Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WWII Allied Gliders
25 views
Skip to first unread message
a425couple
Mar 12, 2012, 7:08:30 PM3/12/12
to
Here is some stuff.
It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
(basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
let me know.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_gliders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
"The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
Hadrian in British military service.
Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
"Although not the intention of the Army Air Forces, gliders were generally
considered expendable by high-ranking European theater officers and
combat personnel and were abandoned or destroyed after landing.
While equipment and methods for extracting flyable gliders were
developed and delivered to Europe, half of that equipment was rendered
unavailable by certain higher-ranked officers.[citation needed]" ((!!))
One company made "2418 Units at $14,891 dollars each."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
"The Airspeed AS.51 Horsa was a British World War II ---
Number built over 3,600
With up to 30 troop seats,-- Instead of troops, the AS 51 could
carry a jeep or a 6 pounder anti tank gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hamilcar
The General Aircraft Limited GAL. 49 Hamilcar or Hamilcar Mark I
was a large British military glider --- which was designed to carry
heavy cargo, such as the Tetrarch or M22 Locust light tank. --
Number built 344 Unit cost £50,000
Hamilcars were only used on three occasions ---
When the glider was carrying tanks or other vehicles, common practice
was that their engines would be started in the air, usually just prior to
the glider casting off from the tug; special exhaust ducts were fitted to
the glider to expel exhaust fumes. The Tetrarch and M22 Locust light
tanks were so large that they barely fit inside the glider, and as such
their crews stayed inside the tank for the duration of the flight. Once the
glider landed, ----- If the swing door was jammed after the glider had
landed,
it was possible for tanks to break through the unopened forward fuselage
and drive straight out of the glider, which occurred in both airborne
operations where Hamilcars transported tanks."
It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
(basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
let me know.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_gliders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
"The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
Hadrian in British military service.
Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
"Although not the intention of the Army Air Forces, gliders were generally
considered expendable by high-ranking European theater officers and
combat personnel and were abandoned or destroyed after landing.
While equipment and methods for extracting flyable gliders were
developed and delivered to Europe, half of that equipment was rendered
unavailable by certain higher-ranked officers.[citation needed]" ((!!))
One company made "2418 Units at $14,891 dollars each."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
"The Airspeed AS.51 Horsa was a British World War II ---
Number built over 3,600
With up to 30 troop seats,-- Instead of troops, the AS 51 could
carry a jeep or a 6 pounder anti tank gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hamilcar
The General Aircraft Limited GAL. 49 Hamilcar or Hamilcar Mark I
was a large British military glider --- which was designed to carry
heavy cargo, such as the Tetrarch or M22 Locust light tank. --
Number built 344 Unit cost £50,000
Hamilcars were only used on three occasions ---
When the glider was carrying tanks or other vehicles, common practice
was that their engines would be started in the air, usually just prior to
the glider casting off from the tug; special exhaust ducts were fitted to
the glider to expel exhaust fumes. The Tetrarch and M22 Locust light
tanks were so large that they barely fit inside the glider, and as such
their crews stayed inside the tank for the duration of the flight. Once the
glider landed, ----- If the swing door was jammed after the glider had
landed,
it was possible for tanks to break through the unopened forward fuselage
and drive straight out of the glider, which occurred in both airborne
operations where Hamilcars transported tanks."
a425couple
Mar 12, 2012, 7:23:36 PM3/12/12
to
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> Here is some stuff.
Weird ones:
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
"200 AS 52 Horsas were also to be constructed to carry bombs.
A central fuselage bomb bay holding four 2,000 lb or two 4,000 lb
bombs was fitted into the standard Horsa fuselage. The concept
of towing bombs was dropped as other bombers became available"
I do not understand this planned concept.
For low level, very important, very high loss of crew targets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Airborne_Transport_XCG-16A
Cross between flying wing and P-38.
Sad story!
> Here is some stuff.
Weird ones:
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa
"200 AS 52 Horsas were also to be constructed to carry bombs.
A central fuselage bomb bay holding four 2,000 lb or two 4,000 lb
bombs was fitted into the standard Horsa fuselage. The concept
of towing bombs was dropped as other bombers became available"
I do not understand this planned concept.
For low level, very important, very high loss of crew targets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Airborne_Transport_XCG-16A
Cross between flying wing and P-38.
Sad story!
Gordon
Mar 12, 2012, 9:37:59 PM3/12/12
to
On Mar 12, 4:08 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_glidershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>
> "The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
> Hadrian in British military service.
> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
Out of tens of thousands of aviation photos, the one that gets the
> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
> Hadrian in British military service.
> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
worst reaction from me when I encounter it in the collection is a
vertical Waco, probably three hundred feet above the ground and
augering straight in with a load of terrified Congressmen after the
wing separated in flight at an airshow. For years, I had it without
a caption, just a combat glider going in vertically. It made me
wince, but it was an impersonal image. Then about six years ago, I
found another photo, showing the passengers and pilot crowding into an
overloaded Waco for a demonstration ride. The caption explained that
a few minutes later, as the glider passed over the reviewing stands at
the airshow, the wing separated and all aboard plunged to their
deaths. It made me pull out my other Waco image (I only had the two)
and it was somewhat mortifying to realize I had an image of their last
seconds of life.
a425couple
Mar 12, 2012, 10:17:48 PM3/12/12
to
"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message...
- "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_glidershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
> "The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
> Hadrian in British military service.
> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
-Out of tens of thousands of aviation photos, the one that gets the
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_glidershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
> "The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
> Hadrian in British military service.
> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
-worst reaction from me when I encounter it in the collection is a
-vertical Waco, probably three hundred feet above the ground and
-augering straight in with a load of terrified Congressmen after the
-wing separated in flight at an airshow. For years, I had it without
-a caption, just a combat glider going in vertically. It made me
-wince, but it was an impersonal image. Then about six years ago, I
-found another photo, showing the passengers and pilot crowding into an
-overloaded Waco for a demonstration ride. The caption explained that
-a few minutes later, as the glider passed over the reviewing stands at
-the airshow, the wing separated and all aboard plunged to their
-deaths. It made me pull out my other Waco image (I only had the two)
-and it was somewhat mortifying to realize I had an image of their last
-seconds of life.
Bummer. Thanks. Here are some more specifics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Robertson
Major William Bryan Robertson (1893 -1943) was an American
aviator and aviation executive who was the co-founder of
Lambert-St. Louis Flying Field as well as the owner and President
of Robertson Aircraft Corporation (RAC) ---
On August 1, 1943, a WACO CG-4A military troop and cargo
transport glider built under license by RAC crashed at Lambert
Field in St. Louis during a demonstration flight when its right wing
separated shortly after it had been released at 3,000 feet (910 m)
by its Army C-47 tow plane killing all ten on board including Maj.
Robertson. Robertson's then 17-year old son, James, was a passenger
in a successful flight of the glider made immediately before the fatal
flight.
Halmyre
Mar 13, 2012, 3:57:24 AM3/13/12
to
On Mar 12, 11:08 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>
I would have thought 'probably never', let alone 'not too often'. By
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
>
the time you've dismantled it, carried it back home and rebuilt and
repaired it, you'll either have spent more than it cost to build it in
the first place, or the war's going to be over.
There's a reproduction of a glider cockpit in the Flight Museum at
East Fortune in Scotland. According to the information there were
plans to deliver them to the UK by towing them across the Atlantic,
which sounds like enormous fun.
--
Halmyre
Dan
Mar 13, 2012, 4:24:27 AM3/13/12
to
a tow airplane. A hook dragged by the tow airplane would snag a rope
stretched between two poles. I have seen footage of it, but have no idea
how often it was used.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Ken S. Tucker
Mar 13, 2012, 5:53:04 AM3/13/12
to
a425couple wrote:
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually
> Here is some stuff.
> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> let me know.)
hard on the airframe, anything more gets expensive.
Very likely cheaper to build a new one than recover an
old job and renovate it.
The best glider scenes I've seen in movies is in "A Bridge
to Far".
Ken
Vaughn
Mar 13, 2012, 7:42:52 AM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 4:24 AM, Dan wrote:
>
> There was a system where a serviceable glider could be snatched using a
> tow airplane. A hook dragged by the tow airplane would snag a rope
> stretched between two poles. I have seen footage of it, but have no idea
> how often it was used.
>
That triggers some old brain cells... I remember something about the
>
> There was a system where a serviceable glider could be snatched using a
> tow airplane. A hook dragged by the tow airplane would snag a rope
> stretched between two poles. I have seen footage of it, but have no idea
> how often it was used.
>
USAF using that technique after the war. They had some idea that a
glider might be useful for arctic rescue operations. I remember a story
about a C-54 and crew being lost in a pickup attempt when the pickup
hook caught, flew loose, then jammed into the plane's tail feathers.
(The same veteran had interesting stories about ejecting unwilling sled
dogs for parachute drops.)
Vaughn
Vaughn
Mar 13, 2012, 7:58:44 AM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 3:57 AM, Halmyre wrote:
>According to the information there were
> plans to deliver them to the UK by towing them across the Atlantic,
> which sounds like enormous fun.
It sounds enormously dangerous. A glider doesn't willingly follow a tow
>According to the information there were
> plans to deliver them to the UK by towing them across the Atlantic,
> which sounds like enormous fun.
plane like a U-haul trailer follows your car. It actually requires
constant formation flying. One moment's inattention can lead to
disaster. In rough conditions it can be very tiring. If the delicate
balance between the towplane and glider becomes too upset, the best
solution is often to release the tow rope. As you can imagine, that
would be a problem over water since there is no way to re-connect in the
air!
The fun part of instructing in gliders with airtow is that the first
essential skill for a new pilot is formation flying. Once they master
that, teaching them to maneuver and land is comparatively easy.
Vaughn
Dan
Mar 13, 2012, 8:07:58 AM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 4:53 AM, Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> a425couple wrote:
>> Here is some stuff.
>> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
>> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
>> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
>> let me know.)
>
> Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually
> hard on the airframe, anything more gets expensive.
> Very likely cheaper to build a new one than recover an
> old job and renovate it.
So they only used each glider once and only once during training?
> a425couple wrote:
>> Here is some stuff.
>> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
>> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
>> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
>> let me know.)
>
> Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually
> hard on the airframe, anything more gets expensive.
> Very likely cheaper to build a new one than recover an
> old job and renovate it.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 13, 2012, 8:56:27 AM3/13/12
to
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sNOdneGpi_g8pcLS...@giganews.com...
> ...> So they only used each glider once and only once during
> training?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
All the pilots had to practice, but not all the aircraft.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
http://www.pointvista.com/WW2GliderPilots/glider_pilot_training.htm
jsw
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Mar 13, 2012, 10:54:32 AM3/13/12
to
In article <jjlvm...@news3.newsguy.com>, a425c...@hotmail.com
gliders required repair to get them into flying condition after a combat
landing. There are other points as well. You needed control of the area
where the glider was located and enough flat land for the tug and
glider to take off from. Landing zones were usually not on top of the
target (Emmel Emmel was an exception) and the troops had to reached the
assigned target as soon as possible. The main use off glider recovery
would be while gliders were in transit. Certainly the Germans came to
the conclusion that fitting gliders with engines was a better bet
producing powered versions of the Gotha 242 and Me 321.
Ken Young
(a425couple) wrote:
> gliders were generally
> considered expendable by high-ranking European theater officers and
> combat personnel and were abandoned or destroyed after landing.
Not surprising as judging by various accounts of glider operation most
> gliders were generally
> considered expendable by high-ranking European theater officers and
> combat personnel and were abandoned or destroyed after landing.
gliders required repair to get them into flying condition after a combat
landing. There are other points as well. You needed control of the area
where the glider was located and enough flat land for the tug and
glider to take off from. Landing zones were usually not on top of the
target (Emmel Emmel was an exception) and the troops had to reached the
assigned target as soon as possible. The main use off glider recovery
would be while gliders were in transit. Certainly the Germans came to
the conclusion that fitting gliders with engines was a better bet
producing powered versions of the Gotha 242 and Me 321.
Ken Young
Vaughn
Mar 13, 2012, 11:27:11 AM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 8:07 AM, Dan wrote:
>
>>
>> Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually
>> hard on the airframe, anything more gets expensive.
>> Very likely cheaper to build a new one than recover an
>> old job and renovate it.
>
> So they only used each glider once and only once during training?
>
No way! Surely any glider strong enough to carry cargo is strong enough
>
>>
>> Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually
>> hard on the airframe, anything more gets expensive.
>> Very likely cheaper to build a new one than recover an
>> old job and renovate it.
>
> So they only used each glider once and only once during training?
>
to survive many landing in a properly prepared landing zone. However,
when landing in an unprepared combat area, all bets are off! Most
training wasn't in the actual cargo gliders though. They had various
training gliders for that.
I have I have nothing but respect for glider assault pilots. None of
them could possibly have been properly trained, because "proper
training" would have been too expensive and too dangerous. They were
all "learning by doing". I have hundreds of hours of glider time, and
have no desire to try to land a loaded cargo glider anywhere! And
certainly not into a mined landing zone whilst under fire.
Vaughn
Gordon
Mar 13, 2012, 12:16:40 PM3/13/12
to
original workers build their copies, which apparently flew quite well
during filming. They applied this level of accuracy to as many
aspects of the film as possible, resulting in one of the truly classic
and accurate war movies you will ever find.
Keith W
Mar 13, 2012, 3:13:37 PM3/13/12
to
larger gliders to do many landings in training. For example in the
run up to the Arnhem and Rhine landings there were more than
2800 missions flown by Hamilcar gliders of C Squadron alone.
The average crew flew some 50 lifts and as only 344 were actually
built reuse was a given.
Keith
Ken S. Tucker
Mar 13, 2012, 5:38:39 PM3/13/12
to
Gordon wrote:
>> The best glider scenes I've seen in movies is in "A Bridge
>> to Far".
>> Ken
>
> as it should be - the producers reopened production lines and had
> original workers build their copies, which apparently flew quite well
> during filming. They applied this level of accuracy to as many
> aspects of the film as possible, resulting in one of the truly classic
> and accurate war movies you will ever find.
Doubt anyone understood the final 'market garden' plan,
>> The best glider scenes I've seen in movies is in "A Bridge
>> to Far".
>> Ken
>
> as it should be - the producers reopened production lines and had
> original workers build their copies, which apparently flew quite well
> during filming. They applied this level of accuracy to as many
> aspects of the film as possible, resulting in one of the truly classic
> and accurate war movies you will ever find.
(I need a map just to watch the movie!)
surprised Kansas farm boy Ike approved it, as he usually
preferred plans a bit more straightforward.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Mar 13, 2012, 5:49:07 PM3/13/12
to
tells me ground winds, a nice piece of numbered pavement,VFR,
touch and go.
BUT, you're right, flying into a combat zone with 30 guys on board,
the last thing I give a rats ass about is not hurting the glider.
Loosing a wing to a tree is the least of my problems.
Ken
Diogenes
Mar 13, 2012, 5:57:28 PM3/13/12
to
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Gordon
<Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
>On Mar 12, 4:08 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is some stuff.
>> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
>> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
>> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
>> let me know.)
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_glidershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
>> "The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
>> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
>> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
>> Hadrian in British military service.
>> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
>> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
>
>Out of tens of thousands of aviation photos, the one that gets the
>worst reaction from me when I encounter it in the collection is a
>vertical Waco, probably three hundred feet above the ground and
>augering straight in with a load of terrified Congressmen after the
>wing separated in flight at an airshow.
" . . a load of terrified Congressmen . . ."?
<Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
>On Mar 12, 4:08 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is some stuff.
>> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
>> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
>> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
>> let me know.)
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_glidershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
>> "The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
>> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
>> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
>> Hadrian in British military service.
>> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
>> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
>
>Out of tens of thousands of aviation photos, the one that gets the
>worst reaction from me when I encounter it in the collection is a
>vertical Waco, probably three hundred feet above the ground and
>augering straight in with a load of terrified Congressmen after the
>wing separated in flight at an airshow.
Hmm, if we could set up a modern reenactment I have a list of
congresscritters I would nominate for the passenger list.
----
Diogenes
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
Eunometic
Mar 13, 2012, 7:04:44 PM3/13/12
to
On Mar 13, 10:08 am, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The issue of returning gliders became such a problem for the Luftwaffe
they powered theirs.
The Me 321 had been designed as part of opperation sealion and was to
be capable of delivering
a Panzer Mk IV. Problems returning the glider and also of finding a
big enough tow
lead to the introduction of 4 radial engines to supplement the tow
aircraft and to
allow untowed flights back from the field.
Eventually the aircraft received 6 engines and became fully automous,
being basically just a slow
transport. Versions with 6 x Jumo 211F or 6 x BMW 801 would have been
able to lift the original
Panzer IV load.
The Gotha G 242 gliders was also converted to the Gotha 244
transports; they tended to be quite vulnerable but still had good STOL
capabilities.
RATO was a solution to getting these aircraft of the ground. I would
rather think that once on the ground they could be easily disassembled
and put on a truck.
The issue of returning gliders became such a problem for the Luftwaffe
they powered theirs.
The Me 321 had been designed as part of opperation sealion and was to
be capable of delivering
a Panzer Mk IV. Problems returning the glider and also of finding a
big enough tow
lead to the introduction of 4 radial engines to supplement the tow
aircraft and to
allow untowed flights back from the field.
Eventually the aircraft received 6 engines and became fully automous,
being basically just a slow
transport. Versions with 6 x Jumo 211F or 6 x BMW 801 would have been
able to lift the original
Panzer IV load.
The Gotha G 242 gliders was also converted to the Gotha 244
transports; they tended to be quite vulnerable but still had good STOL
capabilities.
RATO was a solution to getting these aircraft of the ground. I would
rather think that once on the ground they could be easily disassembled
and put on a truck.
Dan
Mar 13, 2012, 7:52:57 PM3/13/12
to
since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they didn't
have big aircraft to shoot down.
Daryl
Mar 13, 2012, 8:21:53 PM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 5:04 PM, Eunometic wrote:
> On Mar 13, 10:08 am, "a425couple"<a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The issue of returning gliders became such a problem for the Luftwaffe
> they powered theirs.
>
> The Me 321 had been designed as part of opperation sealion and was to
> be capable of delivering
> a Panzer Mk IV. Problems returning the glider and also of finding a
> big enough tow
> lead to the introduction of 4 radial engines to supplement the tow
> aircraft and to
> allow untowed flights back from the field.
>
> Eventually the aircraft received 6 engines and became fully automous,
> being basically just a slow
> transport. Versions with 6 x Jumo 211F or 6 x BMW 801 would have been
> able to lift the original
> Panzer IV load.
This was the ME-323, a 6 engine version. Maximum cruise speed of
> On Mar 13, 10:08 am, "a425couple"<a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The issue of returning gliders became such a problem for the Luftwaffe
> they powered theirs.
>
> The Me 321 had been designed as part of opperation sealion and was to
> be capable of delivering
> a Panzer Mk IV. Problems returning the glider and also of finding a
> big enough tow
> lead to the introduction of 4 radial engines to supplement the tow
> aircraft and to
> allow untowed flights back from the field.
>
> Eventually the aircraft received 6 engines and became fully automous,
> being basically just a slow
> transport. Versions with 6 x Jumo 211F or 6 x BMW 801 would have been
> able to lift the original
> Panzer IV load.
136 mph empty at sea level. Gaining altitude, the bird's speed
fell off dramatically.
Oh, BTW, it's ferry range (empty and flying at about 90 kts) was
around 500 miles. You are just making stuff up now.
>
> The Gotha G 242 gliders was also converted to the Gotha 244
> transports; they tended to be quite vulnerable but still had good STOL
> capabilities.
>
> RATO was a solution to getting these aircraft of the ground. I would
> rather think that once on the ground they could be easily disassembled
> and put on a truck.
Mixing Rato with towed gliders of that size was iffy at best.
> The Gotha G 242 gliders was also converted to the Gotha 244
> transports; they tended to be quite vulnerable but still had good STOL
> capabilities.
>
> RATO was a solution to getting these aircraft of the ground. I would
> rather think that once on the ground they could be easily disassembled
> and put on a truck.
One accident was where one of the Ratos didn't fire and it threw
off `ME-110s that was trying to tow it.
It failed in the Med due to the heavy losses to the British
Hawkers and Spits as well as the South African Kittyhawks.
It failed on the Russian Front as it did not have the support to
land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
(concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
ground. They were failures.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Vaughn
Mar 13, 2012, 9:44:47 PM3/13/12
to
On 3/13/2012 7:04 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>Problems returning the glider and also of finding a
> big enough tow
> lead to the introduction of 4 radial engines to supplement the tow
> aircraft and to
> allow untowed flights back from the field.
>
> Eventually the aircraft received 6 engines and became fully automous,
> being basically just a slow
> transport.
Which must be where we stole the idea for the CG20/C123 Of course, we
>Problems returning the glider and also of finding a
> big enough tow
> lead to the introduction of 4 radial engines to supplement the tow
> aircraft and to
> allow untowed flights back from the field.
>
> Eventually the aircraft received 6 engines and became fully automous,
> being basically just a slow
> transport.
did the Germans one better by even making a jet version. The very first
USAF jet transport! By the way,the C123 turned out to be a pretty damn
successful transport. They were all over Vietnam.
Vaughn
Orval Fairbairn
Mar 13, 2012, 11:13:21 PM3/13/12
to
In article <MZWdnUY3FttCQMLS...@giganews.com>,
The US also used B-26 Marauders to shoot them dow over the Med.
Peter Stickney
Mar 13, 2012, 10:49:16 PM3/13/12
to
had beefed-up landing gear mounts.
It was noted, btw, that the CG-4 flew most like a Piper J-3 Cub with the engine
throttled back. There were, in fact, some conversion of J-3s to training gliders.
Piper made 250 of them as TG-8s. (There also were similar numbers of
Aeroncas and T-cart conversions as well)
Early on, they used civilian sailplanes as trainers for combat glider pilots,
but, with their emphasis on gliding performance, (About triple the glide ratio)
transition to the cargo gliders was a pain.
Back in the '70s, some of us glider/soaring found a CG-4 crate in Connecticut
with a CG-4 still in it.
We harbored thoughts of restoring and flying it, including, perhaps, an air-snatch
as an airshow demonstration.
Alas, we were brought down by 2 problems - we couldn't find a DC-3 owner willing
to tow us, and the airframe was too far gone for restoration.
I did have fun working out an airshow routing in a throttled-back J-3 though.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Peter Stickney
Mar 14, 2012, 12:04:37 AM3/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:27:11 -0400, Vaughn wrote:
> On 3/13/2012 8:07 AM, Dan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually hard on the
>>> airframe, anything more gets expensive. Very likely cheaper to build a
>>> new one than recover an old job and renovate it.
>>
>> So they only used each glider once and only once during training?
>>
>>
> No way! Surely any glider strong enough to carry cargo is strong enough
> to survive many landing in a properly prepared landing zone. However,
> when landing in an unprepared combat area, all bets are off! Most
> training wasn't in the actual cargo gliders though. They had various
> training gliders for that.
British Horsa Mk I gliders weren't going to be recovered after a
> On 3/13/2012 8:07 AM, Dan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Gliders were designed for one landing, that was usually hard on the
>>> airframe, anything more gets expensive. Very likely cheaper to build a
>>> new one than recover an old job and renovate it.
>>
>> So they only used each glider once and only once during training?
>>
>>
> No way! Surely any glider strong enough to carry cargo is strong enough
> to survive many landing in a properly prepared landing zone. However,
> when landing in an unprepared combat area, all bets are off! Most
> training wasn't in the actual cargo gliders though. They had various
> training gliders for that.
tactical drop - part of the unloading equipment was a crosscut
saw used to saw off the tail of the aircraft, for easier unloading.
> I have I have nothing but respect for glider assault pilots. None of
> them could possibly have been properly trained, because "proper
> training" would have been too expensive and too dangerous. They were
> all "learning by doing". I have hundreds of hours of glider time, and
> have no desire to try to land a loaded cargo glider anywhere! And
> certainly not into a mined landing zone whilst under fire.
and Flak. For example, they conducted Squadron and Group - sized
night drops into unprepared fields. (Normal procedure was
to land and get the left wingtip over a blackout light set by either the Pathfinders
or the first ship to land. The copilot would dash out, grab the lamp, and set it over
150' or so for the next ship in the pattern. It wasn't unusual to the light that you're
lining up on suddenly move 50 yards left 3 or 4 times while you were on final.
Yes, they dinged a lot of airplanes.
Halmyre
Mar 14, 2012, 2:04:33 AM3/14/12
to
On Mar 13, 9:57 pm, Diogenes <cdho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
> >On Mar 12, 4:08 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Here is some stuff.
> >> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> >> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> >> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> >> let me know.)
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_glidershtt...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
> >On Mar 12, 4:08 pm, "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Here is some stuff.
> >> It started as a simple question I was asking myself:
> >> How often was a glider reused after a combat operation?
> >> (basicly = not too often. If you have better specifics,
> >> let me know.)
>
> >> "The Waco CG-4A was the most widely used United States
> >> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
> >> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
> >> Hadrian in British military service.
> >> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
> >> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
>
> >Out of tens of thousands of aviation photos, the one that gets the
> >worst reaction from me when I encounter it in the collection is a
> >vertical Waco, probably three hundred feet above the ground and
> >augering straight in with a load of terrified Congressmen after the
> >wing separated in flight at an airshow.
>
> " . . a load of terrified Congressmen . . ."?
>
> Hmm, if we could set up a modern reenactment I have a list of
> congresscritters I would nominate for the passenger list.
Similarly for UK politicians but, as Roy Schneider almost said, you're
> >> troop/cargo military glider of World War II. It was designated
> >> the CG-4A by the United States Army Air Forces[1], and named
> >> Hadrian in British military service.
> >> Designed by the Waco Aircraft Company, flight testing began in May
> >> 1942, and eventually more than 13,900 CG-4As were delivered."
>
> >Out of tens of thousands of aviation photos, the one that gets the
> >worst reaction from me when I encounter it in the collection is a
> >vertical Waco, probably three hundred feet above the ground and
> >augering straight in with a load of terrified Congressmen after the
> >wing separated in flight at an airshow.
>
> " . . a load of terrified Congressmen . . ."?
>
> Hmm, if we could set up a modern reenactment I have a list of
> congresscritters I would nominate for the passenger list.
gonna need a bigger glider...
--
Halmyre
Daryl
Mar 14, 2012, 3:22:49 AM3/14/12
to
Alistair Gunn
Mar 14, 2012, 11:31:05 AM3/14/12
to
In rec.aviation.military Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
a Russian winter is something of achievement really!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> It failed on the Russian Front as it did not have the support to
> land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
> (concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
> ground. They were failures.
I've read it also suffered from engine overheating, which in the teeth of
> land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
> (concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
> ground. They were failures.
a Russian winter is something of achievement really!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
David E. Powell
Mar 14, 2012, 10:28:28 PM3/14/12
to
On Mar 14, 11:31 am, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In rec.aviation.military Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > It failed on the Russian Front as it did not have the support to
> > land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
> > (concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
> > ground. They were failures.
>
> I've read it also suffered from engine overheating, which in the teeth of
> a Russian winter is something of achievement really!
It might have been the engine cowlings. They must have had to run them
> In rec.aviation.military Daryl twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > It failed on the Russian Front as it did not have the support to
> > land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
> > (concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
> > ground. They were failures.
>
> I've read it also suffered from engine overheating, which in the teeth of
> a Russian winter is something of achievement really!
at red lines for takeoff.
Eunometic
Mar 15, 2012, 11:56:50 AM3/15/12
to
> Which must be where we stole the idea for the CG20/C123 Of course, we
> did the Germans one better by even making a jet version. The very first
> USAF jet transport! By the way,the C123 turned out to be a pretty damn
> successful transport. They were all over Vietnam.
Yeah, almost as succesfull as that war.
> did the Germans one better by even making a jet version. The very first
> USAF jet transport! By the way,the C123 turned out to be a pretty damn
> successful transport. They were all over Vietnam.
Eunometic
Mar 15, 2012, 11:55:40 AM3/15/12
to
>
> It failed in the Med due to the heavy losses to the British
> Hawkers and Spits as well as the South African Kittyhawks.
It failed not through its own fault but because the Luftwaffe field
> It failed in the Med due to the heavy losses to the British
> Hawkers and Spits as well as the South African Kittyhawks.
communications (enigma decrypts) fully
disclosed the flight plans of the transports. When 7 squadrons of
Kittyhawkes and P-40's take off to intercept 27 transports guarded by
only 1 squadron of escorts that will happen. Doesn't matter if they
were
Ju 52, Me 323 or C-54s or even B-17's.
>
> It failed on the Russian Front as it did not have the support to
> land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
> (concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
> ground. They were failures.
>
"A cabin for a flight engineer was added in each wing between the
inboard and centre engines, although the pilot could override each
engineer’s decision on engine and propeller control. A brand-new
permanent landing gear was bolted on to the side of each fuselage, and
gave the resulting Me 323 superb rough-field performance. "
A total of 198or 213 Me 323s were built before production ceased in
April 1944. There were several production versions, beginning with the
D-1. Later D- and E- versions differed in the choice of power plant
and in defensive armament, with improvements in structural strength,
total cargo load and fuel capacity also being implemented.
Nonetheless, the Me 323 remained significantly underpowered. There was
a proposal to install six BMW 801 radials, but this never came to
pass. The Me 323 was also a short-range aircraft, with a typical range
(loaded) of 1,000-1,200 km (620-750 mi). Despite this, the limited
numbers of Me 323s in service were an invaluable asset to the Germans,
and saw intensive use.
In other words the Me 323 had a loaded trange of over 600 miles.
Daryl
Mar 15, 2012, 1:01:22 PM3/15/12
to
On 3/15/2012 9:55 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>> It failed in the Med due to the heavy losses to the British
>> Hawkers and Spits as well as the South African Kittyhawks.
>
> It failed not through its own fault but because the Luftwaffe field
> communications (enigma decrypts) fully
> disclosed the flight plans of the transports. When 7 squadrons of
> Kittyhawkes and P-40's take off to intercept 27 transports guarded by
> only 1 squadron of escorts that will happen. Doesn't matter if they
> were
> Ju 52, Me 323 or C-54s or even B-17's.
Yes, that would be true if a bunch of Piper Cubs were the
>>
>> It failed in the Med due to the heavy losses to the British
>> Hawkers and Spits as well as the South African Kittyhawks.
>
> It failed not through its own fault but because the Luftwaffe field
> communications (enigma decrypts) fully
> disclosed the flight plans of the transports. When 7 squadrons of
> Kittyhawkes and P-40's take off to intercept 27 transports guarded by
> only 1 squadron of escorts that will happen. Doesn't matter if they
> were
> Ju 52, Me 323 or C-54s or even B-17's.
attacking force on the ME323 or the JU-52. But not the C-54 or
the B-17 which were at least twice as fast and spent less time in
the kill zone.
>
>
>>
>> It failed on the Russian Front as it did not have the support to
>> land and get back off the ground again. It took special runways
>> (concrete of 4000 feet or better) to get these hogs off the
>> ground. They were failures.
>>
>
> Balderdash on all points Magoo.
>
> "A cabin for a flight engineer was added in each wing between the
> inboard and centre engines, although the pilot could override each
> engineer’s decision on engine and propeller control. A brand-new
> permanent landing gear was bolted on to the side of each fuselage, and
> gave the resulting Me 323 superb rough-field performance. "
>
>
> A total of 198or 213 Me 323s were built before production ceased in
> April 1944. There were several production versions, beginning with the
> D-1. Later D- and E- versions differed in the choice of power plant
> and in defensive armament, with improvements in structural strength,
> total cargo load and fuel capacity also being implemented.
> Nonetheless, the Me 323 remained significantly underpowered. There was
> a proposal to install six BMW 801 radials, but this never came to
> pass. The Me 323 was also a short-range aircraft, with a typical range
> (loaded) of 1,000-1,200 km (620-750 mi). Despite this, the limited
> numbers of Me 323s in service were an invaluable asset to the Germans,
> and saw intensive use.
>
> In other words the Me 323 had a loaded trange of over 600 miles.
headwind, everything perfect) was 500 miles. You are quoting
from Wiki where whomever wrote that up says one thing in the text
and another thing in the stats. Says loads on how accurate that
document is.
Daryl
Mar 15, 2012, 1:03:39 PM3/15/12
to
sticks in your craw that the Germans failed and the US was
successful. In the end (May 1945) the same could be said.
Your side lost, get over it.
Message has been deleted
Dan
Mar 15, 2012, 4:37:52 PM3/15/12
to
On 3/15/2012 2:00 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> service...
>
Spruce Goose would have made a fine target. My guess it would have
been used primarily in the Pacific so intercepts would have been fewer
than what the Nazis faced. I still wouldn't want to have been in one
when under attack.
> Dan<B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of them
>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they didn't
>> have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone into
>
>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of them
>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they didn't
>> have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> service...
>
Spruce Goose would have made a fine target. My guess it would have
been used primarily in the Pacific so intercepts would have been fewer
than what the Nazis faced. I still wouldn't want to have been in one
when under attack.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 15, 2012, 5:35:28 PM3/15/12
to
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:XnsA017CB166750...@nieveler.org...
> Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of
>> them
>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
>> didn't
>> have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
>
>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of
>> them
>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
>> didn't
>> have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
> into
> service...
>
> --
> into
> service...
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
jsw
Keith W
Mar 15, 2012, 6:02:38 PM3/15/12
to
>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of them
>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
>> didn't have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
>> didn't have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
> into service...
Not much different than the experiences of those flying the C-54 and
> into service...
Lockheed Constellation on the same transatlantic routes. Germany
didnt have the capability to fly fighters into the airspace they transitted
Keith
Jim Wilkins
Mar 15, 2012, 6:56:07 PM3/15/12
to
"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5Gt8r.147461$nu3....@newsfe15.ams2...
if the U-boot war went badly. It's unlikely that any possible level of
U-boot activity would have permitted invasions but prevented LSTs from
delivering supplies to the beach, and being a seaplane the H-4 had no
other tactical use.
German opposition to invasions was only a small fraction of the
Japanese reaction at Guadalcanal, where the Catalinas were free to
patrol with bombs and torpedos instead of flying in supplies.
According to this only three C-54s were lost on ~80,000 ocean
crossings. A Spitfire got one of them by accident.
http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/tourElement.cgi?element_id=1053&tour_id=21&category_id=38
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/transport/douglas-c-54-skymaster.asp
jsw
Keith W
Mar 15, 2012, 7:15:42 PM3/15/12
to
Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5Gt8r.147461$nu3....@newsfe15.ams2...
>> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>> Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of
>>>> them
>>>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
>>>> didn't have big aircraft to shoot down.
>>>
>>> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
>>> into service...
>>
>> Not much different than the experiences of those flying the C-54 and
>> Lockheed Constellation on the same transatlantic routes. Germany
>> didnt have the capability to fly fighters into the airspace they
>> transitted
>>
>> Keith
>
> The H-4 was meant to move 750 troops or a Sherman per trip to England
> if the U-boot war went badly. It's unlikely that any possible level of
> U-boot activity would have permitted invasions but prevented LSTs from
> delivering supplies to the beach, and being a seaplane the H-4 had no
> other tactical use.
>
As a strategic airlift asset it didnt need to have. The problem the
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5Gt8r.147461$nu3....@newsfe15.ams2...
>> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>> Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of
>>>> them
>>>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
>>>> didn't have big aircraft to shoot down.
>>>
>>> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
>>> into service...
>>
>> Not much different than the experiences of those flying the C-54 and
>> Lockheed Constellation on the same transatlantic routes. Germany
>> didnt have the capability to fly fighters into the airspace they
>> transitted
>>
>> Keith
>
> The H-4 was meant to move 750 troops or a Sherman per trip to England
> if the U-boot war went badly. It's unlikely that any possible level of
> U-boot activity would have permitted invasions but prevented LSTs from
> delivering supplies to the beach, and being a seaplane the H-4 had no
> other tactical use.
>
H-4 was meant to address was moving forces across the
Atlantic not tactical landings. Now that mission was hardly
credible but nobody was planning to use it for battlefield
landings.
> German opposition to invasions was only a small fraction of the
> Japanese reaction at Guadalcanal, where the Catalinas were free to
> patrol with bombs and torpedos instead of flying in supplies.
>
was achieved for the Normandy invasion , the German response
in Italy and Sicily was vigorous.
> According to this only three C-54s were lost on ~80,000 ocean
> crossings. A Spitfire got one of them by accident.
> http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/tourElement.cgi?element_id=1053&tour_id=21&category_id=38
> http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/transport/douglas-c-54-skymaster.asp
>
FW-190
Keith
John Szalay
Mar 15, 2012, 7:25:27 PM3/15/12
to
Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote in
>> The Gotha G 242 gliders was also converted to the Gotha 244
>> transports; they tended to be quite vulnerable but still had good STOL
>> capabilities.
>>
>> RATO was a solution to getting these aircraft of the ground. I would
>> rather think that once on the ground they could be easily disassembled
>> and put on a truck.
>
> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of them
> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they didn't
> have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/0d3538d85a3eea6c_large
>> transports; they tended to be quite vulnerable but still had good STOL
>> capabilities.
>>
>> RATO was a solution to getting these aircraft of the ground. I would
>> rather think that once on the ground they could be easily disassembled
>> and put on a truck.
>
> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of them
> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they didn't
> have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Jim Wilkins
Mar 15, 2012, 7:40:12 PM3/15/12
to
news:AKu8r.208733
>> Jim Wilkins wrote
The German and Italian battle fleets didn't control the surrounding
seas at night.
jsw
>> Jim Wilkins wrote
>> German opposition to invasions was only a small fraction of the
>> Japanese reaction at Guadalcanal, where the Catalinas were free to
>> patrol with bombs and torpedos instead of flying in supplies.
>
> Thats a less than accurate assessment. While total air supremacy
> was achieved for the Normandy invasion , the German response
> in Italy and Sicily was vigorous.
>
> Keith
>> Japanese reaction at Guadalcanal, where the Catalinas were free to
>> patrol with bombs and torpedos instead of flying in supplies.
>
> Thats a less than accurate assessment. While total air supremacy
> was achieved for the Normandy invasion , the German response
> in Italy and Sicily was vigorous.
>
The German and Italian battle fleets didn't control the surrounding
seas at night.
jsw
Keith W
Mar 16, 2012, 5:56:27 AM3/16/12
to
They did however launch air attacks in considerable strength
using guided weapons that sank and damaged allied ships
including Battleships and Cruisers
The reality is that fighting was going on in Italy pretty much until the
end of the war.
Keith
Message has been deleted
Jim Wilkins
Mar 16, 2012, 6:02:04 PM3/16/12
to
news:XnsA018CD27B628...@nieveler.org...
> Juergen Nieveler
Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s, but
the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort into
transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to expose
such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he overextended
Axis supply capability.
http://www.archive.org/details/rommelpapers000270mbp
I have the book and didn't try to open this file.
jsw
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
>>> into service...
>
>>> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
>>> into service...
>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
> For a big slow target like the Spruce Goose? Ar-196s and Fw-200s :-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s, but
the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort into
transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to expose
such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he overextended
Axis supply capability.
http://www.archive.org/details/rommelpapers000270mbp
I have the book and didn't try to open this file.
jsw
Keith W
Mar 16, 2012, 7:56:53 PM3/16/12
to
Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:XnsA018CD27B628...@nieveler.org...
>> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
>>>> into service...
>>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>>
>> For a big slow target like the Spruce Goose? Ar-196s and Fw-200s :-)
>> Juergen Nieveler
>
> Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s, but
> the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort into
> transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to expose
> such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
>
The tranastlantic routes were typically routed into Prestwick from
> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:XnsA018CD27B628...@nieveler.org...
>> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
>>>> into service...
>>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>>
>> For a big slow target like the Spruce Goose? Ar-196s and Fw-200s :-)
>> Juergen Nieveler
>
> Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s, but
> the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort into
> transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to expose
> such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
>
either Gander or Iceland. The Ar-196 is relatively short ranged
and isnt going to get into position to an intercept. Ground based
radar will be tracking any German aircraft over 100 miles out
and trying to take an FW-200 into the approach pattern is
essentially suicidal. Attempting a mid ocean intercept
without radar guidance or AI radar is an interesting but
essentially futile exercise with the added problem of the
western aproaches being patrolled by convoy escorts
up to and including CVE's
Keith
Dan
Mar 16, 2012, 9:55:12 PM3/16/12
to
the Pacific despite having been planned for trans Atlantic use is
because of the escort requirement. By the time it would have been ready
for use the air cover gap had been closed by escort carriers. Those
carriers were needed for convoy coverage, but through good planning
could have been used for covering Spruce Goose. The situation had
reached the point where Spruce Goose might have been handy for rapid
deployment, but convoys were safe enough to do everything else.
In the Pacific it would only need escort at either end of the flight.
One of the advantages of flying over vast oceans is the opposition needs
a carrier fleet to oppose you. The Japanese had run out of a viable navy
by the earliest Spruce Goose could have come on line.
Then again, Spruce Goose would have had to been produced in large
enough numbers in either case. I tend to think of it as a waste of
resources. In any event I would like to see it fly.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Keith W
Mar 18, 2012, 5:18:12 PM3/18/12
to
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> have expected the escorts to be launched from escort carriers (like
> they were used to escort convoys)
>
They were ferried across in stages , typically via Newfoundland,
or Labrador, Greenland, Iceland and finally Prestwick. The first
flight of 2 B-17's and P-38's arrived at Prestwick in late
July 1942. The B-17's acted as guide aircraft for the P-38's
as they had the trained navigators and equipment needed.
The last stage into Prestwick was the only area that German fighters
had the range to reach and there were active fighter squadrons
and radar in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
>> Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he overextended
>> Axis supply capability.
>
> He didn't have much choice either, did he?
>
> The right choice would have been to invade Malta, but Mussolini and
> Hitler couldn't make up their minds.
>
Actually the decisive voice OPPOSING the invasion of Malta
was that of Erwin Rommel. Rommel was absolutely convinced
he could brush aside the British defence line at El Alamein and
persuaded Hitler and Mussolini to assign the air units
slated for Operation Hercules to him for the imminent
capture of Egypt.
Chickens count before hatched he did a Yoda would say.
> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the whole Arab
> peninsula...)
Maybe but his supply lines would have lengthened even further and
the Sinai passes between Egypt and Palestine make excellent defensive
choke points. The Mitla and Giddi passes saw major battles in the
Arab Israeli wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and proved tough
to take against determined opposition.
Keith
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s,
>> but the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort
>> into transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to
>> expose such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
>
> Could P-38s actually run escort across the whole Atlantic? I would
>
>> Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s,
>> but the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort
>> into transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to
>> expose such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
>
> have expected the escorts to be launched from escort carriers (like
> they were used to escort convoys)
>
They were ferried across in stages , typically via Newfoundland,
or Labrador, Greenland, Iceland and finally Prestwick. The first
flight of 2 B-17's and P-38's arrived at Prestwick in late
July 1942. The B-17's acted as guide aircraft for the P-38's
as they had the trained navigators and equipment needed.
The last stage into Prestwick was the only area that German fighters
had the range to reach and there were active fighter squadrons
and radar in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
>> Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he overextended
>> Axis supply capability.
>
>
> The right choice would have been to invade Malta, but Mussolini and
> Hitler couldn't make up their minds.
>
Actually the decisive voice OPPOSING the invasion of Malta
was that of Erwin Rommel. Rommel was absolutely convinced
he could brush aside the British defence line at El Alamein and
persuaded Hitler and Mussolini to assign the air units
slated for Operation Hercules to him for the imminent
capture of Egypt.
Chickens count before hatched he did a Yoda would say.
> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the whole Arab
> peninsula...)
Maybe but his supply lines would have lengthened even further and
the Sinai passes between Egypt and Palestine make excellent defensive
choke points. The Mitla and Giddi passes saw major battles in the
Arab Israeli wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and proved tough
to take against determined opposition.
Keith
Keith W
Mar 18, 2012, 5:21:35 PM3/18/12
to
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> battlegroup.
>
Which would have been fat too busy fighting off the attacks from
the RN carriers and fast battleships to worry about attacking
a large and rather silly flying boat.
> Hey, we're talking a fleet of Spruce Gooses - at least T/PE were
> available ;-)
Briefly in this scenario, by the time Hughes Folly was ready
to fly the CV force in Scapa was flying Hellcats, Corsairs,
Barracudas and Avengers.
Keith
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The tranastlantic routes were typically routed into Prestwick from
>> either Gander or Iceland. The Ar-196 is relatively short ranged
>> and isnt going to get into position to an intercept.
>
> Except of course if it was launched from a Tirpitz/Prinz Eugen
>
>> The tranastlantic routes were typically routed into Prestwick from
>> either Gander or Iceland. The Ar-196 is relatively short ranged
>> and isnt going to get into position to an intercept.
>
> battlegroup.
>
Which would have been fat too busy fighting off the attacks from
the RN carriers and fast battleships to worry about attacking
a large and rather silly flying boat.
> Hey, we're talking a fleet of Spruce Gooses - at least T/PE were
> available ;-)
Briefly in this scenario, by the time Hughes Folly was ready
to fly the CV force in Scapa was flying Hellcats, Corsairs,
Barracudas and Avengers.
Keith
Daryl
Mar 18, 2012, 6:12:34 PM3/18/12
to
>> Potentially, if it they could avoid the escorting B-17s and P-38s, but
>> the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort into
>> transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to expose
>> such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
>
>> the USA of necessity put relatively much more care and effort into
>> transport and logistics than everyone else and didn't have to expose
>> such vulnerable assets to likely enemy action.
>
> Could P-38s actually run escort across the whole Atlantic? I would have
> expected the escorts to be launched from escort carriers (like they
> were used to escort convoys)
No, they had the ferry range but not the navigation and the
> expected the escorts to be launched from escort carriers (like they
> were used to escort convoys)
combat range. There was almost always at least one B-17 or a
B-24 with the flock for navigation. At the point where the P-38
started to be able to know where it is (over water or ice is
quite disorientating), after that there became a small threat of
enemy fighters. By then, they were within Allied Ground Based
fighter cover so not much stopped them outside of mechanical
difficulties. There were a few that were separated from the
B-17 and this is where Glacier Girl may have come into being.
Eunometic
Mar 18, 2012, 7:01:09 PM3/18/12
to
On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
>
> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
and into use.
It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
boats succede in blockading the UK.
In this situation of naval superiority the Germans would respond with
a long range fighter.
The FW 187 was one such aircraft that might have succeded had if of
been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
New research into losses show that the Me 110 had a 1:1 loss rate
exchange ratio with RAF fighters: it wasn't the sitting duck often
recounted. It's likely if Goerings close escort order had not have
made the Me 110 vulnerable (they had slow acceleration) the ratio
would have been in favour of the Me 110.
There were also Ju 88G: a 370 mph machine when with BMW 801 engines
though no match for a Mosquito. The Me 410, which was a martch for a
Mosquito. The He 177A5 equiped with heavy cannon turrets could also
do it.
Note, some late He 177A5 received a series of 56 modifications that
cured the engine problems. The RAF's caputured He 177 had no engine
problems. The coupled engine clearly wasn't worth the development
trouble but it was cured in the end. He 177 equiped with canon
turrets (which did exist) could have done the job.
Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require night
as well as day fighters.
The Dornier Do 335 could also do the job day or night: this is 495 mph
aircraft with the DB603LA engine and had plenty of range and the
possibillity of two crew.
Aircraft carriers and Mosquitos would stand in the way. However
German naval power would be mutch higher in this situation.
The German Navy was the leader in developing Naval radar: its 80cm
Seetakt sets could form a tight beam that could accuratly detect
surface u-boats bearing and direction. Test as early as 1936 revealed
this and it was remaked to Doenitz that this would sooner or latter
negate his surface u-boat tactics little seems to have been done. The
solution would be enhanced underwater range u-boats like the type
XXI. Unfortunatly the Navy first perued the Hydrogen Peroxide Walter
Boats, only turning to enlarged battery capacity when a pair of
engineers realised all of the space could be used for extra batteries.
Had the Germans recognised the extra battery capacity possibillity as
a solution to the radar issue they knew of they may have had type XXI
u-boats in service by the end of 1941. This would more or less
neutralise the effect of aircraft patrols, radar, even enigma as the
long range and endurance would allow them to stay down as long as
neccesary to avoid pracrivcal detection and to move out of the allied
search and saturation zones.
Had they selected the He 177B (a 4 engined version of the He 177) then
they would have had a potent and fast maritime patrol bomber immune to
Wildcat/Martlets, Beaufighters and See Hurricances from 1942 when the
BMW 801 engine becomes available and fairly likely to escape from
early 1941 with the fairly powerfull Jumo 211F engine.
Eunometic
Mar 18, 2012, 7:15:14 PM3/18/12
to
On Mar 19, 7:12 am, Juergen Nieveler
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Juergen Nieveler
The German Navy at times had two carriers under fairly advanced
construction: Graf Zeppelin and Seydlitz (based on a Hipper Class
Cruiser)
Had the German navy followed Japanese advice and designed these
carriers as catapultless in which they aircraft is simply flown
without a catapult they could have had a small fast carrier based on a
Hipper class hull in serice by the start of the war.
The Me 109 had excellent low speed flying characteristics and STOL
like behaviour. The Me 109T version added wing plugs at the roots to
broaden out the undercarriage and increase wing area thereby solveing
two problems (the narrow undercarriage while improbing range)
So 1940 they certainly could have had aircraft carriers in use with a
fee minor deck handling issues relating to the long run needed in
catapultless carriers and their need to head to wind to takeoff.
The incredible Fi 167 a torped bomber could have had the same success
as the Swordfish, an indisychratic abillity to attack at low alttides
and at night that made it the deadliest torpedo bomber of the war.
The Fi 167 was a biplane with slats on both wings that could hover in
a stiff breeze,
There was also a Torpedo bomber version of the Ju 87.
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The tranastlantic routes were typically routed into Prestwick from
> > either Gander or Iceland. The Ar-196 is relatively short ranged
> > and isnt going to get into position to an intercept.
>
> > The tranastlantic routes were typically routed into Prestwick from
> > either Gander or Iceland. The Ar-196 is relatively short ranged
> > and isnt going to get into position to an intercept.
>
> Except of course if it was launched from a Tirpitz/Prinz Eugen
> battlegroup.
>
> battlegroup.
>
> Hey, we're talking a fleet of Spruce Gooses - at least T/PE were
> available ;-)
>
> --
> available ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
The German Navy at times had two carriers under fairly advanced
construction: Graf Zeppelin and Seydlitz (based on a Hipper Class
Cruiser)
Had the German navy followed Japanese advice and designed these
carriers as catapultless in which they aircraft is simply flown
without a catapult they could have had a small fast carrier based on a
Hipper class hull in serice by the start of the war.
The Me 109 had excellent low speed flying characteristics and STOL
like behaviour. The Me 109T version added wing plugs at the roots to
broaden out the undercarriage and increase wing area thereby solveing
two problems (the narrow undercarriage while improbing range)
So 1940 they certainly could have had aircraft carriers in use with a
fee minor deck handling issues relating to the long run needed in
catapultless carriers and their need to head to wind to takeoff.
The incredible Fi 167 a torped bomber could have had the same success
as the Swordfish, an indisychratic abillity to attack at low alttides
and at night that made it the deadliest torpedo bomber of the war.
The Fi 167 was a biplane with slats on both wings that could hover in
a stiff breeze,
There was also a Torpedo bomber version of the Ju 87.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 18, 2012, 7:42:12 PM3/18/12
to
news:XnsA01AD6BF73A8...@nieveler.org...
conquest for fame, and fortune from another book's proceeds. He was
keeping careful notes for his memoirs up until the spring of 1944,
when he apparently became aware of or involved in the anti-Hitler
conspiracy.
http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Attacks-Erwin-Rommel/dp/0760337152
http://www.ebook3000.com/The-Rommel-Papers_72592.html
> The right choice would have been to invade Malta, but Mussolini and
> Hitler couldn't make up their minds.
Agreed.
> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the whole
> Arab
> peninsula...)
> Juergen Nieveler
The credible threats to the Persian supply route to Russia consisted
of Rashid Ali's Iraqi government, which the British quickly defeated,
and the aborted German advance to Maikop. Had Rommel reached Suez he
would have been exposed to British forces supplied from Australia and
defended by the fleet at Colombo, Aden and Basra, a link the Axis
couldn't effectively break. The Italian naval presence in the Red Sea
was a short-lived sideshow.
Tobruk demonstrated how Rommel's tactical genius for maneuver and
deception failed against proper fortifications. His WW1 experience
leading mountain troops had been on the edges of fluid battlefields,
he didn't participate in the frontal assaults.
http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Battles-Study-Employment-Second/dp/0345321588
http://www.robomod.net/pipermail/soc-history-war-world-war-ii/2010-November/032947.html
In any case Stalin invaded Persia to secure the route and there's no
way Rommel could have transported the forces and supplies to oppose
him that far, in competition with the deteriorating Russian situation
and past strong British bases with naval support. It isn't an easy
trip:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains
jsw
> "Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he overextended
>> Axis supply capability.
>
>
>> Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he overextended
>> Axis supply capability.
>
> He didn't have much choice either, did he?
He could have followed orders instead of pursuing a personal glorious
conquest for fame, and fortune from another book's proceeds. He was
keeping careful notes for his memoirs up until the spring of 1944,
when he apparently became aware of or involved in the anti-Hitler
conspiracy.
http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Attacks-Erwin-Rommel/dp/0760337152
http://www.ebook3000.com/The-Rommel-Papers_72592.html
> The right choice would have been to invade Malta, but Mussolini and
> Hitler couldn't make up their minds.
> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the whole
> Arab
> peninsula...)
The credible threats to the Persian supply route to Russia consisted
of Rashid Ali's Iraqi government, which the British quickly defeated,
and the aborted German advance to Maikop. Had Rommel reached Suez he
would have been exposed to British forces supplied from Australia and
defended by the fleet at Colombo, Aden and Basra, a link the Axis
couldn't effectively break. The Italian naval presence in the Red Sea
was a short-lived sideshow.
Tobruk demonstrated how Rommel's tactical genius for maneuver and
deception failed against proper fortifications. His WW1 experience
leading mountain troops had been on the edges of fluid battlefields,
he didn't participate in the frontal assaults.
http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Battles-Study-Employment-Second/dp/0345321588
http://www.robomod.net/pipermail/soc-history-war-world-war-ii/2010-November/032947.html
In any case Stalin invaded Persia to secure the route and there's no
way Rommel could have transported the forces and supplies to oppose
him that far, in competition with the deteriorating Russian situation
and past strong British bases with naval support. It isn't an easy
trip:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros_Mountains
jsw
Jim Wilkins
Mar 18, 2012, 8:02:56 PM3/18/12
to
news:Als9r.1687$_f2....@newsfe17.ams2...
group.
jsw
> >
> Briefly in this scenario, by the time Hughes Folly was ready
> to fly the CV force in Scapa was flying Hellcats, Corsairs,
> Barracudas and Avengers.
>
> Keith
And that bunch proved superior to even a Yamato + Musashi battle
> Briefly in this scenario, by the time Hughes Folly was ready
> to fly the CV force in Scapa was flying Hellcats, Corsairs,
> Barracudas and Avengers.
>
> Keith
group.
jsw
Eunometic
Mar 18, 2012, 7:23:29 PM3/18/12
to
On Mar 16, 9:56 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
refueling after depositing its cargo.
The solution to u-boat blockade would be merchant ships with 20 knot
cruise speeds.
There was also nothing to prevent the Germans deploying the type XXI u-
boat in 1940 except not having the simple idea to bulk out the hulls
of u-boats to quadrouple battery capacity. The prevents the defeat of
the u-boats.
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5Gt8r.147461$nu3....@newsfe15.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> >> Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of
> >>> them
> >>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
> >>> didn't have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> >> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
> >> into service...
>
> > Not much different than the experiences of those flying the C-54 and
> > Lockheed Constellation on the same transatlantic routes. Germany
> > didnt have the capability to fly fighters into the airspace they
> > transitted
>
> > Keith
>
> The H-4 was meant to move 750 troops or a Sherman per trip to England
> if the U-boot war went badly. It's unlikely that any possible level of
> U-boot activity would have permitted invasions but prevented LSTs from
> delivering supplies to the beach, and being a seaplane the H-4 had no
> other tactical use.
The key was that that the So called spruce goose would not require
> news:5Gt8r.147461$nu3....@newsfe15.ams2...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> >> Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> And thus the Nazis produced powered targets. This was kind of
> >>> them
> >>> since Allied fighter pilots tended to get a tad bored when they
> >>> didn't have big aircraft to shoot down.
>
> >> Guess what would have happened if the Spruce Goose would have gone
> >> into service...
>
> > Not much different than the experiences of those flying the C-54 and
> > Lockheed Constellation on the same transatlantic routes. Germany
> > didnt have the capability to fly fighters into the airspace they
> > transitted
>
> > Keith
>
> The H-4 was meant to move 750 troops or a Sherman per trip to England
> if the U-boot war went badly. It's unlikely that any possible level of
> U-boot activity would have permitted invasions but prevented LSTs from
> delivering supplies to the beach, and being a seaplane the H-4 had no
> other tactical use.
refueling after depositing its cargo.
The solution to u-boat blockade would be merchant ships with 20 knot
cruise speeds.
There was also nothing to prevent the Germans deploying the type XXI u-
boat in 1940 except not having the simple idea to bulk out the hulls
of u-boats to quadrouple battery capacity. The prevents the defeat of
the u-boats.
Gordon
Mar 18, 2012, 8:28:28 PM3/18/12
to
P-80s :)
Gordon
Mar 18, 2012, 9:59:57 PM3/18/12
to
On Mar 18, 4:01 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
> and into use.
>
> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
> boats succede in blockading the UK.
>
> In this situation of naval superiority the Germans would respond with
> a long range fighter.
>
> The FW 187 was one such aircraft that might have succeded had if of
> been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
> opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
>
> New research into losses show that the Me 110 had a 1:1 loss rate
> exchange ratio with RAF fighters: it wasn't the sitting duck often
> recounted. It's likely if Goerings close escort order had not have
> made the Me 110 vulnerable (they had slow acceleration) the ratio
> would have been in favour of the Me 110.
If you say so. The war lasted six years; are you saying the 110 was
> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
> and into use.
>
> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
> boats succede in blockading the UK.
>
> In this situation of naval superiority the Germans would respond with
> a long range fighter.
>
> The FW 187 was one such aircraft that might have succeded had if of
> been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
> opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
>
> New research into losses show that the Me 110 had a 1:1 loss rate
> exchange ratio with RAF fighters: it wasn't the sitting duck often
> recounted. It's likely if Goerings close escort order had not have
> made the Me 110 vulnerable (they had slow acceleration) the ratio
> would have been in favour of the Me 110.
"not a sitting duck" in 1944? !945? Having known a couple 110 pilots
I would expect their opinion about what sitting ducks they were is
probably closer to accurate than revisions 70 years after the fact.
> There were also Ju 88G: a 370 mph machine when with BMW 801 engines
> though no match for a Mosquito. The Me 410, which was a martch for a
> Mosquito.
Mosquitos were shot down by Me 410s? Guess what? Its not a match.
> The He 177A5 equiped with heavy cannon turrets could also
> do it.
controlled airspace? The few times I am aware of that 177s were
encountered either in the air or on the ground, they tended to become
little flags under cockpits.
> Note, some late He 177A5 received a series of 56 modifications that
> cured the engine problems. The RAF's caputured He 177 had no engine
> problems. The coupled engine clearly wasn't worth the development
> trouble but it was cured in the end. He 177 equiped with canon
> turrets (which did exist) could have done the job.
in Sept 1939.
> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require night
> as well as day fighters.
hell of an interception, so day fighters are useless.
> The Dornier Do 335 could also do the job day or night: this is 495 mph
> aircraft with the DB603LA engine and had plenty of range and the
> possibillity of two crew.
range), there is no chance of the intercepter intercepting anything.
> Aircraft carriers and Mosquitos would stand in the way. However
> German naval power would be mutch higher in this situation.
mean the German Navy would come out in any meaningfully different way
than it did in RL.
> The German Navy was the leader in developing Naval radar: its 80cm
> Seetakt sets could form a tight beam that could accuratly detect
> surface u-boats bearing and direction.
alter course to make interception even harder. If you wanted to
splash a boatload of 'interceptors', you simply fly your SG close
enough to shore that it gets detected, then turn out to sea for as
long as it takes to run your pursuers out of fuel. At a minimum, you
exhaust the enemy and cause more than a few losses due to typical over-
water causes.
> Had they selected the He 177B (a 4 engined version of the He 177) then
> they would have had a potent and fast maritime patrol bomber immune to
> Wildcat/Martlets, Beaufighters and See Hurricances from 1942 when the
> BMW 801 engine becomes available and fairly likely to escape from
> early 1941 with the fairly powerfull Jumo 211F engine.
Sea Hurricanes were, followed rather swiftly by far better carrier and
maritime aircraft.
Things that exist beat things that did not.
David E. Powell
Mar 18, 2012, 10:44:20 PM3/18/12
to
> > "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
Also, the supply situation at Gualdalcanal was rough for the US for
some time, and Catalinas and other aircraft were often used to fly in
supplies, including emergency loads of fuel on several occasions. I
want to aver that one of the Catalinas which torpedoed a Japanese
cargo ship in the Tokyo express had orginally come in as a transport
and went out again later as one after joining in that attack mission,
but I could be wrong.
> > According to this only three C-54s were lost on ~80,000 ocean
> > crossings. A Spitfire got one of them by accident.
> >http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/tourElement.cgi?element_id=1053&tou...
> >http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/transport/douglas-c-54-skyma...
Luftwaffe, less heavily armed, possibly slower transports would have
been in a bad way under similar circumstances.
> Keith
some time, and Catalinas and other aircraft were often used to fly in
supplies, including emergency loads of fuel on several occasions. I
want to aver that one of the Catalinas which torpedoed a Japanese
cargo ship in the Tokyo express had orginally come in as a transport
and went out again later as one after joining in that attack mission,
but I could be wrong.
> > According to this only three C-54s were lost on ~80,000 ocean
> > crossings. A Spitfire got one of them by accident.
> >http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/transport/douglas-c-54-skyma...
>
> Which is rather the point, a C-54 would have been a siting target for an
> FW-190
Yes. Given the losses Allied daylight bomber formations took from the
> Which is rather the point, a C-54 would have been a siting target for an
> FW-190
Luftwaffe, less heavily armed, possibly slower transports would have
been in a bad way under similar circumstances.
> Keith
Jim Wilkins
Mar 18, 2012, 10:55:35 PM3/18/12
to
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1aa1ac28-b029-47dd...@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
-The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
>
> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
-and into use.
Those are the very same long range escort fighters they could *NOT*
build to protect their bombers over England, no matter how much AH
ranted and HG deceived him with inflated promises.
jsw
David E. Powell
Mar 18, 2012, 11:11:39 PM3/18/12
to
Going after ferry command was not a doable thing for Germany, but
going after planes returning to bases in England at night or taking
off for night missions was.
I recall early on they had some success at this before Goring ordered
the German fighter wings to stop doing it for some reason.
going after planes returning to bases in England at night or taking
off for night missions was.
I recall early on they had some success at this before Goring ordered
the German fighter wings to stop doing it for some reason.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 18, 2012, 11:42:16 PM3/18/12
to
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1d6f96f6-f203-436b...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
-Luftwaffe, less heavily armed, possibly slower transports would have
-been in a bad way under similar circumstances.
> Keith
The Allies never let themselves fall into similar desperate
circumstances, such as Stalingrad. The Hump was probably the closest,
aside from some small jungle operations.
http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/airlift/airliftpg7.htm
Churchill's fate-tempting flight past Rommel to Cairo:
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Travels-with-Churchill.html :
The SG would have substituted for troop transports. As early as 1942
the North Africa invasion convoy completely eluded the U-Boote, and
later fast ships like the Queen Mary safely carried the US Army to
England:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic
"In 1943 and 1944, the Allies transported some 3 million American and
Allied servicemen across the Atlantic without significant loss".
If the SG could have been stopped, why not those ships??
jsw
Daryl
Mar 19, 2012, 12:14:38 AM3/19/12
to
On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins"<muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
>
> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
> and into use.
>
> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
> boats succede in blockading the UK.
The Goose was not solicited nor funded by the US Government. It
> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins"<muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
>
> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
> and into use.
>
> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
> boats succede in blockading the UK.
was one man's idea and concept. Nothing was going to come by it.
>
> In this situation of naval superiority the Germans would respond with
> a long range fighter.
Drop Tanks to get there and back doesn't work. It's a one way
trip with little combat time. Are you aware that the P-38 could
not have done that job and it had over a 500 mile range on one
engine. Combat radius for the P-38 would be about 750 miles
without the drop tanks that were not available in the ETO. All
the 313 tanks were in the Pacific where they were needed. So, in
the ETO, the twin 313 gallon drop tanks really weren't needed.
The smaller tanks were used except for ferrying them across the
pond. Once there, with the smaller tanks, the P-38 ranged most
of Germany but would be hard pressed to fly, fight and return
from the middle of the Atlantic. You are presenting a Never
Would have Happened.
>
> The FW 187 was one such aircraft that might have succeded had if of
> been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
> opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
Fighters. With the speed of 322 mph and the weapons so light, it
would have been a turnkey shoot.
Statistics (A-0)
Engine: Two Junkers Jumo 210Ga 12-cylinder liquid cooled engines
Power: 730hp each
Crew: 2 (pilot and observer)
Wing span: 50ft 2in
Length: 36ft 6in
Height: 12ft 8in
Empty Weight: 8,157lb
Loaded Weight: 11,023lb
Max Speed: 322mph at sea level
Cruising Speed: 287mph
Service Ceiling: 32,810ft
Climb rate: 3,445ft per minute
Armament: Two 20mm MG FF cannons and four 7.9mm MG 17 machine guns
Bomb-load: none
>
> New research into losses show that the Me 110 had a 1:1 loss rate
> exchange ratio with RAF fighters: it wasn't the sitting duck often
> recounted. It's likely if Goerings close escort order had not have
> made the Me 110 vulnerable (they had slow acceleration) the ratio
> would have been in favour of the Me 110.
record with their top speeds well over 400 and enough guns to get
the job done. All of the top 3 US Fighters ate it's lunch.
>
> There were also Ju 88G: a 370 mph machine when with BMW 801 engines
> though no match for a Mosquito. The Me 410, which was a martch for a
> Mosquito. The He 177A5 equiped with heavy cannon turrets could also
> do it.
the JU 88G. Granted, the Mossie did more than it's fair share
but there were tens of thousands of the Big 3 US fighters that
neither could handle. History disagrees with your idea here.
>
> Note, some late He 177A5 received a series of 56 modifications that
> cured the engine problems. The RAF's caputured He 177 had no engine
> problems. The coupled engine clearly wasn't worth the development
> trouble but it was cured in the end. He 177 equiped with canon
> turrets (which did exist) could have done the job.
your way through the Allied long ranged fighters to get there and
back. And you would have little fuel to actually do anything.
>
> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require night
> as well as day fighters.
ranged fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at
least 1100 miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only
fighters that had that were the US fighters.
>
> The Dornier Do 335 could also do the job day or night: this is 495 mph
> aircraft with the DB603LA engine and had plenty of range and the
> possibillity of two crew.
is 741 EST. IT was never verified. But, for argument sake,
let's say it would do it. It is not flying right in the middle
of the Big 3 US fighters territory. And it still doesn't have
the range to get past them. Plus, it wasn't that much faster
than the big 3 from 1943 on. It would be bushwacked on a regular
basis. Germany had already lost before any model of the DO 335
ever saw the sky.
>
> Aircraft carriers and Mosquitos would stand in the way. However
> German naval power would be mutch higher in this situation.
unhealthy to be in a U-Boat and the Capital Ships were already
either taken care of (sunk, damaged beyond repair or hiding in
Fjords) or.... The Aircraft carriers were the least of the
German's problems.
>
> The German Navy was the leader in developing Naval radar: its 80cm
> Seetakt sets could form a tight beam that could accuratly detect
> surface u-boats bearing and direction. Test as early as 1936 revealed
> this and it was remaked to Doenitz that this would sooner or latter
> negate his surface u-boat tactics little seems to have been done. The
> solution would be enhanced underwater range u-boats like the type
> XXI. Unfortunatly the Navy first perued the Hydrogen Peroxide Walter
> Boats, only turning to enlarged battery capacity when a pair of
> engineers realised all of the space could be used for extra batteries.
Plus, the convoys were going further north where nothing built by
Germany could reach them until the neared the protected British
Isles. Even with bigger batteries, between the destroyers, B-24a
and British Subs, they were pretty well dead in the water. You
are trying to rewrite history. History has already been written.
>
> Had the Germans recognised the extra battery capacity possibillity as
> a solution to the radar issue they knew of they may have had type XXI
> u-boats in service by the end of 1941. This would more or less
> neutralise the effect of aircraft patrols, radar, even enigma as the
> long range and endurance would allow them to stay down as long as
> neccesary to avoid pracrivcal detection and to move out of the allied
> search and saturation zones.
>
> Had they selected the He 177B (a 4 engined version of the He 177) then
> they would have had a potent and fast maritime patrol bomber immune to
> Wildcat/Martlets, Beaufighters and See Hurricances from 1942 when the
> BMW 801 engine becomes available and fairly likely to escape from
> early 1941 with the fairly powerfull Jumo 211F engine.
specifically designed for. And that would be from 1942 on.
Rewrite that history and the P-38 becomes the killer of bombers
it was designed for.
Bill Shatzer
Mar 19, 2012, 1:59:42 AM3/19/12
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require night
>> as well as day fighters.
> Never would have happened. Germany didn't have any real long ranged
> fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at least 1100
> miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only fighters that had that
> were the US fighters.
The Ju 88H-2 probably meets your criteria. It's range is listed as 3,200
> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require night
>> as well as day fighters.
> Never would have happened. Germany didn't have any real long ranged
> fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at least 1100
> miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only fighters that had that
> were the US fighters.
miles which should comfortably encompass a 1,100 mile combat radius.
'Course, they apparently built only ten Ju 88H-2s so it wasn't exactly a
big threat to Allied aviation but they had developed an appropriate
extra long range Zerstorer, the production of which could have been
ramped up had conditions demanded - or permitted.
How a Ju 88H-2 would have fared against more nimble Allied single seat
escort fighters (carrier launched perhaps?) remains unknown.
I suspect not well.
But one on one against a C-54 with no fighter escorts, I'd think the
C-54 would likely be toast.
Daryl
Mar 19, 2012, 3:37:36 AM3/19/12
to
On 3/18/2012 11:59 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>>> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require
>>> night
>>> as well as day fighters.
>
>> Never would have happened. Germany didn't have any real long
>> ranged fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at
>> least 1100 miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only
>> fighters that had that were the US fighters.
>
> The Ju 88H-2 probably meets your criteria. It's range is listed
> as 3,200 miles which should comfortably encompass a 1,100 mile
> combat radius.
>
> 'Course, they apparently built only ten Ju 88H-2s so it wasn't
> exactly a big threat to Allied aviation but they had developed an
> appropriate extra long range Zerstorer, the production of which
> could have been ramped up had conditions demanded - or permitted.
I see only one that was actually completed and never went past
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>>> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require
>>> night
>>> as well as day fighters.
>
>> Never would have happened. Germany didn't have any real long
>> ranged fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at
>> least 1100 miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only
>> fighters that had that were the US fighters.
>
> The Ju 88H-2 probably meets your criteria. It's range is listed
> as 3,200 miles which should comfortably encompass a 1,100 mile
> combat radius.
>
> 'Course, they apparently built only ten Ju 88H-2s so it wasn't
> exactly a big threat to Allied aviation but they had developed an
> appropriate extra long range Zerstorer, the production of which
> could have been ramped up had conditions demanded - or permitted.
the flight trials. But I do find the H-1 though. Very limited
production. That may have been the 10 you are talking about.
Yes, I just verified that data. There were 10 H-1s built. The
Only one H-2 was built but it never made it to the flight testing
stage. The H-1 was a recon bird only.
The one that would have to had been used was the G model and it
would have been eaten alive by the Allied Fighter cover.
>
> How a Ju 88H-2 would have fared against more nimble Allied single
> seat escort fighters (carrier launched perhaps?) remains unknown.
>
> I suspect not well.
>
> But one on one against a C-54 with no fighter escorts, I'd think
> the C-54 would likely be toast.
be anywhere near where the C-54s were ferrying in.
Keith W
Mar 19, 2012, 5:43:24 AM3/19/12
to
Eunometic wrote:
> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
>
> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
> and into use.
>
Then why didnt they build any to attack the C-54 and Constellation
> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>
>
> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
> and into use.
>
aircraft that WERE used
> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
> boats succede in blockading the UK.
>
> In this situation of naval superiority the Germans would respond with
> a long range fighter.
>
> The FW 187 was one such aircraft that might have succeded had if of
> been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
> opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
>
> New research into losses show that the Me 110 had a 1:1 loss rate
> exchange ratio with RAF fighters: it wasn't the sitting duck often
> recounted. It's likely if Goerings close escort order had not have
> made the Me 110 vulnerable (they had slow acceleration) the ratio
> would have been in favour of the Me 110.
>
was an easy kill , what chance do you think it would have against
the Mk XIV Spitfire and P-51 C of 1944 ?
> There were also Ju 88G: a 370 mph machine when with BMW 801 engines
> though no match for a Mosquito.
to Mosquitos at night and just about anything by day
> The Me 410, which was a martch for a
> Mosquito. The He 177A5 equiped with heavy cannon turrets could also
> do it.
>
> Note, some late He 177A5 received a series of 56 modifications that
> cured the engine problems. The RAF's caputured He 177 had no engine
> problems. The coupled engine clearly wasn't worth the development
> trouble but it was cured in the end. He 177 equiped with canon
> turrets (which did exist) could have done the job.
>
after 1940 and by 1944 the night was ruddy dangerous for them too.
The only raids they could manage were tip and run raids over
souther England and even there losses were prohibitive which
is why they spent so much moneu on the V-1 and V-2
Keith
Keith W
Mar 19, 2012, 5:50:32 AM3/19/12
to
Daryl wrote:
> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins"<muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>>
>>
>> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
>> and into use.
>>
>> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
>> boats succede in blockading the UK.
>
> The Goose was not solicited nor funded by the US Government. It
> was one man's idea and concept. Nothing was going to come by it.
>
>
Well now it was in fact ordered by the US War Dept in 1942
> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 8:35 am, "Jim Wilkins"<muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Which German fighters threatened the routes of Ferry Command??
>>
>>
>> The ones they would have built had the Spruce Goose become neccessary
>> and into use.
>>
>> It's purpose was to efficiently carry cargo to the UK should the u-
>> boats succede in blockading the UK.
>
> The Goose was not solicited nor funded by the US Government. It
> was one man's idea and concept. Nothing was going to come by it.
>
>
as development contract no HK-1, as for government funds
Hughes was actually summoned before a US Senate committee
to account for his use of the funds allocated for the project.
Keith
Jim Wilkins
Mar 19, 2012, 7:50:15 AM3/19/12
to
"Bill Shatzer" <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote in message
news:jk6i0g$p98$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> But one on one against a C-54 with no fighter escorts, I'd think the
> C-54 would likely be toast.
Only the first one, though. If new German fighters could reach the
> But one on one against a C-54 with no fighter escorts, I'd think the
> C-54 would likely be toast.
area it would soon be very well defended..
The C-54 (41-37274) carrying Lightning dive brake kits approached a
convoy and was intercepted and downed by the existing fighter patrol
that was still watching for Condors in March 1944.
jsw
Keith W
Mar 19, 2012, 8:11:48 AM3/19/12
to
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>>> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require
>>> night as well as day fighters.
>
>> Never would have happened. Germany didn't have any real long ranged
>> fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at least 1100
>> miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only fighters that had
>> that were the US fighters.
>
> The Ju 88H-2 probably meets your criteria. It's range is listed as
> 3,200 miles which should comfortably encompass a 1,100 mile combat
> radius.
> 'Course, they apparently built only ten Ju 88H-2s so it wasn't
> exactly a big threat to Allied aviation but they had developed an
> appropriate extra long range Zerstorer, the production of which could
> have been ramped up had conditions demanded - or permitted.
>
> How a Ju 88H-2 would have fared against more nimble Allied single seat
> escort fighters (carrier launched perhaps?) remains unknown.
>
JunkersAircraft and Engines, 1913-1945 by kay & Couper
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2012 5:01 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>>> Arado 234C could do the job. So could He 219. It would require
>>> night as well as day fighters.
>
>> Never would have happened. Germany didn't have any real long ranged
>> fighters. To be considered Long Ranged, you will need at least 1100
>> miles combat range (not ferry range) and the only fighters that had
>> that were the US fighters.
>
> The Ju 88H-2 probably meets your criteria. It's range is listed as
> 3,200 miles which should comfortably encompass a 1,100 mile combat
> radius.
> 'Course, they apparently built only ten Ju 88H-2s so it wasn't
> exactly a big threat to Allied aviation but they had developed an
> appropriate extra long range Zerstorer, the production of which could
> have been ramped up had conditions demanded - or permitted.
>
> How a Ju 88H-2 would have fared against more nimble Allied single seat
> escort fighters (carrier launched perhaps?) remains unknown.
>
suggests that the H-2 never entered service and that the H-1
was not very successful lasting only 3 months before being
replaced by the Ju-188
Keith
David E. Powell
Mar 19, 2012, 10:33:44 AM3/19/12
to
To be fair it wan't just the US with long ranged fighters.
The Zero had an excellent range.
The Zero had an excellent range.
Daryl
Mar 19, 2012, 11:39:15 AM3/19/12
to
On 3/19/2012 8:33 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> To be fair it wan't just the US with long ranged fighters.
>
> The Zero had an excellent range.
Fairness is a good thing except I doubt there were too many
> To be fair it wan't just the US with long ranged fighters.
>
> The Zero had an excellent range.
Zeros, Kates and the likes above the Atlantic at that time.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 19, 2012, 12:12:38 PM3/19/12
to
"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:jk7jva$5h3$2...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/19/2012 8:33 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
>> To be fair it wan't just the US with long ranged fighters.
>>
>> The Zero had an excellent range.
>
> Fairness is a good thing except I doubt there were too many Zeros,
> Kates and the likes above the Atlantic at that time.
>
Did the Martlets scare them away?
>> To be fair it wan't just the US with long ranged fighters.
>>
>> The Zero had an excellent range.
>
> Fairness is a good thing except I doubt there were too many Zeros,
> Kates and the likes above the Atlantic at that time.
>
Gordon
Mar 19, 2012, 12:15:51 PM3/19/12
to
On Mar 18, 8:11 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
he ordered it stopped after one man was lost (a national hero flying
an Me 410 that had great initial success before a Mossie got him
shooting up heavies in the landing pattern). stupid, as intruder-ing
is probably the most cost effective use of NFs.
wrote:
an Me 410 that had great initial success before a Mossie got him
shooting up heavies in the landing pattern). stupid, as intruder-ing
is probably the most cost effective use of NFs.
Gordon
Mar 19, 2012, 12:24:24 PM3/19/12
to
On Mar 18, 10:59 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
> But one on one against a C-54 with no fighter escorts, I'd think the
> C-54 would likely be toast.
how would he find it? If he has radar, he is not much faster than a
> But one on one against a C-54 with no fighter escorts, I'd think the
> C-54 would likely be toast.
B-24 on maritime patrol. If he doesn't have radar, you have almost
zero chance of finding anything to play with.
Jim Wilkins
Mar 19, 2012, 12:42:24 PM3/19/12
to
"Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
news:45273b3b-ee9f-4ea3...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachtjagdgeschwader_2
and some discussion:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=104917&view=next
jsw
Daryl
Mar 19, 2012, 1:00:53 PM3/19/12
to
Gordon
Mar 19, 2012, 1:06:13 PM3/19/12
to
http://www.das-ritterkreuz.de/index_search_db.php4?modul=search_result_det&wert1=4941&searchword=puttfarken
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=7609&page=2
Geoffrey Sinclair
Mar 19, 2012, 3:08:35 PM3/19/12
to
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1aa1ac28-b029-47dd...@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
news:1aa1ac28-b029-47dd...@w5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> The FW 187 was one such aircraft that might have succeded had if of
> been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
> opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
Now comes the fact the Fw187 range is only considered long when put
> been built at the begining of the war it could probably be driven to
> opperate at 500 miles opperational radious with drop tanks.
against the Bf109 and Bf110, to put it another way the Bf110 could carry
1.55 tonnes of useful load, the Fw187 1.4 tonnes. Of course the Bf110
was a two seater.
I am impressed to know the Fw187 carried less fuel than the 1,270
litres of the Bf110G, which had a range 560 miles.
> New research into losses show that the Me 110 had a 1:1 loss rate
> exchange ratio with RAF fighters: it wasn't the sitting duck often
> recounted.
from and where they can obtain a copy. Given how intensive the
research has been into the Battle of Britain.
For example the Battle of Britain Then and Now has an extensive list of
all destroyed or damaged aircraft, 10 July to 31 October 1940, along
with the causes
So you can note 270 Bf110 destroyed, 180 by enemy fighters, 8 by
AA, 15 "enemy action", 12 unknown plus various other causes.
It is also known during the same time period the ZG units claimed
194 kills that the Luftwaffe allowed, 126 Spitfires, 57 Hurricanes
and 1 Blenheim, showing the way the Luftwaffe fighter pilots managed
a 2 to 1 Spitfire to Hurricane kill ratio despite the defenders having
about 2 Hurricanes per Spitfire.
When it comes to RAF fighter losses, 8 Spitfires and 36 Hurricanes
are considered to have been definitely shot down by Bf110s with other
Bf110 kills under "fighter" as cause of loss. Luftwaffe bombers are
credited with shooting down 33 Spitfires and 63 Hurricanes. While
losing some 363 Ju87, Ju88, Do17 and He111 to fighters. So in terms
of definite kills the Luftwaffe bombers were suffering 3.75 losses per
attacking fighter they destroyed, the Bf110s 4.1 losses per fighter they
destroyed. Note this of course underestimates the Bf110.
All up the RAF lost something like 643 fighters to enemy fighters or
to enemy aircraft, the latter would include some bomber gunner kills.
So if the Bf110s shot down 180 RAF fighters that leaves around
463 RAF fighters lost to Bf109s. In turn 441 Bf109s were lost
to RAF fighters. In other words the Bf109 was just as good as the
Bf110, both scoring at about 1 to 1. Meantime while the Bf110 kill
claims are supposed to be remarkably accurate the Bf109 units were
overclaiming, given total German fighter kill claims for the period
come to around 715 Hurricanes and 1,239 Spitfires. These claims
are for both the Bf109 and Bf110 and include claims rejected by
the Luftwaffe assessment system.
Essentially if the Bf110 did "hold its own" against the RAF fighters
the Bf109 was a major mistake.
> It's likely if Goerings close escort order had not have
> made the Me 110 vulnerable (they had slow acceleration) the ratio
> would have been in favour of the Me 110.
> There were also Ju 88G: a 370 mph machine when with BMW 801 engines
> Mosquito.
The match for Mosquito is as usual a Eunometic term that means the
Mosquito was better.
Also of course we are now in 1944 for the Ju88G.
> The He 177A5 equiped with heavy cannon turrets could also
> do it.
> Note, some late He 177A5 received a series of 56 modifications that
> cured the engine problems.
happen during the baby blitz.
> The RAF's caputured He 177 had no engine problems.
> The coupled engine clearly wasn't worth the development
> trouble but it was cured in the end. He 177 equiped with canon
> turrets (which did exist) could have done the job.
Also note the fix to the He177 engine problems was around well
before 1944.
> Arado 234C could do the job.
> So could He 219. It would require night as well as day fighters.
to range and radar capabilities. The basic range of the He219
was around 960 miles.
> The Dornier Do 335 could also do the job day or night: this is 495 mph
> aircraft with the DB603LA engine and had plenty of range and the
> possibillity of two crew.
The real Do335, the few actually built, could manage 1,280 miles
economical cruise, 286 mph, on internal fuel and had a top speed
of around 474 mph in fighter configuration, no external racks
The LA version is a Eunometic special, not a real version.
There were 18 Do335 prototypes, then come 10 A-0 with
DB603A-2 engines, 9 A-2, 1 A-10, 2 A-12 and 1 B-2.
http://www.skylighters.org/encyclopedia/do335.html
As for the 495 mph Do335,
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/do335/do335_3.html
Actually the text says 785 km hr, 487 mph., or about 13 mph faster than
the standard Do335.
Looking at the graph the peak speed is about 3/4 of the distance
between the 750 and 800 km/hr area, or 787.5 km/hr, certainly
it is well away from the 800 km/hr line.
I note the use of GM-1 in other performance graphs, injecting
oxygen is something allied aircraft could do as well.
I note the author claims the LA would have been running at 2,700 rpm
on what would have been a prototype.
> Aircraft carriers and Mosquitos would stand in the way. However
> German naval power would be mutch higher in this situation.
needed to provide a patrol line across the Atlantic.
> The German Navy was the leader in developing Naval radar: its 80cm
> Seetakt sets could form a tight beam that could accuratly detect
> surface u-boats bearing and direction.
different times, like the allies.
Also of course the German surface ships are going to be within allied
bomber range if they are going to guide German land based aircraft.
> Test as early as 1936 revealed
> this and it was remaked to Doenitz that this would sooner or latter
> negate his surface u-boat tactics little seems to have been done.
radar could do to the planned night attack tactics. An icy silence
was followed by his staff leading the charge against the idea.
Just as direction finding was dismissed as a threat, even with all
the signalling wolf pack tactics required. Doenitz had his method,
he was not going to give up on it easily.
> The
> solution would be enhanced underwater range u-boats like the type
> XXI. Unfortunatly the Navy first perued the Hydrogen Peroxide Walter
> Boats, only turning to enlarged battery capacity when a pair of
> engineers realised all of the space could be used for extra batteries.
285 miles at 6 knots, the type IX and VII around 80 to 90 miles, so
therefore underwater range is announced as the major improvement.
> Had the Germans recognised the extra battery capacity possibillity as
> a solution to the radar issue they knew of they may have had type XXI
> u-boats in service by the end of 1941.
> This would more or less
> neutralise the effect of aircraft patrols, radar, even enigma as the
> long range and endurance would allow them to stay down as long as
> neccesary to avoid pracrivcal detection and to move out of the allied
> search and saturation zones.
Ah yes, of course it would, the E-XXI will come with a snorkel as
well no doubt, plus presumably not go too near all those allied
convoys with their air cover etc.
Meantime the type VII had 2,800 HP to drive the generators to
recharge the battery pack, the type XXI 5,000 HP but many more
batteries to recharge.
> Had they selected the He 177B (a 4 engined version of the He 177) then
> they would have had a potent and fast maritime patrol bomber immune to
> Wildcat/Martlets, Beaufighters and See Hurricances from 1942 when the
> BMW 801 engine becomes available and fairly likely to escape from
> early 1941 with the fairly powerfull Jumo 211F engine.
the He177A could do about 300 mph., so the He177B will be slightly slower
for the same engine power. It will of course be running around at near top
speed to gain this claimed immunity, despite what that does to range.
The Jumo211F managed 1,320 HP at take off. The DB606 around 2,500
HP. Real big power increase switching engines.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Message has been deleted
Keith W
Mar 19, 2012, 4:25:03 PM3/19/12
to
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the whole
>>> Arab peninsula...)
>>
>> Maybe but his supply lines would have lengthened even further and
>> the Sinai passes between Egypt and Palestine make excellent defensive
>> choke points. The Mitla and Giddi passes saw major battles in the
>> Arab Israeli wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and proved tough
>> to take against determined opposition.
>
> With Malta gone, the Allies would have lost control of the Med all the
> way east from Gibraltar, Mussolini would have had his "Mare Nostrum".
>
> OTOH, British supply lines to Palestine would have been rather badly
> stretched - Australia and India were quite a bit away, and sending
> supplies all the way from Great Britain around Africa would have been
> difficult as well.
>
Trouble is that is the way they were shipped anyway. Even with the Suez
Canal
in Axis hands ships could still unload at Aqaba
> Add to that that Germany would have sent troops through Turkey, which
> may or may not have been able to put up much resistance...
First they have to take the Sinai, Palestine, Syria etc and this
of course stretches those supply lines even further. The
requirement to garrison the new territories would also stretch
axis manpower.
As for Turkey putting up resistance assumung that they would
not proved to be a major error in WW1 and a quick look
at a contour map shows this is NOT good tank country.
Keith
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the whole
>>> Arab peninsula...)
>>
>> Maybe but his supply lines would have lengthened even further and
>> the Sinai passes between Egypt and Palestine make excellent defensive
>> choke points. The Mitla and Giddi passes saw major battles in the
>> Arab Israeli wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and proved tough
>> to take against determined opposition.
>
> With Malta gone, the Allies would have lost control of the Med all the
> way east from Gibraltar, Mussolini would have had his "Mare Nostrum".
>
> OTOH, British supply lines to Palestine would have been rather badly
> stretched - Australia and India were quite a bit away, and sending
> supplies all the way from Great Britain around Africa would have been
> difficult as well.
>
Trouble is that is the way they were shipped anyway. Even with the Suez
Canal
in Axis hands ships could still unload at Aqaba
> Add to that that Germany would have sent troops through Turkey, which
> may or may not have been able to put up much resistance...
First they have to take the Sinai, Palestine, Syria etc and this
of course stretches those supply lines even further. The
requirement to garrison the new territories would also stretch
axis manpower.
As for Turkey putting up resistance assumung that they would
not proved to be a major error in WW1 and a quick look
at a contour map shows this is NOT good tank country.
Keith
Daryl
Mar 19, 2012, 6:06:02 PM3/19/12
to
Fighters. And the fact, as of 1943, it could only make slash and
run attacks on the Southern Britain Borders. Anything more it it
was toast to the Spits and the thousands of US Fighters in the area.
Bradipus
Mar 19, 2012, 6:44:13 PM3/19/12
to
Juergen Nieveler, 21:12, domenica 18 marzo 2012:
>> Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he
>> overextended Axis supply capability.
>
> He didn't have much choice either, did he?
>
> The right choice would have been to invade Malta, but
> Mussolini and Hitler couldn't make up their minds.
long supply line from Tripoli to the front, with no rail
transport.
Libyan ports were a weak point, having too little transfer
capacity.
--
+ +
L
___
>> Rommel doesn't appear to have appreciated how badly he
>> overextended Axis supply capability.
>
> He didn't have much choice either, did he?
>
> The right choice would have been to invade Malta, but
> Mussolini and Hitler couldn't make up their minds.
>
> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the
> whole Arab peninsula...)
Malta could save some shipping but the real problem was the very
> Had Malta fallen, so would have Egypt (and potentially the
> whole Arab peninsula...)
long supply line from Tripoli to the front, with no rail
transport.
Libyan ports were a weak point, having too little transfer
capacity.
--
+ +
L
___
Jim Wilkins
Mar 19, 2012, 6:58:44 PM3/19/12
to
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>
> OTOH, British supply lines to Palestine would have been rather badly
> stretched - Australia and India were quite a bit away, and sending
> supplies all the way from Great Britain around Africa would have
> been
> difficult as well.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> OTOH, British supply lines to Palestine would have been rather badly
> stretched - Australia and India were quite a bit away, and sending
> supplies all the way from Great Britain around Africa would have
> been
> difficult as well.
>
Not at all, Persia was a major supply corridor to the USSR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor
Arabia wasn't a valuable source of oil until after the war.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=59630
German and Japanese subs couldn't easily sneak around through the
Atlantic, tankers would have been impossible and pipelines too slow to
build and too vulnerable to air attack from India or carriers. The
Allied bomber ferry route to China flew right over that area. Look at
the extensive list of Allied bases across Africa and South Asia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II
jsw
0 new messages