what if?

[b-1]

What if germany had not attack poland in 1939 and wated till 1945. The german navy would of been more then raiders with ship like the Graf zepplin and the Z class battle ships . The Airforce would of had jets in large numbres. The army would have had weapons like the STG-44 and the FG-42.

This i just listing a few of the weapons the germans had made or planed on making but WW2 slowed them all down.

[Tony Williams]

The British, Americans and Russians would have had a lot of new stuff as well.

However, many of the new developments were only brought forward as a result of war experience, so don't assume that weapons which were actually available in 1945 would have been issued if the war hadn't happened.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Wuzak]

The British had started gearing up for war several years before it began. If the start of the war had been delayed one or two more years they may hve continued to build their forces, but had it taken another 6 years they may well have relaxed their re-armament program.

It all depends on what information they would have got from Germany about its equipment, resources and intentions.

[montanamotor]

Hi, folks,

I read that, had WWII begun EARLIER - during times of the Munich-crisis in 1938, to be precise - Germany may well have prevailed in WW II.

Hitler in later years allways was furious on Göring who, without noticing his "Big Boss" , in 1938 negotiated with Mussolini behind the scenes, to call european leaders to the Munich summit, which finally lead to smashing Chechoslovakia and making it to the "German Protectorate of Böhmen and Mähren" without one single shot being fired, whereas Hitler himself DID plan to begin WW II by invading Chechoslovakia. This is a historically proven fact!

Remember Chamberlain's claim: "Peace in out time!"? Well - this one more invaluable year of peace for rearmament, which he secured for Britain with the Munich-treaty, may well have made the difference for Germany between winning and losing the war.

Neither Göring nor Mussolini ever really wanted a war, whereas Hitler was convinced that, with his armed forces already about 85 percent ready compared to 1939, waging war in 1938 already might have come to a totally different end than it did.

Hitler in german history-books often is cited that, had the war begun one year earlier - with Britain by far not as ready as 1939, with Soviet-Russia in the midst of Stalin's "Clearances" among his army leaders, and with America staying out of the war for one more year (compared to a war beginning in 1938) - Germany probably had won the war.

Hitler in later years allways was bitter on Göring and Mussolini, that both of them had talked him into delaying the outbreak of war one more year. Otherwise, not the german invasion of Poland in 1939 would have marked the beginning of WW II, but the german invasion of Chechoslovakia in 1938.

But: Che sera, sera...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Ricky]

The trouble with starting the war over Czechoslovakia is this: It robs the Panzer Divisions, the key componant of "Bltzkrieg" of their strength. In 1939/40 a very sizeable minority (or even a majority) of German tanks were actually impressed Czech tanks. The actual German tanks were mostly inferior to these, with only a few handfuls of the good Pz.III and Pz.IV serving.

Had Germany attacked Czechoslovakia...

The Czechs had very good border defences on their German border (The Sudetenland), and one of the best armaments industries in the world at the time. Their tanks and anti-tank guns were top-of-the-line. While the Luftwaffe would probably have prevailed over the Czech air force, a breakthrough on the ground would have been bloomin' tricky for the Germans, and if it happened it would have been at high cost.

Britain, France & Russia would be unlikely to actually do more than declare war on Germany in response, but if/when Germany subdues the Czechs, she would not be strong enough to take on France in 1940, and certainly not to take on Russia in 1941. Heck, they might even have been unable to defeat the Poles in 1939.

Starting the war over Czechoslovakia would, therefore, have been another dumb Hitler idea.

[montanamotor]

Ricky,

sorry but, there were no czech tanks in Hitlers army.

Later in War, german tanks were also built by Skoda factories who served as subcontractors, that's true. But those still were tanks of german design. Czechoslovakia's own tanks at that time were little more than armored vehicles, compared to german "Panzer III" and "Panzer IV"-types.

Hitlers Luftwaffe was ready in 1938, yet. And there's no fortification whatsoever, that evades a 1000 kg-Stuka-bomb, for shure. Remember the fate of the Maginot-Line.

Even Churchill stated in his own autobiography that, had war begun one year earlier, there had been nothing Britain could have done to keep Hitler from winning it.

All I was stating, was proven quotes from Hitler and others, written down in history-books and elsewhere.

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

sorry but, there were no czech tanks in Hitlers army.

From Wikipedia:

"Czechoslovakia produced several light tanks. In general the Czech designs were very reliable mechanically and comperable in combat value to other light tanks. The CKD tankette was armed with two machineguns and was used in combat in WW2 on the Eastern Front. The Panzer 35(t) was a light tank with a 37 mm gun and two machineguns. Only a few were built before the Czhecoslovak army was disbanded; production continued after the German conquest. The tank was taken into German service and used in the Battle of France and on the Eastern Front crewed by German, Slovakian and Romanian units. The more advanced Panzer 38(t) light tank was also used in great numbers by other powers. Almost one-quarter of the tanks used by Germany in Operation Barbarossa were of Czech manufacture. Both of these vehicles were used as substitutes for the Panzer III but were not its equal. The 38(t), in particular, formed the basis for several important self-propelled guns."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Kutscha]

montana, sorry you is wrong.

quote:there were no czech tanks in Hitlers army.

The Skoda Panzer 35(t) and the Praga Panzer 38(t) were used by the German Heer.

Over 750 Pz.38(t)s served with the 7. and 8. Pz. Div.
The 2 tanks were used in Poland in Sept 39 and there was 2 Div (Pz.38(t))totally equiped for the BoF. The Pz.35(t) made up the bulk of the tanks of the 6. Pz Div. for the BoF. Even the 3. Pz Div used Pz35(t)s.

The Hetzer was based on the Czech tanks as was the Marder III.

[montanamotor]

Well,

if it's not aircraft, it's not my thing...

Okay then, but to everything else quoted here I'll stick to.

Cheers,

Montanamoor

[Jemiba]

.. and without starting the war in 1939, the germans probably
wouldn't have had jets in 1945. Why not ? They wouldn't have
acknowledged the necessity to develop and commission a completely
new type of engine. Maybe Heinkel would have been allowed to build
some more He 280, but probably by 1945 they had stould next to
the He 178 in the aviation museum Berlin ...

[b-1]

The germans were already well on there way to the jet engine. Hitler slowed the program down for the V project. When the air war went bad for hitler he wanted jets and he wnated them right away so in 1943 they started back up. Most contrys after ww1 thought their would be no more wars. Britin and france built up new force but were lacking in tatics during the early years of ww2. I think they had no rush in making improved tatics and weapons right away.So long as Germany was secrite about the technolge and tatics wich they were then when war started in 1945 the world would have seen king tigers and Panthers Me 262 and arado bombers, Graf Zeppline and the Z class battle ships. All of wich would have out classed the allies best. Well all but russia wich in my eye's whas Germanys equal.

[simon]

Sorry, but I disagree. There is no reason to suggest that Germany would have outclassed the Allies by 1945. Such R&D is expensive to fund and difficult to justify in peacetime. You said it yourself, there was only the push for Jet fighters once the bombing offensives started to bite, so it stands to reason, no bombing offensive = no push for Jets.

Equally IIRC much of the development behind many of the German Army's weapons was due to their experiences in combat, no experience would mean nothing to base such developments on.

GZ was a pretty poor aircraft carrier in all honesty, far below the standard of the US or RN carriers.

[montanamotor]

All said, I agree with Simon a lot.

Also I'd like to add that, in 1939, Germany was almost broke. One step from state bankruptcy, to be precise. Had Germany NOT invaded ANY country by late 1939, from 1940 on The "Reich" would totally have run out of money and especially, convertable foreign currency and - GOLD. Everything was spent for arms and people's goodies. In some way, going to war for Hitler was more or less only a choice of either disappearing into the mist of history with a whimper, or with a bang. He chose the bang - with all known consequences.

Plain and frankly: No war, no more Reich. Hitler was a gambler, and with all his rearming efforts and domestic spending policy, he was betting against the odds. For some time he won for shure. But when the world noticed that he was a gambler only, he got a casino ban.

b-1, sorry but your guesses and estimates are in no way fact-based.

Cheers.

Montanamotor

[Double T]

I had always read that if the Germans had delayed their Empire-building an additional year of two... the outcome for the Allies might have been in doubt.
The Kreigsmarime wasn't as well prepared for war as the Luftwaffe and Panzer-arms. They didn't have the submarine force built-up to the levels they had envisioned. Imagine if the XXI-series of U-boats had become operational in 1942. Those allied conveys in the North Atlantic would have been in big-trouble. Perhpas allied anti-sub measures would also have improved, but we didn't ahve the level of acostic-detection and "hedgehogs" that we used in anti-sub detection in later-years. The XXI-class U-boats were so advanced, the allies in post-WW2 used it as a basis for all their resulting new sub-designs.
I realize this is all hypothetical, but the arguements I have always heard presented commented on whether Germanys' power-moves on the European continent came "too-early" and not "too-late." Interesting timelines, however.

Tim

[montanamotor]

Tim,

having high-performance-weapons to beat your enemies is GREAT - as long as you have the bucks to buy them. And Germany simply ran out of bucks at the time they started the war.

Only with requirements, war economics and extraordinarily high taxation of private property during the war years, by reckless - and, finally: mortal - depriving (is that term correct?) jewish people of their properties in the Reich and in occupied countries, by plain theft and taking war booties, by forced labour and by exploitation of foreign countries' assets of gold and currency and natural resources Germany went on fighting it's war as long as it did.

And when the war was over, Germany's money was out - and vice versa. Ask the Swedish and Swiss banks where it all has gone. They know.

I am not stating rough accusations here, but results of long-time-ongoing research on the economics of war of the german Third Reich during WW II, conducted by dozens of historians and economists over the last 15 years especially - since former german archives, which were captured by soviet-russian troops at war's end in Berlin, and swiss bank-archives (due to charges by the Jewish Claims Commission) became availlable to historical scientists from 1991 onwards.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[b-1]

Good points i like the what if discutions.


Theirs is alot in my mind that german could have dun to win. Hitler was told By Many High rainking officers in all branches of the military to wate.The GZ was a fine air craft carrier.

All my ship information is form "Jane's Fighting Ships 1939"

Graf Zeppelin

lenght:820 Feet
Beam:88 feet
speed: 32Kts
guns:16-5.9inch,10-4.1inch AA,22-37mm AA
armor: was not reported
aircraft: 40

Enterprise

Lenght:761 feet
Beam:83 feet
speed:34 kts
guns:8-5 inch AA, 16-1.1 inch M.G. AA, 16 smaller M.G.
Armour: only were is had it not how thick i was
aircraft:83

Ark Royal

lenght: 685 feet
Beam:94 feet
speed: 31.75 kts
guns: 16-4.5 DP,4-3 ponders,6 multiple pompoms,8 multiple M.G.
armor:not reported. i know that the flight deck was armored
aircraft:60

The GZ did lack the holding space for planes but i had a lot of defence of fire power. This was also germanys first atempted and and aircraft carrier. Even with it being the first they did very well.
We all know what the germany BB's and CA's did to the british navy. with more time the germans would of had more ships and better one's. Admiral Donitz would of had his sub force in 1945. The luftwafa would of had the jets and only becuse of hitlers want to forward the V project did the jets not come out till 1943. The tiger and king tigers with the panthers would have been the main armored units. I understand the germany was short on cash. but after they took back the land that was lost in WW1 thing were better. That did not start WW2 most contrys were fine with it. In 1942-43 stalin was going to do a Huge rearming of his Mililtary. Wich in 1945 would have been dun. With that mite hitler have been more willing to make an allice with russia rather then fight. and if that happend well we would all be speaking russian.Money or no money germany would of had its Mililtary ready for a wasr in 1945. Germans are smart they would have found away around the money problem.

[montanamotor]

Hmmm,

some do listen, some only hear...

Cheers.

Montanamotor

[Double T]

montanamotor:
What you are saying makes sense... I've never really studied nor considered the financial ledgers of the aggressor-nations involved. Are you a CPA? (Just kidding... hehe)
Was Italy also starved for cash when they declared war?
I know the Japanese were starved for raw industrial material, such as rubber,POL and steel/iron. Critical elements required to sustain the Empire. Theirs was not a nation rich in natural resources.

Tim

[Red Admiral]

quote:We all know what the germany BB's and CA's did to the british navy

If I remember correctly they got sank a lot. Graf Zeppelin is pretty poor as aircraft carriers go, but then again she was the first German carrier and suffered accordingly. Like the permament 5° list, and carrying casemated guns, and only being able to launch 18planes at a time. The rest of the Z-plan wasn't so great either. Planning to have 6 battleships 3 battlecruisers, 2 carriers and 8-10 light cruisers. Matching this is the RN tentative plan from 1936-45 which had 18 new battleships (all individually superior), 13 carriers, 63 cruisers, 110 destroyers. The Kriegsmarine stands even less chance in 1945.

The XXI submarine was rushed into production as quickly as possible. It will not be coming into use any earlier. Without war experience there is essentially no chance of it being built by 45. Same goes for Tiger, King Tiger, Panther etc...

Jets - lets see how the Me262 does against Vampires and Canberras.

quote:Was Italy also starved for cash when they declared war?

More or less. But due to war in spain and abyssinia and sanctions rather than spending. However, Italy never really went over to a war footing, spending only 12% of GDP on the war compared to c.60% of the other main powers. No massive expansion of Italian industry either.

[Kutscha]

The design for the Tiger was began in the midish '30s.

The 262 would have had no trouble with the Vampire. The Canberra was not produced til 1949.

[b-1]

Finaly some one not talking about money. Yes money was a problem but it would have been worked out and dont for get most major contrys were also having a money problem.Britan would have fallen short of their ship building plan they were looking to take back the number 1 spot form america and could not of. Japan was firm in number 3 and growing faster then most navys. Germany was just getting ready for their build up program and the set their sites on what they could do not what they wanted.The Z-plan would have fallin far short of the numbers they need to take the homefleet on in one big fight.Most of the germans problems with subs tanks plane were form the military needing things know not later. in a time of peace they could of had the time they needed.

[ChrisMcD]

One other point.

Czechoslovakia was much more deserving of help as a fledgling democracy than Poland, which at that time was effectively a military dictatorship that had very poor relations with all it's neighbours (as I remember the Poles took a chunk out of Czechoslovakia when the Germans dismembered it).

I think the point was that both the British and the French realised that the sooner they declared war after Czechoslovakia the better. Since, as a number of people have pointed out, Germany was getting stronger and stronger. The Americans took longer to catch on, but they were further away.

I know that reading 'Mein Kampf' would suggest that it was only a matter of time before Hitler attacked Russia, but the Ribentrop/Molotov pact fooled a lot of people.

Also, I can't rememeber which one it was, (6 PzDiv?) but Rommels 'Ghost Division' ran on Czech tanks!!

[montanamotor]

Quite the contrary, folks.

I stick to the point that, Britain and France gave Czechoslovakia away as tyrant's fodder - to get yet another year of preparation for the next looming war, because both knew, they were NOT sufficiently equipped to stop Hitler in 1938 already. Czechoslovakia would definitely have deserved being protected by Brits and Frenchmen in 1938, too - but it came early for Hitler's lunch...


Evidence? Take THAT:

Even AFTER Germany invadet Poland September 1st 1939, it took until May 1940 until France and Britain got involved in the war with Germany seriously. Again, on Germany's initiative only. I bet, Beaverbrook and Dowding prayed for every single day their fighter force was to meet the german Luftwaffe LATER!

Another example: One must keep in mind that, during the Munich Crisis in 1938, Gloster Gladiators and Hawker Furys were still widely used fighter planes by the Royal Airforce - as far as I am informed.

Further: Equipping newly deployed Hawker Hurricane- and Supermarine Spitfire-squadrons with De Havilland- and Rotol-Constant-speed three-bladed-metal-props instead of their early fixed two-bladed wooden airscrews went well into 1940! Earlier, there were simply not enough constant-speed-props availlable in Britain to do so!

And more: Hurricanes were NOT equipped with back armour for the pilot until 1940, too! The first of which received improvised pilot armour only by the (desperate) initiative of british pilots in the British Expeditionary Forces in France, who - during the onslaught of the germans in spring 1940 - went to cannibalize shot-down Fairey Battles (lying about in abundance...), which were equipped with such invaluable armour protection, and had these salvaged pilote armour plates installed in their own Hurricanes.

100LL Avgas was first availlable in Britain by delivery via an american tanker in April 1940 only, too.

Aso, aso...

Well: It seems that, NOT taking action does win wars, if not battles - at least sometimes. Poor Czechoslovakia. But - still the home of good beer, lotsa tanks (:D!) and pretty women, anyway!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Kutscha]

Montana, the 109Es lacked armour as well. They finally got some between the BoF and the BoB.

The LW was still flying 109Cs and 109Ds and some bi-planes when it attacked Poland.

Found this on the Ubi Il-2 forum

Apart from the fact that as of July 1939:

Aruba Already producing 25,000 tons per annum. Max58,000 tons
Stanlow Already producing 32,000 tons per annum. Max 42,000 tons.
Trinidad Already producing 17,000 tons per annum Max 20,000 tons
ICI Billingham 1/4/40 16,000 tons per annum Max 20,000 tons
Palembang 1/7/40 20,000 tons per annum Max 35,000 tons

Note the "already producing" part. As of July 1939, the refineries Britain already had contracts with were producing 110,000 tons of 100 octane a year, with expansion underway.

By July, Britain had over 340,000 tons of the stuff stockpiled.

This is 100pn avgas.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha


The 262 would have had no trouble with the Vampire.


On what basis do you make this assertion?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha


The 262 would have had no trouble with the Vampire.


On what basis do you make this assertion?

Are you saying the 262 would have a problem with Vampire?;)

Since it is a 'what if', the Jumos used would be the better 004As, not the problematic 004Bs. Jumo would also be producing the more powerful 004s, of which a few were produced before wars end. Then there was the swept wing version of the 262 which was faster than the 262As.

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha
Are you saying the 262 would have a problem with Vampire?;)

Since it is a 'what if', the Jumos used would be the better 004As, not the problematic 004Bs. Jumo would also be producing the more powerful 004s, of which a few were produced before wars end. Then there was the swept wing version of the 262 which was faster than the 262As.

The 'what ifs' in this thread concerning what Germany might have done tend to ignore the fact that the Allies would certainly have responded.

Take the example of the Sptifire Mk V. The RAF were quite happy wih it - it was able to deal with the Bf 109 - until the Fw 190 came along and outclassed it. At which point, the British rushed improved Spitfires into service which were able to take on the Fw 190.

That's the way technology goes in warfare...it develops at many times the peacetime rate, and is highly sensitive to enemy developments.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[montanamotor]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Montana, the 109Es lacked armour as well. They finally got some between the BoF and the BoB.

The LW was still flying 109Cs and 109Ds and some bi-planes when it attacked Poland.

Found this on the Ubi Il-2 forum

Apart from the fact that as of July 1939:

Aruba Already producing 25,000 tons per annum. Max58,000 tons
Stanlow Already producing 32,000 tons per annum. Max 42,000 tons.
Trinidad Already producing 17,000 tons per annum Max 20,000 tons
ICI Billingham 1/4/40 16,000 tons per annum Max 20,000 tons
Palembang 1/7/40 20,000 tons per annum Max 35,000 tons

Note the "already producing" part. As of July 1939, the refineries Britain already had contracts with were producing 110,000 tons of 100 octane a year, with expansion underway.

By July, Britain had over 340,000 tons of the stuff stockpiled.

This is 100pn avgas.


Kutscha,

between "having contracts over" and "having stockpiled" lies the whole Atlantic Ocean. My informations about availlability of LL 100 in Britain as of April 1940 FIRST are sound and proven. There WAS non LL 100 stockpiled in Britain before April 1940. This is definite.

About Bf 109 D's in german service: YES. But they had constant speed props already, and were faster yet than a Hurricane with a wooden airscrew - let alone a Gladiator or Fury-biplane.

BTW: May I suggest we stop this fruitless "what if"-thread here and return to something more sophisticated and fact-based, please...?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Hop]

The first large scale shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Britain in the summer of 1939, from Aruba.

In November 1939 the Air Ministry recommended the use of 100 octane fuel in Spitfires and Hurricanes:

"The decision on this question must be dependant to a large extent on the availability of sufficient stocks of 100 octane fuel; but as it is understood there are adequate reserves of this fuel for the purpose, it is accordingly reccommended that approval for the use of 12 lbs boost in the Spitfire and Hurricane, solely for emergency conditions, be given forthwith."

That was the position in Nov 1939, that stocks were adequate and issue should begin immediately. It wasn't actually issued until March 1940.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Are you saying the 262 would have a problem with Vampire?;)

Since it is a 'what if', the Jumos used would be the better 004As, not the problematic 004Bs. Jumo would also be producing the more powerful 004s, of which a few were produced before wars end. Then there was the swept wing version of the 262 which was faster than the 262As.


What Ifs are unrealistic if you allow one side to change and not the other.

In reality, the Vampire was (IIRC) roughly the same speed as the Me262, with a more reliable engine, (arguably) better manouverability, and a far better armament for fighter-fighter combat.

If Germany develops jet fighters specifically as air superiority weapons (in a slight twist to their 'zerstorer' concept) and manage to produce enough better engines, and arm them for fighter combat...

Do you think Britain (and France, and...) are going to sit around and stick with inferior designs? IF (a big if) Germany did manage to get an improved version of the Me262 into squadron service during peacetime, but before 1945, why would Britain not be able to get an improved version of the Meteor and/or Vampire into service for the same time?

[b-1]

It is said that the vampire would have been the better fighter when fighting the Me 262. The problem with the Me 262 is when they made it no other jet planes were flying in hte front line so it didn't had to manover well it just had to fly fast.We cant for get that even with to much faster top speed allied fighter pilots still shot them down.

Britan and America were makeing their jets to fight the Me 262's. So u would think they would out manover it at lest. I think the shooting star would or faild. it was unrealible and with bad fire power and strait wings would of had a heck of a time fighting a Me 262 or Go 229. All German jet fighter had 30mm cannons. F 80's had 50 clas wich in some manovers they would run in to the bullets ouch:(.We cant for get the in 1949 the F 86 started it survice. It would have come out later with no german technisions. But i still think we would of made it. It would had dominated the sky's.

Britan had a better idea the meteor had the advantege over the Me 262 when it came to turn and speed.(did the meteor ever attack buzz bombs).The vampire did not chare the same speed that the meteor had was 50 mph slower but had 4 20mm cannons. All the jets that made service in the late 1940's were all good machs for the Me 262 and Go 229. it would have been a great fight but i think the allies would of had the better fighters.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by b-1

It is said that the vampire would have been the better fighter when fighting the Me 262. The problem with the Me 262 is when they made it no other jet planes were flying in hte front line so it didn't had to manover well it just had to fly fast.We cant for get that even with to much faster top speed allied fighter pilots still shot them down.

Britan and America were makeing their jets to fight the Me 262's. So u would think they would out manover it at lest. I think the shooting star would or faild. it was unrealible and with bad fire power and strait wings would of had a heck of a time fighting a Me 262 or Go 229. All German jet fighter had 30mm cannons. F 80's had 50 clas wich in some manovers they would run in to the bullets ouch:(.We cant for get the in 1949 the F 86 started it survice. It would have come out later with no german technisions. But i still think we would of made it. It would had dominated the sky's.

Britan had a better idea the meteor had the advantege over the Me 262 when it came to turn and speed.(did the meteor ever attack buzz bombs).The vampire did not chare the same speed that the meteor had was 50 mph slower but had 4 20mm cannons. All the jets that made service in the late 1940's were all good machs for the Me 262 and Go 229. it would have been a great fight but i think the allies would of had the better fighters.




The possibility of an atomic bomb was public knowledge in 1939. The nightmare would have been who would have developed the A-bomb first. With out British pressure would America have developed the Bomb in so short a time scale. The possibility of a Japanese bomb being first is plausible.
What aircraft could have delivered the Weapon in 1946?

[Red Admiral]

quote:The possibility of an atomic bomb was public knowledge in 1939. The nightmare would have been who would have developed the A-bomb first. With out British pressure would America have developed the Bomb in so short a time scale.

You don't spend $2billion on developing a weapon that no one is sure will work during peacetime. Not to hard to imagine B-36s and Canberras flying in 1946/47 during this timeframe,

[Kutscha]

Ricky, I was looking at the later Mks of Vampire. The 262 was also suppose to get the MK213 revolver 20mm cannon. Is the H-S better than that?

The P-80 and the 262 would be interesting, but not the British jets.

b-1, the Amercan jet engine was based on a British design.

[b-1]

kustka the F 80 had british help but when u look at the F 86 it was many based on german disine with the help of german technistions. the swept wing was a german breakthrought and was also seen in the mig 15 cuz of captured german technistions.
The F 80 had its falts and the Me 262 would be well equiped to use the to get the advanege. manly the guns of the Me262 would have dun in hte F-80 pluse the Me 262 was more manuvarable cuz of the swept wing.

British jets were much better then American jets. they had a better engine better fire power and better manuverabletie.untile the F 86 came out.Thanks to german and american smarts.

[Red Admiral]

quote:the swept wing was a german breakthrought

Cough...Italian..Cough..Cough...

As a what if, none of the jets are likely to be flying by 1945 if there is no war. There is nowhere near as much pressure on technological advancement.

[simon]

B-1, you really have to check your facts. First, the US jets were far from underpowered, the P-80 was faster and more reliable than the Me262, the Vampire was not developed in response to the Me262 at all, and the Meteor was in fact slower than contemporary Spitfires until right at the end of the war.

The Me262 may have had 30mm cannon, but these were poor dogfighting weapons and would have disadvantaged the Me262 in fighter-fighter combat.

I would be very interested in your sources for claiming that the F-86 was based on German designs.

Swept wings are all well and good, but exactly how long do you think it would take the Allies to notice that the German jets had swept wings and put a model in a wind-tunnel themselves? Given increased priority to jet fighters on the Allied side, the F-86 or its equivilent would probably appear in Western air forces earlier.

Red Admiral and Montanamotor both made very important points that you seem to be ignoring. Germany is not going to continue R&D at wartime rates without the pressures of war, and without the war, conquest and plunder to artificially boost her economy, Germany cannot afford to be doing any R&D much after 1940 anyway. Forget the Me262, the Luftwaffe probably wouldn't have even got the Fw190. ;)

[Tony Williams]

What was that about the first swept wing aircraft?

Westland Pterodactyl IV, 1931... [8D]

http://www.whl.co.uk/images/history_pterodactyl4.jpg

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[ChrisMcD]

Who needs swept wings?

They are after all only one supersonic wing shape, and not necessarily the best.

The Miles 52 shows that the Brits were working hard to get ahead of the 262

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52

Interestingly the 'urban legend' is that British Intelligence picked up German reports on an aircraft capable of 1000kph and translated it as 1000mph - hence a sudden specification for a supersonic fighter in 1943.

This design had a sharp leading edge biconvex wing. There were doubts about the low speed handling and that man, 'Winkle' Brown flew the specialy converted 'Gillette' Miles Falcon to test the landing characteristics.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/MilesFalcon/Falcon.htm

OK the M52 never flew, but the Bell X1 and Lockheed F104 showed that there was no problem with the wing shape.

[Red Admiral]

quote: Who needs swept wings?

Blackburn's supersonic biplane design from the 1960s designed to same spec as Avro 740. Long range reconnaissance and strike. Cruise at Mach 2.5. The both wings were extremely thin and unswept. In the lower wing leading edge was an extra airfoil section that was the fuel tank. It also acted as a compressor for the ramjets in the wing. Between the wings were mounted a load of small ramjets. Much better for high speed cruise.

In the 1940s or so, you're probably better off with 10% chord straight wings, or slightly swept rather than 40° sweep. Better handling, especially at low speeds. Problem is fuel stowage.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

What was that about the first swept wing aircraft?

Westland Pterodactyl IV, 1931... [8D]

http://www.whl.co.uk/images/history_pterodactyl4.jpg

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



For the same reasons as the swept wing of the Me262 - trim ...

[GregP]

The tailless aircraft needed swept wings to get "leverage" for the elevators to work … it’s true ... no way around it.

Conventional aircraft did not need swept wings for "leverage," they had a horizontal tail. They used swept wings to delay the onset of high speed handling problems. Later we knew swept wings delayed the formation of shock waves, thus increasing the critical Mach number. Once the local airflow gets supersonic, the center of lift moves aft, accounting for the "nose down" tendency that was later called "Mach tuck." It affects planes to this day and has killed several Lear Jets in more modern times.

According to my database, the early jets stack up as follows with regard to speed and wing loading:

1) Vampire D.H. 100(de Havilland, 1943): Max speed: 869 kph (540 mph); Wing loading: 157.5 kg/m2 (32.2 lbs.ft2).

2) Meteor G.41 (Gloster, 1941): Max speed: 668 kph (415 mph); Wing loading: 180.1 kg/m2 (36.9 lbs,ft2).
Meteor F Mk.III (1944): Max speed: 795 kph (494 mph); Wing loading: 180.2 kg/m2 (36.9 lbs.ft2).

3) Me-262A-1a (Messerschmitt, 1941): Max speed: 870 kph (541 mph); Wing loading: 294.7 kg/m2 (60.3 lbs.ft2).

4) P-59 Airacomet (Bell, 1945): Max speed: 664 kph (413 mph); Wing loading: 160.4 kg/m2 (32.9 lbs.ft2).

5) XP-83 (Bell, 1945): Max speed: 840 kph (522 mph); Wing loading: 273.0 kg/m2 (55.9 lbs.ft2).

6) P-80A (Lockheed, 1945): Max speed: 898 kph (558 mph); Wing loading: 298.0 kg/m2 (61.0 lbs.ft2).

I did not include the Japanese jets since they were only prototypes, nor an Italian jets since none were made in any numbers either.

From the above I deduce:

1) The P-80A was clearly the fastest, at least at best height, but was saddled with 6 x 12.7mm MG instead of cannons. It had a ceiling that was 7,000 feet higher than the Me-262A-1a, and the ability to engage or disengage in combat at will makes it the best choice despite the armament disadvantage. The P-80A and Me-26A-1a had almost identical wing loading, but the P-80A had straight wings, and would thus be the more maneuverable of the two under most circumstance, though not by much. In combat, better is better.

2) The Me-262A-1A and Vampire D.H. 100 were in a dead heat, speed-wise, but the Vampire was by FAR the more maneuverable of the two (look at the wing loading!) and it has 4 x 20mm cannons. Advantage clearly to the Vampire.

3) The Meat Box and the Airacomet were good jet trainers, but were at a distinct disadvantage in combat with the jets above. In real life, the Airacomet was used to give USAAC pilots some jet experience. The Meteor F Mk.II was faster than the early Meteor, but was still not up to the better jets, though both DID have 4 x 20mm cannons and may have given a 262 all it could handle due to better maneuverability in close combat.

4) The unlikely-looking Bell XP-83 was not too far off the mark! It was only slightly slower than the Me-262 and had a slightly better wing loading, too. In battle, I’d take the XP-83 for better maneuverability due to its straight wing with slightly lower wing loading but, if pursued, it would have had 6 x 12.7 mm MG … not good.

5) The above thoughts assume these jets could combat one another without regard to “other circumstances,” and that was simply not true in real life. Whichever jet had to fly into the other one’s territory would be at an enormous disadvantage due to critical fuel shortage issues. None of the early jets had much endurance, and so were unlikely to combat anyone or anything outside a very short radius around the airfield at which they were based.

Thus, the "best jet" was probably the one you had available at the time, ALL the time.

Please feel free to disagree ...

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

What was that about the first swept wing aircraft?

Westland Pterodactyl IV, 1931... [8D]

http://www.whl.co.uk/images/history_pterodactyl4.jpg

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



For the same reasons as the swept wing of the Me262 - trim ...


The First swept wing military aircraft was built and flown in Britain, Canada and America produced an excellent military floatplane development. The French produced and sold a civil version. The aircraft also inspired a theme in the “39 steps.” What was it?

The Miles 52 Design team looked at two alternatives, the super thin section “conventional wing” and a super thin section Delta wing, both for supersonic flight. The latter was more of an unknown quantity and would have needed longer to develop than the few months they were given; hence they chose the first alternative. But the Miles Team’s thoughts on the subject no doubt lead to or inspired Convair’s use of the delta in their brilliant series of delta winged jets.

[Pete57]

For some reasons, the subject of the best WWII jet keeps resurfacing on a regular basis, even though it has been exhaustively covered in previous posts: see, for instance:
http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=886#9808

I would only like to add some observations.

1. Once again, the Me-262’s swept-wing WAS NOT designed with the purpose of raising the aircraft’s critical mach; it was simply Messerschmitt’s quick expedient to keep the aircraft’s CG within limits following the hasty replacement of the BMW 109-003 turbojets with two, heavier Junkers Juno 109-004s, as Messerschmitt was simply trying to beat the competition (read Heinkel He-280) to the contract for the production of the Luftwaffe’s first jet fighter, the replacement being made necessary by the un-reliabilty of the BMW engines that was putting the whole program into jeopardy. The very modest sweep angle of the 262’s wing did practically nothing to raise the critical mach, it being only marginally better than the Lockheed P-80A’s.

2. The swept wing’s benefits to near-sonic/trans-sonic flight regimes were well known also to U.S. researchers during WW II, and one result was the Bell X-2. Quoting from: http://www.bellx-2.com/sightings/horizon/article.html “...In late 1944, the Engineering Division at Wright Field expressed their interest in high-speed swept-wing aerodynamics to which Bell responded with their proposed Model 37D. The Model 37D was a 40 degree swept-wing warmed-over version of the XS-1. After wind-tunnel tests and structural analysis it was determined that this up-grade modification to the XS-1 was impractical. This proposal was ultimately rejected by the AAF. …”
Thus, the Me-262’s sole contribution to the F-86’s design was the introduction of leading-edge slats to improve the wing’s aerodynamic behavior at low-speed (e.g. landing speed).
For the records, said leading-edge slats were soon deleted, their deletion leading to a better trans-sonic maneuverability which was perceived as being a good trade-off in the Korean arena.

3. On the subject of the early jets’ armament, I believe that the U.S. standard 6 .50cal. (12.7mm), was perfectly adequate for WWII, given the opposition’s construction.
The .50cal. began to show its limits in Korea, but a lot of it had to do with the MiG-15’s lack of ‘sophistication’ (read rugged construction) that made it rather resilient to the API rounds. In an attempt to correct the situation, a HE round was developed for the F-86’s .50cal, but it proved to be too troublesome (if memory serves me right, there is a picture of the damage done to one of the F-86s in Korea by the HE rounds that had ‘cooked-off’ in the chamber!!!) and the Sabres in Korea had to wait until the arrival of the F-86F-2s experimentally fitted with 4 T-160, 20mm cannons under Project Gunval, to become a very effective MiG-15 killer.
On the other hand I have no doubts that the best gun for dogfight-style combat then and, to some extent, still today is the 20mm acnnon, especially when the round fired is of the HE type, and among the 20mm cannons of the day, my preference goes to the German Mk.213, which incidentally was to prove its worth in later combat as the U.S. T-160/M-39 cannon.

4. It is true that the early jet engine were relatively ‘thirsty’, but such a voracious appetite for fuel was somewhat offset – so far as range is concerned – by the much higher cruise speed they afforded at altitude.
That said, one should notice how this was definitely a critical factor in the case of two aircraft only: the Heinkel He-162 and the De Havilland Vampire F.Mk.I.
But, whereas this problem had indeed a solution in the Vampire’s case (the airframe allowed the fitting of drop-tanks), the same does not hold true for the Salamander which, unless radical modifications were introduced, remained critically ‘short-legged’.
On the other hand the figures relative to the range with drop-tanks of both the Gloster Meteor F.MK.III and the Lockheed P-80A-1 - 1340miles (2156km) and 1440miles (2317km), respectively - were not too shy of those attained by their reciprocating-powered counterparts; as well, it serves to remember that the recon versions of the Arado Ar-234 flew missions well behind the Allied lines both over the U.K. and central Italy.

Best regards

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Just some quick thoughts without a whole lot of research and detail:

If I remember correctly, the first (or at least one of the very first) pure-jet airplanes to fly was Germany's experimental He 178 in the late 1930's.

The Germans were always experimenting with cutting-edge technology, even though they were sometimes slow in getting the resulting weapons into production. There is no good reason to believe that, had the war been delayed, Germany would not have advanced its knowledge of jet aviation simply because they were not yet at war.



In this ongoing discussion, the comparison keeps being made between the Me 262 and the DeHavilland "Vampire." The '262 was fully operational during WWII whereas the Vampire was not in service until well after the war had ended. A more realistic comparison, since we are talking about WWII, would be between the '262 and the Gloster "Meteor."



From my reading, the swept-wing technology that went into the development of the North American F-86 borrowed heavily from German research conducted during the war.



I believe that the Lockheed F-80 was superior to any jet fighter in service during and immediately after the war. True, it had straight wings, but so did the Meteor. And the F-80 didn't have those big draggy engines hanging or protruding out on the wings like the '262 and Meteor respectively.

As to reliability, the "Shooting Star", in the form of the T-33, has served longer than any other jet fighter/trainer in history; it still serves to this day in some capacities!

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

With no war there isn't as much emphasis on development and no war experience to add into the designs. Then again your factories aren't being bombed either.

The d.H. Vampire first flew in 1943. They then removed the engine and shipped it to the US for them to use on the P.80, this is not going to happen in peacetime so chances are that the P.80 isn't flying in any form before war breaks out or seems absolutely inevitable. The Vampire wasn't put into service with the Meteor for reasons unknown.

Groggy, I have no idea what that plane was/is, but strangely enough I'm reading Mr. Standfast at the moment.

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

Quoting you:
quote:With no war there isn't as much emphasis on development and no war experience to add into the designs. Then again your factories aren't being bombed either.

I agree, but, unless I have missed the point, the original question asked in this thread was what if Germany, instead of 1939, would have waited until 1945 to open the war? This presupposes that Germany was contemplating war in 1939 but was only waiting until 1945 to actually attack its enemies.

With that in mind, Germany would most certainly have been developing state-of-the-art weapons during the six years between 1939 and 1945. It's unrealistic to believe that Germany would have maintained the status quo and entered the war in 1945 with 1939 weapons.

The Allies-to-be, on the other hand, were really not seriously anticipating another war--not after the "War to end all wars." They were well aware of world tensions brought about by Germany's rearmament and aggression, but they were relying on diplomacy (Chamberlain's "Peace in our time") and common sense to avoid another world war.

For these reasons, I believe that Germany, knowing she would go to war in 1945, would have pursued the development of new weapons more vigorously than the other powers who thought that they could prevent another war.

Regards,
Lightning

[Hop]

quote:The Vampire wasn't put into service with the Meteor for reasons unknown.

The Vampire wasn't ordered until very late because De Havilland were busy building Mosquitos, and the RAF (rightly) wanted more bombers, as the Luftwaffe was clearly less of a threat towards the end of the war.

[Ricky]

in the late 1930's most of Europe was feverishly re-arming, as everybody realised the threat of Germany. Chamberlain might have believed in 'peace in our time' or he might not, but armed forces everywhere were getting lots of cash. Yes, Germany might well aim to do more development, and would probably succeed*, but just as Germany would not have 1939 weaponry in 1945, neither would anybody else.


*but only if you ignore the fact that their money would run out pretty quickly if they did not conquer other countries fairly regularly

[pmjwright]

quote:British jets were much better then American jets. they had a better engine better fire power and better manuverabletie.untile the F 86 came out.
Lightning hit it bang on, the F-80 was far superior to anything else in 1945. But, as far as the engines go, I would actually have to agree with B-1. It was common knowledge that American jet engine design and performance trailed the Brits until sometime in the early 50s.

A couple examples: the Canadair-built T-33 Silver Star (RR Nene 10 engines) had superior performance than either the Lockheed-built T-33 (Allison A-35) and even the F-80. Imagine that, a trainer beating a fighter, but it happened all the time. And the best F-86 variant of all, by far, was the Canadian Sabre Mk 6 powered by Orenda 14 (Canadian design, but influenced by British technology), they could fly rings around anything else of the era.

Lightning, the CAF just recently retired their last T-Birds :(, I don't know what other air force they may still be in service with. One of my first childhood memories was my dad flying T-Birds over our house and wiggling his wings at me.

Back to the topic...

[Wuzak]

CAC built F-86s under licence in Australia but substituted RR Avons for the original engines. Anyone know how they compared with the original?

[Wuzak]

As to jet engine development, if the start to the war had been delayed it may have been possible for Metrovicks to continue development of the F1 (turboprop) and F2 (jet) designs with government contracts. The F1 was dropped for the F2 because of the success of the Whittle W1 at the time, and the F2 didn't get a production contract because of its complexity and resultant unreliability, things that the Air Ministry could not wait to be solved in the middle of the war.

The F2 gave more thrust with a smaller frontal area than the Whittle type jets, was lighter and more fuel efficient.

[Kutscha]

Wuzak, the Oz Sabre was a monster (that is a good monster). ;)

The Metrovicks were axial motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrovick_F.2

Had another link but you think I can find it.[:I] It was good with cross sections of various engines.

The Americans had a fly-off (X or YP-80) against a 262. The 262 did so well the report was mothballed. This is mentioned in the Smithsonian book of their restoration. (ISBN 0-87474-276-5)

For those that want to read about Canadian Sabres
The Canadair Sabre
Larry Millberry
ISBN 0-9690703-7-3

He also wrote a book about the CF-100.

[GregP]

I have to reply to Pete57.

I never stated the Germans put a swept wing on the 262 to increase the critical mach number in my post, nor do I claim that to be true. What I DID say is that we LATER discovered this to be true.

All they knew in WWII was that swept wings made the high-speed handling characteristics better, sometimes at the expense of low-speed characteristics.

Despite the modest sweep of the 262, it WAS swept and handled pretty well for the type design it was. It COULD have rolled better and pitched better, but they never figured it would be dogfighting with Mustangs.

Whether or not it flew better than the He 280 is a good subject for debate since the RLM was famous for slapping Ernst Heinkel in the face anytime they could do so. I would not be at all surprised if the He 280 ws the better machine.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

The Metrovicks were axial motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrovick_F.2


I know. Hence the complexity and unreliability.

[montanamotor]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

I have to reply to Pete57.

I never stated the Germans put a swept wing on the 262 to increase the critical mach number in my post, nor do I claim that to be true. What I DID say is that we LATER discovered this to be true.

All they knew in WWII was that swept wings made the high-speed handling characteristics better, sometimes at the expense of low-speed characteristics.

Despite the modest sweep of the 262, it WAS swept and handled pretty well for the type design it was. It COULD have rolled better and pitched better, but they never figured it would be dogfighting with Mustangs.

Whether or not it flew better than the He 280 is a good subject for debate since the RLM was famous for slapping Ernst Heinkel in the face anytime they could do so. I would not be at all surprised if the He 280 ws the better machine.



You are right, Greg,

Ernst Heinkel hat a continuing struggle with the Nazi-party from 1933 all through 1945.

First, because he initially refused to "cooperate" with (say: pay briberies to) the "Gauleiter" of the region where his main factory at Rostock/Marienehe was situated. Both later celebrated a long-term, intimate hostility with each other.

Second (and exploited to maximum by said Gauleiter to put Heinkel under pressure), as Ernst Heinkel once and again was said to have jewish ancestors, as should have been given evidence for by his personal appearance.

Had Ernst Heinkel not been under personal protection from Goering and Hitler for his achievements in aviation manufacturing and jet-engine-development, he may have been fared MUCH worse than the Nazis had done with Professor Junkers, before.

Had the same money and effort been put into the Heinkel 280 than in the RLM's darling's Willy Messerschmitt's Me 262, the German Luftwaffe may have had a capable jet-fighter ready for service as early as Autumn 1942. Guess, what this may have done to the american day-bombing-campaign...?

Cheers.

Montanamotor

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
I agree, but, unless I have missed the point, the original question asked in this thread was what if Germany, instead of 1939, would have waited until 1945 to open the war? This presupposes that Germany was contemplating war in 1939 but was only waiting until 1945 to actually attack its enemies.

With that in mind, Germany would most certainly have been developing state-of-the-art weapons during the six years between 1939 and 1945. It's unrealistic to believe that Germany would have maintained the status quo and entered the war in 1945 with 1939 weapons.

The Allies-to-be, on the other hand, were really not seriously anticipating another war--not after the "War to end all wars." They were well aware of world tensions brought about by Germany's rearmament and aggression, but they were relying on diplomacy (Chamberlain's "Peace in our time") and common sense to avoid another world war.

For these reasons, I believe that Germany, knowing she would go to war in 1945, would have pursued the development of new weapons more vigorously than the other powers who thought that they could prevent another war.

Regards,
Lightning



Europe as a whole was in a state of rearmament, France for example was beginning to produce some first rate equipment (By 1940 standards), just too little and too late. Britain similarly was upgrading across the board.

I don't think it's an unfair thing to suggest, and an inherent problem with such alternative histories is tryig to establish what is and isn't a reasonable assumption.

Much of the equipment in the German arsenal of the latter few years of the war came about as a direct result of combat experience, it is not unreasonable to suggest that without such experience German R&D efforts would have been lagged behind what was historically achieved.

Similarly, and a point Montanamotor touched on earlier, Germany was running out of money fast by 1939/40, Nazi spending on public works and rearmament was costing the treasury dearly, and it was only conquest and direct/indirect looting of conquered territories that redressed this. If you are going to assume that Germany continued her developments in line with wartime rates, it's only fair to question where the funding for this is supposed to have come from.

I doubt Germany could have achieved wartime R&D rates even if they were preparing for an all out war in 1945, even with a World War raging it took till 1944 IIRC for the Nazis to even begin to put the nation onto a total war footing.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by GregP



According to my database, the early jets stack up as follows with regard to speed and wing loading:

1) Vampire D.H. 100(de Havilland, 1943): Max speed: 869 kph (540 mph); Wing loading: 157.5 kg/m2 (32.2 lbs.ft2).

...

From the above I deduce:

1) The P-80A was clearly the fastest, at least at best height, but was saddled with 6 x 12.7mm MG instead of cannons. It had a ceiling that was 7,000 feet higher than the Me-262A-1a, and the ability to engage or disengage in combat at will makes it the best choice despite the armament disadvantage. The P-80A and Me-26A-1a had almost identical wing loading, but the P-80A had straight wings, and would thus be the more maneuverable of the two under most circumstance, though not by much. In combat, better is better.

2) The Me-262A-1A and Vampire D.H. 100 were in a dead heat, speed-wise, but the Vampire was by FAR the more maneuverable of the two (look at the wing loading!) and it has 4 x 20mm cannons. Advantage clearly to the Vampire.

...

Please feel free to disagree ...



The Vampire was producing > 500mph at almost all altitudes in early 1944. It was a pretty design, easy to construct, easy to fly, manoeuvrable, easy to extend (range was increased with both internal tankage and drop tanks), easy to up-engine (later Goblins ... to Ghosts in the dH112 Venom (which could be built from the same production line - as the Swiss did)). The 5th dH100 F1 prototype was used as a testbed for the 5000lb+ Ghost engine. The engines (at 1/plane) were reliable and ran forever on minimal maintenance.

BUT its airframe was designed for the mid 500mph range and (because of the need for Mosquitos) it had low priority ... it ended up being built by English Electric. Even the later dH Venom (5000lb thrust dH Ghost) only reached 590mph (same as the Vampire F2).

A math lecturer I had in the mid 1960s had been bowler-hatted from RAF College Cranfield. In the late 50s the staff had all been assigned Vampires to 'potter around in' - he was in OR and had done the sums ... if someone fell out of the sky it was much cheaper than a bowler-hatting!

type min wgt max wgt thrust thrust/wgt
Me262A 8400lb 14100lb 3960lb 0.471 - 0.28
dH100 F1 6370lb 10480lb 3100lb 0.487 - 0.32
P-80A 7920lb 14000lb 3850lb 0.486 - 0.27

So (on a good day!) pretty much of a muchness on power weight.
The P-80A was the fastest of the bunch, but this maximum speed was achieved at around 6000ft and it seems to have been slower than the Vampire at altitude. The Vampire, from what figures I can dredge up, seems to have had the best climb rate. The Nene-powered Vampire (F2) was faster than the F1 or the P-80, but was not proceeded with.

Good engineers produced near equivalent outcomes. The Me262 was at the end of its development cycle (hard to fly?, engines poor, developers on losing side of war). P-80 and dH100 series aircraft (or trivial derivatives thereof) were flying in service to the end of the 80s (Vampire) and current (P-80/T-33). A salute to the engineers of 65 years ago (and the ongoing reliability of early centrifugal engines?).

[Lightning]

Hi pmjwright,

Quoting you:
quote:Imagine that, a trainer beating a fighter, but it happened all the time.
When the T-33 first came into being with the USAF, it was actually found to be superior to the F-80 in performance. This was due to refinements by Lockheed in the overall design. The T-33 was, after all, a later development of the basic F-80 design. (They were both nicknamed "Shooting Star.")

Perhaps the use of the "Nene" engine in the Canadian version of the T-33 added even more to its superiority to the F-80, but it was not the initial reason for it. That had already been manifested by the Lockheed-built aircraft.

quote:Lightning, the CAF just recently retired their last T-Birds ,
I know, and I had posted some comments on this a while back. I'll do a search of past threads and add those comments to this posting via edit.

Added by edit:

Although this quote from that earlier thread didn't mention the phase-out of the "Silver Star" from the CAF directly, it reflected what I had read in "Air Classics" magazine at about the time I posted it:
quote:This is true to this day as evidenced by the quality warbirds coming out of Canada (the latest to be CT 133 "Silver Stars"--their version of the T-33).

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:

quote:
The Americans had a fly-off (X or YP-80) against a 262. The 262 did so well the report was mothballed.

The XP-80 was the experimental prototype of the "Shooting Star," while the YP-80 was an initial, pre-production service-test version.

I'm not familiar with the fly-off to which you refer, so I can't comment on it. One thing is certain, however: the Me 262 was an inferior fighter to the production P/F-80. If, in fact, the '262 did compare favorably with those versions of the P-80, It was a matter of an already developed production aircraft against one that was in its early, pre-production testing stage.

If you want to make a fair comparison between the two fighters, then compare the '262 with the operational P-80A or the more-developed F-80C. The Shooting Star easily out-performs the '262. And as far as reliability, serviceability, and mean-time-between-failures go, there is no comparison; the P-80 wins, hands down.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Simon,

Quoting you:
quote: If you are going to assume that Germany continued her developments in line with wartime rates, it's only fair to question where the funding for this is supposed to have come from.
In the absence of actual wartime conditions, I wouldn't expect Germany (or any other country) to develop its weapons in line with wartime rates. I would, however, expect a country--in this case Germany--that was secretly planning to invade its neighbors in the near future to prepare for that invasion at a rate faster than those who didn't really anticipate a war.

As to funding, the fact that there was no war yet in progress would have relieved the German economy of the expense of paying the bill for ongoing hostilities and thereby freed-up considerable resources for preparations for a war they knew was coming.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

I know what the 'X' and 'P' stand for Lightning.

Now that I have the reference it was a P-80A. Al Boyd ran the test out of Wright-Patterson. The 262 had better speed and acceleration. They were equal in climb but the P-80A was easier to handle and had better visibility.

The YP-80 and P-80A were virtually identical, differering in minor details. The P-80A had a dive brake which the YP-80 did not have.

If you want to compare the 262 to the P-80C then your will have to compare it to later models of the 262, The HG II and HG III, both with more powerful engines and armed with 4 MK213C revolver cannons.

Metrovick

Besides the F.2 they had the F.3 which was a F.2 with a thrust-augmenting ducted fanwhich boosted thrust from 2400lb to 4600lb. The F.5 of 1945 was a 2 stage UDF(unducted fan) engine of 4830lb. The UDF was re-invented by GE in later years.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

As to funding, the fact that there was no war yet in progress would have relieved the German economy of the expense of paying the bill for ongoing hostilities and thereby freed-up considerable resources for preparations for a war they knew was coming.


Hi Lightning,

the point about funding was that, with all the warlike preparations and the crappy economic policies, Germany was broke, and had to go to war in the late 1930s in order to grab wealth from conquered countries. If it had waited until 1940 it would have imploded from a lack of money, and WW2 would never have happened.

[montanamotor]

[/quote]
Hi Lightning,

the point about funding was that, with all the warlike preparations and the crappy economic policies, Germany was broke, and had to go to war in the late 1930s in order to grab wealth from conquered countries. If it had waited until 1940 it would have imploded from a lack of money, and WW2 would never have happened.
[/quote]


Hi Ricky,

this is exactly on the spot. That's everything german policy before and during the war was about. Every other thing, like "Weltanschauung" or else today in many historians' eyes is nothing more than camouflage. And this was known to the leading circles in Germany back then, already!

Here come, as a little interlude in German (Relax - I'll translate the most revealing parts...) excerpts taken from a short biography of Hjalmar Schacht, who in the decisive years of german rearmament before the war was Minister of Finance in Germany.

Quote:

1933
16. März: Nach der Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten wird Schacht erneut Reichsbankpräsident.

1934
August: Berufung zum Reichswirtschaftsminister im Kabinett Hitler.

1935
Mai: Schacht wird zusätzlich das Amt des Generalbevollmächtigten für die Kriegswirtschaft anvertraut.
Durch die Einführung eines Geldbeschaffungssystems und durch die Devisenlenkung stellt er die finanziellen Mittel für Arbeitsbeschaffung und Aufrüstung zur Verfügung.

1937
November: Schacht, der aufgrund der fortschreitenden Geldentwertung erfolglos auf einer Konsolidierung der Finanzen besteht, tritt von seinen Ämtern als Wirtschaftsminister und Generalbevollmächtigter zurück. Er bleibt aber bis 1943 (einflußloser) Minister ohne Geschäftsbereich.

1939
20. Januar: Er erhält seine von Hitler unterzeichnete Entlassungsurkunde vom Amt des Reichsbankpräsidenten. Zuvor hat Schacht in einer Denkschrift gegen die nationalsozialistische Rüstungs- und Finanzpolitik protestiert.

1944
Juli: Schachts Kontakte zum Widerstand führen nach dem gescheiterten Attentat vom 20. Juli 1944 zu seiner Verhaftung. Bis Kriegsende ist er in den Konzentrationslagern (KZ) Ravensbrück und Flossenbürg inhaftiert.

Unquote.

Well: In 1933 Schacht became Hitler's Minister of Finance", 1934, "Minister of Business and Commerce" and in 1935 already (!!!) "General commissary for WAR ECONOMICS"!!! Questions?

Yet, in 1937 he resigns from all his positions, as it became clear for him, that German economy was heading towards a crash because of war preparations.

So in 1939, Schacht writes a memorandum, protesting "Nationalsocialist armament- and financial politics". After that, he supports the german national resistance against Hitler.

Therefore, from July 1944, after the assault on Hitler, he spends the rest of the war in a Concentration Camp.

Not a bad career for a former "President of the Reichsbank" and "Minister of Finance and War Economics", hmmm?

The conclusion can only be this: Hitler was a burglar, and the war from german side was from it's onsets being planned as an organized, large-scale, international theft or, armed robbery of incredibly huge dimensions.

And I cannot but totally agree to Ricky's last statement: "If (Germany) had waited until 1940 it would have imploded from a lack of money, and WW2 would never have happened.) This all you have to know, to give a proper answer, in case anybody should ever again ask you about the "What if's" concerning WW II.

I am sorry to admit this as a german - but this is the play truth, and I have to accept it, to understand, what really was going on during WW II.

Not so cheering this time,

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

.

[Pete57]

GregP

I'm sorry if it looked like I was refering to your post when I mentioned the Me-262's intentional wing-sweep-for-better-transonic-flight theory.
In reality your post did not mention it and I was merely pointing out how such theory is nothing but a widespred 'myth'.

Again, I believe that such a low sweep gave at best a moderate contribution to raise the Schwalbe's MCR: just compare the MCRs of the P-80A and of the Me-262 at sea level and maximum ceiling.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-a3.htm)

P-80A
Msl 0.73
Alt. 0.75 (30,000’)

Me-262
Msl 0.67
Alt. 0.76 (19,685’)


Kutscha.

I’m aware of Al Boyd’s test, but his ‘protégé’ Gen. Chuck Yeager, considered by Boyd himself as the ultimate pilot, had on the other hand a different opinion:

"I was fascinated to discover that the 262 and the Shooting Star performed identically—same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb."

There were several cross-evaluation tests conducted between the P-80 and the Me-262, with the first flown against the XP-80, the underpowered prototype, which could thus be consider as being far from conclusive.

See BuzzLightYear’s post on http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56&SearchTerms=Extraversion

“…BTW, I agree the P-80A was the best jet fighter to emerge from WWII. It simply gave up nothing to the Me-262 in terms of performance, being superior in just about every imaginable performance category. It was faster at all altitudes. Had a ceiling of some 8,000 feet higher. It had a better drag coefficient. It had a higher critical mach. It had better power-to-weight ratio. Better wing loading. Better range.
The P-80A roll rate was simply amazing for that era:

The only area where the P-80 could have used improvement was the stick force required in longitudnal manuevers with a signficantly forward center-of-gravity. It could be very high. As center-of-gravity shifted back, control stick forces were exceptionally light.

I've seen (In the book Me-262, Smith and Creek, Volume 4) a summary of a direct comparison test done after the war that suggested the overall superiority of the Me-262. But it's important to note that that comparsion was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimmensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was the only test that I know of where both planes were present at the same place and time.

However, I know of at least 4 other comparison studies that were done by the USAAF between the P-80A and the Me-262. Results of two of those tests are unknown to me. The others concluded the general superiority of the P-80A. One pilot in one of the latter tests stated "The Me-262 may be the best jet fighter in service, but the P-80 is the best jet fighter in the world." I guess he meant combat service.”



The figures confirm that the P-80A had a slightly higher top speed of 558mph (890kph) against the Me-262’s 840mph (870kph) – although it is well possible that the 262 may have had a slight advantage between 15,000 and 20,000ft (4500 and 6000mt), thanks to its MCR advantage there - but the low spool-up time of the axial-flow turbojets of the time compared to their contemporary centrifugal-flow counterparts, makes me hardly buy the Me-262’s better acceleration.

There may be a reason to have made the Me-262 look superior to the P-80: the Shooting Star had been somewhat hastily developed, and was showing some ‘teething problems’ that appeared not so easy to eradicate. The USAAF fleet had been grounded several times following rashes of accidents, and at one point, there was a serious possibility that the whole program would come under Congressional investigation; what better way, then, to justify further research (and be allotted further funds for R&D), than to show how an earlier, enemy aircraft was displaying better characteristics than the then top-edge U.S technology?
And this philosophy was to be consistently followed during the Cold War: just consider how MiG-25’s characteristics, to quote one, were estimated to be so far above what they actually were until they were put into the right perspective following the delivery to the West of one example by the defecting VVS Lt. Viktor Belenko, in 1976.

Another common misconception about the P-80/F-80 is that the speed-brakes were introduced only staring with the P-80A-1: the photographic evidence, however, tells a different story!
There is a picture on page 14 of Lockheed P-80/F-80 SHOOTING STAR, by David R. McLaren (Shiffer Military) that shows the second example of the earlier XP-80A, S/N 44-83021 (confirmed by the large ‘21’ numeral on the nose) and the open ‘dive-boards’ (as they were then called) can be clearly seen.

Another misconception often quoted is that, starting with P-80B, the wing became thinner but covered with thicker gauge aluminum.
Again this is not true: “…The wings of all P-80s, including the later T-33 and F-94A were all built with the NACA 65 (1) 213 airfoil, and these wings were interchangeable between all models. Historians have all picked up upon this error as gospel unfortunately. …” (Lockheed P-80/F-80 SHOOTING STAR, page 20)

Lastly, I believe the XF-90, indeed a swept-wing development of the F-80, with more powerful engines and armed with 6x20mm cannons, would be a more even match to the Me-262 HGs.

Regards.

[Lightning]

Hi Pete57,

Gee, I wish I'd have said that!

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

Quoting you:
quote:the point about funding was that, with all the warlike preparations and the crappy economic policies, Germany was broke, and had to go to war in the late 1930s in order to grab wealth from conquered countries. If it had waited until 1940 it would have imploded from a lack of money, and WW2 would never have happened.

I'm not an economist, and general economic principles may favor your point of view, but one thing has been obvious over many years: Economic predictions, projections, forcasts, and expectations based on economic theory and principles have a very poor track record.

At the end of almost every year, the excuses come out of the woodwork as to why the economy, either by over-or-under performance, did not follow predictions. With this in mind, whether the German economy could, or could not have supported a war that was not started until 1945 remains only an unanswerable question. Conjecture now, after the fact, is no more reliable than predictions made in 1939.

Who would have predicted in 1920, for example, that Germany, fresh from defeat in a world war and hamstrung by the draconian Treaty of Versailles, could become the most powerful military presence in Europe by 1939? What's more, she accomplished this in secret, for the most part, under the noses of the victorious world powers while a world-wide depression was in full swing!

Based on "sound" economic principles, you may be right. Based on what Germany was actually able to accomplish after WWI under the the most unfavorable conditions, you may not be.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Now that I have the reference it was a P-80A. Al Boyd ran the test out of Wright-Patterson. The 262 had better speed and acceleration. They were equal in climb but the P-80A was easier to handle and had better visibility.

I think Pete57 addressed all this quite effectively--I can't improve on his comments, but allow me to add a few of my own:

This test to which you refer is all well-and-good, but I haven't seen any actual numbers, and the comments made seem to be rather subjective.

Look into the performance figures given for the two production aircraft in source-after-source, and you'll find that in the vast majority, the P-80 is shown to be faster, have a higher rate of climb, have a higher service ceiling, and have a longer range than the Me 262.
quote:If you want to compare the 262 to the P-80C then your will have to compare it to later models of the 262, The HG II and HG III, both with more powerful engines and armed with 4 MK213C revolver cannons.

From what I have seen on numerous sources, the "high speed" HGII and HGIII were "paper projects." If either actually flew (or was even completed without having flown) is highly doubtful. Maybe you know something here that I don't, and if so, I'm certainly willing to learn something. One thing is certain, however, and that is that neither of these two variants ever even came close to production.

If you are going to approach the original discussion in a fair way, please don't try to inject experimental, completely undeveloped variants of the '262 into a comparison with the production P-80.

Regards,
Lightning

[simon]

It's not so much about the German Economy as the German Treasury which had been spending cash at a collosal rate under the Nazis. The Treasury simply did not have the money to spend on such projects and the only thing that kept the Nazi government afloat financially past 1939 was direct and indirect looting of occupied territories.

Even under the Nazis the German industrial giants weren't going to work for free.

It's not so much about economic predictions, it's that Germany in 1939 like Britain in 1945 was broke.

[b-1]

Money money money makes or brakes you.

Put the money aside and think about the weapons. We all no in war time money alot easyer to come by.

Germany came out with alot of first in WW2.V1,V2, first curse missle and ICBM.Jet fighters and bombers that worked. Like the Arado and the ME 262. I dont remeber what the name of the german wire guided missle was but i know it suck and italian battle ship in the late parts of WW2.They alose attempted an V1 or V2 launch from a sub.They were also well on the way to having a nuck. thank god they never got one.
All were made in war time so they were rushed and had many problems. They did work and with a few years to fix the problems they mite have taken britain. I will not go to far and say russia and america was to much for eny contry to take over.

[Wuzak]

I dare say that with nuke equipped submarine launched V2 rockets the Germans could have gone a long way to subduing the Americans.

But as with everything in Nazi Germany the progress in projects often depended on getting the seal of approval from officials, and the backing from Hitler.

I am reading a booke (The Truth About the Wunderwaffe) which says that the Germans were 2 years ahead of the Americans in developing the A-bomb early on, but changes in priorities meant that the project slowed down.

[Kutscha]

Lightning, the first P-80C flew on March 1, 1948.[:0] [:0] The war in Europe had been over for almost 3 years and all development of German a/c had been halted.

quote:If you are going to approach the original discussion in a fair way, please don't try to inject experimental, completely undeveloped variants of the '262 into a comparison with the production P-80.
Yes Lightning please approach in a fair way, for who can say if the HG models would not have flown and been produced by 1948 when the P-80C first flew. The Horten would certainly have.

The data one sees for the P-80 is for the P-80C which is certainly not a P-80A.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha


The data one sees for the P-80 is for the P-80C which is certainly not a P-80A.


I posted some data a few days ago ... it took a lot of looking to find data on both the dH100 F1 and the P-80A. Lots of data on versions being produced in the late 40s but diddly-squat on the versions flying pre 16 August 1945 (2 Sept for those who want to push the envelope).

One point that needs clarifying is the likely service performance of these aircraft in distinction to the results obtained by test pilots in fully serviced aircraft, perhaps flying with a limited fuel and weapons load ... Some types might not have had robust performance envelopes - especially wrt performance of early jet engines (this variation between airframes/engines was frequently noted in (then) conventional aircraft).

[Pete57]

Kutscha,

The figures quoted are for the 1945 P-80A, not the 1948 F-80C.

The P-80A-1-LO differed from the YP-80A (2 examples in service with the 1st FG At the Lake Lesina airbase, in Italy, in April 1945, for the records) in minor details required for mass-production, the first being accepted by the AAF in early 1945.

The air intake ‘splitter plate’, devised to cure the duct-rumble problems displayed by the earlier XP-80Aa and the YP-80As became standard on the -1s except for the very first examples built which later on received as a retrofit.
345 examples of the -1 were eventually produced, and it was followed on the production line by the P-80A-5-LO.

The -5 saw the relocation of the landing light from the upper part of the nose to the nose landing light strut, and the deletion of the ‘Pearl Grey’ extra-gloss paint: this had originally ben devised to allow a smooth airflow throughout the airframe, but having proved too troublesome to maintain by the operational units, it was disposed of.
The -5s were delivered in the then standard Natural Metal finish.

The P-80As received all the 1944-1945 variants of the General Electric J33 (I-40) turbojet, (J33-GE-7 thru J33-GE-17) produced by both GE and Allison - in either ‘dry’ or water-injected configurations - and several were later brought up to F-80C standard.

Speaking of the engine, the J33 was a double-sided, single-stage, centrifugal-flow, single-spool turbojet, with 14 ‘through-flow’ (as they were then called) combustion chambers and a single-stage, axial turbine.
Its configuration was very similar to that chosen by Rolls Royce for its first mass-produced turbojet, the B.37 ‘Welland’, in turn a development of Rover’s ‘through-flow’ turbojet.
The J33's diameter was 50.5’’ (128.27cm) with the exception of the ‘dry’ J33-GE-11 and water-injected J33-GE-11A which had a diameter of 51.0’’ (129.54cm).
The length was 03.0’’ (261.62cm).
The weight ranged from 1775lb (805kg) of the -11 and -11A (water-inj.) to 1880lb (853kg) of the Allison produced, water-injected -9B.
The maximum and military thrust, for all the ‘dry’ variants, was 3825lb (1735kg) at 11,500rpm, with the ‘wet’ ones being briefly able to boost this value to 4500lb (2041kg) still at 11,500rpm, with a sfc of 1.22 at maximum (both dry and wet) and ‘military’ thrust.

I have seen two figures quoted for the P-80A’s maximum speed: 553mph (890kph) and 558mph (898kph).
It is well possible that 558mph is the P-80A's max with the water-injected J33s.

The Horten 229 vs Lockheed P-80A is another issue that keeps regularly re-surfacing, and we have already discussed it in the Gotha Go 229 vs. Lockheed P-80 specific forum

I don’t consider the Ho-229, the almost contemporary Northrop P-79, or any of the flying-wing projects of the day for that matter, real contestants mainly because of their control problems, caused by their inherent instability, which have been a major issue that could not be properly addressed until the B-2 came around.
And this thanks to nowadays computer-technology only!

And since this is a ‘what-if’ forum, well I plainly don’t see this technology as possible in 1945-46 Germany even by pushing the what-if issue to its extreme!

Curmudgeon

If it’s the pre-September 1945 versions of the Vampire and the Shooting Star, you are referring to, then give me some time and I think I can scrounge up the data.



Regards.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57


Curmudgeon

If it’s the pre-September 1945 versions of the Vampire and the Shooting Star, you are referring to, then give me some time and I think I can scrounge up the data.



Regards.


Thanks Pete - the numbers I gave were pre-September '45 ... but they were hard to find, and I don't know how authoritative. It might be useful to enter the data (and the authority of the source!) in the database associated with this forum, so the stuff is available for reference.

[BuzzLightyear]

Here is a comparison found in the book The History of german Aviation: The First Jet Aircraft by Wolfgang Wagner. I think it's interesting.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/compare.jpg

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright
Lightning hit it bang on, the F-80 was far superior to anything else in 1945. But, as far as the engines go, I would actually have to agree with B-1. It was common knowledge that American jet engine design and performance trailed the Brits until sometime in the early 50s.

A couple examples: the Canadair-built T-33 Silver Star (RR Nene 10 engines) had superior performance than either the Lockheed-built T-33 (Allison A-35) and even the F-80. Imagine that, a trainer beating a fighter, but it happened all the time. And the best F-86 variant of all, by far, was the Canadian Sabre Mk 6 powered by Orenda 14 (Canadian design, but influenced by British technology), they could fly rings around anything else of the era.

Back to the topic...


I disagree. I don’t think its common knowledge at all, though it may be a somewhat widely held opinion.

I believe the British fell firmly behind the Americans in terms of jet fighter and jet engine development in 1947, on the date swept wings were attached to the F-86. The British simply had nothing comparable at the time and didn’t until 1954 when the Hunter was introduced into service.

With respect to engine development, I believe the British relied too long on centrifugal compressors, while Americans were turning to axial flow compressors. Since centrifugal compressors had somewhat matured, naturally there were some reliability advantages over axial engines in those early years. Nevertheless, the axial flow was the way forward, and in hind sight it was the right way to go. In terms of fighter engines, the centrifugal engine was fast becoming a dead end.

The contemporary of the F-86’s J47 engine was the Rolls Royce Nene. AFAIK, there was never a production Nene that produced more thrust than the J47. Indeed, North American’s estimates were that the F-86 would have performed worse with the Nene than with the J47.

With respect to the Canadair Sabre MK 6, I agree it was the most performant fighter version of the Sabre. But not by all that much, though. And I don’t think it’s the right plane to use to prove your contention that “American jet engine design and performance trailed the Brits until sometime in the early 50s.”

The first Mk6 Sabres were not delivered to the RCAF until November 1954. By that time, North American had virtually left the Sabre behind, concentrating on the Super Sabre which, in its F-100A form, had been delivered to the USAF a full year earlier, in November 1953. The F-100A Super Sabre outperformed the Mk 6 Sabre by a very wide margin. The Orneda 14 engine simply kept the Sabre competitive – a way for Canada to have a competitive fighter without buying or designing a new one.

It’s also worth noting that the F-86D, which flew in 1949, and went into service in 1951, climbed faster than the Mk 6 (except at very high altitude), and had nearly the same speed.

In short, I don’t think the Americans were behind at all in terms of engine or fighter development. I think there is plenty of evidence that they were ahead by a significant margin by the late ‘40s and early ‘50s.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear


With respect to engine development, I believe the British relied too long on centrifugal compressors, while Americans were turning to axial flow compressors. Since centrifugal compressors had somewhat matured, naturally there were some reliability advantages over axial engines in those early years. Nevertheless, the axial flow was the way forward, and in hind sight it was the right way to go. In terms of fighter engines, the centrifugal engine was fast becoming a dead end.

Armstrong Siddley Sapphire ... derived from the Metrovick Beryl ...

The RR Avon was flying from 1949/50 and powered the FD-2, the first aircraft to establish a speed record over 1000mph.

quote:
The first Mk6 Sabres were not delivered to the RCAF until November 1954. By that time, North American had virtually left the Sabre behind, concentrating on the Super Sabre which, in its F-100A form, had been delivered to the USAF a full year earlier, in November 1953. The F-100A Super Sabre outperformed the Mk 6 Sabre by a very wide margin. The Orneda 14 engine simply kept the Sabre competitive – a way for Canada to have a competitive fighter without buying or designing a new one.

early F-100s were notoriously unreliable ... the wish and the technology didn't match

quote:
In short, I don’t think the Americans were behind at all in terms of engine or fighter development. I think there is plenty of evidence that they were ahead by a significant margin by the late ‘40s and early ‘50s.


Hmmm ... that's not what engine forums and sites say.

The J42 (Panther and other US airframes) was a RR Nene (centrifugal).

Brit influence in the J35/47 (axial) design is ambivalent.

The J65 (used in a range of US airframes in the early 50s, including the prototype F104 and the original intended engine when the F4 was conceived (though dropped early in development)) was a licence-built Sapphire. If the US had been prepared to buy from the UK rather than licence they would have had them 2 years earlier.

The J57 was probably the first US-designed engine to be better than the contemporary Brit offering.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear


With respect to engine development, I believe the British relied too long on centrifugal compressors, while Americans were turning to axial flow compressors. Since centrifugal compressors had somewhat matured, naturally there were some reliability advantages over axial engines in those early years. Nevertheless, the axial flow was the way forward, and in hind sight it was the right way to go. In terms of fighter engines, the centrifugal engine was fast becoming a dead end.

Armstrong Siddley Sapphire ... derived from the Metrovick Beryl ...

The RR Avon was flying from 1949/50 and powered the FD-2, the first aircraft to establish a speed record over 1000mph.

quote:
The first Mk6 Sabres were not delivered to the RCAF until November 1954. By that time, North American had virtually left the Sabre behind, concentrating on the Super Sabre which, in its F-100A form, had been delivered to the USAF a full year earlier, in November 1953. The F-100A Super Sabre outperformed the Mk 6 Sabre by a very wide margin. The Orneda 14 engine simply kept the Sabre competitive – a way for Canada to have a competitive fighter without buying or designing a new one.

early F-100s were notoriously unreliable ... the wish and the technology didn't match

quote:
In short, I don’t think the Americans were behind at all in terms of engine or fighter development. I think there is plenty of evidence that they were ahead by a significant margin by the late ‘40s and early ‘50s.


Hmmm ... that's not what engine forums and sites say.

The J42 (Panther and other US airframes) was a RR Nene (centrifugal).

Brit influence in the J35/47 (axial) design is ambivalent.

The J65 (used in a range of US airframes in the early 50s, including the prototype F104 and the original intended engine when the F4 was conceived (though dropped early in development)) was a licence-built Sapphire. If the US had been prepared to buy from the UK rather than licence they would have had them 2 years earlier.

The J57 was probably the first US-designed engine to be better than the contemporary Brit offering.

Hi
What was the NA Sabre redesign with a centrifugal jet to get the range and reliability called?

Up until the Middle fifties getting on for 80% of all jet engines ever produced were British origin, licensed, or pirated copies.

The last significant British Fighter designs were the Hawker Hurricane 2., Hawker P1154. Potential World beaters for their time but cancelled before fruition.

But in the fifties the Canadians or Swedes were at times the best by a significant margin.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Lightning, the first F-80C flew on March 1, 1948. The war in Europe had been over for almost 3 years and all development of German a/c had been halted.

Yes, but the Me262 had already been flying (although not operationally) for almost two years before the prototype P-80's first flight on Jan. 8, 1944. Also, it (the '262) was already in production and had been flying combat missions by that time. Even with such a head start, the '262 could not out-perform the P-80A, much less the F-80C.

quote:Yes Lightning please approach in a fair way, for who can say if the HG models would not have flown and been produced by 1948 when the P-80C first flew. The Horten would certainly have.
Who can say that they would have? The "HG" variants were experimental concepts; they were not yet real airplanes and may never have become such. The '262 and the P-80, on the other hand, were production, operational fighters, so the only fair comparison is between them.

As to the Horten, there is no certainty at all that it would have flown and been in production by 1948--no more than for any other experimental design. Also, what does the Horten have to do with a comparison between the Me262 and the P-80?

quote:The data one sees for the P-80 is for the P-80C which is certainly not a P-80A.
Again, Pete57 has presented an in-depth summary of the P-80A's performance capabilities. In addition to this, BuzzLightyear's table comparing the P-80A with the Me 262A-1a is very informative. Both of those presentations show the P-80A with a clear advantage.

I have also done some research into this, and, although most references address the performance of the F-80C, I was able to find the following on the XP-80A and the P-80A:

[u]XP-80A</u>

Speed: 553 mph vs 540mph for the Me 262A
Ceiling: 48,500' .. 37,600' ........................
Range: 560 mi .. 652 Mi ..........................

[u]P-80A</u>

Speed: 558 mph vs 540 mph for the Me 262A
Ceiling: 45,000' .. 37,600' ..........................
Range: 540 mi .. 652 mi ............................
Climb; 5000 fpm(?).. 3940 fpm ...................

These numbers also give the clear edge, except for range, to the P-80A.

You bring up the point that the F-80C didn't fly until March 1, 1948. Well, the P-80 established the world speed record of 623.8 mph in 1947, so it was either the "A" or "B" model that did it--certainly not the "C." No variant of the Me 262 ever came close to this level speed, regardless of condidions.

There are just too many references, both on the Web and in print, that show the P-80--any variant--to be superior to the Me 262.
The earlier P-80s were superior in most catagories. The F-80C was superior in all catagories.

Regards,
Lightning

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by b-1

Money money money makes or brakes you.

Put the money aside and think about the weapons. We all no in war time money alot easyer to come by.

Germany came out with alot of first in WW2.V1,V2, first curse missle and ICBM.Jet fighters and bombers that worked. Like the Arado and the ME 262. I dont remeber what the name of the german wire guided missle was but i know it suck and italian battle ship in the late parts of WW2.They alose attempted an V1 or V2 launch from a sub.They were also well on the way to having a nuck. thank god they never got one.
All were made in war time so they were rushed and had many problems. They did work and with a few years to fix the problems they mite have taken britain. I will not go to far and say russia and america was to much for eny contry to take over.




You cannot put the issue of how such R&D would be funded aside. It's crucial to any discussion along these lines, and money is more readily available in war time but it is certainly not easier to come by. Any nation's treasury only has a limited financial reserve and once this is gone, it's gone.

Without the pressures of wartime, Germany would not have put the Reichsmarks into R&D, they wouldn't have bothered with Jet fighters (The History of the He280 shows this, even considering that this was in wartime too), they wouldn't have bothered with jet bombers, they wouldn't have bothered with the V weapons (The "V" designation translates to "Vengeance", no Allied air attacks = nothing to avenge = no V weapons).

You cannot simply look at such timelines in isolation. There was a big rearmament drive in the 1930s and the Franco-British alliance were keen to keep pace with there German counterparts. The best of the first line kit in each case was fairly evenly matched in 1940, it probably would be so in 1945.

I cannot see Germany managing to take Britain by force even by 1945, the Royal Navy simply would not allow the KM to achieve any level of superiority over it and had a huge head start to begin with.

[Lightning]

Hi Simon,

The Germans had already come from far behind by 1939. Indication of the forward strides in their naval capabilities were the build-up of the U-boat arm and the development of the "pocket battleship." The former was in spite of the Treaty of Versailles; the latter was in circumvention of it.

The only area that they foolishly neglected (although they did not neglect it entirely) was the development of the aircraft carrier. Given another five or six years and they might have corrected this shortcoming.

I think that in this thread the Germans are being underestimated as to what they could have done after 1939 as they were in what they could do between 1918 and 1939. The big difference in the present case is that no great price need be paid as it was in, and after, 1939.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi All,

I agree with BuzzLightyear when he wrote:

quote:I believe the British fell firmly behind the Americans in terms of jet fighter and jet engine development in 1947, on the date swept wings were attached to the F-86. The British simply had nothing comparable at the time and didn’t until 1954 when the Hunter was introduced into service.

Rather than go through all the typing necessary to develop my point, I'll quote what I wrote some time ago in the "Best Fighter" thread. I was addressing jet-fighter development 1945-1950:
quote:Broken down by year in which they (i.e. New aircraft) became operational:

1945:
USA-- F-80; F-82 (prop-driven. See "Conclusions" below.)
UK---none

1946:
USA-- none
UK--- Vampire; Hornet (prop-driven)

1947:
USA-- Skyraider (prop-driven "attack" aircraft)
UK--- Sea Fury (prop-driven naval fighter that was Royal Navy's principal carrier fighter until 1953!); Brigand (prop-driven)

1948:
USA-- F-84; F9F (naval jet); B-45 (Not a fighter, but, since Canberra has been mentioned, is included here only for a comparison.)
UK--- none

1949:
USA-- F-86; F2H (naval jet)
UK--- none

1950:
USA-- F-89 (night/all-weather fighter); F3D (naval jet night/all-weather fighter); F7U (naval jet); B-47 (Again, for comparison with later Canberra.)
UK--- none

Conclusions:

From 1945-1950 (inclusive), the US introduced into operational status 12 New types of aircraft, nine of which were jet-propelled. In this same period, the UK introduced four New types into operational status, one of which was jet-propelled.

The F7F and F8F were WWII naval designs. They were not extensively developed after the war but were kept on as a stop-gap measure until replaced by jets. That the F7F was a late WWII aircraft is demonstrated by the fact that an F7F-1 (not an XF7F-1) was a participant in the Joint Fighter Conference held at Patuxent NAS in October 1944.

The F-82 was a borderline WWII aircraft that, although useful, was not extensively developed after the war; it was, after all, a "Twin Mustang".

During the 1945-1950 period, US jet designs progressed rapidly. The UK jet designs, on the other hand, remained somewhat stagnant.


Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

Lightning, there is an article I'm trying to find by Pieter Lienau iirc on the state of German shipbuilding/design during the 1930s. I'll post a link when I find it. Essentially they tried too much with too little. 40s high pressure powerplants don't work with 30s tech. Then they put in lots of new overdesigned systems, which didn't work too well and often broke. The problem was that they started from essentially nothing, the previous generation of designers had moved on so they were left with a clean slate. The results are indicative of this, ships that weren't very good and often broke. Even the ships they planned to build as an absolute best case are inferior in quality and quantity to the RN. Look at Norway - a small RN force sunk half the German navy's destroyers for minimal losses. Carriers, its hard to build a carrier and develop a doctrine from sratch in a few years. Its no surprise Graf Zepplin wasn't a good design.

With regards to the "head start" of the Me 262, its usually the case that later aircraft are better. The figures posted show that the P-80A has a small advantage. This is not "clear" in any way. The two types are fairly evenly matched.

Swept wings are not the be-all and end-all. Swept wings have many disadvantages and only come into play at higher speeds. A thin section straight wing has good drag characteristics whilst maintaining control at lower speeds.

Hawker Sea Hawk vs. anything?

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Red Admiral,

My understanding is the same as yours.

German Navy,

Cruisers - unreliable High Pressure steam machinery

Destroyers - over gunned and unseaworthy

Battleships - Primary, secondary and tertiary armament when other nations were switching to dual purpose high-angle secondary armament.

Aircraft Carrier - good first effort, but too little and too late.

Mind you the submarines were crackers!

British aircraft manufacturers

Simply exhausted by WWII and upset by loss of test pilots

Miles - supersonic aircraft, cancelled when 80% complete

Supermarine - never designed a decent aircraft after the Spitfire

Hawker - took much too long to get to the Hunter

DeHavilland - never really got over the tragedies of the DH108 and Comet

English Electric - Canbera and Lightning, not too bad

Avro - Vulcan, good effort

Handley Page - Victor, lovely crescent wing.

I think the real point is that US manufacturers had a fantastic blossoming of talent in the late 40's and 50's as Lightning has demonstrated.

[montanamotor]

The Hawker Harrier?

IMHO, one of the greatest echievements in aviation history, Gentlemen.

The british are always best when considered written off, already...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:Armstrong Siddley Sapphire ... derived from the Metrovick Beryl ...

The RR Avon was flying from 1949/50 and powered the FD-2, the first aircraft to establish a speed record over 1000mph.

OK, but I don’t believe it proves the point that British engines were superior to American engines.


quote:early F-100s were notoriously unreliable ... the wish and the technology didn't match

The F-100A’s difficulties were far more attributable to its airframe and hydraulics, and sheer hot nature of the plane, than ever to its engines.

Early Super Sabres suffered from compressor stalls, but so did just about every other fighter jet before its design was refined. One aircraft particularly prone to compressor stalling was the Hawker Hunter, a later jet than the Super Sabre, and not as performant.


quote:Hmmm ... that's not what engine forums and sites say.

It’s all opinion.


quote:The J42 (Panther and other US airframes) was a RR Nene (centrifugal).

There is no question that the centrifugal compressor was more reliable than the axial compressor in these early days. The centrifugal engine simply had the benefit of a longer development time. The US Navy went with this engine, in part, for the reliability factor. Additionally, centrifugal engines spool up faster than axial engines (at least back then they did). Both of those attributes were paramount for jet naval fighters. But the decision to use this engine was at the expense of performance. Neither the Panther, nor even the Cougar, were ever in the same league as the F-86 Sabre. They were inferior to the Sabre in just about every performance category.



quote:The J65 (used in a range of US airframes in the early 50s, including the prototype F104 and the original intended engine when the F4 was conceived (though dropped early in development)) was a licence-built Sapphire. If the US had been prepared to buy from the UK rather than licence they would have had them 2 years earlier.

The J65 suffered from reliability problems just like every other engine. It was a good engine, no doubt, but it had its gestational problems like every other engine. In the end, it was insufficient to meet USAF, or even USN needs. Additionally, the Sapphire powered a range of British planes that were, sad to say, a day late and a dollar short. By the time British planes, like the Hunter, Javelin, and Lightning went into service, they had already been surpassed in performance by an earlier American plane.

I think fighter development and engine development are inseparable. Accordingly, the following is relevant. Francis K Mason who wrote “Hawker Aircraft: since 1920” summed up the state of British fighter development thusly: “The first flight of a production Hunter took place from Dunsfold on 16 May 1953, but this event tended to be overshadowed by the cancellation of the P.1083 project. There is no doubt that the appearance of the North American F-100 Super Sabre, capable of supersonic speed in level flight, had a profound effect on the Air Staff’s outlook, for all too painfully, it highlighted RAF Fighter Command’s inferiority in first line fighter aircraft. The F-86 Sabre, a genuinely transonic fighter, had not only been in service for over four years, but had fought with great distinction over Korea, while the RAF could boast of nothing better then first generation Meteors and Vampires.”

I am firmly of the opinion that the British fell conspicuously behind in fighter and engine development with the advent of the swept wing Sabre. The Sabre, not only being more performant, was a design that that was truly a generation ahead of anything the British had at the time, or would have for several years. I’m not disparaging the British, they surely had the know-how to do what the Americans did. What they didn’t have was the money, or as much access to captured German data that provided the US and USSR with valuable shortcuts in fighter development.

BTW, while I agree the Shooting Star was superior to the Me-262 as a fighter, I also believe it was merely a very good fighter using technology of the day. The Me-262 was more pioneering, more adventurous, and pointed more to the future than the Shooting Star ever did.

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

The Hawker Harrier?

IMHO, one of the greatest echievements in aviation history, Gentlemen.

The british are always best when considered written off, already...

Cheers!

Montanamotor


No question about it. And I for one fear that the new JSF replacing the Harrier may not be up to the task - a worthy successor so to speak. The Harrier will be an incredibly hard act to follow.

[Wuzak]

quote:[i]I am firmly of the opinion that the British fell conspicuously behind in fighter and engine development with the advent of the swept wing Sabre. The Sabre, not only being more performant, was a design that that was truly a generation ahead of anything the British had at the time, or would have for several years. I’m not disparaging the British, they surely had the know-how to do what the Americans did. What they didn’t have was the money, or as much access to captured German data that provided the US and USSR with valuable shortcuts in fighter development.


Isn't it true that much of the American knowledge regarding jet engine design was based on information traded to them by the British as part of a reverse lend-lease type of deal?

I think the economic aspect of the situation paints the true picture. The British economy could not afford to continue development at anywhere near the pace of the Americans after WW2.

Someone at work said the other day that the British only finished paying off war debts to the Americans in the early 1980s. Does anybody know if this is true?

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

Isn't it true that much of the American knowledge regarding jet engine design was based on information traded to them by the British as part of a reverse lend-lease type of deal?


Sure is. Also the based on German research gained immediately following the war. But the Americans were no dummies either. They developed some of their own designs from scratch (Lockheed L-1000), or took basic centrifugal engines and developed very good axial flow designs from them (J33 into J35). The Americans also came up with their own innovations such as multiple, independently rotating compressor blades, and solved the problem of compressor stall.

Yes, both the British and the Germans gave the Americans valuable shortcuts. The American took them and ran with them.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:[i]I am firmly of the opinion that the British fell conspicuously behind in fighter and engine development with the advent of the swept wing Sabre. The Sabre, not only being more performant, was a design that that was truly a generation ahead of anything the British had at the time, or would have for several years. I’m not disparaging the British, they surely had the know-how to do what the Americans did. What they didn’t have was the money, or as much access to captured German data that provided the US and USSR with valuable shortcuts in fighter development.


Isn't it true that much of the American knowledge regarding jet engine design was based on information traded to them by the British as part of a reverse lend-lease type of deal?

I think the economic aspect of the situation paints the true picture. The British economy could not afford to continue development at anywhere near the pace of the Americans after WW2.

Someone at work said the other day that the British only finished paying off war debts to the Americans in the early 1980s. Does anybody know if this is true?


Agreed,Britain was bankrupt by the end of the Second World War. As an economic expedient from about 1944 Military aviation development was held back until the start of the Korean War. Though the civil sector was not subject to the same restrictions and was positively encouraged. British superiority in jet engine development benefited the British Civil Aviation Sector and the huge lead gained was only lost because of political bumbling incompetence.
It is not generally realised but the 707 underwent four major redesign phases and still failed to match the leading British contender. Fortunately for Boeing it was cancelled for rather bizarre reasons and thereby gifting the American competition the World Market for large Jet Airliners. Mean while Douglas bankrupted itself while desperately gaining a larger sector of the Market. However it was the enemy within that eventually scuppered the British Aerospace Industry.

On the Military side British industry practically completed at least six viable supersonic contenders
in the fighter sector before they were in turn cancelled: at least two of which were world leaders with no obvious competition. Market share after cancellation is zero so this effectively finished off several great design teams.

The Canadians trumped everyone by produced the best Strategic Fighter of the Fifties and the leading supersonic jet engine before they were cancelled.

We should not forget the Swedish contribution, Draken and Viggen.

But to return to the original topic would Stalin have rolled westward before 1945 so changing everything?.

[montanamotor]

You can't walk far without shoes - and barefooted soviet-russia's armed forces were in the late 30ties, after Stalin had virtually wiped out all of his weapons-engineers and experienced officers-corps during his political "clearances".

Remember that, in 1940, during the finnish-russian "Winter War", the Russians couldn't even overthrow a country, which could only mount about as many troops as the city of Berlin had policemen.

Soviet-Russia invading a fully armed and war-ready Germany in 1940-41-42-43-44? No way. On peace-pace, before 1945 Russia would never have been able to get militarily active against the "Reich".

The "Hitler-Stalin-Pakt" was only signed by Stalin, to tame the "german beast" at Russia's western border for a few more years, to gain precious time to recover and, regain effective operational status.

It was only the frantic arming efforts at-all-costs after June '41, combined with the enormous influx of allied arms and supplies, which enabled Russia to enter full-scale-war against Germany from '42 on.

Cheers.

Montanamotor

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
It is not generally realised but the 707 underwent four major redesign phases
and still failed to match the leading British contender.


I don’t know a huge amount about civil airliners, but I was reading thru the section on the 707 in the book “Boeing Aircraft: Since 1916” (Peter Bowers). When you say 4 major redesigns, to what are you referring? There were many variants built to customer specs or need. There were long version, short version, cargo version, tanker versions, military versions… The history of the 707 is replete with redesigns.

And what was the leading British Contender? The only thing I can think of is the DeHavilland Comet. A review of the specs of the Boeing 707-100 version (the first production version) and specs of the Comet from the book “DeHavilland Aircraft: Since 1909” shows the first 707 was faster, longer ranged, and carried more passengers than every Comet version. Later 707s only widened the gap further.

Was there another plane you are referring to? Or was it a “planned’ aircraft that never made it to fruition?


quote:
On the Military side British industry practically completed at least six viable supersonic contenders in the fighter sector before they were in turn cancelled: at least two of which were world leaders with no obvious competition. Market share after cancellation is zero so this effectively finished off several great design teams.


Were they, again, “planned” aircraft that never made it to fruition?

One of the biggest problems for the Brits during the post war years was that they continually tried to reinvent the wheel. While the US and USSR used German data for valuable shortcuts in the development of their own swept wing fighters, the Brits tried to figure out the swept wing on their own. While the F-86 and Mig-15 were going into service, Supermarine and Hawker were still trying to figure out proper thicknesses and incidences to achieve high speed flight. As a result, the British had nothing like the F-86 Sabre or MiG-15 until the appearance of the Hawker Hunter in 1954 – unless you count the F-86s used by the RAF in the absence of their own high performance figher. By that time, the F-86 had been in service for 5 years, and more performant planes were already in service with the US and USSR.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear

They developed some of their own designs from scratch (Lockheed L-1000), or took basic centrifugal engines and developed very good axial flow designs from them (J33 into J35). The Americans also came up with their own innovations such as multiple, independently rotating compressor blades, and solved the problem of compressor stall.


I didn't know that the J35 was derived from the J33 ... are you sure?

The other features are associated with the J57 I think.

The first solution to compressor stall was arrived at by A.A. Griffith (RAE) in 1926 - pointing out that flat-bladed turbines were running stalled. Griffith went on to design and build a series of axial flow jet engines in the 30s and 40s. Griffiths' early engines worked (e.g. the third Meteor prototype flew with Griffiths' Metrovick F.2 engine in late 1943). These Metrovick engines were regarded as too complicated for mass production and field maintenance ... a good call given the problems the Germans encountered with the 004.
Metrovick ceased F.2 turbojet development in 1944 with the F.2/4 Beryl ... generating 4000lb. An 'acquired' Beryl was used by Donald Campbell in his jet-powered 'Bluebird' to set a range of absolute water speed records through the 50s and 60s ... so the engine did work.

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:I didn't know that the J35 was derived from the J33 ... are you sure?

The other features are associated with the J57 I think.

Sorry, TG-31 turboprop engine.

quote:The first solution to compressor stall was arrived at by A.A. Griffith (RAE) in 1926 - pointing out that flat-bladed turbines were running stalled.

I'd opine that's too early to solve the problem, since he was not dealing with anything like the engines of the late 40s and 50s.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/jet_engines/Tech24.htm
During the early 1950s, Pratt & Whitney rode merrily along with its J-57. Its competitor, GE, had a good engine of its own: the J-47, which powered the F-86 fighter and B-47 bomber. Still, GE's managers wanted something better. They got it from the engineer Gerhard Neumann, who found a way to eliminate compressor stall. Neumann introduced the "variable stator." This was a set of small vanes that protruded into the airflow within the compressor. Each such vane was like your hand that you stick into the outside air when you ride in a car. Like your hand, each vane could turn as if mounted to a wrist. When the vanes faced the airflow with their edges forward, they allowed the flow to pass them freely. But when the vanes were turned to present their broad faces to the flow, they partially blocked it. These vanes then reduced the amount of flow that was passing through the compressor, and kept it from gulping too much air.



A bit on the inventor:
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/neumannrevised.html

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear

quote:The first solution to compressor stall was arrived at by A.A. Griffith (RAE) in 1926 - pointing out that flat-bladed turbines were running stalled.

I'd opine that's too early to solve the problem, since he was not dealing with anything like the engines of the late 40s and 50s.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/jet_engines/Tech24.htm

familiar with that site - which is where I got the J57 accounts ...

quote:They got it from the engineer Gerhard Neumann, who found a way to eliminate compressor stall. Neumann introduced the "variable stator." This was a set of small vanes that protruded into the airflow within the compressor. Each such vane was like your hand that you stick into the outside air when you ride in a car. Like your hand, each vane could turn as if mounted to a wrist. When the vanes faced the airflow with their edges forward, they allowed the flow to pass them freely. But when the vanes were turned to present their broad faces to the flow, they partially blocked it. These vanes then reduced the amount of flow that was passing through the compressor, and kept it from gulping too much air.[/i]


As I said - there were two causes of stall ... the first recognised by Griffith, an aerodynamicist, so it was an in principle discovery that applies to all turbines and turbine engines. Griffith designed turbojet engines in the late 30s through mid 40s that were in essence produced into the mid 1950s (F.2, Beryl, Sapphire). He knew what he was doing. The second cause of stall was due to backpressure or back flow, an effect that only became appreciable with bigger engines operating at higher pressures. This is what Neumann solved. He also knew what he was doing.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
It is not generally realised but the 707 underwent four major redesign phases
and still failed to match the leading British contender.


I don’t know a huge amount about civil airliners, but I was reading thru the section on the 707 in the book “Boeing Aircraft: Since 1916” (Peter Bowers). When you say 4 major redesigns, to what are you referring? There were many variants built to customer specs or need. There were long version, short version, cargo version, tanker versions, military versions… The history of the 707 is replete with redesigns.

And what was the leading British Contender? The only thing I can think of is the DeHavilland Comet. A review of the specs of the Boeing 707-100 version (the first production version) and specs of the Comet from the book “DeHavilland Aircraft: Since 1909” shows the first 707 was faster, longer ranged, and carried more passengers than every Comet version. Later 707s only widened the gap further.

Was there another plane you are referring to? Or was it a “planned’ aircraft that never made it to fruition?


quote:
On the Military side British industry practically completed at least six viable supersonic contenders in the fighter sector before they were in turn cancelled: at least two of which were world leaders with no obvious competition. Market share after cancellation is zero so this effectively finished off several great design teams.


Were they, again, “planned” aircraft that never made it to fruition?

One of the biggest problems for the Brits during the post war years was that they continually tried to reinvent the wheel. While the US and USSR used German data for valuable shortcuts in the development of their own swept wing fighters, the Brits tried to figure out the swept wing on their own. While the F-86 and Mig-15 were going into service, Supermarine and Hawker were still trying to figure out proper thicknesses and incidences to achieve high speed flight. As a result, the British had nothing like the F-86 Sabre or MiG-15 until the appearance of the Hawker Hunter in 1954 – unless you count the F-86s used by the RAF in the absence of their own high performance figher. By that time, the F-86 had been in service for 5 years, and more performant planes were already in service with the US and USSR.



Hi Buzz,

The Vickers V1000/Vc7 prototype was practically finished when the Government pulled the plug on the project in November 1955. This Aircraft would have been the leading contender in the second generation jet airliner stakes and had a profound effect on American designs of the Period.
It was the only aircraft with a Trans-Atlantic range with payload being built at the time. When they first came in to service the first 707s used to stop half way.
The four design phases were the 367-80 or Dash 80 built to compete with the original Comet. The problems with Comet and the development of a much larger 2nd generation RAF transport meant that the four aside seat dash 80 was no longer relevant.
The next stage was the KC 135 to military specification and with a follow civil aircraft with five aside seating.
After this design was hardened the commercial significance o of six aside seating that was being pioneered by the Vickers Design was realised and a new wider body fuselage was designed for the 707.
To cross the Atlantic a larger variant was required, to repeat it is often forgotten now but the first Crossings by a commercial 707 required a refuelling stop.
The American contenders required all the runways in the world bar two to be lengthened to cater for the exceptionally long takeoff that they needed. So Boeing had to produce yet another design to cater for the Air New Zealand’s requirements

The Vickers V1000 with its super advanced big wing could have used most of the existing runways that catered for the latest generation of prop driven airliner. I still have a clear memory of its cancellation and remember thinking this does not make sense. The major reason given at the time was that it needed an additional hundred feet or so beyond the original design requirement but omitted to say that this was still several thousand feet less than that required by the American contenders at the time. Sir George Edwards said that it was a huge mistake to cancel.

Probably to keep the Industry quiet seven British Airframe manufacturers and four British engine manufactures were asked to scheme supersonic proposals . Two of the American manufacturers flew their “jet-airliners” at supersonic speeds before Concord.
Without the effects of the cancellations it is probable that the UK, possibly with Canadian assistance could have had a recoverable Space Shuttle by about the middle sixties. But such is the stuff of dreams.
The two designs that would have pulled the British Industry ahead in certain categories of fighter would have been the Hawker P1121 (1959)and the Hawker P1154 VSTO (1965)up until maybe the Eagle?

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

Quoting you:

quote:Essentially they [the Germans} tried too much with too little. 40s high pressure powerplants don't work with 30s tech. Then they put in lots of new overdesigned systems, which didn't work too well and often broke. The problem was that they started from essentially nothing, the previous generation of designers had moved on so they were left with a clean slate. The results are indicative of this, ships that weren't very good and often broke. Even the ships they planned to build as an absolute best case are inferior in quality and quantity to the RN. Look at Norway - a small RN force sunk half the German navy's destroyers for minimal losses. Carriers, its hard to build a carrier and develop a doctrine from sratch in a few years. Its no surprise Graf Zepplin wasn't a good design.

The Germans produced, under the most adverse conditions, ships that were of very high quality. Their losses were more a matter of poor leadership and decisions at the top than of breaking down or having outmoded equipment.

The pocket battleships, such as the Graf Spee, Deutschland (later upgraded to a full capital ship--the Luetzow), and the Admiral Scheer were first class war vessels. They were "stronger than the faster and faster than the stronger" British counterparts.

Their Battleships--the Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, Tirpitz, and Bismark were second to none in any navy. Their submarines were better than those of any other navy.

The defeat of the German navy was, in addition to the above-mentioned leadership flaws, a matter of too little too late--certainly not of lack of quality.

In the acton of which you speak (which took place in April 1940), the 10 German destroyers were not lost because they were inferior to their opponents. Most of them were surprised in Narvik Harbor by the British 2nd Destroyer Flotilla. Even then, they gave a good account of themselves against superior numbers until they were out of fuel and ammunition.
Another reason was that the U-boats that were to form a protective screen around the destroyers were unable to fullfill their task because of numerous faulty torpedoes that were fired but failed to detonate. This most certainly was a quality failure, but not of the ships themselves.

The "small RN force" and "minimal loss" to which you refer were neither "small" nor "minimal." It's just that the losses suffered by the British were easier to bear than those of the Germans.

There were cases where German ships out-fought superior numbers of British ships until finally being overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers or, as in the case of the Graf Spee, by superior political maneuvering.

The Graf Spee had out-fought the Ajax, Exeter, and Achilles off the River Platte. The British ships had to withdraw. When the Graf Spee pulled into Montevideo to repair and refuel, British political pressure and maneuvering kept her there while the British converged many ships on the area and then caused her to have to leave when escape was too late. It was a British stroke of genious how this was handled, but it was certainly not a naval victory--The Graf Spee was scuttled by her crew in the mouth of the Platte rather than be destroyed by a waiting, vastly superior, British fleet in the South Atlantic.

The Bismark had sunk the Hood and had damaged several other ships before making a dash for home. If it were not for a lucky hit in her rudder by a torpedo dropped by an obsolete Swordfish torpedo plane, it would have made it. Even when it was finally caught by its pursuers, the Bismark fought a gallant battle, again, against superior odds, until she finally went down.

You can blame Hitler; you can blame many German Admirals, but you cannot blame the German ships or their crews.

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

quote:The pocket battleships, such as the Graf Spee, Deutschland (later upgraded to a full capital ship--the Luetzow), and the Admiral Scheer were first class war vessels. They were "stronger than the faster and faster than the stronger" British counterparts.

There were only three of them. They were slow and lightly armoured. They are vastly inferior to the 3 RN battlecruisers, but unlikely to meet them. Two of the County-class cruisers more than overmatch the design. It was a good design, using extensive welding and diesels, but as a concept it was outdated by about a century. Can't commerce raid in face of aircraft, radio and radar. Graf Spee was critically damaged and sought refuge in Montevideo. There was no time to repair the damage and the RN can simply bring up more ships.

quote:Their Battleships--the Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, Tirpitz, and Bismark were second to none in any navy. Their submarines were better than those of any other navy.

Gneisenau and Scharnhorst are poor ships. Poor armour, poor armament and poor seakeeping. Bismarck and Tirpitz are definitely not equal to the designs in other countries for a normal WWII action, short range North Sea action yes - but that time had passed 2 decades ago. The U-boats are not superior in design. In handling yes, but this was matched. If France had not fallen in according with pre-war planning the convoy war would have turned out a lot different. Prior to the fall of France it was 14 merchants for 8 uboats. An easily manageable loss ratio. Even against the later marks of U-boats like the XXI, the simple answer is to build faster merchant vessels and watch the losses go down.

quote:Even when it was finally caught by its pursuers, the Bismark fought a gallant battle, again, against superior odds, until she finally went down.

Failing to get a single hit in the process. Served as good target practice however. The rudder hit and complications occurred because of the 3-shaft, 2 rudder design. Even without this, she had still 3000tons+ of water onboard from previous hits. Making it to Brest simply means that Bomber Command has a different target for a couple of weeks.

The problem is that the German Navy had no chance from the beginning. Maybe it should have just given up and concentrated on the land war instead.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


The Graf Spee had out-fought the Ajax, Exeter, and Achilles off the River Platte. The British ships had to withdraw. When the Graf Spee pulled into Montevideo to repair and refuel, British political pressure and maneuvering kept her there while the British converged many ships on the area and then caused her to have to leave when escape was too late. It was a British stroke of genious how this was handled, but it was certainly not a naval victory--The Graf Spee was scuttled by her crew in the mouth of the Platte rather than be destroyed by a waiting, vastly superior, British fleet in the South Atlantic.

Actually a heavy and two light cruisers forced a 'pocket battleship' (very heavy cruiser) to seek shelter in a neutral port. Under orders the captain scuttled the ship rather than let it be destroyed when required by convention to depart the neutral port. The Germans [u]thought</u> there was a British fleet hovering outside ... actually it was just the damaged Ajax, the Exeter and the Achilles. One of my high school teachers served on Achilles, his action station was under the main battery and it wrecked his hearing.

quote:The Bismark had sunk the Hood and had damaged several other ships before making a dash for home. If it were not for a lucky hit in her rudder by a torpedo dropped by an obsolete Swordfish torpedo plane, it would have made it. Even when it was finally caught by its pursuers, the Bismark fought a gallant battle, again, against superior odds, until she finally went down.


Bit more complicated than this. Hood had weak deck armour (pre-WW I design), Prince of Wales was still fitting out (had civilian workers on board still installing things) and had no radar. The Germans weren't the only ones to do stupid things risking ships and crew. Bismark sailed only partly fuelled so had to return to France after breaking into the Atlantic, therefore giving the British task force the inside running.
As the Germans claimed the Bismark was eventually scuttled ... but by that time it was a burning hulk.

Swordfish, while 'obsolete' on paper, served throughout the war in combat roles. They were well-matched to Atlantic and Mediterranean theatres.
Bismark, Taranto, Mediterranean campaigns, Malta, and later sinking U-boats in the Nth Atlantic ... good record in service, too bad about the paper.

But they would have been irrelevant in the Pacific.

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

Quoting you (Re Pocket battleships):
quote:There were only three of them. They were slow and lightly armoured.

Their motto, as mentioned earlier, was "Stonger than the faster, and faster than the stronger." Lighter armor in a relative sense?--Yes. "Slow"?--No. Speed was one of their strong points.

quote:The U-boats are not superior in design.

At the beginning of the war, who had as good or better? Why? At that time, the German submarine force was elite--both in crews and equipment. Again, who had as good or better? Why?

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

quote:Their motto, as mentioned earlier, was "Stonger than the faster, and faster than the stronger." Lighter armor in a relative sense?--Yes. "Slow"?--No. Speed was one of their strong points.

28knts best. After having cruised for some time getting a weathered hull this dropped to 24knts [Graf Spee before sinking] which brings them in scope of the RN battleships. "Stronger than the faster" only works if the RN had 3 cruisers to match them with. They actually had 60+

Submarines - the torpedoes on British and Italian subs work. For the actual design, theres essentially no difference between all the major powers. The only subs that are "different" would be the RN River class fleet boats which could do 20knts+ on the surface.

[Kutscha]

A German Type II is an elite boat?

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

At the beginning of the war, who had as good or better? Why? At that time, the German submarine force was elite--both in crews and equipment. Again, who had as good or better? Why?

If I remember correctly, the Americans did.

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

Quotung you:
quote:28knts best. After having cruised for some time getting a weathered hull this dropped to 24knts [Graf Spee before sinking] which brings them in scope of the RN battleships. "Stronger than the faster" only works if the RN had 3 cruisers to match them with. They actually had 60+
In just about every reference on the subject, the main point made when describing the pocket battleships was that they were very fast, heavily armed, and very-well armored (the term "heavily armored" is often used).

The Graf Spee cruised at 26 kts which puts its top speed at over 30 kts. As far as the effects of a weathered hull are concerned, all ships--German or British--would be affected to the same degree, so this is canceled-out in any fair comparison.

The Spee had six 11" and eight 6" rifles. In addition, it had eight 19.7" torpedo tubes. Her guns were admittedly smaller than the 16" rifles on the full-size British battleships, but her armament can still not be considered less than heavy.

In addition to a well-armored deck and hull, the pocket battleships had an armored belt around their hull to protect them against torpedo strikes. Again, these ships can in no way be considered as being lightly armored.

The number of British cruisers, battleships, or of any other class of warship is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about the quality of design and construction of the German ships--not how many were available. Of course, the Royal Navy, being the most powerful in the world at that time, had more ships of just about every type, but that's not what we're discussing here.

quote:Submarines - the torpedoes on British and Italian subs work. For the actual design, theres essentially no difference between all the major powers. The only subs that are "different" would be the RN River class fleet boats which could do 20knts+ on the surface.

The early German torpedoes were junk! Pure and simple! But, again, we are not talking aout torpedos; we are talking about the U-boats themselves.

The small German U-boat force almost won the war for Germany in the early stages (which is the time period under discussion). Prior to March 1943, they were definitely winning the Battle of the Atlantic.

Let me quote no-less of an authority than Winston Churchill himself: "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril." And again: "The U-boat attack was our worst evil. It would have been wise for the Germans to stake all on it."

The effectiveness of the U-boat war, as assessed by Churchill in the foregoing quotes, would not have been possible with submarines of only average or poor quality of design and consruction, the high quality of their crews notwithstanding. Their performance is even more impressive when one considers that Germany started the war with only 22 U-boats available for high-seas ocean warfare!


Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823

Tot 1939 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)

British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1

Tot 1939 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)

Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)

1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310

Tot 1940 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0

Tot 1940 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)

Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.

1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226

Tot 1941 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6

Tot 1941 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)

Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.

1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618

Tot 1942 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7

Tot 1942 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)

Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.

1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794

Tot 1943 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)
US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2

Tot 1943 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)

Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.

So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war.

Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476

US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT

U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 ‘ducks’ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171

U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the ‘success’ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat[s]." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. &lt;http://www.onwar.com/ubb/smile.gif&gt;

At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk.

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

Quoting you again:

quote:Gneisenau and Scharnhorst are poor ships. Poor armour, poor armament and poor seakeeping. Bismarck and Tirpitz are definitely not equal to the designs in other countries for a normal WWII action ....

The Scharnhorst and Gnesenau were not poor ships. They were not poorly armed or armored. As far as speed is concened, both of them were faster than the British battleships.

The Scharnhorst had early "teething" problems with its high-pressur boiler system, but overcame them to become fully operational. (Trouble with the high-pressure systems was an ongoing problem with German ships, but it was mostly a problem in the destroyers.)

The Bismarck, at the beginning of the war, was the most modern and one of, if not the, most powerful warships ever launched. She was capable of 30 kts in speed, and her armament was awesome: eight 15", twelve 5.9", and sixteen 4.1" guns. Her optical firecontrol system was the best in the world.

Winston Churchill (I can't seem to stop quoting him) called her "a masterpiece of naval construction."

quote:Failing to get a single hit in the process. Served as good target practice however. The rudder hit and complications occurred because of the 3-shaft, 2 rudder design. Even without this, she had still 3000tons+ of water onboard from previous hits. Making it to Brest simply means that Bomber Command has a different target for a couple of weeks.

Before the final battle, the Bismark, Prinz Eugen, and several smaller ships had met and outfought a formidible British force consisting of a battleship (the Prince of Wales), a battle cruiser (the Hood), two cruisers, and several destroyes. The Bismarck inflicted the vast majority of damage on the British force, including the sinking of the Hood--nominally the Royal Navy's largest and most powerful ship, even though she was 20 years old.

The Bismark also received damage in the engagement. During the pursuit which followed--during which she avoided detection for 31 hours--she had to reduce speed to 24 kts because of leaking fuel. This was not because she didn't have good range, but at high speed and leaking fuel, she may not have had enough fuel to reach her French port.

She was finally detected by a Catalina aircraft. Had she not been leaking fuel, and had she not been located by an aircraft, she would have escaped the British sea force in spite of all their efforts. This is, however, only conjecture in the face of actual events.

When she was finally located, she was attacked by several Swordfish torpedo planes launched by two different British Cariers. They scored two (one account says three) hits. the hit(s) amidships exploded harmlessly against her armored belt. The last torpedo almost missed, but fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on one's point of view) it hit the rudder and steering gear. From that point, the Bismarck could only turn around and around in uncontrollable circles. This brings us to the final battle.

The British ships converged from all directions. They could maneuver in order to bring their guns to bear while at the same time avoiding those of the Bismarck which could only sail in circles. Even under these conditions, the Bismark kept her pursuers at bay for some time.

If she didn't score any hits, it was because she couldn't maneuver--not because she couldn't shoot effectively. When she had her steering gear intact, the outcome, as we have seen, was quite another matter.

In the final tally, the Royal Navy had lost its most powerful warship (Hood). In addition, two of its battleships, a destroyer, and numerous planes were damaged.

As to the quality of design and construction of the Bismarck, it took many hits from 14"and 16" guns as well as ship-launched torpedos to finally finish her. B.H. Liddell Hart, in his authoritative book [u]History of the Second World War</u>, page 379, describes it this way: "Before the end came she [Bismarck] had suffered, and survived, at least eight, and possibly twelve, torpedo hits, and many more heavy shell hits. That was a remarkable tribute to her designers."

And, lastly, although it can never be proven, one of the few surviving officers from the Bismarck testified that even after all that damage, her deck and hull remained unpierced, and her engines were undamaged. He said the captain had ordered her to be scuttled to prevent the possibility of her being boarded by a British boarding party. Whether this is true or not will never be known, but it certainly sounds very feasible.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

The figures you provide are extensive, and no doubt true, but what is the point you're trying to make?

We are discussing the German navy's ships/boats/U-boats themselves-- not the deployment, strategies, tactics, tonnage sank, etc., etc. of the combatants.

If you're trying to demonstrate that the Germans lost the sea war, you have done a good job, and I'm forced to agree with you. If you are trying to demonstrate that, because they did lose, their ships were of poor quality and capability, I'm forced to disagree with you.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Armour

GS
belt - up to 2.36"
deck - up to 1.5"
turrets - up to 5.5"
barbettes - up to 3.9"

Achilles
sides - up to 3.5"
decks - 1"
turrets - 1"

Ajax
sides - 3"
deck - 1.5"
turret - 1"

quote:and very-well armored (the term "heavily armored" is often used).So the GS had less side armour and slightly more deck armour than the British LIGHT cruiser and the same deck armour as a British HEAVY cruiser.

The Deutchland class had 20% of the displacement devoted to protection &gt;&gt;&gt; very low.

[montanamotor]

Errr - Gentlemen: and when did they FLY, actually? I mean, this is an aircraft-forum, anyway. Just a thought...

Come on!

Okay, one for the way home: The Arado 196 was the best catapult-plane to be launched by battleships/cruisers of all combatant sides in the scout/fighter/anti-submarine-role of WWII. Can we all agree to that?

Fine!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Lightning]

Hi curmudgeon,

Quoting you:
quote:Swordfish, while 'obsolete' on paper, served throughout the war in combat roles. They were well-matched to Atlantic and Mediterranean theatres.
Bismark, Taranto, Mediterranean campaigns, Malta, and later sinking U-boats in the Nth Atlantic ... good record in service, too bad about the paper

The Swordfish served long and well. You'll get no argument from me on that point. As to its obsolescence being only on paper, that's another matter.

The Swordfish was slated for replacement by newer types when the war broke out. It was at about this time that the modern navies of the world were going from biplanes to monoplanes for obvious reasons.

There were two reasons that the Swordfish remained as a first line torpedo plane even in the face of obsolescence: (1) It had beautiful low-speed handling qualities that allowed it to operate, even when fully loaded, from the decks of early carriers even in very rough seas. (2) It was already deployed in large numbers just when the Royal Navy needed it most. In fact, it was the only torpedo bomber in FAA service in1938--only a year before the war.

Considering the time frame of its operational use, it was the personification of obsolescence. It was a biplane. It had fixed landing gear. It was mostly fabric covered. It had a fixed-pitch propeller. It was slow--138 mph! Its main attribute was that it was so hard to replace, at the time, with more up-to-date types.

The modern torpedo bomber contemporaries of the Swordfish were the British "Barracuda", the superlative Japanese B5M "Kate," and, don't be too quick to laugh, the American TBD "Devastator." All were metal monoplanes. All had retractable (or, in the case of the TBD, a mostly retractable) landing gear. All had controllable props. All were about 100 mph faster. All could carry a much heavier and more varied load of torpedos or bombs.

The three operations for which the Swordfish are best known are the attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto; the broad-daylight "Channel Dash" of the German warships Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Prinz Eugen; and, of course, the attack on the Bismark.

At Taranto, it was a surprise attack against stationary ships at anchor in harbor. Those ships were manned by crews which had not shown themselves to have had their hearts in the war to begin with.

In the case of the "Channel Dash," the Swordfish could not have been very effective in light of the fact that all three German ships made it through the channel and all the way home without damage.

Although multiple attacks were flown against the already-damaged Bismark, the Swordfish only scored two or three torpedo hits, only one of which did any damage. That one hit led to the Bismarck's final sinking, but that was more a matter of chance than design.

The Swordfish served throughout the war, but after 1942, it was no longer in use as a torpedo bomber. By that time, as was the case with so many other obsolete designs, it was relegated to convoy-escort and anti-submarine duties.

A word about the TBD "Devastator." It was the US Navy's entry into the area of the modern torpedo-plane. Even so, it was considered obsolescent at the time the war began. It was, however, quite effective during the first few months of America's war with Japan--until Midway!

At the Battle of Midway, the TBDs were almost completely annihilated. At first glance this seems to indicate that these planes were completely useless as torpedo bombers.

It must be remembered, however, that these planes were flown by crews whose bravery was not matched by their combat experience. Also, they were attacking a formidible fleet of first-class ships who were on the alert and waiting. When they arrived on the scene, the Devastators were met by flights of the best carrier-based fighters in the world at that time--the Zero. Those who survived the Zeros attacked the Japanese ships through murderous, concentrated anti-aircraft fire. The attackers who were lucky enough to survive to that point then had to face the Zeros again before they could clear the area on their way back to their own carriers.

One wonders how an equal number of Swordfish would have fared under similar conditions.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Maybe you should go back and read your last post on pg 7 Lightning.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:

quote:Armour

GS
belt - up to 2.36"
deck - up to 1.5"
turrets - up to 5.5"
barbettes - up to 3.9"

Achilles
sides - up to 3.5"
decks - 1"
turrets - 1"

Ajax
sides - 3"
deck - 1.5"
turret - 1"

So the GS had less side armour and slightly more deck armour than the British LIGHT cruiser and the same deck armour as a British HEAVY cruiser.

The Deutchland class had 20% of the displacement devoted to protection &gt;&gt;&gt; very low.

From your figures, it appears that the Graf Spee did have more armor than either the Ajax or the Achilles. You give the thickness of the Graf Spee's "belt" as being up to 2.36 inches. What was the thickness of its "side"? After all, the belt is in addition to the hull itself, i.e. it is applied on top of the side.

The outcome of the initial battle between the Graf Spee and the Ajax, Achilles, and Exeter clearly showed the Graf Spee's superiority. Three-to-one prevents the "one" from concentrating its fire while the "three" can converge their fire on the "one." Even with this advantage, the British ships were outfought.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi KutschaQuoting you:
quote:Maybe you should go back and read your last post on pg 7 Lightning.

I did, Kutscha, and I fail to see your point. To what are you referring?

Regards,
Lightning

[Red Admiral]

Trust me Lightning, I know a vast deal on the naval side of things. Ship and not aircraft are my primary interest. I don't want to continue this too far on an aircraft board.

Graf Spee nor others never did 30knts+ they hit 28knts max on trials, and this was decreased to about 24/26knts after 6 months out of dock. Their armour is in no way "heavy" and the torpedo defense is counterproductive on such a small vessel. Design - why carry 283mm guns for commerce raiding when 150mm will suffice?

U-boats nearly won the Atlantic because the Germans overran France. Before this it was 14 merchants for 8 submarines - with inferior allied subhunting practices.

Scharnhorst was a poor design by any benchmark. She is inferior to all the other modern ships in armour, and especially armament. The French Dunkerque's about 10,000tons smaller got more armour and armament and same speed.

Bismarck is a good design if you are fighting WWI. By WWII standards she is outdated. The hit on Hood was a fluke and Prince of Wales ensured Bismarck's destruction with the single hit forwards causing her to take about 4000tons of water onboard. Torpedoes do no hit the armour belt - this is an extremely bad idea, need volume to absorb the explosion. Those hit amidships were not ineffectual, they caused her to take on even more water. Design issues - any other modern ship would not crippled by a torpedo hit to the rudder. Her armour was certainly pierced on numerous occasions. She was sinking before the masses of torpedo hits, they simply speeded things up.

Side plates are generally not counted in armour calculations. They are typically a couple of mm thick and not of armour quality steel.

http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1

You want to ask about naval related things, this is the forum to do that.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Folks,

Just to add a bit

Bismark; I'm with Red Admiral on this one. Bismark was simply an upgraded 'Baden' class. As such she was not that much better designed than the 'Hood'.

The fact that one, fairly lightweight torpedo could wreck the steering gear shows how out of date her design was (ASFAIK the Yamato took 20 plus torpedo hits).

Swordfish; just how obsolete can you get? But, as Lighting points out, she was superb at deck landings and could carry just about any junk that could be bolted on to her.

The interesting point about the Bismark torpedoing is that it was carried out in a North Atlantic gale and most (all?) of the planes managed to take off and return safely despite having to carry out a night landing in a gale.

When you do not have to worry about defensive fighters (ie not the Pacific or the Channel) the criteria change. The Albacore could carry double the bombload double the distance. But, the FAA replaced it with Swordfish, because they could be maintained on escort carriers in Atlantic gales. After all, it was not as if there was that much that could go wrong.

For my money even the Avenger is nothing special as a torpedo bomber. In this area the Japanese are head and shoulders above everyone else with the Nakajima B5N2 Kate and the B6N Jill.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d144/chrismcd3/B6N.jpg

[Kutscha]

The early success of the Type VIIs had more to do with the quality of the crews and the lack of Allied anti-submarine capability than the quality of the boat.

Btw, the KM started the war with 57 U-boats of which 18 were the Type VIIs.

Churchill had a flare for the melodramatic. Was there ship losses? Yup, but the biggest problem was the lack of unloading facilities once the convoys reached GB (too many ships and not enough bearths).

The last pre-war American sub, the Tambor class, was better than the Type VIIs, carrying twice the number of torpedoes, much longer legged and to top it off, had air-conditioning which increased crew efficency. They were also diesel-electric. No switching from diesel to electric as in the Type VIIs - just shut the diesel down.

quote:Although multiple attacks were flown against the already-damaged Bismark, the Swordfish only scored two or three torpedo hits, only one of which did any damage. That one hit led to the Bismarck's final sinking, but that was more a matter of chance than design.And it was a lucky hit that sank the Hood.

The GS had less armour than the pre war American Witchita class cruisers.

main belt - 4.5" to 6.5"
deck - 2.5"
barbettes - 7"
turrets - up to 8"
speed - 33kts

[curmudgeon]

wrt Swordfish at the battle of Midway

quote:Originally posted by Lightning



One wonders how an equal number of Swordfish would have fared under similar conditions.

Regards,
Lightning


I think the Japanese forces would have suffered severe casualties through laughter, then they would have shot them all down.

... Taranto was what gave the Japanese the model for Pearl Harbour. I am unsure about the interest of the Italian forces in WW II. So far as the navy was concerned they were pretty confident until after Taranto. Let's not have excuses ... if they really were anti-war they would have scuttled their ships ... they didn't, they weren't until things went pear-shaped.
The slow speed gave Swordfish the capacity to land reliably on small carriers under adverse conditions (weather/night). They were useful in the anti U-boat operations in the North Atlantic in the role of close support around a convoy or an escort group. In the Atlantic close support role we are talking action within (say) 20 miles of surface vessel support. If the U-boat dives the Swordfish can depth-charge it, if it fights the Swordfish on the surface the approaching ASW vessel/team will get to it. Swordfish did incapacitate and destroy U-boats with depth-charges and with RPs.
On paper Swordfish were obsolete, but their replacement (the Albacore) was withdrawn from service before the Swordfish, and the Swordfish actually served in combat from 1939 to 1945. No other allied aircraft did that (Spitfire Mk I != Spitfire Mk XIV). :-^

And if you really want a torpedo bomber I reckon the Avenger was pretty damn good.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
The outcome of the initial battle between the Graf Spee and the Ajax, Achilles, and Exeter clearly showed the Graf Spee's superiority. Three-to-one prevents the "one" from concentrating its fire while the "three" can converge their fire on the "one." Even with this advantage, the British ships were outfought.


Who broke off the fight and went to Montevideo?

Wrt Bismark - as earlier, Hood was a flagship, but it was essentially a WW I battlecruiser, Prince of Wales was on commissioning trials when sent to sea. The RN's 'battleships' were the King George V class (KGV). They outclassed Bismark

[Lightning]

Hi curmudgeon,

Quoting you:
quote:if they [the Italians} really were anti-war they would have scuttled their ships ...

That's a matter of conjecture. The French were definitely not best friends with the Germans, the Vichy French notwithstanding, and they did not scuttle their fleet even though it was going to fall into German hands and be used against the Allies. The British had to attack those ships before that became a reality. That led to a lot of hard feelings, but it was necessary.
quote:Who broke off the fight and went to Montevideo?

The main reason the Graf Spee went into Montevideo was because it was almost out of ammunition and low on fuel. It had damage, but not to the extent that it was not able to fight. The Exeter, on the other hand, withdrew because she had been savaged by the Graf Spee and was on the verge of being sunk.

The Graf Spee, therefore, went into Montevideo to repair, refuel, and to put its dead (about 35 sailors) and wounded ashore. I doubt whether she had any expectations of replenishing her ammunition since montevideo was a neutral port.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Btw, the KM started the war with 57 U-boats of which 18 were the Type VIIs.
I assume this quote is in response to my earlier statement:
quote:Their performance is even more impressive when one considers that Germany started the war with only 22 U-boats available for high-seas ocean warfare!
You'll note, upon rereading it, that I didn't say that the Germans started the war with a total of 22 U-boats. I said they started the war with 22 U-boats available for high seas ocean warfare. Some of their submarines were not on-line for various reasons--repair, refitting, dry dock, etc. Others were not of the ocean-going class.

The quoted number 22, according to the sources I have read, is reasonably accurate.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Red Admiral,

Quoting you:
quote:Trust me Lightning, I know a vast deal on the naval side of things. Ship and not aircraft are my primary interest.
With a handle like "Red Admiral," I kind of suspected that you were a nautical enthusiast from the very beginning, and I do trust you.

I would expect that in an extemporaneous debate on naval history, you would have a decided advantage over me. I am not, however, completely unknowledgeable on the subject, and I have done a reasonable amount of reading on the discussion at hand.

Numerous books and references concerning the pocket battleships, the Bismark, the Scharnhorst the Gneisenau, and the U-boats present the facts and descriptions of these ships as I have related them here. Perhaps you have sources available to you that I have not. Perhaps not. I can assure you, however, that the accounts, the facts, and the figures I have presented here were not "pulled out of a hat."

By the statements made in this forum by you and others, it would seem to a disinterested party that the German ships and U-boats of WWII were of poor design, construction, reliability, and performance. This is just not the case, and many authors and authoritative sources and references just do not hold that view. The performance of these ships in the face of great odds also does not bear out that view.

Again, I am not trying to detract from your obvious knowledge of the subject, but I am also not willing to reject out-of-hand all that I have read.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Jeez, expanding on your statement Lightning or do you not want more explicite details? Oh and there was 7 Type IXs commissioned.

Nice little U-boat website, http://uboat.net/index.html

Nice little board on warships, http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1 Might be worthwhile if you joined.

Btw, if you click on the page icon with the red arrow you will get a quote inserted in your post.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Jeez, expanding on your statement Lightning or do you not want more [u]explicite</u> (sic) details? Oh and there [u]was</u> [u](sic)</u> 7 Type IXs commissioned.
I really don't mind your ongoing attempts at sarcasm, Kutscha, but if you are going to insist on being sarcastic, you should at least do it with style.
quote:Nice little board on warships,. . . . Might be worthwhile if you joined.
I don't find it very useful to cite other forums as reference sources. They, contain, after all, comments from their members that are no more than statements of opinion i.e. they are not authoritative sources. I much prefer our own forum.

Going back to your earlier statement:
quote:Btw, the KM started the war with 57 U-boats of which 18 were the Type VIIs.

Let me quote an authoritative source:

"During the first week of war 21 medium and large boats operated in the Atantic and North Sea."

The author describes these boats in one of his very-informative appendices:

Type VIIA: U-27 through U-36 (10 boats)
Type VIIB: U-45 through U-55 (11 boats)

The source referred to here is the book [u]Hitler's Naval War</u>, 1971, ISBN # 0 356 04508 0, written by Cajus Bekker. Mr. Bekker is a former German naval intelligence officer.

As you can see, this amounts to 21 Type VII U-boats. Other sources I have read put the number of available deep-ocean boats at 22 but don't specify them by specific type, so I'm not quite sure whether that number is wrong or if there was another type, other than the Type VII, included for some reason.

If you accept Mr Bekker's numbers, and I see no reason not to, you'll see that there were three more Type VIIs starting the war than your quoted number of 18.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

If your not willing to expand your knowledge base Lightning, that is up to you. Your loss, so sad. The board has well known authors posting as well as better informed knowledgable ship people than post here (Red excluded).

So this board is an authoritative source?

So, 3 more boats went on operations during the first week. Now if you don't understand the words 'start' and 'during', that is OK.

quote:"During the first week of war 21 medium and large boats operated in the Atantic and North Sea."
What sarcasm from me? More like it is by you.

[Red Admiral]

quote:I don't find it very useful to cite other forums as reference sources. They, contain, after all, comments from their members that are no more than statements of opinion i.e. they are not authoritative sources. I much prefer our own forum.

The one mentioned above is a good one, with very knowledgeable contributors and authors. There is a lot of difference with warship references as to things actually being correct. Unless you're willing to spend quite a large sum there is a distinct lack of quality - some things written are plainly just wrong.

[simon]

Right, I'm disappointed to have to intervene in another discussion but I feel that this thread ought to be locked before it gets more unpleasant.

First off, I'm not about to shut down every thread that doesn't conform strictly to WWII aviation, however this one seems to have become centred on the capabilities of the German navy which this forum is really not the place for.

The other reason I'm locking this up though is that once again a discussion is degenerating into personal bickering and this is unacceptable.

As always if anyone feels I am being unfair, feel free to contact me privately or by posting a thread on the forum to that effect.

Simon.

[simon]

If anyone wishes to continue posting on this thread they may now do so. I hope this thread can regain a more general WWII footing and a less aggressive atmosphere.

If not I have neither the time nor inclination at the moment to individually edit posts so if things turn again I will lock this up indefinitely.

Please remember, you do not have to be disagreeable to disagree and try to keep this either generally regarding WWII and/or generally regarding aviation as a whole or preferably a combination of the two.

If you really cannot agree, than agreeing to disagree is a far better course to persue than resorting to slinging insults.

Thread unlocked,

Simon.

[b-1]

Please do not get back in to naval discution. and if u think u need to remeber what happend to the yamato, bismark, all the battle ships at pirl harber and the japanys navy.

[PMN1]

Hurrah, reopened.....

Let me quote no-less of an authority than Winston Churchill himself: "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril." And again: "The U-boat attack was our worst evil. It would have been wise for the Germans to stake all on it."


This statement from Chuchill I have always been suspicious of as I've never once read anything that suggests he intervened to give Coastal Command the long range aircraft it needed - Bomber Command always got them.

I have always supected this is more a case of Churchill covering his arse for history.

Found this in ‘The battle of the Atlantic’ by Donald MacIntyre.

Professor Blackett was able to show, as he recorded in an article in Brassey’s Annual for 1953, that:

‘From the figures on the effectiveness of air cover, it could be calculated that a long-range Liberator operating from Iceland and escorting the convoys in the middle of the Atlantic saved at least half a dozen merchant ships in its service lifetime of some thirty flying sorties. If used for bombing Berlin, the same aircraft in its service life would drop less than 100 tons of bombs and kill not more than a couple dozen enemy men, women and children and destroy a number of houses.’

‘No-one would dispute that the saving of six merchant ships and their crews and cargoes was of incomparablely more value to the Allied war effort than the killing of some two dozen enemy civilians, the destruction of a number of houses and a certain very small effect on production.’

‘The difficulty was to get the figures believed. But believed they eventually were and more long-range aircraft were eventually made available to Coastal Command.’


Nevertheless, the Prime Minister’s Anti U-boat Committee, examining the claims of the various contestants, achieved only a compromise, which by March 1943 raised the number of VLR aircraft from 10 to 40, which allowed about 13 to be operational at any one time.



This was based on Operational Research by Professor P M S Blackett, has anyone seen this quoted elsewhere?

Also note this compromise was around 18 months after the Butt report which showed just how bad Bomber Command was doing in terms of accuracy.


(as an aside, i'm with Red Admiral etc on the value of the German surface forces, if they weren't there then the most likley place the RN forces would go would be to Japan and why should the Germans care about that, they are not getting anything in the way of support against the Soviet Union from Japan).

[PMN1]

Completely off toppic Groggy but what do you have on the V-bomber civilian derivitives, since this this so off-toppic can you send anything you have to my e-mail address which is in my profile.

This is what I have.

http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~jnoakes/ram/atlantic.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212956/pg1

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm8.showMessage?topicID =2191.topic

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm8.showMessage?topicID =2191.topic&index=11

And what do you have on the proposed Comet 5 - a version of the Comet with podded underwing engines as with the B707 etc?

[GregP]

I'd like to chime in here about U-Boats. The Uboat.net site is very nice and has quite a lot of knowledgeable contributors. This is an aviation site, but if you want info about u-boats, try it!

We are 65 years from the start of WWII and I'm pretty sure that there is no one who can authoritatively say exctaly what resources were at sea in the first week of the war. I have personally read 5 or 6 accounts of same with different numbers by different people who were supposedly THERE.

If THEY can't agree, we probably can't either. Let's remember that individual German sailors probably didn't get any more intelligence information than individual Allied sailors did. In any case, Germany STARTED WWII with about 20 - 25 U-Boats at sea, and they were ALL early types with shorts range, slow speed, and unproven torpedoes.

Enough said.

I'd personally say their biggest errors were 1) that Hitler started the war about 1 or 2 years too early, 2) didn't trust his appointed leaders, and 3) didn't follow their advice. Thank heaven he didn't follow Milch's advice or we might be speaking German.

Nothing wrong with German, but I take issue with Nazi, particularly in view of the German internal war deaths of both the Jewish population and the German population.

Yes, there were a lot of deaths in the holocaust, but many people forget that 6 million native Germans were also killed in that same timeframe in the same camps. Hitler killed his own people at almost the same rate as he killed the Jews, most of which were German Jews. It is tough to believe that non-German Jews emmigrated to Nazi Germany right before or during WWII! ... especially given the attitudes that prevailed at the time.

Milch was a visionary who UNDERSTOOD aerial warfare, unlike Goering. He and Ernst Udet could have made things decidedly uncomfortable for the Allies, but they were not "in favor" to the point of being able to sway Hitler's wandering opinions of how the war should be run.

Let's remember Hitler's greatest mistakes:

1) He was not nice to the people he conquered, so they didn't turn into allies for him.

2) He attacked the Soviet Union when it was not a threat, thereby opening a two or three-front war (remember Africa). Tough to win those ... and it was his BIGGEST mistake. The Soviets were NOT easy opponents and the weather (Russian winter) conspired to kill many thousands of German troops for no good reason. The veterans were impossible to replace, as were the pilots.

3) He didn't follow the advice of officers trained in military science. He was a Corporal from WWI who thought HE knew better than professional General Officers. He didn't and should never have expected to do so.

4) He did not attack England when he SHOULD have and, when he DID, he didn't prosecute the attack sufficiently to get into England's last few resources as he might have if he had the resolve to do so.

5) He wasted the first few years of practical jet development by insisting it be used as a bomber aircraft. We should thank him for that.

6) He wanted to hear what he wanted to hear, instead of hearing the truth of the current situation, so that's what he HEARD from his advisors. They figured out that he was the type to "shoot the messenger," so they lied.

7) Hitler could have sued for peace once he had France and consolidated his position while the negotiations were going on, but refused to do so. Had he done so, the Nazis could have built up their forces and THEN attacked England. My only question is 'Why didn't he DO that?"

The rest of Europe, the U.S.A, and the rest of the world were NOT blameless. Hitler's rise to power was the direct result of the almost impossible conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles after WWI. As a result, Germany was thrown into poverty and thus a power vacuum was created that was filled by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. Their original purpose was to return Germany to greatness that should never have been taken away from them. Let's recall that Germany did NOT start WWI.

WWI was fought with SOME honor (despite the trenches) and with conventional war rules, despite the carnage to life and limb. There were no "death camps" and no regular mass killing of civilians not in the normal path of combat. The Germans should NEVER have been forced to pay for the entire war. If they had been allowed to go back to a peacetime economy with dignity, WWII would never have happened and Hitler would have been nothing more than a starving artist ... maybe a good one, who can say?

Comments?

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
5) He wasted the first few years of practical jet development by insisting it be used as a bomber aircraft. We should thank him for that.


Actually the delay to get the 262 into service had more to do with the engine-related technical difficulties than its employment as a bomber.

Germany had a real headstart with the Heinkel He-280, whose first flight took place over two years ahead of the 262's, it showed better manouverability than the Schwalbe being an overall better 'dogfighter' (in mock combat it outmanouvered a Focke-Wulf 190) the 262 having being designed from the outset as a Zerstörer.

The 262 had, no doubt, a better development potential but, by the time it was rushed into service its influence on the outcome of the conflict proved to be at best marginal.

Moreover, the Heinkel S.8 engines that were to power the He-280 were not afflicted by the surge problems that afflicted the pure axial-flow Jumo 109-004s and BMW 109-003s, thanks to their mixed axial-centrifugal flow.

In the end, then, what tipped the scale in favor of the Me-262 were the better political favors Willy Messerchmitt enjoyed, not with Hitler himself, but rather with the Luftwaffe's high ranks in general.

Best regards,

[b-1]

Remeber Hitler stoped the jet program. He thought his aleardy test luftwufta was going to win his war. How wrong he was. With the set back in the jet program when they were finaly alowed the funds and time to work on the engines they had "The Fat One" and hitler breathing down their necks wondering why with all the money and time they had could they not get a engine out or a good fighter to go with it.

When "The Fat One" and Hitler got what they wanted they had their best idea yet make it a bomber. WIth that the Me 262 was know 50mph slower and could know be shot down bye allied piston aircraft. Then some how hitler had a good idea to make this fighter bomber a fighter and pated him self on his back.

[Pete57]

b-1,

It was the Luftwaffe's view, not necessarily Hitler's, that the war was to be won by the conventional planes, and in 1939-40 there were plenty of reasons to believe it.
Even in 1941, when Heinkel's private-venture He-280, twin jet fighter first flew, there were not too many reasons to believe otherwise and such experiments were often viewed with utter skepticism.

The fighter-bomber Me-262, was not Hitler's or Göring's idea:
"...On 2 November 1943, Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, head of the Luftwaffe, and Milch visited the Messerschmitt plant in Augsburg. Goering asked Willi Messerschmitt if the new jet fighter could carry bombs. Messerschmitt answered without hesitation that the Me-262 had been designed from the outset to carry 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) of bombs, could possibly carry twice as much, and would be easy to adapt to the "Jabo" role.

On 26 November 1943, Hitler inspected the Me-262 at Insterburg, and asked the same question: Can it carry bombs? Messerschmitt gave him the same answer that he had given Goering. ..."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html

I agree that the Luftwaffe was slow to recognize the advantage it had in jet development, but the writing was on the wall when it was decided to choose an airplane with better potential, but longer development (the 262), over one that was ready for production, with lower development potential indeed, but nonetheless already enjoying a clear advantage over the Allied conventional fighters (the He-280), and I don't believe either Hitler or Göring had personally anything to do with this decision.

Galland called Hitler's decision to build the 262 as a fighter-bomber 'The jet-fighter tragedy', but many aviation historians have since proved that the idea that, had the 262 been employed right away as a fighter only then the outcome of the conflict would have been different, is nothing but a myth, a myth still cherished by some book authors, but a myth nonetheless.

One of the factors not considered by Galland was the engine-related development delays, that caused the production to begin at a time when the German industry's capabilities had been seriously curtailed by the Allied bomber offensive: simply put, the Reich's industry had no longer the resources to produce enough 262s to decidedly influence the course of the events - much less change them!

One good source on this specific subject is JG7 THE WORLD'S FIRST JET FIGHTER UNIT 1944/1945, by Manfred Boehme, ISBN: 0887403956.

Best regards.

[ChrisMcD]

The German persuit of the best possible solution irrespective of delay contrasts interestingly with the British position of;

'the best is the enemy of the good'

and 'Second best tomorrow' - which was Watson Watt's moto for the development of radar.

[Romantic Technofreak]

I have a little bit of time today and would like to tell some small corrections to our friends Pete and Greg:

Pete:

On the occasion of November 26th, 1943, after receiving the answer from Messerschmitt, Hitler stated: "This is the "Blitzbomber!" (originally "Schnellbomber", but "Blitz" is quoted in older sources) and demanded the aircraft to be laid out in this way. Her refused any attempts to correct this decision. (Memory of Hitlers air force adjutant Nicolaus von Below, in: Die deutsche Luftfahrt, volume 17: Willy Messerschmitt, publishing house Bernard & Graefe, Bonn 1992, p. 241)

Göring later ordered: "I interdict any discussion about the Me 262 being anything else than a bomber!" (early 1944, from my memory).


Greg #7):

In a triumphatic speech in front of the Reichstag, on July 19th, 1940, Hitler offered peace to Britain. His hope was there would still an appeasement party existing in Britain, led by foreign minister Lord Halifax. But this wasn´t the case. There was no British party willing to accept conditions from a victorious Hitler. Three days later Halifax held a speech, refusing Hitler´s offer as a whole. (interpreted from Manfred Rauh, Geschichte des II. Weltkriegs, volume II, publishing house Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1995, p. 252). The Battle of Britain began only after those speeches were held.

Regards, RT

[Kutscha]

Speaking of Battle of Britain, guess what day this is.;)

[b-1]

We must not forget what mite have happend if the great german ace's were in jets not piston driven plans.

The top 100 German Aces accounted for 24,000 kills.I understand the in germany u fought untile u died.So the German fighter pilots had more time to get kills.But they had supplie problems and lack of sleep.They were still killing many more planes a day then the best the allieds had to but up.

Wilhelm Batz got his first killin 1943. When the war ended for in 1945 him he had 237 kills.

[Red Admiral]

The Luftwaffe was in a target-rich environment, with most of those targets being big, slow bombers. Compared to the RAF when you'd fly sortie after sortie and never see an enemy aircraft. Even then, the highest-scoring pilots were shunted up the ladder to command of squadrons, wings and increasingly training squadrons.

[Hop]

quote:He attacked the Soviet Union when it was not a threat,

The Soviets were always going to be a threat. Germany and the SU were at the time the two strongest military powers in the world, they both had designs on the same territory, and they had competing ideologies. It was only a matter of time before they went to war.

quote:He did not attack England when he SHOULD have and, when he DID, he didn't prosecute the attack sufficiently to get into England's last few resources as he might have if he had the resolve to do so.

When should he have? And when he did, he used all the might he could bring to bear. Thankfully, with only parity in the air, and complete inferiority at sea, he lacked the means to defeat Britain.

quote:He wasted the first few years of practical jet development by insisting it be used as a bomber aircraft.

Hitler's interference in the 262 programme didn't really begin until 1944. He first saw the aircraft fly in late 1943, and asked if it could carry bombs. He was told it could. Hitler left satisfied. Messerschmitt continued developing the 262 as a fighter, and made no attempt to fit bombs.

It wasn't until late May 1944 that Hitler found out the 262 was being built exclusively as a fighter. At that point he ordered all new 262s to be built as bombers, but allowed development of the fighter version to continue.

Of course, the biggest problem was that the engines still weren't ready for production, and few 262s were lying in the summer of 1944, fighters or bombers.

At most, without Hitler's orders the 262 be built as a bomber, there would have been a small increase in the number of jet fighters in the Luftwaffe in late summer and early autumn 1944. However, the 262 was still so new, and so unreliable, that it was largely combat ineffective at that time. Just look at the record of Kommando Nowotny.

quote:Hitler could have sued for peace once he had France and consolidated his position while the negotiations were going on, but refused to do so. Had he done so, the Nazis could have built up their forces and THEN attacked England. My only question is 'Why didn't he DO that?"

Hitler did put out peace feelers at the time, but his posiion and that of the British were so far apart there was no chance of compromise. The British would have demanded at least the freedom of Norway, Belgium, France and he Netherlands, and Hitler would never have agreed to that.

quote:The rest of Europe, the U.S.A, and the rest of the world were NOT blameless. Hitler's rise to power was the direct result of the almost impossible conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles after WWI. As a result, Germany was thrown into poverty and thus a power vacuum was created that was filled by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

The Nazis rose to power on the back of the depression following the Wall Street Crash, which had nothing to do with Versailles. From 1924 to 1929 the German economy boomed on the back of an inflow of capital, mostly from America. When that dried up following the Wall Street Crash, the Nazi party did well in the following elections.

But by that time Versailles was all but dead and buried. The Germans hadn't made any serious repayments since the early 20s, the French occupation of the Rhineland had ceased, and Germany had prospered. And the Nazis had languished. Hitler tried his putsch in 1923, at the height of the economic turmoil caused by Versailles. It failed. In the 1924 elections, the Nazis got 3% of the vote. In the 1928 elections, with the economy booming, the Nazis got 2.6%. Then came the WSC. In the 1930 elections the Nazis got over 18% of the vote, in 1934 over 37%.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

Hurrah, reopened.....

Let me quote no-less of an authority than Winston Churchill himself: "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril." And again: "The U-boat attack was our worst evil. It would have been wise for the Germans to stake all on it."


This statement from Chuchill I have always been suspicious of as I've never once read anything that suggests he intervened to give Coastal Command the long range aircraft it needed - Bomber Command always got them.

I have always supected this is more a case of Churchill covering his arse for history.

Found this in ‘The battle of the Atlantic’ by Donald MacIntyre.

Professor Blackett was able to show, as he recorded in an article in Brassey’s Annual for 1953, that:

‘From the figures on the effectiveness of air cover, it could be calculated that a long-range Liberator operating from Iceland and escorting the convoys in the middle of the Atlantic saved at least half a dozen merchant ships in its service lifetime of some thirty flying sorties. If used for bombing Berlin, the same aircraft in its service life would drop less than 100 tons of bombs and kill not more than a couple dozen enemy men, women and children and destroy a number of houses.’


There is some stuff in Gannon's 'Black May' consistent with this ... the loss of centimetric radar to the bombers is recounted in one of R.V. Jones' books.

Gannon also records the patrol aircraft colour argument we had here some pages ago (on p89) - apparently some anonymous Wing Commander asked the question 'what colour are our aircraft' and Blackett twigged - they were all black conversions of night bombers, and black specks were very visible, trials showed a dirty white bomber could on average get 20% closer, and have a 30% geater chance of seeing the U-boat ...
Gannon has also collected up widespread info on the deterent effect of aircraft, even when they didn't sink U-boats (e.g. the aircraft launched from converted merchant ships (M.A.C.)didn't sink a single U-boat, but no ship was lost in any of the 200+ convoys they escorted).

[b-1]

Red Admiral the Battle of Britan had 600 RAF fighter Fighting over 2000 german plane.I would say they had lost of things to shoot. To say most of the German aces killed big slow bombers is wrong.

If u have not read about the B-17 and seen pictures of what it came back from. Dont forget that most of the early big bombers attacked at night. Only one Night fighter pilot passed the 100 kill mark. Most of the high scoring German aces were day fighters. Wich one got 24 or 26 big bomber kills and that was good.i wonder what he shot down to get the other 200.

The big bombers were big targets but hard to kill and had lots of guns.

[b-1]

sorry forgot somethings

German pilots train other pilots. Also were promoted to high places with less risk. Most of the german aces were in russa some time or another.

The one plane most Germen Aces liked was the BF-109. Most of its gun fired throught the props.They had less guns a slower plane but still they out classed the best the allies had.

Most allied fighters had the guns in the wing and showered the target with bullets like a shot gun. Alot easyer to hit something with a shotgun.

[simon]

I disagree. For a start the BoB was a very short period of the war, comparing around six months of such interceptions with around 3 years of the US daylight bombing offensive is clearly wrong, especially considering the 8th AAF alone was capable of putting 1,000 bomber raids on a daily basis over the Reich towards the height of its strength.

If I may quote you:

"I understand the in germany u fought untile u died"

And again:

"German pilots train other pilots. Also were promoted to high places with less risk."

So which is it then? Fight until you die or be sent somewhere safe?

My understanding is the former, indeed the failure to adequately train more pilots early enough on is usually shown as a reason for the rapid decline of the Luftwaffe.

You have to understand that the Luftwaffe aces fought on the whole in a very target rich environment. B-17s were tough yes, but on average only around half a dozen 30mm hits were required to bring one down, Liberators, Mitchells, Marauders, etc less tough.

The allied pilots fought a very different war, taking an escort mission as an example the Mustang pilots were not trying to shoot down German fighters necessarily, just stop them shooting down bombers. The Germans on the other hand were purely flying to shoot down bombers.

Given the differing nature of such combats it should come as no great surprise that an Allied pilot flying perhaps 30 escort missions before being sent home scores fewer kills than a German pilot flying 100 interception sorties.

Considering kills/mission as a basis Bong scores right up there with Hartmann.

The German pilots were not automatically superior to Allied pilots, and focussing purely on their kill tallies to show that is wrong without considering the myriad of other factors such as number of sorties, type of sorties, quality of opposition and quantity of opposition.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Simon,

I wonder whether any of our German colleages would care to comment.

There are a number of points where I beleive b-1 is close to the truth

1) "I understand the in germany u fought untile u died"

AFAIK the Luftwaffe's rotation schemes were easily beaten - if someone was determined to carry on flying active combat missions it was possible to do so for a long while (well beyond the point at which combat fatigue would make someones judgment suspect!).

So if you were determined to get your Knights Cross you could carry on flying combat missions.

2) "Also were promoted to high places with less risk."

Bit more controversial, but again my understanding is that the 'experten' made sure that they were in a position to have first shot. Having said that, flying as wingman to an 'experten' is probably the best way of learning on the job that there is! I take it the 'less risk' bit is the idea that your wingman watches your back.

Once again, I believe that analysis of most airforces statistics shows that the 80:20 rule applies with a vengeance (that is to say over 80% of the victories are scored by less than 20% of the pilots) - it's just that the Luftwaffe institutionalised it.

Finaly, I suspect that your are starting a real hare running if you are saying that knocking down a 'moblewagon' was easy. As I understand it the Luftwaffe regarded knocking down B-17's as no easy matter (taking out a Lanc with Schragge Musik was probably a lot easier if you knew what you were doing).

[Kutscha]

Right Chris, the LW also had a points system. A 4 engine bomber was worth 4 points while a fighter was only worth 1 point for a 'shootdown'.

Some confuse this point system for claims. Points were used to establish medals awarded.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Kutsha,

Is the 'sore throat disease' as suffered by those who wanted to wear a Knights Cross a Hollywood invention, or does it have any basis in fact?

[b-1]

Chris the saying "sore throat" is from the germany military.

Simon there are aces like Bar who was put in comand of the 77th fighter group in africa. Less risk and gave him time to help out the few new pilots they got. Also his Air base was attack atleast 3 times each day/night.

German pilots had the chance to kill more planes. But when u fly 3 scrambles a day and what ever missions were on the days plan ur pilots are very tired.

Allied pilots had a nice place to sleep, R&R, lots of supplies.

[Lightning]

Hi Hop,

Quoting your post:
quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He did not attack England when he SHOULD have and, when he DID, he didn't prosecute the attack sufficiently to get into England's last few resources as he might have if he had the resolve to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When should he have? And when he did, he used all the might he could bring to bear. Thankfully, with only parity in the air, and complete inferiority at sea, he lacked the means to defeat Britain.

I don't know when he "should have" attacked England (Hitler always referred to Great Britain as "England"), but I know when he considered it to be feasible.

He promised his admirals that there would be no war with England until at least 1944. He fully expected Britain to stay out of the war until then--assuming that his peace overtures to Britain were not accepted earlier. Britain truly surprised him by declaring war in 1939 after the invasion of Poland.

The German navy was clearly inferior to that of Britain in 1939. This was known and aknowledged by Hitler and all his military leaders. He thought that the over-optimistic ship-building schedule in place at the time would allow him to at least gain parity, and probably superiority, over the Royal Navy by 1944.
Of course the Royal Navy would also have been undergoing a build-up in numbers and modernization during that same period, so how realistic were Hitler's plans is questionable to say the least.

Regards,
Lightning

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by b-1

Chris the saying "sore throat" is from the germany military.

Simon there are aces like Bar who was put in comand of the 77th fighter group in africa. Less risk and gave him time to help out the few new pilots they got. Also his Air base was attack atleast 3 times each day/night.

German pilots had the chance to kill more planes. But when u fly 3 scrambles a day and what ever missions were on the days plan ur pilots are very tired.

Allied pilots had a nice place to sleep, R&R, lots of supplies.



Still kept him in a combat post unlike the Allied pilots who were rotated away from combat duties altogether. Any sources to supportt that the Luftwaffe were flying 3 scrambles a day plus extras on a continuous basis?

[montanamotor]

Simon,

3 a day regularly, 5 a day during attack-operations, up to 8 scrambles a day during defensive actions, mainly at the eastern front/russia.

Erich Hartmann did 1.425 sorties, during which he had 825 arial combats and scored 352 kills - in a period from July 1943 to May 1945 - i.e. 660 days roughly, minus holidays and days being grounded due to bad weather, of course.

Take your calculator and figure it out yourself, gentlemen...

Also see: http://ritterkreuz.heim.at/els/els_namensliste.htm

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[Trexx]

Eric Hartman, truly remarkable.

He was a master of undetected pouncing.

Just like many of you have spoke of in other threads. That is the way to do it. The one that sees the bad guy first and takes advantage of it has the upper hand.

Another thing about Eric Harman, he was a ranking officer in the post war Luftwaffe and he was against the aquisition of F-104s. He thought the airplane was outstanding, however, a bit much for new generation of pilots. He knew that his remarks would make him unpopular, but he could not 'in good concience' go along with the selection. They had a F-104 squadron decked out with the 'black tulip' motiff nonetheless.

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor
Erich Hartmann did 1.425 sorties, during which he had 825 arial combats and scored 352 kills - in a period from July 1943 to May 1945 - i.e. 660 days roughly, minus holidays and days being grounded due to bad weather, of course.

Take your calculator and figure it out yourself, gentlemen...

Also see: http://ritterkreuz.heim.at/els/els_namensliste.htm

Cheers,

Montanamotor


I don't need a calculator to see that this averages out at under 2.5 per day even accepting such breaks as you mention, this is still quite short of 3 scrambles a day plus routine missions.

[montanamotor]

quote:Originally posted by simon

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor
Erich Hartmann did 1.425 sorties, during which he had 825 arial combats and scored 352 kills - in a period from July 1943 to May 1945 - i.e. 660 days roughly, minus holidays and days being grounded due to bad weather, of course.

Take your calculator and figure it out yourself, gentlemen...

Also see: http://ritterkreuz.heim.at/els/els_namensliste.htm

Cheers,

Montanamotor


I don't need a calculator to see that this averages out at under 2.5 per day even accepting such breaks as you mention, this is still quite short of 3 scrambles a day plus routine missions.


Simon,

in german fighter units, pilot's days on duty at their airfields were "rotating" on a regular base. Normally, after two days on duty, you'd get one day leave granted, while others took the "hot seats" in the planes. Otherwise, no one would have withstood the rigors of sustained combat readiness. So, from 660 days, minus some days allowing for bad weather, vacancies and holidays, Hartmann may have been seriously on duty for approximately 400 days during his service. This makes about 4 sorties per day of active duty, on average.

3 to five sorties a day during "busy" times were also reported from german fighter pilots in Africa. As early as mid-1942, some german fighter pilots had reached, if not surpassed 1000-wartime sorties already. IIRC, later FW 190-specialist Heinz Bär recorded about 220 victories in 1000 sorties in-total - from the very first, up until the very last day of the war, yet with a two-year-leave for war-weariness in between, while he was performing staff-duties instead of fighting.

See that - quote:

"Over the course of more than one thousand combat sorties with JGs 51, 77 , 3, and 1, Bär had been shot down on eighteen occasions and claimed some 221 victories, including as many as sixteen with the Me 262-equipped JV 44 and EJG 2. Regarded by many as the most successful Jagdflieger - credited with 125 western victories, second only to Marseille - he was also reputedly the 'indisciplined Leipziger' who simply refused to fly combat missions when he didn't feel like it , who abhorred rules and regulations and what Germans call Papierkram (tedious paperwork) and who was not averse to speaking his mind at the highest levels. Having been awarded the Swords to his Knight's Cross in February 1942 (die Schwerter) no further decorations were forthcoming, despite Bär claiming a further one hundred aerial victories. In January 1944 he was assigned to 6./JG 1 on the western front as a lowly Staffelführer after a spell with the training unit JGr.Süd in France during the summer of 1943 following injury. This was despite having previously been Gruppenkommandeur I./JG 77. Manfred Jurleit's "Strahljäger im Einsatz" contains a detailed look at Bär's logbook during his time with the Me 262 jet fighter conversion Gruppe EJG 2. He suggests that it had only been the death in action of Gruppenkommandeur II./JG 1 Hptm. Karl-Heinz Weber and Oblt. Kirchmayer that saved Bär from a court martial in 1944 - although he was potentially on a charge of being absent, Bär assumed command of II./JG 1 following his earlier demotion almost by default..."

Unquote

Source: http://members.aol.com/kaczmarek190/heinzbaer.html

THAT'S what makes an expert an expert: Practice, practice, practice...!

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[b-1]

Simon you read eny book on the laftwafa and they will tell you how many Sorties they had a day.

I got some of my information for"Luftwaffe Aces by Franz Kurowski"
a must read.

Brent i put a Space were it shouldn't have been. The Z class battleships were Superbattle ships wich hitler wanted 21 inch guns on they would have been a true power of the see. But i have no idea what typ of loading system could handle that shell.

[Pete57]

quote:[i]Pete:

On the occasion of November 26th, 1943, after receiving the answer from Messerschmitt, Hitler stated: "This is the "Blitzbomber!" (originally "Schnellbomber", but "Blitz" is quoted in older sources) and demanded the aircraft to be laid out in this way. Her refused any attempts to correct this decision. (Memory of Hitlers air force adjutant Nicolaus von Below, in: Die deutsche Luftfahrt, volume 17: Willy Messerschmitt, publishing house Bernard & Graefe, Bonn 1992, p. 241)

Göring later ordered: "I interdict any discussion about the Me 262 being anything else than a bomber!" (early 1944, from my memory).



Hi RT

First and foremost, please pardon my late reply: I have been on sick-leave and, as I do not have wideband where I currently live, I had to wait until I got back to work to provide my comments.

Indeed that’s what Hitler stated on November 26, nonetheless 24 days before this statement – on November 2 – at a meeting held at the Messerschmitt plant in Regensburg, the question of the 262’s possibility to carry bombs had already been positively answered by Willi Messerchmitt.

From Manfred Boheme’s JG7, The World’s First Jet Fighter Unit 1944/1945, page 38-39:

“…On November 2 at the company's Regensburg works Goring came right to the point without beating around the bush:
Goring: "Gentlemen! Today I would like to clarify, the situation concerning the Me 262, and in two directions. One, with regard to the rate. of production of this machine, as this is planned at this time and appears assured. Two, what things can eventually be done to produce this aircraft more quickly and in greater numbers while cutting back in other areas. But the main question is a very important technical question, namely is the 262 jet fighter capable of carrying one or two bombs so as to be able to operate as a surprise fighter-bomber. Here I would like to convey the train of thought of the Fuhrer, who spoke to tire about these matters several days ago and who would very much like to see this issue settled. When the enemy attempts a landing in the West and the first signs of confusion appear on the beach as tanks, guns and troops are unloaded and a terrific traffic jam ensues, these fast machines, even if only a few of them, should be able to race through the heavy enemy fighter screen, which the Fuhrer expects in the event of such an attack, and drop bombs into this confusion. He is aware that there can be no question of precision, but this will be the first appearance of these fast machines provided the enemy gives us enough time until then. I told the Fuhrer that we would also try to accomplish this task with existing fighter-bombers and that they would be able to carry it out to some degree in spite of the fighter defenses as they will have no difficulty in finding the enemy. The bombs will be dropped frightfully quickly and then the fighter-bombers must fly away at once to get more.
I would like to steer this discussion in another direction and speak first not of production and so on, but rather discuss in detail the technical possibilities of the Me 262 carrying bombs externally – any other way is probably impossible – and what weight of bombs we are talking about in two configurations: one bomb in the center and in the other case two bombs right and left. The machine was designed bv Professor Messerschmitt and I would therefore like to ask for your view."
Messerschmitt: "Heir Rcichsmarschall! It was intended from the beginning that the machine could be fitted with two bomb racks so that it could drop bombs, either one 500 kg or two 250 kg. But it can also carry one 1,000 kg or two 500 kg bombs. But for the. time being the bomb racks and necessary electrical circuits are not being installed, as the machine is about to enter production."
Goring: "That answers the Fuhrer's main question. He is not thinking of 1,000 kg, indeed he once said to tire that he would be extremely grateful if we could carry even two 70 kg bombs. Naturally he will be very pleased to hear that two 250 kg bombs can be carried.
Now on to the second question: When would it be possible to retrofit the machines now under construction, meaning the first ones, with these racks?"
Messerschmitt: "The design work has not yet been done. I must first design the bomb racks and electrical circuits and then retrofit the first machines with them.
Goring: "You said that it has already been planned, therefore you must have given it some thought ... How long do you estimate for the design of the racks and circuits if it really becomes a matter of do or die?"
Messerschmitt: "It can be done relatively quickly, in 14 days. The installation isn't much. It's just a matter of fairing the bomb racks."…”

As well I have no reasons to doubt Messerschmitt’s statement considering that (quoting from page 40) “…a Führer order had been on the table since February of that year (1943) which unequivocally required that all fighters – including the Me 262 – should be able to carry bombs. Hitler never withdrew from his requirement. Accordingly Messerschmitt had planned bomb-carrying installations for almost every one of his Me 262 variants. Even if Hitler’s order was forgotten in the meantime or pushed into the background, all of the participants were reminded of it emphatically on November 2 at the latest. …”

So far as the wisdom behind the employment of the 262 as a fighter bomber is concerned, I’d like to quote from page 43:
“…Hitler’s decision to divert the bulk of Me 262 production from the fighter role is still controversial. However, discussions on the subject are rarely characterized by factual arguments. The last thing the author wishes to do is pour new oil on a smoldering fire. However if one makes an unbiased assessment of the prevailing situation, then Hitler’s conclusion that the temporary use of fast jet aircraft in the bomber role against the masses of troops and materiel during the decisive invasion of France promised a more effective operational result than their employment as fighters in the defense of the Reich cannot be dismissed out of hand.
All discussions of this theme are basically academic: the Allied landings took place before an operational unit had been formed. Thus history must be responsible for proving or disproving Hitler’s thesis.”

Neither it is totally true that Hitler refused any attempts to correct the situation; quoting again from page 43-44:
“…The thoroughly disappointing results achieved in operations by numerically-weak bomber units, as well as the disappearance of the supposed opportunities which had led him to adopt this interim solution – bombers instead of fighters – finally resulted in a gradual loosening of his May 25 directive. On August 20 he authorized the diversion of every twentieth Me 262 coming off the production lines to the fighter arm, on September 20 he agreed to a proposal by Speer to shift the bulk of production back to the fighter sector – the formation of Kommando Nowotny a few days later was a direct result – and this was followed on November 4, 1944, by authorization for the production of the Me 262 solely for the fighter role, “…under the express condition that every aircraft must be capable of carrying at least one 250 kg bomb if need be.”
About six months after the beginning of the failed “Blitzbomber” operation, all production of the Me 262 was, for the first time, allocated to the fighter arm. …”

And finally – and to go back to the original reasons for my posting – quoting from page 44:

“…The question must now be asked as to the possible course of the air war had all the machines built between May 25 and November 4, 1944 been incorporated into Germany’s air defence. Absolutely reliable sources show a production of 239 Me 262 during this period. But only about 60 (!) aircraft were in fact delivered to KG 51. This is the figure that must be used in any calculations or speculations. These 60 Me 262 would undoubtedly have been a great advantage in the careful retraining of fighter pilots and in a logically-designed front-line testing program; but no one will seriously contend that they could have brought about a decisive change in the air war. …”

My apologies for a long post.

Best regards.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57

[quote]
And finally – and to go back to the original reasons for my posting – quoting from page 44:

“…The question must now be asked as to the possible course of the air war had all the machines built between May 25 and November 4, 1944 been incorporated into Germany’s air defence. Absolutely reliable sources show a production of 239 Me 262 during this period. But only about 60 (!) aircraft were in fact delivered to KG 51. This is the figure that must be used in any calculations or speculations. These 60 Me 262 would undoubtedly have been a great advantage in the careful retraining of fighter pilots and in a logically-designed front-line testing program; but no one will seriously contend that they could have brought about a decisive change in the air war. …”

The problem was always the engines, with lack of crew training a close second. Claims the Me262 was the first operational jet fighter are loaded with special pleading as none were in contact with the enemy until long after 616 Squadron was operational (12 July, first combat 27 July against V1 flying bombs). The Me262 attack on a PR Mosquito on 25 July was by a pilot from a training unit. After early combat experience the 262 was withdrawn for further crew training.
There weren't any Me262 aircraft available (fighter or fighter-bomber) until long after the critical June 1944 battles. Hitler's desire for disruption on the beach heads was a very sensible one ... D-day was a near run thing, but I expect he would have needed more than 100 fighter-bombers to really disrupt the landing, and these didn't exist as the engines were still not service ready.

[montanamotor]

Folks,

let's talk about range: It's my opinion that, if the german fighters, namely the Bf 109, during the Battle of Britain (BoB) had been equipped with drop-tanks already, the outcome of the BoB may have been completely different.

Irritatingly enough, the tanks as well as the shackles neccessary to re-equip the Messerschmitts with drop-tanks - each and every one existing! - were manufactured in time and were in stock back in Germany from early July 1940, ready for delivery to the units just prior to the BoB. But no one at the RLM saw a neccessity or an urgency to do so. And so they were left where they were, until the brunt of the fighting was over after mid-September 1940.

If only one hundred Luftwaffe-mechanics would have had one week of time and the parts delivered to re-equip the Messerschmitts with drop-ranks, the combat range of the Bf 109 would have reached as far as to the Midlands - but, even more important, it would have given the Luftwaffe-fighters precious options to change targets at short note, to handle the approaches to the targets or escort the bombers much more flexible, to protect the bombers for yet another hour of flying time during each sortie, and - it would have given hundreds of returning Bf 109 the chance to return safely to their bases after the fight, instead of ditching "into the creek" without fuel - as german fighter pilots called it.

Did the missing drop-tanks for the Bf 109 during the Battle of Britain change the outcome of WWII? In my opinion: Yes.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[simon]

You may wish to check your dates or sources. Drop tanks in July 1941 would have been a year too late for the Battle of Britain.

[Kutscha]

I would say it is a typo Simon.

[montanamotor]

Right. I was typing faster than thinking.

I meant 1940, of course. Sorry. My fault. Shoot me.

Cheers...

Montanamotor[:I]

[PMN1]

The effect of German fighters having drop tanks or longer range on internal fuel on the outcome of the battle of Britain is quite often discussed.

In his book ‘The Most Dangerous Enemy – a history of the Battle of Britain’ (a very good book btw) Stephen Bungay makes an interesting argument, what do you think of it?

‘Suppose the Bf109 had the range of the Mustang. What would the Luftwaffe have done with it? Similar endurance would have enabled the Germans to send escorted bombers to John O’Groats. Why would they have wanted to do that? Given the goal of establishing local air superiority, there was no point in attacking any target north of London. A bit more endurance would have helped in raiding Hornchurch, North Weald and Debden, but unless the RAF could be caught on the ground, attacking airfields was not in itself going to win the battle. The key aircraft factories (at the time) were at Kingston-upon-Thames and Southampton, which were within range. The range of the fighter escorts was only critical if the plan was to conduct economic warfare as part of a long-term siege. It was not critical to gaining air-superiority over the invasion beaches.

Had they had an extra margin of 15 – 20 minutes, the 109 pilots would probably have been able to do a bit more damage and somewhat reduced their losses. They would certainly have been more relaxed. However, their cannon only had seven seconds worth of ammunition and although they had sixty seconds worth machine gun rounds, their two machine guns alone would have greatly reduced their effectiveness. So if their fuel had not been used up, their ammunition would have been. Any pilot who spent more than five minutes in a dogfight would have been exhausted anyway. When the Mustangs went to Berlin they spent most of their time in getting there and back, not dogfighting. When RAF Fighter Command took the offensive in 1941, the pilots carrying out sweeps over Northern France in order to draw up the Luftwaffe complained about many things, but not the range of the Spitfire. It was only when the target was further away that range became critical’

Note he is making a difference between the Luftwaffe goals (air-superiority over the invasion beaches) and the later Allied goals (economic warfare as part of a long-term siege).

[montanamotor]

Hi PMN1,

this author Stephen Bungay is simplifying things to a large extend to make his point, I think.

IIRC, it was Sir Hugh Dowding himself, who was quoted after (?) the Battle of Britain (BoB) as saying (roughly quoted from memory): "Thank God, the Messerschmitts didn'd reach beyond the greater City of London area, so that the RAF fighters could rest and regoup up north in the area of the 12th group, whereas the fighting remained concentrated to the areas of the 11th and 10th group, respectively. If our fighters had been forced to retire farther north due to farther reaching german fighters, they would have been out of reach of the coastal Channel-areas, where a german landing attempt was most likely. This would have left the landing grounds unprotected by the RAF!" (Again: Quoted from memory)

Yes, the Germans were after air superiority for the attempted landing. But (INITIALLY) they were after it by destroying the RAF MAINLY ON THE GROUND - like they had done to a large extend with such great success during earlier battles from Poland over Norway to the Netherlands and, France.

See - when the 8th Airforce was fighting the German fighter force for air superiority from 1943, they let the bombers concentrate on destroying factories and refineries, right. But it was the returning FIGHTER'S SWEEPS over german airfields during the P47's and, P51's way back to Britain from spring 1944, which left hundreds, if not thousands of german fighter planes sitting on the ground destroyed or, let the allied fighters easily hunt down german fighter planes which were just starting or, returning to their bases from battling the bombers, totally exhausted by fuel, ammo and, pilot's concentration!

And THIS would have been able for german Messerschmitts in 1940, too, if they had had enough fuel saved for their way back to do so after they finished their escort role, simply by carrying droptanks during their way into British airspace. But, instead, they had to break up the fight often enough right in the middle and had to scramble home at the shortest course possible due to fuel shortage, while HUNDREDS of them finally didn't make it at all and ditched into the Channel.

After 66 years have gone by sometimes we tend to forget that, the British victory in the Battle of Britain - which is totally undebated here, as it was absolutely deserved by unparalleled courage, skills and, perseverance of "the few" - came at a VERY close margin. Many - also british - historians claim that, had only ONE decisive factor during the BoB stood AGAINST the British odds, rather than in favor of them, the outcome of the BoB may easily have been a totally different one.

And the short combat range of the Messerschmitts during the Battle of Britain definitely WAS such a decisive factor.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Red Admiral]

Adding drop tanks to the Bf 109s would produce only 1 tangible result - more losses for the Bf 109s as increased numbers are shot down by ack-ack, engine problems etc before becoming involved with defending fighters.

Bottom line is that the Luftwaffe was suffering far greater losses than fighter command and couldn't sustain those losses whereas fighter command could. No problem in getting replacement aircraft for the RAF by September - they would be delivered the same day from the works.

If there were simply more Bf 109s then I think theres a case.

[montanamotor]

From Mid-August 1940, Dowding wasn't lacking supplies of newly build fighter planes any more, you are right - but he was lacking pilots. So desperate was the situation, that even seaplane-pilots from the coastal command were ordered for service in fighter squadrons.

You may have a thousand fighter planes at hand - but if you lack the pilots to fly them, they aren't worth a penny in the end.

Had the losses of the RAF fighter command only been 25 percent up, and had the losses of the german Luftwaffe-fighterpilots only been 25 percent down by the help of long-range-droptanks for the Messerschmitt 109's during that decisive 6-week-period August to mid-September 1940, this may well have been it for the RAF.

Cheers.

Montanamotor

[Red Admiral]

The strength of the Luftwaffe at the point of Sealion was about 750 bombers and 600 Me109 fighters. The Germans estimated the strength of Fighter Command at 300 planes, of which 100 were not available to the RAF.

In fact, 11 Fighter Group had 672 planes, of which 570 were Spitfires and Hurricanes

Results of combat

September
15th 186:25 in favour of the RAF 12 pilots survived
20th 6:7 3 pilots survived
25th 26:4 2 pilots survived
30th 46:20 12 pilots survived
October
5th 22:9 7 pilots survived
10th 5:5 2 pilots survived
15th 19:15 9 pilots survived
20th 7:3 all pilots survived

So on the worst day Fighter Command was pulling at about even vs the LW with 3:1 and 4:1 being more normal. There is simply no way the LW can sustain those losses, especially as their pilots/crew aren't coming back.

The bombers are still going to be attacking the same targets aren't they? In which case the Bf109s are tied to them. They are hit by 11 group on the way in causing them to run down their ammunition, then hit by 12 group on the way home to finish them off. Whereas OTL the Bf109s have already ambled off home after the first combat.

[montanamotor]

Red Admiral,

I totally agree with you about the numbers and about the actual outcome of the Battle of Britain. There is no reason to dispute over that, whatsoever. But in your analysis, you are inherently suggesting, that the Luftwaffe would exactly have kept doing what they actually did, even in case the Bf 109's were re-equipped with long-range droptanks. But this is simply not the case.

The first and, most important thing you gain, as soon as you have a fighter with substantially greater range at hand than before, is not so much the longer range - it's: FLEXIBILITY! And THIS was, what the german fighter pilots didn't have in the summer of 1940.

a. In reality, german pilots always had little or no chance to deceit their opponents by chosing differend approaches to one target. They always had do perform their attacks "head-on" against an opponent, who knew where they were, where they would go, how many they were and, that the german fighters had to return within minutes, once they had reached their maximal range.

So the germans had FOUR disadvantages against them - all caused by one and the same problem: Their fighter's too short combat range.

But: All this would have been alleviated, if not outright annihilated AT ONCE, once the Messerschmitts had been equipped with long range drop-tanks. With the flexibility the fighters would have gained by those 300 liters of fuel extra, suddenly they would have had chances to play the game to their advantage, instead to their disadvantage - and that was what they were used to and, what they were good in: They could SURPRISE the RAF with their attacks!

b. HAD the Messerschmitts had the long-range-tanks, see Dowdings statement: The Luftwaffe's targets would have changed immediately, once they had had the chance to act more flexible: they would definitely immediately have attacked each and every RAF airfield within their range (like they were used to do in other countries for almost a year already with great success), with the advantage that, once flying over British soil, the germans could have choosen at will, which direction to go and which airfield to assault - had their range been long enough.

As a result of this, each RAF fighter airfield within about 200 miles/300 kms from the Channel may have been rendered useless within a few weeks, leaving the RAF fighters at rest at airfields far north in the 12th group's area. And THAT in turn would have vastly reduced RAF fighters's effective fighting time again, as almost 1 hour of their actual endurance would have been wasted for going to and from the Channel's coast.

Those two measures mentioned here, combined with an increased number of Messerschmitts returning home savely instead of ditching into the Channel, may well have tipped the scales in favour of Germany (Remember: "The narrow margin!").

Listen, I am not saying, it would definitely have come like this. Finally, this is a "what if"-thread, and we are discussing the "what if's" of WWII only. Please be ashured, that I am absolutely happy about how the WWII ended, in fact, and that Nazi-Germany finally had to surrender unconditionally to the Allies. Definitely.

Also, I am not saying, that drop-tanks for Bf 109 during the BoB in 1940 would have been the one and only secret wonder weapon, which would inevitably have won the war for Germany.

But: There is a good chance that, things MAY have come out differently during the BoB than they actually did, had the RLM not been so extremely stubborn, overconfidential and hippocratical, as they actually were in 1940, when they choose not to equip the fghters with long range tanks, as soon as they were availlable. The tanks were THERE. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED! But they weren't. (You tell me why. I don't know.)

Leaving the drop-tanks in the storage for another 3 months, instead of installing them as soon as they became availlable, may very well have been the one single decisive factor, which during the Battle of Britain finally helped to tip the scales in favour of Britain, rather than of Germany.

Kind of a reversed butterfly-effect, if you will: The storm that didn't occur, because the butterfly kept sitting at rest.

But who would try and give evidence for THAT? Not me, I swear...:D

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Hop]

quote:a. In reality, german pilots always had little or no chance to deceit their opponents by chosing differend approaches to one target. They always had do perform their attacks "head-on" against an opponent, who knew where they were, where they would go, how many they were and, that the german fighters had to return within minutes, once they had reached their maximal range.

This isn't how they operated. The Germans used feints and diversionary attacks, fighter sweeps, attacks from different directions frequently. Remember that at the closest, German fighters were about 25 miles from the British coast. Nearly all the battle occured less than 100 miles from the German fighter bases. For missions that short, a 450 mile range is more than adequate.

Don't forget that radar was in its infancy, and altitude, numbers and types of aircraft was largely guesswork.

quote: They could SURPRISE the RAF with their attacks!

They frequently did. If you read the RAF accounts, they were often bounced by German fighters.

quote:b. HAD the Messerschmitts had the long-range-tanks, see Dowdings statement: The Luftwaffe's targets would have changed immediately, once they had had the chance to act more flexible: they would definitely immediately have attacked each and every RAF airfield within their range

The problem is that's exactly what the Luftwaffe did to 11 Group in late August and early September. They attacked all the 11 Group airfields they could find in the SE of England. They only managed to knock 2 out for more than a few hours.

If the 109 had more range, and they attacked airfields north of London, then they are diluting their attack. As they couldn't achieve the necessary intensity when they were focused on 11 Group, spreading the effort to include other parts of Britain is going to make things worse for the Luftwaffe, not better.

It's a military axiom that you concentrate your forces, not dilute them. A larger target area for the Germans dilutes the German attack, relieves pressure on 11 Group, and gets 12 Group into the fight as well. It makes things far worse for the Luftwaffe.

quote:As a result of this, each RAF fighter airfield within about 200 miles/300 kms from the Channel may have been rendered useless within a few weeks,

How if they couldn't even destroy the airfields 30 miles from the channel? The lesson from the BoB was the Germans needed to hit the airfields more often, with more planes. Sending their fighters north of London means less aircraft to attack the airfields near the coast. All this does is relieve pressure on 11 Group.

quote:Those two measures mentioned here, combined with an increased number of Messerschmitts returning home savely instead of ditching into the Channel, may well have tipped the scales in favour of Germany

The extra fuel would have had a marginal effect, and led to a few less German fighter losses. If it had tempted the Germans to widen their attacks, and with the lack of focus the Luftwaffe showed that's probable, it would have made things worse for the Luftwaffe overall.

quote:The tanks were THERE. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN USED! But they weren't. (You tell me why. I don't know.)

Because they didn't work well, and because the range wasn't perceived as much of a problem at the time.

Most people overestimate the ranges involved. Calais to central London is only 90 miles. That's no problem for a fighter with a 400+ mile range. Most of Kent where the fighting occured is less than 50 miles.

[Kutscha]

The Brits did some range calculations for, iirc, the 109G. The tactical range(radius) was ~135mi without dts. Spitfireperformance might have the docs.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
It is not generally realised but the 707 underwent four major redesign phases
and still failed to match the leading British contender.


I don’t know a huge amount about civil airliners, but I was reading thru the section on the 707 in the book “Boeing Aircraft: Since 1916” (Peter Bowers). When you say 4 major redesigns, to what are you referring? There were many variants built to customer specs or need. There were long version, short version, cargo version, tanker versions, military versions… The history of the 707 is replete with redesigns.

And what was the leading British Contender? The only thing I can think of is the DeHavilland Comet. A review of the specs of the Boeing 707-100 version (the first production version) and specs of the Comet from the book “DeHavilland Aircraft: Since 1909” shows the first 707 was faster, longer ranged, and carried more passengers than every Comet version. Later 707s only widened the gap further.

Was there another plane you are referring to? Or was it a “planned’ aircraft that never made it to fruition?


quote:
On the Military side British industry practically completed at least six viable supersonic contenders in the fighter sector before they were in turn cancelled: at least two of which were world leaders with no obvious competition. Market share after cancellation is zero so this effectively finished off several great design teams.


Were they, again, “planned” aircraft that never made it to fruition?

One of the biggest problems for the Brits during the post war years was that they continually tried to reinvent the wheel. While the US and USSR used German data for valuable shortcuts in the development of their own swept wing fighters, the Brits tried to figure out the swept wing on their own. While the F-86 and Mig-15 were going into service, Supermarine and Hawker were still trying to figure out proper thicknesses and incidences to achieve high speed flight. As a result, the British had nothing like the F-86 Sabre or MiG-15 until the appearance of the Hawker Hunter in 1954 – unless you count the F-86s used by the RAF in the absence of their own high performance figher. By that time, the F-86 had been in service for 5 years, and more performant planes were already in service with the US and USSR.



Hi Buzz,

The Vickers V1000/Vc7 prototype was practically finished when the Government pulled the plug on the project in November 1955. This Aircraft would have been the leading contender in the second generation jet airliner stakes and had a profound effect on American designs of the Period.
It was the only aircraft with a Trans-Atlantic range with payload being built at the time. When they first came in to service the first 707s used to stop half way.
The four design phases were the 367-80 or Dash 80 built to compete with the original Comet. The problems with Comet and the development of a much larger 2nd generation RAF transport meant that the four aside seat dash 80 was no longer relevant.
The next stage was the KC 135 to military specification and with a follow civil aircraft with five aside seating.
After this design was hardened the commercial significance o of six aside seating that was being pioneered by the Vickers Design was realised and a new wider body fuselage was designed for the 707.
To cross the Atlantic a larger variant was required, to repeat it is often forgotten now but the first Crossings by a commercial 707 required a refuelling stop.
The American contenders required all the runways in the world bar two to be lengthened to cater for the exceptionally long takeoff that they needed. So Boeing had to produce yet another design to cater for the Air New Zealand’s requirements

The Vickers V1000 with its super advanced big wing could have used most of the existing runways that catered for the latest generation of prop driven airliner. I still have a clear memory of its cancellation and remember thinking this does not make sense. The major reason given at the time was that it needed an additional hundred feet or so beyond the original design requirement but omitted to say that this was still several thousand feet less than that required by the American contenders at the time. Sir George Edwards said that it was a huge mistake to cancel.

Probably to keep the Industry quiet seven British Airframe manufacturers and four British engine manufactures were asked to scheme supersonic proposals . Two of the American manufacturers flew their “jet-airliners” at supersonic speeds before Concord.
Without the effects of the cancellations it is probable that the UK, possibly with Canadian assistance could have had a recoverable Space Shuttle by about the middle sixties. But such is the stuff of dreams.
The two designs that would have pulled the British Industry ahead in certain categories of fighter would have been the Hawker P1121 (1959)and the Hawker P1154 VSTO (1965)up until maybe the Eagle?




Going off toppic here but this is quite an intersting post on British B707 rivals.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212956/pg1

Groggy, do you know of any other sites with information on post war British airliner designs including civilan derivitives of the V-bombers - I know Avro designed the Atlantic using the Vulcan's wings but with a new fuselage (the OTS site mentions it alonside the VC7, HP97 and B707).

There is also this article on the US Boeing 367-80 (I know its Wikipedia but it does seem more or less correct).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80

[Groggy]

Going off toppic here but this is quite an intersting post on British B707 rivals.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212956/pg1

Groggy, do you know of any other sites with information on post war British airliner designs including civilan derivitives of the V-bombers - I know Avro designed the Atlantic using the Vulcan's wings but with a new fuselage (the OTS site mentions it alonside the VC7, HP97 and B707).

There is also this article on the US Boeing 367-80 (I know its Wikipedia but it does seem more or less correct).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80

[/quote]

Hi PMN1,

I have not forgotten you, it’s just that when my flat roof let water it did more damage than I realised so I am backtracking and trying to build up /recover records there are now some serious gaps that means more visits to various archives. Not just about the V1000. This included another visit to the states I once came across a very interesting article in an American book circa 1956? in Newburyport Library that praised the V1000/Vc7 and said it was very strange that they had been cancelled but I just could not find it on my second visit. Public Records Kew does not have a lot but there was a reference to a Supersonic variant/study for the Vickers aircraft. The piece is labelled as such but now contains no relevant material? Which is frustrating. Even the Eagle? had a cutaway for the Avro proposal but there is a detailed discussion in Aeroplane on the HP 111 that had a 1000yard take of run? There was a study of a enlarged variant of the V1000 as a Strategic Transport for the British MRBM/ICBM and the smallest of the launchers/boosters for the RAF manned space program for transport to Woomera for testing etc. I have come across very little on the net. I have seen no more than a dozen articles on the V1000 and maybe four or five on the rest of the bunch. I do however remember the news items on the Wireless at the time one that stuck in the mind was America big business blocked the use of rearward facing seats for civil aircraft that was considered a major safety feature.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy


Public Records Kew does not have a lot but there was a reference to a Supersonic variant/study for the Vickers aircraft.



There were supersonic versions of the bombers looked at as well.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy


Going off toppic here but this is quite an intersting post on British B707 rivals.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212956/pg1

Groggy, do you know of any other sites with information on post war British airliner designs including civilan derivitives of the V-bombers - I know Avro designed the Atlantic using the Vulcan's wings but with a new fuselage (the OTS site mentions it alonside the VC7, HP97 and B707).

There is also this article on the US Boeing 367-80 (I know its Wikipedia but it does seem more or less correct).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80



Hi PMN1,

I have not forgotten you, it’s just that when my flat roof let water it did more damage than I realised so I am backtracking and trying to build up /recover records there are now some serious gaps that means more visits to various archives. Not just about the V1000. This included another visit to the states I once came across a very interesting article in an American book circa 1956? in Newburyport Library that praised the V1000/Vc7 and said it was very strange that they had been cancelled but I just could not find it on my second visit. Public Records Kew does not have a lot but there was a reference to a Supersonic variant/study for the Vickers aircraft. The piece is labelled as such but now contains no relevant material? Which is frustrating. Even the Eagle? had a cutaway for the Avro proposal but there is a detailed discussion in Aeroplane on the HP 111 that had a 1000yard take of run? There was a study of a enlarged variant of the V1000 as a Strategic Transport for the British MRBM/ICBM and the smallest of the launchers/boosters for the RAF manned space program for transport to Woomera for testing etc. I have come across very little on the net. I have seen no more than a dozen articles on the V1000 and maybe four or five on the rest of the bunch. I do however remember the news items on the Wireless at the time one that stuck in the mind was America big business blocked the use of rearward facing seats for civil aircraft that was considered a major safety feature.


[/quote]

Going off topic again, but do you have any information on the study for an enlarged V1000 - spec numers etc, assuming it even got any spec numbes.

Additionally, would the engine power available at the time of the VC-10 have allowed for a wide body VC-10 with a cabin diameter matching say today's Boeing 767 on the VC-10 cabin length?

If so, is there a market at the time for such an aircraft?

[Groggy]

[/quote]

Going off topic again, but do you have any information on the study for an enlarged V1000 - spec numers etc, assuming it even got any spec numbes.

Additionally, would the engine power available at the time of the VC-10 have allowed for a wide body VC-10 with a cabin diameter matching say today's Boeing 767 on the VC-10 cabin length?

If so, is there a market at the time for such an aircraft?
[/quote]
Hi PMN1,

I am still looking in the hope that more documents/details survived in private hands.
It’s certain that work was done for the missile transporter: all we know is that the pressurised fuselage interior started at, at least fourteen feet in diameter to encompass a ten foot square box end. This requirement was then increased to encompass a twelve foot square box end but I do not know if this revision work was started before cancellation in November 1955. All other details seem to have been “weeded”

I assume as the Vc 10 was later than the V1000 they must have looked at a seventeen foot diameter variant when Shorts were looking at what became the “Belfast” and that the Conway would have coped.

[PMN1]

This has been posted on the Sceret Projects board - a Handley Page airliner from 1954/57 with laminar flow wings and superb potential range it seems, anyone have any other information?

You have to log in to see picies on this site.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3808.0.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1957/1957%20-%200910.html?search=multi%20wing%20aircraft%20proj ect

[PilotOfficerPrune]

Apparently the 109's used in the BoB weren't plumbed for external tanks. According to Deighton, anyway. Which meant that their fuel systems would have needed extensive modification and testing before they could have been fitted with drop tanks, even if the tanks had been available. Not easily done in the middle of a battle. At any event the RAF was having trouble fitting drop tanks to Spitfires two years some two years later. As was the USAAF in sorting out non leaking external tanks for high altitude use with its Thunderbolts. But the idea that any fighter pilot wouldn't want as much fuel as possible in his aircaft is ridiculous. The guy that has to break off fighting first is the one most likely to get shot down.

Anyway, if my sister had balls she'd be my brother. The truth is that Hitler went to war against France and won. But the victory was too quick, too easy and too glorious for his own good. He wanted more of the same and ended up fighting a war he couldn't win in places where he never needed to be -- and he won't be alone in the history books for that failing, will he?

[conrad]

One intersting thing. The Japanese offered the Germans the design for the zero, but they rejected it. The zero of course had great range bieng designed for service in the pacific. The Japanese rejected the Me 109 because of it's lack of range made it useless in the wide expanses of the Pacific.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

One intersting thing. The Japanese offered the Germans the design for the zero, but they rejected it. The zero of course had great range bieng designed for service in the pacific. The Japanese rejected the Me 109 because of it's lack of range made it useless in the wide expanses of the Pacific.

The same thing with British vs US and Japanese ships. The North Sea (sometimes called the German Sea before 1914), the Med with bases at Gib, Malta and Alex, call for a different design than ships cruising the Pacific. Brit Pacific campaign places presumed Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai squadrons, and a diversity of islands that could be used (cf WW I, where it worked).

All European aircraft were probably predicated on battles over France ... so they wanted sufficient fuel to penetrate a reasonable distance over the front line, but not so much as to impact on their performance when in combat. Any combat radius greater than 2-300 miles plus combat time was going to be a handicap. The English Channel adding another 50-100 miles (both ways) pushed aircraft over their comfort zone.

[Montana]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by conrad

One intersting thing. The Japanese offered the Germans the design for the zero, but they rejected it. The zero of course had great range bieng designed for service in the pacific. The Japanese rejected the Me 109 because of it's lack of range made it useless in the wide expanses of the Pacific.

The same thing with British vs US and Japanese ships. The North Sea (sometimes called the German Sea before 1914), the Med with bases at Gib, Malta and Alex, call for a different design than ships cruising the Pacific. Brit Pacific campaign places presumed Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai squadrons, and a diversity of islands that could be used (cf WW I, where it worked).

All European aircraft were probably predicated on battles over France ... so they wanted sufficient fuel to penetrate a reasonable distance over the front line, but not so much as to impact on their performance when in combat. Any combat radius greater than 2-300 miles plus combat time was going to be a handicap. The English Channel adding another 50-100 miles (both ways) pushed aircraft over their comfort zone.


My saying! When were the first drop-tanks for Hurricane and Spitfire availlable?

Cheers!

Montana(motor)

[scotty]

I think it also needs to be pointed out (assuming it has'nt been already) that even with droptanks they'll still have to be jettisoned at the first sign of combat which was typically just as they reached 11 group airspace..which means the 109's will get what?, and extra 25-50 miles if they're lucky..

Of course i agree with other posters that the lack of cannon ammo will be more ruinous than a lack of droptanks..

[Montana]

quote:Originally posted by scotty

I think it also needs to be pointed out (assuming it has'nt been already) that even with droptanks they'll still have to be jettisoned at the first sign of combat which was typically just as they reached 11 group airspace..which means the 109's will get what?, and extra 25-50 miles if they're lucky..

Of course i agree with other posters that the lack of cannon ammo will be more ruinous than a lack of droptanks..


No, no, no! (Quietly cursing...) Don't think "range" - think "flexibility" and "endurance".

It's a completely different game if you a. meet your adversariy with your fueltank half empty, or b. with your fueltank still full to the brim. For the same reason, German fighter command used droptanks during the defense of the "Reich" against large bomber-formations: It's the fuel that's left, what counts.

Cheers!

Montana

[conrad]

Reading previous posts Bungay said the main factories producing fighters were in Southampton and Kingston on Thames. In fact the main factory producing Spitires was in Castle Bromwich, about 120 miles north west of London. Out of range of the Me 109's.

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by conrad
In fact the main factory producing Spitires was in Castle Bromwich, about 120 miles north west of London.


I suggest that you check when Castle Bromwich actualy got into full production.

It was a fiasco from 1938 to mid 1940 because Lord Nuffield cocked it up big time.

There is a lovely storey that nobody dared to sort him out till Beaverbrook had a phone argument with him. Nuffield threatened to walk away from the contract and Beaverbrook said 'thank you very much' - and shifted the management to Vickers the following day

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/spitfire/321.asp

Even the '10 spitfires build in July 1940' were assembled from components trucked north from Southampton as a publicity exercise.

So just in time for the BoB was nothing to crow about.

The amazing thing is that it took the Luftwaffe so long to flatten the Supermarine works at Itchen - presumably they never imagined it had not been properly dispersed!!

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

quote:Originally posted by conrad
In fact the main factory producing Spitires was in Castle Bromwich, about 120 miles north west of London.


I suggest that you check when Castle Bromwich actualy got into full production.

It was a fiasco from 1938 to mid 1940 because Lord Nuffield cocked it up big time.
There is a lovely storey that nobody dared to sort him out till Beaverbrook had a phone argument with him. Nuffield threatened to walk away from the contract and Beaverbrook said 'thank you very much' - and shifted the management to Vickers the following day

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/spitfire/321.asp

Even the '10 spitfires build in July 1940' were assembled from components trucked north from Southampton as a publicity exercise.

So just in time for the BoB was nothing to crow about.

The amazing thing is that it took the Luftwaffe so long to flatten the Supermarine works at Itchen - presumably they never imagined it had not been properly dispersed!!


I knew about the problems with the Castle Bromwich factory but in the account I read by mid 1940 it was producing 300 planes a month. The source must have got his dates wrong. I know the Southampton factory was too small to meet the RAF's needs, hence the shadow plant. The account I read was an extract from a recent book by Leo McKinsey on the Spitfire.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by conrad

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

quote:Originally posted by conrad
In fact the main factory producing Spitires was in Castle Bromwich, about 120 miles north west of London.


I suggest that you check when Castle Bromwich actualy got into full production.

It was a fiasco from 1938 to mid 1940 because Lord Nuffield cocked it up big time.
There is a lovely storey that nobody dared to sort him out till Beaverbrook had a phone argument with him. Nuffield threatened to walk away from the contract and Beaverbrook said 'thank you very much' - and shifted the management to Vickers the following day

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/spitfire/321.asp

Even the '10 spitfires build in July 1940' were assembled from components trucked north from Southampton as a publicity exercise.

So just in time for the BoB was nothing to crow about.

The amazing thing is that it took the Luftwaffe so long to flatten the Supermarine works at Itchen - presumably they never imagined it had not been properly dispersed!!


I knew about the problems with the Castle Bromwich factory but in the account I read by mid 1940 it was producing 300 planes a month. The source must have got his dates wrong. I know the Southampton factory was too small to meet the RAF's needs, hence the shadow plant. The account I read was an extract from a recent book by Leo McKinsey on the Spitfire.


Hi Folks
WAS it Beaverbrook who cancelled the four types of helicopter that were on order for the RAF in 1940?

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by conrad
I knew about the problems with the Castle Bromwich factory but in the account I read by mid 1940 it was producing 300 planes a month.

Hi Conrad,

I cannot check my source at the moment. One thing is very clear, once they got their act together Castle Bromwich did a cracking job and and ramped up production very fast so 'mid-1940' is more than possible. My point was that it was a very '11th hour job'!

Alex Henshaw's book Sigh for a Merlin: Testing the Spitfire is a superb story of his time at Castle Bromwich if you have not already read it!

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

quote:Originally posted by conrad
I knew about the problems with the Castle Bromwich factory but in the account I read by mid 1940 it was producing 300 planes a month.

Hi Conrad,

I cannot check my source at the moment. One thing is very clear, once they got their act together Castle Bromwich did a cracking job and and ramped up production very fast so 'mid-1940' is more than possible. My point was that it was a very '11th hour job'!

Alex Henshaw's book Sigh for a Merlin: Testing the Spitfire is a superb story of his time at Castle Bromwich if you have not already read it!



True, they cut it very fine. It was a good story about the problems. Putting Nuffield in charge was an understandable error. He was familier with mass production, and it would have been no exageration to call him the British Henry Ford. However like Ford he went a bit dotty in his later years and lost his grasp of detail.
The story was that to get things going a lot of the arkward squad among the workers had to be threatened with call up in to the armed forces to get them going. had the factory been properly managed from the beginning the RAF could have started the Battle of Britain with more Spitfires than Hurricanes.

[Nick Sumner]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
Hi Folks
WAS it Beaverbrook who cancelled the four types of helicopter that were on order for the RAF in 1940?



(sits up, spills coffee)

Whaaaa???

[PMN1]

[/quote]
Hi Folks
WAS it Beaverbrook who cancelled the four types of helicopter that were on order for the RAF in 1940?


[/quote]

A lot of stuff was cancelled or delayed by the panic of Dunkirk, we look back at the plans for this now and think 'not a chance' but was there anyone in the military suggesting this in 1940, for example did anyone question the suitability of the 'invasion barges' for a Channel crossing?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
Hi Folks
WAS it Beaverbrook who cancelled the four types of helicopter that were on order for the RAF in 1940?



(sits up, spills coffee)

Whaaaa???

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
Hi Folks
WAS it Beaverbrook who cancelled the four types of helicopter that were on order for the RAF in 1940?



(sits up, spills coffee)

Whaaaa???



Hi Folks,

Yes FOUR types of Helicopters on order for RAF in 1940. The only one which I have read about in detail is the Weir W.6 which was reputed to be very smooth in flight carried up to two passengers on occasion including Sir Arthur Tedder. Have seen photo of the event Claimed to have been the fastest Helicopter of its time. The test pilot was R.A. Pullin the first person to have his UK pilot licence endorsed for Helicopters. Built and tested up at Glasgow. Drafted into RAF and ended up as a prisoner of war in Germany.
His father was the designer and his wartime work/patents eventually evolved in to the Fairey Rotodyne the worlds only real VTOL airliner. References at PRO to helicopter trainer ordered in some numbers, may be W.6? There was is supposed to be a book/article about them but sorry I have no details and have not seen it.

[Nick Sumner]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

Hi Folks,

Yes FOUR types of Helicopters on order for RAF in 1940. The only one which I have read about in detail is the Weir W.6 which was reputed to be very smooth in flight carried up to two passengers on occasion including Sir Arthur Tedder. Have seen photo of the event Claimed to have been the fastest Helicopter of its time. The test pilot was R.A. Pullin the first person to have his UK pilot licence endorsed for Helicopters. Built and tested up at Glasgow. Drafted into RAF and ended up as a prisoner of war in Germany.
His father was the designer and his wartime work/patents eventually evolved in to the Fairey Rotodyne the worlds only real VTOL airliner. References at PRO to helicopter trainer ordered in some numbers, may be W.6? There was is supposed to be a book/article about them but sorry I have no details and have not seen it.



Were the helicopters purely experimental or were there specific uses in mind?

[Red Admiral]

Looking at pictures of the W.6 and I'm left in no doubt that it is definitely experimental. The later W.9 from 1944 looks a lot more like a helicopter, and has a NOTAR arrangement.

[conrad]

quote:Originally posted by Montana

quote:Originally posted by scotty

I think it also needs to be pointed out (assuming it has'nt been already) that even with droptanks they'll still have to be jettisoned at the first sign of combat which was typically just as they reached 11 group airspace..which means the 109's will get what?, and extra 25-50 miles if they're lucky..

Of course i agree with other posters that the lack of cannon ammo will be more ruinous than a lack of droptanks..


No, no, no! (Quietly cursing...) Don't think "range" - think "flexibility" and "endurance".

It's a completely different game if you a. meet your adversariy with your fueltank half empty, or b. with your fueltank still full to the brim. For the same reason, German fighter command used droptanks during the defense of the "Reich" against large bomber-formations: It's the fuel that's left, what counts.

Cheers!

Montana


That was perverse of the Luftwaffe. The fact that they could go in to action with half full tanks would greatly reduce weight, which is useful in combat. Before D_Day the allied fighters had to carry enough fuel to get back to England, incuring a big weight penalty. How much fuel would a Mustang have to carry to get back from a deep penetration mission? 1000lb at least I would think.

[Kutscha]

Pointing out the 109 carried 400 litres internally and the drop tank carried 300 litres.

[ChrisMcD]

quote:Originally posted by conrad
That was perverse of the Luftwaffe.


I have a feeling that this is the main point about a number of issues.
AFAIK the 'old Spanish hands' were responsible for a number of 'wrong ideas' as well as all those 'right ones' like Schwarms etc.

eg; Drop tanks - were tried in Spain and were leaky/dangerous and refused to disconnect -so none of the Spanish experten would have them in their Staffeln for the BoB

Radios - not seen as vitally important, so development was not pushed - hence problems of bomber/fighter communications during BoB.

Schnellbombers - hard to intercept, would always get through, did not need armour/turrets.

And to quote Adolf Galland;
"Whatever may have been the importance of the tests of German arms in the Spanish Civil War from tactical, technical and operational points of view, they did not provide the experience that was needed nor lead to the formulation of sound strategic concepts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condor_Legion

[PMN1]

Another post WW2 airliner post...

From ‘Stuck on the Drawing Board’ by Richard Payne

Avro’s original projects against the Type 3 Specifications were the Avro 690 and 692 (or Avro XXII and XXIII), both powered by six Rolls-Royce Merlin 100 engines. These were superseded by the Avro 693 in 1945, which began life powered by four paired Rolls-Royce Clyde turboprops with contra rotating propellers. This paired option was then dropped for safety reasons by the time an order was placed for two prototype 693’s in April 1946. But the project evolved with proposals for Armstrong Siddeley Python turboprops, and then, finally four Rolls-Royce AJ65 (later Avon) turbojets).

The 693 was a large airliner and by December 1946, the design featured a fuselage some 110ft long with a high wing 135ft span, and wing area of around 2,700sq.ft. It was larger than the other jetliner proposed by the Brabazon Committee, the Type 4 project that became the Comet, and could carry forty day or twenty night passengers. The four Rolls-Royce AJ.65 engines, each 6,500lb static thrust, were integrated within the wing, with the tailpalne mounted midway on the fin. A cruising speed of 436mph at 40,000ft was envisaged. It would have a range of 3,513 miles with a 7,500lb payload. A decision was made to go ahead with the 693 in November 1946 but, as the project progressed, it became clear that BOAC would have no need for two jetliners. With the airline backing the DH106 (Type 4), it could not justify introducing two completely new and advanced jetliners into its fleet. On 1 January 1947, the carrier announced it was not going to order yet another British jet but it was not until July 1947 that the prototype orders for the 693 were cancelled and the type became the only one of the Brabazon Committee designs not to be built

Dec 1946 Spec Length 110ft, Span 135ft, Height 27ft 6in, Wing Area 2,700sq.ft

[Trexx]

It's often forgotten that Hitler had an affinity for the British. He believed they were a branch of the Aryan blood line. He never wanted to attack Britain. Furthermore, he was convinced that if he could 'get rid of' or render Winston Churchill 'politically impotent' he could make quick work of getting the British people aligned with the Axis or at least have them stay out of the war.

There's mountains data, examples of deeds and recorded documents to support this.

[PMN1]

Another post WW2 British airliner project (originally form the Secret Projects site)

The Handley Page 1957 laminar flow airliner (very long range 9,000nm carrying a 30,000lb payload for Project A and 10,500nm to 13,600nm for Project B. .

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1957/1957%20-%200910.html?search=multi%20wing%20aircraft%20proj ect

From what I can see, doesn't seem to be mentioned in Stuck on the Drawing board which is strange given the advanced nature of the design.