SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Were Packard-Merlins interchangeable with Rolls-Royce Merlins as far as mounting it in an airplane?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Were Packard-Merlins interchangeable with Rolls-Royce Merlins as far as mounting it in an airplane?
As stated, shown by the holes in the returning bombers, the 8th AF counted things like that.Not sure where you draw data/information regarding LW 'upgunning' emrging in early 1944
In 1943 the calculation is simplified by the number of unescorted missions, as more were escorted it comes down to estimating the accuracy of the fighter kill claims, leaving the rest to the bombers, the noting the US figures for bombers shot down by fighters.The biggest mystery would be source of air to air ratio of LW fighters vs USAAF heavies. US intelligence sources grossly overstated number of LW fighters destroyed in combat in 1942/43 and 44.
This is great, all I have to do is mention one factor effecting accuracy and the group can expect a whole list of other factors mentioned, but not their relative contribution.So, lack of formation integrity, lead crew training, and AFE installation slaved to Norden bombsight which kept pilot from taking evasive action during bomb run) were not greater limitations on bombng accuracy? If the lead wing is 'on target' before any visibilty deficiency is created by bomb stikes - the mission will be sucessful.
These factors were constant until corrected. Smoke covered targets were episodic. According to The follow on Strategic Studies, the biggest single factor reducing efficiency for attacks on oil/energy installations was bomb selection. The 8th AF erred by not increasing bomb size to at least 2000 pounders.
Looking at the messages involved in the exchange between the Japanese Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the USSR you can see the Ambassador noting how vague the idea was, for example what sort of proposal was to be presented. The talk within the Japanese government was for polity, the basic preservation of the existing system. The acceptance of the Potsdam declaration message included "with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler" Those prerogatives were in the Japanese Constitution.The Japanese had been trying to send out peace feelers to America via the USSR after the Potsdam declaration in Jul 45; they wanted the assurance that the Emperor would be allowed to retain the throne, which America would not give.
Was relative pilot and crew training and experience included in the etc? You see Germany produced circa 24,000 Bf109s and Fw190s in 1944. However during 1944 the LW was wiped out as an effective fighting force. Bodenplatte represented 1% of the aircraft produced in 1944 how did that come about (asking for a friend).Increasing the time between attacks increased accuracy but increased the risk from the defences. After the table comes a list of other factors, depth of penetration, fighter opposition, flak, smoke screen haze, direction of attack and type of target complex. There are further factors mentioned like the size of formation, the B-17 versus B-24, Weather etc.
That was in part my point, reliance on numbers. By 1944 German people were producing aircraft to stop having a rifle shoved in their hands, conscripted and slave labour was producing aircraft they didnt want to be airworthy, some sabotaged and many of poor quality.I've always wondered about the fake production figures for German fighters in 1944. Raised as I was in the days of the "old math," I've always believed that if you have one fighter and you build one new fighter you should have two fighters. In Speer's version of "fur-Gott's-zake-keep-Adolf-happy-or-you-know-vot-happens" math, you have one fighter, you rebuild it as a different version, which is then destroyed on a train but you still get to report one new-production aircraft with an entirely new serial number. It begs the question "How many Fw 190s are displyed at the National Air and Space Museum?" The inflated figures for German production are often quoted by those trying to prove that strategic bombing was a complete failure.
I've never seen a proper statistical analysis of how many new aircraft were really built and delivered in Germany during WWII.
Cheers,
Dana
Excellent question Dana - and coupled with another consideration, namely "What damage estimate constituted an airframe selected for salvage rather than repair?" LW used 60% for Salvage threshold, but I could never find the factors defined to arrive at 60%.I've always wondered about the fake production figures for German fighters in 1944. Raised as I was in the days of the "old math," I've always believed that if you have one fighter and you build one new fighter you should have two fighters. In Speer's version of "fur-Gott's-zake-keep-Adolf-happy-or-you-know-vot-happens" math, you have one fighter, you rebuild it as a different version, which is then destroyed on a train but you still get to report one new-production aircraft with an entirely new serial number. It begs the question "How many Fw 190s are displyed at the National Air and Space Museum?" The inflated figures for German production are often quoted by those trying to prove that strategic bombing was a complete failure.
I've never seen a proper statistical analysis of how many new aircraft were really built and delivered in Germany during WWII.
Cheers,
Dana
Oh, they determined upgunning by counting holes in the returning a/c? to estimate change in LW fighter lethality in 1943 vs 1944?As stated, shown by the holes in the returning bombers, the 8th AF counted things like that.
In 1943 the calculation is simplified by the number of unescorted missions, as more were escorted it comes down to estimating the accuracy of the fighter kill claims, leaving the rest to the bombers, the noting the US figures for bombers shot down by fighters.
Well, maybe you are gaining clues that telephone book data dumps are less than satisfying to many of the cold hearted viewers of your deathless prose?This is great, all I have to do is mention one factor effecting accuracy and the group can expect a whole list of other factors mentioned, but not their relative contribution.
Ah, another macro insight trying to make a micro analysis?USSBS Bombing Accuracy report, order of box over target, percentage of boxes placing at least 10% of their bombs within 1,000 feet of the aiming point.
1, 82%
2, 60%
3, 48%
4, 47%
5 or more, 30%.
Your presented data - fact based upon what acquisition methodology? (Reviewing the Aiming Point briefed as compared to Bomb Damage Assessment report(s) for each BG and each composed Bomb Wing of two BG's, time based (i.e. 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945)? Time based on each quarter to attempot filters for large quantities of 100% target obscurity for some Boxes/AD and Task Force but clear for others? Which risks do you think apply? Difference in risk between Berlin and Rouen and Merseburg and Kassel? Difference inflaks risks for different routes to different targets.Increasing the time between attacks increased accuracy but increased the risk from the defences.
Good. Although other factors essential for context as well as methods to apply judgment/conclusion - such as fighter escort assigned and executed, was course Berlin Trolley in which most inbound flak defenses bypassed by virtue of course over Denmark and Baltic Sea and Rugen Island - or?After the table comes a list of other factors, depth of penetration, fighter opposition, flak, smoke screen haze, direction of attack and type of target complex. There are further factors mentioned like the size of formation, the B-17 versus B-24, Weather etc.
Remember this also applied to the Spitfire, and probably other Brit aircraft. If a Spitfire was salvaged and rebuilt as a different model it got a new serial.I've always wondered about the fake production figures for German fighters in 1944. Raised as I was in the days of the "old math," I've always believed that if you have one fighter and you build one new fighter you should have two fighters. In Speer's version of "fur-Gott's-zake-keep-Adolf-happy-or-you-know-vot-happens" math, you have one fighter, you rebuild it as a different version, which is then destroyed on a train but you still get to report one new-production aircraft with an entirely new serial number. It begs the question "How many Fw 190s are displyed at the National Air and Space Museum?" The inflated figures for German production are often quoted by those trying to prove that strategic bombing was a complete failure.
I've never seen a proper statistical analysis of how many new aircraft were really built and delivered in Germany during WWII.
Cheers,
Dana
And today the opposite is true, if you salvage a Spitfire from the sea bed as long as you have the "data plates" to identify it you can rebuild it with all new parts to original drawings and call it a WW2 veteran.Remember this also applied to the Spitfire, and probably other Brit aircraft. If a Spitfire was salvaged and rebuilt as a different model it got a new serial.
Evaluating battle damage became a very involved science. One of the many roles of ground fire was to damage an attacking bomber formation, as well as shoot it down or force it higher or spread it out. If you damage a bomber and knock it out of formation it becomes a vulnerable straggler that is hard to defend, from that it may be taken down by fighters. From the planes that got back it was very difficult to establish what was happening and what was going on, but it was certainly more than counting holes that got to the bottom of it. I am getting tired of being talked down to with simplistic nonsense and I certainly dont mean you.So the 8th AF was counting bullet holes to determine what armament the Luftwaffe was using?
Interesting.
So what was the 8th AF's proceedure for counting R4M "holes"?
View attachment 648299
Damage evaluation was certainly an evolving science, especially in determining crew protection.Evaluating battle damage became a very involved science. One of the many roles of ground fire was to damage an attacking bomber formation, as well as shoot it down or force it higher or spread it out. If you damage a bomber and knock it out of formation it becomes a vulnerable straggler that is hard to defend, from that it may be taken down by fighters. From the planes that got back it was very difficult to establish what was happening and what was going on, but it was certainly more than counting holes that got to the bottom of it. I am getting tired of being talked down to with simplistic nonsense and I certainly dont mean you.
From the planes that got back it was very difficult to establish what was happening and what was going on, but it was certainly more than counting holes that got to the bottom of it.
Yes, well quite obviously examining the planes that survived and flew hundreds of miles back to base gives limited information on those that didnt.Not to mention that if that's your only heuristic, then you're probably going to miss the killer guns in detail, and have to rely solely upon eyewitness accounts from nearby a/c, which won't tell you things like caliber or rate of fire in most cases.