Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's greatest mistake in WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by walle View Post
    Terror bombing is a strong word, it was retaliation. If you want talk about terror bombing look no further than to Dresden and Hamburg. Now that, was terror bombing.
    How soon they forget.
    Will no one tell me what she sings?--
    Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
    For old, unhappy, far-off things,
    And battles long ago:
    -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
      How soon they forget.
      As I said, the bombings escalated from both sides, and when comparing the bombing campaign against London and that of the carpet bombing of Dresden the bombings of Dresden were on a different level.

      Let's agree to disagree.

      Comment


      • Walle,

        Just because the Germans did not have the means to completely destroy British cities does not mean they did not intend to or would not have done so if they had the means. If the RAF was defeated and Britain still refused to surrender do you believe the bombing would have stopped? Or would the Germans have done their level best to "wipe them from the map"?

        Reaping what one sews should be kept in mind here. No one forced the Germans to start the war. No one prevented the Germans from overthrowing the Nazis when the war started or turned against Germany.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
          Walle,

          Just because the Germans did not have the means to completely destroy British cities does not mean they did not intend to or would not have done so if they had the means. If the RAF was defeated and Britain still refused to surrender do you believe the bombing would have stopped? Or would the Germans have done their level best to "wipe them from the map"?

          Reaping what one sews should be kept in mind here. No one forced the Germans to start the war. No one prevented the Germans from overthrowing the Nazis when the war started or turned against Germany.
          "Overthrowing nazis?" Did German people ever had a plan to do that? Or better question, "did they want to kick nazis from the stage?"
          "Give me 100 000 croatian soldiers and I will conqure all world" - Napoleon Bonaparte

          Soldiers are coming and leaving while war will never end.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Charles C View Post
            Can't believe I'm actually defending the 109 here
            Some people forgot that allied propaganda exist too... And its much bigger than Nazi one (they lost.) So defending German weapons is not really a weird thing. And there are of course people who wants to show some famous weapons in bad view.
            "Give me 100 000 croatian soldiers and I will conqure all world" - Napoleon Bonaparte

            Soldiers are coming and leaving while war will never end.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hansika View Post
              Some people forgot that allied propaganda exist too... And its much bigger than Nazi one (they lost.) So defending German weapons is not really a weird thing. And there are of course people who wants to show some famous weapons in bad view.
              But to the opposite extreme there are those who spread the Ubernann; Uberwaffe superiority.
              Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

              "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

              What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by walle View Post
                As I said, the bombings escalated from both sides, and when comparing the bombing campaign against London and that of the carpet bombing of Dresden the bombings of Dresden were on a different level.

                Let's agree to disagree.
                There was no different level :the only difference was that more civilians were killed in Dresden than in London ,but,in both cases,there was a lot of damage on the military-industrial complex .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                  I do like quoting myself. But since this was lost in the melee I thought I'd bring it back up to see if anybody had any comments.
                  Point 4 is wrong .

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    Point 4 is wrong .
                    How so? Don't just say it's wrong and leave it at that. From my, admittedly shallow, political knowledge post-Munich that Hitler, et. al. did not expect the French and British to go to war over Poland. Hence he underestimated the resolve of the British and French.
                    Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                    "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                    What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by walle View Post
                      As I said, the bombings escalated from both sides, and when comparing the bombing campaign against London and that of the carpet bombing of Dresden the bombings of Dresden were on a different level.

                      Let's agree to disagree.
                      Sure, when you stop posting your equivalence nonsense that the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was some how worse than the bombing of London and Coventry. The only difference was that the RAF and the USAAF had more and better planes and they had learned big things from the bombing and burning of Coventry, like breaking the fire mains.
                      Will no one tell me what she sings?--
                      Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
                      For old, unhappy, far-off things,
                      And battles long ago:
                      -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

                      Comment


                      • Bombing is bombing is bombing, regardless of how many aircraft and bombs are involved. That said though, it sure is hard to equate the bombings of either London or Coventry with either Hamburg or Dresden in terms of scale. About as many people died in Hamburg in a week of bombing as died in Britain during the entire war. Harris' statement that "The Germans have sown the wind, and now they'll reap the whirlwind" was true in more ways than one.
                        Sgt.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                          How so? Don't just say it's wrong and leave it at that. From my, admittedly shallow, political knowledge post-Munich that Hitler, et. al. did not expect the French and British to go to war over Poland. Hence he underestimated the resolve of the British and French.
                          Well:
                          your point 4 was :

                          "Underestimating the resistance of the British and the French to any more territorial de mands after Munich"

                          This is wrong,because,after and before Munich,there was NO British/French resistance to any territorial demands from Hitler.
                          The British/French were willing to accept any territorial German demand east of the Rhine (after all ,it was not their country),as long the whole thing was happening peacefully,without war .

                          A-Britain and France did not oppose the Anschluss,because there was no fighting,but,if there was fighting ......

                          B-Britain and France did not oppose the German demand for a secession of the Sudeten,as long this did not result in war,but,if there was a war ....

                          C-Britain and France did not oppose the return of Memelland,as long there was no fighting,but,if there was any fighting,.......

                          D-Britain and France did not oppose the return of Danzig (a German territorial demand)),they were indifferent,it was not their business,it was a Polish-German quarrel.B +F would not oppose a German-Polish agreement .

                          B+F did not declare war because of a German territorial demand,but because Hitler attacked another country .

                          Since 1919,Britain knew that if there was a big war on the continent (the reasons of which were irrelevant),it would be obliged to intervene .

                          Comment


                          • I'll try to keep it short since it's off-topic in this thread. If the moderators want to splice this, they're welcome.

                            The Spitfire's and Bf 109's maneuverability
                            I have this not from some popular coffee table book printed in 1960. Reputable authors such as Bungay, Price, Spick agree with me. Or rather I agree with them.

                            The Bf 109's dangerousness
                            It's not just a matter of the fragile and questionably designed landing gear. There was also a stronger than usual prop torque. The Bf 109 took more time to get used to than other aircraft, in other words, it was real dangerous to trainees. Note the two problems both stem from the same original concept: too small an aircraft. A small aircraft for a powerful engine has its obvious advantages, such as less drag and the very good power-to-weight ratio mentioned upthread by another poster. But there can be too much of a good thing. Compromises were made to achieve that small an airframe. The two factors above, making it an accident-prone aircraft, are not the only drawbacks offsetting the advantages. The above-mentioned heavy wingload is another. The very cramped cockpit is another. Its bad ergonomics is another. Another factor that is linked with firepower, below, is the small space available for upgunning and for carrying enough ammunition. And I could continue.

                            The Bf 109's leading edge slats
                            With all due respect for aviation enthusiasts, if one really loves the technical detail it is that much more possible for him to be too enamored with it and to lose sight of the overall picture.
                            I didn't call for the Spanish Inquisition to burn all leading edge slats at the stake today. I criticized the Bf 109's design, including those slats. One can quote how good slats were with
                            a) more advanced technology, years later,
                            b) on entirely different types of aircraft,
                            and even when he does so, he'll come up with sources that extol the slats for their usefulness at low speeds.
                            To make a comparison, I could say that the He 162 was a bad design, making bad use of a reaction engine, and that that reaction engine was unreliable.
                            To this, one might reply by explaining how marvellous and reliable are the F-14's reaction engines.
                            Fine, true - and irrelevant to my criticism of the Volksjäger.

                            Firepower: rate of fire versus individual round power
                            The funny thing here is that my "analysis" is criticized as "the weirdest". It's funny, because the analysis part was minimal; it was most mere plain facts.
                            I'll remove what little analysis was there and only list facts. Maybe it's facts that are "weirdest".

                            1. A 20mm cannon has a longer effective range than a 7.7mm MG.
                            2. Most engagements in 1940 took place at close or even very close range.
                            3. A hit at longer range was exceptionally unlikely.
                            4. A 20mm round has more weight and power (in all senses) than a 7.7mm round.
                            5. Two 20mm cannon fire 20 of those rounds in one second. Six 7.7mm MGs (I'm subtracting two because the Bf 109 also had two small-caliber MGs) fire 120.
                            6. An extremely high proportion of the rounds fired in air-to-air combat simply missed the target.
                            7. The Bf 109's cannons could fire for 6 seconds.
                            8. The German bombers were twin-engined aircraft, larger and sturdier than a Bf 109. The British fighters, with their puny 7.7mm guns, downed some 1000 of them in the Battle of Britain.

                            Everyone can make what they want of these facts.

                            But just to be more helpful, a few more facts.

                            1. Over the war, the Germans' priority target became more and more the heavy bomber. These were big, robust, multi-engined machines.
                            2. The Germans, having begun the war with 20mm cannons on their fighters, marginalized smaller-bore weapons, improved their 20mm-caliber guns, upgraded to 30mm guns, and even tinkered with even bigger caliber weapons.

                            1. The British in 1940 were more concerned with downing enemy bombers than enemy fighters, and that remained true for a short while. Then over time their most common target became the fighter.
                            2. It was 1940 when The British began introducing the 20mm cannon. They stayed with that to the end.

                            1. The Americans came to the war later, and mostly had fighters as targets in air combat.
                            2. The Americans began with 12.7mm MGs and stayed with them to the end - and beyond.
                            3. Obviously a 12.7mm was more powerful than a 7.7mm; it may have been a better trade-off point between rate of fire and caliber.
                            4. Then again, the German fighters of 1942 were sturdier than the 1940 Bf 109.
                            Michele

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                              But to the opposite extreme there are those who spread the Ubernann; Uberwaffe superiority.
                              I'd add that it's many decades after the war now. Reputable historians have written about the Allies' and the Axis' weapon systems, and by now they don't need, and just plain don't, rely on wartime propaganda of either side.
                              Michele

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sgt. Saunders View Post
                                Bombing is bombing is bombing, regardless of how many aircraft and bombs are involved.
                                Nice to hear that! Then the bombing of London, involving few aircraft and stray bombs, that took place on the night of 24th August 1940, was bombing was bombing was bombing - and it was no retaliation. Glad you came around to see it.
                                Michele

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X