Matrix Games Forums

Mdiehl - you've got me struggling here....you state that the P80 wasn't even a glimmer in a designers eye until 43 - a year in which the 262 could easily have been in series production by the Germans. Yet you compare the two as contemporaries and state that if need be, the P80 could have been mass produced to fend off the P80. If this is true, then why when the US bomber crews (and fighter pilots) were screaming about the performance of of the 262 were P80s not flooded into the European theater?

The ME-262 could not easily have been in serious production in 1943. The assembly plants were not tooled for the job and the aircraft itself was still struggling with serious deficiencies in the engines, particularly in re acceleration. Some improvements were made there such that by 1944 the ME-262 was combat worthy.

The P-80 and ME-262 were contemporaries. The limitation on the P-80 deployment was lack of jet-qualified pilots. I'm not sure what else you think matters there. Had the ME-262 made an earlier appearance or even threatened to, the US would have pumped more money into making P-80s and pilots available in greater numbers earlier. They might even have poured money into solving the basic problem that a P-80 could not fly from the UK channel coast to central Germany and back.

What you seem to have overlooked in several of my posts, and in the general examination of the strategic bomber campaign in the ETO is that jet fighters of the day were relatively short-legged. The P-80 did not have the range to escort bombers from the UK to central Germany. Even if hundreds of P-80 pilots had been available, you would not likely see any P-80 vs ME-262 engagements until late in 1942 because the US jets would have to operate from continental airbases. And then weather might well be a problem. But if the two had managed to meet in combat, the P-80 would have been the better plane in which to be a pilot.

As to US bomber crews and pilots "screaming" about the jets. The alleged screaming is greatly overstated. ME-262s were observed, recognized, and perceived as a dangerous threat. Despite that, by mid-1944 US bomber crews were pretty happy: in comparison with 1943 their loss rates to German interceptors of all types were low and getting lower. ME-262s, even when they made their very rare appearance, rarely shot down any bombers. And the price that the fragile, poorly accelerating, short-duration, complicated, excessively prone to mechanical breakdown ME-262s paid was to be shot up in droves in the air and on the ground by robust, reliable, long ranged, hard-hitting less expensive and somewhat slower piston-engined aircraft.

And if 262s were such average planes did the USAAF neef to catch them on the ground and refueling in order to destroy them?

That is an incorrect assumption. Many ME-262s were shot down in the air at combat speeds.

Please do not use 'the US was able to succeed with tactics (via numbers - generally)' arguments when comparing weapons platforms on a one to one basis. A Tiger is a better tank platform than any Sherman - arguments about the Shermans advantage at a 30 degree offset angle actually only reinforce the argument that it is an inferior design.

Tactics and numerical superiority are different things. One is, well, tactical, and the other strategic. But the general thrust of your objection is trivial. Combat does not occur chess-like on a battlefield. If it did, and if every combat on the ground occurred between 1 tiger parked on 1 ridge and 1 Sherman parked on an opposite ridge, and neither of them ever moved or indeed could not move, the advantage is to the tiger. But the fact remains that the M476(w) could penetrate the front armor of any garden variety tiger out to 1 km, and that covers just about every combat circumstance in the western ETO. The tiger had a lousy engine that was mechanically fragile, prone to stalling, and in early models given (at a low but alarming frequency) to catching fire. It had a slower turret travers, a lower rate of fire, and lacked gyro-stabilization. That is why, when hyper rare tigers actually showed up in the western front, they were often blown to little shreds by Shermans pumping shells into them from various directions. The only "unstoppable monster" in the German inventory were the Jgdpz VI and the PzVIB (I think it's the B -- the "koenigstiger"). Even then, 90mm armed US TDs were a match for these.

A 262 is a better platform than a Mustang or T-Bolt - otherwise 262s would have fell in droves before the US designs - in the air - anything can kill anything else on the ground. Please enlighten me that US fighters downed more 262s than 262s shot down US aircraft - despite the numerical odds against them - in air combat conditions (not while landing). In short, if the Germans were fielding as many platforms as the Allies is the 262 a better platform than what the Allies were flying (unit for unit)? To TIMJOT's points - the Axis never could have won - it doesn't mean they didn't produce some good weapons. If you really want to hypothesize otherwise, please think of what you are saying about veteran's recollections of facts.

Non-sequitur. I don't give a rip about recollections when these pertain to information outside of the recaller's reliable information base.

I'm going to disagree with you a little bit here, MDIEHL. Had the German's not got-
ten "sidetracked" with bomber variant's, The Me-262 could have been available in
reasonable numbers in the Spring of 1944. Would have still been hampered by
engine problems, but it could have made siezing "air superiority" over the Continent
a more difficult task. The P-51's were only available in real quantity with the start
of 1944, and the Spring Bomber Campaigns are what really "broke the back" of
the Luftwaffe. You're right that they were too unreliable and short-legged to change
the overall outcome, but they would probably have delayed it and made "Overlord"
a more chancy endevour. And neither the British or the Americans would have been
in position to put a "jet answer" into the air over Europe in numbers until 1945. Like
most German "wonder weapons" the real wonder is that they were built in place of
more proven designs that could have been available in greater numbers.

Please explain the substantial performance difference between a "bomb ready" ME-262 and a fighter-specific one? I'm pretty curious. Would the non-bomb designed ME-262 been deployed with weaker, less reliable engines? (After all, to lug that frame and the bomb off the ground you need more thrust and better acceleration). It may well be that the production delays in the ME-262 resulted in a substantially better jet than would otherwise have been deployed.

From all I've read about the 262 over the years, I've found that the fighter bomber myth doesn't hold water. Hitlers insistance on putting bombs on the plane didn't delay production much at all. It didn't take much effort to put a few bomb racks on the plane compared to the monstrous task of producing reliable engines - and enough of them.

The 262 was another 'almost in time' design, like the XXI subs. Introduced 6 months earlier, they could have inflicted hurt, but even if introduced a full year earlier - I seriously doubt they could even have prolonged the war. Would have taken much more than that to stop the Red steamroller....

Would have liked to presented a few good sources, but that has to wait until July when I get back home... My days as a banana bender is coming to an end soon [8D]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Please explain the substantial performance difference between a "bomb ready" ME-262 and a fighter-specific one? I'm pretty curious. Would the non-bomb designed ME-262 been deployed with weaker, less reliable engines? (After all, to lug that frame and the bomb off the ground you need more thrust and better acceleration). It may well be that the production delays in the ME-262 resulted in a substantially better jet than would otherwise have been deployed.

My understanding is that making the design changes needed to turn an interceptor into
a fighter-bomber delayed the initial production ordering process. Wouldn't have changed
the engine problems, or lessened the "teething troubles" inherent in all new designs---
just gotten the tooling and set up work started sooner and turned outmore A/C. As I
said, I don't think it would have made a major difference overall, merely delayed the
inevitable for a little while.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Please explain the substantial performance difference between a "bomb ready" ME-262 and a fighter-specific one? I'm pretty curious. Would the non-bomb designed ME-262 been deployed with weaker, less reliable engines? (After all, to lug that frame and the bomb off the ground you need more thrust and better acceleration). It may well be that the production delays in the ME-262 resulted in a substantially better jet than would otherwise have been deployed.

My understanding is that making the design changes needed to turn an interceptor into
a fighter-bomber delayed the initial production ordering process. Wouldn't have changed
the engine problems, or lessened the "teething troubles" inherent in all new designs---
just gotten the tooling and set up work started sooner and turned outmore A/C. As I
said, I don't think it would have made a major difference overall, merely delayed the
inevitable for a little while.

I think that Me-262 delay (and delays of many other things) were due to stupid Hitler's decision (but luckily for world and humanity) to stop all projects that will not produce (i.e. be finished) in 6 months.

This decision hurt German war effeort more than anything else (I think that decision was in 1941)...


Leo "Apollo11"

Well, the 6month-Stopper was very serious for german war developping in 1940 (after the fall of paris)....
in 1941 germany spent more money for marmor for hitlers building palns in "hreat berlin" as for ammo...

for the comments of a certain allied fanboy, ignoring them is better as discussing....

for the interested people, the russians recived the "nene" rr-engine in 1947 or 48 and developted (with drawing from the ta182) their own jet fighters....

for the me262 impact on ww2... these jets could have come not earlier as Autum 43, but at this time the germans had have many more good pilots (fighter pilots) to use em....

even if they had ahave 200 ready planes in january 44, they could have END the bombing, but not winning the war.
Why ? Because with 200 jets (with say 20mm Cannons instead of MK108 30mm cannons), ignoring the RM4-Missiles (the germans had ready since End of 43 but ignored untill the very end, developted by some chechan engeneers (to not forget the brain behind this weapon)) they could easy shot down one bomber per mission (because the germans lacked good bomberkilling planes with enough speed in 43... the me109 was to light armed and the FW190A-Series lacked the performance at high levels....

But do you remember the schweinfurt raid ?

If the americans had lost in dezember 43 in one big strike say 200+ bombers, they would have stopped strategic bombing at day... and this means that the germans have time to recover AND to fight easier targets at the channel....


For the german subs...
it is strange that the "schnorchel" was in use since 1940 by the dutch, and the germans had such boats but ignored the use of the schnorchel....

for the XXIer boats... they could have in combat 1 year earlier and this means zero superiority for allied asw....

the speed to seek subs is 10 or less in rough sea (and the northern atlantic was seldom calm), the form of the sub made them difficult to find, it could dive even deeper as the VIIer boats, had a larger range and better conditions and with the schnorchel had no need to dive up.... so all these planes, equipped with the Mark IX Radar (or inferior - also any Radar untill early 1945) does not find the schnorchel.... so they can´t find the subs...

with these subs outside, the allied losses increase again - this means they need more support ships, hit lesser subs (this means, more surviving subs, better trained and more experienced crews = better sucsess in the next mission, etc...) and have generally a larger problem.

For the Jet discussion and the question why bomber me262 are inferior to fighter me262....

well, maybe you try it next time on you own.... sit in a passenger jet and ask the pilot if he could win a dogfight in a real war ?

Bomber pilots had no knowledge about fighter war and viceversa... the higher speed of the me262... well, sure its crusing speed was just 500 miles an hour - made it impossible to hit anything with bombs... but the crews of these planes also were useless in a dogfight.... just sit an b52pilot in an f15 or f16.... i bet in a dogfight (no missles) he will perform great against say aegyptian mig21.... or nor ? how should he know what to do... even the iraqi airforce would nail him in seconds....

For the bombing war, Galland wanted the big hit - if hitler had given him this chance, it would have went bad for the allies.... because they had a lot pilots and bombers, but if 700 or more fighters had attacked say 300 bombers, undefended (if Galland had got his chance in 43) or even in early 44, the moral of the crews would have been destroyed (as the Schweinfurt and Ploesti raids showed...) You are not really concentrated if you loose 30% of your wings at every flight....

For the p80... i just wait for numbers (not from the allied fanboy) for its performance in Summer 44. We had this discussion about the night fighters and mr. fanboy showed the numbers of a 1946 recon plane.

I really am interest in these datas... because all datas i found speak about the 1946-version... and this one could use german knowledge....

also, if we compare the p80 with the me262 i have 2 questions...

1.) what changes if the p80 had been in service in 1944... it lacked range... so it could not protect the allied bombers
2.) what chance (if we would ignore 1.) have the p80 to stop the me262 to shot down a few bombers and escape ?


For the tank comparisation....
strangely, nearly any american tank crew disagrees with mdiehl.... also any combat results and records shows different results....but if he would use a m36, i happily would kill him with my jagdpanther [:)]

Fun aside, this does not mean that these weapons could have changed the rsult of the war, but it seems silly to me that with all this superior stuff the allied (western) troops were so slow (really lazy, aren´t they ?)

Oh, and Apollo, you meant the mg42 - not the mg38. right ?

Wasn´t the m60 the try to copy it ? and the result sucked and was inferior ? Why not just copying...the russians never had such problems, if one weapon system was good, they copied it. (oh, the germans did the same, the panther (my pov: best tank of ww2) was the german copy of the t34...

And yes, i would also like to play the japanese after 43....

but i also belive you could win the war (at last in the game)... if you hold the right defence line, kill all american carriers and battleships with small own losses and avoid bombing of the homeland, you win - right ?
In real life, the americans just would build 50 carriers more.... problem solved. But in the game, they will not recive them ?

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Well, the 6month-Stopper was very serious for german war developping in 1940 (after the fall of paris)....
in 1941 germany spent more money for marmor for hitlers building palns in "hreat berlin" as for ammo...

I always thought that "6 month directive" was issued in 1941 (after slow down in Russia... must re-check my sources (and memory) then...

for the comments of a certain allied fanboy, ignoring them is better as discussing....

for the interested people, the russians recived the "nene" rr-engine in 1947 or 48 and developted (with drawing from the ta182) their own jet fighters....

for the me262 impact on ww2... these jets could have come not earlier as Autum 43, but at this time the germans had have many more good pilots (fighter pilots) to use em....

even if they had ahave 200 ready planes in january 44, they could have END the bombing, but not winning the war.
Why ? Because with 200 jets (with say 20mm Cannons instead of MK108 30mm cannons), ignoring the RM4-Missiles (the germans had ready since End of 43 but ignored untill the very end, developted by some chechan engeneers (to not forget the brain behind this weapon)) they could easy shot down one bomber per mission (because the germans lacked good bomberkilling planes with enough speed in 43... the me109 was to light armed and the FW190A-Series lacked the performance at high levels....

The German research, just like German, Nazi government was very disorganized...

The R4M air-to-air missile with new sight for Me-262 was really deadly combination against bombers...

But do you remember the schweinfurt raid ?

If the americans had lost in dezember 43 in one big strike say 200+ bombers, they would have stopped strategic bombing at day... and this means that the germans have time to recover AND to fight easier targets at the channel....

True, but IMHO, this would not end the war or brought German victory - it would only prolong bloodshed (and enable Russians to go deeper west into Europe than they did since nothing could stop them on Eastern front)...

For the german subs...
it is strange that the "schnorchel" was in use since 1940 by the dutch, and the germans had such boats but ignored the use of the schnorchel....

Yes... such simple mechanism (and put RAM on it to fight radar ASW)...

for the XXIer boats... they could have in combat 1 year earlier and this means zero superiority for allied asw....

the speed to seek subs is 10 or less in rough sea (and the northern atlantic was seldom calm), the form of the sub made them difficult to find, it could dive even deeper as the VIIer boats, had a larger range and better conditions and with the schnorchel had no need to dive up.... so all these planes, equipped with the Mark IX Radar (or inferior - also any Radar untill early 1945) does not find the schnorchel.... so they can´t find the subs...

with these subs outside, the allied losses increase again - this means they need more support ships, hit lesser subs (this means, more surviving subs, better trained and more experienced crews = better sucsess in the next mission, etc...) and have generally a larger problem.

Although I think XXI's would be huge threat we should not forget Allied ASW development as well (like sound homing ASW torpedo)...

For the tank comparisation....
strangely, nearly any american tank crew disagrees with mdiehl.... also any combat results and records shows different results....but if he would use a m36, i happily would kill him with my jagdpanther [:)]

We had many threads with such topics in past... in many of them "Nikademus" and contradicted "miedhel"... [;)]

Fun aside, this does not mean that these weapons could have changed the rsult of the war, but it seems silly to me that with all this superior stuff the allied (western) troops were so slow (really lazy, aren´t they ?)

100% agreed!

We all know that Germany lost war when it invaded Russia (and this was reinforced 10-th fold when they declared war on USA).

Same thing applies to Japan (war was lost the moment Peral Harbor was attacked).


IMHO Allies in WWII simply were 100x stronger than Axis Powers Germany & Japan (let' leave Italy out of it) and victory was never in question.


But what bothers me is the view that every single Allied weapon and/or technology and/or commander and/or soldier was better than Axis counterpart.

The war was long and bloody one not because the Axis were weak - it was hard because they were strong and had good (and in many cases better) weapons and/or technology and good commanders and soldiers!

To think otherwise is disrespect to millions of fallen soldiers...

Oh, and Apollo, you meant the mg42 - not the mg38. right ?

Wasn´t the m60 the try to copy it ? and the result sucked and was inferior ? Why not just copying...the russians never had such problems, if one weapon system was good, they copied it. (oh, the germans did the same, the panther (my pov: best tank of ww2) was the german copy of the t34...

Not me... I never posted anything about MG's...

BTW the US M60 was indeed inspired by German MG 42.

And yes, i would also like to play the japanese after 43....

but i also belive you could win the war (at last in the game)... if you hold the right defence line, kill all american carriers and battleships with small own losses and avoid bombing of the homeland, you win - right ?
In real life, the americans just would build 50 carriers more.... problem solved. But in the game, they will not recive them ?

That's the hope... but given the force disadvantage I sincerely doubt it would be possible against competent Allied WitP player... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"

On a side note, Adnan, there is a board game that you might like. According to the game designer it is presumed that the Axis may win by conquering most of the known world, but if they lose it will be by a small margin of Allied victory. It allows the powers to research all manner of high tech projects. (And I am playing the Euro Axis in one game and the western Allies in another.)

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Oh, yeah. When I was a kid, we lived in Tucson and got an almost daily treat of B-36s flying at not much more than treetop height. It was the greatest memory of my young life until I discovered tits.

[:D]

actually, the MG 3 used by german forces today is an almost exact copy of the MG 42.

ORIGINAL: 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...

...Just a matter of time.... True, but that is what the "hypotheticals" are all about. How much time can the Axis player make the Allies take? If Japan did everything right after Pearl (and elected for another strike at Pearl on the dry docks and fuel depot's instead of heading back), won at Midway, nixed The Solomon campaign althogether, etc.... they may add as much as a year. If the Soviet winter of 41-42 had even been just an average winter and the Germans had not paused for that month they probably could have take Moscow (Stalin changed his mind a half-dozen times about abondoning the Kremlin before deciding to stay), but so what? Would the phychological impact on the Soviets been so huge as have a national morale collapse? In spite of losing Moscow, most of the industry had been moved to the Urals, they still had all the Siberian reinforcements and a large part of the Army still intact with a huge population base to still to draw on and lend lease ports still in Russian hands...... Maybe another 6 months? Maybe a year if they streamlined production on the best one or two designs of each weapon system.

But that's what the hypotheticals are all about and why many will choose to play beyond 1943. Can't "win" the war, but lasting until 1946 is intriguing enough to me. But need the ability to create some pretty non-historic situations in the scenario builder to do that, most likely.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

XB-36 in flight. [:D]

My father was an engine mechanic on that beast. He worked the piston engines. They've got a nice on on display at the Strategic Air and Space Museum near Omaha, Nebraska. Still a wonder even today....

But the the oddest thing I've ever seen is a little jet at that museum called a Goblin. The thing was dropped out of the belly of B-36 (and later a B-52) as a parasite escort fighter! We did some damned strange things back then....