ME109K Fighter

[westwall]

This is what Rall looked like when you met him?

View attachment 1088252

Younger

 

[westwall]

Yep, but I don't believe that these had been effective - taking a climbing speed approach (combined ) of 800km/h and more.
You got any info in this regards?
AFAIK the Liberator had no under-nose weaponry unlike the B17G - and IIRC this armament was added in view of frontal attacks.
Which had an accumulated speed of 950km/h +!!

The B-24H model on mounted an Emerson turret in the nose, above the bombardier's position.

 

[Vrenn]

Hmm... actually my Father and many others attacked in a steep forward angle from below - flying through the bomber formation and resting their climb around 1500m above the formation, and then speed home to Mama with no blinking Yanks following.

I would rather start high, then attack on the way down and continue to go down and scoot.

Then again, I am a p-38J-25 fan which is what they did to bombers and fighters. And it worked very good with the top US Kills going to the P-38. But in the beginning this was frowned on unlike the Pacific and the Med.

Your Father, obviously flew the 190 which always attacked while climbing. The 109 didn't do this when it was alone. It attacked either from the rear top or the rear. It seemed that the front top turrent was extremely deadly and the 190s avoided that with a vengence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Yep, but I don't believe that these had been effective - taking a climbing speed approach (combined ) of 800km/h and more.
You got any info in this regards?
AFAIK the Liberator had no under-nose weaponry unlike the B17G - and IIRC this armament was added in view of frontal attacks.
Which had an accumulated speed of 950km/h +!!

They were more effective than the hand-held guns they replaced. I believe both turrets had compensating gunsights and regardless of speed, a head-on attack was simpler to defend against than a beam attack because the gunner didn’t have to compensate for deflection, just training and elevation. The problem for the attacking fighter in a head-on attack is the very short time it has to fire. It’s the safest attack, but the least effective one. The most effective one against USAAF bombers in WWII was the nearly suicidal overtaking attack from astern. It wasn’t all that dangerous against Luftwaffe and RAF bombers for different reasons (the Luftwaffe bombers had very light armament capable of firing astern and the RAF bombers operated independently) but against the multiple defensive boxes of the Americans, an overtaking fighter would be exposed to the fire of upwards of a hundred fifty cal machine guns while only overtaking by a hundred mph or less.

 

[Stryder50]

The P-38 could run rings around any make of Me109 at altitudes of 15,000 feet or less. With the Fowler flaps it could turn inside a 109 with ease. It could out turn a Zero.

With props spinning opposite of each other, a skilled P-38 pilot could pull back the throttle a tad on the inside engine/prop and advance the outside one a little while turning and the engines/props would kick you around in a turn tighter than most any other fighter of the day.

 

[Stryder50]

Had the US not sent all those equipment, supplies and food, Germany would have been sitting in Moscow in short order. Are you aware that we sent even P-40s and Shermans to them in large numbers? How about medium bombers. At that time, the Yak-3 and the t-34 were still on the drawing boards.

IIRC, the T-34 tank was available, in the first production version, but in small numbers at the time of the start of Barbarossa.
About September 1940 saw the first production models.

T-34 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

Yep, but I don't believe that these had been effective - taking a climbing speed approach (combined ) of 800km/h and more.
You got any info in this regards?
AFAIK the Liberator had no under-nose weaponry unlike the B17G - and IIRC this armament was added in view of frontal attacks.
Which had an accumulated speed of 950km/h +!!

B-24 Liberators did have a ball turret on the underside. It retracted into the fuselage for landing purpose.
....
B-24DFirst to see large scale production; ordered from 1940 to 1942, as a B-24C with more powerful R-1830-43 supercharged engines. The D model was initially equipped with a remotely operated and periscopically sighted Bendix belly turret, as the first examples of the B-17E Flying Fortress and some early models of the B-25 Mitchell medium bomber had used, but this was unsatisfactory and was discontinued after the 287th aircraft. Later aircraft reverted to the earlier manually operated "tunnel" mounting with a single .50 in (12.7 mm) machine gun. The tunnel gun was eventually replaced by the Sperry ball turret, which had also been adopted by the later B-17E Fortresses, but made retractable for the Liberator as the fuselage was very close to the ground. Late B-24Ds had "cheek" guns mounted on either side of the nose, just behind the "greenhouse". (Total: 2,696: 2,381 Consolidated, San Diego; 305 Consolidated, Fort Worth; 10 Douglas, Tulsa, Oklahoma).
...

Consolidated B-24 Liberator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The B-17G chin turret only covered a small arc of fire to the front. Didn't swing very far to the sides and no coverage to the rear.

 

[Mac-7]

Not invading the UK wasn’t a mistake, Germany didn’t have the ability to do so. Germany lacked the doctrine for amphibious invasions, it lacked the navy to seize control of the channel and lacked the ability to seize aerial superiority. An invasion of the UK would have been an expensive failure that likely would have doomed Barbarossa to an early failure as well.

I disagree

Hitler gave up on winning the Battle of Britain for air superiority

If he had stayed the course and destroyed the RAF a cross channel invasion was possible

 

[Mac-7]

Didn't really matter IMO, taking the factual huge aid shipments of the USA to Britain and the SU into account.

Declaring war on America freed FDR to throw all of America’s power against Germany

Thank God for Hitler

His mistakes saved America and the UK

 

[Mac-7]

At that time Hitler was trying to avoid other Arian nations.



For the same reason the US avoided invading Japan.




I somewhat agreed with that statement except had Germany not declared war on the US right then, the Axis alliance would have been not worth the paper it was written on.

I somewhat agreed with that statement except had Germany not declared war on the US right then, the Axis alliance would have been not worth the paper it was written on.

I’m glad Hitler thought so, because declaring war on America made FDR’s job a lot easier and combined with Hitler’s other blunders saved the democracies

 

[Kruska]

I would rather start high, then attack on the way down and continue to go down and scoot.

Then again, I am a p-38J-25 fan which is what they did to bombers and fighters. And it worked very good with the top US Kills going to the P-38. But in the beginning this was frowned on unlike the Pacific and the Med.

The P-38, probably the most versatile and effective US aircraft. My father only noticed them, but never got into a confrontation with them.

Your Father, obviously flew the 190 which always attacked while climbing. The 109 didn't do this when it was alone. It attacked either from the rear top or the rear. It seemed that the front top turrent was extremely deadly and the 190s avoided that with a vengence.

Yes, aside from 1937 - 1941 piloting the He-51, 109 & 110, after that only the Fw and it's variants.

I would love to see stats from the USAAF regarding kill claims from their Bomber gunners (respectively which positions were the most effective ones) - according to many Luftwaffe pilots I spoke to, the ball turret gunners were the ones to avoid. Yet, the old and skilled ones preferred this approach - whilst the lesser experienced ones took to rather ineffective dive or head on attacks.

Many of the newbies - if they were even able to get their aircraft of the ground and close up to the main formation, were literally slaughtered via having been ordered to attack from behind or from the side - so as for the Experten to swoop in and claim the kill. Same for dogfights - ordering newbies to go in first - whilst e.g. Priller, my father and many seasoned pilots from JG26 from 1942 onward, went in first (being the hare, if the situation allowed for it) and ordering the wing-man (newbie) to take the kill shot.

Had the Luftwaffe adopted the US&British shared kill system - many of these newbies would have very likely survived. But then Goering and Goebbels would have had far less Experten or Asse.

 

[Kruska]

Declaring war on America freed FDR to throw all of America’s power against Germany

Thank God for Hitler

His mistakes saved America and the UK

IMO it simply didn't matter at the time he declared war - the war for Germany had already been clearly lost.
The Full US entry however did speed things up, and would have ended WWII much earlier if they hadn't listen to Churchill and his Italy and Arnhem babble.

For Hitler to declare war against the USA - was most likely in view of his delusion of getting Japan finally agreeable to attack Russia.

 

[Kruska]

I disagree

Hitler gave up on winning the Battle of Britain for air superiority

If he had stayed the course and destroyed the RAF a cross channel invasion was possible

Since he totally screwed up on Dunkirk (maybe still believing into a joint British-German Aryan brotherhood) whilst having committed the Wehrmacht to further battles with the French - the Wehrmacht was in no position (material and rested man) after the fall of France, to launch a successful operation Sea-lion.

The respective Wehrmacht units in reach of Dunkirk were rather beaten down, it is therefore not even certain, that they could have taken Dunkirk in time, whilst not knowing about the ineptness of the French main body, amassing in the South. Goering had ensured him to take care of Dunkirk - and the Austrian felt free to advance into France. Being fully aware that only speed could prevent a longer war with France - whilst a prolonged war (and higher losses) with France could/would have cost him the sympathy of the German population. So never mind Dunkirk lets go for Paris.

Had he anticipated the coming Balkan issue - those dumb Italians and the Brits in Greece, he probably wouldn't even had agreed to the BoB. Simply confining them to their Island would have sufficed. After All Russia was his big price&dream.

Well in hindsight we are all smart

 

[Mac-7]

Since he totally screwed up on Dunkirk (maybe still believing into a joint British-German Aryan brotherhood) whilst having committed the Wehrmacht to further battles with the French - the Wehrmacht was in no position (material and rested man) after the fall of France, to launch a successful operation Sea-lion.

The respective Wehrmacht units in reach of Dunkirk were rather beaten down, it is therefore not even certain, that they could have taken Dunkirk in time, whilst not knowing about the ineptness of the French main body, amassing in the South. Goering had ensured him to take care of Dunkirk - and the Austrian felt free to advance into France. Being fully aware that only speed could prevent a longer war with France - whilst a prolonged war (and higher losses) with France could/would have cost him the sympathy of the German population. So never mind Dunkirk lets go for Paris.

Had he anticipated the coming Balkan issue - those dumb Italians and the Brits in Greece, he probably wouldn't even had agreed to the BoB. Simply confining them to their Island would have sufficed. After All Russia was his big price&dream.

Well in hindsight we are all smart

Britain became the staging ground for D-Day and the two front pincher moment against Germany

Not occupying Britain was a fatal mistake

 

[Kruska]

Britain became the staging ground for D-Day and the two front pincher moment against Germany

Not occupying Britain was a fatal mistake

Okay - but if one simply doesn't have the means to occupy Britain in 1940-1941 - then what?

Lets assume for a moment that Germany had occupied (all) of Britain - then the Wehrmacht would never have had the men to attack Russia.
Around 20 Divisions had been stationed in France throughout the war + another 40 Divisions in Britain with a population that would have been far more unwilling then France to cooperate ?? BTW, about Half of France - Vichy France, wasn't even occupied.

England didn't even produce enough resources for their own - so Germany would have send them all their needs?? Since the Reichsmark wasn't worth the paper it was printed on - the USA&Canada would have accepted the Reichsmark to trade with in order to buy food and oil, etc. etc. for a Nazi occupied Britain?

Do you have any idea as to how these occupied countries and what their population had to endure? - with the Nazi's sucking them dry from their own resources.

 

[Vrenn]

IIRC, the T-34 tank was available, in the first production version, but in small numbers at the time of the start of Barbarossa.
About September 1940 saw the first production models.

T-34 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1941, there were a total of 900+ T-34 tanks in battle. Over 50% of them developed mechanical problems while the rest was lost by battle damage. The majority of the Soviet Tanks in 1941 were the KVs. What made the T-34 appear to be invincible was the fact it was produced for over 35,000 units during the war. It's success was for the same reason the US M-4 did so well. The US was not aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the T-34-85 until Korea where it was faced off by the M-26 which handled it with ease. Of course, the same was said for the German tanks against the M-26 but there were just too few M-26s at the end of WWII to make a big difference.

And most of the T-34-85s were built in factories supplied by the materials provided by the Lend Lease program. If one does not have to pay to build a factory, that factory can and will outproduce one that has to be paid for. Not one mention in Soviet/Russian history tells of this. And the M-4 Shermans seemed to have been left out of their history books as well.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I disagree

Hitler gave up on winning the Battle of Britain for air superiority

If he had stayed the course and destroyed the RAF a cross channel invasion was possible

Destroying Fighter Command was an impossibility. The RAF was out producing Germany in fighters during the BoB as well as pilots. The best the Luftwaffe would be able to do would be to knock out the bases near the channel and force the RAF inland which would do nothing to hinder Bomber Command operating against an invasion force in the Channel.
Have you ever looked at what the Germans planned to use in an invasion? No dedicated landing craft, just converted river barges, many of which were not powered and needed to be towed by a tug or fishing boat. The RN would have slaughtered them at sea or destroyed them while they were beached. That means no follow-on supplies or reinforcements over the beaches and only a trickle if the Germans managed to capture a port intact. The Kriegsmarine lacked the forces to defend either the transports or the landing beaches. An invasion of the UK would have been a bigger cluster than the invasion of Guadalcanal.

 

[Mac-7]

Destroying Fighter Command was an impossibility. The RAF was out producing Germany in fighters during the BoB as well as pilots.

No, they were merely holding their own

and germany began with more pilots snd aircraft

It was a battle of attrition that favored the Nazis

 

[AZrailwhale]

No, they were merely holding their own

and germany began with more pilots snd aircraft

It was a battle of attrition that favored the Nazis

Wrong, production numbers favored Fighter Command. Plus every Luftwaffe pilot down over the UK and most over the Channel were lost forever and most RAF pilots shot down were back in a cockpit within hours. Plus the 109s were operating at the ragged edge of their range with less than ten minutes of combat time over Britain. Any bomber missions further in would have to be escorted by Bf-110s which were relatively easy kills for single seat fighters or be unescorted, in which case the lightly armed and armored Luftwaffe bombers would have been slaughtered. That’s why the Germans went to night bombing, He-111s, Do-17s and Ju-88s couldn’t survive in daylight over England.

 

[westwall]

With props spinning opposite of each other, a skilled P-38 pilot could pull back the throttle a tad on the inside engine/prop and advance the outside one a little while turning and the engines/props would kick you around in a turn tighter than most any other fighter of the day.

Correct, and the fowler flaps prevent the tip stall that was a problem in the Mustang.