Wimble Toot
Banned
Your link doesn't even say confirmed kills....
All 8th AF kills irrespective of type were confirmed by gun-camera footage.
If a pilot didn't have something like this on the camera roll, it was a probable, or no kill at all.
Your link doesn't even say confirmed kills....
Otherwise, the combined bombing offensive of both the USAAF and RAF had a minimal effect on Nazi production of war materials, in proportion to Allied aircrew and aircraft lost.
Was it matched up to German loss records post-war? Gun camera doesn't 100% prove a kill. Also watching the footage of this, looks like this was all low level landing/takeoff kills.All 8th AF kills irrespective of type were confirmed by gun-camera footage.
![]()
If a pilot didn't have something like this on the camera roll, it was a probable, or no kill at all.
It was a pretty large can.No. The so-called Wonder Weapons were impractical or simply junk. Often both.
You want a war-winning Wonder Weapon? Well one side developed it, but it wasn’t Axis. That weapon was a small can of instant sunshine.
Was it matched up to German loss records post-war? Gun camera doesn't 100% prove a kill. Also watching the footage of this, looks like this was all low level landing/takeoff kills.
You're the one with the combat record book, you tell me.Sooooo, how many Me262s were lost in combat, and are those figures reliable?
The Germans at that point in the war were able to count wrecks on their territory and apparently awarded kills based on that rather than just claims. Plus they had gun cameras too:Its pilots – intrepid men all, for the Me 262 was cantankerous and dangerous to fly – claimed 542 allied warplanes shot down while sustaining just 100 combat losses. Luftwaffe ace Hauptmann (Capt.) Franz Schall was credited with 17 aerial victories, including six four-engine bombers and ten P-51 Mustangs.
How about the potential wonder weapons developed at Mario Zippermayr's research lab? In particular, the Hexenkessel (Witch's Cauldron) project, which developed the world's first thermobaric explosive warheads? It's not exactly cans of instant sunshine, but it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper, easier and quicker to mass produce, and they could have provided a huge force multiplier, especially if focused upon the development of highly effective detonation charges which could be used as the warheads of conventional bombs, instead of (or as well as) for surface-to-air missiles like the Taifun and Wasserfall. If they were developed in the very early stages of the war, and were ready for the Nazi bombers to use against the British during The Blitz, effectively quadrupling the Luftwaffe bombers' effective bomb tonnage, would it be out of the question for them to potentially inflict enough damage to win a strategic victory, and to force the UK into surrender? And mightn't fitting them with thermobaric explosive warheads make the Wunderwaffe delivery systems, such as the V-1s and V-2s, far more destructive and terrifying weapons of war?Interested to know what other genuinely good Wunderwaffe could have been introduced earlier enough to give the Allies enough of a hard time to prolong the war yet not completely alter the outcome, especially if the most of the impractical and resource draining Wunderwaffe investigated in OTL are largely butterflied away?
I'M still waiting to hear about all these spectacular 'non sexy' weapons the Nazi could produce instead of the V-2 ????
It was a pretty large can.
Plain Old Dave said:Guaporense said:By the way, Japan managed to shot down 371 out of the 3,970 B-29 made. If a third world country like Japan managed to inflict such heavy casualties on the B-29 imagine if they went against Germany after Germany defeated the USSR...
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t165.pdf
The majority of the 414 "combat losses" in the PTO were due to "other reasons;" i.e. weather or mechanical failure. B-29 crews called the bird "four engine fires with an airplane attached," and engine fires were a persistent problem for the B-29's entire career. IIRC a restored '29 was lost to an engine fire during ground turnups a few years ago.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-24/news/mn-5487_1_air-force-base
While the numbers wouldn't be AS lopsided, the Ta-152's poor wing loading at altitude would make her a sitting duck for the B-29's 50 cal MGs.
Q: were the Nazis better off, or worse off for being bombed
http://www.robomod.net/pipermail/soc-hi ... 27188.html
“It does raise the possibility the Me262 was no more survivable than the piston engined fighters in terms of losses per sortie, but was better able to shoot down allied aircraft, given its top speed and firepower. The 636 sorties gave rise to 155 kill claims, in other words 2.2 times as many kill claims as losses, halving the kill claims would mean an overall 1.1 to 1 loss rate, or a real kill every 8 or so sorties.”
“In 1944 the Luftwaffe day fighters in the west and over Germany flew some 80,000 sorties. The USAAF credits enemy aircraft with causing 2,902 losses, out of 7,749 losses on operations. RAF bomber units report 14 losses to enemy fighters on day operations, with Fighter Command reporting 244 losses to fighters plus 241 for unknown reasons, flak caused 809 losses or around half the 1,665 recorded losses I have. So 300 to 500 RAF losses to Luftwaffe fighters, call it 400. Plus of course some of the 1,060 USAAF heavy bomber and fighter losses to enemy aircraft from the Mediterranean based units, when they attacked Austria, Czechoslovakia, France or Germany. Based on the Bomber loss figures from Davis about 60% of the 15th Air Force Heavy Bomber losses in 1944 were from attacking those countries. That would give say 600 bomber and fighters kills made by the Luftwaffe fighters based in then defined Greater Germany and France.”
“So 80,000 sorties for 3,900 real kills, a kill every 20.5 sorties, so around 40% the effectiveness of the Me262 in 1945. It does fit but the data needs considerable refinement, since a number of the Luftwaffe fighter sorties in the west would be ground attack for example, not interception, whereas JG7 was near exclusively on interception operations. Also something more than a yearly average for Luftwaffe fighter losses in 1944 and a more definitive listing of allied losses is required.”
“It is quite possible the Me262 loss rate per sortie was in fact around the same as the piston engined types, and the main improvement it brought was a better kill rate per sortie, perhaps 3 times as much. Rather than a more middle ground of an improvement in loss rates per sortie and a higher number of kills per sortie rate but lower than the 3 times hand waved above.”
“While such conclusion seems to indicate it was the greater firepower, the four 30mm cannon, that were the difference the reality is it is also performance related, the Me262 had the performance to carry the armament and stand a good chance of intercepting enemy aircraft, then evading counter attack, compared with any piston engine fighter carrying the same armament.”
Geoffrey Sinclair
So what few ME-262 that got airborne they were 3 times as effective as rest of the LW fighter force....so thousands production per year would have cleared the sky of Wallie day light bombers.
Honestly, I doubt it would make any difference. They already had more Me-262s than they could fuel, or find pilots for. Having a few thousand more sitting around unused won't perceptibly alter the grim calculus of war for the Reich. Now, if you could somehow find a way to massively increase their fuel resources, or pilot training capability, you might have something...
I can't find it right now, but the US military did a study that proved that the Germans spent something like 30% or less resources fielding the V-1 than the Allies had to spend countering it.