Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The 2 bladed propellers were out of service in Sept of 1939 (unless in an OTU?) . Granted the 2 pitch props were a bit lacking but the Hurricane I was actually pretty hot stuff in Sept 1939.
Streamlining the German air force ?
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Definition of benchmark:
1a: something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged a stock whose performance is a benchmark against which other stocks can be measured
b: a point of reference from which measurements may be made
c: a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)
2usually bench mark : a mark on a permanent object (such as a concrete post set into the ground) indicating elevation and serving as a reference in topographic surveys and tidal observations
www.merriam-webster.com
Nothing in the definition mentions being a benchmark being the lowest measure.
It is entirely possible for a Spitfire or a P-51 to be a benchmark by the standard English definition of the word. A benchmark, by the standard definition, is only a comparison-point.
I'd argue that that the Hurri could be a benchmark throughout the war, albeit that its ranking slipped and while near the top at the beginning of the war was near the rear by the end -- as would be expected.
1a: something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged a stock whose performance is a benchmark against which other stocks can be measured
b: a point of reference from which measurements may be made
c: a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)
2usually bench mark : a mark on a permanent object (such as a concrete post set into the ground) indicating elevation and serving as a reference in topographic surveys and tidal observations
Definition of BENCHMARK
something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged; a point of reference from which measurements may be made; a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)… See the full definition
Nothing in the definition mentions being a benchmark being the lowest measure.
It is entirely possible for a Spitfire or a P-51 to be a benchmark by the standard English definition of the word. A benchmark, by the standard definition, is only a comparison-point.
I'd argue that that the Hurri could be a benchmark throughout the war, albeit that its ranking slipped and while near the top at the beginning of the war was near the rear by the end -- as would be expected.
Definition of benchmark:
1a: something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged a stock whose performance is a benchmark against which other stocks can be measured
b: a point of reference from which measurements may be made
c: a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)
2usually bench mark : a mark on a permanent object (such as a concrete post set into the ground) indicating elevation and serving as a reference in topographic surveys and tidal observations
Definition of BENCHMARK
something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged; a point of reference from which measurements may be made; a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison (as of computer system performance)… See the full definition
Nothing in the definition mentions being a benchmark being the lowest measure.
It is entirely possible for a Spitfire or a P-51 to be a benchmark by the standard English definition of the word. A benchmark, by the standard definition, is only a comparison-point.
I'd argue that that the Hurri could be a benchmark throughout the war, albeit that its ranking slipped and while near the top at the beginning of the war was near the rear by the end -- as would be expected.
Yes it does, your point 1b a point of reference from which measurements may be made. Try measuring things when your point of reference is in the middle, all your measurements are plus or minus unless you disregard the benchmark and use ISO units. And your point 2 it would be normal to set a Tidal "benchmark" at a high or low tide, how else would you know where it is?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Aside from the fact that NOBODY used canvas on aircraft (despite many disparaging remarks), canvas used on things like
or tents.
The fastest Airplane that I know of that used fabric covering (not canvas) on a wing or fuselage (not control surface) was the F4U-4 Corsair.
Corsair did not get all metal wings until the F4U-5 version.
Admiral Beez
Major
Put three hundred Hurricanes, their BoB-experienced pilots, along with spares and properly protected and supported airfields into Malaya in spring 1941 and the IJAF will have a challenge.
Hoo boy, what's this thread about again? 
Germany had by far and away the most advanced and future proofed air force in 1939/1940 bar none. It had one of the world's most modern fighters with the best performance in service, it had a strong and numerous bomber force equipped with modern up-to-date bomber types with good warloads and performance, some of these bombers were equipped with nav/bombing aids that took the rest of the world at least two years to incorporate into their bombers, thus making the Kampfgeschwader potentially the most accurate bombing force in the world, it had a large structure built around intelligence gathering and support, such as coastal and weather reconnaissance, tactical and strategic photographic reconnaissance elements, it had good, well trained pilots and ground crew. Its tactics were honed on the crucible of the Spanish Civil War, and it had sound military doctrine with concepts far beyond those being taught to other air forces around the world. Any air force attempting to match the Luftwaffe in this time period had better be good.
Materially, the only air force in Europe and most likely the world that could match the Luftwaffe in terms of modernity was the RAF, but even then, in many comparative aspects, the RAF falls short, especially tactically and strategically. Where the British have their strengths however, is Britain itself (and her friends, of course), and the Germans learned that the hard way.
Where the Luftwaffe falls short is follow-up. Its initial first strike campaigns and actions were groundbreaking, but sustaining it all proved virtually impossible for Germany. The Battle of Britain wrought enormous losses and took the best that the Luftwaffe had to offer and pushed it to breaking point. The Luftwaffe lost so much against Britain materially, tactically and strategically. It lost a vast number of aircraft and aircrew and its industries struggled to follow through with timely attrition replacements of equipment and personnel - Britain completely outproduced the German war machine to end the Battle of Britain with more fighters than it had begun the battle with. Not only had it replaced the fighters it had lost, but it had built even more on top of that number - the same could not be said for the Luftwaffe.
Even its subsequent night bombing campaign against Britain over the next year/s couldn't be sustained without suffering enormous losses. At the time it needed replacement for those prewar bombers, it dropped the ball. Its major strategic bomber and medium bomber replacement projects were far too ambitious and promised far more than what the industry could deliver - no follow through. The Luftwaffe soldiered on through WW2 with the outdated, quirky and underperforming by 1945 He 111 still at the frontline. Sure, there are jets, rockets and missiles and other advanced technologies, but if there's anything that Germany's defeat teaches us it's that the Germans didn't get the basics right. Training, what to do with intelligence, industry geared for war, long term strategies and tactics to sustain the war effort. The hardest part about being the best is not getting to become Number One, it's staying there.
Changes of tactics and strategy by the Allies proved that the Luftwaffe (and the Germans) were running out of ideas. The blitzkrieg tactics that worked so well in 1940 were eventually ground down through attrition and underestimation of the staying power of her enemies. This happened in North Africa and most notably in Russia. No follow through.
In hindsight its easy to map out what we think the Luftwaffe needed, but in 1939/1940 it couldn't have been more prepared for war, even though experts assure us it wasn't. It was far more capable of waging modern war than any other air force in the world in 1939/1940. This is the dilemma; how to fix the Luftwaffe is not a material matter, but a structural one. Germany needs to change before the Luftwaffe gets that follow through it so desperately needed post 1941.
Germany had by far and away the most advanced and future proofed air force in 1939/1940 bar none. It had one of the world's most modern fighters with the best performance in service, it had a strong and numerous bomber force equipped with modern up-to-date bomber types with good warloads and performance, some of these bombers were equipped with nav/bombing aids that took the rest of the world at least two years to incorporate into their bombers, thus making the Kampfgeschwader potentially the most accurate bombing force in the world, it had a large structure built around intelligence gathering and support, such as coastal and weather reconnaissance, tactical and strategic photographic reconnaissance elements, it had good, well trained pilots and ground crew. Its tactics were honed on the crucible of the Spanish Civil War, and it had sound military doctrine with concepts far beyond those being taught to other air forces around the world. Any air force attempting to match the Luftwaffe in this time period had better be good.
Materially, the only air force in Europe and most likely the world that could match the Luftwaffe in terms of modernity was the RAF, but even then, in many comparative aspects, the RAF falls short, especially tactically and strategically. Where the British have their strengths however, is Britain itself (and her friends, of course), and the Germans learned that the hard way.
Where the Luftwaffe falls short is follow-up. Its initial first strike campaigns and actions were groundbreaking, but sustaining it all proved virtually impossible for Germany. The Battle of Britain wrought enormous losses and took the best that the Luftwaffe had to offer and pushed it to breaking point. The Luftwaffe lost so much against Britain materially, tactically and strategically. It lost a vast number of aircraft and aircrew and its industries struggled to follow through with timely attrition replacements of equipment and personnel - Britain completely outproduced the German war machine to end the Battle of Britain with more fighters than it had begun the battle with. Not only had it replaced the fighters it had lost, but it had built even more on top of that number - the same could not be said for the Luftwaffe.
Even its subsequent night bombing campaign against Britain over the next year/s couldn't be sustained without suffering enormous losses. At the time it needed replacement for those prewar bombers, it dropped the ball. Its major strategic bomber and medium bomber replacement projects were far too ambitious and promised far more than what the industry could deliver - no follow through. The Luftwaffe soldiered on through WW2 with the outdated, quirky and underperforming by 1945 He 111 still at the frontline. Sure, there are jets, rockets and missiles and other advanced technologies, but if there's anything that Germany's defeat teaches us it's that the Germans didn't get the basics right. Training, what to do with intelligence, industry geared for war, long term strategies and tactics to sustain the war effort. The hardest part about being the best is not getting to become Number One, it's staying there.
Changes of tactics and strategy by the Allies proved that the Luftwaffe (and the Germans) were running out of ideas. The blitzkrieg tactics that worked so well in 1940 were eventually ground down through attrition and underestimation of the staying power of her enemies. This happened in North Africa and most notably in Russia. No follow through.
In hindsight its easy to map out what we think the Luftwaffe needed, but in 1939/1940 it couldn't have been more prepared for war, even though experts assure us it wasn't. It was far more capable of waging modern war than any other air force in the world in 1939/1940. This is the dilemma; how to fix the Luftwaffe is not a material matter, but a structural one. Germany needs to change before the Luftwaffe gets that follow through it so desperately needed post 1941.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #47
No to the 4 engine bombers who need 4 engine heavies when you can mass produce JU88's . If you could produce enough you could have missions enrotue to their targets and still have more planes ready to go when those returned making the 4 engine heavy useless .
Not for a long term strategic bombing campaign. A twin engined bomber of limited capability like the Ju 88 is simply not a good return on investment. Small bomb load, lack of defensive armament, lack of range, lack of variation of load. Even the Germans themselves knew that they needed to replace their medium sized and capability strategic bombers with something bigger. That the He 177 didn't turn out as they'd hoped doesn't change the fact that it was originally intended that it become the Luftwaffe's primary heavy bomber to replace the He 111.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
For a quick comparison, the Lancaster could carry up to about 14,000 pounds of standard bombs, the Ju88 could carry up to 3,100 (internally).
So with that in mind, it would take 9 Ju88s to do the work of two Lancasters.
So with that in mind, it would take 9 Ju88s to do the work of two Lancasters.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
The advantage of heavy bombers is striking power.
It's why replacing RAF Lancaster and Halifax bombers with the Mosquito wasn't really feasible. The Mosquito could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin; the Lancaster could carry 10,000 lbs; the Halifax III, 8,000 lbs. That means to replace one Lancaster you'd need 2.5 Mosquitoes for the same striking power, and 2 Mosquitoes to replace each Halifax.
On the evening of June 5, 1944, Bomber Command had 431 Halifax III and 736 Lancaster I/III/X operational. You would need 2,702 Mosquitoes to have the same striking power.
The larger bomb loads of heavy bombers also allows greater flexibility in terms of the ordnance that can be carried and used.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Be careful when quoting the Mossie's 4,000 lb. max. - that max. load came with limitations, just like the Lanc's 22,000 lb. max. came with limitations.
- Thread starter
- #52
But when your in the RLM's situation you cant afford to waste production on a heavy you need mass produced bombers which means tons of 88s the germans dont have time to bulid a heavy .
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
And your the guy who wants to cancel the He 111.
The Ju 88 was never going to be the answer to the German's bomber problem.
The Bomb bay was too small and and the fuel capacity was too low. They traded bomb bay space for fuel to get range, and then hung the bombs outside which hurt speed and range.
The despised He 111 could carry 25-50% more bomb load a lot further than the Ju-88 could and once you resort to night bombing speed is a lot less important.
The He 111 was sort of equivalent to the Wellington or the Whitley (not as long ranged as the Whitley).
Against Britain the Germans didn't need 4 engine bombers as much as the British did. With bases in the Lowlands, or France (or even in Rhineland) the Germans only needed bombers with about 50%-66% of the range that the British did. If the British want to hit Berlin they need to fly over 300 miles of Germany to get there. If the Germans want to hit anywhere in England even with bases in Germany they can fly hundreds of miles less.
4 engine bombers are better, just not quite the necessity, for the Germans.
But you need twins that can carry 4000lb bomb loads or better and not trick planes that only carry two big bombs.
The Ju-88A-4 didn't show up until the daylight portion of the BoB was just about over and it sure didn't take over quickly.
Bombers also changed over the years, just like fighters. British night fighters didn't become effective until March of 1941. Russian night fighters never became really effective.
The Ju 88 did a lot of things well for the Luftwaffe, Long range (or even medium range) strategic bomber was not one of them.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Nothing in that definition mentions anything about the "lowest". A benchmark can be, and most often is, any agreed-upon standard.
Check this out:
A benchmark crude or marker crude is a crude oil that serves as a reference price for buyers and sellers of crude oil. There are three primary benchmarks, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), Brent Blend, and Dubai Crude. Other well-known blends include the OPEC Reference Basket used by OPEC, Tapis Crude which is traded in Singapore, Bonny Light used in Nigeria, Urals oil used in Russia and Mexico's Isthmus.
Energy Intelligence Group publishes a handbook which identified 195 major crude streams or blends in its 2011 edition.[1][2]
Benchmarks are used because there are many different varieties and grades of crude oil.[3] Using benchmarks makes referencing types of oil easier for sellers and buyers.
There is always a spread between WTI, Brent and other blends due to the relative volatility (high API gravity is more valuable), sweetness/sourness (low sulfur is more valuable) and transportation cost. This is the price that controls world oil market price.
Benchmark (crude oil) - Wikipedia
So no, contrary to the claim, "benchmark" doesn't denotate the lowest marker of a standard. A benchmark is a standard, of any quality, that is agreed-upon. The benchmarks in the example given above, clearly, have different qualities.
- Thread starter
- #55
But over the russian steppe your going to need the speed of a ju88 considering you have to run from I-16s and YAKs
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
No - you're going to need altitude as well, and that's providing the Soviets have the ability to track and intercept high flying bombers. Both later model I-16s service ceiling was just over 31K, the YAK-3 about 34K IIRC and at those altitudes (even close) their performance is diminished. At the end of the day 4 engine bombers were the way to go as they put more bombs on target then any JU88 could ever attempt to do. Although we know the accuracy of the allied bombing campaign was exaggerated, the ability to saturate Germany with tons of bombs were one of the things that led to it's demise. The Germans never had that capability although Hitler thought he could so similar with the V-2.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A, you need escorts for daylight bombing. The Ju-88 wasn't fast enough to outrun the Russian interceptors. Or at least go very far while doing it. You sure as heck were NOT going bomb Russian industry or transportation points several hundred miles away from the front lines with either the He 111 or the Ju 88 without escorts.
B. Night bombing. It doesn't matter that much how fast you are flying. Russians don't have radar equipped night fighters.
He 111 can carry 4400lbs inside. eight 550lb bombs. only way the Ju 88 can carry any 550lb bomb at all is out side.
The JU 88 can carry larger bombs but they are outside. Some of the members here have posted parts of manuals with bomb loads and fuel and range combinations.
Most websites have absolute garbage for data
From Wiki
- Range: 1,790 km (1,110 mi, 970 nmi) with 2,896 l (765 US gal; 637 imp gal)
the 153lb bomb was not really standard size. Any other bombs have to be carried outside and there are only four attachments points. Four 220lbs or four 550lb or four 1100lb bombs outside. The carriage of four 1100lb bombs requires either a good airstrip or a reduction in fuel load or the use of booster rockets to get off the ground.
having to use more bombers and more crew to get the same amount of bombs on the target is not good long range planning.
An Ju 88A-4 was only about 20-25mph faster top speed (engines only good for a few minutes) than a He 111. While your Ju 88 might be able to keep ahead of an I-16 depending on who's engine overheated first the Ju-88 speed is not enough to keep it safe from Yak-1s, Lagg-3s or Mig-3s.
Not building He 111s and Do 217 makes the defense of England and Russia easier as they don't have to plan to counter those aircraft or allocate resources to long rang raids.
- Thread starter
- #58
If we cant out run the russians we will just switch the 30 cal in the tail for a twin 20 setup and blow them out the sky
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
A couple of things - first during WW2 it was the SOVIET UNION, predominantly Russian, but their forces also consisted of Ukrainians, Estonians, and other ethnics that made up the USSR. With that said, more firepower is meaningless when you're outnumbered. B-29s had 20mms in their tails and plenty were shot down by intercepting Japanese aircraft. The 20mms were later removed because they were ineffective
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Please show picture or photo of German bomber, He 111, or Do 17 or Do 217 or JU-88 with a gun in the tail that could be aimed.
We are getting back in phantom planes that didn't exist.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
