Why did Germany continue to operate the Me110

[PatrickAWlson]

With the introduction of the Me 410, why did Germany continue to operate the 110?  Was the 110 a better night fighter?  Maybe better able to place a third crewman as radar operator?

 

I have never heard a good explanation.  Just curious.

[Jaws2002]

It was good enough to hunt for slow bombers without escorts. 

[willb0408]

I don't know specifics, but my bet would be logistical (spare parts and stuff) it's better to continue to operate an airframe rather than scrap it and build it entirely new plane.  Plus it was a versatile air frame, even if their intended "heavy fighter" role didn't pan out as planned, it still was a good night-fighter platform for radar and Jazz-music cannons.

 

This is just me spitballing mind,   so no real evidence to back me up on this ?

[Diggun]

They had a bunch and manufacturing ability was, errm, limited... 

[Bremspropeller]

Until '44 probably because it was easier to just carry on and build an airplane/ engine that could do it's job okay enough.

After early-mid '44, other designs should have taken over, but RLM was too scatterbrained to come up with the idea that a good airplane now was better than a perfect airplane never.

 

So they delayed the V12'ed Fw 190 forever (more than a year - and cruicially for most of '44) and delayed the He 219 and Ta 154 until it was too (little, too) late, hoping the definitive Do 335 would eventually pick up the slack as a one-size-fits-all multipurpose überplane. The Me 410 also basicly came too late to be an effective german Mosquito.

 

You could also ask, why Germany carried on with the 110, when they had the Fw 187, which was flying rings around it and which was about on par with the contemporary P-38. Also, why would one not build the He 100, which had about the same performance as a contemporary Bf 109 (on the DB601), but had 20% more range on internal gas.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[ZachariasX]

37 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Was the 110 a better night fighter?

It was just the better airframe. At least in terms of handling and what the pilot can do with it and come home to talk about it. There is a good reason why they used the 110 for just any role one can think of. Fighter, bomber, night fighter, even as a tug. The Me-410 could do one thing, but it was already below par at that when it came out, this is being an interceptor. And being a pilot in a heavily armed Bf-410 is not cool when there's Mustangs.

 

As for a night fighter, the performance differences of the 110 and the 410 are negligible if it is Lancasters and Halifaxes you are dealing with. As a pilot, you want the safer and less demanding aircraft with the same capabilities under these conditions. As far as the 410 could be a bomber... It is just not fast enough with a reasonable bomb load. Why try anything with that crate when you have Arados anyway? The Arados are actually fast enough. Also you still could rely on plenty of DB605 four sourcing a lot of new airframes for 110's when you needed that kind of aircraft. The DB603 was just not available in huge numbers. Given it used DB603's that would be of good use elsewhere, any of these crates produced was a net win for the Allies. (It could have been two Bf-109 that both could take on a Mustang each. Or two Fw-190C at a time where that kind of performance was still extraordinary...)

[Freycinet]

Well, the problem for the Germans wasn't that they needed to introduce more types. The problem was that they introduced too many types and sub-types.

[BlitzPig_EL]

An endemic problem in the German military.  So many different types of half tracks, all made by different manufacturers to different designs, several different makes/designs of transport trucks.  Why?  Pick a solid design and have it built by everyone.  A complete logistics nightmare.

 

And don't get me started on the Ju52 compared to the C47.  A bloody flying antique. Madness.

 

They kept an outdated rifle built to lower accuracy specifications than the rifles of either Britain or the US.  

 

They utterly ignored their navy and really had no clue how to properly utilize it.

One thing after another.  It's a wonder the war lasted as long as it did really.

Edited December 21, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[Bremspropeller]

36 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

As for a night fighter, the performance differences of the 110 and the 410 are negligible if it is Lancasters and Halifaxes you are dealing with. As a pilot, you want the safer and less demanding aircraft with the same capabilities under these conditions.

 

I'm not sure if that's really true - at least not by '44. The late war 110s were really laden to the brim - all the gear to make the airplane see at night (draggy-a$$ radar dipole antennae), not BE seen at night (substantial flame-damping equipment) and have it go any distance and duration (external tanks). That almost slowed the airplane down to the point of ineffectivity. The Luftwaffe had started requiring three-crew aircraft, because somebody was supposed to look out for Mosquito night fighters.

Well, had they had faster aircraft in the first place, the third guy would have been redundant - like in the Mossie itself.

 

Yet still, they thought they could axe the 154, delay the 219 into submission and only have the Ju 88G as a modestly adequate aircraft next to the raggedy-bum 110s.

 

Was the 410 still suffering from handling-issues?

 

13 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

And don't get me started on the Ju52 compared to the C47.  A bloody flying antique. Madness.

 

It's not that there weren't any more modern designs available.

Junkers was pretty active in not only trying to come up with tactical replacements for the old Ju 52/3m (Ju 252 and Ju 352) but they were even building more strategically oriented transports, like the Ju 290 and even the Ju 390.

 

The 290 is about comparable with the C-54 (actually it's even a little more performant), but there wasn't really too much far-sighted planning going on.

There really was no direct C-47 equivalent in terms of overall performance, as the Ju52/3m was too slow and didn't have a comparable range to the Dak. The Ju 252 would have been considerably bigger.

 

 

Junkers had even come up with a loading-ramp on all it's newer transports - see this Ju 252:
 

Spoiler

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[Rabitzky]

I think the subject is more complicated and mainly related to design and manufacturing problems of the ME 210. Enclosed links will give a better overall picture.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_210

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_410_Hornisse

 

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

They had a bunch and manufacturing ability was, errm, limited... 

 

Close enough.

 

 Whatever it's other shortcomings, in the summer of '43 the 110 was a decent, versatile nightfighter, well able to deal with the Lancasters and Halifax currently pounding the Ruhr.  Within weeks this force would be pounding Berlin.   As autumn turned to winter the bombers fell to the fighter and the fighters fell to the weather.  The rate of attrition on both sides would be enormous. 

 

In these circumstances, whatever the promise of the 410, the LW simply could not afford to stop the operation and therefore the production of the 110.  

 

At the same time, in the UK,  C-in-C of RAF Bomber Command struggled with the same conundrum.  Arthur Harris wanted all Halifax production to cease and the factories put over to the manufacture of the faster, higher flying, less vulnerable Lancaster with it's bigger bomb load.

 

The Air Ministry consistently refused his demands.  To do so would involve some twelve weeks loss of production whilst the factories re-tooled;  around six hundred aircraft.  At this time the Halifax represented a little over a third of the British bomber force and it's loss rate over twelve weeks would amount to;  around six hundred aircraft...............  

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by DD_Arthur

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

It was just the better airframe. At least in terms of handling and what the pilot can do with it and come home to talk about it. There is a good reason why they used the 110 for just any role one can think of. Fighter, bomber, night fighter, even as a tug. The Me-410 could do one thing, but it was already below par at that when it came out, this is being an interceptor. And being a pilot in a heavily armed Bf-410 is not cool when there's Mustangs.

 

I agree with this explanation.

 

Whatever performance gains the 410 had over the 110, it wasn't worth the overall handling loss.

 

I think the 410 handled like a comatose slug. I don't believe that the 210--an unmitigated disaster of a design--could ever be turned into a good plane, regardless of the modifications that were made to fix its many flaws. It was an adequate plane for a few specific purposes (chiefly to replace the Stuka and for recon), none of which mattered by the time the re-branded 410 entered service.

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

An endemic problem in the German military.  So many different types of half tracks, all made by different manufacturers to different designs, several different makes/designs of transport trucks.  Why?  Pick a solid design and have it built by everyone.  A complete logistics nightmare.

 

And don't get me started on the Ju52 compared to the C47.  A bloody flying antique. Madness.

 

They kept an outdated rifle built to lower accuracy specifications than the rifles of either Britain or the US.  

 

They utterly ignored their navy and really had no clue how to properly utilize it.

One thing after another.  It's a wonder the war lasted as long as it did really.

 

These are all things that look more important in retrospect than they actually were at the time.

 

Germany was geared up for 'wars' that lasted 6-8 weeks. They were never geared up, industrially, logistically, or design-wise, for long-term total warfare.

 

Much like the tactically superior but strategically inferior Confederate states of the American Civil War, the Germans were capable of winning only in the short term, and only then against enemies who either had small nations that were easily overrun, or large nations but no will to fight (as the Germans irrationally hoped of the Russians, British, and Americans).

 

Virtually nothing that they did, no decision that they made in the 1930s, really mattered, as they were never going to be able to defeat the combined strategic power of the world's most powerful nations. The war only lasted as long as it did because the Germans had a tactical superiority edge over their enemies going into 1943. After that, all their tricks had been learned by their enemies and were no longer good enough to change the balance of power. The Japanese during WWII, by contrast, only lasted as long as they did because A) less combined Allied effort was put into defeating them, and B) the inherent logistical nightmare of the Pacific theater slowed even a Juggernaut like America down to a relative crawl when it came time to island-hop all the way to Japan.

 

I bring up the Civil War because it reminds me of people who think that Pickett's Charge lost the war for the South. To focus on one event, one battle, one element of anything, is pointless, because the big picture tells us it was a fait accompli the entire time.

 

This perspective of mine could easily be dismissed as the surety of hindsight, but I don't believe so. War, like many things in life, is ultimately a game of mathematics. And assuming that all participants are of a roughly similar technological level, and they are all equally invested in victory (this is a huge factor--and why major exceptions to the mathematical rules exist: like the British 'giving up' with the American Revolution, and the Americans 'giving up' in Vietnam), then the results are typically predicated on the dismal science of economics and industry.

[CUJO_1970]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

With the introduction of the Me 410, why did Germany continue to operate the 110?  Was the 110 a better night fighter?  Maybe better able to place a third crewman as radar operator?

 

I have never heard a good explanation.  Just curious.

 

Because it was proven and highly adaptable multi-role/multi-crew airframe, and became the most effective night fighter of the war. Whats more - it did not require massive retooling efforts that would interrupt production lines. The RLM - often to it's detriment, placed a premium on this.

 

In the night fighter role it really came into it's own. The airframe could carry a variety of radar and weapons systems, along with an operator...and it had massive firepower. The result was an aircraft that inflicted horrific losses on RAF Bomber Command, shooting heavy bombers down by the hundreds up to the final days of the war.

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Was the 410 still suffering from handling-issues?

Not to an extent that would make it intolerable for a military aircraft of the time, like the 210. The 410 did get more power and speed/loadout capabilities by installing a stronger engine. But this requires the aircraft to be even more benign as single engine performance is rather important. Nominal performance of an aircraft often is just academic when the average pilot is not able to realiably access that performance. Or if he does so, marginal deviations from what he can do will spell doom. A good aircraft is resilient to "the problem at the controls". If it is not, you only have a select few that actually can make something of that aircraft. That is like having 5 aircraft when you bought 50.

 

While the 410 might not just fall into a spin like the 210, there are still some issues:

- Engine failure upon takeoff below 250 km/h will make the aircraft enter a spiral dive unless you throttle back on the good engine (and put her down just where you happen to be at that point)

- Having a heavy elevator, ailerons fairly heavy and rudder moderately heavy, Eric Brown thought it a poor aircraft to maneuver.

- It is rather fast and it tends to exceed Vne at 750 km/h quickly and engines tended to overrev in dives. It surely is a handful in combat.

 

Most telling is Eric Browns comment in regards to the Mosquito: "..., it fell short of the Mosquito in most performance aspects and far short of its British contemporary on the score of maneuvrability. It was one of those aeroplanes that gave, in my view, a knife edge feeling to its pilot; it was certainly the last aeroplane that I would have wished upon myself if returning to base in bad weather after losing an engine."

 

A good aircraft radiates confidence to the pilot. A poor aircaft lets the pilot feel that it will kill him if he just does one thing wrong.

 

In consequence, the 410 is not really a desireable fighter plane. But it was quick indeed and in roles other than a fighter it was ok. It's just that the Arado was infinitely better at that as it was fast enough to come home even when spotted, whole for the 410, that surely would turn out interesting. All the 410 gives you is that is is better at running away from a Mosquito than a 110 is. At the price of killing the average pilot in case of single engine failure.

 

A good night fighter foremost is an easy and safe aircraft to fly. This is also why the Ju88 was a popular night fighter. As much as the 110, it was simply a great airframe. It just flew well and gave every pilot the margin of safety he needed to live through a mission. Also the Mosquito is not just as fast or faster than many things twin engine, but it is a great aircraft to fly! That is more important than most might think. The even more boosted Hornet is even fully aerobatic on one engine, an outward delight to fly where the obscene power actually gave more margin to the pilot than they gave problems.

 

I am very much looking forward to Mossie vs 110/410 shootouts online.

 

[Bremspropeller]

One might have to note, that both the Mosquito and Ju 88 also were a gandful with a failed engine. I'm not sure I'd particularily like flying around with those airplanes at night and anywhere remotely near max grossweight. IIRC there's also a 40-50mph wide band of "Okay, I'm dead, sux to be me..." between liftoff and Vmca in the Mossie.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The history of the late model Bf110s is intertwined with the failure of the Me210 and the need to redesign for the Me410. The Bf110's successor was planned even before the type entered service, however, the Me210 was a disaster. They did get some of them into combat in 1942 but they were so many problems that the deployment was limited. The Me410 was ultimately born, however, they needed twin engine aircraft like the Bf110 so development on that aircraft continued.

 

That's why the Bf110G existed in the first place as a stop gap measure. And like so many stop gaps... it actually did the role well enough to become one of the most produced of the 110 line.

[busdriver]

14 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

With the introduction of the Me 410, why did Germany continue to operate the 110?  Was the 110 a better night fighter?  Maybe better able to place a third crewman as radar operator?

 

I just got my copy of this. There is a nice long chapter on the chronology of higher HQ conferences dealing with the competing POVs regarding production decisions and logistics problems. 

 

There are several posts in this thread that touch on observations mentioned in Mankau & Petrick's book. I picked this up to supplement my reading of this series by Theo Boiten. I'm up to January 1944. While a bit expensive for casual 1GCCFPs to collect, this series is one of the best additions I've made to my library.

 

 

 

[Pict]

14 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

You could also ask, why Germany carried on with the 110, when they had the Fw 187, which was flying rings around it and which was about on par with the contemporary P-38. Also, why would one not build the He 100, which had about the same performance as a contemporary Bf 109 (on the DB601), but had 20% more range on internal gas.

 

You could indeed ask these questions, and the answer would involve politics in no small part every time.

 

That however should not be the case when comparing the 110 with the 410 as they were both built by the same manufacturer and used effectively the same engines from the same engine manufacturer.

 

So with the 110 & 410, it should be more about differences between the two types, performance, supply or what have you, rather than politics which is clealy a feature when different manufacturers enter the equation.

[SirFlappy]

On 12/22/2021 at 3:47 AM, oc2209 said:

 

These are all things that look more important in retrospect than they actually were at the time.

 

Germany was geared up for 'wars' that lasted 6-8 weeks. They were never geared up, industrially, logistically, or design-wise, for long-term total warfare.

 

Much like the tactically superior but strategically inferior Confederate states of the American Civil War, the Germans were capable of winning only in the short term, and only then against enemies who either had small nations that were easily overrun, or large nations but no will to fight (as the Germans irrationally hoped of the Russians, British, and Americans).

 

Virtually nothing that they did, no decision that they made in the 1930s, really mattered, as they were never going to be able to defeat the combined strategic power of the world's most powerful nations. The war only lasted as long as it did because the Germans had a tactical superiority edge over their enemies going into 1943. After that, all their tricks had been learned by their enemies and were no longer good enough to change the balance of power. The Japanese during WWII, by contrast, only lasted as long as they did because A) less combined Allied effort was put into defeating them, and B) the inherent logistical nightmare of the Pacific theater slowed even a Juggernaut like America down to a relative crawl when it came time to island-hop all the way to Japan.

 

I bring up the Civil War because it reminds me of people who think that Pickett's Charge lost the war for the South. To focus on one event, one battle, one element of anything, is pointless, because the big picture tells us it was a fait accompli the entire time.

 

This perspective of mine could easily be dismissed as the surety of hindsight, but I don't believe so. War, like many things in life, is ultimately a game of mathematics. And assuming that all participants are of a roughly similar technological level, and they are all equally invested in victory (this is a huge factor--and why major exceptions to the mathematical rules exist: like the British 'giving up' with the American Revolution, and the Americans 'giving up' in Vietnam), then the results are typically predicated on the dismal science of economics and industry.

 oc2209 has it nailed here.

  The Luftwaffe in 1939 was one of the most up to date and well trained air arms in the world (if not the best!),they knew from past experience that war had to be won quickly and decisively.

 To all intents and purposes  they had done this by the summer of 1940,they had won the Second Great War (as it may have become known if it ended then).

For all his faults only Churchill in his obstinacy did not accept this obvious fact.(not so obvious with all our hindsight)

  Ever wondered why nobody wanted the job of British PM in May 1940....well they all knew it was a job that would involve the certain negotiated peace with Hitler...not a role anyone would want to be remembered in history for!

  Even when Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 a quick victory was still anticipated,but as we know he bit off more than he could chew in the vastness of Russia...close but no cigar!

  So despite the now slightly long in the tooth Me110 and Mauser 98k (which someone said wrongly was a less accurate and poorer rifle than its US and UK counterparts?)they set out and very nearly achieved total victory (said grudgingly as a Brit,the western offensives in 1940 were maybe the greatest feats in military history ever!).

   To anybody that looks at the excellent Forgotten Weapons channel Ian explains how when a nation is tooled up and has stocks of certain weapons (for example the 98k rifle),it is much easier and less disruptive to the war economy to carry on making what some would consider an older design ,rather than adopt the state of the art.

 Such is the case with the Me110,which did prove to be a decent night fighter despite its growing obsolecence.

    With the US,USSR and British Empire all against them the war was lost in 1942 for Germany whatever they did with the Me110.

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by SirFlappy

[BlitzPig_EL]

15 minutes ago, SirFlappy said:

  Mauser 98k (which someone said wrongly was a less accurate and poorer rifle than its US and UK counterparts?)

 

I invite you to seek out a YouTube channel, "Bloke on the Range"  and then find the episode where he discusses, at length, the Heer's accuracy specification for the K98k compared to the British specs for their No.4 Mk. 1 rifle.  The German army was crying out for a better rifle for their troops, but they never got it till the StG. 44 was introduced, too little, too late.  Also the US started the war with a semi auto rifle already in their inventory (though not enough of them) in the M1 Garand, which was a more accurate rifle than the K98k, held more rounds and had a higher rate of fire. (Though the 1903 Springfield was more accurate yet, but was indeed as obsolete as the K98k because of it's bolt action and meager 5 round capacity).  I understand that you may not have experience with these weapons, but rest assured, I have, I have shot them in competition.  The Garand and No.4 Enfield are superior to the K98k in any metric you care to judge them by.

 

Now, back to aeroplanes.

Edited December 24, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[[CPT]Crunch]

Still beats a Mosin any day, or one of the straight pulls some nations committed war crimes by sending their troops into action with.

[SirFlappy]

17 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I invite you to seek out a YouTube channel, "Bloke on the Range"  and then find the episode where he discusses, at length, the Heer's accuracy specification for the K98k compared to the British specs for their No.4 Mk. 1 rifle.  The German army was crying out for a better rifle for their troops, but they never got it till the StG. 44 was introduced, too little, too late.  Also the US started the war with a semi auto rifle already in their inventory (though not enough of them) in the M1 Garand, which was a more accurate rifle than the K98k, held more rounds and had a higher rate of fire. (Though the 1903 Springfield was more accurate yet, but was indeed as obsolete as the K98k because of it's bolt action and meager 5 round capacity).  I understand that you may not have experience with these weapons, but rest assured, I have, I have shot them in competition.  The Garand and No.4 Enfield are superior to the K98k in any metric you care to judge them by.

 

Now, back to aeroplanes.

   With respect ,you must remember that the German Armys doctrine (same as UK with the Bren) was that the rifleman is in support of the mg (in Germany the MG34 or 42), not the other way around.

   The slight academic margins of accuracy or bolt action vs semi auto are mitigated by this fact anyhow.

     (The Mauser 98 is still a decent rifle in anycase,although I prefer the SMLE to the 98 or No4 rifle...just because!!!!)

          Happy Xmas despite our clash of opinion!

Edited December 24, 2021 by SirFlappy

[BlitzPig_EL]

Merry Christmas to you too sir.

 

I too prefer the SMLE, but am really a fan of the Martini-Henry in either 577/450 or the Martini-Enfield in .303 (yes I own both types).  

[PatrickAWlson]

17 minutes ago, SirFlappy said:

   With respect ,you must remember that the German Armys doctrine (same as UK with the Bren) was that the rifleman is in support of the mg (in Germany the MG34 or 42), not the other way around.

   The slight academic margins of accuracy or bolt action vs semi auto are mitigated by this fact anyhow.

     (The Mauser 98 is still a decent rifle in anycase,although I prefer the SMLE to the 98 or No4 rifle...just because!!!!)

          Happy Xmas despite our clash of opinion!

 

While that is true and a definite advantage for the Germans, IMHO it remains a fact that said infantry could have supported the MG better with something like an M1.  For me it's not about accuracy.  All of those rifles are accurate enough at normal ranges.  It's about rate of fire.  

 

Normally I would get all b**** about the thread going off the rails but my original question was answered quite nicely (thanks all) so, pray tell, do continue.  And happy holidays all.

[SirFlappy]

19 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Merry Christmas to you too sir.

 

I too prefer the SMLE, but am really a fan of the Martini-Henry in either 577/450 or the Martini-Enfield in .303 (yes I own both types).  

 You Yanks make me very jealous, I have the full firepower capacity of a .177 BSA air rifle at my disposal (you can see why I think a 98k is awesome..lol!)  ,so dont provoke me too much!!!

   In the UK this is bordering on a "weapon of mass destruction".

     As you said back to aircraft....all the best to you.

13 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

While that is true and a definite advantage for the Germans, IMHO it remains a fact that said infantry could have supported the MG better with something like an M1.  For me it's not about accuracy.  All of those rifles are accurate enough at normal ranges.  It's about rate of fire.  

 

Normally I would get all b**** about the thread going off the rails but my original question was answered quite nicely (thanks all) so, pray tell, do continue.  And happy holidays all.

 Rate of fire is fine as long as you have good logistical supply,strung out to the far banks of the Volga with horse driven transport (the ones that had not been eaten that is!) the millions of extra rounds "rate of fire enhanced" semi autos are  using is not such a boon possibly,rather than carefully aimed bolt action firing that conserves precious ammo.

Edited December 24, 2021 by SirFlappy

[PatrickAWlson]

16 minutes ago, SirFlappy said:

 You Yanks make me very jealous, I have the full firepower capacity of a .177 BSA air rifle at my disposal (you can see why I think a 98k is awesome..lol!)  ,so dont provoke me too much!!!

   In the UK this is bordering on a "weapon of mass destruction".

     As you said back to aircraft....all the best to you.

 Rate of fire is fine as long as you have good logistical supply,strung out to the far banks of the Volga with horse driven transport (the ones that had not been eaten) the millions of extra rounds "rate of fire enhanced" semi autos are  using is not such a boon possibly,rather than carefully aimed bolt action firing that conserves precious ammo.

 

Terrible German logistics are a fact, but not related to their choice of rifle.  I think that it's obvious that saving ammunition is not the reason for not going to a semiautomatic.  To support my hypothesis I present exhibit A: the MG42.  Later in the war, with even worse logistics, we have exhibit B: the StG. 44.  

 

Sort of on topic since the 110//410 answer was largely manufacturing and tooling related: the Kar 98 is what they had.  It wasn't terrible, but it was not as effective as the Garand.  On the flip side, the MG 42 was extremely effective, especially in the hands of somebody  that knew how to use it (aim and fire bursts, don't use it like a fire hose).

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, SirFlappy said:

   With respect ,you must remember that the German Armys doctrine (same as UK with the Bren) was that the rifleman is in support of the mg (in Germany the MG34 or 42), not the other way around.

   The slight academic margins of accuracy or bolt action vs semi auto are mitigated by this fact anyhow.

     (The Mauser 98 is still a decent rifle in anycase,although I prefer the SMLE to the 98 or No4 rifle...just because!!!!)

          Happy Xmas despite our clash of opinion!

 

Exactly - it wasn't going to be the quality of one's service rifle that was going to be the deal-breaker in who won the war. If it was, then Switzerland should have entered the conflict and conquered everyone in short order with the Schmidt-Rubin rifles.  I've had the privilege to own and thus fire most of the WWII-era service rifles, and in terms of pure accuracy nothing comes close to a K11 or K31 - though not surprisingly IMO my 1942 Mosin PU sniper comes pretty darn close, when one's using the right ammo and the best shooting techniques. And then there's the Finnish M39s, which show what a really well-built Mosin could do.

Edited December 24, 2021 by LukeFF

[KodiakJac]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Also the US started the war with a semi auto rifle already in their inventory (though not enough of them) in the M1 Garand, which was a more accurate rifle than the K98k, held more rounds and had a higher rate of fire.

 

"In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." - George S. Patton, January 26, 1945

 

Apparently, having your infantry troops equipped with semi-automatic rifles fighting infantry troops with bolt action rifles was a huge advantage in WWII.

[SirFlappy]

54 minutes ago, KodiakJac said:

 

"In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." - George S. Patton, January 26, 1945

 

Apparently, having your infantry troops equipped with semi-automatic rifles fighting infantry troops with bolt action rifles was a huge advantage in WWII.

 Of course Patton (cant help thinking of Kenny Everett UK comedian from the late 70s and 80s),had no US bias or arrogance to sway his judgement on this matter!!

  PS: I am not implying all americans are US centric and arrogant...talking about the pearl handled .45 man here only!

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by SirFlappy

[LukeFF]

24 minutes ago, KodiakJac said:

Apparently, having your infantry troops equipped with semi-automatic rifles fighting infantry troops with bolt action rifles was a huge advantage in WWII.

 

Eh, it's Patton - not that the M1 is mediocre, but consider the source.  

[SirFlappy]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Terrible German logistics are a fact, but not related to their choice of rifle.  I think that it's obvious that saving ammunition is not the reason for not going to a semiautomatic.  To support my hypothesis I present exhibit A: the MG42.  Later in the war, with even worse logistics, we have exhibit B: the StG. 44.  

 

Sort of on topic since the 110//410 answer was largely manufacturing and tooling related: the Kar 98 is what they had.  It wasn't terrible, but it was not as effective as the Garand.  On the flip side, the MG 42 was extremely effective, especially in the hands of somebody  that knew how to use it (aim and fire bursts, don't use it like a fire hose).

True but as I said they very nearly won the war with  the guns and equipment they had in 1939,it was only Hitlers choice to go for the USSR and not deal with Britain (threats/invasion,peace treaty on very good terms,U boats etc...may still not have beat us but anythings better than the Russian winter in summer uniforms!) ,that lost him the war ....declaring war on the USA did not help either lol!

  All they did after was futile,even if the Germans had good semi-autos from they start they could not have done better than they did (total victory 39 -40 ,then certain defeat 41-45) StG 44 or not.

Edited December 24, 2021 by SirFlappy

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, SirFlappy said:

True but as I said they very nearly won the war with  the guns and equipment they had in 1939,it was only Hitlers choice to go for the USSR and not deal with Britain (threats/invasion,peace treaty on very good terms,U boats etc...may still not have beat us but anythings better than the Russian winter in summer uniforms!) ,that lost him the war ....declaring war on the USA did not help either lol!

  All they did after was futile,even if the Germans had good semi-autos from they start they could not have done better than they did (total victory 39 -40 ,then certain defeat 41-45) StG 44 or not.

 

That I agree with.  I believe that if the Germans unilaterally declared peace in 1940they would have won WWII.  Great Britain could have continued night bombing but it would have been relatively ineffectual.  The Germans could have retaken Alsace and Lorraine and then withdrawn from the rest of France after absconding with all of their equipment and dismantling their arms industry.  

 

Some argue that the Soviets would have attacked Germany.  I don't think so.  If they had then the Germans would be fighting as the attacked and not the attacker.  The Soviets would have received minimal aid.  The Germans would be fighting with short supply lines that would minimize the impact of their crappy logistics.  The Soviet troops would be fighting as invaders and not defending mother Russia.  Their willingness to take losses in the millions would be more akin to WWI and not WWII, where they were fighting for their existence.

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, SirFlappy said:

True but as I said they very nearly won the war with  the guns and equipment they had in 1939,it was only Hitlers choice to go for the USSR and not deal with Britain (threats/invasion,peace treaty on very good terms,U boats etc...may still not have beat us but anythings better than the Russian winter in summer uniforms!) ,that lost him the war ....declaring war on the USA did not help either lol!

  All they did after was futile,even if the Germans had good semi-autos from they start they could not have done better than they did (total victory 39 -40 ,then certain defeat 41-45) StG 44 or not.

 

I apologize for turning this post into a book, but I think it rather completely covers Germany's chances of winning. 

 

I've always thought that the British were the only superpower the Germans had the faintest chance of defeating. And only then if they did everything perfectly.

We also need to remember that the German naval buildup was supposed to go on until the late 40s. Very few high-ranking military men in Germany felt that it was ready for war in 1939; the saber rattling was a convenient method of strong-arm diplomacy, but only Hitler and a few others were delusional enough to think Germany was in any position to fight the world.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Hitler was a gambler above all else. Everything he did was a gamble, from the Putsch to Anschluss. In his final moments of partial sanity, pre-war, he wanted to put the war off until the mid-40s. But then, quite rapidly, his timetable accelerated as his megalomaniacal certainty in his infallibility grew apace.

So what happened was, all the military leadership was caught completely flat-footed by the early onset of war, and the navy especially so. Both Raeder and Dönitz had some understanding of the mathematical necessities of how large the German navy, specifically the U-boat fleet, needed to be to strangle Britain. And by 1939, production was nowhere close to these goals. So, as in many other cases, they had to make-do with what was on hand.

If we alt-history this scenario so Germany has enough U-boats to do serious damage prior to 1943, more or less the deadline for when the U-boat fleet was destined to be destroyed/rendered impotent, U-boat production could only have been increased at the cost of surface fleet construction. Which is an interesting scenario, for while the German surface fleet proved to be useless, the fear of it did tie down great portions of the British fleet. If there was no German surface fleet to speak of, and only destroyers, coastal vessels, and U-boats, the British fleet would have nothing to fear, and could have operated quite differently. For instance, the convoy system could've been implemented earlier, perhaps.

Point being: nothing is free in a finite equation wherein Germany's limited resources must be juggled perfectly. Where a gain is made somewhere, there must be a loss elsewhere.

Let's pretend the Germans streamlined their tank and truck production way back in the '30s so that they could make many more vehicles than they did. So what? Where do the men come from to drive them? Where does the fuel come from to run them? Germany was already running short of fuel long before their synthetic production was bombed out. More vehicles equals more consumption. There's no way around it.

Back to defeating Britain, though. Let's pretend a larger U-boat fleet cripples Britain prior to 1943. Let's further assume that, without the invasion of Russia consuming vast amounts of German resources, defeating Britain in North Africa is a given (because it is a given, let's be honest; Malta could have been--should have been--invaded, which would've made the supply situation quite different for Afrika Korps).

In the best case scenario for Germany, Britain is being starved by shipping losses, London is subjected to constant bombing (remember, the Luftwaffe has nothing to do in Russia), and the Middle East is lost, along with most of the Mediterranean.

Britain surely must capitulate, right? Nah. I believe Britain would carry on much as Japan did in the same situation. Being on an island gives you hope, false or not, that you can weather the storm. Even with Germany holding all the cards, it would take until early 1942 for all this to play out. Very close, only a year or so off, from America's war economy coming into swing.

Germany still does not have an invasion fleet in this best case scenario. To gain the larger U-boat fleet, Germany is ironically in an even poorer position to invade England; there is no sizeable surface fleet to protect the landing ships. The British fleet still exists, and even fuel-starved poses a threat. It could do a suicide run into any assembled German invasion fleet and blow it to hell and back. That would delay another invasion attempt until America could save the day. Likewise, the remains of the RAF could kamikaze a German invasion fleet if the navy couldn't. Remember that Japanese kamikaze attacks were only fruitless because every ship damaged and destroyed was a pinprick in the scope of American production pace. Crippling a German invasion fleet would be infinitely easier.

Let's think about how big D-Day was. Now imagine the Germans doing that in reverse. Not happening. Not before 1943, certainly. And 1943 was the year American/British escort ship production was high enough to eliminate the U-boat threat. So how do the Germans invade Britain after Britain's supply lines are protected, and Britain turns into a giant American aircraft carrier?

Simple answer: it doesn't. Game over. At that point, even if Germany and Russia still aren't at war, it's a matter of attrition. Britain and America would need to kill all the German soldiers that the Russians did instead. So we're looking at millions of Anglo-American casualties to get that accomplished, instead of Russian casualties.

Stalin, quite sensibly, did not want to be the Western Allies' meat shield versus Germany. That's why he made the deal with Hitler for Poland. But like many men who made deals with Hitler prior, always thinking Hitler was something of an idiot/oddball/nutcase who could be kept under control, old Joey would be disappointed.

[Eisenfaustus]

3 hours ago, SirFlappy said:

True but as I said they very nearly won the war with  the guns and equipment they had in 1939,it was only Hitlers choice to go for the USSR and not deal with Britain (threats/invasion,peace treaty on very good terms,U boats etc...may still not have beat us but anythings better than the Russian winter in summer uniforms!) ,that lost him the war ....declaring war on the USA did not help either lol!

  All they did after was futile,even if the Germans had good semi-autos from they start they could not have done better than they did (total victory 39 -40 ,then certain defeat 41-45) StG 44 or not.

I don't believe their is any realistic scenario in which Britain could have been conquered...

Even if we imagine that the invasion itself could somehow passed the royal navy - then what? Supplying the Heer across the channel while it starts taking Britain town by town? Unlike France there would be no real element of surprise - the bridge head would be well known and the possible routes of advance...

And if Britain was not taken then their would be no peace...

Not being able to take the Soviet Union may be obvious in hindsight - but in 41 the Germans and British alike believed the Soviets would fall quickly. And imagine a Third Reich with access to the soviets natural ressources, factories and workforce - that actually is an entity to threaten the British empire - unlike the small country in the middle of Europe...

So in 1941 Barbarossa seemed like a smart move...

And declaring war on the US was actually more a making-it-official thing rather then game changer as the US at that point were already supplying the British and American warships attacked Kriegsmarine vessels already.

 

So after the British declared war on Germany in 1939 there was really nothing Germany could do to win. The British only could have chosen to lose but they didn't.

Maybe Germany could have done things to convince the British to stop fighting, like capturing the Expedition forces at Dunkirk, having built a larger Uboat fleet beforehand or fought the BoB smarter - but I actually don't think any of those things would have made a Churchill lead GB give up.

 

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I've had the privilege to own and thus fire most of the WWII-era service rifles, and in terms of pure accuracy nothing comes close to a K11 or K31

And you got GP11 rounds for that?

 

The K31 was indeed a very popular rifle and members of the armed forces often tried to keep that one instead of switching to th assault rifle. Mostly because it was consideraby lighter to carry (especially together with the standard issued ammo) than the StGw57 that replaced it, and also because it seems to me it is even more accurate than that one. Well, provided that you are fine with using the simple iron sights. But i also find it is harder on the shoulders than the assault rifle StGw57. I guess that one is the most over engineered of all roller delayed blowback guns… Incredibly smooth to fire though for such a cartridge.

 

And on topic, the Bf-110 was one of the best airframes of the war.

 

Merry Xmas everyone!

[PatrickAWlson]

@oc2209So what about my scenario.  Germany does not even try to defeat Britain.  Declare peace after Dunkirk and call it a war.  Stop bombing Britain or, better yet, don't even start.  Counter any further aggression on Britain's part with defensive action.  i.e. combine conquest with diplomacy.

 

Does the British public want to continue a war that Germany has ended?  For how long?  

The French are in no condition whatsoever to continue.  

Russia is where it was in 1940.  Will they collaborate with Britain to attack Germany?  That is probably the biggest danger but very far from a sure thing.

USA is out of the picture.   Seriously doubt that they have any interest in restarting a war that is effectively over.

One and a half years later, after Pearl Harbor, Germany disavows Japan.  Europe has been in an uneasy peace for 18 months.  Would America attack Germany in this scenario or turn their full might on the nation that actually attacked them?

 

Once Russia is invaded it's over for Germany.  Once the U.S. has engaged it's really, really over.  No arguments from me about how Germany could have won at that point - they couldn't.  But what if the madman wasn't actually mad?

[cardboard_killer]

I recommend

 

[Eisenfaustus]

15 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@oc2209So what about my scenario.  Germany does not even try to defeat Britain.  Declare peace after Dunkirk and call it a war.  Stop bombing Britain or, better yet, don't even start.  Counter any further aggression on Britain's part with defensive action.  i.e. combine conquest with diplomacy.

 

Does the British public want to continue a war that Germany has ended?  For how long?  

The French are in no condition whatsoever to continue.  

Russia is where it was in 1940.  Will they collaborate with Britain to attack Germany?  That is probably the biggest danger but very far from a sure thing.

USA is out of the picture.   Seriously doubt that they have any interest in restarting a war that is effectively over.

One and a half years later, after Pearl Harbor, Germany disavows Japan.  Europe has been in an uneasy peace for 18 months.  Would America attack Germany in this scenario or turn their full might on the nation that actually attacked them?

 

Once Russia is invaded it's over for Germany.  Once the U.S. has engaged it's really, really over.  No arguments from me about how Germany could have won at that point - they couldn't.  But what if the madman wasn't actually mad?

Would a German public, induced with master race fantasies for 7 years by then, bear to mildly turn the other cheek while women and children burn at night?

The Nazis were very afraid of losing the public - that is why the economy was only fully mobilzed in 1943 - after Stalingrad. (Do you want total war?)

The diplomacy would have had to happened before the attack on Poland...

 

But from a Nazi point of view was the war in the east unevitiable for ideoligical (living space for the master race, destruction bolshevism) as well as for economic reasons - the whole economy upbuild in the 30's was based on the assumption that the loans would be paid with the ressources of the east.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

And you got GP11 rounds for that?

 

The K31 was indeed a very popular rifle and members of the armed forces often tried to keep that one instead of switching to th assault rifle. Mostly because it was consideraby lighter to carry (especially together with the standard issued ammo) than the StGw57 that replaced it, and also because it seems to me it is even more accurate than that one. Well, provided that you are fine with using the simple iron sights. But i also find it is harder on the shoulders than the assault rifle StGw57. I guess that one is the most over engineered of all roller delayed blowback guns… Incredibly smooth to fire though for such a cartridge.

 

Yes, I was fortunate at the time I bought it (a K11) that the dealer (Aim Surplus) was also selling ample amounts of GP11 ammo at the time, plus original slings. I just wish I had bought more ammo at the time, since it's so difficult now to find ammo in that caliber. But, in all it was a very good deal - it's a nice, clean rifle with practically a perfect bore, and I have the tag that was kept underneath the butt plate by its former owner. Speaking of which, is that an address in Bern? I've not been able to determine that.