[aspqrz]

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.

Originally posted by RN7
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.

And I think the entire rest of the world is mystified by your train of thought in thinking that a piece of crap that was produced in small numbers at the tail end of the war had of being relevant when the overwhelmingly vast majority of Nazi bomber production was of Medium and Light Bombers which did not have the range to bomb all of the UK. And didn't have the capacity, either.

They produced thousands of He-111s, Do-17s and Ju-88s and ~600 of the failed He-177.

As for their payload vs. range. You are operating under the common, and charming, delusion that maximum range, or even maximum operational radius, was achievable with maximum bombload.

For operation Steinbock, and you evidently read, but failed to comprehend, the Wikipedia article, they carried 5600 kilos, not 13200 kilos.

You also failed to note, or comprehend, that they had a greater than 50% operational failure rate during that campaign … 8 of the 14 (!) committed had to RTB with overheating or burning engines.

A monumental piece of crap.

If you're going to cite a source, at least read and comprehend it all.

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.

Um.

Ah.

From the Wikipedia article …

“Of the 14 He 177 sent out during*Operation Steinbock, one suffered a burst tire, and eight returned with overheating or burning engines. Of the four that reached London, one was lost to night fighters.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

Perhaps you didn't actually read the article, or perhaps you felt that no-one else would – or maybe you're just doing what the Soviets did so well …

I think the rest of the world would regard operational failure by 8 of the 14 brand new aircraft committed to be indicative.

And, of the four that managed to reach the target, carrying less than half the maximum bomb load (against London, mind, not the far north of England … unless you seriously expect us to believe that they could have carried more over a longer range?), they suffered 25% casualties.

Like massaging figures much?*

Quote:

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.

Originally posted by RN7
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

I hear an echo.

And a failure to understand.

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).

What exactly did you snip?

Oh, only the claim that it had a range of 1556 km.

Now down to 1100 km and still wrong.

The actual operational radius was 800 klicks.

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.

Originally posted by RN7
How do you know what secretive and fascist Spain and Portugal was secretly shipping to Nazi Germany?

Oh deer. How do I know these things?

I read them in Books.

Hint: WW2 ended in 1945.

The Fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal have been gone for several decades.

The things they kept semi-secret during the war are now readily accessible in books that have been published since then. Many of which I have read or consulted.

Perhaps it might be an idea if you widened your reading list?

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.

Originally posted by RN7
But lethal ones all the same, and jets rapidly replaced turbo-props as frontline military aircraft in the mid-to-late 1940's.

Well, Jets certainly were lethal. Just not German ones.

What happened after WW2 is nice, but irrelevant. As you well know.

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.

The quote I was replying to, carefully excised by you, was … “Also is there some reason why you feel that you have to lecture people about military terms or is it that you just feel that you have a monopoly on knowledge?* “

Originally posted by RN7
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.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to what their operational range was … your claim was that, with the fantasy ranges you cited, they could reach all of the UK … you didn't specify from which bases.

And the actual combat radius – half the combat range (or less) – well, you're still quoting the combat range (the one way range) rather than the combat radius (the there and back to base range) … you still haven't grasped it.

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 ...

Twaddle.

ROTFLMAO level twaddle.

Phil