The reports are what they are, the problem, as ever, is the conclusions you draw from them, which are sweeping supposedly universal truths extrapolated from a small factoid that ignores absolutely everything else.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The reports are what they are, the problem, as ever, is the conclusions you draw from them, which are sweeping supposedly universal truths extrapolated from a small factoid that ignores absolutely everything else.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 ?
It is and it isn't.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 ?
We all know one prolific poster on the Ubisoft site who will convince people that the RAF didn't use 100 octane in the BOB, so take care when quoting from that site.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 .
The German fighters ,using low octane fuel,defeated allied bombers , and, as that was their main mission ( the fate of allied fighters was secondary ,as was the fate of German fighters in 1940/1941 ), is the correct conclusion not that the use of high octane fuel was not a force multiplier,not a game changer, and that the LW would also be defeated if it had used high octane fuel ?
After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.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.
See post 1506 .Shhhhhh...
Grownups are having a discussion .
If we want to hear from you, we'll let you know.
We have seen it, give us a moment, we're still laughing.See post 1506 .
After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
In 1941 there were mostly more than 40 operational U Boats and the losses were 2,2 million GRT .
It is the same for bombers : more bombers does not mean that more bombs were dropped on the targets .
Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but the Kreigsmarine had far more than 20 operational U-Boats in 1940 and so on.In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
In 1941 there were mostly more than 40 operational U Boats and the losses were 2,2 million GRT .
I certainly agree that this is only my opinion, but here is my stab at a definition.After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
In 1941 there were mostly more than 40 operational U Boats and the losses were 2,2 million GRT .
It is the same for bombers : more bombers does not mean that more bombs were dropped on the targets .
The battle of the Atlantic would be lost if it forced the UK to give up due to fuel and material and food shortages, Churchill faced two confidence motions in 1942 and the battle of the Atlantic was part of the debate Churchill said on July 2nd "At the same time, in spite of our losses in Asia, in spite of our defeats in Libya, in spite of the increased sinkings off the American coast, I affirm with confidence that the general strength and prospects of the United Nations have greatly improved since the turn of the year, when I last visited the President in the United States."After 80 years, a lot of people are still talking about the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic, but no one has been able to say what was the loss of the ''Battle ''of the Atlantic and when, how this ''Battle '' would be lost : would he be lost if 50 % of the supplies that were transported,were lost ? Or 60 % ,or 40 % ? Etc.
And,it is questionable to say that the election of Lindbergh would result in the loss of the ''Battle '' of the Atlantic : his election could mean that there was no longer a ''Battle " of the Atlantic .
Much to importance is still been given to the role of the U Boats and the losses by U Boats .
In 1940 there were less than 20 operational U Boats and 2,3 million ton of MV was lost .
In 1941 there were mostly more than 40 operational U Boats and the losses were 2,2 million GRT .
It is the same for bombers : more bombers does not mean that more bombs were dropped on the targets .
14 million ton lost in more than 5 years is a lot , but compared to what arrived in Britain and to the importance of what arrived in Britain, it was not that much .Much more than 14 million ton arrived in Britain during the war .Not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but the Kreigsmarine had far more than 20 operational U-Boats in 1940 and so on.
You may be misreading their operational status, which showed about 40 at sea when WWII staryed on 1 September 1939.
There was a slight lull by Christmas '39 where most boats were in port, but their numbers (put to sea) started increasing during winter/spring of '40, reaching about 35 at sea by April.
Then by Spring of 1941, their numbers at sea did not drop under 40 deployed until 29 April 1945.
It should also be noted that the U-Boat numbers deployed at sea do not include the Coastal type U-Boats, as they were not sea-going.
As far as tonnage is concerned, the U-Boats accounted for:
1939 (Sept - Dec): 0.6 million tons
1940: 2.3 million tons
1941: 2.2 million tons
1942: 5.8 million tons
1943: 2.3 million tons
1944: 0.6 million tons
1945 (Jan - Apr) 0.2 million tons
This totals 14 million tons.
That is a tremendous amount of valuable shipping lost.
To put tonnage in perspective, the IJN Yamato, one of the world's largest warships, weighed 71,660 tons (fully loaded, battle ready).
That's a.considerable amount of food, clothing, vehicles, ammunition, fuel, aircraft, raw materials and humans that were lost...
You forget "CHANCE 'The battle of the Atlantic would be lost if it forced the UK to give up due to fuel and material and food shortages, Churchill faced two confidence motions in 1942 and the battle of the Atlantic was part of the debate Churchill said on July 2nd "At the same time, in spite of our losses in Asia, in spite of our defeats in Libya, in spite of the increased sinkings off the American coast, I affirm with confidence that the general strength and prospects of the United Nations have greatly improved since the turn of the year, when I last visited the President in the United States."
I have never seen any discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic that only mentioned U Boat numbers and U boat sinkings, have you? All the discussion I have read involved many topics, like u boat numbers, u boat production, allied action to prevent U boat production and to sink u boats. There is code breaking, the entry of USA in the war, closing the "Atlantic gap" centimetric RADAR, advances in SONAR, hedgehog and other devices and counter devices like schnorkel and Metox receivers. Then there were the surface raiders and actions against surface raiders. The only thing that is the same for bombers is that you want to boil everything down to a statement of a few words to cover everything. Here is Wiki, a place to start Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia
If I put 14 million tons of goods and 3,500 ships in your back yard how long will it take for you to clear it up? What is the "code breaking trap" another one of your madcap fact free revelations?You forget "CHANCE '
Most convoys were not attacked because they were not detected and most convoys who were detected,were detected by chance .
And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap .
Other point : do you have an idea of how much fuel,material an d food Britain needed and how much of it was transported by sea,was arriving in Britain, and why ?
The transport losses had only a minor importance in what arrived in Britain : what arrived in Britain was mainly determined by the amount of goods that was going to Britain and on this,the U Boats had no influence at all .
Building ships faster was another technological challenge, development of SAW welding and solving the problems of brittle fracture was part of the "arms race" the place that did my examinations the British welding institute grew out of that on this side of the Atlantic while the Battelle institute in USA did the same.Some people believed that the Battle of the Atlantic could be lost if the Germans could sink more shipping (tonnage) than the allies could replace. If the Germans could consistently do this the Britain, if it did not starve, could not be used as a forward base/jumping off point. The amount of cargo moved would decline over time. There already was a world wide shipping shortage and sometimes operations in the Pacific had to planned around operations in the Med or Europe as there was not enough shipping to supply both at the same time.
The Germans did achieve this level for two months I believe, But for various reasons could not keep it up. however without a Crystal ball there was no way to predict the future and the allocation of resources to fight the U-Boats had to be made accordingly. If you are loosing ships faster than you can build them you can't wave a and and say, this is just a passing exception. If we ignore it everything will return to normal.
Building ships faster than your opponent can sink them might be OK in the strategic sense but that tis an awful lot of cargo and an awful lot of sailors lost in the "tactical" view.
I certainly agree that this is only my opinion, but here is my stab at a definition.
The Battle of the Atlantic would be lost if the UK were not able to import sufficient material to feed the nation and supply the raw materials to build equipment to support the war effort.
Many (not "most) convoys made it through intact becaise the Atlantic is a large place.You forget "CHANCE '
Most convoys were not attacked because they were not detected and most convoys who were detected,were detected by chance .
And, I see that you are falling in the code breaking trap .
Other point : do you have an idea of how much fuel,material an d food Britain needed and how much of it was transported by sea,was arriving in Britain, and why ?
The transport losses had only a minor importance in what arrived in Britain : what arrived in Britain was mainly determined by the amount of goods that was going to Britain and on this,the U Boats had no influence at all .