pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing1 , why do you think the pilots were falling asleep as soon as they touched down? and someone here accused me of disrespecting the pilots
2 some sorties lasted minutes....squadrons were scrambled just so they wernt bombed on the ground as soon as ammunition was exhausted (14 seconds firing) that was sortie over
that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing
colin .........as with many forums this one has its "regs" who are invariably a pain in the ass...you are conspicuously a pain in the ass........what is this apart from juvenile abuse
I want a pet john brewer
I'll buy him a cage, some bedding and an exercise wheel
He'll have his own box of straw to hibernate in and an unlimited supply of peanuts to store in his cheeks
I'll put him on the coffee table when I've got friends round and when they ask "What is it?" I can say "It's a john brewer"
you are describing a front in the first world war not the second. The Atlantic war was a front which we had to control but a submarine could sink a ship anywhere from Liverpool to the USA coast, similarly German airspace was a front if the germans didnt control it their industry was crippled and cities destroyed.
In the context of MLR? the term has vaidity today for any set piece engagement.
How was the Atlantic war a 'front'. and a submarine could sink a ship anywhere from Liverpool to Tokyo Bay and back to Liverpool. The 'front' was where? German airspace was a 'front? did the front end at the Austrian or Belgian border?
How do you define 'front'??
The quote I made about 37 me 262 attacking an american formation clearly states that 37 was the largest group they had assembled so far....hardly surprising then that many escorts didnt see one ....eh bonny lard? Dunno what the stuff about enola gay or vectors is about...have you been drinking?
As much as I can when I get into a what seems to be a dialogue with ?? How do you define yourself?
As to Enola Gay you zipped off into a tangent describing German flak defense
You said - 'please do some research.. the men equipment and munitions required to provide air defence for the ruhrgebeit berlin munich and all other centres was equivalent to another front, it would be in interesting question as to who used most explosives the allies dropping them or the germans firing them in the air. A large part of gun manufacture was used to defend the homeland rather than fighting on east or west.'
I took that to infer that you thought volume of fire or munitions is equivalent to another 'front'. I merely asked you that if an equivalence of firepower pointed to a front, then where does the Enola Gay work into your 'front' definition?
John - you have been an amusement but methinks the effort to stay with your ramblings is more than the value of poking fun at your curious notion of 'reality'.. have a good day!
Before this thread gets shut down....and thats a certainty now, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY NOT ACTING LIKE ADULTS I thought I would try and summarise the issues that have domninated this thread for the last 100 or so posts.
It seems that the first point of contention was this claim that 10% of losses were due to friendly fire incidents. My opinion is that no doubt there were FF losses, but nowhere near that proportion. I have detailed daily loss sheets for every engagement from February through to July 1941, and having now looked at thoses losses, including loses at night, the losses due to FF incidents was about 2% of the total losses. Maybe there were other trends in other theartes, but apart from vagyue gneralities, we have not seen any hard information to back that claim up.
The second point of contention seems to be that the allies,, whether they be western or Soviet, won simply by overwhelming the defences with numbers. We have had this discussion so many times before its almost laughable, facts are that numbers did play a part, but only a part. The case in point in this particular argument revolves around the 262.....if only a moderately larger proportion of the force structure was Me 262s, then the losses for the allies would have been prohibitively heavy....well all I can say is maybe, but there is nothing in the statistics to support that. Me 262 formations were not greatly more successful than conventional types in shooting down enemey (allied) bombers. They were good at surviving, but this was more than offset by the non-combat related attrition that the type suffered due to its teething issues. Therer were good reasons why despite producing more than 1300 of the type, the Germans could only ever field about 100 at any given time. Given time, it might have made a difference, but in the context of late 1944, not a chance
The third point is the relative effectiveness of bombing, whether that be by four engined heavy bombers, or more tactical types. I happen to believe that a greater role by the Mosquito types of this world may have helped, but then to turn around and say that the entire strategic bombing campaigns by all nations was a waste of time, is highly debateable. There are numerous analyses to refute that position. The USSBS estimates that the bomber offensive against Germany accounted for 40% of her productive potential. It killed approximately 1million people, diverted 80% of artilleryto home defence Flak, accounted for 56% of total Reich defence exenditure into Reich defences (aircraft production, civil defence etc) absorbed 1.5 million men that could be otherwise employed at the front, and forced the withdrawal of the LW from the tactical fronts to the defence of the Reich itself. The LW tore its heart out trying to defend Germany from the effects of this so-called inneffective campaign. Speer thought that any more raids like Hamburg (July 1943) would have forced Germany to the peace table.
Bombing was only unsuccessful if measured against the unrealistic claims made before the war. It was a highly important instrument leading to the defeat of Germany.
Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours. We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely.
Milosh you obviously havnt read much so instead of so instead of posting "got proof" go read a book....june july in UK has daylight hours of 4AM to 9.30PM and BTW many german fighters were doing the same
bonny lard
I am still waiting for the washout of the mustang thunderbolt hurricane and Me109...I am reliably informed they all had washout but ive only read about it on a spitfire...it made the wings hard and expensive to make
and this was where? directly underneath the combat? Or all over SE England? Was there a probability density function of falling spent cases peaking over the capital or can we assume uniform distribution over, say, Kent? This stuff is straight out of a boys-own comic, you would NOT want to get hit on the head by a falling spent case from a cannon but you'd probably have more chance of being killed and eaten by a lion in Piccadilly Circus
How about some sources?.......i have read many such statements
The answer, John, is you couldn't, it demonstrates clearly why your notion of a front breaks down under scrutinyThe bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the most deadly attack on Japan, fire-bombing Tokyo killed more
and in the 65 years since both events, how many has the fire-bombing continued to kill?
the nuclear bombing served only to persuade the Japanese military and emperor that they had no chance
the Japanese military weren't persuaded, they were to the right of hard-line and were more than ready to fight to the last, it was the Emperor alone who was persuaded
I don't know whether you could describe one airplane as a front
Why?Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours
How?We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely
The SPECIFIC washout for the P-51A-K was 1 degree, for the P-51H it was one degree 18 minutes....the washout for the Fw 190 was 1 1/2 degrees for ~ the external 25% span, while the Mustang was continuous. I would have to take the time to look up the P-47 and the Me 109 specifics - but, candidly I don't care.
John
so, are you saying that losses to FF were about 10% or were they less as is shown by the actual squadron daily loss sheets?:
Are you saying strat bombing as a campaign was sucessful or unsuccessful. I hear you when you say it did not turn out as had been envisaged in the pre-war planning, but that was not the position you adopted in your earlier post. Did it have an appreciable effect on the outcome of the war. Was it worthwhile, or was it a waste of time, in your opinion?
I acknowledge that you dont accept the opinions of the Reich armaments minister, and to a degree you may be right, however, I also think his assessments were at least partially plausible. At the time the Hamburg raids were the most devastating in history....50000 dead, with over 250000 homeless. The city did not return to any meaningful level of production for 4 months, and never returned to pre-raid levels of production ever. If only that could have been repeated in the vital Ruhr district, things may have been different. Instead, Harris committed the strategic blunder of pressing onto Berlin, a hard target if ever there was one. All this raises a question.....if you dont believe Speer, the USSBS(which reaches similar conclusions) and other sources, who then are you relying on. I would like to examine the evidence....
If you consider the airspace over Japan as a front then Japan lost it a long time before the enola gay dropped the bomb. However for the Japanese many prefered suicide to surrender and for the Americans and Allies to invade Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Losing control of the front in the air lead to Japans surrender but that doesnt make the enola gay a front as it didnt win control, it was able to drop the bomb unhindered because of the fact though.The answer, John, is you couldn't, it demonstrates clearly why your notion of a front breaks down under scrutiny
Parsifal
The figure of 10% is a ball park, no one knows for sure or will ever know, it has more to do with the psychology of pilots under battle conditions. The main factor in identification seems to have been not what a plane looks like but where it is coming from or going too. A twin engined plane heading from france was seen as enemy when it could be RAF, a single seat fighter climbing towards a bomber formation was seen as a friend when it could be a 109. It was only at very close quarters that actual visual recognition played a part.