Who Could Have Won WWII?

[aspqrz]

[QUOTE=RN7;68659]I don't think Hitler or the rest of Germany gave two hoots about the Commonwealth as they were concerned with Europe not the affairs of British colonies and dominions on other continents. I don't think Hitler lost to much sleep when Menzies declared war on him!"

Interesting. Did you or did you not say, and I quote ...

Originally Posted by RN7

IOriginally Posted by RN7
Germany wasn't at war with the Commonwealth

???

It really doesn't matter what Hitler or Germany thought about things, the reality was that they were at war with the Commonwealth.

As I demonsrtrated. Sure, I get it, you don't like it. Fine. Doesn't change the facts.

Originally Posted by RN7

But you did say......

"And the UK had an Atomic Weapons program and the werewithal to, slowly, bring it to fruition ... the Germans had none, and even their pathetic nuclear power programs were working the wrong direction"

" or, more likely, the UK would have managed an A Bomb (as they had an actual Atomic program, which the Germans really didn't ... and were on the right track, which the Germans patently weren't) by the late 1940s or early to mid 1950s."

Indeed I did.

Originally Posted by RN7

You won't be see any British A-Bombs before 1950

Um, you realise that you are contradicting yourself here? You initially seem to grasp that I did, indeed, say that the UK would have A-Bombs 'by the late 1940's or early to mid 1950's' and then rapidly ... forget ... and seem to make a claim that would imply I didn't say exactly that.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

Commonwealth ship building
1940: 880,000 tons
1941: 1,276,500 tons
1942: 1,990,800 tons
1943: 1,136,804 tons
1944: 2,139,600 tons
1945: 535,400 tons

Allied Shipping losses in Atlantic
1940: 3,654,500 tons
1941: 3,295,900 tons
1942: 6,150,340 tons
1943: 2,170,400 tons
1944: 505,700 tons
1945: 366,800 tons

So its a good job the Americans were building so many ships.

Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: ~500,000 tons
1940: ~2,380,000 tons
1941: ~2,300,000 tons
1942: ~6,600,000 tons
1943: ~2,600,000 tons
1944: ~650,000 tons
1945: ~275,000 tons

Figures are from V E Tarrant, "The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945" and are approximate only because he breaks figures down by month and named period of the U-Boat war, not by calendar year.

I have no idea where your figures come from, but Tarrant is regarded as pretty reliable, and your figures seem way way out for the early war years.

British Merchant Navy at the beginning of the war, ~20 million grt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortra...hant_ships.jpg

Note to this you add the 1000 ships of the Norwegian Merchant Navy, the fourth biggest in the world at the time, plus the Dutch and Belgian merchant fleets and some of the French, and around 60% of the Italian (captured by the Allies in port or outside of Italy on Italian DoW).

Commonwealth/Allied losses were on the down trend until the idiots of the US Navy decided that, in 1942, they didn't need no steenkin convoys ... and were entirely responsible for that spike. Thanks Admiral King. Not.

Because of Admiral King and his ilk it was, indeed, a good thing that the US built so many ships to replace the unneccessary losses his idiotic tactics caused.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well you said "decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz"

Indeed I did. Of course, you left out the context. So I'll put it back in.

Originally Posted by RN7

Originally Posted by RN7
So are you implying that the Soviets (and the Germans) lied about the Eastern Front in the Second World War, and that we should discount the forces listed as being present in the campaigns and battles on the Eastern Front and the casualty rates incurred during them?

I replied with ... "

You seem hell bent on telling me that I said things that I most patently did not say.

I mentioned nothing about whether the Germans lied about their experiences on the Eastern Front at all, ever, anywhere.

As for the Soviets lying. Have you read Glantz and other, less well known, post-89 historians of the Eastern Front?

Did the Soviets dissembled, obfuscate, mislead, misdirect, fabricate and outright lie about much of what actually happened on the Eastern Front and in Russia during the war?

Hell yes.

Which is demonstrably true. If, indeed, you have read the post 1989 works by Glantz and others.

Originally Posted by RN7

But the Germans were fighting the Soviets so they might be better placed to judge whether the Soviets were spinning lies.

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

ROTFL!

It is well understood, indeed, it was well understood even a couple of decades before Glantz started his publication of work based on the Soviet archives, that the Germans never. ever. had. a. clew. of the actual Soviet numbers. Not before Barbarossa and not at any stage during it.

Heck, the apologist Generals writing for the US at the end of the war admitted as much themselves.

Originally Posted by RN7

I like to read but I also like to analyse what I read and reach my own conclusion.

Interesting that you have come to a conclusion that is not held by pretty much any serious scholar of the topic.

Originally Posted by RN7

So what were the Soviet lies? Were they deceiving everyone about the size of the forces involved in the campaigns on the Eastern Front, their war production figures, their dependency on Lend Lease or their casualty rates?

You haven't read Glantz or any post-89 scholarship, have you?

When Titans Clashed is a good overview, you might like to start there. You evidently wouldn't believe anything I might tell you anyway, so go and read for yourself.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Just because escort fighters may have had the theoretical range, doesn't mean they would. Fighters tend to use a LOT of fuel in a dog fight, and, depending on the plane and armament, usually only carried somewhere between 5 and 20 seconds of ammunition (maximum of about 40 bursts if the pilot was careful, more likely about 20 or less). I'm sure there's a few rare exceptions to that general rule, but they're not all that relevant for the point I'm making.
Therefore it would be suicidal for fighters to fly out to anything like their maximum range, especially if they might need to fight their way back home again.

And, of course, the Germans didn't have Drop Tanks early in the war, and they were scarce even later ... and even if they did, DTs don't actually give full value, as you have to drop them as soon as you;re in combat. Resource Shortages ... Like pretty much anything and everything the Germans did.

Phil

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Heinkel He-177: Aka Luftwaffenfeuerzeug ('Luftwaffe Lighter') because, like the B-29, it kept bursting into flame at exactly the most embarrassing moments possible.

Sorry but did you not state " The UK had large underground factory complexes for all sorts of things and, indeed, much of their industry was actually completely beyond the range of German bombers and more was beyond the range of unescorted German bombers (aka 'sitting ducks')".

The He-177 was available despite its limitations, and it could hit any part of the UK. Unlike the USAAC and RAF who were focused on developing strategic air power, the Luftwaffe was primarily a tactical force used to support the Wehrmacht and remained one due to occupying most of Europe in the early war and the later necessities of the Eastern front. Also could British bombers have attacked Japan like the B-29?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Only available after September 42 as a semi-usable aircraft, and only in small numbers (~600 built in the next 20 months, about 30 per month, and from then to August 44, when production ceased, the rate was around ~34 a month ... as a comparison, ~7300 Lancasters were produced from 1941, and ~11400 Wellingtons from 1936, and ~6100 Halifaxes from 1940.

But still available and were are talking about the real war not a war between the British Commonwealth (with or without the USSR) against Germany without American involvement. Also the Halifax was not without its critics and the Wellington was not a heavy bomber. The Wellington was a twin engine medium bomber with good range but very low ceiling height, and the Germans also produced nearly 27,000 medium bombers in various guises.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Arado Ar-234: Only 210 produced, and only operational from September 1944. They were also hangar queens ... 'The Jumo 004 engines were always the real problem; they suffered constant flameouts and required overhaul or replacement after about 10 hours of operation.'.

But it still existed and it was almost impossible to intercept and showed the potential that Germany had to produce relevant aircraft in the real world and a hypothetical war.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Why? The problem with the Nazi jet engine program is well known - lack of tungsten. Something they could. not. get.

Although they did get some from supposedly neutral Portugal and Spain.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And, oh. deer. The actual operational radius (the 'there and back' range for non-suicide non-one way missions) for the Ar-234 was 800 klicks, not ~1500 (that's the one way suicide mission range).

What was the operational range from occupied northern France and the Low Countries to British industrial centres? 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 aspqrz

The Commonwealth managed to produce 26,000+ bombers to the piddling 1000 you think are so great.

The UK actually produced 34,689 bombers of all types, plus another 3,967 reconnaissance aircraft. The German produced 18,235 bombers of all types plus 12,539 ground attack aircraft and 6,299 reconnaissance aircraft.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Which wasn't worth spit until it was fitted with BRITISH RR Merlin engines.

A well known fact and did the RAF use the Mustang to escort its bombers on raids against Germany?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

HE-219: Only 300 built, from mid 43. Mincemeat during the daytime.

Which is why the Luftwaffe used than at night like RAF night fighters.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Bfe-110: ROTFL! A worthless aircraft except as a Night Fighter ... where, quite properly, it remained over Germany.

But still available in large numbers and it was considered a potent night fighter. Its weaponry could cripple or destroy any Allied bomber in seconds and was capable of wreaking immense destruction, but it was vulnerable to Allied escort fighters. It was partially replaced by the better Me-210 and Me-410.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Me-262: Operational from April 44, ~1400 produced. Another hangar queen ... for the same reason. Worse, in fact, did you know that the Jumo engines had a tendency to, without any warning whatsoever, catastrophically self destruct and shed turbine blades ... which is why they were mounted under the wings (to provide some protection for the pilot) ... and they were, like the jets in the Arados, good for about 10-12 hours before needing a complete rebuild, then another 10-12 hours before they were junked ... if, of course, they didn't catastrophically fail first..

Well the Jumo 004 was the world's first turbojet jet engine that was placed in production and operationally used so you can't expect it to have been perfect. And a lot of its flaws were to do with the scarcity or raw materials and the design that had to take into account the shortages of strategic materials. Because of the lower quality steels and alloys available the Jumo 004 had a service life of between 10-25 hours, although maybe twice that in the hands of skilled pilot who knew the limitations of the power plant. That incidentally is more than the service life of modern Chinese built knock offs of Russian jet engines. At the end of the war Germany was building 1,500 Jumo 004 a month and it was considered possible that they could build up to a 100,000 a year by mid-1946. Also the Me-262 was still a very potent and versatile fighter aircraft was it not?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Bf-109: Rather more common than any of the above. Operational Radius = 850 klicks.
Fw-190: Again, more common than any of the above. Operational Radius = ~835 klicks..

Well if we are talking about daylight German bombing raids from occupied France and the Low Countries then we can use a whole load of different types of German fighters including the Me-262 than can reach Britain.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Operational Radius = This is the 'there and back again' range ... half the maximum combat range, in effect ... and this is the actual maximum escort range. Practically, escort range will be much much less than half the operational radius because, oh, y'know, there's an actual need to have fuel to fight off those attacking RAF fighters?.

Why the lecture again? What is the operational combat radius from any number of points along the coast of occupied Europe to British industrial centres? And where did Britain gets its fuel from?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

The Brits produced ~132,000 aircraft, a large proportion of which were complex multi-engine types. Canada produced another ~16000.?

The Russians built ~158,000.

Germany built ~120,000 and the Italians ~18,000. Mostly simpler single engine types..

Soviet Union
100,636: Fighters and Ground-Attack Aircraft
021,116: Bombers of all type

Britain
49,422: Fighters and Ground-Attack Aircraft
34,689: Bombers of all type

Germany
068,266: Fighters and Ground-Attack Aircraft
018,235: Bombers of all type

Incidentally in 1944 Germany produced nearly as many fighters as Britain and Russia combined (26,326 versus 28,643)

Originally Posted by aspqrz

And British jet engines didn't catastrophically fail or need to be junked after 20 flight hours.?

But British industry had not the same constraints placed on it through material shortages as Germany and had the availability of American resources and technology

Originally Posted by aspqrz

So your point is, what, exactly?

You know I just dunno what to make of you.

[RN7]

[QUOTE=aspqrz;68666]

Originally Posted by RN7

I don't think Hitler or the rest of Germany gave two hoots about the Commonwealth as they were concerned with Europe not the affairs of British colonies and dominions on other continents. I don't think Hitler lost to much sleep when Menzies declared war on him!"

Interesting. Did you or did you not say, and I quote ...

It really doesn't matter what Hitler or Germany thought about things, the reality was that they were at war with the Commonwealth.

As I demonsrtrated. Sure, I get it, you don't like it. Fine. Doesn't change the facts.

Germany declared war on Britain, or should we say that Britain decaled war on Germany after it invaded Poland. The commonwealth by appendix also declared war on Germany, but I don't think Hitler gave two hoots about the fact that the Commonwealth declared war on Germany as it was irrelevant to him, and I don't think Germany had any coherent plan to ever tackle Commonwealth forces outside of Europe or related theatres in the Med and North Africa. If this point is important to you that is fine, but in the scheme of things its not a major event.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed I did.

Um, you realise that you are contradicting yourself here? You initially seem to grasp that I did, indeed, say that the UK would have A-Bombs 'by the late 1940's or early to mid 1950's' and then rapidly ... forget ... and seem to make a claim that would imply I didn't say exactly that.

I'm actually finding your train of though tedious. You claim that the British Commonwealth and the Soviet (or maybe without them) could have beaten Germany without American help, and you imply that Britain could have built an atomic bomb by itself when all the evidence points to the fact that Britain could not have built an atomic bomb by itself any earlier than the 1950's and that would only happen if Britain devoted a huge amount of resources to a project that it could ill afford to fund by itself in wartime.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

[B]
Figures are from V E Tarrant, "The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945" and are approximate only because he breaks figures down by month and named period of the U-Boat war, not by calendar year.

I have no idea where your figures come from, but Tarrant is regarded as pretty reliable, and your figures seem way way out for the early war years.

British Merchant Navy at the beginning of the war, ~20 million grt.

World War II A Statistical Survey by John Ellis. The most complete compilation of data related to all aspects of the Second World War that I have ever read and it is my most prized book and not cheap to buy.

Allied merchant fleet tonnage in 1939
17,891,134. Britain
03,110,791. British Commonwealth
08,909,892. United States
04,833,813. Norway
02,969,578. Netherlands
02,933,933. France
01,174,944. Denmark
00,408,014. Belgium
01,780,666. Greece

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Indeed I did. Of course, you left out the context. So I'll put it back in.

I replied with ... "

Which is demonstrably true. If, indeed, you have read the post 1989 works by Glantz and others.

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

ROTFL!

It is well understood, indeed, it was well understood even a couple of decades before Glantz started his publication of work based on the Soviet archives, that the Germans never. ever. had. a. clew. of the actual Soviet numbers. Not before Barbarossa and not at any stage during it.

Heck, the apologist Generals writing for the US at the end of the war admitted as much themselves.

You know I actually asked you a question about how the Soviets lied in the Second World War, and I also asked you to explain your earlier remark about how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as unlike Britain they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves. I also asked you for a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. But you have dodged those question. How about you answer them.

Also you keep quoting "authors" to others and I to validate your argument. Do you believe that everyone else on here is not a well read as you? You would be surprised about how many well educated members we have on this board.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Interesting that you have come to a conclusion that is not held by pretty much any serious scholar of the topic.

And are you one of those scholars?

Originally Posted by aspqrz

You haven't read Glantz or any post-89 scholarship, have you?

When Titans Clashed is a good overview, you might like to start there. You evidently wouldn't believe anything I might tell you anyway, so go and read for yourself.

Well if I did or did not I wouldn't be coming on here bragging about it.

[aspqrz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Heinkel He-177:*Aka*Luftwaffenfeuerzeug*('Luftwaffe Lighter') because, like the B-29, it kept bursting into flame at exactly the most embarrassing moments possible.

Originally posted by RN7
Sorry but did you not state " The UK had large underground factory complexes for all sorts of things and, indeed, much of their industry was actually completely beyond the range of German bombers and more was beyond the range of unescorted German bombers (aka 'sitting ducks')".

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
The He-177 was available despite its limitations, and it could hit any part of the UK. Unlike the USAAC and RAF who were focused on developing strategic air power, the Luftwaffe was primarily a tactical force used to support the Wehrmacht and remained one due to occupying most of Europe in the early war and the later necessities of the Eastern front. Also could British bombers have attacked Japan like the B-29?*

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.

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*aspqrz*
Arado Ar-234:*Only 210 produced, and only operational from September 1944. They were also hangar queens ...*'The Jumo 004 engines were always the real problem; they suffered constant flameouts and required overhaul or replacement*after about 10 hours of operation.'

Posted by RN7
But it still existed and it was almost impossible to intercept and showed the potential that Germany had to produce relevant aircraft in the real world and a hypothetical war.

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.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Why? The problem with the Nazi jet engine program is well known - lack of tungsten. Something they could. not. get.

Originally posted by RN7
Although they did get some from supposedly neutral Portugal and Spain.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
And, oh. deer. The actual*operational radius*(the 'there and back' range for non-suicide non-one way missions) for the Ar-234 was*800 klicks, not ~1500 (that's the one way suicide mission range).

Originally posted by RN7
What was the operational range from occupied northern France and the Low Countries to British industrial centres?

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.

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

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

Originally posted by RN7
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?*

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.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Which wasn't worth spit until it was fitted with BRITISH RR Merlin engines.

Originally posted by RN7
A well known fact and did the RAF use the Mustang to escort its bombers on raids against Germany?

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.

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.

Originally posted by RN7
Incidentally in 1944 Germany produced nearly as many fighters as Britain and Russia combined (26,326 versus 28,643)

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.

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
And British jet engines didn't catastrophically fail or need to be junked after 20 flight hours.

Originally posted by RN7
But British industry had not the same constraints placed on it through material shortages as Germany and had the availability of American resources and technology*

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.

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.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

World War II A Statistical Survey by John Ellis. The most complete compilation of data related to all aspects of the Second World War that I have ever read and it is my most prized book and not cheap to buy.

Allied merchant fleet tonnage in 1939
17,891,134. Britain
03,110,791. British Commonwealth
08,909,892. United States
04,833,813. Norway
02,969,578. Netherlands
02,933,933. France
01,174,944. Denmark
00,408,014. Belgium
01,780,666. Greece

Thank you for proving my point.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

You know I actually asked you a question about how the Soviets lied in the Second World War, and I also asked you to explain your earlier remark about how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as unlike Britain they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves. I also asked you for a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. But you have dodged those question. How about you answer them.

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally Posted by RN7

Also you keep quoting "authors" to others and I to validate your argument. Do you believe that everyone else on here is not a well read as you? You would be surprised about how many well educated members we have on this board.

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations.

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Phil

[Legbreaker]

And I thought I was well read on the subject! So many new references I'm going to have to track down and digest!

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And I thought I was well read on the subject! So many new references I'm going to have to track down and digest!

Have you read Bergerud's 'Touched with Fire' and "Fire in the Sky' on, respectively, land and air warfare in the SW Pacific?

For an American author, he gives a surprisingly nuanced view of the war, and has nice (and demonstrably true) things to say about us Aussies ...

Phil

[Legbreaker]

I'm afraid not. That'll be another one to find.

[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?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Thank you for proving my point.

I just provided a list of available Allied Merchant shipping in 1939, I wasn't proving your point.

The Allies lost just under 22 million tons of shipping between 1939-45, and 17 million tons were lost in the Atlantic. Only the US and the British Commonwealth built new ships for the Allies during the war. The US built 34 million tons of shipping and the British Commonwealth built just over 9 million tons of shipping. Take out the US and you have an increasingly smaller and clapped out merchant fleet. Take out US Navy resources and you have a smaller Alllied naval fleet.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly fail to grasp that.

No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2, or how Lend Lease allowed the Soviet to build armaments as they weren't capable of producing anything else by themselves, or a comparison of Lend Lease supplies that Britain and the Soviet Union received from the United States. All you have done is quote the name of authors of books you say you have read or possess instead of giving a brief or detailed explanation as to whatever suits you. I don't know why you or for what reason you keep doing it but it would be helpful if you could just could answer what I asked you.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Of course one quotes sources to support an argument. They are, in all ways, better than unsupported personal assertions.

You could just state your position with some supporting argument and then quote an author as well.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

As for whether people are as well read as I or not, I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what?

[QUOTE=aspqrz;68678] This is especially important as you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said, even when incontrovertibly true ... so, obviously, it is necessary for me to provide the documentary evidence in the form of citations

No not believing and not agreeing are two different thing. How about you just answer questions directly and then maybe quote one of your authors if you feel that you need to as its not a competition about who has read the most books.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly?

I've been collecting books for over 30 years and have compiled data for my own interest in the Second World War and other topics for as long. These days a lot of this information is also available on the internet. I'm comfortable with my numbers and I can give you a break down of losses by the month, tonnage and number for Allied and Axis merchant ship losses from 1939-45 if you want.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I can't at this late hour remember the titles and authors of the other ones I
have, some are more technical and relate to naval orbats, ship types etc and some are small magazine articles long forgotten about but still in my attic or two.

[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

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
No. You have repeatedly asked what the Soviets lied about. And I have repeatedly explained.

Pretty much everything.

And you repeatedly failed to grasp that.

Originally posted by RN7
No you haven't, you have not answered one question directly about what I asked you about how the Soviets lied in WW2.

Um.

What part of 'pretty much everything' was unclear as an answer?

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Barber and Harrison's works on the Soviet War Economy, previously cited, including the link to the online paper I provided, answer most of them. But you obviously haven't read them.

Maiolo's work 'Cry Havoc' explains some of the others. As does Tooze's "Wages of Destruction' ... but you don't seem to be aware of the former and haven't had time to consult the latter as I only mentioned it in a just posted response.

Originally posted by RN7
Well if you included a link I certainly missed it. And once again could you type or copy and paste in plain English no matter how brief about what you mean so we can debate it in a civil fashion.

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
As for whether people are as well read as I or not,*I have no idea. I merely point them in the direction of sources that support the statements I have made so that they can check them out themselves.

So your reasons for implying that I am not very well read, have a deficiency in knowledge or maybe am incapable of understanding your wisdom is what?

I have no idea whether you are well read or not.

I post the cites partly so anyone and everyone can check that they say what I have said they say – and in the hope that they actually read them to ascertain just that.

Whether you know or don't know anything is neither here nor there with regards to the cites …

I have provided them since you have made it plain that you do not believe a single thing I have said …

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
But you evidently don't even believe those, or can't be bothered to check them out ... and I'm giving you a free ride about many of the more ridiculous and provably incorrect unsupported personal assertions you have made, such as the ridiculous numbers for tonnages sunk by U-Boats or the lack of understanding of what Operational Radius for aircraft is (to name just two recent ones).

Originally Posted by RN7
I don't know what you are implying and I am trying to be polite despite your insulting tone and its becoming increasingly difficult to be polite. You claim you are giving me a free ride. About what exactly?

Um.

The bits specifically mentioned?

I've highlighted them in bold text to be helpful.

Phil

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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.

But I thought they built 1,168 He-177's from 1942.

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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.

Nope

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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.



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?*

And I did say failed did I not and I never stated what payload they were carrying, but they did reach their target.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aspqrz

I hear an echo.

And a failure to understand.

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.

Not from my sources

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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?].

But they where still in existence in the Second World War. And yes you can find this information online too its not that hard

Originally Posted by aspqrz

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

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

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?* “


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.


Twaddle.

ROTFLMAO level twaddle.

Phil

Well I think Raellus was right about you.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Um.

I am not sure what you think I have been doing, but the books I cited support the arguments I have been making in plain English.

Which is why I cited them.

Phil

No they don't

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by*aspqrz*
Feel free to provide your sources for those two furphies.

Whatever a furphies is you will note that I earlier supported in this threat the importance of British anti-submarine advances in WW2. I have a book collection in two different countries and it would take me weeks to list them. For naval data of the top of my head....

Allied Escort Ships of WWII: P. Elliott
Atlas of Naval Warfare : H. Pemsel
Britain's Sea War: a Diary of Ship Losses 1939-45: J.M Young (1989)
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45: J. Rohwer & G. Hummelchen (1972)
Submarines of World War Two: E. Bagnasco
The German Navy in WW2: J.C Taylor*
The Liberty Ships: L.A Laywer W.H. Mitchell
The Mediterranean and the Middle East: I.S.O Playfair*
The War at Sea: S.W. Roskill (1954)
U Boat war in the Atlantic 1939-45: MOD*(1946)
Victory Ships and Tankers: David & Charles
Warships of the World: T. Lenton & J. J. Colledge

I've highlighted the ones that may be relevant.

The specific sources for losses that I used ...

The U-Boat Offensive: 1914-45 by VE Tarrant (Arms & Armour Press, 1989)
U-Boats: History, Development and Equipment, 1914-45 by David Miller (Conway Maritime Press, 2000)

Originally posted by RN7
Allied Shipping losses in Atlantic
1940: 3,654,500 tons
1941: 3,295,900 tons
1942: 6,150,340 tons
1943: 2,170,400 tons
1944: 505,700 tons
1945: 366,800 tons

Response by aspqrz from Tarrant
Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: ~500,000 tons
1940: ~2,380,000 tons
1941: ~2,300,000 tons
1942: ~6,600,000 tons
1943: ~2,600,000 tons
1944: ~650,000 tons
1945: ~275,000 tons

Further data from Miller (who, unlike Tarrant, gives losses by Calendar year)

Allied Shipping Losses in the ETO
1939: 509,321
1940: 2,435,586
1941: 2,235, 674
1942: 5,760,485
1943: 2,036,674
1944: 371,698
1945: 256,574

The losses you cite for 1940 and 41 are still way over the odds.

So. Which of the many books you mention are your figures from? The ones I have highlighted are all, except one, very outdated and that may be where the discrepancy comes from.

Volume 2 of Roskill is available online, for example, and its figures for 1942 are within a believable range (depending on whether the include losses to the Japanese or not) ... so where did the weird figures for 1940 + 1941 come from? Specific book, please.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by RN7

No they don't

So you say ... based on your unsupported personal assertions.

Please specify which books don't say which specific things.

Phil

[aspqrz]

RN7 said
But I thought they built 1,168 He-177's from 1942.

1169 or 1137 according to Wikipedia to the end of August 44, when production ceased. Which means that the numbers are suspect because of Speer's known fiddling with actual production figures.

964 or so of the -A3 and -A5 models which had slightly reduced chances of their engines roman candling. Remember the more than 50% operational failure rate of the 14 that tried to bomb the UK?

I am sure you do.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally posted by RN7
Not from my sources

Which you fail to cite.

AR-234 range, 1630 klicks (halve it for the ~800 klicks operational radius). From Complete Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW2.

Confirmed at ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234
http://www.airvectors.net/avar234.html
http://www.aviation-history.com/arado/234.html

... and many many more.

By people who know the difference between maximum range and operational radius.

Phil

[RN7]

Right aspqrz I am going to say this to you publically as I don't believe in going behind people backs as has been done before on this board when there are problems.

I do not like your patronising tone and I don't like your insults. I have had heated discussions with many others on this board, but they have always been amicable and civil and I always have the utmost respect for the opinions of the other members. But I will not sit here and listen to your consistent lack of respect for my intelligence and knowledge or any more of your childish insults.

I have complained to Kato about your conduct and you are the first person that I ever had to complain about on this board and that I think says it all.

[Legbreaker]

So just cite your sources RN7 and prove him wrong! Surely it can't be that hard?
Isn't that what adults do when they disagree?

However, I do agree aspqrz's tone has become somewhat...abrasive, but perhaps that's because he's felt like he's been bashing his head against the same brick wall trying to get you to cite your sources?