Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gamington

One thing about ww2 this sim taught me...

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

It's not that Messerschmitt AG that failed - the German military usually wishes from every weapon system to be the eierlegende Wollmilchsau (egglaying woolmilkpig) and thus the 210/410 had to be heavy bomber destroyer with full dive bombing capability. Messerschmitt gave a good shot at fullfilling these stupid demands.

 

True, true.

 

But the Me-110 was also a failure in the Battle of Britain.

 

It was a good plane design--unlike the 210, which couldn't even cite gentle handling as a virtue--but it did catastrophically fail in its intended purpose, which then exposed the weaknesses of the 109 as a close escort.

 

The whole BoB plan fell apart because the 109 was forced out of its free hunt role, and into an escort role.

 

So that is 2 strikes against Messerschmitt in the heavy fighter arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The whole BoB plan fell apart because the 109 was forced out of its free hunt role, and into an escort role.

 

There was no BoB plan in the first place.

Germany and hence the Luftwaffe wasn't ready for a full-scale war against Britain (ask the Kriegsmarine). They did well for their amount of unpreparedness, but in the end they were holding a trash hand.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Depends - had the gremlins of the engines been worked out earlier, the conversion to the 262 could have started earlier. Shaking out the bugs could have been achieved by spending more manpower by eliminating other projects.

 

...

 

The allied losses in early '44 already were close to un-sustainable - "just" facing Luftwaffe prop-fighters.

 

If the RLM diverted prop resources into sorting out and building more jets earlier they would probably have lost the war sooner due to not enough planes in the sky. There is no "what if" (that isn't pure fantasy) where the Luftwaffe holds off the allied bomber assault enough for German industry to recover and somehow outproduce the allies. The bomber losses were unsustainable when swarms of dedicated bomber destroyers had a free pass at them with no escorts. I don't see any scenario where there are enough 262s to do that kind of damage, through Mustang cover. Even if the 262s are harder to catch they would still suffer losses, that would be far less sustainable to the Germans than anything they inflict would be to the allies.

Edited by =X51=VC_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

But the Me-110 was also a failure in the Battle of Britain.

 

 

There are schools of thought.  Its actual combat record in 1940 was good.  As a fighter, its 1940 record is at least as good as the 109, as an escort it was better, and as a ground attacker it did very well.  The only complaint the German commanders had about it was that they didn't have enough of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

If the RLM diverted prop resources into sorting out and building more jets earlier they would probably have lost the war sooner due to not enough planes in the sky.

 

Depends: If they stopped wasting time and resources in pursuing projects like the 210/410 or other dive-brake toting medium-sized bombers, they could have freed enough engineering-capacity to put more brains into the 262/ Jumo 004. Now this is all coulda-shoulda-woulda, but we're talking what-ifs anyway.

 

Also, a production ramp-up, especially with all the subcontractors, in early '43 could easily have accomodated enlarged Fw 190 and DB 603 production.

The DB 603 in turn lost considerable time by not getting enough design-resources early on.

 

2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

There is no "what if" (that isn't pure fantasy) where the Luftwaffe holds off the allied bomber assault enough for German industry to recover and somehow outproduce the allies.

 

The bomber-offensive of the 8th was a very short distance away from failing in early '44. The good fortune of the allies was that the Luftwaffe suffered more losses in relative terms and those losses had a deeper effect.

 

The objective is not outproducing the Allies, but producing unsustainable losses for long enough a time. The western Allies were not totalitarian countries like Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union, but were democracies where high losses over time could and would cause changes in policy. Either to the loss or to the benefit of the Axis Powers.

 

2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

The bomber losses were unsustainable when swarms of dedicated bomber destroyers had a free pass at them with no escorts.

 

That is not true. The high losses in early '44 were mostly due to less than optimal tactics on the escort side. Those teething issues were later ironed out and relative Luftwaffe losses increased steeply and over-proportionally.

 

2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

I don't see any scenario where there are enough 262s to do that kind of damage, through Mustang cover. Even if the 262s are harder to catch they would still suffer losses, that would be far less sustainable to the Germans than anything they inflict would be to the allies.

 

The 262 did pretty well in spring '45 over Bavaria.

Had there been 150 to 200 airframes available in early '44, this would have been a tremendous problem for the Allies. Back then, they didn't have the ressources of covering 262-bases by CAPs almost around the clock. And even with those CAPs in place in 1945, the 262s still worked pretty well - given the odds they were up against.

 

Allied counter-jets were only a thing after the Invasion. Not just technologically (let's assume a similar crash-program), but primarily in terms of range and endurance.

Jets just guzzle boatloats of gas...

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The 262 did pretty well in spring '45 over Bavaria.

Had there been 150 to 200 airframes available in early '44, this would have been a tremendous problem for the Allies. Back then, they didn't have the ressources of covering 262-bases by CAPs almost around the clock. And even with those CAPs in place in 1945, the 262s still worked pretty well - given the odds they were up against.

 

All true, but they would have dropped "da Bomb" on Germany if this shit wouldn't have been over by June 45, I'm pretty convinced they would have done that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

All true, but they would have dropped "da Bomb" on Germany if this shit wouldn't have been over by June 45, I'm pretty convinced they would have done that.

 

Yeah, maybe, but then again, to what effect?

 

"Da Bomb" was dropped on Japan for several reasons, but mostly to show off to the Soviets and to end the war right there, before they'd have too many bragging-rights at the peace-tables.

The Soviets were already in game in the ETO and the experiences with them would not have been made at the tables in Potsdam at this time, had the war dragged on.

 

The Allies had less than a handful of bombs ready to throw.

Japan didn't stop after firebombing Tokyo and dozens of other cities, just like Germany didn't quit after firebombing Hamburg or Dresden, or any other place with a population greater than a dozen or two. Would dropping two bombs stop the war? The more I'm thinking about it, the more doubts I have.

Wouldn't Germany just retaliate by using V-2s with gas?

Nobody can really tell.

 

I think the argument that dropping the bombs would always end the war is flawed - especially when the japanese not least threw the towel due to the fast-advancing soviets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think the argument that dropping the bombs would always end the war is flawed - especially when the japanese not least threw the towel due to the fast-advancing soviets.

 

You have a very good point here, but I think in May 45 with the lunatic dead, no one in Germany would have continued that madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sevenless said:

You have a very good point here, but I think in May 45 with the lunatic dead, no one in Germany would have continued that madness.

 

Agreed.

 

But would he be dead at this time had there been scores of "Blitzbomber" (TM) available in early '44?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

But would he be dead at this time had there been scores of "Blitzbomber" (TM) available in early '44?

 

I don't think so. As far as I understood the matter, it was the Russians knocking on his Reichchancellery without hope of military relief for Berlin which motivated him to make an end. Would the Russians at 28th April still have stood at Kuestrin and Frankfurt/Oder, he and Goebbels would have fought on. Would that have continued into say June, that is my hypothesis without knowing if it was technically feasible at 6/45, I guess Eisenhower would have dropped da bomb on Berlin.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Agreed.

 

But would he be dead at this time had there been scores of "Blitzbomber" (TM) available in early '44?

 

I think so. I don't think having Me-262s six months earlier would have changed the date the Russians entered Berlin,  even if it changed the date the Free French entered Paris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I don't think having Me-262s six months earlier would have changed the date the Russians entered Berlin...

 

All speculation of course, but, just for the sake of speculating, if we would assume that between 2/44 and 6/44 german defense of the reich would have had JG 1, JG 3, JG 4, JG 11, JG 27, JG 300, JG 301 all at least partially equipped with 262s which showed a performance equal to III./JG 7 in 3-4/45, I would guess there would have been no D-Day on 6th June 1944 and therefore a delay of the Russians seems possible. I have to make that clear to avoid misunderstandings, I'm pretty happy that scenario didn't happen because it would have cost additional millions of lifes in Europe.

Edited by sevenless
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sevenless said:

a delay of the Russians seems possible

 

I admit a possibility, but don't' think it likely. The Germans would have to improve their position to a degree that strong forces could be moved to the east. That means the invasion would  have to fail quickly, forces transferred quickly, and then made an actual difference--considering the actual outcome of the 6/22/1944 operation, those forces may simply have also been destroyed too. Maybe more oil/gas in 1945 helps the Germans enough but I think probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I admit a possibility, but don't' think it likely. The Germans would have to improve their position to a degree that strong forces could be moved to the east. That means the invasion would  have to fail quickly, forces transferred quickly, and then made an actual difference--considering the actual outcome of the 6/22/1944 operation, those forces may simply have also been destroyed too. Maybe more oil/gas in 1945 helps the Germans enough but I think probably not.

 

Yep, my guess is that without D-Day on 6th June, Operation Bagration on 22nd June wouldn't have proceeded that quickly. But who knows? As for oil/gas. The jets used J2 fuel, which was way easier to produce than B4 or C3 fuel, so yes that would at least partially relieved the generally strained situation. To what extent, I don't know. Anyways it was all about knitting a scenario for the possibility of da bomb used against Germany. Apologies for me hijacking this thread.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think we should be under any illusion;  if Germany was still holding the allies at bay by the summer of ‘45 then Berlin would have received a nuclear weapon.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

I don’t think we should be under any illusion;  if Germany was still holding the allies at bay by the summer of ‘45 then Berlin would have received a nuclear weapon.

Had it been a bit more Foggy when the Heavy Water was transported from Norway to Germany, Mutual Nuclear War may have been a real possibility. The V-2 was designed for that Purpose.

 

I also just love that this thing is basically the same as an Me-262, Start on Light Fuel. run on Light Oil/Crude Fuel.

 

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The objective is not outproducing the Allies, but producing unsustainable losses for long enough a time. The western Allies were not totalitarian countries like Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union, but were democracies where high losses over time could and would cause changes in policy. Either to the loss or to the benefit of the Axis Powers.

 

I think the allies were pissed off enough with Germany in the time frame, understood the threat well enough and had enough of a war footing style grip on their population that a sort of "peace by meat grinder stalemate" would not become an option before the Allies regrouped in numbers and tech sufficient to do what they did anyway, just a bit later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

I don’t think we should be under any illusion;  if Germany was still holding the allies at bay by the summer of ‘45 then Berlin would have received a nuclear weapon.

 

Quite possibly, but let's remember that Berlin had by May 8th 1945 already been attacked over 300 times with an estimated death-toll between 20 to 50k.

The additional effect of a nuke onto Berlin (that just wouldn't burn like other, more medevial cities) would have been considerably less impressive than either nuke-drop onto Japan.

 

One has to remember that the pictures of seemingly vaporised or razed buildings in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were due to traditional japanese houses.

A city built of concrete would certainly not have been blown to ashes - that would require at least an order of magnitude more yield of the nuclear device.

 

I can visualize severe destruction inside the "Ringbahn" after a Little Boy/ Fat Man class attack, but the outer city-quarters would almost be unscathed.

7 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

I think the allies were pissed off enough with Germany in the time frame, understood the threat well enough and had enough of a war footing style grip on their population that a sort of "peace by meat grinder stalemate" would not become an option before the Allies regrouped in numbers and tech sufficient to do what they did anyway, just a bit later.

 

When you consider that already more men were lost by the 8th Air Force over Europe than Marines in the PTO and consider the uneasyness of american planners when thinking about operations Olympic and Coronet, you can see that the war footing style grip is not a one-way street.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If that did happen and the allies backed off, the long-term results would be disastrous. Not because Nazi Germany would consolidate Europe in their grip, but because the Soviets would overrun them anyway, but now have both the ability and the excuse to "liberate" all of Europe. An Iron Curtain at the Channel is not a pleasant thought.

 

This is way off topic now but a fascinating conversation anyway 😅

Edited by =X51=VC_
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It was a widely known fact that the US chiefs of staff were in favour of dropping a "little boy"  on Berlin, as was allegedly Roosevelt, should it have been necessary. The only people who were cautious, were the Brits, who were cognisant of fallout. 

Edited by Irishratticus72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, flagdjmetcher said:

 

There are schools of thought.  Its actual combat record in 1940 was good.  As a fighter, its 1940 record is at least as good as the 109, as an escort it was better, and as a ground attacker it did very well.  The only complaint the German commanders had about it was that they didn't have enough of them. 

 

I disagree. Going strictly by the numbers, the 109E came into the Battle of Britain with ~800 planes, and lost ~600 of them. The Me-110 had 237, and lost 223 of those. While, it bears emphasis, scoring far fewer kills than the 109s, for a higher overall loss rate.

 

The loss totals are, of course, misleading if taken out of context. The Spitfire lost more planes than it initially had, as well. But we of course know the Spitfire shot down more than its share in compensation.

 

What was catastrophic about the 110's statistics, was that it inflicted far too little damage for the losses incurred. You just had hundreds of dead and captured pilots for little gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I disagree. Going strictly by the numbers, the 109E came into the Battle of Britain with ~800 planes, and lost ~600 of them. The Me-110 had 237, and lost 223 of those. While, it bears emphasis, scoring far fewer kills than the 109s, for a higher overall loss rate.

 

The loss totals are, of course, misleading if taken out of context. The Spitfire lost more planes than it initially had, as well. But we of course know the Spitfire shot down more than its share in compensation.

 

What was catastrophic about the 110's statistics, was that it inflicted far too little damage for the losses incurred. You just had hundreds of dead and captured pilots for little gain.

From what I read (I belive it was one of Bergströms books) all fighters in the BoB hat similar victory to loss rates from 1.1 (Hurricane) to 1.3 (Bf 110). The Brits because they were mainly targeting bombers and the Germans because they were targeting fighters that were mainly after bombers.

 

The Bf 110 was good when any fighter was good: Starting the combat in an advantagous position and bad when any fighter was bad: Starting combat in a disadvantagous position. Propably just more pronounced. In advantage the superior firepower propably made it a little deadlier than the Bf 109 and in disadvantage the worse rate of roll and acceleration and being a bigger target made it suffer even more than the 109.

 

A big problem for the Luftwaffe with it's constant lack of recources: Any Bf 110 lost meant 2 Aircrew and 2 DB601 lost - so recource wise 2 Bf 109s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

There was no BoB plan in the first place.

Germany and hence the Luftwaffe wasn't ready for a full-scale war against Britain (ask the Kriegsmarine). They did well for their amount of unpreparedness, but in the end they were holding a trash hand.

 

The inability of the German navy to exploit a Luftwaffe success in the BoB is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

 

The Germans were grossly unprepared--but so were the British. I have often analyzed the seeming idiocy of German aggression leading up to WWII; and, at face value, it seemed suicidal to take on almost the entire world. Yet, there was a small window of opportunity where the relative lack of global war preparedness would have worked in favor of the Germans. Every year wasted was another year Allied industry would make faster gains than German industry.

 

Having said that, you are correct in that there wasn't a logical BoB plan. There was a Hitler plan, which entailed bloodying the British nose so that they'd magically come to their senses and put off this whole silly war business.

 

But, as haphazard and wasteful as the eventual German air attack was, it did come pretty close to overwhelming the British. If the Germans had no follow-up punch, it still doesn't change the fact that with a little better execution, the RAF could have been rendered ineffectual for at least a short time.

 

What could have been interesting from an alt-history scenario, is if the RAF was briefly knocked out, the feint of a German invasion (launched on leaky inflatable rubber ducks, since they lacked the transportation, besides the warships) would have potentially forced the bulk of the Royal Navy into the Channel invasion area. Where it could then be savaged by air attacks; accomplishing what the German Navy never could do by itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British were never in any danger of actually losing the battle in hindsight. They feared withdrawal behind London because they still labored under the belief that Germany could mount a successful strategic war against cities and industry. They could not, nor did they even plan for doing so. The only way Germany wins in 1940 is if the British people give up under bombing, and if the Germans didn't do so under a far far bigger bombardment in 1942, why would the English do so in 1940? No, they could have withdrawn out of range and accepted the bombing south of London, nursing their strength to prevent an invasion and then, once recovered, take back control of English skies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

The Bf 110 was good when any fighter was good: Starting the combat in an advantagous position and bad when any fighter was bad: Starting combat in a disadvantagous position. Propably just more pronounced. In advantage the superior firepower propably made it a little deadlier than the Bf 109 and in disadvantage the worse rate of roll and acceleration and being a bigger target made it suffer even more than the 109.

 

This is an excellent point, and I won't dispute it.

 

Having said that, I wonder how much more speed could have been wrung out of the 110, had the gunner position been removed, and maybe the wing redesigned (shortened and rounded off).

3 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

The only way Germany wins in 1940 is if the British people give up under bombing [...]

 

Correct.

 

This logic was the same logic that assumed Russia would collapse once the 'front door was kicked in.' (paraphrase)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

This logic was the same logic that assumed Russia would collapse once the 'front door was kicked in.' (paraphrase)

 

Actually, worse than that because there was historical precedent for Russia collapsing under a German attack in WW1, but Great Britain had been supporting winning continental coalitions since before Napoleon I. To quote a Chunnel engineer, "Europe is where we go to fight wars".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

Actually, worse than that because there was historical precedent for Russia collapsing under a German attack in WW1, but Great Britain had been supporting winning continental coalitions since before Napoleon I. To quote a Chunnel engineer, "Europe is where we go to fight wars".

 

Oh yes, the coalition system. It's funny that Stalin (very sensibly) did not want to serve as the West's meat shield/bullet sponge against Germany, and in the end that is precisely what he did. 

 

The difference between Russia's WWI collapse and the WWII collapse the Germans wanted, of course, was Stalin. It was foolish of the Germans to not plainly see they were facing another totalitarian regime as ruthlessly unified as their own.

 

That said, I believe the world owes a debt of gratitude to Italy and Finland for winning WWII.

 

Italy's incompetence in the Balkans, as we all know, wasted Germany's time and delayed its invasion of Russia. And Finland made Russia look horrible, thereby lending credence to Hitler's wishful thinking.

 

Italy and Finland are the true heroes of WWII; without their subtle influences, who knows if the combined Allied might would have been enough?

 

(I'm only partially joking)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

What could have been interesting from an alt-history scenario, is if the RAF was briefly knocked out, the feint of a German invasion (launched on leaky inflatable rubber ducks, since they lacked the transportation, besides the warships) would have potentially forced the bulk of the Royal Navy into the Channel invasion area. Where it could then be savaged by air attacks; accomplishing what the German Navy never could do by itself.

 

I did always wonder why they didn't do something like that. Another alt-hist I can think of is if they feinted the Poland invasion just long enough to call Britan's bluff and see if they could leave the Soviet Union high and dry with the Allies declaring war on them, then swoop in and "liberate" the place, or take advantage in other ways. I guess that would require having a smart and coherent overall plan, not a mad ideology fuelled gamble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, =X51=VC_ said:

 

I did always wonder why they didn't do something like that. Another alt-hist I can think of is if they feinted the Poland invasion just long enough to call Britan's bluff and see if they could leave the Soviet Union high and dry with the Allies declaring war on them, then swoop in and "liberate" the place, or take advantage in other ways. I guess that would require having a smart and coherent overall plan, not a mad ideology fuelled gamble...

 

Yeah, the whole 'Lebensraum' concept got in the way of more sensible ways to divide and conquer the Allies.

 

As laughably unrealistic as it is, in Hearts of Iron I like to befriend Poland as Germany, and then play savior to Europe when Russia inevitably attacks Poland.

 

Something like that was possible, perhaps; but zero Lebensraum would have been gained.

 

On the plus side, though, Germany wouldn't have been, you know, bombed off the face of the planet by the British and Americans. The most Germany would get out that scenario is, perhaps, Danzig and the corridor returned to them.

 

Why couldn't Germany have traded Memel and a sliver of land on the east of Prussia, to Poland in exchange for Danzig and the corridor? Germany would then be cohesive, and Poland would still have an outlet to the Baltic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

I disagree. Going strictly by the numbers, the 109E came into the Battle of Britain with ~800 planes, and lost ~600 of them. The Me-110 had 237, and lost 223 of those. While, it bears emphasis, scoring far fewer kills than the 109s, for a higher overall loss rate.

 

 

Nothing you say is incorrect, but you leave out the fact that per aircraft available and per aircraft lost - the 110 had at least as good a record as the 109.  The loss rate per deployed aircraft was high - it was a valuable and heavily utilised asset -  but the loss per kill was on a par with the 109 and Spitire.

I'm not suggesting that, as an airframe, the 110 is a standout fighter.  Post 1940 it aged badly.  But in context, in that situation, it was a good fighter.  The numbers don't support the argument that it performed dramatically worse than the 109.

 

I'm just making bald statements here, but this is a forum post, not a scholarly article.  The sources are there.  Bergstrom is one of them, and _his_ sources check out, so I'm inclined to believe him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flagdjmetcher said:

Nothing you say is incorrect, but you leave out the fact that per aircraft available and per aircraft lost - the 110 had at least as good a record as the 109.  The loss rate per deployed aircraft was high - it was a valuable and heavily utilised asset -  but the loss per kill was on a par with the 109 and Spitire.

I'm not suggesting that, as an airframe, the 110 is a standout fighter.  Post 1940 it aged badly.  But in context, in that situation, it was a good fighter.  The numbers don't support the argument that it performed dramatically worse than the 109.

 

I'm just making bald statements here, but this is a forum post, not a scholarly article.  The sources are there.  Bergstrom is one of them, and _his_ sources check out, so I'm inclined to believe him.  

 

Well, I didn't want to nitpick, but I'm not sure I'd trust Luftwaffe claims during the BoB. They were pretty inflated; every nation's is to some extent, but I think the Luftwaffe in that specific time period was under great pressure to deliver, politically.

 

So I have to wonder if the 110 did actually shoot down--and not simply claim--a ratio as high as it appears on paper.

 

The 109 is clearly a high-performing airplane, regardless of kill claims. It was, by most accounts, an absolute equal to the Spitfire in overall ability. The only thing that held it back was fighting at the extreme of its range, over enemy territory that was very well organized with a radar network. The British were to suffer largely the same way as they pushed into France's airspace circa 1941.

 

From combat reports, nothing to me indicates the 110 could even come close to the 109's ability; either to shoot down, or evade, an enemy of the Spitfire's performance. The 110 was much more on par with the Hurricane, in terms of overall ability.

 

So, unless the research definitively matched 110 claims to RAF losses, color me skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Had it been a bit more Foggy when the Heavy Water was transported from Norway to Germany, Mutual Nuclear War may have been a real possibility. The V-2 was designed for that Purpose.

 

Klaus,  Germany had neither the resources, the personnel nor frankly any firm idea of how to produce a nuclear device that could be weaponised.  Your claim that a vintage tractor "is basically the same as an ME262" contains much more truth than your assertion that the V2 was designed to carry a nuclear warhead.:salute:

 

18 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Quite possibly, but let's remember that Berlin had by May 8th 1945 already been attacked over 300 times with an estimated death-toll between 20 to 50k.

The additional effect of a nuke onto Berlin (that just wouldn't burn like other, more medevial cities) would have been considerably less impressive than either nuke-drop onto Japan.

 

One has to remember that the pictures of seemingly vaporised or razed buildings in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were due to traditional japanese houses.

A city built of concrete would certainly not have been blown to ashes - that would require at least an order of magnitude more yield of the nuclear device.

 

I can visualize severe destruction inside the "Ringbahn" after a Little Boy/ Fat Man class attack, but the outer city-quarters would almost be unscathed.

 

All this is very true......but the allies would still have dropped it on Berlin at the earliest opportunity.

  As late as the fifteenth of July 1945 the only people who truly understood what had been created at Los Alamos were a few dozen scientists, General Groves and his deputy and ......thats it.

  All the political and military leaders of the belligerent nations in WW2 were men of Edwardian outlook who had been around for the birth of the motorcar - except Churchill who was Victorian and presumably around for the birth of the steam turbine! 

For the allied leaders in year six of world war two,  the Bomb was just another weapon of 'unusual destructive power' and it is inconceivable that they would not use it if it offered the chance to end the war early.  

In Europe the obvious target for Little Boy would have been Berlin.  For Fat Man?  Munich I suspect.

Edited by DD_Arthur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans could have retaliated with nerve gas tipped V1 and V2 rockets. The world was lucky not to suffer that horror.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

The Germans could have retaliated with nerve gas tipped V1 and V2 rockets. The world was lucky not to suffer that horror.

 Agree with that. Hitler hated the chemical weapons, after his ww1 experience, but a nuclear attack on Berlin would have changed his mind.

     A nuclear attack on Germany would not have saved lives.

Edited by Jaws2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...