p-80 V Me 262 (1 Viewer)

[Soren]

I'll gladly admit it if I am wrong though.

 

[AL Schlageter]

I have that book, which page ?

Look and you will find.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Reading "Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual" right now and according to it 70 were planned to be made but only 7 were completed when the project was cancelled.

But I'd be happy to read what you've got on the bird as it havent been a subject of study for me.

Sorry you are wrong. I will prove it to you as soon as I get home. I will give you werk numbers and all.

Hmm.. changed your post to a more patronising one I see Adler....

What do you recognize your tactic?

I'll gladly admit it if I am wrong though.

Well you arem, so admit it...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know exactly how you are confusing yourself now.

After 7 production Bf 109Ts were built the carrier project was canceled and there remaining aprox 63 to 64 (I will give you exact numbers at home) were built without carrier equipment (ie arrester hook and some other equipment) but still retained the larger wingspan and folding wings.

They were however Bf 109Ts Soren and that is a fact! There is even a surviving one from Trondheim in a musuem.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Adler, since I edited my post to add

Why were 46 109Ts parked on Pillau airfield on March 29 1943 if only 7 were built?,

how does Soren explain these 109Ts?

Radinger Schick back up you production numbers for the 109T with delivery per month.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is becaues they were built AL.

They were used by I/77 JG in Norway. The main base was at Trondheim I believe.

Just because they were not used off of Carriers does not mean they were not built.

 

[Soren]

What do you recognize your tactic?

Forgive me for not finding that funny.

Well you arem, so admit it...

Not according to the book I'm reading - History concerned we unfortunately only know about what we read about. Hence why I find your patronising tone inappropiate.

Please direct me to a post of mine which is patronising wihtout reason though.

 

[Juha]

Soren, I have been trying to ignore all that Überdeutch deluge, but Germans copied Schnorkel from Dutch. And if their U-boat targeting systems were so superior, why KM's instructions to U-boat captains stressed so much the need to get close to targets. The main theme was "Get closer". That said their early wartime boats were very good and very late Type XXIII was very difficult to spot but wartime experience showed that after their first attack Allied counter-measures usually were able to find and destroy them. The bigger Type XXI just missed the war, so how well they would have worked is unknown but they were base for post-war submarines. But one must remember that already during WWI British did have had R-Class hunter-killer subs with very fast underwater speed, but they were ahead their time and had control problems at high underwater speed. Also Japanese Type 71 sub preceded German high-speed U-boats.

On battleships You forgot the H-class studies which went to ridiculous proportions, first to 120000tons and then to 150000 tons. And pocket battleships were a dead-end and didn't leave up expectations as shown at La Plata. Even Germans saw that before war and so cancelled last 3 and build 2 Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers instead. On ships German produced very good subs, MTBs, minesweepers and motorminesweepers but otherwise their ships were not very special and some types were below par. Heavy cruisers were good if compared to the treaty cruisers of other navies but being almost 40% over the treaty limits that's not very surprising and their engines were unreliable. IMHO same sized but later Baltimore-class cruisers were clearly better and even clearly smaller and contemporary French Algerie was probably as good as German heavy cruisers or even better and was at least better protected with same armament.

On torpedoes, also Allied had acoustic torpedoes, at least Mk 24 FIDO, first success on 12 May 1943 when a British Liberator sank U-456, so it predated the earliest German T5 Zaunköning success by 4 months.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Forgive me for not finding that funny.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Go back and read many of your posts in any thread...

Not according to the book I'm reading - History concerned we unfortunately only know about what we read about. Hence why I find your patronising tone inappropiate.

The book you are reading is wrong. I will give your werk number later but then ofcourse you still wont believe it. Every person in the world could tell you otherwise and you wont believe it.

Please direct me to a post of mine which is patronising wihtout reason though.

Go and read many of your posts yourself.

 

[drgondog]

Soren, I have been trying to ignore all that Überdeutch deluge, but Germans copied Schnorkel from Dutch. And if their U-boat targeting systems were so superior, why KM's instructions to U-boat captains stressed so much the need to get close to targets. The main theme was "Get closer". That said their early wartime boats were very good and very late Type XXIII was very difficult to spot but wartime experience showed that after their first attack Allied counter-measures usually were able to find and destroy them.

Excellent points Juha... as I recall three of the 7 lost in ops were to RAF

The bigger Type XXI just missed the war, so how well they would have worked is unknown but they were base for post-war submarines. But one must remember that already during WWI British did have had R-Class hunter-killer subs with very fast underwater speed, but they were ahead their time and had control problems at high underwater speed. Also Japanese Type 71 sub preceded German high-speed U-boats.

Having said this I would not argur that the Type XXI was the most innovative submarine of WWII and certainly influenced subsequent French, Brit, Sov and US boats post war

On battleships You forgot the H-class studies which went to ridiculous proportions, first to 120000tons and then to 150000 tons. And pocket battleships were a dead-end and didn't leave up expectations as shown at La Plata. Even Germans saw that before war and so cancelled last 3 and build 2 Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers instead. On ships German produced very good subs, MTBs, minesweepers and motorminesweepers but otherwise their ships were not very special and some types were below par. Heavy cruisers were good if compared to the treaty cruisers of other navies but being almost 40% over the treaty limits that's not very surprising and their engines were unreliable. IMHO same sized but later Baltimore-class cruisers were clearly better and even clearly smaller and contemporary French Algerie was probably as good as German heavy cruisers or even better and was at least better protected with same armament.

And the Alaska class with 9 x12", 12 x 5" plus 56 x 40mm/34 x 20mm at 27,000 tons and 31kts/9" skirt armor as contrasted with the Graf Spee's 6 x 11", 8 x 5.9" and 6x 4.2 plus 8 x 37mm and 10 x20 mm at 12,100 tons and 28kts/4" skirt armor illustrates the differences in a specialized Cruiser from US that had far more firepower than a Baltimore

On torpedoes, also Allied had acoustic torpedoes, at least Mk 24 FIDO, first success on 12 May 1943 when a British Liberator sank U-456, so it predated the earliest German T5 Zaunköning success by 4 months.

The Japanes Long Lance was also an extremely well designed and lethal torpedo better than anything the US had until near the end of the war.

What started this "mine is better than yours" silliness is Soren's statement that German Engineering was better than all the Allies combined... so it is important to reflect that the US pursued applied Physics and Engineering to its highest priorities, GB and USSR ditto, Germany ditto and Japan ditto.

The Long Lance for Japan is classic - they were held to 53 ratio for capital ships and pursued a force multiplier to leverage the lethality of their fewer and in most cases smaller (Yamato Class excluded) ships. We (US) on other hand largely ignored the potential of the torpedo in long range sea engagements and entered the war with one hand tied behind the backs of our Submariners (and Cruisers).

The Germans were denied surface fleet development so they emphasized the U-Boat and probably had the better edge throughout the war in context of crush depth and evasion - simply because we had the countermeasures in destryers and airpower and gained upper hand in sonar. Our boats were single hull, fast and long range and did extremely well against a very capable navy with much the same assets for anti sub as we did early in war. The Brits had excellent subs - more along the line of US Balao clas fleet boats operating same docrine.

The Germans never developed a satisfactory doctrine and capability for long range strategic bombing and never extended escort fighter capability beyond the Me110 until the Ta152 was designed as an interceptor with longer range capabilities.. so the PRIORITY for Germany became interceptor and required force multiplier to offset both our (Allied) conventional high performance and forthcoming (B-29) capability operating at high speeds and altitudes. Voila - very good Engineers focused on problem and the Me 262 plus excellent jet engines arrived before Allies.

The Ta152 was arguably the best conventional single engine fighter ever produced and engaged in combat ops, was arguably Not a better fighter than possible produceable fighters like a XP-51G, or XP-72 - but the latter were not deemed required.

Simply stated the Germans were leading edge in transonic aerodynamics, jet propulsion and rocket technology plus U-Boat and Tanks. Unknown to Allies they also developed lethal nerve agents. Not because they were smarter but because they put their best and brightest on the key problems to be solved for them.

They had the lead in synthetic fuels and battery technology

They had zero lead in conventional aerodynamics, reciprocating engines, and other conventional airframe technologies.

They were behind in theoretical and applied physics which drove the electronic (sonar, radar, computing, nav aids), nuclear advances on our side.

They NEVER had the manufacturing and logistics capabilities we had

Our (Allied) priorities were extinction of Japan and Germany's ability to fight and produce effectively and defeat both. Heavy bombers, long range fighters, tactical airpower, transportation capacity, mobile forces, sea/air/land assault, naval forces, nuclear weapons - and the manufacturing methods to convert assets to weapons.

All of our best and brightest were focused on providing incremental improvements in our technologies to achieve our strategic aims.

Nuclear was truly the one true quantum leap in technology in WWII. Jet and rocket propulsion was next but was not the difference maker and while the Germans held a lead in that aspect of aviation technology it truly was irrelevant.

 

[drgondog]

i just deleted this duplicate

 

[Soren]

I will believe it Adler, but like I said Adler I can't be blamed of not knowing before hand if the books tell me otherwise now can I ? So please quit the patronising tone, esp. cause you're moderator.

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

You failed to note that the XP-72 was a prototype a/c, an during its speed trials it wasn't packed with ammunition. By contrast the combat ready Ta-152H-1 reached 500 + mph at altitude and climb rate was in excess of 5,000 ft/min reaching 32,808 ft in just 10.1min. The Dora-13 topped at 480 mph at VH.

Oh, I'm sorry Soren. Next time I will state that the "X" in the XP designation for US denotes 'Experimental" - you may be the only guy on this forum that does not know that!

Having cleared that up, I used the X(Experimental)P-72 as an illustration versus the Ta152H V1 because the X(Experimental)P72 was the first of a 100 ship production order - just like the Ta 152H V1. What this means Soren is that production tooling was part of the order and inplace to produce the next 99 ships for the USAAF.

I purposely did not use the X(Experimental)P-47J as the illustrated example for two reasons - 1.) it did not represent 'new design' so much as evolutionary modifications over old design, and 2.) it did not have the growth in performance promised by the X(Experimental)P-72 which was a much better aerodynamics, lighter and more power.

But, as Kitty noted earlier it (XP47J) was faster than any German conventional a/c produced during the war and it first flew more than a year before the Ta152H and 8 months (?) before first experimental Fw190D

I did use the the X(Experimental)P-51G because that was 1.) the peak of the P-51 series in performance, 2.) it was superior to the Ta 152 in climb, top speed, had a roll rate of 90 degrees in 1.6 sec at 300 and 2.0 at 400mph. It's ceiling was 46,000 w/o pressurization and it was the same airframe/tooling as the 51F which was same as P-51H. The X(Experimental)P-51F first flew in Feb 1944 and was only slightly less able than the H or G.

All of these flew before the Ta152H V1 - all were in a more advanced stage of development in context of reliable engines and systems

Still the XP-72 was an impressive a/c no doubt about it, and like the Ta-152 it was pushing the performance limit of piston engined fighters.

I believe that was the point I was making earlier?

That having been said the Germans were by mid 1944 to 1945 more interested in Jets, which was one of the reasons the Ta-152 didn't recieve the engine most desired for it.

Tank wanted the DB603 as I recall - what did that have to do with jet program?

The Germans weren't going to be bothered with wasting funds on any piston engined fighter by mid 1944 as they had already topped 900 km/h with their first operational Jet by then and were aiming to reach 1,000 + km/h with their next designs.

They of course were so disinterested that they didn't rush the Ta152H into production with less than 50 hours of test?

The Jet engine the way forward and that had been fully recognized by the German engineers since the first flights of the Me-262, and by some even since 1939 after the very successful flights of the He-178.

Which of course is why they suspended wasting of funds on conventional engines and airframes?? But no question regarding recognition and priorities. Even though Whittle had the first patent in 1932 and first working prototype 5 months before Heinkel, the Germans recognized the potential and applied resources. Ditto Goddard and his first liquid fueled rockets in 1929?

The He-162 was the fastest German jet to make it into service at 890 km/h at SL and 905 km/h at VH.

Awhile back when I posted the contract to flight times of the X(Experimental)P51 and 80 in the 4 month cycle you posed that was not a problem for German design teams - which programs did you have in mind that were remotely comparable? I agree the He 162 was fast but it isn't good engineering when the second take off of the prototype isn't matched with a landing and a surviving pilot.. and the next flight restricts speed to 1/2 design because of stab/aug issues.

But if that is the example of good German Engineering you want to use, I can accept that.

Also you just stated that the Ta152H attained 500+mph with a combat load. Where might you direct me to verify that claim? I have seen 480mph cited as a top speed but don't even have a notation for load on that figure. The P-51H did 487mph with no stores (or rack) but only 466mph with combat load of fuel and ammo.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will believe it Adler, but like I said Adler I can't be blamed of not knowing before hand if the books tell me otherwise now can I ? So please quit the patronising tone, esp. cause you're moderator.

This has nothing to do with me being a Moderator or not. You specifically said that there were no Bf 109Ts in service. We have given you proof and you keep saying that we are wrong and there were only 7 built before it was canceled. You chose to argue the situation we have proven wrong.

I give you a taste of your own medicine on how people percieve your posts and you cant handle it. Maybe you will try to get your point across differently from now on and the debates might be a bit healthier.

Now as stated here is the proof that I give to you about the Bf 109T. Afterwards I would like for you to say "I stand corrected." Then I will consider it a closed issue.

The book I was telling you about:

Sea Eagles The Messerschmitt Bf 109T by Francis L. Marschall
ISBN: 1 871187 23 0

The book is full of information and is completely dedicated to the Bf 109T. Yout should get the book. It is very interesting and informative. It covers teh development, the units, the pilots and even has mission logs from JG 77 in it.

Now before you say that the information might not be correct the book was researched and written with the help of JG 77 pilots who flew the Bf 109T. Infact it lists 26 pilots how helped with writing the book on page 5. The Preface was also written by:

Rudolf R. Gloeckner
Former Staffelkapitiaen of I./JG 77 and III./JG 5

Mr. Gloeckner who flew the Bf 109T has stated on page 11 that this is the most historical and correct piece of work on the Bf 109T and debunks several myths about it.

Here are some quotes from the book:

"Several myths have grown up about the production of the Bf 109T and these should be dispelled by the facts.

First references have been made to 10 Bf 109T-0s covnerted from Bf 109E-3s. Although it was at one stage intended to do this, the plans were changed and as a result there was no such version. The true Carrier version was the Bf 109T-1, while the land based version was the Bf 109T-2. There is much confusion between these, not surprisingly in view of the facts. Of the 70 Bf 109Ts produced seven were initially retained as Bf 109T-1 versions for test purposes, the rest completed as Bf 109T-2s. However when the type was withdrawn at the end of 1941 all the survivors were converted to Bf 109T-1 standard. Then starting in early 1943, all the aircraft were re-converted to Bf 109T-2 standard and issued to land based units again, leaving only one or two fitted with carrier equipment.

The distinction between the types is not as clear cut as one may think, since although the arrester hook was removed from the T-2 aircraft, many other fittings simply remained in place. The wing spoilers for example were deactivated but remained a part of the wing."

And now the Werknummer of each aircraft. Also included are the Stammkennzeichen and Unit. If you would like I can also give you the fate of each aircraft and the pilots that flew them as well:

7728 RB+OA E-Stelle
7729 RB+OB E-Stelle and NJG 101
7730 RB+OC E-Stelle and Jasta Helgoland
7731 RB+OC E-Stelle
7732 RB+OD E-Stelle
7733 RB+OF Messerschmitt Augsburg
7734 RB+OG E-Stelle and Jasta Helgoland
7735 RB+OH JG 77, NJG 101 and Jasta Helgoland
7736 RB+OI JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7737 RB+OJ JG 77
7738 RB+OK JG 77
7739 RB+OL JG 77 and Blindflugschule 10
7740 RB+OM JG 77
7741 RB+ON JG 77
7742 RB+OO JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7743 RB+OP JG 77 and NJG 101
7744 RB+OQ JG 77
7745 RB+OR JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7746 RB+OS JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7747 RB+OT JG 77
7748 RB+OU JG 77
7749 RB+OV JG 77
7750 RB+OW JG 77
7751 RB+OX JG 77
7752 RB+OY JG 77
7753 RB+OZ JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7754 UNK JG 77 and NJG 101
7755 UNK JG 77
7756 UNK JG 77
7757 UNK JG 77 and 11.JG 11
7758 UNK JG 77 and NJG 101
7759 UNK JG 77
7760 UNK JG 77
7761 UNK JG 77
7762 UNK JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7763 KD+QA JG 77
7764 KD+QB JG 77
7765 KD+QC JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7766 KD+QD JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7767 KD+QE JG 77, NJG 101, and 11./JG 11
7768 KD+QF JG 77
7769 KD+QG JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7770 KD+QH JG 77 and NJG 101
7771 KD+QI JG 77
7772 KD+QJ JG 77 and Jasta Helgoland
7773 KD+QK JG 77
7774 KD+QL Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7775 KD+QM JG 77
7776 KD+QN Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7777 KD+QO JG 77
7778 KD+QP Jagdgruppe Drontheim and NJG 101
7779 KD+QQ Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7780 KD+QR JG 77
7781 KD+QS JG 77
7782 KD+QT JG 77
7783 KD+QU JG 77 and NJG 101
7784 KD+QV Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7785 KD+QW Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7786 KD+QX Jagdgruppe Drontheim and NJG 101
7787 KD+QY Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7788 KD+QZ Jagdgruppe Drontheim, JG 77, Messerschmitt Augsburg and E-Stelle
7789 UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim
7790 UNK JG 77
7791 UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim, Jasta Helgoland and NAG 101
7792 UNK JG 77
7793 UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim and 11./JG 11
7794 UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim and JG 101
7795 UNK JG 77
7796 UNK Jagdgruppe Drontheim, Jasta Helgoland, and 11./JG 11
7797 Jagdgruppe Drontheim

 

[kool kitty89]

I am going to have to disagree with you, but that is for another discussion. We have gone over it many times here.

Which parts? The historical (at most 90% based on or around hisorical events) not the best for realism though. Or the realitive performance? (of course I meant w/out "upgrades", though admittedly even the realitive performance wasn't too accurate maby 90%) How much did they consult Planes of Fame. (what do the museum historians think about it now...)

 

[Soren]

I stand corrected about the 109T Adler, and I have no problem with it as I know nothing other than what I read or hear when its from before my time, and that goes for most of the people on this forum. Also the 109T, like I said, hasn't been subject of my study really. So can I be blamed for not knowing ? Sure sounds like you think so.

And I'd like an example of where I accused people of downright lying without proof at all, cause thats what you accused me of when you claimed I wouldn't admit I was wrong. The reason I need this is because I suspect some of you guys are just waiting for the smallest mistake I make to quickly jump in and say I am SO VERY WRONG because you don't agree with everything I write - Am I correct in my suspicion ?

KoolKitty Delcyros are pretty much the only ones who has kept it civil so far, eventhough they have disagreed on some points.

Anyways...

AL, you're not getting away that easy, what page ? Can't take you more than 1 min to find since you obviously must have looked it up already. Thats all I'm asking.

Bill, I'll respond to your post soon, in the mean time I have work to do.

 

[Soren]

Btw, as to why U-boats prefered and were adviced to get close to their targets:

That made it harder for the destroyers to detect and attack them, esp. during attacks on convoys where the U-boats would often hide within the convoy itself, motionless waiting for the convoy to sail straight passed them. Another very obvious reason was that IF the U-boat was detected and the target was given notice of it, then the target simply wouldn't have time or room enough to alter course significantly enough to avoid impact.

A merchant heading a continious straight course could be engaged with pinpoint accuracy at very long distances. Destroyers were too fast and their course unpredictable and they therefore always had to be engaged at as close a range as possible

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I stand corrected about the 109T Adler, and I have no problem with it as I know nothing other than what I read or hear when its from before my time, and that goes for most of the people on this forum. Also the 109T, like I said, hasn't been subject of my study really.

You really should get the book that I posted. It really is good. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys reading about the Bf 109.

So can I be blamed for not knowing ? Sure sounds like you think so.

For not knowing? No...

...I just recommend being more open minded. None of us know everything and we learn something knew every day.

And I'd like an example of where I accused people of downright lying without proof at all, cause thats what you accused me of when you claimed I wouldn't admit I was wrong.

No actually I never accused you of lying at all. That was not what I said. Do not put words in my mouth!

You said my post was patronizing and I said I am only using your technique. No where did I say you were lying. Again dont put words in my mouth. That does piss me off!

The reason I need this is because I suspect some of you guys are just waiting for the smallest mistake I make to quickly jump in and say I am SO VERY WRONG because you don't agree with everything I write - Am I correct in my suspicion ?

Actually no you are wrong in your suspician again. Debating something is fun. However as soon as someone disagrees with you, you start patronizing as you accused me of. People in turn patronize you and then you get all But Hurt about it.

Also you allways demand proof but many times you dont provide any. You provide something that you have read but you dont list source or anything like that.

KoolKitty Delcyros are pretty much the only ones who has kept it civil so far, eventhough they have disagreed on some points.

Oh believe me I have kept this very civil. I have used no insulting words to you what so ever at all. I have gone about this the way you do in almost every topic where someone disagrees with you.

Please Soren, I Dare you to go back and read your posts in many of these threads and then you might understand why people act the way they they do when they are debating with you.

 

[Juha]

Soren
no, accoding to Richard Compton-Hall's The Underwater War 1939-1945 (1982) p.59 German Commanding Officers' Handbook repeatedly stated the importance of getting nearer "... serious miscalculations may occur by night, therefore go in as close as possible...Therefore, keep your nerve and do not fire too soon...distance is easily underestimated...one is always further away than one thinks, particularly at night. Stick it out and go nearer..."

 

[delcyros]

That said their early wartime boats were very good and very late Type XXIII was very difficult to spot but wartime experience showed that after their first attack Allied counter-measures usually were able to find and destroy them. The bigger Type XXI just missed the war, so how well they would have worked is unknown but they were base for post-war submarines. But one must remember that already during WWI British did have had R-Class hunter-killer subs with very fast underwater speed, but they were ahead their time and had control problems at high underwater speed. Also Japanese Type 71 sub preceded German high-speed U-boats.

And pocket battleships were a dead-end and didn't leave up expectations as shown at La Plata. Even Germans saw that before war and so cancelled last 3 and build 2 Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers instead. On ships German produced very good subs, MTBs, minesweepers and motorminesweepers but otherwise their ships were not very special and some types were below par. Heavy cruisers were good if compared to the treaty cruisers of other navies but being almost 40% over the treaty limits that's not very surprising and their engines were unreliable. IMHO same sized but later Baltimore-class cruisers were clearly better and even clearly smaller and contemporary French Algerie was probably as good as German heavy cruisers or even better and was at least better protected with same armament.

On torpedoes, also Allied had acoustic torpedoes, at least Mk 24 FIDO, first success on 12 May 1943 when a British Liberator sank U-456, so it predated the earliest German T5 Zaunköning success by 4 months.

Juha, sorry if I join this aspect of the discussion but some of Your points are not correct, others are arguable, but nethertheless cannot be made with such an athoritative statement.

A) Type XXIII- couldn´t be chased with conventional ASW. It was to silent for beeing detected and to fast for ASDIC (above ca. 8 kts wave interferences reduce ASDIC performances over proportionally). All type XXIII-related losses are either accidents, scuttlings or sunk bombers. Out of 16 recorded engagements, the type XXIII could always disengage.
B) Type XXI claimed two B-24 destroyed. Several were sunk by bombers, more by scuttles. Three type XXI boats were enroute to combat patrol, with two of the boats engaging british task forces post VE-day without beeing detected in mock attacks. To compare the vintage R-type or the japanese sub with this boat is not justified. The crushing depth, the electronic outfit and LuT -torpedoes along with the improved TVb acoustic homing torpedoes represent a substantial advancement in submarine warfare.
C) Pocket BB´s were heavy cruisers per difinition. And they were the most successful cruiser sized ships of ww2 if You compare the tonnage laid down with the tonnage sunk. the PBB Admiral Scheer sunk more than 10 times it´s own tonnage in the course of war and had the highest war record of all warships during ww2. These small ships gave oustanding returns, no doubt.
D) I am no fan of the Hipper class CA, either. The Baltimores are potentially good to fight them, but they are not "clearly better". they are arguably better. the Hipper Prinz Eugen always did very well in gunfights with other cruisers and unlike the Baltimores, the Hippers showed good long range gunnery, despite less effective (by then) radar FC. A lot depends on training and crew skills. The ALgerie deserve beeing mentioned as one of the most beuatiful cruisers but french produced ammunition was faulty at least twice and hit rates of these cruisers were mediocre at best.
E) the Fido is no torpedo. It is referred to as an acoustic homing mine. The Fido can only be used against VERY SLOW targets at VERY CLOSE DISTANCE. The TVb was a true homing torpedoe, which could be used agianst a multitude of targets at normal distance.

However, I certainly agree that the Long Lance was the best torpedoe of ww2, and the USN the best Navy at all. -