Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

[GrauGeist]

Shipping coming from the south (Med. or South Africa) also had to pass the gauntlet of the Bay of Biscay.

 

[buffnut453]

Shipping coming from the south (Med. or South Africa) also had to pass the gauntlet of the Bay of Biscay.

Yes...but that wasn't the Battle of the Atlantic, at least not how it's typically understood. And the UK was receiving imports from across the Empire throughout the war...so it's not like the Bay of Biscay wasn't already a threat that had to be dealt with.

 

[swampyankee]

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that Britain would fall if the Battle of the Atlantic was lost. Certainly, the extent of war operations would be somewhat curtailed....but I'm not convinced that it would knock Britain out of the war. For example, it would be interesting to know how much food was coming from the US vs other parts of the British Empire. For example, Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa all provided considerable agricultural produce to Britain during WW2...and, while it did transit the Atlantic for a portion of the journey, it was generally closer to Allied territory and hence could be better protected than ships on the US-UK route.

This is certainly true, but North America was still very important for manufactured goods. Of course, I don't think Germany could have won the Battle of the Atlantic unless some ass like Lindbergh was elected president.

 

[buffnut453]

They still have to get there by sea, much of it through the Atlantic.

I've asked before what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" actually means, and the chain of events that would enable it. I'm still awaiting a response.

Even at the height of the U-boat threat, Germany didn't have enough subs to strangle Britain. Seems like you're proposing a scenario where Germany has enough subs to cut the trans-Atlantic traffic from the US AND cut other supplies from the British Empire.

Please explain any scenario under which that was remotely possible.

 

[swampyankee]

I've asked before what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" actually means, and the chain of events that would enable it. I'm still awaiting a response.

Even at the height of the U-boat threat, Germany didn't have enough subs to strangle Britain. Seems like you're proposing a scenario where Germany has enough subs to cut the trans-Atlantic traffic from the US AND cut other supplies from the British Empire.

Please explain any scenario under which that was remotely possible.

I don't think there is one unless the US is led by someone who is actively pro-German, like Lindbergh or the other members of organizations like America First. I also don't think they had a chance of winning, but the idiocies of the electoral college does mean a person can be elected president with less than 30% of the national population popular vote in a two-person race. Once the US became neutral but leaning towards the UK, Hitler's best course would have been to sue for peace and blow his little brains out.

 

[buffnut453]

Once the US became neutral but leaning towards the UK, Hitler's best course would have been to sue for peace and blow his little brains out.

And, in so doing, do the entire world a HUGE favour. Entirely agree!

Your other point about US leadership probably is the key part of the problem. A few other contributors to this thread have mentioned how unlikely that was.

 

[buffnut453]

This is certainly true, but North America was still very important for manufactured goods. Of course, I don't think Germany could have won the Battle of the Atlantic unless some ass like Lindbergh was elected president.

Yes, the US was an important source of manufactured goods for the UK. However, if there was a pro-German leader in the White House, then the US wouldn't be supplying anything to the UK, so the Battle of the Atlantic never happens...unless it's in reverse with the Royal Navy trying to interdict American shipments to Nazi Germany. Now there's a "what if" scenario!!!

 

[ljadw]

I've asked before what "losing the Battle of the Atlantic" actually means, and the chain of events that would enable it. I'm still awaiting a response.

Even at the height of the U-boat threat, Germany didn't have enough subs to strangle Britain. Seems like you're proposing a scenario where Germany has enough subs to cut the trans-Atlantic traffic from the US AND cut other supplies from the British Empire.

Please explain any scenario under which that was remotely possible.

More U boats did not result in more sinkings : the Germans had more U Boats in 1941 than in 1940 ,but the MV losses were lower .

 

[GrauGeist]

More U boats did not result in more sinkings : the Germans had more U Boats in 1941 than in 1940 ,but the MV losses were lower .

Shhhhhh...

Grownups are having a discussion .
If we want to hear from you, we'll let you know.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Responsible moderator mode: ON

Everyone take a deep breath. Relax. Debate responsibly.

 

[ljadw]

What tosh. Germany used synthetic fuel because they didn't have reliable access to enough fuel, so they made their own at exceptional cost both in financial terms and resources. One outcome was that they never had enough high octane fuel, the Luftwaffe couldn't use C4 fuel for all their missions simply because they couldn't get enough of it.
Note - this has been mentioned before

A small aside, after the battle for France they used captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel.

From forums-Ubisoft. com
High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
Post 3 :
Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
Post 4 :
A misconception about octane rating in fuel is that the higher the octane,the better an engine will run .


You are giving high octane fuel an importance it did not have .
The German fighters who following you used only low octane fuel,defeated the USAAF at Schweinfurt and BC at the air battle of Berlin .
Would the outcome of the Big Week be different if the Germans had used high octane fuel ?
Would the USAAF have suffered more non combat losses if it did not use high octane ? In the OTL,the USAAF lost 42000 aircraft from non combat causes and a very big part of the operational losses in Europe (which were 38000 aircraft ) were caused by the Flak . Would the Flak have shot more aircraft if these used low octane fuel ?
That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel .

 

[GrauGeist]

From forums-Ubisoft. com
High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
Post 3 :
Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
Post 4 :
A misconception about octane rating in fuel is that the higher the octane,the better an engine will run .


You are giving high octane fuel an importance it did not have .
The German fighters who following you used only low octane fuel,defeated the USAAF at Schweinfurt and BC at the air battle of Berlin .
Would the outcome of the Big Week be different if the Germans had used high octane fuel ?
Would the USAAF have suffered more non combat losses if it did not use high octane ? In the OTL,the USAAF lost 42000 aircraft from non combat causes and a very big part of the operational losses in Europe (which were 38000 aircraft ) were caused by the Flak . Would the Flak have shot more aircraft if these used low octane fuel ?
That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel .

This reply literally makes no sense.
If the RAF's fuel was 100 octane, it will not change when the Germans used it...it remains 100 octane.

Also, American engines were designed to operate on high octane fuel, the P-38 captured by the Italians was eventually grounded because they were operating it on low grade fuel, which destroyed the engines.

German aircraft typically used three grades of fuel, 87 octane being their base.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey ljadw,

re "That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel ."

The reason they used it was not because it was 100 octane fuel, but the fact that they could use it means that the Luftwaffe engines did not need synthetic fuel.

re ". . . (when ? ) . . ."

France, Tobruk, Crete, and others that I do not remember right now (sorry).

 

[ljadw]

This reply literally makes no sense.
If the RAF's fuel was 100 octane, it will not change when the Germans used it...it remains 100 octane.

Also, American engines were designed to operate on high octane fuel, the P-38 captured by the Italians was eventually grounded because they were operating it on low grade fuel, which destroyed the engines.

German aircraft typically used three grades of fuel, 87 octane being their base.

This reply literally makes no sense.
If the RAF's fuel was 100 octane, it will not change when the Germans used it...it remains 100 octane.

Also, American engines were designed to operate on high octane fuel, the P-38 captured by the Italians was eventually grounded because they were operating it on low grade fuel, which destroyed the engines.

German aircraft typically used three grades of fuel, 87 octane being their base.

The conclusion of post 3 was the conclusion of an US report after the war :
Technical report 145/45 :Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany .
And the poster also said that the use of 100 octane/87 octane as a proof that US fuel was ''better '' is very questionable,as US and Germany used different qualifications and that these numbers had thus different meanings : US used rich mix numbers, Germany lean mix numbers .

 

[pbehn]

And the poster also said that the use of 100 octane/87 octane as a proof that US fuel was ''better '' is very questionable,as US and Germany used different qualifications and that these numbers had thus different meanings : US used rich mix numbers, Germany lean mix numbers .

You cannot use other forums as a reference, otherwise RADAR playing no part in the BoB becomes a fact. "!00 Octane" is not fuel from USA, it is a rating for fuel, it wasnt owned in any way by the USA, and the British not only made it themselves in UK but imported it from many other places that were not in the USA.
Octane is a hydrocarbon and an alkane with the chemical formula C₈H₁₈,, the "Octane rating" is a scale based on equivalence to Octane in resisting pre ignition.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

From forums-Ubisoft. com

.

Are you really using a computer game forum as your reference?

 

[pbehn]

From forums-Ubisoft. com
High octane fuel in Britain in WW 2
Post 3 :
Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighters was quite similar to that being used by the allies .
Post 4 :
A misconception about octane rating in fuel is that the higher the octane,the better an engine will run .



Would the USAAF have suffered more non combat losses if it did not use high octane ? In the OTL,the USAAF lost 42000 aircraft from non combat causes and a very big part of the operational losses in Europe (which were 38000 aircraft ) were caused by the Flak . Would the Flak have shot more aircraft if these used low octane fuel ?
That the LW used (when ? ) captured stocks of RAF 100 octane fuel does not mean that the reason was that it was 100 octane fuel .

Yes, in fact a Merlin powered P-51 using 87 octane fuel would probably not get in the air with 2 x 100gal external tanks and its additional internal fuel tank. The Hurricane and Spitfire needed the higher boost and therefore higher octane fuel to compete with the Bf 109 because the Bf 109 had a bigger engine. The Hurricane would not be able to compete with a Bf109 on 87 octane in France or Battle of Britain. Higher boost pressure allow higher altitude so, higher octane fuel reduces flak losses too

 

[ljadw]

Are you really using a computer game forum as your reference?

Is the report : Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany reliable or not ? And, is its conclusion right or wrong ?

 

[pbehn]

Is the report : Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany reliable or not ? And, is its conclusion right or wrong ?

Your conclusion certainly is, look up the swept volume of the engines used by UK Germany and USA.

 

[ljadw]

The report (from the US Navy ) is very detailed and is available on the internet .
The report said that the German C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the 130 US grade gasoline .
Is this correct or not ?