I think a big reason for the allied defeat in 1940 was the fact that they were ready to fight WW1 again, also the many cut backs to the forces in previous years.
The 109 was improved because they did not have the resources to replace it, and then relegate it to lesser duties as the Brits did with the Hurricane. Really? I don't think the sucesses of the Wilde Sau day/nightfighter units JG 300, 301 and 302 could be called "lesser duties". Nor the eleven 109-equiped Gruppen flown into Western France immediately after D-Day. Nor was the 109 force's involvement in Bodenplatte "lesser duties" It was poor plane to fly and you needed to be a midget to fit in. Poor in what way exactly??? Many new Allied designs came out during WW2. Meteor jet, Mosquito, P-38, Mustang, Typhoon, Tempest, B-29, Lancaster, Corsair, etc, etc. Planes superior to anything Germany was producing. The list goes on and on. Err....in what way was the Meteor superior to the German equivalent? Speed perhaps? Number of kills?
What's your source for that??? Or that??? It was actually quite "easy" to retrim a 262 And I'm still waiting for a source for your patently ridiculous claim that the Me262 couldn't be landed on one engine....or that if one engine went out the pilot was a goner. You may indeed be making a point that to you is "...quite simple and clear" - but that doesn't obviate the requirement to stomp up proofs for statements like the above...which happen to fly in the face of a LOT of history written over the last 60+ years.
If the allies had been a bit more aggressive, and savy, they could have fought out at least a draw with Germany who not had the resources to fight anything more than a short war With or without the Blitzkrieg, Germany successfully engaged far superior forces, on three fronts, for a further 5 years. They did so while coping with the many economic handicaps you have described. The disparity in military performance and the ability of Germany to concentrate on the West in 1940 made the outcome of The Battle of France almost inevitable.
On one engine the 262 was impossible to land. I can't find any instance of a 262 that failed to land, on one engine, two engines, no engines. They were all accounted as having landed. By the way, what is this "Blitzkrieg" you people are talking about?
Spent many hours in study periods on strategy and tactics of past conflicts. One thing that always amuses me, was when Montgomery met Freddie de Guingand in the desert on takeover of the 8th Army, Freddie an old friend and regimental officer with Montgomery before, said things are not good Sir and listed the problems. If there is something that stands out with this commander was the unshakable belief in the British Soldier, well led he could beat anyone and he was going to lead them well. 'Stop this bellyaching about equipment we will fight...........' . A great believer that training could overcome equipment imbalances, train hard, train hard again and again until it is second nature, 'the British citizen solider unlike his German counterpart is not a natural born killer he said everyone in 8th army is to train to kill Germans even the Padre - who is to kill two on Sundays! If asked what defeated the Germans It would have to be said for all the inter service rivalry the combined operations, the Navy hitting supply lines to North Africa the Desert/Tactical Air Force in close co-operation with land forces and the Ron Goldsteins and Tom Cannings in the field and the Joe and Joane Bloggs at the capstan lathes back home. We often get carried away with special forces and who had the best equipment. the glamour stuff. In reality the words of Montgomery - this is going to be a long slogging match. One senior lecturer an old SAS hand, said we in the SAS do not win wars, we do however make it as difficult as possible for the other guy to win his war.
The German jets were not that good. The 262, was a poor plane. The engine was a poor design that lasted a few hours and it fell out the sky a lot. Having promise is not enough. It had no impact on the outcome of the war. It was not the most advanced design. The only thing that differentiated the 262 from other planes was its jet engine. This was a poor design. On one engine the 262 was impossible to land. If one engine conked you were dead. The British or US would never take into front line service such a poor plane during WW2. The 262 was not that good - yet the Americans copied parts of it's design post war. It was one of the most advanced that was then flying without a doubt.
Really? I don't think the sucesses of the Wilde Sau day/nightfighter units JG 300, 301 and 302 could be called "lesser duties". Nor the eleven 109-equiped Gruppen flown into Western France immediately after D-Day. Nor was the 109 force's involvement in Bodenplatte "lesser duties" Poor in what way exactly??? Err....in what way was the Meteor superior to the German equivalent? Speed perhaps? Number of kills? You are going into specifics, a trait here, in specific plane vs plane, when the general picture is what matters. The general point was that the Germans were strapped and look at what they turned out in in new aircraft in WW2 to what the Allies did. This clearly shows the inadequacy of German industry.
Bayman, I would just like to know some of the sources you are basing all of this on. And, unfortunately, I can't see or understand what you are trying to show me. Mark
I think a big reason for the allied defeat in 1940 was the fact that they were ready to fight WW1 again, also the many cut backs to the forces in previous years. This is the perceived view. More an excuse for the embarrassing defeat. The truth is not so. The French had whole armored tank units, better tanks and more of them. The BEF was the first fully motorized army - men never marched, unlike the Germans who used horses to pull guns and supplies and men marched behind. The Germans could not knock out the French Char-B or the British Matilda 2. Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction. Page 371. "The German army that invaded France in May 1940 was far from being a carefully honed weapon of modern armoured warfare. Of Germany's 93 combat ready divisions on May 10 1940, only 9 were Panzer divisions, with a total of 2.438 tanks between them. These units faced a French army that was more heavily motorised, with 3,254 tanks in total." Dutch, Belgian, UK & French tanks in total was 4,200 tanks. The BEF was a fully motorised army, no horses were used to tow guns or supplies, unlike the German army, which was mainly horse drawn. "the majority of the German tanks sent into battle in 1940, were inferior to the their French, British and Belgian counterparts". The British did introduce the Matilda 2 tank, although late in the Battle of France, which again the Germans could barely knock out. Tooze Page 454: "Fundamentally the Wehrmacht was a "poor army". The fast striking motorised element of the Germans army in 1941 consisted of only 33 divisions of 130. Three-quarters of the German army continued to rely on more traditional means of traction: foot and horse. The German army in 1941 invaded the Soviet Union with somewhere between 600,000 and 740,000 horses. The horses were not for riding. They were for moving guns, ammunition and supplies." "The vast majority of Germany's soldiers marched into Russia, as they had in France, on foot." The BEF did not march. Tooze, page 373: "In retrospect, it suited neither the Allies nor the Germans to expose the amazingly haphazard course through which the Wehrmacht had arrived at its most brilliant military success. The myth of the Blitzkrieg suited the British and French because it provided an explanation other than military incompetence for their pitiful defeat. But whereas it suited the Allies to stress the alleged superiority of German equipment, Germany's own propaganda viewed the Blitzkrieg in less materialistic terms."
With or without the Blitzkrieg, Germany successfully engaged far superior forces, on three fronts, for a further 5 years. They did so while coping with the many economic handicaps you have described. The disparity in military performance and the ability of Germany to concentrate on the West in 1940 made the outcome of The Battle of France almost inevitable. Canuk, the outcome of the battle of France was not inevitable at all. Germany were outgunned and outnumbered. Only allied incompetence secure their haphazard victory. Indeed, how Germany lasted another five years is a wonder. The USSR should have seen them off after the counter-attack at Moscow. Stalin ordered an attack on a broad front instead of focusing all at the weakest points, letting the Germans off the hook. Once the US & UK landed in France the war over quite soon after. The most underrated part of WW2 is the RN blockade of western Europe - it doesn't make good feature films.
The 262 was not that good - yet the Americans copied parts of it's design post war. It was one of the most advanced that was then flying without a doubt. 262 performance? Debatable, as top speed is not everything. It was far from fully developed with the engine way off compared to British jet engines lasting 10-20 hours before burn up. The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced. The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but far more unreliable. The Germans were still quite a way behind in development. The 262 could not function propely, so was not superior to the fully developed Meteor. The Me262, which was a crude dog of a plane, was prone to killing its pilots. Their jet programme was way behind the British and rushed producing poor planes. The German engines were poor. "Over 1,400 Me-262s were built, but only a relatively small portion of them ever saw action. Fuel was scarce, and Allied aircraft strafed and bombed at will. It appears that the Luftwaffe never had more than 200 on strength at any one time. The Me-262 shot down about 150 Allied aircraft, versus the loss of 100 Me-262s in action, an uninspiring war record." British WW2 jet engines would run for 150 hours between "overhauls", compared to German engines which lasted only 10-20 hours before "burning out", and written off. British jets where much more advanced they had a far higher power-to-weight ratio and half the specific fuel consumption. "Given the lower-quality steels used in the Juno 004B engine, these engines typically only had a service life of some 10-25 hours" "was its sluggish throttle response. Worse, it was fairly easy to inject too much fuel into the engine by throttling up too quickly, allowing heat to build up before the cooling air could remove it. This led to softening of the turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures." So much for the wonder 262 plane. Both the 262 and British Meteor jet were introduced in July 1944. The F3 Meteor was a far superior version introduced in Dec 1944. Meteors were used in training against US bombers so they could develop counter measures for the 262 and used against V1 flying bombs. The Meteor was moved to Belgium and Holland and its biggest problem was allied flak as they thought it was a me262. I can never see the fuss about the 262. It was not a wonder plane at all as many perceive it to be. Allied airpower was so strong that the Meteor was not used over Nazi controlled territory for fear it may get into their hands. If the Meteor was pitted against the 262, its wonder plane reputation would not exist. The constant revving up and down in dog fights would have meant the 262's engines would stall and be putty in the hands of a Meteor. However, a notable plane the 262 clearly is.
And, unfortunately, I can't see or understand what you are trying to show me. Mark Allied Incompetence lost France
262 performance? Debatable, as top speed is not everything. I think you'll find to a combat pilot that height and speed are everything. The Typhoon was also prone to killing it's pilots.
I think you'll find to a combat pilot that height and speed are everything. The Typhoon was also prone to killing it's pilots. Gage, the point is the 262. You are attempting to make out two wrongs make a right here. The Typhoon was a far more competent plane than the 262.
Gage, the point is the 262. You are attempting to make out two wrongs make a right here. The Typhoon was a far more competent plane than the 262. Just making a comparsion that it wasn't just the Germans who had problems. The typhoon was a good aircraft once they solved the tail falling off in flight. You're answering some questions and ignoring the ones you can't answer.
What's your source for that??? A quick Google is all you need... Losing an engine was very dangerous, since the Me-262 could barely stay in the air on one engine. If an engine was lost below 290 KPH (180 MPH), the aircraft would usually be lost as well. The engines were also not very reliable, being prone to flameouts and burnouts. The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe / Sturmvogel
Canuk, the outcome of the battle of France was not inevitable at all. Germany were outgunned and outnumbered. Only allied incompetence secure their haphazard victory. Indeed, how Germany lasted another five years is a wonder. The USSR should have seen them off after the counter-attack at Moscow. Stalin ordered an attack on a broad front instead of focusing all at the weakest points, letting the Germans off the hook. Once the US & UK landed in France the war over quite soon after. The most underrated part of WW2 is the RN blockade of western Europe - it doesn't make good feature films. You're quite right. The statistics don't lie. How could I not have seen this. Clearly, everyone should have been home and relaxed by 1941. Statisticly, Man U could have beaten Barcelona too!
