[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed I did.

However, I fail to what that specific claim has to do with whether the He-177 was a piece of crap or not. And, indeed, I am sure everyone following this thread is as mystified by the non-connection as I am.

Because, of course, there is no connection.

Well I think you are the only one who has claimed that. And if you can't see the connection with stating that British industry is beyond the range of German bombers, and yet then we have the He-177 with a combat radius of 1,540 km which can carry 6,000kg of ordinance internally and another 7,200 kg externally then I don't know what that says about your train of thought.

You know they were used over Britain in Operation Steinbock in 1944 which was a failure. But from the most easily accessible source "wikipedia" the tactics used by the He-177 pilots allowed for higher speed and constant change of altitude which made interceptions difficult, increasing the survivability of the aircraft but decreased accuracy. With an average loss rate of 60% for all types of bomber used in Operation Steinbock, the He 177's loss rate below 10% made them the most survivable bomber in the campaign.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And your point is what, exactly? That a pathetic failure as a bomber that was produced in tiny numbers late in the war existed. Sure. It did.

Well the point would be that the US and Britain concentrated on developing long ranged bombers from the early stages of the war because of the fact that Germany overran most of Europe, and to strike Germany by air they needed to. The Germans hadn't that priority in the early stages of the war, although it later proved a misguided strategy. However with no US involvement in the war would British bombing of Germany have been that successful, and of course there would have been no escort fighters for daylight bombers. Would in this scenario have Germany had time to develop long ranged bombers?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

He-111: Combat Radius with Bombload (4400 kg), ~600 klicks.
Ju-88: Combat Radius with Bombload (2100 kg), ~832 klicks.
Do-17: Combat Radius with Bombload (1000 kg), ~660 klicks.

These were the actual 'bombers' (for want of a better term) the Luftwaffe had. None had the range needed. As I said. Your attempts to bring in furphies like the disastrous failure that was the He-177 and the Ar-234 which, despite your claims, did not have the required range, notwithstanding.

Note that they all fail to have the range to reach all of the UK.

He-111: Combat radius 1,200 km with a bombload (2,000 kg), less with heavier bombload
JU-88A: Combat radius 1,046 km with a bombload (2,000 kg), less with heavier bombload
Do-17: Combat radius 1,160 km with a bombload (500 kg), less with heavier bombload

Not heavy bombers granted but is a bomb is a bomb and Germany had a lot of these aircraft. What would the operational range of German bombers be to British industrial centres of from any of the Luftwaffe bases in occupied France and the Netherlands?

http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20Netherlands.pdf
http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20France.pdf

And Germany was also developing the Do 317, He-274 and Ju-290/390 at the end of the war. The technical merits of these aircraft may have been unproven or debatable but the intent was there, and in a scenario were the British Commonwealth is at war with Germany without American resources they may have been built.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

It existed as a failure. It existed so late in the war as to be irrelevant.

And, most importantly of all, and I note you carefully snipped this pertinent fact from your reply, it did not have the range that you claimed.

It could not reach the whole of the UK.

What exactly did I snip. If you mean the range of the Arado Ar 234? Then its combat radius was 1,100 km with a bombload of (1,500 kg).

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Nowhere near enough. The UK bought almost all of it up, pricing Germany out of the market. Lack of Tungsten does not equal no Tungsten.

Something you would no doubt be aware of if you have done any research are the following facts ...

* The Squeeze Bore AT gun production was ended and widespread use also ceased as early as 1942 because the barrel and ammo required tungsten.

* Production of Tungsten cored AT ammo ceased around 1942 for the same reason

* The specific reason was (see Tooze, "Wages of Destruction") that Germany did not have enough even for industrial use (it was required for high speed machine tools vital for producing a lot of stuff like, oh, Tanks, Artillery, Smallarms, Submarines, Aircraft etc) and stockpiles were declining faster than the limited amounts smuggled in from Portugal and Spain could replace.

I don't think it's any secret that Germany was affected by shortages of strategic materials and alloys. How do you know what secretive and fascist Spain and Portugal was secretly shipping to Nazi Germany? In 1944 Spain limited its official shipments of tungsten ore to Germany to 40 tons a month which ended after D-Day. Britain was so concerned with what Spain was supplying Germany that it stopped Spanish oil shipments throughout most of 1944. With no America involved in WW2 then we would have no D-Day in 1944 and far less restraint on what Spain and Portugal were willing to supply Germany.

Also did Britain develop this technology beyond the Littlejohn adaptor it used from 40mm anti-tank guns?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

In any case, it explains the inconvenient fact that German Jet aircraft were ineffective toys in a strategic and operational sense (if not an immediate tactical sense) due to their pathetic engines ... and were always going to remain so.

But lethal ones all the same, and jets rapidly replaced turbo-props as frontline military aircraft in the mid-to-late 1940's.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Um. Logical error here. Operational Range does not change according to where an aircraft is based ... it is fixed. It remains 800 klicks regardless of whether it is based in Berlin, or Paris, or Boulogne.

But distance does change due to location, and an aircraft based in occupied France and the Netherlands would be a shorter distance from Britain than an aircraft based in Germany and that parameter would be relevant to the respective operational range in question.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And the Ar-234 didn't have the range you claimed.

Which I note you do not admit was an error on your part.

You mean the range of the Arado Ar 234? Then its combat radius was 1,100 km with a bombload of (1,500 kg).

Originally Posted by aspqrz

In this specific instance I was merely pointing out, to you, that the figure you gave was for maximum one way range rather than operational radius. And, since you made the mistake, I felt it wise to explain what operational radius was and how it differs from maximum range.

I note that you still don't admit that your claim was wrong.

No I gave just you a rough range figures not based on operational range or variable distances. The ranges are open to debate based on location but a relatively basic term such as operational range is not something that I need to be lectured on.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

The Commonwealth Airforces mainly made night attacks against Germany. Overwhelmingly. They were not normally escorted for the obvious reason that escorts such as the USAAF required for its daylight precisionless bombing attacks were not needed because of, well, the darkness.

And without USAAC daylight bombing would that not affect the amount of damage that could be inflicted on German industry

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Did the Commonwealth Airforces in the UK use American aircraft? Sure. They bought a lot before Pearl Harbour and a lot after.

Did they use the RR Merlin engined Mustang. Yep.

So what?

The premise is that the Commonwealth can win the war without active US involvement, not that the US magically falls off the face of the earth.

But then we would have no US Eight Air Force based in England, or any other US army, air or navy forces in Europe, the Med and North Africa. Also no obligation to supply the British Commonwealth with state-of-the-art US weaponry.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Nope. All German late war production figures are heavily doctored by Speer. He deliberately double counted, counted remanufactured or repaired wrecked airframes as new production, included the last week of the previous month's production and the first week of the next month's production for a given month's production routinely (double counting again) ... as is detailed in a number of works on the German War Economy (see the work by Tooze mentioned above).

His deliberate obfuscation of records was so thorough that, though we know he was doing it and we know the scale of what he was doing, we cannot work out how much of the claimed production was real and how much was a lie. We just know that the figures for 44-45 are so tainted as to be close to worthless.

I've also heard that been stated about Speer in the past and as you say that we just don't know what the real figure are the best way to gauge the true figures would be to go by casualties. In 1944 US forces lost 11,618 aircraft in Europe (nearly ten times what they lost in the Pacific) and I've heard higher figures as well. US 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command losses in Europe also increased considerably in 1944 (I can break down the monthly losses from 1943-45) when German fighter production also spiked, so maybe there is some truth to it.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And would continue to have even if the US did not actively enter the war. They would have bought it, and the US would have sold it, as it did before Pearl Harbour.

But would not have shared everything (relatively speaking) with Britain either.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

It is becoming increasingly clear that your knowledge of the war effort by all parties involved in WW2 is ... generously ... somewhat deficient ...

But feel free to continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Is it and am I?