|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: MicheleMichele Date: May 5, 2008 19:05
It has been stated that not posting counterfactual timelines and just
criticizing those posted by others is too easy.
Therefore, I'm now putting forth a proposal for the Luftwaffe providing a
better show for us to admire from here, back then in 1940.
The POD is that General Walther Wever does not die in an accident in 1936.
This POD does not necessarily give way to the events I describe below; it is
perfectly possible it wouldn't cause anything of that. It is simply an
excuse to have the Luftwaffe make reasonably smarter choices in more than
one occasion.
So Wever doesn't die; the merry-go-round of replacements doesn't happen.
Wever remains an able chief of staff, filling in where Goering finds the
details too boring. Kesselring, instead of (briefly) replacing Wever, is
chosen as his deputy.
Goering, Wever and Kesselring manage to corral Milch to aircraft production,
where he can feud at length with Udet, instead of bothering the others about
strategic choices, long-term planning, and doctrine theories. Even with
Wever alive, the German heavy bomber designs do get scrapped; they could
only be built in puny numbers, and Goering draws a line at that ("the F
|
| |
|
| | 32 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jack LinthicumJack Linthicum Date: May 5, 2008 19:41
On May 5, 1:05 pm, "Michele" wrote:
> It has been stated that not posting counterfactual timelines and just
> criticizing those posted by others is too easy.
>
> Therefore, I'm now putting forth a proposal for the Luftwaffe providing a
> better show for us to admire from here, back then in 1940.
>
> The POD is that General Walther Wever does not die in an accident in 1936.
> This POD does not necessarily give way to the events I describe below; it is
> perfectly possible it wouldn't cause anything of that. It is simply an
> excuse to have the Luftwaffe make reasonably smarter choices in more than
> one occasion.
>
> So Wever doesn't die; the merry-go-round of replacements doesn't happen.
> Wever remains an able chief of staff, filling in where Goering finds the
> details too boring. Kesselring, instead of (briefly) replacing Wever, is
> chosen as his deputy.
> Goering, Wever and Kesselring manage to corral Milch to aircraft production,
> where he can feud at length with Udet, instead of bothering the others about
> strategic choices, long-term planning, and doctrine theories. Even with ...
|
| Show full article (3.97Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MicheleMichele Date: May 6, 2008 09:41
> drop tanks for the 109?
These have been suggested many times, but I'm not so sure they would really
be essential.
The reasoning is obvious: German fighter pilots complained about their Bf
109s' short range, and countless times they had to abandon a fight, or a
retreating bomber Geschwader they were escorting, because of that.
However, the main point of a longer range has never been to be able to stay
in the combat zone for a longer time. It has always been to be able to reach
a more distant combat zone, which is an altogether different thing. Look at
the Mustang or at the naval fighters. Both had to reach a target far away,
and spent most of their fuel on uneventul trips to and from the combat zone.
But suppose you use the additional fuel to reach a combat zone that is near,
and to stay in it for longer. Given the reality of the British early warning
system, meeting with opposition is a near certainty. Suppose your fuel tanks
allow you to stay over the combat zone for an hour, at cruising speed;
that's maybe half an hour, if you alternate short periods at cruising speed
and repeated engagements at top speed.
Now, is it possible to fight repeated air engagements for half an hour,
assuming your fuel allows that? I frankly doubt it. Most air melees lasted
just a few minutes, and it is a common theme in pilots'...
|
| Show full article (2.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jack LinthicumJack Linthicum Date: May 6, 2008 11:32
On May 6, 3:41 am, "Michele" wrote:
>> drop tanks for the 109?
>
> These have been suggested many times, but I'm not so sure they would really
> be essential.
>
> The reasoning is obvious: German fighter pilots complained about their Bf
> 109s' short range, and countless times they had to abandon a fight, or a
> retreating bomber Geschwader they were escorting, because of that.
>
> However, the main point of a longer range has never been to be able to stay
> in the combat zone for a longer time. It has always been to be able to reach
> a more distant combat zone, which is an altogether different thing. Look at
> the Mustang or at the naval fighters. Both had to reach a target far away,
> and spent most of their fuel on uneventul trips to and from the combat zone.
>
> But suppose you use the additional fuel to reach a combat zone that is near,
> and to stay in it for longer. Given the reality of the British early warning ...
|
| Show full article (2.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MicheleMichele Date: May 6, 2008 12:42
> On May 6, 3:41 am, "Michele" wrote:
>>> drop tanks for the 109?
>>
>> These have been suggested many times, but I'm not so sure they would
>> really
>> be essential.
>>
>> The reasoning is obvious: German fighter pilots complained about their Bf
>> 109s' short range, and countless times they had to abandon a fight, or a
>> retreating bomber Geschwader they were escorting, because of that.
>>
>> However, the main point of a longer range has never been to be able to
>> stay
>> in the combat zone for a longer time. It has always been to be able to
>> reach ...
|
| Show full article (3.39Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jack LinthicumJack Linthicum Date: May 6, 2008 15:33
On May 6, 6:42 am, "Michele" wrote:
>> On May 6, 3:41 am, "Michele" wrote:
>
>>>> drop tanks for the 109?
>
>>> These have been suggested many times, but I'm not so sure they would
>>> really
>>> be essential.
>
>>> The reasoning is obvious: German fighter pilots complained about their Bf
>>> 109s' short range, and countless times they had to abandon a fight, or a
>>> retreating bomber Geschwader they were escorting, because of that.
>
>>> However, the main point of a longer range has never been to be able to ...
|
| Show full article (3.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MicheleMichele Date: May 6, 2008 17:56
>
> Quite obvious, it was not range but time in zone that hampered the Bf
> 109,
Yes. That is exactly what I said. And I also said that more fuel, alone,
would not necessarily give the fighters more _effective_ time in the combat
zone. I explained the factors that make me feel inclined to think so. I have
no certainty about that, of course, even less than usual when coming to
counterfactuals. But the data and what I've read seem to point to the
conclusion that a pilot and his fighter would be useful for one engagement;
after which, they could enter further engagements if they had to, at the
cost of being more likely preys than hunters.
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert A. WoodwardRobert A. Woodward Date: May 7, 2008 08:51
In article <48200e38$2$29596$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>,
"Michele" wrote:
>> drop tanks for the 109?
>
> These have been suggested many times, but I'm not so sure they would really
> be essential.
>
IIRC, the presence of a drop tank caused a substantial performance
hit. Which is why they were dropped if the fighter had to engage an
enemy fighter.
> The reasoning is obvious: German fighter pilots complained about their Bf
> 109s' short range, and countless times they had to abandon a fight, or a
> retreating bomber Geschwader they were escorting, because of that.
>
|
| Show full article (2.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikemike Date: May 7, 2008 09:33
On May 7, 1:51 am, "Robert A. Woodward" drizzle.com> wrote:>
> IIRC, the presence of a drop tank caused a substantial performance
> hit. Which is why they were dropped if the fighter had to engage an
> enemy fighter.
For both drag, and weight. 6.5 pounds per Gallon
OTOH, 50's USAF subsonic jets found that ejecting the wingtip tanks
made handling worse, as when attached reduced spanwise flow that
hurt lift. You still see an echo of that with modern airliners and the
wing tiplet
> They needed a fighter DESIGNED to have a greater range; drop tanks
> were just an expedient with drawbacks (such as increased drag).
you don't hear about it much, but the P-51 was a pig until the rear
tank was emptied. Pilots would drain that one first, before the belly
tank even.
Corsairs had trouble from relocating the tank ahead of the pilot.
Handling was good, while pilot position suffered. Tradeoffs.
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: MicheleMichele Date: May 7, 2008 09:14
"Robert A. Woodward" drizzle.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:robertaw-54A07C.23514606052008@news.individual.net...> In article <48200e38$2$29596$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>,
> "Michele" wrote:
>
>> "Jack Linthicum" earthlink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:4da552a6-4d97-4b2a-b019-b3215685bbf9@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> drop tanks for the 109?
>>
>> These have been suggested many times, but I'm not so sure they would
>> really
>> be essential.
>>
>
> IIRC, the presence of a drop tank caused a substantial performance
> hit. Which is why they were dropped if the fighter had to engage an
> enemy fighter.
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
