|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 0:52:50 GMT -6
a) The 2 man turret was a definite hindrance to combat efficiency, but not the "flaw" I was looking for.. b) Ironically you follow up with "efficient" turret design, which detracts against the 2 man turret concept. In effect, the turret was extremely cramped, had poor outside visibility which made detection and engagements less effective then other national designs, the turret also suffered from variable metal qualities (including the shells), and the gun was only marginally better then the 50mm German AT gun design. The 75mm German long gun was superior to it and even the M4 Sherman 75mm gun was just as good, or in some cases, better then the 76.2mm F-34 gun. Overall IMHO the Sherman was a better overall combat vehicle in terms of combat efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability. Any other opinions?
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 15, 2014 0:41:59 GMT -6
1) Without getting political - yes, Hitler found a world waiting for some madman to take advantage of the situation, and he proved to be a serious opportunist and manipulator of people. However, it was pretty much entirely his idea to start invading other countries and he could have stopped that march at any time. Arguably his greatest failure of the war was attacking Russia - which many of his generals seriously opposed. However, this is getting a bit off topic and get too political very quickly.
2) My point about high speed for CAS aircraft was that it was NOT required, sorry if I was not clear on that. If anything, flying TOO fast worked against the target spotting and accuracy of a CAS/INT strike. Yes, many prop aircraft were very fast but that was not their most important attribute for those types of missions - many aircraft types have proven that "slower" is often better. Your point is well made about "stability" as that was also important.
I think we have wound up this thread.. on to the T-34, unless someone else has more to add to the D-Day discussion.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 14, 2014 5:20:30 GMT -6
As a quick final note regarding the Me-262 fighter/bomber concept; speed - the ONLY true asset of the Me-262, was NEVER a critical factor for an "attack" aircraft as has been proven countless times over. Too FAST means missing the target entirely and slowing down for accuracy for such a jet would have meant making it MUCH more vulnerable to enemy AAA/fighters.
Some examples.. A-1 Skyraider - slow prop job in the age of jets, A-10.. slow.. but used to flying low enough to make any supersonic pilot fear for his life, attack helos - like speed matters at NOE?, and so on.
Point being -- CAS/Interdiction work is the work of slow aircraft that fly very low but with reasonably good range and/or can be committed close to the front effectively. The Me-262 was none of this so bottom line, as a CAS/bomber/interdiction aircraft it would suffered bad losses, hit almost nothing, and been a total waste of an "interceptor". Not much different then comparing the F-104 vs the A-10 with the Me-262 vs the FW-190F-8.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 14, 2014 4:33:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 14, 2014 4:31:59 GMT -6
Very interesting article, chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.htmlOver the years I have never seen a typical mainstream historian slap the T-34 with any sustained negatives - and yes we have all read of the Germans being "shocked" by this Russian wonder weapon.. really? Even by the time of Citadel/Kursk the Russians, even with the constant breakdowns of the Panthers and Tigers (which in turn made the PzIII/IV tanks the most reliable tanks on the field) lost 8-9X more AFVs then the Germans and yet the T-34 was the "BULK" of the armored forces during the battle. That does not look so "superior" to me.. especially considering the Russians had MILES of defenses. During some Russian counter-attacks droves of T-34s were obliterated. That was not the first time either that the loss ratios were so lopsided, severe losses were seen almost from the start of the German invasion. Granted that many T-34s were repaired (some repeatedly) but a lot of what could have been experienced crews were wiped out due to the reasons shown in the article above. The Germans already had some AFVs that could challenge the T-34 at the start of Barbarossa with the PzIIIs and PzIVs which both were quickly, or already, upgraded with better guns. This article also points out that the T-34s were NEVER more then ~1% of the total number of AFVs available to the Soviets. So what gives here?? German propaganda or Soviets blowing their own trumpets?? As most of you know I love to challenge the "mainstream" never ending copycatted gibberish that has been republished since WW2 ended nearly 70 years ago as it just amazes me how long some myths go on for even with plentiful of information out there to challenge them. Some of my favorite targets have been the A6M2, Me262, Japanese torpedo doctrine "superiority", KM warship qualities, etc..etc... I have written quite a few mini-articles on these topics over the years, and in thanks to several of you that took the time to put some true thinking into the topics we all usually walked away from a debate learning more then we started with. Trivia question.. what did the T-34 and many French tanks have in common, and proved to be one of their greatest flaws? So.. is it now time to squash the T-34 historian based "super-propaganda".. any takers? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 13, 2014 0:51:01 GMT -6
I agree about the command and control at Normandy, but Monte Cassino was much more costly then the hedgerows of France - as one small example. You could not just simply slap a weedwacker on a Sherman and plow through it! But that comparison would be good for a different thread. Articles.. yeah, well, since most "article" writers simply forgo the time to do real research and just copy the "mainstream" BS that has been repeated 1000 times over the last 70 years your definitely not going to get a real education on history. Much like the history channel shows - basically the same gibberish over and over again, just a change in format. (Especially the "top ten" series..geezz, even some of the comments in the somewhat better "dogfight" series were bogus) Most historians know squat about tactics, weapon applications, command and control, logistics, etc..etc.. much less WHY things happened the way they did. Its much easier for article writers to play the safe ground of riding the often very opinionated historians context then to ever question their research and analysis abilities, much less challenge their "sources" or findings. I guess they just assume that if a "historian" wrote a book, or books, about history .. well hell, he MUST be right! Whatever. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 11, 2014 23:53:01 GMT -6
Yes, the Germans, and to some limited degree the Italians, fought hard at Sicily and Italy.. but those were far smaller invasions and neither had airbases just a stones throw away with thousands of allied aircraft at the ready. Much of the most daunting effect on the Allies movements in Italy was the rugged and often mountainous terrain and limited area of strategic maneuvering IMHO.. but that is for another thread.
The Me262 would have been almost useless for "interdiction" raids.. 6 seconds of firepower (60 rounds per gun) with a max effective range of around 600m, hopelessly inaccurate for bombing, limited view from the cockpit, if it slowed down to find ground targets at low altitude it would have been far more vulnerable to prop fighters and AAA (a hot piece of flak in an engine could have caused it to cartwheel right into the ground), and again.. you go back to the problem of limited range so their airbases would be prime targets if they started showing up over the battlefield - just as happened when they attacked bombers, but worse. It was an *interceptor*.. nothing more, and much worse at anything else. It was bad enough it took a crack shot, steady nerves, and a damn good pilot to hit a big fat easy to see slow flying bomber with an Me-262 (which is why they often prefered the R4M rockets) so hitting a vehicle sized target on the ground would have been insane.
The author claimed they could "sweep" the skies of enemy bombers, complete BS. That was not going to happen, EVER. On AVERAGE the Luftwaffe had around 3,900 serviceable aircraft at any given time during the war for ALL fronts.. that was it, with maybe ~40-50% of those being fighter type aircraft. The 8th Air Force ALONE had could launch up to around ~3,000 aircraft in a SINGLE DAY on raids over Europe when at peak strength. A measly 1,400 Me-262s (which most never saw combat, only 200 were available for combat at any given time) was going to stop that?? Even double that number and they could not have hoped for a snowballs chance in hell to do much better - especially with the lack of pilots and serious logistical challenges involved. If they got to be a real nuisance the allies would have hunted them down like rabid dogs and hammered their airbases - and/or - pushed the P-80s and Meteors out to combat them more rapidly. As it were, those 1,400 built Me-262s only waxed 100 bombers, hell the USAF lost more then that a day on average due to flight accidents! I would also note that more bombers were lost to FLAK then ANY OTHER threat - IIRC.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 8, 2014 19:00:01 GMT -6
To Dennis, For the most part I think you and me mostly agree in general - although with a few differences of opinion. Note, I used "kill ratios" as an *abstract* measure of circumstantial evidence of the general effect of the Me262 compared to other aircraft, along with some notations of the differences. In the final tally, I would have expected better from the Me262 even if zapping primarily bombers with heavy cannon and rockets to regard it as a good interceptor, but like we both agree on - lack of a GOOD pilots, and other problems, were a big problem for such an advanced aircraft. I do not believe kill ratios can be totally ignored either even if they are only one abstract part of the "combat effectiveness" equation. The F4F Wildcat has been regarded forever by historians as being totally inferior to the A6M2 yet it held a kill ratio nearly on par with it even against the "best naval aviators" in the world at the time. Counter-tactics, rugged reliability, and good firepower helped the F4F challenge the "aerobatic" A6M2 wonder that torched its own pilots on a regular basis due to not having good armor. In the end the F4F, according to one source, held a final ratio of 6:1, mostly against the Japanese - so maybe it was not so "inferior" after all? Is that a detailed analysis.. of course not, but a reasonable general deduction. Now of course.. I am being short winded here rather then giving an elongated analysis - which you and me have done in the past many times over my friend - so as not to bore our audience or to jump too far away from the primary topic, so I was sticking with the more simplistic and abstract methods of comparisons. As to the entire "they could not stop the invasion" piece.. I agree. I have always had the opinion that the Germans did not have nearly enough mobile strength - especially with lack of total air cover - to make any major effect on the invasion. It is interesting to note.. of all amphibious assaults that held full aerial superiority not one ever failed, yet those that did not, did fail - as far as I can recall, unless someone wants to dig that hole a bit further as I do not have time at the moment to look all of them up. Anyone want to take a shot at that one? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 8, 2014 3:59:10 GMT -6
I think retaliation was a consideration in their thoughts but this is a highly debatable, and very hypothetical, topic.. either way, the Germans knew it was a bad idea. You pretty much repeated what I said above with the "maneuver warfare" response. As to the Japanese.. that would be another thread, and likely would get quite political.
As to the F/Bs stuff.. I think one should bear in mind that P-51s had the free range to hunt down whatever they could shoot up on the way back from escort missions whenever the Luftwaffe didn't put up much of a fight, just as one example. Secondly, I could care less if they carried bombs and rockets or not, the good old .50s and Hispanos could kill it all just fine and were FAR more effective at hitting stuff. Before anyone goes "but gosh they can't kill tanks!".. wrong, totally wrong. Kill the trucks and you kill the tanks, just run them out of gas/ammo/spare parts - now you have a hunk of abandoned junk. Interdiction was the the most effective way to disrupt the German army, and they were far more often "hit and run" raids vs the typical "CAS loitering" types of attacks.
The only reason for the "kill ratios" was to show that the Me262 was not nearly as effective as many historians hyped it up to be for a lot of different reasons and it surely would never have gained complete aerial supremacy no matter how many they might have built, and then prayed they could support them with VERY WELL trained pilots, ground crews, and supplies - it was not designed for it. It was designed to zip in and zap bombers, plain and simple - not run all over France chasing down buckets and buckets of F/Bs while trying to avoid being overwhelmed by allied fighter patrols and/or not get shot to hell while taking off or landing.
I like your "mirror image" context, the Germans did a lot of that during the war in various ways and yes, they were almost clueless about "amphibious" invasions - especially anything of THAT scale, which no one had even thought of doing before.
No, it was not a "military disaster" as the Germans caused far more damage to the invasion forces fighting it out for Caen. Even if the Germans chewed up more allied troops at Normandy they were never going to stop it IMHO. There was simply too much naval and aerial firepower near the coast to see another Dunkirk and the landing was simply too massive to stop it entirely.
What do you all think? Could the Germans have pushed the Allies back into the sea? I doubt it personally. Does make for interesting discussion.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 7, 2014 16:36:39 GMT -6
To Spook,
Yes, OAW.. all armored vehicles have top armor - even if they didn't have any. So strafing, bombing, air attacks, and artillery are almost useless against any armored vehicle, especially with the lack of accurate anti-armor ratings for HE ordnance. The above makes armored vehicles, no matter how thin their armor is - or lack of top armor in reality, almost impervious to even the heaviest HE ordnance, which is not accurate. I have verified this in several custom scenario tests using everything from lots of P-47s with 500lb bombs to entire batteries of 75mm-155mm field guns vs armored vehicles on open terrain not moving and heavily concentrated. The effects were almost non-existent. Non-specific armor piercing ordnance is rated on the "anti-personnel" ratings for effects on armor - but in reality this reverses the realistic effects of heavier shells and bombs if an armored vehicle is "near missed" or directly hit. During WW2 armored vehicles often had parts dislodged, tracks blown off, spalling, shock-effect, or even turned over by near misses from heavy artillery and bombs. In OAW such weapons do nearly nothing at all. I would love the series if not for that serious detraction. I was hoping the TOAD team, which verified this problem, would fix it.. they were trying to find a work-around, not sure if they succeeded yet. You can edit the weapons.. but that would take a LOT of time. Ironically, Norm Koger DID have such anti-armor effects for HE ordnance, even heavy mortars, better modeled in TANKS!... go figure.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 7, 2014 16:24:08 GMT -6
Agreed on the chemical part, their use would have been unpredictable fiasco as much for the using side as the receiving side - WW1 proved conclusively that chemicals were a bad idea. With forces not so static and trenched up as was done during WW1 the chemicals could scatter over friendly troops as easily as enemy troops. Even though chemicals caused "casualties" the death rates were only a fraction of those effected during WW1 (~3% on the Western Front, ~7% on the Eastern Front). The entire chemical warfare of WW1 was a major waste of energy, money, and time and with very limited overall tactical effects. Example, the British had 4x more men killed on just the first day of the Somme then all chemical attacks combined throughout the entire war. The idea that they would have been used during WW2 on any serious level is bogus.. even Hitler was not that stupid, the Japanese (as CC stated).. well their disregard for human life (especially the Chinese) and political fallout, and seriously underestimating the resolve of the US, was clearly evident. If they would have used chemicals on US troops then I think the response would have been severe.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 6, 2014 23:33:37 GMT -6
As a note of comparison and an abstract example of why the Me262 would not have succeeded as an air superiority fighter, (and before the jet-jockeys state "there were Me262 aces against fighter prop jobs during WW2!")
Kill ratios : Me262 = 3-4.5 to 1 (mostly vs bombers) F4F Wildcat = 6 to 1 P-51 = 12 to 1 P-47 = 8 to 1 F6F = 12-13 to 1
Note, the substantially higher kill ratios for the F6F and P-51 should be tempered with the fact that they were facing far fewer experienced enemy pilots and (for the Pacific especially) less quality aircraft then their predecessors in general.
Point being.. even IF the Me262 reached front line service earlier, or in greater numbers (IF they could find enough good pilots - this was not a simple to fly or fight plane), and keep up high-tech logistics and maintenance, and cover their airfields effectively.. would the kill ratio been much better or even close to enough to gain air superiority at any point past 1943?
I seriously doubt it.
If they started to be a real pain in the ass you can rest assure that serious pressure would have been put on their airfields, factories, fuel, parts, etc... and/or the P-80 and Meteor would have been pushed forward and/or improved upon much sooner.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 6, 2014 21:37:23 GMT -6
Agreed.. I think far too few historians realize just how devastating FBs were to any movement. Interdiction was FAR FAR FAR more effective then CAS in terms of destroyed, damaged, and disrupted enemy units - ESPECIALLY LOGISTICS. A truck or ox-cart is NO match for any bullets. Even a silly WW1 style biplane could strafe a truck/cart column with good results. Even open topped HTs and SPGs could be clobbered badly - especially by cannon and HMG armed aircraft. (A point few wargames properly model - especially OPAW) IMHO, the jets would have been a joke. Zipping in and zapping a lowly bomber flying slower then a seagull with tons of bombs on board is not the same thing as hundreds, or even thousands, of far more nimble FBs flying all over the countryside blowing apart anything that moves, airfields, etc.. Jets were not fighters yet, they were still "interceptors" .. and there is a huge difference, something that almost all historians flat fail to understand. Bombers benefited from air superiority but they did not, directly, help maintain it. That was the job of the fighters.. if you can't defeat the fighters in the air, and on the ground, then you cannot gain aerial superiority - end of story. The Me262 range was poor, combat endurance was poor, and logistics/quality pilot/crew training was a serious problem to maintain for the Germans. Its only real asset was speed.. not much else. If the jets started to be a PITA.. well, you could rest assure the Allies would respond with some counter-measures, as did happen with effect in air combat, and even more effectively at their airfields, in 1944-45. Low combat range vs enemy planes with longer range.. is simply bad news. They can reach your airfields.. you can't, so being caught on, or near, the ground is a real problem. Would have been far smarter to build a bucket load of FW-190s.. a far better "fighter" then the Me262 ever was, easier on logistics, repairs, fuel, and most of all.. not-so-expert pilots. In the end the "super-jet" had to be protected by prop planes at their own airfields! Just my few cents.. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Jun 6, 2014 19:37:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by William Miller on Apr 22, 2014 6:16:27 GMT -6
Regarding any online store inquiries it is always best to contact me by email at nws-online(@)nws-online.net .. remove the ()
Thanks.
|
|