PDA

View Full Version : Would Germany won the war if they would invented Me-262 in 1942?



zan_bzk
09-21-2005, 08:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif I have read a lot about this+i am making a small research http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. so if you have any good ideas or comments please writte here...

zan_bzk
09-21-2005, 08:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif I have read a lot about this+i am making a small research http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. so if you have any good ideas or comments please writte here...

Pirschjaeger
09-21-2005, 08:49 AM
I think first we must realize that the missing Me262 wasn't what cost Hitler the war. There were too many variables to say one thing could or could not have won the war.

Had Hitler not lived past 37', the world would have won the war. Then again, would Stalin have been worse?

Fritz

HayateAce
09-21-2005, 08:51 AM
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service.

http://www.langley.af.mil/staff/ho/images/p80.jpg

Pirschjaeger
09-21-2005, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service.

http://www.langley.af.mil/staff/ho/images/p80.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice thought but do you think the Allies had the capability? I don't. Had they had the capability in 1942 to do so then they would have used it. At the end of the war, jet fighter technology was the highest in Germany wasn't it? That's an honest question by the way.

Fritz

Kuna15
09-21-2005, 08:58 AM
No.

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 09:00 AM
they didnt use them effectivly even when they did have them...

Pirschjaeger
09-21-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deep, very deep. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kuna, who's question are you answering?

Fritz

luftluuver
09-21-2005, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you staying that German jet development would have stagnated with the Me262?

rnzoli
09-21-2005, 09:09 AM
Would not, IMO. The war is lost/won by ground troops. How would Me-262s aid German troops in the chilly Russian winters, I don't know yet.

Pirschjaeger
09-21-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Would not, IMO. The war is lost/won by ground troops. How would Me-262s aid German troops in the chilly Russian winters, I don't know yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I think because we are so focused on this sim we seem to forget the other contributions to the fight. When I think in terms of ground, sea, and air forces I think the gound forces played, by far, the greatest role, followed by sea, and finally air.

Fritz

Kuna15
09-21-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Deep, very deep. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kuna, who's question are you answering?

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To original question. Whether ME-262 could change things in axis favour, I think not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pirschjaeger
09-21-2005, 09:17 AM
Had the Me262 been available during BoB, in sufficient numbers, England would have better beer today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I guess you can't win them all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Kuna15
09-21-2005, 09:20 AM
Maybe so Fritz. I think it would be down to "it is good 'till it lasts" for that guys. Eventually.

I think it was Seafire that was noticed that such conception is flawed. Constant struggle against many (strong) enemies. Enemies from inside and foreign enemies...

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

Tater-SW-
09-21-2005, 09:39 AM
No. As it was they never had a shortage of jets vs pilots, they did have critical fuel shortages. The invasion of the CCCP was to grab oil. Fuel guzzling jets would have exacerbated their problems with strategic oil reserves.

On top of that, they were just not going to win vs the rest of the world economically. 13% of world GDP doesn't take on 70% (~50% just the US alone) and win. The US could outproduce Germany in peacetime, once fully on a war footing (end of 1943 or so) it was no contest. A surrounded country at war (of their own choice) with everyone around them. Every loss of trained personel is irreplacable.

Oh, and by late summer 1945 they have to have a 100% bomber interception rate, day and night (any given bomber might be loaded with an A-bomb).

tater

Triggaaar
09-21-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and by late summer 1945 they have to have a 100% bomber interception rate, day and night (any given bomber might be loaded with an A-bomb). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Olli72
09-21-2005, 09:51 AM
Well history show that they didnt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Because 262 was "invented" well before '42. First pure jet flight of 262 was in july 1942.

And IIRC wasnt Heinkels design better? But because of intern arguing and hostility Messerschmitt got the contract anyway?
http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/300px-Heinkel_He_280.jpg

tigertalon
09-21-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zan_bzk:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif I have read a lot about this+i am making a small research http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. so if you have any good ideas or comments please writte here... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All who answered NO, ask yourselves: Is this what you WANT/WISH to be the outcome, or is it what you RATIONALLY BELIEVE would be an outcome? This is a big difference: in the upcoming football match of our team with Italians, I would REALLY like our boys to win, but rationally I think they don't stand a chance.

IMO if Germans introduced Me262 and developement of jets in other countries stayed the same as IRL:
German chances of winning the war would increase quite a bit in worst scenario. They would be able to prevent devastating carpet bombing of western allies, thus keeping air superiority over own territory, keeping industry potential more or less intact, making operation Overlord impossible. Russia however would still be a problem for Germans, as Me262 was not so efficient in low alt dogfighting.

We should not forget, that there were some points where germans almost win 2nd world war. One such point was BoB: many historians and pilots (also British among them) agree that if Germans used drop tanks on Bf109E3/E4, they would invade and defeat GB. After that, Soviet Union IMO wouldn't be such a problem for Germans as it was.

Heliopause
09-21-2005, 10:17 AM
To answer the question..we will never know....


The Heinkel 280 was a nice plane but did not have the range like the Me 262. It was able to fly one-third of the time compared to the 262. That's why the RLM choose the 262.

Oil was a problem for the Germans but the Jumo jet-engine could work on J-2 fuel wich came out of browncoal. (no black oil here..)

Jet engines had a short lifespan but could easily be replaced. ( 30 minutes for an engine change)

Developement of jet aircraft in al country's was stepped up, at one point one country would be better equipped than the other but this always balances.

Since the airwar was fought over germany it was easier for them to start using them ( the enemy came to them..no long flights looking for targets here) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
09-21-2005, 10:18 AM
I think you would get about 2000 answers if you used the search forum function.

faustnik
09-21-2005, 10:21 AM
A good friend of my fathers was a B-17 radio operator who flew many missions over the Germany. His opinion is that if the LW had fuel for all the Me262s they had in '44/'45, the B-17s would have been screwed.

HayateAce
09-21-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Nice thought but do you think the Allies had the capability? I don't. Had they had the capability in 1942 to do so then they would have used it. At the end of the war, jet fighter technology was the highest in Germany wasn't it? That's an honest question by the way.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, Germany gets an "A" for effort and technology. It's not like when the 262 appeared over Euro skies that Allied intelligence was completely dumbfounded and surprised. Spying has a long history you know. The Allies knew jet technology and warfare was just around the corner, and probably were allocating assets towards jet technology according to some timeline.

No doubt they were a step behind Germany along the way, but an earlier appearance of the 262 would have seen immediate and massive jet production efforts in the US alone. Would this hypothetical event have prolonged WW2 is the true question, and "heck yeah" is the answer. However, an early appearance wouldn't have meant squat if they hadn't shown up in big numbers with trained pilots. THAT, Germany could not do.

By the way, the first flight of the Bell P59 was October 1, 1942. While it was far from spectacular performer, we can see that a jet program was fully in swing in the US. A 1942 appearance of the 262 would likely see a tripling of funds and scope of the US jet program.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p59-2.jpg

ploughman
09-21-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...England would have better beer today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You clearly have no idea what a good pint of bitter should taste like, bloody continentals and their fizzy wee. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, and I agree with the above post. Forget ye not that the USA was largely untouchable due to its geographic isolation, a good place to put the arsenal of democracy. No matter how many Me-262s you have in 1942 you still can't hit Detroit.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-21-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...England would have better beer today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You clearly have no idea what a good pint of bitter should taste like, bloody continentals and their fizzy wee. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/ad32004.gif

stathem
09-21-2005, 10:52 AM
Maybe Britain would've won the War if the British Government had taken Frank Whittle seriously in 1931,kept his patents secret, and poured in resources to build and develop his engine

stathem
09-21-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice thought but do you think the Allies had the capability? I don't. Had they had the capability in 1942 to do so then they would have used it. At the end of the war, jet fighter technology was the highest in Germany wasn't it? That's an honest question by the way.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going to grant the German engineers the capability to solve all of the myriad prolems surrounding the development of jet technology so they could have reliable 262's in appriciable numbers by 1942 - then surely you can grant the British and American engineers the same grace?

British jet technology was leagues ahead in terms of reliability than the Germans; but they didn't needed to risk lives and rush underdeveloped engines into service in a desperate attempt to stave off defeat.

John_Stag
09-21-2005, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Had the Me262 been available during BoB, in sufficient numbers, England would have better beer today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I guess you can't win them all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could conversely argue that if Frank whittle hadn't seen an officer that was trying to develop a jet engine himself, and so got a fair hearing, Gloster Meteors could have gone to France in 1939; Germany's jets were developed after seeing Whittle's patents.

Such speculation is pointless.

F19_Ob
09-21-2005, 11:41 AM
What olli said. The 262 was already there.

Chuck_Older
09-21-2005, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HayateAce:
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service.



Nice thought but do you think the Allies had the capability? I don't. Had they had the capability in 1942 to do so then they would have used it. At the end of the war, jet fighter technology was the highest in Germany wasn't it? That's an honest question by the way.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fritz-

the trouble with that viewpoint is the whole "Allies" idea. While on the surface it seems right to think that one side wouldn't have access to that type of technology, but what would have really happened is that prior to the war, technology in general would have been advanced, not Axis technology or Allied technology http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Aeronautical innovation would simply have been a few years ahead for the whole world

csThor
09-21-2005, 12:19 PM
The lack of aviation fuel on a general level only pertained to the B4 and (especially) C3 high-octane fuel for piston-engined aircraft. As someone else said the Jets operated on J2 fuel which was a really low-quality stuff but worked as supposed. I have an example:

On April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters
J-2 = 1,897,000 liters

You see there was more than enough jet-fuel available. The problem (at that point of the war) was the destruction of the transport system (trains, bridges, roads etc) and the inability to bring the refined fuel to the front. Secondly the enormous Allied superiority in numbers was not exactly helpful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Back top the original question ...

First thing to say is that a full-scale production of Me 262 as early as 1942 would be impossible - not because of the aircraft not being ready but because of the engines. The main problems weren't overcome until the second half of 1943 and only then the LW could start thinking about a frontline use. Secondly - even if we know the importance of the jet-engines today - the whole project never received a high priority until it was too late. The RLM (especially Udet) was never really interested in the Jets until it was too late (which was the case in 1942). A lot of problems with the Jumo 004B could have been avoided if Heinkel had been allowed to continue research with his He 178 and He 280, but G¶ring (in his typical megalomania) assumed the war would be over before that technology could be used so he had the work stopped. What a jerk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
But if were going to be that hypothetical and assume things worked out earlier then we're goign to get a lot of "ifs" and "whens". I am not that familiar with the jet development in the USA, but I seem to remember that the main problems encountered (also with the engine - what a surprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) weren't solved until german research data was available after the war (but as I know not much about US development I could be wrong, too). Britain on the other hand did have a working jet - the Meteor - but AFAIK its performance was ... uhh ... not that satisfactory. Secondly it didn't have the range to escort heavy bombers to Germany and back so let's simplify things and assume that the Me 262 would have plenty of rope over Germany.

It is possible that the LW would have been able to stop the daylight attacks completely. The technological advantage of the Me 262 was its speed and enormous firepower which was more than adequate to bring down a B-17 or a B-24 with a single burst. Then ... of course ... the question of the A-bomb would arise.

BerkshireHunt
09-21-2005, 12:51 PM
The answer to the original post is 'No'.
The Gloster Meteor was not the only British jet fighter to fly in WW2. The De Havilland Vampire prototype, originally named 'Spider Crab', first flew in February 1943 and was much faster than the Meteor being almost in Me262 territory. However, the Air Ministry decided there was no need (yet) to risk pilots' lives on the unproven technology. They preferred two-engined designs for safety reasons and therefore let small contracts for a number of Meteor development aircraft.
So there was never a substantial gulf between German jet technology and Allied.
Germany could have won the war many times by diplomatic means, but the Me262 was always an irrelevance.

Jester_159th
09-21-2005, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
We should not forget, that there were some points where germans almost win 2nd world war. One such point was BoB: many historians and pilots (also British among them) agree that if Germans used drop tanks on Bf109E3/E4, they would invade and defeat GB. After that, Soviet Union IMO wouldn't be such a problem for Germans as it was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many other sources will tell you that, even if the Luftwaffe had been able to defeat the RAF, they would not have managed an invasion. For one thing they were intending to TOW their invasion troops across the Channel on flat bottomed barges. Just ask anyone with experience of Channel weather what there chances of success would have been. Also factor in the tides etc and you'll find they'd have had to tow those barges across at night.Anything more than a slight swell and it would have fast become the biggest naval disaster in history.

A more likely scenario would have been for Britain to sue for peace if German bombers had been able to range over England with no possibility of opposition. Although Churchill would most likely have wanted to fight on, I suspect the country wouldn't have let him.

Also, as far as the Russian front is concerned, although the Germans had incredible success in the initial stages and totally outclassed the Russian troops in quality, as the Russains say, "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

Bear in mind that in a single year (either 42 or 43 IIRC) the Russians built more T-34's than the entire German wartime production of tanks. Let's also not forget the Russain winter and it's effect on German technology.

csThor
09-21-2005, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
So there was never a substantial gulf between German jet technology and Allied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F*cking board. Ok .. again.

I disagree here. The British and the US used a different technology for the jet engine itself than the germans (I don't know the exact term - something about radial vs axial) and the german approach is the one used today. It was simply far better in regards to fuel consumption, power to weight ratio and power output. Secondly the german research in regards to aerodynamics was simply way ahead of what the Western Allies had. Whereas the Meteor did still use traditional wings the Me 262 already had slightly swept-back wings. It wouldn't be before the early 1950s when this knowledge started to appear in allied frontline Jet designs (F-86 Sabre and F-84 Thunderstreak). Even if the thing never made it aloft look at the wooden model of the Ta-183 and compare it to the P-80 to understand just how much energy was put into aerodynamics by the german scientists.

StellarRat
09-21-2005, 01:45 PM
Only if you base the Allies winning of the war on their strategic bombing could you say the 262 could have won the war. I personally do not think that Allied bombing campaign was particularly effective. A lot more cows, wheatfields and civilians were killed than anything else. The Germans were learning how to disperse their industries, make synthetic oil and were actually increasing production of some items even at the height of the bombing campaign. The two front war, Allied industrial superiority, poor German leadership, and superior Allied intelligence were far larger factors in their defeat. Only in the last 20 years has airpower become a truly war winning weapon.

As someone commented earlier, even if the 262 could have made the war last longer the Germans would have had to contend with US nuclear weapons only a few months later. They were probably spared an even more horrible fate (ala Japan) by not lasting longer.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-21-2005, 01:54 PM
"Without the bombing campaign, German industry would have been able to increase war production capacity many times over if required. Bombing disrupted production and held the full potential of the German industrial machine in check. Equally importantly, bombing attacks on the German homeland forced the Nazis to divert over one million men and 55,000 artillery guns to anti-aircraft defence within Germany itself. German aircraft production had to focus on fighter production for defence against bomber attack, rather than, as Hitler desperately wanted, be able to produce more bombers for offensive use. These resources were urgently needed elsewhere, particularly on the eastern front fighting the Russians, who were finally able to overcome the Germans and force them into a retreat.

Historian Professor Richard Overy had studied the bombing campaign at length. He writes: €˜The critical question is not so much €œWhat did bombing do to Germany?€ but €œWhat could Germany have achieved if there had been no bombing?€€¦... Bombing was a blunt instrument. It was a strategy that had a long and painful learning curve. But for all its deficiencies the 125,000 men and women of Bomber Command made a larger contribution to victory in Europe than any other element of Britain€s armed services.€

Albert Speer, Hitler€s Armaments Minister, knew more than anyone else in Europe about the true effect of the bombing campaign. He summed it up thus: €˜It made every square metre of Germany a front. For us, it was the greatest lost battle of the war.'"

http://www.rafbombercommand.co.uk

danjama
09-21-2005, 02:02 PM
Im with Statham, it would of done Britain far better to listen to Whittle far earlier. But noooooooo. To original post, i do not think the 262 would of made a substantial difference to the outcome. Nuff Said!

NorrisMcWhirter
09-21-2005, 02:02 PM
Curious logic...to insinuate that the Allies would have been faster to develop jet technology more quickly had the Germans had it sooner.

I find that hard to believe...and that they wouldn't persevere with the technology because it would mean putting undeveloped hardware into the battle-field....Napier engines, anyone?

The allies would have been foolish not to try to take the initiative wherever possible. They had the resources and the facilities to develop these technologies largely unhindered but I think they were just behind.

Same logic could be applied to the atomic bomb; do you think the allies would have 'waited around a bit until they knew Germany had one' or do you think they would have been working flat out to get ahead?

Nah, it doesn't make sense for nations to avoid taking risks/spending time and money on technology during war; this is a time when significant scientific & engineering developments are made.

Ta,
Norris

PS: As to making a difference, no it wouldn't - it may have extended the war slightly.

What would have been more significant, as already suggested, is if the Germans had this technology (or the 190A) in 1940 and the BoB had been lost. Then, I suspect, we would have been drinking cold fizzy nastiness by the half litre.

darkhorizon11
09-21-2005, 02:06 PM
In a word, no.

It would have been a lot bloodier for sure.

Airwarfare is very disconnected from the ground war. Although it has an indirect effect on war, through slowing production, transportation and it can't blow up every tank and kill every man.

A superior tank will have a much larger effect on the pace of a war over an aircraft.

stathem
09-21-2005, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
So there was never a substantial gulf between German jet technology and Allied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F*cking board. Ok .. again.

I disagree here. The British and the US used a different technology for the jet engine itself than the germans (I don't know the exact term - something about radial vs axial) and the german approach is the one used today. It was simply far better in regards to fuel consumption, power to weight ratio and power output. Secondly the german research in regards to aerodynamics was simply way ahead of what the Western Allies had. Whereas the Meteor did still use traditional wings the Me 262 already had slightly swept-back wings. It wouldn't be before the early 1950s when this knowledge started to appear in allied frontline Jet designs (F-86 Sabre and F-84 Thunderstreak). Even if the thing never made it aloft look at the wooden model of the Ta-183 and compare it to the P-80 to understand just how much energy was put into aerodynamics by the german scientists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Metropolitan Vickers had an Axial flow Jet bench tested in 1941. Centrifugal flow jets (ala Derwent, Nene) gave better reliabilty with the metallurgies of the day.

Yes the 262 had a more advanced airframe. But the allies did have some engineers who were capable of some very good work.

To continue, and with special reference to Norris, in particular the DH Vampire (548mph @ rated altitude in production variants) which first flew in Sept 43, was not developed straight away because De Havilland were busy with the Mosquito and Hornet. If the need had been pressing etc etc.

stathem
09-21-2005, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nah, it doesn't make sense for nations to avoid taking risks/spending time and money on technology during war; this is a time when significant scientific & engineering developments are made.

Ta,
Norris

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does when you are very confident of winning, and you have to find the money to re-build Europe afterwards.

tigertalon
09-21-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
A superior tank will have a much larger effect on the pace of a war over an aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strongly disagree. German tanks were inferior to those of their opponents at the beginning of the war - yet they were winning because of air supremacy. German tanks towards the end of the war were superior, yet they were loosing because of lack of air superiority.

Air superiority in a conventional war is everything from WW2 on, be sure.

BTW, do you think outcome of first Gulf war would be any different if Iraqis had M1s and Americans T72/T80s? It would be exactly the same, just a few american tanks more would be destroyed, and war would maybe last one day more.

And now switch entire airforces, while keeping tanks at their places, and think about outcome. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

rnzoli
09-21-2005, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
All who answered NO, ask yourselves: Is this what you WANT/WISH to be the outcome, or is it what you RATIONALLY BELIEVE would be an outcome? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked myself, and NO is what I rationally believe. History won't change, so wishful thinking is irrelevant for this question.

Maybe another aspect is: Me-262 available in what numbers? 10, 100, 1000 or 10000? Having the technology is one thing, but producing it in massive numbers is another. Just think of the need of strategic materials for that advanced airplane. And the requirements of field maintenance and repair. Nah....I am very sceptic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
09-21-2005, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
So there was never a substantial gulf between German jet technology and Allied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F*cking board. Ok .. again.

I disagree here. The British and the US used a different technology for the jet engine itself than the germans (I don't know the exact term - something about radial vs axial) and the german approach is the one used today. It was simply far better in regards to fuel consumption, power to weight ratio and power output. Secondly the german research in regards to aerodynamics was simply way ahead of what the Western Allies had. Whereas the Meteor did still use traditional wings the Me 262 already had slightly swept-back wings. It wouldn't be before the early 1950s when this knowledge started to appear in allied frontline Jet designs (F-86 Sabre and F-84 Thunderstreak). Even if the thing never made it aloft look at the wooden model of the Ta-183 and compare it to the P-80 to understand just how much energy was put into aerodynamics by the german scientists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another example of bleeding edge, advanced swept wing technology during the war...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/IL2Sweptwingproflie01.jpg

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

stathem
09-21-2005, 03:54 PM
http://www.100megsfree2.com/coughtrey/dakright.gif

Xiolablu3
09-21-2005, 03:56 PM
No, as has already been said, ground troops win a war not aircraft.

Even if the 262 had been able to stop the bomber offensive, Germany was still being overrun by the red army. So it may have taken a bit longer without support from the Air, but could an Me262 have taken stalingrad?

It wasnt Airpower which made the allies succeed, it was lots of factors. Therefore the Me262 would have little bearing on the outcome of the war.

Even if the Russians had lost at Stalingrad, they were being pushed back like a spring. It was only a matter of time before the Germans supply lines outstreched their Army.

LStarosta
09-21-2005, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Discussion Topic Would Germany won the war if they would invented Me-262 in 1942? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

Because the P-80 would be invented in 1941.

LStarosta
09-21-2005, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

BTW, do you think outcome of first Gulf war would be any different if Iraqis had M1s and Americans T72/T80s? It would be exactly the same, just a few american tanks more would be destroyed, and war would maybe last one day more.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I strongly disagree.

It would take about 2 weeks longer for the war to finish while each side tries to translate each other's tank's operating manuals.

Secudus2004
09-21-2005, 05:22 PM
Oh, some of us seem to think America had jet technology... Beg your pardon, the only jet technology the Americans had was given to them by the British http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif As was the all moving tail that gave them the speed of sound...

Anywhoo...

Germany should have pushed their lead in Rocket technology as well and worked towards having a usable ICBM arsenal€¦ Imagine the outcome of America being hit in their own back yard not with high explosives, but with biological weapons€¦ Russia and China could be severally emaciated as well by the use of these WMD to use a modern terminology€¦ Key cities and Military sites exposed to this sort of warfare would fall straight away, and any attacks against the Nazi€s would take weeks to get there, if at all€¦

Hell€¦ We would be living in it now€¦

NorrisMcWhirter
09-21-2005, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Nah, it doesn't make sense for nations to avoid taking risks/spending time and money on technology during war; this is a time when significant scientific & engineering developments are made.

Ta,
Norris

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does when you are very confident of winning, and you have to find the money to re-build Europe afterwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That might also be true...except the Western allies could not know whether the Russians would want to steamroller their way through the rest of Europe.

Perhaps they decided to edge their bets on the atomic bomb stopping that...but you don't put all your eggs into one basket.

Ta,
Norris

Scharnhorst1943
09-21-2005, 05:58 PM
I say <span class="ev_code_RED">YES</span>.

If Germany had the Me262 in 1942, They would have <span class="ev_code_RED">ANIHILATED</span> B-17's. The US daylight bombing campaign almost failed because Fw190 and Me109 were already <span class="ev_code_RED">ANIHILATING</span> B-17's. If the Me262 as on front lines, there would have been ABSOLUTELY no bombing raids on Germany or ploestie and German industrial production would have been signifigantly higher than what is was. No mass bombing means more tanks, Uboats, guns, ships, planes, rifles.

Germany lost because ...
1. We bombed thier industrial capacity back into the stone-age
2. We overwhelmed them with sheer numbers. Take the Sheman tank vs Panthers and Tigers. Imagine what would have happened if the Germans had double the number of Panzers.

Yes there were other factors such as ground war or sea war, but what is overlooked is that they are all linked and indireclty affect eachother.

If you have air superiority, that can tip the ballance.

SkyChimp
09-21-2005, 06:21 PM
The P-59A Airacomet was pretty lackluster when it came to performance - for a jet. But it's worth mentioning that its performance was very similar to the first Meteors that went into service. It was described as pleasant to fly with good manueverability. In fact, I'm not sure there would have been much to chose from between the P-59A and the first Meteors.

U.S. jet developement during WWII was less a victim of lackluster innovation than disinterest by U.S. military leaders. U.S. manufacturers had original and very advanced ideas that were given no, or low, priority by the military leaders.

Lockheed developed an original, and advanced, axial flow jet engine in 1940 called the L-1000, but the military was not interested and it didn't get any development funding until 1943, and then only a tiny amount.

Also, there is a long standing myth that the swept wing was unknown in the U.S. until after the surrender of Germany. In fact, an American, NACA scientist R. T. Jones is considered a "co-father" of the swept wing for high speed flight, along with Germany's Buseman. And even though the first swept wing fighter in the USAF didn't go into service until 1949, some U.S. manufacturers were designing fighters with swept wings before the end of WWII.

Bell designed the XP-59 (different than the P-59 Airacomet) with swept wings to achieve higher speeds:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p59-1.jpg

McDonnell began developement of the XF-85 in early 1944 and incorporated swept wings from the beginning:
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/images/scaled/aec01960.jpg

Northrops' XP-56 flew in 1943, with swept wings:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p56-2.jpg

Northop's design for the XP-85 began in 1942, and incorporated a swept wing from the beginning:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p79-3.jpg

There is also the Curtiss P-55.

One of the problems in the U.S. was that manufacturers were not inclined to share ideas among themselves. So while the swept wing was known to some manufacturers, if came as a revelation to others, like North American, only after captured German technology was studied.

Tully__
09-21-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another example of bleeding edge, advanced swept wing technology during the war...

Picture of IL2 in plan.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Nice try Cajun, but they did that for a CoG issue, not an aerodynamic one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
09-21-2005, 06:42 PM
I dont think so. The only thing that would have IMO won the war for Germany would have been the completion of thier nuclear program. No doubt they would have used it.. and we would have a much different world.. certainly a much different Europe than the one we have today. IMO Germany lacked the natural resources to win that war and once the US entered it on the side of the allies and the Soviets moved all of thier production facilities East of the Urals.... out of the Luftwaffe's range... it was over. The allies could bomb the snot out of Germany's indistry and fuel facilities which they did and Germany had no way of retaliating that could stem the tide of the fully stoked industrial might of the US. You can have all the advanced jets with uber cannon out the yin yang... you got no gas and you are GROUNDED... and dont think for one second that if the 262s had been used more to thier strengths like Hitler's generals wanted.. the out cme would have been any different...sure it would have slowed the progress but the outcome would have been the same. Germany would have lost the war. Only the A bomb could have saved Germany... and when you are putting the relatives and friends of your top physicists in ovens or forcing them to work for you under threat of death... how much cooperation do you think you will get? The scientists had a much clearer picture of what the end result would be than the generals.. even if all of them were shocked and awestruck by the magnitude of the blast at Trinity. The ME-262 just would have killed a few more thousands.. but it wouldnt have won the war for Germany.

blakduk
09-21-2005, 06:47 PM
Short answer is 'no'.
The Nazis didnt lose the war for want of one weapon- their reich was a chaotic jumble of disparate regions that were independent of each other leading to the multitude of different caliber weapons, technologies, etc. The key was they were independent of each other- by the end of the war they had a myriad of different projects but very few were ever likely to be field ready.
The 262 was fast and packed a heavy punch- it remained delicate and tricky to handle. Hard turning leading to flameouts remained a problem for turbine technology until well after the war. The fuel SUPPLY was a problem as the infrastructure of the Germans was under great strain- they had the fuel (basically it was just kerosene and was abundent) but they couldnt supply their units adequately. The other problem was the materials used to create the engines- the fundamentals of turbines are very basic however creating them to be reliable is very difficult (the prinicpals of a nuclear bomb are also very basic but making them work is very difficult). The critical stresses on the turbine components requires sophisticated metallurgy and excellent quality control- even by 1941 the Germans infrastructure and access to raw materials was strained.
The British meteor jet engine by contrast was an 'axial flow' engine- basically the principal was it operated pretty much like an oversized turbocharger or a modern 'leaf blower'. A very different engine, not as efficient, not as powerful, but much more reliable (a critical factor in the field).
Without very proficient pilots the 262 would not have had the success it did but the actual performance of it in battle was somewhat disapointing. It was a remarkable aircraft and scared the willies out of the allies, but they exploited it weaknesses.
A close analogy to the development of the 262 is the tank as developed by the British in WW1- it was effective, took a long time to develop, showed what the future would bring, promised to win the war but didnt. They initially proved to be vulnerable, unreliable, and didnt affect the outcome terribly much. Their psychological effect was huge however and demonstrated to their opponents what their potential could be.

Luftwaffe_109
09-21-2005, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">German tanks towards the end of the war were superior, yet they were loosing because of lack of air superiority. German tanks towards the end of the war were superior, yet they were loosing because of lack of air superiority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is, at the very least, debatable. Ian Gooderson€s book, Air Power at the Battlefront makes a good case for the deficiencies of allied fighter-bombers against German tanks. It examines the reports of the Operational Research teams which examined knocked-out German tanks after the Normandy and later battles in order to determine what their cause of destruction or disabling was.

The book contends that the evidence gathered by the Operational Research teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10th August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 armoured fighting vehicles examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out armoured fighting vehicles were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

It would seem that generally fighter-bombers, at least on the allied side (but I would argue also German ones) were ineffective in destroying armoured vehicles.



To the issue of whether or not Germany would have won the war with an Me-262 invented in 1942, I think not (though it€s impossible to tell). The major cause for Germany€s defeat in WWII was certainly not the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign over Europe. Rather it was the amount of tanks, artillery pieces and (most of all) men on the Eastern Front that caused Germany€s defeat.

The massive difference in force generation between Germany and the Soviet Union was so great as to be far and away the single greatest factor in Germany€s defeat (and since the Me-262 really does not do much at all to affect this it couldn€t have really resulted in a German victory).

LEXX_Luthor
09-21-2005, 07:34 PM
mmm, interesting. I think Germany could have defeated Soviet Union in 1942 if not for the Brits and USA supplying USSR and taking diverting German assests from the West and The Meds (by the same token, USSR defeated the German Army on the ground, but if USSR collapsed both The Meds and Normandy would have remained in German hands at least until 1946-1947).

In the other thread, I was thinking about Britain and USA on the western front being critical in Germany's totally blowing its chance on the Eastern Front in December 1941. Ouch, forgot name, but one 109F pilot flying near Moscow -- stuck deep in Russia without being victorious the first year -- heard about USA entering the war in December, thought nothing of it because he was so busy in the Russian winter, but in a quiet moment, it dawned on him that the war was over already. The rest was mere delyaing action, including the German summer offensive of 1942 in southern Russia.

The realistic question is 262 in 1943 (not 1942), but the jet engines delayed the whole program until 1944. If the 262 could have reliable jet engines in 1943, then the Luftwaffe would have to face I-185 with equally reliable power plants. This is great for a Dynamic Campaign with some "what if" possibilities. The only way to find the answer to this thread is to play the Dynamic Campaign and see what happens. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

wayno7777
09-21-2005, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Another example of bleeding edge, advanced swept wing technology during the war...

Picture of IL2 in plan.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Nice try Cajun, but they did that for a CoG issue, not an aerodynamic one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, that's the same reason the 262 had swept wings....
And I do think the war in the ETO would have lasted longer....

Grey_Mouser67
09-21-2005, 07:51 PM
Interesting question...I guess another way to say it is...what effect would Air supremecy in 1942 have changed the outcome of the war.

I think Air supremecy is most important over the battlefield...in that ground attack aircraft can affect the outcome of battles...the fighters themselves don't do much.

Over the Eastern front, I think the impact would have been very significant and maybe even changed the outcome of that battle. If Sturmovicks are shot down in droves while Stuka's and other Ground attack aircraft worked their magic, battles like Kursk would have turned out differently. Could hitler actually push all the way through Russia??? I don't know, but if Japan attacks from the East, it is concievable that Russia falls and that changes everything from a resource standpoint.

Now on the Western Front...North Africa is not affected because the introduction of the jet in 42 doesn't equal instant success or superior numbers...Africa falls to the Allies.

Bomber campaign looks a whole lot different...Night bombing continues but I think Air Superiority over Germany doesn't change anything...Hitler still has to invade England and a jet fighter in 42 doesn't change that...and yes, allied jet development pace is picked up.

In the end, the war is prolonged, but the US invades Japan and saves its Atom Bombs for Berlin and Hitler and liklihood is that the Allies win in the end once Hitler is vaporized.

The change of raw materials from saving Phloesti to capturing oil fields in Russia does change the entire equation though and I think the world would look quite different today...no cold war for example, but I can't imagine Hitler's ulitmate plan being successful...only prolonging the inevitable. Germany would have definitely been fighting a guerilla war in Russia because Hitler just did not treat the Russian civilians in a civilized manner....that alone could have changed the outcome of the war.

ImpStarDuece
09-21-2005, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
So there was never a substantial gulf between German jet technology and Allied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F*cking board. Ok .. again.

I disagree here. The British and the US used a different technology for the jet engine itself than the germans (I don't know the exact term - something about radial vs axial) and the german approach is the one used today. It was simply far better in regards to fuel consumption, power to weight ratio and power output. Secondly the german research in regards to aerodynamics was simply way ahead of what the Western Allies had. Whereas the Meteor did still use traditional wings the Me 262 already had slightly swept-back wings. It wouldn't be before the early 1950s when this knowledge started to appear in allied frontline Jet designs (F-86 Sabre and F-84 Thunderstreak). Even if the thing never made it aloft look at the wooden model of the Ta-183 and compare it to the P-80 to understand just how much energy was put into aerodynamics by the german scientists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the terms you are looking for are axial and centrifugal turbojets.

Axial flow turbojets are generally used in modern turbojet and turbofan engines. Centrifugal flow engines are generally used in turboprop engines.

The British actually developed axial flow engines during the war, but went with the centrifugal flow turbojets because it was more reliable, easier to manufacture, smaller, more fuel efficient and something of a known quantity. Whittle based engines were all variations on centrifugal flow turbojets but Vickers and Rover both developed axial flow turbojets during the war.

Rover actually delayed the Meteor project quite seriously, believing that its own methods and ideas were better than those of Whittle. Contracted to produce 100 jet engines in 1940, they strangled the project in red tape. By 1942 they had only produced 20 engines, significantly delaying the introduction of the Meteor. The Germans weren't the only ones who had a fractious industrial capacity!

While the turbojets that Germany used in the Me-262 were more advanced technically than those in the Meteor or Yp-80, they were also less reliable, less efficient and less powerful than the engines developed by the Allies. Part of the problem was a lack of necessary materials for high temperature metalurgy. Another was the fact that German jet development was centered around operational problems rather than development problems.

Allied jet engine technology may have been behind in design but it was well ahead in terms of practical use and results. Before the end of the war Rolls-Royce was bench testing Nene engines of close to 5,000 lbs thrust. They had cut the size of the Derwent engines and incresed their thrust by 50%. When Derwent engines were fitted onto production Gloster Meteors in early 1945, it went from lame duck to something more worthy of its namesake.

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 08:42 PM
they didnt have mk108s until the end (very end) of 43 aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

in terms of recon, and jabo, long range jabo attack it would open up alot of possibilities..

one of the key advantages the allies had was photo recon. read recently that every platoon? or group of men had a photo on d day, of where they where attacking, as near to the same level they would be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

even at night aircraft with flash bombs could turn night into day briefly to take pictures.

on the fighter bomber stuff, ive read that the troops on the ground where greatly impressed by it, the germans really feared it

blakduk
09-21-2005, 09:36 PM
I need to correct my earlier post- I meant to say the British developed a 'centrifugal flow' engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif.
Its interesting to note the revision of the effectiveness of airpower on the battlefield- especially re the use of fighter-bombers against armour. I think we tend to take for granted the accuracy of weapons in modern warfare- we need only look back to the 'six-day' war in the middle east and note how people were stunned at the accuracy and effectiveness of the Israeli airforce. During the early years of WW2 that was the type of accuracy/effectiveness that was expected.

fordfan25
09-21-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service.

http://www.langley.af.mil/staff/ho/images/p80.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice thought but do you think the Allies had the capability? I don't. Had they had the capability in 1942 to do so then they would have used it. At the end of the war, jet fighter technology was the highest in Germany wasn't it? That's an honest question by the way.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and if germany had had the abilty in 42 would THAY have not used it. IF jets had been feilded by the germans in 42 the allied would have steped up there jet programes. as it was by the time germany had any decent amount of 262's the allie's had the lufwt so out numberd ect that thay did not need to pump up the jet tech. the US put more resources into the A bomb and massproduction of standerd tech for planes. there was not some magical water the germans drank that made them smarter. just that thay took a deffernt direction to the war effort. anopther words i think im tryn to say that if germany had not put so much effort into inventing all that new tech such as V1s jets ect and consentrated on mass produceing FW's ect. sorry if that does not make much sense. im very sleepy and a little tipsy from pain meds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

now to awser the thread starters qustion IMO. if the germans had the me262 in large numbers like say the 109 in 42 and the allies did not diside to try to counter with a steped up programe then things would have been deffernt. day time bombing im sure would not have been put into large use. how ever i do not think that 262's would have allowd germany to win. germany was basicly one country faceing USSR,USA,Brit ect and like japan thay would not have had the abilty to repl;ace dead solders for as long a duration as allied. just a matter of numbers. not to mentune food ect.

Gibbage1
09-21-2005, 10:26 PM
People who think the Allied jet tech was way behind the Axis are just ignorant. P-59 had weak jets. Yes. But that was the 1st generation jet. The Luftwaffe's 1st generation jet was also very weak and underpowered. The P-80 program was complete in 143 days. It took Germany YEARS to complete the Me-262. The P-80 out-performed the Me-262 in EVERY WAY, and it did it with 1 jet engine, the Me-262 had two. It was a much better design, and a jet FIGHTER. The Luftwaffe could not even make up its mind on what the Me-262 was! Fighter? Bomber? Bomber intercepter? Ground support?

The Allies were slightly slow getting out of the gate with jets simply because the people in power supported piston power. Just like the people in power supported Battleships and not carriers even though the Carriers won the Pacific, not Battleships. These people were very short sighted and ignorant. But the P-80 is proof that when needed, the Allies could and did produce a jet MORE capable then the best the Axis had. And did it with 1 engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for Axis ENGINE tech being "superior".

Jumo 004 = 1980 pounds of thrust. Must be overhauled every 10 hours of flight time.

J33-GE-9 = 3800 pounds of thrust. Some P-80's are still flying off its original compressor. Very robust engine.

Whats the point of having better technology if it dont work as good as low tech stuff?

Badsight.
09-21-2005, 10:42 PM
the Shooting Star was slower than the Schwalb , & speed was the whole point of Jets
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-80 out-performed the Me-262 in EVERY WAY, and it did it with 1 jet engine, the Me-262 had two. It was a much better design, and a jet FIGHTER. The Luftwaffe could not even make up its mind on what the Me-262 was! Fighter? Bomber? Bomber intercepter? Ground support? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the pilots & the LW commanders knew what they wanted the 262 for

Hitler changed & slowed the development of the 262

Adolf Galland could have cost lots of american bomber crews lives if he was listened too , in an interview given in 1981 he said he wanted the Schwalb to get full priority over any other plane project , this was after his first test flight in a 262 it so impressed him & showed him what they should be using

he said if he was listened too , there could have been 800 262's in service by December 1943 , & escouted all-the-way-to-germany-&-back Bombers started happening when ?

but seriously , the 262 could have entered service earlier than it did , but this wouldnt have changed the wars out-come , maybe add a whole year of delay , but it was inevitable for Germany to lose WW2

Gibbage1
09-21-2005, 10:49 PM
This is for the people who drool all over the "Luft 46" aircraft that are drawn on napkins and were "So very advanced".

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

US 1946? Nope. 1945? Nope. 1939? Yep!!!

The Lockheed company was the first in the USA to start work on a jet powered aircraft, the L-133 design started in 1939 as a number of "Paper Project" by engineers Clarence R "Kelly" Johnson and Hall J Hibbard. By 1940 preliminary work on a company financed jet fighter had been started, which progressed to several different versions on the drawing board. In the mean time Lockheed were working on a axial-flow turbojet of there own design L-1000, which was intended to power the culmination of the fighter project the Model L-133-02-01, this was a single seat, cannard design powered by two L-1000 engines.

The design was noticed by the USAAF, but at the time they showed no great interested in the idea of a jet powered fighter and missed the opportunity of giving the USA a lead in this new technology. With out the support (and money) of the USAAF work on the L-133 fighter and it's engine the L-1000 came to a halt.

So. Lets add a new "what if". What if the USAAF bigwigs were not complete morons? =)

Badsight.
09-21-2005, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
, but G¶ring (in his typical megalomania) assumed the war would be over before that technology could be used so he had the work stopped. What a jerk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>these are the exact things that spared bomber crew lives & let the war finish when it did

the blunders of Hitler & others of the German Command are things we should be thankfull for

ImpStarDuece
09-21-2005, 10:54 PM
1942 introduction of the Me-262 is an interesting scenario. It essentially gives Germany air-superority before the USAAF begins operations in NW Europe. It would also shift the area of air action back over England, meaning that the LuftWaffe could interupt British aircraft production and development.

The timeframe for deployment means that you have 2 LuftWaffe single seater fighter units stationed in northern France at the time; JG2 and JG26. Both units were considered elite. However, it would take quite a large amount of time to:

1. Produce sufficient airframes to equip a Staffle, let alone an entire Jagdgeschwader. For example, it took JG 26 over 6 months to convert to 190s in 1941, in an airframe and engine combination that was several years older then the Me-262.

2. Produce sufficient engines. You also have to remember that Germany produced something like 7000 Jumo 004 engines and about 1300 BMW 003 engines during the war. Engine production really didn't get into full swing until mid 1944. So the production of engines is going to be a limiting factor.

3. Convert units to what was essentially an experimental airframe. If you look at records of units who converted to Me-262s, you will see that the majority of losses are in operational accidents, engine accidents and suchlike. There were only about 1400 Me-262 airframes made and only about 200 of those ever saw operational service. The question of operational attrition, without having to face opposing fighters, bobers, flak or whatever, begs the question of ow sucessful the me-262 could of ever been.

So, to me, the answer runs something like this: in a perfect world, where situations of supply and development were nominal for Germany, the Me-262 COULD of changed the course and the character of the AIR offensive in North West Europe.

However, the obvious sucess of German developments in jet fighter technology would of likely prompted Allied developments in the same field. Obvious courses of action would of been to increase the priority of jet engine development over piston engine development, speeding up production of engines like the Goblin and Derwent. If necessary the British could of passed development and production of jet engine and fighter technology to the USA.

Badsight.
09-21-2005, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So. Lets add a new "what if". What if the USAAF bigwigs were not complete morons? =) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>4 fifty cals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
09-21-2005, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
4 fifty cals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1939, the world was still using 7.62's to arm there aircraft. Point Gibbage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BaldieJr
09-21-2005, 11:50 PM
Needs more charts/graphs.

HayateAce
09-22-2005, 12:35 AM
http://www.greenlibdems.org.uk/images/sites/217.160.173.25-3f0016a052c515.23380913/19.jpeg

pourshot
09-22-2005, 01:34 AM
So much for the sweeped wing being anything more than a accident http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Development began on the Me262 in April 1939 which was code named Stormbird or Silver. A combination of excellent design and downright luck resulted in a very harmonious design while significantly stretching the known aeronautical boundaries. An example of this is the Me262's wing. The characteristic swept design was the result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for heavier then expected engines. It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rnzoli
09-22-2005, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
If you have air superiority, that can tip the ballance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True. But there was no balance in the first place. Just see the posted GDP figures, think of the number of people (troops). There was no real chance the Axis could win their wars, and maintain a long-lasting peace on the occupied territories afterwards, IMO.

luftluuver
09-22-2005, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If necessary the British could of passed development and production of jet engine and fighter technology to the USA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the British did Imp. The British sent the Whittle W.1 to the USA, which they copied as the Type I, as in 'eye', and it flew in the XP-59. Drawings for the W.2B and a complete engine, W.1X, were also sent to the USA. The J33 was based on the British engine, W.2B. The J36 was was the Goblin. The Americanized Nene powered the F9F.

Aaron_GT
09-22-2005, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-80 program was complete in 143 days </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not entirely accurate. The XP-80 was designed in 1943. From initial design to prototype took 143 days. However before it was accepted it was extensively redesigned. Service trials took place almost 2 years after the first mockup XP-80.

Cajun76
09-22-2005, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
I say <span class="ev_code_RED">YES</span>.

If Germany had the Me262 in 1942, They would have <span class="ev_code_RED">ANIHILATED</span> B-17's. The US daylight bombing campaign almost failed because Fw190 and Me109 were already <span class="ev_code_RED">ANIHILATING</span> B-17's. If the Me262 as on front lines, there would have been ABSOLUTELY no bombing raids on Germany or ploestie and German industrial production would have been signifigantly higher than what is was. No mass bombing means more tanks, Uboats, guns, ships, planes, rifles.

Germany lost because ...
1. We bombed thier industrial capacity back into the stone-age
2. We overwhelmed them with sheer numbers. Take the Sheman tank vs Panthers and Tigers. Imagine what would have happened if the Germans had double the number of Panzers.

Yes there were other factors such as ground war or sea war, but what is overlooked is that they are all linked and indireclty affect eachother.

If you have air superiority, that can tip the ballance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the flak was a bigger factor than the fighters, more bombers were lost to AAA than enemy a/c.

Also, everyone seems to think 262's were untouchable while flying and attacking. They were not. They were also shot down during missions by fighters, not just on landing or taking off.

@ImpStarDeuce: A minor point my friend,

Being a turbohead myself, I don't know of any centrifugal turboprops, but there may be some. I do take particular note when I see a turboprop a/c, whether it be in person or pics, but I've yet to notice one. The C-130's main engines are axial flow, and so are most (can't say all, because I haven't seen them all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) helicopters, which operate in much the same way.

My C-130 does have a centrifugal engine though, in the form of the Gas Turbine Compressor, which uses the excess air generated by its' compressor to supply air pressure to turn an electrical generator (depending on how strong it is) and/or supply air to the pneumatic starters of the main engines.


For general FYI:
This is a simplified example of a turboprop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/turboprop.gif

NASA also has some good illustrations.

Aaron_GT
09-22-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The characteristic swept design was the result of a need to place the center of gravity aft to compensate for heavier then expected engines. It was only later that the benefits of swept wings were realized. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I've seen this before, but it is unconvincing. Development of the 262 began in 1939, and Messerschmit, aided by the fact that Germany had constructed the world's premiere high speed wind tunnel in 1939, a fully swept wing of 35 degrees for the 262 in 1940. In the end this wasn't used until the P.1101, but it predates knowledge of the engine weight. The engines didn't become available for 2 years after the decision to attempt swept wings.

Cajun76
09-22-2005, 06:16 AM
I think stathem nailed it. The Germans copied the Goony Bird! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

On a slightly more serious note, what changes were incorporated to the design (mainly CoG) to transition from tail dragger to tricycle on the 262?

Badsight.
09-22-2005, 06:20 AM
well they dropped the Prop & motor off the nose

no lie!

BerkshireHunt
09-22-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
So there was never a substantial gulf between German jet technology and Allied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F*cking board. Ok .. again.

I disagree here. The British and the US used a different technology for the jet engine itself than the germans (I don't know the exact term - something about radial vs axial) and the german approach is the one used today. It was simply far better in regards to fuel consumption, power to weight ratio and power output. Secondly the german research in regards to aerodynamics was simply way ahead of what the Western Allies had. Whereas the Meteor did still use traditional wings the Me 262 already had slightly swept-back wings. It wouldn't be before the early 1950s when this knowledge started to appear in allied frontline Jet designs (F-86 Sabre and F-84 Thunderstreak). Even if the thing never made it aloft look at the wooden model of the Ta-183 and compare it to the P-80 to understand just how much energy was put into aerodynamics by the german scientists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thor,
You are a well-known 'Germanophile', both here and at SimHQ (where I post under a different name..) I greatly respect your knowledge of Luftwaffe organisation and equipment but I believe you are allowing your prejudice to intrude here. I would suggest you read more about Allied jet engine development. Start with Hayne Constant and Metropolitan Vickers. It is wholly wrong to imply that axial jet engine technology was developed in Germany and centrifugal fan technology was developed in Britain and the US. Metropolitan Vickers had a functioning axial jet engine by 1943. In fact, two were mounted in a Meteor which flew a number a test flights in that year. Frank Whittle had applied for patents in axial design in the 1930s and Hayne Constant had refined the idea during the early 1940s. Pabst Von Ohain is on record as saying that he "kept up to date with all the latest patents on jet-engine design, including Whittle's" in the 1930s. So we needn't wonder where his inspiration came from. The Americans too, were working on an axial engine of original design.
The point I am making is that axials WERE being developed in Britain and America during the war just as they were in Germany. The reason the British put more resources into centrifigals rather than axials was that they were easier to make and more reliable. Those early test flights with the axial Meteor simply proved that axials were difficult to make reliable due to the much higher revs of their compressors (80,000 - 100,000 rpm). Special alloys and manufacturing methods were required to prevent 'blade creep' and deformation and research was needed to perfect such metals (British research resulted - post war - in the range of high temperature Nimonic alloys, later copied by the US and stolen, by means of espionage, by the USSR).
So it is quite wrong to say "the German approach is the one used today". I could just as easily say "the MetroVick approach is the one used today" - but that would be silly. All technologically advanced countries were working on axial and centrifugal turbines during the war, including the USA, Germany, Britain, the USSR and even Hungary (where a lone engineer developed a functioning jet engine in a secret workshop under the noses of the Germans!) It was foolish of the RLM to try to perfect axial technology in a mere five years when early results must have made it plain what the difficulties were.
Put it this way, if Germany had continued to develop centrifugals with the same energy it put into axials it would have had 100hr TBO engines of the same thrust as it achieved with axials well before the war's end.

My second point is that you seem to believe that axials are 'superior' and centrifugals are redundant. Nothing could be further from the truth. You must explain why centrifugals are still designed and developed today. They are used in many helicopters and commuter aircraft, because they are 'superior' for those applications. Then there are hybrid centrifugal/axial compressors, also favoured for some applications today. One is not better than the other, they are simply two different ways of compressing air. For high speed, high altitude flight, axials are preferred, for reasons of compression ratio and volumetric flow, but we are discussing what was the best approach to follow during the war. For the best part of ten years after the war, the fastest fighter aircraft were all powered by centrifugals..

Your comment that Germany's axials gave a higher power output than contemporary centrifugals is simply wrong. They did not. In fact, for many years after the war the most powerful jet engine around was the British Rolls Royce Nene (and its American and Soviet derivatives). The Nene was a centrifugal fan engine designed during the war.

The one area I can agree with you is in the field of 'swept-wing technology', where German aerodynamicists had developed a clear lead, with no Allied competitor programme. But at the max. speed of the early jets (500 mph) swept-wings offer little advantage over straight-tapered wings, so that lead was not as significant as many believe.

Kocur_
09-22-2005, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being a turbohead myself, I don't know of any centrifugal turboprops, but there may be some. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of modern helicopter turboprops are centrifugal.

csThor
09-22-2005, 08:28 AM
Berkshire - I admit freely that I'm a full-blown idiot on technical details (as you said my interest is with unit organisation and history). I wasn't talking about some percieved "superiority" of german equipement per se, but rather what little I know about the differences between axial and radial jet engines. The technical things aren't my cup of tea so I could merely say what I remembered. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And about that "germanophile" - I am simply trying to limit myself to talk about stuff I think I know something about (even though it seemed different this time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ). I know little to nothing about the RAF, the USAAF, the VVS or the japanese Air Forces so I just keep my mouth shut and don't try to come over as a self-proclaimed expert eventhough I'm none http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think the main difference between the western Allies and Germany was the military leadership or better the officers responsible for the technical development. Both seemed to be way more conservative (or even old-fashioned? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ) when it came to accepting and supporting new technology whereas the german military had been forced to look for new ways while they were limited by the rules of the Versailles treaty. Neither the US nor Great Britain had to endure such a period (after all 15 years) so the mindset of the leadership was certainly different. The OKW knew the limtited number of soldiers available and so they had to turn to technical solutions. The same didn't apply to Great Britain (after all they had the whole Commonwealth behind them) and the US - and where is no "force" to speed development processes the sceptism for technology is rather high.

I remember a story about a Major in the US DoD who was responsible for tank development and who was a full-blown enemy of the Pershing tank. He continued to diss the german tanks and praise the Sherman even though the experiences from Europe spoke a different language. I think after an especially nasty combat at Puffendorf he was thrown out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
If he was a role model for other similar officers the difference between the german and the US research program is easily understandable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 08:44 AM
You€re all ignoring the *most basic* fact here though:

If Germany could have had the 262 in production in 1942, that means they had the technical know-how to do it, obviously. That means that their jet program would have been based on work down prior to the war, that was more advanced than aeronautical research really was before the war

This research didn€t just pop out of thin air

Germany having the 262 flying in €42 means that technology was more advanced than it really was, which means the State of the Art would have been higher in aeronautics

Not for the Axis, not for Germany, but for the whole *world*

So if Germany had an accelerated jet program, that means any other country in the world with aeronautical research would have had their technology to a similar state

It€s just not possible to have it another way. Jet technology would have developed along the same lines as the piston aircraft did during the same time- Germany and her enemies had very similar aircraft in terms of performance.

Any time advantage Germany had for development would also have existed for the rest of the planet

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 08:44 AM
main thing in terms of puttin new equipment into the fight, is would the troops be better off with it?

no good giving a guy a "better" sword, which may fall apart, when his old one, while not as sharp or as good, doesnt fall apart.

of course if hte situation is dispirate, then the cross over point moves more towards the newer stuff, as that was teh only hope

Codex1971
09-22-2005, 08:50 AM
The Germans were ready for prouction of the Me-262 in Dec 1942...but Hitler said no...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a362/CodexAssassin/TheJetProblem.jpg

Slickun
09-22-2005, 08:59 AM
262 becomes operational in 1942, as Galland wishes.

No Daylight Bomber offensive worthy of the name. B-17's would have sustained the killing loss ratios maybe a full 6-8 months before Black Thursday.

Thus, no second front wherein a tremendous number of fighters, 88's, trucks, ammo, tanks and personnel are funneled from the East to the West. The balance of power is not tipped. 262's do all that work.

No invasion.

Germany wins in Russia.

whiteladder
09-22-2005, 09:09 AM
IMHO having this or any other weapon system the Germans could have produced any early would have made no difference. This is because the LuftWaffe lost the airwar at a strategic level not a tactical one. The seeds had been sown in 1937/38 for the downfall of the air arm, because no one had to forsight to take a long term view to the airforce.

Maybe this is because no one viewed the LuftWaffe as a strategic force, only a tactical extension of the other services. This made them ill placed when they were asked to perform a stategic role (BOB, defence of the homeland) and maybe why they failed.

My opinion for what its worth.

TAGERT.
09-22-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zan_bzk:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif I have read a lot about this+i am making a small research http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. so if you have any good ideas or comments please writte here... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No
There was more to it than Hitler wanting to make it into a bomber, the engine problems were the real delay. Germany should count thier blessing that they didnt solve those problems and get the Me262 out sooner.. Because it would not have won the war.. but it might have delayed the war a month or two.. Which would have given the US enough time to drop the ABOMB on Berlin.

Cajun76
09-22-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being a turbohead myself, I don't know of any centrifugal turboprops, but there may be some. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of modern helicopter turboprops are centrifugal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, helicopters have turboshafts. I would be curious to know where your info comes from. I know certain smaller helicopter engines use centrifugal, but the higher output types that I'm familiar with in the military use dual-spool axial-flow compressors. The 2100 used in the C-130J and V-22 Osprey use (for simplicities sake) a dual spool axial comp with a split turbine. The T64 and T700 which are part of my career field are axial flow also. However, I still haven't seen any turboprops with centrifugal type compressors, although they may well be out there.

A bit of research and...

Looking around, many of the newer, smaller turboshaft engines use a combo axial-centrifugal arrangement, so we both are correct, I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

rnzoli
09-22-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
No Daylight Bomber offensive worthy of the name. B-17's would have sustained the killing loss ratios maybe a full 6-8 months before Black Thursday.

Thus, no second front wherein a tremendous number of fighters, 88's, trucks, ammo, tanks and personnel are funneled from the East to the West. The balance of power is not tipped. 262's do all that work.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif "Thus?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

D-day happened when USA and GB started to fear that the Soviets will overrrun the whole Europe by themselves.

The invasion was made possible not by the strategic bombing, but exactly by the "tremendous number of fighters, 88's, trucks, ammo, tanks and personnel" funneled from the West to the Eastern Front.

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:

D-day happened when USA and GB started to fear that the Soviets will overrrun the whole Europe by themselves.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really beleive this?

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The Germans were ready for prouction of the Me-262 in Dec 1942...but Hitler said no...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
09-22-2005, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The Germans were ready for prouction of the Me-262 in Dec 1942...but Hitler said no...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo!

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 10:14 AM
Tag, you and I are thinking much too alike lately. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Codex1971
09-22-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to who? If the production staff felt the 262 was ready, then it was ready, it's war, 10hrs, 100hrs, 1000hrs who cares...if the end result was that the 262 could knock out two or more bombers per sortie then the 10hr engine turn around would have been worth it.

Galland himself wouldn't have pushed the 262 into service if he felt 10hrs was a handicap. Beside in realistic terms the 262 could have been full operational service by 1943, still enough time to make a difference.

stathem
09-22-2005, 11:25 AM
Note again what Pingu said - No Mk108's until the end of '43 - how you going to knock the bombers down with that closure rate and Mg151/20's?

Aaron_GT
09-22-2005, 11:32 AM
On turboprops, the Hungarians developed the first turboprop and proposed mounting it in a fighter in WW2 (can't remember the model). But the prototype was unsatisfactory with a turboprop and it reverted to using a German piston engine. I wish I could remember the details.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-22-2005, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The Germans were ready for prouction of the Me-262 in Dec 1942...but Hitler said no...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're correct. But, if replacing a couple of engines after 10 hours requires less labour and resources than replacing lost aircraft + you can shoot down more enemy bombers with this relative impunity, then it's not such a high price to pay.

Ta,
Norris

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 11:42 AM
blaze away and hope...

imo 262 was a better jabo than fighter, recently saw footage of some 262, guy was moving the throttle, literaly at the extreme speed u would expect from a snail.

just go fast and bomb something and come home, u could use it as a great photo recon aircraft, short range, but enuff for some of england. mind the german cameras where much bigger than the english ones, so fitting them would be a problem, probably haveto go tail dragger aswell but no biggy.

hitler wanted FB version for when allies invaded, as only 262 would be able todo anything much without being blasted to pieces, he was infact right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

besides, the FB has 2 mk108, could multirole in bomber busting aswell.

luftwaffles wailing massivily if u remove 2 mk108s. &lt;?&gt;i must have more firepower than ze battleships!! dont take my mk108s awaay WHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

the engines where in pods under the wings because they where so unreliable and hadtobe changed so much. think they where lucky to get 10hours out of them?

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to who? If the production staff felt the 262 was ready, then it was ready, it's war, 10hrs, 100hrs, 1000hrs who cares...if the end result was that the 262 could knock out two or more bombers per sortie then the 10hr engine turn around would have been worth it.

Galland himself wouldn't have pushed the 262 into service if he felt 10hrs was a handicap. Beside in realistic terms the 262 could have been full operational service by 1943, still enough time to make a difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to me. the plane was NOT ready for prodcuction, no matter what Galland or you think. Galland was a pilot; you're a member of a message board, same as me. Bottom line: the metals needed for the engines was not available, and while the Germans made some clever and ingenious subsititutes for the right metals, the right ones were not available

So, let's say they had 100 262s (100 is not a lot of planes for production) in '42, and they each flew 500 hours combat, that means 50 engines changes (times two, it's a two engine aircraft) so that is 100 engines needed per aircraft 100 times 100 is 10,000. The naterials needed to make the engines weren't even available, and now the substitute materials are used that much more quickly

Did Germany have the ability to produce 10,000 of those engines in 1942? The answer is *NO* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So to you, 10 hours and then an engine change isn't a big deal, but you're not thinking about that to produce those engines, keep producing them, and devote the time to constantly re-engine the 262 fleet is an enormous undertaking. I'm not even going to get into the fact that at 10 hours per service life, the downtime needed to replace both engines would mean that your 100 strong fleet of 262s would be reduced to a quarter of that number. The engines and resources to make them have to come from somewhere

The 109 was considered the last fighter needed; new types weren't desireable until '41 when the FW190 came around. 262 production in '42 means that they had the ability and desire to produce a new fighter type; but they didn't have that desire, and they didn't have the ability to go into production.

Galland was a fighter pilot. You say he wouldn't have pushed production had it not been necessary to procure what I have mentioned. Well, that's your opinion. if you could show me that galland took all these things into account, I'd appreciate it, especially since I know for a fact the RLM wasn't interested in new fighters very close to the time frame we're talking about

I really feel you're overlooking a few things

Kocur_
09-22-2005, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
A bit of research and...

Looking around, many of the newer, smaller turboshaft engines use a combo axial-centrifugal arrangement, so we both are correct, I think. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I meant compressors only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A bit of research and...

To be exact: I meant axial-centrifugal compressors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 12:20 PM
there would be more than just combat flying aswell, and presumably the engines in 42/43 wherent as good as the 44 engines, for operations over enemy territory u would be wanting a margin of safty, so probably lookin at a couple of sorties per engine.

so in terms of manpower, and supply of new engines was a huge undertaking, plus they need long runways.

chuck, germans industrial capacity was greatly underused till 44, thats why it increased so much despite the bombing

rnzoli
09-22-2005, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:

D-day happened when USA and GB started to fear that the Soviets will overrrun the whole Europe by themselves.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really beleive this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so much, but in the absense of contrary evidence, I don't know what else to believe.

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 12:40 PM
took abit of time to assemble all the required equipment and men, do the recon to pick landing grounds, training, and the weather tobe right..

Secudus2004
09-22-2005, 01:10 PM
American swept-wing technology...

http://www.informationuniverse.com/ordersmag/chapt3.htm

Note the date when it was found to actually help an aircraft go faster...

Swept wing aircraft... The first http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/dunne_5_2vc_350.jpg

Dunne D.5, March 11, 1910: World's first swept-wing. Unusually stable, even at very low speeds, this and the later monoplane version (D6) will help stimulate ideas some thirty years later. Designed by John W. Dunne and built by Eustace, Oswald and Horace Short.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/dunne_6as_350.jpg

tigertalon
09-22-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
262 becomes operational in 1942, as Galland wishes.

No Daylight Bomber offensive worthy of the name. B-17's would have sustained the killing loss ratios maybe a full 6-8 months before Black Thursday.

Thus, no second front wherein a tremendous number of fighters, 88's, trucks, ammo, tanks and personnel are funneled from the East to the West. The balance of power is not tipped. 262's do all that work.

No invasion.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Germany wins in Russia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is debatable.

Slickun
09-22-2005, 01:53 PM
Everything I wrote is debatable.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The amount of materiel Germany moved from the East to the West to counter the bomber offensive, then the invasion threat, is staggering.

waffen-79
09-22-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
No.

Jet aircraft development in other countries would have been greatly stepped up, and superior types would have entered service.

http://www.langley.af.mil/staff/ho/images/p80.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMFAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif you're kidding right???

Axis lost the war because ESPIONAGE.

no matter if germany could have 3000 operational jets in '41 the end would be the same.

The kingtiger panzer also operational in '42??? same result, allies would've carpet bomb the ****e out of those puppies.

allies knew most (if not every) move and major offensive axis was planning.

tigertalon
09-22-2005, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
D-day happened when USA and GB started to fear that the Soviets will overrrun the whole Europe by themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. Well, D-Day did not happen because they would fear, but more like, it coincided. Reason for devastating Dresden air raid was clearly to show Stalin not to play with western Europe. Bombing of Dresden was not so much one of last acts of WW2, but rather one of first of cold war.

Asgeir_Strips
09-22-2005, 03:26 PM
What about hitlers vengeance weapons?

if the war was extended, Wehrner Von Braun might have had the time to develop a rocket that could reach the east coast of USA.. they were about to put such weapons in production. Wehrner Von Bran also created the most powerful rocket in the history, The mighty Saturn 5 Apollor rocket.

But i think the only chance germany would have , if they wanted to win the war, they should have people like Gerd Von Rundstedt or Erwin Rommel at the top command.. Hitler was useless at commanding his forces, and that god for that

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:

D-day happened when USA and GB started to fear that the Soviets will overrrun the whole Europe by themselves.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really beleive this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so much, but in the absense of contrary evidence, I don't know what else to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Contrary evidence? In order for me to provide contrary evidence, you'd have to supply some evidence of your statements, first. Then I could argue about contrary evidence. Lack of evidence you wish to consider cannot prove your own argument

What you are trying to tell me is that D-Day wouldn't have come about when it did unless London and Washington became afraid of Stalin over-running Europe? That means that D-Day was not the invasion of Hitler's Europe, but the planned response to a fear of Stalin?

Ever hear of Dieppe? Was that a bid to stop Stalin, too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

D-Day wasn't to thwart Stalin. It was to win the war in Europe. Whether or not Churchill and Roosevelt had a fear of a Soviet Europe is not even a consideration. It did not influence whether or not to invade Europe. Nothing you can 'prove' or argue can convinve me that the timetable for Overlord depended on how much Stalin was feared by the other Allies. Have you forgotten there was still a war on?

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

chuck, germans industrial capacity was greatly underused till 44, thats why it increased so much despite the bombing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never argued that this wasn't true, and in fact I never mentioned it. Germany was on a peacetime production schedule for much of the war, with a 6 day workweek.

I am confused by you mentioning this; I never expressed any sentiment or opinion about production capability in the face of Allied bombing in this thread.

What I have mentioned is the metalurgical needs of the Me 262's engines, which I think is being very underestimated by almost everyone here. the high temp metals were not in great supply. This is a new technology we are discussing; these are not off-the-shelf items or mating an inline engine to a radial powered plane's airframe we are talking about. If I recall correctly, the tungsten and nickel alloys were the problem; very high heat resistant metals were necessary

Essentially, it doesn't matter if Germany could produce 100, 10,000 or 100,000 engines per month. The materials were scarce. It doesn't matter what their production schedule was like; the materials were not easily obtainable. I could have 1000 workers standing around to make planes, but if they have no materials, no planes get built

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 03:56 PM
true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
but the potential in 42/43 would be higher than in 44

i wasnt disagreein with u, just raising another point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
09-22-2005, 04:17 PM
I dont think it is valid to mention FDR being scared of Stalin. Whatever were FDR's feelings about Uncle Joe, I dont think any were negative.
D-Day happened when everything was ready. Or even VERY ready. If Churchill was in charge, D-Day would probably be sooner and not in Normandy. And that would certainly be politically, anti-Stalin, motivated.


As for Me262 operational and in large numbers in 1942 I see it this way: all RAF's post BoB attempts to drain Jagdwaffe are useless. USAAF holds its bombing offensive due to heavy losses - until allies jets arrive. In cosequence western allies dont enjoy air supremacy by mid 1944, so invasion must be postponed. German industry works almost (RAF at night) uninterrupted, which results in considerable slowing of soviet advancements westwards. Severe fighing over Europe last until summer of 1945, with jets on both sides by then. Even easier than IRL, Truman decides to use atomic bombs, against Germany. But that is delayed because of fear B/C responce by V-weapons. Eventually allies would win anyway but war would last longer - and Im not ready to count that "longer" in weeks or few months...

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 04:17 PM
It's not a bad point, but to me it is not a great one because again, in '42 there was no urge to step up production, and in fact (like I have mentioned twice in this thread now) the 109 was intended to be the last fighter type needed for the war not too long before the time we are talking about. So stepped up 262 production just wouldn't have happened even if the plane was ready; the want of a new fighter was that low in priority

Chuck_Older
09-22-2005, 04:22 PM
Kocur-

Historically, what really happened was that despite very heavy losses, the US never stopped it's daylight bombing for any appreciable time

The assumption is that the 262 would have been invincible against the bomber stream

While many German pilots were adept at controling the 262, Galland and Nowotny were not examples of the average pilot. The high closure rate, limited ammo, touchy controls, and long learning curve with flying the new plane should not be discounted.

I do not beleive that the 262's arrival in numbers in 1942 spells certain destruction for Allied bombers. Assuming that it does means that the bombers are always inept and that the 262 pilots are always superb, and I can't beleive that. It also means that the technology to counter the 262 could not be developed by the Allies, and I don't mean by using Allied jets, I mean by training bomber gunners how to hit faster targets, or even putting more and larger calibre weapons on bombers.

Kocur_
09-22-2005, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Kocur-

Historically, what really happened was that despite very heavy losses, the US never stopped it's daylight bombing for any appreciable time

The assumption is that the 262 would have been invincible against the bomber stream

While many German pilots were adept at controling the 262, Galland and Nowotny were not examples of the average pilot. The high closure rate, limited ammo, touchy controls, and long learning curve with flying the new plane should not be discounted.

I do not beleive that the 262's arrival in numbers in 1942 spells certain destruction for Allied bombers. Assuming that it does means that the bombers are always inept and that the 262 pilots are always superb, and I can't beleive that. It also means that the technology to counter the 262 could not be developed by the Allies, and I don't mean by using Allied jets, I mean by training bomber gunners how to hit faster targets, or even putting more and larger calibre weapons on bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree! Arrival of Me262 in 1942 would certainly boost technical race to jet planes area. What I mean is that until allied jets came in Luftwaffe would hold air superiority over western Europe. Not forever, but simply longer than happened IRL. Whatever amount of that time would be - end of WW2 would be delayed as much, or less. My point is, I dont think allies would invade Europe until they regained air superiority. As for USAAF offensive and its impact of German production: wasnt it stopped for a while after Schweinfurts? I mean operations beyound range of current escorts, until P-51 arrived? Also in 1942 young Jagdwaffe pilots were still decently trained AFAIK. Anyway I can easily agree, that bombing offensive would not be stopped, but its effectiveness would be more limited, than it was IRL by LW prop fighters.
We are talking about what-if, so we cant expect any accuracy - it never happenedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif To create what-if of Me262 in 1942 we must make many false assumptions, of which wisedom of German leadership as the most important - and the most false...
Anyway Me262 - or anything - couldnt prevent Germany loss in WW2. Festung Europa was sieged, and nothing could stop that siege. Fortresses usually fall, as long as there is will to conquer them. And such will was certainly present in the west.
So IMHO the most what would happen with Me262 in operations sooner and in much greater numbers than IRL, is delay of allied victory.

blakduk
09-22-2005, 05:11 PM
There's always a lot of rhetoric surrounding the experimental weapons of the Germans during during WW2 that runs along the lines of 'If only Hitler hadnt interfered they might have won'.
Truth is, the 262 was barely field ready in '44 due to horrendous production difficulties. Hitler is an easy scapegoat for any failing the German military suffered- he was a psychopath and doesnt deserve any sympathy so the temptation is to place all blame on him. I've seen in this thread that a few have mentioned a 10hr life-expectency for the turbines- that's an incredibly fragile and operationally dangerous piece of equipment. Considering the stresses that combat pilots inflicted on their aircraft i assume they would have barely lasted that long.
As i stated before- they had a huge psychological impact on the crews who faced them but on reflection they never fulfilled their operational potential

Codex1971
09-22-2005, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to who? If the production staff felt the 262 was ready, then it was ready, it's war, 10hrs, 100hrs, 1000hrs who cares...if the end result was that the 262 could knock out two or more bombers per sortie then the 10hr engine turn around would have been worth it.

Galland himself wouldn't have pushed the 262 into service if he felt 10hrs was a handicap. Beside in realistic terms the 262 could have been full operational service by 1943, still enough time to make a difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to me. the plane was NOT ready for prodcuction, no matter what Galland or you think. Galland was a pilot; you're a member of a message board, same as me. Bottom line: the metals needed for the engines was not available, and while the Germans made some clever and ingenious subsititutes for the right metals, the right ones were not available

So, let's say they had 100 262s (100 is not a lot of planes for production) in '42, and they each flew 500 hours combat, that means 50 engines changes (times two, it's a two engine aircraft) so that is 100 engines needed per aircraft 100 times 100 is 10,000. The naterials needed to make the engines weren't even available, and now the substitute materials are used that much more quickly

Did Germany have the ability to produce 10,000 of those engines in 1942? The answer is *NO* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So to you, 10 hours and then an engine change isn't a big deal, but you're not thinking about that to produce those engines, keep producing them, and devote the time to constantly re-engine the 262 fleet is an enormous undertaking. I'm not even going to get into the fact that at 10 hours per service life, the downtime needed to replace both engines would mean that your 100 strong fleet of 262s would be reduced to a quarter of that number. The engines and resources to make them have to come from somewhere

The 109 was considered the last fighter needed; new types weren't desireable until '41 when the FW190 came around. 262 production in '42 means that they had the ability and desire to produce a new fighter type; but they didn't have that desire, and they didn't have the ability to go into production.

Galland was a fighter pilot. You say he wouldn't have pushed production had it not been necessary to procure what I have mentioned. Well, that's your opinion. if you could show me that galland took all these things into account, I'd appreciate it, especially since I know for a fact the RLM wasn't interested in new fighters very close to the time frame we're talking about

I really feel you're overlooking a few things </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I conseed you point re the engine turn overs...however been doing some reading and the high grade materials were availble as early as 1941, it just the the U-boats were getting the lions share.

Engines...

Jumo004 - First test run 1939 - 10 to 25hr life span.
Jumo004A - Fisrt test run 1940 - Serial production began 11th October 1940 - 80 built. This engines life span was a marked improvment over the 004, 200 - 250hrs, using the high grade metals. On 18th July 1942 Me-262's were being fitted with the 004A.

During this time U-boat production was being steped up, and this program was given greater priority. If this situation was reversed there realistically may have been around 250 - 300 Me-262 in service by July 1943 and this was from one factory, if there would have been more factories provided the numbers may have reached into the 1000's by summer 1943.

Slickun
09-22-2005, 05:43 PM
No Invasion no allied jets over anything but the periphery of the continent.

After Black Thursday the Allies didn't stop bombing, but they stopped bombing Germany. There were no really serious raids until better weather in January.

262's would have wreaked havoc on Allied bombers in 1942. Without escorts they could have taken their sweet time in queing up for head on passes, or any other type they felt like.

Any serious bombing would have stopped, or never gotten started. Even the 8th could not sustain its losses in 1943. Much smaller force in 1942 early 1943, with no chin turrets.

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 06:40 PM
trouble with shootin down bombers is that if they have escorts, they may well sit up high above and dive down on the attackers, the 262s often slowed down to attack the bombers aswell.

also the 262 probably wasnt great at highspeed, PR mossies often dived away from them. its worth pointing out thats ONE plane, over the depths of enemy territory with no one else around.

also combat flying would put much more strain on the engines rather than bench testing, because of the high g of combat, and the changing speeds

Luftwaffe_109
09-22-2005, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
What about hitlers vengeance weapons?

if the war was extended, Wehrner Von Braun might have had the time to develop a rocket that could reach the east coast of USA.. they were about to put such weapons in production. Wehrner Von Bran also created the most powerful rocket in the history, The mighty Saturn 5 Apollor rocket.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But with the paylode size that the V-2 had, it proved to be ineffective at affecting the outcome of the war at all. Had the Germans had nuclear weapons this would have been a different matter, you would have the perfect marriage between delivery system and weapon. However, the German nuclear program was no where near advanced enough for this at the time.

Therefore one could argue that the V-2 program was an ultimate waste of resources needed more desperately in other areas, like tank production.

Gibbage1
09-22-2005, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
What about hitlers vengeance weapons?

if the war was extended, Wehrner Von Braun might have had the time to develop a rocket that could reach the east coast of USA.. they were about to put such weapons in production. Wehrner Von Bran also created the most powerful rocket in the history, The mighty Saturn 5 Apollor rocket.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol. This is funny. What makes you even think that IF such a rocket could be developed, they could also HIT something with it? The guidance system for the V2 was primitive, and also developed by Dr Goddard (Just like most of the parts in the V2 BTW) and relied on pure luck. V2's were launched at London in masses, and only a few landed near London. That was accross the channel! Now, how the heck do you think they would hit ANYTHING accross the globe? Also, IF it hit anything, how much do you think that would effect production? NIL!!! Even IF the Axis won the ultimate lottery and hit ONE of our factories using hundreds of super V2's, that would not even DENT the war effort for the MASSIVE cost of the rockets. The Axis would sink into a massive dept funting these froutless rockets when the money and materials could be better used elsewere.

Luftwaffe_109
09-22-2005, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
What makes you even think that IF such a rocket could be developed, they could also HIT something with it? The guidance system for the V2 was primitive, and also developed by Dr Goddard (Just like most of the parts in the V2 BTW) and relied on pure luck. V2's were launched at London in masses, and only a few landed near London. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are very much missinformed Gibbage1.

The following map may be interesting to you:

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/others/006-ks2001.jpg

blakduk
09-22-2005, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
What about hitlers vengeance weapons?

if the war was extended, Wehrner Von Braun might have had the time to develop a rocket that could reach the east coast of USA.. they were about to put such weapons in production. Wehrner Von Bran also created the most powerful rocket in the history, The mighty Saturn 5 Apollor rocket.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But with the paylode size that the V-2 had, it proved to be ineffective at affecting the outcome of the war at all. Had the Germans had nuclear weapons this would have been a different matter, you would have the perfect marriage between delivery system and weapon. However, the German nuclear program was no where near advanced enough for this at the time.

Therefore one could argue that the V-2 program was an ultimate waste of resources needed more desperately in other areas, like tank production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the best illustration of the strained resources of the reich is the fact that the V2's were built using slave labour- the quality control cant have been too good. Von Braun and his cohorts had a lot of ideas but nothing like the necessary resources to make them effective.
Add to this fact that the Germans were losing the intelligence war- a lot of V1's missed their targets because disinformation by the allies, using 'turned' agents, convinced them to redirect their arsenals to the wrong areas.

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 07:08 PM
hm, the v2 seem tobe more acurate than the mid to late war luftwaffe bombing raids.

v2 was more effective than the v1, mainly cause of those **** tempests and mossies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 07:13 PM
the slaves used to piss on parts of the v2, so it would corrode, hopefully sending the rocket offcourse

there where other V weapons, some slaves where killed when they rather sensibly went into the depths of the huge complex, thinkin they would be safe from bombs, but unluckly it was 617 with tallboys and maybe grand slams http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

it was really huge artilery, so that they could put up a sustained bombardment of london

TX-Bomblast
09-22-2005, 07:14 PM
Seeing where this is going, take a look at this.
Enjoy,
TX-Bomblast white 6

http://www.v2rocket.com/start/start.html

blakduk
09-22-2005, 07:31 PM
TX-Bomblast- great link, thanks for sharing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
To quote from that site 'the V-2 could not win the war for Germany€" it was too expensive, too complicated, too inaccurate, and its warhead was too small'.
That about sums it up. It was truly a 'terror' weapon that was all about smashing civilian infrastructure.

Gibbage1
09-22-2005, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:

I think you are very much missinformed Gibbage1.

The following map may be interesting to you:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it dont.

"When launched against targets close to the operational range of the vehicle, the deviation between target and impact was normally 4 to 11 miles "

Not very accurate at all. It was a waist of money.

StellarRat
09-22-2005, 08:26 PM
Gibbage, I think 4 to 11 miles is accurate enough when you're talking about nukes. London is a BIG city even a hit that was seven miles off target would be devastating. They also had nerve gas that was quite effective. The V2 could have had an effect if the war had on a little longer (thankfully it didn't.) Assuming the war did drag on a bit longer because of the 262 I'm the sure Germans would have improved their accuracy. But the only result would have been Germany getting nuked. In the end the US had the ultimate trump card.

SkyChimp
09-22-2005, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Secudus2004:
American swept-wing technology...

http://www.informationuniverse.com/ordersmag/chapt3.htm

Note the date when it was found to actually help an aircraft go faster...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No question the NACA was behind. Sharing of ideas and experience was apparently virtually nil between companies and the NACA. Some American manufacturers knew the advantages of the swept wing early on. Other had to wait for German technology.

TAGERT.
09-22-2005, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blakduk:
There's always a lot of rhetoric surrounding the experimental weapons of the Germans during during WW2 that runs along the lines of 'If only Hitler hadnt interfered they might have won'.
Truth is, the 262 was barely field ready in '44 due to horrendous production difficulties. Hitler is an easy scapegoat for any failing the German military suffered- he was a psychopath and doesnt deserve any sympathy so the temptation is to place all blame on him. I've seen in this thread that a few have mentioned a 10hr life-expectency for the turbines- that's an incredibly fragile and operationally dangerous piece of equipment. Considering the stresses that combat pilots inflicted on their aircraft i assume they would have barely lasted that long.
As i stated before- they had a huge psychological impact on the crews who faced them but on reflection they never fulfilled their operational potential </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

fordfan25
09-22-2005, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Tag, you and I are thinking much too alike lately. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats a very scary thing to say man.

Luftwaffe_109
09-22-2005, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry, it dont.

"When launched against targets close to the operational range of the vehicle, the deviation between target and impact was normally 4 to 11 miles "

Not very accurate at all. It was a waist of money.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was never in dispute. What was in dispute was your claim that "What makes you even think that IF such a rocket could be developed, they could also HIT something with it? The guidance system for the V2 was primitive and relied on pure luck. V2's were launched at London in masses, and only a few landed near London," which was completely false.

As you can see, a huge number fell on London.

Luftwaffe_109
09-22-2005, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
v2 was more effective than the v1, mainly cause of those **** tempests and mossies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, the large anti-air guns planted along the southern coast of England proved themselves much superior to fighters in shooting down the V1 flying bomb.

Of course, the V2 could not be defended against.

TAGERT.
09-22-2005, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Tag, you and I are thinking much too alike lately. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


thats a very scary thing to say man. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Today Chuck.. tomorow the world! Muhhhhahahahhaa!

But seriosly.. all this *if* *if* *if* *if* *if* *if* *if* *if* *if* *if* maybe Germany could have won the war!

I mean come on, *if* I could teach monkeys to fly out of my but wih red hats on and ray guns I could have won the war too! And I stand as good a chance at that as Germany did at wining the war.

Badsight.
09-22-2005, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
This doesn't slove the metallurgy problems in the engines in 1942. "Production ready" aircraft don't have engines that lack the proper metals to have anything like a useful life. 10 hours worth of service is not a production ready engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>some of the 262 running issues come from the sabotage the slave labour did during manufacturing

people mentioning 1942 are dreaming i think

even Adolf Galland said if he had his way , 262's would have been prioritized & there COULD have been 800 in service by December 1943

that Hitler ignored their requests is a thing to be thankfull for

Codex1971
09-22-2005, 11:44 PM
I can't help myself...

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/The%20Jet%20Problem2.jpg

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/The%20Jet%20Problem3.jpg

TAGERT.
09-22-2005, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
I can't help myself...

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/The%20Jet%20Problem2.jpg

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/The%20Jet%20Problem3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Close that book and never open it again.. They can not even tell the difference between a jet plane and a rocket plane, nor the difference between the first jet and the first operational jet fighter

TAGERT.
09-22-2005, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
that Hitler ignored their requests is a thing to be thankfull for </div></BLOCKQUOTE>espically the people of Berlin.. In that the 262 would not and could not win the war.. At best it could have extended it a few months.. Which in turn would have ment the US would have used the ABOMB on Berlin.

Codex1971
09-23-2005, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
I can't help myself...

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/The%20Jet%20Problem2.jpg

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/codex1971/Images/The%20Jet%20Problem3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Close that book and never open it again.. They can not even tell the difference between a jet plane and a rocket plane, nor the difference between the first jet and the first operational jet fighter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact is fact...the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat!...this thread is about debating weather the war would have changed if the 262 was introduced in 42'. The issue re: the high grade materials not being available...mute...they were available, they were just given to other projects due to lack of forsight from Hitler.

LOL and while your depating weather that twin engine, propless aircraft on your six is a jet or a rocket...I'll be squeezing the trigger!...ROFL!

WarWolfe_1
09-23-2005, 12:04 AM
woulda, shoulda, coulda. No! Germany signed to its fate as soon it declared war on USA then invaded Russia.

The thing about Hitler is that he would never have been happy untill Eurasia was all his, not even then, History has shown this time and again. Men such as him are only popular so long as they wage war. Even then they fall sooner or later.

As Target said the US had the Abomb in the works long before the Losses to the 8thAF mounted to the point of almost giving up. Germany was doomed.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany signed to its fate as soon it declared war on USA then invaded Russia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have these the wrong way around it seems...

Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941. It declared war on the US after on December 11th.

Anyway, I think you are overstating the US contribution to victory in WWII. The Germans lost on the Eastern Front. Without the Soviets keeping the bulk and the best of the German troops in the East the Allied invasion in France would never have happened.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Men such as him are only popular so long as they wage war. Even then they fall sooner or later.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is highly debatable. A lot of Hitler's popularity seems to have stemed from what he had managed to achieve without war, in peacetime. On the contrary Hitler's actions regarding war appear to have been looked on, at best, with suspicion by the people. For instance there were extreme skepticism about a war with Russia amongst ordinary Germans.

Also for example, even during the war, Adolf Hitler was intially very reluctant to move to a total war economy because of the misgivings that the German people had for a total war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thing about Hitler is that he would never have been happy untill Eurasia was all his, not even then, History has shown this time and again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is likewise not accurate. Hitler's war-aims were not to conquer all of Eurasia but instead to annex European Russia. The ultimate line invisioned was one running from Archangel in the North to the Volga mouth in the South.

Codex1971
09-23-2005, 12:22 AM
I agree with you Wolf...even Hitlers own Generals made an attempt to assassinate Hitler but failed, so there was no doubting Hitler had to go...Hitler was a mad man pure and simple, he was a obsessive compulsive dictator who was a poor stratigiest but a great tactician.

But I firmly believe that in hindsight, Hitler made several mistakes (thank god) at critical stages during the war. If he had of taken a different path at these critical points of the war, the war would have ended differently. I'm not saying that the Germans would have won, what I am saying it is possible the Western Front might not have occured if the Me-262 was given the priority get up in the air sooner.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hitler was a mad man pure and simple, he was a obsessive compulsive dictator who was a poor stratigiest but a great tactician. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think one could sum up Hitler's skills as a military commander as being an amature strategist (meaning he was occasionally smart enough to recognise a good plan, eg. von Manstein's masterful "Sickel-Cut" plan for the defeat of France, but yet he often made very poor mistakes such as dividing up the forces for Operation Blau into two halves and assigning them to achieve greatly expanded versions of the original plan simultaneously and with less troops, or his no-retreat order on the Eastern Front), a poor tactician (he often did not understand the realities of what troops were capable of doing), and a hopeless understander of logistics.

Gibbage1
09-23-2005, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Fact is fact...the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont you mean the Germans were the first ones desperate enough to use piloted jets and rockets in combat? Every other country had them in 42, but only Germany was desperate enough to rush them into production in 43 in hopes of having a super weapon to win the war.

Remember, the P-59 was also flying in 42.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 12:40 AM
I don't understand where you are trying to go with this Gibbage1. All of the nations in WWII were "desperate" to gain an edge over their adversaries to help them win the war, just witness the enormous amount of resources used on the Manhattan Project or how "desperate" the Americans were to field massive battleships like the Iowa class.

That the Germans did not have the industrial capabilities of the other world powers (USSR and US) is self evident, and so some of their technologies were not as developed as they would have hoped (for example jet engine reliability). I fail to see how this detracts from the fact that the Germans were the first to field jet and rocket propelled aircraft in combat though.

Gibbage1
09-23-2005, 01:53 AM
Desperation.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/bachem_ba349_natter.jpg

NOT innovation.

Innovation.

http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/1-2.jpg

NOT desperation.

Nuff said.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 01:58 AM
Something can be both innovative and desperate at the same time. In any case, the Natter has nothing to do with the Me-262. I thought we were talking about operational technologies?

WOLFMondo
09-23-2005, 02:06 AM
Your clutching at straws gibbage. The US and UK did not have a jet that could be used in operational service at that time. Besides the Natter used German rocket technology which was years ahead of anyone elses which cannot be disputed. The 262 was innovation as was allot of German technology.

So what, the Germans did something before the Americans. boo hoo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif .

KIMURA
09-23-2005, 02:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Desperation.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/bachem_ba349_natter.jpg

NOT innovation.

Innovation.

http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/1-2.jpg

NOT desperation.

Nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1, especially the use of the A-bomb was an act of desperation, trying to save as much US-influence in PTO as possible while facing the growing Soviet power and claim for influence in the same area. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MrBlueSky1960
09-23-2005, 02:33 AM
Late in World War II, at least 25 B-17s were fitted with radio controls to be used as drones designated BQ-7 missiles, constructed under the auspices of 'Operation Aphrodite'. Loaded with up to 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of Torpex high explosive, they were used to attack U-boat pens, V-1 missile sites, and other bomb-resistant fortifications.

The BQ-7s would be taken aloft by two volunteer crew members, who would take it up to 2,000 feet, point it toward the target, and transfer control to another B-17. They would then bail out through the open cockpit while still safely over England. The controlling B-17 would follow the BQ-7, and lock its controls into a collision course with its target, then turn around to escape.

Because remote-control hardware available at the time was insufficient for the task, Operation Aphrodite was riddled with problems. No BQ-7 ever hit its target, and several crew were killed in various parachuting accidents. One left a 100 foot crater in British soil and another circled a English city out of control. It was cancelled in early 1945...

Desperation - Innovation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

MrBlueSky1960
09-23-2005, 02:40 AM
This thread has turned once again into a parody of a Hollywood film... In namely, the US did everything either before, or better, or faster, than everyone else... And won the War single handedly...

Like I said before, the Americans did not have a operational jet until we British gave them one of OUR engines...

rnzoli
09-23-2005, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Nothing you can 'prove' or argue can convinve me that the timetable for Overlord depended on how much Stalin was feared by the other Allies. Have you forgotten there was still a war on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing? Well, then I give up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

My impression is the cold war started already before the end of WW2. AFAIK, Stalin was urging his allies to open the Western Front already in 1943, so it is unclear to my uneducated mind, what took so long. The convenient answer is 'convenience', meaning no significant GB or US soil under foreign occupation, as opposed to Soviet territories. I am also unsure that the intensity of operations on the Western Front was as high as on the Eastern Front. Hey, what can you expect from me? I read too many Soviet-biased history books... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Aaron_GT
09-23-2005, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fact is fact...the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat!. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some senses the British beat the 262 into service with the Meteor, if only by a month. However in reality the Meteor F.1 was really an operational trials aircraft (like the YP-80) rather than a fully operational aircraft and it was the F.III that was the first one that was operational in the same sense as the Me.262

Aaron_GT
09-23-2005, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My impression is the cold war started already before the end of WW2. AFAIK, Stalin was urging his allies to open the Western Front already in 1943 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh Stalin was urging a second front from 1942 to be opened in 1943. Italy was, to a certain extent, to keep Stalin placated. Churchill thought it was the soft underbelly (ditto the Dardanelles, a re run of Churchill's fascination with it during Gallipoli), whereas FDR thought it was just a political necessity and wouldn't be easy.

The Western Allied concern in early 1942 was that the USSR would be rolled back and would sue for peace leaving large oil reserves in Axis hands, and Iraq and Iran under threat. In 1943 the concern was that the Germans would be rolled back to a point where the original boundaries of the USSR would be recovered and then the USSR would sue for peace, freeing up massive Axis forces to resist any Western Allied attack. So keeping Stalin on side was very critical. In 1945 the concern from some was that Stalin wouldn't stop rolling back the Germans.

WOLFMondo
09-23-2005, 03:43 AM
It was known Churchill was pissed of with Stalin because the whole reason the United Kingdom went to war along with France against Germany is because the Nazi's invaded Poland, then it was liberated only to have the USSR invade Poland!

BerkshireHunt
09-23-2005, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Your clutching at straws gibbage. The US and UK did not have a jet that could be used in operational service at that time. Besides the Natter used German rocket technology which was years ahead of anyone elses which cannot be disputed. The 262 was innovation as was allot of German technology.

So what, the Germans did something before the Americans. boo hoo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The De Havilland Vampire prototype first flew in February 1943 (12 months BEFORE the drawings for Focke Wulf's similar 'Flitzer' project were submitted to the RLM, incidentally). It was completely successful in all its trials and was good for nearly 600 mph. It was put on the back burner because the engine was still under development and, at the time, all Britain's resources were focused on heavy bomber production.
Had it been necessary (or, indeed, had the British been desperate enough...) it could have put into mass production by June 1943.

Jester_159th
09-23-2005, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
It was known Churchill was pissed of with Stalin because the whole reason the United Kingdom went to war along with France against Germany is because the Nazi's invaded Poland, then it was liberated only to have the USSR invade Poland! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

What?

BerkshireHunt
09-23-2005, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany signed to its fate as soon it declared war on USA then invaded Russia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have these the wrong way around it seems...

Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941. It declared war on the US after on December 11th.

Anyway, I think you are overstating the US contribution to victory in WWII. The Germans lost on the Eastern Front. Without the Soviets keeping the bulk and the best of the German troops in the East the Allied invasion in France would never have happened.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the new orthodoxy popular with revisionist historians. There is no doubting the contribution to victory made by Soviet soldiers but the US provided enormous quantities of war material to Russia, as indeed, did Britain. Without that assistance (fuel, vehicles, aircraft) and without the bombing of German factories carried out by the western Allies (pinning down a million men in the west and in Germany itself as flak battalions) the Russians would in all probability have been defeated.
So they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts - they just haven't had the grace to admit it (so far). But that doesn't mean we should swallow their line.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is the new orthodoxy popular with revisionist historians. There is no doubting the contribution to victory made by Soviet soldiers but the US provided enormous quantities of war material to Russia, as indeed, did Britain. Without that assistance (fuel, vehicles, aircraft) and without the bombing of German factories carried out by the western Allies (pinning down a million men in the west and in Germany itself as flak battalions) the Russians would in all probability have been defeated.
So they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts - they just haven't had the grace to admit it (so far). But that doesn't mean we should swallow their line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


For someone who didn't even know that the Soviet Union was invaded before Germany declared war on the United States you have some nerve to call me a revisionist historian.

No where did I say that the US did not contribute to Allied victory. Without the assistance of the Western Allies the Russians may have been defeated, yes, but that in no way invalidates my statements.

Try to temper your emotive statements with reasoning. Recognise that, though large, Western Allied contributions represented only a fraction of total Soviet war materiel. Recognise also that Western Allied lend-lease did not become significant in the East until after Stalingrad, which is widely regarded as the turning point of the war in Russia.

Recognise also that the strategic bombing offensive in Europe didn't reach its hight until 1944, after which Germany had already been decisivly defeated in the East. Even so, recognise that German production actually peaked during the strategic air offensive.

What is completely false is your absurd suggestion that "they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts". This is a typical Western-centric "popular history" view of the war. The simple fact is the Soviet Union was far and away the primary cause of Germany's defeat, and for proof of that you need not look any further than the fact that both three quaters of all troops served in and casualties were incurred on the Ostfront.

Or do you also claim that "the Americans owe their victory in the 'American Revolution' as much to the French as to their own efforts"?

Finally, the use of insulting terms like "revisionist" is the greatest folly you commit. You mark yourself out as an immature child and one with bankrupt arguments.

stathem
09-23-2005, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
Nothing? Well, then I give up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

My impression is the cold war started already before the end of WW2. AFAIK, Stalin was urging his allies to open the Western Front already in 1943, so it is unclear to my uneducated mind, what took so long. The convenient answer is 'convenience', meaning no significant GB or US soil under foreign occupation, as opposed to Soviet territories. I am also unsure that the intensity of operations on the Western Front was as high as on the Eastern Front. Hey, what can you expect from me? I read too many Soviet-biased history books... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Availability of LSTs.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am also unsure that the intensity of operations on the Western Front was as high as on the Eastern Front. Hey, what can you expect from me? I read too many Soviet-biased history books... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the conditions were usually far harsher, the fighting much more bitter, and the scale of the fighting itself was much, much, larger.

Kocur_
09-23-2005, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The guidance system for the V2 was primitive, and also developed by Dr Goddard (Just like most of the parts in the V2 BTW) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robert Goddard was a man of vision and indeed developed all major components of liquid fuel rocket engine (turbo pump, cooled combustion chamber, gyro stabilisation, steering system). He was also the first to build and lounch rocket powered by liquid engine on 26 march 1926.

Goddard gyro stabilisator, invented in 1932, was a gyro, which was started before launch by fishing line on gyro axis, tied to weights being dropped from lounching tower. His next gyro, installed in 1935 rocket was standard aviation gyroscope. A-4/V-2 had not only stabilisation system, but guidance system - very different things.

Goddards best achivements were 1,4km alt, 4km distance on 28 march 1935, L-13 rocked of weight 77,3kg, reached 2,7km alt on 26 march 1937. All those rockets used pressure in fuel tanks to deliver fuel to combustion chamber, which meant tanks had to be heavy. The way out was to use pumps to deliver fuel from, now thin-walled tanks, to combustion chamber. Built by Goddard turbo fuel pump was installed in R series rockets of 6,7m lenght and 335kg weight. R-23 achieved 100m alt on 9 august 1940, the last one reached 75m alt on 8 may 1941.

Threre is no connection between Goddard and von Braun works. Goddard kept all his work in secret. His team was always very small (5 men plus their families in Roswell in early 1930s for example). OTOH von Braun works were on industrial scale, with state support and huge resources, so its not surprising that Goddard, even though was first to invent all major components, never made it all work really well (R - rockets). He simply couldnt overcome all technical problems all by himself, but his nature and lack of resources, prevented him from creating a large team, in which he would be leader.

luftluuver
09-23-2005, 05:17 AM
That 3/4 is for ground troops not for air troops for which 3/4 were lost in the West.

Sept 1943 to Oct 1944

1. a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

2. a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

3. 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

4. a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West.

5. a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West.

The Russians can thank the SBC conducted by the Americans and British.


rnzoli,

a 1943 invasion of Fortress Europe would have been another Dieppe.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 05:20 AM
Hi luftluuver.

But why only include Luftwaffe losses? Why not include the entire Wehrmact?

KIA/MIA for Germany (all branches)
Eastern Front, 06/1941 to 12/1944: 2,742,910
Eastern Front, 01/1945 to 05/1945: 1,074,519
Subtotal Eastern Front: 3,817,429
Western Front, 05/1940 to 12/1944: 339,957
Western Front, 01/1945 to 05/1945: 155,527
Subtotal Western Front: 495,484
Other Theaters: 546.145
Total: 4,859,058


As you can see, losses inflicted by the Allies in the west, (even from the very start of the war!) seem rather modest compared to the bulk of the work done by the Red Army and Airforce, would you agree?

This despite the fact that the West was engaged against Germany from 1939 and the Soviet Union was not involved in the war until 1941.

Bearcat99
09-23-2005, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Or do you also claim that "the Americans owe their victory in the 'American Revolution' as much to the French as to their own efforts"?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No but without the help of France we might still be "subjects of the Queen", no matter how much that help was. It was important enough to make a difference. Thats all that matters.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
This thread has turned once again into a parody of a Hollywood film... In namely, the US did everything either before, or better, or faster, than everyone else... And won the War single handedly...
Like I said before, the Americans did not have a operational jet until we British gave them one of OUR engines... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhh puuhh lease. No one said that. There you guys go again with that nonsense.. get over it. Some of you guys kill me. Especially some of you Brits. You go on and on about Hollywood and how the U.S. thinks blah blah blah.. while at the same time you take every oportunity to toot your own horn with this "our" jet engine and "our Merlin made your Mustang a player" yadda yadda yadda nonsense. No one said that the U.S. won the war single handedly or did everthing bigger better faster etc. Did the U.S. entry alone into the war "win" it? Of course not..... the mere thought is assinine. However the contribution of the U.S. to the war effort before and after December 7, 1941 is undeniable and pivotal to that victory. If not for lend lease bucko you would have been Sig Hieling by 43 at the latest. Get over it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Germany signed to its fate as soon it declared war on USA then invaded Russia.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have these the wrong way around it seems...

Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22nd 1941. It declared war on the US after on December 11th.

Anyway, I think you are overstating the US contribution to victory in WWII. The Germans lost on the Eastern Front. Without the Soviets keeping the bulk and the best of the German troops in the East the Allied invasion in France would never have happened.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and the speculation can go on forever. But how would the Eastern Front war have gone as far as the timing of key German losses and spilled blood had the U.S. NOT supplied the Soviets with equipment during those critical moments? Even after Stalingrad. But I thought that U.S. lend lease was also before that. Once again I am not trying to insinuate the U.S. "won the war" but everytime I see one of you guys try to Poo Poo the U.S. contribution to the war it makes me hit the keys. The U.S. contribution was an integral part to the allied victory that, like it or not, without which the war would have been lost. Thats a FACT.... you can spout all the whining, anti U.S. rhetoric you want to but those are FACTS. Get over it. The allied victory came at a high price for all of the allied nations involved and without any one piece the political face of the world would be quite different today. Had the Britons listened to those sissies advocating surrender.. things would be different. People talk about the French.. but without the french underground.... things would have been different.

Having said that as I said earlier.... the 262 alone would have only prolonged the war but not brought German victory. Dont think for one second that if Germany had used it's jets differently that the allies would not have come up with a reasonable counter sooner, thats the way war works... and again... the fact that the U.S. had an ocean seperating it's labor force and it's industry not to mention it's R&D and it's fuel supply etc. from the physical destruction of the war, while the Axis powers had no such luxury would have made all the difference. I doubt the Axis subs could have been much more effective than they were in disrupting the shipping. The only thing that would have brought an Axis victory would have bee the use of nukes... and that would have been a Phyrric vitory at best considering the nature of the earlier atomic weapons.

stathem
09-23-2005, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Codex1971

LOL and while your depating weather that twin engine, propless aircraft on your six is a jet or a rocket...I'll be squeezing the trigger!...ROFL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This says it all to me.

I dunno, you gung-ho fighter pilots. The jet aircraft that really could have made a difference has been barely mentioned in this thread €" the Ar234. 6 months earlier with that and regular unmolested photo-recce flights over southern England would have made a significant difference to the success of the invasion of €˜Festung Europa€

Point defence interceptors do not win wars. They may stave off or prevent defeat. Did the Spitfire win the war? No. It helped stop it from being lost. To win you have to have knowledge of the enemies€ dispositions and offensive weapons to attack those dispositions. What was the loiter time of a 262 over Glasgow, Liverpool or even Southampton? How will it win you air superiority over Southern England?

Reconnaissance wins wars. Did the Spitfire win the war? Yes. A photo recce Spit brought back pictures of Peenemunde to confirm the presence of the German rocket developments and provide the pictures that enabled Bomber Command to wipe it off the map. Look at the number of projects on that beloved Luft46 site that were cancelled, stopped or seriously delayed by that raid. I can€t remember the figures, but it€s what, a 6 or 12 month delay? V2€s targeting the Overlord jump off areas? No need to weaken the eastern front to defend the western shores. Ground to air interceptor missiles? (If they€d have worked €" debatable) No need to commit 80% of the Jagdwaffe to defend the Reich, or the hundreds (thousands?) of 88mm€s they were moved there. Forget Schwienfert, Ploesti, Hamburg, Dresden, - that was the single most important and effective strategic raid of the war. And it was enabled by photo recon.

stathem
09-23-2005, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:

During this time U-boat production was being steped up, and this program was given greater priority. If this situation was reversed there realistically may have been around 250 - 300 Me-262 in service by July 1943 and this was from one factory, if there would have been more factories provided the numbers may have reached into the 1000's by summer 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you wish to stop or greatly reduce production of the one weapon which gave the Germans a slim chance of success? And replace it with a another of which you have no real need (in 1942-43). Arf.

Yep, that'll shorten the war alright.

Unmolested Atlantic and Arctic convoys? Reduced effectiveness in the Med? Oh, that'll be be OK, if the Americans are stupid enough to send over large numbers of heavy bombers in daylight we could give them a real bloody nose.

waffen-79
09-23-2005, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Desperation.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/images/bachem_ba349_natter.jpg

NOT innovation.

Innovation.

http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/1-2.jpg

NOT desperation.

Nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

heheh not over europe, you don't, at least not prior the 60's

Remember ESPIONAGE won the war

Chuck_Older
09-23-2005, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is the new orthodoxy popular with revisionist historians. There is no doubting the contribution to victory made by Soviet soldiers but the US provided enormous quantities of war material to Russia, as indeed, did Britain. Without that assistance (fuel, vehicles, aircraft) and without the bombing of German factories carried out by the western Allies (pinning down a million men in the west and in Germany itself as flak battalions) the Russians would in all probability have been defeated.
So they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts - they just haven't had the grace to admit it (so far). But that doesn't mean we should swallow their line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


For someone who didn't even know that the Soviet Union was invaded before Germany declared war on the United States you have some nerve to call me a revisionist historian.

No where did I say that the US did not contribute to Allied victory. Without the assistance of the Western Allies the Russians may have been defeated, yes, but that in no way invalidates my statements.

Try to temper your emotive statements with reasoning. Recognise that, though large, Western Allied contributions represented only a fraction of total Soviet war materiel. Recognise also that Western Allied lend-lease did not become significant in the East until after Stalingrad, which is widely regarded as the turning point of the war in Russia.

Recognise also that the strategic bombing offensive in Europe didn't reach its hight until 1944, after which Germany had already been decisivly defeated in the East. Even so, recognise that German production actually peaked during the strategic air offensive.

What is completely false is your absurd suggestion that "they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts". This is a typical Western-centric "popular history" view of the war. The simple fact is the Soviet Union was far and away the primary cause of Germany's defeat, and for proof of that you need not look any further than the fact that both three quaters of all troops served in and casualties were incurred on the Ostfront.

Or do you also claim that "the Americans owe their victory in the 'American Revolution' as much to the French as to their own efforts"?

Finally, the use of insulting terms like "revisionist" is the greatest folly you commit. You mark yourself out as an immature child and one with bankrupt arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI'd just like to point out that while I agree with a lot of what you're saying, you're ignoring that the US didn't get, or need, help from the USSR in the Pacific. While the eastern Front was a huge area of battle, you're ignoring the fact that Stalin didn't fight the Japanese until the war was essentially over. Does this diminsish the Soviet contribution? No. But it does mean that the eastern Front is just another area of the War. The Soviets didn't fight in Africa, the Med, the Carribean, the CBI, or the Pacific. That doesn't mean the US did more than the USSR, it just means that you shouldn't make the Eastfront a microcosm that underscores overall contribution in WWII

Incidentally, if you read a Naval history of the American Revolution, you will see that indeed, the mere fact that France has a coastline close to England means that France made huge contributions to the American cause. Your statement ""the Americans owe their victory in the 'American Revolution' as much to the French as to their own efforts"?" is actually not that far off

luftluuver
09-23-2005, 07:37 AM
Luftwaffe_109,

don't get your knickers all bunched up in a knot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Was only pointing out that the LW lost more in the West than it did in the East.


Bearcat99,

L/L was less than 50% of the total delivered before 1944. Much of L/L arrived after WW2 ended (VE-Day).

Chuck_Older
09-23-2005, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My impression is the cold war started already before the end of WW2. AFAIK, Stalin was urging his allies to open the Western Front already in 1943 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh Stalin was urging a second front from 1942 to be opened in 1943. Italy was, to a certain extent, to keep Stalin placated. Churchill thought it was the soft underbelly (ditto the Dardanelles, a re run of Churchill's fascination with it during Gallipoli), whereas FDR thought it was just a political necessity and wouldn't be easy.

The Western Allied concern in early 1942 was that the USSR would be rolled back and would sue for peace leaving large oil reserves in Axis hands, and Iraq and Iran under threat. In 1943 the concern was that the Germans would be rolled back to a point where the original boundaries of the USSR would be recovered and then the USSR would sue for peace, freeing up massive Axis forces to resist any Western Allied attack. So keeping Stalin on side was very critical. In 1945 the concern from some was that Stalin wouldn't stop rolling back the Germans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, Aaron!

being aware of the possibilty the USSR would cease hostilities in one form or another doesn't equal a fear that Stalin would overrun Europe

BerkshireHunt
09-23-2005, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is the new orthodoxy popular with revisionist historians. There is no doubting the contribution to victory made by Soviet soldiers but the US provided enormous quantities of war material to Russia, as indeed, did Britain. Without that assistance (fuel, vehicles, aircraft) and without the bombing of German factories carried out by the western Allies (pinning down a million men in the west and in Germany itself as flak battalions) the Russians would in all probability have been defeated.
So they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts - they just haven't had the grace to admit it (so far). But that doesn't mean we should swallow their line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


For someone who didn't even know that the Soviet Union was invaded before Germany declared war on the United States you have some nerve to call me a revisionist historian.

No where did I say that the US did not contribute to Allied victory. Without the assistance of the Western Allies the Russians may have been defeated, yes, but that in no way invalidates my statements.

Try to temper your emotive statements with reasoning. Recognise that, though large, Western Allied contributions represented only a fraction of total Soviet war materiel. Recognise also that Western Allied lend-lease did not become significant in the East until after Stalingrad, which is widely regarded as the turning point of the war in Russia.

Recognise also that the strategic bombing offensive in Europe didn't reach its hight until 1944, after which Germany had already been decisivly defeated in the East. Even so, recognise that German production actually peaked during the strategic air offensive.

What is completely false is your absurd suggestion that "they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts". This is a typical Western-centric "popular history" view of the war. The simple fact is the Soviet Union was far and away the primary cause of Germany's defeat, and for proof of that you need not look any further than the fact that both three quaters of all troops served in and casualties were incurred on the Ostfront.

Or do you also claim that "the Americans owe their victory in the 'American Revolution' as much to the French as to their own efforts"?

Finally, the use of insulting terms like "revisionist" is the greatest folly you commit. You mark yourself out as an immature child and one with bankrupt arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftwaffe_109,
The post you are objecting to was made by me. You seem to believe it was the latest encounter in a private war, but as far as I know, you and I have never had a crossed word. Needless to say I do not retract a word of my post, as it is my sincerely held view. I will put the unfortunate nature of your reply down to mistaken identity.

TAGERT.
09-23-2005, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Fact is fact... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And the fact is Germany lost the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fact is fact, that book refered to the Me163 as a jet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
...this thread is about debating weather the war would have changed if the 262 was introduced in 42'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, look at the bright side, you got one thing right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The issue re: the high grade materials not being available...mute...they were available, they were just given to other projects due to lack of forsight from Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
LOL and while your depating weather that twin engine, propless aircraft on your six is a jet or a rocket...I'll be squeezing the trigger!...ROFL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROFL! And that bright flash in the sky from that silver bird with props will ruin your day, week, and year(s).

TAGERT.
09-23-2005, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Dont you mean the Germans were the first ones desperate enough to use piloted jets and rockets in combat? Every other country had them in 42, but only Germany was desperate enough to rush them into production in 43 in hopes of having a super weapon to win the war.

Remember, the P-59 was also flying in 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! Germany was losing the conventinal fight, they were desperate, they HAD TO try things like the V2 and Me262, it was thier only hope.. but they were not enough.

p1ngu666
09-23-2005, 09:02 AM
churchill wanted to get to poland so that stalin couldnt have it, but stalin won and they attacked southern france, rather pointlessly. the italy campaign slowed down because of that...

alot of people think that america won the war, and that the russian contrabution wasnt much at all, which is both entirely untrue, both where very important.

Aaron_GT
09-23-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bingo! Germany was losing the conventinal fight, they were desperate, they HAD TO try things like the V2 and Me262, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it is also worth noting that both were under development during the good days when the Blitzkrieg was working well. In the case of the Me 262 the requirement for a jet fighter was posted in (from memory) 1938.

Chuck_Older
09-23-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:

I conseed you point re the engine turn overs...however been doing some reading and the high grade materials were availble as early as 1941, it just the the U-boats were getting the lions share.

Engines...

Jumo004 - First test run 1939 - 10 to 25hr life span.
Jumo004A - Fisrt test run 1940 - Serial production began 11th October 1940 - 80 built. This engines life span was a marked improvment over the 004, 200 - 250hrs, using the high grade metals. On 18th July 1942 Me-262's were being fitted with the 004A.

During this time U-boat production was being steped up, and this program was given greater priority. If this situation was reversed there realistically may have been around 250 - 300 Me-262 in service by July 1943 and this was from one factory, if there would have been more factories provided the numbers may have reached into the 1000's by summer 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought you might mention the U-boats. The U-boat allowed a Strategy that could win the war- strangle England. The 262 wasn't as important as the U-boat fleet, again, the Bf 109 was supposed to be the last fighter needed. The RLM decreed that additional types wouldn't be needed.

U-baots are, firstly, not made out of primarily the same alloys needed for the Jumo engines, and in addition, taking the alloys away from a u-boat to put into a few jets would be relaxing the death grip on England. In other words: giving up an offensive strategy in favor of a defensive stratgey. Offense wins wars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also, back to materials: that 10,000 engines I mentioned wasn't needed just once; oh no. It would be needed again and again. If an engine has a 10 to 50 hour service life, you want to replace it at 10 hours. The engine doesn't have a gauge that reads "elapsed time to failure" on it. You'd need to continually manufacture and refurbish engine after engine, and the high temp materials would not be salvagable. Metals can simply go away at high temperature. That scenario would be a downward spiral

Germany undervalued the Ubootswaffe a lot, and it was being used in a good strategy. How can you argue that a country like Germany would put an experimental jet ahead of a branch of the Kreigsmarine, which had seen great success, when Germany didn't feel it needed any fighter but the 109? Especially when you consider that the 262 doesn't fit into a war-winning strategy?

the reality was that the Battle of the North Atlantic was winnable. if you're winning that battle as germany, why on earth do you stop U-baot production in favor of an aircraft that is considered not needed? the answer is simple: you don't. I will argue that placing priority on the 262 for a 1942 debut ends the war in favor of the Allies a year earlier than 1945, if the U-boat fleet's production was sacrificed to cater to this un-needed aircraft that had no mission.

This is interesting to me. You say, quote:

"During this time U-boat production was being steped up, and this program was given greater priority. If this situation was reversed there realistically may have been around 250 - 300 Me-262 in service by July 1943 and this was from one factory, if there would have been more factories provided the numbers may have reached into the 1000's by summer 1943."

1943?? This is about production in 1942. You're giving yourself an extra year to make your arguments now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I don't care about 1000 262s by summer 1943. The discussion is about 1942

Kocur_
09-23-2005, 10:15 AM
Excuse me, but what hi-tech alloys needed for Jumo 004 were needed to produce U-boots? Type VIIc, the primary U-boot type, was little more than WW1 design: steel,batteries, diesel, and electric engines. Dont see any high-tech metallurgy in Ubootwaffe - not until Walther propulsion in XXI IIRC.

WOLFMondo
09-23-2005, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The issue re: the high grade materials not being available...mute...they were available, they were just given to other projects due to lack of forsight from Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did have the opportunity to import high grade materials and precious metals but after enigma was broken the British knew which ships to go after and did all they could to sink them.

WOLFMondo
09-23-2005, 10:21 AM
TAGERT, the 262 wasn't desperation, it was progression like all other allied nations trying to develop faster and better aircraft. Hitler was desperate and wanted quick fixed hence the V and America bomber projects and the diversion of the 262 from interceptor to bomber. Has Galland and the other sane people in leadership got there way things would have gone a different route.

But you have to admit German rocket and jet technology was ahead of the allies, hence the plundering of scientists and hardware from Germany after the war.

p1ngu666
09-23-2005, 10:25 AM
i think the germans got some metals from america, actully from the grandfather/relative of one the one whos leadin america today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

panther3485
09-23-2005, 11:07 AM
Hi guys!

Very interesting thread and I will address the opening question shortly, but first....

Quote from BerkshireHunt:
"There is no doubting the contribution to victory made by Soviet soldiers but the US provided enormous quantities of war material to Russia, as indeed, did Britain. Without that assistance (fuel, vehicles, aircraft) and without the bombing of German factories carried out by the western Allies (pinning down a million men in the west and in Germany itself as flak battalions) the Russians would in all probability have been defeated.
So they owe their victory in the 'Great Patriotic War' as much to the West as to their own efforts - they just haven't had the grace to admit it (so far)...."
________________________________________________

This position has already, I believe, been well refuted by Luftwaffe_109. I would only add the following:

Although the Soviets were often noted for their 'lack of grace' and selective rendition of history, this is one area where they DO deserve credit. If anything, on this particular issue it has been we (meaning we in the West), who have lacked grace. The Russian contribution to victory was frequently under-emphasized and sometimes overlooked or even ignored in our appraisals of WW2.

In recent years there has been some increase in recognition for the Russians but all too often, we still give it grudgingly and many in the West are RELATIVELY uneducated about the Eastern Front (compared with their knowledge of the achievements of the Western Allies). This is perhaps understandable, especially after decades of Cold War but I strongly feel it's time to balance the scales properly.

It's worth repeating some of the points raised by Luftwaffe_109 because IMHO, they NEED to be repeated:
________________________________________________

Quotes from Luftwaffe_109:

*"Without the assistance of the Western Allies the Russians MAY (my emphasis on 'may') have been defeated, yes, but....."

*"....though large, Western Allied contributions represented only a fraction of total Soviet war materiel."

(I might add, rather a small fraction)

*"Western Allied lend-lease did not become significant in the East until after Stalingrad, which is widely regarded as the turning point of the war in Russia."

(Very true and a fact that is rarely if ever recognized. By the time Lend Lease supplies had increased to a truly helpful level, the tide of War in the East had already turned against the Germans and the Soviets' own production was increasing at a phenomenal rate. Of course, you can't say the American and British aid didn't help, because it did help some, but we have always flattered ourselves about just HOW MUCH of a difference it made.)

*"....the strategic bombing offensive in Europe didn't reach its height until 1944, (by which time) ....Germany had already been decisivly defeated in the East."

(Also very valid and worth remembering)

Finally, in relation the the fighting on the Eastern Front:

*"....the conditions were usually far harsher, the fighting much more bitter, and the scale of the fighting itself was much, much, larger."

(Couldn't have put it better myself)
________________________________________________

If you've got the idea that Luftwaffe_109 is one of my favourites on this forum you'd be right. Perfect he ain't (nobody is) but IMHO he frequently hits the most important points dead on target and when he misses it's usually not by much.
________________________________________________

Now, on to another one of my favourite forum members, Bearcat99.

Bearcat, I have the greatest admiration for the USA and the American people. Your posts are always good to read and like Luftwaffe_109 you often hit the spot just right! (IMHO).

There are just one or two things in your recent post that I'd like to comment on, if I may.

Quotes from Bearcat99:

*"But how would the Eastern Front war have gone as far as the timing of key German losses and spilled blood had the U.S. NOT supplied the Soviets with equipment during those critical moments? Even after Stalingrad. But I thought that U.S. lend lease was also before that."

(As alluded to above, it is highly questionable whether the combined amount of material aid the Russians received from the Western Allies, up to and including the winter of 1942-43, was sufficient to make a truly significant difference. From mid 1943 onwards, the quantities arriving WERE more worthwhile and continued to increase but by this time, the Russians were producing adequate supplies of their own in almost all categories.)

*"Once again I am not trying to insinuate the U.S. "won the war" but everytime I see one of you guys try to Poo Poo the U.S. contribution to the war it makes me hit the keys. The U.S. contribution was an integral part to the allied victory that, like it or not, without which the war would have been lost. Thats a FACT.... you can spout all the whining, anti U.S. rhetoric you want to but those are FACTS. Get over it."

(The USA's contribution to victory in WW2 was undeniably critical and quite simply, we could not have done it without you. End of story. No brainer. A problem of 'perception', however, stems at least partly [if not mainly, in the eyes of the rest of the World] from your movie industry. If an entire generation was to grow up with Hollywood movies as their only source of information, they would indeed come to believe that WW2 was won almost entirely by the USA with only token amounts of frequently ineffective help from the other Allies. Yes, I know there are exceptions but that's the GENERAL IMPRESSION many of us get from Hollywood. Of course, we need to remind ourselves that it's an industry, there first and foremost to make money but I've met quite a few people - particulary some younger folk - who's perceptions of history are shaped primarily by movies! The effects of this are resented and some of the Anti-American sentiment you have seen stems from that, I'm sure.)

*"The allied victory came at a high price for all of the allied nations involved...."

(Yes, all participant nations suffered losses so this is always a 'high price' for everyone involved, no argument. But RELATIVELY SPEAKING, some nations lost hugely more and suffered far, far more than others. Further, by the end of the war in 1945, some nations, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, finished up much wealthier, more prosperous, more powerful and in a much better positon than others. Of course, the reasons for this are complex and varied (and sheer Geography is one of the factors) but my point is that some countries suffered relatively little and came out in front while others suffered a great deal and still got the **** end of the stick afterwards. To it's credit, the USA was admirable in its conduct toward many countries [including its former enemies] and gave large amounts of financial and material aid to rebuild economies shattered by the War.)
________________________________________________

And now, my answer to the opening question....

NO, it (the 262) would not have enabled Germany to win the War. Delay the outcome somewhat, perhaps but winning simply was not feasible. Why? The COMBINED resources of Britain and it's Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the USA could not be beaten. As long as the Allies were determined to continue the fight (which they would have been, 262 or no 262), only one outcome was possible IMHO.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

Jester_159th
09-23-2005, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The issue re: the high grade materials not being available...mute...they were available, they were just given to other projects due to lack of forsight from Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


They did have the opportunity to import high grade materials and precious metals but after enigma was broken the British knew which ships to go after and did all they could to sink them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't know what history books you've been reading...But I seriously suggest you get some new ones. For one thing till July 1941 most of Germany's imports came from Russia. For another, apart from iron ore etc from Sweden, Germany had very little merchant shipping in WW2.

MrBlueSky1960
09-23-2005, 11:31 AM
€œOhhhh puuhh lease. No one said that. There you guys go again with that nonsense.. get over it.€

Sorry, Bearcat99€¦ No, know one said anything of the sort, but if you actually read what has been posted by some mind you , not all, and I think you know who I mean, the only allied a/c capable of taking on the German Me262 was either the P-59 or the P-80 Both of which were very lack-luster in the performance field€¦ But why was the Meteor not given a shout€¦?

€œNo one said that the U.S. won the war single handedly or did everthing bigger better faster etc.€

If you read these boards, and take stock of the replies given to some of the threads, there is not a week goes by that one or more has the now familiar €American is always better€ sentiment and €˜If it was not for us, you would be€ and to use your own words, BearCat99 €Been Sig Hieling by 43€ This being the ultimate put-down to anyone who dares criticise the American way€¦

€œDid the U.S. entry alone into the war "win" it? Of course not€

This is where you are wrong, for without your entry into the War, the World as it was then for sure would have fallen€¦ The fact that you were in such a position of splendid isolation to work, unhindered from axis aggression on your home ground, and that no other country had the same means of industrial might. Enabled the allies to build the vast number of machines to win. But it is the fact that some of you will not let us forget it€¦

I like to see history and by that I mean all of history, put down the way it was€¦ Not put down the way some see it, or passing over some parts that alter the final outcome, to favour someone or something in a role greater than it was given to it in life.

I don€t have €˜Anti American€ tendencies, I just don€t like historic events twisted to fit a better ideal€¦ I€m afraid it€s just that the majority of times, it€s one of your countrymen that€s at the bottom of it€¦

It€s something I can€t get over and never will€¦

Regards

MrBlueSky

WOLFMondo
09-23-2005, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jester_159th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The issue re: the high grade materials not being available...mute...they were available, they were just given to other projects due to lack of forsight from Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


They did have the opportunity to import high grade materials and precious metals but after enigma was broken the British knew which ships to go after and did all they could to sink them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't know what history books you've been reading...But I seriously suggest you get some new ones. For one thing till July 1941 most of Germany's imports came from Russia. For another, apart from iron ore etc from Sweden, Germany had very little merchant shipping in WW2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had enough for the RAF to send Beaufighters out after them and the Germans to put flak ships on the french coast.

Chuck_Older
09-23-2005, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Excuse me, but what hi-tech alloys needed for Jumo 004 were needed to produce U-boots? Type VIIc, the primary U-boot type, was little more than WW1 design: steel,batteries, diesel, and electric engines. Dont see any high-tech metallurgy in Ubootwaffe - not until Walther propulsion in XXI IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a question I cannot answer. I know a fair amount about U boats but offhand I don't know their metallurgy. I'm completely conceding the point, since it doesn't effect my argument, that U boats used these materials. Actually, it helps my argument, since the object of a sub or a plane is to pursue a strategy to win a war. I know I sound like a broken record, but since the RLM had decreed that 'no additional types would be needed after the current war' in, if I recall, early '41, then what mission would a 262 have?

p1ngu666
09-23-2005, 01:22 PM
cooking 2 sausages at the same time chuck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

metoer was doing ground attack towards the end iirec

Chuck_Older
09-23-2005, 01:32 PM
Well, no. I haven't changed my standpoint one bit.

262 was deemed unnecessary quite close to this timeframe we are talking about, so the climate was wrong for production, and if the argument that materials earmarked for subs could be diverted for 262 production is valid, then what in the world would Germany have done with the 262? The piston fogters were deemed adequate after the fall of France, no matter what a mid-30's jet plane specification called for

If a spec called for a jet in the '30s, while also germany decided it didn't need new fighters in the early '40s, then I have to conclude the 262 was not intended for wartime production in the first place

The bonus for me is that if the scenario in which materials for subs go to the 262, then I can argue an even earlier defeat for Germany, instead of a war-winning weapon.

Aaron_GT
09-23-2005, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the only allied a/c capable of taking on the German Me262 was either the P-59 or the P-80 Both of which were very lack-luster in the performance field€¦ But why was the Meteor not given a shout€¦? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Meteor F.1 was rather pedestrian, and really not much more than a technology demonstrator. The F.3 was better. I think it was the F.4 that had the wings clipped and was the equal of the P-80A in terms of speed (580 for the Meteor versus 558 for the P80A), and held a world speed record, but that wasn't until November 1945 (and with the typical mods for extra speed for a record attempt).

The DH-100 Vampire was also around too, but missing the war in terms of service.

Aaron_GT
09-23-2005, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a spec called for a jet in the '30s, while also germany decided it didn't need new fighters in the early '40s, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seemed to think it needed the Fw190 which was first flownn in 1939 which seems to suggest it felt it needed new fighter development, even of the piston variety, in 1940. Plus there was the Me309 project started in 1940 to provide a replacement for the 109, rather than just incremental developments of it, albeit with a commonality of parts. The Fw 190 got the greater interest in terms of funding, though.

p1ngu666
09-23-2005, 05:13 PM
iirec it was any aircraft that wouldnt be complete within a certain time frame, the 190 was within that time frame, plus used bmw engines rather than the DB of competeing designs

Codex1971
09-23-2005, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Fact is fact... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And the fact is Germany lost the war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they did Target, but this is a hypothetical debate...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fact is fact, that book refered to the Me163 as a jet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact is fact...the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
...this thread is about debating weather the war would have changed if the 262 was introduced in 42'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, look at the bright side, you got one thing right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute to you sir!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
The issue re: the high grade materials not being available...mute...they were available, they were just given to other projects due to lack of forsight from Hitler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where's your proof?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
LOL and while your depating weather that twin engine, propless aircraft on your six is a jet or a rocket...I'll be squeezing the trigger!...ROFL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROFL! And that bright flash in the sky from that silver bird with props will ruin your day, week, and year(s). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL...well you guys always gotta do things bigger and better than everyone else.

Codex1971
09-23-2005, 05:33 PM
S! Chuck! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I thought you might mention the U-boats. The U-boat allowed a Strategy that could win the war- strangle England. The 262 wasn't as important as the U-boat fleet, again, the Bf 109 was supposed to be the last fighter needed. The RLM decreed that additional types wouldn't be needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes...agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
U-baots are, firstly, not made out of primarily the same alloys needed for the Jumo engines, and in addition, taking the alloys away from a u-boat to put into a few jets would be relaxing the death grip on England. In other words: giving up an offensive strategy in favor of a defensive stratgey. Offense wins wars http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Also, back to materials: that 10,000 engines I mentioned wasn't needed just once; oh no. It would be needed again and again. If an engine has a 10 to 50 hour service life, you want to replace it at 10 hours. The engine doesn't have a gauge that reads "elapsed time to failure" on it. You'd need to continually manufacture and refurbish engine after engine, and the high temp materials would not be salvagable. Metals can simply go away at high temperature. That scenario would be a downward spiral </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but like I posted earlier the Jumo 004A was available...it hard a much better service life of 200-250hrs. This would have negated the need to produce engines at such a rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Germany undervalued the Ubootswaffe a lot, and it was being used in a good strategy. How can you argue that a country like Germany would put an experimental jet ahead of a branch of the Kreigsmarine, which had seen great success, when Germany didn't feel it needed any fighter but the 109? Especially when you consider that the 262 doesn't fit into a war-winning strategy?

the reality was that the Battle of the North Atlantic was winnable. if you're winning that battle as germany, why on earth do you stop U-baot production in favor of an aircraft that is considered not needed? the answer is simple: you don't. I will argue that placing priority on the 262 for a 1942 debut ends the war in favor of the Allies a year earlier than 1945, if the U-boat fleet's production was sacrificed to cater to this un-needed aircraft that had no mission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well this was just the train of thought in those days by the high command...but keeping with the original post...what if? Yes your points makes sense to me but we are dealing with the hypothetical..there fore the question has to be answered with the assumption that the 262's were already in service in 1942.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
This is interesting to me. You say, quote:

"During this time U-boat production was being steped up, and this program was given greater priority. If this situation was reversed there realistically may have been around 250 - 300 Me-262 in service by July 1943 and this was from one factory, if there would have been more factories provided the numbers may have reached into the 1000's by summer 1943."

1943?? This is about production in 1942. You're giving yourself an extra year to make your arguments now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I don't care about 1000 262s by summer 1943. The discussion is about 1942 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
[/quote]

This is my realistic take the production of 262's if they were given the priority over the U-boats.

Great chat Chuck!

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 07:00 PM
Hello.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
No but without the help of France we might still be "subjects of the Queen", no matter how much that help was. It was important enough to make a difference. Thats all that matters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bearcat99, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not against identifying each and every factor that resulted in victory or defeat in a war at all, in fact this is essential to the study of war. And certainly both the French contribution in the American Revolution and the US contribution in the war against Germany were huge. What they weren't, however, was equal (that is, just as important) to those of the Americans and Russia, respectively, in those two wars, and that was my only point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes and the speculation can go on forever. But how would the Eastern Front war have gone as far as the timing of key German losses and spilled blood had the U.S. NOT supplied the Soviets with equipment during those critical moments? Even after Stalingrad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I partially agree with what you are trying to say here. But I am not a crystal-ball gazer and I can't analyse something that didn't happen. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it but it does mean it is irrelevant when discussing what primary factors contributed to the way the war did go.

The US and British involvement before Overlord (eg. Lend/Lease, Strategic bombing, other fronts) was not overly significant to the defeat of Germany as by the time it became large the Soviet Union had already passed from mortal danger. For the USSR, by far the most dangerous years had been 41, 42, where US involvement and even British was not great (in comparison to the fighting on the Ostfront). After 42, the Soviet Union could no longer be decisively defeated. After Kursk... it is highly debatable whether anything at all could have saved Germany.

One can argue that lend/lease did help speed the Russian juggernaught during 1943, 44 and 45 though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I thought that U.S. lend lease was also before that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well how about we get some concrete figures down so that we aren't talking in vague generalities?

The tonnage sent from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR in 1941 (I refer to when ships left port, ignoring the fact that sailing time to the far east usually took about a month and those to Persia three and a half, or that quite a significant amount of lend-lease was lost in transit) was 360,778 tones. Compare this to 1944, when lend-lease shipments were at their peak, 6,217,622 tones. So during the most critical year of the war on the east, Lend-Lease can be seen to be quite modest indeed.

What about 1942, the second critical year for the Soviet Union, and the last best chance for Germany to win the war? The total amount of tonnage that began to set sail to the USSR in 1942 was 2,453,097 tones. Bear in mind also that the almost half a million tons of lend-lease lost at sea occurred to these shipments, also bare in mind that the bulk of these shipments began mainly in the later part of the year (after Uranus, the encirclement of Stalingrad). Thus, though large, lend-lease did not play a decisive role during the critical year of 1942.

What about specific shipments, like trucks (which were the greatest component of wheeled vehicles sent to the USSR)?

1945 was by far the year when the greatest amount of Soviet trucks were of western origin, 32.8% (in May). Of course, by then the war was over and it can€t be described as decisive. In 1944 (when the Wehrmact was likewise also defeated and the end of the war was already a definite Soviet victory) it amounted to only 19%. In 1943, where Germany had her last chance at Kursk to stave of a Soviet victory western trucks amounted to only 5.4% of the total Soviet trucks.

In the critical years of 1942 and 41 it was even smaller, to make it all but insignificant.

And what of the supply of strategic war resources? Let€s take, for example, copper.

Total Soviet production for the war was 709,000 tones pure. Lend-Lease deliveries amounted to only 69,400 tones pure.

The conclusion? The Soviet Union (all other factors being equal) would have and did (for its mortal danger was in 1941, 42) survive without Lend-Lease. All other factors being equal, the Soviet juggernaught would likely have still also won the war. However it would have taken much longer and been far more costly (the historian David Glantz predicts it would have lengthened the war by one and a half years).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Once again I am not trying to insinuate the U.S. "won the war" but every time I see one of you guys try to Poo Poo the U.S. contribution to the war it makes me hit the keys. The U.S. contribution was an integral part to the allied victory that, like it or not, without which the war would have been lost. Thats a FACT.... you can spout all the whining, anti U.S. rhetoric you want to but those are FACTS. Get over it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look there is no need for that, surely as grown men we can have different opinions without insulting one another? I agree that the Western allies were an integral part of Allied victory. However, it is simply the fact that the Soviet Union was by far the greatest factor in Germany€s defeat.

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 07:08 PM
Hello Chuck_Older.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally poste by Chuck_Older:
I'd just like to point out that while I agree with a lot of what you're saying, you're ignoring that the US didn't get, or need, help from the USSR in the Pacific. While the eastern Front was a huge area of battle, you're ignoring the fact that Stalin didn't fight the Japanese until the war was essentially over. Does this diminsish the Soviet contribution? No. But it does mean that the eastern Front is just another area of the War. The Soviets didn't fight in Africa, the Med, the Carribean, the CBI, or the Pacific. That doesn't mean the US did more than the USSR, it just means that you shouldn't make the Eastfront a microcosm that underscores overall contribution in WWII

Incidentally, if you read a Naval history of the American Revolution, you will see that indeed, the mere fact that France has a coastline close to England means that France made huge contributions to the American cause. Your statement ""the Americans owe their victory in the 'American Revolution' as much to the French as to their own efforts"?" is actually not that far off </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong, I believe the US was the principle architect of Japan's demise, just as I do that the Soviet Union was the main cause for Germany's defeat. For the large part, the wars in Europe and the Pacific were almost completely isolated situations which should be treated as such during any analysis of WWI.

However, just as numerous nations contributed to the defeat of Germany so too did other nations contribute to the defeat of Japan, and there seems to be a playing-down of the role (as well as Russias war with Japan 45, which we need not go into now), however minor it may have been, that the USSR played in Japan's defeat.

Let us not forget that, in order to safeguard their borders from the Soviets, the Japanese deployed 40 infantry divisions, 7 cavalry divisions, 23 infantry brigades, two cavalry brigades and two armoured brigades throughout Manchuria, Korea, South Sakhalin and the Kuriles (most of which were in the Kwantung Army of Manchuria, with just over a million men, 1155 tanks, 5360 guns, 1800 aircraft and 25 gunboats, although it declined by late-war to slightly more than a quater of a milion men as men and equipment were striped from it and sent to fight the Americans).

Anyway, my point is that, just as the divisions tied up in the expected invasion of France (not to mention the men and resources that went to other fronts, eg. Med, defence of Norway from allied invasion, etc) could have been better used on the Ostfront, so too could those in Manchuria have been better used in a defence of Japan's seized possessions. Yes, certain nations did the lions share of work in both Europe and the Pacific (USSR and US respectivly), but numerous other nations all played a vital role in how the war unfolded also.

Once again, I am not saying that Russia was a major part in the war in the Pacific, and I'd certainly put other nations (after the US, of course) but well before Russia when creating a list comparing contributions to this theater (eg. the UK, Australia, etc). My point is that they were a factor nonetheless, and shouldn't be ignored (just as I wouldn't ignore any of the nations that fought in Europe).

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
Luftwaffe_109,
The post you are objecting to was made by me. You seem to believe it was the latest encounter in a private war, but as far as I know, you and I have never had a crossed word. Needless to say I do not retract a word of my post, as it is my sincerely held view. I will put the unfortunate nature of your reply down to mistaken identity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, I apologise, the claim that Germany had declared war on the US before invading Russia was made by WarWolfe_1 and indeed not by you. I guess I just didn't examine the post carefully enough.

However, the rest of my post I most strongly stand by. You were completely out of line to call me a "revisionist" historian preaching some "orthodoxy" and, as yet, have provided nothing to back up your claims that my assertions are not true nor anything to counter my refutations. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me at all, but really there is no need for insulting remarks.
______________________________________

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
don't get your knickers all bunched up in a knot. Was only pointing out that the LW lost more in the West than it did in the East. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I've no problem with that, it's completely true.

______________________________________

Hello panther3485. Thanks for the kind words.

Basically I agree with largely everything in your post, it seems we have a similar view of the events of WWII.

TAGERT.
09-23-2005, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
They did have the opportunity to import high grade materials and precious metals but after enigma was broken the British knew which ships to go after and did all they could to sink them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can I make a sugestion? The next time you tell us a fairy tail.. Start it off with "Once upon a time" just to highligt the fact that your making S up

luftluuver
09-23-2005, 07:55 PM
American Lend/Lease to Russia

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html

TAGERT.
09-23-2005, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Yes they did Target, but this is a hypothetical debate... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hypothetically speaking they didnt stand an chance, the war was over before it started.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Fact is fact...the Germans has the first OPERATIONAL PILOTED JETS and ROCKETS in combat! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Fact is fact, that book refered to the Me163 as a jet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
Salute to you sir! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ditto!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Where's your proof? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where is yours?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
LOL...well you guys always gotta do things bigger and better than everyone else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got that right!

Codex1971
09-23-2005, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Where's your proof? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where is yours?
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_3.htm

panther3485
09-23-2005, 09:05 PM
Hello Luftwaffe_109,

Thanks for that, mate. There is just one thing I would like to mention regarding my previous post, that I should have said then.

Quote from me:

*"And now, my answer to the opening question....

NO, it (the 262) would not have enabled Germany to win the War. Delay the outcome somewhat, perhaps but winning simply was not feasible. Why? The COMBINED resources of Britain and it's Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the USA could not be beaten. As long as the Allies were determined to continue the fight (which they would have been, 262 or no 262), only one outcome was possible IMHO."

(Perhaps I should have have modified my statement a little. There was a 'window of opportunity' (opinions vary on how good an opportunity but it was essentially the last chance) for Germany to gain a favourable outcome on the Eastern Front, during the campaining season of 1942. After 1942, the Soviets would simply be too strong and the situation in the Med/West, already becoming difficult, would start to turn heavily against them. [I could go on, but I have posted on this in more detail in other threads.] This IMHO has virtually no bearing on the subject of the Me 262 but I thought I'd better mention it!)

Best regards,
panther3485

p1ngu666
09-23-2005, 09:18 PM
hm, bi-1 was before me163 wasnt it?

in terms of manpower, and casulties the eastern front was much bigger..

TAGERT.
09-23-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical_3.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You know those are modern engines on those right?

Luftwaffe_109
09-23-2005, 10:28 PM
Hello panther3485.

Yep, very good point on Germany's window of opertunity to win the war in the East by decisively defeating the Soviets either in 1941 or 42. Had this occured, and the bulk of the Wehrmact then transferred back to the West it is hard to imagine a successful invasion of France being launched.

Also, perhaps we might consider another possibility for German "victory". That is of a negotiated peace with the USSR. As I recall, the Soviets were extending peace feelers to Germany throught the crisis year of 1942 when it seemed the USSR would fall. It was only after the Stalingrad disaster that any consideration of a peace was completely rejected.

Following the massive Soviet defeats sustained during the opening campaign in the East, where vast amounts of Soviet armies (assembled for the most part along the USSR's borders) had been annialated, Stalin summonded Beria and Molotov to discuss the possibilities of making peace with Hitler, whatever the price of humiliation. They considered giving up most of the Ukraine, Belorussia (or "White Russia") and the Baltic States to Germany in exhange for peace.

It's impossible to know just how seriously the Russians considered such a move. My feeling is that, during the early stages of the war it was definitely a real consideration. We do know that Molotov later summoned the Bulgarian ambassador, Ivan Stamenov, to ask if he would be willing to act as an intermediary. Of course, this all came to nothing, Stamenov refused, saying, 'even if you retreat to the Urals, you'll win in the end'.

My point is, perhaps if Germany had been willing to broach the issue of peace with the Soviet Union during the war, perhaps in 1941, 42 or even possibly 43 (although by this stage I highly doubt the Soviets would accept it, even after the "Manstein Miracle" around Kharkov, although maybe if they agreed to huge concessions by the Germans and the Germans had, instead of persuing a strategic offensive in summer 43 fought a defensive campaign to make the cost of victory too high for the USSR?) the war might have ended without a German defeat in the east?

Of course, this idea is purely academic. Hitler never even considered (not even in 1944 or 45 when the war looked hopeless in the East) a peace with Moscow. The willingness of the Soviets to consider peace after the period the huge defeats it sustained at the start of the war are also, at the least, highly doubtful.

Personally, I feel it was not a feasible alternative path the war could have taken. But it is perhaps a possibility, and worth mentioning.

Best Regards

Codex1971
09-23-2005, 10:31 PM
Jumo 004A with the "high grade material" had 200 to 250hrs flying time, they were being fitted to Me-262's on 18th June 1942...80 were built, serial production was to commence ASAP, however as I said before, some time later (I dont have exact date) the high grade material was diverted to the U-Boats and other higher prority projects.

Thus the Jumo 004B had only a 1/3 of the high grade material hence the Jumo 004B was not able to run for as long as the 004A plus the 004 was to heavy.

LEXX_Luthor
09-23-2005, 11:07 PM
Luftwaffe109:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yep, very good point on Germany's window of opertunity to win the war in the East by decisively defeating the Soviets either in 1941 or 42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Germany did not have the Army strength left from the losses of Barbarossa to finish off the Soviets in 1942. Hitler and the Army chose the summer 1942 offensive because they did not have the ability left to defeat the Soviets in 1942 in a wide Barbarossa style total offensive.

Assume the German summer offensive was successful, so by the end of 1942 the Germans were in control of Stalingrad and Caucausus. It would be spring or summer 1943 when the Germans would again advance against the Soviets.

This means the Soviets survive 1942.

A German capture of Stalingrad and the Caucausus in late 1942 would not have caused Soviet defeat at that time. The German 1942 summer offensive was the best shot the Germans could offer. That means Germay could not defeat the Soviets in 1942 if they failed to defeat the Soviets in 1941.

Assuming a victorious 1942 offensive, the Germans would need at least another summer year, and much more likely two years, to finish the job of Barbarossa. Then, given such wild German success, it would be a matter of the Soviets surviving until USA ramps up its war effort (it was ramping down in 1944 already--WW2 ended long before USA could begin to fight).


As one IL-2 pilot wrote in his memoir -- once the Germans were stopped in December 41, the Germans blew their one and only chance of victory in the East. The soldiers and civilians -- the majority not directly running in total Panic from the southern German offensive that is -- knew it even if today's intellectuals don't like to talk about what soldiers and civilians in distant societies see during total war.

panther3485
09-24-2005, 01:28 AM
Hi Luftwaffe_109,

I'm pretty much in agreement on tbis. I also consider that while we cannot totally dismiss the idea of a negotiated settlement along the lines you have mentioned, the probability does seem to have been very low, particulary given Hitler's mindset during 1941 and 1942. I think we can cross it off the list of the more likely 'what ifs'.

Hi there, LEXX_Luthor...

I have taken on board the points you raised and acknowledge that some military historians would agree.

Nevertheless, there is another school of thought, supported by a very substantial number of military historians.

Among other factors, the proposal is based on the fact that although the Germans sustained appreciable losses during the 1941 campaigning season and the following winter, Soviet losses had been massive and debilitating.

From the Spring of 1942, German recovery and build-up was, initally at least (as far as I recall reading) more rapid than that of the Soviets (proportionally speaking). Thus, both numerically and qualitatively, the position was not less favourable for the Germans than the Summer of 1941 and in fact may have been slightly better. The obvious downside, of course, was that the 'element of surprise' Germany enjoyed at the opening of Barbarossa was a one-off!

Also, it would be a while yet (after transplanting much of their war production beyond the Urals - a process still ongoing throughout 1942) before the Soviets could be comfortably sure of adequately replacing losses if they occurred again on a scale approaching 1941.

The Germans were still potentially very capable of inflicting such losses and making maximum gains from Soviet tactical errors. There were occasions during the 1942 season when they did exactly that!

This is not to say I'm TOTALLY sold on the idea that Germany could have gained a decisive outcome by the end of 1942 but after reviewing everything I know and have studied, I do not believe it can be dismissed out-of-hand either. What is beyond argument, IMHO, is that whatever chances they might have had were COMPLETELY GONE by 1943.

Best regards to you both,
panther3485

Luftwaffe_109
09-24-2005, 01:30 AM
Hello LEXX_Luthor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Germany did not have the Army strength left from the losses of Barbarossa to finish off the Soviets in 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I definitely disagree with this, it just isn€t an accurate representation of the situation.

The following are the total number of soldiers in Wehrmact service for 1941 and 1942.

1941: Over 8,154,000
1942: Over 9,580,000

As one can see, the Wehrmact had expanded and not contracted after Barbarossa.

But what about the strength of the Ostheer?

The overall strength of the three heeresgruppen on 22 June was slight less than 2,750,000. The strength of the Ostheer, on 1st October 1941 was around 2,700,000.

By the 1st of January, 1942, the German strength in the East was a little higher than 2.6 million. However, as we all know Germany was still in the middle of repulsing the General Winter Offensive at this time, and as it pettered out the Wehrmact received large numbers of reinforcements and supplies.

Does any of this show a trend that the Ostheer was in decline in 1941-42? No, although the strength of the Ostheer did fluctuate. Consider that, by all accounts, the peak strength of the Ostheer occurred in early July 1943, when it could field roughly 3.1 million men.

So basically I disagree with you, it is not accurate to state that German losses in 1941 had been bad enough to significantly affect their ability to wage war, in the main they were (although heavy) made good by reinforcements.

(And we haven't even started discussing the qualitative and numerical improvements in German tanks and other equipment yet).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hitler and the Army chose the summer 1942 offensive because they did not have the ability left to defeat the Soviets in 1942 in a wide Barbarossa style total offensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true, instead Hitler and the Army though they could defeat the Soviet in 1942 with a concentrated attack on a narrower section of the front. Indeed many of the members of the OKH had wanted to do this for 1941 (They advocated a strategic campaign in which they would €œseek the issue in the centre of the front€ as Manstein puts it, or to concentrate primarily on one major objective, ie Moscow. They wanted to providing relatively less than the historical number of forces to the other Army Groups only for the purposes of securing limited gains and securing the flanks of Army Group Centre. This was fundamentally opposed to Hitler€s aims to pursue extensive aims with all three Army Groups, weakening centre.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Assume the German summer offensive was successful, so by the end of 1942 the Germans were in control of Stalingrad and Caucausus. It would be spring or summer 1943 when the Germans would again advance against the Soviets.

This means the Soviets survive 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, of course, what I meant was that a decisive Soviet defeat in 1942 would likely lead to an ultimate Soviet capitulation, not some immediate defeat. In other words, it could be a mortal blow, but not the final blow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A German capture of Stalingrad and the Caucausus in late 1942 would not have caused Soviet defeat at that time. The German 1942 summer offensive was the best shot the Germans could offer. That means Germay could not defeat the Soviets in 1942 if they failed to defeat the Soviets in 1941. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don€t understand this point. A German capture of Stalingrad would be a defeat of the Soviets in 1942. It would not however vanquish them in 1942 (not definitely anyway), but it was hoped by the General Staff that it would ultimately lead to vanquishing the Soviets, most likely in the next year.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Assuming a victorious 1942 offensive, the Germans would need at least another summer year, and much more likely two years, to finish the job of Barbarossa. Then, given such wild German success, it would be a matter of the Soviets surviving until USA ramps up its war effort (it was ramping down in 1944 already--WW2 ended long before USA could begin to fight). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you are being too generous here. The loss of Stalingrad and the Caucasus would have been an absolute catastrophe for the Soviet Union, likely leading to defeat.

Firstly, this means the entire eastern flank of the German front is anchored an secured. Like Moscow, Stalingrad was a transport and communications hub, and its taking would have paralysed Soviet Operations in the south.

Secondly the Volga river would be cut and the key traffic along it (as well as the major North/South railways) would be stopped completely. This would be a supply disaster for the USSR.

Thirdly, the loss of the Caucasian oilfields would have absolutely crippled Soviet mechanised units while solving Germany€s oil problem, a huge victory. Also, the Soviets would have lost a major lend-lease supply route, specifically Persia.

Furthermore, the €œlast defensive barrier before the Urals€, the Volga, would be taken and the German armies would be free to drive deep into the industrial heartland of Russia.

Finally (and I know that, for some reason you seem to always reject this point) Soviet morale (already precarious after the huge defeats in 41 and 42) would crumble after the loss of Stalin€s namesake while German morale would surge.

Given all this, I think one could reasonably expect a Soviet collapse in the next year.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As one IL-2 pilot wrote in his memoir -- once the Germans were stopped in December 41, the Germans blew their one and only chance of victory in the East. The soldiers and civilians -- the majority not directly running in total Panic from the southern German offensive that is -- knew it even if today's intellectuals don't like to talk about what soldiers and civilians in distant societies see during total war.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your basing your understanding of WWII on what a Soviet bomber pilot wrote? I can find you accounts written by soldiers who fully felt that the Soviet Union could be defeated in 1944, would you believe that? Of course not.

Luftwaffe_109
09-24-2005, 02:02 AM
Hello panther3485.

Good points all, I agree with the majority of what you said, especially your conclusion that Germany was both still very capable of achieving victories and capitalising on Soviet errors in 1942, as well as the possibility that they could still win the war in this year (by this I mean, not concluded the war, but won the decisive campaign in the war).

Some minor points:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The obvious downside, of course, was that the 'element of surprise' Germany enjoyed at the opening of Barbarossa was a one-off!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree that the type of unpreparedness for war that the Soviets had shown at the start of Barbarossa could not be repeated. However, the Soviets could still be taken by suprise.

Stalin was convinced that the 1942 summer offensive would be towards Moscow. Even when presented with papers (which had been taken from the body of 23rd Panzer Division's Major Reichel, whose Storch aircraft had crashed inside Soviet territory) detailing German plans for the Blau Offensive in the south Stalin refused to consider the possibility.

During a meeting on 26 June, Stalin refused to listen to his generals, throwing the captured papers aside. Instead, Stalin ordered that the Bryansk front prepare for an offensive to capture Orel (to pre-empt the supposed assualt on Moscow). This came to nothing of course because before that could happen the Germans attacked in the South.

This was a suprise and Moscow quickly arranged to send tank brigades from STAVKA reserve to the beleagerd South-West Front. By all accounts the defence before Stalingrad was poorly prepared and chaotic, as well as disasterous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is beyond argument, IMHO, is that whatever chances they might have had were COMPLETELY GONE by 1943.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Their chances for victory were gone, certainly. However, their chances for stalemate and to stave off defeat perhaps not so.

Manstein notes that "grave though the loss of Sixth Army undoubtably was, it still need not have meant that the war in the east - and ipso facto the war as a whole [obviously Manstein shares my view that the Ostfront was the decisive front of the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif] - was irretrievably lost. It would still have been conceivable to force a stalemate if Germany's policies and military leadership had been adapted to such a solution."

Clearly though, the policies were not.

Best Regards

Bearcat99
09-24-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
that Hitler ignored their requests is a thing to be thankfull for </div></BLOCKQUOTE>espically the people of Berlin.. In that the 262 would not and could not win the war.. At best it could have extended it a few months.. Which in turn would have ment the US would have used the ABOMB on Berlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would have never happened. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki I dont think the U.S. would have use the bomb in Europe.. not only was there was no need but they would not have bombed another European country.. not with thier allies right next door.

TAGERT.
09-24-2005, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
That would have never happened. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki I dont think the U.S. would have use the bomb in Europe.. not only was there was no need but they would not have bombed another European country.. not with thier allies right next door. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The reason you *feel* that way is because your mixing the real world history with this "what if" history.

*IF* Germany had any fight left in them and posed a threat in and around the time the ABOBM was ready we would have used it on Berlin. Simple!

But that is just IMHO, one thing I know for sure, *IF* Germany or Japan would have had an ABOMB they wouldnt have thought twice about using it on the allieds, and that is a fact.

Secudus2004
09-24-2005, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
But that is just IMHO, one thing I know for sure, *IF* Germany or Japan would have had an ABOMB they wouldnt have thought twice about using it on the allieds, and that is a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, how could we describe that action... An act of 'Desperation' or one of 'Innovation' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

panther3485
09-24-2005, 12:11 PM
Hello again, Luftwaffe_109,

This just gets more interesting with each post, mate! I know what we are talking about is kind of irrelevant to the original question in this thread buy hey, I don't know about you but I'm enjoying myself!

Your quotes:

*"....I agree with the majority of what you said, especially your conclusion that Germany was both still very capable of achieving victories and capitalising on Soviet errors in 1942, as well as the possibility that they could still win the war in this year (by this I mean, not concluded the war, but won the decisive campaign in the war)."

(Yep, I'm always careful to use expressions such as, "produce an outcome favourable to Germany" or "win a decisive campaign and force a decision" rather than, "win the war", which some readers could misinterpret.)

*"I agree that the type of unpreparedness for war that the Soviets had shown at the start of Barbarossa c