best engine of the war

[GrauGeist]

Yes hillarious. Now, going back to your previous work of unscalable witticism It's called that for three reasons, firstly half the original documents actually have "secret" written on them, secondly much of the book concerns technical intelligence work (which is secret), and thirdly most of the documents on British technical intelligence on it were still classified until 1974, actually quite a while AFTER many books on WW2 aviation were written, in fact some i used were maked closed until 1994, and, memoirs like Kollmanns have never been seen by anyone, at all.

So you'll forgive me for thinking that "secret" was a relevant word to describe the book in the title.

Six years writing something and what do you get? No discussion of the contents, just accused of writing a click bait title. *Sigh*

I'm known to be a smartass on occasion.

At no point did my comment intend to cast aspersions on your literary talent, which I most certainly appreciate.

If it's any consolation, I run afoul of the Facebook police on a regular basis for the very same reason...

 

[Shortround6]

AM-38 for me:
A lot of power for a early war engine, reliable*, able to be made in poor conditions in gigantic numbers.
*Probably?, i doubt a single unit survived more than it's plane to demand a overhaul.

That is not how averages work. For every plane shot down on it's first or 2nd mission another has to do 50 missions to get a 25 mission average (or a number of planes make 30 missions).
If an engine needs replacing after 50 hours then you need a lot of spare engines even for planes that don't last more than 15-20 missions as not every flight hour is a combat mission hour.

Designing to an "average" can cause problems. Like lowering the average because you have chopped off one end of the bell curve.

 

[special ed]

I like average because there are so many of us. I aspire to be mediocre.

 

[tonycat77]

That is not how averages work. For every plane shot down on it's first or 2nd mission another has to do 50 missions to get a 25 mission average (or a number of planes make 30 missions).
If an engine needs replacing after 50 hours then you need a lot of spare engines even for planes that don't last more than 15-20 missions as not every flight hour is a combat mission hour.

Designing to an "average" can cause problems. Like lowering the average because you have chopped off one end of the bell curve.

I can't seem to find anything bad about it, reliability wise.

Compared to the AM-35A it had a reduced compression ratio, strengthened crankshaft, a single-speed geared centrifugal supercharger optimized for low-altitude performance, revised cooling system and revised oil system.

Reduced compression and a strengthened crankshaft would make it more dependable than otherwise no?
Mig-3 (AM-35) doesn't seem more unreliable or worse in engine performance overall than other early VVS stuff.
42k engines made vs 36k IL-2s, seems plenty of spares either way lol.

 

[dedalos]

No doubt RR Merlin. It decided the airwar. It permitted the spitfire to dominate the german fighters from the first to the last day of the war.
Amazing power to weight ratio, especially with 150 grade fuel, small, reliable , great performance at all heights. The nemesis of the luftwaffe

 

[GregP]

Dominate the Bf 109? They were neck-in-neck for most of the war.

But, the Merlin WAS a good one. Gotta' agree with that. So was the DB 601/5, though. Same for R-2800 and BMW 801. I think the R-2800 could haul more airplane around (more HP), but they were both good for their size and weight.

 

[GrauGeist]

Dominate the Bf 109? They were neck-in-neck for most of the war.

Completely agree.
It was a constant seesaw between the Bf109 and Spitfire.
Plus the Fw190, for a time, was a terror down low.
So while the Merlin was a superlative engine, it was not a magic wand.

 

[dedalos]

Dominate the Bf 109? They were neck-in-neck for most of the war.

But, the Merlin WAS a good one. Gotta' agree with that. So was the DB 601/5, though. Same for R-2800 and BMW 801. I think the R-2800 could haul more airplane around (more HP), but they were both good for their size

The spitfire i with 100 grade fueland the spitfire v were better than the bf109E in 1940-early 41
The Bf109 f4 closed the gap with the spitfire v, and it was the only time that the 109 offered its pilots total parity with the spitfire. it only lasted a few monthes
The 2 stage merlins ended any competition from mid 1942. the same time it took DB 2 years toclear even the 1,4 ata. in the crusial mid war years the spit IX was flying rings around the Bf109G
in 1945 the the DB605D and ASM did close the gap , but by then it was pointless. And they never replaced the druggy radiators!

The BMW 801 was truly a BAD engine. Never became completely reliable, it had terrible altitude performance. Even using C3 fuel had worse power to weight ratio than the DB605A running on B4 fuel

The r2800 became truly amazing with the c series that it was very late in the war. And the merlin had better throttle responce

 

[GregP]

Well, the amount of advantage is somewhat subjective. The Germans were sure they had the better airplane and the British were likewise sure the other way.

We know which side won, but I think the Bf 109 shot down WAY many more airplanes. It's only opinion, but I think the Germans lost due to a combination of reasons, not the least of which was abysmal planning by the Hitler and his staff coupled with complete failure to embrace the peoples that were conquered.

 

[SaparotRob]

If they embraced the people that were conquered, they wouldn't have been nazis. I got that take away from a post by one of our members.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

complete failure to embrace the peoples that were conquered.

Conquered peoples rarely seem overly willing to be embraced by their conqueror's

 

[pbehn]

Conquered peoples rarely seem overly willing to be embraced by their conqueror's

Hard to say, a successful conquest means the winners write the book. The Normans made a successful conquest where I live and massacred 90% of the population but this meant that years later when they wanted to mount a crusade there was no one alive willing to pay for it with taxes which survives today as the various legends of Robin Hood. Adolf was particularly stupid with his invasions, he got almost nothing from them but did get a huge tract of land he didnt have the power to defend and no one living there either in France Poland or the Soviet Union was motivated to help him. Even in rural areas the people were on the edge of starvation within a few years.

 

[pbehn]

I must say the Merlin was always fighting a catch weight contest, the DB 605 had the swept volume of the RR Griffon.

 

[GregP]

Yeah, but it didn't quite have the same fuel.

 

[pbehn]

Yeah, but it didn't quite have the same fuel.

That was part of the secret horsepower race, which would be a good name for a book if I knew enough to write it.

 

[SplitRz]

Well, the amount of advantage is somewhat subjective. The Germans were sure they had the better airplane and the British were likewise sure the other way.

We know which side won, but I think the Bf 109 shot down WAY many more airplanes. It's only opinion, but I think the Germans lost due to a combination of reasons, not the least of which was abysmal planning by the Hitler and his staff coupled with complete failure to embrace the peoples that were conquered.

Absolutely correct according to what I've read.

its one of the rarely acknowledged facts that the if they'd behaved even relatively well towards conquered populations, the war might well have ended very differently. I mean its axiomatic that fascism was an immoral and ludicrous piece of racial and cultural delusion, but the strategic stupidity and contradiction within German planning and ideological policy ran far deeper

#1. 'Non Aryan races' were considered 'sub human' and fit only for subjugation or elimination.... (except their most important allies, The Japanese, for which they had to invent a mythological ancestral link)
#2. Fear of the Soviet Union and Bolshevism ran deep within many conquered nations - but the German political command only made half hearted efforts to leverage that, and then only in nations perceived to be Aryan (with a few volunteer units raised from places like Norway and France).

When they invaded the Ukraine, German troops were shocked to find the local populace enthusiastically greeting them as liberators, not conquerors. Tanks were festooned with garlands of flowers by a population which had been ravaged by famine and Stalin's purges. (I remember reading that from The Devils Virtuosos) Setting up a puppet state and not overtly treating the Ukrainians as 'untermensch' and making some promises of a degree of self-determination would quite likely have seen probably hundreds of thousands of willing volunteers from a nation which was both industrially and strategically vital to the German war effort. There could have been a whole slew of other nations subsumed by the USSR which might have treated the Nazis as liberators too; the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Belarussians, Georgians, Armenians etc etc etc. Instead, by quickly brutalising them, the Germans merely hardened the resolve of the rest of the USSR and set the seeds for widespread internal resistance. However bad Stalin might have been, the nearly impossible had come to light in the form of a potentially even crueller regime - one which was quite happy to fight a war beyond mere conquest, but of enslavement and selective extermination. By making that obvious, the Germans created their biggest obstacle to victory.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Absolutely correct according to what I've read.

its one of the rarely acknowledged facts that the if they'd behaved even relatively well towards conquered populations, the war might well have ended very differently. I mean its axiomatic that fascism was an immoral and ludicrous piece of racial and cultural delusion, but the strategic stupidity and contradiction within German planning and ideological policy ran far deeper

#1. 'Non Aryan races' were considered 'sub human' and fit only for subjugation or elimination.... (except their most important allies, The Japanese, for which they had to invent a mythological ancestral link)
#2. Fear of the Soviet Union and Bolshevism ran deep within many conquered nations - but the German political command only made half hearted efforts to leverage that, and then only in nations perceived to be Aryan (with a few volunteer units raised from places like Norway and France).

When they invaded the Ukraine, German troops were shocked to find the local populace enthusiastically greeting them as liberators, not conquerors. Tanks were festooned with garlands of flowers by a population which had been ravaged by famine and Stalin's purges. (I remember reading that from The Devils Virtuosos) Setting up a puppet state and not overtly treating the Ukrainians as 'untermensch' and making some promises of a degree of self-determination would quite likely have seen probably hundreds of thousands of willing volunteers from a nation which was both industrially and strategically vital to the German war effort. Instead, by quickly brutalising them, the Germans merely hardened the resolve of the rest of the USSR and set the seeds for widespread internal resistance. However bad Stalin might have been, the nearly impossible had come to light in the form of a potentially even crueller regime - one which was quite happy to fight a war beyond mere conquest, but of enslavement and selective extermination. By making that obvious, the Germans created their biggest obstacle to victory.

Many would say that in terms of "enslavement and selective extermination", Stalin was in a league above even the Nazis (numerically speaking). A reasonable estimate appears to commonly be that Stalin`s rule resulted in the carefully selected death of about 20 million of his own subjects.

But you are absolutely correct that the Germans really lost the opportunity to be seen (and treated) as liberators. That appears to have been a dramatic tactical mistake ( I suppose because it wasnt tactical, it was idealogical)

 

[SplitRz]

Many would say that in terms of "enslavement and selective extermination", Stalin was in a league above even the Nazis (numerically speaking). A reasonable estimate appears to commonly be that Stalin`s rule resulted in the carefully selected death of about 20 million of his own subjects.

But you are absolutely correct that the Germans really lost the opportunity to be seen (and treated) as liberators. That appears to have been a dramatic tactical mistake ( I suppose because it wasnt tactical, it was idealogical)

No argument there. But of course, the people subject to it had no idea who topped the genocidal leader-board.

 

[GregP]

Oh, I bet they did. Everyone knew Stalin was brutal.

But if you were on the receiving end of Hitler's (or Mussolini's) wrath, knowing Stalin was even worse was of no use whatsoever.

 

[pbehn]

Oh, I bet they did. Everyone knew Stalin was brutal.

But if you were on the receiving end of Hitler's (or Mussolini's) wrath, knowing Stalin was even worse was of no use whatsoever.

In a different era, where I live (my wife's history teacher wrote a comprehensive book on the town) No one in London or Edinburgh or even Stockton itself actually cared who controlled the town. There are several years in the 15 and 16 hundreds where it is not known who was in charge. Even the local people didnt care, they had a choice of being raided and abused by Scots cattle drovers or paying for a garrison of troops who cost the locals a fortune and also raped and stole from the them. Then London passed 1 million in inhabitants, coal was needed from the Durham coalfields to supply it and suddenly London developed a keen interest in keeping its energy supply free from interference. The people of Stockton would have been quite happy for both parties to FFF off as far as it is possible to FFF off but they werent given a choice, much like Poland in 1939 (and before and after).