P-51 aerodynamics vs. spitfire

[JtD]

3 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

You do realize that the "failed" ball bearing strikes in late 1943 nearly brought German industry to the brink right?

 

Please elaborate. To my knowledge, there were few things in Germany that were as uncritical a resource as ball bearings.

 

3 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

It became dispersed after the bombers started doing massive damage.

 

German industry was dispersed as it was built up, starting even before 1933. There are many reasons for this, one of them being protection from enemy bombing as part of the layout of weapons producing industry. However, dispersion became more important when the bombers became capable of levelling half a city, and German industry had to react again.

 

3 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Anyone who thinks the strategic bombing did not significantly affect German ability to wage war is being ridiculous.

 

Totally true, but one has to remember that it also had a significant cost, both in material, and in human life, for the Western Allies. It wasn't until some time late in 1944 that the damage the bombing did became greater than that cost. And it's arguable that the effort that went into bombing, might have been better spend elsewhere for a quicker and less costly victory.

[Pict]

10 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

This is not true. The entire Objective of Pointblank was to destroy the Luftwaffe.

 

Fair enough, my mistake  I was referring to the overall strategic allied bombing campaign, from which Pointblank was a spin off and therefore the side effect I was referring to.

 

10 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

This is completely false. To say that bombing tactical targets with big bombers was ineffective is like saying artillery is ineffective because it didnt kill everything and everyone.

 

I don't need to look far to prove my points about the operational ineffectiveness of strategic bombing when used against tactical targets, as I live next to a river in France (not that I'm french) whose road and rail bridges were tactical targets included in the infrastructure bombing campaign that was a part of the Overlord operation. The initial plan was that the USAAF was to do it, but that was changed last minute and the RAF did it instead.

Strategic bombers were used and they destroyed virtually every building on each bank of the river and many further a field including this house which was decapitated and is about 600m from the nearest bridge. Additionally the hospital that was between the two bridges was obliterated with immense loss of life, it's fires smoldering on for 2 weeks. And they missed the bridges, only slightly damaging the temporary bridge that had been installed in 1940 when the original was blown during the German advance.

 

Had they used tactical bombers, like Bostons or Mosquitoes I think we can say the outcome would have been very different.

 

There's another target in the area near me that was bombed on many occasions by strategic bombers and that's the V1 weapons storage & assembly bunkers at Nucourt. Well documented raids by B-24's, Halifax's etc., had no effect on this place. It did mostly destroy the little village of Nucourt though and to this day on a walk around the fields and forest in the area you'll see hundreds of bomb craters. The Nucourt facility was served by rail and had a siding running through the bunker, so that they were never loading or unloading in the open. It's still there, without a scratch on it.

 

I doubt if tactical bombers would have made a difference to such a target, which was heavily defended by AAA, Nucourt having an AAA group dedicated to it.

 

On the other hand using strategic bombers against targets like railway marshaling yards was proven to be very effective. There's one not far from here, Acheres which lies in the Forest of Saint-Germain-en-Laye west of Paris. It's a  huge area in the middle of a forest that can still been recognized in a satellite view that includes Paris. A perfect target for strategic bombers, it was effectively immobilized like so many other rail yards. This had the knock on effect of rendering the Nucourt facility and targets like it useless. Rail, river & canal were the main transport infrastructure in Europe at that time, way ahead of roads. The use of strategic bombers on the rail yards coupled with fighter bombers on river barge traffic was massively effective in crippling the German war effort in every way, from getting raw materials to factories, components from those dispersed factories to assembly facilities, then getting the assembled weapons to troops and the troops to the assembled weapons. Fuel, food, medical supplies...it all slowed to a trickle.

 

Funnily enough the road bridge that crosses Acheres rail yard was not destroyed in the bombing, yet the yard itself was churned up with craters and wagons strewn everywhere...a total blockage of the rail system in the whole area. Another example of strategic bombers ability to miss bridges for whatever reason.

 

============

 

All of what I'm saying is also borne out in the D-Day landings where tactical bombers were used to suppress beach defenses on all but one of the landing beaches, Omaha, where the task was given to strategic bombers. If I recall right it was the 9thAAF (a tactical AF flying Bostons and possibly other types?) that was tasked with Utah and the 8thAAF (a strategic AF flying B-17's & B-24's) at Omaha, with 2TAF RAF (a tactical AF flying Mosquitoes, Typhoons etc.) dealing with Sword, Gold & Juno. The results of that mistake are well known.

 

10 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

This largely has nothing to do with the American bombing, at least in Europe. The American bombing was dedicated to precision bombing of legitimate strategic targets. With some exceptions

 

I think HerrMurf answers this better than I possibly could.

 

8 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

And it must be said that in nearly all cases the term precision bombing in WWII was a misnomer at best and war planners knew it. The technology was not there to hit a factory and miss the residential districts around it, even if one wanted to. 

 

Only when talking about strategic bombers dropping sticks of bombs from high altitudes.

 

Otherwise we know that for example, Mosquito bomber crews had genuine pin point accuracy, Amiens prison break a case in point out of many. Also it must be said that the Lancaster crews dropping single special bombs like the Tallboy had a high degree of accuracy.

 

10 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

You do realize that the "failed" ball bearing strikes in late 1943 nearly brought German industry to the brink right?

 

Almost missed this one. No I don't swallow this anymore than I "realize" or recognize it. For one, even you admit that it did not have it's desired effect, therefor it most certainly was a fail. 60 Fortress's lost in one raid, 10 crewmen in each. That alone is what I call failure.

 

Additionally substitutes for bearings can be found and were found. The RAF heavy bomber force went over to using hardwood bearings in their engines instead of the normal white metal type as they would last a couple of mission before needing changed. The attrition rate at the time didn't see many bearings getting changed though, which was naturally factored into the decision.

 

OK that's not ball bearings or roller bearings, but you can substitute roller bearings with hard bearings too. Anyhow Sweden's production and export of bearings to Germany was not adversely affected by the failed USAAF ball bearing raids, on the contrary, it increased.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

[Sublime]

23 hours ago, Pict said:

 

I find this interesting, but what I understand is that you suggest that Churchill got political cold feet and backed out of a plan he was pushing. When in the end he lost his bid for re-election anyway.

 

 

Yes indeed lend lease was also a benefiting factor which would have been removed the USSR had the allies gone ahead with Unthinkable.

 

These nuke plans I find very interesting as it shows serious intent to go with the Unthinkable scenario, yet little or zero confidence in the conventional strategic bombing they had so advocated up to that point.

 

====

 

All interesting stuff from both of you and I appreciate it 

 

In a sort of round about way back to the topic, I would be interested to compare the P-51 (and other western allied fighters of the time) with the like of the La-7 (and other Soviet fighters of the time), hopefully within IL2 BOX at some point down the line.

 

We often compare Axis with Allies or as is the case with this topic, fighters from the same side who are on the same battlefield, but a comparison of aircraft that may have taken part in an Operation Unthinkable scenario would also be interesting. Someone at some point in an official capacity must have made such a comparative assessment?

 

Anyhow I find Operation Unthinkable a far more plausible "what if" scenario than Luft '46 ever was.

Ibe been playing Yak1b and 7s and La5FNs vs p51s etc a lot in qmb. I toyed with a campaign idea but I suck at the editor bad 

[Pict]

48 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Ibe been playing Yak1b and 7s and La5FNs vs p51s etc a lot in qmb. I toyed with a campaign idea but I suck at the editor bad 

 

You could always put one together with Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator when he gets the new released aircraft added or in the meantime knock out a few missions with SYN_Vanders Easy Mission Generator just uncheck "historical plane set" or go under the hood and put together your own custom planes set in a text editor...took me a few seconds to add the likes of the MiG-3 to the Kuban planes set via copy/paste for eg.

 

I'd like to see these kind of match ups in MP, and SYN_Vanders little tool can do that with ease.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Pict

[Sublime]

I actually asked Pat about it he said it would take thousands of lines of code and wasnt doable

If you could pm me perhaps you could help me /we could collab?

A really good backstory to use would br from tge "how the axis could have won ww2". It has essays by famous historians. Glantz does an unthinkable but its more like accidental hostilities turn into fighting dor a few weeks until its stopped

 

This would be perfect fodder for a small campaign and help explaon the lack of nukes and strategic bombers as much (not wanting to escalate)

Another idea is theres several famed incidents of P51s and other Allied ac accidentally runnning imto Russian ac and dogfights ensuing because of confusion over the unfamiliar plane types.

This would be great for single player missions and arent even what if.  The onlymproblem is I dont rememver what the Sovoets were flying in these encounters. I know Pokryshkin was in one in a La5FN or LA7 but not sure

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Sublime

[Pict]

Oh well...SYN_Vanders little tool will get you in the air no worries. It's a decent alternative to the QMB too.

[Sublime]

1 minute ago, Pict said:

Oh well...SYN_Vanders little tool will get you in the air no worries. It's a decent alternative to the QMB too.

Would you ever he interested in online play for them? Because tge AI can be lacking (tho i admit I was surprosed how much trouble an LA5FN can give p51s etc)

[Pict]

Absolutely, I said as much above. If you find the La-5FN a handful in a Mustang, how would you be with an La-7? That's the kind of stuff I would find interesting and it's hard to get a decent feel about any of that with the AI...or without an La-7, but the La-5FN would do for starters.

 

I'm sure someone with put it up on a server at some point. A co-op might be an option too?