No German scientists/technology for the Wallies - impact on the Cold War?

[Takao]

Neither have I, but I rely on the credible sources produced/published by those who appear to be well received by aviation enthusiasts.

Forgive me, but I don't consider YouTube videos to be credible.

Martin Caiden books are also well received by aviation enthusiasts. They are also not credible, just good story-telling.

You are being overly critical of my source references without being able to counter with credible alternative sources that you have researched.

I have used one of your sources...Me-262 Combat Diary...To prove that your "superior" Me-262 was inferior to Allied piston-engined fighters, particularly the P-51 Mustang.

[At ease]

Neither have I, but I rely on the credible sources produced/published by those who appear to be well received by aviation enthusiasts.

Forgive me, but I don't consider YouTube videos to be credible.

Martin Caiden books are also well received by aviation enthusiasts. They are also not credible, just good story-telling.

You are being overly critical of my source references without being able to counter with credible alternative sources that you have researched.

I have used one of your sources...Me-262 Combat Diary...To prove that your "superior" Me-262 was inferior to Allied piston-engined fighters, particularly the P-51 Mustang.

I don't remember posting any material authored by Martin Caidin.

If I have, please point it out to me.

And as for the video I posted, where else would you suggest that I get "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" materials from?

Do tell.

And the 5:1 ratio still stands.

And even more noteworthy considering how outnumbered the Me262 was in operational service.

Your arguments are as coherent as those used by Joe Biden.

[Michael Kenny]

I rely on the credible sources produced/published by those who appear to be well received by aviation enthusiasts.

You are being overly critical of my source references without being able to counter with credible alternative sources that you have researched.

The Wiki way. You can post anything on Wiki as long as it is in print somewhere. Being right or wrong is neither here nor there. You can always tell a wiki expert because he follows that rule religiously and has a plethora of obscure and oddball books/papers he believes makes him the 'expert, a self-declared mastermind no less.

PS.
You should lose this habit of trying to answer every question. It might be a better strategy to 'pass' more often. Just because you 'start' does not mean you have to 'finish'.

[At ease]

I rely on the credible sources produced/published by those who appear to be well received by aviation enthusiasts.

You are being overly critical of my source references without being able to counter with credible alternative sources that you have researched.

The Wiki way. You can post anything on Wiki as long as it is in print somewhere. Being right or wrong is neither here nor there. You can always tell a wiki expert because he follows that rule religiously and has a plethora of obscure and oddball books/papers he believes makes him the 'expert, a self-declared mastermind no less.

PS.
You should lose this habit of trying to answer every question. It might be a better strategy to 'pass' more often. Just because you 'start' does not mean you have to 'finish'.

Speaking of "Mastermind", I have just been accepted for the Australian franchise series 5 to be recorded early next year.

https://www.sbs.com.au/programs/mastermind

My specialist topics will be, of course, based on combat aircraft or air warfare.

I have not decided yet exactly.

[Michael Kenny]

Speaking of "Mastermind", I have just been accepted for the Australian franchise series 5 to be recorded early next year.

https://www.sbs.com.au/programs/mastermind

My specialist topics will be, of course, based on combat aircraft or air warfare.

I have not decided yet exactly.

Hook, line and sinker.

[Takao]

I don't remember posting any material authored by Martin Caidin.

If I have, please point it out to me.

It's an example that not all published material is credible.

Since you called me "inept", I thought you would be smart enough to figure it out on your own.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Welcome to the "inept club."

And as for the video I posted, where else would you suggest that I get "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" materials from?

Do tell.

Seriously?

Mine the various NACA & NASA archives that can be found at various internet websites.

And the 5:1 ratio still stands.

Which is rather low...

for the Navy fighters...see here:
https://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/NACS_WW2/NACS-WW2.htm

You can also mine the USAF Statistical Digest here:
https://www.afhistory.af.mil/USAF-STATISTICS/

And even more noteworthy considering how outnumbered the Me262 was in operational service.

Noteworthy?

The 262 had a "target rich environment" and only managed a 5:1 kill ratio, thanks to an over abundance of Allied bombers.

Your arguments are as coherent as those used by Joe Biden.

And yours are the myths of Donald Trump.


The Me-262 lost the election? IT WAS STOLEN!
No...It just sucked against the opposition.

[At ease]

I don't remember posting any material authored by Martin Caidin.

If I have, please point it out to me.

It's an example that not all published material is credible.

Since you called me "inept", I thought you would be smart enough to figure it out on your own.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Welcome to the "inept club."

And as for the video I posted, where else would you suggest that I get "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" materials from?

Do tell.

Seriously?

Mine the various NACA & NASA archives that can be found at various internet websites.

And the 5:1 ratio still stands.

Which is rather low...

for the Navy fighters...see here:
https://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/NACS_WW2/NACS-WW2.htm

You can also mine the USAF Statistical Digest here:
https://www.afhistory.af.mil/USAF-STATISTICS/

And even more noteworthy considering how outnumbered the Me262 was in operational service.

Noteworthy?

The 262 had a "target rich environment" and only managed a 5:1 kill ratio, thanks to an over abundance of Allied bombers.

Your arguments are as coherent as those used by Joe Biden.

And yours are the myths of Donald Trump.


The Me-262 lost the election? IT WAS STOLEN!
No...It just sucked against the opposition.

I'm not sure Greg's material will be found at the locations you suggested.

You might like to try to criticise in detail the Greg's video I posted earlier.

I don't think you will have much success but I would be very interested to see your attempts, but hopefully backed up with sources - not opinions.

Heavily escorted US bombers are rather difficult to shoot down, hence the "greater than one" (I don't have time to look up the exact value) credit allocated by the Luftwaffe to shooting down, damaging, or separating from "the herd"(bomber stream/formation) each heavy bomber attacked, as opposed to a victory over a fighter.

MTGA.....not possible.

Takao was never great to start with.

Anyway, less than a week to the mid-terms.

I am looking forward to the Red Wave.

[Takao]

I'm not sure Greg's material will be found at the locations you suggested.

Then, by all means, stick with YouTube instead of official documentation.

You might like to try to criticise in detail the Greg's video I posted earlier.

I don't think you will have much success but I would be very interested to see your attempts.

Why would I waste my time to watch it? Besides, it is immaterial to the question.

You want your planes in the air. Fighting. Not sitting ducks on the ground due to lack of spare engines.

Sorry, but I have better things to do.

Heavily escorted US bombers are rather difficult to shoot down, hence the "greater than one" (I don't have time to look up the exact value) credit allocated to shooting down, damaging, or separating from 'the herd" each heavy bomber attacked.

That was for "inferior" piston-engined aircraft...
These are "superior" jet-engined aircraft...It should be easy-peasy.

Or are you now saying that the Me-262 was as "inferior" as the piston-engined Me-109 & FW-190. Thus, because the Me-262 was indeed inferior, it should be given the same "Bomber Handicap" as the piston-engined 109 & 190.

Congratulations! By claiming the "Bomber Handicap", you just defeated your argument that the 262 was "superior."

MTGA.....not possible.

Takao was never great to start with.

Like the United States, I never stopped being great.

Unlike you, who torpedoes his own argument.

[Takao]

FYI,

1 point for a fighter
3 points for a bomber
2 points for a herausschus(separation)
1 point for final kill.

[At ease]

I'm not sure Greg's material will be found at the locations you suggested.

Then, by all means, stick with YouTube instead of official documentation.

You might like to try to criticise in detail the Greg's video I posted earlier.

I don't think you will have much success but I would be very interested to see your attempts.

Why would I waste my time to watch it? Besides, it is immaterial to the question.

You want your planes in the air. Fighting. Not sitting ducks on the ground due to lack of spare engines.

Sorry, but I have better things to do.

Heavily escorted US bombers are rather difficult to shoot down, hence the "greater than one" (I don't have time to look up the exact value) credit allocated to shooting down, damaging, or separating from 'the herd" each heavy bomber attacked.

That was for "inferior" piston-engined aircraft...
These are "superior" jet-engined aircraft...It should be easy-peasy.

Or are you now saying that the Me-262 was as "inferior" as the piston-engined Me-109 & FW-190. Thus, because the Me-262 was indeed inferior, it should be given the same "Bomber Handicap" as the piston-engined 109 & 190.

Congratulations! By claiming the "Bomber Handicap", you just defeated your argument that the 262 was "superior."

MTGA.....not possible.

Takao was never great to start with.

Like the United States, I never stopped being great.

Unlike you, who torpedoes his own argument.

The "Bomber Handicap" as you call it was introduced well before the introduction to service of the Me262, as you well know - or should.

[T. A. Gardner]

Somebody please tell me the aircraft of which nation were routinely capable of speeds in the region of 550 mph in level flight by war's end?
But, once again, I will ask what Allied aircraft had equivalent performance to the Me262 as of VE Day?

Although the above is really just a red herring being repeated, as it doesn't address jet engine technology specifically, instead changing the subject to jet aircraft, the answer is:

The US P-80, Britain's Vampire and Meteor, Bell's XP-83. All were flying before VE Day.

All you counter with is "so what", "irrelevant" etc.

No sources to counter the ones that I refer to.

Your posts have the value equivalent to a six year old throwing a tantrum.

They are not worthy of my time and effort conducting pertinent research.

Another fallacy diversion, this time an appeal to authority rather than responding to what was presented coupled with ad hominin. I answered the questions you asked, but apparently you don't like the answers.

The problem wasn't so simple as just metallurgy. There were issues with uneven heating, lubricants, and a plethora of other issues that had to be worked out. Superior metallurgy helped, but it wasn't the be-all, end-all of the issue.
For example, Vickers on their F2 Freda (later variants were named Beryl) engine (roughly analogous to an improved Jumo 004) first flew in June 1943 on a Avro Lancaster as a test bed. This same engine was fitted to a Meteor and flown in November 1943. The Freda produced about 2,000 lbs thrust versus 1,600 for the Whittle engine.
The reason it wasn't early adopted was the engine was considered unreliable and Vickers continued to work to improve that. But the point stands. The British had jet engine technology equal to or superior to that of Germany, just as the US did in 1945.

Were there any Metropolitan Vickers turbojet engines in production as of VE Day?
No?
Thought not.

The F2 Beryl was production ready but the British choose not to introduce since they were winning the war and thought they could do much better with further development. That was the correct decision on their part.

In May 1945 the Germans realistically had two engines in production, the BMW 003 and the Jumo 004. They had one in a state of development similar to the US GE J35 and British Vickers F series, the Henkel 011. The Henkel was really a throwback however, being a compound compressor engine with a centrifugal stage followed by a three-stage axial compressor.
Postwar, it became clear that centrifugal turbojets were not the future and their development was curtailed in favor of axial designs.

The Germans, in wartime, pressed by the situation and nearing defeat rushed their jet engines into production and service accepting the limitations of short engine life and poor reliability because of that. The Allies, with equally advanced technology weren't so pressed as they were winning and they knew it. They had the luxury of taking more time to develop reliable systems, but that doesn't mean they were behind in technology, they weren't.

[Takao]

The "Bomber Handicap" as you call it was introduced well before the introduction to service of the Me262, as you well know - or should.

We are not debating when the "Bomber handicap" was implemented are we?

We are debating the Me-262's "superiority" or lack there of.

[At ease]

Neither have I, but I rely on the credible sources produced/published by those who appear to be well received by aviation enthusiasts.

Forgive me, but I don't consider YouTube videos to be credible.

Martin Caiden books are also well received by aviation enthusiasts. They are also not credible, just good story-telling.

You are being overly critical of my source references without being able to counter with credible alternative sources that you have researched.

I have used one of your sources...Me-262 Combat Diary...To prove that your "superior" Me-262 was inferior to Allied piston-engined fighters, particularly the P-51 Mustang.

And yet, you referenced a youtube video in the following post in September:

Post #9 of this thread(parts of which have been removed to reduce the amount of reading needed):

viewtopic.php?p=2428726#p2428726

To all,

I just finished reading Ian Toll’s trilogy on the Pacific War and it it I found some things that I thought were very odd. I don’t understand why we put aircraft carriers into a “defensive box” limiting their movement and making it easier for enemy planes and submarines to attack them. Why did we do this? What is the logic behind this?

Page 441: “The fast carriers could not be deployed to their best advantage in the confined waters between the Dutch East Indies and the southern Philippines.” ( my comments, doesn’t make sense when you confine the carriers in a tiny defensive box, Mike)

Not a defensive box.

The "confined waters" here pertain to the many islands and shoal waters scattered throughout the area. Thus, limiting where large fleets can freely maneuver without running into Islands or avoiding grounding in shoal waters.
Think:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T9WMSxV6lMs

“Twilight Of The Gods, War in the Western Pacific, 1944-1945” page 593-594: “For Task Force 58, operating in a 60 square-mile defensive zone north-east of Okinawa, the daily routine were an exhausting struggle”

Page 614: “Task Force 58 kept station to the East of Okinawa, constantly patrolling in an area of about 60 square miles.”

Page 615: “Individual task groups were diverted north repeatedly to raid Kyushu, but the bulk of Task Force 58 remained pinned to the beachhead, with its mobility sharply restricted. The daily pattern became predictable, and predictability was dangerous. Mitscher grumbled that his task force had become “a high-speed stationary target for the Japanese air force.”

Yes, the daily routine was an exhausting struggle. Think of it...Not only are the fast carriers having to defend against air attacks against themselves and Okinawa. They are also conducting forays against Japan. As well as defending against the occasional incursion by the IJN. Topping it all off, is that they are still providing close air support for US ground forces.

Mitscher did grumble about it, but he also knew it was where the fast carriers had to be.

What a massive hypocrite you are.

TAG has provided evidence of the same foible earlier in this thread in relation to a Wikipedia source I quoted upthread.

One moment quoting a Wikipedia source himself, and then later criticising me for using a Wikipedia source.

Disgraceful.

[Michael Kenny]

At least we get we get to see what drove Achtung Panzer Forum to extinction.

[Georg_S]

An post which consisted a personal attack on another member was removed. If you don't understand why, read the rules! Consider this as a mild warning.

/Georg