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

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

So, it underlines the point that energy maneuvering was more important than horizontal turning? now, re-read your previous answer and tell me which twin engine fighter was faster than a single engine fighter.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Retac, im pretty sure you were the one that implied that because a heavy fighter could use a dive, it could dictate the terms of the engagement. Considering likely the best one was the mosquito would come unglued in a heavy dive at something over 430mph,  and the P47 was clearly the king of BNZ which was assuredly faster than that, im not sure the argument stands up. Yes, clearly heavy fighters were useful when they could dicate the terms of the engagement. But invariably that was either well out to sea, or at night. By daylight, unless they were incredibly fortunate and having several thousand feet on the single engined fighters, they were likely not going to be able to run away, and assuredly not going to turn a single engined fighter either. Even a mosquito couldnt run away forever from a 190. Look what happened to Pick Pickard.

Im not aware of any wartime twin engined fighter that could dive as well as a P47 or a FW190. I dont specifically reject the Me110 on that score, im suggesting its a common problem from aircraft having 2 engines and thicker wings. You will have to point out to me where I said any twin engine fighter was faster than a single engined one. Alright, mosquito in 1940 was faster than a Spitfire, certainly. That certainly wasnt true by 1944, even before you look at things like Me262.

Interestingly enough, the Spitfire with the largest number of kills was the MkV, which was certainly barely level pegging with the Me109F, and probably not even that over the mediterranean with the tropical filter on, with a total of 2560 kills. Which strongly suggests that BNZ was not the only way to fight the air war.

https://hushkit.net/2023/11/02/the-top-ten-spitfire-marks-ranked-by-number-of-kills/

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Perun said:

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

Not in 1942. In 1943 we were arguably getting stretched. In 1944 we were getting near the bottom of the barrel. In 1945, absolutely. We had to disband 2 divisions in Italy because they needed to free up the extra manpower. But look where we were in 1945. Fighting in Northern Europe, fighting OVER Northern Europe, the North Atlantic, Northern Italy, Italy, Burma, the Pacific... for a nation that had only something like 45 million people, Id say that was was a fairly strong showing. As it was by all the Commonwealth nations of course.

Oh I see, anyone that we won against must have laid down for us. Of course. Presumably that include Rommels Afrika Corp, a notorious lot of idle shirkers the lot of them.

 

 

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, Perun said:

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

Let's just say that the Italians were usually better than the British and German propaganda gave them credit. 

BTW, the British also defeated Rommel in 41 already. Operation Crusader IIRC. They attacked, Rommel flanked but they kept their cool and send Rommel retreating. 

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Markus Becker

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

MkII being completely outclassed is not a surprise, but they say the F was somewhat superior to the MkV as well?  Surprising.

[RETAC21]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Retac, im pretty sure you were the one that implied that because a heavy fighter could use a dive, it could dictate the terms of the engagement. Considering likely the best one was the mosquito would come unglued in a heavy dive at something over 430mph,  and the P47 was clearly the king of BNZ which was assuredly faster than that, im not sure the argument stands up. Yes, clearly heavy fighters were useful when they could dicate the terms of the engagement. But invariably that was either well out to sea, or at night. By daylight, unless they were incredibly fortunate and having several thousand feet on the single engined fighters, they were likely not going to be able to run away, and assuredly not going to turn a single engined fighter either. Even a mosquito couldnt run away forever from a 190. Look what happened to Pick Pickard.

Im not aware of any wartime twin engined fighter that could dive as well as a P47 or a FW190. I dont specifically reject the Me110 on that score, im suggesting its a common problem from aircraft having 2 engines and thicker wings. You will have to point out to me where I said any twin engine fighter was faster than a single engined one. Alright, mosquito in 1940 was faster than a Spitfire, certainly. That certainly wasnt true by 1944, even before you look at things like Me262.

Interestingly enough, the Spitfire with the largest number of kills was the MkV, which was certainly barely level pegging with the Me109F, and probably not even that over the mediterranean with the tropical filter on, with a total of 2560 kills. Which strongly suggests that BNZ was not the only way to fight the air war.

https://hushkit.net/2023/11/02/the-top-ten-spitfire-marks-ranked-by-number-of-kills/

I am not implying that, what I am saying (not clearly enough) is that the fighter that has an advantage in terms of energy will dictate the engagement, that emphasizing maneuverability as a distinct advantage of the single engine fighter is a canard.

For example, see here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Performance_Data_on_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

Clearly this means the P-80 is an inferior aircraft, since it's quite less maneuvrable

"Turning Circles
In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value."

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

[RichTO90]

6 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

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

27 Aircraft completed, 70 in process of construction, none operational. Must have been some party. 😁

[seahawk]

6 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

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.

And that is the worst thing for the Allies in this "what if". The Germans would still be collecting combat experience in Russia and would probably develop their forces in a similar way as they did in reality.

The Allies would have had the last meaningful ground battle in France. Maybe a small fight with limited Italian forces in north Africa and it would have been a clear allied victory. And then the Allies land with Cruiser tanks armed with 2-pdr (which was effective in France and against the Italians), M3 Lees and early M4s. They meet Tiger Is, StuGs, PzIII with the long 50mm and Pz IV with the 75/43.

[RETAC21]

8 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

27 Aircraft completed, 70 in process of construction, none operational. Must have been some party. 😁

Fueled by schnapps, no doubt (the aircraft, not the party)

[RETAC21]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

And that is the worst thing for the Allies in this "what if". The Germans would still be collecting combat experience in Russia and would probably develop their forces in a similar way as they did in reality.

The Allies would have had the last meaningful ground battle in France. Maybe a small fight with limited Italian forces in north Africa and it would have been a clear allied victory. And then the Allies land with Cruiser tanks armed with 2-pdr (which was effective in France and against the Italians), M3 Lees and early M4s. They meet Tiger Is, StuGs, PzIII with the long 50mm and Pz IV with the 75/43.

Or Covenanters... M4s will do fine, and 6Pdrs would still be available as the Commonwealth would still have some intelligence and its development started back in 1938. Tiger would be a problem, but no more than in RL.

[Markus Becker]

24 minutes ago, seahawk said:

And that is the worst thing for the Allies in this "what if". The Germans would still be collecting combat experience in Russia and would probably develop their forces in a similar way as they did in reality.

The Allies would have had the last meaningful ground battle in France. Maybe a small fight with limited Italian forces in north Africa and it would have been a clear allied victory. And then the Allies land with Cruiser tanks armed with 2-pdr (which was effective in France and against the Italians), M3 Lees and early M4s. They meet Tiger Is, StuGs, PzIII with the long 50mm and Pz IV with the 75/43.

That gun was on the way out in 1939 already. Dunkirk and the Fall of France got it a temporary stay in production. 

By 1944 the 2pdr would be long gone and the Allied would have gotten combat experience in Italy proper. Simply because they didn't have the shipping to move everyone back to the UK. 

[Perun]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not in 1942. In 1943 we were arguably getting stretched. In 1944 we were getting near the bottom of the barrel. In 1945, absolutely. We had to disband 2 divisions in Italy because they needed to free up the extra manpower. But look where we were in 1945. Fighting in Northern Europe, fighting OVER Northern Europe, the North Atlantic, Northern Italy, Italy, Burma, the Pacific... for a nation that had only something like 45 million people, Id say that was was a fairly strong showing. As it was by all the Commonwealth nations of course.

Oh I see, anyone that we won against must have laid down for us. Of course. Presumably that include Rommels Afrika Corp, a notorious lot of idle shirkers the lot of them.

 

 

Lets be honest, I am not cheerleading for nazis, but Brits lost against Germans almoust all battles at the begining of ww2. Brits were better then Italians but Italians were good only in torching undefended wilages and killing civilians. My grandpa never said anything good of Italian soldiers and that was with reason. And in the begining DAK was only 3-4 regiments, not even a whole division. Brits had power but mainly in navy and air force, ground troops was stretched

[Perun]

Does anyone know some good analyse of "could British army conquer all of Lybia in 1940."

[seahawk]

27 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

That gun was on the way out in 1939 already. Dunkirk and the Fall of France got it a temporary stay in production. 

By 1944 the 2pdr would be long gone and the Allied would have gotten combat experience in Italy proper. Simply because they didn't have the shipping to move everyone back to the UK. 

How would they get combat experience in Italy, when the first landing in Scilly happens in early 1943, as discussed in this scenario. And now imagine British tank development without the pressing need to built better tanks due to combat in North Africa.

Would M3 Grants been shipped to India, when it has not been used in battle? Would the M4 been rushed as quickly, when there would be more tanks available? (no losses in North Africa)

 

Edited February 1, 2024 by seahawk

[RETAC21]

11 minutes ago, seahawk said:

How would they get combat experience in Italy, when the first landing in Scilly happens in early 1943, as discussed in this scenario. And now imagine British tank development without the pressing need to built better tanks due to combat in North Africa.

Would M3 Grants been shipped to India, when it has not been used in battle? Would the M4 been rushed as quickly, when there would be more tanks available? (no losses in North Africa)

 

In 1943? why wait so long? with no Torch, the landings can happen in 1942

[alejandro_]

9 hours 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.

The strong points of the 110 was not turning, just diving and using powerful armament placed in the nose. Flying high and at speed got 110 units many sucesses. Christer Bergstrom makes this point in his book on the Battle of Britain, where a 110 unit scored the highest numbers of kills. High casualties took place when they had to fly low and slowly escorting bombers.

If they were retired it was because a night fighter was needed and the 110 was the only type that could perform in this role. 

[Markus Becker]

46 minutes ago, seahawk said:

How would they get combat experience in Italy, when the first landing in Scilly happens in early 1943, as discussed in this scenario. And now imagine British tank development without the pressing need to built better tanks due to combat in North Africa.

Would M3 Grants been shipped to India, when it has not been used in battle? Would the M4 been rushed as quickly, when there would be more tanks available? (no losses in North Africa)

 

Libya in early to mid 41, then Tunisia and Algeria, Sicily maybe in late 42, mainland Italy in 43 as IRL? Sounds right. 

WRT tanks, you underestimate to lead up time. The Crusader entered service in 41, so development started a lot earlier. Dito the Churchill. 

And we also need to keep in mind the butterfly effect on the Far East. That's easily a few monkey wrenches into the Japanese offensive, which in turn frees huge forces for service in Europe. 

[seahawk]

37 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

In 1943? why wait so long? with no Torch, the landings can happen in 1942

Makes the tank force not better for the Allies, does it? And who would be in command?

[RETAC21]

14 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Makes the tank force not better for the Allies, does it? And who would be in command?

Wavell and O'Connor, of course.

[Perun]

Lost empire: it’s a myth that Britain stood alone against Hitler

 

By 1945 Britain had been joined in supposed solitude not just by the forces of the old “white” dominions, but by 2.25 million Indian soldiers (the largest volunteer army on earth) and a third of a million African servicemen. Almost 7,000 men from the Caribbean had joined the RAF and thousands of seamen from across the empire had served in the merchant navy. The empire sent money as well as men. Canada spent $1.6bn churning out RAF pilots and navigators, and the citizens of the distant Nigerian city of Kano, on the southern fringes of the African Sahel, raised £10,290. That money was sent to the British Treasury to purchase a Spitfire.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/sep/02/empire-britain-second-world-war-hitler

[seahawk]

5 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Wavell and O'Connor, of course.

Yes, most likely.

[RETAC21]

4 minutes ago, Perun said:

Lost empire: it’s a myth that Britain stood alone against Hitler

 

By 1945 Britain had been joined in supposed solitude not just by the forces of the old “white” dominions, but by 2.25 million Indian soldiers (the largest volunteer army on earth) and a third of a million African servicemen. Almost 7,000 men from the Caribbean had joined the RAF and thousands of seamen from across the empire had served in the merchant navy. The empire sent money as well as men. Canada spent $1.6bn churning out RAF pilots and navigators, and the citizens of the distant Nigerian city of Kano, on the southern fringes of the African Sahel, raised £10,290. That money was sent to the British Treasury to purchase a Spitfire.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/sep/02/empire-britain-second-world-war-hitler

Which is why Stuart is talking about the British Empire...

[Perun]

Still I doubt that they could invade Sicily alone

[Markus Becker]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Wavell and O'Connor, of course.

Generally speaking i remember the former as a good theater commander. Against the enemy and his own El Supremo. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

27 Aircraft completed, 70 in process of construction, none operational. Must have been some party. 😁