W.W.2 No Germans to North Africa...

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, Perun said:

Yes, but those numbers wasnt employed in any significant way and behinde those same  numbers predominantly was US logistics and industry. 

They were building up the forces for the invasion of France. 

[Markus Becker]

@Stuart Galbraith

Even twice as many 109s doesn't solve the planes range problem. WRT the 110. It had not met the German expectations 100% but it had succeeded so far. 

Plus the Fall of France and what followed could not have been forseen. 

 

PS: -E production began sooner than I remembered in early 1939 already. The redesign leading to the -F was decided in early 1940 with first deliveries a year later. So in order to have a chance of some being in the BoB the process would have to being right when the -E went into production. But at that time the version of the DB 601 engine the -F had didn't exist. 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Markus Becker

[seahawk]

43 minutes ago, JWB said:

LSTs? That might be true in late 1942 but by spring 1943 that isn't. If the allies invade Sicily march 1 1943 they can then invade the mainland by may 1 1943. There would be at least 6 good months for the march north. The biggest problem the allies faced during that campaign was the  Gari River which due to the torrential rains was swollen and raging in december 1943. In this alternate history the allies would reach that river in july/august 1943 when it was at its lowest and slowest. Allies would still reach the Po in 1943. They might not be able to cross it in november of that year. But they certainly would have before OVERLORD.

All landing ships including improvised port facilities.

[R011]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Maybe, but its still strategic bombing. After all, the later Mosquitos could carry the same bombload as a B17. Ive got a nagging feeling it was actually a Canadian crew that did it actually.

Im not saying it made sense at that late point in the war, and Im not certain they were using heavy bombers right till the end. But it does illustrate they were still bombing until a very late date. Mainly to support the Soviets I suspect. I assume they cleared it with them first.

A single Mosquito when previous raids routinely had hundreds of heavy bombers?  Not quite Arc Light stuff let alone Arc Heavy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

@Stuart Galbraith

Even twice as many 109s doesn't solve the planes range problem. WRT the 110. It had not met the German expectations 100% but it had succeeded so far. 

Plus the Fall of France and what followed could not have been forseen. 

 

PS: -E production began sooner than I remembered in early 1939 already. The redesign leading to the -F was decided in early 1940 with first deliveries a year later. So in order to have a chance of some being in the BoB the process would have to being right when the -E went into production. But at that time the version of the DB 601 engine the -F had didn't exist. 

It was in the Osprey book, Spitfire V vs Me109F. Supposedly it was a fuhrer decision. Although considering what a mess Luftwaffe procurement was after reading a biography of Milch, it may be the delay helped it. Though it still suffered from tail assembly problems and the self sealing tank liner rotting and killing the engine.

[Markus Becker]

25 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It was in the Osprey book, Spitfire V vs Me109F. Supposedly it was a fuhrer decision. Although considering what a mess Luftwaffe procurement was after reading a biography of Milch, it may be the delay helped it. Though it still suffered from tail assembly problems and the self sealing tank liner rotting and killing the engine.

Interesting, the Americans had the same problem at the start of the war when they retrofitted naval aircraft with sealing liners. 

[RichTO90]

5 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

@Stuart Galbraith

PS: -E production began sooner than I remembered in early 1939 already. The redesign leading to the -F was decided in early 1940 with first deliveries a year later. So in order to have a chance of some being in the BoB the process would have to being right when the -E went into production. But at that time the version of the DB 601 engine the -F had didn't exist. 

Earlier still I believe? 15 Bf 109E-1 and 153 E-3 were completed by 31 December 1938. There were 651 Bf 109E in inventory as of 31 August 1939. However, that was with 64 E-1 and 45 E-3 delivered that month.

The plan was to have Bf 109E-1 and E-4 produced through February and January 1941, respectively, with the F-1 production starting in July 1940 and ending January 1941 after 148 were completed for evaluation. The F-2 production was to continue through October 1941, with 1,401 planned, and by then all production was supposed to be the F-4.

[bojan]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...and binned the horrible 110...

Except 110s were not horrible by any realistic measure. During Battle of France they had lower loss rates than 109s. It is only during the BoB that they have started to suffer, but even then loses were not tragically by any mean. And after all, British also invested in 2-engine fighters (culminating with Mosquito) after so called "poor showing" of 110s.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, bojan said:

Except 110s were not horrible by any realistic measure. During Battle of France they had lower loss rates than 109s. It is only during the BoB that they have started to suffer, but even then loses were not tragically by any mean. And after all, British also invested in 2-engine fighters (culminating with Mosquito) after so called "poor showing" of 110s.

The ONLY time ive found a reference to an Me110 being able to outturn a British fighter was when Hess was flying to England, and his Me110, nearly empty of fuel and with just one crew member, managed to escape a tustle with Hawker Hurricanes.  Yes, as a zerstorer i twas fine. But that wasnt useful until 2 years later, and going in by night meant it had to use radar. And hanging radar on a 110 reduced the speed to marginally above that of a lancaster.

That they had the Luftwaffes best pilots flying it was due to a conceit by Goering, and undoubtedly got the best out of it. That they tried to replace it completely in  April 1942 shows how they realised, even prewar, it wasnt as good as it was supposed to be. In the end, they only kept the 110 in production till 1944, because they suddenly realised with the failure of the 210 that they didnt have anthing that could replace the 110 as a nightfighter.

I should add, Its not that the Germans couldnt build a decent heavy fighter, i think the 410 was an excellent example, and performed fairly well. (The least said about the 210 the better) And its not as if I think the idea of a heavy fighter was a bad idea either. But equally, the British didnt make the mistake of thinking a heavy long range fighter could turn with a single engined one in daylight. The mosquito could, just about, but only if it was a 190 which had poor response in pitch.

Basically, they were using an aircraft that wasnt even the best in its class, in an environment where no heavy fighter would do well. That it failed should surprise nobody. That anyone still defends it bemuses me.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Interesting, the Americans had the same problem at the start of the war when they retrofitted naval aircraft with sealing liners. 

Ive often wondered if this is what killed Franz Von Werra. I have read its what conributed to the death of Hans Joachim Marseilles.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 hours ago, Perun said:

ok so what did British do whitout American help

Have you looked at the LCT designs for example? Developed by the Royal Navy, of which we must have built well over a thousand, and then adopted and built by the Canadians and Americans. How do you think D Day (or Sicily that matter) would have gone without those?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft_tank

Nobody disputes the impact of American material assistance, and we were receiving equipment from them from 1940 one way or another. The point remains, we had broken the back of the Afrika Corp before the Americans landed in North Africa. That doesnt make their assistance immaterial, but it does make the argument we could do nothing without their assistance distinctly dubious. For example, Operation Ironclad. How many Americans do you see taking part in that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar

[Rick]

56 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Have you looked at the LCT designs for example? Developed by the Royal Navy, of which we must have built well over a thousand, and then adopted and built by the Canadians and Americans. How do you think D Day (or Sicily that matter) would have gone without those?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft_tank

Nobody disputes the impact of American material assistance, and we were receiving equipment from them from 1940 one way or another. The point remains, we had broken the back of the Afrika Corp before the Americans landed in North Africa. That doesnt make their assistance immaterial, but it does make the argument we could do nothing without their assistance distinctly dubious. For example, Operation Ironclad. How many Americans do you see taking part in that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar

With U.K. and Commonwealth blood being spilled in American tanks. 

[RETAC21]

16 minutes ago, Rick said:

With U.K. and Commonwealth blood being spilled in American tanks. 

Blood that would be spilled in British tanks if the Germans are not in NA and the losses caused by inept handling are avoided. The British ran short of tanks largely by their own doing.

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The ONLY time ive found a reference to an Me110 being able to outturn a British fighter was when Hess was flying to England, and his Me110, nearly empty of fuel and with just one crew member, managed to escape a tustle with Hawker Hurricanes.  Yes, as a zerstorer i twas fine. But that wasnt useful until 2 years later, and going in by night meant it had to use radar. And hanging radar on a 110 reduced the speed to marginally above that of a lancaster.

That they had the Luftwaffes best pilots flying it was due to a conceit by Goering, and undoubtedly got the best out of it. That they tried to replace it completely in  April 1942 shows how they realised, even prewar, it wasnt as good as it was supposed to be. In the end, they only kept the 110 in production till 1944, because they suddenly realised with the failure of the 210 that they didnt have anthing that could replace the 110 as a nightfighter.

I should add, Its not that the Germans couldnt build a decent heavy fighter, i think the 410 was an excellent example, and performed fairly well. (The least said about the 210 the better) And its not as if I think the idea of a heavy fighter was a bad idea either. But equally, the British didnt make the mistake of thinking a heavy long range fighter could turn with a single engined one in daylight. The mosquito could, just about, but only if it was a 190 which had poor response in pitch.

Basically, they were using an aircraft that wasnt even the best in its class, in an environment where no heavy fighter would do well. That it failed should surprise nobody. That anyone still defends it bemuses me.

Turning fights were not the way fighters fought in WW2 for the most part. Speed and altitude were the main factors, which is what made the P-38 deadly in the Pacific and why armor was so vital to fighters.

If horizontal maneuverability was the key, the Italians and the Japanese would have won all the battles and biplanes would still be produced in 1945, but every country understood that it was speed and energy that enabled the attacker to dictate the engagement and one became an attacker through superior situational awareness, be it with the help of ground GCI or through tactics.

If you want the ultimate twin engine fighter, then this is what the Germans bought to the party:

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Have you looked at the LCT designs for example? Developed by the Royal Navy, of which we must have built well over a thousand, and then adopted and built by the Canadians and Americans. How do you think D Day (or Sicily that matter) would have gone without those?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft_tank

Nobody disputes the impact of American material assistance, and we were receiving equipment from them from 1940 one way or another. The point remains, we had broken the back of the Afrika Corp before the Americans landed in North Africa. That doesnt make their assistance immaterial, but it does make the argument we could do nothing without their assistance distinctly dubious. For example, Operation Ironclad. How many Americans do you see taking part in that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar

Glad that you mentioned Madagascar, it is excelent example how little British could do alone. I didnt said that they were incompetent they just were undermaned and this is their main reason why they couldnt do larger operations alone especialy for longer period. British alone against Germans didnt have chance that is whitnesed in France, in Greece and in Egypt in first phases

[Markus Becker]

16 minutes ago, Perun said:

Glad that you mentioned Madagascar, it is excelent example how little British could do alone. I didnt said that they were incompetent they just were undermaned and this is their main reason why they couldnt do larger operations alone especialy for longer period. British alone against Germans didnt have chance that is whitnesed in France, in Greece and in Egypt in first phases

Take a look at the date. Lot's of other shit hitting the fan around the same time. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

With U.K. and Commonwealth blood being spilled in American tanks. 

Absolutely. Funny how Americans only have a problem with Ukrainian blood being shed in American tanks, but thats another thread...

As I said, nobody suggests the US wasnt making a valuable contribution with supplying weapons, and as you note, I even point that out in that poast. But as far as troops on the ground, there was none, at least until Torch. Even then Its my impressoin the larger numbers were witht he British until Overlord. One reason why the senior commander in Italy was Alexander and not Mark Clark.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Turning fights were not the way fighters fought in WW2 for the most part. Speed and altitude were the main factors, which is what made the P-38 deadly in the Pacific and why armor was so vital to fighters.

If horizontal maneuverability was the key, the Italians and the Japanese would have won all the battles and biplanes would still be produced in 1945, but every country understood that it was speed and energy that enabled the attacker to dictate the engagement and one became an attacker through superior situational awareness, be it with the help of ground GCI or through tactics.

If you want the ultimate twin engine fighter, then this is what the Germans bought to the party:

You say that, but an online poster went through the loss rate of JG26, one of the best units the Luftwaffe had in the west, and found, not altogether surprisingly, the vast majority of their operational losses were to Spitfires, which was the rate figher par excellence. People today deprecate the Spitfire because it couldnt go to Berlin and back, but rather overlook quite how good it was in the horizontal fight. And over Normandy in 1944, where the Spitfire had the height advantage a lot of the time, that was pretty significant.

Yes, of course Bnz fighters were generally more useful in the war, and the FW190 couldnt do much else. A the same time a twin engine fighter is a hell of a lot bigger and so easier to see, slower to accelerate and generally slower to climb. So in a fight with single engined fighters its always going to come off second best. if you want an example of that, Britains leading Mosquito ace made most of his kills at night and twilight, 29 of them. When he unwisely ended up over Denmark by day, he got in a dogfight with FW190's and got shot down. he was lucky to escape with his life. It illustrates a problem with heavy fighters, they were extremely useful in niche roles. But as soon as you took them up against single engined fighters, they were usually going to come off second best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Braham_(RAF_officer)

And yes, like I said, its not as if German couldnt build heavy fighters, and that was probably among the best. But as you also know it never saw combat, so it remains unproven, albeit probably the favoured mount of 12 year old boys on Warthunder.

Best heavy fighter the germans built was the Me262. And yes, that couldnt turn a damn either.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Glad that you mentioned Madagascar, it is excelent example how little British could do alone. I didnt said that they were incompetent they just were undermaned and this is their main reason why they couldnt do larger operations alone especialy for longer period. British alone against Germans didnt have chance that is whitnesed in France, in Greece and in Egypt in first phases

Lets look at that again about Madagascar, because I think a basic point was missed.

United Kingdom   India   Northern Rhodesia  Southern Rhodesia  South Africa Naval only:  Australia Netherlands Poland     Only one of those countries was 'Foreign'. The rest were British imperial forces. It was the same force... As for the rest, Im pretty sure you havent read much about the Western desert campaign, have you? Presumably the Italians were undermanned because they asked the Germans along?

[glenn239]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It was in the Osprey book, Spitfire V vs Me109F.

What's the overall assessment of the Osprey book on the Spit V vs the ME-109F, or F-4?

[Stuart Galbraith]

It covers the Spitfire MkII to MkV, and F1 through F4. It says the MkII was completely outclassed by the F, the V clawed much, though certainly not all, of that back, and then JG26 converted to the FW190, and it largely had ascendency till the MkIX turned up. Though it also points to the general absurdity of the Ramrods the RAF was undertaking in that period, and that we were just sending off good fighters and pilots to get clobbered, when they might have been incredibly useful over Malta and the Med. Its hard to argue with that assessment. Many of the best RAF pilots from the Battle of Britain, Bader, Robert Stanford Tuck, Paddy Finucane. All squandered with poor tactics.

The vs series generally get a bad review here, but Id recommend that one, I wouldnt disagree with their assesment, both on the aircraft and the tactics.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Turning fights were not the way fighters fought in WW2 for the most part. Speed and altitude were the main factors, which is what made the P-38 deadly in the Pacific and why armor was so vital to fighters.

The P-38 had altitude issues over Europe, at least early on. Why exactly is an ongoing debate last time I checked but in the PTO she was operating in a generally warmer climate and also at lower altitudes.

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lets look at that again about Madagascar, because I think a basic point was missed.

United Kingdom   India   Northern Rhodesia  Southern Rhodesia  South Africa Naval only:  Australia Netherlands Poland     Only one of those countries was 'Foreign'. The rest were British imperial forces. It was the same force... As for the rest, Im pretty sure you havent read much about the Western desert campaign, have you? Presumably the Italians were undermanned because they asked the Germans along?

Are you traying to say that British didnt have problems with manpower?

And fighting against demoralized French and Italians are not something to brag about

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lets look at that again about Madagascar, because I think a basic point was missed.

United Kingdom   India   Northern Rhodesia  Southern Rhodesia  South Africa Naval only:  Australia Netherlands Poland     Only one of those countries was 'Foreign'. The rest were British imperial forces. It was the same force... As for the rest, Im pretty sure you havent read much about the Western desert campaign, have you? Presumably the Italians were undermanned because they asked the Germans along?

Are you traying to say that British didnt have problems with manpower?

And fighting against demoralized French and Italians are not something to brag about

[Perun]

double post