The Anglo/American - Nazi War
- Thread starter CalBear
- Start date
- Status
Fine, cremate the fucker with a nuclear depth charge and be done with the rubbish.But that would be polluting the ocean.
Telakasi
Banned
Sorry but were you not aware of the R4M rocket when you wrote this TL? This little marvel destroyed between 400 and 500 Allied bombers in just 6 weeks. During a time when the Germans were low on fuel, pilots and aircraft and even these rockets. If the Germans have no Eastern Front to worry about then these rockets will defeat the Allied Bomber offensive in 1945 - how is the war going to last into 1946/47???
Also by the 1950´s this rocket will have been much more sophisticated, the Allies could not even dream of achieving air superiority. Not one single bomber would get through.
Also by the 1950´s this rocket will have been much more sophisticated, the Allies could not even dream of achieving air superiority. Not one single bomber would get through.
Do you have a link to back up the numbers?
I'm guessing that the WAllies will not develop any countermeasures. Nor the fact that B-36s and the jet bombers featured in this TL can operate at altitudes above which Nazi fighters can operate effectively.
North Vietnam had probably the densest air defence networks defending Hanoi. The vast majority of SAC's B-52s got through.
I'm guessing that the WAllies will not develop any countermeasures. Nor the fact that B-36s and the jet bombers featured in this TL can operate at altitudes above which Nazi fighters can operate effectively.
North Vietnam had probably the densest air defence networks defending Hanoi. The vast majority of SAC's B-52s got through.
nbcman
Donor
As noted by JN1, do you have a link? Per the USAAF Chronology for March 1945, the total for bombers lost in strategic operations was about 150. I doubt Bomber Command lost 2 times that many bombers during the same time frame.
Telakasi
Banned
German wiki claims up to 500 aircraft were destroyed by it. On March 18th 1945 - 1853 Allied aircraft attacked Berlin and were faced by just 6 Me-262 aircraft which fired 144 of these rockets. The Allies lost 25 aircraft the Germans 2.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4M
nbcman
Donor
Were the aircraft loss claims based on pilot reports after the mission or actual losses reported by Allies?
EDIT: per the USAAF Chronology cited earlier, the USAAF had the following missions on 18 Mar 1945:
EDIT3: Updated below quote as incorrect date was copied from Chronology
EDIT2: According to British National Archives for Bomber Command's Campaign Diary for March 1945, there was not a large raid against Berlin on that day:
There was only one 1000+ aircraft raid in March by Bomber Command which was against Dortmund (12 March).
Last edited:
Wiki's aren't the best sources of information nor are late war records performance of the Germans.
On wiki, so must be true!
IIRC in practise the wire-guided AAM was pretty difficult to use. I'd love to see how an acoustic AAM would have worked out.
German wiki can't be worth much if it claims aircraft were lost on days when there was no raid.
IIRC in practise the wire-guided AAM was pretty difficult to use. I'd love to see how an acoustic AAM would have worked out.
German wiki can't be worth much if it claims aircraft were lost on days when there was no raid.
Telakasi
Banned
Why so dismissive guys? I read this information in a credible book - wiki is just the only online source to post.
From The V2 and the German, Russian and American Rocket Program by Claus Reuter:
From Sharks of the Air by James Harvey
From Rolling Thunder Jet combat fro WW 2 to the gulf war by Ivan Rendall
I think this - which nbcmans post- is enough evidence to dismiss your bickering and prove that the R4M was a very effective weapon that had it been used in larger numbers could have devastated the Allied bomber offensive in 1945. And without an Eastern Front the Germans would have enough Me 262 and R4M in abundance. So my point stands the Allies cant continue to bomb past 1945 - how is the war going to last into 1946/47??? Not to mention all the butterflies for the 1955+ period where the Germans would have had 10 years to improve this weapon.
From The V2 and the German, Russian and American Rocket Program by Claus Reuter:
From Sharks of the Air by James Harvey
From Rolling Thunder Jet combat fro WW 2 to the gulf war by Ivan Rendall
I think this - which nbcmans post- is enough evidence to dismiss your bickering and prove that the R4M was a very effective weapon that had it been used in larger numbers could have devastated the Allied bomber offensive in 1945. And without an Eastern Front the Germans would have enough Me 262 and R4M in abundance. So my point stands the Allies cant continue to bomb past 1945 - how is the war going to last into 1946/47??? Not to mention all the butterflies for the 1955+ period where the Germans would have had 10 years to improve this weapon.
Last edited:
On wiki, so must be true!
IIRC in practise the wire-guided AAM was pretty difficult to use. I'd love to see how an acoustic AAM would have worked out.
German wiki can't be worth much if it claims aircraft were lost on days when there was no raid.
I blame the Wehraboos. Editing open-source information: truly they are dastardly.
A couple reasons: a) when it comes to WWII gearheads you're in the lion's den, b) CalBear has given his reasons for why, thanks to the Nazi government's epidemic case of "Ooh, Shiny" Syndrome, a sustained effort would be sketchy, and c) nothing against you, but coming in with one reliable source against folks with encyclopaedic knowledge of this sort of things is kind of going in half-cocked.
Erm, Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't the largest air attack against Berlin in February, and involved some 1,500 aircraft?
Edit: just saw the USAF bit posted earlier and I seem to have forgotten it. So nvm.
Last edited:
nbcman
Donor
Because your book's claim of 500 aircraft lost to R4Ms is not well supported. The USAAF Chronology for that raid only states that there were 13 bombers lost that day and 8 of those were lost to flak. Assuming JG7 Nowotny was only able to shoot down 5 bombers out of a total force of 1300+ bombers against a loss of 3 jet fighters, it does not bode well that the Germans could shut down the Allies bombing campaign.
There was a large raid by the USAAF against the Berlin area on the 18th - the quote from the USAAF Chronology in my post (#7672 of this thread) originally was for the activity on the 19th. I've updated the post to correct the error.On wiki, so must be true!
IIRC in practise the wire-guided AAM was pretty difficult to use. I'd love to see how an acoustic AAM would have worked out.
German wiki can't be worth much if it claims aircraft were lost on days when there was no raid.
Last edited:
There is a saying in the UK : 'One swallow does not make a summer'. Similarly one book not supported by much in the way of evidence does not prove something is true.
Telakasi
Banned
So when 1300 bombers (dont mind the 600 escort fighters) are confronted by 30 Me-262 the loss ratio is 5:3 - for the Germans thats an efficency ratio of 70:1. Had they attacked with 100 ME -262 the losses would have been somewhere in the vicinity of 5:1. And with the war in the East over by mid 1943 - the Germans have so much additional manpower and resources that they would have build so many ME -262 and R4m´s that the Allies would have been blasted out of the skies.
Last edited:
Telakasi
Banned
I guess 3 are not enough as well? Actually I have posted passages from 4 books supporting my claim - you people have provided 0.0 evidence supporting your position. Turned out the one main point you criticised - that there was no air attack against Berlin with as many aircraft as claimed by wiki - has been debunked.
Last edited:
To be honest, even though I have to side with the Germans "Ooh shiny" syndrome, I can't see this view being prevalent when the WAllies start using nukes against Germany, they MIGHT(stretching it right there) go forth with what's practical. Something of a chance, but low. Even though this is CalBear's timeline and he's done, maybe Speer the technocrat might have greater involvement in the right projects?
Also, even though Telakasi is new, he does post sources from texts. If he had done just wiki, I would be dismissive, but he has provided 3 books as sources for his argument so he seems to have good ground in his argument. So to be honest, provide a source against him, if he isn't right, instead of throwing insults at him claiming he's wrong.
Also, even though Telakasi is new, he does post sources from texts. If he had done just wiki, I would be dismissive, but he has provided 3 books as sources for his argument so he seems to have good ground in his argument. So to be honest, provide a source against him, if he isn't right, instead of throwing insults at him claiming he's wrong.
- Status