Magnesium overcast

Magnesium overcast (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

mdiehl -> Magnesium overcast (5/10/2004 10:10:10 PM)
XB-36 in flight. [:D] [image]local://upfiles/1631/Pn357455426.jpg[/image]

pasternakski -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/10/2004 10:15:34 PM)
Oh, yeah. When I was a kid, we lived in Tucson and got an almost daily treat of B-36s flying at not much more than treetop height. It was the greatest memory of my young life until I discovered tits.

Rendova -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/10/2004 10:23:05 PM)
That is an earlier varient.... no jets

TIMJOT -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/10/2004 10:42:57 PM)
I guess we have a different definition of swept wing. If thats a swept wing than I guess later versions AT-6 Texan and Curtiss CW-21 had swept wings as well. I believe the definition of a true swept wing is both the leading and rear edge of the wing are swept. To clarify I said the P-55 wing design was a failure, causing further swept wing design to be virtually abandoned and not incorporated in to US Jet designs until German test data was acquired. I do give credit to the US designers for solving the low speed deficiencies of the swept wing.

mdiehl -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/10/2004 10:58:01 PM)
Both the leading and trailing edges of the XB-36 were swept. The US did not wait for cpatured German a/c or data in order to experiment with the swept wing design. The problem in deploying a swept wing design during WW2 was lateral airflow... a problem that the ME262 did not solve nor did any other German production or protoype model. That was the principle reason for the retention of the straight wing design of the P-80. The P-80 had far superior climb rate at high speed than the ME262 and was more maneuverable in small part because of the stright wing design.

pasternakski -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/10/2004 11:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rendova That is an earlier varient.... no jets Yeah, those and the pusher turboprops were what made it such a bizarre sight to a seven-year-old kid. It was really an odd-looking aircraft, but somehow fascinating and beautiful at the same time. It looked big and powerful and, at 150 feet and around 200 knots, like something out of the old campy 50s sci-fi flicks.

Rendova -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/11/2004 12:08:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: Rendova That is an earlier varient.... no jets Yeah, those and the pusher turboprops were what made it such a bizarre sight to a seven-year-old kid. It was really an odd-looking aircraft, but somehow fascinating and beautiful at the same time. It looked big and powerful and, at 150 feet and around 200 knots, like something out of the old campy 50s sci-fi flicks. The B-36 didn't have turboprops, they were Pratt's 4360's I believe, which if you ever get to see one up close is the most complex recip you'll ever see

pasternakski -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/11/2004 12:15:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rendova The B-36 didn't have turboprops, they were Pratt's 4360's I believe, which if you ever get to see one up close is the most complex recip you'll ever see Hey - I was seven years old standing barefoot in the middle of a trailer park. What do you want from me - knowledge?

TIMJOT -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/11/2004 5:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl The US did not wait for cpatured German a/c or data in order to experiment with the swept wing design. No but their expirementation did result in it being discounted for further consideration for fighter designs. quote: The problem in deploying a swept wing design during WW2 was lateral airflow... a problem that the ME262 did not solve nor did any other German production or protoype model. I think specifically low speed instability. Your the last person I would expect championing low speed charachteristics over high speed charachteristics. Regardless as I said I give credit to the US designers for solveing the low speed problem with auto leading edge slots, but only after captured German researched demonstrated to much greater performance of the swept wing at speeds not previously envisioned by them gave them to impetus to solve it. That being said there were several ways to deal with the problem. The Russians came to the same conclusions when testing their version of the Focke Wulf TA183. They substituted with wing boundry fences that worked well enough. I dont think you would consider a P-80 superior to the MIG 15 and The MIG 15 was basically a FW TA183 with a Rolls Royce Engine and wing fences. quote: The P-80 had far superior climb rate at high speed than the ME262 and was more maneuverable in small part because of the stright wing design. I would say that it had more to do with the drag caused by the wing mounted engines. But AGAIN I never said nor do I believe that the 262 was superior to the P-80. I would expect that a 1943 design would be superior to a 1940 design. As I said before, I was only giving some credit to the Germans for advanceing swept wing design. If you dont want to give them any credit for advanceing swept wing design, thats certainly your perogative. To reiterate.... My initial post, simply credited the Germans for certain design concepts that carried thru well beyond WWII. The Walters Hull shape, MG 38 Lt MG, V1 Cruise missal, MP-42 Assault Rifle, FW 183 airframe, TOW ordnance. And yes there were certainly many US design concepts that carried thru well beyond WWII as well.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/11/2004 8:52:12 AM)
MDIEHL!!! You might be as popular a dev guy as myself. You have a big, yet lovable, attitude.[:D] You know your **** yet nobody cares for the most part. I am a big mouth arrogant puke myself, but the attitude fails in the long run. You should have a few beers when you post... I should not![;)]

Fred98 -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/11/2004 9:34:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay I see only two uses for the late war scenarios, and as such am personally quite happy that they exist. 1. So that playtesters have an actual chance to test late war equipment for bugs, inaccuracies, etc. 2. To allow an occaisional, solo player the chance to enjoy some Allied a**-whupping on the Japanese after seeing the early war campaigns. After all, we are all probably going to start off a Dec 7 '41 scenario right from the start, n'est-ce pas? There is another reason. If I play such a scenario as the Allied side, there are many good players who will defeat me on the scoreboard - if not on the battlefield. It is the scoreboard that defines the victor - nothing else. -

CynicAl -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 2:53:21 PM)
My understanding is that the ME 262 received swept wings for stability - the Messerschmidt team needed to shift the engines aft to resolve a CoG issue, and it was judged easier to give the wings a moderate sweep than to redesign the entire fuselage. Certainly later German designs incorporated the swept wing for greater speed (though I can't think of any offhand that ever got beyond the prototype stage), but I don't think the ME 262 was one of them. Also, while the MiG-15 certainly owed a great debt to the TA 183 aerodynamically, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the Rolls Royce engine to the success of the MiG. German TA 183s, with early German jet engines, simply were not going to be in the same class as Soviet MiG-15s with a much later engine.

TIMJOT -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 3:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CynicAl Also, while the MiG-15 certainly owed a great debt to the TA 183 aerodynamically, it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the Rolls Royce engine to the success of the MiG. German TA 183s, with early German jet engines, simply were not going to be in the same class as Soviet MiG-15s with a much later engine. Agreed, the RR engine was extremely important, the Argentine version of the TA183 did not fare as well partly due to inferior engine but mostly due to a change in wing positoning I believe. Nevertheless the airframe design was well ahead of its time.

mdiehl -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 6:02:46 PM)
quote: They substituted with wing boundry fences that worked well enough. I dont think you would consider a P-80 superior to the MIG 15 and The MIG 15 was basically a FW TA183 with a Rolls Royce Engine and wing fences. The ME-262 was no MiG-15. The TA183 was no MiG-15. Not by a long shot. The P-80 was a better aircraft than either the ME262 or the TA183. And, incidently, no P-80s were shot down by MiG-15s in Korea. One MiG-15 was shot down by a P-80 in Korea. To be sure, that was a an F-80C doing the deed. Of course, the TA183 was no F-80C and the ME-262 was no F-80C. By then of course, the F-80s were being retired in favor of the F-86, because the F-86 was something again. quote: If you dont want to give them any credit for advanceing swept wing design, thats certainly your perogative. Well, the US came up with the idea independently. The Germans didn't solve any of the problems incumbent to swept wing designs. The Germans fielded aircraft using the design that were inferior to the US best straight-wing design. The US built much better engines that Germany did (or at the time, could) hence produced designs that could take better advantage of swept wings. Frankly, given the many avenues of experimental wing configurations explored by the US going into WW2, during WW2, after WW2 and continuting through the present day, I do not think the presence or absence of an German design would have made a difference in the US aircraft inventory. If the Germans had never invented a swept wing design I still think the F-86 would have been deployed in Korea.

TIMJOT -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 6:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl The ME-262 was no MiG-15. The TA183 was no MiG-15. Not by a long shot. The P-80 was a better aircraft than either the ME262 or the TA183. And, incidently, no P-80s were shot down by MiG-15s in Korea. One MiG-15 was shot down by a P-80 in Korea. To be sure, that was a an F-80C doing the deed. Of course, the TA183 was no F-80C and the ME-262 was no F-80C. By then of course, the F-80s were being retired in favor of the F-86, because the F-86 was something again. OK mdiehl you read into it what you want, but this habit of putting words in my mouth is getting tiresome. I never once compared a 262 to a MIG-15, but a MIG 15 airframe was basically a TA183's. We really dont know how the TA183 would have compared to the P-80 do we? We do know its closest incarnation fared favorbly. Regardless if you chose to read a little more carefully I was simply given credit to the TA183 "AIRFRAME" specifically NOT the theoretical performance of said a/c. The basic overall airframe design was superior to the P-80s. Just as the basic airframe design of the F-86 and MIG15 was superior to the P-80. BTW the overall performance charactheristics to the MIG15 was superior to the P-80, This superiorty was more or less negated by superior US pilot skill, training, tactics and communications. Finally.....One last time just to reiterate. NO, the TA183 even with a RR engine and wing fences or slats would NOT have won the war for Germany.

TIMJOT -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 6:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl I do not think the presence or absence of an German design would have made a difference in the US aircraft inventory. If the Germans had never invented a swept wing design I still think the F-86 would have been deployed in Korea. That may be true but the F-86 project was about to be cancelled when the strait wing design could not reach the 600mph benchmark. They attribute the German data in being instrumental in the decision to explore the swept wing concept for the project. I do think it probable that eventually the swept wing would have been adopted regardless.

mdiehl -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 6:54:46 PM)
I think even without the German data someone at Repubic would have swept the wing just to see wtf. All the German data did was indicate something that all the US manufacturers were on the verge of doing anyhow. quote: We do know its closest incarnation fared favorbly. We do know that P-80s shot down better aircraft (MiG 15s) than the TA183 despite the fact that the MiG 15 had a similar airframe to the TA183. By the way, I have put nothing in your mouth. You're the guy backpedalling after suggesting that the MiG 15 was just a TA183 with a different engine and implying, therefrom, that the TA183 was better than the P-80. If you weren't grasping at straws, then why are we talking about the MiG-15 at all? Why are you muttering about "airframes" when the hijacked subject du juor was wing design? And if you are so concerned about not twisting others' words, then why did you stammer something about me being an advocate of low-speed flight properties when I specifically mentioned lateral airflow -- a problem that is exacerbated at high-speed and that the Germans never solved? The TA183 was no MiG-15. The P-80 was better than either the theoretical TA183 or the ME262. US corporations were working with swept wing designs independently of German designs. They'd have gotten around to swept wings rather quickly with or without German data. I don't know enough about Soviet WW2 X-planes to know whether or not the USSR would have gotten as quickly to the MiG-15 without the TA183.

TIMJOT -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 8:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl By the way, I have put nothing in your mouth Specifically, the seeming repeated implication that I somehow compared the 262 favorably first to the P-80 and then the MIG-15. quote: You're the guy backpedalling after suggesting that the MiG 15 was just a TA183 with a different engine and implying, therefrom, that the TA183 was better than the P-80. If you weren't grasping at straws, then why are we talking about the MiG-15 at all? Why are you muttering about "airframes" when the hijacked subject du juor was wing design ? I believe I suggested that the MIG-15 was basically just a TA183 with a RR (better) engine AND wing fences. I stand by that opinion. Of course you are intitled to your own POV. I dont think its grasping at straws, absent head to head comparisons to make comparisons to its closest incarnation. As far has highjacking subjects. My initial post specifically put forth the opinion that a "LITTLE" credit should be given to germans for the ADVANCEMENT of swept wing design. This inocuous statement has been somehow overblown as some sort of indictment of US aircraft design. quote: And if you are so concerned about not twisting others' words, then why did you stammer something about me being an advocate of low-speed flight properties when I specifically mentioned lateral airflow -- a problem that is exacerbated at high-speed and that the Germans never solved? Now this is New to me. I was under the impression that the drawback of swept wing design was instability caused by lateral airflow at low speeds. The US solved low speed instability adding auto slats on the leading edge of the wing. The USSR used wing fences. I am unaware of instability of swept wings at high speeds. Doesnt the swept wing resolve compressibilty, hence instability at high speeds? Correct me if I am wrong but I am truely unaware of any instability problems inherent in the swept wing at high speeds. Fiinally, Any precieved stammering or muttering can be attributed to my admitedly inadequate writing ability to get my POV accross clearly. A disclaimer and apology as such should be considered permanently affixed at heading of all my post.

mdiehl -> RE: Swept Wings and MiG-15s (5/11/2004 8:54:52 PM)
You're right, my mistake. The lateral airflow problem was primarily at slower speeds.

fcooke -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/12/2004 2:24:45 AM)
Mdiehl - you've got me struggling here....you state that the P80 wasn't even a glimmer in a designers eye until 43 - a year in which the 262 could easily have been in series production by the Germans. Yet you compare the two as contemporaries and state that if need be, the P80 could have been mass produced to fend off the P80. If this is true, then why when the US bomber crews (and fighter pilots) were screaming about the performance of of the 262 were P80s not flooded into the European theater? And if 262s were such average planes did the USAAF neef to catch them on the ground and refueling in order to destroy them? Please do not use 'the US was able to succeed with tactics (via numbers - generally)' arguments when comparing weapons platforms on a one to one basis. A Tiger is a better tank platform than any Sherman - arguments about the Shermans advantage at a 30 degree offset angle actually only reinforce the argument that it is an inferior design. A 262 is a better platform than a Mustang or T-Bolt - otherwise 262s would have fell in droves before the US designs - in the air - anything can kill anything else on the ground. Please enlighten me that US fighters downed more 262s than 262s shot down US aircraft - despite the numerical odds against them - in air combat conditions (not while landing). In short, if the Germans were fielding as many platforms as the Allies is the 262 a better platform than what the Allies were flying (unit for unit)? To TIMJOT's points - the Axis never could have won - it doesn't mean they didn't produce some good weapons. If you really want to hypothesize otherwise, please think of what you are saying about veteran's recollections of facts. Regards, Frank

mdiehl -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/12/2004 6:41:24 PM)
quote: Mdiehl - you've got me struggling here....you state that the P80 wasn't even a glimmer in a designers eye until 43 - a year in which the 262 could easily have been in series production by the Germans. Yet you compare the two as contemporaries and state that if need be, the P80 could have been mass produced to fend off the P80. If this is true, then why when the US bomber crews (and fighter pilots) were screaming about the performance of of the 262 were P80s not flooded into the European theater? The ME-262 could not easily have been in serious production in 1943. The assembly plants were not tooled for the job and the aircraft itself was still struggling with serious deficiencies in the engines, particularly in re acceleration. Some improvements were made there such that by 1944 the ME-262 was combat worthy. The P-80 and ME-262 were contemporaries. The limitation on the P-80 deployment was lack of jet-qualified pilots. I'm not sure what else you think matters there. Had the ME-262 made an earlier appearance or even threatened to, the US would have pumped more money into making P-80s and pilots available in greater numbers earlier. They might even have poured money into solving the basic problem that a P-80 could not fly from the UK channel coast to central Germany and back. What you seem to have overlooked in several of my posts, and in the general examination of the strategic bomber campaign in the ETO is that jet fighters of the day were relatively short-legged. The P-80 did not have the range to escort bombers from the UK to central Germany. Even if hundreds of P-80 pilots had been available, you would not likely see any P-80 vs ME-262 engagements until late in 1942 because the US jets would have to operate from continental airbases. And then weather might well be a problem. But if the two had managed to meet in combat, the P-80 would have been the better plane in which to be a pilot. As to US bomber crews and pilots "screaming" about the jets. The alleged screaming is greatly overstated. ME-262s were observed, recognized, and perceived as a dangerous threat. Despite that, by mid-1944 US bomber crews were pretty happy: in comparison with 1943 their loss rates to German interceptors of all types were low and getting lower. ME-262s, even when they made their very rare appearance, rarely shot down any bombers. And the price that the fragile, poorly accelerating, short-duration, complicated, excessively prone to mechanical breakdown ME-262s paid was to be shot up in droves in the air and on the ground by robust, reliable, long ranged, hard-hitting less expensive and somewhat slower piston-engined aircraft. quote: And if 262s were such average planes did the USAAF neef to catch them on the ground and refueling in order to destroy them? That is an incorrect assumption. Many ME-262s were shot down in the air at combat speeds. quote: Please do not use 'the US was able to succeed with tactics (via numbers - generally)' arguments when comparing weapons platforms on a one to one basis. A Tiger is a better tank platform than any Sherman - arguments about the Shermans advantage at a 30 degree offset angle actually only reinforce the argument that it is an inferior design. Tactics and numerical superiority are different things. One is, well, tactical, and the other strategic. But the general thrust of your objection is trivial. Combat does not occur chess-like on a battlefield. If it did, and if every combat on the ground occurred between 1 tiger parked on 1 ridge and 1 Sherman parked on an opposite ridge, and neither of them ever moved or indeed could not move, the advantage is to the tiger. But the fact remains that the M476(w) could penetrate the front armor of any garden variety tiger out to 1 km, and that covers just about every combat circumstance in the western ETO. The tiger had a lousy engine that was mechanically fragile, prone to stalling, and in early models given (at a low but alarming frequency) to catching fire. It had a slower turret travers, a lower rate of fire, and lacked gyro-stabilization. That is why, when hyper rare tigers actually showed up in the western front, they were often blown to little shreds by Shermans pumping shells into them from various directions. The only "unstoppable monster" in the German inventory were the Jgdpz VI and the PzVIB (I think it's the B -- the "koenigstiger"). Even then, 90mm armed US TDs were a match for these. quote: A 262 is a better platform than a Mustang or T-Bolt - otherwise 262s would have fell in droves before the US designs - in the air - anything can kill anything else on the ground. Please enlighten me that US fighters downed more 262s than 262s shot down US aircraft - despite the numerical odds against them - in air combat conditions (not while landing). In short, if the Germans were fielding as many platforms as the Allies is the 262 a better platform than what the Allies were flying (unit for unit)? To TIMJOT's points - the Axis never could have won - it doesn't mean they didn't produce some good weapons. If you really want to hypothesize otherwise, please think of what you are saying about veteran's recollections of facts. Non-sequitur. I don't give a rip about recollections when these pertain to information outside of the recaller's reliable information base.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/12/2004 7:02:42 PM)
I'm going to disagree with you a little bit here, MDIEHL. Had the German's not got- ten "sidetracked" with bomber variant's, The Me-262 could have been available in reasonable numbers in the Spring of 1944. Would have still been hampered by engine problems, but it could have made siezing "air superiority" over the Continent a more difficult task. The P-51's were only available in real quantity with the start of 1944, and the Spring Bomber Campaigns are what really "broke the back" of the Luftwaffe. You're right that they were too unreliable and short-legged to change the overall outcome, but they would probably have delayed it and made "Overlord" a more chancy endevour. And neither the British or the Americans would have been in position to put a "jet answer" into the air over Europe in numbers until 1945. Like most German "wonder weapons" the real wonder is that they were built in place of more proven designs that could have been available in greater numbers.

mdiehl -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/12/2004 7:11:29 PM)
Please explain the substantial performance difference between a "bomb ready" ME-262 and a fighter-specific one? I'm pretty curious. Would the non-bomb designed ME-262 been deployed with weaker, less reliable engines? (After all, to lug that frame and the bomb off the ground you need more thrust and better acceleration). It may well be that the production delays in the ME-262 resulted in a substantially better jet than would otherwise have been deployed.

PzB74 -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/12/2004 8:27:03 PM)
From all I've read about the 262 over the years, I've found that the fighter bomber myth doesn't hold water. Hitlers insistance on putting bombs on the plane didn't delay production much at all. It didn't take much effort to put a few bomb racks on the plane compared to the monstrous task of producing reliable engines - and enough of them. The 262 was another 'almost in time' design, like the XXI subs. Introduced 6 months earlier, they could have inflicted hurt, but even if introduced a full year earlier - I seriously doubt they could even have prolonged the war. Would have taken much more than that to stop the Red steamroller.... Would have liked to presented a few good sources, but that has to wait until July when I get back home... My days as a banana bender is coming to an end soon [8D]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/13/2004 3:39:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Please explain the substantial performance difference between a "bomb ready" ME-262 and a fighter-specific one? I'm pretty curious. Would the non-bomb designed ME-262 been deployed with weaker, less reliable engines? (After all, to lug that frame and the bomb off the ground you need more thrust and better acceleration). It may well be that the production delays in the ME-262 resulted in a substantially better jet than would otherwise have been deployed. My understanding is that making the design changes needed to turn an interceptor into a fighter-bomber delayed the initial production ordering process. Wouldn't have changed the engine problems, or lessened the "teething troubles" inherent in all new designs--- just gotten the tooling and set up work started sooner and turned outmore A/C. As I said, I don't think it would have made a major difference overall, merely delayed the inevitable for a little while.

Apollo11 -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/14/2004 2:47:53 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl Please explain the substantial performance difference between a "bomb ready" ME-262 and a fighter-specific one? I'm pretty curious. Would the non-bomb designed ME-262 been deployed with weaker, less reliable engines? (After all, to lug that frame and the bomb off the ground you need more thrust and better acceleration). It may well be that the production delays in the ME-262 resulted in a substantially better jet than would otherwise have been deployed. My understanding is that making the design changes needed to turn an interceptor into a fighter-bomber delayed the initial production ordering process. Wouldn't have changed the engine problems, or lessened the "teething troubles" inherent in all new designs--- just gotten the tooling and set up work started sooner and turned outmore A/C. As I said, I don't think it would have made a major difference overall, merely delayed the inevitable for a little while. I think that Me-262 delay (and delays of many other things) were due to stupid Hitler's decision (but luckily for world and humanity) to stop all projects that will not produce (i.e. be finished) in 6 months. This decision hurt German war effeort more than anything else (I think that decision was in 1941)... Leo "Apollo11"

Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/14/2004 11:01:06 PM)
Well, the 6month-Stopper was very serious for german war developping in 1940 (after the fall of paris).... in 1941 germany spent more money for marmor for hitlers building palns in "hreat berlin" as for ammo... for the comments of a certain allied fanboy, ignoring them is better as discussing.... for the interested people, the russians recived the "nene" rr-engine in 1947 or 48 and developted (with drawing from the ta182) their own jet fighters.... for the me262 impact on ww2... these jets could have come not earlier as Autum 43, but at this time the germans had have many more good pilots (fighter pilots) to use em.... even if they had ahave 200 ready planes in january 44, they could have END the bombing, but not winning the war. Why ? Because with 200 jets (with say 20mm Cannons instead of MK108 30mm cannons), ignoring the RM4-Missiles (the germans had ready since End of 43 but ignored untill the very end, developted by some chechan engeneers (to not forget the brain behind this weapon)) they could easy shot down one bomber per mission (because the germans lacked good bomberkilling planes with enough speed in 43... the me109 was to light armed and the FW190A-Series lacked the performance at high levels.... But do you remember the schweinfurt raid ? If the americans had lost in dezember 43 in one big strike say 200+ bombers, they would have stopped strategic bombing at day... and this means that the germans have time to recover AND to fight easier targets at the channel.... For the german subs... it is strange that the "schnorchel" was in use since 1940 by the dutch, and the germans had such boats but ignored the use of the schnorchel.... for the XXIer boats... they could have in combat 1 year earlier and this means zero superiority for allied asw.... the speed to seek subs is 10 or less in rough sea (and the northern atlantic was seldom calm), the form of the sub made them difficult to find, it could dive even deeper as the VIIer boats, had a larger range and better conditions and with the schnorchel had no need to dive up.... so all these planes, equipped with the Mark IX Radar (or inferior - also any Radar untill early 1945) does not find the schnorchel.... so they can�t find the subs... with these subs outside, the allied losses increase again - this means they need more support ships, hit lesser subs (this means, more surviving subs, better trained and more experienced crews = better sucsess in the next mission, etc...) and have generally a larger problem. For the Jet discussion and the question why bomber me262 are inferior to fighter me262.... well, maybe you try it next time on you own.... sit in a passenger jet and ask the pilot if he could win a dogfight in a real war ? Bomber pilots had no knowledge about fighter war and viceversa... the higher speed of the me262... well, sure its crusing speed was just 500 miles an hour - made it impossible to hit anything with bombs... but the crews of these planes also were useless in a dogfight.... just sit an b52pilot in an f15 or f16.... i bet in a dogfight (no missles) he will perform great against say aegyptian mig21.... or nor ? how should he know what to do... even the iraqi airforce would nail him in seconds.... For the bombing war, Galland wanted the big hit - if hitler had given him this chance, it would have went bad for the allies.... because they had a lot pilots and bombers, but if 700 or more fighters had attacked say 300 bombers, undefended (if Galland had got his chance in 43) or even in early 44, the moral of the crews would have been destroyed (as the Schweinfurt and Ploesti raids showed...) You are not really concentrated if you loose 30% of your wings at every flight.... For the p80... i just wait for numbers (not from the allied fanboy) for its performance in Summer 44. We had this discussion about the night fighters and mr. fanboy showed the numbers of a 1946 recon plane. I really am interest in these datas... because all datas i found speak about the 1946-version... and this one could use german knowledge.... also, if we compare the p80 with the me262 i have 2 questions... 1.) what changes if the p80 had been in service in 1944... it lacked range... so it could not protect the allied bombers 2.) what chance (if we would ignore 1.) have the p80 to stop the me262 to shot down a few bombers and escape ? For the tank comparisation.... strangely, nearly any american tank crew disagrees with mdiehl.... also any combat results and records shows different results....but if he would use a m36, i happily would kill him with my jagdpanther [:)] Fun aside, this does not mean that these weapons could have changed the rsult of the war, but it seems silly to me that with all this superior stuff the allied (western) troops were so slow (really lazy, aren�t they ?) Oh, and Apollo, you meant the mg42 - not the mg38. right ? Wasn�t the m60 the try to copy it ? and the result sucked and was inferior ? Why not just copying...the russians never had such problems, if one weapon system was good, they copied it. (oh, the germans did the same, the panther (my pov: best tank of ww2) was the german copy of the t34... And yes, i would also like to play the japanese after 43.... but i also belive you could win the war (at last in the game)... if you hold the right defence line, kill all american carriers and battleships with small own losses and avoid bombing of the homeland, you win - right ? In real life, the americans just would build 50 carriers more.... problem solved. But in the game, they will not recive them ?

Apollo11 -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/16/2004 11:08:06 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi Well, the 6month-Stopper was very serious for german war developping in 1940 (after the fall of paris).... in 1941 germany spent more money for marmor for hitlers building palns in "hreat berlin" as for ammo... I always thought that "6 month directive" was issued in 1941 (after slow down in Russia... must re-check my sources (and memory) then... quote: for the comments of a certain allied fanboy, ignoring them is better as discussing.... for the interested people, the russians recived the "nene" rr-engine in 1947 or 48 and developted (with drawing from the ta182) their own jet fighters.... for the me262 impact on ww2... these jets could have come not earlier as Autum 43, but at this time the germans had have many more good pilots (fighter pilots) to use em.... even if they had ahave 200 ready planes in january 44, they could have END the bombing, but not winning the war. Why ? Because with 200 jets (with say 20mm Cannons instead of MK108 30mm cannons), ignoring the RM4-Missiles (the germans had ready since End of 43 but ignored untill the very end, developted by some chechan engeneers (to not forget the brain behind this weapon)) they could easy shot down one bomber per mission (because the germans lacked good bomberkilling planes with enough speed in 43... the me109 was to light armed and the FW190A-Series lacked the performance at high levels.... The German research, just like German, Nazi government was very disorganized... The R4M air-to-air missile with new sight for Me-262 was really deadly combination against bombers... quote: But do you remember the schweinfurt raid ? If the americans had lost in dezember 43 in one big strike say 200+ bombers, they would have stopped strategic bombing at day... and this means that the germans have time to recover AND to fight easier targets at the channel.... True, but IMHO, this would not end the war or brought German victory - it would only prolong bloodshed (and enable Russians to go deeper west into Europe than they did since nothing could stop them on Eastern front)... quote: For the german subs... it is strange that the "schnorchel" was in use since 1940 by the dutch, and the germans had such boats but ignored the use of the schnorchel.... Yes... such simple mechanism (and put RAM on it to fight radar ASW)... quote: for the XXIer boats... they could have in combat 1 year earlier and this means zero superiority for allied asw.... the speed to seek subs is 10 or less in rough sea (and the northern atlantic was seldom calm), the form of the sub made them difficult to find, it could dive even deeper as the VIIer boats, had a larger range and better conditions and with the schnorchel had no need to dive up.... so all these planes, equipped with the Mark IX Radar (or inferior - also any Radar untill early 1945) does not find the schnorchel.... so they can�t find the subs... with these subs outside, the allied losses increase again - this means they need more support ships, hit lesser subs (this means, more surviving subs, better trained and more experienced crews = better sucsess in the next mission, etc...) and have generally a larger problem. Although I think XXI's would be huge threat we should not forget Allied ASW development as well (like sound homing ASW torpedo)... quote: For the tank comparisation.... strangely, nearly any american tank crew disagrees with mdiehl.... also any combat results and records shows different results....but if he would use a m36, i happily would kill him with my jagdpanther [:)] We had many threads with such topics in past... in many of them "Nikademus" and contradicted "miedhel"... [;)] quote: Fun aside, this does not mean that these weapons could have changed the rsult of the war, but it seems silly to me that with all this superior stuff the allied (western) troops were so slow (really lazy, aren�t they ?) 100% agreed! We all know that Germany lost war when it invaded Russia (and this was reinforced 10-th fold when they declared war on USA). Same thing applies to Japan (war was lost the moment Peral Harbor was attacked). IMHO Allies in WWII simply were 100x stronger than Axis Powers Germany & Japan (let' leave Italy out of it) and victory was never in question. But what bothers me is the view that every single Allied weapon and/or technology and/or commander and/or soldier was better than Axis counterpart. The war was long and bloody one not because the Axis were weak - it was hard because they were strong and had good (and in many cases better) weapons and/or technology and good commanders and soldiers! To think otherwise is disrespect to millions of fallen soldiers... quote: Oh, and Apollo, you meant the mg42 - not the mg38. right ? Wasn�t the m60 the try to copy it ? and the result sucked and was inferior ? Why not just copying...the russians never had such problems, if one weapon system was good, they copied it. (oh, the germans did the same, the panther (my pov: best tank of ww2) was the german copy of the t34... Not me... I never posted anything about MG's... BTW the US M60 was indeed inspired by German MG 42. quote: And yes, i would also like to play the japanese after 43.... but i also belive you could win the war (at last in the game)... if you hold the right defence line, kill all american carriers and battleships with small own losses and avoid bombing of the homeland, you win - right ? In real life, the americans just would build 50 carriers more.... problem solved. But in the game, they will not recive them ? That's the hope... but given the force disadvantage I sincerely doubt it would be possible against competent Allied WitP player... [8D] Leo "Apollo11"

mdiehl -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/17/2004 7:50:35 PM)
On a side note, Adnan, there is a board game that you might like. According to the game designer it is presumed that the Axis may win by conquering most of the known world, but if they lose it will be by a small margin of Allied victory. It allows the powers to research all manner of high tech projects. (And I am playing the Euro Axis in one game and the western Allies in another.)

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Magnesium overcast (5/17/2004 8:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski Oh, yeah. When I was a kid, we lived in Tucson and got an almost daily treat of B-36s flying at not much more than treetop height. It was the greatest memory of my young life until I discovered tits. [:D]

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.9375