Who is going to play the game after 43???

[TIMJOT]

Not getting involved in this one. But I think you would have to give a liitle credit to the Germans for certain weapon "design" aspects. The swept wing that niether the Brits or Americans incorporated in their initial jet designs BUT copied for their 2nd generation designs. The XXI subs profile was copied by both USA and USSR. The MP-42 Assault Rifle was the basis for all assault weapons today (No matter what Mr.Kalishnokov says). As you mentioned the MG-38 Lt MG is still the basis for the US Lt MG being used today. Even the B-2 Bomber borrowed more from the Gotha Flying wing design than Northrops flying wing. The V-1 concept begat todays cruise missile. Now of course non of this means they had a chance or winning the war, Just giving credit were its due.

[pasternakski]

I just want to say that I will be playing WitP after 1943.

[mdiehl]

mdiehl- i think you left out hand held anti-tank weapons as well. i think the germans panzerfaust/panzershreck posessed superior capabilities in comparison to their allied/soviet counterparts.

didn't the m36 have an open topped turret??

Rocket anti-tank weapons were a US invention and improved upon by the Germans for use on the Russian Front. The US 90mm rocket was not introduced until very late in the war, so the German 88mm variant was qualitatively better. It was not a major advance, however, over the US one.

TIMJOT, the German submarine shape was based on an American 1939 experimental design. When the US went to the modern configuration for submarines they weren't copying the Germans, they were implementing an earlier American's suggestion.

The US had several swept-wing X-planes by the end of WW2. But the more important consideration for the ME262 vs P80 debate is which one is overall the better aircraft? The P-80 wins by a clear margin. The ME262 might have taken the lead if the Germans could have built a jet engine with more thrust and located one really good one along the centerline. But with two weak sisters hanging from her superior wings, the immediate gains of the ME262 swept wing design were lost to increased drag from the engine nacelles and the poor thrust to weight ratio.

[fcooke]

Mdiehl - I'm not saying the Axis could have won. What I was saying is that in some cases they produced some pretty good weapons. Your post has some pretty wild assertions (in my view):

IIRC the British airfields were becoming unusable and they were highly relieved when the Germans changed tactics. I could probably pull out a Churchill quote if that would help.

On the tank discussion you're using the Allied numbers to make up for superior German equipment. To quote you "Allied (UK/US/USSR) had the goods to do for a garden variety Tiger at most ranges." - what do you consider to be 'most ranges'? A Tiger can kill any Allied tank - at almost any range. A Sherman is going to be hard pressed in a one on one battle to kill a Tiger - ever. If Tigers are so inferior how did M Wittman score all his kills? Is there an Allied tanker with anywhere near such a record?

As for TDs - M36 is a nice platform. I think I would rather have a Jgpz/4 or a Jagdpanther though....

Another quote from you: 'Since the P-51 was more than well enough equipped to destroy ME262s in most postures' - as far as I know ther only time a P-51 had a leg up on a Me262 was whent he 262 was landing. That doesn't sound like most postures to me.....if I'm wrong in this assertion I would like to know the other situations where a Mustang had the advantage.

In short - I think you're over-stating your case. The Axis could not have won. That does not mean they did not often have superior equipment.

Regards,
Frank

[CynicAl]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I just want to say that I will be playing WitP after 1943.

What's that got to do with the topic of this thread?

Oh, yeah. [:D]

[pasternakski]

Well, Frank, I agree with you to the extent that the Germans had some good ideas for equipment, but, as the war dragged on, they got further and further behind in the execution.

Even a lot of their early stuff was lacking. The Ju-52, for example, had the corrugated fuselage skin, which tended to tear through at the bolting points and leave the occupants staring out at open space like passengers on a 727 headed for Hawaii. She wasn't no C-47. Witness the pzkpfw 38, which relied on a Czech chassis. Do we need to go on to Lynx "tanks?"

By the way, did I mention that I plan to be playing WitP after 1943?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I just want to say that I will be playing WitP after 1943.

[mdiehl]

IIRC the British airfields were becoming unusable and they were highly relieved when the Germans changed tactics.

Of course they were relieved. So were the German pilots. If it helps, look at the airfields that the Germans simply did not have the range to reach with escort. Then you begin to understand the reason why the Luftwaffe was inevitably doomed in the BoB. That and the aircraft loss numbers tell the whole tale.

On the tank discussion you're using the Allied numbers to make up for superior German equipment. To quote you "Allied (UK/US/USSR) had the goods to do for a garden variety Tiger at most ranges." - what do you consider to be 'most ranges'? A Tiger can kill any Allied tank - at almost any range. A Sherman is going to be hard pressed in a one on one battle to kill a Tiger - ever. If Tigers are so inferior how did M Wittman score all his kills? Is there an Allied tanker with anywhere near such a record?

The 76mm armed Shermans had the penetration to do a PzVI "garden variety" (not Koenigstiger) at any range less than 1 km. There weren't very many 1 km shots on the western front. The 90mm gun when armed with HVAP could penetrate any Tiger that it could hit except the Koenigstiger. At ranges less than 400m, in a 1 on 1 Tiger vs M4-76(w), the winner will be whoever hits first. If they're both, say, 30 degrees offset from the current direction of each other's gun, the M4 will win most of the time.

No there is no Allied tanker with such a record as far as I know. It matters not. The Allies had so many ways to kill a German tank, and the western Allies such a limited participation in armored ground warfare (compared to the eastern front) that the comparison is trivial.

As for TDs - M36 is a nice platform. I think I would rather have a Jgpz/4 or a Jagdpanther though....

I like the M36 because it was open topped. Given that the M36 could do any tank, and that any Mark IV-V-VI could do an M36, I'd want to be in the one that I could bail out of fastest, that gave me room to rapidly load shells, and that left some room for blast energy to dissipate into space rather than making putty out of the crew.

Another quote from you: 'Since the P-51 was more than well enough equipped to destroy ME262s in most postures' - as far as I know ther only time a P-51 had a leg up on a Me262 was whent he 262 was landing. That doesn't sound like most postures to me.....if I'm wrong in this assertion I would like to know the other situations where a Mustang had the advantage.

Any ME262 travelling at speeds less than 400 mph. That's MOST of the time an ME262 is airborne. The P51 could out turn, out-climb at altitude, and out-accelerate an ME262. So if your ME262 is coming out of a pull through (or is it a push through? I always get the two mixed up), a vertical zoom followed by roll-out and horizontal acceleration, it is vulnerable. In a diveout and rollout it can run like hell and there is nothing that can catch it. It is best to think of an ME262 as a normal twin engined fighter that can, for brief intervals, develop unbelievable speed.

In short - I think you're over-stating your case. The Axis could not have won. That does not mean they did not often have superior equipment.

Again, superior to what? In a small portion of its flight envelope the ME262 was much better than the P-51? So what? It was so vulnerable in all other respects that the Allies could afford to delay production of the P-80 until the Allies were happy with the design. In the mean time, P51s and P47s ate the ME262 for lunch in all other flight profiles. Including "parked" of course, in which configuration ME262s remained much longer (per unit of air time) than piston engined varieties. It remains the case that the P80, despite being straight winged, was a much better jet. Had it been needed in 1944, or 1943, the resources would have been available to make it better and faster. And it would, of course, have cost a buttload more per plane.

[mdiehl]

I found this mess on-line reduxing numbers that I'd seen elsewhere quite a while ago.

Losses in the Battle of Britain
July 1940
----------------------
R.A.F. Fighter Command
----------------------

Hurricane 33 destroyed, 17 damaged, 23 killed, 0 missing, 11 wounded
Spitfire 34 destroyed, 24 damaged, 25 killed, 0 missing, 9 wounded
Blenheim 4 destroyed, 1 damaged, 9 killed, 0 missing, 1 wounded
Defiant 6 destroyed, 1 damaged, 10 killed, 0 missing, 2 wounded
TOTAL: 77 destroyed, 43 damaged, 67 killed, 0 missing, 23 wounded

----------------------
Luftwaffe
----------------------
Dornier Do 17 39 destroyed, 13 damaged, 30 killed, 74 missing, 19 wounded
Junkers Ju 87 13 destroyed, 11 damaged, 10 killed, 12 missing, 3 wounded
Junkers Ju 88 39 destroyed, 11 damaged, 52 killed, 67 missing, 11 wounded
Heinkel He 111 32 destroyed, 3 damaged, 52 killed, 85 missing, 6 wounded
Mess. 109 48 destroyed, 14 damaged, 17 killed, 14 missing, 13 wounded
Mess. 110 18 destroyed, 4 damaged, 13 killed, 17 missing, 2 wounded
Other 27 destroyed, 1 damaged, 19 killed, 33 missing, 15 wounded
TOTAL: 216 destroyed, 57 damaged, 193 killed, 302 missing, 69 wounded

----------------------
August 1940
----------------------
R.A.F. Fighter Command
----------------------
Hurricane 211 destroyed, 44 damaged, 85 killed, 1 missing, 68 wounded
Spitfire 113 destroyed, 40 damaged, 41 killed, 3 missing, 38 wounded
Blenheim 13 destroyed, 10 damaged, 6 killed, 3 missing, 0 wounded
Defiant 7 destroyed, 3 damaged, 7 killed, ? missing, 4 wounded
Beaufighter 0 destroyed, 1 damaged, 0 killed, 0 missing, 0 wounded
TOTAL: 344 destroyed, 98 damaged, 139 killed, 7 missing, 110 wounded

----------------------
Luftwaffe
----------------------

Dornier Do 17 71 destroyed, 30 damaged, 70 killed, 129 missing, 57 wounded
Junkers Ju 87 57 destroyed, 16 damaged, 35 killed, 58 missing, 19 wounded
Junkers Ju 88 89 destroyed, 32 damaged, 94 killed, 182 missing, 19 wounded
Heinkel He 111 89 destroyed, 15 damaged, 113 killed, 204 missing, 35 wounded
Mess. 109 217 destroyed, 45 damaged,54 killed, 91 missing, 39 wounded
Mess. 110 119 destroyed, 40 damaged, 80 killed, 113 missing, 22 wounded
Other 27 destroyed, 4 damaged, 17 killed, 27 missing, 10 wounded
TOTAL: 669 destroyed, 182 damaged, 463 killed, 804 missing, 201 wounded

----------------------
September/October 1940
----------------------
R.A.F. Fighter Command
----------------------
Hurricane 294 destroyed, 77 damaged, 107 killed, 2 missing, 10 wounded
Spitfire 195 destroyed, 76 damaged, 67 killed, 1 missing, ? wounded
Blenheim 12 destroyed, 4 damaged, 26 killed, 3 missing, 55 wounded
TOTAL: 501 destroyed, 157 damaged, 200 killed, 6 missing, 162 wounded

----------------------
Luftwaffe
----------------------
Dornier Do 17 82 destroyed, 36 damaged, 147 killed, 94 missing, 50 wounded
Junkers Ju 87 1 destroyed, 3 damaged, 1 killed, ? missing, ? wounded
Junkers Ju 88 175 destroyed, 85 damaged, 251 killed, 227 missing, 74 wounded
Heinkel He 111 131 destroyed, 78 damaged, 203 killed, 184 missing, 67 wounded
Mess. 109 326 destroyed, 96 damaged, 77 killed, 159 missing, 36 wounded
Mess. 110 124 destroyed, 26 damaged, 91 killed, 109 missing, 17 wounded
Other 43 destroyed, 7 damaged, 23 killed, 35 missing, 16 wounded
TOTAL: 882 destroyed, 331 damaged, 793 killed, 808 missing, 260 wounded

I've said it before, say it again now, and will say it forever. The Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because they were beaten, in the air, in daylight, not because they started targeting industrial areas at night.

[Mike Scholl]

MDIEHL. You are basically right, but left out the WHY. At this point in the war, and
for the next year as well, Britian was out-producing the Luftwaffe in Aircraft and
pilots. Japan wasn't the only Axis power that went to war with inadequate A/C
production to meet the demands of a long war.

[Halsey]

[&o]

[joliverlay]

In response to Mindehl who was very critical of the Me-262.

I dont believe P-80 production was delayed. Conception of the P80 was a response to the Me 262. The prototype for the P-80 aircraft did not even have its first flights until 1944. The version delivered to the ETO (some sources say only three aircraft) did not have quite the performance you cited, and was only slightly faster than the 262. Chuck Yeager is quoted as saying that he considered the two planes to be equivalent.

If the ME-262 was so outclassed by the P-51, why were a handfull of them consistently able to down bombers in the last months of the war even when there were 1000s of allied fighters to contend with? Considering how badly they were outnumbered, there combat performance (and kill ratio) under adverse conditions can be used to judge their capabilities. Also the cruise range you were so critical of is reported to be 650 miles. This seems better than many early war Germany fighters!

For those interested in this subject I recommend Gary Grigsby's game Bombing the Reich, which is still supported by a loyal following with patches and OOB updates on a dedicated Forum. There is a wealth of interesting information on this site. It is one of Gary's greatest games.

Back to the main topic. I think the production system will encourage players to continue into 1944 and 1945 as Japanese. There are so many was to use the model to try to get a "feel" for what might have been possible that I belive many who enjoy a defensive postion will want to try to hang on just a little longer (or perhaps a lot longer). Because the games victory conditions can provide a benchmark separate from the question of who won the war, people will play.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The Axis could have won the war if not for bad luck and poor leadership.

I do not agree but there seem to be two general schools of thought on the alt-history/strategy game design philosophy. One of them assumes that the Allied performance in the ETO was close to optimal and that Axis performance could have been vastly better than it was. The other is that the Allies made just about every possible blunder that could be made and the Axis performance up until mid-1942 was as close to optimal as it could be. I am of the latter pov.

IMHO it was something in the middle.

The Germany (Axis power #1) never actually mobilized all resources for "total war" (and when they thought they did it in 1943 it was way way to late and too little).

1. If the Germans had reinforced the Africa Corps and taken the middle east oil fields in 1940/41

The Axis could not have reinforced the DAK even if they wanted to. They were unable to keep sufficent replacements and material flowing for the force that they projected. Increasing the size of the DAK would only have made it less mobile and shorter-lived.

I think that original author though of case where attack on Russia would not happen in summer of 1941 (or would not happen at all) and that all resources Germany have would be put exclusively against the British.

In that case the British would have very very very hard time in Mediterranean (and elsewhere)...

Now that is the "What If" scenario of all scenarios...

2. If Barbarossa had gone off on time (Many thanks to the Italians for screwing this up and saving the world for democracy) and Moscow was captured in 1941.

The Germans weren't available in sufficient numbers at any time to take Moscow. Ever.

I think it is misconception to think that Balkans operations in 1941 (Greece and Yugoslavia) were major factor in postponing Barbarossa.

BTW, the Germans could have taken Moscow (if they choose different strategy and didn't pause for whole month in summer of 1941 in the center).

But the truth is that having Moscow would not mean winning the war.

The Germans made _HUGE_ blunders when deciding to go to war against Russia (and severely underestimated its army, man power reserves, industry, technology and people).

The very moment Germany attacked Russia it lost war.

The very same thing is with Japan - Japan lost war with attack on Pearl Harbor.

If the 6th Army had ignored Stalingrad and taken the Causcuses and the vital oil fields.

They'd have been cut off and isolated in August 1942 rather than November 1942.

Yes, 100% correct.

That whole 1942 southern adventure was idiotic in the first place...

If Hitler had not stopped the panzers at Dunkirk and the BEF was destroyed/captured.

That's a real legit alt-history. But let's put the blame where it belongs and stop pretending that the General Staff were a bunch of automata. The Wehrmacht stopped the advance (panzers were in great need of refit and resupply before an attempt could be made at Dunkirk to overwhelm the remnant BEF) and Goering promised he could put the BEF in the bag. And he almost did. There were just too many ships for the Luftwaffe to sink. Had the Kriegsmarine not been substantially ruined by the Norway campaign, the two together might have held the BEF in the bag long enough for the Wehrmacht to finish the job.

We have to remember situation in summer of 1940 at Dunkirk.

At that time the France was not yet beaten and conquered (although very badly shaken) - Hitler wanted his tanks for follow up operations in France.

Also, let us not forget that tanks at that time were rather fragile machines needing constant care and maintenance. The dashing German breakthrough via Ardennes towards sea took heavy took on panzer units...

If the US carriers had been in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th.

Would not have mattered in the slightest. The presence or absence of US CVs was a non-factor in Japanese operational planning through the critical first four months of 1942 when the extent of the perimeter was established. Even assuming you give the Japanese a walk-in at Midway and Guadalcanal, there's no where to go from there and the distance just stretches Japanese logistics even farther than it was already stretched.

The very moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the lost the war.

The only question was when.

If the war didn't end in 1945 it would end in 1946 or 1947.

It doesn't really matter... Japanese could have won many more battles than they historically had but, in the end, it would not matter... they were simply outmatched with USA human and material recourses...

If the Tone's catapult did not malfunction and the Japs located the US carriers first at Midway.

An old myth if there ever was one. If Tone's scout had flown its intended rather than its actual (historical, late) patrol mission, the Japanese would not have observed any USN vessels at all. In that event, Yorktown would not have been touched. Probably the result would be more Japanese screening vessels lost after the destruction of the four CVs.

I disagree with "mdiehl" here.

I believe that Japan could have (and should have) won the Midway battle and that had very bad luck.

But it doesn't really matter (see above)

The USA would not surrender of sue for peace if Midway fell (or Hawaii).

Jamamoto knew that and that the only way for Japan to win war was to enter Washington (that of course he knew was 100% impossible and he very well knew that war was lost when it began).

7. If the IJN didn't put out the stupid order about subs not "wasting" torpedoes on merchant ships (They were only supposed to attack warships)

There was no such order. The IJN doctrinal failure was in selecting patrol routes and missions for submarines, not in target selection once on their assigned patrols. It was probably the better chocie for Japan, since very few of their submarines had the range to operate where the strategic assets were until the US Marianas and Marshalls campaigns brought the US closer to Japan. It would not have mattered, however. Allied ASW was hyper effective after April 1943 anyhow, and few submarines, German or Japanese, stood much of a chance of survival on any given mission.

Again irrelevant IMHO.

Germans were unable to "strange" UK and Japan was never in position to even think of doing the same in Pacific.

If the Germans developed a 4 engine bomber. (The Ural bomber was cancelled in 1940)

If the Germans had put a 4-engined bomber into production, they'd have had 1/4 as many fighters. In that event, I suspect that the US strategic bombing campaign would have been an order of magnitude more effective in 1942-1943. Then, where would they go? The Germans could not project fighter cover over the UK (never mind the US or central Russia), so all the posited bombers would be meat pucks. You'd break the back of the Luftwaffe, permanently, some time in 1941-1942. And trying to engage the Allies in a strategic bombing campaign, matching them city ofr city and bomber for bomber, is like a featherweight trading body blows with Joe Louis.

If Germans didn't attack Russia or declare war with USA this might have helped them in combat with lone Britain - but that's another "what if" scenario (see above).

In historic sense it didn't matter at all (and that would even more lower the fighter production).

If the Germans hadn't stopped their jet program in 1940 (only to restart later)

Again, no difference. The ME262 was a complex tinkertoy and little more. Very fast. Very unreliable. Very short ranged. Very expensive. Very consumptive of strategic assets. If you're looking for something the Germans could have built more of to really make a difference, your best bet is the FW190. And pilots for same.

Me-262 was good aircraft and it could have been even better if the development wasn't stopped.

But historically it, again, didn't matter...

If the Luftwaffe hadn't changed from bombing the RAF bases to terror bombing of London (this started in retaliation to an errant bombing of Berlin by an RAF bomber).

The Luftwaffe shifted to London because they'd lost the daylight air battle over UK bases. It is true that the RAF was "on its last legs." What people fail to note is that at the time of the shift, Luftwaffe a/c were being shot down at a rate of 4 times UK ones, the Germans were losing pilots six or seven times as fast (because UK pilots shot down in the UK could fly again if they weren't killed in their plane), and the Luftwaffe fighter force was numerically equal to the UK one. In short, the RAF was panting, out of breath, bleeding and leaning on a crutch, but the Luftwaffe was on the ground, knocked out and hemhorraging in the dirt

Now this is incorrect.

Luftwaffe could have destroyed/paralyzed RAF but invasion of Britain was impossible so it, once more, didn't matter.

RAF was almost on its knees (there were enough planes but pilots were very exhausted and many experienced leaders were lost) when London attacks started.

It was said many time that Churchill lured Hitler to go after London knowing all of this...

We must not get caught up in the idea that we will always will becuase "God is on our side" or "We are destined to do so". We got lucky several times in WW2 and since then. We must not let our guard down just because we always have won. December 7th and September 11th have shown us this. Just because no one has kicked our ass doesn't mean that someone can't. Remember when Spain and Portugal ruled large parts of the world? Same for The Roman Empire, France, England, etc.

True. But no one COULD have kicked the Allies ass in WW2. The outcome of that war was determined largely by logistics and, to a lesser extent, by technology. In every arena of technology the western Allies fielded better equipment, by war's end, than the Germans, and in greater numbers, and by mid 1944 were tactically and operationally superior. Combine that with the fact that the US BEGAN the war with 65% of the Global Product, and it was only a matter of time. The primary difference between the US now and the US then is that we have the biggest economy, but we are distinctly inferior in production capability.

Like I wrote above both Germany and Japan lost the war when they attacked Russia and USA respectively.

Nothing could have saved them... it was just matter of time...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I will play as Japan and will play till the bitter end in WitP. My goal is to try to be historically better than what it was...

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I found this mess on-line reduxing numbers that I'd seen elsewhere quite a while ago.

Losses in the Battle of Britain
July 1940
----------------------
R.A.F. Fighter Command
----------------------

Hurricane 33 destroyed, 17 damaged, 23 killed, 0 missing, 11 wounded
Spitfire 34 destroyed, 24 damaged, 25 killed, 0 missing, 9 wounded
Blenheim 4 destroyed, 1 damaged, 9 killed, 0 missing, 1 wounded
Defiant 6 destroyed, 1 damaged, 10 killed, 0 missing, 2 wounded
TOTAL: 77 destroyed, 43 damaged, 67 killed, 0 missing, 23 wounded

----------------------
Luftwaffe
----------------------
Dornier Do 17 39 destroyed, 13 damaged, 30 killed, 74 missing, 19 wounded
Junkers Ju 87 13 destroyed, 11 damaged, 10 killed, 12 missing, 3 wounded
Junkers Ju 88 39 destroyed, 11 damaged, 52 killed, 67 missing, 11 wounded
Heinkel He 111 32 destroyed, 3 damaged, 52 killed, 85 missing, 6 wounded
Mess. 109 48 destroyed, 14 damaged, 17 killed, 14 missing, 13 wounded
Mess. 110 18 destroyed, 4 damaged, 13 killed, 17 missing, 2 wounded
Other 27 destroyed, 1 damaged, 19 killed, 33 missing, 15 wounded
TOTAL: 216 destroyed, 57 damaged, 193 killed, 302 missing, 69 wounded

----------------------
August 1940
----------------------
R.A.F. Fighter Command
----------------------
Hurricane 211 destroyed, 44 damaged, 85 killed, 1 missing, 68 wounded
Spitfire 113 destroyed, 40 damaged, 41 killed, 3 missing, 38 wounded
Blenheim 13 destroyed, 10 damaged, 6 killed, 3 missing, 0 wounded
Defiant 7 destroyed, 3 damaged, 7 killed, ? missing, 4 wounded
Beaufighter 0 destroyed, 1 damaged, 0 killed, 0 missing, 0 wounded
TOTAL: 344 destroyed, 98 damaged, 139 killed, 7 missing, 110 wounded

----------------------
Luftwaffe
----------------------

Dornier Do 17 71 destroyed, 30 damaged, 70 killed, 129 missing, 57 wounded
Junkers Ju 87 57 destroyed, 16 damaged, 35 killed, 58 missing, 19 wounded
Junkers Ju 88 89 destroyed, 32 damaged, 94 killed, 182 missing, 19 wounded
Heinkel He 111 89 destroyed, 15 damaged, 113 killed, 204 missing, 35 wounded
Mess. 109 217 destroyed, 45 damaged,54 killed, 91 missing, 39 wounded
Mess. 110 119 destroyed, 40 damaged, 80 killed, 113 missing, 22 wounded
Other 27 destroyed, 4 damaged, 17 killed, 27 missing, 10 wounded
TOTAL: 669 destroyed, 182 damaged, 463 killed, 804 missing, 201 wounded

----------------------
September/October 1940
----------------------
R.A.F. Fighter Command
----------------------
Hurricane 294 destroyed, 77 damaged, 107 killed, 2 missing, 10 wounded
Spitfire 195 destroyed, 76 damaged, 67 killed, 1 missing, ? wounded
Blenheim 12 destroyed, 4 damaged, 26 killed, 3 missing, 55 wounded
TOTAL: 501 destroyed, 157 damaged, 200 killed, 6 missing, 162 wounded

----------------------
Luftwaffe
----------------------
Dornier Do 17 82 destroyed, 36 damaged, 147 killed, 94 missing, 50 wounded
Junkers Ju 87 1 destroyed, 3 damaged, 1 killed, ? missing, ? wounded
Junkers Ju 88 175 destroyed, 85 damaged, 251 killed, 227 missing, 74 wounded
Heinkel He 111 131 destroyed, 78 damaged, 203 killed, 184 missing, 67 wounded
Mess. 109 326 destroyed, 96 damaged, 77 killed, 159 missing, 36 wounded
Mess. 110 124 destroyed, 26 damaged, 91 killed, 109 missing, 17 wounded
Other 43 destroyed, 7 damaged, 23 killed, 35 missing, 16 wounded
TOTAL: 882 destroyed, 331 damaged, 793 killed, 808 missing, 260 wounded

I've said it before, say it again now, and will say it forever. The Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain because they were beaten, in the air, in daylight, not because they started targeting industrial areas at night.

Found the link using advanced search in Google. Here it is:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/g ... ength.html

[Pascal_slith]

Two excellent articles on why the Japanese lost at Midway can be found online in the Naval War College Review. The first one is by Isom in 2000 and the second is a rebuttal by John Parshall et al. in 2001.

[mdiehl]

I dont believe P-80 production was delayed. Conception of the P80 was a response to the Me 262. The prototype for the P-80 aircraft did not even have its first flights until 1944. The version delivered to the ETO (some sources say only three aircraft) did not have quite the performance you cited, and was only slightly faster than the 262. Chuck Yeager is quoted as saying that he considered the two planes to be equivalent.

Incorrect. The P-80 was started because the P-59 (Bell's entry into the jet design world) was not progressing adequately given intel on the specs of a pending Heinkel jet. The ME262 was rumoured to be better than the Heinkel, but had not yet been deployed operationally in any theater when the XP-80 prject started on 21 June 1943. 143 days later the first XP-80 was available for pre-flight but found to have ducting problems. The main point here is that the first flight-test worthy XP-80s predated operational deployment and any real information on the ME-262's capabilities by more than a year. Production on the P-80 was delayed initially for about a month because of kinks in the design, and subsequently because a much better GE-engine was in the final stages of testing. The problem was that the new GE-engine was substantially larger (and, for the benefit, provided much more thrust than the Goblin engine used by the UK designs or anything in the German designs), and required up-sizing the aircraft to accommodate it.

If the ME-262 was so outclassed by the P-51, why were a handfull of them consistently able to down bombers in the last months of the war even when there were 1000s of allied fighters to contend with? Considering how badly they were outnumbered, there combat performance (and kill ratio) under adverse conditions can be used to judge their capabilities. Also the cruise range you were so critical of is reported to be 650 miles. This seems better than many early war Germany fighters!

Cruise range is not a combat raidus. It's the distance an a/c can go on a leisurely sight-seeing junket. The ME262's combat radius was about 300 miles and its combat air time was about 30 minutes. That is why it had to spend a disproportionate amount of its time sitting on the ground waiting for the enemy, filling up with petrol, lifting off and landing. Since by mid 1944 Allied aircraft could arrive over German airbases and suppress flight activities more or less at will, the ME262 was unusually vulnerable in comparsion with piston engined interceptors of the time. As to it shooting down bombers. Many German a/c got through to bombers at the time, and some like the ME262 were better at this particular task than others. The point that I have made and that you ignored is that small numbers of ME262s busting into a bomber formation were not of sufficient concern to warrant a rush-job on the P-80, especially given that the P-80 could not have served as an escort fighter anyhow (because jets of the day lacked the operational radius of piston engined models). WTF good would it have been to rush to deploy P-80s when they could not be used to counter the ME-262 because they could not get to the area where the ME-262s live and fight? Moreover, if you're shooting up ME-262s all over the place and the threat is contained (as indicated by the ever decreasing combat loss rates to fighters after early 1944), who gives a rip about the ME-262? You build inexpensive (compared to the P-80 or ME-262) long-ranged long-duration P51s and P47s and exploit the major vulnerabilities of the ME-262 by wrecking them when they're trying to accelerate, land, take off, refuel, &c. The ME-262 was a visionary idea whose critical components had not been sufficiently researched and were not sufficiently developed to make it a war-turning plane. It was a novelty and nothing more.

By the way, many ME-262s were shot down while attacking bomber formations. This was in part because the Allies adopted new positional tactics for fighters assigned to bomber escort. The new tactics were developed as a consequence of mock engagements using the YP-80 that indicated that German jets would favor a level or high side low deflection stern approach because the high rate of closing in high-deflection shots made it almost impossible for a plane using a slow-firing garbage can dispenser (the main armament of the ME 262) to get a vital hit on an Allied bomber.

After September 1944 the principle limit on the deployment of the P-80 was the lack of pilots trained in their use. One could not just drop an experienced piston-engined pilot into a hot rod like the P80-A. Richard Bong was killed learning to fly it.

For those interested in this subject I recommend Gary Grigsby's game Bombing the Reich, which is still supported by a loyal following with patches and OOB updates on a dedicated Forum. There is a wealth of interesting information on this site. It is one of Gary's greatest games.

For those interested in the subject, I recommend that the LAST PLACE ON EARTH that you look for credible source information on the subject is in a game.

[joliverlay]

To Mdiehl:

I wrote:

For those interested in this subject I recommend Gary Grigsby's game Bombing the Reich, which is still supported by a loyal following with patches and OOB updates on a dedicated Forum. There is a wealth of interesting information on this site. It is one of Gary's greatest games.

You responded:

For those interested in the subject, I recommend that the LAST PLACE ON EARTH that you look for credible source information on the subject is in a game.

Actually the BTR forum is much like this one. There is a great tendency to cite technical materials on that site. Indeed much of the discussion involves comparisons to conflicting claims in technical documents. I imagine that as long as the sources are well cited, having them associated with a game should not be a problem. After all, your posting technical information on a game forum (from the same game designer) yourself.

I think you are being two hard on the ME-262. I've seen references to loiter times of 80 min. I also think that the loss ratio for allied fighters had very little to do with the effectivness of the 262. Its primary objective was to shoot down bombers, not fighters. I respect Yeager's opinion about both aircraft, and I belive the first hand accounts of those who flew the 262. Other aircraft were not getting into the bomber streams and making kills in the last months of the war. They were getting slaughtered. The versions fo the ME/BF or FW aircraft that could get throught the fighters could not kill bombers, and the bomber killers were getting slaughtered. The ME262 could loiter above the bomber path based on radar reports, fly direclty throught the escorts and kill bombers with cannon and rocket attacks. There was enought firepower to kill a bomber on a single pass.

Regarding your statement that the Allies did not need their jets. Dunnigan and Nofi noted in their work "Victory at Sea" that Kamakizi aircraft led to a great need for jet aircraft. In their discussion of aircraft which would have been used in an invasion of Japan they mention the ineffective P-59, and note that this jet technology was transferred to Lockheed, but they refer to the P-80 only as a postwar aircraft, it is not listed as one that could have been produced to counter Kamakazi aircraft had the invasion of Japan proceeded. Are they wrong?

[mdiehl]

The proposed PTO role for a jet as a Kamikaze interceptor is COMPLETELY different from the ETO role as a bomber escort. The mission requirements are wholly different. The interceptor role does not demand great endurance. The P-80 might well have been a fine anti-kamikaze ship. Had the need for an anti-kamikaze interceptor been anticipated, the US pilot training program might have produced P-80 ready pilots in quantity enough to deploy them in this role. But the plane itself, the P-80A might have accomplished this role. Thing is, the kamikaze phenomenon did not rear its ugly head until after the P-80A was in production, and up to that point it was still anticipated that the P-80 would be a land-based plane. To make it serviceable as a sea-based plane would have required a whole new round of experimentation to ensure that the a/c was up to the more rugged landings of carrier deployment, and would have of course required pilots that were both jet-qualified and carrier-qualified.

As it turned out, the F4U served extremely well as an anti-kamikaze interceptor, and the P-80 was not required in that role. This allowed the USN time to develop a more rugged (and not quite as fast) jet intereceptor for CV deployment in the F9.

I'm not being tough on the ME-262 per se. I'm just saying that the design was not particularly better than anything deployed by the Allies during the war, and that it was not by any stretch of the imagination a war-winning design. Had it been produced in greater numbers, the plane would have been matched, then beaten, within a few months, by an Allied design. Almost certainly the P-80 but who knows, maybe something else.

As to Yeager, he is a great pilot and I respect his judgment about many things. But I am very skeptical of "reasoning by anecdote" especially based on the guy's assessments of two planes, neither of which he ever flew.

You ask whether Dunnigan and Nofi are wrong. Wrong about what? They did not say that the P-80 could not have been made available. They said it wasn't available for an invasion of Japan. They did not say why. I hope that in recognizing the need for more extensive jet-pilot training, and the fact that you can't just take a design specified for land-use and plunk it down on a CV answers your question.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
TIMJOT, the German submarine shape was based on an American 1939 experimental design. When the US went to the modern configuration for submarines they weren't copying the Germans, they were implementing an earlier American's suggestion.

mdiehl, I believe you are mistaken. The Father of the XXI was Prof. Hellmuth Walter. In 1933 he put forth a proposal for a 300 ton sub, with speeds of 26knots surfaced, 30knot submerged, and range 2500miles. The basis of the project called for cleanly streamline hull, powered by a revolutionary closed cycle gas turbine engine. A prototype was ordered in 1939 and demoDntrated in 1940. It reached submerged speed of 28knots. Due to the war situation the Walter hull design was incorporated into a covential powered XXI boats.

After the war the USN took over two XXI boats the data from which was used as the basis for its "Greater Underwater Propulsion Power" programe (GUPPY) which retrofitted streamlining to USN Fleet boats.

In 1946 Dr.Philip Aberscon, proposed marrying the "Walter" hull form with Nuclear power propulsion, which begat the Nuclear power submarine of today.

The US had several swept-wing X-planes by the end of WW2. But the more important consideration for the ME262 vs P80 debate is which one is overall the better aircraft? The P-80 wins by a clear margin. The ME262 might have taken the lead if the Germans could have built a jet engine with more thrust and located one really good one along the centerline. But with two weak sisters hanging from her superior wings, the immediate gains of the ME262 swept wing design were lost to increased drag from the engine nacelles and the poor thrust to weight ratio.

I wasnt debating which was a better a/c. Of course the P-80 was by virtue of its superior Brit designed jet engine and centerline placement thereof. To be fair though, IMO the P-80 and 262 were not really contempories. Considering when development started the Bell YP-59 was the closer contemporary of the 262 and I believe that the 262 matched favorably with P-59. IMO a closer comtemporay of the P-80 would have been the Foke Wulf TA183 which became the basis of the MIG 15.

Regardless my only point was that of the superiorty of the swept wing design consept. The US did some initial expirementation with the swept wing design for the Curtiss XP Acender, but its version was a complete failure and development was dropped. That is why all US war designed Jet planes utilized the straight wing as was the initial protoypes of the F-86 . It was only after utilizing captured German development data (specifically advanced wind tunnel data) that it was decided to incorporate the improved swept wing onto the F-86.

Again not takeing sides on this just wanted to clarify.

[mdiehl]

A couple of technicalities. The Bell P-59 was using the Goblin derivative engine maunfactured under license by Allison. This was one of the early proposed engines for the XP-80 but in the end the engine in the P-80 was American designed and mfd by GE.

The Curtis Ascender was never intended to be anything other than a test platform to experiment with concepts for a high-rate of climb high-speed interceptor. It was not a "failed" design. It was a test design and nothing more. IIRC it was one of several entrants in a 1940 USAAF call for experimental designs. Another swept-wing fighter was the North American XP-56 "Black Bullet." One of the problems that the ME-262 faced and did not solve during the war was the outward flow of air from the leading edge of the wing to the wing tip, a problem that they attempted to solve by making the wing thicker than necessary at the leading edge (creating excess drag). It was a problem at high speed because it reduced the lift and stability of the swept wing. It would be very easy to overstimate the importance of the German jet designs for US jet designs.

A separate program, in 1941, called for the design of long range bombers capable of hitting Europe from the US, resulting in the XB-36 bomber prototypes that were available in 1944. The project was substantially scaled back in early 1944 because the B-29 was deemed ready to go and good enough for Japan, and because the need for such a bomber in the ETO was lacking. The XB-36 (and also the Northrup XB-35, in design at the same time) was a swept-wing design.