German losses are a little higher since they came in contact with the cannon armed fighters only I th final stages at Dunkirk. equipment losses are also slightly lower but offset by the fact that with the Polish Air Contingent more aircraft were engaged in combat and hence more were written off. the next section will cover most of that and how the PAM prepares for the coming battle.
Eagerly awaited, but I fully understand that RL doesn't have a pause button.I am bouncing between countries at the moment but am working on the next installment that covers the period from the end of Dunkirk to Eagle day. I hope to post it within a week or so.
In ref the 20mm-armed Spits & Hurrys: based on what Allen estimated in Who Won the Battle of Britain (& my poor recall of it), I'd say German losses in the Battle will be at least double OTL's, maybe as high as 4:1. It's a fair bet East Front ops are severely buggered, & keeping up bombing against Malta seems very unlikely indeed. Since I can't believe the Germans would allow Malta to continue to serve as a base, it makes Herkules more likely, IMO--provided DAK is still sent to aid the Italians in Africa in the first place...
Maybe. As I recall the reasoning, it was based on damage per burst: since the 20mm do more damage, bursts that OTL didn't manage to bring anything down, with only .303s, might, & that means the number of total kills goes up. It also means the number of kills achieved by the (small fraction that were) aces would climb fairly dramatically (which is pretty obviously correct).To be honest, I'd say that is a load of b*****s.
Cannon aren't going to hit any more planes (in fact, probably less),although they will do more damage.
Planes shot down that managed to get home damaged, yes. Maybe as high as 50% more losses over England, but x4 is sheer fantasy.
I tend to agree, that's a good thing. (BTW, that also means the number of kills goes up.)Even increasing the number of training fields and trained pilots would go a long way to increasing the pool of personnel who can be cross trained into the modern machines.
I'm not so sure you need such a major push. In Canada, at least, the big hurdle was, who's going to pay? IMO, it was possible to sell it as a job-creation program: building airports & training a/c, for a start, would be helpful. That said, no Canadian PM in this era took FDR's approach, so doing it does require a change in perspective. If HMG made an open offer to pay, up front... Would that get the program up by 9/39? Maybe not. It couldn't hurt.Agree the huge BCATP could not have been done in 1938 short of a declaration of war.
That fits what I'm thinking. A lot of the basics for this work for RCAF (RAF) & civil both, & ultimately pay back postwar; it wouldn't be a hard sell, IMO, to get Ottawa to go along with a plan that would give Canada dozens of free airports, useful for a/c communication postwar. (Not to mention the trained flight crews...)interwar RCAF spent a lot of its time conducting aerial surveys of Canada and helping to set up Canada's civil aviation infrastructure. ITTL could planning for the wartime training organisation be officially (or more likely covertly) part of that?
4 cannon vs 8 MG is according to Tony Williams 5 times the effective firepower. So I can see where the 4x best case comes from, I agree vs fighters its going to be a lot lower but against bombers not so much overall especially as these are relatively unarmored 1940 versions compared to later.( non linear effects due to potentially breaking the formation quicker , more stragglers, more crashing on the way home due to being more damaged ). An awful lot of bombers made it back just with minor bullet holes that would have not been at all minor if explosive shells had hit.To be honest, I'd say that is a load of b*****s.
Cannon aren't going to hit any more planes (in fact, probably less),although they will do more damage.
Planes shot down that managed to get home damaged, yes. Maybe as high as 50% more losses over England, but x4 is sheer fantasy.
4 cannon vs 8 MG is according to Tony Williams 5 times the effective firepower. So I can see where the 4x best case comes from, I agree vs fighters its going to be a lot lower but against bombers not so much overall especially as these are relatively unarmored 1940 versions compared to later.( non linear effects due to potentially breaking the formation quicker , more stragglers, more crashing on the way home due to being more damaged ). An awful lot of bombers made it back just with minor bullet holes that would have not been at all minor if explosive shells had hit.
So in terms of availability losses might hit 4x ( combined increases in lost, written off and damaged ), losses I can see as double with bombers making a disproportionate share of the increase. Of course this would just cause the Germans to change tactics so in terms of the battle of Britain it would likely become the Blitz a lot earlier so maybe 50% increase over the course of the campaign compared to OTL.
I'm certainly not going to argue with Tony's numbers, but in a real scenario they have to be read with caution.
First, they exclude the chance of a hit at all - greater with 8x303 than 4x20mm.
Second, just because an individual hit does a lot more damage, doesn't necessarily mean a far greater chanceof bringing the target down.
The AM had actually done tests, and worked out 4x20mm was the best armament. I strongly doubt they decided it was 4 times as good, if it had been they'd have been alot more urgent at getting them in service (OK, granted, I'm assuming sense at the AM here...)
Earlier British development of the Hispanic could mean that it enters the US R&D cycle with fewer teething problems.
Earlier British development of the Hispanic could mean that it enters the US R&D cycle with fewer teething problems.
The same US Ordnance department that took 4 years to speed up the M2 Browning to the M3, botched the MG-42 conversion, and wasted the entire war on a .60 caliber MG?
No, they could have had that design in 1939 and would have had it no sooner than OTL.
They were every bit as worthless as the Navy with torpedoes.
No strike that, the USN at least had decent torpedoes by 1944
Indeed, the micro argument over the proper caliber for the Garand obscures the macro level point that US Army Ordnance made a hash of almost everything in small arms they touched in this period. There’s a parallel project to this thread, where we have ordnance actually produce functional weapons.