returned to base without some flak or fighter damage.

What altered the situation in favour of the Americans was the Mustang. which im sure everybody knows stemmed from a British specification and only achieved its performance using the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. I would have loved to see how well it would have performed at 30,000ft on its un supercharged Allison.

The 262 introduced in 43 would have lead to the decimation of any allied daylight bombing raids over europe. there is no counter argument to this. It would take US and lets not forget Britain (especially since British aviation industries were the Allied class leaders in radar, jet engine, inline engine and also night bombing technologies) years to instigate and put in to production a response to counter the 262 threat. The question of initiative is also hugely important remember that almot every single jet aircraft development after WW2 stemmed directly from German research. Think Mig 15, F86, through to B47 and even the British V bomber force. The Germans were the only nation to have a supersonic wind tunnel therefore there research was inevitably more advanced. They also had working guided missile prototypes, and SAMs, both of which were furtherd by the allies after WW2.

To counter some additional posts, the P47 was a fine aircraft but would not have been able to outfight faster harder hitting jet aircraft. It also in my opinion - but also in the opinion of most non US combat pilots in 1945 (including British and French) was not a better Aircraft than the Ta 152 H.

To the question of the Battle of the Bulge. Not German main battle tank of WW2 had a diesel education. I know this and I have never been lucky enough to have had a 5th grade US education - thank goodness. Also it is rich that you keep refering to the fact that some posters seem to have been gathering there knowledge from films, I would like to counter this by stating the only way you could possibly be so ill informed is by learning from historically inaccurate HollyWood films at the expense of books.

Coming to the B29 - the super plane that could do away with inferior Me262's. Dont make me laugh have you read any of the combat reports of the B29's actual service record? If you had you would surely have read the reports of Japanese interceptors shootig down 10 from a formation of 120 B29's suffering no loss to themselves. This is hardly a a god indication of its ability to avoid Luftwaffe prop fighters let alone jet and rocket fighters.

Lastly, I love to go online on which ever server you fly on and show you just how good the Corsair really was by shooting it down in any FW190 model - over and over agian. That way your eyes might be opened to the world that exists outside your own biased one sided narrowminded views

; )

reisen52
01-16-2005, 09:47 AM
>>>Dont make me laugh have you read any of the combat reports of the B29's actual service record?<<<

Just a chuckle...a cherry picked combat report does not make much of a proof. The proof is in the performance over the long run. including two wars one against jet interceptors.

From November 24, 1944 the B-29's Marianas operation, a total of 25,500 individual aircraft sorties were flow, and 170,000 tons of conventional ordnance had been dropped. A total of 371 bombers had been lost. Additionally, a Saipan to Tokyo distance of about 1,270 one way or 2,540 miles round trip did not help the loss stats all that much in the 1940 when long distance flight by itself was very problematical.

Just like anything else the early raids suffered as new tactics were developed to best use the aircraft.

The first Tokyo raid to using new tactics was on March 9.

302 B-29s launched & 279 made it to the target after aborts. In two hours 16 square miles of Tokyo's city center were gone & 14 B-29s were lost.

Its always interesting to watch the losers in these 'what if's' trying to show how they really should have won. If only..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

For countries with the physical size, population, production capacity & natural resources of Germany & Japan to take on the USA, USSR & the other Allied nations in a war of attrition just shows monumental stupidly on their part.

BTW The Mustang was not a "British Spec" design. The British Air Purchasing Commission asked North American to manufacture the Curtiss Hawk 87 (P-40D) under license for the RAF. NAA counter with what they felt was a better design the Model NA-73.

As for the Allison, the P-62 which used a NACA laminar flow design similar to the P-51 had an Allison V-1710-109 (E22) water-cooled engine rated at 1425 hp for take off & a maximum speed of 437 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling was 39,000 feet.

The P-51/Rolls Royce was a great match, an all time classic, no doubt about it but not all Allison engined planes were low & slow flyers either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zeke

GerritJ9
01-16-2005, 09:50 AM
The Vampire may have had similar performance to the Me 262...... but by no stretch of the imagination could it have entered service as a fighter in 1943.
The Germans were not alone in having development problems with their jet engines- the Allies, too, suffered many setbacks while developing theirs. Their adavantage was, mainly, that they could get their hands on sufficient nickel, enabling them to use this in alloys for turbine blading- hence somewhat more reliable engines once built.
The He 280 may have been a winner by the end of 1942- when Allied jets were nowhere near ready for service. The RLM's short-sighted policy towards Heinkel's fighter designs (the He 100 was another victim of this) meant it did not go beyond prototype stage.

p1ngu666
01-16-2005, 01:05 PM
miles m52 was designed with a supersonic wind tunnel. also scale models passed mach 1 without any major problems (after the program was closed, stupidly)

data from miles was given to americans doing high speed stuff, when the time came for miles and english scientists to goto america to see usa research, oh there not allowed. then X1 or whatever looks really like m52, lots of m52 stuff, HOW spooky.

a unarmed mossie would be vunrable to a 262 aaron. bomber and pr mossies didnt have guns, tho ive heard of a pilot corkscrewing his way out of trouble, 262 ran out of ammo. interestingly pilot said that rounds would explode in front of him, always wondered how germans avoided friendly fire desimating random villages, and now i know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

what about if there where despirate raids to knock out 262's? reverse lend lease po2's doing stealth raids against 262 airfields maybe (at night obviously

BlackShrike
01-16-2005, 10:45 PM
very interesting topic. i guess tagert started reading and realized a couple things hehe

Daiichidoku
01-17-2005, 12:55 AM
Hes probably making his point by point rebuttals of opinion and seemingly ill-informed facts...takes time

flemsha
01-17-2005, 02:48 AM
I doubt it,

though I doubt you guys are as right as you think you are either.

A 1943 introduction of the Me-262 would have altered Allied fighter production considerably. Different pressures lead to different results. The P-80 would have been introduced earlier, with a greater pressure to its production. There would certainly have been a period of Luftwaffe supremacy, much as there was with the first introduction of the FW-190 when the current generation Spitfire's were hopelessly outclassed (the FW-190 was considerably faster, much like the Me-262 was compared with piston fighters).

The P-80 would then have been introduced and balanced matters more. Development of the next generation of jet fighters (such as the F-84) would have been accelerated, which would have countered the next generation of jets that the Luftwaffe had in the works.

As for the British, their Meteor was not a Me-262 beater, but as mentioned other designs could have, and with pressure the meteor would have been introduced earlier than it was.

One could just have easily asked the question, what if the RAF didn't dismiss Frank Whittle and instead pressed ahead with jet development in 1939?

mynameisroland
01-17-2005, 03:21 AM
The B29 was the most expensive and complex aircraft to fly during WW2 - but it still suffered when intercepted.

My point is even over a beaten Japan the B29 was suffering losses that it was never meant to against an organised defence let alone a sporadic disorganised one. Put the B29 up against the German defences and it to would suffer unacceptable losses if it was unescorted. The 262 would have generate dthe conditions where conventional types would have been unhindered in their bomber intercept missions.

Also where does the P-80 get its jet engine from in 1943? you cant speed up 'production' of something that was still in develpoment. The Jumo 004 was flying in 1942 so that is why this scenario is a believable 'what if'

If you could see past your mindset of ' USA won the war blah blah blah' you might be able to see the discussion that is going on here.

Von_Zero
01-17-2005, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Hes probably making his point by point rebuttals of opinion and seemingly ill-informed facts...takes time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
or he is trying to find a way to demontrate that the Me262 would have to slow down at night.... thus negating its speed advantage
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Daiichidoku
01-17-2005, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flemsha:
One could just have easily asked the question, what if the RAF didn't dismiss Frank Whittle and instead pressed ahead with jet development in 1939? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question....but while 280 production was nixed by an RLM that believed the war would be won shortly, and the 262 was victim of political blundering, the Brits simply could not have done too much with development of Whittles jet...resources such as raw materials and engineering minds were scarce and much needed elsewhere, and soon came the very real possibility of invasion, then the blitz and a life and death struggle with u-boats, plus emerging problems in asia, africa/med and even persia/iraq....Brits had thier plate FULL, and to devote any more than the pittance given to the jet would have been foolhardy, and extremely costly, especially on an unknown venture like jets

Had the 280 emerged, or the 262 appeared earlier than it did, perhpas they would have pared down the heavy bomber programme and would have seen thier own jets emerge earlier than they did, for them to do so at so early a stage as 39 forward simply wouldnt have happened, even in a speculative context as this thread been


In an aside, another point to remember is that once that German jet lead was established, and allowing that it would keep the infrastructure going to support itself, that lead would likely never be beaten, and the first Allied jets would be faced with large numbers of 280/262s and/or improved variants piloted by well trained and experienced crews, plus newer-generation follow-on jets with better and more advanced weapons and FCS/radars, made with the idea of keeping that lead

Also, without Allied strategic bomber interference, V-1 and V-2 delevopments could go ahead to even more capable and fearsome weapons....

Ok, last tangent...jets would also lead to turbines late or post-victorious-nazi-war, powering rotary aircraft (and somehow I think the Germans would master the use of highly mobile versitile armed rotary craft to good effect!), smaller surface vessels and tanks....whoa!

flemsha
01-17-2005, 04:34 AM
The Allies did have Jet engines available in 1943. The allies also had an industrial base much stronger than the Germans (sorry thats not blind faith, thats just reality). It was the allies ability to produce which allowed them to defeat the Germans.

The allies would have responded to the Me-262 (necessity is the mother of invention) if the need arose. As it was the Me-262 was too little too late, and so the allies did not respond. Had we seen an Me-262 in 1943, then the response would have been interesting, but it is unrealistic to believe that the allies would not counter.


Edit: Sorry Hadn't read your post yet Daiichidoku
Actually your statement does raise an interesting point. How long could Nazi development have continued. The German education system was one which stifled scientific development, thus the Germans would have eventually hit a brick wall in how far their development could go.

While the Germans probably had some way to go in terms of development, it would still have slowed, as the innovation of the "old" scientists stopped, and the new, ideologically educated, but poorly scientifically educated, took over.

Daiichidoku
01-17-2005, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Hes probably making his point by point rebuttals of opinion and seemingly ill-informed facts...takes time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
or he is trying to find a way to demontrate that the Me262 would have to slow down at night.... _thus negating its speed advantage_
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


His logic is flawed, without a reliable way to kill bombers at night with jets, they would simply rule by day, and leave an excess of prop types to deal with 4 engine night intruders, plus preserve the vital infrastructure and industry allowing development of CGI etc to deal great blow to any night force

Even more, with jets about, they would strike into England at will, with little defense for quite awhile, or specialist jet jobs with fuel to loiter over UK pouncing climbing bombers


funny how his prodigious posting has tailed off tho hehehe

flemsha
01-17-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Hes probably making his point by point rebuttals of opinion and seemingly ill-informed facts...takes time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
or he is trying to find a way to demontrate that the Me262 would have to slow down at night.... _thus negating its speed advantage_
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


His logic is flawed, without a reliable way to kill bombers at night with jets, they would simply rule by day, and leave an excess of prop types to deal with 4 engine night intruders, plus preserve the vital infrastructure and industry allowing development of CGI etc to deal great blow to any night force

Even more, with jets about, they would strike into England at will, with little defense for quite awhile, or specialist jet jobs with fuel to loiter over UK pouncing climbing bombers


funny how his prodigious posting has tailed off tho hehehe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still posting and I still disagree with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not to say I agree with Target either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daiichidoku
01-17-2005, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flemsha:
The P-80 would then have been introduced and balanced matters more. Development of the next generation of jet fighters (such as the F-84) would have been accelerated, which would have countered the next generation of jets that the Luftwaffe had in the works. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-80, along with the Vampire (but not the Meteor, it would have been a blower Fairy Battle) would have made it good go of it, a great match...except that as I mentioned in my above post, they would face large numbers of 262, possibly improved ones, with high jet time crews vs thier 0 timers, plus Germany's next gen types to keep ascendancy fo rjust such as event...

The F-84 was a first gen design, BTW, and probably would have been rejected for production as it lacked credible range in early versions for strike, and was by no means an interceptor or point defence fighter...as would have also been the case with the NA sabres, straight wing sabres (USAF opted for swept wings on them only after German data was obtained), or Curtiss' blackhawk twin pod 4 jet side by side 2 seater, or Northrop's XP-79 flying ram and B 49 bombers...or the "flying pancake", or the Davis "manta" fighter would have been made....but probably they would have put everything into P 80s until those later types could come down the pipeline

flemsha
01-17-2005, 05:05 AM
Indeed, though is there considerable difference between P-80 pilots with little experience going up against experienced Me-262 pilots than there was with Spitfire pilots, with little experience, going up against experienced German pilots.

Losses would have happened, but the allies could afford losses, many more than the Germans could.

reisen52
01-17-2005, 07:57 AM
>>>They would face large numbers of 262, possibly improved ones, with high jet time crews vs thier 0 timers, plus Germany's next gen types to keep ascendancy fo rjust such as event...<<<

You keep giving the nazi's near mystical abilities to produce & improve their weapons
systems while the allies get a DUH. Thing is in history the nazis were never very good at
getting their designs into mass production & their version of mass production never had
much mass http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Who is going to build all these planes & where are the strategic raw materials for engines etc coming from?

From January 1, 1940, until V-J Day on August 14, 1945, more than 300,000 military aircraft were produced for the U.S. military and the Allies€"with almost 275,000 after Pearl Harbor. In the peak production month of March 1944, more than 9,000 aircraft came off the assembly lines. By the spring of 1944, more aircraft were being built than could be used and production began to be curtailed. This does not include British (130,000) or Canadian (16,000) production

They also became more efficient as the war went on. In 1941, 55,000 individual work hours were needed to turn out a B-17. By 1944, this had dropped to 19,000 hours. The nazi's had to add more & more slave labors who were not exactly the most efficient workers in the world especially when they were starving to death.

In the period from 1939 to 1945 the nazi's built approximately 115,000 planes. Its interesting to compare that in 1944 alone before production was cut back the US produced 96,000 planes & that the British alone out produced the nazi's in every year except 1944 the nazi's best year.

You also talk about the new & improved nazi planes & never consider the US or allied ability to go from the drawing board to production quickly, something the nazi's never demonstrated the ability to do. The NA-73X prototype of the P-51 took 102 days to go from drawings to roll out. The XP-80 flew at Muroc Dry Lake within 143 days from the date of award of the Letter of Contract.

You also put great faith in air2air & SAM's. Problem with that is you are giving these weapons modern capabilities which the never displayed in the field. Forget getting them produced with the same labor force that can't match allied aircraft production; getting them to work as advertised would prove to take decades.

The gun was brought back to US fighters in the late 1960 because the A2A missile did not live up to its promise. A2A's did not reach the qualitative performance envelope you are giving the nazi weapons till the AIM-120 & the Russian Aramski were developed about 40 years later.

SAM's against mass bomber formation were used in the 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi. It was the most heavily defended spot on the face of the earth & in the history of air warfare at the time. In the first two or three days the NVA launched their entire stock of SA-2's, over 2,000 of them & brought down less then 10 bombers. Again almost 30 years after WWII the SAM was not yet perfected to your standards of destroying the attackers & defending Berlin.

The most you can get out of this is the nazi's getting their butts kicked in 1946 instead of
1945 as long as they could figure out some way to stop the Russian ground attack. The British & inexperienced Americans would have destroyed the Luftwaffe as an effective fighting force in 1944 instead of 1943.

Zeke

RocketDog
01-17-2005, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
...and the 262 was victim of political blundering <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be helpful if those who claim the Me-262 was delayed by politics would actually provide some estimate of exactly how long and how severe was the delay. From the histories I have read which deal with this, it seems to have amounted to about six weeks.

The problem with the Me-262 wasn't politicians interfering with the development. The problem with the Me-262 was the German aviation industry once again promising far more than it could possibly deliver.

Regards,

RocketDog.

stathem
01-17-2005, 10:17 AM
The above thread is all irrelevant:

In the alternative world where the Germans managed to recognise the need for, and solve all the metallurgical, technical, logistic, and training problems in order to have 500+ Me-262s operational with high quality pilots by mid to late €43: in this world, the British high command, gifted with the remarkable prescience granted their German opponents, had listened to the plans of Barnes Wallis in September 1939 for the 10 ton earth penetration bomb and carrier system. (The Victory bomber).

Concentrating the whole of their effort into this project, and quickly solving the target marking and aiming problems, (having finally €˜acquired€ a Norden sight from the Americans) the €˜Grand Slams€ started raining down from the 42,000 feet (where the bombers were un-interceptable) in January 1942. In short order, all the coal mines in the Ruhr valley were smashed, leading to massive shortages of coal, synthetic oil, synthetic rubber, etc. Locomotives stood idle, power plants (those that weren€t shaken to the ground) went quiet, tanks stopped and fighters were grounded. The viaducts, bridges were shaken down, and the canals, like the Dortmund Ems, too, such an important part of German transportation infrastructure, are breached and drained, over and over again. Just as Wallis had predicted.

In desperation and fury, Hitler resurrected €œOperation Sea Lion€, and pulled 100 divisions back from the stagnated Eastern Front, using further valuable resources. Unable once again to wrest control over the airspace over the €˜Das Canal€ he launches anyway; in a hastily assembled collection of inappropriate river barges, and no real tank support (No LSTs and Mulberry harbours in €42). The RAF and the Royal Navy massacre some of Hitler€s most experienced Storm troopers out in a medium they are unfamiliar with. The few that did struggle ashore, incapacitated by seasickness, quickly run out of supplies and ammunition, their shaky supply lines cut by air, sea and the weather. In the East, the Soviets have started to regain ground against the weakened Wehrmacht forces€¦.

The Americans, upon their entry to the war, quickly recognised the potential of this war winning weapon system and, shelving production of the B-17, rapidly tooled up to produce, and further improve, the British planes and bombs. Build up was rapid because the U-boats, stood idle in their pens for want of diesel, are buried by further Grand Slam raids. Without the steady supply of troops and equipment to Italy across the Antheor viaduct,Italian resistance quickly collapsed as soon as the first Allied troops go ashore at Anzio). Victory Bombers operating from the newly allied Italy are then able to smash the well-heads and refineries of the Ploesti oil fields, further crippling the Reich war effort.

With USAAF and RAF bombers operating (unhindered by the grounded Luftwaffe) day and night over Germany, destroying factories and machine shops at will with pin-point accuracy, food shortages due to lack of transportation become crippling and lead to civil unrest across the third Reich. In the east, the Soviet armies have rolled the Axis invaders, who are forced to abandon their Panzers and Tigers and walk home, back to the border of Germany,. Finally, on a clear night on December 1943, as the Me-262s, built to finally intercept the V-Bombers, sit idle on the aprons, a single Grand Slam smashes down 10 metres from the Reich Chancellery and collapses the Fuhrerbunker, burying Hitler, and the rest of the nazi hierarchy, alive.

In the power vacuum that follows, virtual civil war breaks out between the SS and the Wehrmacht. The thousand-year Reich collapses into anarchy 15 months early, and millions of lives (American, British, Soviet, Jews, and German too, since there was no need to burn the cities) are saved. Recognising there was no need for vast US armies in Europe, the USA can concentrate their effort in the Pacific, leading to an earlier resolution there too.

Ridiculous? Unbelievable? Fantastic? No more so than some of the assumptions made already in this thread.

reisen52
01-17-2005, 11:16 AM
stathem,

Sounds like a plan to me...except for the DUH factor the nazi fans always give to the Allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Zeke

BlackShrike
01-17-2005, 01:30 PM
out of every reply in this long thread stathem takes the prize for highest level of fantasy put into a reply.


every one seems to forget when the 262 first flew when they say it couldnt be produced two years earlier. it was it did it was sidetracked by hitlers direct order.

in 1945 when it was first encountered it was a total shock to the allies. heck the pilots didnt even know What it was. they thought it was a UFO.

america was in the middle of a no holds barred full on war with japan. to think they would have dropped all their plans and they would have had to drop a lot to compensate and just concentrate on making jets would have been a big mistake on americas part.

everyone is forgetting that america was figuring out ways to destroy japan at any and all costs. germany was our second front. not our main front. in early 43 we had our backs against the wall fighting japan even though we would win in dominating fashion they didnt know it in 1943.

in early 1943 we were assisting britain. not till dday did we go full force against hitler.

hitler was not a threat to the united states. japan was.

america wouldnt drop everything and just try to race out with a jet to beat hitler. they had bigger fish to fry. and jet production is not as easy as making a new prop fighter anyway.

from the second they found out about mass production 262s in early 43 i dont believe they could have gotten the P80 out any quicker. and if in small amounts i doubt they would risk small groups of p80s. theyd have to wait for full scale production. and training of jet pilots. germany had pilots with years of combat experience. the allies would train new jet pilots from scratch.

no doubt in my mind america would win a war. it just wouldnt have happened before 1950 and by then the germans would have been in some kind of stalemate scenario like W.W.I.

joeap
01-17-2005, 01:59 PM
Uhhh Blackshrike think you are indulging in fantasy too. The allies, including the US, agreed on a "Germany First" policy..Japan was not a direct threat to the US unless you think occupying two little islands in Alaska is a threat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Well neither was Germany for that matter, well at least not in the short term. Not that US participation, and material aid was not important or desirable for the Allies nor that there was a very tough fight in the Pacific, or for those troops who got in early in North Africa and Italy.

Mjollnir111675
01-17-2005, 02:03 PM
Ufo??

WWII UFO?? A Foo FIghter? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://www.project1947.com/articles/arwwr.htm

Hey 1-C: PIMP OUR TORP PLANES!! Gee Dubb's dad said so!!

reisen52
01-17-2005, 02:29 PM
BlackShrike,

>>>germany was our second front. not our main front<<<

Two big holes in your donut. The first is this statement is totally unequivocally wrong. The main US effort was Germany with Japan being fought on a minimum to win.

Roosevelt affirmed 'Europe first' strategy with Churchill at the Arcadia conference in late December 1941.

The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. The US Tenth Army, was made up of 183,000 army, navy, and marine personnel.

Compare this with its European equivalent for the US the Battle of the Bulge where 600,000 Americans fought.

Second hole in the dount is the P-80. Tail numbers 44-83026 and 83027 were shipped to England in mid-December 1944 & 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. The med aircraft flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft.

The first normal production P-80A was accepted by the AAF in February of 1945. In the late spring 1945 the 414th Fighter Group, based at Florida Blanca, the Philippines, had a full squadron of 30 aircraft.

This is despite the major reduction in aircraft production that started in 1944.

On January 26, 1946, three P-80A-1-LOs equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks in place of the guns and ammunition broke the transcontinental speed record between Long Beach, California and LaGuardia Airport, New York City.

Carrying standard 165-US gallon wingtip tanks, Captain Martin Smith's 44-85113 and Captain John Babel's 44-85131 completed the trip respectively in 4 hours 33 minutes 25 seconds and 4 hours 23 minutes 54 seconds, which included a refueling stop in Topeka, Kansas.

The fastest time--4 hours 13 minutes 26 seconds for an average speed of 580.93 mph over 2453.8 miles was obtained by Col. William Council who was able to fly nonstop since his aircraft (44-85123) was fitted with special 310-gallon drop tanks.

Zeke

stathem
01-17-2005, 02:33 PM
Blackshrike, you don't read all the books. Barnes Wallis did work all that out in 1939, and if the High command had listened to him, it could have been done. Well, certainly as likely as the German deciding to put the 262 in mass production in 1943 when there was no need for it, and without the metallurgical expertise to make the engines run : they only did that when they realised they were getting their a**** kicked. Didn't Galland also say, "When I saw (allied) fighters over Berlin, I knew the war was lost"?

stathem
01-17-2005, 02:35 PM
btw, you do know who Barnes Wallis was, don't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Daiichidoku
01-17-2005, 02:36 PM
Looks like we have replacements for Tagert, hehehe

Flemsha- thanks for making a stimulating discussion instead of trying to float brickbats..

anyhow, yes dev could and would hit a brick wall, but...von Braun, who started his rocket projects from the 30s, and matured it in the 40s for the Nazis, certainly didnt hit a brick wall into the 50s and even 60s for the US space program, did he?

ehile development of anything could "plateau, they would likely still be way ahead of any allied effeorts

reisen52- i have NEVER given the allied a DUH, read my posts again, and dont be so reactionary as tagert, plz..i merely pointed out that germany would take a lead, and likely hold it...the alllies would produce some good weapons sys, but germany would be moving on the next gen while allies would be one step behind

who was going ot build all the planes? well, even late war germany did a remarkable job producing all types of planes, not to mention tanks, guns, etc, despite strategic bombing, material shortages etc...imagine what they could have done without, or with reduced problems of that nature

sure, they fumbled a lot of designs, but to counter what yo usaid about "never good at mass production"....which was the MOST produced fighter ever made? 1-0-9

yes, i mentioned germanys improved types....no, i dont discount the rapid design of p 51s or p 80s...but they wouldnt have started ntil well after 262s were in numbers in service, giving germany the lead, and likely keeping it

i also mentioned improvements in weapons systems, i NEVER said specifically A2A missles or SAMs...i did speak of A2G missles tho, that were in service late war, and could and would have led to further refinements in that field...dont put words in my mouth, plz sir

rocket dog- black shrike has already addressed your comment about "only 6 weeks" (hmmm sounds like "2 weeks" heheeh) in an above post, so i wont even go there

strathem- same reply as to flemsha's about brits going with jets from 39....simply wouldnt have happened, they were near the edege at war start, and were on the razors edge shortly after....took them awhile to recover...they had a lot to deal with, had they done anything but what they did...produce fighters, fighters, and more fighters..and small arms, artillery, and very importantly (and a fact which most ppl in this thread seem to ignore) ships...the war at sea over supply lines fo rbritain was a top, if not THE top priority for england for a long time...if britain did much differently than they had, all would be lost

black shrike- i agree with you, of course, except that while USA held japan as #1 enenmy, and truly had a hair up its a s s for them, the fact is that USA DID put the vast majority of its material effeorts into aiding britain and against germany...they agreed with britain to stop germany first, then get JP

but then i do agree that to make jet would have stoped them from supplying britain with much needed aid..and probably reduced what (relative to britain aid) little they were doing for the PTO...but they would have had little choice, had 262s made an impact 2 years befor ethey did


262s 2 years earlier would have changed the war, in no uncertain terms

Would Germany have WON the war? maybe, maybe not, we shall never know

Its fun to speculate either way...IMHO Germany COULD have won it, but Im not saying its carved in stone...dont call me a nazi fan, or luftwhiner or any c r a p like that...Im NOT being a bonehead who is stating "it couldnt have gone any other way, this IS what would have happened", etc etc etc, unlike SOME ppl who seem to espouse the "ALLIES would have won come hell or high water"...get a grip, guys, sheesh...hav some fun.....smoke a joint, or have a coupla glasses of whine(sp) before you post here

Aaron_GT
01-17-2005, 02:40 PM
"Concentrating the whole of their effort into this project, and quickly solving the target marking and aiming problems, (having finally €˜acquired€ a Norden sight from the Americans) the €˜Grand Slams€ started raining down from the 42,000 feet (where the bombers were un-interceptable) in January 1942"

Couple of points:

The British had good bombsights of their own by 1942, notably the Mk. XIV and the SABS sight too.

Secondly interception could occur, in theory, at 42,000 feet. The RAF recorded its highest interception of WW2 (of a Ju86P) at 45,000.

stathem
01-17-2005, 02:40 PM
Daiichidoku, I never mentioned Britain building Jets in 1939 and as for the U-Boats, I dealt with them.

stathem
01-17-2005, 02:45 PM
Yes, Aaron, I know about the SABS sight, I was just postulating the Americans releasing the Norden erlier to solve the problems by 1942.

And yes, of course they could be intercepted (but by G-2s in 1942?). Actually I gave the wrong height, Wallis intially wanted it to be dropped from 45k, and worked his sums for the V-bomber out on that.

GerritJ9
01-17-2005, 02:46 PM
German education system stifling scientific development???????????? On what basis do you conclude that, flemsha? Fact is that EVERY Allied nation tried to grab German scientists after Germany's collapse- even the French did so. Why do so if their education system stifled scientific development?
Germany incapable of putting designs into production quickly? Then look at the He 162. RLM specification issued on Sept. 8th 1944 for high-performance fighter using a minimum of strategic materials and suitable for mass production by semi-skilled labour. Mockup ready and inspected on Sept. 26th 1944. First prototype flown for first time on Dec. 6th 1944. Number completed by time of Germany's surrender 116, with many in advanced stages of completion.
How many Vampires were built by then? And the first flight of a Vampire prototype was on Sept. 26th 1943.
Number of Me 262s built by May 1945: 1,433. Number of P-80s or Meteors built by then? Not even close.

Daiichidoku
01-17-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
Daiichidoku, I never mentioned Britain building Jets in 1939 and as for the U-Boats, I dealt with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, sorry, the 39 whittle jets was a flemsha post, my apologies

BUT, hehe..uboats were a critical factor early war, there was no fuel pinch for them then...my mentioniung u boats was just a factor in how britain had too many other worries to put vital effert and energy into any jet schemes, or V bomber force, etc..late war, the uboats may as well have stayed in thier pens, lack of fuel or no

stathem
01-17-2005, 02:59 PM
Yep, I know, I just thought this was a general what if/fantasy thread? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

reisen52
01-17-2005, 03:11 PM
>>>sure, they fumbled a lot of designs, but to counter what yo usaid about "never good at mass production"....which was the MOST produced fighter ever made? 1-0-9<<<

Not much of a recommendation. Plane was produced from 1937 to 1945 & the nazi's knocked out 30-35,000 units. If you work at it long enough you should be able to build a lot of them.

The bottom line is in the year 1944 alone despite production cut backs the US built almost as many military aircraft as the nazi's did in the entire war from 1939 on. That is the definition of mass production.

BTW IIRC the US was also building other stuff too just like you said the nazi's were. 100+ aircraft carriers from mid 1942 to 1945 comes quickly to mind.

>>>Then look at the He 162<<<

OK it was an unstabe death trap not the 'peoples fighter' that goring intended to be. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The top-mounted engine caused the aircraft to be unstable about its longitudinal axis.

Pilots were cautioned to avoid making any sudden or erratic control moves, lest the aircraft go into an uncontrollable spin. Not a good plan for a fighter plane.

Then there was the Go-229; the lose an engine & die machine.

Zeke

stathem
01-17-2005, 03:42 PM
and in case anyone gullable is reading, 1,433 Me-262s? Don't you mean 1,433 Airframes?

2866 engines? Really?

darkhorizon11
01-17-2005, 07:18 PM
I've read through this thread pretty thoroughly and I'm still not convinced that the 262 alone could've had any major outcome on the final result of the war.

Don't get my wrong the 262 is one of my favorite aircraft of all time, but its not as good as everyone assumes it is.

Case in point, can someone post some info with sources about the final result of the Me 262 on the course of the war. Like accurate numbers of how many fighters and bombers all the 262s destroyed versus how many were destroyed in the air. All I know is that only about 150 or so of the 1433 built were ever used in front line service...

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 07:37 PM
at night u need to get in viewing distance of your target, so if u going way faster u wont see him and then your past. try it with u2vs and 109, and turn your moniter down to proper darkness.

question is, what if the 262 was trickled into service, allies would mount major efforts to destory them, if theres 20 and u can stem production then a limited number wont do much, in the big picture.

they could bulid 300 put in storage, when all ready start using them then, but u risk info for them leaking out. or they get bombed by accident like supermarine bomber and 109z.

british had miles m52 in the pipeline, fairly sure that would surprize a few lw fliers :P

flemsha
01-17-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GerritJ9:
German education system stifling scientific development???????????? On what basis do you conclude that, flemsha? Fact is that EVERY Allied nation tried to grab German scientists after Germany's collapse- even the French did so. Why do so if their education system stifled scientific development?
Germany incapable of putting designs into production quickly? Then look at the He 162. RLM specification issued on Sept. 8th 1944 for high-performance fighter using a minimum of strategic materials and suitable for mass production by semi-skilled labour. Mockup ready and inspected on Sept. 26th 1944. First prototype flown for first time on Dec. 6th 1944. Number completed by time of Germany's surrender 116, with many in advanced stages of completion.
How many Vampires were built by then? And the first flight of a Vampire prototype was on Sept. 26th 1943.
Number of Me 262s built by May 1945: 1,433. Number of P-80s or Meteors built by then? Not even close. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The scientists who the world was in a hurry to grab (such as von Braun for his rockets) were educated in the pre-nazi era, and their knowledge was used to make weapons of war. The education however during the Nazi era was very different. Education was along state ideologies and concentrated on preparing german youth for their roles in society, ie as soliders for the boys and mothers for the girls.

There was far less emphasis on the kind of knowledge which would have allowed the young people of Germany to go on and continue the developments of their predecessors.

The developments of von Braun after the war were remarkable, but he did not do them alone. He did them with other scientists, not to mention with the worlds largest industrial base behind him.

BlackShrike
01-17-2005, 09:59 PM
the 262 only flew for a couple of months. so it doesnt have a staggering amount of kills. but galland did say it was THE best plane of the war and he felt invincible in it.

introduced 2 years earlier it would have been bad news bears for britain. and it was flying 2 years earlier . just got sidetracked by an insane commander.

call me sentimental but america and its people all thought of the japanese as our enemy. not as much hitler.

remember america didnt even want to send britain supplies to help against hitler. it had to be done secretly at first. japan was our number one priority. yes we did let europe know it was most important. but ask the american people and they would say japan.

reisen when your trying to find donut holes in my theory try to get your information straight. you compare okinawa troops vs battle of bulge allied troops to infer that america was more inclined to destroy hitler.

the hole in your theory to put a hole in my theory?? battle of bulge was in 1945 and that battle wouldnt have happened if jets were introduced 2 years earlier. we wouldnt have tried to land troops on dday as it would have been suicide.

second attempt at donut holing my theories. p80s flying in italy during ww2 . yea ive read all about those TWO planes used for recon and testing. TWO p80s in 1945 major threat? no. remember the flew first in med in 1945

stathem in 1939 barnes and wallis had all the influence of barnes and noble. there is NO WAY england would have ever thought of making jet fighters when they knew hitler was going to war. they knew they were in trouble and had to gear up for war. not hypothetical jet technology that might or might not help a war effort. england needed ships ships ships and spits spits spits and hurricanes. england could never afford to indulge in research. all their research was going into perfecting the worlds first computer. now if you read books too you would know that the first computer was more important to england than a jet engine.

eventually once england realized it wasnt getting overrun they did design a very slow mild mannered jet. but only after they realized hitler wasnt invading

flemsha
01-17-2005, 10:04 PM
The war in the pacific was for the United States the Shoestring war, it only received I believe 20% of resources, while 80% went to the war in Europe. Germany was viewed as the greater threat to the western nations, not a view that my country (Australia) ever found very agreeable.

Whether the public viewed the Japanese as the real threat or not, that is the way the politicians saw it, and how they allocated resources. It was always Germany first, Japan second. The belief was that Japan could be held back, and then it would collapse quickly after the war was won in Europe.

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 10:51 PM
BlackShrike:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>introduced 2 years earlier it would have been bad news bears for britain. and it was flying 2 years earlier . just got sidetracked by an insane commander. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Me~262 was delayed by engine development. The use of Me~262 as bomber did not become an "issue" affecting real 262s until mid 1944, and then only a very small number were used as bombers, well after we are assuming Me~262 comes early to change history in this thread.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
:
:
[10] COMMENTS, SOURCES, & REVISION HISTORY

* The story that the Me-262 could have made a major difference in the war if not for Hitler's insistence that it be built as a fighter-bomber seems to exist in a fuzzy state between myth and fact. Most recent documents on the Me-262 suggest that the teething problems with the Jumo-004 engines were really the critical path for aircraft development, and though Hitler's insistence on development of the aircraft as a Jabo led to an bureaucratic fiasco, it doesn't seem to have made all that much difference in practice.

~ http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
01-17-2005, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Q: " _Could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war_ ? "

only if Adolf Galland had been listened too instead of ignored

thankfully , his reccommendations were totally ignored & the Moron in charge got his way

.

Adolf Galland in a 1991 interview :

"if i had gotten my way , Me-262 development would had been the number one priority & we could have had 800 flying by december 43"

thankfully , he didnt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IF he was listened too , the Me262 would have become the NUMBER ONE priority as that is what the Me262 was to him

seeing as he was there & was highest ranking officer flying combat in the LW , i guess you could take his word for it

& Lexx , the majority of 262 sorties were jabo to begin with , im glad it never was allowed to show its potential , the fact it was hobbeled from the start almost seems like divine intervention

because it being given priority was the last thing the allied airforce needed

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 11:03 PM
WUAF, the "initial" use of Me~262s as bombers was exactly that, only a very small number, and this *very* very very long after we are assuming 262 comes early [1943] to change history in this thread.

Engine development delayed the Me~262 as fighter or bomber--it does not matter which.



Right on flemsha about Germany being the greater threat to the western nations. The Japanese had no plans to do anything except keep the western nations out of the their limited gains in western Pacific. And you're right, the USA politicians in The Know knew this.

BlackShrike:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>call me sentimental but america and its people all thought of the japanese as our enemy. not as much hitler. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BlackShrike, we call you confused, or Desperate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You are invited to read and learn from the above posts--if you wish. That's about all we can post to you now.

clint-ruin
01-17-2005, 11:09 PM
This is a weird what if where it seems like most people [except Pingu and very few others] have taken it to mean;

What if the Germans introduced the Me-262 2 years earlier, and the allies then did absolutely nothing differently past that point.

Which is kind of a silly what if. Apparently they would continue bombing non-jet related targets, sortie out in the same strength of bombers and escorts, make no attempt to accelerate their own jet programs development, and generally just sit back and be stabbed in the ankle with a pen knife until they were all dead.

Righto.

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 11:12 PM
clint, Me~262 winning the WAR all by itself is a popular fascination for many who show little interest in learning WW2 history. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For those wish to learn, it makes fascinating "what if" discussions about how the "allies" would respond to early Me~262, how Germany would re~respond, how the "allies" would...etc.... We can all learn something here....and hopefully we could sim it someday (together with Daiich "The Goth" of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Flying_Nutcase
01-18-2005, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
Didn't Galland also say, "When I saw (allied) fighters over Berlin, I knew the war was lost"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that was Herman Goering. Can anyone confirm this?

BlackShrike
01-18-2005, 01:29 AM
commander of LW goering. not galland

BlackShrike
01-18-2005, 01:32 AM
i also know by reading many books on both fronts where most of our resources went. many here wish to think in terms of just men and bombers . which might mean that europe was our main emphasis but we built 100 aircraft carriers and parked them all on tojos doorstep. ill bet 100 aircraft carriers took a couple nuts and bolts...maybe even a dollar or two...maybe even more resources than were given to britain . just maybe.

BaldieJr
01-18-2005, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

Nukes would likely have not been used vs Germany...no way Britain would have allowed that, because both for humane reasons (rememeber it was still largely unknown about death camps et al), not to mention concerns about fallout or other unknown effects they may have for all of europe...Towards Japan, of course, this is different...the US was VERY sore over the sneak attack on Pearl, and it was not uncommon for Americans, and even British at the time to regard the JP as "less" human as they are...ppl who werent quite the same as them...after the falsehoods of the rape of nanking, and displying the bushido mentality, deification of Hirohito, seppuku and self-destruction over surrender, the Allies had little to hold them back from nuking JP, they felt the JP were an alien culture and didnt hold the same values that the "more advanced or refined" cultures of the west were...or were percieved by those in the west, by and large

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You need to appologise for this.

joeap
01-18-2005, 02:20 AM
Blackshrike, get your facts straight. We are talking about resources and total manpower not just carriers. First of all a lot of naval power was transfered fro the Atlantic to the Pacific starting in 1944. Even the small threat posed by a few German surface raiders kept some US and lots of Uk capital ships in European waters. Moot point but even 100 carriers ended up using fewer resources than the huge air and ground forces in the UK. Plus the US spent resources sending a lot of supplies to the UK and some to the USSR.

Final point the Battle of the Bulge was in 1944 not 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
01-18-2005, 02:22 AM
No way Baldie

You telling me there was no anti-JP sentiment in US?

at least until Hitler actually declared war on USA, he, and Germany, had a LOT of support and sympathy in USA

the "JP-Americans" were stripped of assets and property, and carted off to camps

JP were known commonly as g ks, d ks and slanty-eyes cruds, among other eloquent desriptions....

If not actually thought by majority of US public, then certainly most media displayed JP as something akin to sub-human, shamefully

I still remember seeing a vintage magazine, it was either TIME or LIFE mag, cant remember which, that had an article to educate the "difference" between the Japanese and the Chinese....included a photo of Tojo and Kai-Shek....some kind of pseudo-pherenology, with captions pointing to certain features of PM Tojo's face and head revealing wonderful traits of cowardice, dishonesty, ruthlessness and the like, and stating these are common features of ALL Japanese...the pic of Kai-Shek was the same, except HIS traits, again to be "typically" Chinese were basically the opposite of Tojo's, honestly, integirty, compassion, and so on

Also well-known was a custom of all branches of US military, especially USN, of making souveniers of dead JP slodiers, aviators, whoever...that tells me IMHO, that the attitudes of Americans towards JP during the war was little better than what a Nazi thought of Poles, Russians, Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc

The US gov wanted as much anti-JP sentiment as possible, understandibly....would YOU say that YOUR enemy are "really nice guys, lets try not to hurt them"? PFFFT!

flemsha
01-18-2005, 06:28 AM
The Germans were also known by some less than flattering nick names, and the Japanese were not exactly full of praise and love for the allies either, the treatment of allied POWs by the Japanese was not exactly what one would call humane.

In Australia at least Germans, Japanese and Italians were all put into camps, not just Japanese. I can't comment on the American side as I don't know. The camps in Australia did not resemble the camps of Nazi germany either.

The A-bomb was developed with the intent of being used against the Germans, the Japanese were a secondary target (poor Nagasaki was a secondary secondary target, added to the list at the last minute, and only bombed because the original target was clouded over).

Edit: Funny how far off topic we can get.

AWL_Spinner
01-18-2005, 07:49 AM
Off topic divergence not withstanding, an early contender for "Most entertaining thread of 2005".

I think all the other variables including the early introduction of the 262 pale into insignificance besides the lunatic decision to invade Russia. As someone else has posted, the likely outcome of more advanced fighter technology to counter Allied bombing would have most likely been a delayed Allied landing in the West and a 1945/46 Soviet bloc that included the whole of Germany. Also a rethink of strategic bombing and maybe a divergence into rocket or other stand-off technology for the Western Allies.

However, the "what would have happened if the moustachio'd lunatic hadn't invaded Russia and concentrated on the West" thread has been done before. Always entertaining, but little to do with the 262.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
This is a weird what if where it seems like most people [except Pingu and very few others] have taken it to mean;

What if the Germans introduced the Me-262 2 years earlier, and the allies then did absolutely nothing differently past that point.

Which is kind of a silly what if. Apparently they would continue bombing non-jet related targets, sortie out in the same strength of bombers and escorts, make no attempt to accelerate their own jet programs development, and generally just sit back and be stabbed in the ankle with a pen knife until they were all dead.

Righto. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ending made me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

hitler wanted 262 as jabo as he had seen what mossie had done, and 262 is plenty faster than mossie, but less bomb load.

allies might haveto instigate heavy standing patrols over britain, at various heights, maybe put forward air observers in mini subs out at sea (for low flying aircraft).

43 allies had p47's and spit IX, p38s would be less suitable, cos u need to dive on 262's. also high flying 262s have there advantage cut back against p47/IX.

stealth po2 raids could be effective too, also play on the minds of 262 mecanics working thru the night to repair 262's.

plus raf/churchill would slap harris into bombing 262 plants/airfields, 43 bombing aids where there that precise raids could take place.

biggest problem would be getting PR aircraft in and out safely, a extreme supercharger would maybe need tobe bolted onto merlin... 3-4 stage merlin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
and multiple drop tanks, for use when mossie is climbing up past 40,000ft over ireland, then to germany, maybe shuttle to russia/malta/north africa

BaldieJr
01-18-2005, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
No way Baldie

You telling me there was no anti-JP sentiment in US?

at least until Hitler actually declared war on USA, he, and Germany, had a LOT of support and sympathy in USA

the "JP-Americans" were stripped of assets and property, and carted off to camps

JP were known commonly as g ks, d ks and slanty-eyes cruds, among other eloquent desriptions....

If not actually thought by majority of US public, then certainly most media displayed JP as something akin to sub-human, shamefully

I still remember seeing a vintage magazine, it was either TIME or LIFE mag, cant remember which, that had an article to educate the "difference" between the Japanese and the Chinese....included a photo of Tojo and Kai-Shek....some kind of pseudo-pherenology, with captions pointing to certain features of PM Tojo's face and head revealing wonderful traits of cowardice, dishonesty, ruthlessness and the like, and stating these are common features of ALL Japanese...the pic of Kai-Shek was the same, except HIS traits, again to be "typically" Chinese were basically the opposite of Tojo's, honestly, integirty, compassion, and so on

Also well-known was a custom of all branches of US military, especially USN, of making souveniers of dead JP slodiers, aviators, whoever...that tells me IMHO, that the attitudes of Americans towards JP during the war was little better than what a Nazi thought of Poles, Russians, Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc

The US gov wanted as much anti-JP sentiment as possible, understandibly....would YOU say that YOUR enemy are "really nice guys, lets try not to hurt them"? PFFFT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a healthy dose of real life you twerp.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics/bataan/daws11.jpg
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics/bataan/daws9.jpg


Mods: Please understand that Daiichidoku's words are, from my perspective, far more offensive than these images. I ask that this be taken into account before any vacations are handed out.

flemsha
01-18-2005, 10:04 AM
I agree with you p1ngu666. What would happen if for instance a bomber raid targeted an airfield, you don't have to destroy the planes, just crater up the runway and the jets are grounded (while piston engined aircraft are able to operate from short fields, jets could not). You would not even need a large raid to do it, a few well aimed bombs will do the job. Every day a fighter cannot be in the air is wasted production if that production could have produced something that could be fighting.

In the Falklands war (not of course on anywhere near the scale) and Vulcan bomber delivered a single bomb into the center of the runway at Port Stanley in the opening hours of the British campaign, denying its use to the FAA (Thats argentine airforce, not fleet air arm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) and thus forcing them to engage from bases in argentina (which meant their fighters were engaging at the extreme of their range).

I of course cannot be certain this would have worked, but it is an example of how tactics could be adapted to deal with a new threat.

Edit: Baldie, Shocking images, but makes a point far greater than words.

joeap
01-18-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
No way Baldie

You telling me there was no anti-JP sentiment in US?

at least until Hitler actually declared war on USA, he, and Germany, had a LOT of support and sympathy in USA

the "JP-Americans" were stripped of assets and property, and carted off to camps

JP were known commonly as g ks, d ks and slanty-eyes cruds, among other eloquent desriptions....

If not actually thought by majority of US public, then certainly most media displayed JP as something akin to sub-human, shamefully

I still remember seeing a vintage magazine, it was either TIME or LIFE mag, cant remember which, that had an article to educate the "difference" between the Japanese and the Chinese....included a photo of Tojo and Kai-Shek....some kind of pseudo-pherenology, with captions pointing to certain features of PM Tojo's face and head revealing wonderful traits of cowardice, dishonesty, ruthlessness and the like, and stating these are common features of ALL Japanese...the pic of Kai-Shek was the same, except HIS traits, again to be "typically" Chinese were basically the opposite of Tojo's, honestly, integirty, compassion, and so on

Also well-known was a custom of all branches of US military, especially USN, of making souveniers of dead JP slodiers, aviators, whoever...that tells me IMHO, that the attitudes of Americans towards JP during the war was little better than what a Nazi thought of Poles, Russians, Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc

The US gov wanted as much anti-JP sentiment as possible, understandibly....would YOU say that YOUR enemy are "really nice guys, lets try not to hurt them"? PFFFT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You better learn some manners. Anway you are correct about the racial aspect of the Pacific War...but to compare US views to Nazi views is waaaay overboard. Yea, Lindberg and some others were pro-Nazi...but how much is a "lot" of support. There were Italian-Americans who were interned also btw...found a site about German-Americans too.
link (http://www.foitimes.com/internment/)
BTW there were Nazi spies in the US, and some Japanese as well (in Hawaii)but of course it was not justified to attack the whole groups.

Said it before and I'll say it again, for me there was little difference between the German attack on Poland and the Japanese attack on China. Only thing Germany was more of a threat in the long term, ME-262 or not. Plus the whole genocide thing...which the US never planned for Japan or Germany... even the USSR and Stalin never picked on groups for their ethnic heritage.

cheers

ploughman
01-18-2005, 10:05 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

Pingu, that's hilarious.

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

Yimmy
01-18-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flemsha:


In the Falklands war (not of course on anywhere near the scale) and Vulcan bomber delivered a single bomb into the center of the runway at Port Stanley in the opening hours of the British campaign, denying its use to the FAA
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but then the Vulcan dropped 21 bombs, in a diagonal pattern across the runway, and only scored one hit; and even it was not dead centre.
To gain the same result with Lancasters 40 years earlier would have taken many more aircraft.

As for the issue concerning feelings towards the Japanese in WWII; yes the West held very racist views concerning them, thinking the to be lesser humans. Get over it.
The same can be said for Vietnam.

stathem
01-18-2005, 10:36 AM
Sorry, I've been away

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
stathem in 1939 barnes and wallis had all the influence of barnes and noble. there is NO WAY england would have ever thought of making jet fighters when they knew hitler was going to war. they knew they were in trouble and had to gear up for war. not hypothetical jet technology that might or might not help a war effort. england needed ships ships ships and spits spits spits and hurricanes. england could never afford to indulge in research. all their research was going into perfecting the worlds first computer. now if you read books too you would know that the first computer was more important to england than a jet engine.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif R.O.F.L.M.H.A.O. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I think I've just proved what I set out to do. You didn't even bother to do a search on that name? or read my post?

Anyways, 2 further points. If the Me-262 had been given priority in 1942/43 it certainly would have shortened the war - with a quicker resolution for the allies. Removing resources from the piston engined fighters which were doing enough damage by themselves, to put into a project for which you had no engines would be a little stupid. Imagine if those 1,433 262 airframes had been Doras? The most effective use of the 262 was to strip away the Mustang escort by making them drop their tanks to chase... leaving the way clear for the conventional prop planes to do the damage. Anyone got figures for the combat endurance time of a Me-262? I've seen a figure of about 40 minutes (Climb, 2 passes, land - so don't give me any 40minutes at 540mph is xxx miles nonsense)

Another thing, what guns do you propose to put on the front of them? Can Quad Mg151/20's do enough damage in the brief firing pass on a four engined heavy? Remember, this is 1943, no Mk108's till, what, December?

With regard to cratering runways, a 10 ton 'Grand slam' dropped below it's design height of 45,000 feet would not camouflet. Exploding only 40 feet deep (e.g. in a 15,000 foot drop), it would (and did) cause a crater 70 feet (~20m) deep and 250 feet (~70m) across, and would take over 2 weeks to fill in. Four or five of those would make a bit of a mess of an airfield.

Gunner_361st
01-18-2005, 10:57 AM
The following quote is from "Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific." By Eric M. Bergerud.

"Robert DeHaven put well the thoughts of many veterans of the air war in the South Pacific:

In my memory theres was nothing racial to explain the intensity of the hatred of the Pacific war. It never came up. This is hard to explain now, but absolutely true. We considered them a despicable people but it wasn't the same thing as racism. We learned from the performance of the enemy. There were no prisoners. They didn't believe in it. I saw the strafing of an American pilot in a parachute. We retaliated and the result was a mind-numbing involvement in the Pacific that I don't think existed in Europe. The war was very personal, not machine versus machine. Sometimes you could see the enemy in their cockpits. It was fleeting, but I looked two of them in the face. The days of chivalry were certainly over in the Pacific. Everything was amplified. There was Pearl Harbor and the other savage events of the war. But it involved us, too. When we returned from a mission we faced dust, mud, heat, insects, and all of the things that made New Guinea a miserable place. Any man had times when he very much would have preferred to have been somewhere else. But the Japanese had started the war so our danger and physical suffering were because of them. We werein New Guinea, the end of the world, because of the Japanese. We held that against them. There was no remorse when an enemy pilot died.

Joel Paris shared DeHaven's thoughts but with even more feeling:

"The war was nasty in the Pacific. We never let anybody reach the ground alive unless they were coming down over our own territory where they'd get captured. If we could help it they were going to die. It would be stupid - we were there trying to kill them. If they got on the ground, they were going to be up tomorrow. Ours was a war of annihilation. In Europe it was a little more restrained in the air. We were intent on killing them and they were intent on killing us. None of our pilots reached the ground alive if the Japs could kill 'em. We didn't give any quarter and they didn't either. We had six or eight pilots shot down over Japanese lines and captured. Not one survived the war. I don't have much grief for the Japanese. I was working on killing them until the war ended. I've never forgiven them for Bataan and the POW camps. No apologies. They were so cruel. Even before the war some people talked about how civilized the Japanese were. How could they do what they did? They showed cruelty to everybody, not just to us."

Was racism a factor in US hatred of Japan and the Japanese people? Of course. Was it the sole reason? No. Was it even one of the major reasons? In my opinion, no. Think about the situation at the time.

Most Americans knew nothing about Japan. Then, they suddenly get attacked by this strange, foreign enemy. Many Americans are killed. The enemy proves himself to be merciless and ruthless in battle. Now how do you think the average Joe reacted when he learned about that? It's no wonder so many Americans volunteered into the war effort after Pearl Harbor.

If anything, racism was not the deciding, major factor in my opinion, but a more minor one used to further justify the hatred most Americans felt for the Japanese at the time. I think the logic stands to reason.

Gunner

Gunner_361st
01-18-2005, 10:59 AM
Please note "Was Racism a factor in US hatred..." and so on is the beginning of my own expressed opinions and no longer a quote from the book I referenced.

reisen52
01-18-2005, 11:04 AM
>>>reisen when your trying to find donut holes in my theory try to get your information straight. you compare okinawa troops vs battle of bulge allied troops to infer that america was more inclined to destroy hitler.<<<

Read this very slowly you must have missed it the last time I posted it....History Lesson.

Within a month of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill meets with Roosevelt at the Arcadia Conference in Washington, D.C., where they agree on a €œbeat Germany first€ strategy. The American leadership acknowledges that the bulk of Allied ground forces will have to confront the German threat as soon and as decisively as possible. From Pearl Harbor to D-Day, American determination to confront the German army never wavers.

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/ar1.jpg

The Battle of the Bulge reference is to demonstrate the allocation of resources in the two theaters.

The Battle of Okinawa was fought with one US Army the 10th (equal to 6 divisions)....the Battle of the Bulge was fought by a total of three US Armies with six corps (equal to 31 divisions).

>>>second attempt at donut holing my theories. p80s flying in italy during ww2 . yea ive read all about those TWO planes used for recon and testing. TWO p80s in 1945 major threat? no. remember the flew first in med in 1945<<<

This reference demonstrates that the P-80 was in production in 1944 & was in fact shipped to the European theater in the winter of 1944. The P-80A was delivered in January 1945 & by spring 1945 they were in full squadron strength production.

The first flight of the XP-80 took place on January 8, 1944 with test pilot Milo Burcham at the controls.

As far back as 1939, Lockheed engineers Clarence R. "Kelly" Johnson and Hall L. Hibbard had been interested in jet propulsion for aircraft, and had actually engaged in various paper projects.

At the time the air force did not want to fund the projects so they were dormant. Had the threat of a sizable Me-262 presence materialized sooner if is much less of a "what if" to project that the P-80 with funding a few years earlier could have been there to meet the threat.

There is no real doubt that the Lockheed could easily out produce Messerschmitt in airframes.

I don't think you have yet explained where the nazi's were going to get the strategic metals for the engines from. Metals that the US had in abundance. With a lack of engines how will the 262 fly?

As I said earlier the nazi fans always want to give all the "what if" benefits to the 262 while planes like the P-80 or Vampire get a DUH.

BTW - This is the Kelly Johnson who built the P-80 from contract signing to first flight in 143 days also designed the Hudson, XP-38 (413mph in 1939) , F-104 first operational interceptor capable of sustained speeds above Mach 2 and was the first aircraft ever to hold the World Speed and Altitude records simultaneously, U-2- 75,000ft+, SR-71 Blackbird Mach 3 and a number of others.

His track record over 30 years on getting all new innovative things done is pretty good and much less of a 'what if', don't you think?

Zeke

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 01:00 PM
nah u could do that bombing with 1 aircraft, even with wellingtons (max load 4,000lb's)

u could put up a maxium effort, 1000aircraft from raf, 8th could could offer several 100 too, then stage a tour of decent german airbases, each aircraft hits 2-3 airbases, even small bombs would be a pain, thats what they did in gulf war 1 wasnt it?lots of small bomblets. imo the major threat would be too photo recon, without which allies would be blindly stabbing at the germans.

yes the germans could repair the airfields, but after a few weeks of it the airfields would be too much of a mess imo, like roads that get dug up too much, but worse.

plus mix in a few time delay bombs, and u turn airfields into minefields

Daiichidoku
01-18-2005, 02:52 PM
Baldie, you need to get a grip, man..

Im my post you cited, I merely pointed out my opinion that the A bomb would likely have not been used on Germany, which posed no direct threat to USA, but that USA had, by anbd large, felt little or no relucance to use it on JP, given the wide spread sentiment that JP were "less than human", and did not feel the same way about life and welfare that "Americans" did...this stemmed from both facts, and supposition

cmon, every nation involved did not-so-nice things...

btw, I dont find the pics you posted offensive, nor should anyone....they are moments in time captured...they happened...the reasons they happened are offensive, not the pics themselves


JUST what do you find offensive, exactly, in my post, sir?...Do you feel the USA did NOT vilify JP? Does it matter wether it was justified or not? fact is, as I said abve, USA did not have a hesitation to use the bomb on JP, both to "save Allied lives" and also due to racial/ethnic attitudes towards them, and I listed a few of the reasons that that racism was there, thats all

WOuld you find it offensive to write about ANY nations atrocities towards any other nations?

BTW, Im NOT a twerp, Im a lummox, ok?...no need for personal attacks here

Aaron_GT
01-18-2005, 03:33 PM
"Im my post you cited, I merely pointed out my opinion that the A bomb would likely have not been used on Germany, which posed no direct threat to USA,"

Japan was not a direct threat to the USA either. It had no reach to seriously threaten the USA itself (Neither Hawaii nor Alaska were part of the USA at the time) but US interests in the Far East, essentially the likes of Guam, Philipines, and a relatively small interest in China that had not been pursued in any serious way since the 1920s. There was little doubt that the USA could ultimately remove Japan from US interests in the Far East as it was obviously overextended.

US economic interests and cultural ties were most affected by the war in Europe. Also the European Powers exerted influence in the Far East that was more useful to US interests than a power vacuum that either allowed Japanese Imperial interests to flourish or promoted a chaotic set of local nationalist interests. An orderly, phased withdrawl of European Powers made more sense. There was also the nightmare scenario (if unlikely) if Germany could push through Iraq and on into India and link up with Japan.

So basically cultural, economic, and moral factors made Europe the first priority for the USA.

BaldieJr
01-18-2005, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Baldie, you need to get a grip, man..

Im my post you cited, I merely pointed out my opinion that the A bomb would likely have not been used on Germany, which posed no direct threat to USA, but that USA had, by anbd large, felt little or no relucance to use it on JP, given the wide spread sentiment that JP were "less than human", and did not feel the same way about life and welfare that "Americans" did...this stemmed from both facts, and supposition

cmon, every nation involved did not-so-nice things...

btw, I dont find the pics you posted offensive, nor should anyone....they are moments in time captured...they happened...the reasons they happened are offensive, not the pics themselves


JUST what do you find offensive, exactly, in my post, sir?...Do you feel the USA did NOT vilify JP? Does it matter wether it was justified or not? fact is, as I said abve, USA did not have a hesitation to use the bomb on JP, both to "save Allied lives" and also due to racial/ethnic attitudes towards them, and I listed a few of the reasons that that racism was there, thats all

WOuld you find it offensive to write about ANY nations atrocities towards any other nations?

BTW, Im NOT a twerp, Im a lummox, ok?...no need for personal attacks here <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There it is. In bold.

BlackShrike
01-18-2005, 04:20 PM
baldie jr is just flipping out for no reason. nothing in daiichidoku post needs apologizing for like bjr said.

reisen i am not a nazi fan like you infer. im a usa is best fan. i know all about churchill et al.

again you take several words out of a paragraph to cross examine but fail to get to the real point of my paragraphs. battle of bulge wouldnt have happened if 262s were over europe 2 years earlier.

262 jet engines were available and in early 43 germany could produce as many engines for jets as needed. they didnt make them out of plutonium.

oh and if anything deserves a permanent banning it is baldie jrs pictures. if everyone wishes to be politically correct that is. which baldie seems to want

reisen52
01-18-2005, 04:53 PM
>>>i know all about churchill et al.<<<

Wonderful then you will agree that the US WWII strategy was Germany first not Japan as you originally stated.

>>>they didnt make them out of plutonium.<<<

No plutonium would be to heavy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Jumo's engine life was only between 10 and 25 hours, with the mean being at the lower end of this range.

The 004A was a fairly sound when premium steels were used, and early versions were known to achieve a 200-250 hour service life.

However, the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war forced Junkers to produce the 004B model with only 1/3 of the high grade steel that had been used in the 004A. It was to be a disastrous concession for the Me 262.

The introduction of inferior metals compounded an already problematic situation with the turbine blade design. These blades were rigidly mounted, contributing to severe root stress relief problems. The weaker metals simply could not withstand this kind of abuse and regular compressor failures were an inevitable consequence.

Production model 004s produced 1,980 lbs. of thrust, and weighed in at about 1,800 lbs. Because of this, the engines were not extraordinarily effective at low airspeeds or altitudes or at reduced power settings.

Abrupt throttle changes or rapid maneuvering often resulted in a flameout, or worse, a complete compressor failure.

Not to mention excessive fuel consumption even for a jet.

>>>in early 43 Germany could produce as many engines for jets as needed.<<<

Actually they were only able to produce between 5 & 7,000 or so during the entire war. Not enough when the mean engine life was only 13 or so hours.

Zeke

sulla04
01-18-2005, 05:49 PM
Only one problem with the allied jet theory,distance.If there was no landing in Europe theres no way p80s and vampires can protect the bombers.It would be like 262s used for bomber protection against britain just like the 109 in 1940.Germany in 1944 had plenty of aircraft but no fuel for anything ,so no training.Had the bombers not taken out the fuel Germany would have been able to train pilots etc. .Now to add to the digression.I know that the scientist were building the bomb to use against germany but would truman have used it against them?The japanese were as rightly pointed out thought of as subhuman even before Pearl.The ethnicity of US has changed greatly in the past 60 years.A much larger % of German descent were voters back then.Unless Hitler unleased a nerve gas attack or something I don't think it would have been used.While we are on nerve gas yes Britain had tons of improved mustard gas,but the allies had no idea that nerve gas existed.A mustard gas attack would have been bad but imagine london in a nerve gas attack,much different scenario.Two atom bombs against tons of taubin able to be released by 262s,very scary thought.

flemsha
01-18-2005, 06:03 PM
If the US had the A-bomb before Germany had collapsed in on itself (ie if they had it in 1944 and not 1945) it would have quite happily used it on Germany. The bomb was not developed for use against Japan, it was developed for use against Germany.

Remember the British particularly had few problems with the idea of killing civilians from the air. They saw the blitz as precedent.

In reality, by the time the allies had the bomb Germany was defeated, and so dropping it there was out of the question. Instead it was used to end the war in the Pacific. It had nothing to do with racism, it was just Japan was the only target left. Truman had said that the A-bomb offered no moral problems not found in conventional bombing of cities. That moral bridge had been crossed long ago on both fronts.

Oh and the allies knew about concentration camps during World War II and had issued public statements about them.

darkhorizon11
01-18-2005, 06:59 PM
A survey was given to thousands of soldiers who fought both in Europe and the Pacific. It basically asked them how they felt about the enemy they were fighting. It was found only 1 out of every 6 soldiers had a dire need to kill a German while one out of every two had a dire need to kill a Japanese soldier.

flemsha
01-18-2005, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
A survey was given to thousands of soldiers who fought both in Europe and the Pacific. It basically asked them how they felt about the enemy they were fighting. It was found only 1 out of every 6 soldiers had a dire need to kill a German while one out of every two had a dire need to kill a Japanese soldier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which says nothing for whether the motivation was racism or otherwise.

Daiichidoku
01-18-2005, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Im my post you cited, I merely pointed out my opinion that the A bomb would likely have not been used on Germany, which posed no direct threat to USA,"

Japan was not a direct threat to the USA either. It had no reach to seriously threaten the USA itself (Neither Hawaii nor Alaska were part of the USA at the time) but US interests in the Far East, essentially the likes of Guam, Philipines, and a relatively small interest in China that had not been pursued in any serious way since the 1920s. There was little doubt that the USA could ultimately remove Japan from US interests in the Far East as it was obviously overextended.

US economic interests and cultural ties were most affected by the war in Europe. Also the European Powers exerted influence in the Far East that was more useful to US interests than a power vacuum that either allowed Japanese Imperial interests to flourish or promoted a chaotic set of local nationalist interests. An orderly, phased withdrawl of European Powers made more sense. There was also the nightmare scenario (if unlikely) if Germany could push through Iraq and on into India and link up with Japan.

So basically cultural, economic, and moral factors made Europe the first priority for the USA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FEAR of invasion by Japan on the mainland, Hawaii and Panama was a very real one then

I have no grument that USA did in fact put most resources into the fight in the west, no doubt

ImpStarDuece
01-19-2005, 12:24 AM
I just read the first 3 pages of this thread, skipped ahead to pages 11 and 12 and am still reading the same arguments being unceasingly rehashed!

One weapon, despite its supposed power and technical ability does not a war wing. At most what it does is alter local tactics to deal with the threat.

The 262, as fearsome as it was, was one of Germany's wunderwaffe 'wonder weapons'. The V1 and V2 failed to stop the Allies capturing Antwerp and launching D-day. The Tiger, Panther, Ferdinand, Jadgpanther, Jadgtiger and koin tiger failed to stop the ground offensives in the East, even without local air superiority. The mp-44, mg-42, nebelwerfer and panzershrek did not prevent Allied infantry from advancing.

Given the state of German Industry in 42-43 I cannot see the retooling, reindustrialisation and diversion of resources being done in sufficient scale to build, let alone service and run, 800 of the most advanced fighter in the world at the time.

Discount the engine problems, maintence issues, the lcke of personel trained to build, service, rapair and maintain a jet fighter and you have a weapon that *might* have had created serious SHORT TERM problems for the allies. As sure as old men will send young men out to die though, the Allies would of been able to devise or build a counter to it.

Aaron_GT
01-19-2005, 06:46 AM
"The FEAR of invasion by Japan on the mainland, Hawaii and Panama was a very real one then"

Amongst civilians yes. Amongst the military high comand, no, except perhaps Hawaii at a stretch. There was no way that the Japanese had the ability to project force in any numbers to Panama or the US mainland. Any attempt to do so would have led to the rapid loss of the force committed. The USA knew this, the Japanese also knew this.

Waldo.Pepper
01-19-2005, 09:45 AM
Rabble, rabble , rabble .

blap

flabity ba=lap. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

darkhorizon11
01-19-2005, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flemsha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
A survey was given to thousands of soldiers who fought both in Europe and the Pacific. It basically asked them how they felt about the enemy they were fighting. It was found only 1 out of every 6 soldiers had a dire need to kill a German while one out of every two had a dire need to kill a Japanese soldier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which says nothing for whether the motivation was racism or otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No actually it says everything. It shows that more Americans related with Germans than Japanese. It shows that they really didn't feel a hatred towards their German enemy that they did towards the Japanese.

flemsha
01-20-2005, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flemsha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
A survey was given to thousands of soldiers who fought both in Europe and the Pacific. It basically asked them how they felt about the enemy they were fighting. It was found only 1 out of every 6 soldiers had a dire need to kill a German while one out of every two had a dire need to kill a Japanese soldier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which says nothing for whether the motivation was racism or otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No actually it says everything. It shows that more Americans related with Germans than Japanese. It shows that they really didn't feel a hatred towards their German enemy that they did towards the Japanese. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may have had nothing to do with race though. To make that assumption you would have to assume that the war was exactly the same on both theaters of the war (which it was not, look at things such as treatment of POWs, treatment of civilian populations etc, especially if we consider only Western Europe, which what most American soldiers will have experienced, and we forget about the East which the US were not involved in).

wayno7777
01-20-2005, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
Q: " _Could the Me-262 have changed the course of the air war_ ? "

only if Adolf Galland had been listened too instead of ignored

thankfully , his reccommendations were totally ignored & the Moron in charge got his way

.

Adolf Galland in a 1991 interview :

"if i had gotten my way , Me-262 development would had been the number one priority & we could have had 800 flying by december 43"

thankfully , he didnt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

800 by '44? Yakes.

BTW, is he still alive? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He passed away in 1996.

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2005, 04:26 AM
Since this has not been discussed yet, Germany lost the war forever in July 1943, on the ground, where it matters.

flemsha
01-20-2005, 06:43 AM
Actually they lost it in December 1941, the moment they declared war on the United States. They stacked the deck against themselves so high that they were bound to lose.

Sharkey888
01-20-2005, 11:27 AM
They actually lost outside of Dunkirk!!

Potatodip
01-20-2005, 01:57 PM
Interesting all this. No big bombraids over Germany, factorys still working....fuel, steel other stuf...the picture gets bigger.....the 262 could have done something to the war...

1. made sure that the allied bombers would have a realy hard time

2. It would not have been the only german plane flying, the 109 and 190`s would still be around

numbers.
800 262
2000 109
1000 190
1500 HE111
etc

What is interesting is the planes that the German could have produced if the infrastructure was operationel.....
1. The ME-264 "America bomber"
2. The JU-388 (large scale production)
3. HE-219 (large scale production)
4. A large number og 109D`s and TA-152
5. TA-154

So we are not talking about the Tempest and the the 262 here we are talking about a great number of planes that Germany would have had time to get into service in large numbers. On ground things are even worse

Panther in large numbers (My favorite ww2 tank lol)
Tigers in large numbers
MP.44 in large numbers (worlds first assualt rifle)
MG-42 in large numbers (still in service world wide as MG-62)
88`s in large numbers

So i would say no the 262 can not alone have changed the war, but in combination with the other recourses in German hardware, then things could look pretty bad.....the Invasion fleet would not have encountert any planes, they would have been blastet away by the Henchel guided misile and then some TA-154`s would have come in and cleaned the table

The BOB would have startet up all over agin..keeping the brits home...the USA would have had the YP-80 fighting of the ME-264 at the American coast, proberbly been shooting the JU-287`s down (jet bomber)

On water no saurface ships of importance would be precent, but in the deep the allied would have to encounter the IXX electro boats (17knots) under water auto reloading system and if the Germans just had another year, the big brother of that one would be around (and here we are talking about the basic design for all modern subs)

this is scary...i stop now....just my tiny input

S! all

RocketDog
01-20-2005, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Potatodip:
What is interesting is the planes that the German could have produced if the infrastructure was operationel.....
1. The ME-264 "America bomber"
2. The JU-388 (large scale production)
3. HE-219 (large scale production)
4. A large number og 109D`s and TA-152
5. TA-154
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point has been made many times before, but these aircraft (and others) never made it to operational service because of serious shortcomings in the Luftwaffe's procurement policy. Even if they had not had to disperse production because of bombing, it wouldn't have made much difference. Much Luftwaffe procurement took place in a fantasy world where technical problems were overwhelmed by enthusiasm for paper performance figures.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Potatodip
01-20-2005, 05:05 PM
800 262`s is fiction, like the rest of my post lol.......i know about German "paperwork" didnt help to have a korporal in charge "litle mustashe" didnt help him........alot would have been different if the tiny dude and the fat dude would have let the people who knew stuff fight there war.......but luckely....ego`s came around.....

Galland in charge of the LW
Rommel as Army head dude

both had something to say about production,

than gog this is fiction......Germany and its allies lost, alot of brave young men won, that is the bottom line......

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2005, 06:27 PM
flemsha, interesting point. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually they lost it in December 1941, the moment they declared war on the United States. They stacked the deck against themselves so high that they were bound to lose. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was reading about some Bf109F squad or group commander somewhere outside Moscow on 7 December, and when he first heard the news about USA entering the war, he didn't think anything of it because he was too busy in that disasterous winter combat environment. A few weeks later when things slowed down, he had a spare minute by himself and it dawned on him that Germany lost the war a few weeks before, on 7 December.

I like to focus on Kursk 1943 because that is where Germany lost so much of the experienced ground troops that were left after winters 1941 and 1942. Germany could not replace these, and in 1944 USA already began to *voluntarily* reduce its war effort.

If 262 could extend the war, the Pershing and Stalin tanks pretty much made the Panthers and Tigers obsolete, as these Germnan tanks were fairly poor battlefield weapons and the exact opposite type of highly mobile, easily maintained, and somewhat easily manufactured tanks that proved so successful for Germany in 1940-1942.

To change the outcome of the war, one neeeds to go back long before 262.

He~100D and Fw~187 in 1940-1941...maybe these could win the WAR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TOcarroll
01-20-2005, 07:29 PM
Great Missions, thanks for providing them.

The only reservation I have about the Me-262 (fighter) as a war-winner is that the engines had to be rebiult abter 10 hours (due to the poor durabality of the available metal alloys). As a result it took a LOT of 262's to keep even one squadron at full strength (able to fly). This problem also effected the Allies - it was not until the Korean War that engine life was extended to a more reasonable figure. I think that the major strategic decision that hurt the Luftwaffe was the order to drop all new design programs that would not reach production by the end of 1941 (Willy Messerschmidt ignored the order on the Me-262).

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2005, 07:43 PM
Good call about maintaining 262 in combat readiness. One may compare it to the problems the Japanese had keeping Ki~61, Ki~84, J2M, etc... in combat readiness.

Lets assume 262 in late 1943, so was Ki~61, and the Japanese found Ki~61 in 1943 never as effective as promised because of its difficult to maintain and operate engine.

Also, the airfields the 262 had to use would hurt the 262 as frontline tactical fighter...assuming this after the B~17s were driven from the daytime sky over Germany--I think all agree on this here about the 262 stopping strategic day bombing.

Daiichidoku
01-20-2005, 10:54 PM
Rommel and Galland had NO say at all about production....


Germany lost the war before July 43...before declaring war on USA and before Dunkirk....they lost it lost Goring relieved pressure on the RAF 1940...had they pressed the issue a few more weeks;

no whines about weak mg 151s

109 elevators would be ok

.50s WOULD be weak

HUGE whnes about the "bar" in IL2s


"OM" would be "Otto Meyer"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

joeap
01-21-2005, 03:26 AM
Nice one dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Flying_Nutcase
01-21-2005, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TOcarroll:
Great Missions, thanks for providing them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks T.O.,

You're very welcome.

I'm glad you like them.


S ~


Nutcase

chaikanut
01-21-2005, 08:00 AM
I posted in another thread production numbers for german artillery, airplanes and tanks compared to the corresponding russian numbers from 1941 to 1945. Numbers for the german side increase througout 1943 and remain steady in 1944, only in 1945 do they drop considerably (almost vanish). In the context of the german leadership, research capability and industrial mobilisation it was pure fantasy to expect large numbers of Me 262 enough for total war, as well as any other vehicle or weapon; the germans certainly had the resources but they did not mobilise their industry for total war until it was far too late. The turning point in my opinion was the disastrous early campaigns in the Soviet union. The germans were winning that war easily and instead of going all the way and finishing it, they allowed themselves to be bogged down on unessecary objectives and lose the core of their exper4ienced army. After 1942, with this army lost the germans would never again enjoy such an overwhelming advantage against the Soviets, who got exponentially better due to improved tactics, much improved leadership, total industrial mobilisation, using every man, woman and child for the cause, and massive economic and industrial help from the USA, and therefore the outcome would be either a peace settlement (which Stalin was prerpared to give at some point, ever wary of the political and social consequences of this total war which caused the destruction of the Tzar and the october revolution) or slow defeat for Germany.

For Hitler to win, he would need to do the following:

Assault and occupy England.

Hitler had no real intention to make prolonged war on the english whom he considered non- threatening and ''racial brothers''. Leaving the expeditionary force to escape from france was a gesture of '' friendship'' to Churchill. The air battles over Britain later suffered from poor tactics (fighters always close to the bombers lost advantage of speed) and political non-willingness. The RAF was almost broken by the end of the war, whereas the Germans could cover their casualties in aircraft in a few months (the crews and pilots would take a little longer). Hitler however was anxious to assault the russians...

Occupy Malta.

The british had many aircraft in malta and constantly harrased supplies brought to rommel in africa; out of a bare minimum of 50000 tons of all sorts of supplies he received only 30000 tons. The english troops facing Romell were undersupplied in the beginning of the African campaign but eventually they managed to solve those problems. For Rommel the situation only got worse. English leadership at the beggining of this confrontation was abysmal, the generals assigned were totaly incompetent. Montgomery got the first victories for the english but by that time the african front had been abandoned by hitler to whatever fate.


Take over the western regions of soviet union.

With the initial invasion germany deprived the USSR of 40% of its population (which was actually LESS from the combined German reich). Occupation of the remaining major cities and populated areas, most of whicgh were in the western USSR was very possible after the initial russian defeats and it would stop their ability to continue the war. Hitler ignored the open route in the centre and focused in the city of stalingrad, with the intent to advance into Caucasus and secure much needed oil. Even before the situation there became hopeless, he became obsessed and viewed this city as the symbol of the struggle for victory against Bolshevism (The city had the name of its Great Leader, stalin...). The rest is history.

Treat the occupied eastern Europe in more humane way.

Hitler wrote his book ''Mein Kampf'' as a collection of rants intended to gain support from the lower german class (he did believe everything he said though). Problem is that a lot of lower officers, with this books mindset, exterminated large amounts of people in eastern europe, who were otherwise willing to fight against the communists. In this way he squandered what could have been a great source for soldiers.

Most important of all: Convert most of the industrial production of Germany to war. Hitler attacked USSR with the prospect of a short war.
If the industry was gradually converted at the same time occupation of England and north Africa was done, USSR would be attacked by a country with superior resources, superior Armed forces, prepared to cover its casualties to the fullest and safe from all other fronts (for the time being). Creation of regiments of ''Wunderwaffen'' would at this time be very possible.

Aaron_GT
01-21-2005, 09:05 AM
"Leaving the expeditionary force to escape from france was a gesture of '' friendship'' to Churchill."

Hardly. The retreating forces were pretty heavily mauled by a number of air attacks. What prevented Hitler appeared to the fact that Germany's forces were overextended, plus a break in the weather. When the weather was good LW aircraft pounded the British holed up in Dunkirk. Poor logistics prevented the Wehrmacht from pressing home the objective without the risk of a lack of fuel and ammunition making them vulnerable to counterattack. Perhaps there was a certain amount of overcaution, though. The same sort of problem afflicted Wehrmacht forces in late 1941 when the logistic situation was so poor that an attack on Moscow could not be mounted. The fact that Barbarossa started a month late and was caught out earlier than originally planned by autumn rains didn't help but even before then supplies ran low as the German army simply had insufficient motor or train transport to fully equip its forces. It was a lesson that the USA learned very well: the number of trucks deployed for the invasion of Europe was astounding.

flemsha
01-21-2005, 09:16 AM
Also to occupy Britain was no mean feat. Blitzkrieg worked great in Europe where fast mobile forces could attack over land, attacking across the channel was a whole new challenge.

Slick750
01-21-2005, 09:49 AM
Maybe if they had built 8000, but 800 to cover that much territory isn't enough. It would have hurt the bombers but not stop them. I'm not even sure you can "cover" a city like New York with 800 squad cars, but you could cover most of Europe with a measly amount of ME-262s?. Theese planes spent alot more time on the ground then in the air. How long can they stay airborne anyway?

Blitzgrieg worked wonders on the weak and the unprepared. But all good things come to end.

flemsha
01-21-2005, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
Maybe if they had built 8000, but 800 to cover that much territory isn't enough. It would have hurt the bombers but not stop them. I'm not even sure you can "cover" a city like New York with 800 squad cars, but you could cover most of Europe with a measly amount of ME-262s?. Theese planes spent alot more time on the ground then in the air. How long can they stay airborne anyway?

Blitzgrieg worked wonders on the weak and the unprepared. But all good things come to end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd hardly call blitzkrieg a good thing.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-21-2005, 10:57 AM
Hi,

Blitzkrieg? It's a good thing from a military perspective...not too mention very effective.

I don't think the Me262 would have changed the outcome of the war but, produced in numbers, it could have extended the war a little.

Now, if it has been introduced in numbers in 1939 then I might be saying something different because it may have been instrumental in defeating Britain (although this would have required a tactics shift for the LW in terms of low level fast strikes + better intelligence on radar and C&C) and, in particular, Russia.

Who knows? One thing is true, though - it's a good job that the outcome of the war was as it was.

Cheers,
Norris

Blackdog5555
01-21-2005, 12:35 PM
Oh course not being there we are all just speculating. But...When Gunter Rall (sp) 2 leading german ace was asked by some Finish Students at a lecture in Finland recently, (he was 85) what Germany needed to help win the war. He stated, "Logistics" He explained that the Germany didnt have good transport planes to move troops and supplies. taht when he needed to move his base that only a small cargo plane was avialable. its not the need for the 262. Better military planning is the key. I wish i had the web site but just google Rall and Finland and you will see. good read. Rall is an amazing Character. BTW. what is scary is that Germany had its own nuclear program. I Germany waited (didnt invade Poland on Sept 3, 1939) until its nuclear program was finished, Oppenheimers toy would have been used on the Allies. Trully...Thank god the allies were able to keep the heavy water facilites in Norway.. Destroyed!