< Back to OSY 1.0 thread list

OSY 1.0 Thread Viewer

Thread #: 1556

The Battle of Britain...

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Fri Mar 15 01:10:41 2002

The purpose of this tread is to discuss how and why the RAF won the Battle of Britain and what the Luftwaffe could have done differently.

Generally, My information is a culmanation of years of study and thought.  Many of my sources have been lost to me throught time, but I think I can recall a bunch of nice stuff from memory to make a convincing set of points concerning this subject.

Basically, England did almost everything right and the Riech did most everything wrong.  That is why the Battle of Britain was lost.

England:

Had a decent Radar system working and coordinated defence efforts well.

Coordinated troughout the country to salvage downed planes to provide a stream of parts to keep other planes flying

Had home-field advantage and the protection of the dismal English weather.

Germany:

Never commited enough fighters to protect the bombers sent over the Channel

Attempted to blind the RAF by taking out the radar system, but incorrect intellegence reported that the system had been destroyed

The fighters they did send had very limited time they could cover their escortee's over english soil

Commited to operation Barberosa too soon

any comments?

Imitation Gruel

Fri Mar 15 01:13:42 2002

New signature.
Harbinger

Fri Mar 15 01:21:28 2002

Let's see what I can remember from various sources (mostly from my History minor).

Germany:
- Focused (later on) on bombing London and civilian targets rather than targeting mulitary/industrial targets.  I recall being told that Germany was within a few weeks of British industry 'knocked out' but instead began dropping primarily on London instead.  This gave the RAF some breathing room and time to regroup.  (I also seem to recall that the first bombs dropped on London were actually accidental; a LW bomber had to drop its load to gain airspeed because it was being pounded by RAF planes.  Supposedly Hitler thought this was a good move and made London the prime target.)

- Didn't develop a large bomber.  For whatever reason (which I have forgotten), development focused on small/mid-sized bombers and multi-role airplanes.  Dunno if this was Hitler being overbearing or just a general policy of the Luftwaffe, but it seemed to permeate.  I read that the ME262 was designed to be a fighter only, but Hitler wanted it to function as a bomber as well, which only delayed its deployment.

And I concur with pretty much everything you noted (in that I was exposed to the same info ;)).  Oh yeah, and Hitler used a Mac. :tongue:

Jeremy Reimer

Fri Mar 15 07:12:16 2002

Hitler was really half-hearted about invading Britain.  He really wanted Britain to just accept Germany's empire in Europe, and they could keep their overseas empires, but Britain just kept stubbornly refusing to accept the Nazi domination of Europe.  Hitler was a fan of the British Empire and he was scared of their large navy.

"On the ground I am a hero.  On the sea I am a coward" - Adolf Hitler

Anyway, he reluctantly pressed ahead with invasion plans for England, but he was totally freaked out that the British Navy would destroy any invading force unless they had total air superiority.  Hermann Goering convinced Hitler that his air force could destroy the British air force and safely escort the invading troops over the Channel.

The thing was, though, that they almost succeeded, although they never knew how close they were.  At one point in the Battle, Britain was losing planes and airfields faster than they could build and replace them, and if the situation continued, they would eventually lose their entire air force.

But then, purely by luck, a British bomber squad went off-course and bombed Berlin by accident (they were supposed to hit a military target)  Goering had promised Hitler that the English would "never bomb this place, or my name is Meyer" and Hitler was incensed.  He vowed to take revenge on London for the attacks, and switched all bombing raids from the coastal airfields to the city of London.

This was exactly the breath that the RAF needed to replace damaged aircraft and airfields, and ramp up production.   They would never fall behind again.

The quality of the the British planes helped too.  When the Germans were suffering losses, Goering refused to admit that anything was wrong, and was convinced that the total destruction of the RAF was just around the corner.  One time, he asked one of his commanders if there was anything he wanted.  The commander replied, grimly, "Give me a squadron of Spitfires."

Anyway, the Germans gave up on their half-hearted idea of invasion, and later switched to night-bombing of London and other major cities, while the English and later the Americans continued to bomb Germany.

Had Hitler actually won the Battle of Britain, he could very well have gone ahead with an invasion, which, while difficult, would have probably been successful.  This would have made things exceptionally difficult for the Americans to try and launch the invasion of Europe (and they may never have entered the war against Germany if this was the case)

Madan

Fri Mar 15 12:29:38 2002

Yeah, what Jeremy said and, uh, you know...those U.S. guys helped a little too.


;)

M.

Jeremy Reimer

Fri Mar 15 16:26:36 2002

The Americans didn't help at all in the Battle of Britain, except for a handful of ex-pats who flew for the RAF.  Canadian pilots contributed far more to the Battle.
Madan

Fri Mar 15 17:44:00 2002

I meant the war in general.

But thank you.

:)

M.

Harbinger

Fri Mar 15 18:41:14 2002

from Madan posted at 12:44 pm on Mar. 15, 2002

I meant the war in general.

But we're discussing the Battle of Britain.

Though in a similar vein: JR, did the RAF use any American planes (thinking Lend-Lease here), or was it 100% British planes?  Just curious, as I can't recall it being mentioned in my previous studies.

Evil Merlin

Fri Mar 15 18:55:33 2002

During the BoB, there were very few if any Lend-Lease aircraft used by England. Remember this was still early in the war for the American involvment in suppling the brits with much of anything. In fact Americans still wanted to keep out of the war, they were still more than a full year away from Pearl Harbor, and 4 years away from D-Day...

Most of the planes used in the BoB were Spitfires (IB and IIs), Hur ricanes (Mk. 1 and some Mk. 2), Blenheim's and Boulton-Paul Defiants. Heck in a couple of cases the Gladiator biplane was used!

Harbinger

Fri Mar 15 20:22:06 2002

Mucho thanks for the info, EM.
AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Fri Mar 15 22:14:26 2002

IIRC, it was the Germans who inadvertantly started bombing the civilian population.  A mistake it payed dearly for.

Most of the lend lease stuff was crap compared to what the RAF allready had.  At that time, the front line american fighters were the P-40, P-39, and F4F Wildcat.  None of these were close to being up to par with the Spits of the time.  The American Air-War doctorine was a bit on the dumb side.  We didn't know what we were doing.  We thought bombers could go unescorted, we didn't think turbo-superchargers were important, and we were behind the curve in fighter development.

Evil Merlin

Sun Mar 17 18:03:23 2002

No problem at all...

ALYB, yeah the whole idea of isolationism was really starting to impact America as a whole. What a sorry lesson we learned in the Pacific when Wildcats (F4F) first ran into Zekes. Lets not even go into the poor Marines with the F2A Buffalo's. Ugh... Not such a great idea. But it was amazing to see the quick turnaround with the development of the Hellcats (F6) and Corsair (F4U).

Then we can talk about the 150 day development time of the P-51. One of the classic stories about just what the Amercians can do when push comes to shove. Hell paper to flying prototype in that time? Could not be done today.

pauli

Sun Mar 17 19:03:07 2002

did you really have to mention the buffalo? :p
Evil Merlin

Sun Mar 17 19:31:41 2002

In the great mistakes made by the US, putting the Buffalo against a Zeke was one of them....
AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 04:25:44 2002

Then we can talk about the 150 day development time of the P-51. One of the classic stories about just what the Amercians can do

Very true, you must give the Brits the credit for the engine.  It offered better high-altitude reliability than the American Allison.

One thing I do take exception to about the way the British handled fighter development was that they never paid much attention to designing aircraft with range as an important factor.  The Spit could climb to 20k in less than five and a half minutes by the end of the war, but it wasn't doing much good as it still couldn't pose any sort of threat while based out of England.  I think this was very short sighted of the British even though the need was apparent.  IMO, the reasons for their fighter design had to do with Elitist Schmuckery.

But the P51 fit the bill perfectly, and the rest is history.

OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 04:51:51 2002

american history revisionist make you believe that America was a big factor in helping defeat the germans. America was a factor but lets not thank the americans too much.

Hitler screwed up when he decided to attack russia.
russia was loosing big time but its a fucking huge country and its up north. the winter can be harsh and it self elimiate an army, or a large part of it.
THe german war machine needed resources. France was used to help germany.
The various underground french resistance and the aid from the SOE or england helped in reducing the ammount of resources germany needed in russia.
Anyway with germany weakend on both sides and the russian war machine starting to regain territory and eventually becoming so much of a threat that some historians speculate that USA stepped up its efforts in europ because they feared that russia would become to strong a force and we wouldn't want the stalinist dictatorship ruling the world.

none the less, i'm not to sure what to think of this 'fact'.

From what i've seen and read thus far (non american history books/documentaries) USA was not that large a factor in defeating the germans, but like all pieces in a puzzle, the US was needed to complete the picture. SO before the americans patriots come here and get nationalistic on me, remember i'm not suggesting that America was not needed at all, i am just merely pointing out that the emphasis on American being a BIG factor for the defeat is overstated.

Lets give credit to the russians, well the russia geography. And lets give credit to the french underground resistance.

Jeremy Reimer

Mon Mar 18 04:56:54 2002

The US was like the relief pitcher in a baseball game, coming in to finish the game off.  Britain sent convoy after convoy through the icy north passage to Murmansk, risking death from cold and German U-boats (and German battleships and battlecruisers as well!)  These supplies allowed Russian armies to hold out long enough to push the Germans back.  

The US did, however, do almost all the work in the Pacifici against Japan themselves.  

OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 05:32:00 2002

damn i am the king of typos. well i hate using laptops because the keyboard is too small and i have big hands. so it feels rather uncomfortable to type.

best keyboard ever was microsoft's keyboard a few years ago. THe one that was was split in the middle and angled. A lot of people did not like it because it was a tad larger. For me it was great though.

woot OFF TOPIC POST!

These supplies allowed Russian armies to hold out long enough to push the Germans back.  

That i did not know. thanks for the info

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 05:33:16 2002

american history revisionist make you believe that America was a big factor in helping defeat the germans. America was a factor but lets not thank the americans too much.

I think it's the revisionists that actually downplay the American involvement on the western front.

Hitler screwed up when he decided to attack russia.

Never doubted that.

From what i've seen and read thus far (non american history books/documentaries) USA was not that large a factor in defeating the germans,

The American involvement can be summed up by looking at actual facts rather than buying into nationalistic elitist print.  America was the force that broke the Luftwaffe's back.  America was the force that stormed Europe from the west at normandy and beyond.  yes there was other allied involvement there, but the machines and men were predominantly American as was the Leadership.

I give credit to Britain for protecting itself and for making a sailor of the wolfpack the most statistically dangerous occupation during the war.  That is not to be discounted.

I have stated that the Russians can't possibly deserve enough credit for their efforts(and hitlers insanity to actually invade them).  That war would have lasted another 5 years easily if not for their involvement  and and Allied Victory wouldn't have necessarily been the outcome.

But one reason stands out why the US should get even more special consideration:  It wasn't our fusking war.

OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 05:39:07 2002

But one reason stands out why the US should get even more special consideration:  It wasn't our fusking war.

Who's war was it in Korea? Or the war in Vietnam?

What about the fact that the Americans were part of the New Economic Plan(is that right?) that crippled the germans.  Yes i know the french wanted harsh penalities on the Germans since a most of the war was fought on French soil.

Besides the French helped the Americans gain their independance from the Brits, so i don't see why American decided it was not their duty to help the French?

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 08:38:13 2002

Besides the French helped the Americans gain their independance from the Brits, so i don't see why American decided it was not their duty to help the French?

And we aided them during their revolution.

Who's war was it in Korea? Or the war in Vietnam?

It was the Chineses.

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 08:45:02 2002

Funny thing the Chinese.

We were on good terms during and before WWII.  We helped defend them versus the Japanese Imperialists, but when war was over a Commy takeover took place, and then they sponsored a series actions that we were diametrically opposed to that lead to two Wars.

Talk about a change of events.

Are there any stable government anymore?

OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 09:33:50 2002

it was the chinese. It was the fear of communism that drove america. The US and its propoganda machine against communism drove it to take action. There was a time that you could not express communist ideals in the States inspite of the fact that the very country that opposes communism very hard in a way acted no better then the 'communist' country it feared.

Things are better now though but the echo's of the propoganda machineis still strong in the States.

Communism is not that bad on paper, and ironically i still believe that the US will be the leader/catalyst towards communism as Karl Marx envisioned it and not the distorted communism that was in Russia, to an extent in China. The 'communism' at the time of world war 2 and afterwards was more of a dictatorship. Hence you have stalinist and maoist communism but not marxist communism.

What about Kuwait? Did America jump into Kuwait and push Iraq out because it was a good deed? Or was it because they did not like Suddam Hussain?
Nah, Japan asked the States to push Iraq out of Kuwait because Japan depended on oil from Kuwait and since Japan itself has no standing army and as Japan has quite an investment in the US you can see why.

And we aided them during their revolution.

Am i mistaken but didn't the french revolution happen before America got its independence?

Besides you skimmed over the economic assits that US had for Germany. What of that?

America may have been isolated geographically but I don't think it was isolated politically and economically, was it?

I think it's the revisionists that actually downplay the American involvement on the western front.

I know there are revisionist for each country, its just that American's version of history is more prevalent especially on a message board that is majority American.

Besides when ever discussions like this come up I love to rile up the Americans. I remember the hey days of debates at college where we'd have a bunch of international students and american(local) students sitting around drinking beer and smoking cigerettes. Some how the discussion always always always ended up with some drunk American saying, "well yeah we have the a-bomb and all we have to do is pish a button and kill you. America owns you."
Which by the way makes no sense at all because the kid, though drunk, thinks that all it takes is a red button to send a bomb and that all the countries would be in fear of America. I don't know if its normal for the avg. americans not to realise the consequence of using nuclear weapons but i know its not the smartest thing to say to foreign students that all America has to do is use nuclear weapons.

Which by the way, reminds me of Bush. Great fucking job. We are not afraid to use bombs if needed. Well no shit. I think every country is aware of that. Does Bush and his peeps not realise the scrutiny his adminstration will be under if he needs to re-state his willingness to use nuclear bombs? For what? Against terrorist who needed to use commerical air liners to do damage. If these people had the resources for nuclear weapons don't you think they'd use it already?

Hmmmm...

lets not go there anyway. I don't want to think about the stupid state of the world right now. I wish people would just be nice to each other and stop fighting and killing. Stupid fuckers.

OscarWilde

Mon Mar 18 09:40:56 2002

Back to the original topic of this thread. I think that the battle of britan was biased because the Red Baron was killed... okay that was world war one but still...

I remember playing Red Baron a long time ago on my pc...

anway, AYB, i shall ask you on some advice about teh planes as i'm starting to play Warbirds. Playing with a keyboard and mouse is teh suck. I need to get joystick. I love flying games. I was pretty good with F-15 and Red Baron. I like the old war plane simulations because its more challenging plus it has this feel of adventure like Indiana Jones.

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 10:13:05 2002

Yeah America did nothing for the European Theater...

Can you imagine what would have happened had DDay not happened? Americans were the biggest factor in DDay. The Canadians and British supplied far less men and machines.

DuffMan

Mon Mar 18 15:11:27 2002

American history doesn't overplay our role against germany.

????

It emphasizes the parts we were actually involved in (D-Day) but i've never read anything that suggests that we single handedly defeated the German war machine.

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 15:34:15 2002

I never said single handedly, but had the US not been involved in the ETOC, the Axis would have ruled for quite a bit.

Lets not forget it was the Americans who broke the Luftwaffe.

It was the American's armour, aircraft and troops who did a majority of the fighting and dying for a good part of the war.

I am NOT saying other countries did not do their part, but it is kinda stupid to say that Britian and France (Poland and Canada too) could have beaten the German War Machine without the FULL military backing of the US. Maybe things would have been different if the Russians got involved earlier.

DuffMan

Mon Mar 18 19:22:43 2002

I dunno if I can agree with all of that EM. But it would be interesting to see some statistics on what % of the total german aircraft we downed.

You're proving OW's anti-US assertion correct.

Dont do that! :cheesy:

(Edited by DuffMan at 1:24 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 19:38:11 2002

Well I can tell you this much. The American's controlled the airspace over Germany so well one Luftwaffe General said

"The safest place to be in Germany, is it the air in a P-51"

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 20:35:30 2002

I dunno if I can agree with all of that EM. But it would be interesting to see some statistics on what % of the total german aircraft we downed.

I don't know.  that might not be as relevant a stat as one might think even though US pilots most probably accounted for more confirmed kills.

This doesn't account for planes, equipment, and troops destroyed on the ground.

It also doesn't add to the tally the total number of bombers saved by having a fighter detterent as an escort (which is a number that is impossible to calculate)

And it doesn't define where the aircraft were killed, which is very important.

The problem is this:  The RAF's front line fighter was the Spit.  It climbed well and was very manuverble, but it's combat radius was small.  Way too small to Fight over Germany.  It was a marvelous interceptor but wasn't a long range escort fighter by any streach of the imagination.  Other fighters like the Hurricane had the same problem.  I'm Not sure about the Hawker airplanes.  The same is the case with the Gloster Meteor.

The long and the short of it was that the only way a british fighter pilot could inflict significant damage over germany was to get in the seat of an Army Air Corp Mustang, Thunderbolt, or Lightning.  It is a demonstratable fact that the Spit and Hurricane just didn't have the legs to do it.  It's not that I don't think it didn't happen, it was just plain impossible.

:)

DuffMan

Mon Mar 18 20:53:35 2002

It's not so much that I disagree with his point about breaking the Luftwaffe (though I think thats an oversimplicification, you have to look at the strategic problems facing Germany towards the end of the war), but I dont think the US can take credit for the whole shebang.
AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 22:17:18 2002

but I dont think the US can take credit for the whole shebang.

No, not the whole thang, just the bulk of it.

Jeremy Reimer

Mon Mar 18 22:22:39 2002


"The safest place to be in Germany, is it the air in a P-51"

The P-51 only became the war-winning plane it was when it was fitted with a British Rolls-Royce engine, I think (ironically) called the Merlin... ;)  Until then, it was nothing special as an aircraft.  After the engines were added, and with extra fuel tanks, it could escort the bombers all the way over Germany, and mix it up with the German fighters who came to attack them.

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Mon Mar 18 23:06:38 2002

anway, AYB, i shall ask you on some advice about teh planes as i'm starting to play Warbirds. Playing with a keyboard and mouse is teh suck. I need to get joystick. I love flying games. I was pretty good with F-15 and Red Baron. I like the old war plane simulations because its more challenging plus it has this feel of adventure like Indiana Jones.

Indeed, first I would get a joystick like the Thrustmaster Afterburner USB with twist stick rudder and throttle controll.

Aircraft choice is largely preferece, so get a stick and try em all :)

Evil Merlin

Mon Mar 18 23:15:09 2002

Actually before the Merlin engine, (IE the Allison engine) the P-51 was called called by the RAF: "Great planes doing their unexceptional jobs well" and "a bloody good airplane, only it needs a bit more poke."

But yes, the addition of the Rolls Royce Merlin made things a lot better, if for nothing but the super charger and 300 or so more horses... lets not forget the move from 4 tilt mounted .50's to 6 in-line .50 for armament. The 4 tilt mounted .50's tended to jam a lot because of there configuation...

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 00:00:56 2002

The high altitude reliablilty of particularily the earler Allisons was sucktacular (especially on the P38 < J's due to the messed up intake ducting that snaked through the wing)
Evil Merlin

Tue Mar 19 01:07:22 2002

Yeah but it was never designed to perform at high alts (due to really poor American combat plans).
AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 01:27:42 2002

Yeah but it was never designed to perform at high alts (due to really poor American combat plans).

Yes, but the Turbosupercharger equipped Allisons had far less high altitude problems in the south pacific.  The problem at 20000ft < in Europe was that it was just too damn cold, and the engines weren't designed with High altitude european weather in mind (a glaring oversight)

Evil Merlin

Tue Mar 19 02:09:19 2002

Too bad the Mustang did not often go head to head with the Zeke...

Seems like the Navy and the Marines did most of the Air-to-Air, with the exception of the Fork Tailed Devil the AAF liked to use...

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 02:20:04 2002

Too bad the Mustang did not often go head to head with the Zeke...

Seems like the Navy and the Marines did most of the Air-to-Air, with the exception of the Fork Tailed Devil the AAF liked to use...

Well, I believe the P51 did have an appreciable presence in the PTO, and the same tactics as applied to the F4U, P38, P47 versus the Zeke would have worked for the 'Stang.

Evil Merlin

Tue Mar 19 03:48:42 2002

P-38 tactics were MUCH different, well at least until the J model, than all single engined aircraft...

Anyways, this is why OSY is so much better than Ars. Were we on Ars the fucking hippy, tree loving, non-meat eating peace niks would be out in force.

(Edited by Evil Merlin at 7:49 pm on Mar. 18, 2002)

OscarWilde

Tue Mar 19 04:21:12 2002

Anyways, this is why OSY is so much better than Ars. Were we on Ars the fucking hippy, tree loving, non-meat eating peace niks would be out in force.

Huh? i don't get that? Are you talking about the lounge and soap box? I never go there, especially because of the subscription and secondly because i can't run around and be silly like AYB.
None the less, i'm glad you are now posting here more frequently. You are more serious then the regular osy members who are vewy vewy silly but your posts are fun to read.
I'm more impressed that you and Madan are getting along a lot better then peterb and madan does. :biggrin:

ANyway, don't we already have a thread discussing planes? Looks like there are parallel discussions going on. Hmmm...

Going back to your comments:

Yeah America did nothing for the European Theater...

Can you imagine what would have happened had DDay not happened? Americans were the biggest factor in DDay. The Canadians and British supplied far less men and machines.

Yet somehow you missed what i said earlier:

USA was not that large a factor in defeating the germans, but like all pieces in a puzzle, the US was needed to complete the picture. ...i'm not suggesting that America was not needed at all, i am just merely pointing out that the emphasis on American being a BIG factor for the defeat is overstated.

I already wrote that the US was needed and i never suggested that europe could have won without US support. The factors that helped beat the germans was the Russian's forcing Germany to get stress its resources. And then with the underground french resistance movement, like MOI, FEP (?) , Maquie (sp?) and other groups that not only gathered intelligence but also at least made a problem for the Germans in regards to getting the war resources. Plus we must remember the French general and the SOE that helped unify the underground french resistance to work towards a goal in the end (D-Day).

I was always under the assumption that of all the air forces during world war ii, the americans had the least advanced one. Wasn't the German Luftwaffe ahead of its time and the Brits RAF superior in technical and skills?

I must say, that i'm sorely miss the History channel in the US. :(

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 04:39:48 2002

E_M

P-38 tactics were MUCH different, well at least until the J model, than all single engined aircraft...

Howso?  At least when talking about tactics versus Zekes tactics were this:

Keep airspeed above 250mph, above such speeds the controll surfaces of Zekes get stiff.

Don't engage in slowspeed turns with the zeke, avoid mixing it up in tight loops and other high angle of attack manuevers

Always try to gain altitude advantage and attack from above, zooming back up to altitude after the attack.  A Zeke cannot catch a Lighting in a shallow climb.  If at a disadvantage, push the trottle open and put the nose down into a dive.  The Zeke won't be able to follow.

In the ETO, tactics were of course different, but would not the same general tactics apply in a Mustang versus Zeke matchup?

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 05:07:22 2002

I was always under the assumption that of all the air forces during world war ii, the americans had the least advanced one. Wasn't the German Luftwaffe ahead of its time and the Brits RAF superior in technical and skills?

Initially yes.  During 1943 it was a different story.  The Germans (and consequentially the Japanese) and the British developed Jetfighters first, but the inherent problem with jets was their very limited range, which was not much use to the allies at the time with regards to the real need to battle it out over the long distances to Germany and in the Pacific.

The American war doctorine in 1940 focused on development of Large Long range bombers with the expectation that such Bombers would be able to fend off enemy interceptors by themselves.  Therein lies the development of the Famous B-17 Flying Fortress.  But the Americans couldn't have been more wrong in that theory, a theory which put them behind the curve in Fighter Development.

At the start of the War here were the American Front line Fighters:

P40
P39
P35
F4F
F2F

They tended to be rather rugged, but were slower than British or Axis fighters, didn't climb to well or perform well above 15,000 feet due to lack of turbosuperchargers.  Some of them weren't particularily Manuverable, others lacked armament, others climbed poorly.  They were simply outclassed.

Later came the P-47 Thunderbolt, a heavy and durable plane based on a radial engine design.  It offered great high altitude performance and was faster than anything in the air when it was introduced.

After significant development, the P-38 arrived in force, and despite initial problems with such things as engine relaibility problems, flutter, cold, and compressablilty It could outfight anything in the ETO under 15,000 feet and absolutely beat up the Japanese in the Pacific and it's range stiffled the Germans in Europe and in Africa.  It was an interesting, heavy twin engine design that is my most favorite and most often studied aircraft.

Then came the P-51.  A sleek fighter initially designed (as some insist) as a low level fighter.  It was coupled with the Merlin Engine which provided more power and better high altitude performance (which the early P-38's lacked) and very long range.

With the exception of some limited run Luftwaffe Fighters and perhaps The Ki-84 and Late Model Spits, the American Piston engined fighters ouclassed their contemporaries from any other nation, IMO. :)

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Tue Mar 19 05:08:16 2002

Of course I forget the F4U Corsair, which was a fine aircraft in it's own right :)
OscarWilde

Tue Mar 19 05:10:58 2002

interesting indeed...
Riso

Wed Mar 20 11:55:44 2002

Another worthy post for the front.
Evil Merlin

Wed Mar 20 14:23:03 2002

Yeah but the F4u had one major flaw, poor on ground visibility which made it nearly impossible to fly from carriers (even though it WAS used from carriers) and the issue was SO bad, it got the nice name "Ensign Killer". The WHOLE reason it got gull wings, and the ONLY reason it got gull wings is because the size of the damn prop. It was the start of building airframes around engines. Much like the F8F Bearcat...
Ookla

Thu Mar 21 13:41:38 2002

Hmm, BoB was won mainly by the brits with almost nil help from US. The other allies were a lot more important, the canadians, aussies, french, czechs, poles and other nationalities.

The war was won by the russians, they broke the germans. Noone else did. They did have help, they received plenty of aid (well, the subpar allied HW excluded that is) and the threat of the Second Front made it impossible for Germany to put all it's efforts into subduing Russia. But when D-day actually happened the war was over, the eastern european countries got fucked over by the brits and americans with whom they once fought shoulder to shoulder against the Nazis and the cold war was on the rise.

Evil Merlin

Thu Mar 21 14:14:15 2002

Wow, looks like someone knows nothing about the war. Yes the Brits won the BoB, but there was a lot more to it than just the pilots. Quite frankly it was Radar and a good, no, make that excellent communications .

The Americans broke the back of the Luftwaffe, not the Russians. Hell it really was not till 1944 that the Russians could put up half way decent air-to-air fighters.

What broke the Germans on the Western Front was more the responsibility of Hitlers mistakes...

The Brits and Americans fucked over the Allies and Russians??? I think NOT. Russia was already killing it's own citizens and soldiers as Lenin spread his evil across nearly the whole of western europe and asia. Russia started the blockade of Berlin, not American's, not British.

You best look a bit more on how and why the cold war started boy.


(Edited by Evil Merlin at 6:20 am on Mar. 21, 2002)

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Thu Mar 21 14:59:44 2002

The war was won by the russians,

They did indeed take a huge beating from ground forces.  But they wouldn't have won without US involvement from the East.  heck if you really look at what defeated the third Riech, it was probably Germany's crummy decisions.

As for creation of the Eastern European Communist Block countries, um, The US and Britain had nothing to do with that.

Ookla

Thu Mar 21 15:30:50 2002

LOL E_M, spoken like a true master ;)

Yes, I do know about the importance of radar and the WAF as well as the good comms. But the persons manning those as well as a majority of the pilots were brits with a few allies sprinkled inbetween. So what exactly do you disagree with?

The war was won on the ground by the russians, the americans didn't break the Luftwaffe (check up on how the LW was positioned and spread out before you start talking). And yes, the brits and americans had the better planes than the russians but they didn't have to face the brunt of the Luftwaffe either, they weren't involved in a conflict for which LW was designed and trained for. By the time the Americans and Brits started to do something of significance over France, Benelux and Germany (1943) the russians were already advancing after they had broken the back of Wehrmacht in Stalingrad and then succesfully fended off the last big Nazi assault at Kursk. They did it by sheer ruthlessness and numbers, not by superior HW (the tanks were quite good though). Yeah, the Brits and Americans did a lot but they were more of a potential danger than a real one in the first 3-4 years of the war when the European Theatre is concerned. If it weren't for russians we would be all speaking German now (well, the americans would be speaking japanese ;) )

And yes, the Brits and Americans fucked over the czechs, the poles and others who fought with them by handing over their countries to Russia.  Realpolitik I think it's called :) One of the least graceful pages of history IMHO.

AYB, well, yeah, we could say that the Germans lost the war but still, there is no proof that if they had done things differently the outcome would have been different than what it was.

(Edited by Ookla at 7:33 am on Mar. 21, 2002)

Evil Merlin

Thu Mar 21 16:35:57 2002

Where the HELL did you get such a distorted view of history?

You best review your WW2 air war history. America broke the back of the Luftwaffe. By the time the Russians had started torwards Berlin, the Luftwaffe was already 90% in it's grave. Done in mostly by American B-17 daytime raids of air feilds, construction yards and plants. All of this was possible as the American aircraft of 1943-1944 were able to pick and choose when and where to fight.

You gotta like an army that in order to keep it's soldiers fighting, the officers had to shoot masses of their own troops.

Hitler lost the war for Germany on the Western front by being overly confident and not knowing quite how many men/women/children Russia was willing to feed to the Dogs of War.

And yes, the Brits and Americans fucked over the czechs, the poles and others who fought with them by handing over their countries to Russia

America and the Brits did not hand those countries over, Russia occupied them.

Ookla

Fri Mar 22 08:32:26 2002

Hehe, so now you tell me, on which front did LW lose most of it's aircraft and pilots?

Where did they lose most of it's troops?

Where did the Wehrmacht suffer most losses and where was the majority of it's troops deployed?

After BoB the allies were mainly fighting the U-boats and the japanese.

The bombings didn't ramp up until well into 1943, by that time the tide had turned and the Germans were on the defensive.

Are you even aware that despite your precious bombings Germany still managed to ramp up it's production in both 1943 and 1944? Do you even have a clue about the losses that the americans (free to choose the target) suffered in the day raids from the "broken" LW?

AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Fri Mar 22 08:59:28 2002

perhaps you can put up some numbers eh? :tongue:

from Ookla posted at 2:32 am on Mar. 22, 2002

Hehe, so now you tell me, on which front did LW lose most of it's aircraft and pilots?

The Western + Africa (are we forgetting about the African/Mediteranean campaign?)

Where did they lose most of it's troops?

Where did the Wehrmacht suffer most losses and where was the majority of it's troops deployed?

Never said anything about ground troops.


After BoB the allies were mainly fighting the U-boats and the japanese.

Praytell, what were we doing in the Pacific, the Mediteranean, Africa, and by sending Bombers over Germany proper?


The bombings didn't ramp up until well into 1943, by that time the tide had turned and the Germans were on the defensive.

The Bombings were a significant factor in the turning of tides against germany.


Are you even aware that despite your precious bombings Germany still managed to ramp up it's production in both 1943 and 1944? Do you even have a clue about the losses that the americans (free to choose the target) suffered in the day raids from the "broken" LW?

Are you aware that during your precious Russian onslaught during 42' and 43' Germany was still able to ramp up it's production?

Despite that, it extremely appropriate to expect that the Allied Bombings did quite a bit to stymie and limit the Axis production at that point.

yes, Russia took up a lot of German resources, but if the British and Americans were so harmless, why did Hitler put so much effort in building up the Atlantic Wall?

Evil Merlin

Fri Mar 22 10:22:32 2002

Someone seems to be buying into the Great War history spoon fed to them by both the media and public education...
AllYorBaseRBelong2Us

Fri Mar 22 16:57:33 2002

AYB si dying to know,

who is Ookla? :)

BTW, I am enjoying this discussion, dispite our dissagreement I are having fun :cheesy:

DuffMan

Fri Mar 22 18:29:54 2002

http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm

Found that in a quick google search. Make of it what you will.

Evil Merlin

Fri Mar 22 20:03:37 2002

Quite frankly, numbers of fighters downed means little. What means a lot is the loss of highly trained pilots. I remember reading about a Western Front pilot for the Luftwaffe that had something like 100 kills to his name (it was actually more than 100), so the Germans in there infinite wisdom figured they would move him to the Eastern front to have him harrass American pilots. His first day in the air he was shot down, but returned to fly within the week. His second combat mission did not fair any better, an American P-51 shot him down, killing him instantly. Americans lost hundreds of B-17's yet they still beat the crap out of Germany.

Just looking at numbers tells very little.